Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 5 of 7
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
truth4freedom





Joined: 14 Jan 2007
Posts: 255
Reputation: 23.7Reputation: 23.7
votes: 3
Location: Bible Belt USA!

PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 2:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

SDC wrote:
BS. If your objection was based SOLELY on costs, gay behaviour (sic) would be near the BOTTOM of the list of things to get your panties in a knot over, and you'd be calling for the death penalty for brewers and tobacco farmers. Also, since I'm not gay (though I DO admit to a threesome with some frisky lesbians once upon a time), it's not "my stupid descisions" (sic) to begin with. Put down your magic sky-god book for a while, and invest in a dictionary and some usage manuals. "Your" means "belonging to you"; "You're" means "you are".


It doesn't cost nearly as much to treat those other poor lifestyle choices comparatively. And if you watch current events, both tobacco and brewing companies are being restricted while homosexuals are being praised and funded by the federal government. And my argument is not based soley on costs. Read my other post...

If you are defending the stupid decision, you are just as guilty as those making it.

That's right, you can't argue your point so start with the character attacks like a good little lib scum. :lol:
truth4freedom





Joined: 14 Jan 2007
Posts: 255
Reputation: 23.7Reputation: 23.7
votes: 3
Location: Bible Belt USA!

PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 2:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

FascistLibertarian wrote:
AIDS doesnt target gay men, it targets people who have unprotected anal sex. That si what we need to fight, not homosexuality


54% of infections come from homosexual men. The rest I am sure constitute many bi sexual men infecting women and the resulting infections from their partners. It is a homosexual disease. So much so that even their strongest proponents have admitted it. And condomns? Even the CDC admits that AIDS can still be transmitted through a condomn during anal sex.


Last edited by truth4freedom on Tue Jun 19, 2007 8:05 pm; edited 1 time in total
Stephen





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 645
Reputation: 72.9
votes: 5
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 2:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="truth4freedom"][quote="FascistLibertarian"]AIDS doesnt target gay men, it targets people who have unprotected anal sex. That si what we need to fight, not homosexuality
Quote:


54% of infections come from homosexual men. The rest I am sure constitute many bi sexual men infecting women and the resulting infections from their partners. It is a homosexual disease. So much so that even their strongest proponents have admitted it. And condomns? Even the CDC admits that AIDS can still be transmitted through a condomn during anal sex.


One's sexual preference does not make one more vulnerable to HIV. One's actions do.

Women now account for 43% of all HIV infected people over the age of 15 (New York Times, 11/98 ).
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 2:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Maybe people should think about keeping it in their pants. That seems to be the cheapest, simplest solution possible. I am sure though, that free and easy sex being a basic human right these days, that advice will be taken as fascist, or whatever.

What is that thing they want to immunize girls for, that virus that increases the risk of cervical cancer. the papiloma virus or something? Apparently, monogamous sex helps to protect women from this. Having many partners increases the risk. Self-restraint just never seems to be an option though.
SDC
Guest








PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 2:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

truth4freedom wrote:
SDC wrote:
BS. If your objection was based SOLELY on costs, gay behaviour (sic) would be near the BOTTOM of the list of things to get your panties in a knot over, and you'd be calling for the death penalty for brewers and tobacco farmers. Also, since I'm not gay (though I DO admit to a threesome with some frisky lesbians once upon a time), it's not "my stupid descisions" (sic) to begin with. Put down your magic sky-god book for a while, and invest in a dictionary and some usage manuals. "Your" means "belonging to you"; "You're" means "you are".


It doesn't cost nearly as much to treat those other poor lifestyle choices comparatively. And if you watch current events, both tobacco and brewing companies are being restricted while homosexuals are being praised and funded by the federal government. And my argument is not based soley on costs. Read my other post...

If you are defending the stupid decision, you are just as guilty as those making it.

That's right, you can't argue your point so start with the character attacks like a good little lib scum. :lol:


That's where you're WRONG; because there are so many MORE people that make "stupid descisions" when it comes to alcohol and tobacco, the consequences of having to treat those "stupid descisions" are many times MORE. And since the rest of your argument holds no more water than that of any other religous fruitcake (for example, the "mullah" that said that it's OK to leave 2 unrelated opposite-sex adults in the same room only if the male breast-feeds from the female), how do you expect anyone to take you seriously? If I "start with the character attacks" (as opposed to the INTELLIGENCE attacks), I'll let you know ahead of time, just so you'll be able to keep up.
;)
SDC
Guest








PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 2:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kwlafayette wrote:
What is that thing they want to immunize girls for, that virus that increases the risk of cervical cancer. the papiloma virus or something?


