Thread: Will the state of man ever change to a higher level of being

Originally posted by Leo Volont
The idea that AIDS is spreading by heterosexual sex is misinformation put out by the bungeoning AIDS Industry in order to get the sympathies of ordinary people.

Oh dear god

"The HIV virus is transmitted in body fluids including blood, semen, vaginal fluid and breast milk.
It is most commonly passed on during sexual intercourse, shared use of hypodermic needles, or from mother to child.
It can also be transmitted by blood infusion, but not by ordinary social contact."

Originally posted by Leo Volont
The idea that AIDS is spreading by heterosexual sex is misinformation put out by the bungeoning AIDS Industry in order to get the sympathies of ordinary people.

Wow. What's it like to live with so much hatred and ignorance, Leo?

Wow. What's it like to live with so much hatred and ignorance, Leo?[/b]

Yeah, what are you, a homofobic? besides a facist wich seems to be out of the question

How's this for ignorance?...

The AIDS virus is 28 times smaller than the pore of an latex condom...

so, If you use a condom, 'Know this 'You are

NOT[/b]

safe from AIDS.

Using a condom to fight against AIDs, is like trying to fight against AIds, well with a hole in you condom, because that is exactly what you are doing!

Originally posted by Awaken4e1
How's this for ignorance?...

The AIDS virus is 28 times smaller than the pore of an latex condom...

so, If you use a condom, 'Know this 'You are

NOT

safe from AIDS.

Using a condom to fight against AIDs, is like trying to fight against AIds, well with a hole in you condom, because that is exactly what you are doing![/b]

That statement has about as much validity as, well, the bible!

"Eric Estrada"

That statement has about as much validity as, well, the bible![/b]

GRAPHICAL ILLUSTRATION OF THE COMPARATIVE SIZES OF LATEX CONDOM PORES AND THE AIDS VIRUS

__________________________________________________ ________________
| |
| |
| |
| |
| O |
| |
| |
____________ __________________________________________________ ___
Other comparisons that might be useful as demonstrators would be the comparison of a grapefruit (the condom pore) and a pea (the HIV virus). In a comparison at this scale, a sperm cell's head would be three feet in diameter, and the cell itself would be one hundred feet long.

As stated above, the sperm head is 50 microns in diameter, and the cell itself is about 750 microns long, including tail. The AIDS virus head is about one-tenth of a micron in diameter. When the length of the sperm cell itself is taken into account, the sperm cell is about half a million times more massive than the AIDS virus.

The comparison is equivalent to placing a field mouse weighing one-fifth of an ounce next to a three-ton bull elephant.

"Skin" Condoms.

So-called "skin" condoms, which account for most of the condoms used in the United States today, are much less reliable than latex condoms. They are made from part of a lamb's large intestine. Instead of the pore-free barrier presented by a latex condom, the "skin" appears as a fiber latticework under 30,000 power magnification, with some pores up to 1.5 microns in diameter. This size is smaller than sperm, but more than ten times larger than an AIDS virus and 25 times larger than the hepatitis-B virus. However, since a "skin" condom is composed of multiple layers, it may be impervious to these viruses.

Studies and Inspections.

Of four major laboratory studies performed so far, three show "skin" condom impermeability to viruses, and one shows permeability.[2]

FDA inspectors have been conducting unannounced tests of domestic condoms at factories and imported condoms at their ports of entry since April of 1987. If more than 4 in 1,000 condoms fail the "pinhole test," the entire lot is destroyed.

As of July of 1988, more than 15 million condoms had been destroyed because their lots had too many defects. This is about ten percent of all domestic condoms and twenty percent of all imported condom lots tested.

It should be highly significant to those people who value their lives that the FDA only tests about seven percent (one in fourteen) of all condom lots.

Actually, I have to agree with Leo on this one.

It really is part of the economics of the AIDS medical industry to exagerate the heterosexual side of things. Its similar to the anti-smoking campain saying ludicris things about secondhand smoke. It really is amazing to me how many basically good people can always justify the means by a good end.

A tangent here. I'm of the opinion that homosexuality is a strong indicator of reincarnation. Here's my reasoning behind this statement.

Let's say homosexuality is a genetic thing. By its very definition, it'll have a tendancy to kill itself off over time. However, if homosexuality is part of a person's spiritual makeup AND reincarnation is true, you could keep homosexuality up around pretty consistant levels over the course of human history.

Considering that 2% of the population is homosexual, I think this is a good indicator that reincarnation is a true principle.

Thoughts, anyone?

Unless the gene for homosexuality is common to all humans, but is only expressed on a small percentage of occassions.

Or, it could be caused by a small mutation to an otherwise dominant gene.

Both scenarios are clearly more likely than reincarnation.

Originally posted by Leo
AIDS seems like a very good Evolutionary Filter. Those who can't live without indiscriminate anal intercourse are eliminated from the Future. It really is a Higher Person who can refrain from anal intercourse for the sake of his tomorrow -- all delayed and suspended gratification is intrinsically more Spiritual than animal indulgence.

Speaking in evolutionary terms, AIDS is not a good filter of people who have anal-intercourse for a few reasons:

- AIDS occurs in many ways other than anal sex. Any form of sexual intercourse, sharing IV needles, breastfeeding, blood transfusions, skin grafts, artificial insemination.

- Anal sex does not mean you will get aids. Unprotected anal sex with an infected person means you might get AIDS.

While anal sex does carry a higher risk of transmission than vaginal sex if you look at all the cases of AIDS today those who received it through anal-sex you'll find that it is insignificant. Africa is currently in an AIDS epidemic, and unless you're seriously suggesting that all those men/women/children got it through anal sex - then there is no evidence to suggest that AIDS \"eliminates those who can't live without anal intercourse\" (paraphrase).

