Palin had side order of Rice before marriage

[Wangler]

The former. And I think it is that she wants to find the right words to please people.

I figured it was the former. Unfortunately, the "right words to please people" seems to be a top priority with pols these days.

I was listening to a radio blurb about the Repub debate that was held last night, and they were praising the one candidate for "sticking to his guns" when asked a particular question.

Praise for that? Why should there be praise for a minimum standard for a president, which in my mind not trying to find the right words or angles to please people?

 

[Wangler]

I seriously want politicians to shut the @#$% up about sexual morality or sexual sin. My sex life is none of their business and I don't need their moralizing.

RandFan, in your opinion is it better for them to keep quiet about all issues regarding morality? Or just a subset of moral issues?

 

[Ziggurat]

I seriously want politicians to shut the @#$% up about sexual morality or sexual sin. My sex life is none of their business and I don't need their moralizing. It's just a cynical attempt to manipulate and control. Invariably when some political ass does this it turns out they have skeletons in their closet.

It's real simple, I'm going to tell you one more time, keep your views on sex private and I'll help keep your sex life private, deal?

So then... no sex ed at all? Is that the compromise you're proposing?

Because otherwise, the fact of the matter is that this ISN'T just private. The minute the question of sex education is raised, we're past keeping everything to ourselves.

 

[varwoche]

And here is what came out the other side of her mouth when she wasn't carrying McCain's water:

I don't blame her for being a hypocrite in this instance. All VP selections have to eat their words. It's more or less a defining requirement of the position.

(And this is when her word salads work to her advantage.)

 

[RandFan]

RandFan, in your opinion is it better for them to keep quiet about all issues regarding morality? Or just a subset of moral issues?

Except for adultery, fraud, dishonesty or assault, sex and morality should not be conflated when it comes to the public opinions of elected leaders. "Sin" is a religious construct and has no place in public debate or discussion.

Sexually transmitted disease, unwanted pregnancy, the emotional impact of teens being sexually active are all within the purview of public officials as much as poor nutrition and diet are. Let's think of sex as a public health issue unless of course someone is committing a crime.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Why adultry?

 

[RandFan]

Why adultry?

I'm a bit hazy on adultery but if it's done in a dishonest fashion then it's a violation of a state license and contract. Further the state has an interest in the well being of children. If a public official propagated that violation of marriage vows was immoral I would not object so long as religion was not part of that discussion.

 

[mhaze]

I don't blame her for being a hypocrite in this instance. All VP selections have to eat their words. It's more or less a defining requirement of the position.

(And this is when her word salads work to her advantage.)

Except that you can't even quote her words and understand clear English when you quote it. I guess I have to help out a bit.

Quote:
Question: In a recent survey you said that you would support abstinence-until-marriage education but that you would not support explicit sex-ed programs. What are explicit sex-ed programs, and does that include talking about condoms in school?

Palin: No, I don’t think that it includes something that is relatively benign. Explicit means explicit. No, I am pro-contraception, and I think kids who may not hear about it at home should hear about it in other avenues. So I’m not anti-contraception. But yeah, abstinence is another alternative that should be discussed with kids. I don’t have a problem with that. That doesn’t scare me, so it’s something that I would support also.
And here is what came out the other side of her mouth when she wasn't carrying McCain's water:

Quote:
Question: Will you support funding for abstinence-until-marriage education instead of for explicit sex-education programs, school-based clinics, and the distribution of contraceptives in schools?

Palin: Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support.​

There isn't any word salad, or any reversal of opinion. That's just in your mind....maybe it's what you WANT TO BELIEVE she said.

It's clear as a bell that what she does not want is teachers standing in front of class putting condoms on bananas and similar liberal progressive "practical training".

 

[BenBurch]

Swingers commit technical adultery without it being any sort of betrayal, so that is clearly an exception.

 

[RandFan]

Palin: Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support.​

"Explicit"?​

It's clear as a bell that what she does not want is teachers standing in front of class putting condoms on bananas...

The horror.

 

[mhaze]

So. Randfan, you got a problem with that? I'm not talking here about whether you think putting condoms on bananas is a good or bad way of teaching contraception. Rather, whether you, if in a position of authority over diverse cultural groups, would force such training on schoolchildren knowing full well it would offend a sizable fraction of them.

Assuming that you have a grain of sensitivity, then it's clear that a level of empathy to the views of the community by educators is a good thing, not a bad thing.

From that I conclude that Palin's attitude made sense.

Second, that it's been completely misrepresented.

Third, that incorrect conclusions have been drawn from the misrepresentations.

Fourth, that there seems to be a strange reluctance by local resident liberal progressives to face up to these mistakes of judgement on their part, when the subject is one they don't like for other reasons.

 

[Drachasor]

So. Randfan, you got a problem with that? I'm not talking here about whether you think putting condoms on bananas is a good or bad way of teaching contraception. Rather, whether you, if in a position of authority over diverse cultural groups, would force such training on schoolchildren knowing full well it would offend a sizable fraction of them.

Let's propose a hypothetical. Let's say doing that sort of instruction reduced unwanted teen pregnancy by 10% and reduced the spread of sexually transmitted diseases by that amount or greater.* That's pretty significant. Would it not make sense to want that taught in schools? Sure, there might be some political hurdles to deal with, but if the teaching is effective at reducing damage, then it is desirable.

If the teaching is not effective, then there's no reason to have it.

Here's a counter question for you. If a practice increases the overall safety and well-being of society, should it not be done if it merely offends a minority (as opposed to actually hurting them)? Assume the benefit easily outweighs the offense (e.g. lives saved or significant personal damage avoided vs. feathers ruffled). I am not saying the feelings of a given group should be wholly ignored, but they should be treated as something to work to overcome rather than something to cede authority to.

