Ponderable

Sheriff Joe said:
So, if we took 5 or 10% of the population out of out country and out schools don't you think we could pay for gate?
Click to expand...

Joe thinks if we just got rid of illegals the education system would be fixed. AOC keeps talking about how taking white people money out of the system will bring about the end of poverty. Tenacious on the other hand simply wonders when it became okay to say racist ideas out loud?
 
tenacious said:
Joe thinks if we just got rid of illegals the education system would be fixed. AOC keeps talking about how taking white people money out of the system will bring about the end of poverty. Tenacious on the other hand simply wonders when it became okay to say racist ideas out loud?
Click to expand...
Nothing racist about removing the illegals from our country, no matter what color or religion they are.
 
tenacious said:
Great point Lion... I should have just asked the magic Private School Faerie to leave the funds under my pillow.
Click to expand...
That's asinine td...
I think a better approach would be to fill out financial aid paper work and submit it to the financial aid office.
My kids attended Oaks Christian high school thanks to financial aid.
Good luck with fairyland.
 
Andy Dukes said:
Nope. I did a 12 second Google search and posted the first two articles that showed this was a problem and well known one.
Click to expand...
In other words you did a copy paste without actually reading what you posted. That would explain why the other link actually disproved your case. You should read it, it's a good article.
 
Multi Sport said:
In other words you did a copy paste without actually reading what you posted. That would explain why the other link actually disproved your case. You should read it, it's a good article.
Click to expand...
It did not disprove my point. The Catholic Church tried to disprove and back their assumptions about condoms not being effective in stopping Aids and other STD's because they find their usage against nature. Of course DR's are against nature but wtf. The Wiki article on the relationship is full of all sorts of arguments in both directions but the reality is, condoms stop AIDS with almost 100% effectiveness. But you know that. You are just arguing to argue.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_HIV/AIDS
 
Andy Dukes said:
It did not disprove my point. The Catholic Church tried to disprove and back their assumptions about condoms not being effective in stopping Aids and other STD's because they find their usage against nature. Of course DR's are against nature but wtf. The Wiki article on the relationship is full of all sorts of arguments in both directions but the reality is, condoms stop AIDS with almost 100% effectiveness. But you know that. You are just arguing to argue.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_HIV/AIDS
Click to expand...
Andy Dukes said:
It did not disprove my point. The Catholic Church tried to disprove and back their assumptions about condoms not being effective in stopping Aids and other STD's because they find their usage against nature. Of course DR's are against nature but wtf. The Wiki article on the relationship is full of all sorts of arguments in both directions but the reality is, condoms stop AIDS with almost 100% effectiveness. But you know that. You are just arguing to argue.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_HIV/AIDS
Click to expand...
This is from YOUR link, not mine:

