| Author | Message | ||
| Felicia Nimue Ackerman (Nimue)
|
Old hands at the forum know that I'm a (knee-jerk??) liberal. But I agreed with a pronouncement recently made by a conservative, who I thought was right for the wrong reason. How come?? | ||
| Howard Wilde (Woodworm)
|
Where to start? Was the pronouncement about any of these: abortion? gay rights? US foreign policy? taxation? punishment? an existing law? a proposed law? education? religion? marriage? feminism? parenting/childcare? | ||
| Felicia Nimue Ackerman (Nimue)
|
By Howard Wilde (Woodworm) on Sunday, July 16, 2006 - 7:40 pm: Edit Where to start? Was the pronouncement about any of these: abortion? no gay rights? yope US foreign policy? no taxation? no punishment? no an existing law?noish a proposed law? noish education? yes religion? noish marriage? no feminism? noish parenting/childcare? noish or yope | ||
| Howard Wilde (Woodworm)
|
Sex education? Homosexuality? Educational policies on homosexuality? | ||
| Felicia Nimue Ackerman (Nimue)
|
By Howard Wilde (Woodworm) on Sunday, July 16, 2006 - 8:19 pm: Edit Sex education? yes Homosexuality? Applies to but not specific to homoisexuality Educational policies on homosexuality? ditto | ||
| John Faben (Bentarm)
|
Is contraception relevant? AIDS? Did the conservative advocate abstinence? Did he make a statement about sex education 0as it is now? Propose some change to how sex education is taught? | ||
| Ian (Image)
|
Is the conservative anyone in particular? Relevant who? Some politician? From Canada? The USA? The UK? | ||
| Felicia Nimue Ackerman (Nimue)
|
By John Faben (Bentarm) on Monday, July 17, 2006 - 12:06 am: Edit Is contraception relevant? noish AIDS? ditto Did the conservative advocate abstinence? yes Did he make a statement about sex education yes0as it is now? yes Propose some change to how sex education is taught? just a cricicism is relevant By Ian (Image) on Monday, July 17, 2006 - 1:15 am: Edit Is the conservative anyone in particular?irrel Relevant who? no Some politician? irrel From Canada? The actual case is in the USA, but I expect it could occur in Canada & the UK (although I am not certain of this). The USA? The UK? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ||
| Howard Wilde (Woodworm)
|
Did he advocate abstinence for all unmarried people? Or just for a certain group? | ||
| Felicia Nimue Ackerman (Nimue)
|
By Howard Wilde (Woodworm) on Monday, July 17, 2006 - 8:57 pm: Edit Did he advocate abstinence for all unmarried people? irrel Or just for a certain group? only a certain group is relevant | ||
| Jackie Raymond (Jumpingjack)
|
Did he advocate abstinence only for people leading alternative lifestyles? | ||
| Felicia Nimue Ackerman (Nimue)
|
By Jackie Raymond (Jumpingjack) on Tuesday, July 18, 2006 - 10:19 am: Edit Did he advocate abstinence only for people leading alternative lifestyles?no ------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ||
| Puzzllover |
did he advocate abstinence for a certain racial group? | ||
| Felicia Nimue Ackerman (Nimue)
|
By Puzzllover on Wednesday, July 19, 2006 - 6:45 pm: Edit did he advocate abstinence for a certain racial group? no | ||
| Puzzllover |
a certain religious group? | ||
| Felicia Nimue Ackerman (Nimue)
|
By Puzzllover on Wednesday, July 19, 2006 - 7:26 pm: Edit a certain religious group? no ------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ||
| Kitral Solane (Solane)
|
Unmarried people? | ||
| Howard Wilde (Woodworm)
|
Age of consent relevant? | ||
| Felicia Nimue Ackerman (Nimue)
|
By Kitral Solane (Solane) on Thursday, July 20, 2006 - 2:48 am: Edit Unmarried people?yope--only some unmarried people are relevant to this puzzle By Howard Wilde (Woodworm) on Thursday, July 20, 2006 - 10:21 am: Edit Age of consent relevant? yesish ------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ||
| Howard Wilde (Woodworm)
|
So the conservative made some remark about "kids of today"? Referring to teenage sex? Teenage promiscuity? Underage sex? Statutory rape laws? Did she criticize the advice given to young people on sex? Was her criticism a generic one (as in "schools today don't teach kids to respect their own bodies" type of thing) or a specific criticism of a specific policy? A specific law? A specific parent? A specific school? Was it something like "Young fundamentalists should not reproduce", and a liberal who hates fundamentalists would say "jolly good thing too, there are quite enough fundies in the world"?  <--- semi-joking | ||
