<tumbleweed rolls past in the wind>

[cowboy carl]

whoa....


so world aids day was wednesday.

seemed a lot more 'popular' than ever before.

what i don't understand, however, is why we care.

other than people who get it through donated blood and other methods through
no fault of their own (which i suspect is a minority), and prostitutes,
people in this country get aids through not using a condom properly and
having sex with too many random people, meaning it is their own fault, and i
don't see why they deserve a day all to themselves.

so the issue is really with africa, where it is a huge problem, where the
education behind contraception isn't present and where rape is often used as
a tool of war.

so why isn't it "world stop wars in africa day"?

this would help solve the aids problem, *and* help stop the almost monthly
reports of fighting and genocide from various parts of africa.

why do people care more about AIDS than war?

cc

[Ian B.]

Post by cowboy carl
whoa....
so world aids day was wednesday.
seemed a lot more 'popular' than ever before.
what i don't understand, however, is why we care.
other than people who get it through donated blood and other methods through
no fault of their own (which i suspect is a minority), and prostitutes,
people in this country get aids through not using a condom properly and
having sex with too many random people, meaning it is their own fault, and i
don't see why they deserve a day all to themselves.
so the issue is really with africa, where it is a huge problem, where the
education behind contraception isn't present and where rape is often used as
a tool of war.
so why isn't it "world stop wars in africa day"?
this would help solve the aids problem, *and* help stop the almost monthly
reports of fighting and genocide from various parts of africa.
why do people care more about AIDS than war?

Ha ha, that's a surprisingly ignorant post from you... are you playing
devil's advocate to try and get a good old heated debate going?

[cowboy carl]

Post by Ian B.

Post by cowboy carl
whoa....
so world aids day was wednesday.
seemed a lot more 'popular' than ever before.
what i don't understand, however, is why we care.
other than people who get it through donated blood and other methods
through no fault of their own (which i suspect is a minority), and
prostitutes, people in this country get aids through not using a condom
properly and having sex with too many random people, meaning it is their
own fault, and i don't see why they deserve a day all to themselves.
so the issue is really with africa, where it is a huge problem, where the
education behind contraception isn't present and where rape is often used
as a tool of war.
so why isn't it "world stop wars in africa day"?
this would help solve the aids problem, *and* help stop the almost
monthly reports of fighting and genocide from various parts of africa.
why do people care more about AIDS than war?

Ha ha, that's a surprisingly ignorant post from you... are you playing
devil's advocate to try and get a good old heated debate going?

No, I'm simply saying that I believe war and conflict to be a bigger problem
in Africa than AIDs, indeed, it is a cause of AIDs in many cases, so why
isn't more effort being put into that?

cc

[Ian B.]

Post by cowboy carl

Post by Ian B.

Post by cowboy carl
whoa....
so world aids day was wednesday.
seemed a lot more 'popular' than ever before.
what i don't understand, however, is why we care.
other than people who get it through donated blood and other methods
through no fault of their own (which i suspect is a minority), and
prostitutes, people in this country get aids through not using a condom
properly and having sex with too many random people, meaning it is their
own fault, and i don't see why they deserve a day all to themselves.
so the issue is really with africa, where it is a huge problem, where the
education behind contraception isn't present and where rape is often used
as a tool of war.
so why isn't it "world stop wars in africa day"?
this would help solve the aids problem, *and* help stop the almost
monthly reports of fighting and genocide from various parts of africa.
why do people care more about AIDS than war?

Ha ha, that's a surprisingly ignorant post from you... are you playing
devil's advocate to try and get a good old heated debate going?

No, I'm simply saying that I believe war and conflict to be a bigger problem
in Africa than AIDs, indeed, it is a cause of AIDs in many cases, so why
isn't more effort being put into that?

There are no wars that I know of in South Africa, yet over 50% of the
population have aids (or are HIV positive, can't really remember which,
this is according to someone who lives there, not the offical figure I
believe). And anyway, how do you propose the wars are stopped? Have
the Americans invade to make things better? There are still plenty of
other third world countries which have (admitedly less) AIDs problems,
due to lack of knowledge abot safe practices and stuff.

Also by your logic of people not being careful why is it ok if
prostitutes get aids? And I'm sure it's not a small minority (perhaps a
minority) that get it despite being careful, what about people who's
partners sleep around without their knowledge and stuff like that?

Anyway, I think blaming it on the cathloic church is the best idea :-).

[Ian B.]

Post by cowboy carl

Post by Ian B.

Post by cowboy carl
whoa....
so world aids day was wednesday.
seemed a lot more 'popular' than ever before.
what i don't understand, however, is why we care.
other than people who get it through donated blood and other methods
through no fault of their own (which i suspect is a minority), and
prostitutes, people in this country get aids through not using a condom
properly and having sex with too many random people, meaning it is their
own fault, and i don't see why they deserve a day all to themselves.
so the issue is really with africa, where it is a huge problem, where the
education behind contraception isn't present and where rape is often used
as a tool of war.
so why isn't it "world stop wars in africa day"?
this would help solve the aids problem, *and* help stop the almost
monthly reports of fighting and genocide from various parts of africa.
why do people care more about AIDS than war?

Ha ha, that's a surprisingly ignorant post from you... are you playing
devil's advocate to try and get a good old heated debate going?

No, I'm simply saying that I believe war and conflict to be a bigger problem
in Africa than AIDs, indeed, it is a cause of AIDs in many cases, so why
isn't more effort being put into that?

There are no wars that I know of in South Africa, yet over 50% of the
population have aids (or are HIV positive, can't really remember which,
this is according to someone who lives there, not the official figure I
believe). And anyway, how do you propose the wars are stopped? Have
the Americans invade to make things better? There are still plenty of
other third world countries which have (admittedly less) AIDs problems,
due to lack of knowledge about safe practices and stuff.

Also by your logic of people not being careful why is it ok if
prostitutes get aids? And I'm sure it's not a small minority (perhaps a
minority) that get it despite being careful, what about people who's
partners sleep around without their knowledge and stuff like that?

Anyway, I think blaming it on the catholic church is the best idea :-).

[Samsonknight]

Ian, are you related to "Dubya" in anyway or form?

[Ian B.]

Post by Samsonknight
Ian, are you related to "Dubya" in anyway or form?

Dunno, maybe, my Dad has some great story about from one of our
relatives tracing back our family tree and says we and "Dubya" both go
back to somewhere in England, Chester, or Chesunt, or somewhere like
that. But I've never found out whether or not it's true or just one of
his joke stories. I'll have to ask him about it and get back to you.

Answers like that is what you get for making stupid, unoriginal jokes
I'm afraid ;-).

[Samsonknight]

Post by Samsonknight
Ian, are you related to "Dubya" in anyway or form?

Dunno, maybe, my Dad has some great story about from one of our relatives
tracing back our family tree and says we and "Dubya" both go back to
somewhere in England, Chester, or Chesunt, or somewhere like that. But
I've never found out whether or not it's true or just one of his joke
stories. I'll have to ask him about it and get back to you.
Answers like that is what you get for making stupid, unoriginal jokes I'm
afraid ;-).

.......blahhhhhhhh!

[coybow carl]

Post by Ian B.

Post by cowboy carl

Post by Ian B.

Post by cowboy carl
whoa....
so world aids day was wednesday.
seemed a lot more 'popular' than ever before.
what i don't understand, however, is why we care.
other than people who get it through donated blood and other methods
through no fault of their own (which i suspect is a minority), and
prostitutes, people in this country get aids through not using a condom
properly and having sex with too many random people, meaning it is their
own fault, and i don't see why they deserve a day all to themselves.
so the issue is really with africa, where it is a huge problem, where
the education behind contraception isn't present and where rape is often
used as a tool of war.
so why isn't it "world stop wars in africa day"?
this would help solve the aids problem, *and* help stop the almost
monthly reports of fighting and genocide from various parts of africa.
why do people care more about AIDS than war?

Ha ha, that's a surprisingly ignorant post from you... are you playing
devil's advocate to try and get a good old heated debate going?

No, I'm simply saying that I believe war and conflict to be a bigger
problem in Africa than AIDs, indeed, it is a cause of AIDs in many cases,
so why isn't more effort being put into that?

There are no wars that I know of in South Africa, yet over 50% of the
population have aids (or are HIV positive, can't really remember which,
this is according to someone who lives there, not the official figure I
believe).

Well okay, but that still doesn't really answer my question, why do we care?

I'm not saying we shouldn't care, of course we should. But it's very unlike
people to care about things going on in other countries, especially African
countries. So I was wondering what this little outburst was all about, and
why it was especially noticeable this year.

Post by Ian B.
And anyway, how do you propose the wars are stopped? Have the Americans
invade to make things better? There are still plenty of other third world
countries which have (admittedly less) AIDs problems, due to lack of
knowledge about safe practices and stuff.

I don't propose invasion as a means to end wars. Things would probably get
way worse if white soilders went in to take over African governments and
impose their rules on the people of Africa (again).

But imagine if, given that each cruise missile costs $1 million or whatever,
imagine if just half the money of a war was spent on diplomatic efforts,
*actual* diplomatic efforts (i.e. kidnap a bunch of warring leaders and lock
them in a room and don't let them out until they agree on something).

Anyway, that's a side rant, on the education/lack of knoweldge issue, how is
it that hard?

If 50% of the people have AIDS/HIV then is it possible that people living
there still don't know how it is transferred from person to person?

Post by Ian B.
Also by your logic of people not being careful why is it ok if prostitutes
get aids?

It's not ... well, unless they choose to be prostitutes, in which case they
accecpt the risks which come with the job.

But as far as I know, most people who are prostitutes didn't choose to be.

Post by Ian B.
And I'm sure it's not a small minority (perhaps a minority) that get it
despite being careful, what about people who's partners sleep around
without their knowledge and stuff like that?

Well that's deeply unfortunate, and in that case it is entirely the fault of
the person who is sleeping around.

Not sure what can be done there to protect the 'innocent' ... perhaps make
it illegal to lie to your partner about your sex life?

Post by Ian B.
Anyway, I think blaming it on the catholic church is the best idea :-)

Well I'm not at all religious, but abstince seems by far the best way to
prevent the spread of STDs :)


On an interesting and not entirely unrelated note, I was told by a medic
friend of mine today that step-fathers are 400 times more likely to assult
their step-children than regular fathers ... for the same reasons as a lion
kills the cubs of a previous lion when he takes over as the mate of the
lioness.

Makes you wonder to what extent our genes and our instincts are still
affecting our behaviour, and whether we can be held accountable for actions
determined by millions of years of evolution.



And on a completely unrelated philosophical note, I was wondering whether
consiousness (whatever that is) can exist without memory. Without any
memory whatsoever. Am I still a "thinking thing" if I don't remember my
thoughts, if the only thing I can think of is what I am thinking "now"? Or
am I only reacting to instinct now, I feel hungry so I go in search of food,
without being able to think "ah, I saw food in the fridge half an hour ago".

And what about if I was an early human, before language was developed ...
because we seem to think in our language, so what if we hadn't developed
language ... would we still be able to think? Can you think without
language?

If not, then are we morally allowed to kill animals which don't think/have a
language (such as cows and chickens) and eat them for food?

Can we kill and eat babies before they develop language?

How about if we met an early human who couldn't speak ... could we treat it
like we treat animals like cows and sheep?

cc

[Robert de Vincy]

coybow carl wrote:

[snip]

Post by coybow carl
And on a completely unrelated philosophical note, I was wondering
whether consiousness (whatever that is) can exist without memory.
Without any memory whatsoever. Am I still a "thinking thing" if I
don't remember my thoughts, if the only thing I can think of is what I
am thinking "now"? Or am I only reacting to instinct now, I feel
hungry so I go in search of food, without being able to think "ah, I
saw food in the fridge half an hour ago".
And what about if I was an early human, before language was developed
... because we seem to think in our language, so what if we hadn't
developed language ... would we still be able to think? Can you think
without language?

Hello, "carl", and welcome to the world of RdV's Linguistics dissertation!

