Contraception for 11 year olds

[CptStern]

Don't sidestep the question here. Is there no line that should be drawn for kids who try to experiment sexually, no matter how young they are? There are kids out there who have their first sexual experiences at the ages of 5-9.

Or no matter their age when they become curious, they should just be left to their own devices?

EVERY kid experiments with sexual situations ..it's normal ...as long as they dont actually engage in intercourse

 

[CptStern]

At least throughout school anyways. Abstinence until of legal age. Still not ready, but it's better than there being 11 year olds having sex.. I know it won't stop all cases, but it's sure to stop some and that's what's important.

but wouldnt contracpetion stop pregnancy 99% of the time? abstinance is life long ...wearing a condom lasts much less

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

but wouldnt contracpetion stop pregnancy 99% of the time? abstinance is life long ...wearing a condom lasts much less

Why's it life long, could just be till 18. Most people will decide when ready will be responsible about it, too, the ones who aren't responsible about it are the ones who would probably be influenced by a program. It just means not having sex, that's the best way to not get pregnant.

 

[Raziaar]

EVERY kid experiments with sexual situations ..it's normal ...as long as they dont actually engage in intercourse

That's what i'm saying! Kids attempt to engage in intercourse at these young ages, pre-teens! I'm not talking about kissing. Geez, nearly every young 5 year old has kissed before. Thats natural, and I don't think there is anything wrong with it. Its the sex, that bothers me.

Some kids are raised in such an enviroment, that they become so curious about sex that they start fooling around and trying to emulate it. Is this not wrong!? Just pass the kids some contraceptives and say, let boys be boys(or girls)!?

I don't know if its even physically possible to have intercourse at that age(though likely without any fluids passing), but I am telling no lie when I say the kids on my block, including a cousin of mine just one year younger than me actually, were going out to do just that, fooling around with this neighborhood girl who was the same age as them. My brother can even attest to this <chuckles>


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/796346/posts

If a 9 year old girl can get pregnant, i'm pretty sure now that intercourse can be had at 4 years younger, though maybe without fluids passing.

 

[CptStern]

That's what i'm saying! Kids attempt to engage in intercourse at these young ages, pre-teens!

no they dont, that's extremely rare and is usually a sign of sexual abuse ..I meant touching or kissing

Some kids are raised in such an enviroment, that they become so curious about sex that they start fooling around and trying to emulate it. Is this not wrong!? Just pass the kids some contraceptives and say, let boys be boys(or girls)!?

oh come on ...a child pre-puberty couldnt engage in sex ..oh and it's a fact that even babies have erections ...should we start educating them about abstinance as soon as they're born?

I don't know if its even physically possible to have intercourse at that age(though likely without any fluids passing), but I am telling no lie when I say the kids on my block, including a cousin of mine just one year younger than me actually, were going out to do just that, fooling around with this neighborhood girl who was the same age as them. My brother can even attest to this <chuckles>

what age was he? what constitutes sex? heavy petting? or vaginal penetration?

 

[CptStern]

Why's it life long, could just be till 18. Most people will decide when ready will be responsible about it, too, the ones who aren't responsible about it are the ones who would probably be influenced by a program. It just means not having sex, that's the best way to not get pregnant.

why 18? if the majority of kids drink underage why would you think they'd be able to abstain from sex? the only reason for abstinnace is a religious one

 

[Raziaar]

no they dont, that's extremely rare and is usually a sign of sexual abuse ..I meant touching or kissing

Its not widespread no, but it doesn't have to be a sign of sexual abuse. It could be bad influences, that doesn't amount of sexual abuse. Do some internet searches, you'd be surprised to find out how many women claim to have had their first sexual relations at the young ages of 6-10 years of age.

oh come on ...a child pre-puberty couldnt engage in sex ..oh and it's a fact that even babies have erections ...should we start educating them about abstinance as soon as they're born?

