"Sexual" education

This forum is the place to have more serious discussions about politics and religion, and your opinions thereof. Be courteous!

Moderator: Forum Administrators

Forum rules
When a registered user insults another person (user or not), nation, political group or religious group, s/he will be deprived of her/his permission to post in the forum. That user has the right to re-register one week after s/he has lost the permission. Further violations will result in longer prohibitions.

By default, you are automatically registered to post in this forum. However, users cannot post in the politics forum during the first week after registration. Users can also not make their very first post in the politics forum.
User avatar
Massimiliano B
Posts: 1791
Joined: 2009-03-31, 10:01
Real Name: Massimiliano Bavieri
Gender: male
Location: Lucca
Country: IT Italy (Italia)

Re: "Sexual" education

Postby Massimiliano B » 2013-09-17, 21:00

linguoboy wrote:
Massimiliano B wrote:You use the word "belief" as a synonim of "whim".

Because to outsiders they're essentially indistinguishable. We don't have a magic helmet we can put on someone's head which will tell us accurate whether they "sincerely believe" what they are saying or are simply trying to game the system.


From this point of view, I cannot know whether who doubts sincerely believes it or not.

linguoboy wrote:
Massimiliano B wrote:I'm not talking about the sincerity of beliefs.If someone is Christian, or Muslim, no one has to question his beliefs.

Not even if their beliefs lay far outside the mainstream of their respective faiths? If someone says, "My child doesn't have to study geology because I know as a Christian that the Earth is only 7,000 years old" will you respect that belief? What if they believe their children need to be educated in the existence of a vast Jewish financial conspiracy?


I already said that parents should have the right to decide which kind of teachings are good for their children. When you have to deal with questions as delicate as those which affect the moral and religious sphere, the decision should be made by the parents. Geology has nothing to do with moral and religion.

linguoboy wrote:You want a special privilege to pull your children out of sex ed classes because you claim they're against your "beliefs" (although you haven't explained how).


There may be someone who - supported by a religion or philosophy - sees sexual education as something that instils an impertinence and arrogance in the way your body is conceived and treated - i.e. as a mere organ whose desires and appetites have to be satisfied by any means.

linguoboy wrote:
Massimiliano B wrote:
linguoboy wrote:
Massimiliano B wrote:
linguoboy wrote:Why should the opinion of one "religious person" be privileged above the sincerely-held beliefs of another?

I don't talk about opinons of single persons, but about religious positions and philosophical positions that have arisen throughout the course of centuries and so are rationally well-grounded.

It's begging the question to say that a religious or philosophical position is "rationally well-grounded" simply because it's been around a long time. The Virgin Birth, to name just one example, is an irrational belief no matter how long Christians have maintained it.

Not "simply because it's been around a long time". The rationality of a belief comes first, then its long life.

So if "rationality" is primary, why even consider the longevity at all?


The rationality is sustained by the longevity. You cannot see just in one instant - like in a mathematical theorem - either whether a belief is rational or not, or its entire rationality.

linguoboy wrote:
Massimiliano B wrote:
linguoboy wrote:So what this equates to is saying that the beliefs of persons who claim membership in centuries-old religious bodies should be privileged above the beliefs of persons who do not. Again, how can you defend this in the face of a doctrine of equality? [See CFREU Ch. III, Art. 21.1: "Any discrimination based on any ground such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation shall be prohibited."

Here I don't read the word "whim", which you are fond of using.

To make a point. You're making a tendentious distinction when you talk about "sincere beliefs" as if there's any foolproof method for determining which beliefs someone holds "sincerely".


You introduced the word «sincerely»:
linguoboy wrote:As I said, what's the vetting process to determine whether a particular parents' beliefs are sincerely held or not? (and is that really a can of worms the state wants to open?)


Then I wrote that you don't have the right to question the «sincerity» of my beliefs - unless I believe something which is against life - that is, against rationality. So, as you can see, I think there's a criterion that allows us to distinguish between whims and well-grounded beliefs. I think also that all the great religions accept this kind of rationality.


linguoboy wrote:Moreover, at the end of the day, the focus needs to be on what's best for the children, not what's most accommodating for their parents. If the parents' beliefs regarding the proper way to raise children are harmful, then it doesn't matter a whit how "sincere" they are. There are people who honestly believe they need to beat the Devil out of their children in order for them to grow up properly. (Google "Christian domestic discipline" and prepare to be sickened.) It's the responsibility of the state to prevent them.



I agree with you.
However, I believe that the Devil is something.

User avatar
linguoboy
Posts: 23278
Joined: 2009-08-25, 15:11
Real Name: Da
Location: Chicago
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: "Sexual" education

Postby linguoboy » 2013-09-17, 21:54

Massimiliano B wrote:I already said that parents should have the right to decide which kind of teachings are good for their children. When you have to deal with questions as delicate as those which affect the moral and religious sphere, the decision should be made by the parents. Geology has nothing to do with moral and religion.

That's your opinion. If I tell you that teaching my child that the world is 4.54 billion years old when my religion teaches that it's far younger will erode her beliefs in all aspects of it--including its moral teaching--then what will you reply? How exactly is this any different from your claim that teaching children established scientific facts about human sexuality will erode your ability to instill moral values in them?

Massimiliano B wrote:
linguoboy wrote:You want a special privilege to pull your children out of sex ed classes because you claim they're against your "beliefs" (although you haven't explained how).

There may be someone who - supported by a religion or philosophy - sees sexual education as something that instils an impertinence and arrogance in the way your body is conceived and treated - i.e. as a mere organ whose desires and appetites have to be satisfied by any means.

There may be--but would they be correct to come to that conclusion?

Massimiliano B wrote:
linguoboy wrote:So if "rationality" is primary, why even consider the longevity at all?

The rationality is sustained by the longevity. You cannot see just in one instant - like in a mathematical theorem - either whether a belief is rational or not, or its entire rationality.

Maybe not "in one instant", but what about after an hour or study or a day? How much of a good-faith effort does one have to make to uncovering the esoteric rationale underlying an apparently irrational belief before one is allowed to conclude that there isn't one?

Massimiliano B wrote:Then I wrote that you don't have the right to question the «sincerity» of my beliefs - unless I believe something which is against life - that is, against rationality.

So far, this is all just ill-defined assertion. You haven't even explained what it means to be "against life" or what it means to be "rational" and you sure as hell haven't established that being against life and being against rationality are in any way the same thing.

Massimiliano B wrote:So, as you can see, I think there's a criterion that allows us to distinguish between whims and well-grounded beliefs. I think also that all the great religions accept this kind of rationality.

It's not good enough for that you think such a criterion exists. You haven't convincingly established this through rational principles. So all I see is an idiosyncratic belief which--what a coincidence!--serves to privilege certain traditions to which you have a particular attachment to (and others which you tendentiously equate with those) over others which you don't care for. This is exactly the sort of situation equality law was concocted to prevent.

Massimiliano B wrote:However, I believe that the Devil is something.

That's a "rational" belief, is it?
"Richmond is a real scholar; Owen just learns languages because he can't bear not to know what other people are saying."--Margaret Lattimore on her two sons

User avatar
mōdgethanc
Posts: 10658
Joined: 2010-03-20, 5:27
Gender: male
Location: Toronto
Country: CA Canada (Canada)

Re: "Sexual" education

Postby mōdgethanc » 2013-09-17, 22:54

To boil it down even further, are the feelings of the parents more important than the well-being of the child?
I'll make this simple for everyone: No.

User avatar
Massimiliano B
Posts: 1791
Joined: 2009-03-31, 10:01
Real Name: Massimiliano Bavieri
Gender: male
Location: Lucca
Country: IT Italy (Italia)

Re: "Sexual" education

Postby Massimiliano B » 2013-09-19, 22:05

linguoboy wrote:
Massimiliano B wrote:I already said that parents should have the right to decide which kind of teachings are good for their children. When you have to deal with questions as delicate as those which affect the moral and religious sphere, the decision should be made by the parents. Geology has nothing to do with moral and religion.

