Posted by bitty41:

Wain-Hobson could have just easily slammed the piece especially for a couple of reasons one being he's an expert in this field and Hooper isn't even a scientist and this theory filies in the face of his own. So he could have very easily spent his entire piece trying to discredit Hooper.

Also where did I endorse Rev Wright's theory in any of my posts? Look I haven't even seen or read most of what Wright' statements. So I can't really speak about the questionable content of his words. But his words if you are bothered by them are having an affect on you because you allow it. Look no black person is going to be breaking into your house tonight to beat you up because of a Wright' sermon. As a women I am very sure that many of our nation's politicians associate with men that have less then a high opinion of women. Now do I sit in my house upset, pissed off, or scared about this no of course not. Because I have my own beliefs, core values, that I trust and no jerk or whatever will change that.

[Edited by - bitty41 on 03-22-2008 7:02 PM]

Posted by simrud:

Earl, of course slavery is the root of the entire problem. And no I'm not saying that segregation was a good thing.

What I'm saying is that before desegregation, the black community, against all odds was able to make incredible progress. Even after, despite the the black elites abandoning the struggling majority and the the struggling majority likewise turning on successful blacks, it took the crack epidemic to completely set progress back to post WWII levels on all measurements of success.

It's called divide and conqueor, some were allowed and some weren't.

Some were mentally stronger and some weren't.

If everybody were treated as equals, then we wouldn't be talking about this now.

Posted by codeunknown:

Posted by bitty41:

Wain-Hobson could have just easily slammed the piece especially for a couple of reasons one being he's an expert in this field and Hooper isn't even a scientist and this theory filies in the face of his own. So he could have very easily spent his entire piece trying to discredit Hooper.

Also where did I endorse Rev Wright's theory in any of my posts? Look I haven't even seen or read most of what Wright' statements. So I can't really speak about the questionable content of his words. But his words if you are bothered by them are having an affect on you because you allow it. Look no black person is going to be breaking into your house tonight to beat you up because of a Wright' sermon. As a women I am very sure that many of our nation's politicians associate with men that have less then a high opinion of women. Now do I sit in my house upset, pissed off, or scared about this no of course not. Because I have my own beliefs, core values, that I trust and no jerk or whatever will change that.

[Edited by - bitty41 on 03-22-2008 7:02 PM]

Yes I'm pretty terrified of getting beat up by Wright's cronies. That is the only reason I joined this thread.

Why do you insist on taking this to the extreme. I was clearly being facetious when I said beat up but I was wrong in assuming that you would focus more on the intregal part of my post.

Posted by codeunknown:

Posted by TheloniusMonk:

I never said it was right for him to do so. I said it's conceivable when others say it's ignorant or whatever word people have used. But my question to you is are the white men who introduced this theory about AIDS injected into the men in the Congo racist as well? Or is it just Rev Wright for repeating them that's racist? I just need to know what seperates Rev Wright (as a racist) from the guys who hypothesized this thing? Are they considered "self-haters"? Anti-American? I just want to understand the racist thing when this isn't Wright's theory. That's my point. Do you consider Ed Hooper (a white man) a racist for being a pioneer in this theory? How about W.D. Hamilton from Oxford? People have latched on to the "racist" thing as it pertains to the HIV accusation. But is Wright the racist? Or these men (and many many many other white men who developed and support these claims)? Or are they ALL racists because of it? That's where the theory falls apart.

Again, I am not an advocate of the theory at this point.

