Aren't we past this point? AIDS is only a gay disease

I understand the sarcasm. It is not good when this deadly disease is only seen as one thing. It is out there and something, everything should be done to control it, since it doesn't seem to be going anywhere!

I dont believe the intent was to say it is only a homosexual disease (and no where has anyone claimed as such that I read). Indeed, in Africa it is primarily a heterosexual disease.

The beef (and I that I do agree with) is that it is getting a disproportionate amount of the research dollars, primarily (from a bitch standpoint) federal. The amount of money being devoted to it is not commensurate with the infected population when compared to such diseases as Cancer and Heart disease.

That is my beef, and the beef I took the author of the article to have as well. I dont care if it is my mother bitching for more money for research. The spending is not justified by the impact.

we don't always agree terp, but i thought you'd appreciate this,,,,from the cdc...

What is the Burden of HIV/AIDS in the United States?
HIV infection is the fifth leading cause of death for people who are 25-44 years old in the United States,1 and is the leading cause of death for African-American men ages 35-44.2 Overall estimates are that 850,000 to 950,000 U.S. residents are living with HIV infection, one-quarter of whom are unaware of their infection.3 Approximately 40,000 new HIV infections occur each year in the United States, and approximately 5 million new HIV cases occur each year worldwide.3

Examples of Important Disparities
Racial and ethnic populations have been disproportionately affected by both the HIV/AIDS epidemic in the United States. Although African-American and Hispanic persons represent about one-quarter of the country’s population, more than half of new AIDS cases reported to CDC are among these populations.4 Among children, the disparities are even more dramatic, with African-American and Hispanic children representing more than 80 percent of pediatric AIDS cases in 2000.5 Approximately 78 percent of HIV-infected women are minorities and most become infected through heterosexual transmission. HIV infection acquired through injection drug use has been a major factor affecting minority communities. During 1995, 50 percent of the AIDS cases acquired as a result of injection drug use were in African Americans and 24 percent were in Hispanics

Link

we don't always agree terp,

Quite true Sean, quite true.

On the numbers you posted, I'm well aware of those numbers as I've kept up on the topic since days long past and co-workers that are now long gone.

I had my differences with some of those co-workers (me being straight, them being gay was one such difference), but I don't wish the horror that is AIDS on my worst enemy.

(Ok, I guess I have to confess I might wish some things upon some enemies, along the lines of a good smoting of thy enemies, but generally speaking, I don't wish such things upon anyone.)

I live close enough to D.C. to get the numbers that are in the papers here and which raise the point of just what a problem it is locally (D.C. being predominantly a Black city does that to the news).  As the numbers you referenced point out, the numbers are staggering and certainly worthy of being labelled an epidemic and crisis.

3 things about aids/hiv

1 the desease does not kill but allows someother desease to kill

2 we as a nation/government spend more on this desease than any other

3 this desease is a hitler desease in other words hitlers crony doctors designed it

why do i say this becouse 1/10 of europeans are immuned to it.(that number maybe off). but the only way you become immune to a desease as a group is it has had been around your ancesters for 100s of years

{ Nods towards Mason and TW for their comments speaking up in an article that I'd reply in but can't.... }

Uh, yeah, AIDS is just a disease for gay people, and IV drug users and uh....

(and those innocent people that Mason and TW mentioned just don't count at all)

OK, now you've degenerated to outright lying in your responses, Terp. How pitiful. You've pretty much blown any chance at a reconciliation.

Have a nice life.

OK, now you've degenerated to outright lying in your responses, Terp.

Bring it on - show me where??  At least you have the floor here to be able to do that, don't you?

Crickets continue chirpin' (like in the background on Buddy Holly music...)

Your TITLE, asshat! I never said AIDS was a gay disease. I took great pains NOT to.

My articles in response for your call to suspend the Texas State Constitution were topical. They addressed the issue, not the person. Because I DARED blacklist the mighty terpfan, you have spent your entire time doing nothing BUT flaming me. This was actually what I hoped to avoid.

As far as I'm concerned you've shown your true colors. I didn't respond because I actually have a LIFE and didn't see your CHALLENGE for me to respond.

