insane, back when I was in highschool there was no cops/guards/etc

We even had a smoking section, and guns could be brought on campus.

For smoking section you just needed a letter from parents that they knew you smoked. and on recess the smokers all hung out there.

To bring gun to school, it was during any hunting season. You had to have note from parents that they know. The gun had to be visible, either gun rack in back window of truck or in passenger seat. Rifles and Shotguns only no pistols.

You had to have your Hunter's Safety Course card, Your Hunting License both on you to give copies at office.

You had to leave your vehicle keys with the front office and submit to random vehicle search of the hunter's vehicles only.

So while everyone could go to their cars at recess, or if you had extra empty elective, some of us juniors would drive up to Hardees before lunch and grab fast food then be back before 4th period started, but the hunters had to leave their keys with front office and they could not retrieve them until end of school.

So much more freedom.

Smoking was banned on campus for students only my 10th grade year, but Teachers had the smoking lounge in building. There was a teacher's lounge on each hall, the back hall F where weight lifting, welding, home ec, and vocational classes were was where the teacher's smoking lounge was. Most students friendly with teachers could sneak in there and smoke anyhow.

crazy times.

I had a 84 Camaro and kept a flare gun under seat my dad owned a boat and had couple extra flare guns. So I had that for some crazy reason thinking if someone attacked me, at point blank range I'd put on a huge firework show


Then there was the stereotypes that were proven right not wrong.

The jocks hung out together, the headbangers/smokers hung out together, the nerds, the band folks like me as my senior year I was drum major
and the blacks stayed together all in separate cliques at lunch and recess and before/after school.

stereotypes even went further.

the only highschool girls with babies (during time I was there I stress) were black girls, they had to build a daycare from the old mechanic shop behind the highschool for them. And even though this was the early 90s in the south, you'd hear over the Intercom every 6 months "All Black female students to gym at this time please" where they'd get lectured on abstinence, or condom use, and std's and such.

the only time rest of the student body went through that was in 10th grade they'd take the boys one day, and girls the next day.

We had a blast though as the guys, the protection/std talk was given by one of the football coaches, and during the talk with the guys and showing various "shock images" of std's on penis on the TV, when he got to the "sex ed" portion, he flipped in a Nina Hartley porn intro where a nude Nina Hartley showed the correct way to place a condom on. haha was hilarious looking back before "political correctness" went out of control.

I loved highschool and college.

Graduated high school in 94, got associates in 96, took year off then got bachelors in computer science in 99.

But 89-94 (our highschool here in the deep south is 8th through 12th) most are 9-12, but not here. It's still 8-12th here. So it's nothing seeing 12th graders dating 8th graders. Freaky yea, but not unusual.


If you got into a fight, if a coach was around he'd let the fight finish, unless it got a bit too over the top then they'd break it up. You didn't get suspended, you lost recess privileges usually 3 days plus the starter of the fight got 10 licks of the paddle in principle office, the other only got 1 to 3, or if person was just dominated and got ass kicked you just got detention.


Kids didn't act up at all most times. And the reason was Corporal Punishment. Not private paddling either.


Once I was having a bad day, me and "highschool" sweetheart were having a bit of a spat. We sat next to each other so we were bickering a bit during class. Teacher had yelled at me to shut up and do the work. I sighed "Leave me the fuck alone"

bad move.

She called me to front of class and I got 5 licks of paddle in front of everyone. They'd stick finger in your belt loop and yank it up tight to put that extra sting on it. Embarrassing as hell! Even female older teachers who didn't paddle hard, it was just too embarrassing to get paddled, so kids behaved.


And of course if you refused paddling which you could but you'd take a zero for the day's work. few of those in a semester and no matter how hard you worked you were flunking that semester.


But the system worked.

It wasn't until they went crazy insane on political correctness, stopping corporal punishment, and putting cops/rent a cops/guards in schools and after the No Child Left Behind was signed into law, they severely dumbed down kids forcing the smartest to learn at the slowest kids pace. Doc's prescribing SSRI's like candy to kids in MASSIVE quantities, that schools in today's culture are crazy.

I always thjought america had a schizophrenic relationship with sex. I think it's a quote from Jack Nicholson that goes something like this: 'Show a nipple and your movie get's a R, cut a breast off with a sword and it get's a PG'
There a few countries with such a giant adult entertainment industry and at the same time abstinence only sex education.

Repressed sexuality is never a good thing.

Couldn't get any of the embeds to work ... so I took "alternative measures" and downloaded/watched the whole show. Perhaps there is some parallel to be made between region blocking and abstinence only sex-ed...

Other than that, I agree with @eric3579 -- pretty depressing until the end... Which is probably the best ~3 minute sex ed video EVER. Seriously schools, make that the opener of any sex-ed program for your students!

Please read again...and write again, reading what you write before submitting. I can't follow your first paragraph. What little I can understand completely ignores what I wrote and makes stuff up to argue against.

I didn't say atheists have a monopoly on morality, I said morality doesn't come from religions, and atheists are more moral than religious people. I gave clear statistics about criminal behavior to prove my point.
EDIT:It seems you are saying if it's not religious in origin, the only thing left is political affiliation!? OMFG! That's so wrong I don't know where to start, I hope I just misunderstand you.
Reading/writing comprehension matters.
read my last paragraph in the post above...you exhibit those symptoms.

The answer to all your demographic questions, the religious group.
Religious 'morality' allows for murder, rape, and slavery of the non devout, and so is more responsible for the decline, and for many of the schisms in society.
You watch too much fox news, liberals don't 'control all major media and schools'. "Conservatives" (which are not conservative, they want to be more 'progressive' than liberals by "going back" to a time that never existed) never shut up pushing their insane, debunked ideas day and night. Their morality supports slavery and rape and wage disparity so disastrous that it may lead to class warfare. (how you treat the least of your brethren...etc.)
(EDIT: also investigate the saying 'eat the rich'-Jean-Jacques Rousseau )

More abortions for Christians than atheists, they can't be seen haveing out of wedlock children and many can't use birth control.
Abstinence only sex-ed actually promotes pre-marital sex (if you look at the results).
Christians have more adulterous affairs... for entertainment, and more divorce too.
Religious 'morality' is all 'morality decided by self'. (You don't stone non Christians or people who work on Sunday, do you? If not, you absolutely don't take your morality from the bible.)
Religion totally enslaves the poor.

Any other fallacies you need me to destroy?

abstinence is the answer. sex is sin. be ashamed of your body. seek redemption through christ.

yea beacause condoms are a 100 percent.

fuck off ya jack weiner.

the only 100 percent way not to get a vagina seeded is to not fuck a vagina.

ABSTINENCE AND GOD. That is all ALL walking baby incubators need to know. HOW CAN A WOMAN BE SO DAMN IRRESPONSIBLE AS TO SPILL SPERM INTO HER INSIDES. DAMN WOMEN, IT IS ALL THEIR FAULTS.

Paxman is a great political interviewer in general, but his inability to take a non-voter seriously, wildly dismissing some superb points of view, as if somehow vote abstinence means that people can't have a clear concept of what's going on is fucking dumb.

I am so bored of the ancient rhetoric on democracy and voting. It doesn't even mean anything when whoever you vote for is not beholden to their manifesto in any way shape or form. They can and do change their position at any point once in power and what can we do about it? Vote against their decisions? Force them to practice what they preached? Nope! We have to suck it up. Democracy my arse.

@Sniper007 Fine if you weren't being literal, but framing candy as a vice seems a bit of a big moral statement; I'm not a fan of classifying things that way.

Half the vices which the world condemns most loudly have seeds of good in them and require moderate use rather than total abstinence.
- Samuel Butler

He has all of the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire.
- Winston Churchill

It has been my experience that folks who have no vices have very few virtues.
-Abraham Lincoln

I agree. His suggestion seems to be that any recreational drug use is drug abuse, which ofc is completely absurd. Not everybody needs to be completely abstinent to maintain a healthy balance. As for medicating emotions, don't people get written prescriptions for that already?

And damaging young lives?...I think its far more damaging to get hit with a criminal conviction and jail time for possession of a controlled substance. I think its far more damaging for familes south of the border caught up between drug enforcement and drug cartels.

There are things that are not accepted by all but that just have to be tolerated as the alternatives are way worse. On abortion that means providing access to safe abortion cause if you don't, theyäll happen anyway.. And what then.. when a mother dies from illegal abortion, doesn't that mean we lost two lives instead of one. Personally don't consider fetus living, i'm teetering on whther it's the amount of brain capacity, heart pumping or is it simply the point when a child can be brought out of womb and it has some level of survivability, i don't know. That is not the point.

One things that is not discussed here is THE point of her talk: prevent the unwanted pregnancies in the first place. That doesn't mean abstinence but condoms, pills, counseling, info and abstinence (i do believe that not all youngsters should be having sex, abstinence is the BEST choice for those early year, no doubt in that. But instead of giving all single people, young, old or between, only ONE choice, and if that fails you have failed your life, why not give them access to the second best and so on.. Religion....

Keep religion out of this and just look at things in neutral manner. Some don't like gay sex but have no problem with gay marriage, just like some don't like carrots but have no problem other eating it.Banning either will not make them go away, if carrots were made illegal, people would still eat and grow them. So get out of that shell and try to look the big picture, ten try to look at things from the perspective of people who are actually going thru with it (most pro-lifers never had to do abortion, they have no clue on what's going on that persons head who makes such a choice; they have zero sympathy and are essentially sociopaths when dealing with this issue. No understanding, no caring, just pure judgement..

Plus human society has changed, we live healthier lives and longer so it only makes sense to have some variety when people want to procreate. The best possible time, place, resources, partner.. when all that falls in place wouldn't you think that is the best time to bring new people in? Not when your time is spent trying to gather those things, having a kid then might just slow that progress to a halt and we have yet another generation living in poverty and diminished options in life (we are talking USA here, where you have very limited social mobility, basically the more equal society, the less there are reasons for abortions... Most abortion occur simply because the mother can not provide a good life to a new human. More equal societies tend to take care of the societys main building blocks a lot better.

Marilyn Manson spoke very well and was able to respond intelligently to this little abstinent activist who has only brew of wind when she talked,while adults usually made love sex and I agree when Marilyn says tha everyone has the right to beleive in he wants!!!This God who's the activist spoke still havn't come to save us and she can wait a long time before that happen and when Marilyn talking about klukluxklan,he wasn't at all of topic as claimed by this woman,she's out on pretending to live without sex,she is abnormal....

0:56 or "why abstinence education sucks reason #185"

In reply to this comment by A10anis:
Why does the title say; "A Ham-fisted Explanation?" I found the analogy spot on. Oh, and I would add that saying Atheism is a religion, is like saying abstinence is a sexual position..

I just kept the original title. It probably would be more accurate to call it "a very simplistic explanation that even theists can understand".

>> ^L0cky:
I looked at a lot of sources, including CDC. They have a helpful compilation of their stats in the form of their CDC's 2007 chart book. It shows that firearm related deaths and poisoning are always less than motor vehicles; firearms are more likely to cause an early death; while death from poison is more likely to get you in middle age (possbily this includes long term effects of poisoning, ie working with hazardous materials when they were younger?).
It also doesn't show non death injuries; nor can the stats reflect the fact that every household has potential poisons while around half of households have firearms.
I took a look at the pdf, and while the charts are nice, they cover various date ranges and present their results in different formats, and I think you're misinterpreting them. What I did was use the search feature and look at the raw data. You can also search for non death injuries, but gun related non deadly injuries, accidental or intentional, doesn't even make the top 20, and it doesn't show anything below that.

>> ^L0cky:
In absolute terms it's inarguable that there are a lot of gun related deaths and injury in the US (around 31,000 deaths and 70,000 injuries per year give or take). This doesn't change simply because there are other causes of death and injury.
You just said that your source doesn't show non death injuries, yet now you're claiming 30,000 deaths and 70,000 injuries per year. You claim to be getting your sources from the same place, but the data from the CDC shows that between 1999 and 2010 the average homicide by firearm is 12,807 deaths per year. If you add accidental deaths involving firearms the total comes to 21,146 which accounts for 9.6% of all accidental and intentional deaths (this does not include suicide, illness and disease related deaths).

>> ^L0cky:
Let me be clear, my argument is that non sport firearms don't add anything positive to society that justifies the resulting gun related injury, death and crime. The granting of firearm licenses for hunting and sport should require strict licensing that's based on a requirement of training and testing. Gun control laws should be purposefully strict.
We already have plenty of gun control laws. More laws are not going to stop someone that has no intention of obeying them. You obviously did not read the whole article I linked to as it points out that "93 percent of the guns obtained by violent criminals are not obtained through lawful transactions that are the focus of most gun control legislation.

>> ^L0cky:
I haven't objected to this. My objection is to the suggestion that a societal need to teach children how to use firearms can be used to justify their existence. It's circular logic; and I'd prefer not to live in a society where learning to use firearms is a requirement of safety.
No one said that you need to teach children to use guns to justify their existence. You were a kid once (or still are), and at a certain age didn't you do the opposite of everything your parents said? If there is going to be a gun in a house, even if they are told it's dangerous and not to be played with and you do your best to lock it up and keep it away from them, if they do get their hands on it wouldn't it be better that they knew how to properly handle it so they don't end up adding to the accidental death by firearm statistic? Cars are dangerous too, but we teach our kids how to be safe in and around cars (wear your seat belt, look both ways before crossing street, etc.), why are you so freaked out about teaching a kid gun safety?

Your philosophy that kids shouldn't be taught how to use guns because guns are bad is basically the same as abstinence only sex education, AKA teaching ignorance.

>> ^L0cky:
I'm not stating this, I'm questioning it. You yourself said you own them for self defense.
I said I own guns for many reasons, self defense being one of them. You still seem to be confused about why someone chooses to carry a gun for self defense. It looks to me based on what you've written is that you assume someone carries a gun only to protect themselves from other gun owners. As I already pointed out, only 10% of violent crimes involve the use of a gun. I carry to protect myself from 100% of crimes.

>> ^L0cky:
That has zero effect on the number violent crimes that DO involve the use of a gun.
You can't pick out a small portion of a larger statistic to base your argument on, you need to take into account the whole picture. That's like saying 2001 was a slow year for terrorism, if you don't count the World Trade Center attacks.

>> ^L0cky:
This isn't a useful number unless you can show that those crimes would not have been prevented without guns; and would still have occurred without guns.
I don't know what more you expect, a crime was in progress, a lawfully armed citizen stopped it and it was reported to the police. What your asking isn't possible as the only way to know what would have happened in the other situations is to invent a time machine.

>> ^L0cky:
I guess your point is that gun ownership reduces crime. I'm open to that - if it can be shown more clearly.
What is clear from comparing to other countries, particularly those with comparative gun ownership is that the lack of gun control in the US correlates to an increase in gun related death and injury by an order of magnitude. The problem isn't gun ownership in and of itself; it's gun ownership without lack of appropriate gun control laws.
If guns don't reduce crime, then why do we give them to the police? Once more back to that article you didn't read:

"In 13 states citizens who wish to carry arms may do so, having met certain requirements. Consider Florida, which in 1987 enacted a concealed-carry law guaranteeing a gun permit to any resident who is at least 21, has no record of crime, mental illness or drug or alcohol abuse, and who has completed a firearms safety course. Florida's homicide rate fell following the enactment of this law, as did the rate in Oregon after the enactment of a similar law. Through June 1993, there had been 160,823 permits issued in Florida. Only 530, or 0.33 percent, of the applicants have been denied permits. This indicates that the law is serving the law abiding. Only l6 permits, less than 1/100th of 1 percent, have been rescinded because of the commission, after issuance, of a crime involving a firearm."

>> ^L0cky:
You're right, if guns suddenly vanished tomorrow there would still be crime and violence. However, it would be crime and violence without guns; and I think, that (of itself) is preferable. How could it not be?
Are you fucking serous? Why is a murder with a gun any worse than a knife, baseball bat or even bare hands? A murder is a murder no matter what tool is used to commit it. Other crimes besides murder would be better off without guns, but what part of 90% of violent crimes do not involve the use of a gun did you not understand? If you take away guns from everyone, you're only removing 10% of the tools used by violent criminals, and that doesn't guarantee that violent crime will drop by 10%? In reality you wouldn't be removing anything from criminals because "93 percent of the guns obtained by violent criminals are not obtained through lawful transactions that are the focus of most gun control legislation. So you essentially want to take away every law abiding citizen's right to defend themselves with a gun without doing anything to stop criminals from committing crimes with guns.

>> ^L0cky:
Crime in the UK has reduced dramatically according to The Office for National Statistics between before then (1999/2001) and now, including firearm offences. In Australia assault is up, robbery is down and sexual assault is about the same according to the Australian Institute of Criminology. Homicides involving firearms have continued to decline to their lowest on record.
From your source: "Provisional figures for the year ending June 2012 show that 5,507 firearm offences were recorded in England and Wales, an 18 per cent decrease on the previous year (6,694)." In 1997 when the ban was enacted only 2,648 crimes were reported involving guns. It looks like that ban has worked well.


>> ^L0cky:
I pulled it from the same source you are correcting me with
The CDC - Injury in the United States: 2007 Chart Book, page 24.
Statisticslol
This is where you have misinterpreted the graphs. The vertical portion of that graph is in deaths per 100,000 population. If you dig up the raw numbers from the search engine this is what you'll find:

Motor Vehicle Accident = 22%
Homicide by Firearm = 13%
Accident by Firearm = 0.5%

>> ^shuac:

>> ^A10anis:
>> ^shuac:
>> ^A10anis:
Why does the title say; "A Ham-fisted Explanation?" I found the analogy spot on. Oh, and I would add that saying Atheism is a religion, is like saying abstinence is a sexual position..

I think it might be considered ham-fisted to an atheist (of which Videosift is mostly comprised), who already understands the subtitles involved.

Sorry, your argument is a non-sequitur. I am an atheist and the video makes perfect sense to me!

Then you misunderstand what "ham-fisted" means.

What it means where you are from, I have no idea. Here in England ham-fisted means inept, clumsy, etc. I'm done...