patrick.net

They might just be of that new religion that wants to turn us all into vegans.

I thought the Bible condone meat eating. Most vegetarians I know are liberals. (Most meat-eaters I know are liberals too.)

Peter P: The first person I can think of with AIDS was infected from a lab accident. A slip of the needle was all it took.

Perhaps SFWoman can provide some insight on this... but I thought the single-exposure risk of HIV infection is not too high (0.5% to 5%). The risk is still significant, but the epidemic itself could not have been fueled by accidents.

I see nothing wrong with calling for responsible behaviors; preventing certain religious groups from trying to neuter sex-ed classes would help a great deal in this regard.

I am a liberal conservative. I do think that sex-ed classes are not necessarily bad. However, we need balance. How about something like the DUI HAM (hospital and morgue) program? This should shock teenagers into responsible behaviors.

US agencies should call for monogamous relationships and responsible rehaviors. They should call for a ban of media programs that condone/promote promiscuity.

One positive sign is that the religious is gaining political power. Hopefully they can do something.

Huh?
Are you pulling our leg here or being serious?

What makes AIDS so special?

It is just an attempt of extreme political correctness. Flu is a much bigger threat.

I cannot think of a single positive result of the Religious Right gaining power in recent elections. In the long run it just means more Big Government sticking its snout in my bedroom and regulating personal morality and other things it ought not be regulating.

I'm not saying the Left can't be just as self-righteous, arrogant and invasive (PETA, vegan-extremists, TODlers, etc.), just that religion and state don't mix well in a free society.

The Bible condones all sorts of things, that's what makes it so wonderful. Want to have an abortion? Sell a troublesome daughter into slavery? There's a verse for everyone!

/thinks a DUI HAM program would rock, btw.

Peter P,

If there was universal health coverage and no discrimination for people with chronic illness, I would recommend people get annual or biannual tests for a battery of diseases.

Isn't Hinduism essentially promoting veganism? I don't have any observant Hindu friends, so I'm not completely sure. I have observed a high proportion of vegans and vegetarians who ditch their diet plan when they spot their former favorite dish on the menu or on their meat eating friend's plate.

I cannot think of a single positive result of the Religious Right gaining power in recent elections. In the long run it just means more Big Government sticking its snout in my bedroom and regulating personal morality and other things it ought not be regulating.

Perhaps you are right.

Peter P Says:

> RE: US agency calls for routine testing for AIDS
> Why should everyone be tested for AIDS?

To make everyone think that they may soon get AIDS… You will never raise a lot of money to research a disease that only affects IV drug users and people that have gay sex…

> It is not something that is easy to catch.

It is very easy to catch if you are having gay sex or sharing needles…

In the early 80’s lots of heterosexuals (including Paul Gann who wrote California’s Prop. 13 with Howard Jarvis) were infected with the AIDS virus before they tested the blood, but almost none of their heterosexual partners got AIDS. Most of the people with AIDS are either admitted IV drug users or people that admit to having gay sex. When you consider that there are a lot of men and women who don’t want to admit to having gay sex or using IV drugs to their family before they die it is “almost all” of the people with AIDS. ..

The social non-acceptance of HIV and other venereal diseases is a serious public health issue, even for straight people who never touch drugs. In sub-Saharan Africa, being a married woman puts you at higher risk for AIDS because many of the husbands fool around without telling their wives. Ditto for some black women whose husband/boyfriend goes on the down low. A recent NYT article mentioned that some HIV positive South African women actually rejected AIDS drugs while pregnant (which would dramatically reduce mother to child HIV transmission) just to avoid the social stigma of being infected.

In sub-Saharan Africa, being a married woman puts you at higher risk for AIDS because many of the husbands fool around without telling their wives.

I am mostly a libertarian but I think adultery should be a crime. This is about upholding the institution of marriage, which is associated with special legal status anyway.

To make everyone think that they may soon get AIDS… You will never raise a lot of money to research a disease that only affects IV drug users and people that have gay sex…

I agree spending money on fighting diseases in developed countries though. (Developing countries have higher priorities like controlling population growth, education, and food.)

Burbed,

I read the comments on his latest post and they seem pretty critical. I have no more than 1% sympathy for this guy. He committed fraud, got way over his head and he thinks blogging about it is a good idea?!?!

I hope my friends would pull me away from my keyboard should I ever find myself in such a predicament. (I reallyhope I'm not stupid enough to get into such a predicament -- this guy publicly admitted to committing fraud, even if he doesn't get charged, no hiring manager would ever touch this guy.)

skibum,

Well, at least no meth labs...yet

Peter P,

Sadly, most of these women aren't even in a position to demand condoms on their husbands. Women's rights is a life or death issue in much of the world.

