AIDS denial is immoral

You are of course assuming that I was somehow propositioning you. Seeing that I am married and find the whole concept of prowling the internet for men to be quite bizarre, you honestly hold no interest.

--------------------------------


It really is quite an easy question Meta. A yes or no will suffice. Avoiding it with personal insults won't really work as it just proves you are avoiding the question.

I found this to be quite interesting:

You have made the claim that AIDS cannot be spread through sexual contact. Fair enough, that is your stand on this issue. So why can't you answer the question? You have also claimed that HIV is a myth, so findings which state that HIV has been found in the semen, vaginal fluid and blood of AIDS patients should not really affect you in any way, shape or form. So I shall ask you again:

"Would you have unprotected sex with a woman who told you that she had AIDS and you knew she had no STD's at all and was on the pill?"

 

Just answer the question Meta.

I wouldn't be asking if I were not interested in your answers. Why are you avoiding it? After all, you have said HIV is a myth, you have said there is a cure for AIDS (eg vitamins and balanced diet), you have said that there has never been evidence of AIDS transmission through sexual contact. So you pretty much have nothing to be scared of.

After all, you don't believe in HIV, you think if you do get AIDS, it can be cured via a balanced diet, proper lifestyle and vitamins and you don't think AIDS can be spread through sexual contact. So why can't you answer the question? Yes or no. It's all I ask.

 

Who said anything about AZT?

Would you have unprotected sex with someone who was AIDS, who you knew had no STD's and was on the pill (so pregnancy was not an issue)?

I find it astounding that through all the claims you have made, you can't answer a simple question. What are you afraid of?

 

What in the world do you think I could do to you if you answer either way? This is the internet Meta. I can hardly reach through the screen and slap you. Nor can I do anything to you at all. I don't know who you are or what you do.

So you really have nothing to fear. I am not going to give you an infraction or ban you for your answer. I honestly want to know your answer.

 

So you'd be willing to have unprotected sex with someone who has HIV and/or AIDS and no other STD's and pregnancy is not an issue? From the answer you have given above, I will be correct in assuming that you have in fact answered 'yes' to my question? Fair enough.

I will say one thing however. Just in case "the establishment" is in fact correct, would you please ensure your own safety, and that of others, by wearing a condom for any sexual activity you might have with a HIV and AIDS positive individual? You should wear one regardless of the whether that the person may be infected or not anyway.

But just in case you are wrong about this whole issue, please wear a condom.

Better safe than sorry I guess.

 

So telling you that it's better to be safe than sorry is a trap? You did not have to respond to my plea. All I asked was that you keep it in mind so that you do not endanger yourself or others. Whether you take the advice or not is your decision and yours alone.

You might consider it to be a shame (or sham?). If you think using a condom goes against your "basic freedoms", then that is up to you.

However you must keep in mind that not everyone believes as you do and some do actually consider HIV and AIDS to be a dangerous illness. You should at the very least respect their stance by using protection. You should use protection anyway to guard yourself against any STD's regardless of your stance on HIV and AIDS.

----------------------------------------------

Now does AZT affect one's DNA? I honestly couldn't tell you so I can't say yes or no at this point in time. Now lets not forget that I believe HIV does exist and does lead to AIDS. I also believe that in some patients, AZT has been effective in slowing down HIV. So its affects on the individuals DNA (if that is indeed the case) would have to be weighed against slowing down HIV and not having any children in the future (if it does affect the DNA). Like Thalidamide is now used to treat some medical conditions with the recommendations that the taker of the medication never ever fall pregnant, if AZT is proven to affect one's DNA, then it should be given with the same guarrantees and warnings.

But so far, I have seen no proper research to say for a fact that your claims are indeed true, as AZT has been given to pregnant women with no detrimental effects to their offpsring. Simply, no one knows what the long term effects of AZT are on DNA and how it could affect children who's mother's were on AZT during their pregnancy. I won't deny that I simply don't know because I honestly do not. So fat to date, AZT has been found to reduce the risk of passing on HIV to the unborn child by 70%, but its long term effects cannot yet be determined.Link

So for me to say yes to your demand would be false as I honestly do not know at this point.