The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
heh - i couldn't resist the joke...
anyways - abortion. now that it's widely available, people think it's their safety net. well, what about when they DIDN'T have abortion around, eh? what if einstein was aborted? or more disastrously, Lee Evans!!!
NOOOOOOOOOOOO!
the world needs laughter...and crazy entertainers who make themselves have spasms on stage! hilarious.....
ah well, there's my narrow minded opinion...
anyways - abortion. now that it's widely available, people think it's their safety net. well, what about when they DIDN'T have abortion around, eh? what if einstein was aborted? or more disastrously, Lee Evans!!!
NOOOOOOOOOOOO!
the world needs laughter...and crazy entertainers who make themselves have spasms on stage! hilarious.....
ah well, there's my narrow minded opinion...
Page:
Belldandy wrote:
>
> As is your ability to dismiss valid points as conservative ravings. I
> say again: If sex education and openeness about the subject leads to
> lower teen pregnancies, and if such education has improved and become
> greater year on year, then WTF are we seeing an ever more rapidly
> rising increase in teen pregnancies year on year instead of a
> decrease as was seen in Europe ?
Right;.
There are a lot of IF's in your question. Has sex education improved? How do you know? How are you defining 'improved'? If it's availability is increasing year on year, where are you getting those figures from? And of course, the biggie, how do you explain the lower rate of teenage pregnancies in every country of western continental Europe?
IF all those things are so, then I'm prepared to actually discuss this with you. However, I'm not prepared to simply accept your assertions because, as you've shown time and time again, you're happy to lie and simply make up facts to support your non-existent arguments.
>
> Perfectly valid question, but dimissed by you.
Okay, I dismissed it for which I apologise, but now it has been addressed and I await your response. So...any danger of you addressing your blatantly false, manufactured, made up lie about Iceland and their culture toward young single mums? Or are you going to pretend you never said that? Also, are you intending to address what I said at the end of that last post, about how teenagers will always have sex and something should be done to educate them? Or is it just everyone except you who has to respond? C'mon Bell; you were actually using your brain last week. You now seem content to trot out whatever the Tories tell you without bothering to even check your facts. In other words, you're parrotting again and relying on blind faith. Just like any good fundamentalist.
>
> As is your ability to dismiss valid points as conservative ravings. I
> say again: If sex education and openeness about the subject leads to
> lower teen pregnancies, and if such education has improved and become
> greater year on year, then WTF are we seeing an ever more rapidly
> rising increase in teen pregnancies year on year instead of a
> decrease as was seen in Europe ?
Right;.
There are a lot of IF's in your question. Has sex education improved? How do you know? How are you defining 'improved'? If it's availability is increasing year on year, where are you getting those figures from? And of course, the biggie, how do you explain the lower rate of teenage pregnancies in every country of western continental Europe?
IF all those things are so, then I'm prepared to actually discuss this with you. However, I'm not prepared to simply accept your assertions because, as you've shown time and time again, you're happy to lie and simply make up facts to support your non-existent arguments.
>
> Perfectly valid question, but dimissed by you.
Okay, I dismissed it for which I apologise, but now it has been addressed and I await your response. So...any danger of you addressing your blatantly false, manufactured, made up lie about Iceland and their culture toward young single mums? Or are you going to pretend you never said that? Also, are you intending to address what I said at the end of that last post, about how teenagers will always have sex and something should be done to educate them? Or is it just everyone except you who has to respond? C'mon Bell; you were actually using your brain last week. You now seem content to trot out whatever the Tories tell you without bothering to even check your facts. In other words, you're parrotting again and relying on blind faith. Just like any good fundamentalist.
Light wrote:
> There are a lot of IF's in your question.
Only two actually, and one of them you obviously agree with from what you said earlier. I said:
"If sex education and openeness about the subject leads to lower teen pregnancies, and if such education has improved and become greater year on year"
You obviously believe that sex education and openess about it leads to lower teen pregnancies, so that's one "if" gone, leaving just the question of how much such education has improved over the years.
> Has sex education improved?
Well I think it's fair to say it can't get any worse can it? I know when I was in school that it consisted of about two two hour long lessons/discussions, once in primary and once in secondary. It's certainly moved on since then.
> How do you know? How are you defining 'improved'?
Reasonable assumption, unless you'd like to argue the situation is worse than in the past ?
>If it's
> availability is increasing year on year, where are you getting those
> figures from?
Because it's stupidly obvious that the availability increases year on year through new government policy (most recently the peers are trying to get the topic of homosexuality into it, and the Liberal Democrats voted in favour of six year olds getting sex education at their conference this year), charity work, and so on.
>And of course, the biggie, how do you explain the lower
> rate of teenage pregnancies in every country of western continental
> Europe?
Well this older article has it pretty well http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/may1999/teen-m17.shtml - but I'd say poverty, lack of social guidance and moral role models, coupled with a changing society with few morals and little regard for religion and a somewhat shoddy education system.
But the answer also lies with numbers.
Those with the lowest rates do have something in common though, small populations by comparison to the UK. Take the Netherlands, roughly 16.5 million people and around 20 are 0-18. Sweden, 9 million with roughly 20% again. Then we go to the UK with around 61 million and around 22%. That's one hell of a lot more people to get a message to don't you think ?
Plus you've ignored my point that the UK has a declining population rate.
This year around 6000 people will die in the UK (our mortality rate is roughly 10.2 per 1000 which should, with a population of 60 000 000 give us that statistic) but we have a growth rate of something like 0.3%, meaning we'll grow by roughly 180 000 birth - barely three times our death rate and the growth can be from immigrants of all kinds and so on - our actual birth rate is just something like 0.9 higher than the death rate - another sign of declining population and an aging one.
So the growth rate has declined from the past, but the pregnancy rates are still higher than the past.
> IF all those things are so, then I'm prepared to actually discuss
> this with you. However, I'm not prepared to simply accept your
> assertions because, as you've shown time and time again, you're happy
> to lie and simply make up facts to support your non-existent
> arguments.
Why bother to lie on anything like this?
>So...any danger of you
> addressing your blatantly false, manufactured, made up lie about
> Iceland and their culture toward young single mums? Or are you going
> to pretend you never said that?
Yes I did but I was mistaken, it's actually Holland where that is the case, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/special_report /1999/04/99/teen_pregnancy/319869.stm makes reference to it.
