Republicans vs. Sex Ed, round XXX

[Dis]

yep, back in those days, it even snowed in Las Vegas. . Kids got it easy with this global warming.

[Arrian]

Back in MY day, the gummint taught you how to use condoms, and even gave them out for free! Imagine!

Actually, the giving away for free bit was college, and they gave away crappy ones prone to breaking

-Arrian

[Dis]

As for sex ed legitimizing sex, I don't think it does. I see no harm in teaching kids how to put on a condom. Might as well start when they are 10 or 11. Probably 11 I'd say, as that's when the earliest of boys start hitting puberty. Though girls hit it sooner than that.

My sex ed was so un-sexual it wasn't even funny. There is no way that would turn me on to sex. I didn't even get to see a picture of a naked girl in the text book .

Kids are more likely to be sexually active by watching MTV videos and shows. And yes I do beleive televison can affect kid's actions. maybe not every kid.

And I believe the kids who can get some, will get some. Obviously not every kid will be sexually active at such a young age, but some will.

[Dis]

Originally posted by Arrian
Back in MY day, the gummint taught you how to use condoms, and even gave them out for free! Imagine!

Actually, the giving away for free bit was college, and they gave away crappy ones prone to breaking

-Arrian

you'd think they gave away the good thick ones .

and giving kids condoms is not a good idea. They end up blown up in the boys bathroom. Song kids put water in them, and tie them and try to flush them down the toilet. They use them for everything except the intended purpose. Although this kind of shoots down my argument of teaching kids how to use condoms. What's the point if they don't have access to them. No kid is going to go into a convenience store to buy them. But if you give them out for free, you have a public nusiance. So there is no easy answer to this problem.

[Ben Kenobi]

That was not the point of my analogy, and you know it.

Hey I have to thank you for the material. If having sex is just like driving a car, then we shouldn't be teaching kids to have sex until they are old enough.

[Ben Kenobi]

We don't tell 12 year olds "never, ever drive until you're married".

Nope, but we do say you have to wait until you are old enough. Not that different from abstinence, and I think the analogy is a very sound one.

Driving a car has the potential to kill people if done improperly. Sex has similar consequences.

[Ben Kenobi]

It's a scientific conference (or it was until the AO advocates were forced on the panel), so this is an irrelevant question.

That wasn't my question. I asked whether or not the condom advocates were entirely free of ideology. It's not enough to just say, well it's a scientific conference so obviously it must be.

This is a stupid question. The panel was about the inadequacy of abstinence-only education for reducing STD transmission, not about the inadequacy of abstinence for reducing STD transmission.

So in other words, they had a hypothesis and the conclusion already decided. Sounds like ideology to me. Wouldn't the proper scientific conference assess the question of the merits of abstinence education in reducing STD transmission? That is a question that can be answered in the negative or the positive.

These aren't scientific opinions being presented in favor of abstinence-only education, these are ideological opinions being presented in favor of abstinence-only education.

How so? I can cite statistics that show regions of Africa that choose to use abstinence have seen dramatic declines in their HIV transmission rates. That's a scientific and not an ideological argument.

they shouldn't have to be forced to waste their time "dealing with" people who shouldn't be panelists in the first place.

So in other words, the shouldn't have to deal with contrary evidence. Excellent scientific inquiry.

This is a stupid question. You've taken the claim that these particular AO advocates are technically incompetent, and conflated that with the claim that all AO advocates are technically incompetent.

So why then don't they admit competent AO advocates to this discussion rather then barring them?

Quite the pinnacle of technical competence, eh?

Which answers my question regarding technical competence. If there are technically competent AO folks out there, then they ought to be invited to this conference. Of course, that assumes that the primary goal is scientific inquiry, and not ideology.

Fine, then get some technically competent AO advocates to support this claim. Don't just start brandishing your ideology without any supporting evidence.

You're trying to turn a scientific debate into an ideological debate. Stop it.

Apologies. I really have nothing more to say if you believe there are technically competent AO folks. Thank you loinburger.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Arrian
... the giving away of condoms] for free bit was college, and they gave away crappy ones prone to breaking

I think they might have been missing the whole point of using condoms.

