• Registered: 2004-02-07
  • Posts: 2,811

Re: HIV and stuff

Originally posted by: LiQuiDcHeEsE

Originally posted by: Killgore9998 Not everyone makes mistakes like having sex with anonymous partners

a lot of perfectly normal people do make that mistake, actually, especially when they're young.

If you looked at a lot of the born again clergy today, in fact, you'd find that a lot of them had sex before marriage (perhaps before they were a christian, maybe, but still.)  And a lot of them had sex with random partners.

Look at many of the saints and you'll find the same thing.

David, in the bible, a supposedly great man, well his big sin was having sex with a naked woman he saw across the street whom he barely knew.   I believe it was Augustine who talked about how when he was young he gave in to the sins of the flesh that come along with youth.

So um... Some of the most religious people in history have done it... And that was before we had any sort of birth control... Sooooo....

yes.  normal people DO make stupid mistakes.  STD's are not a genetic fault of the morally weak hmm

I'm not saying that it never happens. I'm saying that not everyone does it.

Also, again with the religious references? I don't give a shit about what the bible says about this issue. I'm talking about reality, here. I'm not saying its a genetic fault of the morally weak, you're putting a huge amount of words into my mouth. I'm just saying that not everyone has that sort of lifestyle. I don't think that's an idea which is particularly hard to grasp. Many (most?) people would normally never consider having sex with a complete stranger.

Your 'example' does indeed have a person making a mistake. The mistake was to assume that she was free and clear from any of the stupid mistakes she made in her past. If she really had wisened up she would have gotten tested before having sex with someone else. It's your mistake for taking the word of someone who knew that she put herself at risk but didn't even bother to confirm it. In that sense she might as well be anonymous to you.

Well knows he who uses to consider, that our faith and knowledge thrives by exercise, as well as our limbs and complexion. Truth is compared in Scripture to a streaming fountain; if her waters flow not in a perpetual progression, they sicken into a muddy pool of conformity and tradition. A man may be a heretic in the truth; and if he believe things only because his pastor says so, or the Assembly so determines, without knowing other reason, though his belief be true, yet the very truth he holds becomes his heresy.
  • Errrrrrr
  • Please have sex with me
  • Offline
  • Registered: 2002-03-09
  • Posts: 4,439

Re: HIV and stuff

Your accusation of someone being "careless" or necessarily "making a mistake" by having sex with an anonymous partner is not entirely justified. Let me give you a bit of statistics. The HIV population in US is roughly 1 million. The US population is ~300 million, making the probability of you contracting HIV in one incident with an anonymous partner 0.3%. On the other hand, I have traveled by air in the past ten years frequently, and the overall mileage is somewhere around 150 thousand miles (perhaps more now, it is only an estimate). Statistically, death by 100 million miles traveled by air is 2.96, and so the chance of me having died from an accident in air travel at this point is in fact slightly higher than .3% (~.4%). In comparison, the risk I've run over the years on actually dying from a plane crash is already higher than the risk of contracting HIV from an incident of sex act with an anonymous partner. Are you going to call my practice of air travel a "mistake" or "carelessness"? How about those that travel by air a lot more than I do? How about those that travel by CAR on a daily basis, who run about 1/3 the risk of death compared to air travel?

Risks are all relative. For someone who aren't informed on the chance of actually dying from one sex act, the thought of contracting HIV might be scary as hell, whereas the actual statistics prove otherwise. And by no means, I'm not encouraging people to go out and have sex with strangers and take their chances - the probability of contracting HIV increases dramatically if you make that a regular practice. But the point is that you can't label someone careless or denounce their sense of responsibility simply through a few incidents of unprotected sex. And although the practice itself is not at all "safe" by any standard, having sex with an anonymous partner just once is not nearly as "fatal" as you seem to portray it.

What people frown upon in your belief is not the fact that you discourage people from participating in unprotected sex, it's the fact that you automatically place people who commit such act in an "inferior" category - something similar to what the conservative Christians do on a regular basis. You said it yourself, the uneducated run a greater risk simply because they aren't aware of the prevalence of HIV, and in their decision making process, having sex with an anonymous partner is not exactly high up on the "high risk" behaviors list. It is then not the fault of the individual, but rather the fact that he is uneducated. To say someone is irresponsible without understanding of his personal experience and by only looking at his sex practice discretely is a flawed way of judging.

<d-end> masturbate
<d-end> watch anime
<d-end> those are the 2 things I do when I'm bored!
  • Registered: 2002-04-18
  • Posts: 8,221

Re: HIV and stuff

Originally posted by: Errrrrrr


What people frown upon in your belief is not the fact that you discourage people from participating in unprotected sex, it's the fact that you automatically place people who commit such act in an "inferior" category - something similar to what the conservative Christians do on a regular basis.

yes.

If Kevin Costner were a super hero, his super power would be the ability to always find a rope of proper length and tensility coiled at his feet.
  • Registered: 2004-02-07
  • Posts: 2,811

Re: HIV and stuff

First of all Errr thank you for the unusually high quality post.

Originally posted by: Errrrrrr
The HIV population in US is roughly 1 million. The US population is ~300 million, making the probability of you contracting HIV in one incident with an anonymous partner 0.3%.