>Also, are you intending to address
> what I said at the end of that last post, about how teenagers will
> always have sex and something should be done to educate them?
Yes they will, but if that were entirely true then:
a) The rate would remain constant within a few percent +/- each year, because after all they'd "always" be having sex. But the statistics don't show that do they ?
b) Depends what you want to educate them about. Do you want to stop them having sex (remembering that sex with an underage girl (breaking the age of consent) is a criminal charge even if it is two minors, and it is usually the male who is prosecuted because there is no similar law for boys for whom women having underage sex with them are charged with sexual assault) and who do you want to tell them to have sex with ? Of course some people have called for lowering the age of consent to 12, which is a bizarre suggestion, though seeming supported by the Guardian anyway.
> There are a lot of IF's in your question.
Only two actually, and one of them you obviously agree with from what you said earlier. I said:
"If sex education and openeness about the subject leads to lower teen pregnancies, and if such education has improved and become greater year on year"
You obviously believe that sex education and openess about it leads to lower teen pregnancies, so that's one "if" gone, leaving just the question of how much such education has improved over the years.
> Has sex education improved?
Well I think it's fair to say it can't get any worse can it? I know when I was in school that it consisted of about two two hour long lessons/discussions, once in primary and once in secondary. It's certainly moved on since then.
> How do you know? How are you defining 'improved'?
Reasonable assumption, unless you'd like to argue the situation is worse than in the past ?
>If it's
> availability is increasing year on year, where are you getting those
> figures from?
Because it's stupidly obvious that the availability increases year on year through new government policy (most recently the peers are trying to get the topic of homosexuality into it, and the Liberal Democrats voted in favour of six year olds getting sex education at their conference this year), charity work, and so on.
>And of course, the biggie, how do you explain the lower
> rate of teenage pregnancies in every country of western continental
> Europe?
Well this older article has it pretty well http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/may1999/teen-m17.shtml - but I'd say poverty, lack of social guidance and moral role models, coupled with a changing society with few morals and little regard for religion and a somewhat shoddy education system.
But the answer also lies with numbers.
Those with the lowest rates do have something in common though, small populations by comparison to the UK. Take the Netherlands, roughly 16.5 million people and around 20 are 0-18. Sweden, 9 million with roughly 20% again. Then we go to the UK with around 61 million and around 22%. That's one hell of a lot more people to get a message to don't you think ?
Plus you've ignored my point that the UK has a declining population rate.
This year around 6000 people will die in the UK (our mortality rate is roughly 10.2 per 1000 which should, with a population of 60 000 000 give us that statistic) but we have a growth rate of something like 0.3%, meaning we'll grow by roughly 180 000 birth - barely three times our death rate and the growth can be from immigrants of all kinds and so on - our actual birth rate is just something like 0.9 higher than the death rate - another sign of declining population and an aging one.
So the growth rate has declined from the past, but the pregnancy rates are still higher than the past.
> IF all those things are so, then I'm prepared to actually discuss
> this with you. However, I'm not prepared to simply accept your
> assertions because, as you've shown time and time again, you're happy
> to lie and simply make up facts to support your non-existent
> arguments.
Why bother to lie on anything like this?
>So...any danger of you
> addressing your blatantly false, manufactured, made up lie about
> Iceland and their culture toward young single mums? Or are you going
> to pretend you never said that?
Yes I did but I was mistaken, it's actually Holland where that is the case, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/special_report /1999/04/99/teen_pregnancy/319869.stm makes reference to it.
>Also, are you intending to address
> what I said at the end of that last post, about how teenagers will
> always have sex and something should be done to educate them?
Yes they will, but if that were entirely true then:
a) The rate would remain constant within a few percent +/- each year, because after all they'd "always" be having sex. But the statistics don't show that do they ?
b) Depends what you want to educate them about. Do you want to stop them having sex (remembering that sex with an underage girl (breaking the age of consent) is a criminal charge even if it is two minors, and it is usually the male who is prosecuted because there is no similar law for boys for whom women having underage sex with them are charged with sexual assault) and who do you want to tell them to have sex with ? Of course some people have called for lowering the age of consent to 12, which is a bizarre suggestion, though seeming supported by the Guardian anyway.
Belldandy wrote:
> Only two actually, and one of them you obviously agree with from what
> you said earlier. I said:
>
> "If sex education and openeness about the subject leads to lower
> teen pregnancies, and if such education has improved and become
> greater year on year"
>
> You obviously believe that sex education and openess about it leads
> to lower teen pregnancies, so that's one "if" gone, leaving
> just the question of how much such education has improved over the
> years.
Umm...you've totally avoided answering one of them, the most important one; HAS sex education improved and become greater year on year? Well? Has it? And if it has, where's your proof?
And yes, I do believe that it leads to lower rates of teen pregnancy. Because...well, because it has done so (and you keep avoiding addressing this) in EVERY COUNTRY IN WESTERN CONTINENTAL EUROPE. Do you see?
>
> Has sex education improved?
>
> Well I think it's fair to say it can't get any worse can it? I know
> when I was in school that it consisted of about two two hour long
> lessons/discussions, once in primary and once in secondary. It's
> certainly moved on since then.
That's not answering the question, and you know it. How has it improved? And more to the point, how are you measuring this improvement? And how do you, a person who has left school a while ago, know about these improvements?
>
> How do you know? How are you defining 'improved'?
>
> Reasonable assumption, unless you'd like to argue the situation is
> worse than in the past ?
No, I wouldn't. I'd like you to stop avoiding the question and answer why YOU think it has improved, and how you've defined it. Please, stop trying to deflect queries; it makes you seem weaselly and evasive.
>
> >If it's
> availability is increasing year on year, where are you getting those
> figures from?
>
> Because it's stupidly obvious that the availability increases year on
> year through new government policy (most recently the peers are
> trying to get the topic of homosexuality into it, and the Liberal
> Democrats voted in favour of six year olds getting sex education at
> their conference this year), charity work, and so on.
It's stupidly obvious? Ah; so in other words, you have absolutely no figures or proof to back you up? Fine; just so I know that you're simply making stuff up as you go along and then resorting to "it's obvious" when confronted about it.
>
> >And of course, the biggie, how do you explain the lower
> rate of teenage pregnancies in every country of western continental
> Europe?
