Re: Teens and their cell phones

[Guest guest]

That is bad. Then again, an elderly friend of mine knew a middle school boy from his church who regularly had girls do oral sex on him in the boy's bathroom. The girls hung out in there for that, and other things.

No wonder kids are so messed up today: They grow up way too fast.

Mind you, it doesn't surprise me as children as young as 12 are now playing the "Rainbow Game."It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms and advice on AOL Money Finance.

[Guest guest]

wrote: " If you weren't worried enough before. "

Oh my! That is disgusting!

Mind you, it doesn't surprise me as children as young as 12 are now

playing the " Rainbow Game. "

For those who aren't aware of what the " Rainbow Game " is, it is a

game based on how many different boys a girl can give oral sex to in

different places (ie. school yard, washrooms, mall, et al) and how

many different girls can give oral sex to one boy.

The " rainbow " is the colour lipstick used by the girl while she does

this to the boy.

It doesn't surprise me that this latest nude photo via cell phone is

now the rage. It does, however, disgust me to no end.

Again, this is the fault of parents who refuse to shoulder the

responsibility of parenting their children properly and completely.

Raven

Co-Administrator

[Guest guest]

" Experts say teens often don't understand the dangers. They suggest

parents pay attention to their kids' phones. "

Here's the shocking part: Teens DO understand the dangers. They simply

don't care. And it is not a matter of poor judgement, or of passions

overriding sensible thought. They have thought about the consequences,

and they have thought about the moral implications of what they are

doing, and they do not care.

Where did they learn this sort of thing from? Well, that is iffy. Could

be peer pressure, could be porn the parents keep around the house. But

the decisions they make are the result of a failure of parents to

instill morals in their heads which would prevent them from every doing

a thing like this.

Administrator

[Guest guest]

>

> That is bad. Then again, an elderly friend of mine knew a middle

school boy

> from his church who regularly had girls do oral sex on him in the

boy's

> bathroom. The girls hung out in there for that, and other things.

>

> No wonder kids are so messed up today: They grow up way too fast.

>

>

>

>

Children are messed up because they have nothing to reach or hope for.

If they have fears or concerns there is a drug for that. No wonder

discovery, love or comfort, TV and drugs illceit or percribed)and when

they get older they take pills so they can escape erectile dysfunction

or female dryness (ok I have to reshower now just because I thought of

it) On some level I love humans on some levels I am disgusted by it)

[Guest guest]

I think a lot of it is the sex education in public schools. It is different from what I got in middle school in that it is more of a "How to" class rather than a biological explanation of how things work, including diseases and the problems that come from those diseases and pregnancy.

It also doesn't help that a skank like Britney Spear's little sister gets pregnant at 16 and her show stays on the air, and viewership actually doubled! I've read that most emails are supportive and encouraging. If young girls see that, and how her big sister and her trashy friends act, is it really any wonder kids act like they do?

One also shouldn't be surprised to hear that STD's are at record highs amongst the teen and twenty set now. But again what do you expect with totally unethical medicines like Valtrex that can suppress signs of a Herpes outbreak but still leave one able to spread it. I'm willing to bet that most people who get Valtrex won't hesitate to go fool around when they have an outbreak because they only care about their needs and not about spreading the disease to some unsuspecting person. Valtrex should be taken off the market.

In a message dated 4/14/2008 2:09:15 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, no_reply writes:

Where did they learn this sort of thing from? Well, that is iffy. Could be peer pressure, could be porn the parents keep around the house. But the decisions they make are the result of a failure of parents to instill morals in their heads which would prevent them from every doing a thing like this. AdministratorIt's Tax Time! Get tips, forms and advice on AOL Money Finance.

[Guest guest]

I can see your point, but I'm not sure that it is hopelessness so much. For most of them, I think it is that they don't have any concept of the future to begin with. When I was in high school, most of the athletes were sure they would be the 1 in 10,000 who would make it into the NBA or NFL. They didn't study hard or much else because they knew they would be on easy street. Not all were like that of course, but most were.

Because they have no concept of the future, they only think of the now and not the consequences. That is why they do all the stupid things like the stunts, the fighting and the other things. The reason so many are on medication and stressed isn't that they fear for the future, it is because they can't understand it. All they know is that they aren't fitting in right, or someone was mean to them, or maybe they aren't popular enough, so they get all stressed and out and depressed. Its all about the "now," and their immature understanding of the importance of things.

As for all the "adult medication" ads on TV, that should be banned, along with all other drug advertizing beyond aspirin and toothpaste. Companies have no business advertising drugs with lists of warnings that take up a third of the commercial or that end up being pulled off the market months later after having killed thousands of people. That should be up to the doctor to decide only.

Children are messed up because they have nothing to reach or hope for. If they have fears or concerns there is a drug for that. No wonder discovery, love or comfort, TV and drugs illceit or percribed)and when they get older they take pills so they can escape erectile dysfunction or female dryness (ok I have to reshower now just because I thought of it) On some level I love humans on some levels I am disgusted by it)It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms and advice on AOL Money Finance.

[Guest guest]

Erm... Maybe I should note that not all teens do the rainbow game and

related stuff? Maybe it is the 'rage' in isolated areas, but I have

not encountered that.

[Guest guest]

>

> Erm... Maybe I should note that not all teens do the rainbow game and

> related stuff? Maybe it is the 'rage' in isolated areas, but I have

> not encountered that.

>

I had never heard of it before today. I have two teens, well one is 22.

I certainly don't believe all teens do this

[Guest guest]

>

> >

> > Erm... Maybe I should note that not all teens do the rainbow game

> and

> > related stuff? Maybe it is the 'rage' in isolated areas, but I have

> > not encountered that.

> >

> I had never heard of it before today. I have two teens, well one is

> 22.

>

> I certainly don't believe all teens do this

>

I count these things, unless I know first-hand of the event, as the

whole " Everybody's doing it! " syndrome of people to spread bad data.

--

Mike

See with eyes unclouded, think with mind uncluttered, act with heart

unchained!

[Guest guest]

Just to play the devil-in-a-blue-dress's advocate, consider this:

imagine the children of parents living in a large nudist colony,

sending pictures of themselves via cell phone where they're fully

dressed! " Think of the children! "

I bring this up, because while this doesn't seem to be the norm of

most of those online in this forum, and perhaps most of the so-called

" western world " but there are cultures where nudity is not considered

the " Oh no! " thing that it is here. A science fiction reference (Star

Trek) or two that puts things in an interesting context is (admittedly

sexist) that Ferengi don't allow their women to go out in public

dressed, because it'd be considered inviting to other Ferengi males to

undress them. And then there's the Betazoid wedding tradition where

everyone is completely naked: hey, if you're a telepathic race, what

*can* you hide?

" If you weren't worried enough before. "

>

> Oh my! That is disgusting!

>

> Mind you, it doesn't surprise me as children as young as 12 are now

> playing the " Rainbow Game. "

>

> For those who aren't aware of what the " Rainbow Game " is, it is a

> game based on how many different boys a girl can give oral sex to in

> different places (ie. school yard, washrooms, mall, et al) and how

> many different girls can give oral sex to one boy.

>

> The " rainbow " is the colour lipstick used by the girl while she does

> this to the boy.

>

> It doesn't surprise me that this latest nude photo via cell phone is

> now the rage. It does, however, disgust me to no end.

>

> Again, this is the fault of parents who refuse to shoulder the

> responsibility of parenting their children properly and completely.

>

> Raven

> Co-Administrator

>

[Guest guest]

This reminds me of an airplane accident involving a 727. While en

route, the front number three wing slat extended, throwing it into a

sudden spin. The pilot managed to recover using the landing gear as an

improvised speed brake (He needed to pull out fast). Doing so caused a

sensor to be damaged, which was required for the flight recorder to

stop, making it essentially erase himself. He and his crew were

accused of pulling the slat circuit breakers and extending the flaps

at altitude. This was supposedly " widespread " . The thing is, it was a

practice that noone could do without a loud squeal of hydraulics. The

passengers never heard such a squeal.