While it is true that if you choose one person from the US at random, you will have only a .3% of choosing someone with HIV, the fact is that people who participate in a lifestyle that includes anonymous, unprotected sex will actually be choosing from the pool of Americans who also participate in such a lifestyle. This makes the selection pool much smaller.
Then let's assume that this smaller pool also only had .3% of its people infected with HIV. Since the practice of anonymous, unprotected sex necessarily carries a high chance of spreading this disease compared to practicing safe sex, one can conclude that the percentage of people in this group infected with HIV is much larger than the percentage of people outside of the group, in order to make the average number over the entire population .3%. It's going to be exponentially larger, so let'smake a very conservative estimate of 3%. Even if you make a widely inaccurate estimate that 50% of americans regularly participate in anonymous, unprotected sex, you double your chances of choosing one of these people, for a 6% chance in the end. In reality, I suspect the percentage of americans who engage in that kind of lifestyle is much smaller, which would increase your chances by much more.

And although the practice itself is not at all "safe" by any standard, having sex with an anonymous partner just once is not nearly as "fatal" as you seem to portray it.

I don't believe that I have portrayed it as fatal in any sense. It is, however, incurable, and considered by most to be a serious health concern for the entire human race. This is why we sterilize all needles used in hospitals and throw them away immediately. If you want to suggest that I am portraying HIV as fatal inaccurately, then you would have to accuse the entire modern medical system of doing the same. Except that the only thing an individual has to do is make sure they have a little latex tube. If you contract it through sex, you have no one to blame but yourself. If you don't care about having HIV because you believe that there is hype about it being fatal, then why would you concern yourself with limiting its spread to others? My position holds.

What people frown upon in your belief is not the fact that you discourage people from participating in unprotected sex, it's the fact that you automatically place people who commit such act in an "inferior" category - something similar to what the conservative Christians do on a regular basis. You said it yourself, the uneducated run a greater risk simply because they aren't aware of the prevalence of HIV, and in their decision making process, having sex with an anonymous partner is not exactly high up on the "high risk" behaviors list. It is then not the fault of the individual, but rather the fact that he is uneducated.

Then allow me to clear up the confusion - I don't believe such people are inferior, I only believe that they have a flaw. In some cases, the flaw is that they're uneducated. In other cases, the flaw is that they don't care. In other cases, the flaw is, I don't know, a malicious desire to spread the disease. It doesn't matter. The fact is that if a person has a problem which causes them to do it once, they will likely have the same problem when faced with the opportunity to do it again unless a very significant intervention takes place. In most areas of the world, this is not possible.

Well knows he who uses to consider, that our faith and knowledge thrives by exercise, as well as our limbs and complexion. Truth is compared in Scripture to a streaming fountain; if her waters flow not in a perpetual progression, they sicken into a muddy pool of conformity and tradition. A man may be a heretic in the truth; and if he believe things only because his pastor says so, or the Assembly so determines, without knowing other reason, though his belief be true, yet the very truth he holds becomes his heresy.

30 Reply by Kenak

  • Registered: 2004-11-18
  • Posts: 2,575

Re: HIV and stuff

Originally posted by: Killgore9998

What people frown upon in your belief is not the fact that you discourage people from participating in unprotected sex, it's the fact that you automatically place people who commit such act in an "inferior" category - something similar to what the conservative Christians do on a regular basis. You said it yourself, the uneducated run a greater risk simply because they aren't aware of the prevalence of HIV, and in their decision making process, having sex with an anonymous partner is not exactly high up on the "high risk" behaviors list. It is then not the fault of the individual, but rather the fact that he is uneducated.

Then allow me to clear up the confusion - I don't believe such people are inferior, I only believe that they have a flaw. In some cases, the flaw is that they're uneducated. In other cases, the flaw is that they don't care. In other cases, the flaw is, I don't know, a malicious desire to spread the disease. It doesn't matter. The fact is that if a person has a problem which causes them to do it once, they will likely have the same problem when faced with the opportunity to do it again unless a very significant intervention takes place. In most areas of the world, this is not possible.


So you think they're flawed and uneducated... but not inferior? Okay.

http://card.mygamercard.net/nxe/mini/TheGuyBhindYou.pnghttp://card.mmos.com/psn/profile/ke/n/Kenak/card.png
  • Errrrrrr
  • Please have sex with me
  • Offline
  • Registered: 2002-03-09
  • Posts: 4,439

Re: HIV and stuff

Originally posted by: Killgore9998I don't believe that I have portrayed it as fatal in any sense. It is, however, incurable, and considered by most to be a serious health concern for the entire human race. This is why we sterilize all needles used in hospitals and throw them away immediately. If you want to suggest that I am portraying HIV as fatal inaccurately, then you would have to accuse the entire modern medical system of doing the same. Except that the only thing an individual has to do is make sure they have a little latex tube. If you contract it through sex, you have no one to blame but yourself. If you don't care about having HIV because you believe that there is hype about it being fatal, then why would you concern yourself with limiting its spread to others? My position holds.

First of all, the reason needles and other medical equipments are sterilized and discarded is not only because of HIV, it is a combination of all the infectious diseases that can potentially contaminate the equipment upon use. Condom also does not completely eliminate the risk of contracting HIV, it only greatly reduces it. As I've made the point already, risks are all relative. You can say that someone is being responsible and careful by having protected sex, or you can say he is being risky by simply having sex. Same can be said about unprotected sex. On a related note, many people who contract HIV do so by having sex with someone close instead of a strange partner, simply because the partner doesn't know he/she is HIV positive. In these cases, the fault of contracting it through sex is not entirely the responsibility of one person.

