Having sex is good for you, barring STDs. So, tax churches to raise funds for clean prostitutes for all who wish to partake.

Sleeping is good for you, so we should put taxes on any company that insists on overtime that cuts into sleeping and regular meals...because eating regularly and on a schedule is healthier for your sleep cycle among other things.

Not stressing over bills is good for you, so tax the rich heavily to pay bills. That one would probably go over particularly well with the crowd he's preaching to.

>> ^BoneRemake:

>> ^Sepacore:
Wow Sultan, way to get your gene's out there.
Why so much hating on poor Sultan, they make him out to be an irresponsible sexual predator when he's just doing his natural biologically-driven thing, which is being a irresponsible sexual predator.
The options as i see it are: freedom/ignore-issue, sterilize/cut off balls, sex-education lessons, imprison/house cat, terminate or relocate to government funded cat-ladies.
Solution: roll a die per cat and see what fate the cat gets.

You forgot a bag and a river or ol' uncle .22


lol, being a cat lover I thought it better to cover all the potential methods for that general group of dealings under a single word, as the list of creative options ranging from ironically-funny to disturbing-cruel could fill a book.

I say, put them in front of a sex ed video of cool cats with top hats taking drugs and going to sex clubs, where by they contract STD's.. if that doesn't sort out those slutty felines, then it's probably because they're cats..

321 kitteh's.. i so want to high-five that guy

Did you all notice how it say's the owner is worse, and yet they still come to the conclusion we should have at the cat? Apply that logic to other circumstances.

Anyone ever exposed to babies know they are natures worst STD, tee hee.



I like Christopher Langan idea, of a "from birth" birth control, so that ALL pregnancies are a rational decision rather than by lust. Many of the worlds problems wouldn't be such a big deal if there weren't so many of us. We create a lot of hardship in providing for people by having more people tomorrow than we did today.

edit: ( I have always loved the word "Jesuit", there is just something smooth about the way that it is said, one of my favorite words, as it discombobulated)

I like TYT and agree with the obvious stupidity here, but a sound board and weak jokes about STDs seem a little inappropriate. There is an atmosphere of triumph here, they're more pleased about being proven right than they are concerned about the actual problem.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by Boise_Lib.

>> ^curiousity:
Thank you for providing this example of your irrationality and intellectual dishonesty by, among other things, completely ignoring the counterpoints to the few studies I was able to get to.

I didn't ignore your counterpoints, I just took them in the balance of this comment of yours:

"Ha. I really have better things to do than continue this conversation that you've, obviously for a long time, been preparing for"

Since you had already dismissed me as unworthy of your time, I saw little reason to devote much of my time to responding to your points. And even if everything you said were true, which I do not concede, it still wouldn't be enough to overturn the general conclusion of homosexuality being harmful to the individual, community and society. The evidence from the Netherlands is particularly powerful as it shows that even in societies that are open to homosexuality, the risk factors are the same or even worse. I'll address your points:

gay party scene: please be specific..I can think of one study.

too old: if it has changed, please show the data

>> ^curiousity:
"Link below is from 2003. It clearly shows the need for STD and sex education in this country. If I was less educated and wasn't worried about getting a woman pregnant, I wouldn't worry about condoms either. It's not a hard concept, but one that I imagine you will easily dismiss because it undermines your argument."

Are homosexuals less educated on STDs and sex education? How else do you account for them being 63 percent of all new cases? Why are the statistics the same everywhere you look. Sex education can only do so much..many people know when they are engaging in risky behavior and do it anyway.

>> ^curiousity:
"A study from two cities in a southern state from 1994. I've included a quote for this study that, apparently, you overlooked: "Although a low response rate severely limits the interpretation of these data, they are justified by the absence of similar published data for both gays and lesbians living outside major metropolitan areas." (This data isn't very useful, but we don't have any other data so we should use it. Again, not a hard concept, but it undermines you conclusions... Ignore! Ignore!)"

