Do you tell your customers that you're incapable of understanding relative rates? I mean, that's a pretty basic mathematical concept. I think it might be relevant for someone who does taxes.
She's actually half right, whereas you're only 1/3 right (about the IV drug users). The gay friend to whom I made fun of you told me about the papers he'd written on the subject, in which he discovered previous research showing that the promiscuity studies of the late 70s/early 80s, used today by evangelical hate groups, studied homosexuals at gay bars for swingers because the researchers didn't know where else to find any. More honest studies today show that gay males are on average as promiscuous as heterosexual males who can find equally willing female partners, whereas gay females are on average as promiscuous as heterosexual females who aren't being pressured by males.
More honest studies today show that gay males are on average as promiscuous as heterosexual males who can find equally willing female partners So... way more promiscuous than heterosexual males, who by definition, have to deal with finding willing female partners. Part of your problem is that you're thinking of promiscuity on moral terms, where I'm thinking of it merely in practical, disease-spreading terms: Actual numbers of partners. Which is really all that a bacterium or a virus cares about. In order to solve this problem, we'd have to convince gay men to deny each other sex. To be unwilling. Clearly, they will not do this on their own, and have not found a way to do this, despite the threat of deadly disease. Even that is too far removed a threat to be much of a deterrent. An effective, behavior-changing incentive must be even more immediate. (You can't get more severe than painful death by disease, so severity is not the issue.)
Who jumped to the conclusion I was talking about "racial genocide"? That came out of your own brain. If you were slightly less unhinged, that fact alone might give you pause.
Exactly my point: some of us are mindful of humane ethics, always wary of psychotics who lack any basis by which to rule out such behavior.
Why don't you be more clear about where you stand? Go ahead: take pride in your advocacy. Say what you do recommend as your "final solution" to promiscuity among blacks.
Your comment hypocritically calling me a liar and hurling insults has been deleted, as will all other comments that don't answer this simple, straightforward question:
What do you recommend as your "final solution" to promiscuity among blacks?
Comments 18
Reply
1. Men
2. Women
Reply
Reply
Her division is more sensible than yours.
Reply
So... way more promiscuous than heterosexual males, who by definition, have to deal with finding willing female partners. Part of your problem is that you're thinking of promiscuity on moral terms, where I'm thinking of it merely in practical, disease-spreading terms: Actual numbers of partners. Which is really all that a bacterium or a virus cares about. In order to solve this problem, we'd have to convince gay men to deny each other sex. To be unwilling. Clearly, they will not do this on their own, and have not found a way to do this, despite the threat of deadly disease. Even that is too far removed a threat to be much of a deterrent. An effective, behavior-changing incentive must be even more immediate. (You can't get more severe than painful death by disease, so severity is not the issue.)
Reply
Reply
Reply
Why don't you be more clear about where you stand? Go ahead: take pride in your advocacy. Say what you do recommend as your "final solution" to promiscuity among blacks.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
What do you recommend as your "final solution" to promiscuity among blacks?
Reply
Leave a comment