Florida State Court says 13 year-old can't have abortion
- Thread starter E-Z-B
- Start date
[quote name='evilmax17']Atreyue, I'm just curious, did you have any therapy? If so, for how long?
(and i mean therapy in the good, positive way. Not in the "you're a nutcase" way)[/QUOTE]
I wen to 2 sessions and decided it wasn't helping. Turns out I was right.
(and i mean therapy in the good, positive way. Not in the "you're a nutcase" way)[/QUOTE]
I wen to 2 sessions and decided it wasn't helping. Turns out I was right.
[quote name='E-Z-B']atreyue - you're not getting it. She HAS NO parents. She's a runaway. She's not your typical suburban teen rebelling against her parents.[/QUOTE]
I get it, I just don't see the difference. Runaway 13 year olds are supposed to have sex and use drugs? They are genetically predisposed to it? It's ok for her to get an abortion but not ok for the suburban kid? Do you think the suburban kid is really doing it to rebel? When I had sex, the last thing I was thinking about were my parents. I happen to be well acquainted with teenage pregnancy. 2 of my sisters and 8 of my female cousins had their first kids before their 14th birthdays. None of them considered getting abortions, and it's probably a cultural thing. Some of them continued their lifestyles and now enjoy all the wonderful things in life that welfare can bring, others learned their lesson the first time.
I know you're trying to say that she needs this because of her situation. I think she should at least have the baby and give it up for adoption. Being able to get off with an afternoon of inconvenience is hardly fitting.
I know you're counseling for flexibility, and there should be exceptions to rules. But do you realize that this case is the reverse of the way it should be? The liberals should be lobbying for her right to an abortion despite laws stating that children don't have that right without parental consent. Unfortunately for her, her situation provides the perfect opportunity for lobbyists to challenge this insane law.
I get it, I just don't see the difference. Runaway 13 year olds are supposed to have sex and use drugs? They are genetically predisposed to it? It's ok for her to get an abortion but not ok for the suburban kid? Do you think the suburban kid is really doing it to rebel? When I had sex, the last thing I was thinking about were my parents. I happen to be well acquainted with teenage pregnancy. 2 of my sisters and 8 of my female cousins had their first kids before their 14th birthdays. None of them considered getting abortions, and it's probably a cultural thing. Some of them continued their lifestyles and now enjoy all the wonderful things in life that welfare can bring, others learned their lesson the first time.
I know you're trying to say that she needs this because of her situation. I think she should at least have the baby and give it up for adoption. Being able to get off with an afternoon of inconvenience is hardly fitting.
I know you're counseling for flexibility, and there should be exceptions to rules. But do you realize that this case is the reverse of the way it should be? The liberals should be lobbying for her right to an abortion despite laws stating that children don't have that right without parental consent. Unfortunately for her, her situation provides the perfect opportunity for lobbyists to challenge this insane law.
[quote name='jmcc']Yes. Judging from your posts here you're completely well adjusted and have no issues to speak of.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, because what I'm saying is obviously deluded. Why shouldn't 13 year olds have all the sex they want, provided they use condoms? Obviously, I have some really deep seeded issues for thinking that...
Yeah, because what I'm saying is obviously deluded. Why shouldn't 13 year olds have all the sex they want, provided they use condoms? Obviously, I have some really deep seeded issues for thinking that...
[quote name='atreyue']They are genetically predisposed to it?[/QUOTE]
Didn't read the whole post, just stopped to correct you. The only genetic disposion you can have in this regard is the Addiction Gene. Otherwise, everything else is due to your environment. Now I shall read the rest.
Didn't read the whole post, just stopped to correct you. The only genetic disposion you can have in this regard is the Addiction Gene. Otherwise, everything else is due to your environment. Now I shall read the rest.
jmcc
CAGiversary!
[quote name='atreyue']Yeah, because what I'm saying is obviously deluded. Why shouldn't 13 year olds have all the sex they want, provided they use condoms? Obviously, I have some really deep seeded issues for thinking that...[/QUOTE]
Let's see, you want to punish a 13 year old girl for sex she, by law, couldn't have consented too. So you want to force a rape victim carry a child from it to term, only to have the state then agree with her that she shouldn't have the kid and take it away. Nothing cruel and revenge fantasy about that, no sir. Especially when you consider the trauma (so you say) in your past.
Face it, you're growing up to be a fine little sociopath. At least solace can be taken in the fact that, at your murder trial, you won't even think a not-guilty plea. You'll step right up to your sentence for murdering a string of teen runaway girls.
Go back to therapy and stick with it.
Let's see, you want to punish a 13 year old girl for sex she, by law, couldn't have consented too. So you want to force a rape victim carry a child from it to term, only to have the state then agree with her that she shouldn't have the kid and take it away. Nothing cruel and revenge fantasy about that, no sir. Especially when you consider the trauma (so you say) in your past.
Face it, you're growing up to be a fine little sociopath. At least solace can be taken in the fact that, at your murder trial, you won't even think a not-guilty plea. You'll step right up to your sentence for murdering a string of teen runaway girls.
Go back to therapy and stick with it.
[quote name='jmcc']Let's see, you want to punish a 13 year old girl for sex she, by law, couldn't have consented too. So you want to force a rape victim carry a child from it to term, only to have the state then agree with her that she shouldn't have the kid and take it away. Nothing cruel and revenge fantasy about that, no sir. Especially when you consider the trauma (so you say) in your past.
Face it, you're growing up to be a fine little sociopath. At least solace can be taken in the fact that, at your murder trial, you won't even think a not-guilty plea. You'll step right up to your sentence for murdering a string of teen runaway girls.
Go back to therapy and stick with it.[/QUOTE]
WTF? Are you kidding? Am I supposed to treat this like it's not complete drivel? Did you hope that insulting me would cover up the fact that you're full of shit just because most of the people posting disagree with my point of view? We were actually having a somewhat intelligent discussion even though we clearly disagree, so excuse me if I'm somewhat annoying by this childish bullshit.
Firstly, it's really lame to try to use double talk to take a cheap shot. Because she's under the legal age to consent, she was actually raped? Wow. You can't really be that dumb. Personally, I think there are very few reasons to have an abortion, so adoption is preferrable to that if the mother really is unfit. I've also already consented earlier in the thread that this may be one of those cases, so feel free to shut the
up.
Secondly, I don't think it's cruel to hold someone responsible for their actions, in fact, I think it's the true mark of a good parent (or sociopath, according to you). But you claim it makes sense that legally a child can't make the decision to have sex although they can decide for themselves what to do with the outcome. Not surprising that you don't ascribe any responsibility to others, since you feel no need to hold yourself accountable for this bullshit.
And taking cheap personal shots in hopes of elliciting laughter and thus (that's right, I said 'thus') causing everyone to overlook this obvious and poorly done attempt at thread-crapping...maybe hoping some buddy of yours would give you a 'PWNed!' ? Pathetic. But you're probably right. Believing something probably does mean that I'm a cruel revenge fantasizing trauma-ridden sociopath who gets his kicks from murdering poor little pregnant rape victim teenage runaway girls and needs to check back into therapy. Thank you for enlightening me. I really hope this isn't indicative of your general posting style.
And since every derrogatory post has to end with a 'hey look, I'm cool' parting shot...
Face it, you're growing up to be a fine little sociopath. At least solace can be taken in the fact that, at your murder trial, you won't even think a not-guilty plea. You'll step right up to your sentence for murdering a string of teen runaway girls.
Go back to therapy and stick with it.[/QUOTE]
WTF? Are you kidding? Am I supposed to treat this like it's not complete drivel? Did you hope that insulting me would cover up the fact that you're full of shit just because most of the people posting disagree with my point of view? We were actually having a somewhat intelligent discussion even though we clearly disagree, so excuse me if I'm somewhat annoying by this childish bullshit.
