Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Dr Rick · 04-14-2003, 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dk
The science says you�re wrong, not me.

It's not the major point of your argument, but when you say nonsense like this, and persist in spewing it even after you've been been corrected, your credibility suffers even more:

Quote:

HIV Viruses adapt, mutate and evolve to flourish in the host they infect and to spread in the culture they infest. In Africa HIV microbes have evolved, which in Sub Saharan Africa means primitive health care and promiscuous heterosexual culture, in the US this means multiple drug cocktails and a promiscuous predominantly gay culture. Today HIV comes in many flavors determined by hosts they infect, and culture they infest to become HIV I, II, III... type L, M, N, O..., and will continue to evolve

It's not clear what you are babling about here, but it reads suspiciously like nonsense: Most of it seems like pointless rambling, but the statement "HIV comes in many flavors determined by hosts they infect and culture they infest to become HIV I, II, III... type L, M, N, O" isn't just weird, it's plain wrong. An HIV does not become one type and clade in one culture or host and another type and clade in a different culture and host.

The evolution of HIV is distinct from the cellular events and reactions and other pathologic mechanisms that lead to the disease states caused by HIV, as is its transmission. HIV of any subtype has the same pathogenesis in Africa as it does in the USA. We do not know why there are different types and subtypes (clades) of HIV in certain populations, but it may be because the index cases had different strains of the virus; IVDAs are more likely to share needles with other IVDAs than GMs, and GMs are more likely to have anal intercourse with other GMs than IVDAs, which may cause one clade to predominate in one population and another in a different one. We also know very little about the relationship between HIV clade and transmission, resistance pathogenesis, and synchronous co-factors such as STDs that may alter the transmissibilty of the infection.

The risk factors for transmission of HIV-1 are the same as the risk factors for HIV-2, even though there are geographic and demographic and variations in their prevalence and incidence.

Quote:

...statistics are quite reliable predictors of contagious disease. The science has been scrutinized and developed by the best minds of the 20th Century. But health statistics are no better than the data upon which they are based, or garbage in garbage out. In the early 1980s the gay rights movement used hiv/aids as a pretense to gather unto themselves political power to find a seat at the table of public policy. They used their political weight to approach the courts for privacy right.

Once again, you have no idea what you are talking about. Epidimiologic predictions are often very inaccurate, especially when it comes to new illnesses such as when AIDS first appeared. Lack of understanding about transmission, pathogenesis, and the inability to predict the future can make it a very inexact science. No one even 2 years ago could have predicted the SARS outbreak, but that doesn't mean that it's all part of a conspiracy

Quote:

They won the privacy rights that in turn impeded 1) efforts to collect data to effectively plot the course of hiv/aids, 2) prevent an epidemic in the US. By the later half of the 1980s the epidemic came into full bloom. The gay leadership leveraged the suffering of dying gay lovers and te ominous looming pandempic to legitimize gay culture. They followed the tried and true liberal stratagem, �Don�t blame the victim�, to blame the hiv/aids epidemic on the homophobic bigoted white whale. In effect the gay culture found its stride galloping across the bodies of gays lovers. I shouldn�t be so critical of the gay leadership, they pretty much followed the path blazed by the civil rights and feminist movements. A rather ingenious strategy because to unmask the gay rights movement would also jeopardize black and feminists movements. Instead minorities, feminists and gays in locked step became the Rainbow Coalition to paint the Democratic Party into a far left ideological corner...It has yet to be determined whether the CDC and NIH have been unshackled from the liberal ideological chains that bound them throughout the 1980-90s.

Do you have any idea how you come across?

You provide no evidence to support your claims other than that the CDC did not predict the future accurately. You claim that they are "hiding something," but can't tell us what it is specifically other than its some type of gay culture/liberal/democratic party conspiracy. You clearly don't know much about infectious diseases, but expect us to believe that you were able to see through the evil plotting of the CDC and learn what we didn't. How did you come across this information that has been hiddend form the rest of us, especially after demonstrating that you know so little?

Quote:

Could you please provide the source of your data, I have some more issues to clarify but I�ll delay discussing the rest of the report.

I told you, the CDC website; I just went to the site yesterday, entered the search words HIV and demographics and just pasted the articles that refute your gay/liberal/democratic party conspiracy stuff.

Quote:

The CDC has been shackled by an overbearing liberal ideology, to the demise of gay communities. This is a tragic comment, but oppressing homosexuals doesn�t impact anyone but homosexuals. Unfortunately by following on the heels of the Civil Rights and Feminist movements gays have put themselves in a position to disrupt and destroy the legal underpinnings of the nuclear family.

...so now it's the feminist/civil rights/gay/liberal/anti-family/democratic party conspiracy, huh?

Is there anyone that's not out to get you and your nuclear family?

Quote:

Problem statement: To make sex safe between consenting adults.
Concept: Put a non-intrusive transparent barrier over the penis to prevent physical contact and exchange of bodily fluids.
Proof of concept: Performed as advertised, with minimal intrusion.
I agree the concept has been proven in control studies. However, in practice over the last 30 years with intense socialization, indoctrination, education, and publication condoms have proven unreliable. People continued to get stds that kill, maim, and disfigure them reproductively, emotionally, physically and mentally with PID, MTCT, infertility, cancer and mental diseases that cost the society $billions/year in health care, with inestimable costs in terms of human resources. If the concept worked, then the problem statement must be flawed. The condom Operation was a success, but the patent died.

Condoms were developed as a contaceptive method, not as a "proof of concept," whatever that means. Observational studies suggested that they provide relative protection against STDs, and subsequent controlled trials confirmed those observataions.

Rick

//riot of disorder:: · 04-14-2003, 11:56 PM

Quote:

You are in a state of denial. Gays are their own worse enemy, and misery loves company. For example, almost 50% of the gays segregated themselves into isolated communities in NYC, SFS, and LA.

Hey man, don't knock on non-straights. We work, sleep, eat, drink, and do everything that straights do. Except that we love those of the same-sex. I just don't get why people hate gay people. -_-;;

dk · 04-15-2003, 09:10 AM

Quote:

dk: The science says you�re wrong, not me.
Rick: It's not the major point of your argument, but when you say nonsense like this, and persist in spewing it even after you've been been corrected, your credibility suffers even more:

dk: I look forward to reading a substantive responses refuting my statements.

Quote:

dk: HIV Viruses adapt, mutate and evolve to flourish in the host they infect and to spread in the culture they infest. In Africa HIV microbes have evolved, which in Sub Saharan Africa means primitive health care and promiscuous heterosexual culture, in the US this means multiple drug cocktails and a promiscuous predominantly gay culture. Today HIV comes in many flavors determined by hosts they infect, and culture they infest to become HIV I, II, III... type L, M, N, O..., and will continue to evolve
Rick: It's not clear what you are babling about here, but it reads suspiciously like nonsense: (snip).
(snip)
The risk factors for transmission of HIV-1 are the same as the risk factors for HIV-2, even though there are geographic and demographic and variations in their prevalence and incidence.

dk: First, �many flavors� alludes not only to the particular strains of HIV, but also the stds, tb that identify populations most at risk for HIV.

Pardon me, please allow me a relevant response, �We are involved in a number of prospective studies of HIV-2 and HIV-1 infected people in Senegal. By following healthy HIV positive individuals over time, we have found that the rate of AIDS development is >10 fold higher in HIV-1 infected individuals compared to HIV-2. We have found that HIV-2 is less transmissible compared to HIV-1, by both perinatal and heterosexual routes. Thus, HIV-2 appears to be a less virulent HIV virus, and we addressed the hypothesis that it might provide protection from subsequent HIV-1 infection. Our epidemiologic study showed that this appears to be the case, with close to 70% protection conferred by HIV-2 infection. Recent in vitro studies, suggest that _eta chemokines may be mediators of the observed HIV-1 resistance.� ---- http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/faculty/PhyllisKanki.html

Quote:

dk: ...statistics are quite reliable predictors of contagious disease. The science has been scrutinized and developed by the best minds of the 20th Century. But health statistics are no better than the data upon which they are based, or garbage in garbage out. In the early 1980s the gay rights movement used hiv/aids as a pretense to gather unto themselves political power to find a seat at the table of public policy. They used their political weight to approach the courts for privacy right.
Rick: Once again, you have no idea what you are talking about.

dk: Really, your bold statement has me sitting on the edge of pants, but lets see if you offer any substance to bolster a history of bluster.

Rick: Epidimiologic predictions are often very inaccurate, especially when it comes to new illnesses such as when AIDS first appeared. Lack of understanding about transmission, pathogenesis, and the inability to predict the future can make it a very inexact science. No one even 2 years ago could have predicted the SARS outbreak, but that doesn't mean that it's all part of a conspiracy
dk: Sorry Rick, that�s not substantive. SARS has been around for <month, and already recommendations have been put in place internationally. Health officials around the world will identify, track down, isolate and contain SARS. Why? Because governments will treat SARS with a epidemiological problem statement unfettered by social and political boundaries. What did WHO say about SARS 1 wk into the epidemiological investigation...
Priority actions recommended in the report to contain SARS include:
- early recognition and treatment of cases
- stringent infection control measures in hospitals and clinics
- prompt reporting of suspected cases
- meticulous investigation and contact tracing in the community
- public awareness campaigns and education.

Now, hiv/aids has been recognized for 23 years, over a million people in the US are carriers, 500,000 are dead and the US still can�t bring itself to set aside the political and social malignancies to make an epidemiological problem statement. This is a national disgrace.

Quote:

dk: They won the privacy rights that in turn impeded 1) efforts to collect data to effectively plot the course of hiv/aids, 2) prevent an epidemic in the US. By the later half of the 1980s the epidemic came into full bloom. The gay leadership leveraged the suffering of dying gay lovers and te ominous looming pandempic to legitimize gay culture. They followed the tried and true liberal stratagem, �Don�t blame the victim�, to blame the hiv/aids epidemic on the homophobic bigoted white whale. In effect the gay culture found its stride galloping across the bodies of gays lovers. I shouldn�t be so critical of the gay leadership, they pretty much followed the path blazed by the civil rights and feminist movements. A rather ingenious strategy because to unmask the gay rights movement would also jeopardize black and feminists movements. Instead minorities, feminists and gays in locked step became the Rainbow Coalition to paint the Democratic Party into a far left ideological corner...It has yet to be determined whether the CDC and NIH have been unshackled from the liberal ideological chains that bound them throughout the 1980-90s.
Rick: Do you have any idea how you come across?

dk: Like someone that can�t believe what�s been allowed to happen under the auspices of civil rights.

Rick: You provide no evidence to support your claims other than that the CDC did not predict the future accurately. You claim that they are "hiding something," but can't tell us what it is specifically other than its some type of gay culture/liberal/democratic party conspiracy. You clearly don't know much about infectious diseases, but expect us to believe that you were able to see through the evil plotting of the CDC and learn what we didn't. How did you come across this information that has been hiddend form the rest of us, especially after demonstrating that you know so little?
dk: Yes I did, in 2000, 20 years into the epidemic the CDC reports, �An estimated 25% (180,000--280,000 persons) of HIV-infected persons in the United States are not aware of their serostatus.� http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5127a3.htm
This is unacceptable.

Quote:

dk: Could you please provide the source of your data, I have some more issues to clarify but I�ll delay discussing the rest of the report.
Rick: I told you, the CDC website; I just went to the site yesterday, entered the search words HIV and demographics and just pasted the articles that refute your gay/liberal/democratic party conspiracy stuff.

dk: I need to know what report you used to comment, for example the CDC writes in the report I just quoted from, �The findings in this report are subject to at least three limitations. First, a limited number of states were included in this analysis; 24% of all AIDS cases diagnosed in the United States during 1994--2000 occurred in the 25 states.� ------ ibid.

Quote:

dk: The CDC has been shackled by an overbearing liberal ideology, to the demise of gay communities. This is a tragic comment, but oppressing homosexuals doesn�t impact anyone but homosexuals. Unfortunately by following on the heels of the Civil Rights and Feminist movements gays have put themselves in a position to disrupt and destroy the legal underpinnings of the nuclear family.
Rick...so now it's the feminist/civil rights/gay/liberal/anti-family/democratic party conspiracy, huh?

dk: Perhaps I should have said, �Ironically at the same time, by following blindly on the heels of the Civil Rights and Feminist movements gays leaders have left gay communities in the path of the hiv/aids epidemic, to put themselves in a strategic political position to disorder, disrupt and destroy the legal underpinnings of the nuclear family�.

Rick: Is there anyone that's not out to get you and your nuclear family?
dk: If the basic order of the nuclear family dissolves, then even the pretense of a unified identity between heterosexual and homosexuals dissolves with it. That�s a sociological principle proponents of gay marriage seem determined to overlook.

Quote:

dk:
Problem statement: To make sex safe between consenting adults.
Concept: Put a non-intrusive transparent barrier over the penis to prevent physical contact and exchange of bodily fluids.
Proof of concept: Performed as advertised, with minimal intrusion.
(snip) ...then the problem statement must be flawed. The condom Operation was a success, but the patent died.
Rick: Condoms were developed as a contaceptive method, not as a "proof of concept," whatever that means. Observational studies suggested that they provide relative protection against STDs, and subsequent controlled trials confirmed those observataions.

dk: Read it carefully, I think you�ll agree the problem statement satisfies your request. I don�t know what to tell you Rick, by all that�s holy in social science condoms should have worked. But for 30 years condoms haven�t worked for some unfathomable reason. If its any consolation I know sales spike with TV spots, but the momentum doesn�t seem to be sustainable.

Nowhere357 · 04-15-2003, 09:19 AM

Judging from the number of views on this thread, people still enjoy a good train wreck.

Dr Rick · 04-15-2003, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nowhere357
Judging from the number of views on this thread, people still enjoy a good train wreck.

It's amazing to me, as well, N357; people as uninformed as dk are prone to concoct conspiracies out of ignorance and prejudice, but what puzzles me is why he continues to post more and more nonsense after repeatedly having his falsehoods exposed and his misinterpretations of data corrected. I know part of it is that he doesn't know much about science and medicine, but it's obvious from the way he dances around and ignores the salient points of rebuttals that he sees he is wrong and just rather not face that reality.

dk does serve a useful purpose, though; he allows rational people to see what happens when thinking and reasoning are replaced by persistant faith, ignorance, and prejudice.

Rick

Harumi · 04-15-2003, 11:59 AM

Gotta admit though...

This thread wouldn't be half as interesting if it wasn't for dk.

I got several of my friends following this thread because of him. They find it all extremely funny.

As do I, now that I'm just following along.

orac · 04-15-2003, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dk
A child's need for their mother and father supersede what a gay wants. A child's need for a clear moral compass supersedes what a gay wants. The needs of children oblige all good people, and that includes gays.

A child's need for a safe supportive and loving environment outweigh's a violent heterosexual paedophile's desire for live-in victims.

Do a little reading on the numbers of girls who are raped by their fathers, and then tell us again how being heterosexual is the same as being moral.

Jinto · 04-15-2003, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Rather, I�ve already made the case that gay/lesbian marriage formally divorces (breaks) and dismembers(amputates) the nuclear family as the basic unit upon which Western Civilization governs itself with moral and legal principles

dk, perhaps you are actually unaware of this, but you can't say that you have made the case until you have actually made the case. You have certainly tried to make that case, but unfortunately, you can't seem to make even one statement that has not been soundly refuted.

Quote:

To which proponents of gay/lesbian marriage (on this thread anyway) responded (best response), homosexual families can serve as a replacement model to formulate a new post modern civilization based upon multicultural ethics (moral relativism) and non-judgmental principles (gay rights).

So, dk reveals that he considers his culture to be the only valid culture, that his culture nessecarily excludes homosexual families and any form of adoption, and he thinks that anyone who doesn't do things his way is nessecarily immoral. You remember the WCOTC link I posted earlier? You're a good match for them.

Oh, dk also reveals that he can't tell the difference between showing two systems to be compatible and proposing a replacement.

Quote:

To be honest I�m not quite sure anyone on this thread has comprehended the context, scope, magnitude or implications we�ve been discussing.

Context: The question of whether or not gay marriage somehow infringes on the rights of others (which dk has yet to even adress).
Scope: The United States of America
Magnitude: 3-4% of the U.S. population (that's 8-10 million people, (edited by moderator))
Implications: The religous right is quite frequently wrong. (edited by moderator). People like watching other people make an ass out of themselves. Oh yeah, gay marriage is not the end of the world, but people like dk have to make it sound that way in order to justify their case that the only way to solve the problem of America's increasing immorality is to do things their way.

To wit: you are the only one on this thread who does not understand this.

Quote:

Nonetheless to be thorough I�m obliged to show that the gay and lesbian families can�t possible succeed as a replacement for the nuclear family in the post modern era of the 21st Century.

Again, dk does not understand the difference between showing two concepts to be compatible and proposing a replacement for that concept.

Quote:

Perhaps we need to move this to another thread that questions social impacts of multicultural ethics and non-judgmental principles. I�m not sure this thread is the right place for the discussion, but will continue to reply. Again, nobody on this thread has made a substantive reply to challenge my assertions. Calling me a bigoted homophobiac isn�t substantive, but represents a form of denial thrown up as a defense in response to realities that are offensive to us all.

If you're looking for a substantive reply, all you need do is remove from your brain whatever malfunctioning set of neurons has convinced you that the nuclear family and gay marriage are somehow incompatable, and then reread this thread. (edited by moderator)

(edited by moderator)

P.P.S. - I'm still looking for a reason that the positive effects of allowing gay marriage in producing more stable families ready to adopt should be ignored.

Quote:

Pardon me, but if you closely examine the identity of gay culture with respect to anal sex the proposition of reproduction becomes both symbolically valid and self defined. I suspect that�s why you�re so sensitive about it, even though in the context of this thread I only mentioned it in passing, not analogically. I would honestly prefer to avoid the symbolism if possible because as proposition it is so emotionally charged.

In other words, you admit that you are making an argument from emotion.

Quote:

There are many highly credible Catholic Universities, and I have found the History Sourcebook at Fordham�s web site very insightful. You can justify hate speech from now till doomsday but Swift and the Gay Community News are both widely acclaimed in the best gay circles, and speak for the gay community. The gay community responded positively to Swift�s article by all the accounts I�ve read, most in gay publications. Many even defend Swift�s hate speech with endless sometimes eloquently written rationalizations. Reminds me of T. Jefferson�s eloquent attempts to rationalize the participation of the Southern Aristocracy in the slave trade. All of which only serves to validate my judgment on this matter.

First, I noted your dishonesty in attributing my comment to yourself and your comments to me. Second, you are still ignoring the fact that Swift's article is satire. Tell me, do you even know the definitoin of satire? Third, you assert that because others also confuse satire for fact that you are justified in dong the same. Fourth, are you ever going to realize that appeal to emotion doesn't work on us?

Quote:

If you think that�s funny, then you�re sick by any civilized standard

I'm not laughing with you, I'm laughing at you.

pleasant_darktwist · 04-15-2003, 01:15 PM

Hello again:

I am merely here to make some observations, and questions.

1. Has anyone noticed that when DK uses statistics his are correct, and everyone elses' stats are either illegitamate, illogical, flawed, misguided, ignorant, or (and this one really gets me) part of a liberal/anti-family/homosexual/conspiracy to give people AIDS and destroy the "root" of the "American Family." Sheesh.

2. I may be the only one thinking about this but, is it possible DK has become a "veteran user," just from all his posts on this thread.

3. How many logical fallacies have been committed by DK in this thread? Which post has the most fallacies? How many times has he contradicted himself, how often has he been proven wrong, only to dismiss/sidestep/retort flippantly the person making the statement is misguided at best and an outright member of a conspiracy to corrupt his values and those of 'his' America.

Consider this a scavenger hunt for those who are tired of posting, and just like to follow along and keep score

Peace.

The Other Michael · 04-15-2003, 01:45 PM

Jinto, please check your private messages.

Folks, please keep in mind the IIDB rules about making personal comments/attacks on other posters. The vast majority of you appear to me to be quite capable of making your points without tossing insults at other users. If you aren't, you should refrain from posting.

I've made several reminders of this so far, and have had to edit several posts. If the insults don't stop my options are closing the thread or recommending action against people who are failing to comply with moderator requests.

I'd much prefer that you all just settle down a bit and continue your discussion.

thanks,
Michael
MF&P Moderator (Maximus)

04-15-2003, 09:19 AM	#204
Nowhere357 Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Grand Junction CO Posts: 2,231	You are hurting your cause! Judging from the number of views on this thread, people still enjoy a good train wreck.

04-15-2003, 01:15 PM	#209
pleasant_darktwist Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: East Tennessee Posts: 18	Note To Readers Hello again: I am merely here to make some observations, and questions. 1. Has anyone noticed that when DK uses statistics his are correct, and everyone elses' stats are either illegitamate, illogical, flawed, misguided, ignorant, or (and this one really gets me) part of a liberal/anti-family/homosexual/conspiracy to give people AIDS and destroy the "root" of the "American Family." Sheesh. 2. I may be the only one thinking about this but, is it possible DK has become a "veteran user," just from all his posts on this thread. 3. How many logical fallacies have been committed by DK in this thread? Which post has the most fallacies? How many times has he contradicted himself, how often has he been proven wrong, only to dismiss/sidestep/retort flippantly the person making the statement is misguided at best and an outright member of a conspiracy to corrupt his values and those of 'his' America. Consider this a scavenger hunt for those who are tired of posting, and just like to follow along and keep score Peace.

04-15-2003, 01:45 PM	#210
The Other Michael Honorary Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: In the fog of San Francisco Posts: 12,631	This is a public service announcement Jinto, please check your private messages. Folks, please keep in mind the IIDB rules about making personal comments/attacks on other posters. The vast majority of you appear to me to be quite capable of making your points without tossing insults at other users. If you aren't, you should refrain from posting. I've made several reminders of this so far, and have had to edit several posts. If the insults don't stop my options are closing the thread or recommending action against people who are failing to comply with moderator requests. I'd much prefer that you all just settle down a bit and continue your discussion. thanks, Michael MF&P Moderator (Maximus)

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-15-2003, 11:59 AM	#206
Harumi Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: N/A Posts: 3,184	Gotta admit though... This thread wouldn't be half as interesting if it wasn't for dk. I got several of my friends following this thread because of him. They find it all extremely funny. As do I, now that I'm just following along.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.