If it’s true that AIDS shouldn’t concern us since it’s a gay and drug user’s disease, then there are probably too many gays/drug users in South Africa and not enough in Saudi Arabia.

It is more about protection and promiscuity.

Sadly, most of these women aren’t even in a position to demand condoms on their husbands. Women’s rights is a life or death issue in much of the world.

I agree.

You may consider me heartless but I will not support foreign aid to any nation that will not take steps to regulate population growth.

Then we gotta make stupid people having kids a crime! Or at least pay a hefty tax to counter all the free government handouts they’ll be receiving.

Exactly. We talked about that a few threads ago.

SFGuy,

I live several thousand miles away, so unfortunately I can't check up on his story. I hope for his sake that this is all a publicity gimmick. Admitting fraud on his loan application will jettison any chance of relief via bankruptcy.

almost definitely so. (and IV drug use - I don’t think protection is enough in that case. People get desperate and take risks when they need to have their hit)

What do you guys think about legalizing and taxing recreational drug uses? This may solve quite a few problems.

"Now if they could develop an innoculation for STUPID and IRRESPONSIBLE then I think they’re on to something."

That sounds like a genetics solution. Would the medical ethicists decry the removal of stupidity and irresponsibility from the gene pool?

moderate infidel,

Maybe in time. Meanwhile, the US government positively begs people to spend irresponsibly large amounts of money on home buying. They rigged the tax codes to favor home buying and provides loans for low income people who probably shouldn't be owning at all.

But the FBs have only themselves to blame. When someone signs a document that makes them liable for 5 or 6 times their annual salary, they better make sure they understand every term and eventuality perfectly.

They rigged the tax codes to favor home buying and provides loans for low income people who probably shouldn’t be owning at all.

So homeowners are happy and low-income people are happy for now...

Only bubbleheads are upset but this group is tiny so it is expendable.

Big question: how can we know the "perfect" form of government if we do not understand the "perfect" moral system.

Shouldn't we also discuss meta-ethics?

SFGuy Says:

I will entertain the possibility that other health issues are more important than AIDS, (cancer is the worse in my book, at least in the advanced world),

Cancer may be "worse," but in terms of scope of the problem and disease prevalence, heart disease is the worst:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus05.pdf#029

Greetings from The Republic of Texas......

After a day of touring homes, it's apparent this market is SLOW....DOTM are close to 100 and incentives abound. One constant is B.S.'ing by realtors; and since everything in Texas is bigger and better; I'm sure their B.S. will be larger than life as well.

I really don't know if realtors are ignorant or simply liars. What I do know is I'm losing my patience.

More later; I'm documenting the details to share later.

SFGuy Says:

> regarding AIDS I don’t mean to make fun of
> anyone’s opinion but I will. If it’s true that
> AIDS shouldn’t concern us since it’s a gay
> and drug user’s disease, then there are
> probably too many gays/drug users in South
> Africa and not enough in Saudi Arabia.

AIDS is spread by IV drug use and “Gay Sex” (look it up I won’t go in to detail here) not “Gays”…

I dated a girl who was in the Peace Corps. who told me why AIDS has spread so fast in Africa:

1. You can’t just put a rainbow sticker on your Miata and move to SF so promiscuous gay African men will have sex with large numbers of women to stay “in the closet” aka “on the down low”.

2. You can’t just stop by a drug store to pick up some condoms at every corner in Africa so it is common for men and woman to have “Gay Sex” to avoid the chance of pregnancy (after IV drug users the largest group of women in the US that have AIDS are females hat have gay sex with bi-guys)…

Maybe he and his wife are amphibious, and need a little stretch of open water to spawn...

...re: legaliasing drugs. Large parts of the EU have legalised - or at least decriminalised - cannabis in the last 5 years, and the sky hasn't fallen yet. In fact I'd go as far as saying the govt is losing out on valuable tax revenue by not controlling the product.

Although, there has to be some serious education along with the freedom - no more of the 'drugs are bad, m'kay?' because, as any 12 year old will tell you, if you don't mention why then no one will listen.
Saying "just DON'T" doesn't cut the ice.

Having said that, there's worlds between the smoking of the occasional phattie and the carnage that drugs like crack and heroin wreak on people. I'd much rather police and govt money was diverted from prosecuting marijuana busts towards more serious drug problems associated with the above two.

Peter P Says:
Big question: how can we know the “perfect” form of government if we do not understand the “perfect” moral system.
Shouldn’t we also discuss meta-ethics?

good ethics systems are often informed by the 'golden rule', which has been stated by a number of religious writings through history: do unto others as you would have them do unto you... personal, financial, governmental and international relations would improve if this was observed more....