Firstly, it's really lame to try to use double talk to take a cheap shot. Because she's under the legal age to consent, she was actually raped? Wow. You can't really be that dumb. Personally, I think there are very few reasons to have an abortion, so adoption is preferrable to that if the mother really is unfit. I've also already consented earlier in the thread that this may be one of those cases, so feel free to shut the
up.Secondly, I don't think it's cruel to hold someone responsible for their actions, in fact, I think it's the true mark of a good parent (or sociopath, according to you). But you claim it makes sense that legally a child can't make the decision to have sex although they can decide for themselves what to do with the outcome. Not surprising that you don't ascribe any responsibility to others, since you feel no need to hold yourself accountable for this bullshit.
And taking cheap personal shots in hopes of elliciting laughter and thus (that's right, I said 'thus') causing everyone to overlook this obvious and poorly done attempt at thread-crapping...maybe hoping some buddy of yours would give you a 'PWNed!' ? Pathetic. But you're probably right. Believing something probably does mean that I'm a cruel revenge fantasizing trauma-ridden sociopath who gets his kicks from murdering poor little pregnant rape victim teenage runaway girls and needs to check back into therapy. Thank you for enlightening me. I really hope this isn't indicative of your general posting style.
And since every derrogatory post has to end with a 'hey look, I'm cool' parting shot...
jmcc
CAGiversary!
[quote name='atreyue']WTF? Are you kidding? Am I supposed to treat this like it's not complete drivel? Did you hope that insulting me would cover up the fact that you're full of shit just because most of the people posting disagree with my point of view? We were actually having a somewhat intelligent discussion even though we clearly disagree, so excuse me if I'm somewhat annoying by this childish bullshit.
Firstly, it's really lame to try to use double talk to take a cheap shot. Because she's under the legal age to consent, she was actually raped? Wow. You can't really be that dumb. Personally, I think there are very few reasons to have an abortion, so adoption is preferrable to that if the mother really is unfit. I've also already consented earlier in the thread that this may be one of those cases, so feel free to shut the up.
Secondly, I don't think it's cruel to hold someone responsible for their actions, in fact, I think it's the true mark of a good parent (or sociopath, according to you). But you claim it makes sense that legally a child can't make the decision to have sex although they can decide for themselves what to do with the outcome. Not surprising that you don't ascribe any responsibility to others, since you feel no need to hold yourself accountable for this bullshit.
And taking cheap personal shots in hopes of elliciting laughter and thus (that's right, I said 'thus') causing everyone to overlook this obvious and poorly done attempt at thread-crapping...maybe hoping some buddy of yours would give you a 'PWNed!' ? Pathetic. But you're probably right. Believing something probably does mean that I'm a cruel revenge fantasizing trauma-ridden sociopath who gets his kicks from murdering poor little pregnant rape victim teenage runaway girls and needs to check back into therapy. Thank you for enlightening me. I really hope this isn't indicative of your general posting style.
And since every derrogatory post has to end with a 'hey look, I'm cool' parting shot...[/QUOTE]
Seriously, therapy. Go back. You still have a lot of problems.
Firstly, it's really lame to try to use double talk to take a cheap shot. Because she's under the legal age to consent, she was actually raped? Wow. You can't really be that dumb. Personally, I think there are very few reasons to have an abortion, so adoption is preferrable to that if the mother really is unfit. I've also already consented earlier in the thread that this may be one of those cases, so feel free to shut the
up.Secondly, I don't think it's cruel to hold someone responsible for their actions, in fact, I think it's the true mark of a good parent (or sociopath, according to you). But you claim it makes sense that legally a child can't make the decision to have sex although they can decide for themselves what to do with the outcome. Not surprising that you don't ascribe any responsibility to others, since you feel no need to hold yourself accountable for this bullshit.
And taking cheap personal shots in hopes of elliciting laughter and thus (that's right, I said 'thus') causing everyone to overlook this obvious and poorly done attempt at thread-crapping...maybe hoping some buddy of yours would give you a 'PWNed!' ? Pathetic. But you're probably right. Believing something probably does mean that I'm a cruel revenge fantasizing trauma-ridden sociopath who gets his kicks from murdering poor little pregnant rape victim teenage runaway girls and needs to check back into therapy. Thank you for enlightening me. I really hope this isn't indicative of your general posting style.
And since every derrogatory post has to end with a 'hey look, I'm cool' parting shot...[/QUOTE]
Seriously, therapy. Go back. You still have a lot of problems.
[quote name='jmcc']Seriously, therapy. Go back. You still have a lot of problems.[/QUOTE]
That's not a potshot either. Therapy seems to have a bad rap, because you have to admit that you have a problem to go (and people don't like admitting they have problems). It's better to say "I fixed it" or "I don't need any help, I can deal" than to actually FIX the problem. The only person you're hurting by not REALLY fixing the problem...is yourself.
Therapy doesn't make you weak. Living with a problem does. Denying it is even worse.
And really, nobody should expect you to be 100% fine growing up the way you say you did. Like really, it's rediculous that you aren't in treatment as we speak. It's not your fault that you were born into the family you were, but it is your fault if you're old enough to be on your own, and you aren't helping yourself.
That's not a potshot either. Therapy seems to have a bad rap, because you have to admit that you have a problem to go (and people don't like admitting they have problems). It's better to say "I fixed it" or "I don't need any help, I can deal" than to actually FIX the problem. The only person you're hurting by not REALLY fixing the problem...is yourself.
Therapy doesn't make you weak. Living with a problem does. Denying it is even worse.
And really, nobody should expect you to be 100% fine growing up the way you say you did. Like really, it's rediculous that you aren't in treatment as we speak. It's not your fault that you were born into the family you were, but it is your fault if you're old enough to be on your own, and you aren't helping yourself.
[quote name='evilmax17']That's not a potshot either. Therapy seems to have a bad rap, because you have to admit that you have a problem to go (and people don't like admitting they have problems). It's better to say "I fixed it" or "I don't need any help, I can deal" than to actually FIX the problem. The only person you're hurting by not REALLY fixing the problem...is yourself.
Therapy doesn't make you weak. Living with a problem does. Denying it is even worse.
And really, nobody should expect you to be 100% fine growing up the way you say you did. Like really, it's rediculous that you aren't in treatment as we speak. It's not your fault that you were born into the family you were, but it is your fault if you're old enough to be on your own, and you aren't helping yourself.[/QUOTE]
Actually, the combination of having parents that tell you not to do bad things and then do it themselves is very helpful. A good object lesson. I only made a summation of the bad parts of my childhood to say that people shouldn't make excuses for their actions. Most therapy is exactly that, and so I didn't find it useful. Suprisingly, even though many arguablyed up things happened to and around me, they didn't screw me up, hold me back or anything like that. Part of it was the resiliency that all kids have and part was that I was taught from an early age that I was ultimately responsible for myself and that we all are in complete control of our lives.
Therapy doesn't make you weak. Living with a problem does. Denying it is even worse.
And really, nobody should expect you to be 100% fine growing up the way you say you did. Like really, it's rediculous that you aren't in treatment as we speak. It's not your fault that you were born into the family you were, but it is your fault if you're old enough to be on your own, and you aren't helping yourself.[/QUOTE]
Actually, the combination of having parents that tell you not to do bad things and then do it themselves is very helpful. A good object lesson. I only made a summation of the bad parts of my childhood to say that people shouldn't make excuses for their actions. Most therapy is exactly that, and so I didn't find it useful. Suprisingly, even though many arguably
ed up things happened to and around me, they didn't screw me up, hold me back or anything like that. Part of it was the resiliency that all kids have and part was that I was taught from an early age that I was ultimately responsible for myself and that we all are in complete control of our lives.
jmcc
CAGiversary!