Why couldn't a child pre-pubery engage in sex? Its been proven to have been done before, with testimonies to the fact. Or do you only constitute sex as the passing of fluids? <groans> I'm not speaking anything about absinence here, i'm merely asking, shouldn't there be a line drawn on when we utterly forbid our children from having sex, or should they just be left to do it when they do it, as i'm getting the impression from you?

what age was he? what constitutes sex? heavy petting? or vaginal penetration?

Age... about 6-7 years of age. And i'm talking about vaginal penetration. This was no innocent neighborhood. They'd steal away into the van and "put their penis in the vagina". I quoted that, because that is basically what they had said.

why 18? if the majority of kids drink underage why would you think they'd be able to abstain from sex? the only reason for abstinnace is a religious one

Don't let your ignorance show, stern. abstinence isn't only a religious thing. THere's lots of groups out there that practice abstinence, and promote it, and claim to be non religious.

here's one. http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A2302525

 

[Raziaar]

A subject i've not even considered before in the whole underage sex thing. Have any of you considered it? The emotional well being of those who practice sex outside of serious, committed relationships.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GuestColumns/Throckmorton20041210.shtml

 

[CptStern]

Its not widespread no, but it doesn't have to be a sign of sexual abuse. It could be bad influences, that doesn't amount of sexual abuse. Do some internet searches, you'd be surprised to find out how many women claim to have had their first sexual relations at the young ages of 6-10 years of age.





Why couldn't a child pre-pubery engage in sex? Its been proven to have been done before, with testimonies to the fact. Or do you only constitute sex as the passing of fluids? <groans> I'm not speaking anything about absinence here, i'm merely asking, shouldn't there be a line drawn on when we utterly forbid our children from having sex, or should they just be left to do it when they do it, as i'm getting the impression from you?



Age... about 6-7 years of age. And i'm talking about vaginal penetration. This was no innocent neighborhood. They'd steal away into the van and "put their penis in the vagina". I quoted that, because that is basically what they had said.




Don't let your ignorance show, stern. abstinence isn't only a religious thing. THere's lots of groups out there that practice abstinence, and promote it, and claim to be non religious.

here's one. http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A2302525

ummmm you're not going to use that as a source are you? :O .......ummm you do realise there's exactly 5 members in that group ...6 if you include the former member


5 people hardly make up a majority

 

[Raziaar]

ummmm you're not going to use that as a source are you? :O .......ummm you do realise there's exactly 5 members in that group ...6 if you include the former member


5 people hardly make up a majority

That was a 5 second search :-P Go do some more if you're *really* in denial about the fact that there are non religious abstinence groups out there. And when did I say majority?


Even though i'm a christian, i'm not so big on the no sex before marriage thing. If I found a woman I truely loved, and we were in a good relationship, I would most certainly have sex with her before we were married. To me, that is one of the things that I would need to know about a person, whether we would be compatible sexually, instead of it being a mystery that is to be unveiled upon marriage.

However, I am really big on no sex until you're in a loving relationship. Not really big on the random sex encounters thing, and it doesn't stem from a religious foundation.

I don't believe in abstinence, but I do believe in not having sexual encounters before a certain undeveloped age not only mentally, but physically as well.

 

[CptStern]

A subject i've not even considered before in the whole underage sex thing. Have any of you considered it? The emotional well being of those who practice sex outside of serious, committed relationships.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GuestColumns/Throckmorton20041210.shtml

:upstare: ...wtf kind of bullshit research is that? according to Warren Throckmorton gays can be converted to heterosexuals ...this guy seems to build a career around trying to convert gays through "reparative therapy " ..he once called a pamphlet about homosexuality "pornographic" ...it's ironic that you support this guy, cuz he seems to be cut from the same cloth as Jack Thompson


I've had many non comital relationships with women yet I still was able to have a loving stable relationship with my wife for over a decade

 

[Raziaar]

:upstare: ...wtf kind of bullshit research is that? according to Warren Throckmorton gays can be converted to heterosexuals


I've had many non comital relationships with women yet I still was able to have a loving stable relationship with my wife for over a decade

What the **** does this have to do with Warren Throckmorton? all he did was write the article. I wasn't praising him, I was just pointing out the fact that its an article about the emotional well being of children who have sex underage, rather than having the fully developed mental capacity of an adult. as far as I saw, it mentioned nothing really about having non commital sexual relationships as an adult.


