Re: A person with HIV tells why Stigma was relevan
Thats true. Even though they do screen it.
Thats true. Even though they do screen it.
A person with HIV tells why Stigma was relevant
- Thread starter Peacemaker
- Start date
Re: A person with HIV tells why Stigma was relevan
I support the public health regulations of the states. Disclosure is regulated by the states.
I support the public health regulations of the states. Disclosure is regulated by the states.
Re: A person with HIV tells why Stigma was relevan
Our society is the "anything goes" type, so....what stigma does this world have about how AIDS is contracted? Multiple partners? Homosexual? "It's all good." as the saying goes.
Our society is the "anything goes" type, so....what stigma does this world have about how AIDS is contracted? Multiple partners? Homosexual? "It's all good." as the saying goes.
Re: A person with HIV tells why Stigma was relevan
The funny thing about this is that the underlying belief you seem to be articulating is the old "homosexuals are promiscuous, heterosexuals are not," and/or the "those that got HIV got it via promiscuity." First, "promiscucity" is defined as "having more than one sex partner." That alone disqualfies the first statement. However, if you want to get picky, then we can take up a topic in TNZ about the promiscuity of gays vs. hets. (By the way, gays are no more promiscous than heterosexuals. "Promiscuity" is a sociological function of GENDER, NOT SEXUAL ORIENTATION). If you have data to present that shows the number of sexual partners it takes to get infected with HIV, by all means do so. In short, if you think that HIV positive persons that contracted it via sex got it via "promiscuity" by all means present it and quit trying to bait me or others here. I'd be interested in where it comes from mind you since HIV testing questionnaires do not include such references, and you'd have to get the data via HIV test counselors or contact tracers. Since contact tracing doesn't work for SYPHILIS, and contact tracers that handle syphilis usually handle HIV, then I expect any data you could produce gathered from contact tracing would be limited.
"What stigma does this world have abt. how HIV is contracted?" You post speaks for itself...the stigma comes from baseless assumptions about the lives of persons living with HIV and for whom "it matters" simply so they can sit in judgment of others, only creating the atmosphere of marginalization and fear we're talking about here. I'm sure if we started taking moral inventory we'd all come up short. Your failings and my failings may be different, but the bottom line is that you are not better than I am, and I am not any better than you.
It continues to amaze me how some of us can sit and demonize the lives of others with the statements we make about them. Your post insinuates that persons who are homosexual or have "multiple partners" are somehow bad persons at worst, blameworthy at best, while you are not bad and have done nothing blameworthy yourself.
I suggest, then, that, if that is the case, you take a serious look at the way you actually contribute to the actions of persons that engage in behaviors you demonize or consider negative.
People that believe homosexuality is wrong also seem to believe it is a choice. They also follow one or more theories abt. the cause of homosexuality, all of which ultimately come back to some kind of marginalization of the individual in which they came to sexualize emotionally deficient relationships with one or more members of the same sex , usually a parent, sibling, or close friend/s. In short they became homosexual because they were marginalized or felt marginalized by these persons.
The same holds true for the "promiscuous," since they are seen as being promiscous to compensate for a lack of intimacy or other emotional need/s. Thus, in passing judgment on these persons, the person passing the judgment assists with others in creating and continuing the cycle of marginalization and its result, compensation, in these persons. You, sir, in effect, create your own enemy. Thus, you become indirectly responsible for the behavior/s that lead to this person's infection with HIV.
The funny thing about this is that the underlying belief you seem to be articulating is the old "homosexuals are promiscuous, heterosexuals are not," and/or the "those that got HIV got it via promiscuity." First, "promiscucity" is defined as "having more than one sex partner." That alone disqualfies the first statement. However, if you want to get picky, then we can take up a topic in TNZ about the promiscuity of gays vs. hets. (By the way, gays are no more promiscous than heterosexuals. "Promiscuity" is a sociological function of GENDER, NOT SEXUAL ORIENTATION). If you have data to present that shows the number of sexual partners it takes to get infected with HIV, by all means do so. In short, if you think that HIV positive persons that contracted it via sex got it via "promiscuity" by all means present it and quit trying to bait me or others here. I'd be interested in where it comes from mind you since HIV testing questionnaires do not include such references, and you'd have to get the data via HIV test counselors or contact tracers. Since contact tracing doesn't work for SYPHILIS, and contact tracers that handle syphilis usually handle HIV, then I expect any data you could produce gathered from contact tracing would be limited.
