 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Royston Date: 07 Feb 10 - 05:39 PM "I will not hold my breath." If only, Keith, if only... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Royston Date: 07 Feb 10 - 05:45 PM So, Keith, last chance. Do you now (since you laud the sensible wisdom of the UN and its expert divisions - UNAIDS and WHO) totally reject the positions adopted by Ake and by GfS (at the start of this debate) Do you unequivocally support the expert opinions that make clear the essential need to promote tolerance and acceptance of gay men and other minorities most at risk of HIV. Do you unequivocally support my calls for campaigns to reduce Ake-style bigotry and prejudice against gay men and to encourage them to access care and support and testing and counseling where necessary? As you say, it is stupid to argue against the expertise of UNAIDS and WHO. I just want to be sure that we are on the same page here? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 07 Feb 10 - 06:31 PM ""I believe that you know very well that a new and effective policy must be brought in, as male homosexuals appear unable or unwilling to ammend their promiscuous behaviour."" So promiscuous that 96% of them never contract the disease that you are pretending to be worried about, and which you claim, is predominantly a homosexual problem. ""The problem for you hypocrits is that admitting homosexual practice is unsafe and requires special risk treatment torpedos your "just another lifestyle" ideology. You will cry "no pasaran" till their last breath."" The only two people on this forum who are consistently claiming that homosexuality is "just another lifestyle" are you and GfS. Those with more than four brain cells are aware that it is what they are, not what they choose to be. ""So you basically don't give a fuck about homosexuals....let them die in their hundreds,leave them with low life expectancy, who cares if they compose the highest hiv infection demographic.....so long your cosy little "liberal" Disneyland is secure!"" Come off it, Rob Roy! We don't give a fuck? This from the man who wants to refuse them the right to a stable relationship, which would reduce the incidence of HIV. A man who, further, wants to confine them, "for their own good". Hitler truly would have approved of you, BIG TIME! You would be continuing the job he started back in 1933. I'll say one thing for you mate. You have one of the finest and most incisive minds of the twelfth century. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 08 Feb 10 - 07:54 AM Royston, my contribution, such as it is, has only been about the epidemiology. I am not even slightly tempted to enter a broader discussion with you. You are incapable of carrying on an intelligent discussion without frequent resort to vile, hysterical abuse. Lox, your dogleg represents the establishment, mostly in London, of communities of people of African origin. The rise in heterosexual infections is almost wholly confined to that single high risk group. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 08 Feb 10 - 08:17 AM Royston, re your "Straight, white, British people rather seem to be at the top of global league table for increasing rates of infection. What's your solution for their peculiarly dangerous lifestyle?" (29th.Jan) All wrong again Royston. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Royston Date: 08 Feb 10 - 08:49 AM Forgive me Keith, I just can't keep up with all your racist obsessions. If you're now banging on about "It's black AIDS" then first off I will say "fuck you" Then I will point out that you and Ake introduced those figures as being "indigenous" HIV infections. I know, of course, that I should never trust anything you say and must check everthing first. That is a limited, qualified apology. So the correct statement would have been to reference "Straight, British..." rather than "Straight, white, British..." You are a nasty piece of work, Keith. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 08 Feb 10 - 09:04 AM I expected you to call me racist, but I am just the messenger. I was investigating Lox's dog leg and I found the answer. Should I have concealed it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 08 Feb 10 - 09:12 AM Re So the correct statement would have been to reference "Straight, British..." rather than "Straight, white, British..." This would still be a very misleading statement. We have seen that the "500% increase" is itself highly misleading. It also conceals the significant fact that only one high risk group within "straigh, British" is actually effected. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 08 Feb 10 - 09:54 AM Re "Then I will point out that you and Ake introduced those figures as being "indigenous" HIV infections" I do not think we did. Your "straight, white, British" post was the introduction. We have not previously discussed UK infection within the African communities settled here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 09 Feb 10 - 01:48 AM Royston, I expected the knee jerk abuse, as vile and hysterical as ever, but I also expected you to demand that I justify my assertion that the rise in heterosexual infection here is almost wholly confined to the new African communities. I thought that you did not trust me. I suppose that you already knew. Am I right? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 09 Feb 10 - 02:42 AM Don Facade: "You have said repeatedly that, instead of being allowed to marry, they should be compelled to seek counseling." Again you're lying intentionally, to mislead others into a hostility,..to hide the FACT that you, argued for two threads, quite a few posts, that homosexuals could not opt out. That is a blatant lie..being as later you admitted to knowing of two. Sounds like you have a 'hidden agenda'...hmm...wonder what that can be.... P. S. Now, GfS, I can understand that since your father sired a batch of kids, including you, then "decided" he was gay and left your mother and you kids to go off with a male lover, ..blah blah blah, more lies! My Father died at 60, due to a stroke. He was married once, to my mother, who is still alive, and she never re-married. You just make shit up..as you have all through these threads. You've twisted quotes, and responded to the twists that you make up....now just what is it, that you are trying to hide??? In an Francisco, a city government employee can get a trans gender operation, at taxpayer expense, which happens to come with a considerable amount of counseling..and BTW, without that counseling, you cannot get that operation.....HOWEVER, you seem to object, for a homosexual receiving counseling, to be straight, IF they want to...sorta' funny reckoning of equality, wouldn't you say??..just what is it that you're hiding????? Both Smedley and Royston, had the balls to make a correction, when they discovered that they made a mistake..but you can't, even when your own posts are contradicted by, none other, than you!..Now