| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Douglas McAdam
Guest
|
 Posted: Sat Sep 27, 2008 8:18 pm Post subject: Re: God's Side? |
 |
|
Thanks Romane.
I sort of suspected something like this because from my experience
someone who is a believer in God and practicing a religion would be so
imbued with faith in what they believe they would not be needing to
run others down. This is the same practice of certain sales people
who don't have a good product so they carry a hammer to nail others
down. I am a Baha'i of 40 yrs and at first I drove people crazy by
collaring everyone I met to teach them and then after learning more I
realized teaching is not just some "activity" that we do once in a
while it is our way of live, how we live, what we do etc. I lost my
desire to "convert" everyone I meet verbally and in some cases with
debate an argument much like what goes on with this forum and I
realized the best I can do is live the life myself and be sensitive to
others and find receptive souls by first making friends and spoon
feeding if need be until the right moment comes along but I never ever
put down anyone's beliefs in their particular religion because I "just
know" my own belief, my own faith is the right one. I truly feel that
those who are criticizing the Bahai Faith are not truly having faith,
they in a way are playing God and judging others and the strange thing
is most of them are obviously well educated academically. What threat
is Baha'i if what they say about us is correct? There is nothing to
fear but fear itself as they say.
I don't hide behind pseudonyms I'm a believer in a full, frank, honest
and open discussion as long as it is tempered with courtesy, tact and
wisdom and I have no need to hide who I am or what I do.
God bless you for offering this information.
doug
On Sep 27, 2008, at 12:43 AM, Romane wrote:
| Quote: | Good morning Mike
Wahid Azal is the name behind the name. He is readily researched via
Google, a fact he openly admits at at least one of his blogs, where
he refers the reader to Glaysher's website to obtain the "facts". He
believes that (quote) "Bahaism is a very dangerous (ultra-rightwing)
Stalinist cult with ties to some of the most nefarious (usually
reactionary ultra-rightwing) political forces and actors of the past
one-hundred odd years."
Romane |
|
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
compx2
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 27, 2008 11:44 pm Post subject: Re: God's Side? |
|
|
Hi Doug,
Perhaps I can help you see something.
| Quote: | ...a believer in God and practicing a religion would be so
imbued with faith in what they believe ... the best I can do is live the
life myself and be sensitive to
others ... my own faith is the right one ... What threat
is Baha'i
|
Or Christian? or Islam? or Buddhist? or Universalist?
I guarantee you there are millions of members of other religions who
share your exact sentiment, Doug. Exact.
I have spent my life looking up to Baha'is, thinking Baha'i was the
highest, the best, the brightest. But I was wrong. Only the highest
is the highest, by whatever name it is called. Our Writings call us
to virtue to deeds, to sacrifice. There is a world out there of
virtue and deeds and sacrifice that is not named "Baha'i" and God has
asked us "Have ye shut out yourselves from Me by reason of My Name?"
(Baha'u'llah, Tablets of Baha'u'llah, p. 9)
| Quote: | ...find receptive souls by first making friends and spoon
feeding if need be until the right moment comes along
|
And pounce like a cat? Or explain how wrong they have been?
If a soul is receptive the soul is looking to fill a hole. If someone
is looking for advice to spiritualize their life the answer is prayer
and sacrifice, not necessarily the Baha'i Faith.
--Kent
On Sep 27, 11:18 am, Douglas McAdam <douglasmca...@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
| Quote: | Thanks Romane.
I sort of suspected something like this because from my experience
someone who is a believer in God and practicing a religion would be so
imbued with faith in what they believe they would not be needing to
run others down. This is the same practice of certain sales people
who don't have a good product so they carry a hammer to nail others
down. I am a Baha'i of 40 yrs and at first I drove people crazy by
collaring everyone I met to teach them and then after learning more I
realized teaching is not just some "activity" that we do once in a
while it is our way of live, how we live, what we do etc. I lost my
desire to "convert" everyone I meet verbally and in some cases with
debate an argument much like what goes on with this forum and I
realized the best I can do is live the life myself and be sensitive to
others and find receptive souls by first making friends and spoon
feeding if need be until the right moment comes along but I never ever
put down anyone's beliefs in their particular religion because I "just
know" my own belief, my own faith is the right one. I truly feel that
those who are criticizing the Bahai Faith are not truly having faith,
they in a way are playing God and judging others and the strange thing
is most of them are obviously well educated academically. What threat
is Baha'i if what they say about us is correct? There is nothing to
fear but fear itself as they say.
I don't hide behind pseudonyms I'm a believer in a full, frank, honest
and open discussion as long as it is tempered with courtesy, tact and
wisdom and I have no need to hide who I am or what I do.
God bless you for offering this information.
doug
On Sep 27, 2008, at 12:43 AM, Romane wrote:
Good morning Mike
Wahid Azal is the name behind the name. He is readily researched via
Google, a fact he openly admits at at least one of his blogs, where
he refers the reader to Glaysher's website to obtain the "facts". He
believes that (quote) "Bahaism is a very dangerous (ultra-rightwing)
Stalinist cult with ties to some of the most nefarious (usually
reactionary ultra-rightwing) political forces and actors of the past
one-hundred odd years."
Romane- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text - |
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Romane
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 28, 2008 4:07 am Post subject: Re: God's Side? |
|
|
Good morning
Two things here - one brief, one that is a little longer.
So first... From my own look-see, Wahid has not made any attempt to hide
his identity. The name under which he posts here is easily linked to the
name Wahid, and vice-versa. His reasons for using this pseudonym here,
and in many other places, indicate only a viewpoint and a reinforcement
of his words. Over time, he has debated with many good minds, and his
history goes back a long ways. In that regard, I give him my respect,
even if I disagree with what he says or believes (both of which, in the
end, remain between him and God).
My second point returns this discussion to the topic of this thread -
God's side. For various reasons, I had thought to not become involved in
the discussion. Then I read your line "... more I realized teaching is
not just some "activity" that we do once in a while it is our way of
live, how we live, what we do etc."
Quotes come to mind. A small smattering - every person can easily find
many many (did I say many?) more :
"It is through your deeds that ye can distinguish yourselves from
others." (Gleanings, p. 305)
"... inasmuch as deeds exert greater influence than words." (Gleanings,
p. 57)
"Indeed one's righteous deeds testify to the truth of one's words."
(Tablets ..., p. 91)
"The essence of faith is fewness of words and abundance of deeds; he
whose words exceed his deeds, know verily his death is better than his
life." (Tablets ..., p. 156)
The Sacred Texts state repeatedly the value of words, but they also
state unequivocally the absolute requirement for deeds. My personal
understanding is that the words should support the deeds, not the other
way round.
