The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
heh - i couldn't resist the joke...
anyways - abortion. now that it's widely available, people think it's their safety net. well, what about when they DIDN'T have abortion around, eh? what if einstein was aborted? or more disastrously, Lee Evans!!!
NOOOOOOOOOOOO!
the world needs laughter...and crazy entertainers who make themselves have spasms on stage! hilarious.....
ah well, there's my narrow minded opinion...
anyways - abortion. now that it's widely available, people think it's their safety net. well, what about when they DIDN'T have abortion around, eh? what if einstein was aborted? or more disastrously, Lee Evans!!!
NOOOOOOOOOOOO!
the world needs laughter...and crazy entertainers who make themselves have spasms on stage! hilarious.....
ah well, there's my narrow minded opinion...
Page:
Belldandy wrote:
>
> No actually, I remembered the story on the UK frontpage of BBC News
> Online (must have been a slow news day) so it was relatively easy to
> pull it up, then use the link there to that press release. My point
> was that you could have proven your point with that one story rather
> than a tirade of HAHAHAHAHA type paragraphs and general CONTINENTAL
> WESTERN EUROPE !!! 111 type replies. But hey, who cares.
BBC news? That would be that biased and untrustworthy source you keep complaining about, then using when it suits you? Just checking.
And the thing is, it was funnier to prove my point by going on a tirade against you. Because it made you look stupid, and allowed me to make jokes at your expense.
In any case, however the point is proved is pretty much irrelevant; fact is, I did prove my point. And you're clearly so upset by it that you feel the need to try and save face by making fairly vacuous comments to distract attention away from the fact that, once again, little Belly No-Balls and his Cowards Way have made him look a fool.
>
> No actually, I remembered the story on the UK frontpage of BBC News
> Online (must have been a slow news day) so it was relatively easy to
> pull it up, then use the link there to that press release. My point
> was that you could have proven your point with that one story rather
> than a tirade of HAHAHAHAHA type paragraphs and general CONTINENTAL
> WESTERN EUROPE !!! 111 type replies. But hey, who cares.
BBC news? That would be that biased and untrustworthy source you keep complaining about, then using when it suits you? Just checking.
And the thing is, it was funnier to prove my point by going on a tirade against you. Because it made you look stupid, and allowed me to make jokes at your expense.
In any case, however the point is proved is pretty much irrelevant; fact is, I did prove my point. And you're clearly so upset by it that you feel the need to try and save face by making fairly vacuous comments to distract attention away from the fact that, once again, little Belly No-Balls and his Cowards Way have made him look a fool.
Belldandy wrote:
> And you believe everyone who says "why would I lie?" do you
No. I said at the time that I thought you were lying. It's in this thread if you'd care to look. You won't though, will you? Cos that would prove that, once again, you're talking nonsense to try and avoid the topic.
> Light ? Jeez, no wonder you're p*ssed about politics, and well,
> everything else really. Nixon said he wasn't a liar, Clinton did as
> well. You too willingly believe what I put, really, because you
> believe anyone with conservative tendencies is capable of all sorts
> of self prescribed lunatic ideas, so you believe it willingly.
Erm...no, I said that I believed you were lying about your facts. As to believing the thrust of your argument...well, bearing in mind you're the man who believes that Dubya is acting for the best interests of the Iraqi people and not to line his pockets, I found it incredibly easy to believe you'd be stupid enough to have the standard conservative opinions on sex education. Do you see?
> And you believe everyone who says "why would I lie?" do you
No. I said at the time that I thought you were lying. It's in this thread if you'd care to look. You won't though, will you? Cos that would prove that, once again, you're talking nonsense to try and avoid the topic.
> Light ? Jeez, no wonder you're p*ssed about politics, and well,
> everything else really. Nixon said he wasn't a liar, Clinton did as
> well. You too willingly believe what I put, really, because you
> believe anyone with conservative tendencies is capable of all sorts
> of self prescribed lunatic ideas, so you believe it willingly.
Erm...no, I said that I believed you were lying about your facts. As to believing the thrust of your argument...well, bearing in mind you're the man who believes that Dubya is acting for the best interests of the Iraqi people and not to line his pockets, I found it incredibly easy to believe you'd be stupid enough to have the standard conservative opinions on sex education. Do you see?
