T1B

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6911736.stm

Dr Anthony Fauci told a conference in Sydney that progress had been made, but more people were being infected with HIV than were being treated.

"For every one person that you put in therapy, six new people get infected. So we're losing that game, the numbers game," he said.

Dr Fauci was speaking at a gathering of the world's leading HIV/Aids experts.

How's that abstinence education thing working out for ya?

But in many parts of the developing world, effective prevention strategies like condoms and sterile syringes are available to less than 15% of the population.

"The proven prevention modalities are not accessible to any substantial proportion of the people who need them," Dr Fauci said.

I see.

One could argue that approach is currently being taken right now. Certainly the Catholic Church does what it can to prevent condoms from being distributed.

I do agree with encouraging abstinence...but I think failing to also distribute condoms is a mistake.

mvscal wrote:By all means go to Africa and distribute as many condoms as you like.

It wouldn't matter, they wouldn't use them anyway.

See mv? I can be against Neo-Liberalism and the slithering tentacles of the Soro's NGO's, and you can have your Pan-African apocalypse.

Sounds like a win-win here.

We can erradicate the AIDS virus in 20 years by my plan. However, it'd be called rather insensitive and I don't think I could actually support it if somebody did put it forth. My idea, which even I don't support is:

Mandatory quarantine.

As I said, I would never be able to support such a thing, but it would, if enacted, do away with AIDS within 20 years.

battery chucka' one wrote:We can erradicate the AIDS virus in 20 years by my plan. However, it'd be called rather insensitive and I don't think I could actually support it if somebody did put it forth. My idea, which even I don't support is:

Mandatory quarantine.

As I said, I would never be able to support such a thing, but it would, if enacted, do away with AIDS within 20 years.

What about the monkeys who originally transmitted the disease? How do you propose to quarantine them?

BSmack wrote:

battery chucka' one wrote:We can erradicate the AIDS virus in 20 years by my plan. However, it'd be called rather insensitive and I don't think I could actually support it if somebody did put it forth. My idea, which even I don't support is:

Mandatory quarantine.

As I said, I would never be able to support such a thing, but it would, if enacted, do away with AIDS within 20 years.

What about the monkeys who originally transmitted the disease? How do you propose to quarantine them?

Well, I'd like to think we no longer are engaging in the activities that transferred the disease from them to us in the first place. However, if they were perpetual carriers of the disease, why has it only been an issue for about 30 years instead of forever? Also, if they're still such a problem, wouldn't widespread eradication would be in order?

Mandatory quarantine.

What do you think - a sign floats over the head of those newly infected with HIV?

Your plan stinks, btw

battery chucka' one wrote:Well, I'd like to think we no longer are engaging in the activities that transferred the disease from them to us in the first place.

Dare I ask what you think those activities are/were?

battery chucka' one wrote:However, if they were perpetual carriers of the disease, why has it only been an issue for about 30 years instead of forever?

The current hypothesis is that the disease was endemic for a hell of a long time, but thanks to the increased mobility of our species, the disease was transported from central Africa to Europe and Haiti. The latency of the disease helped to hide who was infected. The PBS series "The Age of AIDS" does a great job in explaining how epidemiologists tracked the disease back to its roots and were able to find the probable routes through which the disease hit the rest of the world.

battery chucka' one wrote:Also, if they're still such a problem, wouldn't widespread eradication would be in order?

We're doing a darned fine job of exterminating Pan troglodytes troglodytes (the subspecies of chimp that is the most probable source of HIV's ancestor) as it is, thanks to encroachment on their territory, poaching, etc.

Pay Africans to put condoms on monkeys. Double-bag the gorillas if they have to.

And for fuck's sake, DO NOT give the baboons "ribbed-for-her-pleasure". That's just asking for trouble.

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:

battery chucka' one wrote:Well, I'd like to think we no longer are engaging in the activities that transferred the disease from them to us in the first place.

Dare I ask what you think those activities are/were?

battery chucka' one wrote:However, if they were perpetual carriers of the disease, why has it only been an issue for about 30 years instead of forever?

