Forum menu
tell us your thoughts
Just leave out the creepy ones about subjugating women in Africa. They're best kept to yourself Zulu. 😆
Is being gay a lifestyle choice?
It reminds me of Peter Griffin once claiming that being disabled was a 'lifestyle choice', and un-American.
As the illness cannot be cured the question is how long should we continue to pay for someone's chosen lifestyle? I have nothing against their lifestyle but if they take the risks of non-protective sex then I think they have been selfish.
Struggling to resist the urge to post that Brass Eye video again 🙂
And 'Backdoor pleasure'?! WTF?
And 'Backdoor pleasure'?! WTF?
Don't knock it until you've tried it. So I am told.
And 'Backdoor pleasure'?! WTF?
Don't knock it until you've tried it.
Surely, you have to knock first? Or ring the bell.
Backdoor pleasure
Is this available on DVD?
Is this available on DVD?
don't try that google search at work 😳
bencooper - Member
someone's chosen lifestyle
Is being gay a lifestyle choice?
What if they do it for money? e.g. some of the pron actors in gay pron are not gay but simply do it for the money. Is that a lifestyle choice? I don't know, you tell me.
ernie_lynch - Member
It reminds me of Peter Griffin once claiming that being disabled was a 'lifestyle choice', and un-American.
Bless him Peter Griffin ... 😆
dazh - Member
And 'Backdoor pleasure'?! WTF?
I used that description because I don't want the search engine to mistake STW as a pron site or as the pleasure dome. 😆
Klunk - Member
Is this available on DVD?don't try that google search at work
I googled the term but nothing nasty came up ... 😀
What if they do it for money? e.g. some of the pron actors in gay pron are not gay but simply do it for the money. Is that a lifestyle choice? I don't know, you tell me.
That's like saying the whole of humankind are burrowing mammals because a few are miners. That's such a far fetched example Nigel Garbage would be proud of you.
An interesting article, based on facts rather than prejudice :
[url= http://www.theguardian.com/politics/reality-check/2015/apr/03/do-foreigners-come-to-uk-to-get-hiv-treatment ]Do foreigners come to the UK to get HIV treatment?[/url]
I used that description because I don't want the search engine to mistake STW as a pron site
I'm sure the mods will be very grateful for your caution. Although if you ask me I think STW coming up on a google search for 'anal sex' could only be good for advertising revenue.
dazh - Member
I'm sure the mods will be very grateful for your caution. Although if you ask me I think STW coming up on a google search for 'anal sex' could only be good for advertising revenue.
😆 Mods, it's him! Not me. 😀
benji - Member
That's like saying the whole of humankind are burrowing mammals because a few are miners. That's such a far fetched example Nigel Garbage would be proud of you.
That's just an example. FFS! 😮
[quote=ninfan ]Regardless, the point still stands that established figures prove they are certianly in the ballpark where they could very well be accurate, and that's got to really grate with the lefties who try to suppress this type of discussion - maybe they should get their facts straight before accusing him of scaremongering?
In the ballpark? Ah that's OK then, why bother about accuracy? I'm sure being almost accurate really grates with people suggesting that he's inaccurate - of course the scaremongering accusation doesn't rely upon how accurate his figures are. Exactly what facts are the "lefties" relying on which they've not got straight?
Oh and BTW I'm still not a lefty.
ErnieData on country of birth was available for 83% of people newly diagnosed with HIV. The proportion of new HIV diagnoses reported among people born in Africa halved from 54% (3,460/6,420) in 2004 to 25% (1,240/4,980) in 2013. This has resulted in an increase in the proportion of new diagnoses reported among people born in the UK (from 32% (2,040/6,420) to 46% (2,220/4,980)) over the same period.
Seems pretty clear, people born in the UK currently account for only 46% of new diagnoses, though historically it has been even lower (due to a drop in the number of African born patients) - that means 54% of new diagnosis is in foreign born patients! which certianly puts Farages figure of 7k and 60% non UK citizen in the ballpark, considering there may be more recent figures.
The point is, why is this relevant? Why would would a racist ukiper want to scare away foreigners from seeking help, when white British people have a penchant for bum sex with them? Barring them or asking them to pay would increase the public health risk, or does Nigel Farage not care because "only gays get aids"?
You are wasting your time trying to engage Z-11 aracer.
HIV treatment only became free for non-EU foreign nationals in October 2012, since then according to the link that Z-11 himself posted the number of foreign nationals with HIV has [u]fallen[/u], not gone up as you might have expected if Nigel Farage's 'health tourism' claims were true.