The point is still that the occasional behavior of unprotected sex could result in one contracting HIV, but that fact alone cannot be used as concrete criterion for predicting that person's habits, personal qualities, or future behaviors.

<d-end> masturbate
<d-end> watch anime
<d-end> those are the 2 things I do when I'm bored!
  • Registered: 2004-02-07
  • Posts: 2,811

Re: HIV and stuff

Originally posted by: Kenak
So you think they're flawed and uneducated... but not inferior? Okay.

Since when is it not PC to recognize someone as being uneducated? A lack of education is a flaw, is it not? Try to stop having knee-jerk negative reactions to comments which judge, yet accurately judge, other human beings, and use your brain to think about what I said. Africa is clearly plagued by, among other things, a lack of education. Pretending that nothing is wrong with them and that they're all special in their own way with rainbows and unicorns and a cherry on top is going to hurt them way way way more than it will ever help them. This goes for a lot of impoverished Americans as well. Also, Errr agrees with me:

Originally posted by: Errrrrrr
You said it yourself, the uneducated run a greater risk simply because they aren't aware of the prevalence of HIV, and in their decision making process, having sex with an anonymous partner is not exactly high up on the "high risk" behaviors list.

Moving on..

Originally posted by: Errrrrrr
First of all, the reason needles and other medical equipments are sterilized and discarded is not only because of HIV, it is a combination of all the infectious diseases that can potentially contaminate the equipment upon use. Condom also does not completely eliminate the risk of contracting HIV, it only greatly reduces it.

Quite so. There are many infectious diseases, besides HIV, which would run rampant if not for the preventative measures taken by hospitals to safely dispose of needles. All the more reason to practice safe sex, as there are tons of STDs besides HIV floating around out there. Your risk of contracting something similarly terrible is higher than the risk of contracting HIV. I agree that the risks are all relative, but that doesn't give a person an excuse not to try to minimize them within reason. You need airplanes to travel, and you often need travel to live your life. So even though you have to be on a risky plane, you wear your seatbelt and follow the safety measures in case it does crash so that you might still survive. Or you could blow off the stewardess and increase your risk pointlessly. Similarly, though protected sex doesn't work 100% of the time, and unprotected sex won't infect you 100% of the time, if you are responsible you will wear a condom regardless. That is the only option to someone who wants to minimize their risks within reason.

On a related note, many people who contract HIV do so by having sex with someone close instead of a strange partner, simply because the partner doesn't know he/she is HIV positive. In these cases, the fault of contracting it through sex is not entirely the responsibility of one person.

The point is still that the occasional behavior of unprotected sex could result in one contracting HIV, but that fact alone cannot be used as concrete criterion for predicting that person's habits, personal qualities, or future behaviors.

As I wrote earlier, not knowing that your partner is infected is almost always as much your fault as it is theirs. However, I do admit that sometimes the contraction of HIV is beyond the control of any of the parties involved. However, it should be obvious that to focus on that is to miss the forest for the trees. You're not wrong if you say that contracting HIV is not necessarily through a mistake of the individual 100% of the time, but any doctor will tell you that 99% of the time it is. Again, I point to Africa, where it is a plague, a health crisis that threatens the entire nation. How many of them are educated? How many of them know about how to minimize risk? How many of them care about some sort of ethereal infection which doesn't really have any symptoms, when they struggle just to get food? It would be extremely dense to suggest that in the majority of those cases, each partner goes to great lengths to make sure their mate doesn't have HIV before having sex, and then contract it anyway through no fault of their own. Rather, they are clearly not educated enough to know how to minimize their risk, which if they had done so, would have prevented the spread of the disease in almost every case.

Well knows he who uses to consider, that our faith and knowledge thrives by exercise, as well as our limbs and complexion. Truth is compared in Scripture to a streaming fountain; if her waters flow not in a perpetual progression, they sicken into a muddy pool of conformity and tradition. A man may be a heretic in the truth; and if he believe things only because his pastor says so, or the Assembly so determines, without knowing other reason, though his belief be true, yet the very truth he holds becomes his heresy.
  • Registered: 2003-01-23
  • Posts: 864

Re: HIV and stuff

I don't look at a lack of an education as a flaw, I look at having one as a privilege. My education gives me an advantage in some areas, yes, but it does not make me a superior human being.

Not everybody is privy to the information about HIV/AIDS that they need to make safe choices. It sucks, but it doesn't mean something is "wrong with them", particularly as individuals. Yes, those who do not know about sexually transmitted infections and diseases should be made aware, but not everyone can just get off their butt and immediately find out everything they need to know. I have had easy access to that information via school, via parents, via my community. I am lucky, I am not better.

Furthermore, I don't think that the cases of children born with HIV and women who contracted it via rape (to name just a few more "innocent" styles of contraction) equals one percent or less of the population, but I would sure as hell be suspicious of any doctor that tried to tell me so.

Edit: I've just read from an appropriately sourced article that of the 2 million people that died from AIDS in 2007, more than 1 in 7 were children.

