RE: Obama supports sex ed for kindergartners........wtf?

RE: Obama supports sex ed for kindergartners........wtf? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

mikeyOfGeorgia -> RE: Obama supports sex ed for kindergartners........wtf? (7/14/2010 6:39:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: ORIGINAL: mikeyOfGeorgia this whole thing makes me rethink my views on home schooling kids. if more people would home school, then this would not be an issue. I dont know about every state, mikey. But the one i homeschooled had mandatory year end testing. Sex education was part of that testing. at least it would be the parents doing the teaching, not the under-paid teachers that get little praise for all their work, despite being over loaded on top of being under-paid

DaddysInkedSlut -> RE: Obama supports sex ed for kindergartners........wtf? (7/14/2010 7:06:45 PM)
Although homeschooling laws vary, home education is legal in all 50 states! Though the United States Supreme Court has upheld parents' rights to home educate, each state has different homeschool laws. HSLDA Home Schooling State Laws

CynthiaWVirginia -> RE: Obama supports sex ed for kindergartners........wtf? (7/14/2010 8:20:17 PM)
quote: The fact that too many parents still do not teach their children sex education has brought all this on. The schools teach it in 5th or 6th grade, so any child molested before this age...is the parent's fault because the parent failed to teach their 5 year old how to protect themselves from pedophilia...?! Balderdash. I will never agree that any verbal teachings can help a child that young avoid being molested, nor even help them feel free enough to speak up if it does happen. I can't talk about incest based pedophilia, but when this is found out, aren't the kids/victims given something called counseling by professionals so that the cycle is broken? I fail to see how an untrained in that field TEACHER should be responsible for educating and breaking cycles where the victim grows up (maybe only into a teenager) to become an abuser. And I will never, ever see how this is appropriate for 5 year olds in kindergarten. I don't care who is in office either, that's why I've left Obama out of this. I'm only addressing this issue of sex education for 5 year olds and the assumption that it will prevent anything, or make any such shiite easier to report. If a kid doesn't tell somebody something when they're in pain from an attack, or emotionally all over the place after being traumatized, it's not going to come out until it's safe to tell someone. If a child has been victimized then it already happened. It's time for damage control and counceling and maybe the police. All this "prevention through education" is not going to work on a kindergartener. If they were that easy to educate, then telling them one time only not to ever step in front of a moving car would work, and there would be no scolding and spank needed to drive home the point. Once a child has been molested, I wish there were free counceling offered and help with re-establishing boundaries. This last part would be more appropriate when someone is about 11 years old though. The problem would ensue over singling these kids out...like they had been bitten by a werewolf and are potentially all abusers. This is a crock. If they want to make sure good boundaries are in place, then everyone could have this education offered at 11 years old...and if parents would rather be there and do it themselves, why not offer them a small book to read with their kid in private? These books could be left at the school library too. I'm done with this thread, as it's a Mexican standoff and all of us think we are right and nobody seems to be learning anything. With homeschooling, I have never once had to have my son tested on his sexual education. Even city kids can see dogs or cats mating. Keeping mice like I did for a few years gives great opportunities to answer questions. Some males are docile, and some are abusive, and yes...some will go after tiny babies and are then fed to the cats. Everything gave me a chance to explain things much better than "educating" him for half a day at school. In families where there has been incest...we have help for that already. It's called foster care and counseling. Bye all, I'm done in here.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Obama supports sex ed for kindergartners........wtf? (7/14/2010 8:22:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mikeyOfGeorgia quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: ORIGINAL: mikeyOfGeorgia this whole thing makes me rethink my views on home schooling kids. if more people would home school, then this would not be an issue. I dont know about every state, mikey. But the one i homeschooled had mandatory year end testing. Sex education was part of that testing. at least it would be the parents doing the teaching, not the under-paid teachers that get little praise for all their work, despite being over loaded on top of being under-paid some are underpaid and underpraised. Far too many are going through the motions and not worth minimum wage.

vincentML -> RE: Obama supports sex ed for kindergartners........wtf? (7/14/2010 8:23:59 PM)
quote: some are underpaid and underpraised. Far too many are going through the motions and not worth minimum wage. And you know this How?