Are you denying that having sex at very very young ages might have an adverse effect on the persons emotional well being later in life?


Meh. I don't even know why we're arguing. I'm not a supporter of abstinence, but then again... i'm not a supporter of kiddies having sex either.

 

[CptStern]

read it again because he's not talking about children here but rather teens

 

[Raziaar]

read it again because he's not talking about children here but rather teens

And that changes....? At these ages of 10-15 and for some kids even older, I still don't think a child is still fully developed mentally enough to really feel the need to have sex or to cope with it.

Hell... there's a defense out there for kids against murder at those ages, because they don't have the mental capacity to understand what it means to kill a man, to understand exactly what they did. Point of the matter is, the kids aren't developed fully physically, nor mentally. So I don't see why people like you support their kiddie sex. Heh.

 

[CptStern]

And that changes....? At these ages of 10-15 and for some kids even older, I still don't think a child is still fully developed mentally enough to really feel the need to have sex or to cope with it.

stop backpeddling ...or did you forget you wrote this?:

"Are you denying that having sex at very very young ages might have an adverse effect on the persons emotional well being later in life?"

Hell... there's a defense out there for kids against murder at those ages, because they don't have the mental capacity to understand what it means to kill a man, to understand exactly what they did. Point of the matter is, the kids aren't developed fully physically, nor mentally. So I don't see why people like you support their kiddie sex. Heh.

you keep contradicting yourself ...is it teen sex or sex between children because you seem to be jumping all over the place

...I dont support children having sex at such a young age ...but I'd rather they wore a condom because it was the right thing to do, instead of clinging to some outdated archaic morals dictated by hypocrites

 

[Raziaar]

stop backpeddling ...or did you forget you wrote this?:

"Are you denying that having sex at very very young ages might have an adverse effect on the persons emotional well being later in life?"




you keep contradicting yourself ...is it teen sex or sex between children because you seem to be jumping all over the place

...I dont support children having sex at such a young age ...but I'd rather they wore a condom because it was the right thing to do, instead of clinging to some outdated archaic morals dictated by hypocrites

***WHERE*** am I contradicting myself? I don't see it in what you posted. Please, point exactly where I contradicted myself there, because I haven't. I'm talking about the whole gamut here, children in general... children... ages 0-16(not gonna really put much effort into stopping the kids at this age or beyond). Teen sex, sex between children. All that stuff. I'm talking about it *ALL*.

SO WHERE THE HELL AM I CONTRADICTING MYSELF!?

And I think kids should wear condoms too, if they DO have sex! It'll still be just as bad, but at least they might not make things worse by bringing a child into their screwed up lives as well. So where exactly do we oppose here? I don't oppose giving the kids condoms, if they just absolutely will not stop being stupid and keep on having sex.


So tell me once more. where am I contradicting myself? The fact that I am mentioning various age ranges and saying the same thing for all of them, somehow makes me contradict myself? If I were contradicting myself, i'd being saying at one point, that kids of a certain age blah blah blah should not be having sex, and then later say in some way that its okay that they do. I haven't done anything of the like.

 

[CptStern]

here:


"its an article about the emotional well being of children who have sex underage"

"Are you denying that having sex at very very young ages"

"Point of the matter is, the kids aren't developed fully physically, nor mentally"


"I still don't think a child is still fully developed mentally enough "


"i'm not a supporter of kiddies having sex either."


then you post this:

"I was just pointing out the fact that its an article about the emotional well being of children who have sex underage"



when he was clearly talking about teens

 

[Raziaar]

here:


"its an article about the emotional well being of children who have sex underage"

"Are you denying that having sex at very very young ages"

"Point of the matter is, the kids aren't developed fully physically, nor mentally"


"I still don't think a child is still fully developed mentally enough "


"i'm not a supporter of kiddies having sex either."


then you post this:

"I was just pointing out the fact that its an article about the emotional well being of children who have sex underage"



when he was clearly talking about teens

Umm... all those terminologies I am applying to the whole range. A child, kid, kiddie. All the same thing!

How stupid are you? You're trying to make me out to appear like i'm contradicting myself, and you're going on a play of words? Read what I say about teens, read what I say about kids younger than 10. I'M SAYING THE SAME THINGS FOR ALL OF THEM. When have I changed my stance on any of those age groups? I feel the same for 'all' of them, that none of them are developed physically or mentally enough to be having sex at such a young age.

Shall I read to you the definition of contradiction? 3. Inconsistency; discrepancy.

I have not been inconsistent, I have been consistent in the fact that I feel all of those children, kids, kiddies, teens, whatever age group have you, need not be having sex at those ages. I don't feel they're well enough developed for it. Whether they be 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 years of age.

Now... are you still going to go on and on about this, making yourself look more like the fool who's grasping at straws? I haven't changed my position here, i've been entirely consistent.

 

[Raziaar]

Well, if you think you can even get back around to proving I'm contradicting myself, let me know. <winks and snickers>

 

[CptStern]

Umm... all those terminologies I am applying to the whole range. A child, kid, kiddie. All the same thing!

.......so in other words you're blaming me for your poor choice of words

How stupid are you?

I'm having this conversation arent I?

You're trying to make me out to appear like i'm contradicting myself, and you're going on a play of words? Read what I say about teens, read what I say about kids younger than 10. I'M SAYING THE SAME THINGS FOR ALL OF THEM. When have I changed my stance on any of those age groups? I feel the same for 'all' of them, that none of them are developed physically or mentally enough to be having sex at such a young age.

again you're trying to blame me for your poor choice of words

Shall I read to you the definition of contradiction? 3. Inconsistency; discrepancy.

I have not been inconsistent, I have been consistent in the fact that I feel all of those children, kids, kiddies, teens, whatever age group have you, need not be having sex at those ages. I don't feel they're well enough developed for it. Whether they be 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 years of age.

Now... are you still going to go on and on about this, making yourself look more like the fool who's grasping at straws? I haven't changed my position here, i've been entirely consistent.

oh lets bog down in semantics ...to hell with debating points, counter points and ideologies when we can revert to the same tired discussion of semantics


I mean this is completely idiotic and a waste a time, just because you cant decipher the meaning of words and need to make blanket statements about all children from infant to adult does it in any way make you right

 

[Raziaar]

.......so in other words you're blaming me for your poor choice of words



I'm having this conversation arent I?




again you're trying to blame me for your poor choice of words




oh lets bog down in semantics ...to hell with debating points, counter points and ideologies when we can revert to the same tired discussion of semantics


I mean this is completely idiotic and a waste a time, just because you cant decipher the meaning of words and need to make blanket statements about all children from infant to adult does it in any way make you right

You're the one who started it stern, by saying i'm contradicting myself. Which obviously, that is not the case. My discussion relates specifically to young children, pre-teen children, teenage children, young kids, pre-teen kids, teenage kids, young kiddies, pre-teen kiddies, and teenage kiddies. How damn generalizing can you get with those statements? That was what I was aiming for. Do I somehow 'offend' them doing that? Hardly. I don't deny making blanket statements regarding children of all ages up to the age of 15 years of age. And why don't I? Because thats my point, that children of those ages really shouldn't be having sex! They're not developed enough mentally or physically! Sheesh. Whats so hard to get abut that.

And yet you go on and on about me contradicting myself. No such thing here.

Look... YOU'RE the one arguing with what i'm saying in regards to my contradiction, so why are you claiming its idiotic and a waste of time? You're the one who initiated that waste of time <chuckles>

 

[CptStern]

se·man·tics:


3. The meaning or the interpretation of a word, sentence, or other language form: We're basically agreed; let's not quibble over semantics.