Your entrance is ever a segue to endless lands of derision. ^_^
  • Registered: 2004-02-07
  • Posts: 2,811

Re: HIV and stuff

You probably should look at a lack of education as a flaw. Our government and all the institutions designed and implemented to protect us and promote health and well being depend on us having some minimum level of education in order to have any effect at all. That is why going to school as a child is not a choice - it is law. That is why a high level of education is necessary in order to sustain a high standard of living. You may personally believe that having a lack of an education is fine, but the United States disagrees with you. Note that no one said anything about anyone being a superior human being. Kenak was trying to suggest that I condemn people as being inferior. I do not. I just see a lack of education as a flaw, and the American government backs me up with its policies. It should be pretty obvious that I'm not making this kind of stuff up. If you are unable to read, then you are unable to obey any number of security and safety signs, not to mention any number of legal regulations and policies that you have to follow in order to just be law-abiding, in order to just maintain your health for more than a day.

To your point about newborns and rape victims, yes, it should be clear that I was only talking about adults contracting the disease through consensual sex, as that is the topic of this thread. Obviously those other cases warrant consideration in most situations, but pointing them out here only distracts from the main point, which still stands - that if you contract the disease through consensual sex, then you are either uneducated or careless, and you are likely to do it again. Obviously this does not apply to rape victims or newborn babies.

Listen, regardless of whether or not you have a problem with the way that I'm talking (as it seems that people seem to have a problem with me rather than my argument), remember what you're arguing against: by disagreeing with me, you're seriously trying to argue that taking preventative measures will have no considerable effect on your chance of contracting HIV. Think about that for a second. Is that really what you want to be saying by pointing out a slight oversight in my description of the correct assertion that most of the cases of contracted HIV occurs due to carelessness? The idea that safe sex is less risky than unsafe sex should really be a no-brainer, it should be common knowledge, and I shouldn't have to defend it here.


Well knows he who uses to consider, that our faith and knowledge thrives by exercise, as well as our limbs and complexion. Truth is compared in Scripture to a streaming fountain; if her waters flow not in a perpetual progression, they sicken into a muddy pool of conformity and tradition. A man may be a heretic in the truth; and if he believe things only because his pastor says so, or the Assembly so determines, without knowing other reason, though his belief be true, yet the very truth he holds becomes his heresy.
  • From: Indianapolis
  • Registered: 2002-09-18
  • Posts: 6,029

Re: HIV and stuff

Originally posted by: Killgore9998
Since when is it not PC to recognize someone as being uneducated? A lack of education is a flaw, is it not? Try to stop having knee-jerk negative reactions to comments which judge, yet accurately judge, other human beings, and use your brain to think about what I said. Africa is clearly plagued by, among other things, a lack of education. Pretending that nothing is wrong with them and that they're all special in their own way with rainbows and unicorns and a cherry on top is going to hurt them way way way more than it will ever help them. This goes for a lot of impoverished Americans as well.

A lack of education is a flaw with that person's situation in life, but not with that person's character.

"A mind that is stretched by a new experience can never go back to its old dimensions."

Hitchhiker's Website

  • Errrrrrr
  • Please have sex with me
  • Offline
  • Registered: 2002-03-09
  • Posts: 4,439

Re: HIV and stuff

Originally posted by: Killgore9998
You probably should look at a lack of education as a flaw. Our government and all the institutions designed and implemented to protect us and promote health and well being depend on us having some minimum level of education in order to have any effect at all. That is why going to school as a child is not a choice - it is law. That is why a high level of education is necessary in order to sustain a high standard of living. You may personally believe that having a lack of an education is fine, but the United States disagrees with you. Note that no one said anything about anyone being a superior human being. Kenak was trying to suggest that I condemn people as being inferior. I do not. I just see a lack of education as a flaw, and the American government backs me up with its policies. It should be pretty obvious that I'm not making this kind of stuff up.

First of all, choosing a proper education is not something all members of our society enjoy as a privilege. You do, great, but consider those less fortunate. A large portion of the population do not end up getting the education they deserve, and most that cannot be attributed to their individual choices, but rather the social-economic situations of their families. Secondly, school education has little to do with awareness of HIV prevalence and the risk of contracting it during unprotected sex. Most schools lack proper sexual education anyway, and even if it does, it does not say anything about the effectiveness of the education. We educate our young in all fields; they don't excel in all (or even most). Just like prejudices and religious believes, education can play a certain role in altering them, but it does not necessarily have to. And lastly, you seem to equate "flaw" to "fault". Is it a flaw that one lacks the proper education to survive? Of course. Is it necessarily his fault? Not at all. Linking personality flaws such as lacking social responsibility to one's sexual practice which can be heavily influenced by a number of factors is ignorance, and you have done exactly that.

Listen, regardless of whether or not you have a problem with the way that I'm talking, remember what you're arguing against: by disagreeing with me, you're seriously trying to argue that taking preventative measures will have no considerable effect on your chance of contracting HIV. Think about that for a second. Is that really what you want to be saying by pointing out a slight oversight in my description of the correct assertion that most of the cases of contracted HIV occurs due to carelessness? The idea that safe sex is less risky than unsafe sex should really be a no-brainer, it should be common knowledge, and I shouldn't have to defend it here.

You are completely on the wrong track. No one here has said anything about disagreeing with preventative measures having considerable effect on chance of contracting HIV. That is a bizarre accusation on everyone here, and I can't believe you have to resort to that sort of mislabeling to defend yourself. To say that people's disagreement with you is on that matter is avoiding the actual argument. Let me quote your first statement that sparked the whole argument here:

If I was the type of person that would be careless enough to contract aids in the first place, then I would probably be careless enough to spread it as well.

Consider, for a moment, the case of the scenario portrayed in the movie Kids. A rather normal girl Jennie who had sex one time and contracted HIV. She is the most cautious and responsible person among all her friends, and in the end despite her own grim fate went out of her way to hunt down Telly and tried to stop the spread of HIV, only to end up getting raped at the party and spreading the disease again herself. Are you going to exercise your logic in what I quoted and say her spreading of the disease is a result of her carelessness and lack of personal responsibility, which is again a trait predictable from the fact she contracted HIV?

<d-end> masturbate
<d-end> watch anime
<d-end> those are the 2 things I do when I'm bored!
  • Registered: 2004-02-07
  • Posts: 2,811

Re: HIV and stuff

Originally posted by: Hitchhiker

Originally posted by: Killgore9998
Since when is it not PC to recognize someone as being uneducated? A lack of education is a flaw, is it not? Try to stop having knee-jerk negative reactions to comments which judge, yet accurately judge, other human beings, and use your brain to think about what I said. Africa is clearly plagued by, among other things, a lack of education. Pretending that nothing is wrong with them and that they're all special in their own way with rainbows and unicorns and a cherry on top is going to hurt them way way way more than it will ever help them. This goes for a lot of impoverished Americans as well.

A lack of education is a flaw with that person's situation in life, but not with that person's character.

Correct. Note that I never said it was a flaw with the person's character. I assume you were addressing this post to Kenak and Errr, since they were the ones accusing me of accusing uneducated people being inferior, when clearly I was talking about the former.

Well knows he who uses to consider, that our faith and knowledge thrives by exercise, as well as our limbs and complexion. Truth is compared in Scripture to a streaming fountain; if her waters flow not in a perpetual progression, they sicken into a muddy pool of conformity and tradition. A man may be a heretic in the truth; and if he believe things only because his pastor says so, or the Assembly so determines, without knowing other reason, though his belief be true, yet the very truth he holds becomes his heresy.
  • Errrrrrr
  • Please have sex with me
  • Offline
  • Registered: 2002-03-09
  • Posts: 4,439

Re: HIV and stuff

Read my quote.

You're the one who repeatedly used the term "careless" to describe those that contract HIV, and subsequently making a point about this aspect of their character being predictable in the spread of HIV.

<d-end> masturbate
<d-end> watch anime
<d-end> those are the 2 things I do when I'm bored!
  • Registered: 2003-01-23
  • Posts: 864

Re: HIV and stuff

I am Canadian, actually, but our government is pro-education as well so it's all good. In any case, intelligence is not just important to me, it is attractive. I was raised (by two academics) to be attracted to it.. but I was also brought up to consider a variety of types of intelligence, and not solely the one cultivated by our educational system.

My education has taught me to be confident but it has also made me aware that there are a million things in this world that I don't know. For instance, I don't know enough about HIV/AIDS on this planet. I get the impression that you don't either. If I am wrong about that, wonderful. Yes, education is a fabulous tool, and yes it's great that you know better than to have unsafe sex. Unfortunately, you sound more pleased for yourself and those similar to you than you sound concerned for the safety of the people who are not this fortunate. I am all for education - there is no need to imply otherwise as I certainly did not.

Your entrance is ever a segue to endless lands of derision. ^_^
  • Registered: 2004-02-07
  • Posts: 2,811

Re: HIV and stuff

Originally posted by: Errrrrrr
First of all, choosing a proper education is not something all members of our society enjoy as a privilege. You do, great, but consider those less fortunate. A large portion of the population do not end up getting the education they deserve, and most that cannot be attributed to their individual choices, but rather the social-economic situations of their families.


Choosing a proper education is not a privilege as much as a responsibility. It is not possible in every situation, and that is a shame, but that doesn't mean that it is in any less way a failure to meet the demands of the modern world. Sometimes people will not know if they are receiving a proper education or not - that is also a shame. Similarly, however, it does not change the fact that they have failed to meet the demands of the modern world. Perhaps society has failed them, if so then they deserve sympathy. But they are still uneducated, and they are still likely to make these mistakes as a result. Are you trying to argue that a lack of an education is not the fault of the uneducated? I think that goes without saying. When did anyone claim the opposite?

Linking personality flaws such as lacking social responsibility to one's sexual practice which can be heavily influenced by a number of factors is ignorance, and you have done exactly that.

You've lost me. This is completely nonsensical. Of course personality flaws affect one's sexual practice. Personality and behavior affects everything we do. This just makes so little sense that I don't know what to say.

No one here has said anything about disagreeing with preventative measures having considerable effect on chance of contracting HIV. That is a bizarre accusation on everyone here, and I can't believe you have to resort to that sort of mislabeling to defend yourself.