Post by coybow carl
If not, then are we morally allowed to kill animals which don't
think/have a language (such as cows and chickens) and eat them for
food?
Can we kill and eat babies before they develop language?
How about if we met an early human who couldn't speak ... could we
treat it like we treat animals like cows and sheep?

I think the error here is in thinking about a zygote/fetus/baby sequence
(or australopithecine/h.habilis/h.ergaster/h.sapiens sequence) as:
not human...
not human...
not human...
still not human...
NOW IT'S HUMAN!!!! <== when it's reached a certain stage in development
human...
human...

There are no clear delineating borders that upon instantly crossing you
can be called the next thing in the sequence. It's a gradual process of
change, with the terms we have being convenient labels to mark certain
points along that continuum of change that are sufficiently apart that
we could take an example from one and an example from another and see a
marked difference.

I can't remember which one it was, but one of Richard Dawkins's books
mentions some thought experiment about lining up your female ancestors
and getting them to hold hands, going from the nearest stretching out to
the furthest back. (He was making the point that in geographical terms
it would be hardly anything before you reached the ancestor you share
with chimpanzees.) But the point to apply here is that if you walked
along that line, you wouldn't be able to pass an ancestor and then
immediately separate her from *her* ancestor and declare "Right, this
is where humans end."

What I want to try to put across (but can't find the perfect words for)
is that every point along that (phylogenetic or ontogenetic) line is a
version of the thing it will eventually become. (See? That still sounds
wrong!) I guess some wise-arse will come along and say "So, some prokaryote
cell 3.7 billion years is still a human, is that what you're saying?" and
to that, I'd have to say:
1. Yes, if you follow the history of that cell for another X billion years.
But:
2. No, because you're comparing us now with something that existed 3.7
billion years ago.
It's like looking at the two ends of Dawkins's 'ancestor' line in the
example above... of course the two end points are different species! But
only if you look at the line in that way. Look at it sequentially, and
the line takes on a different property and shape.

[coybow carl]

Post by Robert de Vincy
[snip]

Post by coybow carl
And on a completely unrelated philosophical note, I was wondering
whether consiousness (whatever that is) can exist without memory.
Without any memory whatsoever. Am I still a "thinking thing" if I
don't remember my thoughts, if the only thing I can think of is what I
am thinking "now"? Or am I only reacting to instinct now, I feel
hungry so I go in search of food, without being able to think "ah, I
saw food in the fridge half an hour ago".
And what about if I was an early human, before language was developed
... because we seem to think in our language, so what if we hadn't
developed language ... would we still be able to think? Can you think
without language?

Hello, "carl", and welcome to the world of RdV's Linguistics dissertation!

Post by coybow carl
If not, then are we morally allowed to kill animals which don't
think/have a language (such as cows and chickens) and eat them for
food?
Can we kill and eat babies before they develop language?
How about if we met an early human who couldn't speak ... could we
treat it like we treat animals like cows and sheep?

I think the error here is in thinking about a zygote/fetus/baby sequence
not human...
not human...
not human...
still not human...
NOW IT'S HUMAN!!!! <== when it's reached a certain stage in development
human...
human...

I was thinking more about consiousness rather than humanness, and that
people seem to have a problem with killing things that exhibit consciousness
(such as dogs, which appear to have emotions).

But perhaps the same thing can be applied. Perhaps there are degrees of
consciousness, rather than a single spark which seperates consious
"thinking" beings from unconscious "unthinking" beings.

Which means Descartes "I am thinking, therefore I am" is a necessary but not
a sufficient condition for consciousness.

I managed to convince myself last night that I wasn't properly conscious,
that it was an illusion, and there was very little difference between me and
a rabid dog.

Post by Robert de Vincy
There are no clear delineating borders that upon instantly crossing you
can be called the next thing in the sequence. It's a gradual process of
change, with the terms we have being convenient labels to mark certain
points along that continuum of change that are sufficiently apart that
we could take an example from one and an example from another and see a
marked difference.
I can't remember which one it was, but one of Richard Dawkins's books
mentions some thought experiment about lining up your female ancestors
and getting them to hold hands, going from the nearest stretching out to
the furthest back. (He was making the point that in geographical terms
it would be hardly anything before you reached the ancestor you share
with chimpanzees.) But the point to apply here is that if you walked
along that line, you wouldn't be able to pass an ancestor and then
immediately separate her from *her* ancestor and declare "Right, this
is where humans end."
What I want to try to put across (but can't find the perfect words for)
is that every point along that (phylogenetic or ontogenetic) line is a
version of the thing it will eventually become. (See? That still sounds
wrong!) I guess some wise-arse will come along and say "So, some prokaryote
cell 3.7 billion years is still a human, is that what you're saying?" and
1. Yes, if you follow the history of that cell for another X billion years.
2. No, because you're comparing us now with something that existed 3.7
billion years ago.
It's like looking at the two ends of Dawkins's 'ancestor' line in the
example above... of course the two end points are different species! But
only if you look at the line in that way. Look at it sequentially, and
the line takes on a different property and shape.

Fascinating stuff :) But I was more concerned with behaviour.

But what you say still applies, there might not be any way to define the
point where a person has to take responsibility for their actions. Maybe
it's like porn ... you know it when you see it.

Heh, and all these arguments about whether the voting age should be 16 or
18, and when someone should be considered an 'adult' ... why don't they
just all compromise and make it 17?


Anyway, am I the only one who finds it extremely disconerting not knowing
whether or not I am conscious? And whether other people I talk to are
conscious? And whether my pillow is conscious?

cc

[Robert de Vincy]

coybow carl did write:

[snips]

Post by coybow carl

Post by Robert de Vincy
[snip]

Post by coybow carl
And on a completely unrelated philosophical note, I was wondering
whether consiousness (whatever that is) can exist without memory.
Without any memory whatsoever. Am I still a "thinking thing" if I
don't remember my thoughts, if the only thing I can think of is what
I am thinking "now"? Or am I only reacting to instinct now, I feel
hungry so I go in search of food, without being able to think "ah, I
saw food in the fridge half an hour ago".
And what about if I was an early human, before language was
developed ... because we seem to think in our language, so what if
we hadn't developed language ... would we still be able to think?
Can you think without language?

Hello, "carl", and welcome to the world of RdV's Linguistics
dissertation!

Post by coybow carl
If not, then are we morally allowed to kill animals which don't
think/have a language (such as cows and chickens) and eat them for
food?
Can we kill and eat babies before they develop language?
How about if we met an early human who couldn't speak ... could we
treat it like we treat animals like cows and sheep?

I think the error here is in thinking about a zygote/fetus/baby
sequence (or australopithecine/h.habilis/h.ergaster/h.sapiens
sequence) as: not human...
not human...
not human...
still not human...
NOW IT'S HUMAN!!!! <== when it's reached a certain stage in
development human...
human...

I was thinking more about consiousness rather than humanness, and that
people seem to have a problem with killing things that exhibit
consciousness (such as dogs, which appear to have emotions).
But perhaps the same thing can be applied. Perhaps there are degrees
of consciousness, rather than a single spark which seperates consious
"thinking" beings from unconscious "unthinking" beings.

Yes, that's what I was hinting at.

I, personally, don't believe that there's a discontinuity between "animal
consciousness" and "human consciousness". That is, there isn't, as you
say, some single spark of life that draws a clear line between one and
the other.
It's a question of degree, not of kind. An amoeba still has consciousness
but of a restricted sort compared to, say, a rabbit. And a rabbit has,
equally, a restricted type of consciousness when compared to humans.
But taken on a case-by-base basis, they all exhibit a consciousness that
enables them to survive in their environments. It seems, on first
appearances, that humans have developed to a level of consciousness where
we have more than we really need. Or have we? Maybe we *do* need this
level of consciousness in order to survive in the social environment we've
created. Therein lies a whole heap of research, speculation, and hotly-
fought debate.

Post by coybow carl
Which means Descartes "I am thinking, therefore I am" is a necessary
but not a sufficient condition for consciousness.
I managed to convince myself last night that I wasn't properly
conscious, that it was an illusion, and there was very little
difference between me and a rabid dog.

But who was "me"? Were you (are you) not your consciousness?

[coybow carl]

Post by Robert de Vincy
[snips]

Post by coybow carl

Post by Robert de Vincy
[snip]

Post by coybow carl
And on a completely unrelated philosophical note, I was wondering
whether consiousness (whatever that is) can exist without memory.
Without any memory whatsoever. Am I still a "thinking thing" if I
don't remember my thoughts, if the only thing I can think of is what
I am thinking "now"? Or am I only reacting to instinct now, I feel
hungry so I go in search of food, without being able to think "ah, I
saw food in the fridge half an hour ago".
And what about if I was an early human, before language was
developed ... because we seem to think in our language, so what if
we hadn't developed language ... would we still be able to think?
Can you think without language?

Hello, "carl", and welcome to the world of RdV's Linguistics
dissertation!

Post by coybow carl
If not, then are we morally allowed to kill animals which don't
think/have a language (such as cows and chickens) and eat them for
food?
Can we kill and eat babies before they develop language?
How about if we met an early human who couldn't speak ... could we
treat it like we treat animals like cows and sheep?

I think the error here is in thinking about a zygote/fetus/baby
sequence (or australopithecine/h.habilis/h.ergaster/h.sapiens
sequence) as: not human...
not human...
not human...
still not human...
NOW IT'S HUMAN!!!! <== when it's reached a certain stage in
development human...
human...

I was thinking more about consiousness rather than humanness, and that
people seem to have a problem with killing things that exhibit
consciousness (such as dogs, which appear to have emotions).
But perhaps the same thing can be applied. Perhaps there are degrees
of consciousness, rather than a single spark which seperates consious
"thinking" beings from unconscious "unthinking" beings.

Yes, that's what I was hinting at.
I, personally, don't believe that there's a discontinuity between "animal
consciousness" and "human consciousness". That is, there isn't, as you
say, some single spark of life that draws a clear line between one and
the other.
It's a question of degree, not of kind. An amoeba still has consciousness
but of a restricted sort compared to, say, a rabbit. And a rabbit has,
equally, a restricted type of consciousness when compared to humans.
But taken on a case-by-base basis, they all exhibit a consciousness that
enables them to survive in their environments. It seems, on first
appearances, that humans have developed to a level of consciousness where
we have more than we really need. Or have we? Maybe we *do* need this
level of consciousness in order to survive in the social environment we've
created. Therein lies a whole heap of research, speculation, and hotly-
fought debate.

Post by coybow carl
Which means Descartes "I am thinking, therefore I am" is a necessary
but not a sufficient condition for consciousness.
I managed to convince myself last night that I wasn't properly
conscious, that it was an illusion, and there was very little
difference between me and a rabid dog.

But who was "me"? Were you (are you) not your consciousness?

Who am I?

It's a good question.

And what are "conscious decisions"?

I thought it whilst I was getting ready for bed ... brushing my teeth etc,
and I thought "Why am I doing this? Is it because I made a "high" conscious
decision to, the kind of decisions humans can make but lions can't? Or is
it just a natural thing, like lions and cats groom themselves to try and
make themselves more attractive to other lions and cats?"

The problem with Darwin's theory of evolution is that it is too good, it
explains every aspect of human behaviour, or rather, every aspect of human
behavior can be explained in terms of Darwin's theory.

Everything from love to eating chocolate biscuits.

Except perhaps depression, and suicidal thoughts.


Would/did Popper accecpt Darwin's theory as 'scientific'? (This is
something which came up in our Philosophy tutorial btw, I'm not smart enough
to have seen the connection on my own ;))


But anyway, that's getting away from my point.

My point is, what am I ... if you write off actions I do without thinking,
like cleaning myself, and eating, and getting dressed, then all that is left
seems to be the work that I do ... things I do which require lots of
"conscious thought" (such as trying to figure out answers to my maths
coursework, or dealing with abstract ideas).

The parts of me which are mechanical (seeing a sachet of ketchup from burger
king on my desk, and wanting to eat it, then actually eating it) aren't a
part of the "higher me" which I normally refer to as "me".


When I wrote that I had convinced myself I wasn't conscious btw, I had
forgotton about the just-sitting-thinking part of me.

