115/800 girls in Chigago High school pregnant

Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
115/800 girls in Chigago High school pregnant

http://cbs2chicago.com/local/Robeson.High.School.2.1251642.html

 

Quote:

Reporting
Kristyn Hartman CHICAGO (CBS) ―

 

It is a Chicago

public school full of energy and spirit. It has about 800 girls, and 115 of them have something in common – something you might find disturbing.

CBS 2's Kristyn Hartman reports.

All those young ladies are moms or moms-to-be at Paul Robeson High School. It's not a school for young mothers, it's a neighborhood school. And all of the pregnancies have happened, despite prevention talk.

If you want to know why, the people closest to the situation say there's no simple explanation.

Chicago Public Schools says it does not track the overall number of teen moms in the district. But Robeson Principal Gerald Morrow knows the count at his school in Englewood: 115 young ladies who are either expecting or already have had children.

To put it in perspective, their school pictures would fill roughly six pages of their high school year book.

Why is it happening at Robeson?

"It can be a lot of things that are happening in the home or not happening in the home, if you will," Morrow said. Absentee fathers are another factor, he said.

LaDonna Denson and two other Robeson students say parents not talking to teens and, in some cases, the pursuit of public assistance also factor into the pregnancies. None of them thought they'd be moms at such a young age.

They said they have support at home. But not all girls do, they said. In fact, some girls get thrown out of the home.

Not on Morrow's turf. "We're not looking at them like 'Ooh you made a mistake,'" he said. "We're looking at how we can get them to the next phase, how can we still get them thinking about graduation?"

So there's help in a teen parent program. And coming soon, right across from Robeson, developers are turning a one-time crack house into a day care for student use. "We have to provide some type of environment for them and some form of support for them," Van Vincent, CEO of VLV Development, said.

It's all made an impression.

"Just cause you have a baby, that doesn't mean your life is over," one student said.

One thing they might not know about their principal: His mom had him when she was 15. That's why accepting the problem -- and working through it -- is so important to him.

(© MMIX, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.)

 

 

 


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

 The gay indoctrination of the schoolchildren must not be going as well as planned.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3640
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
   Untermenschen is a word

   Untermenschen is a word that comes to mind.    Human cattle.  Mindless breeders.  Pathetic.

 

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1474
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote: The gay

ClockCat wrote:

 The gay indoctrination of the schoolchildren must not be going as well as planned.

I could all be a clever rouse to trick the moral people

 

but seriously wtf, stupid people. It doesn't take education to know having a kid while at school is stupid. Aid Aids Aids Aids Aids might make a little show in America if this kinda stuff becomes common.

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Tapey wrote:It doesn't take

Tapey wrote:

It doesn't take education to know having a kid while at school is stupid.

But evolution loves breeders. Evolution doesn't reward people for being smart, only for surviving long enough to breed.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Kristyn Hartman wrote: If


Kristyn Hartman wrote:


If you want to know why, the people closest to the situation say there's no simple explanation. 

 

I know a really simple explanation why they are all pregnant.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
Maybe it's another one of

Maybe it's another one of those baby pledges, where a flock of stupid girls make a pledge to have babies at the same time.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:o

 Wasn't hard to find out the sexual education policy. Chicago public schools taught abstinance-only education up until 2006, when they revised the program to teach..actual sexual education, starting in 6th grade the next year.

 

These girls would have been taught abstinance-only sex education. In other words, "Don't have sex kids! STDs!" instead of "Here is a condom. Here is how it will be used. Don't use protection, and you will get pregnant."

 

 

 

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote: Wasn't hard

ClockCat wrote:

 Wasn't hard to find out the sexual education policy. Chicago public schools taught abstinance-only education up until 2006, when they revised the program to teach..actual sexual education, starting in 6th grade the next year.

 

These girls would have been taught abstinance-only sex education. In other words, "Don't have sex kids! STDs!" instead of "Here is a condom. Here is how it will be used. Don't use protection, and you will get pregnant."

