AIDS: Approaches and Funding

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Lizra

That would be called "error"! Storms are making my satellite connection painfully slow. Good night.

Sleep tight .

[Rían]

Yes, I've heard you've got some whopper storms in your area, Liz!

It's a beautiful night here in California for Lief and me. But then again, you have "real" weather, and we don't *longs for a good thunderstorm*

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Yes, I've heard you've got some whopper storms in your area!

It's a beautiful night here in California for Lief and me. But then again, you have "real" weather, and we don't *longs for a good thunderstorm*

I spent a good part of this evening on the beach. It was beautiful weather and a beautiful sunset. So yes, definitely it's been a beautiful night . Some nice S'mores too .

[Rían]

Ah, the beach ... I always think fondly of my Entmoot friends "across the pond" when I'm at the Pac Ocean ...

BTW, your sig just cracks me up!!

I'll quote it for posterity, because people always change their sigs, and then posts about them don't make sense anymore :

Originally Posted by Lief's sig

And Jesus said, "Who do you say I am?"
And they answered: You are the eschatological manifestation
of the ground of our being, the kerygma in which we found the
ultimate meaning of our interpersonal relationship."
And Jesus said, "What?"

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Ah, the beach ... I always think fondly of my Entmoot friends "across the pond" when I'm at the Pac Ocean ...

BTW, your sig just cracks me up!!

I'll quote it for posterity, because people always change their sigs, and then posts about them don't make sense anymore :

Mmm. May put up another one soon . . . but your comment would still make sense .

[Rían]

IRex - I just realized that you're using all sorts of words and phrases, like (and I'll quote from your post) "attack" and "screaming" and "cop out" and "intolerant" and "wrong headed" and "oppressive and despotic and tyrannical" and "sickens" and "misguided and misinformed" and "shame". It seems like you're rather angry at me and those that think like I do. Are you? But IIRC, it's your opinion that people's actions are entirely driven by their genes. And if that's true, then why should you be angry with me and those that believe like I do on this subject? According to your opinion, we can't help it, so therefore we certainly don't deserve your anger. Do you think that's right?


EDIT - I typed your name in large font so it would catch your eye because it came after a lot of chit-chat with Lief. It seems like on other people's computers that it's really large and annoying, but on mine, it's only slightly larger than the font on the rest of the post Anyway, I'm not "yelling" at you, I'm just trying to catch your eye. People do the same thing with me (put my name in large font) when they're trying to catch my eye, and I appreciate their effort to ensure that I see their post. But I'll reconsider if it's showing up as really large and annoying on other people's computers.

[brownjenkins]

what's with the big names RÃ*an?

IR loves to use big words, btw... i wouldn't take it personally

[Rían]

*admires her name in large and bold letters*

I used a larger font for his name, Brownie, because the post came after a lot of chit-chat with Lief, and I figured he's probably miss it otherwise, and I really wanted to hear his opinion on the subject

I'm trying to not take it personally, but I'm also trying to see if I can understand his position on the subject, because for me, what he says and how he's acting don't jive, and I'd like to see if it can be explained.

That's all oh you of underused capitalization

[Lizra]

Why do you keep typing everybody's name in giant letters Rian?

I see somebody else asked you too...hint...it's annoying...

[Rían]

See above post for why I typed IRex's name in large font, and I typed brownie's name in large font for fun, and I typed your name in large font awhile back because it was a serious post you made about my post and there was a TON of posts between it and I wanted to catch your attention because I reponded to your post. That's all. People type my name in large font, too, in situations like that, and I appreciate it, because it catches my eye and I know they want me to see the post But I guess not everyone thinks like I do.

(and maybe the letters are giant-er on your screen, but on mine, they're hardly bigger than the rest of the post )

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Lizra

I see somebody else asked you too...hint...it's annoying...

Unfortunately, I think a lot of what I do annoys you (or bores you) but is it really that much bigger than the rest of the font? On my computer, it's not even twice as big! It's only about 50% bigger, and hardly noticeable.

And as I said, it doesn't annoy me at ALL when people do that to me (or to others) because I think it's just because they want to catch the person's eye, esp. in a thread with lots of posts. I know I often annoy you, but if brownie is annoyed, too, and it's really large on your computers, then I'll probably stop.

[Lizra]

I am capable of discerning if a post is directed at me or not. On my computer it's this HUGE thick black howler thing. I don't need the "mommy" treatment.

[Rían]

But it's not a matter of discerning. I don't doubt that you can discern if a post is directed at you. It was a matter of NOTICING the post after lots of others had gone by about off-topic things.

I meant well, and I appreciate when people do it for me, so I figured people felt the same way. I guess I'm wrong.

Also, it's not at ALL a "HUGE thick black howler thing"!! As I said, it's not even twice as large, only about half again as large, and it's the same thickness and darkness as the rest of the post. But I'll go change it, as it seems like other people's computers show it larger and blacker. I found that with certain settings in my computer, the size=1 option didn't even show up as any different, so I guess it's the same thing going on here.

[Rían]

Alright, I just changed it to size=4, and it is the EXACT same font size as the rest of the post. The EXACT same size! So what does it look like to other people?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

That's all oh you of underused capitalization

WHO ME?

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

So do you think that citizens should be denied to vote, based on YOUR opinions about what is right and wrong?

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Currently in America everyone has the right to vote or attempt to make law, no matter what beliefs they're coming from. Do you think that what we have now is right, or should new discriminatory laws be added that keep people from voting because of what their personal beliefs are?

all right kiddies, listen carefully cause this obviously isn’t sinking in at all. Weve been talking about an amendment to ban gay marriage right? That’s basically the huge controversy that’s inspired so much discussion in this and other threads (even though its technically off topic here). You CANNOT as a PRIVATE citizen VOTE for a constitutional amendment to discriminate against gays. That is done by a super majority of our congress not by an open referendum or ballot measure or something. We as citizens have NO DIRECT say in such radical and rare pieces of legislation (thank goodness). So all your high minded democratic right to vote babbling is irrelevant to the question of making a constitutional amendment to ban gays from marrying. Of course you can vote for your LEGISLATOR who may THEN be in a position to make a vote for an amendment but you CANNOT make any such vote YOURSELF. And you know full well that I totally support your right to vote whoever you desire into office. Have you seen me telling you not to vote for George Bush? Hm? So enough of your painting me as some anti democratic wack job when I’M the one trying to promote EQUAL rights and YOU disagree with ME.

Now, since you guys are jumping up and down on your American democracy soap box then let me piggy back on that thinking and point out that in this great democracy one of our most cherished fundaments is that we do not arbitrarily and without reason limit the freedoms and civil liberties of other citizens. We determined this was wrong during the civil rights struggles of the 50s and 60s (even though we stated it was wrong when we wrote the constitution but bias and illegal prior amendments undermined this truth for hundreds of years). Therefore, any attempt to in fact enact discriminatory legislation should be impossible by its very definition. I don’t like the idea of living under a government that feels it can arbitrarily and without cause limit my personal freedoms for doing something that hurts no one else. I do however appreciate that we live in a society that cant legally tell me you cant eat at that counter because we don’t like yer kind here (or because we sincerely believe doing so is harmful to yourself or society or such rot). Sure I can THINK it all I want. I can BELIEVE it all I want. But the minute my thinking and my believing becomes overt enactment of equal right limiting ACTION then I need to hit a serious cement wall and go no further. The answer to that needs to be sorry that’s not an option here. We don’t discriminate arbitrarily here. Not oh sure you can discriminate if you get enough people who want to discriminate with you. That’s crap. Every fool in the world can be against the concept of gay marriage and ill still be fighting them and showing them that according to the founding ideals of this country that you CANT do that. That is until they nail me up and burn me at the stake.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

It looks to RÃ*an and me that you are in favor of new discrimination laws being created in America that keep certain people from voting for what they think is right. Naturally we're arguing fiercely against you.

The irony of this statement.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Is it discriminating against married men to say they can't marry another women? No. Is it discriminating against a woman to tell her she can't marry her brother? No. Same thing here. Society votes on the definitions of marriage, such as age, gender, blood relatedness, etc. Are THOSE discriminatory?

why do you keep bringing these up after several people including myself have already pointed out several times how these things are fundamentally different? You need new material. Lets try again. Married people can divorce and THEN marry. Solved. Marrying your brother can lead to inbreeding which is HARMFUL to the CHILD. Solved. An age limit is necessary to establish CONSENTING ADULT status of both parties involved with the marriage. The childs brain is not the same as the adult brain. We assume the adult brain can give legal consent and therefore marriage is open to them and not the child. Solved. Meanwhile the GENDER discrimination you support has no parallels to any of these. We have consenting adults. We have single adults. We have NO harm being done to either party involved or any potential offspring. so we have no barriers as to why gays should not be allowed to marry… other then cultural bias.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Why do you claim to know what I'm thinking? You're WRONG. You may freely quote what I've posted anytime, but don't put words into my mouth, and even worse, say it's a fact. What, are you inside my head and can hear my thoughts? What an insult.

Indignation again? You SAID YOURSELF you would keep gays from marrying because YOU THINK ITS BEST FOR THEM AND FOR SOCIETY AND FOR MARRIAGE. So why the diatribe about not knowing what you think when you already said what you think.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Y'know what? Start a thread on lying and I'll post about lying. Start a thread about coveting and I'll post on coveting. And if someone starts a thread on homosexuality - why, by golly, I"ll post on homosexuality. No big surprise here. And if someone in that thread brings up homosexual marriage, then I'll post on homosexual marriage.

Im talking big picture here. Not just you… Our whole society is fixated with gays and gay marriage. You don’t see endless news stories about people lieing. You don’t see conservatives out picketing against the notion of coveters marrying. Why is that? Homosexuality has always been a huge issue with a lot of conservatives even before this whole gay marriage thing blew up. My apologies if ive made you paranoid enough to think that im always talking about you when im ranting on about something.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

DON'T group ME in with the religious right. I think they're wrong in many ways. Please consider what I, as an individual, say. Please don't stereotype me. And I'll do the same favor for you.

that was continuing on my “whole picture� rant thanks. I come back to you after.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Lizra

On my computer it's this HUGE thick black howler thing.

(that expression made me smile!)

Here's Lizra's phrase in some different sizes:

On my computer it's this HUGE thick black howler thing - size1
On my computer it's this HUGE thick black howler thing - size2
On my computer it's this HUGE thick black howler thing - size3
On my computer it's this HUGE thick black howler thing - size4
On my computer it's this HUGE thick black howler thing - size5
On my computer it's this HUGE thick black howler thing - size6
On my computer it's this HUGE thick black howler thing - size7

On MY (RÃ*an's) computer, size 3 and 4 are both normal. 2 is smaller by about 1/3. 1 is teensy. 5 is bigger by about a third. 6 is a screamer, and 7 is a howler! I bet you have your computer set to large text, so my 5 (slightly bigger) is your 7 (howler).

Anyway, I guess I'll stick to size 4 just so I'm not howling at anyone

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

IRex - I just realized that you're using all sorts of words and phrases, like (and I'll quote from your post) "attack" and "screaming" and "cop out" and "intolerant" and "wrong headed" and "oppressive and despotic and tyrannical" and "sickens" and "misguided and misinformed" and "shame". It seems like you're rather angry at me and those that think like I do. Are you?

what are you babbling about. I always use “words and phrases�. Never mistake passion for anger. Im smart enough to have a naturally large vocabulary and im dumb enough not to think about spelling my words correctly. But Im rarely angry on here. Usually im most in my element when im being attacked and a debate is raging. That’s when my responses are strongest. A lot of the time I sit here typing like mad and grinning with satisfaction. Youd probably laugh if you saw me. At best the strongest feeling I get when responding to you has been “my god! Why cant she understand this!�

But IIRC, it's your opinion that people's actions are entirely driven by their genes. And if that's true, then why should you be angry with me and those that believe like I do on this subject? According to your opinion, we can't help it, so therefore we certainly don't deserve your anger. Do you think that's right?

oh criminy. Even if I was angry, anger is an ANIMAL response to outside stimuli. Not something you do only to sentient beings when they discuss philosophical questions with you. Why do you get angry when you hammer your finger by accident? Or when you lose something? But why get into this here? If you want to bait me with silly statements about genetics then lets find a more relevant thread where we have already gone over that and we’ll go over it again for you.

Ill just say this though: your genes in combination with your ENVIRONMENT have sure allowed you to believe some pretty far out things. But Ill have to admit if I was raised EXACTLY under the SAME circumstances to this point in life as you were then I too would hold the exact same opinions on things that you do. So much for your vaunted free will.

[Lief Erikson]

Homosexual marriage was only one example brought up to support various points. I realize that to you it's been the center of the discussion now that you tell me it has been. To me the discussion has been far broader. I guess I was right, that we've been talking over one another's heads all this time. A fairly pointless exercise .

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
Quote:
Originally Posted by RÃ*an
IRex - I just realized that you're using all sorts of words and phrases, like (and I'll quote from your post) "attack" and "screaming" and "cop out" and "intolerant" and "wrong headed" and "oppressive and despotic and tyrannical" and "sickens" and "misguided and misinformed" and "shame". It seems like you're rather angry at me and those that think like I do. Are you?


what are you babbling about.

I always use “words and phrases�. Never mistake passion for anger.

I urge you to be careful. Your words and phrases could very easily be interpreted as anger. Some, such as your most recent "what are you babbling about", are unkind and could easily spur anger.

[Lief Erikson]

Even though homosexual marriage has not the main topic from my point of view, I guess I'll respond to what you said on it anyway. For my own pleasure, which is one of the three reasons why I do debate here. You do make some thought provoking points, Insidious Rex .

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
Now, since you guys are jumping up and down on your American democracy soap box then let me piggy back on that thinking and point out that in this great democracy one of our most cherished fundaments is that we do not arbitrarily and without reason limit the freedoms and civil liberties of other citizens. We determined this was wrong during the civil rights struggles of the 50s and 60s (even though we stated it was wrong when we wrote the constitution but bias and illegal prior amendments undermined this truth for hundreds of years). Therefore, any attempt to in fact enact discriminatory legislation should be impossible by its very definition. I don’t like the idea of living under a government that feels it can arbitrarily and without cause limit my personal freedoms for doing something that hurts no one else.

One fact you might be overlooking is that we're not arguing the behavior of homosexuality itself should be banned. The argument is that it should not be labeled by the government to be the same thing as heterosexual marriage. You say that the other examples of things forbidden from being labeled marriage are flawed for various scientific reasons. From your worldview, you make the statement that those things are wrong from being called marriage. If my worldview tells me that homosexuality is wrong to have called marriage, I should have the same right to keep it from being called marriage as you have the right to implement laws against a woman marrying her brother. You do that because from your worldview, it's wrong. I do the other because I believe from my worldview, it's wrong. Our beliefs are equally valid to be implemented in law.

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
I do however appreciate that we live in a society that cant legally tell me you cant eat at that counter because we don’t like yer kind here (or because we sincerely believe doing so is harmful to yourself or society or such rot). Sure I can THINK it all I want. I can BELIEVE it all I want. But the minute my thinking and my believing becomes overt enactment of equal right limiting ACTION then I need to hit a serious cement wall and go no further. The answer to that needs to be sorry that’s not an option here. We don’t discriminate arbitrarily here.

It seems very much to me like you're saying your worldview should be the basis from which discrimination should be defined. Something's only discrimination if you say it is, and it isn't if you say it's not.

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
Not oh sure you can discriminate if you get enough people who want to discriminate with you.

There are plenty of laws protecting minorities. Those should be appealed to in such a case, and the judgment is for the courts.

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
That’s crap.

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
Every fool in the world can be against the concept of gay marriage and ill still be fighting them and showing them that according to the founding ideals of this country that you CANT do that.

That's your right.

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
That is until they nail me up and burn me at the stake.

Mmm.

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
Quote:
Originally Posted by RÃ*an
Is it discriminating against married men to say they can't marry another women? No. Is it discriminating against a woman to tell her she can't marry her brother? No. Same thing here. Society votes on the definitions of marriage, such as age, gender, blood relatedness, etc. Are THOSE discriminatory?


why do you keep bringing these up after several people including myself have already pointed out several times how these things are fundamentally different? You need new material. Lets try again. Married people can divorce and THEN marry.

I have to divorce before marrying! How unfair!

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
Marrying your brother can lead to inbreeding which is HARMFUL to the CHILD.

I'm not planning to have any children! How unfair!

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
An age limit is necessary to establish CONSENTING ADULT status of both parties involved with the marriage. The childs brain is not the same as the adult brain. We assume the adult brain can give legal consent and therefore marriage is open to them and not the child.

Marriage doesn't have to be permanent! It's not like the decision's going to impact me all my life. Let me marry if I want now, and then be free of it as soon or as long later on as I wish.

On a sidenote: In plenty of other cultures even in modern days people are allowed to marry earlier. When individuals gain maturity also can vary enormously based upon circumstance, situation and upbringing. In many countries outside of our affluent circumstances, people that are many years younger then me are many years more mature.



EDIT: I just thought of some more arguments that could be made on these issues. Inbreeding is not always harmful to the child. Harm is also caused to children that grow up in poor families, because of lack of opportunity. Parents have the right to marry and bring up kids in those bad, impoverished situations, though. Heterosexual marriage also isn't limited by the health of the marriage partners either. They're allowed to have kids even if there's a high degree of risk that a disease will be passed on to the child. Even if these arguments didn't exist though, like I said earlier, a brother and a sister marrying could be simply forbidden from having children. Similar things happen in China with heterosexual couples in order to keep the population from growing too rapidly.


RÃ*an:
Of course, RÃ*an, you may wish to respond to Insidious Rex in a very different way then I have . I don't know. I'm hopeless. I just love to argue. But I think the different issues I brought up are not only concluded upon in the way that they are for genetic and social reasons, like Insidious Rex suggests. It's because marriage is defined in one particular way, in a Christian way. It has been that way since the founding of our country, and I've heard learned individuals state that our country was largely founded upon Christian morals. So I think those reasons tend to underly the meaning of marriage and the rules and boundaries for it, as much as the reasons Insidious Rex brings up.