[quote name='atreyue']...I was taught from an early age that I was ultimately responsible for myself and that we all are in complete control of our lives.[/QUOTE]
Then how do you reconcile that belief with your belief that the girl in this story should be forced to bear a child as punishment?
Then how do you reconcile that belief with your belief that the girl in this story should be forced to bear a child as punishment?
[quote name='atreyue']Actually, the combination of having parents that tell you not to do bad things and then do it themselves is very helpful. A good object lesson. I only made a summation of the bad parts of my childhood to say that people shouldn't make excuses for their actions. Most therapy is exactly that, and so I didn't find it useful. Suprisingly, even though many arguably ed up things happened to and around me, they didn't screw me up, hold me back or anything like that. Part of it was the resiliency that all kids have and part was that I was taught from an early age that I was ultimately responsible for myself and that we all are in complete control of our lives.[/QUOTE]
I just want to point out one more thing, and then I won't push it any further. You don't need to respond or anything, just something to think about.
For therapy to take effect, you need more than 2 sessions. Much more. We're talking years, like at least 5. At least. You are correct when you say that 2 sessions wouldn't do anything for you, but you're not supposed to stop. It's a very long and involved process, and I predict that unless you do that, "ed up" things will continue to happen around and to you (much to your surprise).
I'm just saying, think about it for a little bit more. I would wager that at least half of the people who go to therapy drop out quickly because they think "it isn't helping". But that's like playing a videogame for 2 minutes and saying it sucks. It's just not accurate.
BTW, I don't think I was clear enough in my other post. When I was saying it was rediculous that you weren't in therapy, I wasn't saying it because of the content of your posts. I meant that ANYONE who grew up with a crack-addicted father, REGARDLESS of how they were doing now, should be in therapy for at least a couple years. Even if you were a millionaire and happily married, you should still have a few years of therapy under your belt.
/Just saying.
ed up things happened to and around me, they didn't screw me up, hold me back or anything like that. Part of it was the resiliency that all kids have and part was that I was taught from an early age that I was ultimately responsible for myself and that we all are in complete control of our lives.[/QUOTE]I just want to point out one more thing, and then I won't push it any further. You don't need to respond or anything, just something to think about.
For therapy to take effect, you need more than 2 sessions. Much more. We're talking years, like at least 5. At least. You are correct when you say that 2 sessions wouldn't do anything for you, but you're not supposed to stop. It's a very long and involved process, and I predict that unless you do that, "
ed up" things will continue to happen around and to you (much to your surprise).I'm just saying, think about it for a little bit more. I would wager that at least half of the people who go to therapy drop out quickly because they think "it isn't helping". But that's like playing a videogame for 2 minutes and saying it sucks. It's just not accurate.
BTW, I don't think I was clear enough in my other post. When I was saying it was rediculous that you weren't in therapy, I wasn't saying it because of the content of your posts. I meant that ANYONE who grew up with a crack-addicted father, REGARDLESS of how they were doing now, should be in therapy for at least a couple years. Even if you were a millionaire and happily married, you should still have a few years of therapy under your belt.
/Just saying.
[quote name='jmcc']Abortion is a consequence, too, though. One of two possible for a pregnant woman.[/QUOTE]
pregnancy is a consequence, abortion is a choice. I won't challenge an adult's right to choose, no matter my personal beliefs. But I don't think that kids should have that right, especially without a parent's permission. It completely undermines parents to allow it. As I've already said, I recognize that this particular girl's case is special and should be judged individually. I just can't pretend this 13 year old is or should be treated like a woman.
pregnancy is a consequence, abortion is a choice. I won't challenge an adult's right to choose, no matter my personal beliefs. But I don't think that kids should have that right, especially without a parent's permission. It completely undermines parents to allow it. As I've already said, I recognize that this particular girl's case is special and should be judged individually. I just can't pretend this 13 year old is or should be treated like a woman.
Don't treat abortion as some easy frolick through the park. The woman's body goes through some HUGE changes, and they then often suffer from severe longlasting depression. It's not like they're back on the street and pregnant again in a day.
Also, if you don't think this pregnant 'girl' should be treated like a woman, then why ask her to do a woman's job? Give a person their worth based on their actions, not their age. If you're pregnant, you get the right to choose what to do with it. The parents might have legal guardianship of the 13 year old, but they don't have it over the baby.
Also, if you don't think this pregnant 'girl' should be treated like a woman, then why ask her to do a woman's job? Give a person their worth based on their actions, not their age. If you're pregnant, you get the right to choose what to do with it. The parents might have legal guardianship of the 13 year old, but they don't have it over the baby.
[quote name='evilmax17']Don't treat abortion as some easy frolick through the park. The woman's body goes through some HUGE changes, and they then often suffer from severe longlasting depression. It's not like they're back on the street and pregnant again in a day.[/QUOTE]
When compared to bearing and raising a child, abortion IS an easy frolick through the park. And is it possible that they suffer because they regret 'terminating' their child? They should be depressed.
[quote name='evilmax17']Also, if you don't think this pregnant 'girl' should be treated like a woman, then why ask her to do a woman's job? Give a person their worth based on their actions, not their age. If you're pregnant, you get the right to choose what to do with it. The parents might have legal guardianship of the 13 year old, but they don't have it over the baby.[/QUOTE]
Raising a child is an adult's job. So is having sex. I don't think that it's the court's job to punish a girl for doing things she shouldn't be doing. That's the purview of her parents. You make a great case for the mother not needing anyone's permission for an abortion. Honestly, if the parent couldn't stop the sex, they'd have a hard time stopping that from happening if the child was determined. But the parent al least has the right to know that it happened. At least give someone who can the opportunity to discipline their kids. it's like there's a conspiracy against parents.
When compared to bearing and raising a child, abortion IS an easy frolick through the park. And is it possible that they suffer because they regret 'terminating' their child? They should be depressed.
[quote name='evilmax17']Also, if you don't think this pregnant 'girl' should be treated like a woman, then why ask her to do a woman's job? Give a person their worth based on their actions, not their age. If you're pregnant, you get the right to choose what to do with it. The parents might have legal guardianship of the 13 year old, but they don't have it over the baby.[/QUOTE]
Raising a child is an adult's job. So is having sex. I don't think that it's the court's job to punish a girl for doing things she shouldn't be doing. That's the purview of her parents. You make a great case for the mother not needing anyone's permission for an abortion. Honestly, if the parent couldn't stop the sex, they'd have a hard time stopping that from happening if the child was determined. But the parent al least has the right to know that it happened. At least give someone who can the opportunity to discipline their kids. it's like there's a conspiracy against parents.
[quote name='atreyue']When compared to bearing and raising a child, abortion IS an easy frolick through the park. And is it possible that they suffer because they regret 'terminating' their child? They should be depressed.[/QUOTE]
Which falls back on my first first post. The unborn child should NOT be punished because of the mistake of the mother. If the baby is born to this 13 year old, it WILL grow up to be a criminal (or stripper if it's a girl). This baby would have a better chance at life if you put it in a catepult, pointed it to the woods, and fired. Hopefully a nice family of wolves would take it in as their own.
Raising a child is a hefty responsibility, NOT a punishment, and the baby is the one that would suffer. It's not like the 13 year old is going to just become a great mother either. The baby is going to be left at home, while the 13 year old goes out and does more crystal Meth. And that's what we need, another meth mommie.
Which falls back on my first first post. The unborn child should NOT be punished because of the mistake of the mother. If the baby is born to this 13 year old, it WILL grow up to be a criminal (or stripper if it's a girl). This baby would have a better chance at life if you put it in a catepult, pointed it to the woods, and fired. Hopefully a nice family of wolves would take it in as their own.
Raising a child is a hefty responsibility, NOT a punishment, and the baby is the one that would suffer. It's not like the 13 year old is going to just become a great mother either. The baby is going to be left at home, while the 13 year old goes out and does more crystal Meth. And that's what we need, another meth mommie.