>
> Well this older article has it pretty well
> http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/may1999/ teen-m17.shtml - but I'd
> say poverty, lack of social guidance and moral role models, coupled
> with a changing society with few morals and little regard for
> religion and a somewhat shoddy education system.
Let me just post something from that article you linked to:
"Health and social service departments have called on the government to provide better standards of sex education in schools—pointing out that the growth of teenage pregnancies and sexual ill-health was not because British youngsters were more sexually active than their European counter-parts, but were less well informed of the consequences."
Now, that is agreeing with everything I say, isn't it? So you've just posted a link to an article that supports what I've said, haven't you? And in fact, it seems to say that Sex education hasn't been improving, or if it has, it's only had since 1999 to do so. So can you tell me how THAT is an alternative explaination of why rates of teenaged pregnancy are lower in Europe than in the UK?
Little regard for religion?!?! Oh come ON Bell; bearing in mind the arguments I've seen you raise against religion (well...against Notorious Biggles), it's plainly obvious that you've lifted that one directly from the Big Book of Tory Opinions, and haven't even bothered to think it through. Few morals? Well don't you think improved sex education would change that?
>
> But the answer also lies with numbers.
>
> Those with the lowest rates do have something in common though, small
> populations by comparison to the UK. Take the Netherlands, roughly
> 16.5 million people and around 20 are 0-18. Sweden, 9 million with
> roughly 20% again. Then we go to the UK with around 61 million and
> around 22%. That's one hell of a lot more people to get a message to
> don't you think ?
Not really; they all have to go to school at some point. Anyway, are you saying that (emphasis again as you're determined to avoid it) EVERY COUNTRY IN WESTERN MAINLAND EUROPE has a smaller population than us? Are you also saying that, if a country has a big population they will therefore have larger rates of teenage pregnancy? If you are, how does that explain why countries in WESTERN MAINLAND EUROPE with a larger population than us have a lower rate of teenage pregnancy?
>
> Plus you've ignored my point that the UK has a declining population
> rate.
Don't worry Bell; you've avoided God knows how many points made by others. But you see, whilst I answer them when it's pointed out, you avoid them. Totally. Because you haven't actually got an answer to them. But I digress...
>
> This year around 6000 people will die in the UK (our mortality rate
> is roughly 10.2 per 1000 which should, with a population of 60 000
> 000 give us that statistic) but we have a growth rate of something
> like 0.3%, meaning we'll grow by roughly 180 000 birth - barely three
> times our death rate and the growth can be from immigrants of all
> kinds and so on - our actual birth rate is just something like 0.9
> higher than the death rate - another sign of declining population and
> an aging one.
Right...so despite having an aging population, we still manage to have one of the highest rates of teenage pregnancy? Wow...quite some achievement.
However, as Germany has has an aging population for longer than us which was only arrested by the reunification of East and West, and STILL have a lower rate of teenage pregnancy than us, I fail to see your point.
So could you clarify for me; what have either a smaller population or an aging population got to do with RATES of teenage pregnancy?
Actually...do you even know what that means? A rate is like, for example, 1 teenager in every 100 gets pregnant in Zanzibar. So you see, the size of a population or it's relative age doesn't matter, does it. So in fact, you've just spent 2 paragraphs trying to use smoke and mirrors, haven't you?
So; how come the REST OF WESTERN MAINLAND EUROPE has a lower rate of teenage pregnancy than us if it isn't to do with their vastly superior sex education?
>
> So the growth rate has declined from the past, but the pregnancy
> rates are still higher than the past.
Tell me, have you ever studied Geography in any way, shape, or form? Just curious, as I've forwarded your explaination of birth rates onto a friend of mine who lectures Geography at Northumbria Uni, and his response was...
"Who the f**k is this clown?! Does he actually understand population growth models, or has he made it up as he went along?!"
Anyway, after reprimanding him for being rude about someone he doesn't know, I agreed to ask whether or not you did study geography.
>
> Why bother to lie on anything like this?
Same reason as you lied about being Halo Fan. Oh, and your lies about how "The Iraqi army went on alert on Sept 10th!! They KNEW!!". And your lovely lies about "I was, wait for it....wrong". And...well, those three are enough to be going on with, don't you think. Fact is, you're a proven liar, and you've lied before in order to avoid having to admit that you might be wrong. So that is why I don't believe you unless you provide some proof.
>
> >So...any danger of you
> addressing your blatantly false, manufactured, made up lie about
> Iceland and their culture toward young single mums? Or are you going
> to pretend you never said that?
>
> Yes I did but I was mistaken, it's actually Holland where that is the
> case, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/special_report
> /1999/04/99/teen_pregnancy/319869.stm makes reference to it.
Thank you; an honest admission of error. Easy, isn't it? And I find myself with a modicum more respect for you for doing so.
However, as the article is by the BBC (whom you previously condemned as biased) why do you believe it without question?
Also, the whole article mentions, as I do, that THE REST OF WESTERN MAINLAND EUROPE has a lower rate of teenage pregnancy than us. So you've picked out 1 (one) country where there is another factor aside from sex education. Yet even here, the article admits that the sex education in Holland is better. So how is this an argument that better sex education has no effect on teenage pregnancy rates?
>
> >Also, are you intending to address
> what I said at the end of that last post, about how teenagers will
> always have sex and something should be done to educate them?
>
> Yes they will, but if that were entirely true then:
>
> a) The rate would remain constant within a few percent +/- each year,
> because after all they'd "always" be having sex. But the
> statistics don't show that do they ?
Eh? We're starting from a position of high teen pregnancies, not from an even keel. So if we improve the education, the rate will start to drop. And, as I've said, you've totally avoided answering the question of whether or not sex education IS in fact getting better in this country. So as you haven't yet proved that your theory that Sex Education is improving, it renders your use of statistics worthless.
>
> b) Depends what you want to educate them about. Do you want to stop
> them having sex (remembering that sex with an underage girl (breaking
> the age of consent) is a criminal charge even if it is two minors,
> and it is usually the male who is prosecuted because there is no
> similar law for boys for whom women having underage sex with them are
> charged with sexual assault) and who do you want to tell them to have
> sex with ? Of course some people have called for lowering the age of
> consent to 12, which is a bizarre suggestion, though seeming
> supported by the Guardian anyway.
Right; you've brought the underage sex thing in which, despite it's total irrelevance, I'll address. Sex education should, in my view, teach people that you have to be responsible about sex. That includes not screwing older, predatory people. That's why it's educational you see.
Anyway, no I wouldn't want to say "Don't have sex" because, as all history shows, teenagers will always have sex. I'd want them to be aware of the responsibility that they have toward themselves and to possible sexual partners. After all, that's the approach taken by THE REST OF WESTERN MAINLAND EUROPE and it seems to work for them (as both of the articles you kindly posted links to accept).
Nice little dig at the Guardian by the way; no point to it other than a partisan attempt at ridicule, and clearly a total lack of understanding about the article itself.
So then, we've got to the end and as I know just how much you like to mire yourself down in trying to avoid addressing points raised, I'll make it real simple:
- If you are saying that sex education in this country is getting better, provide proof.
- If you are saying that sex education makes no difference to rates of teenage pregnancy, explain why EVERY COUNTRY IN WESTERN MAINLAND EUROPE has both better sex education than us and lower rates of teenage pregnancy.
There you go; 2 points to answer. Nice and simple. Will you rise to the challenge? Or will you avoid the subject and go to extreme lengths to avoid admitting that perhaps you're opinions are formed on the basis of what you've heard your Tory mum and dad say, and that you haven't actually looked into them in any further detail than that?
You perplex me at times; last week you were behaving like a thinking human being. Now you're back to Auto-Parrot. Shame, but if I say I'm surprised I'd be a bigger liar than Halo Fan.
> Only two actually, and one of them you obviously agree with from what
> you said earlier. I said:
>
> "If sex education and openeness about the subject leads to lower
> teen pregnancies, and if such education has improved and become
> greater year on year"
>
> You obviously believe that sex education and openess about it leads
> to lower teen pregnancies, so that's one "if" gone, leaving
> just the question of how much such education has improved over the
> years.
Umm...you've totally avoided answering one of them, the most important one; HAS sex education improved and become greater year on year? Well? Has it? And if it has, where's your proof?
And yes, I do believe that it leads to lower rates of teen pregnancy. Because...well, because it has done so (and you keep avoiding addressing this) in EVERY COUNTRY IN WESTERN CONTINENTAL EUROPE. Do you see?
>
> Has sex education improved?
>
> Well I think it's fair to say it can't get any worse can it? I know
> when I was in school that it consisted of about two two hour long
> lessons/discussions, once in primary and once in secondary. It's
> certainly moved on since then.
That's not answering the question, and you know it. How has it improved? And more to the point, how are you measuring this improvement? And how do you, a person who has left school a while ago, know about these improvements?
>
> How do you know? How are you defining 'improved'?
>
> Reasonable assumption, unless you'd like to argue the situation is
> worse than in the past ?
No, I wouldn't. I'd like you to stop avoiding the question and answer why YOU think it has improved, and how you've defined it. Please, stop trying to deflect queries; it makes you seem weaselly and evasive.
>
> >If it's
> availability is increasing year on year, where are you getting those
> figures from?
>
> Because it's stupidly obvious that the availability increases year on
> year through new government policy (most recently the peers are
> trying to get the topic of homosexuality into it, and the Liberal
> Democrats voted in favour of six year olds getting sex education at
> their conference this year), charity work, and so on.
It's stupidly obvious? Ah; so in other words, you have absolutely no figures or proof to back you up? Fine; just so I know that you're simply making stuff up as you go along and then resorting to "it's obvious" when confronted about it.
>
> >And of course, the biggie, how do you explain the lower
> rate of teenage pregnancies in every country of western continental
> Europe?
>
> Well this older article has it pretty well
> http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/may1999/ teen-m17.shtml - but I'd
> say poverty, lack of social guidance and moral role models, coupled
> with a changing society with few morals and little regard for
> religion and a somewhat shoddy education system.
Let me just post something from that article you linked to:
"Health and social service departments have called on the government to provide better standards of sex education in schools—pointing out that the growth of teenage pregnancies and sexual ill-health was not because British youngsters were more sexually active than their European counter-parts, but were less well informed of the consequences."
Now, that is agreeing with everything I say, isn't it? So you've just posted a link to an article that supports what I've said, haven't you? And in fact, it seems to say that Sex education hasn't been improving, or if it has, it's only had since 1999 to do so. So can you tell me how THAT is an alternative explaination of why rates of teenaged pregnancy are lower in Europe than in the UK?
Little regard for religion?!?! Oh come ON Bell; bearing in mind the arguments I've seen you raise against religion (well...against Notorious Biggles), it's plainly obvious that you've lifted that one directly from the Big Book of Tory Opinions, and haven't even bothered to think it through. Few morals? Well don't you think improved sex education would change that?
>
> But the answer also lies with numbers.
>
> Those with the lowest rates do have something in common though, small
> populations by comparison to the UK. Take the Netherlands, roughly
> 16.5 million people and around 20 are 0-18. Sweden, 9 million with
> roughly 20% again. Then we go to the UK with around 61 million and
> around 22%. That's one hell of a lot more people to get a message to
> don't you think ?
Not really; they all have to go to school at some point. Anyway, are you saying that (emphasis again as you're determined to avoid it) EVERY COUNTRY IN WESTERN MAINLAND EUROPE has a smaller population than us? Are you also saying that, if a country has a big population they will therefore have larger rates of teenage pregnancy? If you are, how does that explain why countries in WESTERN MAINLAND EUROPE with a larger population than us have a lower rate of teenage pregnancy?
>
> Plus you've ignored my point that the UK has a declining population
> rate.
Don't worry Bell; you've avoided God knows how many points made by others. But you see, whilst I answer them when it's pointed out, you avoid them. Totally. Because you haven't actually got an answer to them. But I digress...
>
> This year around 6000 people will die in the UK (our mortality rate
> is roughly 10.2 per 1000 which should, with a population of 60 000
> 000 give us that statistic) but we have a growth rate of something
> like 0.3%, meaning we'll grow by roughly 180 000 birth - barely three
> times our death rate and the growth can be from immigrants of all
> kinds and so on - our actual birth rate is just something like 0.9
> higher than the death rate - another sign of declining population and
> an aging one.
Right...so despite having an aging population, we still manage to have one of the highest rates of teenage pregnancy? Wow...quite some achievement.
However, as Germany has has an aging population for longer than us which was only arrested by the reunification of East and West, and STILL have a lower rate of teenage pregnancy than us, I fail to see your point.
So could you clarify for me; what have either a smaller population or an aging population got to do with RATES of teenage pregnancy?
Actually...do you even know what that means? A rate is like, for example, 1 teenager in every 100 gets pregnant in Zanzibar. So you see, the size of a population or it's relative age doesn't matter, does it. So in fact, you've just spent 2 paragraphs trying to use smoke and mirrors, haven't you?
So; how come the REST OF WESTERN MAINLAND EUROPE has a lower rate of teenage pregnancy than us if it isn't to do with their vastly superior sex education?
>
> So the growth rate has declined from the past, but the pregnancy
> rates are still higher than the past.
Tell me, have you ever studied Geography in any way, shape, or form? Just curious, as I've forwarded your explaination of birth rates onto a friend of mine who lectures Geography at Northumbria Uni, and his response was...
"Who the f**k is this clown?! Does he actually understand population growth models, or has he made it up as he went along?!"
Anyway, after reprimanding him for being rude about someone he doesn't know, I agreed to ask whether or not you did study geography.
>
> Why bother to lie on anything like this?
Same reason as you lied about being Halo Fan. Oh, and your lies about how "The Iraqi army went on alert on Sept 10th!! They KNEW!!". And your lovely lies about "I was, wait for it....wrong". And...well, those three are enough to be going on with, don't you think. Fact is, you're a proven liar, and you've lied before in order to avoid having to admit that you might be wrong. So that is why I don't believe you unless you provide some proof.
>
> >So...any danger of you
> addressing your blatantly false, manufactured, made up lie about
> Iceland and their culture toward young single mums? Or are you going
> to pretend you never said that?
>
> Yes I did but I was mistaken, it's actually Holland where that is the
> case, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/special_report
> /1999/04/99/teen_pregnancy/319869.stm makes reference to it.
Thank you; an honest admission of error. Easy, isn't it? And I find myself with a modicum more respect for you for doing so.
However, as the article is by the BBC (whom you previously condemned as biased) why do you believe it without question?
Also, the whole article mentions, as I do, that THE REST OF WESTERN MAINLAND EUROPE has a lower rate of teenage pregnancy than us. So you've picked out 1 (one) country where there is another factor aside from sex education. Yet even here, the article admits that the sex education in Holland is better. So how is this an argument that better sex education has no effect on teenage pregnancy rates?
>
> >Also, are you intending to address
> what I said at the end of that last post, about how teenagers will
> always have sex and something should be done to educate them?
>
> Yes they will, but if that were entirely true then:
>
> a) The rate would remain constant within a few percent +/- each year,
> because after all they'd "always" be having sex. But the
> statistics don't show that do they ?
Eh? We're starting from a position of high teen pregnancies, not from an even keel. So if we improve the education, the rate will start to drop. And, as I've said, you've totally avoided answering the question of whether or not sex education IS in fact getting better in this country. So as you haven't yet proved that your theory that Sex Education is improving, it renders your use of statistics worthless.
>
> b) Depends what you want to educate them about. Do you want to stop
> them having sex (remembering that sex with an underage girl (breaking
> the age of consent) is a criminal charge even if it is two minors,
> and it is usually the male who is prosecuted because there is no
> similar law for boys for whom women having underage sex with them are
> charged with sexual assault) and who do you want to tell them to have
> sex with ? Of course some people have called for lowering the age of
> consent to 12, which is a bizarre suggestion, though seeming
> supported by the Guardian anyway.
Right; you've brought the underage sex thing in which, despite it's total irrelevance, I'll address. Sex education should, in my view, teach people that you have to be responsible about sex. That includes not screwing older, predatory people. That's why it's educational you see.
Anyway, no I wouldn't want to say "Don't have sex" because, as all history shows, teenagers will always have sex. I'd want them to be aware of the responsibility that they have toward themselves and to possible sexual partners. After all, that's the approach taken by THE REST OF WESTERN MAINLAND EUROPE and it seems to work for them (as both of the articles you kindly posted links to accept).
Nice little dig at the Guardian by the way; no point to it other than a partisan attempt at ridicule, and clearly a total lack of understanding about the article itself.
So then, we've got to the end and as I know just how much you like to mire yourself down in trying to avoid addressing points raised, I'll make it real simple:
- If you are saying that sex education in this country is getting better, provide proof.
- If you are saying that sex education makes no difference to rates of teenage pregnancy, explain why EVERY COUNTRY IN WESTERN MAINLAND EUROPE has both better sex education than us and lower rates of teenage pregnancy.
There you go; 2 points to answer. Nice and simple. Will you rise to the challenge? Or will you avoid the subject and go to extreme lengths to avoid admitting that perhaps you're opinions are formed on the basis of what you've heard your Tory mum and dad say, and that you haven't actually looked into them in any further detail than that?
You perplex me at times; last week you were behaving like a thinking human being. Now you're back to Auto-Parrot. Shame, but if I say I'm surprised I'd be a bigger liar than Halo Fan.
Sex education can't have improved. why? because they're using old tapes!!!
Light wrote:
> Umm...you've totally avoided answering one of them, the most
> important one; HAS sex education improved and become greater year on
> year? Well? Has it? And if it has, where's your proof?
Well where is your proof it hasn't ?
> And yes, I do believe that it leads to lower rates of teen pregnancy.
> Because...well, because it has done so (and you keep avoiding
> addressing this) in EVERY COUNTRY IN WESTERN CONTINENTAL EUROPE. Do
> you see?
Again, you want me to prove points, but you lack the same proof, what is certain is that the rates are lower in western europe. Beyond that you've got nothing. What were the rates before sex education in those countries ? What are they now ? How do you know the rates were not lower than the UK's before sex education programs ?
> That's not answering the question, and you know it. How has it
> improved? And more to the point, how are you measuring this
> improvement? And how do you, a person who has left school a while
> ago, know about these improvements?
It's my opinion, same as yours. How do you know there has not been an improvement, because you left school way before I did.
> How do you know? How are you defining 'improved'?
And the same could be asked of you.
Throw up some proof yourself then we'll get back to this, but until then we'll continue like this.
> Umm...you've totally avoided answering one of them, the most
> important one; HAS sex education improved and become greater year on
> year? Well? Has it? And if it has, where's your proof?
Well where is your proof it hasn't ?
> And yes, I do believe that it leads to lower rates of teen pregnancy.
> Because...well, because it has done so (and you keep avoiding
> addressing this) in EVERY COUNTRY IN WESTERN CONTINENTAL EUROPE. Do
> you see?
Again, you want me to prove points, but you lack the same proof, what is certain is that the rates are lower in western europe. Beyond that you've got nothing. What were the rates before sex education in those countries ? What are they now ? How do you know the rates were not lower than the UK's before sex education programs ?
> That's not answering the question, and you know it. How has it
> improved? And more to the point, how are you measuring this
> improvement? And how do you, a person who has left school a while
> ago, know about these improvements?
It's my opinion, same as yours. How do you know there has not been an improvement, because you left school way before I did.
> How do you know? How are you defining 'improved'?
And the same could be asked of you.
Throw up some proof yourself then we'll get back to this, but until then we'll continue like this.
Belldandy wrote:
>
> Well where is your proof it hasn't ?
The fact that the rate of teenage pregnancies is still higher than EVERY COUNTRY IN WESTERN CONTINENTAL EUROPE when they all have better sex education than us would be my first bit of proof. As would those lovely articles you linked to that accept that our sex education is the worst in europe.
Now, would you like to answer the point and give me your proof of your assertion? Or are you going to continue to avoid stating what is now clear to me and anyone else that has read this thread; you have no proof or evidence to back up your opinion. In fact, you have no explaination of why it is your opinion. You're just parrotting something you've heard.
> Again, you want me to prove points, but you lack the same proof, what
> is certain is that the rates are lower in western europe. Beyond that
> you've got nothing. What were the rates before sex education in those
> countries ? What are they now ? How do you know the rates were not
> lower than the UK's before sex education programs ?
What is certain? Well, those two articles you linked to said it was so, didn't they? Would you like to address that point? That the articles you linked to BOTH backed up my assertion that our sex education is of a lower standard than EVERY OTHER COUNTRY IN WESTERN CONTINENTAL EUROPE, and that EVERY OTHER COUNTRY IN WESTERN CONTINENTAL EUROPE has a lower rate of teenage pregnancy. After all, I've addressed every one you've made, but you refuse to return the courtesy.
As to your, frankly bizarre, suggestion that western europe had lower rates of teenage pregnancy before they introduced sex education...well, as this is one of your sillier attempts to deflect attention from the fact that you don't actually have much knowledge on a subject that you seem to have an opinion on, I believe I shall leave this to you to prove. After all, in debates it is up to the person asserting a point to prove it. Do you understand that, or do you live in a world where you make an assertion, and it is up to everyone else to find the evidence?
You see Bell, in a debate, this is what happens;
- One person asserts a point (sex education reduces rates of teenage pregnancy) and provides evidence (in my case, the FACT THAT EVERY COUNTRY IN WESTERN CONTINENTAL EUROPE has a lower rate of teenage pregnancy than the UK)
- Another person disagrees with that point, provides evidence to show it is wrong, and asserts their own view, with supporting evidence.
- Both parties then try to find a consensus, or agree to differ.
However, in any debate with you here is what happens;
- One person asserts a point and provides evidence
- You say "That's wrong" and give an unsupported opinion.
- You are asked to provide evidence for that opinion
- You respond "well...YOU give some evidence!"
- Evidence is duly given (on occassion, by you...did you actually read those articles you linked to? You do know that they confirmed my assertions, don't you?)
- You then avoid the topic altogether
>
>
> It's my opinion, same as yours. How do you know there has not been an
> improvement, because you left school way before I did.
I know there has not been an improvement because rates of teenage pregnancy in this country continue to rise, whereas in EVERY COUNTRY IN WESTERN CONTINENTAL EUROPE, where they have better sex education (an assertion backed up by those articles you kindly linked to), rates of teenage pregnancy remain low. That's called logic. That'll help you in life.
So, there's the evidence and supporting facts for my opinion. Where are yours? Did this opinion just arrive fully formed in your head? Or did you just hear your Tory parents say it, and accept it as truth without bothering to investigate further? Because, and once more it seems i need to repeat this to a hard of thinking fundamentalist, I don't care what your opinion is. I want to know how you arrived at it. And you can't answer that, because then you'll have to admit you borrowed your opinions from elsewhere, and don't even know why you believe them to be true. Just like any good fundamentalist 'thinker'.
>
> And the same could be asked of you.
It could. But as you first raised this point, and as I asked you to give your proof first, I'd be obliged if you'd stop trying to avoid the question and answer me. Or are you too much of a coward?
>
> Throw up some proof yourself then we'll get back to this, but until
> then we'll continue like this.
I have done. What is more, YOU provided proof for my case (with those two articles). Now; stop avoiding all of my questions, you moral, intellectual, and emotional coward. Stop running and hiding from questions, like some weaselly little gutless wonder. Show some stomach, and answer what you've been asked. Come on Bell; I dare you. You've yet to address your misunderstanding of how rates are measured, and your attempt to justify that with a geographical model of population that doesn't exist anywhere outside of your own head, for example. That's just one point you've ran squealing from. Lets see you either show some guts and put up, or stick to being a coward and pick out one sentence from a whole post as an excuse to avoid addressing the topic.
You really have no idea how you come across to others, do you? You don't realise what a joke you appear to be. And alas for you, I'm enough of a sadist to enjoy a battle of wits with an unarmed man like yourself.
>
> Well where is your proof it hasn't ?
The fact that the rate of teenage pregnancies is still higher than EVERY COUNTRY IN WESTERN CONTINENTAL EUROPE when they all have better sex education than us would be my first bit of proof. As would those lovely articles you linked to that accept that our sex education is the worst in europe.
Now, would you like to answer the point and give me your proof of your assertion? Or are you going to continue to avoid stating what is now clear to me and anyone else that has read this thread; you have no proof or evidence to back up your opinion. In fact, you have no explaination of why it is your opinion. You're just parrotting something you've heard.
> Again, you want me to prove points, but you lack the same proof, what
> is certain is that the rates are lower in western europe. Beyond that
> you've got nothing. What were the rates before sex education in those
> countries ? What are they now ? How do you know the rates were not
> lower than the UK's before sex education programs ?
