Wow, you really ARE living in a fact-free world. You really think kids in your day were less sexually active?
Maybe YOU weren’t. But then, you only saw blacks who were content to be second class citizens and maybe occasionally have a relative lynched. So your subjective opinions don’t seem to be entirely reliable.
If we got to pick the relatives (and if in-laws count), this might not be such a bad deal.
There are, it seems to me, a few issues that arise from your post.
First, there’s the question of the relationship between homosexual promiscuity and the spread of HIV/AIDS. I think it would be silly to deny that the rate of HIV transmission was assisted by the relaxed attitude to casual sex within the gay community during the 1980s. Authors have written about the permissive and open bathhouse culture, and other venues for anonymous casual sex within the gay community in cities like San Francisco and New York. Even now, years later, authors like Dan Savage still sometimes take to task some gay men for the cavalier attitude they exhibit towards protection in their sex lives.
But it’s not like gay sex was the only thing responsible for spreading HIV, as Starving Artist seems to believe. According to one study of HIV/AIDS in New York, published in 1993:
So according to this study, slightly less than half of all cases were attributable to sexual transmission, and even less than that was due to homosexual transmission (because there was also some heterosexual transmission).
Of course, Starving Artist would still see these figures as supporting his overall argument, because in his mind liberals are also responsible for the rise of illicit drugs in America. But i’m not directing my argument at him, because i’ve concluded he’s too deluded to discuss the issue rationally. I’m simply pointing out that saying:
Is a dramatic oversimplification, at best.
Also, Shodan, one of your own citations actually helps to refute Starving Artist’s assertion about “mindless homosexual promiscuity.” Your first citation, the American Journal of Public Health article, concludes:
That knowledge of the AIDS epidemic wrought such dramatic changes in sexual practices over such a short time suggests that homosexual promiscuity was far from mindless. Once the risks of unprotected sex were known, many gay men responded in a responsible and health-conscious fashion.
While i recognize that issues of sexual promiscuity, and of homosexuality, are viewed by many people as important moral issues, i think it’s problematic to draw direct connections between one’s moral position and one’s conclusions regarding epidemiology. Despite the fact that Starving Artist chose to use the epithet “mindless” specifically to describe homosexual promiscuity, the fact is that heterosexuals have, as RickJay notes, been sexually active for a long time. It’s not just some post-1960s phenomenon.
A key reason that HIV spread more quickly through the gay than the straight community was not just promiscuity, but was, as one of your own citations acknowledges, a result of the fact that gay sex more often involves particular behaviors that are more conducive to the spread of the virus. The fact that the virus spreads more easily this way, and is also hard to treat and impossible to get rid of altogether, is unfortunate, but does not constitute some moral indictment of the gay community, or of liberalism.
I was referring to the “mindless homosexual promiscuity” being “cheered on by the left” aspect of SA’s post, but thanks for your input. I appreciate it even though I’ve long considered you a completely worthless individual.
See, i’d tend to disagree with this one. I’ll certainly agree that permissive emanated from liberality and the left - but the mistake you’re making is to assume that to not be motivated by the right means there is no responsibility to be laid at their door. I would argue that the right may be judged by their response to this intial motivation, and I think in many cases they’ve fallen as short as liberals. The culture of permissiveness certainly did some considerable harm - but the intial reaction of the right itself constituted something of a culture of demonisation or denouncement, and at times a closing of eyes. The attempt at defeating increased sexual activity oftentimes solely by calls for abstinence reflected neither the reality of what was happening nor helped provide information for those who would have sex, in all meanings of safety, also tending to lead to millions of abortions. Those that failed were again often not treated as having a mere lack of maturity or discipline, but total failures on those terms. AIDs being denounced as a homosexual disease meant that those who caught it found themselves unable to admit it, let alone admit their homosexuality, leading to further infections; those who were having sex were warned only not to, not given the full advice that they too were at risk. Add onto that that the epidemic of AIDs and HIV in Africa (rather not something that can be blamed on the left) is not helped by conservative groups again calling for abstinence rather than providing condoms or other preventative measures. A culture in which sexual messages are constant are responded to by protests, bannings, and attempts to censor, suggesting that for some that while the government seeking to take the responsibility for sex education is a no-no, parents other than themselves taking that responsibility is likewise as bad.