 

[Raziaar]

se·man·tics:


3. The meaning or the interpretation of a word, sentence, or other language form: We're basically agreed; let's not quibble over semantics.

I'm not the one arguing over semantics here, you are buddy.

here:


"its an article about the emotional well being of children who have sex underage"

"Are you denying that having sex at very very young ages"

"Point of the matter is, the kids aren't developed fully physically, nor mentally"


"I still don't think a child is still fully developed mentally enough "


"i'm not a supporter of kiddies having sex either."


then you post this:

"I was just pointing out the fact that its an article about the emotional well being of children who have sex underage"



when he was clearly talking about teens

You're the one who highlighted distinct words in those quotes... and therefore you're the one arguing semantics.

 

[$kelet0r]

Ireland's Minister for Health, Mary Harnady(sp?) has proposed alowing children as young as 11 to get contraception/morning after pill because of the underage pregnancy 'crisis' that is happening. It is illegal for these children to have sex so this is effectivly aiding a crime. Now, here's an interesting fact, the media and government is saying there is a crisis but there are as many under-age pregnancies as there were 30 years ago. So, do you think that it is alright to sell contraception to 12 year olds? Surely it would just encorage theem to have sex?

you do realise this is politcal cloak and dagger stuff
it made front page news while another damaging report about the health system was released
plus there is no age restriction on purchasing condoms anymore so anyone can legally buy them
your local doctor/gp will prescribe pubescent girls the pill because it is used to treat women who suffer during their period
and it also panders to adults voyeuristic shock/interest in underage sex - the kissing that is the norm of every teen disco is seized upon as extreme sex!!! wtf
plus ireland has quite a low level of teen pregnancies and sexual activity compared to other countries.

 

[Laivasse]

you do realise this is politcal cloak and dagger stuff
it made front page news while another damaging report about the health system was released
plus there is no age restriction on purchasing condoms anymore so anyone can legally buy them
your local doctor/gp will prescribe pubescent girls the pill because it is used to treat women who suffer during their period
and it also panders to adults voyeuristic shock/interest in underage sex - the kissing that is the norm of every teen disco is seized upon as extreme sex!!! wtf
plus ireland has quite a low level of teen pregnancies and sexual activity compared to other countries.

I think that's quite insightful. The reason this kind of thing stirs up so much hoo-haw is because people don't really know what to think about underage sex. Because in a way they're not allowed to think about it. Ruffled feathers and red faces all round.

 

[CptStern]

I'm not the one arguing over semantics here, you are buddy.



You're the one who highlighted distinct words in those quotes... and therefore you're the one arguing semantics.

chil·dren (chldrn):

1. A person between birth and puberty.


teen:

adj : being of the age 13 through 19



but according to you children means:

1. A person between birth and the age of 19







semantics Raziaar, (s-mntks)

 

[Raziaar]

Oh please... I call kids of all ages children, as well as kids. I'm not as politically correct as you. <rolls his eyes>

Many people are the same as me, using children to classify any non adult. Teen is more specific, and pre-teen is more specific.

Do you have SUCH a weak case against me, that you are trying to prove what i'm saying or not saying based on the actual definition of the words I use, that have widespread use to mean something entirely different and yet still some of the same?

If you're going to go along with this utterly idiotic semantics bullshit you are, why not just post this?

n. pl. chil·dren (chldrn)
# An unborn infant; a fetus.


Cause... we all know the dictionary defines everything! It has to be one, and not the other definitions! You know... like this one.

n. pl. chil·dren (chldrn)
# One who is childish or immature.

One who is childish or immature! WOW! That classifies just about all kids from every range out there!

# A son or daughter; an offspring.

OH MY GOSH! THAT works too!


Now... about kid. Why not go with your idiotic logic, and put this out there!

kid Pronunciation Key (kd)
# A young goat.

