Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 06-12-2011, 03:07 PM
 
26,680 posts, read 28,571,363 times
Reputation: 7943

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flize View Post
USA = most powerful country
Scandinavian countries = nothing

USA = Google, Apple, Microsoft, eBay, General Electric..etc...
Scandinavian = Nokia, and that's all

They're sucking, I don't care about them
Such ignorance. On a per capita basis, the accomplishments of Sweden alone are huge - more impressive than the U.S., arguably.

And for your future reference, Nokia isn't in Scandinavia. The company is headquartered in Finland, which is not a Scandinavian country.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-12-2011, 03:21 PM
 
14,845 posts, read 8,474,663 times
Reputation: 7296
Quote:
Originally Posted by hothulamaui View Post
what a bunch of hogwash. dark vs light, us nasty progressives this is about sex education. you want children left in the dark than educated. you bring up sexual abuse, yet sex education is what helps children identify it and it keeps them far safer then to not understand what a predator is trying to do.

seems some of you love to exercise selective reading comprehension when it comes to things you don't like. making something innocent not in your mind. amazing you would rather children be stupid about their own bodies, emotions with a natural part of life. but yet the op never makes daily threads about violence that effects our children just about the horrors of sex and homosexuality...
I have read many of your posts, and without a doubt, you personify the extremism inherent in the progressive mindset ... yet you are so totally convinced you are correct ... just as convinced, mind you, as are the religious fanatics that would prevent any issue of biology pertaining to sexuality from being discussed with any young person, regardless of age. Both positions are extreme and void of legitimacy.

There is a degree of legitimacy in your core argument ... that children need to receive education in matters of human biology regardless of the source of that information. As an example, I've heard the stories of women as they recount how they were blindsided and terrified at the onset of menstruation for which they did not understand and were not adequately prepared by proper education from their parents. And there are many other matters that are primarily the responsibility of parents for which some parents miserably fail. So there is more than one argument here ... with the first argument being whether the public school system should be involved in this area of education at all. And though the primary goal of the public school system is to teach children to read and write and do math ... I'm not at all against teaching human biology as part of that education process, including reproductive matters, as long as age appropriateness is observed.

That is second part of the argument ..... the appropriate age to topic criteria ... at what age should these young girls learn of the topic of puberty and menstruation? Well, common sense would dictate that it should be done prior to them reaching that age, obviously. But that doesn't mean they should be dealing with the subject in 2nd grade. It is inappropriate for that age group, and totally uncalled for. And this is purely a biological topic that is appropriate education ... just as valid, as any other topic of education. The disconnect comes into play when this valid educational issue becomes distorted with agenda driven topics like "lifestyle" and "sexual preference" matters ... and there are valid objections to this being emphasized in the school, and most particularly at the age levels that are being indoctrinated with this "social agenda".

The most often used argument for the need for this is based on "diversity training" to prevent "bullying" and the ostracizing of children who are sexually or biologically "different". But this is a shallow argument, and a pretext only, and nothing more than 'sexual diversity indoctrination" training. If the goal were simply to prevent "bullying" or some other form of mistreatment ... that's a simple matter. You teach basic common respect to these children REGARDLESS of the form it might take. Then, you cover all of the potential sources ... be it sexual difference, color of skin, or just natural awkwardness and common differences between all children. You teach them to treat others with fundamental dignity and respect and compassion ... then you need not identify individual examples to be treated separately.

As these children come closer to the age of puberty, and the associated intimate desires inherent in human beings begin to emerge, the extremists again butt heads ... on the extreme right .. no sex education of any form ... and on the extreme left ... the tacit encouragement or condoning of sexual activity between these children by providing detailed information on pregnancy and disease prevention, including homosexual forms, encompassing techniques and tools .... even to the point of distributing condoms. It's absurd extremist lunacy ... just as surely if the school would teach safety techniques in the administration and use of marijuana, cocaine, or heroin ... using the argument that these kids are likely going to do it so we might as well teach them how to do it as safely as possible. You don't see the parallel, because you're steeped in the stupidity of your own agenda.

In the case of the drugs, the standard is to implore these children to avoid them due to the dangers they represent, as well as the consequences of their use ... including the legal ramifications of doing so. And there is no legitimate reason at all to deal with the case of sexuality any differently with children. The course of action should be to implore these children to observe abstinence based on the dangers of disease and unwanted pregnancy ... including the fact that it is illegal for children to engage in sexual activity.

Liberals seem to have no problem fear mongering about perceived dangers of certain activities .... God forbid the word "God" should even be spoken within earshot of children. God forbid they are even exposed to a whiff of tobacco smoke, or even the sight of someone smoking a cigarette ... ... but sodomy? No Problem ... let's teach them that this highly unsanitary practice is just another natural expression of human sexuality that we should all embrace, starting at 10 years old!! DISGUSTING.

Those who take this stance seem incapable of recognizing the shear disgusting depravity of your own predatory agenda. You have not a leg to stand on, nor an inch of moral ground to stand upon. And be it out of shear ignorance or malevolence that you support this attack on children, does not lesson the degree of danger you represent.

