And South Carolina goes one better,

[Evangelicalhumanist]

You guys are looking at this all wrong. If they ban this, maybe people from South Carolina will never learn how to have sex, not reproduce, and wham! Redneck shortage!

And I say you've got it wrong -- "learning how to have sex" isn't a thing. Learning how to do it properly is. Rabbits take no courses and read no books, which is why they are breeding like rednecks!

 

[QuestioningMind]

Good. Kids as young as that needs no sex Ed. They can stay as kids with safety scissors and crayons making handprint plates and noodle art and learning to write their names.

Sex Ed should start once the girls have that special class in the school auditorium.

You are aware that girls have that special class in the school auditorium WELL before the 12th grade, right?

 

[Heyo]

Book bans in public school libraries have been around for decades. Some of the banned books include Huckleberry Finn, Are You There, God? It's Me, Margaret, Harriet The Spy, etc. Oh, and they've been banned by both parties, not just one party.

Whataboutism seems to be your go-to defence for censorship.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Yeah that ought to work as well as it did in 1950 when the teen pregnancy rate was 5 times what it is now. The highest rates are Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, Kentucky and Oklahoma. Librul states all of them obviously, SC is currently 12th at ~17 births per 1000 teenagers plus another 7/1000 for abortions.

Things don't seem to work the way you think they do.

I disagree. It was far better than today's promiscuity is and you know it.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I disagree. It was far better than today's promiscuity is and you know it.

So, to be clear, teen pregnancy being five times higher is better than... "today's promiscuity"?

What does that mean?

 

[Twilight Hue]

So, to be clear, teen pregnancy being five times higher is better than... "today's promiscuity"?

What does that mean?

It means just what it says it means.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It means just what it says it means.

Nothing?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Nothing?

If you think so.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

If you think so.

Oh, good. That clears that up, then.

Dude, if you're incapable of even explaining your own completely incoherent positions, maybe you ought to think about getting some new ones. Just a thought.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Oh, good. That clears that up, then.

Dude, if you're incapable of even explaining your own completely incoherent positions, maybe you ought to think about getting some new ones. Just a thought.

Sure but I'm not retracting what I'm saying.

 

[fantome profane]

Oh, good. That clears that up, then.

Dude, if you're incapable of even explaining your own completely incoherent positions, maybe you ought to think about getting some new ones. Just a thought.

I think he is saying that teens are boinking more now than they did in the 50's but the lower teen pregnancy is because they are being responsible. That the boinking is what he finds objectionable and wants to return to the oppression that he imagines existed in the 50's.

I don't know if this is true, and even if it is I think it is good that teens are being more responsible and we should encourage that.

And if @Twilight Hue objects to my characterization of his viewpoint, he can explain it for himself.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I think he is saying that teens are boinking more now than they did in the 50's but the lower teen pregnancy is because they are being responsible. That the boinking is what he finds objectionable and wants to return to the oppression that he imagines existed in the 50's.

I don't know if this is true, and even if it is I think it is good that teens are being more responsible and we should encourage that.

And if @Twilight Hue objects to my characterization of his viewpoint, he can explain it for himself.

Actually you hit the nail on the head. Aside from me thinking boinking each other is objectionable. I encourage more boinking around. Calms people down.

Boinking each other has never been higher but there is more responsibility in limiting potential pregnancy until they are ready to raise children.

I'm glad someone is smart enough to understand my commentary for the most part anyways.

 

[fantome profane]

Actually you hit the nail on the head. Aside from me thinking boinking each other is objectionable. I encourage more boinking around. Calms people down.

Boinking each other has never been higher but there is more responsibility in limiting potential pregnancy until they are ready to raise children.

I'm glad someone is smart enough to understand my commentary.

If that is what you meant then you said it wrong.

You said "It was far better than today's promiscuity" but what you should have said was "today's promiscuity is far better than it". "it" being the higher rate of teen pregnancy.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Actually you hit the nail on the head. Aside from me thinking boinking each other is objectionable. I encourage more boinking around. Calms people down.

Boinking each other has never been higher but there is more responsibility in limiting potential pregnancy until they are ready to raise children.

I'm glad someone is smart enough to understand my commentary for the most part anyways.

So, in other words, "promiscuity" isn't bad provided it's done responsibly?

With that in mind, how is "fives times higher teen pregnancy" (i.e: greater irresponsibility) BETTER than promiscuity, if you don't mind (and, in fact, encourage) promiscuity?

 

[ratiocinator]

All books must be age and developmentally appropriate. For whom, oh and absolutely no sexual content in K-12.

They're banning the bible, then......?

 

[Argentbear]

I disagree. It was far better than today's promiscuity is and you know it.

Teen pregnancy rates reached it's peek in 1958 with 96.3 per 1000.

 

[Wirey]

Teen pregnancy rates reached it's peek in 1958 with 96.3 per 1000.

In context, people married younger back then. This would have led to younger child birth ages for moms. Not enough to completely explain away your stats, but a little:

 

[Audie]

All books must be age and developmentally appropriate. For whom, oh and absolutely no sexual content in K-12.

"It outlines that “age-appropriate” materials must not include descriptions or visual depictions of “sexual conduct”. Any parent with a child enrolled in a public K-12 school in the state can challenge up to five titles a month if they feel they violate these terms."

There goes Sex Ed, and one assumes anything with a kiss or even a hug in it for some. Your kid reads above grade level, better prove it in court before you ask the librarian for a book. Yup it is all about liberty for Mom's for Liberty to control yours.

If I'd had to read at my grade level I'd have been
very ill served by the school system.

 

[Kathryn]

Whataboutism seems to be your go-to defence for censorship.

I just find it ironic that suddenly, book banning is all on the news and so many people don't know the history of it.

 

[Tomef]

All books must be age and developmentally appropriate. For whom, oh and absolutely no sexual content in K-12.

"It outlines that “age-appropriate” materials must not include descriptions or visual depictions of “sexual conduct”. Any parent with a child enrolled in a public K-12 school in the state can challenge up to five titles a month if they feel they violate these terms."

There goes Sex Ed, and one assumes anything with a kiss or even a hug in it for some. Your kid reads above grade level, better prove it in court before you ask the librarian for a book. Yup it is all about liberty for Mom's for Liberty to control yours.

K12 is ages 17-18?