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

quote:

---

I personally give more to aleviate the needs of others, including third world unfortunates than I do to my own church, and for my own food and medical needs combined, but I don't see putting 10 to 15 times per person more into a disease, primarily caused by devient practices such as sex and drugs, more money than other diseases.

---

Well, it seems that the fact that it will KILL LOTS OF PEOPLE (and is a leading killer of people worldwide) if we don't understand it seems to have no affect on you.There's that Christian compassion for you.

quote:

---

So your personal verbal attacks against me are unwarranted and simply meanspirited and hateful.

---

This message you are responding to is my reply to holmes regarding Hustler and Afghanistan.Are you confused?

quote:

---

I've produce factual input to this thread. You've produced nothing substantial here of consequence and imo, a poor looser in debate. Poor loosers seem to wind up with nothing left to resort to but personal attack. That's what I see here.

---

Ah, you are confused.The issue I wanted you to repond to was this one:So, Buz, were the 20 million people who died of Influenza in the single year of 1918 engaging in some kind of "unacceptable practices"?

​

That death toll for HIV/AIDS from the past 20 years since we have known about it is just about the same as the death toll from the Flu from just that one year.

​

What were those people doing that God need to punish them?

quote:

---

Hey, madear, who's ranting?? You've initiated as much or more groundless rant about ole buz as a most do about anyone here in town since I've been here.

---

I was talking to Holmes.

quote:

---

If I remember correctly it was you, dear, who opened this thread about the government.

---

well, actually, I wanted to know if you were supporting that group that objects to studying the transmission of HIV/AIDS because they were "part of the team", no matter how boneheaded or idiotic their position, or if you actually agreed with them.

quote:

---

Now you're all fussed up, throwing insultive falacies and crabing at me for responding..........all an obvious indication you've lost the debate for lack of substantial data.

---

Maybe if you read through the messages in this thread, you would see that you are confused.It's strange that you would respond to a message that was so obviously not to you and so obviously not relevant to what we were talking about.

quote:

---

Buz, maybe you missed my message in this thread?
Here's the relevant bit again, for your convenience:

​

So, Buz, were the 20 million people who died of Influenza in the single year of 1918 engaging in some kind of "unacceptable practices"?

---

I've read it all. I only have the time for response to more relevant stuff. This thread is about sex disease and the obvious answer to your post refutes nothing I've said nor does it bolster your position.

buzsaw writes:

quote:

---

Maybe it's that these people may have it figured out that this disease would simply go away if people would go back to restraint and obstain from what has always been considered devious and permiscuous sexuality by humanity.

---

Is there a particular reason why you are saying that gays are all promiscuous?

quote:

---

Innocents do get caught up into the disease, but are far from being the majority who spread the disease.

---

Incorrect.HIV is primarily spread through heterosexual sex.I thought we covered this already. Do we really need to post all the links to WHO again?So I take it back: Innocents do get caught up in the disease but are far from being the majority who spread the disease.Gay people are the innocent victims of the deviant heterosexuals.

quote:

---

Those so labeled idiots likely logically figure that if indeed there is a god and harmful practice forbidden by that god becomes rampant among his creatures

---

Again, HIV is primarily transmitted via heterosexual sex.Are you really saying that god forbad sex between men and women?

quote:

---

Then if there were no god, isn't it strange that historically, such practice would be considered to be unacceptable and isn't it interresting that these fatal diseases just happen to hit and spread primarily among those practicing this deviency and permiscuousness?

---

Um, what the hell are you talking about?HIV is transmitted primarily via heterosexual sex. Three-quarters of all cases of HIV transmission were from heterosexual sex. Are you seriously claiming that god finds heterosexuality unacceptable and thus has sent a fatal disease to spread primarily among those practicing the deviancy of being straight?

quote:

---

So no, these aren't idiots.

---

Yes, they are.And if you keep up this nonsense about how AIDS is a gay disease, primarily transmitted by gays, you'll join them.

quote:

---

They're folks who want to preserve humanity by responsible conduct

---

Then they had better start looking at themselves. It's their own heterosexuality that caused this epidemic.Gays were innocent bystanders.[And dude...does the concept of a spell checker mean nothing to you?]------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

quote:

---

PERCENTAGE WISE or per capita, a far higher percentage of gays get HIV than straight ones do.

