Submitted by News_Puppy t3_xwlj8o in Connecticut
MikeSCARN95 t1_ir9wfv0 wrote
Reply to comment by Pruedrive in Why don't we talk about sex ed in CT schools? by News_Puppy
This is all strictly opinion though, is it not? And before all this gets taken out of context or considered and argument for or against and point of view on the topic of sex, it isn't. That statement won't help but I'll continue in hopes of a rational conversation.
>safe, rational, or well informed manner,
There are obviously people who would, and have argued the same from the opposite end of the spectrum. They don't consider governement employees to be the appropriate vessel for these conversations.
>And frankly when it comes to a subject that can have a very real, and often detrimental impact on society,
Okay. If we were to grant the argument that this subject does have detrimental impacts on society (if not taught "properly") and should be taught solely by government funded and ran school systems, where do you draw the line? It can be argued that any subject you choose can have detrimental impacts on society. Who gets to decide how anything else is taught? Parents at school boards? The governement? If you choose governement I'd be cautious as administrations and cultural opinions can change rapidly.
>most rational people would rather that be put in the hands of people trained to instruct children
That's a fairly unsubstantiated claim. I don't think it's irrational to have control, or at least a say in your own child's education and how/when it is received. The unfortunate reality is most people cannot afford or accommodate alternatives to public education. Record low public school enrollment and increase in homeschooling co-ops nation wide seems to indicate the opposite.
My overall point here is that it appears your willing to eliminate the rights of a family, and the control parents have of thier minors because you disagree with them. If you want to teach your children about sex, gender, etc at 6 months old, that's your prerogative. I may or may not agree with that, it doesn't matter, you have the right to do in your home as you please. I absolutely would argue the same for the opposite. The people who have reservations or disapprove of sexual education in schools have no right to complainant what others do in the home. We are talking about a publicly funded institution, that absolutely should be staying neutral on topics that are in wide disagreement amoung the population.
Pruedrive t1_ira23k4 wrote
>There are obviously people who would, and have argued the same from the opposite end of the spectrum. They don't consider governement employees to be the appropriate vessel for these conversations.
Yes there are also people who dispute the moon landing and think all manner of nonsense.. case in point look at the recent public response to covid, and how a certain segment (a sizable one at that) disputed how a basic vaccine works, I’m sorry, when my tax dollars will go to taking care of their grandchild, because they failed to teach thier child about safe sex, because they wanted to teach them that a abstinence in the eyes of a magic sky daddy, or some other nonsensical horse shit is all they need… yah no, standardized education. Also to believe that the government can’t do anything right is such a fucking myth perpetuated by conservatives since for ever now, that really needs to die.
>Okay. If we were to grant the argument that this subject does have detrimental impacts on society (if not taught "properly") and should be taught solely by government funded and ran school systems, where do you draw the line? It can be argued that any subject you choose can have detrimental impacts on society. Who gets to decide how anything else is taught? Parents at school boards? The governement? If you choose governement I'd be cautious as administrations and cultural opinions can change rapidly.
Well this is why we have federal Board of Ed, that dictates subject matter in a general sense, then in turn pushes it out to state boards of Ed to develop their own curriculums, allowing them to take a multitude of local/regional factors into consideration while developing their curriculums, and tailoring it for their communities needs. The line would be what those local/regional boards of Ed’s would deam reasonable.. while not perfect it’s far better than dumping the responsibility off onto parents who are in most cases ill equipped to handle.
>That's a fairly unsubstantiated claim. I don't think it's irrational to have control, or at least a say in your own child's education and how/when it is received. The unfortunate reality is most people cannot afford or accommodate alternatives to public education. Record low public school enrollment and increase in homeschooling co-ops nation wide seems to indicate the opposite.
Well this is why things like the PTA exist, as well as options like home school, if you feel you can do a better job at instructing your children go for it, furthermore you can easily get your chilled excused from lessons of the nature, so it’s not a huge deal.. why you would want to control what a kid learns, especially for something like this is beyond me, and only leads me to speculation of your intentions here.
>My overall point here is that it appears your willing to eliminate the rights of a family, and the control parents have of thier minors because you disagree with them. If you want to teach your children about sex, gender, etc at 6 months old, that's your prerogative. I may or may not agree with that, it doesn't matter, you have the right to do in your home as you please. I absolutely would argue the same for the opposite. The people who have reservations or disapprove of sexual education in schools have no right to complainant what others do in the home. We are talking about a publicly funded institution, that absolutely should be staying neutral on topics that are in wide disagreement amoung the population.