"At the peak of the HIV crisis in the 1980s, the country of Uganda had one of the highest infection rates – almost 25 percent of the population were HIV positive by 1991, according to the Washington Post. With the help of the country’s religious leaders, Uganda President Yoweri Museveni adopted the simplest and least expensive intervention possible in the poor and war-torn country – a public education program stressing abstinence before marriage and faithfulness afterward, largely de-emphasizing condom use except for those most at risk. In just eight years, the country saw the most significant decline in HIV infection rates in the world. According to a 2004 article in the “Journal of International Development”, it was “the lack of condom promotion during the 1980s and early 1990s (that) contributed to the relative success of behavior change strategies in Uganda.” But just as Uganda was seeing a significant decline, the United States intervened, restructuring the country's approach and focusing more on condoms and less on abstinence and monogamy. In an op-ed for the Washington Post, Harvard's leading HIV researcher Dr. Edward Green and Wilfred Mlay, then-vice president for World Vision Africa, wrote that while the United States was generous in offering their help, the Western ideologies and approaches may have actually undermined the success previously seen in Uganda. “The Ugandan turnaround was well underway by the time foreign AIDS experts began to arrive in the early 1990s, bringing with them the Western public health approaches—and values. They began to retool Uganda's AIDS prevention efforts away from abstinence and fidelity—goals that many Westerners felt were unrealistic. As condom use increased, the percentage of young singles having sex rose from 27 percent to 37 percent between 1995 and 2000. Health officials worry that infection rates may increase as well,” they wrote. The problem with condoms Regardless of religious belief, condom use to curb HIV infection proves problematic for several reasons. One of the biggest issues with the promotion of condoms as a solution to HIV is that most people do not consistently or correctly use condoms, even after going through sex education. A study published by “The Annals of Pharmacotherapy” found that out of 500 couples who were repeatedly told by their doctors to use condoms, only eight percent did so consistently, despite knowledge that one partner had herpes. A different study found that only 50 percent of couples in which one partner had HIV used condoms consistently over time. Another part of the problem is something called risk compensation. In an interview with the BBC, Dr. Green said that risk compensation happens when people use risk-reducing technology in a way that assumes the technology cancels out all risk. As an example, in an interview with BBC, Dr. Green compared condom use to sunblock. He said the protection offered by sunblock is cancelled out when the person using sunblock assumes they are completely protected and therefore spends even more time in the sun. Similarly, people using condoms are more likely to engage in risky sexual behavior because of the assumed protection, when in fact repeated exposure to infected persons decreases the protection that condoms offer. The phenomenon of risk compensation also means people using condoms are more likely to have a greater number of sexual partners, increasing their risk for certain STDs which in turn increases the likelihood of the transmission of HIV. Many STDs create open sores, which act as portals of entry for HIV infection. Another reason condoms alone fail at protecting people against HIV is because of the likelihood of disease transmission over time. According to a 2001 article in The Lancet, the more frequently one changes sexual partners, the more likely it is that they will spread HIV. This is because HIV is highly contagious when it is first contracted, but it is often not detectable until later. Therefore, an infected person could think they are HIV-free and go on to infect more people before they realize they have HIV. The study found that if there were at least six months in between sexual partners, the rate of HIV infections would significantly decrease. "

Tell me again how this proves your point? But I'll give you an B for effort...
 
Multi Sport said:
This is from YOUR link, not mine:

"At the peak of the HIV crisis in the 1980s, the country of Uganda had one of the highest infection rates – almost 25 percent of the population were HIV positive by 1991, according to the Washington Post. With the help of the country’s religious leaders, Uganda President Yoweri Museveni adopted the simplest and least expensive intervention possible in the poor and war-torn country – a public education program stressing abstinence before marriage and faithfulness afterward, largely de-emphasizing condom use except for those most at risk. In just eight years, the country saw the most significant decline in HIV infection rates in the world. According to a 2004 article in the “Journal of International Development”, it was “the lack of condom promotion during the 1980s and early 1990s (that) contributed to the relative success of behavior change strategies in Uganda.” But just as Uganda was seeing a significant decline, the United States intervened, restructuring the country's approach and focusing more on condoms and less on abstinence and monogamy. In an op-ed for the Washington Post, Harvard's leading HIV researcher Dr. Edward Green and Wilfred Mlay, then-vice president for World Vision Africa, wrote that while the United States was generous in offering their help, the Western ideologies and approaches may have actually undermined the success previously seen in Uganda. “The Ugandan turnaround was well underway by the time foreign AIDS experts began to arrive in the early 1990s, bringing with them the Western public health approaches—and values. They began to retool Uganda's AIDS prevention efforts away from abstinence and fidelity—goals that many Westerners felt were unrealistic. As condom use increased, the percentage of young singles having sex rose from 27 percent to 37 percent between 1995 and 2000. Health officials worry that infection rates may increase as well,” they wrote. The problem with condoms Regardless of religious belief, condom use to curb HIV infection proves problematic for several reasons. One of the biggest issues with the promotion of condoms as a solution to HIV is that most people do not consistently or correctly use condoms, even after going through sex education. A study published by “The Annals of Pharmacotherapy” found that out of 500 couples who were repeatedly told by their doctors to use condoms, only eight percent did so consistently, despite knowledge that one partner had herpes. A different study found that only 50 percent of couples in which one partner had HIV used condoms consistently over time. Another part of the problem is something called risk compensation. In an interview with the BBC, Dr. Green said that risk compensation happens when people use risk-reducing technology in a way that assumes the technology cancels out all risk. As an example, in an interview with BBC, Dr. Green compared condom use to sunblock. He said the protection offered by sunblock is cancelled out when the person using sunblock assumes they are completely protected and therefore spends even more time in the sun. Similarly, people using condoms are more likely to engage in risky sexual behavior because of the assumed protection, when in fact repeated exposure to infected persons decreases the protection that condoms offer. The phenomenon of risk compensation also means people using condoms are more likely to have a greater number of sexual partners, increasing their risk for certain STDs which in turn increases the likelihood of the transmission of HIV. Many STDs create open sores, which act as portals of entry for HIV infection. Another reason condoms alone fail at protecting people against HIV is because of the likelihood of disease transmission over time. According to a 2001 article in The Lancet, the more frequently one changes sexual partners, the more likely it is that they will spread HIV. This is because HIV is highly contagious when it is first contracted, but it is often not detectable until later. Therefore, an infected person could think they are HIV-free and go on to infect more people before they realize they have HIV. The study found that if there were at least six months in between sexual partners, the rate of HIV infections would significantly decrease. "

Tell me again how this proves your point? But I'll give you an B for effort...
Click to expand...
Again, if you think condoms are a detriment to stopping STDs including HIV, you are either delusional or fooling yourself. Read through that section very carefully and all the ifs and when you don't use correctly. Using a condom correctly is pretty easy to train. If you are trying to block their usage to begin with based on some ancient mythology, than you can come to your own conclusions about how they are not safe enough. I taught my kids to use sunblock and condoms. Also to visit DR's when they need to. Also Dentists.
 
Multi Sport said:
This is from YOUR link, not mine:

"At the peak of the HIV crisis in the 1980s, the country of Uganda had one of the highest infection rates – almost 25 percent of the population were HIV positive by 1991, according to the Washington Post. With the help of the country’s religious leaders, Uganda President Yoweri Museveni adopted the simplest and least expensive intervention possible in the poor and war-torn country – a public education program stressing abstinence before marriage and faithfulness afterward, largely de-emphasizing condom use except for those most at risk. In just eight years, the country saw the most significant decline in HIV infection rates in the world. According to a 2004 article in the “Journal of International Development”, it was “the lack of condom promotion during the 1980s and early 1990s (that) contributed to the relative success of behavior change strategies in Uganda.” But just as Uganda was seeing a significant decline, the United States intervened, restructuring the country's approach and focusing more on condoms and less on abstinence and monogamy. In an op-ed for the Washington Post, Harvard's leading HIV researcher Dr. Edward Green and Wilfred Mlay, then-vice president for World Vision Africa, wrote that while the United States was generous in offering their help, the Western ideologies and approaches may have actually undermined the success previously seen in Uganda. “The Ugandan turnaround was well underway by the time foreign AIDS experts began to arrive in the early 1990s, bringing with them the Western public health approaches—and values. They began to retool Uganda's AIDS prevention efforts away from abstinence and fidelity—goals that many Westerners felt were unrealistic. As condom use increased, the percentage of young singles having sex rose from 27 percent to 37 percent between 1995 and 2000. Health officials worry that infection rates may increase as well,” they wrote. The problem with condoms Regardless of religious belief, condom use to curb HIV infection proves problematic for several reasons. One of the biggest issues with the promotion of condoms as a solution to HIV is that most people do not consistently or correctly use condoms, even after going through sex education. A study published by “The Annals of Pharmacotherapy” found that out of 500 couples who were repeatedly told by their doctors to use condoms, only eight percent did so consistently, despite knowledge that one partner had herpes. A different study found that only 50 percent of couples in which one partner had HIV used condoms consistently over time. Another part of the problem is something called risk compensation. In an interview with the BBC, Dr. Green said that risk compensation happens when people use risk-reducing technology in a way that assumes the technology cancels out all risk. As an example, in an interview with BBC, Dr. Green compared condom use to sunblock. He said the protection offered by sunblock is cancelled out when the person using sunblock assumes they are completely protected and therefore spends even more time in the sun. Similarly, people using condoms are more likely to engage in risky sexual behavior because of the assumed protection, when in fact repeated exposure to infected persons decreases the protection that condoms offer. The phenomenon of risk compensation also means people using condoms are more likely to have a greater number of sexual partners, increasing their risk for certain STDs which in turn increases the likelihood of the transmission of HIV. Many STDs create open sores, which act as portals of entry for HIV infection. Another reason condoms alone fail at protecting people against HIV is because of the likelihood of disease transmission over time. According to a 2001 article in The Lancet, the more frequently one changes sexual partners, the more likely it is that they will spread HIV. This is because HIV is highly contagious when it is first contracted, but it is often not detectable until later. Therefore, an infected person could think they are HIV-free and go on to infect more people before they realize they have HIV. The study found that if there were at least six months in between sexual partners, the rate of HIV infections would significantly decrease. "

Tell me again how this proves your point? But I'll give you an B for effort...
Click to expand...

"...most people do not consistently or correctly use condoms..."
 
Hüsker Dü said:
Yeah, but he still wants free stuff.
Click to expand...

There used to be a guy who posted here who denied that Oaks Christian (and other "private" schools) give athletic scholarships in the face of news articles where young athletes cluelessly admitted it. Was that him? If so, he has learned the code words well - "financial aid application" etc.
 
Andy Dukes said:
Again, if you think condoms are a detriment to stopping STDs including HIV, you are either delusional or fooling yourself. Read through that section very carefully and all the ifs and when you don't use correctly. Using a condom correctly is pretty easy to train. If you are trying to block their usage to begin with based on some ancient mythology, than you can come to your own conclusions about how they are not safe enough. I taught my kids to use sunblock and condoms. Also to visit DR's when they need to. Also Dentists.
Click to expand...
Seriously Andy... you need to go back and read my post about condom use and STDs. And the article does not support your stance as you said it did... that was my point. You really should read what your posting before you post it.
 
Federal court takes steps to unseal documents in Jeffrey Epstein related case
John Sexton Mar 11, 2019 7:01 PM
Top Pick
Virginia-Roberts.jpg

“…Maxwell approached her and asked her whether she wanted to become a masseuse for Epstein.”
 
Multi Sport said:
Seriously Andy... you need to go back and read my post about condom use and STDs. And the article does not support your stance as you said it did... that was my point. You really should read what your posting before you post it.
Click to expand...
If you read the WHOLE Wiki article, it is as I stated. Showing a mix of opinions. I don't need Wiki to know two things.

1. The Catholic Church actively dissuaded the use of condoms during the worst parts of the AIDS crisis in Africa. Uganda was just one country affected. There is not one bit of argument about that fact. The Catholic Church agrees with that fact.
2. Using condoms blocks at almost a 100% rate the risk of AIDS when used correctly and all the time. Not an arguable point. Just a fact.

I consider any organization that dissuaded the use of condoms during a full blown AIDS epidemic as evil. That would be my opinion of any organization. Not just the Catholic Church.

My opinion based on research at the time is that pushing back against the use of condoms was not a winning strategy. As part of the ABC strategy, many were led to follow the first portion abstinence and maybe fidelity but many in Kenya and other areas were being taught by churches and others that condoms were actually an evil plan to let HIV in and not effective. Where the education on actually using condoms, saw a decrease in new cases.

My opinion does not matter. The points 1 and 2 are truths.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top