[QUOTE=Mini-Geek;140747]Why is it that you think that stupid/lazy/dishonest people require negative words (contempt, hate, whatever you want to call it)? Why don't you just let sleeping dogs lie? .[/QUOTE]

I'm not the one who used the word hate!!!!!

And, IMO, people who are lazy and intellectually dishonest do
merit contempt.

[quote=R.D. Silverman;140749]I'm not the one who used the word hate!!!!!

And, IMO, people who are lazy and intellectually dishonest do
merit contempt.[/quote]
Let he who is without laze or any intellectual dishonesty cast the first contempt.
Seriously, you're not perfect either. No one is. What makes you think you're the one to give them the contempt they may merit?

[QUOTE=Mini-Geek;140753]Let he who is without laze or any intellectual dishonesty cast the first contempt.
Seriously, you're not perfect either. No one is. What makes you think you're the one to give them the contempt they may merit?[/QUOTE]

In most (virtually all) instances, I am not. In this particular forum, I am, because I have paid the dues. I have had the DILIGENCE to actually
learn the material.

George,

Apparently, you haven't noticed the drumbeat in recent years of scientific study after study that have shown that abstinence-only sex education programs are less effective (or simply ineffective) in preventing teen pregnancies or delaying sexual intercourse, compared to programs that teach use of condoms and other birth control methods.

Here are some links:

(Even though some of the following headlines don't mention abstinence, if you follow the links and read the articles you'll find abstinence mentioned there.)

Here's a blog entry pointing out that a New York Times article's headline was misleading, and explaining that the article reported on two Heritage Foundation (which advocates abstinence education) studies, purporting to show that virginity pledges were effective. Heritage's analysis was "flawed and lacking the statistical evidence to back its conclusions". The NYT article listed several specific flaws that invalidate Heritage's analysis.
Blog: "Unreliable Study Contradicts Reliable Studies on Virginity Pledges"
[URL]http://atheism.about.com/b/2005/06/17/unreliable-study-contradicts-reliable-studies-on-virginity-pledges.htm[/URL]
which discusses this New York Times June 15, 2005 article (probably requires NYT registration)
[URL]http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/15/health/15pledge.html?_r=1&oref=slogin[/URL]

Here's an article about a study published in the American Journal of Public Health:
The Independent (UK), December 5, 2006 -
"Study Challenges Abstinence; Teen Pregnancy Drop Due to Safer Sex, Not No Sex"
[URL]http://www.sacredchoices.org/News_Tracker/study_challenges_abstinence_for_teen_pregnancy_drop.htm[/URL]
(same study also reported at [URL]http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=2699375&page=1[/URL])

Washington Post, April 14, 2007
"Study Casts Doubt on Abstinence-Only Programs"
[URL]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/13/AR2007041301003.html[/URL]

Fox News, November 7, 2007
"Study Finds Abstinence-Only Programs Fail to Reduce Teen Sexual Behavior"
[URL]http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,308898,00.html[/URL]

ScienceDaily, March 20, 2008
"Comprehensive Sex Education Might Reduce Teen Pregnancies, Study Suggests"
[URL]http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080319151225.htm[/URL]

Reuters, March 24, 2008 -
"Comprehensive sex ed may cut teen birth rate -- Study: Birth control education helps reduce pregnancies in high school kids"
[URL]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23782717/[/URL]

[quote=Prime95;140690]Neither has any idea what or how the Palin's tried to teach their daughter at home.[/quote]We do know that Sarah Palin is a staunch supporter of abstinence-only sex education.

So, either the Palins have taught their daughter what Sarah preaches -- and therefore this serves as an example consistent with the (in-)effectiveness studies -- or they didn't, which would indicate that Sarah doesn't believe what she publicly professes.

[quote]Yet one disobedient 17-year old somehow proves the parents are hypocrites, incompetent parents, irresponsible in their procreation choices[/quote]Well, one of those three has to be close to the truth.

If you had been paying attention to the reports about abstinence-only failure, as Bob, Ernst, and I have, you'd have known that Ernst's criticism was _not_ based on a single example.

[quote]and unfit for office.[/quote]Sarah Palin voluntarily chooses to publicly advocate a policy [i]repeatedly[/i] shown to be ineffective. Generally, we don't like candidates that do that, especially because it's consistent with so many right-wing religious people being scientifically illiterate. We think scientifically-illiterate office-holders can be dangerous to the public.

[quote]Apparently, Bob and Ernst think that anyone on the right who has a teenager that isn't an angel is immoral and unqualified for office.[/quote]No, George, what's apparent is that you haven't been following the abstinence-only news.

[quote]Zeta, you are right, that is nearly as bad as saying Obama should be disqualified because he is black.[/quote]So, how bad is it to accuse Bob and Ernst the way you have because of your own ignorance, compared to saying Obama should be disqualified because he is black ?

[QUOTE=cheesehead;140758]Apparently, you haven't noticed the drumbeat in recent years of scientific study after study that have shown that abstinence-only sex education programs are less effective [/QUOTE]

I didn't say I agree with abstinence-only sex education. My beef is that Palin was being attacked unfairly for a) being a hypocrite, b) being a poor parent, c) making immoral procreation choices, d) unfit for office because of a, b, and c.

Personally, I am in favor of comprehensive sex-ed. However parents should have the right to raise their children as they see fit. This means they can have kids skip school sex-ed and teach something different at home.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;140761]Well, one of those three has to be close to the truth.[/QUOTE]

So, you've just proved my point. You are judgmental simply because she is on the right.

Let me propose a 4th alternative. I might even be able to find an article or two that backs it up. [B]SOMETIMES TEENAGERS DISOBEY THEIR PARENTS.[/B] Wow, shocking, an idea so bizarre and counter-intuitive that we should immediately spend a $100 million in government grants to study this new phenomenon.

[quote=Prime95;140762]I didn't say I agree with abstinence-only sex education.[/quote][U]and I didn't say you did![/U] What I said was that you were apparently ignorant of the repeated reports about abstinence-only's ineffectiveness, ...

[quote]My beef is that Palin was being attacked unfairly for a) being a hypocrite, b) being a poor parent, c) making immoral procreation choices, d) unfit for office because of a, b, and c.[/quote]... that the attack [U]was[/U] fair, for the reasons I gave, and that [U]you wouldn't have characterized the attacks as being unfair if you had been knowledgeable about the frequent reports of studies showing that abstinence-only is ineffective[/U].

Please re-read my preceding postings _carefully_.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;140761]Sarah Palin voluntarily chooses to publicly advocate a policy [i]repeatedly[/i] shown to be ineffective. Generally, we don't like candidates that do that[/QUOTE]

Perfectly valid argument. Leave out the mud-slinging and stick to the issues.

[quote=Prime95;140763]So, you've just proved my point.[/quote]I did no such thing!

[quote]You are judgmental simply because she is on the right.[/quote]What?!

Please carefully re-read my preceding posts.

I was "judgemental" because of the combination that (a)Sarah Palin voluntarily and publicly advocates abstinence-only education even though it's been repeatedly shown to be incorrect, and (b) her own experience shows that either she did not teach her daughter about preventing pregnancy (that's the incompetent branch), or she taught her stuff (abstinence) that's been shown to be ineffective (that's the poor choice of birth control branch), or she taught her daughter something other than abstinence-only (that's the hypocracy branch).

Please apologize for your accusation that I was "judgmental simply because she is on the right." My immediately preceding postings demonstrate that that's false.

[quote=Prime95;140765]Perfectly valid argument. Leave out the mud-slinging and stick to the issues.[/quote]You're the mud-slinger here, unless you retract your accusation about me.