[Rei Murasame]

So an increase in infection rate from 7% to 20% in women is not worthy of note, in light of that one aspect? And the fact that 41% of reported AIDS cases are "blacks" is not worthy of note?

But magically the homosexual male is the focal point of your emphasis?

[DanDaMan]

They are noteworthy.
But your post at the top was to belittle Rons point on the dangers of that lifestyle.
And... What service is that to young women who may have sex with young men, being told in school, anal sex, the riskiest of all types of sex, between men is no longer taboo?
You think that's going to make young women safer from disease?

[Rei Murasame]

By that logic you would want to make having sex with black people taboo, rather than teaching them all what HIV is, and how to generally avoid it?

[RonPaulalways]

Rei, the link you posted was in reference to vaginal sex. As SecretSquirrel noted, the facts I posted were in regards to sexual activity in general, which is completely different.

The most high risk sexual behavior for HIV transmission is homosexual anal intercourse, due to the high rate of HIV infection in the gay male community, and the heightened dangers of transmission that come from anal intercourse.

So before you accuse somewhat of making false claims, take some care to understand their position. Your behavior here has been immature and callous.

[Rei Murasame]

Rei, the link you posted was in reference to vaginal sex. As SecretSquirrel noted, the facts I posted were in regards to sexual activity in general, which is completely different.

I brought some breadth and depth to the facts, which you didn't like because you wanted to zero in on one aspect alone.

The most high risk sexual behavior for HIV transmission is homosexual anal intercourse, due to the high rate of HIV infection in the gay male community, and the heightened dangers of transmission that come from anal intercourse.

Which of course is nonsense, as I've illustrated in various ways.

So before you accuse somewhat of making false claims, take some care to understand their position. Your behavior here has been immature and callous.

I do understand your position - I understand that your position is wrong, and would also not be a very good way way to go about educating children on public health. Your behaviour here has been cynical and condescending, you and DanDaMan have tried to repeatedly evade the point.

I'll ask you as well then:

By your logic, would you want to teach children in a public school that avoiding black people is a strategy for avoiding AIDS, since they statistically have the lion's share of the infections?

[DanDaMan]

By your logic, would you want to teach children in a public school that avoiding black people is a strategy for avoiding AIDS, since they statistically have the lion's share of the infections?

That would be common sense.
Let's not forget that half of all teenage black girls have an STD compared to almost 25% of white girls.

So common sense would dictate avoiding sex with anyone in the black population, if you are going to have casual sex.


I would also avoid whores since they are, as a group, also high risk.

[Rei Murasame]

common sense would dictate avoiding sex with anyone in the black population, if you are going to have casual sex.

That is a really astounding statement.

If you were in government one day, would you really consider that to be part of your public health education policy going forward? Do you think that would serve to mitigate the blight of STDs on the nation as a whole, OR do you think that kind of policy would merely keep the statistics as they are and exacerbate racial tensions between citizens while not actually solving the root of the problem?

For some reason, I have a feeling your policy would do the latter.

[ninurta]

So according to DDM, I must become gay because women are the most infected group, and i should leave my girlfriend because she's an african american woman who is in 2 risk groups. Yeah right, DDM get a grip, your logic fails as soon as you put it forth. Risks are meant to be taken responsibly, wear protection and make sure you make some sort of commitment before not using it, then there is little to no rest of getting HIV/AIDS.

Instead of punishing groups of people in our society by frowning on relationships with them, or by other means, why not solve the problem itself? Let everything else be everything else. Teach children about homosexuality AND the dangers of UNPROTECTED sex. Then we can solve the problem and not have to worry about it.

[DanDaMan]

DanDaMan wrote:
common sense would dictate avoiding sex with anyone in the black population, if you are going to have casual sex.

That is a really astounding statement.

Not when you use common sense on what you posted....

Quote:
By your logic, would you want to teach children in a public school that avoiding black people is a strategy for avoiding AIDS, since they statistically have the lion's share of the infections?

Just using your own post... "a minority has the lions share of infection" would tell anyone with half a brain to avoid that screwing anyone in that minority.

Are you telling us you don't even have half a brain?

[Rei Murasame]

Can you explain to me how your policy idea would actually work in a school? Would you basically marginalise every minority group that features in the statistics then?

Please tell me you have enough intellectual fortitude to see why and how such a plan could quite quickly snowball into disaster.

[PBVBROOK]

Is this stupid thread still going? It sould die a natural death.

Anyone who is too stupid to understand that ALL unprotected casual sex is dangerous and should be avoided and instead forwards an argument that some unprotected sex is 'stupider' that others is not worth arguing with.

