Muslims aren't allowed to lie about Islam, to each other or to non-Muslims. Muslims can't lie to non-Muslims unless they're being threatened with death. For example, Ammar ibn Yasir (ra) was tortured until he gave up his religion, but Muhammad (peace be upon him) told him it was OK to say that if he didn't mean it. It ends there.
Another Muslim told me that it was permittable for a Muslim to lie to a Kuffar during "wartime". Why should I take your opinion over his? Clearly there is some debate among muslims about when it is appropriate to lie. There are various webpages about this very subject which detail many of the Muslim opinions on this subject.
Or, of course, you could be lying. It seems universal that at least *some* lying to the Kufr is permittable.
I can tell you're just copying accusations from another poster. "Kuffar" isn't the proper grammatic word, so you're getting your so-called knowlege fourth-hand.
What is it supposed to be? "Kuffar" or "Kaffir"? "Koran" or "Qu'ran"? I never claimed to be an expert in Arabic. And it's not like I can count on Muslims to be honest to teach me about their religion and about their hatred for me and about their earnest desires to subject the entire world to Shari'a.
This whole "Muslims are allowed to lie until they control the world" garbage I keep hearing smacks of the same prejudice as the Jews suffered because of the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion."
That book is very popular in the dar al-Islam right now!
It's propaganda that is always used when you want to get rid of people, "Sure they sound good in public, but in their secret meetings, they outline their evil plan."
But Muslims are not being all that "secret" about their desires. Muslims in stockholm wear t-shirts that read: "2030: The Year we Take Over". Muslims in the United States carry signs that feature the White House and the black flag of Jihad above it and the words which read: "Islam will Dominate!" The software company islamgames.com features video games which take place in the future "when Islam has dominated the world". I stated before and maintain: that Shari'a is imposed on the entire world is a mainstream, not extreme, belief among the world's Muslims. And Muslims have been rather brave in expressing their belief that violence and the threat of violence are the proper ways to win the world's respect.
If you're going to say that Surahs and Hadiths make murder allowable, I'd like you to prove it.
From submission.org:
"life is sacred so we are not allowed to commit murder except in the course of justice. (Quran 4:92-93, 6:!51)"
"Oppression is worse than murder. (Quran 2:217)"
So how do you define "justice" and "oppression"? Is it "just" that Shari'a be imposed on the entire world? Are Muslims "oppressed" if the Kufr resist their desires to impose Shari'a on the entire world?
According to the US State Department's report, South America has more terrorism than the Middle East. You just hear more about the Middle East on the news. False perception, its like how people are more afraid of flying then driving, when cars kill so many more.
I went to that web page, and it only had data up to 2003. Furthermore, I didn't see a way to measure that South America has "more" terrorism than the Middle East. More in terms of people killed and injured? More in terms of number of incidents? More in terms of property damage? Furthermore, I'm more interested in stats of terrorist acts committed by non-Muslims versus terrorist acts committed by Muslims in the name of Allah (jihad). Where can I get those stats? I can see a list of terrorst acts committed by your primitive bretheren here.
Good, now you can understand that just because terrorists or guerillas are "Christian," that doesn't make the religion to blame.
If they were doing it for the sake of holy war in the name of Jesus Christ in acc
Since when did I wish that America was as harsh on gays as the Islamic world was? Or are you claiming that I wish the Islamic world was as soft on gays as America is? Either way, you're wrong.
I am thankful that America has become a much better place for gays to live and that many anti-gay sentiments are dying. I do not support gay marriage. I support the separation of marriage and state and thus the termination of special rights for straights.
My wish for the islamic world is far simpler: less is more.
Dar Al Harb: The majority of the population are non-Muslims, and Muslims are actively persecuted.
And what does "actively persecuted" mean? Does it mean that someone publishes a cartoon of Mohammud and the government does not kill the cartoonist for doing so? Does it mean that the government does not allow Shari'a-based tribunals? Does it mean that the government resists passing laws based on Shari'a? Does it mean that the people refuse to basically lie down and be raped by muslims on their mad drive to turn the whole world into Shari'a?
We've all seen that Muslims are exceedingly thin-skinned. They riot at the drop of a hat (or at the penning of a cartoon). They believe that violence and the threat of violence is the way to earn respect, and the "moderate" muslims stand by and let this happen.
I am a Muslim and I am living in a Western country and can practice my religion freely. I am here to stay, unless bigots like you take over and drive us out...
Any religion whose "religious beliefs" maintain that the overthrow of the government and replacement of the government with one that is necessarily wedded to the religion does NOT belong in the USA. I stand with the Australians: if you want to live under Shari'a, then get out! It means you do not belong here. If you want to live in peace with others of different faiths (and of no faiths) with the full understanding that other people have every right in the world to disrespect and reject your religion as you do theirs, then you may stay. I have no tolerace for freedom-hating religious supremecists. And I have no issue with you calling me a "bigot". All I have to do is point to the actions of Muslims all around the world which don't seem to outrage you one iota. Clearly you have your priorities in order. Muslims kill and maim children? No big deal. Someone criticizes Muslims for killing and maiming children? Holy Shit! They must be BIGOTS!
As an atheist, you offer the position that there is no all-powerful god. Lack of belief still makes you a believer. Atheism and theism are right up there alongside one another -- there's no difference between them whatsoever.
You rely on the same flawed argument that many logic-impaired Christian debators do. You are imposing upon me a belief that I do not hold. I am not a positive atheist ("I believe there is no god."). I am a negative athiest ("I do not believe in a god.")
Likewise, I do not believe in gods. Or godessess. Or lephrechauns. Or Santa Claus. Or in humans living on Jupiter. This is not to say that none of these things exist. It is only that I have not seen sufficient evidence in order to make me belief.
Your god may very well be real. In which case, I say: PROVE IT!
And that's when you reply, "Oh, but you have to have faith!"
the goal of homosexuals is to enforce gay rights on the entire world.
Such as the right to not be gay-bashed? Why is this a bad thing? Is the right to gay-bash something that Muslims can't imagine living without?
They are everything that a conservative Christian fears about liberal democrats except one-hundred times worse.
I think liberal democrats are worse than conservative Christians -- primarily for their bone-headed defense of Islam. I see conservative Christians as my allies since they seem at least dimly aware of the threat that Muslims pose to all of the non-Muslims in the world.
Gays will lie about their plans and desires in accordance with the homosexual agenda.
Perhaps if there were a "gay mohammed" and a "gay quran" and some "gay hadiths" to back up your statement then it would be convincing. Oh wait, those things *do* exist for Muslims. Not to mention their bomb-strapping, rioting, car-burning behavior.
I encourage you look up the gay concept of "ACT UP" which indicates why all agreements made with homosexuals are useless.
I suppose my express distancing of myself from those fags was completely lost on you.
The more straight people (that's you and I) who wake up to the threat to our life, liberty, and property the greater chance we have of the world not becoming one big gay empire.
Yet you can't indicate what threats to life, liberty, and property are posed to anyone by any such "gay agenda". Shari'a, on the other hand, is a mainstream and liberty-crushing belief among millions of muslims. Your post is yet another sad attempt at "tu quoque" which is the most that freedom-hating Muslims can muster when someone starts making simple observations about their primitive and barbaric superstitious beliefs.
Thank you. And before you have any ideas about me, I am not a militant gay man and I reject most of what "gay culture" is and loathe most "gay activists". I hate the fact that they make people think that what they are is what "gay" is supposed to be.
So my personal preferences for both me and you are that you and I have the right to find happiness however we see fit provided that we do not harm anyone else.
I'm glad that you found my link on dhimmis informative. Believe me, the goal of Muslims is to enforce Shari'a on the entire world. They are everything that a liberal fears about fundie Christians except one-hundred times worse. Muslims will lie about their plans and desires in accordance with their religion. I encourage you look up the Islamic concept of "hudna" which indicates why all treaties made with Muslims are useless. (It gives insight into why Usama Bin Laden offered a "truce".) The more Kufr (that's you and I) who wake up to the threat to our life, liberty, and property the greater chance we have of the world not becoming one big Muslim empire. Europe may very well be lost, and that makes me very sad. I love Europe, but its future is rather dim.
Who is trying to force you? Sheesh, why does everyone feel so threatened that Muslims are trying to force their religion on people? Honestly, when has a Muslim ever come to you on the street and tried to convert you?
No, but that's only because I live in the USA. Muslims are still a big minority here. It's the actions of Muslims in the UK (wanting to set up a state within the state that abides by shari'a law) or muslims in Sweden wearing t-shirts that say, "2030: the year we take over" that give me a good idea of what Muslims intend for me once the Muslim population in the USA is significant enough.
I notice your attempt to change the subject to Christianity that you commit several times in your defense. I can understand why: you'd much rather me talk about Christianity than continue talking about Islam. By discussing Islam its ugly secrets come out and the Kufr will wake up to the threat.
The Penalty for Homosexual sex in public is death. According to Shariah, you need 3 witnesses of the act, which makes it pretty clear that you can't enfore this law in the privacy of your own home, and Islam regards privacy of the home as an important rule.
Under Shari'a, as a dhimmi, I cannot testify against a Muslim whereas a Muslim can testify against me. And I've read enough threads on ummah.com to know the general feeling of Muslims against homosexuality. Three muslims can just choose to testify against me and then I'm murdered in accordance with Shari'a. Oh, muslims would never do this? Sure... and they'd never beat up gays or make bombs to kill children, either.
Shariah does allow adoption, although it prefers someone from the extended family.
"...Nor has He made your adopted sons your (biological) sons. Such is (only) your (manner of) speech by your mouths. But Allah tells (you) the Truth, and He shows the (right) Way. Call them by (the names of) their fathers; that is juster in the sight of Allah. But if you know not their father's (names, call them) your brothers in faith, or your trustees. But there is no blame on you if you make a mistake therein. (What counts is) the intention of your hearts. And Allah is Oft-Returning, Most Merciful." 33:4-5
In other words, I'm not my son's parent. I'm merely a "caregiver". This is in direct violation of my rights as an adoptive parent, and one of many good reasons to reject Islam.
It is NOT permissible for a Muslim to lie, unless threatened by death for telling the truth. "Taqiyya" is a Shi'ite thing where they are afraid to pray differently around Sunnis. It does not usually allow a Muslim to lie to non-Muslims, and lying is a major and hellworthy sin.
Note the key word: "it does not usually allow a Muslim to lie to Kufr". In other words, it is sometimes permissible! So much for the "major and hellworthy sin"! The muslim from whyislam.org indicated that it was permissible to lie to the Kufr "only during war." And which "house" do I live in? It's the Dar al-Harb, correct? That means "house of war", correct?
Christians believe they will dominate the world. Oh God, I better lock my doors and avoid those Catholic neighbors of mine./sarcasm Hindus believe they will dominate the world, some Jewish leaders think Israel will as well. Why single Islam out?
Because of the violent actions of Muslims and the hundreds of violent terror attacks that take place all over the world in the name of Allah and for the purpose of Jihad. I know that I can post blasphemous images of Jesus Christ with impunity. Can I do the same thing with images of your prophet? Muslims are already calling for the murder of the "blasphemers", as expected, and the cartoonists, as usual, have had to go into hiding to avoid the murderous wrath of vengeful Muslims. The Quran sanctions violence (remember "strike at the neck of unbelievers"? Hence, behead
People do cry about the religious right, but if they had the power people claim, I wouldn't be seeing commercials about a gay cowboy movie which will likely clean up as the Oscars.
I criticize Christianity with abplomb when sanctimonious Christians start using their religious beliefs as an excuse to attack me. I freely admit that Christianity is both a fear-based and a guilt-based religion.
Islam, on the other hand, is a violence-based religion. Notice the "sword of Allah" on Saudi Arabia's flag? Notice the AK-47 on Hezbollah's flag? I don't bother discussing with Muslims, because I don't know if they're lying or not. Christians can put up a good deal of resistance, but Muslims may very well murder me if I dared criticize Islam in the same way I did Christianity. This is one of several reasons why I think Islam should be resisted.
If there is a "problem" with only 1% of Muslims, then we have a problem with 12 million people.
That doesn't mean there's a problem with Islam.
I beg to differ. See my other post which I think details the problems that I have with Islam.
Murder and terrorism are sins in Islam, ask any Muslim you meet. Don't believe me?
No, I don't believe you. A muslim admitted to me that it is permissible in Islam for a Muslim to lie to a Kuffar. This is called "taqiyya". And murder is a sin in Islam, but it's spun as "the killing of innocents is haraam". No kuffar is "innocent" in Islam. Various Sura and Hadith make this very clear.
Think of it this way. South America has more terrorist acts than the Middle East, but nobody blames Christianity.
First, do you have a source for this? Muslims commit dozens if not hundreds of terrorist attacks every month across the world. They do it for the sake of Jihad and in the name of Allah. I see this as a problem in Islam.
Second, South America has its share of Marxist guerrillas. I think it's instructive to examine the motives of terrorists in South America and decide of they're being done in the name of Christianity or in the name of class warfare and "revolucion". My friend from Colombia, who was studying in the USA because he was a member of the upper class, commented: "I HATE guerrillas!" (In his colombian accent, the word was, "gare-ee-jahs".) He mentioned to me that some guerrillas had set off a bomb that killed some people and spray-painted their message on the restaurant wall: "Los ricon tambien lloran" (The rich cry, too). Such an attack is done out of class warfare, not out of expanding Christendom.
I am a gay man and an atheist who has no intention of following any superstitious belief, Islam included.
The penalty for homosexuality under Shari'a (Islamic law) is death. I learned this from a discussion I had with a muslim from whyislam.org.
I am also an adoptive parent. Shari'a does not recognize adoptive parents. I learned this from the same discussion.
It is permittable for a Muslim to lie to a Kuffar (unbeliever). This is called taqiyya.
The belief that "Islam will dominate the world" is a mainstream belief in Islam. Not an extremist belief, a mainstream belief.
When the editor of Southern Voice (a gay newspaper in the Southeast USA) traveled to Amsterdam, supposedly a "liberal" city, he was gay-bashed and suffered injuries. The perpetrators? Muslims who were following their religious beliefs.
So when you start accusing people like me of having "islamophobic" sentiments, I have to agree and indicate to you that your accusation sounds a lot like, "She deserved to be raped. Didn't you see the skirt she was wearing?"
There are legitimate reasons for both fearing and resisting Islam. The hatred of freedom of expression, the denigration of gays and women, the 7th-century mindset, the second-class status imposed on non-Muslims (dhimmis), and the punitive justice system are all elements of mainstream (NOT "extremist") Islam that need to be discussed, exposed, and resisted. Not apologized for and certainly not defended in the name of "multiculturalism" or anything else!
Heh -- okay, let me modify that then: Nazism is about a boot crushing a human face forever with glee, and then adding insult to injury by declaring said face subhuman.
You're still getting it wrong. You think that Nazism was "cruelty for cruelty's sake" where Nazism was trying to create a better world by removing all evil "races" from the world, so that the "master race" could rightly populate it. Assigning them cruelty makes them easier to hate, but you have no way of measuring it.
I still think there's a meaningful distinction to be made between something that leads to tyranny via accident, and something that leads to tyranny by intent...
You are defending communism. The tyranny in communism did not happen by accident. Stalin didn't send anyone to the gulag by accident. Lenin didn't establish a secret police by accident. Pol Pot didn't establish S-21 by accident.
Nazism is about a boot crushing a human face forever with glee.
I don't think that's accurate. Nazism maintained that some people were not human. Subhumans, if you will. Therefore, exterminating them was not like killing "regular" people. You're expressing Nazism as something that is "cruelty for cruelty's sake" when I think it has much more to do with ideas such as "racial purity". You can find plenty of examples of abject cruelty within Communist regimes, such as Pol Pot's infamous S-21 torture and death camp.
Not that I'm apologizing for Nazism. What I object to is your implication that Nazism is worse than Communism, and your hint that Communism is, on some level, defensible. I think that they are evil for the same reasons: they both inevitably lead to mass abrogation the individual rights to life, liberty, and property. To me, the notable difference between the two, generally speaking, in that the Communists murdered and enslaved people based on what they did or thought whereas the Nazis murdered and enslaved people based on what they were.
The statement is this: "At present there is no recognized standard for establishing the presence or absence of HIV-1 antibody in human blood."
This doesn't have anything to do with the accuracy of the test. That would imply that we have a standard of establishing the presence or absence of HIV-1. Since there is no standard, how can we know if the margin of error is 1% or 100%? You are trying to paint the fact that we have no way of knowing if a person is infected as an issue of accuracy.
However, that also doesn't mean that simply because we can't have definitive results, it doesn't exist.
That is not my argument at all. It's not that we don't have "definitive" results. It's that we don't know what the results mean because there is no recognized standard of establishing the presence or absense of HIV-1 in human blood. The best we can do is look at the results and say, "I think, but don't really know, that you might be infected."
Furthermore, I have never claimed that HIV does not exist. I repeat: I do not believe that HIV exists. What this means is that no one has show me sufficient evidence for me to believe that HIV exists. They only arguments that they use are consensus and correlation. Correlation, weak evidence in and of itself, is entirely and solely dependant on the validity of the HIV tests.
Home preganancy tests are't scientifically valid either an--
Stop trying to change the subject.
I would like an answer to this question: Do you think that phrases such as "At present there is no recognized standard for establishing the presence or absence of HIV-1 antibody in human blood." would give valid reason to doubt the meaningfulness of any HIV test?
I don't know. It could be any number of things. I'm certainly not going to assume that it's HIV and that just because a picture of something exists then HIV exists and HIV causes AIDS.
And what is killing people who supposedly don't actually have aids?
I didn't claim people didn't have AIDS. I repeat: I don't believe in HIV, and I don't believe that HIV causes AIDS.
Remeber that the definition of "AIDS" is "HIV + X" Where "X" is one of many diseases, all of which can exists in the absense of HIV. In other words, if you have pneumonia but are "HIV negative", then you have pneumonia. If you have pneumonia but are "HIV positive", then you have AIDS.
So, in answer to your question "what is killing people", my response would be, "Quite likely, the X." It could also be the poisonous "AIDS therapies" that people take that could be killing them. It's well-known that AZT is highly toxic and eventually lethal.
"The better question is... let's just say they're dieing from a mystical force which isn't caused by a retrovirus. This mystical force is passed from one individual to another through body fluids... why don't we just call the mystical force HIV?"
I like the idea of you calling HIV mystical, as I believe its study has little to do with science. Anyway, if what you say is true, then there would be evidence of such. Why has AIDS stayed largely confined to its original risk groups? Why has it not spread into the white, heterosexual population as an infectious, sexually-transmitted disease would be expected to do? As is, you don't have infectious patterns to rely on to show evidence for HIV/AIDS. Instead, you rely on the only two things you have: consensus and correlation (via the "HIV test").
Who cares if it is or isn't a virus.
I care, very deeply, that someone show me that A) a unique, exogenous retrovirus exists, B) it is infectious, C) **HOW** it causes AIDS. I regard this issue as vitally important to me believing your point of view.
Your life can be extended with drugs designed to treat it.
The drugs designed to "treat" it rely only on CD4 counts and "viral load" to show their effectiveness, and I have questions about using either of those to judge whether or not a drug is helpful. FDA stage III trials are *routinely* skipped for "AIDS therapies" so we specifically don't know anything about their mortality. Based on that, by what means do you conclude that AIDS drugs extend life?
If untreated, you will die*. *One or two exceptions on the planet.
Why do you fail to admit that also, if "treated", you will also die? Do you forget that not a single life has been saved following the HIV/AIDS theory? Do you also neglect to admit that AIDS drugs are toxic? Do you know what "buffalo humps" are? Do you know about liver toxicity? Do you know the history of AZT? Of all of the claims of the HIV/AIDS theory, the "You have to take your drugs!" is, by far, the most threatening, the most harmful, the most insidious, and the most irrational. I don't understand why you expect to make that statement unchallenged.
I just hope this isn't some form of self denial. "There is no way I can get HIV, or pass it on to my partners... therefore there is no reason to get tested." Complete disregard for the safety of others is almost criminal.
There is no reason to get tested for HIV because the HIV tests are meaningless.
If you read the article that I posted entitled "The House that AIDS built" you'll read what I post here. HIV test manufacturers (there are several companies that make "HIV tests") are legally obligated to disclose the limitations of their tests. Here is some of the verbiage from HIV test inserts:
* "At present there is no recognized standard for establishing the presence or absence of HIV-1 antibody in human blood." (Abbott Laboratories HIV Test - ElA) * "The risk of an asymptomatic person with a repeatedly reactive serum developing AIDS or an AIDS-related condition is not known." (Genetic Systems HIV Test - Peptide EIA) * "The AMPLICOR HIV-1 MONITOR test is not intended to be used as a screening test for HIV or as a diagnostic test to confirm the presence of HIV infection" (Roche, Amplicor HIV Test - PCR). * "Do not use this kit as the sole basis of diagnosis of HIV-1 infection." (Epitope, Inc. HIV Test - Western Blot) * "[Positive test results can occur due to] prior pregnancy, blood transfusions... and other potential nonspecific reactions." [Vironostika HIV Test, 2003].
Do you think that phrases such as "At present there is no recognized standard for establishing the presence or absence of HIV-1 antibody in human blood." would be significant reason to doubt the validity of any HIV test? This is what the test manufacturer admits about their own "HIV test".
It is, of course, much, much worse that just what I can detail here. What is criminal is that "HIV tests" are passed off as "medicine" or "science", particularly in light of the fact that an "HIV positive" status is a virtual death sentence. If I can, for a moment, assume that the HIV/AIDS theory is completely true, what do you think that the effect on a person's health would be if they are given a FALSE "HIV positive" status?
I don't think these opinions are inherently evil to have. However, if people with that opinion are also participating in unprotected sex, and are unwilling to be tested, that is irresponsible to society.
First, the notion of "irresponsible to society" and "evil" are functionally equivalent.
Second, your statement depends entirely on whether or not the "HIV tests" are meaningful, and that is begging the question.
This whole computer virus thing is just a conspiracy designed to sell useless software and spread fear.
First, you are aruging by analogy. It does nothing to show that HIV exists or that HIV causes AIDS.
Second, if you read my post you'll see that I wrote, "I despise conspiracy theories." AIDS is not a conspiracy theory. It is a huge industry and a part of American culture.
In two years, I will graduate from medical school and treat, without predjudice, patients who might believe as you do.
Just remember: "First, do no harm." Then go read that web site entited "The house that AIDS built" to see what other doctors do in the name of medicine. Not all treatments help, and doctors are mere humans who are far, far from gods.
If you should become infected with HIV and acquire AIDS, but refuse treatment, I'll wish you well.
I appreciate your well-wishes, but no one can be shown to be infected with HIV. The HIV tests are meaningless. "HIV positive" is meaningless. I may, on the other hand, may acquire one of the many diseases on the ever-changing list of "AIDS-associated illnesses" (excepting cervical cancer, as I am male), in which case I will choose to be treated for that illness. But I will never, ever, under any circumstances have another "HIV test".
But if you should have a change of heart, then I will use my conspiracy-driven science to help you to the best of my ability.
It's not my heart that would change (as it is an organ that pumps blood in my chest), but rather my mind that would change. And the only thing that would cause me to change my mind is evidence. Specifically, show me who did the experiment that A) shows that HIV exists, and B) shows *HOW* HIV causes AIDS, and also show me the details of that experiment so I can judge that it's valid and thus does not rely on "I'm a scientist and you're not, so you have to believe me!" and I will change my mind. Perhaps you are aware that it used to be assumed that HIV killed T-cells, but then no one could show how this was happening. So scientists started guessing: "Maybe HIV kills T-cells, but the body replaces them so fast that we can't see it. And then this process gradually wears down the immune system." Plain guesswork -- not science and definitely not medicine! This is the type of crap that passes for "science" and isn't shown by the breathless press releases that journalists live and get paid for.
Your sneering attitude harms and does not help your cause. The burden of proof is on you.
Okay. I'm a skeptic most of the time but I don't buy the perth group's basic arguments. I haven't read through their entire document, but I smell a rat.
It's not "entire document" but rather "all of their documents". Plural. And yes, it is difficult reading.
AIDS obviously does exist, and if HIV doesn't cause it what does?
AIDS is defined as "HIV plus one of many other illnesses, all of which can exist in the absense of HIV". All of the "AIDS-associated" illnesses existed before AIDS and before the HIV/AIDS theory. If HIV doesn't cause it, then perhaps it is one of the many, many causes which typically cause the AIDS-associated illnesses. This is an answer that humans don't like to hear: the solution to this problem might NOT be a single pathogen. It might be many unrelated causes.
This is not the first time this has happened. Scientists used to believe headstrong that a pathogen caused pellagra. Lots of people died unnecessarily because of that belief.
If HIV does not exist, then the data on that page is creative fiction. Everyone can repeat the AIDS dogma, but it doesn't answer tough questions that HIV/AIDS proponents don't like to answer. If you scroll down on that page, you'll see a link that reads, "evidence that HIV causes AIDS". (Interesting that they would need to include this.) Click on it and go to the next page. Halfway down the next page they mention Koch's postulates and then make this extraordinary statement: "Even Koch recognized that in some cases not all of his conditions could be met, so other evidence should also be considered. This is particularly true when the germ is a virus rather than a bacterium. Modern scientists are willing to consider a wide range of evidence."
The reason why that statement is extraordinary is because the HIV/AIDS heretics have long claimed that the HIV/AIDS theory did not fulfill Koch's postulates, and the orthodoxy has countered, "Yes, it does!" The writers of this web page acutally admit that HIV does NOT fulfill Koch's postulates. Instead, they claim that Koch's postulates are irrelevant.
Reading that page is difficult because the page relies on the reader's ignorance of terms such as "isolation" to make its points. The page claims, "Researchers have been able to isolate and culture HIV from most AIDS patients whom they have examined". To "isolate" means to remove everything that is not-X from a melange of X and other stuff, and the way that it is done with retroviruses is through a cetrifuge with bands of increasingly dense sucrose. It's well-known that retroviruses band at 1.16 g/mL density.
No one has done this with HIV. It's likely that when the writers say "isolate" they're acutally referring to something quite different that does not actually isolate anything. HIV/AIDS researchers have played this trick many times. After all, it's what they're paid to do. No one outside of the HIV/AIDS orthodoxy gets funded.
I could go on for hours about problems with their arguement, but I suspect they have some motive for believing what they say other than the facts presented.
I, too, can go on for hours about this subject. It is deep, complex, and not for the faint-of-heart. And I believe that I can convince you that there are unfixable flaws in the HIV/AIDS theory if you are willing to accept that you might be wrong and are patient enough to hear the evidence. I also believe that you might another motivation for defending the HIV/AIDS theory. What is it that you feel you must defend here? Scientific integrity? The honor of the medical field? The pride of the journalists? Lots of "lay people" get really, REALLY angry when HIV/AIDS is questioned, and I am really curious about that anger. I certainly understand the anger of someone who's on the AIDS dole. Yours is more puzzling to me.
Beware: what I am going to write is one-thousand times more offensive than claiming that I don't believe in god, or that I don't believe in human races.
I do not buy the notion that A. HIV exists, or B. HIV causes AIDS. This statement usually elicits boatloads of insults calling me stupid, blind, unscientific, or someone who is solely motivated by a desire to have non-stop unprotected sex. Keep in mind that none of those statements mean that HIV exists or causes AIDS. They are merely punishment for someone who isn't buying into the orthodox theory. I believe that I can provide you with enough material to inspire you to doubt the HIV/AIDS theory, but it is very long, very difficult reading, and replete with many concepts about which I am only barely versed. I am no virologist, but that doesn't mean I have to accept the word of someone else because I am not.
I believe that this press announcement is sound and fury signifying nothing. AIDS will never be cured because it is, more than anything else, a jobs program for A) AIDS researchers, B) pharmaceutical companies, and C) the press. If AIDS is cured then all of these people are out of jobs.
The reason why this press release exists is because it's salacious. "A cure for AIDS! Can you believe it!" Perhaps you all don't remember when "eradication" was the AIDS buzz of the day. "Hit early, hit hard" was the mantra. Of course, it was bullshit, and no lives were saved, but it did help warm us up to the idea of getting people on the drugs as soon as they "tested positive" for HIV rather than when they started getting sick.
I know that there will people who will want to mod me to oblivion for stating that I do not believe the "accepted" view. I do not deny that people have died and are dying. My position is skepticism, and I despise conspiracy theories. There will also be people who reply to this with insults and those posts will get modded up. AIDS is part of our culture and it fulfills many different roles. As a gay man, I am committing high treason to the "gay cause" by stating my skepticism. If the skeptical position is utter crap (and it may very well be), then it can be critically analyzed and it will be found lacking. I invite that kind of criticism (but have rarely seen it).
The skeptical position is worthy of being investigated. I warn you: it is not an easy read, and the ugliness of the HIV/AIDS proponents is breathtaking. For example, they have openly stated that people like me should be thrown in jail for not believing.
If you are interested in the topic, I invite you to examine the articles at the Perth Group, which has been skeptical of a human immunodeficiency virus as the cause of AIDS since it was announced by Dr. Gallo. http://www.theperthgroup.com/ It's all science. Slow reading.
If you are interested in the topic but want something more "juicy", then you might want to read about black children being taken from their parents and forced to be human guniea pigs for AIDS drugs that poisoned them to death via stomach tubes. Yes, this happens in America. Welcome to the AIDS industry. http://www.altheal.org/toxicity/house.htm (warning: not safe for work)
Despite what others think about me personally, I think my position (skepticism) has merit and deserves a place in the table of discussion. I pray that the moderators will see that free speech and scientific discussion, even regarding positions that others hate, has more merit than censorship and invective.
Result: The new cool things will happen on Linux or Mac, not on Windows.
And the fully-financed and, thus, well-marketed things will continue to happen on the platform with 95% market share: Windows. "New cool things" appeal to geeks with time to tinker and aren't afraid of things like soldering. The jillions of other folks with disposable income are looking for well-packaged products that they can buy off the shelves at best buy. And those things will continue to be sufficiently "new" and "cool" enough to not make Linux or Mac any more important than you wish they were.
I'm typing this from my Linux workstation at work. Yes, I love Linux, but you have to admit that there are things more significant that your sense of l337ness at being a geek.
Perhaps something that amplifies the bad effects of propaganda is that our media for the past 7 years stopped doing any investigation and just parrots whatever the White House puts out as its message.
Whereas others will point out the fact that the New York Times heralded the Abu Graib prison scandal on its front page far more than they needed to and saw that as evidential of the "mainstream media" being united against the White House in specific and America in general.
I think the truth lies somewhere in between your "completely complicit" view and others' "completely treasonous" view. Then again, my view is probably just as much a value judgement as those other two. In other words: we see what we want to see.
When the government manufacturers its own news you know something is really wrong with the truth.
1. And what about when special interest groups, media conglomerates, and film makers manufacture news? Certainly the government is more dangerous, since they have the legal right to use deadly force, but I think that the other groups (in particular, film makers) are definately more effective since highly-edited, full-motion video with sound is the singlemost effective propaganda platform we humans have devised.
2. Are you talking about truth (as in "truth table") or "The TRUTH(TM)" (meaning the subjective view of reality that all humans have filtered through their own arbitrarily-chosen values)?
The path to a fascist state is shorter in the US than most people thinks. Mostly because i suspect not that many really understand what fascism is.
The problem with "fascism" is that it is always used in the sense of a value judgement. How about we use "totalitarianism" instead? Such a word could eaily encompass Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and even be used to describe some recent power grabs by recent US presidents. To me, it basically means that the government is going to tell me what to do as much as it can and threaten the loss of life, liberty, and property if I don't comply.
The one I live on is populated by 6 billion greedy bastards who'd just as soon watch another person starve than do anything to help them, and frequently hurt other people because it advances their goals.
That's not the planet I live on, for if we lived on the same planet, then there would be no private charities.
Do all those charities, say UNICEF, Doctors without Borders, Amnesty International, Habitat for Humanity, and so on -- do all of those charities do nothing but "watch another person starve" and "frequently hurt other people"? I believe you were trying to be inclusive of all humainity with your "6 billion people" comment and it flies in the face of that which is casually observable.
The poster was taking the moral high ground, hence the use of the word "repugnant."
Yes, I was making a value judgement. I take exception to your characterization of "taking the moral high ground" since it seeks to apply some degree of arrogance. I freely admit that you and I have different values, and I don't see myself of accusing you of any immoral action here.
So when I suggested I would spoil his land in pursuit of my industry, I was taking his view to a silly extreme. Indeed, it was a statement of the fallacious "garden path" variety. Interesting though, his response was that he was legally protected, suggesting that property has some special value protected from my activities (and rightfully so--property should have legal protection).
You were not "taking my view to a silly extreme" because I don't think you understand my view at all. Instead, you were seeking to mock and deride because, presumably, I stated something contrary to one of your values. I consider your quip to be thoughtless and rude.
Funny, his property deserves distinction because it exists in a legal framework. I'm not sure where this legal framework comes from. Certainly not god. Why should I adhere to it? You don't suppose it hase some intrinsic value? Otherwise, might I ignore it for all areas that it is of no use to me?
The reason you ask these questions is because you don't understand my values. I will attempt to explain, and you are free as a bird to pee all over them.
I maintain that every individual has rights to life, liberty, and property, and the primary function of government is to protect individual rights to life, liberty, and property. I believe each individual maintians these rights because they are the bare minimum that is required for every individual to find for her/himself their own version of Truth and their own path to individual happiness. The reason why this is important is because I believe that the purpose of life is to live and and be happy provided that you don't infringe on anyone else's ability to do so (specifically through denying their rights to life, liberty, or property). Thus, I maintain that it is immoral for any individual to deprive another of life, liberty, or property through force or fraud, and that those actions are the only actions which should be illegal. (In that statement I imply that there are some actions which are immoral that should not be illegal.)
So I think you put the cart before the horse when you state that I think that my "property deserves disctinction because it exists in a legal framework". No. My property deserves disctinction because I believe in individual property rights and that it is a primary function of government to protect them. As a rational, peaceful, and moral person, I would much rather sue you in court for destroying my property than have to resort to force myself for lack of a jury system. As to, "Why should I adhere to it?" the answer is because you're a moral person who doesn't want to go around destroying, looting, and pillaging others' property. I would hope that such a morality would exist in you even if the law were not there to prevent you from doing it. I don't want to live among people who would think to themselves, "I'd go on a month-long rape-a-thon if not for those pesky laws!"
This is my conclusion, which you're free to disagree with: at this stage we're just playing with semantics and I assert we can almost freely interchange, in this context, legal with moral.
I disagree wholeheartedly. We are not playing with semantics. Rather, we have a big disagreement on what my values are. Furthermore, we cannot freely interchange "legal" with "moral". I think there are things which are immoral that should not be illegal. For instance, I think Christianity is immoral, but it should not be illegal. (If someone uses Christianity as the excuse to deprive others of life, liberty, or property, then those *actions* should be illegal. I.e., one cannot violate any o
Slashdot Mirror
Muslims aren't allowed to lie about Islam, to each other or to non-Muslims. Muslims can't lie to non-Muslims unless they're being threatened with death. For example, Ammar ibn Yasir (ra) was tortured until he gave up his religion, but Muhammad (peace be upon him) told him it was OK to say that if he didn't mean it. It ends there.