God's side? I'm not interested in dry intellectual discussion that does
not lead me forward to acts of service. To me, God's side is the side
where people who, regardless of Faith or lack of faith, who, regardless
of life's circumstances or health, work diligently for the betterment of
the human species. People whose lives reflect that commitment, and whose
"failures" serve to educate them in better means and methods of giving
that genuine service. This is God's side. Baha'is in this respect are no
different, with the addition that we have been granted the incredible
bounty of recognising Baha'u'llah, and the responsibilities that accrue
from that recognition.
My employment gives me the opportunity to teach anywhere from around 100
to 250 people a day on the days I work (I am a suburban bus driver). The
key word here is "opportunity" - there are times when, through
tiredness, through inattention, or for whatever other reason or excuse,
an opportunity slips me by. However, it would be absolutely
inappropriate for me to mention the Faith or religion, being, so far as
I am concerned, immoral and a breach of the trust of my employer. What
is left? Only deeds. On just two occasions, two only, God provided the
circumstances where a small Baha'i prayer book was able to be given as a
gift. You know, I am having some of the most fun I have had in a long
time, and getting paid for it !! (Romane laughs). My bus is a garden,
and its day is passed filling and emptying with flowers of many colours,
scents and shapes. Most flowers have smooth stems, but just a few have
thorns - their beauty can still be appreciated, but one must handle them
a little more carefully, and who knows but they may actually be a rare
fruit with a spiny outer, that will ripen into a luscious and delectable
offering.
Try it some time :)
I would leave with a quote :
"In their homes, in their hours of relaxation and leisure, in the daily
contact of business transactions, in the association of their children,
whether in their study-classes, their playgrounds, and club-rooms, in
short under all possible circumstances, however insignificant they
appear, the community of the followers of Baha'u'llah should satisfy
themselves that in the eyes of the world at large and in the sight of
their vigilant Master they are the living witnesses of those truths
which He fondly cherished and tirelessly championed to the very end of
His days." (Shoghi Effendi, Baha'i Administration, p. 130)
It is worth repeating - "... under all possible circumstances, however
insignificant they appear, ..."
My warmest greetings
Romane
Douglas McAdam wrote:
| Quote: | Thanks Romane.
I sort of suspected something like this because from my experience
someone who is a believer in God and practicing a religion would be so
imbued with faith in what they believe they would not be needing to run
others down. This is the same practice of certain sales people who
don't have a good product so they carry a hammer to nail others down. I
am a Baha'i of 40 yrs and at first I drove people crazy by collaring
everyone I met to teach them and then after learning more I realized
teaching is not just some "activity" that we do once in a while it is
our way of live, how we live, what we do etc. I lost my desire to
"convert" everyone I meet verbally and in some cases with debate an
argument much like what goes on with this forum and I realized the best
I can do is live the life myself and be sensitive to others and find
receptive souls by first making friends and spoon feeding if need be
until the right moment comes along but I never ever put down anyone's
beliefs in their particular religion because I "just know" my own
belief, my own faith is the right one. I truly feel that those who are
criticizing the Bahai Faith are not truly having faith, they in a way
are playing God and judging others and the strange thing is most of them
are obviously well educated academically. What threat is Baha'i if what
they say about us is correct? There is nothing to fear but fear itself
as they say.
I don't hide behind pseudonyms I'm a believer in a full, frank, honest
and open discussion as long as it is tempered with courtesy, tact and
wisdom and I have no need to hide who I am or what I do.
God bless you for offering this information.
doug |
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Douglas McAdam
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 28, 2008 5:03 am Post subject: Re: God's Side? |
|
|
Good for you my friend and God bless you.
doug
On Sep 27, 2008, at 7:07 PM, Romane wrote:
| Quote: | Good morning
Two things here - one brief, one that is a little longer.
So first... From my own look-see, Wahid has not made any attempt to
hide his identity. The name under which he posts here is easily
linked to the name Wahid, and vice-versa. His reasons for using this
pseudonym here, and in many other places, indicate only a viewpoint
and a reinforcement of his words. Over time, he has debated with
many good minds, and his history goes back a long ways. In that
regard, I give him my respect, even if I disagree with what he says
or believes (both of which, in the end, remain between him and God).
My second point returns this discussion to the topic of this thread
- God's side. For various reasons, I had thought to not become
involved in the discussion. Then I read your line "... more I
realized teaching is not just some "activity" that we do once in a
while it is our way of live, how we live, what we do etc."
Quotes come to mind. A small smattering - every person can easily
find many many (did I say many?) more :
"It is through your deeds that ye can distinguish yourselves from
others." (Gleanings, p. 305)
"... inasmuch as deeds exert greater influence than
words." (Gleanings, p. 57)
"Indeed one's righteous deeds testify to the truth of one's
words." (Tablets ..., p. 91)
"The essence of faith is fewness of words and abundance of deeds; he
whose words exceed his deeds, know verily his death is better than
his life." (Tablets ..., p. 156)
The Sacred Texts state repeatedly the value of words, but they also
state unequivocally the absolute requirement for deeds. My personal
understanding is that the words should support the deeds, not the
other way round.
God's side? I'm not interested in dry intellectual discussion that
does not lead me forward to acts of service. To me, God's side is
the side where people who, regardless of Faith or lack of faith,
who, regardless of life's circumstances or health, work diligently
for the betterment of the human species. People whose lives reflect
that commitment, and whose "failures" serve to educate them in
better means and methods of giving that genuine service. This is
God's side. Baha'is in this respect are no different, with the
addition that we have been granted the incredible bounty of
recognising Baha'u'llah, and the responsibilities that accrue from
that recognition.
My employment gives me the opportunity to teach anywhere from around
100 to 250 people a day on the days I work (I am a suburban bus
driver). The key word here is "opportunity" - there are times when,
through tiredness, through inattention, or for whatever other reason
or excuse, an opportunity slips me by. However, it would be
absolutely inappropriate for me to mention the Faith or religion,
being, so far as I am concerned, immoral and a breach of the trust
of my employer. What is left? Only deeds. On just two occasions, two
only, God provided the circumstances where a small Baha'i prayer
book was able to be given as a gift. You know, I am having some of
the most fun I have had in a long time, and getting paid for it !!
(Romane laughs). My bus is a garden, and its day is passed filling
and emptying with flowers of many colours, scents and shapes. Most
flowers have smooth stems, but just a few have thorns - their beauty
can still be appreciated, but one must handle them a little more
carefully, and who knows but they may actually be a rare fruit with
a spiny outer, that will ripen into a luscious and delectable
offering.
Try it some time :)
I would leave with a quote :
"In their homes, in their hours of relaxation and leisure, in the
daily contact of business transactions, in the association of their
children, whether in their study-classes, their playgrounds, and
club-rooms, in short under all possible circumstances, however
insignificant they appear, the community of the followers of
Baha'u'llah should satisfy themselves that in the eyes of the world
at large and in the sight of their vigilant Master they are the
living witnesses of those truths which He fondly cherished and
tirelessly championed to the very end of His days." (Shoghi Effendi,
Baha'i Administration, p. 130)
It is worth repeating - "... under all possible circumstances,
however insignificant they appear, ..."
