obfuscator

I edited my post.

That's a very poor argument. Just because something is biologically natural doesn't mean it should be appropriate all the time. For example - I'd say we restrict it quite a bit already. There's all kinds of sex that's frowned upon or even illegal because it's not necessarily appropriate given the circumstances.

Why?

I don't consider there anything wrong with protein shakes - if you're doing some more involved supplements like creatine then it gets a bit iffy. But best to wait until you're 18 for sure. Working out too much when your body is still growing can have some adverse effects.

Someone artificially tans. WHO IS THE HEATHEN? :P

It should be possible to compress down to 150kb.

34 people and no one fake tans, eh? Good.

Gratz DF. Looks like SE did pretty well consider the opts difference though :thumbup:

But that's probably more about the people behind those ideas and the morals they have rather than the act of sex itself :P Like as one example, I wouldn't be surprised if many of the people who don't believe in sex before marriage also don't believe in divorce, regardless of how good their relationship still is. Like I said, causality is up for grabs. But I do think there's something to the theory that a relationship is stronger if it first succeeds non-sexually.

@muggi: actually, I've found it's mostly the opposite. And if you bring statistics into it, relationships without premarital sex are less likely to end in divorce. Causality is up for grabs, but it's still interesting.

Bribes? Where? You can resize it, make sure it fits the file size as well.

Is your mom the parent figure for your cousin as well? Yes. That's lame then. What's her reasoning?

Is your mom the parent figure for your cousin as well?

A good summation. FSM is probably the biggest straw man argument I've seen. Are there theists who are simply uninformed followers? Absolutely. But implying that being an uniformed follower is a necessity of theism only shows ignorance.

I've read a couple of interesting articles about tanning recently. Obviously it's looked highly upon in fashion and society at large to have somewhat tanned skin. People have been tanning for years - either naturally or artificially but recently more information has come out (within the last ten years) that suggests tanning is really quite bad for you. I've heard comparisons to tanning being the "new smoking"; something that was cool and popular until we realized it was killing us off. Some interesting articles about tanning: http://www.aad.org/media-resources/stats-and-facts/prevention-and-care/indoor-tanning http://www.aad.org/skin-care-and-safety/skin-cancer-prevention/indoor-tanning http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199711133372003 http://edition.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/05/27/tanning.booth.melanoma/ So really I'm just curious - do you tan(either naturally or artificially)? And, by extension - do you find tanned people more attractive?

This is completely untrue. Once again, what happens when someone who doesn't understand religion tries to make blanket judgements about it.

This 1000 times. That said, I believe misunderstanding is 90% of conflict, so it's not like it's just religion.

Hence why I said "almost always". I've no doubt it would be possible to use pretty much any drug in a non-addictive sense. But people in that group (particularly when it comes to heroin) are a tiny minority.

You'll never know! AHAHAHA In all seriousness I don't see it. It's probably just an extra space or something.

I've realized twitter annoys me. People are very trivial, but then again I can usually avoid most of it.

Fixed.

So you don't think we should try to prevent suicide?

If you want to look at it that way, neither is anything. Heroin is almost always dangerous and destructive. We shouldn't need 100% certainty to act on something.

You can't fool me! 0.

Well if you're worried about the consequences, the worst that would likely happen is that she'd be embarrassed.