Not everyone is, but there are plenty that are (racist, inbred, uneducated, violent, redneck, and unsophisticated) enough, that it definitely justifies the stereotype.
Would you then say that the sterotype that young black men are violent is also justified? They do, after all, commit a disproportionate amount of violent crime in the USA. What other negative sterotypes are justified to you? The muslim terrorist? The greedy Jew?
There are, but they are generally more isolated pockets, rather than a broad swath of the country.
Such imprecise language. "isloated pockets". "broad swath". Then again, this is about prejudice, not science.
Atlanta is one of the prime examples cited by southerners when they say the south isn't racist. I'll give you that some of the Atlanta area (with exceptions in that complexity) is generally not as bad as the rest of the south. Wanna talk about Louisiana, Bama, etc???
I never stated that the South is not racist. I am arguing against the unfair assumptions made about me on behalf of the actions of others. I am also arguing that many of the assumptions about the South are made because of the way that Southerners are constantly portrayed by the media.
Where do you get off with this arrogant and omniscient tone? You speak as if you've personally interviewed everyone in the Atlanta area, not to mention Lousiana and Alabama. For all I know, you're just some internet troll who loves hating people.
I'd also like to point out that the huge majority of black people either live in urban areas or in the Deep South. Many ignorant people point to areas in the North and West ("broad swaths" might suit you) and conclude that there is "no racism". Well done! Perhaps venture out of your 99.9% lily-white enclaves and tell me if people's true colors (pun intended) start showing.
You aren't kidding. Being from around Cleveland, every time I've gone to Cinncinati I've been struck by how it seemed like it was part of the deep south, rather than another city in the same northern state. The differences in racism/racial-tension is increadable.
Being from the Deep South, I often wish that people would understand that:
1. The Deep South isn't nearly as racist as the New York / West Coast media loves to depict it. (It also isn't as inbred, uneducated, violent, redneck, and unsophisticated).
2. There are many places that are NOT in the Deep South which are just as racist as the way the Deep South is depicted, as you have demonstrated here.
I would honestly love to be able to talk about race relations where I live (Atlanta area), because the situation is quite a bit more complex and interesting than most non-Southerners think it is. But I don't think non-Southerners are generally interested in my point of view. In general, I think non-Southerners are quite content to think of me in terms of those horrible stereotypes that I've heard all my life, and a more nuanced discussion is light-years away from their realm of interest.
That's because black people haven't used white people as SLAVES. It's not about racism per-se, it's evoking the memory of slavery and humilliation of black people in the past centuries.
That's impossible. None of the black people in the USA have ever been slaves, and none of the white people have ever been slave holders. They can't remember it because all the slaves and slave holders in the USA are long dead.
The reason why it's offensive is because some people want to be offended by it. Feeling angry gives them strength. It's unfortunate that this strength is gained through racism, but if people are taught that they are weak and oppressed all their lives then they're likely to take strength from that which is convenient and socially acceptable.
The belief in separate "races" is the necessary foundation of all racist thought. I believe in one and only one race: the human race!
We have to stop being a desposable consumerist society. I.e. we have to live more simply. Now I'm not saying that we all need to be organic gardeners who tailor their own clothes and live directly off the land.
Then what, precisely, are you saying? It sounds to me that you want people to live a diminished lifestyle compared to the one that they're currently living. You've excluded the organic farmer lifestyle as too extreme, so the lifestyle you imagine that other people should live is somewhere in between. What is it? It's important to answer this question because accusing people of "consumerism" is hiding what you're really intending, and what you're really intending is for people to live a diminished lifestyle.
It's harder to say that, isn't it? What *precisely* do people have to give up for your morality's sake? Some things that you think are "excessive" are going to be "necessary" for other people. Wouldn't the organic gardner consider your lifestyle "excessive"? Why would he/she be wrong about that?
I think that consumption purely for the sake of consumption is our biggest problem.
There is no such thing. People don't "consume" merely for the sake of consuming it. There are many possible reasons behind this hated "consuming". For example:
* Hunger * Convenience (e.g. choosing fast food (I call it fake food) as opposed to something "better") * Status * Pleasure * Envy
The morality of each of those motives may rightly be questioned (yes, even hunger, you cheeto-eating, lard-bellied, WoW-playing dweebs!), but there is no "consumption for consumption's sake".
The real question is if the market can correct this or if the market will dig such a deep hole that it doesn't react until the shit hits the fan.
It sounds to me that the shit hitting the fan means the same thing as living a diminished lifestyle. Perhaps you are suggesting that we diminish everyone's lifestyle or else everyone will live a lifetstyle even *more* diminished than what you're suggesting? That may very well be true, but we need specifics and discussion instead of the guilt-trips and empty rhetoric you provide. Obviously we humans are going to run out of petroleum one day, and we will *all* live crap lifestyles if we don't have a replacement for our energy needs. How will the trucks get food on the shelves of grocery stores without gasoline?
Then again, there are some people who think that humanity is just plain evil. I think those people are using this discussion to further their repugnant goal, and I don't think they belong in the discussion at all.
If you print more dollars, all dollars become worthless. Education increases in value as more people have it.
1. If you print more dollars, it is NOT true that all dollars become "worthless". Rather, the dollars become worth less. If you printed infinite dollars, then, yes, they would all become worthless.
2. Education only has value in the sense that having an education will allow you to obtain a job that pays you enough money to have the kind of lifestyle you want. You can major in Italian if you want to. What kind of job will that get you? Wouldn't it make more sense to choose a major which would put you in a high-demand field? But if millions of people suddenly have degrees in that high-demand field, that increases the supply and would make it no longer "high-demand" (because the need would be filled).
You can, alternatively, argue that "education increases in value" in ways that DON'T pay a wage, but that merely feels good / feels right. It doesn't put food on the table.
The difference between a 1600 and a 1500, in their minds, was going to mean the difference between MIT and a serving fries at Micky D's.
I see that's a sad statement to make. What's wrong with working at McDonald's? It may very well be beneath your intellect, but isn't it more appropriate that people who are living on welfare or living due to theft and fraud (there is some overlap between those two groups) deserve scorn rather than those who are working? I have always maintained that there is no shame in an honest day's work.
You can, alternatively, argue that all "wage labor" is evil, and McDonald's is, therefore, ultra evil because it is so large and successful. But then you and I would be so divergent in values that we're likely to demonize and dehumanize each other at the expense of any sort of meaningful discussion.
Last time I checked, starting a company required money. Money to rent an office, pay for computers, employees, and a host of other operating expenses an idiot like you couldn't even appreciate it.
If you don't have money, then it's your responsibility to find someone who does have money and convince that person that your idea, talent, and hard work are worth their investment. This happens all the time. I should know: I've been the money guy for just such a person.
Or, alternatively, you could sit around and whine about "the rich" in their evil "McMansions" and talk about how a union could use some good old fashioned force to just take money from those rich bastards. Perhaps you do this because your idea, talent, and hard work aren't good enough to merit investment.
(Warning: anti-Leftist rant ahead. Skip if you don't like your values challenged.)
Your attitude is exactly why I am NOT a Leftist ("liberal"). I mean, I'm a gay man who wants to legalize all drugs and all speech, so you think I'd be drawn to Leftism, right?
Wrong.
So, what, we should keep running "Your Rights Online" pieces bemoaning the destruction of civil liberties but we shouldn't attack the people responsible, 'cause it might offend some knuckle-dragging retard who listens to talk radio?
This is an example of Leftist elitism. Yes, you truly are a better breed than the common rabble, correct? And Leftists claim to be for the "little guy"!
Take a side, you coward. Either get with the program or go lick some boots at a right wing political blog.
As if there are only two sides to every issue. And Leftists claim to be "nuanced" who eschew "black and white thinking"!
As if not "following the crowd" and "taking orders" (your words: "get with the program") makes you stupid. And Leftists claim to be for "independant thought"!
Because for everyone with the intelligence necessary to understand technology, hating this administration is mainstream.
I remember those Clinton days when "Hate is NOT a family value" bumper stickers were common, and "hate radio" was a common term in political speech. Suddenly, with the advent of Chimpy McBushSatan, hate is in. Hate is hip, hate is cool, and it's 24/7 on the Leftist "Air America" radio station. No more "Hate is NOT a family value" bumper stickers.
In fact, go check out Jeff Gannon's site on Wikipedia. Notice how his private sex life is exposed in lurid detail by Leftists who hate him. Compare that to the outrage that Leftists expressed over the exposing of Clinton's private sex life!
Must I go into any more detail about why I think Leftists are mendacious and hypocritical weaklings? Everything they claim to stand for can be disposed of if such "values" might impede their quest for power and influence. Gay rights, privacy, tolerance, independant thought, grass-roots movements, "the little guy", you name it. I've seen Leftists wipe their asses with each and every one of those.
All things considered, you Leftists suck, and I think you deserve to know why I think you suck.
And what's even sadder about this is that the likely response will be something like "You're obviously a Bush supporter" or "You're a fascist" or "You should stop watching Faux News" rather than an honest admission of guilt. And I can't think of a single political group (not even Evangelical Christians!) who needs an honest admission of guilt more seriously than Leftists do.
Isn't it interesting to see the UI aficionados having to interpret the meanings of the buttons? What the button "cancel" implies to me is that...
How about something more like Radio buttons?
---BEGIN--- You are not permitted to delete this file. What would you like to do?
* Give me permission to delete the file, then go ahead and delete the file * Forget that I started this
---END---
Now you can quibble over my copy and I'll admit that it's not perfect, but isn't it much more clear and thus usuable (not requiring any mystic "interpretation") to not feel the need to coerce the choices into tiny little ambiguous-yet-shiny buttons?
I have *always* hated the "Yes / No / Cancel" buttons. What the fuck is the difference between "No" and "Cancel"!? (At this point a UI sage will likely step in to "interpret" those buttons for me.)
I guess that's the price of "free" software. If you want to have a better chance of a nice support person you need to pay for service.
Note that this admission absolutely destroys what used to be one of the features of Linux: "All the support is free!" If this features is finally being shown to be false (partially due to the horribly and inexcusibly rude attitudes of many of Linux's adherents), then let us all have the character to admit freely that it is so.
I was all jazzed on X-10 when it came out, so we replaced all of our light switches with X-10 light switches throughout most of the house.
After about two months, lights would turn on and (worse) off at random. We coped with that for a while until eventually ripping out all of that horrible technology. Is insteon going to be more of the same? It's not an experience I want to repeat.
It is NOT being accepting to give all viewpoints equal weight. If you told me that gravity was created by invisible gnomes pouring out anti-wedgies that held me down to earth by the seat of my pants, I'd have no problem telling you that you're an idiot for believing it.
So, in other words, it's "accepting" to reject some things?
One [evolution] is way more possible than the other [creationism]. I'll take the one that has a mountain of verifiable scientific evidence, thanks.
To me, "verifiable scientific evidence" is that which comes from forming a hypothesis, experimenting, and then drawing a conclusion. What about evolution is testable? The best tests I have seen are being done by a scientist who has strains of bacteria that he can breed up to 24K generations in a short time. (I read his papers in "Nature".) He can actually see how each strain of bacteria adapts to stress by testing them. He's noticed how different strains will adapt in different and unpredictable ways.
Outside of that, all parts of evolutionary theory are, at best, guesswork. No testing is possible. Therefore, there is no "mountain of verifiable scientific evidence" because the theories cannot be verified through experimentation. I don't think that much of what evolutionary theory is qualifies as science. Before you get all upset, please accept that denying the science in evolutionary theory does not imply that "creationism is true" (and I admit that is the tactic employed by the fundies). Believing in creationism necessitates many, many more leaps of faith and will never, EVER be science.
If you think that 2+2=7 I am not being an asshole by telling you that you're misinformed. Also, life isn't fair. Welcome to reality.
I detest this "informed / misinformed" business that has become so popular among the Left nowadays. Why not just say "wrong"? Does it come from some belief that most everyone is a stupid sheep just waiting for some more enlightened individual to "inform" them what the Truth(tm) is?
At least it's not as pompous as "nuanced". I've started using that as a verb -- as in, "Ew, you just nuanced all over your shirt!"
A lot. We're talking about the carbon cycle; not just emissions. A clear-cut is removing the capability of forest to remove CO2 from the air or soil. Trees hold carbon. Then geological processes get these rotting trees compressed into earth bound hydrocarbons.
Common as it is on Slashdot, I think it's immensely rude to start a rebuttal with "um" or "uh". It shows disrespect for the other person. Being that you are I are both bright humans, it's likely that we disagree on many issues. You may hate what I think all you want, but let's try and be respectful toward each other despite it.
Clearcuts have caused a 20% decrease in biomass and radically changed the environment in South America (read mud slides) over the last 10 years.
I believe that, but what does it have to do with CO2 or global warming? I think that the increased rate of mudslides would be due to the removal of the root structure that holds all the dirt together.
I don't think colorful writing is dishonest.
Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. I think the OP was, in fact, being dishonest about his/her motives. OP loves Gaia and "ancient trees" and what-not. Global warming is just a means to an end. If the OP would like to respond and dispute that, I'm all ears, but I am reacting to what I read. And what I read is passionate love for mother earth, not fear about what global warming will do to humanity. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if OP had general contempt for all humanity. That kind of misanthropy is common in environmental zealotry.
Your statements belie your faith in Gaia. I do not think it is inherenlty bad that you worship "the environment", but you have to be honest that your criticisms come from a religious viewpoint first and foremost. When the science supports your religion, you will tout the science. When the science denigrates your religion, you will discount or ignore the science. That is where I have a difficulty with what you write, as I am interested in the science (i.e., observe reality and make observations and predictions based on experimentation and testing), not in your religious beliefs.
Humans accelerate climate change
This is my problem with the "Global Warming Debate". People keep conflating the question, "Is global warming real?" with "Are humans significantly responsible for global warming?" In other words, environmentalists assume that if you believe that global warming is real, then you necessarily believe that humans are significantly responsible for it. It is an illogical argument, since there may be problems with the definition of "global warming" and also the causes of global warming are in dispute.
- whether it is clear-cutting ancient forests, industrial pollution, wasteful production, or emissions...
Be honest, please. You aren't bothered about "clear-cutting ancient forests" because of global warming. You are bothered because you revere ancient trees as something holy and beautiful. Again, there's nothing inherently wrong with this! In fact, I share similar sentiments to you and thing it's a very ugly thing when an ancient and beautiful tree is cut down to make room for a Wal-Mart. All I ask of you is some candor about where your grievances lie.
Your complaints about "industrial pollution" and "wasteful production" are similar. Are you upset about their nebulous link to global warming or are you more upset about dumping ugly sh*t all over Mother Earth? Speak your heart!
I would agree that emissions might contribute to global warming, but reading the science on the issue is much more difficult than parroting the talking points, isn't it?
To me, the real question is, "When will we take a responsible stance/take action on helping the Earth begin to heal?"
And that's the most honest statement you made. You want the damage done to your god to be reversed. And there's nothing wrong with that! I only ask that you stop hiding it. If your faith really is strong, worthy, and noble, then it should be able to stand on its own and not hide behind science that is, at most, a means to an end.
Thank you for your long and insightful response. Naturally, I have a answers and responses to much of what you wrote, but this is bound to get very, very long. As much as I want others on/. to read what I have to write (and also hear your responses), I find doing so on/. to be a drag and know that we will inevitably be shut out of the discussion.
Furthermore, getting a medical professional (I make assumptions based on the "MD" in your nick, please correct me if I'm wrong) to actually *talk* to me about this issue without being a total abusive jerk is rare, rare, rare. I value you like I do a precious gem and want to give you great respect.
Can we continue this discussion in e-mail, please?
"The market can't fix this because the problem is invisible to the user".
We have to understand that he means "invisible" as "not sufficiently inconvenient enough to be noticeable". His evidence for this is Hotmail's failure to lose customers.
My counterargument is that any mail lost by Hotmail's blocking (if you don't pay) has not been all that inconvenient to the user, and that's why it's not noticeable. In other words, so what if some mail messages get lost? If this were so horrible, then users would be up in arms, there would be news stories about it, and there would be active message boards replete with bitching.
As is, it seems that the one inconvenienced and thus bitching is one particular sender of mass e-mail, and his bitching has taken the form of this "insightful article". So it seems to me that this one inconvenienced person is trying to magnify his/her own frustration by portraying his/her issue as an issue that affects/will affect "all users".
From what I can tell, there is no big problem for the users. They're not a bunch of stupid sheep who are completely clueless that they're not getting mass e-mail from groups that they signed up for. And if they're missing mass e-mail from groups that they didn't sign up for, then I think that the users would see that as a blessing. We need less spam, not more!
The other part of the article's argument is: "This will pave the way for an e-mail tax and we'll all have to pay." Argument by fear, slippery slope, missing a few in-between steps, assumes that users are stupid morons, etc.
That place is about as queer as a three dollar bill
I've always preferred the term, "queer as a football bat", said with a serious Southern drawl. I'm gay and from the South, so I feel I have the latitutde to poke fun at both!;)
I was going to just foe and filter you as a crank/troll ("lol thers no AIDS hurh"), but this post convinced me you're interesting enough to keep around.
Heh, I get lucky every now and then.:) I must correct you: my argument is NOT one of "There's no AIDS". I believe that "AIDS" is actually the mis-diagnosis of many other diseases and clincal symptoms. My position is that I do not believe that HIV exists, and I do not believe that HIV causes AIDS.
My position is also that AIDS is a huge part of Western culture, and it is practially a religion to many people who believe in it. It is *much* more offensive to say, "I do not believe in HIV" than it is "I do not believe in Jesus", even in the Southern USA where I live.
However, I'm not even going to bother reading a PDF(!) on a website called "sparks of light". Find some better references next time, or just copy-paste the interesting bits into your post.
There is simply not enough space in Slashdot to post every "interesting bit" about AIDS. I can probably convince anyone that the War on Drugs should end, but it will take me 30 minutes.
30 minutes is not nearly enough time to explain to you why HIV has not been proven to exist and why you should never get another "HIV test" under any circumstance. It would take me hours and I would probably have to fight through many layers of resistance and scorn.
But here is something that I consider "juicy" -- maybe a good intro to AIDS for you.
AZT is still the #1 "retroviral therapy" used to "treat" HIV. AZT was *not* invented for this purpose. In fact, AZT was invented decades ago for cancer chemotherapy and then shelved because it was deemed too toxic for use. It was un-shelved during the AIDS panic of 1984-5 and then given quick FDA approval after a very unscientific trial.
AZT is what is called a "DNA chain terminator". It works by substituting itself for thymine in the DNA chain and thus DNA chains stop being build during cell synthesis. The result is that the cell dies. It targets all cells in this manner.
In other words, AZT is strictly poison. Its use is reasonable in the case of cancer chemotherapy ("Poison you until the cancer dies, and hope that all the cancer cells die before you do"), but not for AIDS ("You're going to die anyway, so keep taking the poison until you die").
The manufacturer of AZT provides this warning about AZT: "prolonged use of Retrovir [AZT] has been associated with systematic myopathy [body wasting] similar to that produced by HIV". How do you know that the body wasting is NOT coming from the AZT rather than from the HIV? How do you know that AZT is not "AIDS by prescription", as many have called it?
Here's the warning label for AZT. This is the label that patients do not see:
"TOXIC. Toxic by inhalation, in contact with skin and if swallowed. Target organ(s): Blood bone marrow. If you feel unwell, seek medical advice (show the label where possible). Wear suitable protective clothing."
Notice that it targets the "bone marrow"? This is where our white blood cells are produced. In other words, AZT targets the immune system.
I appreciate your response! Most people just call me names and refuse to debate the issue.
The paper's initial assertion is that AIDS was introduced as a polio virus. Simple logical disproof
No need to disprove it. The anecdote was the lead-into to her investigation about HIV/AIDS.
Several pages deal with the controversy surrounding the initial discovery of the HIV virus. There was also controversy surrounding the discovery of DNA, therefore we shouldn't believe DNA is the 'source code' of life?
You are trying to change the subject. Do you care to defend the methods used to "discover" HIV? Specifically, I'd like to know how you think it's possible to do the following:
1. Draw blood from GRIDS-suffering gay men and obtain protein samples from said blood 2. Inject blood into rabbit 3. Allow rabbit to produce antibodies 4. Assume that these antibodies react to a totally new type of retrovirus
That is what Gallo (actually, Popovic) did, and I'm wondering where the science is. Will you illuminate me? I find it particularly damning considering that this is the very same process that Gallo was discredited for in the HTLV debacle.
She makes light of the microliter aliquots used in the CBC tests
This seems rather minor considering the fact that HIV seems to be a big hoax and people are being fed poison to fight a non-existant disease. If these are the types of objections you're going to come up with, then you are practically endorsing your opponent's position.
She also does not respect the validity of the HIV Load test, saying that since it uses PCR (a very common technique in medicine) it cannot be accurate.
She does not discount "viral load" because it uses PCR, but because the notion of the "viral load" test is flawed by design. The "viral load" test looks for "viral particles" which are *assumed* to come from HIV. (Since HIV has never been isolated according to the virologcal standard, such a thing must be assumed.) Then, PCR multiplies (not "amplifies") the number of these tiny particles and the resultant number is assumed to be representative of the amount of virus in your system.
Problems:
1. We have no way of knowing that the virus particles come from any virus, much less a specific retrovirus known as HIV 2. We have no way of knowing that the particles represent working viruses 3. Since PCR is a multiplicative act, any errors will also be multiplied
Your response?
But the coup-de-gras for me was her statistics that showed how low CD4 counts don't correlate to AIDS. (AIDS is, incidentally, practically being defined by low CD4 count)
In truth, "AIDS" has been redefined multiple times, and has different definitions based on the year, the politics, and the continent. ("AIDS" in Africa is diagnosed by clinical symptoms, not by anything fancy like PCR or even an ELISA -- but you knew that, of course!) Since the "discovery" of HIV, AIDS is "incidentally, practically" defined by the positive result of an "HIV test". (In USA and Europe only.. in Africa it's different -- but you knew that, of course!)
* "61% of people with CD4 count = 200 in 1997 were AIDS free" * -response: Yes, CD4=200 is the upper limit at which you see AIDS symptoms, this is expecte
What page was this on? I'm happy to discuss the validity of using CD4 counts as a "hallmark" for AIDS.
-response: No, but anti-retovirals have been tightly correlated to increased CD4 counts, and their withdrawal to lower CD4 counts. It has also been shown repeatedly (and even in this paper!) that low CD4 count correlates with disease.
Low CD4 counts correlate with many diseases NOT in conjunction with a positive result on an "HIV test", such as pneumonia.
I just pointed out a few of the most egregious and most easily refuted examples.
Why not bring up the hard ones? Is it perhaps because you do not have an answer? For instance:
It sure would be nice to not have to deal with all the crap!
There's always trade-offs. I don't mean to paint it as all roses. Being a gay man is difficult because we don't have any decent role models. Lots of gay men struggle with issues of monogamy. Certainly straights struggle with that issue, too, but gay men don't end up with children via f*cking. I think that having the obligation of children tends to keep couples together longer. The lack of gay role models has inspired me to lead the kind of life that other gay men could use as a role model. Living long, being happy, having varied interests, having a family, and growing old is what I'm after. It's a complete rejection of what used to be called THE "gay lifestyle" -- i.e., narcissism, drugs, and sex. I believe that kind of fast-track hedonism leads to unhappiness and death, and many gay men are driven to that kind of hedonism because they feel that they have no other kind of life available to them. For many of them, it is true.
But, yes, women are insane. And I mean that in the kindest way possible. I am certain that women feel the same way about men! The benefit that I recieve is the avoidance of the communication difficulties that always seem to arise.
Is it common for women with withhold sex as a means of punishing their male partners? I only want to have fair stereotypes of women.;)
What kind words for you to write, and I thank you for them. I am also happy to hear that men who are, generally speaking, turned on by the same things that I am turned on by have left a stereotype-improving impression upon you. It would be my hope that other gay men can catch the runoff from those positive stereotypes.
There have been some gay men who have done all gay people a severe disservice by promoting the fast-track, drug-addicted "gay lifestyle" as, well, THE "gay lifestyle". When people talked about "being gay", that's what they were referring to. It was, in fact, a non-stop orgy of the gym, sex, and high-end drugs. This segment of the population still exists and is still just as hedonistic as it ever was, but society is changing and ever-allowing more options to what it means to be a gay man. My partner and I are adoptive parents and live in the conservative suburbs of a Southern city.
If having minimum basic moral standards in each state decided by the voters or legislation is a problem to you, and you want an anything goes society, then by all means, support the Libertarian Party.
I do. It is the only party that supports the individual rights to life, liberty, and property. The constitution party does not. I maintain: the only actions that should be illegal are those that deprive another individual of their right to life, liberty, or property. That is the basis of harm.
Like I said some government is necessary. I have taken care of children who have had their legs broken because of their parents meth rage. I have seen what much of this poison has done to the youth. Some drugs are a menace to society.
I agree that some government is necessary. Your statement that "some drugs are a menace to society" is rhetoric. It wasn't the meth that broke children's legs. Banning drugs only means that the black market will meet demand rather than the white market, and that is what we are seeing now. Banning drugs means that you support fabulously huge profits for drug dealers. People should be allowed to wreck their own bodies and suffer the consequences. I agree with you that stupid people should not breed and support government sterilization of people who fail their jobs as parents.
Most of the people of the Constitution Party believe that there needs to be some moral standard in order for this nation to survive.
Empty rhetoric. Many states survive just fine selling dildos, despite what Alabamans may think. The issue is punishing "immorality", not "survival" and you know it.
No what this does is keep the government from granting special protections to certain classes of people that does not apply to others.
Then take away all the special rights granted to married couples. Why do they get the special right to not have to testify against each other? Isn't that a "special protection" to a "certain class of people" that does not apply to others?
Before 'hate crime' legislation, people could tell perverts that their behaviour is innapropriate and even mock or deride the perverts. However, they still had NO RIGHT to assult, batter, or otherwise harm that pervert.
Mocking and deriding in many cases is illegal. Am I allowed to harrangue Christians and Jews for being worshippers of a baby-killing, abortionist god (1 Sam 15:3, Hos 13:16) in front of their children, every day? You are arguing "words don't hurt" and the courts have rightly argued otherwise. Perhaps you remember the "Nuremburg Files" web site that was taken down a few years ago?
I'm a gay man. Do you think I'm a "pervert"? Do you also worship the baby-killing god?
Nope, it means that Judge Roy Moore was persecuted for HIS RIGHT to worship Gode as He Saw fit. Displaying a plaque or a statue in one's place of work IS NOT the same as forcing someone else to worship God in a certain manne
He has the right to worship his god, but that does not include putting religious symbols on state property. That is not "worshipping god" but a brazen attempt to marry the power of the state with the Christian religion. Everyone sees it despite your best attempt to SPIN it at "religious expresssion".
If instead of the 10 Commandments, it was a picture of a sailboat, do you think for a moment someone would protest? Even if they disliked sailboats? No, this is just another measure towards FORCED atheism.
Of course people would not have objected to a sailboat because there is no religious, spiritual, or philosphical message inherent in a picture of a sailboat. Do you think Christians would object if Roy Moore put up a plaque reading, "All religions are pure mythology that have no practical purpose in the life of any human."? Of course they would, and I would agree with them.
It is not "forced atheism", of course. It is the refusal to attach Christian sensibilities to state power, and the Christians naturall
Low id slashdotter, I'm sure we can rule the "lot of sex" option out.
One would think! As it turns out, I'm a gay man, so I don't have to overcome the female recalcitrance that you straights have to face every time you want to score. Nor do I have to endure any of the "female neurosis" -- you know, the questions you can never answer correctly like "Does this outfit make my butt look big?" and the inordinate amount of time spent "getting ready". It truly is a blessing that my partner will never be offended that I didn't notice his haircut, and I'm reminded of this blessing every time one of my straight friends mentions the communication difficulties that are so very common in male-female partnerships.
Of course, many will choose to see my admission to being gay as prima facie that I find AIDS as an intolerable inconvenience to my psychotic desire for incessant unprotected anal sex enhanced by designer drugs.
It's hard to find people who really wish to discuss tough topics, particularly topics that challenge the things that we hold very dear and very close (such as our faith in the integrity of the practicioners of science and medicine).
As an AIDS heretic, I find articles like these tiresome to read. There have been many, many such articles about "curing AIDS" which have all proven to be sound and fury signifying nothing. I think the reason for this is because AIDS has become something much larger than a disease. It is a way of life for thousands of scientists, a huge cash cow for drug manufacturers, and a political plank for both gay activists and gay-bashing activists.
If you are open to the idea that the orthodoxy about AIDS might not be correct or might not be scientific, then I suggest you read these two pieces of investigative journalism that came out a couple of months ago. They detail in the most succinct way possible how AIDS came about, and that is *VERY* hard to do because of how immensely complex this subject is.
If you think that I'm insane, or that I just want to have a whole lot of unprotected sex, or that I'm a conspiracy theorist, then please just ignore this post. It means that you are not open-minded to criticism of your ideas, and the only thing I want to do is give criticism of the HIV-AIDS hypothesis a fair hearing. I believe that there are HUGE problems with the hypothesis and it has led to many people getting fabulously wealthy off of what has turned out to be misdiagnosis. I am aware that this is a serious charge, and I do not take this subject lightly.
All of that is in effort to say, "Don't mod me down. Don't be a jerk. Don't prevent someone who *wants* to hear what I have to say from hearing it." I hope it works.
Slashdot Mirror
Not everyone is, but there are plenty that are (racist, inbred, uneducated, violent, redneck, and unsophisticated) enough, that it definitely justifies the stereotype.
Would you then say that the sterotype that young black men are violent is also justified? They do, after all, commit a disproportionate amount of violent crime in the USA. What other negative sterotypes are justified to you? The muslim terrorist? The greedy Jew?
There are, but they are generally more isolated pockets, rather than a broad swath of the country.
Such imprecise language. "isloated pockets". "broad swath". Then again, this is about prejudice, not science.
Atlanta is one of the prime examples cited by southerners when they say the south isn't racist. I'll give you that some of the Atlanta area (with exceptions in that complexity) is generally not as bad as the rest of the south. Wanna talk about Louisiana, Bama, etc???
I never stated that the South is not racist. I am arguing against the unfair assumptions made about me on behalf of the actions of others. I am also arguing that many of the assumptions about the South are made because of the way that Southerners are constantly portrayed by the media.
Where do you get off with this arrogant and omniscient tone? You speak as if you've personally interviewed everyone in the Atlanta area, not to mention Lousiana and Alabama. For all I know, you're just some internet troll who loves hating people.
I'd also like to point out that the huge majority of black people either live in urban areas or in the Deep South. Many ignorant people point to areas in the North and West ("broad swaths" might suit you) and conclude that there is "no racism". Well done! Perhaps venture out of your 99.9% lily-white enclaves and tell me if people's true colors (pun intended) start showing.
americans are way too sensitive to racism these days
We've been well-trained to be hypersensitive.
To some people, it sinks in the wrong way: the training makes them even more racist.
The training (and, in some, its failure) is independant of skin colo(u)r.
You aren't kidding. Being from around Cleveland, every time I've gone to Cinncinati I've been struck by how it seemed like it was part of the deep south, rather than another city in the same northern state. The differences in racism/racial-tension is increadable.
Being from the Deep South, I often wish that people would understand that:
1. The Deep South isn't nearly as racist as the New York / West Coast media loves to depict it. (It also isn't as inbred, uneducated, violent, redneck, and unsophisticated).
2. There are many places that are NOT in the Deep South which are just as racist as the way the Deep South is depicted, as you have demonstrated here.
I would honestly love to be able to talk about race relations where I live (Atlanta area), because the situation is quite a bit more complex and interesting than most non-Southerners think it is. But I don't think non-Southerners are generally interested in my point of view. In general, I think non-Southerners are quite content to think of me in terms of those horrible stereotypes that I've heard all my life, and a more nuanced discussion is light-years away from their realm of interest.
That's because black people haven't used white people as SLAVES. It's not about racism per-se, it's evoking the memory of slavery and humilliation of black people in the past centuries.
That's impossible. None of the black people in the USA have ever been slaves, and none of the white people have ever been slave holders. They can't remember it because all the slaves and slave holders in the USA are long dead.
The reason why it's offensive is because some people want to be offended by it. Feeling angry gives them strength. It's unfortunate that this strength is gained through racism, but if people are taught that they are weak and oppressed all their lives then they're likely to take strength from that which is convenient and socially acceptable.
The belief in separate "races" is the necessary foundation of all racist thought. I believe in one and only one race: the human race!
We have to stop being a desposable consumerist society. I.e. we have to live more simply. Now I'm not saying that we all need to be organic gardeners who tailor their own clothes and live directly off the land.
Then what, precisely, are you saying? It sounds to me that you want people to live a diminished lifestyle compared to the one that they're currently living. You've excluded the organic farmer lifestyle as too extreme, so the lifestyle you imagine that other people should live is somewhere in between. What is it? It's important to answer this question because accusing people of "consumerism" is hiding what you're really intending, and what you're really intending is for people to live a diminished lifestyle.
It's harder to say that, isn't it? What *precisely* do people have to give up for your morality's sake? Some things that you think are "excessive" are going to be "necessary" for other people. Wouldn't the organic gardner consider your lifestyle "excessive"? Why would he/she be wrong about that?
I think that consumption purely for the sake of consumption is our biggest problem.
There is no such thing. People don't "consume" merely for the sake of consuming it. There are many possible reasons behind this hated "consuming". For example:
* Hunger
* Convenience (e.g. choosing fast food (I call it fake food) as opposed to something "better")
* Status
* Pleasure
* Envy
The morality of each of those motives may rightly be questioned (yes, even hunger, you cheeto-eating, lard-bellied, WoW-playing dweebs!), but there is no "consumption for consumption's sake".
The real question is if the market can correct this or if the market will dig such a deep hole that it doesn't react until the shit hits the fan.
It sounds to me that the shit hitting the fan means the same thing as living a diminished lifestyle. Perhaps you are suggesting that we diminish everyone's lifestyle or else everyone will live a lifetstyle even *more* diminished than what you're suggesting? That may very well be true, but we need specifics and discussion instead of the guilt-trips and empty rhetoric you provide. Obviously we humans are going to run out of petroleum one day, and we will *all* live crap lifestyles if we don't have a replacement for our energy needs. How will the trucks get food on the shelves of grocery stores without gasoline?
Then again, there are some people who think that humanity is just plain evil. I think those people are using this discussion to further their repugnant goal, and I don't think they belong in the discussion at all.
If you print more dollars, all dollars become worthless. Education increases in value as more people have it.
1. If you print more dollars, it is NOT true that all dollars become "worthless". Rather, the dollars become worth less. If you printed infinite dollars, then, yes, they would all become worthless.
2. Education only has value in the sense that having an education will allow you to obtain a job that pays you enough money to have the kind of lifestyle you want. You can major in Italian if you want to. What kind of job will that get you? Wouldn't it make more sense to choose a major which would put you in a high-demand field? But if millions of people suddenly have degrees in that high-demand field, that increases the supply and would make it no longer "high-demand" (because the need would be filled).
You can, alternatively, argue that "education increases in value" in ways that DON'T pay a wage, but that merely feels good / feels right. It doesn't put food on the table.
The difference between a 1600 and a 1500, in their minds, was going to mean the difference between MIT and a serving fries at Micky D's.
I see that's a sad statement to make. What's wrong with working at McDonald's? It may very well be beneath your intellect, but isn't it more appropriate that people who are living on welfare or living due to theft and fraud (there is some overlap between those two groups) deserve scorn rather than those who are working? I have always maintained that there is no shame in an honest day's work.
You can, alternatively, argue that all "wage labor" is evil, and McDonald's is, therefore, ultra evil because it is so large and successful. But then you and I would be so divergent in values that we're likely to demonize and dehumanize each other at the expense of any sort of meaningful discussion.
Last time I checked, starting a company required money. Money to rent an office, pay for computers, employees, and a host of other operating expenses an idiot like you couldn't even appreciate it.
If you don't have money, then it's your responsibility to find someone who does have money and convince that person that your idea, talent, and hard work are worth their investment. This happens all the time. I should know: I've been the money guy for just such a person.
Or, alternatively, you could sit around and whine about "the rich" in their evil "McMansions" and talk about how a union could use some good old fashioned force to just take money from those rich bastards. Perhaps you do this because your idea, talent, and hard work aren't good enough to merit investment.
(Warning: anti-Leftist rant ahead. Skip if you don't like your values challenged.)
Your attitude is exactly why I am NOT a Leftist ("liberal"). I mean, I'm a gay man who wants to legalize all drugs and all speech, so you think I'd be drawn to Leftism, right?
Wrong.
So, what, we should keep running "Your Rights Online" pieces bemoaning the destruction of civil liberties but we shouldn't attack the people responsible, 'cause it might offend some knuckle-dragging retard who listens to talk radio?
This is an example of Leftist elitism. Yes, you truly are a better breed than the common rabble, correct? And Leftists claim to be for the "little guy"!
Take a side, you coward. Either get with the program or go lick some boots at a right wing political blog.
As if there are only two sides to every issue. And Leftists claim to be "nuanced" who eschew "black and white thinking"!
