Porforis
15 years ago

Actually, your argument is based on a faulty conflation of the terms "lifespan" and "life expectancy." The human lifespan is about exactly as long today as it was in biblical times, as the Bible itself points out:

The length of our days is seventy years--or eighty, if we have the strength; yet their span is but trouble and sorrow, for they quickly pass, and we fly away.

"Nonstopdrivel" wrote:



The reason why the human life expectancy used to be so short is that the infant and child mortality rates were so horrifically high. However, if you made it to adulthood, the chances were pretty good that you'd live the same 70 to 80 years humans do to this day.

People got married younger back then because a) that's about the age when humans are designed to start having sex and b) people were expected to be able to shoulder adult responsibility at that age.

In modern culture, we have an overt anti-youth bias, as evidenced even on this site, where we often call people in their mid-20s "kids." We raise young people to be immature kids far longer than our ancestors did, and wonder why they can't handle responsibility.

I also flatly disbelieve that teenagers don't know the possible consequences of sexual intercourse. I knew what caused babies before I was the age of 10. If any teens truly exist who don't know what can happen when a penis goes in a vagina (it's instinct, for godsake!) -- that's clearly the fault of parents.

"Psalm 90:10" wrote:



Hey, I'll admit that I was wrong here as it comes to life expectancies.

As for teenagers, I never said that they don't understand that penis + vagina = baby. I'm saying that they (as do other people) greatly overestimate the usefulness of a birth control method that's 95% or 99% effective... when used correctly. They're more likely to throw caution into the wind and just fuck, and to hell with the consequences because it can't happen if I pull out, or it can't happen because I'm wearing a condom.

Education is a big part of this, but at a certain point where sexual education in the classroom is mandated, you have to put some responsibility on the teenagers. You seem to be arguing at points that we underestimate teenagers ability to make adult decisions and understand consequences, and we're forcing them to take longer to grow up and mature. I'm obviously shaped by my own life experiences and my own parents and education. What I can tell you about MYSELF as a teenager is that I knew about the risks of pregnancy, I knew about STDs, I knew all of the information but honestly didn't care if it meant having sex. Hormones are fantastic for throwing caution into the wind.

If I would have had sex at that age and gotten someone pregnant, did it mean that my parents didn't work hard enough for me to understand consequences and take them seriously? Is it the fault of the education system? Or is it my fault for putting my penis into someone else's vagina while knowing the consequences and not caring?
Formo
15 years ago
My argument for waiting to have sex is airproof.

If you aren't mature enough to raise a child on your own, you aren't mature enough to copulate.
UserPostedImage
Thanks to TheViking88 for the sig!!
4PackGirl
15 years ago

Palin's kid screwed up. NO ONE is perfect. Does that mean we should just give up trying to teach kids right from wrong? That's what i see here. The old "Kids are going to do it, so why TRY to stop them?" attitude.

I don't know if the money amount is "fair" or not. Does the gold digger that marries a rich dude then dumps him deserve thousands of dollars of support every month? When does it become too much? The court decides it.
20 thousand a year child support. Is that reasonable? I don't know.

But this should serve as another lesson for girls to keep their legs closed and guys to keep it in their pants, wouldn't you agree?

If you don't want to pay, DON'T PLAY.
I don't feel sorry for the man. No one forced him to screw the girl. In the end, he has only himself to blame. He COULD have said "NO" you know.
(Yeah....i know.....thats asking too much, right?)

"Cheesey" wrote:



amen, cheesey!!!
Nonstopdrivel
15 years ago

Palin's kid screwed up. NO ONE is perfect. Does that mean we should just give up trying to teach kids right from wrong?

"Cheesey" wrote:



Of course not. But I don't see anything wrong with teenagers having sex. If God didn't intend for teenagers to have sex, he's a sadistic motherfucker for giving them such intense sexual hormones at that age.

The old "Kids are going to do it, so why TRY to stop them?" attitude.

"Cheesey" wrote:



No, my argument is that people at that age are DESIGNED to be having sex and that artificially preventing them from doing so by not equipping them to be mature and responsible is unnatural, unhealthy, and probably cruel. Again, the typical American anti-youth bias in labeling teens "kids" rears its ugly head.

I don't know if the money amount is "fair" or not.

"Cheesey" wrote:



I never said anything about fair. I said it doesn't take $1700/month to raise a child, particularly when you still live at home. Period. Of course I think it's absurd when a divorcee of a millionaire expects to keep her same standard of living after the breakup. If it's the standard of living they want they should stay in the relationship.

