Forums » The Lounge » Read Thread

Just a warning so I don't waste anyone's time, before you start reading this long-ass post, know that this is very long and contains an ethical issue that actually requires thought. If you're just casually scrolling through the forums and don't feel like reading, this thread probably isn't for you.

Maybe it's just because I'm a nostalgic fuck, but I miss the days when I could check the lounge and there would be an ethical discussion every other day or so. The debater in me loved these discussions, so here's one I came across when my aunt posted in on Facebook.

Ok, so she posted a link about a mother who was seriously distressed that thanks to a new law in Michigan (or at least in the part of Michigan where they're from) any child aged 12-17 was required to have a private 5 minute discussion with a nurse before the mother was allowed in. The reason that this conversation takes place (which she discovered through a series of emails) is because teenagers can now let the doctors stop their parents from seeing the online medical records having to do with STDs and other sexual matters that they would discuss with their doctors. The doctors claim that this law was established because teenagers are typically too scared or embarrassed to discuss sexual matters with their parents resulting in teenagers that are diseased, uneducated on sexual matters, or both. The mother (and other mothers on the facebook post) claim that this is unethical because a mother has a right to know what's wrong with their children, and keeping a parent from knowing that their children have a serious illness could prevent them from getting the care they need. You can find the full article she posted here http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/06/03/i-am-the-mom-it-didnt-go-over-well-when-a-hospital-allegedly-told-a-mother-theyd-need-to-have-a-private-conversation-with-her-teenage-daughter/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=story&utm_campaign=ShareButtons

Just so you can see how people respond to this issue, here are some replies to the post, including my own: 

*******: The problem I am having with all of this is the fact that parents are still responsible for their children s actions until said child reaches age of Adulthood in whichever state you live in. And most people do not know but it is not on the child's 18th birthday but on his or hers 19th birthday or what ever the age is for their state. IF I am responsible for my child's actions and can and will be help liable in a court of law for said action then I have every right to know what my child is doing at every moment of the day. PERIOD,

2 hrs · Like · 1

******* You're absolutely right, *****.

2 hrs · Like

Bo ******* I agree with the policy, but perhaps it's just because I'm seeing it from the age group of the child and not the parent, who knows? The way I see it, the vast majority of teenagers are going to be having sex. Even for those who choose to remain abstinent, many still fool around without actually going all the way. This means that the risk of pregnancy and STDs will be present to that teenager. However, if every child had to walk up to his/her mother and say "Mom, I was having promiscuous sex the other day and I need to get checked for STDs," then chances are they're going to continue to go unchecked because they're not going to be willing to have that conversation with their parent for various reasons. Now, I'm not saying that there aren't any mothers that encourage their children to talk to them about these health issues, but we both know that there are several mothers out there who would who wouldn't stand for it if their children contracted an STD (not to mention that they may not have even contracted this STD from someone of the same gender, adding a whole new layer of reasons not to talk about it) or became pregnant at a young age. Because they're not going to talk to their mother/father about this possibility, and because they need to talk to them in order to get medical care, this is a health risk not only to the teenager but also to every other person that teenager will have sexual relations with. That's why these laws became a thing in the first place. Not to take away the rights of the mother to monitor her child, but because this has been a serious health problem amoung the youth in the past and now they're trying to change that.

13 mins · Edited · Like

First off, we call STD's STI ( Sexually Transmitted infection).

Here in the UK we can go see a GP (doctor) for STI's without our parents knowing at all. I agree with this fully purely because teenagers can be very insecure and having to tell your parents just discourages the whole idea of getting treated. If a teen can go without parents knowing, they will feel more secure in doing it. That's just how teens are. This is better for the Childs health. Any mother would be annoyed at this but they should be able to see the benefits.

just my opinion!

On a Side note. I think 12 is abit young. 14-13 at least.

It's unfortunate, but when I was in junior high (around the age of 12-13) people were already having sex before they got there. It's a fucked up thing to do, but when kids are having sex at eleven or twelve, they might need the healthcare that came with it.

Plus I remember one time when some friends and I were playing pool at the local bowling alley and we saw a guy we knew who had already graduated (I believe this was junior year for me) hitting on girls from the junior high. At the end of the night he actually left with one.So sometimes it's the case that there are older men who teach kids these young to have sex, even when it's voluntary on the kid's part. 

I'm feeling both sides of this debate. Parents should know though. I understand that the teenager would be worried about what might happen but they are old and should know enough to know the risk they take when doing such stuff if they never wanted to get into such discussion they shouldnt have done it. As to those who didnt know the risk, this is probably the fault of the parent. They should learn to tell their kids what they need to know, what risks are involved. 

Its really hard to say if this law is good or bad but i think should have some way of getting information to the parent. Maybe if the nurse was the one to tell? That may cause more problems so i dont know.

In the UK no one really cares about it. So i guess in time it will become normal?

Everyone should have the right to Confidentiality as well.
 

You also have free healthcare, you healthy commie! Learn to be poor, sick, and uneducated like a good 'Murican then you get to talk about rights <-<

Alright.  In my opinion, parents should be able to know.  If teenagers are scared of their parents knowing, then they shouldn't start "doing it" in the first place.  I know it may be too hard for the teenagers to abstain from this kind of activity, but they need to have consequences, so their parents should know. 

Meh. I agree with the mother in this case. They're supposed to be the caregiver and guardian of their child, and they can't properly do that if the child can legally keep secrets from them. If they're too ashamed to tell their parents what they did, then maybe they shouldn't be doing it.

Then again, it stands to reason that a child put into this situation probably didn't have very good parents to begin with. I'm fine with them being able to talk to a nurse privately, but the parents should have the right to know what that conversation was about afterwards if they choose to.

Yeah, very true.  The parents should know if their children are basically ruining their lives.  Also, kids these days are learning about STDs or STIs these days in school, so they should already choose to abstain from sexual activity, even though it may be too difficult to.

Eeeeerm, kiiiiiiiiind of. Speaking as a kid educated in an Alabama high school that didn't get textbooks (so maybe we're below par with the rest of the country, but still a form of education) the only time I ever got sex ed that had to do with anything more than "Sperm plus egg equals baby" was in the fifth grade, and that was just telling us you shouldn't do it before marriage. We heard from other kids what happened, but I still had to learn about safe sex and STDs from my parents because the school didn't. 

Hell, a kid I knew Sophomore year told me that he got a girl pregnant in the eighth grade because he literally didn't know that his sperm is what made girls pregnant. The only thing he knew was what his parents told him, which was that they prayed hard enough and got a baby.

That must have been some real hard prayin'

It lasted all night long

God's name must have been said often.

i'm sure they spent a lot of time on their knees.

Ha, that last parts funny.  But, yeah they are teaching about these diseases now.
 

Kinda made me laugh because I freaking hated the kid, but still sad.

And that's only in your school, bro. Not across the board. My little brother is getting the same education now that I did get (and I'm still only in my first year of college, I'm not that far out) and he's still not being educated. There's a girl in his English class who literally thought that condoms caused abortions. No kidding. Not blocking sperm and therefore preventing gods will, literally killing fetuses

Wow...  Well in Minnesota here, kids have to be taught that stuff.  I don't know about anywhere else.

That's the problem. When discussing these issues, it's not neccesarily the case that you know the facts therefore everyone else does. For example, I can and actually have gone to my parents about these issues. It turned out that one my previous partners had herpes and I went straight to my parents for advice (thank god it turned out negative). However, I know several people who simply don't have this options. That's why they should have the choice to go to their doctor about it. Because their parents either aren't there or would punish them if they knew.

Don't you live in like, texas or something where sex ed is miles behind? In canada I remember having several sex ed classes.

EDIT: Alabama. Same thing, they're pretty behind.

The parent's argument is that if they don't know what their teenage has (disease-wise) then they can't protect them. Are they more qualified than the doctor who is aware of the what the teenage has? I would say they are not and so that angle is not a good justification for challenging this law.

The argument that parents are legally liable for their children's medical wellbeing is also ridiculous and to argue that because of this legal liability, they have the right to invade their teenager's privacy is equally ridiculous.

Well, it would not hurt if the parents would be able to know, and invading the teenager's privacy?  If I were in the teenager's position, honestly, I would want my parents to know, even though I would fear what they would do.  But I know that if they do find out, that they would be able to comfort at least a bit.  So what I am saying, is that if the teenager wants to keep it secret, go ahead.  But their parents should know, and then it wouldn't be so hard for both the teen and the adults to face the STDs (AKA STIs).

That's the thing, having parents know things like that can hurt the child.

STDs can hurt a child as well.

If it's important and the only way to solve the problem is with the parents help, then it is the child's responsibility to tell the parents. The parents don't have a right to automatically know. The child can ask a doctor or nurse or other third party to explain for them.

Which means my first suggestion should be implemented. 

Luckily, it's not the parent that will prescribe for teenager. That's the doctor's job.

I'm glad that you would want your parents to know. That's not really relevant though. It is an invasion of privacy. Our sexual choices and their ramifications should be private and all of the arguments you're making are specific to your home life. Consider less idyllic situations with abusive or neglectful parents.

Parents should only have access to what their child wants to share with them. If their child is not comfortable enough to share so and so information with the parent, then it just mean that the parent is not doing something right, or that there is no need for the parent to know so and so.  

There was I girl I had the hots for in high school (never worked out, unfortunately) whose parents literally would have kicked her out of the house if she had sex. They were ultra-christians who already berated, embarassed, and otherwise punished her for doing things like skipping youth group on Wednesdays. Even if she didn't have sex and just fooled around (like most of the "abstinant" kids I know) there's still the chance of contracting an STD

I could honestly go either way on this one, there are pros and cons that I deem pretty much equal, and all things considered, I'd probably be an inch from death by the time I'd be able to muster up the courage to tell my parents about it... Well maybe yes, maybe no, I'm not sure. I do know I'm fortunate enough to have parents that really aren't the disowning type, so maybe I'd owe it to them to tell them? Of course, I guess I'm making statements on morality rather than parental rights, but that's because I really can't argue for or against it. There are plenty of reasons why this law is right, and plenty on why it's not, and it really all depends on how you're going to look at situations.

Are we just assuming that the doctor will let you deteriorate to the point where you're an inch from life?

When you're good enough at hiding something you can go for a pretty long time before people find out what it actually is. The possibility of hiding something until you're about to die is realer than it seems, while not extremely real.

This law is about whether or not your medical records should be viewable by your parents. That means you've already been to a doctor.

You don't have to go to the doctor again, and your parents might not take you there themselves outside a bi-annual checkup if they think nothing is wrong with you.

The solution to that problem is education, not giving full access to your medical files to your parents.
 

I guess you're right, but in the end, it really depends on what scource you'd rather have your parents get it from.

Well, Bo, I am in favor of this particular law. Yes, the child should probably tell their parents, but they shouldn't be forced to. Listen, you can call me a stupid idealist, but I believe in a little thing called "basic human decency", which means not creating problems for other people unless it serves some greater good. I don't think the parent has a right to know everything that the child is up to, but I also believe the child should try to avert the problem in the first place or at least use protection and discretion. However, in this particular case, I think the child has a right to privacy and confidentiality more than the parent has a right to know everything the child does.

I hope that all made sense.

Why would I tell you you're a stupid idealist? I agree with you XD

I find that any argument that begins or ends with "it is my right as a parent/mother/father/guardian/whatever relation you have with the person in question" to be inherently meaningless.

I say this because this seems to be the case for this "ethical issue". Children (well, adolescents) are consistently treated to something akin to pets in terms of actual legal rights and the authority that they possess over their own lives, parents are given near full control over their children (with the terms being that they cannot "abuse" the kids) despite them having no actual reason to possess any forcible authority on them. Yes, they are your parents, no, this does not mean they are in any way figures that deserve love, respect, care, authority or affection (this is something that is earned - if my parents were despicable people I would hate them regardless of myself being born of them).

