Why is it...

This is a catch all off topic forum to talk about anything not covered by other sections.
flowergirlajg
Posts: 1397
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2006 9:57 pm

Why is it...

Post by flowergirlajg »

That in teenager's Facebook pictures, they post a pic taken in their bathroom, with their phone, making a face like they just ate something sour?
xDD
Random topic, but hey, am I the only one who noticed this?

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3945, old post ID:69125
[insert signature here ]
User avatar
manadren
Posts: 3612
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2004 10:59 pm

Why is it...

Post by manadren »

I stay away from facebook, but at the same time I blame the media for over-sexualizing teens, and then giving them the wrong idea about what that actually means.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3945, old post ID:69126
flowergirlajg
Posts: 1397
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2006 9:57 pm

Why is it...

Post by flowergirlajg »

I agree... I'm only in eighth grade, and people after 'dating' for like two weeks will start to talk about things that we shouldn't even know about...
Its disturbing because I am afraid when I have kids they will be exposed to the same atmosphere.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3945, old post ID:69129
[insert signature here ]
Chyse
Posts: 1574
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2004 10:24 pm

Why is it...

Post by Chyse »

my brother is in 7th grade...smokes weed and his friend got this girl pregnant at 14...
the world is f*cked up

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3945, old post ID:69131
"Your neighbor was kind enough to let us rip him off and burn his furniture for no reason."-ATHF
"He said no, Err. With his foot." -ATHF
"Please, stop fueling my silent rage." -ATHF
Image
flowergirlajg
Posts: 1397
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2006 9:57 pm

Why is it...

Post by flowergirlajg »

Ah, oh my god :/
Pregnant at 14?? Poor thing! Poor dumbass thing.
And smoking weed? God, if I wanted to I could be stoned 24/7 just because so many people offer me it.... for free alot of times.
Ridiculous....

And the sex thing, kids are so stupid... they ride on their hormones and never give a thought to what happens next.
I've put myself to abstinence, just the idea of getting pregnant before marrige scares me-- How can I feed a child without a father being there? I would be making the rest of it's life miserable because I was unprepared.


Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3945, old post ID:69133
[insert signature here ]
User avatar
Red Squirrel
Posts: 29209
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2002 12:14 am
Location: Northern Ontario
Contact:

Why is it...

Post by Red Squirrel »

Yeah it's horrible now. At 14 I did not even know what sex was, or what weed was. It's crazy that people this age are all into that stuff now.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3945, old post ID:69134
Honk if you love Jesus, text if you want to meet Him!
flowergirlajg
Posts: 1397
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2006 9:57 pm

Why is it...

Post by flowergirlajg »

yeah, kids are getting corrupted at a younger and younger age....
If you ever play ten fingers or truth or dare in class, you realize just how much it is true D:
Its like based on pride a lot of times, bragging rights.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3945, old post ID:69135
[insert signature here ]
Chyse
Posts: 1574
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2004 10:24 pm

Why is it...

Post by Chyse »

Red Squirrel wrote: Yeah it's horrible now.  At 14 I did not even know what sex was, or what weed was.  It's crazy that people this age are all into that stuff now.
I knew what sex was, but it was never happening to me or anybody i knew. Also pot was unheard of. I had no idea how to get ahold of it and neither did my friends. Also we didn't really care because we didn't feel the need to smoke it.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3945, old post ID:69146
"Your neighbor was kind enough to let us rip him off and burn his furniture for no reason."-ATHF
"He said no, Err. With his foot." -ATHF
"Please, stop fueling my silent rage." -ATHF
Image
User avatar
Bookworm
Posts: 2828
Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2004 12:04 am

Why is it...

Post by Bookworm »

flowergirlajg wrote: That in teenager's Facebook pictures, they post a pic taken in their bathroom, with their phone, making a face like they just ate something sour?
xDD
Random topic, but hey, am I the only one who noticed this?
My 10th grade daughter has 370 photos of herself on her facebook page, and I just scanned through all of them. Yep, she had one taken in the bathroom. Only she wasn't making a sour face; she was wearing some sort of mud bath facial stuff.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3945, old post ID:69152
scherzo
Posts: 497
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 3:05 am

Why is it...