That's your opinion. If I tell you that teaching my child that the world is 4.54 billion years old when my religion teaches that it's far younger will erode her beliefs in all aspects of it--including its moral teaching--then what will you reply? How exactly is this any different from your claim that teaching children established scientific facts about human sexuality will erode your ability to instill moral values in them?


Actually, there is no religion that teaches that scientific knowledge concerning the physical world or the human body - provided that this knowledge is sure without any doubt - will erode the beliefs of any children - including moral aspects. Simply, it is clear to anyone that the world is 4.54 billion years old or that the masturbation does not offend the body. From a moral point of view, however, the second issue assumes a different value. In effect, masturbation can also be seen as a process in which you are focused on yourself instead of on your partner and an affirmation that sex is only your own pleasure etc.. (taken from here: http://www.beginningcatholic.com/cathol ... ation.html). No one can prove that such conclusions are false.
We are here facing a moral question, which is not solvable through a mere exhibition of what is «not bad» from a «physical» point of view.


linguoboy wrote:
Massimiliano B wrote:
linguoboy wrote:You want a special privilege to pull your children out of sex ed classes because you claim they're against your "beliefs" (although you haven't explained how).

There may be someone who - supported by a religion or philosophy - sees sexual education as something that instils an impertinence and arrogance in the way your body is conceived and treated - i.e. as a mere organ whose desires and appetites have to be satisfied by any means.

There may be--but would they be correct to come to that conclusion?


Yes, they would - but only from a moral (philosophical) viewpoint - their moral viewpoint.
All the scientific teachings would not be overcome by that conclusion. That's why I don't really see
a contrast between science and religion.


linguoboy wrote:
Massimiliano B wrote:
linguoboy wrote:So if "rationality" is primary, why even consider the longevity at all?

The rationality is sustained by the longevity. You cannot see just in one instant - like in a mathematical theorem - either whether a belief is rational or not, or its entire rationality.

Maybe not "in one instant", but what about after an hour or study or a day? How much of a good-faith effort does one have to make to uncovering the esoteric rationale underlying an apparently irrational belief before one is allowed to conclude that there isn't one?


I think that there is no an end to the «intelligence of faith» (see «credo ut intelligam»: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credo_ut_intelligam). Also science is based on a faith: the faith in the possibility of an ultimate achievement of a knowledge of the all (the «theory of everything»: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything) - a faith which is irrational like any other faith.


linguoboy wrote:
Massimiliano B wrote:Then I wrote that you don't have the right to question the «sincerity» of my beliefs - unless I believe something which is against life - that is, against rationality.

So far, this is all just ill-defined assertion. You haven't even explained what it means to be "against life" or what it means to be "rational" and you sure as hell haven't established that being against life and being against rationality are in any way the same thing.


Those who are against life actually are against «other» lives. That's why I think they are incoherent - because they don't apply the principle of the «opposition-to-life» also to themselves. There are no reasons that justify that you have not to be included in the set of beings that constitutes the «life-that-can-be-crushed». You cannot hold rationally that you are the only one that has the right to be defended and kept alive at the expense of other beings. So, I think that the reverence for life is the only rational position.


linguoboy wrote:
Massimiliano B wrote:So, as you can see, I think there's a criterion that allows us to distinguish between whims and well-grounded beliefs. I think also that all the great religions accept this kind of rationality.

It's not good enough for that you think such a criterion exists. You haven't convincingly established this through rational principles. So all I see is an idiosyncratic belief which--what a coincidence!--serves to privilege certain traditions to which you have a particular attachment to (and others which you tendentiously equate with those) over others which you don't care for. This is exactly the sort of situation equality law was concocted to prevent.


