I see fat dead people

[woodlawn]

>simply ignoring the primary point of

>the discussion and instead raising irrelevancies over and over

>(as you have done again and again in this thread, as Devon not

>only pointed out but also quite thoroughly documented).

 

That statement is nothing but a tissue of lies. What a pity you have given up on any attempt to conduct an honest discussion of this issue.

 

>I was the one who started this sub-thread

 

That must be the tenth time you've brought that up. What do you want, a gold star in your coloring book? Grow up.

 

>your first post in this thread expressed objection to

>the notion that the harm from fatness can even be compared to

>the harm from HIV.

 

That's a rather sloppy way of saying that I don't think they're analogous, which is true.

 

>In making this "point," your primary assertion, made again and

>again, is that HIV is not reversable while obesity is. Who

>the fuck cares?

 

Uh . . . how about all the people who have HIV and wish they could get rid of it by doing something as simple as cutting down on the carbs? Instead of taking dozens of pills that make them puke their guts out? I suspect they might care about that distinction.

 

>This has nothing to do with the point anyone

>has raised.

 

If so, it wouldn't make much sense for you to respond by arguing that in some sense HIV is reversible. But you HAVE repeatedly made that argument in this thread. So apparently YOU are one of the people who "the fuck" cares about that point and YOU think it DOES have something to do with the point raised.

 

 

>and it's not even a very

>important one.

 

Then why have YOU addressed it over and over again here?

 

>but the fact remains that

>overeating/being fat is infinitely more destructive to the

>public health than is bareabacking/HIV - that is the only

>point. By squaking endlessly over the red herring of the

>reversability of HIV v. obesity, all you do is dodge the

>issue, which is what makes Devon so correct.

 

Your mean-spirited accusations are becoming increasingly repetitive, therefore increasingly boring. You insist on measuring destructiveness quantitatively. Suppose I don't agree that that is how it should be measured? Then your entire argument falls apart.

 

>False. Your first post dealt PRIMARILY with your claim that

>obesity and HIV are not analgous

 

True.

 

> because HIV is worse due to

>the fact that it is irreversable,

 

False. I never said that. Why make it up?

 

>you can't then

>deny that you said it, try as you might.

 

I can keep denying your distortions of what I wrote just as long as you can keep making them. Try me.

 

 

>This is just so inane for so many reasons.

 

If it's as inane as any of the crap you've written, that will really be something to remark on.

 

 

Here are a few:

>

>First, piggish eating habits by parents virtually always get

>passed along to their fat, unhealthy children.

 

"Virtually always"? False. If that were true eating habits would never change from one generation to the next, and the poultry industry wouldn't be eating the beef industry's lunch. Why do you keep making up these absurd generalizations that are based on nothing but your own prejudices?

 

I think I'll leave out the next part of the paragraph, which is one of the many writings in which you express unalloyed hatred for people whose only crime seems to be that they don't have healthy eating habits.

 

What's the source of all this hate speech? Did a fat relative sit on you when you were a kid?

 

>any person to

>whom HIV is transmitted as a result of bareabacking or other

>sexual practices is voluntarily assuming the risk of getting

>HIV.

 

He is? Even if the carrier told the other party that he is negative? Even if the carrier starts by using a condom and surreptitiously takes it off later? Even then?

 

> The blame lies entirely with them, not with the

>transmittor.

 

Now here is what I love about this board. Every time I see a statement that I could honestly characterize as "the most ridiculous statement I've seen here," that record only lasts a day or two. Your assertion that an HIV positive person who barebacks or otherwise passes on the disease through intercourse has NO responsibility for what happens definitely holds the new record for ridiculousness as far as I'm concerned. Did it ever enter your head that the "transmittor," as you call him, could simply decide that he is not going to participate in any activity that might infect someone else, whether that person wants to take the risk or not? Ever think of that? Guess not.

 

>such gay men do not impose any risks on

>anyone who does not consent to those risks.

 

Uh huh. So that would mean that if I could persuade someone to play the starring role in a snuff film, the "blame" for his death would lie "entirely" with him, right?

 

>Third, as usual, your point dodges the issue - since,

>regardless of contagiousness (as is true for reversability) -

>this point does not in any way negate the fact that obesity is

>a far worse public health problem than barebacking. That's

>the point that began the discussion, the one to which you

>initially responded - remember?

 

Shithead, (and I say that with vast affection) you need to try to get it into your noggin that starting this thread does NOT, repeat NOT, give you the right to tell others what points to make herein or what points to answer. When your pal Devon tells me that obese people ought not to disapprove of prostitutes on grounds of public health because they are themselves part of a public health problem, it is more than appropriate for me to point out that there is one thing prostitutes can do to injure public health that the obese cannot do: pass on an incurable disease to other members of the public.

 

>You left out an important part of LIBERTY - namely, one has

>the right to do anything that does not directly harm others

>without their consent. Why did you leave the bolded

>part out?

 

Because in most of the posts in which you displayed your creed YOU didn't mention it either. It's interesting to see that your philosophy is evolving.

 

 

>>I really do wish that you and Doug would stop spreading

>>misinformation about this disease.

>

>Please exceprt one thing that he or I said about HIV that

>constitutes "misinformation about this disease."

 

Easy. Your statement that HIV is "harmless" except to the extent it causes illnesses. That held the record for most ridiculous statement on this board -- until your latest post today.

 

>There is

>none. The only "misinformation" is the HIV = AIDS = DEATH

>mantra that you hypnotically repeat like some paranoid,

>misinformed lunatic stuck in 1985.

 

I think I will let readers look at the column by Fierstein, a person who I don't doubt is of vastly greater talent and far broader acquaintance than you, compare it with your angry, hateful screed, and decide for themselves whose opinion should be given greater weight. No pun intended.

[+ Lucky]

"Shithead, (and I say that with vast affection) you need to try to get it into your noggin that starting this thread does NOT, repeat NOT, give you the right to tell others what points to make herein or what points to answer"

 

woodie, I see you are still dragging this dead horse around. Fifteen times you've posted on this thread already!

I hope you are getting your facts right more often than not, but the person you address above as "shithead" didn't start this thread. That guy bailed on it long ago, and I understand why!

[Guest WolfXing]

Not Dead Yet

 

I loathe conflict and controversy, so even though I read this board regularly, I rarely post. Life's too short to be bothered with people who are so simultaneously insecure and arrogant that they absolutely must prove themselves "right" in a discussion.

 

That being said, I felt compelled to add my two cents to this thread---knowing full well that I am setting myself up for ridicule and unsolicited self-aggrandized "advice."

 

Why speak up now? Humanity.

 

I am one of those fat people that many of you have described as horrible, disgusting, and dreadful.

 

Which word in that last sentence caught your attention? Disgusting? Dreadful? Fat?

 

I don't know about many of you, but I think it would have been encouraging if your attention had been drawn to the word PEOPLE. Not objects, not animals. People.

 

To me, honesty without compassion is no more than thinly-veiled cruelty. I'm fully aware of the risks of obesity to my health. I've been obese all my life, and I'm well educated about it, thank you. I could hardly argue with most of the points you all have made. But still, in my more idealistic moments, I fantasize that some day our species will evolve beyond the need to judge people we do not understand; that we will learn to put away the arrogance of our opinions long enough to see and hear the person behind the behavior.

 

I don't want sermonize. Let me just close by saying that no matter how fat we are, we still are not insulated from the pain caused by insensitivity and derision. We are still people.

[Bilbo]

Sorry, Trix, I didn't mean to imply that you had gotten sanctimonious and now I'm wondering if I came off sanctimoniously myself. I just like to mention my charities when I can sneak them into the conversation, not to brag about doing them, but in hopes that those times when I can't afford to contribute to them someone I told about them will be giving sort of in my place.

[Guest DevonSFescort]

>>Perhaps because you don't like the implications of Doug69's point: >>that carnal and other "illicit" pleasures are unfairly singled out >>for moral disapproval by people who would rather ignore the more

>>signifcant public health problems posed by more their own,

>>more banal forms of risky behavior. After all, you're

>>constantly citing the outraged sensibilities of middle

>>Americans who don't approve of prostitution, even though

>>many of those Americans are engaged in the very risk behavior

>>that is the "second leading cause of preventable deaths" in this

>>country.

>

>Even you should be able to understand one rather important

>difference between obesity and HIV infection: obesity isn't

>contagious. So all those chubby middle Americans who aren't

>taking care of themselves can honestly point to the fact that

>they are NOT taking risks with the health of any person OTHER

>THAN THEMSELVES.

 

Except, of course, the ones whose children are following the example of their self-destructive lifestyle, even though the health risks of obesity are well-known. (Perhaps their parents rationalize that their children's health problems are "invariably reversible" and that that makes it okay.) But there are other, equally banal examples. People who drive too fast are taking risks both with their own health, lives and property and those of others, yet they haven't had to endure the same kind of social stigma gay men have. (They are also doing something you routinely scold people involved in prostitution for: picking and choosing which laws they'll obey.) Just look at South Dakota's lone Representative in the US House: not only was he caught speeding numerous times during the 90s, he used to brag and joke about having a "heavy" foot -- and all those God-fearing SD Republicans, many if not most of whom disapprove of homosexuality and prostitution, kept chuckling and returning him to elected office. Now he's killed someone with his openly reckless behavior. Yet another example of the double standard at work when risky behavior is winked at and ignored as long as it doesn't involve sex.

 

>As for you, I will simply point out that in this thread and

>the one on barebacking you have accused me of:

>

>1. "fearmongering" because I insisted that promiscuous sex,

>even with a condom, can be risky.

 

No -- fearmongering because you insisted that the risks of protected sex were "similar" those those of barebacking.

 

>2. "downplaying" the danger of barebacking because I pointed

>out that many of the critics of barebacking are themselves

>people whose behavior poses a public health risk.

 

No -- downplaying the danger of barebacking by repeatedly suggesting that the risks of barebacking are "similar" to those of protected sex.

 

>3. "hysteria" because I keep mentioning that there is

>currently no cure for HIV.

 

No -- hysteria because you keep insisting that no one who is HIV+ today will survive it.

 

>I'll characterize your statements here and his by quoting from

>a column written by Harvey Fierstein in the New York Times on

>July 31.

 

Ah yes, Mr. Fierstein. It's refreshing to see that there is at least one stereotypically effeminate gay man that you don't disdain, although if he'd delivered his remarks on television instead of in a printed format, no doubt all we'd be hearing from you would be outrage that they let a queeny gay man deliver the message, and complaints about his credentials -- he is, after all, an entertainer and not a noted expert on HIV. And it's typical that you would approvingly quote HIS andecotes about HIS HIV+ friends while dismissing other people's anecdotes about their HIV+ friends. Nevertheless, while he raised a number of valid points, I didn't see any that disputed the fact that obesity-related illnesses kill more people and extract other social costs than HIV-related illnesses. And I'm not at all certain that he'd agree with you that only virgins and the monogamous are qualified to criticize barebacking.

[woodlawn]

RE: I see dead people -- Look, there's Lucky with them!

 

>"Shithead, (and I say that with vast affection) you need to

>try to get it into your noggin that starting this thread does

>NOT, repeat NOT, give you the right to tell others what points

>to make herein or what points to answer"

 

>woodie, I see you are still dragging this dead horse around.

>Fifteen times you've posted on this thread already!

 

And this is coming from someone who has more than 3000 posts to his credit, the vast majority of them pitiably lame attempts at humor rather than addressed to any real issue of concern to anyone. With a record like that, where do you get the nerve to criticize anyone else's posts? It's like Hitler criticizing someone else for being cruel.

 

 

>I hope you are getting your facts right more often than not,

 

Read the document I linked and you will find out, you lazy creature.

 

>but the person you address above as "shithead" didn't start

>this thread. That guy bailed on it long ago, and I understand

>why!

 

So what?

[woodlawn]

>>Even you should be able to understand one rather important

>>difference between obesity and HIV infection: obesity isn't

>>contagious. So all those chubby middle Americans who aren't

>>taking care of themselves can honestly point to the fact

>that they are NOT taking risks with the health of any person

>OTHER THAN THEMSELVES.

 

>Except, of course, the ones whose children are following the

>example of their self-destructive lifestyle, even though the

>health risks of obesity are well-known.

 

So you DON'T agree with Doug that an individual's choices are his own responsibility? You think people who consistently overeat should blame their parents for setting a bad example?

 

 

>Just look at South Dakota's lone Representative in the

>US House:

 

>Now he's killed someone with his openly reckless

>behavior. Yet another example of the double standard at work

>when risky behavior is winked at and ignored as long as it

>doesn't involve sex.

 

That example hardly supports your point. The fact is that Janklow was fined when caught speeding. When was the last time you heard of anyone being fined for barebacking? And now that his speeding has actually resulted in a death, he is being prosecuted for homicide. What percentage of the thousands of HIV carriers who have passed the disease along to someone else through risky sex have been charged with homicide? Or with any crime? Seems like there's a double standard here, but NOT the one you had in mind.