"What stigma does this world have abt. how HIV is contracted?" You post speaks for itself...the stigma comes from baseless assumptions about the lives of persons living with HIV and for whom "it matters" simply so they can sit in judgment of others, only creating the atmosphere of marginalization and fear we're talking about here. I'm sure if we started taking moral inventory we'd all come up short. Your failings and my failings may be different, but the bottom line is that you are not better than I am, and I am not any better than you.
It continues to amaze me how some of us can sit and demonize the lives of others with the statements we make about them. Your post insinuates that persons who are homosexual or have "multiple partners" are somehow bad persons at worst, blameworthy at best, while you are not bad and have done nothing blameworthy yourself.
I suggest, then, that, if that is the case, you take a serious look at the way you actually contribute to the actions of persons that engage in behaviors you demonize or consider negative.
People that believe homosexuality is wrong also seem to believe it is a choice. They also follow one or more theories abt. the cause of homosexuality, all of which ultimately come back to some kind of marginalization of the individual in which they came to sexualize emotionally deficient relationships with one or more members of the same sex , usually a parent, sibling, or close friend/s. In short they became homosexual because they were marginalized or felt marginalized by these persons.
The same holds true for the "promiscuous," since they are seen as being promiscous to compensate for a lack of intimacy or other emotional need/s. Thus, in passing judgment on these persons, the person passing the judgment assists with others in creating and continuing the cycle of marginalization and its result, compensation, in these persons. You, sir, in effect, create your own enemy. Thus, you become indirectly responsible for the behavior/s that lead to this person's infection with HIV.
Re: A person with HIV tells why Stigma was relevan
Thanks for sharing. Some poignant thoughts and significant for many of us living in 2003.
Thanks for sharing. Some poignant thoughts and significant for many of us living in 2003.
Re: A person with HIV tells why Stigma was relevan
This episode fails on so many fronts. First just because a vulcan has his "meld gene" does not mean they actually do. Just like there are humans who do not practice unsafe sex. This episode gives the impression there are too many homosexuals working on the Enterprise set.
Second, on the issue of how the disease is contracted. While everyone should get medical treatment, the issue of condoning behavior is a seperate area. There is nothing wrong with a person disapproving of how another lives their sex life. This episode flies into the face of the continuity of all the other star trek series. Married people meld that was not objectionable. Telepathy was just like talking to betazoids. It was just a form of communication.
I sympathize with anyone with HIV or full aids. I tolerate those who disapprove with my sympathy.
This episode fails on so many fronts. First just because a vulcan has his "meld gene" does not mean they actually do. Just like there are humans who do not practice unsafe sex. This episode gives the impression there are too many homosexuals working on the Enterprise set.
Second, on the issue of how the disease is contracted. While everyone should get medical treatment, the issue of condoning behavior is a seperate area. There is nothing wrong with a person disapproving of how another lives their sex life. This episode flies into the face of the continuity of all the other star trek series. Married people meld that was not objectionable. Telepathy was just like talking to betazoids. It was just a form of communication.
I sympathize with anyone with HIV or full aids. I tolerate those who disapprove with my sympathy.
peacemaker, I tried to send you a private message but apparently you have that feature turned off... don't worry, this question isn't terribly personal, I just didn't think anyone else would need to see it...
Were you a member of Outworlders in Atlanta, by any chance? I have a friend, Stephanie (no last names
), who moved several years ago from Waterloo, Ontario (where I went to university and knew her through theatre) to Atlanta, and she moved back to Toronto last year. I was just wondering whether you and she knew each other through science fiction fandom circles.
