Why do so many Africans have AIDS? - Page 4

Willem · January 30, 2003, 01:13

Quote:

Originally posted by paiktis22

And implementing crude western promotion campaigns (even when not done in large scale) are, logically, inefective to people of other cultures. doh

And how do you implement promotional campaigns if many of the people there don't even have electricity, or are unable to read? What works in the industrial countries can't possibly work there.

chequita guevara · January 30, 2003, 01:14

Don't argue with the Greek. He's just trying to be annoying.

KrazyHorse · January 30, 2003, 01:14

Willem, I'd suggest you read the whole thread before you comment.

You obviously missed the part about the British midget weightlifter that Che's trying to keep quiet.

Willem · January 30, 2003, 01:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Lancer
SOMEBODY ****ED A MONKEY?!?!

Uggg...that's disgusting. Yuck...ohhh man....

Get some education on the disease please! AIDS is not transmitted through sex alone, it can also be transmitted through blood.

Lefty Scaevola · January 30, 2003, 01:19

"Why do so many Africans have AIDS?"

Because they get a lot more sex than you guys do.

chequita guevara · January 30, 2003, 01:22

Willem, I'm serious, don't encourage him. He doesn't care, he's just looking to rile people like you up. That's why I walked away for a bit.

Willem · January 30, 2003, 01:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Lancer
Laz, do you come down on the side of the monkey meat eaters or the monkey ****ers? How does aids get transmitted from monkeys to humans?

Very easily. Man hunts monkey, man cuts his finger doing so. Blood from the dead monkey enters the wound. Man becomes infected.

Willem · January 30, 2003, 01:34

Quote:

Originally posted by Buck Birdseed

Strange, the only people I've ever seen eat strange meats like Crocodile and Hippo in Africa were stupid westerners at Nairobi restaurant Carnivore.

Who exactly would "they" be? Staple meat in most of africa would be beef, goat or chicken, in five and a half years I never saw anything else served in a local restaurant (tourist hotels with practically obligatory Buffalo Steak excepted) or at the house of a local person, except one time when we visited a Big Game Hunting enthusiast and had some lovely Kudu.

So why are the Mountain Gorillas in Rwanda now an endangered species? It may not be common place, but if people are hungry, they'll eat anything they can get their hands on. And a lot of people in Africa are hungry.

Willem · January 30, 2003, 01:42

Quote:

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Willem, I'm serious, don't encourage him. He doesn't care, he's just looking to rile people like you up. That's why I walked away for a bit.

Yes, it took me awhile to figure out he was being tongue in cheek. At first though, it just sounded like the typical moralizing and ignorance about the disease that's unfortunately still so prevelant today.

David Floyd · January 30, 2003, 03:53

Quote:

And no one in the rest of the world has "promiscuous, unprotected sex with multiple partners"? Please...

Are you trying to make the claim that "promiscuous, unprotected sex with multiple partners" is just as common in the West as it is in Africa? Please.....

Quote:

Did you know that in some places heterosexual transimission is the primary cause of the spread of AIDS? And not just in Africa.

When did I deny that? I'm not blasting homosexuals here.

Quote:

And consider that, with a disease that can take years to manifest itself symptomatically (but can be transmitted before that), how would one know they must take special precautions?

They should certainly know it now, and ever since we've been telling them to, which has been for years. I can accept the argument that they didn't know at first, but I can't accept the argument that they've been ignorant for the past 20 years.

Shi Huangdi · January 30, 2003, 04:04

"
It's in the TRC Final Report; and the incubation period is usually less than ten years."

And we are to believe the TRC's words as Gospel, why?

And don't blame Catholics. Whether you agree with orthodox Catholic morality or not, if everyone followed the strict guidelines of the Church and only had sexwith their wife and people didn't have sex outside of marriage, AIDS wouldn't be as big of a problem. Now of course you will say that to expect them to follow Catholic morality is unrealalistic- well if they use the rules of the church as an excuse to not use a condom but then go and have premarital sex they are being inconsistant.

David Floyd · January 30, 2003, 04:05

Very good point, re: consistency, Shi.

Lancer · January 30, 2003, 07:00

Yes, good point Shi.

From what I've read here the answer to my question of why so many Africans have AIDS isn't just one answer but many. The disease started in Africa, so it had more time. Yet the culture that allows and even teaches unprotected sex in large groups certainly has sustained the disease and brought it to its current levels. Those levels are in turn depopulating Africa, which will destroy the culture of promiscuity and once that happens the popultion can begin to recover. It's interesting how this trend might impact other countries...to a lesser extent. For instance the US and europe have two mentioned blocks to the spread of AIDS. The culture, though changing drasticly over the last 40 years still frowns on promiscuity. Also, some of the people who do so indulge themselves have common sense enough to wear protection...protection which in Africa is generally not used according to posters to this thread, again because of its self destructive culture. However even with our advantages AIDS still spreads in the US and europe. The culture of promiscuity combined with the stupidity of Darwinian morons who play russian roulet with AIDS for an extra kick is allowing the disease to spread among the culture of indulgence...like we see in Africa. So in US/europe the disease is focused on that culture. One might say that it strikes lots of people not considered to be in that culture and that's true. The wife of a husband who brings home aids from some whore house is not of the culture of promiscuity, yet she will be just as dead. Same w/ the husband of a wife that screws the boss at work. She brings it home and he is dead. Yet there it ends. The 'innocent' victims die without passing the aids on because they are not promiscuous. The ones who are in the culture pass it on to lots of others within the culture.

