I am still shocked at the AIDS numbers I see
 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061128/..._global_deaths

Much of the problem of AIDS is related to homophobia among the general public and the sentiment that AIDS victims "deserve" what they get.

Nobody deserves AIDS. It is awful, and the problem is getting worse.

And here I thought that AIDS was related to unprotected sex and needle sharing. Turns out it is homophobia that is to blame!

I agree that no one deserves AIDS and we should try to find a cure, but my sense is that the ongoing research there is well financed. I also don't think that anyone deserves cirrhosis of the liver and yet I wouldn't put an alcoholic at the top of the transplant list.

I guess if I'm really being honest, I am somewhat indifferent to the plight of most people, not just AIDS victims, who engage in risky behavior and then experience the consequences. Agreed that contracting AIDS is a steep price to pay from an ill advised sexual encounter but so is 18 years is child support. Being suddenly much flatter and wider seems like a disproportionate penalty for packing your parachute incorrectly, but then jumping out of airplanes is a risky thing to do.

I care basically about the children who are born with it through no fault of their own and for that reason am very much in favor of all the efforts to cure it and prevent it. If the secondary beneficiaries of that are adults who contract it because of risky behavior that is fine as well.

In the end I disagree that there is a homophobia issue at play here at this point though I believe there once was. I think it has more to do with the fact that most people contract it through risky behavior (or so it is percieved) and a lot of people are pretty indifferent to that.

Heaven forbid people wear condoms and quit sharing drug needles.

EASILY Preventable behaviors that lead to the MAJORITY of the problem.

Of course this is where liberals take those comments as saying that people who share the sentiment of prevention are saying those who get the disease earned it.

They have an incredible ability to read something and then lie about the what they've just read to convince themselves of factually incorrect thought processes.

"Risky behavior" sounds a whole lot like pointing fingers at the homosexual community. That line simply perpetuates the problem. "I am not sympathetic because they did something risky."

That view is one that reflects a very US centric mindset. The AIDS epidemic is, in fact, related to risky behavior, but, sadly, most of those afflicted with AIDS don't have a clue what causes AIDS or how to avoid it. The majority of AIDS casualties won't be in the US, they will be in Africa where over half of all children are born with AIDS in many nations. Should we feel less "sympathetic" towards them? That class overwhelmingly constitutes the group that will die from AIDS, not the class of those who willfully engage in risky behavior understanding the consequences.

This isn't the MAJORITY of the problem as you claim. The MAJORITY of the problem is that people in Africa and other underdeveloped areas don't have a clue what is causing AIDS and millions are dying from it. In those nations, countless victims contract AIDS through rape as well (and then their children contract AIDS through birth). This isn't a "factually incorrect thought process." This is just a fact.

I don't know why it sounds like pointing the finger at gays to you. That is not what I am doing. Risky behavior is having unprotected sex of any kind and sharing needles.

I also will not be sold on the idea that people in these countries where AIDS is at epidemic levels, particularly in Africa, are just scratching their heads as to how they caught it. As I understand it, they have been told but won't use condoms for cultural reasons (or just don't want to) and many of them refuse to believe that AIDS is caused by risky behavior. Rather, they blame other things such as (surprise!) the United States.

No, these are not irrational children who refuse to take their medicine. They are rational adults who are making bad choices, albeit in mass. I have sympathy for their children and that is why I support efforts to prevent and find a cure. I maintain, however, that homosexuality just isn't that big an issue here. I don't think many any longer just see it as a "gay" disease and even if they did this disease spreads through risky behavior not by unelightened thought process.

I never claimed the disease was spread by "unenlightened thought process." I claimed the cure is hampered by unenlightened thought process. Quite a distinction.

You can't, on the one hand, argue that you don't believe many people are "scratching their heads" as to how they caught AIDS and then, on the other, say that many "refuse to believe it is caused by risky behavior." Both are true in many instances: they scratch their heads because they don't believe what they have heard.

Of course, you are assuming most have heard what causes AIDS, or understood what they have heard, something that is simply not the case. The world is struggling to figure out how to educate individuals in Africa. In many nations, language is a real issue. So are the "cultural issues" you quickly disregard. Those cultural issues often reflect deeply held religious and social beliefs that are not quickly set aside, particulary when the reason for setting them aside is very complicated and, to many, irrational. Below is a link to an interesting article on the topic:

http://www.codesria.org/Links/Public...ds/anugwom.pdf

Go to the area where it talks about perception among Nigerian university students to get an idea of what we are dealing with here.

I do think most who oppose funding AIDS research are homophobes. I have no way of proving this (though I wouldn't be surprised if someone has done a study). In the general population, I think most are viewing it as a threat to everyone and not just homosexuals.

More people will still die of heart disease and strokes than of AIDS. Whynot spend more on education and prevention of heart disease and strokes?

I'm against my tax dollars being spent for AIDS treatment because it's a preventable disease. We have other problems in our country where money could be better used - like reducing the deficit.

I don't have a problem with spending on either of those diseases. We should be trying to cure them with whatever resources we can muster as well. The issue I see with AIDS is that many are upset about the funding AIDS gets because they view it as a disease contracted by irresponsible individuals (which is, sadly, often a valid concern). I don't think, however, the answer is to withhold funding from AIDS research, and I think focusing on the small group that contracts AIDS through willfully negligent behavior harms the overall search for a cure to AIDS.

One of the problems with AIDS is that it causes poverty and instability in those countries where the prevalence is high. Ultimately this may lead to war and terrorism. So we have incentives to prevent this kind of ongoing disaster.

And as a Christian, what right do you have to harden your hearts? I guess it depends on what kind of Christian you are.

A separate issue is how we treat the disease in the United States. We treat it like a big secret, instead of a deadly communicative disease. For other STD's and serious infectious diseases there are laws related to reporting it and warning others that might have contacted the disease from the affected person. In other words, privacy has been favored over stamping out the disease. Privacy has also lead to stigmatization. "HIV victims should be treated like any other person with disease, but we tackle it in an ineffective way, different from any other similar disease." This has multiplied the devastation of this disease.

I guess I'm just not a very good Christian. And probably I have no right to harden my heart. On the other hand, as I keep getting told about Iraq and am begining to believe, we (the US) cannot solve every problem.

As I say, I am all for whatever efforts are made to cure and prevent because there are many innocent victims of it.

I still disagree with hoya that there is a homophobic issue here (that is a rediculas term by the way, but I'll adhere to the convention), rather I think many people don't see it as "our" problem. Maybe this is sort of how I feel about it. I think that anyone in the US who is "uneducated" about the risks can be lumped in with those who don't know smoking is bad for you. AIDS deaths in the US have declined sharply for many reasons. That leaves us with Africa basically.

You are right to point out that there is a destabilizing impact there, though I'm not (very seriously) sure how Africa could be less stable than it is now.

In any case, I am very interested by your comments that "privacy" concerns have hampered us in treating this like other diseases. I had not heard that before. I wonder who it is that is asserting these privacy concerns? It seems intuitive to me that the gay rights groups would have the biggest beef there but I may be wrong. What more can you tell me about that?

For example if someone has gonorrhea, that is reportable by law to public health. HIV is not.

For example, I don't now need to do 10 minutes of paperwork and consent to test for gonorrhea. But for HIV I do. (a disincentive to test in the name of privacy and rights).

If we were truly interested in stopping this disease we would treat this like an epidemic outbreak. Public health would contact partners and test them.

Yes but these deviations in exercise of police power are not the results of homophobia but instead the result of gay rights. Gay rights were paranoid about treatment of the disease as any other disease so they robbed the state of its traditional police power, thereby creating a path of ignorance. So in the end, it was not paranoia by the Chiristian crowd but by the gay crowd that led to its spread.

I don't see where people get this gay paranoia belief that AIDS has not been aggressively treated. Now whether we've tried to solve all of Africa's problems is another matter. There are many African problems we've ignored and will continue to ignore, but it's not the result of homophobia, but the result of not enough money being available.

Ironically enough there was a local story last night that HIV cases in Salt Lake County have more than doubled in the past 6 months and that the Utah Department of Health is encouraging others to be more careful of engaging in risky behavior.

Of course now this is where someone again uses their biased personal Urim and Thummim and translates the term risky behavior into an attack against homosexuals.

Why do some believe the US has the obligation to cure the world's problems?

To me, it shows a sense of ignorance of history and of the role of nations.

The US has the duty to be fair to itself and its citizens, nothing more, nothing less. Becoming a world cop is counterproductive to its interests. We are also not the world's economic healer. To the extent, we can benefit our citizens, then it makes sense to become involved. To the extent, we are not benefitted, then it makes no sense.

Elder Russell M. Nelson - - - "Aids is a plauge abetted by the immoral"

So is obesity.

