On the Nature of Things | Forum

Carbizene wrote:

Mr. Perfect wrote:Well somebody is certainly going nuts here, not sure who but...

Did you know that no children are currently in jail because of sexual activity? Did you know that content in instructional materials are not laws? Therefore what is in instructional material has no bearing on whether someone goes to jail?

I think Carbs you personally are far more likely to be killed by a Muslim terrorist than anyone going to jail for hand holding in the state of MS.

There are children in 'reform schools' for sexual activity, in Australia children get put on the Sex offenders list for messaging lewd pictures to each other.

You are correct to point out these are instructional materials but they also carry the weight of the Law in that a Teacher can be fined if they don't follow them and the fact the State deems fit to codify holding hands in anyway represents a disconcerting encroachment on personal liberty.

Putting them on the sex offenders list does nothing but delegitimize the sex offenders list.

Absolutely, the level of incompetence is astounding.

Nonc Hilaire wrote:

Carbizene wrote:I would like to believe you but certain actions suggest Taliban tendency's:

MEMPHIS, TN -

(WMC-TV) - Tennessee senators approved an update to the state's abstinence-based sex education law that includes warnings against "gateway sexual activity."

In a new family life instructions bill, holding hands and kissing could be considered gateways to sex.

So holding hands is frowned upon, next up dancing.

No, I think in Tennessee holding hands is considered a gateway to "snake" handling.

Very good.

Anecdote. Once dated a gal from Mississippi whose born-again Christian, I was surprised to learn, forbade both alcohol and dancing.
Also this abstinence stuff is a complete joke. She was a firecracker. The aspect of human nature which finds tasting forbidden fruit more appealing.

And yes, the hypocrisy of [US] conservatives who are supposedly opposed to Big Government, so-called, constantly wanting to involve govt in legislating morality and various other beliefs is indeed laughable.

I guess the fact that no morality is being legislated is just going over everyone's head?

Enki wrote:

Carbizene wrote:

Mr. Perfect wrote:Well somebody is certainly going nuts here, not sure who but...

Did you know that no children are currently in jail because of sexual activity? Did you know that content in instructional materials are not laws? Therefore what is in instructional material has no bearing on whether someone goes to jail?

I think Carbs you personally are far more likely to be killed by a Muslim terrorist than anyone going to jail for hand holding in the state of MS.

There are children in 'reform schools' for sexual activity, in Australia children get put on the Sex offenders list for messaging lewd pictures to each other.

You are correct to point out these are instructional materials but they also carry the weight of the Law in that a Teacher can be fined if they don't follow them and the fact the State deems fit to codify holding hands in anyway represents a disconcerting encroachment on personal liberty.

Putting them on the sex offenders list does nothing but delegitimize the sex offenders list.

Nobody is being put on a sex offender list. You can rest easy that nothing bad is happening. However you can ask why some people are trying to make it look that way.

Carbizene wrote:

Mr. Perfect wrote:Well somebody is certainly going nuts here, not sure who but...

Did you know that no children are currently in jail because of sexual activity? Did you know that content in instructional materials are not laws? Therefore what is in instructional material has no bearing on whether someone goes to jail?

I think Carbs you personally are far more likely to be killed by a Muslim terrorist than anyone going to jail for hand holding in the state of MS.

There are children in 'reform schools' for sexual activity,

There are children in reforms schools for all kinds of reasons.

in Australia children get put on the Sex offenders list for messaging lewd pictures to each other.

How did you get so many evangelical Christians in AUS? I had a different impression of that place.

You are correct to point out these are instructional materials but they also carry the weight of the Law in that a Teacher can be fined if they don't follow them

Teachers can be fined for all kinds of things.

and the fact the State deems fit to codify holding hands in anyway represents a disconcerting encroachment on personal liberty.

No it doesn't. This is pure fantasy.

Mr. Perfect wrote:This may represent a bit of an opportunity, carb/Zm do you essentially just have sex one time and move on?

I don't even want to know where this came from. We haven't even held hands yet, Mr. P.

Carbizene wrote:

Mr. Perfect wrote:How is the government getting into anyone's bedroom?

By legislating what constitutes Sexual practice.

Under the Tennessee bill a Adult holding a childs hand is sexual abuse.

