? I play roller derby and I still have girls three times my size on their ass.

Physically equipped, honestly. Put on some skates and go play with some derby girls then tell us small girls aren't 'physically equipped'.

Yes, regardless of social implications. For the exact same reason that babies should be weaned from dummies (or pacifier) and bottles. It can interfere with tooth growth, causing abnormalities (it can cause a cross bite or an over bite that can extend to the second set of teeth). It can also cause a higher rate of tooth decay.

There's a reason why they say until 3, exactly the same reason for discarding dummies and bottles.

http://www.babycentre.co.uk/baby/dailycare/dummy&teethexpert;/

If this is an age reference than I'm in my early twenties and I have failed to have any reason to visit recently. Some spare time but more interesting things to do.

Because her song writing is terrible and lacking substance. Like most generic, churned out of a shit factory, music that has a possibility of winning a nickelodeon 'teen choice' award.

I remember when I was child I thought pansexuality was the attraction to saucepans and the like.

1. The Christian job is to save souls and change peoples lives

Apparently. You may just be instigating a lie.

2. Jesus Christ is the only way to heaven

If heaven is real, no proof.

3.The reason why we say your going to hell is because since you didnt accecpt him and you say there is no such thing as God

But as there is no proof hell exists you have no right to condemn someone. And for the record I never claimed God definitely did not exist.

4. Satan is telling you that there is no God

No proof for Satan, purely speculation. If God wanted me to believe in him he wouldn't have 'created' temptation or he would have at least revealed himself.

5.I will pray for you so you can accecpt the truth about God.

It might not even be true. Don't bother praying for me, even if it was proven true I still wouldn't accept it.

6. If you rather be a athiest then rather serve the Christian God then go ahead I am done with this debate and everyone else athiests like you brain wash people into thinking that there is no God

I'm not an Atheist I'm Agnostic but whatever. I brainwash people? No, it's people like you who claim that your truth is the only truth that brainwashes people. I suspect if you have children you force them into your religion. I won't force my daughter to do anything. If she wants to be a Christian fine. If she wants to be a Muslim, fine. If she wants to be an Atheist, fine.

7. If you dont change you ways you are going to be in a place of suffering that is hell for all eternity and you dont want to be in there it is horrifying and once people like you go to hell you will be screaming and saying I believe in God and then Jesus will say its too late because you decided that there is no God and now you had one chance and your chance was up. So if i were you i would start thinking about the descion you are making!

No, you think I will be in a place of suffering. I might be but logically probably not. You don't know it's horrifying, even if hell existed it might be okay. I started thinking about God's existence a long time ago which is why I am not a Christian.

God I'm bored.

You Would Win Best Documentary Feature

You are very curious about and engaged with the world. Everyone is interesting to you.

You have a variety of interests, and you delve into them quite deeply.

People are impressed by the sheer quantity of stuff you know, and you're learning more every day.

However, you're not just informed. You also are very informative. You share what you know in an engaging and interesting way.

I will say this again.

I do not believe anyone can be an atheist because no one can prove that God does not exist. To do so someone would need all the knowledge in the universe.

Based on your logic, someone cannot be religious either since a large amount believe their deity to be the only truth. You have said God definitely exists multiple times on CD.

Police can use guns, their special teams called out when guns are necessary. They just don't aimlessly give them out to every single police officer walking down the street. We don't really need guns because they're illegal and gun crime is very rare. Where as the U.S needs guns because gun ownership is legal and large amount of people own guns.

American football is essentially rugby. Except rugby players man the fuck up and don't wear protection on every inch of their body.

Yes, it was effective. However I still fell pregnant on contraception which is why I generally disregard 'studies' like this.

I don't really play for the console but for the game. I figured when ps3 and 360 started out they'd have exclusives. I bought my 360 first for halo 3 and then later the ps3 for Metal Gear Solid 4. But the exclusives for each console continue so I'm glad I have both!

You say others can feel free to choose their own religion and beliefs yet you claim that simple logic means you go to heaven and that God certainly exists. To respect others views you must only view this as a personal belief and not the absolute truth until proven other wise.

And you think if people turned a blind eye and let her have custody it would fine, she wouldn't repeatedly inject her child with botox? Of course she would. Me saying 'hey, you need to do better at your ballet!' (purely example) is nothing compared to injecting my child with botox 'because I was doing what every parent wants, their child to pretty'.

I'm a liar? This is coming from church mouse, the notorious word mincing liar? Don't even go there. You lie in every single post you make and manipulate other debaters words.

Here you go this is what you said Tom and Jerry is violent as most Disney movies are

and you said this Disney is not all its cracked up to be.

This was in a discussion about removing children from parents custody and bad parenting and you don't think I had a right to assume whilst bringing up Disney in this manner that it wouldn't be in reference to the discussion?

It has nothing to do with the severity of the general insult. That's like saying one loss of life through murder is worse than another because in the second murder the body was dismembered.

You complained that somebody insulted your country. I just pointed out that you did the same all but days ago.

Forget the long run, it's worse in the short run. You can't directly die from cannabis. Alcohol poisoning is a frequent problem and causes many untimely deaths.

Thank you, I said nothing along those lines. Although I have come to expect frequent word mincing from church mouse.

An employers rights have NOTHING to do with a past inmates custody rights.

Well they do considering most jobs applied for ask for previous convictions which candidates are obliged to answer due to the application disclosure signing. Especially in government sector jobs where criminal background checks are carried out particularly in the case of vulnerable people such as children. Which is when previous convictions are allowed to be scrutinized by law.

And they regained their societal rights when they paid their debt to society.

Ask the victim if the debt is suitable to the lifetime trauma they are subjected to.

You have a lacking faith in medical examination. Its not as easy as your suggesting and people who handle these things are well trained. Most recessed urges reappear only after being released. DESPITE that however, the LEGAL obligation to trust ones presumption of innocence has more ground then ones fear of what may.

A justified lack. You assume most recessed urges appear after release but you have no evidence to suggest that they did not always had those urges and lied to gain release before re offending.

That 13 years of age where their say in legal matters isn't respected anyway, regardless of the matter.

So if a ten year old says 'no I don't want to see daddy he raped little girls' it would not be respected. Nice one.

I never said they should just be left alone with the children, daily checks are necessary to make sure the children are in a safe environment. Just like people should be allowed to see offenders in their area, authorities need to be aware of lawful action.

Custody of a child and limited access are two different things. Seeing a child in an controlled and monitored environment, such as an access centre, is not gaining custody. To gain custody is to have main guardianship of the child.

The one with no relevant basis?

Of course it has relevant basis. If an employer has a legal right to refuse employment based on previous convictions when applying for a job working with vulnerable people such as children then it bares much relevance.

What I would let them do is irrelevant. What the law allows him is the ultimate decider

Would you happy with that decision? That's what I was aiming for with want. Baring in mind this an argument about custody not controlled access.

"I assume you don't have children, because I would take a rather take a bullet then let anything like that come in the way of harm of my daughter"

Good for you. Doesn't change the law's standing.

I just laughed because I clearly had too much wine when I said 'I would take rather take '.

You don't have to smoke cannabis especially with tobacco. People eat it, that does no damage to lungs.

I don't believe that the U.S or the UK can justify cannabis being illegal whilst cigarettes and alcohol are legal for the simple fact that they are more damaging or harmful than cannabis. How can you justify legalizing alcohol that kills hundreds of thousands each year and making it illegal to smoke a drug that has had deaths only in the two figures for a period of ten years?

Like you called the entire UK uppity 2 days ago because the home office banned some guy no one cares about or knows here. Double standards alert.

You think forcing your child to play sports is worse then giving them botox for a beauty competition? That's rational coming from the person who thinks parents are bad for letting their children watch Disney movies.

