Religions > Atheism > "She killed a bunch of kids, and you don't do that in Harris County,"
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"J Young" |
| Date: |
10 Nov 2005 11:08:51 PM |
| Object: |
"She killed a bunch of kids, and you don't do that in Harris County," |
This headline could have easily been about the closing of the local abortion
mill. Maybe Andrea Yates should take her cue from Planned Parenthood; have
the ACLU represent her and claim she was only exercising her "Freedom of
Choice", albeit retroactively.
http://today.reuters.com/news/NewsArticle.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyID=2005-11-09T232314Z_01_SPI960173_RTRUKOC_0_US-CRIME-YATES.xml
Texas child-killer Yates will have second trial
HOUSTON (Reuters) - Andrea Yates, the Texas mother who drowned her five
children in 2001, will face a second trial after the state's highest
criminal court refused on Wednesday to reinstate the murder convictions
against her.
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals upheld a lower appeals court's ruling
issued in January that overturned jury verdicts against Yates because of
errors in the testimony of an expert witness.
Harris County District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal said he would try Yates
again as soon as possible. "She killed a bunch of kids, and you don't do
that in Harris County," he said.
.
|
|
| User: "IAAH" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
01 Dec 2005 02:21:22 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 15:18:03 -0500, IAAH <iaah@dodgeit.com> wrote:
On 1 Dec 2005 12:13:43 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
shitstain IAAH lied:
On 1 Dec 2005 12:02:51 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
shitstain IAAH lied:
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 17:41:48 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
shitstain IAAH lied:
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 17:07:21 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
shitstain IAAH lied:
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 16:51:06 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
[snip]
Wrongo. AO programs are much worse at preventing pregnancy and STD.
[snip advocacy of teen sex]
READ the Atlantic article by Barbara Dafoe Whitehead,
"The Failure of Sex Education":
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/family/failure.htm
So-called "comprehensive" sex education is deliberately
conceived to encourage teenagers to have sex.
Teenagers shouldn't be having sex.
The real problem here is that many people or their families are
religiously opposed to birth control so they are completely reluctant
to use it or even discuss it with their partners. High school girls
especially think it takes the romance and the spontaneity out of sex if
they must discuss or use birth control.
High school girls and boys shouldn't be having sex, period.
But they do!
But they shouldn't, and the state shouldn't do anything
to encourage them to have sex; "comprehensive" sex
education tells them it's okay to have sex. That's
irresponsible.
Still lying,
Never.
"Abstinence-only sexuality education doesn't work.
It doesn't work perfectly. So-called "comprehensive"
sex education DOESN'T WORK AT ALL.
Wrong, unless you care to explain how EVERY industrialized country
with comprehensive sex-ed has lower teen pregnancy and STD rates than
the US.
False comparison, shitstain. You'd have to compare
their rates with what they were *prior* to their
implementation of so-called "comprehensive" (i.e.,
teen-sex-advocacy) sex education.
Note that the rates of all those pathologies are RISING
in every industrialized country.
Stop lying , you shitstained *****.
AO education does not work.
False. It doesn't work perfectly, but so-called
"comprehensive" (teen-sex-advocacy) sex education
doen't work AT ALL.
That's a lie. A complete lie. See my other post for the refutation of
Whitehead
You didn't provide *any* refutation of Whitehead, you shitstained liar.
Direct from my other post:
Oh, let's just put this to bed:
Whitehead's so-called 'study' suffered from the typical strawman
fallacy, as exposed by one of the very people she talked to. Susan
Wilson, Whitehead's primary source in New Jersey for education,
explained that the program Whitehead looked at was not typical -
Yeah, yeah - this sounds like Charles Barkley claiming that he was
"misquoted"...in his autobiography.
It's a lie. Whitehead looked at sex education for the ENTIRE state of
New Jersey.
You're a shitstained liar, and so is Susan Wilson.
Uh huh. Better prove that.
As a follow up, if Susan Wilson is a 'shitstained liar', that in
itself sinks Whiteheads article. Either way, you're done.
Either you prove Wilson's a liar, thus making Whitehead's article
invalid, or Wilson's telling the truth, making Whitehead's conclusions
invalid.
Damn, I love it when the newbies shoot themselves in the foot.
.
|
|
|
| User: "S. Maizlich" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
02 Dec 2005 12:38:08 AM |
|
|
IAAH wrote:
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 15:18:03 -0500, IAAH <iaah@dodgeit.com> wrote:
On 1 Dec 2005 12:13:43 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
shitstain IAAH lied:
On 1 Dec 2005 12:02:51 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
shitstain IAAH lied:
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 17:41:48 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
shitstain IAAH lied:
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 17:07:21 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
shitstain IAAH lied:
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 16:51:06 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
[snip]
Wrongo. AO programs are much worse at preventing pregnancy and STD.
[snip advocacy of teen sex]
READ the Atlantic article by Barbara Dafoe Whitehead,
"The Failure of Sex Education":
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/family/failure.htm
So-called "comprehensive" sex education is deliberately
conceived to encourage teenagers to have sex.
Teenagers shouldn't be having sex.
The real problem here is that many people or their families are
religiously opposed to birth control so they are completely reluctant
to use it or even discuss it with their partners. High school girls
especially think it takes the romance and the spontaneity out of sex if
they must discuss or use birth control.
High school girls and boys shouldn't be having sex, period.
But they do!
But they shouldn't, and the state shouldn't do anything
to encourage them to have sex; "comprehensive" sex
education tells them it's okay to have sex. That's
irresponsible.
Still lying,
Never.
"Abstinence-only sexuality education doesn't work.
It doesn't work perfectly. So-called "comprehensive"
sex education DOESN'T WORK AT ALL.
Wrong, unless you care to explain how EVERY industrialized country
with comprehensive sex-ed has lower teen pregnancy and STD rates than
the US.
False comparison, shitstain. You'd have to compare
their rates with what they were *prior* to their
implementation of so-called "comprehensive" (i.e.,
teen-sex-advocacy) sex education.
Note that the rates of all those pathologies are RISING
in every industrialized country.
Stop lying , you shitstained *****.
AO education does not work.
False. It doesn't work perfectly, but so-called
"comprehensive" (teen-sex-advocacy) sex education
doen't work AT ALL.
That's a lie. A complete lie. See my other post for the refutation of
Whitehead
You didn't provide *any* refutation of Whitehead, you shitstained liar.
Direct from my other post:
Oh, let's just put this to bed:
Whitehead's so-called 'study' suffered from the typical strawman
fallacy, as exposed by one of the very people she talked to. Susan
Wilson, Whitehead's primary source in New Jersey for education,
explained that the program Whitehead looked at was not typical -
Yeah, yeah - this sounds like Charles Barkley claiming that he was
"misquoted"...in his autobiography.