The criterion is the reverence for life in all its aspects - not only your private and personal life, but the life of everyone (persons, animals, ecosystems, and every kind of ambients).


linguoboy wrote:
Massimiliano B wrote:However, I believe that the Devil is something.

That's a "rational" belief, is it?


Yes, it is.
Last edited by Massimiliano B on 2013-09-19, 22:13, edited 1 time in total.

IpseDixit

Re: "Sexual" education

Postby IpseDixit » 2013-09-19, 22:08

Is this fight still going on? :O

User avatar
Massimiliano B
Posts: 1791
Joined: 2009-03-31, 10:01
Real Name: Massimiliano Bavieri
Gender: male
Location: Lucca
Country: IT Italy (Italia)

Re: "Sexual" education

Postby Massimiliano B » 2013-09-19, 22:17

It's not a fight! At least in my opinion.

User avatar
dkatbena
Posts: 685
Joined: 2012-06-02, 17:29
Real Name: Diwani Kamatoden
Gender: male
Location: Lungsod Makati
Country: PH Philippines (Pilipinas)

Re: "Sexual" education

Postby dkatbena » 2013-09-23, 2:27

it is up to them who read the issues. The control should be within ourselves not on what we read.
Kapionan ey mangyedi de inoman a manoloson de benal a Makyedyepat! eye a Makyedyepat.

User avatar
Varislintu
Posts: 15330
Joined: 2004-02-09, 13:32
Real Name: M.
Gender: female
Location: Helsinki
Country: FI Finland (Suomi)

Re: "Sexual" education

Postby Varislintu » 2013-10-07, 4:45

I saw this image recently (see attachment), and was reminded of Massimiliano's talk about being for life or against life as a determiner whether one's opinions are well-founded. This image represents how some sects of US fundamentalist Christians view being for for life and against life (look to the small red boxes in the upper corner of the images to see which is which).

Not sure what my question is, perhaps whether Massimiliano agrees with the image's assertions?

My opinion is that even 'for life' or 'against life' is a rather arbitrary distinction that can be made to fit almost any value or opinion. It certainly can't be used to determine objectively whether someone's belief system is arbitrary/sincere or not.

image.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Det finns ingen
tröst. Därför
behöver du den inte
(Gösta Ågren)

User avatar
Sophy
Posts: 4
Joined: 2013-09-27, 21:17
Real Name: Sophia
Gender: female
Location: Sofia city
Country: BG Bulgaria (България)

Re: "Sexual" education

Postby Sophy » 2013-10-07, 8:46

Too naive and unsystematic on my opinion.
For example-not divorcing with a tyrannic man/or woman can also lead to "devastated children" as well as the divorce in some cases.
Woman's health sometimes needs medical interventions such as abortion so this is also a speculative issue.
I see "coitus interruptus" as a self-control,which is something positive in the next box. :hmm: Others,are to obscure and "airy" and have nothing with the real,material things/pills,condoms,diaphragms/-just a good words that do nothing inside the reality.
On the topic:Sexual education when well presented according to the age of the child and his mental state is a must for the educational system.There is nothing more evil on this world, than the ignorance/of all aspects/
"A society grows great,when old men plant trees
whose shade they know,they shall never sit in."

User avatar
Massimiliano B
Posts: 1791
Joined: 2009-03-31, 10:01
Real Name: Massimiliano Bavieri
Gender: male
Location: Lucca
Country: IT Italy (Italia)

Re: "Sexual" education

Postby Massimiliano B » 2013-10-10, 21:04

Varislintu wrote:I saw this image recently (see attachment), and was reminded of Massimiliano's talk about being for life or against life as a determiner whether one's opinions are well-founded. This image represents how some sects of US fundamentalist Christians view being for for life and against life (look to the small red boxes in the upper corner of the images to see which is which).

Not sure what my question is, perhaps whether Massimiliano agrees with the image's assertions?

My opinion is that even 'for life' or 'against life' is a rather arbitrary distinction that can be made to fit almost any value or opinion. It certainly can't be used to determine objectively whether someone's belief system is arbitrary/sincere or not.

image.jpg



If it is evident that a value or opinion is 'for life', then it is good.

User avatar
linguoboy
Posts: 23278
Joined: 2009-08-25, 15:11
Real Name: Da
Location: Chicago
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: "Sexual" education

Postby linguoboy » 2013-10-10, 21:11

Massimiliano B wrote:If it is evident that a value or opinion is 'for life', then it is good.

Far from contesting Varislintu's opinion, you've only confirmed it.
"Richmond is a real scholar; Owen just learns languages because he can't bear not to know what other people are saying."--Margaret Lattimore on her two sons

IpseDixit

Re: "Sexual" education

Postby IpseDixit » 2013-10-10, 21:16

Wow! Those Christians that made that idiotic scheme seem rather informed about contraceptives...

I smell a rat... :P

User avatar
Massimiliano B
Posts: 1791
Joined: 2009-03-31, 10:01
Real Name: Massimiliano Bavieri
Gender: male
Location: Lucca
Country: IT Italy (Italia)

Re: "Sexual" education

Postby Massimiliano B » 2013-10-10, 21:24

.
Last edited by Massimiliano B on 2013-10-10, 21:29, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
linguoboy
Posts: 23278
Joined: 2009-08-25, 15:11
Real Name: Da
Location: Chicago
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: "Sexual" education

Postby linguoboy » 2013-10-10, 21:25

IpseDixit wrote:Wow! Those Christians that made that idiotic scheme seem rather informed about contraceptives...

Know thing enemy!

Here's the source: http://onemoresoul.com/. You tell me if that site looks faked to you.
"Richmond is a real scholar; Owen just learns languages because he can't bear not to know what other people are saying."--Margaret Lattimore on her two sons

User avatar
Massimiliano B
Posts: 1791
Joined: 2009-03-31, 10:01
Real Name: Massimiliano Bavieri
Gender: male
Location: Lucca
Country: IT Italy (Italia)

Re: "Sexual" education

Postby Massimiliano B » 2013-10-10, 21:27

linguoboy wrote:
Massimiliano B wrote:If it is evident that a value or opinion is 'for life', then it is good.

Far from contesting Varislintu's opinion, you've only confirmed it.


No, I haven't.

Being for life or against life is a determiner whether one's opinions are well-founded.

I haven't said that the principle of the respect for life is wrong.

IpseDixit

Re: "Sexual" education

Postby IpseDixit » 2013-10-10, 21:38

linguoboy wrote:
IpseDixit wrote:Wow! Those Christians that made that idiotic scheme seem rather informed about contraceptives...

Know thing enemy!

Here's the source: http://onemoresoul.com/. You tell me if that site looks faked to you.


I actually thought it was something from some weird evangelical American cult. It seems a Catholic thing instead...

User avatar
linguoboy
Posts: 23278
Joined: 2009-08-25, 15:11
Real Name: Da
Location: Chicago
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: "Sexual" education

Postby linguoboy » 2013-10-10, 21:40

Massimiliano B wrote:
linguoboy wrote:
Massimiliano B wrote:If it is evident that a value or opinion is 'for life', then it is good.

Far from contesting Varislintu's opinion, you've only confirmed it.

No, I haven't.

Yes, you have. Here's what she said:
Varislintu wrote:My opinion is that even 'for life' or 'against life' is a rather arbitrary distinction that can be made to fit almost any value or opinion. It certainly can't be used to determine objectively whether someone's belief system is arbitrary/sincere or not.

You haven't presented clear objective criteria for determining whether something is "for life" or "against life". So your definition is circular. How do you know whether a value or opinion is "for life"? Well, if you consider it a "good" one, then it must be, right?

Massimiliano B wrote:Being for life or against life is a determiner whether one's opinions are well-founded.

