I wonder how you compare this to gun laws. Obviously we can never expect people to totally stop killing each other, does that mean we ought to just accept it, and not recommend people do otherwise? Do we blame every shooting on those who suggest gun control? Do you think the government should be putting significant resources into figuring out how to get more people to survive being shot rather than working towards stopping the shootings?
Nope! And nobody is suggesting we "just accept" the harm done by STI transmission, either. I find it a bit odd that you're asking me this, though, when my position has been that the authorities should have worked to prevent it, and your position seems to have been that they needn't bother.
We hold responsible A) the shooter.... when their action was either intentional or the bad outcome was reasonably foreseeable (circumstances which do not apply to people having sex who do not have access to reliable information about AIDS); and B) the authorities, when the authorities have overseen policies that have increased the harm.
It's not either/or. But yes, I believe the government should be putting resources into ensuring victims of shootings have better survival rates. That's called healthcare.
That's my point. You not only believe that sexual discipline is unreasonable and unrealistic, you go so far as to blame that perspective for making things worse. Should a Catholic say "hey, condoms aren't 100% effective, distributing them around the world and calling it a solution could even make things worse by giving a false sense of security and encouraging risky behaviors", you see that as "misinformation" that disallows people from making informed decisions. You've got a very singular perspective on this, you do not have an either/or mentality in the slightest.
Firstly, stop right there: it's not "sexual discipline" I'm finding unrealistic. It's expecting abstinence outside (the Catholic definition of) marriage.
Of course, the Catholic Church did not take that position. They outright lied about the effects of condoms and suppressed access to them.
You know as well as I do that the CDC acts with enormous independence from the White House. Reagan's own team shut down reporters' questions, and drastically cut the funding research. That's what they were directly responsible for.
That'll be because you haven't engaged with any of the specifics I've brought up: the cut research funding, the nixxed public awareness campaigns in the UK, the outright lies from the Vatican.
Did you see this video by any chance? I posted it a few weeks ago. This guy is in big trouble. And in the investigations don't end there.Gained a passing fetish for watching police have to dilly dance around their bodycams when catching one of their own doing the crimes. The consistent kid gloves and politeness from arresting officers is what it is cause of course it is.
"It's not like the old days."
Was posted a while back in article form, but the source recording is worth hearing for understanding the particular brand of disdain and inhumanity these heads of police unions casually behave with, as well as the panicked turning off of the bodycam after he remembered his rookie mistake.
Though to be fair, and balanced (and able to walk in a straight line am definitely not drunk, officer!) Sovereign citizens being put in their place are also fun to watch. See, future police of the fascist state of Britain? Its on the record here and now am officially not anti-cop, just a boring old centrist me! Nothing further to investigate. 🫡
(Don't worry, he's unharmed, he's white obvs, lol)
All dogs may go to heaven, but all hogs with criminal pasts go to Coffee City, Texas.
(There's no way the mayor wasn't aware, especially with their police force being like a 5th of the population too. Can't take him at his word, unfortunately)
Sovcits are where you put a tarp over your ACAB signs and just nod.Gained a passing fetish for watching police have to dilly dance around their bodycams when catching one of their own doing the crimes. The consistent kid gloves and politeness from arresting officers is what it is cause of course it is.
"It's not like the old days."
Was posted a while back in article form, but the source recording is worth hearing for understanding the particular brand of disdain and inhumanity these heads of police unions casually behave with, as well as the panicked turning off of the bodycam after he remembered his rookie mistake.
Though to be fair, and balanced (and able to walk in a straight line am definitely not drunk, officer!) Sovereign citizens being put in their place are also fun to watch. See, future police of the fascist state of Britain? Its on the record here and now am officially not anti-cop, just a boring old centrist me! Nothing further to investigate. 🫡
(Don't worry, he's unharmed, he's white obvs, lol)
McCarthy wanted that position so badly (let's not forget that there were reports he was having staffers refer to him as "Mr. Speaker" well before those twenty-plus votes he needed) that he willingly sold himself out to the crazies in order to get it. He had to have known that he was going to get voted out the instant he failed on his agreement to help them burn the country down so that only the MAGAts could get to play in the ashes- because if he didn't know that, he is a world-class imbecile.
Any Republican House leader currently has two options: either forge an alliance with the Democrats or forge and alliance with MAGA. In the defence of McCarthy, at least MAGA is the same party.
It would help if more of what you think is true actually was true. You haven't presented any evidence for these apparently well documented facts to engage with, and I've been too busy lately to do my normal research-paper style responses for you. That being said, I'm going to focus on one of the things you said above, cause it's kind of a fascinating case study on context and subtext.