"Love your neighbor as yourself" - Moses (ca. 1525-1405 BCE) in the Torah, Leviticus 19:18
"What you do not want others to do to you, do not do to others." - Confucius (ca. 551–479 BCE)
"What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man." - Hillel (ca. 50 BCE-10 CE)
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto to you." - Jesus (ca. 5 BCE—33 CE) in the Gospels,Luke 6:31;Luke 10:27 (affirming of Moses);Matthew 7:12;
"Hurt no one so that no one may hurt you" — Muhammad (c. 571 – 632 CE) in The Farewell Sermon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity#Religion

Even for hardcore drugs, I'd favor regulation and legalization over criminalization. Anyone who wants hardcore drugs can get them and the drug users are not particularly fearful of the law. Instead, criminalizing hardcore drugs have simply created a criminal culture of violence. It's better to just legalize drugs and at least cut out the financial incentives for a violent drug culture.

SQT,

I too wish hardcore drugs just didn't exist. However, two plus decades of the war on drug supply have done nothing except exacerbate the problem. It would be nice if the government looked harder into decriminalizing drugs and creating treatment programs. Failing that, at least create a structured environment for the addicts so they wouldn't destroy their family or their children's lives.

speedingpullet,

I was looking at their koi pond and thinking how dangerous that would be for a young child. Your answer was genius. These people obviously needed chlorine saturated water to spawn in.

Yeah, treatment and education is the way to go.

I remember a South Park episode a while back that dealt with the drug theme...
Kyle IIRC was smoking pot and all the adults pulled out all the scare tactics and 'drugs are BAD!' rhetoric without really explaining why.
At the end of the episode Kyle and Cartman were having a conversation and Kyle says something like' I wish the adults hadn't just freaked out and said its just bad. All pot seems to do is make you lazy and unmotivated. Now I know what it does, i'm going to stop because I don't want to sit around and day doing nothing and getting fat'.
Or words to that effect.

There doesn't appear to be a time in history ,or a culture of people, that didn't have thier own way of getting 'out of it'. Rather than hoping the problem will just go away on its own, its better to educate people in the pros and cons and let them make their own minds up.

Just saw a report on CNN about somebody putting stickers on parking meters and other stuff with the letters....BNE

All the jokes aside; anyone know what it's all about?....seems to be costing a bunch to get rid of 'em.

SFGuy,

Read up a little bit more on the f@cked 24 year old flipper(it always amazes me when people younger than me FUBAR their life). I think most people think he's at least telling a part of his story. One or two HousingPanic people think he's pulling a "Lonely Girl". Many people think this is a marketing ploy to scam sympathetic buyers.

I think unless he is a "loserdude @ 24" from New Zealand and his story is entirely fiction, he is deluded and in a world of hurt. One poster claim to be a former owner of one of his houses and said the house is priced way above the going price.

Also, the reason why the comments appear so positive is because he screens comments and takes out ones that are unacceptable to him. I think that sort of deluded and immature behavior suggests that he is a real idiot and not a fake one.

SP,

Kent and Norfolk would be nice, I would also favor giving them west London circa 1945. They might have to deal with the IRA in the 1970's and 80's, but at least the IRA weren't religious fanatics and were open to negotiation.

I maintain that Iranian PM (I have a half Iranian friend who insist on calling everything Persian, kinda disorienting for someone born after the Iranian revolution) can say whatever the hell he wants. I care more about his actions. So I'm not very hung up on how he wants to threaten Israel (knowing that neither Iran nor Israel would go to war, it's mostly a gambit to shore up some credibility amongst the Gulf Arabs).

I'm much more concerned about their nuclear program and their activities in Iraq.

Also, the bible does have dietary laws, which I know for a fact you violate. You may not eat pork, shellfish, fish without gills.

I know. :)

The private entities, that have the potential to bring great harm to society, through their failure in economies of scale, need to be regulated, for the greater good. It is not in their own financial interest to regulate themselves.

The collapse of financial institutions through their gambling ways, such as hedge funds, aka risk funds, and sub prime lenders, must not be allowed to bring undo burden upon societies in which they are permitted to operate, should their institution fail.

Some institutions are so large, and so vital to the health and well being of society, that they cannot be trusted completely with dispensing such services. Take the health care industry; 45 million Americans don't have reasonable access. This, in the so called greatest country in the world. Now what's that all about?

Yes, some institutions and industries are so large, that greed can run rampant, and bring down society at large, should they fail. And I for one should not be forced to pay the price for their failure.