Here is more data:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15838193

>> ^curiousity:
"I like how you didn't read all of those 134 words in the second link - "helps users escape internalized homophobia or other social stigmas." I also find it shocking that gay men in long-term, stable relationships are not constantly going to an STD testing clinic - Does this point make sense? You haven't been completely robbed of all logic, have you? If you want to be a little more honest with yourself and actually look at the studies, it is easy to see the gaps that undermines your jumping to validate your viewpoint."

I'm sure that some drug use may be based on their feelings of being persecuted, but if it's all based on discrimination then why are the usage rates the same in countries where homosexuality is practically institutionalized? I also wonder where personal responsibility ever comes into play? Do you think people can blame all of their behavior on environmental factors and not take any responsibility for their own choices? If I lose all of my money because of some dishonest bank and become homeless, does that mean I now have a right to steal? Or when I steal, am I not a criminal?

>> ^curiousity:
There is a classic false argument of saying that being intolerant of intolerance is actually intolerance. If you want to classify my refusal to allow your intolerant claims to stand unabated in that manner, so be it. I do apologize that I didn't make myself more clear about not thinking you were a homophobe, but the simple fact is that I look at people's actions and speech instead of why they say they are doing something. Your actions of condemnation are the same end result and that is what I meant to draw the parallel too, but I had to leave for work and unfortunately didn't make that point clearly.

How are my claims intolerant? I am not intolerant of anyone, I am intolerant of sin. There is a difference between judging someone as a person and judging their behavior. I am incapable of judging anyone, because I would only be a hypocrite, being equally guilty as they are, but I can tell if what they're doing is right or wrong. And yes, it is intolerant (by definition) to be intolerant of those who don't tolerate your position. You either welcome everyone to the table, including those who disagree with you, or you do exactly what you accuse them of doing to you.

>> ^curiousity:
It irks me that you dismiss what I say as trying to undermine only part of your evidence. (To be more honest, I think that irksome feeling is more tied into your utter refusal to address those points of contention… which was expected, but still frustrating.) I didn't have enough time to go through all of your provided evidence. I had to leave for work soon and while writing is lovely, it is a laborious action for me - it takes a while for me to write anything surpassing cursory. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, is that I actually was reading and thinking about the studies. So while you were able to throw together quite a few apparently supporting studies for your viewpoint in an hour, I was much slower because I read those studies beyond the headline and skimming the abstract. Congratulations, you succeeded in becoming skillful on the quantity side... perhaps now it is time to focus on the quality side.

As I indicated, your post was dismissive..therefore I didn't spend much time on it. I appreciate the time you did spend but there was no indication you weren't interested in further dialogue.

>> ^curiousity:
Please in the future, respond after reading/viewing any evidence provided. This is similar to all the comments I see here asking you to actually watch the video before announcing that (shock!) what you thought was right was still right because you saw something that you disagree with in the first couple of minutes. If you don’t have the evidence or that evidence is something is the hazy distance of memory, just leave a comment that you need to refresh your memory on those resources. I completely understand this situation as I voraciously and nomadically spelunk into various intellectual subjects. On a semi-regular basis and depending on the subject, I will have to re-find that research that I faintly remember. I know that my writing style can come off as hyper-aggressive and be a little off-putting (especially when coupled how people have responded to you here on videosift.) I can only speak for myself, but if your response to my initial comment said simple that you had read it in some research long ago, that was hazy, and you needed to find those sources – this conversation could have went a very different route.

I'm open to a change in conversation. I am not super interested in arguing about statistics until kingdom come. I realize that they are not going to convince you of anything. I was just trying to support my statement. Since you feel that you understand some psychological motive about me that underlies my behavior, what do you think that is exactly? I can tell you that I do sincerely feel love for all people, even those who openly hate me. Mind you, sometimes I fail to show it, or even show the opposite..but that is something the Lord is helping me with. Some people are harder to love than others, but I see them all as being in the image of God and worthy of my love and respect. I can honestly say that have no predisposition against homosexuals, but you feel I do; so tell me why.

>> ^curiousity:

>> ^shinyblurry:

>> ^shinyblurry:

...snip...

Of course you have some information to verify your confirmation bias. There is an issue that some of these studies focus (or were only able to find) gay people in the gay party scene. This typically includes younger (or older that stayed in the party scene) people who normally engage in riskier behaviour. Hard to include those people who are quietly gay due to some fear or just preference. Some of these studies are quite old too (one of your cited studies is from 1981... Seriously?) Much has changed for gay men and women in the last 15+ years.


- Link below was not found (even with unbreaking the link.) Obviously you've been working on this presentation for a while so that you can quickly "prove" that gays are the blight on society that you claim.

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

- Link below is from 2003. It clearly shows the need for STD and sex education in this country. If I was less educated and wasn't worried about getting a woman pregnant, I wouldn't worry about condoms either. It's not a hard concept, but one that I imagine you will easily dismiss because it undermines your argument.

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

- A study from two cities in a southern state from 1994. I've included a quote for this study that, apparently, you overlooked: "Although a low response rate severely limits the interpretation of these data, they are justified by the absence of similar published data for both gays and lesbians living outside major metropolitan areas." (This data isn't very useful, but we don't have any other data so we should use it. Again, not a hard concept, but it undermines you conclusions... Ignore! Ignore!)

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

- I like how you didn't read all of those 134 words in the second link - "helps users escape internalized homophobia or other social stigmas." I also find it shocking that gay men in long-term, stable relationships are not constantly going to an STD testing clinic - Does this point make sense? You haven't been completely robbed of all logic, have you? If you want to be a little more honest with yourself and actually look at the studies, it is easy to see the gaps that undermines your jumping to validate your viewpoint.

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



Ha. I really have better things to do than continue this conversation that you've, obviously for a long time, been preparing for. We'll just have to agree to disagree, but I feel that, as with many born-again, you've lost your empathy to your newfound religious fervor. While my dad isn't a born again, he hides and validates his homophobia with the word of god and the bible. I know, I know - you aren't homophobic... you just see them as immoral sinners destroying society, a force that must be stopped, etc, etc.

In conclusion, logic and self-honesty - what the fuck are those?

FFS. This guy would be incapable of giving a real world negative effect of any of the things he talks about. He and his audience just take it for granted that sex is a bad thing. Without this preconceived (haha) idea, this video is utterly empty. The only exceptions are STDs and pregnancy, which PP helps reduce through their awareness programs.

BTW, bang-up job with Bible-style STD prevention in Africa you fucks.

>> ^shinyblurry:

3 million teens contract an STD every year

Irrelevant. That is a problem of bad safe sex practices, caused mostly by idiotic christian idealists who preach abstinence. Funny how states that preach abstinence have the highest rates of stds.

>> ^shinyblurry:



25.3% of sexually active teens are depressed vs. 7.7% of teens who are not sexually active.
14.3% of sexually active girls attempted suicide while 5.1% of teens who are not sexually active have attempted suicide.
In general, individuals who engage in premarital sexual activity are 50 percent more likely to divorce later in life than those who do not.10 Divorce, in turn, leads to sharp reductions in adult happiness and child well-being.

Well first off, you're equating "premarital sex" with "teen sex". I didn't get married until I was 30. Most people these days are getting married later, so pre-marital sex can be easily between mature adults.
Besides, I don't really believe you.

>> ^shinyblurry:

A study reported in Pediatrics magazine found that sexually active boys aged 12 through 16 are four times more likely to smoke and six times more likely to use alcohol than are those who describe themselves as virgins. Among girls in this same age cohort, those who are sexually active are seven times more likely to smoke and 10 times more likely to use marijuana than are those who are virgins.


