Truth, lies and red noses (long, winding but Nancy, do read it)
Dr Zen
statistics wielded to great effect.
Number of deaths from legal abortions (pro-life source)
http://www.roevwade.org/abortdeaths.html
Number of deaths from illegal abortions (pro-life source)
http://www.catholic.net/rcc/loveboth/chapter27.html
Interesting that no source is given for Poland, and they claim *no*
deaths from illegal abortions! This must be understood as *no reported
deaths* of course.
Risky abortions in the third world (pro-choice source)
http://www.jhuccp.org/pr/m12/m12chap2_1.stm
Comparison of legal and illegal abortions (pro-choice source)
http://www.pregnantpause.org/numbers/morbid.htm
Abortions pre-Roe v Wade did happen! (pro-choice source - lots of
primary sources)
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/library/ABORTION/HealthBenef.html
Interesting stats that could prove just about anything (pro-life
source)
http://www.prolifecampaign.ie/stats.htm
I was interested that one survey found a correlation between previous
abortion and suicide in mothers (note for conservatives: a correlation
only; there would be a correlation between suicide and previous
drinking of beer, but that doesn't mean that drinking beer leads to
suicide).
So, let's not get things out of proportion. This is not an issue based
on cold, hard facts. Both sides can make a case.
Anecdotally, I know several women who have had an abortion (who
doesn't?). I know one had misgivings when she had had a child because
she loves the child and she could draw the connection between the one
she had and the one she didn't. Another was happy to have had the
termination because her life would have been profoundly affected by
having a child by a man she did not love. Another faced severe health
problems, and she was devastated to have to make the choice.
I have been the father of a terminated pregnancy (if that's how one
words it). I have no feelings about it at all. I didn't want a child.
It wasn't my choice, in any case.
What's my point? I feel that each case above has been different. Each
woman has had to make a choice (and there are many other cases where
women have of course chosen to proceed with the pregnancy). If
abortions had been illegal, they all would have been faced with a far
harder choice, although their wish to keep the child or not would
still have been the same. In effect, they would be forced to break the
law or to have a child they did not want. I consider whether you can
then hand that child over to a childless couple to be more or less
besides the point - it's a whole different question, with a whole
different set of considerations (although I do know people who are the
offspring of such unhappy circumstances, and some find it troubling;
certainly, my grandmother, who never knew her mother, did). Pretending
that the risks from illegal abortions match those from legal abortions
devalues the pro-life case, since it is plainly not true, even though
legal abortion does carry a risk, which the pro-choice side should not
seek to hide. So my point is that pro-lifers wish a world in which the
choice is harder, where one alternative does have a higher risk of
death or mutilation. They know this is a consequence of their wish for
illegalisation - no jiggering or pokering with the figures can hide
that, although the differences are not going to be enormous (given the
number of doctors now qualified, there are not going to be the same
numbers of unqualified people doing abortions in a back alley - the
world has changed).
The analogy with drugs is probably apt. Those who wish drugs
illegalised don't mind too much that their illegalisation causes
greater harm - they want drugs to be scary after all. Although there
would be harm associated with drugs were they legal, it would be less,
but possibly more drugs would be used. What anti-drugs people oppose
is the use of drugs, not the harm they do necessarily. A *very* apt
analogy, because, as PJ says, anti-abortionists oppose abortions
period.
The analogy with guns, though, is only apt in the following sense.
Guns' legality or otherwise has little effect on how much harm they
do. It's their prevalence that causes the problem. America has a high
rate of gun deaths because America has a lot of guns, pure and simple.
Just like Sierra Leone. Were there fewer guns (as here in the UK),
there would be fewer deaths. No guns would mean no deaths from guns.
This is the bit where I tie this in with writing, to stay within the
charter. Well, it ought to be obvious. It behooves a writer to
remember what of the things they believe is objective, and what
subjective, lest they fall into the trap of thinking stats and cites
can prove the subjective true. I am pro-choice almost entirely by
personal belief, with very little objective reason. Although I do
believe that illegalising abortions would increase deaths, this is not
why I oppose it. I don't know when life can be said to start, although
I know when a fetus can survive independently, so I cannot say that
pro-lifers are wrong to say a life is taken when a pregnancy is
terminated. If they are right, fewer abortions means fewer deaths, in
any case, and scaring women out of having abortions means lives saved,
not lives lost.
Zen
gekko
to misc.writing, saying ...
> Zen
read it.
--
gekko
No one can earn a million dollars honestly. - William Jennings Bryan
(1860-1925)
Ultraviolet
news:5e7da04d.0208...@posting.google.com:
<>
IAWTP!!! (emailed only)
I have a sense that there is a certain percentage of people (in the U.S. at
least) who believe that, in general, anything physically pleasurable must
be wrong. I think (ICBW, bwah) that these people oppose legalization
of street drugs mainly because the idea of people sitting around getting
high, even if no one gets hurt in any way, is anathema to them. There are
people who think that a terminal cancer patient should be prevented from
"addiction" to morphine because it's just not right that their last few
hours be spent (possibly) in a pleasurable haze. No cite, so feel free to
jump up and down yelling how there is *no* person who feels this way.
My view, these are the same people who feel that women should "pay" for
having sex by being obliged to carry any resulting pregnancy to term. (They
then throw in the irrelevancy of all the infertile yuppie couples on
waiting lists for blonde, blue-eyed infants.) It's not that hard to figure
out who these people are when they say abortion can be allowed for cases of
rape and incest. Why? If it's a baby, it's a baby. Not the baby's fault
mommy was raped.
[Space saved for the inevitable pretzel-logic replies.]
> The analogy with guns, though, is only apt in the following sense.
> Guns' legality or otherwise has little effect on how much harm they
> do. It's their prevalence that causes the problem. America has a high
> rate of gun deaths because America has a lot of guns, pure and simple.
> Just like Sierra Leone. Were there fewer guns (as here in the UK),
> there would be fewer deaths. No guns would mean no deaths from guns.
>
> This is the bit where I tie this in with writing, to stay within the
> charter. Well, it ought to be obvious. It behooves a writer to
> remember what of the things they believe is objective, and what
> subjective, lest they fall into the trap of thinking stats and cites
> can prove the subjective true. I am pro-choice almost entirely by
> personal belief, with very little objective reason. Although I do
> believe that illegalising abortions would increase deaths, this is not
> why I oppose it. I don't know when life can be said to start, although
> I know when a fetus can survive independently, so I cannot say that
> pro-lifers are wrong to say a life is taken when a pregnancy is
> terminated. If they are right, fewer abortions means fewer deaths, in
> any case, and scaring women out of having abortions means lives saved,
> not lives lost.
All topies are writing-related for me. The wide variety of viewpoints help
me create characters other than UV-clones, and occasionally there are funny
lines to steal for dialog.
-Ultra V.
Bill Funke
<...>
>
>I have a sense that there is a certain percentage of people (in the U.S. at
>least) who believe that, in general, anything physically pleasurable must
>be wrong. I think (ICBW, bwah) that these people oppose legalization
>of street drugs mainly because the idea of people sitting around getting
>high, even if no one gets hurt in any way, is anathema to them. There are
>people who think that a terminal cancer patient should be prevented from
>"addiction" to morphine because it's just not right that their last few
>hours be spent (possibly) in a pleasurable haze. No cite, so feel free to
>jump up and down yelling how there is *no* person who feels this way.
I think it was McCauley who said "The Puritan hates bear baiting, not
because it gives pain to the bear, but because it gives pleasure to
the spectators."
Someone else said "There are people out there who are appalled that
someone, somewhere, is having a good time, and are doing their best to
rectify the situation."
Campaigns against tobacco, alcohol, pot, recreational sex and
pronography, etc. may or may not have some basis in medicine or
sociology, but are really based on the idea that only bad people do
these things.
It's that wretched Calvinism that pervades our thinking. The "saved"
are recognized by their lifestyles ands good works, the rest are
doomed sinners. If we can't save the sinners, we are justified in
destroying them.
>My view, these are the same people who feel that women should "pay" for
>having sex by being obliged to carry any resulting pregnancy to term. (They
>then throw in the irrelevancy of all the infertile yuppie couples on
>waiting lists for blonde, blue-eyed infants.) It's not that hard to figure
>out who these people are when they say abortion can be allowed for cases of
>rape and incest. Why? If it's a baby, it's a baby. Not the baby's fault
>mommy was raped.
Of course. Remember how AIDS was God's vengeance on homosexuals?
Chris McLaughlin
It's not the baby's fault if the mother chose to have sex, either.
We're obsessed with fault finding and blame placing. I'm not sure how
that fits in with guilt about pleasure but I'm sure it does, and John
Calvin is as good a head on which to place the blame as any. We get
all snarled up in proving others wrong so that we may be seen as
right, no matter what it takes to do that, no matter what sneaky
tricks or distortions it takes to get there.
I think we'd all be better off reminding ourselves, as Zen pointed
out, that our judgments in these matters are subjective and based on
feelings (or our interpretation of books expressing the revealed word
of God) as much as anything else, and it's foolish to pretend that
hard logic and data are the main basis for our thinking.
On Prairie Home Companion last night (a repeat I suppose), Keillor was
talking about hunters and non-hunters, and he identified the TRUE
determinant of whether you were going to be a hunter: if your father
and brothers (and sisters) were hunters. It's rare for someone from a
nonhunting family to take it up. (It's a little fuzzier for
nonhunters, of course: either they came from nonhunting families or
they rejected the tradition.)
Anyway, so much of what we think and what we do is based on
"inherited" patterns and beliefs. The arguments to explain what we do
come after the fact.
What if we focused as much energy on helping the babies, their mothers
and fathers, the people with AIDS, as we do on condemnation and
arguing among ourselves?
Chris
Bill Funke
<...>
>
>On Prairie Home Companion last night (a repeat I suppose), Keillor was
>talking about hunters and non-hunters, and he identified the TRUE
>determinant of whether you were going to be a hunter: if your father
>and brothers (and sisters) were hunters. It's rare for someone from a
>nonhunting family to take it up. (It's a little fuzzier for
>nonhunters, of course: either they came from nonhunting families or
>they rejected the tradition.)
>
>Anyway, so much of what we think and what we do is based on
>"inherited" patterns and beliefs. The arguments to explain what we do
>come after the fact.
Very true. We are, to a large part, products of our environment, and
our first environment is our family.
>What if we focused as much energy on helping the babies, their mothers
>and fathers, the people with AIDS, as we do on condemnation and
>arguing among ourselves?
>
That, of course, would mean actual work.
It would also mean that exposure to the real problems and
responsibility for solving them might upset some firmly held beliefs.
Geno
"Bill Funke" <wf...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3d56874c....@news.cis.dfn.de...
For what it's worth, we spend much, much more money and energy helping the
babies, their mothers and fathers, and the people with AIDS than we spend on
practically any other social problem that is self-inflicted.
Firmly held beliefs are never upset. That's why they endure and stand the
test of time.
--Geno<glad I could straighten you out on that>Royer
Rick and Sue Deschene
<snip>
>>What if we focused as much energy on helping the babies, their mothers
>>and fathers, the people with AIDS, as we do on condemnation and
>>arguing among ourselves?
>>
>>
>
> That, of course, would mean actual work.
>
> It would also mean that exposure to the real problems and
> responsibility for solving them might upset some firmly held beliefs.
>
>
>
Yup. And sometimes the arguing is necessary because listening to/reading
those arguments is the only way fence-sitters make a decision. Or those
of us who knew what we believed, but sat on the sidelines for far too
long, were finally moved to take a more active role in supporting what
we believe (in my case, that's pro-choice).
Sue
gekko
misc.writing I see little cmcl...@mcw.edu (Chris McLaughlin)
saying:
> What if we focused as much energy on helping the babies, their
> mothers and fathers, the people with AIDS, as we do on
> condemnation and arguing among ourselves?
Another one with the real solution! Amen, Sister Chris. Amen.
--
gekko
The trouble with some women is that they get all excited about nothing
(and then they marry him).
The Last Real Marlboro Man
news:1ff54e91.0208...@posting.google.com:
> our judgments in these matters are subjective
Of course. Isn't everything?
> it's foolish to pretend that
> hard logic and data are the main basis for our thinking.
Kindly speak for yourself.
> What if we focused as much energy on helping the babies, their mothers
> and fathers, the people with AIDS, as we do on condemnation and
> arguing among ourselves?
This mindless statement is, of course, based on a lie.
We do nothing *but* help the babies, their mothers and fathers, and the
people with AIDS. We even hold freakin' "parenting" classes im my
church, for chrissakes, to teach people how not to kill thier kids. (Now,
if we could only teach them to stop stealing each other's purses.)
Anyone who does not "help" directly as the many church, private and
government programs do, does so with his tax dollars and increased health-
care costs.
The annual cost of treating someone with full-blown aids, for example, is
$34,000. $14,000 for someone who is HIV positive but otherwise healthy. The
CDC estimates that there are as many as 900,000 Americans with either HIV
or AIDS. That would be around 21 billion dollars a year to treat a
preventable disease - a disease of choice and lifestyle.
--
Wayne Lutz - http://www.waynelutz.net
The Tocquevillian Magazine
http://www.waynelutz.net/conservativevoice
------------------------------------------------------------
"Just as Ronald Reagan gave American culture a renewed patriotism and self-
confidence that outlasted his presidency, Clinton has bequeathed America a
culture of criminality and rationalization by the powerful." --Ann Coulter
------------------------------------------------------------
Tuples
>From: The Last Real Marlboro Man uwtiuzp...@sneakemail.com
>Date: 8/11/02 2:49 PM Mountain Standard Time
>Message-id: <Xns9267B5F5963E7uw...@216.166.71.239>
And if you make a comment about AIDS being a disease of choice and lifestyle,
you are an insensitive fool. AIDS is not a serious threat to me because of MY
lifestyle choices. Note that I am not calling Wayne anything. I agree with him,
again.
