Would you convict this man?

@xris,

xris;67330 wrote:

William i don't think you will find anyone on this forum would contemplate pedos being given any credence or support them in any way.What worries me is that you are using this extreme minority as a weapon in your fight against homosexuality in general.In Africa due to RC dogma thousands of heterosexual men women and children are dying of aids.Its not sex that kills its ignorance,dogma or stupidity.The church in America are partially to blame for the deaths in Africa due to their selective charitable aid being targeted at countries who dont encourage contraception.Your anger appears to be very selective and is blinkered to other evil acts.

Great response. What is it that makes an extreme minority an extreme minority? Homosexuality is an extreme minority. In all due respect it is your logic that flawed. We can deduce there is something about minority behavior that makes them a minority in that it conflicts with the behavior of the majority. I am not at war with the homosexual, I am at war with the behavior because as far as we have deduced, that behavior is where AIDS originated. It is not about dogma, the church or religion. Every single time logical deductive reasoning is imployed to offer critisim regarding why exteme minorities are extreme minorities, the final argument blames it on religion. Damn! The fact of the matter is people will do outrageous things out of ignorance when their life is at stake. AIDS puts those lives at stake. Yes, we need to eliminate the behavior that prompts one to stick a needle in their arm, and those desires that are consitituent with homosexual behavior. That is where our knowedge must take us. Not irrational assumptions that defend them. If is a "fair" assumption to eliminate the behavior, AIDS will just cease to exist. If we just provide a quick fix such as a serum the virus will as it always does just mutate and rear it ugly head someplace else that will be constituent with what created the virus in the first place. If you want to see viruses and cancer go away, eliminate the behavior that created them.
William

@William,

William;67347 wrote:

Great response. What is it that makes an extreme minority an extreme minority? Homosexuality is an extreme minority. In all due respect it is your logic that flawed. We can deduce there is something about minority behavior that makes them a minority in that it conflicts with the behavior of the majority. I am not at war with the homosexual, I am at war with the behavior because as far as we have deduced, that behavior is where AIDS originated. It is not about dogma, the church or religion. Every single time logical deductive reasoning is imployed to offer critisim regarding why exteme minorities are extreme minorities, the final argument blames it on religion. Damn! The fact of the matter is people will do outrageous things out of ignorance when their life is at stake. AIDS puts those lives at stake. Yes, we need to eliminate the behavior that prompts one to stick a needle in their arm, and those desires that are consitituent with homosexual behavior. That is where our knowledge must take us. Not irrational assumptions that defend them. If is a "fair" assumption to eliminate the behavior, AIDS will just cease to exist. If we just provide a quick fix such as a serum the virus will as it always does just mutate and rear it ugly head someplace else that will be constituent with what created the virus in the first place. If you want to see viruses and cancer go away, eliminate the behavior that created them.
William

The majority of aids victims now are heterosexuals living in Africa.Its their poverty and imposed western morality that has destroyed there communities.I dont say i care for the thought of the homosexual act but to blame them for this curse on mankind is rather extreme.You cant impose your values on others you must educate and guide them to either safe sex or warn them of the dangers of their activity.I cant stand the morals of the RC church,i detest them on the verge of hatred but what chance have i of changing their dogmatic stance on so many issues.

@William,

William;67347 wrote:

I am not at war with the homosexual, I am at war with the behavior because as far as we have deduced, that behavior is where AIDS originated.

That's completely 100% false from a scientific and biological point of view, but don't let that stop you.

@William,

William;67320 wrote:

Let me put it this way. Considering what I have said about the judges sitting on the benches of our courts and NAMBLA and their "desire" to sodomize young boys, let's say the court should decide that the age of concent were 14 years old. Would you go along with that ruling and allow fourteen year old "children" to be seduced by older homosexual men. This is not about "consent" this is about "seduction". And the easiest person to seduce is a child. Do you see what I mean.

I generally feel that the age of 14 is too young to make a reasoned decision on whether or not to engage in sexual activity. There are some countries in the European Union where age of consent is lower than that, I can't say I agree but it's not something that I feel I should really do anything about seeing as there does not seem to be a revolting horror at work in Scandinavian countries resulting from a low age of consent.

I don't really trust it but seeing as there seems to be no more sexual neurosis there than here I don't see how I have a horse in that race.

It seems clear to me that the younger someone is the more at risk they are of being manipulated by a sexual predator - but that can happen between heterosexuals just as much as it can between homosexuals.

If a court were to decide on a lowering of consent just because of groups like NAMBLA - and with no other source of pressure or decision making agenda - then clearly the court is at fault - but I think it's a pretty absurd model really, and the idea that there are judges out there who want to see NAMBLA succeed is a fairly hysterical one as far as I can see.

