I need YOUR help! Examples of lies by Republicans

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


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.

How interesting that you skipped over the parts Imran quoted, do you not have a comment on that salient part?

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


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.

I don't think non-lawyers appreciate the power of "shall" in legislation or contracts. (broken record yet?)

[Aeson]

Originally posted by asleepathewheel
Sure, that works ...

I am glad you can admit that "you" can get around that "shall".

... 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.

Well if we're to consider what Obama has said:

"But it's the right thing to do, to provide age-appropriate sex education, science-based sex education in schools." - Obama

As for what is age appropriate:

"Nobody's suggesting that kindergartners are going to be getting information about sex in the way that we think about it" - Obama

"Although again, that's going to be determined on a case by case basis by local communities and local school boards." - Obama

Are you against allowing local communities and school boards to determine what is age appropriate for their kids?

And according to the law, if sex ed is being taught to k'ers, there shall be some age appropriate discussion of std's.

And what if the "age appropriate discussion of std's" is determined by those making the determination to be "none"?

Shall is a very dangerous word to throw around.

But as we've already agreed, circumventable even through the wording of the bill in question.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
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. "

Are you saying "age appropriate" sex education for K is "comprehensive sex education" in your interpretation of the terms?

[Aeson]

Originally posted by asleepathewheel
I don't think non-lawyers appreciate the power of "shall" in legislation or contracts. (broken record yet?)

I think you're relying too much on your supposed "authority" in the matter and not enough on actually supporting your assertions.

I understand "shall". And I've already refuted you on one point, where you made a positive claim about that "shall" and then agreed with me that your claim was fallacious. (Not to mention how you're treating the "shall" in one part of the bill differently than the "shall" in another part of the bill.)

Also, I asked you a direct question, which you ignored, and now you are saying that Z's not directly addressing something Imran quoted is "interesting". Well guess what I think of your dodging a direct question in light of your statements about Z's action?

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Aeson


I am glad you can admit that "you" can get around that "shall".

I was being kind to you. Of course the answer is that you just don't have the sex ed class (I was wondering when you would get to this response). The law doesn't mandate sex ed for k-6, it just places requirements on what is discussed. However, since Obama has stated that he voted on this bill to teach kids about predators, apparently he wants some form of early school sex education.

Originally posted by Aeson

Well if we're to consider what Obama has said:

"But it's the right thing to do, to provide age-appropriate sex education, science-based sex education in schools." - Obama

As for what is age appropriate:

"Nobody's suggesting that kindergartners are going to be getting information about sex in the way that we think about it" - Obama

"Although again, that's going to be determined on a case by case basis by local communities and local school boards." - Obama

The sound of backpedaling.

Are you against allowing local communities and school boards to determine what is age appropriate for their kids?

I'm against a sex law that lowers the grade from 6 to k, I find that to be quite inappropriate. 4th, I think is fine.

And what if the "age appropriate discussion of std's" is determined by those making the determination to be "none"?

Then they would be in violation of the first section of the law.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Aeson


I think you're relying too much on your supposed "authority" in the matter and not enough on actually supporting your assertions.

I understand "shall". And I've already refuted you on one point, where you made a positive claim about that "shall" and then agreed with me that your claim was fallacious. (Not to mention how you're treating the "shall" in one part of the bill differently than the "shall" in another part of the bill.)

Also, I asked you a direct question, which you ignored, and now you are saying that Z's not directly addressing something Imran quoted is "interesting". Well guess what I think of your dodging a direct question in light of your statements about Z's action?

1. If I missed a question from you, I'm sorry, you've said a lot in this thread and I probably just skimmed past it, it wasn't intentional (probably )
2. Your way out of the shall is to "opt out" of the sex-education. Is this satisfactory to you? Ignoring sex education entirely.
3. Z referred to numerous passages of the bill without addressing the main issue at hand, the change of K and the requirements placed thereon.
4. Your comments of tin-foil hattery and "guess what I think of your dodging" ....if we can't have an interesting conversation without that business, then my apologies.

Do I think Obama wants to teach k'ers sex ed that Coulter et al believe/say? No, of course not. I think he signed off on a poorly worded bill which demonstrates poor judgment. Why the change from 6-k? I bet he wishes he could take that one back (not that he wrote the bill, just voted in its favor)

[Aeson]

Originally posted by asleepathewheel
I was being kind to you.

Thanks for "being kind to" me by admitting I was correct.

Of course the answer is that you just don't have the sex ed class (I was wondering when you would get to this response).

If you were wondering when I would get to that response, thanks again for leaving yourself wide open to be refuted by it by claiming, "You (plural) can't get around that shall."

The law doesn't mandate sex ed for k-6, it just places requirements on what is discussed.

"If" it is discussed.

However, since Obama has stated that he voted on this bill to teach kids about predators, apparently he wants some form of early school sex education.

In an "age appropriate" manner, of course.

The sound of backpedaling.

I personally think he's covering up a goof, or oversight, since I can't find anywhere where he's advocated teaching K's about std's or other more explicit material you'd expect in later education as "age appropriate".

You seem to agree with me in your next response.

"I think he signed off on a poorly worded bill which demonstrates poor judgment." - sleepy

"Backpeddling" is when you take one position and then back off of it trying to pretend it was never your position in the first place. Not when you do something that has unintended consequences. I think we can agree it was a "goof", something he would have wanted to do differently if he had it over to do again.

I'm against a sex law that lowers the grade from 6 to k, I find that to be quite inappropriate. 4th, I think is fine.

Why is it appropriate for a 10yo but not a 9yo? What about if the 9yo skips a grade? (I myself attended 5th grade classes when I was in 2nd grade.) Seems rather arbitrary to me. I learned my "sex ed" (the truly explicit kind) in 1st-2nd grade on the playground mostly. Could be sooner these days, with internet and TV so prevalent in our culture. I do wish I had learned the "good" parts of sex ed along with what I was taught at that age though.

(Best is from parents, but I would have settled for a teacher with scientifically verifiable curriculum. Of course the communities I was raised in were "abstinence only", and so "age appropriate" would have disallowed virtually everything besides a vague mentioning of a stork. I know my parents didn't intend to undermine my life that way, but it's a simple fact I faced more problems than I should have had to later in life because of it. And it could have been much worse if wasn't for dumb luck.)

But anyways, if you don't agree with your school board's decision, you can just take your kid out of the class. It's a non-issue really.

Then they would be in violation of the first section of the law.

Which means the bill opens up the possibility to disallow sex ed in K-5. It actually allows for potential sex ed courses to be struck down as illegal, either by disallowing parents to opt out their kids, or by not following "age appropriate" guidelines that are set (by the school district), or by not teaching about STDs. (Whereas if it was 6-12 only, you could legally teach sex ed that is not age appropriate to K-5.)

If I were a parent who opposed having my kids taught anything sex ed related in K-5 I would love this bill. If they teach anything sex ed, they have to teach STDs... so you get 2 chances instead of one. You can target the "age appropriate" of STDs, or the non-inclusion of them. (While opting your kid out.) None of which you can do without the protections afforded by the bill, or with a bill that was 6-12 only.

1. If I missed a question from you, I'm sorry, you've said a lot in this thread and I probably just skimmed past it, it wasn't intentional (probably )

Ok, it dealt with the above passage.

"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

I'll admit, it is essentially a rhetorical question. But you can still answer it of course. The concept behind it is important to the issue though, and I would like to hear your thoughts on that portion of the subject matter.

2. Your way out of the shall is to "opt out" of the sex-education. Is this satisfactory to you? Ignoring sex education entirely.

That's certainly not "my way". Even if that direction was "my way", it would only be an "opt out" until such time as the subject material was "age appropriate". Another way would be to go at the "comprehensive" portion of the statement you and Imran are relying on, which would work if it's simply semantics, though I admit that I'm not sure of the legal status or implications of that labelling. Or try to get the bill amended in such a way as to make it less contradictory.

The best way, and "my way" if I were to claim one, is of course for parents to "opt out" at their discretion and teach their kids what they need to know in an appropriate manner. (Fat chance of that happening.)

3. Z referred to numerous passages of the bill without addressing the main issue at hand, the change of K and the requirements placed thereon.

It may have been your main point, and Imran's, but it wasn't necessarily Z's. He is free to address what he wants. As are you and Imran, right?

4. Your comments of tin-foil hattery and "guess what I think of your dodging" ....if we can't have an interesting conversation without that business, then my apologies.

It is my opinion that it is "tin foil" to assume that a person's stated position is not their actual position based on what is (agreed upon between us) an oversight of the potential implications in a rather poorly worded bill. I am glad that you have expressed that you do not hold such a position. (Perhaps I should now call you on back-peddling from your previous statements? )

As for me giving my opinion about how you debate, I will do so at my discretion. If you call someone on apparently "dodging" a subject while similarly apparently "dodging" a subject yourself, I will point it out. And obviously I don't have a high opinion of such actions. So when I point it out, it will be in a derogatory manner most likely. (Though I'd like to point out I was rather restrained in that regard. I do think you're a respectable person, even if we disagree here or if I don't like an argument you use.)

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Fortunately McCain never made that claim in his ad, so McCain .

Direct quote from the ad:

"Obama's one accomplishment?"

Ok, we can stop here if we're just waiting for the first ridiculously unsupported statement. Regardless of what you think of his "accomplishments", especially in the light this video used the term in, there have obviously been more than one.

"Legislation to teach comprehensive sex education to kindergartners"

This does make it sound like it is law that kindergartners are taught "comprehensive sex education". (You would have to be extremely naive to not think that was the intent even.)

It's technically a false claim as well. The legislation does not teach comprehensive sex education to anyone. It gives guidelines for classes which teach comprehensive sex education.

The rest of the bill is ignored (good or bad), and while that's par for the course, it's also misleading in it's own right.

"Learning about sex before learning to read? I'm John McCain and I approve this message."

Just included cause it sounds kinda funny the way it's delivered. Like John McCain is saying he learned about sex before learning to read, or that it's his motto.

(Though even that is a bit misleading as there are already those who can read before kindergarten, or learn about sex before kindergarten, and of course (many more) who are illiterate well into their teens, if not indefinitely.)

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Aeson
If you were wondering when I would get to that response, thanks again for leaving yourself wide open to be refuted by it by claiming, "You (plural) can't get around that shall."

It isn't the same argument, shall and the avoidance. and it was my first thought when reading the bill-

.snip, not a disrespectful snip because you put some time into that passage, and I agree more or less with you.

It is my opinion that it is "tin foil" to assume that a person's stated position is not their actual position based on what is (agreed upon between us) an oversight of the potential implications in a rather poorly worded bill. I am glad that you have expressed that you do not hold such a position. (Perhaps I should now call you on back-peddling from your previous statements? )

I used a smiley early on to attempt to denote that I didn't take the charges against Obama seriously, if that wasn't conveyed properly, then that is on me of course. Many of these charges back and forth are quite ridiculous, and as this board is heavily pro-obama (blindly in some cases), I choose to play around on the McCain side. If I were on a heavily republican website, i would be be arguing the opposite. Frankly, I've been out of work for a week due to the hurricane and I need the entertainment (no offense to you!) and intellectual stimulation. In reality I'm voting McCain but hold no illusions about what I'm buying into.

As for me giving my opinion about how you debate, I will do so at my discretion. If you call someone on apparently "dodging" a subject while similarly apparently "dodging" a subject yourself, I will point it out. And obviously I don't have a high opinion of such actions. So when I point it out, it will be in a derogatory manner most likely. (Though I'd like to point out I was rather restrained in that regard. I do think you're a respectable person, even if we disagree here or if I don't like an argument you use.)

Sure, I'll disagree with you on me dodging anything in this thread, intentionally at least.

:hugs:

[Aeson]

Originally posted by asleepathewheel
I used a smiley early on to attempt to denote that I didn't take the charges against Obama seriously, if that wasn't conveyed properly, then that is on me of course.

I know (I'll let you decide to what part)

Many of these charges back and forth are quite ridiculous, and as this board is heavily pro-obama (blindly in some cases), I choose to play around on the McCain side.

The McCain supporters are more fun though. I think it's cause there's a certain tenacity necessary to go against the grain here?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Aeson
Are you saying "age appropriate" sex education for K is "comprehensive sex education" in your interpretation of the terms?

It seems like it. After all, they changed it from 6 to K in that section detailing "comprehensive sex ed". Perhaps Obama didn't intend it, but it most definitely can be read that way.

[Dr Strangelove]

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

Hey kids, if a dirty man with funny scars on his arms comes up to you and offers you candy if you'll come with him behind the dumpster to play a game you should run go tell a grown up!

How's that for teaching HIV prevention to little kids.

Oh, and in Africa little kids really do get HIV from grown ups, but I suppose you'd be against anyone trying to teach the tykes not to play those games, eh?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Oh, and in Africa little kids really do get HIV from grown ups, but I suppose you'd be against anyone trying to teach the tykes not to play those games, eh?

I could be wrong but I'm not exactly sure that Illinois is actually in Africa.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Obviously you don't subscribe to the new geography, DD