When I say that I refuse to feel sorry for the active homosexual that contracts
the disease, I am viewed as a truly horrible person. Simple fact is, if you get
the disease because of the way you behave, then so be it. I refuse to shed a
tear.
I was not aware the costs were so high, Wayne.
Bob(bo)
The Last Real Marlboro Man
news:20020811180638...@mb-mo.aol.com:
> When I say that I refuse to feel sorry for the active homosexual that
> contracts the disease, I am viewed as a truly horrible person. Simple
> fact is, if you get the disease because of the way you behave, then so
> be it. I refuse to shed a tear.
The same people who view you as a "horrible person" would condemn you for
smoking cigarettes, thereby driving up their healthcare costs. Never mind
that smoking, unlike promiscuous sex, is being taxed into prohibition (with
overeating soon to follow).
But unlike smoking, the AIDS situation is actually getting worse, and for
good reason. A significant portion of the gay community is partying like
there is no tomorrow - literally. In so doing, they are guaranteeing the
continuation of the epidemic - guaranteeing death and disease by the
thousands.
The headline of the June 26th Gay Pride issue of the San Francisco Bay
Guardian reads, "Gay Sluts Are Back," and it is a statement of celebration,
not condemnation or lament. The article, written by self-described "gay
slut" Simon Sheppard, is a celebration of the revival of promiscuity among
Bay area homosexuals.
Sheppard writes, "The threat of HIV was (and is) real and deadly. But the
epidemic was also seized on as an instrument of control, by
assimilationists within the queer community who wanted us all to bahave
like good girls and by those in the larger heterocentrist culture who were
both envious of and repelled by men who number their sex partners in the
dozens. Or hundreds. Or thousands."
The article drew the absurd conclusion that efforts to contain AIDS through
responsible behavior were no more than disguised efforts to stop male
promiscuity because of a hatred of sex and male desire. The article states
that ignoring the AIDS epidemic is *moral*, because there is no greater
good than the fulfillment of sexual desire.
This attitude is the natural progression of the same selfishness that
characterizes all radical individualism. Do what feels good, because it's
your "right," and make others pay by redistributing their wealth.
"There's been a quantum increase in unprotected anal sex, not only between
those already HIV-infected but also among the not-yets," writes Sheppard.
"People who work in AIDS-prevention programs will confirm what we already
knew: queer men are having more sex, and less of it is condomized." He goes
on to praise the joy of "unapologetic homo-lust."
In New York City, the AIDS capital of America (with four times the number
of AIDS cases as San Francisco), the Gay Pride issue of the Village Voice
came out with a headline touting "The Return of Public Sex." Again, this
was not a lament, but a celebration.
The author, Steve Weinstein, wrote, "After years of AIDS anxiety and
government repression, gay public sex is bigger and better than ever."
The article praises public orgies of "barebacking," the word used to
describe unprotected anal sex. Part of the allure of this is the danger
involved, and then there is also the conviction that with protease-
inhibiting drugs, AIDS is now a manageable disease.
Even more perverse are the so-called "conversion parties," where HIV
positive men willingly submit to sex with AIDS-infected partners. This is
called "giving the gift," and those intentionally looking to become
infected with HIV are called "bug-chasers." A variation of this is the
"Russian Roulette Party," which are bareback orgies with HIV positive and
uninfected men.
The result of this abominable, irresponsible selfishness, of course, is
that in May 2001 the Centers for Disease Control released a study in which
they predicted that a second massive wave of AIDS infections, comparable to
the first wave in the 1980's, is about to sweep the homosexual population.
A few prominant gay voices have spoken out against the behavior of their
fellows, fearing a backlash and loss of "hard-won funding from the
government, and compassion from our liberal friends, when they learn
that a small but growing group of people within our own community are
behaving reckessly and selfishly," (Michelangelo Singnorile), and have of
course been bitterly attacked by other gays as "anti-sex" and even
"homophobic." (As any black who speaks for personal responsibiltiy and two-
parent families will tell you, after being condemned as a self-hating Uncle
Tom, the radical liberal thought police are omnipresent).
In this country, AIDS is a disease of choice. But you will continue to pay,
in increased health-care costs, increased taxes, and the siphoning of
funding from research for other diseases that afflict the innocent, such as
cancer and heart disease.
And God save you from the fanatical activists you if you object.
(See you at your Godless Ralley, Ricky.)
--
Wayne Lutz - http://www.waynelutz.net
The Tocquevillian Magazine
http://www.waynelutz.net/conservativevoice
gekko
written the perfect poem, for example, or read the one illuminating
book. Instead, The Last Real Marlboro Man
<uwtiuzp...@sneakemail.com> chose to post to misc.writing:
> As any black who speaks for personal responsibiltiy and two-
> parent families will tell you, after being condemned as a
> self-hating Uncle Tom, the radical liberal thought police are
> omnipresent)
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28540
--
gekko
If you ever drop your keys into a river of molten lava, let'em go,
because, man, they're gone.
Tuples
>Date: 8/11/02 7:15 PM Mountain Standard Time
>Message-id: <Xns9267E33063629uw...@216.166.71.239>
A well thought out reply. I am disappointed with their behavior as well. You
would think if there were a terrible disease spread by homosexual activity,
these folks would stop having wanton sex to limit the spread the disease.
I might suggest that the worse of the lot hate their fellow homosexuals as much
as they accuse straight people of hating them. Or am I off base with this
assumption? Much like black people who hate whites for the slavery thing, and
then conveniently omit the fact that many blacks were also slave traders.
Incidentally, I do smoke, but these days, it is a nice cigar. You think
cigarettes are viewed as bad, try smoking a cigar. I remember the day cigarette
smoking was banned in restraunts here in Utah. A man, seeing that I smoked,
made it a point to sit next to me. He watched me light up and then moved next
to me while I was sitting at the counter.
He had an oxygen tank with him and chewed me out for daring to smoke next to
him. One of the few times in life that I went out of my way to be absolutely
thoughtless and cruel, I told him if he did not like it, he can move his ass to
another spot where there was no smoke.
Bob
Dr Zen
I'll bet you spend a good deal more on caring for those who suffer
from heart disease.
I'm interested that you claim AIDS is self-inflicted. Does this mean
that a cold is "self-inflicted"? I mean, you could avoid other people,
so surely it's your fault when you catch a cold.
> Firmly held beliefs are never upset. That's why they endure and stand the
> test of time.
>
Will your great-grandchildren, should you have them, believe what you
believe?
Zen
Dr Zen
> cmcl...@mcw.edu (Chris McLaughlin) "wrote" <snort!> in
> news:1ff54e91.0208...@posting.google.com:
>
> > our judgments in these matters are subjective
>
> Of course. Isn't everything?
>
> > it's foolish to pretend that
> > hard logic and data are the main basis for our thinking.
>
> Kindly speak for yourself.
>
> > What if we focused as much energy on helping the babies, their mothers
> > and fathers, the people with AIDS, as we do on condemnation and
> > arguing among ourselves?
>
> This mindless statement is, of course, based on a lie.
>
> We do nothing *but* help the babies, their mothers and fathers, and the
> people with AIDS. We even hold freakin' "parenting" classes im my
> church, for chrissakes, to teach people how not to kill thier kids. (Now,
> if we could only teach them to stop stealing each other's purses.)
>
If the parents are bad, you condemn their badness. If someone tries to
help them become better at being parents, you condemn the helping.
There's no pleasing you. You will hate people on any context you can
find.
> Anyone who does not "help" directly as the many church, private and
> government programs do, does so with his tax dollars and increased health-
> care costs.
You eat beef, Sweepin' Boy?
> The annual cost of treating someone with full-blown aids, for example, is
> $34,000. $14,000 for someone who is HIV positive but otherwise healthy. The
> CDC estimates that there are as many as 900,000 Americans with either HIV
> or AIDS. That would be around 21 billion dollars a year to treat a
> preventable disease - a disease of choice and lifestyle.
LOL. Next, Sweepin' Boy condemns smoking, fast food joints and
drinking.
Zen
The Last Real Marlboro Man
news:5e7da04d.02081...@posting.google.com:
> I'm interested that you claim AIDS is self-inflicted. Does this mean
> that a cold is "self-inflicted"? I mean, you could avoid other people,
> so surely it's your fault when you catch a cold.
You don't get a cold by letting someone fuck you in the ass, psycho. Not
even you could be that stupid.
No, wait. I almost forgot who I'm talking to. You are that stupid.
Geno
"The Last Real Marlboro Man" <uwtiuzp...@sneakemail.com> wrote in
message news:Xns9267E33063629uw...@216.166.71.239...
I dast not snip one word of the above. Marvelous posting, Wayne.
--And the liberal do-gooders and moderates on the newsgroup upbraid me for
my condemnation of homosexuality and its repugnance. How dare they.
They are a godless and immoral bunch of suck-ups who just want to be admired
for their intellectual *tolerance*. Bullshit!
Homosexuality is the most disgusting and destructive thing human beings can
do with each other. (Now, enter Ed with his woeful recollection of Viet
Nam, and burning tires around people's necks. Lordy lordyŽ).
--Geno
The Last Real Marlboro Man
> If the parents are bad, you condemn their badness. If someone tries to
> help them become better at being parents, you condemn the helping.
You would read it that way, because you are psychotic.
I was lamenting the *necessity*, you fucking dimwit. But I don't expect you
to possess the mental ability to allow you to make that distinction.
Have you ever had a coherent thought in your miserable life?
Davida Chazan (The Chocolate Lady)
<uwtiuzp...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>gol...@hotmail.com (Dr Zen) "wrote" <snort!> in
>news:5e7da04d.02081...@posting.google.com:
>
>> I'm interested that you claim AIDS is self-inflicted. Does this mean
>> that a cold is "self-inflicted"? I mean, you could avoid other people,
>> so surely it's your fault when you catch a cold.
>
>You don't get a cold by letting someone fuck you in the ass, psycho.
Not everyone with AIDS has let someone fuck them in the ass. Nor have they all
fucked someone who got it from getting fucked in the ass. Nor are they all drug
addicts who use dirty needles. Nor are they people who have fucked someone who
got it from using dirty needles.
(I thought you were smarter than that, Wayne.)
--
Davida Chazan (The Chocolate Lady)
<davida @ jdc . org . il>
~*~*~*~*~*~
"A fiction writer's memory is an especially imperfect
provider of detail; we can always imagine a better detail
than the one we can remember." -- John Irving
~*~*~*~*~*~
Links to my published poetry - http://davidachazan.homestead.com/
~*~*~*~*~*~
PJ
Zen wrote
:
: > I'm interested that you claim AIDS is self-inflicted. Does this
: >mean that a cold is "self-inflicted"? I mean, you could avoid
: >other people, so surely it's your fault when you catch a cold.
:
: You don't get a cold by letting someone fuck you in the ass,
: psycho. Not even you could be that stupid.
Wayne, when I read this kind of stuff, I always hope there will be a
sig line that says "third best fiction writer on mw." But I know there
won't be.
You hate homosexuality and you speak out about behaviors you hate.
That quality is commendable. But how can you come out and say that
someone deserves to die?
Maybe I'm too close to the subject since I've lost two dear friends to
AIDs. Yes, they were both gay. When the last one died, I remember
feeling the most horrible, wrenching pain in my gut, and when I read
posts like this, it brings it all back, as vividly as ever.
Neither of them deserved to die, Wayne. God would not turn his back on
them any more than he would on you, or me, or any other people he
created. God doesn't pick and choose who he loves. How can you?
PJ
--
Blanche Nonken
> gol...@hotmail.com (Dr Zen) "wrote" <snort!> in
> news:5e7da04d.02081...@posting.google.com:
>
> > I'm interested that you claim AIDS is self-inflicted. Does this mean
> > that a cold is "self-inflicted"? I mean, you could avoid other people,
> > so surely it's your fault when you catch a cold.
>
> You don't get a cold by letting someone fuck you in the ass, psycho. Not
> even you could be that stupid.
You could, if you let them kiss you first.
PJ
yes, it was via email.)
I want to publicly apologize to Wayne for making the remark about his
feelings on homosexuality.
I went back and read through Google (specifically June 8, 2001) and
realized that I had jumped to an erroneous conclusion. Wayne has not
condemned homosexuality. He has condemned the behavior of
irresponsible homosexuals who engage in reckless sexual activities,
and therefore contribute to the spread of AIDs.
I'm sorry, Wayne.
PJ
--
The Last Real Marlboro Man
news:XxO59.89484$sA3....@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net:
> I want to publicly apologize to Wayne for making the remark about his
> feelings on homosexuality.
It's too little and way too late.
In this one post I was talking about the irresponsibility of people who
deliberately engage in dangerous behaviors and then expect others to pay
for it. Otherwise, the only thing I've ever condemned related to
homosexuality is the liberal gay activism that tries to force its views on
others while trying to censor dissenting views.
You didn't have to do any "googling" to read what I wrote in this post. You
only had to read what was there without your blinders on.
And this little line is a doozie:
>But how can you come out and say that
>someone deserves to die?
So, in three short lines you have ascribed to me "hate" and that I
believe that someone "deserves to die."
You know what? I am fucking fed up to *here* with this kind of ignorant
bullshit.
The Last Real Marlboro Man
<snort!> in news:ec7fluonrbbpmj4hh...@4ax.com:
> (I thought you were smarter than that, Wayne.)
Eat me.
That is *exactly* how AIDS is spread *in this country*, Davida. I can't
believe you are that ignorant. Do you honestly think, like the psycho Zen,
that AIDS is spread by casual contact? 20 years of AIDS education, and this
is what people believe?
Chris McLaughlin
> > What if we focused as much energy on helping the babies, their mothers
> > and fathers, the people with AIDS, as we do on condemnation and
> > arguing among ourselves?
>
> This mindless statement is, of course, based on a lie.
>
> We do nothing *but* help the babies, their mothers and fathers, and the
> people with AIDS. We even hold freakin' "parenting" classes im my
> church, for chrissakes, to teach people how not to kill thier kids. (Now,
> if we could only teach them to stop stealing each other's purses.)
>
> Anyone who does not "help" directly as the many church, private and
> government programs do, does so with his tax dollars and increased health-
> care costs.
>
> The annual cost of treating someone with full-blown aids, for example, is
> $34,000. $14,000 for someone who is HIV positive but otherwise healthy. The
> CDC estimates that there are as many as 900,000 Americans with either HIV
> or AIDS. That would be around 21 billion dollars a year to treat a
> preventable disease - a disease of choice and lifestyle.
I'm glad your church is teaching parents how not to kill their kids,
and I imagine that the expenditure for this task is pretty modest.
As to the AIDS issue, you are of course leaving out the many
"innocent" people in this country (and more in Africa) who were
infected by spouses, during involuntary sexual intercourse, or through
other means of transmission that have nothing to do with promiscuity
or drug use.
What I find most troubling about the money poured into AIDS treatment
is that it can lead to the further spread of the disease. There's no
easy answer for that.
I guess that your religious and moral beliefs tell you that anyone who
has sex outside of marriage is a sinner and should not be surprised
when she finds that the wages of sin is death. (Of course, the wages
of life is death, too, but never mind.) Tell me what you would say to
your neighbor, a good person who never strayed outside the marriage
but who contracted the disease from a spouse?
Chris
The Last Real Marlboro Man
> I guess that your religious and moral beliefs tell you that anyone who
> has sex outside of marriage is a sinner and should not be surprised
> when she finds that the wages of sin is death.
I jus' loves all youse smart people what tells me what I believes alla
time. That way I don't gotta do no figurin' for my own self.
>(Of course, the wages
> of life is death, too, but never mind.) Tell me what you would say to
> your neighbor, a good person who never strayed outside the marriage
> but who contracted the disease from a spouse?
We were all through this not long ago. The vast majority of AIDS cases in
*this* country are lifestyle-related. That is a fact, regardless of how
much the activists and easily duped would like to believe otherwise. Of
course there are innocents, but they are statistically insignificant - the
great hetero AIDS epidemic that was foretold by the doom-and-gloomers about
in th 80's never happened. Why? Because it is difficult to contract AIDS
through hetero intercourse, for one thing. The reason that it is spread
primarily through anal sex is that that act necessarily causes tears in the
tissue, allowing the virus access to the bloodstream. Duh.
What would I say to my neighbor? I'd say, "Shit, man. That's really fucked
up." And your point is...what?
Geno
"Blanche Nonken" <bla...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:ma8fluspmp02gl3t4...@4ax.com...
Well, they damn well better. Either that or buy lunch.
Geno
"PJ" <P...@spam-go-away.com> wrote in message
news:pDN59.107875$D36.96956@rwcrnsc53...
Oh really? Then how come God let them die? Are you saying God had a chance
to save them and instead stood and faced them and let them die? What a
cruel God. Truth is, PJ, The Almighty gives people the mental facilities to
preserve themselves. It's their choice whether to do it or not. Your AIDS
infected friends had a chance to save themselves but ignored the warning.
(Or are you saying that the warning label wasn't big enough?)
>God doesn't pick and choose who he loves. How can you?
I can't speak for Wayne; but for me, I take the same approach toward them as
God does.
It's called tough love. Mankind is a free moral agent; he can do as he
pleases. Let them do what they want to do, and let them suffer the
consequences. The consequences in this case is often death.
You are reacting to it emotionally, which is what liberalism is fueled by.
People who have had too much to drink have been known to pick up a revolver
and click it to their head--thinking, perhaps, that it was empty. Some have
even been known to take out all the bullets but one and then spin the
cylinder before clicking it to their heads. It's called "Bulgarian Bullet".
(Some people have called it Russian Rullet)
People who do it and die, deserve what they get. Is there an argument
there?
To argue against their deserving what they get is laughable. And silly.
Homosexuals do not get AIDS because they are gay. They get the disease
because of their *lifestyle*. (there's that word again that makes all the
liberals cringe)
If you really loved you gay friends as much as you claim, you would sit them
down and tell them the facts. Unprotected sex in the homosexual culture is
an invitation to die. Tell them if they get AIDS and die, you will not
celebrate their stupidity. Now that's love.
If you don't have the guts to do it, give them my e-mail address and I'll do
it. Perhaps I love them more than you do.
--Geno
PJ
PJ wrote
: > Neither of them deserved to die, Wayne. God would not turn
: >his back on them any more than he would on you, or me, or
: >any other people he created.
:
: Oh really? Then how come God let them die? Are you saying
: God had a chance to save them and instead stood and faced
: them and let them die? What a cruel God. Truth is, PJ, The
: Almighty gives people the mental facilities to preserve
: themselves. It's their choice whether to do it or not. Your
: AIDS infected friends had a chance to save themselves but
: ignored the warning. (Or are you saying that the warning label
: wasn't big enough?)
I don't have the answer to why people die, Geno, homosexual, straight,
or anything else. Neither do I have the answer to whether God "lets"
people die or "causes" people to die. There was a time when I believed
in "God's Master Plan," which I discarded just about a year ago when
my son in law dropped dead. I thought, there is no way God would have
a Master Plan that wipes out a young life, and leaves two babies
without a father. Now, you may read that and say it is unrelated to
this discussion and the product of a hyper-emotional, liberal mind. It
is related, however, because there is death all around us, and
innocent lives are snuffed out every day, as are the lives of people
who "have the chance to save themselves." As mere humans, who are we
to even attempt to explain that?
:
: >God doesn't pick and choose who he loves. How can you?
:
: I can't speak for Wayne; but for me, I take the same approach
: toward them as God does. It's called tough love. Mankind is a
: free moral agent; he can do as he pleases. Let them do what
: they want to do, and let them suffer the consequences. The
: consequences in this case is often death.
Doesn't the Bible say that the wages of sin are death? And I may have
a different interpretation of sin than you do, but my understanding is
that God judges all sin equally. That if one does not honor his father
and mother, he is every bit as guilty as the one who commits adultery,
or the one who kills. So where does a homosexual lifestyle fall in
there in the hierarchy of sin? You've noted that the wages of their
sin is death. But what about the sins you commit? Or those that I
commit? Where does God tell us that their sins are worse than ours?
: You are reacting to it emotionally, which is what liberalism is
: fueled by.
No, this is not about emotion or liberalism. This is about how my
personal faith is different from yours.
: People who have had too much to drink have been known to
: pick up a revolver and click it to their head--thinking, perhaps,
: that it was empty. Some have even been known to take out all
: the bullets but one and then spin the cylinder before clicking it to
: their heads. It's called "Bulgarian Bullet". (Some people have
: called it Russian Rullet) People who do it and die, deserve what
: they get. Is there an argument there?
: To argue against their deserving what they get is laughable. And
: silly.
So be it then. I would still not say that they deserve what they get.
I just don't think that way. You do. Have a good laugh on me.
: Homosexuals do not get AIDS because they are gay. They get
: the disease because of their *lifestyle*. (there's that word again
: that makes all the liberals cringe)
The word *lifestyle* keeps coming up. I can't help wondering if people
who work in risky occupations, or engage in high-risk hobbies such as
mountain climbing or racecar driving also deserve what they get
because of their lifestyles. Where do we draw the line here?
: If you really loved you gay friends as much as you claim, you
: would sit them down and tell them the facts. Unprotected sex in
: the homosexual culture is an invitation to die. Tell them if they
: get AIDS and die, you will not celebrate their stupidity. Now
: that's love.
Actually, the two who died are already dead, so it would be difficult
to tell them to be careful.
PJ
--
Geno
Re-read the above and then tell me what it has to do with people being
accountable for their actions.
> : You are reacting to it emotionally, which is what liberalism is
> : fueled by.
>
> No, this is not about emotion or liberalism. This is about how my
> personal faith is different from yours.
It is *all* about emotions and has nothing to do with faith--either yours or
mine. Perhaps you meant to use the word *beliefs*.
> : People who have had too much to drink have been known to
> : pick up a revolver and click it to their head--thinking, perhaps,
> : that it was empty. Some have even been known to take out all
> : the bullets but one and then spin the cylinder before clicking it to
> : their heads. It's called "Bulgarian Bullet". (Some people have
> : called it Russian Rullet) People who do it and die, deserve what
> : they get. Is there an argument there?
>
> : To argue against their deserving what they get is laughable. And
> : silly.
>
> So be it then. I would still not say that they deserve what they get.
> I just don't think that way. You do. Have a good laugh on me.
>
> : Homosexuals do not get AIDS because they are gay. They get
> : the disease because of their *lifestyle*. (there's that word again
> : that makes all the liberals cringe)
>
> The word *lifestyle* keeps coming up. I can't help wondering if people
> who work in risky occupations, or engage in high-risk hobbies such as
> mountain climbing or racecar driving also deserve what they get
> because of their lifestyles. Where do we draw the line here?
I realize how much liberals hate that word because it carries with it a duty
of personal accountability. Liberals hate personal accountability. They'd
rather put the blame on someone else--or God himself--than require that they
have to belly up and take responsibility for their own actions.
But tell me. Why have you attempted to squiggle out by mentioning
occupations--which implies policemen, doesn't it? Isn't that what you
implied? Homosexuality is not an occupation and can in no way compare with
the honorable, albeit hazardous duties of law enforcement officers.
Do you deny that anyone who dangles in *death defying* antics such as
mountain climbing are to blame for their fate--should they lose their
footing? Whom else would you saddle with the blame? Perhaps the man who
made the rope? The bad weather?God?
Is a man driving 230 mph in a flimbsy casket of a car not to blame for his
own fate in such risky undertakings? With these risks comes just deserts.
I don't have a car racer or a mountain climber as a friend; but if I did, I
would not celebrate their *bravery* in life, nor their stupidity in death.
> : If you really loved you gay friends as much as you claim, you
> : would sit them down and tell them the facts. Unprotected sex in
> : the homosexual culture is an invitation to die. Tell them if they
> : get AIDS and die, you will not celebrate their stupidity. Now
> : that's love.
>
> Actually, the two who died are already dead, so it would be difficult
> to tell them to be careful.
>
> PJ
You are wise not to have acquired more homosexual friends. They ruin the
neighborhood.
--Geno
Nicole J. LeBoeuf-Little
> You don't get a cold by letting someone fuck you in the ass, psycho.>
Sure you do, if that person has a cold. I mean, if they sneeze whilst
fucking...
Your oversimplification of how AIDS is transmitted is almost more
irresponsible than the behavior you complain about. In fact, it IS
more irresponsible, as there's nothing inherently irresponsible about
anal sex itself.
It's unprotected anal sex (and anal sex should ALWAYS involve condoms,
because, really, there are nasty things in people's butts) with
someone who has AIDS that's the disease-spreading vector.
The problem isn't in the sex act, the gender of the participants, or
even the number of participants. The simple act of homosexual sex
isn't in itself irresponsible. Neither is polyamory - though it's true
that responsibility takes more work when more people are involved, as
there's more people's health and activity to keep track of. But it can
be done. Sticking to partners who can be trusted to use protection and
not keep secrets about their health is key.
I mean, really, you might as well blame syphillus and gonorrhea on
those damn heterosexuals who persist in THEIR dangerous lifestyle.
--
N
PJ
: > : >I can't speak for Wayne; but for me, I take the same
: > : >approach toward them as God does. It's called tough
: > : >love. Mankind is a free moral agent; he can do as he
: > : >pleases. Let them do what they want to do, and let them
: > : >suffer the consequences. The consequences in this case is
: > : >often death.
PJ wrote
: > Doesn't the Bible say that the wages of sin are death? And I
: > may have a different interpretation of sin than you do, but my
: > understanding is that God judges all sin equally. That if one
: > does not honor his father and mother, he is every bit as guilty
: > as the one who commits adultery, or the one who kills. So
: > where does a homosexual lifestyle fall in there in the hierarchy
: > of sin? You've noted that the wages of their sin is death. But
: > what about the sins you commit? Or those that I commit?
: > Where does God tell us that their sins are worse than ours?
:
: Re-read the above and then tell me what it has to do with
: people being accountable for their actions.
I was answering your question, and I don't recall reading the words
"people being accountable for their actions." What I read was your
statement that my "AIDS infected friends had the chance to save
themselves but ignored the warning." You also said "Let them do what
they want to do, and let them suffer the consequences." I'm asking you
if homosexuals' actions (sins) are any different, aka worse, than any
other people's actions (sins). I'm interested to know your thoughts on
the hierarchy of sin point that I brought up.
:
: > : You are reacting to it emotionally, which is what liberalism is
: > : fueled by.
: >
: > No, this is not about emotion or liberalism. This is about how
: > my personal faith is different from yours.
:
: It is *all* about emotions and has nothing to do with faith--
: either yours or mine. Perhaps you meant to use the word
: *beliefs*.
Tomato, Tomahto. You knew what I meant.
<...>
: > : Homosexuals do not get AIDS because they are gay. They
: > : get the disease because of their *lifestyle*. (there's that
: > : word again that makes all the liberals cringe)
: >
: > The word *lifestyle* keeps coming up. I can't help wondering
: > if people who work in risky occupations, or engage in high-
: > risk hobbies such as mountain climbing or racecar driving also
: > deserve what they get because of their lifestyles. Where do
: > we draw the line here?
:
: I realize how much liberals hate that word because it carries
: with it a duty of personal accountability. Liberals hate personal
: accountability. They'd rather put the blame on someone else--
: or God himself--than require that they have to belly up and take
: responsibility for their own actions.
Yeah yeah yeah, troll troll troll.
: But tell me. Why have you attempted to squiggle out by
: mentioning occupations--which implies policemen, doesn't it?
: Isn't that what you implied? Homosexuality is not an occupation
: and can in no way compare with the honorable, albeit
: hazardous duties of law enforcement officers.
Oh good grief. Whenever words like "squiggle" and "implies" come up,
things tend to stray from the factual. It's a typical conservative
ploy to stray from the factual.
: Do you deny that anyone who dangles in *death defying* antics
: such as mountain climbing are to blame for their fate--should
: they lose their footing? Whom else would you saddle with the
: blame? Perhaps the man who made the rope? The bad
: weather?God?
I wouldn't assign blame at all. In fact, society would be a much
better place if people would just shut their traps about who's to
blame for blah blah fucking blah .
: Is a man driving 230 mph in a flimbsy casket of a car not to
: blame for his own fate in such risky undertakings? With these
: risks comes just deserts. I don't have a car racer or a mountain
: climber as a friend; but if I did, I would not celebrate their
: *bravery* in life, nor their stupidity in death.
I don't either, but if they died, I'd probably just keep my trap shut
about whether they were to blame for blah blah fucking blah.
: You are wise not to have acquired more homosexual friends.
: They ruin the neighborhood.
I suspect I will be hearing that irritating "whirrrrrrrrr" noise
before too long.
PJ
--
Geno
Then you must have been answering a question I didn't ask. I can't find it
in the text above. However, "Let them do what they want to do, and let
them suffer the consequences" is synonymous with people being accountable
for their actions.
> : > : You are reacting to it emotionally, which is what liberalism is
> : > : fueled by.
> : >
> : > No, this is not about emotion or liberalism. This is about how
> : > my personal faith is different from yours.
> :
> : It is *all* about emotions and has nothing to do with faith--
> : either yours or mine. Perhaps you meant to use the word
> : *beliefs*.
>
> Tomato, Tomahto. You knew what I meant.
It still has nothing to do with beliefs; and you misspelled tomatoe.
>
> : > : Homosexuals do not get AIDS because they are gay. They
> : > : get the disease because of their *lifestyle*. (there's that
> : > : word again that makes all the liberals cringe)
> : >
> : > The word *lifestyle* keeps coming up. I can't help wondering
> : > if people who work in risky occupations, or engage in high-
> : > risk hobbies such as mountain climbing or racecar driving also
> : > deserve what they get because of their lifestyles. Where do
> : > we draw the line here?
> :
> : I realize how much liberals hate that word because it carries
> : with it a duty of personal accountability. Liberals hate personal
> : accountability. They'd rather put the blame on someone else--
> : or God himself--than require that they have to belly up and take
> : responsibility for their own actions.
>
> Yeah yeah yeah, troll troll troll.
Whenever I toss it out there, they always come at it with teeth bared
>
> : But tell me. Why have you attempted to squiggle out by
> : mentioning occupations--which implies policemen, doesn't it?
> : Isn't that what you implied? Homosexuality is not an occupation
> : and can in no way compare with the honorable, albeit
> : hazardous duties of law enforcement officers.
>
> Oh good grief. Whenever words like "squiggle" and "implies" come up,
> things tend to stray from the factual. It's a typical conservative
> ploy to stray from the factual.
Squiggle and implied are perfectly good words. They define what liberals
do. They hint and then try to squiggle out when someone calls them on it.
That's factual.
> : Do you deny that anyone who dangles in *death defying* antics
> : such as mountain climbing are to blame for their fate--should
> : they lose their footing? Whom else would you saddle with the
> : blame? Perhaps the man who made the rope? The bad
> : weather?God?
>
> I wouldn't assign blame at all. In fact, society would be a much
> better place if people would just shut their traps about who's to
> blame for blah blah fucking blah.
Failing to assign blame for wrongdoing is typically liberal. And the result
is that the wrongdoer does not have to be held accountable for his/her
actions. The consequence of that is often the innocent have to foot the
bill for the wrongdoers' actions. That is socialism, and socialism is akin
to liberalism. I hate liberalism.
>
> : Is a man driving 230 mph in a flimbsy casket of a car not to
> : blame for his own fate in such risky undertakings? With these
> : risks comes just deserts. I don't have a car racer or a mountain
> : climber as a friend; but if I did, I would not celebrate their
> : *bravery* in life, nor their stupidity in death.
>
> I don't either, but if they died, I'd probably just keep my trap shut
> about whether they were to blame for blah blah fucking blah.
Assigning blame does not have to be vocal. And you certainly would make a
blame choice mentally even if you didn't have the wherewithal to say it out
loud.
>
> : You are wise not to have acquired more homosexual friends.
> : They ruin the neighborhood.
>
> I suspect I will be hearing that irritating "whirrrrrrrrr" noise
> before too long.
>
> PJ
> --
>
> www.pjparks.com
If you are hinting at Whatshisname next door and his 2-cycle leaf blower,
that is bigoted as hell.
--Geno
Geno
"Nicole J. LeBoeuf-Little" <0n53nc...@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
news:d6d37be9.02081...@posting.google.com...
Lordy lordyŽ
Homosexuals get syphilis and gonorrhea also, and as in the case of the other
two sexes, it is because of irresponsible lifestyle.
Why do you liberals always defend immorality and filth?
--Geno<glad to be a conservative born in the U.S.A.>Royer
Blanche Nonken
Jeff K.
ZIQ59.91367$sA3....@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net, "PJ" <P...@spam-go-away.com>
wrote:
> The word *lifestyle* keeps coming up. I can't help wondering if people
> who work in risky occupations, or engage in high-risk hobbies such as
> mountain climbing or racecar driving also deserve what they get
> because of their lifestyles. Where do we draw the line here?
I don't think you can compare the choice to have unprotected sex with the
choice to work in a risky occupation, PJ. Firefighters, police officers,
soldiers, bomb squad, even teachers -- they risk their life nearly every
day. But they're doing something noble, and accepting their potential
sacrifice as a risk worth taking in order to save lives.
Someone who engages in a perilous activity for the thrill of it, whether
it's mountain climbing or sky diving or eating blowfish or driving drunk or
having unprotected sex, is making a choice for purely selfish reasons. You
know you're rising your life. If you lose it, that's your fault and no one
else's. And while I may mourn the loss of a friend, I'm also angered by
their stupidity. And yes, I believe they got what they deserved. That has
nothing to do with my views on sexual orientation. That has to do with my
views on responsibility and maturity.
Jeff
Jeff K.
<sire...@ev1.net> wrote:
I was with you until the end, Geno. That was fucking cold.
Jeff
Geno
You go girl!
Geno
"Jeff K." <jackie...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:B97D6914.7C6%jackie...@hotmail.com...
Life's lessons are tough on the tender.
--Geno
Bill Funke
<...>
>
>Why do you liberals always defend immorality and filth?
Because it's more fun doing it than complaining about it.
Jeff K.
<sire...@ev1.net> wrote:
> Life's lessons are tough on the tender.
I prefer to think of myself as medium rare, thank you.
Jeff
The Last Real Marlboro Man
news:d6d37be9.02081...@posting.google.com:
> Your oversimplification of how AIDS is transmitted is almost more
> irresponsible than the behavior you complain about. In fact, it IS
> more irresponsible, as there's nothing inherently irresponsible about
> anal sex itself.
How many keyboards do you go through in a month with all that knee-jerking?
I was responding to a gross oversimplification, with an oversimplification
of my own. Did you even read my original posts, or just the responses of
the jerkoffs like Zen?
The irresponsibility I'm "complaining" about is the unfettered
*promiscuity* that is keeping the AIDS epedemic alive within the homosexual
community in America. That I have to keep repeating things I've already
written for the dimwits in this newsgroup is *really* getting old.
Your vapid idea that even the "number of participants" is irrelevant so
long as one is "Sticking to partners who can be trusted to use protection
and not keep secrets about their health" is a gross example of exactly the
type of idiocy and irresponsibility that perpetuates pain, disease and
suffering.
> I mean, really, you might as well blame syphillus and gonorrhea on
> those damn heterosexuals who persist in THEIR dangerous lifestyle.
Did you see me use the phrase "those damn homosexuals" anywhere, or are you
just projecting your own prejudice? But the answer to your question is,
yes. If you are talking about the celebration of heterosexual promiscuity
and anonymous sex with multiple partners, which is what I'm talking about,
then yes.
But no, one-track morons like you will continue to insist on responding to
that which you *want* to see, blissfully ignoring what is actually there.
Why? I'll answer that. It's because you feel threatened by ideas that are
beyond your grasp.
A day, or a week, or a year from now, some slow-witted idiot will vaguely
remember this conversation and accuse me of "homophobia" or something
similar. Someone like that old head-in-the-sand bigot Deckert.
--
Wayne Lutz - http://www.waynelutz.net
The Tocquevillian Magazine
http://www.waynelutz.net/conservativevoice
------------------------------------------------------------
In the reported words of one survivor of the Holocaust, when asked what
lesson he had taken from his experience of the 1940s, 'If someone tells you
that he intends to kill you, believe him'." --Wall Street Journal
------------------------------------------------------------
Chris McLaughlin
> cmcl...@mcw.edu (Chris McLaughlin) "wrote" <snort!> in
> news:1ff54e91.02081...@posting.google.com:
>
> > I guess that your religious and moral beliefs tell you that anyone who
> > has sex outside of marriage is a sinner and should not be surprised
> > when she finds that the wages of sin is death.
>
> I jus' loves all youse smart people what tells me what I believes alla
> time. That way I don't gotta do no figurin' for my own self.
Well, I'm sorry if it seemed I was telling you what you think: I meant
this to be a way of saying "From what I know about you, this is what I
speculate that you think."
I surmise I got it wrong. What do you think, then?
> >(Of course, the wages
> > of life is death, too, but never mind.) Tell me what you would say to
> > your neighbor, a good person who never strayed outside the marriage
> > but who contracted the disease from a spouse?
> Of
> course there are innocents, but they are statistically insignificant - the
> great hetero AIDS epidemic that was foretold by the doom-and-gloomers about
> in th 80's never happened.
Maybe not here. Not yet. But it's happened with a vengeance elsewhere.
> What would I say to my neighbor? I'd say, "Shit, man. That's really fucked
> up." And your point is...what?
I asked a question. That's a request for information. So I didn't have
a point.
If you want to know WHY I asked the question, I guess it's because I
don't understand how people let rigid and harsh IDEAS get in the way
of real feelings in the face of human anguish. So I wanted to know
what you would do. I couldn't in that case presume to "guess," because
I know just enough about you to suspect that you are not as universal
an ass as you like to present yourself. I could, as you often point
out, be wrong, of course.
I'll accept "Shit, man. That's really fucked up" as an expression of
fellow feeling. Not a very graceful one, but we won't quibble about
that.
So now I'll ask another question: do you ever spend as much time
honing your kind and loving responses as you do your harsh and hateful
ones?
Chris
Nicole J. LeBoeuf-Little
> "PJ" <P...@spam-go-away.com> "wrote" <snort!> in
> news:XxO59.89484$sA3....@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net:
>
> > I want to publicly apologize to Wayne for making the remark about his
> > feelings on homosexuality.
>
> It's too little and way too late.
>
> In this one post I was talking about the irresponsibility of people who
> deliberately engage in dangerous behaviors and then expect others to pay
> for it.
Well, now, when you say things like, "You don't get a cold by letting
someone fuck you in the ass, you psycho", and, "The vast majority of
AIDS cases in this country are lifestyle-related," it starts to sound
like you define anal sex *itself* as the "irresponsible behavior" that
inevitably leads to AIDS infection.
Perhaps my mistake is in assuming that when you say,
"lifestyle-related," what you mean by "lifestyle" is, "choosing to
engage in gay sex rather than abstain entirely or convert to
heterosexuality". Maybe you really meant "choosing to have repeated
unprotected anal sex with perfect strangers," at which point we aren't
just condemning homosexuals, and oughn't just to be implicating *anal*
sex but *any* sex at all. But you put so much emphasis on the very act
of anal sex that no one should be faulted for thinking you meant the
former.
Then Tuples says something along the lines of, "I have no sympathy for
homosexuals infected with AIDS because they brought it on themselves",
and you seem to agree with him.
So, I made a similar "mistake" to that which PJ made: I thought your
position was that 1) being a sexually active homosexual is itself
irresponsible, and therefore 2) gays get what they deserve when they
get AIDS, and *therefore* 3) we should have no sympathy for them.
If that's NOT your position, you've sure been misleading *me* into
thinking it is.
--
N
Tuples
>Nancy, do read it)
>From: 0n53nc...@sneakemail.com (Nicole J. LeBoeuf-Little)
>Date: 8/12/02 5:26 PM Mountain Standard Time
>Message-id: <d6d37be9.02081...@posting.google.com>
the need to protect everyone. We do not and should not. Lots of activities have
risks associated with them. I remember when I jumped out of a plane. I could
have died or worse. I accepted this risk.
Bob
The Last Real Marlboro Man
news:d6d37be9.02081...@posting.google.com:
> If that's NOT your position, you've sure been misleading *me* into
> thinking it is.
As if you give a flying fuck what my "position" is. You will see whatever
you want to see, like all the others.
Live with it.
--
Wayne Lutz - http://www.waynelutz.net
The Tocquevillian Magazine
http://www.waynelutz.net/conservativevoice
------------------------------------------------------------
The Last Real Marlboro Man
> So now I'll ask another question: do you ever spend as much time
> honing your kind and loving responses as you do your harsh and hateful
> ones?
"Harsh and hateful" is in the eye of the beholder, lovie, to borrow a
relativism. Would it surprise you to learn that I view *you* as "harsh and
hateful?"
You will think what you will, and nothing I can do, short of compromising
my principles, which I will never do, will change that.
--
Wayne Lutz - http://www.waynelutz.net
The Tocquevillian Magazine
http://www.waynelutz.net/conservativevoice
------------------------------------------------------------
Chris McLaughlin
> In this country, AIDS is a disease of choice. But you will continue to pay,
> in increased health-care costs, increased taxes, and the siphoning of
> funding from research for other diseases that afflict the innocent, such as
> cancer and heart disease.
30% of people in the USA with newly diagnosed AIDS are women, half of
them under age 25--and the proportion of women in relation to men is
is increasing. Most of those women (75%)were infected through sex with
men, and none of them through lesbian sex. Substantiation from the NIH
follows.
Most heart disease and some cancers have "choice" factors, chief among
them smoking and obesity. It's probably not a good idea to make
emotional appeals about "the innocent" here.
Chris
________
From the NIH:
Approximately 40,000 new HIV infections occur each year in the United
States, about 70 percent among men and 30 percent among women. Of
these newly infected people, half are younger than 25 years of age. .
.
Of new infections among men in the United States, CDC estimates that
approximately 60 percent of men were infected through homosexual sex,
25 percent through injection drug use, and 15 percent through
heterosexual sex. . .
Of new infections among women in the United States, CDC estimates that
approximately 75 percent of women were infected through heterosexual
sex and 25 percent through injection drug use. . .
The rate of adult/adolescent AIDS cases reported in the United States
in 2000 (per 100,000 population) was 74.2 among blacks, 30.4 among
Hispanics, 12.7 among American Indians/Alaska Natives, 7.9 among
whites, and 4.3 among Asians/Pacific Islanders. . .
From 1985 to 2000, the proportion of adult/adolescent AIDS cases in
the United States reported in women increased from 7 percent to 25
percent.
. .
___
Davida Chazan (The Chocolate Lady)
<uwtiuzp...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>"Davida Chazan (The Chocolate Lady)" <il2a7l...@sneakemail.com> "wrote"
><snort!> in news:ec7fluonrbbpmj4hh...@4ax.com:
>
>> (I thought you were smarter than that, Wayne.)
>
>Eat me.
No, thank you.
>That is *exactly* how AIDS is spread *in this country*, Davida. I can't
>believe you are that ignorant. Do you honestly think, like the psycho Zen,
>that AIDS is spread by casual contact? 20 years of AIDS education, and this
>is what people believe?
Again, that is NOT the *only* way that AIDS is spread _anywhere_ on this earth.
--
Davida Chazan (The Chocolate Lady)
<davida @ jdc . org . il>
~*~*~*~*~*~
"A fiction writer's memory is an especially imperfect
provider of detail; we can always imagine a better detail
than the one we can remember." -- John Irving
~*~*~*~*~*~
Links to my published poetry - http://davidachazan.homestead.com/
~*~*~*~*~*~
Dr Zen
> On 8/12/02 9:43 AM, in article
> ZIQ59.91367$sA3....@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net, "PJ" <P...@spam-go-away.com>
> wrote:
>
> > The word *lifestyle* keeps coming up. I can't help wondering if people
> > who work in risky occupations, or engage in high-risk hobbies such as
> > mountain climbing or racecar driving also deserve what they get
> > because of their lifestyles. Where do we draw the line here?
>
> I don't think you can compare the choice to have unprotected sex with the
> choice to work in a risky occupation, PJ.
Why not? You have to bear the consequences of your actions is the
point.
> Firefighters, police officers,
> soldiers, bomb squad, even teachers -- they risk their life nearly every
> day. But they're doing something noble, and accepting their potential
> sacrifice as a risk worth taking in order to save lives.
>
So, because someone who contracts HIV (not AIDS, ignorant hypocrites
of the group) *deserves* that consequence of unprotected sex because
they weren't doing anything "noble"?
> Someone who engages in a perilous activity for the thrill of it, whether
> it's mountain climbing or sky diving or eating blowfish or driving drunk or
> having unprotected sex, is making a choice for purely selfish reasons. You
> know you're rising your life.
This is why you're wrong (hypothetically).
I have unprotected sex with my wife reasonably often (hey, we've got a
small kid, that changes things, those sniggerers at the back).
Say, last week, she fucked the milkman. I don't know she did. I don't
know that he has given her HIV.
I contract HIV.
I made the choice for "purely selfish reasons", because, hey, we could
all wear condoms just in case, but I didn't know I was risking my life
(not that contracting HIV means losing your life necessarily, thanks
to the money spent on research).
This is furthermore why you're wrong (not hypothetically). In South
Africa, where HIV is rife - epidemic, you could call it, there is a
belief that having sex with a virgin will cure it (I know what you're
thinking, surely there cannot be people even more ignorant than
Sweepin' Boy, but *there are*).
Consequently, doctors see small girls with HIV. Still, they have to
bear the consequences of their selfish choice to be raped.
> If you lose it, that's your fault and no one
> else's.
You're a reasonably smart guy, Jeff, so I'm putting this down to not
having thought it through.
> And while I may mourn the loss of a friend, I'm also angered by
> their stupidity. And yes, I believe they got what they deserved. That has
> nothing to do with my views on sexual orientation. That has to do with my
> views on responsibility and maturity.
>
So if your boyfriend cheats on you, and *he* is stupid enough not to
use a condom, *you* deserve the consequences.
More of that good ol' conservative "morality" we adore.
Zen
Dr Zen
> 0n53nc...@sneakemail.com (Nicole J. LeBoeuf-Little) "wrote" <snort!> in
> news:d6d37be9.02081...@posting.google.com:
>
> > Your oversimplification of how AIDS is transmitted is almost more
> > irresponsible than the behavior you complain about. In fact, it IS
> > more irresponsible, as there's nothing inherently irresponsible about
> > anal sex itself.
>
> How many keyboards do you go through in a month with all that knee-jerking?
>
About as many as you do circle-jerking.
> I was responding to a gross oversimplification, with an oversimplification
> of my own. Did you even read my original posts, or just the responses of
> the jerkoffs like Zen?
>
> The irresponsibility I'm "complaining" about is the unfettered
> *promiscuity* that is keeping the AIDS epedemic alive within the homosexual
> community in America.
You seem to know a lot about homosexual promiscuity. What are you
doing, keeping a scorecard?
> That I have to keep repeating things I've already
> written for the dimwits in this newsgroup is *really* getting old.
>
> Your vapid idea that even the "number of participants" is irrelevant so
> long as one is "Sticking to partners who can be trusted to use protection
> and not keep secrets about their health" is a gross example of exactly the
> type of idiocy and irresponsibility that perpetuates pain, disease and
> suffering.
>
Why? What a ridiculous idea.
One infected partner is clearly more dangerous than one hundred not
infected. One wife who has cheated on you without protection is
clearly more dangerous than a hundred girlfriends who are careful.
> > I mean, really, you might as well blame syphillus and gonorrhea on
> > those damn heterosexuals who persist in THEIR dangerous lifestyle.
>
> Did you see me use the phrase "those damn homosexuals" anywhere, or are you
> just projecting your own prejudice? But the answer to your question is,
> yes. If you are talking about the celebration of heterosexual promiscuity
> and anonymous sex with multiple partners, which is what I'm talking about,
> then yes.
>
"I'm not gettin' it." That's what your message shouts loud and clear.
Why the fuck should you care how many people someone sleeps with? Your
message is not "I want people to take more care, to make sure they are
protected", it is "people are wrong to be promiscuous". You're nothing
but a spoilsport.
> But no, one-track morons like you will continue to insist on responding to
> that which you *want* to see, blissfully ignoring what is actually there.
> Why? I'll answer that. It's because you feel threatened by ideas that are
> beyond your grasp.
I can easily "grasp" your one-note hypocrisy, Wayne. I can very well
understand someone whose way of relating to the world is "despise
everyone who is not like me and every behaviour I don't perform".
What's so fucking hard to understand about you?
>
> A day, or a week, or a year from now, some slow-witted idiot will vaguely
> remember this conversation and accuse me of "homophobia" or something
> similar. Someone like that old head-in-the-sand bigot Deckert.
>
You are homophobic. Spare yourself the wait. You make assumptions and
assertions without foundation, based in your prejudice.
Zen
PJ
PJ wrote:
: > The word *lifestyle* keeps coming up. I can't help wondering
: > if people who work in risky occupations, or engage in high-
: > risk hobbies such as mountain climbing or racecar driving also
: > deserve what they get because of their lifestyles. Where do
: > we draw the line here?
:
: I don't think you can compare the choice to have unprotected
: sex with the choice to work in a risky occupation, PJ.
: Firefighters, police officers, soldiers, bomb squad, even
: teachers -- they risk their life nearly every day. But they're doing
: something noble, and accepting their potential sacrifice as a risk
: worth taking in order to save lives.
My point was, if people start pointing fingers, saying "he did this,
he did this knowingly, he has a risky *lifestyle*, so therefore I will
deduce that he deserves the consequences," it's hard to draw the line.
: Someone who engages in a perilous activity for the thrill of it,
: whether it's mountain climbing or sky diving or eating blowfish
: or driving drunk or having unprotected sex, is making a choice
: for purely selfish reasons. You know you're rising your life. If
: you lose it, that's your fault and no one else's. And while I may
: mourn the loss of a friend, I'm also angered by their stupidity.
: And yes, I believe they got what they deserved. That
: has nothing to do with my views on sexual orientation. That has
: to do with my views on responsibility and maturity.
I'll repeat the comment I made to Geno: I wouldn't assign blame at
all. In fact, society would be a much better place if people would
just shut their traps about who's to blame for blah blah fucking blah.
PJ (do you really have a friend who would eat a blowfish?)
--
Dr Zen
> 0n53nc...@sneakemail.com (Nicole J. LeBoeuf-Little) "wrote" <snort!> in
> news:d6d37be9.02081...@posting.google.com:
>
> > If that's NOT your position, you've sure been misleading *me* into
> > thinking it is.
>
> As if you give a flying fuck what my "position" is. You will see whatever
> you want to see, like all the others.
>
Well, lay it on the line, Sweepin'.
You're a sneaky cunt. You never quite come out and state your hatred
of gays, but you let it inform everything you say. When you're called
on it, you can truthfully say "I never said I hated gays". That is not
the fucking point, though.
> Live with it.
Come on, Sweepin'. State outright. Homosexuality, good, bad or
indifferent? Gays, hellfire or no?
Zen
Dr Zen
> I spoke too soon about this, and was informed via email. (This time
> yes, it was via email.)
>
So, someone backchannelled and you caved. That's how the gang works,
PJ. I'll bet she told you she was saving you from embarrassment.
> I want to publicly apologize to Wayne for making the remark about his
> feelings on homosexuality.
>
He makes his feelings clear, PJ. He doesn't have to state them
outright (he's too clever for that).
> I went back and read through Google (specifically June 8, 2001) and
> realized that I had jumped to an erroneous conclusion. Wayne has not
> condemned homosexuality.
I've never "condemned" broccoli.
> He has condemned the behavior of
> irresponsible homosexuals who engage in reckless sexual activities,
> and therefore contribute to the spread of AIDs.
>
It's not a fucking plural.
And it's HIV that's spread.
> I'm sorry, Wayne.
>
Cherish it, Sweepin'. Your friends bullied one sucker into it. But you
know you don't deserve it.
Zen
PJ
PJ said
: > and therefore contribute to the spread of AIDs.
:
: It's not a fucking plural.
I know it's not a fucking plural, it's a fucking typing lame. Do you
make them? Yes. Do I correct yours? No.
: And it's HIV that's spread.
You're being nitpicky. Here's an article entitled "Confronting the
Spread of AIDS."
http://www.worldbank.org/html/extdr/extme/1513.htm
It's not uncommon to talk about the spread of disease, when it's
really germs or bacteria that are spread, which can lead to the
disease. Why worry about splitting hairs when what's important is the
point that's being made?
PJ
--
The Last Real Marlboro Man
> Again, that is NOT the *only* way that AIDS is spread _anywhere_ on
> this earth.
Sigh.
The Last Real Marlboro Man
> You're a sneaky cunt. You never quite come out and state your hatred
> of gays, but you let it inform everything you say.
You're a sneaky psychotic. You never quite come out and state your hatred
of women, but you let it inform everything you say.
By the way, zenners. When I call you "psychotic," I am dead serious. I
believe you are certifiably nuts.
The Last Real Marlboro Man
> You seem to know a lot about homosexual promiscuity. What are you
> doing, keeping a scorecard?
Why, psycho, because I bother to actually research things before I offer
insights on them? As opposed to you and the other idiots here who simply
regurgitate whatever *feels* good coming up?
Of course, I realize that your computer time is limited, having to share
the time with the other inmates of the ward. So I'll cut you, at least,
some slack.
The Last Real Marlboro Man
> You're a sneaky cunt. You never quite come out and state your hatred
> of gays, but you let it inform everything you say.
You're a sneaky psychotic. You never quite come out and state your hatred
of women, but you let it inform everything you say.
By the way, zenners. When I call you "psychotic," I am dead serious. I
believe you are certifiably nuts.
--
Davida Chazan (The Chocolate Lady)
<uwtiuzp...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>"Davida Chazan (The Chocolate Lady)" <il2a7l...@sneakemail.com>
>"wrote" <snort!> in news:du8hlu8uud6jb7o5s...@4ax.com:
>
>> Again, that is NOT the *only* way that AIDS is spread _anywhere_ on
>> this earth.
>
>Sigh.
Oh, I see. Here:
"Again, that is NOT the *only* way that HIV is spread _anywhere_ on this earth."
(My mistake. Sorry. And I suggest you read Chris.tine's post which backs up
this statement and gives details and references on the subject.)
--
Davida Chazan (The Chocolate Lady)
Blanche Nonken
> I have unprotected sex with my wife reasonably often (hey, we've got a
> small kid, that changes things, those sniggerers at the back).
Breastfeeding is not a foolproof means of birth control, I hope you
know.
PJ
: > (This time yes, it was via email.)
:
: So, someone backchannelled and you caved. That's how the
: gang works, PJ. I'll bet she told you she was saving you from
: embarrassment.
No. Someone saw that I had jumped to the wrong conclusion and pointed
it out to me. The word "embarrassment" didn't come up. And I didn't
cave, I listened. I like to do that from time to time, just in case I
might be wrong. In this case, I was and I apologized for it.
:
: > I want to publicly apologize to Wayne for making the remark
: > about his feelings on homosexuality.
:
: He makes his feelings clear, PJ. He doesn't have to state them
: outright (he's too clever for that).
And he's too outspoken to keep his feelings to himself when he
believes something. I don't like to assume that people are implying
something, Zen. I prefer to address what they say, rather than looking
for some hidden meaning. I am guilty of jumping to conclusions, and
when I do it, I admit it and apologize. God I wish more people did
that around here instead of being so fucking determined to make
themselves seem smarter than everyone else.
PJ
--
The Last Real Marlboro Man
> 30% of people in the USA with newly diagnosed AIDS are women, half of
> them under age 25--and the proportion of women in relation to men is
> is increasing. Most of those women (75%)were infected through sex with
> men, and none of them through lesbian sex. Substantiation from the NIH
> follows.
None of that changes the fact that the majority of the cases are in
homosexual men, and that the epedimic is being kept alive by irresponsible
bahavior.
From the CDC:
"Research among gay and bisexual men suggests that some individuals are now
less concerned about becoming infected than in the past and may be inclined
to take more risks. This is backed up by reported increases in gonorrhea
among gay men in several large U.S. cities between 1993 and 1996. Despite
medical advances, HIV infection remains a serious, usually fatal disease
that requires complex, costly, and difficult treatment regimens that do not
work for everyone. As better treatment options are developed, we must not
lose sight of the fact that preventing HIV infection in the first place
precludes the need for people to undergo these difficult and expensive
therapies."
Most of the women who contract HIV through heterosexual contact are having
sex with injecting drug users, injecting themselves, or are addicted to
other drugs that cause them to have promiscuous sex in order to pay for
thier habits.
In other words, there are precious few "innocents" infected with AIDS, and
those innocents who are infected, or who will be in the future, are being
put in that position at least partly because of the continuation of the
epidemic through irresponsible behavior of others - the CDC predicting a
resurgence of cases because of a return to promiscuity and "I don't care"
attitudes.
> Most heart disease and some cancers have "choice" factors, chief among
> them smoking and obesity. It's probably not a good idea to make
> emotional appeals about "the innocent" here.
I could go into the dollars-per-death spent on these different diseases
again, but it wasn't too long ago that I did that, so I won't again unless
pressed.
You would think that radical feminists at least would be outraged at money
being siphoned away from breast cancer research, for example, but unless
I've missed something there's been nary a peep.
Heart disease and cancer, which of course can be aggravated by lifestyle
choices, are primarlily diseases of longevity. We die from heart disease
and cancer now because we no longer die earlier from infectious diseases
like we used to.
Wendy Chatley Green
:I'll repeat the comment I made to Geno: I wouldn't assign blame at
:all. In fact, society would be a much better place if people would
:just shut their traps about who's to blame for blah blah fucking blah.
If "society" didn't have to pick up the costs for unprotected
sex with people about whom one knows nothing about their past sexual
experience, or whether it's mountain climbing, or sky diving, or
eating blowfish, or driving drunk, etc., "society" might shut up about
it.
I have a close friend who has eaten fugu (blowfish). He
wasn't impressed by anything except the price, which was picked up by
his client.
--
Wendy Chatley Green
wcg...@cris.com
gekko
Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy series, but DID present the
following for evaluation in misc.writing:
> On Tue, 13 Aug 2002 11:29:24 GMT, The Last Real Marlboro Man
> <uwtiuzp...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>
>>"Davida Chazan (The Chocolate Lady)" <il2a7l...@sneakemail.com>
>>"wrote" <snort!> in
>>news:du8hlu8uud6jb7o5s...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> Again, that is NOT the *only* way that AIDS is spread _anywhere_
>>> on this earth.
>>
>>Sigh.
>
> Oh, I see. Here:
>
> "Again, that is NOT the *only* way that HIV is spread _anywhere_
> on this earth."
>
> (My mistake. Sorry. And I suggest you read Chris.tine's post
> which backs up this statement and gives details and references on
> the subject.)
>
Dunno what the "Sigh" was about, but I suspect it had nothing to do
with the mixup between AIDs and HIV. I suspect it had to do with the
idea that the argument has less to do with homosexual men, and
everything to do with irresponsible behavior.
Irrespective of how else it is being spread, and how the instances of
women and children contracting HIV are on the increase, the by far
largest vector here in the US is the irresponsible homosexual male
population. The ones who want to have unprotected sex with many
hundreds of partners.
If it is on the increase among non-homosexuals here in the US, and is
of near-epidemic proportions elsewhere in the world, it is initially
because of the irresponsible "lifestyle" choices made. A woman is
not likely to get it unless she uses drugs or has unprotected sex
with an infected male. She may not be the one who was being
irresponsible -- the infected male most likely was. Either he got it
from an infected woman which means he has multiple partners and still
insists on engaging in unprotected sex, or he got it from a man,
which means he has multiple partners and still insists on engaging in
unprotected sex. Ultimately it comes back to men having sex with
men and spreading it.
Children don't get it from needles and sex. They get it from their
mothers. To see where their mothers got it from, re-read the above.
At some point it was the irresponsible lifestyle choices of a lot of
men (and some women) that started this, and it is on the upswing
again in the US because a group of men insist that unprotected sex
with one another is a good thing.
Everyone wants, it seems, desperately to read into this that the
argument is against homosexuality. It is not.
--
gekko
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed.
Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-
evident. - Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)
Chris McLaughlin
> cmcl...@mcw.edu (Chris McLaughlin) "wrote" <snort!> in
> news:1ff54e91.02081...@posting.google.com:
>
> > So now I'll ask another question: do you ever spend as much time
> > honing your kind and loving responses as you do your harsh and hateful
> > ones?
>
> "Harsh and hateful" is in the eye of the beholder, lovie, to borrow a
> relativism. Would it surprise you to learn that I view *you* as "harsh and
> hateful?"
>
> You will think what you will, and nothing I can do, short of compromising
> my principles, which I will never do, will change that.
Quakers think that the Light (of God) is within everyone. But they
also understand that everyone still needs the Light, because there is
darkness within and darkness without. I try to open myself up to let
little bits of light in now and then.
You are right; it's unlikely that you will change what I think,
because I experience you as more heat than light. But you never know.
Chris
PJ
Molly
I've eaten blowfish once, and forget what it tasted like. I didn't have
a clue what I was eating at the time - I'd been here just long enough to
know not to ask. When somebody told me afterwards it didn't mean
anything to me until I asked. But the SO loves it, and will eat it any
time somebody else is paying.
Right now he's just about to eat some funazushi which some kind relative
sent him, and I'm refusing to enter the kitchen until he's finished and
wrapped up what's left very, very tightly. Funazushi is old, fermented
fish. I've had it a couple of times, and while the taste isn't that bad
the smell is definitely one you don't forget.
There's a explanation of it here:
http://www.biwa.ne.jp/~y-isono/trad/funaeg.html
"Sour taste and peculiar odor" is a *very* understated description.
Molly
Davida Chazan (The Chocolate Lady)
>
>At some point it was the irresponsible lifestyle choices of a lot of
>men (and some women) that started this, and it is on the upswing
>again in the US because a group of men insist that unprotected sex
>with one another is a good thing.
>
>Everyone wants, it seems, desperately to read into this that the
>argument is against homosexuality. It is not.
The problem is that people tend to forget that the whole disease started and was
already spreading, unchecked, long before anyone could make any connections as
to what it was or what caused it. There was no irresponsibility at that point,
because there were no safety standards that responsible people could follow. By
the time a name and a cause were discovered, very large numbers of people were
already infected - some of whom are only now feeling the effects of the full
blown disease.
I do not discount that irresponsible behavior is probably the greatest reason
why this disease continues to spread today. However, I stand by my statement
that "letting someone fuck you in the ass", as Wayne so delicately put it, is
*not* the _only_ way that HIV is spread.
(That is what I said, and that is what Wayne objected to, and I will not retract
my reply.)
--
Davida Chazan (The Chocolate Lady)
gekko
You misspelled "hot babe".
HTH. HAND.
--
gekko
If at first you don't succeed, destroy all evidence that you tried.
Wendy Chatley Green
<il2a7l...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
:The problem is that people tend to forget that the whole disease started and was
:already spreading, unchecked, long before anyone could make any connections as
:to what it was or what caused it. There was no irresponsibility at that point,
:because there were no safety standards that responsible people could follow. By
:the time a name and a cause were discovered, very large numbers of people were
:already infected - some of whom are only now feeling the effects of the full
:blown disease.
Given the other diseases that we knew about, wouldn't'
unprotected sex still have been irresponsible during this time?
John Ashby
> gol...@hotmail.com (Dr Zen) "wrote" <snort!> in
> news:5e7da04d.02081...@posting.google.com:
>
>> You're a sneaky cunt. You never quite come out and state your hatred of
>> gays, but you let it inform everything you say.
>
> You're a sneaky psychotic. You never quite come out and state your
> hatred of women, but you let it inform everything you say.
Bollocks, Zen's a misanthrope, not a misogynist.
> By the way, zenners. When I call you "psychotic," I am dead serious. I
> believe you are certifiably nuts.
And your qualification for this diagnosis is...?
john (should I inform the RCPsych of this attempt to tread on their
patch?)
gekko
>
> he did this knowingly, he has a risky *lifestyle*, so therefore I will
> deduce that he deserves the consequences," it's hard to draw the line.
I am ordinarily a very shy person, and I so hate to risk expressing
my opinion here, but I just have to speak up. I hope no one will,
like, disagree with me because that would utterly crush me.
Okay, that said: I agree in part with what PJ is saying here. I
CAN say "he did this, did it knowingly, chose to take the risk,
gambled, and lost." I can then add "and that's horrible. That's
totally fucked, man." I can also add "but hello? I mean, what
the fuck were you THINKING?" What I cannot say is "hey, dood,
you, like deserve it."
The people who, IMO, *deserve* to have bad things happen to them
are people who deliberately do horrible nasty bad wretched things
to others. People who rape, or who murder children. They deserve
to have the skin flayed from their living bodies with rusted
cheese graters, then be strung with piano wire around the most
delicate parts of their bodies and hung high.
People who take risks don't *deserve* to have the bad consequences
of their choices occur. That it is likely to happen, and then does
should come as no surprise to them, however. And they (and their
loved ones) should also not start pissing and moaning about how
unfair it is, or how someone, somewhere, "owes" them.
If I drive without a safety belt, and get in an accident and get
terribly hurt, and that hurt would not have occurred had I worn
the safety belt, I'm pretty foolish to blame the other driver
for the grievous nature of my injury. I may blame the other driver
for involving me in the accident in the first place, but that's
a different matter.
If I have unprotected sex with multiple partners, and then contract
herpes, or syphillis, or HIV, it's pretty damned stupid of me to
expect the government to suddenly pony up money to help me, or to
blame those who did not have unprotected sex for "siphoning money
away from the research for my disease because they're bigots."
How about I own up to the consequences of my own actions? Better:
how about I not engage in risky behavior that stands a good chance
of harming others?
A fireman puts himself in harm's way and should not be surprised if
he is injured or dies, but when he does that, he's not unintentionally
harming others. In fact, he's working to *save* others, or their
property. A person who engages in unprotected sex is risking infection
and, if infected already, is risking passing that on to someone
else -- all for a few moments of jolly good fun. A person who
climbs cliffs or ice falls is risking injury and *may* even injure
another climber, all for jolly good fun but is not engaging in
behavior that generally puts others at risk.
> I'll repeat the comment I made to Geno: I wouldn't assign blame at
> all. In fact, society would be a much better place if people would
> just shut their traps about who's to blame for blah blah fucking blah.
I think you're seeing the finger pointing because another finger
pointed first. When I read an article that has an activist blaming
"society" for this and that, it doesn't surprise me to see a member
of society saying "yo, hey, dood, you engage in the behavior that
caused your problem, you could have easily avoided it with little
cost, what the fuck are you blaming ME for?"
> PJ (do you really have a friend who would eat a blowfish?)
You left off "and swallows?"
gekko
> On Tue, 13 Aug 2002 12:51:12 GMT, gekko <ba0go...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
> >
> >At some point it was the irresponsible lifestyle choices of a lot of
> >men (and some women) that started this, and it is on the upswing
> >again in the US because a group of men insist that unprotected sex
> >with one another is a good thing.
> >
> >Everyone wants, it seems, desperately to read into this that the
> >argument is against homosexuality. It is not.
>
> The problem is that people tend to forget that the whole disease started
> and was already spreading, unchecked, long before anyone could make any
> connections as to what it was or what caused it. There was no
> irresponsibility at that point, because there were no safety standards
> that responsible people could follow. By the time a name and a cause
> were discovered, very large numbers of people were
> already infected - some of whom are only now feeling the effects of the full
> blown disease.
I somewhat disagree. I mean, the initial vector may have been an
instance of rather wretched luck. But at *most* points of transmission,
it came about from widespread unprotected sex. Party sex. Even before
HIV was known, widespread, unprotected sex was known for transmitting
some pretty hideous diseases -- that Mankind had found some relatively
inexpensive and effective treatments for the most egregious of these
is beside the point. Unprotected multiple-partner sex, cheating on
your spouse or lover, and engaging in sex with animals and risky
people is *still* the primary cause of the spread of the disease. It
didn't have to have a name to put the cause of its spread at that
particular door, yes?
I see your point, but I do not see it as a counter to the point
Wayne and others are trying to make (and for which they are being
labelled as "homophobic")
> I do not discount that irresponsible behavior is probably the greatest reason
> why this disease continues to spread today.
Good. That -is- the point Wayne and others were making. And that that
irresponsible behavior arises MOSTLY in the gay activist community, which
incidentally is the primary group who is infected in US, just happens
to cause mouthbreathing kneejerkers like Zen to scream "homophobia"
when it's pointed out.
> However, I stand by my statement
> that "letting someone fuck you in the ass", as Wayne so delicately put it, is
> *not* the _only_ way that HIV is spread.
This is true. It has little to do with what Wayne and others have
been saying, though. And, in the US, "letting someone fuck you
in the ass" is the *primary* way it is spread.
> (That is what I said, and that is what Wayne objected to, and I will not
> retract my reply.)
I think that because you made that statement, people (me included) think you
were trying to counter his argument that the *main cause* of the spread of the
disease is through unprotected anal sex.
If you felt that he was saying that the *only* way it is spread is through
unprotected anal sex, then you were mistaken.
If you were just providing a point of information, that's well and
good, but I don't think anyone is countering your argument by
saying "no, the only way HIV is spread is through anal intercourse".
--
gekko
Car service: If it ain't broke, we'll break it.
Dr Zen
> "Jeff K." <jackie...@hotmail.com> wrote
> PJ wrote:
>
> : > The word *lifestyle* keeps coming up. I can't help wondering
> : > if people who work in risky occupations, or engage in high-
> : > risk hobbies such as mountain climbing or racecar driving also
> : > deserve what they get because of their lifestyles. Where do
> : > we draw the line here?
> :
> : I don't think you can compare the choice to have unprotected
> : sex with the choice to work in a risky occupation, PJ.
> : Firefighters, police officers, soldiers, bomb squad, even
> : teachers -- they risk their life nearly every day. But they're doing
> : something noble, and accepting their potential sacrifice as a risk
> : worth taking in order to save lives.
>
> My point was, if people start pointing fingers, saying "he did this,
> he did this knowingly, he has a risky *lifestyle*, so therefore I will
> deduce that he deserves the consequences," it's hard to draw the line.
>
But we all do it and we all draw that line. You could hardly bring a
kid up without tellng them that actions have consequences.
> : Someone who engages in a perilous activity for the thrill of it,
> : whether it's mountain climbing or sky diving or eating blowfish
> : or driving drunk or having unprotected sex, is making a choice
> : for purely selfish reasons. You know you're rising your life. If
> : you lose it, that's your fault and no one else's. And while I may
> : mourn the loss of a friend, I'm also angered by their stupidity.
> : And yes, I believe they got what they deserved. That
> : has nothing to do with my views on sexual orientation. That has
> : to do with my views on responsibility and maturity.
>
> I'll repeat the comment I made to Geno: I wouldn't assign blame at
> all. In fact, society would be a much better place if people would
> just shut their traps about who's to blame for blah blah fucking blah.
>
You wouldn't be saying that if you were a lawyer.
> PJ (do you really have a friend who would eat a blowfish?)
Yeah, but he wouldn't touch Hootie with a bargepole.
Zen
PJ
:
: I am ordinarily a very shy person, and I so hate to risk
: expressing my opinion here, but I just have to speak up. I hope
: no one will, like, disagree with me because that would utterly
: crush me.
I disagree. With everything you say or have ever said.
: another finger pointed first.
And quit flipping me off.
PJ
--
gekko
> On Tue, 13 Aug 2002 12:33:32 +0100, The Last Real Marlboro Man wrote:
>
> > gol...@hotmail.com (Dr Zen) "wrote" <snort!> in
> > news:5e7da04d.02081...@posting.google.com:
> >
> >> You're a sneaky cunt. You never quite come out and state your hatred of
> >> gays, but you let it inform everything you say.
> >
> > You're a sneaky psychotic. You never quite come out and state your
> > hatred of women, but you let it inform everything you say.
>
> Bollocks, Zen's a misanthrope, not a misogynist.
Um, isn't a misogynist a subset of misanthrope? I mean, if you're
a misanthrope, are you then a misogynist?
I mean, realistically speaking.
--
gekko
Decisionmaker, n.: The person in your office who was unable to form a task force before the music stopped.
gekko
> "gekko" <ba0go...@sneakemail.com> wrote
> :
> : I am ordinarily a very shy person, and I so hate to risk
> : expressing my opinion here, but I just have to speak up. I hope
> : no one will, like, disagree with me because that would utterly
> : crush me.
>
> I disagree. With everything you say or have ever said.
I'm crushed.
You're only saying that because you hate me.
>
> : another finger pointed first.
>
> And quit flipping me off.
Flip *this*, Juggs.
PJ
: Flip *this*, Juggs.
*You're* calling *me* Juggs? Next my dog will be calling me Furry.
(Or whatever it was that Zen said and I stole.)
PJ
--
Dr Zen
> On Tue, 13 Aug 2002 12:33:32 +0100, The Last Real Marlboro Man wrote:
>
> > gol...@hotmail.com (Dr Zen) "wrote" <snort!> in
> > news:5e7da04d.02081...@posting.google.com:
> >
> >> You're a sneaky cunt. You never quite come out and state your hatred of
> >> gays, but you let it inform everything you say.
> >
> > You're a sneaky psychotic. You never quite come out and state your
> > hatred of women, but you let it inform everything you say.
>
> Bollocks, Zen's a misanthrope, not a misogynist.
>
Get out of here. I'm not either. You're just not a very *playful* guy,
John, so you tend to see play as something more serious.
> > By the way, zenners. When I call you "psychotic," I am dead serious. I
> > believe you are certifiably nuts.
>
> And your qualification for this diagnosis is...?
>
Well, he has a mirror.
Ah, the old ones...
Zen
Dr Zen
> gol...@hotmail.com (Dr Zen) "wrote" <snort!> in
> news:5e7da04d.02081...@posting.google.com:
>
> > You're a sneaky cunt. You never quite come out and state your hatred
> > of gays, but you let it inform everything you say.
>
> You're a sneaky psychotic. You never quite come out and state your hatred
> of women, but you let it inform everything you say.
>
Nice try. Hint of the homo lame, too. Very good.
Actually, Sweepin', I'm not sure anyone on this planet, male or
female, has ever raised me above a mild dislike. Is there a Greek word
for that?
> By the way, zenners. When I call you "psychotic," I am dead serious. I
> believe you are certifiably nuts.
>
Better mad than bad, eh, Sweepin'?
Zen
gekko
> "gekko" <ba0go...@sneakemail.com> wrote
>
> : Flip *this*, Juggs.
>
> *You're* calling *me* Juggs?
>
Kinda the way a 450 lb man is called "Slim" innit.
> Next my dog will be calling me Furry.
> (Or whatever it was that Zen said and I stole.)
You are SO a suckup.
--
gekko
You know you've been working too hard when you ask the drive-thru attendant if you can get your order to go.
Dr Zen
> "Dr Zen" <gol...@hotmail.com> wrote
> PJ said
>
> : > and therefore contribute to the spread of AIDs.
> :
> : It's not a fucking plural.
>
> I know it's not a fucking plural, it's a fucking typing lame.
Really?
> Do you
> make them? Yes.
Rarely.
> Do I correct yours? No.
>
Be honest. Did you take your finger off the shift key or did you
switch off the caps key?
> : And it's HIV that's spread.
>
> You're being nitpicky.
I'm irritated by the level of discussion and lazy talk here. AIDS
cannot be spread as such.
> Here's an article entitled "Confronting the
> Spread of AIDS."
>
> http://www.worldbank.org/html/extdr/extme/1513.htm
>
The World Bank!? You know where you can stick your World Bank?
> It's not uncommon to talk about the spread of disease, when it's
> really germs or bacteria that are spread, which can lead to the
> disease.
Oh dear.
Listen up, Peg, biology lesson that will be of benefit.
AIDS is a syndrome - a condition of the body, its response to a virus.
It's a group of symptoms, illnesses, reactions (this is what a
"syndrome" generally means). It can't be spread because it is not
transferred - it's an individual body's reaction to a virus (the, erm,
germs of your acquaintance). It is consequent to the virus but not
necessarily so. You can contract HIV and never develope AIDS. Okay,
some talk about its spread, but you are supposed to be a writer, Peej.
> Why worry about splitting hairs when what's important is the
> point that's being made?
>
When the point getting made is that AIDS follows getting fucked in the
ass, I think the time has arrived to get those hairs split.
Zen
Dr Zen
> "Dr Zen" <gol...@hotmail.com> wrote
> PJ
> : > I spoke too soon about this, and was informed via email.
> : > (This time yes, it was via email.)
> :
> : So, someone backchannelled and you caved. That's how the
> : gang works, PJ. I'll bet she told you she was saving you from
> : embarrassment.
>
> No. Someone saw that I had jumped to the wrong conclusion and pointed
> it out to me.
It's the right conclusion. He's calling me a nutter rather than deny
it.
>The word "embarrassment" didn't come up. And I didn't
> cave, I listened. I like to do that from time to time, just in case I
> might be wrong. In this case, I was and I apologized for it.
I'll do no more than note that the person concerned backchannelled.
IOW, they knew that it wouldn't stand up to the scrutiny of the group.
Wayne is a homophobe. That's a fact. He has never stated outright his
views on homosexuals but they inform his posts. He will not deny it.
> :
> : > I want to publicly apologize to Wayne for making the remark
> : > about his feelings on homosexuality.
> :
> : He makes his feelings clear, PJ. He doesn't have to state them
> : outright (he's too clever for that).
>
> And he's too outspoken to keep his feelings to himself when he
> believes something.
He's been in this group a long time, Peej. He knows there are people
who would slaughter him if he confessed his homophobia. He's weighed
it up.
>I don't like to assume that people are implying
> something, Zen.
I haven't said he is *implying* anything. I have said that what he has
expressed are views that would not be possible to hold were he a
tolerant man.
> I prefer to address what they say, rather than looking
> for some hidden meaning.
I have not suggested he is hiding anything.
> I am guilty of jumping to conclusions, and
> when I do it, I admit it and apologize. God I wish more people did
> that around here instead of being so fucking determined to make
> themselves seem smarter than everyone else.
>
And I wish you would have thought before you became Backchannel
Betty's mouthpiece. They even gave you a google to help you do it. All
because you're not one of the gang. And because they know it will put
you offside with people they don't like. Fuck, Peej, wake up.
Zen
> PJ
Tuples
>From: "PJ" P...@spam-go-away.com
>Date: 8/13/02 3:24 AM Mountain Standard Time
>Message-id: <M7569.100831$sA3.2...@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>
>
>"Jeff K." <jackie...@hotmail.com> wrote
>PJ wrote:
>
>: > The word *lifestyle* keeps coming up. I can't help wondering
>: > if people who work in risky occupations, or engage in high-
>: > risk hobbies such as mountain climbing or racecar driving also
>: > deserve what they get because of their lifestyles. Where do
>: > we draw the line here?
>:
>: I don't think you can compare the choice to have unprotected
>: sex with the choice to work in a risky occupation, PJ.
>: Firefighters, police officers, soldiers, bomb squad, even
>: teachers -- they risk their life nearly every day. But they're doing
>: something noble, and accepting their potential sacrifice as a risk
>: worth taking in order to save lives.
>
>My point was, if people start pointing fingers, saying "he did this,
>he did this knowingly, he has a risky *lifestyle*, so therefore I will
>deduce that he deserves the consequences," it's hard to draw the line.
>
>: whether it's mountain climbing or sky diving or eating blowfish
>: or driving drunk or having unprotected sex, is making a choice
>: for purely selfish reasons. You know you're rising your life. If
>: you lose it, that's your fault and no one else's. And while I may
>: mourn the loss of a friend, I'm also angered by their stupidity.
>: And yes, I believe they got what they deserved. That
>: has nothing to do with my views on sexual orientation. That has
>: to do with my views on responsibility and maturity.
>
>I'll repeat the comment I made to Geno: I wouldn't assign blame at
>all. In fact, society would be a much better place if people would
>just shut their traps about who's to blame for blah blah fucking blah.
>
>
>www.pjparks.com
>
With skydiving, motorcycle riding, smoking, driving fast, and teasing snakes I
know little about when I see them, are all are risky behaviors I participate
in.
I accept the risks.
If there is trouble, I can die. I accept that possibility as well.
However, with aids, you run a risk of hurting innocent people. My hobbies do
not hurt others and there is no risk to others.
Bob
PJ
then PJ wrote then Zen wrote then PJ wrote then Zen
ZenPJZenPJZenPJZenPJZenPJZenPJZenPJZenPJZenPJZenPJ
: > : > and therefore contribute to the spread of AIDs.
: > :
: > : It's not a fucking plural.
: >
: > I know it's not a fucking plural, it's a fucking typing lame.
:
: Really?
:
: > Do you make them? Yes.
:
: Rarely.
Oh bollocks.
:
: > Do I correct yours? No.
:
: Be honest. Did you take your finger off the shift key or did you
: switch off the caps key?
Good grief. Okay. I lied. I thought the disease was actually called
Acquired Immune Deficiencys.
:
: > : And it's HIV that's spread.
: >
: > You're being nitpicky.
:
: I'm irritated by the level of discussion and lazy talk here. AIDS
: cannot be spread as such.
I would do anything on God's Green Earth to refrain from irritating
you. I promise never to engage in lazy talk again.
:
: > Here's an article entitled "Confronting the
: > Spread of AIDS."
: >
: > http://www.worldbank.org/html/extdr/extme/1513.htm
:
: The World Bank!? You know where you can stick your World
: Bank?
Good article, innit?
:
: > It's not uncommon to talk about the spread of disease, when
: > it's really germs or bacteria that are spread, which can lead to
: > the disease.
:
: Oh dear.
You called?
:
: Listen up, Peg, biology lesson that will be of benefit.
:
: AIDS is a syndrome - a condition of the body, its response to a
: virus. It's a group of symptoms, illnesses, reactions (this is what
: a "syndrome" generally means). It can't be spread because it is
: not transferred - it's an individual body's reaction to a virus
(the,
: erm, germs of your acquaintance). It is consequent to the virus
: but not necessarily so. You can contract HIV and never
: develope AIDS. Okay, some talk about its spread, but you are
: supposed to be a writer, Peej.
I knew all that. Remember my friends? Who died of AIDS? Well after
their deaths, I read a little about the subject.
But you can bet your sweet ass that I'll never again use the term
"SPREAD of AIDS." And if any of my gay friends do, I'll surely correct
them.
: > Why worry about splitting hairs when what's important is the
: > point that's being made?
:
: When the point getting made is that AIDS follows getting
: fucked in the ass, I think the time has arrived to get those hairs
: split.
You really do need to clean up your fucking language, my friend.
PJ
--
Dr Zen
> gol...@hotmail.com (Dr Zen) wrote:
>
> > I have unprotected sex with my wife reasonably often (hey, we've got a
> > small kid, that changes things, those sniggerers at the back).
>
> Breastfeeding is not a foolproof means of birth control, I hope you
> know.
I know. I prefer to rely on the pill. Condoms when the baby was
breastfeeding. But thanks for the warning.
Zen
Dr Zen
> > doing, keeping a scorecard?
>
> Why, psycho, because I bother to actually research things before I offer
> insights on them? As opposed to you and the other idiots here who simply
> regurgitate whatever *feels* good coming up?
>
I'm not interested enough in homosexuals to research their sex lives,
dude.
> Of course, I realize that your computer time is limited, having to share
> the time with the other inmates of the ward. So I'll cut you, at least,
> some slack.
>
I'm only going to say this once, Sweepin', so pay attention: Telling
me I'm nuts does not make you a winner. We both know that. You don't
need to visit www.bigcockgays.com to find that out.
Zen
William Penrose
> ... They deserve
> to have the skin flayed from their living bodies with rusted
> cheese graters, then be strung with piano wire around the most
> delicate parts of their bodies and hung high.
Remind me not to make you really mad.
Bill Penrose (where's Frank when we need him?)
Dr Zen
> >
> > My point was, if people start pointing fingers, saying "he did this,
> > he did this knowingly, he has a risky *lifestyle*, so therefore I will
> > deduce that he deserves the consequences," it's hard to draw the line.
>
> I am ordinarily a very shy person, and I so hate to risk expressing
> my opinion here, but I just have to speak up. I hope no one will,
> like, disagree with me because that would utterly crush me.
>
No way is that going to happen, because I just *know* that what you
say is going to be incontrovertible.
> Okay, that said: I agree in part with what PJ is saying here. I
> CAN say "he did this, did it knowingly, chose to take the risk,
> gambled, and lost." I can then add "and that's horrible. That's
> totally fucked, man." I can also add "but hello? I mean, what
> the fuck were you THINKING?" What I cannot say is "hey, dood,
> you, like deserve it."
>
I think all this would be reasonable for a skiing injury, dude.
> The people who, IMO, *deserve* to have bad things happen to them
> are people who deliberately do horrible nasty bad wretched things
> to others. People who rape, or who murder children. They deserve
> to have the skin flayed from their living bodies with rusted
> cheese graters, then be strung with piano wire around the most
> delicate parts of their bodies and hung high.
Spoken with true 'agape', sister.
You know they deserve your love. Hate the sin, love the sinner, innit.
> People who take risks don't *deserve* to have the bad consequences
> of their choices occur. That it is likely to happen, and then does
> should come as no surprise to them, however. And they (and their
> loved ones) should also not start pissing and moaning about how
> unfair it is, or how someone, somewhere, "owes" them.
>
There's a line to be drawn though, will you agree, between those who
take risks and those who do things that, while risky in themselves,
cannot be considered in the same light. I'm meaning "unprotected anal
sex" versus "flying to Mehico".
If a plane crashes, you would not want to hear the airline guy say:
"Well, planes crash, man, you took that risk when you bought the
ticket."
Because we understand that there are risks we consider acceptable in
day-to-day life (and when these risks turn into accidents, we *do*
expect someone to pay), and others that we do not.
Would PJ say that a guy in a plane wreck *deserved* his fate because
he took a risk in flying?
> If I drive without a safety belt, and get in an accident and get
> terribly hurt, and that hurt would not have occurred had I worn
> the safety belt, I'm pretty foolish to blame the other driver
> for the grievous nature of my injury.
Are you? What if he was drunk? Or are you saying nothing more than one
ought to take whatever precautions one ought reasonably be thought to
know to take, or suffer the consequences accordingly?
I think that is probably a fairer formulation than PJ suggests.
If we said, "don't whine if you get the clap when you won't wear a
rubber and are aware of the chance of contracting it", I think that's
reasonable.
If we said, "don't whine if you get HIV when you get fucked in the
ass", I'm not so sure.
There's some suggestion that young homosexuals in the USA are not very
HIV-aware. It has ceased to be a death sentence, as such, and has
begun to be seen as a containable if not curable disease. One does not
take precautions against MS, does one?
> I may blame the other driver
> for involving me in the accident in the first place, but that's
> a different matter.
>
If you don't know about seatbelts, though? If you don't know what
they're for?
Are you clear that there is no analogy between the seatbelt and the
condom? Because the possibility of an accident is known and the risk
you are running easily seen.
What if, and I'm not suggesting this for an instant, your husband had
sex with another man, or woman, and contracted HIV, without your
knowing or suspecting?
You know what I'm asking here.
> If I have unprotected sex with multiple partners, and then contract
> herpes, or syphillis, or HIV, it's pretty damned stupid of me to
> expect the government to suddenly pony up money to help me, or to
> blame those who did not have unprotected sex for "siphoning money
> away from the research for my disease because they're bigots."
>
What about if you eat Maccas burgers three times a week? Or suck down
twenty Luckies a day?
> How about I own up to the consequences of my own actions? Better:
> how about I not engage in risky behavior that stands a good chance
> of harming others?
I think people who have unprotected sex with people whose sexual
history they don't know and know better are fucking idiots. Gay,
straight, whatever. But that's fairly clear cut, isn't it? Do we not
spend money on fucking idiots now? Do you forfeit the right to life
because you're stupid?
> A fireman puts himself in harm's way and should not be surprised if
> he is injured or dies, but when he does that, he's not unintentionally
> harming others. In fact, he's working to *save* others, or their
> property. A person who engages in unprotected sex is risking infection
> and, if infected already, is risking passing that on to someone
> else -- all for a few moments of jolly good fun.
If they are aware they are infected, they are quite rightly punished
for it. I hope we're not losing sight of that. You are distinguishing
those who know and those I don't, I hope?
But if they don't know they are infected, they are not sure of the
risk they are running. A fireman usually is reasonably aware.
> A person who
> climbs cliffs or ice falls is risking injury and *may* even injure
> another climber, all for jolly good fun but is not engaging in
> behavior that generally puts others at risk.
I think "generally" is too strong. "Conceivably" would be closer to
it. How many people who have unprotected sex are putting their partner
at risk?
I'm not "generally" putting my wife at risk, am I? I've been faithful
to her throughout our married life. I had a test when I migrated. I'm
no risk at all but I don't use protection. Why should I?
> > I'll repeat the comment I made to Geno: I wouldn't assign blame at
> > all. In fact, society would be a much better place if people would
> > just shut their traps about who's to blame for blah blah fucking blah.
>
> I think you're seeing the finger pointing because another finger
> pointed first. When I read an article that has an activist blaming
> "society" for this and that, it doesn't surprise me to see a member
> of society saying "yo, hey, dood, you engage in the behavior that
> caused your problem, you could have easily avoided it with little
> cost, what the fuck are you blaming ME for?"
Hmmm. Different question though.
>
>
> > PJ (do you really have a friend who would eat a blowfish?)
>
> You left off "and swallows?"
Hey, if you've got one that eats taipans, then I'll be impressed.
Zen
gekko
But then, I'm very easily trolled, so maybe it wasn't so Most
Excellent, ne?
Anent Wayne allegedly being a "homophobe":
> It's the right conclusion. He's calling me a nutter rather than deny
> it.
<...>
> Wayne is a homophobe. That's a fact. He has never stated outright his
> views on homosexuals but they inform his posts. He will not deny it.
A "fact". You have the evidence to support this "fact", Zen? Try
not to dig into your emotional responses when you come up with
the support for this "fact", okay?
I'll give you a wee hint: lack of evidence proves nothing. Geddit?
Witches who denied being witches were tortured for lying. Witches
who admitted it were merely killed. Geddit?
So, to make your case and not look (again) like the fraudulent
lying arse you are, you would want to first define "homophobe",
then present your supporting evidence that proves the "fact"
that Wayne is as you have defined him.
I'm sure your excellent skills at dissecting American languages
(memories of your lame with Master Cougar where you imagined a
Canadian would speak the same regional dialect as you come to
mind here) and your superb mindreading and Usenet-post-derived
psychoanalytical abilities will not let you down.
It will doubtless help you to while away your time between
crossing out extra words, removing wayward apostrophes, and
correcting acronym errors.
> > And he's too outspoken to keep his feelings to himself when he
> > believes something.
>
> He's been in this group a long time, Peej. He knows there are people
> who would slaughter him if he confessed his homophobia. He's weighed
> it up.
This is your great detective work? The man gets crucified by
people left and right every time he burps on this newsgroup ... SuziCute
posts and the hardcore feminists nearly fly to Phillie to ram
sharp objects up his ass. The man practically lives for contention
in his writing, d00d. Take a peek at any of his Splooge entries,
his columns, his e-zine, and 99.9% of his posts.
And you're saying that he's afraid to do even as little as his
friend Geno does and say "I think anal sex is unnatural and I despise
it"? That he tries to *hide* it, thinking it's some deep, dirty
little secret? Who is going to "crucify" him, Zen? Who hasn't
already "crucified" him, for that matter, outside of his friends?
Geezus. If you believe that, you're beyond stupid. If you
do not believe it, but merely want others to (which is what I
am sure is the case), then you're a dishonest coward, in addition
to being a fraud and a cunt.
Consider this: I am still easy. I still enjoy taking the time
to justify myself and explain things when you and others get
them wrong. I'm not alone in this, btw.
But Wayne ... the man owes Usenet and misc.writing *nothing* in
the way of an explanation. If you and others cannot read the words
he has written without coming to kneejerk conclusions, then
why do you suppose a he would want to waste his time
trying to defend himself against your erroneous "accusations"?
And how does his decision to not waste his time proving something
morons like you don't want to see for yourselves equate to
"guilt"?
You've been a stranger to honesty so long, you don't recognize it
when you see it. What a shamefully dark world you must inhabit,
Zennerplops.
--
gekko
Know what to expect before you connect.
Blanche Nonken
NP. My next door neighbor has what are referred to by obstetric nurses
'round here as "Irish Twins" - babies 10 1/2 months apart. She learned
the hard way.
The Last Real Marlboro Man
news:pan.2002.08.13.12...@rl.ac.uk:
> And your qualification for this diagnosis is...?
Years of newsgroup participation. What more does anyone need?
You will note that, being the careful one like I am, I quite deliberately
qualified with "I believe you are..." as opposed to, "you are."
You would deny me my opinion? You would censor my words? What are you, some
kind of intolerant misanthropeophobe?
--
Wayne Lutz - http://www.waynelutz.net
The Tocquevillian Magazine
http://www.waynelutz.net/conservativevoice
------------------------------------------------------------
In the reported words of one survivor of the Holocaust, when asked what
lesson he had taken from his experience of the 1940s, 'If someone tells you
that he intends to kill you, believe him'." --Wall Street Journal
------------------------------------------------------------
Geno
>
> > Again, that is NOT the *only* way that AIDS is spread _anywhere_ on
> > this earth.
>
> Sigh.
The Last Real Marlboro Man
news:slrnalig0t....@enews2.newsguy.com:
When someone so freely and frequently uses the slang word "cunt" as a put-
down, that can only mean that he considers the female genitalia to be
something unwholesome and worthy of contempt. That's a woman-hater in my
book.
> Um, isn't a misogynist a subset of misanthrope? I mean, if you're
> a misanthrope, are you then a misogynist?
That's an interesting question. However, for the purpose of classification,
the logical extension of your musing would be that a misanthrope is also,
by definition, a bigot, homophobe, and all the rest.
That would mean that zenners is just plain "intolerant," period, and we all
know that...
Oh, wait...
Alan Hope
said:
>gol...@hotmail.com (Dr Zen) "wrote" <snort!> in
>news:5e7da04d.02081...@posting.google.com:
>> You're a sneaky cunt. You never quite come out and state your hatred
>> of gays, but you let it inform everything you say.
>You're a sneaky psychotic. You never quite come out and state your hatred
>of women, but you let it inform everything you say.
>By the way, zenners. When I call you "psychotic," I am dead serious. I
>believe you are certifiably nuts.
Res ipsa loquitur, but aside from that ...
How about an answer?
--
AH
Alan Hope
said:
>A day, or a week, or a year from now, some slow-witted idiot will vaguely
>remember this conversation and accuse me of "homophobia" or something
>similar. Someone like that old head-in-the-sand bigot Deckert.
You should be ashamed of yourself for taking a gratuitous pot-shot at
someone who's not here to defend himself. That's simply cowardly.
--
AH
The Last Real Marlboro Man
cheezus what a feisty woman.
I love it!
The Last Real Marlboro Man
> I'm only going to say this once, Sweepin', so pay attention: Telling
> me I'm nuts does not make you a winner. We both know that. You don't
> need to visit www.bigcockgays.com to find that out.
I'm only going to say this once, psycho, so pay attention: I am telling you
you're nuts because that's what I honestly believe, based on my reading of
the whole body of your "work" over the years. That you harbor some notion
that there is such a thing as "winning" and "losing" on *usenet* is only
further proof of that, to me.