Light wrote:
> Ah, you've googled for a link to support you and come up with
> nothing? Fair enough.
No actually, I remembered the story on the UK frontpage of BBC News Online (must have been a slow news day) so it was relatively easy to pull it up, then use the link there to that press release. My point was that you could have proven your point with that one story rather than a tirade of HAHAHAHAHA type paragraphs and general CONTINENTAL WESTERN EUROPE !!! 111 type replies. But hey, who cares.
> Ah, you've googled for a link to support you and come up with
> nothing? Fair enough.
No actually, I remembered the story on the UK frontpage of BBC News Online (must have been a slow news day) so it was relatively easy to pull it up, then use the link there to that press release. My point was that you could have proven your point with that one story rather than a tirade of HAHAHAHAHA type paragraphs and general CONTINENTAL WESTERN EUROPE !!! 111 type replies. But hey, who cares.
Belldandy wrote:
> Nixon said he wasn't a liar, Clinton did as
> well.
You missed out Blair and Bush, both of whom lied about Iraq's WMD.
> Nixon said he wasn't a liar, Clinton did as
> well.
You missed out Blair and Bush, both of whom lied about Iraq's WMD.
And you believe everyone who says "why would I lie?" do you Light ? Jeez, no wonder you're p*ssed about politics, and well, everything else really. Nixon said he wasn't a liar, Clinton did as well. You too willingly believe what I put, really, because you believe anyone with conservative tendencies is capable of all sorts of self prescribed lunatic ideas, so you believe it willingly.
Belldandy wrote:
> Well in order to shorten this topic:
OR: To avoid addressing anything I've said.
>
> 1) For someone who is supposedly so intelligent Light you failed to
> even find this crucial bit of news which could have countered my
> arguments more succinctly than several thousand words.
> http://www.info.doh.gov.uk/doh/intpress.nsf/
> page/2003-0086?OpenDocument
Ah, you've googled for a link to support you and come up with nothing? Fair enough.
Still, I had no idea that 'intelligence' was equated to 'ability to use Google.com'. I always thought that intelligence was shown by the ability to construct a rational and coherent argument. All this time, I never knew intelligence was measured by how many links you can google. I guess that must make you a genius Bell...
>
> 2) Not surprised that the population model stuff is BS because it was
> made up on the fly. However elements were true, the UK does have a
> declining population and a growing aging one, but past that...well
> the UK population is probably 60 million odd but that's about it.
My word...even when you're proved wrong, you can't admit it with a bit of grace. So lets get this right; you, who said "why would I lie about this?" were lying? Okay...
>
> 3) You're not the only one who likes an argument occasionally. I
> thought we'd see you fire off in the topic about private/public
> education, but alas no. Sometimes its nice to just oppose people to
> see how far you can take the argument and see what you learn.
Bwah ha ha ha haaaaa!! Let me get this straight; you're trying to belittle me in this thread for NOT arguing in another one? My my...just how sour ARE your grapes Bell?!
I wasn't aware that the rules of this board were "you must debate everything Bell wants to".
It is nice to oppose someone to see how far one can take the argument. However, as you have always taken every argument you've ever made to the point of parody (Rumsfield and the NK nuclear reactors anyone?), you'll pardon me for laughing in your face as you attempt to slither up the moral high ground and say that that is what you were doing in this thread when you've basically been forced (and clearly unwillingly) to admit that you were talking total nadgers, and were caught out.
But again, I'll make this clear as you seem unwilling to grasp it; I don't care WHAT your opinion is. All I care about is making people think about why they have the beliefs they do. Something you singularly fail to do.
>
> Being serious, everyone knows and largely admits that sex education
> works, it doesn't necessarily stop teenage sex altogether but it does
> stop teenage pregnancies. All that really holds back wider and more
> effective policies, particularly in the US, is religious and
> moralistic right wingers and conservatives getting all hot under the
> collar at the thought of kids being told about sex - especially
> elements of the Christians for whom the general mantra is no sex
> before marriage - which I remember a hilarious bit of research back
> when I was doing A Levels that suggested what effect this had on
> teenagers who believe in this (put it this way, they weren't having
> sex but they were doing everything else).