The current hypothesis is that the disease was endemic for a hell of a long time, but thanks to the increased mobility of our species, the disease was transported from central Africa to Europe and Haiti. The latency of the disease helped to hide who was infected. The PBS series "The Age of AIDS" does a great job in explaining how epidemiologists tracked the disease back to its roots and were able to find the probable routes through which the disease hit the rest of the world.

battery chucka' one wrote:Also, if they're still such a problem, wouldn't widespread eradication would be in order?

We're doing a darned fine job of exterminating Pan troglodytes troglodytes (the subspecies of chimp that is the most probable source of HIV's ancestor) as it is, thanks to encroachment on their territory, poaching, etc.

I've heard three such ideas as to how the disease was transferred from green monkey to humans. One was ingestion of meat. Another was a theoretical hunter accidentally cutting himself with a knife while cleaning a killed green monkey. The third was the one that I really hope we're not doing any more and that was that 'colonists' missed their wives, needed release, and had relations with some monkeys. I know how far fetched this sounds and it might just be an urban legend, but I heard of it without prompting from two separate, independent sources.

I think I fall into the same category with regards to full eradication on a species of animal as I do with quarantine of those who have AIDS. Both, as a Christian, I really wouldn't be able to endorse, regardless of their effectiveness.

That said, I still think that AIDS is quite possibly the hardest disease EVER to catch and would rather that we focus more on eradication of cancer than AIDS.

Martyred wrote:Pay Africans to put condoms on monkeys. Double-bag the gorillas if they have to.

And for fuck's sake, DO NOT give the baboons "ribbed-for-her-pleasure". That's just asking for trouble.

lmao At least you're not advocating manual castration of primates.

battery chucka' one wrote:I've heard three such ideas as to how the disease was transferred from green monkey to humans. One was ingestion of meat. Another was a theoretical hunter accidentally cutting himself with a knife while cleaning a killed green monkey.

Actually, it was probably during the processing of monkey meat (for regular consumption or for religious/cultural rituals).

battery chucka' one wrote:The third was the one that I really hope we're not doing any more and that was that 'colonists' missed their wives, needed release, and had relations with some monkeys. I know how far fetched this sounds and it might just be an urban legend, but I heard of it without prompting from two separate, independent sources.

Then both of those sources are fucking morons. Absolutely NO ONE in the legit epidemiological/HIV research world honestly believes that the "natives" got HIV from having sex with monkeys. None. Nada. In fact, one of the ways we know that someone is a dipshit is that they'll break out that line in a discussion.

battery chucka' one wrote:I think I fall into the same category with regards to full eradication on a species of animal as I do with quarantine of those who have AIDS. Both, as a Christian, I really wouldn't be able to endorse, regardless of their effectiveness.

Full eradication of the species would be a moral wrong (for obvious reasons) and a scientific tragedy. The latter because we might be able to study the mechanisms of SIV (proto-HIV) infection and SIV-infected apes to better understand HIV and come up with possible treatments, vaccines, etc. In fact, we used the SIV model to come up with a darned effective vaccine that conferred 100% protection to adult chimps against even ridiculously concentrated viral infection. Awesome. We were set to create an HIV vaccine based on it. Well, then, another researcher stuck the vaccine in infant/young chimps...and it gave them full-blown chimp AIDS, killing them all. Turns out that the vaccine, for reasons we didn't/don't understand yet, was lethal in not-fully-mature primates. Since we're not exactly sure how this translates from chimp immune systems to human, it potentially could have been a disaster of epic proportions if a similar HIV vaccine had been tested in humans.

We learn from our nearest genetic relatives. Eradicating them would be wrong and would cripple research.

battery chucka' one wrote:That said, I still think that AIDS is quite possibly the hardest disease EVER to catch and would rather that we focus more on eradication of cancer than AIDS.

