This week, I appeared on the CNN special addressing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) in Indiana. While I have been a long-standing supporter of same-sex marriage, I raised concerns over the dismissive treatment of religious concerns over the scope of anti-discrimination laws and how they may curtail free exercise of religion. I have previously written both columns and academic work on this collision between the two areas of law. In the program, I raised an example of the growing conflicts that we discussed earlier on this blog of a bakery that refused to make a cake deemed insulting to homosexuals while other bakers are objecting to symbols that they view as insulting to their religious views. This issue also came up with an advocate for LGBT rights on the show:
On the show, Sarah Warbelow, legal director of the Human Rights Campaign, appeared and gave an excellent case for those opposing this law. The HRC does very good legal work and has a distinguished history advocating LBGT rights. I however was most interested in one exchange with host Christ Cuomo:
Cuomo: Now, Sarah, you’re going to hear people flip this analogy on you and say, “Well, wait a minute, if this were a Jewish baker and some KKK couple came in and said, “We want you to make a cake.” If he said no, well than how would you feel about the situation?
Warbelow: Well, most of these business owners really are providing cakes across the board, but there are a select few who are choosing to discriminate. And there’s a huge difference between having to write something objectionable on a cake and being asked to provide a cake for a same sex couple.
The exchange was interesting between Warbelow seems to suggest that bakers should be able to refuse “something objectionable on a cake” but insists that bakers cannot refuse to make cakes that they find objectionable for same-sex couples. For some religious bakers, a cake with a same-sex image or language is objectionable.
My point is only that we are brushing aside a difficult and unresolved question of where to draw this line. We are all so eager to show (as I did above) that we support homosexual rights and/or same sex marriage, that there is little frank discussion of the obvious conflict with free exercise and free speech. There is also a limited discussion of the difference between certain forms of expressive arts like photography or baking as opposed to less expressions forms like diners or transportation businesses. For example, there does seem a meaningful distinction between serving a gay couple at a diner and a photographer who is asked to participate in a same-sex marriage and celebration in recording the event and arranging photo settings. That does not mean that we would not reach the same conclusion, but we are not having this debate.
I have struggled with this collision between anti-discrimination laws and free speech/free exercise for many years. I still remain uncertain on whether to draw this line between the two cakes that I described. We should have an answer for those citizens who are raising these concerns rather than dismiss them all as bigots. If the HRC is saying that bakers can refuse to make objectionable cakes, we should have a better understanding of when such objections are deemed legitimate and protected. Free speech and free exercise are rights that require bright line rules to avoid the chilling effect of possible criminal or civil liability. We need to be able to explain why the refusal to make one of these cakes is an unlawful form of bigotry and why the other is a permissible form of free speech.
What do you think?
@ Squeaky Fromm, Girl Fabulist and Disingenue
Regarding your experience with “Birthers,” allow me to point out that any kind of experience has as great a potential for stupefying as for enlightening us.
Your experience with “Birthers” seems to be a case in point, judging by your feckless response below.
“Sooo, I am NOT surprised to find that same pattern in your writing. I took the time to read the decision that your article was based on, an LO AND BEHOLD, the airman was NOT having unprotected anal sex with the swinging party members. He was having heterosexual sex, and we already know that heterosexuals are not the population being clobbered by HIV.”
As a matter of fact, my first post on the subject of the untenability of the HIV/AIDS hypothesis was written in response to a post here saying that we are all at risk for AIDS because of the infectiousness of HIV and its ability to be transmitted sexually, and I cited the military court case only to show that an important legal precedent has now been set which helped undermine the propaganda that HIV is easily transmitted between heterosexuals.
I did not characterize the case as any kind of “smoking gun,” nor do I consider it to be one, and it’s either disingenuous or stupid of you, take your pick, to claim that I did.
Moreover, it’s the pathogenicity of HIV that is of primary importance, and the legal case did not, of course, address that issue. It just went a long way toward keeping so-called “HIV-positive” people out of legal trouble in the future.