My warmest greetings
Romane
Douglas McAdam wrote:
Thanks Romane.
I sort of suspected something like this because from my experience
someone who is a believer in God and practicing a religion would be
so imbued with faith in what they believe they would not be needing
to run others down. This is the same practice of certain sales
people who don't have a good product so they carry a hammer to nail
others down. I am a Baha'i of 40 yrs and at first I drove people
crazy by collaring everyone I met to teach them and then after
learning more I realized teaching is not just some "activity" that
we do once in a while it is our way of live, how we live, what we
do etc. I lost my desire to "convert" everyone I meet verbally
and in some cases with debate an argument much like what goes on
with this forum and I realized the best I can do is live the life
myself and be sensitive to others and find receptive souls by first
making friends and spoon feeding if need be until the right moment
comes along but I never ever put down anyone's beliefs in their
particular religion because I "just know" my own belief, my own
faith is the right one. I truly feel that those who are
criticizing the Bahai Faith are not truly having faith, they in a
way are playing God and judging others and the strange thing is
most of them are obviously well educated academically. What threat
is Baha'i if what they say about us is correct? There is nothing
to fear but fear itself as they say.
I don't hide behind pseudonyms I'm a believer in a full, frank,
honest and open discussion as long as it is tempered with courtesy,
tact and wisdom and I have no need to hide who I am or what I do.
God bless you for offering this information.
doug
|
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
PaulHammond
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 29, 2008 11:32 pm Post subject: Re: Alcohol Was: Re: God's Side? |
|
|
On 27 Sep, 16:28, mikera...@yahoo.com wrote:
| Quote: | Yes - classic straw man arguments - argue against something the other
person didn't say.
Yet ironically you do exactly the same thing yourself with me. I never
once stated that it wasn't a choice, just a much harder choice for
some people. It is a fact that all addictions can be treated and
broken. Of course the easiest way to avoid this addiction is to never
drink at all.
|
But, you propose this solution to everyone - which sounds like a
sledgehammer to crack a nut to me.
Besides the fact that I personally like a drop or two of whiskey, and
a pint or two of beer from time to time.
Your puritanism is not an appealing solution, imo.
And I think avoiding the fact that I pointed out your attempt to
personalise this argument "Just because YOU can take your beer doesn't
mean that everyone can" to try to point at the motes in MY eye speaks
of bad faith here.
| Quote: | You were saying? You're proposing that AIDs only affects the rich and
famous and not the 1.5 million africans who died last year? At this
point I fail to see even the need to continue in the discussion. Your
facts presented are so far askew that this engagement strikes me more
as a waste of time.
Again, you are misrepresenting what has been said.
He said that malaria does NOT affect the rich, which is a reason why
the western press doesn't talk about it much.
Am I misrepresenting? Let's assume your best case as you have
presented it: That the major reason HIV receives this recognition is
because the powerful rich can also contract it making it a 'sexy'
disease. This is a well played out paranoid theory.
|
Are you trying to suggest that because I seem to have understood what
Tim was getting at, while you went off at a tangent assuming that
because Tim hadn't mentioned the fact that AIDS also affects poor
people it meant that he was unaware of the large number of deaths due
to AIDS in Africa, and foaming at the mouth about it too, that it
makes ME paranoid?
You appear to be projecting a lot here.
| Quote: | The reason HIV carriers such weight with the CDC has little to do with
the rich and everything to do with the fact that unlike malaria it
follows a potentially exponential contagion route. The rate of spread
for HIV if left unchecked will far exceed any other disease out there.
It represents the legitimate fear of any intelligent medical
practitioner to know that HIV can easily become a plague of pandemic
proportions.
|
So your argument is that it's perfectly okay to ignore malaria?
You're not interested in thinking about it?
I don't know what the "CDC" is, by the way.
As cited in the abstract below:
| Quote: |
The first postmodern pandemic: 25 years of HIV/ AIDS
L. O. Kallings
MD, Professor Emeritus, Clinical Microbiology, Former Secretary-
General of the International AIDS Society
Correspondence to Prof. Lars O. Kallings MD, PhD, Alevägen 4, SE-182
67 Djursholm, Sweden.
J Intern Med 2008; 263: 218–243.
ABSTRACT
Abstract
Science responded to the challenge of AIDS by rapidly identifying
aetiology, describing pathogenesis and transmission routes, and
developing diagnostic tests and treatment. However, this did not
prevent the global spread of HIV, with 25 million fatal cases so far,
another 33 million infected, and disastrous socioeconomic and
demographic consequences. In spite of unprecedented political
attention and financial resources, the response is falling further
behind the growth of the epidemic. This is partly due to the unique
characteristics of the virus, such as persistent infection, vertical
transmission and a variability that allows it to escape immunity and
antiretroviral drugs, and partly due to human characteristics such as
a strong procreative instinct, drug use and ostracism. Denial, myths
and complacency are major obstacles to rational measures. With no cure
or vaccine in sight, scaling up prevention is of paramount importance.
To meet the goal of universal access to prevention, treatment and care
by 2010 would require a quadrupling of funding to an estimated US$42
billion by 2010, including adequate overall strengthening of
healthcare systems, but in any case, the world will have to learn to
live with HIV for the foreseeable future."
Ignore the fact that HIV alone will kill 1.5 million in Africa this
year. Based on its' method of transmission and in particular how it
strips our immune system we can expect other plagues from
opportunistic bacteria (ie. drug resistant TB) which are allowed to
breed and develop resistance in the humans hosts of HIV.
Even should this disease be contained at 1.5 million per year in
Africa, it an expectation that a major plague affecting us all could
emerge from this population of AIDS victims.
|
I don't see this assertion in the abstract you quote.
Kalings appears to make an estimate of how much it would cost to come
up with an effective prevention campaign, and then on the basis of
that estimate (and it's likelihood of being a priority) says that "we
will have to live with AIDS for the forseeable future" - I don't see
how anyone could argue with that. Since no cure or vaccine has been
found yet, and people are becoming increasingly complacent about
treatment and transmission in the west, or liable to go into denial,
or believe old wive's tales (like the one that sex with a virgin can
cure!) in the South, I don't see any quick solutions, do you?
Nor do I see it's relevance to your tendency to a foaming-at-the-mouth
reaction to something that Tim DIDN'T say in his post.
| Quote: | How could a person be familiar with this subject and claim that the
major reason we fund HIV R&D is because a few rich people have it?
|
Again, not a claim I've seen coming from Tim here.
| Quote: | After 20+ years of R&D this disease still represents a greater risk to
all of us than any other out there including malaria. Malaria doesn't
carry the likelihood of jumping out of the jungle and killing off
large segments of our population. This has nothing to do with sexy.
|
Erm - Prof Kalings of the international AIDS foundation doesn't seem
to be panicking about AIDS here.
So why are you?
| Quote: |
Obviously, AIDS affects the poor even more than it affects the rich -
but as I see it Tim was trying to make you think about malaria, and
why that is considered a less "sexy" disease than HIV.- |
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Douglas McAdam
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2008 8:46 pm Post subject: Re: Alcohol Was: Re: God's Side? |
|
|
On Sep 29, 2008, at 7:32 PM, PaulHammond wrote:
| Quote: | Besides the fact that I personally like a drop or two of whiskey, and
a pint or two of beer from time to time.
|
People can say this to just about anything they want to enjoy. We
alway rationalize our likes and dislikes.
No offense Paul but as a person who deals with addictions and
rehabilitation in a County Jail I hear this kind of sentiment a lot
from citizens with whom I often discuss problems of crime which are
70% related to alcohol and drugs. I think the evidence in society
speaks for itself in that more problems than good are caused by the
use of these chemicals.
What maybe we need to think about is making decisions based on proper
knowledge and information not just because we like the feeling of
something.
I believe in God and I believe He sent us Baha'u'llah and Baha'u'llah
has issued a law that we avoid alcohol unless prescribed by a
Physician. So I obey and I strongly believe that if more people would
do this we would not be having so many problems. Since one of our
Teachings is the harmony of science and religion then we need to take
into consideration there must be a good reason scientifically as well
as spiritually and socially to avoid alcohol.
Even if I was not a Baha'i, because of the problems I see with these
chemicals, I would be careful about casting any dollar votes towards
their continuance and so I try to avoid even restaurants that serve
alcohol. Along this line I'm wondering if our problems today with
making alcohol legal are worse or better than when it was not legal.
regards,
doug |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2008 9:11 pm Post subject: Re: Alcohol Was: Re: God's Side? |
|
|
| Quote: | But, you propose this solution to everyone - which sounds like a
sledgehammer to crack a nut to me.
Besides the fact that I personally like a drop or two of whiskey, and
a pint or two of beer from time to time.
Your puritanism is not an appealing solution, imo.
|
Label it as unappealing, that is your prerogative. But you just
conceded that it is a solution all the same. Which is a far cry from
Tims original position.
And appealing or not, the original premise that Baha'u'llah prescribed
a course of action that is somehow harmful is negated by your own
concession and the facts that be.
| Quote: | Are you trying to suggest that because I seem to have understood what
Tim was getting at, while you went off at a tangent assuming that
because Tim hadn't mentioned the fact that AIDS also affects poor
people it meant that he was unaware of the large number of deaths due
to AIDS in Africa, and foaming at the mouth about it too, that it
makes ME paranoid?
|
Actually yes. It's paranoid to assume or defend a person making the
assumption:
| Quote: | that malaria does NOT affect the rich, which is a reason why
the western press doesn't talk about it much.
|
Here's what was originally stated:
| Quote: | What about malaria? The only reason AIDS gets more press is because it
affects the rich and famous while malaria does not
|
By the way, it was you who introduced the term, "Western press". Now
that we're talking paranoia, why should it matter whether they're
western or eastern press?
He's at least unaware that the media is not pandering to the rich by
publicizing it.
Doesn't using a phrase like, "foaming at the mouth" seem to
personalize things a bit? Actually my Jaw is on the floor and here is
why:
| Quote: | I don't know what the "CDC" is, by the way.
|
Center for Disease control. I'll explain it on your terms:
That's the government organization where the western press go to get
their info on AIDs to publicize it for the rich people who want to
exploit the africans by making money off of their all too expensive
malaria vaccines.
I'm just paraphrasing, isn't this what was said?
| Quote: | Yet some of the rich are rich only because the malaria vaccine is too expe
nsive for the 2.7 >million people killed by malaria every year (Bremen et. |
al. 2001).
By virtue of your silence on the matter and your vigilance with
respect to me I'll assume that you agree with him.
"The Malaria Vaccine Initiative (MVI) was established by Program for
Appropriate Technology in Health (PATH) through a US$50 million seed
grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. MVI seeks to
accelerate the development of promising malaria vaccines and ensure
their availability for the developing world. For further information
about MVI and PATH, visit the Web sites at www.MalariaVaccine.org and
www.path.org."
Is that the rich person you're talking about. Is that the person who
donated 50 million? He certainly must be making money off that
vaccine. Do a good deed and look at how people act?!?
| Quote: | Even should this disease be contained at 1.5 million per year in
Africa, it an expectation that a major plague affecting us all could
emerge from this population of AIDS victims.
I don't see this assertion in the abstract you quote.
|
"AIDS-Related Opportunistic Infections :: epidemiology
Przegl Epidemiol. 2008 ;62 (1):113-21 18536233 (P,S,G,E,B)
[Tuberculosis in Europe and Poland--new molecular families and new
resistance patterns]
At present despite methods of fast recognition of the disease and
efficient antituberculosis drugs not only we cannot contain the
epidemic but we can see an increase in new cases of tuberculosis
including its drug resistant variety. Causes of aggravation of the
situation are varied and ought to be examined separately in case of
any particular region. One of the major ones are bad programmes of
fighting against the disease or their inadequate realization, ignoring
a problem of tuberculosis in developed countries, lack of money for
treatment in developing countries and coincidence with HIV virus.
<snip>"
This is one citation of many, but it makes my point. HIV in poorer
countries serves as a breeding ground for TB and drug resistant TB
giving it a springboard from which to infect the entire population
(that's you, me and the rich people the western media are pandering
to), not just AIDs patients.
| Quote: | Erm - Prof Kalings of the international AIDS foundation doesn't seem
to be panicking about AIDS here. So why are you?
|
"The first postmodern pandemic: 25 years of HIV/ AIDS "
Maybe it has something to do with the word pandemic in title of the
paper?
Here's a Wiki quote:
"A pandemic is an epidemic of infectious disease that spreads through
human populations across a large region; for instance a continent, or
even worldwide.
AIDS is now a pandemic.[4] In 2007, an estimated 33.2 million people
lived with the disease worldwide, and it killed an estimated 2.1
million people, including 330,000 children.[5] Over three-quarters of
these deaths occurred in sub-Saharan Africa,[5] retarding economic
growth and destroying human capital.[6]
According to the World Health Organization (WHO), a pandemic can start
when three conditions have been met:
the emergence of a disease new to the population.
the agent infects humans, causing serious illness.
the agent spreads easily and sustainably among humans"
Am I teaching a C.E. course now? (That's continuing education) I
think my point was made three postings back, so I plan to drop this.
Drink up if you must. Nobody will ever force you to be a Baha'i. Or if
you want to be Baha'i and still think drinking is to your benefit,
consult with your physician and make the prudent choice.
Call us puritanical and in some areas I'll take it as a compliment.
But don't deceive yourself, no amount of intellectual discourse will
ever decide if Baha'u'llah is or isn't a divine person.
"The story is told of a mystic knower, who went on a journey with a
learned grammarian as his companion. They came to the shore of the Sea
of Grandeur. The knower straightway flung himself into the waves, but
the grammarian stood lost in his reasonings, which were as words that
are written on water. The knower called out to him, "Why dost thou not
follow?" The grammarian answered, "O Brother, I dare not advance. I
must needs go back again." Then the knower cried, "Forget what thou
didst read in the books of Sibavayh and Qawlavayh, of Ibn-i-Hajib and
Ibn-i-Malik, [1] and cross the water."
[1 Famed writers on grammar and rhetoric.] 52
The death of self is needed here, not rhetoric:
Be nothing, then, and walk upon the waves. [1]"
(Baha'u'llah, The Four Valleys, p. 51) |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2008 11:39 pm Post subject: Re: Alcohol Was: Re: God's Side? |
|
|
| Quote: | alcohol. Along this line I'm wondering if our problems today with
making alcohol legal are worse or better than when it was not legal.
regards,
doug
|
I think it should be kept legal. The better approach might be to
use the same methods applied to smoking cessation. Those +white-lies+
commercials are really having an impact. When children are raised to
perceive the true evils associated with smoking or drinking you can
count on most of them making the right call. Over time people will
just come resent the companies which produce alcohol and it will be
seen as nothing less than an exploitive evil.
Mike |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
compx2
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 01, 2008 12:01 pm Post subject: Re: Alcohol Was: Re: God's Side? |
|
|
Hi Doug,
Devout Muslims drink alcohol. My wife grew up Baha'i, and often as a
youth she would explain sex before marriage was against her religion.
That's okay, its against every religion. The ones who rationalize are
those of us who say that something bad will happen if we don't make a
personal moral commitment to the virtues we have chosen to develop
within ourselves.
Nothing bad will happen.
The point is that if we commit to such a path, to virtue, chastity
God's law, any one of us, good things will happen. Not today, not
tomorrow, but in the long run, God has promised those confirmations
and rewards for His faithful.
Making a thing legal or illegal will not solve any problem. Personal
commitment and rational endeavor can help any problem.
Wearing seatbelts is the law. But if we had zero tolerance for those
who broke the law, and mandatory prison terms for violators, we would
have dead cops from those who could not abide the law, and could not
go back to prison. The law sounds good, but its unintended effects
might be catastrophic.
Our prisons are filled with addicts. Is that the best way to handle
them?
The worst that could happen from Paul drinking alcohol is that he
might get arrested, and he might waste his life. One choice is
society's, the other is Paul's.
--Kent
On Sep 30, 11:46 am, Douglas McAdam <douglasmca...@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
| Quote: | On Sep 29, 2008, at 7:32 PM, PaulHammond wrote:
Besides the fact that I personally like a drop or two of whiskey, and
a pint or two of beer from time to time.
People can say this to just about anything they want to enjoy. We
alway rationalize our likes and dislikes.
No offense Paul but as a person who deals with addictions and
rehabilitation in a County Jail I hear this kind of sentiment a lot
from citizens with whom I often discuss problems of crime which are
70% related to alcohol and drugs. I think the evidence in society
speaks for itself in that more problems than good are caused by the
use of these chemicals.
What maybe we need to think about is making decisions based on proper
knowledge and information not just because we like the feeling of
something.
I believe in God and I believe He sent us Baha'u'llah and Baha'u'llah
has issued a law that we avoid alcohol unless prescribed by a
Physician. So I obey and I strongly believe that if more people would
do this we would not be having so many problems. Since one of our
Teachings is the harmony of science and religion then we need to take
into consideration there must be a good reason scientifically as well
as spiritually and socially to avoid alcohol.
Even if I was not a Baha'i, because of the problems I see with these
chemicals, I would be careful about casting any dollar votes towards
their continuance and so I try to avoid even restaurants that serve
alcohol. Along this line I'm wondering if our problems today with
making alcohol legal are worse or better than when it was not legal.
regards,
doug |
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Douglas McAdam
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:00 pm Post subject: Re: Alcohol Was: Re: God's Side? |
|
|
Hi Mike-
I would agree in a way but yet to me if God has forbidden something
then civil law should do likewise.
From my perspective the harmful effects of alcohol and drugs,
including tobacco is not being manifested by example in our media and
society. Look at the alcohol and drug commercials. I believe America
has become a drug culture both legal and illegal.
On the other hand I don't think one can legalize morality. In other
words making laws is not the answer either. The answer to me is to
learn how to face and deal intelligently with reality in a holistic
sense, i.e. body, mind and spirit and our present education system and
examples by adults is doing the opposite.
To give you an example the program we use in our Social and Economic
Development project treats body, mind and spirit but it is not
religious in the strict sense of trying to impose a religion on others
and yet the various "powers that be" from our traditional thinking
society oppose us because it can and does interfere with their
political and profit making practices.
regards,
doug
On Sep 30, 2008, at 7:39 PM, mikeran37@yahoo.com wrote:
| Quote: |
alcohol. Along this line I'm wondering if our problems today with
making alcohol legal are worse or better than when it was not legal.
regards,
doug
I think it should be kept legal. The better approach might be to
use the same methods applied to smoking cessation. Those +white-lies+
commercials are really having an impact. When children are raised to
perceive the true evils associated with smoking or drinking you can
count on most of them making the right call. Over time people will
just come resent the companies which produce alcohol and it will be
seen as nothing less than an exploitive evil.
Mike |
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Douglas McAdam
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 02, 2008 3:50 am Post subject: Re: Alcohol Was: Re: God's Side? |
|
|
Kent, I am lost when trying to understand your opinion here.
You say nothing bad will happen if we don't make a moral commitment to
the virtues we have chosen to develop and then later you said good
things will happen, not today, not tomorrow but in the long run . If
a person choses today t be honest isn't that better than being
dishonest? If he or she choses not to do drugs and alcohol, isn't
that going to be better than destroying ones brain and body?
I agree that making things legal or illegal will not solve the problem
but yet when we become conscious of God's Law and strive to obey it
will make things better won't it? If not then why did God gives us
those laws?
I agree that prison is not the answer. However the purpose of jails
and prisons is to protect the society. Does it protect society to
allow a criminal to be released because he has money and can provide
bail? Does it protect society to incarcerate a lawbreaker and not
provide proper detox, rehab, re-entry and aftercare?
Not only will Paul waste his life but it will hurt society by losing
his capacity or if a family man his family will suffer. From my
perspective and experience there is nothing good about using alcohol
and drugs. I'm old enough to recall how I rationalized their use and
then experienced addiction and I also saw many people claim they are
social drinkers, only drinking once in a while but then something
would happen, they became in need of increased amounts and something
bad would happen to them to cause them to use more and more.
regards,
doug
On Oct 1, 2008, at 8:01 AM, compx2 wrote:
| Quote: | Hi Doug,
Devout Muslims drink alcohol. My wife grew up Baha'i, and often as a
youth she would explain sex before marriage was against her religion.
That's okay, its against every religion. The ones who rationalize are
those of us who say that something bad will happen if we don't make a
personal moral commitment to the virtues we have chosen to develop
within ourselves.
Nothing bad will happen.
The point is that if we commit to such a path, to virtue, chastity
God's law, any one of us, good things will happen. Not today, not
tomorrow, but in the long run, God has promised those confirmations
and rewards for His faithful.
Making a thing legal or illegal will not solve any problem. Personal
commitment and rational endeavor can help any problem.
Wearing seatbelts is the law. But if we had zero tolerance for those
who broke the law, and mandatory prison terms for violators, we would
have dead cops from those who could not abide the law, and could not
go back to prison. The law sounds good, but its unintended effects
might be catastrophic.
Our prisons are filled with addicts. Is that the best way to handle
them?
The worst that could happen from Paul drinking alcohol is that he
might get arrested, and he might waste his life. One choice is
society's, the other is Paul's.
--Kent
On Sep 30, 11:46 am, Douglas McAdam <douglasmca...@sbcglobal.net
wrote:
On Sep 29, 2008, at 7:32 PM, PaulHammond wrote:
Besides the fact that I personally like a drop or two of whiskey,
and
a pint or two of beer from time to time.
People can say this to just about anything they want to enjoy. We
alway rationalize our likes and dislikes.
No offense Paul but as a person who deals with addictions and
rehabilitation in a County Jail I hear this kind of sentiment a lot
from citizens with whom I often discuss problems of crime which are
70% related to alcohol and drugs. I think the evidence in society
speaks for itself in that more problems than good are caused by the
use of these chemicals.
What maybe we need to think about is making decisions based on proper
knowledge and information not just because we like the feeling of
something.
I believe in God and I believe He sent us Baha'u'llah and Baha'u'llah
has issued a law that we avoid alcohol unless prescribed by a
Physician. So I obey and I strongly believe that if more people
would
do this we would not be having so many problems. Since one of our
Teachings is the harmony of science and religion then we need to take
into consideration there must be a good reason scientifically as well
as spiritually and socially to avoid alcohol.
Even if I was not a Baha'i, because of the problems I see with these
chemicals, I would be careful about casting any dollar votes towards
their continuance and so I try to avoid even restaurants that serve
alcohol. Along this line I'm wondering if our problems today with
making alcohol legal are worse or better than when it was not legal.
regards,
doug
|
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
compx2
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 02, 2008 12:02 pm Post subject: Re: Alcohol Was: Re: God's Side? |
|
|
Hi Doug,
There is no conflict within what I said.
Nothing bad will happen if we commit morally neutral actions, like an
occassional drink as Paul said he liked to do. I am sure Paul will
admit that he does not drink in order to aid humanity, he does it
because he wants to, and I submit that he should, he has a right, and
no Baha'i should criticize or hold him in lesser esteem for his
choice.
Just because Baha'is have taken a vow to a higher standard does not
mean that bad things will happen to those who don't take such a vow.
When we fulfil Baha'u'llah's teachings to change our lives, to act on
the Teachings, to live the life prescribed in the Writings, to be the
Baha'i that 'Abdu'l-Baha asks us to be, repeatedly, we are promised
rewards, confirmations, scattering angels, and much more.
On the other hand, those who decide not to take the vows we have
taken, and those who do not cut their hair as prescribed in the Aqdas,
are not promised eternal damnation or a horrible, conflicted life.
You seem to be proscribing a future Baha'i society where Baha'is will
tell Paul he can't drink, and I don't think that will or should
happen. I would hope that those who want to better their lives
through the spirit of God would do so without being forced to by code
of law. And that those who have taken that spiritual mantle would not
try to force on others behavior they have voluntarily chosen for
themselves.
You: " ... why did God gives us those laws?"
So we would voluntarily follow them, and understand through our own
eyes the spiritual value of the deeds we perform. Otherwise we have
God as judge and the Baha'i Faith as police force, and no one
investigating for themselves.
If a person chooses to lie to his or her mother, perhaps that person
should be marked for life, put in prison, whether that person is 50 or
5 years old, but I don't think so. Certainly we should not lie, but
the truth is, we cannot and therefore should not try to force everyone
to be truthful all the time. Such is impossible, and therefore
futile, so why do it?
A law won't help whether it comes from society or God. We still
choose for ourselves. If there are consequences for our lying they
should come from society. But if there are benefits for not lying
they should come from our own, personal, spiritual, internal systems
of reinforcement, self knowledge, respect, virtue and nobility.
| Quote: | Not only will Paul waste his life but it will hurt society by losing
his capacity or if a family man his family will suffer.
|
I doubt seriously if you meant to say that. But if you did, well, I
would prefer to spend time with the likes of Paul than the likes of
those who would uphold a statement like you make above. I will cast
my lot (am I gambling? Will I be arrested by the Baha'i Police, or
will my life now go to heck?) with those who willingly choose their
life and life style than with those who would force others to change
through laws or ridicule or overgeneralization and exaggeration.
Paul is just fine in my opinion, and I bristle at the suggestion that
his occassional drink makes him a less than fine human being. However
a holier than thou attitude on the part of people denouncing Paul's
behavior would indicate a problem of character, in my considered
opinion.
--Kent
On Oct 1, 6:50 pm, Douglas McAdam <douglasmca...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
| Quote: | Kent, I am lost when trying to understand your opinion here.
You say nothing bad will happen if we don't make a moral commitment to
the virtues we have chosen to develop and then later you said good
things will happen, not today, not tomorrow but in the long run . If
a person choses today t be honest isn't that better than being
dishonest? If he or she choses not to do drugs and alcohol, isn't
that going to be better than destroying ones brain and body?
I agree that making things legal or illegal will not solve the problem
but yet when we become conscious of God's Law and strive to obey it
will make things better won't it? If not then why did God gives us
those laws?
I agree that prison is not the answer. However the purpose of jails
and prisons is to protect the society. Does it protect society to
allow a criminal to be released because he has money and can provide
bail? Does it protect society to incarcerate a lawbreaker and not
provide proper detox, rehab, re-entry and aftercare?
