BS: Why I am gone

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 29 Sep 13 - 05:08 AM

Awful lot of hints & nods'n'winks in that last post, Ian. Not clear to whom you are referring as having suddenly withdrawn; who is supposed to have apologised by implication & for what & to whom. A bit of exegesis as to your precise meaning & identifications thruout that post would be much appreciated, please.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 Sep 13 - 05:16 AM

Then what did you mean by "you, of all people,

I do believe I already answered that, Michael, by saying "I meant that you are, or were I understand, an intelligent person with influence in the media."

Maybe it was a peculiarly unfortunate choice of phrase. but that only goes to prove my point. There are very few people, including yourself, who have the literary skills and potential platform to swing the majority for or against a section of the population. If you had known that in a number of threads I have lambasted the press for their part in stirring up hatred you would have probably gleaned that meaning. There is no reason why you would know my views as I accept that my poor scribblings are not universally know so I apologise for that 'poor choice'. Equally I have not read everything that you have posted so I do hope you will excuse me for not knowing that you would jump to a different conclusion.

Ake - is that is will soon become socially unacceptable to refuse testing. So are you now saying that you do NOT approve of compulsory testing?

Kendall - You know I respect you and your posts. Why the 'last few' posts in particular? I have just re-read through the last half dozen and compared to earlier ones they seem to be a perfectly civilised exchange of views with no abuse therein. Am I missing something?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Sep 13 - 09:09 AM

DtG...Of course I am still in favour of compulsory testing, as at the moment, MSM seem unwilling to regulate themselves.
All the money and effort which has gone into cutting infection rates up until now, has had absolutely no effect.

If a regime of compulsory testing and contact tracing was instigated, it may just bring home to male homosexuals, the risks they take with their own lives and the lives of all their sexual partners.

When anti smoking laws were brought in it soon became socially unacceptable to smoke in public places or even in the home.
Same thing happened with drink driving....in this area people used to laugh when someone got behind the wheel under the influence....now they would report them to the police.

Sometimes people need a good shove in the right direction, the freedom of the individual to do exactly what he pleases is also socially unacceptable.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Sep 13 - 09:17 AM

Ian.....I don't gamble much these days, but I would be more than willing to stake a large wager that more people here are sickened by your foul language and abuse, than by civilised discussion of a very serious problem.

Do you really think that this subject should not be discussed, or is it just that you have no cohesive answer or alternative to the points being made?

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Sep 13 - 09:20 AM

Like Michael, I can make no sense of your last post.
It's just like the jargon some pen pusher would post.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: GUEST,ED T
Date: 29 Sep 13 - 10:45 AM

I believe a return to civil discussion is in order, folks.

Ake,, I suspect you believe that those in the most danger of HIV infection (drug users, sex workers and people who engage in less then careful and unprotected sex) do not knosw they are at a high risk for infection. It also seems that you focus your attention on homosexual males (regardless of their lifestyles).

A question to you: do you have an association with any orhanized group with a ar concern? A Google search led me to a few organizations (some of them religious) whose posted information closely match some of what you post. Coincidence? Maybe. But, I leave that for you to explain - if you wish to do so (it is not compulsaryn as many here respect your rights to keep your personal associations personal. However, disclosing any such associations may clear the air on the reasons for your continued focus on this one issue.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Sep 13 - 11:03 AM

Ed....I belong to no "group" religious or otherwise.
I base my views on the facts on HIV/AIDS, which are provided by CDC in the US and HPA in UK

I concentrate on MSM simply because they are many times more severely affected by this virus than any other demographic.

Had the most severely affected (epidemic rates) been for example, IDUs or "Sex Workers" I would be concentrating on them.
The MSM demographic is massively over represented in the HIV/AIDS statistics and that should be of concern to everyone.

Actually the rates amongst IDU's are actually quite low and those for "sex workers" slightly higher, but nothing near the rates for MSM.

My belief is that there is something intrinsically wrong with sex between males, which is causing the yearly rise in infection rates.
Do you have any ideas on the subject? You seem to have a serious interest.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 29 Sep 13 - 11:11 AM

"Not easy when he has a few suspect apologists saying he should be getting a fair hearing."

Support for the principle of free speech does not equate to support for the opinions of everyone to whom free speech is granted. It indicates a belief that they should have the right to express those opinions, however odious they may be, and that others should have the opportunity to challenge and defeat them in open debate. The tactic of "Shut the fuck up" does not win an argument, and does not persuade one's opponent of his errors. If you aren't sufficiently intellectually equipped to understand a simple principle like that, there's little wonder that the NHS is in such a precarious state.

Suppression of free speech has long been one of the chief weapons in the armouries of those who would oppress others, and I'm astonished that one such as yourself, who claims to occupy the highest of moral high ground, would stoop to such behaviour.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 29 Sep 13 - 11:33 AM

Ake Ok, thanks for putting to rest that you are not associated with to one of these groups. If you were, I would not see the point of continued discussion of the topic.

However - you added something else that concerns me: ""My belief is that there is something intrinsically wrong with sex between males, which is causing the yearly rise in infection rates.""

I am a bit puzzled by this statement, you say it is your "belief" rather than it is a question you have as to the reason why different groups are impacted by HIV at different rates? It is very difficult to have a discussion with one who has already established "a belief" versus one who is genuinely seeking knowledge through discussion with others with a variety of perspectives (possibly in an attempt of converting others to their beliefs).

Could it have been a error in what you posted?

Or, have you formed a firm (or, even soft) conclusion that puts it into a different dimension, a belief?

If it is the latter, (an actual belief,or conclusion) it seems unproductive for me to continue the discussion - as, I don't a valid reason to take the discussion further, as I mostly avoid trying to sway people away from their "beliefs".

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: GUEST,kendall
Date: 29 Sep 13 - 11:50 AM

Dave, I was simply being lazy when I mentioned the past few posts. They are just examples of the negativity that has invaded this forum.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 Sep 13 - 11:57 AM

OK - Thanks Kendall. I am just as guilty of sloth on many occasions :-)

D.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: The Sandman
Date: 29 Sep 13 - 01:48 PM

If You dont like it.go. but do not come back to haunt us and try and put a guilt trip on the remaining members, to quote Cromwell,"You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately... Depart, I say; and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!"

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 29 Sep 13 - 02:53 PM

Not quite clear whom BWM & GSS are addressing in their last posts.

Clarification, please?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 29 Sep 13 - 02:56 PM

Michael, I quoted in italics at the top of my post an extract from a post by Musket which took a sideswipe at me (what a sore loser that man is!), I thought that would give a clue to whom my response was directed? :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 29 Sep 13 - 03:10 PM

My reference to the NHS is a bit of a clue too!   :-)   :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 29 Sep 13 - 05:32 PM

Ah, BWM ~~ thank you.   I asked him whom he ref'd to; it might have been you, or it might have been me. That was why I needed clarification. I am really getting a bit confused as to who is saying what to whom...

Think I'll go to bed!

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Sep 13 - 06:12 PM

Ok Ed...I take it that you accept that within male homosexuality there is a serious problem with sexually transmitted disease?
If you do not accept that premise as a fact, there is no point in continuing with this discussion.

If you do accept the premise, then it is surely obvious that the sexual behaviour of the demographic has a bearing on infection rates?

Whether it be the methods employed in this behaviour, or the very large number of sexual partners which are often associated with male to male sex, is as yet unclear.

I would be interested to hear your personal views on the matter under discussion, as you seem to be exceptionally good at asking questions, but rather poor at answering mine.

I also think you are being slightly disingenuous, as I can clearly remember you being involved in several previous threads on this issue; so, I am a little puzzled as to your professed ignorance of my position?

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Sep 13 - 06:27 PM

"Perhaps if the person referred to was to use his energy and campaigning to help rather than hinder, the world would be just about a slightly better place."


Come on now Ian old pal, make up your mind! You've got ME confused now.

Have I to.... "campaign to help", or "just stop breathing"?

I can't do both!! :0(

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 29 Sep 13 - 06:56 PM

Backwoodsman. I am confused on a number of points. I don't recall reading your posts on rounding up gays? Perhaps you can point me, because my post was about Michael feeling sorry for someone who posts hatred and he knows it.

I don't occupy any moral high ground. My first marriage fucked up because I couldn't keep my dick in my trousers, I loved beer more than I should have and I'm about to enjoy a good fart. I have no moral high ground to feel smug about. I'm as normal as the next average bloke. Luckily, The NHS was still there the last time I checked?

