I need YOUR help! Examples of lies by Republicans

[Aeson]

Originally posted by asleepathewheel
Ok, then, what is the appropriate way to explain std's to a 5 year old?

From Obama's position? It would seem seem from his statements that it would be, "not at all". (If you're interested in my irrelevant position, ask.)

[Naked Gents Rut]

Because what's "appropriate", while not unanimous... is dictated by the will of the people.

This is completely false. "The people" are in obvious disagreement on what is appropriate on this issue. McCain wouldn't think it had any political traction if the people actually agreed that teaching kindergartners about STD prevention was appropriate.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Aeson


From Obama's position? It would seem seem from his statements that it would be, "not at all". (If you're interested in my irrelevant position, ask.)

Yes, but "not at all" isn't a correct answer within the bounds of the law he voted in favor of. You (plural) can't get around that shall.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by asleepathewheel
Z-You're a lawyer, please interpret the bill for us:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/full...cSess=&Session

Wow. That certainly not the clearest piece of garbage ever written, is it?

I don't see anything in the bill requiring sex techniques to be taught to kindergarterners. So much for McCain's claim.

§ 27-9.1(c)(11) mandates the teaching of children "to not make unwanted physicial and verbal sexual advances and how to say no to unwantered sexual advances..."

§ 27-9.2(b)(2) states: "All course materials and instruction in classes that teach sex education and discuss sexual activitiy or behavior shall be age and developmentally appropriate."

§ 27-9.2(b)(8) states: "Course material and instruction shall emphasize that the pupil has the power to control personal behavior. Pupils shall be encouraged to base their actions on reasoning, self-discipline, sense of responsiblity, self-control, and ethicla considerations, such as respect for oneself and others."

Section 10 of the bill, § 3(a) repeats the "age apporpriate" requirement for kindergarten. As does subdiv.(b)(2).


So, my read:
McCain is wrong -- there's no teaching of sex to kindergarters.
Obama is right -- this bill would provide for teaching kindergartner's to avoid sexual advances.

Also: § 27-9.1(a) allows any parent to opt the child out of the program, and Subdiv. (d) grants parents an opportunity to examine the course materials.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by asleepathewheel
Then why the 6 was replaced with a K and not, say a 4?

To be comprehensive in it's scoke it seems. Have you read the majority of the bill? I scanned it, and it's mostly dealing with guidelines for school districts to follow if they have sex-ed courses. (I didn't see anything that requires them to have sex-ed courses, or what grades they are required to be in. Though I just scanned it, so it could be in there somewhere.)

To put on my "find the exploit" hat... given the bill with a 6-12 instead of K-12... you could have sex ed courses being put in K-5 which didn't follow any of the guidelines, specifically to avoid the guidelines. Say... abstinence only sex-ed, or sex-ed that wasn't "developmentally appropriate", or sex-ed without including abstinence, or sex-ed courses that weren't opt-out. Would you support that? Or want to close off those loopholes?

[Aeson]

Originally posted by asleepathewheel
Yes, but "not at all" isn't a correct answer within the bounds of the law he voted in favor of. You (plural) can't get around that shall.

It's actually rather easy to get around that "shall".

Let's follow the law to the logical conclusion, shall we? You "shall have X material" in a class if you have a class. You shall have "age appropriate" material. Thus the law states indirectly that you shall not have sex-ed classes in grades where the required material is not "age appropriate". Right?

Of course it's even easier to explain it as a confusion. It's an unintended consequence (though I don't think it would be a consequence) of messing around with the wording of a bill to allow other more acceptable measures in class.

The tinfoil/blinded by political bias explanation is yours, that Obama secretly wants to teach our kids about std's and sex in K even though he refutes it.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Naked Gents Rut
This is completely false. "The people" are in obvious disagreement on what is appropriate on this issue. McCain wouldn't think it had any political traction if the people actually agreed that teaching kindergartners about STD prevention was appropriate.

Um... your last sentence shows clearly you are confused.

The right uses it as an attack because they know (like anyone with half a brain) that the general US public is not going to like a pol who is advocating or implementing sexually explicit courses in K.

[Naked Gents Rut]

So you think the American public is agreed that teaching kindergartners about STD prevention is appropriate?

[Aeson]

No, but those who can read and comprehend English are agreed that you can't.

[Naked Gents Rut]

The bill clearly states that all students in K-12 whose parents don't opt them out of the sex ed program will learn about STD prevention. You claim that the later requirement that the material taught be "age appropriate" somehow prevents the aforementioned teaching of STD prevention to kindergartners, even though there's no clear indication in the bill as to what is and is not appropriate to teach kindergartners about STD prevention and there's certainly no agreed upon standard in the population at large that would make specification of what is and is not "appropriate" unnecessary. Sorry, but I don't think I'm the one who has problems comprehending English here.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Naked Gents Rut
The bill clearly states that all students in K-12 whose parents don't opt them out of the sex ed program will learn about STD prevention.

Please point out where it says that they will, especially in specific grades. As far as I read, it consistently says "if a course is offered...[then it will conform to these guidelines]". Not that it is required that such courses be offered.

I do not see where such classes are required. Certainly not at specific grade levels. (Neither does Z, which makes me feel better about my only skimming through the bill.)

You claim that the later requirement that the material taught be "age appropriate" somehow prevents the aforementioned teaching of STD prevention to kindergartners, even though there's no clear indication in the bill as to what is and is not appropriate to teach kindergartners about STD prevention and there's certainly no agreed upon standard in the population at large that would make specification of what is and is not "appropriate" unnecessary.

I have said that it will prevent age inappropriate material. As far as what is appropriate, I have used that portion of the bill to refute positive claims made that specific material will be taught. I have not made positive claims about what specifically will or will not be be taught. Though I do think, and have stated, that with public view such as it is, that it is very unlikely that explicit material will be deemed "appropriate" for kindergartners. (That may be subject to change in the future.)

Sorry, but I don't think I'm the one who has problems comprehending English here.

Twice now I have said that general consensus in the public is that sexually explicit material is not appropriate in K. Both times you responded to those statements as if I were saying the opposite. I can understand your misconceptions about the bill, since reading that stuff is only "English" in a technical sense... it is your inability to understand extremely simple language like "not" that is funny.

"If it's too hard to look at our society and see this, it is made obvious just in the nature of the attack on Obama itself itself. If it were a popular position, a majority position, to teach kids in K about sex, then it wouldn't be an attack at all." - Aeson

"McCain wouldn't think it had any political traction if the people actually agreed that teaching kindergartners about STD prevention was appropriate." - NGR in "disagreement"

"... they know (like anyone with half a brain) that the general US public is not going to like a pol who is advocating or implementing sexually explicit courses in K" - Aeson

"So you think the American public is agreed that teaching kindergartners about STD prevention is appropriate?" - NGR

[Naked Gents Rut]

Twice now I have said that general consensus in the public is that sexually explicit material is not appropriate in K.

You really are off the farm if you've been talking about "sexually explicit material" all this time. The bill requires school sex-ed programs to teach STD prevention in K-12; it says nothing whatsoever about explicit sexual material. The issue at hand is whether there is an agreement on what non-explicit sex-ed material is "appropriate" for kindergartners and whether adding a vague standard of age-appropriateness to the bill actually negates the risk of potentially offensive information on STD prevention being taught to 5-year olds. There isn't and it doesn't.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
I don't see anything in the bill requiring sex techniques to be taught to kindergarterners. So much for McCain's claim.

Fortunately McCain never made that claim in his ad, so McCain .

One must read Sec 27-9.1.(a) which includes, "Each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered in any of grades K through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV. "

It was originally 6 through 12, but they made it K.

I work for the federal government investigating pension plans. Every mention in plan documents of "shall", we treat as a mandate (Plans aren't required to have employer matching contributions, but if the plan says the sponsor shall do so, then we treat it as mandatory).

It seems that obviously someone though that teaching about sexually transmitted infections, like HIV, was age appropriate for Kindergartners.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Aeson


It's actually rather easy to get around that "shall".

Let's follow the law to the logical conclusion, shall we? You "shall have X material" in a class if you have a class. You shall have "age appropriate" material. Thus the law states indirectly that you shall not have sex-ed classes in grades where the required material is not "age appropriate". Right?

Sure, that works, of course it flies in the face of the rationale Sen. Obama gave for voting on the legislation, namely to teach K'ers what the bad touch is. And according to the law, if sex ed is being taught to k'ers, there shall be some age appropriate discussion of std's.

Originally posted by Aeson
Of course it's even easier to explain it as a confusion. It's an unintended consequence (though I don't think it would be a consequence) of messing around with the wording of a bill to allow other more acceptable measures in class.

Its legislation, of course there are consequences. Shall is a very dangerous word to throw around.

Originally posted by Aeson
The tinfoil/blinded by political bias explanation is yours, that Obama secretly wants to teach our kids about std's and sex in K even though he refutes it.

See my first point in this post.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Naked Gents Rut
You really are off the farm if you've been talking about "sexually explicit material" all this time.

It's a somewhat nebulous and relative term used to refer to the type of materials so far presented. If you need further explanation as to what I was referring to, it is already posted in the thread. Just look for references to the type of material posted by myself and others. It's not that hard, even you should be capable of it.

(If on the other hand you are not capable of it, feel free to ask me, and I will quote the applicable statements for you.)

The bill requires school sex-ed programs to teach STD prevention in K-12;

No, it's a set of guidelines for sex-ed programs.

it says nothing whatsoever about explicit sexual material.

You seem to be hung up on this term. It doesn't only apply to clear representation of sexual acts. (Although that is one definition of "explicit", among several.) Sexual paraphernalia and related subject matter, dealt with in an explicit manner, would also qualify.

Such as explicit descriptions of STDs, as it is sexually related material. (You know... the whole "S" part of "STD".)

The issue at hand is whether there is an agreement on what non-explicit sex-ed material is "appropriate" for kindergartners and whether adding a vague standard of age-appropriateness to the bill actually negates the risk of potentially offensive information on STD prevention being taught to 5-year olds.

There isn't and it doesn't.

You have it backwards. You are pretending the bill forces a thing, when in actuality it does not, and in fact introduces a method that can potentially be used to disallow what you are claiming is forced.