Lonesome Rhodes <cecil@no.toke.org> wrote:

Bob LeChevalier wrote:

Lonesome Rhodes <cecil@no.toke.org> wrote:

Bob LeChevalier wrote:

Lonesome Rhodes <cecil@no.toke.org> wrote:

All the more reason to have them ins sensible peer based program like
Best Friends.

If it is peer-based, it is NOT YOUR CHOICE. It is THEIR choice.

If you are a parent and encourage or enroll them,

You don't enroll them. It either is at your kid's school or it isn't.

Or perhaps you move your kid to a school that offers it, why do insist
on this idiotic infantile nit picking?!?

Because you insist on this idiotic infantile arguing with me,

and you are wrong.

If it is, then you have sign a parent permission form,

Gee, does that sound a lot like enrolling them?!?!?

No it isn't.

but kids who
really want to and who thing their parents might refuse to sign might
forge it (or have some other kid forge it so the signature is in a
different handwriting).

"Might"???

That is sufficient to distinguish between "enrolling them" and
reality.

WTF is the matter with you Klingon???

You're running a straw man that they might actually fake their way into
an abstinence program as if that were a _BAD THING_????

I didn't say it was a "bad thing". I just said that kids who want to
do something that their parents don't give permission for can usually
find a way to do it anyway. This could be enrolling in an abstinence
education program or having sex.

You're flat fucking insane.

Losing this debate

I'm not debating you. You aren't worthy of debate.

I just got through the teen-parenting years, and my kids taught me a
lot of the tricks. I caught them on some after the fact, and punished
them, but it is part of the nature of adolescence to keep trying and
pushing the limits until the parent lets go (or until they reach the
age where the parent no longer has the authority to say no).

More anecdotal irrelevancy.

You think your silly abstinence program is any more than anecdotal
irrelevancy?

If they are determined enough, some kids will manage it. In the case
of VA Tech, it seems that the parents did what they could, but it
wasn't enough, and he was by the time it happened an adult and outside
their power. The parents probably erred with the Columbine kids,
because they managed to accumulate weapons at home and they were still
kids. But I can't say that if they were determined, they couldn't
have gotten around whatever parental restrictions, and managed it
anyway.

You really must enjoy reading your own analysis, all of which was
superfluous.

I seldom read my own posts after I post them, unless someone else
responds.

In a word, or two - ***** happens.

Yep. So does teen sex.

You went off on faith-based programs

Actually no, I went off on fundie extremists,

who are the sort of
people who consider abstinence education important enough to let their
ignorance of the scientific method override reason.

If you argue with scientists about what the scientific method
requires, you are probably a fundy extremist. No one else is so
single-mindedly and stupidly obstinate.

You went off on statistical neurosis and had to admit maybe this does work.

No one has ever said that it didn't work.

The argument has been that it has not been properly shown that it
actually does anything at all, except chew up instructional time and
spend government money.

Nay-saying about
some conference that presumably was voluntary attendance. Grandiose
claims about abstinence programs that have no proper scientific
backing,

Go on, LOOK at their numbers, FOOL!

Their numbers are irrelevant.

There are no controls.

I don't see anything special about the program that isn't already in
Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts.

And next you're going to tell me that each of those is "faith-based"

The Boy Scouts is indeed noted for having claimed to be faith-based

Lie:

http://www.religionandsocialpolicy.org/news/article.cfm?id=5796

The Boy Scouts aren't a religion, countered their lawyer, George Davidson.

From the same article:
<U.S. District Judge Napoleon Jones ruled in 2003 that the Scouts --
< who require members and leaders to believe in God, and who have
< numerous faith-based programs -- are a "religious organization with a
< religious purpose and a faith-based mission."

The court trumps the lawyer.

and had it hold up in court, so that they could legally discriminate
(which pretty much only a church can get away with these days in many
places).

Another LIE, try smoking in a restaurant in many cities now.

What does that have to do with discrimination?

They don't refuse your
patronage because you are a smoker; they just have rules about what
you are permitted to do on the premises.

You also aren't allowed to parade around nude in most restaurants, and
that is far less harmful to others than second hand smoke.

I don't know whether the Girl Scouts have quite so strong a
stance on those issues.

http://www.girlscoutsmcc.org/allAbout.asp

Founded in 1912, the Girl Scout Promise and the Girl Scout Law continue
to provide the foundation for the largest and most influ