This is even more tendentious. An opinion is "well founded" if it is logically consistent and conforms to accepted facts. This has nothing to do with your subjective assessment of whether it is "for life" or not.

IpseDixit wrote:I actually thought it was something from some weird evangelical American cult. It seems a Catholic thing instead...

Oh, Catholicism is plenty weird, trust me.
"Richmond is a real scholar; Owen just learns languages because he can't bear not to know what other people are saying."--Margaret Lattimore on her two sons

User avatar
Massimiliano B
Posts: 1791
Joined: 2009-03-31, 10:01
Real Name: Massimiliano Bavieri
Gender: male
Location: Lucca
Country: IT Italy (Italia)

Re: "Sexual" education

Postby Massimiliano B » 2013-10-10, 22:25

linguoboy wrote:
Massimiliano B wrote:
linguoboy wrote:
Massimiliano B wrote:If it is evident that a value or opinion is 'for life', then it is good.

Far from contesting Varislintu's opinion, you've only confirmed it.

No, I haven't.

Yes, you have. Here's what she said:
Varislintu wrote:My opinion is that even 'for life' or 'against life' is a rather arbitrary distinction that can be made to fit almost any value or opinion. It certainly can't be used to determine objectively whether someone's belief system is arbitrary/sincere or not.

You haven't presented clear objective criteria for determining whether something is "for life" or "against life". So your definition is circular. How do you know whether a value or opinion is "for life"? Well, if you consider it a "good" one, then it must be, right?

Massimiliano B wrote:Being for life or against life is a determiner whether one's opinions are well-founded.

This is even more tendentious. An opinion is "well founded" if it is logically consistent and conforms to accepted facts. This has nothing to do with your subjective assessment of whether it is "for life" or not.



Something is "for life" if it is "for life". The definition is circular because there aren't clear objective and logically consistent criteria for determining whether something is "for life" or "against life". Logical consistency has nothing to do here.
For instance, I cannot determine that it's not good to kill a living being. Nevertheless, I know that it's not good to do that - unless I have to defend myself or another person from an assault. Science can't tell us that it's not good to kill living beings. This 'feeling' is something that traditions and religions has instilled in you.

User avatar
linguoboy
Posts: 23278
Joined: 2009-08-25, 15:11
Real Name: Da
Location: Chicago
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: "Sexual" education

Postby linguoboy » 2013-10-11, 2:10

Massimiliano B wrote:Something is "for life" if it is "for life". The definition is circular because there aren't clear objective and logically consistent criteria for determining whether something is "for life" or "against life". Logical consistency has nothing to do here.

Then it's all just a matter of validating your own prejudices by pretending there's some grandiose underlying principle. That's what I've been saying all along.
"Richmond is a real scholar; Owen just learns languages because he can't bear not to know what other people are saying."--Margaret Lattimore on her two sons

User avatar
Varislintu
Posts: 15330
Joined: 2004-02-09, 13:32
Real Name: M.
Gender: female
Location: Helsinki
Country: FI Finland (Suomi)

Re: "Sexual" education

Postby Varislintu » 2013-10-11, 12:12

Massimiliano B wrote:If it is evident that a value or opinion is 'for life', then it is good.


But do you really mean that you would be okay with parents getting to decide that their children should be kept ignorant of all contraceptives, as long as they say this stems from a "for life" value? The picture also included pre-marital sex, fertility treatments and divorce as "anti-life" values. Sure, divorce rarely comes up in school, except maybe in a very basic law course. But fertility treatments might even come up in biology. If it happens to do so, would parents be allowed to pull their child out of those particular classes as well?

EDIT: Not to even mention "individualism". How many classes should parents be allowed to pull their children out of to protect them from that? :P

I'm trying to demonstrate that since practically anything could be called "anti-life", there would be no end to how much control parents would be allowed to have over their child's participation in public education. And from the outside, it would still be indistinguishable from whims.
Det finns ingen
tröst. Därför
behöver du den inte
(Gösta Ågren)


Return to “Politics and Religion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest