question for Buzsaw (re: the 'Traditional Values Coalition')

Buz, do you agree with the conservative Christian "Traditional Values Coalition" mentioned in the Washington Post article http://www.washingtonpost.com ?Do you think we should stop trying to figure out the ways that HIV/AIDS and other STD's are spread?Or, do you agree with me that such a move would be ill-advised and, some might even go so far as to descrbe as, idiotic?

Are you going to enlighten us with a specific link so we all can know what this "christian coalition" is about?
Sorry I know it's rude to eavesdrop but I'm wondering what you are asking buz.------------------
-chris

See the recent Coffee Shop topic on "Idiot fundamentalists" for the link and complete story. The term "idiot" placed it on questionable grounds for the Coffee Shop, so the party was moved to free for all.So, since I'm in free for all, let me just say those folks are complete idiots. Shit for brains. Mental midgets. Simpletons. Yet somehow scary in that people in power seem to pay them any attention at all.My favorite part is the moron who claims some study doesn't pass the "straight face test". Well, yeah, if you have the emotional maturity of a 10 year old, then any mention of sex will make you giggle. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together understands that sexual behavior is responsible for the spread of disease, and thus should be studied if you want to understand the spread of disease. Duh.My other favorite part is the airhead who dismisses the study of households with unmarried parents. Did it ever occur to this person that eithera) they could be wrongOr evenb) if they're right about the horrible effects of unmarried couples having kids, that this itself should be studied?????Idiots, idiots, idiots.[This message has been edited by Zhimbo, 11-02-2003]

This topic is the follow up to the now closed "more lovely, self-righteous, idiot fundamentalists".That topic did (IMO) have a rather ugly mood to it, but the real reason I closed it, was because it had fragmented into 3 or 4 different topics.Also, I have just modified the title of this topic, adding the "(re: the 'Traditional Values Coalition')" part.Cheers,
Adminnemooseus------------------
Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
too fast closure of threads

I don't understand why you would want to dwell on such people in the first place. If they're idiots IGNORE them. The reason why people pay attention to them is because people like you do. Calling them names won't help anything.------------------
-chris

Chris,I believe that the only reason that anyone here is even discussing this group is the fact that they want to dictate government science spending to conform to their religious beliefs.------------------
Asgara
"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato

It's relevant because it's largely due to the influence of people like these that the US, under the Bush administration, has cut its providing of birth control to third-world nations. They're not just isolated kooks, they have a very active lobby which currently has a receptive administration.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

If I felt they didn't pose any threat, I would ignore them. I ignore most kooks.However, these particular groups are attempting to influence public policy, and it appears some in government might be listening.Now THAT's scary. "Scientific McCarthyism". It's astonishing to me that anyone WOULD pay attention to these nitwits.McCarthyism is too nice of a term. McCarthyism was paranoid and destructive, but could potentially be stated in coherent terms. These people are worried about "smarminess".

quote:

---

Buz, do you agree with the conservative Christian "Traditional Values Coalition" mentioned in the Washington Post article http://www.washingtonpost.com ?
Do you think we should stop trying to figure out the ways that HIV/AIDS and other STD's are spread?

​

Or, do you agree with me that such a move would be ill-advised and, some might even go so far as to descrbe as, idiotic?

---

As I stated, my problem was mostly about your meanspirited insulting thread title:

quote:

---

more lovely, self-righteous, idiot fundamentalists

---

1. The title hatefully insults Christian fundamentalists in general, most of who have no involvement with this issue.2. The opening post gives no specific details as to why the cited objectionable spending was opposed. I would have to know more about this before I could state whether I would be in agreement or not.3. Maybe the following stats have a bearing on the problem those who are opposing these programs have:

quote:

---

Note the unfair distribution for your disease below.

​

The NIH is spending $5,500 on each patient living with AIDS in 2003.

​

The NIH is spending $36 on each patient living with cardiovascular disease in 2003. (Indeed, the NIH will spend almost 3/4 billion dollars less on heart disease than on AIDS)

​

The NIH is spending $145 on each patient living with prostate disease in 2003.

​

The NIH is spending $161 on each patient living with Alzheimer's Disease in 2003.

​

The NIH is spending $70 on each patient living with diabetes in 2003.

​

The NIH is spending $20 on each patient living with hepatitis C in 2003.

​

The NIH is spending $398 on each patient living with Parkinson's Disease in 2003

---

http://www.proratenih.com/nih_statistics.htm

quote:

---

It's relevant because it's largely due to the influence of people like these that the US, under the Bush administration, has cut its providing of birth control to third-world nations. They're not just isolated kooks, they have a very active lobby which currently has a receptive administration.

---

Well hey, you citizens who want more babes slaughtered via US taxpayer funds have the same vote and the same lobby rights in our republic of the people. Go for it.

quote:

---

However, these particular groups are attempting to influence public policy, and it appears some in government might be listening.

​

Now THAT's scary. "Scientific McCarthyism". It's astonishing to me that anyone WOULD pay attention to these nitwits.

​

McCarthyism is too nice of a term. McCarthyism was paranoid and destructive, but could potentially be stated in coherent terms. These people are worried about "smarminess".

---

Zhimbo, like the rest who are hatefully badmouthing these people, all you've done is insult rather than the noble and right thing to do, which is to present factual data as to why you consider these people to be ideoticBtw, Mc Cartrhy was right. I'm not going into why, but the facts speak for thimselves.

Actually, I've both badmouthed AND gave specific examples of their idiocy. And why did you misspell idiotic?Buz, I can't for the life of me figure out why you want to defend these folks. Have you read the article? Is the idiocy not blindingly obvious?Of course, I assume you're only trolling with the McCarthy comment, and I'll refuse to bite, thank you.

But these folks aren't against these studies because it's a disproportionate amount for AIDS, it's because the studies are about sex. Or the effect of unmarried parents on children.It's knee-jerk Puritanism. If they were actually so coherent as your post on AIDS, then they would be worthy of debate. Instead, they think it's "smarmy" to study sexual behavior, and can't see the value of studying things they disapprove of personally.

quote:

---

Well hey, you citizens who want more babes slaughtered via US taxpayer funds have the same vote and the same lobby rights in our republic of the people. Go for it.

---

The Bush administration is blocking ALL family planning and maternal health services, including birth control which would prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place, maternal nutrition programs, etc., if there is even a whisper about funding to support abortion services which are legal in the countries to which we are giving aid.This is from the same administration that refuses to sign a treaty to stop using land mines.Yeah, sure they care about human life. Hypocrites!So, Buzsaw, how many unwanted babies have you adopted, do you support a good-sized increase in your taxes to pay for the feeding, clothing,sheltering, and education of the children born if we banned abortion?Also, would you be prepared to put all those women in jail for life?[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 11-03-2003]

buzsaw writes:

quote:

---

3. Maybe the following stats have a bearing on the problem those who are opposing these programs have:

---

(*sigh*)Those arguments show an extreme ignorance regarding the way biological research gets funded.Cardiovascular disease is not a communicable disease. HIV is. As such, HIV is a greater threat.Similarly with most cancers (like prostate and breast cancer), diabetes, and Parkinson's, they are not communicable. The only one that comes close is hepatitis C.However, hepatitis C is a manageable disease...and one for which there are treatments that actually work such that you are much more likely to die from something else than from hepatitis C.HIV, on the other hand, will kill you. The treatments that we have are only effective in about two-thirds of the patients and half of those have massive side effects.Too, these diseases and disorders have been studied for many decades. We have long ago spent the vast sums of money required for basic research upon those diseases. HIV is much more recent and there is still a great deal of work to be done on basic research.So of course HIV will have more money spent upon it. It is a more invasive disease.If you want to talk about politics in medical spending, compare the history of money spent on breast cancer compared to prostate cancer, even though just about as many men will die from prostate cancer as women will from breast cancer. Note the treatment options available to women and compare that to the treatment options available to men.Is there politics in medicine? The breast/prostate dichotomy shows such. But the mere fact that one disease gets more money than another is not necessarily indicative of politics. You need to take into account all factors.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!