RadioBanter - View Single Post - Beware of hams planting dis-information...

May 16th 05, 05:32 PM

On Fri, 13 May 2005 10:51:40 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:

You said one will not likely catch AIDS if one practices monogamy. This
would only hold true if both were virgins when getting married..,not
practical when applied to present reality, as the vast majority have a
sexual past history.

And the less promiscuous that past is, the less
likely that one will catch AIDS.

No one ever said differently. That statement still does nothing to
support or validate
your erred comment that now practicing monogamy will likely prevent one
from catching AIDS, as it discounts your past. You are unable to
distinguish between the differences.

So, you are of the theory that if you have a "sexual past" that it's
not worth being more careful now? Sort of like the defeatist analogy,
"Hell, I smoked for the last 10 years, so what's the point of stopping
now?"

You fail to consider statistical probability. The more partners you
have, the more likely you will find one who has AIDS. If you practice
monogamy, even now, will greatly lower your overall chances of
catching the disease.

Besides, you imply that it's next to impossible
or, at the very least, unrealistic for someone to
wait until marriage to engage in sexual
relations.

Yes, it is extremely unrealistic to expect the majority will suddenly
adhere to abstinence.

Why? Is the human race not capable of mastering its little urges?

Let's put it another way, Abstinence is a great incentive to those who
want to live, rather than risk contracting a deadly disease. Call it a
matter of priority.

_
*There are instances where the HIV virus is semi-dormant for years and
years (10 to 15 year spans are on record) and then it suddenly
appears,,,the same can be said of AIDS..it's manageable in many cases
until,...poof,,it morphs to full blown AIDS.

Which means nothing if you've never been
exposed to it.

Please try and remain at least semi-relative to your comments.

I'm sorry your comprehensive skills are so poor.

Sex is a part of an act of love, to be shared
with someone who you have a much deeper
emotional bond with. Not something for two
people, who are barely friends, who are simply
looking to kill a few hours.

Man,,you have been losing more ground each day with your posts, Dave.

How? I'm sorry if your morally bankrupt viewpoint clashes with my
solid moral foundation. But there's always hope for you. It's not too
late to change.

*Your claim that monogamy decreases the chance of acquiring AIDS
assumes incorrectly these people had no sexual past history.

It's not an "all or nothing" proposition.

You're losing yourself again.

No, I'm evidently losing you, as you once again failed to comprehend
my point.

I'll explain it again at a level you should be able to understand.
Monogamy may not 100% eliminate the risk of AIDS for those with a
sordid sexual past, but it will REDUCE the chances of catching AIDS,
as the risk exposure is minimized to a great degree.

Onec again, your rattle has nothing to
with my comment. Try again......-your- claim that monogamy decreases the
chance of acquiring AIDS assumes incorrectly these people had no sexual
past history.

You seem hell bent on confusing the term "decreases" with
"eliminates".

While total abstinence before marriage is a
concept that's lost on this latest hedonistic
generation, the simple truth is that the less
partners you have had, the less your chances
of catching AIDS.

Again and over and over,, you are presenting an argument to which only
yourself appears to be unconvinced.

I admit it's tough trying to get through to someone with your apparent
learning comprehension disability.

It would depend upon the act. For example, the chance of the
transmission of AIDS while a man receives oral sex from a woman is lower
than your chances of getting killed in an automobile accident.

Which means what in the grand scheme of things?

The facts are quite simple. The less sex you
engage in, the lesser your chances of getting
AIDS.

Now try injecting reality into your equation. If it was as simple as you
present, the AIDS epidemic would not exist.

It's not my fault that a great percentage of the population does not
take the AIDS issue seriously enough to override their hedonistic
desires, and they continue to engage in risky sexual practices. I have
no pity for them if they learn the lesson the hard way.

Those who contract the disease have only
themselves, by virtue of their activities, to
blame in most cases.

The same can be said of your wife if she or your daughter contract lung
cancer, asthma or pulmonary emboli related problems down the line
because of her smoking while she was pregnant.

Ah, another hypocritical statement from someone who once claimed to
be unconcerned with the personal lives of others. To make it even more
laughable, I can add this to the growing list of things you have
worked to find out about me, which are 100% wrong.

My wife smoked up until she became pregnant. Then something (God?)
changed her chemistry such that the taste of a cigarette became
physically sickening. She quit immediately and never went back, and
she's almost 6 years now smoke free.

So you can add this to the growing list of gaffes that you have made
about my personal life (Which you claimed to not care about)
including:

Abuse at the hands of my grandfather.
My wife's name being Kimberly T. Hall.
My wife being a teacher.
My wife and I being separated/divorced.
My not being allowed to see my daughter, except under supervision.
My home address being wrong on my FCC license.

I'm sure there's more, but I can't remember all of them. You make far
too many "oopses" to count.

If you are going to hold
people to the flame for all their abhorrant behavior, you must begin in
your own backyard, lest you have no right to confront others and your
soap box is nothing more than a mirage.

So you espouse that no one has any right to criticize events, or
behavior based on the likelihood that they also have "baggage" of
their own?

Gee, it's a good thing that the major media, and politicians don't
have to abide by this, or we'd hear nothing but quiet every day.

I am quite certain that my risk of contracting
AIDS is less than my chances of getting hit by
a meteor.

Since no one can recall the last time one had been struck with a meteor,
that's a hell of a scholarly and meritous claim.

Exactly.

I am far more concerned with
cancer and heart disease as these pose a
much greater risk to the members of my
family.

Diseases that, in large part, can be blamed on your family members by
virtue of their poor choices and actions..smoking.

Despite research that links certain lifestyle choices to increases in
cancer or heart disease risk, there are also certain genetic
predispositions. There are no genetic predispositions to catching
AIDS.

AIDS risk can be reduced to minuscule levels if people would take the
proactive step in modifying their lifestyles.

Dave
"Sandbagger"