BF2S Forums Stephen Harper in bad taste?

Although AIDS is still killing millions, its mostly in Africa these days. Some countries have 1/3 of the population infected with HIV.  We are in the developed countries with plenty of media and information available about safe sex and needle use. You can get free Condoms and Clean Needles in Belfast free and hopefully in most developed countries. The Real AID's disaster is happening in Africa. A guy in a Mud hut in Sudan ain't going to know shit about it and thats were our "AIDs" money should be going. Although our governments seam to think building huge armies and intelligence agencies with our money is better for the ppl of this planet.

VERY bad taste.

Clinton's been doing a lot of pro AIDS work lately. AIDS research is a great thing to be investing in, as is all medical research that will save lives in the long term. Not spending vast sums on killing people as the US (and their buddies Israel) seem to be doing lately.

AIDS is Natures way of saying "Don't put that in your Butt". 

Why would you care about AIDS if:

You are a woman that doesn't sleep with a Guy who gets it in the Butt from guys?

A Guy that doesn't get it in the Butt?

Don't sleep with tons of Crack whores and promiscuous women.

Don't borrow used needles?

Make sure you only get blood transfusions from known sources as much as you can?

If you live according to the above I am pretty sure that the chances of you getting AIDS is less than .0001 percent.

If you can't live by the above, society won't mourn your loss.

I'm rather tired so I'll simply state the following:
"Fuck Harper, vote NDP"

jonsimon wrote:

Major_Spittle wrote:

AIDS is Natures way of saying "Don't put that in your Butt". 

Why would you care about AIDS if:

You are a woman that doesn't sleep with a Guy who gets it in the Butt from guys?

A Guy that doesn't get it in the Butt?

Don't sleep with tons of Crack whores and promiscuous women.

Don't borrow used needles?

Make sure you only get blood transfusions from known sources as much as you can?

If you live according to the above I am pretty sure that the chances of you getting AIDS is less than .0001 percent.

If you can't live by the above, society won't mourn your loss.

Society doesn't mourn heartless bastards either.

Besides, these are only the most COMMON sources, not the only sources. Who knows maybe you'll be afflicted with some life threatening disease one day. I doubt you'll be so heartless then.

Aside from the unlikely chance of contracting AIDS from blood transfusions (and unlisted possibilities involving dentist spittle, etc.), the rest of the listed guidelines are a pretty decent way of insulating yourself against AIDS. It's not heartless, it's just common sense. I sure as hell am not going to weep so much for an AIDS victim if he contracted it through his own debauchery. The world has more worthy ills for me to spend tears on.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-08-20 11:05:28)

Bertster7 wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

Society doesn't mourn heartless bastards either.

Besides, these are only the most COMMON sources, not the only sources. Who knows maybe you'll be afflicted with some life threatening disease one day. I doubt you'll be so heartless then.

Aside from the unlikely chance of contracting AIDS from blood transfusions (and unlisted possibilities involving dentist spittle, etc.), the rest of the listed guidelines are a pretty decent way of insulating yourself against AIDS. It's not heartless, it's just common sense. I sure as hell am not going to weep so much for an AIDS victim if he contracted it through his own debauchery. The world has more worthy ills for me to spend tears on.

What if you happen to live in a part of Africa where 1 in 3 have AIDS?

What if you are a child born with AIDS?

You both seem to hold a very insular, sickening view on AIDS - that if it doesn't affect me and I'm unlikely to get it, who gives a fuck?

Are you addressing me? If so, you obviously didn't read my post. I said that if a person contracted AIDS through their own (read: their own) debauchery, then I have very little pity to spare. Not once did I express heartless unconcern for people who are dying of AIDS through no fault of their own. Think again before you go throwing assumptions and profanity around.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-08-20 12:54:06)

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Are you addressing me? If so, you obviously didn't read my post. I said that if a person contracted AIDS through their own (read: their own) debauchery, then I have very little pity to spare. Not once did I express heartless unconcern for people who are dying of AIDS through no fault of their own. Think again before you go throwing assumptions and profanity around.

Seems to me that you implied aids is a result of debauchery except for "the unlikely chance of contracting AIDS from blood transfusions (and unlisted possibilities involving dentist spittle, etc.)".  You didn't seem to consider that very few of the global victims of aids contract it through "debauchery".

That was in reply to a comment which did not take birth into consideration in its argument (which was also cropped out of my last post), in that I replied in agreement to common-sense procedures in avoiding AIDS. And again, you will find no post of mine that implies "uncaring heartlessness" for true victims of AIDS.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-08-20 13:09:41)

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Aside from the unlikely chance of contracting AIDS from blood transfusions (and unlisted possibilities involving dentist spittle, etc.), the rest of the listed guidelines are a pretty decent way of insulating yourself against AIDS. It's not heartless, it's just common sense. I sure as hell am not going to weep so much for an AIDS victim if he contracted it through his own debauchery. The world has more worthy ills for me to spend tears on.

What if you happen to live in a part of Africa where 1 in 3 have AIDS?

What if you are a child born with AIDS?

You both seem to hold a very insular, sickening view on AIDS - that if it doesn't affect me and I'm unlikely to get it, who gives a fuck?

Are you addressing me? If so, you obviously didn't read my post. I said that if a person contracted AIDS through their own (read: their own) debauchery, then I have very little pity to spare. Not once did I express heartless unconcern for people who are dying of AIDS through no fault of their own. Think again before you go throwing assumptions and profanity around.

It seemed to me that you were implying the majority of AIDS victims caught the disease because of their own actions. The majority of people with the disease worldwide however, have not caught it as a result of any sort of debauchery.

If that is not what you were implying, I apologise for any deformation of your character - I just grouped you in with major_spittle - who I maintain has a wholly unacceptable view of the condition.

Bertster7 wrote:

|AIA| DAS wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

VERY bad taste.

Clinton's been doing a lot of pro AIDS work lately. AIDS research is a great thing to be investing in, as is all medical research that will save lives in the long term. Not spending vast sums on killing people as the US (and their buddies Israel) seem to be doing lately.

Check some facts, 

The US Government gives more than twice the amount of funding for AIDS research than any other nation in the world.

http://www.kff.org/hivaids/loader.cfm?u … esearch%22
Page 2 Bottom left

So?

I never said they didn't. They spend a damn sight more on 'defence' and have just announced cuts in their AIDS research spending - which is part of what this thread is about.

As a % of GDP the US does not contribute that much towards AIDS research and Clinton has said that the US attitude towards the disease is misguided.

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

Society doesn't mourn heartless bastards either.

Besides, these are only the most COMMON sources, not the only sources. Who knows maybe you'll be afflicted with some life threatening disease one day. I doubt you'll be so heartless then.

Aside from the unlikely chance of contracting AIDS from blood transfusions (and unlisted possibilities involving dentist spittle, etc.), the rest of the listed guidelines are a pretty decent way of insulating yourself against AIDS. It's not heartless, it's just common sense. I sure as hell am not going to weep so much for an AIDS victim if he contracted it through his own debauchery. The world has more worthy ills for me to spend tears on.

What if you happen to live in a part of Africa where 1 in 3 have AIDS?

What if you are a child born with AIDS?

You both seem to hold a very insular, sickening view on AIDS - that if it doesn't affect me and I'm unlikely to get it, who gives a fuck?

Why spend more on a disease that is quite easily prevented?  Cancer kills more per month than HIV/AIDS.  Most people who contract AIDS are ignorant as to how to prevent it.

Wear a condom, abstaine from sex, Don't share drug needles. etc.  You could live in a Bubble ingesting nothing but anti-oxidants your whole life and still get Cancer.

So, yes, in that aspect I say Who gives a fuck.  Spend more on education to prevent AIDS and the disease will die out.

Bertster7 wrote:

|AIA| DAS wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

So?

I never said they didn't. They spend a damn sight more on 'defence' and have just announced cuts in their AIDS research spending - which is part of what this thread is about.

As a % of GDP the US does not contribute that much towards AIDS research and Clinton has said that the US attitude towards the disease is misguided.


What if you happen to live in a part of Africa where 1 in 3 have AIDS?

What if you are a child born with AIDS?

You both seem to hold a very insular, sickening view on AIDS - that if it doesn't affect me and I'm unlikely to get it, who gives a fuck?

Why spend more on a disease that is quite easily prevented?  Cancer kills more per month than HIV/AIDS.  Most people who contract AIDS are ignorant as to how to prevent it.

Wear a condom, abstaine from sex, Don't share drug needles. etc.  You could live in a Bubble ingesting nothing but anti-oxidants your whole life and still get Cancer.

So, yes, in that aspect I say Who gives a fuck.  Spend more on education to prevent AIDS and the disease will die out.

Abstain from sex?!?!?

Might be easy for you, but I enjoy sex.

Go ahead, enjoy it... You can't get AIDS having sex with yourself....-jk

Last edited by |AIA| DAS (2006-08-20 14:07:04)

Ahh! More words of wisdom of those who chose the Great White North as their Utopia 
It's a proven fact that extreme cold can numb the extremities    -just kidding-

So, is this a "soap box" thread or a debate thread?

If it's a debate then do your homework - Here's one to research; Which is the most generous country in the world? {hint; if you use GNP it's bad math since the U.S. generates aid through a donation process - it's an American democracy thing - you wouldn't understand}. 

Also, You seem to speak simplistically on this matter. You dare be so simple minded to think that it's a choice to fund security over helping people suffering with aids {Isn't security a form of helping the needy - be it Aids or tens of thousands who were slaughtered by the former Iraqi government}.  No one in their right mind would choose war or to cut funding for Aids!  Choices are made by the severity of the greater need my friend - there are only so many resources to go around.  Given the choice I would fund world security first, Aids prevention second, and comforting the ill as best as possible would have to come next. 

My reasoning is simple - People with Aids had choices and people who will be slaughtered because of the conduct of their leaders have no choices {two things I read today are food for thought; 1- A man stated today in an article that he knew he was taking a risk by having unprotected sex, 2- A woman in Iraq was shot and killed along with over twenty others while attending a prayer service - How would you spend your limited resources?}

Where doe's your guaranteed freedom and security to be a socialist government come from anyway?
It' great to be free and to be able to speak openly - then again - it also breeds contentment and a false sense of security - breath-in and let the oxygen go to places it's never been before... 

Kaboom.

Major_Spittle wrote:

AIDS is Natures way of saying "Don't put that in your Butt". 

Why would you care about AIDS if:

You are a woman that doesn't sleep with a Guy who gets it in the Butt from guys?

A Guy that doesn't get it in the Butt?

Don't sleep with tons of Crack whores and promiscuous women.

Don't borrow used needles?

Make sure you only get blood transfusions from known sources as much as you can?

If you live according to the above I am pretty sure that the chances of you getting AIDS is less than .0001 percent.

If you can't live by the above, society won't mourn your loss.

And I will laugh when you catch AIDS, either from one of your listed reasons or something completely accidental.