What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Nice Planet 2012

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Nice Planet 2012

And hell, any idiot out there screwing around with a girl that doesn't bother to get a rubber is just asking for a screw up, even if she's on the pill. If you use a rubber and she's on the pill, that's just another layer of security for both you and her.
 
Re: Nice Planet 2012

An ex from HS was an absolute effing wreck when Aunt Flo was in town. Emotional crapstorm, cramps so bad she missed school and stayed in bed for days. Was eventually diagnosed with some sort of extreme PMDD, and was prescribed the pill. Holy crap instant difference. Plus, her already ample bosom grew. Double-win on my end. ;)
 
Re: Nice Planet 2012

bigmrg74 said:
And hell, any idiot out there screwing around with a girl that doesn't bother to get a rubber is just asking for a screw up, even if she's on the pill. If you use a rubber and she's on the pill, that's just another layer of security for both you and her.
Click to expand...

And any idiot that thinks he's special because a girl wants him that night (or vice versa, to be fair) and doesn't use 3x the cover......

Think about it: YOU'RE the special person? How many other times has this situation occurred? Hmmmm.....
 
Re: Nice Planet 2012

I'd be curious to see an actual study on how many more women would use birth control if it were free - in other words, how many pregnancies would taking that step actually prevent? My college ex (and many of her friends) paid almost nothing for birth control at PP because their sliding scale did not consider the parents' income, so in my experience, the cost of birth control was not an actual barrier to use. It's rather funny to see proponents argue on one hand that we should do it because lots of women need it for reasons other than preventing pregnancy (to try to get around religious objections) and then turn around and tout the savings due to reducing the number of pregnancies. You can't have it both ways.

Don't get me wrong - I think we, as a society, should try to prevent as many pregnancies as we can - I just wonder how effective making birth control free would actually be toward achieving that goal.
 
Re: Nice Planet 2012

LynahFan said:
I think we, as a society, should try to prevent as many pregnancies as we can.
Click to expand...

You're the third person now who expressed that view, and it really puzzles me. Since you generally post sensible things, I will assume for now that you meant to write "I think we should try to prevent as many unplanned pregnancies as we can."

Frankly, the idea that we should prevent as many pregnancies as we can without that modifier strikes me as really creepy. First of all, selfishly speaking, I personally am the result of a planned pregnancy and on the whole I am quite glad that I am! ;) and while I was not consulted ahead of time, my spouse and I had two planned pregnancies that produced two wonderful intelligent ambitious people who are more likely than not going to make the world a better place for having them in it than the converse. :)

The idea that some government agency is going to decide who should have children and who should not really makes my skin crawl: I shudder even to contemplate it. :eek:





PS: it's a bit hard for me to express why this whole Sandra Fluke kerfluffle is a red herring. No one is denying her anything; from all accounts she has a very generous health insurance plan overall and there are plenty of people in this country who'd love to have the coverage she does. Wasn't feminism at one time about female self-reliance? and now she is a victim who requires that someone else take care of her? To turn this situation into some kind of "denial of healthcare" is just whacky, she isn't being "denied" anything. I mean, lots of dental plans don't cover orthodontia, yet we don't have kids with crooked teeth speaking at the convention or testifying before Congress about it! Many health plans restrict chiropractic coverage, yet I didn't see anyone with scoliosis on the dais this week! [insert wisecrack about people with limited psychiatric coverage being there though] Egad, I must be tired, I'm starting to sound like someone else.....
 
Re: Nice Planet 2012

bigmrg74 said:
And hell, any idiot out there screwing around with a girl that doesn't bother to get a rubber is just asking for a screw up, even if she's on the pill. If you use a rubber and she's on the pill, that's just another layer of security for both you and her.
Click to expand...

Still spilling the seed according to some...
 
Re: Nice Planet 2012

Old Pio said:
But they really ought "to do the right thing" and eat what that bossy parker wants 'em to eat.
Click to expand...

In the end they can eat whenever the hell they want. Are you seriously going to argue that sending the message to eat healthy, even if every kid out there will not embrace it 100%, is some sort of dickish move?

What was that sh*t she served to kids in the WH the other day? Avocado sloppy joes or something? Good luck with that.
Click to expand...

I'll note this for when I have kids. Because something healthy may not be my kid's favorite food in the world, I should not even bother trying and just let them eat whatever the heck they want. BTW, avocado sloppy joes actually sounds kinda good.

How long do you suppose it will be before the food police declare lunches brought from home insufficiently nutritious and force a kid to eat something else? Wait, it's already happening.

http://pediatrics.about.com/b/2012/02/15/why-are-the-food-police-inspecting-school-lunches.htm
Click to expand...

You'll note the actual issue was the teacher screwing up the law, and the teacher should be held accountable. Additionally, nowhere in the law is the lunch taken away or the kid "forced" to do anything, but rather the existing lunch is augmented. Even given all that, though, this law goes beyond what I would do; while the school has the right to monitor what is in the lunches they provide, whatever is brought from home should be off limits.
 
Re: Nice Planet 2012

French Rage said:
In the end they can eat whenever the hell they want. Are you seriously going to argue that sending the message to eat healthy, even if every kid out there will not embrace it 100%, is some sort of dickish move?



I'll note this for when I have kids. Because something healthy may not be my kid's favorite food in the world, I should not even bother trying and just let them eat whatever the heck they want. BTW, avocado sloppy joes actually sounds kinda good.



You'll note the actual issue was the teacher screwing up the law, and the teacher should be held accountable. Additionally, nowhere in the law is the lunch taken away or the kid "forced" to do anything, but rather the existing lunch is augmented. Even given all that, though, this law goes beyond what I would do; while the school has the right to monitor what is in the lunches they provide, whatever is brought from home should be off limits.
Click to expand...

Good thing you're prepared to genuflect to government. Moochelle and Co. are going to give you every opportunity. Notwithstanding your crawfishing and rationalizing and equivocating, you seem to think it's a pretty good idea for g.d. school teachers (many of whom can't teach) and school administrators to demand "augmentation" of a kid's lunch. Because they have a "right" to inspect kids' lunches. Really? A "right?" Even so, you wind up on the right side of the argument, by declaring school lunches from home "off limits". That is correct. And it didn't hurt a bit.

E-mail the WH, I'm sure they'd be happy to send you the recipes for that inedible slop they forced on school kids. It wasn't actually avocado sloppy joes, it was cabbage sloppy joes and zucchini fries. Yumm. In any event, it's a free country. You can eat twigs and bark if you want.
 
Last edited:
Re: Nice Planet 2012

Old Pio said:
Good thing you're prepared to genuflect to government. Moochelle and Co. are going to give you every opportunity. Notwithstanding your crawfishing and rationalizing and equivocating, you seem to think it's a pretty good idea for g.d. school teachers (many of whom can't teach) and school administrators to demand "augmentation" of a kid's lunch. Because they have a "right" to inspect kids' lunches. Really? A "right?" Even so, you wind up on the right side of the argument, by declaring school lunches from home "off limits". That is correct. And it didn't hurt a bit.
Click to expand...

Wow, try reading anything I actually wrote.
- "you seem to think it's a pretty good idea for g.d. school teachers (many of whom can't teach) and school administrators to demand "augmentation" of a kid's lunch"; you somehow missed where I said "this law goes beyond what I would do".
- "Because they have a "right" to inspect kids' lunches.""; since you seem to understand in the next couple sentences that I consider home lunches off limits, I have no idea where you got that I think this. I'm guessing it's because I seem to think that the schools should have some power to monitor the lunches they spend money to provide to kids (usually at reduced cost), and that the kids and their parents have every right to avoid if it doesn't contain what they want. If that's ridiculous, then I guess saying that people can't spend food stamps on booze is also ridiculous, since it's the same thing.

E-mail the WH, I'm sure they'd be happy to send you the recipes for that inedible slop they forced on school kids. It wasn't actually avocado sloppy joes, it was cabbage sloppy joes and zucchini fries. Yumm.
Click to expand...

Sounds intriguing. Maybe I'll like it, maybe I won't, dunno until I try.

In any event, it's a free country. You can eat twigs and bark if you want.
Click to expand...

I agree fully. If the school wants to interfere with what people bring from home, that's a problem. If the school wants to have some choice over the lunches it provides and people are free to choose whether they want or not, that seems more than reasonable. If a public figure wants to encourage healthy eating and offer healthy food choices when opportunities arise, that seems like a good idea and you're free to ignore it if you like what you're already eating.
 
Re: Nice Planet 2012

French Rage said:
Wow, try reading anything I actually wrote.
- "you seem to think it's a pretty good idea for g.d. school teachers (many of whom can't teach) and school administrators to demand "augmentation" of a kid's lunch"; you somehow missed where I said "this law goes beyond what I would do".
- "Because they have a "right" to inspect kids' lunches.""; since you seem to understand in the next couple sentences that I consider home lunches off limits, I have no idea where you got that I think this. I'm guessing it's because I seem to think that the schools should have some power to monitor the lunches they spend money to provide to kids (usually at reduced cost), and that the kids and their parents have every right to avoid if it doesn't contain what they want. If that's ridiculous, then I guess saying that people can't spend food stamps on booze is also ridiculous, since it's the same thing.



Sounds intriguing. Maybe I'll like it, maybe I won't, dunno until I try.



I agree fully. If the school wants to interfere with what people bring from home, that's a problem. If the school wants to have some choice over the lunches it provides and people are free to choose whether they want or not, that seems more than reasonable. If a public figure wants to encourage healthy eating and offer healthy food choices when opportunities arise, that seems like a good idea and you're free to ignore it if you like what you're already eating.
Click to expand...

