Jesse Helms Dead.

[Sportmotor]

I do not agree with everything Helms did or said during his lifetime.  However, as opposed to many leftists today, I do not wish death upon my political opponents or dance on their graves.  That is simply wrong.

+1

[Clem1029]

Oh, you could go lots of routes with such an obvious statement...if nothing else, it outright refutes your position that Helms was responsible for "hundreds of thousands" of deaths. Or maybe with the obvious conclusion that the way to help save "artists, dancers, writers and bright fantastic people from our generation died before thirty" is to change the culture.

Lots of discussions can happen from that base position...and not one of which indicates I'm a bigot (unless projection enters into play).

[Sportmotor]

None of that makes a bit of sense.

What would be your point in claiming that AIDS is 'self inflicted'?

Is it a disease that you can give yourself?

Virus
and that term would be called "bug caughter"

[finehoe]

I mean exactly what the statement says - the majority of AIDS cases are contracted due to lifestyle decisions. It's a pretty obvious statement.

The majority of AIDS cases are heterosexuals in Africa.  What "lifestyle decisions" did they make?

[Sportmotor]

BTW unless this guy died of HIV or AIDs, then you lot are horribly and disgracefully off topic.

[Sportmotor]

Yes I saw, they are against gays and then it went to the aids argument. No suprise.

[Clem1029]

None of that makes a bit of sense.  Were you going in hundreds of directions with it yourself?  Why is it taking you so many posts to explain this?  Are you looking for the correct wording?

What would be your point in claiming that AIDS is 'self inflicted'?

Is it a disease that you can give yourself?

I'm just wondering if you're being deliberately obtuse or if you really just don't get it.

You claim I'm a bigot. You attempted to make a veiled post to "prove" that. I've clearly corrected that impression. I've made a series of very direct statements to indicate a very simple point, yet you're still reaching for something to demonstrate bigotry. Good luck.

To spell it out for you, the majority of cases are caused by lifestyle decisions and actions - and that's across any classes or groupings of people you want to create. If one does not engage in those decisions and actions, one reduces their potential exposure to near zero (obviously not zero). Is all of that really THAT difficult to understand? I mean, this should be as obvious as saying "if you don't smoke, you significantly decrease the likelihood you get lung cancer."

[Sportmotor]

The funny thing is, the most AIDS cases are from Heterosexuality then Homosexuality.

The whole AIDS is a gay, is ignorance. I am an avid supporter of safe sex and am very active in communitys teaching people the differnce and all that BS. Blah blah, this is still off topic from the dead guy btw.

[Clem1029]

But Sportsmotor, don't you believe that gays kindof deserve to die, since AIDS is 'self inflicted' after all?

Clem is trying to distance himself from this point, I guess because that sounds like something even worse than simply 'bigoted'.

Again, demonstrate where I said, oh, ANY of that.

Since you can't, I'll take my apology now.

[Clem1029]

Well, that answers the "deliberately obtuse" question...

I meant exactly what the statement said - if you can't understand that certain decisions and behaviors greatly increase an individual's capacity for contracting the disease, and that by avoiding said decisions and behaviors an individual reduces the changes of contracting to near zero...then there's really nothing I can do to help you.

Still ready for the apology...

[Clem1029]

I'm curious where I used the words "self-inflicted." If nothing else, my phrasing of "lifestyle behaviors and decisions" is corrective of another individuals use of that phrase.

That said, help me out here...if the point (which from your lack of discussion, I'm assuming you concede) that avoiding a set of decisions and behaviors reduces chances to near zero, and that engaging in said behaviors and decisions greatly increases chances of contracting the disease...you seem to object to the phrase "self-inflicted"...I'm not using that phrase, but I'm curious how else you'd describe that position? "Behavioral Russian Roulette"?

[Clem1029]

Well, you finally got one thing right...it is clear to everyone what my position is. Most assuredly, it's also clear to everyone that the position is not bigoted, nor am I a bigot. Again, you've failed in your burden of proof there. The more you try and keep up this front, the more out of touch you continue to be. I continue to wait for my apology.

[Tripoli1711]

I'm not sure why I am going to get myself into this.. but:

AIDS is, for the most part, a self-inflicted disease from the standpoint that the overwhelming majority of the time you acquire the virus through participating in an activity that was a conscious choice and decision, such as unprotected sex, sharing needles while abusing drugs.

This is in contrast to say... Breast Cancer or psychological disorders.  No conscious choice that anyone makes can make them any more likely to be diagnosed with Breast Cancer than another.

To that point, and not taking the time to read your pages of bickering in order to gain the proper "context", I cannot say calling AIDS a "self-inflicted" disease in almost all cases is an incorrect statement.

[Tripoli1711]

If it is an inartful way of expressing it, you may have a point.  From the definition of "self-inflicted" you appear to be operating under, I agree.. it is not.

If one views a definition of self-inflicted as being "brought about upon one's self due to one's own actions and decisions", which from my brief review appears to be what Clem was arguing, then I think it fits.

Again, if you feel it is inartfully stated that is one thing, but I believe there is a fundamental difference between something like AIDS contracted from unprotected sex and breast cancer.  To that point I am not just dead wrong.

I also am not wishing AIDS upon anyone.  Everyone makes certain choices and in almost no circumstance do they deserve a deadly disease.  I am simply saying that there is a difference from the standpoint of one's own actions setting about the course of events that caused them to become infected vs. poor luck or heredity. 

[Tripoli1711]

It appears to me that you have an emotional investment in the conversation, Stephen.  That's fine.  I am simply looking at it from a detached perspective and was trying to bring some semblance of balance to the name calling and arguing the two of you were doing.  I knew that if I got involved in the thread I would be accused of being an awful person.  So my annoyance is certainly self-inflicted.

Your analogy is not tight enough to be applicable.  Change the analogy to: if me or a loved one were killed in an automobile accident when we were driving recklessly.  Does the fact that we may have been driving too fast for road conditions mean we should have died?  Of course not.  But we knew or should have known that we were increasing our chances of death by conducting ourselves in that fashion instead of being more prudent about the situation.

Likewise, a person who has unprotected sex with a person about whose AIDS status they are unaware knows or should have known that they were engaging in conduct that could lead to their contracting the disease.  Do they deserve to get the disease and/or die for having unprotected sex?  No.  Of course not.

As I said before self-inflicted (which isn't my term.. it was the term already being used) is defined to include conscious decision making being the first domino to fall... then contracting the disease from unprotected sex, straight or gay, is self-inflicted.

This was my only point.  I meant to say nothing regarding the long dead Senator, federal funding for AIDS programs or homosexuality in general.  There is a difference between AIDS and breast cancer.  I wish neither on anyone but there is a difference.