Thursday, March 29, 2012



Your language, in my opinion, borders on moral rhetoric and shaming. Condoms exist to fulfill the purpose that they were designed for.

     Here is my opinion: passing HIV to a negative person is immoral. <-- that's a PERIOD.

     Correction to your condom statement: condoms are less than 100% perfect at fulfilling
          the purpose they were designed for. <-- that's a period.

I see the links you posted. I can also post some that claim that HIV and AIDS are god's curse for homosexuality and other sin or links that claim that still profess denialism. 

     Regarding HIV being dog's curse for homosexuality: some people believe in unicorns
          leprechans. Dog's curse is in the same category.

I'm glad you have your opinions, but try running a GID/STD clinic and telling patients that get tested that they should come in with any new partner they have and get tested before having protected sex.

     Correction to "protected sex": partially protected sex

Then try shaming them because their current practices are

     You keep inserting (pun not intended (unless you are smart enough to laugh at this point))
     the word shaming in the conversation. I'll continue to let you bring morality into the
     conversation.

You'd never see them again.

     People who commit criminal acts often don't want to be seen again.

They'd also probably laugh at you the second they walk out of the office.

     People once laughed at Lister when he suggested doctors wash their hands before
     operating on or examining people. That seldom happens these days.

My priority is the people's health and how to best do that within what is practice today.

     That's fine with me. I'm more interested in solving tomorrow's problems. Clearly
     today's solutions aren't working all that well.

This is not about morality.

     Agreed. Nevertheless, some ACTS are criminal and immoral when they
     endanger the life of another person or persons.

I do, however, apologize for using the word 'you' in relation to sexual practice. I should have said 'one'

     Is that a clever reference to masturbation, which I'm not clever enough to get?


Your language, in my opinion, borders on moral rhetoric and shaming. Condoms exist to fulfill the purpose that they were designed for.

I see the links you posted. I can also post some that claim that HIV and AIDS are god's curse for homosexuality and other sin or links that claim that still profess denialism.

I'm glad you have your opinions, but try running a GID/STD clinic and telling patients that get tested that they should come in with any new partner they have and get tested before having protected sex. Then try shaming them because their current practices are
You'd never see them again. They'd also probably laugh at you the second they walk out of the office.

My priority is the people's health and how to best do that within what is practice today. This is not about morality.

I do, however, apologize for using the word 'you' in relation to sexual practice. I should have said 'one'. 




Really?

You think this is feasible today?

     No. But only if you consider the satisfaction of your primal needs
     and feelings to be more important than dying, if you are negative,
     or more important than killing someone, if you are positive.


Before every new sex partner?

See above explanation. It works for any number of sex partners.


The dynamic is very different if you're going to go have unprotected sex with someone, then sure. Given that the original blast was about condom use, I don't think that's what you were going for were you?

     Again, are your personal sexual feelings, gratification, intensity
     of pleasure, etc, are more important than [ibid] I always want to
     say ribbit at that point, but it would be bad, wrong, and immature).

No comments:

Post a Comment