Perhaps I am conscious ... just not most of the time.

cc

[coybow carl]

Post by coybow carl

Post by Robert de Vincy
[snips]

Post by coybow carl

Post by Robert de Vincy
[snip]

Post by coybow carl
And on a completely unrelated philosophical note, I was wondering
whether consiousness (whatever that is) can exist without memory.
Without any memory whatsoever. Am I still a "thinking thing" if I
don't remember my thoughts, if the only thing I can think of is what
I am thinking "now"? Or am I only reacting to instinct now, I feel
hungry so I go in search of food, without being able to think "ah, I
saw food in the fridge half an hour ago".
And what about if I was an early human, before language was
developed ... because we seem to think in our language, so what if
we hadn't developed language ... would we still be able to think?
Can you think without language?

Hello, "carl", and welcome to the world of RdV's Linguistics dissertation!

Post by coybow carl
If not, then are we morally allowed to kill animals which don't
think/have a language (such as cows and chickens) and eat them for
food?
Can we kill and eat babies before they develop language?
How about if we met an early human who couldn't speak ... could we
treat it like we treat animals like cows and sheep?

I think the error here is in thinking about a zygote/fetus/baby
sequence (or australopithecine/h.habilis/h.ergaster/h.sapiens
sequence) as: not human...
not human...
not human...
still not human...
NOW IT'S HUMAN!!!! <== when it's reached a certain stage in
development human...
human...

I was thinking more about consiousness rather than humanness, and that
people seem to have a problem with killing things that exhibit
consciousness (such as dogs, which appear to have emotions).
But perhaps the same thing can be applied. Perhaps there are degrees
of consciousness, rather than a single spark which seperates consious
"thinking" beings from unconscious "unthinking" beings.

Yes, that's what I was hinting at.
I, personally, don't believe that there's a discontinuity between "animal
consciousness" and "human consciousness". That is, there isn't, as you
say, some single spark of life that draws a clear line between one and
the other.
It's a question of degree, not of kind. An amoeba still has
consciousness
but of a restricted sort compared to, say, a rabbit. And a rabbit has,
equally, a restricted type of consciousness when compared to humans.
But taken on a case-by-base basis, they all exhibit a consciousness that
enables them to survive in their environments. It seems, on first
appearances, that humans have developed to a level of consciousness where
we have more than we really need. Or have we? Maybe we *do* need this
level of consciousness in order to survive in the social environment we've
created. Therein lies a whole heap of research, speculation, and hotly-
fought debate.

Post by coybow carl
Which means Descartes "I am thinking, therefore I am" is a necessary
but not a sufficient condition for consciousness.
I managed to convince myself last night that I wasn't properly
conscious, that it was an illusion, and there was very little
difference between me and a rabid dog.

But who was "me"? Were you (are you) not your consciousness?

Who am I?
It's a good question.
And what are "conscious decisions"?
I thought it whilst I was getting ready for bed ... brushing my teeth etc,
and I thought "Why am I doing this? Is it because I made a "high"
conscious decision to, the kind of decisions humans can make but lions
can't? Or is it just a natural thing, like lions and cats groom
themselves to try and make themselves more attractive to other lions and
cats?"
The problem with Darwin's theory of evolution is that it is too good, it
explains every aspect of human behaviour, or rather, every aspect of human
behavior can be explained in terms of Darwin's theory.
Everything from love to eating chocolate biscuits.
Except perhaps depression, and suicidal thoughts.

I stand corrected...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide#Evolutionary_explanations

They've even figured out a way to make suicide fit in with evolution.

cc

[Rachel]

<snip>

http://maddox.xmission.com/c.cgi?u=pseudo

*grin*

[cowboy carl]

Post by Rachel
<snip>
http://maddox.xmission.com/c.cgi?u=pseudo
*grin*

hehe

i used to think that

but actually those words are incredibly useful.

really.

[Robert de Vincy]

Post by cowboy carl

Post by Rachel
<snip>
http://maddox.xmission.com/c.cgi?u=pseudo
*grin*

hehe
i used to think that
but actually those words are incredibly useful.
really.

I agree. But only when used correctly. I think the people that the
page is ranting against are those who just throw long words about like
confetti at an intellectual wedding, hoping that some will stick to the
bride.

Or something like that. Maybe with a better metaphor. (I haven't worked
out what the bride represents.)

[Ian B.]

Post by coybow carl

Post by Ian B.

Post by cowboy carl

Post by Ian B.

Post by cowboy carl
whoa....
so world aids day was wednesday.
seemed a lot more 'popular' than ever before.
what i don't understand, however, is why we care.
other than people who get it through donated blood and other methods
through no fault of their own (which i suspect is a minority), and
prostitutes, people in this country get aids through not using a condom
properly and having sex with too many random people, meaning it is their
own fault, and i don't see why they deserve a day all to themselves.
so the issue is really with africa, where it is a huge problem, where
the education behind contraception isn't present and where rape is often
used as a tool of war.
so why isn't it "world stop wars in africa day"?
this would help solve the aids problem, *and* help stop the almost
monthly reports of fighting and genocide from various parts of africa.
why do people care more about AIDS than war?

Ha ha, that's a surprisingly ignorant post from you... are you playing
devil's advocate to try and get a good old heated debate going?

No, I'm simply saying that I believe war and conflict to be a bigger
problem in Africa than AIDs, indeed, it is a cause of AIDs in many cases,
so why isn't more effort being put into that?

There are no wars that I know of in South Africa, yet over 50% of the
population have aids (or are HIV positive, can't really remember which,
this is according to someone who lives there, not the official figure I
believe).

Well okay, but that still doesn't really answer my question, why do we care?
I'm not saying we shouldn't care, of course we should. But it's very unlike
people to care about things going on in other countries, especially African
countries. So I was wondering what this little outburst was all about, and
why it was especially noticeable this year.

Why do you say it was more noticeable this year? The only place I
noticed it mentioned was IC stuff, advertisements of the events in
e-mails and Felix and the like. Obviously I don't know if this is more
or less than previous years. But anyway, we often care about things
just because they are in the media a lot (as HIV/AIDS is).

Post by coybow carl

Post by Ian B.
And anyway, how do you propose the wars are stopped? Have the Americans
invade to make things better? There are still plenty of other third world
countries which have (admittedly less) AIDs problems, due to lack of
knowledge about safe practices and stuff.

I don't propose invasion as a means to end wars. Things would probably get
way worse if white soilders went in to take over African governments and
impose their rules on the people of Africa (again).
But imagine if, given that each cruise missile costs $1 million or whatever,
imagine if just half the money of a war was spent on diplomatic efforts,
*actual* diplomatic efforts (i.e. kidnap a bunch of warring leaders and lock
them in a room and don't let them out until they agree on something).
Anyway, that's a side rant, on the education/lack of knoweldge issue, how is
it that hard?
If 50% of the people have AIDS/HIV then is it possible that people living
there still don't know how it is transferred from person to person?

Heh, the best diplomatic efforts, even if they stopped all the wars,
wouldn't solve the AIDS problem though. May help to slow it a little,
but not significantly.

Post by coybow carl

Post by Ian B.
Also by your logic of people not being careful why is it ok if prostitutes
get aids?

It's not ... well, unless they choose to be prostitutes, in which case they
accecpt the risks which come with the job.
But as far as I know, most people who are prostitutes didn't choose to be.

Well, on some level they must choose to be. And why can't they use
protection?

Post by coybow carl

Post by Ian B.
And I'm sure it's not a small minority (perhaps a minority) that get it
despite being careful, what about people who's partners sleep around
without their knowledge and stuff like that?

Well that's deeply unfortunate, and in that case it is entirely the fault of
the person who is sleeping around.
Not sure what can be done there to protect the 'innocent' ... perhaps make
it illegal to lie to your partner about your sex life?

I'm sure there's a story about someone who sued their partner
(successfully) cause he slept around and gave her an STD.

Post by coybow carl

Post by Ian B.
Anyway, I think blaming it on the catholic church is the best idea :-)

Well I'm not at all religious, but abstince seems by far the best way to
prevent the spread of STDs :)
On an interesting and not entirely unrelated note, I was told by a medic
friend of mine today that step-fathers are 400 times more likely to assult
their step-children than regular fathers ... for the same reasons as a lion
kills the cubs of a previous lion when he takes over as the mate of the
lioness.
Makes you wonder to what extent our genes and our instincts are still
affecting our behaviour, and whether we can be held accountable for actions
determined by millions of years of evolution.

Well, all our actions are determined by evolution really aren't they?
I'm sure if you go far enough into accountability no-one can really be
accountable for anything, unless you believe in all that free will
rubbish ;-).

Post by coybow carl
And on a completely unrelated philosophical note, I was wondering whether
consiousness (whatever that is) can exist without memory. Without any
memory whatsoever. Am I still a "thinking thing" if I don't remember my
thoughts, if the only thing I can think of is what I am thinking "now"? Or
am I only reacting to instinct now, I feel hungry so I go in search of food,
without being able to think "ah, I saw food in the fridge half an hour ago".
And what about if I was an early human, before language was developed ...
because we seem to think in our language, so what if we hadn't developed
language ... would we still be able to think? Can you think without
language?
If not, then are we morally allowed to kill animals which don't think/have a
language (such as cows and chickens) and eat them for food?
Can we kill and eat babies before they develop language?
How about if we met an early human who couldn't speak ... could we treat it
like we treat animals like cows and sheep?

Nope, we probably can't think without a language see:
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/031226.html. You must have to have
some memory for consciousness to exist surely, else you'd be unable to
think. Probably best not to start eating babies or early humans
though... the distinction between them and animals is blurred, as BdeV
points out. But animals possibly don't have a consciousness, and they
taste nice, so it's probably ok. Of course cruelty from hunting with
hounds must be wrong though, even though it's ok to treat 'em like crap
in farms.

[Robert de Vincy]

Ian B. did write:

[snip]

Post by Ian B.
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/031226.html.

I wish it were that simple to answer!

You have to define "thinking" first. Clearly state what mental processes
constitute thinking and what don't (and why). Then test those processes
for language-less operation.

As a quick list of counter-examples:
- recognising a face
- solving a jigsaw puzzle
- fastening the clasp on a necklace
- aiming-and-throwing actions
Yes, sure, language can accompany those things, but is language *essential*
to them?

But there is one thing that is common to them all that might set them
off from requiring language, and that's the basis for the argument in my
to-be-completed dissertation. (Actually, I'm approaching it from the
other side -- what is common to the things I would not put in that list --
but that's neither here nor there.)

Post by Ian B.
But animals possibly don't have a consciousness, and they taste nice,
so it's probably ok.

Take an earthworm and prod it gently. It reacts to get itself away from
the potential threat. Is it thinking to itself "Oh, prodding! I'd better
get away from here!"? No. But it *is* aware that there is a danger to
itself and it takes appropriate steps to minimize that danger. That, of
a sort, is consciousness. So it's not like it's All-Or-Nothing, but
rather Different-Levels-Of.

[Ian B.]

Post by Robert de Vincy
[snip]

Post by Ian B.
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/031226.html.

I wish it were that simple to answer!
You have to define "thinking" first. Clearly state what mental processes
constitute thinking and what don't (and why). Then test those processes
for language-less operation.
- recognising a face
- solving a jigsaw puzzle
- fastening the clasp on a necklace
- aiming-and-throwing actions
Yes, sure, language can accompany those things, but is language *essential*
to them?
But there is one thing that is common to them all that might set them
off from requiring language, and that's the basis for the argument in my
to-be-completed dissertation. (Actually, I'm approaching it from the
other side -- what is common to the things I would not put in that list --
but that's neither here nor there.)

You have to define "language" first perhaps? A computer/robot could do
all of the above, and you wouldn't say they're conscious/thinking, but
maybe you could say they use a language? I'm sure we could generally
agree though that many complex thought processes require a language to
operate.

Post by Robert de Vincy

Post by Ian B.
But animals possibly don't have a consciousness, and they taste nice,
so it's probably ok.

