Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I knew a fundie evangelical Christian who similarly thought RFID tags would be in people's foreheads (since you can loose an arm and survive) and said it could be 'the mark of the beast'

"If you screw, you can get pregnant, and more than likely will because you're both stupid teenagers and he has all the control over things as a kid witih polio does his legs."

As a male, I disagree with this sexist comment.

Yeah, because over-excited teenage boys are serious studs.

sebster wrote:

Fafnir wrote:

biccat wrote:

samusaran253 wrote:bs. There has always been premarital sex, teen drug use, these aren't new things, they've been happening since before the Roman Empire.

So how do you explain the higher rate of teen pregnancy today than before?

You're not going to prevent these things, but you can lessen their impact. Just because something isn't 100% successful doesn't mean it's ineffective.

It's not. It's actually getting lower per capita. America does have the highest teen pregnancy rates, but it has more to do with abysmal education than anything else. Implanting chips to moniter what your kids are doing isn't going to help the situation. You have to educate them on safe sex and give them access to the tools for it. If you don't, you're an irresponsible parent.

What's that? biccat was factually incorrect about something? Perhaps we should subject him to the standard set by that other poster, biccat, for what to do when you made a claim that was factually incorrect...

"It starts with "I" and rhymes with "was wrong".

Give it a try."

If you would care to explain how I was wrong, I'd be happy to admit as such. ALthough really, the question is what time frame you're looking at. If you compare 1800 vs. today, teen pregnancy rates have likely decreased, simply due to people waiting to have kids.

Phototoxin wrote:I knew a fundie evangelical Christian who similarly thought RFID tags would be in people's foreheads (since you can loose an arm and survive) and said it could be 'the mark of the beast'

I know a large number of people who believe this. It kinda baffles the mind.

biccat wrote:If you would care to explain how I was wrong, I'd be happy to admit as such. ALthough really, the question is what time frame you're looking at. If you compare 1800 vs. today, teen pregnancy rates have likely decreased, simply due to people waiting to have kids.

So what time frame are we looking at when you say that teen pregnancy is on the rise?

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

biccat wrote:If you would care to explain how I was wrong, I'd be happy to admit as such. ALthough really, the question is what time frame you're looking at. If you compare 1800 vs. today, teen pregnancy rates have likely decreased, simply due to people waiting to have kids.

So what time frame are we looking at when you say that teen pregnancy is on the rise?

Prom night?

Monster Rain wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

biccat wrote:If you would care to explain how I was wrong, I'd be happy to admit as such. ALthough really, the question is what time frame you're looking at. If you compare 1800 vs. today, teen pregnancy rates have likely decreased, simply due to people waiting to have kids.

So what time frame are we looking at when you say that teen pregnancy is on the rise?

Prom night?

I'm a prom night dumpster baby~

biccat wrote:
If you would care to explain how I was wrong, I'd be happy to admit as such. ALthough really, the question is what time frame you're looking at. If you compare 1800 vs. today, teen pregnancy rates have likely decreased, simply due to people waiting to have kids.

The highest rate of teen pregnancy for all recorded years was 1967, 2009 was the lowest.

Source.

The idea that teen pregnancy is on the rise is just conservative noise.

biccat wrote:If you would care to explain how I was wrong, I'd be happy to admit as such. ALthough really, the question is what time frame you're looking at. If you compare 1800 vs. today, teen pregnancy rates have likely decreased, simply due to people waiting to have kids.

You stated that rates of teen pregnancy were higher than 'before'. You've conceded that if 'before' is measured over centuries the claim is wrong, and dogma has provided evidence that it is wrong from a shorter term view as well. Unless you have some other definition of before that makes some kind of sense, and actually shows a point at which teen pregnancies were lower than they are now, then you need to admit you were wrong.

sebster wrote:

biccat wrote:If you would care to explain how I was wrong, I'd be happy to admit as such. ALthough really, the question is what time frame you're looking at. If you compare 1800 vs. today, teen pregnancy rates have likely decreased, simply due to people waiting to have kids.

You stated that rates of teen pregnancy were higher than 'before'. You've conceded that if 'before' is measured over centuries the claim is wrong, and dogma has provided evidence that it is wrong from a shorter term view as well. Unless you have some other definition of before that makes some kind of sense, and actually shows a point at which teen pregnancies were lower than they are now, then you need to admit you were wrong.

So here's just one example from a search "teen pregnancies increase."

Presumably you'll turn this into a discussion about what "increasing" means, throw in a few well-placed and subtle personal attacks, and then giggle to yourself for the rest of the night.

biccat wrote:So here's just one example from a search "teen pregnancies increase."

Presumably you'll turn this into a discussion about what "increasing" means, throw in a few well-placed and subtle personal attacks, and then giggle to yourself for the rest of the night.

Uh huh. Really. So when you responded to samusaran253 to ask him "So how do you explain the higher rate of teen pregnancy today than before?" you were thinking "before" meant "2006".

So you intended the conversation to go like this...
"There has always been premarital sex, teen drug use, these aren't new things, they've been happening since before the Roman Empire."
"So how do you explain the higher rate of teen pregnancy today than 2006?"

Own up. You thought there was a long term trend showing an increase in teen pregnancies, and you were wrong. We will think more of you for it, than if you try to continue this stupid little game.