It's a lie. Whitehead looked at sex education for the ENTIRE state of
New Jersey.
You're a shitstained liar, and so is Susan Wilson.
Uh huh. Better prove that.
As a follow up, if Susan Wilson is a 'shitstained liar', that in
itself sinks Whiteheads article.
No, not even close, dummy. READ the fucking article,
you moron.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "S. Maizlich" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
01 Dec 2005 03:27:50 PM |
|
|
shitstain IAAH lied:
On 1 Dec 2005 12:13:43 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
shitstain IAAH lied:
On 1 Dec 2005 12:02:51 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
shitstain IAAH lied:
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 17:41:48 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
shitstain IAAH lied:
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 17:07:21 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
shitstain IAAH lied:
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 16:51:06 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
[snip]
Wrongo. AO programs are much worse at preventing pregnancy and STD.
[snip advocacy of teen sex]
READ the Atlantic article by Barbara Dafoe Whitehead,
"The Failure of Sex Education":
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/family/failure.htm
So-called "comprehensive" sex education is deliberately
conceived to encourage teenagers to have sex.
Teenagers shouldn't be having sex.
The real problem here is that many people or their families are
religiously opposed to birth control so they are completely reluctant
to use it or even discuss it with their partners. High school girls
especially think it takes the romance and the spontaneity out of sex if
they must discuss or use birth control.
High school girls and boys shouldn't be having sex, period.
But they do!
But they shouldn't, and the state shouldn't do anything
to encourage them to have sex; "comprehensive" sex
education tells them it's okay to have sex. That's
irresponsible.
Still lying,
Never.
"Abstinence-only sexuality education doesn't work.
It doesn't work perfectly. So-called "comprehensive"
sex education DOESN'T WORK AT ALL.
Wrong, unless you care to explain how EVERY industrialized country
with comprehensive sex-ed has lower teen pregnancy and STD rates than
the US.
False comparison, shitstain. You'd have to compare
their rates with what they were *prior* to their
implementation of so-called "comprehensive" (i.e.,
teen-sex-advocacy) sex education.
Note that the rates of all those pathologies are RISING
in every industrialized country.
Stop lying , you shitstained *****.
AO education does not work.
False. It doesn't work perfectly, but so-called
"comprehensive" (teen-sex-advocacy) sex education
doen't work AT ALL.
That's a lie. A complete lie. See my other post for the refutation of
Whitehead
You didn't provide *any* refutation of Whitehead, you shitstained liar.
Direct from my other post:
Oh, let's just put this to bed:
Whitehead's so-called 'study' suffered from the typical strawman
fallacy, as exposed by one of the very people she talked to. Susan
Wilson, Whitehead's primary source in New Jersey for education,
explained that the program Whitehead looked at was not typical -
Yeah, yeah - this sounds like Charles Barkley claiming that he was
"misquoted"...in his autobiography.
It's a lie. Whitehead looked at sex education for the ENTIRE state of
New Jersey.
You're a shitstained liar, and so is Susan Wilson.
Uh huh. Better prove that.
You prove you're a shitstained liar in every post you write, without
any help from me.
Now, for the so-called 'failure' of sex ed. Douglas Kirby was her main
'source' on that, but as he says, she misrepresents the evidence:
"Barbara Dafoe Whitehead raises some good questions concerning sex
education programs, and points to some past mistakes. However, her
claim that sex education in general has failed is incorrect, and is
based on a selective citing of the evidence.
Her conclusion is based on looking at two things: the undeniable and
steep rise in rates of sex-related social pathologies - *****
children, teen pregnancy, abortion, STDs - and the sweep across the
land of so-called "comprehensive" sex education, which did in fact
become the prevailing model. It would be wrong for a scientist to
conclude that "comprehensive" sex ed *caused* the massive increase in
pathology, but that's not what Whitehead claims, you lying shitstained
*****. What she claims, and she is correct, is that
"comprehensive" sex education FAILED to prevent the pathologies,
*depite* the claims of its advocates and practitioners that it would do
so.
Nothing else you have to say is truthful or meaningful. *****.
"Comprehensive" sex education was tried, and it failed. You will have
to stop lying, and acknowledge it.
No, because I have proof that you are wrong
You don't. To prove I am wrong, you would have to show:
a) that sex-related social pathologies did not increase during the last
35 years
b) that "comprehensive" sex education didn't grow in usage during this
interval
You can't. You can't even get started. All you can do is cite either
shitstained polemicist/liars like yourself, or CDC officials who are
NOT arguing with Whitehead's conclusion: that "comprehensive" sex
education is a failure. It is a failure.
Why are you repeatedly trying to miscast Whitehead as an adovcate of
abstinence-only sex education, you shitstained liar? She is not one.
She has cited the failure of the alternative, so-called "comprehensive"
sex education, but that does NOT translate to being an advocate of
abstinence-only sex education, except in your unreality marked by false
dilemma.
*****.
.
|
|
|
| User: "IAAH" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
01 Dec 2005 07:03:15 PM |
|
|
On 1 Dec 2005 13:27:50 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
shitstain IAAH lied:
On 1 Dec 2005 12:13:43 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
shitstain IAAH lied:
On 1 Dec 2005 12:02:51 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
shitstain IAAH lied:
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 17:41:48 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
shitstain IAAH lied:
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 17:07:21 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
shitstain IAAH lied:
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 16:51:06 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
[snip]
Wrongo. AO programs are much worse at preventing pregnancy and STD.
[snip advocacy of teen sex]
READ the Atlantic article by Barbara Dafoe Whitehead,
"The Failure of Sex Education":
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/family/failure.htm
So-called "comprehensive" sex education is deliberately
conceived to encourage teenagers to have sex.
Teenagers shouldn't be having sex.
The real problem here is that many people or their families are
religiously opposed to birth control so they are completely reluctant
to use it or even discuss it with their partners. High school girls
especially think it takes the romance and the spontaneity out of sex if
they must discuss or use birth control.
High school girls and boys shouldn't be having sex, period.
But they do!
But they shouldn't, and the state shouldn't do anything
to encourage them to have sex; "comprehensive" sex
education tells them it's okay to have sex. That's
irresponsible.
Still lying,
Never.
"Abstinence-only sexuality education doesn't work.
It doesn't work perfectly. So-called "comprehensive"
sex education DOESN'T WORK AT ALL.
Wrong, unless you care to explain how EVERY industrialized country
with comprehensive sex-ed has lower teen pregnancy and STD rates than
the US.
False comparison, shitstain. You'd have to compare
their rates with what they were *prior* to their
implementation of so-called "comprehensive" (i.e.,
teen-sex-advocacy) sex education.
Note that the rates of all those pathologies are RISING
in every industrialized country.
Stop lying , you shitstained *****.
AO education does not work.
False. It doesn't work perfectly, but so-called
"comprehensive" (teen-sex-advocacy) sex education
doen't work AT ALL.
That's a lie. A complete lie. See my other post for the refutation of
Whitehead
You didn't provide *any* refutation of Whitehead, you shitstained liar.
Direct from my other post:
Oh, let's just put this to bed:
Whitehead's so-called 'study' suffered from the typical strawman
fallacy, as exposed by one of the very people she talked to. Susan
Wilson, Whitehead's primary source in New Jersey for education,
explained that the program Whitehead looked at was not typical -
Yeah, yeah - this sounds like Charles Barkley claiming that he was
"misquoted"...in his autobiography.
It's a lie. Whitehead looked at sex education for the ENTIRE state of
New Jersey.
You're a shitstained liar, and so is Susan Wilson.
Uh huh. Better prove that.
You prove you're a shitstained liar in every post you write, without
any help from me.
Now, for the so-called 'failure' of sex ed. Douglas Kirby was her main
'source' on that, but as he says, she misrepresents the evidence:
"Barbara Dafoe Whitehead raises some good questions concerning sex
education programs, and points to some past mistakes. However, her
claim that sex education in general has failed is incorrect, and is
based on a selective citing of the evidence.
Her conclusion is based on looking at two things: the undeniable and
steep rise in rates of sex-related social pathologies - *****
children, teen pregnancy, abortion, STDs - and the sweep across the
land of so-called "comprehensive" sex education, which did in fact
become the prevailing model. It would be wrong for a scientist to
conclude that "comprehensive" sex ed *caused* the massive increase in
pathology, but that's not what Whitehead claims, you lying shitstained
*****. What she claims, and she is correct, is that
"comprehensive" sex education FAILED to prevent the pathologies,
*depite* the claims of its advocates and practitioners that it would do
so.
Nothing else you have to say is truthful or meaningful. *****.
"Comprehensive" sex education was tried, and it failed. You will have
to stop lying, and acknowledge it.
No, because I have proof that you are wrong
You don't. To prove I am wrong, you would have to show:
That Whitehead's article is not valid, which I have shown and backed
up with statements from her two major sources that say that Whitehead
ignored evidence and that what THEY said to her does not support her
conclusions.
Yer done, Spazzy. Your claim that comprehensive sex ed causes earlier
and more teenage sex is completely wrong because the article you used
to make that claim is wrong, because her article draws erroneous
conclusions from distorted evidence. Unless you can come up with some
real facts you are done.
.
|
|
|
| User: "S. Maizlich" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
01 Dec 2005 07:22:21 PM |
|
|
shitstain IAAH lied, again:
On 1 Dec 2005 13:27:50 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
shitstain IAAH lied:
On 1 Dec 2005 12:13:43 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
shitstain IAAH lied:
On 1 Dec 2005 12:02:51 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
shitstain IAAH lied:
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 17:41:48 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
shitstain IAAH lied:
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 17:07:21 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
shitstain IAAH lied:
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 16:51:06 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
[snip]
Wrongo. AO programs are much worse at preventing pregnancy and STD.
[snip advocacy of teen sex]
READ the Atlantic article by Barbara Dafoe Whitehead,
"The Failure of Sex Education":
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/family/failure.htm
So-called "comprehensive" sex education is deliberately
conceived to encourage teenagers to have sex.
Teenagers shouldn't be having sex.
The real problem here is that many people or their families are
religiously opposed to birth control so they are completely reluctant
to use it or even discuss it with their partners. High school girls
especially think it takes the romance and the spontaneity out of sex if
they must discuss or use birth control.
High school girls and boys shouldn't be having sex, period.
But they do!
But they shouldn't, and the state shouldn't do anything
to encourage them to have sex; "comprehensive" sex
education tells them it's okay to have sex. That's
irresponsible.
Still lying,
Never.
"Abstinence-only sexuality education doesn't work.
It doesn't work perfectly. So-called "comprehensive"
sex education DOESN'T WORK AT ALL.
Wrong, unless you care to explain how EVERY industrialized country
with comprehensive sex-ed has lower teen pregnancy and STD rates than
the US.
False comparison, shitstain. You'd have to compare
their rates with what they were *prior* to their
implementation of so-called "comprehensive" (i.e.,
teen-sex-advocacy) sex education.
Note that the rates of all those pathologies are RISING
in every industrialized country.
Stop lying , you shitstained *****.
AO education does not work.
False. It doesn't work perfectly, but so-called
"comprehensive" (teen-sex-advocacy) sex education
doen't work AT ALL.
That's a lie. A complete lie. See my other post for the refutation of
Whitehead
You didn't provide *any* refutation of Whitehead, you shitstained liar.
Direct from my other post:
Oh, let's just put this to bed:
Whitehead's so-called 'study' suffered from the typical strawman
fallacy, as exposed by one of the very people she talked to. Susan
Wilson, Whitehead's primary source in New Jersey for education,
explained that the program Whitehead looked at was not typical -
Yeah, yeah - this sounds like Charles Barkley claiming that he was
"misquoted"...in his autobiography.
It's a lie. Whitehead looked at sex education for the ENTIRE state of
New Jersey.
You're a shitstained liar, and so is Susan Wilson.
Uh huh. Better prove that.
You prove you're a shitstained liar in every post you write, without
any help from me.
Now, for the so-called 'failure' of sex ed. Douglas Kirby was her main
'source' on that, but as he says, she misrepresents the evidence:
"Barbara Dafoe Whitehead raises some good questions concerning sex
education programs, and points to some past mistakes. However, her
claim that sex education in general has failed is incorrect, and is
based on a selective citing of the evidence.
Her conclusion is based on looking at two things: the undeniable and
steep rise in rates of sex-related social pathologies - *****
children, teen pregnancy, abortion, STDs - and the sweep across the
land of so-called "comprehensive" sex education, which did in fact
become the prevailing model. It would be wrong for a scientist to
conclude that "comprehensive" sex ed *caused* the massive increase in
pathology, but that's not what Whitehead claims, you lying shitstained
*****. What she claims, and she is correct, is that
"comprehensive" sex education FAILED to prevent the pathologies,
*depite* the claims of its advocates and practitioners that it would do
so.
Nothing else you have to say is truthful or meaningful. *****.
"Comprehensive" sex education was tried, and it failed. You will have
to stop lying, and acknowledge it.