What is certain? Well, those two articles you linked to said it was so, didn't they? Would you like to address that point? That the articles you linked to BOTH backed up my assertion that our sex education is of a lower standard than EVERY OTHER COUNTRY IN WESTERN CONTINENTAL EUROPE, and that EVERY OTHER COUNTRY IN WESTERN CONTINENTAL EUROPE has a lower rate of teenage pregnancy. After all, I've addressed every one you've made, but you refuse to return the courtesy.
As to your, frankly bizarre, suggestion that western europe had lower rates of teenage pregnancy before they introduced sex education...well, as this is one of your sillier attempts to deflect attention from the fact that you don't actually have much knowledge on a subject that you seem to have an opinion on, I believe I shall leave this to you to prove. After all, in debates it is up to the person asserting a point to prove it. Do you understand that, or do you live in a world where you make an assertion, and it is up to everyone else to find the evidence?
You see Bell, in a debate, this is what happens;
- One person asserts a point (sex education reduces rates of teenage pregnancy) and provides evidence (in my case, the FACT THAT EVERY COUNTRY IN WESTERN CONTINENTAL EUROPE has a lower rate of teenage pregnancy than the UK)
- Another person disagrees with that point, provides evidence to show it is wrong, and asserts their own view, with supporting evidence.
- Both parties then try to find a consensus, or agree to differ.
However, in any debate with you here is what happens;
- One person asserts a point and provides evidence
- You say "That's wrong" and give an unsupported opinion.
- You are asked to provide evidence for that opinion
- You respond "well...YOU give some evidence!"
- Evidence is duly given (on occassion, by you...did you actually read those articles you linked to? You do know that they confirmed my assertions, don't you?)
- You then avoid the topic altogether
>
>
> It's my opinion, same as yours. How do you know there has not been an
> improvement, because you left school way before I did.
I know there has not been an improvement because rates of teenage pregnancy in this country continue to rise, whereas in EVERY COUNTRY IN WESTERN CONTINENTAL EUROPE, where they have better sex education (an assertion backed up by those articles you kindly linked to), rates of teenage pregnancy remain low. That's called logic. That'll help you in life.
So, there's the evidence and supporting facts for my opinion. Where are yours? Did this opinion just arrive fully formed in your head? Or did you just hear your Tory parents say it, and accept it as truth without bothering to investigate further? Because, and once more it seems i need to repeat this to a hard of thinking fundamentalist, I don't care what your opinion is. I want to know how you arrived at it. And you can't answer that, because then you'll have to admit you borrowed your opinions from elsewhere, and don't even know why you believe them to be true. Just like any good fundamentalist 'thinker'.
>
> And the same could be asked of you.
It could. But as you first raised this point, and as I asked you to give your proof first, I'd be obliged if you'd stop trying to avoid the question and answer me. Or are you too much of a coward?
>
> Throw up some proof yourself then we'll get back to this, but until
> then we'll continue like this.
I have done. What is more, YOU provided proof for my case (with those two articles). Now; stop avoiding all of my questions, you moral, intellectual, and emotional coward. Stop running and hiding from questions, like some weaselly little gutless wonder. Show some stomach, and answer what you've been asked. Come on Bell; I dare you. You've yet to address your misunderstanding of how rates are measured, and your attempt to justify that with a geographical model of population that doesn't exist anywhere outside of your own head, for example. That's just one point you've ran squealing from. Lets see you either show some guts and put up, or stick to being a coward and pick out one sentence from a whole post as an excuse to avoid addressing the topic.
You really have no idea how you come across to others, do you? You don't realise what a joke you appear to be. And alas for you, I'm enough of a sadist to enjoy a battle of wits with an unarmed man like yourself.
Well in order to shorten this topic:
1) For someone who is supposedly so intelligent Light you failed to even find this crucial bit of news which could have countered my arguments more succinctly than several thousand words. http://www.info.doh.gov.uk/doh/intpress.nsf/ page/2003-0086?OpenDocument
2) Not surprised that the population model stuff is BS because it was made up on the fly. However elements were true, the UK does have a declining population and a growing aging one, but past that...well the UK population is probably 60 million odd but that's about it.
3) You're not the only one who likes an argument occasionally. I thought we'd see you fire off in the topic about private/public education, but alas no. Sometimes its nice to just oppose people to see how far you can take the argument and see what you learn.
Being serious, everyone knows and largely admits that sex education works, it doesn't necessarily stop teenage sex altogether but it does stop teenage pregnancies. All that really holds back wider and more effective policies, particularly in the US, is religious and moralistic right wingers and conservatives getting all hot under the collar at the thought of kids being told about sex - especially elements of the Christians for whom the general mantra is no sex before marriage - which I remember a hilarious bit of research back when I was doing A Levels that suggested what effect this had on teenagers who believe in this (put it this way, they weren't having sex but they were doing everything else).
Education not only lowers teen pregnancies but also STD infection rates, and with AIDS an ever present problem this is obviously important. There's also some evidence that it does lead to some people choosing to have sex at a later age from choices of their own.
1) For someone who is supposedly so intelligent Light you failed to even find this crucial bit of news which could have countered my arguments more succinctly than several thousand words. http://www.info.doh.gov.uk/doh/intpress.nsf/ page/2003-0086?OpenDocument
2) Not surprised that the population model stuff is BS because it was made up on the fly. However elements were true, the UK does have a declining population and a growing aging one, but past that...well the UK population is probably 60 million odd but that's about it.
3) You're not the only one who likes an argument occasionally. I thought we'd see you fire off in the topic about private/public education, but alas no. Sometimes its nice to just oppose people to see how far you can take the argument and see what you learn.
Being serious, everyone knows and largely admits that sex education works, it doesn't necessarily stop teenage sex altogether but it does stop teenage pregnancies. All that really holds back wider and more effective policies, particularly in the US, is religious and moralistic right wingers and conservatives getting all hot under the collar at the thought of kids being told about sex - especially elements of the Christians for whom the general mantra is no sex before marriage - which I remember a hilarious bit of research back when I was doing A Levels that suggested what effect this had on teenagers who believe in this (put it this way, they weren't having sex but they were doing everything else).
Education not only lowers teen pregnancies but also STD infection rates, and with AIDS an ever present problem this is obviously important. There's also some evidence that it does lead to some people choosing to have sex at a later age from choices of their own.
Belldandy wrote:
> Well in order to shorten this topic:
OR: To avoid addressing anything I've said.
>
> 1) For someone who is supposedly so intelligent Light you failed to
> even find this crucial bit of news which could have countered my
> arguments more succinctly than several thousand words.
> http://www.info.doh.gov.uk/doh/intpress.nsf/
> page/2003-0086?OpenDocument
Ah, you've googled for a link to support you and come up with nothing? Fair enough.
Still, I had no idea that 'intelligence' was equated to 'ability to use Google.com'. I always thought that intelligence was shown by the ability to construct a rational and coherent argument. All this time, I never knew intelligence was measured by how many links you can google. I guess that must make you a genius Bell...
>
> 2) Not surprised that the population model stuff is BS because it was
> made up on the fly. However elements were true, the UK does have a
> declining population and a growing aging one, but past that...well
> the UK population is probably 60 million odd but that's about it.
My word...even when you're proved wrong, you can't admit it with a bit of grace. So lets get this right; you, who said "why would I lie about this?" were lying? Okay...
>
> 3) You're not the only one who likes an argument occasionally. I
> thought we'd see you fire off in the topic about private/public
> education, but alas no. Sometimes its nice to just oppose people to
> see how far you can take the argument and see what you learn.
Bwah ha ha ha haaaaa!! Let me get this straight; you're trying to belittle me in this thread for NOT arguing in another one? My my...just how sour ARE your grapes Bell?!
I wasn't aware that the rules of this board were "you must debate everything Bell wants to".
It is nice to oppose someone to see how far one can take the argument. However, as you have always taken every argument you've ever made to the point of parody (Rumsfield and the NK nuclear reactors anyone?), you'll pardon me for laughing in your face as you attempt to slither up the moral high ground and say that that is what you were doing in this thread when you've basically been forced (and clearly unwillingly) to admit that you were talking total nadgers, and were caught out.
But again, I'll make this clear as you seem unwilling to grasp it; I don't care WHAT your opinion is. All I care about is making people think about why they have the beliefs they do. Something you singularly fail to do.
>
> Being serious, everyone knows and largely admits that sex education
> works, it doesn't necessarily stop teenage sex altogether but it does
> stop teenage pregnancies. All that really holds back wider and more
> effective policies, particularly in the US, is religious and
> moralistic right wingers and conservatives getting all hot under the
> collar at the thought of kids being told about sex - especially
> elements of the Christians for whom the general mantra is no sex
> before marriage - which I remember a hilarious bit of research back
> when I was doing A Levels that suggested what effect this had on
> teenagers who believe in this (put it this way, they weren't having
> sex but they were doing everything else).
>
> Education not only lowers teen pregnancies but also STD infection
> rates, and with AIDS an ever present problem this is obviously
> important. There's also some evidence that it does lead to some
> people choosing to have sex at a later age from choices of their own.
Fair enough.
> Well in order to shorten this topic:
OR: To avoid addressing anything I've said.
>
> 1) For someone who is supposedly so intelligent Light you failed to
> even find this crucial bit of news which could have countered my
> arguments more succinctly than several thousand words.
> http://www.info.doh.gov.uk/doh/intpress.nsf/
> page/2003-0086?OpenDocument
Ah, you've googled for a link to support you and come up with nothing? Fair enough.
Still, I had no idea that 'intelligence' was equated to 'ability to use Google.com'. I always thought that intelligence was shown by the ability to construct a rational and coherent argument. All this time, I never knew intelligence was measured by how many links you can google. I guess that must make you a genius Bell...
>
> 2) Not surprised that the population model stuff is BS because it was
> made up on the fly. However elements were true, the UK does have a
> declining population and a growing aging one, but past that...well
> the UK population is probably 60 million odd but that's about it.
My word...even when you're proved wrong, you can't admit it with a bit of grace. So lets get this right; you, who said "why would I lie about this?" were lying? Okay...
>
> 3) You're not the only one who likes an argument occasionally. I
> thought we'd see you fire off in the topic about private/public
> education, but alas no. Sometimes its nice to just oppose people to
> see how far you can take the argument and see what you learn.
Bwah ha ha ha haaaaa!! Let me get this straight; you're trying to belittle me in this thread for NOT arguing in another one? My my...just how sour ARE your grapes Bell?!
I wasn't aware that the rules of this board were "you must debate everything Bell wants to".
It is nice to oppose someone to see how far one can take the argument. However, as you have always taken every argument you've ever made to the point of parody (Rumsfield and the NK nuclear reactors anyone?), you'll pardon me for laughing in your face as you attempt to slither up the moral high ground and say that that is what you were doing in this thread when you've basically been forced (and clearly unwillingly) to admit that you were talking total nadgers, and were caught out.
But again, I'll make this clear as you seem unwilling to grasp it; I don't care WHAT your opinion is. All I care about is making people think about why they have the beliefs they do. Something you singularly fail to do.
>
> Being serious, everyone knows and largely admits that sex education
> works, it doesn't necessarily stop teenage sex altogether but it does
> stop teenage pregnancies. All that really holds back wider and more
> effective policies, particularly in the US, is religious and
> moralistic right wingers and conservatives getting all hot under the
> collar at the thought of kids being told about sex - especially
> elements of the Christians for whom the general mantra is no sex
> before marriage - which I remember a hilarious bit of research back
> when I was doing A Levels that suggested what effect this had on
> teenagers who believe in this (put it this way, they weren't having
> sex but they were doing everything else).
>
> Education not only lowers teen pregnancies but also STD infection
> rates, and with AIDS an ever present problem this is obviously
> important. There's also some evidence that it does lead to some
> people choosing to have sex at a later age from choices of their own.
Fair enough.
And you believe everyone who says "why would I lie?" do you Light ? Jeez, no wonder you're p*ssed about politics, and well, everything else really. Nixon said he wasn't a liar, Clinton did as well. You too willingly believe what I put, really, because you believe anyone with conservative tendencies is capable of all sorts of self prescribed lunatic ideas, so you believe it willingly.
Belldandy wrote:
> Nixon said he wasn't a liar, Clinton did as
> well.
You missed out Blair and Bush, both of whom lied about Iraq's WMD.
> Nixon said he wasn't a liar, Clinton did as
> well.
You missed out Blair and Bush, both of whom lied about Iraq's WMD.
Page: