Is this racist?

[liberty]

Did anyone get a chance to watch the program; does anyone have comments to make about it?

Bump over

[Scooter]

the only facts I presented are document in the program everything else is opinion.

So what of your claim that African-Americans would label a statistic about HIV/AIDS in their communities racist? Are you admitting that said claim has no basis in fact?

You should look at yourself, if you do shoot fish a barrel, as you put it, what does that say about you? What would you think of a person that did literally shoot fish in a barrel?

If the fish is diseased, I wouldn't let the fact that it is in a barrel stop me from spreading its poison.

Now I am tired of this and you talk to yourself.

You were the one who created this thread. You were the one who titled it "Is this racist?" You were the one who made the claim about how African-Americans would react to a statistic about HIV/AIDS in their communities. Now suddenly it's too uncomfortable for you to talk about that, and you want to shift the conversation to something else. What does that say about you? That you lack the integrity to stand behind your own words? That you lack the intellect to support your own argument? That you're too cowardly to face the reason why you feel compelled to write these baseless diatribes against African-Americans?

[liberty]

That Scooter fancies himself as quite a manipulator, but who is he trying to manipulate you or me?

[Scooter]

I don't need to manipulate anything; your ridiculous assertions and complete inability/unwillingness to support them speak perfectly clearly all by themselves.

[Lord Jim]

Well lib, context does matter...

What would be the big deal about posting a link to where you had this exchange on the other board? Then everybody could judge for themselves whether Scooter's assumptions about it are correct or not?

If you do this, I for one promise to look at it objectively.

[liberty]

Well lib, context does matter...

What would be the big deal about posting a link to where you had this exchange on the other board? Then everybody could judge for themselves whether Scooter's assumptions about it are correct or not?

If you do this, I for one promise to look at it objectively.

Jim that has to be over a year ago, topix goes through threads like crazy. I might have to hunt through hundred pages.
I do have to personal experience: I tried to warn a black woman, who helped us with our son, and she was offended that I would say that blacks had a higher AIDS rate. Her friend died AIDS but she still refused to see the danger. I didn’t push it. My teenage granddaughter rejected it outright as racist propaganda.

I have posted this on Topix, but it will take time, unless it is ignored.

[dgs49]

Let's try this:

Shall we suppose that (a) monogamous couples, regardless of sexual orientation, have no reason to fear contracting AIDS through sexual contact, as it cannot happen. (b) people who do not take intravenous drugs recreationally have no reason to fear contracting AIDS through "dirty needles."

And this basically exhausts the non-extraordinary potentialities with respect to contracting AIDS.

(c) African Americans are vastly over-represented in the demographics of new AIDS infections.

Therefore,

(d) Disproportionately large numbers of African Americans are doing things that they oughtn't, thus bringing a self-imposed plague on their collective house.

Is (d) a racist statement?

[Big RR]

Come on, your points clear contradict each other; the wife of an intravenous drug user in a momnogamous relationship could clearly contract AIDS through sexual contact (and the wife of someone who received tainted blood or blood products or was infected through a needle stick accident could likewise contract AIDS sexually); those who are health care workers and not intravenous durg users can tract AIDS through dirty needle sticks as can a patient who is infected through a needdle used more than once.

Let's get away from the assinine idea that AIDS is a "plague" which people bring on themselves from doing something you think they shouldn't be doing; AIDS is a disease which is spread by contact (by whatever means) of infected blood and body fluids. There is no value judgment in who gets infected, and it is idiocy to pretend there is. yes, some people contract AIDS from doing acts which you somehow find morally objectionable, and so you blame them for being infected. Please!

[Scooter]

Addng to what BigRR has said, the reality is that North America remains a largely racially segregated society when it comes to sex. So once a sexually transmitted infection like HIV enters a racial minority population, the likelihood of coming in contact with someone who has it is far greater than among the racial majority, even with no greater preponderance of sexual risk taking.

[Scooter]

Jim that has to be over a year ago, topix goes through threads like crazy. I might have to hunt through hundred pages.

