http://www.tgdaily.com/hardware-features/50890-taxpayers-cough-up-434000-for-abstinence-simulatorTaxpayers cough up $434,000 for abstinence simulator

The University of Central Florida is spending approximately $434,000 on a simulator that will be used to promote abstinence amongst pre-teen girls.

"What's radically different about this [concept is that] one person controls many characters," Charles Hughes, UCF Computer Science professor, told Fox News.

"A boy similar in age might approach the person playing the game and ask her to make out or there might be some sexual innuendo."

According to Professor Anne Norris, an "interactor" can literally jump into a scenario by wearing a specially designed motion-capture suit. 



"They have an opportunity to interact with the avatars and they'll earn points for particular social skills that they develop.

"It's [clearly] a place to practice where there aren't any social consequences."

Unsurprisingly, Destructoid's Conrad Zimmerman opined that the suit looked as "creepy as hell."

"They're going to put kids in motion-capture suits and have them act out rejecting male students. I'll grant you, it's a skill that all girls benefit from having, but is the suit really necessary?

"[Yes], I'm completely in favor of games being used as educational tools but this is just way too much. 



"[Because] for that money, you could hire at least ten entry-level teachers and thin out some class sizes in low-income communities which would probably be just as effective in reducing teen pregnancies."This would be pure comedy material if these religious fanatics weren't in power and wasting our money.

American Christians almost make Middle Eastern Muslims look enlightened.

bah.

Human females can have children at 13 because they are supposed to.

I just got a Facebook invite from a woman. Married. With 4 children, with a husband. 42 years old. Who has been plaguing me with guilt since I was 18.

She was a friend of my sister, three years younger. Who spent the night over one night. And some Showtime Chippendales show was on, got her all heated up. We were out in the living room on the couch. Everyone else in the house asleep.

She climbs up on top of me and starts rubbing her crotch on me. And I finger banged her. She wanted more. But because I was not complete tard at 18, I knew the law(or so I thought), it never went further. I was not going to be a child rapist. But she really really wanted my cock inside her. And all she got as my finger.

Now, 25 some odd years later she send me a Facebook invite. Took me two weeks to accept it, after I realized who she was. Still have not sent her a message, what do I say?

I knew later, that even finger banging a 15 year old when I had just turned 18, that was legally was sexual assault. Even when it was consensual. Even when she initiated it. And wanted it. Asked for it. And wanted more, and left a stain on my mom's couch.



John Stossel just did a piece on this sort of thing on Fox. I know all you liberals hate Fox. Which brings me to another question. Why are there more Libertarian Conservatives, than there are Libertarian Liberals. The original Liberals were Libertarians, and vice versa. Why are Liberals now so anti Libertarian, and Conservatives so pro Libertarian?

It is funny how people become.
John Stossel, Conservative, turned radical Libertarian.
Bill Maher, Libertarian, turned radical Liberal.
Dennis Miller, Liberal, turned Libertarian, turned Conservative Libertarian.
ilton Friedman, Ultimate Conservative turned Libertarian.
William F Buckley Jr, Conservative, turned Libertarian.

Liberal means freedom. Someone who ascribes by freedom. A Liberal should be someone who believes in freedom, and Liberty.
Why are there so many Conservatives who are so ****ing Liberal now?
Well, most of them are dead, of course.
Why don't Liberals believe in freedom and Liberty?

I suppose that this was two different posts.
**** it, I don't care.
None of it affects my life.

Aside from the fact that some 42 year old chick I finger banged when I was 18, and she was 15 sent me a Facebook invite to be her Facebook friend.

You people are stupid.

Human females can have children at 13 because they are supposed to.Humans instinctively share resources too. That's something you libertarians just don't get.

Libertarians are also just behind Christians on the hypocrisy scale. They want all the benefits of resources other people have shared, but they don't want to pay their fair share.

From a pure human instinct perspective, libertarianism makes about as much sense as an oath of celibacy.