In Africa such behavior appears to be the norm, from what I've read here in this thread, so the population is dying out. In US/ europe the only population really threatened with extinction is those that indulge in the manner of the Africans...so here we don't have nearly the per capita rate of infection, which makes the 30 million African number so incredible.

Btw, I see now why so many equate AIDS w/ the wrath of God!

Panag · January 30, 2003, 08:57

Quote:

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

It's entirely Africa's fault. Super-macho cultures which denigrate the use of condomns and which stree the manliness of having multiple female partners coupled with the widespread use of bushmeat is what started and spread the disease.

If they'd followed the family planning models given them, used the damn condomns, and stopped destroying their environment, this wouldn't be a problem.

hi ,

you probably never have been to africa , because if you did you would know that "bushmeat" has nothing to do with aids , .......

condoms dont stop blood , they dont stop blood from getting on you because someone just shot your neighbor , they dont stop people who make war from abuzing woman children or even males , .....

destroying the environment , ..... well how does that have to do with aids , aids kills , no matter what enviroment you are in , .... from urban places to jungles , ....

aids kills without looking at gender , species , race , religion , etc , ....

have a nice day

Dr Strangelove · January 30, 2003, 09:05

Quote:

Originally posted by paiktis22
Allegendly Aids derives from a certain species of monkies.
A theory which requires a rather disgusting intercourse having taken place to have the virus passed on to the human species.

That's why I prefer the "escaped from the lab" approach. It offers ease of mind.

Monkeys are considered a delicacy in some parts of Africa. Since they may sometimes be consumed not fully cooked, then its possible that the virus might have been acquired by eating an infected monkey. This mode of transmission is not generally recognized as a mode of human-to-human transmission because people just don't eat people very often anymore. It's also possible that someone handling monkeys got bitten, or got monkey blood on an open wound.

Dr Strangelove · January 30, 2003, 09:08

Quote:

Originally posted by cavebear

No, it appears to be a relatively new transferred virus to the human population, sometime around the middle of the past century. The virulence of the disease and the absence of any population showing inhereted resistence suggests a recent development.

Researchers traced the first case to a man living in the Belgian Congo in the 1940s.

Panag · January 30, 2003, 09:18

Quote:

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove

Researchers traced the first case to a man living in the Belgian Congo in the 1940s.

hi ,

working for the belgian institute of tropical research in antwerp , .....

a guy who did experiment's on animals and humans , ....

have a nice day

Dr Strangelove · January 30, 2003, 09:22

Quote:

Originally posted by Willem

In many parts of Africa they can't even afford to buy condoms. If there's even any available.

True. Epidemiologists consider truck drivers and the prostitutes who serve them to have been a major factor in spreading the disease. In the past 30 years Africa has rapidly been undergoing urbanization. The general trend is for rural men to leave their families behind to care for the traditional family plot of land while they go to the city in the hopes of landing a paying job. The men often then acquire secondary families in the city, reducing the money they send back to their families to a trickle. The abandoned rural wife is then left behind to fend for herself and the children by takig up the only source of income available to her: prostitution. The highways of Africa are literally lined by prostitutes.

Frankly condoms aren't very popular in the US either. Epidemiologists have been tracking a trend in the gay community over the past five or six years away from condom use. In the heterosxual community use of condoms is even less frequent. Let's face it, condoms reduce the sensation and spoil the fun. Mind you, I'm not advocating unsafe sex, just stating a fact.

Caligastia · January 30, 2003, 10:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Buck Birdseed
So we're to blame people who're too ignorant/stupid/culturally programmed to catch the disease, and thus spread it onwards?

erm...I assume you meant they do catch the disease, and if that is what you meant, then yes. If they catch the disease for these reasons, it's still their own fault isn't it? Or would you prefer to blame westerners?

Quote:

The vast majority of people who catch the disease have acted irresponsibly, should we just pack up, go home, let nature take care of them? Honestly.

Not necessarily, but I certainly think the victims of AIDS are less deserving of treatment than victims of cancer.

Quote:

And I can't help but detect your usual "AIDS is a punishment from GOD for our WANTON SIN" undertone, Cali.

My usual?

When have I ever said anything of the sort?!

Quote:

Loadsa sex is a good, socially beneficial thing, and your moral system is insane and outdated.

Loadsa sex within a committed, loving relationship is a socially beneficial thing, loadsa sex with multiple partners is not. If that's what you consider an "insane and outdated moral system", then I guess you think monogamy and being free of STDs is the result of the same.

DaShi · January 30, 2003, 10:41

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc

Carried out with alien technology.

Hmm, never considered that.

Caligastia · January 30, 2003, 11:00

Caligastia · January 30, 2003, 11:09

Quote:

Originally posted by Carver

You obviously don't even care about the spread of the disease, just blaming "Africans". Some Africans deserve blame, but not most of them.

So if an african transmits aids through risky sex they are not to blame? I suppose you would prefer to blame westerners for the shortcomings of african society.

Quote:

In South Africa, it is now known through the work of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission that the apartheid regime (at least) stockpiled HIV for possible weaponization. Additionally, clandestine delivery methods were developed including vaginal swabs distributed to blacks that left women more vulnerable to the disease.

No doubt these factors played a part, but most of the problem is the sexual habits of africans themselves.

Caligastia · January 30, 2003, 11:15

Quote:

Originally posted by Dissident
I don't think we should question why it happened, but what is being done about it.

If you don't look at the reasons why it's spreading, how are you going to combat it?

Caligastia · January 30, 2003, 11:22

Quote:

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

You say that as if it's a personal moral failing to have promiscuouss, unprotected sex. Today we know that it is reckless and dangerous behavior, but during the period in which the virus spread across Africa and across the world the biggest disease we had to fear was herpes. It only becomes a moral failing after you've been informed how the disease spreads, and it was already widespread across Africa and the world by that point.

You don't have a problem with promiscuous, unprotected sex unless there are diseases involved? You don't see this behaviour as being immoral?! There are many other reasons other than disease why this kind of sexual activity is a problem. There is a lot of emotional hurt involved, not just among the sexually active, but also among the children who are born as a result of this kind of activity. It's a very selfish practice, don't you consider selfishness to be immoral?

Willem · January 30, 2003, 12:27

Quote:

Originally posted by David Floyd

Are you trying to make the claim that "promiscuous, unprotected sex with multiple partners" is just as common in the West as it is in Africa? Please.....

And are you trying to make the claim that Africans are sexual brutes that can't control their urges? They're just humans, with the same drives as the rest of us. If you or I were born into their situation, we'd be just as promiscuous.

And it could very well be that people in the west would be just as promiscuous as they are. I take it you're too young to remember the "Sexual Revolution" just before AIDS came on the scene. Everyone was ****ing everyone then, sometimes all at once. That's why the disease spread so rapidly.

Quote:

They should certainly know it now, and ever since we've been telling them to, which has been for years. I can accept the argument that they didn't know at first, but I can't accept the argument that they've been ignorant for the past 20 years.

So where are they supposed to get the condoms exactly? It's not as if they can just head down to the local drug store. Many communities don't even have a clinic or a doctor, never mind access to products that we take for granted. And there'd be a good possibilty that they couldn't even afford to buy condoms, even if they were available.

Richard Bruns · January 30, 2003, 12:46

Quote:

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Quote:

Originally posted by obiwan18
Che,

Why then is there such a big difference between North Africa and sub-saharan africa in transmission rate? Why does North Africa have such a low rate of AIDS transmission?

Islam, Christianity doesn't murder you for being promiscuous.

Are you suggesting that they should start doing so?

But seriously, I think that blaming religious people for the spread of any STD is horribly unjust. If people did what the religions told them to do, STD´s could not spread.

It is an interesting historical note that strict moral codes are often the result of a big STD epidemic. In the 16th and 17th centuries, during the "Age of Reason," promiscuity was widespread and tolerated in European society. Then syphilis came and decimated that society. It was about that time that religious movements such as the original Puritanism became popular.

In short, abstinence followed by monogamy is an evolutionary advantage, especially for females. Not only is a stable family better for a child´s development, but people who abstain before marriage are more likely to live long enough pass on their genes. Of course, the STD´s have evolved around this by developing long incubation periods, so that the infected people can have kids before they die.

The amount of things in human history that are the result of viral and bacterial evolution is quite impressive. I would not be surprised at all if this epidemic has effects similar to the syphilis epidemic.

Willem · January 30, 2003, 12:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Caligastia
If they catch the disease for these reasons, it's still their own fault isn't it? Or would you prefer to blame westerners?

Why blame anyone? It's a disease, no different from smallpox or polio, or malaria. A tiny organism has found a way to use our bodies to sustain itself, with the end result being our deaths. Pointing fingers at anyone serves no purpose at all, except to waste time.

Willem · January 30, 2003, 12:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Richard Bruns
I would not be surprised at all if this epidemic has effects similar to the syphilis epidemic.

It already has! I was around when AIDS first came on the scene, and there's been a distinct change in attitude regarding sex and relationships since then, compared to what it was like before.

Caligastia · January 30, 2003, 13:04

Quote:

Originally posted by Willem

Why blame anyone? It's a disease, no different from smallpox or polio, or malaria. A tiny organism has found a way to use our bodies to sustain itself, with the end result being our deaths. Pointing fingers at anyone serves no purpose at all, except to waste time.

AIDS is different because a certain kind of behaviour helps it to spread. Those who engage in this kind of behaviour are therefore helping to spread the disease. Without recognising this, how can we possibly stop the spread of AIDS short of a cure?

Solly · January 30, 2003, 13:29

Britain is being put at risk of an AIDS epidemic because of the useless Labour government not wanting to appear racist by booting out unwanted cheats.