I did misread your reference to school "rights." Mea Culpa. Even so, you seem far too willing to accept the diktat of "authorities" for my taste. The problem is not that anyone is "offering healthy food choices," it's that those "healthy food choices" are all they plan to offer. And let's hope you're right that the inspection of that kid's lunch is anomolous. I'm not optimistic. Even so, we agree that kids shouldn't lunch exclusively on Twinkies and that what kids bring from home (with very few exceptions) are none of the schools' business.*


*I'm thinking of the scene in "Uncle Buck" where John Candy sends McCauley Culkin to school with a brown bag containing a can of sardines, among other inappropriate things.:D
 
Re: Nice Planet 2012

Old Pio said:
I did misread your reference to school "rights." Mea Culpa. Even so, you seem far too willing to accept the diktat of "authorities" for my taste. The problem is not that anyone is "offering healthy food choices," it's that those "healthy food choices" are all they plan to offer. And let's hope you're right that the inspection of that kid's lunch is anomolous. I'm not optimistic. Even so, we agree that kids shouldn't lunch exclusively on Twinkies and that what kids bring from home (with very few exceptions) are none of the schools' business.*


*I'm thinking of the scene in "Uncle Buck" where John Candy sends McCauley Culkin to school with a brown bag containing a can of sardines, among other inappropriate things.:D
Click to expand...

I don't really think it's accepting the dictat of the authorities, it's letting the schools have some control over the option that they provide for kids, one of the many the kids and their parents have to choose from, and the schools choosing in this case to opt on the side of healthiness, which is always a good option to have. If a restaurant wanted to serve only salads because it felt it was on some sort of mission, they certainly can give it a go, and it's up to people to buy it or buy elsewhere, their choice. Other than that we seem in agreement, though I feel sardines providing many of the necessary salts a growing body needs.
 
Re: Nice Planet 2012

French Rage said:
I don't really think it's accepting the dictat of the authorities, it's letting the schools have some control over the option that they provide for kids, one of the many the kids and their parents have to choose from, and the schools choosing in this case to opt on the side of healthiness, which is always a good option to have. If a restaurant wanted to serve only salads because it felt it was on some sort of mission, they certainly can give it a go, and it's up to people to buy it or buy elsewhere, their choice. Other than that we seem in agreement, though I feel sardines providing many of the necessary salts a growing body needs.
Click to expand...

Just out of curiosity, do you feel the same way about smoking? Shouldn't a restrauteur be able to declare his place for smokers, only hire smokers to work there, and anybody who is against smoking can go somewhere else? I'd imagine in most jurisdictions these days it would be against the law. Shouldn't adults be able to chose if they want to have dinner in a restaurant that permits smoking without help from the gubmint?

Nutritionally sardines may be wonderful. But allowing a 6-year old to try to open the can without slicing himself to shreds might be a little problematic.
 
Re: Nice Planet 2012

Old Pio said:
Just out of curiosity, do you feel the same way about smoking? Shouldn't a restrauteur be able to declare his place for smokers, only hire smokers to work there, and anybody who is against smoking can go somewhere else? I'd imagine in most jurisdictions these days it would be against the law. Shouldn't adults be able to chose if they want to have dinner in a restaurant that permits smoking without help from the gubmint?
Click to expand...

This situation is not analogous to the government stepping in and policing a number of private businesses about what their customers choose to buy of their own free will. That situation would be analogous if the schools were stepping in and interfering with what students brought from home. In this case, the government is itself one of the competing choices for the students/parents to choose from, and they are deciding what they want presented in their option (which, again, the students/parents can choose to ignore and brown bag whatever they want); in this case, the schools are choosing their options to tend towards the healthy basics. Now, if people were elected to the legislature and school board who would prefer to add more junk stuff back in, they can do that to, it's honestly up to those in charge to decide what they want the school offers in its choice through whatever process they decide. But by doing so they are not affecting the other choices present or removing those choices, so I do not see them stepping on anyone's toes.

Nutritionally sardines may be wonderful. But allowing a 6-year old to try to open the can without slicing himself to shreds might be a little problematic.
Click to expand...

Well I was joking a bit there. :)
 
Re: Nice Planet 2012

French Rage said:
This situation is not analogous to the government stepping in and policing a number of private businesses about what their customers choose to buy of their own free will. That situation would be analogous if the schools were stepping in and interfering with what students brought from home. In this case, the government is itself one of the competing choices for the students/parents to choose from, and they are deciding what they want presented in their option (which, again, the students/parents can choose to ignore and brown bag whatever they want); in this case, the schools are choosing their options to tend towards the healthy basics. Now, if people were elected to the legislature and school board who would prefer to add more junk stuff back in, they can do that to, it's honestly up to those in charge to decide what they want the school offers in its choice through whatever process they decide. But by doing so they are not affecting the other choices present or removing those choices, so I do not see them stepping on anyone's toes.



Well I was joking a bit there. :)
Click to expand...

Of course. Smoking is different.
 
Re: Nice Planet 2012

Lawsuits threatened against the owner of the theatre in Aurora. Who wouldn't be sympathetic, including jurors? But what could or should the owner have realistically been expected to do to stop a maniac? There's no such thing as ushers any more. Do we want high school kids taking on guys with AR-15s? The cost of additional, almost totally unneeded security, will be passed on to customers. The owner will settle to keep this away from a jury. "Something bad happened to some innocent people, somebody's gotta pay."

http://denver.cbslocal.com/2012/09/07/possible-lawsuit-over-aurora-movie-shootings-targets-owner/
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top