Are you okay with Gay Armenians?

[levon]

Re: Are you okay with Gay Armenians?

No apparently you can't read. Maybe posting it the second time you will pay closer attention.

This is what I asked you to prove

You're the one who's the idiot for thinking people get AIDS when first infected.

None of the quotes you have provided state that I said people get AIDS when first infected. Note the bold part. You need to have a quote that proves it.

Don't play dumb with me. So who were you referring to here? Some other person in this thread?

There is a difference betwee saying an iditiot and saying mos is an idiot. I said the former, which does not explicitely imply it was directed at you. Implicit interpretations are your problem, not mine (i.e. if you think an idiot referred to you, then that's your problem.)

And look who's talking. The person who doesn't know the difference between HIV and AIDS, and doesn't know that there are different spellings for British and American English. Stop humiliating yourself.

I don't care about the British spelling, I live in the US and on top of that English is my third language.

[Mos]

Re: Are you okay with Gay Armenians?

No, I was conversing with Jgk3, you were collateral damage.

What ever you want to call it, you were directly referring to me, and insulting me in your reference.

You didn't provide the quote I asked you to. Learn to read, and get that through your head.

No apparently you can't read. Maybe posting it the second time you will pay closer attention.

Most people who get aids, get it through the back door.

Prove it. But it's great. I can just randomly call out idiot and you'll get offended. Awesome

Don't play dumb with me. So who were you referring to here? Some other person in this thread?

Secondly, I only brought up his spelling, because he arrogantly declared that my entire argument is invalid because one cannot get AIDS, but has to get HIV first. I think an idiot who wants to appear credible should at least use correct grammar, especially if he boasts about "being in academia."

Ok, kiddo. I accept your mistakes. Lets move on.

And look who's talking. The person who doesn't know the difference between HIV and AIDS, and doesn't know that there are different spellings for British and American English. Stop humiliating yourself.

[levon]

Re: Are you okay with Gay Armenians?

You directly referred to me, and said something that was incorrect.

No, I was conversing with Jgk3, you were collateral damage.

You don't get AIDS, you get HIV. Get that into your head.

You didn't provide the quote I asked you to. Learn to read, and get that through your head.

And of course referring to me.

Prove it. But it's great. I can just randomly call out idiot and you'll get offended. Awesome

Just accept your mistakes, stop whining, and move on.

Ok, kiddo. I accept your mistakes. Lets move on.

[Mos]

Re: Are you okay with Gay Armenians?

Magic Johnson is apparently a carrier of the HIV virus bus isn't prone to developing AIDS.

Having HIV does not equal having AIDS.

HIV infected people are considered to have "normal" CD4 counts if the number is above 500 CD4 cells in that same size drop of blood. If the number of CD4 cells in that drop of blood ever drops below 200 CD4 cells, you are classified as having AIDS.

and read this article

The Difference Between HIV and AIDS
By Antoinette McGowan

Although HIV and AIDS are linked similarly together they are different. HIV stands for Human Immunodeficiency Virus. AIDS stands for Acquired Immune Deficiency syndrome. While a person who has HIV may end up with AIDS once again they are different. Lets look at the differences between the two to get a better understanding of what they each are.
HIV: The HIV virus is species specific meaning only humans can get this virus. You can not get it from a pet or any type of bug bite. It causes your immune system to have serious problems. Since the immune system fights off diseases and infections, it makes it easier for you to get sick and harder to get well. Since it is virus there is no medication that you can take to get rid of it. The virus will live with you forever. The healthier your immune system is the harder it is for the virus to cause serious complications. Even if you don't suffer major complications from the HIV virus in your system you can still pass it on to your sexual partner who may have severe complications from it. So always use protection and be honest with your partner. People with HIV do not always acquire AIDS. They can live a long healthy life with HIV never advancing to AIDS.
There are several subtypes of the HIV-1 virus. HIV-1subtype B is the most common one found in the United States and Canada.
HIV-2 is another type of HIV. This strain of HIV is uncommon in the United States and Canada.
HIV is widely accepted in the medical and scientific research community to be linked to causing the condition known as AIDS.
AIDS: Is the result of a weakened immune system caused by the HIV infection. It is diagnosed when a person tests positive for HIV and also has one or more of the "opportunistic infections" of AIDS and/or has a laboratory marker test of 200 or fewer T-cells. Opportunistic infections also known as OIs, are normal infections that a healthy person would be able to fight off.
There is no cure or vaccine for HIV. New treatments however are available and have been found to be highly effective at keeping infected people healthy longer and delaying the onset of AIDS. If you receive a positive test for HIV then have another test preformed at another lab. Sometimes labs get backed up and samples get mixed up. So another test preformed at another lab would ensure that you have received accurate results.

