Effeminate man rejected from donating blood

[MobBoss]

A cure and treatment are pretty different things.

Again, similar enough as concerns the overall apathy (and reasons thereof) that I was referring to. You alleged I only had 1 source for this: i've proven you wrong. You alleged it wasnt a big deal: the attitude was even referenced in a play about gay men. etc. and etc., so forth and so on.

Your trying hard (but unsuccesfully) to dismiss a point that i've provided links and proof for that back up my claim. Your only counter is to argue semantics (and very small semantics to be honest).

How many links have you provided to back up your point or to disprove mine?

 

[NovaKart]

You mention a BBC article about a vaccine for HIV/AIDS and then you mention a play where there's a reference to fictional characters and treatment for HIV/AIDS. Someone can take medication that will prolong their life but it will still be significantly shortened by AIDS, I guess depending on how old they were when they got it so it's not the same thing as a cure. So it's not just semantics.

You're arguing over a hypothesis of how this got started and not something that's really a fact that you can prove or disprove with links or anything else.

Incidentally I do think treatment for HIV/AIDS has made some gays more relaxed about the risk of getting it so I'm a little in agreement with you on this but what I'm really questioning is the idea that a significant number of gays would take news reports about a possible vaccine seriously enough to alter their behavior. I mean there are articles about cures for cancer and everything all the time and that hasn't happened. I hope there is a cure that will come out relatively soon but I wouldn't count on it.

 

[MobBoss]

I'm providing links and proof to back up my claim that the HIV/AIDs rate is increasing due to apathy created by a perception that medical treatment has rendered HIV/AIDs infection not that big a deal.

I dont think it the news reports thats the main culprit, but the attitude on the street thats the real problem. Another odd thing is other transmission demographs arent experiencing this kind of apathy. Why?

As to the cancer comparison; you dont really face a choice on getting cancer or not like you do a sexually transmitted disease. Also, cancers are decidedly more common and arguably more lethal.

 

[NovaKart]

Neither one of those links you posted said anything about stories in the late 90s early 2000s about developments for a cure for AIDS.

 

[MobBoss]

Neither one of those links you posted said anything about stories in the late 90s early 2000s about developments for a cure for AIDS.

Sigh. I guess you insist on semantics. So be it. Do you deny that said improvements in the treatment of HIV/AIDs werent part of the research involved for a cure?

Or should I continue to search some more until I find a few news stories about complacency with the word 'cure' or 'vaccine' for HIV/AIDs in it?

Come on Nova, its a bit anal to really try and argue semantics over whether the recognized apathy is specifically over improved treatment of HIV/AIDs or whether it was specifically about a cure/vaccine for HIV/AIDs. The argument is about the apathy and its impact upon the rising HIV/AIDs rate, not the exact specifics of what medical perception is driving it.

Whether its a cure/vaccine/improved treatment the bottom line is the street perception is that HIV/AIDs isnt that big a deal anymore when it still absolutely is. And that this attitude is rather unique to the MSM demograph, which is probably a large part of the reason its infection rates are still climbing while others are going down. Thats the point being followed, and the links I provided indicate that is indeed (part of) what is going on.

Do you really think young gay men that are engaging in this behavior recognize the different in a vaccine/cure or just improved medical treatment? I dont. Your the one trying to allege some meaningful difference in the two when there isnt for the main purposes of this argument. Again, thats just semantics.

 

[NovaKart]

You said this started because of news reports about a vaccine for AIDS, not the prevalence of HIV/AIDS medication. That's all that I'm pointing out here. I don't think it's just an attitude that the gay community has either but because unprotected anal sex has a high risk of HIV infection and that's why it's climbing. Last year I talked to a bisexual black woman who said she wasn't too worried about AIDS because she said - if Magic Johnson can beat it she probably could.

 

[MobBoss]

You said this started because of news reports about a vaccine for AIDS, not the prevalence of HIV/AIDS medication. That's all that I'm pointing out here.

Well, it seems you wont stop arguing semantics until I find a story linking a possible vaccine with apathy. Here ya go. http://www.pharmiweb.com/features/feature.asp?ROW_ID=1243

HIV Vaccine: With New Hope Comes The Potential Dangers of Complacency

Now are you satisfied? Or do you require me to provide even more links while you offer none?