[Guest guest]

strict wrote: " ... <snip> ... Just to play the devil-in-a-blue-dress's

advocate, consider this: imagine the children of parents living in a

large nudist colony, sending pictures of themselves via cell phone

where they're fully dressed! " Think of the children! " ...

<snip> ... "

While that may be true, strict, the fact of the matter is that THIS

society clothes itself and showing one's naked self is a very intimate

act in itself. Therefore, while your example has some merit the bottom

line is that anyone sending nude photographs of themselves via cell

phone is not only inappropriate but unlawful in some states and

provinces in America and Canada.

The 'nudist colony' is not unlike the argument that drug users make

when justifying breaking the law in order to feed their addiction.

Raven

Co-Administrator

[Guest guest]

Unfortunately what the pictures usually are is not simple poses or some such

thing but SEXUAL poses showing the sex organs (most likely). And it's that

sexual content that is what makes it bad. Not simple nudity (where on TV

they blank out the sex organs) but sexual poses bordering on the

pornographic.

But then, thank god, I haven't seen for myself that crap.

Randy Garrett

Antioch, CA USA

-----<---{(@

Re: Teens and their cell phones

strict wrote: " ... <snip> ... Just to play the devil-in-a-blue-dress's

advocate, consider this: imagine the children of parents living in a

large nudist colony, sending pictures of themselves via cell phone

where they're fully dressed! " Think of the children! " ...

<snip> ... "

While that may be true, strict, the fact of the matter is that THIS

society clothes itself and showing one's naked self is a very intimate

act in itself. Therefore, while your example has some merit the bottom

line is that anyone sending nude photographs of themselves via cell

phone is not only inappropriate but unlawful in some states and

provinces in America and Canada.

The 'nudist colony' is not unlike the argument that drug users make

when justifying breaking the law in order to feed their addiction.

Raven

Co-Administrator

No virus found in this outgoing message.

Checked by AVG.

Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.13/1377 - Release Date: 4/14/2008

9:26 AM

[Guest guest]

" I count these things, unless I know first-hand of the event, as the

whole " Everybody's doing it! " syndrome of people to spread bad data. "

I've seen kids wearing these things. It's true.

Administrator

[Guest guest]

Oops. Was thinking of the colored bracelets that signify sex.

But I have seen a lot of weird shades of lipstick on young kids that

ought not to be wearing lipstick lately too.

Administrator

" I count these things, unless I know first-hand of the event, as the

whole " Everybody's doing it! " syndrome of people to spread bad data. "

I've seen kids wearing these things. It's true.

Administrator

[Guest guest]

What's funny is I'm about as modest as they come

There was, admittedly, an underlying motive to my post, however, and I had a

point I was

making as a parallel comparison, though an imperfect one. What is that? Well,

in this

society (we seem to mostly be in agreement with) nude, sexually-oriented

pictures sent

via the cell phone are highly inappropriate, and is a behavior that the most

common

person would say should be stomped out by whatever means necessary. Well, to a

lot of

people, those that don't exude the same non-verbal (or other) language that

indicates

they're part of the " normal " group are also something that's considered correct

to stomp

out by any means necessary, even though it doesn't actually harm anyone.

Chances are,

you'd have a hard time convincing a very large portion of the human population

that

pictures of any type on a cell phone are harmful, as they don't directly touch

anyone

physically. Sure, you can argue all you want with all the lies, damned lies,

and the worst of

them all, statistics, that studies show that exposure to such material causes

societal

downfall, but again, you'll still have a hard time (don't read too much into

what I type in

how I say it!) convincing a lot of people of the " Fact " that it is really

harmful.

