[gillytech]

Marginalized people? What are you talking about? The first cases of AIDS was identified in homosexuals. That's a fact.

My position is not that there have been no breakthroughs in the treatment of HIV at all. My argument is that HIV does not cause AIDS.

When you don't have empirical evidence to support your fake claim that HIV causes aids then yeah, you need to go authoritarian. Hence endless government and para-government agencies dictating truth through biased and hopelessly flawed studies.

When your argument is built on BS you need to argue at the upper levels and never look at the foundation.

[dna_polymerase]

You used the r-word. You come here with claims that go against the status quo and provide zero evidence to support your claims.

Just admit it, you don't like gay people. No need for this idiotic 'AIDS is fake' charade.

[maxbond]

This is too far a leap, that haven't said anything overtly homophobic. It's likely they aren't homophobic, who knows.

When we make leaps like this we risk the conversation devolving into something where the germane criticisms are lost. It's a lot easier to critique their position and rhetoric than to interrogate the content of their soul, and they will always have the home court advantage there.

I'm not the rhetoric police, but that is my advice.

[gillytech]

You got it exactly right. Simply stating a fact is not an attack on anyone. In any scientific inquiry one needs to consider all the similarities and differences in the data. Most notably, if HIV is spread through sexual contact, why was it most prevalent in gay men of a particular lifestyle in a particular place? If it were straight white Amish people that it was attacking, I would say the same thing.

Not that it matters, but my sister is gay and I am going to be in her wedding this October. I have a much more nuanced understanding of homosexuality as my twin falls into this category.

[maxbond]

> if HIV is spread through sexual contact, why was it most prevalent in gay men of a particular lifestyle in a particular place?

You've answered your own question. Because they were a community of people in sexual contact with each other, and/or sharing needles.

Please consider that, whether or you are homophobic, you are repeating homophobic talking points. The idea that HIV was caused by "lifestyle" rather than a virus was invented to discredit the idea that it was an epidemic requiring urgent medical intervention. It's rhetoric which was invented to frame a disease as a moral failing in order to deny or delay the development of lifesaving care to a population some would prefer to see suffer and die (as well as deny or delay interventions like educating people and distributing protection). This is "gay plague" stuff. Frankly, I can understand why the other commenter took the impression you are homophobic.

Sincere congratulations to your sister. I hope the wedding is lovely.

[maxbond]

> What are you talking about?

The LGBTQ community doesn't at all benefit from you spreading misinformation about HIV. You are using their marginalization to your unrelated rhetorical ends, because for whatever reason you have a gripe with the FDA. That's messed up.

> My position is not that there have been no breakthroughs in the treatment of HIV at all.

That's rather at odds with this statement you made:

> It's a multibillion dollar industry and 0 progress in the treatment of AIDS for decades.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37057238

"At all" is a goalpost you've introduced, but the difference between "at all" and "for decades" is negligible at any rate.

> When you don't have empirical evidence to support your fake claim that HIV causes aids then yeah, you need to go authoritarian.

I think it's interesting that you say that, when you haven't responded to the specific and factual claims made by 'kstrauser (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37057357). 'kstrauser, I will readily admit, made the superior argument to mine, and responded more directly to your empirical claims.

If the empirical evidence is on your side, I have a hard time understanding why you're talking to me and not them.

> When your argument is built on BS you need to argue at the upper levels and never look at the foundation.

It's been my experience that people with BS arguments are likely to gish gallop between incredibly narrow and specific claims, which are often true or half true, and broad sweeping generalizations. This gives the impression of supporting the generalizations, but when they're placed in the proper context it becomes clear they are massive leaps.