WOO! How intelligent you are to pick out specific definitions from the dictionary like that, to try to prove your stupid point.

I mean... because a kid could not also be this, right?

kid Pronunciation Key (kd)
# A young person.


<GASP>



Now... get your head out of your ass.

 

[CptStern]

you do realise this is politcal cloak and dagger stuff
it made front page news while another damaging report about the health system was released
plus there is no age restriction on purchasing condoms anymore so anyone can legally buy them
your local doctor/gp will prescribe pubescent girls the pill because it is used to treat women who suffer during their period
and it also panders to adults voyeuristic shock/interest in underage sex - the kissing that is the norm of every teen disco is seized upon as extreme sex!!! wtf
plus ireland has quite a low level of teen pregnancies and sexual activity compared to other countries.

yes thank you ..finally, someone cuts through all the bullshit

 

[CptStern]

Oh please... I call kids of all ages children, as well as kids. I'm not as politically correct as you. <rolls his eyes>

QFE ...

 

[Raziaar]

QFE ...

Read my post dumbass, you can see how kid and children mean exactly what I meant them to be.

Or in case you're too lazy to do that, why don't you just type the words kid and children into www.dictionary.com


kid Audio pronunciation of "kid" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kd)
n.

1.
1. A young goat.
2. The young of a similar animal, such as an antelope.
2.
1. The flesh of a young goat.
2. Leather made from the skin of a young goat; kidskin.
3. An article made from this leather.
3. Informal.
1. A child.
2. A young person.
4. Slang. Pal. Used as a term of familiar address, especially for a young person: Hi, kid! What's up?



child Audio pronunciation of "child" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (chld)
n. pl. chil·dren (chldrn)

1. A person between birth and puberty.
2.
1. An unborn infant; a fetus.
2. An infant; a baby.
3. One who is childish or immature.
4. A son or daughter; an offspring.
5. A member of a tribe; descendant: children of Abraham.
6.
1. An individual regarded as strongly affected by another or by a specified time, place, or circumstance: a child of nature; a child of the Sixties.
2. A product or result of something specified: “Times Square is a child of the 20th century” (Richard F. Shepard).

 

[CptStern]

/me smacks head against the wall ...this is beyond idiotic ...again stop blaming me for YOUR poor choice of words


if you're so convinced that children means from birth to age 19 why not write Websters and have them correct their error

 

[Raziaar]

/me smacks head against the wall ...this is beyond idiotic ...again stop blaming me for YOUR poor choice of words


if you're so convinced that children means from birth to age 19 why not write Websters and have them correct their error

When did I say 19? Dictionary.com already proves that it means any range one wants to apply, before adulthood. Too dumb to read? I don't have to rewrite websters or the dictionary, as they already prove what I need.

 

[Raziaar]

What do parents call their kids? Do they say... "Oh, my pre-teens, my teens, my young adults"

No... They say my children, my kids. Hell. they even say that when they're adults! MY KIDS, MY CHILDREN. But i'm not going that old here. I'm going through the ranges of birth through the age of 15, because I specified a specific age range.

Here's a few random links that support me... simply from the words that I show after the fact(the articles are irrelevant)

http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc0.asp?docid=1G1:113854816&refid=ink_tptd_mag&skeyword=&teaser=

Kids... ages 6-19 years! OMG!

http://www.med.umich.edu/1libr/yourchild/guns.htm

In 1999, 3,385 kids ages 0-19 years were killed with a gun! OMG!

http://aesop***tgers.edu/~njuep%20/pdf/ftsbroch.pdf#search='children%20ages%20619'

Childrends 6-19 years of age! OMG!

https://volunteer.united-e-way.org/vsm/org/opp/804253-printer-detailed.html

Tutoring or mentoring children ages 6-18! OMG!

http://www.amazon.ca/exec/obidos/ASIN/0965378772/702-4561653-0192026

Getting Thru to Kids: Problem Solving with Children Ages 6 to 18! OMG! And that one is a book!

