Planned Parenthood Exposed - New Undercover Video

[Anguille]

omg Are You Serious? You Actually Make A Post Like This And Neg Rep Me? If Your Behavior Is An Example Of A Grown Up I'll Stay A Kid.

Lol!

 

[Makedde]

(This article first appeared in the January 20, 1992 edition of Citizen magazine)


How Planned Parenthood Duped America

At a March 1925 international birth control gathering in New York City, a speaker warned of the menace posed by the "black" and "yellow" peril. The man was not a Nazi or Klansman; he was Dr. S. Adolphus Knopf, a member of Margaret Sanger's American Birth Control League (ABCL), which along with other groups eventually became known as Planned Parenthood.

Sanger's other colleagues included avowed and sophisticated racists. One, Lothrop Stoddard, was a Harvard graduate and the author of The Rising Tide of Color against White Supremacy. Stoddard was something of a Nazi enthusiast who described the eugenic practices of the Third Reich as "scientific" and "humanitarian." And Dr. Harry Laughlin, another Sanger associate and board member for her group, spoke of purifying America's human "breeding stock" and purging America's "bad strains." These "strains" included the "shiftless, ignorant, and worthless class of antisocial whites of the South."

Not to be outdone by her followers, Margaret Sanger spoke of sterilizing those she designated as "unfit," a plan she said would be the "salvation of American civilization.: And she also spike of those who were "irresponsible and reckless," among whom she included those " whose religious scruples prevent their exercising control over their numbers." She further contended that "there is no doubt in the minds of all thinking people that the procreation of this group should be stopped." That many Americans of African origin constituted a segment of Sanger considered "unfit" cannot be easily refuted.

While Planned Parenthood's current apologists try to place some distance between the eugenics and birth control movements, history definitively says otherwise. The eugenic theme figured prominently in the Birth Control Review, which Sanger founded in 1917. She published such articles as "Some Moral Aspects of Eugenics" (June 1920), "The Eugenic Conscience" (February 1921), "The purpose of Eugenics" (December 1924), "Birth Control and Positive Eugenics" (July 1925), "Birth Control: The True Eugenics" (August 1928), and many others.

These eugenic and racial origins are hardly what most people associate with the modern Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), which gave its Margaret Sanger award to the late Dr. Martin Luther King in 1966, and whose current president, Faye Wattleton, is black, a former nurse, and attractive.


BlackGenocide.org | The Truth About Margaret Sanger

*yawn* Not this garbage again. Tell me, when Margaret Sanger was growing up, how many people were involved in the field of eugenics? Many people, and she was simply one of them. That was a long time ago, very rarely do we see someone who supports this (they still exist) so the fact that Margaret Sanger may have supported this years ago does not mean she would be advocating it today, if she were still alive.

 

[Silence]

OMG are you serious? You actually make a post like this and neg rep me? If your behavior is an example of a grown up I'll stay a kid.

so, you admit that you're still a kid? at least that's progress....

 

[Silence]

Not your call to make...

you're right. It's not my call to make...I was merely stating my opinion on the matter, not attempting to change the law.

It removes the problem. The problem is the pregnancy - this is causing the depression. Take care of that and the woman can start on the road to recovery.

Sorry but that doesn't even make sense. are you saying it's the live baby that causes the post partum and not the hormonal imbalance that happens once the pregnancy ends? Your hormones change, which can cause depression and that would occur whether the pregnancy ended in a live birth or an abortion. You body would still react the same way. That's why women who miscarry late in their pregnancy still suffer from post partum depression.

 

[Agnapostate]

Yet another argument used by child molesters.

No, yet another argument used by people who actually know what they're talking about. You clearly don't. According to the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, "pedophilia" is "a sexual preference for children, boys or girls or both, usually of prepubertal or early pubertal age."

Similarly, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders sets out the following diagnostic criteria for pedophilia.

A. Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual
urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children
(generally age 13 years or younger);
B. The person has acted on these sexual urges, or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked
distress or interpersonal difficulty;
C. The person is at least age 16 years and at least 5 years older than the child or children in
Criterion A.

