BS: Real Non-belief/not militant

Subject: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Stringsinger
Date: 11 Feb 14 - 12:23 PM

Real non-belief

Real non-belief by rationale human beings is not a militant movement but an abiding
view that eschews the need for religion.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: jacqui.c
Date: 11 Feb 14 - 01:48 PM

Interesting piece. I'm in total agreement. If religious belief helps someone live their life, fine - it works for them so who am I to gainsay that. By the same token I do not want 'believers' labeling me as evil or immoral because I don't need their belief.

IMHO religion has been used as a method of control over the general population - do as 'God' says or you will suffer the consequences. To some degree that still happens today - these are the rules to live by and those who don't follow them can't be good people.

I look at my grandchildren, neither of whom has been brought up with any religious background. Both know the difference between right and wrong, both are caring, considerate children. They really did not need to be frightened into good behaviour with threats of eternal punishment. Compare that to the right wing religious nuts who picket military funerals in the name of their God. I know who I feel are the better human beings.

I volunteer to teach needlecrafts at our local women's shelter, supplying the equipment myself with the help of very generous donations from others who know of this work. I do this because I feel that I can make a difference, no matter how small, in the lives of some of these women and that teaching the crafts that I love sends the ripples out further than I can see. One of my ladies, now back in Virginia, is teaching her daughter to knit, as I taught her. The local homeless shelter had a good consignment of hats ans scarves last Thanksgiving, all made by my ladies and Project Linus and the breast cancer unit of a local hospital have all been beneficiaries of their work. I didn't need any religious body to point me in that direction, just a need to give back to the community in some way.

Problem is, religion can be very divisive. Even within the Christian church there are vast differences in belief, leading to turmoil among those who, supposedly, worship the same entity. The need for validation of one's own particular creed does lead to the production of literature as mentioned in the article - my way is the RIGHT way is the credo.

I find it amusing that the pastor mentioned in the article thinks that only religious rules stop he and his flock from being lecherous drunken murderers. Well, maybe that's true and so religion has a purpose. Most of my non-religious friends don't seem to have this problem and we're really quite a happy bunch!

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Greg F.
Date: 11 Feb 14 - 02:02 PM

the pastor mentioned in the article thinks that only religious rules stop he and his flock from being lecherous drunken murderers

Standard bigotry & delusion. Nuthin' new. Maybe its projection on the pastor's part?

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 11 Feb 14 - 02:12 PM

jacqui.c, sadly a lot of what you say is only too true. Sometimes, as a practising Christian I feel ashamed of what is said and done in the name of religion. I do admire your work with your needlecraft and knitting which helps the folk at the women's shelter and also the recipients of the items you all make. It's obvious you're a lovely, kind person.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Stringsinger
Date: 11 Feb 14 - 02:19 PM

Behavior trumps ideology and what you do and how you act is more important than what you profess to believe. Labeling and setting up meaningless distinctions, whether religious or otherwise, is a windmill tilt that sets up hostility whereby communal agreement can render productive activities and positive social action.

In short, don't rubber stamp. We are all complicated creatures.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Amos
Date: 11 Feb 14 - 03:34 PM

Whether Christian or Muslim
Or Hindu or Jew
By their fruits, ye shall know them
Has always been true.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Feb 14 - 03:58 PM

I don't mind what people believe. I do wish from time to time that some would stfu about it, though.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 11 Feb 14 - 04:18 PM

"the pastor mentioned in the article thinks that only religious rules stop he and his flock from being lecherous drunken murderers"

I don't think that he thinks that at all.


the pastor mentioned in the article thinks that only religious rules stop he and his flock from being lecherous drunken murderers

"The pastor wanted his audience to be clear that the resurrection of Jesus wasn't merely some spiritual metaphor. "If the resurrection didn't literally happen," he shouted, "there is no reason for us to be here! If the resurrection didn't literally happen—there are parties to be had! There are women to be had! There are guns to shoot! There are people to shoot!""

I think he was being colorful, rhetorical and metaphorical for sure. But people go to church, especially high tech megachurch, to be entertained as well as enlightened. I think that he also, like many pastors have the incentive to have them awake when the offering plate is passed around.

From the artcle "You caught the subtext? Atheists (and even liberal Christians) have no basis for morality. Nothing—and I mean nothing!—stands between a godless person and debauchery or lechery or even violence. "

I didn't catch that subtext at all. I don't think he was talking to or about "Atheists (and even liberal Christians)" at all. I think he was talking to and about the people in his pews (or comfy stadium seats as the case may be.) He, if you didn't notice, was speaking about himself. What do you think he would say if it was pointed out to him that some atheists don't party, or drink or shoot. He was making the case that Jesus' sacrifice was for himself and for the people in his church. He is implying to his audience that they need that sacrifice to be moral. I happen to believe that one can follow Jesus as a teacher with or without the sacrifice, clearly the Pastor and his flock do not. That's good for them.

Penn and Teller, and those other 23 people on stringsinger's link believe that they have their own way. More power to them. I am glad they have chosen to be moral and to enjoy creation even though they believe it to be a combination of a clockwork journey from energy to entropy beginning with the Big Bang.   I also believe that but I believe there is more to it than just that. I like to call that mystery "God." I'm not harming anyone with my beliefs so I'll stick with them because they do me good.

I also don't think the Pastor is doing any harm in telling his flock to be moral in the way they want to hear it by being colorful, rhetorical and metaphorical.

I don't think by any means that the people in his church believe that all people who do not believe exactly as they do on these issues are partying, gun toting, drunken killers. But it is possible they think that some of their number, including their own selves might be without Jesus.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Greg F.
Date: 11 Feb 14 - 05:00 PM

I do wish from time to time that some would stfu about it, though.

And/Or stop trying to shove it down other folks' throats.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Feb 14 - 06:32 PM

Especially kids' throats.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Greg F.
Date: 11 Feb 14 - 06:41 PM

Amen, Steve.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Joe Offer
Date: 11 Feb 14 - 07:40 PM

Well, yes, Frank....and no.

The ideal of both non-belief and belief should be positive, nurturing, and non-aggressive. But the reality is that there are both believers and non-believers who are militant about their positions.

It's important to not lump everybody together. Blame aggressive and combative and violent people for their aggression - but don't blame others simply because they share belief or non-belief with the aggressors.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 11 Feb 14 - 08:19 PM

What Joe said.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Feb 14 - 08:52 PM

Unfortunately, there is a fairly common idea that moral behavior comes 'only' from some higher authority. Many people DO believe that all the rules they abide by were dictated by God, Allah, Buddha, The Great Spirit ... whatever. Otherwise, they think, standards of morality would be merely arbitrary and would not be observed. Well.... what do they think IS the case?
Since 'believing' in a supreme being and rule giver is itself arbitrary, it is fairly easy (from the outside) to see that there IS a certain arbitrary nature to the decision(s) about what moral code, if any, to follow.

But some have never even thought about why basic moral principles are... well... basic... and practical. Everyone has been told as child.. "what if everyone did that?" (Like throwing trash out the car window, or drawing on the walls with crayons.)

Mother to misbehaving kid: "Johnny, please be good!" "Mom...I'll be good for a quarter!". "But, why can't you be good for nothing, like your father?"

But because the reasonable, practical side of morality seems so easy to get at, it is also an obvious topic for serious philosophical analysis. From the Greeks on, deep thinkers have worked on how to express the value of "being good for nothing"... or usually 'because it just works out better'.

One of the most detailed and complex works on the issues was Kant's Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic_of_Morals It is a long dissertation saying that it is obvious to anyone who thinks hard enough that moral behavior is practical.

But perhaps the simplest form came from Mammy Yokum, the mother of L'il Abner, who stated clearly... "Good is better'n evil, 'cause it's nicer!"

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 12 Feb 14 - 02:31 AM

DICTIONARY OF ANCIENT DEITIES, Patricia Turner and Charles Russell Coulter, Oxford University Press, Copyright © 2000 by Patricia Turner and the estate of Charles Russell Coulter, ISBN-13 978-0-19-514504-5.

Approximately 10,000 Deities' names listed, each of which at one time and place has been "the one true (best) God" for one or another of a significant number of people. ALL OF WHICH demanded rather similar "observances, moral codes, sacrifices and the like," and ALL OF WHICH promised (according to their priests) similar protections and benefits for their "true believers."

(Multiple names for what were essentially the same deities in different places/times reduces the number of distinct and separate ones to about 8,000.)

Take your pick if you need "something else" to take resposnsibility for your life, or take responsibility for yourself if you think you can.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Joe Offer
Date: 12 Feb 14 - 03:35 AM

Bill, I think the truth of the matter is that moral behavior comes 'only' from individuals who make their own choices.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Feb 14 - 03:36 AM

It seems to me, that the only folks who care a damn about morality today are those with faith in a "higher power"

Self gratification is the new morality. Family values and self sacrifice are sneered at, children are viewed as a hindrance, consumers......even commodities to be bought and sold.

I don't know if society will ever regain its self respect.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 12 Feb 14 - 03:38 AM

What early missionaries believed was that no matter how well-organised, functional and socially profitable to all a 'primitive' society, if they didn't know about Jesus they were jolly well going to change, by cruelty and force if necessary. This view, that all 'primitive' tribes and societies were despicably 'unevolved', is still held today in many forms. I studied social anthropology at Uni as an extra, and one theme that struck me was how terribly arrogant and chauvinist many 'Christian' and 'Muslim' interferers were and are. There are areas of Africa where animism is the general belief. This isn't a religion, merely a tenet that all nature has a voice and a power. These folk are just as moral, organised, socially responsible etc as any religious group. But if it isn't the Muslims it's the Christians barging in and ordering them around. I agree totally with many comments above that among the atheists in the world are many millions of good, kind, generous, benevolent people. I have known many over the years. The problem is, there's a tendency to think ones own mindset is The Correct One. A big mistake IMO.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Feb 14 - 04:11 AM

I agree with your views on "primitive societies" Eliza, but you only have to look at our modern society to see the things that I have pointed our above. I's nothing to do with a "mindset", it's fact of modern life.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Musket
Date: 12 Feb 14 - 04:54 AM

You don't need religion to be a contributing moral member of society. As is obvious around here, you don't need religion to be bigoted either.

Jack, I think you are reading too deep into what the pastor is saying. If his waters were running deep, he should know better as the words in a superficial sense feed the crass stupidity most of us read.   In any case, if he said that without the resurrection being real, there is no point us being here, I would say that er.. we are here. Most of the humans on this planet haven't heard of any resurrection, and 99.999999999% of all other creatures haven't either.

Probably says more about the resurrection fable than why we are here.

I remain very hopeful for society, and see huge benefits with each generation. Yes, our awareness of what is wrong leads to a sense of things going wrong, but that is because as less people use a superstition to judge, we see issues on other shores as issues for people like us, rather than "heathens."

Long term that is good. What isn't good is getting there. But the marginalisation of superstition and the takeup of objective faith where people need it conspire to make society a better place.

Just got to ignore those with placards outside football grounds telling us we are sinners.   Cheeky buggers.....

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 12 Feb 14 - 11:41 AM

"It seems to me, that the only folks who care a damn about morality today are those with faith in a "higher power"

Self gratification is the new morality. Family values and self sacrifice are sneered at, children are viewed as a hindrance, consumers......even commodities to be bought and sold.

I don't know if society will ever regain its self respect."

The only person you can speak for is yourself, you miserable puritan.

Religion plays no part in my life and neither does hedonism.

I do care for those who are different, and believe in "live and let live", "do as you would by done by". I would not dream of committing a crime or hurting another human being and there is not a bigotted bone in my body nor thought in my head.

I simply pity you for your dislike of your fellow humans and hope that they think more of you than you do of them.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Feb 14 - 12:13 PM

"Self gratification is the new morality. Family values and self sacrifice are sneered at, children are viewed as a hindrance, consumers......even commodities to be bought and sold."

I read years ago of a very similar sentiment found scribbled on the walls of Pompeii. In fact, almost every society seems to have those who decry the moral decay and dissolution as THEY see it. In the Victorian era, when all was superficially prim & proper, there were vices and sin galore behind closed doors.

Sorry, ake, but you are projecting based on YOUR notion of
'what ought to be'. It is easy to point at society's problems and make lists of statistics. We had a fellow, Anthony Comstock here in the US in the 1870s-to-1890s who made a career of 'fighting vice & immorality' as **he** saw it. In the same era, we had John_Harvey_Kellogg, the cereal magnate, who wrote books and gave speeches on similar lines...(famous for suggesting that parents spy on their kids lest they indulge in "solitary vice"... and tie their hands if they caught 'em!).

I know I would not care to have YOU, ake, get the power that Comstock had, nor the prominence that Kellogg had.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Feb 14 - 12:54 PM

Man, I just wish it were as acceptable to be of no faith as it is to be of a different faith, for those who accept that much...

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Stringsinger
Date: 12 Feb 14 - 01:35 PM

"The ideal of both non-belief and belief should be positive, nurturing, and non-aggressive. But the reality is that there are both believers and non-believers who are militant about their positions."

Sure, Joe, but this militancy belies their sincerity. It's a form of didacticism that is more prevalent among religious folk than non-believers. Most religious folk are not positive, nurturing and non-agressive and suffer from projected their problems onto non-believers.

"Man, I just wish it were as acceptable to be of no faith as it is to be of a different faith, for those who accept that much..."

Me too. Then we wouldn't have to listen to arguments such as "militant atheism" as if it were some kind of norm, which it is not.

Non-belief is more and more on the rise because the old superstitious model of religion just doesn't work any more. So we see a reaction by those attempting to denigrate non-belief
as "militant" or "weird" or other epithets.

I needed to answer the "militant" label by attempting to inform religious folks that non-believers are not all the same and for some, militancy might just be rationality and for others vice versa.

I accept that religious folks are not all the same and as a non-believer, I have great respect for religious institutions such as the Quakers (AFSC) because they act more in alleviating social ills then talking about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Feb 14 - 02:25 PM

Bill the examples you quote are not what I have in mind when I discuss "morality".
I think more on the modern ideal of self gratification, before the improvement of society. How it is in the process of destroying everything which stands in its way.
Of course we are encouraged by our system to think in such a manner

We talk about the wealth gap, the inequality of living standards, there is also the generation gap, ever widening, as family structures are attacked.
The extended family was an on going educational and psycological course, the absorbed wisdom of the old imparted to the very young, the energy and positivity of youth transferred to old bones and tired minds.....having grown up in such a loving and fulfilling environment, I see why the folks have adopted Mrs Thatcher's premise, that there is "no such thing as society."

I find it slightly insulting that you think I am some sort of Victorian killjoy, everyone has a notion of "what aught to be"
Sex is wonderful, unbridled promiscuity is dangerous and diminishing to everyone who takes part in it.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 12 Feb 14 - 03:11 PM

"I think more on the modern ideal of self gratification, before the improvement of society. How it is in the process of destroying everything which stands in its way."

Modern? Modern? It has always been thus. That is the principle and often repeated lesson of the Old Testament. People are bad. People act badly. God punishes the World. But he promised Noah, he would not punish the World again. Some Jewish Prophets said that he would punish anyone who would mess with Israel , but unless by punish the meant give Israel's enemies which lasted hundreds of years, that didn't exactly work out. But in the New Testament, we are each responsible for our own bad behavior, we are not responsible for the bad behavior of our family, our people our tribe or our nation. This is a great relief. This is a great responsibility.

Akenaton, let us worry about our own morals as we would have others worry or not about theirs.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Feb 14 - 04:57 PM

"...you think I am some sort of Victorian killjoy..."

All I think is that you, in various ways and on various topics, express more concern than usual about the ills of society and the causes thereof. Your recent post explicitly says this. Given your posting history in general, I would, as I said, be concerned if you were suddenly in a position to control & influence actual laws & procedures to any marked degree.

(How's that for genteel avoidance of direct insult?)

The guy who wrote on the walls of Pompeii said very similar stuff to YOUR screed.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Feb 14 - 06:05 PM

Society is under attack Bill, and the church is under siege.
Even I, as presently an atheist, can see that.

I suppose I have about ten years of life left, so I wont see the worst effects.....but that does not mean that I don't care about the world my descendants will inherit.

Given YOUR posting history, I am extremely worried that people like you already HAVE the power (through the media), to adversely affect the sort of world my grand children and great grandchildren, will and are being, born into.
You think you speak for society and "human rights", don't flatter yourself, the world is a very large place and society is made up of myriad opinions

"Everyone has a notion of "how things aught to be"

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Feb 14 - 06:09 PM

Though I love this place, it is a goldfish bowl...highly unrepresentative of society in general.....comforting and homely for some of the "big fish".....:0)

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Feb 14 - 06:17 PM

"Akenaton, let us worry about our own morals as we would have others worry or not about theirs."

Come on Jack, let's be REAL Christian, let's NOT pass on the other side!
I might even be thinking of joining you, I have relations in Canada who think and speak much as you do.   :0)
I do have problems with the afterlife though. :0(

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Feb 14 - 06:20 PM

The man who wrote it on the walls of Pompeii was very likely quite right, talking about the time in which he was living.

Times change, and things change over time. At any time there are likely to be some things getting better and other things getting worse. It reasonable to expect that there will be periods when more things, and more important things, are getting worse than are getting better.

Think about something like being able to get a job, or get a roof over your heads, just for example. Definitely a lot worse than a generation or two back. Think about physical access for people in wheelchairs. Definitely a lot better.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Feb 14 - 06:31 PM

"Society is under attack Bill, and the church is under siege."

What a fascinating, empty generalization. It is simply rhetorical hyperbole that vaguely expresses a discontent... with no specifics.

", I am extremely worried that people like you already HAVE the power (through the media), to adversely affect the sort of world my grand children and great grandchildren, will and are being, born into."

We over here have "the media" on every conceivable 'side' of every issue. It takes only moments to find a TV channel or web site to echo whatever odd cause you care to study. *I* have only the power of one vote, and various conservatives are working on limiting the vote to THEIR side.

,... and BTW, I have never in my life presumed to " speak for society and "human rights". If you study my posting history in excruciating detail, you'd see that much of my opinions center on examining the style, logic and flaws in various stances. Some of my personal opinions do, of course, come to light in this process, but if you think you see any specific one you quibble with, I will try to give clear, concise explicit reasons for my position
"...the world is a very large place and society is made up of myriad opinions. Ain't it the truth... ☺

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 12 Feb 14 - 06:40 PM

Its a little tough to process an atheist complaining that the "church" is under siege. The Church is not under siege. The Church simply has to adjust to not being the center of our culture and the filter through which all things must be seen. I think that is a good thing.

You a   re a "conservative" aren't you? what about the marketplace of ideas?

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Feb 14 - 07:58 PM

Jack, I'm a socialist politically, and a conservative socially....does that sound a bit daft?
It isn't really if you think about it.
Don't understand why you don't see the church and people of faith as being under pressure from the "liberal intelligentsia":0)....just look on these pages for a start, they want to see an end to all conservatism, social and political. In fact "Thatchers dream", the "end of society", brought about by "liberals".....How ironic.
Only Mr McGrath has the intellect to appreciate THAT joke!
I think the church can guide people in good way, over here we tend to be less aggressive in promoting faith, than some US Christians
I think Jesus lived and promoted a philosophy of common sense and understanding, for the time in which he lived.....though most of it is still valid today.

The afterlife is too big a step for me, I don't think the idea of Heaven, Hell, the Holy spirit, was meant to be taken literally, but they certainly have meaning for all sorts of people in all sorts of personal ways.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Feb 14 - 08:14 PM

I agree with your post Mr McGrath, but I once as a child, learned a great truth.
My uncle who had withered legs, had no wheelchair, or access, he had crutches which he carved for himself from tree branches. His life was a constant struggle as he worked felling trees by the great strength of his arms.
When I childishly asked him why he did it, why he drove himself harder than his brothers, he said "Alex, its only the struggle to be really independent that makes life worthwhile"
He was one of the kindest bravest people I have ever known.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Stringsinger
Date: 12 Feb 14 - 08:21 PM

"Jack, I'm a socialist politically, and a conservative socially....does that sound a bit daft?"

Not at all. George Lakoff would call you a "bi-conceptual" (which has nothing to do with sexual proclivities). Check out his books, "Moral Politics" and "Don't Think of an Elephant".

"Its a little tough to process an atheist complaining that the "church" is under siege."

Why? The "church"has been under siege for years. Many non-believers come from the congregations that spawned their non-belief and most non-believers know more about the so-called "church" than many who attend their services. This is why they leave.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Feb 14 - 08:34 PM

You have a socialist media Bill?.....are you sure?....just a tiny one?....:0).

And here was me thinkin' your political and economic ststem was a corporate capitalist rat race, assisted by woolly "liberal" Quislings...Oh how silly of me!!

I suppose that's why I post all those pesky "empty generalisations" and "vague rhetorical hyperbole".....with NO specifics no less!!

My, but your are a great great man! How lucky I am to be the recipient of nice genteel insults from someone so elevated....   :0)

Perhaps you could find the time to post me your "bum paper"....jist whin yer finished wey it..like?........Ake the Unworthy.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Feb 14 - 08:39 PM

Thanks Frank...you're one of the good guys.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Feb 14 - 09:29 PM

We have 'some' Socialist media, to be sure. We have one Senator, (Bernie Sanders of Vermont) who says he IS 'socialist'.... but he is one of the sanest, most reasonable, intelligent politicians you'll ever meet.... and you'd not recognize him as socialist easily if you sat and talked to him.
Some of his **wishes** tend toward a socialism... of sorts.., but he's not an authoritarian, and allows democracy to churn onward.

Bum paper? (It's 'toilet paper' here.) Sure...I use good quality. You might get 2-3 uses from it. Send me your address by PM. ;>) (Stop the "vague rhetorical hyperbole", and I'll include a new sheet with each two used ones.) We 'liberals' can be very liberal in a good cause.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 12 Feb 14 - 10:00 PM

I think there are good moral people is all walks of life.

Snotty ex scientists and Internet posters saying silly things about religion doesn't ad up to a siege.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 13 Feb 14 - 02:57 AM

Society is what you make of it and what you can do to contribute to it. I believe one of your past Presidents said something along those lines.

I find it both sad and ultimately unhelpful when some people judge society by their own failings.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Feb 14 - 04:08 AM

It seems to me, that the only folks who care a damn about morality today are those with faith in a "higher power"

Did you actually read the item linked in the opening post? It contains the views of 20 people who have no faith in a higher power but do seem to care about morality. They are just a sample. There are millions of others I can assure you. What I realised years ago is that most people are intrinsically good. It is the bad ones, of whatever faith or otherwise, who make the news because they are the exceptions.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Feb 14 - 04:42 AM

Bill....all of your latest post was a "cop out".....even the bum paper!

Your media stinks, just like ours!

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Feb 14 - 08:23 AM

We have one Senator, (Bernie Sanders of Vermont) who says he IS 'socialist'.... but he is one of the sanest, most reasonable, intelligent politicians you'll ever meet.

Why "but"??

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 13 Feb 14 - 10:14 AM

"Did you actually read the item linked in the opening post? It contains the views of 20 people who have no faith in a higher power but do seem to care about morality."

A word of warning DtG

Did you read it? A lot of the people did not mention morality. Awe and beauty were very common themes of the quotes. Anyone who reads what you said above and then actually reads the piece you sarcastically suggested that Ake did not read is likely to form a negative opinion of the veracity of your opinions.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 13 Feb 14 - 10:18 AM

"Why "but"?? "

Socialists famous in this country, Mao, Stalin, Castro, Hugo Chavez and others, do not have the reputation for calm measured reason that Mr. Sanders enjoys.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Feb 14 - 10:29 AM

Thanks, Jack... I would have spent 4 paragraphs saying it. You got it in one sentence.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Feb 14 - 10:33 AM

Steve... you can read about Bernie here.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Feb 14 - 10:35 AM

The assumption that what people believe can be neatly arranged around a single axis - typically expressed as left/right or conservative/liberal etc - does not really bear close examination.

For all kind of things there is no natural connection between where we stand on issues. Gun control, abortion, climate change, capital punishment - none of those bear any natural connection with any of the others, let alone with whether we believe in socialist economics. Even where there might seem a natural connection, in practice it often isn't found. For example being against capital punishment and abortion might seem a natural connection.

A more accurate way of placing people would one involving more than one axis - for example a three dimensional model, with the left right axis at right angles with the permissive/authoritarian one, and a third one perhaps at right angles again relating to religious belief.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Feb 14 - 10:43 AM

A word of warning DtG
Did you read it?

Yes I did. Every bit, thanks.

My words: Did you actually read the item linked in the opening post?

Your reply: you sarcastically suggested that Ake did not read...

How on earth can you glean any amount of sarcasm from a simple question such as that is beyond me I'm afraid. As Ake seemed to take it in the way it was intended I am at a loss as to what you are on about.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Stringsinger
Date: 13 Feb 14 - 11:02 AM

"Socialists famous in this country, Mao, Stalin, Castro, Hugo Chavez and others, do not have the reputation for calm measured reason that Mr. Sanders enjoys."

I would submit that Mao and Stalin were not real socialists but more tyrannical.
Castro was a military man and somewhat of a dictator but he did a lot for his people
and his brand of socialism made Cuba a country with a workable modern healthcare system and a high literacy rate. US propaganda has painted a bad picture of Cuba purposely because they couldn't exploit it like they did other Hispanic countries.

What "others" are we talking about? Allende? The Sandinistas? Mossadegh? Be explicit please.

Also, morality is implied in the reverence for life in the above article. You don't
need religion to be moral and in fact religion often gets in the way of morality turning it
into hypocrisy.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 13 Feb 14 - 11:14 AM

SS, because your unique verbal proclivities and prejudices have reduced you to labeling and article entitled this "20 Atheist Quotes About Joy and Meaning That Crush 'Angry, Empty' Stereotype " to "Real Non-belief/not militant", I think I must decline your request for further examples.

I was simply trying to say that I thought that it was obvious that Bill said "but" to counter the typical US perception of socialist figures. The famous ones tend to be larger than life, emotional bloviators when compared to Mr. Sanders.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: frogprince
Date: 13 Feb 14 - 11:27 AM

Jack, can you not grasp that what "reduced" Stringsinger to labeling the thread as he did was simply the way in which the construct of "Militant Atheism" has been flogged until the dead horse is smeared over the landscape like hamburger?

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Mrrzy
Date: 13 Feb 14 - 12:27 PM

I just want non-belief to be as acceptable to people of faith as being of a different faith is. Why is it that so many people can only accept disbelief in their own deity/ies as long as you profess belief in another's?

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Feb 14 - 01:41 PM

That's not such a remote thing to expect, Mrrzy.

Here's a quote I found from an atheist journalist who interviewed Pope Francis recently.

The pope comes in and shakes my hand, and we sit down. The pope smiles and says: "Some of my colleagues who know you told me that you will try to convert me."

It's a joke, I tell him. My friends think it is you want to convert me.

He smiles again and replies: "Proselytism is solemn nonsense, it makes no sense. We need to get to know each other, listen to each other and improve our knowledge of the world around us."

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Feb 14 - 03:51 PM

Yes Yes ...I know, you have a socialist politician, and you have a blackish president, but is there an alternative voice in the MEDIA?

The most powerful political weapon ever invented and it is completely controlled by the "Corporate/"liberal" axis.

The media controls how we vote, how we think, and even what we think about. It demonises what it sees as a danger to the system that feeds it...it churns out millions of dumb, sound bite addicted, befuddled, human flotsam.    Ready made cannon fodder, with no views of their own and nothing to construct opinions with.
The purpose of the media is to manipulate humanity, it is Fascist in nature, demonising dissent, shutting down discussion, the god of the "silencers".
The media has become the enemy of freedom.

Our media in the UK is just as bad,

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 13 Feb 14 - 04:38 PM

Akenaton,

I have an alternative view.

The purpose of the "corporate media" in this country is to sell soap.

The purpose of the public media is to get donations.

The purpose of "state media" in Canada, Australia and Britain, at least is to attract enough eyeballs to justify their government subsidies.

People sit in front of their TVs and vote for the news they want with their remote controls. Do you think that someone who owns a gas station, or for that matter, drives a car, wants to hear about "carbon pollution" all day?

Do you think that an American, tired of war, wants to be reminded of what is happening in Syria?

A person who learned about Moses and Joshua in Sunday school, might change the channel when news of Gaza is presented as negative to Israel.

The media is telling us what we want to hear. End of story.


Except media is expanding to the point where smaller and smaller niches are tuning into the news they want to hear.

Here is a US media outlet that appears on many radio stations and some Cable/internet TV services in the USA. Amy Goodwin's politics, I think, are a lot like yours. Perhaps you would like to donate so that she can be seen more widely. If you don't, at least you can get your news from a point of view that does not recognize any of the differences between political parties in the G7.

http://www.democracynow.org/

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Musket
Date: 14 Feb 14 - 07:20 AM

Blackish?

The mind boggles....

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Feb 14 - 12:46 PM

But it's accurate enough isn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 14 Feb 14 - 01:48 PM

"Sex is wonderful, unbridled promiscuity is dangerous and diminishing to everyone who takes part in it."

Sexual activity between consenting adults is THEIR business, not YOURS, and your obsessive interest in it says more about you than about them.

You were obviously born 50 years later than you should have been.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Feb 14 - 02:20 PM

There are many more dangers associated with sexual promiscuity around today, than there were 50 years ago.

Also, we were not promiscuous, as we knew that girls could easily be made pregnant and if we made a girl pregnant, we were expected to be responsible for our actions.

Easy access to birth control in the sixties and seventies removed the danger of unwanted pregnancies, but also saw the start of large sexual infection rates, culminating in the epidemic we now see amongst male homosexuals.

Promiscuity is dangerous to society and all who participate in it.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Feb 14 - 05:13 PM

>>There are many more dangers associated with sexual promiscuity around today, than there were 50 years ago.<<

Yeah? Other than HIV infection, I can't think of one.

>>Also, we were not promiscuous, as we knew that girls could easily be made pregnant and if we made a girl pregnant, we were expected to be responsible for our actions.<<

I wasn't, I was five, but I was born when my parents were 19 and my whole childhood was miserable because they were promiscuous in 1958.

Ake, you seem to be pining for a past that never was. Its a common thing when we get older.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Greg F.
Date: 14 Feb 14 - 05:52 PM

You bet, Pharoah - blame it all on "The Sixties". A preponderance of idiots do.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Feb 14 - 05:57 PM

Nah Jack ...it was real alright, we lived in a rural community, more like a tribe really.
Not much money, but a great "culture", everyone pitched in, we all depended on one another, so we couldn't find the time to bitch about who was better off.

The music was the best thing of all, singing, fiddling, piping, dancing, the weekly "concert" was attended by young and old.
Unforgettable.

When I was a very young boy, our house burned down....we lost everything, all our furniture, cloths, bedding and what little money we had.
Our neighbours, sent a horse and cart round the district and every family gave something to help us, although they themselves were very poor.....my folks never forgot that kindness and all their lives did all they could for the community......I try to carry that on as best I can.

Of course there were exceptions, and I'm sorry that you appeared to have had such an unhappy young life, but you seem to have overcome that ....perhaps your belief has helped you get through?

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Stringsinger
Date: 14 Feb 14 - 06:08 PM

The militancy that is expressed here is mythical. The real militancy comes from a reactionary stance to any positive statements made by non-believers as if they are not qualified because they don't adhere to a "higher power". It's a form of autocracy that is common practice in most religious communities. This authoritarian view is being replaced by a more compassionate rational view of the world which still remains as a secular force in our country, the part of the First Amendment that says religion is not a requisite condition for public office.

Fortunately, many are turning away from traditional religions as the preaching opens up the floodgates for hypocrisy.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Feb 14 - 06:34 PM

"Yeah? Other than HIV infection, I can't think of one."

That's quite a significant other!

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Janie
Date: 14 Feb 14 - 09:19 PM

How about the notion of peace, love, respect, for everyone? No exceptions.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Feb 14 - 09:45 PM

>>perhaps your belief has helped you get through? <<

I was an atheist and depressed to the brink of suicide. Then I put myself in God's hands.

That's a heartwarming story about your family. I can see why you would want the whole world to be like the place where you grew up. It never was. Our neighborhood now is quite nice. People look out for each other. The values you crave still exist everywhere, in pockets I think. I think they have little to do with government policies, or The church. I don't think you can get back to them through politics. Certainly being unkind to Gay people won't do it. It does say in the Bible that Gay men should be put to death. But it also says one should be put to death for touching the skin of a pig. That is what was said during the Ham v Nye debate. The Church of England is becoming more and more tolerant of gay marriage how about you?

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 15 Feb 14 - 03:29 AM

All this talk of HIV, an awful condition if you test positive yet even on this thread, total ignorance of sexual health risks. Chlamydia has the awful reputation of sounding like a Shakespearian character. Yet it, together with the majority cause for cervical cancer is the largest risk to the largest numbers.

Incidentally, both affect more women than men so don't tend to be put forward as God's retribution on perversion. After all, isn't there something about using a whore being preferable to having a hand crank?

Presumably the bible doesn't have the answers after all. If it advocated masturbation rather than condemning it, priests might just be in tune with good healthy advice. (It lowers risk of prostate cancer for that matter.)

Take Capt Pickard up to warp speed! You know it makes sense.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Feb 14 - 12:24 PM

Janie, I don't love and respect everyone. My respect has to be earned and I have loved only a very few people in my life, but it was real love.

Sex is not the problem, promiscuity is a big problem for society.
The epidemic among male homosexuals is being covered up for political reasons.....this is shameful and extremely dangerous.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 15 Feb 14 - 01:43 PM

'Love' is a word with a myriad interpretations. If one uses it in the widest possible sense, it signifies (IMO) goodwill towards all humankind, an attitude of kindliness and sympathy, understanding and a desire to help and promote the happiness of others. That's a tall order, but not confined to any particular religion, or to atheism either. With regard to the scathing attitude of religious people toward non-believers, that occurs also between religions. I've been on the receiving end of some quite nasty comments from fundamentalist Muslims because I haven't 'converted' to Islam to match my husband. I've also had one or two veiled hints that 'it would be nice if my hubby were to become a Christian' from a woman at my church. If only people would be content to believe or not and stay out of the faces of other folk. We manage beautifully within our very happy marriage to each mind our own business religiously!

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 15 Feb 14 - 02:18 PM

"The epidemic among male homosexuals is being covered up for political reasons.....this is shameful and extremely dangerous. "

Covered up? Yeah, OK.

They cover it up by making movies about it?

16 AIDS movies.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Musket
Date: 15 Feb 14 - 02:35 PM

And what's more, gays put a camera in his forehead so they can spy on him....

For political reasons.....

Eliza. When we were married, it was in a hotel and a guest, a relative of Mrs Musket, asked if we would have been happier marrying in a church, I quickly tried to defuse the situation by mentioning that I was not religious. "Oh dear" she said. "Where did your parents go wrong?"

I say quickly tried to defuse it because the cathedral where Mrs Musket had been a dutiful bell ringer for most of her life refused to let us marry there on account of me being divorced. Fine except a member of their cathedral council was in the same boat but he seemed to above such rules. I love tradition so a cathedral wedding would have been nice. My hypocrisy, being similar to 95% of anyone else married at a church was nothing to the breathtaking hypocrisy of the CofE.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 15 Feb 14 - 02:43 PM

Good gracious Musket, that woman had a blasted cheek! It's like those horribly cruel questions about why one hasn't had any children. I'd have replied that HER parents had obviously 'gone wrong' in not teaching her any manners. These people are simply arrogant to the core.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 15 Feb 14 - 05:03 PM

You can chose your friends but not your relatives.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Feb 14 - 06:50 PM

No point in lashing out in response to a remark you don't like. Even if you want to make the other person feel bad, you are more likely to achieve that by being nice.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 15 Feb 14 - 06:53 PM

r u saying its crueler to be nice?

"Cruel to be Nice" is a great title for a song.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Feb 14 - 06:57 PM

No, but more likely to achieve a helpful outcome, and maybe even get a change in attitude, which you'll never get the other way.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Feb 14 - 02:37 AM

yet even on this thread, total ignorance of sexual health risks. Chlamydia has the awful reputation of sounding like a Shakespearian character. Yet it, together with the majority cause for cervical cancer is the largest risk to the largest numbers.

Are you suggesting that it is comparable to the risk of HIV?

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 16 Feb 14 - 03:27 AM

I'm saying what I am saying.

Anything else is an invitation for you to twist what people say. Your agenda is clear.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Feb 14 - 04:23 AM

If you are saying that, you are a very ignorant health professional.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 16 Feb 14 - 04:46 AM

I'm not a health person. I'm certainly not ignorant.

Your silly yet with nasty intent comparison is used by those with bad agendas all the time and the "health people" as you call them swat the arguments like flies. If they didn't, we would have false flag assurances and concentrate funding in the wrong areas.

Your HIV vs chlamidia circular argument is normally portrayed when foolish people make stupid comparisons and I retort ; which is the biggest risk of death, sky diving or smoking? Trying to pick is similar to you asking people to pick between your choices above.

If you have unprotected sex with someone you meet on a nightclub on the same night, you have, according to HPA estimates, 20% chance of contracting chlamidia and 0.002% chance of exposure to HIV. The risk of exposure leading to positive status, including becoming a carrier is less again. The chances of chlamidia screwing up your life are much lower than HIV but the chances of your infection screwing up the lives of others is much higher.

I wish reality could be so black and white as your simple ignorant portrayal of it. Now piss off and give thanks , it being Sunday, for not having the intelligence to have to understand the troubles of the world. They say it is bliss, lucky twat.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Feb 14 - 04:55 AM

It was you who made the comparison in the post I quoted.
I just challenged you on it.

You have just said, The chances of chlamidia screwing up your life are much lower than HIV but the chances of your infection screwing up the lives of others is much higher.

"much higher" ?????
I challenge that too.
Ignorance or dishonesty?

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 16 Feb 14 - 05:27 AM

There used to be boy at school who, if any of us said " about half a dozen" he would say "actually it was seven."

He was temporarily cured by having his nose rubbed in dogshit till he learned some social manners.

Yes twat, much higher. You may not know you have it but the woman you fuck later stands a high chance of becoming infertile. I'd call that screwing up someone's life. What do you call it, God's punishment?

Piss off to church, they miss your pedantry in the ministry.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Feb 14 - 07:33 AM

Ridiculous.
There is no comparison.
Chlamydia, unlike HIV can be cured, quickly and easily.
Chlamydia, unlike HIV, may cause no complications even if untreated.
Chlamydia, unlike HIV, does not kill you. Worst case, rarely, if untreated, it may cause infertility, but never a lingering death, unlike HIV.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: jacqui.c
Date: 16 Feb 14 - 07:54 AM

i would agree with JtS re the world fifty years ago. Unlike Akenaton, the world that I grew up in was not a kindly or helpful one. Maybe in small, close knit communities that may have been the case but on larger yowns people had a tendency to mind their own business and condemnation of others, for either not being 'nice' people or for being too full of themselves was very common. I was a lonely child from a disfunctional family but, at that time, there was no system to detect the fact that I was struggling, and certainly no 'community' worth the name. I got pregnant at 17 - married the father and, by the time I was 22 was divorced with two small children. My neighbours looked on me, for the most part, as a threat to their own marriages - as if I might lure their husbands away - or as a low life, because I was divorced. There was very little friendliness or support and I raised my kids pretty much on my own until I remarried ten years later.

I would mention that SADs were much more prevalent in Victorian times and earlier, syphilis and ghonnorhea being much more common then, before the advent of penicillin. I wonder how many people suffered the results of chlamidia, without being aware of the fact? Nowadays there are more tests to check for these diseases and so we are more aware of them. Methods of treatment have also improved. Human beings have always had the tendency toward promiscuity, otherwise the oldest profession would have been redundant. However, it seems that now that women can also indulge without the high risk of pregnancy, this is considered to be a real problem. There is still a lot of hypocrisy in this world - that is one of the things that turned me away from organised religion in the first place.

For myself, I try to live and to treat other people in a way that I would want to be treated. If any action would be upsetting to me then I try to avoid behaving in that way. I don't always succeed and there are certain people to whom I find it difficult to apply that tenet, but I do try and use that benchmark. I'm not looking for a reward in the hereafter - I don't believe in heaven or hell - but just the feeling that I might have done something to make someone else a little happier is sufficient.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 16 Feb 14 - 11:50 AM

"Yes twat, "

tch tch tch....

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Musket
Date: 16 Feb 14 - 11:54 AM

Keith. What has cure to do with prevalence? What has prevalence to do with diagnosis? What has a progressively harmful condition to do with a carrier status?

If you want to find out about such things, there are books you can read before trying to debate what you clearly don't understand, even if your far right websites tell you to question reality.

Just stop asking me, as I don't suffer fools gladly.



Jacqui. I see your point. You are right regarding pre antibiotic STDs. These are still an issue as although the cure may be easy if caught early enough, the trick is (as well as safe sex) to present early enough. At this time, far too many people see HIV as the only major issue, on account of the chronic condition it leads to. My anger at religious fools such as Keith and bigots such as Akenaton is their selective data trawls to support homophobia. They sicken me. I am no expert but many experts work alongside me in healthcare and their job is made harder by disinformation and scare mongering, usually in support of hate. Bad enough the newspapers doing it without people having to put up with it on websites such as this.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Stringsinger
Date: 16 Feb 14 - 11:57 AM

I can understand why people in the GLBT community are turning against religious intolerance shown by most institutionalized churches.

Promiscuity can be a form of rebellion and actually a kind of anger against women and men. The " world's oldest profession" is based on the premise of a kind of defeatist attitude that doesn't explore that it maintains violence against women, encouraging pimps, enslaving women, and child sex trafficking. Through prostitution, many venereal diseases are brought into society leaving victims that have nothing to do with their origin.

Many religious sects encourage an atmosphere of violence against women and children, causing women to become robotic sex toys for degenerate men. The cliche of the "minister's daughter" is founded in truth.

Today, sex trafficking is at an all time high. The Todd Akins and David Vitter's of the world
have lead the public to tolerate the intolerable by justifying rape and supporting prostitution.

Religious leaders have conditioned their flocks to become brainwashed and obedient "lambs", making them suseptible to tolerating or ignoring societal ills and dysfunctions.

When people learn to think for themselves, stop being spoon fed scriptures and looking to religious leaders who, by their placing faith in them, become emotionally immune to the dehumanization of sex, abuse of women and children by priests, ministers and deacons,
then can society cut through the ruse of religious propaganda , gross authoritarianism and reactionary dogma to uplift true, not religious, moral values.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Jeri
Date: 16 Feb 14 - 12:15 PM

For the record, chlamydia doesn't cause cervical cancer. It can lead to pelvic inflammatory disease and infertility if not treated (for years, usually). I believe that women are automatically tested for it when they get a pap smear.

Musket was probably thinking of HPV (Human Papilloma Virus), which causes genital warts and for which there's a vaccine.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Feb 14 - 01:42 PM

Musket.
This is what I am challenging.

on this thread, total ignorance of sexual health risks. Chlamydia has the awful reputation of sounding like a Shakespearian character. Yet it, together with the majority cause for cervical cancer is the largest risk to the largest numbers.

The chances of chlamidia screwing up your life are much lower than HIV but the chances of your infection screwing up the lives of others is much higher

Nothing about "cure," "prevalence," or "diagnosis."
Just "risk" and "screwing up lives."

Unless you start treatment before symptoms appear, HIV will kill you.
Chlamydia will not, and even untreated, most people suffer no complications at all.
The only person who has shown "total ignorance of sexual health risks" on this or any thread is YOU Musket.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Feb 14 - 07:45 PM

What a very unpleasant school you evidently went to, Musket. You give the impression you feel the bullies were justified.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Feb 14 - 07:48 PM

That is precisely the point Keith.
I just wish some other members would allow themselves to consider the real effects of HIV, death or lifetime health care, confined in the main, to one tiny sexual minority.

If people would just forget their political allegiances for a moment and concentrate on the issue, they might come to understand that cutting infection rates in this demographic is a necessity and certainly not a demonstration of any kind of "hatred"
Ineffective procedures like those which have been used for the last ten years are useless, as shown by the ever increasing HIV and other STD infection rates amongst MSM.

It's simply not honest to hide the negative aspects of male to male sexuality under the smokescreen of "gay marriage", which will in reality, only affect a tiny minority of a tiny minority.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Musket
Date: 17 Feb 14 - 04:20 AM

Actually Jeri, I was stating cervical cancer in isolation. Sorry if it read as to do with Chlamydia. There is an uncomfortable but proven link between promiscuity and cervical cancer. Whilst it is not the single trigger, it is enough of a problem for CC to be classified as an STD where appropriate.

Keith is making a point. Though be buggered if I know what it is. Just because most people are carriers rather than suffering from a condition doesn't make it any better. It is because of attitudes like yours that so many women find themselves incapable of full term pregnancy. There is a huge issue with chlamydia and saying it isn't as bad as having your leg bitten off by a shark, cancer or HIV is a bit like me saying it isn't an issue if we stop funding mental health because we need the money for tit jobs.

You get better. I'm even cutting and pasting your more silly contributions into a presentation on patient participation versus ignorance of the issues. I have some from newspaper websites, and out of a dozen up to yet, you get two. Go on, give me a third eh?

Kevin. Any chance of wording your contributions so you actually accuse me of supporting bullying? It's what you think, so why not say it? Anyway, if it didn't make him a better person, it at least may have cleared his sinuses. Win, win.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Musket
Date: 17 Feb 14 - 04:30 AM

Hey worm!

Even in Scotland (whilst they can afford it for now) HIV and the gay community gets addressed. After all, more gay people come forward responsibly for screening than any other group identifier.

Next.

Every time you put gay marriage in parentheses and every time our sanctimonious twats such as the Jack and Keith show don't challenge you, I realise all the more that they are comfortable with your wicked despicable stance.

I'd love to discuss these issues but I prefer members of the human race, decent people. The worm I can handle, ignorant peasantry breeds stupidity. If it didn't, tabloids wouldn't sell copy. But Jack, Keith and a few others try to tell us they are intelligent.

Yet keep quiet whenever the worm calls marriage between some people a liberal smokescreen, or says that gay people are a political ploy, or calls them perverted, or calls for them to be forcefully tested for a condition that affects heterosexual people in the majority.

Interesting.....

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Feb 14 - 04:52 AM

To say that chlamydia poses " the largest risk to the largest number" compared to HIV is ignorant or dishonest.

The vast majority suffer no symptoms or complications.
It is easily cured.
Even if you leave it untreated, seventy percent suffer no complications, the very worst of which is infertility, not death.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Musket
Date: 17 Feb 14 - 05:01 AM

Oh, that's alright then.

Infertility isn't a problem. Let's stop looking at it. After all. We can always spend the money on IVF. Fucking up young girls' lives isn't a problem. After all, they are asking for it, sleeping around eh?

Not bad Keith. But I already have a Daily Ma*l readers comment saying about the same thing. This person said we should stop funding any sexual health services as they ask for it and should wait till they are in a Christian marriage before using sex as a procreation necessity.

