Facebook, kids and public schools

[TButtrick]

Teachers should only involve themselves if its a school related indecent...period. They offended student should go his parents. If the parent wants to take action then so be it but the school has no right to intervene in the scenario you describe. Have you been reading what the IPPF wants in Schools? OMG! Facebook is the least of our problems. Freakin liberals.

http://newsmax.com/InsideCover/Plann...2/09/id/349386

[Tommy]

Did I just read an "OMG!" in the Lounge? If I see a "BFF" I may have to leave.

[65LA]

If you want teachers to be involved with their students .. it can be a useful way to open communication. How it was handled within the school, I think it would depend upon the comment added. I've heard too many times venues such as Facebook and Text Messages are used as another means to taunt, tease or bully. If it was the student's way of reaching out.. who is to say it wouldn't prevent a horrific incident - such as pulling out a gun and killing someone or commmitting suicide.??

[Tommy]

Originally Posted by 65LA

If you want teachers to be involved with their students .. it can be a useful way to open communication. How it was handled within the school, I think it would depend upon the comment added. I've heard too many times venues such as Facebook and Text Messages are used as another means to taunt, tease or bully. If it was the student's way of reaching out.. who is to say it wouldn't prevent a horrific incident - such as pulling out a gun and killing someone or commmitting suicide.??

Where would you draw the line? If a younger brother complained to a teacher because his older brother teased him over the weekend and he didn't like the way his parents handled the situation, should the school staff step in and speak to the older brother about the problem? Not in my view. Maybe I'm just too old. I'm not accustomed to schools doing the job of parents. I'd be happy if they just did a competent job of teaching.

[TButtrick]

Originally Posted by Tommy

I'd be happy if they just did a competent job of teaching.

Amen. Our High School is ranked one of the highest in the state and we still have teachers whose classes consist of a Power Point presentation of the notes needed to take the upcoming test. He leaves them up for the entire class period day in, and day out while he sits and corrects tests. We have several other teachers who rather than stay after school to conduct requested extra help, they go to the local library and charge the student $60/hour for "tutoring" Don't get me started.

[VRM]

Originally Posted by TButtrick

Teachers should only involve themselves if its a school related indecent...period. They offended student should go his parents. If the parent wants to take action then so be it but the school has no right to intervene in the scenario you describe. Have you been reading what the IPPF wants in Schools? OMG! Facebook is the least of our problems. Freakin liberals.

http://newsmax.com/InsideCover/Plann...2/09/id/349386

Have you even read the report?

It's about education and giving people the knowledge to be able to make the best choices for their health and future.

Do you realise that countries that teach sex ed in schools have significantly lower abortion and divorce rates?

A Johns Hopkins University study showed that teenagers who took a virginity pledge had .1% fewer sex partners than those who did not take the pledge. Basically statistically irrelevant.
Unfortunately - even worse, those who did take the pledge were less likely to have safe sex resulting in potentially more STDs and pregnancy.

So why do conservatives want to keep people in the dark about sex? If a 5 year old asks where babies come from - do you tell him a stork? Do you say the same to a 10 year old? How about 16?

Steve

[RAZOR]

Originally Posted by VRM

Have you even read the report?

It's about education and giving people the knowledge to be able to make the best choices for their health and future.

Do you realise that countries that teach sex ed in schools have significantly lower abortion and divorce rates?

A Johns Hopkins University study showed that teenagers who took a virginity pledge had .1% fewer sex partners than those who did not take the pledge. Basically statistically irrelevant.
Unfortunately - even worse, those who did take the pledge were less likely to have safe sex resulting in potentially more STDs and pregnancy.

So why do conservatives want to keep people in the dark about sex? If a 5 year old asks where babies come from - do you tell him a stork? Do you say the same to a 10 year old? How about 16?

Steve

Maybe its because Conservatives believe it is the role of the home and not the Government to make those decisions. The schools are doing a piss poor job at the education, so maybe a little more focus on skills would be more appropriate. And then maybe Liberals would realize that realize is not spelled realise.

[VRM]

Originally Posted by RAZOR

Maybe its because Conservatives believe it is the role of the home and not the Government to make those decisions. The schools are doing a piss poor job at the education, so maybe a little more focus on skills would be more appropriate. And then maybe Liberals would realize that realize is not spelled realise.

The home is doing a piss-poor job teaching sex ed, as evidenced by stats from a variety of sources. Teaching abstinence only is not getting the job done - show me one teenager who is practising abstinence and I will show you two who are not.

The books I read when I was a wee young thing were primarily by English authors. And Masterpiece Theatre (Not the version with Allistair Cookie Monster) was something I was always allowed to stay up late for. I learned to spell from them. Leave it to a conservative to try and correct Dickens.

Steve

[RAZOR]

VRM,Who said anything abstinence? Once again the people are not smart enough to handle the job so let the government take over the responsibility of the individual.
So leave it to a liberal to once again choose European ways and values over the American way and values.

