DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> Adolf Reagan?
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 31 of 31, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 06/16/2004 12:26:32 AM · #26
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Mousie:
- Mousie, happily not spreading AIDS for 33 years.

That's not surprising, since AIDS is a syndrome, not a disease - you can't spread AIDS.
And although you CAN spread HIV, there is still no conclusive evidence that HIV causes AIDS. However, there is empirical evidence that shows a positive correlation between the use of intravenous and recreational drugs, anti-HIV drugs, and malnutrition, with AIDS. This correlation has been ignored by most researchers - probably because it suggests that prevention / treatment would a) not require billions of dollars in research grants, and b) not require the development of new, expensive drugs.
For those interested, see This Article. Note: this link points to a PDF file ( requires Adobe Acrobat Reader ).

Ron


spread: v. to distribute widely

I can spread an idea, I can spread peanut butter, I can spread a symptom by spreading a disease. Nice, uh... point?

06/16/2004 02:01:43 AM · #27
Originally posted by Mousie:
Here's my guess: Just like our own government, little effort was made (AKA complete denial) by their governments to get information out to the population, giving HIV that much longer to spread.... Are poorly educated, subsistance-living, rural Africans supposed to understand what's bearing down on them and change *existing* behavior when nothing of this sort has occurred in their history? How about insufficiently educated Americans?


First, I can't follow the all the quote and end-quotes, and the preview won't work on a thread reply this long, so I've cut out all the stuff from the original so I can see how it will look.

HIV takes about 6 months to form into "AIDS". So even today (24 years later from when Reagan took office) in rural Africa, do you really think there is one man, women, or child there who doesn't realize that their population is "40% infected" and that having unprotected sex isn't a good idea? And if not, why do they keep doing it? It's not because they don't have information, it's because they don't want to change their habits. It's SELF indulgent. It's why they have 40% infection.

Originally posted by Mousie:
When someone knows better and does not act, it's negligent. I find it intruiging that the government should not protect us from negligence since it's not my mommy or daddy, but it's totally okay for the government to tell me what relationships I can and can't have, like my mommy or daddy.


How does government tell you want relationships you can and can't have? If you are talking about gay marriage, it's not government telling you this, it's 70% of the PEOPLE of the country who are telling you that "we" (they) don't want marriage to be redefined by a minority. Simple as that. Majority rules. Is that fair? BTW, I do support civil unions and rights for gays, but NOT to redefine and further breakdown the traditional family.

Originally posted by Mousie:
There are consequences to all behavior, "deviant" or not. What is your point? Are you trying to state that there are always *specific* and *bad* consequences attached to "deviant" behavior, some sort of dire warning to tow the party line or get struck down?


I never said anything about a "party line", or am I trying to imply that "bad" behaviour leads to bad consiquences. Grow up and try thinking for yourself, and don't try to twist what I'm saying because I'll catch it every time and call you on it. :) There are biological consiquences to everything whether you want to believe it (or acknowledge it) or not. The fact that AIDS even exists is proof of that.

I know liberal games and how you will try to twist what I say into something "racist" or "hatefull", but it ain't going to work with me. I'm smarter then that and know these games, and know how to answer them. ;) I deal if fact and reality, not in mind games.

Originally posted by Mousie:
Well gee, I've never been to a bathhouse in my life, let alone for sex with 10 people! I'll cop to having been to a spa and having an hour long massage after a soak in a hot tub, but the masseuse was a chick so don't get any ideas.


Good for you. But that IS how gays spread AIDS in the USA, like it or not. That was my point. I'm not questioning your sexuality as you seem to believe or feel you have to defend.

Originally posted by Mousie:
If I understand my history, weren't heterosexuals the ones who coined 'free love'? I seem to recall hearing about a lot of promiscuity on both sides of the fence.


Yeah, the 60's ruined a whole generation and more. Free love, no commitment, smoke as much weed as you want, work if you have to, take responsibility never if possible. Great era. :)

Originally posted by Mousie:
You know, the pill, the sexual revolution, all that good stuff. What you're calling deviant was practically a cultural norm until HIV came along and spoiled the party...


It spoiled the "party" because that is how nature works. When things get "out of wack" nature steps in and corrects things. It's a fact that has played itself out over billions of years and won't stop until things tilt back to "normal"... Normal not being my definition, but nature's definition. This cycle will maybe happen once in your lifetime, but has happened millions of times before.

Originally posted by Mousie:
Thankfully, it's nice hearing that you think I'm probably right about Reagan's government not reacting fast enough. Since that was my only point.


I do agree, but MY only point was, that you and others are too quick to blame OTHERS (like Reagan) when "you" (not you specifically) need to also take some responsibility also. I've given many points about how people don't do this, so I won't go into this again. I'm just saying, don't be so quick to blame someone else. That's all.

06/16/2004 02:24:52 AM · #28
If you honestly think I'm playing games to trap you into doing something so I can call you a racist, or hateful, I don't think my posts here will be worthwhile. I made my point, and tried to explain why some people (not me) think of him as a murderer, by hilighting a situation where I feel prejudice on the part of our government has harmed everyone, not just gays. Hopefully I was also able to express that I feel it's people who spread HIV, not homosexuals, based on ample evidence.

- Mousie, growing up now.

06/16/2004 10:07:34 AM · #29
Originally posted by Mousie:

spread: v. to distribute widely

I can spread an idea, I can spread peanut butter, I can spread a symptom by spreading a disease. Nice, uh... point?

a) You can't spread a symptom
b) You can spread a disease, but AIDS is not a disease

Did you read the article I posted a link to?

Ron
06/17/2004 12:36:02 AM · #30
Originally posted by Mousie:
If you honestly think I'm playing games to trap you into doing something so I can call you a racist, or hateful, I don't think my posts here will be worthwhile. I made my point, and tried to explain why some people (not me) think of him as a murderer, by hilighting a situation where I feel prejudice on the part of our government has harmed everyone, not just gays. Hopefully I was also able to express that I feel it's people who spread HIV, not homosexuals, based on ample evidence.

- Mousie, growing up now.


Mousie, I think you are taking my comments a little personally and I thought I was carefull in not directing my thoughts on things and behaviours of liberals, etc. at you. I many cases I even mentioned "(not you specifically)" meaning the "you" means people in general, not the person I'm replying to. If you took it the wrong way I'm sorry, because it was not intended that.

However I will stand by the "grow up" comment because you said:

Originally posted by Mousie:
"Are you trying to state that there are always *specific* and *bad* consequences attached to "deviant" behavior, some sort of dire warning to tow the party line or get struck down?"


So either you are trying to imply that my stance is based purely "on the party line", or you just didn't understand what I was saying. You should think about what I said and not try to twist it into something it isn't. I do NOT follow the party line in all cases, only when I AGREE with it. And I'm not shy to point out things I do NOT AGREE WITH regarding the party's positions on several things.
07/01/2004 11:02:23 AM · #31
The results of a recent study, published in the July edition of the New England Journal of Medicine, appear to lend support for the premises put forth in the article I posted a link to earlier.

"Multivitamins costing $15 a per person per year significantly reduced the risk of HIV disease progression and death in HIV-positive pregnant women in Tanzania, according to a study published in the July 1st edition of the New England Journal of Medicine. The investigators conclude that multivitamins would be a cheap, simple, and effective means of delaying the need for antiretroviral therapy in HIV-positive pregnant women in resource limited settings."

Ron
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/29/2025 03:24:09 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/29/2025 03:24:09 AM EDT.