NationStates Jolt Archive

Do you? And furthermore do you beleive AIDs is caused by individuals failing to ovoid catching the disease, society placing individuals in situations where catching this STD is more likely or both?

I've heard a conspiracy theory that AIDs was transmitted to man when racist white colonials purposefully injected AIDs from monkey blood into African Americans who were told by their "doctors" that it was a vaccine. I do not beleive this was the case but I leave it out there as a possibility.

So to put the question short, what do you blame AIDs in humans on and do you show sympathy to those with the disease after considering the cause?

everyone does stupid and risky things some times. of course i sympathize with anyone whose risky behavior end up in a deadly disease.

I've heard a conspiracy theory that AIDs was transmitted to man when racist white colonials purposefully injected AIDs from monkey blood into African Americans who were told by their "doctors" that it was a vaccine. I do not beleive this was the case but I leave it out there as a possibility.

I wouldn't, you shouldn't.

So to put the question short, what do you blame AIDs in humans on and do you show sympathy to those with the disease after considering the cause?

why in the world do you call it AIDs?

And, generally, the answer is both. In many cases (in the United States at least), HIV transmission is entirely avoidable. However, HIV is a horrendous disease, and just because someone makes a mistake does not make them not deserving of sympathy.

Of course I do. Dude, it's a disease. It's not a wrath of god, not a result of immorality - it's just a disease, like Cholera, or TB, or Syphilis, or Dengue Fever. Even if you take reasonable care, or even if you're totally celibate you can still get it. And I have no interest in telling others how to live their lives - so yeah, I sympathize.

everyone does stupid and risky things some times. of course i sympathize with anyone whose risky behavior end up in a deadly disease.

what Ashmoria said...

everyone does stupid and risky things some times. of course i sympathize with anyone whose risky behavior end up in a deadly disease.

Indeed. Telling people not to go to the dentist anymore or to avoid lifesaving bloodtransfusions would be silly. Almost as silly as telling people you will not get AIDS if you just do not sleep with other men and avoid condoms with their tiny little AIDS promoting holes.

Pity some people still do that last thing.

It's spelt "AIDS" not "AIDs". The "S" is not a plural - it stands for "syndrome" and is to be capitalised like the rest of the letters in the acronym.

Not every person gets AIDS from immorality and just sleeping with every person they see. Some people are raped by people with AIDS. Some AIDS victims were born with it because the biological parents had AIDS (even if only one had it initially, they both have it now). It's not some disease a guy only gets by humping another dude.

Not every person gets AIDS from immorality and just sleeping with every person they see. Some people are raped by people with AIDS. Some AIDS victims were born with it because the biological parents had AIDS (even if only one had it initially, they both have it now). It's not some disease a guy only gets by humping another dude.

Even so, so what?

Does it really matter how someone gets a disease in terms of whether we sympathize with them?

Not every person gets AIDS from immorality

No person gets HIV/AIDS from "immorality". People contract HIV through different modes of transmission and it is completely inconsequential to the disease which mode of transmission it was acquired through.

AIDS wouldn't be the problem it is today in Africa if the Catholic Church wasn't so regressive and dogmatic, they have the blood of millions over their hands.

I'm not so sure about people who know of a heightened risk of contracting HIV from a partner, but chose not to use protection. And I mean conscious choice, not influenced by anything beyond their own laziness or some odd idea that it "takes away from the intimacy".

...I hope that doesn't seem uncaring or unreasonable.

And yes, I am well aware that sexual intercourse isn't the only way a person can contract AIDS, and I can sympathize with anyone with a terminal illness.

Even if they have AIDS as a result of choices they made, they still deserve my sympathies and prayers.

Do you? And furthermore do you beleive AIDs is caused by individuals failing to ovoid catching the disease, society placing individuals in situations where catching this STD is more likely or both?

I've heard a conspiracy theory that AIDs was transmitted to man when racist white colonials purposefully injected AIDs from monkey blood into African Americans who were told by their "doctors" that it was a vaccine. I do not beleive this was the case but I leave it out there as a possibility.

So to put the question short, what do you blame AIDs in humans on and do you show sympathy to those with the disease after considering the cause?

Want to hear an even wilder one? I've heard conspiracy theory that HIV was released in it's present form by the Catholic Church to combat homosexuality, drugs and promiscuity.

Nutty, eh? http://www.abestweb.com/smilies/eek3.gif

Do you? And furthermore do you beleive AIDs is caused by individuals failing to ovoid catching the disease, society placing individuals in situations where catching this STD is more likely or both?

I've heard a conspiracy theory that AIDs was transmitted to man when racist white colonials purposefully injected AIDs from monkey blood into African Americans who were told by their "doctors" that it was a vaccine. I do not beleive this was the case but I leave it out there as a possibility.

So to put the question short, what do you blame AIDs in humans on and do you show sympathy to those with the disease after considering the cause?

I am a firm believer that stupidity should be painful, and catching STD's as a result of sex is only part of that pain. If people where to think with their upper brains and not their lower ones, this wouldn't be the problem it is.

Now, this does not mean that I do not sympathize with those that catch AIDS, as it is a deadly disease that is in Epidemic levels in Africa, where they do not know any better. But here in the US, we do. The ones I feel for the most though are the ones who caught it through blood transfusions.

And no, that is not the cause. It was caused by some idiots eating infected meat, having sex with someone, and then that spreading to the Gay Communities of Europe. From there, it infected a single Airline Pilot, who spread the disease to seven other cities int he US. The CDC declared him their Patient Zero a couple years ago, and are working on a cure based off of his strain. The only ones who truly believe that line about it being a racist are the racists who go around screaming about "Black Power."

AIDS wouldn't be the problem it is today in Africa if the Catholic Church wasn't so regressive and dogmatic, they have the blood of millions over their hands.

What's new?

AIDS wouldn't be the problem it is today in Africa if the Catholic Church wasn't so regressive and dogmatic, they have the blood of millions over their hands.

They have the blood of millions over their hands, yes. But the majority of it has been there longer than AIDS has been in existance.

everyone does stupid and risky things some times. of course i sympathize with anyone whose risky behavior end up in a deadly disease.

Exactly my opinion (and some people do get AIDS without doing stupid things, I'm thinking of all those who got it by blood transfusion before we knew about it).

Exactly my opinion (and some people do get AIDS without doing stupid things, I'm thinking of all those who got it by blood transfusion before we knew about it).

Think of all of those babies who got it from their parents..... THINK OF THE CHILDREN! (sorry, just I've never gotten to say that phrase before and it might have been my only chance. Couldn't have passed it up.)

I generally approve of unpleasant consequences for stupidity.