 

 

 

 

Actually, according to a study

 

 

http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/publications/PDFs/impactabstinence.pdf

 

there is no difference between condom use of those who recieved abstinence only education and those that did not.

 

 

page 57

 

Quote:

Eight percent of all control group youth and seven percent of all program group youth
reported having had sexual intercourse and not using a condom the first time (Figure IV.2).
There are similarly no differences when measured over the last 12 months—17 percent of
youth in both groups reported having had sex in the last 12 months and using a condom
only sometimes, and 4 percent reported having had sex in the last 12 months and never
using a condom. (Figure IV.3). For all youth, this latter result is equivalent to about half of

 

 

 


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:o

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

 Wasn't hard to find out the sexual education policy. Chicago public schools taught abstinance-only education up until 2006, when they revised the program to teach..actual sexual education, starting in 6th grade the next year.

 

These girls would have been taught abstinance-only sex education. In other words, "Don't have sex kids! STDs!" instead of "Here is a condom. Here is how it will be used. Don't use protection, and you will get pregnant."

 

 

 

 

Actually, according to a study

 

 

http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/publications/PDFs/impactabstinence.pdf

 

there is no difference between condom use of those who recieved abstinence only education and those that did not.

 

 

page 57

 

Quote:

Eight percent of all control group youth and seven percent of all program group youth
reported having had sexual intercourse and not using a condom the first time (Figure IV.2).
There are similarly no differences when measured over the last 12 months—17 percent of
youth in both groups reported having had sex in the last 12 months and using a condom
only sometimes, and 4 percent reported having had sex in the last 12 months and never
using a condom. (Figure IV.3). For all youth, this latter result is equivalent to about half of

 

 

 

 

That is all fine and well if the study was not requested by a one-party dominated congress to prove a political agenda.

 

It wasn't was it?

 

Oh wait. It was. In fact, it was designed to try and prove abstinance education. It focused entirely on how to make abstinence-only education valid for taxpayer dollar forced morality lessons.

 

http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/Family_Support/abstinence.asp

 

" Programs receiving these funds taught abstinence from sexual activity outside of marriage as the expected standard for school-age children and could not endorse or promote contraceptive use. The evaluation addressed the following questions:

  • What were the nature and underlying theories of the abstinence education programs supported with Section 510 funding?
  • What were the implementation and operational experiences of local communities and schools that received abstinence education funding?
  • What were the impacts of abstinence education programs?
  • How successful were they in changing the knowledge, attitudes, and intentions of youth?
  • How successful were they in reducing teen sexual activity among youth?
  • How did they change the risk of pregnancy and STDs?

The resulting multi-year evaluation used an experimental design to estimate impacts on youth attitudes and behaviors; eligible youth were randomly assigned to either the program group, which was offered abstinence-only education services, or the control group, which was not offered these services."

 

 

"The study highlighted the challenges faced by programs aiming to reduce adolescent sexual activity. Two lessons are important for future programming in this area:

1. Targeting youth at young ages may not be sufficient. Most Title V, Section 510 abstinence education programs are implemented in upper elementary and middle schools and most are completed before youth enter high school. The findings from this study provide no evidence that abstinence programs implemented at these grades reduce sexual activity of youth during their high school years. However, the findings provide no information on the effects programs might have if they were implemented in high school or began at earlier ages but continued through high school.

2. Peer support for abstinence erodes during adolescence. Peer support for abstinence is a significant predictor of later sexual activity. Although the four abstinence programs had at most a small impact on this measure in the short term and no impact in the long term, this finding suggests that promoting support for abstinence among peer networks should be an important feature of future abstinence programs."

 

 

 

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:I

Basically, they were hired to prove a political agenda. They were there to seek answers, and failing those answers, were told to at least try and disprove their opponents. They have no way to guarantee their results, because they were answered by survey supposedly. Not very reliable. 

 

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Yes Clockcat, obviously it

Yes Clockcat, obviously it was done by those sex hating Republicians!!  It's all a conspiracy I tells ya! Dem' damn apologists!

 

 

ClockCat wrote:

Basically, they were hired to prove a political agenda. They were there to seek answers, and failing those answers, were told to at least try and disprove their opponents.

 

 

If they wanted to lie, why didn't they just fudge the results and under report the number of times somebody who recieve abstinence only had sex for example?

 

ClockCat wrote:

They have no way to guarantee their results, because they were answered by survey supposedly. Not very reliable. 

 

 

What were they suppose to do, hide in the closet with a video camera?

 

Clockcat wrote:

Not only this, but did you look at the programs, the locations, and the target demographics they chose for each one? What a joke. 

 

It is about as fixed as you can make a study, short of the Republican push polls being sent out. They cherry picked areas for their "control" students, and also for their "test" ones. 

 

 

They couldn't interview the entire US population.

 

 

 

 


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:I

I was in the middle of editing my post. :I

 

I was going to add, the findings they found had the CONTROL group having higher abstinence than the abstinence-only education. This entire study is laughable. 

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:o

 So you accept this study, set up by a partisan congress to obviously be a political tool?

 

Just curious.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:I

 

Table 5. Estimated Impacts on Perceived Effectiveness of Condoms for Preventing

Pregnancy and STDs

Program Group (Percentage) Control Group (Percentage) Program-Control Difference (Percentage Points) p-value

Condoms Prevent Pregnancy

Usually 51 52 -1 0.63

Sometimes 38 38 0 0.88

Never 3 3 1 0.49

Unsure 7 7 0 0.83

Condoms Prevent HIV

Usually 34 38 -4 0.07*

Sometimes 30 30 0 0.97

Never 21 17 5 0.01**

Unsure 14 15 -1 0.76

Condoms Prevent Chlamydia

and Gonorrhea

Usually 30 35 -5 0.03**

Sometimes 27 25 2 0.37

Never 20 14 6 0.00***

Unsure 23 26 -3 0.15

Condoms Prevent Herpes and HPV

Usually 26 31 -5 0.03**

Sometimes 26 26 1 0.77

Never 23 15 7 0.00***

Unsure 25 28 -3 0.10*

 

  Look at this. The control group obviously were not educated about condoms. Come on now.

 

How can you say that the control group were educated about condoms when half of them don't know if it will prevent pregnancy.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:o

 Or table 6 for that matter.

 

Birth Control Pills Prevent Pregnancy

Usually 56 55 1 0.55

Sometimes 33 36 -2 0.32

Never 3 3 0 0.62

Unsure 7 7 1 0.65

 

 

ABSTIANCE-ONLY education has more students that know what BIRTH CONTROL pills do. When they are not even supposed to talk about it. 

 

Yeah, the control group sure seems like they went through a sex ed program that talks about contraceptives and birth control. Uh huh.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote:   Look at

ClockCat wrote:

 

  Look at this. The control group obviously were not educated about condoms. Come on now. 
  Nobody said they were.  The control group were the kids did NOT recieve absitinence education  
Clockcat wrote:
 

 

How can you say that the control group were educated about condoms when half of them don't know if it will prevent pregnancy.

 

I didn't say they were educated in condom use. The study said the control did not recieve abstinence education.

 

 

 


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:I

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

 

  Look at this. The control group obviously were not educated about condoms. Come on now. 
  Nobody said they were.  The control group were the kids did NOT recieve absitinence education  
Clockcat wrote:
 

 

How can you say that the control group were educated about condoms when half of them don't know if it will prevent pregnancy.

 

I didn't say they were educated in condom use. The study said the control did not recieve abstinence education.

 

 

 

 

So you are arguing abstinence-only education versus...no sex education?

 

What kind of argument is that? Really?

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:o

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

 Wasn't hard to find out the sexual education policy. Chicago public schools taught abstinance-only education up until 2006, when they revised the program to teach..actual sexual education, starting in 6th grade the next year.

 

These girls would have been taught abstinance-only sex education. In other words, "Don't have sex kids! STDs!" instead of "Here is a condom. Here is how it will be used. Don't use protection, and you will get pregnant."

 

 

 

 

Actually, according to a study

 

 

http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/publications/PDFs/impactabstinence.pdf

 

there is no difference between condom use of those who recieved abstinence only education and those that did not.

 

 

page 57

 

Quote:

Eight percent of all control group youth and seven percent of all program group youth
reported having had sexual intercourse and not using a condom the first time (Figure IV.2).
There are similarly no differences when measured over the last 12 months—17 percent of
youth in both groups reported having had sex in the last 12 months and using a condom
only sometimes, and 4 percent reported having had sex in the last 12 months and never
using a condom. (Figure IV.3). For all youth, this latter result is equivalent to about half of

 

 

 

 

To rehash, this is what you said to what I said. Where does arguing for an abstinence-only education over no education fit into it? 

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote:To rehash,

ClockCat wrote:

To rehash, this is what you said to what I said. Where does arguing for an abstinence-only education over no education fit into it? 

 

 

You seemed to imply that people who recieve abstience only are less likely to use protection. I just cited the study to say that they aren't.

 

I wasn't arguing anything else.

 

 

 


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

To rehash, this is what you said to what I said. Where does arguing for an abstinence-only education over no education fit into it? 

 

 

You seemed to imply that people who recieve abstience only are less likely to use protection. I just cited the study to say that they aren't.

 

I wasn't arguing anything else.

 

 

 

 

You cited a study that says they aren't, compared to people with NO SEX EDUCATION.

 

Basically, you just said "They had abstinence-only education? Well here is a study that says that is as good as not talking to them at all about sex and hoping for the best!"

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Well, the study link is to a

Well, the study link is to a lengthy paper and I admit that I skimmed it. That much being said, it does say that other avenues of sex education were available. It really did not seem to say what those other programs were. However, there was one large part that I find to be outstanding.

Specifically, in every measure for which there is a chart or table, the control group was nearly identical to the study group. Where there was some variance, it seems to have favored the control group by a couple of percentage points.

For example, the control group seems to have been slightly more aware of the fact that birth control pills do not prevent STD. Not by a whole lot but to the extent that the difference exists at all, it speaks to whether the children in the study group were taught that fairly basic fact.

What really bugs me is that the two groups came out so close on every measure that was taken. Now the study does not AFAICT say how much federal money was spent on the study itself but it did manage to prove one thing:

Regardless of what kids are taught, teenagers have sex at about the same rate.

Whomever came up with this study needs a

Golden_Fleece_Award

. They managed to spend lots of federal money to prove that teenagers like to ball each other.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:I

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:
Well, the study link is to a lengthy paper and I admit that I skimmed it. That much being said, it does say that other avenues of sex education were available. It really did not seem to say what those other programs were. However, there was one large part that I find to be outstanding. Specifically, in every measure for which there is a chart or table, the control group was nearly identical to the study group. Where there was some variance, it seems to have favored the control group by a couple of percentage points. For example, the control group seems to have been slightly more aware of the fact that birth control pills do not prevent STD. Not by a whole lot but to the extent that the difference exists at all, it speaks to whether the children in the study group were taught that fairly basic fact. What really bugs me is that the two groups came out so close on every measure that was taken. Now the study does not AFAICT say how much federal money was spent on the study itself but it did manage to prove one thing: Regardless of what kids are taught, teenagers have sex at about the same rate. Whomever came up with this study needs a

Golden_Fleece_Award

. They managed to spend lots of federal money to prove that teenagers like to ball each other.

 

 

I disagree strongly with that conclusion. When half of them don't know if a condom will prevent pregnancy, it is obvious they were not educated about their use.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Tell you what Clockcat, find

Tell you what Clockcat, find me studies that compared the condom use of people who recieved actual sex education, those that had abstience and those that recieved neither.

 

 

The studies I found said that there was no correlation between attidutes of condoms and actual use, and that actual sex education only delays intercourse up to age 15.

 

 

 


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:I

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Tell you what Clockcat, find me studies that compared the condom use of people who recieved actual sex education, those that had abstience and those that recieved neither.

