Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Road Walker who wrote (224067)	3/15/2005 12:29:12 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 1573822

>> You are kidding, right? Recreation? I can't believe the idiocy you people are posting here. You actually believe it is appropriate for 13 year olds to be engaging in sexual activity? You people are sick, sick, sick.

To: Road Walker who wrote (224067)	3/15/2005 1:18:16 PM
From: Jim McMannis	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573822

wtsp.com You must be familiar with this one... LaFave did not say anything on her way to jail, but the sheriff’s incident report tells about two sexual encounters in Ocala. After leaving a Smoothy King on June 15th, the 14-year-old student says he had sex with LaFave in the back of her silver Isuzu sport utility vehicle, while his 15-year-old cousin drove them west on State Road 200 towards I-75. The student says after having sex with him, LaFave bought an Ipod music downloading device for her husband at a Best Buy in Ocala, using a credit card. Detectives say the specific details the boys gave in their statement adds to their credibility.

To: Road Walker who wrote (224067)	3/15/2005 1:43:45 PM
From: Jim McMannis	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1573822

phillygasprices.com

To: Road Walker who wrote (224067)	3/15/2005 2:19:58 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1573822

re: People who aren't able to care for offspring should not be engaging in sex. Period. End of story. And I'm not sure why anyone would have to consider it for a second. You are kidding, right? Recreation? He makes these blanket statements suggesting that no one who is financially stable and capable of nurturing should be allowed to have sex, ignoring the existence of the pill and other forms of contraception. So that means that a whole bunch of people who are currently having sex should not be indulging. And then when someone calls him on it [I've already seen his response to your post], he takes it to the extreme. How can you ever have a reasonable exchange with this guy? ted

To: Road Walker who wrote (224067)	3/15/2005 4:29:25 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1573822

I don't think he is arguing that sex is only for procreation. He is instead arguing that people who are going to engage in sex (presumably he means hetero-sexual intercourse) should be people who have the capability to take care of offspring because recreational intercourse can result in pregnancy. Off course if that was the only concern than any form of homosexual activity, as well as many forms of hetero-sexual activity would be ok, but I would agree with David that its reasonable not to want 12 and 13 year olds engaging in sex for recreation or any other purpose, wether or not the particular sex act can result in pregnancy. Fortunately most of them don't but the percentage that do is far from insignificant. Tim