Similarly, because they are your parents does not mean they should have any right to control the decisions that you yourself make; that is not something any human being should be able to excercise on any other intelligent, sentient human being. You would never think of this being an issue with a man trying to pry into another man's medical information without their permission (some may recognize this as a criminal offense if successful) so why in hell is this an issue with the kids? They are intelligent, sentient beings who are old enough to need to go to the doctor to discuss the fact that they may just have contracted something pretty nasty, why do they need their parents hovering over their shoulder throughout the entire process? Why does the parent have a right to this? Because the parent is worried? Screw the parent! It isn't about them, the person who it IS about does not want them there and so they should not be there, simply enough; regardless of their opinion on the matter because they are entirely unimportant to it.

It is akin to asking criminals whether they are guilty, instead of the courts that ruled them so, and then basing whether or not to release them on that response. The response is inherently biased and will almost always have no value behind it, just as a parent worrying about their child will almost always blatantly ignore their privacy and wishes for absolutely no benefit to the child in question.

Ha. I actually agree with this. 

Yes, I agree with you so much. Like I said before, I graduated a year early through home school. I started going to college when I was 17. The funny thing is as soon as I said I was a college student, people would start treating me with respect, but if I mentioned my age, they would immediately get an air of superiority. Also, I had to have someone threaten legal action against my college's theater department in order for me to be able to go watch the theater version of "The Rocky Horror Show" that the school was putting on. After all, the college treated me like an adult in legal regards, but in social regards, they still treated me like a child. Fortunately, I had a family member who saw the wrongness of the situation and helped me out.

I know your feel bro. I'm still treated like I know nothing at home, but at college you're treated as at least a legal equal, if not a complete one. Feels good.

You have a really twisted view of the parent/child relationship Drak.

When children are held accountable for their own actions, they can have the rights to do whatever they want. Until then they're linked with their parents. If I'm being held accountable for something someone else does, then I damn well am going to want to have a say in what they do.

(Just saw this now)

Parents are not held accountable for the actions of their children; a parent will not be sentenced if a child commits a crime. Children are held entirely accountable for their actions (and if you look at it from a broader viewpoint, teenagers as a whole are held accountable for each other's actions - at least, in terms of the media portraying all adolescents as moody hormonal shits and giving them all a bad reputation); and then are given no authority over themselves (which is why you have so many angry teenagers, haha).

The law is a compromise,a s the situation CAN be solved, but it's tricky. It really depends no the parent. if the parents  are the kind that will scold the kid for having SDTs despite the fact that it doesn't help, then it's better for the parent to know, but if the parent is caring and will do her best to take care of their own child without asking her/him " why did you let this happen?" on a scolding tone, then the parent should know the problem exists.But how to know what kind is each parent? Hard to determine, law-wise.

 

Of course, teenagers first need to be educated to avoid this kind of things, so this kind of situations are avoided. I feel that regular medical checks to prevent these situations should be enforced, not laws to hide it from parents.

This wouldn't be a problem if they have actual sex lessons in school. Physical lessons. With condoms. And a lot of sweat. And maybe some tears. 

So what a few of you are saying, is to let the teens handle this without the help of their parents/guardians?  To not help them through this?  If this is the case, the parents are basically abandoning them.  Sure, life will continue on, but when the child is constantly thinking about their disease/s, then its not really doing them any good.

I just think that having someone keeping you from your child's medical records, may be helping the teen during the short term, but as time progresses, things will get worse.  I vote to allow the parents to know about their child's condition.

I will reiterate. I had to accept a buttload of adult responsibilities when I was still a minor. Believe it or not, we are no more mature the day of our 18 birthday than we are the day before. I don't mean to be rude, but this is what I believe.

Nobody has to be mature in any of this.  They just have to care.  (What about the day after your 18th birthday?  Are you more mature then?)

Why is it that we are treated like property of our parents until the day we turn 18? If they request information after that point, they can't get it. I believe that they aren't even entitled to it before that point.

Of course not. Do you really expect someone to change drastically in the span of a few days? 

Well, not really...  Unless they get hit in the head hard enough.  Or if they visit a lifechanging camp.  Or if they visit a motivational speaker that's really good.  I don't really know, honestly.
 

Everyone's missing the point. I'm saying we are old enough to think for ourselves before we turn 18 and we shouldn't be deprived of rights to privacy, free speech, or etc. based on age.

Good point.  My argument is that of course they shouldn't be deprived of anything like that, but that's just how the world operates now.  Before eighteen, they are not an adult yet, and so we don't really know how to treat them, so we treat them based on how they act.  But that's the point.  Most parents care deeply for their children, whether mature or not, and this type of thing can tear a family apart.

Have you ever seen a twelve year old drive a car?  Probably not in real life.  This is because its how the world works.  So if that thirteen year old did get to drive a car, chances are, someone's going to get hurt.  Same thing in this case.  If you allow a teen like this to hide things from their parents, things can spin out of control, and who knows?  Maybe the pressure of hiding this from their parents will become too much, and they will turn to drastic actions.

 

Unrelated examples.

12 year olds do not drive cars because they have not gained the necessary experience or have not grown into the proper body size necessary to operate a vehicle. 

Slippery slope fallacy. 

You present no convincing evidence that hiding things from your parents will result in any series of increasingly consequential negative change to your life.

That's a pretty silly argument.

First of all, arguing that you don't agree with the current state of things but you're against a law which isn't like the current state of things because it's not like the current state of things, currently, is pretty funny.

Your analogy with car-driving involves other people's safety and isn't a great parallel.

Plus my cousin learned to drive at twelve (he was a big muthafucka). Wasn't that bad.

But not all twelve year old are huge...  Wow, must've been really big.

Nor are all parents loving ;)

And all are not cruel and abusive.

But there are cruel and abusive parents, therefore the law should exist. If their parents aren't abusive then there isn't a problem. We don't make laws because things aren't problems, we make laws for those that have the problems. 

Look at the collateral here then.  Teens who have fairly nice parents, can choose to keep the parents unaware of what they are going through.  To me, that reflects on the parents, and others might say they are terrible parents then.

Yeah because every person will be aware of this...

But, not all parents are loving. Many will act drastically. Imagine a verbally abusive stepmother who finds out and does nothing but constantly berate the child. THIS could become to much, and the child could turn to drastic actions.

What of those with non-abusive parents.  Their whole lives portrayed as a "good" child.  Eventually the news will leak out, and by then, it will be too late to explain to anyone.  Relationships will be damaged, or even severed.  People will probably not trust them anymore.

Your speculation is wildly out of hand. Like, horribly, crazily, insanely wildly out of hand. Where's your evidence for any of those claims?

And there's any positive evidence to keeping these things from parents?  Sure it may give the teen breathing space.  But this is serious.  It's like there is no consequence EXCEPT having STDs.  How do you know the teen not will then think it's fine, and then go back to having sex?  Everyone thinks of it as the teen's rights, but is that the right thing to do, really?  To keep those kinds of things from parents is just crazy, because then what will parents really know what's going on wit their children.  How about this:

"Jimmy, how was your day?"

"Uh, great mom, nothing happened," Jimmy replied to his mother, although he had secretly visited the doctor about STDs.

See?  He's hiding it.  Now in reality, it won't be like this.  But now parents won't know what their children are doing now!  Even the "good" teens could have gotten STDs then, and none of there parents would know a thing!

...

...

What the hell are you talking about? If the kid is visiting a doctor (what this is about) then he already knows the risks and is taking care of the situation himself, what could the parents possibly do to help the situation? How are these kids spreading STDs to the good teenagers? What?

Drakilian:  How are these kids spreading STDs to the good teenagers? What?

See?  How will we know that if the kids won't tell their parents?  Heck, every child then could have STDs!  We can't have that risk, and it doesn't mean life is over if their parents know, but life will continue on.  And after that very uncomfortable talk with your parents about STDs, life will continue back on track, and that will be off their chests (probably).

...

Wow, okay, there really is no point to listening to this, if you're this zealous and self-righteous you'll just continue repeating increasingly less-coherent and illogical statements like the ones above.

Look, I'm just trying to get my point across.  I feel like I'm fighting a battle by myself, against someone who's similar to me, and won't lose grasp on his point of view.  If you think of my comments as repetitive, then fine, I'll respect your thoughts, but I won't agree.

One thing you'll learn about this community is that if you act very irrationally, people will take notice and act negatively. When you use the logic of "If kids can go to a doctor then they won't know how to deal with medical issues" or "If parents don't know about something then it will get worse despite the fact that a medical professional already knows and is helping" then people will see how illogical this is and treat you accordingly.

If parents don't know, then what will happen to the relationship between the child and them?  Sure medical professionals are taking care of them, but honestly, does anyone want to damage their relationship with their parents like that?  And think about the parents too.  How would they really feel?

Well, let me break it down for ya lion. (and apparently we're pretending that nobody even lies to their parents about drinking, not doing homework, etc., only sex). The thing is, if they have to hide it from their parents in the first place, there's probably a reason for it. Like I've already discussed further back in the thread, even though you and I both have parents we can go to, that's not the universal case. There are parents who beat their kids, ignore their kids, or berate their kids to the point of suicide. If people can't accept their kids sexuality that they were born with these days, how can we expect them to take the news that their children chose to have sex and facing negative consequences of their own conscious actions?

If kids have a REASON not to go their parents, then they won't. Like if their parents are abusive. 9/10 times this won't happen, but for the 1/10 times it does then they have a pregnancy or STD that they don't know how to deal with. So it's not a choice between getting medical treatment and telling the parent or not telling the parent, it's a choice between getting medical treatment or not getting medical treatment, period. If they're unable to go to their medical professionals because their parents wouldn't let them, then this could lead to them having negative effects from STDs or even trying to get back-room abortions and sufferign SEVERE health problems. 

Also, your argument that "how would the parent feel" is stupid. Simply because you have to ask "how would the kid feel." It's like telling someone not to be gay because it would upset your dad, it's just stupid and shallow. How do my parents feel that I'm an athiest? They're dissapointed. Does that change the fact that I am one? Hell no. Luckily they're accepting parents, but it's not always the case. One of my brothers was literally kicked out of his home for not wanting to be Catholic. What would have happened if he knocked a girl up? Or contracted an STD? Same thing. 

When that's the case and it's literally an matter of "You can't tell your parents because your parents don't agree with your want to be able to have sex or interperet your religion differently" (thereby allowing you have sex and still go to heaven (shocker)), then my answer is simple. Fuck the parents. They don't have the right to choose what their kids believe, nor can they punish them for choosing it.If they believe that it's ok for them to have sex, then the parent can be dissapointed, sure, but not abuse their kid because of it.

So if you're telling me "what would an overbearing parent feel?" I simply don't care.

 

Alright then.  If teens do lie to their parents about sex straight to their face, they aren't even doing any good to anyone (assuming the parents aren't abusive).  And for those abusive parents.  I'm not going to say, "there's an exception for those kids," because that's just stupid.  There are programs for kids who have families just like that.  These programs willingly take kids in until they feel ready to move on.

But if the kids could hide the fact they have STDs from their abusive parents, don't you think they would feel extremely pressured, and would probably turn to drugs, or other negative things, and WHEN their parents found out, don't you think the punishment would be much worse?

And trust me, parents have a great effect on teens, and kids lying to their faces, is NOT going to help at all.  I may have evidence backing it up if I choose to research it, but right now it depends on my logic, because obviously no one really sees it my way.

Maybe because your way is wrong? Certainly doesn't seem as right as the other viewpoints here.

There is no "your logic", there is logic, which is rational thinking, and then there is whatever you are doing.

1.) As one who has not only debated topics concerning abusive relationships (and therefore doing a shit-ton of research) it's not that simple. Most people are too scared to run, or they fear for their loved ones or think that they change them or any one of the other possibilities in the plethora of psychological problems that have to do with an abusive family structure. If they can't get out of the abusive familes then your entire arguemnt for saying we should tell abused kids to fuck off is defeated.

2.) That is the stupidest slippery slope yet. "If kids keep secrets they will do drugs." Let me tell ya, I know people who have STDs, they're not stoners, tweakers, or any other term you wanna use.  Plus your argument about worse punishment is irrelevant for two reasons. 

2a.) The people who are not getting medical treatment are already keeping it a secret from their parents (a fact you can't seem to get through your head). The only difference is that they are not only keeping a secret, but letting their disease fester as well.

2b.) There is no way for the parents to find out. If they keep the medical records private, then they can't see the STDs. The only way their parents can find out is if someone they told then told the parents. And that's a risk regardless of whether or not you get treatment or not, so really there is no added risk.

So because they're already keeping this a secret from their parents, and because with the law the parents can't find out anyway, your entire second paragraph is entirely irrelevant.

3.) Actually it will help. It will KEEP THEM FROM BEING ABUSED OR KICKED OUT OF THEIR FAMILY! How have you missed it? I think I brought it up in every other post, minimum. Also the statement "There is evidence I just don't feel like looking at it" has no weight. Either have evidence or have no evidence. As for the logic, look to Drak's post.

Look, ALL of you are basically ignoring my words.  I did not say that they WILL turn to drugs.  I did not say to tell abused kids to fuck off.  And yes there is added risk for 2b.).  If their parents do find out that there child lied to them about something so serious, don't you think at least some trust in the teen to be gone?  And for 3.), If they know they have a risk of STDs before they have sex, and their family is abusive, then it is there dumb fault.  So you should not be yelling at me for my thoughts, and if you do not respect my thoughts, and are blind to see the logic in here, fine.

You just keep looking at this situation your way. 

The world was never too bad when parents could know if their child had STDs.
 

Goddam every time I look at your posts I just think about how ignorant you are. It's really sad, actually, I even numbered it hoping it would help you comprehend better.. Considering the fact that everything you accuse others of doing is exactly what you're guilty of, and even when people show you how you're doing it you still refuse to ackowledge the fact they're right it makes you an ignorant hypocrite, by the definition of both words.

But the thing you keep missing is TEENAGERS ALREADY LIE ABOUT IT. Lying about it and getting treatment and lying about it and not getting treatment adds no more risk. They're both lying regardless, if anything your average parent would at least be glad that they were responsible and got medical attention.

As for 3.) when your partner has no STDs (or at least tells you they don't) there's no reason to think they have it. STDs don't just randomly happen because you exchange fluids, it happens because the other person's fluids already have the disease in them. For those people who have sloppy drunken sex at a club just to get their dick wet, then yeah you're right because they don't know that person at all. But for those who have sex because they feel like they're in love, then get slapped in the face with Chlamydia (sometimes literally if they're into that) you have to admit it's pretty hard.

And you keep looking at the situation your way, too. I don't see you switching views. Plus we can actually provide logical reasoning and all you can do is deny logic and misinterpret quotes, makes the situation a little different.

Idk, we still had a recession, AIDS epidemic, cancer, war, genocide, starvation, clitoris circumcision (#africanwarlord) and whatnot when they knew they had STDs so I'd say the world was pretty bad. Hell, maybe if we keep STDs a secret we can solve all these world problems :D

If you don't get it the last paragraph was mocking you.

 Edit quickly. If someone replies before you save, then your edits will be rejected.

If people will stop trusting you because you enjoy your basic right to privacy then they are absolutely horrible people lol.

100% agreed.

Are you a libertarian as well, Drakilian?

No, bad James, no politics in the ethics thread!

I apologize. It was just a thought that popped into my head upon analysing your reactions to the question. Besides, libertarianism isn't so much a political issue as a mindset. It affects how you answer questions such as this one. I was just curious, but I can understand if you don't want to get into that.

Yup. It's only ok when we stop trusting people based on their political or religious views. #'Muricanway

That is a rare occurence; abusive stepparents are not. Most children end up living with stepparents in the house, and many stepparents treat children poorly simply because they are not theirs. Where's my proof? Experience, testimonies, statistics, more fucking experience.

If the child does not wish for the parent to know, it is because it would add unnecessary stress to the situation for them - as well as THEM having to comfort the parents and assure them that they did not screw up; that it was a freak incident, or the kids having to assure their parents that they are okay. People inevitably make the situations of others whom they care about into personal problems that the person in the situation has to fix for them, and it's fucking ridiculous. It is also why most children will try to hide when things go wrong in their life, or when they catch and STD, or when they get a bad test grade. All most parents ever do is ineffectually chide them, believing that it is the child's fault, or that the child does not understand the severity of the situation.

These parents (the strong majority) are full of shit, and their reactions these situations are almost entirely identical; and so kids will not tell their parents anything because all the parent will do is add more stress the situation while providing no actual solution (because if the parents had any power necessary to solve the problem that the children could not find in a better source, then the children would have gone to the parents).

Kids do not hide shit from their parents because they want to be rebellious (don't ever believe any of hollywood's shit portrayal of children), kids hide shit from their parents because their parents can't do anything about it and they don't want to listen to their whining, they know how bad it is, don't need anyone else to tell them.

HOLY SHIT! This is the second post Drak posted that I actually agree with. WTF is going on?

The posts I make where I'm not insulting peoples' intelligence are usually liked by said people (and others).

Indeed, now that we aren't at odds, I actually find you to be an agreeable and intelligent person.

Well, the teenager might not want to tell their parent for absolutely any reason at all. It's pretty irrelevant. Likewise, the parental reactions could well be varied. There's no point in generalizing all teenagers or all parents. I think the gist of your argument is great but you're clearly overstepping with the sweeping generalizations.

I did say majority.

I know that some do not react in the fashion I detailed but my personal experience (I know, not the best evidence but there is no official research done into this, haha) shows that the majority of parents and teenagers will act as outlined above, the exceptions to the rule are far less relevant.

"If the child does not wish for the parent to know, it is because it would add unnecessary stress to the situation for them - as well as THEM having to comfort the parents and assure them that they did not screw up; that it was a freak incident, or the kids having to assure their parents that they are okay. "

There's no real qualifier in there. Pretty clear-cut sweeping generalization, in my opinion. I agree with your premise, but when you make huge generalizations, you open yourself up to strawmen.

Perhaps, but it seemed logical. 

The typical parents see themselves as the people who have to take care of and make sure that their child does not grow up to be a complete fuck-up, if that child turns out to be going through a rough patch then again, most people end up blaming themselves, and the child will be forced to comfort them in turn (you see it happening all the time with terminally ill people who have to assure and comfort their family members, who are, you know, not dying).

I'm not saying you're wrong. The thing is though, to make a statement like that, you're forced to make logical leaps.

1. Parents see themselves as people who have to take care of and make sure that their child grows up to be well-balanced

2. Parents stake their self-worth on that premise

3. Parents will feel like failures if they fail at that

4. Parents will be visibly distraught upon hearing the news

I think 4 is the biggest leap, but you're going to lose some percentage of parents at each and every leap. That's why it's best not to use universal qualifiers, especially when they aren't central to your argument.

Oh no, what people are saying is that they can handle this with the help of their parents if they want to. There are some parents, however, that either cannot or refuse to help, and can actually actively hinder the child if they found out. That's why this law is in place.

I don't think anyone's going to argue with you that a healthy family structure is a good thing, the point here is that several people don't have it.

We don't have trigger warnings here, do we?

I totally support that law.  Fuck the parent's rights to control their child's body and mind.

I don't feel like discussing reasons.

 

You know, I read about what trigger warnings were like, a day or two ago.

That's some very over sensitive shit right there.

Agree and not agree. 

What a garbage post! :)

Support yourself.

Haha. Well, I think that sometimes parents should have access to what their children are doing, and other times they shouldn't. 

> Here I support myself for my claims. 

Well, you can't fuck the rights because they don't even exist. As far as I know, nobody has rights to override anyone else's rights to privacy. Rights aren't for the legislators to decide (or the pres or anyone else); they are the basic things we are entitled to whether or not people agree with them or the government protects them.

Rights!  I agree, but that doesn't mean that that they can just walk around with no consequences like that.  Teens should not be able to just let something as serious as STDs just slip past unnoticed!  It's a serious thing that they SHOULD talk about with their parents.

That's really up to the child to decide. 

But then most will choose to hide it, and where do we get then.  Imagine in school when the kids find out what they can do now.

"Oh yeah, we can have sex and no one will know!"

Teen pregnancies go up (just guessing here)!

Then they will have to gain the intelligence and self control to use a dam condom.

That could still cause STDs and then kill of a lot of the kids.  Or kill off none, but who wants to take that chance!  A nationwide pandemic of STDs!
 

Then they need to learn long term relationships and not go out banging a different chick every night. Or vice versa. 

I fucking LOL'd

"A Nationwide pandemic of STDs!" -Boringfirelion, because teenagers smart enough to see their doctor about STDs are well known for fucking every person, animal, and object they come into contact with.

Well, I didn't mean that literally.  But it could cause a pandemic, given that teens now would have no limits set for protected sex, and so then teens over time will probably be spreading STDs.

Birth control can be fucking expensive for some teens, and hard to hide. Hell, parents should be glad they're using birth control. Teens have incessantly fucked each other since the middle ages and prior. Just because they can't get married now won't stop them, whether their parents lecture and punish them for it. Which, you seem to be forgetting, is frequently ignored because teens can really get passionately into passing fancies. Hell, they'll probably get the wrong message anyhow. "Wow, the punishment is only this bad if they find out? Gee, I should do this more often, and be more careful next time!" And the danger, the thrill of doing it in secret will make it more appealing, because it's just frowned on enough to make it feel like you're doing something bad to get back at your parents, and not punished incredibly heavily, unless you happen to be Amish, or a Jehova's Witness. I do admire your efforts though, this is a lot more logical than your study of what colors people see.

You really love your slippery slopes, don't ya lion?

But yeah, they already don't have limits set for protected sex, what scares them off is the idea of pregnancy or STDs. And do you actually know about STDs? Some literally can't be cured (Herpes and HIV) and the ones that can still suck balls until they are. It will keep people away from unsafe sex as it is. But even if STDs could be cured, there's still the risk of pregnancy. That will literally never stop happening amongst same sex couples. It would be one thing if you were talking about the morning after pill or birth control, but you're not. You're talking about getting medical care for what's already happening.

How I see it, is if the kids know that their parents know that they have STDs, then yes, they'll obviously have more sex, maybe not a lot more, maybe a lot more.  But what about laws that could build off of this?  Who knows what they'll do?  Maybe they would allow teens at the age of sixteen to have babies, because I never expected a law like this to come out!  Now what else can we expect?

that's literally a slippery slope fallacy! The pure definition! You abandoned all logic and says "There are things that I don't know that will happen if this happens but it's spooooooky so don't!". 

 

Plus... people are allowed to have babies at sixteen. There was literally a show on MTV called "Teen Mom". There's an entire issue called "Teen pregancy" that's happening. Teenagers having babies aren't illegal, dude, how could you even think that's the case?

Alright, so that post was written incorrectly, but seriously!  The law is crazy!  The government is basically saying teens can get STDs and not have any consequences for it!  I'm using exlcamation points in every line to emphasize my frustration!

Not have consequences? THEY HAVE FUCKING STDS! That in itself is a consequence. It's not like stealing a candy bar where you get a bit of pleasure then nothing happens, this is a fucking ailment. Sometimes the ailment is permanent, and in just about all cases not only does it cause pain and suffering. But for those who have the permanent ones it's also a sentence that they can ALMOST NEVER HAVE SEX AGAIN. I'm assuming you're a virgin (this isn't to insult you based on social skills, simply because your stance here leads me to believe that you did what your parents wanted and are waiting until you're married) so you wouldn't know, but yeah it's pretty nice if you haven't already noticed the obsession about it in the media. But these people can never experience sex with anyone who doesn't either a.) have the same disease or b.) decide that they are willing to take this disease that will last the rest of their life thanks to their feelings for the other individual. They are reminded that they fucked up every second of every day, so it's not some consequenceless offense. God damn do you seem sheltered.

Also, thanks for the information. I use capitalization and swearing to emphasize my frustration ^-^

Teen pregnancies go up = teen success goes down = stand out as more intelligent.

This already happens lion, it's not like kids are just now getting pregnant before they're married ;)

If they can't tell their parents or go to a doctor without their parents knowing, then it WILL go unnoticed. That's the point of the law, to allow these kids to get medical attention.

They wouldn't need medical attention in the first place, if there were limits set.  If they can hide the fact that they have STDs from their parents, then whose to stop them from getting STDs in the first place?