 

 

The studies I found said that there was no correlation between attidutes of condoms and actual use, and that actual sex education only delays intercourse up to age 15.

 

 

 

 

There are no studies of comprehensive vs no sex education that I am aware of. However,  the American Psychological Association, the American Medical Association,the National Association of School Psychologists, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Public Health Association, the Society for Adolescent Medicine and the American College Health Association all have stated that it is necessary to provide information about risks and how to minimize them, and that denying teens the factual information leads to unwanted pregnancies and STDs.

The abstinence-only people are trying to teach "moral behavior", rather than pregnancy or STD prevention. What my point was, and which you proved, was that it doesn't do anything beneficial. You might as well not talk to them about sex at all, if you are just going to tell a group of teenagers it is immoral and bad, and they shouldn't do it. 

 

So you have a group of teenagers in a chicago school that taught abstinance-only education, and they have lots of pregnancies. They say "what is the problem here?" and never bring up that they were NOT taught comprehensive sex education. They were NOT told to use condoms. They were not even informed about it, as it goes against the policies of abstinence-only education.

 

Seriously. It is like when my school told us that masturbation was sinful and we shouldn't do it. Do you think anyone cared if they were committing a sin? Of course not, they just felt guilty after getting their rocks off. Not knowing what condoms are useful for though, that is a recipe for failure. 

 

It basically comes down to, "should they know what they are doing or not?" and the religious people don't want them to, while every professional medical field says they should understand that they are becoming adults and what that means.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1474
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:The

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

The studies I found said that there was no correlation between attidutes of condoms and actual use, and that actual sex education only delays intercourse up to age 15.

now that just seems silly. I dont have studies b ut follow me here. if they truelyv had a good atitude towards condoms wouldn't they use them? I would suggest  they thave just been ingrained with condoms are good but not actually care about it at all which is not a good attitudes about condoms. now doesn't that make more sense than  i passionatly believe condoms are good but i dont use them. The very fact people dont use them shows they do not have a good atitude towards condoms. I have only had sex without a condom once in my life (with the aids rate in south africa you would have to be stupid to risk it) If they truely had a good atitude to condoms and not just "yeah condoms are good" they would use them. Think about it, i believe in gun control yet i have 47 guns and 10000000 bullets makes sense? I believe in protecting the environment yet i pour mecury into rivers in  my spare time. If they really thought about it there would be a correlation. it is not possible to have a good attitude towards condoms and then not use them.

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:I

Tapey wrote:

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

The studies I found said that there was no correlation between attidutes of condoms and actual use, and that actual sex education only delays intercourse up to age 15.

now that just seems silly. I dont have studies b ut follow me here. if they truelyv had a good atitude towards condoms wouldn't they use them? I would suggest  they thave just been ingrained with condoms are good but not actually care about it at all which is not a good attitudes about condoms. now doesn't that make more sense than  i passionatly believe condoms are good but i dont use them. The very fact people dont use them shows they do not have a good atitude towards condoms. I have only had sex without a condom once in my life (with the aids rate in south africa you would have to be stupid to risk it) If they truely had a good atitude to condoms and not just "yeah condoms are good" they would use them. Think about it, i believe in gun control yet i have 47 guns and 10000000 bullets makes sense? I believe in protecting the environment yet i pour mecury into rivers in  my spare time. If they really thought about it there would be a correlation. it is not possible to have a good attitude towards condoms and then not use them.

 

You can't really use the control group in that study anyway, when only half of students thought condoms will prevent pregnancy.

 

There is no way they can have comprehensive sex education and not know what a condom will do. They were hired to try and prove a political agenda, and they couldn't prove it. Publicly funding "don't have sex before marriage teenagers because it is immoral" is stupid beyond belief. I don't want to pay taxes to teach people someone's idea of "morality" and "values" that I do not necessarily share. On top of that, it is denying them an education about becoming an adult that they NEED.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Tapey wrote:now that just

Tapey wrote:

now that just seems silly. I dont have studies b ut follow me here. if they truelyv had a good atitude towards condoms wouldn't they use them? I would suggest  they thave just been ingrained with condoms are good but not actually care about it at all which is not a good attitudes about condoms. now doesn't that make more sense than  i passionatly believe condoms are good but i dont use them. The very fact people dont use them shows they do not have a good atitude towards condoms. I have only had sex without a condom once in my life (with the aids rate in south africa you would have to be stupid to risk it) If they truely had a good atitude to condoms and not just "yeah condoms are good" they would use them. Think about it, i believe in gun control yet i have 47 guns and 10000000 bullets makes sense? I believe in protecting the environment yet i pour mecury into rivers in  my spare time. If they really thought about it there would be a correlation. it is not possible to have a good attitude towards condoms and then not use them.

 

 

There was a study done with French Canadians, and I think the correlation was 0.23 between positive attitude towards condoms and using them.

 

 

 

 


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1474
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:Tapey

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Tapey wrote:

now that just seems silly. I dont have studies b ut follow me here. if they truelyv had a good atitude towards condoms wouldn't they use them? I would suggest  they thave just been ingrained with condoms are good but not actually care about it at all which is not a good attitudes about condoms. now doesn't that make more sense than  i passionatly believe condoms are good but i dont use them. The very fact people dont use them shows they do not have a good atitude towards condoms. I have only had sex without a condom once in my life (with the aids rate in south africa you would have to be stupid to risk it) If they truely had a good atitude to condoms and not just "yeah condoms are good" they would use them. Think about it, i believe in gun control yet i have 47 guns and 10000000 bullets makes sense? I believe in protecting the environment yet i pour mecury into rivers in  my spare time. If they really thought about it there would be a correlation. it is not possible to have a good attitude towards condoms and then not use them.

 

 

There was a study done with French Canadians, and I think the correlation was 0.23 between positive attitude towards condoms and using them.

you do know there is a differance between saying condoms are good and truly meaning it? I have no doubt most people will on a question air say yay condoms but in pratise they won't and this is what you are saying. What I am saying is they are lying. You cannot have a good atitude towards something and then not do it or you really dont have a good atitude towards it. Proven by your actions not your words.

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:I

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Tapey wrote:

now that just seems silly. I dont have studies b ut follow me here. if they truelyv had a good atitude towards condoms wouldn't they use them? I would suggest  they thave just been ingrained with condoms are good but not actually care about it at all which is not a good attitudes about condoms. now doesn't that make more sense than  i passionatly believe condoms are good but i dont use them. The very fact people dont use them shows they do not have a good atitude towards condoms. I have only had sex without a condom once in my life (with the aids rate in south africa you would have to be stupid to risk it) If they truely had a good atitude to condoms and not just "yeah condoms are good" they would use them. Think about it, i believe in gun control yet i have 47 guns and 10000000 bullets makes sense? I believe in protecting the environment yet i pour mecury into rivers in  my spare time. If they really thought about it there would be a correlation. it is not possible to have a good attitude towards condoms and then not use them.

 

 

There was a study done with French Canadians, and I think the correlation was 0.23 between positive attitude towards condoms and using them.

 

 

 

 

 

People also think they attend church weekly, but that study also asked if they went last week and almost everyone said no.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Abu Lahab
Superfan
Abu Lahab's picture
Posts: 628
Joined: 2008-02-29
User is offlineOffline
***************

'115/800 girls in Chigago High school pregnant.'

Too much fumbling in the dark, Cpt?


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

Abu Lahab wrote:

'115/800 girls in Chigago High school pregnant.'

Too much fumbling in the dark, Cpt?

 

Hahaha.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote: People also

ClockCat wrote:

 

People also think they attend church weekly, but that study also asked if they went last week and almost everyone said no.

 

What has that got to do with anything?

 

 

 


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

 

People also think they attend church weekly, but that study also asked if they went last week and almost everyone said no.

 

What has that got to do with anything?

 

 

 

 

What people think they do, and report they do, is often not based in reality. 

