Nice find, Respenus. ;)

Yes, I'm serious. And now can anyone [desperate]PLEASE tell me where the damn thing is?[/desperate]

@DarkFish
I order to prevent the constant exchange of short one-liners, I'll explain it to you.

You said that you had no problems concerning the eventual use of alcohol, drugs and sex of your children, as long as they do it safely. The first two items, well, they are both drugs and there aren't any drugs that you can do safely. As far as sex goes, I really wish to know how low are you willing to push the boundary for your children.

Again, I have nothing against a liberal society, just not to the point where it is all that we have. Or to quote Richard Dawkins: By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out. The same thing goes for any inter-personal and societal relations.

@jimbuna
Thank you for the official wolf thumb up of approval.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_AZZ_nwtcO-...ld-men-4-1.jpg

Hey, come on, don't play stupid. Of course you know exactly. You just "ask" back so you can start a discussion in which you'll tell everybody how you and your friends can **** around totally drunken and stoned while everything will be perfectly "safe". But I'm not your mom / dad, so I won't pursue that discussion with you. ;)
We all know you are as invincible as we were. :up:

thanks:up:

Well this explains why I couldn't see it, because as far as I'm concerned it's perfectly possible to safely do drugs or drink alcohol. (of course, as is the case with everything, it depends on where you put the boundaries of "safe". Everything can go wrong; with a zero-tolerance safety limit essentially nothing is safe.)
As long as you don't get addicted, and don't drink yourself into the hospital, both drinking and drugs are perfectly safe IMO.

Well as long as they did it voluntarily and with pregnancy/STD prevention, it would be very low.
If a child of mine wanted to be a complete slut, well, it's his/her life.
If some sexual activities of his/hers went in straight against my values, I'd surely have a long chat with him/her. But if he/she understands what I'm concerned about and still wants to go on the way he/she used to do, who am I to interfere with that?


Ehm right, so now I am stupid because I happen to have a different opinion on that than you have:nope:
And even better, I don't truthfully ask things; everytime I ask something I do it to start a discussion?!:stare:
Mustn't it be a hard world for you, seeking conspiracy theories behind everything?

no, you just "assume" you're right without discussing, and if someone happens to disagree with your "reality" it's either a conspiracy or that person is just plain stupid:roll:

May i ask a simple question. Why in the name of Gates people jump from extreme into insanity? Having fun is not a bad thing unless you don`t turn into thing worst that any wild animal. Your life,your call. I can post my imho but i am not your parent (lucky you.....joke):)

What Jim said. :up:

Yet you never came across the modesty patrols or the segregation.:rotfl2:

no.:rotfl2::rotfl2:

Well perhaps you will learn one day.
A simple look for modesty patrols, modesty police, or the commitee for purity should relieve you of your lack of knowledge.

A quick look at the attacks on buses in Jerusalem should inform you about the segregation issue with the insistance on mehedrim lines or you could expand into the refusal to answer the draft because there are women in the IDF units.
Though to be fair the "modesty" and segregation issue only really came to prominance in the past decade as the fundamentalist fruitcakes got more of a voice and started trying to make others follow their view.

Or perhaps you could stop making wild extrapolations about isolated criminal cases that have zero impact on the general population. Do your own research or if you want me to take you by the hand and explain it to you in baby steps, it will be my pleasure. :)

Zero impact?????? the major national bus company has had to cancel services including many of the tourist/pilgrim routes because nuts are attacking the buses for not making womwen sit at the back
If you think curtailing public transport in a major city because religious freaks are going crazy is zero impact on the population then you need a new dictionary.
Since it extends to attacking people for outrageous behavior like errrrr.....driving cars:o or burning down long established business for having the wrong opening times or selling the wrong goods then you really are missing the point.
The point being that while you claim theat it has zero impact on the population the fact is that the nuts are spreading and having more and more impact on the population.
Now you might say that this angle has little place in this topic, and it wouldn't have if someone hadn't brought religious fundamentalist nuts into the topic to start with.

Thanks for proving my point, lol. And you need to relax some. Your butt hurtness and the straw men you put up against my friendly response just shows you're not as much in control as you think you are. Also, your reading comprehension is lacking: I didn't say you were stupid for your opinion. I said you were *playing* stupid as in *pretending* not to understand my point while you perfectly did so.

and what point is that exactly? Does it somehow "prove" I'm playing stupid? Does it somehow "prove" I'm putting up strawmen?

Oh, and now *I* have to relax some? Now who is attacking who exactly?

Yeah sure, those hundreds of thousands of strawmen I put up:doh: You're looking for ghosts, man:nope:

Yeah, I guess if you call it friendly to falsely accuse people of playing stupid, and falsely accuse them for putting up strawmen, and putting up your opinion as a truth without leaving any space for discussion, then indeed your post was very friendly:doh:

Excuse me? I don't think I'm in control over anything here. This whole reply of yours just shows that you are either:
- Deliberately trolling by attacking me
- Somehow think you've got mind reading capabilities
- Too scared to discuss things by just stating "alcohol and drug use is always dangerous" and then saying anyone who disagrees with that is either playing stupid or putting up strawmen
- Don't have any arguments to support your opinion and therefore just attack me in a laughable attempt to prove your point

Well, because I *don't* play things it means exactly the same. Lacking reading comprehension my bollocks.

Besides, now we're talking about lacking capabilities anyway: your mind reading capabilities are severely lacking.
One thing I utterly hate is when people think they know exactly what I think while in fact they don't know nothing. So now will you please stop pretending you supposedly know what I think?



If you want to somehow prove that drugs use is always dangerous, why don't you come up with some proof for that instead of attacking me? That's how a good discussion generally works, one side comes up with arguments, then the other with counter-arguments, then the first with counter-counter-arguments etc.
Discussions don't go like "If you don't agree with me you're playing stupid and putting up strawmen, nananananana!"
:nope:

now you're just making stuff up..:arrgh!:

Oh dear, please do me a favor and grow some skin, quickly. "NOW WHO IS ATTACKING WHO?" lol. No one was attacking you, mate. And don't worry, your ego is not at stake on "the internets", trust me.
But if this is how you are when you're sober, I can only suggest to go very easy on the stuff you're talking about. ;)

you can't just stop insulting, can you?:shifty:

Yes of course I am:doh:
I have such a fertile imagination that I can invent the disputes, like egged refusing the demands to install automatic fare machines at the back of buses to facilitate women who are not being allowed to enter the normal bus door.
Its amazing how my imagination can allow me to invent such things as the mehadrin:rotfl2:
For the next imaginary story Transportation minster Yisrail Katz in response to a petition said the government cannot disapprove of the segregation but cannot allow it to be institutionalised and says that the violence and dispuption must stop

anyway, to get back to what was originally asked me, as some people do not seem to find my answer satisfying (not just heartc):
To which I answered "yes".

These reports seem to indicate otherwise:
http://www.ukcia.org/research/safe-medicine.php
http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/alcoholandhealth.html
Yes, if you use drugs or alcohol very frequently and in large enough amounts, they do have negative effects.
But for both of them counts that if you use them moderately, they do not have negative effects, and in the case of alcohol apparently even some positive effects.

(personally I'd be willing to stretch the boundaries of "safe" even further, as long as my children wouldn't drink themselves into the hospital it'd be OK as far as I'm concerned. You've only got a few years to drink and party and such, so why not make it one hell of a great time?:))



On the topic of safe sex:
http://www.aidschicago.org/condoms/ltoyw_fact.pdf
and most people don't have HIV. (there are other STD's, but most of them are not nearly as dangerous as HIV)
So yeah, sex is pretty safe too.
Now why would I as a parent (if I were one) prohibit my children to have as much sex as they wanted? Health is not a big concern (as long as they have safe sex).
As long as they do it because they like sex, and not for money and stuff, why keep your kids from sexual intercourse?