But the distinction between this example, and the use of the term “Abstinence-Based Sex Education,” is that one is a matter of factual claim and one is a term of descriptive art. It is, in other words, a matter of fact as to whether Sun-Ra is from Saturn. We may evaluate that claim against facts and reach a decision as to its merits.
Here, on the other hand, there is no particular objective measure to how much, or how little, emphasis on abstinence is required before one uses the term “Abstinence Based.”
Finally, we see that Sun-Ra, whoever he is, is not generally regarded by the community at large as any kind of an authority or placed in any kind of a position of responsibility.
In contrast, the official name for the programs I’m discussing are “Abstinence-Based,” and those names are created and applied by the individuals tasked to create and administer the programs.
Pick a state in this country, and I’ll find a school district using a program called “Abstinence-Based.”
Wow, notice how I’ve never asked for an example of a program that calls itself Abstinence-Based, but that’s what I keep getting offered? You’ve at least noted the term isn’t an objective measure of the program. In that, it’s pretty useless in a discussion about education. Either way, I’m done arguing the foolish subject with ya.
The point is: although the government gave it to everyone, some people did much more with it than others. So if I say my success is a result of my personal work ethic, it’s because everyone got the same safe warm environment, but everyone did not succeed.
We began this discussion with this, in response to my saying I favored abstinence-based but not abstinence-only education programs:
The tone of that response is dismissive as to the validity of the phrase “abstinence-based education,” and you enforced that when you compared the use of it to “Sun-Ra” claiming he was from Saturn. It’s absolutely appropriate to rebut that by showing the phrase is in wide-spread, academic use.
It’s a term of art, not of literal description, and it’s used to distinguish from abstinence-only programs, which provide either no information or false information about contraception, and safe-sex programs, which do not teach any moral value or component to abstinence at all.
All of those people,** Bricker**. The ones with no particular talents, not all that smart, maybe not even…God Forbid!..all that ambitious. What do we do with all those useless people? Someone with smarts, drive, and fierce grasping ambition, they are better people, do you think? More deserving? Because they are more deserving, their children deserve better food, better health care, better education?
You can inherit wealth. Does that mean that you inherit the virtue that created that wealth, and now your kids are more deserving?
That makes sense to me, I can relate to the idea that recall elections are too drastic a solution. Not sure if I agree in this instance, but I can certainly understand why someone would think so.
Luci, why are you so wrapped up in thinking about it on terms of what people "deserve "? Instead, why dint you think about it in terms of the likely results of the policies you favor?
Question: if there is a “nanny state” in place, can anyone, ever, claim to be self-reliant? Or a self-reliant pioneer? does the concept of self-reliance disappear like some vestigial tailbone?
I’m not. Obviously I am speaking about my success in American society. My paychecks (meager though they were) as a PD would not have existed without a court system, for instance.
Would you prefer to exclude it? Certainly plausible, the Sacred Free Market (blessings and peace be upon it!) is as indifferent to morality as the laws of physics. Are you going to say it, or are you content to imply it and skip along, skip along?
Luci, absolutely nothing in the world could be more worthless than gyour personal opinion of whether someone deserves something or not. Yet you are guided by that opinion to favor certain policies, and you don’t give a moment’s thought to the real world consequences of those policies. If you could get outside your own head and realize that your opinion of what someone deserves is meaningless, maybe you could join thereat of us in trying to make policy choices that help everyone move forward.
Forget it Bricker, it’s Chinatown. Luci is living in a headspace where "morality " means something and hes all het up about what people deserve. It’s not possible to drag a meaningful policy argument (or even a position) out of him.