[quote name='jmcc']Seriously, therapy. Go back. You still have a lot of problems.[/QUOTE]
$
If you can't use your big boy talk, don't say anything.
atreyue, I'm sorry that Johnny Limpwrist...er jmcc, is acting like a 2 year old. He obviously hasn't learned how to communicate past a kindergarten level. Shh, don't say anything...but I'm pretty sure he thinks insults and snide remarks win people over. If he hadn't run away when he was 13, he might have learned a thing from mom and dad. :lol: :lol:
$ If you can't use your big boy talk, don't say anything.
atreyue, I'm sorry that Johnny Limpwrist...er jmcc, is acting like a 2 year old. He obviously hasn't learned how to communicate past a kindergarten level. Shh, don't say anything...but I'm pretty sure he thinks insults and snide remarks win people over. If he hadn't run away when he was 13, he might have learned a thing from mom and dad. :lol: :lol:
[quote name='evilmax17']Which falls back on my first first post. The unborn child should NOT be punished because of the mistake of the mother. If the baby is born to this 13 year old, it WILL grow up to be a criminal (or stripper if it's a girl). This baby would have a better chance at life if you put it in a catepult, pointed it to the woods, and fired. Hopefully a nice family of wolves would take it in as their own.
Raising a child is a hefty responsibility, NOT a punishment, and the baby is the one that would suffer. It's not like the 13 year old is going to just become a great mother either. The baby is going to be left at home, while the 13 year old goes out and does more crystal Meth. And that's what we need, another meth mommie.[/QUOTE]
Your comments are both asinine and wholly unfounded.
My 12 year old cousin was adopted into our family. Her "mother" was 15 at the time of birth. My cousin is the farthest thing from a stripper or criminal. It's really sad that your outlook on life only allows you to see a miniscule portion of reality. Next time you try and bring something to the table, be able to support it.
Raising a child is a hefty responsibility, NOT a punishment, and the baby is the one that would suffer. It's not like the 13 year old is going to just become a great mother either. The baby is going to be left at home, while the 13 year old goes out and does more crystal Meth. And that's what we need, another meth mommie.[/QUOTE]
Your comments are both asinine and wholly unfounded.
My 12 year old cousin was adopted into our family. Her "mother" was 15 at the time of birth. My cousin is the farthest thing from a stripper or criminal. It's really sad that your outlook on life only allows you to see a miniscule portion of reality. Next time you try and bring something to the table, be able to support it.
judyjudyjudy
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 35 (100%)
[quote name='Derwood43']My 12 year old cousin was adopted into our family. Her "mother" was 15 at the time of birth. My cousin is the farthest thing from a stripper or criminal. It's really sad that your outlook on life only allows you to see a miniscule portion of reality. Next time you try and bring something to the table, be able to support it.[/QUOTE]
15 year olds are allowed to adopt children?
Edited to add: I think I misread what you wrote.
15 year olds are allowed to adopt children?
Edited to add: I think I misread what you wrote.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='Derwood43']Your comments are both asinine and wholly unfounded.
My 12 year old cousin was adopted into our family. Her "mother" was 15 at the time of birth. My cousin is the farthest thing from a stripper or criminal. It's really sad that your outlook on life only allows you to see a miniscule portion of reality. Next time you try and bring something to the table, be able to support it.[/QUOTE]
Well bully for your cousin. It's too early to determine whether she'll be a stripper, unless you live in Alabama or Florida.
Do you have any legitimate stats on the percentage of kids born out of wedlock who will find good homes, or just your own myopic anecdotal evidence?
My 12 year old cousin was adopted into our family. Her "mother" was 15 at the time of birth. My cousin is the farthest thing from a stripper or criminal. It's really sad that your outlook on life only allows you to see a miniscule portion of reality. Next time you try and bring something to the table, be able to support it.[/QUOTE]
Well bully for your cousin. It's too early to determine whether she'll be a stripper, unless you live in Alabama or Florida.
Do you have any legitimate stats on the percentage of kids born out of wedlock who will find good homes, or just your own myopic anecdotal evidence?
[quote name='Derwood43']Your comments are both asinine and wholly unfounded.
My 12 year old cousin was adopted into our family. Her "mother" was 15 at the time of birth. My cousin is the farthest thing from a stripper or criminal. It's really sad that your outlook on life only allows you to see a miniscule portion of reality. Next time you try and bring something to the table, be able to support it.[/QUOTE]
About the cousin:
How old was she when was she adopted into your family?
How long was she with her birth mother (the 15 year old one right?)
How long has she been in your family?
---------------------
I'm not saying that the babies are genetically screwed. If the kid was adopted into a healthy family at an early age, then she'll be fine with a little help. But if she had to live with 15 year old mommie for 12 years, then keep an eye on her.
Besides, 12 year olds can't be strippers.
My 12 year old cousin was adopted into our family. Her "mother" was 15 at the time of birth. My cousin is the farthest thing from a stripper or criminal. It's really sad that your outlook on life only allows you to see a miniscule portion of reality. Next time you try and bring something to the table, be able to support it.[/QUOTE]
About the cousin:
How old was she when was she adopted into your family?
How long was she with her birth mother (the 15 year old one right?)
How long has she been in your family?
---------------------
I'm not saying that the babies are genetically screwed. If the kid was adopted into a healthy family at an early age, then she'll be fine with a little help. But if she had to live with 15 year old mommie for 12 years, then keep an eye on her.
Besides, 12 year olds can't be strippers.
[quote name='atreyue']I just don't understand why everyone thinks therapy is the answer to everyone's problems, and amazingly, ed up things haven't happened to me for a very long time...[/QUOTE]
I forgot this analogy when you posted this, but I remembered it this morning, so you're in luck!
Let me ask you this. If somebody pushed you down a flight of stairs and couldn't walk, you'd go see a doctor right? If you have physical injuries, you go see somebody who knows about the body, and how to treat it. That's for physical health. It would be completely assinine to say "It's MY body, and I think I'm fine, so I'll just deal with it myself."
So why are saying that for mental health? Growing up with addicted parents is the mental equivelant of falling down a few flights of stairs. You get injured from that, whether you like it or not. Just like you would go and see a doctor about a physical injury, you must also go see a liscensed Therapist / Psychologist about a mental injury (for a few years at least).
Sure, you could probably make your way around the town by using a cane and hobbling around. And you could say "I'm fine, I haven't fallen down the stairs in years" all you like. But you'd still be needlessly injured. You can't treat your mind by yourself, just like you can't treat your body by yourself. You're not a doctor.
ed up things haven't happened to me for a very long time...[/QUOTE]I forgot this analogy when you posted this, but I remembered it this morning, so you're in luck!
Let me ask you this. If somebody pushed you down a flight of stairs and couldn't walk, you'd go see a doctor right? If you have physical injuries, you go see somebody who knows about the body, and how to treat it. That's for physical health. It would be completely assinine to say "It's MY body, and I think I'm fine, so I'll just deal with it myself."
So why are saying that for mental health? Growing up with addicted parents is the mental equivelant of falling down a few flights of stairs. You get injured from that, whether you like it or not. Just like you would go and see a doctor about a physical injury, you must also go see a liscensed Therapist / Psychologist about a mental injury (for a few years at least).
Sure, you could probably make your way around the town by using a cane and hobbling around. And you could say "I'm fine, I haven't fallen down the stairs in years" all you like. But you'd still be needlessly injured. You can't treat your mind by yourself, just like you can't treat your body by yourself. You're not a doctor.
[quote name='camoor']Well bully for your cousin. It's too early to determine whether she'll be a stripper, unless you live in Alabama or Florida.
Do you have any legitimate stats on the percentage of kids born out of wedlock who will find good homes, or just your own myopic anecdotal evidence?[/QUOTE]
My so called "myopic" evidence is perfectly relevant to the conversation. Had you taken time to read, evilmax made a statement that implied that all children born to a 13 year old WOULD be strippers.
Obviously, neither of you can comphrehend a loving family where everything turns out alright. WHAT???? Are you saying that there is some decency in the world??? I sure am...it's called Oklahoma.
Man, if all of these conversations didn't end the same...
evilmax and camoor's posturing...my unwillingness to believe in world that's not my own...
Do you have any legitimate stats on the percentage of kids born out of wedlock who will find good homes, or just your own myopic anecdotal evidence?[/QUOTE]
My so called "myopic" evidence is perfectly relevant to the conversation. Had you taken time to read, evilmax made a statement that implied that all children born to a 13 year old WOULD be strippers.
Obviously, neither of you can comphrehend a loving family where everything turns out alright. WHAT???? Are you saying that there is some decency in the world??? I sure am...it's called Oklahoma.
Man, if all of these conversations didn't end the same...
evilmax and camoor's posturing...my unwillingness to believe in world that's not my own...
Quackzilla
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 5 (100%)
Stop the ignorant side arguments, they are useless.
The point here is that the pro-choice guy says "my body my choice" and the anti-abortion guy believe the girl should keep the baby as pennace for her sin.
The point here is that the pro-choice guy says "my body my choice" and the anti-abortion guy believe the girl should keep the baby as pennace for her sin.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='Derwood43']My so called "myopic" evidence is perfectly relevant to the conversation. Had you taken time to read, evilmax made a statement that implied that all children born to a 13 year old WOULD be strippers.
Obviously, neither of you can comphrehend a loving family where everything turns out alright. WHAT???? Are you saying that there is some decency in the world??? I sure am...it's called Oklahoma.
Man, if all of these conversations didn't end the same...
evilmax and camoor's posturing...my unwillingness to believe in world that's not my own...[/QUOTE]
Congrats. You proved that not all babies born to 12 year old moms turn out to have lives full of suffering.
The ratio could be 99.999% (I'd bet a dollar that it's a majority of children born like this), but thank goodness its not 100%.
Although if the girl has to listen to your close-mindedness and sermonizing, maybe she would have been better off stripping.
Obviously, neither of you can comphrehend a loving family where everything turns out alright. WHAT???? Are you saying that there is some decency in the world??? I sure am...it's called Oklahoma.
Man, if all of these conversations didn't end the same...
evilmax and camoor's posturing...my unwillingness to believe in world that's not my own...[/QUOTE]
Congrats. You proved that not all babies born to 12 year old moms turn out to have lives full of suffering.
The ratio could be 99.999% (I'd bet a dollar that it's a majority of children born like this), but thank goodness its not 100%.
Although if the girl has to listen to your close-mindedness and sermonizing, maybe she would have been better off stripping.
[quote name='Derwood43']My so called "myopic" evidence is perfectly relevant to the conversation. Had you taken time to read, evilmax made a statement that implied that all children born to a 13 year old WOULD be strippers.[/QUOTE]
I said (or meant) raised, not born to. A baby born to a 12 year old will have the same biology as a baby born to a 30 year old (more or less). The "stripper" part comes from being RAISED by a 13 year old.
I said (or meant) raised, not born to. A baby born to a 12 year old will have the same biology as a baby born to a 30 year old (more or less). The "stripper" part comes from being RAISED by a 13 year old.
[quote name='camoor']
Congrats. You proved that not all babies born to 12 year old moms turn out to have lives full of suffering.
The ratio could be 99.999% (I'd bet a dollar that it's a majority of children born like this), but thank goodness its not 100%.
Although if the girl has to listen to your close-mindedness and sermonizing, maybe she would have been better off stripping.[/QUOTE]
Ah yes, the close-minded argument. You say I'm close-minded because I won't believe what you want me to believe. Independent? Maybe. Stubborn? Could be. Close-minded? No sir. I am constantly looking to expand my horizons. There are, however, certain issues on which I will not budge. And just becuase what I'm saying hurts you, don't call it sermonizing. It's very easy to reduce someone else's argument to "sermonizing", simply because you don't care for it.
Why is it so hard for you to understand that I have a different belief set? Is it because you're close-minded?
Congrats. You proved that not all babies born to 12 year old moms turn out to have lives full of suffering.
The ratio could be 99.999% (I'd bet a dollar that it's a majority of children born like this), but thank goodness its not 100%.
Although if the girl has to listen to your close-mindedness and sermonizing, maybe she would have been better off stripping.[/QUOTE]
Ah yes, the close-minded argument. You say I'm close-minded because I won't believe what you want me to believe. Independent? Maybe. Stubborn? Could be. Close-minded? No sir. I am constantly looking to expand my horizons. There are, however, certain issues on which I will not budge. And just becuase what I'm saying hurts you, don't call it sermonizing. It's very easy to reduce someone else's argument to "sermonizing", simply because you don't care for it.
Why is it so hard for you to understand that I have a different belief set? Is it because you're close-minded?
[quote name='evilmax17']I said (or meant) raised, not born to. A baby born to a 12 year old will have the same biology as a baby born to a 30 year old (more or less). The "stripper" part comes from being RAISED by a 13 year old.[/QUOTE]
Technically you said, "born to this 13 year old". I understand that this is symantics. As we all know, on the internet, it is very hard to percieve implied feelings from someone we've never met.
Technically you said, "born to this 13 year old". I understand that this is symantics. As we all know, on the internet, it is very hard to percieve implied feelings from someone we've never met.
[quote name='camoor']Well bully for your cousin. It's too early to determine whether she'll be a stripper, unless you live in Alabama or Florida.
Do you have any legitimate stats on the percentage of kids born out of wedlock who will find good homes, or just your own myopic anecdotal evidence?[/QUOTE]
His actual life experience is myopic anecdotal evidence...
[quote name='camoor']Congrats. You proved that not all babies born to 12 year old moms turn out to have lives full of suffering.
The ratio could be 99.999% (I'd bet a dollar that it's a majority of children born like this), but thank goodness its not 100%.
Although if the girl has to listen to your close-mindedness and sermonizing, maybe she would have been better off stripping.[/QUOTE]
I would like to preface this by stating clearly that this is not intended as an attempt to make you look bad, but is meant to be a serious question.
Let me say something I think it's obvious that you and a lot of other people have never considered: STATISTICS ARE PURE BULL!!
Do you know how these things are motivated or gathered? Are you familiar with the term self-fulfilling prophecy? Whenever research is done, one always has to worry about the high possibility of misinterpreting the data to meet whatever preconceived notions the researcher might have. Statistics and public polls are almost undoubtedly skewed either conciously or unconciously and are most definitely inherently flawed. When either side of a public debate argues their opposing viewpoints, they always quote statistics that support their argument. Obviously they cannot both be accurate. So which stats are more valid? Truthfully, neither. There is no way to determine whether the data looked at or cross section that was polled is actually an accurate representation of the society, or whether the questions asked didn't encourage a particular answer. Last week, they announced on Good Morning America that there is new research that shows that obesity actually increases your lifespan. This is obviously contradictory to most of the commonly cited research.
Sorry I rambled a little there, but my point is this: I guarantee that for every statistic you can find (as opposed to the random numbers we may occasionally toss into our posts) I promise you I can find one the says the exact opposite of what you're trying to say. So how about we not put our faith in an system that is so clearly flawed. Instead why don't we rely and discuss our actual experiences and beliefs, citing them as such? We can trust each other (hopefully) not to make up shit, actually have an intelligent discussion, and not be afraid to make a statement that doesn't have the false proof of statistics backing it.
Do you have any legitimate stats on the percentage of kids born out of wedlock who will find good homes, or just your own myopic anecdotal evidence?[/QUOTE]
His actual life experience is myopic anecdotal evidence...