I’m not eliminating the rights of the family, you can teach your crotch goblins what ever the fuck make believe dumb shit you want in your own free time.. won’t stop you, however when you take my tax money and have them sit in my school, they are going to be taught in a manner that our society deems as what is a needed education for saud society. Yes let’s teach children these things so they grow up healthy, knowing things about their own, and others bodies. It’s good for them and society as a whole that they receive these lessons in a school and not from opinionated/biased, ill informed, often uneducated family members.
MikeSCARN95 t1_irafxzz wrote
>Yes there are also people who dispute the moon landing and think all manner of nonsense.. case in point look at the recent public response to covid, and how a certain segment (a sizable one at that) disputed how a basic vaccine works,
So we're supposed to remove parents rights as a whole because crazy people exist? I don't think that's a particularly strong argument. It is possible to believe the fact the moon landing happened AND want to retain control of your child's education.
>I’m sorry, when my tax dollars will go to taking care of their grandchild, because they failed to teach thier child about safe sex, because they wanted to teach them that a abstinence in the eyes of a magic sky daddy, or some other nonsensical horse shit is all they need… yah no,
And yet our tax dollars fund health care for the morbidly obese and drug abuse and yet at least one of those things is being spun as a positive life style when it's objectively unhealthy. This is part of the argument against nationalized Healthcare, not just that the governement is "bad at everything". You open the door for the ability to restrict people's basic rights in the name of "my tax dollars".
>fucking myth perpetuated by conservatives since for ever now, that really needs to die.**
Well, that's more so a libertarian view than a conservative one, although the line has been picked up within conservatism in some circles. For instance someone who isn't a through and through libertarian could still be conservative but concede things such as public service departments (police, fire, ems, and yes education) are needed and provide a net positive to society.
>. while not perfect it’s far better than dumping the responsibility off onto parents who are in most cases ill equipped to handle.
While it is reasonable to believe the so called experts are more equipped to teach, it doesn't mean they are more equipped to decide what is taught.
>The line would be what those local/regional boards of Ed’s would deam reasonable
The board of Ed is usually selected by vote by the community. If they aren't listening to what the community wants then they should be removed. It's the same point with an extra layer of the community, and yes, the parents, being able to decide what's in thier child's school.
>however when you take my tax money and have them sit in my school, they are going to be taught in a manner that our society deems as what is a needed education.
The problem with your thought here is that it isn't YOUR school. You are not the only one funding it. There are other people who have different beliefs than you and are also funding it. Our society deeming something as needed education is in fact an opinion, more so your opinion right now. Part of being in a civilized society is living with those that don't agree with you. Judging by your tone in an otherwise civil discussion, it seems this is a point that needs reiterating.
>It’s good for them and society as a whole that they receive these lessons in a school and not from opinionated/biased,
The lessons themselves are opinionated. People are allowed to practice religious beliefs and pass those onto thier families, despite the fact you don't like it. That includes thibgs that are taught as safe sex practices. I dont necessarily agree with all those viewpoints, but I understand it's fundamental to the existence of a free country.
>I’m not eliminating the rights of the family, you can teach your crotch goblins what ever the fuck make believe dumb shit you want in your own free time
If parents can't choose what's going on in thier schools that they also pay for how is that the removal of rights? Unless of course you're suggesting we should not mandate the funding for non use of the education system?
Pruedrive t1_iram2im wrote
>So we're supposed to remove parents rights as a whole because crazy people exist? I don't think that's a particularly strong argument. It is possible to believe the fact the moon landing happened AND want to retain control of your child's education.
Its not removing parental rights.. you are confused here, the parents like I stated before have the right to pull their kids from classes and send them to a private school of thier choosing, home school them, or have them excused from the class at their own kids detriment. It’s indeed a strong argument because we have a segment of the population who as of late has taken a very anti intellectualism stance. Well at least this is what their leaders and media is telling them they should believe. It’s easy to see why, uneducated masses are easier to control, than those who are educated. Furthermore education is one of the easiest ways to improve ones socioeconomic status, and it creates more competition for the“elites” of our society, as well an educated society start to challenge those ruling classes, especially the status quo that they handed down to the lower classes to accept.
