Smart Card Technology

  • 185 Replies
  • 39988 Views
?

Thork

Re: AIDS Should Re-Adopt Its Original Name
« Reply #120 on: July 19, 2012, 02:30:31 PM »
@LordDave
Citation please. Those are your opinions. Opinions I disagree with. Specifically that a lack of internet is responsible for the spread of AIDS and that infection rates have dropped as a result of its presence. Because I think you just made all that up.

It's not the internet specifically but a way to easily find other gay people. 

Let's say everyone wore masks and large jackets so you couldn't tell who was a woman and who was a man.  How would you go about finding a woman without asking everyone "are you a chick"?
Gay people have minced for hundreds of years. That voice they do is also a bit of a give away.
Ummm... not all gay men have some kind of high pitched voice.  Most actually don't.

And yes they have.  Yet AIDS didn't exist until the 1980s.  How odd... 
You haven't been reading my posts. You re wrong on every count.

Gay people have always had ways of letting other gay men know their intentions. Make no mistake about that. If you are interested in men, you'll notice when one shows an interest in you. You'll be looking for it.

AIDS has been around since the 1930s but has only really been a problem since the 1960s. It only got scientifically identified in the 1980s when people started dropping down dead. However as I showed with sources earlier, HIV isn't the only disease sodomy lines you up for. the odds of all kinds of diseases shoot up way way way beyond the equivalent risk in vaginal sex. Please take the time to catch up in this thread.

Also, it wasn't as taboo at various times in human history so propositioning a guy in say... England during the 1600 likely wouldn't get you stoned to death.
You don't know what you are talking about.
Quote from: http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Buggery+Act+1533
The Buggery Act of 1533 (25 Hen. VIII c. 6) was an English sodomy law which existed from 1534 to 1861 and made homosexuality punishable by death.

*

Lorddave

  • 18360
Re: AIDS Should Re-Adopt Its Original Name
« Reply #121 on: July 19, 2012, 03:20:17 PM »
@LordDave
Citation please. Those are your opinions. Opinions I disagree with. Specifically that a lack of internet is responsible for the spread of AIDS and that infection rates have dropped as a result of its presence. Because I think you just made all that up.

It's not the internet specifically but a way to easily find other gay people. 

Let's say everyone wore masks and large jackets so you couldn't tell who was a woman and who was a man.  How would you go about finding a woman without asking everyone "are you a chick"?
Gay people have minced for hundreds of years. That voice they do is also a bit of a give away.
Ummm... not all gay men have some kind of high pitched voice.  Most actually don't.

And yes they have.  Yet AIDS didn't exist until the 1980s.  How odd... 
You haven't been reading my posts. You re wrong on every count.

Gay people have always had ways of letting other gay men know their intentions. Make no mistake about that. If you are interested in men, you'll notice when one shows an interest in you. You'll be looking for it.
Men and women have been doing that for centuries and screwing up every time.  What makes you think Gay men are better at it?
And you missed the part about the fear.  Fear of being discovered can make such signals hard to send out.  You have to be very careful, otherwise you risk being exposed.  I consider it equivalent to hitting on a married woman while her husband is in the room.

Quote
AIDS has been around since the 1930s but has only really been a problem since the 1960s. It only got scientifically identified in the 1980s when people started dropping down dead.
Ok so 50 years less of a few hundred (actually a few thousand considering the Greeks) isn't all that much.  You'd think HIV would have come around sooner.

Quote
However as I showed with sources earlier, HIV isn't the only disease sodomy lines you up for. the odds of all kinds of diseases shoot up way way way beyond the equivalent risk in vaginal sex. Please take the time to catch up in this thread.
No, I read that part.  I just find it irrelevant to the discussion of AIDS.
Also, how many of those diseases have no visible symptoms?

Quote
Also, it wasn't as taboo at various times in human history so propositioning a guy in say... England during the 1600 likely wouldn't get you stoned to death.
You don't know what you are talking about.
Quote from: http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Buggery+Act+1533
The Buggery Act of 1533 (25 Hen. VIII c. 6) was an English sodomy law which existed from 1534 to 1861 and made homosexuality punishable by death.
Just because it's illegal doesn't mean it isn't done.  Or enforced, as your source indicates:

Quote
Nicholas Udall, a cleric, playwright, and Headmaster of Eton College, was the first to be charged with violation of the Act alone in 1541, for sexually abusing his pupils. In his case, the sentence was commuted to imprisonment and he was released in less than a year.
No death there.

