Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

FUNK has a good point. A very good point.

Many men choose to be with homely girls on purpose.

Some men find heavy women more beautiful than skinny ones.

The very image of the goddess in pagan images is, many times, a woman with very shaply hips and a large belly, a symbol of fertility and wealth.

I'm sorry, but I can't remember who said it...whoever made the 'I'm tired of hearing everyone blame it on the media' comment...think about it.

I wish I could remember who it was.

How exactly HASN'T the media changed the perception of beauty? Do you have any concept of what was considered beautiful back before the media? Or perhaps in the early media times? Marilyn Monroe was most popular when she fluctuated between a size 12 and 16...

Ever hear of Twiggy? She was the one who started the rage of skinny women, the stick-and-bones look that not only looks unhealthy but spurns on eating disorders in young girls everywhere.

Research things before you decide that the media has nothing to do with it. If it didn't effect you? So be it. But most of the world is driven by image, and those images flash across our television screens and in our fashion magazines. Women every day are told that they need to snip this, tuck that, lose those extra pounds...and not all of them can be like me and say "SCREW YOU, MEDIA IMAGE!"

Nuff said. :)

I've begun campaigning for the No-Hat Brigade. I believe we'll be a fully functional political party by the next election year.

*dies*

Oh...oh, these are getting better.

...if I were a Clock, I'd change my name to:

HumuhumunukunukuapuaaClock.

Okay, logically speaking...

SARS or any other uncurable, deadly disease is a threat to the human race. I can almost guarantee that if a vaccine for SARS or AIDS or anything else decided to show it's face, it would be readily available, even to those that can't afford it. If not for AIDS (since that's harder to pass on) then most definitely SARS. If a person can get SARS simply from breathing the same air as an infected person, and it grew to epidemic proportions...why on earth would they NOT let people have the vaccine, whether or not they could pay for it?

I can see it now.

"You don't have health insurance? Or cash? Sorry. We know that SARS is a deadly, highly contagious disease that, if we don't wipe out completely will rear it's ugly head again, but you can't afford it. Go, infect more poor people."

Sorry, but I have a feeling that wouldn't happen.

Okay...let me give you a tip, alright?

This first tip has nothing to do with the issue at hand. It's to tell you that if you post that much, consecutively, lots of times it will be skipped over. I, for one, didn't read it. I couldn't. I won't. Because if I wanted to read an entire editorial on child pornography, I'd set out to do so. You're smart, but you also need to sorta...trim down the posts, or else your posts won't be -read- by man, okay? :)

Now, onto my very simple point, and one that JudgeMe actually said rather well.

Any sort of child porn, virtual or not, does NOT serve a beneficial place in our society. You may not have said it's okay, Ninja, but I'm sure you're intelligent enough to understand that that is precicely the message it sends.

Simply put: Just as Commander said, it accomodates something that shouldn't be accomodated, but treated and fixed. If you take the real stuff away, and give them real stuff...what message are you sending?

It sends the message that it's -alright- to entertain thoughts of sex with children.

How exactly is that beneficial?

Sure, sure, I know you've said, 'If it keeps one child from getting hurt, then it's beneficial.' I don't think that it will keep any children getting hurt in the long run. While it cuts down on children being used in child porn, how exactly can you predict how many MORE pedophiles will come out of the woodwork as a result from the easily accessible, legal, virtual kiddie porn? It's not worth it. Not in my eyes.

Hey, Shrikey. Do you have Yahoo? I'm not on AIM much at all anymore. Just curious. :)

At 5/26/03 06:15 PM, bumcheekycity wrote:

At 5/26/03 06:05 PM, MindThrasher wrote: Abortionists are killers, that's all there is to it.

Does that mean that any woman with a miscarrige is a murderer or manslaughterer?

I'm not sure I understand where this comes from. Abortion is very intentional. Miscarriage means that the pregnancy terminated itself for some reason, and not by fault of the mother. I'm talking about the rule, here, not the exception. There have been cases where women have induced miscarriage through injesting certain herbs or inflicting abuse on their abdomens. But a true, honest miscarriage?

That's not even in the same league, and I think that's pretty obvious. A woman can't help if she bleeds out when she's carrying a baby. Not even doctors can stop it.

At 5/26/03 07:01 PM, TheShrike wrote:
it isn't relevant, I just thought I'd point people to that site since I just found it via your sig pic.

Ok, so it has nothing to do with the post, and is completely irrellivant.
I just thought it was funny. =]

OH MY GOD! I'd totally forgotten that I linked to that site from my sig! LOL! Teaches me to check it more often, eh?

That site cracked me up when I first saw it.

Okay, now...to Ninja_Scientist. You can word it any way you want, you can make all the arguments you want. I'm generally open minded to new things, progressive things...but this is going one step too far. Child porn, virtual or real, promotes child molestation.

Why not put all efforts toward stopping REAL child porn, rather than advocating the fake stuff? It's a waste of time, and if it's legal, it's more accessible. If it's more accessible, then more people will view it. Which will likely lead to more child molestation. It's very simple logic, and a probable progression.

I refuse to agree with anything that sends "It's okay as long as it's fake" as a message to pedophiles. It's not okay. It never will be okay.

At 5/26/03 04:02 AM, TheShrike wrote: But this is ok, House?
barbie porn

...how is that even relevant?

It's dolls. I didn't click it, but if it's the same site I've seen before, how exactly is that even close to child pornography?

At 5/26/03 03:38 PM, arnamenta wrote:
Many people covered under these programs are only partially covered. For example: both of my fiance's parents work, and he's covered under their insurance. We still have to pay $20 copay per doctor appointment, and often all of the perscription costs.

Yes, I know this. I was very sick for a while and unable to work, and I was on the Oregon Health Plan, so I understand how the system works.

The fact is, though, I agree with Commander. I weened myself off the government teat when I was healthy enough to work, and I no longer am on Medicaid. Granted, I've yet to be able to find work, because of the job market being in such disarray. But still, I refuse to depend on the government for something that I can ultimately get myself.

I don't believe that free health care for everyone is a positive step to take. Just like Commander said, it sends people on the road to depending on the government for necessities, and while some people can't help it (i.e. the disabled or terminally ill), others CAN, but won't, because government is just that easy to get.

I fully realize that right now, I could -be- on the Oregon Health Plan, because I don't have gainful employment. But I also know that I'd feel not-so-good about it. I'd much rather work for what I get.

Okay, I'll answer the question without getting sarcastic or overly political. No one's really done that yet.

We don't have nationalized health care, but there are several different sorts of health insurance that people pay for and get covered that way.

Those that are poor/homeless/whathaveyou can fill out forms to be considered for Medicaid, a government medical coverage that will only cover so much, but will cover general prescriptions, office visits, surgeries that are for lifesaving reasons (i.e., no cosmetic surgery is covered), and the like. It's also very easy for pregnant women to get state aid when it comes to paying for the OB/GYN.

There's also hospitals that can't turn away people if they lack insurance of the ability to pay for treatment if they go to the emergency room. The treatment given there is given free of charge to them, then paid for by government monies. Sorta like the pro-bono medical world.

We're not totally hopeless, us Americans.

I know my opinions aren't always popular ones, and while I see the logic behind Funk's idea, I would hate to see it happening.

From what I've seen, read and researched, oral sex is becoming more popular among teens anyway. The 'first kiss' is being replaced with the 'first blowjob', seen as being just as innocent, and that just blows my mind.

I enjoy being rather open minded and tolerant, but this is one of the things I ride the fence on. The ONLY WAY to guarantee that one will not get pregnant or an STD is abstinence, and the focus should stay on just that. Abstinence. That doesn't mean safe sex shouldn't be taught, but the -focus- should be on telling students, "Condoms don't always work. There's diseases that can kill you, and if you've gotten your period, even at 10 or 11, you can get pregnant. Condoms are NOT 100% EFFECTIVE!" Thinking that condoms are fool-proof is one of the biggest mistakes that sexually active people make. Adults, too.

AIDS awareness is something that isn't always passed on through sex, so of course that should be covered, too. That's largely been fixed through very strict screening of blood donations, and the like.

I suppose in my perfect world, I'd like to see the sanctity of sex being brought back to the lime light. It's no longer seen or portrayed as something special or something to be saved for a certain moment...it's so casual and nonchalant now that it's causing more problems than we can handle. AIDS is ...I don't know. When it first was found, I was pretty young, and when it was starting to spread, I was old enough to know and hear about it. I had a cousin I never knew die from an AIDS related complication. But I never thought that it would grow to such epidemic proportions, and it would start striking down my friends. Two of my best friends are now HIV positive, and by God, I can't help but think that if they'd been more educated on the issue, it wouldn't have happened.

This is going to be a large post, but one that's worth reading.

I'm ambivalent on this issue. For myself, I could never, EVER abort a child. But I've found it hard to tell others what they should and shouldn't do with their bodies.

I will number my points, so I can keep them straight for myself. If I don't, I'll lose track of myself! *LOL*

1. Before young people should make a choice on where they stand on abortion, they should educate themselves. This is not a personal attack on anyone here, just curiosity. How many of you know what an abortion entails? How it's done? What the injury and survival rate is for the mother, and often times, the aborted baby? How many of you know the details?

