only 22 states mandate sex ed and only 13 require that the information to be "medically accurate"?
WTF? You might as well not even teach it if it's not medically accurate.
I'd imagine it's more a case of the other states not specifically saying those words in their legislation than actually condoning non-medically accurate teachings.
The Following User Says Thank You to Superfraggle For This Useful Post:
I'd imagine it's more a case of the other states not specifically saying those words in their legislation than actually condoning non-medically accurate teachings.
Buh?
Even with watching the episode I'm trying to make sense of your post. But ultimately, I'm pretty sure you didn't watch it.
Even with watching the episode I'm trying to make sense of your post. But ultimately, I'm pretty sure you didn't watch it.
I get what he's saying. The law could state that it mandates sex ed, but just leaves out any mention of whether or not the information HAS to be medically accurate, rather than specifically stating that it must be. It seems weird that you'd have to specifically state it at all.
Either way, there is obviously a lot of misinformation being thrown around for teenagers which is really unfortunate. How they can't pick up on the correlation between lack of education and amount of teen pregnancies is beyond me. That lady trying to scream the sex out of the kids was absolutely ridiculous.
Jon Stewart did a similar expose on sex ed a few months ago where Kleper (I think) spoke with a bunch of teens from these areas who are lobbying for education and being blocked by their parents and the school boards. One kid had gotten 3 different girls pregnant before leaving high school.
__________________
The Following User Says Thank You to Coach For This Useful Post:
I get what he's saying. The law could state that it mandates sex ed, but just leaves out any mention of whether or not the information HAS to be medically accurate, rather than specifically stating that it must be. It seems weird that you'd have to specifically state it at all.
Either way, there is obviously a lot of misinformation being thrown around for teenagers which is really unfortunate. How they can't pick up on the correlation between lack of education and amount of teen pregnancies is beyond me. That lady trying to scream the sex out of the kids was absolutely ridiculous.
Jon Stewart did a similar expose on sex ed a few months ago where Kleper (I think) spoke with a bunch of teens from these areas who are lobbying for education and being blocked by their parents and the school boards. One kid had gotten 3 different girls pregnant before leaving high school.
No I get that part. Perhaps his post is too full of double negatives, or no commas. I'm still loopy on it. And eve if I get his text, it's not clear he understood the main argument which you already said, and which is...
While I believe John made this exact argument, how do you legislate a course, but not it's principle tenants. It's like saying, 'teach math, but forget the totals'. Weird. But because GOD factors in, and GOD doesn't have to make sense, the wrong things are taught.
As for Superfraggle, probably just written very poorly, but something about the post seemed dismissive of the point. Maybe I'll be proven wrong.
No I get that part. Perhaps his post is too full of double negatives, or no commas. I'm still loopy on it. And eve if I get his text, it's not clear he understood the main argument which you already said, and which is...
While I believe John made this exact argument, how do you legislate a course, but not it's principle tenants. It's like saying, 'teach math, but forget the totals'. Weird. But because GOD factors in, and GOD doesn't have to make sense, the wrong things are taught.
As for Superfraggle, probably just written very poorly, but something about the post seemed dismissive of the point. Maybe I'll be proven wrong.
Yeah he mentions how you wouldn't teach inaccurate history.
I think it's just a bit of an oversight. If I was putting through a mandatory course legislation, I would think it was implied that all information taught in the course be relevant, up to date, and scientifically accurate. Because that's what learning is...
Or maybe some states left it purposefully obtuse so it could be interpreted as such.
__________________
The Following User Says Thank You to Coach For This Useful Post:
As for Superfraggle, probably just written very poorly
Ummm...
Quote:
While I believe John made this exact argument, how do you legislate a course, but not it's principle tenants. It's like saying, 'teach math, but forget the totals'. Weird. But because GOD factors in, and GOD doesn't have to make sense, the wrong things are taught.
WTF does any of this #### mean?
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following User Says Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
The whole point of the bit was that the government legislated the course should be taught, but not what is in it. To which I was agreeing by giving an example. Teach math, but forget the totals. You literally could not do this to any other course, and should not be able to do it to sex ed. The whole point of teaching a course, is to teach it factually. Otherwise, why do it? Which is when I used the God example, to bolster my argument, and tie it into what I thought others might be saying about the weird nature of legislating sexual education. IE, because so many legislators believe (or are forced into believing because of lobby groups) that the Bible should be taught in sex ed, it completely destroys the whole point of the course in the first place. It not only can't teach you the good things, it actually forces bad ideas upon you.
Which again was the whole point of the piece.
As for me not understanding Superfraggle. It wasn't aware if he was agreeing with the whole theme, or making an excuse for legislators and he believed they were trying to do the right thing and somehow the wording was the problem.
The whole point of the bit was that the government legislated the course should be taught, but not what is in it. To which I was agreeing by giving an example. Teach math, but forget the totals. You literally could not do this to any other course, and should not be able to do it to sex ed. The whole point of teaching a course, is to teach it factually. Otherwise, why do it? Which is when I used the God example, to bolster my argument, and tie it into what I thought others might be saying about the weird nature of legislating sexual education. IE, because so many legislators believe (or are forced into believing because of lobby groups) that the Bible should be taught in sex ed, it completely destroys the whole point of the course in the first place. It not only can't teach you the good things, it actually forces bad ideas upon you.
Which again was the whole point of the piece.
As for me not understanding Superfraggle. It wasn't aware if he was agreeing with the whole theme, or making an excuse for legislators and he believed they were trying to do the right thing and somehow the wording was the problem.
Better?
I would like to suggest it may be possible that if you don't understand something, there may be a problem on your end, as opposed to "very poorly written". I will expand on what I said, however, as perhaps my point wasn't as self-evident as it seemed to me.
How do you think they came to those numbers? They probably looked at the states' legislation and counted the number of states that said "medically accurate" or something very similar within their legislation.
Then, they used that count to imply that 9 of the 22 states that do have legislation don't care whether the teachings are medically accurate.
In reality, however, it is just as likely that the people who drafted the legislation in those states just didn't think it was necessary to add something that seems so self-evident. If you're passing a law that says you have to teach sex ed, it almost seems redundant to say "oh, and it has to be true"
Here are some extra commas: ,,,,,,,,,,, Feel free to insert them wherever you like if that will help your reading comprehension.
The Following User Says Thank You to Superfraggle For This Useful Post:
I'd imagine it's more a case of the other states not specifically saying those words in their legislation than actually condoning non-medically accurate teachings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daradon
Buh?
Even with watching the episode I'm trying to make sense of your post. But ultimately, I'm pretty sure you didn't watch it.
Quote:
No I get that part. Perhaps his post is too full of double negatives, or no commas. I'm still loopy on it. And eve if I get his text, it's not clear he understood the main argument which you already said, and which is [...]
As for Superfraggle, probably just written very poorly, but something about the post seemed dismissive of the point. Maybe I'll be proven wrong.
Quote:
As for me not understanding Superfraggle. It wasn't aware if he was agreeing with the whole theme, or making an excuse for legislators and he believed they were trying to do the right thing and somehow the wording was the problem.
For the record, I did watch the clip. It's been a while since I finished my English degree but, looking back, there were no double negatives and I do not wish to add any commas. I'm not sure how one sentence generated so much trouble for you.
The Following User Says Thank You to Superfraggle For This Useful Post:
Do I have to use the commas all in one post? One thread? Or can I sprinkle around Calgarypuck in general? Is it limited to understanding your posts?
Hey, what about the rest of the internet?
In all seriousness, thank you, that does help. In looking back, I think the problem was you were referencing other posts (posts on top of posts which happens a lot) and I got confused with the 'those' and 'their' comments. I wasn't following.
Funny that we're tiffing about wording, as that's the actual point of your post. Wording by government.
As for the actual meat, I think your giving way to much credit to wording. I doubt the terms medically accurate appear much and if they do, it would only be on the side to try and make something incorrect look legitimate.
Also, it's not that they don't care. It's that they care very much. Only the other way. Many states (over half?, I'll look it up) teach abstinence over real data. So yeah, they care. But to make their point. Not to encourage healthy sex or healthy self concept.
The whole point is not that they are throwing crap at the wall. Not caring about the curriculum. It's that the religious attitudes (mostly supported by lobbies, not the general public) create the sex ed curriculum.
It's like American fundamentalists in Liberia and other places in Africa, they are losing the war at home, so they push their anti sex, anti gay agenda abroad.
This is not new news. Before this pope, the Catholic church was the biggest culprit. Telling nations, like the Philippines, with the highest rate of orphans and street kids, NOT to use birth control cause it was against god. (Hence my god reference earlier)
Again, this is not news. In fact, we're missing the bigger point that 28 states aren't even asking that sex ed be covered.
In fact a quick Wikipedia search (which does confirm the original 9 v 22) says that 25 states legislate that abstinence should be STRESSED
'37 states require abstinence education be provided.
25 states require abstinence to be stressed.
Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin
12 States require abstinence to be covered.
California, Colorado, Hawaii, Kentucky, Maryland, Minnesota, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia
19 states require that instruction regarding the importance of waiting to engage in sexual relations until marriage be included.
Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin'
I do no believe John Oliver or the statisticians misrepresented their case by a narrow view of the wording. I also do not believe that any specific wording or non wording on the parts of the states would look favorably.
Those states are wording it and enforcing it exactly how they want.
The Following User Says Thank You to Daradon For This Useful Post:
As for the actual meat, I think your giving way to much credit to wording. I doubt the terms medically accurate appear much and if they do, it would only be on the side to try and make something incorrect look legitimate.
Also, it's not that they don't care. It's that they care very much. Only the other way. Many states (over half?, I'll look it up) teach abstinence over real data. So yeah, they care. But to make their point. Not to encourage healthy sex or healthy self concept.
The whole point is not that they are throwing crap at the wall. Not caring about the curriculum. It's that the religious attitudes (mostly supported by lobbies, not the general public) create the sex ed curriculum.
[...]
Again, this is not news. In fact, we're missing the bigger point that 28 states aren't even asking that sex ed be covered.
In fact a quick Wikipedia search (which does confirm the original 9 v 22) says that 25 states legislate that abstinence should be STRESSED
'37 states require abstinence education be provided.
[...]
I do no believe John Oliver or the statisticians misrepresented their case by a narrow view of the wording. I also do not believe that any specific wording or non wording on the parts of the states would look favorably.
Those states are wording it and enforcing it exactly how they want.
Quote shortened for length.
I absolutely agree with the bigger point about the states that aren't requiring sex ed at all. Your stat about the states stressing abstinence would have made a much stronger case, in my opinion than the one John Oliver used. (Your link doesn't work for me, btw, but it was easy enough to get to through Google)I fully agree with the overall points that you and he are making.
My issue is more of a pet peeve about the use of misleading stats. Talking about the 15 states that do not explicitly require medical accuracy does a great job to flame the fires of indignation without actually meaning much, in my opinion.
I'm fully with you on the rest of it. The point he's driving home is a good one. The episode, as always, is excellently done. Seems we just disagree on whether that stat is misleading, and I'm happy to leave it at that.
The Following User Says Thank You to Superfraggle For This Useful Post:
I actually think abstinence should be discussed, it is the most effective way of preventing pregnancy and STIs. That being said, it's simply not practical, so it needs to be one tool in the tool box. I actually thought version 1 of the video they talked about with the "responsibility" coming along with being sexually active was pretty fair.
If you're going to go after someone's english (even when it's perfectly fine and understandable) you might want to understand the difference between a tenant and a tenet, while at the same time know how to use an apostrophe in the same sentence. That's not normally something worth pointing out, but you really did ask for it.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to V For This Useful Post:
I absolutely agree with the bigger point about the states that aren't requiring sex ed at all. Your stat about the states stressing abstinence would have made a much stronger case, in my opinion than the one John Oliver used. (Your link doesn't work for me, btw, but it was easy enough to get to through Google)I fully agree with the overall points that you and he are making.
My issue is more of a pet peeve about the use of misleading stats. Talking about the 15 states that do not explicitly require medical accuracy does a great job to flame the fires of indignation without actually meaning much, in my opinion.
I'm fully with you on the rest of it. The point he's driving home is a good one. The episode, as always, is excellently done. Seems we just disagree on whether that stat is misleading, and I'm happy to leave it at that.
Thanks man. Even if we are off on the way the stat was used, it appears we're on the same page with the argument anyway.
If you're going to go after someone's english (even when it's perfectly fine and understandable) you might want to understand the difference between a tenant and a tenet, while at the same time know how to use an apostrophe in the same sentence. That's not normally something worth pointing out, but you really did ask for it.
Sigh... FINE!
I just had honest trouble reading the sentence. Felt very run-on and I couldn't separate it to get to the the point. And as I mentioed I was having referencing the 'their and those' and to which post or clip they belonged to. Maybe I was just tired then. I had been up all night.
I actually think abstinence should be discussed, it is the most effective way of preventing pregnancy and STIs. That being said, it's simply not practical, so it needs to be one tool in the tool box. I actually thought version 1 of the video they talked about with the "responsibility" coming along with being sexually active was pretty fair.
I don't think any (or at least the vast majority) of advocates for proper sex ed would say that abstinence shouldn't be discussed. It absolutely should. Kids should feel just as comfortable with the choice of abstinence as they are with the choice to engage. The point of sex ed is to make sure everyone is comfortable with the content, that they understand the risk factors in engaging in sexual activity, and that it is important to be respectful of other people's choices in the matter.
The point is that it is a choice. We have to respect the intelligence of youth and give them the opportunity to make an informed decision for themselves. By withholding information, you are not allowing them to make an informed decision. If their decision is uninformed, it's not a surprise when big mistakes are made.
