[–] pray_the_gay_away 0 points 16 points 16 points (+16|-0) ago
I'm a gay guy, and I actually think this broken clock of a ham might be right once in a while. Having unprotected gay sex is the health equivalent of eating a triple bypass burger at the Heart Attack Grill is the equivalent of playing Russian roulette. There are consequences for unhealthy behavior of all kinds.
[–] tommychicago 0 points 7 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago
I am too, I have to disagree here. I think there is a big difference between making a stupid mistake one night vs years of gluttony
[–] CrackingYs 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago (edited ago)
But the ham didn't say anything about one mistake, she used the term "lifestyle". She has chosen a lifestyle of obesity and preventable medical problems - and because gay people exist, she will continue to pound cheeseburgers regardless of what doctors say. That's her brilliant fucking fat logic.
[–] CaloricKarma 3 points 9 points 12 points (+12|-3) ago (edited ago)
Wtf? AIDS isn't only for gays.
Also, diabetes is something that can be reversed after developing it. AIDS is with you for life. So your "argument" or whatever this is is completely invalid.
Edit: ALSO. Diabetes won't fucking kill you. So calling them the same is completely retarded.
[–] ShitLord-Vader 0 points 7 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago
Diabetes can kill you without being treated. Which is hopefully the case for all butter golems that have it.
[–] CaloricKarma 1 point 2 points 3 points (+3|-1) ago (edited ago)
Well yeah, but dying from diabetes is something you pretty much have to work at and getting it is something that will happen when you give up on your life already where as AIDS will kill you no matter how hard you try to fight it, no matter how healthy you were before contracting it.
But yeah, I pretty much pray the lard whales that get diagnosed diabetes don't have the tools/brain to keep it in check and die from it.
[–] EarlPoncho 1 point 5 points 6 points (+6|-1) ago
The chance of catching the AIDS virus from a single act of heterosexual intercourse with an infected partner is 1 in 500 if no condom is used. It's basically a gay disease.
[–] Delusion_of_Adequacy 1 point -1 points 0 points (+0|-1) ago (edited ago)
That simply not true. For starters, there's a difference in infection rate between vaginal and anal intercourse. Anal is not limited to strictly gays only. In addition, in heterosexual unprotected intercourse, the woman has a higher chance of being infected than the man, so the 1 in 500 would not apply to both genders. Therefore, your comment is incomplete at best. The same applies to anal intercourse by the way; the 'receiving' party has a higher chance of infection than the penetrating party.
Furthermore, there's a difference between sex with someone who's only been recently infected, as opposed to somebody who has advanced to a late stage. Then there are huge differences between high-income and low-income areas. Although gays do have a higher risk of infection, so do drug addicts (if they use needles). Calling AIDS a gay disease is just not factually correct.
Edit: source http://www.aidsmap.com/Estimated-risk-per-exposure/page/1324038/
[–] RedditThoughtPolice 0 points 5 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago (edited ago)
Fucking blubber brains, man.
[–] theunrighteous 0 points 4 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago
I think my brain just broke. What the actual fuck did I just read there?
[–] CatNamedJava 0 points 3 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago (edited ago)
It does make for a interesting comparison. After the AIDs epidemic hit, the gay community got their shit together and brought the outbreak of the disease down. While society is going the other direction with obesity diseases.
[–] Harry_Areola 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago (edited ago)
WTF? The overwhelming majority of HIV cases worldwide are in the hetero population. By a vast margin, most cases are in Sub-Saharan Africa. The only reason it was a "gay disease" in the US is it happened to come into this country in a gay man first.
[–] CatNamedJava 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
It's a "gay" disease because male on Male transition accounts for 63% of new cases in the US. Though it could be considered a "black" disease as blacks make up 21% of Americans but 41% of new cases. It really should be considered a African disease at this point. Since 5% of adults between 15-49 have HIV in sub-Saharan Africa and 72% of all new infections worldwide..
[–] Harry_Areola 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago (edited ago)
"It's a "gay" disease because male on Male transition accounts for 63% of new cases in the US"
You're neglecting the history of what happened. It was a "gay disease" from day one. Because it was brought into the country by a gay man and the government really didn't give a fuck about it until it jumped into the hetero population.
[–] SirBertyBeetus 0 points 33 points 33 points (+33|-0) ago
OMFG to compare AIDS to diabetes is the most retarded thing I've heard on this sub. Another masterpiece of fatlogic!
[–] j095 1 point 12 points 13 points (+13|-1) ago (edited ago)
It's actually not imo. The gay comment was bullshit, but aids is also the result of not caring for yourself (using the appropriate protection).
[–] LikeJesusButTaller 1 point 11 points 12 points (+12|-1) ago
True but to be comparable AIDs victims would have to knowingly and deliberately expose themselves to small amounts of the HIV virus every day for several years until it finally results in an incurable condition which gradually destroys them. I suppose the last part is right.
[–] itazuka ago
AIDS is not always the result of not caring for yourself. You can contract it by birth if your mother had it, or by blood contact, etc. Please do not compare people suffuring of AIDS with massive pieces of shit who don't deserve to live
[–] FreedomToast 0 points 3 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago (edited ago)
To be fair, I believe their intention is: AIDS as a gay disease is a false association as diabetes is to obesity, in a very broad context. This is definitively true in the same manner that dementia is to seniors or school is for children. Of course their statement has big problems
The best part of that statement is the self-serving ignorant bias. Break it down fully, this whale is saying that we know that all people with diabetes are not guaranteed to be obese (Type I, or people dealing with the disorder). This is objectively true, diabetes does not guarantee the association of obesity. The whales trust the research into this field, which everyone should. When the reverse is examined, well "that is just fat-shaming". We know obesity is a huge risk for diabetes (I somehow can't find a Trump "Huge" soundbite, what is this world coming to? I know your minds can play one though, let that echo across your neurons. Huge. Huuuuuuuge.). Your odds of diabetes are 7.26x if you are obese. So the science behind the distribution of diabetes in a population is solid science, but the exact same information and processes applied to obesity is fat-shaming.
Shamus only go one layer deep, the fat blocks all penetration.