Talk Hearts Daily News Thread

[Fire Doinks]

Just me that thinks there's something absurd and patronising about western atheists telling professed muslims that they don't follow a real interpretation of their faith?

[Zizou]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41538762



Religion of peace strikes again

So was this fake news?

[Zizou]

Folk get a real kick out of attacks and can't wait for the next one. Terrible.

[Fire Doinks]

So was this fake news?

Just me jumping to conclusions, seeing the clip of the guy being hauled to the ground and cuffed by police is what made me assume it was terror related.

[Walter Sobchak]

Farage is a despicable cunt.

[PHOODLE-OUt]

Wonder if a white guy would have had his face mashed in to the pavement after blacking out at the wheel

[Fire Doinks]

Wonder if a white guy would have had his face mashed in to the pavement after blacking up at the wheel

Probably

[Fire Doinks]

http://www.latimes.com/politics/essentia...story.html




How do people feel about this? Fair enough the stigma around HIV/AIDS still exists, but reducing the criminality of knowingly infecting someone without telling them?

It's not the death sentence it was, but it's still a horrible thing to do, and still worthy of being a serious criminal offence IMO.

[Bill Cosby]

Step in the right direction. Deliberately infecting people is clearly horrible, however in most cases it is probably sex workers who are desperate and not able to think logically.

Thankfully, we are a baw hair away from being able to cure the disease.

[Fire Doinks]

Step in the right direction. Deliberately infecting people is clearly horrible, however in most cases it is probably sex workers who are desperate and not able to think logically.

Thankfully, we are a baw hair away from being able to cure the disease.

Don't think that is the case, but even if it was should that matter?

We're much better at dealing with it but it's still a life changing disease.

[Prancer]

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scotti...r-11294618

Progress

[2MatoFish]

Was listening to Panti Bliss recently, an irish drag act who's been positive for 20 years. The conversation wasn't about HIV but when it came up he explained that the affect on his life nowadays extends to a tablet once a day. No side affects, he's not contagious under any circumstances and his condition won't degrade.

It's a cowardly crime to commit but, as far as i'm aware, the material affect on someone's life would, thankfully, be almost nought.

[Prancer]

I thought the drugs just greatly reduced the risk of transmission, not completely prevent, secondly what about the non medical implications.

Knowingly trying to pass on any sort of disease to someone is a horrific crime and should remain illegal and heavily penalised.

[Cheeky Gnando’s]

http://www.latimes.com/politics/essentia...story.html




How do people feel about this? Fair enough the stigma around HIV/AIDS still exists, but reducing the criminality of knowingly infecting someone without telling them?

It's not the death sentence it was, but it's still a horrible thing to do, and still worthy of being a serious criminal offence IMO.

Tell that to Mark Fowler m8

From reading the article, it seems that the logic behind it is that people were avoiding being tested and infecting others unknowingly as a result, as then they couldn't be charged with the felony. Not sure what the impact of the change in the law will be there (and I'm not sure if such felony charges could be applied retrospectively i.e. would you be charged if you had infected someone without knowing but then got tested?), but if it encourages more testing and prevents more unknowing cases, which I would probably guess would be far more common, then it may actually be a positive (no jokes pls) change in terms of reducing cases overall?

[2MatoFish]

I thought the drugs just greatly reduced the risk of transmission, not completely prevent, secondly what about the non medical implications.

Knowingly trying to pass on any sort of disease to someone is a horrific crime and should remain illegal and heavily penalised.

You'd have to cross examine the drag act, i'm afraid. Just passing on what I heard.

[Shuto Makino]

I was referring to the points people made mocking/condemning the NRA/right for saying people were capitalising on a tragedy to further their agenda, do you not see a similarity between that and you suggesting I'm happy to see these injuries or deaths because of my agenda(whatever that is)?

Interesting  that you'd link the two, given that the NRA/right make those arguments about people advocating gun control. What are you advocating - Muslim control?

I don't think that the two are comparable, because the equation with guns is a lot more simple. Someone shoots lots of people with a gun - people say maybe it'd have been less likely to happen if there were less guns in circulation. That's hardly jumping on an issue, particularly given that the tone of these people tends to be upset/emotional.

Compare and contrast with you seeing that some people had been knocked down and immediately logging onto Talkhearts dot co dot uk to post 'hurhur religion of peace' without waiting to see if the incident  was either an attack or related to Islam. Not the same, at least not unless you think that 'less Muslims' is as self-evident a solution as 'less guns'.

To pick up on the debate over whether these people are 'legitimate' Muslims, I'm not convinced it's a discussion worth having. To the extent that they draw on aspects of Salafism, Wahhabism, and going back further Kharijitism, you can point to a recognisable tradition that they draw on. Then again, even most Salafis/Wahhabis don't support violent jihad. The dominant interpretation of the Quran holds that any reading which doesn't take its overall message into account is false - and it makes clear that violence is only acceptable when you, directly, are under attack. Not when 'the Muslim world' is under attack - you personally. That said, me saying that as a western non-Muslim won't change these people's minds and nor will even other Muslims saying it. Clearly any text written over 1000 years ago will be able to be interpreted more or less any way you like.

That's why there are extremists in every religion - see Christian militia in Uganda, Hindu nationalism in India, the Zionist far right in Israel, and Buddhist hate preachers in Myanmar. What these places have in common is geopolitical tension - as does much of the 'Muslim world'. That's the lens through which extremists linking themselves to Islam should be viewed - as demonstrated by the abundance of evidence that ISIS fighters lack a basic understanding of Islam. Not whether or not they're 'real Muslims', which will be largely irrelevant for as long as they consider themselves as such.

What I've noticed you do on these threads is that you start with a provocative statement implicating Muslims as a whole (I.e. 'religion of peace strikes again') then immediately retreat when challenged to arguments along the lines of 'you can't say they're not real Muslims'. Why is that?

[Shteve]

Tell that to Mark Fowler m8

From reading the article, it seems that the logic behind it is that people were avoiding being tested and infecting others unknowingly as a result, as then they couldn't be charged with the felony. Not sure what the impact of the change in the law will be there (and I'm not sure if such felony charges could be applied retrospectively i.e. would you be charged if you had infected someone without knowing but then got tested?), but if it encourages more testing and prevents more unknowing cases, which I would probably guess would be far more common, then it may actually be a positive (no jokes pls) change in terms of reducing cases overall?

I always think of Marko Fowler when I hear anything about aids

Imagine having to tell cants you've got full blown aids though

[Zizou]

She then deleted them all

[2MatoFish]

She then deleted them all

57k to go then

[Floyd]

Tell that to Mark Fowler m8

From reading the article, it seems that the logic behind it is that people were avoiding being tested and infecting others unknowingly as a result, as then they couldn't be charged with the felony. Not sure what the impact of the change in the law will be there (and I'm not sure if such felony charges could be applied retrospectively i.e. would you be charged if you had infected someone without knowing but then got tested?), but if it encourages more testing and prevents more unknowing cases, which I would probably guess would be far more common, then it may actually be a positive (no jokes pls) change in terms of reducing cases overall?

Pozzy for the dank Mark Fowler reference alone, but a double for making an excellent point.