I'll use that one instead of hours, as it is funnier.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Musket
Date: 17 Feb 14 - 05:51 AM

Yours, not hours.



iPad for sale.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Feb 14 - 06:40 AM

What you write there Musket does seem to indicate that you do see the bullying as understandable, and that the boy was asking for it, and it didn't do him any harm.

I doubt if you'd say the same of an assault on a young girl who went out in a short skirt. But many would, and I don't see an enormous difference between the attitude indicated.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: GUEST,Seaham cemetry
Date: 17 Feb 14 - 06:58 AM

I was full of myself when I went in the RAF, as school didnt seem to knock it out of me. Its sometimes good to get it kncoked out early, makes you more acceptable later.

School kids are in three groups and one group. The three groups are bullies, those being bullied and those hoping they dont get bullied. The one group is all kids have an in built pack animal top dog complex. Even the lasses.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Musket
Date: 17 Feb 14 - 07:06 AM

Don't read into it. My point is that it is very irritating when people clarify minute points rendering the thrust irrelevant.

When they do it for a purpose, it is pathetic.

I have no view on the kid, except his taunting nick name was Playdo Dogtrop, although I forget his real name. I did bump into him in the pubs as a teenager and he had become one of the lads. I'm not qualified to say whether the bullying had a positive or negative effect, but when I worked down the pit, any new lad with a bit of lip found themselves greased or swarfega'd   If they were lucky. One poor sod got grinding paste.. Me? I had some lip alright and got greased. Some of it ended up in the sandwiches of the main perpetrator, there being plenty around my bollocks, so I'd call that a draw.

100 by the way.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Feb 14 - 07:08 AM

Infertility is a rare complication of chlamydia, with few instances in UK.
Death is an inevitable consequence of HIV once symptoms appear, and it is incurable.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: GUEST,Seaham cemetry
Date: 17 Feb 14 - 07:52 AM

Can I say, as a doctor, that a positive HIV status isnt an inevitable path to death? As awful as it is, it is contained by change of lifestyle, diet etc in conjunction with prescribed antiretrovirals. Chlamydia however is a worrying disease that has the ability (and history) of mutation and that is rather worrying.

Chlamydia is bacterial, whereas HIV is viral, but I can understand people who dont understand medicine getting them confused. Hell, some GPs give antibiotics for colds, so no problem Mr Hertford getting confused.

However, chlamydia has symptoms that vary in degree and strain. It is the evolving strains that make this very common STD extremely worrying. in any case, the symptoms are more prevalent in men than women, and about half of men and a third of women will have painful urination, smelly discharge and for women, menstruation issues.

The symptoms can be treated with antibiotics for now, although some of the long term effects include risk of infertility, especially for the 30% of women suscepticle to it. It can also lead to painful pelvic inflammation, whch is an organic chronic disease.

Musket is right about the risks and added to which, over a quarter of a million people screen postitive each year. For those of us in medicine, the risks versus the ease of early cure make this a top priority, especially with the hard to reach under 25s. About 70% of those infected are under 25 in England.

I have to admit I work in the region the person behind Musket spends most of his time in, and enjoy his lectures on health improvement, including one later this week. It was only over coffee and speaking of music with him a few weeks ago that I made the link. He is passionate about equality and this comes over in his real life too. It is difficult to remember sometimes that he has not spent his life in healthcare and his outsider perspective is useful. I think, and I hope he wont mind me saying, he sees the attempts by political and religious interests to portray viral STDs as being a gay issue and he rightly points out the error they make. However, in doing so, it can occasionally come over as playing down the risks to all people who indulge in anal sex, and I doubt that is his intention. Some people on these threads are quick to see that, and I know that isnt his intention. He is one of the good profs.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Feb 14 - 08:02 AM

Can I say, as a doctor, that a positive HIV status isnt an inevitable path to death?

Once symptoms appear, yes it is doctor.
If you take a precautionary test and catch it early, you can live a normal life with a heavy daily dose of meds.
High risk groups really should go for screening to save themselves from a nasty lingering death and to reduce further spread.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: GUEST,Seaham cemetry
Date: 17 Feb 14 - 08:36 AM

Ah, I see now what he meant. Keith A (sorry I called you Mr Hertford earlier)seems to confuse matters. I am not expressing a view as to whether this is intentional or not.)

Confusing symptoms of HIV + (fever, general listlessness and not dissimilar to glandular fever) in medium to late stage is not a path to death? It is a long time since treated HIV has led to AIDS in The UK.

Later stage can lead to AIDS. AIDS is sometimes referred to as late stage HIV, which is an unfortunate title, much abused by those who wish to politicise this condition. AIDS is also not fatal, but will allow fatal conditions to flourish, such as multi drug resistant tuberculosis, and the eventual cause of death, as with most cancers for that matter, being pneumonia.

The symptoms of HIV become apparent very early on, and although not always deemed as worrying if you are the sort to battle through colds and flu, lead to a change in lifestyle, not death if caught early enough.

Thats all I have to say on the matter. It is what the BNF says and as a SpR, I work to it, just like every doctor in The UK.

This social networking stuff is very interesting. I had no idea how much ignorance is out there. I may even stop being cynical about the drives in health promotion, as when I was a child, HIV education was all the rage and has taken a back seat in recent years, allowing ignorance to bcome perceived fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Feb 14 - 09:28 AM

Seaham cemetry,

Quite an ironic nickname for an MD, isn't it?

So Chlamydia , vs HIV

Let me see if I have this right,

For one the cure is a 10 day course of inexpensive antibiotics,

For the other there is no cure. But you can contain it by radically altering your diet, taking loads of expensive drugs and completely avoiding sick people.

If you leave one untreated you get itching, burning, inflammation, possible infertility, if you are a woman.

For the other, if you leave it untreated you get AIDS, the good news you have given us today is that AIDS does not kill. The bad news is that it increases the chances of death the way drunk driving does. An immune system impaired by HIV is unable to avoid TB or certain cancers the way a drunk driver is unable to avoid crashing into embankments or school buses. But the drinking doesn't kill you, the crash does right? :-D

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Feb 14 - 10:03 AM

Screening for HIV is so important because most victims do not recognise the trivial and transient symptoms.
That is why undiagnosed HIV is such a huge problem.
When the next symptoms appear, there is no hope.
What are you a doctor of?

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Jeri
Date: 17 Feb 14 - 10:13 AM

If anyone here is posting based on actual knowledge, as opposed to what they've read on the internet or heard somewhere. If anyone is arguing for any reason other than seeing the little letters they type turn into words and fly through wires to magically land on people's computer screens all over the world, keep this in mind.

Know that there are some people not engaging because some people just WANT to be asshats.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Feb 14 - 10:22 AM

I am intrigued by Dr. Cemetery's posting record.
9 posts, 2 on 8th Jan and 7 today.

Can it be a real person, or just an alter-ego.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 17 Feb 14 - 10:36 AM

Ah. Nice to be flattered. But no matter, this is where reality and Mudcat meet so the rip tides can be fun.

Fascinating that I half know the guy posting as Seaham cemetery. I used to play with his Dad, so to speak. However, I digress. Jeri makes a good point. SC is a SpR and possibly is unused to people twisting medical facts to suit an agenda. I on the other hand play with real bastards most days so the pussy cats on here are only dAngerous to themselves. (A tip SC. Try explaining to them what you mean by mutating and evolving strains. It won't make any difference or alter the angle of their blinkers but real people may be interested.)

Of course, there are no such things as true facts. It may be the case that if Keith were a politician we may have problems explaining healthcare priorities or the rationale for them. No matter, we have a Secretary of State for health who believes in homeopathy. Luckily he is just about intelligent enough to listen to his advisors from the real world.

Here's a fact though. Eating cheese is more important than painting the bedroom ceiling. Ok, a subjective fact and about as useful as Keith comparing a dangerous viral condition with a bacterial one that has a better prognosis once caught.

He likes to confuse it to make normal people look a fool but unfortunately for him, I have never expressed a view. I have repeated the position of The Academy of Royal Colleges on these matters. Why? Because I am not a doctor of medicine, but Keith seems to have an acceptable CV for the position of pox doctor's clerk.

Is twisting sexual health information to suit homophobia a belief or just personality disorder ?

Jack. You are out of your depth. Just piss off whilst your credibility is above that of our resident Christian Right fool, there's a good chap.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Feb 14 - 10:41 AM

Yeah Keith,

A nick name based on the conversations of the 3 Messiahs to boot. Certainly at the least an acolyte of musket, and since the likelihood of there being one of those, that, such would be a member of the medical profession, or any profession for that matter, and that such would by some non-theist miracle show up here to attempt to bail Musket out of one of the dumbest things ever said on this forum, alter ego is a possibility.

Either that or Musket has stumbled on a fairy tail, less believable than fairies at the bottom of the garden.


Jeri,

Its hard not to be unkind, isn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Feb 14 - 10:54 AM

about as useful as Keith comparing a dangerous viral condition with a bacterial one

It was YOU Musket who made that comparison.
I merely challenged it.

Re Dr.Cemetry, the RAF is an unusual pathway into medicine.
Quiet day at the clinic today?

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Feb 14 - 11:07 AM

Keith is absolutely right on this one.

about as useful as Keith comparing a dangerous viral condition with a bacterial one

It was YOU Musket who made that comparison.
I merely challenged it.

I think everyone on this forum is more credible than a self proclaimed donkey dicked biosphere destroying expert on what is "rational" who can't even keep tabs on his own posts.

But that is just my opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Jeri
Date: 17 Feb 14 - 11:44 AM

Jack, it seems to be even harder not to be snooty.

...or argumentative. Hell, most of the BS section would be gone without the argumentative people.

But this "who is Dr X?" just proves people care more about who they're talking to than what the person says in order to know whether they agree or not. I don't see anything the person says that isn't informed and correct, and I'm not sure of their identity.

If your need to be seen to not agree with someone is more important than your need to be right, go for it.

In the meantime, I'm gonna try not to be a Josh Lyman...

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Feb 14 - 12:22 PM

I'm a bit puzzled at what the argument ( and it is an argument, not a discussion) is about, as if there's some idea that saying one disease is serious is to be seen as saying that another isn't.

One is common and pretty serious, the other is less common and even more serious. Both can be avoided, and too frequently are not. No reason for an argument.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Bat Goddess
Date: 17 Feb 14 - 12:45 PM

I'm a cradle Lutheran and cultural Christian but I've thought for many many years that I'm a "religion" of one, because I really don't think anyone else believes exactly as I do. And I don't want anyone telling me what to believe, but, believe me, I know right from wrong. And I see a lot of religious people being unkind and immoral.

I don't have a god problem...but I DO have a major organized religion problem -- ALL of them, not just Christian. And I also have a major problem with some Christian denominations usurping the descriptive "Christian", and being wildly intolerant of anyone who doesn't believe exactly as they do. I think they give Christianity a bad name and are far from what we know of Christ's teachings. (Remember, the EARLIEST manuscripts we have of books now included in the New Testament are from 400 years AFTER the time of the historical Jesus and his disciples.

Simple statement: You don't have to be religious or have religious beliefs to be moral.

Here's a story (or a parable, if you will) --
Go With God
Planet Proctor
Compiled by Phil Proctor
Funny Times, July 2010

"I was walking across a bridge one day and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said, "Stop! Don't do it!"

"Why shouldn't I?" he said. "Well, there's so much to live for!" I said. He said, "Like what?" I said, "Well…are you religious or an atheist?" He said, "Religious." I said, "Me, too! Are you Christian or Buddhist?" He said, "Christian." I said, "Me, too! Are you Catholic or Protestant?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me, too! Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?" He said, "Baptist."

"Wow!" I said, "Me, too! Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?" He said, "Baptist Church of God."

"Me, too!" I said. "Are you original Baptist Church of God, or are you reformed Baptist Church of God?" He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of God."

I said, "Me, too! Are you reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1879, or reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915?"

He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915!"

I said, "Die, heretic scum!" and pushed him off.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Feb 14 - 01:15 PM

I don't see anything the person says that isn't informed and correct,

Jeri,

With due respect Dr. X is trying to make the case that chlamydia is worse than AIDS, Something that Musket brought up that he now blames others for bringing up. Something that he brought up because he was losing his argument that Akenaton is a raging homophobe an argument he started because he was losing his argument that "atheist" means anti-religion.

Do you believe that it is correct that chlamydia is worse than AIDS?
Do believe that Akenaton can reasonably be described as a "raging homophobe?
Do you share Musket's definition of Atheist and his belief that all people who don't profess a religion cannot be described in terms of religion by anything but their names?

Sorry if you thought I was trying to be snooty or argumentative. I do believe it is very difficult to have a discussion on this board and be kind. And I agree that it is difficult to argue a point without being argumentative.

I am not sure that it is unkind to point it out when I catch Musket's bullshit. I don't consider it unkind when you point out mine. But I would like to point out that your link is punishingly slow and if it is the scene I think it is, I have seen it already and I don't think applies to anyone on this tread. We have long since discovered the Internet. We know what we are doing. God help us.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: akenaton
Date: 17 Feb 14 - 02:44 PM

Jeri, there is a very big difference from being civilly argumentative and serving out vicious foul personal abuse.
Personal abuse ruins forums....as a moderator, you should know that and we shouldn't need a rule book to know what is acceptable.

The same two people get off with cursing directly at other members, stalking, and insulting, in order to have threads shut down.

When one does not possess a reasoned opinion, personal abuse is brought into play.   "The real last refuge of a scoundrel"

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Feb 14 - 03:02 PM

"I do believe it is very difficult to have a discussion on this board and be kind. And I agree that it is difficult to argue a point without being argumentative."

Not that difficult. And well worth trying, even if we do find it difficult. Insults just invite insults and make it very difficult to actually argue a point. The point tends to get completely obscured. As i said in my last post, I can't actually see what the point is. Illnesses vary, so?

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 17 Feb 14 - 03:20 PM

Well well, a SpR gives a view and rather than read and take it in, the three wise monkeys talk about whether he has credentials or not. Even some shot about it being me. I must admit , I am rather flattered in one way as we know each other. Or more precisely I used to be in a band with his Dad. Looking forward to seeing him on Wednesday at one of my lectures.

The stupid bad intentioned dangerous lying bastards who question sexual health in order to pass judgement on gay people with no foundation whatsoever should hang their heads in shame. A doctor, who if he doesn't mind me saying, who is presently attached to offender substance misuse and sexual health puts the record straight and all the ignorant twats can do is sneer at him.

Just put your computers on the fire and stick to grunting to communicate. You are beneath contempt. Good job nobody other than yourselves give a toss about you. All three of you really aren't nice people, are you?

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Feb 14 - 03:42 PM

McGrath Consider that some people consider it an insult to them or indeed to "hard working scientist everywhere" when one expresses an opinion differing from theirs.

Which takes precedence? A lively debate on an interesting subject? Or avoiding certain topics so that people who feel so superior to others that they think it justified to carry entire idiosyncratic dictionaries in their head and to vilify others for not being able to read their minds, can continue to delude themselves.

Which is more unkind? Disabusing those who hold these notions which falsely color their warped perceptions or allowing them to feel falsely confident in their abilities to persuade , use logic or indeed, be witty?

The path that took us to the present argument is quite clear. Musket was losing his argument about "Atheism" being a word so he switched topics to "Akenaton is a raging homophobe." Akenaton then switched the topic to "AIDS is bad" Musket then tried to prove "Akenaton is a raging homophobe" by making the assertion that chlamydia is worse than AIDS, though I believe that his choice of diseases to compare to AIDS was heavily influenced by his ability to make a "Roman sounding" joke about chlamydia.

When Musket began to lose the argument that "chlamydia is worse than AIDS" Dr X, magically appeared to say that indeed "chlamydia is worse than AIDS because AIDS doesn't kill people, complications from AIDS kills people."

Its all clear as mud to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Feb 14 - 04:08 PM

Musket, some of us do not believe you are credible. If you are telling the truth about yourself you are so busy and important that you must have an assistant to post here on your behalf.

And if you are as smart as you TELL US THAT YOU ARE, why not show us that you are smart by NOT proclaiming silly things like there is a VD worse than AIDS?

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Jeri
Date: 17 Feb 14 - 04:50 PM

The doc didn't seem to be making a comparison to me. Just saying the chlamydia wasn't as benign as some people were making out.

Personally, it's a good idea to remember what Donna says "What Josh doesn't know is that some of these people haven't taken their medication".

If one argues with people who are stupid by choice, you aren't going to make them change. They'll sit around all day being stupid on the internet, and they're happy with that. What other sort of discussion could one hope to have with them? I just wish we could quarantine them...

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Feb 14 - 05:24 PM

It doesn't really matter if someone considers it an insult to have someone disagree with them. It really doesn't.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Feb 14 - 05:33 PM

"It doesn't really matter if someone considers it an insult to have someone disagree with them. It really doesn't. "

It makes it hard, maybe pointless, to avoid trying to insult them.

"What Josh doesn't know is that some of these people haven't taken their medication".

Been there, seen that. They usually get pretty upset when you suggest that they fill their prescription.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Feb 14 - 06:34 PM

"It makes it hard, maybe pointless, to avoid trying to insult them."

Not that hard, really. And the point in doing so is demonstrated in this thread, which started out for the first 20 or so posts as a pleasant enough discussion between people who expressed disagreements without insults, and subsequently spiralled down into something pretty unsavoury.

"Don't feed the trolls" it's often said. But the same applies to anyone who acts trollish, maybe out of character.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Feb 14 - 08:48 PM

McGrath of Harlow

In the first 20 or so posts of this thread some nasty unpleasant things were said about religion. The title is a troll by stringsinger trying to bait the nonsense argument that the word "atheist" doesn't exist. If you call that pleasant discussion, then I guess things aren't so bad in your opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Feb 14 - 09:06 PM

The post might have been trying to rile people, but it certainly wasn't written in a way likely to do that. And the problem isn't when people say things that are seen, and sometimes meant, as unpleasant, it arises when unpleasantness is met by unpleasantness. Disagreement is fine, disagreeableness rarely works out well.   And to start with, if posts were intended to rub people up the wrong way, that was not the response they got. Which is the way posts that rub as up the wrong way should be treated.

Turning the other cheek is difficult in some circumstances, but not really in a forum like this, where the delay imposed hy writing gives us time to resist the impulse to strike back verbally that can arise in other circumstances.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Feb 14 - 11:06 PM

McGrath, I think I understand you. We seem to be speaking in circles. Thanks for the input.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Janie
Date: 17 Feb 14 - 11:45 PM

Good tries, Jeri and Kevin.

Oh well. As long as some several folks continue to enjoy themselves....

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 18 Feb 14 - 01:31 AM

Do people read posts before putting their preconceived answers? Apparently I said chlamydia is worse than HIV. Utter bollocks. I said that it represents a far greater risk to public health due to indifference. If you don't know the difference perhaps learning rather than spouting?

Just a thought.

I recall I made a comparison between eating cheese and decorating a bedroom or some such comparison to compare the two conditions. Yet ignorant or malicious fools ignore that and put absurd words attributed to me. I don't know why because I say what I say and it is there for all to see. It doesn't need inaccurate spin. That just compounds the agenda behind those vilifying my comments.

When someone agrees with me, they appear to be my assistant. Hmm. I note that SC was posting last month and said things that I hope aren't true on a subject I didn't comment on. He found me recently through the music section of Mudcat. It's a bit like Jack assuming the three co Messiahs are good mates that meet in the real world. I'd happily drink with either or both, but unless our paths have inadvertently crossed in clubs and festivals , I doubt either look like the image I have for them, as I'm sure we all have our ideas of what each other look like.

Anyway. If questioning the role of religion in an enlightened society is being a troll , well I am a troll and I live in a hole. I promise not to come out and eat you unless you try to interfere with society at large. Then I'll put kindling under my cauldron.




Still, interesting to not only meet posters on here not only socially but professionally too. We can have a laugh at some of the Walter Mitty characters that haunt the BS section.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Feb 14 - 02:13 AM

said things that I hope aren't true
Which things?

"Since it was added to water here in The UK, children have needed less fillings and false teeth are becoming a thing of the past.

For those who moan about the nanny state, just remember that this is a country, like America, where children are force fed junk food, sweets, crisps and other life threatening shit. The least the government can do is look after their health where irresponsible chavs masquerading as parents fail. "

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Feb 14 - 03:17 AM

Guest Seaham Cemetery, has a larger posting history than Keith mentioned......several of his posts were kindly deleted by the moderators on my request.
Guest had made libellous and completely untrue allegations of ill treatment of animals by me, in an attempt to blacken my character.
His posts were described by admin as "extremely spooky."
These posts were an example of stalking, and if this creature has anything to do with our medical service, we need to be very careful indeed.

I think there is madness afoot in these threads.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Musket
Date: 18 Feb 14 - 04:44 AM

See, I didn't mention it. You may be everything I observe you as being, but I also pick up on how your normal cynical postings alter when you speak of your dogs. You sometimes come over as a human being when you get onto dogs.

SC and I have spoken over a coffee, mainly about our shared musical interests and my time with his late father in a band. He enjoys folk music and has been posting under other names for a few years now, normally his own first name, finding out musical information. We also have a shared interest in greyhounds. Him (or his wife mainly as he, like all military docs gets overseas postings at short notice) training them, me rescuing them. I think he is wrong about you Akenaton. The Scotland based perpetrators were caught and prosecuted. I get the feeling from the tone of your dog posts that your love of the breed is strong.

There. Hopefully that clears that up.

I still wish you didn't exhibit so much hatred all the same.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Feb 14 - 07:44 AM

You only "hoped" he was wrong two hours ago.

Being "presently attached to offender substance misuse" must leave him with a lot of time on his hands as a military doctor.
What is his interest in your NHS talks?

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Feb 14 - 08:34 AM

"I still wish you didn't exhibit so much hatred all the same."

And the same for all of us.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: GUEST,Seaham cemetry
Date: 18 Feb 14 - 08:43 AM

Wow...

I to get out more. I genuinely assumed there was interest rather than what "Musket" calls an agenda on these threads. So much good intellectual banter on the music side but here under the bridge is where the trolls seem to live.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Feb 14 - 09:46 AM

Musket, 7th Feb,
"Akenaton thinks I am a guest called Seaham Cemetry. Well I'm not. Ironically, the person who is, someone in the greyhound racing fraternity who knows him well, contacted me. For what it's worth, I sincerely believe Akenaton doesn't kill puppies not needed for racing."

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Musket
Date: 18 Feb 14 - 09:47 AM

And Keith's illogical post above at least proves a point. I wondered if he was just a nasty bastard or an ill informed nasty bastard. Turns out it is the latter.

OK.   As you keep posting about healthcare, let me tell you. You could of course google this, but I'll tell you anyway. After all, if you have an interest in a subject, at least learn something about it.

Approximately one in thirty registrars working in NHS hospitals and community clinics have military rank. For a young person wishing to become a doctor it's an excellent career path. Although the pay isn't so good once you get going, you are paid whilst a medical student (officer entry) and you don't have crippling student debts. A proportion of your time is spent, as with any medical post graduate training, in all specialties. Needless to say, there is little scope for some specialties in the forces, so a lot of time is spent in NHS secondment.

