Yes, sure. Throw idiotic phrases around, embarrass yourself suitably and then abandon the discussion when it actually turns to specific, factual assertions, as normal; rinse, repeat, etc.
Any such conclusions are derived from poor use of statistics and misconception; it is not scientific.
I have addressed every matter you have raised, you have time and time responded by repeating, your original statements, heaven forbid I decide at that point to let you wallow in your own repetition.
Sure. If you feel as though your rudimentary insults and complete and utter lack of understanding of the point I was making, taking issues on face value and blatant use of logical fallacy translates into 'addressing' a statement, then you sure showed me.
Haha well not really. Uganda is one of the few African nations to successfully battle the HIV epidemic. The government went about implementing actions to stem the rate of infection. Abstinence, monogamous relationships, and use of condoms are encouraged. The U.S. statistics indicate that regardless of improvements in education and health care the HIV rate in MSM is still climbing steadily. I'm not supporting Uganda's stance or actions. I'm just saying it's really not that illogical to outlaw something which has been indicated as being a large outlet for spreading HIV among people. Especially, in a country that is one of the only African countries to successfully limit HIV rates to a degree.
At this point you seem to be semi-rational. Education, social awareness, context, knowledge, these are all things that have served to limit the impact of such diseases in many countries are just as relevant in African countries as well; the problem is the objectivity of such education (many are funded by evangelical American Christian groups with agendas, bias and prejudice to burn - that's essentially what is responsible for this legislation) and the resources involved.
Again, statistics ought not to be taken at face value at any point, for they may be manipulated or misunderstood. Homosexuality is no more dangerous in the spread of HIV than regular intercourse or exchange of fluids, biologically. What you are doing is falling into the trap of reading into misleading statistics that do not accurately account for other factors.
hahahahaha look at how black people are only 3000 less white people despite being 12% of the population
Yes your single uncle is an accurate and valid sample, representing the complete of the black/homosexual community.
The guy quoted proper stats from the CDC. Props to him.
If there is anything I have said which you felt required further clarification you are welcome to ask for it (instead of just repeating your lines like a Rudd government minister) but please spare me the debating team breakdown of arguments, it makes you look a half educated spiv.
Quite frankly you're embarrassing yourself. Had you attempted to discuss with me I'd be happy to talk to you, but since your opening salvo was "You don't even believe in God so you can't even comment" and that's about the most coherent you got, I'll end this here. Until next time, I gleefully await. Have the last word if you wish, it means little to me; you've quite frankly ceased to be amusing and turned into a pathetic little embarrassment.
Weren't it you or one of your unholy lackeys who just the other week derided the whole "walk away, agree to disagree, we're never going to change the other" complex? I understand you think anyone who believes in God to be an embarrassment so that you now think I am embarrassing myself doesn't particularly bother me. I do have a problem with you verballing me as you just did, I never said an atheist can't comment I said one of your claims followed illogically from an atheistic base.
There's currently a review by the Red Cross to examine whether that's still a valid form of screening, as the original ruling was from the early days of HIV in the '80s, when little was understood about how the disease was transmitted.
My response is similar to above - what I find illogical is addressing an epidemic in terms of symptoms rather than causes. By relying on the rationale that HIV is somehow a "gay disease", it promotes unsafe sexual practices among straight folks and even leads to the prevalence of retarded myths - due to under-education of sexual health - such as that HIV can be cured by having sex with virgins. (Related link: BBC NEWS | Programmes | Correspondent | AIDS: A South African horror story)
See last paragraph, above.
No, not that I know of. I'm not agreeing to disagree, but rather admitting that the cross-thread slinging match we've carried into here has distracted attention from the actual subject; it is meaningless at this point and I shall leave it till the next time we find ourselves in disagreement on a factual assertion to bring up our respective points.
By law they are supposed to screen all the blood they receive anyway.
If children see the death of people around them due to AIDS, and people tell them enough times, eventually it is going to sink in. They grow up, and are taught that homosexuals spread AIDS, and that homosexuality is evil, then of course they are going to be opposed to it.
