in response to the article on aids

• Posted by a hidden member.
  Log in to view his profile
  
  
  Aug 10, 2008 4:41 PM GMT

  I had an interesting conversation on the article about Hiv in the gay community and the increase of infection rates of Homosexuals in the united states. I would like to share this conversation with you. Please, be my guest and share your opions. Do me a favor, keep your comments civil. sincerely, Baldrick05 (Yes, for your information I do have a cunning plan.)
  
  GladiatorXXX: yes and the total population of gay in the usa is only 10%
  GladiatorXXX: so
  baldrick05: estimated yes
  GladiatorXXX: out of the 10% of the usa gay populations there is 55% hiv and aids infected
  GladiatorXXX: the minority has the highest ranking of 55%
  GladiatorXXX: do you go to college?
  GladiatorXXX: lol
  baldrick05: NOOOOOOOO out of the aids patients there are 55% gay
  baldrick05: you can not take that 55% and say the poplulation of gay is 55% infected with aids
  baldrick05: u are taking a stat and using it incorerctly
  baldrick05: yes i go to college im a psych major we do this kind of research and work stats like this all the time
  GladiatorXXX: dude 55% of all hiv patiens! that even more than half then
  baldrick05: do i need to draw a
  GladiatorXXX: please do
  baldrick05: i can not argue with u loook u have the gay population of 10 percent that is taken ffom the total population
  GladiatorXXX: lol
  baldrick05: then u have the aids people a sep. population
  baldrick05: from that popluation u have 55 percent gay
  baldrick05: you can not make the inference that 55 percent of the gay population has aids it doesnt
  baldrick05: work ttah way you are using a sample statistic for two different total populations
  GladiatorXXX: okay
  baldrick05: u are sayin gthat from knowing 55 percent of aids patients are gay
  baldrick05: that 55 of the gay population has aids
  baldrick05: u cant say that
  baldrick05: its a false assumption
  baldrick05: do u nderstand where im coming from now"?
  GladiatorXXX: did you read my comments?
  GladiatorXXX: lol
  baldrick05: just sec ill go and read them
  GladiatorXXX: do you believe we should waste money on hiv research?
  GladiatorXXX: when almost 80% who do have it asked for it?
  baldrick05: AND YOU WOULD DAMMM the children who are born with it just because u dont wont to spend it on idiots
  baldrick05: they have innocents and u cancel all hope of a normal life
  baldrick05: that is in humane
  GladiatorXXX: sometimes inocents people have to died for the benefit of the many
  baldrick05: dont feed me that bull shit.....especially not when its children and we can make a choice to help them
  baldrick05: or what about women who are raped
  baldrick05: or men do they have a choice
  GladiatorXXX: yes yet while we save a hand full of children we also extend the lives of idiots who will infect millions more
  GladiatorXXX: is the life of one children worth the lives of 100 people?
  baldrick05: thank god ur not president
  baldrick05: Yes....lives are equal u can not sacrifice in that way
  baldrick05: u are putting a price on an innocents life and u find that good and wholesome just kill the defenseless child
  baldrick05: to save 100
  GladiatorXXX: so you would kill 100 man to save one chield who was born with it and who will die anyways?
  baldrick05: if the hundred are worth there salt they will do everythng in there power to save them
  baldrick05: u did not give that scenario........no i will not knowingly kill a child
  GladiatorXXX: we waste billions of dollars of a sickness that is clensing humanity every time we extend the lives of weak humans it passes on by genes to the offspring
  GladiatorXXX: medicine does more harm than good
  GladiatorXXX: nature lets the weak died
  GladiatorXXX: so they can't pass the gene on
  baldrick05: i cant talk to u .....that is not a gene its a virace
  baldrick05: im sorry that u have this logic
  baldrick05: i feel like ur haeart is in the right place
  baldrick05: but ur logic is skewed at best
  GladiatorXXX: look at nature if a lion is weak do the lion doctors rush in and save him so that he can have children who will be weak too?
  GladiatorXXX: no nature is wiser than that it dies
  baldrick05: fine when u break ur arm or better yet have a kidney stone i hope u have no pain neds and see how long u last
  GladiatorXXX: extending the lives of people who are should died only weakens us as a race
  baldrick05: if its about evolving ....we evolved we made meds
  baldrick05: like i said ur logic is just slightly skewed
  GladiatorXXX: hiv is good is only killing gay man and straight man who do wrong and shuldn't be around anyways
  GladiatorXXX: it be better if we let it be
  GladiatorXXX: and stop fundding
  GladiatorXXX: HIV without meds kill people in 5 years and they have skin infections in 2 years
  GladiatorXXX: making them detectable to the naked eye
  baldrick05: do u mind if i post ur comments
  baldrick05: to let others in on this conversation.....
  GladiatorXXX: with obious sings of the hiv virus it

  QUOTE REPORT SPAM
• Posted by a hidden member.
  Log in to view his profile
  
  
  Aug 10, 2008 4:55 PM GMT

  GladiatorXXXwe waste billions of dollars of a sickness that is clensing humanity every time we extend the lives of weak humans it passes on by genes to the offspring

  
  
  I'm sorry I can not be civil with someone who says something like that. He has a streak of narcissism a mile wide (while totally oblivious to his spelling mistakes), not to mention unverified. Repeats too many times the fact that he is 'Normal' and hates 'Feminine' guys.
  
  http://www.realjock.com/profile/?id=152352
  
  His arguments on 'survival of the fittest' is erroneous since the 'weakness' he is talking about is not a genetic defect but comes from an external factor - a viral infection.
  
  His argument will only make sense, IF he gets himself infected with HIV and somehow survives, thereby proving himself belonging to a superior race that resists HIV.
  
  Judging from his profile, evolution won't favor him either.
  

  QUOTE REPORT SPAM
• Posted by a hidden member.
  Log in to view his profile
  
  
  Aug 10, 2008 5:01 PM GMT

  The sad thing is, is that worded better and with some logic twists, his concern is almost legitimate according to some in the biology stream. With overpopulation running amock in many parts of the world, do we dare find cures for population-dampening diseases/defects?
  
  DISCLAIMER: I am simply playing devil's advocate. I do not agree with this line of thinking, and am neutral on the subject.

  QUOTE REPORT SPAM
• Posted by a hidden member.
  Log in to view his profile
  
  
  Aug 10, 2008 5:14 PM GMT

  blink777 saidThe sad thing is, is that worded better and with some logic twists, his concern is almost legitimate according to some in the biology stream. With overpopulation running amock in many parts of the world, do we dare find cures for population-dampening diseases/defects?
  
  DISCLAIMER: I am simply playing devil's advocate. I do not agree with this line of thinking, and am neutral on the subject.

  
  
  Yes, we need to.
  
  In this century, Evolution has less influence over Humans because we can already steer it and actually make up for whatever genetic defects there might be.
  
  Soon enough we can guide our own evolution anyway. We've already manipulated genes of other organisms for our benefit. Moral and ethical judgements aside (we'll all probably be long dead anyway) the first superhumans will be born in the future, modified by humans and not chance. It's coming, if WW3 won't get us first.
  
  We don't need natural evolution anymore, a process that would take hundreds of thousands of years for the most minuscule of changes anyhow.
  
  And here's the thing, Pandemics are no small things. AIDS is a pandemic. Unchecked, they can reduce the human population so drastically that civilization will revert or stop altogether.
  
  Ever seen those zombie movies? A true pandemic will result in something like that - empty cities. The Black Death was something like that. Do we let them die then and not attempt to find cures? It's particularly more dangerous in this age because of the ease of traveling globally nowadays. A virus from Yogyakarta can reach Alaska in days.
  
  I do not see the concern over the survival of the weak. If he is thinking this is some sort of natural eugenics, he'd be a perfect freakin' Nazi and a retarded Pseudo-Biologist (like Hitler was, with his Aryan justification). I'd be surprised if he isn't already KKK.

  QUOTE REPORT SPAM
• Posted by a hidden member.
  Log in to view his profile
  
  
  Aug 10, 2008 6:24 PM GMT

  
  Yes, we need to.
  
  "In this century, Evolution has less influence over Humans because we can already steer it and actually make up for whatever genetic defects there might be.
  
  Soon enough we can guide our own evolution anyway. We've already manipulated genes of other organisms for our benefit. Moral and ethical judgements aside (we'll all probably be long dead anyway) the first superhumans will be born in the future, modified by humans and not chance. It's coming, if WW3 won't get us first.
  
  We don't need natural evolution anymore, a process that would take hundreds of thousands of years for the most minuscule of changes anyhow.
  
  And here's the thing, Pandemics are no small things. AIDS is a pandemic. Unchecked, they can reduce the human population so drastically that civilization will revert or stop altogether.
  
  Ever seen those zombie movies? A true pandemic will result in something like that - empty cities. The Black Death was something like that. Do we let them die then and not attempt to find cures? It's particularly more dangerous in this age because of the ease of traveling globally nowadays. A virus from Yogyakarta can reach Alaska in days.
  
  I do not see the concern over the survival of the weak. If he is thinking this is some sort of natural eugenics, he'd be a perfect freakin' Nazi and a retarded Pseudo-Biologist (like Hitler was, with his Aryan justification). I'd be surprised if he isn't already KKK.[/quote]"
  
  while im highly doubtful he is part of the KKK, i must admit there is an air of eugenics to this. I think that is what is so annoying aboutit. I think i was mainly so offended that he was willing to justify the death of millions for the life of others. Im not sure that you can logically do that. It just does not make sense.
  On the topic of gene manipulation. With morals and limitations of the current technology aside....who am i kidding. I can no more put my morals aside or ignore obvious failures in our current knowledge than a cow can fly to the moon. I think we should be care ful in where we go with the manipulation of genes as well as what we do with the new information we can determine about a person from birth. While, I do not agree that we should block gene manipulation or therapies, i dont think it should go unmonitored. By totally blocking this science in the United states we coul possibly force scientist to do underground work. Im entirely sure i like that idea. I think it would be better to have it out in the open to be reasonably examined by other fields. If this truly is in our future, then i think we all have the right to look at what that future is bringing.....ok, so that was totally off the subject of the post.

  QUOTE REPORT SPAM
• Posted by a hidden member.
  Log in to view his profile
  
  
  Aug 10, 2008 8:32 PM GMT

  baldrick05 said
  
  
  while im highly doubtful he is part of the KKK, i must admit there is an air of eugenics to this. I think that is what is so annoying aboutit. I think i was mainly so offended that he was willing to justify the death of millions for the life of others. Im not sure that you can logically do that. It just does not make sense.
  On the topic of gene manipulation. With morals and limitations of the current technology aside....who am i kidding. I can no more put my morals aside or ignore obvious failures in our current knowledge than a cow can fly to the moon. I think we should be care ful in where we go with the manipulation of genes as well as what we do with the new information we can determine about a person from birth. While, I do not agree that we should block gene manipulation or therapies, i dont think it should go unmonitored. By totally blocking this science in the United states we coul possibly force scientist to do underground work. Im entirely sure i like that idea. I think it would be better to have it out in the open to be reasonably examined by other fields. If this truly is in our future, then i think we all have the right to look at what that future is bringing.....ok, so that was totally off the subject of the post.

  
  
  It's unavoidable if we want to survive and evolve further. Longer life (even immortality), resistance to diseases and cancer, beauty, fitness, and even mental stability are deeply rooted in the genetic level.
  
  Currently, we're toddlers trying to get a computer to read an encrypted data disk. And yes, the United States don't want to support genetic modification projects primarily I think because of religious reasons - only god can create organisms, and yet we have already made rice varieties that produces beta carotenoids (Golden Rice, which helps fight Vitamin A deficiency that affects a lot of Asians who eat only rice), other GMO's produce insulin etc.
  
  Ecologically, it is very dangerous, almost like nanotechnology. Once it goes wrong it could have potentially apocalyptic results, but the benefits are astounding. It can banish starvation, diseases, insanity, even simply for aesthetics like this GloFish:
  
  
  
  Problem is when private research overtakes government research, as what is now happening with the Monsanto GMO's. So yeah, it needs to be government regulated and the government needs to be the first to know. The US, Japan, or any Allied nation preferably.
  
  'Ecological' activists are doing more harm by blocking this.
  
  Ok that was WAAY offtopic. LOL

  QUOTE REPORT SPAM
• Posted by a hidden member.
  Log in to view his profile
  
  
  Aug 11, 2008 12:36 AM GMT

  Sedative said

  GladiatorXXXwe waste billions of dollars of a sickness that is clensing humanity every time we extend the lives of weak humans it passes on by genes to the offspring

  
  
  I'm sorry I can not be civil with someone who says something like that. He has a streak of narcissism a mile wide (while totally oblivious to his spelling mistakes), not to mention unverified. Repeats too many times the fact that he is 'Normal' and hates 'Feminine' guys.
  
  http://www.realjock.com/profile/?id=152352
  
  His arguments on 'survival of the fittest' is erroneous since the 'weakness' he is talking about is not a genetic defect but comes from an external factor - a viral infection.
  
  His argument will only make sense, IF he gets himself infected with HIV and somehow survives, thereby proving himself belonging to a superior race that resists HIV.
  
  Judging from his profile, evolution won't favor him either.
  

  
  
  I concur....I Love You, Sedative!!!

  QUOTE REPORT SPAM
• Posted by a hidden member.
  Log in to view his profile
  
  
  Aug 11, 2008 12:26 PM GMT

  I am in shock that someone can be this insensitive and poorly educated about HIV. I looked at his profile. He is 23 so hopefully he will make an effort to further increase his knowledge about the disease.
  
  Baldrick05 you deserve a medal for explaining to him what the statistics actually meant. Like you I studied psychology, and I am also a finance major, so understanding statistics and numbers comes easily to me. But I think I would have lost my temper and given up trying to explain the meaning of the "53% of new HIV infections are in men having sex with men".
  
  What do they teach in the education system these days?

  QUOTE REPORT SPAM
• Posted by a hidden member.
  Log in to view his profile
  
  
  Aug 11, 2008 1:07 PM GMT

  Looking at his profile, it's all about him anyway!!

  QUOTE REPORT SPAM
• Posted by a hidden member.
  Log in to view his profile
  
  
  Aug 11, 2008 1:07 PM GMT

  SurrealLife saidI am in shock that someone can be this insensitive and poorly educated about HIV. I looked at his profile. He is 23 so hopefully he will make an effort to further increase his knowledge about the disease.
  
  Baldrick05 you deserve a medal for explaining to him what the statistics actually meant. Like you I studied psychology, and I am also a finance major, so understanding statistics and numbers comes easily to me. But I think I would have lost my temper and given up trying to explain the meaning of the "53% of new HIV infections are in men having sex with men".
  
  What do they teach in the education system these days?

  
  
  Well said.
  
  One thing, Baldrick - at the end of the transcript, I see that you asked Gladiator's permission to post the chat transcript:
  
  

  baldrick05baldrick05: do u mind if i post ur comments
  baldrick05: to let others in on this conversation.....
  GladiatorXXX: with obious sings of the hiv virus it

  
  
  However, I'm not sure if that last line about 'obious sings' can be construed as his affirmative agreement. Or, did you omit his response?

  QUOTE REPORT SPAM
• Posted by a hidden member.
  Log in to view his profile
  
  
  Aug 11, 2008 1:19 PM GMT

  Cause, you know, as we just carry on while millions of people suffer and die humanity will be the only one evolving. Disease never evolves, right? And new diseases wont appear in this future utopia. That just sounds ridiculous! As if a virus would pop out of no where and decimate the, oh let's just say, the gay population. Yup, just a few dead AIDS and cancer patients away from being disease-free and immortal.
  
  jackass...

  QUOTE REPORT SPAM
• Posted by a hidden member.
  Log in to view his profile
  
  
  Aug 11, 2008 4:06 PM GMT

  looknrnd said
  
  I concur....I Love You, Sedative!!!

  
  
  Marry me NAO!

  QUOTE REPORT SPAM
• Posted by a hidden member.
  Log in to view his profile
  
  
  Aug 11, 2008 5:27 PM GMT

  Ok, so he doesn't understand stats or the meaning of some of the terminology hes using, hes ignorant like most people.
  
  However what was the point of posting this convo? To get praised and him to get rediculed for his obvious ignorance? I also didn't see his answer to posting this.
  
  He actually would have a logical argument if he kept it consistant. Yes you could let babies die for the good of those who are already adults this is a logical argument and does happen all the time. Infact I could even argue a baby is not a person although it is a human being, therefore I would say more worth be placed as a person.
  The nature argument isn't really logical here, since we as humans are also apart of nature and we learned to adapt by using medicine. Similar to a lion teaching her cubs to get food and what and what not to do, we pass on medicine to our offspring.

  QUOTE REPORT SPAM
• Posted by a hidden member.
  Log in to view his profile
  
  
  Aug 14, 2008 8:53 PM GMT

  Point well made Jester. I did not intend it for that purpose. Im not sure why i posted it...it was one of those little anger moments that got the best of me. SHoot me, my passive aggresiveness came out.
  While, i held my temper for the most part with him. I could not help but post this some of the logic was....well out there.
  
  added: I kinda feel like a kid caught with his hand in the proverbial cookie jar. Very well put on the explanation of natural selection. I wish I had thought at the time.

  QUOTE REPORT SPAM
• Posted by a hidden member.
  Log in to view his profile
  
  
  Aug 14, 2008 8:56 PM GMT

  Rukus I thought i had posted his response. He did give me his permission, I Thought when I copy/ pasted I had it. He also told me he thought that his original posts on the article were sufficient in explaining his standpoints.
  
  

  QUOTE REPORT SPAM
• Posted by a hidden member.
  Log in to view his profile
  
  
  Aug 14, 2008 9:11 PM GMT

  This is all crazy, if really the true coarse of nature now-a-days was survival of the fittest then millions of people would be getting slaughtered. Not only the people infected with HIV but the crippled who fought in wars to protect this or their own countries, the elderly, the mentally disabled, and many more. That thinking may have worked when we had to kill mammoths for food and protect ourselves from natural predators rampaging our camps, but times have changed. It's time to change with them.

  QUOTE REPORT SPAM
• Posted by a hidden member.
  Log in to view his profile
  
  
  Aug 14, 2008 10:16 PM GMT

  Why get so bent-out-of-shape by a posting from someone who has obviously not posted pictures of himself? He makes that feeble attempt at legitimacy by having a "testimonial" from what is undoubtedly another faked profile he created. Gladiator might be a teenaged closet case or a bored Japanese girl.

  QUOTE REPORT SPAM
• Posted by a hidden member.
  Log in to view his profile
  
  
  Aug 14, 2008 10:47 PM GMT

  This I propose to gladiatorxxx, the next time you need medical attention you must not accept it:
  
  If you have an infection, you get no antibiotics, if you get any disease, Asthma, Cancer, heart problems, etc, just let nature take it's course. If you get into a car wreck and need a trauma surgeon to fix you, if your conscious, tell the paramedic that you believe that you are strong and if your not "fit" to survive then so be it.
  
  Eventually we may hear about you on the Darwin awards.
  
  If your "strong" enough maybe you will live.

  QUOTE REPORT SPAM
• Posted by a hidden member.
  Log in to view his profile
  
  
  Aug 14, 2008 11:38 PM GMT

  jab2810 saidThis is all crazy, if really the true coarse of nature now-a-days was survival of the fittest then millions of people would be getting slaughtered. Not only the people infected with HIV but the crippled who fought in wars to protect this or their own countries, the elderly, the mentally disabled, and many more. That thinking may have worked when we had to kill mammoths for food and protect ourselves from natural predators rampaging our camps, but times have changed. It's time to change with them.

  
  
  Nature has never been about survival of the fittest (which implies strength) but those who evolve to cope with changes in their environment increase their chances of survival. Darwin actually never said "survival of the fittest." A misquote that has had tragic consequences over the years.
  
  HIV if not controlled could have potentially devastated the human race (look at what has happened in some African countries). Fortunately, though complicated, scientists have come up with some drugs that can postpone spread of the disease in the body.
  
  I think this RJ poster spoke glibly about topics he did not have a firm grasp on. Maybe he will take this as a lesson learned, and not take the criticism too personally.

  QUOTE REPORT SPAM
• Posted by a hidden member.
  Log in to view his profile
  
  
  Aug 15, 2008 12:12 AM GMT

  Sadly, GladiatorXXX isn't the only idiot like that in this community. We have more than our fair share of idiots and @$$holes, I think. There is never enough time or enough openmindedness in this community to educate everyone.
  
  I wouldn't worry about GladiatorXXX. He's still a child, still learning about life. He sounds like his mom started spoonfeeding him at 16, right after she stopped the breastfeeding!

  QUOTE REPORT SPAM