Subject:
|
Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 6 May 2000 14:27:14 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
454 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ed Jones writes:
> You are making the assumption that everyone knows that it is unsafe and that
> everyone knows how to have safe sex. Two major misconceptions. I'll give you
> an example: Catholic schools do not teach sex education. Yes you can make
Do you really believe that the only way people (kids) learn about safe sex is
through schools? I hardly pay attention during commercials and I see public
health messages about safe sex from famous actors ALL the time.
> arguement that its the parents job to teach about AIDS and safe sex, but how
> are parents that never had safe sex going to teach safe sex to their children.
> Guess what the teenage rate of AIDS infection is? If safe sex had been
> successfully taught, and it has not yet been, then there would be no teenage
> pregnancy.
I disagree. The fact that smoking can and most likely will kill or at minimum
reduce your quality of life is an established FACT now. Do we still see
stupid kids and moronic adults smoking? Of course we do. Why? Because
people are stupid and weak. Stupid enough to give in (in most cases) to the
weakness of peer pressure.
As for education being able to wipe out teen pregnancy, I don't see it
happening. Young guys are too horny and too whiney and too demanding and
young girls are (in a lot of cases) too horny and too accomodating. Then
throw in the stupidity and weakness factors that bring a lot of those same
kids to smoking.
If you're a teenager, straight or gay, in today's society and you don't KNOW
unsafe sex can kill you (or get your girl pregnant), you're not awake.
> If it were only that simple, barebacking is not the only way to transmit AIDS.
> AIDS can also be transmitted by oral sex among others.
And how is that different? I remember hearing once the ridiculous suggestion
that you can prevent orally-transmitted aids by using a condom during oral
sex. Gross, right, unless they've vastly improved the taste and texture of
latex. So guess what? You cover up to have safe sex, right? Then you don't
do oral sex unless you're 100% sure everything is A-OK. (On a side not, can
you really be 100% sure? Is it worth risking your life?)
> > Gary and his partner in 1984 didn't know that and they died horrible
> > deaths because of it. I went to his funeral so I have a LITTLE familiarity
> > with the pain it brings to the gay community. Gary's corner of it, anyway...
> > 1st avenue and 74th st, Manhattan. But that's irrelevant.
I was with my girlfriend's brother Mark the day he died because of AIDS in a
hospital in KC in 1989. He was a great guy and I wish I'd gotten to know him
more, and at the time (and now) I would agree that he couldn't have known how
to not get AIDS when he contracted it. But things _are_ different now.
> So all research for a cure for the millions of people who currently are HIV+
> or have full blown AIDS should cease? All research for maintenance drugs
> should cease?
No, but Ed, you know that there are other diseases that kill people as well,
diseases that nobody can prevent from happening. Several of them get funding
many times lower than AIDS mainly because they don't have high-profile
celebrities and other loud people lobbying for them. Given the reality of the
situation, that is there is limited amount of money to fund these things, can
you be unbiased enough to see that it might be "unfair" for a disease that can
be prevented and that is, most of the time, contracted because of one sort of
behaviour or another, to receive several times (or more) funding than a
disease that someone gets because of some random cosmic quirk or genetic
predisposition?
If I could wave a magic wand and pull enough money out of the money tree for
all diseases to get unlimited funding, I would. But that ain't gonna happen.
> The difference is as simple as your analogy. When you see a cliff you
> recognize it. Its impossible to see a virus with the naked eye.
But it is possible to at least guess that one might be putting himself in
risk, right? At that point it is possible to have one's partner (or potential
partner) tested. Yeah, mood killer. Better than self-killer.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?
|
| (...) None of these diseases have infected, and will kill, a quarter of the people in many African countries. Why is almost everyone ignoring this fact? These people are the reason we should try to find a cure. I doubt many of them have access to (...) (25 years ago, 8-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?
|
| (...) You are making the assumption that everyone knows that it is unsafe and that everyone knows how to have safe sex. Two major misconceptions. I'll give you an example: Catholic schools do not teach sex education. Yes you can make the arguement (...) (25 years ago, 2-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
228 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