[VRM]

Originally Posted by RAZOR

VRM,Who said anything abstinence? Once again the people are not smart enough to handle the job so let the government take over the responsibility of the individual.
So leave it to a liberal to once again choose European ways and values over the American way and values.

Razor,
The report TB talks about mentioned abstinence-only education compared to abstinence taught with contraception methods, STD dangers, and how all of it works.
You may be smart enough to educate your kids, but obviously the numbers indicate that a lot of people are not. How do we fix that problem? The conservative method seems to be to pretend that it does not exist.

European engineers invented the internal combustion engine - does that mean you don't use them because they were not invented here?
I prefer to think that one of the reasons this country does so well is that we can recognise and utilise all the best stuff from whatever source. Other countries are having better results that we are, so learning from their methods would be in our best interests.

Steve

[RAZOR]

Originally Posted by VRM

Razor,
The report TB talks about mentioned abstinence-only education compared to abstinence taught with contraception methods, STD dangers, and how all of it works.
You may be smart enough to educate your kids, but obviously the numbers indicate that a lot of people are not. How do we fix that problem? The conservative method seems to be to pretend that it does not exist.

European engineers invented the internal combustion engine - does that mean you don't use them because they were not invented here?
I prefer to think that one of the reasons this country does so well is that we can recognise and utilise all the best stuff from whatever source. Other countries are having better results that we are, so learning from their methods would be in our best interests.

Steve

"Pretend it doesn't exist" this seems to be the misdirection of the left on a number of issues. The left makes this accusation on any issue when the conservative doesn't want government involvement, so with the worldview of the left if we don't want the government involved it must be that we are in a state of ignorance or denial.
I have no objection to learning better methods no matter the country of origin, I do have a problem adopting a value system that replacez ours. The left lovez European valuez, I agree with Tocqueville, and believe in American Exceptionalizm, the Left for whatever reazon doezn't share that belief

[TButtrick]

Originally Posted by VRM

Have you even read the report?

It's about education and giving people the knowledge to be able to make the best choices for their health and future.

Do you realise that countries that teach sex ed in schools have significantly lower abortion and divorce rates?

A Johns Hopkins University study showed that teenagers who took a virginity pledge had .1% fewer sex partners than those who did not take the pledge. Basically statistically irrelevant.
Unfortunately - even worse, those who did take the pledge were less likely to have safe sex resulting in potentially more STDs and pregnancy.

So why do conservatives want to keep people in the dark about sex? If a 5 year old asks where babies come from - do you tell him a stork? Do you say the same to a 10 year old? How about 16?

Steve

Yes, I read the report.. did you? Did you read that they advocate teaching ten year olds "the pleasures of sex" This is far beyond "keeping them in the dark about sex" and yes, I'd deliver the message dependent on age. That's what smart people do. Teaching of STDs and pregnancy is one thing but teaching them of the pleasures of sex? What has gone so wrong regarding childhood sex education that makes us feel we need government intervention to any extent. What on earth would these actions accomplish? More sex? More teen pregnancies? Oh I get it. As long as liberals can make abortion legal, who cares?

[VRM]

Originally Posted by TButtrick

Yes, I read the report.. did you? Did you read that they advocate teaching ten year olds "the pleasures of sex" This is far beyond "keeping them in the dark about sex" and yes, I'd deliver the message dependent on age. That's what smart people do. Teaching of STDs and pregnancy is one thing but teaching them of the pleasures of sex? What has gone so wrong regarding childhood sex education that makes us feel we need government intervention to any extent. What on earth would these actions accomplish? More sex? More teen pregnancies? Oh I get it. As long as liberals can make abortion legal, who cares?

Nope - there is nothing in the report about teaching 10 year olds about the pleasure of sex. It says that in the news story only.
So if you really read the report please tell me what page this reference is on - and send a link to the report you are reading from. If I am wrong I will say so. Are you willing to do the same?

As for what has gone wrong I would think that the numbers would speak for themselves. We have higher teen pregnancies, higher abortion rates, and higher divorce rates than countries the do have sex ed in schools.
If you want to reduce abortions then teach sex ed in schools.

Steve

[TButtrick]

Originally Posted by VRM

Nope - there is nothing in the report about teaching 10 year olds about the pleasure of sex. It says that in the news story only.
So if you really read the report please tell me what page this reference is on - and send a link to the report you are reading from. If I am wrong I will say so. Are you willing to do the same?

As for what has gone wrong I would think that the numbers would speak for themselves. We have higher teen pregnancies, higher abortion rates, and higher divorce rates than countries the do have sex ed in schools.
If you want to reduce abortions then teach sex ed in schools.

Steve

First, you seem to be aware that a certain dose of sex education might reduce teen pregnancy. Given this knowledge, are you not capable yourself of "telling" or "teaching" your children what YOU think is the appropriate level of their understanding of sex? You really need some outside governing group to make that decision for you?

Second, did you think that this quote meant the IPPF would "tell" them the pleasures of sex in Sunday School or Catholic School?

"Young people’s sexuality is still contentious for many religious institutions,” the report says. “Fundamentalist and other religious groups — the Catholic Church and madrasas (Islamic schools) for example — have imposed tremendous barriers that prevent young people, particularly, from obtaining information and services related to sex and reproduction. Currently, many religious teachings deny the pleasurable and positive aspects of sex.”

Further, what did you think this statement meant?

"A new Planned Parenthood report advocates telling children as young as 10 about the pleasures of sex and undermines religious taboos against premarital sex"

Did you think the IPPF was just suggesting that parents "tell" their children as young as ten about the pleasures of sex? We're talking about The Pleasures of Sex as being one of many topics included in Sex Education. I didn't suggest banning Sex Education but questioning the topic of The Pleasures of Sex being included for "children as young as ten". Besides, the first time they masturbate, they'll have learned a whole lot more about the pleasures of sex than any school can teach.

You can hide behind technicalities if you wish but you know darn well what I was basing my argument on.

[VRM]

Originally Posted by TButtrick

First, you seem to be aware that a certain dose of sex education might reduce teen pregnancy. Given this knowledge, are you not capable yourself of "telling" or "teaching" your children what YOU think is the appropriate level of their understanding of sex? You really need some outside governing group to make that decision for you?

Second, did you think that this quote meant the IPPF would "tell" them the pleasures of sex in Sunday School or Catholic School?

"Young people’s sexuality is still contentious for many religious institutions,” the report says. “Fundamentalist and other religious groups — the Catholic Church and madrasas (Islamic schools) for example — have imposed tremendous barriers that prevent young people, particularly, from obtaining information and services related to sex and reproduction. Currently, many religious teachings deny the pleasurable and positive aspects of sex.”

Further, what did you think this statement meant?

"A new Planned Parenthood report advocates telling children as young as 10 about the pleasures of sex and undermines religious taboos against premarital sex"

Did you think the IPPF was just suggesting that parents "tell" their children as young as ten about the pleasures of sex? We're talking about The Pleasures of Sex as being one of many topics included in Sex Education. I didn't suggest banning Sex Education but questioning the topic of The Pleasures of Sex being included for "children as young as ten". Besides, the first time they masturbate, they'll have learned a whole lot more about the pleasures of sex than any school can teach.

You can hide behind technicalities if you wish but you know darn well what I was basing my argument on.

You are kidding, right? What you posted was an editorial NOT the actual report. The actual report is called 'Stand and Deliver'. Again, give me the link of the report that you read so I can see if it is the same one that I am referring to.

The editorial you posted made all kinds of incorrect conclusions and completely bogus statements because they do not seem to have understood the actual report. It does not seem that you have understood it either. Go look at page 10 and the side note called 'Defining adolescence', and then go back and re-read the entire report - all 44 pages - and then tell me what page the part about teaching 10 year olds about the pleasures of sex shows up on.

You were basing your argument on someones incorrect opinion about what the report said, rather than the report itself. If you consider that a technicality...

Steve

[Wayne Maybury]

I was going to ask how this got onto conservatives versus liberals but I will keep out of that.

One of the biggest problems the younger members of our society face is recognizing that there are consequences to their actions. It appears that a high percentage of the youth in North America seem to completely disregard this fact. They seem to think that they can do whatever they want and there will never be any consequences.

Wayne

[TButtrick]

Originally Posted by VRM

You are kidding, right? What you posted was an editorial NOT the actual report. The actual report is called 'Stand and Deliver'. Again, give me the link of the report that you read so I can see if it is the same one that I am referring to.

The editorial you posted made all kinds of incorrect conclusions and completely bogus statements because they do not seem to have understood the actual report. It does not seem that you have understood it either. Go look at page 10 and the side note called 'Defining adolescence', and then go back and re-read the entire report - all 44 pages - and then tell me what page the part about teaching 10 year olds about the pleasures of sex shows up on.

You were basing your argument on someones incorrect opinion about what the report said, rather than the report itself. If you consider that a technicality...

Steve

I suspect the editorial I posted (one of many on the same subject drawing the same conclusion) made the conclusion from the statement on page 28.

Currently, many religious teachings deny the pleasurable and positive aspects of sex and limited guidelines for sexual education often focus on abstinence before marriage (although evidence shows this strategy has been ineffective in many settings). The reality is, young people are sexual beings and many of them are religious as well. There is a need for pragmatism, to address life as it is and not as it might be in an ideal world.

Whereas the IPPF repeatedly defines "young people" as ages 10-24. page 10 per your earlier sidebar reference.

I read that as the IPPF being critical and NOT SUPPORTING of religous teachings that "deny the pleasurable and positive aspects of sex" and continuing in the next sentence by defining the group of people who are being denied as "young people" (ages10-24). It infers that "young people" (ages10-24) are sexual beings and that the topic of sexual pleasures is within the realm of their education. It starts at home is my argument and it starts when I say it starts.