DC Tom Posted December 6, 2004 Share Posted December 6, 2004 Oh well, who cares if they blow $127 million bucks each year and can't get the basic facts right? 148432[/snapback] Yeah, what a shocker. That almost never happens in this country... I'm going to hold you to this statement when the Vioxx starts hitting the fan to the tune of $10B in liability for Merck, you know... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGTEleven Posted December 6, 2004 Share Posted December 6, 2004 Not at all. It simply recognizes a reality: somtimes, parents are the last people in the world a kid wants to talk to about a problem. There is a conflict inherent in this issue that is unavoidable: The kid wants to have a sexual encounter and the parents don't want the kid to have a sexual encounter. If every parent could just say "I forbid it" and thus it was so, then there wouldn't be a problem to discuss. The fact is, I hope I don't shock you too much here, some kids don't always listen to their parents. Sometimes, even the best, most involved, intelligent and dilligent parents have kids who don't listen to them 100% if the time. Further, some kids are able to fool their parents, not all the time but just enough to get into some risky situations. The kid wants to have sex, the parents don't want him to, however, they can't stop him forever and these days, unprotected sex can kill you. Is the answer simply concluding that parents with kids who have sex are bad parents so the heck with it or is the answer to recognize reality and do what can be done to make the whole situation a lot less risky? 148416[/snapback] None of it is shocking to me. I even agree with some of your premises. It does seem to me that a parent signing a blank (in terms of when) consent form is a little Schultzish. I don't want my kid to have sex, so maybe if the school doesn't tell me when they're handing out condoms I won't know, so I can go along assuming nothing is happening. I'm not saying the parent would stop the encounter. But a purposeful lack of information about your child's well being is not a good thing. You may end up having a knock down drag out screaming match with your kid. At the end of it the kid may have sex anyway. That doesn't mean the knock down drag out was useless. It may help in the future as your kids experiences start matching up with what you had warned. Without the argument, there would not be such a vivid point of reference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted December 6, 2004 Author Share Posted December 6, 2004 None of it is shocking to me. I even agree with some of your premises. It does seem to me that a parent signing a blank (in terms of when) consent form is a little Schultzish. I don't want my kid to have sex, so maybe if the school doesn't tell me when they're handing out condoms I won't know, so I can go along assuming nothing is happening. I'm not saying the parent would stop the encounter. But a purposeful lack of information about your child's well being is not a good thing. You may end up having a knock down drag out screaming match with your kid. At the end of it the kid may have sex anyway. That doesn't mean the knock down drag out was useless. It may help in the future as your kids experiences start matching up with what you had warned. Without the argument, there would not be such a vivid point of reference. 148526[/snapback] If you don't want your kid to get a condom unless you are informed, you don't need that program. Without such a program your kid will have to get the condom directly from you or just not tell you and either not use one or get one from another source besides you or the school. Odds are, the kid just won't ask you and then it is more of a gamble as to whether a condom is used. If you have the program but require a separate consent for each distribution, then the kid knows that he has to tell you about the whole deal to get the consent to get the condom from that program. The kid will then likely not bother with the program and proceed just as he or she would if there was no program. They will have sex and it will be more of a gamble as to whether a condom is used. With that type of consent rule, you have the same result as you would have with a program as without so why bother? Not being told that your kid picked up a condom at school today is not abdicating your parental concern over you child's sexuality. Quite the opposite. Rather than using the school and its condom availablity program to figure out what your child is up to for you, you have to do it yourself. Yoy would have to do it the old fashioned way, by reading their notebooks, their diaries and listening in to their phone conversations. You know, the same way people did it before condom availability programs were invented. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted December 6, 2004 Share Posted December 6, 2004 After being confronted with a study of the totally false information being spread in some of these programs, at tax payer expense no less, Bill Frist, Republican Majority leader in the Senate agreed that the program needs to be seriously reviewed. For example, one program tried to tell kids that they could get aids from sweat. Even Bill Frist had to admit that one was wrong. Oh well, who cares if they blow $127 million bucks each year and can't get the basic facts right? As long as someone's brother-in-law or cousin has a nice juicy salary thanks to the patronage system, all is well. 148432[/snapback] Aw c'mon, can't you work a little harder to find some benefit in this giveaway? You know, like how you do it when you agree with the particular program? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted December 6, 2004 Author Share Posted December 6, 2004 Aw c'mon, can't you work a little harder to find some benefit in this giveaway? You know, like how you do it when you agree with the particular program? 148820[/snapback] What makes you think I disagree with this program for any reason other than its poor results? I called the program's goals "laudable" and the program "well meaning". I also pointed out that abstinence should be pushed in health class or sex ed by the teachers. I posted all the relevant stats I could find on its performance. The definitive report that was due out last year has been repeatedly postponed so I don't have that available to review. I suspect that its findings are not very good, hence the delay. I will take it as a compliment to the tightness of my argument that all you have left to attack is me. If your beleif is that I have unfairly or inaccurately hyped a program that was a failure because I support it despite that failure, I would be willing to look at any examples you can reference. (Just noticed the avatar change, how old is that dog? its a dobie right?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted December 6, 2004 Share Posted December 6, 2004 What makes you think I disagree with this program for any reason other than its poor results? I called the program's goals "laudable" and the program "well meaning". I also pointed out that abstinence should be pushed in health class or sex ed by the teachers. I posted all the relevant stats I could find on its performance. The definitive report that was due out last year has been repeatedly postponed so I don't have that available to review. I suspect that its findings are not very good, hence the delay. I will take it as a compliment to the tightness of my argument that all you have left to attack is me. If your beleif is that I have unfairly or inaccurately hyped a program that was a failure because I support it despite that failure, I would be willing to look at any examples you can reference. (Just noticed the avatar change, how old is that dog? its a dobie right?) 148853[/snapback] She'll be three in January. We got her about 3 weeks ago. Her story is here. Virtually every government program starts out as a laudable cause. They tend to morph into this. I haven't found many contrarian examples. I'm not attacking anything, just bolstering my continuing point that giving the roll of parenting to the goverment is a colossal and expensive failure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted December 6, 2004 Author Share Posted December 6, 2004 She'll be three in January. We got her about 3 weeks ago. Her story is here. Virtually every government program starts out as a laudable cause. They tend to morph into this. I haven't found many contrarian examples. I'm not attacking anything, just bolstering my continuing point that giving the roll of parenting to the goverment is a colossal and expensive failure. 148889[/snapback] Any chance you could duct tape the previous owners' mouths shut and leave them to sleep in their own fecal matter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted December 6, 2004 Share Posted December 6, 2004 Any chance you could duct tape the previous owners' mouths shut and leave them to sleep in their own fecal matter? 148956[/snapback] I've steadied myself a few times to keep from asking who they are. Apparently they still reside on base. I don't know how I'd handle a meeting with such people. I suspect not well. The whole thing is made worse by what a truly terrific dog she is. Says alot when you can make a comeback like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts