Morality may be taught in schools as part of sex education

[Statikk HDM]

I agree with Syd's hypothesis, but my main point is Don't these damn kids have some learning to do? You drill the kids, you test 'em, you do some fun entertainment shiznit in between. That is the way I'm comfortable with school. Schools should be about learning. Now, you can argue about the real value of sex ed., which I believe to be absolutely zilch, but that ain't the point. The point is, kids have more important things to ponder and learn

[Danny]

Statikk, could you please point out the post where somebody said that learning things wasn't important? I'll save you the trouble of answering, because there isn't one. You've just taken a reasonable proposition that none of us disagrees with, and used it to defend an unreasonable and unconnected one.

Kids have many things that are important to learn. Sex Education is one of them. Would you kindly enlighten me as to why Sex Ed and Maths (for example) are mutually exclusive?

[pinkgoth2]

Originally posted by Danny
Statikk, could you please point out the post where somebody said that learning things wasn't important? I'll save you the trouble of answering, because there isn't one. You've just taken a reasonable proposition that none of us disagrees with, and used it to defend an unreasonable and unconnected one.

Kids have many things that are important to learn. Sex Education is one of them. Would you kindly enlighten me as to why Sex Ed and Maths (for example) are mutually exclusive?

If I understand Statikk correctly, he does not say it is mutually exclusive and certainly is not implying it the way you have twisted it to look like. I think he is pointing out time is wasted in the 'unimportance' (you can argue about that, I really don't care either way) of sex ed which could be used to teach kids something more impotant.

That's how I understand it. If it applies, "You've just taken a reasonable proposition that none of us disagrees with, and used it to defend an unreasonable and unconnected one." does not.

Just pointing it out. *RUNS away from the crossfire*


- TyA

[Statikk HDM]

I see no reason why sex ed is so hyped. It is quite pointless. Look at who started this absolute craziness, Planned Parenthood. Who as I understand teaches this philosophy, "Before you have wild, wanton sex with as many partners as you can, always put on the magical condom. You know, the thing that was around when Lincoln was president, won't stop a pregnancy every one out of every ten times, offers very little protection from many diseases and so forth. And if the might latex savior, the condom, doesn't work, have an abortion. I mean, all you have to do is pay us for one and we will gladly perform one for a low cost.
Come on, we need to perform abortions after sex ed falls flat on its face. If we stopped performing abortions we would go out of business. How do you think we make money? With sex ed? Are you out of your mind?"

[Danny]

Originally posted by pinkgoth2
If I understand Statikk correctly, he does not say it is mutually exclusive and certainly is not implying it the way you have twisted it to look like. I think he is pointing out time is wasted in the 'unimportance' (you can argue about that, I really don't care either way) of sex ed which could be used to teach kids something more impotant.

That's how I understand it. If it applies, "You've just taken a reasonable proposition that none of us disagrees with, and used it to defend an unreasonable and unconnected one." does not.

I think you underestimate Statikk's ability to be unreasonable...

Originally posted by Statikk HDM
I see no reason why sex ed is so hyped. It is quite pointless.

Well, I'm sure we'd all agree with you that the teenage pregnancy rate is far too low, so it would be a great idea to remove the one thing that is keeping it this low...

Look at who started this absolute craziness, Planned Parenthood. Who as I understand teaches this philosophy, "Before you have wild, wanton sex with as many partners as you can, always put on the magical condom.

Sounds reasonable to me...

You know, the thing that was around when Lincoln was president, won't stop a pregnancy every one out of every ten times,

You know how much I distrust Statistics, but if you must insist on using them, please get them right. Condoms have been shown to be effective in almost 100% of cases (between 99.5% and 100%), which, in my opinion, gives better odds than not using one...

offers very little protection from many diseases and so forth.

See above. Similar statistics apply.

And if the might latex savior, the condom, doesn't work, have an abortion.

Don't dig that one up... Just because you lost the Abortion argument last time doesn't mean we need to have it again...

I mean, all you have to do is pay us for one and we will gladly perform one for a low cost.
Come on, we need to perform abortions after sex ed falls flat on its face.

Do you have any concept of how many pregnancies sex ed prevents? You have to let the odd one go, come on...

If we stopped performing abortions we would go out of business. How do you think we make money? With sex ed? Are you out of your mind?"

Now we're getting onto the issue of the NHS, which is a totally different minefield...

[Jacob]

Stad, Stat woteva ur sodding name is. Quiet. Ok, your gonna lose in this argument mainly due to the fact your a dense twat and Danny has knowledge over your arrogance.

[Statikk HDM]

Ok, I give up Jacob, you have purged me from my denseness and arrogance. But I thought you were leaving. What, fifteen minutes was too much for you to stand? Bite me.

[Jacob]

No...you see, i was leaving for that moment. As...i was coming off the net to speak to a friend. If you read my 2nd post you would of realised that i posted that fact. And why would i bite you, i dont even know what you look like!!