I am still shocked at the AIDS numbers I see

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

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

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?

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

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?

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

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

quote? link?

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?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

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?

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.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

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 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.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

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.

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.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Archaea

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.

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.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Interesting. Thanks.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Archaea

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.

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.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

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.

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.