11 Feb 08
...then all the old-age related diseases will 10 to 20 years sooner than normal!
According to article from the AP and the New York Times, HIV/AIDs is no longer the death sentence it used to be due to a potent mix of anti-viral cocktails. Some HIV/AIDs sufferers are now able to live longer lives, but at what cost? Homosexuals who survive HIV/AIDS are at greater risk for arthritis, hearing and vision loss, depression, heart disease, bowel cancer, rectal cancer, insulin resistance, higher cholesterol and triglyceride levels, bone disease, hip replacement, Parkinson's disease which causes tremors and memory loss, pneumonia and liver and kidney disease. This doesn't sound very glamorous at all, which brings me to my question: Which is better, death by HIV/AIDs, or living with all those old-age related symptoms at once, 10 to 20 years earlier?
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/nation/stories/DN-hivaging_11nat.ART.State.Edition1.45358f6.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/health/06HIV.html?hp
11 Feb 08
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterWell, if I were in that situation, I think that dying would be the better choice.
...then all the old-age related diseases will 10 to 20 years sooner than normal!
According to article from the AP and the New York Times, HIV/AIDs is no longer the death sentence it used to be due to a potent mix of anti-viral cocktails. Some HIV/AIDs sufferers are now able to live longer lives, but at what cost? Homosexuals who survive HIV/AI ...[text shortened]... 1nat.ART.State.Edition1.45358f6.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/health/06HIV.html?hp
And there would be additional side benefits as well, (thinking that most gays are liberals or open-minded sorts who want to help the rest of us). By dying, they could immediately reduce their carbon footprint on the planet.
Next, they would reduce the strain on the health care system, all those resources spent caring for them could be re-allocated to help children with other diseases that have a better chance for recovery and survival.
Lastly, if they have substantial monetary assets, dying would allow the government to eat up any inheritance they left behind in death taxes, money that could be redistributed to the needy through welfare checks and other government handouts.
Ok, for you liberals and others who think I'm a heartless conservative, the above is whats called sarcasm .... get it?
I'm still a heartless, souless conservative, but I don't wish anyone that kind of ill, unless they are Islamo facists who want to kill Americans, or other assorted enemies of my country.
11 Feb 08
Originally posted by SMSBear716Ironically, most of the afflicted interviewed in the above-mentioned articles said they would prefer to be dead.
Well, if I were in that situation, I think that dying would be the better choice.
And there would be additional side benefits as well, (thinking that most gays are liberals or open-minded sorts who want to help the rest of us). By dying, they could immediately reduce their carbon footprint on the planet.
Next, they would reduce the strain on the he ...[text shortened]... they are Islamo facists who want to kill Americans, or other assorted enemies of my country.
11 Feb 08
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterNo being serious at this point, I could see not wanting to live with all those consequences. But, if the situation is due to their personal choices, then its a matter of taking personal responsibility.
Ironically, most of the afflicted interviewed in the above-mentioned articles said they would prefer to be dead.
11 Feb 08
Originally posted by der schwarze Ritterwhy do you assume that only homosexuals get hiv/aids?
...then all the old-age related diseases will 10 to 20 years sooner than normal!
According to article from the AP and the New York Times, HIV/AIDs is no longer the death sentence it used to be due to a potent mix of anti-viral cocktails. Some HIV/AIDs sufferers are now able to live longer lives, but at what cost? Homosexuals who survive HIV/AI ...[text shortened]... 1nat.ART.State.Edition1.45358f6.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/health/06HIV.html?hp
oh... and why are you such a homophobe?
11 Feb 08
Originally posted by duecerPerhaps he is simply quoting from the article? Maybe gays get HIV/AIDS because they have a riskier lifestyle? Every now and then we see stories in the press about gays still having unprotected sex, or the number of gays having unprotected sex increasing again.
why do you assume that only homosexuals get hiv/aids?
oh... and why are you such a homophobe?
So are they stupid, uninformed? or simply don't care?
11 Feb 08
Originally posted by SMSBear716Yeah... Maybe guys get HIV/AIDS more often due to their riskier lifestyles...
Perhaps he is simply quoting from the article? Maybe gays get HIV/AIDS because they have a riskier lifestyle? Every now and then we see stories in the press about gays still having unprotected sex, or the number of gays having unprotected sex increasing again.
So are they stupid, uninformed? or simply don't care?
However, there's not a chance in hell that they're more likely to suffer from the ailments mentioned than a heterosexual HIV/AIDS sufferer... is there?
11 Feb 08
1 edit
Originally posted by SMSBear716http://www.until.org/statistics.shtml
Perhaps he is simply quoting from the article? Maybe gays get HIV/AIDS because they have a riskier lifestyle? Every now and then we see stories in the press about gays still having unprotected sex, or the number of gays having unprotected sex increasing again.
