Pro-Life Means Protect the Earth

[Ben Kenobi]

You're disingenuously avoiding the question, as usual, Ben. If condoms were used 100% of the time, of course they would reduce STDs, as you've basically already admitted when you said that having sex with a condom is safer than having sex without a condom.

With the caveat being, all else remaining the same. Increasing the number of partners introduces another risk factor, a factor that can dominate the protective factor, if the number of partners is high enough.

If the reason isn't less STDs, then how is it safer? The reason STD transmission hasn't gone down, is because people, for whatever reason, don't use condoms.

No, the reason why people get STD infections is because they sleep around too much. STD transmissions have gone up drastically, hand in hand with condom use. Thinking that you are bulletproof with a rubber, is about the most dangerous thing you can teach anyone.

You, and your church, oppose telling the truth about condoms - not the history of condoms, but the truth about what actual condom use would do.

Where have I gone off the science? Using a condom is safer then not using a condom, provided you maintain the same number of partners. Having sex only with your wife, and waiting for marriage is far safer then using a condom, even if you limit your partners.

Using a condom and having more partners can be less safe than limiting partners and not using a condom.

All of these prepositions are factual.

Really? What's the limit? Additionally, and I've made this point before, I'll take 10 women, use a condom every time. You take 1 woman and don't use a condom. Is 10-1 a good ratio, or would you prefer hire? Anyway, we'll repeat this scenario until one of us gets an STD.

Ok deal.

Now you're the one throwing out unquantifiable numbers and ratios, Ben. The reality is, it only takes ONE TIME sleeping with someone who has an STD, and getting the STD without using a condom. While the possibility still exists WITH a condom, the likelihood of transmission is vastly lower.

This is true. However, sleeping with many people vastly increases your exposure to STDs. This increase in the risk factor can easily negate the protective factor of condoms.

Let's put it another way. Ask your doctor. If your doctor is a practicing Catholic, then understand that his opinion is likely skewed, and go ask a doctor without a dog in the fight. If your doctor agree that 100% condom use would reduce STD transmission, then STFU. If he says otherwise, please post his name so that I can look into his credibility (ie, his religious beliefs).

I have a family doctor and he agrees with me that it is best to wait until marriage. I'm not giving you his name because he's family, and he deserves better then to get harassed by crackpots.

And no, he's not Catholic or very religious at all. His main concern with me is depression, and I have to report to him every now and again. Apparently I have quite a family history of it in my extended family.

Source that for me, please, as it is very obvious that 23% of the US population does NOT have HIV.

Sigh. 23 percent of those who have HIV are heterosexual.

The rest of your point talking about risk potential is irrelevant, because if those numbers had any resemblance to fact, a lot more than 20,000 people per year would die from HIV

Not necessarily. Infection rates need not equal death rates, since HIV infections are increasing.

you aren't even taking the possibility of protection and mutual testing prior to sex into consideration.

I'm throwing out protective factors on both ends. If you want me to insert bull**** on both ends I can do so. I'm making zero assumptions on either ends, besides the few that I have (to your favour, mind you), in order for a fairer result. If you want me to insert condoms and reduce the transmission rates, then I introduce safe drivers, and lo and behold, the death rate due to crashes is massively reduced.

Or I can stay in the real world.

Also, let's take race into account. A much higher percentage of black women have HIV/AIDs than white women, so if I limit myself to sleeping with white women only, wouldn't that decrease my chance of getting AIDs?

I presumed that you were not a racist. You are right, I should have included race into it and only have you sleep with white women. It's about a reduction of 50 percent.

The most important number is the number of partners. Please understand that if you are over 5 or 6 per year, that you are in fact exposing yourself to about 35 people who have had AIDS, through the people that have slept with your partners, or your partner's partners, or anywhere down the chain.

The point is, Ben, a statistician you are not, so don't try to pull bull**** stats out of your ass, especially when you don't take anything else into account. You're just trying to do your usual smoke 'n mirrors hand-wavium strategy to distract people from the real point, which is that you don't think condoms are effective at reducing STD transmission. Most of the rest of us disagree with you, including doctors.

My doctor agrees with me that waiting until I am married is a better choice then sleeping around with condoms. And yes, he always asks this when I see him.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Oh bull****. I'm only comparing HIV transmission, not all the other nasties you can get along the way.

So? Condoms protect against STDs, just as all those automobile things protect against injury during an accident.

I suppose I can fiddle with the numbers, but then what's the point?

You suppose you CAN fiddle with numbers?! You already have.

Oh, so you are suggesting that Floyd tests everyone he sleeps with?

He may or may not. Neither of us is qualified to know.

[Ben Kenobi]

Though, I'll still say that the security of one condom isn't in any way affected by the succes/failure of previous. Same goes with the girls. The only rason that I wrote the caveat was that there after all is a limited number of girls available at sample time - I might be wrong, but I think it may influence on the result.

Didn't KH already rip you a new one? All I'm assuming is that the number of partners is equivalent. Ie, if you have 4 partners, that each of them have had 4 partners, and brings it to an exposure of about 16 people.

This doesn't have much bearing in real life. Usually, what happens is that people have a few partners, usually not more than one or two a year, or they have lots of partners in a year, and these people also have lots of partners. The only reason it's useful is to get a handle on the number of people you are exposing yourself to.

[OzzyKP]

Really? What's the limit? Additionally, and I've made this point before, I'll take 10 women, use a condom every time. You take 1 woman and don't use a condom. Is 10-1 a good ratio, or would you prefer hire? Anyway, we'll repeat this scenario until one of us gets an STD.

Ok deal.

ooh! ooh! I want in on this! Is someone providing the ladies?

[Ben Kenobi]

So? Condoms protect against STDs, just as all those automobile things protect against injury during an accident.

Which means that car accidents for people wearing their seatbelts, not suffering impairment due to sleep or distraction etc, come into play.

This has the effect of reducing the casulties, and you end up with exactly the same situation. It's better to use the raw numbers rather then inserting bull**** factors.

You suppose you CAN fiddle with numbers?! You already have.

All I've assumed is that Floyd sleeps with women. That is the only correction factor I have included. This actually works to his credit.

If anything I've manipulated the numbers in his favour.

He may or may not. Neither of us is qualified to know.

Well, then this is a rather pointless exercise.

[Ben Kenobi]

ooh! ooh! I want in on this! Is someone providing the ladies?

Apparently Floyd believes this is a test of judgment. He can pick whomever he chooses.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It's better to use the raw numbers rather then inserting bull**** factors.

You like to use bull**** statistics, so... if you want to use raw numbers, get better at math.

[Ben Kenobi]

I've seen zero math critiques. People seem to prefer bull**** that agrees with what they believe than facts.

[BlackCat]

Didn't KH already rip you a new one? All I'm assuming is that the number of partners is equivalent. Ie, if you have 4 partners, that each of them have had 4 partners, and brings it to an exposure of about 16 people.

First, I think that you should be glad that KH has you on ignore (or rather, KH should be happy - his head would explode reading you).

It doesn't matter a bit wether your partners have had other partners - that is if you use condoms. If you don't, it do.

[Ben Kenobi]

It doesn't matter a bit wether your partners have had other partners - that is if you use condoms. If you don't, it do.

Umm, yes it's always relevant, condoms or no.

Say you have 2 partners. Both of them use condoms with you. Neither of them use condoms with anyone else. Now, isn't your risk of contracting a disease higher because of how they are with their other partners, regardless of whether you use a condom?

[BlackCat]

Umm, yes it's always relevant, condoms or no.

Say you have 2 partners. Both of them use condoms with you. Neither of them use condoms with anyone else. Now, isn't your risk of contracting a disease higher because of how they are with their other partners, regardless of whether you use a condom?

[KH mode]
No.
[/KH mode]

[Ben Kenobi]

Why is it not relevant?

Look, you have two risk factors.

R1, and R2.

R1 = risk factor with a condom.

R2 = risk factor without a condom.

In my example, you are exposed to 4 people. Your risk factor should be equal to:

R1 x R1 x R2 x R2.

So you'd have halved your protection factor.

[DirtyMartini]

So, let's say I have a .2 chance of contracting an STD without a condom and a .1 chance with a condom. If I use a condom twice and use no condom twice my chance of an STD is .2x.2x.1x.1 = 0.0004. If I have sex twice more with no condom my chance is now 0.0004x.2x.2 = 0.000016. The more the sex, the less the chance of an STD.

Laissez le bon temps roulez!

[BlackCat]

Why is it not relevant?

Look, you have two risk factors.

R1, and R2.

R1 = risk factor with a condom.

R2 = risk factor without a condom.

In my example, you are exposed to 4 people. Your risk factor should be equal to:

R1 x R1 x R2 x R2.

So you'd have halved your protection factor.

No, that is pure BS.

Condoms gives more than 90 % protection from getting a STD EVERY time. The protection is of course irrelevant if the partner doesn't have an STD, but IF she/he has it, it's 90 % EACH time. Therefore it doesn't matter much how much the ten partners ****s around.

[Ben Kenobi]

Yes, it does matter.

If they have sex with someone else without a condom, and you have sex with them even if you wear a condom, the risk is no different then if you were to have sex without a condom, and they were to have had sex with a condom.

All it takes is for one person somewhere along the chain to break it.