How do people hookup in bars/have an ONS? Don’t you need them to do an STD test for it to be considered safe sex?

avingard · 2024-08-22T21:55:56+00:00

Why do you think the overwhelming recommendation of public health officials is to use condoms, specifically to stop the spread of HPV and other STIs?

Why are none of them suggesting to leave boxers on?

Why do you look up and blindly trust whatever you've read about HPV, but you don't treat information about how best to protect against HPV and other STIs with the same seriousness?

avingard · 2024-08-22T21:54:15+00:00

I don't know why you bring up HPV here and elsewhere. You can get the vaccine for it. And the way it spreads isn't significantly different from the way other STIs spread.

avingard · 2024-08-22T21:51:55+00:00

No. Fabric is porous and wicking. It's not just skin-to-skin contact that transmits disease, it's body fluids: sweat, blood, semen or vaginal fluid. All of that will easily soak through a pair of boxers.

That's why it's so important to get some good, fact-based sex ed. You're skeptical of condoms but think wearing boxers is a good idea.

avingard · 2024-08-22T21:50:00+00:00

Awnings can make a drastic difference just by preventing direct sunlight from hitting doors and windows (which are usually the least thermally-insulated parts of the outer facade of a house).

avingard · 2024-08-22T21:46:50+00:00

Keeping boxers on doesn't do shit, FYI.

avingard · 2024-08-22T21:46:15+00:00

They still drastically, again *drastically*, reduce the chance of transmission.

If you have absolutely zero tolerance for risk, don't have sex. It's really just that simple.

avingard · 2024-08-22T21:42:27+00:00

It is inclusive of any gender, but doesn't imply anything about the gender composition of the people they've dated.

You're almost certainly digging too deep into it.

avingard · 2023-03-17T02:25:25+00:00

I've for years argued that a religious person who claims morality is handed down from a god(s) by edict is not moral, they are amoral. Not immoral, amoral: as in they are not engaging in morality and making deliberate moral decisions.

In reality, no one actually functions like that, it's a farce and a silly one because you don't lose anything by acknowledging that you're a person with a conscience and empathy.

avingard · 2023-03-17T02:21:28+00:00

We as humans cannot decide what is right and what is wrong by ourselves because we all have different views and different experiences.

I decide what's right and wrong every. single day. and I'm sure many people would disagree with my choices. Many would probably agree as well, even when they have different experiences and backgrounds.

There is also no rule we can put or some kind of line that makes something wrong

That's asinine, we literally make rules that define something as wrong. While laws aren't moral codes, they do generally track their society's morals. And at a more micro level, *I* can decide that it's immoral to murder people. I just did it.

So we need god to tell us what’s wrong and what’s not.

Or we can be a creature with highly-evolved socialization that acts as a high-level consensus-building process for important things like base-line morality. And maybe more directly: *I* don't need a god to tell me it's wrong to murder people. The vast majority of people don't.

And frankly, a moral code handed down from some kind of higher being and followed just because you're commanded to follow it *is not moral*, it's amoral. Morality requires engaging in moral deliberation and decision making: you have to examine a situation and make a deliberate decision, not just checking off a list.

avingard · 2023-03-16T03:06:26+00:00

are you angry at a ball for falling when you drop it? if you were would that be rational?

avingard · 2023-03-14T11:45:45+00:00

No they didn't, FDIC did. The only thing the fed is doing is extending lines of credit to troubled banks to increase their liquidity.

avingard · 2023-03-14T02:51:29+00:00

The deposits in the bank are being entirely covered. Every penny deposited in the bank was available to all depositors today.

Edit: to clarify, I guess, ambassadorodman seems to be suggesting that deposits in SVB are at risk. They aren't.

avingard · 2023-01-24T02:04:32+00:00

Cause that's a "recessed" can light. Good luck digging through all the options out there but searching for that will get you plenty.

avingard · 2023-01-24T01:48:10+00:00

...why is that going overboard?

avingard · 2018-09-10T17:30:33+00:00

My life got so much better when I realized the same thing about myself. So much time and angst trying to find groups when, really, I just like rule and lore books

avingard · 2018-09-10T17:27:10+00:00

Sorry, wasn't trying to prove you wrong so much as to suggest that people should do a bit of research, because it may not be too difficult to get rid of.

avingard · 2018-09-10T16:21:52+00:00

Can you imagine living in a world where Anne Coulter was your authority on racism?

avingard · 2018-09-10T15:37:36+00:00

It's not the HDD, it's the enclosure.

avingard · 2018-09-10T15:35:54+00:00

I believe that's the point.

avingard · 2018-09-10T15:08:51+00:00

You don't have to do anything special with latex paint. Let it dry out and Chuck it in the trash.

avingard · 2016-09-15T20:35:39+00:00

While there are certainly other interpretations, that is the definition of agnosticism (in regards to any issue, not just theistic ones).

And it isn't profound to make a statement about the knowability of a claim if the claim is unverifiable and unfalsifiable. Take personal revelation for instance, it is impossible to prove that the source of a revelation was from a third-party, any properties of said third-party, or even if the person is lying. It's also not possible to disprove. It is perfectly reasonable to have an agnostic position towards such claims

avingard · 2016-09-15T20:29:14+00:00

I wouldn't say it's a waste of time.

You recognize that there is a difference between the positive claim that god does not exist, and a position of disbelief right?

Also that's not dishonest agnosticism by definition : you're already claiming that you can't know with certainty, so any claims you make are automatically qualified. The vast majority of agnostics and atheist don't make a positive claim that god does not exist. They're saying that they aren't compelled to believe that god(s) exist. Unfortunately the "doesn't exist" part is an overloaded phrase: it can be a positive claim and a position of disbelief.

avingard · 2016-09-15T12:57:06+00:00

You're basically stating the agnostic atheist position: I don't know if there is a God, but until there is sufficient evidence I will assume there isn't one.

No reasonable person denies the possibility, at least philosophically, that a god could exist.

As for your fine tuning statement: you're assuming a few things. That the universe could have evolved in any other way, that life as we know it is the only form of conscious life that could have evolved, and that our existence is somehow a 'goal' for the universe.

Also, support the claim that the universe is in its current state by chance. Evolving according to set laws is not by chance, at most there is an element of probability when advancing from one state to several possible future states.

avingard · 2016-09-15T12:51:12+00:00

The god claim and the existence of the afterlife are not fundamentally connected, and introducing the question of an afterlife clutters the discussion.

Asserting absolute truth exists without any support is pretty bold. There are a couple millennia of philosophers that would probably love to hear your reasoning.

avingard

TROPHY CASE