[Mos]

Re: Are you okay with Gay Armenians?

Did I respond to your post? No, then stfu.

You directly referred to me, and said something that was incorrect.

Quote me when I said that people get AIDS when first infected. And, did I call you an idiot? Quot me when I directly called you an idiot, or stfu

Most people who get aids, get it through the back door.

You don't get AIDS, you get HIV. Get that into your head.

Secondly, I only brought up his spelling, because he arrogantly declared that my entire argument is invalid because one cannot get AIDS, but has to get HIV first. I think an idiot who wants to appear credible should at least use correct grammar, especially if he boasts about "being in academia."

And of course referring to me.

Just accept your mistakes, stop whining, and move on.

[levon]

Re: Are you okay with Gay Armenians?

I use the spell checker of my browser, which is a British spell checker - get over my spelling already it's just so ridiculous.

Did I respond to your post? No, then stfu.

You're the one who's the idiot for thinking people get AIDS when first infected.

Quote me when I said that people get AIDS when first infected. And, did I call you an idiot? Quot me when I directly called you an idiot, or stfu

Damn, you must think you're so important that any time I call someone an idiot you immediately assume it's you. Save your insults for when I insult you directly.

[KanadaHye]

Re: Are you okay with Gay Armenians?

I use the spell checker of my browser, which is a British spell checker - get over my spelling already it's just so ridiculous.

And saying that one cannot get AIDS is not arrogant, but it is factually correct. You're the one who's the idiot for thinking people get AIDS when first infected. No it's a specific process. You become HIV positive from the HIV virus and then it progresses over time eventually to AIDS. Go read some medical literature on the disease before you talk.

Magic Johnson is apparently a carrier of the HIV virus bus isn't prone to developing AIDS.

[Mos]

Re: Are you okay with Gay Armenians?

Firstly, it's not a different spellchecker, it's the one in the edit window when you submit a reply. As an admin you should know that.
Secondly, I only brought up his spelling, because he arrogantly declared that my entire argument is invalid because one cannot get AIDS, but has to get HIV first. I think an idiot who wants to appear credible should at least use correct grammar, especially if he boasts about "being in academia."

I use the spell checker of my browser, which is a British spell checker - get over my spelling already it's just so ridiculous.

And saying that one cannot get AIDS is not arrogant, but it is factually correct. You're the one who's the idiot for thinking people get AIDS when first infected. No it's a specific process. You become HIV positive from the HIV virus and then it progresses over time eventually to AIDS. Go read some medical literature on the disease before you talk.

[KanadaHye]

Re: Are you okay with Gay Armenians?

Majority isn't always right. In the past centuries, the majority of Europeans blamed the plague epidemics on people called "untori" - often xxxs, Gypsies and the local weirdos - does that mean that it was the truth?

In short, yes.

[levon]

Re: Are you okay with Gay Armenians?

Levon, I understand if you want to debate the topic, but going as far to say your opponent's argument is nil, despite being perfectly legible, just because it uses vernacular grammar, or a different spellchecker?

Firstly, it's not a different spellchecker, it's the one in the edit window when you submit a reply. As an admin you should know that.
Secondly, I only brought up his spelling, because he arrogantly declared that my entire argument is invalid because one cannot get AIDS, but has to get HIV first. I think an idiot who wants to appear credible should at least use correct grammar, especially if he boasts about "being in academia."

I don't understand the difference you're trying to make between gay and homosexual. Are you trying to say that you could have homosexual tenancies, but so long as you keep them inside, you're straight?

Yes, gay is a life-style. If you find another man attractive it does not make you gay unless you act on it. Kinda like how a man who thinks about raping a woman isn't a rapist unless he actually does the deed. Makes sense?

Another thing, do you think people who have homosexual interests and are open about it would be less "sick" to society if their families were as supportive of them as they towards a "straight" person? Perhaps if they felt more integrated in the family, and everyone was aware of the risks and dangers of the sexual practices associated with the "gay lifestyle", they wouldn't need to find a support group (perhaps after it's too late) outside their own families, doing their battles secretly to understand themselves and making things all the more tragic if they finally do get sick.