 

It is common for people to report things incorrectly to pollsters, and really invalidates almost every study done by survey. They are nothing but a study on perception. People misrepresent how they vote, if they go to church, if they and how much they give to charity, use of illegal drugs, number of sexual partners, and many other things.

 

The point is what people report about themselves is often not the truth. Take studies done by survey with this.

 

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Wow, that went right over my

Wow, that went right over my head.

 

The study is "Hebert, Y., Bernard, J., deMan, A.F. & Farrar, D. (1989) Factors relating to the use of condoms among French-Canadians university students"

 

In the journal of Social Psychology 129, 707-709

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2811324

 

 

 

 

 

 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote:What people

ClockCat wrote:

What people think they do, and report they do, is often not based in reality. 

 

It is common for people to report things incorrectly to pollsters, and really invalidates almost every study done by survey. They are nothing but a study on perception. People misrepresent how they vote, if they go to church, if they and how much they give to charity, use of illegal drugs, number of sexual partners, and many other things.

 

The point is what people report about themselves is often not the truth. Take studies done by survey with this.

 

 

So start funding the psychic program?

 

 

 


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

 

So start funding the psychic program? 

 

We have Luminon, how much more do you want?

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Abu Lahab
Superfan
Abu Lahab's picture
Posts: 628
Joined: 2008-02-29
User is offlineOffline
(No subject)


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1474
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:Tell you

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Tell you what Clockcat, find me studies that compared the condom use of people who recieved actual sex education, those that had abstience and those that recieved neither.

 

 

The studies I found said that there was no correlation between attidutes of condoms and actual use, and that actual sex education only delays intercourse up to age 15.

 

change the wording to there is no corrilation between people saying they have a good atitude towards condoms and actually using them and there is no problem besides making the whole thing pointless.

You cannot have the good atitude unless you follow through.

 

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.


Stosis
Posts: 327
Joined: 2008-10-21
User is offlineOffline
Pineapple = troll. If this

Pineapple = troll. If this weren't an established poster wouldn't you have banned her by now?


theTwelve
TheistTroll
theTwelve's picture
Posts: 227
Joined: 2009-07-12
User is offlineOffline
Tapey wrote:if they truelyv

Tapey wrote:
if they truelyv had a good attitude towards condoms wouldn't they use them? I would suggest  they thave just been ingrained with condoms are good but not actually care about it at all which is not a good attitudes about condoms.

Well, I grew up in an inner city school, kids were having sex in elementary, and pregnant teens were just a common sort of thing. Most kids just don't like the feeling of condoms, I don't personally either, they like it raw, and the truth is, for teenagers, the part of the brain that deals with risk is not fully developed yet, it's why teenager have to pay more money for car insurance.

The problem is rather simple, they're young, and they like the feeling of raw sex over condom sex, that they're willing to take the risk associated with them. Add to the fact, that pregnant teenagers are norm, and welfare checks, getting pregnant is not the end of the world. They sure don't seem to be getting abortions.

When I was teenager, I pretty much had raw sex all the time. It wasn't because I didn't know there were risk, but that the risk seemed neglible, or at least ones that seemed worth it at the time to take. You don't expect high school kids to be carrying stds, and pregancy wasn't that big of deal, because you could always get an abortion, and if you didn't plan on going to college after HS, keeping the kid didnt seem like such a bad idea either.

 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote: We have

ClockCat wrote:

 

We have Luminon, how much more do you want?

 

 

 

 

 


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3640
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Stosis wrote:Pineapple =

Stosis wrote:

Pineapple = troll. If this weren't an established poster wouldn't you have banned her by now?

    Agreed.

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


Abu Lahab
Superfan
Abu Lahab's picture
Posts: 628
Joined: 2008-02-29
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:Stosis

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Stosis wrote:

Pineapple = troll. If this weren't an established poster wouldn't you have banned her by now?

    Agreed.

 

I'd say at this point she's more the official Court Jester to RR.

How can not believing in something that is backed up with no empirical evidence be less scientific than believing in something that not only has no empirical evidence but actually goes against the laws of the universe and in many cases actually contradicts itself? - Ricky Gervais