No one. It's their job to prevent themselves from getting STD if they want to feel the pleasure of lust. ;)

Alright Lion, I'm going to try and explain this in even a way that you can understand.

As of right now in Alabama there is no such law keeping parents from viewing records. My parents can look at any time, as can anyone else's. However, people are still getting STDs in Alabama even with their parents knowing. There was a herpes epidemic at a local private college. So basically your entire argument here is defeated by the simple fact that STDs exist among teenagers, meaning that parents would have been able to check their records the entire time. Do you know why they exist? because they just don't tell their parents.

This means that the law literally MAKES NO DIFFERENCE as far as the rate of STDs go, the only rate it changes is AMOUNT OF THOSE INFECTED GETTING TREATMENT. Get it? People already have STDs, now they get treated for it. 

Plus idk if you know this, but you can still get an STD from practicing safe sex. It's rare, but it happens. THe same way babies are made when they're still using condoms. So even the "good teenagers" who are doing everthing they should can get these things.

I believe you said this Bo:  As of right now in Alabama there is no such law keeping parents from viewing records. My parents can look at any time, as can anyone else's. However, people are still getting STDs in Alabama even with their parents knowing.

The underlined part, basically says that people are getting STDs and not telling their parents.  So then what's the point of this law?  To allow people to get medical attention?  The people that are too scared to get it, are basically screwing themselves, because honestly, their parents probably won't kill them over it.  And it's better for them to know, because STD's are serious, and they should know that.  So if they don't know that they are dangerous, then I am blaming it on the education.

The meaning of those words are literally exactly the opposite of what you think it is.

What's your paraphrasing of it then?

He was literally saying "the parents already know, and even then all this is happening."

Well then if the parents know, then WHY DO WE NEED THIS LAW!?

They don't always know, you just said they know because they don't have the law. If we had the law, they wouldn't know. If we didn't, they still might not.

^ Surprise surprise, everyone else gets it but you, Flame. 

The point of the matter is that as of right now the parents have a way of knowing IF THEY GO TO THE DOCTOR. They can view medical records. However, even with the ability to know the STDs still spread. That's not changing the amount of kids that don't go to the doctor because they're afraid of their parents. The whole point of the law is to give this group who previously couldn't go the ability to get treatment. The group that have understanding parents already get care, with the law others can.

Alright, fine.  I can see your POV.  But just think, there are those kids out there, who if they got a chance, would keep things from their reasonable parents.  Do you think that STDs are something they should hide, even though their parents are fairly "nice?"

Just answer that.

If there parents are fairly nice, then they have no reason to hide anything. But, if teens choose not to seek help from reasonable parents when they need them, it will come back on them...hard. However, that is their choice to make, not their parents'. And, it has the potential of teaching them an important lesson that they would not learn if their parents were constantly peaking over their shoulders. Then, all they would learn is that authority sucks.

I hope that made sense.

^ James said it pretty well, thanks dude.

Yeah Flame, acting like parents being kept in the dark is the worst thing in the world isn't exactly working. Especially not when we're talking diseases that make your junk look like a giant cauliflower ;)

Alright then.  That's all.  I hope we can debate again.  And maybe next time, I can actually get some leverage, eh?

 

I'm also terribly sorry if I was being illogical or what I was saying was repetitive.  It just felt like no one was getting what I was saying. 

And... what disease makes your junk look like that?  That is scary.

Oh if you use correct logic you may just get the leverage. 

And I'm not sure, I saw a powerpoint on STDs for my bio class last semester, and the cauliflower dick among them. And there are many scary STDs. When American soldiers were still in 'Nam there were cases of penises falling off because of the STDs they didn't have immunities to. Don't get me wrong, that could easily be a false rumor, but there are some scary diseases out there.

You forgot to mention how there were parasites fast enough to enter your urethra through your stream of piss.

Or a blue scrambled egg.  (No, I was not referring to my own profile pict, thank you very much)

Oh blue waffle? Yeah someone showed me a pic of that freshman year. Luckily nobody can lie about having THAT shit.

I think this policy is sound. The major issue as stated is that parents want to know what their kids are doing, however many don't seem to realize that they will not be able to know about everything their child does whether they like it or not. As we progress, I notice how kids are learning about sex (among other things) at earlier and earlier ages and this is not something that can be controlled entirely. I personally was never able to understand why some parents felt the need to be such control freaks.

I feel so alone in this debate.

It's not like the kids will be able to get away with everything. It is simply letting them address certain issues without the pressure of their parents keeping them from doing it. Have you ever heard the phrase "Strict parents create sneaky kids"? It's true. Imagine the kid is within the parents tight fist. The fist only gets tighter and tighter, eventually the kid will eventually begin to slip through the cracks and "experience" everything their parent shouldn't have sheltered them from.

Not all parents are like that.

True, but I bet if the kid is willing to have sex without the parent knowing they wouldn't be so eager to tell them that they might have a STD.

Yes, exactly.  So then underage sex will make them think twice!

... What?

Are suggesting that we start charging all of them with underage sex?

Sure.  If this law spreads, then you could really not trust any teen.

News flash bro, you can't trust us as it is XD. If I thought about every parental rule I broke over the years, then there's absolutely no reason my parents should ever trust me if you're using your black-and-white logic.

I think it would just encourage them to keep everything a secret. This makes me think of another debate topic that I could start. But later...

That's literally everyone's argument against you, lion. You're saying that parents can react positively, and then you're also saying that they won't, then saying not every parent reacts the same. It actually hurts thinking about your logic here.

It's true I'm saying those things, but it is logic.  Parents are not all the same, so they may react positively, or not.

EX-FUCKIN-ACTLY! They might not react positively, hell they might abuse their kids or bully them into suicide. How is this a better moral implication for you? By saying "not everyone dies?" Hell, not every baby is getting killed by that nanny napping chair thing, but should we discontinue it? Hell yeah! Some of them are killing babies.

As I said earlier:  And for those abusive parents.  I'm not going to say, "there's an exception for those kids," because that's just stupid.  There are programs for kids who have families just like that.  These programs willingly take kids in until they feel ready to move on.

These programs are for kids that are abused.  And I know for a fact kids learn about these in school, because one of my friends used to be at one once.  So if the teens don't know where to go, they haven't paid attention in school.

And what the heck are you talking about, when you talk about babies?

I've already defeated that argument, so read that post :P.

And for the argument, there's a chair that parents can leave their babies in so they can nap outside the crib. Apparently it's not a problem when they're constantly supervised, but when the parent leaves them alone something happens (I think suffocating or falling? I don't quite remember) and they die. Six kids have died so far, or at least only six parents came forward about it.

There's nothing keeping them from rolling over to one side and either falling or getting into a position they can't breathe in is the problem, those things have like, no walls and a shit excuse for a seat belt.

That chair thing sounds interesting in a morbid way, but I don't know what it is. Enlighten me.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2646196/Sixth-baby-dies-suffocation-killer-recliners-recalled-year.html

found this, didn't read it, just found it to fill you in. Sorry if it's poor quality, I've just been keeping up on it through the local news.

Oh, well that sucks. I must admit, though, it would be a hella awesome thing for adults...

Wow.

I was going to write this long gigantic 4 page reply but to simplify my opinion: It depends on the personality, lifestyle, and age of the person. I went into this long rant about Oedipus complex and psychological analysis and personality with test groups and probability as well as multiple situations - but people would be mad at me for my longest reply ever xD (twice as long as any other post I've made - which is saying something)

Worst debate ever.

Why is that?

I'm basically arguing against everyone by myself.

Next time lion...next time.

"it's the worst because I'm wrong and people keep pointing it out"

This was good though. I hadn't noticed the lack of intellectual conversation in the lounge until you pointed it out. :p

Only because you weren't around, but yeah I missed it. Don't get me wrong, everyone argued with everyone and it created some grudges, but it was cool.

It's bad because you're losing?

*ahrm* pardon my direct-ish insults, but,

You should never complain that you're outnumbered, that just makes you a whiny bitch. If you're confindent in your opinion, it shouldn't matter how many people are arguing against you, if you're sure you're right, you'll argue with half the world's population without faltering (well, maybe with some faltering, psychological social laws and all that, after all, but very little faltering.) because you have the right answer.

Yeah, but some of you are just too blind you can't see anything I say.  When I write something, you all take it, alter it, and fire it back at me.  But I do have the confidence to actually talk to you all about this stupid subject.

The subject is stupid now? It seemed pretty important to you not minutes earlier. And when we take it, alter it, and then fire it back at you, that means we're finding holes in your statements. That's what debating is. What did you expect us to argue with? There aren't enough reliably sourced counter-facts and statistics in existence on every particular subject for us to argue with, and we aren't going to google everything either just because you want to bar a perfectly legal and feasible move in the debate ring.

Oh man... describing colors all over again.

What you just wrote, basically meant, you did not comprehend much about what I previously argued about.  I said something like, "then they might turn to drugs," then someone else took what I said, and wrote, "teens don't always turn to drugs like that!"
 

It's not my job to read everything you say, although that's not altering, that's stating statistics, scourced or not, in very much the same way you insist that "Parents don't always react like that!".

Nope.  People have been changing my words to fit their needs.  Just keep reading, and you'll find it.  And I find it quite stupid that everyone on this thread agrees that teens have the right to hide that they have STDs from their parents?  That isn't going to help anyone at all.  The teens might think it will, but no, it won't.

Now before you leave and change my words like everyone else on this thread has done, just realize that this is an open debate, and don't need to be harsh about your responses.

No no, "changing someone's words" means this:

"I do not support the drinking of orange juice, because orange juice victims are traumatized"

"But the *spun detail* is exactly what they're doing it for."

What you described means this:

"I do not support orange juice, because orange juice victims are traumatized"

"But they aren't traumatized just like that!"

Neither of those are against any rules, they're just making you angry. Since that's the wrong definition anyway, if you want me to see what you're looking for, you'll at least have to give me a better direction to turn my head in.

You know what?  I will drop out from this debate.  It is obviously going no where and is a waste of time.  See you guys later, and I hope there are more debates in the near future.  This was fun up until the part when I realized everyone was against me.  I can't believe that there is a law like that now...

See ya. If you return come with a dictionary.

A dictionary?

And you said you could understand what we're saying, but this shows that you obviously don't.

I just don't know what he means by "dictionary!"  I understood the words people wre saying!  Dictionaries don't help with the way words are put together to form a sentence.

It's better if you don't know. ^_^

I feel so...  You guys better not be saying something sexual, because I'm done talking about that stuff.

...

Jesus Christ, what is your grade in English or Math?

Sent can take credit for your team's victory if you want. 

P.S.  I am still working on trying to describe colors. 

-Boringfirelion

Credit? Me? Bah, Drak and Bo were the ones who did all the hard work in pissing you off and proving you wrong. I was just the barb on the end of the sword that poked you until you ragequit.

Wow... the community here is brutal...  I think I'm going to take a long break from CYS now.

After losing one debate? That's a shame.

Everyone here is against me!  I just need to regain my balance...

Haha. Well, for one. You're new. At least to forum posting. You have zero support. From anyone. Secondly, do you really expect people to agree with you, when they honestly don't? And lastly, I recommend you do yoga to "regain your balance". 

I don't expect them to agree with me, just to stop punching me in the face.  And uh...  *whispers*  Where can I find yoga classes?

Haha. This is something almost every new member goes through when their viewpoint don't coincide with the community's viewpoint. So don't be too down, because you're not the first one, and you won't be the last one. Not everyone is attacking you, but it seems to me that almost everyone IS against you. If you choose to stay, however, you'll realize that it's not like this all the time, once people warm up to you. Oh, and you can find yoga classes...> here. 

That's not true, I'm this hostile to all ridiculously illogical people.

It's true. When Drak and I disagree it's typically pretty civil. We just share the same annoyance with people who are blatantly ignorant.

You shouldn't be. Some people are logical and some people are illogical. But that doesn't mean they're bad people. Don't go around attacking everyone who are different from you. 

He doesn't. He attacks those without the ability to use logic. Especially when they whine that nobody else is being fair or claiming everyone else is illogical for it. That's the difference between shitty logic and different opinions.

