Fair enough,
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?
|