From a practical perspective, libertarians are fundamental hypocrites because they value things that only exist thanks to non-libertarian ideologies. True freedom is slavery. Your man alone in the desert is a slave, with nothing.

Either way, libertarianism is an idiotic political philosophy; no wonder only the right wing nutjobs will have you.

I just got a Facebook invite from a woman. Married. With 4 children, with a husband. 42 years old. Who has been plaguing me with guilt since I was 18.

She was a friend of my sister, three years younger. Who spent the night over one night. And some Showtime Chippendales show was on, got her all heated up. We were out in the living room on the couch. Everyone else in the house asleep.

She climbs up on top of me and starts rubbing her crotch on me. And I finger banged her. She wanted more. But because I was not complete tard at 18, I knew the law(or so I thought), it never went further. I was not going to be a child rapist. But she really really wanted my cock inside her. And all she got as my finger.With the caveat that the laws may have been different 25 days ago, I don't know why you stopped there.

You just admitted to committing rape, which is defined in California by sexual penetration. It doesn't have to be your penis that accomplishes that penetration. You are not punished by the number of thrusts or orgasms either. (If you don't believe me, read Section 289(h) of the California Penal Code.)

You can be charged as a felon and go to prison for that.

You will have to register as a sex offender for the rest of your life.

You will have to wear a GPS collar for the rest of your life.

You will not be able to live near populated areas or hold any meaningful job for the rest of your life.

Your name, address, and picture will be on a State-sponsored web site of ostracized people and you will be grouped with serial baby rapists.

These are laws, written and enforced by sexually repressed Christians, designed to control the most basic instincts of people, in order to control them.

And the brain-dead population of California votes for each and every one of them, so long as they have the catch phrase "sex offender" in them and/or they are named after a girl (preferably blond haired, blue eyed girl).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-10857780

The British now run TV ads for abortion agencies.

Can you even imagine that happening in Christian America?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100804/ap_on_re_us/us_gay_marriage_trialJudge overturns Calif. gay marriage ban

SAN FRANCISCO – A federal judge overturned California's same-sex marriage ban Wednesday in a landmark case that could eventually land before the U.S. Supreme Court to decide if gays have a constitutional right to marry in America.

Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker made his ruling in a lawsuit filed by two gay couples who claimed the voter-approved ban violated their civil rights.

California voters passed the ban as Proposition 8 in November 2008, five months after the state Supreme Court legalized gay marriage.

"Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples," the judge wrote in a 136-page ruling that laid out in precise detail why the ban does not pass constitutional muster.

The judge found that the gay marriage ban violates the Constitution's due process and equal protection clauses.Look at how long it took for a judge to finally rule that Prop. 8 is nothing more than a modern-day Jim Crow law and is patently unconstitutional.

The defendants (the State) did not even step forward to defend the law. Only fundamentalist Christian groups are defending it, funded by my tax dollars of course.

And it will still take years before the (conservative, Catholic-dominated) Supreme Court settles the matter.

The Supreme Court may choose not to hear it and might just let the states do what they want.

The Supreme Court may choose not to hear it and might just let the states do what they want.Yeah, a modern-day Missouri Compromise. :rolleyes:

These rabidly anti-gay Christians are (a) going to lose, eventually, and (b) going to go down in history as the bad guys, since the winners write the history.

aybe it's better that they don't realize that.

For what it's worth, not all Christians are "anti-gay". (From the way you worded your post it sounds like you know that already, though.) One of my friends just posted on Facebook that a local Presbyterian church currently has a "gay pride flag" hanging out front.

We've got a Catholic church in town that's a bit rebellious. They ordain women and I think perform gay marriages.

Kind of OT but:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/08/08/state/n145923D16.DTL&tsp=1Livermore woman held on $4.3M bail on sex charges

(08-08) 15:52 PDT Livermore, Calif. (AP) --

A Livermore woman was being held on $4.3 million bail on allegations she had long-term sexual relationships with two teenage boys, authorities said Sunday.

Christine Hubbs, 42, was arrested Thursday following an investigation that began July 27 when the mother of one of the alleged victims said she found a nude photo of Hubbs on her son's cell phone, said Livermore police Lt. Matt Sarsfield.

Investigators said the boy told them the sex acts with Hubbs began in December 2008 when he was 14.

The alleged relationship continued until January 2010.

Police said while they were investigating, they interviewed another boy who said he was also having sex with Hubbs. That boy, who is now 14 years old, told police he had a sexual relationship with Hubbs from December 2009 through July.

"The sex occurred in the county of Alameda, throughout different locations, hotels, including her vehicle," Sarsfield said.

Hubbs gave gifts and money to the two boys while maintaining the alleged relationships, Sarsfield said.

He described the two teens as "very scared" during the course of the investigation. Their names have not been released.

Hubbs, who has been charged with 67 counts, including unlawful sexual intercourse with a person under 18, is due to be arraigned Monday, according to a jail official.

The official could not say if Hubbs had retained an attorney.Those boys are probably wearing a very big grin.

But Christians probably want to put away this woman for life.

And $4.3 million bail is more than murderers get.

I just can't imagine a woman wanting a little boy... ugh. It takes them YEARS to figure out what's what with the female anatomy and to even give a damn about it.

But turn that woman into a man... and those boys into 14 year old girls and THEN what kind out outrage do you get?

Either way, libertarianism is an idiotic political philosophy; no wonder only the right wing nutjobs will have you.

I gotcha. You don't like people being free. And choosing to do what they will with the products of their labor.

Gotcha.

People being free is bad. People are too stupid. Gotcha.

Freedom is slavery, Fyyr.

You are very lucky you are not free. And your ancestors weren't free. Or else you probably wouldn't even be here to enjoy your non-freedom.

True freedom cannot exist. There are laws to prevent people from harming others. There are laws to prevent massive corporate excess at the expense of the individual. As long as you want the government to do its job and stand up for the individual who would otherwise be screwed, true freedom will never happen. And that is a good thing.

True freedom cannot exist. There are laws to prevent people from harming others. There are laws to prevent massive corporate excess at the expense of the individual. As long as you want the government to do its job and stand up for the individual who would otherwise be screwed, true freedom will never happen. And that is a good thing.
Hypothetically, I suppose.

But only if what you mean by true freedom means free to do anything without any consequences.

But it should not be defined that way.
If one believes that there is a Social Contract, then any action can be judged easily by the Fist/Nose litmus test. Your freedom ends when your fist hits my nose. And freedom does exist, and exists best, under this Social Contract.

The Declaration of Independence was founded on this Social Contract, it is actually written in contractual terms.
Our freedoms under the Constitution are based on this Social Contract, and set forth terms of the contract.

If you(as a group, as a whole) want to live without this social contract, or breech it, and revert to the laws of nature, or to a state of nature; fine by me, I would thrive in such an environment.

But, for now, I consent the contract, to be governed, and abide by the terms of the contract. When that government takes an unfair share of freedoms, or allows other to cause harm upon me, thereby not fulfilling it's end of the bargain, then that is a breech of contract, on their part. I then am no longer obligated to abide by my end, or terms.

When that government takes an unfair share of freedoms, or allows other to cause harm upon me, thereby not fulfilling it's end of the bargain, then that is a breech of contract, on their part. I then am no longer obligated to abide by my end, or terms.Oh good.

Since the social contract no longer applies to you, you can stop using all of the services it provides you. Like roads, Internet, electricity, gas, police protection, fire fighters, hospitals, and the military. Not to mention the rights afforded under the Constitution.

It means that the military can now lawfully walk up to your house, take all your stuff, and shoot you in the head.

Because with no social contract, there is nothing to stop them, is there?

Damned libertarians, you're such hypocrites it boggles the mind. You want all the benefits of a civilized society but you're not willing to pay anything into it.

nm