Yes, I recognize the illegality that exists in various jurisdictions, but were

you aware, that

until 1977, it was legal to kill someone of the LDS faith in the state of

Missouri? Just more

food for thought as to how valid laws that are passed really are, and how it is

society that

judges them differently in different times and places.

" ... <snip> ... Just to play the devil-in-a-blue-dress's

> advocate, consider this: imagine the children of parents living in a

> large nudist colony, sending pictures of themselves via cell phone

> where they're fully dressed! " Think of the children! " ...

> <snip> ... "

>

> While that may be true, strict, the fact of the matter is that THIS

> society clothes itself and showing one's naked self is a very intimate

> act in itself. Therefore, while your example has some merit the bottom

> line is that anyone sending nude photographs of themselves via cell

> phone is not only inappropriate but unlawful in some states and

> provinces in America and Canada.

>

> The 'nudist colony' is not unlike the argument that drug users make

> when justifying breaking the law in order to feed their addiction.

>

> Raven

> Co-Administrator

>

[Guest guest]

" Yes, I recognize the illegality that exists in various jurisdictions,

but were you aware, that until 1977, it was legal to kill someone of

the LDS faith in the state of Missouri? Just more food for thought as

to how valid laws that are passed really are, and how it is society that

judges them differently in different times and places. "

That law was a travesty to begin with and was probably never taken off

the books only because lawmakers figured no court would uphold it were

an actual murder of a Later Day Saint to take place. They never would

have though that maybe someone would kill a Later Day Saint

deliberately even in 1976 - say- knowing full well that there was a law

on the books that would have prevented them from getting prosecuted.

The fact of the matter is, our society is a sinful one, and to maintain

public order, we have laws. They would not need to be there if people

did not infringe too much on other people, be it to deliberately hurt

or steal from them, or whether it be in the name of " rights " . Further,

some people would harm even their own selves if it were not for laws.

Some addictive drugs kill when taken in too high doses...so...we make

those drugs " controlled substances " and when some one takes them

without a prescription (or in the case of banned substances just takes

them), we bust them, and rightfully so.

Without laws, there would be anarchy.

Getting to my main point though, what these kids are doing ought to be

stopped for their own good, and I could care less who makes arguments

to the contrary and what they cite as their support. I am fairly sure

that the majority of society -dare I say the MORAL MAJORITY- would

agree.

Administrator

[Guest guest]

Ah, but it was fun to contribute to a spirited discussion by throwing the devil

and may

care sort of thing into it: you don't really think I was arguing that

sexually-explicit nude

photos were appropriate to be sending to each other, do you? (Everyone

needs a

hobby: I love blowing minds, as it's the one part of the body you can blow on

someone

without too high of a risk of prison time if they object!)

>

> " Yes, I recognize the illegality that exists in various jurisdictions,

> but were you aware, that until 1977, it was legal to kill someone of

> the LDS faith in the state of Missouri? Just more food for thought as

> to how valid laws that are passed really are, and how it is society that

> judges them differently in different times and places. "

>

> That law was a travesty to begin with and was probably never taken off

> the books only because lawmakers figured no court would uphold it were

> an actual murder of a Later Day Saint to take place. They never would

> have though that maybe someone would kill a Later Day Saint

> deliberately even in 1976 - say- knowing full well that there was a law

> on the books that would have prevented them from getting prosecuted.

>

> The fact of the matter is, our society is a sinful one, and to maintain

> public order, we have laws. They would not need to be there if people

> did not infringe too much on other people, be it to deliberately hurt

> or steal from them, or whether it be in the name of " rights " . Further,

> some people would harm even their own selves if it were not for laws.

> Some addictive drugs kill when taken in too high doses...so...we make

> those drugs " controlled substances " and when some one takes them

> without a prescription (or in the case of banned substances just takes

> them), we bust them, and rightfully so.

>

> Without laws, there would be anarchy.

>

> Getting to my main point though, what these kids are doing ought to be

> stopped for their own good, and I could care less who makes arguments

> to the contrary and what they cite as their support. I am fairly sure

> that the majority of society -dare I say the MORAL MAJORITY- would

> agree.

>

>

> Administrator

>

[Guest guest]

>

> It's quite an epidemic in certain states and provinces in America and

> Canada.

>

> I'm happy to hear that it is not across the board though.

>

> Raven

> Co-Administrator

>

Me Too!! Mimi is glad she will not raise any new small children. (the

shop being beyond repair, or desire for repair)

[Guest guest]

" ... <snip> ... Just to play the devil-in-a-blue-

dress's

> advocate, consider this: imagine the children of parents living in

a

> large nudist colony, sending pictures of themselves via cell phone

> where they're fully dressed! " Think of the children! " ...

> <snip> ... "

>

> While that may be true, strict, the fact of the matter is that THIS

> society clothes itself and showing one's naked self is a very

intimate

> act in itself. Snip

> Raven

> Co-Administrator

>

Mimi is saying, I find it unsetteling that children need so much to

draw attention to themselves that they are willing to risk their

lives. This see me see me mentality defies logic and sense.

I had a student tell me that employers check myspace, and facebook,

and that many do a picture search. To get an idea of the person you

are. While individual expression is useful, disreagard for a future

life must be the definition of stupidity. Consequence is the after

effect of action. Why can we not teach this.

I think I mentioned before that a virtual reality consequence based

interactive experience might give people the cause(desire to do

stupid things) and the effect of that action.

I thought that 20 years ago but I am unsure how the mind would react

to the data. I thought about it when children were shooting other

children. We are do for some collapse of our society as we know it.

Perhaps that is the significance of " 2012 " Our Atlantis time.

mimi does spin her wheels (alot)

[Guest guest]

>

snip:

> Without laws, there would be anarchy.

>

> Getting to my main point though, what these kids are doing ought to

be

> stopped for their own good, and I could care less who makes arguments

> to the contrary and what they cite as their support. I am fairly sure

> that the majority of society -dare I say the MORAL MAJORITY- would

> agree.

>

>

> Administrator

>

That is the issue, and even the issue of laws. When people cannot

respect that others have rights to (they must make a law to protect

innocence) It is likely the abuse of these laws " their blanketness "

which mucks up others. Time, consideration, thought. Courts don'y

like these, and seedy lawyers get the guilty free and some innocent pay

for lawfulness. Did I mention I favored a reorganization. mimi

[Guest guest]

>

> Ah, but it was fun to contribute to a spirited discussion by

throwing the devil and may

> care sort of thing into it: you don't really think I was arguing

that sexually-explicit nude

> photos were appropriate to be sending to each other, do you?

(Everyone needs a

> hobby: I love blowing minds, as it's the one part of the body you

can blow on someone

> without too high of a risk of prison time if they object!)

>

>

The Devil and other excuses are just nonsense. As in I was soooooo

drunk. I think you are a very bright person and I would like to hear

your true thought and not a manufacture, so that you an suppose we

all have puffed cheeks and red faces. I think in this forum there is

no need to seek acknowledgement, you will be treated based on your

desire for truth and listened to based on your ability to reason. I

did not take you seriously because the clothed reference in a nudist

colony (well ridicious)

My mother lives in Nevada, once we went to Lake Tahoe, we were

walking a trail, my uncle my mother myself and my daughter. I man

walked past us completely naked (older perhaps 60) None of us said a

word we might as well have been passing in a mall. My only reaction

was to turn my daughter to look at some interesting flora(trees,

flowers) That person made a choice to be naked, it is his

responsibility, and possibly shame. He gets nothing for it (he

deserves nothing) My discussion was really about children, we need

to teach them useful things, disregard foolish bids for attention.

ok well I wanted to say, I would prefer to hear who you really are

and not your funny TV character. Mimi

[Guest guest]

Ok, true me here:

1. I believe that many a serious thing is said in jest.

2. I believe that many truths are best gotten across by doing it in humor, and

by being

outrageous, because people remember it better.

3. I believe at the outset I stated " Devil-in-a-blue-dress's advocate " which

means it was

presented as an argument for the sake of argument, a way to balance out the

discussion,

and clearly indicating I was going down a line of argument that I don't truly

believe in.

5. I believe I'm probably more modest in my sexual proclivities when it comes

to my dress

and behavior than most probably here on this forum, and definitely in society,

and I'm

definitely more modest in dress than most.

6. I believe it is quite unwise to ever read/write or get involved in anything

resembling a

potentially serious discussion while drunk or under the influence of any

substance.

7. I believe that I'm probably the least likely to ever post here under the

influence of any

mind-altering substance: I've not once chosen to have an alcoholic beverage (I

had a

mouthful of a mimosa a few months ago by mistake, since I didn't recognize that

the

carbonated-tasting orange juice at the continental breakfast was other than odd

orange

juice I didn't like until someone asked how I liked it).

8. I believe that it is self-debasing and downright dangerous both to

reputation and long-

term health for people to be sending such pictures around to people, regardless

of age,

because it sends a very clear (though possibly wrong) message that you're ready,

willing,

and able to provide for someone's " need " and you can't be sure how others will

respond to

it.

9. I believe that when it comes to such messages/pictures, if you can't feel

safe and

proper about shouting it at the top of your voice inside a large public place

for all the

world to hear/see/know, you should think a lot longer about whether you really

want to

post it, because once in digital form, it may very well be longer-lived than you

are, and it

can be around the entire world in a matter of seconds, only slowed down by the

response

time of people finding it and spreading it via viral marketing/networking

effects.

10. I believe it is illogical for me to apologize for stating something that

someone might

follow and draw incorrect conclusions because of #6 when accepted convention of

#3 is in

effect while engaging in #1, #2, #3, even if I post anything referring to my

sense of

humor, in whatever warped form I do so.

> >

> > Ah, but it was fun to contribute to a spirited discussion by

> throwing the devil and may

> > care sort of thing into it: you don't really think I was arguing

> that sexually-explicit nude

> > photos were appropriate to be sending to each other, do you?

> (Everyone needs a

> > hobby: I love blowing minds, as it's the one part of the body you

> can blow on someone

> > without too high of a risk of prison time if they object!)

> >

> >

> The Devil and other excuses are just nonsense. As in I was soooooo

> drunk. I think you are a very bright person and I would like to hear

> your true thought and not a manufacture, so that you an suppose we

> all have puffed cheeks and red faces. I think in this forum there is

> no need to seek acknowledgement, you will be treated based on your

> desire for truth and listened to based on your ability to reason. I

> did not take you seriously because the clothed reference in a nudist

> colony (well ridicious)

>

> My mother lives in Nevada, once we went to Lake Tahoe, we were

> walking a trail, my uncle my mother myself and my daughter. I man

> walked past us completely naked (older perhaps 60) None of us said a

> word we might as well have been passing in a mall. My only reaction

> was to turn my daughter to look at some interesting flora(trees,

> flowers) That person made a choice to be naked, it is his

> responsibility, and possibly shame. He gets nothing for it (he

> deserves nothing) My discussion was really about children, we need

> to teach them useful things, disregard foolish bids for attention.

>

> ok well I wanted to say, I would prefer to hear who you really are

> and not your funny TV character. Mimi

>

[Guest guest]

strict wrote: " ... <snip> ... Yes, I recognize the illegality that

exists in various jurisdictions, but were you aware, that until 1977,

it was legal to kill someone of the LDS faith in the state of Missouri?

Just more food for thought as to how valid laws that are passed really

are, and how it is society that judges them differently in different

times and places ... <snip> ... "

I didn't know that about Missouri. Wow!

Raven

Co-Administrator

[Guest guest]

I think that mimi and strict may have mis-heard and/or misinterpreted

each other.

strict, I understand what you are saying and agree.

mimi, I understand what you are saying and agree.

Both of you make very valid points and as such, your contributions to

the discussion are both warranted and welcome.

Raven

Co-Administrator