[spairo]

>Let's see, recent reports suggest the origins of HIV is
>Cameroon. Some guy 30-40yrs ago mistakenly got into contact
>with primate blood and the chain reaction started.
>
>Now assume, just assume for once he did not come into contact
>with the monkey and HIV was not existing, how do you reconcile
>with your statement above that HIV is prevelant because of
>other people's religious inclinations?
>
>Are you saying africans, (and in this case I say africans
>because statistically we have higher prevelance rates of HIV
>and AIDS), are hit hard because we have our own tradition
>beliefs that make AIDS get attracted to us? Is this because
>africans are not muslims? Is this because africans have
>accepted the white man's corruption of the bible to the point
>of allowing homosexuality? *looking out of the window to count
>how many africans are fornicating...shacks none!*
>
>Spairo, you start a discussion well but somehow you lose
>it...




@Chotadipo.

I like your tactics of punching hole, a little bit clever to attack the tail and leave the main points. The recent study by a Swedish scientist is an effort worth a part on her back. I see more of racism in this research on the origin of HIV than anything. We know HIV was discovered in 1982 in USA from a GAY! Period we don’t need lectures about the origin of HIV being in Africa since 1952! It a fallacy.
Back to the topic, I brought the aspect of HIV in comparison with religion because that is what is evidently now. Yes the Africa Muslims are less infected with HIV compared to our brothers who are Christians. The point is, you cocoon are human being on the issue of sex, and he will find some way out with multiple illegal partners hence infection, set him free and he will be less tempted hence less or zero prevalence in HIV. Get the reasoning?