Dvergar wrote:
The only thing you have to refute anything that has been said is "people don't like some of the victims". Given that there was a massive difference between the social standards and actions of homosexuals between the 1950s and 1980s, it wouldn't make sense to introduce the very same virus you introduced in order to spread and kill the heterosexual Africans. You would have no guarantee and no way to stop the virus if it spread amongst heterosexuals everywhere like it did in Africa (which you have no reason to believe it wouldn't).
I would suggest you go back and re-read Eturnal's aids-alien theory, because it's got about the same about of possibility as your engineered-virus theory.
You're doing what I see you do a lot, which is whittling down or reconceiving others' positions to suit your own biases, and in the process, discarding the elements of others' positions that have substance, so that those positions vacillate in favor of your own viewpoints.
Scientists did criminal experiments with radiation and toxic/psychoactive chemicals on disadvantaged populations. There were programs in place to sterilize these people, and they would have been expanded if not so repugnant that the general population would have objected. There were all sorts of oppressive covert activities going on at the time - surveillance, entrapment, etc. You can't say there's absolutely nothing there - that there weren't well-heeled and determined institutions that had federal money out to get these people.
Hell, back then, homosexuality was listed as a psychopathology. You can't argue that the scientific community was in the humanitarian camp.
You're absolutely right that there's no guarantee that such diseases would remain contained. But the possibility of collateral damage hasn't stopped a lot of foolish human endeavours, has it? Mustard gas could blow back on the very troops that used it (and often did). The bombs dropped on Japan killed hundreds of Americans, too - many of the people who helped build it, refining the yellowcake and working with other dangerous materials they weren't adequately informed about, and inhaled the lethal particulates. And even today our troops use U-238 bullets which are dangerous even to the wielder, to say nothing of the horrible effects caused by long-term exposure to the spent ammunition.
But then again, maybe that was the point - to discourage bigamy and promote the ostracism of gays? How is it that this disease just happened to emerge seemingly everywhere at once amongst these populations - not merely in a specific geographic region? As you noted, AIDS isn't particularly virulent, and the rate of transmission is actually quite low.
If institutions were willing to secretly do the kind of horrendous things they did at the time, and still haven't fessed up to the extent of what is already known, how can you discount that other activities didn't take place, when the related occurrences haven't been fully explained?
