Hey Hard-Core Christian Right Conservatives! Here's How Backwards You Really Are!!!

This thread is about underage sex and it's promotion and should be 404d.

Second agrees

reply to post by neo96


I concur

second

Originally posted by micmerci

Originally posted by Rubic0n

Originally posted by micmerci

Epic. "...I don't need no link to prove..."

Apparently...one don't need no kinda proper grammer-talk no way at all neither.

That was intentional, to indicate attitude in my writing. Along the lines of the intentional sarcasm in your response. Or should I devote a post to the grammatical corrections necessary in your response? Would that qualify me as a Grammar Nazi?

Do not try to disqualify my rebuttal to your poor scientific method by pointing out supposed grammatical errors. It is silly and unbecoming.

Just to avoid any further confusion, I will be certain to post only in the Queen's English henceforth.

But can you proof how poor the scientific method is and invalidate those numbers?

YES, I can!! It is called reading the ENTIRE report and then evaluating ALL the data.

So, disproof it then. The numbers are there , show us how they are incorrect,

Originally posted by neo96
This thread is about underage sex and it's promotion and should be 404d.

Second agrees

Correction. This thread is on how to prevent or lessen sex ,pregnancies and abortions among minors.

Originally posted by neo96
This thread is about underage sex and it's promotion and should be 404d.

Second agrees

Third agrees.

reply to post by Rubic0n


The correction is by law anyone under the age of 18 is considered minors religion has nothing to do with that fact.

Originally posted by Rubic0n

Originally posted by micmerci

Originally posted by Rubic0n

Originally posted by micmerci

Epic. "...I don't need no link to prove..."

Apparently...one don't need no kinda proper grammer-talk no way at all neither.

That was intentional, to indicate attitude in my writing. Along the lines of the intentional sarcasm in your response. Or should I devote a post to the grammatical corrections necessary in your response? Would that qualify me as a Grammar Nazi?

Do not try to disqualify my rebuttal to your poor scientific method by pointing out supposed grammatical errors. It is silly and unbecoming.

Just to avoid any further confusion, I will be certain to post only in the Queen's English henceforth.

But can you proof how poor the scientific method is and invalidate those numbers?

YES, I can!! It is called reading the ENTIRE report and then evaluating ALL the data.

So, disproof it then. The numbers are there , show us how they are incorrect,

See my first response post on page 1. I have no intention of rehashing the data I provided. Read it if you are interested.

Originally posted by neo96
This thread is about underage sex and it's promotion and should be 404d.

Second agrees

4th

This premise of this thread is completely ridiculous comparing an entire country to some backwater state in America. And now its escalated into another USA vs the world with a nasty underage sex twist.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Rubic0n

 

The correction is by law anyone under the age of 18 is considered minors religion has nothing to do with that fact.

That was not to what i responded. You wrote that this thread is about promoting sex among or with minors which is completely false, as the opposite is in fact the case.

Originally posted by 1littlewolf

Originally posted by neo96
This thread is about underage sex and it's promotion and should be 404d.

Second agrees

4th

This premise of this thread is completely ridiculous comparing an entire country to some backwater state in America. And now its escalated into another USA vs the world with a nasty underage sex twist.

edit on 9/12/2012 by 1littlewolf because: (no reason given)

All states were taken into account with the exception of 1, what seems to be the problem there?

Originally posted by micmerci

Originally posted by Rubic0n

Originally posted by micmerci

Originally posted by Rubic0n

Originally posted by micmerci

Epic. "...I don't need no link to prove..."

Apparently...one don't need no kinda proper grammer-talk no way at all neither.

That was intentional, to indicate attitude in my writing. Along the lines of the intentional sarcasm in your response. Or should I devote a post to the grammatical corrections necessary in your response? Would that qualify me as a Grammar Nazi?

Do not try to disqualify my rebuttal to your poor scientific method by pointing out supposed grammatical errors. It is silly and unbecoming.

Just to avoid any further confusion, I will be certain to post only in the Queen's English henceforth.

But can you proof how poor the scientific method is and invalidate those numbers?

YES, I can!! It is called reading the ENTIRE report and then evaluating ALL the data.

So, disproof it then. The numbers are there , show us how they are incorrect,

See my first response post on page 1. I have no intention of rehashing the data I provided. Read it if you are interested.

I did , it showed that you did not read the op.

Originally posted by 1littlewolf







Also a paedophile ring which constitutes only 13 people in the Netherlands (and 8 in the US) really doesn’t prove anything at all.

I hear ya.

But the word PRIMARILY has to say something.

According to the State Department's 2011 report on trafficking in persons, "the Netherlands is primarily a source, destination, and transit country for men, women, and children subjected to sex trafficking."

My only gripe in all this is OP's ridiculous way of saying this is a Hard-Core Christian Right Conservative problem.

Unwanted children is Everyone's problem. STD's is Everyone's problem. Teen Pregnancies is at a 40 year low, in America!

Why wasn't this added to Ops facts? It doesn't fit the agenda, it seems.....

Teen pregnancy rate in 2008 was 67.8 pregnancies per 1,000 women aged 15-19 (equal to about 733,000
pregnancies in 7% of US teens).

This is a 43% drop from the peak in 1990, when the rate was 116.9 per 1,000.

The birth rate fell by 35% from 61.8 births per 1,000 teens in 1991 to 40.2 in 2008.

The abortion rate fell by 59% from a peak of 43.5 abortions per 1,000 teens in 1988 to 17.8 in 2008.

US Teen Pregnancies At 40-Year Low

But lets conveniently leave that out of the discussion......

Originally posted by milominderbinder

Originally posted by Nephalim
reply to post by milominderbinder

 

So if people just wanna sleep with whomever they choose, why not just say Im going to sleep with whomever I choose? You can do that, and act on it. There is no law in the US that says you can't (with the exception of uh, you know child abuse,rape and sick evil stuff like that). Why blame christians or conservatives? Im both and look at this.

I don't think we have any business telling anyone where to put their parts, NOR telling parents how to raise their children.

Am I a right wing religious nut?

If you ask me op, Id question right wing christians on why in a red state they allow their kids to be chipped.

edit on 9-12-2012 by Nephalim because: (no reason given)

Correct. I'm with you all the way. I'm an Atheist...but I've NEVER had a problem with the sane christians like yourself. That's why I put "hardcore" in the title of the thread...I figured it was softer than the other expletive adjective nouns I could have otherwise opted for.

Wow, Id have thought "sane christian" to be an oxymoron coming from an atheist, shows what I know. You learn something new every day. Point taken, my point is simply that I have trouble believing someone far left who doesn't even read the bible would somehow allow their children to behave that way anyway. In other words its pretty common to want to raise your kids in a way that theyre capable of making sound decisions based on the belief system we put in place and an even bigger step to trust that they have their own minds and can exercise choices in their lives on their own. Kids have a lot of common sense given the chance to show it.

Of course you have to understand on some level I place a lot of faith in the individual. Left or right, athiest or not. With that, pft I could probably destroy my own position by watching the news. :/

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by neo96
This thread is about underage sex and it's promotion and should be 404d.

Second agrees

Third agrees.

Agree.

Originally posted by sonnny1

Originally posted by 1littlewolf







Also a paedophile ring which constitutes only 13 people in the Netherlands (and 8 in the US) really doesn’t prove anything at all.

I hear ya.

But the word PRIMARILY has to say something.

"According to the State Department's 2011 report on trafficking in persons, "the Netherlands is primarily a source, destination, and transit country for men, women, and children subjected to sex trafficking."

My only gripe in all this is OP's ridiculous way of saying this is a Hard-Core Christian Right Conservative problem.

Unwanted children is Everyone's problem. STD's is Everyone's problem. Teen Pregnancies is at a 40 year low, in America!

Why wasn't this added to Ops facts? It doesn't fit the agenda, it seems.....

Teen pregnancy rate in 2008 was 67.8 pregnancies per 1,000 women aged 15-19 (equal to about 733,000
pregnancies in 7% of US teens).

This is a 43% drop from the peak in 1990, when the rate was 116.9 per 1,000.

The birth rate fell by 35% from 61.8 births per 1,000 teens in 1991 to 40.2 in 2008.

The abortion rate fell by 59% from a peak of 43.5 abortions per 1,000 teens in 1988 to 17.8 in 2008.

US Teen Pregnancies At 40-Year Low

But lets conveniently leave that out of the discussion......

Because the comparison was made in its current state between the two countries and was not about the difference of just 1 country over the past few years. The OP was also clearly not about human trafficking.

You seem to be more worried about which country is "teh bestesest" for some reason which is a bit off topic really.

Originally posted by Rubic0n

Originally posted by micmerci

Originally posted by Rubic0n

Originally posted by micmerci

Originally posted by Rubic0n

Originally posted by micmerci

Epic. "...I don't need no link to prove..."

Apparently...one don't need no kinda proper grammer-talk no way at all neither.

That was intentional, to indicate attitude in my writing. Along the lines of the intentional sarcasm in your response. Or should I devote a post to the grammatical corrections necessary in your response? Would that qualify me as a Grammar Nazi?

Do not try to disqualify my rebuttal to your poor scientific method by pointing out supposed grammatical errors. It is silly and unbecoming.

Just to avoid any further confusion, I will be certain to post only in the Queen's English henceforth.

But can you proof how poor the scientific method is and invalidate those numbers?

YES, I can!! It is called reading the ENTIRE report and then evaluating ALL the data.

So, disproof it then. The numbers are there , show us how they are incorrect,

See my first response post on page 1. I have no intention of rehashing the data I provided. Read it if you are interested.

I did , it showed that you did not read the op.

Now you are just being silly. Read it. Provided additional relevant data and rebutted the OP's premise. All done without a bias or pushing an agenda, which is more than I can say for the OP.

Originally posted by milominderbinder


LOL. Sorry dude...1:4 teen girls in the US have at least one STD. Turns out...the Netherlands are more responsible in that department too.

Typical.

Way to IGNORE the "on the rise" part of it, in the Netherlands.

This thread needs a condom.

Originally posted by Rubic0n

Originally posted by 1littlewolf

Originally posted by neo96
This thread is about underage sex and it's promotion and should be 404d.

Second agrees

4th

This premise of this thread is completely ridiculous comparing an entire country to some backwater state in America. And now its escalated into another USA vs the world with a nasty underage sex twist.

edit on 9/12/2012 by 1littlewolf because: (no reason given)

All states were taken into account with the exception of 1, what seems to be the problem there?

Hey I will admit I can't watch youtube on the computer I'm on (no sound) but from just reading (and rereading) the OP it seems to be centered on Mississippi. Whether it is or isn't though it is still ridiculous and an obvious attempt to be inflammatory base on cherry picked stats and ATS's general disdain for Christians as a whole.

reply to post by Rubic0n


The entire op is a false equivocation between two countries with different populations one having 16 million compared to this one that has over 330 million.

So those so called "statistics" are meaningless.

Originally posted by micmerci

Originally posted by Rubic0n

Originally posted by micmerci

Originally posted by Rubic0n

Originally posted by micmerci

Originally posted by Rubic0n

Originally posted by micmerci

Epic. "...I don't need no link to prove..."

Apparently...one don't need no kinda proper grammer-talk no way at all neither.

That was intentional, to indicate attitude in my writing. Along the lines of the intentional sarcasm in your response. Or should I devote a post to the grammatical corrections necessary in your response? Would that qualify me as a Grammar Nazi?

Do not try to disqualify my rebuttal to your poor scientific method by pointing out supposed grammatical errors. It is silly and unbecoming.

Just to avoid any further confusion, I will be certain to post only in the Queen's English henceforth.

But can you proof how poor the scientific method is and invalidate those numbers?

YES, I can!! It is called reading the ENTIRE report and then evaluating ALL the data.

So, disproof it then. The numbers are there , show us how they are incorrect,

See my first response post on page 1. I have no intention of rehashing the data I provided. Read it if you are interested.

I did , it showed that you did not read the op.

Now you are just being silly. Read it. Provided additional relevant data and rebutted the OP's premise. All done without a bias or pushing an agenda, which is more than I can say for the OP.

You tried to inject a rebuttal yes but that is where it ended.

Your claim of being unbiased ,informed and factual with your "additional data"is also very unconvincing to say the least claiming that child prostitution is legal over there