So sticking a corndog in one's mouth is akin to sticking something else in one's mouth then?

quote? link?

I don't see how this is either ironic or pertinent to what you are quoting in my post above.

As an aside, people do need to be careful about engaging in risky behavior. Some people are reckless in their actions, causing harm to themselves and others. I am not condoning those actions. Are you under the impression that I am?

It depends on the context. In terms of "immorality," most would agree that sexual promiscuity is worse than gluttony (although gluttony is considered one of the 7 deadly sins, so perhaps I overstate things here). In terms of costs to society, gluttony costs billions and causes even more deaths (through heart disease, etc.). And yet, how many people would argue that funding cures for heart disease or adult diabetes (which is frequently caused by obesity) is of less importance than finding a cure for cancer, for example, because the people "deserve" what they get?

Of course you don't see how it's pertinent. Your arrogance precludes you from doing so not with this, but any debate.

Take from a 92 Conference Talk...


Contemporary Challenges
In our day, many challenges face us. Some are new, some are old—simply clothed in modern attire. The epistles of Paul include prophecies pertaining to our day. Do these descriptions sound familiar?

“In the last days perilous times shall come.

“For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, [and the list of insidious qualities goes on] …

“Without natural affection, …

“Lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;

“Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: …

“Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.” (2 Tim. 3:1–5, 7.)

Paul’s warnings describe apostasy and other dangers of our day. Some of these perils are contrary to God’s purposes and are championed by persuasive people possessing more ability than morality, more knowledge than wisdom. Their rationalization breeds justification. The Bible affirms that the “way of a fool is right in his own eyes.” (Prov. 12:15.) Indeed, individuals with malignity of purpose often wear the mask of honesty. So we must constantly be on guard.

To build a house straight and strong, you do not choose crooked boards. So to build your eternal destiny, you cannot—you must not—limit lessons only to those warped to exclude revelation from God. The Book of Mormon offers this note of caution and hope:

“Seek not to counsel the Lord, but to take counsel from his hand. For behold, ye yourselves know that he counseleth in wisdom, and in justice, and in great mercy, over all his works.” (Jacob 4:10.)

Remember the terrible price paid for ignorance of divine instruction. Until the turn of this century, infection was spread as if no one had ever read or taken seriously the fifteenth chapter of Leviticus. Where is wisdom?

Today we are seriously concerned with the increasing incidence of human infection with HIV (Human Immunosuppressive Virus) and variant viruses and the associated outbreak of AIDS (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome). An epidemic has been forecast—a plague fueled by a vocal few who exhibit greater concern for civil rights than for public health, a plague abetted by the immoral. Some live in lust as though God’s commandment to be chaste was written with an asterisk, exempting them from obeying. And regrettably, as in previous plagues, many innocent victims are doomed to suffer. Where is wisdom?

What I don't understand is how you equate current AIDS policies with homophobia.

Current policy funds AIDS research exponentially greater than its US impact. In fact, it receives preferential treatment, far greater than its impact would predict.

The policy is more one of Africaphobia. Because Africa is not economically beneficial to the US, we do not look to change matters there. And that is how a government should act. Individual action, including charity, should not convey transitively those attributes to government, as government poses a different function. If individuals wish to render charitable acts, that makes sense but religious injunctions are rarely instructions in good government. They are instructions in personal character.

Whenever a government tries to engage in charitable acts for a long term policy, without examination geopolitically, then we are not wise with our limited resources. All government acts of long term duration, should have ties to them.

Africa, as a resource, is NOT geopolitically important to the US interests, outside of perhaps Egypt, maybe South Africa, Namibia and Zimbabwe. If some significant resources are discovered for exploitation, then we could reexamine.

I agree that it is treated as a big secret. In fact, a number of years ago when I was working in the funeral business, I embalmed a gentleman who had passed away as a result of full blown AIDS. The problem was that the family didn't say anything to us when we came to get him. He had died at his parents home and they told us he had died of cancer. He certainly had all the physical signs that he had died of cancer - very thin, hollowed facial features, etc.

When I embalmed him, I didn't take the extra precationary steps needed when embalming someone who had died of AIDS or had the HIV virus. It wasn't until I picked up the death certificate from the doctor - 4 days after the funeral, 8 days after I had embalmed him - that I learned that he had died of AIDS related causes. Needless to say, I was ticked off and called the family of the deceased and asked why they had lied to us about the cause of death. They didn't really want to talk about it, but after I informed them that the state of Utah has a law that morticians need to dispose the contaminated blood differently from someone who had died of AIDS than any other diesease because it is bloodborne and that they woul be held responsible for anything bad that could happen as a result of their lying to us, they finally admitted that he had contracted the disease because of his promiscuity with several gay partners.

Pinheads.

This discussion has wandered all over the place. What is the "problem" that you assert is largely related to homophobia? It certainly can't be the contraction of the disease itself, which occurs whether or not the victims are homophobic. Is it the fact that it is spreading so rapidly in Afirca? This is casued largely by heterosexual contact and thus has little to do with homophobia. Is it that the impoversihed populations of Africa remain in the the throes of superstition and are beyond the effective reach of education programs? Again, this isn't dervied from homophobic feelings. Perhaps it is the level of fiunding for AIDS research? This might be affected by homophobic feelings, but I am not sure that there is evidence this is true. What is the evidence? AIDS research is relatively well-funded and treatment plans used here are rather effective if the prescribed regimen is followed closely. Should more research be done? THis would be good but at the expense of what other expenditure? SHort of printing money this must come from somehwere and even in the absence of homophobic feelings cuts in other programs are not likely.

AIDS is a tragedy and I would hope that everyone would avoid it. I also hope we find a cure and, if we do, I hope we give it to everyone from wealthy gays in America to poor straights in Botswanna. I think you are stretching a bit here.

Couldn't disagree more with your Darwinian outlook on foreign policy. But we have been around the block on this before, so I won't bother.

Interesting. Thanks.

What is interesting to me is that the same people to whom it seems obvious that we can't be getting into adventures around the world where we can't control the outcome (and additionally think it imperialist, immoral, jingositic and arrogant for us to do so) also want very much for us to cure all of Africa's ills from aids to the genocide occurring in Darfur. Darfur that is in the middle of a sectarian (or close enough) civil war (or close enough) that will ultimately make additional bloodshed unvoidable because they just don't want to live together peacefully or share power. Darfur that is run not by the Sudanese government, but by the Janjaweed (a militia). Darfur that poses no threat to us and has never attacked us. Starting to sound familiar?

I think that as between those who hypocritcally say we have no business in Iraq but should intercede in the Sudan and those who cycnically say that we have interests at stake in Iraq and nothing at stake in the Sudan I probably give more credit to the latter because at least there is a cogent thought process behind it.

It's fine to disagree, as I'm certain I make mistakes in most matters. But disagreement here is without logic and is based solely on emotion.

Until the mid twentieth century, the concept of interventionalist social engineering while avoiding traditional anthropological processes didn't exist. Why? Because the normal processes evolve through processes that work and working against nature is frequently counter-productive. (It is interesting how traditionally liberal minded individuals who embrace Darwinian processes in the evolution of species ignores its applications to societies).

Nations operate on self-interest, always have and only successful nations will.

Hoya argued unpersuasively that "homophobia" was some how forestalling the cure of the health epidemic in Africa. Nothing is further from the truth. Funding for AIDS research exceeds its local impact. Why? Gay politics have succeeded.

Africa can't be cured because fundamentally as collection of societies it's a f... ed up continent. It is a collection of corrupt feudal societies which doesn't exploit its natural resources and doesn't educate its peoples. It's a little bit chicken and egg, but Africa fails because it's feudal. Only one society evolved quickly from feudal to industrialized nation almost overnight. Japan. And Japan had many advantages in education and homogeity that doesn't exist in Africa. Until Africa can develop processes to exploit its economic resources efficiently, so that Africans self-educate and thereby slowly but over time eradicate a large degree of governmental corruption, Africa as a continent will continue to see epidemics of health and genocide. And there is no external cure. We cannot force a cure of any type upon a continent, not capable of receiving. Africa is a continent without a current real hope.

Political dogooders who ignore anthropological realities are chasing fool's gold and should not be in charge of public policy.

Here is a forty year challenge. Find any nation over the next forty years, of large numbers, that adopts your policy of acting against self-interest. You won't.

Right now, China is the most successful in PR and it is acting consistent with the span of the millenia. I have history on my side, those who adopt an unproven and foolhardy notion will do more harm to this nation than can ever be imagined.

That's the error Bush made, he calculated he could nation build but ignored anthropological realities of a feudal society. He needed a feudal answer to a feudal societal problem.

Nice. How convenient for you.

My lack of discussion has nothing to do with "all emotion - no logic". It's just that we seem to have had this discussion so many times that I see no point in debating it further.