No, because I have proof that you are wrong
You don't. To prove I am wrong, you would have to show:
That Whitehead's article is not valid, which I have shown
No, that's not what you'd have to show, and you HAVEN'T shown it
either, shitstain.
What you would have to show is:
a) that sex-related social pathologies did not increase during the last
35 years
b) that "comprehensive" sex education didn't grow in usage during this
interval
You can't. You can't even get started. All you can do is cite either
shitstained polemicist/liars like yourself, or CDC officials who are
NOT arguing with Whitehead's conclusion: that "comprehensive" sex
education is a failure. It is a failure.
.
|
|
|
| User: "IAAH" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
01 Dec 2005 07:35:27 PM |
|
|
On 1 Dec 2005 17:22:21 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
shitstain IAAH lied, again:
On 1 Dec 2005 13:27:50 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
shitstain IAAH lied:
On 1 Dec 2005 12:13:43 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
shitstain IAAH lied:
On 1 Dec 2005 12:02:51 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
shitstain IAAH lied:
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 17:41:48 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
shitstain IAAH lied:
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 17:07:21 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
shitstain IAAH lied:
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 16:51:06 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
[snip]
Wrongo. AO programs are much worse at preventing pregnancy and STD.
[snip advocacy of teen sex]
READ the Atlantic article by Barbara Dafoe Whitehead,
"The Failure of Sex Education":
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/family/failure.htm
So-called "comprehensive" sex education is deliberately
conceived to encourage teenagers to have sex.
Teenagers shouldn't be having sex.
The real problem here is that many people or their families are
religiously opposed to birth control so they are completely reluctant
to use it or even discuss it with their partners. High school girls
especially think it takes the romance and the spontaneity out of sex if
they must discuss or use birth control.
High school girls and boys shouldn't be having sex, period.
But they do!
But they shouldn't, and the state shouldn't do anything
to encourage them to have sex; "comprehensive" sex
education tells them it's okay to have sex. That's
irresponsible.
Still lying,
Never.
"Abstinence-only sexuality education doesn't work.
It doesn't work perfectly. So-called "comprehensive"
sex education DOESN'T WORK AT ALL.
Wrong, unless you care to explain how EVERY industrialized country
with comprehensive sex-ed has lower teen pregnancy and STD rates than
the US.
False comparison, shitstain. You'd have to compare
their rates with what they were *prior* to their
implementation of so-called "comprehensive" (i.e.,
teen-sex-advocacy) sex education.
Note that the rates of all those pathologies are RISING
in every industrialized country.
Stop lying , you shitstained *****.
AO education does not work.
False. It doesn't work perfectly, but so-called
"comprehensive" (teen-sex-advocacy) sex education
doen't work AT ALL.
That's a lie. A complete lie. See my other post for the refutation of
Whitehead
You didn't provide *any* refutation of Whitehead, you shitstained liar.
Direct from my other post:
Oh, let's just put this to bed:
Whitehead's so-called 'study' suffered from the typical strawman
fallacy, as exposed by one of the very people she talked to. Susan
Wilson, Whitehead's primary source in New Jersey for education,
explained that the program Whitehead looked at was not typical -
Yeah, yeah - this sounds like Charles Barkley claiming that he was
"misquoted"...in his autobiography.
It's a lie. Whitehead looked at sex education for the ENTIRE state of
New Jersey.
You're a shitstained liar, and so is Susan Wilson.
Uh huh. Better prove that.
You prove you're a shitstained liar in every post you write, without
any help from me.
Now, for the so-called 'failure' of sex ed. Douglas Kirby was her main
'source' on that, but as he says, she misrepresents the evidence:
"Barbara Dafoe Whitehead raises some good questions concerning sex
education programs, and points to some past mistakes. However, her
claim that sex education in general has failed is incorrect, and is
based on a selective citing of the evidence.
Her conclusion is based on looking at two things: the undeniable and
steep rise in rates of sex-related social pathologies - *****
children, teen pregnancy, abortion, STDs - and the sweep across the
land of so-called "comprehensive" sex education, which did in fact
become the prevailing model. It would be wrong for a scientist to
conclude that "comprehensive" sex ed *caused* the massive increase in
pathology, but that's not what Whitehead claims, you lying shitstained
*****. What she claims, and she is correct, is that
"comprehensive" sex education FAILED to prevent the pathologies,
*depite* the claims of its advocates and practitioners that it would do
so.
Nothing else you have to say is truthful or meaningful. *****.
"Comprehensive" sex education was tried, and it failed. You will have
to stop lying, and acknowledge it.
No, because I have proof that you are wrong
You don't. To prove I am wrong, you would have to show:
That Whitehead's article is not valid, which I have shown
No, that's not what you'd have to show, and you HAVEN'T shown it
either, shitstain.
It is, since your claim about sex ed (that it doesn't work at all) is
based on Whitehead's article, and her article is wrong. Since I've
proven that with unequivocal statements from the two sources that she
distorted to write her article, there's really nothing else to say,
except that the CDC and the AMA also prove that your claim is wrong.
Oh, Spazzy. Maybe if you're good Santa will bring you a brain for
Xmas.
.
|
|
|
| User: "S. Maizlich" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
02 Dec 2005 01:38:17 PM |
|
|
IAAH wrote:
On 1 Dec 2005 17:22:21 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
shitstain IAAH lied, again:
On 1 Dec 2005 13:27:50 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
shitstain IAAH lied:
On 1 Dec 2005 12:13:43 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
shitstain IAAH lied:
On 1 Dec 2005 12:02:51 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
shitstain IAAH lied:
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 17:41:48 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
shitstain IAAH lied:
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 17:07:21 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
shitstain IAAH lied:
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 16:51:06 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
[snip]
Wrongo. AO programs are much worse at preventing pregnancy and STD.
[snip advocacy of teen sex]
READ the Atlantic article by Barbara Dafoe Whitehead,
"The Failure of Sex Education":
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/family/failure.htm
So-called "comprehensive" sex education is deliberately
conceived to encourage teenagers to have sex.
Teenagers shouldn't be having sex.
The real problem here is that many people or their families are
religiously opposed to birth control so they are completely reluctant
to use it or even discuss it with their partners. High school girls
especially think it takes the romance and the spontaneity out of sex if
they must discuss or use birth control.
High school girls and boys shouldn't be having sex, period.
But they do!
But they shouldn't, and the state shouldn't do anything
to encourage them to have sex; "comprehensive" sex
education tells them it's okay to have sex. That's
irresponsible.
Still lying,
Never.
"Abstinence-only sexuality education doesn't work.