There is a very good chance that if you walk through an NHS hospital, you will see doctors. Junior doctors (about 70% of them) are not employed by that hospital but are on placement from a deanery. Many deaneries include military attachments. The hospital my office is situated in is a teaching trust with a medical school and post graduate deanery. I like many around here hold a honorary (visiting) prof contract. To sing for my supper, I lecture on subjects as varied as governance and assurance, and improvement utilising six sigma techniques. I have two lectures tomorrow, and the one for SpRs is "the role of the consultant in securing commissioning funds for out of area treatments," which covers putting forward cases for extraordinary and / or not contracted interventions. It also covers (in brief) how to put a case to research ethics committees for treatments outside of protocols and NICE scope. A medical prof has covered the clinical aspects and I round it up by addressing the corporate and business particulars. Out of interest, my academic work is not much, and as most of my colleagues are medical doctors the time and remuneration is based on programmed activities (consultant contract) and the expectation is half a session (jokingly known as two hours) so it balances at half a day per week, although that is a few weeks doing nothing followed by swallowing up my diary.

My inside leg measurements are REDACTED and I have a big willy.

Happy?

Right. Now piss off.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Feb 14 - 10:12 AM

Oh. Musket. You and the other two, spend months in your little corner of the forum mocking religion and me with the same joke told, over and over and over. SC, the alleged doctor named after the graveyard, now backing up your dubious argument with the outrageous claim that AIDS doesn't kill (yeah, its the consequences of AIDS that kill) pops in on those same threads to libel Akenaton. Now you claim that there is no cooperation or collusion among or between any of the four of us.

I can abide a little bit of arrogance and vanity. But when it crosses the line to hubris, people acting as if what they say, no matter how irrational, should be believed by lesser intellects, the conversation becomes tedious.

No doubt Musket, you are all of the great and noble things you say you are. But please do not assume that your greatness makes us all so stupid that we can't spot that BS in your hand before you try to rub it in our faces.

May I please also point out that no one asked you what was "a greater public health risk". The topic at the time, introduced by you was, "Akenaton is a raging homophobe" and he was arguing that male promiscuity is a dange, therefor "homosexuals", should not be allowed to claim equal status as married people.   BTW, FYI, He is not a homophobe and he does not "rage" on this forum. He does have antiquated views on marriage and civil rights.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Feb 14 - 10:48 AM

Jack, presuming that 'You and the other two' refers to Musket, Steve and I, I can only repeat what I have said many times before. There is no 'cooperation or collusion among or between' any of us.

Surely it is not so difficult to understand that many people are like minded in a number of areas. The fact that we appreciate similar things and even have a similar sense of humour does not mean that there is any conspiracy. Anyone who believes that we are conspiring has an amazing sense of self importance.

I hope you never go to to a rugby match. You know, that game a bit like your football but played without body armour and all the rest periods. If they were to scrum down I guess you would complain that they were all talking about you.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 18 Feb 14 - 11:25 AM

JtS said: The title is a troll by stringsinger trying to bait the nonsense argument that the word "atheist" doesn't exist. If you call that pleasant discussion, then I guess things aren't so bad in your opinion.

And guest Seaham cemetery said: I to get out more. I genuinely assumed there was interest rather than what "Musket" calls an agenda on these threads. So much good intellectual banter on the music side but here under the bridge is where the trolls seem to live.

Clearly one man's troll is another person's intellectual. And Seaham C, you're right. There are a lot of trolls down here, though their identification is entirely subjective. Occasionally there are stunningly good discussions below the line, but those days seem to be long gone, for the most part.

The original post, counter to JtS's characterization, contains a link to a rational discussion of how atheists still manage to have joyful lives filled with moral choices and distinctions. It has the title 20 Atheist Quotes About Joy and Meaning That Crush 'Angry, Empty' Stereotype, posted on February 7, 2014.

Recently an "educational" pamphlet designed for Christian children made its way around Facebook. It warned God's little lambs to avoid sour unhappy people called "atheists." A private school curriculum called Accelerated Christian Education includes cartoons in which the atheist characters are rude, mean and drunk; and bad things happen to them.

Stereotypes like these get echoed sometimes even in Christian books and lectures that are targeted at adults. I once attended a successful megachurch on the Sunday before Easter. The pastor wanted his audience to be clear that the resurrection of Jesus wasn't merely some spiritual metaphor. "If the resurrection didn't literally happen," he shouted, "there is no reason for us to be here! If the resurrection didn't literally happen—there are parties to be had! There are women to be had! There are guns to shoot! There are people to shoot!"

You caught the subtext? Atheists (and even liberal Christians) have no basis for morality. Nothing—and I mean nothing!—stands between a godless person and debauchery or lechery or even violence.

Population demographics suggest otherwise, of course. Atheism is far more common among elite scientists and some of the most peaceful and equitable societies on earth are also the least religious. But believers persist in fearing that godless people are amoral, that unfettered by religion the world would descend into the anarchy and bloodbath depicted in the Left Behind movies. . . .

We have a number of people who aren't just trolls, they are stalkers. They follow individuals from thread to thread and throw the same stinky shit in each thread, muddying the waters, chasing off those who wanted to participate in a rational discussion, then bickering endlessly amongst themselves.

Now a new rational voice has strayed into the field and promptly been trounced by the resident fools. No surprise, just disappointment. And this is the reason why I only skim most of these threads any more, to see if the usual combatants are blowing the usual dog whistles.

I used to love Rick Fielding's food threads. They usually started with him asking for a recipe after describing a hilarious kitchen disaster . . .

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Feb 14 - 11:37 AM

SRS, were you aware of the false accusations against Ake that were posted by the "new rational voice" and deleted?

Funny how he was only introduced as a doctor yesterday.
Originally just "a member of the greyhound racing fraternity" and then an RAF member.

True or not, it all invites suspicion.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Feb 14 - 01:27 PM

"The original post, counter to JtS's characterization, contains a link to a rational discussion of how atheists still manage to have joyful lives filled with moral choices and distinctions. It has the title 20 Atheist Quotes About Joy and Meaning That Crush 'Angry, Empty' Stereotype, posted on February 7, 2014. "

COUNTER to my characterization? What you have noted is the exact point of my characterization.   When linking to an article for atheist, by an atheist and about atheists why does he not use the term "atheist"?   

Because he wants to see another argument about the use of the word "atheist." In my humble opinion. Or he wants to see the word banned from this forum through wearing repetition. Yet the word is all over his link. Maybe that does not fit your definition of trolling. That's cool. But my point to McGrath was about not being able to post controversial opinions without someone taking offense. I thought that the article was unfair to the pastor and that the title was offensive who thinks that having agreed upon standard definitions of words is useful in a discussion. Frankly, I am tired of a few people pulling definitions out of their own butts and condescending to people who think the dictionary words are more accurate. But I digress.

My point to McGrath was is very difficult on this forum to discuss controversial topics without "insulting" or "being unkind" to someone. One needs to find reasonable lines. I have two lines, people who deliberately insult me, who when appropriate, get reminded of the rules and and people whose impolite behavior, I am forced to look at every day ie songwronger, who, I believe has been allowed unique status in taking advantage of Joe Offer's unwritten rules of thread titles. I believe that the second situation will be taken care of because I believe that eventually all will see that it is the right thing to do. I believe that the first situation has improved to the point where action is much less necessary.

Which brings us to a bit of an ethical dilemma.   Is it less polite banter with someone who clearly want to play word games? To point out how they are coming across, or to ignore them. The compromise I have selected for myself is a combination of the first two while trying to avoid direct insults and declining the odd invitation to bicker.

The thought has crossed my mind that you may be vaguely hinting that I am a troll. If I am a troll, its allowed.

I am free to be anything I want EXCEPT unkind, impolite, argumentative or snooty.

If you want to make a case that I am being unkind, impolite, argumentative or snooty. I'll hear you out, but keep in mind that I come here partly to debate and as has being pointed out there is a fine line between arguing and being argumentative. My lines on "argumentative" are picking fights, arguing for its own sake and returning to points that have been talked to death such as whether the word "atheist" exists. Its in the OED and every other dictionary. It exists.

Like religion and morality the rules of this forum are subject to personal interpretation. But I hope that we can all agree that calling people "Twat, Whacko, The Worm, Jerk and troll, for that matter, are not subject to wiggle room. You can disagree with people without labeling them with insults.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Feb 14 - 01:39 PM

Seaham, You have a credibility, problem. For one we only know you by that name as libeling Akenaton and defending Musket's, at best, ill timed and irrelevant, claim about public health and AIDS.

Musket tells us to help him hide his Mudcat identity from people (reporters in particular) and now we find you, blowing his cover as it were to defend him.

Keith is right it seems suspicious. But it might be less so if you were to give us some idea who you are rather than claiming rather lofty credentials, just when you need them, to try to make a somewhat dubious point.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Feb 14 - 02:30 PM

The plot thickens..... Seaham Cemetery in his deleted post referred to something personal to me that very few people could have known.

Shortly afterwards Musket also referred to a member of my family, who does not post here or on any other forum as far as I know.
This family member has a severe illness, and I do not know how Musket got the information which he posted.
It was not 100% correct, but near enough to make me think there had been collusion.

Musket has used these unverified and perhaps libellous statements to assist his case...although he is now in the process of backtracking.
I have stopped responding to Muskets insults, and this will be the last time his alias will be mentioned by me.
These are not the actions of a "medical man" of any integrity.

It is beyond me, why this person has been allowed to personally insult so many people so many times, without any action being taken by the moderators......I have always respected Joe Offer as a fair and reasonable man. If anyone has any problems speak to Joe personally.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Feb 14 - 02:48 PM

Joe has told the forum that he doesn't handle discipline any more.   Has this situation changed?

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Feb 14 - 03:07 PM

I take it Jack, that if the problem is serious enough Joe would be in a position to direct the mods who are supposed to be keeping an eye on the threads.

I wrote personally to SRS to inform her of my problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Feb 14 - 03:22 PM

The question of moderation is one that would be best left alone. The moderators have a difficult task for no pay and even less thanks. I think they do the best they can and even where you do not agree with policy it is best to keep it in PMs rather than trying to goad them into action in public. I have seen the current moderation team in action on a number of threads and, on balance, they get it right.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Feb 14 - 03:44 PM

The moderators are here to moderate, if they are unable or unwilling to do their job, they should step down.

Personal abuse, stalking, writing or repeating libellous statements, should never be allowed.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Feb 14 - 05:21 PM

Where are the mods?

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Feb 14 - 05:26 PM

The moderators are here to moderate, if they are unable or unwilling to do their job, they should step down.

I have already stated my views on that. I am not going to repeat them but I will point out that they do not 'do a job'. They are volunteers with no pay.

Personal abuse, stalking, writing or repeating libellous statements, should never be allowed.

Personal abuse and stalking are in the eye of the beholder. Writing or repeating libellous statements is covered under the law. If you believe any of this is genuinely libellous you will be able to sue for damages. I suspect you never will.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Feb 14 - 05:28 PM

I do not lie and I have not lied.
Why do you accuse me?
I am not in the least homophobic and have never said anything that could even be mistaken for homophobia.
Why do you accuse me?

You could never justify those accusations.
They are malicious, shameful lies.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Feb 14 - 05:36 PM

Libel is not for ordinary folk Dave.
Damages now have to reflect actual financial loss.
Bringing a case would be ruinously expensive.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Feb 14 - 06:34 PM

I don't actually agree that it is hard to discuss controversial issues without insulting anyone. It may happen that people can get offended by views they disagree with, but that is a very different thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Feb 14 - 08:38 PM

I sure don't blame the moderators for not wanting to get involved.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Janie
Date: 18 Feb 14 - 10:44 PM

So many egos and agendas.

So little community.

There has always been thread drift. This thread is an excellent example, though certainly not the only one, of how 'far' we have come.

Evolutionary process, I suppose. Entropy? I for one surely don't know.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Feb 14 - 11:06 PM

>>I don't actually agree that it is hard to discuss controversial issues without insulting anyone. It may happen that people can get offended by views they disagree with, but that is a very different thing. <<<

There are certain opinions, if expressed, that will be taken as personal insults by certain people. More to the point there are certain opinions when expressed which are rehashing and re opening old arguments. stringsinger did that in this very thread, with its very title. It could have started an argument, but it didn't. But stringsinger knew that it could have and he posted anyway. I don't have problem with how it worked out. He and some others had their say, I had mine.

Akenaton has some antiquated views about Gay Rights. Every time he expresses them he is called names and an attempt is made to bully him. They take his opinions as a personal insults and take it upon themselves to try to vilify him off of this forum.   I don't see any way for him to avoid this without giving in to the bullies. He is entitled to express an opinion that pretty much all of our grandparents took for granted. Isn't he?

I guess he is entitled to ASK the moderators to punish the bullies, but I don't think they need to do anything they are not already doing.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 01:32 AM

Antiquated views...

mmmm ...

That's one way of putting it I suppose.

Is oppression the new antiquated or antiquated the new oppressed?

Calling hatred antiquated isn't the answer. Anti semetism isn't dismissed as antiquated and neither should anti gay.

Twisting the words of others who gladly point out the reality behind shock statistics that appear at face value to denigrate a section of society isn't clever and isn't helpful. I have been subjected to a concerted effort by some to misconstrue every word I put. Especially if those words dismiss homophobic propaganda.

No. My conscience is clear.

By the way, I have no idea whatsoever what the worm is talking about regarding family members. I recall a post of mine went missing where I pointed out the moral of "Bruce's Song" which explored the bigotry of a Scottish man and the lifestyle of his best friend. As I believe this song was written in the '60s, I doubt that is what he is going on about?

So I remain confused. Or not as it happens. I can't explain his irrational hatred so I doubt I can understand his irrational outpourings.

This attempt to look at non belief, or rational lifestyle as I might call it has, like all other threads become a platform for bigotry and hate. A way of taunting reasonable people with distortion knowing they can't let such lies go unchallenged.

Says more about whacking the worm than anything else.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 03:31 AM

Credit where it is due

I guess he is entitled to ASK the moderators to punish the bullies, but I don't think they need to do anything they are not already doing.

Well said, Jack.

I would request that he ask in private rather than publicly slating the people who do a difficult job for free but that is just my opinion.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 03:59 AM

Jack, this person not only insults me, but many members of this forum who have the guts to challenge him.
He insults you because of your faith.
He insults Keith because he points out his obfuscation and lies, then he tries to bully Keith by calling him "homophobic".
I know very well Keith supports homosexual"marriage", his views on that do not affect his ability to spot lies and obfuscation.

I don't see my views as "antiquated" Jack....though I know you use the word without malice. The up to date figures state clearly that male to male sexual intercourse, results in huge rates of not only HIV, but all male sexually transmitted disease.
Why this is the case is surely an important issue and is worthy of debate? As we are presently in the process of legislating on homosexuality in society, my views cannot accurately be described as "antiquated", they are relevant to the current legislation.

A huge majority of people worldwide are opposed to many facets of homosexuality, and even in Western countries, there is a large percentage opposed to homosexual "marriage".
Do you not think that some aspects of social life have degenerated over the last thirty years?....Is modern morality so much better than it used to be? What do you think of the commercialisation of sex and family life....one parent families....the removal of "childhood" from young lives?

The person above abuses you and others for your faith, but he practices a faith much more ridiculous than a spiritual faith. A faith in equality within a society which is based on greed, actively encourages inequality as an incentive and an economic driver. He never mentions the generations of young people the system "forgot", or should I say "ignored"..... Young people with no future, rearing children without a soul.

He does not give a toss for homosexuals or their suffering, he thinks there is nothing to worry about regarding homosexual health, he thinks it should not even be discussed.

He cares only about non existent "equality".....leave homosexuals to be infected and die at huge rates compared to the heterosexual population....it is their "right".

Is that an antiquated idea, or a modern one?

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 04:18 AM

Dave....The moderators have acted, I have thanked them for their assistance, had they not believed the posts in question were malicious, they would not have removed them.

My latter point was simply about personal abuse and name calling.
I notice even the worst offenders are starting to see it as unacceptable, so let us hope that it will die a natural death?

I have said many times that the mods do a difficult job and as this forum is composed of mainly centre left members, it must be twice as difficult to ensure equality of moderation.....and by that I don't mean to infer that any of them might be influenced in their moderation, by their political views.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Musket
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 06:40 AM

Yeah, that's right worm.

Hate needs space to propagate, so if it's all the same to you, I will not let up whilst you demonise sections of society with your antiquated views.

By the way, Keith does not support gay "marriage" although he has expressed views on gay marriage.

You just can't help yourself can you? Thanks for the profile of anyone who stands up to bigotry. You have created a profile of a person in your head rather than a person who is sickened by your views.

You want to discuss it? What is it? It certainly isn't the correlation between health figures and one small section of people at risk. You sound like the sinister boorish thugs at far right rallies who say that all they want is a grown up conversation yeah? About homosexuality yeah? In the back of my van yeah? With some of my mates yeah?

Pathetic.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 07:05 AM

This person (above) calls the targeting, testing and contact tracing of the demographic most hugely affected by HIV...."discrimination"

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 07:44 AM

I have stated that I am in favour of same sex marriage.
That means I support it Musket.
You are wrong again.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 07:59 AM

Your definition of targeting is ever so slightly different to the targeting sexual health services successfully carry out.

And rather more chilling too.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 09:07 AM

Ian, The only hatred I see on these threads is from you.

Akenaton, your views about civil rights for LGBT people are antiquated in your country.

I think we all agree with you that unprotected promiscuity is a bad thing and a health hazard. You are the only person, I know that has made the logical leap from that to opposing gay marriage. But that isn't "raging homophobia" It is in my humble opinion, just stubbornness.

Obviously in any civilized conversation name calling and personal abuse is much more indicative of hate than speciously quoting healthcare statistics.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 09:20 AM

Oh I don't know. I have a very dim view of hatred. Compare that to someone saying that millions of people are perverted just for existing. Or that they are against natural law. Are people born with learning disabilities or ginger hair against natural law too? I wonder what values he means?

If you are confusing hate with challenging hate, I leave it to you to wonder what the alternatives would be. Good men and women fought hard for everybody to be respected and treated equally. Be buggered if I'm going to betray their work by walking over to the other pavement and hoping bigotry will die out by accepting it as a valid view.

However antiquated.

However it and it's apologists need to make false testimony to provide their justification.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: GUEST,Seaham cemetry
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 09:53 AM

This thread gets more weird the longer it goes. I suspect it is fitting to say I shall leave some people to their delusions.

My good man "Musket" was wrong on one aspect though. He was correct regarding SpR training but in my case I have completed it and am carrying out an attachment whilst waiting for my specialist register entry to be completed. The corporate training offered by the deanery is a bonus. (I'm an apple polisher really. I attended his lecture this morning.)

I suggest anybody who wishes to know more about GU medicine and demographics use the links in the NHS Direct website. The picture in The USA, I cant help with, I'm afraid except reading a fascinating article by a PH edpidemiologist in The New England Journal of Medicine a few months ago, which I cant cite at this moment,suggesting that WHO feel that sexual health issues in The USA are far more socio economic group (and parallels in ethnicity) related in terms of prevalence than most of Western Europe.

Read into that what you will.

I'm about to do a GU clinic session at 3.00. I would tell some of them it's God's judgement but it can be hard to tell the gay from the miserable.

I doubt I shall venture to help with these subjects any more. One reason why sexual health is a concern is the amount of disinformation and misinterpretation in order to support views on other than health.

don't forget, it's 111 if a gay person touches you, 999 if they give you a hug.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 10:05 AM

"One reason why sexual health is a concern is the amount of disinformation and misinterpretation in order to support views on other than health."

Yes indeed! Some of it has been spread on this forum by anonymous posters claiming to be doctors.

I think I speak for many when I say that what you do with Ian's "apple" is a private matter and of no concern to this forum.

We are glad to see that you no longer waste your superior intellect libeling Akenaton. Good luck with your GU, I don't need to know what that is. When you hug your gays today, please give them an extra little squeeze and tell them "that one is from across the pond."

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 10:26 AM

I suggest anybody who wishes to know more about GU medicine and demographics use the links in the NHS Direct website.

Their figures are provided by HPA, which Musket has a problem with.
He says there are more reliable HIV infection stats. available to professionals.
Do you know of any doctor?

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 10:40 AM

It is not just the strange leap to opposing gay marriage, Jack. Anyone can oppose anything they like in my book. It is the insistence that being gay is a perversion and that the only way to counter the spread of HIV is to put all gay males on a register and force them to be tested twice a year or so. It is that I find sick. It is also pretty hateful to a whole group of innocent people. I have asked over and over what the penalties will be for failing to register or refusing the tests. I have not yet had a satisfactory response.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 11:29 AM

Interpreting and rephrasing views with which we disagree and then launching in at individuals is not attacking hatred, it is promoting hatred.

If we believe that particular views have implications which we see as hateful, that is a reasonable thing to say.

And it is quite right if we feel it useful to explain why we think those implications are hateful. But we should be very careful about taking the additional step of assuming that our interpretation is correct, both as to the implications and as to their hatefullness, and on that basis attacking an individual for holding the views we ascribe to them, and for being detestable on that account.

At the same time, if we feel we are attacked unfairly, while it is reasonable to explain why we think the attack is unfair, and to point out if we feel we have been misunderstood or misrepresented, counterattacking in a personal way is not a useful response.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 11:59 AM

>>It is not just the strange leap to opposing gay marriage, Jack. Anyone can oppose anything they like in my book. It is the insistence that being gay is a perversion and that the only way to counter the spread of HIV is to put all gay males on a register and force them to be tested twice a year or so. It is that I find sick. It is also pretty hateful to a whole group of innocent people. I have asked over and over what the penalties will be for failing to register or refusing the tests. I have not yet had a satisfactory response.

DtG<<

I note that you have expressed your opinion about Akenaton's opinions, without a speck of name calling.

Yes. It is outdated to use the world "perversion." But, within our lifetimes, on both sides of the Atlantic, Psychiatric manuals listed common aspects of homosexuality as diseases and disorders. As he has not caught up with current medical practice Akenaton is no doubt overly selective in his use of medical data.

Yes. Such a registry of people based on sexual preference would be both impractical and discriminatory. Thank you for making that point without the use of the words "raging", "homophobe", or "hatred."

I find you to be a gentleman and would be surprised to see those words in that context. But thanks anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Musket
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 12:14 PM

This is Musket

Musket is involved in UK healthcare

Musket therefore takes HPA information into account. Or at least, clever people do. Musket then uses the advice of clever people in order to plan and improve healthcare provision. Their source is irrelevant to me, although of course HPA data is circular as it comes from the HRG data local public health supplies in the first place.

There. Any more lies you wish to get off your chest Keith? Do you want to revive the one you spread about me not knowing Public Health England existed which I read whilst on a train to Quarry House in Leeds for a meeting with and about err... PHE? Or perhaps when you cited an opinion paper published on the HPA website and said that was the definitive truth? Howsabout when you said gay marriage was against church teaching? I assume from your post above you must keep your fingers crossed during prayers.

Go and put the kettle on, make yourself useful.



Jerk. Unlike you, who may or may not exist, I saw SC this morning. I very much doubt anyone other than doctors attended a lecture for doctors. Might have been bloody boring if they weren't. Mind you, as it wasn't about clinical concerns it may have been boring anyway, but I like the sound of my own voice and there are credits available for passing the corporate module. He didn't bring me an apple though.

If you don't know what genito urinary medicine is, why do you keep agreeing with Prof A. hole of Hertford when he cleverly interprets it for you? He is the universe's leading expert on backing up the worm. (A bit like whacking the worm but can have consequences.)

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 12:30 PM

I would very much like to know where Dr Seaham Cemetery got the information regarding my dogs and my treatment of them.

Dr Seaham Cemetery is obviously a stalker and is associated with another abusive stalker on this forum.

Dave I have explained my position regarding homosexuality and homosexual "marriage" numerous times, but will do so again if you insist.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 12:42 PM

Any more lies you wish to get off your chest Keith? Do you want to revive the one you spread about me not knowing Public Health England existed
Made up.
I never said any such thing.

Or perhaps when you cited an opinion paper published on the HPA website and said that was the definitive truth?
I merely posted a FIGURE that contradicted a figure you posted.

Howsabout when you said gay marriage was against church teaching?
Made up.
I never said any such thing.

I do not lie Musket.
Like the overwhelming majority of posters, I would not think of posting a lie, and am always amazed when some of you people do.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 12:48 PM

I should clarify however, that all churches currently do not allow same sex marriage.
Many, probably most, within my church think that should be changed.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Musket
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 01:05 PM

Keith

You amaze me too for that matter but your terminological inexactitudes aren't as clever as you think. By putting a thin slice of truth between two thick slices of whole wheat lies, it doesn't make it a truth sandwich. Asserting spurious opinion as "truth" is no better either. Don't come the hurt act, I judge purely by what I read.

Worm. Just so you know, I too wondered, what with his links to greyhound training. As he reckons Mudcat BS section is pathetic, (as I do at times but some is wonderful and the rest, I don't mind rolling in the shit with the pigs, it sometimes pays off, ) he may not bother answering and I was curious. We spoke about it for a minute or so this morning over coffee.

I can tell you that his wife gave evidence at the trial and the CPA said that they had passed a file to the PF in Scotland concerning a number of breeders and trainers implicated. To date, nothing has happened. Greyhound Action Scotland has further information apparently on their website. I am aware though that eradication of the sport is their aim so they may be somewhat biased.

As I said, I have no dog in that race, and I sincerely see a huge difference in your posts when you get to mention your dogs. Believe it or not, I had that chat in order to tell you what it is about. He still has his opinion, but I can see no link beyond the fact you are based in Scotland. So are others. I would have sent a pm but I also wish others to know I do not support his claim. I respect that he genuinely thinks so, and he knows who you are. Nevertheless, I told him I don't agree with his tactics. My contempt for your position on the lifestyle of others does not lead to believing or wanting to believe anything bad about you on the basis it is you.

Right. My pint awaits.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 01:12 PM

By putting a thin slice of truth between two thick slices of whole wheat lies, it doesn't make it a truth sandwich.

I agree, and I do not do that.
I do not put up anything remotely deceitful and defy you to produce an example.

Asserting spurious opinion as "truth" is no better either.

I have never done that either.
Any opinion is just an opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 01:23 PM

Musket, I genuinely do not give a rats ass what you or who you see outside this forum. I am mystified that you bother to tell us these things in the midst of other discussions. No one cares what you, or SC, says because of your positions in the outside world. No one is going to give to instant credibility just because you say that you are qualified.

I am not saying this to belittle you or anything that you have said. I hope it will ease your obvious frustration.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 02:28 PM

"It is the insistence that being gay is a perversion and that the only way to counter the spread of HIV is to put all gay males on a register and force them to be tested twice a year or so. It is that I find sick. It is also pretty hateful to a whole group of innocent people. I have asked over and over what the penalties will be for failing to register or refusing the tests. I have not yet had a satisfactory response."

He'd probably like them to wear a pink star on their lapels and ring a bell at regular intervals, so that "normal human beings" could avoid contamination.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Greg F.
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 02:39 PM

Don't forget the pointy hat, the cloak & the "beak". Lets do this right.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 02:50 PM

How long ago did Akenaton say these things?

Are you quoting him or just assuming that is what he meant?

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 02:55 PM

Silly people....regular testing and contact tracing would cut infection rates at a stroke....if I was really homophobic, I would be happy to see the huge infection rates, and keep my mouth shut like most of the Guests on here.

Infection rates amongst MSM are rising on average 8/10% per annum, MSM is the worst affected demographic by miles, current procedures are patently not working and have not worked for over a decade.

Let's hear YOUR solution to the problem!

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 03:37 PM

How long ago did Akenaton say these things?

Is a few minutes ago recent enough, Jack? How else could the following quote be interpreted?

From: akenaton - PM
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 02:55 PM
Silly people....regular testing and contact tracing would cut infection rates at a stroke

Regular testing and contact tracing means putting people on a register and testing them. If they have an option whether they go on the register or submit to testing it is a pointless exercise as some never will. I ask, once again, how do you propose to make them? What penalties will be applied for not doing so?

Let us all know exactly what you mean. Do you or do you not believe that homosexuals are perverts and promiscuous? Do you propose a compulsory register? If not, what is the point of a partial one? Do you propose compulsory testing? If not what is the point of testing only those who are responsible enough anyway? If you are suggesting it is voluntary, it cannot work. If you suggesting it is compulsory, it is an infringement of human rights.

Evading the issue by asking for my solution does not cut it either. I do not have a 'solution' It is not so simple. I do have my own ideas but you have already discounted them.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 03:45 PM

I don't see where he is proposing to "make" them.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 04:08 PM

It does appear to be the case that quite of lot of people are promiscuous, in the sense that they have sex with a number of stranger partners. In some cases the encounters are heterosexual, in others homosexual, and for a significant number of people both.

And of course there are also a great many people, who are in lasting relationships with a single person, heterosexual or homosexual.

This means that a register system restricted to gay people would be irrelevant. It would be too narrow and too wide. It would not take in all those at risk of catching and transmitting HIV, and it would include others where there was no such risk.

Anybody with a "promiscuous" lifestyle, more especially one involving unprotected sex would be very foolish and also irresponsible not to be regularly tested. But that's how some people are. But to assume that there might not be many who would wish to take advantage of such a scheme, is not necessarily right. People with a "promiscuous" life style should not be assumed to be stupid and irresponsible.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 05:09 PM

I don't see where he is proposing to "make" them.

Let's wait for the answers to my questions, Jack.

If the tracing and testing are voluntary they will not be effective. I just want clarification of what is being proposed. An ineffective voluntary scheme or a compulsory scheme which infringes the rights of one section of society.

I also asked if he believes that, as stated before, homosexuals are promiscuous perverts.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 05:17 PM

And what McG says. Particularly the last bit -

People with a "promiscuous" life style should not be assumed to be stupid and irresponsible.

I would never do that. Some on here, I believe, do. Promiscuous does not equate to unprotected sex of any kind. The most promiscuous person I know would never dream of having unprotected sex with a stranger. It is the ones who are stupid and irresponsible who will have unprotected sex and not bother registering or being tested.

What would you have us do with those, ake?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 05:38 PM

We are unable to locate the page you requested -
We are unable to located the requested story.

If you would like assistance in locating the requested story, please contact UPI support.

Please find current stories from Top News - World News , below.

Canadian snowboarder killed at Blue Mountain Resort
A young Canadian snowboarder found injured in a wooded area at Blue Mountain Resort in Ontario died early Wednesday, police said.

Alleged Basque terrorists on the run since 1992 arrested in Mexico
A couple charged in Spain with 18 assassinations for the Basque group ETA have been arrested in a Mexican resort after years on the run, Spanish officials say.
At least 25 dead in Ukraine clashes

At least 25 dead in Ukraine clashes
Twenty-five people were killed in new clashes between protesters and police in Kiev, Ukraine, by early Wednesday.

Read more: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2014/02/19/Canada-Catholic-Church-still-owes-money-for-Indian-Schools-settlement/UPI-5760#ixzz2toIp8siH

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 05:40 PM

Weird. Wrong thread for previous post.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 06:11 PM

Was a bit of a startling thread drift.

Call it a register or something else, regular checks by people at risk seem a very good idea, and should be encouraged. Compulsory just isn't practical, and wouldn't be effective, so there's no real point in arguing about whether they could be justified or not.

The assumption you can draw a clear line between "responsible" and "irresponsible" is pretty questionable. In all aspects of life most of us are responsible some of the time and irresponsible at others. So voluntary testing shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. Of course it already happens, but there might be things that could facilitate it.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 06:46 PM

Dave you know my views very well, we have discussed them on every thread . I have always said, that it is not my job to find ways of implementing what I have in mind.

The register would be voluntary and perhaps organised by one of the groups associated with homosexual health care.....the registered people, would be asked to present themselves for testing perhaps four times a year, if they were sexually active; and if testing positive, all sexual partners contacted and tested.
Here is the main part of MY idea of a solution.....After a time it will just become socially unacceptable for practicing male homosexuals NOT to be regularly tested for HIV,
just as it has become socially unacceptable for smokers to do so in public places, or drivers to do so under the influence.....all these groups need a little push in the right direction.
It is not for me to say what happens to those who behave in a manner which could be fatal to their sexual partners, but it simply cannot be allowed to happen at the rates which now pertain.
The health agencies are tying themselves in knots trying to be politically correct and improve male homosexual health at the same time....they ADVISE thrice yearly testing for MSM, they SUGGEST routine testing for AT RISK GROUPS in designated areas.
This of course is code for the MSM demographic.....there should be no bloody need for health agencies to USE code, public health should be the priority.....we live under a mad system, with incompetent health agencies cowering before political agendas.

Mr McGrath suggests testing and contact tracing everyone in the UK who is sexually active, but this would be impossible due to the cost and time taken to test the huge numbers of heterosexuals who have only a minute infection rate.

In the UK and US, HIV has become almost exclusively a disease of male homosexuality. The health agencies need to absorb this fact and act upon it.


Right that's my view of how this epidemic may be slowed or halted, lets hear YOURS and don't dare say education, education.

If you don't have a solution, or don't believe the figures, or think that saving lives is "discrimination".....don't waste my time.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 06:52 PM

Could have been worse Jack!!..:0)

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Stringsinger
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 07:19 PM

Starting arguments was not my motivation for this thread. I still maintain that a decent discussion of the issue of religion can take place if it is done by intelligent and informed people who are not merely reacting because it offends them personally, but that it is an opportunity to share differing points of view and not have to fall into the "militant atheist" cliche.

Since the thread creep involves homosexuality, it's reasonable to assume that conservative religionists take a moral opposing stance to same sex marriage culminating in the withdrawal of many gay people from the unquestioning rigidity of the church.

Though misinterpreted by self-appointed "moralists" as promiscuous or perverted, the recent studies on physiology by reputable scientists maintain that the gay life style is not a choice but predetermined genetically, a view that contradicts religious dogma.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 08:11 PM

Nice try, but to them God said it. There's the rub.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 08:51 PM

"Mr McGrath suggests testing and contact tracing everyone in the UK who is sexually active"

I don't. I say that isn't a practical suggestion, but that everybody who has a lifestyle in which they have sex with many people, including especially strangers, is crazy and irresponsible if they don't get checked regularly.   As the saying goes, when you sex with someone, you have sex with all the people they've had sex with, and all the people they've had sex with and... And of course that is likely to include a range of sexual identities.

But compulsory registers wouldn't be a realistic option, even if they were desirable.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 10:36 PM

Incidentally I'm puzzled why the initial post to this thread has been stigmatised as provocative. :

Subject: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Stringsinger - PM
Date: 11 Feb 14 - 12:23 PM

Real non-belief

Real non-belief by rationale human beings is not a militant movement but an abiding
view that eschews the need for religion.

And the link was pretty mild too. Presumably past posts by the poster contributed to that opinion, but I think it's never appropriate to do that. Half the pointless rows we have here which destroy genuine discussions arise from carrying on disputes from previous threads.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Feb 14 - 03:31 AM

So, ake, have I got it right? This idea of yours is to ask gay men to put themselves on a register and present themselves for testing 4 times a year? Yes? You have no idea how it would be implemented. There is no mention of who holds this register or what else it would be used for. There is no allowance for those who are either irresponsible or simply do not want to be registered. When we ask how this would be implemented you simply say you have no idea. Is that correct?

Well, sorry, but if you believe that is a valid action to reduce the level of HIV you are kidding yourself. I don't think you are that stupid. My belief is that you will not comment on how it will be implemented because you know it is socially unacceptable and morally wrong.

And you still have not confirmed or denied that you believe gay males are promiscuous perverts.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Feb 14 - 11:53 AM

I note that, unlike Measles and Mumps and a host of other diseases, neither HIV nor AIDS are included in the list of notifiable diseases in the UK.

Here is a list for a range of countries.

On the face of it this seems a bit anomalous.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Musket
Date: 20 Feb 14 - 12:35 PM

Notifiable communicable diseases are, so I was told, based on local possibility of containment if immediate measures are taken. Multi drug resistant tuberculosis being the one reported most often.

HIV isn't to be taken lightly and the cost to the public purse of antiretrovirals and chronic clinics have to be factored, but within those confines, once presented, they are manageable and once diagnosed, there are criminal legal measures to dissuade risk of propagation. Not perfect, but overall, the UK approach has factored in a universal healthcare structure with joined up surveillance through the public health observatory. Other countries, many of whom rely on statistical returns by commercial companies have different approaches on knowing of and dealing with conditions.

The centrally driven management of diseases is something we take for granted, but most professionals in public health epidemiology agree that different healthcare systems require appropriate approaches. A better answer should be available in Dept of Health information on the setting up of Public Health England, which replaces many health protection agency and strategic health authority functions in public health. I am typing from memory, which usually allows a certain evangelical member to point out I forgot to capitalise a name of an organisation which makes me a liar, whatever.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Feb 14 - 12:43 PM

If you mean me Musket, I have only called you a liar in response to specific falsehoods that you have knowingly posted.

We all make genuine honest mistakes, but deliberate lying is quite separate.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Feb 14 - 12:45 PM

"Though misinterpreted by self-appointed "moralists" as promiscuous or perverted, the recent studies on physiology by reputable scientists maintain that the gay life style is not a choice but predetermined genetically, a view that contradicts religious dogma"

I have yet to see a proven genetic link Frank, but even if it were true, what difference would it make to the epidemic now afflicting male homosexuals?
The figures speak for themselves 70% of new cases of HIV from amongst 2% of the population.....female homosexuals are not affected.

Now, what causes these infection rates?
I say promiscuity and risk taking, which seem to be intrinsic to male homosexuality.
In parts of Africa there are heterosexuals who are heavily affected, this can be explained by the promiscuous nature of the sexual culture in these areas, but even there, male homosexual infection rates are much higher.

If it is not promiscuity and risk taking that is producing these infection rates here, what do any of you think is the real reason?

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Feb 14 - 01:35 PM

It may be that gay orientation is predetermined genetically or developmentally, and no choice is involved, but that is "lifestyle" is hardly the same things. What "lifestyle" any of us leads clearly involves making choices, over and above our sexual orientation.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Feb 14 - 02:00 PM

Musket, there is no other risk group that comes close so the statistics are not skewed in the slightest by that.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Feb 14 - 02:07 PM

from latest available report.
"The proportion of people diagnosed late has declined over the past decade from 58% (3,150) in 2003 to 47% (2,990) in 2012. Among MSM, the proportion of late diagnoses reduced from 42% to 34%, but the number of late diagnoses rose from 900 to 1,100. Among heterosexuals, the proportion diagnosed late reduced from 65% to 58% with the absolute number halving from 3,180 to 1,620.
Almost half of MSM newly diagnosed with HIV between 2010 and 2012 had their diagnosis made at their first HIV test at that sexual health clinic, an indicator that many MSM who require an HIV test have yet to seek one."

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Feb 14 - 03:14 PM

It doesn't say what proportion of the non MSM indicated who were found to be HIV positive were similarly diagnosed on their first check.

The point is, the fact that in this country HIV is related to sexual orientation is contingent, and relates to other factors than merely sexual orientation, as shown by the fact that in many countries where HIV is more common, it is heterosexuals who gave it and spread it.

HIV is primarily related to lifestyle choices, rather than to sexual orientation, which is only one element in a lifestyle.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Feb 14 - 04:51 PM

OK....where's any attempt to put up a solution to the epidemic of sexually transmitted disease amongst MSM?
I take it we're all agreed it's transmitted by promiscuity and risk taking then?

So we move on to ways of combatting the transmission.
The agencies reckon that "at risk" groups should be tested more often, and contacts traced when a positive diagnosis is made.
There is really only one "at risk" group. MSM by miles.
The agencies reckon that there is a huge number of MSM who are unaware of their positive status.
How do we get these people to volunteer for testing?
Who wants to find out they have HIV?
How do we make them understand they are risking their lives every time they have sex with a stranger?
How about a little serious input to this issue, forget agendas, abuse, name calling, point scoring.....grow up!

Mr Mcgrath... promiscuity and risk taking takes place in every demographic, to a lesser or greater extent.
The figures prove conclusively that MSM as a demographic are affected to a hugely greater extent.....why is this the case?

Is it something intrinsic to male to male sex?   Is it in the nature of an addiction?

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Feb 14 - 05:34 PM

But do you believe homosexuals are promiscuous perverts?

How would you suggest that all this demographic are registered and tested?

Simple questions that you have not yet answered. I am beginning to feel that the phrase 'worm' is quite apt by the amount of wriggling involved in avoiding those questions.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Feb 14 - 05:41 PM

In many countries where there is a terrifyingly rate rate of HIV and Aids virtually all of it was carried by and transmitted by heterosexual activity.

It'ls the lifestyle that is significant, what people actually do.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Feb 14 - 04:22 AM

Yes Mr McGrath, but in parts of Africa the sexual culture /lifestyle of males, would be seen by us as extremely promiscuous.
The same promiscuous lifestyle seems intrinsic to male homosexuality(large numbers of lifetime sexual partners, anonymous relationships, etc), resulting in the huge infection rates that have been pointed out by the health agencies.

As far as I can see, the only way to cut transmission rates is to ensure regular testing and contact tracing of the groups most affected.
HIV is primarily transmitted by promiscuous behaviour.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Feb 14 - 04:53 AM

Dave, I feel you are being disingenuous here, I have answered your questions many times.....and what have my opinions got to do with proven homosexual health rates.

I told YOU not so long ago, that I was waiting for someone to put up a reasonable argument that homosexuality was NOT a perversion, all the evidence points to the fact that nature intended sex to take place between a male and a female.....she (nature/god), put all the bits in the right places......but I am always open to persuasion? :0)

Promiscuity, is a fact borne out by various studies, male homosexuals in general, have much higher numbers of lifetime sexual partners and much higher rates of STD infection than heterosexuals......I do not know why this is the case, but would be prepared to bet heavily that it has much to do with the lack of a formal family structure in homosexual relationships and an element of addiction to risk taking.

These are my views expressed as truthfully as I can, I am underwhelmed by the your observation that I wriggle like a "worm", but I think your friend adds another more sinister connotation to the word. :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Feb 14 - 05:46 AM

We do not want "twisted figures" in a debate like this.
Please give us the straight ones.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Feb 14 - 08:55 AM

Sexual orientation is not in itself "a lifestyle". In the context of heterosexuals nobody would think of suggesting it is, and it is just as absurd to say that it is for people who are sexually attracted to members of their own sex.

It is unfortunate that the claim that the suggestion that there is an intrinsic relation between sexual orientation and a particular lifestyle is commonly shared both between those who are hostile to gay people and the reverse.

It's the lifestyle that kills, not the orientation, whatever that might be in any particular country.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: frogprince
Date: 21 Feb 14 - 11:12 AM

...be prepared to bet heavily that it has much to do with the lack of a formal family structure in homosexual relationships...

So, that's why it's a bad idea to allow same-sex marriage ???????????

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 21 Feb 14 - 11:31 AM

"I told YOU not so long ago, that I was waiting for someone to put up a reasonable argument that homosexuality was NOT a perversion,"

>>Perversion
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For other uses of pervert or perversion, see Perversion (disambiguation).
Perversion is a type of human behavior that deviates from that which is understood to be orthodox or normal. Although the term perversion can refer to a variety of forms of deviation, it is most often used to describe sexual behaviors that are considered particularly abnormal, repulsive or obsessive. Perversion differs from deviant behavior, in that the latter covers areas of behavior (such as petty crime) for which perversion would be too strong a term. It is often considered derogatory, and, in psychological literature, the term paraphilia has been used as a replacement,[1] though this term is controversial, and deviation[2] is now used instead by others.<<<

I am not repulsed by any sexual behavior done by one or more consenting adults, conducted privately. Therefor for me homosexuality is not a perversion, nor is it my business.

If you are looking for "perversion" look to those taking vows of celibacy who are much less common and therefor much more perverted than homosexuals.

That was easy to clear up. Can we move on to the next topic?

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: frogprince
Date: 21 Feb 14 - 11:32 AM

nature intended sex to take place between a male and a female.....she (nature/god), put all the bits in the right places...

Absolutely right; did you ever notice how perfectly a woman's lips are adapted to fitting snuggly around a tubular structure ?

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Musket
Date: 21 Feb 14 - 11:54 AM

Watch out Frogprince. You'll never look at Mick Jagger in the same light again....

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Feb 14 - 01:06 PM

I don't think oral sex ever produced offspring froggie, and I think that's what the design team at (God/nature.com) primarily had in mind?

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Feb 14 - 01:53 PM

The other context in which the word perversion has often been used, and the one where it still is current, is in the context of the law, where we will talk of a perversion of justice, without any particular implication of it being repulsive, though clearly indicating disapprobation.

In the context of sexual activity I suppose paedophilia is the main area where it is still freely used.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Feb 14 - 02:17 PM

Perversion......"turning from the true purpose, use, or meaning."

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 21 Feb 14 - 03:05 PM

>>From: akenaton - PM
Date: 21 Feb 14 - 02:17 PM

Perversion......"turning from the true purpose, use, or meaning." <<

Like using your hands for typing instead of peeling bananas and flinging your own dung?

That horse left the barn at least 6,000,000 years ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Feb 14 - 06:00 PM

Come on Jack, hands have myriad uses, reproductive organs only one.

I think you may be getting a little "snooty" :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: frogprince
Date: 21 Feb 14 - 07:10 PM

With sarcasm on my part set aside to at least a degree: Ake, you're going in two directions at once. I think that your phrasing about "god" makes it obvious that you're not seriously promoting theistic intelligent design; at the same time you are making a serious argument based on...what?...a notion that the evolutionary process has an innate characteristic of...intelligent design?

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Feb 14 - 07:49 PM

Sorry froggie....you've lost me there :0(

I'm just a simple guy, Nature and God mean more or less the same thing to me, I'm quite happy to see people think about spiritual matters, I think they are very important.....most of my neighbours think so as well, but they like to go to church now and then to celebrate their beliefs.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Feb 14 - 07:55 PM

"If you are looking for "perversion" look to those taking vows of celibacy who are much less common and therefor much more perverted than homosexuals"

Problem with that statement Jack, is that a large percentage of those taking vows of celibacy ARE homosexuals.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Feb 14 - 07:59 PM

Most studies put the number of Catholic priests who are "gay" at 25% or higher.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Feb 14 - 02:40 AM

My post 21 Feb 14 - 05:46 AM referred to a deleted Musket post.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 22 Feb 14 - 02:48 AM

And that's the problem. You get censored for tackling homophobia.

Not surprised really. When you allow propagation of hate, it only naturally follows that you don't allow it to be challenged.

I can think of at least three uses for my willy. Not sure about this idea of there only being one?

By the way, some primates have sex with other male primates. I reckon the only shit flinging is on here.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Feb 14 - 04:59 AM

In that deleted post you claimed that the HPA figures were "twisted."

OK, give us straight, untwisted ones.
You claim special inside knowledge, and special access to better figures.
So share them with us.

Or is it all bluster, deceit and delusion?

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Feb 14 - 08:47 AM

Censored or censured?

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Jeri
Date: 22 Feb 14 - 08:51 AM

I believe you should present your opinions without name-calling. It's that name-calling that can get a post deleted.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 22 Feb 14 - 09:36 AM

Well put Jeri.

Musket, I don't think anyone mind your taking on homophobia, It attacking people that is the problem.


Akenaton, you are not taking our badgering of you seriously. That is very "unkind" as it takes the fun from the badgering :-D

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 22 Feb 14 - 09:39 AM

Ake, Musket has a point. There are multiple uses for the naughty bits. Including and not limited to playing Nessie is a shadow puppet show.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Feb 14 - 01:33 PM

I suppose you even could play a kind of conkers, but I think that would count as not in keeping with orthodox use. Highly inadvisable, perhaps, a term that it seems reasonable to use in relation to other analogous leaisure pursuits.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 Feb 14 - 02:54 PM

Musket: "By the way, some primates have sex with other male primates. I reckon the only shit flinging is on here."

Don't you think 'the only shit flinging' is those who are having sex with 'with other male primates'...and the species isn't procreated?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 22 Feb 14 - 02:55 PM

Ok Jack. How do you respond to Keith without pointing out his more odious lying comments made purely in order to demonise me and rubbish what I say ?

The pathetic post above being an example. I use something called HPA as a source of data and those I work with analyse it. He just said that HPA figures were twisted according to me.   I said that the data is twisted by those who wish to misrepresent them. Small changes. If he were clever he'd be dangerous.

This is the sort of homophobic disgraceful rubbish that stains this website. At least Akenaton can claim ignorance and a simplistic intelligence. The Keiths of this world are the ones to watch. Dissecting everything said that supports reality whilst saying they don't go along with the bigotry they try to make respectable.

I don't joke when it comes to bigotry. It curtails my normal attempts to see the funny side. It just cannot be given the veil of respectability.

Kevin. My auto correct. My bloody problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Feb 14 - 06:29 PM

I said that the data is twisted by those who wish to misrepresent them.

No data was twisted by me.
It was straight, in context, extracts from the report.

Why don't you provide untwisted data Musket?
Because the HPA is the official, definitive facts.
All your protests are bluster, deceit and delusion.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Feb 14 - 07:07 PM

"The same promiscuous lifestyle seems intrinsic to male homosexuality(large numbers of lifetime sexual partners, anonymous relationships, etc), resulting in the huge infection rates that have been pointed out by the health agencies."

So you would seek to reduce this promiscuity, if in fact it exists outside your fevered imagination, by refusing to allow formal monogamous relationships (marriage) to those people.

Oh Well!   That makes sense,.............TO YOU!

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 22 Feb 14 - 07:15 PM

"Come on Jack, hands have myriad uses, reproductive organs only one."

Oh come on! Humans, unlike animals, can have sex 365 days a year and several times a day, while the female ovulates and can conceive about thirteen times a year, for just a few days each time.

Do you see where this is going?

Nature doesn't place limits beyond what is possible, and sex is possible for humans whether conception is possible or not.

Maybe sex for pleasure is about bonding with occasional opportunities for procreation.

Kind of alters the argument, doesn't it, for all but dried up, past it puritans?

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 22 Feb 14 - 07:21 PM

"Well put Jeri."

I'm sure that Jeri is VERY pleased that the forum's self appointed arbiter of rectitude agrees with her.

Or maybe she's laughing herself sick at the antics of the most pompous and opinionated poster hereabouts.

I know where my money is bet.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: akenaton
Date: 22 Feb 14 - 08:03 PM

I don't know who the mod was that deleted the post for "name calling", but I would like to congratulate them, keep this forum a platform for intelligent free speech.

Thanks also to Jack, who's campaign to civilise these pages has brought him a load of abuse.....but he kept on regardless and his good work has borne fruit...well done sir!

Now, perhaps we can settle down and discuss all issues amicably?...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: GUEST,Jts
Date: 22 Feb 14 - 10:06 PM

"Or maybe she's laughing herself sick at the antics of the most pompous and opinionated poster hereabouts.

I know where my money is bet. "

Are you taking any bets on whether she enjoys your speaking for her in your attack and attempt to pick a fight with me?

I respectfully decline your invitation to bicker.

:-)

I'm not a self appointed arbiter of rectitude, I simply remind self appointed vilifiers of the unpopular opinion holders, who attack me of the rules. The group is only a couple of people and seemed to be heading for zero before you stuck your head up. If you are giving me crap for agreeing with the moderators, you may be a little too antisocial for the new forum rules.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 23 Feb 14 - 03:08 AM

Yawn.

Tell you what. I'll stop trying to educate pork.

Facts appear to be pompous and self important for some. Not surprised, given the awful views they insist on supporting.

By the way, I've been thinking about the op. I think it goes much further thn eschewing religion. I doubt most in The UK see the need to even consider it. It's a hobby of others, and taken at face value is not only ridiculous but increasingly irrelevant anyway.

A pity in some ways and a welcome advance in civilisation in others.

Right. It's Sunday. The garden awaits followed by a pint.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Feb 14 - 04:39 AM

Why can't you give us the straight, untwisted figures Musket?
Is it because I have already provided them, and it was yours that were made up and wrong?

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Feb 14 - 06:28 AM

The figures provided by HPA in UK on sexual health rates(HIV syphilis etc), are almost identical to those provided in the USA by CDC.

There is no way of falsifying those figures, in both cases MSM infection rates for all male sexually transmitted disease are massively higher than for any other demographic.
To call these figures unreliable is stupid and dangerous.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Feb 14 - 06:35 AM

The health agencies continue to dance round these figures(political correctness).

Meanwhile, the beat goes on, the infection rates continue to rise and nobody really cares, not even homosexual "marriage" activists.

I wonder what they see as the most important issue?

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Feb 14 - 06:47 AM

"Ake, Musket has a point. There are multiple uses for the naughty bits. Including and not limited to playing Nessie is a shadow puppet show."

Jack, what the person referred to above does with his "naughty bits" is no concern of mine, as there is no legislation to make such action compulsory, in the pipeline.   :0)


I was of course referring to reproductive organs, both male and female, I don't think many women can do "party tricks" with their ovaries.

Funnily enough, women seem to treat the process of reproduction a little more seriously than men......I wonder why that is the case?

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Musket
Date: 23 Feb 14 - 11:02 AM

My last post has been deleted for no reason.

I give in.

Keith is right.

Akenaton has a point.

Healthcare is the divine right of religious bigots. Raw data supports rounding up sections of society in order to oppress them. Probably deserve it for expecting equal rights.

Queer bashing is the norm.

I may as well go and have a wank.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Feb 14 - 11:15 AM

No reason?
Do you even know that you called someone "worm."
No-one cares what you views are. You will never be deleted for that.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 23 Feb 14 - 12:22 PM

It must be that those who leave room for promiscuous allowances in their behavior cannot fathom why those who feel closer to LIFE, and its processes of bringing forth LIFE with a loved, monogamous spouse, cannot understand why it is NOT hate or bigotry of any sort, to not buy into either homosexuality or any form of reckless promiscuity.
There IS a difference in the minds of those who engage on procreating, and nurturing that child, with the same love, that he has for his spouse, than getting their jollies off with anyone who lets him or her, and then pretending that it's the same thing...because it 'FEELS like their in heat'...or was that 'love'? To some, they can't tell the difference.
It reminds me of the great line, "What do you mean, she's not a whore, she fell in love with all of them!!"
...and they just don't get it.....and will probably go to their graves, being unsatisfied.....in more than one way!
Meanwhile, they get to spread fatal diseases, and emotional immaturity with complete abandon, of the whack-job ideologues, who seem to confuse 'allowing' them with 'helping' them, and the rest of society....which still, is trying to survive and reproduce, like the rest of the living!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 Feb 14 - 03:22 PM

Good gracious, Ake. Do you REALLY believe that anything that is not used for it's original purpose is a perversion? If that is the case there is just no point in continuing the discussion. As to a 'high proportion' of male homosexuals having a large number of partners leading to the proposition that male homosexuals are promiscuous, I point you in the direction of people that believe Jews are tight with money, the Irish are stupid and black men are rapists. Stereotyping at it's worse. Something useful has come of your ridiculous claims anyway. Everyone now knows what you think of male homosexuals and anyone can see why you will never answer the question as to how you propose to enforce this register and testing you promote so vigourously.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Feb 14 - 03:48 PM

Dave....there have been very large and respected studies done on the numbers of sexual life partners of various sections of society.

I printed the results of these studies further up the thread.

If male homosexuals in general, are no more promiscuous than other demographics, could you please explain the massive rates of infection which affect them?......I really think it is about time YOU were answering a few questions?

Your last post was just abusive rhetoric, why on earth do you accuse me of racism, when I have been injured on demonstrations AGAINST racism?

Homosexuality is a behaviour, and it is quite valid to criticise aspects of any behaviour which appears to be bad for the participants ...and society at large.
Please try to concentrate.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Feb 14 - 04:27 PM

Homosexuality is a behaviour, and it is quite valid to criticise aspects of any behaviour which appears to be bad for the participants

Nasty, sick little pervert.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 23 Feb 14 - 05:45 PM

Mr./Mrs. Shaw:"'Homosexuality is a behaviour, and it is quite valid to criticise aspects of any behaviour which appears to be bad for the participants'.
Nasty, sick little pervert."

Akenaton, It appears that the Shaws, are trying to tell you that its not perverted to have, '...any behaviour which appears to be bad for the participants'.

He must be quite a drooling alcoholic and addict to want to see past that pain or hurt his friend's feelings.!

Regards,
GfS

P.S. Hey, I know...Let's see if they start a 'movement'.......call it the 'Chicken of Life Party'....they can have an egg for a mascot!

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Feb 14 - 07:04 PM

"By the way, I've been thinking about the op."

Well, Musket, you'd better be absolutely sure before you go ahead with it, because it can't really be undone!

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Feb 14 - 08:52 PM

He must be quite a drooling alcoholic and addict

Nice one, guffers. Take an A-star for debating quality! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 23 Feb 14 - 08:59 PM

Thank you, Steve....'Speed is a bi-product of accuracy!'

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 03:14 AM

why on earth do you accuse me of racism

I didn't. I accused you of stereotyping. Which you are doing.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: akenaton
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 06:03 AM

Yes Dave, but your examples were all of "racial stereotypes"

Sex between males is behavioural......Jews, Irish, Blacks, could all be homosexual. I don't see how my opinions on any sort of behaviour, could possibly be described as "stereotyping"?

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 06:17 AM

I don't see how my opinions on any sort of behaviour, could possibly be described as "stereotyping"?

You state quite categorically that male homosexuals are promiscuous. That is stereotyping. The examples I quoted are also stereotyping. I do not see any difference between any of the stereotypes. It is wrong to use any of them.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 06:19 AM

Nothing funny about misrepresenting incidence and risk of HIV in order to advance hatred though
No indeed, and not for any other reason either.

Neither of us has done that though Musket.
The figures we produced were the actual, definitive figures.
How could they mislead anyone?
You have failed to produce any non-misleading figures Musket.
Is that because there are no other figures, and all your claims are delusional, deceitful and dishonest?
Yes.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: akenaton
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 06:28 AM

Dave, my views on male homosexual health rates are based on official figures, not on an irrational hatred of homosexuals.
How can that be stereotyping, unless you think the health agencies are guilty also?

So you think, that the transmission rates are not caused by promiscuity, well what is the REAL cause?
Why will you never answer a question?

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 07:04 AM

Dave, my views on male homosexual health rates are based on official figures

Health rates have nothing to do with stereotyping. Stereotyping is saying that a whole demographic has certain characteristics based on the actions of a few. Which is exactly what you are doing.

Why will you never answer a question?

I have answered lots of questions. Any one in particular?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 11:11 AM

Akenaton: "Dave, my views on male homosexual health rates are based on official figures, not on an irrational hatred of homosexuals.
How can that be stereotyping, unless you think the health agencies are guilty also?
So you think, that the transmission rates are not caused by promiscuity, well what is the REAL cause?"

The real cause doesn't matter to ideologues. Given the choices of hard data, verses a political agenda, the ideologues, both sides, will favor their agendas, and toss the hard data out the window....and then try to crucify any attempt to bring hard data, or real science to the table. They turn their 'issues' into emotionally based attacks.
It is IGNORANCE(as in 'ignoring' the truth) of the highest order, and pandering to people's FEELINGS. It serves NO ONE....except the wannabe activists bullshit egos!
The facts ARE the FACTS...the rest of the nonsense is just nonsense. The numbers don't lie....they are not emotional!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: akenaton
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 11:31 AM

That's pretty well "it" Sanity.

Dave. so, if I say that smokers are the demographic most likely to develop cancer,.....I am stereotyping?

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 11:53 AM

Of course it is! Propaganda is designed to 'get in' by misinformation, disinformation, or omission of the truth. That way they can distort reality and exploit people emotionally....That might help explain when the victims of propaganda run out of bad info, they rely on name calling, and denigrations of those to whom they cannot sensibly refute!!

BTW, Ake, Good Morning, at least on this side of the puddle!

Regards,

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 11:56 AM

"Dave. so, if I say that smokers are the demographic most likely to develop cancer,.....I am stereotyping? "

If you don't specify lung cancer, you probably are.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 12:14 PM

Dave. so, if I say that smokers are the demographic most likely to develop cancer,.....I am stereotyping?

I don't know if you are being purposely thick or you really do lack the power of thought. Either way, let me explain. Again. It has nothing to do with health statistics. You are stereotyping when you say that male homosexuals are promiscuous. When you add that to your ludicrous explanation of perverted we begin to see the bigoted views that you so thinly disguise as 'care'.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: akenaton
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 12:27 PM

Sorry Jack...inaccurate post.

Dave, So you don't think that male homosexuals are promiscuous? Well why do the health agencies say that sexual risk taking and large numbers of sexual partners amongst male homosexuals, increase the transmission rates?

Why do YOU think that transmission rates are so high?

Come on, use some of that "thought power", which you imply you have in abundance, but of which I have seen little sign   :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 12:36 PM

Dave the Gnome: "'Dave. so, if I say that smokers are the demographic most likely to develop cancer,.....I am stereotyping?'
I don't know if you are being purposely thick or you really do lack the power of thought. Either way, let me explain. Again. It has nothing to do with health statistics."

"...if I say that smokers are the demographic most likely to develop cancer,.....I am stereotyping?'.....Either way, let me explain. Again. It has nothing to do with health statistics."

Now some how, Dave is trying to make sense out of that!!!!
A definite victim of propaganda. Dave, what then does it have to do with?
Smokers developing cancer and AIDS/HIV have nothing to do with health statistics????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Here's a piece you probably loved!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 12:38 PM

"Dave, So you don't think that male homosexuals are promiscuous?"

I KNOW that all of them are not. You are generalizing the behavior of some to all. That is called stereotyping.

You can make your case with out stereotyping.
But maybe it would not be as strong.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 12:44 PM

Cappy Jack: "I KNOW that all of them are not. You are generalizing the behavior of some to all."

Another dizzying post....."I KNOW that all of them are not", IS a generalization!!.....unless you've tested them all out.....while not being promiscuous....


gfS

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 01:07 PM

Maybe 'stereo-typing is typing with both hands..you know, like 'stereo politicians speaking out of both sides of their mouths'!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: GUEST,Not Musket so don't delete please
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 01:45 PM

What's the point of posting when you can say disgusting disgraceful odious comments about a section of society complete with solutions that would have made Himmler blush but tackle it and your posts get deleted.

Pathetic

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: frogprince
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 01:46 PM

Step one: jts begins a sentence by saying something that is slightly misworded.

Step two: jts completes the sentence in a way that makes his actual intention perfectly clear.

Step three: Gfs demonstrates either a lack of normal reading comprehension, or his total indifference to legitimate discussion, by taking the first part of jts's statement to be the only meaningful part of the post.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 03:16 PM

What I see most from the people non-musket accuses of bigotry, are arguments designed to make musket look dumb.

I observe that same calling and unjustified NAZI references never make a a person seem smarter.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 04:18 PM

"Step one: jts begins a sentence by saying something that is slightly misworded."

Naw..he got it right....it's just a dumb rap.


Musket: "What's the point of posting when you can say disgusting disgraceful odious comments about a section of society complete with solutions that would have made Himmler blush but tackle it and your posts get deleted."

What Himmler said in a speech.......was he wrong?....Look what happened. Germany was defeated, but not Fascism.

Cappy Jack: "What I see most from the people non-musket accuses of bigotry, are arguments designed to make musket look dumb."

Naw..He does that without any help...that's what happens when your 'logic' is based on emotions, and not reality.....(P.S. What's a 'non musket'?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 04:29 PM

"He does that without any help"

I agree with that.

"...that's what happens when your 'logic' is based on emotions, and not reality"

Its what happens when you are so angry with someone that you lose perspective.

IMHO

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 05:09 PM

Interesting article from the Economist, somewhat a counter to the original post.

Scientists are not as secular as people think

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 05:15 PM

Why do YOU think that transmission rates are so high?


Ahhh, so that is the question you are on about is it? Well, I don't know. Just like you have no answer to how to your register and testing would be enforced, I have no answer to why the rates are so high. Tell you what. You tell me how the register and testing will be enforced and I will have an educated guess at why rate are so high. You first, seeing as I asked first.

GfS. It was Ake who started likening homosexuals with AIDS to smokers with cancer. Blame him for that whole stupid argument. Don't expect me to answer for him.

And Jack, once again we are in agreement. This time about stereotyping. There is hope for you yet, even if I am a lost cause :-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 05:26 PM

Don't flatter yourself DtG. Your opinions were not a factor in my analysis. My agreement is only with Mr. Webster! And of course the good folks at the OED.

:-D

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: akenaton
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 05:40 PM

Dave...."you don't know", but do you care?

If so would you not be better to try to find out?
Try reading some data and don't put words in my mouth. I was of course referring to the MSM demographic, which was the subject of the study.
No one suggests that ALL male homosexuals are promiscuous, that would be irrational.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 06:03 PM

"Dave, So you don't think that male homosexuals are promiscuous?"

I KNOW that all of them are not. You are generalizing the behavior of some to all. That is called stereotyping.

You can make your case with out stereotyping.
But maybe it would not be as strong.

Indeed, Jack (hope you don't mind if I call you Jack). I know gay blokes who are celibate from choice. I know at least one gay bloke who is mutually faithful with a long-term partner. "Male homosexuals are promiscuous" is a disgraceful statement and those who make or support such statements are scurrilous, homophobic bastards. Of course, we already know that about Hate Tony and Refugee from Sanity, don't we.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: akenaton
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 06:21 PM

Steve...Can't you be bothered reading?
" I was of course referring to the MSM demographic, which was the subject of the study.
No one suggests that ALL male homosexuals are promiscuous, that would be irrational."

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 06:33 PM

>> I know gay blokes who are celibate from choice. I know at least one gay bloke who is mutually faithful with a long-term partner. "

I know that Steve, that was the point I was making.

>>"Male homosexuals are promiscuous" is a disgraceful statement and those who make or support such statements are scurrilous, homophobic bastards. << I was quoting that to point out that Akenaton seemed to be stereotyping.

OTOH it is a known fact, that SOME "Male homosexuals are promiscuous. I know some who are. You probably do to.

But that is NOT an argument against same sex marriage or for registers of Gay men. Akenton is right to have sympathy for these people but IMHO wrong to conflate unrelated issues and wrong to suggest measures that punish all for the recklessness of a few.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 08:30 PM

My this thread has taken interesting tangents.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 11:36 PM

Cappy Jack: ""...that's what happens when your 'logic' is based on emotions, and not reality"
Its what happens when you are so angry with someone that you lose perspective.""

Same thing. Logic, based on emotions, of which 'anger' is but one, can certainly bring around a loss of perspective...Two roads leading to the same destination....(Propaganda plays on that very thing....which I've pointed out numerous times).

Dave the Gnome: "GfS. It was Ake who started likening homosexuals with AIDS to smokers with cancer. Blame him for that whole stupid argument. Don't expect me to answer for him."

Higher lung cancer rates, certainly CAN be linked to smoking, no problem there...HIV/AIDS CAN be linked to either homosexual behavior, OR heterosexual behavior, which ever promiscuity goes thoughtlessly. It would be absolutely foolish to discard the numbers of the transmission rates between homosexuals, just based on a political notion! The rates are higher, percentage wise, amongst homosexuals. THAT is not a bias, nor should a bias be construed from that, that is a FACT!(Remember those??)

Mr./Mrs. Shaw: "I know gay blokes who are celibate from choice."

Hmmm...That's interesting. Are they celibate or homosexual?

The Shaws: ""Male homosexuals are promiscuous" is a disgraceful statement and those who make or support such statements are scurrilous, homophobic bastards. Of course, we already know that about Hate Tony and Refugee from Sanity, don't we."

See above.....better yet, read it again, without bias, one way or another. here, I'll copy it for you.....:
"...HIV/AIDS CAN be linked to either homosexual behavior, OR heterosexual behavior, which ever promiscuity goes thoughtlessly. It would be absolutely foolish to discard the numbers of the transmission rates between homosexuals, just based on a political notion! The rates are higher, percentage wise, amongst homosexuals. THAT is not a bias, nor should a bias be construed from that...that is a FACT!(Remember those??)

Cappy Jack: "OTOH it is a known fact, that SOME "Male homosexuals are promiscuous. I know some who are. You probably do to."

The Shaws: ""Male homosexuals are promiscuous" is a disgraceful statement and those who make or support such statements are scurrilous, homophobic bastards.""

...and how many homosexuals, do you know, who settled down with their first 'lover'?...or do you think that there was some 'playing the field' before they settled?...I mean, didn't they have to find out if they liked it or not???....and you know, some guys might not like it with 'one', as much as the 'other'......They certainly didn't get into it thinking, "I think I want Bruce to have my baby..."

The Shaws: ""Male homosexuals are promiscuous" is a disgraceful statement and those who make or support such statements are scurrilous, homophobic bastards. Of course, we already know that about Hate Tony and Refugee from Sanity, don't we."

Spoken like a true hetero-phobic bastard!!

Just food for thought....don't get indigestion.

Regards,

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 03:10 AM

...and how many homosexuals, do you know, who settled down with their first 'lover'?

What a stupidly loaded question. How many PEOPLE do you know who settled down with their first lover? Why put lover in quotes BTW?

Ah, ok, Ake. So you do not believe male homosexuals are promiscuous? So when you said that male homosexuals need testing more because they have more partners you were, how shall we put it, exaggerating?

Dave...."you don't know", but do you care?

Where on earth does that come from? What makes you think I care less about the welfare of one demographic compared to another?

If so would you not be better to try to find out?

Better try and find out what? If I care or not? I am already trying to find out how you propose to enforce registration and testing but not getting very far I'm afraid.

Try reading some data and don't put words in my mouth.

I have put no words in your mouth. I have just asked relevant questions and the words come flowing out all by themselves.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 06:06 AM

Dave, I said that "ALL male homosexuals are not promiscuous", the figures suggest that a large majority ARE. Male homosexuals are a recognised demographic by health agencies in the UK and the US, known as MSM. This demographic accounts for over 70% of all new cases of HIV and Syphilis...... as well as higher rates of STD infections in every country in the the world. This demographic accounts for under 2% of the population (lesbians are not affected)

Why are these transmission rates so much higher than those for heteros?......I would think it obvious that promiscuity, risk taking, and addiction to anonymous relationships may play a part....wouldn't you.

Of course, there may be another reason associated with the physical practice of male to male sex......is that what you had in mind?

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 06:12 AM

Regarding a solution to the epidemic, I have se down what I think should be done......and it involves much input from homosexuals themselves, but how it should be enforced, if enforcement is needed is not up to me. I am not a "law maker"

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 06:58 AM

Why are these transmission rates so much higher than those for heteros?......I would think it obvious that promiscuity, risk taking, and addiction to anonymous relationships may play a part....wouldn't you.

I am not a doctor, scientist or statistician so I will stay away from conjecture on what causes higher transmission rates if you don't mind.

Of course, there may be another reason associated with the physical practice of male to male sex......is that what you had in mind?

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about so, no, whatever 'that' is, is not what I had in mind. Would you care to explain?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 07:36 AM

Don't think you need to be a doctor, scientist or statistician to believe the evidence presented by such organisations Dave, these reports are compiled for public consumption.

When you say that there is no promiscuity link to the figures, I thought you must have some alternative view? These rates don't just happen by accident?

To be perfectly honest, you don't seem to know very much about the issue at all, hence the advice to do a bit of reading to bring yourself up to speed.
Simply being obstructive isn't much good, how about a little positive input into the discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 09:14 AM

Don't think you need to be a doctor, scientist or statistician to believe the evidence presented by such organisations Dave

Link please. Where did I say I do not believe the evidence? I said will stay away from conjecture as I am not qualified to make a valued judgement based an the evidence available. Are you?

When you say that there is no promiscuity link to the figures

Link please. Again, when did I say that? I did say I do not know if there is a link. Again I am not qualified to make an informed decision. Anyone doing so without access to ALL the facts is just speculating.

Who is putting words in who's mouth?

Before you ask just what am I qualified to do and why am I joining in the discussion I will tell you. I fully understand that making people register and forcing them to take tests 4 times a year, on the basis of their sexual preference, is an abuse of human rights. It can, and will, lead to more abuses and anyone who can learn from history will see the parallels. I also know that someone who suggests such a thing, without detailing the possible consequences, is ether very stupid or is trying to mislead someone else. I know that branding a whole section of society as promiscuous perverts is wrong and such attitudes belong in the past. And how am I qualified to know this? Because I do read and I do learn. Because I have learned, first hand, what an abuse of power can lead to. Because I have learned how to filter headline grabbing generalisations from the truth.

Now, your turn. How are you qualified to pass judgement on your fellow man? What makes you believe that your declarations are more positive than the dozens of others that disagree? What gives you the right to decide what is and is not perverted? And finally, why bring your arguments to threads about atheism and religion?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 09:45 AM

Akenaton

I do not believe that you are reading the statistics correctly.

2 million gay men

6,300 cases of aids in the UK in a year

70% of 6,300 is 4400 70% is your figure of the % of new cases which are Gay men.

2,000,000 / 4400 =

One case of aids per 450 gay men.

1/450 is not a majority.
You cannot use HIV infection rates which currently apply to one in 450 to infer the behavior of the whole "demographic" You are stereotyping. Lets put it down to bad math, but please, lets move on.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 09:58 AM

"I don't know if you are being purposely thick or you really do lack the power of thought. Either way, let me explain. Again. It has nothing to do with health statistics. You are stereotyping when you say that male homosexuals are promiscuous. When you add that to your ludicrous explanation of perverted we begin to see the bigoted views that you so thinly disguise as 'care'."

I'm with you on that Dave, but you are wasting your time talking to a hard wired homophobe who has already stated that, even if there were no health risk to homosexuality, there are "other issues".

To that bigotry he adds his indifference to female homosexuality and his deep rooted opposition to a measure which would reduce promiscuity among gay men, namely marriage.

Knowing, as he undoubtedly does, that sex plays a comparatively small part in heterosexual marriage relationships, he nonetheless believes that any homosexual relationship is one hundred percent about sex.

You will note also that he refers to "behavioural" lifestyle, in the hope that, if he repeats it often enough, it will miraculously become true.

As the Hassidic Jew at the Wailing Wall said, when asked how it made him feel "I feel like I'm talking to the bloody wall".

That's what you get talking to Ake.

The difference between him and a Rotweiler is that if you wait long enough the dog will let go.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 10:09 AM

The similarity is that the more you poke the dog the harder it will bite.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 10:17 AM

Jack, from your link, 41 000 MSM are living with HIV, or 4.7%.
1 in 450 would be those newly diagnosed.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 10:21 AM

Jack your maths are wrong.

From HPA website
"The number of gay and bisexual men being diagnosed with HIV in the UK reached an "all-time high" in 2011, according to the Health Protection Agency (HPA).

It said there had been a "worrying" trend since 2007, with more and more new cases each year.

Nearly half of the 6,280 people diagnosed last year were men who had sex with other men (MSM).

Overall, one in 20 MSM are infected with HIV.
In London the figure is 1 in 12.

Of those diagnosed in 2011, nearly two-thirds had not been to a sexual health clinic in the previous three years.


The HPA said the figures showed there was "room for improvement" in testing people in at-risk groups."

CDC in the US say that in some inner city areas, MSM infection rates are 1 in 5.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 10:23 AM

These figures are 3 years out of date, the MSM infection rates have worsened considerably since 2011.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 10:26 AM

There IS cause for concern.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 10:58 AM

Yes Keith, I was talking about new cases because Akenaton was.

4.7 % is a long way from a majority. 10 times 4.7% is not a majority.

Akenaton, My mathematics is just fine. 1 in 12, your worst case, is not a majority, You cannot generalize 1 in 12 to all. That is stereotyping.

Yes there IS cause for concern, 6,300 people getting HIV is 6,300 too many IMHO. But there is no cause for opposing same-sex marriage and testing all gay men in the figures you provide.

Please, find better data or find another topic.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 11:27 AM

Dave the Gnome: "'...and how many homosexuals, do you know, who settled down with their first 'lover'?'
"What a stupidly loaded question. How many PEOPLE do you know who settled down with their first lover?"

Actually, quite a few people I have known, and still do, who got together with their first love, settled down and raised their families.
My son, for one, married his high school sweetheart, has 9 kids, all by the same girl, my closest friend for 52 years married his first, my parents, another very close friend who is a VERY well known executive chef, and their entire circle of friends, my next door neighbors...and more, seemed to have been able to do it, AND are not complaining about it, at all...in fact, they are still very much in love. It sounds like you have either not known of ANY, or just never bothered to inquire. That being said, I have known several homosexuals, and very talented people, some have died of AIDS, but NONE of them are with their first partner.......Well, you asked!

Most of them (the family by 'the first') don't even think about homosexuality. I've never gotten the impression that any of them 'hate' homosexuals, either...they are too busy relating to their own families....that being said, from the conversations we've had, none of them like their noses being rubbed in having to relate to the whining of homosexuals, who think their practices should be taken as seriously as they'd like. If anything, regular family folk are focused on their needs, to facilitate their families, and BEING a family. NONE of them, sit around hoping their kids will grow up to be homosexual....and I'll go a step further...if their kids did decide to pursue a homosexual lifestyle, the parents would have considered it a failure, on their part......(it's not uncommon, you know).

That all being said, does it mean they HATE homosexuals?...No, not at all. They don't even think about them, and at best are annoyed by their public displays, relating to them as an assault on a healthy society.
Hate, homophobia, bigotry has absolutely NOTHING to do with it...they are too busy caring for and nurturing their own families. The rabid frothing of homosexuals seeking 'legitimacy' is the furthest thing from their minds.

Hope that doesn't 'bother' you, but that's the way it is.

GfS

P.S. Virtually the only time I even discuss the issue, is on here, as well...having to address other mega-whiners who just don't get it.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 11:33 AM

GfS,

Will you concede that many people do not settle down with their first lover and that it is not my business or yours if they choose not to?

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 11:34 AM

A cartoon for Ake and GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 11:51 AM

Cappy Jack: "Will you concede that many people do not settle down with their first lover and that it is not my business or yours if they choose not to?"

Sure.... Will you concede that many people do settle down with their first lover and that it is not my business or yours how they choose to view people than don't?

GfS

P.S. Growing up in our neighborhood, and until we were 18-19, did we, or our family, even know anyone who was even divorced!..True story. The break up of the nuclear family, is in fact, one of the most tragic and destructive things that have happened to a thriving society...akin to the devastation of war, itself...wouldn't you agree?

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 11:56 AM

There must be a misunderstanding Jack.
Ake clearly did not mean that most of the demographic were infected in one year.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 12:45 PM

Maybe I did not make myself very clearly Jack, of course I was referring to those LIVING with HIV in the UK.
The worst case scenario was some inner cities where 1 in 5 are affected.
The new infections are running about 60% of all people tested, and almost 80% of all men tested. These are epidemic rates, and if they were duplicated in the heterosexual demographic, society would disintegrate.

I take it that we agree that promiscuity and risk taking causes the high rates of transmission?
Marriage either homosexual or heterosexual is no guarantee of monogamy.    Monogamy is most likely in a traditional family environment.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 12:47 PM

Keith A of Hertford: "There must be a misunderstanding Jack.
Ake clearly did not mean that most of the demographic were infected in one year."

'Misunderstandings'??....in other words 'spin' to alter the topic, to steer it to their 'talking points', more than something that really is.

For what it's worth.....I met one of the most sweetest ladies that I've ever met, her name was Dina. I met her in the late 70's. She was quite a bit older than me at the time...and while talking to her, at the table, I noticed that her forearm had a row of tattooed numbers on it. She had in fact been in a German concentration camp, during WWII. She opened up to me, and in the course of the conversation, related to me, that she was there from the ages of 14 through 19. Her whole family was there with her. She relayed how most of her family died there, and watching their corpses being dragged off, and thrown in a pile of other bodies, to be burned up...and in her graciousness, without bitterness, even though she did fight back a few tears, she relayed that the greatest loss, was not for her country, Germany..but to all the families like hers, and her friend's families that had been torn apart during that time...and the devastation that resulted to her homeland on such a widespread level. She relayed to me about the displacement of so many friend's families, who had been scattered, never to see each other again....and 'unless you've experienced that', she said, 'you'll never know just how sacred, and how dear, the time we were together was. All I have now, is their memories, and our love has sustained me all these years. Of all the things that happened to our homeland, this was the most tragic. I cannot continue to mourn...the best I can do, is honor them by living, and being the best that I was raised to be, and bring love and peace to those, who just don't know'.

I've never forgotten her, or her words.

YES! The lasting fabric of the nuclear family, so taken for granted...

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 01:05 PM

No, GfS, it doesn't bother me at all. Why the quote marks round bother this time? Is it an American thing? Why would you think it may bother me?

I am also very pleased for you that your experience has been so good but I can assure you that the number of people not with their first partner is significant in any demographic. Glad to say that neither my partner nor I nor our two married sons fall into that category but I know many people who did not settle down at the first attempt. I also know that personal experience is a very subjective thing and your, and my, experience is clouded by the circle of friend we move in. Good attempt but no prize I'm afraid.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 01:34 PM

Dave the Gnome: "I am also very pleased for you that your experience has been so good....Glad to say that neither my partner nor I nor our two married sons fall into that category ...."

Why are you 'Glad'?..are you referring to the alternative??

"Good attempt but no prize I'm afraid."

You just haven't thought it through all the way....BTW, Regards.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 01:52 PM

You expressed Happiness, in using the words 'pleased' and 'glad'. Those feelings create an ambiance in the home, that I sincerely hope your children carry with them, into their homes, without the pains of trial and error,as well. If they do/can/will, then your parenting has been a success....and I truly hope they do/can/will!!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 02:38 PM

"You expressed Happiness, in using the words 'pleased' and 'glad'."

He was being polite to you sir.

You ought to try it.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 02:50 PM

Keith, 1 in 450 contracting HIV this year, 1 in 12 living with it does not PROVE that the whole population is promiscuous. To say that it proves that is stereotyping.

You cannot extrapolate from 1/12 or even 1/5 Akenaton to the whole population. You can't even truthfully say that you know that ALL OF the 1/5 you claim are living with AIDS were all promiscuous.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 03:34 PM

Cappy Jack: "He was being polite to you sir. You ought to try it."

...and I gave him my 'Regards'....maybe you ought to cool down.

..and while you're at it, here's a little folk song, if you will, that was much overlooked during his string of hits....
to what we all knew....'way back when'.....before being 'politicized'! ...and taught to be stupid!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 03:38 PM

No one IS saying that all homosexuals are promiscuous Jack.
What I am saying, is that the rates of transmission of STDs including HIV, are massively higher amongst male homosexuals than in the population at large.
Draw your own conclusions as to why this is the case.
Infection rates are rising by approx. 8/10% per year in the MSM demographic, the agencies say more testing is required to discover those who are HIV positive, but unaware of their status.....a ticking time bomb.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 03:40 PM

You are telling me to cool down?

LOL

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 03:42 PM

Why are you 'Glad'?..are you referring to the alternative??


Both my sons, my partner and I all found our true loves at the first attempt. The alternative would be that we had not found our life partners that time and would have been disappointed until we did. It is not difficult to understand why I would be glad about that.

I am also pleased that you did not experience the disappointment of thinking you had found someone, only to be let down. Finding someone to love, who returns the compliment, is something to be happy about whether it is yourself or someone else.

What I am not so happy about is the implication that people who have not yet been as successful in love as us are, somehow, inferior, promiscuous or perverted. Not saying that is what you mean but some of the posts that have been floating around recently seem to be heading in that direction.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 03:46 PM

Draw your own conclusions as to why this is the case.

That is all we are trying to do but you seem to feel that yours is the only one!

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 03:57 PM

"No one IS saying that all homosexuals are promiscuous Jack."

You said that more than half or the males are.

You have no evidence. You have evidence for 450th of the gay male population per year. You have evidence for 1 in 20 of the total demographic currently infected 1 in 12 of the current demographic living in London.

I have drawn a very reasonable conclusion based upon the information you have provided. You are mistaken in your mathematics. It does not follow that more than half are promiscuous.

There is certainly a problem with the sliver of the population that is reckless enough to become infected the 1/450. But with that small a percentage it is unwise for you to suggest that any preventative measures be applied to the whole "demographic."   

Perhaps you can reformulate your ideas to take this into account?

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 04:10 PM

Dave the Gnome: "What I am not so happy about is the implication that people who have not yet been as successful in love as us are, somehow, inferior, promiscuous or perverted. Not saying that is what you mean but some of the posts that have been floating around recently seem to be heading in that direction.
Cheers"

..and then in that case.....

We should ALL hope that our children do NOT have to suffer, as the result doing whatever the latest political trend points to...no matter who is saying it!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 05:05 PM

"
That is all we are trying to do but you seem to feel that yours is the only one!"

Nobody has advanced any other explanation Dave.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 05:30 PM

Ake, I refer you back to my unlikely ally of 25 Feb 14 - 03:57 PM. Your explanation is flawed. Your conclusion from that flawed explanation is to abuse human rights. I have already said that I am not willing to speculate and will not offer an explanation of medical matters where that is best left to those who know what they are doing. Thankfully most people know that you do not belong to this group and take as much notice of you as I do.

GfS - Amen to that. No matter who is saying what indeed. I hope that, in the words of the song, I taught my children well :-) At least well enough to spot weasel words when they arise.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 05:30 PM

Akenaton, if we are all agreement why is there a discussion?

What is your position please, on same-sex marriage and on equal rights for gay people?

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 06:04 PM

Jack, your stats appear to be wrong.
Yours come from a small study done in 2005, which estimated the number of homosexuals in the population as 3.6 million, 6% of the population
The latest figures come in a huge study done by the Office of National Statistics in 2012.
They state that 1.5% of the population of the UK are homosexual.
350000 of them are male.
Total homosexual population(male and female) 720000.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 06:10 PM

Link to Office of National Statistics here

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 06:21 PM

Thank you for that Dave, I knew you were being disingenuous. :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 07:04 PM

Assuming your figure of 350,000, 1 in 79 instead of 1 in 450 does not make you right. You cannot extrapolate 1 in 79 to the whole "demographic."

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 01:04 AM

Facts we all know, requiring no medical or statistical expertise.

It is very hard to catch HIV.
It requires the exchange of body fluids.
Sexual transmission is easily prevented by use of condoms.

In any epidemic, infection can only increase if infected people infect others.
Only untreated HIV victims are seriously infectious, a small proportion of the demographic under discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 01:07 AM

One more.
Infection is only increasing in one demographic.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 03:06 AM

Infection is only increasing in one demographic.

One interesting statistic that has been left out of the above is that the demographic where the infection is increasing is not just classed as homosexual males. It is young homosexual males. Which may indicate that the issue is, as I said what feels like years ago, that further educational effort is required, specifically targeted at this group.

I know I may be banging my head against a wall but someone needs to point out that there are other options to rounding them up, registering them and eventually going the way of Uganda.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 03:12 AM

Sometimes, being too close to a subject means you have to bite your lip. However, now The Commons Health Select Committee has waded in (a bit like a senate or congressional hearing for those in The USA) Duncan Selbie the CE of Public Health England is being questioned for not being frank enough with advice. They are the body that collates statistics, which some here mistakenly call HPA, which ceased to exist last year. Their most recent data is used in analysis though.

One major criticism is not acknowledging sexual health data that is not coded. Boring and technical maybe, but acknowledges that we don't know the full picture as such clinics offer a confidential service that is anonymised rather than charged against your NHS number.

So we can argue all we like. The facts are as follows;

Being gay or straight makes no difference to your attitude towards anal sex.

More women receive anal sex than men.

Most people use condoms for anal sex.

Data commentary on health statistics uses the 95th percentile to ensure risk is not ignored.

The 95th percentile is where most HIV outcomes reside.

The historic gay prevalence is an example of how that demographic is more likely to come forward for screening than some others such as needle share and promiscuous females.

Perhaps our professors of health bigotry would like to look at the data, you'll find it where Christian websites find the data you throw at us, comparing screening versus symptom registration. That blows the myth. It is dangerous to plan a trajectory based on incidence.

That is why PHE like HPA before it is there to collate and advise, not plan and supply.




But of course, I am not a fellow queer basher so everything I say above is pure lies eh. ?

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 03:33 AM

HPA does still exist as part of PHE.
Its stats are definitive, and they do "supply" stats.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 03:39 AM

HPA/PHE re age of newly diagnosed MSM 2012.
"The median age at diagnosis among MSM was 34 years, and one in nine MSM were diagnosed at the age of 50 years or over."

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 03:58 AM

Try this one containing the lines "AIDS
continues to pose a grave threat for gay men in the U.S., who constitute the largest proportion of new HIV infections. Young MSM are the only risk group for which HIV incidence appears to be increasing"

I am more than happy to exchange statistics but I think it is pretty futile.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 04:16 AM

"Among MSM, the greatest number of new diagnoses (1,102) were in men aged 35-49, representing a third of MSM who were newly diagnosed with HIV in 2012. However, there are also more older people living with HIV than ever before, partly to do with an ageing population living with HIV and partly to do with increasing new infections in older men. In 2012, one in nine MSM who was newly diagnosed was 50 or over. "

There is clearly a different pattern in US.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 04:49 AM

There is clearly a different pattern in US.

Yes.

More statistics.

UK Population: 63,395,574
US Population: 316,438,601

Can we extrapolate where there are more cases do you think?

People living with AIDS (UK):    85,000 (0.13%)
People living with AIDS (US): 1,200,000 (0.38%)

Which country do you think is most indicative? I'll leave that for others to decide.

One more thing. In either case we are talking < 0.5% of the population. Hardly an epidemic by anyone's statistics.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: akenaton
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 05:08 AM

How facts can be twisted.

"More women than men receive anal sex"..... :0)

There may be a slight difference in the number of women in the population and the number of active homosexuals who indulge in anal sex!!

Additionally, to my mind, subjecting a woman to this treatment is usually a form of abuse, male domination. am sure few women welcome this sort of attention.

One would expect incidence to be higher amongst younger more sexually active MSM.

MSM are encouraged to come forward for testing, because they are the massively most affected demographic.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 06:12 AM

Musket,
I am fucking important. Important enough to know what I am talking about.

Even so, the Health Protection Agency is now part of Public Health England, an executive agency of the Department of Health.
It does still exist as part of HPA as I said.
I was right and you were wrong as usual.

Dave, I think the UK figures are indicative of the situation here, and the US figures indicative of the situation over there.
I was not aware of that US statistic.
I have learned a little more about all this.
Thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 06:18 AM

In any case, equating being gay with unprotected anal sex per se demonstrates your odious worthless agenda and makes uncomfortable reading for decent people.

I have not done that Musket.
You made it up.

The HPA/PHE stats. are the only ones available (UK), and used by government and agencies for all planning and policy.
If you challenge that, please provide something more than your word for it.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 06:49 AM

I have learned a little more about all this.
Thank you.

No problem, Keith. Happy to be of service. I do hope that you realise that this does mean that we have shown statistics taken in isolation to be, at best, skewed and, at worst, misleading. Which is why you may have spotted that I will question any statistics quoted, not jut by you but by anyone. Even if they support what I am saying! As someone at lot wittier, and probably wiser, than me once said. There are lies, damned lies and statistics.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 07:05 AM

I have to disagree Dave.
It is correct to take UK and US stats. in isolation from each other, because they portray different situations and tell different stories.
If you averaged them you would create a picture of a land that does not exist.

Africa has a bigger population and more infection, but tells us nothing about patterns of infection anywhere else.
Likewise US and UK.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 08:18 AM

Well, this is an international forum, Keith, and I think we need to take that into account. But I am happy to agree to differ on that one :-)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 08:34 AM

Akenton, Keith, why are you arguing to support statistics which do not support your case in the first place. Everyone agrees that HIV is a bad thing. You can show no link between AIDS and same-sex marriage. Your statistics show that new infections are occurring in a small fraction of the gay male population. Any proposed solution that involves the whole "demographic" is wasteful and unfair.

Dave and Musket, I am not sure I can figure out why you continue to argue this. It is bad math and and faulty logic. I just don't see the relevance of which bureaucracy it came from. an infection rate of 1 in 79 cannot be extrapolated to the whole group.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 08:49 AM

Dave and Musket, I am not sure I can figure out why you continue to argue this.

What is it you cannot figure out, Jack? I cannot answer for Musket but I can try to explain what I am saying. I, like you, think that some serious stereotyping is occurring. I do not like stereotyping so I am arguing against it. I also do not believe tagging and testing is the best answer, so I am arguing against that as well.

Does that help?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 09:08 AM

Dave you were right to inform us about the situation in US.
Thanks.
Both countries and others are relevant to us as you say.
I just reported the situation here, which is what Musket and I disagree about.
Actually, what Musket and HPA/PHE disagree about.

Jack, I support SS marriage, and am not arguing a case.
I am disputing matters of fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 09:59 AM

I get that Dave, about the stereotyping. But you see to be discussing the underlying source of data which IMHO is not relevant because, no matter what the source, the figures quoted by Akenaton do not support his arguments.

   
>>Jack, ....
I am disputing matters of fact. <<

Other than to irritate Musket, Why?

Can't one of you just google "history of the PHE" and be done with it?

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 10:23 AM

Sorry, but I think accuracy important.
Argument and opinion should be based on the true facts as known, or you are not entitled to one according to you.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 10:32 AM

Yes accuracy is important, but trivia is not.

I don't think it matters to the family of a person who has died which bureaucracy tallied up his death and put it in a database.

This is the Bull Shit section of an Internet forum about Folk Music. It is not a Royal Commission on the AIDS epidemic.

Even if it were that. You are holding Ian to a much much higher standard of "accuracy" than the commissioners would. They would be much more interested in who is dying and how to prevent it rather than who is counting the bodies.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 10:47 AM

Ah - Got it, Jack. I am not just arguing the underlying statistics though. The point was made that the demographic was homosexual males only. I pointed out that is was young homosexual males which, I believe, is a crucial point to the argument I was trying to make about education being a crucial tool in stemming the spread of AIDS. Hardly trivia is it? OK - Keith made the point that it seems to be different in the UK but, overall, I think the same principle applies. The focus on education has faltered in the last couple of decades and we are seeing the result. I have not seen any public information films or infomercials on mainstream TV about the prevention of AIDS for years. In the 80s and 90s they were on all the time. Hence the effect on the 'younger generation'.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 10:55 AM

Doesn't solving the AIDS crisis deserve, at least its own thread and a little less devotion to trivia.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 11:55 AM

" Argument and opinion should be based on the true facts as known, or you are not entitled to one according to you."

I have not said this. An Aussie logic prof, not named Bruce, did. And it applies only in his classroom.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 01:49 PM

Sorry Jack. I thought you agreed that an opinion should have a basis and not be just a whim.

The HPA thing is trivial. Sorry.
It started with this from Musket, "They are the body that collates statistics, which some here mistakenly call HPA,"

That was aimed at me and sought to discredit my knowledge and understanding.
In fact he was mistaken. HPA still does that within PHE.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: akenaton
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 01:54 PM

"One more thing. In either case we are talking < 0.5% of the population. Hardly an epidemic by anyone's statistics."

Cant believe anyone with a brain wrote that.

It is a severe epidemic, if you happen to be a male homosexual!!

In the general population HIV is extremely rare, in the MSM demographic it is an epidemic, and described as such by all health agencies.

The only important thing at present is getting infection transmission rates amongst male homosexuals under control and that can only be achieved by increased testing and contact tracing....all health agencies recommend that.

Education?, the young homosexual demographic has been bombarded with education for decades, they are not school children, they are between 18 and 35.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 01:54 PM

Dave, no-one leaves secondary school not knowing about STIs and that condoms greatly reduce their transmission.
Ask a any young person.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Stringsinger
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 01:54 PM

There seems to be differing statistics offered as some kind of factual information about the proportion of HIV to homosexual activity, leading to the dictum of Disraeli that "there are lies, damned lies and statistics."

An element that hasn't been explored in the dealing with HIV has been "the world's oldest profession", a rampant source of infection on many levels, being excused by the designation of "sex worker", with unavailable "statistics" to establish relating sex to HIV.

Homosexual prostitution has not been statistically analyzed satisfactorily as well.

Prostitution in any form is abuse, justified by pretentious liberalism in order to further its continuance. Women are the most victimized and men should be prosecuted for accepting solicitation as sex abusers.

How's that for thread drift?

Free Thought doesn't support prostitution by relinquishing moral concerns, those concerns impacting on societal and mental health. Real free-thought embraces societal and mental health concerns rather than hollow religious morality, by taking mythology out of the equation, and placing realistic values in its place.

Meritricious pulpit-pounding and statistical juggling doesn't address the problem of social diseases, HIV and others.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: akenaton
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 02:14 PM

Jack, there is a section of this forum who think that HIV rates should not be discussed, because they show male homosexuals to be massively affected compared to other demographics.
This fact is a very great impediment to their general "liberal" agenda.
In order to put up a reasoned argument against this stance, accuracy in presenting the facts supplied for public information by the health agencies, is imperative.
Lies and obfuscation are righty highlighted by Keith when they occur ....and they occur fairly regularly!

Stopping or slowing the epidemic of sexual disease in MSM is much more important than any political agenda.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: akenaton
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 03:09 PM

Frank, "sex workers" present infection rates comparable, to the general population.
FROM BASHH.
"We believe that it is essential that the notion of sex workers "spreading" disease is strongly countered. As this brief outline suggests, there is no evidence for this pattern in the UK. Rather there is strong evidence that most commercial sex is safer than non-commercial sex due to high levels of condom use and avoidance of the most risky exposures."

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 05:38 PM

"One more thing. In either case we are talking < 0.5% of the population. Hardly an epidemic by anyone's statistics."

Cant believe anyone with a brain wrote that.


Pretty average I suppose. Can't knock the argument so attack the speaker. Your caring nature is beginning to show, Ake. Still, as I said before, no-one takes any notice. And the more you say the more obvious your true self becomes.

Thanks

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 05:43 PM

Stringsinger: "An element that hasn't been explored in the dealing with HIV has been "the world's oldest profession", a rampant source of infection on many levels, being excused by the designation of "sex worker", with unavailable "statistics" to establish relating sex to HIV.

Homosexual prostitution has not been statistically analyzed satisfactorily as well.

Prostitution in any form is abuse, justified by pretentious liberalism in order to further its continuance. Women are the most victimized and men should be prosecuted for accepting solicitation as sex abusers.

How's that for thread drift?"

Hurray!!...Not a thread drift!.....The spread of STD's refers to SEXUALLY Transmitted Diseases.
Now which would you tell your growing child to avoid?....heterosexual promiscuity, including prostitution?....homosexual promiscuity, including prostitution??....or ANY promiscuity?
But in order to teach/advise anyone, especially your children, the parent/adviser should not only be an example of not being promiscuous, but bring something, as in values, and the benefits of them to the person being 'advised'/taught....and that 'something' is not only preserving, but to be passed down.

(That way, when all the 'Grand Little Gnomes' are gathered around Dave, their is an energy coming off of him, that causes the 'Grand Little Gnomes' to want to grow up WITH that same energy, and want to grow up maintaining that energy, as a moral, in life).....and to maintain that energy, not only is promiscuity OUT of the picture, but family LOVE, IN the picture, and IS the picture!

Not only would it certainly curb the transmission of STD's, it would raise the level of the quality of life, for everyone exposed to it!

....and BTW, there is no 'hate', 'bigotry', hetero or homo phobias in the preceding post......so before your hair-triggers go off, put it away.

THIS has been my position from the beginning!....only a few resident idiots divert it to meaning homosexuals only, and accusing me of being 'homophobic'. I am pro-family, and pro-family love and cohesiveness....all other interpretations or perceptions do NOT apply.
We SHOULD be FOR the BEST..and stop making lame excuses, backed with false 'science' for anything LESS!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 02:56 AM

Stop Press.
Since I last looked a couple of weeks ago, HPA has been mostly subsumed into PHE.
The figures produced by HPA now appear under PHE and are still the definitive figures.
Enough trivia?

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 03:41 AM

Awww, shucks, GfS. I am flattered :-) I think...

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Musket
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 04:33 AM

Except HPA doesn't exist. The historic figures do, but the collator of some data and advisor on health protection is called PHE. It isn't the only source of data either by a long way. The legal duties under The Health Act 1999 no longer exist and have been repealed by order of The Health and Social Care Act 2012. The duties have been subsumed, not the role. I can't help lazy website wording. It leads to stupid people making gormless claims.

It is of interest for the likes of Keith to reiterate the sexual health data from this raw source as there is plenty in it to support demonisation of gay people, whilst the meta analysis of all available data that local public health consultants use, including the raw GU clinic data that HPA didn't get as it wasn't coded, present the picture healthcare is planned and delivered by. My point from day one has been to insist on using reality when pointing blame for irresponsible lifestyle. It doesn't support bigotry when you use reality. There are over 1.4 million people work in the NHS. The two of us who have declared our real world interest in this field have been called liars by Keith. I wonder if we need to wheel out the other 13.99999 million one at a time before it gets into his thick skull?

Saying HPA is the only, or official, or definitive etc shows you are either stupid or malicious. The evidence appears to support the latter.

But ignore me. I am just a member of the project group that set PHE up, (my input to be fair was cancer screening together with Prof Patnick rather than sexual health. That was my good friend Dr Nick Payne.). Tell you what Keith, if I repeat it on my blog, which is a Dept of Health blog, you'll have to say it is the official line and go around throwing me in the face of others! There's a thought... If you publish anything saying I am a liar there though, my professional indemnity means the tax payer will pay my legal costs in seeking damages from you, so perhaps not eh? I am writing my blog later today, but no room for sexual health right now. Boring old medical school numbers, acute to community funding drift and the future for services in Staffordshire this month.

No room for knob gags either, sadly.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Howard Jones
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 05:09 AM

Why is it these discussions always get hijacked by the same old rants from the same old people?

It appears to me that societies evolve a moral structure which reflect's those societies' needs. They then use religion as an effective means of enforcing them. However different societies have different needs, and what is considered moral behaviour differs between them.

For example, farming societies are very interested in inheritance, to pass the land on through the family. It was in those societies' interests to encourage sexually faithful family relationships to protect inheritance rights, although opinion varied whether these should be monogamous or polygamous.

The South Sea Islands, which were small geographically isolated populations, faced different problems - inbreeding. For their societies, the most moral thing its women could do for the benefit of the community was to get pregnant by any passing males who sailed by, to add to the gene pool.

In the UK, and I suspect the US, where sexual activity has become separated from pregnancy and where women are no longer financially dependent on men, society has evolved a new sexual morality. Many of the old reasons for restricting sexual behaviour no longer apply, but new ones have arisen. Virginity is no longer prized. People are expected to be monogamous within a relationship, but may have multiple serial relationships. For those not in a relationship, sexual abstinence is no longer expected, but practicing safe sex is.

You may not approve, you may not consider it 'moral', but if morality is a shared code of behaviour then that what it is.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 06:29 AM

Saying HPA is the only, or official, or definitive etc shows you are either stupid or malicious.

The HPA, now PHE, figures are the only ones on HIV infection UK.
If you challenge that, please produce something other than your word in support.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 07:19 AM

I think there may be times when someone says they know something and we have to take their word for it. At the moment I have a very annoying itch on my left testicle but seeing as I am sat in the office I cannot do anything about it. If it continues I may have to go somewhere discreet. I cannot produce anything to prove it. Sorry.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 08:02 AM

I am sorry to hear that Dave.
We have all been there.

Musket does not like some of the figures, so he attempts to denigrate them by suggesting there are superior ones somewhere.

If that is true, why can he not show us?
Or tell us about them?

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 08:33 AM

If that is true, why can he not show us?
Or tell us about them?

Confidentiality agreements? Lots of those knocking about in governmental bodies, including the NHS. Just a thought.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 08:51 AM

"Stopping or slowing the epidemic of sexual disease in MSM is much more important than any political agenda."

And this from the man who adamantly opposes monogamous relationships for homosexuals, by denying them the opportunity to marry.

Risible!



"If that is true, why can he not show us?
Or tell us about them?"

I love it when you show how LITTLE you know K A. Anybody who plays a part in policy making is enjoined by the conditions of his/her employment to maintain confidentiality.

In the case of government, there are also the conditions of the Official Secrets Act.

Musket can only talk about what has been published or what he is currently authorised to reveal.

You spout about 2011 and 2012, while Musket is dealing with 2014.

Which of you i likely to know more about the CURRENT situation?

I know where I'll place my bet!

Bear in mind that you haven't wiped the egg off your face after having to agree HPA is gone (calling it trivia won't wash, as YOU made it a big point of your argument).

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Musket
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 09:11 AM

To be fair, and bearing in mind the duty of openness and candour, it is sometimes difficult to articulate how a complicated system, one that I am involved in in a small way rather than perform, works without contradicting information that is labelled official. I have also indicated my own involvement in moving responsibilities around in the bonfire of the quangos, as the government eloquently called it. What I cannot do is speak of the detail.

I can speak of the outcome though. Legislation that has removed the body Keith speaks of from existence. The collating of health statistics and commentary on possible implications has been taken on by another body, as has the health protection part. But neither the former nor the existing body is definitive when it comes to informing the public health agenda for regional delivery of care. If it were, there would be no need for public health professional input into commissioning of services. There are already too many London solutions for national issues as it is in healthcare without the sensitive area of sexual health being trivialised.

In short, Keith refers to accurateish numbers. The conclusions he and his friend Akenhateon quote however Do not reflect the reality on the ground. At least not in England. I wish, in a weird way, they did. One demographic is easier to engage with than myriad. But it isn't the fault of gays this time. Sorry and all that, but like Hitler was wrong to blame the Jews, rabid right wing bigots are wrong to blame the gays and "liberals."

Keith either purposely or inadvertently feeds their odious agenda.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 09:52 AM

I think there may be times when someone says they know something and we have to take their word for it. At the moment I have a very annoying itch on my left testicle but seeing as I am sat in the office I cannot do anything about it. If it continues I may have to go somewhere discreet. I cannot produce anything to prove it. Sorry.

One-upmanship:

Man goes into pub and says to his mate "Between you and me, pal, we have five testicles!"

Mate replies "Why, have you only got one then?"

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Musket
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 11:05 AM

Ah! I often suspected it...

We go to pubs to talk balls.

All these years, I wondered ............

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 11:12 AM

Good one Steve!

Screw you Dave, now the left side of MY bag is itching

Good points Howard. Nice to see a new perspective.

Keith, Musket, Ake. How about talking about the big picture rather than who keeps what ledger?

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 11:23 AM

Musket, HPA has not been legislated out of existence.

On the site that still has their web address but is now a PHE site it states, "From 1 April 2013 we are part of Public Health England
We are still maintaining this website until further notice."
http://www.hpa.org.uk/

If there is another source of infection stats please tell us what it is so we can use it.
Why a you being so funny about it?
They do exist, don't they?

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 11:29 AM

Sigh.

Keith, Musket, I am sure that no one else cares about bureaucratic alphabet soup.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 11:37 AM

I know Jack.
Suppose one of us was making shit up though.
We should both give sources for our facts and figures.
Musket's continued refusal invites suspicion.
Let's all be open and above board I say.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 12:49 PM

"I love it when you show how LITTLE you know K A. Anybody who plays a part in policy making is enjoined by the conditions of his/her employment to maintain confidentiality.

In the case of government, there are also the conditions of the Official Secrets Act.

Official Secrets Act!!! :0)   After reading the things he has been saying on here?.....some which have had to be deleted, as they were borderline libellous.

No, he just can't admit he is WRONG and he should not be wrong as all the information is in the public domain. He wriggles. :0)

This situation is getting more bizarre every day!

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 01:11 PM

>>I know Jack.
Suppose one of us was making shit up though.<<

No one would know which one. No one would care.

The fact is that the big picture data does not support Akenaton's assertions. It does not support opposition to same-sex marriage. It does not support targeting the whole demographic to ensure the safety of a reckless or unlucky 1 in 79.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Stringsinger
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 01:34 PM

"We believe that it is essential that the notion of sex workers "spreading" disease is strongly countered. As this brief outline suggests, there is no evidence for this pattern in the UK. Rather there is strong evidence that most commercial sex is safer than non-commercial sex due to high levels of condom use and avoidance of the most risky exposures."

Maybe this is true of the UK, though I question the source, however, commercial sex is another form of abuse of women, if it's a female prostitute or male, if a male prostitute.   This data does not apply to the U.S., though, and to many countries outside of the UK where sexually transmitted diseases are rampant through prostitution.


In the States, commercial sex is not accepted generally as social or legal. I see no improvement in the deviant sadistic behavior of the "Johns" if it were.

My view underscores that there is no unifying principle for non-believers making it impossible for non-believers to be militant about any single issue. (herding cats). The only requisite for non-belief lies in the criticism of the efficacy of religion by those of many different ideas.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 01:38 PM

"The only requisite for non-belief lies in the criticism of the efficacy of religion by those of many different ideas. "

That is not a-theism, it is Anti-theism. Call it what ever you like.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Stringsinger
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 02:21 PM

"That is not a-theism, it is Anti-theism. Call it what ever you like."

We obviously can't agree on terms here for a rational discussion.   

I prefer to call my position, FreeThought.
Since there is so much ambiguity about the term "atheism" I don't use it any more.

As to "anti-theism", this is not true. I am not opposed to all theological thought if it is benign and its mythology doesn't intrude on affairs of State. Fairy tales often serve a function to describe society and mythology plays a role in education if it is not taken literally as fact.

I maintain, however, that a criticism of religion is not uniform across the non-belief community except for the premise that it holds no special status, analogous to political parties, or national jingoism, the choice of which shirt to wear or any further mundane decision.

Recognizing that behavior counts more than idle prattling about ideologies, Religious proclamations by zealots have no meaning in the real world.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Musket
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 02:28 PM

I would let it go but Keith is a lying bastard who has read into "we are keeping" as meaning something exists purely to throw doubt on anything I say on any subject. You a re right, the soup is off anyway. But it ain't about the soup, it is about casting doubt. It is how The UK Independence Party, a right wing pressure group, tell their members to act when faced with those who see through them. His political leader wishes to get Christian votes, thinking there a few to get, and he also advocates repealing the gay marriage legislation. Keith is one of the ignoramuses who do his dirty work for him. He admitted to being a member a long time ago, didn't deny it when I first questioned him and a few months later, denied his membership. A bit like saying how he supports gay marriage whilst repeating the fabricated hateful statistics that don't exist that e worm spews out after reading certain far right websites. (I recognise the worm's figures. We are advised they exist on propaganda sites in case we are challenged by press or politicians.)

Sadly, when it comes to religion, I am just a view. When it comes to arm wrestling, I am just a view. When it comes to quoting healthcare figures, he is quoting me. I have a responsibility as a public post holder to represent The NHS to a high standard and if I am proud of anything, it is my real life. Keith represents the laughs we have before realising how much The NHS is misrepresented by those with hate agendas. Only today, I was interviewed on BBC local radio because a local newspaper to a teaching trust I am involved with printed lies, and having people being scared of a hospital may sell newspapers but leads to unnecessary anxiety in patients and that is despicable.

And I don't fucking lie.

I just can't contemplate accommodating those who do.

I hope your membership was worth the money Keith, and don't deny being one. I can't post on your account and you, not me, said you were a member.

You couldn't be a member or employee of HPA though because it doesn't exist.

How do humans get that into your skull? The Health Protection Agency does not exist. It ceased to exist when it's duties were subsumed into Public Health England as part of The Health and Social Care Act 2012.

Dead parrot.

Shuffled off etc.

Fucking snuffed it.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 03:02 PM

. He admitted to being a member a long time ago, didn't deny it when I first questioned him and a few months later, denied his membership

So now you start lying about me again.
I am not even a UKIP supporter, never mind member, and I have certainly never said I was.
I did once quote something from their site because we were discussing their position on something.
That does not make me UKIP!

I hope your membership was worth the money Keith, and don't deny being one. I can't post on your account and you, not me, said you were a member.
Complete bollocks! How desperate you are to discredit me.

How do humans get that into your skull? The Health Protection Agency does not exist. It ceased to exist when it's duties were subsumed into Public Health England as part of The Health and Social Care Act 2012.

It became part of PHE in March 2013.
They published their 2012 report in November 2013 as an HPA report.
It now appears under PHE.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 04:49 PM

"He admitted to being a member a long time ago, didn't deny it when I first questioned him and a few months later, denied his membership."

I'm trying to see your side here Musket.

Are you saying that he admitted being a member by not denying it?

I'll tell you if you call me an armadillo right now. I won't bother to deny it. That doesn't make me an armadillo.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 05:17 PM

The Health and Social Care Act 2012 did not contain any reference to the future of the HPA.
You made that up Musket.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 05:33 PM

My apologies.
I was looking at 2008 Act.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 07:46 PM

Frank, I fully agree with your views on the immorality of the "sex industry".
The figures were simply for information purposes re HIV infection rates.

Jack, the "big picture" does support my my assertions, all health agencies in the UK and US, describe transmission rates of HIV in the MSM demographic as "an epidemic", amongst the rest of the population, the condition is very rare indeed.

Where did the 1 in 79 come from? the rate of HIV amongst male homosexuals is at best 1 in 20, at worst 1 in 5!

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 09:22 PM

Akenaton, Your arguments have been about PREVENTION. You can't prevent the 1 in 20 people living with AIDS from catching AIDS, so obviously you are not talking about forcing then to be registered to be tested for AIDS and you are not talking about them from getting married because surely know that the safest thing for society would be getting same-sex couples with AIDS into supportive, loving, monogamous relationships.

Akenaton All of these figures I got from you.

(6300 new cases of HIV infection per year multiplied 70% being MSM) divided by 360,000 gay men is 1 in 79 new cases of HIV per gay man per year.

Obviously you cannot extrapolate a statistic about 1 in 79 to the whole population. Obviously it is not practical or just to enforce mandatory testing on 79 men to keep 1 from being infected.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 01:29 AM

Cappy Jack: "(6300 new cases of HIV infection per year multiplied 70% being MSM) divided by 360,000 gay men is 1 in 79 new cases of HIV per gay man per year.

1 in 79?..1 in 20??....OK, go take your chances. By making EXCUSES, you are in essence trying to adjust your odds, or encourage others to take their chances with your dumb rationalizations. Who cares?..Is there a point to all this? Bottom line it.....It isn't healthy..not physically, not mentally, not emotionally...just for the sake of liberal talking points!
Jeez!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 02:51 AM

It isn't healthy.

What isn't?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 06:10 AM

Obviously it is not practical or just to enforce mandatory testing on 79 men to keep 1 from being infected.

It would not be acceptable to me to enforce mandatory testing.
I acknowledge that our progressive, liberal ideals result in hundreds of young men continuing to die of AIDs every year, who would be saved by testing.

If my own sons were high risk, I would do all in my power to enforce testing on them.
I doubt they would even resist or complain.
Why would they?

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 06:37 AM

It is not acceptable indeed, Keith. And nothing less than 100% testing of all those at risk would achieve anything. It only needs a tiny minority to dissent, for whatever reason they choose, and testing of those responsible enough to have themselves tested voluntarily is completely invalidated. What is more, to force testing, all those at risk would need to be registered and, as we have seen time and time again, those who have access to register will eventually use it for other purposes. Some other uses may well be benign but, as sure as anything, someone will use it for sinister purposes.

It is a proposition that is both unacceptable and unworkable. Those who support it claim they are not capable of telling us how it would be enforced.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 06:58 AM

Why is less than 100% not achieving anything?
Short of compulsion we should be persuading as many as possible.
Every early diagnosis is a life saved, and reduces further spreading of a dangerous disease.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 07:59 AM

Why is less than 100% not achieving anything?

OK - Not achieving anything is the wrong phrase. My apologies. I should have said that less than 100% testing will not prevent the spread. Simply because there will always be an element who, for whatever reason, will continue to be irresponsible, not be tested, not use safe precautions and generally be responsible for spreading the virus. I also suspect that people could be lulled into a false sense of security if they feel that a testing program is going to keep them safe.

Agreed that we should be persuading as many as possible. By education, not compulsion.

Every early diagnosis is a life saved, and reduces further spreading of a dangerous disease.

Not if the person diagnosed is either irresponsible, unlucky or malicious. If it was as simple as you put I would agree but it isn't.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 08:12 AM

Diagnosis leads to treatment, which greatly reduces the risk of onward transmission even if they are irresponsible, unlucky, etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 01:28 PM

If homosexuality is about 'love', and not sex.....why not love the one you're with..and get tested?!?!?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 01:32 PM

Perhaps people should reconsider their priorities!...after all, reproductive organs are NOT toys, nor objects of ego verifications, detached from their psyches!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Stringsinger
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 02:21 PM

Ake, thanks and duly noted.

Getting tested doesn't mean anything. It's easy to fool the test.

Not promiscuity but meaningful relationships, education about keeping HIV and other VD's down, and obtaining responsible behavior should be encouraged.

Religious behavior generally is to sweep these elements under the carpet.

Whorehouses are known to be "in the shadow of the steeple".

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 02:35 PM

"Agreed that we should be persuading as many as possible. By education, not compulsion"

The MSM demographic does not seem to be responding to "education"

The homosexual agencies must take the lead in encouraging MSM to be regularly tested and if testing positive, sexual contacts traced.

There is simply no alternative.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 02:38 PM

"The homosexual agencies"

What are those?

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 03:16 PM

The Pink Press?
They run frequent information pieces and encourage testing.
Groups like The Terence Higgins Trust.
Their website is full of information and HPA stats., and encourages bi-annual testing.