malkav11 said:
I'm not sure I want federal money going to abstinence-only sex education either.
Oh, I'm damn sure that I don't.
If you get a minute, you should read Rep. Waxman's report on those programs. It's not only that they're not even remotely effective; it's also that they're pushing sexist gender stereotypes, outright lies about homosexuality, and blatantly Christian viewpoints and stances (among other things) on all of the kids who go through them.
it's not just that it's misleading or distorted...it also shows some info that's just plain WRONG. best example that comes to mind is that they say the WRONG NUMBER OF CHROMOSOMES.
malicious? or stupid?
Both. Like when the report mentions that a lot of those programs tell students that 50% of ALL GAY TEENS are HIV positive, instead of reporting the actual statistic, which is that AMONG THOSE TEENS WHO ARE HIV POSITIVE, 50% of them possibly contracted it through homosexual sex? That could be stupidity; that could be a misunderstanding of the mechanisms of statistics. However, I'll have you know that I got a D in Intro to Stats. Barely a D, even. And I understood the difference.
So my vote goes for both. Stupid with a malicious agenda, perhaps?
Federally funded "pregnancy resource centers" are incorrectly telling women that abortion results in an increased risk of breast cancer, infertility and deep psychological trauma, a minority congressional report charged yesterday.
i'm thinking i have way more "deep psychological trauma" from some of my abusive past relationships.
malkav11 said:
I'm not sure I want federal money going to abstinence-only sex education either.
Oh, I'm damn sure that I don't.
If you get a minute, you should read Rep. Waxman's report on those programs. It's not only that they're not even remotely effective; it's also that they're pushing sexist gender stereotypes, outright lies about homosexuality, and blatantly Christian viewpoints and stances (among other things) on all of the kids who go through them.
it's not just that it's misleading or distorted...it also shows some info that's just plain WRONG. best example that comes to mind is that they say the WRONG NUMBER OF CHROMOSOMES.
malicious? or stupid?
Both. Like when the report mentions that a lot of those programs tell students that 50% of ALL GAY TEENS are HIV positive, instead of reporting the actual statistic, which is that AMONG THOSE TEENS WHO ARE HIV POSITIVE, 50% of them possibly contracted it through homosexual sex? That could be stupidity; that could be a misunderstanding of the mechanisms of statistics. However, I'll have you know that I got a D in Intro to Stats. Barely a D, even. And I understood the difference.
So my vote goes for both. Stupid with a malicious agenda, perhaps?
malkav11 said:
I'm not sure I want federal money going to abstinence-only sex education either.
Oh, I'm damn sure that I don't.
If you get a minute, you should read Rep. Waxman's report on those programs. It's not only that they're not even remotely effective; it's also that they're pushing sexist gender stereotypes, outright lies about homosexuality, and blatantly Christian viewpoints and stances (among other things) on all of the kids who go through them.
it's not just that it's misleading or distorted...it also shows some info that's just plain WRONG. best example that comes to mind is that they say the WRONG NUMBER OF CHROMOSOMES.
malkav11 said:
I'm not sure I want federal money going to abstinence-only sex education either.
Oh, I'm damn sure that I don't.
If you get a minute, you should read Rep. Waxman's report on those programs. It's not only that they're not even remotely effective; it's also that they're pushing sexist gender stereotypes, outright lies about homosexuality, and blatantly Christian viewpoints and stances (among other things) on all of the kids who go through them.
it's not just that it's misleading or distorted...it also shows some info that's just plain WRONG. best example that comes to mind is that they say the WRONG NUMBER OF CHROMOSOMES.
IPOD
RADIO
Necia
San Francisco, CA
August 2005
JUL 20, 2006 02:24 PM