[PLUG-TALK] Chirac's shocker... Iraq.

Grish grishnav at egosurf.net
Sat Dec 27 09:15:05 UTC 2003


none wrote:

>How did this degrade into telling people whether or not they can be
>fertile and whether or not they can have children?  
>

Everything degrades into a moral/religious discussion with you, Mikey.

>That is between
>a couple and God.  In some cases a single woman and God.  
>

Look! There it is. I was wondering what took so long...

>Condoms
>are one of the stupidest inventions man has ever come up with,
>  
>

Right. Out of all the dumb shit ideas out there, condoms are certainly 
the stupidest. (Clap on, clap off!)

I'd have to say religion is the stupidest invention man has ever come up 
with. Oops. Now I'm going to get it.

>They don't stop AIDS yet they are recommended for this purpose.
>  
>

*Latex male condoms* (which is, for the purpose of this discussion, what 
I will assume you are referring to when you say 'condoms'), when used 
properly, can very effectively mitigate the spread of HIV and AIDS.

>They often don't even prevent pregnancy which they are supposedly
>designed to do.  
>

They have a typical efficacy of 90+%. Even prolife.com, blatantly 
anti-contraceptive, lists rubber-latex as being 10-36% ineffective 
(66-90% *effective*).

Many of the failures are due to improper usage rather than actual 
failure of the condom to block discharge.

>I don't believe in artificially making oneself
>infertile anyways, 
>

So that's why you're arguing pseudo-science, spin, and half-truths - in 
the name of a misguided belief. Now it makes sense.

>though I will say with a 1 in 3 failure
>rate that condoms can't do that very well.  
>

prolife.com lists a 1/3 failure rate as the *absolute worst*. Even 
biased statistics *barely* support the crap that you are spewing.

Factually, the failure rate of condoms is *much* lower than 1 in 3. 
Closer to 1 in 20 (5%).

>About the only thing
>a condom is good for is causing a loud noise when they blow off
>a car's tail pipe.
>  
>

I'm not sure if this is literal or subtle innuendo for repressed 
homosexual tendencies. I'm inclined to believe the latter...

>Since the HIV virus is ten times smaller than a male sperm
>where many condoms will let a sperm through, why anyone recommends 
>these things for AIDS prevention is completely beyond me.
>  
>

Because latex isn't permeable to either. It doesn't matter that HIV is 
smaller (closer to fifty times, not ten, according to prolife.com) than 
sperm; what matters is that neither of the two pass through the latex.

Here's a shocker for you: Know those gloves that millions of doctors, 
nurses, paramedics, and other medical professionals use to prevent 
disease from being transmitted to them when they have to interact with 
the blood of the patients they are treating? Yeah, they just happen to 
be Latex. The exact same stuff the condoms are made of.

If AIDS passes through condoms, then you'd better get to warning 
everybody you know to throw away their latex gloves. They're useless.

>And for those who say add add a chemical, do you like pesticides?
>  
>

Pesticides are yummy. I used to drink them as a child.

The green pellets are the best.

>The idea that everyone is sexually active is false.  
>

Agreed. There are plenty of people who choose not to engage in 
intercourse for various reasons. There are also plenty who simply can't 
get any.

It's not a bad thing, either. It's better you don't procreate, Mikey.

>Pushing 
>people to accept "protection" is both abusive and an invasion 
>of privacy.
>  
>

...come again?

How is anybody invading my privacy by "pushing to accept 'protection'"? 
Hell, who/where are these people who are supposedly pushing me?

I think you're delusional, there, Mikey.







More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list