Tantrika said:

koods said:

There is a huge push to circumcise men in Africa to reduce HIV transmission.

---

Is it working?

a point similar was in that vice link:

Quote:

So banjo strings are the key to being good at sex? Great. People often defend circumcision on hygiene grounds, because it reduces chances of catching herpes by 30% and HIV by 60%. That seems like a good thing.
Since 1980 when they first discovered AIDS half a million men have been killed in America. 90% of them were circumcised. Circumcision doesn’t prevent STDs, only condoms and abstinence does that.

I suppose. So why do you think circumcision is still carried out in America as a matter of course?
There are no reproducible scientific studies that prove that getting cut protects you from anything. People have been brainwashed by the doctors that you have to do it and they can’t admit that they’ve been doing something wrong for 200 years or they would be sued out of business. There have been a number of lawsuits in recent years. Half a dozen or so have sued successfully.

So it’s just a swizz on behalf of the doctors?
Yes. They want to buy all of their fancy cars and whatever.

What would you like to see happen in the future?
I would like to go out of business; I would like to see no more mutilation of innocent baby boys or girls. Let people learn the facts and make their own mind up when they’re 18. Frankly, if they know the facts, they probably won’t do it.

---

But as stated, was not circumcised and do not consider this to be 'my fight'
my general position is that unnecessary procedures should not be performed on infants or children
be they Jewish, Trans, Muslim, or 'Normal'
but also will not be having children of my own, so it is not a debate that requires much of my mental energy

---

koods said:

The epidemiological  data is conclusive

---

Total fucking bullshitter.

koods said:

Tantrika said:

koods said:

There is a huge push to circumcise men in Africa to reduce HIV transmission.

---

Is it working?

a point similar was in that vice link:

Quote:

So banjo strings are the key to being good at sex? Great. People often defend circumcision on hygiene grounds, because it reduces chances of catching herpes by 30% and HIV by 60%. That seems like a good thing.
Since 1980 when they first discovered AIDS half a million men have been killed in America. 90% of them were circumcised. Circumcision doesn’t prevent STDs, only condoms and abstinence does that.

I suppose. So why do you think circumcision is still carried out in America as a matter of course?
There are no reproducible scientific studies that prove that getting cut protects you from anything. People have been brainwashed by the doctors that you have to do it and they can’t admit that they’ve been doing something wrong for 200 years or they would be sued out of business. There have been a number of lawsuits in recent years. Half a dozen or so have sued successfully.

So it’s just a swizz on behalf of the doctors?
Yes. They want to buy all of their fancy cars and whatever.

What would you like to see happen in the future?
I would like to go out of business; I would like to see no more mutilation of innocent baby boys or girls. Let people learn the facts and make their own mind up when they’re 18. Frankly, if they know the facts, they probably won’t do it.

---

But as stated, was not circumcised and do not consider this to be 'my fight'
my general position is that unnecessary procedures should not be performed on infants or children
be they Jewish, Trans, Muslim, or 'Normal'
but also will not be having children of my own, so it is not a debate that requires much of my mental energy

---

The epidemiological  data is conclusive, and the mechanism for higher susceptibility in uncircumcised men is well understood

---

Then cool

Only knew one kid who got circumcised beyond infancy, and it was due to some sort of infection
but have never personally had issues -- tho my OCD is specifically tied to keeping myself clean, so may not serve as a fair indicator

just hope that the message is not misconstrued that circumcision means no need for protection
but anything that works cumulatively towards the goal seems sound

Quote:

Gloria Gakki should be in line to win $100,000 (£62,000). Her idea for improving the appeal of condoms meets the “grand challenge” launched by Bill Gates who earlier this year offered the prize to anyone who could devise a means of increasing their popularity. She is training sex workers to put condoms on with their mouths.

The Ministry of Defence in Zambia could be a winner, too. It has designed a packet in camouflage colours and labelled it “Full Combat”.

The problem with the condom has never been its effectiveness but its acceptability. Despite 30 years of research and the expenditure of billions of dollars, no one has come up with a better form of protection against HIV. But worldwide only 5 per cent of men use them.

It’s like sucking a sweet with the paper on, its detractors say. You don’t eat a banana without peeling it.

---

Quote:

Condom use among sex workers in Nairobi has risen from near zero in the 1980s to approaching 100 per cent today. It has been achieved, she said, by “moving the focus from the professionals to the community that uses them”.

But condoms have a fatal flaw – it is called trust. While their use in casual sex has hugely improved over the past 20 years, once couples are established they discard them. To continue implies mistrust.