Quote
The Act was repealed in 1553 on the accession of Queen Mary.
Repealed after only 20 years?!

Quote
However, it was re-enacted by Queen Elizabeth I in 1563.
Then brought back 10 years later.

Quote
Although "homosexual prosecutions throughout the sixteenth century [were] sparse" and "fewer than a dozen prosecutions are recorded up through 1660 . . . this may reflect inadequate research into the subject, and a scarcity of extant legal records."
Hmmm... less than 12 persecution in over 100 years?  Doesn't sound like a law that was enforced very well.  Or utilized.  I mean, how exactly do you catch someone having anal sex when they don't do it in public?


Quote
Numerous prosecutions that resulted in a sentence of hanging are recorded in the 18th and early 19th centuries.
Oh wait here we go.  Wow, took you brits long enough eh? 


Really Thork, I expected better of you than to post a king's law to justify the will of the people.  Especially a law that had very little ability to be persecuted due to lack of evidence and could be no more than a witch hunt.  Especially considering the evidence was mostly "my word against yours".  Unless they went around measuring the assholes of those accused and see if it was "loose".
You have been ignored for common interest of mankind.

I am a terrible person and I am a typical Blowhard Liberal for being wrong about Bom.

?

OrbisNonSufficit

  • 3124
  • I love Gasoline.
Re: AIDS Should Re-Adopt Its Original Name
« Reply #122 on: July 19, 2012, 04:17:51 PM »
Of course. That is why we legislate. There would be no point if it had no effect. QED.
>Implying that unless something is 100% effective it is pointless


Interestingly enough Denmark is one of the wealthiest countries in the world. The USA has far more poverty and hence drug use.
Weed really is not that kind of drug.  In fact the article claims that the reason its so popular in the US is because our wealth, not our poverty.

Quote
Why the high numbers? Jim Anthony, chair of the department of epidemiology at Michigan State University and an author of the study, says U.S. drug habits have to do, in part, with the country's affluence — many Americans can afford to spend their income on recreational drugs. Another factor may be an increasing awareness that marijuana may be less toxic than other drugs, such as tobacco or alcohol.
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1821697,00.html#ixzz2171MGMS6

Your laws are hardly firm about it. Its not like you get 15 years in prison for possession. Sodomy used to come with the death sentence in the UK. That deters people.
Well we have the constitution to think about on this one.  Overly harsh punishments are not allowed, because we think that "cruel or unusual" punishments are not really the right thing to do.  And with the 3 strike law in 24 states, you can actually get some serious time for weed possession, because it is considered a shedule 1 narcotic, which it means it worse to be found with it than cocaine and as bad as heroine.

Also there is strong evidence that increasing the penalty for getting caught endangers the lives of officers, because the suspects feel more compelled to get away.  The number of violent officer assaults would skyrocket if the suspects knew they faced certain death or life in prison if convicted.

http://cjp.sagepub.com/content/16/4/443.abstract

If being able to prove and prosecute the activity resulted in a life sentence and the government and law enforcement were serious about catching offenders, instances of such behaviour would indeed plummet.

Again, no evidence, and no suggestion as to how we would catch people in the act.  If they are just having sex in their own home, what are you going to stalk people you think might be gay?

*

Saddam Hussein

  • Official Member
  • 35374
  • Former President of Iraq
Re: AIDS Should Re-Adopt Its Original Name
« Reply #123 on: July 19, 2012, 08:03:40 PM »
How would such a prohibition be enforced?

*

Chris Spaghetti

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12744
Re: AIDS Should Re-Adopt Its Original Name
« Reply #124 on: July 20, 2012, 02:01:47 AM »
How would such a prohibition be enforced?

Presumably the same way everywhere it's illegal -- witchhunts, baseless accusations and persecution.

*

Lorddave

  • 18360
Re: AIDS Should Re-Adopt Its Original Name
« Reply #125 on: July 20, 2012, 03:33:43 AM »
I vote to lynch Thork. His loud anti-gay attacks are obviously a cover to hide his own raging homosexuality.
You have been ignored for common interest of mankind.

I am a terrible person and I am a typical Blowhard Liberal for being wrong about Bom.

*

ThinkingMan

  • 1830
  • Oh, Really?
Re: AIDS Should Re-Adopt Its Original Name
« Reply #126 on: July 20, 2012, 07:39:32 AM »
I vote to lynch Thork. His loud anti-gay attacks are obviously a cover to hide his own raging homosexuality.

Come now, why did you have to throw a spark into the 53 ton propane tank? I however, am done. My point has apparently been made here.
When Tom farts, the special gasses released open a sort of worm hole into the past. There Tom is able to freely discuss with Rowbotham all of his ideas and thoughts.

Re: AIDS Should Re-Adopt Its Original Name
« Reply #127 on: July 20, 2012, 10:58:25 AM »
I was gonna make a gay joke, butt fuck it.

ANNE FRANKLY, I HITLERALLY DID NAZI THAT CUMMING

*

Lorddave

  • 18360
Re: AIDS Should Re-Adopt Its Original Name
« Reply #128 on: July 20, 2012, 11:08:09 AM »
I vote to lynch Thork. His loud anti-gay attacks are obviously a cover to hide his own raging homosexuality.

Come now, why did you have to throw a spark into the 53 ton propane tank? I however, am done. My point has apparently been made here.
I like explosions.
You have been ignored for common interest of mankind.

I am a terrible person and I am a typical Blowhard Liberal for being wrong about Bom.

Re: AIDS Should Re-Adopt Its Original Name
« Reply #129 on: September 06, 2012, 02:55:41 AM »
Well AIDS is just not related to homophobic activities and can also infect women. That is why its name was changed to AIDS because GRID clearly shows a misunderstanding of the disease

*

Vindictus

  • 5455
  • insightful personal text
Re: AIDS Should Re-Adopt Its Original Name
« Reply #130 on: September 06, 2012, 03:27:57 AM »
Well AIDS is just not related to homophobic activities and can also infect women. That is why its name was changed to AIDS because GRID clearly shows a misunderstanding of the disease

Ahh, fresh meat!

*

ThinkingMan

  • 1830
  • Oh, Really?
Re: AIDS Should Re-Adopt Its Original Name
« Reply #131 on: September 06, 2012, 05:39:05 AM »
Well AIDS is just not related to homophobic activities and can also infect women. That is why its name was changed to AIDS because GRID clearly shows a misunderstanding of the disease

Seems to me we've had this discussion before.
When Tom farts, the special gasses released open a sort of worm hole into the past. There Tom is able to freely discuss with Rowbotham all of his ideas and thoughts.

?

OrbisNonSufficit

  • 3124
  • I love Gasoline.
Re: AIDS Should Re-Adopt Its Original Name
« Reply #132 on: September 06, 2012, 06:41:37 PM »
Well AIDS is just not related to homophobic activities and can also infect women. That is why its name was changed to AIDS because GRID clearly shows a misunderstanding of the disease

Ahh, fresh meat!

lol was just thinking that, too bad he is not siding with thork, because this thread became very one sided.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: AIDS Should Re-Adopt Its Original Name
« Reply #133 on: September 08, 2012, 05:39:49 PM »
Yes, but in all fairness, the monkeys were begging for it.


Quit blaming the victim!

?

MrKappa

  • 448
  • Math abstracts reality... it does not create it...
Re: AIDS Should Re-Adopt Its Original Name
« Reply #134 on: September 09, 2012, 09:27:13 AM »
I checked a couple pages of the thread and didn't see it mentioned...

This is a good documentary on AIDS and the lies or the mis-interpretations which surround it.

"House of Numbers"

#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">House of Numbers, Full Documentary


Normally I'd write it off as non-sense, but they do have a nobel laureate interview towards the end, and it to my memory it didn't seem like it was taken out of context or mis-quoted, ect...



Anyways, the jist of it seems to be that the Nobel Laureate feels that HIV is spread to people with weak immune systems rather than those who have a lot of sex...



So the New York Times is blatantly playing off the concept that Gay activity among men is the cause for AIDs when it's probably the Heroin.

Heroin is a massive problem in North America, much moreso than it was in the Nineties... jmo...

SO the New York Times, must be Catholic... that's my final answer
« Last Edit: September 09, 2012, 09:38:59 AM by MrKappa »

*

Beorn

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6543
  • If I can't trust my eyes, what can I trust?
Re: AIDS Should Re-Adopt Its Original Name
« Reply #135 on: September 09, 2012, 12:11:39 PM »
I checked a couple pages of the thread and didn't see it mentioned...

This is a good documentary on AIDS and the lies or the mis-interpretations which surround it.

"House of Numbers"

#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">House of Numbers, Full Documentary


Normally I'd write it off as non-sense, but they do have a nobel laureate interview towards the end, and it to my memory it didn't seem like it was taken out of context or mis-quoted, ect...



Anyways, the jist of it seems to be that the Nobel Laureate feels that HIV is spread to people with weak immune systems rather than those who have a lot of sex...



So the New York Times is blatantly playing off the concept that Gay activity among men is the cause for AIDs when it's probably the Heroin.

Heroin is a massive problem in North America, much moreso than it was in the Nineties... jmo...

SO the New York Times, must be Catholic... that's my final answer

Meh after http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalzberg/2012/05/27/nobel-laureate-joins-anti-vaccination-crowd-at-autism-one/ nobel laureate's don't do it for me anymore.
Quote
Only one thing can save our future. Give Thork a BanHammer for Th*rksakes!

?

MrKappa

  • 448
  • Math abstracts reality... it does not create it...
Re: AIDS Should Re-Adopt Its Original Name
« Reply #136 on: September 13, 2012, 07:45:48 AM »
I checked a couple pages of the thread and didn't see it mentioned...

This is a good documentary on AIDS and the lies or the mis-interpretations which surround it.

"House of Numbers"

#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">House of Numbers, Full Documentary


Normally I'd write it off as non-sense, but they do have a nobel laureate interview towards the end, and it to my memory it didn't seem like it was taken out of context or mis-quoted, ect...



Anyways, the jist of it seems to be that the Nobel Laureate feels that HIV is spread to people with weak immune systems rather than those who have a lot of sex...



So the New York Times is blatantly playing off the concept that Gay activity among men is the cause for AIDs when it's probably the Heroin.

Heroin is a massive problem in North America, much moreso than it was in the Nineties... jmo...

SO the New York Times, must be Catholic... that's my final answer

Meh after http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalzberg/2012/05/27/nobel-laureate-joins-anti-vaccination-crowd-at-autism-one/ nobel laureate's don't do it for me anymore.


That's for real? People vaccinate their children to prevent autism?

Lobotomies on the house...

*

Saddam Hussein

  • Official Member
  • 35374
  • Former President of Iraq
Re: AIDS Should Re-Adopt Its Original Name
« Reply #137 on: September 13, 2012, 07:53:17 AM »
No, people refuse to get vaccines because of autism.

*

Rushy

  • 8971
Re: AIDS Should Re-Adopt Its Original Name
« Reply #138 on: September 13, 2012, 07:57:37 AM »
Indeed. There is quite a lot of people who think that vaccines cause autism.

*

Conker

  • 1557
  • Official FES jerk / kneebiter
Re: AIDS Should Re-Adopt Its Original Name
« Reply #139 on: September 30, 2012, 06:11:48 AM »
Indeed. There is quite a lot of rednecks who think that vaccines cause autism.
There, I fix'd that for you.
This is not a joke society.
Quote from: OpenedEyes
You shouldn't be allowed to talk on a free discussion forum.

*

Saddam Hussein

  • Official Member
  • 35374
  • Former President of Iraq
Re: AIDS Should Re-Adopt Its Original Name
« Reply #140 on: September 30, 2012, 06:18:43 AM »
I wouldn't say they're all rednecks.

*

Space Cowgirl

  • MOM
  • Administrator
  • 50528
  • Official FE Recruiter
Re: AIDS Should Re-Adopt Its Original Name
« Reply #141 on: September 30, 2012, 08:35:15 AM »
No, they're mostly not rednecks. There are a few who object to vaccines for religious reasons, I suppose you could lump them in the redneck category, but you can't label all the middle class folks who've been scared by Jenny McCarthy as rednecks.
I'm sorry. Am I to understand that when you have a boner you like to imagine punching the shit out of Tom Bishop? That's disgusting.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: AIDS Should Re-Adopt Its Original Name
« Reply #142 on: September 30, 2012, 08:43:30 AM »
Indeed. There are quite a lot of people who think that vaccines cause autism.

I fixed that for you properly.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

Lorddave

  • 18360
Re: AIDS Should Re-Adopt Its Original Name
« Reply #143 on: September 30, 2012, 09:44:26 AM »
Well there is a possibility that the vaccine has an adverse reaction to some people simply because they would have an adverse reaction if they got the disease.
But without major DNA analysis, we can't know for sure.
You have been ignored for common interest of mankind.

I am a terrible person and I am a typical Blowhard Liberal for being wrong about Bom.

*

Beorn

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6543
  • If I can't trust my eyes, what can I trust?
Re: AIDS Should Re-Adopt Its Original Name
« Reply #144 on: September 30, 2012, 12:37:24 PM »
Well there is a possibility that the vaccine has an adverse reaction to some people simply because they would have an adverse reaction if they got the disease.
But without major DNA analysis, we can't know for sure.

In that case they would get a mild version of the disease they're being vaccinated for. Not autism.
Quote
Only one thing can save our future. Give Thork a BanHammer for Th*rksakes!

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: AIDS Should Re-Adopt Its Original Name
« Reply #145 on: September 30, 2012, 01:14:51 PM »
Well there is a possibility that the vaccine has an adverse reaction to some people simply because they would have an adverse reaction if they got the disease.
But without major DNA analysis, we can't know for sure.

In that case they would get a mild version of the disease they're being vaccinated for. Not autism.

This, they claim it is preservatives in the vaccines usually not the shot itself.

*

Lorddave

  • 18360
Re: AIDS Should Re-Adopt Its Original Name
« Reply #146 on: October 14, 2012, 08:34:46 AM »
Correlation between homosexual relations and the virus does not imply causation.
From the physiological aspect, "sperm and fecal matter that enter the blood via open skin through the anus or mouth causes a violation of the natural sequential pattern of immunity because the immune defenses are bypassed, causing the immune system to self-destruct"
(African Holistic Health By Llaila Afrika, 2004, page 444).
But don't things to into the mouth and blood via open wounds all the time? Why would it suddenly bypass the immune system defenses?
You have been ignored for common interest of mankind.

I am a terrible person and I am a typical Blowhard Liberal for being wrong about Bom.

*

Beorn

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6543
  • If I can't trust my eyes, what can I trust?
Re: AIDS Should Re-Adopt Its Original Name
« Reply #147 on: October 14, 2012, 08:37:36 AM »
Correlation between homosexual relations and the virus does not imply causation.
From the physiological aspect, "sperm and fecal matter that enter the blood via open skin through the anus or mouth causes a violation of the natural sequential pattern of immunity because the immune defenses are bypassed, causing the immune system to self-destruct"
(African Holistic Health By Llaila Afrika, 2004, page 444).
But don't things to into the mouth and blood via open wounds all the time? Why would it suddenly bypass the immune system defenses?

African Holistic Health, that's how.
Quote
Only one thing can save our future. Give Thork a BanHammer for Th*rksakes!

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: AIDS Should Re-Adopt Its Original Name
« Reply #148 on: October 14, 2012, 12:37:36 PM »
Correlation between homosexual relations and the virus does not imply causation.
From the physiological aspect, "sperm and fecal matter that enter the blood via open skin through the anus or mouth causes a violation of the natural sequential pattern of immunity because the immune defenses are bypassed, causing the immune system to self-destruct"
(African Holistic Health By Llaila Afrika, 2004, page 444).

This coming from a man that claims antibiotics prolong disease as well as pretty much every single modern treatment and can't name a single valid reason why except that they aren't natural.

Also, if African holistic medicine is so amazing why are they so poor with so many people dying of aids?

PS this "dr" also has books on melanin theory and my favorite "How to raise black children." Can you keep your racist shit off the forums?
« Last Edit: October 14, 2012, 12:39:41 PM by Raist »

*

cmdshft

  • The Elder Ones
  • 13149
  • swiggity swooty
Re: AIDS Should Re-Adopt Its Original Name
« Reply #149 on: October 14, 2012, 08:01:48 PM »
sup raist