With regard to Robert Willner, M.D., Ph.D. who repeatedly inoculated himself with “HIV+ blood to demonstrate its innocuous nature, and wrote a book on the subject, he died of a heart attack at the age of 66, a victim of the number one cause of death in the US.
http://www.whale.to/c/willner_deadly_deception.html
“Finally, you (sic) taking this information from a heterosexual example, and then promulgating and applying this nonsense to men having sex with men, is very likely to kill them.”
Again, you’re being either disingenuous or stupid here, Sqeaks, as I neither said nor implied any such thing.
If you had read the monograph I provided a link to way up-thread, describing the Drug-AIDS Hypothesis, which I indicated that I support, you’d know that it attributes AIDS in the US and Europe to unprotected homosexual promiscuity and its attendant recreational and prescription drug abuse, including antibiotics taken to treat repeated STD infections or as prophylaxis to prevent infections risked by promiscuous sex, as well as repeated insults to the immune system from repeated sexually transmitted infections.
http://duesberg.com/papers/chemical-bases.html
As a matter of fact, you’ve all but convinced me that you’re either intellectually unequipped to analyze objectively the evidence undermining the HIV/AIDS hypothesis, and/or your homophobia is so affecting your thinking that you’re suffering from something like Homophobic Attention Deficit Disorder.
For the benefit of you or anyone else who can muster an open mind and who wants to know what the overwhelming evidence is regarding the etiology of AIDS, here’s a link to an excellent film featuring interviews of world-class medical scientists whose scientific integrity has kept them from jumping on board the Government-Medical Complex’s HIV/AIDS gravy train:
Ingannie
I think Madison codified the 9th amendment so the Constitution is infallible. It is a Magic Number. Ask Mespo727272 >>>> Just look at him <<<< Does he look mesmerizing enough? I want to have him to dinner (sigh)
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/0d/59/cf/0d59cfd1828de34565091c0ff4cb699a.jpg
Many think, incorrectly, that our rights come from these first ten amendments. This is not true at all. Our rights are not granted by government, but rather guaranteed by government.
These first ten amendments enumerate what many consider to be natural rights, and the Constitution is used as a means of making the government guarantee these rights for all citizens.
Despite this guarantee, members of government have found a way to violate each of these rights through laws, regulation and misinterpretation of some sort. That’s why it’s very important that we fight for our rights.
With elected and appointed “officials” in government constantly trying to reshape America to be what they think it should be, the only rights we’ll enjoy are the rights we’re willing to constantly fight for.
http://www.libertarian-logic.com/bill-of-rights.html
Kenny, You said you’re spelling it “Columbia” was a typo a week or so ago. Now you admit you misspelled it, not mistype it. Something we all knew. The first rule of getting out of a hole is to stop digging. LOL. And doing the “I know you are but what am I” game vis a vis me labeling you a Cliff Claven is grammar school, dude. Do you even have a pair of big boy pants?
@happypappies
He isn’t so much annoying, as he is just dense. And dangerous. There are a lot of quacks out there who believe all sorts of weird things, but medical quacks can be really deadly to the people who listen to them. There is just enough truth to the charges that Big Pharma and the doctors are more than willing prescribe unnecessary and often dangerous medicines to make money, that what Ken Rogers says can appear reasonable. But, when you check into the particular facts of this situation, he is just flatly wrong. But, he will be singing the same song from here on out.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Bob, Great comments. There is A LOT more diversity of thought here. Stick around.
Nick
Isn’t he annoying. Did he get his little pocket knife out yet, no, wait, he only does that at night 😉
happypappies:
Thanks for the kind words.
Not all Christian churches hold the same beliefs about same sex marriage. Your church conducts them, and that’s what your church’s theology allows, and members want, so good for all of you!
My church (RC) holds that marriage is a sacrament that is given to men and women in marriage to each other. That clearly isn’t going to change, just as the church’s opposition to abortion and euthanasia is not going to change.
As to gays being denied
You said above: I have prayed about this and what my concern is that if in fact these laws are passed, the next step will be that the gays will not be served at all.
I understand your concern that our gay brothers and sisters are treated equitably. But tell me, where are they not being so treated at this time? Many states allow civil marriages, and the SCOTUS will likely cause same sex civil marriages to be legal in all states. Gays are not being denied service, anywhere, really, although the liberal media just loves to create situations in which it seems like that is happening, but it really isn’t.
A very, very few deeply religious small business owners may opt out of participating in a same sex wedding for reasons of deeply held religious beliefs. But that is by far the exception to the rule, and happens very infrequently. And those few who do deserve every ounce of protection our constitution provides.
It’s very much the same thing as when one says “I don’t agree with a thing that you said, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it”.
Michael Haz
Thanks for answering
Government should, in short, get out of the religious marriage business. Let churches decide who gets the marriage rite without government interference, but let governments deal with the civil institution of marriage (and the 1,138 rights and protections that come with it) without interference from religious authorities.
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2015/03/18/presbyterians-ok-gay-marriage-now-government-should-get-out-of-the-way
Don’t you think???
I am standing in everyone’s shoes defending their rights and when all go too far, that’s when I pray and I pray a lot.
Religion and Politics are emotional and deeply held beliefs and people are hard put to be reasonable about them.
Perhaps it would be best to post a sign that the Business does not make Cakes or Arrangements for Gays because of Religious beliefs in the Window so there is no misunderstanding up front.
This certainly can be done in a tasteful way and as you said, it is our Bill of Rights and The way I understand it, I could be wrong but the 9th Bill is the one that actually is paradoxical enough to protect us forever because Madison was a Genius and an Existentialist at least when he wrote this.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/ninth_amendment
@Ken Rogers,
Oh, and I tried to examine the Dr. Robert Willner rabbit hole, but it seems that poor Dr. Willner died within a few months of intentionally pricking himself with an alleged HIV needle.
Hmmm. Aren’t most Darwin awards given posthumously???
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
@Ken Rogers,
First, I have some experience debunking nonsense, having spent several years clobbering those Birthers who relied on a completely imaginary legal standard that being a natural born citizen required two citizen parents. They had an annoying habit of sending people down these weird rabbit holes where they had drawn erroneous conclusions and/or totally misunderstood what they were reading, or quote mined, or took stuff out of context, or just flatly lied. That was bad enough, but then when you took the time to discover where they went astray, and pointed it out to them, they would just double down on the error. Or, leave that error for a while, go and find a new rabbit hole, and then return to the old rabbit hole at a later date.
Sooo, I am NOT surprised to find that same pattern in your writing. I took the time to read the decision that your article was based on, an LO AND BEHOLD, the airman was NOT having unprotected anal sex with the swinging party members. He was having heterosexual sex, and we already know that heterosexuals are not the population being clobbered by HIV. The details of the subject sexual acts can be found on page 6 of the decision, here:
http://www.omsj.org/cases/2010/Gutierrez/2015/ruling2015.pdf
Sooo, since we already know that HIV is primarily spread through unprotected anal sex, and the airman was NOT having unprotected anal sex, and was some times even using a condom, then the smoking gun legal case you think you found, was actually just a leaky sputtering little squirt gun, that was out of water.
Further, appeals courts are not generalized arbiters of science, per se. They can only rule on the record and the evidence before them. Not to mention the fact that we do not know how competent or incompetent the prosecution was in this particular case. Another case could produce a totally different result. You might want to look at part V of those video, which IIRC was the part dealing with the Paidan document, and the false conclusions presented in The House of Numbers to understand this issue better.