| Felicia Nimue Ackerman (Nimue)
|
By Howard Wilde (Woodworm) on Saturday, July 22, 2006 - 7:30 pm: Edit So the conservative made some remark about "kids of today"? noish or yope Referring to teenage sex? yes Teenage promiscuity? yes Underage sex? yes Statutory rape laws? no Did she criticize the advice given to young people on sex? yes. GOOOOOOOOD guestion!!!! Was her criticism a generic one (as in "schools today don't teach kids to respect their own bodies" type of thing) or a specific criticism of a specific policy?the latter A specific law? no A specific parent? no A specific school? yope Was it something like "Young fundamentalists should not reproduce", and a liberal who hates fundamentalists would say "jolly good thing too, there are quite enough fundies in the world"? <--- semi-joking no | ||
| Jackie Raymond (Jumpingjack)
|
The advice given to young people that she criticised: abstinence? sticking to one partner? use of condoms? use of other contraceptives? Was she criticising a conservative policy that she didn't like? or was she critisicing a liberal policy? | ||
| Felicia Nimue Ackerman (Nimue)
|
By Jackie Raymond (Jumpingjack) on Sunday, July 23, 2006 - 8:29 am: Edit The advice given to young people that she criticised: abstinence? no sticking to one partner? no use of condoms? no use of other contraceptives? no Was she criticising a conservative policy that she didn't like? no or was she critisicing a liberal policy? yes ------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ||
| Felicia Nimue Ackerman (Nimue)
New member Username: Nimue Post Number: 1608 Registered: 8-2001 |
HINT: Specific wording of the policy is relevant | ||
| Rebecca Kreisler (Beccaann)
New member Username: Beccaann Post Number: 161 Registered: 6-2006 |
does this have to do with supposed "values-free" sex education proposed by liberal policy? Is anything concerning "values" relevant? Does it refer to the "sex makes you feel good, sex is a good thing" type attitudes being taught? | ||
| Cake (Comforteagle)
New member Username: Comforteagle Post Number: 14 Registered: 7-2006 |
Does the wording of the policy make it undesirable no matter what your politics are? Is it poorly worded/ seems to mean something it doesn't intend? Anything to do with the fact that complete abstinence= no more human race? | ||
| Felicia Nimue Ackerman (Nimue)
New member Username: Nimue Post Number: 1612 Registered: 8-2001 |
Posted on Wednesday, August 02, 2006 - 8:11 pm: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ does this have to do with supposed "values-free" sex education proposed by liberal policy? yes--but your terribly liberal FN thinks the schools should not attwempt to inculcate values about anything as private as sex Is anything concerning "values" relevant? yes Does it refer to the "sex makes you feel good, sex is a good thing" type attitudes being taught? yesish Cake (Comforteagle) New member Username: Comforteagle Post Number: 14 Registered: 7-2006 Posted on Thursday, August 03, 2006 - 3:20 pm: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Does the wording of the policy make it undesirable no matter what your politics are? yes!!!! Is it poorly worded yes/ seems to mean something it doesn't intend? no Anything to do with the fact that complete abstinence= no more human race?no | ||
| Beccaann (Beccaann)
New member Username: Beccaann Post Number: 204 Registered: 6-2006 |
is the policy about sex education in general, like about how it should be taught, or to whom, or when, or where, or what information... Or is it about a more specific area of sex education? | ||
| Nimue (Nimue)
New member Username: Nimue Post Number: 1622 Registered: 8-2001 |
Posted on Thursday, August 10, 2006 - 7:36 pm: is the policy about sex education in general, like about how it should be taught, or to whom, or when, or where, or what information... Or is it about a more specific area of sex education? the latter, but that's not really relevant | ||
| Mycroft (Mycroft)
New member Username: Mycroft Post Number: 99 Registered: 10-2003 |
Is the policy referring to something you shouldn't do? Or something you should? | ||
| Crazypalpig (Crazypalpig)
New member Username: Crazypalpig Post Number: 20 Registered: 8-2006 |
All this and no one asking is the title relevant. IS THE TITLE RELEVANT? | ||
| Nimue (Nimue)
New member Username: Nimue Post Number: 1625 Registered: 8-2001 |
Posted on Friday, August 11, 2006 - 11:22 am: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Does he hit her?no Is he abusive? yesish Is his wife allergic to something? irrel He works both in an office yes and at home yope? Do it matter whether he works more at the office or at home? yes Does he do the same thing at the office and at home?noish | ||
| Nimue (Nimue)
New member Username: Nimue Post Number: 1626 Registered: 8-2001 |
BLOOOOPERRRRRRRRRALERT!!!!!!!!!!!!! The previous posting consists of questions & answers from one of my other puzzles. (Man was never formed that all times might attain, but sometime he was put to the worse by mal-fortune} | ||
| Nimue (Nimue)
New member Username: Nimue Post Number: 1628 Registered: 8-2001 |
Posted on Friday, August 11, 2006 - 12:50 pm: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Is the policy referring to something you shouldn't do?no Or something you should?noish no Crazypalpig (Crazypalpig) New member Username: Crazypalpig Post Number: 20 Registered: 8-2006 Posted on Friday, August 11, 2006 - 2:11 pm: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ All this and no one asking is the title relevant. IS THE TITLE RELEVANT?Only in the obvious way--that I think the social & political right is--for once--right (i.e., correct) about something. | ||
| Bentarm (Bentarm)
New member Username: Bentarm Post Number: 929 Registered: 6-2001 |
Does the (wording of the) policy imply that rape is acceptable? Is safe sex relevant? If the policy were followed, would more people have sex? fewer? More teenagers? fewer? Would more people get pregnant? fewer? Would more people contract STIs? fewer? | ||
| Nimue (Nimue)
New member Username: Nimue Post Number: 1634 Registered: 8-2001 |
Bentarm (Bentarm) New member Username: Bentarm Post Number: 929 Registered: 6-2001 Posted on Monday, August 14, 2006 - 11:36 am: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Does the (wording of the) policy imply that rape is acceptable? no Is safe sex relevant? no If the policy were followed, would more people have sex? yes--but I have no objection to that fewer? no More teenagers? yes, but I have no objection to that, either fewer? noWould more people get pregnant? possibly but not necessarily fewer? unlikely Would more people contract STIs? possibly but not necessarily fewer?unlikely | ||
| Bentarm (Bentarm)
New member Username: Bentarm Post Number: 931 Registered: 6-2001 |
Would it be relevant who was having sex? Who they were having sex with? How much they enjoyed it? Would following the policy mean that people already in long-term sexual relationships had sex with each other more often? That people had sex with complete strangers more often? Are any specifics of the extra sexual acts the policy would lead to themselves relevant? where they take place? when they take place? | ||
| Nimue (Nimue)
New member Username: Nimue Post Number: 1636 Registered: 8-2001 |
Bentarm (Bentarm) New member Username: Bentarm Post Number: 931 Registered: 6-2001 Posted on Tuesday, August 15, 2006 - 11:09 am: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Would it be relevant who was having sex? yes Who they were having sex with? noish How much they enjoyed it? no Would following the policy mean that people already in long-term sexual relationships had sex with each other more often? possibly That people had sex with complete strangers more often? ditto Are any specifics of the extra sexual acts the policy would lead to themselves relevant? no where they take place? no when they take place? no You're all OWT (on the wrong track)!!  | ||
| Beccaann (Beccaann)
New member Username: Beccaann Post Number: 258 Registered: 6-2006 |
Are there any particular words in the wording of the policy that have double meanings, or could be taken more than one way? Or is the issue with the wording more a matter of how it is put together gramatically?--like a dangling participle that leaves one to question what the policy is actually stating? | ||
| Nimue (Nimue)
New member Username: Nimue Post Number: 1637 Registered: 8-2001 |
Beccaann (Beccaann) New member Username: Beccaann Post Number: 258 Registered: 6-2006 Posted on Tuesday, August 15, 2006 - 7:09 pm: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Are there any particular words in the wording of the policy that have double meanings, or could be taken more than one way? no Or is the issue with the wording more a matter of how it is put together gramatically? yes--like a dangling participle that leaves one to question what the policy is actually stating?No. Not only is it not a dangling psrticiple, but it's not a problem of ambiguity or unintended meaning at all | ||