Which therefore exposes as a lie the claim by Farage that people from "anywhere in the world" are attracted by free HIV treatment in the UK.
[b][i]"Amendment to the NHS (Charges to Overseas Visitors) Regulations means that HIV treatment is longer chargeable to any overseas visitor". [/i][/b]
Still the whole purpose of bringing up the issue was to rake the gutter for votes, not to provide facts about a real problem. Fear and misinformation is what sustains racists and bigots, even closet racists such as those in UKIP.
FWIW
=/=born in the UK
UK citizen
bencooper - MemberIs being gay a lifestyle choice?
I think he meant having HIV is a lifestyle choice.
Really? I'd never really thought about it, but you don't automatically become a citizen if born in the uk?
[quote=whatnobeer ]Really? I'd never really thought about it, but you don't automatically become a citizen if born in the uk?Aye, but not all UK citizens were born here.
Really? I'd never really thought about it, but you don't automatically become a citizen if born in the uk?
Nope. My daughter was born in the UK but was (initially) refused citizenship because her mum is not British.
Be interesting to see what actually happened.
Given that the UK Civil Service has already admitted not being impartial during the Indyref, can any weight be given to this at all?
No, but it's quite funny how they think people will believe that Nicola Sturgeon of all people would even consider saying that. There's about as much chance of it being accurate as there is of THM getting a Nobel Prize for Economics.
Northwind - Member
bencooper - Member
Is being gay a lifestyle choice?
I think he meant having HIV is a lifestyle choice.
I bet you are going to suggest I eat baby dolphins next ... 🙄
I don't think gay is a lifestyle choice but I would consider having unprotected sex or sharing dirty needle to be a lifestyle choice. Yes, nobody wants to be infected but the risk is there as simple as that. If they know the danger yet continue to use unsafe practice and as a result contracted unwanted illness then that is/might be a lifestyle choice.
Considering your own lifestyle what are chances of you contracting the above? Very slim because you have different lifestyle is it not? i.e. you may not be gay but you may be addicted to illegal drugs sharing needle if you wish too but you do not (I assume)?
🙄
DrJ - MemberNope. My daughter was born in the UK but was (initially) refused citizenship because her mum is not British.
That's odd because you are still alive so she has link to UK.
The French Colsul General has said it's rubbish. The interesting thing is who put the story out there - they wouldn't have run with it if it wasn't a (supposedly) reputable source. My money is on the Lib Dems - they're in government and they've got nothing to lose.
I don't think gay is a lifestyle choice but I would consider having unprotected sex or sharing dirty needle to be a lifestyle choice. Yes, nobody wants to be infected but the risk is there as simple as that. If they know the danger yet continue to use unsafe practice and as a result contracted unwanted illness then that is/might be a lifestyle choice.
Can't believe I have to post this again....
I could see how DC being in power might be better for the SNP in the short term, less easy to use the Tories as a recruitment tool if they're not in power.
whatnobeer - MemberI could see how DC being in power might be better for the SNP in the short term, less easy to use the Tories as a recruitment tool if they're not in power.
TBH if they'd run that as the story more folks'd believe it, instead of panicky, instantly-refuted gibberish.
I see the Telegraph is still retweeting links to the article and deleting comments on their website pointing out that it's been debunked. Nice.
The Telegraph was doing Better Together's bidding during the referendum, this is just round 2.
Meanwhile the BBC are reporting it as a "denial" by Sturgeon, allowing Jim Murphy et al to get various digs in.
In the grand scheme how much money does HIV health tourism cost the UK economy? Must be next to nothing. I imagine it is far less than immigrant NHS workers bring to the economy.
whatnobeer
I could see how DC being in power might be better for the SNP in the short term, less easy to use the Tories as a recruitment tool if they're not in power.
Do you want to see the Tories in power? Sturgeon has come across well recently and seems to resonate with many people throughout the UK. Do you want socially progressive politics in the UK or independence. Make your mind up time I suppose.
I'm confused. How would that article help the tories? The only obvious outcome is people voting Labour instead of SNP. Unless it's all part of a cunning double bluff and they want more people to vote SNP when it is debunked.
Of course I could just be missing the point, all this multi-party stuff is getting very confusing.
I think hearing Nicola Sturgeon come across well is great. I hope she can do her job and resonate with as many people as across the UK as possible. Hearing people in England say they wished the SNP stood in their constituency is music to my ears.
JY may not believe it but the SNP may truly get my vote.
A Tory win is perfect for the SNP especially if they have the predicted strong showing in the GE. They will spend the entire parliament complaining about how as Scotland hasn't got the government it voted for and thus strengthening its call for yet another referendum. They can also complain endlessly how Westminster policies are hurting Scotland. the contrary, a Labour / SNP coalition removes their trump card of blaming Westminster for everything and they face a severe danger of "doing a LibDem" and demonstrating that being in power a a lot more difficult than shouting from the sidelines
aracer - MemberI'm confused. How would that article help the tories?
They want to continue the demonisation of the SNP and Scottish voters, attacks on Sturgeon certainly help them with that, especially in the wake of her debate performance which inconveniently has made a lot of English voters realise she's not the devil.
It might seem like scottish labour are the more likely beneficiaries of an anti-SNP hack job but that only flies if you believe that Scottish labour aren't already ****ed. For the Tories, a Scottish seat here or there going to Labour or the SNP isn't critical... the big threat is a minority Labour/SNP alliance, since both parties know they'll struggle to make a majority, and everyone knows Labour are in the better position in that case. So just another episode of attacking the SNP and Scotland, in order to attack Labour.
Jambalaya, I think a Labour SNP pact would be great. This could really help some of those requiring it.
I think independence supporters are hoping for a Tory win and an in/out referendum that goes the way of out.
This election could sort out those that truly wish to see progressive politics from those that are Nationalist bull*******s
How would that article help the tories? The only obvious outcome is people voting Labour instead of SNP.
Yep, exactly. Senior Tory politicians are currently going out of their way to praise Sturgeon's performance during yesterday's TV debate. I have little doubt that they want the SNP to wipe out Labour in Scotland. Mind you so do I. For completely different reasons of course.
Surprise surprise the blue faced army are in full effect. Anyone ever hear the saying from the SNP faithful "the tories have no mandate to rule in Scotland" well the reverse of that is Sturgeon has no right to step foot in England, she is not even running for parliament. How dare she bleat on about changing the house of lords when an iScotland would not have had a second chamber. We have had a bellyful of new labour saying lets borrow to grow the economy, do Scots not strive for more than government handouts?
Before you respond please remember, you lost the referendum.
fasternotfatter - MemberBefore you respond please remember, you lost the referendum.
Genuine LOL- yes, we lost the referendum, which means we're still part of the UK, which is why the party that she leads will have MPs in the UK parliament and why they will have great influence over the outcome of the election. Democracy, innit. Inconvenient sometimes but there you go.
Still, interesting to know that you think the leader of a UK political party shouldn't be allowed in England. Are you declaring independence or something?
Hypocrisy, the Tories have one Scottish MP, how many SNP MPs outside of Scotland? I am using separatist logic so I appreciate it might not make sense. If the tories have no mandate in Scotland where is the fishy one's mandate in the rUK?
So the SNP will have great influence, what like the lib dems did? Go back to being irrelevant, Cornish independence is more likely to happen given the price of oil.
fasternotfatter - MemberIf the tories have no mandate in Scotland where is the fishy one's mandate in the rUK?
The likely Labour/SNP government will be voted for all across the UK- you can't vote SNP in England but you can vote Labour. The SNP will have no mandate to rule the UK but that's OK, because they won't be ruling the UK
It's really not complicated, this stuff.
Where is the mandate for SNP MPs to vote on anything affecting the rUK?
rUK = UK - Scotchland
Thanks to the charm offensive by the Westminster party leaders last September, there is no iScotland or rUK, so SNP MPs will be permitted to participate in the democratic process of the UK Parliament in the same way that Tories do in matters affecting Scotland. Democracy eh?
Oh and [url= http://wingsoverscotland.com/marbles-down/ ]feast yer eyes![/url]
Where is the mandate? Answer the question ffs! The Tories had no mandate in Scotland so where is the mandate for the SNP in the rUK?
Their UK wide mandate stems from them being MPs in the UK Parliament. 650 of the buggers vote and we live with the outcome. It doesn't matter if some parties have no support in Orpington or Orkney, they are entitled to debate their case, wander through the lobbies and legislate over us. Where do we draw the line? If 51% of people in a street voted Monster Raving Looney, are they exempt from UK Statute they don't like? Of course not, FPTP grants power to the majority or co-aligned minorities to govern over us. That's the current system.
Democracy isn't perfect.
double post