Post: #76

(06-08-2013 03:07 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  Pretty much, no.

They get HIV from straight sex in Africa due to a practice known as dry fucking.

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

That tears up the vaginal and leads to a lot of bleeding.

The black in the Africas use to fuck the monkeys/apes, thats where the virus started, they say its Gods revenge?

Got Freddie Mercury [Farrokh Bulsara]too, pity he was a super talent.

"Lifes about, shooting your load"

Post: #77

^^ 7 day ban for race trolling

Post: #78

(06-12-2013 05:54 PM)Roosh Wrote:  ^^ 7 day ban for race trolling

They told me the exact same thing in high school.

Post: #79

The infection got passed from monkey to human because they were slaughtering them with machetes, so their hands and arms were covered in the monkey's blood. They had cuts and scrapes on their hands, so the virus got passed that way. They actually ate monkeys - they weren't fucking them.

Post: #80

Lots of anti doctor talk. I don't get it.

Post: #81

I think you can only get HIV in the ass...

100% of gay men do it in the ass...

25%? of women do it in the ass....

But I'm not a doctor....

Post: #82

I think the most common theory is that consumption of monkey meat led to the transmission of hiv from apes to humans.

Anyway... Mike, you deem 1 in 25'000-50'000 new infecton per year a low risk, from what I gather?

Fair enough. In relation to that, I can tell you a lot of other chronic ailments that can have potentially catastrophic consequences have incidence rates in the same ball park.

Lyme disease? 3000 cases in UK last year, that's 1/25'000 persons.

Hep A? abou 5000 cases in 320 million americans, so 1/64000

Parkinson? 50k new cases a year, 1/6400

You can do this for just about every disease. The rates are all inbetween somewhere around 1/5k-250k. You get to decide yourself what's high or low risk, what's acceptable, what isn't.

What's with the hiv campaigns then you ask? I mean if hiv isn't more common than lyme disease? Well, I guess it's what is commonly referred to as prevention. Part of which is like raising awareness, shock people. Bit like smoking kills. How many people really get lung cancer?
250k out of 320 million per year. 110 k of those men, probably 70k white men that's ... 1/5000? High risk? Low risk? Worth having shit printed on on every smoke packet and smoking being outlawed practically everywhere?

Post: #83

(06-13-2013 03:26 AM)Travelsick Wrote:  I think the most common theory is that consumption of monkey meat led to the transmission of hiv from apes to humans.

Anyway... Mike, you deem 1 in 25'000-50'000 new infecton per year a low risk, from what I gather?

Fair enough. In relation to that, I can tell you a lot of other chronic ailments that can have potentially catastrophic consequences have incidence rates in the same ball park.

Lyme disease? 3000 cases in UK last year, that's 1/25'000 persons.

Hep A? abou 5000 cases in 320 million americans, so 1/64000

Parkinson? 50k new cases a year, 1/6400

You can do this for just about every disease. The rates are all inbetween somewhere around 1/5k-250k. You get to decide yourself what's high or low risk, what's acceptable, what isn't.

What's with the hiv campaigns then you ask? I mean if hiv isn't more common than lyme disease? Well, I guess it's what is commonly referred to as prevention. Part of which is like raising awareness, shock people. Bit like smoking kills. How many people really get lung cancer?
250k out of 320 million per year. 110 k of those men, probably 70k white men that's ... 1/5000? High risk? Low risk? Worth having shit printed on on every smoke packet and smoking being outlawed practically everywhere?

Does anyone actually worry about shit like this? I only thought women worried about insignificant things.

I compare everything to car accidents. If it's not more likely than a car accident, I don't give a damn. To care would be hypocrisy.

Post: #84

Well okay, your risk of dying in a road vehicle accident last year (assuming you travel in motorvehicles) was about 25k/314 mio, or 11/per 100'000 adjusted to age, so a little over 1/10'000. Look at that... it's within the same range, who would have thought?

I don't worry about any of it, but I don't see how HIV prevention campaigns are deemed excessive when probably most agree that DIU is antisocial and road vehicle safety campaigns are generally considered a good thing.

When the risks for the individual are so minute (~0,0001%) doubling or halving it hardly justifies caring or not in terms of rationality. Strikes me rather as personal arbitrary preference. No idea if those are gender specific though.

Post: #85

(06-13-2013 09:14 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(06-13-2013 03:26 AM)Travelsick Wrote:  I think the most common theory is that consumption of monkey meat led to the transmission of hiv from apes to humans.

Anyway... Mike, you deem 1 in 25'000-50'000 new infecton per year a low risk, from what I gather?

Fair enough. In relation to that, I can tell you a lot of other chronic ailments that can have potentially catastrophic consequences have incidence rates in the same ball park.

Lyme disease? 3000 cases in UK last year, that's 1/25'000 persons.

Hep A? abou 5000 cases in 320 million americans, so 1/64000

Parkinson? 50k new cases a year, 1/6400

You can do this for just about every disease. The rates are all inbetween somewhere around 1/5k-250k. You get to decide yourself what's high or low risk, what's acceptable, what isn't.

What's with the hiv campaigns then you ask? I mean if hiv isn't more common than lyme disease? Well, I guess it's what is commonly referred to as prevention. Part of which is like raising awareness, shock people. Bit like smoking kills. How many people really get lung cancer?
250k out of 320 million per year. 110 k of those men, probably 70k white men that's ... 1/5000? High risk? Low risk? Worth having shit printed on on every smoke packet and smoking being outlawed practically everywhere?

Does anyone actually worry about shit like this? I only thought women worried about insignificant things.

I compare everything to car accidents. If it's not more likely than a car accident, I don't give a damn. To care would be hypocrisy.

Well, to play devils advocate:
You probably wear a seat belt and don't drive if you are drunk or high. i.e. you take precautions to reduce your risk of injury. Not to say that you "worry" about car accidents, just that you take certain precautions almost unconsciously.

Post: #86

(06-13-2013 09:58 AM)Bad Hussar Wrote:  Well, to play devils advocate:
You probably wear a seat belt and don't drive if you are drunk or high. i.e. you take precautions to reduce your risk of injury. Not to say that you "worry" about car accidents, just that you take certain precautions almost unconsciously.

If that were true, the "Click It or Ticket" ad campaign would have been unnecessary.

No one wore seat belts back in my day. Then states enacted laws forcing you to wear them.

We don't worry about car accidents every time we get into our cars and we shouldn't worry about HIV every time we have sex.

Post: #87

Nah, I drive high all the time. All of my accidents have been while sober, ironically. I don't drive drunk, but I'm not a big drinker anyways.

Being high makes me more cautious. I'm more likely to drive slowly and be extra careful. I don't think I've ever met someone who crashed their car because of driving high.

Of course, you want to make sure you've been getting high for a few months before you drive. Getting used to weed takes some time, but once you're there driving is easy.

Post: #88

(06-13-2013 09:21 AM)Travelsick Wrote:  Well okay, your risk of dying in a road vehicle accident last year (assuming you travel in motorvehicles) was about 25k/314 mio, or 11/per 100'000 adjusted to age, so a little over 1/10'000. Look at that... it's within the same range, who would have thought?

I don't worry about any of it, but I don't see how HIV prevention campaigns are deemed excessive when probably most agree that DIU is antisocial and road vehicle safety campaigns are generally considered a good thing.

When the risks for the individual are so minute (~0,0001%) doubling or halving it hardly justifies caring or not in terms of rationality. Strikes me rather as personal arbitrary preference. No idea if those are gender specific though.

Well, since I drive at 10x the frequency that I have sex, caring about sex related problems would be total retarded. Driving is probably 10x as dangerous than having sex.

Unless you get a girl preggo. Then you're fucked. Avoiding pregnancy is the best reason to use a condom.

Post: #89

(06-08-2013 02:00 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  If you have genital herpes and have an open sore on your dick while hitting it raw, you can contract it.

This is correct. If Magic didn't catch it getting rammed by some guy named Bruce, then he got it with an open GH sore. Which is incredibly stupid as any guy who's having an outbreak can instantly recognize the sore and just refrain from raw sex.

Post: #90

.... oi, how about I conjure up the risk of pregnancy for you guys, now that's what makes me wake up drenched in sweat at night. That and losing my hair. I actually had my first anxiety dream about going bald last night. I got my hair cut and discovered a huge bald patch after which I raced home and went full kojack. Then I woke up.




I use my car about 1.5 per fortnight. I fuck more. I assumed this was the same for everyone. No wonder I'm more concerned about HIV.

Post: #91

(06-13-2013 04:01 PM)Travelsick Wrote:  I use my car about 1.5 per fortnight.

Fortnight is every two weeks? Jesus christ, are you saying you drive for only 1.5 hours per two weeks?

Dude, in America I think I drive at LEAST 30 minutes a day, and I live in a city...

Post: #92

Yeah, that's the perks of europe for you, at least some places.

When I lived in LA in Westwood I managed to walk or bike to work but you want to go anywhere else in 'town' it takes you an hour and ten even at 2:40 am. Canada much the same. Living in Toronto and going downtown seem to be two different and beats, one's practically a daytrip away from the other.

Post: #93

(06-11-2013 02:52 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(06-10-2013 11:26 PM)Thomas the Rhymer Wrote:  

(06-10-2013 03:50 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

ThomasTheRhymer Wrote:MikeCF keeps asking about what are the actual risks, but in the mutating world of diseases, I'm more concerned about the risks of things that we have no idea exist or are about to come into existance.

By definition, you cannot assess the risk of something that does not exist. Worrying about the unknown is completely irrational.

Yes, but is it not reasonable to take steps to avoid potentially fragilising behavior?

STD's aren't going to harm you. Other than HIV, all STD's are at most a few weeks out of the game. It's basically no different than getting a little sick.

No bro.

Everytime you get an STD, you run the risk of developing the following complications, even on treatment:
- Infertility (due to inflammation of your testicles. A man's balls are remarkably fragile)
- Urethral stricture
- Increased lifetime risk of penis cancer
- Chronic prostatitis (can be an utter bitch to treat because antibiotics have a hard time penetrating the prostate wall)
Amongst others.

The risks might be small but don't pretend they don't exist.

Post: #94

In the US, AIDS is defined as having any one of a variety of diseases (25-30) that are typically associated with a compromised immune system. One cannot "catch" AIDS, as AIDS is merely a description of a condition, not a "thing" that can be passed from person to person.

Some places define AIDS as having given CD4+ T cell count lower than some number. Africa defines AIDS as every disease known to screw up the immune system, with some exceptions such as cancer and malnutrition.

So get that out of your heads right now. One does not "catch" AIDS. It is any one of a bunch of diseases that rarely cause harm in healthy individuals, but because the immune system is in bad shape, does cause harm. For example, when a person catches pneumonia and can't fight it off because of weakened immune system, we call this "AIDS".

AIDS has been defined in Africa to be those things they've always died from in Africa.

In Africa, people didn't used to die of AIDS. The term "AIDS" wasn't invented yet. AIDS is the name given to a condition. It is a SYNDROME. 30-60% of the AIDS deaths in Africa were due to tuberculosis. If you die from this and most of the other common killers over there, they call it AIDS.

Post: #95

This book explores the origin of AIDS. I plan on reading it sometime.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Origins-AIDS...in+of+aids

Post: #96

(06-13-2013 12:48 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  We don't worry about car accidents every time we get into our cars and we shouldn't worry about HIV every time we have sex.

We don't worry about car accidents every time we get into our cars because we have developed a culture of rules (in many cases rules cases enforced by law) and technology that greatly reduce the risks associated with driving cars. We trust our ability to follow those rules and trust that others will follow them in turn. In many cases, risk of injury or death greatly increases because someone was not worried* about injury or death. Probably the broadest category of behavior that increases risk of accident is distracted driving (not just texting-- distracted driving was causing accidents long before cell phones were invented).

I don't worry about HIV every time I have sex primarily because I choose low-risk partners. It's not the first or even second reason for selecting a partner but it tends to correlate nicely with a host of other convenient traits, like propensity to use birth control and make enough money to support herself.

The question you aren't asking is to what degree your relatively low risk of contracting HIV is specifically because of the attitudes toward sex and drug use in your population. This includes attitudes like maybe try avoiding rawdog sex with Thai hookers and steer clear of drug users in general. Was the HIV and AIDS propaganda in the 80s and 90s overblown? Yeah, probably. Lacking in perspective? Almost certainly. But just because some of the rhetoric may have been excessive doesn't mean you should swing the other direction completely and just ignore the risk.

* It's probably important to note that I'm using an inclusive definition of the term "worried" here. In truth, safe drivers aren't necessarily worried drivers. A common rhetorical trick is to accuse someone engaging in responsible or cautious behavior as being worried, which implies a slew of emotional baggage that need not be present. This happens nearly every time the CDC issues influenza warnings. They spread the word via every source possible to deliver message to people who really need to know, like old people, parents of young children, people with AIDS, and anyone else who wants to spend 20 minutes getting a vaccine reduce the risk they'll have to spend 2 weeks fighting a fucking nasty respiratory infection. Not to mention that healthy people getting vaccines reduces transmission vectors in general and reduces the likelihood that other people who can't get a vaccine will catch the virus. The media does this simply because why not. But then internet douchebags accuse the media of hysteria and blowing the matter out of proportion when matters don't turn out like The Stand.