Scraping cents, but costing us dollars

86 comments on “Scraping cents, but costing us dollars ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Ed 1

   18 June 2012 at 2:18 pm

   We know that National promised not to cut front-line jobs – I guess it gives a new meaning to “back-room” . . .
2. Dr Terry 2

   18 June 2012 at 2:25 pm

   On the one hand they want to get mothers and daughters on contraception, while at the same time promoting more pregnancies, disease, abortions. Yet again, the Nat’s demonstrate how they formulate policies by which they “want it both ways”. Yes, for sure, they will be glad at a chance to do yet more scapegoating.
   • Puddleglum 2.1

     18 June 2012 at 7:59 pm

     Agreed.

     Advice for National: Right hand, meet left hand.

     Of course, that assumes that policy is being devised on matters of principle. 
     • David H 2.1.1

       18 June 2012 at 9:01 pm

       Principle?? is that like saving money in the Nats handbook?

       But they bang on about the people on the DPB And here they are making the next generation of solo pregnant teens.
3. tc 3

   18 June 2012 at 2:59 pm

   Reminds me of way to many meetings in large businesses where they look to cut everything from coffee/tea for the staff through to not having the cleaners come through every night rather than loose $1 of pay/bonus for the senior management.
4. Kotahi Tane Huna 4

   18 June 2012 at 3:02 pm

   Beneficiaries will get free contraception, employed people won’t even get free advice, let alone condoms. Can anyone else see the obvious flaw in this?
   • bbfloyd 4.1

     18 June 2012 at 6:51 pm

     flaw?….. or just another step towards huxley’s vision of a brave new world….?
     • Kotahi Tane Huna 4.1.1

       18 June 2012 at 7:29 pm

       I was thinking more along the lines of working mums quitting work in greater numbers.
       • bbfloyd 4.1.1.1

         19 June 2012 at 12:03 pm

         I can see tripwires being set up regarding that…. one would be the punishment that a woman giving up work without a very compelling reason having money withheld as a matter of policy…

         I know this is how the unemployed are kept in dead end jobs that don’t cover the basic cost of living…… I am guessing, as this is a national govt, with a minister that reminds me more of the teachers in the film “the wall’ than an actual person with an intellect, and scruples… that their would be a similar approach taken to women giving up work for such an insignificant reason as “raising children”..

         the concept works on a theoretical level though….It would be interesting to see if there was any movement in that direction. and how it’s portrayed by the govt, and media…
5. prism 5

   18 June 2012 at 3:17 pm

   No worries, it’s the parents’ job to control their children and keep them pure from sex.. Verse 22 from the Right Wing Bible.
   • TheContrarian 5.1

     18 June 2012 at 4:03 pm

     “it’s the parents’ job to control their children and keep them pure from sex..Verse 22 from the Right Wing Bible”

     Really? I would have though parents were the “front line” in such things. How is believing parents bear most of the responsibility in educating their children about sex “right wing”?  

     (I don’t agree with Nationals cuts BTW)
     • Draco T Bastard 5.1.1

       18 June 2012 at 4:39 pm

       When the parents probably know less about sex than the kids do already leaving such education to the parents doesn’t result in better educated children. The right-wing will cut that education though so that they can have more tax cuts.
       • Vicky32 5.1.1.1

         18 June 2012 at 4:56 pm

         When the parents probably know less about sex than the kids do already leaving such education to the parents doesn’t result in better educated children

         What makes you think that’s the case? Why should parents know less than their children? Your comment makes no sense.
         Disclaimer – I don’t agree with the Nats’ cut…
         • Draco T Bastard 5.1.1.1.1

           18 June 2012 at 5:45 pm

           Why should parents know less than their children?

