»Homosexuality spreads AIDS, heterosexuality not really«
|
|||
 hungarian kid: Does it scare you that some people are different? Does something become legitimate simply because its different? If you have definite standards of whats right and wrong, then you inevitably have to conclude certain things are wrong. But if you don't, people can do anything because they're simply 'different' because 'anything goes' and 'whatever gets them off'. I'm not saying either of these attitudes is the 'correct' one, just that this is the difference between you and someone who thinks homosexuality is wrong. And btw, what is wrong with homosexuality is that it spreads AIDs faster. Some people would say this is ok because all those 'sick fags' will die out. But couple that with bisexuality, and it becomes a threat to the human race. Already is, if you look at the statistics. posted by ralph_angelus |
|||
|
|||
| in-my-opinion.orgTechnology, Computers, Science, InternetScience (Assorted topics)Homosexuality spreads AIDS, heterosexuality not really |
|
|||
 you make an intersting point posted by Agent Zero |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 ralph_angelus: And btw, what is wrong with homosexuality is that it spreads AIDs faster. Some people would say this is ok because all those 'sick fags' will die out. But couple that with bisexuality, and it becomes a threat to the human race. Already is, if you look at the statistics. Hrmm links to these statistics? A threat to the human race? If people are stupid enough to not use protection or methods to avoid sexually transmitted diseases, that's their own foolish mistake! Well I think all diseases, weapons, practically anything that can kill or hinder humans from living disease ridden is a threat to the human race, wouldn't you say? 
posted by hungarian kid |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
hungarian kid: If people are stupid enough to not use protection or methods to avoid sexually transmitted diseases, that's their own foolish mistake! Not using protection is foolish, because it increases the probability of disease transmission. Through the same reasoning, male homosexuality is foolish because there is a much higher concentration of germs in the anus and hence probability of transmission is higher. hungarian kid: Well I think all diseases, weapons, practically anything that can kill or hinder humans from living disease ridden is a threat to the human race, wouldn't you say? That is a generic comment, and does not have any bearing on my earlier statement. Also there is a difference between everything that is a threat and something that is a definite threat. Nuclear weapons are a threat to the human race. But can you give me numbers of how many people have died of nukes this year, and how the deaths have increased through the last decade? Nope. But frightening numbers can be given for AIDs. I'm too lazy to find and post them; but I suppose everyone knows that the number of people with AIDs and the fatalities due to it have reached alarming levels and are still rising steadily, especially in developing nations. posted by ralph_angelus |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ask yourself, can someone be excused for being different simply because they want to be so? In every case? Morality is a kind of bias, against what you consider to be wrong. posted by ralph_angelus |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
ralph_angelus: but I suppose everyone knows that the number of people with AIDs and the fatalities due to it have reached alarming levels and are still rising steadily, Obviously not! ralph_angelus: Through the same reasoning, male homosexuality is foolish because there is a much higher concentration of germs in the anus and hence probability of transmission is higher. But who say's there isn't ways of avoiding this transmition of disease? And if they're willing to take the risk, let them! Their lifestyle choice is completely up to them! posted by hungarian kid |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
ralph_angelus: But can you give me numbers of how many people have died of nukes this year, and how the deaths have increased through the last decade? How bout the destruction of habitat and land when they're tested?  ralph_angelus: Ask yourself, can someone be excused for being different simply because they want to be so? In every case?
Morality is a kind of bias, against what you consider to be wrong. Who says they want to be different? Chances are they're just that way to begin with! Morality is a bias considering your beliefs, I agree with this! But I see morality as a creation by Religion and the such! I don't really believe morality is always a good thing, so rather than following morals I try to be ethical instead! posted by hungarian kid |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
hungarian kid: Obviously not! Darn! Well, here ya go.  hungarian kid: How bout the destruction of habitat and land when they're tested? that's a stupid argument, give it up. There is a huge difference between the level of threat an epidemic poses to the human race and something, with a potential of causing loss of lives or has caused losses in the past, poses. Instead of arguing around it, try to prove that AIDs is not a threat, if you can. Else don't mess with it. hungarian kid: And if they're willing to take the risk, let them! Their lifestyle choice is completely up to them! Is it? Is a lifestyle choice that threatens the human race, even if it just plays a small part in a major epidemic, excusable 'because they're different'? And you must remember that the epidimic as a whole is simply a large number of people making 'lifestyle choices which are completely up to them'. There are also people who suffer from the 'lifestyle choice' for no fault of theirs, such as a partner whom you didn't know or who didn't tell you they were bisexual giving you AIDs. Even if we assume for a moment that the lifestyle choice is completely up to them and that they can make it based on their own reasons even though its a threat to the species, it does not make the choice right. If the choice is wrong, then you can say its wrong. Of course, you can call this a bias if you want, but that's the problem with the 'anything goes' culture. Quote: Morality is a bias considering your beliefs, I agree with this! But I see morality as a creation by Religion and the such! Well that's one of the contradictory features of the 'anything goes' mindset, and perhaps one reason why its wrong. You think there's nothing wrong with homosexuality because that's 'just the way they are' or 'they're just different', but you're quick to accuse 'religious people' and don't excuse them for being 'different'. hungarian kid: Who says they want to be different? Chances are they're just that way to begin with! A psychological study showed that people were more likely to sympathise with homosexuals if they thought they were 'born that way'. Not making a generic claim, but many homosexuals say they might've become so because of abuse/sodomy while very young. But of couse, you can say that abusing a kid is a lifestyle choice and that anyone who calls that wrong is biased. Try to maintain the same standards for judging other things too. [CLICK HERE TO VIEW THIS PICTURE] posted by ralph_angelus |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
ralph_angelus: Is it? Is a lifestyle choice that threatens the human race, even if it just plays a small part in a major epidemic, excusable 'because they're different'? And you must remember that the epidimic as a whole is simply a large number of people making 'lifestyle choices which are completely up to them'. There are also people who suffer from the 'lifestyle choice' for no fault of theirs, such as a partner whom you didn't know or who didn't tell you they were bisexual giving you AIDs.
Even if we assume for a moment that the lifestyle choice is completely up to them and that they can make it based on their own reasons even though its a threat to the species, it does not make the choice right. If the choice is wrong, then you can say its wrong. Of course, you can call this a bias if you want, but that's the problem with the 'anything goes' culture. I honestly don't think it'd grow to that proportion! And if people figured away around the sexually transmitted side of it (protection and the such) there wouldn't be a problem! There's over 6 billion people in the world, around 40 million people with HIV isn't enough to be a threat to the whole of humankind me thinks! I won't disagree that it's a problem (40 million people is alot) but really, people should be doing something about it rather then blaming gay people! Quote: Without invigorated HIV prevention strategies that deal boldly with the epidemic, and that also address the wider imperatives of social justice and equality, the world is unlikely to gain the upper-hand over AIDS in the long run. Cancer is also a problem! Things aren't always so easily gotten rid of!ralph_angelus: A psychological study showed that people were more likely to sympathise with homosexuals if they thought they were 'born that way'. Not making a generic claim, but many homosexuals say they might've become so because of abuse/sodomy while very young. And that's the way they are, that doesn't say they choose to be the way they are, it says they've been forced into it in a way! ralph_angelus: Well that's one of the contradictory features of the 'anything goes' mindset, and perhaps one reason why its wrong. You think there's nothing wrong with homosexuality because that's 'just the way they are' or 'they're just different', but you're quick to accuse 'religious people' and don't excuse them for being 'different'. No, I have no problem with people being religous! I have a problem with people trying to tell others how to live because of an old book though! ralph_angelus: that's a stupid argument, give it up. There is a huge difference between the level of threat an epidemic poses to the human race and something, with a potential of causing loss of lives or has caused losses in the past, poses. Instead of arguing around it, try to prove that AIDs is not a threat, if you can. Else don't mess with it. Well it's obviously a threat to some people, but not the whole of human kind! But instead of arguing around that, consider the amount of people who die through war and conflicts and sick chemical weapon testings! AIDs IS a problem, but so alot of other things! But AIDs could easily be avoided if people used some kinda of protection! I've said that countless times, it's an easier alternative then out-lawing bisexuality and homosexuality!
posted by hungarian kid |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
hungarian kid: No, I have no problem with people being religous! I have a problem with people trying to tell others how to live because of an old book though! I never mentioned a book. Only statistics. posted by ralph_angelus |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
ralph_angelus: hungarian kid: No, I have no problem with people being religous! I have a problem with people trying to tell others how to live because of an old book though! I never mentioned a book. Only statistics. I'm talking about some Christians being anti-homosexuality! posted by hungarian kid |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
hungarian kid: I'm talking about some Christians being anti-homosexuality! Well, as you might've realised homosexuality IS a problem, even though its not gonna destroy the world any time soon(but it IS bad, look at the statistics man, its increasing like 5mil a year. If that isn't an exponential curve I don't know what is). So christians may not be wrong in being anti-homo, just that they have different ways of explaining why they think its wrong. If people stopped being open-close(open to everything that's morally wrong but closed to morality itself, or some bizarre contradiction like that) minded, they might see that most of the things Christians are against really do have bad effects. posted by ralph_angelus |
|||
|
|||
|
||||||||
 hungarian kid: I won't disagree that it's a problem (40 million people is alot) It's highly doubtful that there are so many. To check whether someone is infected with HIV you have to make 3 independent tests. Now guess where HIV is said to rule? In darkest Africa. Where people don't have money to make even 1 of the tests. So how do the stats come about? They are "good guesses", based on vomiting and diarrhea. On diarrhea! Please note, that NOT MORE people die in Africa than before AIDS. What is called AIDS now replaces other deadly illnesses. So without AIDS they would have died of something else. The HIV threat is highly overestimated. Usually only homosexuals and drug addicts and hemophiliacs get killed.
HIV is transmitted every 500th time of unprotected sex with a HIV positive. In other words: On the average you need to have unprotected sex 500 times with an HIV person (no, not 500x unprotected sex with a random person, but 500x with an HIV person) so that the virus effectively infects you. Infecting you still doesn't lead to AIDS since some people are immune. ralph_angelus: How did the 2 threads get merged? I reunited what was split. posted by knn |
||||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
|||
 knn: HIV is transmitted every 500th time of unprotected sex with a HIV positive. what? so the only people who get HIV are those who have massive amounts of sex monogamously? I very seriously doubt this posted by The ONEder Man |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 The ONEder Man: what? so the only people who get HIV are those who have massive amounts of sex monogamously? I very seriously doubt this I never said "monogamously". Where do you read it from? I wrote "with a HIV positive", not "with 1 HIV positive" What I said was that if you were in a village with 100 HIV positives and you were to sleep with all of them, then on the average you would not get infected because the HIV amount in the ejaculate is practically 0. HIV is very hard to spread because HIV hides so well in the body. That's the reason why there is no epidemic in the US. And why HIV tests are often wrongly positive or wrongly negative. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next
Goto page
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next
 Register Log in |
The time now is 3 December 2008, 21:19 php B.B. |