Open (More or Less) Post on Covid 53

[ecosophia]

As we move into the second year of these open posts, it's pretty clear that the official narrative is cracking as the toll of deaths and injuries from the Covid vaccines rises steadily and the vaccines themselves demonstrate their total uselesness at preventing Covid infection or transmission. It's still important to keep watch over the mis-, mal- and nonfeasance of our self-proclaimed health gruppenfuehrers, and the disastrous results of the Covid mania, but I think it's also time to begin thinking about what might be possible as the existing medical industry reels under the impact of its own self-inflicted injuries. 

(Yes, the change in image theme reflects that; the earlier sequence served its purpose. With a nod to El Gato Malo (1, 2, 3), the posts to come will be headed by thoughtful memes relevant to the Covid mess. Yes, I'll take nominations -- you can post links in the thread.)

So it's time for another open post. The rules are the same as before: 

1. If you plan on parroting the party line of the medical industry and its paid shills, please go away. This is a place for people to talk openly, honestly, and freely about their concerns that the party line in question is dangerously flawed and that actions being pushed by the medical industry et al. are causing injury and death. It is not a place for you to dismiss those concerns. Anyone who wants to hear the official story and the arguments in favor of it can find those on hundreds of thousands of websites.

2. If you plan on insisting that the current situation is the result of a deliberate plot by some villainous group of people or other, please go away. There are tens of thousands of websites currently rehashing various conspiracy theories about the Covid-19 outbreak and the vaccines. This is not one of them. What we're exploring is the likelihood that what's going on is the product of the same arrogance, incompetence, and corruption that the medical industry and its tame politicians have displayed so abundantly in recent decades. That possibility deserves a space of its own for discussion, and that's what we're doing here. 
 
3. If you plan on using rent-a-troll derailing or disruption tactics, please go away. I'm quite familiar with the standard tactics used by troll farms to disrupt online forums, and am ready, willing, and able -- and in fact quite eager -- to ban people permanently for engaging in them here. Oh, and I also lurk on other Covid-19 vaccine skeptic blogs, so I'm likely to notice when the same posts are showing up on more than one venue. 

4. If you don't believe in treating people with common courtesy, please go away. I have, and enforce, a strict courtesy policy on my blogs and online forums, and this is no exception. The sort of schoolyard bullying that takes place on so many other internet forums will get you deleted and banned here. No, I don't care if you disagree with that: my journal, my rules. 

With that said, the floor is open for discussion. 

Comments

[hearthspirit]

years and years ago, I remember reading a research article out of some institute in Minnesota, I think it was (this is really reliable testimony, I know) that said they had started using "men who have sex with men" because if they asked people if they were gay, they got one number (that 1/11 or 1/10 everyone cites), but if they asked "have you had sex with a man in the past year?" that number went up, to say, 1/8. And the longer the timeframe, the higher the number got, until about a 20 or 25% of men said yes.

(With women, that number got even higher). So they decided to frame it as your orientation is who you fantasize about regularly - because who you sleep with (a description of your sexuality) may not line up with that; the easiest demonstration of that is people who are celibate voluntarily or not, even if for their entire lives, usually still have a sexual orientation.

So, whether a man desired men and didn't act on it, he'd still clearly be a homosexual, but not every man who has sex with men necessarily is, he may have just been curious, drunk, or desperate (or unwilling, but then presumably it would not be "sex").

If he genuinely had fantasized about men with some regularity (not simply say, a couple times exploratorily), but not exclusively men, then that was just bisexual.