Would you convict this man?

@Dave Allen,

Lets hope you never need a blood tranfusion Bill or your not gang raped.

@William,

William;67410 wrote:

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.

There are numerous case's of HIV and AID's before that time which have killed numerous individuals both straight, gay and even children. If you had looked into the origins of AID's you would have known this, but you didnt. The reason it appeared to be a Gay only disease orginally is due to Anal sex being more likely to lead to cause Blood to Blood contact than standard Hetrosexual activity.

Insertive penile-vaginal intercourse has an infection rate of 5 per 10,000 exposure's to an infected source while Receptive anal intercourse has infection rate of 50 per 10,000 exposure's.

@xris,

xris;67415 wrote:

Lets hope you never need a blood tranfusion Bill or your not gang raped.

Bit of a tautology isn't it - I would hope no one on this forum ever has to be gang raped.

@Dave Allen,

Dave Allen;67400 wrote:

*Are you claiming adopted children are unloved?
*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.

*No, I am claiming what I said, not what you claim that I said. Popular debating tactic, though. Nice swing. You have read enough of my posts to know exactly what I meant. If not start reading.

*Such as that enshrined law that valued abortion?

*Yeah, you are probably right. But I won't, to be frank.

Thanks Dave for your courtesy.
William

@Dave Allen,

Dave Allen;67417 wrote:

Bit of a tautology isn't it - I would hope no one on this forum ever has to be gang raped.

I never thought of it as tautology more like dont be so bleeding confident, life might just kick you in the mouth.Many haemophiliacs did not think they need worry and many straight guys have had the misfortune of being raped.

@Bonaventurian,

How is this topic on HIV Aids? This is a threaded discussion and as far as I can tell, this thread has nothing to do with HIV.

William, you have gone a bit overboard and I ask kindly that you simmer down a little. If you want to talk about aids, do it on another thread.

@William,

William;67410 wrote:

Personally, I have no fears what so ever of contracting AIDS.

William

But you said yourself you dont like wearing condoms so what are you immune?
And you cant contract AIDS, it's HIV, AIDS is different, you dont contract full blown AIDS, you contract HIV which many people are living with and are quite healthy compared to someone who's gone on to devlop AIDS, it is important you get it right because people who have HIV do not need to be looked at the same as someone who's full blown.
edit: sorry Justin i posted before i got to see your post, apologise for going off topic.

@Aedes,

Aedes;67375 wrote:

HIV-1 came from chimpanzees in central Africa.

Thank You Aedes. I know wiki is not definitive, but the very first line in the category of HIV it states this:

....probably originated in non-human primates in sub-Saharan Africa and was transferred to humans during the late 19th or early 20th century.

Nevertheless, I will broaden my knowledge. I assure you. It is probably indeed correct as it relates to HIV. But something turns HIV into AIDS.
I will agree HIV has every thing to do with ammune deficiencies that could develop from the ingestion of monkeys or other means of contact man has with animal. That's a scary thought in and of itself. Thanks again for your input. I appreciate it.
Later,
william

@Bonaventurian,

Let's just try out best to communicate peacefully and keep the threads on topic as best we can. Someone needs to open up a discussion on the origin of HIV and a full blown discussion on it. Would be interesting. This thread however has gone astray!

@Caroline,

Caroline;67429 wrote:

But you said yourself you dont like wearing condoms so what are you immune?
And you cant contract AIDS, it's HIV, AIDS is different, you dont contract full blown AIDS, you contract HIV which many people are living with and are quite healthy compared to someone who's gone on to devlop AIDS, it is important you get it right because people who have HIV do not need to be looked at the same as someone who's full blown.

I said, I, like most males, IMO, don't like to wear them. But you can be assured the necessary precautions would be taken. I don't look at anyone who as HIV in that way. Please if that is what I have implied, please it was not meant by any stretch of the imagination. HIV is not AIDS. Yes, I think it is indicative of a weakness of the immune system. Please if you think I was talking about people with HIV in the respect of which I am addressing homosexuality, I sincerely apologize. The immune system can falter due to thousands of reasons. The everyday medicine we take does that. That's another subject.
Thank you Caroline for bringing this to my attention.:a-ok:
William

@William,

William;67430 wrote:

something turns HIV into AIDS...

AIDS is an illness produced by the HIV virus. As Caroline mentioned, HIV is a chronic infection that if left unchecked will produce the illness AIDS. HIV-1 and HIV-2 are different viruses that can each independently produce the illness AIDS.

At any rate, what I find most interesting is how HIV/AIDS is one of numerous examples of illnesses that jump to humans from animals, and has particular virulence once in a new host. Just in recent years we've had avian and swine flu, SARS, ebola, tularemia, and hantavirus as examples; but the world abounds in these "zoonoses" (illnesses transmitted to humans by animals).

@Justin,

Justin;67426 wrote:

How is this topic on HIV Aids? This is a threaded discussion and as far as I can tell, this thread has nothing to do with HIV.

William, you have gone a bit overboard and I ask kindly that you simmer down a little. If you want to talk about aids, do it on another thread.

My ire was stirred when the defense for nambla arose and the ACLU defending that behavior. That behavior, which is pedophelia that stems from homosexual behavior is what lit those flames that has resulted in the warmth of the discussion. Sorry, Justin, but I will not simmer down if someone efforts to rationalize sexual abuse of our young. But I will admit my composure is more in check than some. I will do my best to take your advice. Smile

Wiilliam

@Bonaventurian,

Who efforted to rationalize sexual abuse of our young?

No one here.

Quote:

My ire was stirred when the defense for nambla arose and the ACLU defending that behavior.

The ACLU did not defend NAMBLA's behaviour - they defended the right to freedom of speech and the right not to be convicted of a crime they didn't commit.

Should the family of a murdered abortionist seek to take people like Bonaventurian to task for encouraging the killing I'm sure the ACLU or a similar organisation would provide similar legal aid.

Can you grasp the difference between doing an act and speaking about doing an act or not? Can you accept that some people might defend speaking about the act, whilst they would still oppose the act in itself?

I think Bonaventurian is entitled to speak about supporting the murder of abortionists. I think he's very silly to do so, I think it's cowardly and immoral, I think he would be a better person if he didn't seek to excuse murder. However, grudgingly, I accept his right to do so, and the same goes for the "wrongheaded" (my words all along), "shocking" (my words all along) "nutbags" (my words all along) of NAMBLA.

I think murdering abortionists and statutory rape of minors are both sickening, but I respect the rights of people to talk about it - even if I don't respect them for doing so.

To continually imply, as I think you do, that I somehow approve of NAMBLA beyond supporting their right to say what they say is a baseless and highly insulting accusation.

I only trust that those who read the thread with a degree of level-headedness will agree that I have done no such thing - Posterity will Judge!

@Dave Allen,

I for one have had enough of this polite discrimination,you cant hide forever behind the guise of gently words with ill intent.I see discrimination and any reason for its promotion.

@Dave Allen,

Dave Allen;67440 wrote:

The ACLU did not defend NAMBLA's behaviour - they defended the right to freedom of speech and the right not to be convicted of a crime they didn't commit.

There is no defense for pedophelia much less freedom of speech. I am not talking about any particular case such as your are. The fact that this young man had literature that entices young men into the seductive clutches of pedophiles is enough to convict the pedophile on. That's what this is all about. Getting rid of NAMBLA and putting them away is the answer. They don't deserve to have freedom of speech if that speech in any way seduces our young into there sick clutches. Why is this so hard for you to understand. They are a crime by there own definition. When they entered the courtroom they should have been arrested. Which I am sure they didn't as the ACLU was standing in by proxy.

William

@Bonaventurian,

William, i understand what you're saying but what do you think will happen if you drive these people underground?

@Bonaventurian,

If NAMBLA does not deserve speech, William, then neither do you, or anyone else for that matter. As long as they do not facilitate man-boy relations that are against the law, they are not doing anything wrong. Sure, you may disagree with their views, but as long as they do not break laws, nothing can be done to them.

@Theaetetus,

Freedom of speech is ABSOLUTE. NO ONE, AND I MEAN NO ONE, should be barred IN ANY WAY, from speaking their mind, whether is it full of vile filth or the noblest ideology.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

If I want to write a textbook about how to seduce children and endorse its use, I can. If I want to write a textbook about how to murder and get away with it, I can. Conversely, if I want to write a book about how to trap and murder pedophiles using the information in the above two books(assuming they have been written) I can.

If you don't agree with this, perhaps you might find some other government more appealing?

@Bonaventurian,

The perpetrators of the actual crimes of rape and murder were prosecuted. ACLU did not defend, nor attempt to defend the perpetrators (unless their lawyers came from the ACLU's ranks - I dunno).

The perpetrators, whilst they had in their possession NAMBLA material, where not the entirity of NAMBLA, and had nothing to do with the ACLU.

When the parents of the boy who the perpetrators killed and raped tried to have members of NAMBLA convicted of murder as well the ACLU stepped in. They pointed out that, whilst they do not approve of NAMBLAs attempt to have the age of consent revoked NAMBLA were not guilty of murder for two reasons:

1) NAMBLA do not condone violent sexual acts, murder or sex without consent. You know, the actual crimes perperated by the criminals.
2) Even if they did, a person who states that a crime should be legal is not guilty just because the crime was committed. Guilt by association in this way is not regarded under US law - so US legal advice should be provided to those who are accused of it.

So the bad guys - the people who actually did the raping and murdering - were tried and neither NAMBLA nor the ACLU tried to obstruct their sentencing.

The guys of NAMBLA - unwholesome as they are - were not guilty of a crime, and despite the fact that the ACLU did not respect their views they sought to protect freedom of speech.

You may well wish for the expression of ideas you and I both find appalling to be illegal, but I don't agree. I think it's throwing the baby out with the bathwater to cede hard-won rights just because this does not happen to be a dainty world.

@Bonaventurian,

Zetetic, freedom of speech is not absolute. Shout bomb on an airplane or fire in a crowded theater and are how much that speech is protected.

There have been successful prosecutions of propagandists both from Rwanda and Nazi Germany.

Philosophy Forum

Would you convict this man?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know