Republicans vs. Sex Ed, round XXX

[MRT144]

arrian and jon miller should get a room

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


But if it isn't meaningful because everyone agrees.. what is it's purpose really? What point, then, about whether a quack is involved or not..?

Also, from what I have seen, there is generally a little less agreement than science displays (scientists are beleivers also...). This is well and good (it allows for people to push in one direction or another), but while in standard science a group that has only 10% of experts is generally ignored.. in a more 'political' discussion where they are the critics, they should be included.

Jon Miller

I think the point is so that in further arguments with those politicians, people can say, "At this conference at the CDC, these respected scientists all agreed that..."

Which means that, ultimately, it is political.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Generally science is about being critical though. I am suspicious of science that has no critical involvement.

Either A:
It is already known and accepted. Which this might be, in which case, why have a panel on it? (Why not just announce to the world?)
Or B:
There is some real disagreement, and that disagreement might not be being heard.

Now in your X86 example, A might be the case... And in this example, A might be the case. In which case it is no big deal, see? (is a fairly meaningless panel in the first place) However, if B is the case, it is bad. I am not sure for this example..

"A is the case" does not mean "it is a meaningless panel." The x86 architecture is flawed, but we've got to learn to deal with it, so we have conferences where people talk about how the x86 sucks and how we can deal with it. Abstinence-only education is flawed, but we have politicos who are pushing it, and so we have conferences where people talk about how AO education sucks and how we can deal with it.

[Ben Kenobi]

BK hasn't been around lately, no need for a thread...

Lurking more then posting. Had other things taking priority!

[Ben Kenobi]

The scientific case is actually very weak against abstinence education. By having the abstinence folks there you are getting a balance in ideologies, as opposed to just getting one side of the issue.

First of all, the only place that has seen an effective drop in HIV transmission has focussed on abstinence first rather then simply distributing condoms.

Secondly, condoms fail often enough to pose significant risks to those relying upon them. The reduction in risk is overcome by greater risktaking, people even if they use condoms are more likely to engage in risky behaviours that negate any benefit obtained from the protection.

I know there are plenty of folks who see abstinence education as a threat to their own budgets and funding, which is why you see such hostility. If you have a sweet ride, why would you ever want to get off?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
If you have a sweet ride, why would you ever want to get off?

[Flip McWho]

BK, the only problem is that the abstinence only education isn't practical cause everyone doesn't want to follow it.

You have to be dedicated to the abstinence only path and well that asks too much of alot of people.

[Lorizael]

My best friend has been doing the abstinence thing for twenty one years now. Not exactly by choice, but you know, it works.

[Ben Kenobi]

the only thing worse then abstinence by choice.

Flip: I understand that, which really doesn't come into play here since the idea is to have a balance of opinions, both pro and con.

I believe everyone can with some help and encouragement wait till they get married, but it will be more difficult for some.

[Flip McWho]

Why?

Personally I have no desire, and I'm glad I'm not waiting for marriage. That's my choice to make, just as it is somebody else's choice to decide to go with abstinence.

Help and encouragement to achieve abstinence isn't helpful. It should be dealt with as a way of stopping STDs (indeed the only truly effective way) but it is only one of the option available, each with varying success rates. It is not up to us to only encourage the one, it is up to us to encourage the people in the way they choose to **** safely.

And yeah, it doesn't make all that much sense to me either having a conference on STD prevention and try to exclude an option that does prevent STDs.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Lorizael
My best friend has been doing the abstinence thing for twenty one years now. Not exactly by choice, but you know, it works.

Hah.. I have him beat at 25. It was sometimes by choice, sometimes not.. (there were times where I had opportunities, but than I chose not to, other times (girls) I would have chosen to, but didn't have the opportunity).

Jon Miller

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
The scientific case is actually very weak against abstinence education. By having the abstinence folks there you are getting a balance in ideologies, as opposed to just getting one side of the issue.

If you're having a political conference, then a balance in ideologies is great. If you're having a scientific conference, then ideology shouldn't come into the picture.

It wasn't the scientists who made this into an ideological debate, and they shouldn't have to pander to those who put more emphasis on ideology than on truth. A scientific conference on biology shouldn't accept technically incompetent Creationist panelists in the interest of ideological balance, and likewise a scientific conference on disease control shouldn't accept technically incompetent Abstinence Only panelists in the interest of ideological balance.

[Az]

What I don't get is why is abstinence is even on the table, with protective devices being available. Is it the off-chance of failure of condoms?

[Jon Miller]

We are talking about 5-12 graders (ages 10-19)

Jon Miller

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Az
What I don't get is why is abstinence is even on the table, with protective devices being available. Is it the off-chance of failure of condoms?

God only wants you to have sex to in order to procreate. If you aren't trying to get pregnant or enjoying yourself a little too much, you're going straight to hell.