To an extent, but your side has basically stated, "Gee, how can we let all those people suffer." The debate from your side has always been emotion based. And arguments made for public consumption may be appealling but they still lack logic. Case in point, you delivered a very logical, scientific approach to debunking the conspiracy theorists who use emotion and illogic in discussing the demolition of the WTC. However, nobody from your side ever comes close to that level of detail for foreign policy and nobody has any level of understanding of nation-building, intervention techniques, anthropology and sociology. Now I'm not arguing I have all the answers, because I don't but those matters are of some interest to me, as they involve how I examine certain investment opportunities. Yet, we see hoya, an otherwise intelligent guy, going off emotional, without resorting to any form of intellectual analysis on this one. He's simply wrong.

It has never stated a proposition, based on experience that shows the principles which one supports have EVER been successful or even can be successful.

As Utah Dan stated, it is ironic for those who desire intervention in Sudan or in other places in Africa, where the US has no economic or strategic interests, also oppose intervention where the US has economic or strategic interests.

Its almost worse than that because the argument, at least at one point, was that it is wrong for us to do things for selfish reasons. I would not agree that there is not place for "dogooders" though. I think that there are many things that we can and should do because they are morally right, but I would qualify that by saying that in most cases these acts need to align with our other interests. If not, you invite other nations to freeride on your generosity. If you listen to Europeans, you would think that all of the worlds problems result from "America" either doing too much or not enough, in other words, they don't think of their nation as part of the problem or the soultion. What is morally superior Europe doing about Darfur? Who has offered to commit troops? And why not? Not in their self interest either. Same reason they have not gotten involved in Iraq.

Europe talks a good game about international community and international law and collective action and in the end acts in their own slef interest. And they should do. Our idealists on this continent, however, should not be decieved that when we do what is best for us that we are not in step with more enlightened westen societies. These societies, in terms of committing money and resourses, look indifferent to Africa compared to us. And yet we are the villain aroud the world. This just underscores my point that where we "do good" we should do it realizing that we will get nothing in return, no support from anyone else and will in the end be blamed for any part of it that goes wrong. This 180 degrees from what some thing is right, that is, that we only should act when we have no self interest.

Yet another fine explanation.

Isn't it though? Funny thing is you're the only one who doesn't get it.

By the way...take another gander at Elder Nelson's comments on the issue.....it would do you a world of good. You've a lot to learn.

Where did Osama bin Laden build up his organization before he went to Afghanistan? Sudan. Why? Because a broken state acts as a haven for illegal activity, drug running, disease, etc. Look at Afghanistan, Chechnya, southern Phillipines, etc. for more examples of how fractured states serve to eventually become our interest. So, while we cannot say definitively that Darfur is in our immediate interest, we can predict that if it is left untended that it will become a part of our interest, with a fairly high degree of certainty.

Similarly, the AIDS crisis in Africa presents all sorts of long term problems, including the spread of the disease into China, the adaptation of the disease to becoming drug resistant, etc. Economic and security interests are connected to health concerns in a more globally minded world.

When did I say I do equate AIDS policy with homophobia? I said homophobia affects AIDS policy (it is "much of the problem"), not that it solely directs AIDS policy.

I tend to think one of the reasons we don't do more in Africa with AIDS is because we view the disease through US glasses, thinking of it as a "gay disease" (though that perception is changing, largely due to Magic Johnson- who has also affected the perception that AIDS is deadly through his remission; does Magic Johnson just have a magic johnson?). Many Americans feel that those with AIDS deserve it, so many, including many on this board like Il Padrino, advocate spending nothing on AIDS research through tax dollars. That DOES impact AIDS policy, and I think it is tied to a degree to homophobia.

US disinterest in Africa is also a problem.

LOL. Hey UtahDan and Archaea: thanks for so carefully articulating "my position" for me when I stated I have no desire to do so. Straw men can be a lot of fun, eh?

I haven't ever disagreed with his comments, to the extent I understand them to mean that immorality is fueling much of the AIDS epidemic. There is no question that AIDS would be slowed by moral behavior or through protections when engaging in immoral behavior. Again, when have I said otherwise?

But to view AIDS as an issue of immorality v. morality is overly simplistic. The MAJORITY of AIDS victims live in a continent where our version of "morality" is not accepted, nor largely applied. This goes back to my post on Africa and AIDS.

I'm the only one? I was unaware that you were speaking on behalf of all other people.