A “frightening mantra?”

This is the level of B.S. we’re up to, is it?

Neither you, I, or anyone else has ever lived in a world where the most educated had much power. Even at our best, the U.S consistently elects people to office who fall well below the intelligence and education level of a college professor. The decisions to build bombs, go to war, economic decisions, education policy…all these are decided by people who often have no background in the issue at hand, and rely on public ignorance to get re-elected.

I am a college dropout. But living in California, I know more about economics, education, history, science, and art than my state’s Governor.
I will never get his office, though, because I don’t look like the Terminator and I certainly won’t be backed and funded by the Republican Mafia anytime soon. Nobody’s going to fake an energy crisis and stage a coup to get me into office. More and better education for our leaders would be the best thing we could hope for, but it doesn’t sell newspapers, and it doesn’t put a big stupid smiley face on unpopular wars, flagging economies and lost jobs. That’s what the Governator is for.

Nobody is complaining about sharing the world with you “lowly folk.” By most people’s definition, I am one of the “lowly folk.” But don’t ask people to play stupid just so you can feel justified in your self-imposed ignorance.

That’s my two cents, and if it’s elitist and offends any of the “lowly folk,” I couldn’t care less.

Mike J said:
>I believe you are mistaken in the false media driven claim (by media I mean CNN, Fox, MSNBC, and the like) that abstaining doesn’t prevent pregnancy or STD’s as you put it..

>Phil, this is simple logic and physics.. if you cannot grasp the concept that if a man doesn’t put his you know what … you know where… then babies will not be made… and STD’s will not be transmitted…

Once again, Mike J, you demonstrate an uncanny ability to misrepresent statements and create strawmen. No one has stated that abstaining from intercourse prevents pregnancy. What has been stated is that teaching that the only method of birth control and STD prevention is abstinence fails to recognize that a certain amount of people (whether it is teens or young adults or old adults or whomever) are going to have sex anyway. For that segment of the population, telling them that not having sex prevents pregnancy and disease is like telling someone that the way to avoid car accidents is to never get in a car.

Oh, and technically STD’s can be passed even without “intercourse”. Sexual contact is sufficient for some diseases.

> But again, phil, to claim that by NOT having sex, there is somehow a chance that a person can get pregnant— well, er… its dumb!

False statement, misrepresentation, straw man. Given your history, it’s clear this is intentional rather than a case of misunderstanding.

>Advocating that children should be allowed (and taught in school no less) to have “safe” sex is a well, how can I say it nicely…. a sicko atheist no-morals type idea.

That’s your opinion. Others feel differently.

Your posts would be amusing if they weren’t so malicious and spiteful. But in the end, they say far more about you than they do about the Bad Astronomer. You won’t be missed.

Matt, you missed the point. Sure, actually abstaining from sex (including all sexual contact) prevents pregnancy and passing STD’s. No one is denying that. Abstinence Only Education is a failure, because it teaches the only policy is avoiding all sex and does not teach other practices that can reduce or eliminate risks if one chooses to have sex. And Abstinence Only Education does not convince teenagers (much less adults) to refrain from sex. Plus, it has been shown that many Abstinence Only programs include false and misleading information. Lying is bad, getting caught lying is a sure fire way to lose any trust you had.

KC said:
> In my own unscientific observation, the ones who don’t come across as elitist are the ones who’ve come up “through the trenches,” who approach not with an attitude of “I’m so much smarter than you that you must bask in awe in my presence” but one of “You know, I’ve tried that, too, and this is what works.”

That’s ironic, given that the experts in question are citing exactly “abstinence only education has been tried, but it doesn’t work, this is what does.”

>What outraged a lot of parent in the period of stressing contraceptives is that the lessons looked like it was encouraging the behavior in opposition to what the parents were teaching at home. And that is the fear of abandoning the abstinence-only approach.

Amusingly, I was taught comprehensive sex education at home, didn’t help me get laid.

>The thing is, just because the information is taught and is available doesn’t mean it’s going to be learned. The complaint about abstinence-only education also holds for one that stresses contraceptives. How many sit there in class and think, “Oh, that’s never going to happen to me,” or daydream about the dance after the football game instead of paying attention?

True observation. But access to the information for the ones that will pay attention is better than no access.

>Contraceptive-only education got blamed for teen pregnancy and STD.

I don’t hear anyone advocating “contraceptive only” sex education. You say you have seen it, but admit it was spotty, not consistent, and the advocates were stopped. So why do you keep referring to anything but abstinence only education as “contraceptive only”?

justcorbly said:
>Well said, but I’d argue that schools should not be about the business of teaching values of any kind. That’s the proper role of parents.

I disagree. Schools should teach values like fair play, discipline, respect for others, respect for self, etc. What I don’t think is that schools should teach a sectarian religious set of values.