I am not mislabeling the opposing position. To suggest that contracting HIV is not the fault of people who practice unprotected sex is necessarily to suggest that protected sex will not significantly reduce the risk of contracting HIV. Since you CAN minimize your chance of contracting HIV by using protection, then it IS your fault for having unprotected sex. If you contracted HIV even while using protection, then it's still your fault. You took a risk and you lost. Maybe you had to take the risk, maybe you just got terribly unlucky - it's still your fault. Maybe you could continue through life having sex with a million people and never pass it on, but you still shouldn't, because there is a possibility that you will.

If I was the type of person that would be careless enough to contract aids in the first place, then I would probably be careless enough to spread it as well.

Consider, for a moment, the case of the scenario portrayed in the movie Kids. A rather normal girl Jennie who had sex one time and contracted HIV. She is the most cautious and responsible person among all her friends, and in the end despite her own grim fate went out of her way to hunt down Telly and tried to stop the spread of HIV, only to end up getting raped at the party and spreading the disease again herself. Are you going to exercise your logic in what I quoted and say her spreading of the disease is a result of her carelessness and lack of personal responsibility, which is again a trait predictable from the fact she contracted HIV?

No, because as I've stated multiple times, the issue at hand is voluntary sex. Look at the OP. He is talking about making a choice to have sex, not about 'getting raped'. You are confusing the issue by suggesting that my rule fails to apply to rape victims. Of course it does, because it was never intended to address that case. I was answering the OP's question.

Well knows he who uses to consider, that our faith and knowledge thrives by exercise, as well as our limbs and complexion. Truth is compared in Scripture to a streaming fountain; if her waters flow not in a perpetual progression, they sicken into a muddy pool of conformity and tradition. A man may be a heretic in the truth; and if he believe things only because his pastor says so, or the Assembly so determines, without knowing other reason, though his belief be true, yet the very truth he holds becomes his heresy.
  • Registered: 2004-02-07
  • Posts: 2,811

Re: HIV and stuff

Originally posted by: Errrrrrr
Read my quote.

You're the one who repeatedly used the term "careless" to describe those that contract HIV, and subsequently making a point about this aspect of their character being predictable in the spread of HIV.


When trying to answer 3 people at a time, you have to give me a few minutes to respond to each. I didn't address your post yet because I couldn't have done so yet.

Carelessness is caused by a number of factors. A lack of education is one possible factor. Not caring is another. If you don't care, then that is a factor of your personality. Not of your social situation.

Hitch is saying that a lack of education is not a character flaw. I agree with that, and I never said that it was. Purposely not caring about being safe is a character flaw. Don't try to accuse me of something I didn't say by trying to confuse it with something I did say.

Well knows he who uses to consider, that our faith and knowledge thrives by exercise, as well as our limbs and complexion. Truth is compared in Scripture to a streaming fountain; if her waters flow not in a perpetual progression, they sicken into a muddy pool of conformity and tradition. A man may be a heretic in the truth; and if he believe things only because his pastor says so, or the Assembly so determines, without knowing other reason, though his belief be true, yet the very truth he holds becomes his heresy.
  • Registered: 2004-02-07
  • Posts: 2,811

Re: HIV and stuff

Originally posted by: Archandrea
I am Canadian, actually, but our government is pro-education as well so it's all good. In any case, intelligence is not just important to me, it is attractive. I was raised (by two academics) to be attracted to it.. but I was also brought up to consider a variety of types of intelligence, and not solely the one cultivated by our educational system.

My education has taught me to be confident but it has also made me aware that there are a million things in this world that I don't know. For instance, I don't know enough about HIV/AIDS on this planet. I get the impression that you don't either. If I am wrong about that, wonderful. Yes, education is a fabulous tool, and yes it's great that you know better than to have unsafe sex. Unfortunately, you sound more pleased for yourself and those similar to you than you sound concerned for the safety of the people who are not this fortunate. I am all for education - there is no need to imply otherwise as I certainly did not.

I am perfectly willing to admit that I don't know enough about HIV/AIDS to be authoritative on the subject at all. Also, like you, I get the sense that no one else here is any more than I am. Does that mean that none of us should be allowed to talk about it?

Regarding your first point, you could be the most intelligent person in the world, but if you don't know how to read, then you're going to be screwed. Sorry to say, but it's as simple as that. Our societal education requirements specify a particular type of intelligence. It doesn't accept all kinds.

If I sound 'pleased with myself', then I don't know why that is. I'm trying to be objective, and this is my opinion on things. I think that if I sound pleased with myself to you, it probably is saying something about some sort of preconceived notion that others are projecting onto me than I am actually exuding. I assure you, I am not pleased with myself at all. Being concerned for the safety of the people who are unfortunate enough to be affected is not the subject of this thread. The subject of this thread is how we view the idea of potentially spreading the disease.

Similarly I am not trying to suggest that you don't value education. I'm trying to suggest that if you don't see a lack of education as a flaw, then you're failing to see or admit to yourself that sadly it is a necessary element for a person to be successful and healthy in our society.

Well knows he who uses to consider, that our faith and knowledge thrives by exercise, as well as our limbs and complexion. Truth is compared in Scripture to a streaming fountain; if her waters flow not in a perpetual progression, they sicken into a muddy pool of conformity and tradition. A man may be a heretic in the truth; and if he believe things only because his pastor says so, or the Assembly so determines, without knowing other reason, though his belief be true, yet the very truth he holds becomes his heresy.
  • Errrrrrr
  • Please have sex with me
  • Offline
  • Registered: 2002-03-09
  • Posts: 4,439

Re: HIV and stuff

Originally posted by: Killgore9998

Originally posted by: Errrrrrr
Read my quote.

