Of course I'm not blaming men -- don't be ridiculous. I'm not blaming anybody. Read the comment again. Read the parent for context before you chime in. The claim was that the spread of AIDS is "limited really to people with (typically MANY) multiple sexual partners and intravenous drug users."
My point was simply that there are many infected people who were not promiscuous. I did not say these people are all women.
This is irrelevant to the point I was making, and you would know that if you would read, but at the risk of confusing you further: (1) In sub-Sarahan Africa, most of those people are indeed women. (2) Women are physically more vulnerable to heterosexual transmission than men.
Your can blather on about who sleeps with whom, but your ignorance about this disease is obvious.
Re:Don't forget Africa (seems everyone has)
on
A Flu Pandemic?
·
· Score: 1
The dick head is also making up numbers. A quick check on the internet tells me that the US has budgeted "$2.8 billion to fight the AIDS pandemic as well as tuberculosis and malaria that prey on AIDS victims." http://go.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=polit icsNews&storyID=10242196&src=rss/politicsNews
The $18.4B figure he cites was the size of the entire US foreign aid budget last year.
I don't know if I should even engage in an argument about which sick person is more at "fault" (how about all those flu sufferers-- can't they just wash their hands???) but you are forgetting that many, many AIDS victims are women who are married to men who have multiple partners.
More importantly, do you have the slightest clue what's going on in Africa wrt AIDS?
And where on earth did you get that $18.4 billion figure? That's the approximate size of the entire US foreign aid budget. AIDS is getting something less than 3 billion for the coming fiscal year. Which is NOTHING. That money is also used to fight TB and other diseases that tend to attack AIDS sufferers.
Yes, AIDS is very preventable. This requires education, which costs money.
AIDS is most certainly NOT "in the news every day" -- you and your ignorance are living proof.
Only if there are significant genetic differences between the two groups you describe. There's no reason to assume that there is some simple relationship between genes and education/wealth/success.
more intelligent people have fewer children
I know this sounds like nitpicking, but the relationship is between # of children and education, not intelligence. It's important to maintain that distinction, I think.
...if one assumes more intelligent people tend to have higher educations... then we may well be devolving because stupid people disproportionately reproduce.
You make a lot of assumptions. Maybe you need to raise your education.
When you say that spyware removal tools are "free" I guess you aren't counting the generous donations you've made to Spybot and whoever else is doing the actual work while you rake in all that money.
Right?
There is in fact no such thing as art for art's sake, art that stands above classes, art that is detached from or independent of politics. Proletarian literature and art are part of the whole proletarian revolutionary cause.
Why are all you housebound ex-geniuses spending your free time MOWING? Please stop. Please.
Plant something else--grass wastes water; mowing pollutes.
And I'm sick of the yard nerds waking me up every Saturday morning.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course I'm not blaming men -- don't be ridiculous. I'm not blaming anybody. Read the comment again. Read the parent for context before you chime in. The claim was that the spread of AIDS is "limited really to people with (typically MANY) multiple sexual partners and intravenous drug users."
My point was simply that there are many infected people who were not promiscuous. I did not say these people are all women.
This is irrelevant to the point I was making, and you would know that if you would read, but at the risk of confusing you further: (1) In sub-Sarahan Africa, most of those people are indeed women. (2) Women are physically more vulnerable to heterosexual transmission than men.
Your can blather on about who sleeps with whom, but your ignorance about this disease is obvious.
The parent post complains about a supposed $18.4 billion spent on AIDS -- that figure equals the entire US foreign aid budget for last year. For the coming fiscal year, we're actually budgeting something less than $3 billion on AIDS spending overseas.t icsNews&storyID=10242196&src=rss/politicsNews
http://go.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=poli
The dick head is also making up numbers. A quick check on the internet tells me that the US has budgeted "$2.8 billion to fight the AIDS pandemic as well as tuberculosis and malaria that prey on AIDS victims."t icsNews&storyID=10242196&src=rss/politicsNews
http://go.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=poli
The $18.4B figure he cites was the size of the entire US foreign aid budget last year.
I don't know if I should even engage in an argument about which sick person is more at "fault" (how about all those flu sufferers-- can't they just wash their hands???) but you are forgetting that many, many AIDS victims are women who are married to men who have multiple partners. More importantly, do you have the slightest clue what's going on in Africa wrt AIDS? And where on earth did you get that $18.4 billion figure? That's the approximate size of the entire US foreign aid budget. AIDS is getting something less than 3 billion for the coming fiscal year. Which is NOTHING. That money is also used to fight TB and other diseases that tend to attack AIDS sufferers. Yes, AIDS is very preventable. This requires education, which costs money. AIDS is most certainly NOT "in the news every day" -- you and your ignorance are living proof.
--that's what she says on the site. I certainly hope it's good stuff.
Who is saying that? Nobody.
Only if there are significant genetic differences between the two groups you describe. There's no reason to assume that there is some simple relationship between genes and education/wealth/success.
more intelligent people have fewer children
I know this sounds like nitpicking, but the relationship is between # of children and education, not intelligence. It's important to maintain that distinction, I think.
Now Matt, if I didn't have a brilliant sense of humor, how could I have made that amazing joke about you "raising your education"?
BTW, was that the funny part of your post? -- "more intelligent people tend to have higher educations" ??
If you think your stupid (or perhaps I should say "low educated") assumption is accurate, then the "whole thing" was not so tongue in cheek.
...if one assumes more intelligent people tend to have higher educations... then we may well be devolving because stupid people disproportionately reproduce.
You make a lot of assumptions. Maybe you need to raise your education.
There's nothing wrong with it that can't be cured by allowing destitute senior citizens to starve to death on the streets.
I certainly don't want to be having to step over some smelly old people or their corpses every time I leave the house!
When you say that spyware removal tools are "free" I guess you aren't counting the generous donations you've made to Spybot and whoever else is doing the actual work while you rake in all that money. Right?
We can learn what we did not know. We are not only good at destroying the old world, we are also good at building the new.
There is in fact no such thing as art for art's sake, art that stands above classes, art that is detached from or independent of politics. Proletarian literature and art are part of the whole proletarian revolutionary cause.
* * *
To read too many books is harmful.
Why are all you housebound ex-geniuses spending your free time MOWING? Please stop. Please. Plant something else--grass wastes water; mowing pollutes. And I'm sick of the yard nerds waking me up every Saturday morning.
IMnvHO it's better than Snowcrash, even