I was asking for the definition of the word Autism. Sorry I have to be so precise

Have a definition then if that's what you seek.

au·tism

noun /ˈôˌtizəm/ 

A mental condition, present from early childhood, characterized by great difficulty in communicating and forming relationships with other people and in using language and abstract concepts

As for your family member, I hate to be so frank but he/she needs to get slapped into shape. Like what Savage said. Or they just like disability checks.

Slapped into shape? The child has severe learning difficulties. He didn't speak until he was 5. He currently attends a special education school because he has the mental intelligence of a 5 year old. He understands little of emotion and basic human social skills he is severely autistic. I refer back to my argument if it were due to bad parenting then how come his 3 brothers are thriving academically and socially?

Don't you find it a little weird when there is something wrong with a child he is automatically diagnosed with Autism?

Yeah, I took my daughter to the doctors last week because she was wheezing, automatic autism! Just kidding, she was 'fine', I disagreed but the next week, different doctor, she was severely ill with bronculitus. That argument works both ways.

Enlighten me?

If a negative upbringing is the blame for autism then why is it generally the case that a child with autism is a sibling of perfectly healthy siblings. Does that medically not say anything about the rationality disorder?

I do for a fact know. That's just ridiculous saying otherwise. You think if nobody spoke in a household a infant would learn to speak? Shesh.

I'm sorry I didn't realise that your parents only communicated in bedtime stories. I thought parents spoke to their children normally on a regular basis and infants learnt basic human speech. You only made reference to bedtime stories making you intelligent. Perhaps elaborate if you don't want people to make assumptions.

What are you trying to say?

Exactly what I said. Parents not taking illegal drugs in front of their children is not 'very high values' it's just basic parenting skills. Even people who take illicit drugs often refrain from the exposure to their children. Your parents didn't do anything special.

It's not ridiculous. If so how is it?

Because you have no factual evidence that the majority of autism cases are just bad parenting.

Prove it.

I see the proof in experience with autistic children in my family. You can't prove autism is a make believe 'excuse' for bad parents.

Autism: noun \ˈȯ-ˌti-zəm\ a supposedly developmental disorder that appears by age three and is characterized by impairment of the ability to form normal social relationships, by impairment of the ability to communicate with others, and by stereotyped behavior patterns

I don't see how your last paragraph made any sense to Autism and the definition of the word above?

I could not find this definition anywhere on Google (I generally conclude a definition source as unreliable after the 3rd page). The only definition I could find for autism was the one I posted and many autism pages stating the scientific neurological evidence that autism is factual and proven.

http://www.definitionofautism.com/

My paragraph was an example of a scientific study proving that children and adults diagnosed with autism have different brain functions to an average human being. If you fail to connect the logic then that is only a reflection on your intelligence and judgement.

What I hope for is irrelevant. In the US we have a legal presumption of innocence. Unless a crime is being committed or in suspicion of being committed, we have a legal obligation to uphold the the rights of inmate(who has paid his debt to society in full).

If this were the case then why do employers have the right to ask for previous convictions and perform criminal record checks on people? And then refuse them a job based on previous convictions. The same should uphold for child protection, a convicted child molester almost certainly would not be granted a job at a nursery, why should they be granted access to their children? They sacrificed their right to be trusted and placed as the guardian of children when they abused that right and took away a child's innocence with the potential to ruin their life forever.

Like I said in my reply, tests are taken simply to allow inmates to be allowed back into a populace. If a medical diagnosis is a given that the inmate has no mental illness relating to children, we have NO legal grounds to deny and intrude on ones rights.

These checks aren't accurate nor guaranteed. I claimed I was fine to get released from a mental institution, I wasn't and threw myself in front of a car. Their mental health evaluation missed the mark and they bought into my manipulative lies. If a convicted child molester were facing release they probably wouldn't admit to an urge to re-offend.

An option however is a child over 13 years old can choose which parent to live with, and in cases brought by jail time, the child has the right to deny a parents custody.

That applies for a small age range of children. That's 13 different ages with no say.

Simply living is a risk. We can't deny ones rights simply because they can.

I'm fully aware of that, but this is a heightened and aware risk.

Because I am aware that rights are the most important aspect of a populace's societal impact. Intruding on ones rights without legal grounds cannot be done.

I refer back to my employment argument.

You failed to answer my theoretical question regarding a spouse who raped children. Would you let them, upon release, have custody of your children or want them to? I assume you don't have children, because I would take a rather take a bullet then let anything like that come in the way of harm of my daughter.

I thought Stephen Hawking claimed God definitely did not create the universe?

Actually I'm right.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11161493

There is no place for God in theories on the creation of the Universe, Professor Stephen Hawking has said

Not as 'fucking lame' as your gun crime rates. There's a reason guns are illegal in the UK and we have a much lower gun crime rate then the U.S.A.

Of course I know what autism means. I'm the one that linked you to the autism society website so you'd gain a better understand. I have a family member severely affected by autism, which you failed to make comment on. Perhaps because he's genuinely mentally disabled. Your reply to peek a boo based no fact, just speculation.

I mean just the meaning of Autism sounds ridiculous. A person that has problems with social relations and communication? That sounds more like a problem being raised.

If that were the case then entire families would have autistic sets of children. Anyone I know with a child with autism has only one child affected out of their multiple children. And they are all wonderful parents.

Example, when I was a baby my parents still read to me every night either though I couldn't understand. But because of that I was able to read and understand speech, vocabulary, letters, words, etc. at a early age

You don't know that your parents reading you stories showed any bearing to your entire intelligent development.

I grew up without drugs or alcohol being used in the household also. Very high standards.

Such high standards that your parents weren't criminals and didn't use illegal drugs in front of you. This is just the average parental up bringing.

On the other hand let me list examples that could make a child have "Autism"

1. Parents only perform their legal responsibilities for the child.

2. Neither parent is telling them to act straight.

3. Lack of social interactions with family and friends. In other words the child wasn't around enough people when it was young. (Autism supposedly takes effect at age 3)

4. The child was abused.

All listed above as you can see have to do with parenting.

You're making a ridiculous assumption that all or at least a majority of autistic children have had a negative upbringing. A child can have a perfect upbringing and still be diagnosed with autism. I use the same evidence that autistic children are usually one of non autistic siblings.

Here is a simple explanation of why autism affects communication and emotional interaction. An autism scientific study linked eye movement monitors up to people as they watched acted out scenes. While non autistic people focused on faces and the important aspects of the conversations, especially when the actors displayed emotions such as anger and happiness. The autistic participants would take focus on irrelevant things such as furniture and backgrounds. It is a genuine problem with the brain function hence the inability to communicate well and understand social interaction and emotion.

Quick question do you have Autism muddled with Attention deficit disorder (ADHD). From the way you're describing autism you have it all wrong. Autism can be very severe, to the point of mental retardation. My cousin is a severe sufferer, he cannot speak very well and has only learnt to talk to the average age of a 5 year old at 12 years old. He's like a toddler but all grown up. He's very sweet but lots of things can cause him to lose control such as loud noises and bright colours (when I say lose control I do not mean violently, he withdraws and often cries). He cannot read nor write, autism is a disability.

Most diagnosed disorder? No it's not. Do you have any evidence because the only evidence I can find is that mental disorders are the most misdiagnosed. (Just type it into Google).

Severe autism or even mild is not an excuse, it is has a negative impact on emotional and intellectual intelligence for the sufferer. In fact mild sufferers that I have known prefer not to have people know of the disorder, so how are they using it as an excuse?

Then severe sufferers, they have severe learning disabilities, really severe. This is from first hand experience of family members. You cannot say it is not a serious problem.

I agree completely. The mere thought of an convicted child molester looking after my daughter sends chills through me. If it were her Father it would bare no difference, I would never, ever on my life risk my daughters well being like that. I would never, ever subject any child to that risk.

I ask the same question, theoretically, if your wife raped young boys and girls, did her time and then was released would you let her have access to your children, regardless of whether or not they were victims of her abuse?

Tazer guns play an important part of criminal control here in the UK. Officers are not armed with guns, therefore some form of protection is needed against armed criminals.

I'm sorry but I completely disagree. Would you really want to risk a child's well being on the hope that a sentence has 'changed' the criminal. The prison sentences in the UK are pathetic. Child molesters get as little as 3 years. As much as some may change their life view, for many pedophilia is an illness they cannot control, they are sexually attracted to children. For a child to come into contact with an ex offender is a risk. Why would you even remotely risk, no matter how small the risk may now be, a child being molested?

No, ADHD however still has some grey areas as well as 'naughty' children being labeled with the disorder despite not having it. I'd understand that debate.

Are you kidding me? My cousin has severe autism he's twelve and has the emotional and intelligent capacity of a 5 year old.

Read up on autism http://www.autism.org.uk/about-autism/autism-and-asperger-syndrome-an-introduction/what-is-autism.aspx and rethink the question. I can only assume you confused autism with ADHD.

I am not insulting your country.

You said my country is uppity without justifying it. I didn't even provoke this kind of talk nor discuss anything about from liking Lady Gaga.

sorry your wrong and so is your country.

I'm wrong about what? Not knowing who he is and therefore not giving a shit. I don't think I personally banned this man. And this is such an off topic discussion I have no idea why you're still debating it.

Most the things that go on in this administration I find appauling...and disagree...so don't play the ...you hate my country card, because I do not.

What on earth are you talking about? I'm sorry it must have eluded my mind that I claimed you hated my country, but it's okay you obviously know best. How much more can you lie?

Would you be arrested if the same group called for the death of Christians?

Most death threats are criminal offences. Even if it were true they wouldn't, but they would, it doesn't change what I said.

I brought up Savage...because we are talking about free expression and artistry. Savage is a outspoken person, a radio talk show host. He tells it like it is...he does not care what country...or what person. He slams Republicans, Democrats...alike. To ban him was uncalled for.

I don't know who he is, I don't care, this has nothing to with our debate. Give it a fucking rest.

But the music did not contain anything like lyrics today contain

Bullshit. To name but a few

Berlin - Sex

Soft Cell - Sex Dwarf

George Micheal - I want your sex

Frankie Goes to Hollywood's relax is about premature ejaculation.

'I don't like Mondays' by the Boomtown rats is about the massacre at a high school.

Duran's Duran's girls on film, did you see the woman rolling around wrestling in bikinis for the video?

Don't get me started on the wonder that is Prince (I love him) the majority of his songs were about sexual relations.

The 80's were just as sexed up. Never question my musical knowledge.

And while Cher dressed in weird garb...she did not simulate sex onstage. I have seen her several times, I know. I never saw her nipples hanging out, never

Weird garb? She recently simulated that 'body suit' that left little to be desired, you could almost see her vagina, up past those suspenders. What about all the plastic surgery these 80's stars are having, dressing sexy is bad encouragment but plastic surgery is okay?

Jackson, Springsteen, Richie, Wonder.........their lyrics did not slam women and demean them. Eminems lyrics are insane, they are sick. To talk about hiring a guy to rape his sister.....the guy masquerades around trying to pretend he has it all together...and people worship him. He is sick.

Eminem in no way constitutes the entire musical satire that lives today. There are much more talented, witty and amazing song writers than this rap. And believe it or not music extends beyond pop and rap. Something you fail to notice.

No it's not it's about obese children being taking away from their parents. Did you fail to read the debate title?

The government should encourage to make informed choices based on the fact that being obese and particularly morbidly obese can be very detrimental to health.

You are pro-abortion because you think the mother has a right to kill the child inside her. Killing is ok......but feeding a kid too much is wrong and abuse. Do you see where I am coming from?

No, not at all. I didn't say obesity was abuse for a start, I said there's little difference demeaning your child's health through giving them cigarettes, alcohol or drugs. All of which would warrant having a child taken away from you.

Secondly a fetus is not a human being that you have to take care of, you have no legal obligation to take good care of a fetus.

And again, I don't think they should be taken away from their parents. I believe they should have a separation period, if they fail to take initial warnings, to prove they are really passionate about their child's health and start taking action.

You said drugs were wonderful

Lie.

You said people should quit doing so much alcohol and switch to drugs. I presume you don't think they are bad.

Lie, I said in an alcohol debate that if the government banned alcohol then it should be replaced with safer drugs.

Yet you say here...doing drugs in front of kids is wrong simply because its illegal

I've always stuck by obeying most of the universal law. Rape, murder, drugs, theft. Doing illegal things influences children to do illegal things thus creating criminals. Do drugs all you like, but don't expose or influence children to crime.

I think in a discussion a ways back you said drugs should be legalized. So.....don't understand your position on this

Nope, wasn't me.

Your views on abortion mirror Hitlers.

I don't believe abortion should be mandatory or abortion should exist to eliminate certain aesthetics of human beings. Our opinions are scarcely alike.

Do I say it straight....tell the truth about their actions...you better believe I do. They killed a living human being they had no right to do.

So you tell a woman she murdered and what she did is wrong based on what you perceive to be true in the eyes of moral and God. How awful of you. Do you not think a woman who is going through the abortion process feels enough pain without people condemning their actions?

They killed a living human being they had no right to do

They had every right by law.

Is abortion wrong....yes and I would say that to anyone, anywhere....even the ones who come sobbing out of abortion mills.

No you think it's wrong. It's not certainly wrong. I can't believe you'd tell a woman who has just that second an abortion that her actions were wrong.

The truth is the truth...no matter how hard you run, no matter how you try to mask it...or convince yourself it isnt what it really is

It is the truth according to you. Not everyone else.

Do you really think I am tormenting you, really?

Wait, what? No you're not, you're insulting and name calling me. Which is what I said. Tormenting, definitely not.

Your pro-abortion, believe it should be a right and you get offended when I call you on it

No I don't. I get offended when you liken me to Hitler and call me a murderer. Both of which are highly untrue.

I don't hate you. I hate your position. I hate anyones position that is pro-choice on this

I never claimed you hated me.

I believe that parents should be very selective about what their children watch. Shows, movies should be age appropriate. Parents should prepare a child beforehand...they should screen everything their kids see and hear

What children and adults perceive as appropriate are different things. My mother was justified in thinking Whinnie the Pooh and the Blustery Day was fine for me to watch as a toddler. But I had nightmares from the Heffalumps and Woozles song for years. She screened, it didn't work. Secondly I hardly think a child is going to turn out to be a criminal or terrible person because their parents let them watch a movie rated '15' at 12.

A few years ago when my neice was young I was watching the kids choice awards on Nick. Nelly won. He is the one who wrote…..Pimp Juice? Pimp Juice (She only wants me for my pimp juice) Thicky thick Gurls (Lookin like a lollipop waitin for the lick girl) Wrap Sumden (Weed is actually a medicine for me, you know) And the kids of America who watch Nickelodeon voted this rapper as their favorite

He also sang a ballad with Kelly Rowland and a song about love with N Sync. You don't know what songs these children are listening to.

Parents obviously don’t care what their children listen to.

All parents don't care based on a nickelodeon award? Nice conclusion.

portray love as only being lust and not love. They don’t care that woman are mostly portrayed as bitches and hos, (men being the pimps). Boys learn that it is ok to treat woman like dirt and girls learn that boys want girls who look like prostitutes and strippers…

This is based on one tiny form of music, being generic and popularized rap. Do you really think that all children have this taste in music. I know for sure that growing up my music taste certainly had some substance about it.

is why your top female pop artists....(not including country) have to simulate sex and dress with breasts exposed everytime they sing.

Not including country? Don't make me laugh.

Do you EVER see Mariah Carey without her breats in your face. She just had a baby.....left the hospital with breast exposed....

Have you ever tried to cover your milked up boobies? When I had my baby nothing fitted my breasts were out all over the place. They'd grown about 5 sizes.

Who cares if people choose to wear short skirts and low cleavage tops. You're obviously judging their personality and what they promote by their clothes. Is that right?

they wouldnt sell records like Celine or Streisand or Lambert or Twain or Underwood or Swift.

They are all outdated musicians. And Taylor Swift? She couldn't write a witty or good set of lyrics if I threw a dictionary at her.

I have not figured out a fast way of finding everything. This site is different in that way...I don't think its that easy to follow.

I don't know perhaps try reading the whole argument you dispute? Not that difficult. You seem to see it fit to extract certain points you don't like. Manipulate the persons opinion and produce lies. You want some evidence of this? I have plenty.

I agree filth is subjective...so doing drugs in front of kids would also be subjective in your opinion too right? I mean not all people think drugs are bad.

It's against the law.

I likened your POSITION TO HITLERS...I did not say you were evil like Hitler

Because that's not what I said at all. Direct quote from what I said:

likened me to Hitler

Why would I say things like that to women who have had abortions when I had one myslelf

So if a woman has an abortion they get a hug and a sympathetic nod from you. But if I say a woman has access to that right I get a torrent of abuse. Nice one.

Tom and Jerry is violent as most Disney movies are, but you should always be aware of what a movie shows because.... children learn by OBSERVING, that is why the content of what they watch is so important.

Then according to your 'children can't watch violence' logic, children can't watch Disney films.

To say that I never answer questions is not right. I might have missed a few...because I post on so many topics and forget where they all are

You miss them even thought you're reading them as you dispute other parts of the argument? Seems a little iffy to me that you miss the questions and statements that make what you say wrong or contradicting to yourself.

You must sit here day and night answering posts.....don't you have another life? Have you ever missed any?

No, I come on in the evening after my daughter has gone to sleep for a little while and reply and dispute. Occasionally I'll visit in the day when my daughters having a nap, the house is clean and I have nothing better to do. And no I generally answer all questions, with few exceptions.

All this nonsensical rambling because I said I like Lady Gaga and her song writing ability...

I lived through the 80's and no one did what she did in the way she did. Cher......had class as did Stevie Nicks, Olivia Newton John, Pat Benetar, ABBA, ....even Blondie didn't do what Gaga did. The closest to her probably was Madonna who also was a narcissist and did whatever she wanted to fill her wallet.

Cher went round on stage with a leather thong up her ass and her nipples hanging out. Classy.

Firstly I clearly compared her song writing to the 80's not her personality. Secondly I can give you a rather large list of controversial 80's stars who sang about sex, drugs and violence. You listed Madonna. There's Prince, The Sex Pistols. The vapour who actually sang a song about masturbation (I think I'm turning Japanese). I do Believe darling Nikki by Prince was about masturbation too. The 80's were in no way innocent.

Michael Jackson, Stevie Wonder, Springsteen, Lionel Richie, none acted like GAGA.

I'm just going to throw this out there. Maybe that's because they're all men?!

So since you defend GAGAs freedom of expression do you also defend say a comics racist jokes...or any comentator on television for that matter. Look at what happened to Michael Richards who played Kramer on Seinfield. His racist remarks were said during a comedy act. He certainly did not deserve what he got.

What? Your logic never ceases to amaze me. You need to learn when to switch your brain off instead of typing every thought that comes to mind until you go so off topic you have everyone confused.

Sitting in a wheelchair is no reflection to discrimination. She didn't shout 'hey I'm a retard!'. I sat in a wheelchair once because I got fed up of the lack of seating in A and E am I discriminating? Why are you even arguing this? You said it wasn't inappropriate yourself. Argh! Why aren't you having this weird conversation with yourself?

In fact your country is so uppity that you even banned Michael Savage from ever coming into it. You have allow Muslim terrorists access to your country...and you kick him out because of what he said. LOL

So you've managed to go from Lady Gaga to insulting my country because I like Lady Gaga's music? I don't know who the fuck Michael Savage is...nor do I care at all. Your country allowed terrorists in too, in fact most countries have, by accident. I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHY I'M DISPUTING OR ANSWERING THIS IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH LADY GAGA OR MY STATEMENT.