Actually, I agree. AIDS is almost 100% preventable in that it is now a behavior-contracted disease (as opposed to early on, when the blood supply was contaminated). All people have to do to not get it is not engage in the behaviors that transmit it. With the exception of spouses/significant others who are -through no fault of their own- infected by the "extracurricular activities" of their cheating partners and kids born to HIV-infected moms, most of those infected made a stupid behavioral choice and...well...brought it on themselves. I have no sympathy for folks who chose to knowingly engage in high-risk behaviors and become infected. Saw those folks in the ID clinic. No sympathy. The SO's who got infected by their cheating/drug-using partners, OTOH, I felt for. And don't get me started on the pediatric cases. I dreaded having to go upstairs to deliver viral load results to the pediatric HIV docs and see the innocent kids up there. Being the guy who delivered the almost-invariably bad news sucked and helped play a role in my decision to leave that job.

Two things, my friend.

1. I share your sympathy with the whole spouse/rape (not as much, but still do care)/children with AIDS thing.

2. I never said that they told me that the natives had sex with the animals. I said the colonists (aka, the explorers. Europeans and white with big egos and even bigger libidoes.). And, again, I also said that I think it might just be an urban legend.

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:... the processing of monkey meat...

Processing of monkey meat?

Is that like "choking the chicken" or "beating the meat"?


"My wife was out of town visiting her sister, so I threw on some porn and processed the monkey meat.

Martyred wrote:

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:... the processing of monkey meat...

Processing of monkey meat?

Is that like "choking the chicken" or "beating the meat"?


"My wife was out of town visiting her sister, so I threw on some porn and processed the monkey meat.

lol Dude, you're on a roll today. Gonna go for the trifecta?

Q: What do you call a masturbating bull?

A: Beef Strokin'-Off



How am I doin'?

battery chucka' one wrote:

1. I share your sympathy with the whole spouse/rape (not as much, but still do care)/children with AIDS thing.

Wait a minute. You don’t have as much sympathy for someone who contracted HIV through rape? Do you just assume they were asking for it?

Goober McTuber wrote:

battery chucka' one wrote:

1. I share your sympathy with the whole spouse/rape (not as much, but still do care)/children with AIDS thing.

Wait a minute. You don’t have as much sympathy for someone who contracted HIV through rape? Do you just assume they were asking for it?

No, I don't think they were asking for it. Rape is never condonable nor anything less than cowardly. However, if a woman goes to a bar, gets picked up by a guy, and changes her mind halfway through the act of sex and ends up getting raped as a result, do you consider her to be in the same group as a child born with the disease or a spouse who contracts it via a cheating husband? And yes, there are those rape cases where the woman is walking through the supermarket and gets raped in the meats section (cue martyed), but don't you think those are quite rare with rape cases?

Your stupidity is absolutely mind-numbing. You think the majority of rape cases are women changing their mind? Go back to .net or TT or stucknut or wherever the fuck you came from. Fucking moron.

battery chucka' one wrote:And yes, there are those rape cases where the woman is walking through the supermarket and gets raped in the meats section (cue martyed)...

Are you expecting me to ham it up for you or are you just ribbing me?
If some pervert ground his beef into this poor woman's tenderloins, the judge should chuck his
butt into the slammer.

Goober McTuber wrote:Your stupidity is absolutely mind-numbing. You think the majority of rape cases are women changing their mind? Go back to .net or TT or stucknut or wherever the fuck you came from. Fucking moron.

I didn't say the majority, but you didn't answer the question, ma'am. Don't you see a difference between that situation and a child born with AIDS? Under what circumstances are most rape cases found? When women do day to day activities or when they are participating in something that is considered 'risky' behavior? Answer the questions, Claire.

battery chucka' one wrote:No, I don't think they were asking for it. Rape is never condonable nor anything less than cowardly. However, if a woman goes to a bar, gets picked up by a guy, and changes her mind halfway through the act of sex and ends up getting raped as a result, do you consider her to be in the same group as a child born with the disease or a spouse who contracts it via a cheating husband?