Take an earthworm and prod it gently. It reacts to get itself away from
the potential threat. Is it thinking to itself "Oh, prodding! I'd better
get away from here!"? No. But it *is* aware that there is a danger to
itself and it takes appropriate steps to minimize that danger. That, of
a sort, is consciousness. So it's not like it's All-Or-Nothing, but
rather Different-Levels-Of.

Hmm, you have an interesting point, if you gradually add all of our
reactions to the world around us together we get what our consciousness
is. Quite a thing to think about.

[coybow carl]

Post by coybow carl
Well okay, but that still doesn't really answer my question, why do we care?
I'm not saying we shouldn't care, of course we should. But it's very
unlike people to care about things going on in other countries,
especially African countries. So I was wondering what this little
outburst was all about, and why it was especially noticeable this year.

Why do you say it was more noticeable this year? The only place I noticed
it mentioned was IC stuff, advertisements of the events in e-mails and
Felix and the like. Obviously I don't know if this is more or less than
previous years. But anyway, we often care about things just because they
are in the media a lot (as HIV/AIDS is).

Well I've just seen more people wearing those little ribbons, and I'm pretty
sure it wasn't as publicised last year, but it's difficult to tell for sure.
Maybe I just didn't notice it before.

Post by coybow carl

Post by Ian B.
And anyway, how do you propose the wars are stopped? Have the Americans
invade to make things better? There are still plenty of other third
world countries which have (admittedly less) AIDs problems, due to lack
of knowledge about safe practices and stuff.

I don't propose invasion as a means to end wars. Things would probably
get way worse if white soilders went in to take over African governments
and impose their rules on the people of Africa (again).
But imagine if, given that each cruise missile costs $1 million or
whatever, imagine if just half the money of a war was spent on diplomatic
efforts, *actual* diplomatic efforts (i.e. kidnap a bunch of warring
leaders and lock them in a room and don't let them out until they agree
on something).
Anyway, that's a side rant, on the education/lack of knoweldge issue, how
is it that hard?
If 50% of the people have AIDS/HIV then is it possible that people living
there still don't know how it is transferred from person to person?

Heh, the best diplomatic efforts, even if they stopped all the wars,
wouldn't solve the AIDS problem though. May help to slow it a little, but
not significantly.

Well if you stopped all wars, and all rape, then the only people left who
would be getting and spreading AIDS is people who have promiscuous
unprotected sex (can you say promiscuous sex?) and those who have little
knowledge of how to have sex safely, know that it is dangerous, yet do it
anyway.

For the first set of people, I don't think they deserve a day all to
themselves ... it would be like giving a whole day to remember people who
died in gun accidents ... whilst sad, they are using guns of their own free
will and they know the risks.

For the second set, I think this group must be quite small, and stupid.

The only group I would have proper sympathy for is those for whom the
message hasn't yet reached them, that sex spreads AIDS, but I can't imagine
there are very many of these. Maybe there are, I dunno, I'm just sitting
here thinking (or am I), I don't know much about the reality of sex
education in places like South Africa.

Post by coybow carl

Post by Ian B.
Also by your logic of people not being careful why is it ok if
prostitutes get aids?

It's not ... well, unless they choose to be prostitutes, in which case
they accecpt the risks which come with the job.
But as far as I know, most people who are prostitutes didn't choose to be.

Well, on some level they must choose to be. And why can't they use
protection?

On the level that they are given no other option, excepet being beaten and
thrown into the street.

And they can, and should, use protection, but accidents happen (euwwww) and
if they happen 1 time in 1000, then depending on how busy the prostitute is,
then it will probably happen sooner or later.

Post by coybow carl

Post by Ian B.
And I'm sure it's not a small minority (perhaps a minority) that get it
despite being careful, what about people who's partners sleep around
without their knowledge and stuff like that?

Well that's deeply unfortunate, and in that case it is entirely the fault
of the person who is sleeping around.
Not sure what can be done there to protect the 'innocent' ... perhaps
make it illegal to lie to your partner about your sex life?

I'm sure there's a story about someone who sued their partner
(successfully) cause he slept around and gave her an STD.

Cool :)

Post by coybow carl

Post by Ian B.
Anyway, I think blaming it on the catholic church is the best idea :-)

Well I'm not at all religious, but abstince seems by far the best way to
prevent the spread of STDs :)
On an interesting and not entirely unrelated note, I was told by a medic
friend of mine today that step-fathers are 400 times more likely to
assult their step-children than regular fathers ... for the same reasons
as a lion kills the cubs of a previous lion when he takes over as the
mate of the lioness.
Makes you wonder to what extent our genes and our instincts are still
affecting our behaviour, and whether we can be held accountable for
actions determined by millions of years of evolution.

Well, all our actions are determined by evolution really aren't they? I'm
sure if you go far enough into accountability no-one can really be
accountable for anything, unless you believe in all that free will rubbish
;-).

Ug, don't get me started thinking about free will :-/

cc

[Alun Harford]

Post by coybow carl
For the second set, I think this group must be quite small, and stupid.

So if you've not been educated about something then you're stupid.

Post by coybow carl
I don't know much about the reality of sex
education in places like South Africa.

clearly.

Alun Harford

[Ian B.]

Post by coybow carl
Well I've just seen more people wearing those little ribbons, and I'm pretty
sure it wasn't as publicised last year, but it's difficult to tell for sure.
Maybe I just didn't notice it before.

I do remember shops and stuff selling ribbons in the past, so I dunno,
it's difficult to tell as you say.

Post by coybow carl
Well if you stopped all wars, and all rape, then the only people left who
would be getting and spreading AIDS is people who have promiscuous
unprotected sex (can you say promiscuous sex?) and those who have little
knowledge of how to have sex safely, know that it is dangerous, yet do it
anyway.
For the first set of people, I don't think they deserve a day all to
themselves ... it would be like giving a whole day to remember people who
died in gun accidents ... whilst sad, they are using guns of their own free
will and they know the risks.
For the second set, I think this group must be quite small, and stupid.
The only group I would have proper sympathy for is those for whom the
message hasn't yet reached them, that sex spreads AIDS, but I can't imagine
there are very many of these. Maybe there are, I dunno, I'm just sitting
here thinking (or am I), I don't know much about the reality of sex
education in places like South Africa.

I don't much either. But I think the attitude possibly gives the male
more control, such that maybe many women are affected against their will
but can't do an awful lot about it. E.g. husband "I don't want to wear
that" wife "ok".

Post by coybow carl
On the level that they are given no other option, excepet being beaten and
thrown into the street.
And they can, and should, use protection, but accidents happen (euwwww) and
if they happen 1 time in 1000, then depending on how busy the prostitute is,
then it will probably happen sooner or later.

So by this logic, a fair proportion of people who are careful but
promiscuous will be getting AIDS. Oh and the best argument - Mark
Fowler had it - and he was a nice enough chap, so we should care.

Post by coybow carl
Ug, don't get me started thinking about free will :-/

Sorry, but if I don't believe in it myself too much I can't help it if I
get you thinking about it can I now?

[jess]

"Ian B." wrote in message

Post by Ian B.

"Ian B." wrote in message

Well if you stopped all wars, and all rape, then the only people left
who would be getting and spreading AIDS is people who have promiscuous
unprotected sex (can you say promiscuous sex?)

wrong. you only have to have unprotected sex once to contract HIV. so should
you *always* use a condom?

what about if you want a baby? if you're in a committed relationship and use
another method of contraception?

what if the condom splits? this happens *often*.

even if you don't use a condom one time just out of stupidity, does that
mean that you deserve to get AIDS and so noone should have sympathy? i could
die crossing the road, does that mean that if i do everyone should look on
and say "stupid jessica, she should have known the dangers, she brought it
on herself?"

the point is, a *lot* of people know the dangers of unprotected sex, but
still have it anyway. which is why we need to increase awareness and ensure
people take notice of issues like AIDS.

and those who have
little knowledge of how to have sex safely, know that it is
dangerous, yet do it anyway.

i don't think this is a second group. i think the people who 'know that it's
dangerous' are in the first group. surely in the second group you just
include the people that don't know the dangers of unprotected sex?

The only group I would have proper sympathy for is those for whom the
message hasn't yet reached them, that sex spreads AIDS, but I can't
imagine there are very many of these. Maybe there are, I dunno, I'm
just sitting here thinking (or am I), I don't know much about the
reality of sex education in places like South Africa.

correct, you don't.

this is a place where many still believe that sex with a virgin will cure
AIDS.

Post by Ian B.

Post by Ian B.
Also by your logic of people not being careful why is it ok if
prostitutes get aids?

It's not ... well, unless they choose to be prostitutes, in which
case they accecpt the risks which come with the job.
But as far as I know, most people who are prostitutes didn't choose to be.

Well, on some level they must choose to be.

not really. if it's that or death, it's not much of a choice.

Post by Ian B.
And why can't they use
protection?

especially in africa, there's a lot of men who won't. you insist on condoms,
you end up with no customers. which, if you're depending on prostitution for
your livelihood, is not good.

or as alot of men prefer sex without a condom, the price for that is higher.
so women who start off saying "i'll only do x, and only with a condom" end
up at the thick end of the wedge pretty quickly. yes, it's ultimately *their
choice*, but can you not see how they fall into it? it's similar to porn,
where often girls will start off by saying "i'll only do heterosexual
vaginal intercourse with one person" and end up doing DP or spit roasts etc
etc.

[coybow carl]

Post by jess

"Ian B." wrote in message

Post by Ian B.

"Ian B." wrote in message

Well if you stopped all wars, and all rape, then the only people left
who would be getting and spreading AIDS is people who have promiscuous
unprotected sex (can you say promiscuous sex?)

wrong. you only have to have unprotected sex once to contract HIV. so
should you *always* use a condom?

if you don't trust the sexual history of the person you are sleeping with,
then yes.

Post by jess
what about if you want a baby? if you're in a committed relationship and
use another method of contraception?
what if the condom splits? this happens *often*.

if you are in a committed relationship, then you either trust the person
well enough to know they don't have HIV.

or if you know they have HIV but you still have sex with them, you are
subjecting yourself to known risks and it's your fault if things 'go wrong'.


if you are having protected sex with a random, chances are the condom won't
split (probability-wise)

however if you do it too often, chances are you will do it once where the
condom splits.

in which case, it is your fault, since you are pushing the odds.

you know the risks (having sex with a random + chances of a condom
splitting) so why shouldn't you accecpt full responsibilty for anything
which happens afterwards? (babies or HIV -- it could be argued that life is
a sexually transmitted disease, but we won't go there...)

Post by jess
even if you don't use a condom one time just out of stupidity, does that
mean that you deserve to get AIDS and so noone should have sympathy? i
could die crossing the road, does that mean that if i do everyone should
look on and say "stupid jessica, she should have known the dangers, she
brought it on herself?"

if you don't use a condom once out of stupidty, it doesn't mean you deserve
to get AIDS, but it means you don't deseve sympathy from me (as a random
person who wants to donate money to charity ... i would, of course, have
sympathy if this happened to someone i cared about).

crossing the road is generally a necessary part of everyday life.

having sex with random people who you don't know their sexual history of,
isn't.

you cannot compare the two.

Post by jess
the point is, a *lot* of people know the dangers of unprotected sex, but
still have it anyway. which is why we need to increase awareness and
ensure people take notice of issues like AIDS.

right. if awareness was raised, then don't you think less people would have
unprotected sex with randoms?

Post by jess

Post by Ian B.
And why can't they use
protection?

especially in africa, there's a lot of men who won't. you insist on
condoms, you end up with no customers. which, if you're depending on
prostitution for your livelihood, is not good.
or as alot of men prefer sex without a condom, the price for that is
higher. so women who start off saying "i'll only do x, and only with a
condom" end up at the thick end of the wedge pretty quickly. yes, it's
ultimately *their choice*, but can you not see how they fall into it? it's
similar to porn, where often girls will start off by saying "i'll only do
heterosexual vaginal intercourse with one person" and end up doing DP or
spit roasts etc etc.

DP?