Take me and Killa for example. Killa and I differ on many political views like gun control and others, yet do you see me treating him like I do Flame? No. It's because although Killa has a different opinion, it's a perfectly logical one.

I don't care if you're a bad person, that's perfectly acceptable - but an idiot is a travesty.

Like I said, everyone is different. Some people are smarter, and others not so much. But treating people differently because of that is usually frown upon by most people. If someone is ignorant, you can choose to help them or ignore them. Or the third option, blatantly attack their intelligence, and make fun of them in any way possible. There's no pride in winning a battle against someone who you deem less intelligence then you. 

There's no "warming up" to be done. Fire is a reasonable person, people just have problems with his opinions. He's been here a lot longer'n you have.

Why so angry Sent? It actually seemed pretty reasonable. Plus I have no clue how long Fire is but I've never detected his presence. It would be like that guy who's been in class with you since the fourth grade but you have no clue who he is, then suddenly acting like you should be his best friend. I've never seen him around, so why should I act like I have?

That's cool if you think that.  You're completely right about that.  If you want me to back off, I can...?

If you want to back off, just shut up.

If you want to talk more, then speak.  Simple as that.

Oh not at all, the great thing about discussion questions is that we get to debate. It allows for the free exchange of ideas and helps people become aware of or think a little more about what's going on in the world. However, if you use faulty logic or remain ignorant of any logic then people are going to treat you accordingly.

Here the consequences of stupidity are harsh if you have thin skin.

Sent is angry because I don't want to join in the attacking the new guy. ^_^

I'm not angry. Why does everyone keep thinking I am!? I'm a very apathetic calm person. I guess I just have poor word choice? It's actually kind of funny. I sound angry sometimes when I'm calm, and Swift sounds calm, even if he's insulting you. Drak just sounds angry regardless.

How many times must I remind you that you cut off my dick?! Such a short temper.

I'll have you know I was very calm when I did that.

Still, maybe I should start doing that ":P" thing Tans and Aman do to show I'm not angry. Although the moment I forget to do it, people will think I'm angry and I'll have to verify that I'm not.

That's what you think I do. :P

I usually use it to denote sarcasm, sometimes it's supposed to convey annoyance. Means a lot of different things in different situations.

But yes, cutting dicks is very bad.

You're being unreasonably hostile to a reasonable person then, if what you are claiming is true. Obviously, he's been here longer, but it doesn't mean jack shit if he doesn't forum post. No one knew or cared about his existence up until the point he had posted, and I don't mean that in a offensive way. I just meant that people who doesn't forum post are usually ignored or at least not noticed. You sound kind of piss though. You mad bro? ;)

If you read my post from my perspective, wherein I said there was no "warming up" to be done because I already warmed up to fire as much as I usually do with new members, it'd seem a lot less pissed.

That's great advice, thanks.  And those yoga classes... I like them. 
 

Yeah, it's a little tough for newbies. No offense. Oh, you can find yoga classes using this:

https://www.yogaalliance.org/yogaregistry 

Well, ciao.

Nah, I am a newbie.  And, um... do you have these website links in your pocket?  Is there any more links, by any chance?

Sure, here you go.

http://www.wikihow.com/Make-Chainmail

...you see what I did there?

For once, you've got the right advice...

He must be having a hard time keeping up considering he clearly cannot read or understand English. 

That's just insulting.  I thought this website was supposed to be fun.  And by the way, people make mistakes, okay.  You can at least respect my effort.

Not just referring to the failure to understand Bo, you have consistently failed to understand the meaning of every single post written for you so far, that kind of misunderstanding is much worse than a simple case of an idiot misunderstanding things so I'm assuming you do not have a strong grasp of the English language.

I'm actually speak and write English pretty well.  It's just that when I read one thing, I either misread ONE word, or someone means something else than they actually wrote.

Nono, people mean what they write, you are not understanding it. If it were a case of people not meaning what they wrote, then everyone else would have also understood it the way you did.

They did not.

That is not true, because obviously, a few of the people who replied, didn't understand what I was saying in one of my posts above, so they just agreed with your team.  It was clear that they had not read a few of the more current posts.

And why are we discussing my comprehension?  This is a debate about something else.  You can make a new forum thread thing about my stupidity.

If people didn't mean what they wrote, this would be a much different thread full of us making wisecracks the whole time.

Okay, whatever then.  Let's talk about this some other time.  I'll be back tomorrow probably. 

 

EDIT:  I resigned from this debate up above.

IMO, this only helps the doctors and the medical staff get more patients.  More patients = more money.  

For parents : If you haven't told your kids how EXPENSIVE they are and how much they cost to keep alive and happy AND how risky it might be to allow some idiot's dick into your vagina when he hasn't cleaned that stuff properly in months, you're the reason this law came by.

Anyhow, since WHEN was it EVER a good idea to be fucking in your teens?  I can understand substance abuse (since dosing higher usually happens later in adult life, and you can get away with it a couple of times) and gang-related activities (Mom, look at my friends!  Aren't they SUCH good guys?), but I'm surprised how teens can even THINK they can hide their babies / morning-after pills / condoms for so long.  If you're a moral person at heart, do your future kids a favor and have them when you can support more than yourself, or if you don't give a fuck, buy protection to do your future self a favor.  That way, no money and time is wasted your sorry syphillis-filled cunts.

And don't get me started on the  "but it was peer pressure" BS...Jesus...

On a side note, social worker and pediatrician jobs are gonna look pretty damn tasty now, since we have a bunch of kids who can't support their kids.  :D 

Back to the real topic, I kinda find this law pretty...irrelevant.  Eventually, the parents will start noticing their teens have these prescription pills in their room, and it'll get out eventually.  Sure, it'll result in a lot less dead / sick teens, but come on...in a planet with 7 billion people, are a few dead idiot-teens really that bad in comparison to...I dunno, India?

Wow, I gotta say that your views are a little backward there, Swift. Drugs and gangs are ok but sex isn't? XD

Sex overpopulates, drugs and gangs thin the herd.

:O    

There should be a sterilizing agent in the drugs that result in...well sterilization. This world will cleanse itself easily.

At this current time, we don't have a narcotic that gets you high AND wrecks your eggs / scrotum, so...no.

Even if there WAS one, it'd probably get the same reaction as Krokodil did.

An extremely enthusiastic masochistic sub-group and people drunkenly daring each other to try that shit?

In context to Danaos's question, a sub-group won't put a dent in the population...

Not unless it becomes the next "hipster" trend, which isn't even close to likely.

Unless they didn't know it was affecting their reproduction...like air fresheners and heavy metals/ hormones in water.

Again, unlikely in this era.

Not really. Our reproduction has been greatly affected ever since the introduction of hormone pills. They aren't completely absorbed and metabolized through the body, so the inevitable get introduced into the water supply through urine. This is why we have 10 year olds getting their periods...as opposed to 13 or 14.

So wouldn't be easier to put in chemicals to counteract the hormones, so people would fuck not younger and dumber but older and smarter?

That's not exactly easy dude. You can't just dump chemicals that counteract one chemical into the water system. That's how genocide happens.

Well, it does the same result, right?  :D

Biochem's a bitch.

In the eyes of an idiot teen, yeah.

No, in the eyes of an idiot teen sex is very nice. Take it from an idiot teen like me :D

It's EXPENSIVE in the long run, and there's no easy way out of it.  Either raise the kid and work hard to keep that kid alive and happy, or abort the kid and get the finger from just about every smart person there is for wasting your time and money to your genitals.

^And that's how you keep your group of friends sexually frustrated for the duration of high school.

Seriously, since  teens are fucking to the point of being able to make money off of it, then we've put a price on a basic bodily function.  >.>  You're still paying a bill either way <.>

Oh I see! You're saying that to a SMART teen who takes all the risks into consideration it's a bad idea ;)

To an idiot teen like me it's a good idea because penis says yes.

<u<

>u>

<u>

It only takes one smart teen that acts like a delinquent to convince the REAL delinquents to stfu and stop comparing dick sizes.

An teen working his way to a degree of any sort  unless it's art or philosophy or something is far less an idiot teen than most.

I assume that you include 18 and 19 in this demographic.

I hope so because I'm 19 and just barely making the teen demographic XD

I thought you were in early twenties. I was almost right,

So do most people. Others think I'm in my late twenties or even thirties. I've always looked older. Kinda hard to get a date that way.

What's worse is that females are now looking older than they really are.

Thank you! When I worked at the skate rink (I got the job at 17) I'd hit on girls who looked graduated and they were freaking 13! Nothing makes you feel like a pedophile more than dairy-hormone-induced-rapid-aging

I had that issue when I was recently at a water park. I told my friend that I'm afraid to make a move and find out later that they're in middle school. It's a darn shame that this is what is comes to. Another time I'm in a store trying to figure out this girl's age, but since there is a cop standing next to me I don't want to take the chance of being wrong.

I remember one time a brother and sister came in to skate, he looked about my age if not older and his sister a year or two younger. Still within dating age (2 years if you're both minors in my opinion) mind you. Anyway the guy seemed really cool and we strike up a conversation after a while since I was on skate rental and didn't have jack shit to do since they were the only two skating and nobody was at the arcade. We got along pretty well but some things seemed a bit off, like when he watched MTV a lot or his favorite singer was Rucka Rucka Ali.

Anyway, I was eyeing his sister the entire time I was talking to him, because I was at one of those periods of being tired of being single. But at some point he says "Guess how old I am" (I don't remember how it came up). So I respond with "I dunno, 17, maybe 18?" He just smiles and says "twelve." HOLD UP. WOOOOAH. This guy looked older than me, and look how fucking old I look! So I just stand there gawking and he says "guess how old my sister is." I just kinda stammer, realize he must be younger brother in this weird freaked-out scenario and say "I dunno, like fifteen or sixteen?" He actually laughs this time and says "eleven."

Suffice it to say that was the last time I ever hit on a girl in that skate rink again. I was just about to graduate and there was no way I was doing a stint for mistaken pedophilia XD

Not Asians.

Definitely not Asians.

What do you mean, Swift-Senpai?

Especially when you're hitting on 13 year olds, Bo.

Oh just look at the post I put up. It gets better. That place was jailbait central in every sense of the word. Most of the girls in there looked their age and so I stayed away from em, but so many times I was mistaken by a girl who liked a senior.

Ah. Most people only refer to 13-17 year olds as teens, though. Once you're 18, you're an adult. Before then, you're not even a person...by business standards anyway, but then again, the system that considers a legal dummy operated by a bunch of rich investors a person...probably shouldn't be taken too seriously. Of course, I am a business major, so I HAVE to take it seriously.

You'd be surprised. At 18 even though I was an adult in the criminal justice system, by Alabama law I was a minor in the civil legal system. Until a few weeks ago I wasn't even able to sign a lease for myself, I needed a guarantor.

I just count it because people typically aren't much more mature at 18 or 19 than they are at 17. A little bit, sure, but they still act like teenagers. 

I agree. Sex is the best thing in this world. 

Penguin: Sex is shit. 

If I was a mod.

Only if.

There will eventually come an age where not even Viagra can save your genitals.

If you were a mod I would be a penguinite! ^)^

You're a slave to evolutionary bullshit. Rise above it, become more than just a pitiful hormone whore. Sex is only a passtime that releases happy chemicals. There are other, better ways of doing that. Sex is better used as a tool or a weapon, leverage, literally ANYTHING other than that "pleasure" or "love" bullshit. If I wanted pleasure, I'd do something else. If I wanted to consummate love, I'd have a heartfelt conversation with her. When you abandon the vice of sex, you break one of the bonds of hormonal slavery. You're one step farther away from mortal, and one step closer to being a legend.

Zues wasn't mortal but that didn't stop him...

Zeus was a stupid spoiled manwhore. He deserved what Kratos gave him.

Kratos wasn't mortal (for a time) and he had sex with multiple women. Sometimes many at once.

He used sex as leverage and bribery often, particularly that one time with aphrodite.

If I remember in the game, he has sex with a bunch of women in a bath (I think it was a bath) for no other reason than because he could and they were a bunch of fan girls.

having sex with fangirls give you leverage, ensuring the promise of more fangirls, who can offer you favors.

That's sex for more sex, basically :P

No, you can be a douchebag and make them do manual labor, assuming they're really devout fangirls. If they aren't, sex increases the chance you'll attract the zealots.

Dude, if you're not a virgin then you've been doing it wrong XD

A legend that everyone will make fun of until you die...more than likely as a virgin.

 You do have a point, but a lot of people who try the celibacy thing either give up or turn to molesting little boys. That was a little mean-spirited, but don't say it isn't true. Some religions (including one that originated in seventh century in the Mid-east) have even acknowledged that there's honestly no point to avoiding sex 'cause it just ultimately fails and leads to a violent buildup that culminates in a giant sex explosion..

 

I'm not saying I'm against having sex, or celibate, I'm saying sex bores me. I enjoy the minds of people I meet, not the bodies. If I'm going to have sex, I'm not gonna lie, I'm probably just going to be a manipulative sociopath about it.

It's fine for you with this new law. When and if you have sex, you won't have to tell your parents that you've contracted an STD. Now you can spread your mutated Penguinite genes across the world like Genghis Khan.

You can have mental sex then with females(or males,, depending on ur taste) with sexy minds. ;)

This was Nmelssx's idea, not mine, seriously.

Hm...seems i'm late to the party...

I'm pretty sure this has been said before somewhere in this thread, but I think teenagers have a right to have privacy. I mean seriously. It don't matter if the parent is worried about the child's health, if the child doesn't want to tell them, that's just fine. I mean, teenagers aren't IDIOTS (mostly). They'll find help. Whether it be a medical professional or that one friend who read about it online not.

*reads thread*

So you guys think that a 14 year old can handle living with an STD by himself? Also, have you guys thought about the expenses of treating said STD?

I believe that a teen should get tested in private, by himself without the parents knowing, but if it was found that he had an STD then they should be notified... that's till I read you guys saying that some rednecks would kick their child out of the house cause it had sex that 1 time. That thought hadn't crossed my mind cause we don't have these type of idiots here.. damn.

And yeah, ethical discussions FTW

If the kid knew the parents were gonna find out. They would likely not go at all.

So, the discussion shouldn't be privacy... but if we should nuke Texas?

Privacy is the most important factor.

No, dammit, I might get the fallout. Try California instead. It's like an STD breeding ground over there. Cut the head off the serpent. I mean, you don't even have to destroy the entire state; just target the fault line with enough force and send their asses off to sea.

>implying that if I could nuke a city it wouldn't be Ankara

Umm...okay.

I'm guessing you didn't pick Istanbul due to one day wanting to liberate it and recalling it Constantinople.

That and the fact that Ankara is more centrally located in Turkey thus getting a better kill count on the Turkish people.

Yup. No reason to destroy what I'll be annexing but if I wanted a kill count I'd just go for Constantinople since it has 10m Turks in it

Should i be worried you already have a plane for this...

Niah, my plan with the plane took place back in 2001

:O

I just gonna walk away ok...

*Flys to Mars*

Wow, man, that's just wrong. I mean, as I said before, I'm fine with making jokes about burning down orphanages full of puppies, but that's just wrong.

Lol.

I remember someone made a CYOA about 9/11 over at Infinite Story, but it sort of sucked since it was incredibly short. I still think if he really wanted to be controversial he should've just made us play as one of the terrorists.

His CYOA based on Katrina was much better, but The V-Tech one sucked too since it was too short.

V-Tech? 

 

V-Tech massacre or the Virginia Tech Massacre. Some Korean dude went on a shooting spree and killed 32 people.

Time to make the Elliot Rodger's Revolution game

They already have that. It's called Playing Grand Theft Auto and then killing yourself as soon as you get 1 star.

I think I'd rather play as one of those little psycho girls that tried to summon Slender Man rather than play as that whining bitch.

But you don't even get to kill anyone! I'd rather play as the Postal Dude. He's the only dude who's actually gone postal and survived!

I think kids should just stop having gangbangs at 12 years old. I know it can't really be stopped, but like... why would you want to get laid that young? I'm a horny motherfucker who'd want nothing more than to fuck some of my classmates, I'll admit, but can't shit like that wait? In the wise words of the famous pokemon professors: "There's a time and place for everything, but not now!"

Anyways, back on topic, I'm not entirely sure where I stand on this argument. Being a realist and a bit of a philosopher, I would do the more sensible thing and tell my parents. Besides, why would you want to hide something that's so serious? (Unless it's pubic lice :P) We've been taught about some of the things at my school and I'll say some of the shit you can get ain't that good. I think that the parent/s deserve to know, yet I also believe the secrecy helps a child's self esteem... Maybe the parents could be allowed to know without the teens knowing that they know, if that makes sense? So the parent would know the teen has it, the teen would know the teen has it, but the teen wouldn't know the parent knows it? I dunno. I'm half asleep. A little lying never hurt anyone.

So when you were 12 you didn't want to have sex? Some lucky bastards do it

*Some lucky failing bastards do it.

Yes, he had sex with a hot girl when was 12. Such a fucking loser

I honestly don't know why they do. It seems stupid to me, but then again all I was trying to do in the eighth grade was hook up with this girl I was interested in, so I'm sure it seems perfectly rational to them :P

"A little lying never hurt anyone."

Are you serious? Didn't you ever watch Veggie Tales as a kid? You sicken me (jk).

Veggie Tales is a fucked-up christian tv show that brainwashes kids into believing in God (btw I'm athiest.)

Yeah...I can tell that you are, coins. I try to treat people without regard to their beliefs, but I really do not like atheists. I am an agnostic theist. I believe in the concept of God, but at this time, I believe that the characteristics and qualities of God are unknowable. Every atheist I have met thus far has been a complete jerk who immediately insults the intelligence of anyone who believes in a god. Of course, maybe you can defy my expectations, but you haven't really put your best foot forward. I don't really want to get into an argument about religion here, though.

That aside, I did disagree with their portrayal of Jonah. For one, the laws that he told people about were edited to avoid raising the question as to why Christians blatantly ignore the laws established in their Bible. (Okay, there I go breaking my own "no religious debate" rule).

Hey, I'm an atheist, you god-damn stupid!!!

Hey, I reiterate, every one I've met so far. Now, you've actually been pretty nice about it until now. Plus, calling people stupid isn't how you sway their opinions. If anything, you're outburst just put another dent in my opinion of atheists, not that it matters to you.

Just kidding, I'm True Agnostic. I only pretend to be a full-on atheist for humor's sake.

Hahaha...haha...ha?

lol

I would be an agnostic atheist. I don't believe in a god but i don't deny that it's a possibility, without evidence you cant lean either way.

Of course you can deny it, if anyone can make up anything and then tell others that it is true, and since they can't prove otherwise then it cannot possibly be a lie or untrue, then they are full of shit.

I don't deniy the existance of invisible pink unicorns :D

I don't hold much belief to it, it's just that i may be wrong.

No, it is not.

Okay, there was a little ambiguity in your post, so I altered it to this:

Of Course you can deny it! Anyone can make up anything and then tell others that it is true, because it's impossible to prove otherwise. Anyone who believes that person is full of shit.

Before I begin, I want to make sure that is an accurate interpretation of what was said. Is it?

No, I was referring to the person spreading the un-disprovable crap.

The people who believe that person simply lack the proper grasp of logic to realize how full of shit said person is.

And before you leap forward to claim offense, I am not saying anything that religious people have not told me themselves, very few actually dare to claim that their religion is logical, they stick to it anyway.

I may be predictable, but I was not going to claim offense. Religion isn't logical. Of course, denying a religion when everyone around you believes it isn't logical either. Where I live, everyone is Protestant Christian. People who are openly Atheist get a lot of shit (not that I could care less). I mean, I haven't even told anyone in my family what I believe. Of course, I think that they (my dad, at least) catch the drift. Though, they probably would have said something about it if they did. But, any way, let me lay everything out for you all.

 

Here are my problems with Atheists:

1. Believe the way they do simply because of how they were raised. They hardly ever question whether the way they   believe is right.

2. Openly bash the religious, calling them stupid and illogical...simply because they're religious.

 

Here are my problems with Christians:

1. Believe the way they do simply because of how they were raised.

2. "You're going to Hell for that, you're going to hell for this." The best part? Get a bunch of Christians from different denominations and ask them to define Hell and who goes there.

3. Follow a book that forbids the consumption of pork. Eat it religiously on several major religious holidays.

4. Follow a book that has been translated over a million times into several different versions. Insist that they all say the exact same thing or that "you would know what it meant, if you prayed about it."

5. False piety. Example: recent tornadoes in Vilonia and Mayflower. "Oh, well, we don't really care what happened to our house. It doesn't really matter." Of course you do. In fact, your just spouting the same old wisdom that everyone else is. Do you even really believe it? No.

6. Any time that anything happens, they keep going on about how you need to pray about it. I mean, I suppose it doesn't hurt, but praying seems much like the initiative process of getting something on the ballot. It doesn't matter how many signatures you get on the petition, It's not going to happen unless the judges see fit, which they probably won't unless it benefits them (I've actually had some pastors say that this is how God works, by only answering prayers if they will bring more people to him, which, they say, should be everyone's goal in the first place).

7. Treating a horrific scene like it is a blessing. An example lies in the aforementioned tornadoes. "Seeing all this damage, we're just so blessed." Really? I suppose you can justify it by saying that God works in mysterious ways, and I don't want to talk poorly about God or the concept thereof. Still, It's amazing how they can twist things to suit their emotional needs.

 

"Religion isn't logical. Of course, denying a religion when everyone around you believes it isn't logical either."

I can't tell if you're going for the "self-preservation angle here (in which case this makes sense - atheists have been horribly persecuted throughout history, especially in the US), or if you're trying to say that because so many people believe in religion, it has some legitimacy behind it. 

If it is the later, then you're entirely incorrect,  "because a lot of people believe it, it must be true!" is a popular and abused logical fallacy (Argumentum ad populum).

"Here are my problems with Atheists:

1. Believe the way they do simply because of how they were raised. They hardly ever question whether the way they   believe is right."

No. No, that has to be among the most insulting things i've ever heard be said about me or other atheists.

Every single atheist i've ever met has been born from a religious family, and every single one has questionned their religion's beliefs and came to the conclusion that religion as a whole made no sense, and stopped believing in god. No atheists I have ever met have been born into it, and have stayed constantly in it because they were raised that way. You're thinking about religion there.

"2. Openly bash the religious, calling them stupid and illogical...simply because they're religious."

Of course they are illogical, religion requires faith in something that cannot be proven, there is no sound reasoning to be found anywhere in this.

This does not mean they are stupid, (Aman and Tan? Two most religious jews i've ever heard of. Both highly intelligent.), just that they do not apply this intelligence in reference to their beliefs on religion.

"7. Treating a horrific scene like it is a blessing. An example lies in the aforementioned tornadoes. "Seeing all this damage, we're just so blessed." Really? I suppose you can justify it by saying that God works in mysterious ways, and I don't want to talk poorly about God or the concept thereof. Still, It's amazing how they can twist things to suit their emotional needs."

They say they are blessed because they were not the ones struck by the tornado (a piece of idiocy spread by the old adage "It could be worse!". Because obviously, no one can ever feel bad about their circumstances unless we are all suffering as much as humanly possible.)

I was going for the self-preservation, not making yourself stand out angle.

Now, I am going to turn this around on you, Drak.

"This does not mean they are stupid, (Aman and Tan? Two most religious jews i've ever heard of. Both highly intelligent.), just that they do not apply this intelligence in reference to their beliefs on religion."

You essentially just said that their religion is a blemish on their intelligence.

"Of course they are illogical, religion requires faith in something that cannot be proven, there is no sound reasoning to be found anywhere in this."

So, it's okay to be a bully to them because you believe they are illogical? And that because something can't be proved, it is immediately false. Disbelieving something without proof is just as bad as believing something without proof, is it not? It's seems like the other side of the same coin.

"You essentially just said that their religion is a blemish on their intelligence."

I said that they fail to apply their intelligence towards their religious beliefs, not that they are less intelligent for believing in religion.

"So, it's okay to be a bully to them because you believe they are illogical?"

Atheists do not bully religious people (unless they're like, really religious. Like, "Burn the jews!" religious. Honestly, at that point, they kind of deserve it.)

"And that because something can't be proved, it is immediately false."

You abuse this far too much here. If something cannot be proved, then it may merely be because of technological limitations (as it has often been in the past), but if something blatantly disregards all reasonable thought and there is no proof to support it, then before it can be considered there must be plausible, clear-cut evidence of it's existence. 

"Disbelieving something without proof is just as bad as believing something without proof, is it not? It's seems like the other side of the same coin."

No, it is not. The first is logical, the second is not.

If I claim that a gigantic mystical asshole shat out the universe, would you be at fault for disbelieving it? What more proof does the existence of a god have than my big asshole theory?

1. You just said the same thing, worded differently. Quit the double speak; this isn't 1984.

2. Yes, they do. You may be blind to it, but they do.

3. "You abuse this far too much here. If something cannot be proved, then it may merely be because of technological limitations (as it has often been in the past), but if something blatantly disregards all reasonable thought and there is no proof to support it, then before it can be considered there must be plausible, clear-cut evidence of it's existence."

How does the existence of God ignore all reasonable thought? Is it because humanity's traditionally-held notions of God are slowly falling apart. If anything that doesn't disprove God, that just disproves the idea that we can understand God.

4. Yes, they are exactly the same. If there isn't proof, then either side could be correct, regardless of how wrong they may seem. Suppose that 400 years ago, two well-known philosophers get into a discussion on the origin of humanity. One suggests that we were created by a supreme god (which was widely accepted back then, and there were sciences devoted to proving the truth of those beliefs), while the other suggests that humans came from other animals. The second would have been laughed at, but now, it is a commonly held belief that humans evolved from great apes. What is considered to be reasonable thought changes based on how society changes.

And, can we please take this to another forum. I feel that we are dishonoring Bo by turning a legitimate ethical argument into a religious one.

1. You claim that I say they are less intelligent for being religious. I did not. Refusal to apply intelligence and lack of intelligence are separate.

2. No, they do not; at least not as a whole. An atheist will not do what you say they do anymore than a muslim will strap bombs to themselves and give rapid, enthusiastic hugs to presidents.

3. It ignores reasonable thought because it makes no sense. Humanity's traditionally held notions of god? You mean religion? 

No, if we're looking at it from a religious standpoint, it proves that the entire base for most religions is entirely false, and that god either lied or the founder of said religions lied, as the "books of god" or tenements are said to have come directly from god. And if everything that you base your belief on is false, then how is your belief any more sound?

If we're looking at it from a non-religious point of view, it (along with the fact that the idea of a mystical force that created everything) then it's just more proof that the existence of any deity, or religion, is complete crap.

Understand that the burden of proof for god does not lie upon the non-believers, but the believers.

4.  "Yes, they are exactly the same. If there isn't proof, then either side could be correct, regardless of how wrong they may seem."

No, it means that neither side can support itself because it is entirely unfounded on fact, and is therefore incorrect.

I would be incorrect if I said a gigantic magical asshole shat out the universe, just as any religious person who insist that a god or other supernatural creature created the world (or exists) would be incorrect.

"Suppose that 400 years ago, two well-known philosophers get into a discussion on the origin of humanity. One suggests that we were created by a supreme god (which was widely accepted back then, and there were sciences devoted to proving the truth of those beliefs), while the other suggests that humans came from other animals. The second would have been laughed at, but now, it is a commonly held belief that humans evolved from great apes. What is considered to be reasonable thought changes based on how society changes."

There were also "sciences" devoted to alchemy, and "sciences" devoted to resurrecting the dead, and "sciences" devoted to summoning demons. Because people call something science does not mean it was science.

What you meant to say was, i'm sure, that back then there were numerous groups of people who continuously made up shit about how their beliefs were true and had the balls to pretend they weren't lying their asses off.

Evolution is not a belief, it is a proven biological fact. Science is not faith or belief, it is factual data on how reality works. Also, we did not evolve from apes.

If religion changes with what is to be considered reasonable thought, then it sounds a lot like religion is not true to it's own tenements and will do whatever it can to keep it's followers and grow.

Also, this thread died a while ago, when coins started posting memes and we started talking about teen sex. It's grave was desecrated by Drako. There is nothing to disrespect here.
 

What I meant by 4 is that what is considered fact is constantly changing. Up until a few years ago, Pluto was a planet. Now, it is not. Granted, that is all subjective terminology, but still. All I am saying is that we should maintain a flowing stance on issues that we can not prove to be 100%, objectively true. I still don't think very kindly of Atheists, and you still believe that there is absolutely no way that a god could ever exist. Arguing isn't going to change that, so I think we should just agree that it really is impossible to prove who is right or not.

You thinking unkindly of atheists may very well be a major part of the issue.

The majority of atheists have no issue with any sort of religion, but find that if they share their beliefs with others they'll be slapped with the asshole label (which is particularly bad in America. Did you know that when a study was conducted, people were asked who they thought was more likely to ram their car in a parking lot and leave? The possible answers were "A muslim", "A christian", an "atheist" and "a rapist". "An atheist" was the most popular answer). People hate and discriminate so much against atheists that no shit those atheists will be bitter against the (always religious) assholes who discriminate against them.

Also, trying to argue with an atheists about the validity of religion will not endear you to them (and this is what you were doing, lol. You were not trying to change your opinion of atheists, you took on an issue entirely unrelated.)

No, I will not agree that it is impossible to prove who is right or not. There is no god, religion is illogical. I am not some indecisive, reluctant agnostic who'll say that because there's no way to prove god doesn't exist, he might. It's bullshit, a lie of the highest order. 

We can agree to disagree, but I will never agree to that.

You know what. All of your little assumptions about me (and agnostics) are false. In your last paragraph, you just disproved everything you said about the nature of atheists and made it a point to insult what I believed. Now, as I believe you have said before, fuck off, buddy.

Note that I insulted your (illogical, indecisive) beliefs only after you spent the entire argument insulting mine and then ending it on the note "Why don't we just believe what I believe?".

How is believing that things were created by God more illogical than believing that shit just happened randomly for no reason?

In infinity everything which is allowed even the slightest by probability will exist. The universe is infinite, and therefore we - human beings who were formed by these series of lucky accidents - were inevitable.

This still doesn't explain how an infinite universe came into existence. And just cause something is infinite doesn't mean there are infinite scenarios. It could be the exact same thing happening over and over again to infinity

God also does not explain this (if that's your argument) because then who created god? Logically, the universe must have always existed, regardless of a god.

So believing in a God who existed in himself is illogical, but believing in a random universe is logical? How? How is that any different?

Because God was added in by humans, the universe is a constant.

By adding God to the equation, you are adding an unnecessary step. Why would a being exist forever and create everything? Why not just have existence exist forever instead?

Because God is a consious being above all. The universe is a thing. Unless you wish to Godify the universe in which case you become a tribe pagan in the modern world

I think what he's asking is, "What makes existence exist?"

Assuming it started somewhere, that is. Even so, what evidence is there to suggest it did or didn't start, and what put the rules in place for physics and mathematics to work the way they do?

Nothing makes existence exist, it merely does. You think too linearly, something does not have to be created to be.

Nothing put the rules in place, there are no rules to begin with, just properties.

I never said it had to be created, I merely said it could be.

And even so, why do things have properties? Is it just because we won the universe lottery this time around?

No, it cannot; because if everything has to be created, then nothing can exist.

Same for properties.

If everything has to be created, then something has to be creating it. Of course, not everything does have to be created though. It could simply be something that has arrived out of nothing and begun to give properties to things, properties necessary to bring about existence. What if the "God" entity that creates things is not an entity at all, or sentient by any means, what if it's just a force of internal inflation that's creating billions of universes simply because that's how relativity's math works?

I just said that everything does not have to be created, because if that was how reality worked then there would be no reality.

Firstly, Drak. I didn't insult your beliefs. All I said was that Atheists are mean, which you proved. I did not say you were wrong. In fact, I believe there is a possibility that you are right. You however, suddenly decided to attack my beliefs. And, no, I was not asking you to believe what I believe. I know you have your own beliefs. In fact, this whole argument was more your fault than mine. Coins made an insulting comment and I was responding to it. I probably should have been a little more polite, but that is irrelevant. In my honest opinion, you could have just pointed out my rudeness and left it at that. But, then again, I guess you don't really believe in a moral high ground, do you? Which is probably why people believe that Atheists are more likely to ram a car and drive off, if they are all like you, and I really am starting to notice a pattern. 

On another topic, why is it that atheists always reveal their atheists when someone makes a comment about religion. Why do Atheists never think of better ways to reveal their beliefs. That is part of the reason why I think you are all bad people. It's because it's like you conceal it until you have an opportunity to throw it in someone's face. I mean, seriously, Brad is the only atheist on this site who has brought up his beliefs without insulting anyone or anything, and I respect him for that. Say what you will about that.

I was kind of hoping that we could be friends and for a little while...I thought this was all just a friendly discussion. Up until you called my beliefs illogical, I really thought we were just debating (I was in debate club for one semester; I loved it). I wasn't trying to earn the adoration of Atheists, I was just debating with no intent of winning or getting people like me more...or at least I think I was. Well, everyone on here says you're not really the friendly type, so I don't know what I was thinking.

Wow, I don't mean to be rude, but that's so bullshitty that I now feel the need to express my irritation. The only reason, and I mean the only reason, you're seeing "all" Atheists disrespect you is because most of them that feel the need to make their beliefs known are the ones that also feel the need to be vocal. It's the reason that so many people believe that all Christians are anti-science gay-hating bigots who always say "LAWRD HAVE MARCEH" and blame everything on Satan. Three of the most peaceful and gregarious people I know are Atheists, and guess what? I went on for months, and in one case even a year, without ever hearing them say they were Atheist. Even throughout religious discussions. You don't notice the friendly Atheists not because they don't exist, or that you've never met one, but because they don't feel the need to tell you that they're Atheists.

Okay, I said some offensive things. I'm sorry. I'm exhausted and embarrassed. I think I probably need to take a temporary break from this site. Sorry.

"Firstly, Drak. I didn't insult your beliefs. All I said was that Atheists are mean"

...Which is insulting my beliefs.

"which you proved"

I insulted you because you were, again, insulting me.

"I did not say you were wrong. In fact, I believe there is a possibility that you are right."

Yeah, I know you're an agnostic.

"You however, suddenly decided to attack my beliefs."

...After you spent literally every post we had together insulting me. Yeah. I'm clearly in the wrong :p (though your beliefs are illogical, as you believe that something can exist regardless of evidence for it also existing, which is basically the entire religious view. Since i've established that religion is illogical, your view - which is identical, if "undecided", is also illogical.)

"And, no, I was not asking you to believe what I believe."

"I think we should just agree that it really is impossible to prove who is right or not."

Lol, really? You were literally asking me "Hey, how about you just agree with me that the agnostic view is the right one."

" In fact, this whole argument was more your fault than mine. Coins made an insulting comment and I was responding to it. I probably should have been a little more polite, but that is irrelevant."

Coins made a comment insulting a tv-show, probably featuring extreme christians, you responded by saying something along the likes of "all atheists are shitheads". Well fuck you too buddy.

"In my honest opinion, you could have just pointed out my rudeness and left it at that."

You insulted me, among other people, along with my beliefs directly. I'm not letting that shit go.

"But, then again, I guess you don't really believe in a moral high ground, do you? Which is probably why people believe that Atheists are more likely to ram a car and drive off, if they are all like you, and I really am starting to notice a pattern. "

Morality (which is an abstract, not-actually-real concept created by humans for survival) was not made by "god", it was made by humans for their own benefit (if everyone can kill then your life is also in danger, therefore it is best if no one kills. If everyone can steal, etc....).  It was founded by humans and it's usage (though I wish it wasn't promoted as anything more than a necessity to survival) is vital for society to function.

I do therefore believe that people know to distinguish between what is right (for their survival) and what is wrong (will get them killed by the pack), because if you don't then you have much more serious problems. If you need religion to tell you what is "right" and what is "wrong" then you need help.