[-Jrabbit]

I've no doubt there are scientifically competent AO advocates out there, Ben. But based on what was said in the first post, it's pretty hard to say that about the ones that were shoehorned into this panel.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
That wasn't my question. I asked whether or not the condom advocates were entirely free of ideology. It's not enough to just say, well it's a scientific conference so obviously it must be.

You evidently don't understand the meaning of the word "irrelevant." I'm not saying that the scientists didn't (by and large) adhere to one particular ideology WRT this topic, I'm saying that the scientists' ideologies are irrelevant. Look up the word in the dictionary before you assail me with another strawman.

So in other words, they had a hypothesis and the conclusion already decided. Sounds like ideology to me.

I'm not surprised that you would view this as an ideological assessment of AO education, considering your ideological attachment to AO education.

Wouldn't the proper scientific conference assess the question of the merits of abstinence education in reducing STD transmission? That is a question that can be answered in the negative or the positive.

Yes. And the conference answered in the negative. That is, it answered in the negative while it remained a scientific conference -- but once you substitute ideology for truth all bets are off.

How so? I can cite statistics that show regions of Africa that choose to use abstinence have seen dramatic declines in their HIV transmission rates. That's a scientific and not an ideological argument.

Then evidently the CDC should have invited you as a panelist.

So in other words, the shouldn't have to deal with contrary evidence. Excellent scientific inquiry.

Your complete disregard for science is irrefutable.

So why then don't they admit competent AO advocates to this discussion rather then barring them?

Which competent AO advocates have been barred from this discussion? Please give names. Better yet, please give links to CV's.

Which answers my question regarding technical competence. If there are technically competent AO folks out there, then they ought to be invited to this conference. Of course, that assumes that the primary goal is scientific inquiry, and not ideology.

This displays your stunning ignorance WRT scientific conferences. The last scientific conference I attended had 3 invited speakers and 30+ speakers whose submissions were unsolicited and passed peer review. It isn't up to the conference chairmen to enforce "ideological balance" through invited keynote speakers -- rather, it is up to individual speakers to ensure that their particular "ideology" is represented at said conference. As I said before: science is about truth, not ideology. The fact that scientifically incompetent nitwits continue to toot the "my brand of science is under-represented, this is clearly liberal bias!" bullhorn has no bearing on the fact that said "opponents of the liberal media!" are, in fact, nitwits.

Apologies. I really have nothing more to say if you believe there are technically competent AO folks.

I never said that technically competent AO folk existed -- rather, I relied on you to provide examples of such rare specimens of humanity. Please proceed to detail the achievements of the kingpins of AO dogma for our collective enlightenment. While you're at it, why don't you provide us with some examples of technically competent Young-Earth Creationists.

[Sava]

The thing I don't understand is...

Conservatives are supposedly all about "personal responsibility". Well, that's what sex-ed is. It teaches people to be responsible for their own sexuality.

You'd think they would support sex-ed... because knowledge empowers people to make good, responsible decisions.

[Ben Kenobi]

But based on what was said in the first post, it's pretty hard to say that about the ones that were shoehorned into this panel.

I'm suspicious of the ad-hominem attack in the article, why should his Christianity be relevant to the discussion, unless it is to put him in a bad light.

His approach to public health is explicitly ideological. "Dr. Walsh seeks to serve the Lord through medical missions and the preaching of the Gospel in all the world," an online bio explains.

That is the extent of the critique. I guess wanting to help people and serve the Lord means that you can't do any form of science. Why should being a medical missionary have anything to do with the scientific argument that one brings up.

For the second appointee:

Sulak, meanwhile, is an obstetrician-gynecologist at Scott & White Memorial Hospital in Texas and the founder of "Worth the Wait," an abstinence program noteworthy for its negative messages about condoms and stereotypical statements about girls and boys.

Now, I presume that 'stereotypical statements' mean that she believes that men and women have different roles, rather then being interchangeable parts.

I don't see why having 'negative messages about condoms' is any more ideological then having negative messages about abstinence.

If this is the extent of the dirt that they can dig up on these folks, then this is a pretty shallow critique.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Nope, but we do say you have to wait until you are old enough. Not that different from abstinence, and I think the analogy is a very sound one.

Driving a car has the potential to kill people if done improperly. Sex has similar consequences.

But we do teach them to drive before they can get a license. HAH! PWNed!!11!!!

[Sava]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


why should his Christianity be relevant to the discussion

Because his religious beliefs (coming directly from his interpretation of Christian teachings) are what is driving his opinions regarding sex-ed.

In fact... this whole mess is all about Christianity... period. Let's be honest here. There are very few, if any, people in America that are opposed to sex-ed on purely logical grounds. The opposition to sex-ed is being driven by the same ignorant conservative Christian constituency that is on the wrong side of so many issues in America.

That's how it is relevant.

[Ben Kenobi]

You evidently don't understand the meaning of the word "irrelevant." I'm not saying that the scientists didn't (by and large) adhere to one particular ideology WRT this topic,

I'm saying that the scientists' ideologies are irrelevant. Look up the word in the dictionary before you assail me with another strawman.

So let me see. The fact that the scientists have an ideology WRT to this one topic makes it irrelevant to the topic in discussion?

So why then is the fact that these abstinence folks are accused of having ideology have any relevance to the discussion? I agree, their particular ideologies should be irrelevant to the scientific inquiry, just that the same ought to be said for the panellists in question.

I'm not surprised that you would view this as an ideological assessment of AO education, considering your ideological attachment to AO education.

What ideological attachment? The only argument I have given in favour is that it works. I thought ideology was irrelevant to this topic, so long as you presented scientific arguments.

Yes. And the conference answered in the negative. That is, it answered in the negative while it remained a scientific conference -- but once you substitute ideology for truth all bets are off.

And they don't have a single speaker offering evidence contrary to the prevailing sentiment?

Which competent AO advocates have been barred from this discussion? Please give names. Better yet, please give links to CV's.

Assuming that there are some competent folks out there, it's rather difficult to assert that the purely non- AO lineup of speakers arose solely due to chance.

This displays your stunning ignorance WRT scientific conferences. The last scientific conference I attended had 3 invited speakers and 30+ speakers whose submissions were unsolicited and passed peer review. It isn't up to the conference chairmen to enforce "ideological balance" through invited keynote speakers -- rather, it is up to individual speakers to ensure that their particular "ideology" is represented at said conference.

You are quite right. The way these conferences work is that they handpick the speakers. You won't tend to see much debate or contrary opinions since that's not the point. The point is to have a chance to get a whole pile of scientists together who would otherwise not have a chance to collaborate.

As I said before: science is about truth, not ideology. The fact that scientifically incompetent nitwits continue to toot the "my brand of science is under-represented, this is clearly liberal bias!" bullhorn has no bearing on the fact that said "opponents of the liberal media!" are, in fact, nitwits.

Truth involves the assessment of all facts, and not just the ones that confer with the prevailing notions. That's how science progresses because some folks are willing to look at junk or garbage dismissed by other folks.

And science is very, very political, especially where the issue of public funding comes into play.

If you have an independently wealthy fellow who can take his own time to investigate an issue, that is quite different then the situation for most scientists today.

I never said that technically competent AO folk existed -- rather, I relied on you to provide examples of such rare specimens of humanity. Please proceed to detail the achievements of the kingpins of AO dogma for our collective enlightenment. While you're at it, why don't you provide us with some examples of technically competent Young-Earth Creationists.

All righty. Give me a minute here.

Janice Shaw Crouse, Ph.D., Senior Fellow at the Beverly LaHaye Institute, the think tank for Concerned Women for America, is a recognized authority on domestic issues, the United Nations, cultural and women's concerns. In May, 2002, she was appointed as a U.S. delegate to the United Nations Children's Summit. Subsequently, she was appointed by the President to the U.S. delegation to the 2003 United Nations Commission on the Status of Women. The Heritage Foundation nominated her for the 2003 Bradley Prize for her influence on contemporary issues. During the first Bush Administration, she was a Presidential Speech Writer, authoring major presidential policy addresses as well as drafting and editing the Presidential White Paper on Welfare Reform.


She is frequently a guest lecturer on college campuses -- including most recently Princeton, Harvard, Tulane, Erskine, Asbury, and Georgetown -- and at United Nations related conventions like the World Congress of Families III in Mexico City and the commemoration of the International Year of the Family in Kuala, Lumpur. She is author of "Gaining Ground: A Profile of American Women in the Twentieth Century." The book that she co-authored, "A Different Kind of Strength," was a Conservative Book of the Month selection in 2000 and has been printed in two foreign editions. Her paperback, The Strength of a Godly Woman, is one of Harvest House Publishers top-five picks.


Her opinion editorials and columns have appeared in major newspapers across the nation as well as in journals and magazines - including the Washington Post, The Washington Times, Insight, First Things, Touchstone, USA Today, Christianity Today, Marriage Partnership, Family Voice, Citizen. She has been featured in many of those same publications and others, including Congressional Quarterly. She has been interviewed on numerous national radio and television programs including the major television networks as well as C-Span, Fox, MSNBC and CNN. She has authored scholarly and think-tank publications and Congressional Testimony. Prior to the White House, Dr. Crouse wrote for the Honorable Louis W. Sullivan, Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) where she coined the phrase, "Healthy Start."


Dr. Crouse was selected to launch CWA's think tank in May 1999 in recognition of the need for a conservative organization solely devoted to conducting quality research on issues of concern to women. Believing in the unity of truth, the Institute recognizes the power of good data and analysis to inform and substantiate policy positions. Before coming to BLI, Dr. Crouse was President of Crouse Communications, a public relations and political analysis firm serving organizations in the United States and throughout the world. Dr. Crouse directed the work of the Ecumenical Coalition on Women and Society, a project of the Institute on Religion and Democracy. Through ECWS, she drafted, edited and produced the Christian Women's Declaration and spearheaded the development and execution of IRD's Washington Summit, a conference for women leaders. Previously she was the Project Director for the ECWS team attending the 1995 Fourth United Nations World Conference on Women in Beijing. In addition, she produced the Beijing Bulletin, an analysis of the events of the conference that was faxed daily to over 1250 opinion leaders in the United States. In addition to her work in preparation for the conference, analyzing the issues related to the Platform and planning strategy for influencing the conference, Dr. Crouse served as the stateside contact person and spokesperson. She also helped lead team to the 1998 World United Methodist Women's Assembly. Dr. Crouse co-led a six-member team to the World Council of Churches Eighth Assembly in Harare, Zimbabwe. She attends and writes daily commentaries on United Nations meetings and national political conventions.


Previously, Dr. Crouse was Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs at Taylor University where, among other duties, she was responsible for faculty development and academic programs for a 94-member faculty. She was formerly Professor and Debate Coach at Asbury College and at Ball State University where she was selected as a mentor teacher and her debate team was ranked in the top ten nationally. She received a National Community Leadership Award from the United States Chamber of Commerce. She is a former Woman of the Year and is listed in Who's Who Among American Women. She is a member of the Board of Trustees of Asbury College. She is a member of the Board of Directors for Good News. She serves on four national Task Forces and Coalitions on national and international issues: Against Sexual Trafficking, Against Abuse of Women, Promoting Human Rights, and Promoting Religious Freedom.


Through her speaking and writing, Dr. Crouse addresses the need to strengthen those cultural institutions that instill values in our nation's citizens - family, church, school and community. The National Press Club's compendium of experts describes Dr. Crouse as having "brought insight, keen perception and wisdom to domestic, family, political and women's issues since the early 1990s as a Presidential speechwriter for Bush 41, United Nations delegate, think tank fellow, television commentator, speaker, author and columnist. Her common sense, refreshing honesty and intriguing perspective on cultural and political issues expose spin to reveal truth in a way that has earned respect and made her a popular cultural analyst. Known for applying her strong intellect and articulating her solid faith with candor and humor, she is a conservative leader who appeals across ideological and religious barriers."