| Stuccosalt (Stuccosalt)
New member Username: Stuccosalt Post Number: 498 Registered: 8-2004 |
she is criticizing advice given to teens about sex. this criticism is directed towards a specific (liberal) policy which is poorly worded. Correct so far? If the policy were re-worded, would you agree with it? Would the conservative critic agree with it? Does it directly make a statement about more than teenage sex (i.e. religion, values/morals, etc.) Does it explicitly refer to hetero/homosexuality? is its current wording problematic to the conservative because: it condones/promotes teenage sex? it sends a mixed message (ie, don't have sex, but if you do, use a condom)? it conflicts with religious/moral values? it is too narrow or too broad (i.e. only refers to specific teens or sexual behaviors/equates all sexual behavior regardless of sexual orientation)? is its current wording problematic to you because: it condones/promotes teenage sex? it sends a mixed message? it conflicts with religious/moral values? it is too narrow or broad (i.e. excludes homosexuality from the discussion/equates all sexual behavior regardless of sexual orientation)? | ||
| Wunderland (Wunderland)
New member Username: Wunderland Post Number: 1279 Registered: 3-2005 |
Are you simply annoyed that a policy dictating what should be taught to children contains a grammatical error? | ||
| Nimue (Nimue)
New member Username: Nimue Post Number: 1639 Registered: 8-2001 |
Stuccosalt (Stuccosalt) New member Username: Stuccosalt Post Number: 498 Registered: 8-2004 Posted on Wednesday, August 16, 2006 - 4:24 pm: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ she is criticizing advice given to teens about sex. this criticism is directed towards a specific (liberal) policy which is poorly worded. Correct so far?yes If the policy were re-worded, would you agree with it? yes Would the conservative critic agree with it? no Does it directly make a statement about more than teenage sex (i.e. religion, values/morals, etc.) no Does it explicitly refer to hetero/homosexuality? no is its current wording problematic to the conservative because: it condones/promotes teenage sex?yes it sends a mixed message (ie, don't have sex, but if you do, use a condom)? no it conflicts with religious/moral values? yes it is too narrow or too broad (i.e. only refers to specific teens or sexual behaviors/equates all sexual behavior regardless of sexual orientation)? no is its current wording problematic to you because: it condones/promotes teenage sex? no. I think sex between consenting teenagers is no one else's business it sends a mixed message?yes it conflicts with religious/moral values? no. I'm an atheist it is too narrow or broad (i.e. excludes homosexuality from the discussion/equates all sexual behavior regardless of sexual orientation)? no Wunderland (Wunderland) New member Username: Wunderland Post Number: 1279 Registered: 3-2005 Posted on Wednesday, August 16, 2006 - 8:30 pm: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Are you simply annoyed that a policy dictating what should be taught to children contains a grammatical error? YES!!!!! ******SPOILER **** When a school board recently issued a "Sexual Bill of Rights" for high school students, including "I have the right to have [consensual]sex with whoever I want," conservatives thought it was a sign of the deterioration of standards in our times. I couldn't agree more. What is the world coming to when professional educators issue ungrammatical statements!?Thanks for solving it, Stuccosalt, & please direct those great lateral skills to my new puzzle at the bottom of the page | ||
| Tehanu (Tehanu)
New member Username: Tehanu Post Number: 19 Registered: 12-2005 |
"What is the world coming to when professional educators issue ungrammatical statements!?" Hahaha. Nicely done. | ||
| Stuccosalt (Stuccosalt)
New member Username: Stuccosalt Post Number: 504 Registered: 8-2004 |
Credit to Wunderland for that one - his spoil. We had a similar situation when I was in high school and the D.A.R.E. program put up posters (and this is a US-wide program, so these were put up in schools all across the country) which read, "You Drink, You Drive, Your Dead" (sic). I remember asking a teacher if that meant we were supposed to have a few beers and exhume some deceased relatives to take for a car ride, or what. | ||
| Nimue (Nimue)
New member Username: Nimue Post Number: 1643 Registered: 8-2001 |
I Love it!! |
