this is a fine example of what a year locked up does to a body.

sure. willing to listen to the p o s s i b i l i t y of corona being manufactured, but have some hard evidence. please. in a country billions +, origins of swine, bird, and ABC123 lettered viruses - it's not unreasonable to expect a lab to be located in a region where the pandemic started.

as it is, not versed in immunology (nor psychology or 'why are the following me') so rely on those who know (and don't have stock in Alcoa). that and the experiences of a lifetime being ginned up preparing for the next life-altering bug.

herpes, aids, penicillin-resistant gonorrhea/syphilis/chlamydia/TB, cjd, zika, lyme, west nile, ebola or the plethora of viruses, of eastern origins, that could become the next Spanish Flu.*

all those diseases have natural origins.

so, yeah. this pandemic wasn't a surprise. no more than Hurricane Katrina (why did they build that bridge over Lake Pontchartrain) or why the ere-orange administration left a 'play book' for Virus X.

it was foreseen, it happened, and could happen again. much more likely another flaming arrow from natures' quiver. (shivers given via a quiver?)

Occam's razor, in essence (should have led w/that).


* even new strains of hepatitis caused waves for a while and there was a bit of time, a virus in the NW USA was akin to airborne aids but disappear as quickly as it came and schistosomiasis has come closer to our shores - - - AND NOW -https://www.livescience.com/mystery-brain-disease-cluster-canada.html that hopefully isn't the precursor to zombie-itis.

All that gear doesn't protect her a bit from the real danger Drop Bears present....Chlamydia. In some areas, 100% of wild koalas have it, and they can transmit it to humans.
Just try telling your wife she has the clap because you pet a koala, not because you pet the babysitter.

John Oliver - Chlamydia in Norway has been added as a related post - related requested by PlayhousePals on that post.

Disease rates

"During the past two decades, an explosive growth in both the prevalence and types of sexually transmitted diseases has occurred. Up to 55 percent of homosexual men with anorectal complaints have gonorrhea; 80 percent of the patients with syphilis are homosexuals. Chlamydia is found in 15 percent of asymptomatic homosexual men, and up to one third of homosexuals have active anorectal herpes simplex virus"

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrezDb=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=2242700&ordinalpos=4&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_Resul
tsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

Higher rates of AIDS - 63 percent of new cases

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5424a2.htm


Drug use

Among homosexual men, ages 18 to 25: 79.2 percent have used marijuana; 75 percent have used psychotherapeutics for nonmedical reasons; 65.2 percent have used stimulants such as dexedrine and benzedrine; 62.5 percent have used inhalants such as amyl or butyl nitrate; and 50.2 percent have used hallucinogens such as LSD. Rates among lesbians: marijuana, 82 percent; psychotherapeutics, 58.8 percent; stimulants, 52.9 percent; inhalants, 41.2 percent; and hallucinogens, 41.2 percent. Comparing current usage to national usage, homosexuals were found to use drugs with greater frequency: "Among adults aged 18-25, 16.5 percent of men and 9.1 percent of women have used marijuana in the past month, compared with 37.5 per-cent of gay men and 23.5 percent of lesbians."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1615476/

20 times higher rate of meth use (quoted from LA Times article)

http://www.narth.com/docs/methuse.html

Domestic violence

"Rates of battering victimization among urban MSM are substantially higher than among heterosexual men and possibly heterosexual women. Public health efforts directed toward addressing intimate partner battering among these men are needed."

http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.92.12.1964

http://www.springerlink.com/content/r130ql0471892435/

Depression, suicide, mental health

LGB people are at higher risk of mental disorder, suicidal ideation, substance misuse, and deliberate self harm than heterosexual people

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18706118

Findings support recent evidence suggesting that gay, lesbian, and bisexual young people are at increased risk of mental health problems, with these associations being particularly evident for measures of suicidal behavior and multiple disorder.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10530626

Life expectancy of homosexuals

"In a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years will not reach their 65th birthday. Under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban centre are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871"

http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/26/3/657.abstract

Statistics on Amsterdam

According to a study in the Netherlands where homosexuality has been accepted and mainstreamed for years, homosexual behavior significantly increases the likelihood of psychiatric, mental and emotional disorders, negating the mindset that society’s lack of tolerance of homosexual behavior and lifestyle produces these psychoses Youth are four times as likely to suffer major depression, almost three times as likely to suffer generalized anxiety disorder, nearly four times as likely to experience conduct disorder, four times as likely to commit suicide, five times as likely to have nicotine dependence, six times as likely to suffer multiple disorders, and more than six times as likely to have attempted suicide.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11146762

That covers all of my claims. I think you'll find all of the evidence I have provided is from unbiased sources. This refutes the claim that homosexuality does not harm anyone. It clearly harms the individual, the community and society at large.

Here are some more statistics that I don't have direct links to. .

An Amsterdam study found that the average homosexual relationship lasts only 18 months and that "men in homosexual relationships, on average, have eight partners a year outside those relationships." By comparison, more than two-thirds of heterosexual marriages in America last longer than ten years. Maria Xiridou et al.,

"The Contribution of Steady and Casual Partnerships to the Incidence of HIV Infection Among Homosexual Men in Amsterdam,"
AIDS 17, 7 (2003): 1029-1038.

Ricky Behaviors:

Researchers from the University of California, San Francisco found that thirty-six percent of homosexuals engaging in unprotected oral, anal, or vaginal sex failed to disclose that they were HIV positive to casual sex partners.

"Some With HIV Aren't Disclosing Before Sex; UCSF Researcher's 1,397-person Study Presented During aids Conference," The San Francisco Examiner (July 15, 2000)"

A CDC report revealed that, in 1997, 45 percent of homosexuals reporting having had unprotected anal intercourse during the previous six months did not know the HIV serostatus of all their sex partners. Even more alarming, among those who reported having had unprotected anal intercourse and multiple partners, 68 percent did not know the HIV serostatus of their partners

Gay and Bi Men Less Likely to Disclose They Have HIV," GayHealth News (July 18, 2000).

Promiscuity

A.P. Bell and M.S. Weinberg, in their classic study of male and female homosexuality, found that 43 percent of white male homosexuals had sex with 500 or more partners, with 28 percent having 1,000 or more sex partners.

A. P. Bell and M. S. Weinberg, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978), pp. 308, 9; see alsoBell, Weinberg and Hammersmith, Sexual Preference (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1981)

Paul Van de Ven et al., "A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men," Journal of Sex Research 34 (1997): 354. Dr. Paul Van de Ven reiterated these results in a private conversation with Dr. Robert Gagnon on September 7, 2000

In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al., found that only 2.7 percent claimed to have had sex with one partner only. The most common response, given by 21.6 percent of the respondents, was of having a hundred-one to five hundred lifetime sex partners.

Survey Finds 40 percent of Gay Men Have Had More Than 40 Sex Partners," Lambda Report, January/February 1998, p. 20.

A survey conducted by the homosexual magazine Genre found that 24 percent of the respondents said they had had more than a hundred sexual partners in their lifetime. The magazine noted that several respondents suggested including a category of those who had more than a thousand sexual partners.[11]

M. Pollak, "Male Homosexuality," in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, edited by P. Aries and A. Bejin, pp. 40-61, cited by Joseph Nicolosi in Reparative therapy of Male Homosexuality (Northvale, New Jersey: Jason Aronson Inc., 1991),

In his study of male homosexuality in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, M. Pollak found that "few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners."

David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1984), pp. 252, 3.

>> ^curiousity:

Not a single word of hate for Games for Windows Live? Well I'll add it then.

You know when you've slept with one too many strippers and you get a surprise dosage of Chlamydia? That's what Games for Windows Live is. It's a pestulent boil on the otherwise fine, if large, ass of Bulletstorm. It even wanted me to register on XBOX live, even though I'm playing the PC game, presumably as a sex offender.

There is an UI designer that needs a serious whacking with a mouse. When I started the game for the first time, it said "Press Enter to continue" to the menu, I assumed, but when I did, I had to log into Games for Windows Live or burn in hell. So I did, found my login after some brain wracking and typed it all in. Then Games for Wünderkinds Live wanted to update. Alright, Games for Wonderbras Live, I'll play along. "Restart the game now?" But where? I was stuck back at the "Press Enter to Continue" screen in Bulletstorm, with no quit button. Oh, Pepic Can Fly, you dastardly UI Mavericks, I just have to press enter you say? "Plesae log in to Jims in Wanda Live to continue". "You cannot log in to Jims in Wanda Live right now, since it's being updated with more fucking chlamydia" Not only can I not get into the game and play, I can't get the hell out of it.

The village idiot? Freud after a sex change? Chlamydia in a suit?

Good...the last thing I would want is for you to get burned.>> ^quantumushroom:

I upvoted your comment...while wearing rubber gloves.
>> ^rottenseed:
Invisible fire...just like my chlamydia

I upvoted your comment...while wearing rubber gloves.

>> ^rottenseed:

Invisible fire...just like my chlamydia

Invisible fire...just like my chlamydia

Diseases that come from Male / Male: AIDS

Diseases that come from Male / Female: AIDS, Syphilis, Herpes, Gonorrhea, Chlamydia, etc; etc;

>> ^imstellar28:
1. The ends justify the means. Like a Medusa, this philosophy shows itself a thousand different ways; whether its burning witches at the stake, trespassing to videotape others having sex, or making STD testing mandatory for prostitutes - at its core, is the same monster: the ends justify the means. You cannot support one without supporting them all for despite their varied appearances, they are all one and the same.
2. Irrational Fear. Your argument is framed in fear, a tiger in a bushes or a Cheney in the desert. The results of policy driven by scaremongering and policy driven by reason and intellect have, historically, been more than lopsided. We are not a Fox News audience, so why would you try to provoke us as such?
3. Slippery slope principle/Snowball Effect. I do not think you pay enough respect to this principle. You seem content that humans do not carry simple principles to their furthest reaches, turning a tiny snowball into a 300 ft disaster as it reaches the bottom of the hill.

*sigh* Why do we need to go over this same ground all the time?

#1 conflates the prostitution equivalent of traffic laws with communists calling for a worker's revolution. You've admitted you'd like a violent revolution against people like me. You're a hypocrite, and a fearmonger.

#2 is pure projection. Irrational fear is thinking that the government requiring businessmen to care about their customers is more worrisome than letting businessmen be free to do whatever they can get away with behind a customer's back.

#3 is an example of your own irrational fear. There's a big difference between regulation requiring regular testing for STD's, and requiring testing for everyone. It's like the difference between saying "Football players should wear protective gear to play" and "everyone watching the game must wear the same protective gear". I can probably get the congress to implement the former rule, I'd certainly get laughed at for the latter. These same forces you think rule the private market are certainly at work in democratic politics.

4. Lesser of two evils. You seem distrusting of humans enough to force them into testing, and monitoring their behavior; but trusting enough of humans not to persecute others or abuse their power; yet the entire weight of history and psychology is against this notion. There has been far more suffering at the hands of human persecution than there ever has been at the hands of herpes, HIV, or chlamydia.

This is where you completely lose me. I'm distrustful of all humans. I'm trustful that politicians will obey elections, that our elections aren't being rigged, and that if they were, they couldn't keep it secret, and we'd have a revolution to put those things back in order. Keeping bad politicians out and good ones in is our responsibility. If you have an idea of how to make that effort easier, I'm all ears.

I'm generally trustful that most businesses are just out to make a buck, and have no inherent desire to be evil. I just think that they have a tendency to be amoral in their quest for profit, and often being evil is more cost-effective than being good.

When you're a public figure, you have to either a) sell evil as good, or b) do good. Everyone's capitalistic self interest is in trying to catch them doing evil, and out them for it. So much so, people in many different political sewing circles will make things up, and try to "out" politicians for things they didn't do (like, say, forge a fake birth certificate).

If you're a company with a product, you just don't tell people about the evil, and spend billions on marketing the positives of the product. If someone happens to catch them doing something evil, and tells the world about it, they get a vehement denial, and a disinformation campaign, maybe even a lawsuit (though they seem to do that less these days).

The market libertarians imagine is a figment of mathematical fancy -- out here in the real world, there isn't perfect information, there isn't perfect competition, and there are very few truly rational economic actors. Even if there were, what you would need to enforce a libertarian free market would be a government with perfect information, perfect enforcement, perfect impartiality, clear consensus on how to apply the law, and all the power it needs to enforce it.

Out here in the real world, we trust no one, least of all people who have a profit incentive for being indifferent to the harm they cause people.

1. The ends justify the means. Like a Medusa, this philosophy shows itself a thousand different ways; whether its burning witches at the stake, trespassing to videotape others having sex, or making STD testing mandatory for prostitutes - at its core, is the same monster: the ends justify the means. You cannot support one without supporting them all for despite their varied appearances, they are all one and the same.

2. Irrational Fear. Your argument is framed in fear, a tiger in a bushes or a Cheney in the desert. The results of policy driven by scaremongering and policy driven by reason and intellect have, historically, been more than lopsided. We are not a Fox News audience, so why would you try to provoke us as such?

3. Slippery slope principle/Snowball Effect. I do not think you pay enough respect to this principle. You seem content that humans do not carry simple principles to their furthest reaches, turning a tiny snowball into a 300 ft disaster as it reaches the bottom of the hill. How far would we have to travel from this "good intentioned" policy before someone asked the following "good intentioned" questions:

"which of you would join me in making it illegal to practice sex without regular testing for disease"
"which of you would join me in requiring annual testing of all persons for disease"
"which of you would join me in requiring armbands be worn which visually display the results of all disease tests"
"which of you would join me in prohibiting those with diseases from having sex"
"which of you would join me in making it illegal to leave your house without regular testing for disease"
and so on...

We can't frame a reasonable argument against any of these ideas if we accept your premise, because they are all based on the same idea of "the common good" being more important than individual misery. Certainly, each would provide more and more "common good" at the expense of more and more individual misery. If "common good" is your only goal, there is no conceivable limit to the policies you could create.

4. Lesser of two evils. You seem distrusting of humans enough to force them into testing, and monitoring their behavior; but trusting enough of humans not to persecute others or abuse their power; yet the entire weight of history and psychology is against this notion. There has been far more suffering at the hands of human persecution than there ever has been at the hands of herpes, HIV, or chlamydia.

>> ^NetRunner:
Now, which of you would join me in making it illegal to practice prostitution without regular testing for disease? Neither of you?
Well then, I hope you all catch porcine chlamydia from your legal hookers.

You libertarian meanies are being a bit too rough on burdturgler.

I'm used to your silly accusations of being a violent oppressor motivated by feelings no different than the ones that fuel racism, jihad, and puppy chipping (ask Dick Cheney about that one). I think you're a bunch of morons if you think saying that to people is going to convince anyone to see things your way, but you can't help yourself, like Mr. Lowes here.

For what it's worth, I agree that the guy holding the camera is a douche, and that prostitution shouldn't be a crime.

Thing is, camera guy has a point -- no one really wants their neighborhood to be frequented by streetwalkers, and they definitely don't think it should be done in such an obvious manner in their neighborhood.

As imstellar put it, this is "good" intolerance. The cops obviously aren't doing the job (damn government can't do nothin' right!), and using violence is bad (unless my property is threatened, then shoot to kill is a-okay), so I take my right to free expression, and film the guy, then call the police, and twist their arm until they arrest him.

Sure, opening the door on them wouldn't have been cool if it'd been his personal truck, but what if the guy's boss gave permission to open the company truck when they spoke?

If we assume he just forgot to mention that fact, then suddenly this is just a totally kosher thing that a freedom-loving individual did in order to practice good intolerance and defend us, despite the government's incompetent (and violent!!!) involvement.

Boy, that was hard to type with all the eye rolling talking like that induces in me.

Now, which of you would join me in making it illegal to practice prostitution without regular testing for disease? Neither of you?

Well then, I hope you all catch porcine chlamydia from your legal hookers.

Chlamydia? That boy is a playa!

You know what? You're right. I'm out of line right now. Just because you downvote many of my comments doesn't give me license to be an obnoxious asshole. So I sincerely apologize, because I believe you are trying to help, and my remark was just like a spitball lobbed from the back of the room at the speaker. Again, my apologies. Anyway, here's what I disagree with:

You say this place "has all the factors necessary to deal with a troll by simply ignoring them." Most of the time that may be true, but not always. We don't allows racists to practice their hate speech here. We will not ignore them; we will expel them. We've allowed CaptainPlanet420 to practice his hate speech against homosexuals here, though I don't know why. Substitute the word "black" for "gay" in this comment, and suddenly he'd be referring to black "losers" instead of gay "losers". And then he would have been out the door. Yet he's still here.

Most of us, including yours truly, have tried to ignore him, but he keeps on saying ignorant shit solely to incite anger. His comments are never thoughtful or useful, just inflammatory. People like him are why talks like these are posted. We're not trying to stifle dissent; we're just tired of the most juvenile, useless members in our ranks. He's like chlamydia: Ignoring him won't make him go away, and over time he and his ilk will make the place worse if left untreated.

This is not a country with a constitution; it's a web site. CP420 is not endowed with certain inalienable rights whenever he logs in. This place is like a social club with very loose rules. Most of the time everything works okay, but then some jag-off walks in the door and expects us to put up with all his shit. Well I ain't buying it, and like I said, ignoring people like CP420 does not work. They keep on doing more outrageous things every time. And that is where I disagree with you. This place USUALLY has all the necessary factors in place to deal with a troll simply by ignoring him, but there are rare but noteworthy situations where sticking our heads in the sand simply does not work.

Ignoring the offenders works in most cases, and that's mostly what I do. But sometimes you have to take the gloves off. Just one man's opinion.