:-/

unfortunatly, i know what a "spit roast" is :-/

cc

[Toby]

Post by coybow carl

Post by jess

"Ian B." wrote in message

Post by Ian B.

"Ian B." wrote in message

Well if you stopped all wars, and all rape, then the only people left
who would be getting and spreading AIDS is people who have promiscuous
unprotected sex (can you say promiscuous sex?)

wrong. you only have to have unprotected sex once to contract HIV. so
should you *always* use a condom?

if you don't trust the sexual history of the person you are sleeping with,
then yes.

Post by jess
what about if you want a baby? if you're in a committed relationship and
use another method of contraception?
what if the condom splits? this happens *often*.

if you are in a committed relationship, then you either trust the person
well enough to know they don't have HIV.
or if you know they have HIV but you still have sex with them, you are
subjecting yourself to known risks and it's your fault if things 'go wrong'.
if you are having protected sex with a random, chances are the condom won't
split (probability-wise)
however if you do it too often, chances are you will do it once where the
condom splits.
in which case, it is your fault, since you are pushing the odds.
you know the risks (having sex with a random + chances of a condom
splitting) so why shouldn't you accecpt full responsibilty for anything
which happens afterwards? (babies or HIV -- it could be argued that life is
a sexually transmitted disease, but we won't go there...)

Post by jess
even if you don't use a condom one time just out of stupidity, does that
mean that you deserve to get AIDS and so noone should have sympathy? i
could die crossing the road, does that mean that if i do everyone should
look on and say "stupid jessica, she should have known the dangers, she
brought it on herself?"

if you don't use a condom once out of stupidty, it doesn't mean you deserve
to get AIDS, but it means you don't deseve sympathy from me (as a random
person who wants to donate money to charity ... i would, of course, have
sympathy if this happened to someone i cared about).
crossing the road is generally a necessary part of everyday life.
having sex with random people who you don't know their sexual history of,
isn't.
you cannot compare the two.

Post by jess
the point is, a *lot* of people know the dangers of unprotected sex, but
still have it anyway. which is why we need to increase awareness and
ensure people take notice of issues like AIDS.

right. if awareness was raised, then don't you think less people would have
unprotected sex with randoms?

Post by jess

Post by Ian B.
And why can't they use
protection?

especially in africa, there's a lot of men who won't. you insist on
condoms, you end up with no customers. which, if you're depending on
prostitution for your livelihood, is not good.
or as alot of men prefer sex without a condom, the price for that is
higher. so women who start off saying "i'll only do x, and only with a
condom" end up at the thick end of the wedge pretty quickly. yes, it's
ultimately *their choice*, but can you not see how they fall into it? it's
similar to porn, where often girls will start off by saying "i'll only do
heterosexual vaginal intercourse with one person" and end up doing DP or
spit roasts etc etc.

DP?
:-/
unfortunatly, i know what a "spit roast" is :-/
cc

awwww man I just worked out DP, I believe....

[coybow carl]

Post by Toby

Post by coybow carl

Post by jess

"Ian B." wrote in message

Post by Ian B.

"Ian B." wrote in message

Well if you stopped all wars, and all rape, then the only people left
who would be getting and spreading AIDS is people who have promiscuous
unprotected sex (can you say promiscuous sex?)

wrong. you only have to have unprotected sex once to contract HIV. so
should you *always* use a condom?

if you don't trust the sexual history of the person you are sleeping with,
then yes.

Post by jess
what about if you want a baby? if you're in a committed relationship and
use another method of contraception?
what if the condom splits? this happens *often*.

if you are in a committed relationship, then you either trust the person
well enough to know they don't have HIV.
or if you know they have HIV but you still have sex with them, you are
subjecting yourself to known risks and it's your fault if things 'go wrong'.
if you are having protected sex with a random, chances are the condom won't
split (probability-wise)
however if you do it too often, chances are you will do it once where the
condom splits.
in which case, it is your fault, since you are pushing the odds.
you know the risks (having sex with a random + chances of a condom
splitting) so why shouldn't you accecpt full responsibilty for anything
which happens afterwards? (babies or HIV -- it could be argued that life is
a sexually transmitted disease, but we won't go there...)

Post by jess
even if you don't use a condom one time just out of stupidity, does that
mean that you deserve to get AIDS and so noone should have sympathy? i
could die crossing the road, does that mean that if i do everyone should
look on and say "stupid jessica, she should have known the dangers, she
brought it on herself?"

if you don't use a condom once out of stupidty, it doesn't mean you deserve
to get AIDS, but it means you don't deseve sympathy from me (as a random
person who wants to donate money to charity ... i would, of course, have
sympathy if this happened to someone i cared about).
crossing the road is generally a necessary part of everyday life.
having sex with random people who you don't know their sexual history of,
isn't.
you cannot compare the two.

Post by jess
the point is, a *lot* of people know the dangers of unprotected sex, but
still have it anyway. which is why we need to increase awareness and
ensure people take notice of issues like AIDS.

right. if awareness was raised, then don't you think less people would have
unprotected sex with randoms?

Post by jess

Post by Ian B.
And why can't they use
protection?

especially in africa, there's a lot of men who won't. you insist on
condoms, you end up with no customers. which, if you're depending on
prostitution for your livelihood, is not good.
or as alot of men prefer sex without a condom, the price for that is
higher. so women who start off saying "i'll only do x, and only with a
condom" end up at the thick end of the wedge pretty quickly. yes, it's
ultimately *their choice*, but can you not see how they fall into it? it's
similar to porn, where often girls will start off by saying "i'll only do
heterosexual vaginal intercourse with one person" and end up doing DP or
spit roasts etc etc.

DP?
:-/
unfortunatly, i know what a "spit roast" is :-/
cc

awwww man I just worked out DP, I believe....

hmmm, i'm guessing i should enjoy my ignorance and not try to think about
it.

cc

[Robert de Vincy]

DP?

Double Penetration.

You should try it some time...

[Toby]

Post by Robert de Vincy

DP?

Double Penetration.
You should try it some time...

he'd have to through either psychological or physiological changes
first, surely? ;)

[Robert de Vincy]

Post by Toby

Post by Robert de Vincy

DP?

Double Penetration.
You should try it some time...

he'd have to through either psychological or physiological changes
first, surely? ;)

Perhaps, but it might be worth the pain and/or expense.

[coybow carl]

Post by Robert de Vincy

DP?

Double Penetration.
You should try it some time...

I should?

:-/

What I am curious to know ... is how come Jess knows more about porn than I
do?

cc

[Robert de Vincy]

Post by coybow carl
What I am curious to know ... is how come Jess knows more about porn
than I do?

And why do some news-servers carry a group called
alt.uk.a-levels.lifeofjess ?

It could be a typo for "Jesus", but then... that would still be baffling.

[jess]

Post by Robert de Vincy

Post by coybow carl
What I am curious to know ... is how come Jess knows more about porn
than I do?

And why do some news-servers carry a group called
alt.uk.a-levels.lifeofjess ?
It could be a typo for "Jesus", but then... that would still be baffling.

i think alun or soeone else made it for me... i've never been able to see it
on my server though.

does anyone post there?

[Robert de Vincy]

Post by jess

Post by Robert de Vincy

Post by coybow carl
What I am curious to know ... is how come Jess knows more about porn
than I do?

And why do some news-servers carry a group called
alt.uk.a-levels.lifeofjess ?
It could be a typo for "Jesus", but then... that would still be baffling.

i think alun or soeone else made it for me... i've never been able to
see it on my server though.
does anyone post there?

There's nothing in it at the moment.

[Robert de Vincy]

Post by Robert de Vincy

Post by jess

Post by Robert de Vincy

Post by coybow carl
What I am curious to know ... is how come Jess knows more about porn
than I do?

And why do some news-servers carry a group called
alt.uk.a-levels.lifeofjess ?
It could be a typo for "Jesus", but then... that would still be baffling.

i think alun or soeone else made it for me... i've never been able to
see it on my server though.
does anyone post there?

There's nothing in it at the moment.

It now has one message.

[jess]

Post by Robert de Vincy

Post by Robert de Vincy

Post by jess

Post by Robert de Vincy

Post by coybow carl
What I am curious to know ... is how come Jess knows more about
porn than I do?

And why do some news-servers carry a group called
alt.uk.a-levels.lifeofjess ?
It could be a typo for "Jesus", but then... that would still be baffling.

i think alun or soeone else made it for me... i've never been able
to see it on my server though.
does anyone post there?

There's nothing in it at the moment.

It now has one message.

i wish the german server would carry it.

[jess]

Post by coybow carl

Post by jess

"Ian B." wrote in message

Post by Ian B.

"Ian B." wrote in message

Well if you stopped all wars, and all rape, then the only people
left who would be getting and spreading AIDS is people who have
promiscuous unprotected sex (can you say promiscuous sex?)

wrong. you only have to have unprotected sex once to contract HIV. so
should you *always* use a condom?

if you don't trust the sexual history of the person you are sleeping
with, then yes.

what if i trust the sexual history of the person i'm sleeping with, but they
cheat on me? how is that my fault?

Post by coybow carl

Post by jess
what about if you want a baby? if you're in a committed relationship
and use another method of contraception?
what if the condom splits? this happens *often*.

if you are in a committed relationship, then you either trust the
person well enough to know they don't have HIV.

? i could trust someone but they could have lied to me about this. how on
earth would i know?

Post by coybow carl
or if you know they have HIV but you still have sex with them, you are
subjecting yourself to known risks and it's your fault if things 'go wrong'.
if you are having protected sex with a random, chances are the condom
won't split (probability-wise)
however if you do it too often, chances are you will do it once where
the condom splits.
in which case, it is your fault, since you are pushing the odds.

i think that's ridiculous.

Post by coybow carl
you know the risks (having sex with a random + chances of a condom
splitting) so why shouldn't you accecpt full responsibilty for
anything which happens afterwards? (babies or HIV -- it could be
argued that life is a sexually transmitted disease, but we won't go
there...)

i accept the responsibility, i'm just saying that i don't think that i
deserve no sympathy.

Post by coybow carl

Post by jess
even if you don't use a condom one time just out of stupidity, does
that mean that you deserve to get AIDS and so noone should have
sympathy? i could die crossing the road, does that mean that if i do
everyone should look on and say "stupid jessica, she should have
known the dangers, she brought it on herself?"

if you don't use a condom once out of stupidty, it doesn't mean you
deserve to get AIDS, but it means you don't deseve sympathy from me
(as a random person who wants to donate money to charity ... i would,
of course, have sympathy if this happened to someone i cared about).
crossing the road is generally a necessary part of everyday life.
having sex with random people who you don't know their sexual history
of, isn't.
you cannot compare the two.

hmmm. but still, life is full of risks.

Post by coybow carl

Post by jess
the point is, a *lot* of people know the dangers of unprotected sex,
but still have it anyway. which is why we need to increase awareness
and ensure people take notice of issues like AIDS.

right. if awareness was raised, then don't you think less people
would have unprotected sex with randoms?

i don't know. i guess awareness is high in this country, but people are
getting blase about it.

Post by coybow carl

Post by jess

Post by Ian B.
And why can't they use
protection?

especially in africa, there's a lot of men who won't. you insist on
condoms, you end up with no customers. which, if you're depending on
prostitution for your livelihood, is not good.
or as alot of men prefer sex without a condom, the price for that is
higher. so women who start off saying "i'll only do x, and only with
a condom" end up at the thick end of the wedge pretty quickly. yes,
it's ultimately *their choice*, but can you not see how they fall
into it? it's similar to porn, where often girls will start off by
saying "i'll only do heterosexual vaginal intercourse with one
person" and end up doing DP or spit roasts etc etc.

DP?
:-/
unfortunatly, i know what a "spit roast" is :-/

as explained, dp is double penetration.

look it up. ;o)

[cowboy carl]

Post by jess

Post by coybow carl

Post by jess

"Ian B." wrote in message

"Ian B." wrote in message

Well if you stopped all wars, and all rape, then the only people
left who would be getting and spreading AIDS is people who have
promiscuous unprotected sex (can you say promiscuous sex?)

wrong. you only have to have unprotected sex once to contract HIV. so
should you *always* use a condom?

if you don't trust the sexual history of the person you are sleeping
with, then yes.

what if i trust the sexual history of the person i'm sleeping with, but they
cheat on me? how is that my fault?

who else is responsible ... i mean for issues of trust like this.

for example, you wouldn't trust a random guy on the street to hold your
wallet whilst you ... ermm ... had to do something without your wallet.

but you trust waiters and shop assistants with your credit card.

okay, there comes a point where if you have been with someone a long
time, and you have built up trust with them, and they cheat on you, then
clearly it is their fault.

but if you just met them, and they say they've never had sex before, and
you trust them, that's totally different, and it would be your fault for
niavely trusting them.

so when i talked about trust, i meant in the "common sense" case above,
not the second case, although of course, there are lots of cases inbetween.

Post by jess

Post by coybow carl

Post by jess
what about if you want a baby? if you're in a committed relationship
and use another method of contraception?
what if the condom splits? this happens *often*.

if you are in a committed relationship, then you either trust the
person well enough to know they don't have HIV.

? i could trust someone but they could have lied to me about this. how on
earth would i know?

it all depends on whether you have reasonable grounds to trust them.

as i said above, if you just met the guy, then you don't have reasonable
grounds to trust a word they are saying, and it's your fault.

if you have known them for years and years and are very close to them,
the you have reasonable grounds to trust them, and it becomes their fault.

Post by jess

Post by coybow carl
or if you know they have HIV but you still have sex with them, you are
subjecting yourself to known risks and it's your fault if things 'go wrong'.
if you are having protected sex with a random, chances are the condom
won't split (probability-wise)
however if you do it too often, chances are you will do it once where
the condom splits.
in which case, it is your fault, since you are pushing the odds.

i think that's ridiculous.

why?

let me clarify...

someone who has protected sex with, say, 100 random guys a year.

let's say the condom fails 1 time in 100.

so that person should *expect* the condom to fail at least one.

so she knows that she is going to have, effectively, unprotected sex
with one random guy a year.

it is no different to if she *actually* had unprotected sex with one guy
a year.

thus, she must accecpt responsibility for whatever happens as a result
of her actions.

Post by jess

Post by coybow carl
you know the risks (having sex with a random + chances of a condom
splitting) so why shouldn't you accecpt full responsibilty for
anything which happens afterwards? (babies or HIV -- it could be
argued that life is a sexually transmitted disease, but we won't go
there...)

i accept the responsibility, i'm just saying that i don't think that i
deserve no sympathy.

you deserve sympathy from your friends and stuff.

but not from random people, not from taxpayers and not from the
government and not from charities.

it's like smokers who get lung cancer, if they know the risks and do it
anyway, a friend would be heartless if they went to them and said "well
it's your own fault"

but why should government help you? you got yourself into that mess,
what business is it of anybody else?

Post by jess

Post by coybow carl

Post by jess
even if you don't use a condom one time just out of stupidity, does
that mean that you deserve to get AIDS and so noone should have
sympathy? i could die crossing the road, does that mean that if i do
everyone should look on and say "stupid jessica, she should have
known the dangers, she brought it on herself?"

if you don't use a condom once out of stupidty, it doesn't mean you
deserve to get AIDS, but it means you don't deseve sympathy from me
(as a random person who wants to donate money to charity ... i would,
of course, have sympathy if this happened to someone i cared about).
crossing the road is generally a necessary part of everyday life.
having sex with random people who you don't know their sexual history
of, isn't.
you cannot compare the two.

hmmm. but still, life is full of risks.

some (such as the dangers arising from promiscious sex) are more
avoidable than others (such as the dangers from crossing the road).

Post by jess

Post by coybow carl

Post by jess
the point is, a *lot* of people know the dangers of unprotected sex,
but still have it anyway. which is why we need to increase awareness
and ensure people take notice of issues like AIDS.

right. if awareness was raised, then don't you think less people
would have unprotected sex with randoms?

i don't know. i guess awareness is high in this country, but people are
getting blase about it.

so then whose fault is it?

clearly it is the fault of the invidiual's concerned.

cc

[jess]

Post by cowboy carl

Post by jess

Post by coybow carl

Post by jess

"Ian B." wrote in message

"Ian B." wrote in message

Well if you stopped all wars, and all rape, then the only people
left who would be getting and spreading AIDS is people who have
promiscuous unprotected sex (can you say promiscuous sex?)

wrong. you only have to have unprotected sex once to contract HIV.
so should you *always* use a condom?

if you don't trust the sexual history of the person you are sleeping
with, then yes.

what if i trust the sexual history of the person i'm sleeping with,
but they cheat on me? how is that my fault?

who else is responsible ... i mean for issues of trust like this.
for example, you wouldn't trust a random guy on the street to hold
your wallet whilst you ... ermm ... had to do something without your
wallet.
but you trust waiters and shop assistants with your credit card.
okay, there comes a point where if you have been with someone a long
time, and you have built up trust with them, and they cheat on you,
then clearly it is their fault.
but if you just met them, and they say they've never had sex before,
and you trust them, that's totally different, and it would be your
fault for niavely trusting them.
so when i talked about trust, i meant in the "common sense" case
above, not the second case, although of course, there are lots of
cases inbetween.

well yes, agreed. so it's not always the fault of the person that gets AIDs.
which was my point.

Post by cowboy carl

Post by jess

Post by coybow carl

Post by jess
what about if you want a baby? if you're in a committed
relationship and use another method of contraception?
what if the condom splits? this happens *often*.

if you are in a committed relationship, then you either trust the
person well enough to know they don't have HIV.

? i could trust someone but they could have lied to me about this.
how on earth would i know?

it all depends on whether you have reasonable grounds to trust them.
as i said above, if you just met the guy, then you don't have
reasonable grounds to trust a word they are saying, and it's your
fault.
if you have known them for years and years and are very close to them,
the you have reasonable grounds to trust them, and it becomes their fault.

Post by jess

Post by coybow carl
or if you know they have HIV but you still have sex with them, you
are subjecting yourself to known risks and it's your fault if
things 'go wrong'.
if you are having protected sex with a random, chances are the
condom won't split (probability-wise)
however if you do it too often, chances are you will do it once
where the condom splits.
in which case, it is your fault, since you are pushing the odds.

i think that's ridiculous.

why?
let me clarify...
someone who has protected sex with, say, 100 random guys a year.
let's say the condom fails 1 time in 100.
so that person should *expect* the condom to fail at least one.
so she knows that she is going to have, effectively, unprotected sex
with one random guy a year.
it is no different to if she *actually* had unprotected sex with one
guy a year.

no, not at all. that's like saying someone who wore a cycle helmet that
broke may as well have not worn one at all. the person using the condom is
taking steps to make the sex as safe as possible.

Post by cowboy carl
thus, she must accecpt responsibility for whatever happens as a result
of her actions.

Post by jess

Post by coybow carl
you know the risks (having sex with a random + chances of a condom
splitting) so why shouldn't you accecpt full responsibilty for
anything which happens afterwards? (babies or HIV -- it could be
argued that life is a sexually transmitted disease, but we won't go
there...)

i accept the responsibility, i'm just saying that i don't think that
i deserve no sympathy.

you deserve sympathy from your friends and stuff.
but not from random people, not from taxpayers and not from the
government and not from charities.
it's like smokers who get lung cancer, if they know the risks and do
it anyway, a friend would be heartless if they went to them and said
"well it's your own fault"
but why should government help you? you got yourself into that mess,
what business is it of anybody else?

if that's your opinion, how and when do you draw the line?

should we help alcoholics or drug addicts? fat people?

if someone comes into a&e after an accident, how long should we question
them for to check that it wasn't their fault?

Post by cowboy carl

Post by jess

Post by coybow carl

Post by jess
even if you don't use a condom one time just out of stupidity, does
that mean that you deserve to get AIDS and so noone should have
sympathy? i could die crossing the road, does that mean that if i
do everyone should look on and say "stupid jessica, she should have
known the dangers, she brought it on herself?"

if you don't use a condom once out of stupidty, it doesn't mean you
deserve to get AIDS, but it means you don't deseve sympathy from me
(as a random person who wants to donate money to charity ... i
would, of course, have sympathy if this happened to someone i cared
about). crossing the road is generally a necessary part of everyday
life.
having sex with random people who you don't know their sexual
history of, isn't.
you cannot compare the two.

hmmm. but still, life is full of risks.

some (such as the dangers arising from promiscious sex) are more
avoidable than others (such as the dangers from crossing the road).

Post by jess

Post by coybow carl

Post by jess
the point is, a *lot* of people know the dangers of unprotected
sex, but still have it anyway. which is why we need to increase
awareness and ensure people take notice of issues like AIDS.

right. if awareness was raised, then don't you think less people
would have unprotected sex with randoms?

i don't know. i guess awareness is high in this country, but people
are getting blase about it.

so then whose fault is it?
clearly it is the fault of the invidiual's concerned.

yes, but surely the government/ charities should do their best to resolve
the situation?

[cowboy carl]

Post by jess

Post by cowboy carl
okay, there comes a point where if you have been with someone a long
time, and you have built up trust with them, and they cheat on you,
then clearly it is their fault.
but if you just met them, and they say they've never had sex before,
and you trust them, that's totally different, and it would be your
fault for niavely trusting them.
so when i talked about trust, i meant in the "common sense" case
above, not the second case, although of course, there are lots of
cases inbetween.

well yes, agreed. so it's not always the fault of the person that gets AIDs.
which was my point.

i believe i made that point much earlier in the thread.

Post by jess

Post by cowboy carl
someone who has protected sex with, say, 100 random guys a year.
let's say the condom fails 1 time in 100.
so that person should *expect* the condom to fail at least one.
so she knows that she is going to have, effectively, unprotected sex
with one random guy a year.
it is no different to if she *actually* had unprotected sex with one
guy a year.

no, not at all. that's like saying someone who wore a cycle helmet that
broke may as well have not worn one at all. the person using the condom is
taking steps to make the sex as safe as possible.

airbags aren't an excuse to drive recklessly.

cycle helmets aren't an excuse to cycle without paying attention.

driving and cycling are necessary parts of everyday life.

condoms aren't an excuse for promiscious sex.

promiscious sex isn't a necessary part of everyday life.

Post by jess

Post by cowboy carl

Post by jess
i accept the responsibility, i'm just saying that i don't think that
i deserve no sympathy.

you deserve sympathy from your friends and stuff.
but not from random people, not from taxpayers and not from the
government and not from charities.
it's like smokers who get lung cancer, if they know the risks and do
it anyway, a friend would be heartless if they went to them and said
"well it's your own fault"
but why should government help you? you got yourself into that mess,
what business is it of anybody else?

if that's your opinion, how and when do you draw the line?
should we help alcoholics or drug addicts? fat people?
if someone comes into a&e after an accident, how long should we question
them for to check that it wasn't their fault?

the job of A&E is to fix people, no questions about fault or blame
should be asked at that point.

alcoholics and drug addicts are addicted to the substance.

the only comparision with regular people having lots of promiscious sex
would be with sex-aholics, and yeah, they probably need medical help so
that they don't hurt themselves or other people.

