Without data from an intuitive standpoint I can see where she may think sex ed could lead to an increase in pre-marital (I assume teenage) sex, even if more but safer sex is still preferable to less but more risky sex. So I did a quick search and it appears that she’s just wrong anyway!
I’m not disputing anything you said, I’m just adding on that “well, if they just don’t know what sex is” is a demonstrably false presumption. And sure, teenagers tend to not worry about the future as much, which only means that planning works better. If they might have sex and have condoms they will be far likelihood to have sex with condoms than either not having sex because they don’t have condoms or stopping in the heat of the moment to get condoms.
I’m confused. What I’m saying is that without looking at data I could totally see someone imagining a teenager saying “oh, cool, I don’t have to worry about having a kid if I just use a condom” then having more sex because of that. And if I could imagine that for one teen, then I could imagine it for many. That doesn’t seem to be the case though based on the link I shared.
Are you saying teenagers are incapable of weighing pros and cons? Because that wouldn’t make sense. That’s exactly what they’re doing when they play CoD(teens still play that, right?) and decide using a shotgun is the best choice on the Cargo map. Just because their reasoning is less developed doesn’t mean it’s not there.
Without data from an intuitive standpoint I can see where she may think sex ed could lead to an increase in pre-marital (I assume teenage) sex, even if more but safer sex is still preferable to less but more risky sex. So I did a quick search and it appears that she’s just wrong anyway!
The premise still fails, it assumes teenagers are rational actors.
Are you really going to state that your Axiom is teenagers weigh risks and benefits from all available information?
It also assumes that people are dumber than the stupidest of animals. Who taught all of them to have sex? And some of them go at it like rabbits!
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090206081312.htm
I’m not disputing anything you said, I’m just adding on that “well, if they just don’t know what sex is” is a demonstrably false presumption. And sure, teenagers tend to not worry about the future as much, which only means that planning works better. If they might have sex and have condoms they will be far likelihood to have sex with condoms than either not having sex because they don’t have condoms or stopping in the heat of the moment to get condoms.
I’m confused. What I’m saying is that without looking at data I could totally see someone imagining a teenager saying “oh, cool, I don’t have to worry about having a kid if I just use a condom” then having more sex because of that. And if I could imagine that for one teen, then I could imagine it for many. That doesn’t seem to be the case though based on the link I shared.
Are you saying teenagers are incapable of weighing pros and cons? Because that wouldn’t make sense. That’s exactly what they’re doing when they play CoD(teens still play that, right?) and decide using a shotgun is the best choice on the Cargo map. Just because their reasoning is less developed doesn’t mean it’s not there.
No. The current situation is they
Adding info doesn’t change the fact that they are not considering consequences, or value the consequences so low vs the immediate result.
His argument isn’t based on any facts or logic, in fact this man was immune to it.