Comments on: There Never was a Heterosexual AIDS Pandemic Threat http://www.onebigdog.net/there-never-was-a-heterosexual-aids-pandemic-threat/ "Let that be a lesson to you, boys and girls. Don't ever argue with the Big Dog because the Big Dog is always right" Tue, 14 Feb 2012 05:27:03 -0500 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: Daniel http://www.onebigdog.net/there-never-was-a-heterosexual-aids-pandemic-threat/comment-page-1/#comment-122691 Daniel Tue, 19 Aug 2008 11:39:21 +0000 http://www.onebigdog.net/?p=3517#comment-122691 People have fear about AIDS But If people take care about there relation then there is no problem in there life. This is nice post people have learn about this topic. It is a nice topic and your article is also nice. Thanks Daniel People have fear about AIDS But If people take care about there relation then there is no problem in there life. This is nice post people have learn about this topic. It is a nice topic and your article is also nice.

Thanks

Daniel

]]> By: Me http://www.onebigdog.net/there-never-was-a-heterosexual-aids-pandemic-threat/comment-page-1/#comment-120408 Me Fri, 13 Jun 2008 13:43:14 +0000 http://www.onebigdog.net/?p=3517#comment-120408 That's great, but just know that the tone you are NOW taking is much different than the one you had in the blog entry itself. That condescending tone about the bastion of liberalism and doing whatever you want, is the attitude that I've been responding to up until now. If that wasn't moralizing this issue, I don't know what you'd call it. All that does it provoke one to do the same in return. You can say that the political correctness of not singling out a group led to irresponsibility but I can just as easily say that singling people out in a such a manner that would call this a gay disease (as did happen) rather than a disease that is mostly affecting gay men, but also capable of affecting others (and yes, there is a difference in the two, one of objective fact and emotion) is just as likely to produce irresponsibility - irresponsibility like I don't know, societal prejudice (that you even acknowledge yourself, albeit flippantly) bitterness, nihilism, etc. This is what's amazing to me. Even after speculating that had gay men not found a way to skirt pass society's homophobia, they would not have likely gotten ANY help, you conclude that things would have been better for them if they had done things differently. Of course preferably in a way that wouldn't ruin heteros feeling of invincibility. Shame on them. That’s great, but just know that the tone you are NOW taking is much different than the one you had in the blog entry itself. That condescending tone about the bastion of liberalism and doing whatever you want, is the attitude that I’ve been responding to up until now. If that wasn’t moralizing this issue, I don’t know what you’d call it. All that does it provoke one to do the same in return. You can say that the political correctness of not singling out a group led to irresponsibility but I can just as easily say that singling people out in a such a manner that would call this a gay disease (as did happen) rather than a disease that is mostly affecting gay men, but also capable of affecting others (and yes, there is a difference in the two, one of objective fact and emotion) is just as likely to produce irresponsibility – irresponsibility like I don’t know, societal prejudice (that you even acknowledge yourself, albeit flippantly) bitterness, nihilism, etc. This is what’s amazing to me. Even after speculating that had gay men not found a way to skirt pass society’s homophobia, they would not have likely gotten ANY help, you conclude that things would have been better for them if they had done things differently. Of course preferably in a way that wouldn’t ruin heteros feeling of invincibility. Shame on them.

