Page 4 of 6

PostPosted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 6:36 pm
by ChronicMisadventures
NydaLynn wrote:Hop? Hmm... now see I would have interpreted that as 'proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.' to quote Ben Franklin about beer. But that's just me. ;)


*snickers* Good one

PostPosted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 7:16 pm
by Squeaky Bunny
NydaLynn wrote:Hop? Hmm... now see I would have interpreted that as 'proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.' to quote Ben Franklin about beer. But that's just me. ;)


I like fermented grape juice, he whined.

PostPosted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 8:02 pm
by Earl McClaw
The JAM wrote:
sapphire wrote:reduces the risk of HIV/AIDS transmission by approximately 85%

Oh dear, that means that 3 times out of 20......you're done for?
I wouldn't call that "safe sex", I'd call that suicidal sex....

Um... Sapphire refers to it as a reduction of transmission. So it seems to me we'd need the unprotected transmission rate to calculate a realistic risk rate.

PostPosted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 8:52 pm
by BrockthePaine
Hortmage wrote:Brock:

Thank you VERY much for that clear outline of the definition of a Christian. I appreciate the bullet format, which makes it much easier for me understand.

I have saved that post for future study. Thanks again!

Glad I could be of assistance. If you have any more questions, I'll do my best to answer them.

PostPosted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 9:25 pm
by The JAM
Well, I just want to know: is current latex (you know, what condoms are made of) 100% impermeable to the HIV?

PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2006 11:08 am
by Wanderwolf
The JAM wrote:
sapphire wrote:reduces the risk of HIV/AIDS transmission by approximately 85%

Oh dear, that means that 3 times out of 20......you're done for?
I wouldn't call that "safe sex", I'd call that suicidal sex....


Er, J.A.M.? Math error. The original number is reduced by 85%, but that number was not 100.

Yours truly,

The wolfish,

Wanderer

PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2006 11:26 am
by Deckard Canine
Schools, including highly liberal ones like my college, have gotten more likely to say "safer sex" to remind us that it's not 100% safe.

And CM, I'm afraid you were still unsound in addressing HM's point on alcohol sales. He does not object to a day banning them, but when that day is based on one faith's sabbath and other sabbaths get no such treatment, he deems it unfair. I think he has a point, altho if they chose Sunday arbitrarily, he wouldn't really. And speaking of drinks...

Squeaky Bunny wrote:I like fermented grape juice, he whined.


"Ooh, no more fruit juice for me," he said dolefully.

PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2006 1:12 pm
by TMLutas
Deckard Canine wrote:Schools, including highly liberal ones like my college, have gotten more likely to say "safer sex" to remind us that it's not 100% safe.

And CM, I'm afraid you were still unsound in addressing HM's point on alcohol sales. He does not object to a day banning them, but when that day is based on one faith's sabbath and other sabbaths get no such treatment, he deems it unfair. I think he has a point, altho if they chose Sunday arbitrarily, he wouldn't really.


Well, one has to pick a day of rest, otherwise you end up like the French with their revolutionary calendar, a disaster of collapse and death from exhaustion. If you're going to pick a day, it might as well be on the majority's sabbath. This is neither arbitrary, nor unfair. It is pure utilitarianism and not particularly immoral in this case.

PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2006 1:55 pm
by Sapphire
TMLutas wrote:
Deckard Canine wrote:Schools, including highly liberal ones like my college, have gotten more likely to say "safer sex" to remind us that it's not 100% safe.

And CM, I'm afraid you were still unsound in addressing HM's point on alcohol sales. He does not object to a day banning them, but when that day is based on one faith's sabbath and other sabbaths get no such treatment, he deems it unfair. I think he has a point, altho if they chose Sunday arbitrarily, he wouldn't really.


Well, one has to pick a day of rest, otherwise you end up like the French with their revolutionary calendar, a disaster of collapse and death from exhaustion. If you're going to pick a day, it might as well be on the majority's sabbath. This is neither arbitrary, nor unfair. It is pure utilitarianism and not particularly immoral in this case.


Check that, The French Republican Calendar was abandoned mostly due to the 10-day work week, not because you "have to have a day of rest." Think about how many major corporations, and how many Americans they employ, ignore the day of rest. You'd actually be hard-pressed to name national name brands that aren't open on sundays.

PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2006 2:07 pm
by BrockthePaine
sapphire wrote:Check that, The French Republican Calendar was abandoned mostly due to the 10-day work week, not because you "have to have a day of rest." Think about how many major corporations, and how many Americans they employ, ignore the day of rest. You'd actually be hard-pressed to name national name brands that aren't open on sundays.

As opposed to the current French calender, where they push for three days of rest out of seven...

And Chik-Fil-A wasn't open for a long time on Sundays, though they might have changed that recently. Oooh, chicken... mmm.

PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2006 2:40 pm
by Frigidmagi
How sad is it that I was thinking that condoms do a better job of protection from death then the old flak jacket upon reading this.

PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:13 pm
by The JAM
[...unWARP!!!]

Good evening.

Wanderwolf wrote:
The JAM wrote:Oh dear, that means that 3 times out of 20......you're done for?
I wouldn't call that "safe sex", I'd call that suicidal sex....


Er, J.A.M.? Math error. The original number is reduced by 85%, but that number was not 100.

Yours truly,

The wolfish,

Wanderer


[scratches head] Odd, I thought I was emplying simple 6th grade math.

The original number may not be 100, but I chose 100 simply because of the perCENT symbol and thus the other 15% would proportionally reduce to 3/20..........oh alright, all I'll say is that if it's 85% safe, that means it's 15% UNsafe.

Anyone want to bet their lives with those probabilities?


¡Zacatepóngolas!

Until next time, remember:

I

AM

THE

J.A.M. (a.k.a. Numbuh i. "Just because I'm imaginary doesn't mean I don't exist")

Good evening.

[WARP!!!]

PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:47 pm
by BrockthePaine
I believe what he meant was that it reduces the chances of HIV infection by 85%. So, if we say that 50% of the time you'd become infected, it is now 85% of 50%, or 7.5% chance. (FWIW I use 50% chance as an example because it's easy to calculate and I don't know the actual rate.)

PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2006 4:43 pm
by Squeaky Bunny
Deckard Canine wrote:Schools, including highly liberal ones like my college, have gotten more likely to say "safer sex" to remind us that it's not 100% safe.

And CM, I'm afraid you were still unsound in addressing HM's point on alcohol sales. He does not object to a day banning them, but when that day is based on one faith's sabbath and other sabbaths get no such treatment, he deems it unfair. I think he has a point, altho if they chose Sunday arbitrarily, he wouldn't really. And speaking of drinks...

Squeaky Bunny wrote:I like fermented grape juice, he whined.


"Ooh, no more fruit juice for me," he said dolefully.


I could make nine puns about milk, but I lactate.

PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2006 8:20 pm
by The JAM
Duly noted. Thanks.

PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2006 9:52 pm
by TMLutas
sapphire wrote:
TMLutas wrote:
Deckard Canine wrote:Schools, including highly liberal ones like my college, have gotten more likely to say "safer sex" to remind us that it's not 100% safe.

And CM, I'm afraid you were still unsound in addressing HM's point on alcohol sales. He does not object to a day banning them, but when that day is based on one faith's sabbath and other sabbaths get no such treatment, he deems it unfair. I think he has a point, altho if they chose Sunday arbitrarily, he wouldn't really.


Well, one has to pick a day of rest, otherwise you end up like the French with their revolutionary calendar, a disaster of collapse and death from exhaustion. If you're going to pick a day, it might as well be on the majority's sabbath. This is neither arbitrary, nor unfair. It is pure utilitarianism and not particularly immoral in this case.


Check that, The French Republican Calendar was abandoned mostly due to the 10-day work week, not because you "have to have a day of rest." Think about how many major corporations, and how many Americans they employ, ignore the day of rest. You'd actually be hard-pressed to name national name brands that aren't open on sundays.


I think you're quite missing the point. Somebody's got to tend the sick and do other work that just won't wait. Sabbath workers just tend to get their day off on another day and get paid more for breaking sabbath. The rest still occurs and people get rotated in and out of it because it's generally recognized as a hardship.

That some companies (and not all of them do) work 7 days a week on a voluntary basis doesn't change the fact that having a day of rest is a good idea as far as public policy goes and putting it where the majority would like it is not bad either.

PostPosted: Tue Dec 12, 2006 12:16 am
by MikeVanPelt


No one disputes that condoms provide some protection. The numbers you give are in line with what I figured the case was.

The problem I, and many other, have is that when you're talking about an incurable, invariably fatal disease, even though you can generally stave off death for quite a few years with a lot of expensive medication, 85% protection is not anywhere in the area of good enough.

When people toss fistfulls of condoms at teenagers and say "Here, use this and you can screw your brains out in perfect safety", they are lying. Yes, with a condom, it's less unsafe. That is not the same thing as safe.

Similarly, people say that amusing contact explosive nitrogen triiodide is stable when it is wet. It is not. It is more stable when wet than it is when it is dry, but it is most assuredly not stable when wet. I have personal experience with some of it going off in the bottom of the paper towel I was filtering it through in the men's bathroom of my dorm at school, blowing the bottom out of the paper towel and splattering me from head to foot in the stuff. And later that night, I witnessed some going off in the bottom of a bottle of water I was storing it in.

PostPosted: Tue Dec 12, 2006 2:06 am
by RHJunior
..... dude. You frighten me. seriously.

PostPosted: Tue Dec 12, 2006 4:21 am
by Tbolt
As far as the entire condom thing is also concerned, with condoms being pushed as well as the entire concept of "safe sex" ie encourages people to engage in dangerous behavior more often.

Yes a condom reduces the probability of disease, but if one increases the number of chances taken...

Example: Let's play Russian Roulette

In one paw I have a 5 shot revolver with one bullet in it, you need but pull the trigger once.

On the table here, I have ten, ten shot revolvers with ten bullets spread randomly among them. You must pull the trigger on each of them once.


Bottom line, if one as a virgin, marries a virgin, and both parties maintain that monogamous pact one can happily yiff the rest of one's life and be almost certain of never having to worry about any STD's, period! ( the only other real ways of getting an STD are through sharing needles as an IV drug user, or receiving tainted blood. Or one might have been unfortunate enough to inherit the disease from one's parents)

That is safe sex.

PostPosted: Tue Dec 12, 2006 7:17 am
by The JAM
Well said, Tbolt! It also makes you a much better candidate for donating blood (I've donated 5 times already), and the recipients are much more inclined to trust you.