Originally posted by Emperordmb
That depends on two things.The first is the age of the children. I don't think prepubescent kids in elementary school need to be learning about sex positions for example.
Secondly it depends on the aim and nature of the sex ed. I think they should learn the knowledge they need to be equipped with for their own safety and well being, how to use birth control, avoid STDs, unwanted pregnancy, etc. but I don't think the place of sex ed is moral propaganda. I don't think the people doing sex ed should delve into a moral treatise on why homosexuality is moral or that there are twenty billion genders even though I agree with the former of the two, just as I wouldn't want the promulgation of a moralistic obsession with abstinence only.
As far as I'm aware condoms aren't particularly expensive. I do get a little dicey on the suggestion that the government should appropriate money from the taxpayers to provide a service to people not relating to the protection of their rights though.
Hmm, your answer makes me wonder what sex ed is actually like now. When I had it it was pretty by the numbers and straight forward, I don't think they even really mentioned homosexuality or anything about morality. And the idea of many genders wasn't even in existence back then. I would agree with you, I'd prefer if they keep it about the things that are necessary to learning how to avoid STD's/unwanted pregnancies. Though I imagine these days including some lessons about homosexuality at the least is going to happen. I also agree on the age, I think probably somewhere between the ages of 10-12 would be a good point in time to learn about some of this stuff. Probably closer to 12.
Condoms aren't particularly expensive, but there's the embarrassment factor to consider. Lot of people are too embarrassed to go buy condoms in public for various reasons. Those reasons increase if the person is young, maybe they're afraid someone at the store might recognize them or be a friend of the parents, stuff like that. Also what you and I consider not expensive might be different from a 15 year old kid who gets an allowance.
Originally posted by BackFire
Hmm, your answer makes me wonder what sex ed is actually like now. When I had it it was pretty by the numbers and straight forward, I don't think they even really mentioned homosexuality or anything about morality. And the idea of many genders wasn't even in existence back then. I would agree with you, I'd prefer if they keep it about the things that are necessary to learning how to avoid STD's/unwanted pregnancies.
Originally posted by BackFire
Though I imagine these days including some lessons about homosexuality at the least is going to happen.
Originally posted by BackFire
I also agree on the age, I think probably somewhere between the ages of 10-12 would be a good point in time to learn about some of this stuff. Probably closer to 12.
Originally posted by BackFire
Condoms aren't particularly expensive, but there's the embarrassment factor to consider. Lot of people are too embarrassed to go buy condoms in public for various reasons. Those reasons increase if the person is young, maybe they're afraid someone at the store might recognize them or be a friend of the parents, stuff like that. Also what you and I consider not expensive might be different from a 15 year old kid who gets an allowance.
Originally posted by BackFireI have my doubts that a kid from a broken home in the hood typically gets an allowance.
Also what you and I consider not expensive might be different from a 15 year old kid who gets an allowance.
Phuck, I didn't even get an allowance, and my situation was not nearly that bad.
Originally posted by NemeBro
I have my doubts that a kid from a broken home in the hood typically gets an allowance.Phuck, I didn't even get an allowance, and my situation was not nearly that bad.
I agree.
I also have my doubts a 15 year old would give two flips about safe sex, but I suppose it doesn't hurt to have that option.
Originally posted by snowdragon
How is that done?It will never be solved by the federal govt. We know it is not done at the top of our govt, so where do we assign value and attribute personal, business and govt values to assist in fixing said problems?
Originally posted by Emperordmb
NB4 some strawman about how you don't actually think the federal government would be ineffective, you just hate poor people and want them to suffer.
I know the solution isn't devised from the top but its best received and delivered from where it's from. Offering assistance doesn't resolve issues in areas that define themselves with their local culture.
Do you believe otherwise?
Originally posted by snowdragon
I know the solution isn't devised from the top but its best received and delivered from where it's from. Offering assistance doesn't resolve issues in areas that define themselves with their local culture.Do you believe otherwise?
Originally posted by Kurk
DMB avoiding my question about the opioid crisis demonstrates the fallacy that is his position on drugs.
To me though the answer isn't criminalizing the people who get hooked on opiates. You just end up destroying people's lives even more.
Also there's another catch, when you criminalize certain drugs, chemists will tweak chemical formula's to get an analogue to the illegal drug that is not yet illegal itself, and often times those analogues end up being more dangerous.
Take LSD for example, it's a relatively safe substance, no addiction, virtually no chance of overdosing, but it got criminalized, so people started experimenting with chemicals to create something similar that the government wasn't yet familiar enough with to criminalize and people turned to the much less safe alternative, some of which could **** up your brain after one use.
Originally posted by Kurk
Where I live people caught by the police are given X amount of days to enter a rehab program to avoid prosecution. Some of them do, others don't. And yes, analogues are a problem.
If the drug doesn't cause any externalities then I see no reason for it to be banned. There are drugs that can make someone super violent and aggressive, those should remain illegal or heavily regulated. Opioids, I believe, don't do anything like that. The government shouldn't have any say of what you do to yourself. It's not their job to protect you from yourself.
Originally posted by JMANGO
End the drug war, actually allow the second A to be the second A and legalise hookers.
Best solution without spending a dime. FedGov money is like pouring water into a bucket with holes.
Second prize goes to Nemebro