(06-30-2023, 07:24 PM)pally Wrote: BECAUSE CHILDREN IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ARE HAVING SEX!!! Ohio had a pregnant 10-year-old...that's 4th grade.
(06-30-2023, 07:40 PM)pally Wrote: she and her sister were raped by mom's boyfriend. But this was just a singular case that we have heard about. Many more happen quietly
(06-30-2023, 09:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Being raped isn't a child "having sex". I'll respond to your full post later, but you deliberately misrepresented this story in your original post. I've had cases where men raped an infant, that's not an infant engaging in sexual activity. Seriously, the fact that you compared a 10 year old being raped to them being sexually active to prove your point is quite frankly nauseating.
(07-01-2023, 11:47 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: to state a child being raped at 10 years old to "10 years old's are having sex" is a bridge too damned far for me.
SSF, I have a hard time believing that you didn't immediately comprehend her statement as it was intended, especially after she provided very clear contextual clarification. However, your responses have purposely misrepresented what she stated and was referencing.
This is the very type of rhetorical manipulation that is regularly used to justify hate-fueled panic and outrage. Very disappointing to see you take this approach, as it's extremely lazy and intellectually dishonest.
A Minnesota jury has found GOP strategist, donor & founder of Big Tent Republicans, Anton Lazzaro, guilty of sex trafficking children. pic.twitter.com/O3RWa3AcOg
(07-01-2023, 06:20 PM)Lucidus Wrote: SSF, I have a hard time believing that you didn't immediately comprehend her statement as it was intended, especially after she provided very clear contextual clarification. However, your responses have purposely misrepresented what she stated and was referencing.
This is the very type of rhetorical manipulation that is regularly used to justify hate-fueled panic and outrage. Very disappointing to see you take this approach, as it's extremely lazy and intellectually dishonest.
What was wrong with him pointing out that children being raped is not the equivalent of them "having sex"? Are you OK with children being raped and having it passed of as them "having sex"?
Volson is meh, but I like him, and he has far exceeded my expectations
(07-01-2023, 08:09 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: What was wrong with him pointing out that children being raped is not the equivalent of them "having sex"? Are you OK with children being raped and having it passed of as them "having sex"?
The term having sex doesn't automatically equate to consensual sex.
If a girl is being raped by her father, she's technically having sex -- even though it's against her will.
A man forced to rob a bank because his family is being held hostage, is still technically robbing the bank -- even though he's an unwilling participant in the act.
Pally's statement was 100% percent correct; children are having sex and as she pointed out -- the reason they're having sex is because they're BEING RAPED. They are unwilling participants being forced into sexual activity.
The man being forced to rob the bank doesn't want to be robbing the bank, but he's still unwillingly participating in robbing the bank.
(06-30-2023, 10:37 PM)Dill Wrote: I'm going to agree with you on this; I just want to first say that there is nothing inherently wrong with being a "right winger." Liberal democracy cannot work without a conservative party. The term "right" covers rather a wide spectrum of beliefs and behaviors from monarchists to Nazis to evangelicals to small business owners who just want their Congress to balance the budget, most of whom don't share the same values. In the U.S. the latter may comprise traditional Burkean conservatism. About the only thing that collects them under the "right" rubric is that at a very general and abstract level all are more comfortable with hierarchy than liberals and actual leftists, though the range of degree here is great. A portion of this "right" is not so wedded to the GOP that they cannot vote Dem when the GOP seems unable to manage issues important to them.
I don't recall that being an "independent" was ever a big issue for some on the right until it became clear that the Iraq War was going sideways. Fox was just ramping up its full propaganda power in 2002-03; it was easy to maneuver that audience into conviction the war was necessary and Saddam had WMDs. Hannity and Rush led the charge against the "traitorous left," who saw Saddam as quite distinct from Al Qaeda and didn't see why we had to invade even if he had WMDs, which he likely didn't according to our own intel. So "the left" supported Saddam and Al Qaeda. True Americans don't criticize a president during a war. They back him. Then after the prompt victory came the jubilant celebration which seemed to confirm Bush's judgment and American power. Hey world--this is what happens when you mess with America. You with us or against us!?