]]> By: Big Dog http://www.onebigdog.net/there-never-was-a-heterosexual-aids-pandemic-threat/comment-page-1/#comment-120406 Big Dog Fri, 13 Jun 2008 12:58:29 +0000 http://www.onebigdog.net/?p=3517#comment-120406 Certainly the demographics matter if it involves high risk behavior, my contention all along. I also have not contended that it was "goodness" or "badness" of behavior that reflects the disease. I only stated that it was high risk behavior and it is. Smoking is a high risk behavior for lung cancer. The behavior might be bad for you but doing it does not make you a bad person. Having anal sex might be bad for you but the people who engage in it can be good people or bad just as with any other group. Saliva is a rare form of transmission but the virus lives in it and can transfer to an open pathway. Say an drunk person with AIDS scratches the cop who arrests him and then spits on him and it gets in the would. Unlikely, but possible. Once again, I never (unless you can show it) implies the disease was a result of good or bad, only a result of high risk. As I stated, there are many high risk behaviors. Jumping out of airplanes is high risk but it is not a bad behavior simply because someone can die from it. I might deem, as a personal matter, that homosexual behavior is bad or abnormal (as opposed to saying the people are bad), but I do not believe that is why homosexual males get the disease. That would be indicating that the disease has moral judgment and it does not. Sickle cell anemia affects only a specific group of people but that does not mean they are bad because they got it. There is a difference between saying a behavior is bad for a person and saying the person is bad. I know some gay men and lesbian women and they are all great people. Certainly the demographics matter if it involves high risk behavior, my contention all along.

I also have not contended that it was “goodness” or “badness” of behavior that reflects the disease. I only stated that it was high risk behavior and it is. Smoking is a high risk behavior for lung cancer. The behavior might be bad for you but doing it does not make you a bad person. Having anal sex might be bad for you but the people who engage in it can be good people or bad just as with any other group.

Saliva is a rare form of transmission but the virus lives in it and can transfer to an open pathway. Say an drunk person with AIDS scratches the cop who arrests him and then spits on him and it gets in the would. Unlikely, but possible.

Once again, I never (unless you can show it) implies the disease was a result of good or bad, only a result of high risk. As I stated, there are many high risk behaviors. Jumping out of airplanes is high risk but it is not a bad behavior simply because someone can die from it.

I might deem, as a personal matter, that homosexual behavior is bad or abnormal (as opposed to saying the people are bad), but I do not believe that is why homosexual males get the disease. That would be indicating that the disease has moral judgment and it does not. Sickle cell anemia affects only a specific group of people but that does not mean they are bad because they got it.

There is a difference between saying a behavior is bad for a person and saying the person is bad. I know some gay men and lesbian women and they are all great people.

]]> By: Me http://www.onebigdog.net/there-never-was-a-heterosexual-aids-pandemic-threat/comment-page-1/#comment-120405 Me Fri, 13 Jun 2008 12:47:08 +0000 http://www.onebigdog.net/?p=3517#comment-120405 I don't have the demographics. You can look that up yourself. It's irrelevant anyway since, as the article says, the behaviors are similar, yet the effect of the disease is different. You can arrive at two conclusions from that. Either you can accept that you can't explain it. Or you can descend into a claim asserting that people are getting the disease because of who they are, nevermind outside circumstances. And that, whether you like it or not, is at worst bigotry (no different that saying that people asked for it) or just lazy thinking at best. I'm fully aware how the virus is transmitted - thanks to research that NOW allows us to know that. BTW, saliva is not realistically a mode of transmission. On the the lesbian comment, uh excuse me, but it is you (not me) that is implying that this disease is somehow a reflection of the goodness or badness of people's sexual behavior, but more specifically, whether the object of one's sexual affection is a socially approved one or not. That is YOUR logic. I'm just showing it to you. That fact that lesbians get the disease less means EVERYTHING according to that logic. I don’t have the demographics. You can look that up yourself. It’s irrelevant anyway since, as the article says, the behaviors are similar, yet the effect of the disease is different. You can arrive at two conclusions from that. Either you can accept that you can’t explain it. Or you can descend into a claim asserting that people are getting the disease because of who they are, nevermind outside circumstances. And that, whether you like it or not, is at worst bigotry (no different that saying that people asked for it) or just lazy thinking at best. I’m fully aware how the virus is transmitted – thanks to research that NOW allows us to know that. BTW, saliva is not realistically a mode of transmission.

On the the lesbian comment, uh excuse me, but it is you (not me) that is implying that this disease is somehow a reflection of the goodness or badness of people’s sexual behavior, but more specifically, whether the object of one’s sexual affection is a socially approved one or not. That is YOUR logic. I’m just showing it to you. That fact that lesbians get the disease less means EVERYTHING according to that logic.