Not only will Paul waste his life but it will hurt society by losing
his capacity or if a family man his family will suffer. From my
perspective and experience there is nothing good about using alcohol
and drugs. I'm old enough to recall how I rationalized their use and
then experienced addiction and I also saw many people claim they are
social drinkers, only drinking once in a while but then something
would happen, they became in need of increased amounts and something
bad would happen to them to cause them to use more and more.
regards,
doug
On Oct 1, 2008, at 8:01 AM, compx2 wrote:
Hi Doug,
Devout Muslims drink alcohol. My wife grew up Baha'i, and often as a
youth she would explain sex before marriage was against her religion.
That's okay, its against every religion. The ones who rationalize ar
e
those of us who say that something bad will happen if we don't make a
personal moral commitment to the virtues we have chosen to develop
within ourselves.
Nothing bad will happen.
The point is that if we commit to such a path, to virtue, chastity
God's law, any one of us, good things will happen. Not today, not
tomorrow, but in the long run, God has promised those confirmations
and rewards for His faithful.
Making a thing legal or illegal will not solve any problem. Personal
commitment and rational endeavor can help any problem.
Wearing seatbelts is the law. But if we had zero tolerance for those
who broke the law, and mandatory prison terms for violators, we would
have dead cops from those who could not abide the law, and could not
go back to prison. The law sounds good, but its unintended effects
might be catastrophic.
Our prisons are filled with addicts. Is that the best way to handle
them?
The worst that could happen from Paul drinking alcohol is that he
might get arrested, and he might waste his life. One choice is
society's, the other is Paul's.
--Kent
On Sep 30, 11:46 am, Douglas McAdam <douglasmca...@sbcglobal.net
wrote:
On Sep 29, 2008, at 7:32 PM, PaulHammond wrote:
Besides the fact that I personally like a drop or two of whiskey,
and
a pint or two of beer from time to time.
People can say this to just about anything they want to enjoy. We
alway rationalize our likes and dislikes.
No offense Paul but as a person who deals with addictions and
rehabilitation in a County Jail I hear this kind of sentiment a lot
from citizens with whom I often discuss problems of crime which are
70% related to alcohol and drugs. I think the evidence in society
speaks for itself in that more problems than good are caused by the
use of these chemicals.
What maybe we need to think about is making decisions based on proper
knowledge and information not just because we like the feeling of
something.
I believe in God and I believe He sent us Baha'u'llah and Baha'u'llah
has issued a law that we avoid alcohol unless prescribed by a
Physician. So I obey and I strongly believe that if more people
would
do this we would not be having so many problems. Since one of our
Teachings is the harmony of science and religion then we need to take
into consideration there must be a good reason scientifically as well
as spiritually and socially to avoid alcohol.
Even if I was not a Baha'i, because of the problems I see with these
chemicals, I would be careful about casting any dollar votes towards
their continuance and so I try to avoid even restaurants that serve
alcohol. Along this line I'm wondering if our problems today with
making alcohol legal are worse or better than when it was not legal.
regards,
doug- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text - |
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Finnegan's Wake
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 02, 2008 3:34 pm Post subject: Re: Alcohol Was: Re: God's Side? |
|
|
<mikeran37@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cuidnU4zc8A6PX_VnZ2dnUVZ_tPinZ2d@giganews.com...
| Quote: | But, you propose this solution to everyone - which sounds like a
sledgehammer to crack a nut to me.
Besides the fact that I personally like a drop or two of whiskey, and
a pint or two of beer from time to time.
Your puritanism is not an appealing solution, imo.
|
Label it as unappealing, that is your prerogative. But you just
conceded that it is a solution all the same. Which is a far cry from
Tims original position.
And appealing or not, the original premise that Baha'u'llah prescribed
a course of action that is somehow harmful is negated by your own
concession and the facts that be.
FW writes: -
You seem to assume that everybody who drinks alcohol is addicted to the
stuff, cannot live without it and is thereby morally decrepit. That's not
an uncommon sentiment among the killjoys and those who have a morbid fear of
the devil's buttermilk. The man who can take or leave his drink has
considerably more intestitinal fortitude and moral sway than those who,
never having tasted a drop of the pure, sanctimoniously sit back, preening
their own virtues whist, inwardly, aware that they are chicken-shit feared
of succumbing to conviviality.
I drink alcohol from time to time. My brain is not addled and I'm not
addicted to the stuff. Fact is that I enjoy it and that it does me a power
of good as well as contributing to longevity - a matter commented upon to
me, many years ago, by a guy in the life assurance business who said that
insurance companies prefer moderate regular drinkers to the tee-totallers as
they live longer.
Let us also not forget the social aspects of the demon drink - I posted,
elsewhere, a link to a video of the Chieftains and friends playing at a pub
in Westport. I can assure you that the black liquid in the glasses on the
tables is not lemonade; that the playing of music in pubs is an inherent
part of the island's culture and that, therefore the fiddler is well worth
his dram. One of the players BTW is the local Church of Ireland rector -
you can spot the dog collar. Here's the link again: -
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=rxgQGJ8vKlQ&feature=related
Do note that these are among Ireland's and therefore the world's finest
musicians - could it possibly be that the "black liquidation with the froth
on top" actually has a positive cultural and social input, if not a
spiritual one. The founder of your faith in all likelihood never tasted a
drop of the crather and therefore spoke of that with which he was entirely
unacquainted ... whereas a wise man once observed that music was the solace
of the soul. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
PaulHammond
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 02, 2008 8:20 pm Post subject: Re: Alcohol Was: Re: God's Side? |
|
|
Finnegan's Wake wrote:
| Quote: | mikeran37@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cuidnU4zc8A6PX_VnZ2dnUVZ_tPinZ2d@giganews.com...
But, you propose this solution to everyone - which sounds like a
sledgehammer to crack a nut to me.
Besides the fact that I personally like a drop or two of whiskey, and
a pint or two of beer from time to time.
Your puritanism is not an appealing solution, imo.
Label it as unappealing, that is your prerogative. But you just
conceded that it is a solution all the same. Which is a far cry from
Tims original position.
And appealing or not, the original premise that Baha'u'llah prescribed
a course of action that is somehow harmful is negated by your own
concession and the facts that be.
|
Point of information - these words are my words, Dermod. Something
seems to have gone a bit off with the attribution here.
I wasn't following the conversation that closely earlier, but from
what I gather, Tim was talking about how it's not really right to
blame the substance for all the problems that humans have in dealing
with it, while Mike was pushing the "total abstinence is the only way
to make sure that no-one ever succumbs to alcoholism" line. I'm not
sure if that's because Mike is Baha'i.
| Quote: | FW writes: -
You seem to assume that everybody who drinks alcohol is addicted to the
stuff, cannot live without it and is thereby morally decrepit. That's not
an uncommon sentiment among the killjoys and those who have a morbid fear of
the devil's buttermilk. The man who can take or leave his drink has
considerably more intestitinal fortitude and moral sway than those who,
never having tasted a drop of the pure, sanctimoniously sit back, preening
their own virtues whist, inwardly, aware that they are chicken-shit feared
of succumbing to conviviality.