Three years later, after Fallujah, with battle deaths reaching the thousands AFTER the "victory," and still no WMDs, the crowing fell silent. Rush and Hannity and Fox had been wrong about LOTS of things. Then Obama won, and wanted healthcare for people who couldn't afford it. Then a big recession hit. Clearly O. was also mismanaging the war. Was he "too close" to "those people"? Just asking.
2010--that's when I first began hearing it. Hard right wingers were no longer "Republican" and cursing both parties. They hated Obama for reasons they could never clearly articulate. But he was hammered every day about his brown suit or the coffee cup salute etc. Were lower and middle class Americans REALLY opposing tax cuts to the rich and the end of pre-existing condition clauses? Jon McNaughton began painting pictures of O. burning the Constitution and the like. Tea Partiers wanted the government out of Medicare, and they gave the House back to the GOP--the party noted for its defense of government programs. And when I argued with them on line or in person, citing Bush or planks in the Republican platform, they'd suddenly say they weren't Republican, and throw up Fox-generated false equivalences while telling ME to get my head out of the sand. "Both sides" were to blame for the 2008 recession and such like. And Hilary supported the Iraq War too. The WMDs had been moved to Syria.
I think this may be a kind of plausible deniability. The party that represents your values and policy preferences REALLY poops the bed; then course-corrects to get worse. But it's no longer YOUR party so you're not responsible for the choices of people you voted for. But when election time comes around, you are still going to vote for the party that represents your interests as you see them. Pretend like you are in the middle and then, wow, your "independent" sources inform you this Biden fellow is corrupt and has weaponized the DOJ, plus he is a "socialist," while Trump just outlined a persuasive foreign policy which will make America great again by shrinking its diplomatic investment in the world--so you go with him. A tremendously successful businessman (you saw him on The Apprentice, right?) who stands for the common man. No wonder the fearful "fake news" makes up stories about bankruptcies and fraud and accusations of sexual assault and obstruction and misuse of office and sedition.
People like Stewy and Nately are, I think, genuine independents. They voted with one party for a time, while it was a rational and defensible choice. Then they saw that party veer into crazy. They're not convinced by the alternative. That makes their vote genuinely up for grabs; You can't just say "socialist!" or "trans bathrooms" to herd them your way. Dems might get them with reasonably good candidate; if not they'll likely go 3rd party. We never see them defending Trump's Muslim ban as not a Muslim ban or arguing that he was not responsible for 1/6 or demanding a border wall or praising Trump's SCOTUS picks. That's not true of the hard right "independents" we are speaking of. They will always oppose "the left," as it has been defined for them. If Fox says the Durham Report exposed FBI bias then, by God, they'll prove it with Fox links. Russia investigation exonerated Trump from all collusion and obstruction. Trump's coup attempt is not a deal breaker. Sheesh. But don't "label" them just based on what they support.
You can be an agnostic and still support papal infallibility, right?
I too agree that there is nothing, "wrong," with being right wing: as you say, opposing viewpoints make for a just society and fair laws/rules (at least they should, in theory), but I feel I must clarify:
I was merely saying that people are actively stating their independence, before going off on a right wing-fueled tirade (that's obviously an exaggerated term, but it gets the point across) and compared to people like Brad and who'sits, they don't have to qualify this notion before they go on their tirade(s).
And it is this action that raises questions to the validity of their claim or, it raises questions as to why they must qualify that, unprompted (ie: that they know there is something wrong with that POV).
Great post though, Dill
(07-01-2023, 12:44 PM)GMDino Wrote: Let's face it, most of us didn't get OUR sex education from our parents no matter how great they were.
Most of us didn't get it from our schools either...especially those of us who went to Catholic school.
Kids are getting this info from each other...just like we did...only now they have the internet too.
The push to get rid of sex education in schools is tied to the right's fear of ANYTHING sexual. They are the ones who say girls can't have their shoulders exposed for fear of distracting the boys. they are the ones pushing for dress codes, for girls only of course, so they can maintain their "modesty". They rail against anything they consider "indecent" in the media in the name of "protecting the children".
Yet they are the mostly likely to be charged and convicted of abuse of children.
They want to "make America Great Again" back when men could keep women and girls in their place and men and boys can do as they please.
So they fight against abortions, they fight against contraception, they fight against no fault divorces.
They want to roll back any advanced women have made so we can get back to "the good old days".
Fortunately our kids generation see that for what it is. So while the pendulum is swinging away from protecting anyone not a white male Christian is will swing back when these old, angry men starting shuffling off this mortal coil.
Maybe in the US, but here in Canada, we got A SHIT-TON of sex ed in school and I was in Catholic school from grade 1-13 (no, Ontario abolished Grade 13 3 years before I got into High School, but I stayed an extra year to raise my marks, as my average was too low to get into the University(ies) of my choice).
My parents were *almost* completely hands off, but not because of fear or ignorance; it was solely due to the facts that A: We are SIGNIFICANTLY more open and honest about sex in Canada, hence why Degrassi (between Junior High, High and the Next Generation, all 3 shows spanning 4 decades) was so incredibly popular in the US and B: it WAS being taught in all schools and we had many commercials and bumpers after/before shows growing up, that warned of us of the dangers/risks of not just sex, but drug abuse, bullying, etc.
The amount of HPV ads (and to get vaccinated from the virus) I have seen in my life is probably more numerous than any other singular ad, save for food-related ones lol.
(07-01-2023, 08:46 PM)Lucidus Wrote: The term having sex doesn't automatically equate to consensual sex.
If a girl is being raped by her father, she's technically having sex -- even though it's against her will.
A man forced to rob a bank because his family is being held hostage, is still technically robbing the bank -- even though he's an unwilling participant in the act.
Pally's statement was 100% percent correct; children are having sex and as she pointed out -- the reason they're having sex is because they're BEING RAPED. They are unwilling participants being forced into sexual activity.
The man being forced to rob the bank doesn't want to be robbing the bank, but he's still unwillingly participating in robbing the bank.
To take a 3rd party stance here (of which I try to look at everything in life), you guys are 100% correct in that what Pally said was completely honest and apt...
... however many human's minds are conditioned to believe a certain notion, ie: that in this case, that Pally said this to imply that it was consensual.
(07-01-2023, 08:46 PM)Lucidus Wrote: The term having sex doesn't automatically equate to consensual sex.
If a girl is being raped by her father, she's technically having sex -- even though it's against her will.
Literally no one uses the term "having sex" to describe a rape. You use the term "rape". While you are technically correct, no one uses that term to describe non-consensual sexual activity. Except Pally, when claiming that ten year olds are "having sex".
(07-02-2023, 01:40 AM)pally Wrote: I worded it badly however it is disingenuous to continue to harp on that one line after it was clarified what I was trying to express
Fair enough for you, although extremely poor phrasing, especially given the topic at hand. But how do you explain the people trying to excuse your exceedingly poor statement?
(07-02-2023, 02:06 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Fair enough for you, although extremely poor phrasing, especially given the topic at hand. But how do you explain the people trying to excuse your exceedingly poor statement?
They understood what I was attempting to say. You are the one who couldn't let it go even after a clarifiation
(07-01-2023, 11:47 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You are correct in that it's probably best to accept the denial and move on. Any person who menstruates can get pregnant, this was never in dispute. But, and I'm sorry I can't let this go entirely, to state a child being raped at 10 years old to "10 years old's are having sex" is a bridge too damned far for me.
No sure, that's up to you. That it sours the debate is clearly to see, but it is as it is. It's interesting, I see why you read the post in question the way you did, and therefore still use the word "denial" - while I never took it this way in the first place. I always read it as legit example of how early puberty hits these days and nothing else. Which possibly is because I was sympathetic to the overall point made and was not inclined to read it any other way - while you clearly are not and therefore were.
-- @topic-related I think education/the state in certain cases has the right to superseed parenting. For the simple reason that not all parents are guaranteed to be good parents. Some teach kids horrendous shit that we as a society deem unacceptable, some teach tehir kid wrong things or don't teach their kids anything, some fail to teach them about sexuality.
To determine at what age what kind of sex education is appropriate, I have no idea and therefore would rely on judgment of people who do. Experts are still those with the expertise and stil have more idea than others like me. Covid and certain mistakes made in that field did not change that.
(07-02-2023, 12:43 AM)Truck_1_0_1_ Wrote: I too agree that there is nothing, "wrong," with being right wing: as you say, opposing viewpoints make for a just society and fair laws/rules (at least they should, in theory), but I feel I must clarify:
I was merely saying that people are actively stating their independence, before going off on a right wing-fueled tirade (that's obviously an exaggerated term, but it gets the point across) and compared to people like Brad and who'sits, they don't have to qualify this notion before they go on their tirade(s).
And it is this action that raises questions to the validity of their claim or, it raises questions as to why they must qualify that, unprompted (ie: that they know there is something wrong with that POV).
Yeah, That is what I was getting at too. Just supplying a little background.
It's not just this forum. I don't remember people doing that before 2010.
In part I think people who spend all day defending Trump and swallowing ridiculous conspiracies and stories about schools with cat boxes for children who identify as animals and the like call themselves "independents" to position themselves as "unbiased." Like they are truly neutral and just considering what each side offers--as if the right "socialist" came along they might just go there.
And of course they dislike Trump personally, think he's a bad person, etc., but still a great president. So that means they're "neutral" right?
Glad to see I'm not the only one who has noticed this phenomenon.
(07-02-2023, 10:09 AM)hollodero Wrote: No sure, that's up to you. That it sours the debate is clearly to see, but it is as it is. It's interesting, I see why you read the post in question the way you did, and therefore still use the word "denial" - while I never took it this way in the first place. I always read it as legit example of how early puberty hits these days and nothing else. Which possibly is because I was sympathetic to the overall point made and was not inclined to read it any other way - while you clearly are not and therefore were.
It would be easier to let it go if it was acknowledged that it was used in extremely poor taste. But, you're right, time to move on.
Quote:-- @topic-related I think education/the state in certain cases has the right to superseed parenting. For the simple reason that not all parents are guaranteed to be good parents. Some teach kids horrendous shit that we as a society deem unacceptable, some teach tehir kid wrong things or don't teach their kids anything, some fail to teach them about sexuality.
To determine at what age what kind of sex education is appropriate, I have no idea and therefore would rely on judgment of people who do. Experts are still those with the expertise and stil have more idea than others like me. Covid and certain mistakes made in that field did not change that.
I have much more sympathy for this argument when we're talking about adolescents. When we're talking about children I in no way support the state superseding the rights of parents to decide what sexual topics their children are exposed to in an official setting such as school. You'll note the utter lack of compromise on the pro-teach children about sex side. I've stated I would be fine if the lesson plan was provided in full to the parents, who could then decide to opt their child out based on the information that would be shared. Nope, not good enough. If the state wants it then parents be damned. I'd be very leery of anyone who claims to know what is best for a child over the wishes of the child's parents. We're not talking about obvious abuse here, for those inclined to misinterpret this point (again, not you).
(07-02-2023, 12:35 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I have much more sympathy for this argument when we're talking about adolescents. When we're talking about children I in no way support the state superseding the rights of parents to decide what sexual topics their children are exposed to in an official setting such as school. You'll note the utter lack of compromise on the pro-teach children about sex side. I've stated I would be fine if the lesson plan was provided in full to the parents, who could then decide to opt their child out based on the information that would be shared. Nope, not good enough. If the state wants it then parents be damned. I'd be very leery of anyone who claims to know what is best for a child over the wishes of the child's parents.
The specific issue, teaching children about sex, is real difficult for sure. But since you put this aspect in a wider principle of the state never having the right to act against the parents' wishes, I have to say I do not agree with that principle. In certain circumstances parents indeed be damned, if they want to teach their children alternative facts about slavery or minorities or the holocaust or whether it's ok to beat up the weak ones or whatever shitty things certain parents actually teach their flock. Children are not solely to be shaped by their parents, society has a say in it, the child is part of society after all.
Which, again, is questioning the principle of always putting parents' wishes above all. When it comes to sex ed specifically, I do feel that hitting puberty is a strong indication that it's time for it. Even if the parents disagree. Sure, carefully, following a distinct set of ground rules and all, and if this does not happen, as you incline, then critizism sure is warranted. But a child experiencing these changes has a right to know what's going on, and if parents deny them this right then yeah parents be damned. It's not beneficial to the child leaving them in the dark and letting them figure it out on their own without any advisement. Not to mention dangerous for their mental health, especially since children in puberty can get pregnant and this is traumatic, even a quick abortion would be. Even more so when abortions get more and more difficult to get.
And since puberty can indeed hit as early as in 10-year-olds, there's imho a decent case to be made that education about that shouldn't happen several years later.
(07-02-2023, 12:35 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It would be easier to let it go if it was acknowledged that it was used in extremely poor taste. But, you're right, time to move on.
I have much more sympathy for this argument when we're talking about adolescents. When we're talking about children I in no way support the state superseding the rights of parents to decide what sexual topics their children are exposed to in an official setting such as school. You'll note the utter lack of compromise on the pro-teach children about sex side. I've stated I would be fine if the lesson plan was provided in full to the parents, who could then decide to opt their child out based on the information that would be shared. Nope, not good enough. If the state wants it then parents be damned. I'd be very leery of anyone who claims to know what is best for a child over the wishes of the child's parents. We're not talking about obvious abuse here, for those inclined to misinterpret this point (again, not you).
I said numerous times that parents have the option to remove the child from the lessons and that they have access to the teaching material...both things they currently have.
Then why is the state interfering with the healthcare decisions of some parents...with the full support of the conservative community?
You are a prime example of a conservative who screams parent's rights as long as they reflect YOUR values and ideas.
(07-02-2023, 01:00 PM)hollodero Wrote: The specific issue, teaching children about sex, is real difficult for sure. But since you put this aspect in a wider principle of the state never having the right to act against the parents' wishes, I have to say I do not agree with that principle.
I specifically did not say that it should never happen. There are plenty of instances of the state overruling parental wishes, in the filed of medical care for example. But these instances are very black and white for the most part. Child will die without "X" procedure, parent's religious beliefs won't allow it, state steps in to save the child's life. Sex education in no way resembles these instances
Quote:In certain circumstances parents indeed be damned, if they want to teach their children alternative facts about slavery or minorities or the holocaust or whether it's ok to beat up the weak ones or whatever shitty things certain parents actually teach their flock. Children are not solely to be shaped by their parents, society has a say in it, the child is part of society after all.
Actually, you could home school your children and absolutely teach them these things, along with required curriculum. Of course society as a whole will shape a child's development, unless said child lives in a heavily rural area with no internet access or television. But, again, is teaching children about sex of such paramount importance as to override parental wishes? You're finding a very large segment of the population in the very firm no category on that.
Quote:Which, again, is questioning the principle of always putting parents' wishes above all. When it comes to sex ed specifically, I do feel that hitting puberty is a strong indication that it's time for it. Even if the parents disagree. Sure, carefully, following a distinct set of ground rules and all, and if this does not happen, as you incline, then critizism sure is warranted. But a child experiencing these changes has a right to know what's going on, and if parents deny them this right then yeah parents be damned. It's not beneficial to the child leaving them in the dark and letting them figure it out on their own without any advisement. Not to mention dangerous for their mental health, especially since children in puberty can get pregnant and this is traumatic, even a quick abortion would be. Even more so when abortions get more and more difficult to get.
This is a stronger argument. But why would this preclude the parents having the right to review the curriculum before giving approval? You could easily have tiers of classes from which they could choose. Bodily facts about puberty are a long ways from describing sexual intercourse or other, more explicit topics.
Quote:And since puberty can indeed hit as early as in 10-year-olds, there's imho a decent case to be made that education about that shouldn't happen several years later.
It can, but is that the norm? My oldest nephew is going to twelve this month. His friends joke about "69", having no idea what it means, but largely he and his friends are innocent kids on this topic. His parents have had talks with him about certain topics, like bodily changes. I would add that he's very intelligent and mentally mature in several ways. But I can't see him being exposed to certain topics at his age. He's still a damned kid.
Bottom line you cannot, ever, legislate away shitty parents, but you can absolutely infringe too far on parental rights. The left is currently trending towards the latter and many parents aren't having it.
(07-02-2023, 01:40 PM)pally Wrote: I said numerous times that parents have the option to remove the child from the lessons and that they have access to the teaching material...both things they currently have.
Then we largely agree.
Quote:Then why is the state interfering with the healthcare decisions of some parents...with the full support of the conservative community?
Does it have the full support of the "conservative community"? I don't know that it does. But life saving procedures are light years away from mandated sexual education.
Quote:You are a prime example of a conservative who screams parent's rights as long as they reflect YOUR values and ideas.
Yeah, not a conservative, but I get that it's easier for you to pigeon hole people than to understand that not everyone fits within two neat little boxes, "liberal" and "conservative". Some people, and prepare to have your mind blown, have a mix of positions, some considered conservative and some liberal. Insane, I know, but trust me, there's quite a lot of them.
(07-02-2023, 01:44 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I specifically did not say that it should never happen. There are plenty of instances of the state overruling parental wishes, in the filed of medical care for example. But these instances are very black and white for the most part. Child will die without "X" procedure, parent's religious beliefs won't allow it, state steps in to save the child's life. Sex education in no way resembles these instances
No, it does not. But I would not restrict the states' rights to oppose parental wishes to such emergencies. I also think the state has the right to oppose parents if the parents are racists or believe the earth is flat etc etc. and demand the right that their children are not told otherwise. And, also, maybe when it comes to sex education.
(07-02-2023, 01:44 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: But, again, is teaching children about sex of such paramount importance as to override parental wishes?
In my opinion, yes. At what age and to what extent, these are different questions. But in principle, yes it is important. A child hitting puberty and having no idea what's going on is detrimental to their mental sanity, not to mention all those unwanted child pregnancies that aren't all that seldomly happening, plus STDs and whatnot.
(07-02-2023, 01:44 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You're finding a very large segment of the population in the very firm no category on that.
Yeah well, that doesn't deter me from having a different opinion then a large segment of the population then.
(07-02-2023, 01:44 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This is a stronger argument. But why would this preclude the parents having the right to review the curriculum before giving approval?
I did not say that. I'd say parents should have the right to review the curriculum, and having their wishes recognized and if at all feasible also accomodated. When it comes to them ultimatively giving or denying approval, I'm less inclined. Of course I'm mostly thinking of extremely prude parents that don't want their kids to ever hear about anything sexual, parents that do exist. Succumbing to the wishes of such parents is imho not in the child's best interest, and I'd argue in the end this is what it's about.
(07-02-2023, 01:44 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You could easily have tiers of classes from which they could choose.
Also a fine idea, imho.
(07-02-2023, 01:44 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It can, but is that the norm?
Well, no. But I'm not so sure whether the average age at which children hit puberty should determine the right time to start addressing these topics, just because some children are not within said average. This, of course, is coupled with my belief that sex education, if done properly and carefully of course, does not traumatize or otherwise emotionally harm a child. If anything, it rather is a counterweight or a contextualization to all the stuff most children hear and see from other places anyways, including internet and afternoon TV.
(07-02-2023, 01:44 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: My oldest nephew is going to twelve this month. His friends joke about "69", having no idea what it means, but largely he and his friends are innocent kids on this topic. His parents have had talks with him about certain topics, like bodily changes. I would add that he's very intelligent and mentally mature in several ways. But I can't see him being exposed to certain topics at his age. He's still a damned kid.
Sure, there are certain topics where I'd agree children of that age don't need to be exposed to. Certain topics. I'm certainly not advocationg to teach them all kinds of different sexual techniques and whatnot. But that does not include every topic that touches sexuality.
(07-02-2023, 01:44 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Bottom line you cannot, ever, legislate away shitty parents
Well no, but you can somewhat minimize the harmful impact of shitty parenting.
(07-02-2023, 01:44 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: but you can absolutely infringe too far on parental rights.
Oh, sure, I do not disagree. It seems as if the argument is what is too far and what is not.
(07-01-2023, 08:46 PM)Lucidus Wrote: The term having sex doesn't automatically equate to consensual sex.
If a girl is being raped by her father, she's technically having sex -- even though it's against her will.
A man forced to rob a bank because his family is being held hostage, is still technically robbing the bank -- even though he's an unwilling participant in the act.