Finally, you taking this information from a heterosexual example, and then promulgating and applying this nonsense to men having sex with men, is very likely to kill them. If you need something to do, perhaps you could find a different dead horse to flog, maybe denying the moon landing??? While stupid, at least your devotees would not require a coroner
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Squeeks
Did you figger out Mr Rogers Did you? Isn’t he annoying. I kept telling him I was watching him and knew who he was and that he was nasty till he stopped posting to me. He said he wouldn’t post to me anymore and told others not to either and really hurt my feelings. (lol) He takes up so much space with his stupid cut and paste. If he says projection one more time I am going to fall asleep at the wheel for sure as his limited understanding of psychology is truly boring.
I hope that since I made my position clearer on this issue meaning that businesses should come out and state their intentions up front and not change the boat mid stream like the florist did. Kind of like Hobby Lobby and Chick Fil lit so people understand where they are coming from.
This way you won’t have the overreaching stench of hypocrite on both sides.
Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter
,”Well, you are free to align yourself with Kary Mullis and his Alien Raccoon in AIDS denialism, but if you are currently HIV negative, and truly believe the HIV virus to be harmless, perhaps you should do as Myles the Emoter suggests, and simply shoot yourself up with the virus. If you are fun-loving, perhaps you can just start having unprotected sex with HIV positive persons! After all, it’s harmless according to you!”
I see that, despite my personally pointing out to you the great difference between the two, you persist in the ignorant and/or dishonest characterization of HIV/AIDS skepticism as AIDS denialism.
As far as shooting myself up with the virus is concerned, I’d have no problem with doing so, nor for fear of HIV, with having unprotected sex with women who are HIV positive. There are, however, many real STDs, and having unprotected sex unless both partners are STD-free and in a monogamous relationship is taking a risk against which I strongly advise, as an STD epidemiologist.
February / March 1995
Doctor injects himself with HIV+ blood
“Looking to publicize his belief that HIV does not cause AIDS, Florida physician Robert Willner first injected himself with HIV-infected blood in Spain in 1993. Willner, author of the book Deadly Deception: The Proof That Sex and HIV Absolutely Do Not Cause AIDS believes that AIDS is caused by a variety of immunosupressive factors including several diseases and the use of recreational and prescription drugs.
“He says that most medically supervised AIDS deaths were actually caused by AZT, and pledges, ‘I will repeat the process of sticking myself with the blood of an HIV positive person on television in every city of the world until this genocide stops.’ Last fall—perhaps spurred by the popularity of the film “Interview With The Vampire”—Willner’s schedule of inoculations picked up, with appearances in New York City, Greensboro, North Carolina, Cleveland, and Hollywood.
“According to The Washington Post, studies of injection drug users and health workers who accidentally stick themselves with an infected needle indicate that Willner has less than one-third of one percent chance of becoming HIV positive infected from each inoculation.”
http://www.poz.com/articles/2172_4990.shtml
Here’s something else that should be of interest to you:
Court of Appeals rules HIV not likely to be spread through unprotected sex
2015-03-30
March 30, 2015, London, UK. Press Dispensary.
“In a landmark legal case that has received little attention outside the United States, the highest military court in the US recently overturned decades of judgements regarding the likelihood of spreading HIV through unprotected sex.
“In late February, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) unanimously threw out a 2011 conviction against a US airman, Sergeant David Gutierrez of Kansas, for committing ‘aggravated assault’ when exposing multiple sex partners to HIV at swinger parties in Wichita. According to defence attorney Kevin McDermott, the decision reversed a 25-year precedent that had allowed military personnel to be convicted of aggravated assault solely on the basis of a positive HIV test.
” ‘The key to the decision was that the convicted airman was not accused of actually infecting anyone with HIV, only of having had sex with them after a positive HIV test, and his conviction was overturned because the US government could not prove that any of his acts were likely to transmit HIV to his partners. The second highest court in America has unanimously rubbished the myth that being found HIV positive makes someone an automatic risk to others.’
So said Joan Shenton, London-based author of the recently republished anniversary edition of the book Positively False – Exposing the Myths around HIV and AIDS.
“Shenton continued: ‘The US government was unable to prove a likelihood that an HIV person is a risk, even during unprotected sex, because there is no proof. And if the transmission of HIV is now in such doubt, the entire edifice of the infectious hypothesis for AIDS will surely come tumbling down.’
“The absence of any definitive medical evidence about HIV transmission was highlighted when defence lawyers argued the risk ranged from a 1-in-10,000 to 1-in-100,000 chance per sexual encounter and prosecutors countered that the exposure risk was closer to 1 in 500. The court determined that even if the risk were 1 in 500, transmission of the disease was not “likely” to occur.
“Clark Baker, of the Office of Medical Science and Justice (OMSJ), which was the driving force behind Sergeant Gutierrez’s appeal, said this week:
‘While gratified that the highest US military court unanimously agrees that HIV does not pose the existential threat claimed by government-funded propagandists, I am sickened by the millions of innocents around the world whose lives have been destroyed by this $400 billion marketing scam to promote unreliable tests to sell deadly HIV drugs. This ruling is long overdue.’
“David Crowe, president of Rethinking AIDS, said this week:
‘HIV is the only disease to be highly criminalized in the modern era. If courts truly believed in ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’, they would not rely on tests that produce false positives that cannot be eliminated, nor on biased analyses that cannot tell the direction of transmission, but do set juries in the direction of conviction. Society talks about privacy of an HIV diagnosis, but then mandates that all HIV+ people reveal their status, unless they want to remain celibate for life while still facing the likelihood of isolation, prejudice and violence if their status becomes public.’
“Dr Christian Fiala, medical director of the Gynmed clinic in Vienna, added this week:
‘This ruling confirms what is evident from all epidemiological and medical studies: there is no heterosexual transmission of HIV or any illness labelled as AIDS. This ruling also takes into consideration the fundamental problems and contradictions of the HIV test and the definition of AIDS, which has been changed several times over the last 30 years and which is very different in different countries. Even the manufacturer of the HIV test states ‘At present there is no recognized standard for establishing the presence of absence of antibodies to HIV-1 and HIV-2 in human blood.’*
“It is now up to other courts and governments to recognize the clear evidence and to stop terrorizing those who are labelled HIV positive.”
“Joan Shenton concluded:
‘For everyone who has long argued that those found HIV positive are not automatically guilty of some heinous crime if they have unprotected sex, this is one of the most significant court judgements in years, particularly as it was a unanimous verdict from the highest military court in the US. Potentially it unlocks the shackles for millions of people worldwide who have been declared HIV positive.’ ”
https://www.pressdispensary.co.uk/releases/c993927/Court-of-Appeals-rules-HIV-not-likely-to-be-spread-through-unprotected-sex.html
As you said in an earlier post, the truth will out. May that happen sooner, rather than later.
I’m talking about things like state compelled speech; e.g. photographers being forced to photograph gay weddings regardless of whether they deem it morally objectionable.
I’m talking about replacing the moral responsibility of the individual with the policy of the state.
“Instead of moral and mental differentiation of the individual, you have public welfare and the raising of the living standard. The goal and meaning of individual life (which is the only real life) no longer lie in individual development but in the policy of the State, which is thrust upon the individual from outside and consists in the execution of an abstract idea which ultimately tends to attract all life to itself. The individual is increasingly deprived of the moral decision as to how he should live his own life, and instead is ruled, fed, clothed and educated as a social unit, accommodated in the appropriate housing unit, and amused in accordance with the standards that give pleasure and satisfaction to the masses.” — C.G. Jung
Non-Discrimination v. Indoctrination
If the state cannot force religion on someone by ordering him to participate in a program like Alcoholics Anonymous because of its religious component, then how can the state force a business owner to participate in a ritual contradicting his religious beliefs?
It’s one thing to compel tolerance of other people’s lifestyles; it’s quite another to compel participation.
@ Nicky Spinelli, Professional People Reader
Are you familiar with the psychological phenomenon known as “projection,” Nicky?
