Dbeesh: You wrote that the young man was "defending the sex and drug education presenters who said condoms are unnecessary and drugs can be fun." I assume that, just like Bill O'Reilly, have not actually read the transcripts of what was said and are simply regurgitating something the Bill told you was the truth. None of the speakers said "condoms are unnecessary." As for saying "drugs can be fun" while they did not say that either, I would assume any respectable person of this day and age would understand that drugs ARE fun - in the short term - and that is why they can be such a problem. However, back to the point: You should know of what you speak before you deride the speaker by using straw man arguments.
I think the stabilitiy of your position is belied by the rest of what you wrote. "Jesse need to get a haircut and come out of the 1990s with those glasses. He looked like a cross between Dee Snider of Twisted Sister and a pre-pubescent Howard Stern. The cartoon buzzards on Bugs Bunny comes to mind too."
Such ad hominem attacks are irrelevent and merely display your own childish mentality towards public discourse. Like O'Reilley, who called the young man a "pinhead" the moment he sense that he was going to get a well articulated rebuke from him, you resort to name calling. One must assume it is because you have nothing of value to add to the diuscussion. If you truley think that "O'Reilly wiped the floor with him" I think you should go back and watch the clip again and listen very carefully to what was said and ask yourself why O'Reilly, a person who should be open to the free flow of ideas and arguments, is so eager to cut the kid off as soon as he tries to quote O'Reilley's own book. the answer? because while Bill is eager to use misquotes (as corrected by the 'kid') and out-of-context statements, he can't stand it when his own words are used against him.
Dbeesh: You wrote that the young man was "defending the sex and drug education presenters who said condoms are unnecessary and drugs can be fun." I assume that, just like Bill O'Reilly, have not actually read the transcripts of what was said and are simply regurgitating something the Bill told you was the truth. None of the speakers said "condoms are unnecessary." As for saying "drugs can be fun" while they did not say that either, I would assume any respectable person of this day and age would understand that drugs ARE fun - in the short term - and that is why they can be such a problem. However, back to the point: You should know of what you speak before you deride the speaker by using straw man arguments.
I think the stabilitiy of your position is belied by the rest of what you wrote. "Jesse need to get a haircut and come out of the 1990s with those glasses. He looked like a cross between Dee Snider of Twisted Sister and a pre-pubescent Howard Stern. The cartoon buzzards on Bugs Bunny comes to mind too."
Such ad hominem attacks are irrelevent and merely display your own childish mentality towards public discourse. Like O'Reilley, who called the young man a "pinhead" the moment he sense that he was going to get a well articulated rebuke from him, you resort to name calling. One must assume it is because you have nothing of value to add to the diuscussion. If you truley think that "O'Reilly wiped the floor with him" I think you should go back and watch the clip again and listen very carefully to what was said and ask yourself why O'Reilly, a person who should be open to the free flow of ideas and arguments, is so eager to cut the kid off as soon as he tries to quote O'Reilley's own book. the answer? because while Bill is eager to use misquotes (as corrected by the 'kid') and out-of-context statements, he can't stand it when his own words are used against him.