namelesstavern.net

Harrison wrote:Schools are for education (laugh)

what's so funny? i learned PLENTY in school

I doubt you learned much of anything useful beyond middle school.

doubt all you want, i learned plenty

I pity you.

Harrison wrote:Schools are for education (laugh)

Just because you didn't get one doesn't mean the rest of us didn't.

--R.

Most of this board received a piece of paper.

Few of you on this board, received an actual education from public schooling. Both of which are very apparent when you post.

There is a large difference between a piece of paper and an education. But of course you guys knew this....being edumacated and all.

you got neither!

ha ha!

Mindia wrote:So, if the public school system teaches the importance of abstinence, pregnancy, STD's, etc. as a scare tactic, instead of showing them how to use a condom, where is the harm in that? By the way, you don't need to teach anybody how to use a condom. Even Ugzugz can probably figure that one out. Yes, it is ultimately the parent's responsibility to teach these values to the children, but I don't think it would hurt anybody to make it mandatory for children to learn what I just explained.

What you seem to be missing is CHILDREN DO NOT LISTEN. They know about abstinence, pregnancy and STD's. They are still having sex because they all belive the same thing, that its not going to happen to them. They enjoy sex and its considered such a taboo that they are going to do it one way or another no matter what you tell them.

It is manditory for children to learn about abstinece, pregnancy and STD's. Its called sex ed, the same class that ultra conservatives are trying to get removed from our schools. Children ARE thought about abstinence (They ignore it), they are taught about STD's (They ignore it) and they are taught about pregnancy (They ignore it). The scare tactics dont work, it as simple as that, the children dont care. So they are also taught how to use a condom and are given them for free becasue they wouldn't actually spend the money to buy one.

Children are going to have sex whether you like it or not regardless what you teach them in school or at home. The only thing we can do is try and make it as safe as possible by giving them condoms and teaching them how to use them properly. If parents would understand this and teach it to their children we wouldn't have to do it in the school system. There are just to many parents who say "Dont do it" and actually think their child is going to listen.

Gidan wrote:

Mindia wrote:So, if the public school system teaches the importance of abstinence, pregnancy, STD's, etc. as a scare tactic, instead of showing them how to use a condom, where is the harm in that? By the way, you don't need to teach anybody how to use a condom. Even Ugzugz can probably figure that one out. Yes, it is ultimately the parent's responsibility to teach these values to the children, but I don't think it would hurt anybody to make it mandatory for children to learn what I just explained.

What you seem to be missing is CHILDREN DO NOT LISTEN. They know about abstinence, pregnancy and STD's. They are still having sex because they all belive the same thing, that its not going to happen to them. They enjoy sex and its considered such a taboo that they are going to do it one way or another no matter what you tell them.

It is manditory for children to learn about abstinece, pregnancy and STD's. Its called sex ed, the same class that ultra conservatives are trying to get removed from our schools. Children ARE thought about abstinence (They ignore it), they are taught about STD's (They ignore it) and they are taught about pregnancy (They ignore it). The scare tactics dont work, it as simple as that, the children dont care. So they are also taught how to use a condom and are given them for free becasue they wouldn't actually spend the money to buy one.

Children are going to have sex whether you like it or not regardless what you teach them in school or at home. The only thing we can do is try and make it as safe as possible by giving them condoms and teaching them how to use them properly. If parents would understand this and teach it to their children we wouldn't have to do it in the school system. There are just to many parents who say "Dont do it" and actually think their child is going to listen.

Not every teenager is a sex-craving lunatic. I know a lot of teens listen. Some don't, but most do. For the 3-5% of teenage high school students who experiment with sex that's still not enough to warrant passing out condoms.

Mindia wrote:Not every teenager is a sex-craving lunatic. I know a lot of teens listen. Some don't, but most do. For the 3-5% of teenage high school students who experiment with sex that's still not enough to warrant passing out condoms.

3-5%?!

ROFL!

There was a higher percentage in my PRIVATE school 15 years ago.

I think you left a zero off each of those numbers, Mindia.

Oh - and stop using my name in vain... I'll smite you again if you continue it:

Mindia wrote:So, if the public school system teaches the importance of abstinence, pregnancy, STD's, etc. as a scare tactic, instead of showing them how to use a condom, where is the harm in that? By the way, you don't need to teach anybody how to use a condom. Even Ugzugz can probably figure that one out. Yes, it is ultimately the parent's responsibility to teach these values to the children, but I don't think it would hurt anybody to make it mandatory for children to learn what I just explained.

Langston wrote:

Mindia wrote:Not every teenager is a sex-craving lunatic. I know a lot of teens listen. Some don't, but most do. For the 3-5% of teenage high school students who experiment with sex that's still not enough to warrant passing out condoms.

3-5%?!

ROFL!

There was a higher percentage in my PRIVATE school 15 years ago.

I think you left a zero off each of those numbers, Mindia.

Oh - and stop using my name in vain... I'll smite you again if you continue it:

Mindia wrote:So, if the public school system teaches the importance of abstinence, pregnancy, STD's, etc. as a scare tactic, instead of showing them how to use a condom, where is the harm in that? By the way, you don't need to teach anybody how to use a condom. Even Ugzugz can probably figure that one out. Yes, it is ultimately the parent's responsibility to teach these values to the children, but I don't think it would hurt anybody to make it mandatory for children to learn what I just explained.

I'm pretty sure you're way off on that 15%. Maybe in your nerdy high school days "copping a feel" counted toward "sex" and then you probably told all your friends that you got laid. LOL

Mindia, you are really that naive?

Holy fuck...

from the CDC:



From a 2002 report. Full text of which can be found here: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5138a2.htm

So, as we can see from the table, by grade 12, roughly 50-60% of all students have had sex, from the CDC figures. Now, Mindia, you can't possibly think that the raw data from the CDC is biased, can you? Cause, well, you know, it sure as hell shows that you're staggeringly off-base with your percentages.

Face it. Teens are GOING to have sex, it is inevitable, no matter how much you tell them that they should wait. As a result, it is *VITAL* to teach them about the risks of STDs and pregnancy *AND* how to protect themselves when/if they do end up having sex.

-Arlos

Ok. That's some sad data. Does that include private and Christian schools or just the public school system?

YRBS, a component of CDC's Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System, measures the self-reported prevalence of health risk behaviors among adolescents through representative national, state, and local surveys. The six biennial national surveys conducted during 1991--2001 used independent, three-stage cluster samples to obtain cross-sectional data representative of students in grades 9--12 in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. During 1991--2001, sample sizes ranged from 10,904 to 16,296 students, school response rates ranged from 70% to 79%, student response rates ranged from 83% to 90%, and overall response rates ranged from 60% to 70%.

Sounds like all high-school age persons attending school, regardless of other factors to me. If you want more detail, read the article link I posted, not going to reprint it in its entirety here.

-Arlos

Mindia wrote:IMO, all public schools should utilize Dr. Laura philosophies. You teach them the importance of abstinence, and the dangers of having sex like unwanted pregnancies and sexually-transmitted diseases THAT CAN KILL YOU, and that sex is reserved for an adult man and woman who are MARRIED.

Funny you mentioned Dr. Laura. I guess "married" can mean "married to someone else" then?

Not to mention Dr Laura is a Jew.

So, as an SDA member, you believe schools should be taught by the principles of Orthodox Judaism? Interesting.

16,000 kids isn't very representative, though I'd say those numbers are fairly accurate for public school systems.

That's why they list the margin of error, Donnel. Actually, 16000 is more than you need for a statistically valid sample. Most of the nationwide polls conducted by Gallup, etc. usually use about 1000 people. Not having had my upper division statistics class yet, I can't go into WHY it's valid, but I'll hope you'll take the word of my math profs on the issue.

-Arlos

LoL I will think about it.

I'm just thinking to myself... 16,000 kids from each state max... that's like 2 schools here in St. Louis.

Yep, I know it doesn't seem like much, but it is a statistically valid sample. The smaller the sample size, the larger the margin of error, of course. Margin of error does move in a linear fashion, either. About 1000 people gives a +/- 3.5% margin of error, and if I am remembering right, 10,000 is at like 2.6 or so. Again, take those numbers with a grain of salt, though I'm fairly certain about the margin of error at 1000 people. (we touched on statistics in my discrete math class, and some of this was mentioned in passing)

Pretty much all those nationwide polls you see on basically any subject are only done with about a 1000 people, total, across the entire nation. Take a look at the fine print on them at some point. A lot of them will say something along the lines of "Sample size of 1017 persons, margin of error 3.46%".

-Arlos

The margin of error is dependent upon the sample size relative to the total population, as well as your sample selection process, the quality of the questions, etc.

Basically, you don't need to interview every single person in order to establish a statistical result - you just have to interview a representative sample group large enough to avoid statistical anomalies.

I would compare it to our form of Representative goverment in the US - but it's not a good example as our government officials aren't selected randomly from the pool of available constituents - but the premise is the same: a small number representing the whole will provide similar results to that which would have come from allowing full self-representation.

Well here's the thing. if you throw in private, or homeschool students I think the numbers would drop by a signficant amount. They'd still be really high in a sad way, but by not including those groups, it slants the average.

Bear in mind what I said earlier. I think those numbers are pretty accurate for public school kids.

Although I'm not so naive to think private school kids aren't doing it, I know that there'd be a significant decrease.

For each cross-sectional survey, students completed an anonymous, self-administered questionnaire, which included identically worded questions about sexual intercourse, number of sex partners, condom use, and alcohol or drug use before last sexual intercourse

We know how honest teenagers are on anonymous surveys and questionnaires.

I take this study with a complete grain of salt.