Posted on 01/14/2006 4:14:10 PM PST by wagglebee
Oh, ha, more of that CDC-is-my-peer-and-best-friend stuff! Somebody needs to alert the CDC at this point.
Do you even KNOW who the CDC are? Do you KNOW the purpose of their website? It's public awareness networking.
They write information that is approachable to even the most uninformed, such as to be as helpful and useful as possible. Their public educational website does not contain the discussion of a great deal of complex biological information, nor medical facts, because most people could not understand it, and, most people need basics like "do this," and "don't do that" and "call this number if..." and such.
Their website is accurate, I trust fully, but it hardly represents complex information along any comparable fashion as even the New England Journal of Medicine, in which verified and quite specific medical research is published for peer review. Even then, it's discussed in specifics among peers to the point of acceptance of the information or rejection of it or revisions, amendments. By peers. By persons with substantial education in physical and biological sciences.
The CDC simply informs the lay public on issues of emergency and cursory explanations.
And, what they state there and you now repeat disproves your very own original distortions. Glad you were able to straighten that out.
Very nicely done. Thanks for posting this.
GRIDS
OK.. when someone provides a single fact that backs up the claim that HIV originated in persons engaged in homosexual activities, then I will go off to this DU place. OK?
GRIDS
--
That was what it was called when it was first known about in the USA. Says nothing about the ultimate origin of the virus. Try again.
Hmmm...where have you ever written here, this thread, as to discussion about a specific country? You have not specificed "America" but now you're suggesting you've specified elsewhere? Perhaps you confuse Democratic Underground with a country, I don't know. HINT: this isn't DU but this is "America."
LOL
Their website is accurate, I trust fully,
--
Even when they contradict you totally?
That was what it was called when it was first known about in the USA. Says nothing about the ultimate origin of the virus. Try again.
LOL
--
What is so amusing? You think that the first place something is found in America is the first place it ever existed? Lou Gherig's disease didnt originate with Lou Gherig.
At this point, you are flaming. Calling anyone else, as you have me and others, as having "lied," is just lazy naer-do-well nastiness. You are trolling. Your entire waste of FreeRepublica to hash out the bugs in your own confused and misleading perceptions is short of theft of bandwidth.
To FR, I apologize for not writing, "ZOT," and leaving it at that. Your next fundraiser, I will contribute extra to attempt to compensate on behalf of thinking, reasoning people everywhere this incredible indulgence of a Troll.
Viking Kitties, where are you?
At this point, you are flaming. Calling anyone else, as you have me and others, as having "lied,
--
Nope. Just you. You are the only person I have said lied. And you did. You said I introduced the topic of natural in regard to homosexuality. I did not. I even provided the link to the post where I saw it introduced.
Radar concurs...
Let's see...you alleged that I "lied" when you alleged falsely that I'd "said" that "AIDS originated from homosexuals" (and you claimed the CDC "disagreed with [me], too"!)...
Which is YOU "lying," by the way, but most people, being reasonable, will allow confusions by whomever to pass by with a friendly correction, apology, perhaps additional information.
You did not provide any of that.
Then you claimed, as you reiterate now, this latest comment of yours, that I "lied" when I "said (you) introduced the topic of natural in regard to homosexuality" -- in my experience, you were the first to introduce it in the context that I cited and when and how.
That's not disproven. Thus, you have, in fact, lied.
Do you recognize "lying" as being different an intentionally misleading act?
I ask because, otherwise, using the term ("you're a liar", "you lied") as pejorative, is, in effect, a lie in and of itself.
You (also) wrote that you weren't going to "discuss" anything with me any longer and yet, here you are, and thus, another lie!
Seriously, this is not a tag team format, here. It's sad that you perceive it as such.
In my experience, having not encountered in my area of discussions on this thread prior to your statements, anyone referring to homosexuality as "natural," you were he/she who introduced the term and thus, I wrote alll about that, quite a while ago.
What I've concluded is that you're slumming and trolling. You're just wearing out the thread that was, originally, worthwhile, for whatever motivations but the result is destructive, and you've engaged in harassing the very worth and contributions of others, in my experience, and many, many times over again.