Better watch out, "truth4freedom" is doubtless against THAT too; the last I heard, the bible-thumpers were suing school boards to prevent them from offering this vaccination. Apparently, it's more "pure" to die from cancer, than it is to prevent that cancer in the first place.
Stephen





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 645
Reputation: 72.9
votes: 5
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 3:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kwlafayette wrote:
Maybe people should think about keeping it in their pants. That seems to be the cheapest, simplest solution possible. I am sure though, that free and easy sex being a basic human right these days, that advice will be taken as fascist, or whatever.

What is that thing they want to immunize girls for, that virus that increases the risk of cervical cancer. the papiloma virus or something? Apparently, monogamous sex helps to protect women from this. Having many partners increases the risk. Self-restraint just never seems to be an option though.


Yes, it's HPV. You can raise your daughter to be a "saint" and be chaste until marriage but given a large enough group of daughters in the population, there will be some cases where these women will have pre-marital sex.

Even if she doesn't, her husband (who may have had many partners and lied about it) could pass HPV onto her.

I would want to allow my daughter to make her own choices on this issue. I would never withhold something that could save her life because of my delusional certainty of having raised her in a certain failsafe way. People make mistakes and I'd rather let my daughter protect herself against HPV rather than depend on some sort of moral hope that she'll never be exposed to the virus that causes cervical cancer.
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 3:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

All these arguments, and no one is saying that promiscuity is proving to be harmful. It is always about helping the people who might make "mistakes". There are consequences to every single one of the actions you take in this life, same rules apply for everybody. The sooner we teach people that, the sooner people realize that they might actually have to live with the choices they make, the better off we will be as a society. I am all for being a carefree irresponsible child up into your forties or fifties, but after that, you have to start realizing that the world does not exist to help you with your "mistakes", and protect you from the consequences of your own actions.

Take some responsibility people, and expect the same of your children.
Stephen





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 645
Reputation: 72.9
votes: 5
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 3:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sure, promiscuity can be harmful... but what do you propose?

Do you think that the government should ban this vaccination?

Do you think that the government should ban certain behaviours?
FascistLibertarian





Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 1092
Reputation: 30.1Reputation: 30.1Reputation: 30.1
votes: 14
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 3:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Promiscuity is not linked to sexual orientation. People claim that it is yet they never cite peer reviewed materials. Would you rather not give away condoms and give girls injections? No one is saying this makes sex safe, what we are saying it it makes sex safer. Self restraint is an option but given a big enough group of people some will have sex, we can deal with it to minimize the negative effects or we can turn our heads and pretend it doesnt happen.
As for the environment being a factor in sexual orientation, this may be the case BUT homosexuality will exist in every environment AND we do not know what part of the environment does what OR that the environment influences everyone.
Condoms greatly reduce the risk of getting AIDS, it does not prevent it, but unprotected anal sex is by far the biggest way of getting it.
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 4:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The government should not concern itself with whether or not people will make mistakes, and whether or not people should be vaccinated. Apart from ensuring that the vaccination is safe with no horrible side effects, the government has no role to play. If people want it, let them have it. If they don't, don't force it on them.
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 4:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You can give away condoms if you wish. I will save my money.

PS. If you feel that something should be done about AIDS, you should give your money to an appropriate charity. You should not give my money away, that is my job. When you talk about government doing something, that is simply an easy way out so that you do not have to take any personal responsibility. When you talk about the government, you are talking about my money. My money should be spent efficiently on roads, sewers, the power grid, water treatment, national defense; the basics of government. Once those are taken care of, maybe we can talk about other, non-basic things.


Last edited by kwlafayette on Tue Jun 19, 2007 4:55 pm; edited 2 times in total
Stephen





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 645
Reputation: 72.9
votes: 5
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 4:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kwlafayette wrote:
The government should not concern itself with whether or not people will make mistakes, and whether or not people should be vaccinated. Apart from ensuring that the vaccination is safe with no horrible side effects, the government has no role to play. If people want it, let them have it. If they don't, don't force it on them.


agree with you there
FascistLibertarian





Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 1092
Reputation: 30.1Reputation: 30.1Reputation: 30.1
votes: 14
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 5:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Why vaccinate against anything? It is much better if our healthcare $ are spent dealing with the problem later rather than preventing it at a fraction of the price. :roll:
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 5:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Feel free to get all the vaccinations you wish. Do not dictate to me what vaccinations I should have. Here we have a so called pro-choice person, arguing against my right to control my own body. Oh the irony.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 5 of 7

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Australian pub bars heterosexuals

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB