Author Topic: Charlton Heston's speech (Read 4671 times)

lazs2 · « **Reply #150 on:** August 12, 2002, 02:46:40 PM »

look... I'm a constitutionalist and a libertarian for the most part... I mind my own busisenss but.... I feel that when you endager others it is their right to know it. I am not sure about aids any more than anyone else here is but I think we would all admit that there is a distinct possibility that using sharp objects around open wounds is quite possibly risky. Fine... don't tell anyone but if anyone get's aids from a dentist that hid the fact then charge the dentist with premeditated murder. If he discloses it then... so what? Go to him or not.... up to you. BTW... dentists have no problem with asking yu on their form weather you have any blood transmitted disease. If I said no... and then they got hep c I would feel terrible and expect and deserve, legal reprecussions.

mail carrier? no... I don't laugh out loud or get upset when I here it but I don't get upset at mailman either. I don't say ms and I open doors for women... I don't care who doesn't like it (yes I say "mailman")I do crack up when I hear "personhole" for "manhole. I think calling someone an African american means that he is neither at worst and simply different from everyone else at best. Who really cares if a bigot says "cupcake"? PC was never needed and at best it is just embarassing and confusing... at worst... devisive... but it is a small evil and a good source of amusement.

hate crimes? No... all crimes are simply crimes. kill a black child because you "hate" it or kill my child because you enjoy killing.... the effect is the same and the penalty should be the same. And I don't mean "life in prison" with parole eligble at 20 years with 1/3 of that cut off for good behavior.

The second amendmant is quite clear. It will need to be changed in order to get a different "interpretation". There are not many ways to change the constitution but if you wish it to be by revolution then put me down on the other side and you will get a much needed lesson in why the amendmant was put there in the first place.

elf is correct... the speech was simply a money raiser but.... I have read a lot of things that Mr Heston has written and he is a very bright and interesting guy. I also find that I agree with him about 99% of the time.
lazs

Nifty · « **Reply #151 on:** August 12, 2002, 03:23:57 PM »

the scary part is most of the posts in this thread happened over the weekend...

Kieran · « **Reply #152 on:** August 12, 2002, 03:30:41 PM »

MT-

Comes down to whose report you want to believe, doesn't it?

weazel · « **Reply #153 on:** August 12, 2002, 03:32:23 PM »

Weazel-

So much venom, so little time...

Should say:

Unable to provide a rebuttal to the truth.

Kieran · « **Reply #154 on:** August 12, 2002, 03:44:30 PM »

Truth or no truth, your venom towards conservatives and the constant stream of viscious remarks towards them is the source of my comment.

Need proof for that?

midnight Target · « **Reply #155 on:** August 12, 2002, 03:50:01 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Kieran
MT-

Comes down to whose report you want to believe, doesn't it?

Without going into it any deeper, Yes.

Kieran · « **Reply #156 on:** August 12, 2002, 03:53:28 PM »

MT-

Now here's why I say this... sure, on the surface your link seems to explain there is no connection- except, explain the amazing coincidence of these patients all contracting AIDS from a dentist who would later die from the disease? Further, how much do we really know about the disease? If we truly understood it perfectly, does it not follow we would have a cure?

The fact is, in our society, the concerns of the few so often outweight the needs of the many.

Sandman · « **Reply #157 on:** August 12, 2002, 03:58:54 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
The second amendmant is quite clear. It will need to be changed in order to get a different "interpretation". There are not many ways to change the constitution but if you wish it to be by revolution then put me down on the other side and you will get a much needed lesson in why the amendmant was put there in the first place.
lazs

I disagree. If the 2nd Amendment were "quite clear," there would be no need for "2nd Amendment Scholars" nor would there be any argument over the founder's intent.

I see your point on hate crimes, but there's great distinction given to intent when the courts try murder cases. I'm not sure what the right answer is.

midnight Target · « **Reply #158 on:** August 12, 2002, 04:12:32 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Kieran
MT-

Now here's why I say this... sure, on the surface your link seems to explain there is no connection- except, explain the amazing coincidence of these patients all contracting AIDS from a dentist who would later die from the disease? Further, how much do we really know about the disease? If we truly understood it perfectly, does it not follow we would have a cure?

The fact is, in our society, the concerns of the few so often outweight the needs of the many.

The link I posted shows the number of patients tested and the number testing HIV positive. There is no proof (according to my source) that ANY contracted the disease from the dentist.

add: 24 out of 6474 patients tested positive. Without bothering to look I'm guessing this is not an abnormal ratio for that part of the country (Miami). Of those, 19 either admitted to concensual homosexual sex, or drug use. That leaves 5 (6 because 1 was found later) And the genome test on these were false.