Yep, and there's a reason we have age of consent laws. You will get no argument from me that 12 year olds should not be having sex. Doesn't mean they shouldn't learn about it though.
>> ^shinyblurry:



Nearly 31% of girls ages 15 to 19 who have had sexual intercourse at least once become pregnant, and more than 13% of sexually active teenage boys say they have been involved in a pregnancy
Nearly 50% of teenage girls who have sex for the first time before age 15 report having been pregnant, compared with almost 25% of girls age 15 or older,
In addition, 22% of sexually active boys age 15 and under report having been involved in a pregnancy, compared with 9% of teenage boys age 15 or older.
Three in ten teenage girls (31%) become pregnant at least once before they reach the age of 20 Ð more than 750,000 teen pregnancies a year. Eight in ten of these pregnancies are unintended and 81% are to unmarried teens.


Clearly you missed the part where I said:

>> ^ChaosEngine:

I will grant you that pregnancy outside marriage can be more of an issue, but it's really not that difficult to avoid that with a little common sense.

Again, if you and your ilk weren't so hung up on teaching safe sex practices, this issue would be a lot less of a problem.

>> ^shinyblurry:


A majority of both girls and boys who are sexually active wish they had waited. Of those who have had sex, more than one half of teen boys (55%) and the majority of teen girls (70%) said they wish they had waited longer to have sex
That's just scratching the surface.


Again, irrelevant. "premarital sex" != "teen sex". The issue is not at what age you lost your virginity, it's whether or not premarital sex causes "grief".

Aside from the fact that you have provided no citations for this data, I'd wager that part of the reason they feel bad about it is precisely because of the bullshit story that has been pushed onto kids from day one that you will have sex, a chorus of angels will sing and you'll live happily ever after with your partner at the time. Life doesn't always work like that.

edit: fixed quote tags

3 million teens contract an STD every year

25.3% of sexually active teens are depressed vs. 7.7% of teens who are not sexually active.
14.3% of sexually active girls attempted suicide while 5.1% of teens who are not sexually active have attempted suicide.

In general, individuals who engage in premarital sexual activity are 50 percent more likely to divorce later in life than those who do not.10 Divorce, in turn, leads to sharp reductions in adult happiness and child well-being.

A study reported in Pediatrics magazine found that sexually active boys aged 12 through 16 are four times more likely to smoke and six times more likely to use alcohol than are those who describe themselves as virgins. Among girls in this same age cohort, those who are sexually active are seven times more likely to smoke and 10 times more likely to use marijuana than are those who are virgins.

Nearly 31% of girls ages 15 to 19 who have had sexual intercourse at least once become pregnant, and more than 13% of sexually active teenage boys say they have been involved in a pregnancy

Nearly 50% of teenage girls who have sex for the first time before age 15 report having been pregnant, compared with almost 25% of girls age 15 or older,

In addition, 22% of sexually active boys age 15 and under report having been involved in a pregnancy, compared with 9% of teenage boys age 15 or older.

Three in ten teenage girls (31%) become pregnant at least once before they reach the age of 20 Ð more than 750,000 teen pregnancies a year. Eight in ten of these pregnancies are unintended and 81% are to unmarried teens.

A majority of both girls and boys who are sexually active wish they had waited. Of those who have had sex, more than one half of teen boys (55%) and the majority of teen girls (70%) said they wish they had waited longer to have sex

That's just scratching the surface.

>> ^ChaosEngine:
>> ^lantern53:
My point was that sex outside of marriage causes a lot of problems, more than sex within marriage.
Yeah, and my point was that statement is bullshit. Forget about providing evidence to back up your spurious claim, you haven't even elaborated how or why sex outside marriage causes any more problems than sex within marriage.
I will grant you that pregnancy outside marriage can be more of an issue, but it's really not that difficult to avoid that with a little common sense, and even then, a happily unmarried but loving couple will make better parents than a marriage that's falling apart.

>> ^therealblankman:

HOW FUCKED UP IS A WORLD WITH FUCKING HOMELESS CHILDREN?!? ESPECIALLY IN THE RICHEST NATION ON EARTH!!!
Despicable.
As for this young woman, I wish her all the best. I hope that she can have all her hopes, dreams, ambitions and goals fulfilled.


because unregulated capitlisum works perfectly in fact if we ferther deregulate markets and increase the amount of corporate involvement in government then I'm sure things will only get better ( not like that lead to exploitation of uneducated pore people and the market crash in 08)

Its max lol that she is homeless in USA and how USA has massive homeless issue, total fail I mean UK is pritty shitty with its wealth gap but at least after WW2 it became far harder to be homeless and has a basic welfair state still intact ( mind you conservatives and retards are curently doing away with it privatising the NHS and removing other things that are proven to benefit all of a society )

In the uk people are generally only homeless because they are mentally ill chose it and or slipped though the under funded system , but not simply because they are pore or out of work.

Whats mental is the argument against welfair that some people will be lazy and scrounge and yes sure there will be but you know what I would happily pay tax for 4 scroungers if that means 1 non scrounger gets support from it. I would also happily have 10 people getting housing bonofit inappropriately if that means 1 person is not made homeless. once a person is homeless its very hard for them to get even a basic job or contribute to society at all, if you save 1 person from being homeless and they just get a minimum wage job the economic benefit from that is worth hundreds of thousands if not millions over there life.

Allso helth and all these things affect everyone if you dont have free helth then STD's spred to evan the rich people same with environment based desizes and a pore populations tendency to resort to hard drugs fact is if you dont spred welth pore people will do hard drugs to escape there shit lives and a % of rich people will get drawn into that directly or indirectly.

>> ^shinyblurry:

I'm sure as an unbeliever you think it is purely coincidental that founding this country on Christian principles led to it being the greatest country in history within 200 years.
I'm sure that you also think that its a coincidence that since they started taking God out of our schools and public life in the 60's, violent crime has gone up 500 percent, murder rates have tripled, divorce rates have doubled, STD rates are up 200 percent, fatherless households increased from 6 to 40 percent, unwed birth rates of 10-14 year olds up 500 percent etc
This isn't how it ought to be, or how the founders intended. We have a society that accepts all of these diverse views because of the Christian principles of personal freedom and liberty. Atheists, using these great freedoms afforded to them by our judeo-christian heritage, want to use them to dismantle the very foundation of what gave them those freedoms in the first place. What in the world do you think is going to happen when you tamper with the foundation? It is all going to fall apart, as we see it happening today.
This country was founded on a covenant with God, and much like israel, when we reject our Creator, judgement isn't far behind. The secularization of this society is basically suicide.

>> ^rebuilder:
>> ^shinyblurry:
If you don't believe that America is founded on judeo-christian beliefs then you don't know anything about American history.
There's little point in debating the way things used to be, when you should be debating how they ought to be.


Nobody got that? He says it right there: "I'm a Troll, I'm a Troll!"

I'm sure as an unbeliever you think it is purely coincidental that founding this country on Christian principles led to it being the greatest country in history within 200 years.

I'm sure that you also think that its a coincidence that since they started taking God out of our schools and public life in the 60's, violent crime has gone up 500 percent, murder rates have tripled, divorce rates have doubled, STD rates are up 200 percent, fatherless households increased from 6 to 40 percent, unwed birth rates of 10-14 year olds up 500 percent etc

This isn't how it ought to be, or how the founders intended. We have a society that accepts all of these diverse views because of the Christian principles of personal freedom and liberty. Atheists, using these great freedoms afforded to them by our judeo-christian heritage, want to use them to dismantle the very foundation of what gave them those freedoms in the first place. What in the world do you think is going to happen when you tamper with the foundation? It is all going to fall apart, as we see it happening today.

This country was founded on a covenant with God, and much like israel, when we reject our Creator, judgement isn't far behind. The secularization of this society is basically suicide.


>> ^rebuilder:
>> ^shinyblurry:
If you don't believe that America is founded on judeo-christian beliefs then you don't know anything about American history.
There's little point in debating the way things used to be, when you should be debating how they ought to be.

>> ^luxury_pie:


So @packo decides for whom we can feel bad. Finally, I was looking for you all around!
And suddenly I don't have to feel bad for molested children, because there are children out there who have it much worse and starve to death, yaaaay logic.


Your logic fails as badly as the wingsuit. If we follow your synaptic misfires, the children would be jumping on your dick (you, playing the role of gravity/a non functioning wingsuit don't actually do anything, you're just there) of their own volition and incur injury, possibly even STD's, because of their poor choices...

ie. Choosing to fuck someone is not the same as being raped/molested. But kudos on your Godwin-esque attempt to somehow link some twit jumping off a bridge and hurting himself with a child being raped. You must be so proud... /eyeroll

hpqp, I think you are judging things based on Switzerland. But since this video mentioned American waistlines, I speak for America... We don't believe obesity is an epidemic (Even though it is over 25%...) Most don't believe children should be taken even when it is clearly abuse... Conservatives wonder why healthcare is so fucked up but those corn-fed boys and girls are part of the problem...

(All the above is not just ignorance, it's disbelief and/or denial.)

Now, I will reiterate, obesity and religious beliefs, despite your single objection, can be paralleled the way I do.

Not believing in something that is apparent and proven is equal to or greater than believing in something that is insanely speculative and based on fantasy.

For example. I don't believe in global warming, STDs or cats... Crazy as believing in god? I think so. But you are free to disagree as you have quite clearly done so.

The reason I thought you considered obese people crazy-ish is that they are posioning themselves. And parents? You say "neglect," but would you feel the same way if parents poisoned their children with mercury instead of simply dangerous overfeeding? I mean, one may be quicker, but that doesn't really make either right (The obesity will probably be around for their entire lives, as studies have shown, and/or the effects of the obesity...)

Lastly, you did it again. You left out the single part of my point that makes it defensible. Obese people can live a life without problem. Nowhere in my post did I say contrary, despite what you noted. "B-It always destroys what (Not "who") it touches in some way or another (Society, self, self esteem, healthcare, etc.)"

In other words, even though it may not destroy a person's life, even though a person can live fine being obese, it does destroy. In America, for example, it's okay to be obese. I mean 1/4 of us our, so why not? Let's just let it spread is now the motto. It is no longer a sickness, it is just a personality trait. And that is a crazy disbelief of something real.

p.s., Sorry this reply took so long.


>> ^hpqp:

@Lawdeedaw
Obesity and religious beliefs can hardly be paralleled the way you do. Obesity is largely caused by a change of diet affected by processed foods (corn syrup anyone?) and an extremely sedentary lifestyle, made worse by the fact that it is often cheaper to buy unhealthy/processed foods. Moreover, it is quite possible that genetics are involved in a person's likelihood of being obese (http://www.cdc.gov/Features/Obesity/). Do I think obese people are crazy? No. Like you said, the fat is there, you can feel it, you can taste the 10th liter of coke you're guzzling. I may consider the morbidly obese highly irresponsible, or perhaps mentally ill in cases of obsessive binge-eating, but it is not akin to the superstitious beliefs of religion that one is indoctrinated with as a child. Of course, stuffing one's kid with unhealthy food when an alternative is possible is at best the result of ignorance, at worst irresponsible neglect.
Btw, humans may wired to project agency (thus evolving superstitious beliefs), but religious belief is a matter of indoctrination. Recent studies are showing that young children will not naturally offer supernatural explanations for phenomena (see also this article).
p.s.: one can be overweight and still live a happy and successful life... obesity does not necessarily "always destroy what it touches".