I assume you are referring to this event:
The Vox perspective on that is that the Reagan administration was laughing at AIDS. Saying the press secretary and members of the press corps called in "the gay plague", that this is a demonstration of them not taking the epidemic seriously. But if you look with a discerning eye, you may notice a few details that are a bit contradictory to that reading of the events. It's the reporter who asked the questions, Lester Kinsolving, who introduced the term "gay plague" into the conversation, and who was responsible for misinformation about the transmission. The people laughing and joking were laughing at the reporter, and one of the jokes at his expense was asking if the president would ban kissing. In the second transcript, Kinsolving had hardly made it ten words before the Press Secretary knew what the question was, it was a repeated pattern of behavior. All of these are small hints at the truth, but they really change how you may see these exchanges when you know the context: who was Lester Kinsolving?
en.wikipedia.org
The incidents I mentioned are matters of public record. It's not my fault if you assume I'm lying and then fail to check, simply because they implicate organisations you like. But I'll provide citations below.
Firstly, I'll say it's quite amusing that when you say you'll address only one allegation, you choose the least significant one-- someone joking and belittling a question, rather than the cut research funding, the nixxed public health campaigns, or the lying about the effect of condoms.
There was no cut funding. These were budget plans that had not yet been enacted. Nothing was cut, nothing was taken back. HHS requested $96 million, the administration proposed $86 million instead, and had that been the end of it, that still wouldn't qualify as a budget cut, as it was an increase in spending from the previous year. But even that didn't happen, as the budget passed by congress ultimately ended up closer to $200 million.
That wasn't a nixed public health campaign, read your own source: "Lord Fowler said the Aids awareness campaign he launched was an enormous success and cited British Market Research Bureau results which showed that the proportion of people who claimed to know something about Aids doubled from 44 per cent to 94 per cent as a result. The researchers concluded that the campaign “substantially achieved the objectives of educating the public and influencing the climate of opinion on a basis for behaviour modification”."
That's not likely a lie, it's just simple ignorance. The statistical statement is actually reasonably accurate: sometimes condoms fail, sometimes condoms fail to stop STDs from spreading, things get past condoms. This is by misuse or defect, not because things pass through the material, but it does happen. A single Catholic Cardinal not understanding how condoms physically work (and sometimes fail) is not the Catholic Church lying about condoms. It's at worst that one guy lying, but it's almost certainly just ignorance. You can condemn him for making statements on things he doesn't understand if you'd like, but if you want to insist that is a Catholic campaign to lie about condoms, you are the liar.
What question elicits laughter? The first time he's laughed at is when he says they call it "gay plague".
Most of this post, even where technically true, comes across as a nitpicking attempt to deny the undeniable. Both Reagan and Thatcher obviously were against taking significant action against AIDS and attempted to restrict dealing with it at any turn, because they did not like the adverse political implications with some of their voters or, at worst, were homoophobic themselves.
If all the evidence of them being against action and imposing systemic barriers are bunk, and yet you still insist they exist, there's nothing that could ever be done to change your mind. You've subscribed to an unfalsifiable narrative.
Yes, the budget passed by Congress-- despite Reagan's effort to undercut the HHS request at the cost of AIDS research. You cannot attribute credit to Reagan for things that were done despite him.There was no cut funding. These were budget plans that had not yet been enacted. Nothing was cut, nothing was taken back. HHS requested $96 million, the administration proposed $86 million instead, and had that been the end of it, that still wouldn't qualify as a budget cut, as it was an increase in spending from the previous year. But even that didn't happen, as the budget passed by congress ultimately ended up closer to $200 million.
Firstly: no, it was not merely the broadcast. She also personally opposed leafletting, or descriptions of high-risk activities even within public health materials. Her ministers are on record as stating these efforts went ahead /despite her opposition/.
"A single Catholic cardinal"... who happened to be head of the Pontifical Council of the Family. If he was speaking from sheer ignorance, that's hardly a defence: it's still an example of enormously harmful misinformation.
"I don't have it [laughter] do you?"
Do you think the Ministerial Cabinet Committee on AIDS existed against the will of the Prime Minister? Did that accidentally slip by her?
It's not a defense of the statement, no. It is a defense against your accusations though. You blame conservative politics for the spread of AIDS, but every reason you have to believe that is false.
It's not couth, that's for sure. But he's mocking a homophobe. That comment is an insult because the person he's saying it to hates gay people. People here do literally the same thing all the time, should anyone in public say something negative about homosexuality, a pile of people is at the ready to accuse them of being gay. I don't disagree that it's not the most professional thing to do as a government representative, but again, it's a defense against your accusations. You believe the Raegan administration shut down comments and suppressed information on AIDS, but your evidence is them mocking a homophobe.