Another Muslim told me that it was permittable for a Muslim to lie to a Kuffar during "wartime". Why should I take your opinion over his? Clearly there is some debate among muslims about when it is appropriate to lie. There are various webpages about this very subject which detail many of the Muslim opinions on this subject.
Or, of course, you could be lying. It seems universal that at least *some* lying to the Kufr is permittable.
I can tell you're just copying accusations from another poster. "Kuffar" isn't the proper grammatic word, so you're getting your so-called knowlege fourth-hand.
What is it supposed to be? "Kuffar" or "Kaffir"? "Koran" or "Qu'ran"? I never claimed to be an expert in Arabic. And it's not like I can count on Muslims to be honest to teach me about their religion and about their hatred for me and about their earnest desires to subject the entire world to Shari'a.
This whole "Muslims are allowed to lie until they control the world" garbage I keep hearing smacks of the same prejudice as the Jews suffered because of the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion."
That book is very popular in the dar al-Islam right now!
It's propaganda that is always used when you want to get rid of people, "Sure they sound good in public, but in their secret meetings, they outline their evil plan."
But Muslims are not being all that "secret" about their desires. Muslims in stockholm wear t-shirts that read: "2030: The Year we Take Over". Muslims in the United States carry signs that feature the White House and the black flag of Jihad above it and the words which read: "Islam will Dominate!" The software company islamgames.com features video games which take place in the future "when Islam has dominated the world". I stated before and maintain: that Shari'a is imposed on the entire world is a mainstream, not extreme, belief among the world's Muslims. And Muslims have been rather brave in expressing their belief that violence and the threat of violence are the proper ways to win the world's respect.
If you're going to say that Surahs and Hadiths make murder allowable, I'd like you to prove it.
From submission.org:
"life is sacred so we are not allowed to commit murder except in the course of justice. (Quran 4:92-93, 6:!51)"
"Oppression is worse than murder. (Quran 2:217)"
So how do you define "justice" and "oppression"? Is it "just" that Shari'a be imposed on the entire world? Are Muslims "oppressed" if the Kufr resist their desires to impose Shari'a on the entire world?
According to the US State Department's report, South America has more terrorism than the Middle East. You just hear more about the Middle East on the news. False perception, its like how people are more afraid of flying then driving, when cars kill so many more.
I went to that web page, and it only had data up to 2003. Furthermore, I didn't see a way to measure that South America has "more" terrorism than the Middle East. More in terms of people killed and injured? More in terms of number of incidents? More in terms of property damage? Furthermore, I'm more interested in stats of terrorist acts committed by non-Muslims versus terrorist acts committed by Muslims in the name of Allah (jihad). Where can I get those stats? I can see a list of terrorst acts committed by your primitive bretheren here.
Good, now you can understand that just because terrorists or guerillas are "Christian," that doesn't make the religion to blame.
If they were doing it for the sake of holy war in the name of Jesus Christ in acc
Since when did I wish that America was as harsh on gays as the Islamic world was? Or are you claiming that I wish the Islamic world was as soft on gays as America is? Either way, you're wrong.
I am thankful that America has become a much better place for gays to live and that many anti-gay sentiments are dying. I do not support gay marriage. I support the separation of marriage and state and thus the termination of special rights for straights.
My wish for the islamic world is far simpler: less is more.
Dar Al Harb: The majority of the population are non-Muslims, and Muslims are actively persecuted.
...
And what does "actively persecuted" mean? Does it mean that someone publishes a cartoon of Mohammud and the government does not kill the cartoonist for doing so? Does it mean that the government does not allow Shari'a-based tribunals? Does it mean that the government resists passing laws based on Shari'a? Does it mean that the people refuse to basically lie down and be raped by muslims on their mad drive to turn the whole world into Shari'a?
We've all seen that Muslims are exceedingly thin-skinned. They riot at the drop of a hat (or at the penning of a cartoon). They believe that violence and the threat of violence is the way to earn respect, and the "moderate" muslims stand by and let this happen.
I am a Muslim and I am living in a Western country and can practice my religion freely. I am here to stay, unless bigots like you take over and drive us out
Any religion whose "religious beliefs" maintain that the overthrow of the government and replacement of the government with one that is necessarily wedded to the religion does NOT belong in the USA. I stand with the Australians: if you want to live under Shari'a, then get out! It means you do not belong here. If you want to live in peace with others of different faiths (and of no faiths) with the full understanding that other people have every right in the world to disrespect and reject your religion as you do theirs, then you may stay. I have no tolerace for freedom-hating religious supremecists. And I have no issue with you calling me a "bigot". All I have to do is point to the actions of Muslims all around the world which don't seem to outrage you one iota. Clearly you have your priorities in order. Muslims kill and maim children? No big deal. Someone criticizes Muslims for killing and maiming children? Holy Shit! They must be BIGOTS!
As an atheist, you offer the position that there is no all-powerful god. Lack of belief still makes you a believer. Atheism and theism are right up there alongside one another -- there's no difference between them whatsoever.
You rely on the same flawed argument that many logic-impaired Christian debators do. You are imposing upon me a belief that I do not hold. I am not a positive atheist ("I believe there is no god."). I am a negative athiest ("I do not believe in a god.")
Likewise, I do not believe in gods. Or godessess. Or lephrechauns. Or Santa Claus. Or in humans living on Jupiter. This is not to say that none of these things exist. It is only that I have not seen sufficient evidence in order to make me belief.
Your god may very well be real. In which case, I say: PROVE IT!
And that's when you reply, "Oh, but you have to have faith!"
the goal of homosexuals is to enforce gay rights on the entire world.
Such as the right to not be gay-bashed? Why is this a bad thing? Is the right to gay-bash something that Muslims can't imagine living without?
They are everything that a conservative Christian fears about liberal democrats except one-hundred times worse.
I think liberal democrats are worse than conservative Christians -- primarily for their bone-headed defense of Islam. I see conservative Christians as my allies since they seem at least dimly aware of the threat that Muslims pose to all of the non-Muslims in the world.
Gays will lie about their plans and desires in accordance with the homosexual agenda.
Perhaps if there were a "gay mohammed" and a "gay quran" and some "gay hadiths" to back up your statement then it would be convincing. Oh wait, those things *do* exist for Muslims. Not to mention their bomb-strapping, rioting, car-burning behavior.
I encourage you look up the gay concept of "ACT UP" which indicates why all agreements made with homosexuals are useless.
I suppose my express distancing of myself from those fags was completely lost on you.
The more straight people (that's you and I) who wake up to the threat to our life, liberty, and property the greater chance we have of the world not becoming one big gay empire.
Yet you can't indicate what threats to life, liberty, and property are posed to anyone by any such "gay agenda". Shari'a, on the other hand, is a mainstream and liberty-crushing belief among millions of muslims. Your post is yet another sad attempt at "tu quoque" which is the most that freedom-hating Muslims can muster when someone starts making simple observations about their primitive and barbaric superstitious beliefs.
Thank you. And before you have any ideas about me, I am not a militant gay man and I reject most of what "gay culture" is and loathe most "gay activists". I hate the fact that they make people think that what they are is what "gay" is supposed to be.
So my personal preferences for both me and you are that you and I have the right to find happiness however we see fit provided that we do not harm anyone else.
I'm glad that you found my link on dhimmis informative. Believe me, the goal of Muslims is to enforce Shari'a on the entire world. They are everything that a liberal fears about fundie Christians except one-hundred times worse. Muslims will lie about their plans and desires in accordance with their religion. I encourage you look up the Islamic concept of "hudna" which indicates why all treaties made with Muslims are useless. (It gives insight into why Usama Bin Laden offered a "truce".) The more Kufr (that's you and I) who wake up to the threat to our life, liberty, and property the greater chance we have of the world not becoming one big Muslim empire. Europe may very well be lost, and that makes me very sad. I love Europe, but its future is rather dim.
Who is trying to force you? Sheesh, why does everyone feel so threatened that Muslims are trying to force their religion on people? Honestly, when has a Muslim ever come to you on the street and tried to convert you?
/sarcasm Hindus believe they will dominate the world, some Jewish leaders think Israel will as well. Why single Islam out?
No, but that's only because I live in the USA. Muslims are still a big minority here. It's the actions of Muslims in the UK (wanting to set up a state within the state that abides by shari'a law) or muslims in Sweden wearing t-shirts that say, "2030: the year we take over" that give me a good idea of what Muslims intend for me once the Muslim population in the USA is significant enough.
I notice your attempt to change the subject to Christianity that you commit several times in your defense. I can understand why: you'd much rather me talk about Christianity than continue talking about Islam. By discussing Islam its ugly secrets come out and the Kufr will wake up to the threat.
The Penalty for Homosexual sex in public is death. According to Shariah, you need 3 witnesses of the act, which makes it pretty clear that you can't enfore this law in the privacy of your own home, and Islam regards privacy of the home as an important rule.
Under Shari'a, as a dhimmi, I cannot testify against a Muslim whereas a Muslim can testify against me. And I've read enough threads on ummah.com to know the general feeling of Muslims against homosexuality. Three muslims can just choose to testify against me and then I'm murdered in accordance with Shari'a. Oh, muslims would never do this? Sure... and they'd never beat up gays or make bombs to kill children, either.
Shariah does allow adoption, although it prefers someone from the extended family.
"...Nor has He made your adopted sons your (biological) sons. Such is (only) your (manner of) speech by your mouths. But Allah tells (you) the Truth, and He shows the (right) Way. Call them by (the names of) their fathers; that is juster in the sight of Allah. But if you know not their father's (names, call them) your brothers in faith, or your trustees. But there is no blame on you if you make a mistake therein. (What counts is) the intention of your hearts. And Allah is Oft-Returning, Most Merciful." 33:4-5
In other words, I'm not my son's parent. I'm merely a "caregiver". This is in direct violation of my rights as an adoptive parent, and one of many good reasons to reject Islam.
It is NOT permissible for a Muslim to lie, unless threatened by death for telling the truth. "Taqiyya" is a Shi'ite thing where they are afraid to pray differently around Sunnis. It does not usually allow a Muslim to lie to non-Muslims, and lying is a major and hellworthy sin.
Note the key word: "it does not usually allow a Muslim to lie to Kufr". In other words, it is sometimes permissible! So much for the "major and hellworthy sin"! The muslim from whyislam.org indicated that it was permissible to lie to the Kufr "only during war." And which "house" do I live in? It's the Dar al-Harb, correct? That means "house of war", correct?
http://www.islamreview.com/articles/lying.shtml
Christians believe they will dominate the world. Oh God, I better lock my doors and avoid those Catholic neighbors of mine.
Because of the violent actions of Muslims and the hundreds of violent terror attacks that take place all over the world in the name of Allah and for the purpose of Jihad. I know that I can post blasphemous images of Jesus Christ with impunity. Can I do the same thing with images of your prophet? Muslims are already calling for the murder of the "blasphemers", as expected, and the cartoonists, as usual, have had to go into hiding to avoid the murderous wrath of vengeful Muslims. The Quran sanctions violence (remember "strike at the neck of unbelievers"? Hence, behead
People do cry about the religious right, but if they had the power people claim, I wouldn't be seeing commercials about a gay cowboy movie which will likely clean up as the Oscars.
I criticize Christianity with abplomb when sanctimonious Christians start using their religious beliefs as an excuse to attack me. I freely admit that Christianity is both a fear-based and a guilt-based religion.
Islam, on the other hand, is a violence-based religion. Notice the "sword of Allah" on Saudi Arabia's flag? Notice the AK-47 on Hezbollah's flag? I don't bother discussing with Muslims, because I don't know if they're lying or not. Christians can put up a good deal of resistance, but Muslims may very well murder me if I dared criticize Islam in the same way I did Christianity. This is one of several reasons why I think Islam should be resisted.
Oh there's a problem with some Muslims, yeah.
If there is a "problem" with only 1% of Muslims, then we have a problem with 12 million people.
That doesn't mean there's a problem with Islam.
I beg to differ. See my other post which I think details the problems that I have with Islam.
Murder and terrorism are sins in Islam, ask any Muslim you meet. Don't believe me?
No, I don't believe you. A muslim admitted to me that it is permissible in Islam for a Muslim to lie to a Kuffar. This is called "taqiyya". And murder is a sin in Islam, but it's spun as "the killing of innocents is haraam". No kuffar is "innocent" in Islam. Various Sura and Hadith make this very clear.
Think of it this way. South America has more terrorist acts than the Middle East, but nobody blames Christianity.
First, do you have a source for this? Muslims commit dozens if not hundreds of terrorist attacks every month across the world. They do it for the sake of Jihad and in the name of Allah. I see this as a problem in Islam.
Second, South America has its share of Marxist guerrillas. I think it's instructive to examine the motives of terrorists in South America and decide of they're being done in the name of Christianity or in the name of class warfare and "revolucion". My friend from Colombia, who was studying in the USA because he was a member of the upper class, commented: "I HATE guerrillas!" (In his colombian accent, the word was, "gare-ee-jahs".) He mentioned to me that some guerrillas had set off a bomb that killed some people and spray-painted their message on the restaurant wall: "Los ricon tambien lloran" (The rich cry, too). Such an attack is done out of class warfare, not out of expanding Christendom.
Oh all the Muslim-bashers and Islamophobes are going to come out of the woodwork
And so will all the dhimmis.
I am a gay man and an atheist who has no intention of following any superstitious belief, Islam included.
The penalty for homosexuality under Shari'a (Islamic law) is death. I learned this from a discussion I had with a muslim from whyislam.org.
I am also an adoptive parent. Shari'a does not recognize adoptive parents. I learned this from the same discussion.
It is permittable for a Muslim to lie to a Kuffar (unbeliever). This is called taqiyya.
The belief that "Islam will dominate the world" is a mainstream belief in Islam. Not an extremist belief, a mainstream belief.
When the editor of Southern Voice (a gay newspaper in the Southeast USA) traveled to Amsterdam, supposedly a "liberal" city, he was gay-bashed and suffered injuries. The perpetrators? Muslims who were following their religious beliefs.
So when you start accusing people like me of having "islamophobic" sentiments, I have to agree and indicate to you that your accusation sounds a lot like, "She deserved to be raped. Didn't you see the skirt she was wearing?"
There are legitimate reasons for both fearing and resisting Islam. The hatred of freedom of expression, the denigration of gays and women, the 7th-century mindset, the second-class status imposed on non-Muslims (dhimmis), and the punitive justice system are all elements of mainstream (NOT "extremist") Islam that need to be discussed, exposed, and resisted. Not apologized for and certainly not defended in the name of "multiculturalism" or anything else!
Heh -- okay, let me modify that then: Nazism is about a boot crushing a human face forever with glee, and then adding insult to injury by declaring said face subhuman.
You're still getting it wrong. You think that Nazism was "cruelty for cruelty's sake" where Nazism was trying to create a better world by removing all evil "races" from the world, so that the "master race" could rightly populate it. Assigning them cruelty makes them easier to hate, but you have no way of measuring it.
I still think there's a meaningful distinction to be made between something that leads to tyranny via accident, and something that leads to tyranny by intent...
You are defending communism. The tyranny in communism did not happen by accident. Stalin didn't send anyone to the gulag by accident. Lenin didn't establish a secret police by accident. Pol Pot didn't establish S-21 by accident.
Nazism is about a boot crushing a human face forever with glee.
I don't think that's accurate. Nazism maintained that some people were not human. Subhumans, if you will. Therefore, exterminating them was not like killing "regular" people. You're expressing Nazism as something that is "cruelty for cruelty's sake" when I think it has much more to do with ideas such as "racial purity". You can find plenty of examples of abject cruelty within Communist regimes, such as Pol Pot's infamous S-21 torture and death camp.
Not that I'm apologizing for Nazism. What I object to is your implication that Nazism is worse than Communism, and your hint that Communism is, on some level, defensible. I think that they are evil for the same reasons: they both inevitably lead to mass abrogation the individual rights to life, liberty, and property. To me, the notable difference between the two, generally speaking, in that the Communists murdered and enslaved people based on what they did or thought whereas the Nazis murdered and enslaved people based on what they were.
I think all tests have a margin of error.
This is not about margin of error.
The statement is this: "At present there is no recognized standard for establishing the presence or absence of HIV-1 antibody in human blood."
This doesn't have anything to do with the accuracy of the test. That would imply that we have a standard of establishing the presence or absence of HIV-1. Since there is no standard, how can we know if the margin of error is 1% or 100%? You are trying to paint the fact that we have no way of knowing if a person is infected as an issue of accuracy.
However, that also doesn't mean that simply because we can't have definitive results, it doesn't exist.
That is not my argument at all. It's not that we don't have "definitive" results. It's that we don't know what the results mean because there is no recognized standard of establishing the presence or absense of HIV-1 in human blood. The best we can do is look at the results and say, "I think, but don't really know, that you might be infected."
Furthermore, I have never claimed that HIV does not exist. I repeat: I do not believe that HIV exists. What this means is that no one has show me sufficient evidence for me to believe that HIV exists. They only arguments that they use are consensus and correlation. Correlation, weak evidence in and of itself, is entirely and solely dependant on the validity of the HIV tests.
We don't know the pos--
Stop trying to change the subject.
Home preganancy tests are't scientifically valid either an--
Stop trying to change the subject.
I would like an answer to this question: Do you think that phrases such as "At present there is no recognized standard for establishing the presence or absence of HIV-1 antibody in human blood." would give valid reason to doubt the meaningfulness of any HIV test?
I'm confused... so what is this:l der/koch9_2.jpg
http://www.aids-info.ch/bilder/schule_aids/jpg_bi
I don't know. It could be any number of things. I'm certainly not going to assume that it's HIV and that just because a picture of something exists then HIV exists and HIV causes AIDS.
And what is killing people who supposedly don't actually have aids?
I didn't claim people didn't have AIDS. I repeat: I don't believe in HIV, and I don't believe that HIV causes AIDS.