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Obama supports sex ed for kindergartners........wtf? (7/14/2010 8:26:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: some are underpaid and underpraised. Far too many are going through the motions and not worth minimum wage. And you know this How? From having 3 kids that have gone through the public school system from 1981 to 2005. Unless things have change in the last 5 years. cough cough.

vincentML -> RE: Obama supports sex ed for kindergartners........wtf? (7/14/2010 8:33:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: some are underpaid and underpraised. Far too many are going through the motions and not worth minimum wage. And you know this How? From having 3 kids that have gone through the public school system from 1981 to 2005. Unless things have change in the last 5 years. cough cough. Oh right. Quite a large sample you have there. [8\|]

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Obama supports sex ed for kindergartners........wtf? (7/14/2010 8:41:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: some are underpaid and underpraised. Far too many are going through the motions and not worth minimum wage. And you know this How? From having 3 kids that have gone through the public school system from 1981 to 2005. Unless things have change in the last 5 years. cough cough. Oh right. Quite a large sample you have there. [8\|] Thats a sample of about 150 teachers. More than sufficient to judge the school districts we were in. Add to that the quality of education that candidates Ive interviewed over the last 30 years demonstrate, I have no doubt that it is a systemic, not a local problem.

slvemike4u -> RE: Obama supports sex ed for kindergartners........wtf? (7/14/2010 8:45:37 PM)
And yet,despite all of your purported success,you never did anything about this substandard education your three children were receiving? Such as removing them from this substandard system...nothing?

vincentML -> RE: Obama supports sex ed for kindergartners........wtf? (7/14/2010 8:59:52 PM)
quote: Thats a sample of about 150 teachers. More than sufficient to judge the school districts we were in. Add to that the quality of education that candidates Ive interviewed over the last 30 years demonstrate, I have no doubt that it is a systemic, not a local problem. All second hand information and hearsay. I will match your 30 years of interviewing candidates with my 30 years teaching in the schools and damn well tell you teachers work hard for the small amount of money and the abuse they take from Administrators who are only interested in cya for promotion and from parents who are in denial to find that their little darlins are not studying, not doing assignments, not paying attention, or spending the day stoned. Motivation begins at home but too many parents are too lazy or too overworked in many cases to handle that responsiblity, so they just say as you do oh so easily that it is all the fault of the teachers. 150 teachers you think you know. Crap. You don't know dick. You have no experience observing and evaluating in the class room but you nevertheless casually pass on this demeaning BS on a message board late at night and think it's okay to disparage the reputation of a very important work force in our society. Again ... crap!

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Obama supports sex ed for kindergartners........wtf? (7/14/2010 9:49:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML All second hand information and hearsay. First hand experience is not second hand information and hearsay. Buy a dictionary, teach.

DomKen -> RE: Obama supports sex ed for kindergartners........wtf? (7/14/2010 10:19:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Thats a sample of about 150 teachers. More than sufficient to judge the school districts we were in. Add to that the quality of education that candidates Ive interviewed over the last 30 years demonstrate, I have no doubt that it is a systemic, not a local problem. Is this more first hand knowledge like how constant dollars aren't when you do math on them? Or is it flat made up like your claims of expertise in finance?

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Obama supports sex ed for kindergartners........wtf? (7/14/2010 10:59:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Thats a sample of about 150 teachers. More than sufficient to judge the school districts we were in. Add to that the quality of education that candidates Ive interviewed over the last 30 years demonstrate, I have no doubt that it is a systemic, not a local problem. Is this more first hand knowledge like how constant dollars aren't when you do math on them? Or is it flat made up like your claims of expertise in finance? What I said is that by using constant dollars as of a date later than both events you inflate the impact of the earlier event and can reverse the apparent relationship of the two numbers expressed in current dollars. Absolutely correct. Fail again Kendoll Oh...and I repeat my offer. You think my background in math/statistics and economics is made up? You think my consulting business is fictious? Put your money with your mouth is and I will post my credentials, my company's tax returns, my tax returns, and our brochures. till then stfu.