just what is it, you're trying to hide??...maybe even hide from yourself? By the way, I respected both of them for that...even in light of the stirring up of hostilities, that you've managed to try to whoop up. What is it that you're trying to keep people distracted from?? Let me see, you are all for homosexuals raising children, by adoption, but get greatly distressed when natural heterosexuals, point out some of the joys of having and raising their own children, and wanting to protect them from bullshit political left wing crap...Am I seeing a pattern here?? Oh..oh yes, then you wish to insult me, by taking your best shot(?), by making up that my Father was a homosexual who left my mother...PURE BULLSHIT! I think what is closer to the truth, is the reason you think that should 'get my goat'(which it doesn't, because is so left field), is that you're the one who has issues with homosexuals! To you, your 'insult' was a wild shot, at likening my Dad, to something YOU find less or it wouldn't be an 'insult', would it???? It appears that you 'approve' of homosexuals raising kids, but don't approve of homosexuals, leaving homosexuality, to have heterosexual relationships, and children of their own. It is now becoming pretty obvious why. Given your past, of having a child, and NOT staying around to raise him, for whatever bullshit reason you rationalize away, you don't want a homosexual to be able to do that...because that would make him, a better man than you!...and after all, YOU'RE the one who looks down on homosexuals...or why would you have thrown such a stupid accusation at me, using homosexuality as the object of lowness?? You, yourself said, in an earlier post, that 'civil rights' were aimed at helping the 'weakest' people. I think you're tipping your view, just to launder the FACT, that, as a 'father' you were nothing more than a self absorbed, ego gratifying, womanizing ball less opportunist. I mean, to say...that's exactly how you described yourself, and how you conduct yourself on here....not to mention, that you've lied through your teeth....REPEATEDLY....and play the piper, to those who you consider 'weak'(your words). If I were one of the homosexuals on here, I'd hop aboard the 'clue train' and see you for what you are. Not only that, I'd be pissed, that your try to DENY them counseling, for whatever reason they'd wish to seek it! I guess it's how you get your sense of self importance..I mean to say, if a person goes to a church, as you've said, and doesn't even believe it, then the only reason you're going is to placate your wife, and being as your track record is that of a ball-less meep, who can't stand up to, or assume a responsibility to a woman that you've impregnated...God only knows what other sorts of insecurities you have!...Oh, 'Mister 'Civil Rights' agitator! Most Sincerely, GfS P.S. Don't even respond!..You've got a lot of self reflecting to do, before you start a new thread of lying to your audience!...to gain a sense of power.....Ball-less meeps do that! Save what dignity you fantasize that you have. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Royston Date: 09 Feb 10 - 03:33 AM You might be right, Keith, I didn't check to begin with and I don't intend to start indulging your racist ideas now. I told you from the start exactly what I thought of you and your racist and homophobic agenda. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 09 Feb 10 - 04:09 AM Not everyone is driven by their ideological agendas Royston. I am just trying to establish the facts. I am sorry if the facts are not to your liking. This may help your research. Africans in the UK are diagnosed with HIV at a far higher rate than other ethnic groups, having comparable number of diagnoses to white people, despite being a far smaller percentage of the overall population.http://www.avert.org/uk-statistics.htm Black African men and women accounted for 70% of the total diagnosed infections in heterosexuals and 51% of the undiagnosed infections. 3.6 HIV prevalence among African-born women giving birth in 2002 was 2.47%, up from 1.5% in 1997. By contrast, the prevalence in UK-born women was 0.03% in 2002 and was unchanged from 1997. 3.7 Between 1997 and 2003, there was a 351% increase in patients seen for care in England, Wales and Northern Ireland who had been infected heterosexually. Within this sub-group, the largest increase has been in Black African patients. Of the 15,726 heterosexual men and women seen for care in England, Wales and Northern Ireland in 2003 for whom ethnicity was reported, 70% (11068) were Black African, 19% (3009) were white and 4% (657) Black Caribbean. Africans feature in all the main transmission routes for HIV, but most cases of HIV diagnosed in the UK were reported as heterosexually acquired. http://www.dh.gov.uk/dr_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/@dh/@en/documents/digitalasset/dh_4099052.pdf Overall, three quarters of all respondents were sexually active in the last year. More than half had a regular sexual partner, which was more common in men than in women. One-in-four of the people with regular partners said they had other sexual relationships outside the regular relationship, again more common in men than women. In addition, one-in-ten who said they had sex in the last year reported definitely or probably having sexual intercourse without a condom with someone of a different HIV status to themselves (sdUI). The risk of sdUI increased with larger numbers of sexual partners. Individuals who reported having sex with both men and women were more likely to have multiple sexual partners than those who reported sex with opposite sex or same sex partners only. • Interventions to reduce potentially sero-discordant unprotected intercourse should target those in multiple sexual relationships, particularly men. A quarter of all respondents who said they had sex in the last year never used condoms. Those with fewer sexual partners, and in a regular sexual relationship (especially a monogamous relationship) were less likely to use condoms. Condom use was more common in men than in women, and mostly reported by those aged between twenty and thirty nine years. Among those who used condoms, a third experienced condom failure. • Current levels of condom failure seem very high and may be detracting from their use. Interventions to increase the use of condoms should always include elements to ensure minimum condom failure. http://www.nahip.org.uk/downloads/477.pdf |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Royston Date: 09 Feb 10 - 05:18 AM fascinating, Keith. Now what does tell you? What does it lead you to think should be done to prevent HIV spread amongst the general population, or any part thereof? Given that the virus doesn't discriminate on grounds of skin colour, What is your point? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Royston Date: 09 Feb 10 - 05:49 AM And to prove the futility of debating statistics alone, you still can't even get your sacred facts straight. We were talking about UK-acquired infections. The figures you quote are for all diagnoses. Now just take your numbers and shove 'em somewhere. What is your point? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 09 Feb 10 - 05:55 AM I am still talking about UK acquired infections. Within their communities, the high infection rates found in Africa are happening here. As the Health Department piece I linked to says, HIV and AIDS have disproportionately affected African communities in England. After gay men they are the largest group affected by HIV and since 1999 new diagnoses in Africans have overtaken new diagnoses in other groups. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Royston Date: 09 Feb 10 - 09:17 AM Keith, You really need to read what you post. What you posted does not talk about UK-acquired infections. It talks only about UK diganoses it includes all the overseas (mainly Africa) acquired cases. Now, when it suited you, we were told to remove African HIV cases and concentrate on British HIV cases. That was when you were telling us that HIV was a gay problem. Or a black problem. Not a British problem. But now we have to add the African cases back in...to prove what? What is your point? And you still expect to be treated with respect? Or taken seriously? Come off it! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 09 Feb 10 - 09:38 AM Not true Royston. evidence from service providers and surveillance indicates that new adult infections are occurring as a result of exposure in the UK. A number of studies point to the widespread unmet need for basic information regarding HIV transmission, testing and treatment. In particular, cultural practices that place some Africans at particular risk of transmitting or acquiring HIV requires specific, culturally competent attention. Examples include: perceptions of condoms, polygamy, meanings attached to sexual behaviours, reproduction, breast-feeding and secrecy and taboos regarding sex and relationships. The overall goal of HIV prevention for African communities is to: • reduce the acquisition and transmission of HIV infection in African people living in England. • The specific prevention aims are to: – reduce the sexual transmission of HIV infection among Africans and their partners; – reduce the vertical transmission of HIV from a mother to her baby; – reduce the prevalence of undiagnosed HIV in Africans living in England; – reduce the stigma associated with HIV; Chapter 4 describes sexual risk and precaution behaviours. Overall, three quarters of all respondents were sexually active in the last year. More than half had a regular sexual partner, which was more common among men than in women. One-in-four of those with regular partners said they had other sexual relationships outside the regular relationship, again more common in men than women. One-in-ten who said they had sex in the last year reported definitely or probably having sexual intercourse without a condom with someone of a different HIV status to themselves (sdUI). The risk of sdUI increased with larger numbers of sexual partners. • Interventions to reduce potentially serodiscordant unprotected intercourse should target those in multiple sexual relationships, particularly men. Individuals who reported having sex with both men and women were more likely to have multiple sexual partners than those who reported sex with opposite sex or same sex partners only. A quarter of respondents who had sex in the last year had not used condoms at all in that time. Those with fewer sexual partners, and those in a regular sexual relationship were less likely to use condoms. Condom use was more common in men than in women, and mostly reported by those aged between 20-39 years. Among those who used condoms, a third had experienced condom failure in the last year. • High levels of condom failure may be detracting from their use. Interventions to increase the use of condoms should include elements to ensure minimum condom failure. Chapter 5 considers HIV prevention need and demonstrates that general knowledge about the basics of HIV was fairly high, although many people perceived the need to know more. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 09 Feb 10 - 09:57 AM ""Lox, your dogleg represents the establishment, mostly in London, of communities of people of African origin. The rise in heterosexual infections is almost wholly confined to that single high risk group."" Really Keith, are you naturally dim, or did you have to train. UK acquired infections have risen by 500%. Whether the recipients are of British or African descent is a red herring. The operative phrase here, is "UK acquired infections". It matters not one jot if they be black, white, or pink with purple spots. The important thing is that they became infected in the UK, and that means the pool is widening and deepening, which knocks the linear argument into a cocked hat. Even that is not the important point here. The bottom line is that, unless we stop thinking of HIV/AIDS as a homosexual problem, and recognise that it is not a matter of gender orientation, but rather of unsafe sexual practises, then the heterosexual aspect will eventually assume African proportions. This would be a catastrophe of unprecedented magnitude. Just consider the close proximity of life in our towns and cities, and compare it to the much more thinly spread population of the African continent. Any serious increase in the UK transmission pool would vastly increase the potential for epidemic. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 09 Feb 10 - 10:03 AM No Don, it does not mean that the pool is widening and deepening. The terms "Gay Plague" and "Black Plague" are not helpful and I would never use them. Royston is the only person who has. But, it is true to say, without apportioning any blame, that AIDS is a disease that after 40 years has not significantly affected any group except men who have sex with men, people born in Africa, and a few needle sharers. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Royston Date: 09 Feb 10 - 10:09 AM Keith: Not true Royston. Piss off, what you posted at 04:09 DID NOT talk about UK-acquired infections. What you posted at 09:38 did. And isn't it amazing how, when you are forced to tell the truth, or something approacing the truth, it all ends up agreeing with the important issues as I framed them and as I argued them Namely that if you stop dismssing this demogpraphic, and that demographic, and another demographic, it all comes down to education and socially progressive campaigns and attitudes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: frogprince Date: 09 Feb 10 - 10:22 AM Guest-from-pious-judgementalism: You are absolutely right about Don Firth's irresponsibility as a parent. When his former girlfriend announced that she was pregnant, but did not intend to marry him, he should have locked her in a closet to be certain she did not escape with the child. After the birth, he would have had at least two alternatives: he could have kept her in the closet, or murdered her and concealed the body, to be sure she didn't remove the child from under his caring wing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 09 Feb 10 - 11:39 AM OK Royston, now I have posted about both. I thought I had already, in linking to the sites. I only provided a few extracts. Your assertion all along that AIDS was spreading in the general population, was false. It is still confined almost entirely to MSMs and African people. You have been calling honest contributors liars and cheats for daring to disagree with you, and all the time they were right and you were wrong. I expect you would now like to say something to the forum. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Royston Date: 09 Feb 10 - 12:44 PM No, Keith, the 500% increase in heterosexually, UK-acquired cases stands as a cause for concern. That the infections were contracted by straight people living and shagging in this country makes the colour of their skin pointless. They are members of our general population and only a mad racist fantasist would think that this is of no significance to all members of the general population. But this, and many other observations, have been to make ethical points. That we can't and shouldn't throw blame at any one or any group and that we need to educate all our citizens - particularly the at risk groups - about the dangers of HIV and how to prevent its transmission. The other ethical point is that stigmatisation of HIV status, and of people at risk, hampers efforts to combat the spread of the disease, so society needs to be more open, embracing of diversity and progressive. You have been denying, or refusing to accept, those ethical points and the fact that you feel it so essential, while not engaging on the issues, to keep twisting and turning the truth so as to appear to remove support for those points, is the reason that I - and many others - suspect and accuse you of being a racist and homophobic and generally right wing sort. I though that once Ake disproved his own arguments, and then you provided evidence that assuaged your doubts about my assertions (My point 5 of a week or so ago), that you would both stop this nonsense. But you're still at it and Ake has, I suspect, only gone quiet temporarily. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Royston Date: 09 Feb 10 - 12:52 PM Do you still deny, all other factors being equal, that the larger the number of infected people in a sexual network - wherever and however they became infected - the greater is the risk of any one uninfected person becoming infected.? This is why HIV affects gay men, prostitutes and junkies - small sexual networks. It only takes a small number, or one, infected person to spark an epidemic. People who were infected in Africa and moved here and then were diagnosed have been the factor increasing dramatically the number of straight people living with HIV in this country. That has increased the risk for the straight population - more carriers in their pool. Then you have a 500% increase in UK-acquired infections. It is reasonable to hypothesise that the former could be responsible for the latter. If true, the problem will get steadily worse. It is a real risk that must be confronted, not dismissed so that "normal white folk" are falsely reassured. It's what I said when I came into this debate in early January, it's what your de Cock said - but not explicitly - when he quoted sexual networks as the most significant factor driving the spread of the disease. Do you really not get it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 09 Feb 10 - 06:12 PM We both know that we are all equally prone to the infection. The difference between general population UK, effectively zero prevalence, and the MSMs and African born, is to do with their practices. Are you saying that because we have established a community of people from Subsaharan Africa, that the locals are going to take up their customs?? I see no signs of that. Experience suggests that the reverse will happen as they slowly integrate. That is why I am sure that it is not going to break out of those communities now, for the same reasons it has never done before. That is why I am not at all surprised that all the experts in the world hold the same opinion as me, and you can not find a single one that agrees with you. Because you are wrong. There is no disgrace in arguing a point that proves to be wrong. It could even happen to me one day. What is unforgivable is that you have spewed out with your false arguments the most hurtful, offensive abuse. This is not some come all blog. This is a forum of friends in folk. You could easily find yourself standing next to me at the bar in some venue singing the same chorus. If you can not express differing views with others in a tolerant and acceptable way, you should take your filthy insults somewhere else. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Don Firth Date: 09 Feb 10 - 07:21 PM Yes, GfS, I met two homosexuals who insisted that they had been "cured." But it was plainly obvious to those who knew them much better than I did that the form their "cure" had taken was that they were completely abstaining from sexual activity of any kind, and that they were showing signs of anxiety, depression, and hostility. I was told that they had been reasonably happy individuals until they were intimidated by the conservative, fundamentalist church they attended to "take the cure." Which, incidentally, consisted primarily of being told repeatedly that homosexuality is a mortal sin for which they would burn in Hell forever, along with aversion therapy (being presented with provocative material, then given electric shocks). Two extremely screwed-up, unhappy, and hostile people. Cured? I think not!! I explained all this before—but, of course, you either didn't read it or simply refused to retain it in that highly selective memory of yours. As to your father, I was simply playing back the story you told in the Prop 8 thread, as an example of how you "knew for a fact" that homosexuality is a matter of choice. The story was YOURS! And your comments about my relationship with my son and his mother have nothing to do with reality. I don't think you have the capability to understand the actual situation or the reasons for the decisions that were made—for the benefit of all concerned, not just my son and his mother. I made a substantial sacrifice for the benefit of others. And, no, I'm not going to explain it to you because, first, it's none of your business, and second, you simply have neither the brains nor the heart—nor the understanding of common decency—to understand anything like that. As to the rest of your most recent post, once again I invite people here who have the stomach for it to go back over our posts in both threads and see for themselves who said what. There is enough bovine fecal matter in your last post alone to fertilize the roses in a three state area. By the way, the kind of hostility you are displaying toward me, I have seen before. From the two self-proclaimed "cured" homosexuals I talk about in the first paragraph. What's your excuse? And also by the way, venting your bile by screwing around with someone's name is really childish. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Royston Date: 10 Feb 10 - 09:42 AM Keith: This is not some come all blog. This is a forum of friends in folk. You could easily find yourself standing next to me at the bar in some venue singing the same chorus. If you can not express differing views with others in a tolerant and acceptable way, you should take your filthy insults somewhere else. Now you really are dragging the bottom of the barrel. This isn't Freemasonry, we don't owe each other anything just because we happen to like folk music. I have friends on here who are friends in the real world. There are people here that I wouldn't care to spend any time with, people that wouldn't care to spend time with me and I am quite certain that they are the same people...and then some more. C'est la vie. Keith, if you actually go and read your posting history (as I just did, to make sure that I wasn't getting you wrong) then even you would have to concede that people would be justified - on the evidence of your posting - to suspect you of the things that I accuse you of being. Without exception, you post in a supportive manner against homosexuals, Muslims, immigrants, progressive social ideas, settled ethnic minorities, human rights legislation, multiculturalism, Islam. Or alternatively your contributions give support to those who rail against those people, groups or concepts. That you do so in a rather weasel-like way; never actually saying what you believe, just twisting the discussion in a very particular way with what are, at times, downright dodgy statistics from scandalous sources, doesn't let you off the hook as far as I am concerned. So, if you and Ake and a few other right wing reactionaries or suckers for all the lies that the media feed you, get the hump and get annoyed by me, then good. That is my intention. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Royston Date: 10 Feb 10 - 09:47 AM Keith: This is not some come all blog. This is a forum of friends in folk. You could easily find yourself standing next to me at the bar in some venue singing the same chorus. If you can not express differing views with others in a tolerant and acceptable way, you should take your filthy insults somewhere else." Now you really are dragging the bottom of the barrel. This isn't Freemasonry, we don't owe each other anything just because we happen to like folk music. I have friends on here who are friends in the real world. There are people here that I wouldn't care to spend any time with, people that wouldn't care to spend time with me and I am quite certain that they are the same people...and then some more. C'est la vie. Keith, if you actually go and read your posting history (as I just did, to make sure that I wasn't getting you wrong) then even you would have to concede that people would be justified - on the evidence of your posting - to suspect you of the things that I accuse you of being. Without exception, you post in a supportive manner against homosexuals, Muslims, immigrants, progressive social ideas, settled ethnic minorities, human rights legislation, multiculturalism, Islam. Or alternatively your contributions give support to those who rail against those people, groups or concepts. That you do so in a rather weasel-like way; never actually saying what you believe, just twisting the discussion in a very particular way with what are, at times, downright dodgy statistics from scandalous sources, doesn't let you off the hook as far as I am concerned. So, if you and Ake and a few other right wing reactionaries or suckers for all the lies that the media feed you, get the hump and get annoyed by me, then good. That is my intention. -------------------------------------------------- PS - I am not going to repost the examples of the positions you support or lend credence to. I have just been back over your posting history. Other people can do likewise. If anyone other than you or Ake or one of the usual suspects, thinks that you have not posted in the way I suggest, then I will take the time to provide them with some choice examples of each of the issues I listed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 10 Feb 10 - 10:08 AM I have never, ever posted in a supportive or any other manner against any group except paramiltaries. Here I have posted objective, factual and verifiable evidence and statistics. You can not find any other can you. We know that we are all equally prone to the infection. The difference between general population UK, effectively zero prevalence, and the MSMs and African born, is to do with their practices. Are you saying that because we have established a community of people from Subsaharan Africa, that the locals are going to take up their customs?? I see no signs of that. Experience suggests that the reverse will happen as they slowly integrate. That is why I am sure that it is not going to break out of those communities now, for the same reasons it has never done before. That is why I am not at all surprised that all the experts in the world hold the same opinion as me, and you can not find a single one that agrees with you. Because you are wrong. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: akenaton Date: 10 Feb 10 - 02:10 PM "So, if you and Ake and a few other right wing reactionaries or suckers for all the lies that the media feed you, get the hump and get annoyed by me, then good. That is my intention." Thats a fuckin' laugh......You obviously haven't been reading my posting history!.....As far as radicalism goes, I would leave you in the long grass. You're no radical Royston, you're just another small minded busybody who thinks it's cool to join the "liberal gang". Keith and I seem to be at opposite ends of the political spectrum, but I know he's an honourable guy with an independent mind who can think for himself......I prefer to debate with people who hold original ideas (regardless of the labels you like to stick on them).....not the knee jerk, PC crap parroted by you and your mates. You have been proved wrong here Royston....and I'm sorry to say, a bullying numbskull. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Royston Date: 10 Feb 10 - 02:25 PM Akenaton: The sound of one hand clapping. Keith: We all knew that you would come back and whine "I only post facts that I find, it's not my fault..." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Royston Date: 10 Feb 10 - 02:34 PM And both of you, we have all been wrong on various occasions with our statistical analyses. That is the whole bloody point. The statistics are to a very large extent silly. These discussions should always be about the issues. Ake, I can't believe that you have the nerve to come back here since every "soltution" to the HIV problem that you advocated - in any group of people - has been thrashed by your own evidence (from UNAIDS) and from your Cuban report. Basically, Ake, you are the cause of a degree of HIV misery and you are a hindrance to tackling the spread of the disease amongst at-risk minorities. The experts whose advice you say you value, all assert that prejudice and bigotry are factors acting against HIV prevention in at-risk groups. So that is why nobody takes you seriously. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Lox Date: 10 Feb 10 - 02:49 PM "The difference between general population UK, effectively zero prevalence, and the MSMs and African born, is to do with their practices." This is evidentially untrue as young women and adolescent girls make up the highest demographic to suffer from ALL other STI's. Chlamydia affects 10% of young women, while HPV affects a much higher number than that. If it were down to practice, the levels of other STI's would be as low comparably as the levels of HIV. In light of this information, it seems that Young Women and adolescent girls are lucky they have remained HIV free for so long. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 10 Feb 10 - 02:52 PM Keith: We all knew that you would come back and whine "I only post facts that I find, it's not my fault..." A safe bet Royston, because it is true! It is not my fault that the facts I find demolish your argument. "The statistics are to a very large extent silly. " They were OK when you thought that they supported you. Page 6 Table A remember? Now that they have all been shown to demolish your argument, they are silly! You say to Ake "you are a hindrance to tackling the spread of the disease amongst at-risk minorities." The only at risk groups are MSMs, African born, and needle sharers. Have I missed any? Who is hindering and how? "The experts whose advice you say you value, all assert that prejudice and bigotry are factors acting against HIV prevention in at-risk groups" I agree with them on that and on the fact that AIDS is not breaking out of the high risk groups. You disagree with them on issues that they are world authorities on, and you expect anyone to take you seriously? I bet you have been frantically googling for days to find anyone who holds your utterly discredited opinions. No luck so far then. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 10 Feb 10 - 02:55 PM Lox, maybe luck but probably not. How can a fact be evidentially untrue? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Royston Date: 10 Feb 10 - 04:10 PM Keith: Ake supports stigma and prejudice towards at-risk minorities. In his own small way, he is part of the problem and a hindrance to effective prevention of the spread of the disease. I did not say that HIV was breaking out the high risk groups. I said - repeatedly - that there has been a 500% rise in heterosexual UK-acquired infections in recent years, that is a rise about 3 times greater than in gay men (regardless of place of acquisition) and that should be a cause for concern, not swept under the carpet. That figure was introduced because others claimed that HIV prevalence was some sort of punishment reserved for sexual minorities who didn't behave like "normal folk". That figure stands as proof that such comparisons are stupid and futile - that straight people can manage such growth in the rate of new infections from such a low-risk starting point, is quite extraordinary. The figure was a demonstration that everyone is at risk of this disease.You have accepted the truth of this, what the hell are you arguing now? So when you sailed in and - totally neutrally - tried to disprove the comparisons supporting the common-sense position, what were you doing other than to add support to the bigoted views of others. When eventually you had to concede the point - to Lox even if it you couldn't bear to admit that to anyone else. That is your right wing, bigoted dogma. This is why these bloody numbers are so silly. You have been right, you have been spectacularly wrong. You have had to retract much of what you said and you have had to disown your sources. I have misinterpreted some data and placed undue emphasis on others. So we keep bashing each other the head with them. Great. But silly. It's as silly for you as it is for me. But, Keith, it's all you've got! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Royston Date: 10 Feb 10 - 04:30 PM Anyway, at this stage of the game you have accepted my 5 assertions of substance on these issues. It's clear that you and I are never going to agree on anything else and we are just going around in circles. It's on the grounds of that circuity alone that I am going to call it a day here; others are just going to have to read this if they care enough and form a view - probably that we're both bleedin' idiots. They'd probably be right. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: akenaton Date: 10 Feb 10 - 04:44 PM All you've got Royston, is more of the same. Unaids conclusions say we need "New and Effective" measures to tackle the new hiv infections among homosexuals. We all want to see health education, condom use, etc....but the truth is that in general terms homosexuals have not been listening. As I said before, hedonism and risky sexual behaviour appears part and parcel of a large part of the homosexual community. If a group, in the face of very bad health statistics, continue to behave in a manner dangerous to themselves and possibly the rest of society, then measures other than the current ones need to be taken. Ignoring the problem as you seem to be advocating is not a "new or effective" measure. If homosexual infection rates continue to grow, at some point we have to consider compulsory testing and extensive contact tracing. All immigrants from at risk areas should be tested before and after entry for a period of one year. If they refuse the test they should be refused admittance. This is not bigotry, this is simple common sense. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 10 Feb 10 - 06:25 PM ""We all want to see health education, condom use, etc....but the truth is that in general terms homosexuals have not been listening."" Quote from Ake's personal opinion. ""This is evidentially untrue as young women and adolescent girls make up the highest demographic to suffer from ALL other STI's. Chlamydia affects 10% of young women, while HPV affects a much higher number than that."" Quote by Lox from official figures. Four percent of gays are infected with HIV Ten percent of young women and adolescent girls are infected with Chlamydia and even more with HPV. Yet Ake wants special measures for gay men only. What does this tell us about gay men? What does it tell us about young womens' likely future exposure to the risk of HIV infection? Most importantly, what does it tell us about the hypocrisy (correct spelling) of people like Ake, who are prepared to stand by and watch young women take risks, but will twist the truth into a pretzel, trying to rid the world of gay men, under the guise of protecting them? Don T |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Lox Date: 10 Feb 10 - 06:50 PM "How can a fact be evidentially untrue?" What fact? That "The difference between general population UK, effectively zero prevalence, and the MSMs and African born, is to do with their practices."