No sex please, we're teenagers [H&R Split Debate] Watch

This discussion is closed.
ChemistBoy
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#21
Report 13 years ago
#21
(Original post by Vienna)
Im sure there is some benefit, but this is a quick fix which actually worsens a larger problem: shifting responsibility away from parents and onto the state. Not only does that encourage greater problems in the future, but it actually puts a massive burden on the state at a cost paid by all.
How do you know that? I wish you'd let us all in on your secret. So far you have proposed no plan of your own, but to have such opinions you must have a proposed solution to this problem - unless of course you believe that hanging these individuals out to dry is actually a viable method of dealing with this.
0
Vienna
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#22
Report 13 years ago
#22
(Original post by Helenia)
Well, the trouble is if you rely on parents to educate their children, what do you get if the parent was a 14 year old accidental mother with an attitude to sex like that of the children in the show? They're not going to be able to be of much use.

Perhaps if this programme were wider-spread and proved to be successful it might produce a generation of people more mature about sex and thus being able to pass that on. I don't know how you would address the issue at the parents' level currently though.

I am aware that I am very lucky in the education I have had, although in terms of sex education I never really discussed it with my parents around puberty (though they did teach me at about 3 where babies came from in order to shut me up from demanding a baby sister right NOW!). Also the fact that I live in a nice area and went to a good school gives me huge advantages over these kids already. Being ugly as sin and far too clever for my own good also worked quite well as a man-repellant in my teenage years But not everyone is this lucky in any or all of these aspects, and I suppose this scheme is one way of beginning to tackle it, if it is taken up.
If we agree that these counselling sessions will have an impact such that the children that receive such counselling will be better able to educate their children. And if we agree that reducing state dependence would also induce greater personal responsibility such that parents did not expect the state to educate their children, then we have different means to one end.

However, i) the state is responsible for sex education, but we still have dependent parents who will turn to the state on matters of education, crime, social behaviour, employment. Its very hard to expect a parent to teach their child right from wrong, to work hard, ensure they attend school, if we already accept that they are dependent on the state for educating their children in an area that is fundamental to human existence.

ii) the state is now obliged to provide this education to children at the expense of the tax payer. Why on earth should I pay to educate or offer counselling to another child?
0
Vienna
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#23
Report 13 years ago
#23
(Original post by ChemistBoy)
How do you know that? I wish you'd let us all in on your secret. So far you have proposed no plan of your own, but to have such opinions you must have a proposed solution to this problem - unless of course you believe that hanging these individuals out to dry is actually a viable method of dealing with this.
How do you intend to pay for your counselling sessions? Are they open to everyone, or just those from broken homes with a history of underage pregnancy?

A parent that hands over responsibility to the state is unlikely to differentiate between sex education and other matters where society can be exploited; employment, crime, social behaviour.
0
Helenia
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#24
Report Thread starter 13 years ago
#24
(Original post by Vienna)
If we agree that these counselling sessions will have an impact such that the children that receive such counselling will be better able to educate their children. And if we agree that reducing state dependence would also induce greater personal responsibility such that parents did not expect the state to educate their children, then we have different means to one end.

However, i) the state is responsible for sex education, but we still have dependent parents who will turn to the state on matters of education, crime, social behaviour, employment. Its very hard to expect a parent to teach their child right from wrong, to work hard, ensure they attend school, if we already accept that they are dependent on the state for educating their children in an area that is fundamental to human existence.

ii) the state is now obliged to provide this education to children at the expense of the tax payer. Why on earth should I pay to educate or offer counselling to another child?
Firstly,
(Original post by me)
I was kind of hoping that this would be an interesting discussion about people's views on the programme and on whether they could/would benefit from that sort of thing, rather than a political discussion (which is why it is in H&R rather than D&D).
I note that everyone else seems to have left the thread, which I had hoped would be an interesting H&R discussion.

