Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I didn't think I was being subtle, LOL. But seriously, what did you find so "offensive" in my post (especially if you knew I was joking)? Color me confused!
To reiterate, I was saying it's time this forum stops the endless stream of gun-related threads... we've had like 20000 of them since the shooting, so I'm pretty sure everything that needed to be said has been said. Conservatives: Lib'rels wanna take our guns! Liberals: No, we don't. /discussion.
At this point, people living with HIV who have been on modern cocktails don't see a real difference in their life expectancy. HIV is nothing like what it was in the 80s or 90s where there were few effective treatments - today, for most people it's just another pill to take in the morning.
PS - Brazil stopped their HIV epidemic in its tracks by offering free medical care for those with the disease. If you have HIV/AIDS that is controlled by medication, your risk of spreading the disease (even if you were having unprotected sex) is very low. The real people you need to worry about are the people who don't know they have HIV, so any kind of list would be utterly useless.
I didn't think I was being subtle, LOL. But seriously, what did you find so "offensive" in my post (especially if you knew I was joking)? Color me confused!
To reiterate, I was saying it's time this forum stops the endless stream of gun-related threads... we've had like 20000 of them since the shooting, so I'm pretty sure everything that needed to be said has been said. Conservatives: Lib'rels wanna take our guns! Liberals: No, we don't. /discussion.
Oh, it was much less about your post and me simply drawing a comparison that by printing the names of the gun owners, you are effectively doing the same as if someone were to print the names of AIDS carriers.
I guess I didn't really have a point other than to illustrate the comparison. It was a proactive attempt to eliminate hypocrisy.
Oh, it was much less about your post and me simply drawing a comparison that by printing the names of the gun owners, you are effectively doing the same as if someone were to print the names of AIDS carriers.
I guess I didn't really have a point other than to illustrate the comparison. It was a proactive attempt to eliminate hypocrisy.
And I was asking (in a different post) if this hypocrisy even exists, since I - a "liberal" - was never consulted before they printed those names. So in my personal opinion, neither is okay! Has any liberal here said otherwise, or is this just faux rage over something an independent source decided to do?
Why do you start thread? I wish we had a shrink here.
Notice he made sure in his very first post to tell everyone no one in "his circle" has AIDS. That's pretty much the usual "I'm going to talk about gays but I don't want anyone to think I'm gay, I'm not I'm straight, I'm 100% heterosexual, but I really, really like talking about gays on the internet and I know a whole lot about gay sex, so I'm going to tell you all about gay sex and here's what I think about gays."
It's a riot. They do it every time. He even made a post about gays and rest stops.
What's more dangerous that hanging in an AIDS carriers house?
I've been "hanging in an AIDS carrier's house" for about twenty years now. We've been good friends and I have seen him have good years and bad years. It's about as scary and dangerous as it is being around a person with flat feet.
Alas, I would venture a guess that ignorance and prejudice are quite dangerous. Good for you for remaining clueless so many years after the proliferation of AIDS - that must have taken quite a bit of effort.
Notice he made sure in his very first post to tell everyone no one in "his circle" has AIDS. That's pretty much the usual "I'm going to talk about gays but I don't want anyone to think I'm gay, I'm not I'm straight, I'm 100% heterosexual, but I really, really like talking about gays on the internet and I know a whole lot about gay sex, so I'm going to tell you all about gay sex and here's what I think about gays."
It's a riot. They do it every time. He even made a post about gays and rest stops.
I know, it's really quite odd IMO. Of all my gay friends, both male and female, I don't know a single one who discusses gay issues & gay sex as much as these folks! And the fact that they have to tell us "I'm not gay / I don't know anyone with AIDs" shows their insecurities loud and clear.
And I was asking (in a different post) if this hypocrisy even exists, since I - a "liberal" - was never consulted before they printed those names. So in my personal opinion, neither is okay! Has any liberal here said otherwise, or is this just faux rage over something an independent source decided to do?
Again, it was a proactive attempt to eliminate an almost forgone hypocrisy on these two issues. I wasn't referring to you, it was in general.
I'm not lying. You're just on a defensive/rationalization/denial trip because you don't agree with me or you don't like to hear what I'm saying. I don't hate gays and know several with HIV. I know it's a serious epidemic that doesn't garner the attention it deservers and isn't taken as seriously as it once was. Talk about a serious issue like HIV/AIDS is not going to be fuzzy and shouldn't be comforting. Deal with it.
In many many instance's HIV is contracted and the individual only suffers what would be similar to a cold for a couple of days...symptoms then may not often arise for up to eight or nine years all the while, infecting others without knowledge. Science knows that the gay male-male act once one is infected will assuredly transfer the virus to the other. Male-to female less possible but a determined transfer of the disease. DC is now over 3% HIV. Calculate the quantity of non active people, old and young, married couples who do not cheat and whats left is a typical night club in DC with a good deal of people who are hiv positive of which, prob more then half do not know they have the deadly disease. Note in opinion....if a state was 25% hiv which will prob happen in time, the gay promoters would still refuse to recognize responsibility in the known fueling of the disease. HIV and aids is what it is in the world due to the male gay act. Researchers break their backs including dollars trying to understand the disease while society looks the other way at the well known greatest cause in the volume of this disease. The incidence of HIV is on the rise...Women in DC are now becoming infected by the bi guys at alarming rates and have isolated the cause. There was a meeting a few months ago with some very upset and concerned dispositions as anyone could imagine ...A new test came out which can be done at home but apparently its anything but very reliable. Anyway I wanted to mention and think the only thing people can do which is safe, is get a full check on someone. Of course that would not be suitable for the culture or the gay people, as stats claim a gay person on average has many many partners through life(stats)....so its plain and clear to see how Africa has developed the 30-40 year approximation stats that they have for their dim future and exactly how aggressive this particular virus is...Prof stats in USA is now estimating that at least one....in every 16 Black American male alive today, will contract HIV before life end .It has also been assessed that being an active gay is more dangerous then injection drug use.
Last edited by stargazzer; 12-27-2012 at 09:06 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.