http://www.mcf.gov.bc.ca/autism/over_6.htm

Services for School-Age Children (6-18) with Autism Spectrum Disorder! OMG!

http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/ps/hcc/growthdevcardseng.pdf#search='children%20018'

Preventive care for children 0-18 years! OMG!

http://comnet.org/fostercare/

Children in foster care are between the ages of birth to 18, male or female, of every race, culture or ethnicity! OMG!

http://www.census.gov/income/cdrom/cdrom99/pov/pov1304.lst

CHILDREN UNDER 18 YEARS.......! OMG!



Now... I can start doing this all day long, and probably make a hundred pages worth of these links and OMG! texts... But I figured thats a last resort, in case this many doesn't quite click with you. Maybe you should stop banging your head against a wall, its making you less intelligent. Obviously you can see, that the term children and kid is applied to ALL ages, even 0-19!

 

[CptStern]

holy **** you're obtuse:

"I'm going through the ranges of birth through the age of 15, because I specified a specific age range."


how the **** am I supposed to know what words you've changed? I tend to let language speak for itself ...use colloquialisms if you must but at least attach a disclaimer or something or else god forbid someone may use the ORIGINAL meaning of the word


enough already ...debating you is like performing a frontal lobotomy with a pen knife ...either way you still come out stupid

 

[Raziaar]

holy **** you're obtuse:

"I'm going through the ranges of birth through the age of 15, because I specified a specific age range."


how the **** am I supposed to know what words you've changed? I tend to let language speak for itself ...use colloquialisms if you must but at least attach a disclaimer or something or else god forbid someone may use the ORIGINAL meaning of the word


enough already ...debating you is like performing a frontal lobotomy with a pen knife ...either way you still come out stupid

I come out stupid? You're the one saying that children and kid cannot be used to mean ages 0-19. When clearly these links prove that the terms are used all the time, in all walks of life.

What... do I need to say. Children(and I mean ages 0-6). Kids(and I mean 6-8). Pre-teens(and I mean 8-13). Teens(and I mean 13-19).

Wow... maybe 'you' should have posted that disclaimer before we started all this stupid talk. LOL.


The only thing I come out as right now, is a freaking loon. I've lost my head on this because of a bad day, but its clear enough to see that you're completely wrong on this issue

 

[CptStern]

I come out stupid?.

man you have reading comprehension problems:


"debating you is like performing a frontal lobotomy with a pen knife ...either way you still come out stupid"


why do bother wasting my time arguing with you if you cant even understand a simple sentence

the person who comes out stupid is ....**** it, why do I have explain everything?

 

[Raziaar]

man you have reading comprehension problems:


"debating you is like performing a frontal lobotomy with a pen knife ...either way you still come out stupid"


why do bother wasting my time arguing with you if you cant even understand a simple sentence

the person who comes out stupid is ....**** it, why do I have explain everything?

LOL. Your declaration doesn't mean much, man. I feel you're the one who is the champion idiot here in this rambling, pointless tirade. What does your lobotomy comment have anything to do with things? Certainly doesn't change my mind of the fact.

And geez, where *ARE* the mods. I've called them in here like 2 hours ago just to stop this conversation, because I have a hard time stopping myself from just posting and posting again. Wanted them to step in and stop me instead, where I know I will then Though, the real reason I called them, because this huge, stupid argument shouldn't have begun in the first place. But me and you just can't seem to stop going at it.

 

[CptStern]

What does your lobotomy comment have anything to do with things? Certainly doesn't change my mind of the fact

it really pains me that you cant see the irony of your statement ..frankly I dont think even a frontal lobotomy would help

 

[Raziaar]

it really pains me that you cant see the irony of your statement ..frankly I dont think even a frontal lobotomy would help

Never know, might improve my level of understanding of your idiocy I think i'm a tad bit lacking in that department.

 

[Laivasse]

Why don't you guys just get married and be done with it. The sexual tension is killing me.