Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

[Chad Ingham <wap AT visi.com>]

My statement was questioning whether the majority amount of time put in 
to compiling and presenting this report has been to rout out actual 
scientific inaccuracies or whether the time and money was mainly used to 
publicize the social values of the congressman and how the current 
teaching differ from that.  We agree that any scientific inaccuracies 
should be corrected and in that regard the report would show its true 
value.  How much of it is dedicated to that is unknown.  We do know that 
at least some of the report bashes teachings as false that simply have a 
conservative social value attached, not because they are undebatedly 
scientifically inaccurate.

Your characterization of the current teaching as putting children in 
danger is inaccurate.  The teachings seem to definitely favor a 
conservative don't-do-anything-sexual approach.  Your example could be 
easily turned around by stating that if the kid thought that the 
percentage of gay teens with AIDS was much smaller, he might figure "why 
bother with condoms since my chances are low of contracting it".  Either 
way, any kid who plays Russian roulette with his health has a character 
issue which you can't teach away. 

- Chad

Michael wrote:

> I think it's splitting hairs mighty fine to say, Oh, well, because one 
> thing referenced in the article may have been misunderstood, the whole 
> criticism must not be worth our time.
>
> The congressman in question isn't opposed to teaching abstinence as 
> the ultimate insurance policy - as he states clearly in the article.  
> The congressman in question is trying to point out that a raftload of 
> inaccuracies and misrepresentations and purposefully misleading 
> "information" is present in the sex-ed curricula of half the states in 
> the country.  I assure you, I would be just as tweaked if the article 
> stated that due to dogmatic curriculum choices the feds had funded 
> geology curricula which taught the Earth is flat in half our states - 
> and I think that's precisely the most appropriate simile I can come up 
> with on the spur of the moment.  It's more than offensive to me, it's 
> /factually in error/.  It's endangering people's lives, for pete's sakes.
>
> At what point in the misrepresentation of health science information 
> should I start to get heartburn?  Should I wait until it affects 
> someone in my family?  Should I wait until I read some kid who was 
> taught that half of gay teens already have HIV said to himself, well 
> hell, the odds are against me already why bother with condoms?  Or 
> should I just say my prayers and hope it gets better?