I drink alcohol from time to time. My brain is not addled and I'm not
addicted to the stuff. Fact is that I enjoy it and that it does me a power
of good as well as contributing to longevity - a matter commented upon to
me, many years ago, by a guy in the life assurance business who said that
insurance companies prefer moderate regular drinkers to the tee-totallers as
they live longer.
Let us also not forget the social aspects of the demon drink - I posted,
elsewhere, a link to a video of the Chieftains and friends playing at a pub
in Westport. I can assure you that the black liquid in the glasses on the
tables is not lemonade; that the playing of music in pubs is an inherent
part of the island's culture and that, therefore the fiddler is well worth
his dram. One of the players BTW is the local Church of Ireland rector -
you can spot the dog collar. Here's the link again: -
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=rxgQGJ8vKlQ&feature=related
Do note that these are among Ireland's and therefore the world's finest
musicians - could it possibly be that the "black liquidation with the froth
on top" actually has a positive cultural and social input, if not a
spiritual one. The founder of your faith in all likelihood never tasted a
drop of the crather and therefore spoke of that with which he was entirely
unacquainted ... whereas a wise man once observed that music was the solace
of the soul. |
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
PaulHammond
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 02, 2008 8:38 pm Post subject: Re: Alcohol Was: Re: God's Side? |
|
|
On 30 Sep, 22:11, mikera...@yahoo.com wrote:
| Quote: | But, you propose this solution to everyone - which sounds like a
sledgehammer to crack a nut to me.
Besides the fact that I personally like a drop or two of whiskey, and
a pint or two of beer from time to time.
Your puritanism is not an appealing solution, imo.
Label it as unappealing, that is your prerogative. But you just
conceded that it is a solution all the same. Which is a far cry from
Tims original position.
And appealing or not, the original premise that Baha'u'llah prescribed
a course of action that is somehow harmful is negated by your own
concession and the facts that be.
Are you trying to suggest that because I seem to have understood what
Tim was getting at, while you went off at a tangent assuming that
because Tim hadn't mentioned the fact that AIDS also affects poor
people it meant that he was unaware of the large number of deaths due
to AIDS in Africa, and foaming at the mouth about it too, that it
makes ME paranoid?
Actually yes. It's paranoid to assume or defend a person making the
assumption:
|
Er - no. My ability to understand Tim's post comes from my superior
reading ability, and my anger comes from the fact that you're trying
to put words in his mouth.
Calling me paranoid just sounds like a gratuitous insult to me.
| Quote: | that malaria does NOT affect the rich, which is a reason why
the western press doesn't talk about it much.
Here's what was originally stated:
What about malaria? The only reason AIDS gets more press is because it
affects the rich and famous while malaria does not
By the way, it was you who introduced the term, "Western press". Now
that we're talking paranoia, why should it matter whether they're
western or eastern press?
|
We're only talking paranoia because you thought it was a good idea to
start calling me names!
| Quote: | He's at least unaware that the media is not pandering to the rich by
publicizing it.
Doesn't using a phrase like, "foaming at the mouth" seem to
personalize things a bit? Actually my Jaw is on the floor and here is
why:
I don't know what the "CDC" is, by the way.
Center for Disease control.
|
Sorry. Your jaw is on the flaw because I don't happen to know the
acronym of an organisation you mentioned?
I'll explain it on your terms:
Your sarcasm is noted.
| Quote: | That's the government organization where the western press go to get
their info on AIDs to publicize it for the rich people who want to
exploit the africans by making money off of their all too expensive
malaria vaccines.
I'm just paraphrasing, isn't this what was said?
|
No - you are still being sarcastic.
| Quote: | Yet some of the rich are rich only because the malaria vaccine is too ex
pe
nsive for the 2.7 >million people killed by malaria every year (Bremen et
...
al. 2001).
By virtue of your silence on the matter and your vigilance with
respect to me I'll assume that you agree with him.
|
I haven't a clue what you mean by this.
| Quote: | "The Malaria Vaccine Initiative (MVI) was established by Program for
Appropriate Technology in Health (PATH) through a US$50 million seed
grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. MVI seeks to
accelerate the development of promising malaria vaccines and ensure
their availability for the developing world. For further information
about MVI and PATH, visit the Web sites atwww.MalariaVaccine.organdwww.pa
th.org."
Is that the rich person you're talking about. Is that the person who
donated 50 million? He certainly must be making money off that
vaccine. Do a good deed and look at how people act?!?
|
Why are we talking about whether or not rich people make money out of
making donations to malaria charities?
| Quote: | Even should this disease be contained at 1.5 million per year in
Africa, it an expectation that a major plague affecting us all could
emerge from this population of AIDS victims.
I don't see this assertion in the abstract you quote.
"AIDS-Related Opportunistic Infections :: epidemiology
Przegl Epidemiol. 2008 ;62 (1):113-21 18536233 (P,S,G,E,B)
[Tuberculosis in Europe and Poland--new molecular families and new
resistance patterns]
At present despite methods of fast recognition of the disease and
efficient antituberculosis drugs not only we cannot contain the
epidemic but we can see an increase in new cases of tuberculosis
including its drug resistant variety. Causes of aggravation of the
situation are varied and ought to be examined separately in case of
any particular region. One of the major ones are bad programmes of
fighting against the disease or their inadequate realization, ignoring
a problem of tuberculosis in developed countries, lack of money for
treatment in developing countries and coincidence with HIV virus.
snip>"
This is one citation of many, but it makes my point. HIV in poorer
countries serves as a breeding ground for TB and drug resistant TB
giving it a springboard from which to infect the entire population
(that's you, me and the rich people the western media are pandering
to), not just AIDs patients.
|
So by "major plague" you meant TB? Is it usual to call TB a "plague"?
I notice that in answer to my saying that the assertion you made isn't
backed up by the abstract you quoted, you have in facted quoted a
different abstract.
| Quote: | Erm - Prof Kalings of the international AIDS foundation doesn't seem
to be panicking about AIDS here. So why are you?
"The first postmodern pandemic: 25 years of HIV/ AIDS "
Maybe it has something to do with the word pandemic in title of the
paper?
|
I read the whole abstract and based my reaction on my understanding of
that.
I guess, even scientists like to have attention grabbing headlines -
and I imagine that there is a scientific definition of "pandemic" that
doesn't necessarily match the "Arrgh - we're all gonna DIE!"
connotations of the popular understanding of the term.
| Quote: | Here's a Wiki quote:
"A pandemic is an epidemic of infectious disease that spreads through
human populations across a large region; for instance a |
| |