>And yet our tax dollars fund health care for the morbidly obese and drug abuse and yet at least one of those things is being spun as a positive life style when it's objectively unhealthy. This is part of the argument against nationalized Healthcare, not just that the governement is "bad at everything". You open the door for the ability to restrict people's basic rights in the name of "my tax dollars".
Yes let’s act like 1. Health classe and PE aren’t a thing.. or 2. That some problems take more than education to fix. Like you can tell folks all day till you are blue in the face that garbage food is bad for you.. but when they live in food deserts, or the price of healthier options makes those options unreasonable.. well then garbage is better than starvation. N addition there are some people due to genetic factors that really can’t control how they look, as well seeing how the vast majority of Americans are obese, probably not healthy to stigmatize being overweight. And when it comes to how tax dollars are spent, you can’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Will they get everything right 100% of the time, no, will mistakes be made, yes, should this paralyze us into inaction, or show that the government is ill equipped to handle things they have been doing for over a century now, absolutely not.
>Well, that's more so a libertarian view than a conservative one, although the line has been picked up within conservatism in some circles. For instance someone who isn't a through and through libertarian could still be conservative but concede things such as public service departments (police, fire, ems, and yes education) are needed and provide a net positive to society.
Libertarians are just edgy republicans, who want to have all the same stupid economic policy, and anti regulatory horse shit but also want to cast off all the social hang ups that come with being a conservative so they can smoke weed. Personally, I think they are the worst.
>>For instance someone who isn't a through and through libertarian could still be conservative but concede things such as public service departments (police, fire, ems, and yes education) are needed and provide a net positive to society.
This person wouldn’t be a libertarian.. or a good one at that then.
>While it is reasonable to believe the so called experts are more equipped to teach, it doesn't mean they are more equipped to decide what is taught.
How so? And like individual parents are?!
>The board of Ed is usually selected by vote by the community. If they aren't listening to what the community wants then they should be removed. It's the same point with an extra layer of the community, and yes, the parents, being able to decide what's in thier child's school.
I mean why do you hate democracy then? Like literally you just explained the beauty of the system. Parents can always decide what’s best for their children, like I said now there are a multitude of alternatives for people to fuck up their kids on their own.
>The problem with your thought here is that it isn't YOUR school. You are not the only one funding it. There are other people who have different beliefs than you and are also funding it. Our society deeming something as needed education is in fact an opinion, more so your opinion right now. Part of being in a civilized society is living with those that don't agree with you. Judging by your tone in an otherwise civil discussion, it seems this is a point that needs reiterating.
OK… then get together with other like minded folks, and try and influence the system then, if there’s enough of you, you can take on the burden of deeming what’s fit for our children to learn.. if not, welp, hate to tell ya democracy is sort of a majority rule thing, for better or worse. I’m civil it’s just annoying as fuck when people get bent out of shape for the stupidest of thing.. who honestly cares kids are learning this, what puritanical nonesense would lead one to believe it’s not healthy for kids to understand the basics about these things?
>The lessons themselves are opinionated. People are allowed to practice religious beliefs and pass those onto thier families, despite the fact you don't like it. That includes thibgs that are taught as safe sex practices. I dont necessarily agree with all those viewpoints, but I understand it's fundamental to the existence of a free country.
How is it opinionated? Please explain how teaching kids this stuff is open to opinion? Also aren’t saying nope this isn’t right also an opinion? I don’t give a shit if you want to teach your kids pre medieval theology or that the earth is the center of the universe, that’s up to you, but if your children are going to go to a publicly funded institution of learning they are going to receive lessons on what society has deemed as necessary and appropriate. What they or you do with that information after the fact is up to you and them.
>If parents can't choose what's going on in thier schools that they also pay for how is that the removal of rights? Unless of course you're suggesting we should not mandate the funding for non use of the education system?
If a majority of parents have a problem with it they can change it… until such time, this isn’t a minority rule thing. Our children shouldn’t be denied a well rounded education cause YOU have hang ups around sexs. Nah, tax money should go to public institutions if you don’t like that send your kids to private school on your own dime, or educated them at home.
MikeSCARN95 t1_irb0pus wrote
>pull their kids from classes and send them to a private school of thier choosing, home school them, or have them excused from the class
Which is extremely difficult, if not impossible for the majority of lower to middle class homes, considering the majority of property taxes they pay (with homeownership) go the education system. If that money was freed for the ones who opt out this might actually be a valid option.
>at their own kids detriment
The problem that persists in all your responses is that your stating your opinion as fact. I'm trying to come from a neutral standpoint here and simply explain the other side of the argument without personal feelings on the issue.
>taken a very anti intellectualism stance.
I will assume your pointing to the vaccine debate as stated in your last reply. To that (and applied to other topics) there has been a seriously misguided conflating of a multitude of opinions. People having hesitancy on a rapidly deployed, new vaccine for a new virus isn't anti intellectual. There are plenty of opinions and concerns that lie in the middle of "take every shit available without question" and "vaccines bad and have nanochips (or insert some other conspiracy theory)" that are perfectly valid and are side lined as extreme. Using this as an example as why parents should support sex education because they clearly aren't smart enough is flawed at the most basic level of debate.
>Furthermore education is one of the easiest ways to improve ones socioeconomic status, and it creates more competition for the“elites” of our society, as well an educated society start to challenge those ruling classes, especially the status quo that they handed down to the lower classes to accept.
I don't disagree. There are more ways than one to skin a cat, however.
>Yes let’s act like 1. Health classe and PE aren’t a thing.. or 2. That some problems take more than education to fix. Like you can tell folks all day till you are blue in the face that garbage food is bad for you.. but when they live in food deserts, or the price of healthier options makes those options unreasonable.. well then garbage is better than starvation
Not disagreeing here either. I'm so not going to pretend that the vast majority of overweight people are in the circumstances you mentioned. It still is an example of personal decisions that effect society as a whole.
>Will they get everything right 100% of the time, no, will mistakes be made, yes, should this paralyze us into inaction, or show that the government is ill equipped to handle things they have been doing for over a century now, absolutely not.
Again I agree but I was responding to (like above) your notion that public education should be dictated for the benefit of all. The argument that the door is opened to potentially non beneficial things still holds.
>Libertarians are just edgy republicans
Well, no.
>. Personally, I think they are the worst.
Yes. I personally think it's a very immature, poorly thought out political stand point.
>This person wouldn’t be a libertarian.. or a good one at that then
Yes, that was point, you were conflating the two in previous replies and again in this one as "edgy" Republicans.
>How so? And like individual parents are?!
Yes. Although there are some parents that are bad, you don't remove the ability of the whole to decide for thier own children what they are taught. The higher education system that has made educators "experts" provide them with a frankly one sided, bias view of the world. It is far from a secret that college professors are predominantly liberal and very few hold any conservative view points. This has been well documented. Not including the shutting down of conservative speakers deemed intolerable in the exact places that used to claim were the safe haven of free thought and expression.
>I mean why do you hate democracy then? Like literally you just explained the beauty of the system. Parents can always decide what’s best for their children, like I said now there are a multitude of alternatives for people to fuck up their kids on their own.
I dont...I understand what I explained. My point is if the system is working, why is there a complaint about the supposed lack of sex education in public school. If the point is to appeal to the parents that don't support it, then I would argue you're going about it in the absolute wrong way.
>’m civil it’s just annoying as fuck
Well I'd argue your not. You've castigated entire religious communities and denigrated any other views point other than your own.
>How is it opinionated? Please explain how teaching kids this stuff is open to opinion? Also aren’t saying nope this isn’t right also an opinion? I don’t give a shit if you want to teach your kids pre medieval theology or that the earth is the center of the universe, that’s up to you, but if your children are going to go to a publicly funded institution of learning they are going to receive lessons on what society has deemed as necessary and appropriate. What they or you do with that information after the fact is up to you and them
I've said the purely biological points in the matter are fine, I think most of the concern has been derived from the inclusion of gender theory including but not limited to the addition of texts that are sexual explicit. Although this may not be 100% of the schools systems it is completely reasonable to not want the topic discussed by the public education system if these things are a possibility.
>If a majority of parents have a problem with it they can change it… until such time, this isn’t a minority rule thing. Our children shouldn’t be denied a well rounded education cause YOU have hang ups around sexs. Nah, tax money should go to public institutions if you don’t like that send your kids to private school on your own dime, or educated them at home.
Well if we are lacking sex education in the classroom as the OP suggests I'd say this isn't a minority rule thing. Also, sending my kids to a private institution doesn't prevent tax dollars going to the public system. The same argument can be made in the reverse. If you want the subject taught how you want, then you can teach it at home. No one is denying you any education.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments