I didn't insult you. you are ignorant, there's no pejorative connotation, you simply don't know much about the subject.
As to supporting my arguiment with examples, how about you actually do some legwork and educate yourself so you're not asking for very basic information?
Last, I can't tellyou how tired I am of people like you who use my unwillingness to bend over backwards to educate you on a subject as some proof that I can't provide examples.
I see it so often from people like you who browbeat others then pretend you've disproven them because they don't dance exactly when and how you like.
That is such a ridiculous, childish, trollish comment that you be ashamed of yourself for making it.
Last, you yourself have also provided no "examples" (as an aside, WTF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT EXAMPLES? I've made no assertions that require examples, genius so that troll of yours is silly) so, frankly, you're just a hypocrite with an opinion and a loud mouth.
I suggested you learn about the legal system. I was serious, because if you did you'd be able to answer your own very basic questions.
Last, this isn't prior restraint, you're apparently ignorant of what that term actually means. However, the answer to that question is out there as well.
I have no intention of answering questions you should have had the answers to already if you'd educated yourself on the subject.
Finally, all I've seen you put forward as arguments are your opinions, which in light of your demonstrated ignorance of the legal system, don't hold much weight.
In other words "i want it i want it i want it" isn't any kind of argument, no matter how many times you say it, and that'ms really all you've said.
"We all have a duty to the truth, this judge is failing hers..."
That's such sanctimonious hogwash, she's protecting the integrity of the trial, and as a result, doing her "duty to the truth".
I love how you bend over backwards to try and violate this defendant's rights, and couch it in a claim of "duty to the truth".
Sorry you don't like it, but the right to a fair trial trumps your imaginary "right to know the intimate details of a court case that tangentially effectd me".
First, yes, you didn't call me an asshole, I didn't look at who I was replying to, so I apoligize.
Second, I think the statement I made previously, with the quotations around it followed by "that's the point" makes it as clear as is needed.
Last, this bores me and I'm done, I had a desire to discuss a particular point yet was still dragged into the "yeah but that's not the point of the thread" tripe, so my wllingness to continue is depleted.
"You're trying to exclude something from discussion, which invalidates your argument."
That's ridiculous, excluding "people who had their partners sleep around on them without them knowinbg" in no way invalidates the argument that "people who fuck anything that moves with no protection have some culpability if they get infected".
That point is just vapid.
"But the fact that you want to exclude it, doesn't mean that others have to."
It does if you want to have a discussion about whether "people who fuck anything that moves with no protection have some culpability if they get infected" is a valid argument, as that is the only point I was making.
"And if you are taking a stance of "if irresponsible people get AIDS, it's all their fault anyway"
I didn't, nor got anywhere near it. Your straw man fails.
"and the overall discussion is what works about stopping the spread of AIDS - this is a point that bears discussion."
It wasn't. The overall point was ""people who fuck anything that moves with no protection have some culpability if they get infected".
Not all of the responsibility Mr. Straw Man, some. Some. Some as in, yes, on occasion, you can blme the victim.
Do you know why I politely asked that those parameters be observed? Because this discussion inevitably boils down to someone like you screeching about "aids babies" or some such, appealing to emotion in order obscure the fault of people who did it to themselves.
The worst part is that you called me an asshole, but it was your own failed reading that made you misunderstand the point, and the post itself. Or maybe it's the best part, I dunno.
"But the ignorant partners could very well have got AIDS through unprotected, consensual sexual activity. Say they're trying for a child but their partner was less than faithful? That's not a red herring. Is it their fault as well?"
No, genius, that's why I specifically excluded them from my comments. You should have read that.
Don't reply until you atually read and understand what you're replying to, please. You didn't this time.
There is no equivalent of prophyllactics for drug use.
There is no "heroin condom" to prevent (to a high statistical certainty) the long term effects of drug use.
So when I see posts like yours, I wonder, why do the "sex is a reflex" people not delve into this?
It always seems to come down to the same binary "don't fuck strangers/I'll fuck whatever I like however I like" argument, which doesn't even come close to representing the reality of the situation.
Ultimately, I'm going to speculate that a large number of people who got aids from sex were not wearing a condom when they got it.
So, as a responsible society, I think it's perfectly valid to hold the "victims" somewhat accountable. They refused to take the most basic precaution, so their right to be outraged about having their behavior questioned is kind of diminished as a result.
And please, don't bother replying with "what about babies/iv drug users/ignorant partners" red herrings. I'm specifically talking about people who got AIDS through unprotected, consensual sexual activity, no one else.
No, they're Republicans, because they register as Republicans, and self identify as Republicans.
Your party affiliation isn't tied in lockstep with your political choices.
An as an aside, you sound like an ass telling people what political pary you think they are in when the only relevant criteria is what they choose to identify as.
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't insult you. you are ignorant, there's no pejorative connotation, you simply don't know much about the subject.
As to supporting my arguiment with examples, how about you actually do some legwork and educate yourself so you're not asking for very basic information?
Last, I can't tellyou how tired I am of people like you who use my unwillingness to bend over backwards to educate you on a subject as some proof that I can't provide examples.
I see it so often from people like you who browbeat others then pretend you've disproven them because they don't dance exactly when and how you like.
That is such a ridiculous, childish, trollish comment that you be ashamed of yourself for making it.
Last, you yourself have also provided no "examples" (as an aside, WTF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT EXAMPLES? I've made no assertions that require examples, genius so that troll of yours is silly) so, frankly, you're just a hypocrite with an opinion and a loud mouth.
Go troll someone else, thanks.
I don't deal in hpyotheticals. Sorry.
I suggested you learn about the legal system. I was serious, because if you did you'd be able to answer your own very basic questions.
Last, this isn't prior restraint, you're apparently ignorant of what that term actually means. However, the answer to that question is out there as well.
I have no intention of answering questions you should have had the answers to already if you'd educated yourself on the subject.
Finally, all I've seen you put forward as arguments are your opinions, which in light of your demonstrated ignorance of the legal system, don't hold much weight.
In other words "i want it i want it i want it" isn't any kind of argument, no matter how many times you say it, and that'ms really all you've said.
There's no way we can know if it would violate their rights untilwe read it, at which point it'ms too late.
Hence, a judge makes that determination, like she did here.
I suggest you learn how legal system works, you seem to be oblivious at the moment.
"We all have a duty to the truth, this judge is failing hers..."
That's such sanctimonious hogwash, she's protecting the integrity of the trial, and as a result, doing her "duty to the truth".
I love how you bend over backwards to try and violate this defendant's rights, and couch it in a claim of "duty to the truth".
Sorry you don't like it, but the right to a fair trial trumps your imaginary "right to know the intimate details of a court case that tangentially effectd me".
First, yes, you didn't call me an asshole, I didn't look at who I was replying to, so I apoligize.
Second, I think the statement I made previously, with the quotations around it followed by "that's the point" makes it as clear as is needed.
Last, this bores me and I'm done, I had a desire to discuss a particular point yet was still dragged into the "yeah but that's not the point of the thread" tripe, so my wllingness to continue is depleted.
"You're trying to exclude something from discussion, which invalidates your argument."
That's ridiculous, excluding "people who had their partners sleep around on them without them knowinbg" in no way invalidates the argument that "people who fuck anything that moves with no protection have some culpability if they get infected".
That point is just vapid.
"But the fact that you want to exclude it, doesn't mean that others have to."
It does if you want to have a discussion about whether "people who fuck anything that moves with no protection have some culpability if they get infected" is a valid argument, as that is the only point I was making.
"And if you are taking a stance of "if irresponsible people get AIDS, it's all their fault anyway"
I didn't, nor got anywhere near it. Your straw man fails.
"and the overall discussion is what works about stopping the spread of AIDS - this is a point that bears discussion."
It wasn't. The overall point was ""people who fuck anything that moves with no protection have some culpability if they get infected".
Not all of the responsibility Mr. Straw Man, some. Some. Some as in, yes, on occasion, you can blme the victim.
Do you know why I politely asked that those parameters be observed? Because this discussion inevitably boils down to someone like you screeching about "aids babies" or some such, appealing to emotion in order obscure the fault of people who did it to themselves.
The worst part is that you called me an asshole, but it was your own failed reading that made you misunderstand the point, and the post itself. Or maybe it's the best part, I dunno.
Clean needles are not equivalent, as they do not protect you from the long term effects of drug abuse, they only help you avoid infectious diseases.
There is no equivalent to condoms for drug abuse.
I stopped reading after I saw your analogy failed, and that you were determined to argue with straw men and red herrings.
Good bye.
"But the ignorant partners could very well have got AIDS through unprotected, consensual sexual activity. Say they're trying for a child but their partner was less than faithful?
That's not a red herring.
Is it their fault as well?"
No, genius, that's why I specifically excluded them from my comments. You should have read that.
Don't reply until you atually read and understand what you're replying to, please. You didn't this time.
There is no equivalent of prophyllactics for drug use.
There is no "heroin condom" to prevent (to a high statistical certainty) the long term effects of drug use.
So when I see posts like yours, I wonder, why do the "sex is a reflex" people not delve into this?
It always seems to come down to the same binary "don't fuck strangers/I'll fuck whatever I like however I like" argument, which doesn't even come close to representing the reality of the situation.
Ultimately, I'm going to speculate that a large number of people who got aids from sex were not wearing a condom when they got it.
So, as a responsible society, I think it's perfectly valid to hold the "victims" somewhat accountable. They refused to take the most basic precaution, so their right to be outraged about having their behavior questioned is kind of diminished as a result.
And please, don't bother replying with "what about babies/iv drug users/ignorant partners" red herrings. I'm specifically talking about people who got AIDS through unprotected, consensual sexual activity, no one else.
No, they're Republicans, because they register as Republicans, and self identify as Republicans.
Your party affiliation isn't tied in lockstep with your political choices.
An as an aside, you sound like an ass telling people what political pary you think they are in when the only relevant criteria is what they choose to identify as.
"25% more efficient!
Incontrovertible evidence..."
That you can't do math.