Pally's statement was 100% percent correct; children are having sex and as she pointed out -- the reason they're having sex is because they're BEING RAPED. They are unwilling participants being forced into sexual activity.
The man being forced to rob the bank doesn't want to be robbing the bank, but he's still unwillingly participating in robbing the bank.
(07-02-2023, 09:50 AM)pally Wrote: They understood what I was attempting to say. You are the one who couldn't let it go even after a clarifiation
you guys are being gross even for far left liberals. please stop taking about little kids having sex. that aint happening
steelersfan was absolute right to condem pally. aint no place for that kinda talk in here
How can anyone condone anyone or anything threatening your children?
How does this help their cause?
Why do Democrats think this is acceptable? I have not seen one liberal politician speak out for our children.
This behavior is off the rails.
the hole situation is scary. there targeting our kids an the left wants to act like its just normal or nothin aint happening. somethings gotta be done. i just dont know what
(07-02-2023, 02:20 PM)hollodero Wrote: No, it does not. But I would not restrict the states' rights to oppose parental wishes to such emergencies. I also think the state has the right to oppose parents if the parents are racists or believe the earth is flat etc etc. and demand the right that their children are not told otherwise. And, also, maybe when it comes to sex education.
You're running into European perception problems here. What you just described is a clear violation of the 1sr Amendment.
Quote:In my opinion, yes. At what age and to what extent, these are different questions. But in principle, yes it is important. A child hitting puberty and having no idea what's going on is detrimental to their mental sanity, not to mention all those unwanted child pregnancies that aren't all that seldomly happening, plus STDs and whatnot.
Of course we again run into the issue as to the extent of such teachings. There is a huge range of possible topics that could be introduced. A friend of minor once made a great statement, albeit on a different topic, there's a difference between need to know and nice to know. I have no issue with children receiving age appropriate lessons on the effects of puberty and I doubt many others do either.
Quote:Yeah well, that doesn't deter me from having a different opinion then a large segment of the population then.
I would certainly hope not. I stated that to illustrate that this is not a far right fringe issue as some here are trying to make it out to be.
Quote:I did not say that. I'd say parents should have the right to review the curriculum, and having their wishes recognized and if at all feasible also accomodated. When it comes to them ultimatively giving or denying approval, I'm less inclined. Of course I'm mostly thinking of extremely prude parents that don't want their kids to ever hear about anything sexual, parents that do exist. Succumbing to the wishes of such parents is imho not in the child's best interest, and I'd argue in the end this is what it's about.
But then who decides what's in the child's best interests? Parents are legally and financially responsible for their children. You better have a rock solid reason for intruding on their autonomy when it comes to their children.
Quote:Also a fine idea, imho.
You would think it would have received some support in this thread. Odd that it has garnered so little.
Quote:Well, no. But I'm not so sure whether the average age at which children hit puberty should determine the right time to start addressing these topics, just because some children are not within said average. This, of course, is coupled with my belief that sex education, if done properly and carefully of course, does not traumatize or otherwise emotionally harm a child. If anything, it rather is a counterweight or a contextualization to all the stuff most children hear and see from other places anyways, including internet and afternoon TV.
Ideally yes, and I agree children mature at different rates. I guarantee every guy here remembers the first girl who developed breasts in their class, way ahead of the other girls. Of course mental maturity is of importance as well, but is obviously more difficult to measure.
Quote:Sure, there are certain topics where I'd agree children of that age don't need to be exposed to. Certain topics. I'm certainly not advocationg to teach them all kinds of different sexual techniques and whatnot. But that does not include every topic that touches sexuality.
You're not, but there are some who are. Hence this being a hot button issue at the moment.
Quote:Well no, but you can somewhat minimize the harmful impact of shitty parenting.
Not as much as you might think, but yes.
Quote:Oh, sure, I do not disagree. It seems as if the argument is what is too far and what is not.
The fact that this is even a major topic of discussion now, when it hasn't been for decades, kind of illustrates that it has gone too far. You've had instance of parents reading books from the school library out loud at school board meetings that got them cut off as the board complained they were "too graphic". Here's just one example.
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
![[Image: Truck_1_0_1_.png]](https://card.psnprofiles.com/2/Truck_1_0_1_.png)