---

Not exactly.While gay men are in the highest-risk group for HIV, lesbians are in the lowest-risk group. There's a really simple reason for that; HIV is most easily transferred via semen. The people in the highest-risk group are the ones receiving semen during sex, from those who also receive semen during sex. The order of risk, highest to lowest, goes: gay men, straight women, straight men, gay women.Carry on.

buzsaw writes:

quote:

---

PERCENTAGE WISE or per capita, a far higher percentage of gays get HIV than straight ones do.

---

Incorrect.Per capita, HIV affects gay people much less than straights.Do we really need to bring out the statistics yet again?Question: Of all the people who are HIV+, how many are women?That's right...half. Half of all people who are HIV+ are women.Question: Of all sexual orientations, which groups is the least likely to transmit HIV through their sex?That's right, lesbians. Sex between women is the least likely to transmit HIV.Therefore, if half the people who are HIV+ are women and lesbian sex is the least likely sexual method of transmission, how likely is it that gay sex is the big method of transmission...even per capita?Especially when we consider that three-quarters of all HIV transmissions are through heterosexual sex and another fifth are through drug use?

quote:

---

It passes from gays to heters round about as some who practice both spread it.

---

Incorrect.You have the arrow backwards. It passes from straights to gays. HIV is a heterosexual disease. Gays are the innocent bystanders.

quote:

---

The bottom line is it would die off if permiscuous sex of all sorts were abstained from.

---

What does that have to do with gays?

quote:

---

THIS IS PRIMARILY A SEX DISEASE

---

What does that have to do with gays? HIV is primarily a HETEROSEXUAL sex disease.

quote:

---

which began it's journey into society by such gay practices as anal sex.

---

Incorrect.It began its journey into society when people ate chimpanzees. After it crossed into the human population, it spread by such straight practices as penis-vagina sex.

quote:

---

EEEEuk!!

---

Considering that heterosexuals engage in anal sex just as often as homosexuals...and considering that there are simply more straight people out there than gay, it would seem that the heterosexual world does not share your distaste.In short, buz, you need to grow up. You need to get your nose out of your Bible and start actually listening to the people who study this thing for a living.I don't know where you got your information, but you were lied to.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

I must have misunderstood then Buz. I thought you were suggesting that AIDS is some sort of punishment. Is that wrong?If you don't suggest that then AIDS is just another disease. Others would be controlled if we just washed our hands more. Why is there any pariticular focus on this one?

Dan Carroll writes:

quote:

---

While gay men are in the highest-risk group for HIV

---

Incorrect.Heterosexuals are.Only in the West are gay men the highest risk group for HIV. Europe just flipped to being like the rest of the world with heterosexuals being the primary transmission.Even taking your "those who receive semen during sex" tack, heterosexual women are right up there.Half of all people with HIV are women.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

quote:

---

Only in the West are gay men the highest risk group for HIV.

---

You're right. I was referring to the west, but should have specified.

Ignoring the sidetrack of the Homosexuality issue, the bible is pretty clear on one sexual partner for life (baring death of said partner). You cannot deny that this sexual practice would radically reduce the spread of AIDS if universally practiced, can you?Still to claim that AIDS is God's punishment is to invoke a radically unjust god.[This message has been edited by Mr Jack, 11-07-2003]

Mr Jack responds to me:

quote:

---

Ignoring the sidetrack of the Homosexuality issue, the bible is pretty clear on one sexual partner for life (baring death of said partner). You cannot deny that this sexual practice would radically reduce the spread of AIDS if universally practiced, can you?

---

Yes, I can.I could have sex with every single person in the world and not risk even coming down with a cold let alone HIV.I just have to do it right.Besides, the problem is that buzsaw isn't really talking about simple promiscuity. He is not ignoring the "Homosexuality issue." In fact, he only brings up promiscuity as a pathetic attempt to indicate that he isn't focused on gay people.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

That's not what he asked. He asked you if it would reduce the spread of AIDS, not if there were alternate methods to do so.

quote:

---

Ignoring the sidetrack of the Homosexuality issue, the bible is pretty clear on one sexual partner for life (baring death of said partner). You cannot deny that this sexual practice would radically reduce the spread of AIDS if universally practiced, can you?

