Discuss your Opinion!

[K4_Kydure]

I feel anyone should be allowed to own what ever pet they want. Most pets are just fine when domesticated from a cub/hatchling/kitten/pup/whatever. Many are able to recognize faces and almost never attack the owner unless they do something to piss them off. Also animals really don't need as much space as one would think, even birds do well indoors.

[BTGBullseye]

I feel anyone should be allowed to own what ever pet they want. Most pets are just fine when domesticated from a cub/hatchling/kitten/pup/whatever. Many are able to recognize faces and almost never attack the owner unless they do something to piss them off. Also animals really don't need as much space as one would think, even birds do well indoors.

+1, but just make sure they have the space they need... (you still need to take dogs out so they can run around, and burn off energy)

[Binky The Rabbit]

Pretty much agree. One thing to note is that some exotic pets are small and cute when just a few weeks old, but they are BIG when fully grown. A lot of people don't realise that, and the animals quickly find themselves in a very unhealthy environment. That's why it's generally a bad idea to get something like a big cat as a pet, unless you really know what you're in for. They're not the same as properly domesticated animals.

[Riley Hawk]

The age of consent should be raised to 25. The brain isn't fully developed until then. An 18 year old who get's pregnant by a 34 year old doesn't truly understand the repercussions of what they have done. And even then, I think at 25 you should have to pass a test, like at the DMV. This would prevent mentally handicap people from giving "consent." People would have to have intercourse licenses, just like to own a gun.

[Jeb_CC]

I have one question... Are you asexual? XD

People can't wait that long. X3 I certainly can't wait that long. XP Fuck waiting for 25. I want sex at 16. XD Protected of course!

I thought myself that people get should licenses for having kids, not so much intercourse. But I kinda dissed that idea when I realize that just takes too much effort. X3 No-one wants more paperwork. No-one. XD

[Riley Hawk]

Sex is great and all, but it has dire consequences.

[K4_Kydure]

25? Yeah, fuck that. I'd rather it be 13.

[Jeb_CC]

25? Yeah, fuck that. I'd rather it be 13.

 

Lol, I'd much prefer that too honestly. XP

 

As far as consequences go though, just... Get yourself tested, use protection, and don't do it with every random slut you see. :3

This has been sex ed with Jeb_CC, thank you and goodnight. XP

[BTGBullseye]

Thing is, many religions are very much against contraceptives... It's equivalent to saying "fuck you and your plan for me God, I know better than you!".

 

From the Catholic perspective, if you do it, conception should be entirely in God's hands, not interfered with by ours.

 

Age of consent should be 16 though, IMO. Most are able to fully understand it at that age, and aren't frustrated from not having it for an extra 2 years minimum. If increasing the age, I'd say 28-32 would be appropriate from a psychological perspective. (we'd all be set in our ways by then, and sex wouldn't be at the forefront of our minds quite so much)

[Riley Hawk]

25? Yeah, fuck that. I'd rather it be 13.

A 35 year old should be able to have sex with a 13 year old????

No....

[Jeb_CC]

25? Yeah, fuck that. I'd rather it be 13.

A 35 year old should be able to have sex with a 13 year old????

No....

 

Oh no no no. I think she was talking about the idea of having sex at 25 being just unreasonable in general, being allowed to have it at 13 rather than 25. Not if it's to have sex with a 35 year old.

[Riley Hawk]

If we allow 13 year olds to have sex, how do you find it fair that we tell them they can't have sex with whoever they want? It's either wait a certain age, or they get to choose.

[Jeb_CC]

Hey, if I ever get kids... I'm gonna sit them down, give them THAT talk, then tell them that if they want to screw up their life, go be a slut. I can't control what other people do, so if they make that decision to have unprotected sex, or just sex with whoever, it's their fault. It would be my aim to educate, but I can't breathe down their necks watching their every move. I don't like the idea of 13 year olds having sex... No sir. But I don't like the idea of waiting till 25 either.

[Riley Hawk]

BETTER IDEA: Everyone stops having kids. That way we don't need an age of consent. We just use clones to keep up the population.

[Jeb_CC]

Well I can't argue with that! XD

[K4_Kydure]

Clones age faster than normal humans, if we used them our average lifespan would likely fall below 40 after a few decades of it.

[Riley Hawk]

Clones age faster than normal humans, if we used them our average lifespan would likely fall below 40 after a few decades of it.

We could just keep using more and more clones.

[Vapymid]

@Riley Hawk... I don't know yet if you are being serious... You are new here and posted a lot all at once, but mostly one liners, which makes it difficult to read you and your intentions here... I'll give you the benefit of the doubt though...

 

If we allow 13 year olds to have sex, how do you find it fair that we tell them they can't have sex with whoever they want? It's either wait a certain age, or they get to choose.

No, it's not like that. Many countries have exceptions to the age of consent, which depend on the age difference between partners. So, it's quite easy to stipulate that any person having sex with a 13 yo is committing an offence if they are over, say, 3 years older than the 13 y.o. And the responsibility can be placed automatically on the older partner. So, you are describing a made up problem here.

 

The age of consent should be raised to 25. The brain isn't fully developed until then. An 18 year old who get's pregnant by a 34 year old doesn't truly understand the repercussions of what they have done. And even then, I think at 25 you should have to pass a test, like at the DMV. This would prevent mentally handicap people from giving "consent." People would have to have intercourse licenses, just like to own a gun.

Well, that's just nonsense in my view. The brain is developed more then enough for sex and reproduction way earlier than 18 or even 16 (which is the age of consent in the UK). The reason why the developed world societies have the age of consent and consider teenage pregnancies detrimental has nothing to do with the biological brain development.

 

Simply, the society is now so complex that the young people have much better chance of building a prospering life if they avoid the distractions of raising children while going through the crucial formation stages of their lives - education, start of the career ladder.

 

And the only way how to protect young people from that is by education and not through mindless and unenforceable restrictions.

 

And, of course - sex by itself doesn't have dire consequences. So, disagree with you there, as well...

 

BETTER IDEA: Everyone stops having kids. That way we don't need an age of consent. We just use clones to keep up the population.

Using clones is the worst possible way of keeping up human population.

 

Firstly, it puts the control over reproduction into the hands of select few powerful organisations - state or corporate, which by itself is unacceptable.

 

Secondly, that drastically damages the resilience of the species. Clones are vulnerable to epidemics. A disease can easily wipe the whole population out. There will also not be sufficient mental diversity to generate ideas and creative solutions, which will lend the clones liable to behave in a herd-like fashion.

 

And, of course, cloning a human does not eliminate the instinct for reproduction - they will still want to have sex, unless you modify their genetics and you won't be able to do that (not without damaging whole lot of other things).

 

Thing is, many religions are very much against contraceptives... It's equivalent to saying "fuck you and your plan for me God, I know better than you!".

Yes, but we know it's a specious argument. Because even taking an antibiotic pill to avoid being killed by an infection should also be considered as playing God by that logic. Yet, it isn't.

 

Eventually, the Catholic Church will drop that silly thing about condoms - mark my word! That is not to say that I'd call on devout Catholics to disobey the Church in the meantime - it's a matter of individual faith and conscience, of course.

 

I thought myself that people get should licenses for having kids, not so much intercourse.

This basically what the Chinese one-child policy was - and it's proven to be a total failure.

 

I don't like the idea of 13 year olds having sex... No sir. But I don't like the idea of waiting till 25 either.

Me too - on both counts. Regardless of the law - some 13 y.o. will be having sex and most 25 y.o. will have had it by then. So, the only solutions for reducing STDs and teenage pregnancies are education and protection.

 

Regards

[Jeb_CC]

Vappy scared Riley off. XP

 

Subject #17 - United World

Do you think the world would benefit from being a united 'country'? I was listening to a classmate talking about how more simpler it would be if we were all just a part of one nation, where we have a world leader, where the countries basically become states. I asked; "What would the states be then?" And he jokingly replied "Suburbs."

"Suburbs!? SUBURBS!? That's some massive freaking suburbs mate!" XD

But in seriousness, I didn't actually agree. With how the economy works, wouldn't it be a bad idea to follow the same currency? Would we be able to handle having a WORLD leader? Maybe perhaps, in the year 3000, this would be a good idea. XP But for now, I feel like it'd be more of a hassle.

Pros:

- With the right laws, there'll hopefully be a higher chance to have a period of total peace.

- We'd essentially all be allies, right? The world leader can just say; "You. And you. Be friends." XD

- With the same currency, it'd be easier to trade.

- No more language barriers as we'd probably all stick to one single language.

- Freedom to travel anywhere without all this stupid VISA crap.

 

Cons:

- Difficult as fudge to manage.

- The difficulty in finding the one right person to become the world leader. (Let's not accidentally choose Hitler II please. XD )

- I assume because of having the currency all the same, there'd be some unfairness in the pricing of different 'states'. I think?

- How on Earth will we get everyone to agree with each other? XD

 

Now, I know jack all about politics and economy, so you'll have to excuse my lack of knowledge on this one. X3 It could be a straight up bad idea, but I wouldn't know. XD

 

But yeah, what do you think? Good idea? Bad? Do you like the idea? I would love for the world to be one united place, but eh, too much work!

[K4_Kydure]

I believe that the world should be controlled under several large empires rather than a single country. Also why do people think language barriers would break under a single country? Language would not break regardless since you can't just force the whole world to speak English. Another thing to think about would be the economy, globalization would cause the whole planet to be fucked in any form of recession or worse.

 

Really there are a whole lot of problems of having the whole planet under a single world order. Culture clash would still happen and people would still fight each other regardless of who controls the planet.

 

 

Also, actually read up on Hitler's actual ideals and the ideals of National Socialism before you make stupid comments like: "(Let's not accidentally choose Hitler II please. XD )"