Now yes, I didn't keep the moral high ground (by definition at least), but at least I managed to refrain until the end before insulting you (unlike you, insulting me in every fucking post you've made so far).

"On another topic, why is it that atheists always reveal their atheists when someone makes a comment about religion."

"Atheists" do not. People do. Some people do this, but all atheists? No, not all of them. Seriously, do you not hear how much of a cunt you sound like right now?

 "It's because it's like you conceal it until you have an opportunity to throw it in someone's face. I mean, seriously, Brad is the only atheist on this site who has brought up his beliefs without insulting anyone or anything, and I respect him for that. Say what you will about that."

I brought up my beliefs only when you decided to insult them.

You could see that I have personally started no less than 2 threads on religion as of yet and I have not insulted any religion (even specifically defending christianity from some more aggressive posters on the site), all while never mentioning my own. I have only ever brought up my beliefs when someone has tried to assert their own beliefs as fact, or when they have insulted mine, and you, James, have blatantly insulted mine.

"Up until you called my beliefs illogical"

Because they are :p

"I wasn't trying to earn the adoration of Atheists"

I could tell from the consistent "Atheists suck" theme of your arguments.

"Well, everyone on here says you're not really the friendly type, so I don't know what I was thinking."

Of course I won't be friendly when your argument begins with, and I quote "I really do not like atheists" (with me being a fucking atheist).

Holy shit. A ten paragraph persuasive essay! With quotes! 

Thanks man ^_^

Honestly though, I do find a certain logic in Judaism. I have my own, 'logical' reasons to believe- though, obviously, I try to keep these things off public forums haha.

You literally just insulted all atheists, saying that you judge them for their lack of belief; do you know how much of an asshoke you sound like right there? And then you say that when someone (jokingly, I might add) dares to call you out on that, THEY'RE the ones at fault?

Hmm...explain your grievances. I don't judge them for their lack of belief. I judge them for shoving it down everyone's throats (well, now that I think about it, Christians are just as bad, but I've seen Atheists do it more). Also, I sensed no joking. 

"Hey, I'm an atheist, you god-damn stupid!!!"

Really? This statement seems serious? The words "You god-damn stupid!!!" Do not seem blatantly inserted to make the statement seem a joke?

Atheists do not shove their lack of belief down other's throats. Do you have any atheist friends? There is a decent chance that they will only bring up religion after someone tries to either assert that religion is flawlessly true, when they bring it up in one of the despicable circumstances you mentioned, or when someone tries to shove religion down their throat.

I assumed it was bad grammar.

No, Drak, I don't have any atheist friends. One day in the tenth grade, in class, without any reference to religion, two of my high school's most outspoken atheists just went on a rant about why religion sucks. And most of the atheists I have known have either been raised that way or turned that way because they did something that local religious circles didn't approve of, Drak (sorry, I only said you're name again because I didn't want to end a sentence with a preposition). They were either raised that way or they were lashing out. They didn't come to that conclusion through analysis or logic.

 

Everyone comes to the conclusion through analysis and logic, that is how you lose belief in religion.

"Lashing out" implies that they were just doing it because they were pissed, not because they believed in it.

It is also possible that they had just become sick of the constant exposure to religion and exploded outward then.

Seriously, religion is everywhere in the US.

What I mean is that you have people who are like, "Waaa, my Christian parents disowned me because I am bisexual. Therefore, I should stop believing in religion altogether and start being an asshole to any and all people who wear a cross or are openly Christian."

I have met one person who was like this. He was also emo, but that's neither here nor there. Now, I have nothing against gays or bisexuals (I had a close female friend who turned out to be a lesbian. It still kinda bothers me 'cause I liked her, but I don't let that affect my opinion of gays or bisexuals.)

Again, can I please create another thread for us to continue this on? I feel like I am contributing to a growing problem on this site by allowing this argument to continue here.

Derailing is part of every forum. A discussion isn't the problem, the lack of one is 

>points to the spam threads

Still, I don't want the entire thread to turn from ethical to religious in nature. I feel that would simply prove the cynics right.

>implying a thread about religion wouldn't explode

Whatever makes you happy

Still, I feel bad for starting this here, especially after saying I wouldn't. So, I'll wait for Drak's response.

It's still an ethical debate. If it was theological Drak would be trying to get you to drop your religion. He's not. It's ethical because you called out all atheists based on the people you know when you HAVE NO ATHIEST FRIENDS. You don't have any close relations with anyone in the atheist demographic. It's no more a theological issue than a racist calling out black people.

They're not really atheists, they're just pissed off and want to take it out on people who remind them of their parents, I doubt they actually stopped believing in some sort of religious figure (or that they aren't at least deists).

You can, but there's not real point.

Hey Drak, here is a question. Do you believe that being an Atheist is a sign of intelligence? I'm not talking about Atheist being smarts, but if being an atheist proves/requires a certain level of intelligence

No. You are an atheist. Jihelu is an atheist.

Because you see the obvious does not make you intelligent, both of you are unrepentant idiots.

Actuallly, Drako is Greek...or Eastern (can't remember which) Orthodox.

No, he's stated that he was an atheist before.

Maybe he was lying, but meh.

You have me confused with someone else then. I mean first you call me an atheist and then an idiot, get your shit together

They are the same thing

I'm not an atheist 

Oh.

Well, the answer remains the same. Jihelu's an idiot, is what i'm getting at here.

Bullshit. There are plenty of fuckers who bring it out randomly to look smarter/cooler or whatever

Some do. Some don't. Same with every group of people.

Seriously James, fuck you. Have I ever once, in the history of this entire website, insulted the intelligence of theists due to their faith? In fact you can find threads in this website or entire debates at www.debate.org where I expressly argued FOR the intelligence behind theism. I'm not judging every theist by your actions here, yet you would do the same for us. Plus looking at your posts with Drakilian it's obvious you're just ignorant. I mean claiming that athiests aren't moral? Really? Some of the best ethical philosophy comes from athiests. 

I've seen that you have ass-backwards belief that people only become atheists to flaunt it. Do you know how hard my transition from theist to atheist was? It took me two years in its entirety, and it involved a shitload of thinking, both self-searching and searching elsewhere. It got to the point that I knew Christian theology better than nearly all of my friends, the only two beating me being one that is planning on becoming a minister and another that came from a  super-christian-batshit-crazy private school (but luckily wasn't brainwashed). My own girlfriend (ex now) had a soul-searching experience because she realized her atheist boyfriend knew her religion better than she did. By the end of it I was depressed, my parents were constantly berating me, and several friends alienating me because they assumed that I would be the same type of atheist that you believe us all to be for the same lack of reasoning. That's why I don't argue about it, that's why the majority of atheists don't argue about it and the ones that do in a loud and rude fashion only do so because they're not truly atheists, they cling to an ideology they don't fully understand to feel superior for whatever fucked up psychological reason they have. So when you come on here acting like we're all dickheads for the reason that you once heard a couple guys be douchey and you ASSUMED that it was for no reason (because I doubt that you were actually around to hear the reasoning) you come across as a seriously ignorant little shit.

So yeah, when you wonder why all these touchey atheists are insulted just because you told us we're pricks because of our theological decisions, you better just re-think that one. You're making a judgment concerning all members of a certain religious viewpoint (not religion, technically) based on basically nothing. So I reiterate: Fuck you.

Hell, maybe I'm being harsh. After all I believe you stated that you were homeschooled up until college (sorry if that wasn't you) so maybe you're just ignorant of it because you weren't provided with the environment to interact with social groups other than your own during your developmental ages. It's one of the problems I have with home schooling. But I still mean everything I said. After all you graduated a year early, if this is indeed the same person. This means you should at least be intelligent. However you're making blatantly ignorant statements based on a topic that has caused many people emotional distress in the past, so I stand by everything. 

Either grow up and accept others or be treated like the fuckwad you are because of your actions. I say this about every person who discriminates, and you're no different.

I can't imagine how Bo would appear as a ass to religious people. He's surprisingly respectful about it, ha ha. XD 

Until you insult me because of it ;)

There are so many things to insult you with, I don't need to insult you for that. XD 

Step one: The vaguely stoned/aroused look on his current profile pic. (Just kidding, you know I love you Bo)

Save it for the bedroom Drakky

Some parents don't educate their kids at a young age, and in the US, parents have the option of depriving their children the knowledge of sexual activities.  That allows kids to explore sex without a formal means of doing so, and independent research at a young age usually cannot be conducted without the want of experimenting with a few things.  Not only that, but kids  usually don't invest a lot of time in "independent research"; they'd rather learn about Pokemon IVs and EVs.  Because of this, they lack the full range of knowledge about reproduction.

Unfortunately, because of this, we have a bunch of kids who don't know why they wanna screw, and the kids who DO learn about sex are already so influenced by the Western media to "do whatever we want to", they don't give a shit.

Which is why I have to spend time telling my generation and the generation after to learn about economics and the fortune that they have living in the US of A, even if it is in 13 tril USD in debt.

 I think the reason most parents don't want to talk to their children about sex and sexual things is because they are afraid that the child will go have sex regardless of what they learned. At least, that's how I see it.

Not directly on the thread topic but Swift, the US is screwed. The way our national government is working and how our people act is only making it worse. I wouldn't be surprised if some major changes happen in 10 years or so and those changes won't be for the better. A lot of younger people know it and are not willing to do anything about it.

The younger you talk about it, the better in my opinion.

Most kids below 7-9 won't fully understand it I suspect. So it's better to tell them about it when they are 8. Just a thought.

Yeah, most importantly you need to be very open about it so it doesn't seem awkward. The Netherlands do that very well and they have the lowest teenage pregnency rate.

They are also far smaller than the US. >.>

If you are willing to talk to your kid about it then you shouldn't be making it ackward. The kid might think it's a weird talk but since when has that stopped anybody from teaching a kid something?

Making it seem awkward or make it a taboo can make kids not want to talk about it at all. If you cant be open about it then it will make them more awkward when the time comes for them to have....you know. The problem with the US education system is that they mix religion with it. Some states don't teach it whilst some teach it from the bible (Contraceptives are sinful all that jazz).

Then again, i suppose not talking about it wont stop them from learning. It would just make it easier i guess for people to open up with questions and stuff.

 

 

I already said the first half of your top paragraph.

 The USA's history is heavily influenced by Christian beliefs. This along with our horribly broken education system combine to make people unwilling to speak about thing because of 'social laws' and because the majority of people will react badly to it. It's just how our society works.

Basically, people are assholes to people who don't follow the rules because it messes up both of their lives.

Yeah, parents don't want to talk to their kids about it, but they also get butthurt when schools talk to them about it so all that's left is their friends talking to them about it, and that's why shit happens like when people don't know that sperm makes babehs.

Maybe there wouldn't be so many STI's and STD's that teenagers contract, if they got a better sexual education. So many places refuse to teach people the birds and the bees and it's fucking ridiculous. This can lead to more unwanted pregnancys and STD'S and STI's. Too many people focus on trying to get teenagers to stop having sex, rather than at least show them how to be safe. There is no fucking way that people will be able to convince a majority of teenagers to wait until they have sex until they are adults. So the least people could do, is accept reality and educate safe sex and make safe sex more accesible. 

Also, I've heard that some STI's or/and STD's can be contracted even while using a condom. I'm not sure if this is true, but if it is, it would be a good idea to include that in Sex ed.

As for that one law about 15 minutes, maybe I'm not quite sure what to think. I can kind of see a point to both sides. However, maybe this wouldn't be such a huge issue if teenagers practiced safe sex more. 

STI's and STD's are the same thing btw.

 

And in my sex ed they thought that Condoms didn't mean "Safe sex" it meant "Safer Sex" so we knew the dangers.

Not really. Even though all STDs are preceeded by STIs, not all STIs result in the development of STDs.

And how would them stop having sex till they are adults reduce STD risks? Does the human body magically become immune to STDs the day you turn 18? 

And why the fuck should school teach about safe sex? It's common sex that when you don't know where you are going, you go in with protection. I never had the talk or any sexual education school class yet knew that when I was 13 and everyone I know did to.

You can't protect retards