Go ahead and "call" me any of your names, any of your terms, it doesn't bother me. I feel sorry for you, is all.
Let's see...you alleged that I "lied" when you alleged falsely that I'd "said" that "AIDS originated from homosexuals" (and you claimed the CDC "disagreed with [me], too"!)...
Which is YOU "lying," by the way, but most people, being reasonable, will allow confusions by whomever to pass by with a friendly correction, apology, perhaps additional information.
--
Wrong. The only time I said you lied was when you claimed I was the one who introduced the word natural to the discussion. And you did say that
"HIV originated in persons engaged in homosexual activity".
I posted the link to that post of your and quoted you.
--
Then you claimed, as you reiterate now, this latest comment of yours, that I "lied" when I "said (you) introduced the topic of natural in regard to homosexuality" -- in my experience, you were the first to introduce it in the context that I cited and when and how.
That's not disproven. Thus, you have, in fact, lied.
--
Yes it was disproven. I posted a link to the post that I replied to which was the first I saw to mention naturalness of sexuality.
--
In my experience, having not encountered in my area of discussions on this thread prior to your statements, anyone referring to homosexuality as "natural," you were he/she who introduced the term and thus, I wrote alll about that, quite a while ago.
--
I didnt refer to it as natural. I asked if someone else would call it natural.
--
What I've concluded is that you're slumming and trolling. You're just wearing out the thread that was, originally, worthwhile, for whatever motivations but the result is destructive, and you've engaged in harassing the very worth and contributions of others, in my experience, and many, many times over again.
--
All I ask for is ONE piece of evidence that HIV "originated in persons engaged in homosexual activities"
--
Having just come back from Greece, I can say you are very close to how the ancients considered homosexuality a deviance. Ancient Athens had the death penalty for those caught sodomizing boys.
Even the homosexual advocates can't hide the fact that Alexander the Great had a son and wife, and many of the love letter content survives to this day. Too bad american universities kind of miss that information in favor of homosexual activism revisionist history.
Cases of HIV Infection and AIDS in the United States, 2004.In the tables starting on page 10, you'll notice the transmission category is always highest via male-to-male sexual contact.
Am I right to assume that the thread was reclassified?
It would appear unless I am missing something that moderators are allowing liberal activists a platform to promote their homosexual agenda propaganda on FR despite this:
What Free Republic is all about:
Statement by the founder of Free Republic
As a conservative site, Free Republic is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-Constitution, pro-Bill of Rights, pro-gun, pro-limited government, pro-private property rights, pro-limited taxes, pro-capitalism, pro-national defense, pro-freedom, and-pro America. We oppose all forms of liberalism, socialism, fascism, pacifism, totalitarianism, anarchism, government enforced atheism, abortionism, feminism, homosexualism, racism, wacko environmentalism, judicial activism, etc. We also oppose the United Nations or any other world government body that may attempt to impose its will or rule over our sovereign nation and sovereign people. We believe in defending our borders, our constitution and our national sovereignty.Free Republic is private property. It is not a government project, nor is it funded by government or taxpayer money. We are not a publicly owned entity nor are we an IRS tax-free non-profit organization. We pay all applicable taxes on our income. We are not connected to or funded by any political party, news agency, or any other entity. We sell no merchandise, product or service, and we offer no subscriptions or paid memberships. We accept no paid advertising or promotions. We are funded solely by donations (non tax deductible gifts) from our readers and participants.
We aggressively defend our God-given and first amendment guaranteed rights to free speech, free press, free religion, and freedom of association, as well as our constitutional right to control the use and content of our own personal private property. Despite the wailing of the liberal trolls and other doom & gloom naysayers, we feel no compelling need to allow them a platform to promote their repugnant and obnoxious propaganda from our forum. Free Republic is not a liberal debating society. We are conservative activists dedicated to defending our rights, defending our constitution, defending our republic and defending our traditional American way of life.
Very interesting document there, scripter.
The initial map of the country alone -- far highest occurence rates in the states with the highest immigration numbers (New York, Florida and Texas), at least as to certain types of immigration, with California not reporting.
Yes, I also note the tables, page 10, higher transmission category among male homosexual contact. Which is, quite literally, no surprise to most in science, in that it's well known already for most of the reasons I've been sharing here earlier, among also the far greater instances of multiple partners among male homosexuals when compared with heterosexuals, on average.
You can find what you can find, learn what you can learn. Just like everyone else.
You've used your rhetorical, culturally positioned "questions" to introduce and mislead, in addition to making insulting, unsupportable allegations about others.
If you're in such pain about finding information, go and find it. You've disregarded everything that's been written here that otherwise would inform you, and instead are posing questions you don't require answers to so much as you seem to be enjoying a platform to pose your "questions."
If medical science can and has recognized for a while now that there's increased occurence of the virus that causes AIDS among male homosexuals, then you might give it a try and accept it. Or don't, but it's no one else's responsibility to respond to your cuckoo demands to be fed.
How about this: PROVE TO US that there is not a greater occurence of the virus that causes AIDS among male homosexuals, in comparison with that rate of frequency among heterosexuals.
In fact, that question has been posed to you many times over in this thread, and you've -- to use your own language -- you've REFUSED to RESPOND to it.
So, how about it? Prove to us that your position is tenuable, actual, proven. Prove to us that there is, as you allege, "more AIDS" among heterosexuals than among homosexuals. By percentages, not by overall population numbers, given that homosexuals are a mere two, three percent of the overall human population.
In ANY country, as in, the human species, with reference to or not any nation, since that's also an issue you've raised ("America" and all).
Last thing here is that I've posted many times that you've been identified as engaging in falsehoods. Since I have no way of knowing what your intentions are to any point of fact, I can't describe you as "lying" (which is a statement about intentions) but I can describe you as having posted INACCURATE AND MISLEADING statements and many times over here, including misrepresenting actual information and the statements of others.
However, since you do not know me, either, there is no way possible you can know what my intentions are, here, anywhere else, and thus, you continuing to call me "a liar" and write that I am "lying" is just more of YOU deceiving, authoring inaccuracies and untruths.
More reason to feel very sorry for your unpleasant perspectives. I have no idea why you are motivated to denigrate others in defense of, apparently, homosexual behaviors.
The thread, by the way, isn't about that. It's about the fact that no gene has ever been identified that would substantiate any immutable characteristic to homosexuality, and that, therefore, homosexuality remains behavioral.
There was never any question or issue raised by the thread article to or about the virus that causes AIDS nor the rate of transmission, until you wrote that there was a greater rate of AIDS among heterosexuals than among homosexuals. Which is completely false, by the way, and remains unsubstantiated by you, as by anyone else.
How about this: PROVE TO US that there is not a greater occurence of the virus that causes AIDS among male homosexuals, in comparison with that rate of frequency among heterosexuals.
---
Why would I do that? I never claimed that. What interest do I have in proving a claim that I never made? Perhaps you can offer a link to me making that claim..
--
So, how about it? Prove to us that your position is tenuable, actual, proven. Prove to us that there is, as you allege, "more AIDS" among heterosexuals than among homosexuals. By percentages, not by overall population numbers, given that homosexuals are a mere two, three percent of the overall human population
--
Why by percentages? I never made any claims about percentages. I simply stated that worldwide the greater number of AIDS victims are heterosexual. I made no comments about percentages. Please, try to argue against claims I have actually made.
--
However, since you do not know me, either, there is no way possible you can know what my intentions are, here, anywhere else, and thus, you continuing to call me "a liar" and write that I am "lying" is just more of YOU deceiving, authoring inaccuracies and untruths.
---
Well, I have pointed out to you with evidence that I was not the first person to introduce the concept of naturalness to the argument.
--
More reason to feel very sorry for your unpleasant perspectives. I have no idea why you are motivated to denigrate others in defense of, apparently, homosexual behaviors
--
I do not defend homosexual behaviours. I am neutral towards them. Frankly, they are none of my concern. Unless a man rapes me or someone else, why care what he does with his member?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.