You and your maniacal ideas must be strenuously resisted and opposed at every opportunity and juncture.

I believe many of you "progressives" know full well of the nature of your agenda, and that makes you just as much an abuser of children as those Catholic Priest pedophiles, and their superiors who have protected and shielded them.

You're all the same in my eyes .... extremist child predators, with only a difference in tactics as the distinguishing factor.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2011, 03:24 PM
 
Location: California
11,466 posts, read 19,293,081 times
Reputation: 12712
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnUnidentifiedMale View Post
Oh grow up.

It seems like a lot of Americans prefer that we remain child-like forever. They actually favor arrested development in the area of sexuality. It all comes down to fear and insecurity.

Pity.
It is a pity that someone like you could be around children sinse you think it's good to teach little 5 years olds to play with themselves, in fact pity is a nice way to put it
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2011, 03:30 PM
 
4,500 posts, read 12,275,528 times
Reputation: 2901
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon3475 View Post
So your position is that as you teach humans about sex the less likely they are to have it?

Did you ever make it through a biology class or learn about evolution?

Species don't purposely dispose of themselves.

What this should tell you is that the teen pregnancy per capita rate isn't being compared as it should be, apples to apples.

I'm sure you weren't able to catch any of that though.
In the post you quoted, I was merely pointing out the flaws in the posters argument.

My position on the subject is that people should get sex ed. that is rooted in the real world, not some "abstinence fairyland".

Teenagers have sex, this is just facts, and teenagers can have a perfectly natural and healthy sexuality. What my position is, is that it's important that these teenagers know how to protect themselves from unwanted pregnancies, if they do have sex instead of teaching them that sex is "bad", which it clearly isn't.

Teaching humans about sex does not make them have less of it, but it helps avoid unwanted teen pregnancies, allowing people to mature further and finish school before they start a family. European countries undoubtedly does a better job than the US, of teaching teens and young adults the proper way to enjoy their budding sex life safely. The teen pregnancy rates illustrate this.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2011, 04:04 PM
 
6,757 posts, read 8,241,999 times
Reputation: 10152
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon3475 View Post
Umm.. that sounds exactly like the message that a child molester would relay to their victim right before they molested them.

You might want to change your approach.
And you know this how? My approach is that it is INAPPROPRIATE for children's private areas to be touched. How is that pedophilia? My approach is that non-sexual touch also feels good. How is that pedophilia? Never mind. You obviously have no idea what you are talking about.

And you are talking to someone who has been molested, so don't hand that line of bovine excrement. Frak off.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2011, 04:06 PM
 
6,757 posts, read 8,241,999 times
Reputation: 10152
Quote:
Originally Posted by maja View Post
You make no sense. This whole thread is about "CHILDREN!"
You must learn to read for content. Perhaps then you will post threads that have some reasoning behind them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2011, 04:07 PM
 
18,325 posts, read 18,907,579 times
Reputation: 15628
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas View Post
I have read many of your posts, and without a doubt, you personify the extremism inherent in the progressive mindset ... yet you are so totally convinced you are correct ... just as convinced, mind you, as are the religious fanatics that would prevent any issue of biology pertaining to sexuality from being discussed with any young person, regardless of age. Both positions are extreme and void of legitimacy.

There is a degree of legitimacy in your core argument ... that children need to receive education in matters of human biology regardless of the source of that information. As an example, I've heard the stories of women as they recount how they were blindsided and terrified at the onset of menstruation for which they did not understand and were not adequately prepared by proper education from their parents. And there are many other matters that are primarily the responsibility of parents for which some parents miserably fail. So there is more than one argument here ... with the first argument being whether the public school system should be involved in this area of education at all. And though the primary goal of the public school system is to teach children to read and write and do math ... I'm not at all against teaching human biology as part of that education process, including reproductive matters, as long as age appropriateness is observed.

That is second part of the argument ..... the appropriate age to topic criteria ... at what age should these young girls learn of the topic of puberty and menstruation? Well, common sense would dictate that it should be done prior to them reaching that age, obviously. But that doesn't mean they should be dealing with the subject in 2nd grade. It is inappropriate for that age group, and totally uncalled for. And this is purely a biological topic that is appropriate education ... just as valid, as any other topic of education. The disconnect comes into play when this valid educational issue becomes distorted with agenda driven topics like "lifestyle" and "sexual preference" matters ... and there are valid objections to this being emphasized in the school, and most particularly at the age levels that are being indoctrinated with this "social agenda".

The most often used argument for the need for this is based on "diversity training" to prevent "bullying" and the ostracizing of children who are sexually or biologically "different". But this is a shallow argument, and a pretext only, and nothing more than 'sexual diversity indoctrination" training. If the goal were simply to prevent "bullying" or some other form of mistreatment ... that's a simple matter. You teach basic common respect to these children REGARDLESS of the form it might take. Then, you cover all of the potential sources ... be it sexual difference, color of skin, or just natural awkwardness and common differences between all children. You teach them to treat others with fundamental dignity and respect and compassion ... then you need not identify individual examples to be treated separately.

As these children come closer to the age of puberty, and the associated intimate desires inherent in human beings begin to emerge, the extremists again butt heads ... on the extreme right .. no sex education of any form ... and on the extreme left ... the tacit encouragement or condoning of sexual activity between these children by providing detailed information on pregnancy and disease prevention, including homosexual forms, encompassing techniques and tools .... even to the point of distributing condoms. It's absurd extremist lunacy ... just as surely if the school would teach safety techniques in the administration and use of marijuana, cocaine, or heroin ... using the argument that these kids are likely going to do it so we might as well teach them how to do it as safely as possible. You don't see the parallel, because you're steeped in the stupidity of your own agenda.

In the case of the drugs, the standard is to implore these children to avoid them due to the dangers they represent, as well as the consequences of their use ... including the legal ramifications of doing so. And there is no legitimate reason at all to deal with the case of sexuality any differently with children. The course of action should be to implore these children to observe abstinence based on the dangers of disease and unwanted pregnancy ... including the fact that it is illegal for children to engage in sexual activity.

Liberals seem to have no problem fear mongering about perceived dangers of certain activities .... God forbid the word "God" should even be spoken within earshot of children. God forbid they are even exposed to a whiff of tobacco smoke, or even the sight of someone smoking a cigarette ... ... but sodomy? No Problem ... let's teach them that this highly unsanitary practice is just another natural expression of human sexuality that we should all embrace, starting at 10 years old!! DISGUSTING.

Those who take this stance seem incapable of recognizing the shear disgusting depravity of your own predatory agenda. You have not a leg to stand on, nor an inch of moral ground to stand upon. And be it out of shear ignorance or malevolence that you support this attack on children, does not lesson the degree of danger you represent.

You and your maniacal ideas must be strenuously resisted and opposed at every opportunity and juncture.

I believe many of you "progressives" know full well of the nature of your agenda, and that makes you just as much an abuser of children as those Catholic Priest pedophiles, and their superiors who have protected and shielded them.

You're all the same in my eyes .... extremist child predators, with only a difference in tactics as the distinguishing factor.
my views are not extreme only liberal. I think like millions of others on the subject and am no where near the mindset of a religious fanatic.

you and others are so opposed to anything sexual that does not fit your standard you twist it into something evil and depraved. you are so offended that you make something out of a sentence that "isn't" there. a liberals minds are not so much in the gutter that we see kindergartners rubbing warm sand bags on their arms and legs as teaching foreplay.
to suggest otherwise is simply fear based crap.

insinuating that myself and other liberals are "extremist child predators" have "maniacal" ideas, "disgusting depravity of your own predatory agenda" " the degree of danger you represent" is a great example of your intolerance and inability to discern the written word.

I or none of my fellow liberals have ever suggested children learn about sexual activity that is not relevant to their age.

it is not the 1950's anymore and children are entering puberty at 7 to ten years old, the reason for this is debatable but it is the facts. so yes, what the children of today are learning is something that the children of the 50's and 60's learned at a later age. this generation of children are are exposed to MTV, sexual advertisements, music, and all the rest. if you think ignoring what they see and not explaining it to them is the right way to go then I feel sorry for children parented by parents with their head in the sand.

at what age would you consider lifestyle and gender issues appropriate? children know at a very early age for the most part if they are homosexual or not. again you want to shield children because if they hear about this stuff it will influence them to act out? children's real values are taught at home. there is no class that they could be exposed to that would "make" them do something that went against their core values. unless of course the value says you can never have junk food then they leave home and gorge on it. children also see in the real world diverse groups of people when they are out at the supermarket or elsewhere. should that chapter of human sexuality be left out of the story because some don't morally like it? let the kid be stupid?

you don't want condoms or birth control as part of the story because you think it encourages a natural behavior? you would rather for the children that do engage in sex before they should be uninformed and have unsafe sex just so you can protect a few children from the information?

proper sex education at an appropriate age is the only way to go, covering the full range of human sexuality.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2011, 04:08 PM
 
Location: Blankity-blank!
11,446 posts, read 16,133,530 times
Reputation: 6958
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roaddog View Post
It is a pity that someone like you could be around children sinse you think it's good to teach little 5 years olds to play with themselves, in fact pity is a nice way to put it
Most Americans put on more years but never mature, especially in regard to anything concerning sex.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2011, 04:09 PM
 
14,250 posts, read 17,850,908 times
Reputation: 13807
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emeraldmaiden View Post
You must learn to read for content. Perhaps then you will post threads that have some reasoning behind them.
I would add that she should ...

- understand the subject matter
- understand the context
- stick to the facts
- be objective and not subjective
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2011, 04:33 PM
 
1,677 posts, read 1,662,742 times
Reputation: 1024
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rafius View Post
The age of consent here in Spain is 13. Our combined teenage pregnancy and abortion rate is the second lowest in the world at 12.4% per 1000 women. The combined rate in the USA is 85.8%. You shouldn't be pointing fingers pal.

Spain's teenage pregnancy rate is low?

Roman Catholicism dominates in Spain so how can that be?

Don't you know that religion is the number one cause of teen pregnancy in the US?

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top