? That isn't a fact, that is a judgement call. One which I questioned on the basis of evidence concernng other STI's. These were not contracted as a result of safe sex. 5% of Gay men have HIV. 10% of young hetero women and adolescent girls have chlamydia. In both cases, the practice which resulted in infection was unsafe sex. So why are Chlamydia, Ghonnorhea, Syphilis, HPV etc more prevalent in young women, and why is HIV more prevalent in gay men? It is an intriguing paradox for someone trying to apply a simple formula of "different sexual practices = different risk factor" I call it bad luck. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Royston Date: 10 Feb 10 - 06:52 PM I just couldn't let this pass as an example of Keith's racist and homophobic fantasies. He said Here I have posted objective, factual and verifiable evidence and statistics. And then one sentence later The difference between general population UK, effectively zero prevalence, and the MSMs and African born, is to do with their practices. The latter is not a fact, it is a very telling example of Keith's prejudices and his real agenda. Where is the support for statement of fact number 2 above. As Lox pointed out, as I pointed out weeks ago, the rate of STI's amongst straight people demonstrates that they must be practicing horrific levels of unprotected promiscuous sex and are simply bloody lucky that HIV has not, thus far, been prevalent in their sexual network. As the WHO pointed out, thanks Keith, it is mostly about sexual networks. But this clearly demonstrates Keith's desire to prove his belief that gays and blacks are dirty and "bring it on themselves". But you're just a facts man, of course, Keith. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 11 Feb 10 - 01:43 AM The difference between general population UK, effectively zero prevalence, and the MSMs and African born, is to do with their practices. The second part is not racist. It acknowledges that the virus does not discriminate between racial groups. The difference is what people do. That includes Royston's precious networks, but the networks established in Africa would take time to become established here. In my links you will find details of the high risk practices that were found to be prevalent in the African communities here. When considering epidemiology in a population of 60 million Royston, "luck" can not regarded as a serious factor! Lox, I have been pointing out that the infection levels in heterosexuals are far lowere that the rare disease criteria. Now we see that most of those are accounted for by a newly arrived high risk group. They caused your dogleg up turn. Before that upturn the incidence was, and still is, comparable with lightning strike. no one is campaigning for intervention on the risk of that! I do not have any specialist knowledge and merely report the work and considered opinions of the experts in the field. Royston and Lox, from what position of authority do you challenge these groups who all endorse the information I have provided? Avert, Terence Higgins trust, Department of Health, National Aids Trust, Afrivan HIV Policy Network • Action For Men • Addington Afro-Ethnic Health Promotion Group (AAEGRO) • Africa Advocacy Foundation • African Caribbean Resource Centre • The African Child • African Communities Team at Camden PCT • African Community Involvement Association • African Community Development Association • African Community Partnership • African Culture Promotions (ACP) • African Development Network |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Royston Date: 11 Feb 10 - 03:21 AM No Keith, you are still twisting and turning. Nobody denies that behaviour is the SOLE factor in THE ACT of HIV transmission between two individuals. You idiot. The point - all along, the whole reason for this discussion - is that the behaviour of people, whether gay or straight or black or white or African or European, is pretty much as fallable, as compromising, as human as anyone else's behaviour. You can't cast blame in epidemiology, you have to care for and protect everyone in equal measure. Africans have two principal misfortunes - that HIV emerged there first when it crossed the species barrier and that it emerged in the straight population. There are secondary issues - the effect on sexual networking of mass labour-migration and a higher rate of ulcerative STI's. In "The West", straight people demonstrate appalling sexual hygiene as demonstrated by the prevalence of other STI's transmitted by promiscuous unprotected sex. It is a matter of good fortune that HIC is not prevalent in that sexual network, yet and hopfeully for ever. This debate was always about refuting the homophobic and racist assertions that gays and blacks were "dirty" and brought the problem of HIV on themselves. Those are the views that you have been supporting. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 11 Feb 10 - 03:40 AM You might think that there is appalling behaviour among straight people, and I might agree with you, but "good fortune" is not a factor in epidemiology. Non African heterosexuals are not getting AIDS. However unfair, that is the fact. You are more Canute than Canute, floundering on the sea bed and still denying that the tide is coming in. You are wrong. There is no significant AIDS in the Non African, non MSM, non needle sharing population. This is what the Terence Higgins Trust says. However, the numbers of heterosexual HIV infections that were probably acquired here in the UK have been rising steadily in recent years. Over a quarter of heterosexual HIV infections that were diagnosed in 2008 were probably acquired in the UK. The majority of these diagnoses are likely to be amongst the British black African community. I can google up any amount of stuff because it is true. You can find nothing because you are wrong. I have given you 2 bang up to date, lengthy, authoritative reports on AIDS in our African communities. They endorse what I say. You must have scoured them by now for any crumb of comfort. You have found nothing. You are wrong. De Cock, head of the AIDS Department of WHO said that there is no risk to our heterosexual community. Everything he said contradicts your stance except his one reference to networks which is neutral. And you say we should dismiss his expert opinion and believe you. Why should we believe you over every world expert either of us has been able to find? You are wrong. There is no threat to our heterosexual community. If you have any evidence put it up. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Royston Date: 11 Feb 10 - 04:05 AM Keith, you say I am like Canute, after that Lear-esque outburst which included "De Cock, head of the AIDS Department of WHO said that there is no risk to our heterosexual community. He did not say that. You wish that he said that. He actually said that he does not believe there will be an African-style pandemic in Europe or America. That is not to say "no risk tio straight people" And your rant included: "There is no threat to our heterosexual community" which is just your stupid comment. Nobody can possibly take that seriously. You see, Keith, we all agree with WHO and UNAIDS. No dispute at all. It's just that you have tried to twist their work to prove an agenda that you kept hidden until yesterday. Your agenda is that you fervently believe that gay men and black people are dirty and bring HIV on themselves in ways that decent, white, straight people do not. WHO and UNAIDS do not support your view. They assert that views of that sort are part of the HIV problem. Let's look at UNAIDS, shall we? http://data.unaids.org/pub/FactSheet/2009/20091124_FS_nawce_en.pdf Where the majority of HIV cases (53%) in Central Europe were heterosexually transmitted. Central Europe (I have travelled there extensively) has little or no immigration. You certainly won't see Africans there. So what's happening? The report also singles out the UK, France and USA for having the largest proportions of undiagnosed heterosexual carriers - Ake, we'd better start that compulsory testing with you, hadn't we? Don't come back here and whittle away at all the numbers on Africans and Gay men, all the numbers are agreed and accepted. What matters is your beliefs about WHY these groups are so affected by this disease. de Cock said - and I explained in more detail why this is true - that what defines the epidemic-affected groups is sexual networks - small, confined sexual networks that propagate the disease so effectively. It is not behaviour that defines those affected as being apart from those unaffected, becasue the other STI data shows that all demographic groups are pretty poor with their sexual hygiene in our part of the world. You have confessed your beliefs, and there is not much more to be said on the subject. This has now boiled down to your fundamental beliefs, which others do not share. Numbers, now, are pointless. People will be less inclined to accept your neutrality in future, that is a good thing. Me, I have never claimed neutrality or impartiality. That is why I argue my belief, explain my personal justifications and any external support I think I have, then leave people to make their own minds up. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Royston Date: 11 Feb 10 - 04:22 AM And to boil down the essential point here, HIV is spread by vaginal sex. Quite effectively so. Straight adolescents and young adults are contracting STI's at a very high rate and so are having high rates of unprotected intercourse. The only reason that HIV is not more prevalent is that those people, behaving as they do, have not yet had sex with an HIV+ person. That is good fortune, because the number of straight carriers has been low, historically. The numbers of straight carriers in this country has grown greatly (regardless of origin) over recent years. The number of UK-acquired cases has grown 500% over recent years. African people may tend to find partners in their own communities so the disease may have been contained to a large extent in what amounts to an African social/sexual network. That is de Cock's point, by the way, about the importance of networks in edpidemiology. Black and white people (outside your racist fantasies) do have sex together. And you say their is "No risk to our heterosexual population" As in no risk (at all). Really, Keith? You could exchange African for Gay, in that analysis - it is the sexual/social network that contained HIV in gay men in this country. Straight people bevave just as badly as gay people, it's just that the disease emerged in one network, whose members do not find partners in the other network. As I have been saying all along. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 11 Feb 10 - 05:14 AM Kevin de Cock, the head of the WHO's department of HIV/Aids said there will be no generalised epidemic of Aids in the heterosexual population outside Africa. Dr De Cock, an epidemiologist who has spent much of his career leading the battle against the disease, said understanding of the threat posed by the virus had changed. Whereas once it was seen as a risk to populations everywhere, it was now recognised that, outside sub-Saharan Africa, it was confined to high-risk groups including men who have sex with men, injecting drug users, and sex workers and their clients. Dr De Cock said: "It is very unlikely there will be a heterosexual epidemic in other countries. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Royston Date: 11 Feb 10 - 05:25 AM Well done, Keith. As I said, de Cock says an African style epidemic is 'unlikely' He does not support what you say. Why don't you quote in full his comments on networks, as I won't be at a computer until Saturday morning now. Not possible to research and paste on a blackberry. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 11 Feb 10 - 05:39 AM He says no heterosexual epidemic. You have been telling us it has already started, or now that it is about to start but we have been "lucky" He says no heterosexual epidemic. Here is the extra bit you asked for. In the industrialised world transmission of HIV among men who have sex with men is not declining and in some places has increased. "In the developing world, it has been neglected. We have only recently started looking for it and when we look, we find it. And when we examine HIV rates we find they are high. "It is astonishing how badly we have done with men who have sex with men. It is something that is going to have to be discussed much more rigorously." The biggest puzzle was what had caused heterosexual spread of the disease in sub-Saharan Africa – with infection rates exceeding 40 per cent of adults in Swaziland, the worst-affected country – but nowhere else. "It is the question we are asked most often – why is the situation so bad in sub-Saharan Africa? It is a combination of factors – more commercial sex workers, more ulcerative sexually transmitted diseases, a young population and concurrent sexual partnerships." "Sexual behaviour is obviously important but it doesn't seem to explain [all] the differences between populations. Even if the total number of sexual partners [in sub-Saharan Africa] is no greater than in the UK, there seems to be a higher frequency of overlapping sexual partnerships creating sexual networks that, from an epidemiological point of view, are more efficient at spreading infection." Low rates of circumcision, which is protective, and high rates of genital herpes, which causes ulcers on the genitals through which the virus can enter the body, also contributed to Africa's heterosexual epidemic. |
