YOUR SEXUALITY

[Cynical Ninja]

Blacks and homos fuck like monkeys so what better way to rid of them?

What about the white people who fuck like monkeys? There are loads of them on welfare in the UK, a white slut with 6 different kids to 6 different white fathers.

Some straight white people are just as promiscuous as gay or black men.

[Maggot]

Alright then smarty..............YOU figure out how to get rid of them!

[aussiefriend]

that was pretty good Aussie.

Thanks Rams I couldn't resist.

[aussiefriend]

Jesus, aussie. You often refuse to provide facts/proof to support your stubborn sweeping (and, frequently, wrong) assertions during a serious discussion, and you've scoffed at those who provide them to you proactively or who request them of you. Now, you want scientific results from others to support what's common knowledge?

Oh piss off HoTD!

I work in health. You cannot make a blanket statement about a specific group of the population without backing it up with facts. That is called bigotry. Many of the perceptions are false and misleading in their prejudices against certain groups within a population. In order to prove your thesis you need to have evidence to explain your perception. I wouldn't use a source such as unicef. Whilst they do wonderful work, I wouldn't use them as a source if I was investigating the spread of the virus. Maybe something like the World Health Organisation, and I wouldn't just use one source, you need more than that to speak from a place of truth.

There is no doubt that the AIDS epidemic was/is a phenomenon. This would have been investigated and explored in detail in scientific based medical journals with actual facts and statistics. I know from working in the area of health that HIV+ has never been referred to as a gay disease. In fact, you could find yourself struck off or suspended if you started using that kind of language.

I am surprised at you supporting unsubstantiated hysterical hate filled homophobia. Then again, dogs are pack animals and you are sticking with the pack on this one.

[Maggot]

How old were you when it first came out? It was in the Gay community first. You cannot change history no matter how PC you become. Its not your fault, its a liberal flaw.

[Duchess]

Oh piss off HoTD!

I work in health. You cannot make a blanket statement about a specific group of the population without backing it up with facts. That is called bigotry. Many of the perceptions are false and misleading in their prejudices against certain groups within a population. In order to prove your thesis you need to have evidence to explain your perception. I wouldn't use a source such as unicef. Whilst they do wonderful work, I wouldn't use them as a source if I was investigating the spread of the virus. Maybe something like the World Health Organisation, and I wouldn't just use one source, you need more than that to speak from a place of truth.

There is no doubt that the AIDS epidemic was/is a phenomenon. This would have been investigated and explored in detail in scientific based medical journals with actual facts and statistics. I know from working in the area of health that HIV+ has never been referred to as a gay disease. In fact, you could find yourself struck off or suspended if you started using that kind of language.

I am surprised at you supporting unsubstantiated hysterical hate filled homophobia. Then again, dogs are pack animals and you are sticking with the pack on this one.

I'm not sure what kind of proof you're looking for but I just googled aids in the us and the page filled with examples of it first being discovered in the gay community in the United States. It's a fact that's how it happened here, Aussie, it was found and spread in the gay communities like wildfire.

This in one paragraph out of many articles. This was written by two doctors who have devoted the last 30 yrs to working with aids patients.

Soon, more cases like these appeared, at first mainly in gay men, but then also in injection drug users, hemophiliacs, and other recipients of blood and blood products, heterosexual men and women, and babies who acquired the infection from their mothers during birth or breastfeeding. We and our colleagues quickly began to confront the reality of a deadly new disease that would change the world. The disease ultimately would be referred to as AIDS.

In the United States this was considered a gay disease and many still believe that the roots of it lie in the gay community.

[ramseycat]

You know I KNOW Aussie isn't dumb. She's obviously educated and working to continue that education. But some of the nonsense she says just blows me away.

[HairOfTheDog]

Oh piss off HoTD!

I work in health.

Haha. Some thing's never change.

Despite your insistence that you know more than everyone here about this HEALTH issue, you are again ignorant and deflecting. Big surprise.

In order to prove your thesis you need to have evidence to explain your perception. I wouldn't use a source such as unicef. Whilst they do wonderful work, I wouldn't use them as a source if I was investigating the spread of the virus. Maybe something like the World Health Organisation, and I wouldn't just use one source, you need more than that to speak from a place of truth.

You are not only what Martin Luther King, Jr. labeled as "sincerely ignorant', you are also what he referred to as "conscientiously stupid". Had you the mental and emotional intelligence to actually look at the documentation of scientific facts provided to you (per YOUR request) before continuing your rant, you'd have seen the World Health Organization right there on the front page of the Unicef report. You'd also have seen UNAIDS. It's a collaboration.

And, as is true with nearly every scientific research report (HEALTH or otherwise), it includes Appendices, References...The report that you were provided contained citations from the most credible HEALTH professionals in the world on the subject of AIDS. Some of them, dare I say, might even have more expertise when it comes to HIV/AIDS than you. Really.

So, what's next, ignoramus? Questioning the methodology used in the scientific research because the results contradict your spewings?

Don't waste your energy on that type of deflection, again. Here's a gift. The methodology, including sources of participation in the review process by the leading experts in the countries covered in the report, can be found on page 223 of the PDF. You're welcome.

You cannot make a blanket statement about a specific group of the population without backing it up with facts. That is called bigotry.

I made no such blanket statements in my response to you. I stated the facts, backed them up, and also acknowledged the truth in your statement about other segments of the population/demographics affected by the disease.

That's not bigotry. It's accuracy. You labeling me a bigot or homophobic is like me crowning you the queen of successful romantic relationships. Anyone with basic comprehension skills and who actually reads what's posted here would know that's called lunacy.

There is no doubt that the AIDS epidemic was/is a phenomenon. This would have been investigated and explored in detail in scientific based medical journals with actual facts and statistics. I know from working in the area of health that HIV+ has never been referred to as a gay disease. In fact, you could find yourself struck off or suspended if you started using that kind of language.

Well, hey, you've acknowledged that the AIDS epidemic exists. You got something right.

As for me, I haven't used any language that would get me struck from anywhere, aussie. You're talking shit.

I am surprised at you supporting unsubstantiated hysterical hate filled homophobia. Then again, dogs are pack animals and you are sticking with the pack on this one.

There's no pack. There's just you claiming to be the victim of one that doesn't exist; your standard fallback when you show your ass and then can't stop yourself from showing it again and again.

In reality, there's only you spewing absolute bullshit in an all-knowing condescending manner, no less, and people more knowledgeable than you calling you out for it. Don't like the language used by some here in the process? Try reading some actual scientific studies; pretty good chance the language therein won't offend you. Pretty good. At Mock, people can use the language that suits them best when making their points - accurate points, in this case. We're not scientists. Another big surprise, for you?

Do your own homework next time, aussie. You've got enough problems to overcome without adding "lazy" to your resume.

[sally]

I probably should have chosen my words more wisely knowing I was speaking to Aussie and she's not always capable of looking at things rationally. Sorry you had to take the heat HotD.

[crash]

not to speak for her or anything, Sal, but I think HotD quite enjoyed emptying that can of whoopass

[HairOfTheDog]

I probably should have chosen my words more wisely knowing I was speaking to Aussie and she's not always capable of looking at things rationally. Sorry you had to take the heat HotD.

We're all at fault, sally.

We should all consider "aussie think" before posting our opinions and the facts, and articulate them accordingly.

Sure, we'd come across as logic-deprived dipshits, but politically correct ones, at least.

As for the heat, forget about it. My ice-cold freezer packs more heat than an aussie flame.

Anyway, she seems to be on the "make-nice/foregivenss" tour here now - I'm sure she'll be cool like Fonzie soon enough.

[FAHQTOO]

Oh piss off HoTD!

I work in health.

Haha. Some thing's never change.

Despite your insistence that you know more than everyone here about this HEALTH issue, you are again ignorant and deflecting. Big surprise.

In order to prove your thesis you need to have evidence to explain your perception. I wouldn't use a source such as unicef. Whilst they do wonderful work, I wouldn't use them as a source if I was investigating the spread of the virus. Maybe something like the World Health Organisation, and I wouldn't just use one source, you need more than that to speak from a place of truth.

You are not only what Martin Luther King, Jr. labeled as "sincerely ignorant', you are also what he referred to as "conscientiously stupid". Had you the mental and emotional intelligence to actually look at the documentation of scientific facts provided to you (per YOUR request) before continuing your rant, you'd have seen the World Health Organization right there on the front page of the Unicef report. You'd also have seen UNAIDS. It's a collaboration.

And, as is true with nearly every scientific research report (HEALTH or otherwise), it includes Appendices, References...The report that you were provided contained citations from the most credible HEALTH professionals in the world on the subject of AIDS. Some of them, dare I say, might even have more expertise when it comes to HIV/AIDS than you. Really.

So, what's next, ignoramus? Questioning the methodology used in the scientific research because the results contradict your spewings?

Don't waste your energy on that type of deflection, again. Here's a gift. The methodology, including sources of participation in the review process by the leading experts in the countries covered in the report, can be found on page 223 of the PDF. You're welcome.

You cannot make a blanket statement about a specific group of the population without backing it up with facts. That is called bigotry.

I made no such blanket statements in my response to you. I stated the facts, backed them up, and also acknowledged the truth in your statement about other segments of the population/demographics affected by the disease.

That's not bigotry. It's accuracy. You labeling me a bigot or homophobic is like me crowning you the queen of successful romantic relationships. Anyone with basic comprehension skills and who actually reads what's posted here would know that's called lunacy.

There is no doubt that the AIDS epidemic was/is a phenomenon. This would have been investigated and explored in detail in scientific based medical journals with actual facts and statistics. I know from working in the area of health that HIV+ has never been referred to as a gay disease. In fact, you could find yourself struck off or suspended if you started using that kind of language.

Well, hey, you've acknowledged that the AIDS epidemic exists. You got something right.

As for me, I haven't used any language that would get me struck from anywhere, aussie. You're talking shit.

I am surprised at you supporting unsubstantiated hysterical hate filled homophobia. Then again, dogs are pack animals and you are sticking with the pack on this one.

There's no pack. There's just you claiming to be the victim of one that doesn't exist; your standard fallback when you show your ass and then can't stop yourself from showing it again and again.

In reality, there's only you spewing absolute bullshit in an all-knowing condescending manner, no less, and people more knowledgeable than you calling you out for it. Don't like the language used by some here in the process? Try reading some actual scientific studies; pretty good chance the language therein won't offend you. Pretty good. At Mock, people can use the language that suits them best when making their points - accurate points, in this case. We're not scientists. Another big surprise, for you?

Do your own homework next time, aussie. You've got enough problems to overcome without adding "lazy" to your resume.

I also would like to thank you for not putting one of those sickening kissy emos at the end of your post.


P.S....Pack meeting at 10:00am sharp at users house. Don't be late, and keep it under wraps.

[Cynical Ninja]

AIDS human beginnings may have been in the gay community but it is not at root a gay disease. It is at root a monkey eating/fucking disease.

To call AIDS a gay disease in 2014 is pure self delusion. It is a sexually transmitted disease that is rife among heterosexuals in many parts of the world.

To say “if it wasn't for promiscuous queers none of this would have happened” is bullshit.

[HairOfTheDog]

AIDS human beginnings may have been in the gay community but it is not at root a gay disease. It is at root a monkey eating/fucking disease.

To call AIDS a gay disease in 2014 is pure self delusion. It is a sexually transmitted disease that is rife among heterosexuals in many parts of the world.

To say “if it wasn't for promiscuous queers none of this would have happened” is bullshit.

Not one person in this thread characterized AIDS as a "gay disease". Not one.

In the course of discussing homophobia, Maggot said there was a lot of fear when the AIDS epidemic hit the scene in the 80s. True.

You brought the term "gay disease" into the equation in pointing out that the disease affects other segments of the population as well. True.

sally acknowledged that it affects other segments of the population and groups that have unprotected sex are at greater risk than those who don't and the male gay community, predominantly, was the hardest hit and is where the disease spread rapidly. True.

Aussie latched on to your statement about it not being a "gay disease" and went on about how drug users and sexually promiscuous people of all races and orientations are most likely to spread the disease; which no one had disputed, and she implied that acknowledging or discussing homosexuality's role in the proliferation of the epidemic was somehow wrong or stupid or whatever. Then she asked for scientific data and facts and got them, scientific data showing that homosexual men still account for the majority of those newly affected by the disease in some regions - as of a couple of years ago - with African American males being the largest subgroup of the newly infected in the US; scientific data released by Unicef, WHO, and UNAIDS.

So, yeah, it's bullshit for anyone to claim that AIDS is only a "gay disease" or that it wouldn't exist were it not for homosexuality, in 2014. No one here said such a thing, but I don't doubt that there are some people in every region around the world who still think that way. And, no one here addressed or claimed to know the root of the disease in this thread before your post above, so I'll leave it with the monkeys.