You're the one who repeatedly used the term "careless" to describe those that contract HIV, and subsequently making a point about this aspect of their character being predictable in the spread of HIV.


When trying to answer 3 people at a time, you have to give me a few minutes to respond to each. I didn't address your post yet because I couldn't have done so yet.

Carelessness is caused by a number of factors. A lack of education is one possible factor. Not caring is another. If you don't care, then that is a factor of your personality. Not of your social situation.

Hitch is saying that a lack of education is not a character flaw. I agree with that, and I never said that it was. Purposely not caring about being safe is a character flaw. Don't try to accuse me of something I didn't say by making it sound like something I did say.

I quoted what you did say, not what you didn't. And what you said is describing all those who contract HIV as careless, and that means they will not care enough for the harm in infecting others even when they know they have HIV, which is what the OP brought up. I cannot be more clear than that.

Are you backing off from that statement now? Or are you going to continue to sidestep the issue by bringing up all kinds of irrelevant junk?

But they are still uneducated, and they are still likely to make these mistakes as a result. Are you trying to argue that a lack of an education is not the fault of the uneducated? I think that goes without saying. When did anyone claim the opposite?

You did. You claimed that those who contract HIV are careless, and are at fault for contracting it. People have argued that the fact they have HIV could be due to their lack of education, which isn't necessarily their fault, and which cannot indicate much of their personality as opposed to your claim that they must be careless. What is there not to understand?

No, because as I've stated multiple times, the issue at hand is voluntary sex. Look at the OP. He is talking about making a choice to have sex, not about 'getting raped'. You are confusing the issue by suggesting that my rule fails to apply to rape victims. Of course it does, because it was never intended to address that case. I was answering the OP's question.

Your response to the OP was yes, HIV positive people will just go on to have sex with more people to spread it, because they are just careless people. That is precisely what I addressed in my post; I basically said your claim is unfounded simply because there are many other factors that contribute to one contracting HIV than his/her personal traits. If anyone is confused, it's you.

<d-end> masturbate
<d-end> watch anime
<d-end> those are the 2 things I do when I'm bored!
  • Registered: 2004-02-07
  • Posts: 2,811

Re: HIV and stuff

Originally posted by: Errrrrrr
I quoted what you did say, not what you didn't. And what you said is describing all those who contract HIV as careless, and that means they will not care enough for the harm in infecting others even when they know they have HIV, which is what the OP brought up. I cannot be more clear than that.

Are you backing off from that statement now? Or are you going to continue to sidestep the issue by bringing up all kinds of irrelevant junk?

I am not bcking off from that statement, and I didn't bring up any irrelevant junk. If you are uneducated or you don't care about health, then you are likely to spread the disease. You accused me of saying that a lack of education was a character flaw. That is what I never said, and that is the irrelevant junk which you have introduced.

You did. You claimed that those who contract HIV are careless, and are at fault for contracting it. People have argued that the fact they have HIV could be due to their lack of education, which isn't necessarily their fault, and which cannot indicate much of their personality as opposed to your claim that they must be careless. What is there not to understand?

If you are uneducated, and it is not your fault that you are uneducated, and you contract HIV because you're uneducated, then it is still your fault for contracting HIV. Maybe you deserve sympathy, maybe you don't deserve punishment. But you pulled the trigger, even if you didn't know what it did. It is a shame for everyone involved, that doesn't change the fact that you were careless, and you most likely will be careless again.

Your response to the OP was yes, HIV positive people will just go on to have sex with more people to spread it, because they are just careless people. That is precisely what I addressed in my post; I basically said your claim is unfounded simply because there are many other factors that contribute to one contracting HIV than his/her personal traits. If anyone is confused, it's you.

The OP's question was, given the choice, would you have sex knowing you have HIV. My response to the OP was yes, HIV positive people will continue to choose to have sex with more people to spread it, because they are careless. When an HIV positive person is raped, no choice is involved. This is why introducing the question of rape confuses the discussion.

Well knows he who uses to consider, that our faith and knowledge thrives by exercise, as well as our limbs and complexion. Truth is compared in Scripture to a streaming fountain; if her waters flow not in a perpetual progression, they sicken into a muddy pool of conformity and tradition. A man may be a heretic in the truth; and if he believe things only because his pastor says so, or the Assembly so determines, without knowing other reason, though his belief be true, yet the very truth he holds becomes his heresy.

45 Reply by hubris

  • hubris
  • 5-Piece Chicken Dinner
  • Offline
  • Registered: 2002-09-23
  • Posts: 6,344

Re: HIV and stuff

Africa is a continent not a nation. lol!

Laugh hard it's a long way to the bank.
http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/8889/9854781fs8.jpg

hubris's Website

46 Reply by Kenak

  • Registered: 2004-11-18
  • Posts: 2,575

Re: HIV and stuff

Originally posted by: Killgore9998

Originally posted by: Kenak
So you think they're flawed and uneducated... but not inferior? Okay.

