Welcome to Gaia! ::

You're missing the last part. "in an overbearing manner or in presumptuous claims or assumptions". Now I did in in claims, yes. However as you have already said I did it in claims, which I supported. Therefore the claims are not "presumptuous", as they are backed up by reasoning and proof. Nor is it assumptions because once again, it's back up be reasoning and proof.

If you are saying that this is arrogance than you're saying that every person who has to write a test and has said, "I know my material and I know I'm going to do well." is being arrogant.

Wha?! That was directed at Pyro... gonk

Sex is, essentially, just a physical act--so is, e.g., running over a kitten. The emotions involved vary from person to person, and though you could classify some as "wrong" in the latter example, because something gets hurt, sex is not so cut-and-dried, morally.

Sure, it gets associated with love because it's something nice you can do for someone because you love them--like giving them a foot massage or buying them flowers. Some people do things like that just because they're getting the same in return, some do them out of the goodness of their hearts. Usually it's a mix of the two.

Point is, the only argument that there's something special about sex (just vaginal sex? Oral as well? Do circle jerks count?) is a religious one. What makes it special? You can create another human from it? That doesn't strike me as special as two people raising a child together; I see that as more important than creating a life in the first place.

And to tie this into the original argument, opposing sex education because sex is sacred is a religious stance, and religion should not influence public education.

You DID make presumptions. You have not debated me on every single subject, so you can not make the claim you can beat me in ANY debate.

Once again Miranda, you're arguing an opinoin. Scientificly sex is an action. But I've never agreed with how science is being used today. In other words. I don't agree that sex is nothing more then an action that causes chainreactions of chemicles in the brain. I agree that its a physicle action, but I do not agree that it is just a physicle action. In other words. Its my opinoin. Trying to argue and refute my opinoin is futile and you will get no where. I don't know why I feel the way I do. Even before I converted to christianity in 2001 I saw sex as, mabey not sacred, but more then a physicle action.

And Zin. I wasn't being arrogant about my claim that Miranda couldn't beat me in ANY debate. The word "any" was in refrence to her using the word "any" which was in refrence to the word "all" which was being used to describe "ever single." And no, she can not beat me in every single debate. There are subjects she couldn't beat me on, and there are subjects she can. I don't know why you thought I was being arrogant in my claim the she can't beat me in ANY debate.

It can be broken down simply as follows:
"I can beat you in any debate"

"No, no you can't. There may be some areas you're better at then I am, but not all of them"

I also never apposed sex education. I have no idea where you got that. I stated in two posts that I agreed with sex ed. I stated how ever I disagree with the current eaching methods, and that they need to be revised.

And he never said that he supported abstinence only education, Adrian. He just said he thinks the current program needs to be fixed, as, frequently, it is implied that, as long as you are having safe sex, sex is fine and dandy to have with anyone for whatever reason.

I believe he's the one who said that only the scientific parts of sex should be taught in schools: Contraception, the success rates of contraceptive techniques, STDs, and of course, abstinance as the only absolute preventative. Meaning, the ethics of sex should be left to the parents.

I agree that parents really should be the ones teaching their children about sex, especially the ethics of sex. Though health classes should go over the biology of sex, including STDs (Don't you think learning about STDs on a biological level would help convince kids to be more responsible in their choices? I do.), and birth control. If most parents would tell their children about sex, this really would have never become an issue.

But when the only sex education comes from the schools, I don't think that personal moral views should be included. While stressing abstinance as the only way to be completely safe from STDs and pregnancy, children shouldn't be taught views like that sex should be saved until marriage (as I myself was taught in abstinence only education) or that sex is bad or dirty. I'm not saying that you wish for children to be taught such things, I just wanted to make clear that I think they shouldn't.

Not quite, to state such a thing would be arrogant if there was no provokation of the comment. However if a person was to say "I'm doing better than you are." and then you were to say "No, I know my material better and I will do better than you." is not arrogant. If they were to say "Even if you studied it as much as me, I would still do better than you." would also be arrogant. However to say that you would do better than a person in something you are more studied than them in, in response to them asserting that they are doing better than you are, is not arrogant.

I never claimed that I was better than him, I said that I was better than him in a certain area. There's a difference. If a student challenges a teacher in their subject and the teacher said the same thing it would once again, not be arrogant. It would be asserting confidence, because the teacher knows that they know more about the subject than the student.