No, unfortunately, the theory doesn't quite fall apart. Everyone has a fundamentally different set of values and motivations that give rise to a more specific subset of positions; the convergence at "HIV genocide" among a handful of people neither legitimizes nor discredits a presumptive etiology. Hooper has his varied motivations for believing what he does, but there is a reason he is in a very miniscule minority in the scientific community. He may be a self-hater, a money lover, a conspiracy fanatic, and misinformed, among other things. Given the context of Wright's sermons, however, his motivations are more readily apparent. The progression of his distortions is really quite impressive. Again, Wright claims that the US government "injected" black men with syphillis at Tuskegee, that "people of color" were the target of a goverment sponsored HIV genocide, and that white politicians are like the "Romans" who persecuted Jesus, "a poor black man." By deliberately mixing elements of the truth with egregious distortion in his usual frenzy and projecting those distortions as proof that the black-white dichotomy is equivalent to the dichotomy between good vs. evil, Wright has designed a resonating rhetoric, couched in a rather convincing, albeit false, historical and religious context. The most discouraging aspect to all of this is that his lies probably won't be scrutinized by his titillated audiences and they are likely to continue the exaggeration of the racial division. Its clear that neither truth nor science are of particular importance to Wright; what was of exclusive interest to him was generating an anger, although to what specific end is still somewhat obscure to me.

Posted by TheloniusMonk:

Posted by codeunknown:

Posted by TheloniusMonk:

I never said it was right for him to do so. I said it's conceivable when others say it's ignorant or whatever word people have used. But my question to you is are the white men who introduced this theory about AIDS injected into the men in the Congo racist as well? Or is it just Rev Wright for repeating them that's racist? I just need to know what seperates Rev Wright (as a racist) from the guys who hypothesized this thing? Are they considered "self-haters"? Anti-American? I just want to understand the racist thing when this isn't Wright's theory. That's my point. Do you consider Ed Hooper (a white man) a racist for being a pioneer in this theory? How about W.D. Hamilton from Oxford? People have latched on to the "racist" thing as it pertains to the HIV accusation. But is Wright the racist? Or these men (and many many many other white men who developed and support these claims)? Or are they ALL racists because of it? That's where the theory falls apart.

Again, I am not an advocate of the theory at this point.

No, unfortunately, the theory doesn't quite fall apart. Everyone has a fundamentally different set of values and motivations that give rise to a more specific subset of positions; the convergence at "HIV genocide" among a handful of people neither legitimizes nor discredits a presumptive etiology. Hooper has his varied motivations for believing what he does, but there is a reason he is in a very miniscule minority in the scientific community. He may be a self-hater, a money lover, a conspiracy fanatic, and misinformed, among other things. Given the context of Wright's sermons, however, his motivations are more readily apparent. The progression of his distortions is really quite impressive. Again, Wright claims that the US government "injected" black men with syphillis at Tuskegee, that "people of color" were the target of a goverment sponsored HIV genocide, and that white politicians are like the "Romans" who persecuted Jesus, "a poor black man." By deliberately mixing elements of the truth with egregious distortion in his usual frenzy and projecting those distortions as proof that the black-white dichotomy is equivalent to the dichotomy between good vs. evil, Wright has designed a resonating rhetoric, couched in a rather convincing, albeit false, historical and religious context. The most discouraging aspect to all of this is that his lies probably won't be scrutinized by his titillated audiences and they are likely to continue the exaggeration of the racial division. Its clear that neither truth nor science are of particular importance to Wright; what was of exclusive interest to him was generating an anger, although to what specific end is still somewhat obscure to me.

Not to put people's business out there but do you know that Rev Dr Wright has an uncle that was a victim of the Tuskegee experiment? He has close ties to the situation. There was even a law suit that the Wtight family was involved in at some point in the past with them. He travels to Africa often and speaks to and is among a lot of people in the African communities in various countries. There stories are amazing. You should talk to some of the people in Kenya about the AIDS epidemic one day. Not everybody has a totally Americanized view of the world. My question still hasn't been answered about Hooper and the fellas being racists for the theory they have. What makes the fact that Wright believes there theory a racist vs them being "money lovers" etc. And by the way isn't a racist suppose to believe their race to be superior?

I have been to Africa to treat AIDS patients actually. In Lesotho, where there was a grand total of 1 pediatrician the last time I checked. Is there any other wisdom you'd like to share with me? I'll be honest - its becoming tiresome to read these posts that are supposed to give me a new perspective. Lets talk about Wright.

Your answer regarding Wright is in a previous post. What would you call equating white people with hateful persecutors and black people with Jesus? Who does he think is superior? I'm making a case on the bulk of his statements which indicate that, rather than an inductive search for the truth, Wright is fixing the facts to suit an agenda.

Posted by bitty41:

Posted by codeunknown:

There are several articles.

Here's one abstract:

It has been suggested that chimpanzee kidney cultures may have been used in the preparation of oral polio vaccine stocks used in Africa during the late 1950s, and so could have introduced the primate precursor of the immunodeficiency virus HIV-1 into humans1, 2. Here we analyse frozen samples of the suspect vaccine by using the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) to amplify any HIV-1-related nucleic acids or chimpanzee mitochondrial DNA that might be present, but we have failed to detect either. Our findings do not support the hypothesis that HIV-1 was introduced by oral vaccination against poliovirus.

I don't know if this the smoking gun you were talking about in reference to the orgin of AIDS but most scientist mostly agree that there is no full-proof evidence of its beginning. So unless you disagree with that then I think I've made my point.

Its certainly a smoking gun regarding the Congo oral polio vaccine. I'm not sure what you want - it seems like you'd dance around the issue for days so you can claim you made a point. Do you want me to systematically argue against every AIDS accidental introduction and genocide theory, including the many you haven't mentioned? So far, all I've gotten from you is an trite reiteration that theories should be objectively evaluated. I think everyone agrees with that. My point remains, however, that AIDS genocide isn't supported scientifically and it was irresponsible for Wright to disseminate that view.

Posted by codeunknown:

Posted by bitty41:

Posted by codeunknown:

There are several articles.

Here's one abstract:

It has been suggested that chimpanzee kidney cultures may have been used in the preparation of oral polio vaccine stocks used in Africa during the late 1950s, and so could have introduced the primate precursor of the immunodeficiency virus HIV-1 into humans1, 2. Here we analyse frozen samples of the suspect vaccine by using the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) to amplify any HIV-1-related nucleic acids or chimpanzee mitochondrial DNA that might be present, but we have failed to detect either. Our findings do not support the hypothesis that HIV-1 was introduced by oral vaccination against poliovirus.

I don't know if this the smoking gun you were talking about in reference to the orgin of AIDS but most scientist mostly agree that there is no full-proof evidence of its beginning. So unless you disagree with that then I think I've made my point.

Its certainly a smoking gun regarding the Congo oral polio vaccine. I'm not sure what you want - it seems like you'd dance around the issue for days so you can claim you made a point. Do you want me to systematically argue against every AIDS accidental introduction and genocide theory, including the many you haven't mentioned? So far, all I've gotten from you is an trite reiteration that theories should be objectively evaluated. I think everyone agrees with that. My point remains, however, that AIDS genocide isn't supported scientifically and it was irresponsible for Wright to disseminate that view.

Again you are the only one using the term genocide I used the term man-made whether it was intentional or unintentional is an entirely different point. If Wright's comments distrubed you so much then I am curious why you did not shoot back immediately with scientific data evidence etc that showed his information to be utterly false. Sure I could understand an average joe not doing this but you have said many times yourself that you've studied this extensively yet you've only provided an abstract of an article. Thats not to say your wrong (let me clear I am not saying that) but I think your focused on Rev Wright when you could have shot down his theories. Then this whole discussion would be dead in its tracks.

Posted by codeunknown:

Posted by TheloniusMonk:

Posted by codeunknown:

Posted by TheloniusMonk:

I never said it was right for him to do so. I said it's conceivable when others say it's ignorant or whatever word people have used. But my question to you is are the white men who introduced this theory about AIDS injected into the men in the Congo racist as well? Or is it just Rev Wright for repeating them that's racist? I just need to know what seperates Rev Wright (as a racist) from the guys who hypothesized this thing? Are they considered "self-haters"? Anti-American? I just want to understand the racist thing when this isn't Wright's theory. That's my point. Do you consider Ed Hooper (a white man) a racist for being a pioneer in this theory? How about W.D. Hamilton from Oxford? People have latched on to the "racist" thing as it pertains to the HIV accusation. But is Wright the racist? Or these men (and many many many other white men who developed and support these claims)? Or are they ALL racists because of it? That's where the theory falls apart.