DomKen -> RE: Obama supports sex ed for kindergartners........wtf? (7/15/2010 12:09:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Thats a sample of about 150 teachers. More than sufficient to judge the school districts we were in. Add to that the quality of education that candidates Ive interviewed over the last 30 years demonstrate, I have no doubt that it is a systemic, not a local problem. Is this more first hand knowledge like how constant dollars aren't when you do math on them? Or is it flat made up like your claims of expertise in finance? What I said is that by using constant dollars as of a date later than both events you inflate the impact of the earlier event and can reverse the apparent relationship of the two numbers expressed in current dollars. Absolutely correct. Fail again Kendoll No you don't. Any year's constant dollars are any other year's constant dollars multiplied by a constant, the cumulative inflation between the two dates to be precise. Therefore when comparing amounts of money seperated in time you always adjust for inflation and what year you adjust to is immaterial. Your incompetence is shown by this example I gave you two full days to retract. http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=3309339 I gave these numbers: (and you accepted them as your base) 1981 = 766.6 billion 1984 = 730.4 billion both in constant 1987 dollars. 1981 > 1984 You presented these numbers as a claimed conversion to constant 1981 dollars: 1981 = 635 billion 1984 = 666 billion Now somehow 1981 < 1984. Now here's the thing conversion from one year's constant dollar to another is simple multiplication. There is no number that can be multiplied by 766.6 and get 635 (this factor is approx 0.83) that also results in 730.4 being 666 (actual factor being 0.91). Anyone with even a passing familiarity with financial calculations would never believe such an output is possible.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Obama supports sex ed for kindergartners........wtf? (7/15/2010 12:13:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Thats a sample of about 150 teachers. More than sufficient to judge the school districts we were in. Add to that the quality of education that candidates Ive interviewed over the last 30 years demonstrate, I have no doubt that it is a systemic, not a local problem. Is this more first hand knowledge like how constant dollars aren't when you do math on them? Or is it flat made up like your claims of expertise in finance? What I said is that by using constant dollars as of a date later than both events you inflate the impact of the earlier event and can reverse the apparent relationship of the two numbers expressed in current dollars. Absolutely correct. Fail again Kendoll No you don't. Any year's constant dollars are any other year's constant dollars multiplied by a constant, the cumulative inflation between the two dates to be precise. Therefore when comparing amounts of money seperated in time you always adjust for inflation and what year you adjust to is immaterial. Your incompetence is shown by this example I gave you two full days to retract. http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=3309339 I gave these numbers: (and you accepted them as your base) 1981 = 766.6 billion 1984 = 730.4 billion both in constant 1987 dollars. 1981 > 1984 You presented these numbers as a claimed conversion to constant 1981 dollars: 1981 = 635 billion 1984 = 666 billion Now somehow 1981 < 1984. Now here's the thing conversion from one year's constant dollar to another is simple multiplication. There is no number that can be multiplied by 766.6 and get 635 (this factor is approx 0.83) that also results in 730.4 being 666 (actual factor being 0.91). Anyone with even a passing familiarity with financial calculations would never believe such an output is possible. No, its not a single multipcation when you are using a different number of years. 1981 to 1987 6 years of inflation compounded. 1984 to 1987 3 years of inflation compounded. 6 != 3 FAIL. Here are the CPI indices in October of each year, since October was the date of the first tax cut. 1981-10-01 93.400 1982-10-01 98.100 1983-10-01 100.800 1984-10-01 105.100 1985-10-01 108.500 1986-10-01 110.200 1987-10-01 115.000 compound inflation 1981 to 1987 1.231263 compound inflation 1984 to 1987 1.094196 Your numbers: 1981 was 766.6 in 1987 dollars/1.231263 = 622.6 in 1981 dollars 1984 was 730.4 in 1987 dollars/1.094196 = 667.5 in 1984 dollars. Amazing 1981 is higher 1987 dollars but lower in current dollars. Exactly what I said.

DomKen -> RE: Obama supports sex ed for kindergartners........wtf? (7/15/2010 12:16:55 AM)
No number is in 1984 dollars therfore your conversion is wrong.

