Lets discuss: Homophobia

[Flying Pig]

You see, your argument is this...anal sex/oral sex is just as safe as vaginal sex if you wear a condom. No, its not. Why? Condoms fail. And the acts of a/o sex, by their very nature, are going to be much harder on a condom than vaginal sex.

...I don't want to sound patronising or to beat around the bush, but suffice to say that by using certain products it's possible to make them pretty much the same when it comes to wear and tear. And anyway, it's still only changing the failure rate from something like (numbers guessed) 0.1% to 0.2% - it may double it, but it's still ignorable.

To be frank, if I'm allowed to be psychoanalytical it sounds like you're trying to rationalise the instinctive 'yeuch' reaction, really.

 

[civ_king]

...I don't want to sound patronising or to beat around the bush, but suffice to say that by using certain products it's possible to make them pretty much the same when it comes to wear and tear. And anyway, it's still only changing the failure rate from something like (numbers guessed) 0.1% to 0.2% - it may double it, but it's still ignorable.

To be frank, if I'm allowed to be psychoanalytical it sounds like you're trying to rationalise the instinctive 'yeuch' reaction, really.

The rate of transmission of HIV is substantially higher than 0.2% using condoms

 

[Arakhor]

Please provide evidence for your assertion, Civking, and I really hope that it doesn't come straight from the Vatican City.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

what you fail to do is prove that natural law exists. you say it manifests itself, and in what way. that is not proof it exists, that is saying it exists and nothing else.
you know, argumentum ad lepidum.

you simply act as if it was some kind of axiom with which you can prove homosexuality is immoral. this is not the case.

For someone's whose previous post warned not to make typos, this is a very amusing typo.

Argument ad Lapidum = argument to a stone

Argument ad Lepidum = argument to an effeminate man.


(Lepidus can also mean pleasant, agreeable, charming, polite, graceful, or witty, but given the tread topic I thought effeminate seemed more approproate.)

 

[Flying Pig]

The rate of transmission of HIV is substantially higher than 0.2% using condoms

More than two condoms in every thousand fail? I'd like a source for that if you don't mind

 

[civ_king]

The rate of transmission of HIV is substantially higher than 0.2% using condoms

https://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3127299.html
very interesting read,

Also I forgot to include the qualifier in comparison to non-condom use (set non-condom transmission rate to 100%)

For someone's whose previous post warned not to make typos, this is a very amusing typo.

Argument ad Lapidum = argument to a stone

Argument ad Lepidum = argument to an effeminate man.


(Lepidus can also mean pleasant, agreeable, charming, polite, graceful, or witty, but given the tread topic I thought effeminate seemed more approproate.)

 

[Flying Pig]

https://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3127299.html
very interesting read,

That seems to say that if 100 people have sex for a year using a condom, 0.9 of them will get HIV.

Results: For always-users, 12 cohort samples yielded a consistent HIV incidence of 0.9 per 100 person-years (95% confidence interval, 0.4-1.8).

Now I don't know how many times said people have sex in a year, but that seems better than 0.2% of the condoms to me. Of course I don't know how many of the sample had HIV to begin with.

 

[timtofly]

(Lepidus can also mean pleasant, agreeable, charming, polite, graceful, or witty, but given the tread topic I thought effeminate seemed more approproate.)

In this thread I fear they seem synonymous.

 

[Flying Pig]

In this thread I fear they seem synonymous.

I always thought it meant 'hare', but maybe that's just school Latin talking

 

[MagisterCultuum]

I always thought it meant 'hare', but maybe that's just school Latin talking

When I first saw the typo I thought it meant rabbit or hare, but when I looked it up I got the definitions I listed.


Lepidus is an adjective derived from Lepos, Leporis, meaning pleasantness or charm.

Hare is Lepus, Leporis, which, despite being identical in all but the nominative singular, is an unrelated term, probably of Iberian origin.

 

[Flying Pig]

Hare is Lepus, Leporis, which, despite being identical in all but the nominative singular, is an unrelated term, probably of Iberian origin.

So ad leporum = towards the hare, no?

 

[MagisterCultuum]

No.

ad leporem


Lepus is a third declension noun, so the -um ending is the genitive plural. (towards ___ of the hares) You want the accusative singular ending, -em.

Of course, this discussion isn't really relevant to this thread anymore.

 

[useless]

Please stop this de-rail and get back to the topic at hand.

 

[timtofly]

Ok, here goes:

It is not acceptable to be a spy, but people do it, and even are double agents. It is not acceptable to be a greedy billionare without any compassion for their fellow man. It is not acceptable to kill people and mooch off the state the rest of one's life. It is not acceptable to go without wearing a burkha. Black and white still exist to some. I can sympathize that it may take awhile for homophobia to completely disappear, but considering that people were not bullied for getting divorces and woman were not killed for wearing pants, and these two ideologies took about 50 years to become mainstream. I would assume that 30 years may be pushing it for one to expect this way of life to catch on. I would assume that 3 generations or at least 60 years would be the minimum and perhaps 100 to be on the safe side. Of course one could probably get the job done with a revolution and even those have been peaceful somewhat this year. Freedom has been brought about by wars and thousands of dead lives. Just hang in there. If you do not see it come to pass, then perhaps your grand children will. By the way racism can still be found in the US even after over 130 years.

I do not think that Katrina had anything to do with New Orleans, since it did lots of damage up and down the coast. Personally, I think it had more to do with the US involvment in Israel giving up the Gaza strip, but whatever. I do not have the right nor privilege to judge any one for their actions and BTW, I do not even think it is a sin. I think it more wrong to deny God, but that is my opinion. So I have no hatred, thus no phobia and will be glad to leave the past behind. I am not even being sarcastic. Peronally it is not my gig, and my true thoughts are not on topic, so I will have to leave it at that.

 

[choxorn]

By the way racism can still be found in the US even after over 130 years.

130 years... since what?

I do not think that Katrina had anything to do with New Orleans, since it did lots of damage up and down the coast. Personally, I think it had more to do with the US involvment in Israel giving up the Gaza strip, but whatever.

Lolwut?

 

[Tee Kay]

Lolwut?

He's saying Katrina was punishment for messing with God's Chosen People.

 

[Arakhor]

He thinks that a) a freak storm and ill-prepared government were actually divinely-inflicted and that (b) the Christian God would inflict such terrors upon the USA for messing with Jewish Israel?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

So the various gov agencies didn't screw up, they merely acted in God's will.

 

[Tee Kay]

Well, everything that happens happens according to God's plan. Alternatively, karma.

 

[barell]

Well, in western society, homophobes are not liked at all. But the worst sin in the West is racism...homophobia is one the second or third place