Printable View
^ All of which were curable with a shot or a pill. I just don't see what the point is of judging people who lived and died 30 years ago. It has no relevance to what is in front of us right now: the best option ever for reducing the continued spread of HIV.
No herpes and warts are not curable. The point is peoples actions have responsibilities and consequences. The people back then were of the same selfish attitudes of you and that allowed the HIV epidemic of the 80's and 90's as a result of their me me me and my pleasure attitude.Quote:
Originally Posted by Westheangelino
Well, then by all means, let's all stop fucking, stop driving cars, stop eating GMO's, stop eating meat, stop eating sugar, etc. etc.
Well that's a childish reply:Quote:
Originally Posted by Westheangelino
Lets have safe sex
Lets encourage government and business to invest in integrated transport network and clean emission cars
Lets cut are sugar and meat intake for environmental and health reasons
Its called social and civic duty and responsibility. Its about being something more then you are, instead of a selfish irresponsible slave to your base emotions.
^ I agree with all of that. Why can't a pill that is proven to prevent the transmission of a deadly at worst, costly at best disease be part of the discussion too instead of dismissed?
Because it has serious health side effects and doesn't help prevent other STD's as I have mentioned before.Quote:
Originally Posted by Westheangelino
^ So do the following: smoking, eating American sized portions at every meal, driving, etc. But if there was a pill that came along and prevented lung cancer would it not be front page news??? See my point?
Last time I checked they don't help spread STD's. I understand your point about the news completely and agree about that aspect. The issue, is people such as yourself though see such a pill as a right and endorsement to go bareback left right and centre because it prevents HIV but you don't stop to think and consider all the other STD's you put yourself at risk for and also that you and others like you will help spread it and cause an epidemic of those STD's.Quote:
Originally Posted by Westheangelino
People are skeptical for several reasons. You have on many occasions misstated health risks associated with sexual activity, including when you said that it is impossible to contract HIV as long as you are the insertive partner. Second, it sounds like an excuse to be reckless and engage in riskier sexual behaviors, which again, given the source of this information (someone who advocates bareback sex and routinely downplays the risk associated with it) is a sound assumption. Finally, the long-term risks of fda approved drugs are not known for decades. So it is not without cost even if the exact nature of that cost is not now known.
By all means take the drug, but not everyone is going to get prescription medication so they can have unprotected sex with anonymous partners.
I think you've fabricated this position for him. I just read all of his posts in this thread and don't see that he's advocating any such thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by RobynBlakeTS