Saying something is wrong does not mean you try and polish your halo. I don't have one. I'm a bit of a cunt according to some, a good lay according to some others and limp dicked according to a few. Luckily, since retiring twelve years ago, I have found somewhere to try and put a bit back. Seeing and supporting those working each and every day making lives better, it makes my blood boil when people spew lies like Akenhateon does to support his wish to have a list of all gay people.

Why is that I wonder? Luckily, I notice more and more on this thread are starting to ask the self same question.





Ps. Being a cunt, I have nothing to lose speaking directly to you I suppose. Holding your breath might just help push a bit of needed blood into your brain. Flush out some of the bitterness. Campaign to keep your views quiet, that would be a start.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 29 Sep 13 - 10:27 PM

Ake:

""I take it that you accept that within male homosexuality there is a serious problem with sexually transmitted disease?""

Reply:
I indeed agree that there is a serious problem with HIV, and that the male homosexual community (in some locations) are impacted to a high degree. However,it is not in anyway limited to this community, and the numbers differ greatly between location and country.

""If you do not accept that premise as a fact, there is no point in continuing with this discussion.""

Reply:
That would be up to you Ake. However, it was you who seem to be seeking dialogue on this issue, not me.

""If you do accept the premise, then it is surely obvious that the sexual behaviour of the demographic has a bearing on infection rates?""

Reply:
I agree that the transmission is through sexual contact, I do not know what you mean by "behaviour". If you mean promiscuity, unprotected sex and multiple partners increase the risk of spread, I suspect it is a major factor. However, it seems simplistic to say it includes all members of this community.

""Whether it be the methods employed in this behaviour, or the very large number of sexual partners which are often associated with male to male sex, is as yet unclear.""

Reply:
I do not know what you mean by methods, and this vague statement, so you need to be clear.

""I would be interested to hear your personal views on the matter under discussion"",

Reply:
It was you who proposed a solution to a problem that you defined. So, the ball is in your court, not others. It seems reasonable to ask you many questions on how you came to this definition of the problem, and how propose to implement the solution you seemed to proposed. That is a logical given your definition and proposed solution seems to have many confounding issues associated.

""you seem to be exceptionally good at asking questions, but rather poor at answering mine.""

Reply:
Your questions to me were very broad and assume I define the issue and solution as you do, nor have any such solution worked out. That is where dialogue comes in.

""I also think you are being slightly disingenuous, as I can clearly remember you being involved in several previous threads on this issue""

Reply:
I do not recall any such discussions on this issue. I only recall discussing the RC church, the former pope, condom use and HIV infections in third world countries, such as Africa. Since you made an allegation, can you provide evidence to anything beyond that?

"I am a little puzzled as to your professed ignorance of my position?""

Reply:
IMO, you take your posts and position a bit too seriously. It is indeed likely that many "tuned you out early" and are less than knowledgeable about what you post.

I recall some of your posts related to this topic in various threads in the past, with an abundance of negative reaction from others. To tell you the truth, from the reaction, and what seemed to be an obsession, I assumed you were "a bit of a nut". I rarely dwell on threads, or posts, that are overly negative and quarrelsome, repetitive or lacking in reasoned dialogue. So, I honestly did not focus or know where "you are coming from".   

I reassessed and in this thread, "hearing you out" and give you an opportunity to put your case forward in a reasoned manner and discuss the issues -against the odds, considering those who mostly seem to discount you and your case. With patience, and a few direct questions, I now know a bit more.

BTW, among listing the confounding issues with your suggestions, I have provided content on alternative approaches and definitions of the issues, if you care to step down from what seems to be a rigid position and actually look about and consider alternatives and other "opinions". Your opinions and mine will not be the solution, but with a logical dialogue and an open mind, most folks have the ability to learn from others - to satisfy a thirst for knowledge and reason.


Sorry to be long-winded - but you did seem to ask ;)

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 29 Sep 13 - 10:31 PM

BTW Ake, off to bed. I will not catch any response until the morning.

So, no rush, if you wish to continue a discussion on the topic or not).

I normally don't hi-jack threads. But, due to the nature of this one, it seems like a dead OP topic anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 Sep 13 - 02:10 AM

Your replies are tendentious & question-begging, Ian ~~ & YOU know it. EG your assertion that I am "feeling sorry for someone who posts hatred" begs the question as to whether 'hatred' is involved, as you perceive, or merely the retailing of facts which those of your entrenched mindset will find uncongenial, which is my view of the matter.

Sorry, but this seems to me yet another of those occasions where the politically over-committed cannot see the wood for their PC-preconceived trees. There is no point persistently disputing those whose watchword is "My mind is made up, please do not confuse me with facts", among whose number it is disappointing to find Musket, for whose intellect I generally feel some respect. But that was why I said that, having had my say on the matter, I didn't propose to continue saying the sasme things yet again&again&again&again, which seemed a vain procedure. This hardly, I feel, constituted warrant for Ian's assertion that this was a "rather abrupt stance not to carry on discussing by one regular contributor above".

So BWM, as you see, I was right ~~ it was me, not you, that he meant; which was why I requested clarification.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 Sep 13 - 02:17 AM

To clarify my last post -- the post of mine, subject of Ian's denunciation I was responding, I reproduce below as it was some way back.

~~I have done — no more to rejoin. My points have been made, and further reiteration would be tiresome and otiose.~~

I hope it will be agreed that it does not warrant or justify Ian's description of it as an 'abrupt stance not to carry on discussing'.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: GUEST,Musket evolving slowly
Date: 30 Sep 13 - 02:38 AM

It is my respect for your intellect and level headedness that made me both angry and disappointed in the first place.

By the way I have no political or any other motive. In this context my aim is not allowing healthcare reality to be hijacked by an odious agenda to promote hate and stigmatisation of sections of the general population. Once I have read his diatribe I then get on with my day, supporting those tackling health issues. The comparison between reality and his warped interpretation of it brings out the cunt in me.

Though I make no apology.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: Ebbie
Date: 30 Sep 13 - 02:45 AM

ake, your stance is of concern to me. I do hope you are not telling us in a roundabout way that you, through no 'fault' of your own, were infected? If that is so, most of us would empathise and immediately understand your obsession. If it is NOT so, then I am lost.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Sep 13 - 03:58 AM

Please Ebbie, don't be silly.
I expect more from you, than that sort of nonsense.

To be honest, I cannot understand why everyone, especially those who claim to be liberal-minded, are not absolutely appalled at the situation which is being allowed to develop within MSM.
Not just the human tragedy which is of prime importance, but the massive cost entailed in treating those affected by this spiralling epidemic.

Ed...thank you for your response, but my stance is surely unimportant compared to the predicament of the ever increasing numbers of young people who are being infected within the MSM demographic?
Why do you not spend a bit of time examining the reasons that this is happening and how it can be controlled, rather than bringing my motives under scrutiny?
As far as treatment is concerned you have simply parroted the words of Ian.....who has motives of his own :0).

The procedures he recommends have been in position for years, and have had absolutely no impact on male homosexual infection rates.
Not just in HIV/AIDS, but in all sexually transmitted disease.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 Sep 13 - 04:00 AM

Well, thank you, Ian. But isn't it a bit arrogant to assume that what you are kind enough to rubricate as my "intellect and level-headedness" will always be exemplified by unquestioning agreement with your interpretation of any situation or any statement? I just don't read Ake's attitudes and statistics and reach the same conclusions from them as you do. And I continue to think that this is because your approach to them is agenda-driven, which is, in turn, antithetical to what I have always hereto taken to be your lntellectual level. I am sorry if this grieves and disappoints you; but why do you take that to indicate that my head must have gone aslant and my intellect gone awol? We interpret some things differently, is all. Surely no occasion for such abusive animus?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Sep 13 - 04:04 AM

PS....I think we are starting to get a little "too much information" from Ian.

Information, of which we were only too well aware. :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 30 Sep 13 - 04:15 AM

So, going back to the thread title, can anyone explain why TIA decided to leave? Maybe give examples if they're not buried too deep in some obscure threads ....

?:-(

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 30 Sep 13 - 04:32 AM

Musket, I clearly misunderstood the target of your remark which I quoted at the head of my last post - "Not easy when he has a few suspect apologists saying he should be getting a fair hearing".

Unsurprising though, as I have been suggesting that free speech is essential in a civilised and free society, and for open and meaningful debate - a suggestion which you strongly objected to in the case of akenaton, whose views clash with your own PC standpoint, even to the point of declaring that it was your intent to 'shut him up' (or words to that effect). As you had earlier referred to my views on free speech being tantamount to 'support' for a poster whose views you find odious (and, as I clearly stated, I find them odious too), it is perfectly reasonable that I should assume your remark quoted earlier was aimed at me.

I'm astonished by your response to my post, which made no attempt to address anything I said, but was simply a diatribe centered around your own personality defects and the seedier side of your sex-life! All I can say by way of reply is, "Too much information!".

I'll say it one more time - "Shut the fuck up" is not a winning shot, it's an admission that you've lost the will to discuss, and therefore lost the whole debate. It's the tactic of the extremist, and of the bully. It has no place in civilised society. It merely drives those whose aims and ideals conflict with those who seek the best for everyone underground. Far better to have them air their agenda out in the open, where fairer, more civilised minds can meet them head-on and challenge them with more-powerful and persuasive arguments.

End of.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 Sep 13 - 04:37 AM

To clarify yet further, Ian. If I took Ake's posts to have the implications you perceive in them, then I should object to them as much as you do. But you appear to me to react over-emotionally, with unworthy impugning of his motives for citing them, to what are a simply a set of statistics, whose accuracy SFAICS you have not challenged, which he has adduced as appearing to lead to certain worrying conclusions, as if he had made them up simply to promulgate a hate-filled agenda of YOUR, not HIS, invention; which, as I see the matter he has not done at all. Which is why I say that you appear agenda-driven ~~ that 'progressive' agenda, that starts at the end & works backwards from the assumption that any statement which might appear to have any sort of unfavourable connotations with regard to any demographic, MUST be denounced as culpably discriminatory ~~ even if it happens to be true or accurate.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 30 Sep 13 - 06:29 AM

Sorry Ake, I really do not know who "Ian" is or what his perespective on this issue is. When you post in code, it tells me you are beginning to have too much invested in the game. What $I posted in my opinion, regardless if it is shared by others. A reasonable person, actually interested in discussion, versus "preaching" would respect it as such, and would hold back insults- in the interest of reasoned discourse.

How rude of you to claim that others, that you don't know hjave less concern for those infected by disease- just because they do not see your onbsession as workable. But, I will be a better person than you for not judging you beyond that- as you have judged others with scant information to base it on.

From your last post to me, it seems you are more interested in promoting your own "firm belief". And shooting down the opinions of others, rather than participating in a discussion where folks can learn from the views of others. Good luck in life and on this site with that approach.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: kendall
Date: 30 Sep 13 - 07:57 AM

To those who say "GO! leave, don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out, fuck off, who cares"? I DO! when good people leave here it is OUR loss, not theirs. olddude,Azzizi,Jerry Rassmussen, etc.
If it keeps up, all we will have is trouble makers and assholes. When that happens, I will encourage Max to shut it down.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 30 Sep 13 - 08:00 AM

""To everyone...who thinks I am some sort of monster, I am talking about treating "infectious" disease, not exterminating a race, or a group.
Get a grip."" Akenaton

""Instead of constantly abusing the man, why don't some of you try to find a few genuine counter-arguments."" MtheGM

Right Mike (and Ake),
                   recent information from those specialists who have, since HIV/AIDS first appeared, devoted their efforts to the real problem, curing it, is that HIV is now downgraded to ""a manageable condition which need not significantly affect the life expectancy of sufferers"". The search for cure and vaccination is ongoing and hopeful.

This, Mike, is also evidence! Evidence which has been brushed aside as irrelevant by Ake.

Further to that, when I asked Ake whether his view of homosexuals and Gay marriage would change if HIV/AIDS were eradicated, he sidestepped the question with ""There are other considerations!""

When asked why he opposed Gay marriage as a route to monogamous relationships, he replied that Gays don't want it, in spite of evidence to the contrary. The tenor of his viewpoint is that Gays are inherently promiscuous, when the evidence is that they are n more so than heterosexuals.

You may draw your own conclusions as to what that says about his protestations of being concerned only on grounds of public health.

I have drawn mine.

This post is completely lacking in personal abuse. It is a reasoned response which I have used before to absolutely no avail. For reason to work, one must be speaking to a person who is open to reason and willing to debate honestly.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 30 Sep 13 - 08:01 AM

"Ian" (see upthread "Ian Mather 28 Sep 13 - 06:18 AM") is the same poster as "Musket ...". Presumably "Ian Mather" is the name by which he wants to be known as a musician, thus he is fighting unshielded. Since he is retired, he does not feel he needs to worry about his reputation in "real life". As for inside Mudcat - all has been said.

BTW, akenaton may well be using health arguments to support a different "agenda"; those who wish to discuss that (difficult) problem at all are well entitled to criticize him for that, giving convincing reasons, and no more than once per thread. Those who prefer to skip the reasons, should at least give a link to the thread where the discussion took place. Like most of us, I do not read many threads of general discussion here.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: Zen
Date: 30 Sep 13 - 08:15 AM

So, going back to the thread title, can anyone explain why TIA decided to leave? Maybe give examples if they're not buried too deep in some obscure threads ....

I think this thread probably exemplifies why TIA and many of us no longer bother with or post to Mudcat...

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: The Sandman
Date: 30 Sep 13 - 08:59 AM

people who go and then come back to say why they went, remind me of the child who takes his football away because he has not scored any goals.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 30 Sep 13 - 09:32 AM

An interesting read from UNAIDS on HIV and approaches that are working and approaches that should be avoided.

UN Global HIV report 2013

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 30 Sep 13 - 09:43 AM

UNAIDS news releases:
Message -UNAIDS Executive Director no evidence that punitive approaches work

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 Sep 13 - 09:57 AM

Thanks for reasoned response, Don. Can't see that the fact that a particular disease, previously incurable, is now curable, means that it is now therefore OK to contract it, or supplies any disproof of statistics regarding its distribution, or its prevalence in any particular demographic, which is all I can make of your supposed rejoinder. On the main topic of what our attitude should be to the posts at issue in general; I repeat that I have said my say and don't see any point in perpetually reiterating that I don't interpret them in the pejorative, IMO agenda-driven, way that some do.

Your, and obviously others', mileages may differ; but such is my perception.

Regards

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 30 Sep 13 - 10:25 AM

Suggestions from the 2013 UNAIDS Global report on HIV infections:

""National commitments to respond to the HIV epidemic among men who have sex with men lag behind those for other key populations. Where data are collected, men who have sex with men typically share a disproportionate burden of HIV infection.

In many countries, data on HIV prevalence among men who have sex with men do not exist. Countries need to undertake more concerted efforts to measure the extent of the epidemic among men who have sex with men while building comprehensive services that remove barriers to access. Stigma, discrimination and oppressive legal environments in many settings discourage men who have sex with men from seeking HIV testing and appropriate, high-quality prevention, care and treatment.

National programmes should endeavour to remove legal obstacles to
practising homosexuality, increase sensitivity to the health needs of men who have sex with men, improve access to health services and build programmes to intensify HIV preventive behaviours in this population through improved access to condoms and lubricants and by creating a cultural norm of safer sex. Programmes should also consider using STI services targeted to men as a gateway to improve HIV prevention, treatment and care for men who have sex with men.
At the same time, countries should seize the HIV prevention potential of antiretroviral therapy by accelerating scale-up of HIV treatment and taking steps to implement the 2013 WHO antiretroviral guidelines.

Major resources should be directed towards critical enablers and development synergies that reduce vulnerability and enhance the effectiveness, efficiency and reach of HIV prevention efforts. Such approaches should include legal reform, stigma reduction, legal services, rights literacy, sensitization of police and training of health care workers. Among the many populations who could benefit from critical enablers and development synergies, such funding is notably important for sex workers, men who have sex with men and other marginalized groups at high risk of HIV.""

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 30 Sep 13 - 11:19 AM

""Thanks for reasoned response, Don. Can't see that the fact that a particular disease, previously incurable, is now curable, means that it is now therefore OK to contract it, or supplies any disproof of statistics regarding its distribution, or its prevalence in any particular demographic, which is all I can make of your supposed rejoinder.""

Not my point Mike!

What I was getting at is that the management of the HIV virus is at a stage where it is being prevented from developing into full blown AIDS, thereby removing, I would have thought, the claim that those newly infected with HIV are sick in the normally accepted sense of the word.

I does, in my opinion, alleviate the pressing need to "do something", however draconian, instead of continuing to look for the vaccine which will remove the virus once and for all.

Meanwhile, education is likely to be far more productive than coercion, which will simply result in some hiding their infection, while others take legal action in the Court of Human Rights.

Ake must surely know this, but

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 30 Sep 13 - 11:23 AM

Ake must surely know this, but his agenda won't ever permit him to acknowledge it.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 Sep 13 - 12:03 PM

We are somewhat at x-purposes I think, Don. I have expressed no agreement with, or even opinion on, Ake's desire for compulsory testing, which I appreciate is one of the grounds for some people's denunciations but on which I have no strong feelings. But the initial attitude that, as some of the statistics he cited appeared to redound to the disadvantage of a certain demographic, then they must be false [tho nobody disputed them], and that his mere citing of them at all was iniquitous and proved that he was every possible sort of double-dyed villain who must be scouted out of decent society, was what stuck in my craw ~~ as I have said & make no apology for saying again, an exemplar of the sort of agenda-driven mindset which all-too-often takes the place of rational disputation on the part of certain persons of a knee-jerkingly 'progressive' bent.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Sep 13 - 12:08 PM

Don...very many people still die from AIDS, anti-viral therapy is much less beneficial if the disease is only diagnosed in "late stage".
Even when diagnosed early, the treatment involves large doses of anti-viral drugs for life, from which the long term side effects are unknown.
The costs associated with this lifetime treatment are extremely high, at a time when NHS resources are being cut to the bone.
Compulsory testing and contact tracing would stop much of the present transmission of the disease by MSM who are unaware of their HIV status.

HIV/AIDS is not the only STD problem affecting male homosexuals.
70% of new Syphilis cases are from amongst MSM(2/3%) of the population.

It is clear that something is going badly wrong with the behaviour of male homosexuals.

Ed and Don, and it must be said, the cowardly health agencies, keep on about increasing education, and reducing discrimination as procedures which will stop the epidemic of sexual disease, but they have been in place for years and the infection rates among MSM are rising faster than ever.....it just not make sense to keep pouring money into a problem when there are no positive results.

I have something interesting to say on the issue of "clusters", which the agencies say partially accounts for the difference in infection rates.....but I will hold my fire at present.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Sep 13 - 12:22 PM

From ED's cut and paste.

"Major resources should be directed towards critical enablers and development synergies that reduce vulnerability and enhance the effectiveness, efficiency and reach of HIV prevention efforts. Such approaches should include legal reform, stigma reduction, legal services, rights literacy, sensitization of police and training of health care workers. Among the many populations who could benefit from critical enablers and development synergies, such funding is notably important for sex workers, men who have sex with men and other marginalized groups at high risk of HIV.""

Michael....This is a perfect example of the dangerous politically- correct, gobbledegook that we are facing.

I'm certain you will be well able to read the hidden "message"

"Marginalised"??.....moi?

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 30 Sep 13 - 12:32 PM

I think this thread probably exemplifies why TIA and many of us no longer bother with or post to Mudcat...

Exactly!

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 30 Sep 13 - 01:02 PM

""the cowardly health agencies, keep on about increasing education, and reducing discrimination as procedures which will stop the epidemic of sexual disease, but they have been in place for years and the infection rates among MSM are rising faster than ever.....it just not make sense to keep pouring money into a problem when there are no positive results.""

Ake:
The approach is used because professionals have conducted research to ascertain that approach has worked in many situations. Big problems require big human and financial resources, (including research) which is why many UN member states are contributing - by leading it's citizens (males and females)to prevention and the best treatments currently available (unfortunately, there is no cure).

This contrasts your alternative "police state" type approach, that would likely cost as much (maybe more) and would scare 'em away.

BTW, you are one of the few people I have encountered that seems to refer to efforts to reduce discrimination as cowardly. That seems kinda "over the top" to me - or, did you post with haste?

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: GUEST,grumpy
Date: 30 Sep 13 - 02:05 PM

Three points, all directed at Akenaton.

1) AIDS is not a disease, but a syndrome.

2) People don't die of AIDS, but from a weakness in their immunity systems caused by the HIV virus.

3) You seem remarkably obsessed with whatever homosexual men get up to in the privacy of their bedrooms.

Come out of the closet, Akenaton.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I am gone
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Sep 13 - 03:42 PM

And your point is?