Originally posted by Leo+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Leo)</div>

I am honestly surprised that AIDS has impacted India so extensively. I rather thought better of that population, that the land of Spiritual Philosophy had a higher view than that of disregarding the obvious risks in exchange for the low pleasures of anal intercourse, which understandably is too great a temptation for the ordinary African to forego -- a cynical thought, but well proven out by the demographic facts. [/b]

You think this might clue you in that anal sex does not have the huge impact that you think it does. But no, you've arbitrarily decided that anal sex is something evil/immoral so you desperately want to blame a horrible disease on what could only ever be (rationally) labelled as an amoral sexual act.

There's a question, just what is your objection to anal sex?

Originally posted by Leo+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Leo)</div>

Well, women though, do run a higher risk. In many 3rd World Countries, anal intercourse is engaged in as cheap birth control.[/b]

This is not a problem with anal-sex, this is a problem with the lack of proper birth control in developing countries. If they had condoms they could have vaginal and anal (ok maybe they'd need some lube as well) sex all they wanted.

<!--QuoteBegin-Leo@
In America, with its extraordinarily high rate of prison incarceration, there is the problem of a large percentage of the population being conditioned to enjoying anal intercourse, both giving and receiving

Again, you portray an amoral sexual act as bad (criminals do it! GASP!). Please show how anal-sex is bad, given that is not the most prevalent cause of AIDS, and that two uninfected people can do it and not spontaneously develop AIDS.


<!--QuoteBegin-Awaken
How's this for ignorance?...

The AIDS virus is 28 times smaller than the pore of an latex condom...

so, If you use a condom, 'Know this 'You are
Quote:
NOT
safe from AIDS.

Using a condom to fight against AIDs, is like trying to fight against AIds, well with a hole in you condom, because that is exactly what you are doing!

This has been demonstrated false numerous times. Organic condoms do not always stop aids, but latex condoms do. As you can see in a nice article here, a nice sum-up by the CDC here and a nicer article with lots of shiny references here

Originally posted by the last link+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(the last link)</div>

Laboratory and epidemiologic studies have provided information about the effectiveness of condoms in preventing STD. Laboratory tests have shown latex condoms to be effective mechanical barriers to HIV (1), herpes simplex virus (HSV) (2-4), cytomegalovirus (CMV) (5), hepatitis B virus (HBV) (6), Chlamydia trachomatis (2), and Neisseria gonorrhoeae (4). Latex condoms blocked passage of HBV and HIV in laboratory studies, but natural membrane condoms (made from lamb cecum), which contain small pores, did not (6-8). The experimental conditions employed in these studies may be more extreme than those encountered in actual use; however, they suggest that latex condoms afford greater protection against viral STD than do natural membrane condoms. [/b]

I wondering if you ever research these claims before you make them?

<!--QuoteBegin-sokar
Considering that 2% of the population is homosexual, I think this is a good indicator that reincarnation is a true principle.

It could just be a recessive gene, wouldn't that explain the same phenomena without the spiritual baggage? This is implying that there is one gene that determines sexuality though. There could also be another explanation (which I had a fun drunk conversation with a cognitive-science friend about). A genetic trait such as sexuality might have hundreds of genes contributing to it. Any one of these genes active wont mean a thing, but the combination of however-many means that this trait is active. So you could see how two heterosexual gene pools might combine to get the right mix.

-spoon

Originally posted by Leo
People need to keep in mind that one of the most powerful tools of Evolutionary Selection is near extinction. For Humanity to evolve we really do need a Catastrophic Event which will kill off everybody but those most fit to survive in whatever World remains afterward.

Just to go back a ways. There's a flaw in this thinking: In order for human kind to evolve the traditional way, humans will have to lose their social nature. Because humans are more or less social creatures, tending to stick in groups rather than go out solo into the world, humans often work together for a mutual benefit. This means helping the sick to become better and making sure that those unable to work can still survive. In part, it's also due to our intelligence. Because humans are intelligent enough to develop medicine and surgery, we aid the failing genes in survival. By doing this, we stop (or at least dramatically slow) traditional evolution, instead opting for technological evolution.

Some world-wide catastrophe might speed up evolution in humankind somewhat, but it wouldn't be a significant amount. Once again, because of our intelligent and social behavior, humans seek other humans. After a significant disaster, human kind might remain scattered and in small groups for a while, and this is the ideal setting for evolution. But social behavior would take over as soon as the people regained their stability, and the small groups would begin to join and meld. This process wouldn't take long. Even under extreme circumstances, with all modern technology gone and small groups isolated by large oceans, it would only be a few hundred years before the small groups began to reunite. Evolution works on a much slower time-scale. In order for a species to evolve a significant amount, it would take much more than a few hundred years. So any miniscule amount of evolutionary progress made while separated wouldn't be enough to define the two groups as seperate species. Once the groups joined back together, the cross-breeding would negate the progress by all groups, bringing them back to the status quo. At that point, social behavior would've become progressed enough to once again inhibit traditional evolution by preventing weaker genes from leaving the system.

Those who live by the sword will actually die by it, so it's no use tsen.

Originally posted by bradybaker
Unless the gene for homosexuality is common to all humans, but is only expressed on a small percentage of occassions.

Or, it could be caused by a small mutation to an otherwise dominant gene.

Both scenarios are clearly more likely than reincarnation.

homosexuality is a laerned behavior....as is all sexual behavior....

Originally posted by Awaken4e1
homosexuality is a laerned behavior....as is all sexual behavior....

I'd love for you to back that up.

Also, who teaches seagulls to be gay? Or horses...or ducks...or chickens...or tigers...