Post by jess

Post by cowboy carl

Post by jess

Post by coybow carl

Post by jess
the point is, a *lot* of people know the dangers of unprotected
sex, but still have it anyway. which is why we need to increase
awareness and ensure people take notice of issues like AIDS.

right. if awareness was raised, then don't you think less people
would have unprotected sex with randoms?

i don't know. i guess awareness is high in this country, but people
are getting blase about it.

so then whose fault is it?
clearly it is the fault of the invidiual's concerned.

yes, but surely the government/ charities should do their best to resolve
the situation?

only because they are nice.

my point was more that me, as a random guy, has no reason to donate
money to these charities.

i donate to charities which help people who weren't bad off because of
their own actions, charities such as oxfam, or the NSPCC.

i don't donate to charities which help people who were too stupid to
help themselves, such as the examples i gave above relating to AIDS
(actually I'm not sure if any such charities exist -- that is, charities
who support victims of AIDS who got it through having too much sex ...
the whole point of this thread is me saying that they shouldn't both
existing).

cc

[cowboy carl]

Post by cowboy carl
i don't donate to charities which help people who were too stupid to
help themselves, such as the examples i gave above relating to AIDS
(actually I'm not sure if any such charities exist -- that is, charities
who support victims of AIDS who got it through having too much sex ...
the whole point of this thread is me saying that they shouldn't both
existing).

bother

not both

cc

[jess]

Post by cowboy carl

Post by jess

Post by cowboy carl
someone who has protected sex with, say, 100 random guys a year.
let's say the condom fails 1 time in 100.
so that person should *expect* the condom to fail at least one.
so she knows that she is going to have, effectively, unprotected sex
with one random guy a year.
it is no different to if she *actually* had unprotected sex with one
guy a year.

no, not at all. that's like saying someone who wore a cycle helmet
that broke may as well have not worn one at all. the person using
the condom is taking steps to make the sex as safe as possible.

airbags aren't an excuse to drive recklessly.
cycle helmets aren't an excuse to cycle without paying attention.
driving and cycling are necessary parts of everyday life.
condoms aren't an excuse for promiscious sex.
promiscious sex isn't a necessary part of everyday life.

neither is driving or cycling. and someone who is driving recklessly is
better off having an airbag than not, yes? that is my point.

Post by cowboy carl

Post by jess

Post by cowboy carl
but why should government help you? you got yourself into that
mess, what business is it of anybody else?

if that's your opinion, how and when do you draw the line?
should we help alcoholics or drug addicts? fat people?
if someone comes into a&e after an accident, how long should we
question them for to check that it wasn't their fault?

the job of A&E is to fix people, no questions about fault or blame
should be asked at that point.

so when do the questions about fault and blame get asked?

Post by cowboy carl
alcoholics and drug addicts are addicted to the substance.

yes but surely, with your reasoning, it's *their* fault. they weren't made
to start drinking or take drugs. so why should we help them? why should
charities to assist them exist?

Post by cowboy carl
the only comparision with regular people having lots of promiscious
sex would be with sex-aholics, and yeah, they probably need medical
help so that they don't hurt themselves or other people.

Post by jess

Post by cowboy carl

Post by jess

Post by coybow carl

Post by jess
the point is, a *lot* of people know the dangers of unprotected
sex, but still have it anyway. which is why we need to increase
awareness and ensure people take notice of issues like AIDS.

right. if awareness was raised, then don't you think less people
would have unprotected sex with randoms?

i don't know. i guess awareness is high in this country, but people
are getting blase about it.

so then whose fault is it?
clearly it is the fault of the invidiual's concerned.

yes, but surely the government/ charities should do their best to
resolve the situation?

only because they are nice.
my point was more that me, as a random guy, has no reason to donate
money to these charities.

what charity you donate is surely up to you. i just question your attitude
that they shouldn't exist as, in your opinion, with the majority of AIDS
sufferes, it's their fault.

Post by cowboy carl
i donate to charities which help people who weren't bad off because of
their own actions, charities such as oxfam, or the NSPCC.
i don't donate to charities which help people who were too stupid to
help themselves,

i'm just questioning how and where you draw the line on this. and also, what
on earth gives you the right to judge whether a person is in a bad sitation
because of their own fault, and therefore isn't worthy of help?

Post by cowboy carl
such as the examples i gave above relating to AIDS
(actually I'm not sure if any such charities exist -- that is,
charities who support victims of AIDS who got it through having too
much sex ... the whole point of this thread is me saying that they
shouldn't bother existing).

i don't think AIDS charities question how you got it. it's irrelevant. just
like cancer research doesn't say "most people who get lung cancer get it cos
of smoking, which is their fault, so let's not bother with them".

[coyboy carl]

Post by jess

Post by cowboy carl

Post by jess

Post by cowboy carl
someone who has protected sex with, say, 100 random guys a year.
let's say the condom fails 1 time in 100.
so that person should *expect* the condom to fail at least one.
so she knows that she is going to have, effectively, unprotected sex
with one random guy a year.
it is no different to if she *actually* had unprotected sex with one
guy a year.

no, not at all. that's like saying someone who wore a cycle helmet
that broke may as well have not worn one at all. the person using
the condom is taking steps to make the sex as safe as possible.

airbags aren't an excuse to drive recklessly.
cycle helmets aren't an excuse to cycle without paying attention.
driving and cycling are necessary parts of everyday life.
condoms aren't an excuse for promiscious sex.
promiscious sex isn't a necessary part of everyday life.

neither is driving or cycling. and someone who is driving recklessly is
better off having an airbag than not, yes? that is my point.

driving or cycling *are*, in a lot of cases, necessary parts of everyday
life.

taking public transport (which, by the way, also has risks) just cannot
be done sometimes.

so we all have to take risks all the time.

the question is, should we take unncessary risks, what is the definition
of 'unnecessary', and who is to blame when the bad thing happens as a
result of an unnecessary risk.

i would define lots of sex with random strangers as an unnecessary risk.

and i would say it is entirely the risk-taker's fault and responsibility
when the 'bad thing' happens.


yes, drivers are better off with airbags than without, as are reckless
drivers.

similiary, promiscious sexers are better off with condoms than without.
and they are free to do whatever they want, i don't have a problem
with other people having promisicious sex.

i *DO* have a problem with people asking me for money on their behalf.

how many people would donate to a charity which solely helped the
dangerous drivers who were injured as a direct result of their own
dangerous driving?

Post by jess

Post by cowboy carl

Post by jess

Post by cowboy carl
but why should government help you? you got yourself into that
mess, what business is it of anybody else?

if that's your opinion, how and when do you draw the line?
should we help alcoholics or drug addicts? fat people?
if someone comes into a&e after an accident, how long should we
question them for to check that it wasn't their fault?

the job of A&E is to fix people, no questions about fault or blame
should be asked at that point.

so when do the questions about fault and blame get asked?

when it comes to paying for stuff.

Post by jess

Post by cowboy carl
alcoholics and drug addicts are addicted to the substance.

yes but surely, with your reasoning, it's *their* fault. they weren't made
to start drinking or take drugs. so why should we help them? why should
charities to assist them exist?

to some extent it is their fault.

but it's not easy to stop, and as soon as they want to stop, there
should be mechanisms in place to help them.

just as if someone was addicted to sex, and wanted to stop, there should
be places they can go for help.

on the other hand, there are plenty of people who drink a lot or take
drugs who *aren't* addicted, in full awareness of the risks. if they
expect society to rush to their help if the 'bad thing' happens, despite
them being able to stop the risk at anytime, then they are severly
misguided.

Post by jess

Post by cowboy carl

Post by jess
yes, but surely the government/ charities should do their best to
resolve the situation?

only because they are nice.
my point was more that me, as a random guy, has no reason to donate
money to these charities.

what charity you donate is surely up to you. i just question your attitude
that they shouldn't exist as, in your opinion, with the majority of AIDS
sufferes, it's their fault.

that's not quite an accurate reflection of my opinion.

but if it were true that most AIDS suffers had it because of their own
risk-taking adventures, then it wouldn't make any sense at all to me for
such a charity or centralised support mechanism to exist.

Post by jess

Post by cowboy carl
i donate to charities which help people who weren't bad off because of
their own actions, charities such as oxfam, or the NSPCC.
i don't donate to charities which help people who were too stupid to
help themselves,

i'm just questioning how and where you draw the line on this. and also, what
on earth gives you the right to judge whether a person is in a bad sitation
because of their own fault, and therefore isn't worthy of help?

well it's usually pretty clear (except in the case of trust within
relationships).

if someone is having unprotected sex with a different guy every day,
then they shouldn't be too surprised if they get AIDS.

if someone is having protected sex with a different guy every day, then
that person is still much much more likely than normal to get AIDS,
maybe 100 times less likely than the first person, but still much more
likely than most, so they shouldn't be too surprised either.

if they look at the numbers.

Post by jess

Post by cowboy carl
such as the examples i gave above relating to AIDS
(actually I'm not sure if any such charities exist -- that is,
charities who support victims of AIDS who got it through having too
much sex ... the whole point of this thread is me saying that they
shouldn't bother existing).

i don't think AIDS charities question how you got it. it's irrelevant. just
like cancer research doesn't say "most people who get lung cancer get it cos
of smoking, which is their fault, so let's not bother with them".

but don't you think people who get it through no fault of their own, for
example, through a blood donation, or through being raped, deserve much
more care and sympathy than people who got it because they wanted to
have sex with lots of random people?

cc

[Becky Loader]

Post by coyboy carl
but don't you think people who get it through no fault of their own, for
example, through a blood donation, or through being raped, deserve much
more care and sympathy than people who got it because they wanted to
have sex with lots of random people?

I remember the publication of anthropological research into London's gay
scene a year or two back which suggested that some gay men have actually
attempted to contract HIV. They felt that they lacked support and identity
to the point that they wanted to contract a virus which would eventually
kill them; HIV status would at least bring them into a community (HIV/AIDS
sufferers) and give them that identity and, as a result of the disease,
care. They were knowingly - willingly - infected, but, if the admittedly
anecdotal findings hold water, how could you not feel so sorry for someone
who feels that desperate?

(I've found the BBC article here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3095666.stm )

Becky

[cowboy carl]

Post by Becky Loader

Post by coyboy carl
but don't you think people who get it through no fault of their own, for
example, through a blood donation, or through being raped, deserve much
more care and sympathy than people who got it because they wanted to
have sex with lots of random people?

I remember the publication of anthropological research into London's gay
scene a year or two back which suggested that some gay men have actually
attempted to contract HIV. They felt that they lacked support and identity
to the point that they wanted to contract a virus which would eventually
kill them; HIV status would at least bring them into a community (HIV/AIDS
sufferers) and give them that identity and, as a result of the disease,
care. They were knowingly - willingly - infected, but, if the admittedly
anecdotal findings hold water, how could you not feel so sorry for someone
who feels that desperate?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3095666.stm )

That's clearly an indication of a mental problem ... like suicide, sure,
people "choose" to commit suicide, but there still needs to be support
for them, and sympathy for people who want to commit suicide, because
depression is an illness.

The people you describe do not fit into the category I described.

The people I am describing want to have sex with lots of people because
they want to have sex ... not because they want to die, or contract an
illness.

cc

[Becky Loader]

Post by cowboy carl

Post by jess
yes, but surely the government/ charities should do their best to resolve
the situation?

only because they are nice.
my point was more that me, as a random guy, has no reason to donate
money to these charities.
i donate to charities which help people who weren't bad off because of
their own actions, charities such as oxfam, or the NSPCC.
i don't donate to charities which help people who were too stupid to
help themselves, such as the examples i gave above relating to AIDS
(actually I'm not sure if any such charities exist -- that is, charities
who support victims of AIDS who got it through having too much sex ...
the whole point of this thread is me saying that they shouldn't both
existing).

I've read this thread and become progressively more angry. Awareness needs
to be raised in this country to prevent greater numbers of people from
contracting AIDS - something's gone awry in education somewhere, as only a
couple of years ago there was a survey in which 40-something% of respondents
replied that they believed there was a cure for AIDS. You might say they're
stupid, but, more importantly, they're ignorant and obviously people
shouldn't - in the words of the 1980s adverts - die of ignorance.
(Apparently I started to cry upon watching one of those adverts when I was 5
or so and exclaimed to my mum, 'I don't want to die of Ignorance!', thinking
ignorance in itself was a fatal illness :))

Your attitude is shared by many people, which is why AIDS (and homelessness
for that matter), perceived by some to be the fault of the individual,
receive very much less in charitable donations than charities helping
children, animals and cancer sufferers/providing funding for cancer
research. I can see where you're coming from, but I think it's rather
short-sighted. If you blame individuals, you never examine why people
continue to contract the disease in alarmingly high numbers; what good does
that do in the long term? I refer to Britain in the preceding sentence; in
Africa, much of the problem - as others have suggested - is to do with the
relative status of the genders in society and the demands that men feel they
can justifiably make on women.

