HeadCone

That's an interesting site. Just to be silly, I looked up what time that would be in the South Pole and found that they use GMT+12 (I would have guessed GMT). BTW, Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 4:00:00 PM UTC-7 hours PDT converts to Friday, April 20, 2007 at 11:00:00 AM UTC+12 hours. And I assume PDT was meant, not PST. --Head -- Turn off the internet! Join Citizens United Negating Technology For Life And People's Safety! http://www.citizensunitednegatingtechnology.org/

More about how screwed up this kid was: Va. Tech gunman accused of stalking -- Turn off the internet! Join Citizens United Negating Technology For Life And People's Safety! http://www.citizensunitednegatingtechnology.org/

I agree. From Va. Tech gunman writings raised concerns News reports also said that he may have been taking medication for depression, that he was becoming increasingly violent and erratic, and that he left a note in his dorm in which he railed against "rich kids," "debauchery" and "deceitful charlatans" on campus. ... The Chicago Tribune reported on its Web site that he left a note in his dorm room that included a rambling list of grievances. Citing identified sources, the Tribune said he had recently shown troubling signs, including setting a fire in a dorm room and stalking some women. He was going to go ballistic regarless of whether or not he had a gun. -- Turn off the internet! Join Citizens United Negating Technology For Life And People's Safety! http://www.citizensunitednegatingtechnology.org/

He should have to repay the government for the time and resources wasted on training him. He should received no military benefits. -- Head -- Turn off the internet! Join Citizens United Negating Technology For Life And People's Safety! http://www.citizensunitednegatingtechnology.org/

Sky-writing in *really* big letters. --Head -- Turn off the internet! Join Citizens United Negating Technology For Life And People's Safety! http://www.citizensunitednegatingtechnology.org/

I sincerely hope the kid gets well soon and has no long-term injuries for this. It's really amazing he lived at all. I do have to say that the impact crater left behind looks like it came right out of a Hanna-Barbera cartoon. --Head -- Turn off the internet! Join Citizens United Negating Technology For Life And People's Safety! http://www.citizensunitednegatingtechnology.org/

Grand Theft Auto -- Turn off the internet! Join Citizens United Negating Technology For Life And People's Safety! http://www.citizensunitednegatingtechnology.org/

I've watched the Dateline show a few times and IIRC the police were always involved and the perv gets arrested. It always seemed like it should be a slam-dunk case. In this article, though, it says: A police source said W-FIVE approached several police services for their co-operation. All refused, the source said. This indicates to me that there was no police involved and no one was arrested. I suppose the police should have gotten involved but since they didn't, I think they have a legitimate gripe. The pervs were let free and now they can destory any evidence on their computers. --Head -- Turn off the internet! Join Citizens United Negating Technology For Life And People's Safety! http://www.citizensunitednegatingtechnology.org/

Another factor to how bad teachers get hired and why they stay is the good 'ole boy system. Where I live, the principal and a few of the teachers have their jobs because they're related to the schoolboard members. There was even a story about how this was a problem with various school districts in the area on the TV news and in the paper. Not a damn thing changed. --Head -- Turn off the internet! Join Citizens United Negating Technology For Life And People's Safety! http://www.citizensunitednegatingtechnology.org/

I can't see the first video right now, but as for the second: Is that jackass actually trying to suggest that the blip movement is anything other than camera movement (for some reason I was thinking he was suggesting that it was moving like that before this video was shot). CBS-Cleveland should be embarrassed for showing this news clip. --Head -- Turn off the internet! Join Citizens United Negating Technology For Life And People's Safety! http://www.citizensunitednegatingtechnology.org/

That's because you really weren't being derogative towards mentally handicapped people. I wouldn't let this piece guilt-trip you into never using the word ever again in any context. I think the offensiveness of the word depends on the attitude behind it. In the example in the story, the usage was offensive. On the other hand, if Palumbo was talking to someone and matter-of-factly stated, "I have a sister Olivia who is retarded.", then that, IMHO, should not be considered offensive. I'd generally agree. He's calling out a kind of discrimination that you don't hear about as much as racism/sexism. I do think he's a little biased calling retard "the single most hateful word in the entire English language". --Head -- Turn off the internet! Join Citizens United Negating Technology For Life And People's Safety! http://www.citizensunitednegatingtechnology.org/

clicky -- Turn off the internet! Join Citizens United Negating Technology For Life And People's Safety! http://www.citizensunitednegatingtechnology.org/