2. The heart begins to beat around 25 days from conception, and blood-type is determined. At 10 weeks, a fetus has 10 fingers, 10 toes, fingernails, can turn his head, and frown. At 11 weeks, the baby has skeletal structure, fingerprints, and nerves. At 12 weeks, a baby inside the womb has everything needed to -feel- things (nerves, spinal column, thalamus), including pain. At 17-18 weeks, the baby can dream (REM sleep). I give this information because so many people don't know this...and therefore still consider the baby a 'clump of cells'.

3. As before mentioned, at 12 weeks, the baby can feel pain. 12 weeks is also the earliest many abortion clinics can and will perform evacuation, because all limbs can be accounted for. That is necessary because during the procedure, the fetus is torn apart and vacuumed out, and all body parts need to be accounted for before the abortion is complete. Any part left inside the womb can cause a deadly infection.

4. My opinion on partial-birth abortions and saline-injection abortions is that they should be outlawed completely. Partial birth abortions involve pulling the baby out of the birth canal completely, vacuuming the brain out of the skull so the head can be colapsed and pulled out more easily. These are done usually in the late second to third trimester. Saline injection abortions involve inserting a long needle into the amniotic sac and mixing a very strong saline mixture with the amniotic fluid, causing the fetus to be burned, to convulse, and have the mother go into natural labor, often to give birth to a dead baby. Sometimes, however, the baby is born still barely alive but untreatable. It's left to die.

5. After knowing all of this, the only thing keeping me from beign completely and utterly pro-life is the knowledge that if abortion was once again made illegal, women would return to having back-alley abortions. Much like prohibition, it wouldn't stop the action, it would merely make it more dangerous. I'll never pass personal judgement on women who decide to abort, but I cannot agree with it.

6. There's millions of couples waiting to adopt children. Sadly, many young women (and older women) aren't given alternatives to abortion, and sometimes even turn to abortion as a form of birth control, rather than a last resort.

7. Last, but not least, everyone should read into and research not only the physical but psychological damage that occurs after an abortion. There are instances that abortion may be the only alternative (rape, incest, endangerment to the mother's life), but the fact remains that over 80% of abortions recorded are sited as being done for 'social reasons'. Abortion is an invasive, painful, horrific procedure, and while I can't say I'd like to see America take a step backward in the realm of personal rights, I cant' help but think that if we were all a little more educated, we'd make wiser choices with our bodies.

8. I lied. One more point. It takes two people to make a baby, and I personally would like to think that the fathers of these children are at least -sometimes- consulted before it's terminated. That's just...courtesy.

I realize mine isn't a popular opinion. But hey...I can't ignore the facts.

This is something that I thought about after Commander brought up the issue of condoms in schools.

When and where is AIDS awareness appropriate, and how far should parents/teachers/authority figures go to prevent the spread of this disease?

Please keep in mind that...well. I reserve the right to fully bitch-slap anyone that posts in this thread that they believe AIDS to be a 'homosexual disease'. If that's a viewpoint that someone wants to cover, please do so in a thread that I don't have to read? I truly don't want to turn into a raging bitch, and -that- will most certainly do it. :)

Anyway, back to the issue: when I was in college, a professor of mine told of his public school teaching years, and how three of his students contracted HIV in one year. He told of the battle he had with the principal of the school, and how he eventually got through to him.

Professor Kuntz went to the principal and asked, very calmly, "Sir, if there was a dangerous, deadly curve in the road in front of the school, one that killed two or three students throughout the course of the year, what would you do about it?" The principal replied, "Well, I'd put a crosswalk and a traffic light there if I could." Professor Kuntz ended up getting a huge course on AIDS awareness (and consequently, condoms for kids available) because of that argument, and the disease that was unfortunately being spread.

What are your views on this, and if you don't believe in making condoms available for sexually active teens, what would your alternative be?

What this is basically about is what's known as 'utilitarian bioethics'. Something that saddens me greatly.

It's too late (early?) to explain why right now, exactly. But I'll put it this way: utilitiarian bioethics state that any person that doesn't give equally can be euthanised. There's exceptions, apparently, but how can we, as human beings, put monetary value or potentiality on another human being's life? Who are we to say who's worth what?

I'm sorry, but I refuse to think that just because someone isn't giving as much as the next person makes them worth less than the next person. I can be logical about a lot of things, but I find human life more precious than that.

At 5/26/03 04:19 AM, Commander-K25 wrote:

At 5/26/03 03:59 AM, MarijuanaClock wrote: As oppossed to the current conservative administration in America, which is taking away your rights and moving you closer and closer to fascism .........

Even if this is true, you're associating the actions of a few with the beliefs of the many.

Another mistake would be to think that conservative = Republican. It doesn't.

Yes, this happens a lot, I'm afraid. So many times, the outrageous actions of the few end up being thought of as the norm for everyone else.

I also agree with your second comment, Commander. Conservative isn't always synonymous with republican, just as liberal isn't synonymous with democrat, or libertarian, or green party, or whatever. It's all so, so diverse, it's not really fair to make blanket generalizations.

*LOL*

Nice, Preacher.

Hmm, on to the meat of the issue.

*cough*

Getting 'over it' is easier said than done. Obviously, if it were that easy, it simply wouldn't be an issue, would it? But the human psyche doesn't allow us to simply 'get over it'.

Think of it this way: coupling is, at the core, an instinct for perpetuating the species. Men look for women that are appealing to them because they turn them on, they're able to impregnate them, and spread their seed.

Us women, if one thinks of humans as having the same sort of instincts as animals, also wish to breed and perpetuate the species. We desire to be attractive so we can be 'picked' and couple with someone. We're communal creatures. We want to be with one of our own. We have to be attractive to -someone- or we'd just...be out of the game.

That being said, there's lots of beautiful women that like to call attention to it by saying, "I'm so ugly," then waiting for men to reassure them. I'm not saying that's what's happening here, but it happens a LOT among young girls. It's a way of getting compliments without outright asking for them outright.

Me? I'm old enough to just look at my boyfriend, smile, and say, 'I'm exceptionally cute today, aren't I?' Ah, the security that comes with age.

It's a growing process. It's also just nature. We can't just 'get over it'. That's not what we do.

We're women. We bitch.

Mmm, such a nice thread to stir the brain. :)

I'm rather ambivalent about the war in Iraq now, pros and cons clash in my head, and the thought of another arms race just scares the shit out of me. N. Korea IS much more like the Soviet Union than Iraq, that much is very true.

I have no doubt that somewhere, sometime, there has been strategies talked about when trying to deal with what's going on in North Korea. I agree most with mysecondstar, in that North Korea, while wanting to arm itself to defend against attack, is also just -begging- for attention. It wants to play with the big boys of the world, and wants to be considered a superpower. The more attention it receives, the more power it sucks.

It will undoubtedly need to be dealt with, but how? If I knew that, I'd be...well. A politician. I don't have any idea how I'd deal with that, because my fear gets in the way. Invading like we did in the middle east would mean death for more than just thousands. I have no doubt that there's missles trained at some key areas in the US. Scary stuff.

I generally dislike anything that will label me as one or the other.

I don't -fit- anywhere. I can see reason and logic in almost ever viewpoint, and the positions I hold don't coincide perfectly with any affiliation.

Well, being a woman, I can agree that image is a too-big concern here in america.

I can also shed a little light as to why America is such a fat country.

First of all...I'm by no means skinny. My boyfriend enjoys my being voluptuous, and while I'm not nearly obese, I've got curves that some men enjoy.

That being said, I also see the women in magazines or on television, and most of them make me want to scream out, "ANOREXIA KILLS!" It's amazing what sort of standard people old men and women to today...and yes, it's not just women. It's very hard on young men, too.

Now, as for health and America. I realized that a while back, it's partly our culture that's to blame. Most european countries and cultures have their large meals in the noon-time, at lunch. Then they eat a small, sensible supper. Here in America, or similar cultures?

Well, shit. We eat big meals at night, then sit and do nothing til we go to bed. That's a BIG contributor to our declining physical fitness.

All in all, standards of beauty have always been higher than what is the norm. I've also come to realize that I can't hold myself to those standards or I'll just be upset and disappointed in myself. So I just try to stay healthy and be what I can be.

I always know I'm beautiful, dammit. ;)

At 5/26/03 03:51 AM, Commander-K25 wrote:
If you allow them to look at kiddie porn, even fake, you're telling them aloud, "We're telling you that you can do this but just don't abuse children", but the hidden message that it whispers in their ears is, "but it's really okay to do it anyway."

Amen to that, Commander.

I have differing opinions about the other things, somewhat...but with this, never. I will never compromise on my opinion on things like this, which is why many of my friends believe me to be part of (as you mentioned once) the vast right-wing conspiracy. :)

I'd gladly discuss the condom issue in a thread meant for such, and I believe my opinion on abortion is well known, though likely not my history with it. Those things, though...I just feel they're slightly different than this. Sending a message of "it's okay if it's done THIS way" about something like kiddie porn just...I...gah. It makes me shudder to think about the doors it would open.

I'm horrible at codes.

Someone! Please! HELP ME TRANSLATE!

Okay, this is my issue with the whole thing.

I don't think you realize, Ninja, that I -understand- the idea behind it. But I don't agree with it.

If 'virtual kiddie porn' becomes something that's normal or popular in lieu of the real thing...okay. This is what I'm worried about.

Yes, I agree that pedophilia isn't something that is created. But there's people out there that might have attraction to children that simply don't act upon it because of their moral beliefs and downright fear.

The argument you're making, it sounds like, is that by making virtual kiddie porn okay, it would save hurting a child. But...hypothetically speaking, what about this:

A man, John Doe, has had fantasies about children, but has never viewed child porn because it's illegal and he doesn't want to cross the line into illegality. Then, suddenly...the world of virtual kiddie porn opens this world for him. You don't think that legal virtual child pornography wouldn't be on the national news? HELL YES, and Mr. Doe would hear about it. Since it's legal, he thinks it's okay to view it, and thus...it takes his fantasies farther than they've ever gone before.

So tell me...what happens when he snaps and his diseased mind tells him it's alright to do this to a REAL child? That's what I'm afraid of. Logically speaking, I can't help but think that many people don't view child porn because it's illegal to access, and that's what has kept them away from it. If some realistic facsimile of it suddenly becomes available to them, all it will do is perpetuate their unhealthy desires, rather than encouraging them to get help, and STOP INDULGING.

Can you honestly tell me that you can guarantee there wouldn't be a rise in child molestation, because of ideas put into people's minds by virtual, LEGAL child pornography? I don't think you can. And that chance is exactly why I don't think ANY sort of child porn, be it virtual or not, should be legal.

Thanks for the help, Ted. :) I'll visit sometime tonight, if not tomorrow.

As for the DAG, I'll keep an eye out. As in all groups, there's bad seeds, and the good guys. It'll be fun to see who's who.

LOL, Okay. So I may be around a little bit. I'm too opinionated to stay away much...

Plus, the DAG isn't that much of an issue for me. I understand what playing devil's advocate is, and ...well. I haven't been around enough to see what the DAG does here, but am I right in assuming that the group as a whole flames and/or puts down others just for the sake of doing so?

If that's the case, I'll just ignore them. Playing devil's advocate isn't about being rude or hurtful. It's about providing a conflicting viewpoint to make people think about exactly why their positions are where they are. If someone from the DAG actually offered up a true devil's-advocate argument, sure, I'd play along. But I won't justify simply flames with a response.

Yes, I can see that I'll be welcomed back, and I'll stay for now. I can't promise I'll be super active, but I'll post in this thread...and in a few others as it strikes my fancy.

Plus...can someone give me the snooble link again? I lost it. *sniffle*

At 5/25/03 10:26 AM, D2KVirus wrote: More children die per year though being run over on the roads, rather than being kidnapped and murdered by the Big Bad (Evil) Paedophile, yet where is the Moral Panic over that?

There -is- panic over that, in some places. But that's not the subject of this thread. :)

Simply put? The only way to keep children from getting hurt in roads is to outlaw cars. Is that going to happen? HAH! Nope.

But see...kiddie porn is already outlawed, and rightly so. That's the issue here.

Damned cars.

*lol*

I'm not sure, folks.

I need to clarify something. It's not the flaming that gets me, in the end. The name calling and whathaveyou will go on forever and ever, and me leaving isn't going to stop that.

You know what shits me the most?

The know-it-all attitude that some carry. One of the things I pride myself on is my ability to say I'm wrong. If I am, I'm ready to admit it. If I'm right, I back it up with facts. It's simply not fun to debate with people that refuse to give and take, to compromise and see the principles behind other people's arguments.

I don't know. I may return to snooble, because I do enjoy a large chunk of you...bah. I don't know.

As for the DAG, it sound like fun, but I couldn't bring myself to do that. :) I'd get too...guilty and stressed out and feel -dirty- for flaming people! LOL

Thanks for the kind thoughts, those of you who responded. I appreciate it. We'll see what happens.

The swastika was a symbol for peace, and also for purity.

Can you hug online friends?

No.

Can you have se...I mean...uh....hmm. Cuddle time with online friends?

No.

While real friends are often better and closer, there are a few friends I've made online that have become great offline friends, too. And there's still others that I can talk to a little more openly than my real time friends, because of the simple anonymity of it.

And Dobio? You get no ice cream. ^_^