Hyperbole. I agree that abstinance only sex education is a failure, it's pretty much proven. However to site one example and claim that demonstrates a cause-effect relationship is misleading, and downright false. There are plenty of teen mothers who have recieved proper sex education.

Though in the long run it doesn't matter much. Politically speaking, I think that the fact Palin has a pregnant teen daughter, while running on RR family values will be a net negative. That's just the facts of the game in politics. Though, I feel that that's 'nuff said on the subject.

Dont you think its likely that, believing in abstinence before sex-ed, she has thus aired this view with her daughter and this view has failed to take hold?

What argument is there then to put this on the rest of the nation?

This is a horrible, horrible logical fallacy.

For this to be true, you are going to need to show me some examples of leaders who were able to control the behavior of those they led without exception. You are saying that Sarah Palin's views are invalid because they were not followed by one of her five children? To a lot of statisticians, that is an 80% success rate!

You'll also need to show me that sex education is more successful at preventing pregnancy (or disease, for that matter) than teaching abstinence.

You're making assumptions that are not backed up by facts, and you are basing your conclusions on completely unproven hypotheses. In all fairness, you should either cite some examples of why the other side has been more successful, or back off the grandiose generalizations like "completely invalid and dangerous."

I joined this forum because it seemed to offer a little more in the way of educated debate and discussion than other places. Prove me right in that assumption by saying something meaningful instead of just saying it dramatically.

(and thanks in advance if you choose to do so)

__________________
The price of apathy towards public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.

~ Plato

Post Script:

Horseshit.

"Without any possible retort?"

So in your mind, something has to be 100% effective for it to be valid?

Same challenge: Show me anything preached by anyone at any time anywhere ever in the history of mankind that has been 100% effective.

Your claim is that because one person (Sarah Palin's daughter) got pregnant at age 17, the whole concept of family values is a hypocritical stance by the right? Okay, back that up. My retort is that plenty of people who have received sex education have ended up with dieases and unwanted pregnancies as well. My "exception" is that while nothing is 100% effective, Sarah Palin's family values have inspired her to see her coming grandchild as a blessing and welcome not only the baby, but Bristol's soon-to-be husband into the family with warmth and acceptance.

I'll even make you a deal. I'll go item for item with you.

You make a list of verifiable (non-anecdotal) examples of people who were taught pure abstinence who then caught STDs or got pregnant accidentally. I'll match it item for item with people who have had the same results with sex ed and access to birth control. Can't get any fairer than that.

And now, counselor, the floor is yours.

__________________
The price of apathy towards public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.

~ Plato

The fact that whiney libs are ignoring is that, in Alaska, Palin's daughter is beyond the age of legal consent.

Blaming Palin for her daughter being pregnant is like blaming Obama's Mom for his past drug use...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

This is from an Pro-Sex Ed report, funded by the Department of Health and Human Services:

Sarah Palin: 80% success rate.

Sex Ed Class: 66% success rate.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner!


(source: Adolescent Sexual Behavior, Pregnancy, & Parenthood Executive Summary)

__________________
The price of apathy towards public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.

~ Plato

Both are excellent points...

__________________
The price of apathy towards public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.

~ Plato

No, of course not. What a silly question. Why would you even think that?No such animal exists.No, that's not my claim.Why would I? It's not my claim.And this is pertinent to your imagined claims of my position just how?Oh, golly! A tough guy!When it comes to challenging people on their rhetoric, specific numerical claims mean nothing, since we're dealing with principles, here, and no one has claimed any sort of particular demographical count or figure.

I suspect you know this, are attempting to misapply a rhetorical device, and it won't work.

Sorry, I don't buy into your bullshit.

__________________
All things serve The Beam

From the Department of Health and Human Services.

As for my challenge, it's not to be tough - it's a fair challenge to anyone that's ever done any real debate. Point for point, item for item. That's not posturing - it's proving.

As for it not being your point, yes it was. You said that the statement:

Was 100% true, or in your own words:

You also claimed that teaching family values was hypocritical of the right. Once again, for the cheap seats:

In debate, we call that a claim. I responded to your claim, arguing that it is not true. Since you made the claim, we share a burden of proof. The first is to me, which is why I posted the DHHS report. If it helps, I suggest reading some Stephen Toulmin. He was the philosopher that postulated that a claim is the thing you want people to believe, and in order to support or justify your claim, you need to provide evidence. You failed utterly and completely to do so.