We're all patient people here, we can wait.

I do have to personal experience: I tried to warn a black woman, who helped us with our son, and she was offended that I would say that blacks had a higher AIDS rate. Her friend died AIDS but she still refused to see the danger. I didn’t push it. My teenage granddaughter rejected it outright as racist propaganda.

Rather than paraphrasing to your convenience, why are you still unwilling to report the actual conversation as close to word-for-word as you recall it. Because if you claim that it went something like you saying "there's a higher AIDS prevalence among African-Americans than the general population" and someone responding to you with "it's racist of you to say that", then I'm calling bullshit; there was obviously more to it than that, and you are just as obviously neglecting to disclose what ELSE you added to such a statement in order to be accused of racism.

[Rick]

If ya gotta ask the question then the answer is yes.

[Scooter]

Sort of like knowing that whatever comes after "I'm not a racist, but..." is gonna make you cringe.

[Crackpot]

I'm not a racist, but, I like pie.

[Rick]

Yeah and I'm sure it's Rhubarb...cringe!!!!

[dgs49]

RR, my points do not contradict one another. In the couple you describe, ONE OF THEM is doing something they oughtn't.

Many years ago, the gay community tried to foist upon the public the fiction that "anyone can get it." This total horse shit. 80% of the population is absolutely immune because they are not consorting with strangers and they are not using intravenous drugs. There are occasional "innocent victims" who are infected unwittingly, and the exceedingly rare healthcare worker, but by and large it is spread through casual and careless sexual contact, and by illegal intravenous drug use.


It is absolutely bizarre how people can be condemned up one side and down the other when they contract, say, lung cancer after a lifetime of smoking, or heart disease when they are 100 pounds overweight, but people who contract AIDS are all "innocent."

"Disproportionately large numbers of African Americans are doing things that they oughtn't, thus bringing a self-imposed plague on their collective house."

[Scooter]

"Disproportionately large numbers of African Americans are doing things that they oughtn't, thus bringing a self-imposed plague on their collective house."

Apparently the principles of infectious disease epidemiology are beyong your understanding, so let's try explaining it using some simple arithmetic.

Imagine a population where 100 people are of one racial group, and 10 are of another racial group. Members of each group are going to be having sex primarily with someone of their own race. Let's assume that each group begins with one person infected with HIV. Let's further assume that, over the course of the next month, each person will have sex with one other person. In the 100-person group, there is a 1% chance that the person they have sex with will be HIV+. In the 10-person group, however, that risk is 10%. So even where everyone engages in exactly the same behaviours, the fact that one belongs to the minority race increases one's risk of being exposed to HIV tenfold.

people who contract AIDS are all "innocent."

No one has ever made this claim. But given the tens of millions of married women (in societies that demand they be completely mongamous) who have become HIV+, your characterization of the disease as one that affects only the promiscuous and drug users only illustrates your own (self-imposed) ignorance.

RR, my points do not contradict one another. In the couple you describe, ONE OF THEM is doing something they oughtn't.

And what of the person who isn't? Still their fault, I guess.

[Sean]

Well lib, you've had two comments so far on Topix:

"It's not racist if it's true."
"Only if you claim that race is the cause."

No great outcry so far...

[liberty]

Well lib, you've had two comments so far on Topix:

"It's not racist if it's true."
"Only if you claim that race is the cause."

No great outcry so far...

You are right, perhaps things have changed; that happens in the course of human events; the human race would be quite dismal if it didn’t. However, considering how serious the subject is there seems there would be more interest on a black forum. But my granddaughter no longer dates black boys so perhaps it should not be that much of a personal concern for me.

Also, this will be good bye for me for while. The modem in my computer is down and it may be while before I fix it and I am too busy to go library on regular basis.

See you in the funny papers.

[Beer Sponge]

Also, this will be good bye for me for while. The modem in my computer is down and it may be while before I fix it and I am too busy to go library on regular basis.

See you in the funny papers.

Uh, what? 1993 called, and they want their technology back!!!

My bold.

[Sean]

So how do you connect to t'internet BS?