ButterflyMaiden Posted September 4, 2005 Share Posted September 4, 2005 I was trying to find some fresh news on the situation in Niger and came across this story. Having AIDS is Macho God help Africa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted September 4, 2005 Share Posted September 4, 2005 A very sad statement about what happens when education isn't effective. And isn't it equally incredible that here in the 'civilized' countries, many people tend to regard it as a sign of moral weakness? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted September 4, 2005 Share Posted September 4, 2005 Perhaps it is more to do with people being used to death than anything else? Its a strange thought, I know, but in the west our expectation is to live, but in the less developed countries the expectation is to die! I am not advocating that we should then reduce our efforts, far from it, but if we could understand the mind which says "Yep, I have always seen members of my family die, and we have always managed (or not), it is a fact of life", then perhaps we can help. We have all seen the awful films of young children taking care of their even younger siblings because their parents have died from Aids: dreadful, heart-rending, shocking. But, as long as we let people think that is all they have in front of them, then we are failing. If we, in the western world, have anything to offer, then it is that death is something that comes later in life and THAT is when education will work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheesemonster2005 Posted September 4, 2005 Share Posted September 4, 2005 Having AIDS is Macho <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It's sad but then so are some Western attitudes towards AIDs even 20 years on from when it first made the headlines. It's not a good attitude but neither is avoiding people with the illness or treating them as evil (it still happens!). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted September 5, 2005 Share Posted September 5, 2005 A very sad statement about what happens when education isn't effective.And isn't it equally incredible that here in the 'civilized' countries, many people tend to regard it as a sign of moral weakness? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Other than the poor sods who get it from infected blood or blood products it is. Either on the part of the person or by the partner of the person it is a disease communicated by immorality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted September 5, 2005 Share Posted September 5, 2005 No, its a disease spread by a virus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted September 5, 2005 Share Posted September 5, 2005 No, its a disease spread by a virus. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> But HOW is it spread. If a person contracts AIDS from a blood or blood product infection that is a tragedy. If a person contracts AIDS from their partner then they have contracted the diseases a result of their partners immorality. If it were that their partner contracted the disease from infected blood or blood products it could be classed as a tragedy if they were a married couple or a couple living in a long term stable relationship. If a child contracts AIDS as a result of parental infection then unless the infection of the parents was as a result of infected blood or blood products it is as a result of either immorality on the part of the mother or her present or previous partner. If a person contracts AIDS as a result of casual sex then that is immorality end of story. Immorality was the primary vector of AIDS and remains the principle vector today. A person, other than a person who gets infected by an infected material as part of medical intervention, who becomes infected by HIV either lives an immoral life or has assorted with someone who has. Other than accidental infection or cross infection at birth immorality by one or the other of a couple remains the common factor. That’s how I see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheesemonster2005 Posted September 5, 2005 Share Posted September 5, 2005 Other than the poor sods who get it from infected blood or blood products it is. Either on the part of the person or by the partner of the person it is a disease communicated by immorality. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> OMG is the Isle of Man not even in the 20th century yet? I've heard enough rubbish from you! Are you trying to say that by people having sex without protection they're being immoral? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheesemonster2005 Posted September 5, 2005 Share Posted September 5, 2005 If a person contracts AIDS from their partner then they have contracted the diseases a result of their partners immorality. If it were that their partner contracted the disease from infected blood or blood products it could be classed as a tragedy if they were a married couple or a couple living in a long term stable relationship. If a child contracts AIDS as a result of parental infection then unless the infection of the parents was as a result of infected blood or blood products it is as a result of either immorality on the part of the mother or her present or previous partner. If a person contracts AIDS as a result of casual sex then that is immorality end of story. Immorality was the primary vector of AIDS and remains the principle vector today. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You're even more backwards than a copy of yesterday's Daily Mail. Are you saying that casual sex is immoral? Are you saying these people (probably the vast majority of people) desrve to get HIV/AIDs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted September 5, 2005 Share Posted September 5, 2005 Other than the poor sods who get it from infected blood or blood products it is. Either on the part of the person or by the partner of the person it is a disease communicated by immorality. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> OMG is the Isle of Man not even in the 20th century yet? I've heard enough rubbish from you! Are you trying to say that by people having sex without protection they're being immoral? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> People engaging in casual sex are immoral irrespective of them using a condom. A condom does not introduce morality into an act. People who engage in sex without some form of birth control and who do not want to create a child are being immoral. In MY opinion people who engage in homosexual sex are being immoral come what may, but sad to say I am now amongst the minority as so many people fail to grasp the difference between that which is permitted and that which is morally sound. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheesemonster2005 Posted September 5, 2005 Share Posted September 5, 2005 People engaging in casual sex are immoral irrespective of them using a condom. A condom does not introduce morality into an act. People who engage in sex without some form of birth control and who do not want to create a child are being immoral. In MY opinion people who engage in homosexual sex are being immoral come what may, but sad to say I am now amongst the minority as so many people fail to grasp the difference between that which is permitted and that which is morally sound. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The difference between what is permitted? According to you that is??? In this thread you're basically calling most people immoral. Where do you pick up this crap? Morals for you are very different to what the majority of us consider to be moral I think. Correct you're definately in the minority. Thank god. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted September 5, 2005 Share Posted September 5, 2005 People who engage in sex without some form of birth control and who do not want to create a child are being immoral. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Much of the rest may be debatable and entirely dependent on personal viewpoints, but it would be difficult to argue against the validity of that point, IMO and to the word 'immoral' I would add 'selfish and irresponsible.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeyconcrete Posted September 5, 2005 Share Posted September 5, 2005 People who engage in sex without some form of birth control and who do not want to create a child are being immoral. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Much of the rest may be debatable and entirely dependent on personal viewpoints, but it would be difficult to argue against the validity of that point, IMO and to the word 'immoral' I would add 'selfish and irresponsible.' <{POST_SNAPBACK}> the word want is a bit subjective. Two heroin addicts want to create a child, two young teenagers without the means want to create a child. On the otherhand, two adults who dont want to create a child, create one, and deal with it. If you want to judge, it should be on how they love and raise the child. The "do not want" can often change Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Git Posted September 5, 2005 Share Posted September 5, 2005 OMG is the Isle of Man not even in the 20th century yet? Sigh. Just like P.K., Rog doesn't live on the Isle of Man either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted September 5, 2005 Share Posted September 5, 2005 Yes, not our best two exports!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.