Here is all that needs be said on the subject:

Unprotected sex outside of a monogamous comitted relationship is dangerous. It is not ones sexual oritentation that causes the spread of STDs it is engaging in unprotected sex. Two uninfected homosexuals who are in an exclusive comitted relationship are at no greater risk of acquiring a STD than are two heterosexual virgins on their wedding night.

So this thread is about what children should know. Forget the homosexuality shit. If you are teaching your child that he/she should not treat ALL unprotected sex outside of a comitted relationship in which both partners have been tested, as equally dangerous then you are an idiot. The sexual orientation of their prospective partners should have nothing to do with it at all. This is not a subject where any thinking parent would consider teaching children about stupid and stupider. To do so would be like telling your child that playing russian roulette with a 22 caliber pistol is less dangerous than with a 44.

Get a grip folks. DDM is simply trying to suck people into a premise that is ignorant in the first place.

[Rei Murasame]

DDM is simply trying to suck people into a premise that is ignorant in the first place.

Very true, DDM probably knows by now that it's ridiculous, and may be dragging this out solely to bolster his post-count or something. I'm having difficulty believing that he's even really trying now.

[DanDaMan]

Can you explain to me how your policy idea would actually work in a school? Would you basically marginalise every minority group that features in the statistics then?

Please tell me you have enough intellectual fortitude to see why and how such a plan could quite quickly snowball into disaster.

it's already a disaster for that particular minority. Purposely avoiding the facts is negligent.

Anyone who is too stupid to understand that ALL unprotected casual sex is dangerous and should be avoided and instead forwards an argument that some unprotected sex is 'stupider' that others is not worth arguing with.

What are you... a child?
Sticking your dick in where the body excretes poison is dangerous no matter what!

[Rei Murasame]

it's already a disaster for that particular minority. Purposely avoiding the facts is negligent.

A disaster which you have no intention of solving, which is why your 'solution' is to actively forment race-war in your country?

To me, you don't seem to be a real conservative here.

[DanDaMan]

Quote:
it's already a disaster for that particular minority. Purposely avoiding the facts is negligent.

A disaster which you have no intention of solving, which is why your 'solution' is to actively forment race-war in your country?

I can teach them not to be promiscuous. But it is up to them to grow up and keep it in their pants like responsible adults. I think they can do that.
What is it that makes you think they are inferior adults incapable of solving their own problem requiring me to do what they cannot?

[Rei Murasame]

I can teach them not to be promiscuous.

You could do that, along with teaching them about safe sex.

But I thought you were going to teach children to 'avoid black people', have you changed your mind then?

What is it that makes you think they are inferior adults incapable of solving their own problem requiring me to do what they cannot?

Refresh everyone's memory here, what do you think is the purpose of having leaders? This is an honest question, because it's frankly astounding that you'd have the gall to raise that question in this topic which you yourself started.

[DanDaMan]

But I thought you were going to teach children to 'avoid black people', have you changed your mind then?

I can change my position when they are no longer catching the "lions share".
Does that not sound reasonable?


I fail to see why you do not agree with me. Liberals and progressives commonly go after those that have the "lions share" of money. Why cannot I do the same as you when it comes to STD's?
Or do you have double standards?

[Rei Murasame]

I don't understand your question, seeing as I myself am a Conservative (which you bloody well know).

I don't "go after" people who have the "lion's share of money" in the first place.

You are trying really hard to evade actually answering any of my questions, aren't you?

[DanDaMan]

Feminists are not conservative.

But lets not go there.
Ignore the latter questions and answer only the first one.


Teaching safe sex just makes children think they are safer and more knowledgeable.
This has failed because children of younger and younger ages in America are now getting STD's.
Clearly this strategy is fraught with more failure than success.

[Rei Murasame]

Feminists are not conservative.

Interesting that you tried to play that card, seeing as it was under a Conservative government that women got the right to vote in this country.

Also, women in this country have statistically stood on the Right, a fact that the Left hates, which is why The Independent (a known leftist newspaper) has run at least two articles where they insult women for making that choice.

The only reason we get Conservatives elected in Britain is because women usually swing the vote by voting conservative. So do not even start with me.

Furthermore, when Charlotte Perkins Gilman first began advocating her blend of the ideology that would later be known as 'feminism', it was the Fabian Socialists who came out and led the attack against her.

So get your history straight.

But lets not go there.

You can't go there because I have the facts and will kick your behind.

Teaching safe sex just makes children think they are safer and more knowledgeable.
This has failed because children of younger and younger ages in America are now getting STD's.

Actually, the states in the USA that have more teenage pregnancies and STDs are actually the ones that have no sex education.