DomKen -> RE: Obama supports sex ed for kindergartners........wtf? (7/15/2010 1:45:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Thats a sample of about 150 teachers. More than sufficient to judge the school districts we were in. Add to that the quality of education that candidates Ive interviewed over the last 30 years demonstrate, I have no doubt that it is a systemic, not a local problem. Is this more first hand knowledge like how constant dollars aren't when you do math on them? Or is it flat made up like your claims of expertise in finance? What I said is that by using constant dollars as of a date later than both events you inflate the impact of the earlier event and can reverse the apparent relationship of the two numbers expressed in current dollars. Absolutely correct. Fail again Kendoll No you don't. Any year's constant dollars are any other year's constant dollars multiplied by a constant, the cumulative inflation between the two dates to be precise. Therefore when comparing amounts of money seperated in time you always adjust for inflation and what year you adjust to is immaterial. Your incompetence is shown by this example I gave you two full days to retract. http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=3309339 I gave these numbers: (and you accepted them as your base) 1981 = 766.6 billion 1984 = 730.4 billion both in constant 1987 dollars. 1981 > 1984 You presented these numbers as a claimed conversion to constant 1981 dollars: 1981 = 635 billion 1984 = 666 billion Now somehow 1981 < 1984. Now here's the thing conversion from one year's constant dollar to another is simple multiplication. There is no number that can be multiplied by 766.6 and get 635 (this factor is approx 0.83) that also results in 730.4 being 666 (actual factor being 0.91). Anyone with even a passing familiarity with financial calculations would never believe such an output is possible. No, its not a single multipcation when you are using a different number of years. 1981 to 1987 6 years of inflation compounded. 1984 to 1987 3 years of inflation compounded. 6 != 3 FAIL. Here are the CPI indices in October of each year, since October was the date of the first tax cut. 1981-10-01 93.400 1982-10-01 98.100 1983-10-01 100.800 1984-10-01 105.100 1985-10-01 108.500 1986-10-01 110.200 1987-10-01 115.000 compound inflation 1981 to 1987 1.231263 compound inflation 1984 to 1987 1.094196 Your numbers: 1981 was 766.6 in 1987 dollars/1.231263 = 622.6 in 1981 dollars 1984 was 730.4 in 1987 dollars/1.094196 = 667.5 in 1984 dollars. Amazing 1981 is higher 1987 dollars but lower in current dollars. Exactly what I said. Your edit just caught my attention and it is stupid beyond belief. you're trying to claim you meant convert to their original respective years. However that is not what you explicitly wrote quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy try using constant 1981 dollars, since thats the baseline pre-tax cuts. Assuming your numbers are correct and adjusting them to constant 1981 dollars 1981=635 1984=666. You specifically claimed your conversion was to 1981 constant dollars. Your claim is wrong and no amount of weaseling will change that.