But this should serve as another lesson for girls to keep their legs closed and guys to keep it in their pants, wouldn't you agree?

"Cheesey" wrote:



No, it should serve as a lesson to be responsible about their sexual choices. If those choices include abstinence, so be it.

Last night I had a conversation with the guy who was dispatched to tow my car from Madison to La Crosse. He revealed to me that he'd just gotten back from a child support hearing in Chicago. I had a hard time not laughing out loud when he admitted the child in question was the product of an out-of-town one night stand. So not only did he not verify that the woman was on birth control (virtually impossible to do anyway), he didn't do his part by wearing a condom . . . on a one night stand! Of course it's impossible to sympathize for him; he was just being stupid.

He was lucky; his child support allotment was only $86 every two weeks. 😉 Was that figure "fair" or not? I don't know and I couldn't care less; I think it's an irrelevant question. As long as the child receives adequate food, shelter, and education, how many other amenities he has is of no concern to me.

II don't feel sorry for the man. No one forced him to screw the girl. In the end, he has only himself to blame. He COULD have said "NO" you know.

"Cheesey" wrote:



This anti-male-sexuality attitude, which pervades all our modern American sexual laws, irks the hell out of me. It completely ignores the contribution of the woman. It's why we have absurd laws under which, for example, a man can be charged with rape after having consensual drunk sex with a woman, but a woman cannot be charged with rape for doing the same thing to a man. Of course the man could have said "no." So could have the woman. She wasn't a passive player in the equation. She could have taken responsible precautions too. By your logic, perhaps she should be primarily responsible for paying for the child, since she didn't show enough self-control to say no.

And where did I advocate feeling sorry for the man anyway? I don't view either of their actions in isolation. They made a choice -- they need to live with it. Neither is more or less responsible than the other, nor should they be regarded as such.

(Yeah....i know.....thats asking too much, right)

"Cheesey" wrote:



I sincerely applaud and respect you for your sexual continence in the face of adversity. I would not choose to live that way. It's not a lifestyle that suits everyone, and therefore I don't think you should pass judgment on those who choose not to.

The Bible certainly doesn't. Name me one major biblical figure who was strictly monogamous. Isaac possibly. Perhaps Joseph. Paul was celibate. But they're exceptions to the rule.
UserPostedImage
Formo
15 years ago
As for the topic at hand, I say let Palin's 'baby' girl suck that douchebag dry. I'll be completely honest here, if I were to bump into him on the street, he'd have a broken jaw.

Yes, he's that much of a tool bag.
UserPostedImage
Thanks to TheViking88 for the sig!!
Nonstopdrivel
15 years ago
I don't understand why men are somehow more responsible for the consequences of sex than women are.
UserPostedImage
Cheesey
15 years ago
They arn't MORE resposible, but JUST AS resposible.
And let's face the truth, if the guy says NO, she doesn't get pregnant, right?
In the end, HE ALONE is resposible for where he puts his penis, right?
But thats the old "double standard" we have today. If a guy screws around, he's a "stud". If a girl does, she's a "slut".

We as humans have all kinds of drives. Not just a sex drive you know. So it's God's fault because we as humans have no self control? God didn't plan it that way. He planned for us to be perfect, where we wouldn't have any DESIRE to screw around. It was MAN that sinned and screwed it all up.
He gave us "free will", and you are seeing that mankind can't handle the responsibility.

The reason I hold the man responsible is because I AM a man. And believe it or not, I said "NO" to the moves of a girl more then once. Was it "hard?" (pardon the pun) Yes, it was. But it was the RIGHT thing to do. And the RIGHT thing to do isn't always the EASIEST. In fact, it's usually alot more difficult to do.
UserPostedImage
Formo
15 years ago

I don't understand why men are somehow more responsible for the consequences of sex than women are.

"Nonstopdrivel" wrote:



Because when we don't take more responsibility for the consequences, not only are we perceived as a dick, but it's creates a breeding ground for making excuses for the rest of our actions.

Because maybe we don't have the responsibility of carrrying the 'consequence' of sex around in our bellies for 9 months.
UserPostedImage
Thanks to TheViking88 for the sig!!
Formo
15 years ago


The reason I hold the man responsible is because I AM a man. And believe it or not, I said "NO" to the moves of a girl more then once. Was it "hard?" (pardon the pun) Yes, it was.

"Cheesey" wrote:



HAHAHAHAHA! Sorry, this made my day.
UserPostedImage
Thanks to TheViking88 for the sig!!
Nonstopdrivel
15 years ago

And let's face the truth, if the guy says NO, she doesn't get pregnant, right?

"Cheesey" wrote:



If she says "no," she doesn't get pregnant either.

In the end, HE ALONE is resposible for where he puts his penis, right?

"Cheesey" wrote:



Yep, and she's responsible for what she puts in her vagina.

It's precisely because I believe in such a broad standard of freedom that I hold everyone responsible for their actions. The more responsibility you believe people bear for their choices, the less judgmental you should be about the choices they make.

If a guy screws around, he's a "stud". If a girl does, she's a "slut".

"Cheesey" wrote:



You may have that bias; I certainly don't. I don't "screw around" to feed my ego or make myself feel more manly. I sleep with women I have an intense connection with; and it feels good. And I don't look at women who have multiple partners as sluts.

So it's God's fault because we as humans have no self control?

"Cheesey" wrote:



Absolutely. If he made us, he bears full responsibility for what we are.

God didn't plan it that way. He planned for us to be perfect, where we wouldn't have any DESIRE to screw around. It was MAN that sinned and screwed it all up. He gave us "free will", and you are seeing that mankind can't handle the responsibility.

"Cheesey" wrote:



This claim makes no sense. God is supposedly omniscient, so that means he knew all along what would happen if he created humans. And if God truly knows everything beforehand, that means humans don't truly have free will because everything they do is foreknown anyway. Moreover, God is supposedly omnipotent, which means not only did he know these things were going to happen, but he also could have prevented them from happening, yet he chose not to. Under human law, if you observe a crime taking place and do nothing to stop it, you bear some responsibility for whatever happens. Humans are supposedly created in the image of God, which means we have similar rational and logical thought processes as God. Therefore, if God created human beings, knowing exactly what was going to happen and did nothing to prevent that from happening, he must logically take at least some measure of responsibility for what in fact happens.

The reason I hold the man responsible is because I AM a man.

"Cheesey" wrote:



I hold the man responsible too. I don't know why you keep bringing this up as if it's some sort of difference in our beliefs. My objection is not to holding the man responsible, but to holding him somehow more responsible, because whether people see it or not, to give the man more responsibility is a misogynistic act. It implies women somehow have less self-control or an inferior ability to choose (and that was certainly the presupposition behind many sexual laws for centuries). I strenuously object to the idea that somehow the guy is more contemptible for what transpires. No, the woman has her own power of agency and choice. They share mutually and equally the responsibility.

But it was the RIGHT thing to do.

"Cheesey" wrote:



Yes, you're in a relationship in which it would be wrong for you to act on such an invitation. I'm not. I respect you for living up to your commitment, but bear in mind I'm living up to mine as well.

There's nothing wrong with wishing all men were as you are; Saint Paul certainly did (1 Corinthians 7:7). But he also recognized that not all men were.
UserPostedImage
Fan Shout
dfosterf (7h) : Make sure to send my props to him! A plus move!
Zero2Cool (8h) : My cousin, yes.
dfosterf (9h) : That was your brother the GB press gazette referenced with the red cross draft props thing, yes?
Zero2Cool (2-Jul) : Packers gonna unveil new throwback helmet in few weeks.
Mucky Tundra (2-Jul) : I know it's Kleiman but this stuff writes itself
Mucky Tundra (2-Jul) : "Make sure she signs the NDA before asking for a Happy Ending!"
Mucky Tundra (2-Jul) : @NFL_DovKleiman Powerful: Deshaun Watson is taking Shedeur Sanders 'under his wing' as a mentor to the Browns QBs
Zero2Cool (30-Jun) : Dolphins get (back) Minkah Fitzpatrick in trade
Zero2Cool (30-Jun) : Steelers land Jalen Ramsey via Trade
dfosterf (26-Jun) : I think it would be great to have someone like Tom Grossi or Andy Herman on the Board of Directors so he/they could inform us
dfosterf (26-Jun) : Fair enough, WPR. Thing is, I have been a long time advocate to at least have some inkling of the dynamics within the board.
wpr (26-Jun) : 1st world owners/stockholders problems dfosterf.
Martha Careful (25-Jun) : I would have otherwise admirably served
dfosterf (25-Jun) : Also, no more provision for a write-in candidate, so Martha is off the table at least for this year
dfosterf (25-Jun) : You do have to interpret the boring fine print, but all stockholders all see he is on the ballot
dfosterf (25-Jun) : It also says he is subject to another ballot in 2028. I recall nothing of this nature with Murphy
dfosterf (25-Jun) : Ed Policy is on my ballot subject to me penciling him in as a no.
dfosterf (25-Jun) : I thought it used to be we voted for the whatever they called the 45, and then they voted for the seven, and then they voted for Mark Murphy
dfosterf (25-Jun) : Because I was too lazy to change my address, I haven't voted fot years until this year
dfosterf (25-Jun) : of the folks that run this team. I do not recall Mark Murphy being subject to our vote.
dfosterf (25-Jun) : Ed Policy yay or nay is on the pre-approved ballot that we always approve because we are uninformed and lazy, along with all the rest
dfosterf (25-Jun) : Weird question. Very esoteric. For stockholders. Also lengthy. Sorry. Offseason.
Zero2Cool (25-Jun) : Maybe wicked wind chill made it worse?
Mucky Tundra (25-Jun) : And then he signs with Cleveland in the offseason
Mucky Tundra (25-Jun) : @SharpFootball WR Diontae Johnson just admitted he refused to enter a game in 41° weather last year in Baltimore because he felt “ice cold”
Zero2Cool (24-Jun) : Yawn. Rodgers says he is "pretty sure" this be final season.
Zero2Cool (23-Jun) : PFT claims Packers are having extension talks with Zach Tom, Quay Walker.
Mucky Tundra (20-Jun) : GB-Minnesota 2004 Wild Card game popped up on my YouTube page....UGH
beast (20-Jun) : Hmm 🤔 re-signing Walker before Tom? Sounds highly questionable to me.
Mucky Tundra (19-Jun) : One person on Twitter=cannon law
Zero2Cool (19-Jun) : Well, to ONE person on Tweeter
Zero2Cool (19-Jun) : According to Tweeter
Zero2Cool (19-Jun) : Packers are working on extension for LT Walker they hope to have done before camp
dfosterf (18-Jun) : E4B landed at Andrews last night
dfosterf (18-Jun) : 101 in a 60
dfosterf (18-Jun) : FAFO
Zero2Cool (18-Jun) : one year $4m with incentives to make it up to $6m
dfosterf (18-Jun) : Or Lions
dfosterf (18-Jun) : Beats the hell out of a Vikings signing
Zero2Cool (18-Jun) : Baltimore Ravens now have signed former Packers CB Jaire Alexander.
dfosterf (14-Jun) : TWO magnificent strikes for touchdowns. Lose the pennstate semigeezer non nfl backup
dfosterf (14-Jun) : There was minicamp Thursday. My man Taylor Engersma threw
dfosterf (11-Jun) : There will be a mini camp practice Thursday.
Zero2Cool (11-Jun) : He's been sporting a ring for a while now. It's probably Madonna.
Martha Careful (10-Jun) : We only do the tea before whoopee, it relaxes me.
wpr (10-Jun) : That's awesome Martha.
Mucky Tundra (10-Jun) : How's the ayahuasca tea he makes, Martha?
Martha Careful (10-Jun) : Turns out he like older women
Martha Careful (10-Jun) : I wasn't supposed to say anything, but yes the word is out and we are happy 😂😂😂
Mucky Tundra (10-Jun) : I might be late on this but Aaron Rodgers is now married
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2025 Packers Schedule
Sunday, Sep 7 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Thursday, Sep 11 @ 7:15 PM
COMMANDERS
Sunday, Sep 21 @ 12:00 PM
Browns
Sunday, Sep 28 @ 7:20 PM
Cowboys
Sunday, Oct 12 @ 3:25 PM
BENGALS
Sunday, Oct 19 @ 3:25 PM
Cardinals
Sunday, Oct 26 @ 7:20 PM
Steelers
Sunday, Nov 2 @ 12:00 PM
PANTHERS
Monday, Nov 10 @ 7:15 PM
EAGLES
Sunday, Nov 16 @ 12:00 PM
Giants
Sunday, Nov 23 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Thursday, Nov 27 @ 12:00 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 7 @ 12:00 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Dec 14 @ 3:25 PM
Broncos
Friday, Dec 19 @ 11:00 PM
Bears
Friday, Dec 26 @ 11:00 PM
RAVENS
Saturday, Jan 3 @ 11:00 PM
Vikings
Recent Topics
8h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

2-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

2-Jul / Fantasy Sports Talk / dfosterf

1-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

29-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

25-Jun / Around The NFL / Martha Careful

23-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

20-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

20-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

20-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

18-Jun / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

16-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

15-Jun / Random Babble / Martha Careful

14-Jun / Around The NFL / beast

14-Jun / Community Welcome! / dfosterf

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2025 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.