[quote name='camoor']Congrats. You proved that not all babies born to 12 year old moms turn out to have lives full of suffering.
The ratio could be 99.999% (I'd bet a dollar that it's a majority of children born like this), but thank goodness its not 100%.
Although if the girl has to listen to your close-mindedness and sermonizing, maybe she would have been better off stripping.[/QUOTE]
I would like to preface this by stating clearly that this is not intended as an attempt to make you look bad, but is meant to be a serious question.
Let me say something I think it's obvious that you and a lot of other people have never considered: STATISTICS ARE PURE BULL!!
Do you know how these things are motivated or gathered? Are you familiar with the term self-fulfilling prophecy? Whenever research is done, one always has to worry about the high possibility of misinterpreting the data to meet whatever preconceived notions the researcher might have. Statistics and public polls are almost undoubtedly skewed either conciously or unconciously and are most definitely inherently flawed. When either side of a public debate argues their opposing viewpoints, they always quote statistics that support their argument. Obviously they cannot both be accurate. So which stats are more valid? Truthfully, neither. There is no way to determine whether the data looked at or cross section that was polled is actually an accurate representation of the society, or whether the questions asked didn't encourage a particular answer. Last week, they announced on Good Morning America that there is new research that shows that obesity actually increases your lifespan. This is obviously contradictory to most of the commonly cited research.
Sorry I rambled a little there, but my point is this: I guarantee that for every statistic you can find (as opposed to the random numbers we may occasionally toss into our posts) I promise you I can find one the says the exact opposite of what you're trying to say. So how about we not put our faith in an system that is so clearly flawed. Instead why don't we rely and discuss our actual experiences and beliefs, citing them as such? We can trust each other (hopefully) not to make up shit, actually have an intelligent discussion, and not be afraid to make a statement that doesn't have the false proof of statistics backing it.
[quote name='atreyue']His actual life experience is myopic anecdotal evidence...
I would like to preface this by stating clearly that this is not intended as an attempt to make you look bad, but is meant to be a serious question.
Let me say something I think it's obvious that you and a lot of other people have never considered: STATISTICS ARE PURE BULL!!
Do you know how these things are motivated or gathered? Are you familiar with the term self-fulfilling prophecy? Whenever research is done, one always has to worry about the high possibility of misinterpreting the data to meet whatever preconceived notions the researcher might have. Statistics and public polls are almost undoubtedly skewed either conciously or unconciously and are most definitely inherently flawed. When either side of a public debate argues their opposing viewpoints, they always quote statistics that support their argument. Obviously they cannot both be accurate. So which stats are more valid? Truthfully, neither. There is no way to determine whether the data looked at or cross section that was polled is actually an accurate representation of the society, or whether the questions asked didn't encourage a particular answer. Last week, they announced on Good Morning America that there is new research that shows that obesity actually increases your lifespan. This is obviously contradictory to most of the commonly cited research.
Sorry I rambled a little there, but my point is this: I guarantee that for every statistic you can find (as opposed to the random numbers we may occasionally toss into our posts) I promise you I can find one the says the exact opposite of what you're trying to say. So how about we not put our faith in an system that is so clearly flawed. Instead why don't we rely and discuss our actual experiences and beliefs, citing them as such? We can trust each other (hopefully) not to make up shit, actually have an intelligent discussion, and not be afraid to make a statement that doesn't have the false proof of statistics backing it.[/QUOTE]
Apparently, actual life experiences don't count in this thread. Only the "hard" numbers can be trusted. (Sarcasm)
It's nice to actually have an ally in this "community".
I would like to preface this by stating clearly that this is not intended as an attempt to make you look bad, but is meant to be a serious question.
Let me say something I think it's obvious that you and a lot of other people have never considered: STATISTICS ARE PURE BULL!!
Do you know how these things are motivated or gathered? Are you familiar with the term self-fulfilling prophecy? Whenever research is done, one always has to worry about the high possibility of misinterpreting the data to meet whatever preconceived notions the researcher might have. Statistics and public polls are almost undoubtedly skewed either conciously or unconciously and are most definitely inherently flawed. When either side of a public debate argues their opposing viewpoints, they always quote statistics that support their argument. Obviously they cannot both be accurate. So which stats are more valid? Truthfully, neither. There is no way to determine whether the data looked at or cross section that was polled is actually an accurate representation of the society, or whether the questions asked didn't encourage a particular answer. Last week, they announced on Good Morning America that there is new research that shows that obesity actually increases your lifespan. This is obviously contradictory to most of the commonly cited research.
Sorry I rambled a little there, but my point is this: I guarantee that for every statistic you can find (as opposed to the random numbers we may occasionally toss into our posts) I promise you I can find one the says the exact opposite of what you're trying to say. So how about we not put our faith in an system that is so clearly flawed. Instead why don't we rely and discuss our actual experiences and beliefs, citing them as such? We can trust each other (hopefully) not to make up shit, actually have an intelligent discussion, and not be afraid to make a statement that doesn't have the false proof of statistics backing it.[/QUOTE]
Apparently, actual life experiences don't count in this thread. Only the "hard" numbers can be trusted. (Sarcasm)
It's nice to actually have an ally in this "community".
jmcc
CAGiversary!
[quote name='atreyue']His actual life experience is myopic anecdotal evidence...
I would like to preface this by stating clearly that this is not intended as an attempt to make you look bad, but is meant to be a serious question.
Let me say something I think it's obvious that you and a lot of other people have never considered: STATISTICS ARE PURE BULL!!
Do you know how these things are motivated or gathered? Are you familiar with the term self-fulfilling prophecy? Whenever research is done, one always has to worry about the high possibility of misinterpreting the data to meet whatever preconceived notions the researcher might have. Statistics and public polls are almost undoubtedly skewed either conciously or unconciously and are most definitely inherently flawed. When either side of a public debate argues their opposing viewpoints, they always quote statistics that support their argument. Obviously they cannot both be accurate. So which stats are more valid? Truthfully, neither. There is no way to determine whether the data looked at or cross section that was polled is actually an accurate representation of the society, or whether the questions asked didn't encourage a particular answer. Last week, they announced on Good Morning America that there is new research that shows that obesity actually increases your lifespan. This is obviously contradictory to most of the commonly cited research.
Sorry I rambled a little there, but my point is this: I guarantee that for every statistic you can find (as opposed to the random numbers we may occasionally toss into our posts) I promise you I can find one the says the exact opposite of what you're trying to say. So how about we not put our faith in an system that is so clearly flawed. Instead why don't we rely and discuss our actual experiences and beliefs, citing them as such? We can trust each other (hopefully) not to make up shit, actually have an intelligent discussion, and not be afraid to make a statement that doesn't have the false proof of statistics backing it.[/QUOTE]
Yeah. We shouldn't use statistics for anything. We should base everything on anecdotal evidence. That's a great idea.
Even if what you said about there always being an alternate set of stats to contradict another was true (it's not) the fact would be that one or the other was skewed some way and wouldn't be valid. Just because someone comes up with a set of stats that shows that fire isn't hot doesn't mean that it's true. It means somewhere along the line they screwed up. It doesn't alter the validity of the "fire hot" set.
On a related note: what religion would you say you are? You seem to have a real lack of understanding as to how various fields of sciences work. Are you, by chance, scientologist?
I would like to preface this by stating clearly that this is not intended as an attempt to make you look bad, but is meant to be a serious question.
Let me say something I think it's obvious that you and a lot of other people have never considered: STATISTICS ARE PURE BULL!!