           Probably because the parents haven’t been keeping up with current knowledge. They “know” what they knew as a teenager and that’s it – and what they knew then is wrong.
           • TheContrarian 5.1.1.1.1.1

             18 June 2012 at 6:23 pm

             “Probably because the parents haven’t been keeping up with current knowledge. They “know” what they knew as a teenager and that’s it”

             Citation Needed for that “WTF?” comment.
             • Blue …

               18 June 2012 at 6:45 pm

               Why is it a WTF? comment? Why do you assume that all parents have professional-level knowledge about STIs, contraception, date rape drugs and other sexual health matters?
               • TheContrarian …

                 18 June 2012 at 6:51 pm

                 “Why do you assume that all parents have professional-level knowledge about STIs, contraception, date rape drugs and other sexual health matters?”

                 I don’t but I certainly don’t think that all parents know about sex is what they learnt in their teenage years. And it is “WTF?” for someone to make a bold, broad claim like that.

                 And I certainly don’t agree that it is “right wing” for someone to believe they have the moral responsibility to be the front-line for their childs sex eduction and child control over a third party.
                 • felix …

                   18 June 2012 at 7:01 pm

                   You don’t have to agree with it but it does seem to be the position advocated by right-wingers and prescribed for by right-wing governments.
                   • TheContrarian …

                     18 June 2012 at 7:07 pm

                     “it does seem to be the position advocated by right-wingers and prescribed for by right-wing governments.”

                     So the left-wing generally doesn’t support parents being the ones who have the responsibility of controlling their children and providing the first instance of sex education?
                   • felix …

                     18 June 2012 at 7:26 pm

                     Haven’t seen anyone say that. Cite an example if you please.
                 • McFlock …

                   18 June 2012 at 7:05 pm

                   And I certainly don’t agree that it is “right wing” for someone to believe they have the moral responsibility to be the front-line for their childs sex eduction and child control over a third party.  

                    
                   Sigh. 
                   Well, if we must use military analogies to discuss sexual health, it has never been sensible military tactics to have a “front line” as the only line of defense. Effective military commanders have all made use of (at the very least) additional reserve forces for the sections of the front lines that begin to falter, and of course now (in the higher threat environment of modern warfare) the plan has gone beyond “defense in depth” (i.e. multiple lines of defense) into total defense and assymetric warfare.
                        
                   In other words, even if your “front line” analogy held, the idea that the parents should be the only people defending their child’s sexual health is an unwise policy that will lead to a catastrophic defeat. 
                   • TheContrarian …

                     18 June 2012 at 7:09 pm

                     So it is “right wing” to rather have your children approach you about sex in the first instance than a teacher or other third party?
                   • Pascal's bookie …

                     18 June 2012 at 7:13 pm

                     What’s this first instance malarky?

                     the point was that it’s a right wing idea to not have other options available, and if they are available, to have them hard to access and/or focussed on “abstinence”.

                     To forestall a further troll; No, not all right wingers like that, but most people like that are right wingers. No?
                   • McFlock …

                     18 June 2012 at 7:19 pm

                     No.
                            
                     It is “right wing” to insist that your child is only allowed to approach you for sex advice, even if such a policy will harm kids through increased STIs, confusion, depression, and unwanted pregnancies. Like in the US “abstinence only” states, where unprotected anal sex   (to avoid pregnancy) has seen significant increases in teen STIs.
                                
                     It’s “right wing” to assume that:
                          
                     a) parents know everything about sex simply because they managed to bump uglies; and
                        
                     b) if parents give incorrect advice, or are deemed unapproachable by their child, then the resulting social dysfunction will not affect you or your kids in any way so it’s not your problem.
                   • fatty …

                     18 June 2012 at 7:22 pm

                     “So it is “right wing” to rather have your children approach you about sex in the first instance than a teacher or other third party?”

                     No, but from what I can see you have twisted what Prism first said.

                     Prism stated “it’s the parents’ job” …so Prism is highlighting that societal expectations, and blame of parents is a right wing position. That is correct because its rooted in individual responsibility and ignores how we as a society limit the ability of parents, and also the choices of young people. Its the classic right-wing blame and complain technique. Its self-serving and moves the blame away from structural inequalities and onto the vulnerable.

                     TheContrarian…your question is completely different from what Prism stated. Either you are stupid or sneaky, if its the latter then you’ll need to be less stupid to make it work.
                   • TheContrarian …

                     18 June 2012 at 7:22 pm

                     OK, I can understand that (like I said – I don’t agree with these cuts).

