Login is disabled. This forum is read-only.
Imperial Forum → Posts by Justinian I
What the U.S. needs is a warrior president. The kind of president who is a young, brilliant, patriotic, and a courageous general who leads the troops in to battle himself. If history repeats itself, warrior heads of state have an easier time with public opinion and war. Secondly, only a warrior president could keep the cosmopolitan bankers in line.
Starcraft 2, Heart of the Swarm
I agree with 5, 6, 7, and 8, I am unsure about 1, 2 and 3, and I disagree with 4.
Stay away from my paycheck. In fact, I would like medicare and social security abolished too. If people had the sense to buy assets to cover their expenses when they got older, then we wouldn't need retirement funds and there would be a lot less income inequality. And I resent paying for unproductive, conservative old people who had faith is their retirement fund pyramid.
I would like them to unify Korea, provided they stop the South Koreans from playing Starcraft.
Plus a lot of these infections are subclinical... You are infected, without symptoms, without you even knowing. The presence of a cold soar may be quite a sensitive test for the presence of hsv 1 or 2, however, the absence of a cold soar does not rule out hsv (and not only because it can be located in other ganglia on the body and even cause a herpes genitalis, but also because of subclinical infections).
In fact, most people with HSV-2 (genital herpes) are asymptomatic, or have so few symptoms they don't notice. So they could easily infect someone and not know it.
Yell,
79 million. And, that statistic is about how many people are infected right now. The stats also say:
Most sexually active men and women will get HPV at some point in their lives.
Mace,
No no no. The other herpes virus is HSV-2. HPV is not herpes. Entirely different viruses.
HPV is very common, ever had a cold sore? That's HPV and is sexually transmitted usually.
Mace,
Cold sores are caused by HSV-I (Herpes-Simplex I), not HPV. You are right about one thing though, HPV is very common. I have heard estimates that half the US population has been infected at one point. It's consequences are very different from herpes though. Among women, their immune systems will purge it within 2 years, but some of the remaining 10% will develop cancer in the cervix or throat. It is also normally purged by the immune system and can cause cancer in men, but I don't have the stats for that on hand. In addition to cancer, it can cause genital warts in both men and women.
Sadly, condoms provide limited protection from infection and only women can be tested for it, but there is a vaccine available for both men and women.
So, why is it that Rand Paul, a Libertarian, was the only senator with the balls to stand up to Obama's scary presidential power grabs by doing the longest filibuster in history? Of course, a few other senators joined him later, but still, he did most of the talking.
Hey, Libertarians may be naive, but you've got to admire their audacity.
Which is why I believe Muslims should be regarded as barbarians. I mean, look at Egypt. They get their freedom, and they elect the Muslim brotherhood.
The obligation is yours to prove that women do in fact engage in such risky behavior more often than men.
The obligation is yours to prove that culture and institutions are responsible for such a distinction in behavior between the sexes, if you can first prove that such a distinction exists. I simply presumed you were referencing an intellectual limitation because you provided evidence of nothing else.
Obviously you have evidence of neither, in addition to being able to offer absolutely no evidence of anything else you've said.
You've got faith in your own theory and you'll be damned if anybody questions it. You have faith, so you offer us absolutely no evidence to consider.
You're claiming that women make more risky decisions than men then attributing it to cultural (sociological) factors. Granted, you can claim any unverified trend you want (as you do here) differentiating the sexes and explain it via sociological factors and claim it's not sexist, because the distinguishing factors are external.
But you haven't ruled out a sexist explanation of the difference you allege between sexes either. After all, both sexes are exposed to a large amount of a great variety of socializing factors. Bear in mind that your own experiences are obviously quite bizarre and not representative of norms or those of the average male.
You're simply throwing out a baseless theory and there's no reason to argue against it. You've got no evidence to offer, so there's nothing to consider. That's why you're just repeating "gotcha" attempts at tying me to a particular logical argument you suppose I'm making, and making exclusively.
Okay Kemp. I still say you are being rude, but you seem to understand my point well enough. I'll reply to you later this week or next, because it will take some time to provide such evidence. But for now, I have real life concerns to attend to, which takes precedence over an IC post.
I. "Anecdote is not Evidence"
Total BS. This would amaze many astronomers and make Charles Darwin cry. Observations are data and data is evidence. What is honestly meant is "anecdote is not PROOF"; more usually this is just a lazy way to yell "STFU, I have no counter to that evidence so leave it home".
I do not know who said that, but you are only part right. Anecdotes are evidence, but their use for making conclusions is limited because they are not representative samples. Although, they are very good for countering an "all S are P" or "no S are P" claim.
Kemp,
Seriously. Prove how B follows from A! Or, admit that it doesn't and stop assuming it does.
You have absolutely no empirical data to support your supposed aggregate.
Your position is entirely based upon a fictional narrative you've made up.
You say that you believe that women understand their risks just fine, then you go on to repeat that they're unable to make rational decisions regarding those risks and their lives and need help.
Tell us more about women. You're obviously an expert.
Way to circle around the issue, Kemp. I would be happy to give you empirical data, but not until you give up your non-sequitur and apologize or prove it valid. What additional claims I made about women, while I believe them to be true, were intended to be counter examples. Even if you dispute their truth, the fact that they could be true, or that they could apply to any so called oppressed group, is sufficient to disprove your non-sequitur.
Regardless, there is no point arguing with you over disputes of fact when we have a dispute of logical implication. You said that B follows from A, now prove it or man up and admit you are wrong.
(A) If women commonly engage in risky and unwanted sex because our culture and institutions accrue privileges in sexual negotiation to men, then (B) women are intellectually and morally inferior to men.
Kemp,
I'm talking about aggregate behavior. The fact that some women take advantage of a man, for example, is an exception that proves the rule.
Basically, what you are doing is manipulating my argument, which is about nurture, in to a nature argument. Which misses the point, understand? I believe women, overall, understand what their risks are just fine. The problem is that they face other risks, such as social costs, which influence their sexual decisions and shouldn't. If a woman's peers gossip and harass her for being frigid, she may decide that giving in is preferable to the continued harassment and loss of social inclusion. And, it would be a perfectly rational decision, but there are coercive conditions that shouldn't exist, understand?
Warned, Justinian.
Sorry. I deleted the profanity, but it was perfectly justified given his behavior.
Kemp,
Yes, you are putting words in my mouth, and you ought to apologize. Secondly, nothing I said implies that women are less intelligent or responsible than men. It is an acknowledgment that women are socialized to put the needs of others above their own, the social reality that many men actively manipulate and defraud women to get laid at any cost, and that women have sex they don't want to have as a way to maintain relationships, end a man's whining, or because they feel threatened by implied threats. If you consider that as meaning women are somehow inept or less responsible, then shame on you and we have nothing further to discuss on the topic.
As an example of the social reality women put up with, sex is thought of as intercourse. Intercourse isn't usually as pleasurable to women as it is for men, yet the aggregate behavior of men is to only rub a woman's clitoris until she's wet. We call it "foreplay." And, if a woman intended to just cuddle and give the man a handjob while he rubbed her clitoris, well, she'll soon find out by society how stupid she was to "lead him on." Don't even pretend women have equal bargaining power when it comes to sex. They're doing it on men's terms most of the time. Yet, men wonder why women often lose interest in sex sometime after marriage and children. Well duh! It starts becoming a boring chore for them.
Also, it is more risky for women to have sex than men. Only women can become pregnant, and women are more likely to contract an STI by an infected partner than a man is. Thus, it is an ethical obligation for men to compensate women for that risk. And, if I had a girlfriend, yes, I would either pay for condoms or her birth control, and shame on men who believe birth control is a woman's problem.
So yes, men are more responsible for the transmission of STIs and unwanted pregnancies than women are. Women have a disadvantage at the bargaining table, largely because of our still backward culture. It has nothing to do with women's intellectual capacities. And, the debates of these other social issues, frankly only exist because men act as though they are entitled to use women's bodies, and our culture disempowers women's sexual agency.
Kemp,
Don't put words in my mouth. I said men should should go to the store and buy a box of condoms before sticking their penises inside a vagina. If men did that, it would also have the added benefit of resolving many other social controversies.
Kemp,
Well, I agree that men who pressure women to have sex without protection, men who think it's cool to impregnate women, or men who treat women like cum dumpsters, are trash. But, you don't have to be married to be sexually responsible or respectful to women. Being sexually responsible is as easy as wearing condoms without a fuss, when sex is intended to be strictly recreational. If men did that, we wouldn't need this debate about abortion or publicly paid contraception for women.
Yell,
Only in limited circumstances is palimony enforced, and I imagine its mostly used as insurance for women who sacrifice their careers to have children and/or stay home. It's only right to compensate a woman if you ditch her after she's sacrificed her career... for you.
Yeah, well, they were barbaric back then. What's your point?
Kemp,
The Family Research Council. Enough said.
That's probably a bit extreme. But just because the founders lived in a different culture, it doesn't make it right. And there's nothing trashy about pre-marital sex. A woman is not the property of her father, and all fathers who treat their daughters that way are complete scum. Secondly, there's no necessary connection between marriage, which is an institution, and love.
WTF does palimony have to do with anything?
Umm no, the founders did not believe in forced castration. And even if they did, it didn't apply to black women, who they raped for fun.
The social conservatives are the single reason why the Republican party is declining. The younger generation hates them, and their base is dying off.
If the government punished pre-marital sex and further privileged marriage and Christianity, that would be a tipping point where I would support armed rebellion. And I'm sure a lot of young men would too. If you want public peace, then keep sex cheap by keeping it possible to minimize its risks.
Cyprus had no equivalent of the FDIC?
Imperial Forum → Posts by Justinian I
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.