it takes 2 to get AIDS

7/7/2006 9:45:46 AM

^As well as to tango. Does that mean dancing with someone leads to AIDS?

7/7/2006 10:00:19 PM

Quote :

"BridgetSPK is an AIDS advocate."

BobbyDigital grew up poor and hates other poor people for not being able to do what his family did.

He thinks all poor people who aren't pathetic, desperate social climbers have defects in character.

I wish I could have grown up poor so I could be a bitter prick too.

[Edited on July 8, 2006 at 5:49 PM. Reason : sss]

7/8/2006 5:47:28 PM

No you wish you could have grown up skinny so you wouldn't be such a bitter fat bitch.

7/8/2006 7:03:02 PM

Aww, SandSanta, still sticking to the insults. Come on, man, this is the Soap Box--find a topic and share your opinion. Don't just insult people. You kinda suck at the insults (too much personal rage, not enough witty observation).

I'll be sharing my opinion on this topic in just a bit; maybe we could argue or something.

7/8/2006 8:38:50 PM

1. As far as Josh8315's assertion that "heterosexuals don't spread HIV, in general" goes, I hope he can see how that particular wording minimizes the very real risk. He made no mention of the fact that heterosexuals have anal sex, open sores, and vaginal tears that leave them more vulnerable to infection. I suspect he already knows about all this, but his wording implies that most heterosexuals have teflon genitals.

With regards to the statistics that have been posted in this thread, the validity of either set doesn't concern me. I've listed three sets of circumstances under which heterosexual sex can lead to the spread of HIV (provided one partner has HIV LOL). It can happen, and we'd like to prevent it. Furthermore, it's a simple risk v. consequences situation. Drunk driving (and I'm not talking about legal drunk; I'm talking about real drunk) is my favorite example. If you drive drunk, you'll more than likely make it safely to your intended destination with no problems, but there's always a chance you'll kill a family of four and paralyze yourself. This chance is small, but the consequences are extremely huge!

2. To all the asses who ignored this based on the word "activist": congratulations, you can read a short article without knowing anything about the topic beyond the article! There are HIV activists who specialize in HIV/AIDS, and they are worried about government involvement in expanded AIDS testing mainly because they see this as a step towards the elimination of informed consent and medical privacy.

They are also concerned about the "stigma," but that is rooted in the idea that many doctors are unprepared to counsel and educate individuals. There are also biased doctors out there who, upon diagnosis, would think, "I always knew you were a fag" or "GG, addict" or "Not such a Casanova anymore, huh." Unprepared and biased doctors should not be "urged" by the government to get involved with AIDS/HIV patients.

3. My opinion: I am uncomfortable with increased government involvement in the decisions that we've entrusted our doctors with; however, I have personally experienced medical negligence with regards to my sexual health. I asked my gynecologist to give me all the STD tests he had available; at the end of my exam, I felt like he had skipped a test so I asked him if he'd understood me before. He said, "Oh, well, you look fine." Maybe he thought fat chicks didn't get laid or maybe he wanted to save time by taking a chance, but I suspect he preferred not to do comprehensive testing because he didn't want to deal with the potentially negative results. I'm also reminded of an article that appeared in ASU's school newspaper. It was about the fact that the University had decreased women's health funding due to budget cuts. In one part of the article, a girl reported that she went in to get tested. She said she told the nurse that she'd gotten drunk and had unprotected sex and wanted to be tested. She said that the nurse asked her, "So it was only once?" After she responded, she claims the nurse said, "If it was only once, you're probably fine," and sent her away.

More people are getting tested without the government having to tell doctors to do more tests. Perhaps the government should be more focused on funding clinics.

Anyway, Excoriator's topic brings up a lot of interesting questions, and I'm disappointed that y'all didn't recognize that.

[Edited on July 8, 2006 at 10:45 PM. Reason : sss]

7/8/2006 10:33:30 PM

300 white males contracted HIV last year in the US, even if only half was from homosexual contact, for MY demographic--i realize we're not all white males--its easier to get struck by lightning. about 400 a year get struck by lightning.

im not saying there is no risk and there arent other more prevelant STDs, just giving the facts.

[Edited on July 8, 2006 at 11:36 PM. Reason : 234]

7/8/2006 11:35:55 PM

^You're only concerned with your demographic? Interesting.

Care to respond to my post?

[Edited on July 8, 2006 at 11:40 PM. Reason : sss]

7/8/2006 11:39:08 PM

Yes, I only care about myself. Though I dont care about my demographic any more then any other. Other people have brains and can make their own choices. I didnt see any questions in your post.



[Edited on July 8, 2006 at 11:44 PM. Reason : ytw34]

7/8/2006 11:42:16 PM

^I didn't realize questions were required for a response. You had no problem responding earlier when there were no questions.

7/8/2006 11:44:31 PM

Josh is right, it's pretty hard as a straight white male to get HIV in America.

7/9/2006 12:22:32 AM

^I never said he wasn't right.

And why is everyone ignoring the more interesting parts of this topic?

7/9/2006 12:40:38 AM

Come on, guys. There's some good stuff here. Let's debate!!!

7/10/2006 4:59:35 PM

There's really nothing to debate here.

This is just your feminist, undersexed rage lashing out.

The original poster completed botched his own thread by not being able to comprehend the article he was railing against. Hence, he hasn't posted here since.

There's already an AIDS thread with much better discussion in it and there is no need for you or any other toolcase to rant here.

7/10/2006 5:48:29 PM

^You're such a tool, dude. It's not your job to regulate the Soap Box. I mean, OMG, there's already an AIDS thread?!?! We can't have two threads that involve different aspects of the same topic! You think I'm a "toolcase"? You should have told me sooner. I would have stopped posting if I knew you felt that way.

7/10/2006 7:01:15 PM

Was this:

http://brentroad.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=409954

the other AIDS thread you were talking about?

That's rich. You are such a depserately hypercritical, stupid asshole.

7/10/2006 7:03:52 PM

LOL, I hate it when I use the "you're such a..." phrase too much.

7/10/2006 8:13:11 PM

YES

THAT IS THE THREAD I WAS TALKING ABOUT

NOW SCOOT ALONG TO IT.

7/11/2006 11:07:07 AM

When you say white males have a hard time contracting HIV, why just white males? Why not males in general?
Is there something physically about being a black male that makes me more suspectible to HIV? I really don't want to turn it into a race debate, just was curious about this.

7/11/2006 12:04:22 PM

Black people are more likely to do it up the butt!11

7/11/2006 1:28:01 PM

^^It's not biology. AIDS is more prevalent in black people, and people most often have sex within their own race. The virus may have started in Africa, but I haven't done the research there.

7/11/2006 4:28:19 PM

^Needle sharin too...

^^^You're right. They shouldn't have said "it's harder..." They should have said "it's less likely..." or something.

[Edited on July 11, 2006 at 4:32 PM. Reason : sss]

7/11/2006 4:30:46 PM

Haha. Well, I don't do black girls and I don't take it in the ass so I should be safe right (relatively anyway)?

7/11/2006 4:31:58 PM

^Yeah, sure. But you'll still be fucking stupid.

7/11/2006 4:33:56 PM

^lol. Why? Cause I don't do black girls or take it up the ass? Or are you taking potshots at my intelligence?

7/11/2006 4:36:07 PM

^Dude, you actually thought there was something about black people that made them inherently more susceptible to AIDS?

7/11/2006 4:41:46 PM

What's wrong with black girls?

7/11/2006 4:47:19 PM

Quote :

"Dude, you actually thought there was something about black people that made them inherently more susceptible to AIDS?"

I guess that is pretty dumb when you think about it, but I don't know much of anything about biology so I was just inquiring just in case. But by all means, continue to be a bitch and jump all up my ass about it if that makes you feel good.

7/11/2006 4:48:31 PM

Quote :

"When you say white males have a hard time contracting HIV, why just white males? Why not males in general? Is there something physically about being a black male that makes me more suspectible to HIV? I really don't want to turn it into a race debate, just was curious about this."

haha, wow.



[Edited on July 11, 2006 at 4:54 PM. Reason : ok]

7/11/2006 4:53:48 PM

I AM THE FIRST PERSON TO MAKE A DUMB POST ON TWW!! THIS HAS NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE!!! LOLLOLXOXLXOLXOLXOL!!!!111

7/11/2006 4:56:39 PM

no.....racist tendencies just alway seems to amaze and humor me

[Edited on July 11, 2006 at 4:59 PM. Reason : i mean, its the 21st century, yet still]

7/11/2006 4:58:53 PM

Plus black guyz have huge dongs and they rip pussy apart!1

7/11/2006 6:05:55 PM

Quote :

"As some HIV/AIDS activists have noted, changing the new counseling guidelines could cause harm. "HIV is not a routine diagnosis," said Ann Fischer, a lawyer and the executive director of AIDS Legal Council of Chicago. Because of that, pretest counseling and consent are integral aspects of HIV screening. Even today, AIDS patients face discrimination. They can lose their jobs and can still experience difficulties obtaining life or health insurance, she said. All these things should be explained to patients before they are tested, said Fischer, who calls the new guidelines "stealth testing." Other activists worry that the availability of care for those newly diagnosed is already insufficient, and that people who test positive under the new system may not have any way to get treatment. "I would support expanded screening if there was greater access to care," said Jeff Sheehy, an HIV/AIDS activist and policy adviser to San Francisco's Mayor Gavin Newsom. "We are putting the cart before the horse." Before implementing new guidelines for wider testing, he said, "we need to make sure that all who are newly diagnosed have access to health care and treatment." "

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=2179090&page=2

Once again, AIDS activists somehow think that if you don't know your status, then you're not really infected.

7/13/2006 8:38:49 AM

ooo what happened to all the snide, "AIDS activists are the ones pushing for the tests you fucking mongoloid" remarks

7/14/2006 11:14:13 AM

Quote :

"Once again, AIDS activists somehow think that if you don't know your status, then you're not really infected."

If i dont know youre an idiot, does that mean you still are?

Universal testing serves no purpse. Youd have thousands of false-positives, nothing to do with the diagnosis, and some of the informed wont do anything to stop the transmission of HIV, whereas many others would likely never transmit HIV (ie, if they are non-IV drug heterosexuals).

Try looking out for yourself. If YOU want to use a condom YOU can do it, if YOU want to get tested, YOU can. Youre no victim here, cry baby.



[Edited on July 14, 2006 at 2:00 PM. Reason : rtyert]

7/14/2006 1:55:47 PM

Quote :

"and the informed usually dont do anything to stop the transmission of HIV."

lol

7/14/2006 2:01:02 PM

there are a lot of studies that show that

by 'informed' i mean, informed of their HIV positive status (thats the subject we're talking about here)


[Edited on July 14, 2006 at 2:05 PM. Reason : ert]

7/14/2006 2:04:05 PM

I know what you mean, and you're dead wrong.

7/14/2006 2:08:02 PM

>0 >0

7/14/2006 2:10:35 PM

unlucky for you, your "promise" doesnt trump the studies and news articles about specific cases where people who know they are HIV positive have spread it

7/14/2006 2:12:42 PM

Quote :

"Excoriator: ooo what happened to all the snide, "AIDS activists are the ones pushing for the tests you fucking mongoloid" remarks"

I already called them out, and I called you out too. You and Josh8315 are trying to argue this issue black/white. It's a sensitive matter that we're not quite sure how to handle yet as a somewhat civilized society--

1. As far as Josh8315's assertion that "heterosexuals don't spread HIV, in general" goes, I hope he can see how that particular wording minimizes the very real risk. He made no mention of the fact that heterosexuals have anal sex, open sores, and vaginal tears that leave them more vulnerable to infection. I suspect he already knows about all this, but his wording implies that most heterosexuals have teflon genitals.

With regards to the statistics that have been posted in this thread, the validity of either set doesn't concern me. I've listed three sets of circumstances under which heterosexual sex can lead to the spread of HIV (provided one partner has HIV LOL). It can happen, and we'd like to prevent it. Furthermore, it's a simple risk v. consequences situation. Drunk driving (and I'm not talking about legal drunk; I'm talking about real drunk) is my favorite example. If you drive drunk, you'll more than likely make it safely to your intended destination with no problems, but there's always a chance you'll kill a family of four and paralyze yourself. This chance is small, but the consequences are extremely huge! Argued. He and I don't actually disagree.

Excoriator, this is the part where I defended you:

2. To all the asses who ignored this based on the word "activist": congratulations, you can read a short article without knowing anything about the topic beyond the article!

Excoriator, this is the part you don't understand:

There are HIV activists who specialize in HIV/AIDS, and they are worried about government involvement in expanded AIDS testing mainly because they see this as a step towards the elimination of informed consent and medical privacy. They are also concerned about the "stigma," but that is rooted in the idea that many doctors are unprepared to counsel and educate individuals. There are also biased doctors out there who, upon diagnosis, would think, "I always knew you were a fag" or "GG, addict" or "Not such a Casanova anymore, huh." Unprepared and biased doctors should not be "urged" by the government to get involved with AIDS/HIV patients.

I'm blabbering here:

3. My opinion: I am uncomfortable with increased government involvement in the decisions that we've entrusted our doctors with; however, I have personally experienced medical negligence with regards to my sexual health. I asked my gynecologist to give me all the STD tests he had available; at the end of my exam, I felt like he had skipped a test so I asked him if he'd understood me before. He said, "Oh, well, you look fine." Maybe he thought fat chicks didn't get laid or maybe he wanted to save time by taking a chance, but I suspect he preferred not to do comprehensive testing because he didn't want to deal with the potentially negative results. I'm also reminded of an article that appeared in ASU's school newspaper. It was about the fact that the University had decreased women's health funding due to budget cuts. In one part of the article, a girl reported that she went in to get tested. She said she told the nurse that she'd gotten drunk and had unprotected sex and wanted to be tested. She said that the nurse asked her, "So it was only once?" After she responded, she claims the nurse said, "If it was only once, you're probably fine," and sent her away.

Meat of the matter:

More people are getting tested without the government having to tell doctors to do more tests. Perhaps the government should be more focused on funding clinics.

Anyway, Excoriator's topic brings up a lot of interesting questions, and I'm disappointed that y'all didn't recognize that. Nobody has tried to address these questions, Excoriator included.

[Edited on July 14, 2006 at 4:02 PM. Reason : sss]

7/14/2006 3:45:00 PM

I agree that it's ridiculous to not test because of a potential "stigma." However, it is true that universal testing is unneccesary and would result in a substantial number of false positives.

7/14/2006 3:58:51 PM

Quote :

"There are HIV activists who specialize in HIV/AIDS, and they are worried about government involvement in expanded AIDS testing mainly because they see this as a step towards the elimination of informed consent and medical privacy. They are also concerned about the "stigma," but that is rooted in the idea that many doctors are unprepared to counsel and educate individuals. There are also biased doctors out there who, upon diagnosis, would think, "I always knew you were a fag" or "GG, addict" or "Not such a Casanova anymore, huh." Unprepared and biased doctors should not be "urged" by the government to get involved with AIDS/HIV patients."

yep that pretty effectively sums up why i'm so pissed off at aids activists. They want to spare the victim's feelings at the cost of both his health and the health of everyone he will unknowingly infect.

this is the point at which the touchy-feely face of liberalism meets the raw asphalt of reality. just because the guy didn't get told he has aids doesn't mean he's been spared JACK.

7/14/2006 5:24:37 PM

screw personal accountability!

7/14/2006 5:31:25 PM

^^Okay, fine, let's replace education and counseling with a simple phone call:

"Hey, fag, this is your doctor calling. Sorry I missed you. By the way, you got HIV. God really does hate you. Well, see ya round."

7/14/2006 7:04:37 PM

you're still just repeating the same point and not addressing my counter-point

you want to spare the victim's feelings at the cost of both his health and the health of everyone he will unknowingly infect.

7/14/2006 7:12:26 PM

Quote :

""Hey, fag, this is your doctor calling. Sorry I missed you. By the way, you got HIV. God really does hate you. Well, see ya round.""

I don't know about other people but I sure as hell wouldn't go to a doctor that would say something like that. I don't know, maybe I'm strange but I like my doctors to be humane, not fucking reatards.

By the way, is there a reason why a person who tests positive for HIV should not know about it?

[Edited on July 14, 2006 at 8:14 PM. Reason : asdf]

7/14/2006 8:12:32 PM

^ well according to bridget and most other aids activists, its "because then they might feel bad"

7/14/2006 10:19:49 PM

knowing you have HIV isnt a cure for someone else's heroin addiction. they will still share a needle when they need a fix.




[Edited on July 14, 2006 at 10:26 PM. Reason : ert]

7/14/2006 10:25:19 PM

^ But is that a reason for them not to know? If they don't know they have HIV, they're still sharing the needles. Why is ignorance of being HIV positive preferable?

7/14/2006 10:52:40 PM