Now you know I love Britian...but this behavior from your government is....well....outrageous that they would do this. Don't you have free speech?

No one has entire free speech. If you went out and started yelling 'all blacks must die' repeatedly, you'd be arrested.

Tough luck, a decision cannot be thrown out simply because it seems bad in the short run.

It's not in the 'short run' the loss of money will be hard to recover.

And why are they paid? For petty executive presence? For a middle man? They serve as a mere symbol, albeit a money making symbol but none the less.

Exactly, that's the point. I don't have mega heart love for the royal family, I just understand their presence as a massive source of income for the UK in more ways than one.

Really? The buildings that attract tourists would all be there, the estate would still need managing, the only change would be that we all stop pretending that the royal family's purpose has any place in modern structure.

Do you really think the Royal Family are going to give tourists visiting rights to their buildings if they're not being funded? Do you really think they are going to pass on the Crown Estate Treasury profit to the government if they halt funding? Of course they won't. Bearing in mind they'd be lacking the money for the up keeping of their buildings and extravagant lifestyle those Treasury profits will be kept for themselves. They don't have to hand the profits over.

I will say this again, removing the Royal Family is damaging to our income as a country. Many Brits even fail to know that the Crown Estate Treasury boasts a 230 million profit handed straight back to government. The 70 or so million we paid out to the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh is petty in comparison. Do people really think the government would justify that kind of hand out without an income? Factor in all the job losses from the Crown Estate employees and the loss of revenue from tourism and we're headed for a massive loss.

They certainly are damaging their children by allowing them to watch and listen to filth. Are you saying physical things cant effect emotional health, and emotional health cant affect physical?

'Filth' is subjective. I listened to music with profanity when I was a child (my parents non the wiser) it never did me any harm. I'm not disturbed emotionally from sneakily watching horror films or sex scenes as a child. Children tend to desensitize themselves gradually. Tell your child they can't watch the exorcist video you've got on the top shelf, you can bet your ass when you're out they'll pop it on.

On abortion....I never condmended anyone.

I've never even had an abortion and you called me a champion of killing, a murderer, likened me to Hitler. I can't imagine what you'd have said if I'd actually had one.

Do you think that you could condemn someones actions and still like/love them?

Then you do condemn abortions. Why contradict directly one sentence after another?

And I don't hate rock music...only the ones that demean women and promote violent acts.

Cartoons contain violence, would you stop a child watching Tom and Jerry too?

I am not a hypocrite on this. I simply condemn actions....not hearts.

Exactly you still condemn the actions, who are you to condemn someone for having same sex relationships or abortions?

What questions have I not answered?

Go back to every single debate we have had with each other and you will find at least 3 questions in each debate that you have left unanswered.

There are many bad aspects to being 'fat' or obese mostly health related (refer to link). I feel like a bitch but morbidly obese people just repulse me.

http://www.annecollins.com/obesity/risks-of-obesity.htm

You could find your ideal weight through BMI however, I question it's accuracy. I was told I had a BMI of 17 which is underweight. I don't think they consider height and frame enough, I'm tiny framed and only 5 ft 1 so weighing the amount I do is just normal for me. I eat fine (actually I probably eat quite unhealthily).

Not so much to improve but definitely to try something new and expand on sexual experiences in relationships. The Karma Sutra board game was fun.

I wouldn't worry about staying up all night watching the Royal Wedding, it's enthusiasts like yourself that generated a large tourism income for the UK. I stayed up until 4AM watching the election results the year Obama got in, everyone thought I was mad!

No, I just don't believe anything can be proven. However, I logically am inclined to believe that the ending of life is just nothing. I do not wish for more after death, just more time in life. I have no fear as to if there were an afterlife, especially in the form of a deity. I just can't stand the idea of not existing anymore.

I was joking, I sincerely doubt my existence brings anything negative or positive to the the UK as a whole.

Oh and of course it's irrational, I said so myself. But I can't help having severe anxiety, not just in regard to my death.