Do condoms stop the spread of HIV? McCain: "You've stumped me."

floyd1975

Ahnimus wrote:

So you think smoking is a result of irresonsibility as well? Would that be the irresonsibility of past generations who made it so readily available for children and failed to outlaw it? Or the tobacco industry for adding 466 toxic additives to make it taste better? Or is it the irresponsibility of the 12 year old child that tries his first smoke? Or the parents who can't keep an eye on their child 24/7? Is it the 47 year old man that has been smoking since he was 12 and is not only addicted to nicotine but all the other additives as well?

I guess what I'm trying to get at is it's everyone's responsibility, as a society, to eliminate harmful substances like nicotine, we shouldn't allow the industry to do what they do, and what they have done. In the past cigarette ad campaigns have been like mind control, I mean the same way McDonald's got so big.

I'm a smoker. I blame you Ahnimus.

In all seriousness though, I blame the person who picks up the cigarette and lights it up. That would be me in my own personal life. I also blame myself for the failure to quit.

Ahnimus

zstillings wrote:

I'm a smoker. I blame you Ahnimus.

In all seriousness though, I blame the person who picks up the cigarette and lights it up. That would be me in my own personal life. I also blame myself for the failure to quit.

Are we gonna hash out the nature of choice now?

onelongsong

Ahnimus wrote:

I agree with you, but who are the irresponsible ones?

A person can be born with HIV, a person can get HIV the first time they have sex, a person can get HIV from blood transfer (e.g. fights). There are so many ways to get HIV and 33 million people have it.

I don't think this epidemic is entirely an issue of responsibility of the individual. That's like saying that birds should be more responsible with the avian flu virus. Or people who get Norwalk or West Nile virus are irresponsible. Hell, if you've ever had a cold your irresponsible.

It's only ok for people to put the blame entirely on the shoulders of the diseased because it's trasferable sexually.

hippiemon is right; mccain has lost it. i know him through a friend so i can say it. but what has congress have to do with aids? are they going to pass a law against it? what about the 20,000 to 30,000 who die as a result of drunk driving? if you want to address needless deaths let's start there.
now what does anyone but the CDC have to do with it? EDUCATION! that's the answer. hell; we have more guns than people yet there's no education in schools. it's like our dirty little secret. let's ban aids. that seems to be the answer with everyone.
anyone born with any other disease is responsable for themselves. if i get the flu; i'm responsable for myself. epidemics like bird flu or west nile do need government attention and action. why? because people can't avoid getting it. you're comparing apples and oranges.
now if you want government to step in with aids; the only solution is to require EVERYONE to be tested for aids every 6 months and if infected; put a tattoo on their forehead so you know not to have sex with them. that is the only thing government can do other than education.
if you have another idea; i'll listen.

farfromglorified

Ahnimus wrote:

So, for example, San Francisco gay bath houses? Like, before anyone heard of AIDS.

:rolleyes:

So you've accounted for 0.00000001% of the cases there. Well done. Even there, however, sex was still a risky business.

HIV doesn't discriminate against homosexuality or IV drug users.

Hehe...yes it does. More specifically, however, it discriminates against people who exchange large amounts of bodily fluids.

It may seem unlikely but you could be abstinent your whole life, meet a girl, fall in love, get married, have sex and contract HIV. That's just how STDs work.

Thanks for the lesson there. Note how if I never had sex, I wouldn't have contracted HIV in your example. It's not some magical happenstance.

Take HPV as an example. 70% - 80% of the population come in contact with the virus. Roughly 30% of people have it and most people are asymptomatic, so they have no knowledge they have the virus. Men can only be diagnosed if they are symptomatic, so if they are not, they will probably never know. Women can be diagnosed by pap test, and more screening and now a vaccine is provided to women because it can lead to cervical cancer. But in general, most people will contract the virus at some point, thankfully the human immune system is capable of defeating it.

Would you suggest that anyone that has any STI is irresponsible granted they got it from sexual contact?

I'm not sure what you mean by "irresponsible". They are responsible for their disease, at least to some extent. The extent is determined by their knowledge relative to their choices.

Also, it sounds like your saying they knowlingly chose to live a lifestyle that would result in HIV.

It is what I'm saying, although oversimplified. I'm not saying "they asked for it". What I am saying, in most cases, is "they forgot that means justify ends".

blackredyellow

I think it's time for a president to stand up and declare a war on AIDS!







:rolleyes:

pjfanatic4

Ahnimus wrote:

So you think smoking is a result of irresonsibility as well? Would that be the irresonsibility of past generations who made it so readily available for children and failed to outlaw it? Or the tobacco industry for adding 466 toxic additives to make it taste better? Or is it the irresponsibility of the 12 year old child that tries his first smoke? Or the parents who can't keep an eye on their child 24/7? Is it the 47 year old man that has been smoking since he was 12 and is not only addicted to nicotine but all the other additives as well?

I guess what I'm trying to get at is it's everyone's responsibility, as a society, to eliminate harmful substances like nicotine, we shouldn't allow the industry to do what they do, and what they have done. In the past cigarette ad campaigns have been like mind control, I mean the same way McDonald's got so big.

Hey, STD's, in some cases, the responsibility lies flat in the face of the individual.

Smoking, with the info available today, there really is no excuse for the individual that chooses to smoke. If you do, you WILL get sick. That's why I agree with taxing as much as you can from tobacco because at some point, it is a burden for the community to pay for the medical services of those that do not have the resources.

onelongsong

Ahnimus wrote:

So you think smoking is a result of irresonsibility as well? Would that be the irresonsibility of past generations who made it so readily available for children and failed to outlaw it? Or the tobacco industry for adding 466 toxic additives to make it taste better? Or is it the irresponsibility of the 12 year old child that tries his first smoke? Or the parents who can't keep an eye on their child 24/7? Is it the 47 year old man that has been smoking since he was 12 and is not only addicted to nicotine but all the other additives as well?

I guess what I'm trying to get at is it's everyone's responsibility, as a society, to eliminate harmful substances like nicotine, we shouldn't allow the industry to do what they do, and what they have done. In the past cigarette ad campaigns have been like mind control, I mean the same way McDonald's got so big.

past generations didn't know any better. if i tell you smoking will kill you and you smoke anyway. it's totally your responsability. it is your choice.

as to your second paragraph; are you saying we should eliminate sex to solve the aids problem? or are you changing the subject?

Ahnimus

farfromglorified wrote:

:rolleyes:

So you've accounted for 0.00000001% of the cases there. Well done. Even there, however, sex was still a risky business.

Hehe...yes it does. More specifically, however, it discriminates against people who exchange large amounts of bodily fluids.

Thanks for the lesson there. Note how if I never had sex, I wouldn't have contracted HIV in your example. It's not some magical happenstance.

I'm not sure what you mean by "irresponsible". They are responsible for their disease, at least to some extent. The extent is determined by their knowledge relative to their choices.

It is what I'm saying, although oversimplified. I'm not saying "they asked for it". What I am saying, in most cases, is "they forgot that means justify ends".

So, you think HIV discriminates against Gays and popper addicts? Man you got a lot to learn about HIV. I thought like you at one time, but then I put in the elbow grease and learned reality. Start with the CDC website.

farfromglorified

Ahnimus wrote:

I guess what I'm trying to get at is it's everyone's responsibility, as a society, to eliminate harmful substances like nicotine, we shouldn't allow the industry to do what they do, and what they have done. In the past cigarette ad campaigns have been like mind control, I mean the same way McDonald's got so big.

Jesus.....

Dude, when are you going to realize this:

If one man's action is the effect of another man's action, the other man's action is then the effect of a third man's action, and so on.

Either eliminate responsibility or embrace it. You can't do both.

Ahnimus

farfromglorified wrote:

Jesus.....

Dude, when are you going to realize this:

If one man's action is the effect of another man's action, the other man's action is then the effect of a third man's action, and so on.

Either eliminate responsibility or embrace it. You can't do both.

I'm embracing collective responsibility, for the simple fact that people are more motivated to change in large social groups. If you simply blame 1% of people, you aren't going to see any change, just social divide.

farfromglorified

Ahnimus wrote:

So, you think HIV discriminates against Gays and popper addicts?

Of course it does. It discriminates against anyone who transmits large amounts of bodily fluids. Sexually active gay men and friendly IV drug users are very much on that list.

I thought like you at one time

Hehe...with all due respect, the less you think like me the more comfortable I'm going to be with my positions.

farfromglorified

Ahnimus wrote:

I'm embracing collective responsibility, for the simple fact that people are more motivated to change in large social groups. If you simply blame 1% of people, you aren't going to see any change, just social divide.

Hehe....misery loves company then? That's your philosophical basis?

Ahnimus, I'm not responsible for your diseases. You're not responsible for the fact I smoke. If you want accept responsibility for my vices, knock yourself out. But I'm not going to return the favor. I didn't make your choices, and you didn't make mine.

Ahnimus

farfromglorified wrote:

Of course it does. It discriminates against anyone who transmits large amounts of bodily fluids. Sexually active gay men and friendly IV drug users are very much on that list.

That's complete rubbish. It has nothing to do with fluids. HIV is very, very, very rarely transferred through the fluids themselves. It's caused by friction and tearing of the skin. The skin lining of the anus is 1/3 the thickness of the vagina. That is why gay men are at greater risk, but HIV doesn't discriminate.

Hehe...with all due respect, the less you like me the more comfortable I'm going to be with my positions.

That's not a very good system for developing a perspective of reality. That'll likely get you farthest from the truth.

farfromglorified

Ahnimus wrote:

That's complete rubbish. It has nothing to do with fluids. HIV is very, very, very rarely transferred through the fluids themselves. It's caused by friction and tearing of the skin. The skin lining of the anus is 1/3 the thickness of the vagina. That is why gay men are at greater risk, but HIV doesn't discriminate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV

"Infection with HIV occurs by the transfer of blood, semen, vaginal fluid, pre-ejaculate, or breast milk. Within these bodily fluids, HIV is present as both free virus particles and virus within infected immune cells. The three major routes of transmission are unprotected sexual intercourse, contaminated needles, and transmission from an infected mother to her baby at birth, or through breast milk. Screening of blood products for HIV in the developed world has largely eliminated transmission through blood transfusions or infected blood products in these countries."

That's not a very good system for developing a perspective of reality. That'll likely get you farthest from the truth.

I'll take my chances. But thanks for worrying about me.

onelongsong

farfromglorified wrote:

Hehe....misery loves company then? That's your philosophical basis?

Ahnimus, I'm not responsible for your diseases. You're not responsible for the fact I smoke. If you want accept responsibility for my vices, knock yourself out. But I'm not going to return the favor. I didn't make your choices, and you didn't make mine.

EXACTLY. if i go out and get aids tonight; it's nobodys fault but my own.

Ahnimus

farfromglorified wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV

"Infection with HIV occurs by the transfer of blood, semen, vaginal fluid, pre-ejaculate, or breast milk. Within these bodily fluids, HIV is present as both free virus particles and virus within infected immune cells. The three major routes of transmission are unprotected sexual intercourse, contaminated needles, and transmission from an infected mother to her baby at birth, or through breast milk. Screening of blood products for HIV in the developed world has largely eliminated transmission through blood transfusions or infected blood products in these countries."

I'll take my chances. But thanks for worrying about me.

Dude, the chance of contracting HIV from bodily fluids (except blood) is very very slim. It's so rare that it was believed to not occur for the longest time. I spent months researching it.

Ahnimus

Here we go...

Following is the distribution of the estimated number of diagnoses of AIDS among adults and adolescents by transmission category in the 50 states and District of Columbia. A breakdown by sex is provided where appropriate.

Transmission Category Estimated # of AIDS Cases, in 2005
Adult and Adolescent Male Adult and Adolescent Female Total
Male-to-male sexual contact 18,939 - 18,939
Injection Drug Use 5,806 3,179 8,985
Male-to-male sexual contact and injection drug use 2,190 - 2,190
High-risk heterosexual contact* 5,208 8,278 13,486
Other** 287 253 540

*Heterosexual contact with a person known to have, or to be at high risk for, HIV infection.
** Includes hemophilia, blood transfusion, perinatal, and risk not reported or not identified.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/basic.htm#aidscases

So you can see how low the occurance of HIV in perinatal is. There where 57 cases in 2006. Compared to the 43,600 cases from Sexual contact and drug use.

Scientists and medical authorities agree that HIV does not survive well in the environment, making the possibility of environmental transmission remote. HIV is found in varying concentrations or amounts in blood, semen, vaginal fluid, breast milk, saliva, and tears. (See page 3, Saliva, Tears, and Sweat.) To obtain data on the survival of HIV, laboratory studies have required the use of artificially high concentrations of laboratory-grown virus. Although these unnatural concentrations of HIV can be kept alive for days or even weeks under precisely controlled and limited laboratory conditions, CDC studies have shown that drying of even these high concentrations of HIV reduces the amount of infectious virus by 90 to 99 percent within several hours. Since the HIV concentrations used in laboratory studies are much higher than those actually found in blood or other specimens, drying of HIV-infected human blood or other body fluids reduces the theoretical risk of environmental transmission to that which has been observed--essentially zero. Incorrect interpretation of conclusions drawn from laboratory studies have unnecessarily alarmed some people.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/transmission.htm

Anyway, keep yapping away about it.

farfromglorified

Ahnimus wrote:

It has nothing to do with fluids. HIV is very, very, very rarely transferred through the fluids themselves. It's caused by friction and tearing of the skin.

Ahnimus wrote:

Dude, the chance of contracting HIV from bodily fluids (except blood) is very very slim. It's so rare that it was believed to not occur for the longest time. I spent months researching it.

Looks like you could use a couple more months.

Ahnimus

onelongsong wrote:

EXACTLY. if i go out and get aids tonight; it's nobodys fault but my own.

It would certainly help if you were educated on the virus. Which you don't seem to be.

Ahnimus

farfromglorified wrote:

Looks like you could use a couple more months.

Read the above post, damn poser. Why would you claim to know something you obviously don't? Especially when talking to someone that has put in the time to fully and completely understand HIV/AIDS.