SkipCaptcha
259
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 22:
Line 22: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
no edit summary
<br /><br />
<br /><br />
I believe in comprehensive sex-education. As I stated above I look at the empirical data and the empirical data has shown that abstinence-only sex-ed doesn't work. People who go through those programs have sex at the same age and at the same rates as their peers but are less likely to use condoms. I think that we must protect our children from STD's and unwanted pregnancy before "protecting" them from sex.
I believe in comprehensive sex-education. As I stated above I look at the empirical data and the empirical data has shown that abstinence-only sex-ed doesn't work. People who go through those programs have sex at the same age and at the same rates as their peers but are less likely to use condoms. I think that we must protect our children from STD's and unwanted pregnancy before "protecting" them from sex.
==Open-Mindedness Test==
So I decided to take the test though I think the idea was questionable but here is what I wrote for those who may(or may not) be interested:<br />
1. No. I think that the idea is silly for the most part. I'm not sure what "conservative" vs "liberal" education are. I've had conservative and liberal teachers/professors but the teaching style was the same. I don't deny that one could be better than the other but I'm not sure as to what they would be.<br />
2. Yes. Depending on the idea involved I've either spent hours or minutes investigating it. I must say that I tend to investigate before I espouse mainly because that is how I get my ideas. I'm an information junkie so I enjoy reading about things that interest me and I try to avoid confirmation bias when possible.
3. No. I tend to follow the evidence. As I said, I investigate things before I espouse them. Some beliefs are those of the heart but I have been known to reject ideas that I've found to be false.<br />
4. I don't resist the possibility that some are harmful but I do reject the notion that all are. It is not black and white. Life can tell you that.<br />
5. No. Of course there are more factors than that but I think we all know that.<br />
6. No. I do not believe that much is impossible. Given time and the right circumstances anything is possible. Of course, I wasn't aware of much outside of my diaper then so I can't actually say how I would have felt with any real certainty but that's another story.<br />
7. No. I believe that it is/will be possible. Our currently technology(let alone the tech at the time of proposal) does not allow for such a system but give more time and it will be.<br />
8. Yes. Not sure how much time over the years though I've read a substantial number of articles on the shroud and on related topics.<br />
9. Yes. Probably less than an hour. I'll take the hit on this one.
10. No. Nothing precludes the possibility of a change in the speed of light though I'll admit that my knowledge on the subject is limited. I'd consider the evidence though this topic holds little to no interest to me.<br />
11. I think that open-mindedness can be measures on an ordinal scale(one person is more open-minded than another) but not on an interval scale(this person is 10% more open minded than another). So yes but you can't quantify it. I'm not sure how one would investigate it more than though a simple contemplation of the idea. I don't believe that a test such as this really tells the truth; there is so much more than this.<br />
12. Yes. I've spent countless hours researching evolution, reading papers, books, counter arguments/evidence, etc. The view has only been strengthened over time.<br />
13. Yes. No interest and no opinion. See #10.<br />
14. No. The idea that some things are false is a given. History, for instance, is written by the victor; it is going to be false in some places. Many things I've learned were false after I took a class where I learned it. The idea that someone would knowingly espouse a falsehood, while disturbing, is a fact of life.<br />
15. I wasn't aware that any theories are "required." I would agree that some widely accepted theories have been known to hold ideas back. There are many cases of this throughout history.
16. Yes. I know enough about both(hugely different) topics to know that they wouldn't have an impact. Socialism, could, in theory, improve competitiveness of country in the Olympics. <br />
17. No. I believe that is often the case. Then, of course, you face the reality that said layman then becomes one of the experts that this question pits them against.<br />
18. No. Knowing something requires that a person get continuous education. You've never learned everything about a topic. FACT.<br />
19. No. Democracy is an evolution in society. A theocracy or a socialistic society should, in time, evolve into a democracy. That said, I think that a democracy will evolve into something else in time.<br />
20. Not at all. Science has shown that the orbit we are in is not the one that we have always been in and that our orbit is constantly changing by microscopic increments. Major earthquakes and the like have been shown to change our orbit.<br />
21. No. It is a mixed back and the true effects of any policy, answer, etc can only be known in retrospect.<br /><br />
==Boxes==
==Boxes==