georgerussia

I don't understand what are you trying to say. If the child decides he wants to have sex, he does not need your approval anyway. If he does not to have sex, your approval doesn't really matter. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

This is correct - when you have 2,000 jumps you definitely know that a brake fire on such a canopy is most likely a minor inconvenience. However when you have 19 jumps, and have a brake fire during your first jump on a rental Sabre 190 you never jumped before, things look different. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Well, it depends. If having protection is important for them for having sex, they can buy it themselves, and have sex as well. Your provided protection just saves them $1, which is not a big deal. If they do not want to use protection, they will not use it even if you provide them with it. The biggest difference between AAD and condoms is that there are people who skydive but cannot afford AAD. But condoms are affordable almost by everyone, and the number of persons who would like extra protection during sex (and increase their sexual activity thereafter) but cannot afford it is not significant - because condoms are cheap. It looks now like we're discussing two different things, and that we both are right :) My view of the situation is that there is action (buying protection), and there is decision (to have or not to have sex). You are discussing how the 3rd party would consider just your actions itself. Looking on the situation this way I can agree that yes, by providing them condoms you support them in having sex, as there is nothing else condoms could be used for. Note that we discuss only how a 3rd party would judge your action, and not the cosequences. However I'm discussing slightly different thing: whether there is any real connection between this action (providing condoms) and the child decision (having sex). And in my opinion the child decision to have or not to have sex is not connected to the actions described - i.e. whether you buy them condoms or not. They can have sex without you buying them protection (because if they need protection, they can afford it themselves), and they won't start having sex just because you give them protection (again, because if all they needed to have sex is protection, they would get it themselves) Yes, in this interpretation you are right. So the difference is that you interpreted the topic like "How my actions of buying my child birth control would be considered by a 3rd party"? And I interpreted it as "Does buying your child birth control affects their decision to have sex"? That's the difference. For example, if I bought my skydiver friend condoms, my actions would be considered as encouraging him to have sex. But it would not mean that my action would affect his decision to have sex. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Well, you can extend this analogy further: do you know anyone who had less sex because they got new Adidas jeans? Most likely not; so does it mean that new Adidas jeans support or encourage them to have sex? In my opinion we can only say that something encourages/supports the action when we have clear evidence that providing that "something" will lead to more actions performed, and not providing it leads to less actions performed. The details are important here. Unlike AAD condoms are cheap, and if a person would only have sex with protection (and it is the only think which stops them from having sex), they don't need to wait when their parents buy it for them. They can just go and buy condoms themselves, as they are cheap, and therefore that means they gonna have sex no matter whether the protection provided is from you or from local Safeway. Now could we say Safeway supports/encourages sex by selling condoms to anyone? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

My point of hiding the bodies was not about showing some respect to the dead. Dumping those bodies on the street is very dangerous thing, which result in increase of press and police activity. People start asking questions, and there can be always someone persistent enough to find the evidence. Neither rich powerful men nor the corrupted police on their payroll need such publicity. Therefore I do not understand why the bodies are just left on the street for everyone to see, and not for example dumped in some deserted mine or burned in a blast furnace at steel factory. Should be very easy thing to do for rich and powerful men who already have corrupted police on their side. That's why in my opinion theory is flawed. Personally I think it is just another psycho. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Well, let's imagine what happens if the son does not receive AAD from their parents. Will he skydive less because of this? Most likely not; he has already started, and as we know those first steps are the most difficult for anyone. Does he *need* AAD to skydive? No, he doesn't - because he is already skydiving. I wouldn't even say that he would jump more after getting AAD - for most people the number of jumps they make is limited by available time and money, and so far I have never yet heard of a person who would do four jumps a day instead of two just because he got an AAD. Also while comparing those things we need to keep in mind one important difference. The AAD is expensive, and - as a wild guess - probably most of the people who do not use them now would get them if AAD costs $25 instead of $1200. However condoms are so cheap that even a teenager can afford them - while he most likely cannot afford an AAD. This may also affect the final decision. It depends on person. Again, from my own experience most of us at this age didn't really care about birth control and STDs, relying in old good "well, she looks clean" for STDs and old good "put it out" for birth control. Sure not everyone was involved into this, however those pals and gals who didn't would not do it even if you put a big condom over their whole body. And their decisions not to have sex for a few of them I knew really well was definitely not lack of birth control. Anyway, even adults with easy access to all the available birth control and STDs protection not always use them - just look on the AIDS increase. So I can hardly see how it affects the final decision * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

IMHO this theory is flawed. Did she explain why those powerful men do not hide those bodies? Should be really easy task for those who already have power, money and police on their payroll, and there is a lot of possibilities to hide a body forever. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Yes, in theory it is possible. Also it is possible that our whole world was created 5 minutes ago - someone created everyone like they are, and put some memories of things which never really happened. This theory is on the same level as The Matrix theory, and The Bible theory - it is impossible to prove it, but it is impossible to controvert it as well. So what would you say, should we study all those theories (and probably a hundred million of similar theories)? Of course not. The reason is that those theories are not constructive, and studying them will not really help anyone. Remember the black death epidemy in Middle Ages? Some people said that it was Revenge of God for people being immoral and having less faith, so everybody had to pray more. Was this aproach useful? No, because there were no evidence to support this claim. And it was impossible to get any real evidence - because the fact that God itself exists is based only on beliefs. Then other people said that black death is a disease caused by bacteria, which could be killed with right medicine, and which also could be prevented. And they had evidence you don't have to be a believer to accept - they gave you medicine, and you healed quickly. Was this appropach useful? Obviously. Therefore there is no actual reason to do an exact science study of religion-based theories. If everyone believed that lightning bolt is a Wrath of God to scare non-believers, we would not have electricity. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

If I understand it right (please correct me if I'm wrong), the person you describe is already skydiving, just without Cypress. So I fail to see any encouragement here. It might be considered support, but not necessary because the person is already skydiving, and will not skydive more when he gets Cypress. I'd say in this case she is most likely supporting *herself*, not him. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

In this case there is nothing wrong with this if we're talking about having sex by mutual consent between teenagers in the same age range. As I said before, a lot of people in my class started having sex at 12-14, and obviously nobody asked parents permission. If we take away "family values", "high morals" and other nice meaningless words people like to say, probably the main reason to argue this point would be that "at age 12,13,14 the teenagers is not really responsible for their actions". However the responsibility level varies greatly between different people; some are responsible, and some are not. It is true that the chance for a 18yo being responsible are greater than for 14yo, however it is not a rule. I personally know several 20yo I'ld be scared to left at home alone for a week, and I know several 15yo who are very mature and responsible in their actions. As a bigger picture, just few hundred years ago a lot of people were getting married at the age of 14 or even younger. My granma got married at 15. Age of consent in some countries (Mexico) is still 12-14, and it is possible to get married at age 14 even in a lot of countries under special circumstances (the pregnancy is usually one of them). * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

So the only problem is possibility of unwanted pregnancy and obviously unwanted STDs? And if you were sure that they would only have safe sex, you wouldn't discourage them? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Why should you discourage them from having sex? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Well, with more than hundred different religions available the chance you are right are not something worth considering :P Being in the sane Heaven with George W Bush is probably not the top priority for a lot of people anyway. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Well, we now have Intelligent Gravity as well: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512 * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

"was a woman" does not imply "had a woman's logic" in case of God (who by definition is Almighty). I doubt that the God ever has any logic at all. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

This is my opinion too. From my own example, we didn't have condoms available in Soviet Union. Nor our parents and teachers were ready to talk about sex with us. All they could teach us were "high morale", benefits of abstinence, and other bullshit even the stupidest of us never believed into. The results - most my friends start having sex in some way since they were 13-16, two girls from my class were pregnant (and went through abortion) at the age of 14 and 15, a few guys got syphilis and gonorrhea. That was Soviet Union, so nobody was able to hide such things, as all the doctors were required by law to report them to local authorities (which then included your school, and your parents at least). We were just lucky nobody got AIDS. At least modern teenagers do use condoms more than we did, and it is a good thing. Regarding the main topic question, it assumes that the main reason teenagers do not have sex is that they do not feel safe. And therefore if you provided them with "sex safety tools", it would remove this restriction, and therefore feel encouraging. In my opinion even some adults really do not care about unprotected sex - just look on AIDS spreading rate for last 10 years - so this concept just does not work. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

I prefer Hentai, and old French stuff. Most of what I have in my collection was made by Alpha France in 1970-1985. At least those usually have a nice screenplay, which goes far away from stupid "1+ guy meet a 1+ girl, asked her whether it is hot, she answered 'yes' and stripped (this one is always SO unique!), then he ate her, then she blew him, then they fuck@d for ten minutes in different positions and then he came on her face" you can see everywhere now. BTW, have you seen 'Corruption'? This is a kick-ass 2006 porn. So far it is one of the few I was able to watch completely without using fast-forward button at all. Highly recommended. 2Beth: there is little BSDM too :) * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Is there a reason for punitive damages to be not designed in the way, so they would not benefit a plaintiff while punushing a defendant? Like a fine? Yes, that's why it is good news. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

That's a good news. The only pity is that they won't force her to pay for all the legal expenses - which would be even better news. Something should be done to those a$$holes wasting taxpayers money and court time in unreasonable attempts to get some money for themselves. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Changed it in the way it looks for me. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Same to me. And everybody should get really drunk (vodka w/pickles preferred) after this dive. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

So HER only excuse for NOT being a whore is that she is "old", fat and ugly? Because - according to her - if she was young and in a good shape, there would be no way for her not to be, right? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Because the government wants you to own a home - first not to be a homeless (therefore spending government money in a some way), and second, to pay property taxes. And the government does not care about the furniture. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

I saw few of them which had admin interface on http://192.168.1.1 and http://192.168.0.254 Usually the default settings are "admin" for username and empty password, or vice versa (linksys & d-link for example). * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

I don't get what you want. Do you want the DZO to buy you health insurance, or you want him to pay for your insurance without deducting the cost from you? If it is the first one, I basically see no difference. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *