# AIDS denial is immoral

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by spuriousmonkey, Jan 2, 2007.

1. ### Prince_JamesPlutarch (Mickey's Dog)Registered Senior Member

Messages:
9,214
Bells:

I love you, too.

And just for the record for everyone:

It should be noted I was answering the "argumentum ad Hitlerum". I do not think it valid to proclaim something as wrong because "Hitler did it!", specifically so unrelated as belief that we oughtn't squash alternative theories.

3. ### Baron MaxRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
23,053
Actions, yes ...a bunch of words? No! If we started doing that, half of the human race would be held in jails somewhere!!

I'd also ask you, as the prosecuting attorney, to prove to me that my words led directly to the actions of others.

If I tell someone that jumping from a bridge from fifty feet above the water, that the water will be soft, would you hold me responsible if the idiot tried it?

No, it wasn't a "funny", it's because I can never remember how to spell "hypocrite" or "hypocrit" ....and I don't want to look stupid in front of the entire human race!!

There's a lot more of it out there than you think, Bells! I can't do Internet research worth a damn, but I've read articles in the paper "condeming" just such "scientific" papers that show AIDS as a lie.

And besides, don't he have "moderator" authority here? Even if he's a moderator on some other forum?

Baron Max

5. ### invert_nexusZe do caixaoValued Senior Member

Messages:
9,686
Have you just lost your mind?
This is the problem with conspiracy theorists...
You've just completely lost the ball.

No.

7. ### MetaKronRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
5,502
The fact is that Spurious plans to pull every trick in the book to excuse getting rid of any evidence that I do bring up. I put up the link to a website that contains a lot of well-documented information. He just says that it's a propaganda site and not a good source. The first source that I used was a link to Aegis, which is billed as the premiere source of information on the Internet, for the so-called establishment side of AIDS, and he claimed that I didn't give any evidence to support what I said.

Spurious plans to keep lying and keep playing headgames. That is all that he is here for.

The AIDS industry makes millions of dollars every day that this hoax continues. Every stupid delaying tactic that they can come up with makes them billions. If they had to pay people like Spurious tens of thousands of dollars a day to do this they would still come out way ahead on the money that they gain by preventing the word from getting out. People like him are hired just for that purpose.

He has already proven to me that he is one of them, so in all honesty there is no point in trying to make nice. He's not going to make nice and I am ashamed of people who let someone run wild because he has "moderator" status and we're all supposed to suck up to authority.

8. ### MetaKronRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
5,502
He is someone's sock puppet. No, I have not lost my mind. Spurious is exactly what I said he is. He and others like him have been doing this since 1996 at the very earliest, or at least that's the earliest that I know of.

9. ### invert_nexusZe do caixaoValued Senior Member

Messages:
9,686
No, he's not.
You're being silly.

10. ### invert_nexusZe do caixaoValued Senior Member

Messages:
9,686
Spurious can't do any such thing in this forum. His power is only in the biology forum. All he could do here is give you an infraction, and it's doubtful he'd do that. He held back from giving you infractions already.

Here's an idea, Metakron.

Is it?
If it was, you'd have no problems showing the evidence that Spurious is asking for.

Take it to Science and Society.
Then you can start accusing Sam of being an Aids conspiracy thingamajigger.

11. ### MetaKronRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
5,502
Spurious is deliberately giving me problems about giving the sources that he demands. He is nitpicking. He is playing games. He is making rules that only I am bound to follow. Believe me, I know him and I know his game by now. The whole thing is deliberately calculated to make me paranoid, except that paranoia is when you think that someone is out to get you who actually isn't. Spurious is and has been since this affair started.

When I put up sources all that he will do is say that there is something he doesn't like about them and then cesspool the message just to disrupt the discussion. He has absolutely no intention of conducting his moderation in a fair manner.

12. ### invert_nexusZe do caixaoValued Senior Member

Messages:
9,686
So, why bother?
Fuck him.
Like I said, take it to Science and Society.
Or here.
Or even the cesspool.
What's the difference?

The question is, do you really think that you're going to have a productive discussion here?
You're alone, Metakron.
Absolutely NOBODY is on your side on this aids thing.
Tor was only doing it for her own personal reasons. To stir up drama and to get people to visit her blog.
Sauna was just kissing Tor's ass and also going against Spurious for his own personal reasons.

The others might stand up for your right to state your opinion, but they think your opinion is bullshit.

Why bother?
You're getting pretty paranoid here.
Seriously, man.

Messages:
5,502

16. ### MeanwhileBannedBanned

Messages:
480
I'm curious: MetaKron and Baron Max = Spurious just provided us with an impressionable scenario of ramifications incurred from dissidents who argue over medical legitimacy of terms while the real world is expected to wait for settlements in medical journals -- what would be the possible ramifications of accepting the hiv/aids recipe?

17. ### MetaKronRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
5,502
No, that's someone else. I know exactly who, which forum he runs, and who pays him. It's a matter of public record.

Messages:
3,423
Dr. Phil?

19. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
33,251
Baron Max:

Err...

"...we're just going to take you for a crackpot who helps perpetuate the denial that is killing millions of people world wide."

Did you miss that?

20. ### MetaKronRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
5,502
Did you ever analyze Pascal's wager? That it's safer to believe that a God exists even if he doesn't? I think that all the people who were killed by God-fearing Christians and Moslems may disagree.

The drugs are lethal. The tests say right on the package that they are unreliable. It is possible for someone to send the same blood sample to several clinics and get as many results, no two of which resemble each other. Babies have been forced to take drugs that make them very sick and that are extremely dangerous to them.

www.virusmyth.net

21. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
33,251
MetaKron:

Such as... ?

Is it?

What hoax?

Ooh! One of "them".

You sound like a typical conspiracy nutter. Surely not?

But the death rates in America, to take one example, from AIDS in the 1980s were far, far higher than they are today. Yet in African nations which can't afford those nasty drugs, deaths from AIDS are increasing.

Kind of demolishes your argument, wouldn't you say?

22. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
33,251
Which drugs, in particular?

23. ### MetaKronRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
5,502
The typical conspiracy nutter has grown very sick of the way that people treat anyone who thinks outside of the very narrow confines of whatever it is that you substitute for thought, James.