Again, I am not an advocate of the theory at this point.

No, unfortunately, the theory doesn't quite fall apart. Everyone has a fundamentally different set of values and motivations that give rise to a more specific subset of positions; the convergence at "HIV genocide" among a handful of people neither legitimizes nor discredits a presumptive etiology. Hooper has his varied motivations for believing what he does, but there is a reason he is in a very miniscule minority in the scientific community. He may be a self-hater, a money lover, a conspiracy fanatic, and misinformed, among other things. Given the context of Wright's sermons, however, his motivations are more readily apparent. The progression of his distortions is really quite impressive. Again, Wright claims that the US government "injected" black men with syphillis at Tuskegee, that "people of color" were the target of a goverment sponsored HIV genocide, and that white politicians are like the "Romans" who persecuted Jesus, "a poor black man." By deliberately mixing elements of the truth with egregious distortion in his usual frenzy and projecting those distortions as proof that the black-white dichotomy is equivalent to the dichotomy between good vs. evil, Wright has designed a resonating rhetoric, couched in a rather convincing, albeit false, historical and religious context. The most discouraging aspect to all of this is that his lies probably won't be scrutinized by his titillated audiences and they are likely to continue the exaggeration of the racial division. Its clear that neither truth nor science are of particular importance to Wright; what was of exclusive interest to him was generating an anger, although to what specific end is still somewhat obscure to me.

Not to put people's business out there but do you know that Rev Dr Wright has an uncle that was a victim of the Tuskegee experiment? He has close ties to the situation. There was even a law suit that the Wtight family was involved in at some point in the past with them. He travels to Africa often and speaks to and is among a lot of people in the African communities in various countries. There stories are amazing. You should talk to some of the people in Kenya about the AIDS epidemic one day. Not everybody has a totally Americanized view of the world. My question still hasn't been answered about Hooper and the fellas being racists for the theory they have. What makes the fact that Wright believes there theory a racist vs them being "money lovers" etc. And by the way isn't a racist suppose to believe their race to be superior?

I have been to Africa to treat AIDS patients actually. In Lesotho, where there was a grand total of 1 pediatrician the last time I checked. Is there any other wisdom you'd like to share with me? I'll be honest - its becoming tiresome to read these posts that are supposed to give me a new perspective. Lets talk about Wright.

Your answer regarding Wright is in a previous post. What would you call equating white people with hateful persecutors and black people with Jesus? Who does he think is superior? I'm making a case on the bulk of his statements which indicate that, rather than an inductive search for the truth, Wright is fixing the facts to suit an agenda.

Oh brother. Jesus was a man of color. The Romans were white. They crusified him. Where is the issue here?

Posted by codeunknown:

Posted by TheloniusMonk:

Posted by codeunknown:

Posted by TheloniusMonk:

I never said it was right for him to do so. I said it's conceivable when others say it's ignorant or whatever word people have used. But my question to you is are the white men who introduced this theory about AIDS injected into the men in the Congo racist as well? Or is it just Rev Wright for repeating them that's racist? I just need to know what seperates Rev Wright (as a racist) from the guys who hypothesized this thing? Are they considered "self-haters"? Anti-American? I just want to understand the racist thing when this isn't Wright's theory. That's my point. Do you consider Ed Hooper (a white man) a racist for being a pioneer in this theory? How about W.D. Hamilton from Oxford? People have latched on to the "racist" thing as it pertains to the HIV accusation. But is Wright the racist? Or these men (and many many many other white men who developed and support these claims)? Or are they ALL racists because of it? That's where the theory falls apart.

Again, I am not an advocate of the theory at this point.