What you described probably doesn't even show up as a statistical "blip" in the overall stack of rape cases. I don't believe for a second that there is a large number of women who were raped because they started having consensual intercourse and then "changes her mind halfway through the act of sex." Nope.

In any event, like they say, "no means no."

Rape victims who contract HIV most certainly deserve to be given the same "moral judgement pass" with regards to HIV infection as infected infants and SO's who contracted it unwittingly due to their partner's "secret life" (whether that be unprotected sex or IV drug use).

Martyred wrote:

battery chucka' one wrote:And yes, there are those rape cases where the woman is walking through the supermarket and gets raped in the meats section (cue martyed)...

Are you expecting me to ham it up for you or are you just ribbing me?
If some pervert ground his beef into this poor woman's tenderloins, the judge should chuck his
butt into the slammer.

That was awful. I really expected some Prime, A-one from you with that material and you give me mince meat and hamhocks. But yes, his butt should be in the slammer.

battery chucka' one wrote:

Martyred wrote:

battery chucka' one wrote:And yes, there are those rape cases where the woman is walking through the supermarket and gets raped in the meats section (cue martyed)...

Are you expecting me to ham it up for you or are you just ribbing me?
If some pervert ground his beef into this poor woman's tenderloins, the judge should chuck his
butt into the slammer.

That was awful. I really expected some Prime, A-one from you with that material and you give me mince meat and hamhocks. But yes, his butt should be in the slammer.

Hey! No need to grill me! I don't have a beef with you.

battery chucka' one wrote:But yes, his butt should be in the slammer.

Where undoubtedly he'll learn to fashion a crude shank.

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:

battery chucka' one wrote:No, I don't think they were asking for it. Rape is never condonable nor anything less than cowardly. However, if a woman goes to a bar, gets picked up by a guy, and changes her mind halfway through the act of sex and ends up getting raped as a result, do you consider her to be in the same group as a child born with the disease or a spouse who contracts it via a cheating husband?

What you described probably doesn't even show up as a statistical "blip" in the overall stack of rape cases. I don't believe for a second that there is a large number of women who were raped because they started having consensual intercourse and then "changes her mind halfway through the act of sex." Nope.

In any event, like they say, "no means no."

Rape victims who contract HIV most certainly deserve to be given the same "moral judgement pass" with regards to HIV infection as infected infants and SO's who contracted it unwittingly due to their partner's "secret life" (whether that be unprotected sex or IV drug use).

True that no means no. Most rape cases, I believe, are between a man and his wife. However, don't you think that there is any difference between a woman who walks through the ghetto (or frat parties) with a bottle in her hand and snuggles up against gang bangas (or drunken frat boys) is a litle more of a risk than one who doesn't do that and gets raped the same? Rape is rape, but I think that there is the matter of 'what in the hell were you thinking' that comes into play.

I share your sympathy with the whole spouse/rape (not as much, but still do care)/children with AIDS thing.

I find it interesting, given your professed Christian beliefs, that you would ever qualify your sympathy. In fact, your unqualified sympathy for others is what defines you as a Christian...unless it's little more than an arm patch.

PSUFAN wrote:

I share your sympathy with the whole spouse/rape (not as much, but still do care)/children with AIDS thing.

I find it interesting, given your professed Christian beliefs, that you would ever qualify your sympathy. In fact, your unqualified sympathy for others is what defines you as a Christian...unless it's little more than an arm patch.

I sympathize with all AIDS patients, PSU. But some are more responsible for their situations than others. Therefore, some get more sympathy. All get love, however. As fallen sinners, we all engage in activities that are stupid and will get us in trouble. However, with AIDS, it's a whole different ballgame. A man who watches porn is decaying himself morally. However, he isn't hurting himself physically as much as one who trolls for prostitutes. Therefore, I can more sympathize with the former more than the latter if he comes down with AIDS. I love all, however. Does that help you at all?

battery chucka' one wrote:Most rape cases, I believe, are between a man and his wife.

You are a just a total clusterfuck of a human being. Not surprising at all that you’re getting your ass handed to you in the theology forum.

Goober McTuber wrote:

battery chucka' one wrote:Most rape cases, I believe, are between a man and his wife.

You are a just a total clusterfuck of a human being. Not surprising at all that you’re getting your ass handed to you in the theology forum.

You disagree with this? Then where do you think most rape cases are found, ma'am?

battery chucka' one wrote:True that no means no. Most rape cases, I believe, are between a man and his wife. However, don't you think that there is any difference between a woman who walks through the ghetto (or frat parties) with a bottle in her hand and snuggles up against gang bangas (or drunken frat boys) is a litle more of a risk than one who doesn't do that and gets raped the same?

No.

And by the way...as a very proud and still-active fraternity alum, I don't particularly care for your lumping fraternity guys with gang-bangers.

battery chucka' one wrote:Rape is rape, but I think that there is the matter of 'what in the hell were you thinking' that comes into play.

Irrelevant. No means no. No woman deserves to be raped, let alone raped, infected with HIV from that rape, and then judged by an alleged "Christian."

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:

battery chucka' one wrote:True that no means no. Most rape cases, I believe, are between a man and his wife. However, don't you think that there is any difference between a woman who walks through the ghetto (or frat parties) with a bottle in her hand and snuggles up against gang bangas (or drunken frat boys) is a litle more of a risk than one who doesn't do that and gets raped the same?

No.

And by the way...as a very proud and still-active fraternity alum, I don't particularly care for your lumping fraternity guys with gang-bangers.

battery chucka' one wrote:Rape is rape, but I think that there is the matter of 'what in the hell were you thinking' that comes into play.

Irrelevant. No means no. No woman deserves to be raped, let alone raped, infected with HIV from that rape, and then judged by an alleged "Christian."

Do you say that rapes never happen at frat houses? Really?

I never said a woman deserves to be raped. All apologies if I came across as such. I pray that I didn't seem as if I was judging such a woman. I just don't think that such a woman is as 'innocent' as a child born with AIDS nor a woman who gets AIDS from her husband or a girl who answers the door to her home and a man breaks in and rapes her. I think that the line is there.

You never answered my question about the colonists, btw.

battery chucka' one wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:

battery chucka' one wrote:Most rape cases, I believe, are between a man and his wife.

You are a just a total clusterfuck of a human being. Not surprising at all that you’re getting your ass handed to you in the theology forum.

You disagree with this? Then where do you think most rape cases are found, ma'am?

You honestly believe that most rape cases involve a husband and wife? You are a fucking moron, plain and simple.

battery chucka' one wrote:Do you say that rapes never happen at frat houses? Really?

Never? No, I never said that. We had one fraternity at Geneseo that was infamous for having gang-raped in at least two separate incidents. Part of the whole "infamous" thing, in case you hadn't realized it, is that THE VAST MAJORITY OF FRATERNITIES AND FRATERNITY MEN DO NOT RAPE.

I am saying that it is the exception far, far more than the rule, and your insisting on citing it as an allegedly common incident and likening fraternity men to gangbangers is WAY the hell out of line and is borne out by absolutely no evidence.

battery chucka' one wrote:You never answered my question about the colonists, btw.

The colonist issue is also horseshit. No one aside from barroom (or chatroom/chatboard) idiots argues that sex with monkeys/apes explains the origin of AIDS.

Mike the Lab Rat wrote: No one aside from barroom (or chatroom/chatboard) idiots argues that sex with monkeys/apes explains the origin of AIDS.

Although, it does explain the origins of Cuda.

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:

battery chucka' one wrote:Do you say that rapes never happen at frat houses? Really?

Never? No, I never said that. We had one fraternity at Geneseo that was infamous for having gang-raped in at least two separate incidents. Part of the whole "infamous" thing, in case you hadn't realized it, is that THE VAST MAJORITY OF FRATERNITIES AND FRATERNITY MEN DO NOT RAPE.

I am saying that it is the exception far, far more than the rule, and your insisting on citing it as an allegedly common incident and likening fraternity men to gangbangers is WAY the hell out of line and is borne out by absolutely no evidence.

battery chucka' one wrote:You never answered my question about the colonists, btw.

The colonist issue is also horseshit. No one aside from barroom (or chatroom/chatboard) idiots argues that sex with monkeys/apes explains the origin of AIDS.

1. I think we can agree that rape is wrong.

2. You said that your fraternity didn't have rapes. But some do. How many frats on your campus had alcohol at their parties? Did yours? Why? If somebody feeds a woman a few drinks in order to 'loosen her up' and ends up having sex with her. Do you consider that rape? I do.

3. Thanks for clarifying the colonist issue. I'm glad that can be put to bed (so to speak) and never discuss again.

I was gonna say - you're underestimating the strength disparity between a chimp and a human.

mvscal wrote:

battery chucka' one wrote:You never answered my question about the colonists, btw.

Go ahead and try to fuck a chimp and see what happens to you.

Be sure to have a buddy standing by with a shovel and a bucket to carry off your pulverized remains.

What if you got the chimp wasted on Zima and GHB?

Sorry if I'm revealing any DTK fraternal secrets.

mvscal wrote:

battery chucka' one wrote:You never answered my question about the colonists, btw.

Go ahead and try to fuck a chimp and see what happens to you.

Hey, it got me to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Sincerely,

battery chucka' one wrote:You said that your fraternity didn't have rapes.

Actually, I said that the vast majority of fraternities do not engage in rape.

My fraternity would be part of that vast majority.

By the way, I served as a national fraternity executive - the National Ritual Officer- for three years, and prior to that I served on several of our national committees/task forces (including the Moral & Ethical Development Task Force) for several more years. In those capacities, I traveled to several campuses to go to conferences, do presentations, install and advise Chapters, and I got to know not just the men in my own fraternity, but also guys in other fraternities. I also attended NIC (North-American Interfraternity Conference) meetings, which also introduced me to members of other fraternities. Alcohol abuse, sexual abuse, and rape were topics we of course addressed as a problem (since a very small number of indefensibly evil individuals were getting us all stereotyped), but one of the things I know - far better than you - is that the vast majority of fraternity men, regardless of the letters they wore, were and are honorable men who did not and do not engage in sexual assault and rape. Period.

battery chucka' one wrote:But some do.

So do some athletes. And tutors. And professors.

Regardless of which men do it, they should be prosecuted.

However, it does not justify, in any way, shape, or form, your incredibly stupid attempt to paint fraternity men in general as rapists and fraternity houses as "rape warehouses."

battery chucka' one wrote:How many frats on your campus had alcohol at their parties?

Every stinking one of them. So did all of the sororities. Hell, even the "independents" had booze at their parties. When I was at Geneseo, the campus administration actually sanctioned dorm-sponsored progressive parties.

battery chucka' one wrote:Why?

Welcome to Earth.

As an obvious visitor here, allow me to mention that most of our cultures have managed to find ways to ferment pretty much every damned plant on the planet for the purpose of creating intoxicating beverages. Some cultures have taken to lighting materials on fire and deliberately inhaling the smoke for an intoxicating effect. Some eat mushrooms that grow in cow feces. Some lick the back of toads.

People like a buzz. So do some animals.

Nothing wrong with that.

battery chucka' one wrote:If somebody feeds a woman a few drinks in order to 'loosen her up' and ends up having sex with her. Do you consider that rape? I do.

Then you're a blithering idiot.

Got news for you bub, there's a hell of a lot of women who drink and plan to get laid. Yep. That's one of the many reasons why SORORITIES have kegs and bottles and their houses. The little sisters we had in our Chapter also seemed to deliberately partake of various forms of intoxicants. Apparently, there are reports that women like sex. And booze.

Having sex with a woman who's passed out is rape. Having sex with a woman incapable of making decisions of any kind is rape. Just having sex with a drunk woman is not rape. If your statement were true (which it isn't), then my college girlfriends, including the woman I married (she picked me up at a fraternity party) were all raped by me.

This isn't going well for you.