Thanks To Better Sex Ed, California’s Teen Birth Rate Has Plummeted By 60 Percent

[sangha]

Oh, I think arbitrarily villainizing an entire group of people based on baseless presumptions fits the bill.

I didn't see any "villainizing" either

And I'm pretty sure that 50% of a group is not "an entire group of people". Nor has he made any baseless presumptions.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

I didn't see any "villainizing" either

And I'm pretty sure that 50% of a group is not "an entire group of people". Nor has he made any baseless presumptions.

He said they think teenagers (I'm assuming he meant girls) are sluts who need to keep their legs together, 50% of a group is a group, and he presented no evidence beyond the anecdotal to back up his claim. I'd say that fits everything you're saying it doesn't fit, sorry.

 

[sangha]

He said they think teenagers (I'm assuming he meant girls) are sluts who need to keep their legs together,

It is a common refrain.

50% of a group is a group,

So IOW, he's criticizing the entire group of people that his criticisms apply to.

How is that bigotry?

If I say that 100% of the people who commit crimes are criminals, does that mean I'm being bigoted because I've "villainized an entire group"?

and he presented no evidence beyond the anecdotal to back up his claim.

You want scientific confirmation for his opinion?

We have a forum for science. This is a political forum. If you're going to assume that people's political opinions are out of bounds and bigoted because they're not scientifically proven, you may want to limit the forums you participate in.

BTW, I didn't see anything but anecdotal evidence for your claim about how many supporters of abstinence only sex ed were motivated solely by a concern for teen sex and the spread of STD's.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

It is a common refrain.

Then it's true of the people who said it, but you can't extrapolate that to apply to all or a significant portion of the population that opposes sex ed in schools.

So IOW, he's criticizing the entire group of people that his criticisms apply to.

How is that bigotry?

He's guessing that a large portion of the group of people who oppose sex ed in schools oppose it for very unflattering reasons without any kind of actual evidence. If he'd said that about a particular person without proof, that'd be libel. Since he said it about a group without proof, that's bigotry.

BTW, I didn't see anything but anecdotal evidence for your claim about how many supporters of abstinence only sex ed were motivated solely by a concern for teen sex and the spread of STD's.

See, that's the great thing about giving people the benefit of the doubt -- in the absence of actual evidence, that's what you're supposed to do, whereas if you make an accusation you should be able to back it up.

 

[Captain Adverse]

I'll give it a shot:

More abortions and less fun. That's progress?

I think you meant "more FUN and more abortions," right?

I noticed you conveniently ignore my point: less preg = less fun. What do you have to say about that?

OOPS! Then I saw this. Wierd; you are assuming the kids were having less sex while having more abortions? That doesn't make sense.

 

[sangha]

Then it's true of the people who said it, but you can't extrapolate that to apply to all or a significant portion of the population that opposes sex ed in schools.

Sure you can. That sort of extrapolation forms the basis of polling, which has proven to be pretty accurate.

In addition, we have a large # of right wing politicians who say that, and receive a lot of support, so it's not just those who say it. It's those who support them when they say it

He's guessing that a large portion of the group of people who oppose sex ed in schools oppose it for very unflattering reasons without any kind of actual evidence. If he'd said that about a particular person without proof, that'd be libel. Since he said it about a group without proof, that's bigotry.

He is making an estimate. You have done the same, though with much less specificity

See, that's the great thing about giving people the benefit of the doubt -- in the absence of actual evidence, that's what you're supposed to do, whereas if you make an accusation you should be able to back it up.

Well, not exactly. In the absence of evidence (and there is plenty of evidence), one should not render an opinion either way. But you didn't let that stop you from characterizing the motivations of people you know nothing about.

The fact is, there are a lot of right wingers who are opposed to recreational sex (ie anti-sex) and who think that women are supposed to be submissive to men. If you want to think that's an "accusation", I see nothing wrong with that as long as that doesn't keep you from realizing that it is also a fact

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

Sure you can. That sort of extrapolation forms the basis of polling, which has proven to be pretty accurate.

That isn't polling. That's not even straw polling. That isn't any kind of polling. It's not even a focus group.

In addition, we have a large # of right wing politicians who say that, and receive a lot of support, so it's not just those who say it. It's those who support them when they say it

Great, take as your example the hyper-political hysterically partisan sell-out jackasses that we're given no choice but to support because of how they vote on the X number of issues we value the most.

He is making an estimate. You have done the same, though with much less specificity

If you make an accusation you should be able to back it up.

Well, not exactly. In the absence of evidence (and there is plenty of evidence), one should not render an opinion either way. But you didn't let that stop you from characterizing the motivations of people you know nothing about.

Incorrect. That's what the presumption of innocence is about -- the institutional giving of the benefit of the doubt. It is appropriate to do so when there is no evidence to back up damaging accusations.

 

[sangha]

That isn't polling. That's not even straw polling. That isn't any kind of polling. It's not even a focus group.



Great, take as your example the hyper-political hysterically partisan sell-out jackasses that we're given no choice but to support because of how they vote on the X number of issues we value the most.

You seem to be referring to people who receive the support of millions of people based on their hysterically partisan positions on issues relating to sexuality.

Seriously TED, you can't be blind to the frequent depictions of women who get abortions as "sluts" or the milder "irresponsible"; of gays as being "promiscous", "child molesters", "disease ridden"; and on and on. It is exceedingly apparent that there are large #'s of people who are opposed to recreational sex of any kind besides sex for procreation

If you make an accusation you should be able to back it up.

"Accusation" along with "bulk" and "anti-vagina" are terms that you, and only you, have used.

I've seen no accusations, nor any bigotry or villainization; just the stating of facts and an estimate

Incorrect. That's what the presumption of innocence is about -- the institutional giving of the benefit of the doubt. It is appropriate to do so when there is no evidence to back up damaging accusations.

We are not in court. This is a political discussion board. If you are discomforted by people rendering opinions, or by estimates, you may want to consider a course of action other than trying to silence others by making accusations of bigotry and villainizing them for speaking their mind.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

You seem to be referring to people who receive the support of millions of people based on their hysterically partisan positions on issues relating to sexuality.

Seriously TED, you can't be blind to the frequent depictions of women who get abortions as "sluts" or the milder "irresponsible"; of gays as being "promiscous", "child molesters", "disease ridden"; and on and on. It is exceedingly apparent that there are large #'s of people who are opposed to recreational sex of any kind.

Of course there are particular lunatics who go there. I'm sure they have their audience too, but I'm not going to try to quantify how many people really think that way or accuse people who disagree with me on any given subject of being a part of that audience without some kind of evidence.

I've seen no accusations, nor any bigotry or villainization; just the stating of facts and an estimate

When you don't have evidence, you hardly have facts, and saying unflattering things about an individual or a group of people is an accusation. If you're going to make an accusation you should be able to back it up. This is really basic stuff, it shouldn't be hard to grasp.

 

[sangha]

Of course there are particular lunatics who go there. I'm sure they have their audience too, but I'm not going to try to quantify how many people really think that way or accuse people who disagree with me on any given subject of being a part of that audience without some kind of evidence.

But you have tried to quantify (ie "many") people do not think that way

And I don't remember anyone saying that you were anti-sex or anti-vagina.

When you don't have evidence, you hardly have facts, and saying unflattering things about an individual or a group of people is an accusation. If you're going to make an accusation you should be able to back it up. This is really basic stuff, it shouldn't be hard to grasp.

Oh, but there is a lot of evidence that there are many people who are anti-sex and believe that women should submissive, and should not have equal rights. We have both referred to some of that evidence.

And again, you are free to call it an accusation, but your attempts to villainize others for stating a political opinion are not going to work.

And saying something unflattering about someone is not an accusation if it's true. In that case, it's a fact.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

But you have tried to quantify (ie "many") people do not think that way

And I don't remember anyone saying that you were anti-sex or anti-vagina.



Oh, but there is a lot of evidence that there are many people who are anti-sex and believe that women should submissive, and should not have equal rights. We have both referred to some of that evidence.

And again, you are free to call it an accusation, but your attempts to villainize others for stating a political opinion are not going to work.

And saying something unflattering about someone is not an accusation if it's true. In that case, it's a fact.

I don't know how to have a conversation with you when you don't understand the definitions of the pivotal words being used or about giving someone the benefit of the doubt. Call that a victory or whatever you want.

 

[Captain Adverse]

See, that's the great thing about giving people the benefit of the doubt -- in the absence of actual evidence, that's what you're supposed to do, whereas if you make an accusation you should be able to back it up.

Sure you can. That sort of extrapolation forms the basis of polling, which has proven to be pretty accurate.

HEY!!! I have absolutely NO FAITH in POLLS...

...unless they agree with my positions. LOL

 

[sangha]

I don't know how to have a conversation with you when you don't understand the definitions of the pivotal words being used or about giving someone the benefit of the doubt. Call that a victory or whatever you want.

If you believed what you spewed about benefit of the doubt, you would not have spent so much time accusing someone else of bigotry

 

[paddymcdougall]

Rather than arguing who used "too inclusive" of a word to include their group of rightwingers, can we get back to the thread topic? You both are right. There are rightwingers who genuinely care and there are rightwingers who don't want women to have fun sex.

Sex education works; Yea for California for decreasing the rates of teen pregnancy and abortions! and yea to other states who have done the same!

Now let's hope states whose numbers aren't so good will use these studies to incorporate good sex ed programs that work into their public schools.

Note - I have no problem with people having fun sex, in or out of marriage. But teens shouldn't be having babies. Personally, I think they should wait till post high school to have sex, but since many of them won't (I had a lot of friends in the old days who all had sex in high school - I know they won't wait) we need to teach them how to avoid getting pregnant and how to avoid diseases.

And for those who wait - this is still very valuable information that they can use when planning their family. It's all good.

 

[Thrilla]

I'm not passing any laws saying they have to have sex before they marry.... .

nobody is passing laws saying they can't have sex before marriage either <shrugs>

 

[Smeagol]

Read more @: Thanks To Better Sex Ed, California's Teen Birth Rate Has Plummeted By 60 Percent | ThinkProgress

There we have it. States that sex ed classes, with information that contains birth control actually leads to less teen pregnancies! Who woulda thunk!? [/FONT][/COLOR]

I wonder what the teen birthrate would be if we began offering mandatory Parent Ed classes to the moms and dads of kids who recieve government assistance and/or have kids in the public school system.