Well, what you get here on an anonymous basis for the price of asking is unlimited quantities of condoms and needles.
I don't care what anybody says, condoms are a good thing. Not so sure about needles though.
You can't really stop all youngsters from doing sex, and unless the long-term is some kind of gruesome eugenics, there's no benefit in withholding sufficient supplies of condoms.
Or not educating kids about the facts of life early enough. I've heard lots of kids saying stupid things like, "I thought I couldn't get pregnant if it was the first time/if I was on top/if I squeezed lemon in after/if I drank beer and jumped up and down alot." (yes, these were all stuff I've heard with my own ears)
The whole AIDS epidemic depresses me immensely. It seems that drug companies, governments and the Catholic church are trying to do everything in their power to help spread AIDS. Most of their decisions, such as the one Homunculus pointed out, are completely beyond any comprehension.
"The whole AIDS epidemic depresses me immensely."
No shit? The rest of us aren't exactly laughing our asses off, I have to say. Ever lost someone you know to AIDS? Depressing isn't quite the word I'd use.
It's been clear for over a decade that drug companies, governments and of course the ever-progressive Catholic church, et al, haven't been exactly falling over themselves to stop the spread of this disease. This isn't going to change until the majority of us start getting really pissed-off and vocal about it, demanding far more action - and frankly, from what I see of human nature, it will take many more years, an enormous education drive, & a massive impact on the populace right across the board before that is a possibility.
I remember in the 80's that AIDS was predicted as a decimator; a plague that would reach unparalleled proportions by the turn of the century. Well, it's a decimator all right, but it's not hit human population in the West in quite the way that, sadly, needs to wake people up to the problem, even now. Yes, we really are that fucking numb. I find it hard to accept, but it's reality. Meanwhile let's attack Iraq! WMD! Emmanuel Goldstein Osama bin Laden! etc. Makes me sick.
Not so sure about needles though.
Dear friend
Nostrildamus: Your sick fuck humour aside, that's slightly rude to Blaise BF.
HIV is fucked up. But it didn't kill like the plague, and one can only hope that countries can learn from others mistakes and gains and help prevent it from spreading. And the catholic church means fuck-all in India, being that it's only 2.3% of the population. This isn't an issue of catholic politics, GWB, or anything else relating to that matter. It's an issue of international patent law and how screwed up that is, and an issue of Indian politics hopefully with the pushing of the WHO, UN, or some other large body of law to get them to recognize and combat the pandemic. I think.
disclaimer: i am drunk as shit right now
AIDS doesn't kill people, you stupid fools.
Its strange, I don't miss the leviathan one little bit
HIV is fucked up. But it didn't kill like the plague
But it could, and it would, if left unnattended in a population. A whole generation of children would be born with it, and die before they're 10. That'd be as devastating as any plague.
dng: Absolutely. But it didn't, and that was the whole point of that sentance. In fucked-up reagonite america we somehow managed to keep it from hitting us like it did SA (who's government was so far beyond ours it can't even compare), and thus I have faith that a country like India can overcome this. What we (me, my country, whoever else) as non-Indians need to do is work to force the world governing bodies to take a stronger stance in the Asian fight against HIV.
Even in the USA, ignorance abides. I hear people tell their children that not having sex is the only way to prevent STDs, with no mention of the use of condoms at all. Why? The answer I get is * If you tell a kid about condoms, or any type of birth control, you give the kid permission to have sex before marriage.* This is from adults in a rural area who believe that any type of information given to kids about STDs and protecting theirselves is a license to have sex. GWB and the catholic church only enhance this ignorance with their take on condom use and abstinence.
*Just say no* didn't work for stopping drug use, it won't work for stopping sex either.
I am all for abstinence, but reality isn't. There will always be teens who engage in premarital sex. The only way these kids can be safe is to arm them with the facts about HIV and HIV prevention. Free condoms, and instructions on how to use them correctly is a good thing. Clean needle exchange is a good thing. Education of the population is a good thing, if the education is factual.
I am depressed by the ignorance that remains in our own popoulation.
You are right on about the education issue, Bratcat, and the situation is only getting worse. More and more government money is being dumped in to abstinence-only sex education, which studies have proven time and time again simply don't work. However, this type of curricula has turned into a money-making venture for right-wing/fundamentalist groups and the current administration is 100% in support of it. In the meantime, fewer than half of public schools offer information on how to obtain birth control.
Is it any wonder that the U.S. has the highest rate of teen pregnancy in the developed world, and American adolescents are contracting HIV faster than almost any other demographic group? The teen pregnancy rate in the U.S. is at least twice that in Canada, England, France, and Sweden, and 10 times that in the Netherlands. (stats from the Planned Parenthood website.)
However, the current administration isn't content just to promote this fucked-up social agenda here. With GW sigining the Global Gag rule as soon as he entered office, overseas AIDS/HIV programs were decimated, because any group provided information about abortion (notice I said information, not the actual procedure) even with their own money, could no longer recieve US funds for AIDS education/prevention programs. Since then,Congress has funneled the bulk of the new HIV/AIDS money to religious organizations that have a very narrow, abstinence-based approach to HIV/AIDS prevention that excludes condoms.
From homunculus's Bush policy link:
little will soon remain except failed programs that denounce condom use, while teaching abstinence as the only way to prevent the spread of AIDS.
You have to give Bush/administration a break here. I know I fucked in high school and that the last thing I would listen to is "stupid unfun adults" telling me not to have awsome inexperienced sex, but you can't expect world leaders (i.e. people in charge of the world) to know that I acted/felt this way.
Knocks on ian would say's head.
"Hello, is there anything in there?"
Have a look at current stats in Africa and emerging stats in India, China, and South East Asia. The AIDS does kill like the plague. Infection and mortality rates are huge on a world-wide basis. The affluent West is relatively unaffected: big deal; the Black Death didn't get too many people who could afford to leave the cities and hang out in isolated mansions, either.
I was just thinking the other day, what ever happened to AIDS?
As some in this thread have alluded to, because AIDS isn't tearing through the developed world like ye plagues of olde, it's not seen as the harbinger of death it has become in the under-developed world. People receiving adequate treatment can often have a fruitful existence after diagnosis. And it's only synonymous with 'teh gay' in the minds of people with an aversion to facts.
Sadly, it's become another signal of inequality - and even worse, kept that way due to a combination of pharmaceutical companies maintaining a profit margin and the ignorance of policy-makers in affected nations.
rodgerd: The Black Death analogy was meant to be stretched further than you're taking it. India was rebuilt in the image of the west, it was the crown jewel in Britian's empire. The title of this post is AIDS in India, not AIDS in Africa, China, or South East Asia. How a country attacks HIV depends on it's political and economic structures, and I believe that India will be able to fight HIV in a way that many African countries have not.
But that wasn't even my real point of any of these posts. My real point is that, yes, India is a deciding ground for the Asian HIV battle, and that we need to aggresively pursue international bodies of law to force India to start fighting it, now. My sub-point was that I believe India will be able to fight it and HIV can be 'stabilized' as it has been in Europe and the Americas.
And really, my initial post was just to speak out against Nostrildamus' viewpoint that GWB and the catholic church meant anything in the Asian fight against HIV. It's fucked-up international patent law and drug corporations that we should be fighting against.
It's fucked-up international patent law and drug corporations that we should be fighting against.
And, almost more specifically, the people responsible-for/working-for/influencing these things.
It's fucked-up international patent law and drug corporations that we should be fighting against.
Pharmaceutical companies are greedy, money-grubbing capitalist pigs feeding at the trough. True enough. But they are a necessary part of the equation. Figuring out a solution to encourage Big Pharma to step up to the plate in the developing world will take some creative thinking. These folks have a good start.
Yes, they operate in Africa, not India (yet) and they treat more than HIV. But it's a way to get treatment to people who otherwise would not have access to it.
Pharmaceutical companies are greedy, money-grubbing capitalist pigs feeding at the trough.
I've also heard that people act like this as well.
ok, I'll stop now.
I've also heard that people act like this as well.
The difference between people and corporations is that individuals can act against their natural instincts since some of their personal ideas can have more influence over their personal decisions, while corporations are the sum of millions of minds were most conflictive but positive ideas cancel out and only the sum of the most general and instinctive survival thoughs remains.
Also that's the difference between organizations and corporations. People in corporations rarely share a goal while organizations tend to be formed by people that share a common goal or at least that's what they believe.
I've also heard that people act like this as well.
ok, I'll stop now.freethought, rather than stopping, can you say a little bit more? At the risk of being dense, I'm not sure what you're trying to say, and rather than make any assumptions, I'd be interested to understand what you are getting at.
can you say a little bit more?
I'm not going to pretend to have a cohesive philosophy to summarize what I’m getting at, but I feel that people should think less about going after entities and more about going after those responsible for maintaining/creating those entities.
Zemat is on to something with his conceptualizing of a corporation, but I think the above idea is still fine. Just because there may be millions in a corporation doesn’t mean there aren't good/specific human targets.
One small example: You may say that a corporation follows rules/procedures/policies that you disagree with. Don’t attack those elements by themselves. Try to find out who specifically wrote/maintains/controls the rules/etc. and bring them into the fight.
When you complain about a rule it can’t listen say, “You know, you’re right/wrong/I’ll-consider!” A rule/procedure/policy/corporation-as-entity has nothing to answer to (because it can’t) and it "ignores" you without pressure.
This is something that seems obvious to me (going after people) so I just joke about it.
freethought- are you advocating an adversarial approach, or trying to shape change through connecting with individuals on a person-to-person level, when the persons in question have the power to influence corporations? I ask because you used language like "going after those responsible" "specific human targets" and "bring them into the fight". That language for me creates images of confrontational actions, i.e., showing up at 5 a.m. with bullhorns, as opposed to reaching out to people to collaborate on constructive projects.
You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar...
abrosia is onto one of my unstated points. This kind of aggressive language seems more acceptable when you're dealing with nonhuman factors.
It's more acceptable to say you're targeting a corporation than a person. "targeting" isn't a good word/example, but the point is as follows:
Perhaps our feelings/the-way-we-approach-a-situation are/is related to the language we use to deal with a problem, which is related to whether we're dealing with people or not?
I know this is painfully obvious so don't make fun of me for that; make fun of something else I said instead.
Hey freethought, it's not painfully obvious, it's a very cogent point. See this professor at UC Berkeley (more in wikipedia.)
Thanks for answering my questions!
With almost a quarter of its population infected with the virus, Zimbabwe has been the country most dramatically affected. Life expectancy there has plummeted from 57 years in 1990 to 34 in 2002.
Dear fucking God.
Emmanuel GoldsteinOsama bin Laden! etc. Makes me sick.