Elfenwolf · « **Reply #159 on:** August 12, 2002, 04:21:03 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Kieran

Read it for yourself

Well, Elf?

Kieran Yeah, I read that yesterday but the piece itself said the evidence was inconclusive. I also read MT's link. Now you say it's "who you believe?" OK, for argument's sake let's say this Florida dentist infected six people with HIV. So accepting this as a truth then what do we know about dentists and HIV?

We know there has never been any other transfer of HIV from dentist to patient. Not among the presumably thousands of HIV positive dentists working on presumably millions of patients. Oh, one DELIBERATE infection was sited, but we're talking about alledged "accidental" transfer, and for the past 21 years there hasn't been one documented case you can show me- except this one.

What are the odds that of the only six cases of "accidental" infection of patients with the HIV virus they all came from the SAME dentist? Does this suggest the idea of getting infected by an HIV-positive dentist is a widespread one, or does this suggest that maybe, just maybe, given the presumably thousands of HIV positive dentists working on presumably millions of patients, that the transmission of the disease wasn't quite as accidental as we might be led to believe? The dentist himself admitted to shoddy sanitation practices which suggests some culpubality for negligence, at least. Why have no other HIV positive dentists "accidentally" given HIV to a patient- let alone SIX of them? That would be like winning Powerball six weeks in a row.

Almost every website I checked out said the same thing- no substantiated cases of ACCIDENTAL HIV infection from a dentist. If this is the best case you can find, Kieran, then assuming its validity it raises the issue of just how accidental the infection was. Now admit that to find this site you had to surf quite a few sites that bolstered my argument, didn't ya?

Kieran · « **Reply #160 on:** August 12, 2002, 04:51:59 PM »

Are you kidding? I hit that one in five minutes, tops. I didn't bother to look for more, as I merely wanted to prove my claim regarding the case of the dentist with numerous HIV cases.

Now, since you want to play proof... can you prove the dentist was negligent? Or intentional? That case is as thin as the the case for accidental infection, is it not?

Anyway, it strays from the point; patients should be allowed the same background information required of them.

Elfenwolf · « **Reply #161 on:** August 12, 2002, 06:31:56 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Kieran
patients should be allowed the same background information required of them.

Uh...Why? You are a patient. A doctor needs your medical history to diagnose and treat you. Why do you need HIS medical history? Dentists advertise being HIV negative on the Internet anyway, so if you want a certified HIV free dentist you can ask for and find one. I really don't understand why this is such a hot button issue given all we've learned about HIV and AIDS. Am I missing something here?

-tronski- · « **Reply #162 on:** August 12, 2002, 07:13:41 PM »

Keep this thread going and You're gonna need a bigger boat....

Tronsky

Kieran · « **Reply #163 on:** August 12, 2002, 07:33:38 PM »

Patients also have to give personal information to doctors in case there is a possibility of AIDS infection, or if there is a nick (and it does happen), the doctor will know if he/she should be concerned. Hey, that door swings both directions if you ask me.

With all that we know about AIDS?! All that we know about AIDS is that we don't know all all there is to know about AIDS. I don't care if a person with AIDS mows my grass, fixes my food, or interacts with me in any way BUT if there is the possibility that guy or gal holding a sharp object may jab me and create a body fluid contact situation, you bet I want to know ahead of time what their status is WRT AIDS or HIV. Furthermore, I don't think that is in the LEAST unreasonable.

THIS is what chaps me most about the liberal viewpoint; you are ready to deny me the right to make up my own mind, or the privilege to take whatever precautions for my own health I deem necessary. Maybe I would visit such a dentist, maybe I wouldn't, but it would be MY choice.

Question for you; is a dentist allowed to deny me as a patient if I have HIV?

Cobra · « **Reply #164 on:** August 12, 2002, 07:36:51 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman_SBM

I disagree. If the 2nd Amendment were "quite clear," there would be no need for "2nd Amendment Scholars" nor would there be any argument over the founder's intent.

Sandman, we got "Scholars" on everything!! So I'm not sure being clear or not clear is the only criteria.

And if we can get people to struggle on what the defination of the word "is" is, then surely it's not a stretch to see that it's not hard to find an arguement over the founder's intent.

I know the "is" reference is a bit of a cheap shot, but it does illustrate how folks do need to argue over the trivial (as stated in the "is" example) as well as the more weighty issue of the founding fathers intent, even if it were crystal clear.

Different times, and different agendas will always cause folks to interpet differently what the founding fathers intent may or may not have been.

Cobra