Funny Abstinence from sex doesn’t work, but Covid19 lockdowns will?

originally posted by: MikhailBakunin
a reply to: neutronflux

Maybe conspiracy theories are close to the truth? But why purposefully destroy an economy? Who benefits?

You're pretty much trying to rationalize the crazy theories about new world order? Right?

Why would anyone lie about Russian Collusion? But it happen.....

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: jtma508
a reply to: neutronflux

What? Have you ever HAD sex? You have to have close, intimate contact usually with exchange of bodily fluids to pass a 'sexually transmitted disease'. See? It's right there in the title. You don't get STDs cause someone sneezed or coughed 3ft away from you. You're comparing Apples with ass-hats. Stupid post. Sorry.

The comparison being made between "Abstinence" and "Social Distancing" is one about the effectiveness as a mitigation technique. The comparison is not being made with regard to the transmission mechanism between COVID and STDs.

Abstinence would otherwise be a powerful mitigation in stopping the spread of STDs; no sex no STDs. The reason Abstinence fails is because it is very difficult to make people practice Abstinence.

Social distancing would otherwise be a powerful mitigation in stopping the spread of Covid-19. The reason it is failing is because it is proving to be very difficult to make people practice proper social distancing.

The analogy does seem to be on point.

Here in New York, the epicenter of the enter world pandemic, studies have concluded that over 70% of new cases are people who claim to be practicing social distancing. That would suggest, like Abstinence for STDs, social distancing is not a viable mitigation for Covid-19.

A long time ago the civilized world by and large accepted that Abstinence, while a logical mitigation to STD transmission, is not viable in practice. It fails to aknowlage that it is impossible to expect humans to stop being human in order for the mitigation to work. There is an insatiable human desire to procreate through sexual encounter that can not easly be dismissed even when the ramifications are death through STD.

How long until the civilized world learns the same lesson about social distancing as a means to mitigate disease transformation? Humans are social creatures; we have an insatiable human desire to socialize. However logical social distancing might sound as a remedy to disease transmission; it will always ultimately fail in practice because humans can't stop being human.

Worded very well. Strange no replies to your post before this?

a reply to: infolurker

Don't have sex with random people if you don't want to catch any STDs?

Isn't that one of the many, many reasons why God generally made it a sin to have sex outside of wedlock?

a reply to: ketsuko

People seem to be misunderstanding the original poster's intent - at least that's the way I see it (I might be wrong).

Also, it's a bit worrying that even in a place like ATS, people are ANGRY at those that question authority and authority's whatever-orders. HIV patient killing others by having lots of sex is compared to people questioning whether the CCP Virus-threat is ACTUALLY as dangerous as the conflicting-information-spreading media claims, and whether these EXTREMELY outreaching methods some governments are using, are ACTUALLY warranted? Really? Are people this sheeple by now? In THIS kind of forum site?

My take on what was meant, was simply that there's a bit of hypocrisy, when the same logic is applied to two different situations. On one hand, it's considered 'unrealistic' that people could do abstinence, but on another hand, it's not considered 'unrealistic' that people could just stay home and not have any kind of social contact.

I mean, sex requires a lot of things to be made to happen, and it can get a bit complicated, (and there's enough information in global consciousness or school systems about the different psyches of women and men), and it requires a powerful drive and effort, and in the end, is extremely intimate.

So 'abstinence' from something that intimate, that complicated, and that effort-requiring, seems easier, than 'lockdown', which is basically much more ridiculous depth of 'abstinence', but yet it's deemed 'realistic'.

My point is, it's much easier to just do the 'normal social behaviour' than 'having sex', and yet the 'not having sex' part is the 'unrealistic' part. The more difficult and complex achievement is deemed as 'unrealistic to stop doing', but the much easier and more widely-spread behaviour that's not even any achievement, is deemed 'completely realistic to stop doing'.

I think this kind of weird thought logic and hypocrisy is what the original poster probably wanted to bring forth - as just a thought as to how STRANGE it is, that on one hand, people don't think this complex thing can be abstained from, but this more common and easier thing can.

I don't think there was any moral, ethical or such connotations.

For what it's worth, the "Powers-That-Be"'s reaction (more like planned response) to all of this is way over-exceeding the actual threat.

If not, then why so much disinformation and so many lies in media, and so much rights-trampling without any questioning? Governments want to do things that their own officers plainly REFUSE, because it's wrong.

I don't think media has honestly ever compared the damage done by killing rights, locking down, shutting down economy, et cetera, to the damage done by 'disobeying the rules' and rebelling against the 'alleged virus'.

(I am not saying the virus is real, but since so many deaths have been falsely reported to be caused by 'the dreaded virus', I am saying there's SOMETHING going on that doesn't quite fit what's done to people, and what people are being told)

Free people would, and in my opinion, SHOULD have a choice between 'living normally and catching the flu' and 'living in constant fear and locking themselves up'. Government should not FORCE anything, or interfere with people's choices.

How many people would rather live 'healthy' (though starving) in governmental and corporate (and oligarchial) tyranny, where their every move is monitored, watched, captured, saved forever, and where they can be put to jail for walking in their back yard or taking a boat ride on an empty lake?

I mean, if the option is to die from some virus and to live in THAT kind of a world, give me the virus, please. What's the point of 'protecting people from virus' if the result is having to live under the tyranny of the psychopaths (governments, corporations, oligarchs, and the so-called 'elite')?

Freedom is WORTH a little bit of risk. Not everything has to be a 'sace space', and not every aspect of life needs to be controlled JUST so you don't get some chinese flu. People's priorities are out of whack. Is it because of fear? Is it because they truly believe some virus can destroy the whole world, and they don't see that SOMETHING ELSE is already destroying everything that's valuable, using this 'virus threat' as an excuse?

People should be angry at the GOVERNMENTS and CORPORATIONS and MEDIA for lying to them about all this stuff AND arresting innocent people AND overreaching and locking down and shutting economy - but instead, they're angry at those that still value their human rights and choose to take a minuscule risk so they can have a lot more freedom, than cowtow to fear and fearmongering and obey, like good little sheeple.

If you ever see me with a mask on, just shoot me in the neck - it's obvious I have been brainwashed, chipped or it's just a clone of me while the real me has been murdered already.

a reply to: Shoujikina

No.

People are angry that those in power are telling people to stay in without seeming to understand or care what it costs to do so. If we really did have a situation where people were falling over deathly ill at the rates that had been projected and we did have overwhelmed or near overwhelmed hospital wards, it would be different. People would understand.

But we don't. Instead, people are being told they must loose everything while no one they know is ill or seriously ill, hospitals are so empty they are laying off workers, and people are facing serious questions of how they are going to pay their rent, pay their other bills, put food on the table, etc. Sure, they may have a moratorium right now, but all that comes due as soon as this ends, and those bills are getting massive and no one is able to make anything to save while they have to spend more and more to survive.

It's getting scarier to stay in doing nothing than it is to go out, but they're being threatened with jail for trying to survive.

That's why they're angry.

a reply to: MikhailBakunin
first I want to say kudos for your rational thinking and how you carried your life

you are a living example of abstinence working and as important the concept of personal responsibility

if you will permit me to use you as an example of the (to but it bluntly) denial of facts/truth of abstinence and put sex only education as the only way of virtue.


first it is a basic biological FACT that (outside of serialization) that abstinence is the ONLY 100 percent way you dont have pregnancy or STD.

but the sex ed crowd then states that kids will have sex (get to that in point two)
that they need to be taught how to use birth control and practice "safe sex"

they dont admit or try to gloss over that no birth control is 100 percent effective and alot DONT STOP std.
hell even non penetration contact can pass a std...

but now on to the second issue .

those supporting sex ed say at their core that "kids are gonna have sex and your not gonna stop it, so give them info to protect themselves."

first sex is NOT NEEDED FOR LIFE...

two.. the group they are "Trying to protect" are CHILDREN
they dont have the cognitive skills or maturity to understand the consequences of their actions
that is something they are TAUGHT... from family and as important is SOCIETY..

you wonder why there were not as many teenage pregnancy (out of wedlock) in our grand parents and great grandparents time?
because society had a SET OF STANDARDS that placed personal responsibility over personal wants.
if you had sex and got pregnant you not only were EXPECTED to care for the child yourself (no wic or welfare) but the FATHER was expected to marry you.. no ifs and or buts.

this (along with family taught morals) did more for limiting teenage pregnancy than any (yes not as common) sex ed today ever did.

before someone says "but they had teenage mothers".... yes they did
but notice you didnt have the numbers you do today (even taking into account population) as one example of schools back then didnt have a day care needed for the numbers of teenage mothers children as they have today.
you didnt have "i have 3 baby daddies / baby mamas".

in short we didnt say kids will have sex you cant stop it like they were somehow wild animals.

we had and taught PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY and you have to deal with the consequences of your actions.

it wasnt perfect but judging by the numbers of yesteryear pre sex education with shame if you made wrong choices vs the sex ed for all ages, your gonna have sex anyway , lets give out birth control like candy and if you make a mistake its ok others will pay for it...


but back to you.

you showed we are not animals and YOU HAVE A CHOICE.
that you are responsible for YOUR OWN ACTIONS and must own up to it.
if you want something its up to THE PERSON to take actions to achieve it.
but dont blame others for your bad choices...


scrounger