22 May 16
Originally posted by whodeyDo I? What gave you that idea? It is clearly you that is demanding the state enforce morality via the school system. What is worse, you want them to enforce your version of morality without a democratic process to decide what morality should be taught.
I don't favor using the state as a means to propagate morality, people like you do.
I say that as long as it was consensual, it is the parents fault for not teaching their daughter morality. If the parents don't mind, then that is their problem. If it wasn't consensual then the boys and their parents need to be tried in court. I don't think the school is directly at fault although I suspect they could do a better job of sex education and teaching self respect. I suspect any failing on their part is directly a result of religious interference.
22 May 16
Originally posted by whodey"So even though them "boinking" is illegal and still labeled rape under the law"
So even though them "boinking" is illegal and still labeled rape under the law we should just continue to teach them how to "boink" safely and secretly give them the tools to "boink" and drive them to abortion clinics without any reprocussions?
Duly noted.
all were minors. what rape? you have information you didn't share with us?
22 May 16
Originally posted by whodeySo you think nothing should be done in response to teenagers having sex on the school's premises? Then why did you open this thread?
Far be it from me to tell anyone what to do.
In fact, many here probably think it would be OK for a 15 year old girl to have sex if she wanted to with anyone she wants.
My guess is you don't think it such a big deal either.
22 May 16
I never said that.
What I've said in the past is, morality is more important than teaching reading and writing. If you raise an amoral student, you are simply then empowering them with and education.
And if a school refuses to take a position on morality, they have already taken a position. Kids take note when teachers are unable to tell them that having sex is "wrong", even if their parents tell them otherwise.
It is then up to the parents to find a school that best suites their moral perspectives. Naturally, I would choose one that teaches appropriate morals. But without vouchers, poor folk are often forced into sending their children into school systems that oppose their particular moral outlook.
22 May 16
Originally posted by whodeyDo you claim there is no difference between unwise and immoral? If not, then all unwise decisions are immoral and all wise decisions are moral - surely? So if we educate children to make wise choices we will produce moral children.
So you would say that it is unwise but not immoral?
Do you think there is a difference between the two?
QED
22 May 16
Originally posted by finneganI was asking someone else this question and await a response.
Do you claim there is no difference between unwise and immoral? If not, then all unwise decisions are immoral and all wise decisions are moral - surely? So if we educate children to make wise choices we will produce moral children.
QED
Originally posted by whodeyThe evidence shows that telling children sex is wrong does not inhibit sexual activity and does not promote responsible, safe sex.
I never said that.
What I've said in the past is, morality is more important than teaching reading and writing. If you raise an amoral student, you are simply then empowering them with and education.
And if a school refuses to take a position on morality, they have already taken a position. Kids take note when teachers are unable to tell them that hav ...[text shortened]... rced into sending their children into school systems that oppose their particular moral outlook.
The evidence also shows that enabling children to make well informed choices with the encouragement of their peers - who share the same education in sexual health - has a major, beneficial impact on behaviour.
If you want moral behaviour, provide education.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35845161
If you think religious training will induce moral behaviour, take a look into the Irish Catholic Church, its Magdalene Laundries, its child abuse. These people could quote you the bible in its entirety back to front while holding a nicely illustrated missal in one hand, hoping the other hand is out of sight.
22 May 16
Originally posted by finneganI would say that telling someone that a particular behavior is "immoral" sends a different message than saying it is "unwise".
The evidence shows that telling children sex is wrong does not inhibit sexual activity and does not promote responsible, safe sex.
The evidence also shows that enabling children to make well informed choices with the encouragement of their peers - who share the same education in sexual health - has a major, beneficial impact on behaviour.
If you wan ...[text shortened]... nt while holding a nicely illustrated missal in one hand, hoping the other hand is out of sight.
So say that something is immoral, the natural thought is that it goes against what God says. This means that you may or may not understand the logic behind it. It also means that there is no getting away with anything, God sees all.
However, if you say something is unwise, you are telling that person that their is a logic that they can understand, and if they don't understand it or agree with it, then they will ignore it. Additionally, they may think that they can get away with such behavior and never have to answer for it. Perhaps they use contraception to diminish their "unwise" behavior, but it is still unwise behavior nonetheless.
It may shock you to know that I think explaining to people logically why something is bad compared to simply saying that God hates it will yield better results. If a person does not live a life of faith then just saying that God says no I think has little bearing on how they will act. More than likely they will just laugh at you.