                     So who bears the most responsibility for controlling your children?
                   • McFlock …

                     18 June 2012 at 7:25 pm

                     Oooo – maritime analogy!
                          
                     Nobody’s saying that parents should not, in an ideal world, be the first “port of call”.
                             
                     All we’re saying is that a ship with only one port of call is not carrying much freight, and most  clients require multiple ports of call. Otherwise the clients might go to other ships to transport their goods, and the captains turn out to be pirates and sail away with their goods.
                              
                   • McFlock …

                     18 June 2012 at 9:47 pm

                     way to frame a debate into something nobody’s suggested, contrarian.
                   • Vicky32 …

                     19 June 2012 at 3:45 pm

                     Haven’t seen anyone say that. Cite an example if you please.

                     Er, you just said it! (And I presume that you define yourself as left wing!) I think you’ve had a brain-burp…
                 • Draco T Bastard …

                   18 June 2012 at 7:14 pm

                   http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10752723

                   Secondary Principals’ Association president Patrick Walsh said sex education was taught as early as intermediate school nowadays and was different from what many parents would have learned.

                   I actually missed the word “most” so my bad there. Some will be keeping up with the play but most won’t be.
                   • TheContrarian …

                     18 June 2012 at 7:17 pm

                     So you’d rather your children go through a third party, at school, rather than have yourself bear responsibility for answering such questions?

                     Yeah and your linked article makes it pretty clear that parents should be the first port of call for such things.
                   • Kotahi Tane Huna …

                     18 June 2012 at 7:33 pm

                     “Should” – that favourite word of the ideologue.
                   • Draco T Bastard …

                     18 June 2012 at 8:18 pm

                     So you’d rather your children go through a third party, at school, rather than have yourself bear responsibility for answering such questions?

                     Didn’t say that did I? I’d rather it be a cooperative approach.
                   • TheContrarian …

                     18 June 2012 at 8:32 pm

                     “Didn’t say that did I?”
                     That’s why I added a question mark, dawg.
                     Lets try an easier approach then.

                     Draco, who do you think bears MOST responsibility for the control of ones children and their sex education:

                     A) The Parent
                     B) The State
                     C) Other (please explain what and why)

                     Do you think it is appropriate for 3rd Parties (teachers for example) to discuss sexual health and procreation issues with young children (9 – 12 yr olds) without parental consent and parents being informed BEFORE children sexual education takes place and without parents viewing the curriculum:

                     A) Yes it is appropriate
                     B) No it isn’t appropriate
                     C) Other (please explain what and why)

                     Do you think it is “right wing” for someone to believe that they, as opposed to any other third party, have the MOST responsibility in raising their children and addressing sexual health issues:

                     A) Yes
                     B) No
                     C) Other (please explain what and why)
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     18 June 2012 at 8:39 pm

                     I love how right wingers get so worked up and frustrated about sex. I’ve always wondered why that is.
                   • TheContrarian …

                     18 June 2012 at 8:42 pm

                     Because usually they are quite religious. As an atheist it seems rather silly to me to be worried about something so natural and goddamned awesome fun
                   • felix …

                     18 June 2012 at 9:25 pm

                     Atheist or not, there’s only one person getting wound up about it in this thread.

                     Do you have a problem with sex education being taught in schools?

                     If not, then would you mind awfully making some sort of point, please?
                   • TheContrarian …

                     18 June 2012 at 9:27 pm

                     “Do you have a problem with sex education being taught in schools?”

                     not in the slightest. I would have a real problem if it was taking place without my knowledge, ability to review the material and my explicit permission
                   • felix …

                     18 June 2012 at 10:02 pm

                     Do you send your children to a school that refuses to allow you to view the material they teach?

                     Do you send your kids to a school that teaches sex education in secret?

                     Sorry, I just don’t see what the actual problem you’re up against is. Your point, please.
           • Vicky32 5.1.1.1.1.2

             19 June 2012 at 3:38 pm

             Probably because the parents haven’t been keeping up with current knowledge

             Probably? You’re not a parent, are you… 😀
             What has changed about sex in 20-30 years? Answer, nothing. (I could, and did) tell my sons everything they needed to know, and where there were specific men-things, my brother stepped in to help). What on earth do you mean by ‘current knowledge’? When L., had sex ed at school (health as they called it) he learned nothing he didn’t already know…
     • prism 5.1.2

       18 June 2012 at 7:22 pm

       The Contrarian
       What I’m saying and it’s not hard to understand surely, is that right wingers are the ones who most make noises about morality and parental responsibility, and would like to blame every difficulty with children onto parents.

       And parents can only try to present the case for holding back on sexual relationships, or perhaps how to safely conduct them if the teenager is determined. Parents are just one voice, important, but a small voice if they actually try to explain anything, amongst a deluge of sexual images. These come on film and TV also even glamour and sexual posturing of models in mailer brochures even those aimed at kiddies.

       So I was making a brief cynical point but you don’t seem to understand the complexity of sexuality education and overkill in the mass media age.
       • TheContrarian 5.1.2.1

         18 June 2012 at 8:37 pm

         Thank you for expounding on this further.
       • The Baron 5.1.2.2

         18 June 2012 at 10:14 pm

         Prism,
         My anecdotal evidence, FWIW, is that the religious types who opted out were few and far between, and political orientation didn’t really come into it at all.
         I think you’re making an error in conflating the religious right with right inclinations. There isn’t much religious right in NZ cos there really isn’t much religion at all – we are quite an athiest lot are we not?
         Let’s also not get on too much of a judeo-Christian bandwagon here either. The Muslim kids I was at school with also usually opted out. I dunno where they stood.
         I hate to poop on the “I hate the right” party here, but I just don’t see the two mixing in the manner you’re all doing.

         Otherwise, this is a fucking dumb policy decision. National’s insistence on leaving super alone is driving these decisions, AFAIC.
         • felix 5.1.2.2.1

           18 June 2012 at 10:36 pm

           I’m not sure that prism was talking about the “religious right” though. The Contrarian seems to be trying to make this a religious issue but I suspect he’s a deeply conflicted individual in many ways.

           My anecdotes match up with yours btw, which shouldn’t come as a surprise. For all the bleating, right-wingers hardly ever opt out of state-provided services.
           • The Baron 5.1.2.2.1.1

             19 June 2012 at 12:14 pm

             Fair cop on whatever prism was saying. Whoever it was then, this whole “religious right” argument in NZ is horsecrap – there isn’t really much of them apart from whaleoil and the 5% that may vote for Colin Craig, and that did vote for the Christian Coalition way back when.

             If I may continue down this rabbit hole…

             – There is a religious right in the US. Surprise surprise, we aren’t the US.
             – There is plenty of left-leaning religious denominations. The baptists and the methodists for example, though I could have my sects wrong. Oh, and the Salvation Army is hardly a right wing institution, is it?
             – What have you got on the religious right in NZ? the Maxim Institute? Tamaki? Brother please. Oh Micky, this would be a good chance for you to demonise the exclusive bretheren again though if you really wanted.

             Final thought. Go right enough and you get the same disdain for religion that you see on the far left; circle coming back on itself etc etc. All the good ideas aren’t monopolised by the left here team – athiesm can spread around quite nicely thank you.
             • felix …

               19 June 2012 at 1:49 pm

               I tend to agree with most of that, and I’m quite glad that our religious institutions haven’t become politicised except for a handful of extremists around the margins.

               I’m just struggling to figure out who you’re arguing with.
               • The Baron …

                 19 June 2012 at 3:29 pm

                 Ah, not sure either any more. Checking back, I think it was contrarian somewhere in 5.1.1.1.1.1.1 ad infinitim with this drap:

                 “Because usually they are quite religious. As an atheist it seems rather silly to me to be worried about something so natural and goddamned awesome fun”

                 So, no, not prism at all. Still felt good to say it all even if there was noone to say it about.
       • Vicky32 5.1.2.3

         19 June 2012 at 3:53 pm

         I love how right wingers get so worked up and frustrated about sex. I’ve always wondered why that is.

         Oh, what as asinine deflection! It’s still obvious that you haven’t got an answer to his questions…
         Since you define right-winger as those who ‘get so worked up and frustrated about sex’ you answer your own idiot question. Brain farts abound on the Standard when it comes to sex – which all the ‘left’ here are infitinitely more obsessed with than the ‘right’! 😀
         (Nothing else in their lives?)
6. TheContrarian 6

   18 June 2012 at 4:42 pm

   “When the parents probably know less about sex”

   Probably? Maybe? Might? Speculative sentences do not an argument make.

   Anway, that kinda skirts the point I was trying to get here in that how is believing the parents bear the most responsibility in educating a child about the facts of life “right wing”?
   • Vicky32 6.1

     18 June 2012 at 4:58 pm

     how is believing the parents bear the most responsibility in educating a child about the facts of life “right wing”?

     Yes, Draco, please answer…
     • TheContrarian 6.1.1

       18 June 2012 at 5:02 pm

       To be fair Prism raised the original point. Draco seems to support it though
       • Draco T Bastard 6.1.1.1

         18 June 2012 at 5:47 pm

         I support sex education.
         • TheContrarian 6.1.1.1.1

           18 June 2012 at 6:26 pm

           Indeed, but do you agree with Prism who seems to say it is “right wing” for parents to be the ones in charge of controlling their children and being the most responsible for their child’s sex education
           • bbfloyd 6.1.1.1.1.1

             18 June 2012 at 6:57 pm

             Well i’m glad you cleared that up for us contra……i was thinking that there were two aspects of an issue stated…… one taking a political aspect…. the other… the social/ inter-generational aspect……

             silly me….
             • TheContrarian …

               18 June 2012 at 7:01 pm

               “it’s the parents’ job to control their children and keep them pure from sex.. Verse 22 from the Right Wing Bible.”

               Seem to be pretty unambiguous to me that Prism is stating parents having the responsibility of controlling ones children and and being the guardians of the sex education is “right wing”.

               How you saw two aspects in this sentence I don’t know but please enlighten me
               • bbfloyd …

                 18 June 2012 at 7:45 pm

                 I’m confused…..That is a guyon espin(n)er impersonation you’re doing? Or is discussing TWO different comments too much like multi tasking for such as yourself? (yes, at least two full paragraphs of writing, maybe three)

                 I know you like it when things can be dumbed down a bit….. but pandering to weaknesses like that tends to end in a cul-de-sac……

                 Believe it or not, that can be cured……
           • Pascal's bookie 6.1.1.1.1.2

             18 June 2012 at 7:06 pm

             You’ve used this formulatioon a few times:

             “how is believing the parents bear the most responsibility in educating a child about the facts of life “right wing”?”

             There’s also the “front line” variation.

             You might want to check and see if that’s a straw man you’ve got going there. Doesn’t look anything like what Prism said. I don’t see him saying that only right wingers think parents have an important role. He’s saying something quite different.
           • Draco T Bastard 6.1.1.1.1.3

             18 June 2012 at 7:08 pm

             Considering that the RWNJs do seem to be the ones in front of trying to prevent sex ed then, yes.

             http://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/wellbeing/6226549/Conservative-young-cautious-on-sex-education
             http://www.nzherald.co.nz/relationships/news/article.cfm?c_id=41&objectid=10753771
             • TheContrarian …

               18 June 2012 at 7:12 pm

               I was pretty clear I don’t support that and is your answer: “yes, it is right wing to want to be the one who bears responsibility of controlling you child and being the most responsible for your child sex education”?
               • RedLogix …

                 18 June 2012 at 7:39 pm

                 I’ve re-read your contribution to this thread several time contra … and I’m not really much clearer exactly what your beef is.

                 Everyone here agrees that both parents and schools have a role in educating kids about sex. But the root of the discussion here is that parents have a very, very wide range of expectations around this. And this is the problem.

                 However schools choose to teach about sexuality, there will be parents who deeply object to the purpose and content of what the school is doing. This creates a fundamental conflict between families and schools, parents, children and teachers.

                 Do these objections translate into the absolute right of parents to determine their children’s sex education? The right-wing position generally tends towards allocating most of the rights and responsibility onto the parents.

                 The left by contrast point to a greater role for society, and in particular schools, because as they rightly point out.. while it is all very well for parents to attempt to control their kids lives before puberty, it never works out that way after it. Inevitably kids grow up and become sexually active; inevitably society gets to wear to consequences of their choices….educated or otherwise.
               • Draco T Bastard …

                 18 June 2012 at 8:26 pm

                 1.) It’s not your child but a child that needs guidance, not control. We got rid of slavery back in the 1830s
                 2.) It’s the responsibility of the parents to ensure that the guidance that the child receives is up to date and that means 1.) working with the school and 2.) accepting of new knowledge which the school is more likely to have than the parent
                 • TheContrarian …

                   18 June 2012 at 9:12 pm

                   “It’s not your child but a child that needs guidance, not control. We got rid of slavery back in the 1830s”

                   yes obviously referring to “my son”, “my daughter”, “my child” is implicitly supporting slavery of said child.

                   “It’s the responsibility of the parents to ensure that the guidance that the child receives is up to date and that means 1.) working with the school and 2.) accepting of new knowledge which the school is more likely to have than the parent”

                   Firstly, do you think you have the responsibility to know what the school is teaching before they teach it to the child and don’t you think you should be able to decide if the methods are appropriate.
                   Secondly “accepting of new knowledge which the school is more likely to have than the parent” is another baseless assumption.
                   • Vicky32 …

                     19 June 2012 at 3:59 pm

                     yes obviously referring to “my son”, “my daughter”, “my child” is implicitly supporting slavery of said child.

                     None of them have children, Contrarian! Therefore they can’t distinguish between relationship ‘my son’, and slavery ‘my property’… 😀
                 • RedLogix …

                   18 June 2012 at 9:19 pm

                   The notion of chattel slavery encompasses the idea that the slave owner has complete control of the slave’s body. The owner directs how and where the slave will expend their time and daily efforts.

                   Your model of being a parent seems to go even further and seek to control the mind of the child as well. What form of slavery is this?

                   But of course that is not what being a loving parent is about is it?
                   • TheContrarian …

                     18 June 2012 at 9:24 pm

                     “Your model of being a parent seems to go even further and seek to control the mind of the child as well.”

                     So I am guessing that you wouldn’t/don’t decide what religious education your child receives? What lessons on morals they receive? Why it is wrong to hurt someone? Why they shouldn’t be mean to someone at school just because everyone else is? That if an adult starts talking about sex without your knowledge or saying it’s OK you should tell dad or mum immediately?

                     Your comment is completely facile
                   • felix …

                     18 June 2012 at 9:28 pm

                     Ah, now we’re getting closer to it.

                     Contrarian, why are you comparing sex education with moral and religious education?
                   • TheContrarian …

                     18 June 2012 at 9:37 pm

                     For RL to say that reviewing what my child is taught in sex education is to “seek to control the mind of the child” is facile at best, outright nonsense at worst.

                     If your child came home and said “This is what we are learning in science” and it was an Intelligent Design book would you not speak up for fear of RedLogix (or whomever) accusing you of “seek[ing] to control the mind of the child”.

                     That is why it is facile.
                   • RedLogix …

                     18 June 2012 at 9:38 pm

                     So I am guessing that you wouldn’t/don’t decide what religious education your child receives?

                     Now I have two children who both received a form of ‘religious education’; but the key word here is ‘education’… as distinct from ‘indoctrination’. There is every reason and opportunity to teach children, according to their age and capacity about morality and the nature of religion; but instead far too often we see something else happening that’s about closing the doors of the mind rather than opening them.

                     That if an adult starts talking about sex without your knowledge or saying it’s OK you should tell dad or mum immediately?

                     That’s seems like a diversion, but it seems to me that schools can play an equally useful role in helping children learn to protect themselves from predators, as do parents. If not more so.
                   • TheContrarian …

                     18 June 2012 at 9:42 pm

                     “Now I have two children who both received a form of ‘religious education’”

                     Were you aware of what religious education they would be receiving before hand?

                     “That if an adult starts talking about sex without your knowledge or saying it’s OK you should tell dad or mum immediately?”
                     No it isn’t a diversion – if a teacher started talking to my children about sex without my prior consent I would be concerned.
                   • RedLogix …

                     18 June 2012 at 9:47 pm

                     If your child came home and said “This is what we are learning in science” and it was an Intelligent Design book would you not speak up for fear of RedLogix (or whomever) accusing you of “seek[ing] to control the mind of the child”.

                     I’d have a choice. I could react strongly to the ID nonsense and try to prevent my child from further contact with it. I could insist and demand it was wrong, I could withdraw my child from that class or school, I could attempt to us my greater knowledge and power in the situation to essentially insist I get my own way.

                     Or I could treat this as an opportunity to help my child learn more about the wide range of interesting ideas around this debate. It would be a great way to get my child talking about what they had understood so far, I could ask questions, point out some alternative ways at looking at the evidence, I could show them where to look for more information and encourage them to think more about it for themselves.

                     Ultimately I’d trust my child to get to an answer that was an expression of their own intellectual integrity….even if I disagreed with it.
                   • Draco T Bastard …

                     18 June 2012 at 9:48 pm

                     …if a teacher started talking to my children about sex without my prior consent I would be concerned.

                     Good job they don’t do that then eh?

                     BTW, I’ve already answered your questions, it seems that you’re too stupid to comprehend the answers.
                   • TheContrarian …

                     18 June 2012 at 9:51 pm

                     “Or I could treat this as an opportunity to help my child learn more about the wide range of interesting ideas around this debate.”

                     So, if your child came home and said “This is what we learnt about sex today” and proceeded to tell about how homosexuality was wrong would you ” treat this as an opportunity to help my child learn more about the wide range of interesting ideas around this debate” or would you feel that the school should not have teaching this without your prior consent?
                   • TheContrarian …

                     18 June 2012 at 9:53 pm

                     “it seems that you’re too stupid to comprehend the answers.”

                     Yeah. Prick.
                   • RedLogix …

                     18 June 2012 at 9:53 pm

                     Were you aware of what religious education they would be receiving before hand?

                     In this case yes. But nor did I see any need to micro-manage it either.

                     Equivalently when I sent my children to school I expected them to receive an education about all sorts of things, including sexuality. If I thought it important to be aware of the content it would be my responsibility to find out. I’d have no excuse to feign ignorance and complain after.

                     if a teacher started talking to my children about sex without my prior consent I would be concerned.

                     Treating all teachers as potential sexual predators seems more than a tad paranoid…does it not?
                   • TheContrarian …

                     18 June 2012 at 9:56 pm

                     “Treating all teachers as potential sexual predators seems more than a tad paranoid…does it not?”

                     No one mentioned predators and that would not be my thought
                   • felix …

                     18 June 2012 at 9:57 pm

                     What if your child came home and said in maths they learned that 2+2=5?

                     Do you think that’s a serious concern, Contrarian?

                     If not, why not?
                   • felix …

                     18 June 2012 at 10:10 pm

                     p.s. Contrarian you still haven’t answered why you’re comparing sexual education to moral or religious education. Do you think there’s a moral component to sexuality? To sexual orientation? Or a religious aspect to sexually transmitted infections?

                     What’s the relevance?
                   • vto …

                     18 June 2012 at 10:20 pm

                     oo- errr, glad I never went in for that educator stuff. Never forget when our teacher started drawing bits all over the blackboard – a deathly blushed quiet settled across the class …
                 • RedLogix …

                   18 June 2012 at 10:01 pm

                   So, if your child came home and said “This is what we learnt about sex today” and proceeded to tell about how homosexuality was wrong would you ” treat this as an opportunity to help my child learn more about the wide range of interesting ideas around this debate” or would you feel that the school should not have teaching this without your prior consent?

