What is immoral about sex before marriage?

I wonder what would happen if one of his history students tried to pull that stunt.

Distasteful.

Why do you change your posts? You do know that lying is another staggeringly huge sin.

Using the edit function is a sin?

If you change your posts and claim gul is quoting something you never said, then you are lying.

Well I've never done that and you well know it.

In my capacity as a neutral arbiter, I asked Chardman to send me a copy of his diploma for review. I can confirm that he does indeed have a degree in biblical studies. Therefore, it is proven that Dayton is full of shit. QED, case closed.

I do not believe you.

You've already shown you will lie by altering a members post.

So you admit that you edited after I quoted your post. Well that solves that, then.

Which post of yours did he alter?

He said something he wished he hadn't, and edited. But I quoted the post before the edit, so now he's claiming that I made up his original post, but awkward fuck that he is, he confused editing a quote with editing a post. Either way, he's lying like gturner.

What does your autism have to do with Chardman proving he does have a degree in biblical studies.

Not surprising considering he still bungles quotes, and he still hasn't quite gotten the full hang of using copy and paste.

Ya know, I would usually say I'm all for fornication, but then I was reading some literature this week about STDs. Did you know that approximately 20% of everyone in the US is a Genital Herpes carrier, that 90% don't show symptoms, but they still infect others? There was a study done in South Korea that suggested a full third of Korean women are carriers.

That gave me pause.

So he actually posted, "Numbers mean something when they support my positrion. Nothing when they support your position. Case closed." before editing it?

Oh he's gotten the hang of copy and paste.

Who can say how many times he has edited. The key point is that nobody has edited his post other than Dayton. His accusation that I edited his post (remember, that's not the same thing as my post with his quote), that's a lie.

Fuck that noise, let the porn stars get the diseases.

But you said that you quoted the post before he edited it.

It's time, once again, for my herpes rant.

HSV1 (Oral) and HSV2 (Genital) combined, that number climbs to 80%. They're essentially the same disease, and are interchangeable. Either strain can infect anywhere skin is present.

Most people have herpes, and 90% of those people never have any symptoms. Seems like the opposite of a big deal to me.

Furthermore, that 10% of people that show symptoms, most of them only have one outbreak. There are some rare cases where serious complications arise, but the general worst case scenario is itchy sores appear on your junk for a few days once every few years or so. Hell, I'm more worried about catching a cold than I am getting herpes, and I'm really not that concerned about colds.

By which I mean, I'm not worried about herpes at all. In fact, I hope I have it already. I hope everyone gets it, because it's not a big deal. The only part of it that's a big deal is the stigma associated with it.

STIs in general aren't that big of a deal. Most are curable with antibiotics, or can be prevented with vaccines or barriers. HIV is a big deal, but it's no longer a death sentence, but a chronic condition that needs expensive medication. That still sucks really bad but it's getting better.

For the most part, it's not that sex is risky because of STIs, but that STIs are seen as a big deal because of sex negativity. Symptom-wise, psoriasis is worse than herpes as far as skin conditions go. Sinus and respiratory infections are worse than gonorrhea or chlamydia as far as bacterial infections go. Syphilis causes brain damage and death if left untreated for more than a decade, but meningitis can cause those things in a few days. HIV requires fewer lifestyle changes than diabetes, and AIDS is probably comparable to terminal cancer. It's not the I in STI (or the D in STD) that's a big deal. Infections are infections, and diseases are diseases. It's the S and the T that make them a big deal.

I want to agree with everything you said. But I'm sitting here this week, waiting for the results of my latest STI check (merely routine), and contemplating the moral dilemma I'll have to face if the test actually comes up as positive (which is unlikely even if I do have either strain; the tests are unreliable). Do I have to contact my past lovers and inform them of something they probably had long before they met me? Do I have to inform new lovers that I'm a carrier, even if I've never showed any symptoms and they probably have it themselves anyway?

You are correct in saying that the social stigma is far more damaging than the actual virus, but that doesn't change the fact that it would fuck up my life once I got the Scarlet H.

I doubt he'd even notice. I mean, Dayton actually running a text through a plagiarism program? Can we remember who we're talking about here?

I never said this.

Gul made it up completely.

Is your autism an excuse for everything now?

You most certainly did say it. This thread is packed with statistics presented by you, followed by statistics presented by others, with a final statement by you saying that sometimes numbers mean something. Sometimes they don't. Since you dismissed the numbers presented counter to your own argument, you are arguing that only the numbers supporting your own point of view matter. Or are you prepared to argue that some of the numbers you presented were in the "mean nothing" category?

I never said precisely that phrase gul and you know it. By presenting it as a "quote" you are in fact distorting what was said.

But it is nice to see you admit you "inferred".

Of course "inferred" can and often means

"That is what I think they meant even though they didn't say it".

I never said that either Ed.

What is the deal with people here making up quotes from other people?

It's a long standing Wordforge tradition for people to fix quotes to demonstrate the OP's real meaning. You can hide behind semantics if you want, but do you deny that you only consider numbers worthy if they support your pre-conceived opinion?

Let's make it simple, Dayton: Do statistics only count when they support your position?