Do they mean a foreign nationality, or an ethnic group that isn't them?
Cause being of a nationality seems an odd thing to complain about, if you aren't going to add more than that.
Funny events in anti-woke world
- Thread starter Agema
- Start date
Cause being of a nationality seems an odd thing to complain about, if you aren't going to add more than that.
I live in an area with a lot of wind energy potential, and more and more turbines going up. And I really can't believe how people who live in a place with so many wind farms, can believe the weird conspiracy nonsense that goes around every time someone starts up a petition protesting new turbines. Hell, every time we air a story about turbines we get this weird group of people calling in claiming that wind turbines "chop up all the birds and monarch butterflies." Like a blender on its side, I guess? I'm not sure exactly how that's supposed to work considering their size and how slowly they actually rotate. And the weirdest thing is, they honestly believe it. I really thought it was folks just simping for big coal and oil, or honestly just complaining for a goof. But then we started getting leaflets and email blasts, with pretty obviously faked pictures of piles of dead birds and butterflies. I understand that construction projects can affect wildlife habitats, but these people actually think that birds and butterflies flying through a wind farm are just getting diced up like going through a woodchipper.
Ikr. I'm sure that every so often a careless bird will get swiped by a turbine blade and die from blunt force trauma, but eventually as a whole they'll learn to avoid and/or deal with it, just like all the other human-made stuff that's dangerous to them before. Like, birds also get hit by planes, I somehow doubt these folks going to stop flying because of that.
He's just trying to say that they're, you know, political.
A pile of dead butterflies would be tiny, and is actually a very funny image.
I just wonder, have people ever seen birds fly around roads? I would hope they would notice that birds are in fact extraordinarily good at not flying into things, even things moving pretty quickly.
I'd also seriously question any of these people complaining about wind turbines who own cats, because domesticated cats kill one hell of a lot of birds (an estimated 30-60 million a year in the UK). More than wind turbines would if they provided the entire nation's power, probably by more than one order of magnitude.
I did from the outset acknowledge what he said was false. I described it as ignorance. He knows there was a failure rate, but his description of the mechanism by which they fail was totally wrong.
But that's not your position, is it? You're not going to accept that he was acknowledging real failure rates that he believes ought to be communicated to the public, you seem rather insistent that he was claiming they do nothing as a lie to deter condom use. And that is where you are wrong.
The real forest is a cooperative global effort to fight AIDS that included some trees that you two don't like, so you're pretending they were lumberjacks instead.
I'm not going to accept he was "acknowledging real failure rates" because he absolutely was not doing that. He did not say anything acknowledging the minuscule actual failure rate-- which is clearly communicated by the manufacturers already. What he said was that sperm and viruses pass "easily" through it, which clearly implies a far higher failure rate, disputing their efficacy at all.
You're engaging in such feeble mental gymnastics to justify someone saying something categorically wrong and dangerous. I don't really know how you can not feel embarrassed at this point.
Last edited:
But all the wildlife that dies because of fossil-fuel pollution? Well, they're acceptable losses.
But hey, at least they're not going the full nine yards like Trump and claiming that wind turbines are causing whales to beach themselves.
They cause vortices that suck up stuff and punt it inland. Like a railgun. For realsies.
Even if you take this premise of bird being chopped up.... how is dumping a bunch of toxic gas that's steaming hot straight out of the coal oven a better solution? At least turbines are visible.
What about the fishes getting the same treatment in dam turbines? Or are we just doing the: 'We weep for the blood of the bird and not of the fish. Blessed are those who have voice'?
I do think there is some impact on animals by turbines. I would love a better solution. Can we do turbines until that solution is devised?
You forgot blonde.
Honestly, I think they have a totally different Bible than what the general populace gets. Not a different translation, a wholely different book
It's not that miniscule. The manufacturers advertise their products as 98% effective, I won't bicker over calling 2% miniscule, I think that's fair, especially since that statistic is an annual failure rate for an individual, not for a single usage. But that's not what we're talking about, let's pull some statistics:
-Preventing pregnancy with consistent, correct usage: 98%
-Preventing pregnancy with typical usage: 85%
-Preventing HIV transmission through vaginal sex with correct, consistent usage: 85-90%
-Preventing HIV transmission through anal sex with correct, consistent usage: 70-87%
Correct and consistent use of condoms
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Condoms: Past, present, and future
Though many methods of prevention of STI/HIV are available, condoms remain of utmost importance. They have gone a long way from the oiled silk paper used by the Chinese and the hard sheaths made of tortoise- shell used by the Japanese to the latex condoms ...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Condom Effectiveness for HIV Prevention by Consistency of... : JAIDS Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes
ale condom effectiveness during anal sex between MSM in 2 prospective cohort studies of HIV incidence by self-reported consistency of use. Methods: Analyzed data combined from US participants in the EXPLORE trial (1999–2001) public use data set and in the VAX 004 trial (1998–1999) data set...
journals.lww.com
Those numbers are not being advertised, and people may be convinced to adjust their behavior in other ways if they know it's not 98% effective, it's 70% effective. Going by these risk estimates, that leaves anal sex with a condom still pretty risky per event. 1.38% per act, even divided by 4, means if you had anal sex twice a week while HIV positive, there's about a 30% chance you infect someone each year, even if you use condoms carefully every time.
That's not miniscule. That's substantial. And maybe if you took opposing perspectives more seriously, you'd have known that already.
Mankind ill need a savior such as Trump! Or whatever fucked up version of Jesus he has made in his stupid brain!
Trump’s Jesus Court Sketch Is Somehow Way Worse Than It Looks
Being confusing and blasphemous is just the start.nymag.com
Jesus Christ, as depicted in the fake courtroom sketch Trump reposted. Photo: @dom_lucre/X
While Donald Trump is responsible for unhinged, incoherent content on Truth Social every single day, an image he posted on Monday evening stood out for being especially offensive and delusional. Tucked between video clips of Trump’s remarks hours earlier outside a Manhattan courtroom, where he is being tried for fraud in a civil lawsuit brought by New York attorney general Letitia James, was a screenshot of a tweet from user Dom Lucre showing a fake courtroom sketch of Jesus by Trump’s side.
The image is ridiculous, blasphemous, and confusing. Is Jesus supposed to be Trump’s co-defendant or his attorney? Does the caption “nobody could have made it this far alone” mean Trump being hauled before the court for his decades of alleged business fraud is part of some divine plan? And who is this “Dom Lucre” anyway?
Translation: Biden wants lower energy prices because people with SUVs, and pickup trucks complained about energy prices in the suburbs.
The "opposing perspective" isn't "they're 70% effective in this specific scenario, so please be cautious in other ways as well", though. You're constantly substituting what he actually said with a far more palatable version that's miles away from it.It's not that miniscule. The manufacturers advertise their products as 98% effective, I won't bicker over calling 2% miniscule, I think that's fair, especially since that statistic is an annual failure rate for an individual, not for a single usage. But that's not what we're talking about, let's pull some statistics:
-Preventing pregnancy with consistent, correct usage: 98%
-Preventing pregnancy with typical usage: 85%
-Preventing HIV transmission through vaginal sex with correct, consistent usage: 85-90%
-Preventing HIV transmission through anal sex with correct, consistent usage: 70-87%
Correct and consistent use of condoms
Condoms: Past, present, and future
Though many methods of prevention of STI/HIV are available, condoms remain of utmost importance. They have gone a long way from the oiled silk paper used by the Chinese and the hard sheaths made of tortoise- shell used by the Japanese to the latex condoms ...Condom Effectiveness for HIV Prevention by Consistency of... : JAIDS Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes
ale condom effectiveness during anal sex between MSM in 2 prospective cohort studies of HIV incidence by self-reported consistency of use. Methods: Analyzed data combined from US participants in the EXPLORE trial (1999–2001) public use data set and in the VAX 004 trial (1998–1999) data set...
Those numbers are not being advertised, and people may be convinced to adjust their behavior in other ways if they know it's not 98% effective, it's 70% effective. Going by these risk estimates, that leaves anal sex with a condom still pretty risky per event. 1.38% per act, even divided by 4, means if you had anal sex twice a week while HIV positive, there's about a 30% chance you infect someone each year, even if you use condoms carefully every time.
That's not miniscule. That's substantial. And maybe if you took opposing perspectives more seriously, you'd have known that already.
He said HIV, and sperm, pass easily through it. The message is very clear: he's telling people they simply don't work.
((I also note that the lowest figure, 70%-- which you've then treated as a taken-- is for self-reported consistent use, not necessarily correct; and that your own source also impresses that condom use is a vital component of the fight against AIDS transmission)).
Last edited:
You're substituting what he said for something far less palatable. I've shown you his actual words, they aren't what you claim them to be. Then, if there was any ambiguity, I showed you an essay he wrote explaining his position better (and without the inaccurate description of how things work). Why are you warping his statement that way? Do you actually believe that you know the man's position better than he does? Is it that important to you to have a Catholic authority to blame AIDS on? Would you not rather live in a world where people are reasonable?