I ask because of your positively Clavenesque post above in which you assert your incommensurately superior detailed and intimate knowledge of Muhammad Ali’s strengths and weaknesses, the religiosity of a bank robber whom you came to know quite well at the post office, er, I mean at a federal halfway house and at Leavenworth, as well as that of other federal prisoners, not to mention your extensive knowledge of my personal ignorance regarding countless subjects that you long ago mastered.
I know that you adopted a Colombian and are, as a consequence, one of the foremost authorities in the world on the spelling of Colombia, in addition to being, as a result of your unparalleled life experience and psychological acumen, a Professional People Reader who specializes in spotting borderline personality disorder, which I’ve personally witnessed your doing on numerous occasions, but aren’t you still yet quite a bit more worldly-wise than you’ve been letting on?
Is it realistic of either of us, then, to expect me to stand anywhere other than in the shadow of your enormous and inimitably Clavenesque presence?
By the way, which of our Ali quotations is the more accurate, and what is the irony in his assertion that his religion, as he understood it, prohibited his killing people?
Lay it on me, Clifford. 🙂
I forgot to mention, the Black Muslim bank robber I got to know, along w/ other NOI bank robbers, did it for the NOI. They are also the “religion of peace.” Malcolm had the temerity to speak the truth. The NOI took care of him.
Nick – I think Malcolm X was a loose cannon. No church likes a loose cannon.
Paul, CNN just did a good documentary on the assassination of Malcolm. Farrakahn was involved, but never proved.
Nick – I personally think Farrakan was involved in his death but those two Black Muslims were willing to take one for the team.
Keep speaking in paragraphs, Cliff Claven..err Kenny. Then everyone will see you for the dime store “intellect” you really are. Again, you have done some middle school instant research on Ali. I know his life. I know his strengths and weaknesses. I know the NOI well, having worked in the Federal Prison where it was prominent in the 70’s, Leavenworth. I have actually discussed @ length their religion w/ inmates. It made some of my colleagues uncomfortable. I knew a bank robber quite well, who robbed banks before and AFTER his conversion. I knew him in a Federal halfway house when I worked there and he was a resident, and when he was back in Leavenworth for bank robbery. You know what you just read this afternoon about the NOI. You are fooling no one, Cliff. You don’t even grasp the NOI is different than Islam. MUCH different. Malcolm X found that out. Ali never did. the NOI is akin to Scientology. It is NOT Islam.
Well, Nicky, I seem to remember Ali’s saying what I quoted him as saying, and I sourced it in my post.
I corrected your version of what he’d said, not only for accuracy’s sake, but also because it was important to Ali’s position to call attention to the fact that the white-power establishment who wanted him to go to Viet Nam and kill brown people on their behalf was the same white-power establishment that was given to referring to Ali and other Afro-Americans as “niggers,” with all the socio-political ramifications of that characterization.
The significance of that may have been lost on you, but it wasn’t lost on me nor on a whole lot of other people.
Furthermore, you’re the one who found it “ironic” that Ali said that his religion prohibited him from killing people, clearly implying that your understanding of his religion is superior to his own.
This is only the next-to-latest example of your asserting your extremely specious superiority.
As you’ve done me the favor of sharing the quotation that I remind you of, allow me to return the favor, which I’ve previously refrained from doing:
“There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action.” Goethe
@Ken Rogers,
Well, you are free to align yourself with Kary Mullis and his Alien Raccoon in AIDS denialism, but if you are currently HIV negative, and truly believe the HIV virus to be harmless, perhaps you should do as Myles the Emoter suggests, and simply shoot yourself up with the virus. If you are fun-loving, perhaps you can just start having unprotected sex with HIV positive persons! After all, it’s harmless according to you!