Remeber that the definition of "AIDS" is "HIV + X" Where "X" is one of many diseases, all of which can exists in the absense of HIV. In other words, if you have pneumonia but are "HIV negative", then you have pneumonia. If you have pneumonia but are "HIV positive", then you have AIDS.
So, in answer to your question "what is killing people", my response would be, "Quite likely, the X." It could also be the poisonous "AIDS therapies" that people take that could be killing them. It's well-known that AZT is highly toxic and eventually lethal.
"The better question is... let's just say they're dieing from a mystical force which isn't caused by a retrovirus. This mystical force is passed from one individual to another through body fluids... why don't we just call the mystical force HIV?"
I like the idea of you calling HIV mystical, as I believe its study has little to do with science. Anyway, if what you say is true, then there would be evidence of such. Why has AIDS stayed largely confined to its original risk groups? Why has it not spread into the white, heterosexual population as an infectious, sexually-transmitted disease would be expected to do? As is, you don't have infectious patterns to rely on to show evidence for HIV/AIDS. Instead, you rely on the only two things you have: consensus and correlation (via the "HIV test").
Who cares if it is or isn't a virus.
I care, very deeply, that someone show me that A) a unique, exogenous retrovirus exists, B) it is infectious, C) **HOW** it causes AIDS. I regard this issue as vitally important to me believing your point of view.
Your life can be extended with drugs designed to treat it.
The drugs designed to "treat" it rely only on CD4 counts and "viral load" to show their effectiveness, and I have questions about using either of those to judge whether or not a drug is helpful. FDA stage III trials are *routinely* skipped for "AIDS therapies" so we specifically don't know anything about their mortality. Based on that, by what means do you conclude that AIDS drugs extend life?
If untreated, you will die*. *One or two exceptions on the planet.
Why do you fail to admit that also, if "treated", you will also die? Do you forget that not a single life has been saved following the HIV/AIDS theory? Do you also neglect to admit that AIDS drugs are toxic? Do you know what "buffalo humps" are? Do you know about liver toxicity? Do you know the history of AZT? Of all of the claims of the HIV/AIDS theory, the "You have to take your drugs!" is, by far, the most threatening, the most harmful, the most insidious, and the most irrational. I don't understand why you expect to make that statement unchallenged.
I just hope this isn't some form of self denial. "There is no way I can get HIV, or pass it on to my partners... therefore there is no reason to get tested." Complete disregard for the safety of others is almost criminal.
There is no reason to get tested for HIV because the HIV tests are meaningless.
If you read the article that I posted entitled "The House that AIDS built" you'll read what I post here. HIV test manufacturers (there are several companies that make "HIV tests") are legally obligated to disclose the limitations of their tests. Here is some of the verbiage from HIV test inserts:
* "At present there is no recognized standard for establishing the presence or absence of HIV-1 antibody in human blood." (Abbott Laboratories HIV Test - ElA)
* "The risk of an asymptomatic person with a repeatedly reactive serum developing AIDS or an AIDS-related condition is not known." (Genetic Systems HIV Test - Peptide EIA)
* "The AMPLICOR HIV-1 MONITOR test is not intended to be used as a screening test for HIV or as a diagnostic test to confirm the presence of HIV infection" (Roche, Amplicor HIV Test - PCR).
* "Do not use this kit as the sole basis of diagnosis of HIV-1 infection." (Epitope, Inc. HIV Test - Western Blot)
* "[Positive test results can occur due to] prior pregnancy, blood transfusions... and other potential nonspecific reactions." [Vironostika HIV Test, 2003].
Do you think that phrases such as "At present there is no recognized standard for establishing the presence or absence of HIV-1 antibody in human blood." would be significant reason to doubt the validity of any HIV test? This is what the test manufacturer admits about their own "HIV test".
It is, of course, much, much worse that just what I can detail here. What is criminal is that "HIV tests" are passed off as "medicine" or "science", particularly in light of the fact that an "HIV positive" status is a virtual death sentence. If I can, for a moment, assume that the HIV/AIDS theory is completely true, what do you think that the effect on a person's health would be if they are given a FALSE "HIV positive" status?
I don't think these opinions are inherently evil to have. However, if people with that opinion are also participating in unprotected sex, and are unwilling to be tested, that is irresponsible to society.
First, the notion of "irresponsible to society" and "evil" are functionally equivalent.
Second, your statement depends entirely on whether or not the "HIV tests" are meaningful, and that is begging the question.
This whole computer virus thing is just a conspiracy designed to sell useless software and spread fear.
First, you are aruging by analogy. It does nothing to show that HIV exists or that HIV causes AIDS.
Second, if you read my post you'll see that I wrote, "I despise conspiracy theories." AIDS is not a conspiracy theory. It is a huge industry and a part of American culture.
In two years, I will graduate from medical school and treat, without predjudice, patients who might believe as you do.
Just remember: "First, do no harm." Then go read that web site entited "The house that AIDS built" to see what other doctors do in the name of medicine. Not all treatments help, and doctors are mere humans who are far, far from gods.
If you should become infected with HIV and acquire AIDS, but refuse treatment, I'll wish you well.
I appreciate your well-wishes, but no one can be shown to be infected with HIV. The HIV tests are meaningless. "HIV positive" is meaningless. I may, on the other hand, may acquire one of the many diseases on the ever-changing list of "AIDS-associated illnesses" (excepting cervical cancer, as I am male), in which case I will choose to be treated for that illness. But I will never, ever, under any circumstances have another "HIV test".
But if you should have a change of heart, then I will use my conspiracy-driven science to help you to the best of my ability.
It's not my heart that would change (as it is an organ that pumps blood in my chest), but rather my mind that would change. And the only thing that would cause me to change my mind is evidence. Specifically, show me who did the experiment that A) shows that HIV exists, and B) shows *HOW* HIV causes AIDS, and also show me the details of that experiment so I can judge that it's valid and thus does not rely on "I'm a scientist and you're not, so you have to believe me!" and I will change my mind. Perhaps you are aware that it used to be assumed that HIV killed T-cells, but then no one could show how this was happening. So scientists started guessing: "Maybe HIV kills T-cells, but the body replaces them so fast that we can't see it. And then this process gradually wears down the immune system." Plain guesswork -- not science and definitely not medicine! This is the type of crap that passes for "science" and isn't shown by the breathless press releases that journalists live and get paid for.
Your sneering attitude harms and does not help your cause. The burden of proof is on you.
Okay. I'm a skeptic most of the time but I don't buy the perth group's basic arguments. I haven't read through their entire document, but I smell a rat.
It's not "entire document" but rather "all of their documents". Plural. And yes, it is difficult reading.
AIDS obviously does exist, and if HIV doesn't cause it what does?
AIDS is defined as "HIV plus one of many other illnesses, all of which can exist in the absense of HIV". All of the "AIDS-associated" illnesses existed before AIDS and before the HIV/AIDS theory. If HIV doesn't cause it, then perhaps it is one of the many, many causes which typically cause the AIDS-associated illnesses. This is an answer that humans don't like to hear: the solution to this problem might NOT be a single pathogen. It might be many unrelated causes.
This is not the first time this has happened. Scientists used to believe headstrong that a pathogen caused pellagra. Lots of people died unnecessarily because of that belief.
And If hiv doesn't exist, what is this: http://www.avert.org/virus.htm ??
If HIV does not exist, then the data on that page is creative fiction. Everyone can repeat the AIDS dogma, but it doesn't answer tough questions that HIV/AIDS proponents don't like to answer. If you scroll down on that page, you'll see a link that reads, "evidence that HIV causes AIDS". (Interesting that they would need to include this.) Click on it and go to the next page. Halfway down the next page they mention Koch's postulates and then make this extraordinary statement: "Even Koch recognized that in some cases not all of his conditions could be met, so other evidence should also be considered. This is particularly true when the germ is a virus rather than a bacterium. Modern scientists are willing to consider a wide range of evidence."
The reason why that statement is extraordinary is because the HIV/AIDS heretics have long claimed that the HIV/AIDS theory did not fulfill Koch's postulates, and the orthodoxy has countered, "Yes, it does!" The writers of this web page acutally admit that HIV does NOT fulfill Koch's postulates. Instead, they claim that Koch's postulates are irrelevant.
Reading that page is difficult because the page relies on the reader's ignorance of terms such as "isolation" to make its points. The page claims, "Researchers have been able to isolate and culture HIV from most AIDS patients whom they have examined". To "isolate" means to remove everything that is not-X from a melange of X and other stuff, and the way that it is done with retroviruses is through a cetrifuge with bands of increasingly dense sucrose. It's well-known that retroviruses band at 1.16 g/mL density.
No one has done this with HIV. It's likely that when the writers say "isolate" they're acutally referring to something quite different that does not actually isolate anything. HIV/AIDS researchers have played this trick many times. After all, it's what they're paid to do. No one outside of the HIV/AIDS orthodoxy gets funded.
I could go on for hours about problems with their arguement, but I suspect they have some motive for believing what they say other than the facts presented.
I, too, can go on for hours about this subject. It is deep, complex, and not for the faint-of-heart. And I believe that I can convince you that there are unfixable flaws in the HIV/AIDS theory if you are willing to accept that you might be wrong and are patient enough to hear the evidence. I also believe that you might another motivation for defending the HIV/AIDS theory. What is it that you feel you must defend here? Scientific integrity? The honor of the medical field? The pride of the journalists? Lots of "lay people" get really, REALLY angry when HIV/AIDS is questioned, and I am really curious about that anger. I certainly understand the anger of someone who's on the AIDS dole. Yours is more puzzling to me.
Beware: what I am going to write is one-thousand times more offensive than claiming that I don't believe in god, or that I don't believe in human races.
I do not buy the notion that A. HIV exists, or B. HIV causes AIDS. This statement usually elicits boatloads of insults calling me stupid, blind, unscientific, or someone who is solely motivated by a desire to have non-stop unprotected sex. Keep in mind that none of those statements mean that HIV exists or causes AIDS. They are merely punishment for someone who isn't buying into the orthodox theory. I believe that I can provide you with enough material to inspire you to doubt the HIV/AIDS theory, but it is very long, very difficult reading, and replete with many concepts about which I am only barely versed. I am no virologist, but that doesn't mean I have to accept the word of someone else because I am not.
I believe that this press announcement is sound and fury signifying nothing. AIDS will never be cured because it is, more than anything else, a jobs program for A) AIDS researchers, B) pharmaceutical companies, and C) the press. If AIDS is cured then all of these people are out of jobs.
The reason why this press release exists is because it's salacious. "A cure for AIDS! Can you believe it!" Perhaps you all don't remember when "eradication" was the AIDS buzz of the day. "Hit early, hit hard" was the mantra. Of course, it was bullshit, and no lives were saved, but it did help warm us up to the idea of getting people on the drugs as soon as they "tested positive" for HIV rather than when they started getting sick.
I know that there will people who will want to mod me to oblivion for stating that I do not believe the "accepted" view. I do not deny that people have died and are dying. My position is skepticism, and I despise conspiracy theories. There will also be people who reply to this with insults and those posts will get modded up. AIDS is part of our culture and it fulfills many different roles. As a gay man, I am committing high treason to the "gay cause" by stating my skepticism. If the skeptical position is utter crap (and it may very well be), then it can be critically analyzed and it will be found lacking. I invite that kind of criticism (but have rarely seen it).
The skeptical position is worthy of being investigated. I warn you: it is not an easy read, and the ugliness of the HIV/AIDS proponents is breathtaking. For example, they have openly stated that people like me should be thrown in jail for not believing.
If you are interested in the topic, I invite you to examine the articles at the Perth Group, which has been skeptical of a human immunodeficiency virus as the cause of AIDS since it was announced by Dr. Gallo. http://www.theperthgroup.com/ It's all science. Slow reading.
If you are interested in the topic but want something more "juicy", then you might want to read about black children being taken from their parents and forced to be human guniea pigs for AIDS drugs that poisoned them to death via stomach tubes. Yes, this happens in America. Welcome to the AIDS industry. http://www.altheal.org/toxicity/house.htm (warning: not safe for work)
Despite what others think about me personally, I think my position (skepticism) has merit and deserves a place in the table of discussion. I pray that the moderators will see that free speech and scientific discussion, even regarding positions that others hate, has more merit than censorship and invective.
Result: The new cool things will happen on Linux or Mac, not on Windows.
And the fully-financed and, thus, well-marketed things will continue to happen on the platform with 95% market share: Windows. "New cool things" appeal to geeks with time to tinker and aren't afraid of things like soldering. The jillions of other folks with disposable income are looking for well-packaged products that they can buy off the shelves at best buy. And those things will continue to be sufficiently "new" and "cool" enough to not make Linux or Mac any more important than you wish they were.
I'm typing this from my Linux workstation at work. Yes, I love Linux, but you have to admit that there are things more significant that your sense of l337ness at being a geek.
Perhaps something that amplifies the bad effects of propaganda is that our media for the past 7 years stopped doing any investigation and just parrots whatever the White House puts out as its message.
Whereas others will point out the fact that the New York Times heralded the Abu Graib prison scandal on its front page far more than they needed to and saw that as evidential of the "mainstream media" being united against the White House in specific and America in general.
I think the truth lies somewhere in between your "completely complicit" view and others' "completely treasonous" view. Then again, my view is probably just as much a value judgement as those other two. In other words: we see what we want to see.
When the government manufacturers its own news you know something is really wrong with the truth.
1. And what about when special interest groups, media conglomerates, and film makers manufacture news? Certainly the government is more dangerous, since they have the legal right to use deadly force, but I think that the other groups (in particular, film makers) are definately more effective since highly-edited, full-motion video with sound is the singlemost effective propaganda platform we humans have devised.
2. Are you talking about truth (as in "truth table") or "The TRUTH(TM)" (meaning the subjective view of reality that all humans have filtered through their own arbitrarily-chosen values)?
The path to a fascist state is shorter in the US than most people thinks. Mostly because i suspect not that many really understand what fascism is.
The problem with "fascism" is that it is always used in the sense of a value judgement. How about we use "totalitarianism" instead? Such a word could eaily encompass Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and even be used to describe some recent power grabs by recent US presidents. To me, it basically means that the government is going to tell me what to do as much as it can and threaten the loss of life, liberty, and property if I don't comply.
I saw the picture and thought of Emperor Palpatine saying,
"If you will not be turned, then you will be DESTROYED!!!!"
(cue lightning)
Now, where's a designer with some M4D Photoshop skills when I need one?
The one I live on is populated by 6 billion greedy bastards who'd just as soon watch another person starve than do anything to help them, and frequently hurt other people because it advances their goals.
That's not the planet I live on, for if we lived on the same planet, then there would be no private charities.
Here's some charities:
List of Charities
Do all those charities, say UNICEF, Doctors without Borders, Amnesty International, Habitat for Humanity, and so on -- do all of those charities do nothing but "watch another person starve" and "frequently hurt other people"? I believe you were trying to be inclusive of all humainity with your "6 billion people" comment and it flies in the face of that which is casually observable.
Do you just hate humanity?
The poster was taking the moral high ground, hence the use of the word "repugnant."
Yes, I was making a value judgement. I take exception to your characterization of "taking the moral high ground" since it seeks to apply some degree of arrogance. I freely admit that you and I have different values, and I don't see myself of accusing you of any immoral action here.
So when I suggested I would spoil his land in pursuit of my industry, I was taking his view to a silly extreme. Indeed, it was a statement of the fallacious "garden path" variety. Interesting though, his response was that he was legally protected, suggesting that property has some special value protected from my activities (and rightfully so--property should have legal protection).
You were not "taking my view to a silly extreme" because I don't think you understand my view at all. Instead, you were seeking to mock and deride because, presumably, I stated something contrary to one of your values. I consider your quip to be thoughtless and rude.
Funny, his property deserves distinction because it exists in a legal framework. I'm not sure where this legal framework comes from. Certainly not god. Why should I adhere to it? You don't suppose it hase some intrinsic value? Otherwise, might I ignore it for all areas that it is of no use to me?
The reason you ask these questions is because you don't understand my values. I will attempt to explain, and you are free as a bird to pee all over them.
I maintain that every individual has rights to life, liberty, and property, and the primary function of government is to protect individual rights to life, liberty, and property. I believe each individual maintians these rights because they are the bare minimum that is required for every individual to find for her/himself their own version of Truth and their own path to individual happiness. The reason why this is important is because I believe that the purpose of life is to live and and be happy provided that you don't infringe on anyone else's ability to do so (specifically through denying their rights to life, liberty, or property). Thus, I maintain that it is immoral for any individual to deprive another of life, liberty, or property through force or fraud, and that those actions are the only actions which should be illegal. (In that statement I imply that there are some actions which are immoral that should not be illegal.)
So I think you put the cart before the horse when you state that I think that my "property deserves disctinction because it exists in a legal framework". No. My property deserves disctinction because I believe in individual property rights and that it is a primary function of government to protect them. As a rational, peaceful, and moral person, I would much rather sue you in court for destroying my property than have to resort to force myself for lack of a jury system. As to, "Why should I adhere to it?" the answer is because you're a moral person who doesn't want to go around destroying, looting, and pillaging others' property. I would hope that such a morality would exist in you even if the law were not there to prevent you from doing it. I don't want to live among people who would think to themselves, "I'd go on a month-long rape-a-thon if not for those pesky laws!"
This is my conclusion, which you're free to disagree with: at this stage we're just playing with semantics and I assert we can almost freely interchange, in this context, legal with moral.
I disagree wholeheartedly. We are not playing with semantics. Rather, we have a big disagreement on what my values are. Furthermore, we cannot freely interchange "legal" with "moral". I think there are things which are immoral that should not be illegal. For instance, I think Christianity is immoral, but it should not be illegal. (If someone uses Christianity as the excuse to deprive others of life, liberty, or property, then those *actions* should be illegal. I.e., one cannot violate any o