No, unfortunately, the theory doesn't quite fall apart. Everyone has a fundamentally different set of values and motivations that give rise to a more specific subset of positions; the convergence at "HIV genocide" among a handful of people neither legitimizes nor discredits a presumptive etiology. Hooper has his varied motivations for believing what he does, but there is a reason he is in a very miniscule minority in the scientific community. He may be a self-hater, a money lover, a conspiracy fanatic, and misinformed, among other things. Given the context of Wright's sermons, however, his motivations are more readily apparent. The progression of his distortions is really quite impressive. Again, Wright claims that the US government "injected" black men with syphillis at Tuskegee, that "people of color" were the target of a goverment sponsored HIV genocide, and that white politicians are like the "Romans" who persecuted Jesus, "a poor black man." By deliberately mixing elements of the truth with egregious distortion in his usual frenzy and projecting those distortions as proof that the black-white dichotomy is equivalent to the dichotomy between good vs. evil, Wright has designed a resonating rhetoric, couched in a rather convincing, albeit false, historical and religious context. The most discouraging aspect to all of this is that his lies probably won't be scrutinized by his titillated audiences and they are likely to continue the exaggeration of the racial division. Its clear that neither truth nor science are of particular importance to Wright; what was of exclusive interest to him was generating an anger, although to what specific end is still somewhat obscure to me.

Not to put people's business out there but do you know that Rev Dr Wright has an uncle that was a victim of the Tuskegee experiment? He has close ties to the situation. There was even a law suit that the Wtight family was involved in at some point in the past with them. He travels to Africa often and speaks to and is among a lot of people in the African communities in various countries. There stories are amazing. You should talk to some of the people in Kenya about the AIDS epidemic one day. Not everybody has a totally Americanized view of the world. My question still hasn't been answered about Hooper and the fellas being racists for the theory they have. What makes the fact that Wright believes there theory a racist vs them being "money lovers" etc. And by the way isn't a racist suppose to believe their race to be superior?

I have been to Africa to treat AIDS patients actually. In Lesotho, where there was a grand total of 1 pediatrician the last time I checked. Is there any other wisdom you'd like to share with me? I'll be honest - its becoming tiresome to read these posts that are supposed to give me a new perspective. Lets talk about Wright.

Your answer regarding Wright is in a previous post. What would you call equating white people with hateful persecutors and black people with Jesus? Who does he think is superior? I'm making a case on the bulk of his statements which indicate that, rather than an inductive search for the truth, Wright is fixing the facts to suit an agenda.

Congrats on going to Lesotho. That is very honorable. Seriously! But me saying you should go to Kenya and speak to the people in that country has nothing to do with Lesotho. This is like a person telling me "the people of Ireland have very interesting stories about an epidemic in their country" and I say "I've been to Germany so you can't tell me anything!". You're offended and saying I'm coming with "wisdom" sarcasrtcally lol. Wow. I'm just sharing with you a place where you can hear some stories about what I'm talking about from people who are like minded with me. Man please. I am telling you about a specific country and their take on their epidemic in their country. Just stop it. You are working verrrrrry hard here. It's simple. People have a right to what they believe and have a right to say it. Whatever the consequences are then so be it.

I'm still trying to figure out how Wright agreeing with a theory that some very intelligent guys (who happened to be white) makes him a racist. And the biblical thing...sheesh, man of color vs white soldiers and politicians. I don't think Rev Jeremiah Wright wrote Matthew, Mark Luke or John. take it up with those guys.

Posted by TheloniusMonk:

Posted by codeunknown:

Posted by TheloniusMonk:

Posted by codeunknown:

Posted by TheloniusMonk:

I never said it was right for him to do so. I said it's conceivable when others say it's ignorant or whatever word people have used. But my question to you is are the white men who introduced this theory about AIDS injected into the men in the Congo racist as well? Or is it just Rev Wright for repeating them that's racist? I just need to know what seperates Rev Wright (as a racist) from the guys who hypothesized this thing? Are they considered "self-haters"? Anti-American? I just want to understand the racist thing when this isn't Wright's theory. That's my point. Do you consider Ed Hooper (a white man) a racist for being a pioneer in this theory? How about W.D. Hamilton from Oxford? People have latched on to the "racist" thing as it pertains to the HIV accusation. But is Wright the racist? Or these men (and many many many other white men who developed and support these claims)? Or are they ALL racists because of it? That's where the theory falls apart.

Again, I am not an advocate of the theory at this point.