                   Again I’d have only myself to blame if I had sent my child to a school that taught that kind of thing… and I had not made the effort to discover this beforehand. Fortunately by sending my children to a state school, or a school I know and trust, I’m not likely to be have to deal with ID and homophobic nonsense.

                   In the unlikely event it did crop up then there are clear avenues for bringing the matter up with the school… or shifting.

                   Besides learning is a constant life-long thing. An idea learnt today is often a platform for a new and better idea tommorrow. In the long-run it’s far more powerful showing children how to think than it is telling them what to think.

                   No one mentioned predators and that would not be my thought

                   So why the concern about teachers talking to your children about sex? This seems a really basic area of discomfort for you.

                   What if your child came home and said in maths they learned that 2+2=5?

                   felix, a good question. It would be of course the chance to get them to think about the difference between absolute logical truth and things we think are true most of the time, but might not be. And why the difference is important.
7. Treetop 7

   18 June 2012 at 6:13 pm

   It is irresponsible of the government to restrict access to youth sexual health services as this will cause a higher rate of youth pregnancy, an increase in untreated STIs and disclosure of sexual abuse may go undetected for longer. In some cases youth may not take their sexual concerns to their GP for many reasons, however they may go to an alternative clinician.

   Requirements of a youth sexual health service
   Confidentiality
   No cost
   Good location and hours
   For youth to know the service is there
   To be seen that day in some cases
   A free number to make an appointment or a walk in off the street policy to make an appointment
   Follow up after treatment

   For National to not listen to the experts and then to have to find more health dollars for teenage pregnancy and treatment for STIs and to claim that National are concerned about youth mental health, they appear to be confused in being concerned about the welfare of youth.
8. felix 8

   18 June 2012 at 6:32 pm

   Yay, fewer edumacation again!
9. Jackal 9

   18 June 2012 at 6:44 pm

   It’s pretty dumb to cut sex education and at the same increase free contraception… Yet another ambulance at the bottom of the cliff policy from those morons on the right.
10. RedLogix 10

    18 June 2012 at 7:16 pm

    Along similar ‘idiotic penny-pinching’… lines how many recall this one?

    The Ministry said cargo volumes have fallen 13% and passenger arrivals are down by 3-4% this year, leaving MAF facing a significant deficit in its cost recovered border operations.

    As a result, 30 existing vacancies won’t be filled and a further 30 staff face the chop out of 700 staff in the passenger, cargo and border standards departments.

    Mr Anderton said freight and passenger numbers have actually been increasing over the last nine years and MAF staff increased as a result.

    “It’s crazy that when there’s been a drop for just one year, MAF is cutting the staff,” he said.

    “They should be using those staff to beef up security in areas of most risk.”

    Mr Anderton is a former Minister of Biosecurity and agreed it is impossible to guarantee that nothing will slip through.

    http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/feds-slate-maf-dumping-biosecurity-staff-105063

    Apparently many of the dumped staff were welcomed with open arms by their peer organisation in Australia… well-trained and highly experienced.

    Now just this morning I hear rumour that MAF last week internally announced it is now urgently seeking 40 new border security staff….
11. bbfloyd 11

    18 June 2012 at 9:04 pm

    What this country needs right now, is Bob Monkhouse directing the show….Now there’s a bloke guaranteed to make us all laugh about this………

    the glitter’s coming off johnny……. and it’s not nice anymore..
12. Vicky32 12

    19 June 2012 at 4:04 pm

    Contrarian, why are you comparing sex education with moral and religious education?

    I can’t answer for him, but for myself, I can say “duh!”. As I have said before and caught hell for saying, sex is not about scratching a nasty itch, it’s relational, and therefore a moral issue.
    Certain segments of society, and certain sexual orientations actively don’t want sex to be relational! The idea terrifies them.
    Therefore, duh! Brainfart # ? from the so-called left. *
     
    * An obsession with getting so many notches on the bed-post that it looks like lace, does not a left-wing person make.
     
    • McFlock 12.1

      19 June 2012 at 4:34 pm

      * it does if they use a hammer and a sickle to make the notches

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS