Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Tom Bishop

Pages: < Back  1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 464  Next >
41
And with automation already taking away non-artistic jobs, then what will be left in the future?

What makes you think that the job of media painter/artist should even exist? If you want to paint then paint. It is ridiculous to demand that you are paid for the things you enjoy doing.

42
If you can't directly rebut her Monkeypox video and need to spam us with some leftist thing you found about unrelated videos then you really have lost. Posting an off-topic response shows that you don't have any good arguments to what you saw.

*ahem* Thank you for giving no fucks about expertise when it suits your purposes. You talk about honesty yet possess none of it. Lauren Southern also has a history of flat out lying about facts to deliver her polemics to the slavering mouthes of brain dead conservatives. Look in to her agitprop on immigration to learn more.

If you actually have something to say about the Monkeypox video, I would be happy to listen and respond.

If you don't have any direct argument whatsoever and want to talk about accusations about an unrelated video, then you should do us a favor and keep quiet and know your place as the losing party of the discussion. It is embarrassing for you to have to reply to a video about Monkeypox with a discussion about an unrelated video. Arguing about something off-topic when confronted with on-topic content is a sign of defeat. You don't have any good response to the content of the video.

Quote from: Rama Set
Stack is absolutely right that your poor description will lead to more prevalence of the disease.

The articles by gay advocates who promote calling HIV a gay disease argue the opposite -

https://www.hivplusmag.com/opinion/guest-voices/2014/02/19/listen-hiv-still-gay-disease

    When the right wing claims HIV was a gay disease, gay leaders recoiled in rage. HIV, they said, was everyone’s problem. In a big picture snapshot that is accurate. But in the U.S. it’s a lie. The virus is safely encamped in the bodies of men who have sex with other men (a term of epidemiology coined by scientists, which makes trans women — deeply affected by HIV — invisible in the epidemic).

    Author John-Manuel Androite says that in the mid-'80s a national coalition called National Organizations Responding to AIDS (NORA) made a decision — a deliberate decision — that echoes even today in how the U.S. addresses HIV.

    “What they did was they framed the discussion about HIV for lawmakers in terms of public health; as a public health crisis, not a gay community crisis per se,” Andriote says. “What they did, very intentionally, was to emphasize the impact of HIV on non-gay people, specifically women and children.”

    Androite authored the book Victor Deferred: How AIDS Changed Gay America, which tracks the political impact of the epidemic on the LGBT rights movement.

    “Unfortunately, the unexpected impact or effect of that de-gaying strategy was that the federal government was very happy to pay attention and focus resources on women and kids,” he says. “But the attitude was still that gay men could sort of fend for themselves.”

Quote from: Rama Set
It’s still absolutely telling that instead of wanting the most accurate and helpful description of the disease you have instead chosen to label it using a group that you have in the past labeled as immoral and disgusting.

Have you considered that Monkeypox is primarily affecting men who have sex with men because that was its entry point and because it is spread most effectively by extreme close contact it has been slow to spread to other epidemiological groups?

Possibilities for why it is affecting gay men and possible future developments is speculation on your part and is irrelevant to the fact that it is a gay disease. All current indications suggest that it is a disease which predominantly affects the gay male community.

43
If you can't directly rebut her Monkeypox video and need to spam us with some leftist thing you found about unrelated videos then you really have lost. Posting an off-topic response shows that you don't have any good arguments to what you saw.

44
If breeders think it's just a gay disease they will feel they are not at risk then they won't avoid becoming a victim. They won't be on top of safety, won't avoid risky activity, and won't be more vigilant about testing for HIV / Syphilis / Monkeypox and won't avoid becoming one of those people.

Someone is still stuck in the 80's, the "we must stigmatize" era.

I didn't say anything about it needing to be stigmatized. Gay advocacy groups have described HIV as a gay disease. It's a description.

Monkeypox is likewise clearly a gay disease.


45
Now who is denying reality? You clearly have a problem with homosexuals. That’s why you insist on labeling this disease as a gay disease even though that moniker holds little value.

Honesty does hold value. It is a disservice to pretend that it's not a gay disease by avoiding labeling it as such and to force people to read into it to have that knowledge. If gays know that there are gay diseases that they are specifically at risk for then they can avoid becoming a victim. They can be on top safety, avoid risky activity, and be more vigilant about testing for HIV / Syphilis / Monkeypox to avoid becoming one of these people -

Pictured: German monkeypox patient whose nose started to ROT because his undiagnosed HIV and syphilis left his immune system ravaged

46
I’m obviously going to hold you, a bigot who has repeatedly declared homosexuals as immoral and deviant, to a different standard than an advocacy group.

I don't have a problem with you if you are a homosexual. I more have a problem with your denial of reality, the one here being that Monkeypox is clearly a gay disease.

47
Sure, but that is irrelevant to the fact that Monkeypox in the west is a gay disease.

48
Just throwing shit at the wall and seeing what sticks?  Great diversionary tactics.

It shows that you don't have much of an argument. Homosexuals themselves have conceded that HIV/AIDS a "gay disease". Any disease which disproportionately affects and is spread by gays is a gay disease.

49
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sunset
« on: August 19, 2022, 03:52:40 PM »
That image is a complete blurry glare filled mess. I don't know how you can expect anyone to do any sensible analysis of it.

There are about 8 lights which can be distinguished, which do get noticeable smaller. After that it becomes a complete mess of overlapping light sources.

This is the bit after those first 8 lights:

The lights in the far field don't shrink as much or as consistently as the lights in the near field. The lights do not shrink consistently. The effect is reproducible and is seen in other images.

The constant size in the video you posted is because the further the lights are away, the more out of focus they are.  This effect, called bokeh, will make the further lights seem to all be the same size.  It is a consequence of the optical design of the lens and aperture.  It would probably benefit you to do some research into how optics work rather than just assume whatever nonsense supports your flawed intellectual bias.

The effect you referenced isn't glare. It's an effect referenced on the tfes page I linked and is also known as Circles of Confusion. It shows that it is possible for a body to magnify on a medium between the observer and the object, creating light sources which are consistent in size. It shows that it is possible for a light source to maintain its diameter in the distance.

50
The medical community originally referred to AIDS as GRID, the “Gay-Related Infectious Disease”.

Yes and the original outlook on AIDS was quite homophobic.

Is HIV Plus Magazine homophobic for publishing opinion pieces calling it a gay disease?

https://www.hivplusmag.com/opinion/guest-voices/2014/02/19/listen-hiv-still-gay-disease



Is The Atlantic homophobic?

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2011/11/aids-still-a-gay-disease-in-america/249242/



Is the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force homophobic too?

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/top-gay-organization-comes-clean-hiv-is-a-gay-disease/


51
The medical community originally referred to AIDS as GRID, the “Gay-Related Infectious Disease”.

So they did use the words Gay and Disease.

https://www.being-here.net/page/664/hiv-aids-and-policy

"In the Netherlands the first person was diagnosed with AIDS in 1981. Jeanette Kok, working as a 'social nurse' for the Health Service Amsterdam recalls how she was asked by Dr. Roel Coutinho to interview the first patients (de Goei 2003). She would hold lengthy conversations with the people who were sometimes already very ill and their friends and family to learn about their behaviour in order to understand how these young men were infected. At the time HIV was not yet known, medical expertise did not know how to treat it, and it was unclear how it was transmitted. Because it was usually gay men in the USA and Europe who were first diagnosed, it was called the 'gay cancer' at the time (officially: Gay Related Infectious Disease, G.R.I.D.). The homosexual communities had to deal with the rapid death of friends in large numbers from an illness that nobody knew of. This was a traumatic experience for many people involved. On top of that the discrimination against homosexual life grew worse once again, whereas it had improved significantly in the seventies, because the fear of catching the 'gay cancer' dominated the public discourse (Eihblyn 1990)."

https://www.voanews.com/a/a-13-a-2003-08-14-35-breakthrough-67319357/271050.html

"The faces of HIV/AIDS have changed greatly in color over the past 20 years. In the early days, the disease was called GRID, which stood for gay related infectious disease."

52
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sunset
« on: August 19, 2022, 12:29:54 PM »
If you can't explain it then you don't know what it is. If you don't know what it is, then the consistent size effect of distant bodies may be happening to other light sources such as the Sun.

53
Actually that page specifies that everything outside of the original African Monkeypox, such as the modern outbreak in western countries, is a gay disease.



Gay disease: a disease only gay people can get.
Which means it only affect men.  Right?  Women are immune?

It primarily affects homosexuals, making it a gay disease. It also primarily affects men, making it specifically a gay male disease.

54
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sunset
« on: August 19, 2022, 11:40:55 AM »
https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset

How does glare make these lights in the distance in this embedded video relatively the same size exactly? What property of glare makes distant lights the same size?



Glare would need to be intelligently resizing itself based on the light's specific distance to the observer to make a relatively consistent size in the distance. How does that happen?

55
Incorrect. It's primarily a disease among homosexual men.

What exactly is the point you are trying to make?

Why not read what I was replying to? It was suggested that it wasn't a gay disease. That suggestion was incorrect. It is a gay disease.

56
Fluid exchange seems to be the transmission method.

So if a woman swallows a man's cum or has intercourse... She could get infected.

Or if you kiss someone with tongue.
Bite someome.
Share a needle.
Blood.

Butt fucking might do it too, but its not the only method.

Incorrect. It's primarily a disease among homosexual men.



See also: https://archive.ph/BNB8f


57
Men really need to learn to wear condoms.


I'm not entirely clear on this but I don't think a condom would do much to stop this since skin to skin contact is enough to spread it.

https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-health-and-wellness/sex-men-not-skin-contact-fueling-monkeypox-new-research-suggests-rcna43484


58
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: August 11, 2022, 07:46:22 PM »
This makes women responsible for abortion.

Yes, if they have the choice and choose to take that option without consulting the father.

However, they do not bear 100% responsibility for getting pregnant.  That at best is only 50% women's responsibility and sometimes 0%.  So men must be at least 50% responsible for unwanted pregnancy.

Sometimes it's 100% if the woman chooses to drug and rape a man or go to a sperm donation bank.

But the responsibility for getting pregnant is irrelevant. We are talking about the responsibility to the child after pregnancy has already occurred. At this stage the man is legally responsible (maybe not if he was raped or donated sperm) and there is nothing he can do about it at that point. The law says he is responsible to the child. The woman can escape responsibility to her child by killing it. The woman has more options to escape responsibility than the man has.

59
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: August 11, 2022, 05:50:06 PM »
Men are already responsible. If a woman decides to have the baby, the man is responsible to support it by law and can't walk away. The man is sentenced to 18 years of labor to support the child. When a man complains the societal response is "Your fault, pay up!"

If the woman decides not to have the baby, she can do so without repercussion. She is not held to the same standards to be compelled to support her baby and can choose to kill it and escape responsibility.


Care to actually discuss what you said.  You were 100% blaming the woman for being "irresponsible" and getting pregnant.  It had nothing to do with legal responsibilities afterward.  Your statement was wholly to say that it is the woman's fault she's  pregnant.  This isn't the first time you've said it.  Nice try at deflecting and trying to say it was about something else.

We are talking about abortion. Women can escape responsibility by choosing to end life legally and men can't. This makes women responsible for abortion. A woman's right to choose makes them responsible. Adoption is an option, as is having the baby and utilizing child support/welfare/family support. The man is legally on the hook for the child and does not get to escape responsibility like with the options the woman has.

60
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: August 09, 2022, 04:41:26 PM »
..... justify the personal irresponsibility of women.

Of course you meant, once again, to say the irresponsibility of men.  Either that or you're simply a sexist who thoroughly enjoys the patriarchy that the U.S. has always been and seems to be heading even further to being.

Men are already responsible. If a woman decides to have the baby, the man is responsible to support it by law and can't walk away. The man is sentenced to 18 years of labor to support the child. When a man complains the societal response is "Your fault, pay up!"

If the woman decides not to have the baby, she can do so without repercussion. She is not held to the same standards to be compelled to support her baby and can choose to kill it and escape responsibility.

Quote from: stack
If 1% is so inconsequential to you, why not just leave that exemption from the ban in the law?

I have no idea why you are asking me to change a law. If it's illegal then it's illegal. If it's not, it's not. That edge case doesn't really matter to me. But Tennessee may value the individuality of life, even if its by rape, and would expect those women to pursue adoption or other options, expecting women to give up 9 months for the sake of their baby. In California it is illegal to clear out bird eggs from a tree in your back yard, so making abortion illegal in cases of rape because the people in your state value life isn't totally absurd.

Yes, because no woman has ever, in the history of humanity, told her suiters that she was waiting until marriage.
Hmm, well are you arguing that all women should act like brain-washed, controlled, prudes or that we should have higher standards? You can only pick one because having higher standards does not equal being the virgin Mary. Or admit that you're a sexist troll and move on.

At some points in history parents taught young women to have very high standards. Parental approval used to be expected for a woman to take a suitor, taking care of the 'inexperienced' issue.

If someone did get pregnant outside of marriage family pressure would be applied by both the man's family and the woman's family, if they had respectable morals, to get married and have the baby. Abortion was not an option and was something generally relegated to prostitutes and riff raff. The young adults going into the relationship knew that they would need to get married if a pregnancy occurred, so they would pick the best partner to pursue a relationship with from the start.

Quote from: BillO
Of course women can wait until marriage.  They very often do.  What about the following cases though:

1) A married woman gets pregnant by her husband but then finds out that she has a condition that puts both her and her child at a very high risk of death if she goes full term.

2) A woman get's raped and becomes pregnant but is in no position to be pregnant or support and care for a child.  An example here would be a woman on active duty in the armed forces or otherwise occupied in a life where being pregnant and giving birth are not possible.

3) The child will be born horribly disfigured to the extent they will have no quality of life whatsoever and will not survive, or will require constant medical support to 'live' that is far beyond the woman's ability to pay for.  For example born without a functioning major organ.

We could go on and on but perhaps you could respond to those 3.

Number 1 and 3 are extreme edge cases and the vast majority of abortions do not occur for that reason.

For number 2 the woman is typically discharged from active duty and is given maternity leave and possibly a desk job somewhere.

Pages: < Back  1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 464  Next >