First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next  Last

Illegal to have sex if you have HIV AIDS MRSA etc

688 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
28 / M / singapore
Offline
Posted 2/3/08 , edited 4/18/08
^ i agree with what u said
2478 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
30 / M / L.A.
Offline
Posted 2/4/08 , edited 4/18/08
good luck enforcing such a law in any way shape or form. but otherwise its easy to not get an std if you get oen you probly deserved it
1461 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
F / CA
Offline
Posted 2/4/08 , edited 4/18/08
It is just sad to be in that position....
16241 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
37 / F / Canada
Offline
Posted 2/4/08 , edited 4/18/08
same goes for this one, but i can put it up if you want, i have a copy saved.
950 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
32 / M / San Antonio, Texas
Offline
Posted 2/4/08 , edited 4/18/08
.
7716 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
80 / M / Florida, US
Offline
Posted 2/4/08 , edited 4/18/08

Omok wrote:

16241 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
37 / F / Canada
Offline
Posted 2/4/08 , edited 4/18/08
Just like you said, i'll delete this. =)

and i have a copy saved as well.
Posted 2/4/08 , edited 4/18/08
yea i think it should be aginst the law to spread diseseas
when you know you have something
you should not be sleeping around and ruining others life
you could meet a girl and she could tell you she is a virgin and if your a virgin you would never know
you could be in love and trusting said person with all your heart
cause thats what love does
she could have slept with 40 or 50 ppl
there should blood tests with every sexual encounter
a yearly test and your info should be able to be found on the internet

lol then maybe i could remmber some of the girls names i hoooked up with
21991 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
28 / F / boring, bland ohio
Offline
Posted 2/4/08 , edited 4/18/08
No that would be too much involvement. Cures are the answer, not isolationism. Also what if they were born with the disease. Lastly MSRA isn't a STD
950 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
32 / M / San Antonio, Texas
Offline
Posted 2/4/08 , edited 4/18/08
,
950 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
32 / M / San Antonio, Texas
Offline
Posted 2/4/08 , edited 4/18/08


Not quite. It's not technically an STD but many homosexual men (1 out of 568) get it from sexual contact with their partners. The strain is deadly, and can be transfered by something as simple as shaking someones hand. Was on Fox/ NBC a few days ago., There's an article about it's increase etc , I'll post it up if anyone wants it.
21991 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
28 / F / boring, bland ohio
Offline
Posted 2/4/08 , edited 4/18/08

Tsukiyomi2021 wrote:



Not quite. It's not technically an STD but many homosexual men (1 out of 568) get it from sexual contact with their partners. The strain is deadly, and can be transfered by something as simple as shaking someones hand. Was on Fox/ NBC a few days ago., There's an article about it's increase etc , I'll post it up if anyone wants it.


right but that can happen with any contagious skin disease
950 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
32 / M / San Antonio, Texas
Offline
Posted 2/4/08 , edited 4/18/08

artgeek707 wrote:


Tsukiyomi2021 wrote:



Not quite. It's not technically an STD but many homosexual men (1 out of 568) get it from sexual contact with their partners. The strain is deadly, and can be transfered by something as simple as shaking someones hand. Was on Fox/ NBC a few days ago., There's an article about it's increase etc , I'll post it up if anyone wants it.


right but that can happen with any contagious skin disease


Yeah, I see your point, but it seems AIDs has become the actual villain in this discussion. Probably because it's so widespread and whatnot. MRSA very easy to avoid getting as well, I kind of put that in since I was reading about it while I was typing this.
16241 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
37 / F / Canada
Offline
Posted 2/4/08 , edited 4/18/08

Tsukiyomi2021 wrote:
What's with the childlike insults?


er...according to you, i'm a child am i not? plus, its not that far from the truth about me being a child anyways. =) but am I too immature to talk/understand/reply back to you? I do not see whats' the problem here? And that wasn't a insult, you just mistook it that way. I called you Mr.Smart, you should be glad, should you not? and I called you Mr. the last time I checked, Mr. isn't an insult! nor is the word Smart. =O


Tsukiyomi2021 wrote:
So, if I started a thread that said "Canada is a horrible country"
and went on about legislation, laws, taxes etc. You would just go on to say something stupid like "NO USA SUCKS GTFO"? That's pretty stupid and childish.


would I now? Try me. Make a thread like that, or make a post like that, see what I would say. and again, for the 4th time...DON'T assume.


Tsukiyomi2021 wrote:
How the hell do you get "Head:Brain from Title:First Sentence" and
Sorry, doesn't work that way. In a Bill even though it states "Lowering ___ Taxes" It still has numerous other tweaks in it, which is why people read it all. That's why shitty bills are passed, because many a time, they don't read the bill and just pass it. Please talk to me about government when you graduate from High School.


Lol, so DO they read it? or DO THEY NOT? =) and I don't need to graduate from high school in order to talk about government. I know enough to talk about it.

as for "Head:Brain" and "Title:first sentence" it actually make sense if you change the first sentence to "text".

For head is to Title, and Brain is the text; for the brain is IN side the head, and for the text is ABOUT the title.


Tsukiyomi2021 wrote:
Don't assume. Hey...Great advice.. Maybe you should follow it. Good job preaching advice you yourself don't follow.


where/when did i assume? care to point it out?


Tsukiyomi2021 wrote:
So Genetic makeup had nothing to do with what I posted. Dolphins are "smarter" than humans and capable of human emotions yet because they aren't human that makes the nothing but "animals". I think you're forgetting that humans are in fact...animals. I'm also pretty damn sure, I never said Humans are the same as animals. nice try though. I was saying it on a Moral level that to some people slaughtering humans is as easy as animals.


do you want to debate whether humans is animals or not? I actually can, because I'm doing research on religion, and on a Christianity's point of view; humans are humans; not animals(not what i believe in, but i can argue from their view) . and btw, Dolphins are NOT smarter than humans, only one "KIND" of dolphin have a brain BIGGER than a human. and if they're smarter than us, they would have been the ones to create this computer? what about the key board? how about the food you just ate? What about the things you're wearing? and of course, humans /are/ animals from the science point of view; who said humans weren't?

p.s: Dolphins are actually one of the most intelligent animal there are.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/cetacean_intelligence


Tsukiyomi2021 wrote:
No you misunderstood my point because of your own stupidity not mine. Ever heard of don't judge a book by its cover?


Of course i heard of it, what am i? Living under a rock? and I didn't judge you by your cover, I never judged you in the first place. I judged your text and your idea; not you; you're the one who judged me by calling me ignorant.

and BTW! I read the text inside the "book" as well, remember the "five words"? (The title says it all) that wasn't on the cover now was it?


Tsukiyomi2021 wrote:
It was an an example, and if you knew the definition of language you would be keeping your mouth shut. Any "language" can be legit with or without books. Computer programming is "language". So assume some idiot decided to make "Mai BFF JILL" a language. It's not accepted by us yet it is still a language. It can be manipulated, changed and has certain rules to it. Look at pig Latin =/


My "legit" example, was an example much alike to yours. Though aside from that, I have never said internet language WASN'T legit, now did i? all I said was it wasn't legit on legal documents. for the 3rd time, don't go assuming.


Tsukiyomi2021 wrote:
I do it for the sake of entertainment, as you'll see there are quite a few "trolls" here that argue for the sake of arguing, you're simply feeding it. I'm sure you enjoy the attention, because you obviously wouldn't be replying


Actually, I do it for reasons differ from yours. Arguing/Debating/Flaming; which ever word you choose to use. Is actually a, hobby, of mine. I like doing this, i don't do long ass rants/replies for the sake of attention, heck most of the time I only get ONE persons' attention. By all means, if I wanted attention I could have simply made a thread and get the attention from there...

and i reply, its out of respect, not out of the sake of attention. When a person have said something directed to me, or asking for my reply. The most respectful thing one can do is by simply replying it, I wouldn't be replying this at all if i feel your idiocy is too much for me to coop and/or i have lost all respect for you.


Tsukiyomi2021 wrote:
Again, this was due to your ignorance. Also, I'm pretty sure I took it out to make it easier for people such as yourself to understand this thread and know that there's more to read than 5 words.


oh? i'm ignorant for understanding the text? oh? what more amusing things do you have to say? lemme guess, i'm also ignorant for YOUR flaw?

you took it out, it doesn't make it easier for people to understand, you took it out, because you want to take out your flaw. and i'm sure, there's more than five words to anything. but in cases, e.g: this one. Five words + the title was all i needed to know; because that was what your five words implied.


Tsukiyomi2021 wrote:
There's no research involved in this unless you're putting up examples. It's merely an opinion thread, of what you think, what irritated me was that you came on here and blabbed about absolutely nothing due to a misunderstanding. =/


the thread was a mislead in the first place. As those two lines; one of the very first lines a person will read first. was a mislead. Your words before you edited, implied that one may choose to stop reading considering the title already tells what one needs to know.

it wasn't much of a misunderstanding, because once again, according to your previous text, I was allowed to stop reading.


Tsukiyomi2021 wrote:
Umm I said they aren't stupid as far as it's concerned. i.e. They will do it when they feel it's "needed". Bubonic plague, concentration camps, etc. What I really should've put was that we are stupid since they actually go doing it but I was hungry and someone said the pizza was ready. If I didn't go my roommates would've eaten it all since they are gluttons, finished this in a hurry and left.


The act it self is stupid, the though of the act is ALSO stupid. What you/they feel is "needed", isn't always needed. What you feel may not always be correct. What you feel doesn't always make it just. (yes the same does apply to me; no i'm not being a hypocrite)


Tsukiyomi2021 wrote:
Prove a point how humans can view other humans as animals in terms of survival. No cure? Kill them all or keep them the hell away from us.


I never said, that humans view other humans as animals. Though there are some people who do (the term animal which is being used here, is the behavior of an animal, not the animal it self) and treat others like so...cost suffering, war..w/e...


Tsukiyomi2021 wrote:
Now the reason I pointed that out is, even though it seems immoral and horrible to do, at some point in time, some one will come up with an idea close to it and put it up for vote, if the idiots in office decide to pass it what then? Immoral and against our rights? But since, there are more people without the disease and they'd be scared into thinking that they can contract it from ANYONE they may be scared into thinking it would be best for the country and not have a problem with it passing.


Now, thats' not my fault that your country (no offense) make some stupid decisions now is it? if the idiots in the office does pass that law, then the people/government of U.S.A will just have to suffer from MILLIONS of protests and boycott and what not from the people who DOES have HIV/AIDS because of the "lack of freedom" and the "unjust law"

I think the statistics was "1/3" people in North America will have STI at one point of their life for once at least. and HIV/AIDs is just a kind of STI ._. thats' very serious. If they make it illegal and what not...have fun imagining the amount of protests/boycott and how your ego will "crack"...plus, many people share the same belief as me that passing a law to make them unable to have sex just because they have HIV/AIDs...is BS, those will be against it as well.


Tsukiyomi2021 wrote:
Out of curiosity and in hopes of no more spamming of the board with our arguing before people start reporting us, how does Canada keep it from spreading other than education? condoms? and everything else the US Does?


er...Canada only have the population of 33million people. and U.S.A have a...way larger population. Its much more easier to control it here than in the U.S.A. Long as the people are educated, the HIV/AIDS rate are going down. So...Canada doesn't really need to do much more than we're already doing. HIV/AIDS isn't as much of a thread to us than to you guys; with your over growing population and what not.
2986 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
31 / F / Soon to be SCAD
Offline
Posted 2/4/08 , edited 4/18/08

Onerain wrote:


zombiexmylove wrote:


Onerain wrote:

They are criminals, Sinners in the eyes of god. let them be punished so.


What?

Where does it say that in the bible?


Along with all other kinds of sexual immorality, sex before marriage / premarital sex is repeatedly condemned in Scripture (Acts 15:20; Romans 1:29; 1 Corinthians 5:1; 6:13,18; 7:2; 10:8; 2 Corinthians 12:21; Galatians 5:19; Ephesians 5:3; Colossians 3:5; 1 Thessalonians 4:3; Jude 7). The Bible promotes abstinence before marriage. Sex before marriage is just as wrong as adultery and other forms of sexual immorality, because they all involve having sex with someone you are not married to. Sex between a husband and his wife is the only form of sexual relations that God approves of (Hebrews 13:4).


That's great for premarital sex and all, but that's not the only way to contract the disease you know.

I'm not saying that isn't a factor, I know it's significant but...

What about everyone who recieved blood transfusions before the blood was checked? Married people have passed the disease onto their partners thinking there was no way.

Even though they are aware of the problem now, that still does not stop drug users. Dirty needles are another leading factor.

And on a separate note... MRSA? I just don't get the connection. It's not an STD, or even commonly spread through sexual acts. How would we decide what diseases were illegal to spread? And, don't say all, because imprisonment for the common cold just seems rash ^^"
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.