>
> Education not only lowers teen pregnancies but also STD infection
> rates, and with AIDS an ever present problem this is obviously
> important. There's also some evidence that it does lead to some
> people choosing to have sex at a later age from choices of their own.
Fair enough.
> Well in order to shorten this topic:
OR: To avoid addressing anything I've said.
>
> 1) For someone who is supposedly so intelligent Light you failed to
> even find this crucial bit of news which could have countered my
> arguments more succinctly than several thousand words.
> http://www.info.doh.gov.uk/doh/intpress.nsf/
> page/2003-0086?OpenDocument
Ah, you've googled for a link to support you and come up with nothing? Fair enough.
Still, I had no idea that 'intelligence' was equated to 'ability to use Google.com'. I always thought that intelligence was shown by the ability to construct a rational and coherent argument. All this time, I never knew intelligence was measured by how many links you can google. I guess that must make you a genius Bell...
>
> 2) Not surprised that the population model stuff is BS because it was
> made up on the fly. However elements were true, the UK does have a
> declining population and a growing aging one, but past that...well
> the UK population is probably 60 million odd but that's about it.
My word...even when you're proved wrong, you can't admit it with a bit of grace. So lets get this right; you, who said "why would I lie about this?" were lying? Okay...
>
> 3) You're not the only one who likes an argument occasionally. I
> thought we'd see you fire off in the topic about private/public
> education, but alas no. Sometimes its nice to just oppose people to
> see how far you can take the argument and see what you learn.
Bwah ha ha ha haaaaa!! Let me get this straight; you're trying to belittle me in this thread for NOT arguing in another one? My my...just how sour ARE your grapes Bell?!
I wasn't aware that the rules of this board were "you must debate everything Bell wants to".
It is nice to oppose someone to see how far one can take the argument. However, as you have always taken every argument you've ever made to the point of parody (Rumsfield and the NK nuclear reactors anyone?), you'll pardon me for laughing in your face as you attempt to slither up the moral high ground and say that that is what you were doing in this thread when you've basically been forced (and clearly unwillingly) to admit that you were talking total nadgers, and were caught out.
But again, I'll make this clear as you seem unwilling to grasp it; I don't care WHAT your opinion is. All I care about is making people think about why they have the beliefs they do. Something you singularly fail to do.
>
> Being serious, everyone knows and largely admits that sex education
> works, it doesn't necessarily stop teenage sex altogether but it does
> stop teenage pregnancies. All that really holds back wider and more
> effective policies, particularly in the US, is religious and
> moralistic right wingers and conservatives getting all hot under the
> collar at the thought of kids being told about sex - especially
> elements of the Christians for whom the general mantra is no sex
> before marriage - which I remember a hilarious bit of research back
> when I was doing A Levels that suggested what effect this had on
> teenagers who believe in this (put it this way, they weren't having
> sex but they were doing everything else).
>
> Education not only lowers teen pregnancies but also STD infection
> rates, and with AIDS an ever present problem this is obviously
> important. There's also some evidence that it does lead to some
> people choosing to have sex at a later age from choices of their own.
Fair enough.
Well in order to shorten this topic:
1) For someone who is supposedly so intelligent Light you failed to even find this crucial bit of news which could have countered my arguments more succinctly than several thousand words. http://www.info.doh.gov.uk/doh/intpress.nsf/ page/2003-0086?OpenDocument
2) Not surprised that the population model stuff is BS because it was made up on the fly. However elements were true, the UK does have a declining population and a growing aging one, but past that...well the UK population is probably 60 million odd but that's about it.
3) You're not the only one who likes an argument occasionally. I thought we'd see you fire off in the topic about private/public education, but alas no. Sometimes its nice to just oppose people to see how far you can take the argument and see what you learn.
Being serious, everyone knows and largely admits that sex education works, it doesn't necessarily stop teenage sex altogether but it does stop teenage pregnancies. All that really holds back wider and more effective policies, particularly in the US, is religious and moralistic right wingers and conservatives getting all hot under the collar at the thought of kids being told about sex - especially elements of the Christians for whom the general mantra is no sex before marriage - which I remember a hilarious bit of research back when I was doing A Levels that suggested what effect this had on teenagers who believe in this (put it this way, they weren't having sex but they were doing everything else).
Education not only lowers teen pregnancies but also STD infection rates, and with AIDS an ever present problem this is obviously important. There's also some evidence that it does lead to some people choosing to have sex at a later age from choices of their own.
1) For someone who is supposedly so intelligent Light you failed to even find this crucial bit of news which could have countered my arguments more succinctly than several thousand words. http://www.info.doh.gov.uk/doh/intpress.nsf/ page/2003-0086?OpenDocument
2) Not surprised that the population model stuff is BS because it was made up on the fly. However elements were true, the UK does have a declining population and a growing aging one, but past that...well the UK population is probably 60 million odd but that's about it.
3) You're not the only one who likes an argument occasionally. I thought we'd see you fire off in the topic about private/public education, but alas no. Sometimes its nice to just oppose people to see how far you can take the argument and see what you learn.
Being serious, everyone knows and largely admits that sex education works, it doesn't necessarily stop teenage sex altogether but it does stop teenage pregnancies. All that really holds back wider and more effective policies, particularly in the US, is religious and moralistic right wingers and conservatives getting all hot under the collar at the thought of kids being told about sex - especially elements of the Christians for whom the general mantra is no sex before marriage - which I remember a hilarious bit of research back when I was doing A Levels that suggested what effect this had on teenagers who believe in this (put it this way, they weren't having sex but they were doing everything else).
Education not only lowers teen pregnancies but also STD infection rates, and with AIDS an ever present problem this is obviously important. There's also some evidence that it does lead to some people choosing to have sex at a later age from choices of their own.
Belldandy wrote:
>
> Well where is your proof it hasn't ?
The fact that the rate of teenage pregnancies is still higher than EVERY COUNTRY IN WESTERN CONTINENTAL EUROPE when they all have better sex education than us would be my first bit of proof. As would those lovely articles you linked to that accept that our sex education is the worst in europe.
Now, would you like to answer the point and give me your proof of your assertion? Or are you going to continue to avoid stating what is now clear to me and anyone else that has read this thread; you have no proof or evidence to back up your opinion. In fact, you have no explaination of why it is your opinion. You're just parrotting something you've heard.
> Again, you want me to prove points, but you lack the same proof, what
> is certain is that the rates are lower in western europe. Beyond that
> you've got nothing. What were the rates before sex education in those
> countries ? What are they now ? How do you know the rates were not
> lower than the UK's before sex education programs ?
What is certain? Well, those two articles you linked to said it was so, didn't they? Would you like to address that point? That the articles you linked to BOTH backed up my assertion that our sex education is of a lower standard than EVERY OTHER COUNTRY IN WESTERN CONTINENTAL EUROPE, and that EVERY OTHER COUNTRY IN WESTERN CONTINENTAL EUROPE has a lower rate of teenage pregnancy. After all, I've addressed every one you've made, but you refuse to return the courtesy.
As to your, frankly bizarre, suggestion that western europe had lower rates of teenage pregnancy before they introduced sex education...well, as this is one of your sillier attempts to deflect attention from the fact that you don't actually have much knowledge on a subject that you seem to have an opinion on, I believe I shall leave this to you to prove. After all, in debates it is up to the person asserting a point to prove it. Do you understand that, or do you live in a world where you make an assertion, and it is up to everyone else to find the evidence?
You see Bell, in a debate, this is what happens;
- One person asserts a point (sex education reduces rates of teenage pregnancy) and provides evidence (in my case, the FACT THAT EVERY COUNTRY IN WESTERN CONTINENTAL EUROPE has a lower rate of teenage pregnancy than the UK)
- Another person disagrees with that point, provides evidence to show it is wrong, and asserts their own view, with supporting evidence.
- Both parties then try to find a consensus, or agree to differ.
However, in any debate with you here is what happens;
- One person asserts a point and provides evidence
- You say "That's wrong" and give an unsupported opinion.
- You are asked to provide evidence for that opinion
- You respond "well...YOU give some evidence!"
- Evidence is duly given (on occassion, by you...did you actually read those articles you linked to? You do know that they confirmed my assertions, don't you?)
- You then avoid the topic altogether
>
>
> It's my opinion, same as yours. How do you know there has not been an
> improvement, because you left school way before I did.
I know there has not been an improvement because rates of teenage pregnancy in this country continue to rise, whereas in EVERY COUNTRY IN WESTERN CONTINENTAL EUROPE, where they have better sex education (an assertion backed up by those articles you kindly linked to), rates of teenage pregnancy remain low. That's called logic. That'll help you in life.
So, there's the evidence and supporting facts for my opinion. Where are yours? Did this opinion just arrive fully formed in your head? Or did you just hear your Tory parents say it, and accept it as truth without bothering to investigate further? Because, and once more it seems i need to repeat this to a hard of thinking fundamentalist, I don't care what your opinion is. I want to know how you arrived at it. And you can't answer that, because then you'll have to admit you borrowed your opinions from elsewhere, and don't even know why you believe them to be true. Just like any good fundamentalist 'thinker'.
>
> And the same could be asked of you.
It could. But as you first raised this point, and as I asked you to give your proof first, I'd be obliged if you'd stop trying to avoid the question and answer me. Or are you too much of a coward?
>
> Throw up some proof yourself then we'll get back to this, but until
> then we'll continue like this.
I have done. What is more, YOU provided proof for my case (with those two articles). Now; stop avoiding all of my questions, you moral, intellectual, and emotional coward. Stop running and hiding from questions, like some weaselly little gutless wonder. Show some stomach, and answer what you've been asked. Come on Bell; I dare you. You've yet to address your misunderstanding of how rates are measured, and your attempt to justify that with a geographical model of population that doesn't exist anywhere outside of your own head, for example. That's just one point you've ran squealing from. Lets see you either show some guts and put up, or stick to being a coward and pick out one sentence from a whole post as an excuse to avoid addressing the topic.
You really have no idea how you come across to others, do you? You don't realise what a joke you appear to be. And alas for you, I'm enough of a sadist to enjoy a battle of wits with an unarmed man like yourself.
>
> Well where is your proof it hasn't ?
The fact that the rate of teenage pregnancies is still higher than EVERY COUNTRY IN WESTERN CONTINENTAL EUROPE when they all have better sex education than us would be my first bit of proof. As would those lovely articles you linked to that accept that our sex education is the worst in europe.
Now, would you like to answer the point and give me your proof of your assertion? Or are you going to continue to avoid stating what is now clear to me and anyone else that has read this thread; you have no proof or evidence to back up your opinion. In fact, you have no explaination of why it is your opinion. You're just parrotting something you've heard.
> Again, you want me to prove points, but you lack the same proof, what
> is certain is that the rates are lower in western europe. Beyond that
> you've got nothing. What were the rates before sex education in those
> countries ? What are they now ? How do you know the rates were not
> lower than the UK's before sex education programs ?
What is certain? Well, those two articles you linked to said it was so, didn't they? Would you like to address that point? That the articles you linked to BOTH backed up my assertion that our sex education is of a lower standard than EVERY OTHER COUNTRY IN WESTERN CONTINENTAL EUROPE, and that EVERY OTHER COUNTRY IN WESTERN CONTINENTAL EUROPE has a lower rate of teenage pregnancy. After all, I've addressed every one you've made, but you refuse to return the courtesy.
As to your, frankly bizarre, suggestion that western europe had lower rates of teenage pregnancy before they introduced sex education...well, as this is one of your sillier attempts to deflect attention from the fact that you don't actually have much knowledge on a subject that you seem to have an opinion on, I believe I shall leave this to you to prove. After all, in debates it is up to the person asserting a point to prove it. Do you understand that, or do you live in a world where you make an assertion, and it is up to everyone else to find the evidence?
You see Bell, in a debate, this is what happens;
- One person asserts a point (sex education reduces rates of teenage pregnancy) and provides evidence (in my case, the FACT THAT EVERY COUNTRY IN WESTERN CONTINENTAL EUROPE has a lower rate of teenage pregnancy than the UK)
- Another person disagrees with that point, provides evidence to show it is wrong, and asserts their own view, with supporting evidence.
- Both parties then try to find a consensus, or agree to differ.
However, in any debate with you here is what happens;
- One person asserts a point and provides evidence
- You say "That's wrong" and give an unsupported opinion.
- You are asked to provide evidence for that opinion
- You respond "well...YOU give some evidence!"
- Evidence is duly given (on occassion, by you...did you actually read those articles you linked to? You do know that they confirmed my assertions, don't you?)
