Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community - View Single Post

Daradon · 08-11-2015, 01:12 PM

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'

http://https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki...egional_access

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.

08-11-2015, 01:12 PM	#71
Daradon Has lived the dream! Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Where I lay my head is home... Exp:	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' http://https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki...egional_access 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.