As if not "following the crowd" and "taking orders" (your words: "get with the program") makes you stupid. And Leftists claim to be for "independant thought"!
Because for everyone with the intelligence necessary to understand technology, hating this administration is mainstream.
I remember those Clinton days when "Hate is NOT a family value" bumper stickers were common, and "hate radio" was a common term in political speech. Suddenly, with the advent of Chimpy McBushSatan, hate is in. Hate is hip, hate is cool, and it's 24/7 on the Leftist "Air America" radio station. No more "Hate is NOT a family value" bumper stickers.
In fact, go check out Jeff Gannon's site on Wikipedia. Notice how his private sex life is exposed in lurid detail by Leftists who hate him. Compare that to the outrage that Leftists expressed over the exposing of Clinton's private sex life!
Must I go into any more detail about why I think Leftists are mendacious and hypocritical weaklings? Everything they claim to stand for can be disposed of if such "values" might impede their quest for power and influence. Gay rights, privacy, tolerance, independant thought, grass-roots movements, "the little guy", you name it. I've seen Leftists wipe their asses with each and every one of those.
All things considered, you Leftists suck, and I think you deserve to know why I think you suck.
And what's even sadder about this is that the likely response will be something like "You're obviously a Bush supporter" or "You're a fascist" or "You should stop watching Faux News" rather than an honest admission of guilt. And I can't think of a single political group (not even Evangelical Christians!) who needs an honest admission of guilt more seriously than Leftists do.
Isn't it interesting to see the UI aficionados having to interpret the meanings of the buttons? What the button "cancel" implies to me is that ...
How about something more like Radio buttons?
---BEGIN---
You are not permitted to delete this file. What would you like to do?
* Give me permission to delete the file, then go ahead and delete the file
* Forget that I started this
---END---
Now you can quibble over my copy and I'll admit that it's not perfect, but isn't it much more clear and thus usuable (not requiring any mystic "interpretation") to not feel the need to coerce the choices into tiny little ambiguous-yet-shiny buttons?
I have *always* hated the "Yes / No / Cancel" buttons. What the fuck is the difference between "No" and "Cancel"!? (At this point a UI sage will likely step in to "interpret" those buttons for me.)
I guess that's the price of "free" software. If you want to have a better chance of a nice support person you need to pay for service.
Note that this admission absolutely destroys what used to be one of the features of Linux: "All the support is free!" If this features is finally being shown to be false (partially due to the horribly and inexcusibly rude attitudes of many of Linux's adherents), then let us all have the character to admit freely that it is so.
I was all jazzed on X-10 when it came out, so we replaced all of our light switches with X-10 light switches throughout most of the house.
After about two months, lights would turn on and (worse) off at random. We coped with that for a while until eventually ripping out all of that horrible technology. Is insteon going to be more of the same? It's not an experience I want to repeat.
It is NOT being accepting to give all viewpoints equal weight. If you told me that gravity was created by invisible gnomes pouring out anti-wedgies that held me down to earth by the seat of my pants, I'd have no problem telling you that you're an idiot for believing it.
So, in other words, it's "accepting" to reject some things?
One [evolution] is way more possible than the other [creationism]. I'll take the one that has a mountain of verifiable scientific evidence, thanks.
To me, "verifiable scientific evidence" is that which comes from forming a hypothesis, experimenting, and then drawing a conclusion. What about evolution is testable? The best tests I have seen are being done by a scientist who has strains of bacteria that he can breed up to 24K generations in a short time. (I read his papers in "Nature".) He can actually see how each strain of bacteria adapts to stress by testing them. He's noticed how different strains will adapt in different and unpredictable ways.
Outside of that, all parts of evolutionary theory are, at best, guesswork. No testing is possible. Therefore, there is no "mountain of verifiable scientific evidence" because the theories cannot be verified through experimentation. I don't think that much of what evolutionary theory is qualifies as science. Before you get all upset, please accept that denying the science in evolutionary theory does not imply that "creationism is true" (and I admit that is the tactic employed by the fundies). Believing in creationism necessitates many, many more leaps of faith and will never, EVER be science.
If you think that 2+2=7 I am not being an asshole by telling you that you're misinformed. Also, life isn't fair. Welcome to reality.
I detest this "informed / misinformed" business that has become so popular among the Left nowadays. Why not just say "wrong"? Does it come from some belief that most everyone is a stupid sheep just waiting for some more enlightened individual to "inform" them what the Truth(tm) is?
At least it's not as pompous as "nuanced". I've started using that as a verb -- as in, "Ew, you just nuanced all over your shirt!"
A lot. We're talking about the carbon cycle; not just emissions. A clear-cut is removing the capability of forest to remove CO2 from the air or soil. Trees hold carbon. Then geological processes get these rotting trees compressed into earth bound hydrocarbons.
Why did you bring up the mudslides?
Uh, trees and plants make O2.
Common as it is on Slashdot, I think it's immensely rude to start a rebuttal with "um" or "uh". It shows disrespect for the other person. Being that you are I are both bright humans, it's likely that we disagree on many issues. You may hate what I think all you want, but let's try and be respectful toward each other despite it.
Clearcuts have caused a 20% decrease in biomass and radically changed the environment in South America (read mud slides) over the last 10 years.
I believe that, but what does it have to do with CO2 or global warming? I think that the increased rate of mudslides would be due to the removal of the root structure that holds all the dirt together.
I don't think colorful writing is dishonest.
Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. I think the OP was, in fact, being dishonest about his/her motives. OP loves Gaia and "ancient trees" and what-not. Global warming is just a means to an end. If the OP would like to respond and dispute that, I'm all ears, but I am reacting to what I read. And what I read is passionate love for mother earth, not fear about what global warming will do to humanity. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if OP had general contempt for all humanity. That kind of misanthropy is common in environmental zealotry.
Your statements belie your faith in Gaia. I do not think it is inherenlty bad that you worship "the environment", but you have to be honest that your criticisms come from a religious viewpoint first and foremost. When the science supports your religion, you will tout the science. When the science denigrates your religion, you will discount or ignore the science. That is where I have a difficulty with what you write, as I am interested in the science (i.e., observe reality and make observations and predictions based on experimentation and testing), not in your religious beliefs.
Humans accelerate climate change
This is my problem with the "Global Warming Debate". People keep conflating the question, "Is global warming real?" with "Are humans significantly responsible for global warming?" In other words, environmentalists assume that if you believe that global warming is real, then you necessarily believe that humans are significantly responsible for it. It is an illogical argument, since there may be problems with the definition of "global warming" and also the causes of global warming are in dispute.
- whether it is clear-cutting ancient forests, industrial pollution, wasteful production, or emissions...
Be honest, please. You aren't bothered about "clear-cutting ancient forests" because of global warming. You are bothered because you revere ancient trees as something holy and beautiful. Again, there's nothing inherently wrong with this! In fact, I share similar sentiments to you and thing it's a very ugly thing when an ancient and beautiful tree is cut down to make room for a Wal-Mart. All I ask of you is some candor about where your grievances lie.
Your complaints about "industrial pollution" and "wasteful production" are similar. Are you upset about their nebulous link to global warming or are you more upset about dumping ugly sh*t all over Mother Earth? Speak your heart!
I would agree that emissions might contribute to global warming, but reading the science on the issue is much more difficult than parroting the talking points, isn't it?
To me, the real question is, "When will we take a responsible stance/take action on helping the Earth begin to heal?"
And that's the most honest statement you made. You want the damage done to your god to be reversed. And there's nothing wrong with that! I only ask that you stop hiding it. If your faith really is strong, worthy, and noble, then it should be able to stand on its own and not hide behind science that is, at most, a means to an end.
Hi there!
/. to read what I have to write (and also hear your responses), I find doing so on /. to be a drag and know that we will inevitably be shut out of the discussion.
Thank you for your long and insightful response. Naturally, I have a answers and responses to much of what you wrote, but this is bound to get very, very long. As much as I want others on
Furthermore, getting a medical professional (I make assumptions based on the "MD" in your nick, please correct me if I'm wrong) to actually *talk* to me about this issue without being a total abusive jerk is rare, rare, rare. I value you like I do a precious gem and want to give you great respect.
Can we continue this discussion in e-mail, please?
The article's argument depends on one point:
"The market can't fix this because the problem is invisible to the user".
We have to understand that he means "invisible" as "not sufficiently inconvenient enough to be noticeable". His evidence for this is Hotmail's failure to lose customers.
My counterargument is that any mail lost by Hotmail's blocking (if you don't pay) has not been all that inconvenient to the user, and that's why it's not noticeable. In other words, so what if some mail messages get lost? If this were so horrible, then users would be up in arms, there would be news stories about it, and there would be active message boards replete with bitching.
As is, it seems that the one inconvenienced and thus bitching is one particular sender of mass e-mail, and his bitching has taken the form of this "insightful article". So it seems to me that this one inconvenienced person is trying to magnify his/her own frustration by portraying his/her issue as an issue that affects/will affect "all users".
From what I can tell, there is no big problem for the users. They're not a bunch of stupid sheep who are completely clueless that they're not getting mass e-mail from groups that they signed up for. And if they're missing mass e-mail from groups that they didn't sign up for, then I think that the users would see that as a blessing. We need less spam, not more!
The other part of the article's argument is: "This will pave the way for an e-mail tax and we'll all have to pay." Argument by fear, slippery slope, missing a few in-between steps, assumes that users are stupid morons, etc.
That place is about as queer as a three dollar bill
;)
I've always preferred the term, "queer as a football bat", said with a serious Southern drawl. I'm gay and from the South, so I feel I have the latitutde to poke fun at both!
I was going to just foe and filter you as a crank/troll ("lol thers no AIDS hurh"), but this post convinced me you're interesting enough to keep around.
:) I must correct you: my argument is NOT one of "There's no AIDS". I believe that "AIDS" is actually the mis-diagnosis of many other diseases and clincal symptoms. My position is that I do not believe that HIV exists, and I do not believe that HIV causes AIDS.
Heh, I get lucky every now and then.
My position is also that AIDS is a huge part of Western culture, and it is practially a religion to many people who believe in it. It is *much* more offensive to say, "I do not believe in HIV" than it is "I do not believe in Jesus", even in the Southern USA where I live.
However, I'm not even going to bother reading a PDF(!) on a website called "sparks of light". Find some better references next time, or just copy-paste the interesting bits into your post.
There is simply not enough space in Slashdot to post every "interesting bit" about AIDS. I can probably convince anyone that the War on Drugs should end, but it will take me 30 minutes.
30 minutes is not nearly enough time to explain to you why HIV has not been proven to exist and why you should never get another "HIV test" under any circumstance. It would take me hours and I would probably have to fight through many layers of resistance and scorn.
But here is something that I consider "juicy" -- maybe a good intro to AIDS for you.
AZT is still the #1 "retroviral therapy" used to "treat" HIV. AZT was *not* invented for this purpose. In fact, AZT was invented decades ago for cancer chemotherapy and then shelved because it was deemed too toxic for use. It was un-shelved during the AIDS panic of 1984-5 and then given quick FDA approval after a very unscientific trial.
AZT is what is called a "DNA chain terminator". It works by substituting itself for thymine in the DNA chain and thus DNA chains stop being build during cell synthesis. The result is that the cell dies. It targets all cells in this manner.
In other words, AZT is strictly poison. Its use is reasonable in the case of cancer chemotherapy ("Poison you until the cancer dies, and hope that all the cancer cells die before you do"), but not for AIDS ("You're going to die anyway, so keep taking the poison until you die").
The manufacturer of AZT provides this warning about AZT: "prolonged use of Retrovir [AZT] has been associated with systematic myopathy [body wasting] similar to that produced by HIV". How do you know that the body wasting is NOT coming from the AZT rather than from the HIV? How do you know that AZT is not "AIDS by prescription", as many have called it?
Here's the warning label for AZT. This is the label that patients do not see:
http://www.duesberg.com/articles/azt.html#label
Here's the text on the warning label:
"TOXIC. Toxic by inhalation, in contact with skin and if swallowed. Target organ(s): Blood bone marrow. If you feel unwell, seek medical advice (show the label where possible). Wear suitable protective clothing."
Notice that it targets the "bone marrow"? This is where our white blood cells are produced. In other words, AZT targets the immune system.
"AIDS by prescription"? Juicy enough for you?
I appreciate your response! Most people just call me names and refuse to debate the issue.
.. in Africa it's different -- but you knew that, of course!)
The paper's initial assertion is that AIDS was introduced as a polio virus. Simple logical disproof
No need to disprove it. The anecdote was the lead-into to her investigation about HIV/AIDS.
Several pages deal with the controversy surrounding the initial discovery of the HIV virus. There was also controversy surrounding the discovery of DNA, therefore we shouldn't believe DNA is the 'source code' of life?
You are trying to change the subject. Do you care to defend the methods used to "discover" HIV? Specifically, I'd like to know how you think it's possible to do the following:
1. Draw blood from GRIDS-suffering gay men and obtain protein samples from said blood
2. Inject blood into rabbit
3. Allow rabbit to produce antibodies
4. Assume that these antibodies react to a totally new type of retrovirus
That is what Gallo (actually, Popovic) did, and I'm wondering where the science is. Will you illuminate me? I find it particularly damning considering that this is the very same process that Gallo was discredited for in the HTLV debacle.
She makes light of the microliter aliquots used in the CBC tests
This seems rather minor considering the fact that HIV seems to be a big hoax and people are being fed poison to fight a non-existant disease. If these are the types of objections you're going to come up with, then you are practically endorsing your opponent's position.
She also does not respect the validity of the HIV Load test, saying that since it uses PCR (a very common technique in medicine) it cannot be accurate.
She does not discount "viral load" because it uses PCR, but because the notion of the "viral load" test is flawed by design. The "viral load" test looks for "viral particles" which are *assumed* to come from HIV. (Since HIV has never been isolated according to the virologcal standard, such a thing must be assumed.) Then, PCR multiplies (not "amplifies") the number of these tiny particles and the resultant number is assumed to be representative of the amount of virus in your system.
Problems:
1. We have no way of knowing that the virus particles come from any virus, much less a specific retrovirus known as HIV
2. We have no way of knowing that the particles represent working viruses
3. Since PCR is a multiplicative act, any errors will also be multiplied
Your response?
But the coup-de-gras for me was her statistics that showed how low CD4 counts don't correlate to AIDS. (AIDS is, incidentally, practically being defined by low CD4 count)
In truth, "AIDS" has been redefined multiple times, and has different definitions based on the year, the politics, and the continent. ("AIDS" in Africa is diagnosed by clinical symptoms, not by anything fancy like PCR or even an ELISA -- but you knew that, of course!) Since the "discovery" of HIV, AIDS is "incidentally, practically" defined by the positive result of an "HIV test". (In USA and Europe only
* "61% of people with CD4 count = 200 in 1997 were AIDS free"
* -response: Yes, CD4=200 is the upper limit at which you see AIDS symptoms, this is expecte
What page was this on? I'm happy to discuss the validity of using CD4 counts as a "hallmark" for AIDS.
-response: No, but anti-retovirals have been tightly correlated to increased CD4 counts, and their withdrawal to lower CD4 counts. It has also been shown repeatedly (and even in this paper!) that low CD4 count correlates with disease.
Low CD4 counts correlate with many diseases NOT in conjunction with a positive result on an "HIV test", such as pneumonia.
I just pointed out a few of the most egregious and most easily refuted examples.
Why not bring up the hard ones? Is it perhaps because you do not have an answer? For instance:
It sure would be nice to not have to deal with all the crap!
;)
There's always trade-offs. I don't mean to paint it as all roses. Being a gay man is difficult because we don't have any decent role models. Lots of gay men struggle with issues of monogamy. Certainly straights struggle with that issue, too, but gay men don't end up with children via f*cking. I think that having the obligation of children tends to keep couples together longer. The lack of gay role models has inspired me to lead the kind of life that other gay men could use as a role model. Living long, being happy, having varied interests, having a family, and growing old is what I'm after. It's a complete rejection of what used to be called THE "gay lifestyle" -- i.e., narcissism, drugs, and sex. I believe that kind of fast-track hedonism leads to unhappiness and death, and many gay men are driven to that kind of hedonism because they feel that they have no other kind of life available to them. For many of them, it is true.
But, yes, women are insane. And I mean that in the kindest way possible. I am certain that women feel the same way about men! The benefit that I recieve is the avoidance of the communication difficulties that always seem to arise.
Is it common for women with withhold sex as a means of punishing their male partners? I only want to have fair stereotypes of women.
What kind words for you to write, and I thank you for them. I am also happy to hear that men who are, generally speaking, turned on by the same things that I am turned on by have left a stereotype-improving impression upon you. It would be my hope that other gay men can catch the runoff from those positive stereotypes.
:)
There have been some gay men who have done all gay people a severe disservice by promoting the fast-track, drug-addicted "gay lifestyle" as, well, THE "gay lifestyle". When people talked about "being gay", that's what they were referring to. It was, in fact, a non-stop orgy of the gym, sex, and high-end drugs. This segment of the population still exists and is still just as hedonistic as it ever was, but society is changing and ever-allowing more options to what it means to be a gay man. My partner and I are adoptive parents and live in the conservative suburbs of a Southern city.
Anyway, thanks again.
If having minimum basic moral standards in each state decided by the voters or legislation is a problem to you, and you want an anything goes society, then by all means, support the Libertarian Party.
I do. It is the only party that supports the individual rights to life, liberty, and property. The constitution party does not. I maintain: the only actions that should be illegal are those that deprive another individual of their right to life, liberty, or property. That is the basis of harm.
Like I said some government is necessary. I have taken care of children who have had their legs broken because of their parents meth rage. I have seen what much of this poison has done to the youth. Some drugs are a menace to society.
I agree that some government is necessary. Your statement that "some drugs are a menace to society" is rhetoric. It wasn't the meth that broke children's legs. Banning drugs only means that the black market will meet demand rather than the white market, and that is what we are seeing now. Banning drugs means that you support fabulously huge profits for drug dealers. People should be allowed to wreck their own bodies and suffer the consequences. I agree with you that stupid people should not breed and support government sterilization of people who fail their jobs as parents.
Most of the people of the Constitution Party believe that there needs to be some moral standard in order for this nation to survive.
Empty rhetoric. Many states survive just fine selling dildos, despite what Alabamans may think. The issue is punishing "immorality", not "survival" and you know it.
No what this does is keep the government from granting special protections to certain classes of people that does not apply to others.
Then take away all the special rights granted to married couples. Why do they get the special right to not have to testify against each other? Isn't that a "special protection" to a "certain class of people" that does not apply to others?
Before 'hate crime' legislation, people could tell perverts that their behaviour is innapropriate and even mock or deride the perverts. However, they still had NO RIGHT to assult, batter, or otherwise harm that pervert.
Mocking and deriding in many cases is illegal. Am I allowed to harrangue Christians and Jews for being worshippers of a baby-killing, abortionist god (1 Sam 15:3, Hos 13:16) in front of their children, every day? You are arguing "words don't hurt" and the courts have rightly argued otherwise. Perhaps you remember the "Nuremburg Files" web site that was taken down a few years ago?
I'm a gay man. Do you think I'm a "pervert"? Do you also worship the baby-killing god?
Nope, it means that Judge Roy Moore was persecuted for HIS RIGHT to worship Gode as He Saw fit. Displaying a plaque or a statue in one's place of work IS NOT the same as forcing someone else to worship God in a certain manne
He has the right to worship his god, but that does not include putting religious symbols on state property. That is not "worshipping god" but a brazen attempt to marry the power of the state with the Christian religion. Everyone sees it despite your best attempt to SPIN it at "religious expresssion".
If instead of the 10 Commandments, it was a picture of a sailboat, do you think for a moment someone would protest? Even if they disliked sailboats? No, this is just another measure towards FORCED atheism.
Of course people would not have objected to a sailboat because there is no religious, spiritual, or philosphical message inherent in a picture of a sailboat. Do you think Christians would object if Roy Moore put up a plaque reading, "All religions are pure mythology that have no practical purpose in the life of any human."? Of course they would, and I would agree with them.
It is not "forced atheism", of course. It is the refusal to attach Christian sensibilities to state power, and the Christians naturall
Low id slashdotter, I'm sure we can rule the "lot of sex" option out.
One would think! As it turns out, I'm a gay man, so I don't have to overcome the female recalcitrance that you straights have to face every time you want to score. Nor do I have to endure any of the "female neurosis" -- you know, the questions you can never answer correctly like "Does this outfit make my butt look big?" and the inordinate amount of time spent "getting ready". It truly is a blessing that my partner will never be offended that I didn't notice his haircut, and I'm reminded of this blessing every time one of my straight friends mentions the communication difficulties that are so very common in male-female partnerships.
Of course, many will choose to see my admission to being gay as prima facie that I find AIDS as an intolerable inconvenience to my psychotic desire for incessant unprotected anal sex enhanced by designer drugs.
It's hard to find people who really wish to discuss tough topics, particularly topics that challenge the things that we hold very dear and very close (such as our faith in the integrity of the practicioners of science and medicine).
As an AIDS heretic, I find articles like these tiresome to read. There have been many, many such articles about "curing AIDS" which have all proven to be sound and fury signifying nothing. I think the reason for this is because AIDS has become something much larger than a disease. It is a way of life for thousands of scientists, a huge cash cow for drug manufacturers, and a political plank for both gay activists and gay-bashing activists.
e w%20copy.pdf
t %20caused%20AIDS%20if%20not%20HIV.pdf
If you are open to the idea that the orthodoxy about AIDS might not be correct or might not be scientific, then I suggest you read these two pieces of investigative journalism that came out a couple of months ago. They detail in the most succinct way possible how AIDS came about, and that is *VERY* hard to do because of how immensely complex this subject is.
http://www.sparks-of-light.org/HIVGATE%20-%20revi
http://www.sparks-of-light.org/AIDSGATE%20-%20wha
If you think that I'm insane, or that I just want to have a whole lot of unprotected sex, or that I'm a conspiracy theorist, then please just ignore this post. It means that you are not open-minded to criticism of your ideas, and the only thing I want to do is give criticism of the HIV-AIDS hypothesis a fair hearing. I believe that there are HUGE problems with the hypothesis and it has led to many people getting fabulously wealthy off of what has turned out to be misdiagnosis. I am aware that this is a serious charge, and I do not take this subject lightly.
All of that is in effort to say, "Don't mod me down. Don't be a jerk. Don't prevent someone who *wants* to hear what I have to say from hearing it." I hope it works.