The bit regarding the age of 13 years may be better classified as hebephilia (a sexual attraction to pubescent individuals) than pedophilia, as the average age of menarche is about 12.5, and sexual attraction to reproductive beings would by nature not be pedophilia. It should also be said that sexual interactions with a prepubescent child are not necessary for a diagnosis of pedophilia, as the term primarily refers to a sexual attraction rather than any sexual behavior. Thus, a person can be a pedophile without having had any sexual interaction with a prepubescent child, just as a person can be a heterosexual while still being a virgin. Somewhat more strangely, a person can also have a sexual interaction with a child but not necessarily meet the diagnostic criteria for pedophilia, but merely be a situational offender.

According to the law, you're having sex with a child if you're having sex with someone under the age of 18. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

I am unsure what "law" you're referring to when you make this claim, as there is no universal age of consent. It is true that the age of consent is 18 in several states, and that an individual could be prosecuted under the federal Mann Act if he or she crossed state lines for the purpose of engaging in sexual interactions with a minor, even if said minor was above the age of consent in his or her respective state of residence. But the age of consent is 16 in over half of the United States, according to this Wikimedia map. (Though some numbers may be inaccurate.)

There is the legal situation of amacipated minors. A person under the age of 18 who goes into court and successfully argues that it is in their own best interest to be viewed as an adult by law. it is rare and the child must have a pretty good reason for wanting this done, other than "they won't let me do what I want"

Emancipated minors are few and far between not because most young people do not possess the capacity to live independently, but for several other reasons, including the fact that granting of emancipation is a lengthy legal proceeding, the fact that many are unaware of its existence, and the fact that child labor laws, compulsory schooling laws, and legal prohibitions on minors signing contracts and owning property often prevent them from fulfilling the criteria for emancipation.

perhaps you can again explain to us who exactly is profitting from "forcing" children to go to school through 12th grade? When do you think children should be able to leave school? Do you think that a person who chooses to leave school in say 8th or 9th grade can obtain a job which will allow them to support themselves or their family and if you do, please tell me in what field?

It seems there are people who are prone to oversimplifying the issue of when is a child no longer a child.

You misunderstand. You apparently assume that I am content with leaving the school system in its current condition. However, I advocate something far more ambitious. I oppose the current school system on the grounds that it is hierarchical, authoritarian, and fails to provide students with legitimate skills. Hence, my proposal is to engage student involvement at very young ages by implementing more democratic management of schools by their students, as well as scrapping curricular components that do not provide students with legitimate forms of education and replacing them with activities that instruct students more sufficiently and provide them with a greater array of basic practical skills. Thus, the problem of a lack of employment skills that you raise would not be an issue in the scheme that I propose.

I would advise you to read this: The Tyranny of Compulsory Schooling

Allie, I don't agree that if you have sex with someone under 18 you are automatically a pedophile. By definition a pedophile is an adult who is sexually attracted to pre-pubesent children. Now, there are perverts out there who will gladly take advantage of young people, age 13+ who are no less guilty than someone who by definition is a pedo but there is a difference, psychologically speaking anyway.

On what basis do you make such claims? What psychological difference do you propose exists, and what evidence do you have to support your allegations? Also, is it just to compare legal adults in relationships with adolescents with those in relations with prepubescent children, when adolescents, by nature, possess a capacity to reciprocate largely nonexistent in prepubescent children?

I've worked with pedophiles and I'm telling you, they will argue to their dying breath the finer points of what makes a child an adult, and why you aren't a pedophile if you fantasize about 14 and 16 year olds instead of 13 year olds.

I will openly say that I am skeptical to your claims of having "worked with" pedophiles, seeing as how you are clearly unfamiliar with the legitimate psychological definition of the disorder, merely the popular colloquial definition. If the individuals that you worked with claimed that they weren't pedophiles if they fantasized about 14 and 16 year olds, they were correct. Your definition of the term "pedophilia" conflicts with the legitimate psychological definition.

I agree that an 18 year old is old enough to have sex, but the law doesn't, and that's the end of that conversation, if you know what I mean.