No, unfortunately, the theory doesn't quite fall apart. Everyone has a fundamentally different set of values and motivations that give rise to a more specific subset of positions; the convergence at "HIV genocide" among a handful of people neither legitimizes nor discredits a presumptive etiology. Hooper has his varied motivations for believing what he does, but there is a reason he is in a very miniscule minority in the scientific community. He may be a self-hater, a money lover, a conspiracy fanatic, and misinformed, among other things. Given the context of Wright's sermons, however, his motivations are more readily apparent. The progression of his distortions is really quite impressive. Again, Wright claims that the US government "injected" black men with syphillis at Tuskegee, that "people of color" were the target of a goverment sponsored HIV genocide, and that white politicians are like the "Romans" who persecuted Jesus, "a poor black man." By deliberately mixing elements of the truth with egregious distortion in his usual frenzy and projecting those distortions as proof that the black-white dichotomy is equivalent to the dichotomy between good vs. evil, Wright has designed a resonating rhetoric, couched in a rather convincing, albeit false, historical and religious context. The most discouraging aspect to all of this is that his lies probably won't be scrutinized by his titillated audiences and they are likely to continue the exaggeration of the racial division. Its clear that neither truth nor science are of particular importance to Wright; what was of exclusive interest to him was generating an anger, although to what specific end is still somewhat obscure to me.

Not to put people's business out there but do you know that Rev Dr Wright has an uncle that was a victim of the Tuskegee experiment? He has close ties to the situation. There was even a law suit that the Wtight family was involved in at some point in the past with them. He travels to Africa often and speaks to and is among a lot of people in the African communities in various countries. There stories are amazing. You should talk to some of the people in Kenya about the AIDS epidemic one day. Not everybody has a totally Americanized view of the world. My question still hasn't been answered about Hooper and the fellas being racists for the theory they have. What makes the fact that Wright believes there theory a racist vs them being "money lovers" etc. And by the way isn't a racist suppose to believe their race to be superior?

I have been to Africa to treat AIDS patients actually. In Lesotho, where there was a grand total of 1 pediatrician the last time I checked. Is there any other wisdom you'd like to share with me? I'll be honest - its becoming tiresome to read these posts that are supposed to give me a new perspective. Lets talk about Wright.

Your answer regarding Wright is in a previous post. What would you call equating white people with hateful persecutors and black people with Jesus? Who does he think is superior? I'm making a case on the bulk of his statements which indicate that, rather than an inductive search for the truth, Wright is fixing the facts to suit an agenda.

Congrats on going to Lesotho. That is very honorable. Seriously! But me saying you should go to Kenya and speak to the people in that country has nothing to do with Lesotho. This is like a person telling me "the people of Ireland have very interesting stories about an epidemic in their country" and I say "I've been to Germany so you can't tell me anything!". You're offended and saying I'm coming with "wisdom" sarcasrtcally lol. Wow. I'm just sharing with you a place where you can hear some stories about what I'm talking about from people who are like minded with me. Man please. I am telling you about a specific country and their take on their epidemic in their country. Just stop it. You are working verrrrrry hard here. It's simple. People have a right to what they believe and have a right to say it. Whatever the consequences are then so be it.

I'm still trying to figure out how Wright agreeing with a theory that some very intelligent guys (who happened to be white) makes him a racist. And the biblical thing...sheesh, man of color vs white soldiers and politicians. I don't think Rev Jeremiah Wright wrote Matthew, Mark Luke or John. take it up with those guys.

I congratulate you on your knowledge of the Kenyan people. But since I don't have a free weekend coming up, can you give me the quick synopsis of why specifically they are relevant to the conversation?

People having rights to an opinion doesn't make their public dissemination responsible. My contention is merely that the AIDS genocide argument is weak and discussnig it as a matter of fact is both highly misleading and divisive.

Do you honestly not realize why structuring a black vs white dichotomy in a good vs. evil context is dangerous?

You seem like a quantity rather than quality kind of gal. The article I posted was rather important - it discredits the OPV thesis. So you're right the discussion should be dead in its tracks