Homosexual tendencies are more often than not entirely in one's head. The only difference is whether these tendencies are encouraged or shunned. By "accepting" someone as "gay" you inadvertently encourage the "gay" part more than the straight part. There will always be outliers who no matter what will always be gay, but the rest, who fall in your category, suffer from confusion and can tilt in either direction depending on the environment they're in. An openly gay environment will encourage a sexually confused individual to try the "curved" path, whereas if the environment is more conservative there is a higher chance the individual will assimilate and become normal. In the end, it's about society's priorities. If a society wants to maintain the family unit, then obviously gayness will be discouraged, but a society that wants to do away with the family unit will support gayness as much as possible. You live in the latter society, I'm from the former. As you see, our views on it differ significantly.

About AIDS, look at the places in Africa where the epidemic affects both sexes and leaves countless children as orphans, many of whom are born with the HIV virus. The reasons for why this is happening and isn't being fixed can be largely attributed the social attitudes about sex that are prevalent. 1. Discussion about sex between adolescents and parents is taboo. 2. There is this idea about safer sex that is seen in a negative light by men, condoms are for wusses, and "skin on skin" is the most macho way.

Not necessarily. Don't forget, a lot of them believe that having sex with a 14 year old virgin will cure them of aids. Their culture has different belief systems related to disease, and as a result, aids to them isn't as real as to westerners.

This is not at all the situation for AIDS in the West. The west too did undergo an epidemic that affected both sexes, but eventually this ended, leaving mainly homosexuals at a higher risk of contraction due to the anatomical differences involved in anal sex and how these combine with virus transmission. With men who practice anal sex with eachother, just one slipup can turn them into an infected person, whereas this is statistically less likely for partners who engage in a different kind of intercourse. This is dangerous, we shouldn't be defending this status quo, and indeed nobody is.

Ok, so if practicing the gay life-style leads to higher risk of getting hiv/aids and dying, then naturally, society should discourage such behavior, but the west does nothing but encourage gays.

This is interesting because the risks of HIV is very low for lesbians, thus you cannot associate the disease with homosexuality. You are forced to settle with anatomical differences between men and women as the culprit, not the chemical reactions in the brain associated with having enjoyable sex. But then why should some people feel safe with talking about their concerns with sex, and not others, especially if the risks associated with certain sexual practices that they are capable of doing are life-threatening ones? Why should an entire class of people, grow up afraid to talk about something with their loved ones, which might kill them if they don't know how to approach it safely?

Ok, lets associate it with male homosexuality then. To counter your last point, why should you encourage behaviors that carry high risk of death then band-aid it by trying to "educate" them about safe practices, when you can solve all problems by combating the life-style that encourages the behaviors?

What happens if (or likely, when) they do get sick? Will their families respond to the tragedy with accusation on some other group? Or will they question why they didn't get a chance to communicate enough with the person they lost about the risks while they were still alive? And by communication, I don't mean shoving hatred or paranoia down people's throats, I mean actual exploration of the topic and its risks, and what options are available to maximize safety.

When they get sick they realize how destructive their reckless behaviors were. Then they get on hiv drugs and spread the disease around for another 30 years until aids catches up with them and kills them.

I mean, if we don't hesitate to talk about the risks for other sicknesses (not sexually contracted ones), like say salmonella from eating raw meat or eggs, and want our children to grow up knowing the risks have how to avoid them, wouldn't we by extension want them to make healthy choices in regards to sexual practices?

Answer me this. Does it make sense to encourage eating raw eggs or raw meat then educate people about the dangers of eating raw eggs or meat and call it a proper solution? Wouldn't it make more sense to discourage eating raw eggs or meat altogether? Similarly, doesn't it make more sense to combat the source of the problem, which is a life-style that encourages risky behavior, rather than encourage the life-style but ask for safe-sex practices? Btw, this applies not only to gays, but people in general.

For some of you, I know you would say "they shouldn't practice it at all", because that is indeed the safest choice, just as abstaining from heterosexual intercourse is the safest choice in regards to not getting a woman pregnant. But people will have sex anyway... That's the problem. And you can blame people all you want, and make them believe their acts are sins (as the Church does with premarital sex), the biological motivations towards pursuing enjoyable sex will remain. If you accept this about heterosexual relations, it would be a double standard to not do so for homosexual ones.

No, it wouldn't be a double-standard. Heterosexual sex has a very clear purpose and a very clear consequence if a slip-up happens, namely the woman gets pregnant and the couple has to care for a kid. Homosexual sex has no such purpose behind it, and thus, cannot be compared with heterosexual sex; hence, there can be no double-standard.

If you want to build a society that knows these double standards, but persecutes and instills paranoia anyway, fine. Those are your values.

Again, no double standards. A society that pursues family values will encourage heterosexual sex, and discourage homosexual sex, because if nothing else, heterosexual sex leads to population growth, whereas homosexual sex leads to nothing (but aids).