---

1) What is the worst plague in recorded history?The first european outbreak of Bubonic plague.2) What was the response of the almost exclusively Christian society?Extensive prayer to God, of every conceivable type.3) Did it work?Not one bit. In fact, apart from the tremendous loss of human life (half of Britain's population was destroyed, for example; a third of all of Europe's population was killed), the biggest loss was the loss of architectural skill. With all of the masons and artisans that were killed, the most clear immediate effect (apart from the tremendous loss of life) is the sudden, dramatic decline in the quality of churches and cathedrals built.4) Are there alternative forms of disease control, easily available to the people of the time, that were not even remotely specified in the bible, that would have essentially eradicated the disease?Hundreds.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

I do agree with this. You have yet to show that a pictorial (even a sexy clothed pictorial) is something people in Afghanistan would not otherwise do.The shredded porn tapes, the burnt magazines, the pictures of people being shot dead for reading/making porn (among other illicit sexuality) are evidence that some people there, like here, do not view that as disgusting or undesirable. It simply was not highlighted on FoxNews.Your specific example was Bum Fights. That was not much money offered for people to degrade themselves further for our ability to mock them. Was my defense not accurate? It is. I have not said otherwise. Is it nobler? That I can't say. Doing something one does not want to do in order to feed one's starving family seems a bit more "selfsacrificing" and so "noble", than running around trying to read. The latter is more "defiant" (and something I certainly find cool... kind of Fahrenheit 451ish).What about risking one's life for one's sexual identity and freedom?Do you believe gay rights should be allowed there? Should press which cover gay rights be able to come in and give them literature and run stories on them? Should they be willing to pay for interviews? This is not true and I didn't say this. However I feel I am correct that for us to say "some freedoms should be forced on the people of Afghanistan even if it offends their sensibilities, but not THIS because it will offend sensibilities" when the only difference is they offend American fundie sensibilities, is to pick and choose. It is hypocracy.I have been studying Afghanistan since the late eighties. I have friends from that region (Islamic midEast) that specifically talk about the nature of sexual rights in that region. I have laid down my arguments, and in part their own. Give me an example of one of my "rants" and I will stop doing it. While I may add sarcastic comments here and there, I feel I have only been presenting evidence. I certainly thought I had avoided the "heated" style of commentary that occured in other threads. And this is where it seems you tune out to the fact that I reply "I didn't say YOU said that". In this latest argument I carefully explained what was meant by a comment you had interpreted as my putting words in your mouth.The irony is it is often you putting words in my mouth when you misunderstand what I am saying. It is doubly ironic that you are putting words in the mouths of the people living under strict Islamic rule in order to make your case.All I said is some peope might, and so be given a chance if they want to... which I know to be true in other strict Islamic nations. You said "that they would otherwise not do (without the lure of money)". Which is the bolder statement? I'm not. I'm pointing out that in bringing "freedom" to the people of Afghanistan... specifically freedom of the press and sexual freedom... Xtian and feminist organizations ganged up to restrict the freedom of the press and sexual freedom where it offended their sensibilities.This is a story of interesting bedfellows and hypocracy.Since you have defended their position (with nearly exact reasoning), I don't feel it is a miscasting on my part of your position. This is just the same as what you do to poor ol' Buz.------------------
holmes

Heheh... you forgot to add that it was the Biblical descriptions of how to treat diseases which fought medical science doing what it should have been doing (and so made it worse), AND that part of the "prayer ceremonies" became travelling flagellators whose broken skin and running sores did no wonderful job in stopping its spread.------------------
holmes

Okey doke buz.Can masturbation of multiple partners spread HIV infection? How about oral sex when there are no sores in one's mouth or on the pleasured organ? Is there a chemical in saliva that actively prevents HIV infection?None of THAT is unfounded spin.If God sends messages through disease, what is his message with HIV when careful sex practice is JUST as good as abstention, and the people first granted immunity to HIV infection are a bunch of prostitutes?What are the messages of diseases we know target the elderly and the young doing nonsexual (and generally positive) things?------------------
holmes