However

I do sympathize with AIDS patients. Yes, having unprotected sex with someone you don't know very well is a stupid thing to do. So is sharing needles (or even using such recreational drugs that require them). But everybody makes stupid mistakes now and then, and I think the consequences of an action should be of the same scale as the action. AIDS and all it entails (an early death and significantly altered quality of life due to medical needs before that death comes) is too huge a cost for a stupid mistake. Nor is making a stupid mistake the only way to get it, and even to those who do catch it as a result of not being safe enough in their sexual encounters, it's really more bad luck. There are plenty of people who don't use condoms (though they should) but don't get HIV.

Yes, it is common to get HIV and then eventually be stricken with AIDS as a result of poor decisions, but it's not the only way it happens, and besides, everyone makes poor decisions at some venture. I think that most AIDS patients, on the whole, are probably good people who don't deserve such a terrible fate, whether or not they made a stupid mistake.

They have the blood of millions over their hands, yes. But the majority of it has been there longer than AIDS has been in existance.
The problem would be minor indeed if the Church said it isn't a 'sin' to wear contraception.

The problem would be minor indeed if the Church said it isn't a 'sin' to wear contraception.

No, thats not entirely true.

The problem would be lessened somewhat, but not eliminated entirely.
Not trying to defend Rome on this, either.

The problem is that these are fairly primitive people who are undereducated about what a virus is, and how one contracts it. Many of these folks still believe that having sex with a virgin, will cure one of AIDS.

Rape gangs are continuous problems. We're talking about a group of 20 men walking into a village, armed, and raping every woman in a rival village.

We're talking about female circumcisions being performed with unclean knives, or even broken glass. Sometimes, up to 20 girls in a day, without anesthetics, or disinfectant.

In some places, the population can be up to 70% HIV positve.

Real estate will be real cheap in Africa in 10 years.

Do you?

Of course I feel sympathy for people with HIV or AIDS. I'm not a bloody monster.

Want to hear an even wilder one? I've heard conspiracy theory that HIV was released in it's present form by the Catholic Church to combat homosexuality, drugs and promiscuity.

Nutty, eh? http://www.abestweb.com/smilies/eek3.gif

I could easily believe such evil from almost ANY religion!:(

I could easily believe such evil from almost ANY religion!:(but not actually from the RCC or any other church of orthodoxy. rather from some weirdo protestant denomination.

The problem would be minor indeed if the Church said it isn't a 'sin' to wear contraception.The "church" also says not to sleep around, and guess what, that would solve the problem once and for all. If Africans can't keep their genitals in their pants, there is no reason to not have them bear the consequences of their own behavior. In earlier centuries syphilis was the indicator for decadence, today it's HIV/AIDS.

aids is a monster that escaped from the lab, in an all too predictable in hindsight manor. at the time when organ transplanting was in its infancy, one of the methods being investigated to supress imune system rejection of transplanted organs was 'taylored' bacteria and viruses.

it is not difficult to immagine, hypodermic syringes, used to inocculate test animals with these experimental substances, finding their way into unsecured dumpsters behind university biology departments and thus into the hands of dumpster diving impoverished itravinous drug users and their further mutations from there, to rapidly become the aids epidemic we have now.

erotic compulsion is a factor in all animate life, and the human life form is no exception. sure people who take risks are in one sense idiots. but we also have a dominant culture that in many ways is based and depends upon people doing so. even the most 'streight' and self-ritious segments of it.

=^^=
.../\...

Sympathise is spelled with an "m" and AIDS with a capital "S".

Anyhow.. yes, I do. Quite apart from those who catch the disease unaware, and/or unable to take proper caution for whatever reasons, I also sympathize with those who caught it due to willful ignorance, laziness, or recklessness. Yes, I see the latter as "at fault / responsible" themselves with regard to their HIV status, but that does by no means equal that I believe that they "deserve" what they "got", or that I do not deeply feel for them as suffering human beings. I echo what several people have said already: I don't think that one can or should say that it is "fair" or negating sympathy when someone has to face such an enormous consequence for the kind of "mistakes" that may lead to acquiring AIDS.

The "church" also says not to sleep around, and guess what, that would solve the problem once and for all. If Africans can't keep their genitals in their pants, there is no reason to not have them bear the consequences of their own behavior. In earlier centuries syphilis was the indicator for decadence, today it's HIV/AIDS.

Lol, who are you to tell people who they screw, how about handing out plastic rather than trying to stop people acting like... well humans....

Lol, who are you to tell people who they screw, how about handing out plastic rather than trying to stop people acting like... well humans....whoring around is what makes one human? rubbish.

The "church" also says not to sleep around, and guess what, that would solve the problem once and for all. If Africans can't keep their genitals in their pants, there is no reason to not have them bear the consequences of their own behavior. In earlier centuries syphilis was the indicator for decadence, today it's HIV/AIDS.

Bwhahahah you're so funny! :rolleyes:

Bwhahahah you're so funny! :rolleyes:And Africa losing its population is even more funny! :rolleyes:

And Africa losing its population is even more funny! :rolleyes:

Ohh you wicked man!

Ohh you wicked man!Right, who am I to tell people not to fuck everybody they meet? But then let them die for what they do, it's their own goddamn responsibility.

Right, who am I to tell people not to fuck everybody they meet? But then let them die for what they do, it's their own goddamn responsibility.

Soooo HIV and AIDs are only transmited via sex then?

The second I saw 'decadence' I stopped reading... I mean LOL

What about people getting AIDS from blood transfusions?

What about people getting AIDS from blood transfusions?

That really doesnt happen much these days. Most blood is tested.

The "church" also says not to sleep around, and guess what, that would solve the problem once and for all. If Africans can't keep their genitals in their pants, there is no reason to not have them bear the consequences of their own behavior. In earlier centuries syphilis was the indicator for decadence, today it's HIV/AIDS.
Yeah, like the "decadence" of having gotten it from being stabbed with an AIDS-infected needle, or recieving an infected blood transfusion, or having been raped by someone who had AIDS. But never mind that, it's because they're "Africans"

Ok, I'm beginning to notice a pattern here. Before, it was Sel Appa, and now it's United Beleriand; within this board, animal rights people tend to be racist, ignorant, obnoxious idiots with no idea what they're talking about. And don't whine about guilt by association now. Animal rights people don't hesitate to jump to "guilt by association"; we see the "these people who did [such and such] to animals later do [other such and such] to humans" crap from animal rights people all the time. Why the fuck should we hold back from doing the same kind of thing to them?

That really doesnt happen much these days. Most blood is tested.
Oh.

But it still nonetheless happens, and it still proves that to talk about "AIDS" victims as a whole as though their getting the disease is a consequence of their own actions is unreasonable.

Meh, maybe it's just that since I keep hearing about people who claim that type 1 diabetes is caused by obesity (when it is NOT, that claim only applies to type 2 diabetes) and keep saying I hope they get type 1 diabetes, I feel that I should make sure people don't think of other diseases as consequences of the actions of their victims when they aren't.