Too good to pass up: -- Turn off the internet! Join Citizens United Negating Technology For Life And People's Safety! http://www.citizensunitednegatingtechnology.org/

Other. I care not about scent or ply. I buy for bulk price. Whatever brand has the most roles for the cheapest price goes in the cart. I recently bought a 48-pack of I-don't-know-what. As a single guy living alone, it should last a good couple of years. --Head -- Turn off the internet! Join Citizens United Negating Technology For Life And People's Safety! http://www.citizensunitednegatingtechnology.org/

One, You went from the parents providing BC to the kid straight to the kid deciding not to have sex (i.e., become sexually active. *That's* what were talking about now right? Not, if/when they actually will have sex?). You skipped the part where the kid thinks about the decision (including using the fact that his/her parents just provided some BC to make that decision). Two, you're "including not having an opportunity". This is misleading because it has nothing to do with the kid deciding to become sexually active. It only has to do with specifically when the kid loses their virginity. Again, skipping the decision making process plus one other important factor which is *why* the parents didn't provide BC. Was it because the parent's weren't asked or because they were asked but refused. The kid's decision may be more affected if they were explicitly refused the BC vs. just assuming the parents wouldn't provide it. That doesn't follow from your previous statements since your previous statements didn't address "the decision". --Head -- Turn off the internet! Join Citizens United Negating Technology For Life And People's Safety! http://www.citizensunitednegatingtechnology.org/

Don't you dare insinuate that I'm a bad parent because I give my kids rabbits! --Head -- Turn off the internet! Join Citizens United Negating Technology For Life And People's Safety! http://www.citizensunitednegatingtechnology.org/

I probably would not have lost it that much earlier. I don't think that matters though. If my parents did provide me with BC and it wasn't until two years later that I actually had sex, then I would change my statement above to "Even though my parents supported my desire to have sex by buying me condoms, I didn't have the opportunity to do so until two years later." --Head -- Turn off the internet! Join Citizens United Negating Technology For Life And People's Safety! http://www.citizensunitednegatingtechnology.org/

Going back to "cosequences of your action (i.e. whether your action affects the child decision to have sex)" from a few posts back, I thought you were talking about the number of instances of having sex. I think maybe you're talking about (perhaps that plus) the kid's decision to become sexually active in general. With that in mind, to answer this question: I was ready, willing, and able to lose my virginity without my parents providing me with birth control. Even though my parents didn't support or encourage me, I did it anyway. Are kids going to be sexually active even though their parents didn't give them BC? Sure, I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. Is giving their kids BC an act of support/encouragement for them to have sex? Sure, if nothing else it saves them the time, trouble, and money (as little as it may be) of buying it for themselves. Plus, it helps to ensure they'll have it on them when needed. --Head -- Turn off the internet! Join Citizens United Negating Technology For Life And People's Safety! http://www.citizensunitednegatingtechnology.org/

Not if Safeway is closed. I'll concede one thing: The act of a parent giving their child BC will have zero influence on the number of times the kid has sex if and only if the kid has unrestricted and immediate access to BC through other means. Do you think it is ever at all possible for two underage teens to make the decision to not have sex because they don't have any BC? I'm honestly not quite sure what you're asking here. --Head -- Turn off the internet! Join Citizens United Negating Technology For Life And People's Safety! http://www.citizensunitednegatingtechnology.org/

After rereading through the OPs posts in this thread it actually doesn't seem explicitly clear to me one way or the other. I obviously assumed it was about the former. But let's talk about the latter. I believe there are situations where kids will make the decision to not have sex because they don't have any BC. When does this decision occur? It doesn't necessarily have to be after they're already parked at Lover's Lane and all charged up after alot of heavy petting. It can come before that. "I'm out of condoms, we better not even go there." is not an impossible statement for a teen to make. In my own life, I lost my virginity, in part, because I had a condom. If I didn't have a condom, I wouldn't have gone to the girl's house in the first place. I also have decided to not have sex (to even get started) because of lack of BC. And, I recall one incident where I noticed that the condom broke and was able to actually stop and put another one (after some discussion about what the hell happened). Point being, I wasn't so hormonally charged that I couldn't control myself. I realize that all kids aren't always going to act that way. But, the fear of creating a pregnancy *can* be powerful enough for some kids in some situations to stop the act of sex. Admittedly, how much is up for debate. --Head -- Turn off the internet! Join Citizens United Negating Technology For Life And People's Safety! http://www.citizensunitednegatingtechnology.org/

The problem with some of the analogies in this thread is that they don't properly relate to the thread topic. The thread topic is "Is buying your child birth control supporting/encouraging sex?" Add to that the *reason* the BC is given. We are not talking about providing the pill to a young girl to regulate her period nor are we talking about giving boys condoms because they ran out of balloons to make water balloons. We *are* talking about providing BC to prevent pregnancy. So, the topic is about one person providing to another person an item to use as protection from the consequences of a certain activity. Reserves are gifted as protection from the consequences of skydiving. As such, one person providing to another person a reserve is support for (even encouragement of) that person skydiving. Also, one person providing to another person a reserve to use as a third parachute in an intentional cutaway is support for (even encouragement of) that person cuting away (note, the reason for the gift is important like it is for the thread topic). Can you not see how this reserve gift (or my AAD gift) analogy demonstrates that the act of giving is the act of support/encouragement? It should be easy since there's no real stigma associated with supporting skydiving. --Head -- Turn off the internet! Join Citizens United Negating Technology For Life And People's Safety! http://www.citizensunitednegatingtechnology.org/

I didn't advocate that. --Head -- Turn off the internet! Join Citizens United Negating Technology For Life And People's Safety! http://www.citizensunitednegatingtechnology.org/

Assuming you're not talking about someplace like the Autobahn but rather a highway with a typical speed limit of 55-75, then you don't just sit there and do nothing. Pull out, put the lights on, and attempt to pull them over. If they all pull over, then great. If not, you have to work the situation from there. If you can’t stop them any other way, then, at some point, the decision may have to be made to use deadly force. --Head -- Turn off the internet! Join Citizens United Negating Technology For Life And People's Safety! http://www.citizensunitednegatingtechnology.org/

No. Not for simply speeding and not stopping as ordered. The cop knocked him off the road for wreckless, oops I mean reckless, driving. It is *not* the case that the cop saw a speeder and simply slammed him off the road. It *is* the case that the kid "did pass some vehicles on a double yellow line" and "he ran a red light". This is from the Brief for Respondent Victor Harris (the kid). The brief also states "a PIT maneuver cannot be used at speeds of 80-100 mph" Why state this? He's obviously admitting that he was going 80-100 mph when he was hit. No? Amazingly, it also says "it is judicially admitted that Scott’s ramming of Harris’ vehicle occurred at a time where there were no other motorists in the area." It's as if to say, "You knocked my client's car off the road when there wasn't anybody else around to harm by doing so. You bastard!" Now, from Brief for Respondent Victor Harris (the cop), another cop tried to pull the kid over but instead he "speed away. He passed motorists by crossing over double yellow traffic control lines and raced through a red traffic light." That's once (and also admitted by the Harris brief). Then the cop joined the pursuit and "estimated the speeds to be in excess of 100 miles per hour on a narrow two-lane road. ... Harris cannot dispute these speeds." Not that hard to believe. Then there's the collision (or "minor contact") in the parking lot. A normal cautiously driving person does not hit a police car and speed off. Then the kid "once again raced down a two-lane road at high speeds, crossing double yellow control lines and running a red light." That's twice. (Admitted by the Harris brief but it conveniently didn't say how often) Then, kid was heading for "a red light or a vehicle ahead" (a third?) and the cop took him out. (No mention in the Harris brief about what was upcoming). Use deadly force after ALL of that (and before third time's the charm)? Yes. Should this cop have even gotten involved in the chase in the first place? Possibly not. But, I didn't attempt to answer that. The question was "What do you guy's think ahould be appropriate for use of deadly force?". And my answer is, after someone drives like this, use of deadly force is appropriate. --Head -- Turn off the internet! Join Citizens United Negating Technology For Life And People's Safety! http://www.citizensunitednegatingtechnology.org/

That's the point. That giving someone protection does NOT make them want to do it less, but rather more or, at least, the same amount. And even if they're just doing it the same amount, they're doing it safer. I don't limit the definition of a supporting/encouraging action to one that increases the number of times the action is performed. In my opinion, providing something that makes the action better/safer can also be considered support/encouragement. If you want to go with the numbers definition, then, in general, aren't people more likely to do something when it's safer to do so? And let's say the son in the AAD example is a millionaire and can buy one for himself as if it's nothing. That's irrelevant. The topic is about the act of giving an item of protection to someone, not if they can get it somewhere else. Perhaps. Now if Safeway was giving them away for free. Absolutely. --Head -- Turn off the internet! Join Citizens United Negating Technology For Life And People's Safety! http://www.citizensunitednegatingtechnology.org/