Do you know how these things are motivated or gathered? Are you familiar with the term self-fulfilling prophecy? Whenever research is done, one always has to worry about the high possibility of misinterpreting the data to meet whatever preconceived notions the researcher might have. Statistics and public polls are almost undoubtedly skewed either conciously or unconciously and are most definitely inherently flawed. When either side of a public debate argues their opposing viewpoints, they always quote statistics that support their argument. Obviously they cannot both be accurate. So which stats are more valid? Truthfully, neither. There is no way to determine whether the data looked at or cross section that was polled is actually an accurate representation of the society, or whether the questions asked didn't encourage a particular answer. Last week, they announced on Good Morning America that there is new research that shows that obesity actually increases your lifespan. This is obviously contradictory to most of the commonly cited research.
Sorry I rambled a little there, but my point is this: I guarantee that for every statistic you can find (as opposed to the random numbers we may occasionally toss into our posts) I promise you I can find one the says the exact opposite of what you're trying to say. So how about we not put our faith in an system that is so clearly flawed. Instead why don't we rely and discuss our actual experiences and beliefs, citing them as such? We can trust each other (hopefully) not to make up shit, actually have an intelligent discussion, and not be afraid to make a statement that doesn't have the false proof of statistics backing it.[/QUOTE]
Yeah. We shouldn't use statistics for anything. We should base everything on anecdotal evidence. That's a great idea.
Even if what you said about there always being an alternate set of stats to contradict another was true (it's not) the fact would be that one or the other was skewed some way and wouldn't be valid. Just because someone comes up with a set of stats that shows that fire isn't hot doesn't mean that it's true. It means somewhere along the line they screwed up. It doesn't alter the validity of the "fire hot" set.
On a related note: what religion would you say you are? You seem to have a real lack of understanding as to how various fields of sciences work. Are you, by chance, scientologist?
jmcc
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Derwood43']Apparently, actual life experiences don't count in this thread. Only the "hard" numbers can be trusted. (Sarcasm)
It's nice to actually have an ally in this "community".[/QUOTE]
So you're saying your personal experiences should be used as a broad study as to how things work? I'm hoping that's not what you're saying, because that's profoundly retarded, but it seems to be...
It's nice to actually have an ally in this "community".[/QUOTE]
So you're saying your personal experiences should be used as a broad study as to how things work? I'm hoping that's not what you're saying, because that's profoundly retarded, but it seems to be...
MrBadExample
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
A 13 year old child should not be having sex (which has already been stated correctly as rape because she cannot give consent). Neither should a 13 year old child be forced to carry a pregnancy to term as a punishment. This is especially true for a ward of the state who has no family to fall back on to help take care of the baby.
Having said that, what about the guy who got her pregnant? What should his punishment be? So far, she's refusing to name him. We don't even know how old he is. He could close to her own age or a grown-up perv preying on runaways. What measures should be taken to find him and bring him to justice?
Having said that, what about the guy who got her pregnant? What should his punishment be? So far, she's refusing to name him. We don't even know how old he is. He could close to her own age or a grown-up perv preying on runaways. What measures should be taken to find him and bring him to justice?
[quote name='jmcc']So you're saying your personal experiences should be used as a broad study as to how things work? I'm hoping that's not what you're saying, because that's profoundly retarded, but it seems to be...[/QUOTE]
Perfect example of a skewed interpretation.
Apparently, actual life experiences don't count in this thread.
How in the world can you assume that I want my ONE experience to be used as a standard?? My argument is to not discredit my experience because it contradicts what you're saying. You can't automatically throw it out because it doesn't fit into your equation.
Only the "hard" numbers can be trusted. (Sarcasm)
I don't know how more plainly I can put it. I was using SARCASM.
sar·casm (sär
k
z
m)
Past that explanation, I'm sunk.
Perfect example of a skewed interpretation.
Apparently, actual life experiences don't count in this thread.
How in the world can you assume that I want my ONE experience to be used as a standard?? My argument is to not discredit my experience because it contradicts what you're saying. You can't automatically throw it out because it doesn't fit into your equation.
Only the "hard" numbers can be trusted. (Sarcasm)
I don't know how more plainly I can put it. I was using SARCASM.
sar·casm (sär
- A cutting, often ironic remark intended to wound.
- A form of wit that is marked by the use of sarcastic language and is intended to make its victim the butt of contempt or ridicule.
Past that explanation, I'm sunk.
MrBadExample
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
[quote name='Derwood43']Apparently, actual life experiences don't count in this thread. Only the "hard" numbers can be trusted. (Sarcasm)[/QUOTE]
Your life experience is one case. You can't base any meaningful judgment on one single case. If there were a study that said 95% of babies born to 13 year olds became strippers, of course there will be some who turned out fine. That doesn't mean you get to ignore the larger percentage.
*All statistics here are completely made up and I meant no offense to any strippers. Call me...
Your life experience is one case. You can't base any meaningful judgment on one single case. If there were a study that said 95% of babies born to 13 year olds became strippers, of course there will be some who turned out fine. That doesn't mean you get to ignore the larger percentage.
*All statistics here are completely made up and I meant no offense to any strippers. Call me...
[quote name='evilmax17']I forgot this analogy when you posted this, but I remembered it this morning, so you're in luck!
Let me ask you this. If somebody pushed you down a flight of stairs and couldn't walk, you'd go see a doctor right? If you have physical injuries, you go see somebody who knows about the body, and how to treat it. That's for physical health. It would be completely assinine to say "It's MY body, and I think I'm fine, so I'll just deal with it myself."
So why are saying that for mental health? Growing up with addicted parents is the mental equivelant of falling down a few flights of stairs. You get injured from that, whether you like it or not. Just like you would go and see a doctor about a physical injury, you must also go see a liscensed Therapist / Psychologist about a mental injury (for a few years at least).
Sure, you could probably make your way around the town by using a cane and hobbling around. And you could say "I'm fine, I haven't fallen down the stairs in years" all you like. But you'd still be needlessly injured. You can't treat your mind by yourself, just like you can't treat your body by yourself. You're not a doctor.[/QUOTE]
It would seem somewhat obvious to me that there is agreement that the mind cannot be treated in the same way as the rest of the body, but I'll play along. First, let's try a better analogy. Correct me if I'm wrong. Different people can go through the same activity and their bodies sustain different levels of trauma. I played footbal for 3 years in high school without major injury, while others broke different bones every season. This can in no way be predicted by their size, weight, musculature, race or any other factor. There is no handy chart that can predict at all what the result of an action will be. In this way, at least, the body and mind are on the same page. There's no psychologist's handbook that says If you had an alcoholic parent, you will suffer from this mental issue. Everyone is affected differently by the same things. When I get tackled in football, should I have to go see the doctor just because another teammate broke his arm when he was tackled by the same person? Of course not. The intense pain would be a sure sign. Of course I could choose to ignore this pain when I shouldn't, but I am the only person who knows the depth of my injury because I'm the only person in my body. So it is with the mind. No matter what happened to me, the reality is that I am the one who really knows whether or not I was scarred by it and how deeply. I don't really believe that someone can truly lie to themselves convincingly. If I needed therapy, I would get it. But I don't, and no one else can really know whether or not I do.
Let me ask you this. If somebody pushed you down a flight of stairs and couldn't walk, you'd go see a doctor right? If you have physical injuries, you go see somebody who knows about the body, and how to treat it. That's for physical health. It would be completely assinine to say "It's MY body, and I think I'm fine, so I'll just deal with it myself."
So why are saying that for mental health? Growing up with addicted parents is the mental equivelant of falling down a few flights of stairs. You get injured from that, whether you like it or not. Just like you would go and see a doctor about a physical injury, you must also go see a liscensed Therapist / Psychologist about a mental injury (for a few years at least).