Regarding the exact concern in question, I do not know how effective that is in particular. Sex education in general is very effective though. Teaching abstinence has been shown to be very ineffective.

*It could be greater since someone with an STD can spread it. Someone who is pregnant does not spread the pregnancy around.

 

[Drachasor]

I'm a bit hazy on adultery but if it's done in a dishonest fashion then it's a violation of a state license and contract. Further the state has an interest in the well being of children. If a public official propagated that violation of marriage vows was immoral I would not object so long as religion was not part of that discussion.

Hmm, it would be interesting if there were any studies on whether breaches of private trust had anything to do with breaches of public trust. I'd suspect it would, but I don't know. I generally agree that breaches of trust are valid things to talk about publicly. Though the significance of various breaches varies a lot. Hmm, it would be interesting if there was some way to get an accurate psych evaluation of anyone running for president.

Suppose many studies showed that there was no connection though. Would you think it was still worth discussing? I would not.

 

[mhaze]

Let's propose a hypothetical. Let's say doing that sort of instruction reduced unwanted teen pregnancy by 10% and reduced the spread of sexually transmitted diseases by that amount or greater.* That's pretty significant. Would it not make sense to want that taught in schools? Sure, there might be some political hurdles to deal with, but if the teaching is effective at reducing damage, then it is desirable.

If the teaching is not effective, then there's no reason to have it.

Here's a counter question for you. If a practice increases the overall safety and well-being of society, should it not be done if it merely offends a minority (as opposed to actually hurting them)? Assume the benefit easily outweighs the offense (e.g. lives saved or significant personal damage avoided vs. feathers ruffled). I am not saying the feelings of a given group should be wholly ignored, but they should be treated as something to work to overcome rather than something to cede authority to.

Regarding the exact concern in question, I do not know how effective that is in particular. Sex education in general is very effective though. Teaching abstinence has been shown to be very ineffective.

*It could be greater since someone with an STD can spread it. Someone who is pregnant does not spread the pregnancy around.

But the "answer" isn't how would I do in that situation. We're examining how Palin handled it. To do that, first we get the facts on what she said, and try to understand them. I believe I've got it pretty right one what she said she "didn't want" with the banana condom analogy. But she clearly says she's pro contraception.

Gee, it just sounds to me like her answers are fine. I'm not saying they'd satisfy everyone 100%, of course.

 

[RandFan]

So. Randfan, you got a problem with that? I'm not talking here about whether you think putting condoms on bananas is a good or bad way of teaching contraception. Rather, whether you, if in a position of authority over diverse cultural groups, would force such training on schoolchildren knowing full well it would offend a sizable fraction of them.

Children aren't fragile violets. There's no guarantee in life you won't be offended.

Assuming that you have a grain of sensitivity, then it's clear that a level of empathy to the views of the community by educators is a good thing, not a bad thing.

Public health comes first. The consequences are much worse than any terrified trembling children heaving, sobbing and tremlbing uncontrollably from having watched some latex slipped over a banana. Mommy?

Fourth, that there seems to be a strange reluctance by local resident liberal progressives to face up to these mistakes of judgement on their part, when the subject is one they don't like for other reasons.

I'm not a liberal so I can't speak to that. On the other hand. Nonsense.

 

[Drachasor]

But the "answer" isn't how would I do in that situation. We're examining how Palin handled it. To do that, first we get the facts on what she said, and try to understand them. I believe I've got it pretty right one what she said she "didn't want" with the banana condom analogy. But she clearly says she's pro contraception.

Gee, it just sounds to me like her answers are fine. I'm not saying they'd satisfy everyone 100%, of course.

Yes, well, this Palin story isn't very interesting and I don't know how it got to 9 pages. It largely seems like a non-issue. Her views on sex education seem to be a LOT more reasonable than most of her fellow Republicans, oddly enough.

However, I was looking at this page and it seemed like the discussion had moved into a more interesting direction. So let's go with that more interesting direction. Tell me what YOU think.

 

[RandFan]

Her views on sex education seem to be a LOT more reasonable than most of her fellow Republicans, oddly enough.

I'll concede that. I don't care for her pushing abstinence and sending her daughter on an abstinence only tour.

 

[RandFan]

Hmm, it would be interesting if there were any studies on whether breaches of private trust had anything to do with breaches of public trust. I'd suspect it would, but I don't know. I generally agree that breaches of trust are valid things to talk about publicly. Though the significance of various breaches varies a lot. Hmm, it would be interesting if there was some way to get an accurate psych evaluation of anyone running for president.

Suppose many studies showed that there was no connection though. Would you think it was still worth discussing? I would not.

Not my point. If a public figure wants to encourage constituents to be loyal to their vows I don't have a problem with that.

 

[RandFan]

So. Randfan, you got a problem with that? I'm not talking here about whether you think putting condoms on bananas is a good or bad way of teaching contraception. Rather, whether you, if in a position of authority over diverse cultural groups, would force such training on schoolchildren knowing full well it would offend a sizable fraction of them.

Do you ever wonder if these children are offeneded or are horrified when they see their own genitals?

This BS about children not able to deal with biology is so stupid. These "diverse cultural groups" exist in rural areas where children see animals copulate without developing maladaptive behavior or deep psychological scars or even being offended. We need to grow the **** up.

 

[Drachasor]

Not my point. If a public figure wants to encourage constituents to be loyal to their vows I don't have a problem with that.

Were you not saying that you think breaches of trust are appropriate public fodder for a politician? Obviously it is slightly tangential to your original point. That's why it's my point.