The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
> 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.
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:
>
> 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:
> Sometimes, even your mix of prudishness and ill-informed ignorance
> can be astonishing.
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 ?
Perfectly valid question, but dimissed by you.
> Sometimes, even your mix of prudishness and ill-informed ignorance
> can be astonishing.
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 ?
Perfectly valid question, but dimissed by you.
Belldandy wrote:
> Light wrote:
> ...and a poor one (says me). Look at the low rates of teenage
> pregancy in Iceland, or the Netherlands, where they're a hell of a
> lot more open about teenage sex.
>
> I'd say it was a fair one at least.
>
> If you're young couple waiting for housing, how do you jump the list
> ? Get pregnant. Plus you'll be given a vast pile of benefits and
> never be homeless again.
>
> I think more needs to be done on getting people to act responsibly
> when it comes to having children - you've got people on benefits
> having 2,3,4 or more children, whilst you've got people on a combined
> 30K income worrying if they can afford to have one because they won't
> get as much financial help.
>
> I don't think being open is anything to do with it, judging from out
> teenage pregnancy rates most of them aren't having much trouble in
> that department.
>
> The Netherlands and Iceland only have low rates because their culture
> attaches a stigma to teenage mothers which views them unfavourably -
> which I do believe was the UK situation about 100 years ago.
Utter, utter toss. Iceland certainly has no such stigma; I absolutely defy you to even come close to finding one. Sounds very much to me like you're making stuff up as you go along to support an opinion that you've heard from the Tory party conference.
So lets see; every nation in continental Europe has a lower rate of teenage pregnancy...every nation in continental Europe is more open about sex with teenagers than us (yes, even the Spanish and Italians)...yet there is no connection between better sex education, more tolerance and education to teenagers and sex, and lower rates teenaged pregnancies? Well spot the man who didn't get laid when he was a teen.
Teenagers will always have sex. Lots of it. It's in the contract. I'd rather they were well informed and loaded down with contraceptives, than kept dumb and wandering round with shocked looks at the bumb developing in front of them. I don't excuse that minority of young lasses who get pregnant seemingly as a fashion statement, but your approach of 'hang 'em and flog 'em' is what is responsible for the current mess with attitudes to teenage sex in the first place.
Sometimes, even your mix of prudishness and ill-informed ignorance can be astonishing.
> Light wrote:
> ...and a poor one (says me). Look at the low rates of teenage
> pregancy in Iceland, or the Netherlands, where they're a hell of a
> lot more open about teenage sex.
>
> I'd say it was a fair one at least.
>
> If you're young couple waiting for housing, how do you jump the list
> ? Get pregnant. Plus you'll be given a vast pile of benefits and
> never be homeless again.
>
> I think more needs to be done on getting people to act responsibly
> when it comes to having children - you've got people on benefits
> having 2,3,4 or more children, whilst you've got people on a combined
> 30K income worrying if they can afford to have one because they won't
> get as much financial help.
>
> I don't think being open is anything to do with it, judging from out
> teenage pregnancy rates most of them aren't having much trouble in
> that department.
>
> The Netherlands and Iceland only have low rates because their culture
> attaches a stigma to teenage mothers which views them unfavourably -
> which I do believe was the UK situation about 100 years ago.
Utter, utter toss. Iceland certainly has no such stigma; I absolutely defy you to even come close to finding one. Sounds very much to me like you're making stuff up as you go along to support an opinion that you've heard from the Tory party conference.
So lets see; every nation in continental Europe has a lower rate of teenage pregnancy...every nation in continental Europe is more open about sex with teenagers than us (yes, even the Spanish and Italians)...yet there is no connection between better sex education, more tolerance and education to teenagers and sex, and lower rates teenaged pregnancies? Well spot the man who didn't get laid when he was a teen.
Teenagers will always have sex. Lots of it. It's in the contract. I'd rather they were well informed and loaded down with contraceptives, than kept dumb and wandering round with shocked looks at the bumb developing in front of them. I don't excuse that minority of young lasses who get pregnant seemingly as a fashion statement, but your approach of 'hang 'em and flog 'em' is what is responsible for the current mess with attitudes to teenage sex in the first place.
Sometimes, even your mix of prudishness and ill-informed ignorance can be astonishing.
Light wrote:
> ...and a poor one (says me). Look at the low rates of teenage
> pregancy in Iceland, or the Netherlands, where they're a hell of a
> lot more open about teenage sex.
I'd say it was a fair one at least.
If you're young couple waiting for housing, how do you jump the list ? Get pregnant. Plus you'll be given a vast pile of benefits and never be homeless again.
I think more needs to be done on getting people to act responsibly when it comes to having children - you've got people on benefits having 2,3,4 or more children, whilst you've got people on a combined 30K income worrying if they can afford to have one because they won't get as much financial help.
I don't think being open is anything to do with it, judging from out teenage pregnancy rates most of them aren't having much trouble in that department.
The Netherlands and Iceland only have low rates because their culture attaches a stigma to teenage mothers which views them unfavourably - which I do believe was the UK situation about 100 years ago. Whilst something needs to be done I don't really think we need to turn social attitudes back 100 years just yet. The other main reason is that contraception is made available freely - strangely it is in the UK as well but we'll ignore that - and I think that the actual point of their low rates is that their sex education classes do not stop teenage sex, they stop teenage pregnancy. In addition Catholics in the UK are highly likely to not wish to have an abortion regardless of age.
If teenage pregnancy in the UK is rising, yet our birth rate is falling, then the increase cannot be ascribed to their being more teenagers in society every year, it means more teenagers are having sex at an earlier age every year.
Why? If sex education has been improved in the UK over the years, alongside rising rates for pregnancy, then to me that suggests it's not working, because the rates are lower the further back in time you go - back to when sex education consisted of one two hour lesson in primary school and one in secondary school.
If sex education worked then we should have seen a drop, but instead it's climbing more and more each year, in relation to improved sex education.
Which kind of suggests being open doesn't work, and nor does the current sex education program, OR other factors are to blame which are not sex education/openess related.
> ...and a poor one (says me). Look at the low rates of teenage
> pregancy in Iceland, or the Netherlands, where they're a hell of a
> lot more open about teenage sex.
I'd say it was a fair one at least.
If you're young couple waiting for housing, how do you jump the list ? Get pregnant. Plus you'll be given a vast pile of benefits and never be homeless again.
I think more needs to be done on getting people to act responsibly when it comes to having children - you've got people on benefits having 2,3,4 or more children, whilst you've got people on a combined 30K income worrying if they can afford to have one because they won't get as much financial help.
I don't think being open is anything to do with it, judging from out teenage pregnancy rates most of them aren't having much trouble in that department.
The Netherlands and Iceland only have low rates because their culture attaches a stigma to teenage mothers which views them unfavourably - which I do believe was the UK situation about 100 years ago. Whilst something needs to be done I don't really think we need to turn social attitudes back 100 years just yet. The other main reason is that contraception is made available freely - strangely it is in the UK as well but we'll ignore that - and I think that the actual point of their low rates is that their sex education classes do not stop teenage sex, they stop teenage pregnancy. In addition Catholics in the UK are highly likely to not wish to have an abortion regardless of age.
If teenage pregnancy in the UK is rising, yet our birth rate is falling, then the increase cannot be ascribed to their being more teenagers in society every year, it means more teenagers are having sex at an earlier age every year.
Why? If sex education has been improved in the UK over the years, alongside rising rates for pregnancy, then to me that suggests it's not working, because the rates are lower the further back in time you go - back to when sex education consisted of one two hour lesson in primary school and one in secondary school.
If sex education worked then we should have seen a drop, but instead it's climbing more and more each year, in relation to improved sex education.
Which kind of suggests being open doesn't work, and nor does the current sex education program, OR other factors are to blame which are not sex education/openess related.
Thing is, had we worked to the model that the Dutch do concerning avoiding teenage pregnancies, she probably wouldn't have been in that boat in the first place. Instead, we insist on keeping young people ignorant. And in their ignorance, they behave like fools.
I'll just carry on looking at my younger sister for now, spending her child support on chart CDs and fags, while making my family look after her baby since she had it at the age of 16.
She should have been flogged in public, instead she's practically been given licence to ruin everyone's life.
She should have been flogged in public, instead she's practically been given licence to ruin everyone's life.
Bane wrote:
> Well, it should be said that teenage pregnancy should be frowned upon,
> rather than encouraged with benefits. But that's another argument...
...and a poor one (says me). Look at the low rates of teenage pregancy in Iceland, or the Netherlands, where they're a hell of a lot more open about teenage sex.
> Well, it should be said that teenage pregnancy should be frowned upon,
> rather than encouraged with benefits. But that's another argument...
...and a poor one (says me). Look at the low rates of teenage pregancy in Iceland, or the Netherlands, where they're a hell of a lot more open about teenage sex.
Well, it should be said that teenage pregnancy should be frowned upon, rather than encouraged with benefits. But that's another argument...
Page: