BS: Real Non-belief/not militant

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.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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 - 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 - 06:10 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 - 02:51 AM

It isn't healthy.

What isn't?

DtG

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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 - 01:11 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: 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: 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: 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 - 11:23 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 - 11:12 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 01:49 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: 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.