It doesn't work perfectly. So-called "comprehensive"
sex education DOESN'T WORK AT ALL.
Wrong, unless you care to explain how EVERY industrialized country
with comprehensive sex-ed has lower teen pregnancy and STD rates than
the US.
False comparison, shitstain. You'd have to compare
their rates with what they were *prior* to their
implementation of so-called "comprehensive" (i.e.,
teen-sex-advocacy) sex education.
Note that the rates of all those pathologies are RISING
in every industrialized country.
Stop lying , you shitstained *****.
AO education does not work.
False. It doesn't work perfectly, but so-called
"comprehensive" (teen-sex-advocacy) sex education
doen't work AT ALL.
That's a lie. A complete lie. See my other post for the refutation of
Whitehead
You didn't provide *any* refutation of Whitehead, you shitstained liar.
Direct from my other post:
Oh, let's just put this to bed:
Whitehead's so-called 'study' suffered from the typical strawman
fallacy, as exposed by one of the very people she talked to. Susan
Wilson, Whitehead's primary source in New Jersey for education,
explained that the program Whitehead looked at was not typical -
Yeah, yeah - this sounds like Charles Barkley claiming that he was
"misquoted"...in his autobiography.
It's a lie. Whitehead looked at sex education for the ENTIRE state of
New Jersey.
You're a shitstained liar, and so is Susan Wilson.
Uh huh. Better prove that.
You prove you're a shitstained liar in every post you write, without
any help from me.
Now, for the so-called 'failure' of sex ed. Douglas Kirby was her main
'source' on that, but as he says, she misrepresents the evidence:
"Barbara Dafoe Whitehead raises some good questions concerning sex
education programs, and points to some past mistakes. However, her
claim that sex education in general has failed is incorrect, and is
based on a selective citing of the evidence.
Her conclusion is based on looking at two things: the undeniable and
steep rise in rates of sex-related social pathologies - *****
children, teen pregnancy, abortion, STDs - and the sweep across the
land of so-called "comprehensive" sex education, which did in fact
become the prevailing model. It would be wrong for a scientist to
conclude that "comprehensive" sex ed *caused* the massive increase in
pathology, but that's not what Whitehead claims, you lying shitstained
*****. What she claims, and she is correct, is that
"comprehensive" sex education FAILED to prevent the pathologies,
*depite* the claims of its advocates and practitioners that it would do
so.
Nothing else you have to say is truthful or meaningful. *****.
"Comprehensive" sex education was tried, and it failed. You will have
to stop lying, and acknowledge it.
No, because I have proof that you are wrong
You don't. To prove I am wrong, you would have to show:
That Whitehead's article is not valid, which I have shown
No, that's not what you'd have to show, and you HAVEN'T shown it
either, shitstain.
It is,
It isn't, shitstain. You haven't refuted Whitehead's conclusion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "IAAH" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
02 Dec 2005 01:40:19 PM |
|
|
On 2 Dec 2005 11:38:17 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
You haven't refuted Whitehead's conclusion.
I already have, bonehead. Anytime a writer's primary sources say that
writer is wrong, that is a refutation.
Now, you still need to refute the CDC, the AMA, and the AGI, all of
whom also contradict Whitehead's opinion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "S. Maizlich" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
02 Dec 2005 02:20:51 PM |
|
|
IAAH wrote:
On 2 Dec 2005 11:38:17 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
You haven't refuted Whitehead's conclusion.
I already have,
You haven't. You produced two whiny quibbles that do not refute
Whitehead's conclusion.
Bad try.
.
|
|
|
| User: "IAAH" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
02 Dec 2005 02:23:32 PM |
|
|
On 2 Dec 2005 12:20:51 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenxagain@yahoo.com>
wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On 2 Dec 2005 11:38:17 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
You haven't refuted Whitehead's conclusion.
I already have,
You haven't. You produced two whiny quibbles that do not refute
Whitehead's conclusion.
Sigh. When you can explain how having your sources reveal that you
totally misinterpreted their data for your conclusion isn't a
refutation, post it in a new thread. Otherwise, don't bother.
.
|
|
|
| User: "S. Maizlich" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
02 Dec 2005 02:26:36 PM |
|
|
IAAH wrote:
On 2 Dec 2005 12:20:51 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenxagain@yahoo.com>
wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On 2 Dec 2005 11:38:17 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
You haven't refuted Whitehead's conclusion.
I already have,
You haven't. You produced two whiny quibbles that do not refute
Whitehead's conclusion.
<gasp> <wheeze>
You really ought to get your lungs checked. Have an EEG while you're
at it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "S. Maizlich" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
01 Dec 2005 07:59:02 PM |
|
|
shitstain IAAH lied, again:
On 1 Dec 2005 17:22:21 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
shitstain IAAH lied, again:
On 1 Dec 2005 13:27:50 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
shitstain IAAH lied:
On 1 Dec 2005 12:13:43 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
shitstain IAAH lied:
On 1 Dec 2005 12:02:51 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
shitstain IAAH lied:
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 17:41:48 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
shitstain IAAH lied:
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 17:07:21 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
shitstain IAAH lied:
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 16:51:06 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
[snip]
Wrongo. AO programs are much worse at preventing pregnancy and STD.
[snip advocacy of teen sex]
READ the Atlantic article by Barbara Dafoe Whitehead,
"The Failure of Sex Education":
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/family/failure.htm
So-called "comprehensive" sex education is deliberately
conceived to encourage teenagers to have sex.
Teenagers shouldn't be having sex.
The real problem here is that many people or their families are
religiously opposed to birth control so they are completely reluctant
to use it or even discuss it with their partners. High school girls
especially think it takes the romance and the spontaneity out of sex if
they must discuss or use birth control.
High school girls and boys shouldn't be having sex, period.
But they do!
But they shouldn't, and the state shouldn't do anything
to encourage them to have sex; "comprehensive" sex
education tells them it's okay to have sex. That's
irresponsible.
Still lying,
Never.
"Abstinence-only sexuality education doesn't work.
It doesn't work perfectly. So-called "comprehensive"
sex education DOESN'T WORK AT ALL.
Wrong, unless you care to explain how EVERY industrialized country
with comprehensive sex-ed has lower teen pregnancy and STD rates than
the US.
False comparison, shitstain. You'd have to compare
their rates with what they were *prior* to their
implementation of so-called "comprehensive" (i.e.,
teen-sex-advocacy) sex education.
Note that the rates of all those pathologies are RISING
in every industrialized country.
Stop lying , you shitstained *****.
AO education does not work.
False. It doesn't work perfectly, but so-called
"comprehensive" (teen-sex-advocacy) sex education
doen't work AT ALL.