I don't think it's just an attitude that the gay community has either but because unprotected anal sex has a high risk of HIV infection and that's why it's climbing. Last year I talked to a bisexual black woman who said she wasn't too worried about AIDS because she said - if Magic Johnson can beat it she probably could.

Yeah, that makes sense that she can afford the same kind of medical treatment that a millionaire basketball player can. Very astute of her.

 

[NovaKart]

This link just talks about the theoretical risk that people may be more complacent with a vaccine that may reduce transmission by 1/3. It doesn't really say what you suggested. I don't need to provide links because links aren't really going to prove anything. We're talking about a theoretical social phenomenon.

 

[MobBoss]

This link just talks about the theoretical risk that people may be more complacent with a vaccine that may reduce transmission by 1/3. It doesn't really say what you suggested. I don't need to provide links because links aren't really going to prove anything. We're talking about a theoretical social phenomenon.

Except it is being noticed by many and being reported upon as a concern. It is as valid an explanation as to the rise in MSM HIV/AIDs infection rates as anything else. More so in fact, as it makes the most sense.

 

[Kan' Sharuminar]

Their own actions condemn them.

That might be the most horrid post I've ever seen on CFC.

 

[useless]

What should gay people do, in order to win affection from those that hate and despise them the most? Closet themselves? Pretend to be straight, to make other straights feel comfortable?

And yeah Kan, that was pretty nasty and unbecoming.

God apparently loves everyone, unless of course they're gay or transgendered (despite him apparently making them so), which means they must deny and closet themselves, so that others don't suffer having to actually tolerate them.

 

[MobBoss]

Why seek affection of others at all? Why cant they just act responsible enough to bring the infection rate down into quasi-comparable levels - for their own benefit if for nothing else?

And useless, God loves gay and transgendered people just as much as he loves anyone else - but what he wont deal with is sin - whether its committed by gay or straights regardless. Just simply being straight isnt a gurantee into heaven. Everyone deals with sin according to their own personal walk and relationship with God, regardless of their sexuality.

 

[GhostWriter16]

God apparently loves everyone, unless of course they're gay or transgendered (despite him apparently making them so), which means they must deny and closet themselves, so that others don't suffer having to actually tolerate them.

And useless, God loves gay and transgendered people just as much as he loves anyone else - but what he wont deal with is sin - whether its committed by gay or straights regardless. Just simply being straight isnt a gurantee into heaven. Everyone deals with sin according to their own personal walk and relationship with God, regardless of their sexuality.

MB nailed it. Gay people are people like anyone else and deserve rights as such. That doesn't mean choosing to act like a gay relationship is the moral equivalent of a straight one is OK.

Also, God didn't "Make anyone" be gay. Attraction to the same sex is a defect caused by the Fall of Man, though it isn't sinful in itself, merely temptation that can be allowed to transform into sin or conquered with the help of Jesus Christ.

 

[civ_king]

MB nailed it. Gay people are people like anyone else and deserve rights as such. That doesn't mean choosing to act like a gay relationship is the moral equivalent of a straight one is OK.

Also, God didn't "Make anyone" be gay. Attraction to the same sex is a defect caused by the Fall of Man, though it isn't sinful in itself, merely temptation that can be allowed to transform into sin or conquered with the help of Jesus Christ.

Marriages (Middle Ages sense) are used to restore the defective human relations to goodness

 

[classical_hero]

That might be the most horrid post I've ever seen on CFC.

So going and having unsafe sex in a high risk group and then getting AIDS is not their own fault?

 

[civ_king]

So going and having unsafe sex in a high risk group and then getting AIDS is not their own fault?

Dude, you get HIV from sex not AIDS...

 

[classical_hero]

[wiki]AIDS[/wiki]

Acquired immune deficiency syndrome or acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) is a disease of the human immune system caused by the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).

That is the first line of that wiki article. Obviously you know better.

 

[civ_king]

[wiki]AIDS[/wiki]
That is the first line of that wiki article. Obviously you know better.

Thanks for backing me up, now where is your evidence?
AIDS is the syndrome, HIV is the virus, you get the virus and that causes AIDS...

 

[classical_hero]

The two are one and the same. Having the virus that causes the syndrome is synonymous. Basically you are being pedantic.

 

[civ_king]

The two are one and the same. Having the virus that causes the syndrome is synonymous. Basically you are being pedantic.

For both the WHO and the CDC their classification systems allows one to have HIV, but not AIDS, therefore it does indeed matter