Were you a member of Outworlders in Atlanta, by any chance? I have a friend, Stephanie (no last names
), who moved several years ago from Waterloo, Ontario (where I went to university and knew her through theatre) to Atlanta, and she moved back to Toronto last year. I was just wondering whether you and she knew each other through science fiction fandom circles.Posted by TorontoTrekker:
peacemaker, I tried to send you a private message but apparently you have that feature turned off... don't worry, this question isn't terribly personal, I just didn't think anyone else would need to see it...
Were you a member of Outworlders in Atlanta, by any chance? I have a friend, Stephanie (no last names
Sorry, no I wasn't. I'm a Trek geek, but I'm not THAT big a Trek geek
.Re: A person with HIV tells why Stigma was relevan
Shortly before he was hospitalised immediately prior to death, Gene Roddenberry discussed the two paths ahead for the human race. He summarised them as the Federation leading eventually to the existence of god-like energy beings, or the emotionless, cruel and soul-less machine life of the Borg.
I believe in this thread we have seen the deep truth in Roddenberry's summary of the paths ahead.
We don't have to feel sympathy with those we help, and sometimes it is necessary to have professional distance. But except in an emergency situation where ruthless triage requires making literal life and death treatment decisions on the spot it is indefensible to advocate the withholding of care, if indeed this is what has been advocated.
To start with that type of attitude is to end with hospitals with two doors and the door out is a chimney.
And it's an Enterprise episode that has triggered this debate. Has it finally entered the firmament of past Trek shows?
Shortly before he was hospitalised immediately prior to death, Gene Roddenberry discussed the two paths ahead for the human race. He summarised them as the Federation leading eventually to the existence of god-like energy beings, or the emotionless, cruel and soul-less machine life of the Borg.
I believe in this thread we have seen the deep truth in Roddenberry's summary of the paths ahead.
We don't have to feel sympathy with those we help, and sometimes it is necessary to have professional distance. But except in an emergency situation where ruthless triage requires making literal life and death treatment decisions on the spot it is indefensible to advocate the withholding of care, if indeed this is what has been advocated.
To start with that type of attitude is to end with hospitals with two doors and the door out is a chimney.
And it's an Enterprise episode that has triggered this debate. Has it finally entered the firmament of past Trek shows?
Re: A person with HIV tells why Stigma was relevan
The disease model of Alcoholism is not BS. It is based on the experience and research of the Medical community. The American Medical Association and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services are among those organizations that describe Alcoholism as a chronic disease with genetic, psychosocial and environmental factors influencing its development and manifestations.
The disease is often progressive and fatal, and like other diseases, alcoholism is an interaction between the host (the person who gets the disease and his/her genetic and biological makeup), the agent (alcohol or other mood altering chemicals), and the environment.
And then there's depression, and other mental disorders that may lead to self-destructive behaviors.
Having these disorders in no way excuses anyone from responsiblity. However, to say that human behavior is "cut and dry" is a gross oversimplification.
The disease model of Alcoholism is not BS. It is based on the experience and research of the Medical community. The American Medical Association and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services are among those organizations that describe Alcoholism as a chronic disease with genetic, psychosocial and environmental factors influencing its development and manifestations.
The disease is often progressive and fatal, and like other diseases, alcoholism is an interaction between the host (the person who gets the disease and his/her genetic and biological makeup), the agent (alcohol or other mood altering chemicals), and the environment.
And then there's depression, and other mental disorders that may lead to self-destructive behaviors.
Having these disorders in no way excuses anyone from responsiblity. However, to say that human behavior is "cut and dry" is a gross oversimplification.
Re: A person with HIV tells why Stigma was relevan
Well, I never said human behavior was "cut and dry".
Nice try!
Let me rephrase it for you: If you know the risks and you
partake anyway, it's not a disease it's just plain irresponsbility, it's that "cut and dry".
