BS: Real Non-belief/not militant

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