Tell you what, you stay in your little corner of JU and I'll stay in mine. I honestly do not want anything to do with you from this point out.

i hate to jump in this tiff,,,but...just to share my own personal view....

gid, when i read your piece i did walk away with that impression. that you were calling aids a gay disease. or at least a disease that only affects the amoral. the message seemed a little coded, but that did seem like the message. maybe that wasn't the intent. i don't know.

so, maybe what we have here is a typical mis-impression and the whole snowball effect that follows.

you and terp seem to get along pretty well here, and it would be a shame if it was just a lil misunderstanding that led to this feud.

in the end, ya'll are both parents and are lookin to do the best you can for your family. that passion can certainly lead to some ruffled feathers. Lord knows i know that, lol...maybe a proverbial olive branch is in order after ya'll have both had a chance to cool off.

far be it for me to dictate to others here...but it's a shame to see friends, or at least on line allies, become enemies because of a simple misunderstanding on a topic where much passion is.

pundits might celebrate that...but i'm not a pundit.

just my 2 cents...

Is it the moon or what?

It's all that spicy food from the Cinco de Mayo celebrations.

at least as far as the col. lol

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmspicyfoodatcincodemayocelebrations

Your TITLE, asshat! I never said AIDS was a gay disease. I took great pains NOT to.

Your words were the ones that gave the impression that you feel that AIDS is a disease that impacts only people that are bringing the disease upon themselves because of their behavior.

I'm sorry, but a reasonable individual -- not a rabid flaming gay rights activist, but a reasonable person -- can look at those words and very easily read into them that you feel that AIDS is a disease for gay people.

You've argued in your own article, and I would have engaged in reasonable discussion there-in, that AIDS isn't an epidemic, and wouldn't get the attention that it does if it hadn't been overly hyped by the gay lobby and their friends in Hollywood, politics and such.

I might even agree with you to some extent in the basis of the idea that AIDS gets more attention than a lot of other diseases and medical issues do, perhaps unfairly taking away research money and attention from problems that we might have solved if our best and brightest weren't working on what they feel is the bigger problem, or on what they feel will return the best reward (in saved lives, money for the treatments, etc.)

When it comes to escalation of discussion though, you took one swipe and ran on it and yes, you have since inspired a lot of response back at your words since,  words that might have been more carefully choosen along the way if you wished to keep discussions more civil and less antagonistic.

And finally, as a few others answered in your article, you really might want to reconsider the stance that AIDS isn't an epidemic.  There's a big difference between "isn't an epidemic" and "gets too much attention and resources" which would seem to be the point that you wished to make and could have done very competently.

Let me remind one more time what words I refer to, which despite "great pains" don't seem to be doing a great job of avoiding the thought that the implication was that AIDS is primarily a disease for gay people:

Regardless of what you've been told, in America the vast majority of AIDS cases come from promiscuous sexual behaviour.

Until terp compared me to a couple that starved their child to death. I think comparing me to a fucking murderer is a bit over the top, don't you, Sean?

Terp,

Well, YOU'RE the one implying all promiscuous sexual behaviour is homosexual, I'm not. In case you missed it, there IS such a thing as heterosexual promiscuous behaviour.

Well, YOU'RE the one implying all promiscuous sexual behaviour is homosexual, I'm not. In case you missed it, there IS such a thing as heterosexual promiscuous behaviour.

Look above just a bit and you'll see someone else (lets call them a dis-interested party) that seemed to read your words very similarly to the way I did.

On this point:

Until terp compared me to a couple that starved their child to death. I think comparing me to a fucking murderer is a bit over the top, don't you, Sean?

Let me say a few things:

1. I didn't call the couple murderers, or even add the expletive in front as an adjective.  I'm heartened that you see what that couple did as a grave (no pun intended) mistake or purposeful action.  I have compassion for them, and honestly, even grudgingly grant that they had rights as parents to pursue alternative means of providing nourishment for their child.  You see, I might be the person that would argue for their parental rights at times, even though I would also term what they did as incredibly stupid, at least negligent, and most likely (by my understanding of the legal term) manslaughter.

2. I did make an extreme point about what can happen when parental rights are taken too far though, such as was the case with that couple and their poor child.  My bigger point was that over zealous parents *could* take their parental rights too far, including in the case of the HPV vaccine, or as was the case with the child of the vegans.  The same thing could be discussed at times for children of some religions that don't allow modern medical treatment, but that's an argument for a different day. 

Was the comparison over the top, most certainly, and apparently somewhat effective, but I guess it goes to show I don't leave my weapons in the holster when put up to a fight.  Especially a fight where my best and most effective weapons -- calm, cool, reasonable, ration discussion -- are cut off because there is no way to discuss things *in place*, *in context*, and *in line* where it should be.

 

For those that are speaking up elsewhere on the effectiveness, or lack thereof, of the blacklist feature, suffice it to say it seems to be working perfectly, and even if not, I'd respect it enough to leave most comments unsaid unless I was incredibly passionate in my support of an issue. 

Recent evidence would show that I'm pretty passionate in the idea that AIDS is still a dread disease, is still an epidemic, does still deserve attention, and finally indirectly that bashing gays or others is not something that should be tolerated.  It would also very obviously suggest that I feel pretty strongly about health issues when it comes to my children -- the most precious items in my life -- and I believe strongly in helping to give them the best chance at avoiding health issues that could come up in their future.

 

As Gid may have seen elsewhere (if he cared to read it), I can be a very reasonable opponent in a discussion.  I'll argue pretty vociferously, and yes, occassionally I might toss out what someone considers a low blow (which I assume was the case when I stated that Gid may be letting his libertarian side overrule the potential for good that could have come from Perry's plan),  but I would expect a reasonable person to discuss the issue and argue their side without picking up the ball and going home.  That's a pretty childish response and one that left me with the impression that either I'm awfully good at disproving the points and must be kept away lest it be proven that the emperor has no clothes, or that the other side just didn't have that much faith in their beliefs to really argue their points and convey their message in a manner that might lead to common ground.

 

If Gid believes an apology is in order for the comparison to the OK vegan couple, then here is one.  I'm sorry that the comparison of parental rights in one area seemed to be too extreme when compared to parental rights in another area.  In both cases there was potential for damage to the health of a child, one directly done by the actions of the parents (or rather than inaction in providing for feeding the child a nutritious meal as they should have) and one potentially by in action of parents (who decline to have their child vaccinated for something they don't see as an immediate threat).

I most certainly wasn't saying that Gid's a murderer, or a want to be murderer, and honestly I am not saying that Gid's a homophobe, bigot, gay basher or anything of that kind either.  In the latter case, I have said that the words that were stated, no matter to what pains one went through in stating them, could be seen as having some of the connotations of gay bashing and that was extremely disappointing to me.  I don't expect that from Gid and sincerely hope those feelings aren't there.

 

Again, I'd have reasonably discussed some of these issues elsewhere, but that wasn't possible, so it's  here for anyone else to read and comment about.

Honestly, terp, this is where I feel respect comes into play. If you and I are normally good buddies and we get into a fight at a bar, I don't kick you in the nuts. Your response was the equivalent of kicking me in the nuts, whether you like it or not. If I was fighting for my life I wouldn't hesitate to do that, but within the confines of a friendly discussion, in my opinion those sorts of attacks should be off limits.

You accused me of stating that AIDS was not a gay disease, although I did imply (and will stand behind it) that the major reason for the FUNDING PUSH was because of gay activists (prove me wrong on this!) because AIDS was in its infancy considered to be most prevalent in the gay community. You had to stretch to get that I called AIDS a gay disease, terp. I don't have to stretch when you DIRECTLY compared my actions to what that couple did.

And back to the article that started it all. I did not cheer at the HPV vaccine's ban from being mandatory. Although I will most certainly lobby against a bill when the issue comes back. What I cheered at was the legislature taking power from a governor I felt (and feel) wrongly appropriated it. Even if Perry's edict had stood, our children would still not have received the shots (the law DOES allow an opt out for religious/moral objections). So this changes nothing for us except reducing our paperwork.

You and I can disagree on this, terp, and obviously do. But the right to disagree is fortunately constitutionally protected, for now.

You will probably get off my blacklist eventually. But I honestly need some cool off time.

Honestly, terp, this is where I feel respect comes into play. If you and I are normally good buddies and we get into a fight at a bar, I don't kick you in the nuts. Your response was the equivalent of kicking me in the nuts, whether you like it or not. If I was fighting for my life I wouldn't hesitate to do that, but within the confines of a friendly discussion, in my opinion those sorts of attacks should be off limits.

If I didn't think you could take it, and didn't think there might have been a grain in truth in what was said (that you were more concerned with keeping government out of your life than in dealing what I might term a major health threat for your children, and the children of others) Gid, then it wouldn't have been said.  As acknowledged above and stated again here, low blow perhaps, but it was meant to have you consider that your faith and beliefs in one area (that government should stay out of people's lifes) were very probably coloring your support of the Texas legislature in what they did.

I had argued with you that there are times when the state has a responsibility to it's citizens.  Not that they can just run roughshod over parental rights, but there are times when it's important enough that for the greater good drastic action might be necessary.  You didn't feel that way, Ok.  You don't feel that HPV is that serious a threat at this time.  Ok.  I feel differently (which is exactly why I posted a rash of other articles on the subject).

When my wife and I were first together I had the wonderful fun of dealing with what would be termed an STD.  Before my wife my number of partners was a very low number.  On the other hand, the number of partners that those partners had had could be pretty high.  Just a big pile of humanity with very little degrees of separation from one person to the next.  (yick.  Dislike even thinking about it too much!)

Anyway, the point being (without giving away too much personal info here and disgusting everyone) is that I know just how easily things pass from person to person.   Was my wife "at fault" in our case, who knows.  It could have been something that I got before being with her, or it could have been something she got before me, who knows.  The point again, it's just too easy for things to pass along for the bonus ride when two people copulate.

As I've said, I fear what could be out there to eventually take root in my children.  The last 30 years have seen the advent (or at leas the discovery of) some nasty stuff.

 

You will probably get off my blacklist eventually. But I honestly need some cool off time.

Take whatever time you need but understand I get disinterested in hunting down things written by others to comment on, offer agreement on, etc., pretty quickly.  Why make the effort when I'm a lazy bastage?  I'll tend to just ignore and maybe even harbor some parts of a grudge over the slam in my own face.  Just the way *I am*

Peace at last.   

Where is the limit, though? If people tomorrow start bashing themselves in the head with hammers, and no matter how hard you try you can't dissuade them from bashing themselves in the head with hammers, how much responsibility do you really have? I understand the Christian ethic about it, but still.

We refuse to pass laws criminalizing the spread of this disease, even in the face of people who knowingly do so. As I've said before there are people who know me in real life that know I blog here, so it isn't really wise for me to go into much about my personal experiences regarding the AIDS phenomenon. HIPAA is like a dumptruck full of crap; you hate it, but you have to respect the fact that it can fall on you like a ton of... well, crap.

I will say this. People vastly underestimate the number of people whose spouse brings AIDS and other STDs home to them. While certainly not a majority, a substantial percent of people living with AIDS didn't behave promiscuously, they just trusted a spouse who didn't give a damn. Those people should be able to have the people who harmed them criminally and civilly reamed.

The problem is in our need to be sensitive to those who didn't ask for their disease, we give a pass to untold numbers who really don't give a damn. We have to draw a line and start holding people accountable, or they will never stop. Many, many people with HIV know that with their (most often free) treatments they will live a long, long time, and never have to worry about catching HIV.

I wish I could say more, but I really don't feel free to. I'll just say if you had any idea how many phone numbers are passed in the waiting rooms of AIDS clinics, and how many sneak off to screw in the parking garage before their appointment, you'd understand the frustration some people feel. Many people don't even pay for their cab fare going and coming to get their free treatment and their free medicine, and then complain about having to wait. I hate to be callous, but if those people continue to spread the disease, I feel no responsibility to keep them alive.

Thanks for the comments on the subject Baker.  Again, as usual, you've raised interesting points and pointed out a lot of the problems here.

Like you, and I would guess like Gid and Dr Guy and others (not that I'm trying to put words in anyone's mouth, just guessing at home some people probably feel on the issue),  I have little or no tolerance for people that are doing what you suggest here:

I wish I could say more, but I really don't feel free to. I'll just say if you had any idea how many phone numbers are passed in the waiting rooms of AIDS clinics, and how many sneak off to screw in the parking garage before their appointment, you'd understand the frustration some people feel. Many people don't even pay for their cab fare going and coming to get their free treatment and their free medicine, and then complain about having to wait. I hate to be callous, but if those people continue to spread the disease, I feel no responsibility to keep them alive.

Again, I don't wish ill upon people (or at least not most people), but I also hate to see us wasting resources on these people.  If you won't help yourself and won't help others, then perhaps banishment isn't such a bad thing for the proverbial you that is failing in their responsibility to society.

On the other hand, I think you're exactly right here:

I will say this. People vastly underestimate the number of people whose spouse brings AIDS and other STDs home to them. While certainly not a majority, a substantial percent of people living with AIDS didn't behave promiscuously, they just trusted a spouse who didn't give a damn. Those people should be able to have the people who harmed them criminally and civilly reamed.

Too many innocent victims for sure and those are the people I really do worry about.  Those people could be my friends, my family, or just people I'll never have the priviledge of meeting here on Earth.  Still, they didn't ask for what they got, and don't deserve it at all.

Too many innocent victims for sure

With all communicable diseases, this is true.  Recently we saw where a person with A resistant TB was jailed.  Should we now move all monies from Cancer, Heart and yes AIDS, to address the ones that refuse to be responsible?  Some would argue yes.

The innocent victims are always going to be the heart tuggers.  There is no easy way to say no.  But if my dollar can cure 3 victims of cancer, or one of Aids, I chose the 3. "The needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the one".