As for your views on alcoholism , it sounds like we will have to agree to disagree.
However, I would point out that the AMA is an organization for doctor's not the general public. As such, it is not in their or their membership's best interest to suggest that alcoholism is anything other than a treatable disease.
Regarding the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, their response mirrors that of the AMA. Hmm...could it be because they are somehow influenced by the mighty AMA and their members. No, please say it's not so! Clearly they are not listening to the scientific community as the scientists are still looking for the answer.
As I said before, if we say a thing is true enough times, people will come to believe it is true. Sad but true.
Well, I never said human behavior was "cut and dry".
Nice try!
Let me rephrase it for you: If you know the risks and you
partake anyway, it's not a disease it's just plain irresponsbility, it's that "cut and dry".
As for your views on alcoholism , it sounds like we will have to agree to disagree.
However, I would point out that the AMA is an organization for doctor's not the general public. As such, it is not in their or their membership's best interest to suggest that alcoholism is anything other than a treatable disease.
Regarding the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, their response mirrors that of the AMA. Hmm...could it be because they are somehow influenced by the mighty AMA and their members. No, please say it's not so! Clearly they are not listening to the scientific community as the scientists are still looking for the answer.
As I said before, if we say a thing is true enough times, people will come to believe it is true. Sad but true.
Re: A person with HIV tells why Stigma was relevan
Because I respect the privacy of my loved ones I'm not going to name names, but a member of my family has suffered with depression and alcoholism for several years. Without the support of the medical community I'm very sure they would be dead right now.
So, if one would like to comment on how all that is just some big conspiracy of doctors and pharmacuetical companies, please get a clue of what you're talking about first.
Thanks.
Because I respect the privacy of my loved ones I'm not going to name names, but a member of my family has suffered with depression and alcoholism for several years. Without the support of the medical community I'm very sure they would be dead right now.
So, if one would like to comment on how all that is just some big conspiracy of doctors and pharmacuetical companies, please get a clue of what you're talking about first.
Thanks.
Re: A person with HIV tells why Stigma was relevan
Which works particularly well when the thing repeated is TRUE and is an unreliable method of reinforcement at best if the thing is FALSE. People "conspire" (ie confidentially cooperate) to tell the truth as well as to deceive. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar and sometimes a disease is just a disease.
"Barbarism is the natural state of mankind. Civilization is unnatural. It is a whim of circumstance. And barbarism must ultimately triumph."
---Robert E. Howard
Which works particularly well when the thing repeated is TRUE and is an unreliable method of reinforcement at best if the thing is FALSE. People "conspire" (ie confidentially cooperate) to tell the truth as well as to deceive. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar and sometimes a disease is just a disease.
"Barbarism is the natural state of mankind. Civilization is unnatural. It is a whim of circumstance. And barbarism must ultimately triumph."
---Robert E. Howard
clr2me,
I'm interested in knowing what good you think might be accomplished by telling people that they are irresponsible if they have HIV. Who are you to make that judgment or simply add to that they have already experienced from themselves, their families, friends, and others?
There is a dichotomy btw. irresponsible acts and irresponsible persons. Many people assume that bec. somebody "in this day and age" tests positive that they are irresponsible. However, the only thing that might be true is that they committed one or more irresponsible ACTS. Responsible people can and do commit irresponsible acts all the time.
Furthermore, the act of labeling somebody irresponsible begs the question, "Is it REALLY your business knowing exactly how any one person got HIV?" If you say it's not, then it's not your place to judge that persons actions, because you don't know them or how they got infected. They may have gotten it from their partner, husband, wife, a blood transfusion, or one stupid mistake with a needle, or any number of ways. If you say "Anybody that gets..." you've automatically assumed its your business to know and that if you do know that it's your perogative to pass judgment. It's not your place to judge the lives of others, because you will be judged by the same standard by which you judge. If you send the signal that it is your perogative to know abt. those persons, then you had best be prepared to have the light turned on you too.
Most people with HIV have experienced the thought "What I did was stupid and irresponsible" more than once. Most think it to themselves every day. What good can you do by making such statements to them?
I'm reminded of the preacher that preached a sermon on self-control one Sunday morning. He spoke on sexual immorality. After church, he and his wife ate Big Macs at McDonald's. He went home, and later that night went to the ER with a heart attack. His doctor was a former church member. He came to see him with his hospital and introduced him to his girlfriend, a nurse. "Aren't you married?" asked the preacher. "Yes," said the doctor, "but I don't think you need to preach sermons on selfcontrol when all those years of Big Macs put you in the hospital and made you my patient. Lose fifty pounds and we'll talk later."
I'm interested in knowing what good you think might be accomplished by telling people that they are irresponsible if they have HIV. Who are you to make that judgment or simply add to that they have already experienced from themselves, their families, friends, and others?
There is a dichotomy btw. irresponsible acts and irresponsible persons. Many people assume that bec. somebody "in this day and age" tests positive that they are irresponsible. However, the only thing that might be true is that they committed one or more irresponsible ACTS. Responsible people can and do commit irresponsible acts all the time.
Furthermore, the act of labeling somebody irresponsible begs the question, "Is it REALLY your business knowing exactly how any one person got HIV?" If you say it's not, then it's not your place to judge that persons actions, because you don't know them or how they got infected. They may have gotten it from their partner, husband, wife, a blood transfusion, or one stupid mistake with a needle, or any number of ways. If you say "Anybody that gets..." you've automatically assumed its your business to know and that if you do know that it's your perogative to pass judgment. It's not your place to judge the lives of others, because you will be judged by the same standard by which you judge. If you send the signal that it is your perogative to know abt. those persons, then you had best be prepared to have the light turned on you too.
Most people with HIV have experienced the thought "What I did was stupid and irresponsible" more than once. Most think it to themselves every day. What good can you do by making such statements to them?
I'm reminded of the preacher that preached a sermon on self-control one Sunday morning. He spoke on sexual immorality. After church, he and his wife ate Big Macs at McDonald's. He went home, and later that night went to the ER with a heart attack. His doctor was a former church member. He came to see him with his hospital and introduced him to his girlfriend, a nurse. "Aren't you married?" asked the preacher. "Yes," said the doctor, "but I don't think you need to preach sermons on selfcontrol when all those years of Big Macs put you in the hospital and made you my patient. Lose fifty pounds and we'll talk later."
Re: A person with HIV tells why Stigma was relevan
And the AMA's recommended treatment for the disease happens to be free...Alcoholics Anonymous.
The disease model for Alcholism dates back to Ancient Rome, actually, and is supported by the Worldwide Medical Community, not just America
The AMA has not only recognized the disease model of Alcoholism, it also a recommends a treatment that doesn't make them any profit..Alchololics Anonymous.
A.A. is a non-profit, self-supporting organization that is not aligned with nor endorses any other organization.
How, exactly, is the AMA profiting?
And is Clinical Depression also a figment of the AMA's imagination?
The bottom line is, self-destructive behavior is not always the product of moral weakness.
And the AMA's recommended treatment for the disease happens to be free...Alcoholics Anonymous.
The disease model for Alcholism dates back to Ancient Rome, actually, and is supported by the Worldwide Medical Community, not just America
The AMA has not only recognized the disease model of Alcoholism, it also a recommends a treatment that doesn't make them any profit..Alchololics Anonymous.
A.A. is a non-profit, self-supporting organization that is not aligned with nor endorses any other organization.
How, exactly, is the AMA profiting?
And is Clinical Depression also a figment of the AMA's imagination?
The bottom line is, self-destructive behavior is not always the product of moral weakness.
Re: A person with HIV tells why Stigma was relevan
And even if it was, there is a difference between sympathy and empathy. We can surely, I hope, empathise with suffering people even if we can't sympathise with their causes and antecedents.
"We ask merely a man's worth, not the accident of his condition"
And even if it was, there is a difference between sympathy and empathy. We can surely, I hope, empathise with suffering people even if we can't sympathise with their causes and antecedents.
"We ask merely a man's worth, not the accident of his condition"
G
Guest
Guest
Re: A person with HIV tells why Stigma was relevan
Yes! Certainly there is a big difference between acceptance and tolerance. It's important to emphasis that people can be compassionate and tolerant at the same time.
Compassion and total acceptance should not be considered mutually exclusive. That would be just about as prejudice as the other extreme.
Abz
Yes! Certainly there is a big difference between acceptance and tolerance. It's important to emphasis that people can be compassionate and tolerant at the same time.
Compassion and total acceptance should not be considered mutually exclusive. That would be just about as prejudice as the other extreme.
Abz
G
Guest
Guest
When I first saw Stigma I could understand T'Pol's behavior in not telling anyone that she had Pa'nar or how she got it. I did not like the way the writers did not do their homework in regards to Vulcan mind practices but thats another debate all together.
I can understand where T'Pol is comming from, not from the point of view from the infected but as someone who's mate is . My BF was just recently diagnosed HIV positive. He found out shortly after we started dating. I got myself tested and have been testing myself on a regular basis. And I am Negative. We are extremely safe and make sure nothing is done that would put me in risk.
Anyway. I dont tell people about his status, not my place. Only my best friend and my father ( a Doctor) know.
But amoung others I have seen how people react when they see us together. The comments and the looks. I get comments like "OMG I cant believe you Kissed him!" or "You two shared and Ice Cream, you let him use the same spoon"
It pisses me off, its not like I am sucking his blood like some Vampire.
I hate that. I get treated as a leper as well. Its not fair at all.
My Boyfriend is still very healthy , his viral count is very low(almost undetectable) his white cell count is normal and he is still strong as an OX
I love my man, and I hope we have many many years together, get married and all that Jazz.
And Even though ENTERPRISE writers messed up some things about Vulcans, at least their intentions and message was made clear. I give them that praise
I hope that a cure can be found, and I pray that people get off their bigot horses, an illness is an illness, who cares how you got it.
PEACE !
I can understand where T'Pol is comming from, not from the point of view from the infected but as someone who's mate is . My BF was just recently diagnosed HIV positive. He found out shortly after we started dating. I got myself tested and have been testing myself on a regular basis. And I am Negative. We are extremely safe and make sure nothing is done that would put me in risk.
Anyway. I dont tell people about his status, not my place. Only my best friend and my father ( a Doctor) know.
But amoung others I have seen how people react when they see us together. The comments and the looks. I get comments like "OMG I cant believe you Kissed him!" or "You two shared and Ice Cream, you let him use the same spoon"
It pisses me off, its not like I am sucking his blood like some Vampire.
I hate that. I get treated as a leper as well. Its not fair at all.
My Boyfriend is still very healthy , his viral count is very low(almost undetectable) his white cell count is normal and he is still strong as an OX
I love my man, and I hope we have many many years together, get married and all that Jazz.
And Even though ENTERPRISE writers messed up some things about Vulcans, at least their intentions and message was made clear. I give them that praise
I hope that a cure can be found, and I pray that people get off their bigot horses, an illness is an illness, who cares how you got it.
PEACE !
Re: A person with HIV tells why Stigma was relevan
Re your 2nd sentence: Never said anything about passing judgement on people with illnesses.
My message has been and still is, don't act irresponsibly or there could be negative consequences.
Here are the statistics as published by the CDC.
Cumulative number of AIDS cases reported to CDC is 816,149.
Categories of AIDS Cases
Men who have sex with men 368,971
Injecting Drug Use 201,326
Men who have sex with men and inject drugs 51,293
In other words 76.16% of all AIDS cases fit into one of these three categories.
So, if someone "assumes" that a man with AIDS is either gay, a drug user, or both, then there is significant foundation for that assumption.
I do label certain acts irresponsible.
A person within my circle of contacts? Yes, but only to the extent of natural curiosity. I have no grand scheme to mistreat persons with illnesses.
The real question is why would someone make the statement you suggest?
You keep trying to get us to believe that if we express an opinion or make any inquiry whatsoever we are somehow bad.
Well, I would suggest a more mundane explanation, that being plain ignorance.
People are generally afraid of what they don't understand.
You said:
Make no mistake, I do not profit off of people with illnesses and I would love to see a cure for Cancer, Leukemia, Heart Disease, MS, AIDS, and the myriad of other human illnesses.
Cute story!
I'm reminded of one where a man saw a snake on a cold winter day. The snake asked the man to pick him up and let him get warm in the man's pocket. The man said no way your a snake I don't want to get bit. The snake said well yes I am a snake, but I won't bite you. The man then placed the snake in his pocket. A few minutes later the snake bit him. The man pulled the snake out, threw him to the ground and said: "why did you bite me?" The snake replied: "You knew what I was when you picked me up".
To answer your first sentence: None.
Re your 2nd sentence: Never said anything about passing judgement on people with illnesses.
My message has been and still is, don't act irresponsibly or there could be negative consequences.
Hmm....."might be true", well that's an interesting way to put it. Let's look at the facts!
Here are the statistics as published by the CDC.
Cumulative number of AIDS cases reported to CDC is 816,149.
Categories of AIDS Cases
Men who have sex with men 368,971
Injecting Drug Use 201,326
Men who have sex with men and inject drugs 51,293
In other words 76.16% of all AIDS cases fit into one of these three categories.
So, if someone "assumes" that a man with AIDS is either gay, a drug user, or both, then there is significant foundation for that assumption.
I have not tried to "label somebody irresponsible".
I do label certain acts irresponsible.
Any one person? No! Why would I care what they did?
A person within my circle of contacts? Yes, but only to the extent of natural curiosity. I have no grand scheme to mistreat persons with illnesses.
I was going to criticize your logic, but that's not why we are here.
The real question is why would someone make the statement you suggest?
You keep trying to get us to believe that if we express an opinion or make any inquiry whatsoever we are somehow bad.
Well, I would suggest a more mundane explanation, that being plain ignorance.
People are generally afraid of what they don't understand.
You said:
Your bitterness and in particular your disdain for people less educated than yourself is apparent. This woman was simply ignorant. BTW: I don’t see the love and acceptance you want from others in your response to this woman, and I can guarantee you would not have “called my butt into your office” to give me a “real education”. Everyone has the right to a safe workplace. You can’t expect everyone to know everything you know or would like for them to know regarding HIV/AIDS. If I encountered someone like the woman you describe, then I would hand her a pamphlet from the CDC or try to arrange for some kind of “at work” speaker program, etc. Your solution smacks of arrogance to me and I doubt you accomplished very much.
We do know more about the other illnesses and that's not likely to change any time soon. Maybe you've forgotten that before June 1981 the medical community had never heard of HIV. In fact prior to September 1982, it was known as (GRIDS) gay-related immunodeficiency syndrome. Frankly, I'm surprised by the amount of progress medicine has made.
Make no mistake, I do not profit off of people with illnesses and I would love to see a cure for Cancer, Leukemia, Heart Disease, MS, AIDS, and the myriad of other human illnesses.
People make judgements based on their level of understanding every day. For you to ask us (people in the low risk group) to drop what we are doing and rush out and acquire the same level of sophistication you posses regarding HIV/AIDs is offensive.
I’ve already anwered that question.
Cute story!
I'm reminded of one where a man saw a snake on a cold winter day. The snake asked the man to pick him up and let him get warm in the man's pocket. The man said no way your a snake I don't want to get bit. The snake said well yes I am a snake, but I won't bite you. The man then placed the snake in his pocket. A few minutes later the snake bit him. The man pulled the snake out, threw him to the ground and said: "why did you bite me?" The snake replied: "You knew what I was when you picked me up".
Similar threads
- Locked