All that happened in the NAMBLA/ACLU business is that freedom of speech was challenged and defended - to draw further conclusions based on the accounts I have seen (admittedly few) I would say is pretty much scare mongering. The judges and ACLU did not encourage pre-teen sex, they just defended the first ammendment.

William;67320 wrote:

By the way do you have any children?

God no, I can't abide the little blighters and I think there's more than enough of them being brought into the world without me indulging in the desire to see my genes passed on - for now. If I wanted a child I would seek to foster rather than breed. Despite this I'm completely entitled to my opinion as far as I see it.

@Aedes,

Aedes;67357 wrote:

That's completely 100% false from a scientific and biological point of view, but don't let that stop you.

Please bring that biological and scientific evidence forward as to it's 100% authenticity that will prove me wrong.

William

@William,

William;67363 wrote:

Please bring that biological and scientific evidence forward as to it's 100% authenticity that will prove me wrong.

William

Considering that the nearly everyone believes that AIDS came from chimpanzees, it is your duty to bring your biological and scientific evidence that proves that behavioral choice is where AIDS originated. Personally, I am sick and tired of reading your anti-gay rants, which are derogatory at best, and hateful at worst.

@xris,

xris;67351 wrote:

The majority of aids victims now are heterosexuals living in Africa.

All evidence has narrowed the spread of AIDS down to two reasons; intravenous injections and homosexual behavior. If these poor people contracted AIDS, how did they contract it?

William

@William,

William;67366 wrote:

All evidence has narrowed the spread of AIDS down to two reasons; intravenous injections and homosexual behavior. If these poor people contracted AIDS, how did they contract it?

William

Quit trying to spread your bullshit. Where is your evidence that the spread of AIDS is down to these two reasons? How do you explain heterosexuals contracting AIDS? Why do I ever need to be tested for HIV if I have never used done intravenous drugs or experienced any homosexual behavior? As someone with gay friends, I have to say that I am totally insulted by the ignorance you are displaying. Either provide good evidence for your ranting, or stop with your anti-homosexual rhetoric.

@Theaetetus,

Theaetetus;67364 wrote:

Considering that the nearly everyone believes that AIDS came from chimpanzees, it is your duty to bring your biological and scientific evidence that proves that behavioral choice is where AIDS originated. Personally, I am sick and tired of reading your anti-gay rants, which are derogatory at best, and hateful at worst.

Nearly everyone believes..."? Who?
Behavioral choice....? I didn't think it was a matter of choice.
Hateful. Please indicate where I was being hateful. Angry, yes. Hateful no. You hate me for expressing my anger. Who is being hateful?

William

@William,

William;67363 wrote:

Please bring that biological and scientific evidence forward as to it's 100% authenticity that will prove me wrong.

HIV-1 came from chimpanzees in central Africa. HIV-2 came from either sooty mangabees or green monkeys in west Africa. There was probably occasional transmission to humans via hunting / eating chimps and monkeys. The transmission of HIV in Africa dates back at least 50-100 years, long before case reports began to surface in the United States and Europe, and HIV transmission in Africa has always been predominantly heterosexual and vertical (mother to child). Even in the United States the first probable cases of HIV were in IV drug users (there are some journal articles from the 1970s reporting unusual infections in IV drug users, and speculating that there was something immunosuppressive about heroin).

Within the USA and Europe, the epidemic indeed took hold in the gay male community and among IV drug users, but that's only because they were the highest risk groups at the time HIV arrived here. Again the epidemic began decades earlier as a zoonosis in Africa and was propagated by heterosexual transmission there (as continues to happen).

Would you like some references? This will keep you busy for a while. Some of these are primary scientific articles; the others, which are review articles, are all comprehensively referenced with primary scientific studies.

Gao F, Bailes E, Robertson DL, Chen Y, Rodenburg CM, Michael SF, Cummins LB, Arthur LO, Peeters M, Shaw GM, Sharp PM, Hahn BH Origin of HIV-1 in the chimpanzee Pan troglodytes troglodytes Nature. 1999 Feb 4;397(6718):436-41

Keele BF, Van Heuverswyn F, Li Y, Bailes E, Takehisa J, Santiago ML, Bibollet-Ruche F, Chen Y, Wain LV, Liegeois F, Loul S, Ngole EM, Bienvenue Y, Delaporte E, Brookfield JF, Sharp PM, Shaw GM, Peeters M, Hahn BH. Chimpanzee reservoirs of pandemic and nonpandemic HIV-1 Science. 2006 Jul 28;313(5786):523-6. Epub 2006 May 25.