Again, what "law" are you referring to? Not only is the age of consent 18 in a minority of states, there are no states in which it is higher than 18.

Actually the law does say that an 18 year old is old enough to have sex and in some states the age of consent is as young as 14. Most the age is 16.

Age of Consent - by State

I could not access your registry, but I suspect it might be out of date if it claims that the age of consent is 14 in some states. That conflicts with the Wikimedia graph, but either may be inaccurate.

There are several other resources, and some list conflicting ages of consent, which makes accessing the legitimate one difficult.

A table of worldwide ages of consent, including US states

LEGAL AGE OF CONSENT* (ageofconsent.com)***** Age du consentement à l’acte sexuel

http://moraloutrage.net/staticpages/index.php?page=states

There is, IMO, no "finer point" to someone who is 10 years older wanting to have sex with a minor. it's not normal for a 25 year old to want to have sex with a 15 year old IMO.

However, I see why people argue that it's arbitrary because that some person at 35 would be perfectly fine having sex with a 25 year old.

If you believe that it is abnormal for the average 25 year old to be sexually attracted to the average 15 year old, then your contention is not with pedophilia, but with heterosexuality.

Yeah, it's 18 in Oregon. I thought it was because when I was working in the jail we had kids who were serving time because they'd had sex with their under-18 y.o. girlfriend (19 year old guy with a 17 year old gfriend) and daddy got pissed.

Looks to me like there are a LOT of states where 18 is the age of consent, and a lot more who are changing that way.

see, that is where the law is flawed IMO. a 19 year old with a 17 year old girlfriend isn't a criminal and I'm surprised that ANY court would choose to file such a charge and if they did, a jury would convict them.

Not only that, he's now a registered sex offender because of it. And that can't be expunged.

This is why mandatory sentencing sucks. It's asinine.

And these prosecutions are sad and atrociously unjust, and it is actually rather sick and depraved that anyone is audacious enough to claim that they are enforcing a moral mandate through such prosecutions.

I doubt that. So far I haven't seen you say anything as retarded as when a young female child begin to menstrate she should be able to not only have sex but also have babies

So far the most retarded thing I've seen in this thread is the arrogance that you have consistently displayed despite your inability to offer a legitimate reply to my statements. Then again, lies of the nature of the following are fairly retarded.

He really is. Welcome to "fun with Agnapostate." He also sees nothing wrong with adult/child sexual contact.

That is false. Do a tad bit more research, dear.

well, to be fair this and most other nations have a looooong history of older dudes taking 14 year old women for brides... But, I always filed that under "cultural necessity perpetuated by family and tradition" rather than a "validation of youthful decisions".

That's not a sufficient rationale for lowering the age of consent and the marriage age in and of itself, though, because it is descriptive rather than prescriptive. If we were to attempt to determine current courses of action by those taken in times of historical antiquity, what rationale would we have against slavery and subjugation of minority races and women? We can clearly see that such practices are unethical, so we would have to look elsewhere to attempt to make an ethical judgment on the prospect of lowering the age of consent and marriage age.

I don't think 14 year olds are mature enough to make autonomous decisions of this nature and I can assure you that it's not a religious tainted opinion. I was 14 once and I doubt many of us can say that we'd make the same decisions as adults as we made at that age.

That seems to me more anecdotal evidence than anything else. Apart from the studies I posted illustrating the fact that 14 year olds possess the capacity to make rational informed decisions on par with those of adults, (that only one person has attempted to make a rational reply to), there is also evidence that formal operational thinking skills and intelligence peak at about age 14.

Now, take into account that the measurements of intelligence are over 60 years old. Since then, a phenomenon known as the Flynn Effect has occurred, in which the average IQ has risen by about 20 points. There are numerous explanations for this phenomenon, but it is notable that the rise spiked during the technology boom of the 1990's, suggesting that the increase may be related to technological advances in some way. Hence, the current adolescent generation are the beneficiaries of these technological advancements, and can be expected to have a higher average IQ than previous generations.

Ok...I definitely did not get that from your earlier posts. The sentence I bolded is especially helpful to me in trying to understand your point of view, so I thank you for taking the time to spell it out so succinctly.

As I said previously, it may be helpful to conceptualize our current conception of "childhood" as a walled garden, in which some inhabitants of the garden may perceive it as tranquil and peaceful, and appreciate the walls that prevent external disturbances from entering. But so many others will perceive the walls as creating a dismal and dreary prison.

While I love the idea of students who do not want to be in my classroom or any classroom for that matter to be able to leave - giving me just students that truly want to be there...I'm not sure I believe that the majority of young people, left entirely to their own devices would choose to learn about adding and subtracting positive and negative integers or the causes and effects of the Industrial Revolution.

Ironically, the clearest indication that the effects of the Industrial Revolution exist to the present day is their coerced presence in your classroom.

Some would, yes...but many, many others would choose instead to get jobs and earn money in minimum wage jobs. Would our society be able to support such numbers? Would we be left with a large class of undereducated people...people who had not learned to read, write, or do mathematics...but who expect to be able to make a living in a society that no longer has large numbers of jobs for unskilled labor?

If many would leave, this is an indication of the general invalidity of the current school system as it is presently set up. Consider that this is not a risk with post-secondary education, despite the fact that it is not compulsory. Those students have recognized the commodity of education, (or of "certification," at any rate, but delving into that further would range into an aspect of my opinion entirely unrelated to the thread topic), and as a result, attend freely. I would say that younger students would do the same were actual educational opportunities of the Summerhill variety provided rather than compulsory, hierarchical indoctrination.

As to the Summerhill School method...I do not think it is a system that would work in large numbers. Why? Because in life we sometimes have to learn things which we do not like. I'm not sure that allowing whole generations to grow up ignorant of things they don't particularly like simply because we don't want to "force" them...is not something that would be successful in the current world we live in.

I don't believe that is the Summerhill method. Democratic management is not compatible with idleness, and the students of Summerhill are far from ignorant. If you had read the Wikipedia article about Summerhill, you may have seen this section.

In March 1999, following a major inspection from OFSTED, the then Secretary of State for Education and Employment, David Blunkett, issued the school with a notice of complaint, which took issue with the school's policy of non-compulsory lessons. Failure to comply with such a notice within six months usually leads to closure; however, Summerhill chose to contest the notice in court.[10]

The case went before a special educational tribunal in March 2000, at which the school was represented by noted human rights lawyer Geoffrey Robertson QC. Four days into the hearing, the government's case collapsed, and a settlement was agreed. The pupils who were attending the hearing that day took over the courtroom and held a school meeting to debate whether to accept the settlement, eventually voting unanimously to do so.

This link to a BBC article also proved interesting: BBC News | EDUCATION | Summerhill closure threat lifted

Student Carman Cordwell, who chaired the meeting of pupils, said afterwards: "This is our charter for freedom. It gives us the space we need to live and breathe and learn into the future.

"After 79 years, this is the first official recognition that A S Neill's philosophy of education provides an acceptable alternative to compulsory lessons and the tyranny of compulsory exams.

'Free at last'

"With this one bound, we are free at last."

Many operate on the general expectation that youth will be unfamiliar with court proceedings or incapable of democratic management. The progressive model of Summerhill, which involves direct student engagement, proves otherwise.

I agree that I do not see chimney sweeps dying of black lung on street corners, little match girls freezing in alleys, or children being locked in manufacturing plants...

But I do wonder about what happens when a child, by my definition, decides to go it alone...then decides that he can't make a living...and comes home only to find out that his parents are quite content not to provide for him and have decided not to...will the law require them to take him back in? For how long, until he is 18? Or will that child become dependent upon the state to take care of him?

There is a difference between instituting formal age restrictions and having the general expectation that members of a general age group will have some common strengths and advantages, and be generally prepared for independent life. Since schooling and employment aren't the only realms in which I think we ought to treat youth differently, and because schooling as I conceptualize it would be of an entirely different variety than it currently is, I am not sure this is an entirely pertinent concern.

I agree with you whole-heartedly that we have extended childhood to ridiculous levels. 20-somethings and even 30-somethings are enjoying an extended adolescence that is, in many cases, simply obscene in how proud we have become of delaying maturity.

I agree with you completely that maturity is, in many cases, a social construct not a biological one.

I think where we still see things differently are my concerns with encouraging very young people to go out and "make their own way" in a world that is very different from the world that existed when such a practice was considered common place. Also, as it relates to this particular thread topic - that sexual viability is any indication of a person's ability to be mature enough to decide whether or not to "make their own way" in life.

And I still firmly believe the opposite, and believe that the studies and graphs that I posted have made a case that youth cannot be expected to lack the ability to make informed and rational decisions.

Infantilization...is an unfortunate process, and it remains my contention that continued infantilization and restrictions perpetuate the problems that they are intended to act as safeguards against.

Youth and even younger children have evolving capacities, as Gerison Landsown so eloquently puts it. The Evolving Capacities of the Child

Thanks very much for this post though...it cleared much of your opinion up for me...and I'm going to check out your last link right now.

You should, and you may want to take a look at the other resources I mentioned and the link regarding the tyranny of compulsory schooling that I posted above.

Hell, I wouldn't make the same decisions that I made in my 20s, much less my teens.

Hindsight is 20/20...but there are few people who would look back and not regret decisions that they made at any point in their lives.

if by several you mean the two brainiacs who support child sex...well most agree they are as cracked as pots so I wouldn't brag about their support to much... you're acting like a child, probably because mentally you are a child, even at the age of 18.

Lies and distortions. Insufficient response.

I'm not concerned. I said I won't attempt to engage you in conversation again. You're obviously spoiled and not used to anyone challenging you. You're apparently happiest when the adults around you are falling all over themselves to tell you how bright and articulate you are. God forbid one should come along and disagree with you and ask you to explain your reasoning.

Carry on little girl

Are you serious? When have you addressed my challenges to you?

 

[Shogun]

That seems to me more anecdotal evidence than anything else. Apart from the studies I posted illustrating the fact that 14 year olds possess the capacity to make rational informed decisions on par with those of adults, (that only one person has attempted to make a rational reply to), there is also evidence that formal operational thinking skills and intelligence peak at about age 14.



intelligence and wisdom are two distinct concepts, however. I would expect 14 year old kids who have been in the education system for the majority of their young life to take an IQ test easier than a 45 year old who hasn't touched a standardized test in 25 years. go give the nearest 14 year old that you know 5 thousand dollars and tell them to be autonomous for 9 months and see how much is left over after 1 month. Smart people do stupid things too, you know. And, truthfully, an abstract concept like an IQ scale really doesn't say anything about life-forming experience that a 14 year old simply doesn't have.

 

[Shogun]

That seems to me more anecdotal evidence than anything else. Apart from the studies I posted illustrating the fact that 14 year olds possess the capacity to make rational informed decisions on par with those of adults, (that only one person has attempted to make a rational reply to), there is also evidence that formal operational thinking skills and intelligence peak at about age 14.



intelligence and wisdom are two distinct concepts, however. I would expect 14 year old kids who have been in the education system for the majority of their young life to take an IQ test easier than a 45 year old who hasn't touched a standardized test in 25 years. go give the nearest 14 year old that you know 5 thousand dollars and tell them to be autonomous for 9 months and see how much is left over after 1 month. Smart people do stupid things too, you know. And, truthfully, an abstract concept like an IQ scale really doesn't say anything about life-forming experience that a 14 year old simply doesn't have.

 

[Agnapostate]

intelligence and wisdom are two distinct concepts, however. I would expect 14 year old kids who have been in the education system for the majority of their young life to take an IQ test easier than a 45 year old who hasn't touched a standardized test in 25 years. go give the nearest 14 year old that you know 5 thousand dollars and tell them to be autonomous for 9 months and see how much is left over after 1 month. Smart people do stupid things too, you know. And, truthfully, an abstract concept like an IQ scale really doesn't say anything about life-forming experience that a 14 year old simply doesn't have.

My reference wasn't simply to intelligence, and its notable that the studies I posted also analyzed formal operational thinking and other forms of competence through rational capacities, and it was found that even young adolescents possessed such skills.

I certainly think that experience is an important component of maturity, but it isn't generally regarded as a component that justifies utterly different legal treatment. If it was, why not have a graded system of rights reception that would grant individuals additional civil and legal rights every decade, gradually increasing as they turned 20, 30, 40, and 50? But more than that, the experiences that a wide spectrum of individuals may have vary so widely that "experience" by itself can't be cited as a fundamental attribute of the aged. If a person were to live a sound proof booth for the 50 years of his or her life, we would undoubtedly note that every 10 year old who didn't should be expected to be more "experienced" than him or her.

It's also worth pointing out that wisdom itself is gained from experience, which in turn is gained from making mistakes. So should we never have the opportunity to attempt a wide variety of activities and practices, we would never have the opportunity to adapt to each and decide which one suits us best. Thus, it's perhaps most important to note that the current system of discrimination between groups based on age directly prevents an underclass of youth from obtaining experience, by mandating that they sit in classrooms all day reading textbooks rather than working, traveling, building things, or possessing legal rights which might grant them a wider variation of opportunities to experiment with.

 

[Shogun]

um, because our legal age of adulthood is 18 rather than a graded scale every decade? If you want to change the legal age to 14 then good luck. You'll fail, and no amount of wrangled psychology will reduce the laughter you hear from your peers who remember the kind of decisions they were making at age 14. Like I said, go give 5k to a 14 year old and tell them to live autonomously for 9 months. After they go on best buy shopping spree you might discover a few things about how applicable an IQ test is when comparing cognitive function.

bottom line: a 14 year old is not mentally or emotionally equipped to make a decision about abortion.

ps, we don't validate mistakes that cause the loss of life. Are you 14, by chance?

 

[Agnapostate]

um, because our legal age of adulthood is 18 rather than a graded scale every decade? If you want to change the legal age to 14 then good luck. You'll fail, and no amount of wrangled psychology will reduce the laughter you hear from your peers who remember the kind of decisions they were making at age 14. Like I said, go give 5k to a 14 year old and tell them to live autonomously for 9 months. After they go on best buy shopping spree you might discover a few things about how applicable an IQ test is when comparing cognitive function.

bottom line: a 14 year old is not mentally or emotionally equipped to make a decision about abortion.

ps, we don't validate mistakes that cause the loss of life. Are you 14, by chance?

That is not a sufficient analysis of this issue. If you believe that youth would mishandle large amounts of money, this can likely be traced back to the fact that they are never trained or instructed to have experience with handling finances in the first place. Whatever the case, you have to confront the issue that your belief clearly conflicts with the fact that the young were involved in "adult society" parallel to the extent that older people were in times past.

And for the record, I don't want to change the age of majority to 14; I don't think we ought to have fixed age restrictions at all.

 

[Silence]

Agna, you're posts are way to long to read through. If I missed a challenge you presented to me it's only because I don't have the patience to weed through your nonsense.

Present it in one paragraph and I'll respond.

 

[Agnapostate]

If you're unwilling to read what I write, you don't have to. Just don't pretend that you somehow have the upper hand when you're unwilling to reply to detailed criticisms of your claims.

 

[Shogun]

That is not a sufficient analysis of this issue. If you believe that youth would mishandle large amounts of money, this can likely be traced back to the fact that they are never trained or instructed to have experience with handling finances in the first place. Whatever the case, you have to confront the issue that your belief clearly conflicts with the fact that the young were involved in "adult society" parallel to the extent that older people were in times past.

And for the record, I don't want to change the age of majority to 14; I don't think we ought to have fixed age restrictions at all.

Your opinion regarding what qualifies as sifficient analysis means two things. One is jack. Can you guess what the other is?

Indeed, they have never been TRAINED or INSTRUCTED? Are you kidding me? What 14 year old doesn't know what money is used for? Hell, you essentially make my point regarding lack of experience.


"past times" are not directly correlative with present times. Helping the family on the family farm in 1901 is hardly equivilent to having a checking account in 2008. You want to make a case for responsibility of youth? Email mastercard and college campuses where even adult age KIDS discover how their cognitive function fails their eventual credit score.


While a fixed age will not apply to every individual evenly it is still a better system than assuming a population of 14 year olds will be capable of making the same kind of responsible decisions that a 30 year old will make. Ditching age restrictions is just silly.

 

[Agnapostate]

Your opinion regarding what qualifies as sifficient analysis means two things. One is jack. Can you guess what the other is?

Indeed, they have never been TRAINED or INSTRUCTED? Are you kidding me? What 14 year old doesn't know what money is used for? Hell, you essentially make my point regarding lack of experience.

"past times" are not directly correlative with present times. Helping the family on the family farm in 1901 is hardly equivilent to having a checking account in 2008. You want to make a case for responsibility of youth? Email mastercard and college campuses where even adult age KIDS discover how their cognitive function fails their eventual credit score.

While a fixed age will not apply to every individual evenly it is still a better system than assuming a population of 14 year olds will be capable of making the same kind of responsible decisions that a 30 year old will make. Ditching age restrictions is just silly.

You can't be serious. Of course I know that 14 year olds know what money is used for. How idiotic to suggest otherwise.

My suggestion was that if 14 year olds weren't competent to handle finances in an adult society, it was because they hadn't gained experience doing so, through a moderate amount of trial and error through handling progressively larger amounts of money during childhood. A family farm in 1901 is indeed not identical to a checking account today, but individuals of older age groups certainly adapted, and there's really no reason that individuals who possessed parallel amounts of responsibility couldn't do the same.

I have presented several studies and graphs of restriction development to support my view. What evidence or studies do you have to support your views regarding the decreased cognitive abilities of youth?

 

[AllieBaba]

If you're unwilling to read what I write, you don't have to. Just don't pretend that you somehow have the upper hand when you're unwilling to reply to detailed criticisms of your claims.

Your posts are the long-winded, pseudo-intellectual ramblings of someone who really likes to hear himself speak.

Edit them down. You really don't have that much to say and you're boring the crap out of everyone.

 

[AllieBaba]

You can't be serious. Of course I know that 14 year olds know what money is used for. How idiotic to suggest otherwise.

My suggestion was that if 14 year olds weren't competent to handle finances in an adult society, it was because they hadn't gained experience doing so, through a moderate amount of trial and error through handling progressively larger amounts of money during childhood. A family farm in 1901 is indeed not identical to a checking account today, but individuals of older age groups certainly adapted, and there's really no reason that individuals who possessed parallel amounts of responsibility couldn't do the same.

I have presented several studies and graphs of restriction development to support my view. What evidence or studies do you have to support your views regarding the decreased cognitive abilities of youth?

Of course they don't have the experience..they're only 14 FUCKING YEARS OLD. They've been competent at long division for about 2 years. Even if they'd had 14 years to focus entirely on mathematics and finances, they STILL wouldn't be competent.

Because not only do they not have the experience, they don't have the ability. A 14-year-old is a jumble of hormones and strange brain activity which correlate directly with adolescence.

They aren't adult. They can't make decisions about their sexuality and their finances because they aren't adults. And no amount of fantasizing on your part is going to change that. Just because a 14-year-old tells you he loves you and wants to have sex with you is NOT an excuse to do it.

 

[Agnapostate]

Your posts are the long-winded, pseudo-intellectual ramblings of someone who really likes to hear himself speak.

Edit them down. You really don't have that much to say and you're boring the crap out of everyone.

Your posts are pure simian grunting.

I respond to each person in turn. As a result, each individual only has to read a small portion of my post. For instance, all that you had to read was the portion where I exposed your ignorance of the term "pedophilia," as well as the law.

Of course they don't have the experience..they're only 14 FUCKING YEARS OLD. They've been competent at long division for about 2 years. Even if they'd had 14 years to focus entirely on mathematics and finances, they STILL wouldn't be competent.

Because not only do they not have the experience, they don't have the ability. A 14-year-old is a jumble of hormones and strange brain activity which correlate directly with adolescence.

They aren't adult. They can't make decisions about their sexuality and their finances because they aren't adults. And no amount of fantasizing on your part is going to change that. Just because a 14-year-old tells you he loves you and wants to have sex with you is NOT an excuse to do it.

Can you provide any external references in the forms of studies or other evidence to support your idiocy?

 

[Shogun]

You can't be serious. Of course I know that 14 year olds know what money is used for. How idiotic to suggest otherwise.

indeed, but they don't know how to wisely use it like an actual adult. This is an example of how different are the cognitive function of a 14 year old versus an adult Way to miss my point.


My suggestion was that if 14 year olds weren't competent to handle finances in an adult society, it was because they hadn't gained experience doing so, through a moderate amount of trial and error through handling progressively larger amounts of money during childhood. A family farm in 1901 is indeed not identical to a checking account today, but individuals of older age groups certainly adapted, and there's really no reason that individuals who possessed parallel amounts of responsibility couldn't do the same.


Again, I'll use the predatory nature of credit crds on college campuses. By this age the KID knows that a bag of candy and free pizza is just a lure to sign up.. and yet STILL goes into debt using plastic to buy beer. It's not just a lack of experience or education that makes a stark difference between how a kid responds and how an adult responds. AND, it seems, you insist on interpreting the actions of 14 year olds from 1901 with your 2008 lens. Do you think some 14 year old in 1901 was taking out mortgages on land? Was signing contracts? Hell no.



I have presented several studies and graphs of restriction development to support my view. What evidence or studies do you have to support your views regarding the decreased cognitive abilities of youth?


You certainly have graphs that indicate a few things. To bad it's not what you are trying to sell it as in this thread. Again, I've deconstructed your interpretation of IQ stats in relation to the point you are trying to make. Which, you'll find out after your first semester, IQ tests are so abstract in application that suggesting one proves anything is a knee slapper. And, excuse me while I sit here being unimpressed with data that is almost 40 years old.


You are either 14-18 OR you are a college freshman a little too anxious to apply what you were told in Into to Psych, im betting.

 

[AllieBaba]

Are you serious? I'm honestly thinking about turning you in as a potential child molester.

 

[Agnapostate]

indeed, but they don't know how to wisely use it like an actual adult. This is an example of how different are the cognitive function of a 14 year old versus an adult Way to miss my point.

Yeah...not really. My point about experience being deliberately withheld applies perfectly here. Either cite external evidence indicating that 14 year olds possess inferior cognitive abilities because of their age, (we are not interested in your own personal experiences, so don't bother trying to cite them again), or stop spewing such nonsense.

Again, I'll use the predatory nature of credit crds on college campuses. By this age the KID knows that a bag of candy and free pizza is just a lure to sign up.. and yet STILL goes into debt using plastic to buy beer. It's not just a lack of experience or education that makes a stark difference between how a kid responds and how an adult responds. AND, it seems, you insist on interpreting the actions of 14 year olds from 1901 with your 2008 lens. Do you think some 14 year old in 1901 was taking out mortgages on land? Was signing contracts? Hell no.

That's great. Too bad that it's blatantly wrong. The restrictions on youth signing contracts and owning property largely did not exist until this past century. 1901 was scarcely into this past century.

I didn't know that goats used credit cards, but you continue to prove my point that all individuals should manage progressively larger amounts of money from early childhood so that they can learn the fundamentals of financial management through trial and error.

You certainly have graphs that indicate a few things. To bad it's not what you are trying to sell it as in this thread. Again, I've deconstructed your interpretation of IQ stats in relation to the point you are trying to make. Which, you'll find out after your first semester, IQ tests are so abstract in application that suggesting one proves anything is a knee slapper. And, excuse me while I sit here being unimpressed with data that is almost 40 years old.

Excuse me while I sit here being unimpressed with a complete lack of data from you. IQ was one of the various components I cited, including formal operational thinking and competence in decision-making. Thanks for ignoring the majority of the evidence that I have provided.

You are either 14-18 OR you are a college freshman a little too anxious to apply what you were told in Into to Psych, im betting.

"First semester"? "Intro to Psych"? You are mind-numbingly stupid, and you have still failed to provide counter-evidence. It should be obvious to mentally balanced people reading this thread that these are not sufficient arguments.