Sex Ed taught in Grade1 now!

[bloodyminded]

Right.

Only think for yourself isn't social engineering. As scary as that may sound.

It doesn't sound scary to me; it self-evidently sounds scary to the most hardcore patriots, who throw tantrums as a matter of tradition.

Everybody thinks that they "think for themselves," and that those who differ politically are subservient.

And everybody is wrong on the first point, and correct on the second.

[Pliny]

It doesn't sound scary to me; it self-evidently sounds scary to the most hardcore patriots, who throw tantrums as a matter of tradition.

Everybody thinks that they "think for themselves," and that those who differ politically are subservient.

And everybody is wrong on the first point, and correct on the second.

Of course, like everybody, you are wrong on the first point and correct on the second.

[bloodyminded]

Of course, like everybody, you are wrong on the first point and correct on the second.

My first point was that hardcore patriots are frightened to think for themselves is self-evidently correct.

[Wild Bill]

My first point was that hardcore patriots are frightened to think for themselves is self-evidently correct.

And my point is that if we are conditioned by our education to not be capable of logic and problem solving it's no wonder we have so many social engineers!

Fundamentalist churches are not known for teaching higher maths and calculus, even less than public schools. If you are raised in such an environment the idea of "Just Say NO!" with drugs or abstinence programs for teenagers with sex can seem perfectly reasonable!

Basically, the people that are most upset about sex-ed in schools tend to have a lack of logic and reasoning skills in their education. These are the people who believe that Creationism is indeed scientific! They are sincere, they just lack the more scientific education to be ABLE to see the contradictions in their premises!

That being said, my own view is that McGuinty's program was not inherently wrong except that it made the mistake of targeting those of too young an age. In grade 1 kids would not be developed enough to handle many of these concepts. So in effect it would be more brain washing than education. The kids would be accepting what they were being taught by rote, without debate or question.

Perhaps that was the real goal!

[Pliny]

Perhaps that was the real goal!

The real goal is to employ all those social engineers.

[Pliny]

My first point was that hardcore patriots are frightened to think for themselves is self-evidently correct.

What would you have done in Wild Bill's shoes? Out of a job at age 57 and few opportunities to even consider. Collect welfare, whine and vote for a guaranteed annual income?

[bloodyminded]

What would you have done in Wild Bill's shoes? Out of a job at age 57 and few opportunities to even consider. Collect welfare, whine and vote for a guaranteed annual income?

I wasn't even remotely referring to Wild Bill.

[Pliny]

I wasn't even remotely referring to Wild Bill.

We don't seem to be connecting here at all. From the sounds of it I have tee'd you off at some point. Our dialogue seems to be on a tangent.

[bloodyminded]

We don't seem to be connecting here at all. From the sounds of it I have tee'd you off at some point. Our dialogue seems to be on a tangent.

Sorry, Pliny, if I'm giving this impression, I don't mean to be. Perhaps I'm being too terse.

For the record, my remark about "hardcore patriots" (which was too vague anyway: I was referring specifically to people literally afraid to critique their own country's behaviour) was not in any way about Wild Bill (with whom I often disagree, but imagine to be a very decent man); nor was it aimed at you. Peace.

[Pliny]

Sorry, Pliny, if I'm giving this impression, I don't mean to be. Perhaps I'm being too terse.

For the record, my remark about "hardcore patriots" (which was too vague anyway: I was referring specifically to people literally afraid to critique their own country's behaviour) was not in any way about Wild Bill (with whom I often disagree, but imagine to be a very decent man); nor was it aimed at you. Peace.

Well, Ok.

I was referring to people who criticize their own country, whine, collect welfare, and vote for things like Guaranteed annual incomes and more goodies.

A bit of patriotism is ok. Nationalism is the more progressive form of patriotism. I believe you were in on that discussion about Patriotism vs. Nationalism?

[bloodyminded]

Well, Ok.

I was referring to people who criticize their own country, whine, collect welfare, and vote for things like Guaranteed annual incomes and more goodies.

A bit of patriotism is ok. Nationalism is the more progressive form of patriotism. I believe you were in on that discussion about Patriotism vs. Nationalism?

I probably was. I find the lines between the two blur pretty easily. To me, ok patriotism is hoping your country does well at Olympics; or, more importantly, wishing your country to behave well, to adhere to principles which most people consider positive and worthy.

Getting sensitive about one's country's behaviour, so that criticisms are taken as personal insults, only means that the patriot's identity is so tied up with the geopolitical entity in which he was accidentally born that he or she can't think straight. And there are more than a few of these, since we are indoctrinated into this behaviour practically from birth. (Talk about social engineering!)

Edited April 30, 2010 by bloodyminded

[wyly]

That being said, my own view is that McGuinty's program was not inherently wrong except that it made the mistake of targeting those of too young an age. In grade 1 kids would not be developed enough to handle many of these concepts. So in effect it would be more brain washing than education. The kids would be accepting what they were being taught by rote, without debate or question.

Perhaps that was the real goal!

have never seen the curriculum intended for grade 1 kids so if I were to assume that it developed in a way to introduce sex ed in a stages with appropriate material for that age and progressed as they aged, that's how every other subject is developed...

so if my assumption is correct and I think it is a safe one to make ,then McGuinty's error was wrong not in the age it started but how he presented it to the public/parents...there were claims implying teaching of anal sex instruction from grade 1 and I'm not buying that for a moment...the opposition of the plan was a kneejerk reaction based ignorance not on what the education contained...

Edited April 30, 2010 by wyly

[Wild Bill]

I have never seen the curicculem intended for grade 1 kids so if I were to assume that it developed in a way to introduce sex ed in a stages with appropiate material for that age and progressed as they aged, that's how every other subject is developed...

so if my assumption is correct and I think it is a safe one to make ,then McGuinty's error was wrong not in the age it started but how he presented it to the public/parents...there were claims implying teaching of anal sex instruction from grade 1 and I'm not buying that for a moment...the opposition of the plan was a kneejerk reaction based ignorance not on what the education contained...

My impression from the media reports that it was not some clear cut knee jerk reaction, at least not totally. However, I just did a google, which gave a Globe and Mail article that the new cirricula had been posted on the Ontario Ministry of Education's site.

So I went there and couldn't find any trace of it! Mind you, most government sites are not the easiest for a layman to navigate but I tried my best and used the site's search engine. No luck.

I even used the "Wayback" internet search engine to see if I could find an archived copy of the site from more than a month ago that might have the information. Again, no luck.

"Down the memory hole, Winston!"?

[wyly]

My impression from the media reports that it was not some clear cut knee jerk reaction, at least not totally. However, I just did a google, which gave a Globe and Mail article that the new cirricula had been posted on the Ontario Ministry of Education's site.

So I went there and couldn't find any trace of it! Mind you, most government sites are not the easiest for a layman to navigate but I tried my best and used the site's search engine. No luck.

I even used the "Wayback" internet search engine to see if I could find an archived copy of the site from more than a month ago that might have the information. Again, no luck.

"Down the memory hole, Winston!"?

same here, I looked for a half hour with no luck...

but knowing how schools work first years is always basic stuff, they don't start with algebra in grade one and they're not getting into the nitty gritty of sex either at that age...

bill if you have moment fix my spelling in the quote,I bang things out without to much attention to spelling and let spellcheck fix it, I forgot to check in the last post (2 errors)it annoys the hell out of me...

off topic you mentioned you make amps can you send me a private message with the brand name, I bought wyly Jr. a custom guitar and I'm looking for amp options, I know nothing about amps I could use some pointers...

[Michael Hardner]

Yes, the cowardly government took the file down. No muss, no fuss. I believe I did quote from the file, earlier on the thread.

[PIK]

Just think all the perverts that now want to be teachers, well those digraced priests need to go somewhere.

[Oleg Bach]

Why does one need to have a special interest to be included? that's the way it reads if something is not to be included then it is excluded... if it's not what you meant explain it better...

they were getting beaten and mocked when I was a kid(and that was a long time ago) and they're still being abused now...so how do you figure doing nothing different will suddenly improve their situation?..

no parents are legal guardians, parents do not own their kids abuse those kids and the state will remove them from the guardians/parents care...

What comes out of my body- whether I be male or female is MY property- not the states. There are more kids abused by the state who are in supposed wardship of the state. For instance there are about 15 thousand children in the greater GTA who are now owned by the state and their so-called protection agents...this is an industry- each child employs a dozen bureacratic parasites...It is akin to child labour.

As for some perverse and vacarious liberal do-gooders programing children about sex in any form - iS A FROM OF SEXUAL INTERENCE.

This buisness about strangers with strange ideas attempting to control children and eventually adults via sex reminds me of Hitler stealing Freuds ideas and abusing them to manipulate and control a population..through their base drives and emotions--sex education by the state..is social engineering...much like the corporations that are big pharma have convinced many males that they can not have sex without expensive medication- In eccense they want to own your penis and now your kids..they can F off.

[lukin]

Sweden has very liberalized sex-ed in public schools. Here are some recent stats.

Teens Pregnancy Rates per 1000 teens aged 15-19

1996 2006

Canada 44.2 27.9

USA 25% decline

England 4.75% decline

Sweden 19.1% increase

Teen Birthrate / Abortion rate

Canada declined 38% declined 35.7%

USA declined 21.7% declined 28.6%

England declined 13.2 % increased 9.1%

Sweden declined 22.1% increased by 30%

What's happening in the socialist utopia known as Sweden? They intoduce sex-ed at a young age in Sweden.

Edited May 26, 2010 by lukin

[lukin]

Research on abstinence programs.

http://www.kmeg14.com/Global/story.asp?S=11918183&nav=menu609_6_1_5