- You then avoid the topic altogether
>
>
> It's my opinion, same as yours. How do you know there has not been an
> improvement, because you left school way before I did.
I know there has not been an improvement because rates of teenage pregnancy in this country continue to rise, whereas in EVERY COUNTRY IN WESTERN CONTINENTAL EUROPE, where they have better sex education (an assertion backed up by those articles you kindly linked to), rates of teenage pregnancy remain low. That's called logic. That'll help you in life.
So, there's the evidence and supporting facts for my opinion. Where are yours? Did this opinion just arrive fully formed in your head? Or did you just hear your Tory parents say it, and accept it as truth without bothering to investigate further? Because, and once more it seems i need to repeat this to a hard of thinking fundamentalist, I don't care what your opinion is. I want to know how you arrived at it. And you can't answer that, because then you'll have to admit you borrowed your opinions from elsewhere, and don't even know why you believe them to be true. Just like any good fundamentalist 'thinker'.
>
> And the same could be asked of you.
It could. But as you first raised this point, and as I asked you to give your proof first, I'd be obliged if you'd stop trying to avoid the question and answer me. Or are you too much of a coward?
>
> Throw up some proof yourself then we'll get back to this, but until
> then we'll continue like this.
I have done. What is more, YOU provided proof for my case (with those two articles). Now; stop avoiding all of my questions, you moral, intellectual, and emotional coward. Stop running and hiding from questions, like some weaselly little gutless wonder. Show some stomach, and answer what you've been asked. Come on Bell; I dare you. You've yet to address your misunderstanding of how rates are measured, and your attempt to justify that with a geographical model of population that doesn't exist anywhere outside of your own head, for example. That's just one point you've ran squealing from. Lets see you either show some guts and put up, or stick to being a coward and pick out one sentence from a whole post as an excuse to avoid addressing the topic.
You really have no idea how you come across to others, do you? You don't realise what a joke you appear to be. And alas for you, I'm enough of a sadist to enjoy a battle of wits with an unarmed man like yourself.
Light wrote:
> Umm...you've totally avoided answering one of them, the most
> important one; HAS sex education improved and become greater year on
> year? Well? Has it? And if it has, where's your proof?
Well where is your proof it hasn't ?
> And yes, I do believe that it leads to lower rates of teen pregnancy.
> Because...well, because it has done so (and you keep avoiding
> addressing this) in EVERY COUNTRY IN WESTERN CONTINENTAL EUROPE. Do
> you see?
Again, you want me to prove points, but you lack the same proof, what is certain is that the rates are lower in western europe. Beyond that you've got nothing. What were the rates before sex education in those countries ? What are they now ? How do you know the rates were not lower than the UK's before sex education programs ?
> That's not answering the question, and you know it. How has it
> improved? And more to the point, how are you measuring this
> improvement? And how do you, a person who has left school a while
> ago, know about these improvements?
It's my opinion, same as yours. How do you know there has not been an improvement, because you left school way before I did.
> How do you know? How are you defining 'improved'?
And the same could be asked of you.
Throw up some proof yourself then we'll get back to this, but until then we'll continue like this.
> Umm...you've totally avoided answering one of them, the most
> important one; HAS sex education improved and become greater year on
> year? Well? Has it? And if it has, where's your proof?
Well where is your proof it hasn't ?
> And yes, I do believe that it leads to lower rates of teen pregnancy.
> Because...well, because it has done so (and you keep avoiding
> addressing this) in EVERY COUNTRY IN WESTERN CONTINENTAL EUROPE. Do
> you see?
Again, you want me to prove points, but you lack the same proof, what is certain is that the rates are lower in western europe. Beyond that you've got nothing. What were the rates before sex education in those countries ? What are they now ? How do you know the rates were not lower than the UK's before sex education programs ?
> That's not answering the question, and you know it. How has it
> improved? And more to the point, how are you measuring this
> improvement? And how do you, a person who has left school a while
> ago, know about these improvements?
It's my opinion, same as yours. How do you know there has not been an improvement, because you left school way before I did.
> How do you know? How are you defining 'improved'?
And the same could be asked of you.
Throw up some proof yourself then we'll get back to this, but until then we'll continue like this.
Sex education can't have improved. why? because they're using old tapes!!!
Page: