Christine O'Donnell is not "Pro-Life"

[DC]

AIDS is a voluntary condition, its not rocket science to avoid it effectively. The only way a responsible person might get it is from dirty blood transfusion or some sort of a rape, but these are exceedingly rare and the rare cases can be easily handled with charity donations from the evil christians.

some lifestyles lead to larger risks of getting a heart attack or kidney problems.
and still workaholics, alcoholics etc don't get excluded from benefits from the nanny government......

and how about your lifestyle? to what disease will your lifestyle lead?

 

[The Fallen Serpent]

and how about your lifestyle? to what disease will your lifestyle lead?

Mine leads to rub burns on my hands. Some might even consider me over enthusiastically promiscuous!

 

[Ziggurat]

some lifestyles lead to larger risks of getting a heart attack or kidney problems.
and still workaholics, alcoholics etc don't get excluded from benefits from the nanny government.....

And I wouldn't call someone evil for saying those benefits are too high.

 

[johnny karate]

I also think the government spends too much money on breast cancer and not enough on prostate cancer. I must hate women and love men, huh?

Not necessarily you, no. But this thread is about Christine O'Donnell, and I don't see her making any such claims. If she did, I might cut her some slack. But all we're left with is a sexually-repressed, religious conservative specifically targeting homosexuals.

 

[johnny karate]

And I wouldn't call someone evil for saying those benefits are too high.

And what if that person claimed that people who had those diseases shouldn't be called "victims" because it's their own fault? What if that person made disparaging, bigoted remarks about people who ate fast food or drank alcohol because they were celebrating "the type of lifestyle which leads to the disease"?

Does move the needle on your evil meter at all?

 

[DC]

And I wouldn't call someone evil for saying those benefits are too high.

then don't call them evil, what do i care?

i didn't call him evil, what i would like to call him falls under

 

[Ziggurat]

then don't call them evil, what do i care?

i didn't call him evil, what i would like to call him falls under

Him? What him? It was Christine O'Donnell whom Puppycow called evil.

 

[Dorian Gray]

There's nothing hypocritical about it, johnny. We all pick our pet issues. There's no obligation to spend your energies equally between different issues.

There's a difference between choosing to spend your money on a cause, and completely attacking a cause you don't choose to spend your money on. Run and tell that.

Not too often. But I'll tell you what happens all the bloody time. In fact, it happens so often, and it's so expected and accepted, that you didn't even consider it: people are excluded from romantic relationships to begin with for being fat. Frankly, that's a much bigger deal.

Gays are prevented from marriage BY LAW. Are you claiming that fat people are prohibited from marriage by law? Come on. That argument was so lame, it qualified for its own handicapped parking space.

 

[Dorian Gray]

But the rates of promiscuity are much higher.

Citation needed. What, you call someone on not tracking fat-based murders, and then pull this out and expect not to be called on it?

Not axiomatically, but given of what I've seen of the San Francisco Gay Pride parade, you'll have to forgive me for thinking that some such celebrations actually are. And would be considered as such even if you turned all the elements heterosexual.

Again, where to start... okay, this is based on what you've seen? That's your basis for making this claim? Epic fail. First of all, you are unreliable as a source. Second, you would have no way of knowing the rates of promiscuity associated with this festival. Third, this is one festival, which is certainly not indicative of an entire lifestyle any more than Mardi Gras is indicative of an entire lifestyle. You are losing it.

I won't claim to know what motivates O'Donnell, but I will say that plenty of religious conservatives see considerable celebration of promiscuity among homosexuals AND heterosexuals.

What, you call people for getting off topic, but now you're allowed to make off-topic comments, and you don't think you're going to be called on it? We're talking about what O'Donnell said, not what "plenty" of other people said.

 

[Ziggurat]

There's a difference between choosing to spend your money on a cause, and completely attacking a cause you don't choose to spend your money on. Run and tell that.

Except it IS her money. She's a taxpayer. And she's being forced to pay for something she doesn't want to pay for. People complain about that all the time. And quite rightly: that's how our democracy works.

Gays are prevented from marriage BY LAW. Are you claiming that fat people are prohibited from marriage by law?

Nope. The claim wasn't about legal status (and BTW, marriage law doesn't discriminate on the basis of sexuality, it discriminates on the basis of gender), but about acceptance.

 

[Puppycow]

I also think the government spends too much money on breast cancer and not enough on prostate cancer. I must hate women and love men, huh?

OK, why? Because this particular metric is BS. A better one would be amount of money spent to lives saved.

It's too simplistic and misleading to say that if X$ are spent on disease Y and Z people died last year from disease Y that, therefore, any other disease should have the same ratio of X:Z as that for disease Y.

 

[DC]

Him? What him? It was Christine O'Donnell whom Puppycow called evil.

and why did you quote me then?
i didn't quote puppycow...

 

[Puppycow]

Him? What him? It was Christine O'Donnell whom Puppycow called evil.

And I stand by that statement.

 

[The Fallen Serpent]

I would also like to point out that FAIR and O'Donnell are attacking HIV/AIDS funding from different angles. Their respective positions have some incompatability. FAIR's main position appears to be "we have changed AIDS from a terminal condition into a chronic illnesss, it is time to change the research allocation and focus primarily on prevention funding for HIV/AIDS." Notice they explicitly commend the past research funding, and the huge prevention budget which is a separate allocation from research budgets. If anything it appears they use the success of HIV/AIDS funding as reason to start doing targeted large bugeted spending elsewhere. Personally I am inclined to bow to the consensus of the medical community over political considerations for determining health research budgets. If I am reading this site correctly and they do represent the medical consensus then they have my support.

O'Donnell's attacks definitely come from the "they are not victims" approach. Which I heartily disagree with.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

It's not equivalent, at least not fore purely homosexual versus heterosexual (which was the comparison being made). Those groups mostly self-segregate along sexual orientation lines. Sure, a gay guy might have a crush on a gay guy, but generally speaking, what a gay guy really wants is another gay guy. Not so with fat people: they don't self-segregate, they mostly just get excluded.

I'm sorry, I fail to see the difference.

I am not attracted to overweight girls because that is frankly unattractive to me. I therefore discriminated against overweight girls when selecting a person to date.

I am not attracted to males because that is frankly unattractive to me. I therefore discriminated against males when selecting a person to date.


See, they are teh same (typo on purpose). And yet, a person who is attracted to a fat person of the opposite gender (these people do exist, ya know) is able to marry said fat person. Meanwhile, a person who is attracted to another person of the same gender is unable to marry said person of same gender. Yet you want to claim that fat people are discriminated against? The only real anything I hear in regards to fat people is that it is unhealthy and causing increases in healthcare costs (which is completely factual, btw, and does not quite qualify as discrimination against waist size).


And anyone who believes homosexuals are more promiscuous than heterosexuals simply doesn't watch enough television or really pay attention to the current 17-30yo demographic. Bigotry is a horrible disease, won't someone please think of the children?

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Except it IS her money. She's a taxpayer. And she's being forced to pay for something she doesn't want to pay for. People complain about that all the time. And quite rightly: that's how our democracy works.

Fine, take what part of her personal income tax is spent on AIDS/HIV research, put it toward paying for the war in Iraq. Take an equal share of my taxes that would be put toward paying for the war in Iraq and put it toward funding HIV/AIDS research. Now we're all happy because her 1/40th of a cent (or whatever amount it is) doesn't fund HIV/AIDS research and my 1/40th of a cent doesn't go toward the war in Iraq.

Nope. The claim wasn't about legal status (and BTW, marriage law doesn't discriminate on the basis of sexuality, it discriminates on the basis of gender), but about acceptance.

To-ma-to, to-maht-toe

 

[Puppycow]

I would also like to point out that FAIR and O'Donnell are attacking HIV/AIDS funding from different angles. Their respective positions have some incompatability. FAIR's main position appears to be "we have changed AIDS from a terminal condition into a chronic illnesss, it is time to change the research allocation and focus primarily on prevention funding for HIV/AIDS." Notice they explicitly commend the past research funding, and the huge prevention budget which is a separate allocation from research budgets. If anything it appears they use the success of HIV/AIDS funding as reason to start doing targeted large bugeted spending elsewhere. Personally I am inclined to bow to the consensus of the medical community over political considerations for determining health research budgets. If I am reading this site correctly and they do represent the medical consensus then they have my support.

Well, I won't speculate too much about their motivations, but their metric is too simplistic. I seriously doubt they represent "the consensus of the medical community." Their line of argument appears to be:

If X$ are spent on disease Y and Z people died last year from disease Y that, therefore, any other disease should have the same ratio of X:Z as that for disease Y.

You posted some good reasons why this is a poor way to look at it. Some diseases are infectious, others not. Viruses and bacteria can quickly mutate, potentially into something more dangerous.

Let me quote from their site:

Genesis: In 1999 when Dr. Darling was becoming very ill yet again, he viewed an ABC network 20/20 segment by reporter John Stossel entitled “Disease Politics.” It was produced with facts supplied by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and graphically illustrated the unfair governmental bias that significantly favors AIDS over all other diseases, including the sixteen that kill more Americans than AIDS.

“Disease Politics” introduced a courageous Parkinson’s Disease patient, Joan Samuelson, and her unending efforts to get more funding for Parkinson’s Disease, which is grossly under funded by the NIH. Dr. Darling was so inspired by Ms. Samuelson’ fight for justice and John Stossel’s reporting that he vowed to start a national organization to correct the unfair NIH and Congressional allocation inequities if he was blessed with a third transplant. Dr. Darling received the “Gift of Life” and, thus, the FAIR Foundation was born.

In "Disease Politics" Congressman Istook of Oklahoma addresses this issue eloquently and states, "Getting NIH funding is 100 times greater if one has a politically correct disease."

Hmm. Notice how he refers to AIDS as "a politically correct disease." What is that supposed to mean? Notice how the only evidence presented that Parkinsons "is grossly underfunded" is that HIV gets more. Nothing about the expected benefits of money spent on different specific research topics.

 

[Snide]

OK, why? Because this particular metric is BS. A better one would be amount of money spent to lives saved.

It's too simplistic and misleading to say that if X$ are spent on disease Y and Z people died last year from disease Y that, therefore, any other disease should have the same ratio of X:Z as that for disease Y.

Agreed. The metric is also from the present. Her comment was from 1997, when more people died of the disease, and presumably less money was spent on it. (Not sure about that one.)

 

[Ziggurat]

Fine, take what part of her personal income tax is spent on AIDS/HIV research, put it toward paying for the war in Iraq. Take an equal share of my taxes that would be put toward paying for the war in Iraq and put it toward funding HIV/AIDS research.

It doesn't work that way, and you know it.

To-ma-to, to-maht-toe

Apple, orange.

 

[Ziggurat]

I'm sorry, I fail to see the difference.

I am not attracted to overweight girls because that is frankly unattractive to me. I therefore discriminated against overweight girls when selecting a person to date.

I am not attracted to males because that is frankly unattractive to me. I therefore discriminated against males when selecting a person to date.

And what about the people you're attracted to? If you were a gay man, do you think you might find yourself yearning to be with straight men but rebuffed because you're a man? If you were a fat man, do you think you might find yourself yearning to be with a woman but rebuffed because you're fat?

One of those things is more typical than the other.

See, they are teh same (typo on purpose).

No, they aren't the same. There's two sides to attraction, and you're only looking at one.

Yet you want to claim that fat people are discriminated against?

HELL yes I want to claim that. Are you seriously going to try to claim that fat people aren't discriminated against?

The only real anything I hear in regards to fat people is that it is unhealthy and causing increases in healthcare costs (which is completely factual, btw, and does not quite qualify as discrimination against waist size).

You've never heard anyone make fun of fat people? You've never seen fat people get stared at? You've never heard of fat people having to pay for two tickets in order to get on a plane?