You provided no evidence, and you simply made the claim that the previous statement had been 100%, irrefutably true. I have already shown that you are 100% irrefutably wrong, because I did offer a retort that is both quantifiable and provable through dispassionate third parties. I also cited evidence to support my claim - something you failed to do.

However, to make things fair and give you a chance to back up the things you said, I offered to open the floor to a point by point debate. Of course, you predictably changed positions quickly and tried to make the offer for a tit-for-tat comparison look like posturing.

Far more mature would have been to simply say that you overstated the case, that you spoke without any foundation, or that you were wrong.

Or you could have just said, "Lighten up, asshole. I'm not debating at all - I'm just lambasting the right because I'm a pinko commie democrat and it's what we do."

Either one would have demonstrated more character than the tripe you came back with.

__________________
The price of apathy towards public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.

~ Plato

Sure it is. Don't be a child; own it.

__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them; speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition

And since you had such a tough time defending your previous statement, Tann, how about just addressing Steve's points here:




Both of these are true. Can Obama's upbringing be called into question because Obama strayed from the values his mother or grandparents taught? After all - what he did was illegal! He not only violated common ethics, but he broke federal and state laws while doing it. Palin's daughter didn't break any laws at all. Fair to compare? Or is it as idiotic as Omega insinuates? Personally, I believe you don't have a leg to stand on. In this argument, you're dead and buried. From the rhetorical standpoint, your own candidate is a mackerel. He turns the very argument you're using on its head. From a factual standpoint (which is far more relevant to me), you're just dead wrong, and I've shown that using - gasp! - facts.

__________________
The price of apathy towards public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.

~ Plato

However much you'd like to portray it that way, it's not.

Do try and make more of an effort, if you're going to try and catch me at something, hmmm? I'll slow down for you to make it fun, I promise.I didn't claim it, why would I own it?

__________________
All things serve The Beam

I'm sorry, I don't know who Steve is, but I will attempt to answer your points, in any case.Please cite something specific about both his actions and the values of said individuals so that I might address them. Unless, of course you mean drug use.No, and it should be patently obvious as to why. He was not a minor, living as with a parent as a guardian, and his mother was not a public political figure preaching family values.Who is Omega?Here's where you really ought to remove your head from where it shouldn't be.
I am not a Dem. He is not my candidate.

I have just given you the straight facts, and you've choked on them.

Any other questions, Einstein?

__________________
All things serve The Beam

Wow. You really are bad at this game, huh.

Two people now have cut and pasted your own words, showing your statement of your position.

Perhaps you'd be so kind as to clear up the confusion and actually state your position, then?

Or perhaps you'd venture an answer to any of the numerous points you've diligently ignored so far?

Nah. At your suggestion, we'll go slow. Just clear up the confusion for us special ed kids and state your own position so's we're not all confused and whatnot. It's obvious that we're just so far beneath your level of intellect that we didn't understand you when you said:

Here on the short bus, that generally means something like "there's no way anyone can retort that, and there are no exceptions to what you just said."

I appreciate your catering to we, the lesser intellects, by restating that so we can better understand. For the sake of productive discussion and all.

__________________
The price of apathy towards public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.

~ Plato

If you'll scroll to the post I quoted, you'll see that "Steve" is the user who posted the comment about Obama's illegal drug use and the fact that Bristol Palin was over the legal age of consent in Alaska.

Omega is the avatar he used, and I got confused and jotted it in there as his screen name instead. What can I say? I'm a moron sometimes.

Which means, I guess, that you're being bested in this debate by a moron.

Delicious.

Stealth facts! I just went back and re-read your posts. I can't find any of these so-called "facts." No citations of sources, no quantifiable anything. You mentioned something hare-brained about Obama's drug use not being a reflection on his parents, which I happily and wholeheartedly agree with. Not only is it purely and completely a reflection on HIM and not his parent(s), that's actually the point we've been making all along. Bristol's pregnancy is not a reflection on her parents, either.

Also, drug use being both a state and federal crime, which should we be more concerned with? A presidential candidate's flaunting of State and Federal laws? Or a third party who is not running for office getting pregnant at a year over the legal age of consent?

Hmmm.

Looking forward to the facts.

__________________
The price of apathy towards public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.

~ Plato