If governor signs bill, parents can't opt their children out of being forced to watch sex education video

[BPPLEE]

Should we treat American Indians the same when it comes to alcohol even though they are genetically more at risk? We should give all people equal opportunity and treat them equally under the law but to act as if everyone in society has the same experience and makeup strikes me as short sighted.

What law is there concerning Native Americans and alcohol?

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

So, do we think it's okay to show a video, that's not being completely honest.That might encourage more teens to get pregnant. Instead of telling them the truth about the pain of pregnancy. About Birth control. And the cost of this nightmare of getting pregnant.

 

[BPPLEE]

So, do we think it's okay to show a video, that's not being completely honest.That might encourage more teens to get pregnant. Instead of telling them the truth about the pain of pregnancy. About Birth control. And the cost of this nightmare of getting pregnant.

Do you think they should be taught that they can avoid getting pregnant by abstaining from sex?

 

[RDKirk]

Should we treat American Indians the same when it comes to alcohol even though they are genetically more at risk? We should give all people equal opportunity and treat them equally under the law but to act as if everyone in society has the same experience and makeup strikes me as short sighted.

How does the government treat Native Americans differently according to genetics? What laws? For that matter, what difference in genetics?

No, Native Americans aren’t genetically more susceptible to alcoholism

Time to retire the ‘firewater’ fairytale

www.theverge.com

Your thinking about black people is equally mythological.

Yes, there are many black people who are dealing with economic disadvantages because of where they are, but do not confuse where black people are with who black people are. It does black people no favors simply to make us more comfortable with our circumstances rather than looking closely at those circumstances and resolving the root issues.

And the root issues are not skin color.

 

[RDKirk]

Not buying the idea it is a giant school conspiracy.

You are the one who used the word "conspiracy."

They are not "conspiring," they're operating as they have been taught to operate. It's not "conspiracy," it's indoctrination.

 

[RDKirk]

Correct.

Correct. Like marriage. Marriage is a social construct. And it has real consequences on taxes and other real things.

So there is nothing contradictory about CRT saying that race is a social construct. Which it clearly does, contrary to your objection.

You're misconstruing my point. My point was to make sure it was understood that by identifying racism as a social construct, CRT yet continues to make racism a central point of its ideology. Yes, it is a contradiction, inasmuch as unlike marriage racism has no social benefit. So there is no reason for a purportedly anti-racist ideology to continue to use race as a central pillar of its ideology rather than actually seek to dismantle race.

I doubt that. Propagating social justice does not require teaching CRT. People pursued social justice before CRT existed.

The quote from the pro-CRT source you provided was:

(5) beyond academic or purely scientific advances, critical race theorists should seek to propagate social justice.

So, that CRT ideologue is explicitly advocating using CRT to propagate social justice.

 

[dzheremi]

Not buying the idea it is a giant school conspiracy.

Why should it have to be? Not only do I not see that asserted in RDKirk's post, more to the point I don't see that asserted by people involved in education like my own bosses, who actively push DEI initiatives and CRT by other names.

Have you never heard the advice that one ought not attribute to malice that which can be attributed to stupidity? This works kind of like that, in that it functions as it does because the administrative class believes they are doing something good for mankind, and having enough people on the same page about that is what creates the 'conspiracy' (to use your word) whereby they then deny any evidence that their crusade is potentially or actually harmful. It's not a conspiracy -- it's scuttling evidence that may cause a decrease in acceptance of the rightness of the goal for the good of those they seek to help. They're 'stupid' when it comes to recognizing the unintended consequences of their social engineering projects (whether that's CRT, AI, or anything else), not malicious. (It's also paternalistic as all get out, which is probably another reason why parents are often suspicious of it, but that's probably a conversation for a different thread.)

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Do you think they should be taught that they can avoid getting pregnant by abstaining from sex?

That is, in essence, what sex education already teaches...that sex is how babies are made. The "No sex = no babies" in implied.

If you're talking about "abstinence-only education", where abstinence is the only thing they teach/promote, and don't delve into birth control methods (in hopes that a bunch of horny young people will always be good at impulse control) then that's a bit of an unrealistic and overly optimistic ambition and hasn't shown to be very effective when tried with regards to dictating behaviors.


It'd be like going to the All-you-can-eat buffet, and telling people "you can control your weight if you just make good food choices and limit your portion sizes" and expecting that to have any meaningful impact on behaviors.

 

[essentialsaltes]

You're misconstruing my point.

You're misconstruing "social construct" to mean imaginary (or assuming that other people do). Whatever, it's not germane to the OP.

So, that CRT ideologue is explicitly advocating using CRT to propagate social justice.

It's not germane to the OP. However, consider "Christianity advocates charity; therefore, giving money to a charity is propagating Christianity."

 

[BPPLEE]

That is, in essence, what sex education already teaches...that sex is how babies are made. The "No sex = no babies" in implied.

If you're talking about "abstinence-only education", where abstinence is the only thing they teach/promote, and don't delve into birth control methods (in hopes that a bunch of horny young people will always be good at impulse control) then that's a bit of an unrealistic and overly optimistic ambition and hasn't shown to be very effective when tried with regards to dictating behaviors.


It'd be like going to the All-you-can-eat buffet, and telling people "you can control your weight if you just make good food choices and limit your portion sizes" and expecting that to have any meaningful impact on behaviors.

I know abstinence only is not realistic but abstinence works every time it’s tried

 

[BPPLEE]

Why should it have to be? Not only do I not see that asserted in RDKirk's post, more to the point I don't see that asserted by people involved in education like my own bosses, who actively push DEI initiatives and CRT by other names.

Have you never heard the advice that one ought not attribute to malice that which can be attributed to stupidity? This works kind of like that, in that it functions as it does because the administrative class believes they are doing something good for mankind, and having enough people on the same page about that is what creates the 'conspiracy' (to use your word) whereby they then deny any evidence that their crusade is potentially or actually harmful. It's not a conspiracy -- it's scuttling evidence that may cause a decrease in acceptance of the rightness of the goal for the good of those they seek to help. They're 'stupid' when it comes to recognizing the unintended consequences of their social engineering projects (whether that's CRT, AI, or anything else), not malicious. (It's also paternalistic as all get out, which is probably another reason why parents are often suspicious of it, but that's probably a conversation for a different thread.)

Kind of like confirmation bias

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I know abstinence only is not realistic but abstinence works every time it’s tried

Well sure... but in a pragmatic sense, human behaviors and impulses need to be factored into the equation which is why comprehensive sex ed is better at reducing teen pregnancies than approach that overly-focus on abstinence and don't give enough focus to birth control methods and how to properly use them.


Much like diet and exercise work for maintaining physical health...but knowing that there will be a percentage of people that will succumb to impulses (and we could say "you weigh 350lbs, that Big Mac and Fries is not a good idea for you" till we're blue in the face and they're still gonna do it anyway), the focus has to be split between prevention and mitigation.


For people who don't want unplanned pregnancies among young people...
Birth control is to abstinence for young adults, what insulin is to a healthy diet for type 2 diabetics

Where the latter in each category is obviously going to be the ideal, but the former in each category is still far better than the worst case scenario.

 

[RDKirk]

You're misconstruing "social construct" to mean imaginary (or assuming that other people do). Whatever, it's not germane to the OP.


It's not germane to the OP. However, consider "Christianity advocates charity; therefore, giving money to a charity is propagating Christianity."

But Christian charity is intended to propagate Christianity. Jesus said that explicitly: "In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven."

That CRT ideologue is explicitly advocating using CRT to propagate social justice.

 

[RDKirk]

Well sure... but in a pragmatic sense, human behaviors and impulses need to be factored into the equation which is why comprehensive sex ed is better at reducing teen pregnancies than approach that overly-focus on abstinence and don't give enough focus to birth control methods and how to properly use them.


Much like diet and exercise work for maintaining physical health...but knowing that there will be a percentage of people that will succumb to impulses (and we could say "you weigh 350lbs, that Big Mac and Fries is not a good idea for you" till we're blue in the face and they're still gonna do it anyway), the focus has to be split between prevention and mitigation.


For people who don't want unplanned pregnancies among young people...
Birth control is to abstinence for young adults, what insulin is to a healthy diet for type 2 diabetics

Where the latter in each category is obviously going to be the ideal, but the former in each category is still far better than the worst case scenario.

Since you've gone to the weight loss metaphor, I'll stick with that for a moment longer.

It's also very hard to stick to a weight loss diet if you hang around McDonalds with people who aren't on that diet.

That's part of what makes "abstinence only" more problematical: It's generally not accompanied by leading an entirely different life style as devoid as possible of sexual stimuli. Abstinence only probably works fairly decently among the Amish, especially in that they marry their girls off as soon as legally possible so that abstinence after puberty is only a couple of years. It's a whole lifestyle thing, just as with maintaining a weight loss diet.

 

[essentialsaltes]

But Christian charity is intended to propagate Christianity.

Other people also give to charity and promote social justice.

 

[Belk]

What law is there concerning Native Americans and alcohol?

None. As I said everyone should get the same treatment under the law.

 

[Belk]

I know abstinence only is not realistic but abstinence works every time it’s tried

Tell that to the virgin Mary. Or the 200 or so women a year who claim to get pregnant without having sex.

 

[Belk]

How does the government treat Native Americans differently according to genetics? What laws? For that matter, what difference in genetics?

No, Native Americans aren’t genetically more susceptible to alcoholism

Time to retire the ‘firewater’ fairytale

www.theverge.com

They are not treated different under the law. Thanks for the information on genetics. Learn something new every day. But that makes the analogy more relevant in my opinion. There is something that is resulting in Indians having a higher rate of alcoholism and, yes, they should be treated differently in relation to that. Specifically its cause should be found and addressed.

Your thinking about black people is equally mythological.

In what way is it mythological?

Yes, there are many black people who are dealing with economic disadvantages because of where they are, but do not confuse where black people are with who black people are. It does black people no favors simply to make us more comfortable with our circumstances rather than looking closely at those circumstances and resolving the root issues.

And the root issues are not skin color.

Of course the root issue is not skin color. It is, as you say, an issue of where they are and the circumstances around that. So what is your advice on addressing these issues? Ignore it? Sweep it under the rug? Or acknowledge that WHERE black people are result in historic disadvantages and try to address the root cause of those issues?

 

[Belk]

You are the one who used the word "conspiracy."

They are not "conspiring," they're operating as they have been taught to operate. It's not "conspiracy," it's indoctrination.

Yet you claim they are trying to hide it?

 

[Belk]

Why should it have to be? Not only do I not see that asserted in RDKirk's post, more to the point I don't see that asserted by people involved in education like my own bosses, who actively push DEI initiatives and CRT by other names.

Have you never heard the advice that one ought not attribute to malice that which can be attributed to stupidity? This works kind of like that, in that it functions as it does because the administrative class believes they are doing something good for mankind, and having enough people on the same page about that is what creates the 'conspiracy' (to use your word) whereby they then deny any evidence that their crusade is potentially or actually harmful. It's not a conspiracy -- it's scuttling evidence that may cause a decrease in acceptance of the rightness of the goal for the good of those they seek to help. They're 'stupid' when it comes to recognizing the unintended consequences of their social engineering projects (whether that's CRT, AI, or anything else), not malicious. (It's also paternalistic as all get out, which is probably another reason why parents are often suspicious of it, but that's probably a conversation for a different thread.)

OK. That is a fair point.