Post by scherzo »

flowergirlajg wrote:

And the sex thing, kids are so stupid... they ride on their hormones and never give a thought to what happens next.
I've put myself to abstinence, just the idea of getting pregnant before marrige scares me-- How can I feed a child without a father being there? I would be making the rest of it's life miserable because I was unprepared.
I find a certain amount of irony in the idea of not being prepared while the body is prepared. Consequently debate will rise on when someone is actually prepared to give birth. Because biology isn't used as a standard the immediate standard adopted is marriage.

Your choice is a good one, However I believe the onus or burden shifts with age, Starting and stopping when someone is physically ready for child birth.


Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3945, old post ID:69157
Image
User avatar
Bookworm
Posts: 2828
Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2004 12:04 am

Why is it...

Post by Bookworm »

scherzo wrote: I find a certain amount of irony in the idea of not being prepared while the body is prepared. Consequently debate will rise on when someone is actually prepared to give birth. Because biology isn't used as a standard the immediate standard adopted is marriage.

Your choice is a good one, However I believe the onus or burden shifts with age, Starting and stopping when someone is physically ready for child birth.
There are numerous things a child needs that are separate from a woman's biologically mature body. The mature body is needed for the actual birth, but being prepared for the child's material and emotional needs is another thing altogether.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3945, old post ID:69161
User avatar
manadren
Posts: 3612
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2004 10:59 pm

Why is it...

Post by manadren »

Bookworm wrote:
scherzo wrote: I find a certain amount of irony in the idea of not being prepared while the body is prepared. Consequently debate will rise on when someone is actually prepared to give birth. Because biology isn't used as a standard the immediate standard adopted is marriage.

Your choice is a good one, However I believe the onus or burden shifts with age, Starting and stopping when someone is physically ready for child birth.
There are numerous things a child needs that are separate from a woman's biologically mature body. The mature body is needed for the actual birth, but being prepared for the child's material and emotional needs is another thing altogether.
I have to agree here. The biology is there, no doubt, but society has changed a lot through the course of human history. In the early days of man there was easily an advantage to give birth earlier (and thus more frequently over a person's life span), but in those times not every child survived, and for those that did, the burden of child rearing was more distributed among the family and tribe. But times have changed. Society is more complicated, and priorities have shifted from simple survival to quality of life, and the responsibility of child rearing has become more focused on the parents and immediate family (let's sidestep things like school and day care for the moment).

Though I do agree there is a certain irony in this. However, the simple fact is that in this case our cultural and societal evolution has outpaced biology.


Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3945, old post ID:69167
User avatar
Stasi
Posts: 2464
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2004 11:12 am

Why is it...

Post by Stasi »

Hmmm, funny how the thread went from an observation about a common, stupid face people make in their self-pics to a discussion about social evolution versus biology. It kind of reminds me of that thread that started out with a question as to whether or not Canadians hate Americans and ended as a rant about how people don't have a good variety of options or sufficient recourse when their elected officials do something they don't like. Isn't there a forum for serious discussion/debates?

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3945, old post ID:69182
User avatar
Red Squirrel
Posts: 29209
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2002 12:14 am
Location: Northern Ontario
Contact:

Why is it...

Post by Red Squirrel »

Speaking of Facebook, apparently they got over 30 thousand servers running that site! That is insane.

It's such a simple concept... people posting random pictures on a blogish type site. I could have coded that if I known it would draw so much people...

That's it, I'm making a new site called bookface! :P

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3945, old post ID:69188
Honk if you love Jesus, text if you want to meet Him!
scherzo
Posts: 497
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 3:05 am

Why is it...

Post by scherzo »

Stasi wrote: Hmmm, funny how the thread went from an observation about a common, stupid face people make in their self-pics to a discussion about social evolution versus biology.  It kind of reminds me of that thread that started out with a question as to whether or not Canadians hate Americans and ended as a rant about how people don't have a good variety of options or sufficient recourse when their elected officials do something they don't like.  Isn't there a forum for serious discussion/debates?
Random topic, but hey, am I the only one who noticed this?
feel free to exclude yourself from the topic, as it was open ended and my comments were in direct relation to the thread, I feel that I have not offended the intent of the topic/discussion in any way.



Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3945, old post ID:69189
Image
scherzo
Posts: 497
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 3:05 am

Why is it...