In the meantime, I watched the whole 9 episodes, and there is a lot more there than a few cuss words. He directly contradicts information in the House of Numbers show. You need to watch it and stop promulgating crap that will kill anybody who listens to you.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
How HIV/AIDS spreads – from Science Daily
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/04/150402161747.htm
Kenny, I have forgotten more about Ali than you know about his life. I’ve read many books on Ali, followed his career in real time, and been to his museum in Louisville. Thanks for nitpicking the quote. Nitpicking is your specialty. You realize Ali was brand new to the Nation of Islam faith, which is different than Islam. They believe in a mother ship or UFO, akin to L Ron Hubbard, another charlatan, as was Elijah Muhammad. Malcolm X rejected Elijah Muhammad when he found him to be a charlatan. Ali was manipulated by NOI and surrendered much of his hard earned money to the Nation. What turned me away from Ali, was not his draft stance. Indeed, he lost the best years of his career because of that. What disgusted me, and many others, was the way Ali treated Joe Frazier. Even Ali’s biggest supporters were shocked @ the way he treated Joe, and man who gave him money when he was broke, and gave him a title shot after the SCOTUS decision.
You must hate Twitter. You must be the guy in the bar who goes on and on and on and on and on and on. You constantly remind me of the quote, “A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.”
Nick – I couldn’t respect Cassius Clay because he was willing to beat the hell out of people, but joined the Black Muslims (who winter in Phoenix) and then could not fight in Vietnam. Elijah Muhammad was a fraud and so are his followers. His followers killed Malcolm X who was coming around to a more unified approach to race.
Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter
“Well, I actually watched all 9 parts of the debunking of The House of Numbers. I really think that you should do the same, because your promulgation of aids denialism is helping to murder people.”
Powers inadvertently flaunts the fact that he is in way over his head when it comes to evaluating the evidence for and against the HIV/AIDS hypothesis.
Judging from his illogicality and his diction, he is, in addition to his ignorance of the relevant factors and procedures in mounting a scientific evaluation of the hypothesis in question, a strikingly undereducated person in general.
His is clearly a primarily emotional approach to the question, which is evidenced by, among many other things, his frequent resort to words like, “crap,” “garbage,” “crazy,” “bullsh*t,” and most obviously, “F*ck You Guys!”
Additional evidence of his emotionality, if any were needed, is that he (and you) ignorantly and/or dishonestly refer repeatedly to “AIDS denialists,” rather than to “HIV/AIDS skeptics,” when it is the causes of different manifestations of AIDS that is being questioned by the vast majority of skeptics, not that of the existence of HIV or the constellation of syndromes commonly lumped together under the umbrella term, “AIDS.”
An analogy of the latter would be the diagnostic lumping together of people with influenza and the common cold as having “an upper respiratory infection” (URI), based on the similarity of their symptoms, without distinguishing between viral and bacterial causes of their illness. As a matter of fact, much antibiotic resistance and ineffective treatment have been generated by doctors who have prescribed antibiotics for viral infections, just as many people have been harmed (or killed) by toxic drugs prescribed to kill a virus that they might not even have in their bodies.
Remember, the HIV tests are for HIV antibodies, and false positive test results for HIV can be generated by 60+ other conditions, including pregnancy.
Moreover, the great preponderance of evidence indicates that even if HIV is present in one’s body, it is harmless. No other purported etiologic agent in medical history has been claimed as such while it is also claimed that symptoms from that agent may not appear for decades.
Now, if you and Myles the Emoter want to shorten your lives and suffer the severe and life-shortening “side-effects” of ingesting extremely toxic chemicals based on your being told that you are “infected with HIV,” no one can stop you.
Fortunately, neither of you is likely to persuade many, if any, others to do so, because you both are apparently unable to even distinguish between AIDS denialism and HIV/AIDS skepticism, let alone able to evaluate the merits of different scientific hypotheses concerning the etiology of various forms of AIDS and how they may be most effectively and safely treated.
It’s a good idea to keep in mind in this connection that according to multiple studies, 106,000 Americans die in hospitals each and every year from prescription drugs that are taken as prescribed, and most of these drugs are innocuous when compared with the toxicity of anti-retrovirals.
http://whale.to/a/null9.html#Table_1:_Estimated_Annual_Mortality_and_Economic_Cost_of_Medical_Intervention