Since when is it not PC to recognize someone as being uneducated? A lack of education is a flaw, is it not? Try to stop having knee-jerk negative reactions to comments which judge, yet accurately judge, other human beings, and use your brain to think about what I said. Africa is clearly plagued by, among other things, a lack of education. Pretending that nothing is wrong with them and that they're all special in their own way with rainbows and unicorns and a cherry on top is going to hurt them way way way more than it will ever help them. This goes for a lot of impoverished Americans as well.


I'm not disagree with your analysis of the people. I was just pointing out something confusing to me: Finding somebody uneducated and flawed, but still not inferior.

http://card.mygamercard.net/nxe/mini/TheGuyBhindYou.pnghttp://card.mmos.com/psn/profile/ke/n/Kenak/card.png
  • Errrrrrr
  • Please have sex with me
  • Offline
  • Registered: 2002-03-09
  • Posts: 4,439

Re: HIV and stuff

Originally posted by: Killgore9998
I am not bcking off from that statement, and I didn't bring up any irrelevant junk. If you are uneducated or you don't care about health, then you are likely to spread the disease. You accused me of saying that a lack of education was a character flaw. That is what I never said, and that is the irrelevant junk which you have introduced.

The OP's question was, given the choice, would you have sex knowing you have HIV. My response to the OP was yes, HIV positive people will continue to choose to have sex with more people to spread it, because they are careless. When an HIV positive person is raped, no choice is involved. This is why introducing the question of rape confuses the discussion.

If you are uneducated, you're uneducated. It does not translate to the person being careless, which is your original proposition. Being uneducated about the prevalence of HIV does not make someone a candidate to spread the disease knowingly; being uneducated about how HIV can infect others, on the other hand, can lead to the HIV person spreading it to others. The introduction of rape does not confuse the question at all; how you get HIV is different for each case, and rape is one of many cases where the HIV victim isn't at all "at fault" or "responsible" for obtaining the disease, nor is he more likely to conduct unprotected sex knowing he already has HIV. You have repeatedly avoided this and cast it as irrelevant, whereas it can not be more relevant to the point I'm arguing. If you still have difficulty understanding the argument, then I can't help but to feel sorry for you.

In fact, after I parsed out just exactly what you have said in your first two posts again, I realized just how ignorant your statements were, and I felt silly arguing over them. If this wasn't a serious discussion, I'd easily think you said those things just to troll a thread.

<d-end> masturbate
<d-end> watch anime
<d-end> those are the 2 things I do when I'm bored!
  • Registered: 2007-02-23
  • Posts: 224

Re: HIV and stuff

Originally posted by: Errrrrrr

That's the stupidest thing I've read from you this [strike]week[/strike] hour.

First of all, Darwin didn't send any "punishment", nor is he capable of doing it at all. He was a mere observer, and had nothing to do with how nature functions on its own. You'd made more sense if you said "it's nature's punishment on the species from the evolutionary point of view". But then again, even that doesn't make any sense. Evolution does not "punish" or "reward", it's simply a mechanism. It is as mechanic as turning a valve and letting water through. Attaching ethical concepts like "punishment" and "reward" to the theory of evolution is about as naive and intellectually deprived as teaching "intelligent design" in schools. Furthermore, I'm not sure if your intended argument actually works at all, even if it's a valid argument. The species that flourish are usually species that reproduce well, and they do so by reproducing frequently and rather promiscuously. To cast judgment on how a species should benefit from "safe sex" in the natural environment is simply bigotry and arrogance towards nature.

It is not at all surprising that people suspect your religious belief affecting your view on this matter, because it is after all one of the biggest influences Christian religion has on our society. Equating "having unprotected sex" to "deserving getting AIDS" is a fundamental cultural war tactic conservatives use and it's the mindset that they want to implant into the young people.

Actually conservatives who would engage in your "culture war", particularly christian conservatives, would attempt to "implant" abstinence, not unprotected sex into young minds. Your statement makes no sense, and your intelligent enough to know this. Therefore you are engaging in your own "culture war". Pot meet Kettle.
 
Frankly,  in America (and in most modern cultures for that matter), in this day and age, if you catch aids from unprotected consensual sex. I'd say yea, you deserve it.
I'd also say that people who engage in consensual, unprotected sex with many partners are more likely to spread it than monogamous individuals. (duh)
These statements would apply to any std, not just aids.

Remember folks, wrap it before you tap it!

  • Errrrrrr
  • Please have sex with me
  • Offline
  • Registered: 2002-03-09
  • Posts: 4,439

Re: HIV and stuff

Originally posted by: Mikotren
Actually conservatives who would engage in your "culture war", particularly christian conservatives, would attempt to "implant" abstinence, not unprotected sex into young minds. Your statement makes no sense, and your intelligent enough to know this. Therefore you are engaging in your own "culture war". Pot meet Kettle.

When it comes to war tactics, you don't settle for one and the only tactic. Implanting abstinence is just another tactic. But I would highly doubt that you don't agree that the portrayal of a guilty population of HIV positive is one of the many tactics they employ. It's in the same category as portraying gay sex as the source of the disease.

<d-end> masturbate
<d-end> watch anime
<d-end> those are the 2 things I do when I'm bored!
  • Registered: 2007-02-25
  • Posts: 1,184

Re: HIV and stuff

nvm, shouldn't have skimmed