Post by scherzo »

Bookworm wrote:
There are numerous things a child needs that are separate from a woman's biologically mature body. The mature body is needed for the actual birth, but being prepared for the child's material and emotional needs is another thing altogether.
manadren wrote:
I have to agree here. The biology is there, no doubt, but society has changed a lot through the course of human history. In the early days of man there was easily an advantage to give birth earlier (and thus more frequently over a person's life span), but in those times not every child survived, and for those that did, the burden of child rearing was more distributed among the family and tribe. But times have changed. Society is more complicated, and priorities have shifted from simple survival to quality of life, and the responsibility of child rearing has become more focused on the parents and immediate family (let's sidestep things like school and day care for the moment).

Though I do agree there is a certain irony in this. However, the simple fact is that in this case our cultural and societal evolution has outpaced biology.
I do not disagree with your comments, as Bookworm suggests, "being prepared for the child's material and emotional needs is another thing" is not a biological test, and manadren, "times have changed. Society is more complicated" is also not a biological test.

However neither the child's material/emotional or Social needs can be satisfied by the test of "marriage". This is why I have adopted the "shifting burden" test. Simply put, it can be expected that a 14 yr old not have a child, however as time progresses and the female is closer to Menopause, one can no longer expect the female not to procreate, or for that matter enjoy their body.




Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3945, old post ID:69190
Image
scherzo
Posts: 497
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 3:05 am

Why is it...

Post by scherzo »

scherzo wrote:
Stasi wrote: Hmmm, funny how the thread went from an observation about a common, stupid face people make in their self-pics to a discussion about social evolution versus biology.  It kind of reminds me of that thread that started out with a question as to whether or not Canadians hate Americans and ended as a rant about how people don't have a good variety of options or sufficient recourse when their elected officials do something they don't like.  Isn't there a forum for serious discussion/debates?
Random topic, but hey, am I the only one who noticed this?
feel free to exclude yourself from the topic, as it was open ended and my comments were in direct relation to the thread, I feel that I have not offended the intent of the topic/discussion in any way.

I'm leaving the comments unedited, however my intentions are to remove the comment, and apologize for whatever wrong I have done against you because On more than one occasion I have 'read' tension between our posts.

I find you highly intelligent and value your opinions notwithstanding how I react. You have challenged my thoughts and I may not agree with any of your positions, but they do allow me to view things from another perspective, and it is this exchange of views that precipitates boards like this

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3945, old post ID:69191
Image
User avatar
Stasi
Posts: 2464
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2004 11:12 am

Why is it...

Post by Stasi »

Just saying that there's been more serious, heavy discussion lately in a forum meant for lighter stuff. It wasn't an attack on you, it was more of a suggestion to the mods/admins that maybe topics like this ought to be moved to the serious discussion/debate forum.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3945, old post ID:69194
User avatar
Bookworm
Posts: 2828
Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2004 12:04 am

Why is it...

Post by Bookworm »

Stasi wrote: Just saying that there's been more serious, heavy discussion lately in a forum meant for lighter stuff.  It wasn't an attack on you, it was more of a suggestion to the mods/admins that maybe topics like this ought to be moved to the serious discussion/debate forum.
The timing as to what point they should be moved is a big factor. There are any number of "lighter stuff" topics that may cause someone to have a "deeper" comment. Red's thread "16 cheeseburgers" had me commenting about heart disease, which made him mention the Canadian health care system, which could lead someone to talk about healthcare in general. There certainly is a point at which such a discussion would be more appropriate in the discussion/debate segment, but the flow of conversation makes it hard to tell at what point that move would be best made. I suppose Manadren and Red do need to be on their toes a bit more, now that some of us here have started visiting a bit more regularly again.

And then it wouldn't surprize me that, as soon as we move a thread to the debate section, it evolves into a thread about people making faces into a mirror. :D

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3945, old post ID:69195
User avatar
Bookworm
Posts: 2828
Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2004 12:04 am

Why is it...

Post by Bookworm »

scherzo wrote: However neither the child's material/emotional or Social needs can be satisfied by the test of "marriage". This is why I have adopted the "shifting burden" test. Simply put, it can be expected that a 14 yr old not have a child, however as time progresses and the female is closer to Menopause, one can no longer expect the female not to procreate, or for that matter enjoy their body.
But how does your "shifting burdens" test meet the needs of the child better than marriage? Sure, there are some single women who would be able to meet the child's needs better than some married couples, but on the whole, the married couples have a much greater probability of meeting those needs.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3945, old post ID:69196
scherzo
Posts: 497
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 3:05 am

Why is it...

Post by scherzo »

Bookworm,Oct 17 2009, 10:35 AM wrote:
scherzo,Oct 16 2009, 10:26 PM wrote:but on the whole, the married couples have a much greater probability of meeting those needs.
Well, you propose your argument from the view of the child, however mine is proposed from the view of the woman.

"one can no longer expect the female not to procreate"

Given one cannot be prepared whether in marriage or not, then by default one can no longer expect the female not to have a child. The preferred arrangement to have a child maybe marriage, However this standard does not allow single females not married to have children, and this is the worst possible outcome if having a child is important. If having children is not important, than why have children? Obviously "Society" has placed a higher value on having a child over not having a child, and this has met one of the criteria mentioned by manadren, "Society is more complicated, and priorities have shifted from simple survival to quality of life" This actually mets the other two criteria as well, "material and emotional" needs.




Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3945, old post ID:69277
Image
flowergirlajg
Posts: 1397
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2006 9:57 pm

Why is it...

Post by flowergirlajg »

I was talking about not being prepared pain-wise, mentally, and being unable to care for a child (not enough money, no father present, ect.)

I feel the rest of this topic is way out of my range as an 8th grader, so I am going to step out.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3945, old post ID:69301
[insert signature here ]
User avatar
Bookworm
Posts: 2828
Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2004 12:04 am

Why is it...

Post by Bookworm »

scherzo wrote: Well, you propose your argument from the view of the child, however mine is proposed from the view of the woman.

"one can no longer expect the female not to procreate"
Well, my argument from the view of the child recognizes that the needs of the child for food, shelter, and even emotional attachment, are life-and-death needs. The "need" of the woman to procreate is not a life-and-death need, and I purposely put the word "need" in quotations, since I do not see the conception of a choild upon the mother's physical maturity to even be a legitimate need.
Given one cannot be prepared whether in marriage or not, then by default one can no longer expect the female not to have a child.
Given that one is MORE prepared in marriage than not, then it IS reasonable to expect a woman to wait.
The preferred arrangement to have a child maybe marriage, However this standard does not allow single females not married to have children, and this is the worst possible outcome if having a child is important.
On the contrary, the worst possible outcome is to actually HAVE the child if the child cannot be cared for properly. This is what is wrong with your perspective "from the view of the woman." You are making the HAVING of the child to be more important than the caring for the child.



Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3945, old post ID:69310
scherzo
Posts: 497
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 3:05 am

Why is it...

Post by scherzo »

Bookworm wrote:
scherzo wrote: Well, you propose your argument from the view of the child, however mine is proposed from the view of the woman.

"one can no longer expect the female not to procreate"
Well, my argument from the view of the child recognizes that the needs of the child for food, shelter, and even emotional attachment, are life-and-death needs. The "need" of the woman to procreate is not a life-and-death need, and I purposely put the word "need" in quotations, since I do not see the conception of a choild upon the mother's physical maturity to even be a legitimate need.
Given one cannot be prepared whether in marriage or not, then by default one can no longer expect the female not to have a child.
Given that one is MORE prepared in marriage than not, then it IS reasonable to expect a woman to wait.
The preferred arrangement to have a child maybe marriage, However this standard does not allow single females not married to have children, and this is the worst possible outcome if having a child is important.
On the contrary, the worst possible outcome is to actually HAVE the child if the child cannot be cared for properly. This is what is wrong with your perspective "from the view of the woman." You are making the HAVING of the child to be more important than the caring for the child.
As a father of children, why did you have children?


Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3945, old post ID:69330
Image
User avatar
Bookworm
Posts: 2828
Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2004 12:04 am

Why is it...

Post by Bookworm »

scherzo wrote:
As a father of children, why did you have children?
What difference does it make why I had chilfren?

I was in a stable, married relationshio with a full-time job. I was plenty able to take care of children.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3945, old post ID:69342
Locked