 

>No -- downplaying the danger of barebacking by repeatedly

>suggesting that the risks of barebacking are "similar" to

>those of protected sex.

 

Indeed they are -- both involve a risk of transmitting HIV.

 

>No -- hysteria because you keep insisting that no one who is

>HIV+ today will survive it.

 

I have never said such a thing, although to those who have a problem with reading comprehension it might appear so. What I actually said is on the board for all to see.

 

>Ah yes, Mr. Fierstein. It's refreshing to see that there is

>at least one stereotypically effeminate gay man that you don't

>disdain,

 

LOL! Do you know Harvey Fierstein personally? If not, how would you know what he is like when he is not playing a part or making a public appearance connected with his career? I doubt very much that you do. You remind me of the New Jersey housewife who ran into the actor who portrayed a villain in a popular tv soap and slapped his face because she didn't understand he isn't really the character he plays.

 

>And it's typical that you would approvingly quote HIS

>andecotes about HIS HIV+ friends while dismissing other

>people's anecdotes about their HIV+ friends.

 

It's typical of YOU that you "dodge" the real point -- anecdotal evidence of the type you've presented here proves nothing. You claim you have positive friends who are even HEALTHIER -- that is the word you used -- than before they seroconverted. And a gay man who is much older and thus has far more experience with the situation than you tells us that in his experience the truth is exactly the opposite of what you claim.

 

> Nevertheless,

>while he raised a number of valid points, I didn't see any

>that disputed the fact that obesity-related illnesses kill

>more people

 

He didn't address the subject of obesity at all. But since he is himself quite overweight and yet just won the Tony award for appearing seven nights a week in a Broadway musical involving a great deal of physical activity, he'd laugh derisively if he could read the crap Doug has been writing about the pitiful and debilitated state of overweight people.

 

The point he did raise is that those who portray HIV positive men as even HEALTHIER than others, as you have done, are in his opinion LYING -- that was his word. And I agree with him.

[bigguyinpasadena]

"He didn't address the subject of obesity at all. But since he is himself quite overweight and yet just won the Tony award for appearing seven nights a week in a Broadway musical involving a great deal of physical activity, he'd laugh derisively if he could read the crap Doug has been writing about the pitiful and debilitated state of overweight people. "

And this from a creature that throws out "fattie"insults to other posters(myself included)when called on it's shit.

[woodlawn]

>And this from a creature that throws out "fattie"insults to

>other posters(myself included)when called on it's shit.

 

Fat guy, a rancid hatemonger like you has no right to complain when others treat you the same rotten way you treat them. Unlike Doug and Devon, I don't see fat people as a plague on society. Some of them are real assets to their communities. Of course there are others, like you, who are about as useful as an extra asshole.

[bigguyinpasadena]

Sorry Wanda Woodlawn-I tripped you up in a condradiction in your "moral code of behavior"And trying to weasel out of it by trying to throw further shit into the pot just wont fly

FLUSH

[OneFinger]

Just ran across this story on the web. A 500-pound woman didn't fit in the casket. The funeral directors even had the grandchildren sit on the lid to try and close it. Didn't work and they buried her without the lid being secured.

 

Sad part is that the family seemed to do everything within their power to ensure the casket was large enough. The funeral home could actually have ordered a custom-built casket (delivered with 24-36 hours) but decided to use an "off-the-shelf" model. Hope the family gets a large settlement.

 

http://www.local6.com/news/2527756/detail.html

[Doc]

>That example hardly supports your point. The fact is that

>Janklow was fined when caught speeding. When was the last

>time you heard of anyone being fined for barebacking? And now

>that his speeding has actually resulted in a death, he is

>being prosecuted for homicide. What percentage of the

>thousands of HIV carriers who have passed the disease along to

>someone else through risky sex have been charged with

>homicide? Or with any crime? Seems like there's a double

>standard here, but NOT the one you had in mind.

>

 

 

Actually, I remember from the news that there is a man in Iowa City, Iowa who has been charged twice for having sex and not telling his partners that he is HIV +. I will see if I can find all the particulars.

[Doc]

>Actually, I remember from the news that there is a man in Iowa

>City, Iowa who has been charged twice for having sex and not

>telling his partners that he is HIV +. I will see if I can

>find all the particulars.

