 |
|

01-11-2008, 07:57 AM
|
|
Political Mastermind
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 1,423
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by naturemomma
Actually, the fact is that as a society we have overlooked and ignored these girls.
With ignorance comes a high price. Problems in society don't go away simply because you choose to ignore them. I think teen pregnancy speaks volumes to that.
Also, teen pregnancy rates are higher, (because as I stated in an earlier post) the population numbers have grown since 1950. Comparing the society of today to the society of many years past, doesn't actually solve the problem of today. It provides you with some sort of moral high ground which is flimsy at best.
You can blame tv and media and schools and any other source you choose, but the answer is simple, if you are not part of the solution, you still remain part of the problem.
|
No, what it does is gives you a baseline to work from one that lefties like you would like, desperately, to ignore.
Instead you shriek "it's always been like this, we just ignored it in the 50s or 40s or 1700s!!!"
Um, actually...no. In the 50s, girls who spread their legs for every guy who came along were called "sluts" and this was not a tag they proudly displayed on the front of their tee-shirt or the ass of their hip-hugging comefuckme drawers.
See the difference? The baseline has shifted and um...gee, who encouraged that shift...let's see if we can put our heads together and figger it out...
Hmmm.....
Let me help: the same stupid fucks who today want to encourage more girls to get knocked up through such programs in the schools and these are not people who will be voting for your feminist hero, Hitlery this November.
Oh..that's right..you already know who they are: rightwing dumb fucks.
Tokie
|

01-11-2008, 08:05 AM
|
 |
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 4,467
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tokenconservative
I'm sorry, but since you are obviously much smarter'n me, please tell me how a 13-year-old girl who has never had a baby of her own knows that that's what being a mother is about?
Yeah...I guess you wouldn't want to argue with me.
That's because you are unable to address this (or any) issue outside of a very narrow band of Lefy-Approved views.
I am wrong--I MUST BE WRONG--because I am both a male and because I am a conservative, right?
So...let's see if I follow your logic: people like me, who wish to see our society maintain it's sometimes rigid traditional values which hold that a young woman should not have sex until marriage, rather than people like you, working hard to erode those values, encourage 12 and 13 yr-old girls to dress and behave like Paris steetwalkers, to open wide for any swinging dick that happens by, and who hope to so completely break down traditional American mores to such a degree that "better" socialist, libertine values will be able to supplant them...and _I_ am the problem?
Wow.
That's really confusing. Oh, wait...nearly fergotted! Y'all is a lib...projection is your middle name!
|
Actually, 13 yr. olds don't know shit about being a mom, that's why I am for education in schools and should they get pregnant they should have the option of abortion - but your against that too. Cause and effest - you still can't see how that works. Even my kid knows about cause and effect.
As far as me being smarter than you, I think that's a given.
I have daughters and would never let them act in a way in which you describe. You, like most wackadoos in the right wing establishment, can't understand why anyone would defend the rights of anyone unless they themselves have a stake in it. I mean, why put yourself out there for the civil liberties of others? What's in it for me? Will the price of oil go up? hmmm...
IDIOT.
|

