AIDS denial is immoral

spuriousmonkey said:
They pull the paper and check the data to see if what the other scientist is saying is warranted by the data. No authority involved whatsoever.
Click to expand...

So no false or misleading data can ever happen in a scientific paper or article? Why not? And just so you know, it's happened many times in the past, so don't go leaping to undue conclusions.

spuriousmonkey said:
So please refrain from your authority argument in the future. It don't want to write the same answer a fourth time.
Click to expand...

It's the same point, Spurious, in most anything that's written, and that includes scientific articles, etc. Whoever writes the articles or collects the data, etc, can be lying for a variety of reasons.

Baron Max
 
Baron Max said:
So no false or misleading data can ever happen in a scientific paper or article? Why not? And just so you know, it's happened many times in the past, so don't go leaping to undue conclusions.
Click to expand...

Don't be be daft. Just because some americans were caught murdering someone doesn't mean all americans are murderers. You are being an idiot here clinging to an argument for the sake of argument. I said you could judge the data. Clearly if you would educate yourself you would be able to judge the data from several papers. There is no need to use any excuses like you constantly do to take responsibility for actively forming an opinion based on reliable sources.

Actually i am quite fed up with your nonsense where you keep trying to find straws to grasp for. All I see is a lazy person. Someone who is afraid to commit to any effort to form an opinion based on something else then his prejudices.

No more excuses for you. The data is there. You can judge it. get of your arse you lazy bugger.

You are the leaper here.
 
spuriousmonkey said:
I said you could judge the data. Clearly if you would educate yourself you would be able to judge the data from several papers.
Click to expand...

Hmm? But it seems when some do, and reach a different conclusion than you, then you get upset. So clearly you only want people to judge the data exactly, precisely, as you have ......or say things like: "Actually i am quite fed up with your nonsense where you keep trying to find straws to grasp for. All I see is a lazy person. Someone who is afraid to commit to any effort to form an opinion based on something else then his prejudices."

spuriousmonkey said:
You are the leaper here.
Click to expand...

What's a "leaper"? Is that a person leaps around a lot? Or one who leaps up and down a lot?

Baron Max
 
Baron Max said:
Hmm? But it seems when some do, and reach a different conclusion than you, then you get upset. So clearly you only want people to judge the data exactly, precisely, as you have ......or say things like: "Actually i am quite fed up with your nonsense where you keep trying to find straws to grasp for. All I see is a lazy person. Someone who is afraid to commit to any effort to form an opinion based on something else then his prejudices."
Click to expand...

I'm not upset. I just think it is moronic that you repeat foolish statements out of laziness.
 
Oniw17 said:
AIDS denial is a joke.
Click to expand...

If it were, I wouldn't be doing it.

Anyway, HIV is a form of AIDS denial. It is used to deny the fact that science had found out that drugs, nutritional deficiencies, and pollution compromised the immune system and made people prone to diseases that they otherwise would not have been. Drugs, processed foods, and pollution are extremely profitable, so to keep people from trying to make things better, they came up with a bogeyman to distract them.
 
Prince_James said:
Why did the disease ravage the wildly promiscious gay scene in America, then?
Click to expand...
Well according to Meta, they obviously weren't taking their vitamins, eating a balanced and proper diet, used drugs and were badly affected by pollutants in the air, water and everywhere else.:rolleyes:
 
Human Immunodeficiency (specifically, T-Cell depletion) doesn't discriminate, no, but a "lifestyle hypothesis" can't be disregarded entirely. There is still room for debate what AIDS and AIDS-like diseases are- and are caused by, despite the hype and hyperbole of those who seem reluctant to acknowledge that "HIV" is merely HTLV-III re-named, historically, AND that there seems to be more than one form of AIDS, epidemiologically.

...

The mere abuse of the moniker "AIDS Denier" is just such hype, and reeks of an intellectual mindset more concerned with derision or propaganda, than any discussion of objective facts, history, or ethics.

Not that there aren't those who deserve such a label, based on a casual reading of this thread alone...

*rolls eyes*
 
qwerty mob said:
despite the hype and hyperbole of those who seem reluctant to acknowledge that "HIV" is merely HTLV-III re-named, historically, AND that there seems to be more than one form of AIDS, epidemiologically.
Click to expand...

You seem to have immense trouble to understand that nomenclature doesn't change the problem.
 
Whatever "I seem to you" is rather easily disregarded, and a naked admission that you are content arguing ad hominem, ad nauseum- rather than to further the discussion which you started.

If not, then kindly address my request from several pages back, rather than again drivel pejoratives my way.

Thanks
 
Really? If you even began to acknowledge those two facts put to you, kindly quote yourself, or link to which post of yours is relevant.

...

My position is that there is still room for debate, and that skepticism is both warranted and preferred. If one can't even discuss the origins of the disease (or diseases) you're pretending to take an interest in, one can't reasonably expect any rebuttal to Duesberg or any other dissenting point of view.

Now then, affirm the origins of "HIV" and/or retract your loaded question.
 
qwerty mob said:
Now then, affirm the origins of "HIV" and/or retract your loaded question.
Click to expand...

Sure. Here is a picture on the evolutionary origin of HIV.

hivtree.gif


It's a bit old, but you get the idea where it comes from by studying it.
 
those who seem reluctant to acknowledge that "HIV" is merely HTLV-III re-named, historically, AND that there seems to be more than one form of AIDS, epidemiologically.
Click to expand...

Are there many people who fit into this category? Because it seems to me that they likely are the same people who deny that hiv exists at all...

Because what you've just said up there is pretty much textbook knowledge. I don't think anybody is denying it, although I'm sure given half a chance Metakron will.
 
Let us not at least be foolish enough to imagine that the thread was started with a sincere intention to discuss the issue.

It might just as well have been closed before the second posting.
 
Actually, the thread was started to discuss the issue of the morality and/or ethics of Aids Denial. The discussion turned along quite different lines than that though.

It does seem to be the general consensus that Aids denial is immoral though.

Only four people have spoken for the other side of the argument.
And of those four, one is merely apt to say anything contrary, no matter the topic.
Another has personal issues with Spurious.

So, the opposing side of the argument is represented solely by two people.
 
There was only person here yet to have claimed that spurious is more important than the issue, and that was spurious.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top