]]> By: Big Dog http://www.onebigdog.net/there-never-was-a-heterosexual-aids-pandemic-threat/comment-page-1/#comment-120404 Big Dog Fri, 13 Jun 2008 12:18:22 +0000 http://www.onebigdog.net/?p=3517#comment-120404 The fact that lesbians contract the disease less does not negate the fact that the behavior is not normal. Sex is designed for procreation and two humans of the same sex cannot procreate. The behavior is still abnormal, IMHO. The fact that lesbians contract the disease less does not negate the fact that the behavior is not normal. Sex is designed for procreation and two humans of the same sex cannot procreate.

The behavior is still abnormal, IMHO.

]]> By: Big Dog http://www.onebigdog.net/there-never-was-a-heterosexual-aids-pandemic-threat/comment-page-1/#comment-120403 Big Dog Fri, 13 Jun 2008 12:16:00 +0000 http://www.onebigdog.net/?p=3517#comment-120403 What are the demographics in the UK and Africa? I don't have a bigotry. I happen to believe homosexuality is abnormal but that does not mean homosexuals should be treated inhumanely. The disease is transmitted via exposure to contaminated body fluid including blood. It is also transmitted via saliva and semen. The colon has a lot of blood vessels and anal sex tears tissue allowing entry of the virus from an infected person's semen. The reality is, there is no homosexual pandemic and yes, homosexual men were reluctant to see this as a disease that affected mostly gay men (and still does). What are the demographics in the UK and Africa?

I don’t have a bigotry. I happen to believe homosexuality is abnormal but that does not mean homosexuals should be treated inhumanely. The disease is transmitted via exposure to contaminated body fluid including blood. It is also transmitted via saliva and semen. The colon has a lot of blood vessels and anal sex tears tissue allowing entry of the virus from an infected person’s semen.

The reality is, there is no homosexual pandemic and yes, homosexual men were reluctant to see this as a disease that affected mostly gay men (and still does).

]]> By: Me http://www.onebigdog.net/there-never-was-a-heterosexual-aids-pandemic-threat/comment-page-1/#comment-120402 Me Fri, 13 Jun 2008 12:13:32 +0000 http://www.onebigdog.net/?p=3517#comment-120402 Also, in case you didn't know, LESBIANS, according the stats that include sexual orientation, are the least effected by the disease EVERYWHERE. What conclusions or assumptions shall we reach about the "normalcy" or behavioral attributes of that "lifestyle"? Also, in case you didn’t know, LESBIANS, according the stats that include sexual orientation, are the least effected by the disease EVERYWHERE. What conclusions or assumptions shall we reach about the “normalcy” or behavioral attributes of that “lifestyle”?

]]> By: Me http://www.onebigdog.net/there-never-was-a-heterosexual-aids-pandemic-threat/comment-page-1/#comment-120401 Me Fri, 13 Jun 2008 12:09:59 +0000 http://www.onebigdog.net/?p=3517#comment-120401 I said "point of view", not opinion. Did you skip over the part where the comparison between the UK and Africa were made, noting similar behaviors, yet different effects of the disease? Well I did, in case you didn't. Funny that you speak of political correctness, yet your last post, more than any you've made thus far, shows very clearly your own bias. The very fact that you think that gay men of the 80's were refusing to "own" (so to speak) this disease out of defiance or pride (ignoring for a second that it IS a blood borne disease), should make you think for a moment but I know it doesn't. Even if it's true of those men, did it ever cross your mind why they would feel the need to? Gee, could it have something to do with the widespread pandemic among heterosexuals (particularly of the Christian stripe) known as homophobia and their penchant for spreading venom about "normalcy", "sin" and the like? Yes, let's talk about lifestyles alright - the lifestyle of anti-gay bigotry. I wouldn't doubt that if that old fashioned Christian "love" and warped sense of "family values" connects to issue of prostitution and drug use as well. Yes, disowning the "undesirables", kicking them out on the streets is a favorite Christian past-time in the U.S of A. Then of course, once the leppers are fully down and out, they can again show their love with food shelter and the "gospel" to help to turn away from their sinful life. But let me stop. It's not PC to portray Christian dogma's on society and culture as anything put pure. I said “point of view”, not opinion. Did you skip over the part where the comparison between the UK and Africa were made, noting similar behaviors, yet different effects of the disease? Well I did, in case you didn’t.

Funny that you speak of political correctness, yet your last post, more than any you’ve made thus far, shows very clearly your own bias. The very fact that you think that gay men of the 80′s were refusing to “own” (so to speak) this disease out of defiance or pride (ignoring for a second that it IS a blood borne disease), should make you think for a moment but I know it doesn’t. Even if it’s true of those men, did it ever cross your mind why they would feel the need to? Gee, could it have something to do with the widespread pandemic among heterosexuals (particularly of the Christian stripe) known as homophobia and their penchant for spreading venom about “normalcy”, “sin” and the like? Yes, let’s talk about lifestyles alright – the lifestyle of anti-gay bigotry. I wouldn’t doubt that if that old fashioned Christian “love” and warped sense of “family values” connects to issue of prostitution and drug use as well. Yes, disowning the “undesirables”, kicking them out on the streets is a favorite Christian past-time in the U.S of A. Then of course, once the leppers are fully down and out, they can again show their love with food shelter and the “gospel” to help to turn away from their sinful life. But let me stop. It’s not PC to portray Christian dogma’s on society and culture as anything put pure.

]]> By: Big Dog http://www.onebigdog.net/there-never-was-a-heterosexual-aids-pandemic-threat/comment-page-1/#comment-120400 Big Dog Fri, 13 Jun 2008 10:58:47 +0000 http://www.onebigdog.net/?p=3517#comment-120400 The story does not have a point of view. It says they don't know why there is a difference between DC and some rural state. DC is full of homosexuals, prostitutes and IV drug users. That is why the rate is higher. That and some of the research facilities are there. It was obvious to a lot of people. AIDS was called a gay disease early on for a reason, it affected mostly gays. I am not saying they deserved it, just that they got it and that is where it first showed up. Yes, having friends in the research and being in health care it was obvious to me. It is also true though, we allow our choices to cloud rational thinking. Gay people refused to see that this was a disease that affected them more than anyone else. They refused to believe that their lifestyle was leading to it. The assumption that the lifestyle was normal or perfectly OK was shaken by the fact that a disease was killing people who lived the lifestyle.. Let us just agree to disagree. As I said, no one deserves it and now maybe they can find why it affects gay men more than anyone else. The story does not have a point of view. It says they don’t know why there is a difference between DC and some rural state. DC is full of homosexuals, prostitutes and IV drug users. That is why the rate is higher. That and some of the research facilities are there.

It was obvious to a lot of people. AIDS was called a gay disease early on for a reason, it affected mostly gays. I am not saying they deserved it, just that they got it and that is where it first showed up.

Yes, having friends in the research and being in health care it was obvious to me. It is also true though, we allow our choices to cloud rational thinking. Gay people refused to see that this was a disease that affected them more than anyone else. They refused to believe that their lifestyle was leading to it. The assumption that the lifestyle was normal or perfectly OK was shaken by the fact that a disease was killing people who lived the lifestyle..

Let us just agree to disagree. As I said, no one deserves it and now maybe they can find why it affects gay men more than anyone else.

]]> By: Me http://www.onebigdog.net/there-never-was-a-heterosexual-aids-pandemic-threat/comment-page-1/#comment-120399 Me Fri, 13 Jun 2008 10:17:53 +0000 http://www.onebigdog.net/?p=3517#comment-120399 We always think our assumption are "obvious". Excuse me while I take this story's point of view over your assessment of it. We always think our assumption are “obvious”. Excuse me while I take this story’s point of view over your assessment of it.

]]>