Becky

[cowboy carl]

Post by jess

Post by cowboy carl

Post by jess
yes, but surely the government/ charities should do their best to

resolve

Post by cowboy carl

Post by jess
the situation?

only because they are nice.
my point was more that me, as a random guy, has no reason to donate
money to these charities.
i donate to charities which help people who weren't bad off because of
their own actions, charities such as oxfam, or the NSPCC.
i don't donate to charities which help people who were too stupid to
help themselves, such as the examples i gave above relating to AIDS
(actually I'm not sure if any such charities exist -- that is, charities
who support victims of AIDS who got it through having too much sex ...
the whole point of this thread is me saying that they shouldn't both
existing).

I've read this thread and become progressively more angry. Awareness needs
to be raised in this country to prevent greater numbers of people from
contracting AIDS - something's gone awry in education somewhere, as only a
couple of years ago there was a survey in which 40-something% of respondents
replied that they believed there was a cure for AIDS. You might say they're
stupid, but, more importantly, they're ignorant and obviously people
shouldn't - in the words of the 1980s adverts - die of ignorance.
(Apparently I started to cry upon watching one of those adverts when I was 5
or so and exclaimed to my mum, 'I don't want to die of Ignorance!', thinking
ignorance in itself was a fatal illness :))

It's not just ignorance tho.

Ignorance is when you don't know something.

What is it when you believe something which isn't true?

I mean, if I didn't know there was a cure for AIDS, surely it would be
"stupid" for me to believe there was a cure for AIDS, rather than
"ignorant"?

And it's not as if they could have been mislead into beliving there was
a cure for AIDS ... could they?

The only way they could have thought that, is if they made it up themselves.


Anyway, I don't believe people should die because they are stupid, or
because they are ignorant.

But (and maybe, by defining this so tightly now, it only applies to
0.0001% of AIDS sufferers) I don't believe random people should help out
someone who knew the risks, ignored them, and is suffering the consequences.

I have no sympathy for people who sleep around and get STDs if they are
in posession of the knowledge about STDs.

You can't say "oh but the condom broke, it's not my fault" because
condom's break ... that's a part of the risk of using them.

And you can't say "oh but I didn't know he had AIDS" because if you only
met him that night, then you had no reason to believe he *didn't* have
AIDS (or some other STD).

Post by jess
Your attitude is shared by many people, which is why AIDS (and homelessness
for that matter), perceived by some to be the fault of the individual,
receive very much less in charitable donations than charities helping
children, animals and cancer sufferers/providing funding for cancer
research. I can see where you're coming from, but I think it's rather
short-sighted. If you blame individuals, you never examine why people
continue to contract the disease in alarmingly high numbers; what good does
that do in the long term?

Even if the individual's *are* to blame, be it through ignorance or
stupidity, then isn't it still up to society to help these people?

Isn't that what society is for ... to help each other?

(I'm asking myself here, not you :))

Ummm, it's a tricky question, and the easy way to answer it is to throw
democracy at the problem and let the solution 'evolve' out of that :)

But the problem I have, is where that help should come from.

If the government starts passing laws to ... say ... ban unprotected sex
between strangers, then despite what I've been saying, I think people
should be allowed to do that if they desire.

But people have to be responsible for their own actions.

And I think that includes people who don't know the risks, even to some
extent.

Anyway, I'm somewhat skeptical about that 40% figure you quoted ... do
you have a reference?

And even if it were true, I expect a much lower percentage are ignorant
of the fact AIDS exists and is sexually transmitted, along with a whole
bunch of other diseases. So it's presumably safe to say that everyone
knows unprotected sex is risky ... as is random sex with strangers.


Should there be government support and charities to help people who get
drunk and act violently towards people and then get themselves hurt as a
result?

No, these people should be locked up (for a while ... to teach them a
lesson, for doing things which are reckless and a danger to other people).

How is that so different to AIDS? If someone is sleeping with a lot of
people, then they are potentially spreading diseases and infecting other
people - they are a danger to others.

cc

[Becky Loader]

Post by cowboy carl
It's not just ignorance tho.
Ignorance is when you don't know something.
What is it when you believe something which isn't true?

How on earth can you personally know? What information do you have to
presume to deny that people might be ignorant?

Post by cowboy carl
I mean, if I didn't know there was a cure for AIDS, surely it would be
"stupid" for me to believe there was a cure for AIDS, rather than
"ignorant"?
And it's not as if they could have been mislead into beliving there was
a cure for AIDS ... could they?
The only way they could have thought that, is if they made it up themselves.

Perhaps they have not been educated sufficiently. They only 'made it up
themselves' in lieu of other information. I should imagine it's fairly easy
to put together pieces of half-heard information from items about
increasingly effective drugs and the ability of medicine to ensure that the
child of an HIV+ woman is born HIV- and come up with something false. You
can't assume everyone has the same knowledge as you.

Post by cowboy carl
But (and maybe, by defining this so tightly now, it only applies to
0.0001% of AIDS sufferers) I don't believe random people should help out
someone who knew the risks, ignored them, and is suffering the

consequences.

Post by cowboy carl
I have no sympathy for people who sleep around and get STDs if they are
in posession of the knowledge about STDs.
You can't say "oh but the condom broke, it's not my fault" because
condom's break ... that's a part of the risk of using them.
And you can't say "oh but I didn't know he had AIDS" because if you only
met him that night, then you had no reason to believe he *didn't* have
AIDS (or some other STD).

So you're unwilling to help people who've made a mistake? People who
contract HIV will pay for their mistake with a lengthy illness and a
shortened lifespan - that's a lot greater penalty than most people have to
pay for messing up. Given the stakes, I think they deserve our support.
It's inhumane to deny them that.

According to you, you're damned if you don't use contraception ('it's your
fault') and you're damned if you do and it goes wrong ('it's your fault for
thinking contraception will be effective'). Do you cut anyone any slack?!

Post by cowboy carl
Anyway, I'm somewhat skeptical about that 40% figure you quoted ... do
you have a reference?

Oh, sorry, it was 30%, I've just checked. It was in a Terrence Higgins
Trust survey undertaken in 2002.
http://www.q.co.za/2001/2002/11/26-ukaids.html

Becky

[coyboy carl]

Post by Becky Loader

Post by cowboy carl
It's not just ignorance tho.
Ignorance is when you don't know something.
What is it when you believe something which isn't true?

How on earth can you personally know? What information do you have to
presume to deny that people might be ignorant?

Post by cowboy carl
I mean, if I didn't know there was a cure for AIDS, surely it would be
"stupid" for me to believe there was a cure for AIDS, rather than
"ignorant"?
And it's not as if they could have been mislead into beliving there was
a cure for AIDS ... could they?
The only way they could have thought that, is if they made it up

themselves.
Perhaps they have not been educated sufficiently. They only 'made it up
themselves' in lieu of other information. I should imagine it's fairly easy
to put together pieces of half-heard information from items about
increasingly effective drugs and the ability of medicine to ensure that the
child of an HIV+ woman is born HIV- and come up with something false. You
can't assume everyone has the same knowledge as you.

So this person is refusing to say "I don't know", they think there is
nothing they don't know, and that they can extrapolate everything they
don't know from things they do know, and thus know everything.

That isn't ignorance.

Post by Becky Loader

Post by cowboy carl
But (and maybe, by defining this so tightly now, it only applies to
0.0001% of AIDS sufferers) I don't believe random people should help out
someone who knew the risks, ignored them, and is suffering the consequences.
I have no sympathy for people who sleep around and get STDs if they are
in posession of the knowledge about STDs.
You can't say "oh but the condom broke, it's not my fault" because
condom's break ... that's a part of the risk of using them.
And you can't say "oh but I didn't know he had AIDS" because if you only
met him that night, then you had no reason to believe he *didn't* have
AIDS (or some other STD).

So you're unwilling to help people who've made a mistake? People who
contract HIV will pay for their mistake with a lengthy illness and a
shortened lifespan - that's a lot greater penalty than most people have to
pay for messing up. Given the stakes, I think they deserve our support.
It's inhumane to deny them that.

They get support, they get healthcare, they get the benefits of new
drugs which are being developed etc. etc.

I'm not saying we should be inhumane to people.

Just as I wouldn't say we shouldn't treat a burglar who gets injured
whilst breaking into someone's house.

But I wouldn't suggest we give the burglar much sympathy.

Post by Becky Loader
According to you, you're damned if you don't use contraception ('it's your
fault') and you're damned if you do and it goes wrong ('it's your fault for
thinking contraception will be effective'). Do you cut anyone any slack?!

According to me, you /might/ be dammed if you have sex with random
people, and you *aren't* damned if you don't.

It's a risk which the individual chooses to take, knowing the
consequences. The issue however, as the survey clearly shows, is that
people just don't realise how dangerous promiscuous sex is, even
'protected' promiscuous sex.


It's a bit like obesity. Fat people trying to blame companies for
MacDonalds for making them fat ... if they don't know that eating
macdonalds every day is bad for their health, then ... well ... how on
earth have they survived this long?!

And the obesity 'outbreak' is making the government consider things like
labels on food saying "this is bad for you".

Maybe everyone should be tattooed 'down below' saying "sex with this may
be bad for your health".

Then people would have *no* excuse for being ignorant (unless, maybe,
they have learning difficulties and can't read).

cc

[John Porcella]

Post by cowboy carl
whoa....
so world aids day was wednesday.

So
AIDS
Wednesday

Maybe we shoud have a world capital letters day, since they seem to be
getting scarce around here!

Post by cowboy carl
seemed a lot more 'popular' than ever before.
what i don't understand, however, is why we care.

Compassion?

Post by cowboy carl
other than people who get it through donated blood and other methods through
no fault of their own (which i suspect is a minority), and prostitutes,
people in this country get aids through not using a condom properly

You can still get HIV whilst wearing a condom! For instance, by kissing...a
not untypical act, I imagine, by those having sexual intercourse!

and

Post by cowboy carl
having sex with too many random people, meaning it is their own fault,

Rubbish! How would you know if the first person you have sex with is not an
HIV carrier?

and i

Post by cowboy carl
don't see why they deserve a day all to themselves.

Whyever not?

Post by cowboy carl
so the issue is really with africa, where it is a huge problem, where the
education behind contraception isn't present and where rape is often used as
a tool of war.
so why isn't it "world stop wars in africa day"?

We could have a day like that as well! Why does one preclude the other?

Post by cowboy carl
this would help solve the aids problem,

But, more importantly, here it would not cure your issues with capitals!

*and* help stop the almost monthly

Post by cowboy carl
reports of fighting and genocide from various parts of africa.
why do people care more about AIDS than war?

I am not sure that is the case.

[Toby]

On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 21:37:15 +0000 (UTC), "John Porcella"

Post by John Porcella

Post by cowboy carl
whoa....
so world aids day was wednesday.

So
AIDS
Wednesday
Maybe we shoud have a world capital letters day, since they seem to be
getting scarce around here!

Post by cowboy carl
seemed a lot more 'popular' than ever before.
what i don't understand, however, is why we care.

Compassion?

Post by cowboy carl
other than people who get it through donated blood and other methods

through

Post by cowboy carl
no fault of their own (which i suspect is a minority), and prostitutes,
people in this country get aids through not using a condom properly

You can still get HIV whilst wearing a condom! For instance, by kissing...a
not untypical act, I imagine, by those having sexual intercourse!

You would have to injest about a litre of an HIV-positive person's
saliva to have a chance of catching it so I guess you're really really
inefficient then...

[Toby]

Ingest in jest; injest whatever...

[Becky Loader]

Post by John Porcella
You can still get HIV whilst wearing a condom! For instance, by kissing...a
not untypical act, I imagine, by those having sexual intercourse!

The chances of getting HIV through kissing are miniscule. Saliva is not one
of the four main bodily fluids through which HIV is transmitted on its own.
HIV can only be contracted through kissing if /both/ partners have bleeding
gums or open sores on their lips or in their mouths. The risk in kissing is
the risk of infected blood - only the same as if an infected person cut
themselves and their blood found its way into your bloodstream.

Merry Christmas, eh!

Becky