Talk:Sexually Transmitted Disease
I hate to sound paranoid, so if i do, sorry. I tried to make this contribution informative, clean, moral, and factual. I think it is valuable. Please do not dismiss it out of hand. As I've said before, the subject may be distasteful, but the treatment of it is quite moral. Just because Satan is evil doesn't mean we don't have an entry about him.
Thanks Niandra. Palmd001 14:04, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
I agree. Ive seen the effects on culture when people are denied proper knowledge of the dangers of STIs - mass promiscuity, corruption, casual sex, I saw it all when I was in school years ago. Taboo as it is, people need to know this.
I hope you don't mind the formatting I did, Palm. It was just looking a little cluttered. Probably like clearing the deck chairs on the Titanic as I don't think this article will be allowed to stay. Myk 15:58, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
- I appreciate the assistance. I am having an ongoing discussion with Mr. Schalfly about my qualifications to comment on these matters. He contends that a professor of internal medicine is not qualified in STDs. I think he's believing what he wants, deluded, on crack, or all of the above, but I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Latest edit by ASchlafly
Your latest edit of this article has reduced its clarity and accuracy. You have insisted that I been an expert to comment here, which I am, yet you are an attorney and academic NOT AN EXPERT in this field, therefore you are not qualified to comment here. You also violated your commandments by engaging in baseless speculation. Your clarification of abstinence is, however, useful, but clarity is not added by avoiding the mention of condoms. STDs cannot be discussed without discussion of condoms. This article does not condone one method over another, except to clearly state that abstinence is safest, which I would think you could agree on. Palmd001 11:26, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
Intercourse is protected from being created as is condom. I understand this is a family site but if we're going to describe abstinence we'll have to describe "from what" and the ineffectiveness of condoms then we'll need to describe what they are. Lastly, information useful for marital procreation is morally acceptable. Surely a clinical explanation can be engaged in without being indecent. What do ya'll think can we have tasteful reproduction articles on some of these? Richard 03:06, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
Is there anything offensive in here at all? It's simply an article on sexually transmitted diseases. What's to be expected, someone to look in on this article and go "Oh gracious! This is too offensive for my over-protected eyes"?- Blozrav
- Actually I was arguing for more of the same. Noting that condom and intercourse are protected. It leaves a hole in conservapedia. Richard 03:28, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
- note that I didn't add the offensive line...sorry I thought your comment was to me. Richard 03:30, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
Something that seems to be more common is the term "Sexually Transmitted Infection" (STI). I don't really know the difference between an STI and an STD. Perhaps an STI is localized while an STD is systemic? I don't know if anyone would want to write about this, or it's just a term offered by liberals to make STDs sound less dangerous. --David B (TALK) 01:04, 27 August 2016 (EDT)