So are they stupid, uninformed? or simply don't care?
gays are not really more likely to get hiv, that number has stabilized between hetero and gay. More men get hiv because of riskier lifestyles (IV drug use, unprotected sex, etc...)
11 Feb 08
Originally posted by SMSBear716I posted a few articles showing that heterosexuals actually have higher risk sexual practices, it is simply due to AIDS having gotten into the homosexual community int he first place by an unknown vector that the disease is more prevalent in that community.
Perhaps he is simply quoting from the article? Maybe gays get HIV/AIDS because they have a riskier lifestyle? Every now and then we see stories in the press about gays still having unprotected sex, or the number of gays having unprotected sex increasing again.
So are they stupid, uninformed? or simply don't care?
Whether DSR was quoting from the article or not, by virtue of the fact that he was paraphrasing rather than quoting demonstrates (along with several of his own posts to the same effect) that he has a serious problem with the private lives of other people.
As regards preferring death to the symptoms of prolonged use of counter HIV drug cocktails, the gut reaction is of course going to be to prefer a relatively quick death to a prolonged suffering. No one claims that AIDS is an ok disease to have, it's not exactly in the same league as asthma, but personally speaking, I'd rather buy as much time as I can provided I have cognitive abilities, especially given the slim, but nonetheless existent possibility of improved coutermeasures in the future.
12 Feb 08
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterHave you ever seen someone dying of AIDS? It's a miserable way to go. If you can't handle all those annoying symptoms you might as well eat a bullet. Dying of AIDS is like dying of cancer; slow, painful and ugly.
...then all the old-age related diseases will 10 to 20 years sooner than normal!
According to article from the AP and the New York Times, HIV/AIDs is no longer the death sentence it used to be due to a potent mix of anti-viral cocktails. Some HIV/AIDs sufferers are now able to live longer lives, but at what cost? Homosexuals who survive HIV/AI ...[text shortened]... 1nat.ART.State.Edition1.45358f6.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/health/06HIV.html?hp
12 Feb 08
1 edit
Originally posted by SMSBear716I used to volunteer in an AIDS patient support charity place...some of these guys are completely insane. These guys (not all of them, but some) are in complete denial.
Perhaps he is simply quoting from the article? Maybe gays get HIV/AIDS because they have a riskier lifestyle? Every now and then we see stories in the press about gays still having unprotected sex, or the number of gays having unprotected sex increasing again.
So are they stupid, uninformed? or simply don't care?
One guy had unprotected sex with his boyfriend despite having HIV. His reasoning? His boyfriend was of pure Aryan stock and therefore immune.
Another guy thought meditation and his piety kept his under control. No need for drugs or safe sex with God on your side!
12 Feb 08
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterMy Mum has Arthiritis, and has had a hip replacement, before the age of 60 (she wears glasses too, does that count as loss of vision?). Is she Gay/Lesbian? No.
...then all the old-age related diseases will 10 to 20 years sooner than normal!
According to article from the AP and the New York Times, HIV/AIDs is no longer the death sentence it used to be due to a potent mix of anti-viral cocktails. Some HIV/AIDs sufferers are now able to live longer lives, but at what cost? Homosexuals who survive HIV/AI ...[text shortened]... 1nat.ART.State.Edition1.45358f6.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/health/06HIV.html?hp
So should I bump her off?? FOOL.
And I assume that 'straight' people who contract AIDS/HIV via blood transfusions/other operations or unprotected 'straight' sex don't get these diseases in later life if they take anti-retroviral drugs??
So should they also be willing to kill themselves just to satisfy your point of view?
Following your point to it's logical conclusion, one comes to the stage of eliminating all infirm/disabled/ill people en masse.
Congratulations Mr Hitler Jr, your new Aryan race is now complete!
(Once you get rid of all the Muslims as well that is)
As an aside, are you pro-life/against Euthanasia? Or would all these people have to commit suicide?
- Joined
- 30 Dec 07
- Moves
- 9905
12 Feb 08
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterDon't be promiscuous? I think that would fix things, if you both got tested for HIV first....
...then all the old-age related diseases will 10 to 20 years sooner than normal!
According to article from the AP and the New York Times, HIV/AIDs is no longer the death sentence it used to be due to a potent mix of anti-viral cocktails. Some HIV/AIDs sufferers are now able to live longer lives, but at what cost? Homosexuals who survive HIV/AI ...[text shortened]... 1nat.ART.State.Edition1.45358f6.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/health/06HIV.html?hp
- Joined
- 30 Dec 07
- Moves
- 9905
12 Feb 08
Originally posted by shavixmirI was going to ask the same thing... but I figured DSR would just say, "Are you condoning the sinful acts of homosexuals? Your maturity level is low, grow up." So I didn't say anything...
I've gotta know dude...
Heterosexuals who survive HIV/AIDS aren't at the greater risk of all those complaints???
How's that work then?