Never mind getting into your bedroom, the party of Really Big Government has been trying its best to get into women's vaginas with ultrasonic wands lately.

Are you talking about the Obama led TSA/T&A party?

Mr. Perfect wrote:Are you talking about the Obama led TSA/T&A party?

No. I think you know exactly what I'm refering to.

The only thing that comes to mind is the T&A/TSA.

Is this what you are referring to? Obama's war on women? I do in fact find this reprehensible as you must be referring to.

BSwKHDl9PtE

Mr. Perfect wrote:I guess the fact that no morality is being legislated is just going over everyone's head?

Another great moment in MPism, sexual activity has nothing to do with morality.

Mr. Perfect wrote: How did you get so many evangelical Christians in AUS? I had a different impression of that place.

US happy clappers could learn something from our's, they have managed to get 2500 priests placed in Government schools while a supposedly Atheist Prime Minister is in place.

and the fact the State deems fit to codify holding hands in anyway represents a disconcerting encroachment on personal liberty.

No it doesn't. This is pure fantasy.

What bit don't you get? holding hands is being defined as a sexual act, therefore a adult holding a childs hand is engaged in a sexual act and it is illegal to engage in sexual acts with children thus making it illegal for an adult to hold a child's hand thus liberty is encroached. Point out to me the flaws in this logic.

Carbizene wrote: US happy clappers could learn something from our's, they have managed to get 2500 priests placed in Government schools while a supposedly Atheist Prime Minister is in place.

Admittedly many foreign countries do things I do not understand.

What bit don't you get? holding hands is being defined as a sexual act,

It's not legally defined as such. It's just a little tract, for educational purposes.

therefore a adult holding a childs hand is engaged in a sexual act and it is illegal to engage in sexual acts with children thus making it illegal for an adult to hold a child's hand thus liberty is encroached. Point out to me the flaws in this logic.

The flaw is that at the end of the day it will not be illegal to hold hands with a child. No one will be charged, no one will be prosecuted, because it has not been made illegal by this bill.

Carbizene wrote:

Mr. Perfect wrote:I guess the fact that no morality is being legislated is just going over everyone's head?

Another great moment in MPism, sexual activity has nothing to do with morality.

Well I will leave the definitions to others but I will say that neither morality or sex is being legislated here. It's just a little educational policy that does not make any activity illegal.

Sure but it is setting a precedent for holding hands to be deemed sexual activity on a larger platform. This is how morality is modified and it seems Tennessee is heading back to the middle ages, god speed.

It's not setting any kind of precedent. There is literally nothing to worry about as far as that goes. I promise.

In the above CDC map, the key indicates the number of births for every 1,000 women between the ages of 15 and 19 in a state.
For example, in dark green states, there are 50 or more pregnancies for every 1,000 women between the ages of 15 and 19.

[US] CDC | Birth Rates for U.S. Teenagers Reach Historic Lows for All Age and Ethnic Groups [pdf]

Typhoon wrote:

In the above CDC map, the key indicates the number of births for every 1,000 women between the ages of 15 and 19 in a state.
For example, in dark green states, there are 50 or more pregnancies for every 1,000 women between the ages of 15 and 19.

[US] CDC | Birth Rates for U.S. Teenagers Reach Historic Lows for All Age and Ethnic Groups [pdf]

So basically, areas with higher immigrant/minority populations tend towards more teenage pregnancy?

Great chart. So much for the idea of the blue states overtaking, the future belongs to the GOP. I'll take it.

NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:
So basically, areas with higher immigrant/minority populations tend towards more teenage pregnancy?

Not really seeing as the Messicans/immigants are undocumented thus probably not in figures, fraid you probably have to admit it's good ol Tammy Sue-Lee working the baby tube that makes a dark shade of green.

Mr. Perfect wrote:Great chart. So much for the idea of the blue states overtaking, the future belongs to the GOP. I'll take it.

Hate to break it to you MP but Teenage parenthood is not usually associated with 'owning the future' unless that is defined by who has most Tramp stamps.

I'll take votes any way I can get them.

Teenage Mothers and off-spring no doubt are high percentage voters

the line of colour change does delineate two seperate entities quite nicely, maybe the coming troubles could be sparked off by a tramp stamp tax.