Sure, you could probably make your way around the town by using a cane and hobbling around. And you could say "I'm fine, I haven't fallen down the stairs in years" all you like. But you'd still be needlessly injured. You can't treat your mind by yourself, just like you can't treat your body by yourself. You're not a doctor.[/QUOTE]
It would seem somewhat obvious to me that there is agreement that the mind cannot be treated in the same way as the rest of the body, but I'll play along. First, let's try a better analogy. Correct me if I'm wrong. Different people can go through the same activity and their bodies sustain different levels of trauma. I played footbal for 3 years in high school without major injury, while others broke different bones every season. This can in no way be predicted by their size, weight, musculature, race or any other factor. There is no handy chart that can predict at all what the result of an action will be. In this way, at least, the body and mind are on the same page. There's no psychologist's handbook that says If you had an alcoholic parent, you will suffer from this mental issue. Everyone is affected differently by the same things. When I get tackled in football, should I have to go see the doctor just because another teammate broke his arm when he was tackled by the same person? Of course not. The intense pain would be a sure sign. Of course I could choose to ignore this pain when I shouldn't, but I am the only person who knows the depth of my injury because I'm the only person in my body. So it is with the mind. No matter what happened to me, the reality is that I am the one who really knows whether or not I was scarred by it and how deeply. I don't really believe that someone can truly lie to themselves convincingly. If I needed therapy, I would get it. But I don't, and no one else can really know whether or not I do.
[quote name='MrBadExample']A 13 year old child should not be having sex (which has already been stated correctly as rape because she cannot give consent). Neither should a 13 year old child be forced to carry a pregnancy to term as a punishment. This is especially true for a ward of the state who has no family to fall back on to help take care of the baby.
Having said that, what about the guy who got her pregnant? What should his punishment be? So far, she's refusing to name him. We don't even know how old he is. He could close to her own age or a grown-up perv preying on runaways. What measures should be taken to find him and bring him to justice?[/QUOTE]
You'll probably hate me for this. But..
...I think he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Track him down, use DNA to do it. He DID rape her (according to law). Find him and punish him.
Back to the baby/abortion thing. My feeling is not that she should have to care for her once she is born. But what about the families who can't naturally conceive a child? (My aunt and uncle) Why not place that baby up for adoption? I've seen the joy and happiness that one of these children can bring to an entire family. Would you like to tell that couple that you killed that child? The one that they so desperatly want? They waited for years before they could even be considered for an adoption. There are thousands upon thousands of families awaiting adoption. Just because someone doesn't want them does not make it right for them murder the unborn.
Having said that, what about the guy who got her pregnant? What should his punishment be? So far, she's refusing to name him. We don't even know how old he is. He could close to her own age or a grown-up perv preying on runaways. What measures should be taken to find him and bring him to justice?[/QUOTE]
You'll probably hate me for this. But..
...I think he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Track him down, use DNA to do it. He DID rape her (according to law). Find him and punish him.
Back to the baby/abortion thing. My feeling is not that she should have to care for her once she is born. But what about the families who can't naturally conceive a child? (My aunt and uncle) Why not place that baby up for adoption? I've seen the joy and happiness that one of these children can bring to an entire family. Would you like to tell that couple that you killed that child? The one that they so desperatly want? They waited for years before they could even be considered for an adoption. There are thousands upon thousands of families awaiting adoption. Just because someone doesn't want them does not make it right for them murder the unborn.
[quote name='MrBadExample']Your life experience is one case. You can't base any meaningful judgment on one single case. If there were a study that said 95% of babies born to 13 year olds became strippers, of course there will be some who turned out fine. That doesn't mean you get to ignore the larger percentage.
*All statistics here are completely made up and I meant no offense to any strippers. Call me...[/QUOTE]
Who is ignoring percentages??
You say ALL children. I say not so. I am in no way trying to make a percentage up. No one has come with a real percentage, their only bringing what they "think" to be true. Unless someone here is a degreed sociologist, I doubt they can say with any certainty one way or the other.
*All statistics here are completely made up and I meant no offense to any strippers. Call me...[/QUOTE]
Who is ignoring percentages??
You say ALL children. I say not so. I am in no way trying to make a percentage up. No one has come with a real percentage, their only bringing what they "think" to be true. Unless someone here is a degreed sociologist, I doubt they can say with any certainty one way or the other.
[quote name='jmcc']Yeah. We shouldn't use statistics for anything. We should base everything on anecdotal evidence. That's a great idea.[/QUOTE]
On actual evidence of it having happened, versus what someone else said? Okay.
[quote name='jmcc']Even if what you said about there always being an alternate set of stats to contradict another was true (it's not) the fact would be that one or the other was skewed some way and wouldn't be valid. Just because someone comes up with a set of stats that shows that fire isn't hot doesn't mean that it's true. It means somewhere along the line they screwed up. It doesn't alter the validity of the "fire hot" set.[/QUOTE]
Scientists don't use stats to say fire is hot. They don't need a percentage of the voting public to believe it. Too bad you have such issues with putting together a real argument. Always tripped uo by the truth
[quote name='jmcc']On a related note: what religion would you say you are? You seem to have a real lack of understanding as to how various fields of sciences work. Are you, by chance, scientologist?[/QUOTE]
I was raised Christian, actually, but eventually sought my own path because I know I need to find answers for myself instead of others giving them to me. It's also funny to me that you talk about the inability of someone who nearly majored in chemistry in college to understand how the sciences work. If you knew that yourself, you'd also know that Psycology and Sociology are called 'soft' sciences and looked down upon by the real sciences because they are extremely fond of taking supposition and pretending that it's fact. A scientist would only call something fact if it happened 100% of the time.
I must say, it's always diverting, at least, to answer your idiotic posts.
On actual evidence of it having happened, versus what someone else said? Okay.
[quote name='jmcc']Even if what you said about there always being an alternate set of stats to contradict another was true (it's not) the fact would be that one or the other was skewed some way and wouldn't be valid. Just because someone comes up with a set of stats that shows that fire isn't hot doesn't mean that it's true. It means somewhere along the line they screwed up. It doesn't alter the validity of the "fire hot" set.[/QUOTE]
Scientists don't use stats to say fire is hot. They don't need a percentage of the voting public to believe it. Too bad you have such issues with putting together a real argument. Always tripped uo by the truth
[quote name='jmcc']On a related note: what religion would you say you are? You seem to have a real lack of understanding as to how various fields of sciences work. Are you, by chance, scientologist?[/QUOTE]
I was raised Christian, actually, but eventually sought my own path because I know I need to find answers for myself instead of others giving them to me. It's also funny to me that you talk about the inability of someone who nearly majored in chemistry in college to understand how the sciences work. If you knew that yourself, you'd also know that Psycology and Sociology are called 'soft' sciences and looked down upon by the real sciences because they are extremely fond of taking supposition and pretending that it's fact. A scientist would only call something fact if it happened 100% of the time.
I must say, it's always diverting, at least, to answer your idiotic posts.
[quote name='Derwood43']Apparently, actual life experiences don't count in this thread. Only the "hard" numbers can be trusted. (Sarcasm)
It's nice to actually have an ally in this "community".[/QUOTE]
77% of the community say that intelligent conversation is at a premium. :lol:
It's nice to actually have an ally in this "community".[/QUOTE]
77% of the community say that intelligent conversation is at a premium. :lol:
[quote name='Derwood43']Who is ignoring percentages??
You say ALL children. I say not so. I am in no way trying to make a percentage up. No one has come with a real percentage, their only bringing what they "think" to be true. Unless someone here is a degreed sociologist, I doubt they can say with any certainty one way or the other.[/QUOTE]
Even the sociologists are uncertain. The just put the edducated in 'educated guess'.
You say ALL children. I say not so. I am in no way trying to make a percentage up. No one has come with a real percentage, their only bringing what they "think" to be true. Unless someone here is a degreed sociologist, I doubt they can say with any certainty one way or the other.[/QUOTE]
Even the sociologists are uncertain. The just put the edducated in 'educated guess'.
bread's done