Yeah, like the "decadence" of having gotten it from being stabbed with an AIDS-infected needle, or recieving an infected blood transfusion, or having been raped by someone who had AIDS. But never mind that, it's because they're "Africans"

Ok, I'm beginning to notice a pattern here. Before, it was Sel Appa, and now it's United Beleriand; within this board, animal rights people tend to be racist, ignorant, obnoxious idiots with no idea what they're talking about. And don't whine about guilt by association now. Animal rights people don't hesitate to jump to "guilt by association"; we see the "these people who did [such and such] to animals later do [other such and such] to humans" crap from animal rights people all the time. Why the fuck should we hold back from fighting back?HIV is for the most part a sexually transmitted disease, other ways of transmission are not responsible for the huge number of infections in africa. and blaming the churches is just ridiculous. churches are not holding anybody's dick when they fuck whoever they encounter. everybody knows the risk, we are not living 30 years ago. hiv doesn't fly through the air and it takes some effort to contract it. and because that is so, i am not willing to put the blame ony anybody else but the individual who contracted it.
btw i really find the term AIDS victim pathetic.

Do you? And furthermore do you beleive AIDs is caused by individuals failing to ovoid catching the disease, society placing individuals in situations where catching this STD is more likely or both?

I've heard a conspiracy theory that AIDs was transmitted to man when racist white colonials purposefully injected AIDs from monkey blood into African Americans who were told by their "doctors" that it was a vaccine. I do not beleive this was the case but I leave it out there as a possibility.

So to put the question short, what do you blame AIDs in humans on and do you show sympathy to those with the disease after considering the cause?

I would always sympathize with those who suffer. Period.

I know some people have a "they asked for it" attitude but that's just being obtuse. HIV comes from risky behavior, sure... But plenty of people engage in the same risky behaviors every day and dodge the bullet. What makes some deserve it more than others? Nothing.

Edit: Having said that, I will say that while I sympathize with people who contract any illness as a result of known risky behavior, that doesn't mean I'm on board with promoting those behaviors.

Oh.

But it still nonetheless happens, and it still proves that to talk about "AIDS" victims as a whole as though their getting the disease is a consequence of their own actions is unreasonable.

I wouldnt go so far to say that no one gets AIDS from blood transfusions anymore, I can tell you that most civilized nations test any donated blood they recieve. This is not to say that accidents dont happen. Your more likely to get the flu from a blood transfusion, than HIV.


Meh, maybe it's just that since I keep hearing about people who claim that type 1 diabetes is caused by obesity (when it is NOT, that claim only applies to type 2 diabetes) and keep saying I hope they get type 1 diabetes, I feel that I should make sure people don't think of other diseases as consequences of the actions of their victims when they aren't.

Well, sadly, thats becuase people are stupid.
No one who has actually seen anything like that would actually wish someone to get HIV.
Its an awful way to die.

To say "they deserve it" , marks one as an asshole, pure and simple.
Did the Jews deserve the Holocaust?
No, but it sure did happen, didnt it?

Compassion is a dying emotion.

There have been quite a few NSG topics along the lines of "Do you sympathise with x group or is it their fault?".

Firstly, the "it's their fault group" are usually overly simplistic.

And secondly, I sympathise with people who suffer because of their choices. They made a mistake and I'm sure they wish they could change it. I think it's quite heartless to say "I've no sympathy, it's their own fault".

I would always sympathize with those who suffer. Period.

I know some people have a "they asked for it" attitude but that's just being obtuse. HIV comes from risky behavior, sure... But plenty of people engage in the same risky behaviors every day and dodge the bullet. What makes some deserve it more than others? Nothing.

Edit: Having said that, I will say that while I sympathize with people who contract any illness as a result of known risky behavior, that doesn't mean I'm on board with promoting those behaviors.this is not about "deserving" a disease. the question was where to put the blame, and some folks here seem to think that it is not to be put on the individual, and that's just rubbish. everyone is responsible for his/her own body, and if they don't accept that responsibility then they better not complain about the outcome.

btw i really find the term AIDS victim pathetic.

Why?

Why?It almost sounds as if someone or the virus itself had attacked the "victim", but that's not the case.

It almost sounds as if someone or the virus itself had attacked the "victim", but that's not the case.

Surly that is though. A virus does indeed attack.

What about the phrase a 'victim of measles'? Do you find that also pathetic, or is it just the sexual nature of the disease throws you?

Surly that is though. A virus does indeed attack.no, a virus is passed on and works passively.

What about the phrase a 'victim of measles'? Do you find that also pathetic, or is it just the sexual nature of the disease throws you?you don't have to fuck somebody to contract measles.

HIV is for the most part a sexually transmitted disease
Yeah, but "for the most part" doesn't mean that people who get AIDS otherwise don't exist. There will always be some of them, such as those I mentioned already and those who were born with AIDS, whom I forgot to mention last post. And if you don't care about those people because they're supposedly a minority of people who have AIDS, then I hope you get AIDS in one of the ways I listed last post.

churches are not holding anybody's dick when they fuck whoever they encounter.
No, but they're holding back the use of condoms there and yet not here, where we have better access to better information about sexual risks.

everybody knows the risk, we are not living 30 years ago.
What, do you think you can read minds or something? Did it ever occur to you once that perhaps WHEN wasn't the only relevant circumstance, but also WHERE? Did any of your history teachers ever tell you about the "witch doctors" in Africa who tell people that AIDS can be cured by having sex with a virgin? Or did you just skip off those classes?

If you're assuming that Africa (which is known to be a rather poor continent, and that kinda should be an indicator that it wouldn't exactly be easy to have the same kind of grade 9 sex ed we have in the western world) has adequate sexual education, then you're not exactly that educated yourself.

btw i really find the term AIDS victim pathetic.
That's fine, but it isn't half as pathetic as your ignorance on this subject.

you don't have to fuck somebody to contract measles.

Ahhh so it is just the sexual aspect then. I guess that makes you a prude! Ohh I say how quaint!

Ahhh so it is just the sexual aspect then. I guess that makes you a prude! Ohh I say how quaint!this has nothing to do with being prude. the point is that is pretty easy to protect yourself from hiv and if you don't, don't fucking blame somebody else. and not sleeping around also diminishes the chances of contracting hiv. and in a population where up to 20% are infected sleeping around is like playing russian roulette.

I would always sympathize with those who suffer. Period.

I know some people have a "they asked for it" attitude but that's just being obtuse. HIV comes from risky behavior, sure... But plenty of people engage in the same risky behaviors every day and dodge the bullet. What makes some deserve it more than others? Nothing.

Edit: Having said that, I will say that while I sympathize with people who contract any illness as a result of known risky behavior, that doesn't mean I'm on board with promoting those behaviors.
Exactly. Now this is another thing those who insist it's AIDS victims' faults need to consider.

I've heard a conspiracy theory that AIDs was transmitted to man when racist white colonials purposefully injected AIDs from monkey blood into African Americans who were told by their "doctors" that it was a vaccine. I do not beleive this was the case but I leave it out there as a possibility.


I've not heard that one, but it sounds like someone has taken the Tuskegee Study scandal and put a modern gloss on it.

To pick up a point some others have made - blood taken for transfusions is tested for HIV, but the tests are not 100% reliable. That's why they won't take blood from people who are in high risk AIDS categories.

You know how to protect yourself from the HIV virus, does that mean that everybody knows?yes. we are not living in the 80ies anymore.
Especially with the church sanctioned, condoms do not protect against the AIDS virusso folks listen to the church when it comes to condoms but don't give a shit when the churches say to folks not to sleep around? ridiculous.

this has nothing to do with being prude. the point is that is pretty easy to protect yourself from hiv and if you don't, don't fucking blame somebody else.

Ohhh the point I made with the measles, shows that the idea of you being prudish has a great bearing on the matter.

You know how to protect yourself from the HIV virus, does that mean that everybody knows? I live in the UK and we have a massive problem with STI's here especially amongst our youth. Now say 10-15 years ago, we had a massive cmpaign about condoms, and safe sex, then that just stopped. Ohh sure they have started up again, but in the interim there are many, many of our kids ignorant of basic sex education facts.

That's over here in the UK, how much more worse would you think that problem would be over in Africa? Especially with the church sanctioned, condoms do not protect against the AIDS virus, crap going on.

Blame, if that is what you're ranting about, never rests solely on the actions of one person, or group for that matter.

We are social animals, and all of the ills of our society rest on the shoulders of us all.

The "church" also says not to sleep around, and guess what, that would solve the problem once and for all. If Africans can't keep their genitals in their pants, there is no reason to not have them bear the consequences of their own behavior. In earlier centuries syphilis was the indicator for decadence, today it's HIV/AIDS.

Which is why the virus first entered the human population in Africa, right? Cause they all fucked monkeys....

Which is why the virus first entered the human population in Africa, right? Cause they all fucked monkeys....no, that's because they eat monkeys. but how does it matter what way the virus found human hosts in the beginning? we are talking about the present.

whoring around is what makes one human? rubbish.

I think you've got a lot to learn about human behaviour... I'd suggest Human Instinct (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Human-Instinct-Robert-M-L-Winston/dp/0553814923/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199282323&sr=8-1), by Robert Winston.

no, that's because they eat monkeys. but how does it matter what way the virus found human hosts in the beginning? we are talking about the present.

Right. A present where the only way the virus gets transmitted is through ex-marital sex? You must live in a rather odd world indeed.

That really doesnt happen much these days. Most blood is tested.

In Africa? Seriously?

yes. we are not living in the 80ies anymore.


Well that is the first thing that you have said that I can without fear of contradiction, you are wrong. Not everybody knows that wearing a condom can offer protection agianst STI's


so folks listen to the church when it comes to condoms but don't give a shit when the churches say to folks not to sleep around? ridiculous.


Yeah I agree it is ridiculous, but then by and by people generally are. I mean it's ridiculous for a Christian to show anything other than love to their fellow man isn't it.

no, that's because they eat monkeys. but how does it matter what way the virus found human hosts in the beginning? we are talking about the present.

Yes of course it matters, when you make statements declaring AIDS as a sign of modern day decadence, then you had better know that is fact, and not some ohh I don't know some cliche pulled from thin air, or your favorite authour.

If AIDS is a sign of decadence then what form of decadence first begat the AIDS virus?

I think you've got a lot to learn about human behaviour... I'd suggest Human Instinct (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Human-Instinct-Robert-M-L-Winston/dp/0553814923/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199282323&sr=8-1), by Robert Winston.i don't give a shit for humans who are driven by their instincts. some of us have actually evolved beyond the level of cave-dwellers.

Yes of course it matters, when you make statements declaring AIDS as a sign of modern day decadence, then you had better know that is fact, and not some ohh I don't know some cliche pulled from thin air, or your favorite authour.

If AIDS is a sign of decadence then what form of decadence first begat the AIDS virus?wtf?

Well that is the first thing that you have said that I can without fear of contradiction, you are wrong. Not everybody knows that wearing a condom can offer protection agianst STI'syou are kidding, right?

i don't give a shit for humans who are driven by their instincts. some of us have actually evolved beyond the level of cave-dwellers.

Considering that aggression, both physical and verbal, is a human instinct, I'd say you're a pretty good example that not everybody has.

Considering that aggression, both physical and verbal, is a human instinct, I'd say you're a pretty good example that not everybody has.what a rubbish. if people want to fuck up their lives, it's completely ok with me, but i don't want to hear those folks complaining then.

you are kidding, right?

Ever heard of "Abstinence only - Education"?
One of the results of this enlightened endeavour is that a good number of people are completely unaware of the methods of protection from STIs.

this is not about "deserving" a disease. the question was where to put the blame, and some folks here seem to think that it is not to be put on the individual, and that's just rubbish. everyone is responsible for his/her own body, and if they don't accept that responsibility then they better not complain about the outcome.

I agree.

I only object to those who refer to the contracting of a disease as some perverse form of justice.

what a rubbish. if people want to fuck up their lives, it's completely ok with me, but i don't want to hear those folks complaining then.

Oh, got ya. You're one of those who'd advocate to leave the victims of car crashes bleeding to death in their crushed vehicles, right? Cause they knew the risks when they got in the car in the first place, right?

If AIDS is a sign of decadence then what form of decadence first begat the AIDS virus?

Sheep shagging, if rumors are to be believed.

I agree.

I only object to those who refer to the contracting of a disease as some perverse form of justice.

I further object to holding people responsible when they simply had no chance to get hold of the information that could have prevented the problem.

Oh, got ya. You're one of those who'd advocate to leave the victims of car crashes bleeding to death in their crushed vehicles, right? If they weren't wearing seat belts, definitely YES.

wtf?


You said that AIDS is a sign of decadence then proceeded to say that the history of where it comes from is of no account. I'd like to see how you reconcile both statments

you are kidding, right?

Sadly no. But it is interesting how a few posts back you were quite certain of your facts, and now you are not?

I was thinking to myself that this thread was redundant because the answer to the title is obviously yes.

I see now, although I like to think otherwise, some of that silly faith in humanity still lingers.

You said that AIDS is a sign of decadence then proceeded to say that the history of where it comes from is of no account. I'd like to see how you reconcile both statmentswhat's your problem? TODAY hiv is transmitted through sexual intercourse. it is of no relevance how humans first met the virus in the past. humans have it now and they are passing it on now. and they contract it by sleeping around although they could prevent that by simply not sleeping around or at least by protecting themselves. so which part don't you understand?

Sadly no. But it is interesting how a few posts back you were quite certain of your facts, and now you are not?what?

I agree with United Beleriand here. People with HIV/AIDS need to take responsibility for their actions - just like with cancer and heart disease. These so called 'victims' contracted their disease through smoking, bad diet or not getting enough exercise and therefore don't deserve the status people give them as victims. Sure, a minority develop it through because they inherited the disease or other factors beyond their control but lets not allow that to stop us from telling them to deal with it.

Sheep shagging, if rumors are to be believed.

Huh! You mean it all started in Wales? I bloody knew it! Them dirty, dirty bastards.

I feel bad for them. In the same way I feel bad for people who have herpes. It sucks that it happened and it's a life long struggle. I don't think you can really be angry with them for years and years, people make bad choices all the time, sometimes the consequences are really severe. It's bad enough to be sick, without people constantly being asses about it.

I further object to holding people responsible when they simply had no chance to get hold of the information that could have prevented the problem.

I kinda thought that went without saying...

I feel bad for them. In the same way I feel bad for people who have herpes. It sucks that it happened and it's a life long struggle. I don't think you can really be angry with them for years and years, people make bad choices all the time, sometimes the consequences are really severe. It's bad enough to be sick, without people constantly being asses about it.

This is why I sympathize even if it was a result of foolish actions. We all do stupid stuff from time to time. Ideally, we also take responsibility for our own numbskull behavior when we do. That doesn't mean there's no room to feel sympathy toward someone who doesn't dodge the bullet.

But yes, I think we all agree there's a difference between sympathy and shifting blame.

I agree with United Beleriand here. People with HIV/AIDS need to take responsibility for their actions - just like with cancer and heart disease. These so called 'victims' contracted their disease through smoking, bad diet or not getting enough exercise and therefore don't deserve the status people give them as victims. Sure, a minority develop it through because they inherited the disease or other factors beyond their control but lets not allow that to stop us from telling them to deal with it.

do you think telling them to "deal with it" is helpful? do you think there are massive populations of people with HIV who ignore it and need to be told to "deal with it"?

do you think telling them to "deal with it" is helpful? do you think there are massive populations of people with HIV who ignore it and need to be told to "deal with it"?

No, I'm being sarcastic and pointing out the stupidity of what he was saying by extrapolating it to other diseases. Normally the sarcasm would be immediatly obvious but I forgot that this is NSG where a large number of people actually agree with ridiculous views like I posted. I'll use a [/sarcasm] tag next time.

No, I'm being sarcastic and pointing out the stupidity of what he was saying by extrapolating it to other diseases. Normally the sarcasm would be immediatly obvious but I forgot that this is NSG where a large number of people actually agree with ridiculous views like I posted. I'll use a [/sarcasm] tag next time.

I didn't catch that either. I think it's not so much that many people agree with that, more so your post applying those standards to cancer looks about as equally sane as what UB said.

what's your problem? TODAY hiv is transmitted through sexual intercourse. it is of no relevance how humans first met the virus in the past. humans have it now and they are passing it on now. and they contract it by sleeping around although they could prevent that. so which part don't you understand?

It's obvious you don't understand me. So AIDS is only a sign of decadence today, not when it first appeared, only today? How does that work then?

what?

*sigh* You asked me was I kidding? When I informed you that not everybody knows about condoms and STI's. Now given the rules of written English this here little sign '?' told me you where asking a question. I inferred that you where asking for clarification, and so I asked was that he case.

No, I'm being sarcastic and pointing out the stupidity of what he was saying by extrapolating it to other diseases. Normally the sarcasm would be immediatly obvious but I forgot that this is NSG where a large number of people actually agree with ridiculous views like I posted. I'll use a [/sarcasm] tag next time.

I for one blame my sinus medication. ;) Also, yes, there are ridiculous people about, you might have to not be so stealthy with your wit.

It's obvious you don't understand me. So AIDS is only a sign of decadence today, not when it first appeared, only today? How does that work then?what the fuck is your problem? when hiv first appeared nobody knew a shit how it worked or how it was transmitted. but we are 25+ years past that stage and everybody today knows how it is transmitted and how to avoid it. and the first and foremost reason for transmission today is carelessness. it's not any churches' or any governments' fault. it's the individual who can't keep his/her pants up.

Umm I could say what the fuck is your problem, but I really don't think your getting it so I guess I can just let it drop, and be all warm and fuzzy in the belief that you are an idiot.well, i won't be dying of hiv/aids, so what do i care? if folks choose to be infected then they will just have to deal with it. period.

what the fuck is your problem? when hiv first appeared nobody knew a shit how it worked or how it was transmitted. but we are 25+ years past that stage and everybody today knows how it is transmitted and how to avoid it. and the first and foremost reason for transmission today is carelessness. it's not any churches' or any governments' fault. it's the individual who can't keep his/her pants up.

So... essentially you only blame those who got infected during unprotected intrcourse, then?
Not those who got infected transfusions, or who have been operated on in non-sterile conditions? Or those who were simply born with it? Or those who still eat bush meat?
Or is it their fault as well, because all of the instances above can be avoided by having enough money to afford better food and health care, and choosing to remain poor is their fault after all?

what the fuck is your problem? when hiv first appeared nobody knew a shit how it worked or how it was transmitted. but we are 25+ years past that stage and everybody today knows how it is transmitted and how to avoid it. and the first and foremost reason for transmission today is carelessness. it's not any churches' or any governments' fault. it's the individual who can't keep his/her pants up.

Umm I could say what the fuck is your problem, but I really don't think your getting it so I guess I can just let it drop, and be all warm and fuzzy in the belief that you are an idiot.

well, i won't be dying of hiv/aids, so what do i care?

Wow. This is just a tad inconsistent with most of your views.

Wow. This is just a tad inconsistent with most of your views.

you're surprised?

well, i won't be dying of hiv/aids, so what do i care? if folks choose to be infected then they will just have to deal with it. period.
And I repeat what I said before; people can be infected through blood transfusions, infected needles, or rapes. I hope you get AIDS through one of those ways. Maybe then you won't be acting so tough.

wow, I can't believe there is so much bickering about this subject. If someone picked up AIDS from being a druggie and sharing a needle, or from sexual intercourse then it's their fault and the blame shouldn't be placed anywhere else.

Why blame society? Do people not believe in being responsible for their own actions. I feel sad for them. I served with a guy in europe that picked up the disease from a Filipino hooker. Do I sympathize...yes. Does it suck that he will someday die, probably before his time because of his decision....yes
Is there anyone to blame besides him? no.

Of course we all sympathize with people that have any type of life threatening illness, but if you can't lay the blame where it belongs then you have serious issues.

I realize that many people on here will result to name calling as I've seen posted already on this thread so I'd like to point out in advance that taking advantage of people's spelling errors and actually attacking a person for their beliefs is both childish and ignorant. Everyone have a wonderful day!

you're surprised?

Well, I previously assumed that the 'I don't care because it doesn't affect me' mentality was restricted to those who [omitted for flaminess]

Wow. This is just a tad inconsistent with most of your views.
Hmm? I think it's unreasonable but I don't see how UB is contradicting himself/herself...

well, i won't be dying of hiv/aids, so what do i care? if folks choose to be infected then they will just have to deal with it. period.

And that is just the point you are missing. I dare say that not one person chooses to be infected huh!

And that is just the point you are missing. I dare say that not one person chooses to be infected huh!going out and having unsafe sex with strangers means to be choosing it.

going out and having unsafe sex with strangers means to be choosing it.

so, if a woman gets pregnant after having "unsafe" sex, then she should just "deal with it" too?

The initial question "Do you sympathise with AIDS victims?" is inherently judgmental and negative. There should be no question that one sympathises with people who are sick.

Of course I sympathise with people suffering with AIDS, in the exact same way I sympathise with people suffering with cancer. They are suffering. I sympathise with them. I can imagine what it might be like to be in their place, and it is bad. I want their suffering to be alleviated. I want to see the disease be cured, and this threat to humanity eliminated. What kind of worthless excuse for a human being wouldn't? (Yes, I know we've already seen examples here of such worthless excuses, but I still don't understand them.)

It is my opinion that the only sane and civilized response to a disease is to want to eradicate it and to cure the people suffering from it. Anyone who would waste time arguing over whether the people who got it brought it on themselves are, essentially, making an implied argument in favor of tolerating the existence of a deadly disease in our population -- as an earned punishment for doing a thing they disapprove of. Is AIDS primarily an STD? Yes, so what? There are also other ways to get it, so any question of the behavior of some people who get it should be immaterial. It kills people and is contagious. That is all we need to know. Arguing that how people got it matters for the sake of laying blame, is a pointless waste of time. In the same way, it is a pointless waste of time to "blame" lung cancer on smoking. There are lots of ways to get lung cancer, and the fact that one of them is controllable/avoidable in no way changes the nature of the disease or the desireability of finding a cure.

As for the racist, sexist, elitist, fuck-headed arguments along the lines of "stupid, backward, decadent people get AIDS, so someone as wonderful as I shouldn't have to worry or care about it," let me explain something about "stupid, backward, decadent people." Do not for a second think you are not surrounded by them every day. Do not for a second allow yourself to assume you are not one of them. You think you know everything you need or ever will need to know about this virus? You think you're safe and snug in your little coccoon of privileged "you-ness"? You are kidding yourself so bad, I would mark you as not safe to be around, germ-wise.

People sit here all smug and condescending and speculate idiotically about how those Africans keep getting AIDS. Well, kids, I will never forget the day I was walking through Harvard University campus, and overheard a student -- a young, white woman with expensive clothes and an expensive haircut and an expensive cell phone, attending an expensive school -- complaining into her phone the following words (and I quote, and I swear to you this is the truth and it happened in 2007):

"How can something I can't even see make me sick?"

UB and several others here need to get fucking clue about the world they live in, pronto, for their own sakes, because we are all in the exact same boat as those Africans everyone feels so comfortable talking about.

<snippy>

To be honest, this "I won't ever get it, so :p to you" attitude does remind me of the guy the other day in the thread about sexual health, who claimed he doesn't need to worry about protection or check-ups, cause he's picky about who he fucks... :rolleyes:

And then one day you wake up to find you got it after all, and then what?

going out and having unsafe sex with strangers means to be choosing it.

Nope it means choosing to risk all sorts of thing. By that logic then anybody who has unprotected sex which ends in pregnancy chooses to have a baby?

going out and having unsafe sex with strangers means to be choosing it.

And this is remark is just as stupid as the one I quoted from that Harvard University student. After all these years of information about what HIV/AIDS is and how it works, this is what you "think"? This is the remark of a moron, someone who deliberately chooses to be ignorant in order to facilitate being judgmental. It is people like this who are the prime spreaders of epidemics in the modern world. Now I really wish I knew who you really are, so I can make sure never to share a coffee cup with you. Who knows what germs you may be spreading, if you are this ignorant about disease.

You know, sometimes, in my even-more-cynical moments, I think that the main disease of humanity is stupidity. That stupidity is to humans what rabies is to raccoons -- an ever present time-bomb that explodes when our population gets too big -- because it seems that the more people there are, the more idiots there are. Everywhere.

To be honest, this "I won't ever get it, so :p to you" attitude does remind me of the guy the other day in the thread about sexual health, who claimed he doesn't need to worry about protection or check-ups, cause he's picky about who he fucks... :rolleyes:

And then one day you wake up to find you got it after all, and then what?

Well, of course, if stupidity were not the most common disease of human beings, that person would not contract an STD because no one would ever have sex with him again because his stupidity would make him too much of a risk.

Nope it means choosing to risk all sorts of thing. By that logic then anybody who has unprotected sex which ends in pregnancy chooses to have a baby?that's basically how it works. knowing the consequences and nevertheless going for it means to be willing. figure that.

that's basically how it works. knowing the consequences and nevertheless going for it means to be willing. figure that.

Which begs the question how many people actually know the risks and consequences of their behaviour. To get back to the Africa example, girls and children there are being raped because people there "know" that having sex with a virign cures AIDS.
That, to me, doesn't sound like they actually know much about the disease or how it gets transmitted.

that's basically how it works. knowing the consequences and nevertheless going for it means to be willing. figure that.

That's complete rubbish.

How can you know what the consequences of unprotected sex WILL be? You may know some of the RISKS, but you just can't say 'If I have unprotected sex I WILL get AIDS' or 'If I have unprotected sex I WILL fall pregnant'

You are talking about what may happen, or the risk, and the chances of these risks. That is not 'knowing the consequences' that is understanding the risks.

When you cross the road there is a risk that you may get hit and killed by a car. If you do cross the road and get hit and killed by a car, it is certainly one consequence of YOUR actions, but is is far removed from YOUR choice.

Figure that.

Which begs the question how many people actually know the risks and consequences of their behaviour. To get back to the Africa example, girls and children there are being raped because people there "know" that having sex with a virign cures AIDS.
That, to me, doesn't sound like they actually know much about the disease or how it gets transmitted.too bad. :rolleyes:

too bad. :rolleyes:

Well.. who is to blame ? The person that misinforms AIDS victims, or the AIDS victims that did not know any better ?

How can you know what the consequences of unprotected sex WILL be? You may know some of the RISKS, but you just can't say 'If I have unprotected sex I WILL get AIDS' But that's not how it works. It works "If I have no unprotected sex or if I have no sex at all the probability of contracting HIV/AIDS is minimized". How is that so hard to get? You get what you pick.

But that's not how it works. It works "If I have no unprotected sex or if I have no sex at all the probability of contracting HIV/AIDS is minimized". How is that so hard to get? You get what you pick.

Minimised, but not 0. So if you get it despite protection, who's to blame?
And if you had never heard of protection in the first place, is it still your own fault?

too bad. :rolleyes:

I'm calling troll on you on this topic because of this response. You've been saying all along that if people choose to do risky things and get AIDS, it's their own fault, and you don't need to care (which is an idiotic thing to say, but aside from that...).

NOW you're saying "too bad" to girls who get raped and get AIDS as a result. Are you implying that those girls chose to get raped by a man with AIDS?

A) Your entire argument has been wrong to begin with, and now you're even more wrong.

B) Your argument was about blaming people for choices you assume they make. Now you're telling people you know made no bad choice to just die.

C) Your argument was nonsense, but at least it had structure. You have contradicted and thus destroyed that structure. At this point we can see that you are just blindly gainsaying all other arguments for the sake of saying negative and shocking things and for no other purpose.

Ergo, you are being a troll. Go away.

AIDS wouldn't be the problem it is today in Africa if the Catholic Church wasn't so regressive and dogmaticthey have the blood of millions over their hands.

"Regressive and dogmatic" This is from you?

But that's not how it works. It works "If I have no unprotected sex or if I have no sex at all the probability of contracting HIV/AIDS is minimized". How is that so hard to get? You get what you pick.

You know I'm only answering to the words which you use. If you write such t things as:

knowing the consequences and nevertheless going for it means to be willing

Then I can only assume that this is what you meant to convey. So when I suggest to you that isn't how it is at all, you then tell me I'm not understanding you?

So lets get back you your words above. You contend that anybody who has AIDS, has it as a consequence of their actions, and so by your logic choose it?

Yet by your words above you talk about 'probability being minimised', which suggests that somewhere in that noggin of yours you don't really believe the line you are trying to sell. If a probability can be minimised then, a small probability exists that you can still contract the disease via no fault of your own.


Is that hard for you to get?

So to put the question short, what do you blame AIDs in humans on and do you show sympathy to those with the disease after considering the cause?Blame... It's such a complicated case by case issue to toss out blanket blame.

As to sympathy, yeah, I do sympathize with all that get it. If someone were being ridiculously stupid in handling a chainsaw, and cut off their hand in the process, I'd still symphatize with their loss, no matter how much they are to blame for their own predicament.

going out and having unsafe sex with strangers means to be choosing it.
Actually, it means to be risking it. Driving a car means risking to be seriously injured in a car accident. Let's say if hypothetically instead of people encouraging seat belt use, people were discouraging it instead. According to your reasoning, those who got in the car were the only ones responsible for being seriously injured in a car accident and people shouldn't sympathize with that, nor should people discouraging the use of seat belts be even considered partially responsible.

AIDs is a disease. Some may get it from risky behavior, but several diseases can be contracted by risky behavior. For example:
lung cancer:smoking
heart disease:high cholesterol and fatty foods
diabetes:high sugar consumption

However, some people get these diseases without the risky behavior. Soooo, I sympathise with anyone who is ill no matter how they got it.

The initial question "Do you sympathise with AIDS victims?" is inherently judgmental and negative. There should be no question that one sympathises with people who are sick.

Of course I sympathise with people suffering with AIDS, in the exact same way I sympathise with people suffering with cancer. They are suffering. I sympathise with them. I can imagine what it might be like to be in their place, and it is bad. I want their suffering to be alleviated. I want to see the disease be cured, and this threat to humanity eliminated. What kind of worthless excuse for a human being wouldn't? (Yes, I know we've already seen examples here of such worthless excuses, but I still don't understand them.)

It is my opinion that the only sane and civilized response to a disease is to want to eradicate it and to cure the people suffering from it. Anyone who would waste time arguing over whether the people who got it brought it on themselves are, essentially, making an implied argument in favor of tolerating the existence of a deadly disease in our population -- as an earned punishment for doing a thing they disapprove of. Is AIDS primarily an STD? Yes, so what? There are also other ways to get it, so any question of the behavior of some people who get it should be immaterial. It kills people and is contagious. That is all we need to know. Arguing that how people got it matters for the sake of laying blame, is a pointless waste of time. In the same way, it is a pointless waste of time to "blame" lung cancer on smoking. There are lots of ways to get lung cancer, and the fact that one of them is controllable/avoidable in no way changes the nature of the disease or the desireability of finding a cure.

As for the racist, sexist, elitist, fuck-headed arguments along the lines of "stupid, backward, decadent people get AIDS, so someone as wonderful as I shouldn't have to worry or care about it," let me explain something about "stupid, backward, decadent people." Do not for a second think you are not surrounded by them every day. Do not for a second allow yourself to assume you are not one of them. You think you know everything you need or ever will need to know about this virus? You think you're safe and snug in your little coccoon of privileged "you-ness"? You are kidding yourself so bad, I would mark you as not safe to be around, germ-wise.

People sit here all smug and condescending and speculate idiotically about how those Africans keep getting AIDS. Well, kids, I will never forget the day I was walking through Harvard University campus, and overheard a student -- a young, white woman with expensive clothes and an expensive haircut and an expensive cell phone, attending an expensive school -- complaining into her phone the following words (and I quote, and I swear to you this is the truth and it happened in 2007):

"How can something I can't even see make me sick?"

UB and several others here need to get fucking clue about the world they live in, pronto, for their own sakes, because we are all in the exact same boat as those Africans everyone feels so comfortable talking about.
*Applauds* Now this is the kind of insight we need more of nowadays.

AIDs is a disease. Some may get it from risky behavior, but several diseases can be contracted by risky behavior. For example:
lung cancer:smoking
heart disease:high cholesterol and fatty foods
diabetes:high sugar consumption

However, some people get these diseases without the risky behavior. Soooo, I sympathise with anyone who is ill no matter how they got it.
You mean type 2 diabetes? Because type 1 diabetes is not a consequence of the actions of those who got it at all.

Well.. who is to blame ? The person that misinforms AIDS victims, or the AIDS victims that did not know any better ?

And miinformation is rampant about AIDS over there. From people who don't believe it exists, to people who have no idea how it's spread, to people who spread the word that they can cure AIDS with lemon juice and paprika(or whatever that dumbass herbal cure is).

They don't all get CNN over there. :p

You mean type 2 diabetes? Because type 1 diabetes is not a consequence of the actions of those who got it at all.

being born with the wrong genes *nod* or parent's past sins if you ask my family.....that's totally why my kids have an auto-immune disorder.....all those bad things I did when I was a teenager.

Yes, of course I sympathize with AIDS victims.

You mean type 2 diabetes? Because type 1 diabetes is not a consequence of the actions of those who got it at all.

Covered that when I said some get these without risky behavior. :):)

being born with the wrong genes *nod* or parent's past sins if you ask my family.....that's totally why my kids have an auto-immune disorder.....all those bad things I did when I was a teenager.
Really? What do you mean? I was never told about this kind of thing at the hospital...

Really? What do you mean? I was never told about this kind of thing at the hospital...

that's because the doctors are all atheist heathens and they don't want you to know that your prior sins, like staying out late and listening to rock music can cause debilitating diseases in your children.....you know, because they would be broke if we weren't sick.

that's because the doctors are all atheist heathens and they don't want you to know that your prior sins, like staying out late and listening to rock music can cause debilitating diseases in your children.....you know, because they would be broke if we weren't sick.
Oh, another religious nutcase brainwashed by the churches. Your views are superstitious bullshit.

Oh, another religious nutcase brainwashed by the churches. Your views are superstitious bullshit.

Or sarcastic. Take your pick.

Oh, another religious nutcase brainwashed by the churches. Your views are superstitious bullshit.
Yes, we do need more insight. :p Read Smunkee's posts again. You're wrong about what she is saying.

(Thanks for the compliment, btw.)

Oh, another religious nutcase brainwashed by the churches. Your views are superstitious bullshit.

If your sarcasm detector broken, or were you responding to sarcasm with sarcasm?

I've personally lost a few people from AIDS, so yes, I sympathize with anyone who gets this horrible virus, no matter what happened to them, to receive it. Even if someone ends up getting it from sleeping around and having unprotected sex, I still sympathize with them (even more so, to be honest), because I would never wish it upon even my most hated enemy. No one deserves to have it, case closed.

Or sarcastic. Take your pick.
Smunkeeville said nothing about being sarcastic, no emoticon or tags to indicate it even. As such Smunkeeville himself/herself was saying that he/she meant the ridiculous crap he/she was saying, and therefore were I to suggest that Smunkeeville was being sarcastic would be saying that I have more say as to what Smunkeeville means than Smunkeeville himself/herself. Though granted, I probably could've asked.

Also, Smunkeeville, what makes you think doctors would be broke if not for diabetes? Last I checked the doctors are paid based on how long they are available for, not how much they're used. Granted, I suppose the government would cut healthcare funding if it wasn't needed as bad, but I doubt doctors would want to hide the cause of a disease that affects a minority of people just because of that.

Smunkeeville said nothing about being sarcastic, no emoticon or tags to indicate it even. As such Smunkeeville himself/herself was saying that he/she meant the ridiculous crap he/she was saying, and therefore were I to suggest that Smunkeeville was being sarcastic would be saying that I have more say as to what Smunkeeville means than Smunkeeville himself/herself. Though granted, I probably could've asked.

Also, Smunkeeville, what makes you think doctors would be broke if not for diabetes? Last I checked the doctors are paid based on how long they are available for, not how much they're used. Granted, I suppose the government would cut healthcare funding if it wasn't needed as bad, but I doubt doctors would want to hide the cause of a disease that affects a minority of people just because of that.

Hayteria, you are mistaken. Please take it on the word of several other posters who are familiar with Smunkee's posting history and writing style. Also, yes, you're right, you could have asked.

Btw, her remark about the doctors going broke if we're not sick was also sarcastic. In case you haven't figure it out, Smunkee is satirizing the exact viewpoint you thought she believes in. That bit about the doctors is part of it. I recognize it because, like her, I know people who really do think that that way.

HIV is for the most part a sexually transmitted disease, other ways of transmission are not responsible for the huge number of infections in africa. and blaming the churches is just ridiculous. churches are not holding anybody's dick when they fuck whoever they encounter. everybody knows the risk, we are not living 30 years ago. hiv doesn't fly through the air and it takes some effort to contract it. and because that is so, i am not willing to put the blame ony anybody else but the individual who contracted it.
btw i really find the term AIDS victim pathetic.

Um.

First, it is not uncommon for Catholic priests in Africa to tell wives that it is their DUTY to have unprotected sex with their HIV-infected husbands, and that they will go to hell if they do not do so. I'd say that they can damn well be blamed when those women contract HIV, as they threatened them with infinite suffering if they did not deliberately engage in exceedingly risky behavior.

Second, "everybody knows the risk"? Are you kidding? I've encountered American teenagers who think that you can't get pregnant if you have sex standing up, that condoms are totally ineffective against most STIs, and that only gay people can get AIDS - and these are kids in a first-world country, who attend schools which theoretically feature sex education. If they're so woefully misinformed, how do you think teenagers in sub-Saharan Africa are doing?

(And third, of course I sympathize with AIDS victims. They have an extremely unpleasant and presently incurable disease. Anyone who has no sympathy for people with extremely unpleasant and presently incurable diseases is devoid of simple humanity.)

Smunkeeville said nothing about being sarcastic, no emoticon or tags to indicate it even. As such Smunkeeville himself/herself was saying that he/she meant the ridiculous crap he/she was saying, and therefore were I to suggest that Smunkeeville was being sarcastic would be saying that I have more say as to what Smunkeeville means than Smunkeeville himself/herself. Though granted, I probably could've asked.

Also, Smunkeeville, what makes you think doctors would be broke if not for diabetes? Last I checked the doctors are paid based on how long they are available for, not how much they're used. Granted, I suppose the government would cut healthcare funding if it wasn't needed as bad, but I doubt doctors would want to hide the cause of a disease that affects a minority of people just because of that.

http://img178.imageshack.us/img178/7349/sacrasmdetectwn4.jpg

I don't think of aids victims too much. It is kinda depressing, but yes, I do sympathize with aids victims. Some of them do spread it knowingly. Those ones should be denied medicine and confined to one room for the rest of their lives.

well, i won't be dying of hiv/aids, so what do i care? if folks choose to be infected then they will just have to deal with it. period.

They will have to deal with it. But why is it so hard to feel sympathy towards them? It takes as much energy for you to blame, judge and hate them as it would take for you to feel sympathetic, why do you care to much to post about them and yet won't feel human for them?

So to put the question short, what do you blame AIDs in humans on and do you show sympathy to those with the disease after considering the cause?
I don't blame anybody for the existence of AIDS, any more than I blame anybody for the existence of polio or the Black Plague. Yes, human actions have impacted epidemics, but that doesn't mean there's one person you can point at as Official Responsible Party For The Existence Of Illness.

And as for sympathy, why the fuck not? The overwhelming majority of people who have AIDS and HIV are people who are desperately poor and have precious few options in life.

A huge number of them did not have any choice whatsoever when it came to contracting the disease, because they are female human beings who live in areas of the world where they are not permitted to choose when, how, or with whom they have sex.

But it's not all about evil males spreading illness, either. A friend of mine worked in Africa at a clinic and he told me a story about this villager who had been using the same condom for 6 months. He'd wash it out and re-use it. Now, this sounds gross and obviously the condom was useless at that point, but he was doing it because he wanted to protect his partners and he was so poor that there was no way for him to get another condom and nobody had ever told him how to use a condom correctly. They just said, "Here, this protects you and your partner against spreading HIV." So he saved it and used it every time.