tazzygirl -> RE: Obama supports sex ed for kindergartners........wtf? (7/15/2010 4:07:27 AM)
quote: I'm only addressing this issue of sex education for 5 year olds and the assumption that it will prevent anything, or make any such shiite easier to report. The headline is misleading, as someone else pointed out. If you believe its sex education to name the correct body parts... lol... you obviously did not read the article or the thread. Teach kindergarteners about “basic reproductive body parts (penis, vagina, breast, nipples, testicles, scrotum).” Read more: http://radio.foxnews.com/2010/07/13/obama-supports-kindergarten-sex-ed/#ixzz0tkHet9qn The Helena Public School system is considering a comprehensive plan for students in kindergarten through 12th grade. It includes teaching first graders that people can be attracted to the same gender. In second grade students are instructed to avoid gay slurs and by the time students turn 10 years old they are taught about various types of intercourse. Read more: http://radio.foxnews.com/2010/07/09/sex-education-for-kindergartners/#ixzz0tkIGOIKX That was from another article linked in the one VP posted. Are people really that upset over their children knowing the correct terminology? Or is it more likely that they are upset because of what one mother said... “We are just setting children up to start having sex at an earlier age,” said the mother of 9-year-old triplets. “I think we should let our children be children. Let them be innocent and enjoy their grade school years. There will be enough pressure on them as they get older.” Read more: http://radio.foxnews.com/2010/07/13/obama-supports-kindergarten-sex-ed/#ixzz0tkJDpNKI Guess what "mom", kids that young are already having sex. So, yes. Virginia, you can shove your head into the sand and pretend that sex doesnt exist for children and that teaching a 5 year old what is a penis is taking away parental rights. quote: If a child has been victimized then it already happened. No shit Captian Obvious. That isnt what we are discussing here. quote: All this "prevention through education" is not going to work on a kindergartener. You really are not all that astute. Thats when education begins. Actually, for my own son, it began a little bit sooner. The education i was referring too is an ongoing process, as with any educational process with children. Or do you assume one lesson is enough on any topic? quote: This last part would be more appropriate when someone is about 11 years old though. The problem would ensue over singling these kids out...like they had been bitten by a werewolf and are potentially all abusers. Molested at 5, councelled at 11.... great plan. [8\|] quote: If they want to make sure good boundaries are in place, then everyone could have this education offered at 11 years old...and if parents would rather be there and do it themselves, why not offer them a small book to read with their kid in private? These books could be left at the school library too. Because children as young as 9 and 10 are already having sex. And you believe a "small" book is enough to teach a child about sex? Talk about a crock. quote: In families where there has been incest...we have help for that already. It's called foster care and counseling. Talk about presumptions. Incest doesnt require a child be removed from the family. Do you really understand the subject matters that are being discussed on this thread? Honestly, do you? We were discussing sex education as a whole. You seem to be under the belief that its all taught to 5 year olds and thats that. quote: With homeschooling, I have never once had to have my son tested on his sexual education. Even city kids can see dogs or cats mating. Keeping mice like I did for a few years gives great opportunities to answer questions. Some males are docile, and some are abusive, and yes...some will go after tiny babies and are then fed to the cats. Everything gave me a chance to explain things much better than "educating" him for half a day at school. You have already posted that you taught your child differently. quote: Autism gave him more openness and innocence, but it also gave him more vulnerability and gullibility. He knew all this, but I didn't rely on information to protect him...I watched him like a hawk. How many parents dont. I would expect a parent of a 5 year old to watch their kid carefully. A ten year old, not so much. But waiting till 10 is a bit late to be teaching about sex. Mine was asking about the condoms at gas stations at the age of 5... lol... he thought they were ballons. I explained what they really were. He went and told my mother what condoms were (kids are always telling everyone new things they learn). my mother flipped... sorta like you are doing now. He later told me he always felt he could never be open with her because he always remembered that reaction. Yet he will ask me anything and everything under the sun about that topic and more. With children, communication is the key, knowledge is power, and knowing your children is half the battle... but it wont win the war. As far as books... here is a great list for those of christian faith... http://www.booksforchrist.com/StoreBox/hmpusxxxxxxx.htm I myself used books close to those, along with my nursing books and a slew of secular books. There are books available, many on the public library book list. And, just because you didnt test your child when you homeschooled doesnt mean the tests for sex education are not available or that they arent part of a standardized test. Nor did i have to teach him that subject. But if he ever wanted to return to public school, he would need that to graduate. A great on line source for sex ed is....... http://www.sexedlibrary.org/index.cfm?pageId=722

vincentML -> RE: Obama supports sex ed for kindergartners........wtf? (7/15/2010 6:00:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML All second hand information and hearsay. First hand experience is not second hand information and hearsay. Buy a dictionary, teach. If that is your first hand experience it is woefully limited. Tell me how much time you have spent trying to understand the teaching/learning dynamic. And tell me how from your first hand experience you can justify saying "far too many are going through the motions and not worth minimum wage." Can you quantify that? No, of course not. Because it is BS. Just going through the motions just doesn't make it when you have to prepare lessons, instruct, guide, and evaluate the learning of 150 students each day. You really haven't a clue what you are talking about. Just reeling out a shameful, generalized, denigrating, unsubstantiated comment on "far too many teachers." Just a blowhard who thinks he knows everything about everything but obviously knows nothing about teachers. Puhleez! I taught in the Nation's fourth largest school district urban and suburban. From my observations and understanding teachers do not "just go through the motions." A teacher just going through the motions with 150 kids everyday would not survive very long. That teacher would get chewed up and spit out in very short order by the students. You certainly do not understand the challenge of standing at the front of a classroom and assuming all that responsibility. The best you can do is dump slander upon good people. Contemptuous.

domiguy -> RE: Obama supports sex ed for kindergartners........wtf? (7/15/2010 6:10:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Oh...and I repeat my offer. You think my background in math/statistics and economics is made up? You think my consulting business is fictious? Put your money with your mouth is and I will post my credentials, my company's tax returns, my tax returns, and our brochures. till then stfu. Who would work for this turd?

Page: << < prev 7 8 [9] 10 11 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.078125