This is me, thinking, about theology, philosophy, and anything in general not related to my main blog about everything else..

Monday, June 19, 2006

education vs ignorance

i was just reading something and it made me think. unlike most things i'm not sure on my position here.

the thing i was reading was about sex education and abstinance etc. this was actually about those 'purity' rings that people can wear that say they have put themselves aside to wait for marriage to have sex.

now usually i think thats a good thing. im not condoning pre-marital sex, with my christian believes and whatnot

the problem here, is that 88% of the people who make these 'purity pledges' go against what they've said.

now that in itself isn't the problem, people are responsible for their own actions and no-one else is, the problem, is that more often than not, the teachings of abstinance do not actually teach the realities of life and the 'what ifs' of what happens when (a large proportion of) people ignore these teachings and go ahead and do stuff anyway.

invariably, these people because they have been taught abstinance, do not know 'what to do', or more importantly, what not to do. this is where more people have unprotected sex, spread stds and get pregnant.

so thats the problem, but the other issue is what to do about the problem. some people (conservatives more than liberals) say that sex education is the same as condoning sex. well, there is a good question. if you teach people about sex are they more likely to do it? well, maybe, but i know i'd rather have my kid have sex younger and protected than older and unprotected (ultimately, i'd rather them wait until marriage) so yeah. education is a good thing, in my opinion. what do you think?

i personally think it's silly that people think education or legalisation = condoning, and this has come up in various debates i've had about drugs with people. i've been arguing with people about BZP and how various people want it made illegal, when i think it should stay legal, and in fact i think most drugs should be made legal, not because i want to use them, but because we shouldn't be told what to do, and it's our bodies, and just because some people don't like it doesn't mean we should force people to do what we want. people have said if you legalise marijuana it's the same as telling people 'it's ok to do', but cutting yourself is legal but that's not ok to do and it's also legal to run into a wall but that doesn't mean anyone is encouraging you to do that (actually, if you're the type of person who does things because you get told to do them, I encourage you to run into a wall) it's more a matter of personal freedom

for those opposed to drug legalisation, seriously answer this: "if someone wants to get high, why shouldn't they be allowed to" because the answer to "if someone wants to drink himself to oblivion every night, why shouldn't they be allowed to" is "but they are"


Rayd said...

I agree with sex education. But i've grown up with it. Sure it has taught me a lot, things that I probably need to understand, but the probelm with Sex Ed. is that whoever teaches it will teach it from their own perspective, with their own bias to their opinion on sex and wedlock. I don't think christians should condemn sex education, the Bible doesn't condemn sex, i think that christians should be teaching it so taht people can learn about it from a christian's perspective. The way i was taught it was a bit like: "If you wanna have sex that's kewl, go for your life, but don't go getting a girl pregnant or you'll regret it! Play safe guys."

I think it would be better taught if we were told that yes it was our choice, we could have sex out of wedlock. It's not good but we make that decision for ourselves. But if we do make that decision then we need to play safe because you don't get to choose for the person you're sleeping with. That's not your right.

That's my opinion anyway.And i'm sure there are a lot of christian schools around the place that are likely to teach sex ed. like that.

A. J. Chesswas said...

"i'd rather have my kid have sex younger and protected than older and unprotected"

Did you mean that? I think there's too much emphasis on the need for sex to be "protected" at the expense of actually teaching kids what sex actually is. By condoning contraception we are condoning the separation of sex from procreation and only reinforcing in their minds the thought that sex is just a fun game between two people who have feelings with each other.

andrew brown said...

I hope you read what I said about preferring no sex at all (until marriage anyway)

I tried to make the point, maybe I failed, but I'm not condoning contraception, I'm condoning abstinance. But people have sex anyway, and when that happens I'd like to see contraception used.

I would rather my kid have protected sex, because, regardless of what you teach kids, kids are young and don't have proper concepts of love, and they don't know, despite what you tell them, how to have sex properly. I'd rather them not have sex at all, but if they are going to, I'd rather they didn't get pregnant/catch a disease. I think that's fair.

I think to say that sex is only for procreation is just as bad. It's clearly not otherwise it wouldn't be so damn awesome.

I'm married and I have sex for fun/communication not for procreation. Does that mean I'm doing something wrong?

Alice said...

Mandruku, you say that that giving education or legislation isnt the same as giving approval or condoning. I have to disagree, paticulary when one is talking about the education of minors. By legalising recreational drugs I think that it is condoning the activity if thats what you choose. Who has the capicity to make informed choices about drugs anyway. The high school kid who gets as much ├ęducation' from his school friends than he does from the classroom, or the herion addict who's life has crumbled under his(or her) habit. I would argue the latter. How can anyone, let alone children be given the responsiblity of making those choices with limited information or capicity for understanding. Isnt our legal system based on what is morally good for the people. Is it good for anyone in society to be encouraged in any addictive formulating behaviour??

andrew brown said...

But that's the point of what I was saying, legalisation is not condoning. I covered this in my last entry about if we have the right to tell people what to do with their own bodies and how is it right to not let people make educated decsions. I would not advocate drug legalisation without restrictions! There would be minimum ages and with that would come proper factual education.

You're also making assumptions that people automatically make bad decisions and that things can't be used in moderation.

Also, please don't call you husband Mandruku ;)

Alice said...

I think you misunderstand me. I'm suggesting that its not possible for people, particullary minors to make informed choices at all. Who is qualified to be informed but someone who has walked the road before. Although I dont assume people make bad choices, is it not human nature, when presented with temptation (particullary when it is condoned by the law) that that people will chose the path of least resistance?
Your comments please.

andrew brown said...

I am not suggesting we give an option to minors, and we can show by example the risks involved.

For example. I know a girl called Abby, who won't take BZP pills. Has she been down that path? No. Has she been educated about them? No. She doesn't want to because she has seen the effect they have had on other people. She has made an informed decision. If you limit decisions to adults who are educated/informed, then the only people to blame if they get into trouble, are those people themselves.

To take away someones freedom of choice to protect people from themselves is not what I call a free society.

Lots of people throughout time have managed to use drugs in a controlled moderate sense. Some people cannot. Should all of society be disallowed because of some?

P-Style said...

I see the role of legislation as being able to account for the social costs of an individuals actinos, when the market is not able to do so on its own. e.g., the cost of someone getting smashed on crack might be that they go and drive a car into someone alse. Now, obviously this happens with Alchohol too, and alchohol is legal, yet driving under the influence is illegal. Buit then again, alchohol has other social costs such as the burden on the health system etc. . . that it's over consumption can have. So we pay for them via a tax on alchohol. Drug unfortunately are not taxed, so the costs of their consumptino are not recovered by society. So to make them legal, you'd have to tax them.

Another option is decriminlaisation. Instead of going to court for posessiosn/ use, you just get a fine, like a speeding ticket. t's not Illegal, but it's not strctly legal, it's decriminalised.

There are many permutatinos of dealing with negative social costs. Economists have been battling over this question for years. I would suggets reading widely, because there are some very innovative ideas out there.

P-Style said...

apologies for the awful spelling

andrew brown said...

The biggest hurdle, is the fact that society as it seems, aren't prepared to let people do 'dangerous' things. We're outlawing playgrounds for kids so they can't hurt themselves. The state makes choices as to what people can and can't do and then gives us a list of things we can do and calls it freedom.

Alice said...

What you suggest P-style is that the law is only responsible for making sure the economy stays in balance by making illegal these things that "cost".I would suggest the law also is a fundamental moral standard that society should live by.