Switzer WM, Parekh B, Shanmugam V, Bhullar V, Phillips S, Ely JJ, Heneine W. The epidemiology of simian immunodeficiency virus infection in a large number of wild- and captive-born chimpanzees: evidence for a recent introduction following chimpanzee divergence AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses. 2005 May;21(5):335-42.

Van Heuverswyn F, Peeters M. The Origins of HIV and Implications for the Global Epidemic Curr Infect Dis Rep 2007 Jul;9(4):338-346.

Karpas A. Human retroviruses in leukaemia and AIDS: reflections on their discovery, biology and epidemiology Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2004 Nov;79(4):911-33.

Holmes EC. On the origin and evolution of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2001 May;76(2):239-54.

@William,

William;67371 wrote:

Nearly everyone believes..."? Who?
Behavioral choice....? I didn't think it was a matter of choice.
Hateful. Please indicate where I was being hateful. Angry, yes. Hateful no. You hate me for expressing my anger. Who is being hateful?

William

How about the whole medical and scientific community other than a few nuts that try to draw attention to themselves by going against common thinking.

By spreading lies about the gay community and their lifestyles, it ends up promoting hateful views towards that group. Wouldn't you be offended if I started falsely accusing old people of things they didn't cause, or start ranting about how we could do away with many diseases by killing off people before they are too old?

@Theaetetus,

Looks to me as though Aedes has closed the book on that. What in the world does this have to do with abortion?

@Bonaventurian,

William, the nature of HIV, (transmitted through blood and bodily fluids), meant that homosexuals were the first ones to notice HIV because of their sexual practices, it didnt start with them, infact when it kicked off gays became the most educated on HIV and safer sex compared to hetrosexuals, because of ignorance amongst the hetrosexuals it is now spreading throughout this group. It is only ignorance that spreads HIV, its contracted by sharing bodily fluids and blood. There is no evidence at all support the theory that HIV was started amongst homosexuals.

@Bonaventurian,

There's an old legal adage that "hard cases make bad law." The law isn't to be judged by its application to one particularly egregious set of facts but by how well it serves society in the ordinary case. Once you lose that focus, as you so plainly have, all that's left is subjective and inconsistent punishment or, worse, mob rule.

The law without this discipline is no law at all. It is this very discipline that protects you, Bo, as much as any other person and safeguards us against judicial capriciousness.

By the way Bo, an F-16 pilot who drops a 2,000 pounder on a wedding party in Afghanistan isn't killing in self-defence. The pilot very much intends to kill the people at which he aims his weapon. He may be mistaken as to their identity but it cannot be said he didn't intend to kill every corpse he left behind.

You would benefit greatly by learning the basic prinicples of legal theory to understand the havoc and mischief your approach would inevitably create.

@Dave Allen,

Dave Allen;67361 wrote:

I generally feel that the age of 14 is too young to make a reasoned decision on whether or not to engage in sexual activity. There are some countries in the European Union where age of consent is lower than that, I can't say I agree but it's not something that I feel I should really do anything about seeing as there does not seem to be a revolting horror at work in Scandinavian countries resulting from a low age of consent.

I don't really trust it but seeing as there seems to be no more sexual neurosis there than here I don't see how I have a horse in that race.

It seems clear to me that the younger someone is the more at risk they are of being manipulated by a sexual predator - but that can happen between heterosexuals just as much as it can between homosexuals.

If a court were to decide on a lowering of consent just because of groups like NAMBLA - and with no other source of pressure or decision making agenda - then clearly the court is at fault - but I think it's a pretty absurd model really, and the idea that there are judges out there who want to see NAMBLA succeed is a fairly hysterical one as far as I can see.

All that happened in the NAMBLA/ACLU business is that freedom of speech was challenged and defended - to draw further conclusions based on the accounts I have seen (admittedly few) I would say is pretty much scare mongering. The judges and ACLU did not encourage pre-teen sex, they just defended the first ammendment.

God no, I can't abide the little blighters and I think there's more than enough of them being brought into the world without me indulging in the desire to see my genes passed on - for now. If I wanted a child I would seek to foster rather than breed. Despite this I'm completely entitled to my opinion as far as I see it.

First let me say I appreciate your composure, in spite of my anger, that is allowing us to communicate. Thank you. The fact that you do not have any children could be the reason why you feel as aloof as you do considering the very serious situation. If you had a son, I feel you would lean a little more in another direction. Of course if that son were conceived the old fashioned way. Like that of a man and a woman in love with each other. Which I must admit, even that is rare these days.

Judges are not under pressure. Their decisions are omnipotent in the final analysis. A judge will not allow a judgement that puts his on lifestyle in jeopardy and their knowledge of law as it stands, has the intelligence to use the law to defend and protect that lifestyle regardless of the harm that lifestyle cause those who would suffer from that lifestyle. It is "self preservation". They are the final authority. As far a freedom of speech, no such thing exists. Yet!

William

@Bonaventurian,

William can you give us a few examples of what it was excactly these judges did, i think i know what you're talking about but im not sure.

@RDRDRD1,

It seems to me that you, Bon, are appealing to whatever authority you feel gives credence to your views and rejecting any other authority as 'wrong'. Personally, I am not swayed by Kant, he is out modded. I am not swayed by the pope, I care not for his authority which is given by man to man. I see value in Augustine, but I do not take his text as law simply on his authority as a saint.

Bon, appeals to authority are ultimately worthless, but you seem so bound by the ideas from men who have been placed on a pedestal by other men, not by gods, not by superhuman entities.

You fail to recognize that when you claim that truth is not bound by authority(such as the constitution), that you admit your appeals to authority (such as quoting Kant or the Bible(written by men who recalled events, not gods, not superhuman entities)) are moot. Or you are simply unwilling to express your opinions in your own words(self concious?).

It is clear to me that you rarely want to have an actual discussion, but rather you simply want to make an unmovable point with the pretext of being open for discussion simply because you want to convert. If you have no intention of discussing what you post in an open minded way, why post at all?

@William,

William;67389 wrote:

First let me say I appreciate your composure, in spite of my anger, that is allowing us to communicate. Thank you.

Not a problem.

Quote:

The fact that you do not have any children could be the reason why you feel as aloof as you do considering the very serious situation. If you had a son, I feel you would lean a little more in another direction.

What, I would stop wanting to see freedom of speech defended?

Because that is all that the ACLU and the judges in the case did.

Quote:

Of course if that son were conceived the old fashioned way. Like that of a man and a woman in love with each other. Which I must admit, even that is rare these days.

Are you claiming adopted children are unloved?

Quote:

Judges are not under pressure. Their decisions are omnipotent in the final analysis. A judge will not allow a judgement that puts his on lifestyle in jeopardy and their knowledge of law as it stands, has the intelligence to use the law to defend and protect that lifestyle regardless of the harm that lifestyle cause those who would suffer from that lifestyle. It is "self preservation". They are the final authority. As far a freedom of speech, no such thing exists. Yet!

No, but as a value it can exist and the American First Ammendment is about the prime example of such a freedom being enshrined in law.

You ought to appreciate it a bit more, to be frank.

@Theaetetus,

Theaetetus;67370 wrote:

Quit trying to spread your bullshit. Where is your evidence that the spread of AIDS is down to these two reasons? How do you explain heterosexuals contracting AIDS? Why do I ever need to be tested for HIV if I have never used done intravenous drugs or experienced any homosexual behavior? As someone with gay friends, I have to say that I am totally insulted by the ignorance you are displaying. Either provide good evidence for your ranting, or stop with your anti-homosexual rhetoric.

Surprisingly enough, I am maintaining my composure. Perhaps I am causing a little heat to develop. But I can stand it. Who is doing the ranting here? I am entitled to express my views. I don't believe in evolution either as it is proposed. I try to offer common sense, that's all that will allow others to perhaps examine how they think and how they have been educated to think. We are not talking about HIV, which I can't prove, but I think is an immune deficiency condition in which AIDS can easily penetrate. Not necessarily related to AIDS itself. Again my opinion. We are talking about AIDS.

In the past when an epidemic was in the initial phases, quarantines were established to keep it from spreading. This should have been done immediately when GRID was first was established. That means GAY RELATED IMMUNE DEFIENCY. At that point quarantines could have been established since it was highly contagious and infecting gays only. Of course that would have been discriminatory. The death of Ryan White made national news, we should have quaratined gays then. He was the first innocent to die, at least that is popularly known, of AIDS due to a blood transfusion of AIDS contaminated blood. In that we prolonged that quarantine in an effort to discover a cure, it got way out of hand which has led to the problem we have today. AIDS was the new name as it disassociated gays from being the initial cause and that discrimination that would insue from a public that would be terrified for fear of contracting the horrible disease, instituting the real meaning of "homophobia". Now homophobia is used to indicate hatred. Personally, I have no fears what so ever of contracting AIDS.

I am sorry if my opinions infuriate you. it is not personal, I assure you. just trying to shed a little light on the subject. Of course there is heat when discussing volitile subjects such as abortion, the original OP. Why we are discussing what we are now discussing is because they are connected. It's just matter of connecting the dots. I am a lot older than most of you, which allows me to connect more dots.

William

@Bonaventurian,

As far as I know AIDS can only develop in someone who is HIV+. GRID is surely just either the crudest sort of propaganda or very good satire.

Philosophy Forum

Would you convict this man?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know