LOL
Cervaise is my new hero for the day! 
Geez, who new when I started this thread that I would get to see one of the most priceless reamings of Brutus, one of the more infuriating and ignorant posters on these boards, IMO.
Cervaise, thank you for a very informative, educational, contribution to this thread. And thanks for the smiles too.
or, who *knew[/], perhaps…
Ugh. Preview Preview Preview.
no comment
I just learned something new, Cervaise. Thanks for a fascinating lesson in AIDS epidemiology and thanks for fighting ignorance.
Geez. I once met the Reverend who heads the TVC. Pretty much what you’d expect – surprisingly benign in person, but way off on how the real world goes and totally absolutist in his views. Interestingly, the politician I consulted for at that time, and that was involved in a mutual currying of favor and pandering with the TVC, is now on trial for drugs-and-sex dalliances with minors. So much for traditional values.
Holy shit, Cervaise, that was brilliant.
And yea, that’s pretty interesting. From reading research journals, I know that the most innocuous study can reveal earth-shaking things. Thank god the scientists are mostly in charge and not the idiots.
What world are you living in, please? I think I’d like to move there.
It’s been said, but it bears repeating: Cervaise: That was a thing of beauty. So rarely do wit, information, and moron-bashing dance and cleve together as they did in your post. Bravo, sir.
Cervaise used many words to come up with…nothing.
First off, the actual AIDS/HIV rates for the three countries mentioned, according to the WHO, are:
United States: .6
Thailand: 1.8
Uganda: 5
All three countries are reporting a decline in new infections. Gee fucking whiz, what could be behind this? Could it be that brow-beating people into changing sexual behaviors has anything to do with it? My original assertion stands. The means of transmission of HIV/AIDS are well known. Money spent on condoms and education is having a real effect on AIDS. Money spent following horny truckers around? A waste.
Perhaps the AIDS vaccine field tests going on will be successfull. Until then, money needs to be spent in a practical manner, focusing on means that are known to be effective in reducing infection rates.
Jesus, Brutus, don’t you know when you’ve had your ass kicked? Stay down, for fuck’s sake.
Well, I think Cervaise has covered the other example cited quite well, but perhaps someone should volunteer an opinion on this one. The research cited is actually quite fascinating and has led to some very important information, namely that women’s sexual arousal patterns are different from men’s in some very essential ways.
As this article says, “Whether the films depicted two males, two females, or a male and a female engaging in sexual activity, the different groups of women in the study responded similarly.”
This points to important gender differences in the brain that could well lead to important scientific advances. It also contributes to reserach about sexuality, because if women are equally aroused by both genders gettin’ it on then clearly it is something other than pure physical response determining the gender of the people women have sex with. Whether it is cultural or something else clearly remains to be seen. And of course, this is just early research–more study is needed. But the research could clearly lead to some very important advances in science. Saying that it’s ridiculous for the government to spend money on this, as if the scientists were somehow doing it to get their rocks off–well, that’s just plain stupid.
Well, that would have been me, back on the first page.
Oops, sorry. Must have missed it.
You know, Cervaise, I thought your use of one-syllable words was overdone and kind of ruined an otherwise good, fascinating and post. Then I read Brutus’s response and realized I was wrong again.
People used to believe they knew how typhus and cholera were spread. Then crazy scientists wasted time and money and came up with germ theory. I’ve heard AIDS dismissed as a disease people get because they indulge in immoral practices, yet as I understand what we know of it, a woman is at far more at risk if she is married to a man who has a mistress who has AIDS than she is if she’s a lesbian, especially if she doesn’ t know about the mistress. :rolleyes:
CJ
Did typing those meaningless words make you feel better? Yes? Good!
HIV is primarily spread through sexual contact and unsafe IV drug use. Study the hell out of that if you wish, but you are just wasting money that would be better spent on A) Education, B) Condoms, and C) Vaccines.
There is no mystery in your silly little scenario. Sure, the wife would have a smaller chance of getting HIV from her lesbian lover. So what? What does that change? Nothing. Sexual contact is involved; We already know that certain types of contact have a greater chance of passing along HIV than others.
And thus you show your stupidity by completely missing the bit where Cervaise showed that it is the number of longterm-overlapping partnerships that is the primary variable for tracking HIV infection rates.
Moron.
It’s obviously escaped your notice (even though it’s been pointed out) that the TVC also opposes education and condoms.
Maybe your own particular brand of stupid is a bit less harmful than the TVC’s, but it’s still, well, stupid.
And just a note: there is no vaccine for HIV and due to factors that you won’t understand (having to do with its changing protein coat and so on), there is very little likelihood of there ever being an HIV vaccine.
Cervaise, I think that most research is useful even if it doesn’t seem to be at the particular time it is being done. But what you have written appears to boil down to, “It takes a long period of physical contact to catch a disease that isn’t very communicable”. Obviously, the more partners you have the better chance you will run across someone who has a particular disease and the longer you stay with them increases your chances of catching it from them. Am I wrong in this?
If that is the case then I’d side with Brutus in suggesting that if you have limited funds then spending it on ‘Well, duh!’ research like seems to be this doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. Don’t get me wrong, given unlimited funds and time I’d be willing to let people investigate whatever they wanted to e.g. to find out if a duck’s quack echos. In reality you have to choose how best to spend your money.