That's a lie. A complete lie. See my other post for the refutation of
Whitehead
You didn't provide *any* refutation of Whitehead, you shitstained liar.
Direct from my other post:
Oh, let's just put this to bed:
Whitehead's so-called 'study' suffered from the typical strawman
fallacy, as exposed by one of the very people she talked to. Susan
Wilson, Whitehead's primary source in New Jersey for education,
explained that the program Whitehead looked at was not typical -
Yeah, yeah - this sounds like Charles Barkley claiming that he was
"misquoted"...in his autobiography.
It's a lie. Whitehead looked at sex education for the ENTIRE state of
New Jersey.
You're a shitstained liar, and so is Susan Wilson.
Uh huh. Better prove that.
You prove you're a shitstained liar in every post you write, without
any help from me.
Now, for the so-called 'failure' of sex ed. Douglas Kirby was her main
'source' on that, but as he says, she misrepresents the evidence:
"Barbara Dafoe Whitehead raises some good questions concerning sex
education programs, and points to some past mistakes. However, her
claim that sex education in general has failed is incorrect, and is
based on a selective citing of the evidence.
Her conclusion is based on looking at two things: the undeniable and
steep rise in rates of sex-related social pathologies - *****
children, teen pregnancy, abortion, STDs - and the sweep across the
land of so-called "comprehensive" sex education, which did in fact
become the prevailing model. It would be wrong for a scientist to
conclude that "comprehensive" sex ed *caused* the massive increase in
pathology, but that's not what Whitehead claims, you lying shitstained
*****. What she claims, and she is correct, is that
"comprehensive" sex education FAILED to prevent the pathologies,
*depite* the claims of its advocates and practitioners that it would do
so.
Nothing else you have to say is truthful or meaningful. *****.
"Comprehensive" sex education was tried, and it failed. You will have
to stop lying, and acknowledge it.
No, because I have proof that you are wrong
You don't. To prove I am wrong, you would have to show:
That Whitehead's article is not valid, which I have shown
No, that's not what you'd have to show, and you HAVEN'T shown it
either, shitstain.
It is, since your claim about sex ed (that it doesn't work at all) is
based on Whitehead's article, and her article is wrong.
The article is not wrong; it is right.
Since I've proven that
You haven't proved anything except your extreme dishonesty.
.
|
|
|
| User: "IAAH" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
01 Dec 2005 08:21:34 PM |
|
|
On 1 Dec 2005 17:59:02 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
shitstain IAAH lied, again:
On 1 Dec 2005 17:22:21 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
shitstain IAAH lied, again:
On 1 Dec 2005 13:27:50 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
shitstain IAAH lied:
On 1 Dec 2005 12:13:43 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
shitstain IAAH lied:
On 1 Dec 2005 12:02:51 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
shitstain IAAH lied:
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 17:41:48 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
shitstain IAAH lied:
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 17:07:21 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
shitstain IAAH lied:
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 16:51:06 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
[snip]
Wrongo. AO programs are much worse at preventing pregnancy and STD.
[snip advocacy of teen sex]
READ the Atlantic article by Barbara Dafoe Whitehead,
"The Failure of Sex Education":
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/family/failure.htm
So-called "comprehensive" sex education is deliberately
conceived to encourage teenagers to have sex.
Teenagers shouldn't be having sex.
The real problem here is that many people or their families are
religiously opposed to birth control so they are completely reluctant
to use it or even discuss it with their partners. High school girls
especially think it takes the romance and the spontaneity out of sex if
they must discuss or use birth control.
High school girls and boys shouldn't be having sex, period.
But they do!
But they shouldn't, and the state shouldn't do anything
to encourage them to have sex; "comprehensive" sex
education tells them it's okay to have sex. That's
irresponsible.
Still lying,
Never.
"Abstinence-only sexuality education doesn't work.
It doesn't work perfectly. So-called "comprehensive"
sex education DOESN'T WORK AT ALL.
Wrong, unless you care to explain how EVERY industrialized country
with comprehensive sex-ed has lower teen pregnancy and STD rates than
the US.
False comparison, shitstain. You'd have to compare
their rates with what they were *prior* to their
implementation of so-called "comprehensive" (i.e.,
teen-sex-advocacy) sex education.
Note that the rates of all those pathologies are RISING
in every industrialized country.
Stop lying , you shitstained *****.
AO education does not work.
False. It doesn't work perfectly, but so-called
"comprehensive" (teen-sex-advocacy) sex education
doen't work AT ALL.
That's a lie. A complete lie. See my other post for the refutation of
Whitehead
You didn't provide *any* refutation of Whitehead, you shitstained liar.
Direct from my other post:
Oh, let's just put this to bed:
Whitehead's so-called 'study' suffered from the typical strawman
fallacy, as exposed by one of the very people she talked to. Susan
Wilson, Whitehead's primary source in New Jersey for education,
explained that the program Whitehead looked at was not typical -
Yeah, yeah - this sounds like Charles Barkley claiming that he was
"misquoted"...in his autobiography.
It's a lie. Whitehead looked at sex education for the ENTIRE state of
New Jersey.
You're a shitstained liar, and so is Susan Wilson.
Uh huh. Better prove that.
You prove you're a shitstained liar in every post you write, without
any help from me.
Now, for the so-called 'failure' of sex ed. Douglas Kirby was her main
'source' on that, but as he says, she misrepresents the evidence:
"Barbara Dafoe Whitehead raises some good questions concerning sex
education programs, and points to some past mistakes. However, her
claim that sex education in general has failed is incorrect, and is
based on a selective citing of the evidence.
Her conclusion is based on looking at two things: the undeniable and
steep rise in rates of sex-related social pathologies - *****
children, teen pregnancy, abortion, STDs - and the sweep across the
land of so-called "comprehensive" sex education, which did in fact
become the prevailing model. It would be wrong for a scientist to
conclude that "comprehensive" sex ed *caused* the massive increase in
pathology, but that's not what Whitehead claims, you lying shitstained
*****. What she claims, and she is correct, is that
"comprehensive" sex education FAILED to prevent the pathologies,
*depite* the claims of its advocates and practitioners that it would do
so.
Nothing else you have to say is truthful or meaningful. *****.
"Comprehensive" sex education was tried, and it failed. You will have
to stop lying, and acknowledge it.
No, because I have proof that you are wrong
You don't. To prove I am wrong, you would have to show:
That Whitehead's article is not valid, which I have shown
No, that's not what you'd have to show, and you HAVEN'T shown it
either, shitstain.
It is, since your claim about sex ed (that it doesn't work at all) is
based on Whitehead's article, and her article is wrong.
The article is not wrong; it is right.
Oh? Then you get to explain how she can be right when her two main
sources say that her conclusions can't be honestly drawn from what
they told her.
We'll wait. Explain to us all how she's right when the two experts she
used for information say that her conclusions taken from the
information that they gave her are wrong.
I have no doubt we'll have to wait a long time. I'll get back to you
when you bring that required information back - otherwise, your source
stands as refuted and you stand as lying to say otherwise, Spazzy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "S. Maizlich" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
01 Dec 2005 09:10:27 PM |
|
|
shitstain IAAH lied, again:
On 1 Dec 2005 17:59:02 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
shitstain IAAH lied, again:
On 1 Dec 2005 17:22:21 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
shitstain IAAH lied, again:
On 1 Dec 2005 13:27:50 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
shitstain IAAH lied:
On 1 Dec 2005 12:13:43 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
shitstain IAAH lied:
On 1 Dec 2005 12:02:51 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
shitstain IAAH lied:
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 17:41:48 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
shitstain IAAH lied:
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 17:07:21 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
shitstain IAAH lied:
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 16:51:06 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
[snip]
Wrongo. AO programs are much worse at preventing pregnancy and STD.
[snip advocacy of teen sex]
READ the Atlantic article by Barbara Dafoe Whitehead,
"The Failure of Sex Education":
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/family/failure.htm
So-called "comprehensive" sex education is deliberately
conceived to encourage teenagers to have sex.
Teenagers shouldn't be having sex.
The real problem here is that many people or their families are
religiously opposed to birth control so they are completely reluctant
to use it or even discuss it with their partners. High school girls
especially think it takes the romance and the spontaneity out of sex if
they must discuss or use birth control.
High school girls and boys shouldn't be having sex, period.
But they do!
But they shouldn't, and the state shouldn't do anything
to encourage them to have sex; "comprehensive" sex
education tells them it's okay to have sex. That's
irresponsible.
Still lying,
Never.
"Abstinence-only sexuality education doesn't work.
It doesn't work perfectly. So-called "comprehensive"
sex education DOESN'T WORK AT ALL.
Wrong, unless you care to explain how EVERY industrialized country
with comprehensive sex-ed has lower teen pregnancy and STD rates than
the US.
False comparison, shitstain. You'd have to compare
their rates with what they were *prior* to their
implementation of so-called "comprehensive" (i.e.,
teen-sex-advocacy) sex education.
Note that the rates of all those pathologies are RISING
in every industrialized country.
Stop lying , you shitstained *****.
AO education does not work.
False. It doesn't work perfectly, but so-called
"comprehensive" (teen-sex-advocacy) sex education
doen't work AT ALL.
That's a lie. A complete lie. See my other post for the refutation of
Whitehead
You didn't provide *any* refutation of Whitehead, you shitstained liar.
Direct from my other post:
Oh, let's just put this to bed:
Whitehead's so-called 'study' suffered from the typical strawman
fallacy, as exposed by one of the very people she talked to. Susan
Wilson, Whitehead's primary source in New Jersey for education,
explained that the program Whitehead looked at was not typical -
Yeah, yeah - this sounds like Charles Barkley claiming that he was
"misquoted"...in his autobiography.
It's a lie. Whitehead looked at sex education for the ENTIRE state of
New Jersey.
You're a shitstained liar, and so is Susan Wilson.
Uh huh. Better prove that.
You prove you're a shitstained liar in every post you write, without
any help from me.
Now, for the so-called 'failure' of sex ed. Douglas Kirby was her main
'source' on that, but as he says, she misrepresents the evidence:
"Barbara Dafoe Whitehead raises some good questions concerning sex
education programs, and points to some past mistakes. However, her
claim that sex education in general has failed is incorrect, and is
based on a selective citing of the evidence.
Her conclusion is based on looking at two things: the undeniable and
steep rise in rates of sex-related social pathologies - *****
children, teen pregnancy, abortion, STDs - and the sweep across the
land of so-called "comprehensive" sex education, which did in fact
become the prevailing model. It would be wrong for a scientist to
conclude that "comprehensive" sex ed *caused* the massive increase in
pathology, but that's not what Whitehead claims, you lying shitstained
*****. What she claims, and she is correct, is that
"comprehensive" sex education FAILED to prevent the pathologies,
*depite* the claims of its advocates and practitioners that it would do
so.
Nothing else you have to say is truthful or meaningful. *****.
"Comprehensive" sex education was tried, and it failed. You will have
to stop lying, and acknowledge it.
No, because I have proof that you are wrong
You don't. To prove I am wrong, you would have to show:
That Whitehead's article is not valid, which I have shown
No, that's not what you'd have to show, and you HAVEN'T shown it
either, shitstain.
It is, since your claim about sex ed (that it doesn't work at all) is
based on Whitehead's article, and her article is wrong.
The article is not wrong; it is right.
Oh? Then you get to explain how she can be right when her two main
sources say that her conclusions can't be honestly drawn from what
they told her.
They were hostile sources in the first place. So what?
.
|
|
|
| User: "IAAH" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
01 Dec 2005 11:06:09 PM |
|
|
On 1 Dec 2005 19:10:27 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
shitstain IAAH lied, again:
On 1 Dec 2005 17:59:02 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
shitstain IAAH lied, again:
On 1 Dec 2005 17:22:21 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
shitstain IAAH lied, again:
On 1 Dec 2005 13:27:50 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
shitstain IAAH lied:
On 1 Dec 2005 12:13:43 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
shitstain IAAH lied:
On 1 Dec 2005 12:02:51 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
shitstain IAAH lied:
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 17:41:48 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
shitstain IAAH lied:
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 17:07:21 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
shitstain IAAH lied:
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 16:51:06 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
[snip]
Wrongo. AO programs are much worse at preventing pregnancy and STD.
[snip advocacy of teen sex]
READ the Atlantic article by Barbara Dafoe Whitehead,
"The Failure of Sex Education":
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/family/failure.htm
So-called "comprehensive" sex education is deliberately
conceived to encourage teenagers to have sex.
Teenagers shouldn't be having sex.
The real problem here is that many people or their families are
religiously opposed to birth control so they are completely reluctant
to use it or even discuss it with their partners. High school girls
especially think it takes the romance and the spontaneity out of sex if
they must discuss or use birth control.
High school girls and boys shouldn't be having sex, period.
But they do!
But they shouldn't, and the state shouldn't do anything
to encourage them to have sex; "comprehensive" sex
education tells them it's okay to have sex. That's
irresponsible.
Still lying,
Never.
"Abstinence-only sexuality education doesn't work.
It doesn't work perfectly. So-called "comprehensive"
sex education DOESN'T WORK AT ALL.
Wrong, unless you care to explain how EVERY industrialized country
with comprehensive sex-ed has lower teen pregnancy and STD rates than
the US.
False comparison, shitstain. You'd have to compare
their rates with what they were *prior* to their
implementation of so-called "comprehensive" (i.e.,
teen-sex-advocacy) sex education.
Note that the rates of all those pathologies are RISING
in every industrialized country.
Stop lying , you shitstained *****.
AO education does not work.
False. It doesn't work perfectly, but so-called
"comprehensive" (teen-sex-advocacy) sex education
doen't work AT ALL.
That's a lie. A complete lie. See my other post for the refutation of
Whitehead
You didn't provide *any* refutation of Whitehead, you shitstained liar.
Direct from my other post:
Oh, let's just put this to bed:
Whitehead's so-called 'study' suffered from the typical strawman
fallacy, as exposed by one of the very people she talked to. Susan
Wilson, Whitehead's primary source in New Jersey for education,
explained that the program Whitehead looked at was not typical -
Yeah, yeah - this sounds like Charles Barkley claiming that he was
"misquoted"...in his autobiography.
It's a lie. Whitehead looked at sex education for the ENTIRE state of
New Jersey.
You're a shitstained liar, and so is Susan Wilson.
Uh huh. Better prove that.
You prove you're a shitstained liar in every post you write, without
any help from me.
Now, for the so-called 'failure' of sex ed. Douglas Kirby was her main
'source' on that, but as he says, she misrepresents the evidence:
"Barbara Dafoe Whitehead raises some good questions concerning sex
education programs, and points to some past mistakes. However, her
claim that sex education in general has failed is incorrect, and is
based on a selective citing of the evidence.
Her conclusion is based on looking at two things: the undeniable and
steep rise in rates of sex-related social pathologies - *****
children, teen pregnancy, abortion, STDs - and the sweep across the
land of so-called "comprehensive" sex education, which did in fact
become the prevailing model. It would be wrong for a scientist to
conclude that "comprehensive" sex ed *caused* the massive increase in
pathology, but that's not what Whitehead claims, you lying shitstained
*****. What she claims, and she is correct, is that
"comprehensive" sex education FAILED to prevent the pathologies,
*depite* the claims of its advocates and practitioners that it would do
so.
Nothing else you have to say is truthful or meaningful. *****.
"Comprehensive" sex education was tried, and it failed. You will have
to stop lying, and acknowledge it.
No, because I have proof that you are wrong
You don't. To prove I am wrong, you would have to show:
That Whitehead's article is not valid, which I have shown
No, that's not what you'd have to show, and you HAVEN'T shown it
either, shitstain.
It is, since your claim about sex ed (that it doesn't work at all) is
based on Whitehead's article, and her article is wrong.
The article is not wrong; it is right.
Oh? Then you get to explain how she can be right when her two main
sources say that her conclusions can't be honestly drawn from what
they told her.
They were hostile sources in the first place. So what?
Still haven't managed to come up with anything, huh? Well, given your
limited intellectual capacity, it's not surprising.
C'mon back when you've got more than this, Spazzy. You're simply
boring now.
.
|
|
|
| User: "S. Maizlich" |
|
| Title: Re: The *real* aim of the pro-abortion crowd: consequence-free fucking |
02 Dec 2005 12:31:54 AM |
|
|
IAAH wrote:
On 1 Dec 2005 19:10:27 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
shitstain IAAH lied, again:
On 1 Dec 2005 17:59:02 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
shitstain IAAH lied, again:
On 1 Dec 2005 17:22:21 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
shitstain IAAH lied, again:
On 1 Dec 2005 13:27:50 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
shitstain IAAH lied:
On 1 Dec 2005 12:13:43 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
shitstain IAAH lied:
On 1 Dec 2005 12:02:51 -0800, "S. Maizlich" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
shitstain IAAH lied:
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 17:41:48 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
shitstain IAAH lied:
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 17:07:21 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
shitstain IAAH lied:
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 16:51:06 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:
[snip]
Wrongo. AO programs are much worse at preventing pregnancy and STD.
[snip advocacy of teen sex]
READ the Atlantic article by Barbara Dafoe Whitehead,
"The Failure of Sex Education":
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/family/failure.htm
So-called "comprehensive" sex education is deliberately
conceived to encourage teenagers to have sex.
Teenagers shouldn't be having sex.
The real problem here is that many people or their families are
religiously opposed to birth control so they are completely reluctant
to use it or even discuss it with their partners. High school girls
especially think it takes the romance and the spontaneity out of sex if
they must discuss or use birth control.
High school girls and boys shouldn't be having sex, period.
But they do!
But they shouldn't, and the state shouldn't do anything
to encourage them to have sex; "comprehensive" sex
education tells them it's okay to have sex. That's
irresponsible.
Still lying,
Never.
"Abstinence-only sexuality education doesn't work.
It doesn't work perfectly. So-called "comprehensive"
sex education DOESN'T WORK AT ALL.
Wrong, unless you care to explain how EVERY industrialized country
with comprehensive sex-ed has lower teen pregnancy and STD rates than
the US.
False comparison, shitstain. You'd have to compare
their rates with what they were *prior* to their
implementation of so-called "comprehensive" (i.e.,
teen-sex-advocacy) sex education.
Note that the rates of all those pathologies are RISING
in every industrialized country.
Stop lying , you shitstained *****.
AO education does not work.
False. It doesn't work perfectly, but so-called
"comprehensive" (teen-sex-advocacy) sex education
doen't work AT ALL.
That's a lie. A complete lie. See my other post for the refutation of
Whitehead
You didn't provide *any* refutation of Whitehead, you shitstained liar.
Direct from my other post:
Oh, let's just put this to bed:
Whitehead's so-called 'study' suffered from the typical strawman
fallacy, as exposed by one of the very people she talked to. Susan
Wilson, Whitehead's primary source in New Jersey for education,
explained that the program Whitehead looked at was not typical -
Yeah, yeah - this sounds like Charles Barkley claiming that he was
"misquoted"...in his autobiography.
It's a lie. Whitehead looked at sex education for the ENTIRE state of
New Jersey.
You're a shitstained liar, and so is Susan Wilson.
Uh huh. Better prove that.
You prove you're a shitstained liar in every post you write, without
any help from me.
Now, for the so-called 'failure' of sex ed. Douglas Kirby was her main
'source' on that, but as he says, she misrepresents the evidence:
"Barbara Dafoe Whitehead raises some good questions concerning sex
education programs, and poin | | | | | | | | | |