 

 

I had a few of my facts wrong. It was a Minnesota man who was charged for the crime for having sex with an Iowa man.

 

http://www.mindspring.com/~asp/SurvivalNews/October2002/chronicles.htm

 

Minnesota Man Charged with Criminal Transmission of HIV Has Hearing. Aaron Dahlberg, 24, of Inver Grove Heights, Minn., who is charged with criminal transmission of HIV, contends the form of sexual contact he had with an Iowa City man is not likely to pass the virus. Dahlberg is accused of not revealing he was HIV-positive to a man with whom he had unprotected sex between March 31 and April 1, 2000. Dahlberg appeared in Johnson County District Court on Tuesday for a hearing to suppress evidence and argue points of law. Leon Spies, Dahlberg's attorney, is asking the court to decide whether the state must prove that the "possibility" of transmission of HIV constitutes a "significant, documented, or merely theoretical risk of transmission." Judge Larry Conmey took the matter under advisement but said the question would be better raised at trial, which is set for October 21.

[woodlawn]

>Sorry Wanda Woodlawn-I tripped you up in a condradiction in

>your "moral code of behavior"And trying to weasel out of it by

>trying to throw further shit into the pot just wont fly

>FLUSH

 

It sounds like you prefer the point of view of Doug, which seems to be that all fat people are a burden to our nation, rather than mine, which is that fat people should be considered as individuals. To my way of thinking, fat people should only be derided when they are like you, a putrid bag of filth.

[woodlawn]

>I had a few of my facts wrong. It was a Minnesota man who was

>charged for the crime for having sex with an Iowa man.

 

Very interesting. So out of the thousands and thousands of people in this country who have passed the disease to others, so far we know that one has been prosecuted. Thanks.

[Doc]

>Very interesting. So out of the thousands and thousands of

>people in this country who have passed the disease to others,

>so far we know that one has been prosecuted. Thanks.

>

>

>

 

Your question asked about when the last time anyone was fined for barebacking. I was merely pointing out the fact someone was charged with a crime for it. Maybe I mis-interpreted your post, my take was that you did not believe that anyone has ever been charged for it.

[bigguyinpasadena]

Wanda,playing your dear pet doogie as a preferable point of view to dodge the point(that you were tripped up)is sooooooo funny-now shoo-back under the bridge.

[woodlawn]

>Wanda,playing your dear pet doogie as a preferable point of

>view to dodge the point(that you were tripped up)is sooooooo

>funny-now shoo-back under the bridge.

 

I'm not going anywhere. You already made a fool of yourself by claiming you were "taking steps" to have Axebahia excluded from this board, and he's still here as well. And you're much too stupid to trip anyone up; you can hardly write a coherent sentence. Perhaps if you put down the twinkie and tried typing with both hands it would be a bit easier.

[bigguyinpasadena]

Ooooooo now Wanda resorts to a FAT JOKE as it's defensive manuvure-falling all over itself trying to get out of its hole.This is fucking great"now I am compassionate to fat people-Harvey Fierstien is a great Fat person-now I am tossing out a low fat joke to try and deflect the disgrace I have been served up by being caught in my'say anything to be aguminitive and have the last word"mode"

What a schmuck.

FLUSH

[woodlawn]

>Maybe I mis-interpreted your

>post, my take was that you did not believe that anyone has

>ever been charged for it.

 

No. I've heard at least one news report about the prosecution of a man in Louisiana for similar conduct. But when I am told that the Janklow case is an example of someone who endangers public safety but does not suffer the same social stigma as those who endanger public safety by risky sexual behavior, I have to point out that Janklow has been charged with homicide for what he did. Unless there are a large number of prosecutions of HIV positive men for transmitting the disease that have not been reported, I have to conclude that one is much more likely to be prosecuted if one commits vehicular homicide than if one causes death by transmitting HIV to another person.

[Guest DevonSFescort]

>You think people who consistently

>overeat should blame their parents for setting a bad example?

 

I don't think children should be blamed for childhood obesity and for not knowing more than their parents about nutrition and good exercise habits. Do you?

 

>The fact is that

>Janklow was fined when caught speeding. When was the last

>time you heard of anyone being fined for barebacking? And now

>that his speeding has actually resulted in a death, he is

>being prosecuted for homicide. What percentage of the

>thousands of HIV carriers who have passed the disease along to

>someone else through risky sex have been charged with

>homicide? Or with any crime? Seems like there's a double

>standard here, but NOT the one you had in mind.

 

We've been talking about the moralizing attached to sexual conduct compared to other, often riskier behaviors, not about the law. But if you're suggesting that sex between consenting adults should be a licensed privilege because you want the government in every bedroom, that would certainly be consistent with the views you frequently express.

>

>>No -- downplaying the danger of barebacking by repeatedly

>>suggesting that the risks of barebacking are "similar" to

>>those of protected sex.

>

>Indeed they are -- both involve a risk of transmitting HIV.

 

One of which is miniscule compared to the other. By your standards, getting into a car sober and getting into a car shit-faced drunk involve "similar" risks too.

 

>LOL! Do you know Harvey Fierstein personally?

 

That's none of your business.

 

>If not, how would you know what he is like when he is not playing a >part or making a public appearance connected with his career?

 

Well, given how much you've ranted in other threads about those awful, awful stereotypes of queeny gay men, it's interesting that you would support someone who makes a career out of popularizing them -- all the more so if he's not really like that. Tsk, tsk!

 

>>And it's typical that you would approvingly quote HIS

>>andecotes about HIS HIV+ friends while dismissing other

>>people's anecdotes about their HIV+ friends.

>

>It's typical of YOU that you "dodge" the real point --

>anecdotal evidence of the type you've presented here proves

>nothing.

 

Fine. If it proves nothing when I present it, then it proves nothing when you present it.

 

>You claim you have positive friends who are even

>HEALTHIER -- that is the word you used -- than before they

>seroconverted.

 

That's correct. You see, before they seroconverted, many people weren't leading very healthy lifestyles. They weren't taking care of themselves in a variety of ways, and hadn't been to a doctor in years. Getting HIV was a wakeup call that prompted them to clean up their acts on a number of levels and to monitor their health and seek a lot more preventative care than they ever had in the past. Thus, when they tell me that they are in better health than they were before, I believe them. You have no basis for insisting that they must be lying.

 

>And a gay man who is much older and thus has

>far more experience with the situation than you tells us that

>in his experience the truth is exactly the opposite of what

>you claim.

 

Just because he's much older doesn't mean he knows more people with HIV than I do. And neither you nor I know what kind of lifestyles his poz friends lead. The fact that our friends are in varying states of health invalidates neither his points (on another topic) nor mine. In fact, he specifically said that if the drug company ads are sending the message to HIV+ men that they're "going to be okay," that that's wonderful. This suggests that he's far less hellbent than some people on signing every HIV patient's death warrant.

 

>He didn't address the subject of obesity at all. But since he

>is himself quite overweight and yet just won the Tony award

>for appearing seven nights a week in a Broadway musical

>involving a great deal of physical activity, he'd laugh

>derisively if he could read the crap Doug has been writing

>about the pitiful and debilitated state of overweight people.

 

You'll have to take that up with Doug. I don't agree with his insulting characterizations of the overweight, and I don't happen to find them repulsive at all. And unlike you and he I haven't felt the name to engage in name-calling against overweight individuals. The only point of Doug's I endorsed was that poor diet and exercise represent greater threats to public health than many other risk behaviors people like you so thoroughly disapprove. I would further generalize that point to say that many people seem oddly fixated on singling out all sexual behavior involving even very low degrees of risk for censure, when they happily participate in other, everyday, garden-variety risks that have higher public health costs. This makes me think their issue is not so much with the actual costs to society, but with sex itself. Thanks for your tireless support of my point with every post you write.

[woodlawn]

>I don't think children should be blamed for childhood obesity

>and for not knowing more than their parents about nutrition

>and good exercise habits. Do you?

 

I think that's a far cry from saying that obesity is contagious, which is the point you're trying to make. Nonsense.

 

>>The fact is that

>>Janklow was fined when caught speeding. When was the last

>>time you heard of anyone being fined for barebacking? And

>now

>>that his speeding has actually resulted in a death, he is

>>being prosecuted for homicide. What percentage of the

>>thousands of HIV carriers who have passed the disease along

>to

>>someone else through risky sex have been charged with

>>homicide? Or with any crime? Seems like there's a double

>>standard here, but NOT the one you had in mind.

 

>We've been talking about the moralizing attached to sexual

>conduct compared to other, often riskier behaviors, not about

>the law.

 

Please don't use the word "we" to include me. You do not get to decide what subjects I address. In any discussion of the stigma society attaches to certain behavior, the fact that the behavior is often the basis for a criminal charge is more than a little relevant. In fact, there is no better indication of society's disapproval of a given behavior than that the behavior has been made a crime -- unless it is the frequency with which that crime is actually prosecuted.

 

>But if you're suggesting that sex between consenting

>adults should be a licensed privilege because you want the

>government in every bedroom, that would certainly be

>consistent with the views you frequently express.

 

Bullshit. YOU are the one who keeps comparing the danger posed by barebacking to the danger posed by driving. You must have used that analogy a dozen times by now, including in your post above. If anyone here is suggesting that the two activities be regulated in the same manner it is YOU, not I.

 

>One of which is miniscule compared to the other. By your

>standards, getting into a car sober and getting into a car

>shit-faced drunk involve "similar" risks too.

 

Here we go with the driving analogy again. Next you'll be saying that people should be licensed to have sex.

 

>>LOL! Do you know Harvey Fierstein personally?

 

>That's none of your business.

 

Yeah? YOU are the one who brought it up, since your statement that he is "effeminate" clearly implies a personal acquaintance -- otherwise it makes no sense at all. Unless of course you were just making shit up. Which wouldn't be unusual.

 

>>If not, how would you know what he is like when he is not

>playing a >part or making a public appearance connected with

>his career?

 

>Well, given how much you've ranted in other threads about

>those awful, awful stereotypes of queeny gay men, it's

>interesting that you would support someone who makes a career

>out of popularizing them -- all the more so if he's not really

>like that. Tsk, tsk!

 

The fact that you use the word "popularizing" shows that you know little or nothing of Fierstein's work. So I guess the implication that you know what he's really like was just more bullshit on your part.

 

 

>Fine. If it proves nothing when I present it, then it proves

>nothing when you present it.

 

What it proves when I present Fierstein's experience is that someone who is a far more prominent member of the gay community than you thinks this facet of gay life should be characterized in a manner exactly the opposite to what you've presented.

 

>Thus, when they tell me that

>they are in better health than they were before, I believe

>them. You have no basis for insisting that they must be

>lying.

 

It is Fierstein who insists that people who present such an image must be lying. He probably thinks it's incredibly misleading for people to insist they're healthier than ever when they are taking drugs that can damage the heart and liver. I find it hard to argue with that.

 

 

>Just because he's much older doesn't mean he knows more people

>with HIV than I do.

 

It doesn't? He's been one of the more prominent openly gay artists in America since the early 80s. In the early 80s you were what -- 10 years old? Did you have a wide cicle of HIV positive friends back then?

 

 

>And neither you nor I know what kind of

>lifestyles his poz friends lead.

 

Huh? I think the excerpt from his column I posted paints a very detailed picture of what kind of lifestyle his positive friends lead. And it isn't a pretty picture, either.

 

>In fact, he specifically said

>that if the drug company ads are sending the message to HIV+

>men that they're "going to be okay," that that's wonderful.

>This suggests that he's far less hellbent than some people on

>signing every HIV patient's death warrant.

 

 

Oh? Didn't he state that AIDS is terminal and incurable? How does that differ from my description?

 

>And unlike you and he I

>haven't felt the name to engage in name-calling against

>overweight individuals.

 

LOL! But you have engaged in name-calling against me and others. I don't think you're in a position to know much about our physiques.

 

>I would further generalize that

>point to say that many people seem oddly fixated on singling

>out all sexual behavior involving even very low degrees of

>risk for censure,

 

If you will reflect on that statement for a few hours you may realize that the way people seem to you whom you know only from this message board may be influenced by the fact that the vast majority of discussions here relate in one way or another to sex between men. Saying that someone is "fixated on singling out sexual behavior" when you have no idea what they say or do when not participating in discussions on a sex site is as ludicrous as saying that barebacking has caused an increase in HIV infections when you don't even know that there IS an increase in HIV infections. It is part of your pattern of insisting that we accept as facts assertions that are based on fragmentary evidence and may or may not have anything to do with reality. Well, at least you're consistent.

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

I have no idea what about this topic could inspire 70 odd posts. No matter, I have no itention of finding out.

 

My point regarding the subject line...

I think it more appropriate to read "I see dead fat people", as I believe that the fat state preceded the death state of the person -- and always does. :+