01-11-2008, 08:13 AM
|
 |
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 4,467
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tokenconservative
I'm sorry, but since you are obviously much smarter'n me, please tell me how a 13-year-old girl who has never had a baby of her own knows that that's what being a mother is about?
Yeah...I guess you wouldn't want to argue with me.
That's because you are unable to address this (or any) issue outside of a very narrow band of Lefy-Approved views.
I am wrong--I MUST BE WRONG--because I am both a male and because I am a conservative, right?
So...let's see if I follow your logic: people like me, who wish to see our society maintain it's sometimes rigid traditional values which hold that a young woman should not have sex until marriage, rather than people like you, working hard to erode those values, encourage 12 and 13 yr-old girls to dress and behave like Paris steetwalkers, to open wide for any swinging dick that happens by, and who hope to so completely break down traditional American mores to such a degree that "better" socialist, libertine values will be able to supplant them...and _I_ am the problem?
Wow.
That's really confusing. Oh, wait...nearly fergotted! Y'all is a lib...projection is your middle name!
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tokenconservative
No, what it does is gives you a baseline to work from one that lefties like you would like, desperately, to ignore.
Instead you shriek "it's always been like this, we just ignored it in the 50s or 40s or 1700s!!!"
Um, actually...no. In the 50s, girls who spread their legs for every guy who came along were called "sluts" and this was not a tag they proudly displayed on the front of their tee-shirt or the ass of their hip-hugging comefuckme drawers.
See the difference? The baseline has shifted and um...gee, who encouraged that shift...let's see if we can put our heads together and figger it out...
Hmmm.....
Let me help: the same stupid fucks who today want to encourage more girls to get knocked up through such programs in the schools and these are not people who will be voting for your feminist hero, Hitlery this November.
Oh..that's right..you already know who they are: rightwing dumb fucks.
Tokie
|
Why don't you turn off Rush Limbaugh and start thinking for thinking for yourself. Dear God man, he's ruining your brain.
And let me guess, Sean Hannity - your personal hero.
You are so funny. Why don't you run off to church and pray really hard, and ask yourself, "what would Jesus do?"
|

01-11-2008, 08:31 AM
|
|
Political Mastermind
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 1,423
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by naturemomma
Why don't you turn off Rush Limbaugh and start thinking for thinking for yourself. Dear God man, he's ruining your brain.
And let me guess, Sean Hannity - your personal hero.
You are so funny. Why don't you run off to church and pray really hard, and ask yourself, "what would Jesus do?"
|
Thinking for thinking?
I've heard of thinking about thinking...is this some new lefty mental(case) exercise, thinkin for thinking?
I don't listen to either of them very often, Hannity virtually never.
Why don't YOU try this: turn ON your brain and turn off the Err America? Randi Rhodes may seem like an intellectual, but really...she ain't.
She's just another commissar, telling you how to think.
I see that's working.
Tokie
|

01-11-2008, 08:37 AM
|
|
Political Mastermind
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 1,423
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by naturemomma
Actually, 13 yr. olds don't know shit about being a mom, that's why I am for education in schools and should they get pregnant they should have the option of abortion - but your against that too. Cause and effest - you still can't see how that works. Even my kid knows about cause and effect.
As far as me being smarter than you, I think that's a given.
I have daughters and would never let them act in a way in which you describe. You, like most wackadoos in the right wing establishment, can't understand why anyone would defend the rights of anyone unless they themselves have a stake in it. I mean, why put yourself out there for the civil liberties of others? What's in it for me? Will the price of oil go up? hmmm...
IDIOT.
|
Buuut...that's not what you said. You said that treating them like princesses would not work because they know that babies mean vomit and 2am feedings and what not.
That's what you said.
You are right. I don't see how "cause and effest" works. I'm not even certain I know what that is.
Here's some cause and effect for you tho: you flatback if for every boy who walks by, and you get to pay the price by being identified as a slut, shunned by peers and adults around you, and shipped off someplace to have the baby daddy's baby in seclusion, while being preached at 16 hours a day about how this is wrong, immoral behavior and that you should not do it again. When the baby is born, it's put up for adoption.
Worked up until those halcyon days of your much-revered late 1960s...why wouldn't it work today?
Yeah, you shore d is smarter'n this dumby conservaytive wackadoodle!
And then you close with something that is laughably ironic: I have no ability (being a dumby consarvatyve wackadoodle) to empathize with others, meanwhile YOUR daughters would NEVER act like such....sluts!
Sheesh.
I always wonder...do people like you think, or just spew this canned, parroted cant?
Tokie
|

01-30-2008, 11:54 PM
|
 |
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicago :D
Posts: 3,093
|
|
people on this board need to choose:
do you want young girls to get abortions and stay in school
or
have children and lose their futures by missing school or being kicked out
(and yes its as good as kicking them out if we send pregnant girls to other schools. they do not do as well and most of those places are very bad environments to learn in. some colleges won't even look at applications from those place)
the idea of kicking these girls out of school is sexist. the (fathers) sperm donors never face any consequences in these situations. didn't they have some help in pregnancy?
|
| Thread Tools |
|
|
| Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|