 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: Dave the Gnome Date: 23 Aug 13 - 02:55 AM Ake - You still haven't answered my question on whether you think all African Americans should be tested as well. You keep going on about statistics but ignore the fact that the highest percentage of AIDS in the US is amongst that demographic group. Why is that? GfS. With great respect and in the spirit of the thread, you are just an idiot. Cheers DtG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 22 Aug 13 - 09:48 PM whatever you guys say........(rolls eyes)......far be it from you that you'd ever contradict yourselves in the same post, huh? ...and to Dave the Gnome, Those quotes I posted from Bobert, were from two posts, (scroll down), on the same subject! Larry, Maybe the guy had to get off, rather than sleep there...or take a pee..... GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: GUEST,Jack Sprocket Date: 22 Aug 13 - 08:00 PM reduction ad absurdum Still better is the reductio ad excrementum |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: Bobert Date: 22 Aug 13 - 07:44 PM Yeah, Don... Or in the words of my daddy, "The biggest fool in the room isn't known until he opens his mouth"... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: Don Firth Date: 22 Aug 13 - 07:40 PM Goofballupagus: "Don, your exaggerations, are absolute silliness...just another example of you re-stating falsely what somebody says, and then arguing that point, as if it was even brought up by anyone else but you. How many times, by various posters, do you have to called on that tactic of dementia??" Taking the argument presented by someone and carrying it to it's logical conclusion often displays the fallacy therein. In formal logic, this is called reduction ad absurdum, and exposes the fallacy in all its glory. And frequently affords us the interesting spectacle of being able to watch you run around in circles with your ass on fire. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: Bobert Date: 22 Aug 13 - 07:28 PM Funny thing... GfinS talks about being a Kucinich supporter yet continues bashing "liberals"... What am I missing here??? B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: GUEST,Jack Sprocket Date: 22 Aug 13 - 07:03 PM opps that were me |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: GUEST Date: 22 Aug 13 - 07:02 PM Respectful boundaries? Mudcat? Not if I can help it. I suspect the whole idea only came up because I ribbed Mr Metrogoldwyn Meyer about his CPSnowian incomprehension of the simple scientific ideas. Of course he invoked Leavis to exculpate himself (being much better at writing than scientists, the arty bunch always win the arguments in the Telegraph), but of the original bone of contention (quantum shenanigins) his woeful ignorance (of the problem) stood unchecked. He simply couldn't see that there was a problem "common sense" can't solve. And unleashed all the demons of Mudcat. Of course we'll respect you, provided you agree with us in all measureable deatails. MGM is pretty good at grammar though. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: GUEST,Musket with facts Date: 22 Aug 13 - 06:37 PM Here's a fact. You are lying and inventing statistics in order to persuade people to be as homophobic as you. You slur anybody working in the field and say they make matters worse and that only your register of people based on their private lives can affect the statistics you give. You have no statistics, you take reality out of proportion and say your rounding up is for their own good. It has been tried. A dozen years later at Nuremburg they hung the bastards for trying it. I don't know that you are not committing a crime as you are promoting homophobia which does make you an alleged criminal. My views on that are mixed but if preventing publication of hate can allow people to go about their business in peace and without fear of loss of liberty,then it may not be a bad idea. Tell you what, lets try it out? I shall send a link to this thread to the Stonewall reporting website. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: akenaton Date: 22 Aug 13 - 06:06 PM "Equality is the reality" doesn't cut the mustard....even with Dave :0) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: akenaton Date: 22 Aug 13 - 06:03 PM Ian..... you are threatening nothing, as you know very well I am committing no crime. You are full of wind and bluster. Could you not manage one small fact to bolster what you call a stance? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: Larry The Radio Guy Date: 22 Aug 13 - 05:57 PM GFS. Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but I would think the answer is just to keep going. Why would we need to overtake the galloping kangaroo anyway? And the lion is running at the same speed. Where's the danger? Why not stay on the merry go round and enjoy it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: akenaton Date: 22 Aug 13 - 05:55 PM For gawds sake Dave get a grip. We are talking about infection RATES, which are higher amongst male homosexuals than in any other demographic anywhere! This is the problem with this forum, I've had to repeat the point about percentages, over and over again.....I don't know if some people are just being obstructive, or that they just don't understand statistics. Why get involved if you don't understand the rudiments of the debate? It wouldn't matter if there were more heteros than homos with hiv the population numbers are so different....what counts is the percentage rates of infection. If say, 1 in 10 heteros became infected the numbers would be in many millions, the actual number is under 3000. In some cities it is estimated that 1 in 5 homos are infected....EPIDEMIC! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: Dave the Gnome Date: 22 Aug 13 - 05:19 PM GfS: I GfS: am GfS: criminally GfS: insane Hey! I like this game - Take words completely out of context and you can make him say anything :-) Cheers DtG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: GUEST,Guest from sanity Date: 22 Aug 13 - 05:18 PM Here's a puzzle that has confounded even the brightest among us. You are on a horse, galloping at a constant speed. On your right side is a sharp drop off. And on your left side is an Elephant traveling at the same speed as you. Directly in front of you is a galloping Kangaroo and your horse is unable to overtake it. Behind you is a Lion running at the same speed as you and the Kangaroo. What must you do to safely get out of this highly dangerous situation? Don't look yet...figure it out......... Get your drunk ass off the merry-go-round. GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 22 Aug 13 - 04:59 PM Bobert: "As a polio survivor I am very much in favor of Big Brother vaccinating people..." Bobert: "I also can accept no testing at all unless people choose to be tested, as many are..." Bobert: "You don't want the vaccine, fine... We'll quarantine you along with your tin-foil brethren at some closed down army base and ya' can live your lives out there all getting sick and dieing together but..." Bobert: "Yeah, what I find sickening is that the folks who preach the evils of government seem to have no problem with allowing the government to test and probe you..." Bobert: "We do it out of love for our fellow man..." 'So called liberals'!!! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: Dave the Gnome Date: 22 Aug 13 - 04:21 PM It's not based on sexual inclination, its bases on horrific infection rates. So Ake, did you read the article I linked to? The one that said the group which had the highest incidence of AIDS in the US were African Americans? Would your compulsory testing cover all Black Americans as well then? DtG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: GUEST,Musket Date: 22 Aug 13 - 04:00 PM If that's all you have.. I am not aware of any healthcare professionals on this thread. If there were any UK based ones, their professional registration would require them to report health based hate crime. I'm threatening nothing. Those capable of reading will note my reluctance to use counter productive laws. I can't answer for others though... You try to repress freedom to exist equally and then cry about freedom to express a view. You are one sick puppy. Not that I would let a puppy or any other dog near you. They deserve better. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: akenaton Date: 22 Aug 13 - 01:10 PM SO.....according to Ian we are to be criminalised for telling it like it is? Look back through all the threads, if you can find one post from me which contains "hatred towards homosexuals", I will be very surprised indeed. I never knowingly lie on this forum. Any figures which I quote can be easily verified. I don't scare easily, if we are to have an "Orwellian" society, bring it on.......I will fight to my last breath for freedom of speech. Interesting though, that Ian has dipped below his usual bottom feeding median, with threats of criminalisation to silence his opponents.. :0) And this is suppose to represent our health professionals? He doesn't have a case.....He's a joke! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: akenaton Date: 22 Aug 13 - 12:43 PM It's not based on sexual inclination, its bases on horrific infection rates. If these rates were appearing amongst red headed men or Scottish men, or Gnomes, I would still be in favour of compulsory testing. OK??...............AKE. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: Bobert Date: 22 Aug 13 - 12:39 PM One thing that happens as people grow sicker, be it mental illness or bodily illness, is that, in the real world, a lot of friends pull back... In a perfect world, yes, we would treat all disease more holistically than we do today... Unfortunately, we don't live in that perfect world... I had a good friend, Joe Yancy, who died of lung cancer about 10 years ago... Jos knew a lot of people in his community and was liked by most folks who ever knew him... I had moved to the West Virginia mountains and it was a 3 hour drive to see Joe... I was talking with his widow a couple years ago and she told me something very disturbing... She said that as Joe got worst and it was apparent that he didn't have much time left on this Earth that I was about the only person who consistently came to visit him... I'm afraid that was my experience with my clients... I read their case files which sometimes covered 2 or 3 decades and many of these people had families and friends along the way but when they got sicker these folks dropped out... Very sad... That's what I mean by the real world... Janie, bless her heart, is still grinding away in social work and it would be interesting to get her take on this subject... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: Dave the Gnome Date: 22 Aug 13 - 12:15 PM I agree absolutely, Bobert. Vaccines ARE good, especially when the risk from the disease is far greater than any damage the vaccine can do. That is not the point and no-one is saying do not vaccinate. What we are all in agreement on, apart from a couple, is that forced anything based on sexual inclination is just plain wrong. OK? DtG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: Larry The Radio Guy Date: 22 Aug 13 - 12:04 PM I agree for the most part, Bobert. The only possible bone of contention might relate to that belief that we're treating the disease versus treating the person. Certainly schizophrenia is real. But it's only one small part of a person's 'essence'.......and by helping them access their own strengths as well as their support circle (which can include other medical practitioners as well as friends and family), they can begin to move towards health (some of which involves accepting the reality of the psychotic symptoms.) There is some great work being done recently in looking a Cognitive Behavioural Therapy and MIndfulness in the treatment of psychosis. A lot of that involves helping people access their ability to 'step back' from those distressing voices and bizarre thoughts and to examine their truth and their functionality. And to help them to 'cope' within a society that judges them. For example......some patients who become isolated because they are responding to the voices in their head, scaring off people around them. One solution? Give them a dead cellphone, and suddenly their imagined conversations begin to look 'normal'. And they begin to feel more like they can 'fit in'. I think it relates to this thread because it is a way of respecting the reality of a person who may be suffering from a mental illness. So when we witness a posting here that seems rather 'bizarre'.....how can we respond to it in a way that is respectful to the person posting it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: Bobert Date: 22 Aug 13 - 11:43 AM I come with a different history, Larry... Most of my clients when I was in social work came directly from Central State Hospital in Petersburg, Va., and suffered from various mental illnesses... Schizophrenia is very real and no matter how caring one's circle of friends are they cannot fill in for folks who have a better understanding of the disease than those friends... Therapists also work with psychiatrists, social workers, adult day care centers, etc. as part of a complete treatment package... This line of discussion is starting to look like the AIDS/homosexuality one with people thinking that folks make choices and can just flick a switch and turn stuff off and on... As a former social worker I flatly disagree with that premise... People who suffer from mental illness are ill and need more than a "circle of friends"... I've watched two Christian Science women did because they also thought that faith and a good circle of friends was all they needed... It was very sad... And painful deaths... I'm seeing the common thread here is science denial... Too many people with this "shake it off" mentality... I donno??? Think a few folks here need to put their tin foil hats... ...back on... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: Larry The Radio Guy Date: 22 Aug 13 - 11:28 AM Hi Suzy, In my university years I was never much of an embracer of what was called at the time "logical positivism". (The belief that just as the physical world operates according to gravity and other absolute laws, so also does human behaviour and society). It could be true....but the laws would be so complex that we'd never be able to determine them.....and trying to determine them becomes more of an academic exercise than something practical when working with real people. I haven't read Focault's book---although I've read many a quote and paraphrase---but I was very influenced by the Thomas Szasz book: The Myth of Mental Illness, as well as R.D. Laing (Politics of Experience; The Sane Society). As for your contention that people are better off with friends who care for them than with therapists........absolutely. I always view my work as short term, the purpose being to help people get the confidence and the energy to access their own strengths.....one of which is their support system. And more and more I'm coming to accept and love my 'inner daftiness'. And by doing so I can enjoy those daft comments being made by other mudcatters as well. Hey what a great thread title.......revealing our own inner daftie. We could even make it a music thread (Songs where the narrator is obviously a 'daftie'. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: Bobert Date: 22 Aug 13 - 11:24 AM As a polio survivor I am very much in favor of Big Brother vaccinating people... Some people have been so brainwashed to think that the vaccines are either bad for you or have thought control germs in them that its sad because they are not doing everything to protect themselves or their kids... But oit goes beyond just protecting peop;le from their own ignorance... There are highly contagious diseases out there that when contracted can be spread to others... If we have a means to stop those diseases then we have a collective right to do so... You don't want the vaccine, fine... We'll quarantine you along with your tin-foil brethren at some closed down army base and ya' can live your lives out there all getting sick and dieing together but... ...you don't have a right to carry your disease around me just because Michele Bauchmann thinks that vaccines make you sick... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: Suzy Sock Puppet Date: 22 Aug 13 - 10:50 AM Sigh. Can we talk about "dafties" now? akenaton, daftie is a cute word. I like it. I might be a bit daftie myself. Larry, since you are a therapist, I wonder if you have ever read "Madness and Civilization" by Michel Foucault. IMO, it should be required reading for anyone working in the mental health field. A critical look at the history of madness/"mental illness" would do any therapist good, give them a firmer grasp on the context of their own profession. Anthropology as opposed to modern psychology and psychiatry is a better discipline in which to interpret any outlier. I would say also that people are better off with friends who care about them than with therapists who are taught to keep "professional distance" and to view their patients, clients and now "consumers" (ugh!) as proper OBJECTS of research and intervention. The positivist paradigm is absolutely inappropriate for the "human sciences" (an iffy notion to begin with). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: Dave the Gnome Date: 22 Aug 13 - 10:47 AM I never went to 'kindergarten' GfS. I went to Nursery School and Primary School. Is it too much to ask that you consider whether or not people are in the same state, country, continent or era? Polio vaccine in England in the 1950s was not compulsory but, as the risk of the disease was greater than the risk of the vaccine, I do believe there was a high take up of immunisation. I did not know about elsewhere but a simple click gave me this from Wikipedia In the United States, certain immunizations are mandated by state policies for school entry requirements. In a push to eradicate Pertussis, Tetanus, Diphtheria, Polio, Measles, Mumps, Rubella, Varicella, and Hepatitis B from the population, schools across the United States require an updated immunization record for all incoming and returning students. This is a social problem because there are ethical debates and objections to the required immunizations because of different religious or philosophical beliefs and the infringement on individual liberties There is information on the same for most countries. Again, is it to much to ask that a brief investigation of facts be undertaken? Finally, you have still not answered whether these 'compulsory' immunisations were given only to certain groups on the grounds of their sexual orientation etc. Not even an E for effort... DtG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 22 Aug 13 - 10:36 AM Dave the Gnome: "As far as I am aware polio vaccine has never been compulsory in this country." Think back.....school.....maybe kindergarten....mandatory polio shots...come on..think...think....but then you may be dealing with a handicap that you mentioned......'As far as I am aware' GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: Dave the Gnome Date: 22 Aug 13 - 10:31 AM would you object to 'Big Brother' giving out polio shots, too??? As far as I am aware polio vaccine has never been compulsory in this country. Even if it was it was not compulsory only for those of a certain sexual orientation, creed, colour or ethnicity. There is one thing you are proving, GfS. Compulsory screening of idiots should receive more support... :D tG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 22 Aug 13 - 10:17 AM Don T, You're NOT the Don, I was referring to, sorry about that... Firth is the one who has the well known reputation for making up stuff, and then arguing the stuff he made up, as if another poster, who he takes issue with, had said it....which is ridiculous and divisive. Sorry if I wasn't clear about that. You're the 'other' Don, who starts to back up the first Don with equally nonsensical reactions..working off his already preposterous premises, that he made up! Gosh, Bobert, would you object to 'Big Brother' giving out polio shots, too???...Food stamps: YEA!! Health issues: NO!! Well, after all...you were a social worker, weren't you? That being said, and after the reactions to my post caused a flurry of 'ire' , and maybe got some people thinking, you posted something, which may have been the most intelligent thing you've ever posted.......wanna know what it was???............>>>>>>>> From: Bobert Date: 20 Aug 13 - 08:24 AM -->>>>>>>>>>> "We do it out of love for our fellow man..." Then you fucked up by saying...... "That's a foreign concept to GfinS that he can't wrap his head around and therefore just talks and talks and talks about folks who are out there fighting for justice and fairness for all of us..." You don't need a federal program to show love for your fellow man, or to give from your heart....neither should you IMPOSE that others be FORCED to do so either.........and then attack Akenaton for his proposal on the health issue...but you COULD talk decently about it, couldn't you????.......maybe just, '.........out of love for our fellow man..." ...And quit accusing everybody that you disagree with of 'hating somebody' will ya'? You're sounding like a lunatic when you do. Wishing for Your Personal 'Hope and Change', GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: Bobert Date: 22 Aug 13 - 09:37 AM Here's an idea... Rather than target gay people why not test everyone for the AIDS virus??? (But wouldn't that be like Big Brother, Boberdz???) Well yeah, it would but I'd rather see Big Brother than homophobia... I also can accept no testing at all unless people choose to be tested, as many are... I have heard of folks who are using various internet dating sites asking potential partners to provide test results for AIDS... I don't think that is asking too much... (Oh, you're going to get the blast now, Boberdz...) Hey, I've gotten the blast before and I'm still here... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 22 Aug 13 - 09:00 AM ""Don, your exaggerations, are absolute silliness...just another example of you re-stating falsely what somebody says, and then arguing that point, as if it was even brought up by anyone else but you. How many times, by various posters, do you have to called on that tactic of dementia??"" If you are addressing this to Don F, he will answer for himself. If to me, would you kindly tell me to what post of mine you are attaching the claim of exaggeration? In either case would it be too much effort to add the single letter required to distinguish between us, or is that beyond your capacity? Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: GUEST,Musket sans arrows Date: 22 Aug 13 - 07:43 AM Of course I wouldn't object to a mudelf editing my plural typo above..... Well Goofus, that certainly is a point. Or at least it would be if I had any idea what the hell you are saying? Seems like Don bashing again, but even then it still doesn't come over as a coherent collection of key strokes. Presumably I could do that too if I were faced with defending the indefensible. What's that boy? Woof! No, sorry. You can't play with Goofus any more. I wouldn't want him corrupting you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 22 Aug 13 - 07:14 AM So, you guys like to take things to the EXTREME, and then 'argue the 'points', as if the 'extreme view' was even brought up by other people? You do realize, don't you, that this practice is absolute nonsense, and serves no one, nor does any good at all??..just a vehicle to promote yourselves, as being is some sort of 'inner circle of hipness'??...when in fact, it is the center of the inner circle of nothingness. Don, your exaggerations, are absolute silliness...just another example of you re-stating falsely what somebody says, and then arguing that point, as if it was even brought up by anyone else but you. How many times, by various posters, do you have to called on that tactic of dementia?? GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: GUEST,musket again, sorry all. Date: 22 Aug 13 - 05:06 AM Ok Akenhateon. Let's get this straight. Suggesting rounding up all gay people due to prevalence of HIV is a good idea. Rounding up all women due to prevalence of chlamydia is a cowardly attack and I should be removed from Mudcat.org. Notwithstanding my comment was designed to point out the absurdity of your position, your double standards reveal your homophobia. What's up? Don't cowardly attacks on gay people count? Don't think for one minute that ignorance by a Mudelve justifies your criminal stance. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: Suzy Sock Puppet Date: 22 Aug 13 - 04:14 AM Don, when I said infinitely malleable, I was referring to the socially constructed nature of mental illness, not science. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: Dave the Gnome Date: 22 Aug 13 - 04:07 AM Tell you what, knobheads, there is a trick you have overlooked. African Americans are the racial/ethnic group most affected by HIV in the United States. People cannot help being black any more than they can help being homosexual. Or can be being black be cured by one of your buddies as well? Anyway, how about we round up all black people and make them have tests for the HIV virus as well? DtG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: GUEST,Musket curious Date: 22 Aug 13 - 01:49 AM Actually Akenhateon, it is illegal to promote homophobia by publication and posting on these sites is just that. Of course, I think such laws can be counter productive but reporting Mudcat.org to the police is, believe it or not, an option and just because the servers are in The USA, agreements exist for the local police to obtain your details and forward them to the police in Scotland. Good job I'm a liberal eh? Here's an example of a progressive council's reporting access portal. how to deal with hate crime |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 21 Aug 13 - 07:36 PM ""Don...please show me where I have ever said that homosexuality causes aids....that is completely untrue, what I do say is that transmission rates of the virus are hugely higher in male homosexuals than in any other demographic."" Only in the US and the UK, where the index cases happened to be homosexual. In African HIV hotspots 40% of the hetero population is HIV positive, and that is where the whole thing started. Regardless of that, you are entirely unconcerned with the health of hetero sufferers, wherever they be. You only care about MSMs and hold them responsible for their condition because you DON'T LIKE THEIR SEXUAL ORIENTATION! C'mon man, you don't care about their illness, you simply want to control who they are allowed to fuck! Don T. (who is heartily sick of the Pharaoh's prevarication) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: Don Firth Date: 21 Aug 13 - 06:50 PM Ake, I said that you "seem" to adhere to the medieval belief in spontaneous creation because when the subject came up several times before, you didn't deny it, you went right on with your apparent belief that HIV/AIDs manifests itself simply when two gay men get together. The transmission of venereal diseases of all kinds is higher in people of any sexual orientation who are promiscuous. NOT just because the are gay. Legalizing same-sex marriage, allowing same-sex partners to form monogamous relationships—and recognizing them socially—will do more than anything else (short of rounding gay men up and putting them in prison—separate cells, of course!) to curtail the spread of HIV/AIDs. Yet, you argue against same-sex marriage, claiming gays don't really want it, when I know for a fact that they do. When the law was passed here in Washington State, legalizing same-sex marriage recently, there were a large number of such marriages, and it's still going on. You are talking out of both sides of your mouth. Now, if you WANT an Orwellian world, then how about forcing all gay men to register, then rounding them up periodically and testing them for the virus? And once you start that sort of thing, where is it going to end? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: akenaton Date: 21 Aug 13 - 05:51 PM Don...please show me where I have ever said that homosexuality causes aids....that is completely untrue, what I do say is that transmission rates of the virus are hugely higher in male homosexuals than in any other demographic. Please explain why this is the case....and while you're at it please explain why transmission rates of Syphilis and most other STD's are hugely higher in male homosexuals than in any other demographic. Is it possible that the sexual behaviour of male homosexuals causes these inflated rates of infection, or is it more likely that it is caused by the reduced rates of stigma and discrimination over the last ten years? Ian deserved to have his post removed it was a cowardly attack, made in terms designed to embarrass and intimidate a woman. He knew exactly what he was about. Well done the mods!! As far as I am aware an hiv test can now be taken from saliva. Thank god it is not a criminal offense YET to discuss issues like this, tho' the march of Orwellian ideology still goes on. Stand up for straight and plain speaking. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: Don Firth Date: 21 Aug 13 - 03:48 PM And Suzy, science is not "infinitely malleable." It is not rigidly dogmatic, it is responsive to newly discovered evidence. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: Don Firth Date: 21 Aug 13 - 03:36 PM Goofball, what I said was that counseling should be open to anyone who feels they can benefit by it for whatever reason. NOT that they should be FORCED into counseling by people like YOU. You do love to twist things! (But then, that's all you've got.) ======= Suzy, a point of science here: HIV is not a man-made disease. It was initially a disease of African monkeys. The virus was transmitted to humans in Africa, possibly by someone being bitten by a monkey, probably a poacher looking to supply monkeys for the illegal so-called "bush meat" trade (some people apparently like eating monkey meat). It is not a specifically "homosexual" disease. It is transmitted by any exchange of bodily fluids between people of any sexual orientation, such as a blood transfusion, or sexual relations of any kind, including heterosexual. Or, for that matter, deep kissing. The virus, in itself, does not kill. It shuts down a person's immune system, making it more likely that they will catch just about any infectious disease that comes along. Sort of like lowering the drawbridge and allowing any enemy that wanders along to enter the castle. Ake seems to adhere to the medieval belief that homosexual activity causes HIV/AIDs. Before Louis Pasteur proved that it was not true, many people thought you could create rats, mice, and other vermin by leaving garbage laying around, not even thinking that the garbage didn't "spontaneously create" the vermin, the vermin were already there and were attracted to the garbage. Homosexual relations does not create the HIV virus. It can transmit the virus IF one of the party carries it, but it cannot create it! Yet, Ake keeps insisting. And GfS has been insisting that same-sex orientation is a choice, preferring to ignore the mounting evidence that people are born that way and, although all the evidence is not in yet, there are very strong indications that, at the very least, there are genetic components to sexual orientation. And that people do not have a choice about it. One does not "decide" at puberty whether one wishes to be gay or straight. Often quite young children, still ignorant of sex, show indications of behavior that is more characteristic of the other sex. One is what on is. Not a matter of making a choice. Yet, if Ake and GfS had their way, Ake would force gay men to undergo constant testing. And GfS would force them into therapy—which has proven to be an abject failure, sometimes leading to suicide. Both of them oppose same-sex marriage, which would encouragement stable, non-promiscuous behavior--the very thing that would cut down the spread of HIV infections, Ake offers no reason other than claiming that gays don't want same-sex marriage, they want to be promiscuous, when both gays and lesbians themselves say that they DO want same-sex marriage, and work very hard politically to bring it about. And in those states in which same sex marriage is legalized, great hordes of same sex couples are rushing to the altar! Neither Ake nor GfS is scientifically correct in their viewpoints, yet both of them are in favor coercing whole groups of other people to do their bidding. That is what I (a "loony Liberal" according to GfS) object to—strenuously! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 21 Aug 13 - 02:31 PM ""Scuba diving is NOT a lifestyle, it's a sport."" There you go again specious nit picking. When people choose extreme sports they become risk takers and that IS a lifestyle which they choose to follow. Homosexuals DO NOT choose to be so, any more than you or I chose to be Hetero. We just are, and they just ARE! Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: Suzy Sock Puppet Date: 21 Aug 13 - 02:30 PM Obviously, a ban penalizes any teen who actually wants conversion therapy. I think it would have been enough to say that no minor will be forced against his or her will to undergo such therapy, not to impose a ban. Very political on Christie's part. We're hearing a lot from him. 2016? Hmmm maybe. I find interesting that the APA had homosexuality listed in their manual of mental disorders not very long ago. Now they say it does extreme harm to try to convert homosexuals into heterosexuals. I agree that it is harmful to try to convert people, however, I can't help but notice that the APA changed their minds and it goes to show that our view of "mental illness" is socially constructed and not based on science. It is therefore infinitely malleable. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: Bobert Date: 21 Aug 13 - 02:27 PM Yeah, what I find sickening is that the folks who preach the evils of government seem to have no problem with allowing the government to test and probe you... The anti-government state legislators in Virginia tried to make state mandated vaginal ultrasound mandatory for a woman wanting to get an abortion??? I just don't get it... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: GUEST,musket angry Date: 21 Aug 13 - 02:14 PM Mudelves. You allow discussion of forcing testing of gay people for sexually transmitted diseases but when I ask a member if she would be happy to be forcefully tested for one on the same profiling basis you cut my post out. Shame on you. Please consider accepting an invite when Akenaton throws a fascist theme party? Hate is still hate when not directed at members of a forum. Here in The UK, wrongly to be fair, he is breaking the law publishing homophobic rants. Your censure levels could do with some guidance. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: Bobert Date: 21 Aug 13 - 01:05 PM BTW, Chris Christie just signed a bill that the New Jersey statehouse passed that outlaws the "conversion therapy"... Now back to your usually scheduled shit fight... Oh, and I still don't give a rat's ass what your sexual orientations are (gay, straight, bisexual, asexual) is all fine with me as long as you are not a pervert or a sex peddler... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: Steve Shaw Date: 21 Aug 13 - 12:53 PM But we don't discuss. We listen to you ranting on about your totalitarian regime-style forcible methods and you ignore any alternative. You won't discuss the need for better education, remember? You really have got it in for gay men and there isn't even the thinnest veneer of respectability over your obsession. You're a sad case, you are. |