---

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/the-condom-conundrum-how-to-persuade-africas-prostitutes-to-practice-safe-sex-8947709.html

There is also concern with regards to the 'trust' issue from another angle
remember an article last year about a push to define 'stealthing' under sexual assault
http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/stealthing-condoms-legal-concerns-1.4088491

Quote:

Haley says she knows the trauma of sexual assault. The 20-year-old Edmonton woman says she has experienced multiple forms of it.

But when she discloses the details of the latest instance, she says some people shrug it off.

That's because Haley is referring to "stealthing," the secretive and non-consensual removal of a condom during otherwise consensual intercourse. (CBC has agreed to not publish Haley's full name as well as those of the other women who spoke about the practice.)

Not everyone considers stealthing akin to rape, she says.

Haley said she had consented to protected sex with a man she knew and trusted. But after a few minutes, she noticed something amiss.

"I looked down at one point, and [the condom] just wasn't there," she said. "It was really scary."

After confronting the man and speaking with friends who had the same experience with him, she says she realized he'd removed the condom intentionally.

---

It goes on to address that such an action may not be considered sexual assault among gay men so long as they are clean
as removal of the condom does not carry risk of physical harm in the manner that pregnancy does

the article was apparently inspired by publication of a paper on a similar topic
but have not read it personally yet -- may sit down and do so before gaming today
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2954726

Quote:

You don't get how that's an example of white privilege???

---

Stonehenge said:

If you work hard and succeed you must have gotten it simply because of skin color. Unless you are jewish. If you fail and are white, you must not have worked hard enough but if you are black and fail, its because of skin color. That makes sense only to the extremely brainwashed and gullible.

---

XUL said:

Quote:

You don't get how that's an example of white privilege???

---

I don't want examples. I want proof.

---

XUL said:

Quote:

You don't get how that's an example of white privilege???

---

I don't want examples. I want proof.

When someone is trying to prove human induced global warming, do you think they present one study and call it a day?

You haven't proven anything.

A personal question to you: do you think if one parent is white, the child has more privilege than if both parents were non-white?

---

Thundermuscle75 said:

XUL said:

Quote:

You don't get how that's an example of white privilege???

---

I don't want examples. I want proof.

When someone is trying to prove human induced global warming, do you think they present one study and call it a day?

You haven't proven anything.

A personal question to you: do you think if one parent is white, the child has more privilege than if both parents were non-white?

---

That's like saying prove to me that human pregnancy exists.
The only proof I will accept is a large group of people people are kept in controlled laboratory conditions and every single one of them gets pregnant.

Any other result means human pregnancy does not exist.

---

viktor said:

If you honestly wanted evidence for Jewish privilege you would have found it long ago.

---

viktor said:

koods said:

Jews are more successful because they work harder.

---

Then whites are more successful because they work harder

---

But whites are also more successful because of white privilege.  They're more likely to get a job against an EQUALLY qualified black person.

viktor said:

koods said:

Why don't you explain how Jewish privelege manifests itself in society

---

The same arguments Falcon is using to explain how white privilege manifests itself in society.

Jews are wealthier than average, therefore they are privileged and benefit from the systems of oppression that exploit blacks and Hispanics.

---

Koods already answered this; it's about equal opportunity, not equal outcomes.

viktor said:

Enlil, Falcon, koods and The Espastic are happy to rip into white people for being 15-20% above the American average, but when you confront them with the fact that Jews are 50-60% above the American average they scuttle away with their tails between their legs.

---

"Rip into white people"    Can you prove "Jews are 50-60% above the American average?

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

qman said:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

Holy shit, that guy is WAAAY more stupid than I thought.  I only watched the first two minutes of the first video, bur it was VERY CLEAR he is clueless as hell (if I missed some good points later in the video, please share them).

What's troubling is that you post this idiocy as "evidence" white privilege doesn't exist.  Again, if I missed any good points from the rest of the video, please share them with us.

---

I'm not going to spoon feed you his points, either watch the whole video or don't comment on it.

---

I wasted 2 minutes on it.  Stupidity is all I saw.  I sure as hell won't waste 1/2 hour on it.  If the guy made just ONE good point in the entire 1/2 hour, why don't you share it?  Is it because you now realize there were none?

qman said:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

you post this idiocy as 'evidence' white privilege doesn't exist

---

There's only opinions and small examples that "white privilege" does or does not exist. There's no concrete evidence because for every small example of you showing some black not getting a call backs, there's multiples more showing blacks getting call backs from employers.

---

You CLEARLY don't understand statstics.  And I'm wondering if XUL does either, because he's the one that asked for "alpha levels", and got a study with a resulting p-value FAR less than any standard alpha level (p=0.0000).  I suspect he was just hoping no one here understood statistics, but then statistics got thrown right back in his face, proving exactly what he asked for.

qman said:

This is a social science discussion, nothing can be consistently demonstrated to validate a position.

---

The study used a sample size of 2445 resumes, which was enough to prove blacks get more callbacks with a confidence level >99.99%.  A position WAS validated using statistical methods and now you're saying "la la la, I don't get statistics so therefore I don't believe statistics."

qman said:

If there was some sort of law that specifically stated that whites get employment before blacks, then we could demonstrate a consistent outcome, we don't have that today.

---

---

"A position was VALIDATED"

And then is wasn't, lots of flaws in that experiment.

www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-bias-hiring-0504-biz-20160503-story.html

This one shows "a position was VALIDATED"

https://economics.missouri.edu/working-papers/2014/wp1419_koedel.pdf

"We sent nearly 9,000 resumes of fictitious young job applicants to job advertisements for seven major cities in the United States across six occupational types. We randomly assigned names to resumes that we selected to convey race and gender but for which socioeconomic connotation is not implicated beyond what is implied by the applicant's race. We find little evidence of systematic employer preferences for applicants of particular race or gender groups."

Maybe you went hook, line and sinker into a very flawed social experiment that was intentionally trying to get a desired result.

Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:Can you prove "Jews are 50-60% above the American average?

---

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

qman said:

No, he only showed a VERY SMALL sample of some employers that preferred calling back white sounding names. That's hardly a "proven" universal fact.

---

I saw this after my last post.  Just wow.

---

XUL said:

Quote:

You don't get how that's an example of white privilege???

---

I don't want examples. I want proof.

---

viktor said:

Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:Can you prove "Jews are 50-60% above the American average?

---

http://www.jpost.com/Jewish-World/Jewish-News/Poll-Jews-highest-earning-religious-group-in-US

Jews mysteriously make more money than Hindus, despite not being as well educated as Hindus.

---

qman said:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

qman said:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

Holy shit, that guy is WAAAY more stupid than I thought.  I only watched the first two minutes of the first video, bur it was VERY CLEAR he is clueless as hell (if I missed some good points later in the video, please share them).

What's troubling is that you post this idiocy as "evidence" white privilege doesn't exist.  Again, if I missed any good points from the rest of the video, please share them with us.

---

I'm not going to spoon feed you his points, either watch the whole video or don't comment on it.

---

I wasted 2 minutes on it.  Stupidity is all I saw.  I sure as hell won't waste 1/2 hour on it.  If the guy made just ONE good point in the entire 1/2 hour, why don't you share it?  Is it because you now realize there were none?

qman said:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

you post this idiocy as 'evidence' white privilege doesn't exist

---

There's only opinions and small examples that "white privilege" does or does not exist. There's no concrete evidence because for every small example of you showing some black not getting a call backs, there's multiples more showing blacks getting call backs from employers.

---

You CLEARLY don't understand statstics.  And I'm wondering if XUL does either, because he's the one that asked for "alpha levels", and got a study with a resulting p-value FAR less than any standard alpha level (p=0.0000).  I suspect he was just hoping no one here understood statistics, but then statistics got thrown right back in his face, proving exactly what he asked for.

qman said:

This is a social science discussion, nothing can be consistently demonstrated to validate a position.

---

The study used a sample size of 2445 resumes, which was enough to prove blacks get more callbacks with a confidence level >99.99%.  A position WAS validated using statistical methods and now you're saying "la la la, I don't get statistics so therefore I don't believe statistics."

qman said:

If there was some sort of law that specifically stated that whites get employment before blacks, then we could demonstrate a consistent outcome, we don't have that today.

---

---

"A position was VALIDATED"

And then is wasn't, lots of flaws in that experiment.

www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-bias-hiring-0504-biz-20160503-story.html

This one shows "a position was VALIDATED"

https://economics.missouri.edu/working-papers/2014/wp1419_koedel.pdf

"We sent nearly 9,000 resumes of fictitious young job applicants to job advertisements for seven major cities in the United States across six occupational types. We randomly assigned names to resumes that we selected to convey race and gender but for which socioeconomic connotation is not implicated beyond what is implied by the applicant's race. We find little evidence of systematic employer preferences for applicants of particular race or gender groups."

Maybe you went hook, line and sinker into a very flawed social experiment that was intentionally trying to get a desired result.

---

XUL said:

Thundermuscle75 said:

XUL said:

Quote:

You don't get how that's an example of white privilege???

---

I don't want examples. I want proof.

When someone is trying to prove human induced global warming, do you think they present one study and call it a day?

You haven't proven anything.

A personal question to you: do you think if one parent is white, the child has more privilege than if both parents were non-white?

---

That's like saying prove to me that human pregnancy exists.
The only proof I will accept is a large group of people people are kept in controlled laboratory conditions and every single one of them gets pregnant.

Any other result means human pregnancy does not exist.

---

Does that mean global warming is a hoax?

If one parent is white, how much privilege does the child have?

---