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

Mr Jack responds to holmes:

quote:

---

Mastarbation is not sex.

---

Why not?

quote:

---

You're twisting both my words and Rrhains. I said one-partner-for-life would masssively reduce the spread of STDs. Rrhain claimed this was not true. He is wrong.

---

Talk about twisting words.What I said was that number of partners is not a direct cause of HIV infection. Going to one-partner-for-life will have no effect compared to sexual practices that have no risk for HIV transmission. And, indeed, since a person can contract HIV through channels that have nothing to do with sex, a person having intercourse with only one person is actually at greater risk of contracting HIV through sex than a person who has sex with multiple partners but engages in sexual activity that has no risk of HIV transmission.Instead, number of partners is an indirect factor. Whether or not number of partners has an effect is specifically dependent upon the population and the particular acts involved.In short, one-partner-for-life is only less risky in comparison to certain other processes. We would do just as well as to encourage sex that doesn't risk HIV exposure.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

I have no argument with your position, Holmes, it tallies fairly well with my own. I object to Rrhain denying the effectiveness of monogamy to further his own points.

The Ad Hominem is unnecessary, Rrhain. If you're going to read things into my position and react to those rather than my actual post, that is your problem not mine. Yes, they are. Whether that is a difference between American and English english I do not. Sex to me and everyone I know means penetration. But arguing over word meanings is about the world's most pointless discussion; so let's just use yours.Your points on this matter are accepted for your definition of safe sex. Indeed it is. It is also much more complex than adopting a safe sex stance, and you do no-one a service by making statements such as the following:

buzsaw responds to me:

quote:

---

why don't you divulge the source of your info.

---

Because I am not here to do your homework for you.Besides, you don't read anything we provide you, so what would be the point?

quote:

---

As I stated it begins with gay sex in society and spreads from there.

---

No, it doesn't.HIV began with humans eating chimpanzees. Does the word "bushmeat" mean anything to you? Monkey meat riddled with SIVThe Beginning of AIDSSIV In Cameroon Of Potential Danger To Humans: StudyReally, buzsaw. Do you do any research at all into a subject before you post?

quote:

---

That was certainly the case in the West.

---

Indeed, but the West has a tiny fraction of the world's HIV infections.At the end of 2002, about 42 million people are thought to be infected with HIV.Of those regions that had any significant transmission of HIV through men-who-have-sex-with-men (MSM), there are only about 4.7 million people who have HIV.In short, HIV is primarily spread through heterosexual sex and intravenous drug use.

quote:

---

In places like Africa how did it get from chimpanzes to humans and from the first humans infected to the population?

---

Bushmeat.How many times do I have to tell you that it crossed species due to the practice of eating chimpanzees before you remember?

quote:

---

Your allegations of the transmission originating and higher incidence of transmission via heters is bogus.

---

Says who? You? Why should we believe you?We've already provided the links. Did you look at them?Do you see my point? You whine about "divulging the source of information" and yet you refuse to actually look at anything we give you. Worldwide AIDS Statistics 2002

quote:

---

Certainly, as I've already stated, heters are by far the majority so naturally there's going to eventually be more transmission via the majority of the population. My position has always been that a FAR GREATER PERCENTAGE OF GAYS PER CAPITA ARE INFECTED BY AIDS THAN HETERS.

---

But you're simply wrong. The reverse is true. Worldwide, gays per capita are less infected by HIV than straights.

quote:

---

This is especially true in the West.

---

The West has a tiny fraction of the worlds HIV+ population.North America only has about a million HIV+ people. That's less than 1% of the world population.Europe just flipped over to HIV being transmitted primarily through heterosexual sex.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Coragyps writes:

quote:

---

AIDS apparently came to the USA in the semen of a gay airline steward - "Patient Zero" - who was very promiscous, and spread the virus to the gay community on his stopovers.

---

Incorrect.There is no "Patient Zero." As I had mentioned in Does the bible condemn homosexuality?: Message 68: If you follow your own link, So little time..., An AIDS History and look at the link it provides for "patient zero," we find this: "Mag Tries to Cash in on AIDS Story"Now, if buzsaw is going to keep beating the drums of, "If you had only followed the Bible!" I'd like to respond that if we had just got over our squeamishness of homosexuality and treated gay people the same way we treat straight people, allowing them to have all the social support structures that straights have, we wouldn't have had the spread that we had seen.In short, buzsaw, if you want to help stop the spread of AIDS, then you should be pushing for same-sex marriage.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Mr Jack writes:

quote:

---

I object to Rrhain denying the effectiveness of monogamy to further his own points.

---

And I object to buzsaw's contention that monogamy is the only way to do it and your seeming tacit agreement that it is the best way.The simple reality is that monogamy is not the only way nor is it the best way. It may be a good way, but that is neither here nor there.Talk about "furthering your own points".... Physician, heal thyself!------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

quote:

---

quote:

---

Only because you don't like it. You are certain that you've considered all possibilities but when I point out that you haven't, you react as you do.

---

​

The Ad Hominem is unnecessary, Rrhain.

---

Oh, I get it. You can make a slam at me, but I'm not allowed to point it out? "Absurd dodge"? Look, you may not like my response, but that doesn't make it a dodge.

quote:

---

If you're going to read things into my position and react to those rather than my actual post, that is your problem not mine.

---

Physician, heal thyself!

quote:

---

quote:

---

You are confusing "sex" with "intercourse." The two are not the same.

---

​

Yes, they are.

---

Why? While intercourse is sex, sex is not intercourse.I'm reminded of the Clinton sex scandal and the question of whether or not oral sex was actually sex. And if you ask the current teenagers, a significant portion of them don't think that oral sex is sex.I disagree with them. If you were to find your partner in a booth, naked, pressed up against a sheet of plate glass, gyrating to the visual display of another person on the other side of that glass, also pressed up against it while naked and gyrating, a significant number (and my guess is that it would be most) would say that he was "cheating." The claim that "I never touched the other person!" wouldn't really be of any importance. Indeed, you never touched the other person, but you were having sex.

quote:

---

Whether that is a difference between American and English english I do not.

---

I don't think so. I think it is more to do with conceptualization of the world (I'm reminded of the other threads regarding the Ancient Hebrews and Greeks and whether or not they had a concept of homosexuality as we understand it.)

quote:

---

Sex to me and everyone I know means penetration.

---

And I'd say you have it completely backwards. Penetration means sex.All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares.

quote:

---

quote:

---

My point is that the reality is much more complex than those who make moralistic statements like HIV is god's curse would make it out to be.

---

​

Indeed it is. It is also much more complex than adopting a safe sex stance,

---

I know. But my statement is only in reference to buzsaw's moralizing that the only way to stop HIV is to be monogamous. That if everybody in the world had been monogamous, we wouldn't have HIV.That simply isn't true.

quote:

---

and you do no-one a service by making statements such as the following:

​

Rrhain writes:
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.

---

Why?Of course, one has to wonder why you hacked my comment to shreds. Is there a reason why you removed the entire context? Here is my full comment: As my posts have shown, I am not arguing against the naive statement that given certain assumptions about the way people typically behave, having only one sex partner will reduce the spread of HIV.I am simply stating that reality is much more complex and that the truth of the above naive statement does not mean that monogamy is the only or best way to reduce the spread of HIV. There is an even more effective way to reduce the spread of HIV and it allows you to have as many partners as you wish.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

I should maybe keep up with things better, huh? I had read about Patient Zero maybe six or eight years ago, and never bothered to dig into the idea again. Thanks for the info.

quote:

---

I know. But my statement is only in reference to buzsaw's moralizing that the only way to stop HIV is to be monogamous. That if everybody in the world had been monogamous, we wouldn't have HIV.

​

That simply isn't true.

---

Notice I cited drug use also as a means of transmission.It wouldn't happen over night, of course, but given some time, it would die out without means of transmission. It would begin to taper off very soon though by eliminating drug use and diviance of sex partners. Not a problem among folks like the Amish or Bob Jones University Biblical fundie types. Yes, these are extreme examples, but they make my point.[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 11-13-2003]

But Buz, why pick one plague? You never responded to my post about the worst plague in recorded history - Bubonic plague.http://EvC Forum: question for Buzsaw (re: the 'Traditional Values Coalition')When people practiced what God taught, they continued to be struck down all the more.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

quote:

---

...but given some time, it would die out without means of transmission.

---

This is true which is why I think all governments ought to be putting a ENORMOUS effort into finding out who is infected. It is an infectious disease, it kills people, it is not a human rights violation to start making sure people are tested.I don't necessarily suggest a hardcore quarantine procedure, but we could certainly make it easy enough for people to share their status with partners, and punishing those people engaging in more than 0 risk activity (including shared needle use) with HIV negative people (unless for some reason the negative person is informed and does not care).That would be a lot easier and a lot less oppressive than "eliminating drug use and deviance of sex partners".

quote:

---

Not a problem among folks like the Amish or Bob Jones University Biblical fundie types. Yes, these are extreme examples, but they make my point.

---

Yes, it makes the point that you believe what people say without thinking much deeper.The Amish may be protected because they do not have sex with outsiders, but you really think none of them are having sex with more than just their wife? All Amish?And as far as Bob Jones University goes, I lived right by Wheaton College and the Billy Graham Center, as well as knowing people at Oral Roberts. Everyone is human and despite their highest ideals, most people like sex and will do it. Many with more than one partner. Some (even at those institutions) are downright perverts.How many fundie leaders have broken down onstage after being caught having deviant sex? And those are the guys running the show!You believe everyone is a sinner. Doesn't that suggest to you that perhaps "safety" ought to be the solution and not "saintly"?------------------
holmes

A reply to message #86, Buz.thanks.[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 11-14-2003]