- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
Originally posted by whodeysorry, i wasnt very clear was i. i was referring specifically to the increase of h.i.v. in the black male population.
I'm just trying to make sense of your last statement.
Once again, the article said that AIDS was on the increase for young males as well as the MSM population. Why do you think that is?
regarding the general population and the increase in h.i.v. i would assume there are multiple reasons influenced heavily by socioeconomic reasons. drug abuse, poverty and education levels all being key to a reduction in std's.
i wonder also about the perceived 'danger' of h.i.v. growing up in the 80's everybody was terrified as it was seen as a stone cold killer. now with the right drugs it has no real effect on life span and quality of life. it makes me think that maybe because of this kids these days just see it as any other treatable illness.
Originally posted by whodeyWell, the government has tried to "regulate" this conduct by promoting safe sex through sex education classes in schools. What do you think of them?
So as HIV drives up our health care costs with fewer gays "caring", should the government step in and regulate this conduct like they do everything else?
Originally posted by Teinosukesafe sex? what have they done, handed out condoms to teenagers? It appears to me that unless you give some kind of moral imperative, which is practically impossible given that morality is held to be a relative concept then its merely a case of treating symptoms rather than the cause.
Well, the government has tried to "regulate" this conduct by promoting safe sex through sex education classes in schools. What do you think of them?
2 edits
I can't help but notice that is the facebook generation - social media can breed promiscuity. But as i posted earlier facebook is so orwellian you might be able to track hiv with it - seriously
I think as drugs for HIV get better there is a certain flippancy that its gone, but its still a nasty disease.
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWell, morality is demonstrably a relative concept, since not everyone shares the same morals. On the other hand, "Do no harm" seems a fairly universally accepted precept, and it's on that basis that the state can encourage the practice of safe sex.
safe sex? what have they done, handed out condoms to teenagers? It appears to me that unless you give some kind of moral imperative, which is practically impossible given that morality is held to be a relative concept then its merely a case of treating symptoms rather than the cause.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhat's your solution?
safe sex? what have they done, handed out condoms to teenagers? It appears to me that unless you give some kind of moral imperative, which is practically impossible given that morality is held to be a relative concept then its merely a case of treating symptoms rather than the cause.
Originally posted by TeinosukeIt does not appear to be working, does it?
Well, the government has tried to "regulate" this conduct by promoting safe sex through sex education classes in schools. What do you think of them?
The whole issue really comes down to morality, doesn't it? Schools need to be teaching that promiscuity is wrong and drug abuse is wrong, instead of handing out clean needles and free condoms.
Of course, this would incur the wrath of people like you. How dare I teach a child morality. No, what we need to do is equip a bunch of amoral human beings with a really good education, so they can be released upon society to wreak havock and run up our health care costs.
Originally posted by whodeyWell, actually countries that have the most rigorous sex education in schools also seem to have the lowest levels of STDs and teenage pregnancies, so it seems to work pretty well - even though it incurs the wrath of people like you.
It does not appear to be working, does it?
The whole issue really comes down to morality, doesn't it? Schools need to be teaching that promiscuity is wrong and drug abuse is wrong, instead of handing out clean needles and free condoms.
Of course, this would incur the wrath of people like you. How dare I teach a child morality. No, what we need to do ...[text shortened]... ucation, so they can be released upon society to wreak havock and run up our health care costs.
Rather than being taught that promiscuity is immoral, I'd like to see students taught that it's impractical. It is worse than a crime - it is a mistake!
2 edits
Originally posted by TeinosukeThe bottom line here is that male gay sex is the biggest culprit in terms of spreading STD's because they tend to be the most promiscuous for obvious reasons.
Well, actually countries that have the most rigorous sex education in schools also seem to have the lowest levels of STDs and teenage pregnancies, so it seems to work pretty well - even though it incurs the wrath of people like you.
Rather than being taught that promiscuity is immoral, I'd like to see students taught that it's impractical. It is worse than a crime - it is a mistake!
You can use the term "impractical" if using the term "immoral" gives you the willies. 😵 Just drive home the point that they should not be doing it.
Originally posted by whodeyWhat "conduct"? The government should make efforts to increase the use of contraceptives that prevent the spread of STD's.
So as HIV drives up our health care costs with fewer gays "caring", should the government step in and regulate this conduct like they do everything else?
The government doesn't regulate "everything", nor could it possibly do so.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI'm not suggesting that the government regulate anything. All I'm saying is that it tries to regulate everything, including biggie sodas because they are bad for your health.
What "conduct"? The government should make efforts to increase the use of contraceptives that prevent the spread of STD's.
The government doesn't regulate "everything", nor could it possibly do so.
So where is the consistency here? How many people die from gay sex and how many from biggie sodas?
Granted, at this particular time in history gay sex is a sacred cow that is protected, but I see in the future a time when the government may turn on them, much like those who like to drink biggie sodas.
Most progressives are too dim witted or arrogant to see the regulation beast turn on them and outlaw or stricly regulate gay sex.
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeySame question to you as for Robbie, what's your solution?
I'm not suggesting that the government regulate anything. All I'm saying is that it tries to regulate everything, including biggie sodas because they are bad for your health.
So where is the consistency here? How many people die from gay sex and how many from biggie sodas?
Granted, at this particular time in history gay sex is a sacred cow that is pro ...[text shortened]... d or arrogant to see the regulation beast turn on them and outlaw or stricly regulate gay sex.
Originally posted by whodeyWhat kind of regulation concerning gay sex do you propose, and how will said regulation help reduce the incidence of HIV among gay men?
I'm not suggesting that the government regulate anything. All I'm saying is that it tries to regulate everything, including biggie sodas because they are bad for your health.
So where is the consistency here? How many people die from gay sex and how many from biggie sodas?
Granted, at this particular time in history gay sex is a sacred cow that is pro ...[text shortened]... d or arrogant to see the regulation beast turn on them and outlaw or stricly regulate gay sex.
Originally posted by Proper KnobOne must provide a moral imperative. Personally its the role of parents to inculcate in their children what is proper and acceptable behaviour and what is not. The problem is, that we have a media that is doing just the opposite and actively promotes promiscuity.
What's your solution?