The left may take a good deal of responsibility for the push, but the right takes its share from how it dealt with it; and quite often it did not (and still does not) deal with it well. You’ve brought up the importance of family values; if the left can be analogised as an unruly teenager, interested in new things and easily affected by outside influences, they may make mistakes, often severe ones. But the right as parent, if their actions helped promulgate these problems, take some share in the blame as well.
G-A-Y
you don’t need no alibi
You’re homos
You go-go
That virus may be retro
Yay team!
shakes pompoms
Revenant Threshold, that was beautiful-but sadly, I fear, it will go right over Starving Artist’s head, and he’ll dismiss it as so much “liberal twaddle”.
This is closer to what I meant with my cryptic post above.
Starving Artist, I’d love to hear your answers to a couple of questions. Of course you don’t have to participate, but my curiousity compells me to ask.
For the sake of the questions, let’s say that everything you say is true. I know you believe it, and many of us don’t, but I’m willing to see your side of it for the moment.
First, “reality-based” question:
What do you think can be done about the rampant [insert all the things you mentioned that were caused by liberalism]? Obviously you think that a McCain/Palin victory would help. What do you think they, or Palin if she succeeds McCain, can do that Obama would never do? What could/would they continue that Bush started in his 8 years in the White House, and/or what c/would they do that Bush has not done?
Btw, reality is in quotes there because of course no one can tell the future. I mean the question to be, what would you like to see done that could realistically be done.
Second, “fantasy-based” question:
This is out there, but if you were appointed King of the Universe and given magical powers to go back to various points in time and change any thing you want in any way that you want, what would you do? Let’s say you could only go back to, mmm, 1950 (so no changes to the New Deal or popping Hitler or anything). In your wildest fantasies, kid in a candy store freedom, what would do you to re-make the world through the years so that the world of today would be the one you would want to see in your heart of hearts? What would the world of today look like if you had your way? Go to town, get as in-depth as you want. You’ve written much about what you think went wrong and who caused it. How would you fix it?
When confronted with facts about Obama’s foreign policy experience, which he at first claimed was non-existent, Starving Artist said:
This is all you need to know about debating with Starving Artist. He will ask you questions, and when you answer them with facts, he will tell you flat-out that the facts don’t matter, that nothing you can say would ever make him vote for anyone other than his candidate, which is whomever was chosen by his party. He admits that, if Obama were a conservative with the exact same resume, he’d defend him, lack of executive experience and all.
His attacks on Obama’s experience stem only from a desire to degrade his enemy The Liberal, not by any desire for actual debate or critical, objective examination of an individual candidate’s qualifications or merits. All that matters to him is that conservatives control everything and liberals are disenfranchised. Period. The particulars of who’s in charge do not actually matter to him. End of story.
His motivation for spewing his diatribes?
Not interested in a genuine exchange of ideas or debate of issues. No, he’s arguing and talking smack and spouting distortions and bullshit because he thinks he’s changing the hearts and minds of undecided voters lurking on the Dope. Wow.
Seriously, it would help me understand your viewpoint a great deal, SA, if I understood more explicitly what your ideals are, rather than just what you think is wrong.
I am so 100% motherfucking intrigued by the answers to these questions.
Honestly, SA, please answer these questions in depth and in the spirit of open dialog that they were asked in. I have read you for several years on these boards and I have never seen this type of question asked to you with, what seems to be, so much willingness to listen. I think you have a fantastic opportunity to explain yourself and your beliefs, if you would please be so inclined.
And the Band Played On by Randy Shilts. But really, this is just another bullshit demand for an unnecessary cite. Which seems to be your whole debating style.
LP, you are not fit to defend the worthless. You’re actually toxic. The only good thing about you is that you’re so *clearly *stupid that you discredit your own ideas by attempting to articulate them.
Diana, you’re a dumb pussy who’s mistaken herself for an intellectual.
LP, your claim to intellectual superiority went out the window the second you spouted your racist claptrap!
And you’re a dumb racist who’s mistaken himself for a man.
Thank you! I wear the distaste of racists as a badge of honor.
Doubtful. Funhouse mirror technology isn’t that advanced yet.
But you’re still a dumb pussy.