In response to 1)I am not exactly sure what you are proposing. Ideally, it would be better if parents were not dependent on the state for their children's sex education. However, is it not better that the children should receive this help from the state rather than none at all? This is not about educating the parents, though if you have any wonderful ideas about how this should be done without them being dependent on the state for that then I'm all ears.

2)Why on earth should you pay taxes to offer any form of education to someone else's child?
0
Helenia
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#25
Report Thread starter 13 years ago
#25
Thread split so that this political discussion can continue separately.
0
Vienna
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#26
Report 13 years ago
#26
(Original post by Helenia)
Firstly,

I note that everyone else seems to have left the thread, which I had hoped would be an interesting H&R discussion.
If youre suggesting that because Im answering questions or having a discussion as a result of points raised, suddenly noone has any points to raise in regard to the program, then I find that absurd. What kind of discussion were you hoping for?


In response to 1)I am not exactly sure what you are proposing. Ideally, it would be better if parents were not dependent on the state for their children's sex education. However, is it not better that the children should receive this help from the state rather than none at all? This is not about educating the parents, though if you have any wonderful ideas about how this should be done without them being dependent on the state for that then I'm all ears.
Children become parents, thats how the issue is propagated and why state dependence is a viscious cycle.


2)Why on earth should you pay taxes to offer any form of education to someone else's child?
You shouldnt necessarily. Id rather pay for my childs education and have greater choice, while recognising that a basic level of state education should exist. As far as Im concerned this doesnt stretch to social or moral issues.
0
Helenia
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#27
Report Thread starter 13 years ago
#27
(Original post by Vienna)
If youre suggesting that because Im answering questions or having a discussion as a result of points raised, suddenly noone has any points to raise in regard to the program, then I find that absurd. What kind of discussion were you hoping for?
Ideally, one where the normal posters of H&R didn't get scared off by a political argument between you, Chemistboy and vague attempts at mediation by myself. However, this has now happily been resolved.
0
Vienna
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#28
Report 13 years ago
#28
(Original post by Helenia)
Ideally, one where the normal posters of H&R
How do I apply? (recalls the furore over the suggestion that there were D+D regulars)

When a discussion contains political elements,

"The trip to America was more controversial for me. In the States, a large number of schools ONLY teach abstinence in sex ed. In my opinion this is completely wrong – all they do is say “No sex before marriage,” there is no discussion of what sex is, how it works, its effect on relationships, contraception…it’s no surprise that kids are badly informed and that the USA has the worst teenage pregnancy rate in the Western World."

then its natural that political solutions and their merits will be discussed in light of which offers the best way to discourage youngsters from engaging in sexual activity. If you wanted a friendly chat about sex ed experiences minus any scrutiny of which methods or approaches are preferable, then perhaps it should have been made a little more clear.
0
Helenia
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#29
Report Thread starter 13 years ago
#29
Oh, talking about approaches and so on is fine and is what was NOT going on later in that thread - that was a discussion about parents/children being dependent on the state and political issues.

You cannot deny that once the serious political debate began, there was a notable lack of any other posters in that thread.
0
Vienna
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#30
Report 13 years ago
#30
(Original post by Helenia)
Oh, talking about approaches and so on is fine and is what was NOT going on later in that thread - that was a discussion about parents/children being dependent on the state and political issues.
It is a political issue. The discussion, which you took part in and then decided to cut off, centered on the best approach in reducing teenage pregnancy. I believe that counselling, as the documentary appears to focus on, is not necessarily a good thing. When asked why, I gave my argument to which you responded. I dont see how you can hold a half serious discussion if noone is allowed to justify their views.

You cannot deny that once the serious political debate began, there was a notable lack of any other posters in that thread.
As far as im aware they were free to offer their opinions based on the first post in the thread. As far as im aware H&R wasnt a thread for giggles.
0
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Do you like exams?

Yes (178)
18.72%
No (573)
60.25%
Not really bothered about them (200)
21.03%

Watched Threads

View All