Palin had side order of Rice before marriage

[RandFan]

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.

Got it. Sure.

 

[Wangler]

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.

Very reasonable, thanks, RandFan!

 

[ponderingturtle]

I did answer. If you lie about something that might affect the outcome of a case, that's perjury. I think Clinton's lie satisfies this requirement. Now, you could disagree with me about what constitutes perjury (but you did not), or you can disagree with me about whether or not that lie might affect the outcome of the case (but you did not). But when you say that I didn't answer, you're simply wrong. I did answer, directly and explicitly. You are evidently unsatisfied with my answer, but will not say why.

Your position makes no sense.

I just think we need independent councils attacking all of our presidents at all times. Why limit it to clinton? Any hint of any impropriety needs to be fully investigated by a hostile group with lots of power.

But the days when a president will ever be under oath are passed. They can now lie about anything at anytime. I mean it is not about something important like a blowjob but something trivial like the 9/11 commission.

 

[mhaze]

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.

First of all, her views are likely reflective of the vast majority of voters. And FYI there's a sizable group of Democrats who identify as fundamentalist Christian, or Catholic.

What do I think? It's a complete non issue. Here in Texas, within very broad limits, an issue like this is strictly up to the local school board.

What would I do in a position of authority, say where 1/3 of the parents objected to little 12 year old Susie being drilled in class on proper use of a condom with a banana? 14 year old Scott? 16? How about 10 year olds? What if the objection was from 5% of the parents?

I'd immediately see that those teachers and that presentation was cut back. The reason is simply that I respect the parents' individual opinions regardless of my own. If the parents take offense at this, it makes zero sense to try to change their point of view.

Think for example about a parent who found something about a school "slightly offensive". Now change that to "extremely offensive". I can't see any gains from pushing the latter category, and my friends in school administration would likely agree, although they could cite cases where what a parent thought was "extremely offensive" was ridiculous and they over ruled it.

The question really revolves around what the function of a school is.

 

[Ziggurat]

I just think we need independent councils attacking all of our presidents at all times. Why limit it to clinton? Any hint of any impropriety needs to be fully investigated by a hostile group with lots of power.

If you had paid attention, you would have noticed that the debate was not about whether or not the lawsuit should have happened, whether or not Clinton should have been forced to reply, or even whether or not Clinton should have been impeached.

But the days when a president will ever be under oath are passed. They can now lie about anything at anytime. I mean it is not about something important like a blowjob but something trivial like the 9/11 commission.

Um... what? Unless you're a truther, this is just such a complete non-sequitor.

 

[A Laughing Baby]

When the Grizzly Mama met the Big Black Bear who would have thought that differing species would mate. I am sure that if there had been any hybridized offspring they would have shown a strengthening of some characteristics and a weakening of others. As a polar bear myself I feel left out and rejected and will have to satisfy my curiosity for when the video surfaces.

I was going to wish aloud that this guy was joking, but then I realized that it's terrible no matter what.

 

[ponderingturtle]

If you had paid attention, you would have noticed that the debate was not about whether or not the lawsuit should have happened, whether or not Clinton should have been forced to reply, or even whether or not Clinton should have been impeached.



Um... what? Unless you're a truther, this is just such a complete non-sequitor.

No it was demonstrating the difference between how the presidents got treated. And the ability to downplay or cover up mistakes and judgement that looks faulty in retrospect is the issue.

So lying is no big deal as long as it is about trivialities like WMDs and not important things like oral sex.

 

[Ziggurat]

No it was demonstrating the difference between how the presidents got treated.

Since when was Palin a president? Or did you forget what this thread was actually about?

So lying is no big deal as long as it is about trivialities like WMDs and not important things like oral sex.

I never said anything about what was or wasn't a big deal. But lies are only crimes under some specific conditions.

 

[Drachasor]

First of all, her views are likely reflective of the vast majority of voters. And FYI there's a sizable group of Democrats who identify as fundamentalist Christian, or Catholic.

What do I think? It's a complete non issue. Here in Texas, within very broad limits, an issue like this is strictly up to the local school board.

What would I do in a position of authority, say where 1/3 of the parents objected to little 12 year old Susie being drilled in class on proper use of a condom with a banana? 14 year old Scott? 16? How about 10 year olds? What if the objection was from 5% of the parents?

I'd immediately see that those teachers and that presentation was cut back. The reason is simply that I respect the parents' individual opinions regardless of my own. If the parents take offense at this, it makes zero sense to try to change their point of view.

Think for example about a parent who found something about a school "slightly offensive". Now change that to "extremely offensive". I can't see any gains from pushing the latter category, and my friends in school administration would likely agree, although they could cite cases where what a parent thought was "extremely offensive" was ridiculous and they over ruled it.

The question really revolves around what the function of a school is.

So you're saying, then even if studies showed that such teaching would reduce DEATHS from things like HIV by 10%, you would not be in favor of teaching it and punish any teachers that did? Ruffled feathers are more important to you than actual lives? Or what about the constant difficulty in dealing with an STD like herpes. Does that not have a bigger impact on the lives of people than getting worked up over one part of one class?

 

[mhaze]

So you're saying, then even if studies showed that such teaching would reduce DEATHS from things like HIV by 10%, you would not be in favor of teaching it and punish any teachers that did? Ruffled feathers are more important to you than actual lives? Or what about the constant difficulty in dealing with an STD like herpes. Does that not have a bigger impact on the lives of people than getting worked up over one part of one class?

I'm failing to see how your questions relate back to the exact question, of "explicit" teaching such as condoms and bananas. Are you asserting that some issues cannot be taught without explicitness, and that the marginal utility of explicit teaching methods would have some dramatic effect on transmitted diseases and death? That seems highly questionable....

Irregardless, for Texas, this is largely in control of the local school board and decision making is at that level. Thus (Just an example) if somebody said "Perry's against <<some sort of teaching about sex in schools>>" it's likely here nobody would care one way or the other, because the Governor doesn't have anything to do with that.

 

[Drachasor]

I'm failing to see how your questions relate back to the exact question, of "explicit" teaching such as condoms and bananas. Are you asserting that some issues cannot be taught without explicitness?

My hypothetical was proposing a scenario where studies showed NOT doing that did indeed make the education less effective in a significant way. I do not know if this is the case or not. I haven't looked at existing studies in detail to determine if this has been looked at. I suspect you haven't either.

So, if studies did show sex education benefited significantly from showing how to use a condom, would you still be against that being taught?

 

[mhaze]

My hypothetical was proposing a scenario where studies showed NOT doing that did indeed make the education less effective in a significant way. I do not know if this is the case or not. I haven't looked at existing studies in detail to determine if this has been looked at. I suspect you haven't either.

So, if studies did show sex education benefited significantly from showing how to use a condom, would you still be against that being taught?

Okay, let's create the exaggerated case.

Studies show that if ten year olds are taught how to use condoms properly, there is 10% less HIV by age 20. A suggested program for public schools is to hand out bananas, and have all the 10 year olds put condoms on bananas, then handle them and note how the condoms can tear. Then they do this again with double layers, and so forth. It's required that they lubricate the bananas with the condom and work their hands back and forth for 10-20 minutes for a passing grade. That's to insure that they can "use a condom correctly".

I'm sure we could all agree technically this would actually produce skills sets.

Given the above training curricula, parents complain because it's "explicit" in spite of <<let's say>> multiple double blind studies that should dramatic reduced HIV infection rates by age 20.

Doesn't bother me a bit to cancel the program in those circumstances. Now of course you can modify the paradymn on and on and on and look for responses. Does not matter. The general question here is "to what extent do we want a nanny state that protects us from ourselves" and my answer is no, most people don't want a nanny state.

 

[Drachasor]

Okay, let's create the exaggerated case.

Studies show that if ten year olds are taught how to use condoms properly, there is 10% less HIV by age 20. A suggested program for public schools is to hand out bananas, and have all the 10 year olds put condoms on bananas, then handle them and note how the condoms can tear. Then they do this again with double layers, and so forth. It's required that they lubricate the bananas with the condom and work their hands back and forth for 10-20 minutes for a passing grade. That's to insure that they can "use a condom correctly".

I'm sure we could all agree technically this would actually produce skills sets.

Given the above training curricula, parents complain because it's "explicit" in spite of <<let's say>> multiple double blind studies that should dramatic reduced HIV infection rates by age 20.

Doesn't bother me a bit to cancel the program in those circumstances.

Ok, so you rate ruffled feathers as more important than actual lives. Got it.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Ok, so you rate ruffled feathers as more important than actual lives. Got it.

What is scary is that he is not alone

 

[mhaze]

Ok, so you rate ruffled feathers as more important than actual lives. Got it.

This scenario has similarities to Rick Perry's recent situation where he issued an executive order to vaccinate school kids against IIRC cervical cancer which is sexually transmitted. He had an "opt out" provision.

That was soundly defeated and he's apologized for it, saying he should have left it to the legislature and noting that the trouble of an "opt out" was problematic as opposed to an "opt in".

But his logic exactly parallels yours - he just wanted to save lives...

What is scary is that he is not alone

So move to a state that does it whatever way you think is right. I'm not pushing my values or opinions on anyone.

 

[Drachasor]

This scenario has similarities to Rick Perry's recent situation where he issued an executive order to vaccinate school kids against IIRC cervical cancer which is sexually transmitted. He had an "opt out" provision.

That was soundly defeated and he's apologized for it, saying he should have left it to the legislature and noting that the trouble of an "opt out" was problematic as opposed to an "opt in".

But his logic exactly parallels yours - he just wanted to save lives...

I agree with his executive order. I see nothing wrong with it. Opt In is actually what is problematic, since it is likely to result in fewer lives saved. His backpedaling is not surprising though I find it ridiculous and at best it is political expediency if not cowardice.

You seem to think I'm some sort of partisan that can't acknowledge anything good the "other side(s)" does (or do). That's not the case.

So move to a state that does it whatever way you think is right. I'm not pushing my values or opinions on anyone.

Societies and laws always do this. There's a law against murder. That's pushing values and opinions on murderers. You can't pretend this is avoidable; it is an inherent part of living in a society. Your position here is nearly as bad as that, since you are pushing the values of people against the facts of actual research and allowing deaths to come about in its wake, deaths YOU could have prevented in our hypothetical and in some cases the deaths of the sons and/or daughters of the very people whose feathers you were trying to avoid ruffling. You're pushing THAT value onto all the children around, the "value" that ego and preference are more important than LIFE ITSELF.

 

[mhaze]

I see that point of view, too. Additionally, Perry does have the authority to do this and thus it wasn't under local school board control. But the argument that the legislature should have debated it and done it is a pretty good one.

In any case, it's a pretty clear statement of the sorts of things that Texas does not want it's governor doing on his own initiative...

By the way, if you actually wanted to lower HIV/STD rates, one method would be to legitimatize prostitution, and require training as above described for a state issued license to work in that field. But that centers around the activities of adults, quite different than children.

 

[mhaze]

oh,,,well no one took bait... it was 372, 373, 374, 375, then with a response to the prostitution issue I could have said......

Oh,so you want to teach whoring techniques to 10 year olds in public school!!!

Just playing around.

 

[BenBurch]

What is scary is that he is not alone

If fornicators die, that sort thinks that the world is a better place.

 

[Mark6]

Rats. I thought you meant Connie...

Me too