- Joined
- Jul 12, 2005
- Messages
- 36,913
- Reaction score
- 11,283
- Location
- Los Angeles, CA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
OMFG are you really that goddamned stupid?
No it is an opinion not proof
What about a psychologist?
Are you not capable of presenting an argument or what is the problem?
The main thrust of this article which is published on a page called "Opinion", and states in capital letters VIEWPOINT--in the title, is to argue against allowing gay-clubs on campus, because apparently any gay-club promotes a "destructive and deadly lifestyle" - homosexual behaviour spreads diseases, an "average" homosexual has 20-100 sexual partners per year.
Which diseases would this be, well, gay men are more likely to contract AIDS, and...wait for it: homos are responsible for 60% of Syphilis cases!
Should parents be alarmed about gay-clubs spreading syphilis then? - hardly, there were 46.000 cases total in the US in 2008 - 3.8 cases per 100.000 population, lol,
2.180 out of 3.141 US counties reported no case at all.
Those gay-clubs are a real danger!!! :lol:
Other "facts" include that 33% of homos have had minor-adult sex and one in 20 is a child molester.
The author refers to no specific sources for her claims and figures, but mentions that notorious National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality in passing.
Oh, and did you know that:
"Most studies now agree that the incidence of genetically determined homosexuality is lower than previously estimated, falling somewhere between 2-3 percent."
When did they discover and verify that sexual orientations is genetically determined? lol
I hope you are just trolling and do not actually believe is drivel by this "school psychologist"
No, you have not. You have linked to an article which alleges risks based on unsourced figures.
You still fail to understand that it is not everybody else's responsibility to research every claim posted on the web to prove it is not factual or inaccurately presented - it is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to scrutinise material before you link to it or parrot the claims.
One way of creating credibility is to use quality sources, or at the very least avoid those which are known to have an agenda and do not reference the claims.
You have failed consistently to show
OMFG are you really that goddamned stupid?
So where is the proof it is false?
Taking the lords name in vain does not help your case
It's been all over this thread. Where have you been?
I put him on my ignore list finally and I must say, I already feel myself recovering the IQ that was diminished just by interacting with him. :lol:
got proof?
OMFG are you really that goddamned stupid?
When I post proof you dont accept the facts contained in my opinion that just shows you cant show where I am wrong because my opinion is fact and you cant say it isn't just shows how wrong you are. And stuff. Yeah, that. :mrgreen:
Having worked in an Emergency room, and being an EMT now, I find that most teens know very, very little about sex, other than that they want to perform the act.. . .High school kids know more about sex than anyone is prepared to acknowledge . . .
Having worked in an Emergency room, and being an EMT now, I find that most teens know very, very little about sex, other than that they want to perform the act.
Most in my experience have little knowledge about the risks, mechanics, results or consequences of sex.
Having worked in an Emergency room, and being an EMT now, I find that most teens know very, very little about sex, other than that they want to perform the act.
Most in my experience have little knowledge about the risks, mechanics, results or consequences of sex.
..I've done sex, so I do know what it's about - and I know about condoms, etc. There are no little unwanted Leo's running about. :mrgreen:
Uh oh ..I forgot about that part. Dang, I spent 13 months in Korea when I was in the Army. No telling how many Crusader Jr's there are running around :mrgreen:
What's an EMT? And with respect, Oftencold, I've done sex, so I do know what it's about - and I know about condoms, etc. There are no little unwanted Leo's running about. :mrgreen:
I've done sex
I've done sex
By the way, as I recall the U.S. Food and Drug Administration will not allow condoms to be officially listed as contraceptives because of their high failure rate. I read this some years ago, but I suspect that it is still the case.
Prior to enactment of the 1976 amendments, latex condoms were
marketed in the United States for both contraception and prophylaxis,
i.e., reducing the risk of sexually transmitted infections (STIs).\3\
As a preamendments device, the latex condom was classified along with
hundreds of other devices during FDA's original classification
proceedings. Based primarily on the recommendations of experts on the
Obstetrics and Gynecology Device Classification Panel, FDA classified
latex condoms into class II by regulation published in the Federal
Register of February 26, 1980 (45 FR 12710). Condoms were identified as
``* * * a sheath which completely covers the penis with a closely
fitting membrane. The condom is used for contraceptive and for
prophylactic purposes (preventing transmission of venereal disease) * *
*'' (Sec. 884.5300). This classification regulation does not include
condoms with spermicidal lubricant, which are postamendments devices
classified under Sec. 884.5300.
Do you remember where you read that? I don't think that's true. As far as I know, condoms have been labeled a contraceptive for as long as the FDA has been doing labeling on them. This is from the FDA's site:
Condoms, with perfect use, have a failure rate of only 2%.
There has been some research indicating that condoms with Nonoxyl 9 spermicide on them decrease their effectiveness against STDs, including HIV, and labeling now reflects that. Is that maybe what you were thinking of?
None of the claims and figures are supported with references.So where is the proof it is false?
Yep, I think so too. It confirms what's been quite apparent already: the presented material is selected to further an agenda which is based on dogma. Unsourced claims are accepted if they are useful, sourced research rejected as "biased".:roll::roll::roll:
OK, I've now seen all I need to see.
None of the claims and figures are supported with references.
I have also shown that the claim about "diseases", i.e. syphilis, is misleading.
Your turn:
Where is the proof that anything in the article is truthful?
Have you fact-checked anything, or is it up to everybody else to spend their time researching, only to be dismissed by you with a one-liner?
All of yours, none of which have linked to or described any sexual explicit material. All you do is deflect.Which post are you referring to
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?