• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Naked AIDS Activists Occupy Boehner's Office

SMTA said:
The private sector companies don't as they only care about hitting their profit goals.
Click to expand...

So that means the government needs to do something because??
 
Henrin said:
Why does the government need to do this?
Click to expand...

Because libertarians actually have to ask this kind of question.

Henrin said:
So that means the government needs to do something because??
Click to expand...

You want the answer to this question?

Because it kills millions of people.
 
DVSentinel said:
It is not the governments job to save lives, it is the governments job to provide the freedoms and environment in which industry and charities can go about the business of saving lives and to provide an environment where people are free to make their own choices and live, or die, as the result of those choice. The government cannot even save lives by murder laws, it only punish those who break that law, only an individual can reasonably protect themselves. It cannot save anyones life, everyone dies, even if it provided all the medical and drugs in the world, it can only prolong life, it cannot save it.

Almost all social programs are "stupid wasteful government spending".
Click to expand...

So, because the government is incapable of making people immortal, it should never try to do any bit of good. Got it.
 
Amigo said:
And suddenly big government is the alternative? :shock:

Ever heard of personal responsibility, and person to person charity?
Click to expand...
Sure, why not? For the record, most of said funding goes towards private researchers and medicinal entities, so don't worry, profit will still be in the mix.

Sure, in regards to small groupings of individuals and in matters of far less urgency. Not all of those afflicted with deadly diseases have the luxury of waiting for a good samaritan to stroll by.

The fact that this is a controversial subject for some is absolutely mind boggling.
 
a351 said:
Key words there.
Click to expand...
You certainly do have a flare for the obvious.

Oh, and there are many others, especially in my circles, who are partial to the same thing.
 
Deuce said:
So, because the government is incapable of making people immortal, it should never try to do any bit of good. Got it.
Click to expand...

It all depends on your definition of good. Is good that we save people who act irresponsibly and endanger society or is it good to allow them to suffer the depredations of their own choosing and let them fall out of society? Is it our best and our brightest that are voluntarily falling to this disease? Probably not, if they were the brightest, they would recognize the risks and protect themselves.

Maybe it would be different and people would have a different opinion of it if it was not a disease that only exits today because of the irresponsible and stupid actions of a few. There is a cure for this disease already, don't get involved with high-risk activities and if you do, follow simple, easy precautions. The real disease that causes the spread of aids is not HIV, it is stupidity, and stupidity cannot be cured.
 
Dooble said:
Oh, and there are many others, especially in my circles, who are partial to the same thing.
Click to expand...
Oh I'm sure there are, but that doesn't make it a viable alternative for those afflicted with the disease or the populace at large, which was what my previous post implied.
 
DVSentinel said:
It all depends on your definition of good. Is good that we save people who act irresponsibly and endanger society or is it good to allow them to suffer the depredations of their own choosing and let them fall out of society? Is it our best and our brightest that are voluntarily falling to this disease? Probably not, if they were the brightest, they would recognize the risks and protect themselves.

Maybe it would be different and people would have a different opinion of it if it was not a disease that only exits today because of the irresponsible and stupid actions of a few. There is a cure for this disease already, don't get involved with high-risk activities and if you do, follow simple, easy precautions. The real disease that causes the spread of aids is not HIV, it is stupidity, and stupidity cannot be cured.
Click to expand...

And how about diseases that aren't caused by risky behavior? We shouldn't try to find a cure for those with government help? You were speaking in much broader terms in the post I quoted, now you seem to have retreated back and are just talking about this particular disease. Which is it?
 
DVSentinel said:
It all depends on your definition of good. Is good that we save people who act irresponsibly and endanger society or is it good to allow them to suffer the depredations of their own choosing and let them fall out of society? Is it our best and our brightest that are voluntarily falling to this disease? Probably not, if they were the brightest, they would recognize the risks and protect themselves.
Click to expand...
Careful now, you're strolling dangerously close to the Eugenics plank.
 
a351 said:
Careful now, you're strolling dangerously close to the Eugenics plank.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with naturally occurring Eugenics. Man-made Eugenics is different, but Eugenics through natural selection, let it run it's course. I don't support the government spending my tax dollars to stop naturally occuring eugenics.
 
DVSentinel said:
It all depends on your definition of good. Is good that we save people who act irresponsibly and endanger society or is it good to allow them to suffer the depredations of their own choosing and let them fall out of society? Is it our best and our brightest that are voluntarily falling to this disease? Probably not, if they were the brightest, they would recognize the risks and protect themselves.

Maybe it would be different and people would have a different opinion of it if it was not a disease that only exits today because of the irresponsible and stupid actions of a few. There is a cure for this disease already, don't get involved with high-risk activities and if you do, follow simple, easy precautions. The real disease that causes the spread of aids is not HIV, it is stupidity, and stupidity cannot be cured.
Click to expand...

Oh yes, lets all get tested before every sex act. Lets all also ignore the fact that sometimes condoms break. Lets also ignore all the people that this virus was transmitted to because of simple accidents.

After all, those that are irresponsible are sub-human and don't deserve simple human compassion...amiright?

:roll:

This thread shows just how prevalent greed is in our society.
 
Deuce said:
And how about diseases that aren't caused by risky behavior? We shouldn't try to find a cure for those with government help? You were speaking in much broader terms in the post I quoted, now you seem to have retreated back and are just talking about this particular disease. Which is it?
Click to expand...

It is a failure on my part to communicate clearly.

"It all depends on your definition of good. Is good that we save people who act irresponsibly and endanger society or is it good to allow them to suffer the depredations of their own choosing and let them fall out of society?" is a statement of general philosophy towards disease and other factors in society.

There should of been a paragraph break after that to delineate.

Diseases that aren't caused by personal behavior, it is ok if the government chips in when it can, but it has no responsibility to do so. Since funding for disease research is not a base function of government and we are currently deep in debt and keep getting deeper, then these programs for all diseases should be cut.

Until the debt is paid off and we no longer have deficit spending, government should be paying for very little except for those functions that are true government functions and not niceties.
 
DVSentinel said:
I have no problem with naturally occurring Eugenics. Man-made Eugenics is different, but Eugenics through natural selection, let it run it's course. I don't support the government spending my tax dollars to stop naturally occuring eugenics.
Click to expand...
In any case, most modern societies have moved past the absurd notion of genetic purification whether that be achieved by action or non action ("natural occurrences") such as your endorsing. Those who support such ideas should be led as far away from positions of power or influence as humanly possible.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Oh yes, lets all get tested before every sex act. Lets all also ignore the fact that sometimes condoms break. Lets also ignore all the people that this virus was transmitted to because of simple accidents.
Click to expand...

Since the disease is not just transmitted by sexual activity, you statement doesn't even apply to all aids cases. If you live a high-risk sexual lifestyle, homosexual man, promiscuous sex with many unknown partners, swinging, etc. Then yes, you should be getting regular testing done.

Do you have any statistic of how many cases are caused by condom breakage? How much of that breakage is caused by improper use of the condom? How many get the disease by accident?

U.S. Statistics newest statics given.

Only approximately 1.2 million current cases in the US today. What percentage of our population is that?

Of new cases,

61% are Homosexual men or men engaged in sex acts with other men.
9% Intravenous drug users
3% homosexual male intravenous drug users
27% Heterosexual

Of the heterosexuals, there is no break down on how they got it, or rather I haven't found a breakdown for it. How many of those are involved in activities such as swinging, multiple unprotected partners, prostitution, etc.

So those getting it by accident while not involved in high-risk activities is very small. Definitely less that 324,000 individuals in the US. (27% of the 1.2 million infected statistic)


Kal'Stang said:
After all, those that are irresponsible are sub-human and don't deserve simple human compassion...amiright?
Click to expand...

Compassion is not a governmental function. If you are so compassionate about it, how much do you donate to aids research?

Generally, my compassion is for the innocent victim, not someone suffering deprivations from their own actions. In the specific case of aids, we are talking about fare less than 300 thousand individuals out of a population of over 300 million. Those who get it accidentally are less than only .001% of the population. During a time of budgetary crises, such as exist today, this is not a significant number to justify any government spending. If we had the money to spend, no deficit, no debt, the vast majority of sufferers were victims instead of idiots, and a cure has been found for all diseases not primarily caused by personal actions, then maybe it would be ok for the government to spend on it.

Kal'Stang said:
:roll:

This thread shows just how prevalent greed is in our society.
Click to expand...

Since greed is not in anyway associated with my stance, I am not for sure how it is relevant to this thread.
 
DVSentinel said:
See, I knew that in time you might actually start developing a proper attitude towards government, keep learning, you will get there.
Click to expand...

Apparently that "proper attitude" is very immoral and pathetic...
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1061200529 said:
Did it inspire you to open your check book and give to the cause?
Click to expand...

No it inspired me to write to my congressman.
 
DVSentinel said:
Since the disease is not just transmitted by sexual activity, you statement doesn't even apply to all aids cases. If you live a high-risk sexual lifestyle, homosexual man, promiscuous sex with many unknown partners, swinging, etc. Then yes, you should be getting regular testing done.
Click to expand...

Bold: It wasn't intended to show all of them. It was intended to show you all the ways that innocents can get it through no fault of thier own. And regular testing as it is currently done would not stop the transmission of the disease from someone that got it the day after testing and transmitted it a month later. (last i heard its recommended that you get checked every 3 or 6 months...plenty of time to transmit it before knowing you have it)

DVSentinel said:
Do you have any statistic of how many cases are caused by condom breakage? How much of that breakage is caused by improper use of the condom? How many get the disease by accident?
Click to expand...

Irrelevent. Those with compassion would still do what they can to help.

DVSentinel said:
Only approximately 1.2 million current cases in the US today. What percentage of our population is that?
Click to expand...

Irrelevent. A human life is a human life. The only ones not worth saving are serial killers and child rapists.

DVSentinel said:
Of the heterosexuals, there is no break down on how they got it, or rather I haven't found a breakdown for it. How many of those are involved in activities such as swinging, multiple unprotected partners, prostitution, etc.
Click to expand...

You're the one with the claim that they are being irresponsible. Perhaps you should get that data before claiming that they are irresponsible.

DVSentinel said:
So those getting it by accident while not involved in high-risk activities is very small. Definitely less that 324,000 individuals in the US. (27% of the 1.2 million infected statistic)
Click to expand...

And how many innocents in the entire world are there? If we found a cure to AID's we would save millions of lives. Not your meager few hundred thousand. Unless of course you wanted to keep the cure away from the rest of the world?




DVSentinel said:
Compassion is not a governmental function.
Click to expand...

If this were true then the federal government had no buisness freeing slaves. Which was allowed under the Constitution at the time.

DVSentinel said:
If you are so compassionate about it, how much do you donate to aids research?
Click to expand...

$10 a month. You?

DVSentinel said:
Generally, my compassion is for the innocent victim, not someone suffering deprivations from their own actions. In the specific case of aids, we are talking about fare less than 300 thousand individuals out of a population of over 300 million. Those who get it accidentally are less than only .001% of the population. During a time of budgetary crises, such as exist today, this is not a significant number to justify any government spending. If we had the money to spend, no deficit, no debt, the vast majority of sufferers were victims instead of idiots, and a cure has been found for all diseases not primarily caused by personal actions, then maybe it would be ok for the government to spend on it.
Click to expand...

A cure for AIDS would affect far more people than just US citizens. It would affect the entire world. Where there are millions of innocent victims. Especially in Africa.
 
Deuce said:
Because libertarians actually have to ask this kind of question.



You want the answer to this question?

Because it kills millions of people.
Click to expand...

So because it kills millions of people the government is supposed to act? Why?

And yes, I do have to ask this question. Just because a disease is killing people does not mean the government has the authority or justification to act. Funding disease research should not be an assumed power of the government. It would appear to me to be a responsibility of the people desiring a cure, and nothing else. Just because people die and they are innocent of any wrong doing also does not mean the government should act or has the authority to act.
 
Last edited:
DVSentinel said:
Typical socialist behavior, why do something yourself instead of demanding that the government do it for you.
Click to expand...

There does indeed seem to be plenty of support of these kind of things. I wonder why they won't fund it themselves?
 
Kal'Stang said:
Bold: It wasn't intended to show all of them. It was intended to show you all the ways that innocents can get it through no fault of thier own. And regular testing as it is currently done would not stop the transmission of the disease from someone that got it the day after testing and transmitted it a month later. (last i heard its recommended that you get checked every 3 or 6 months...plenty of time to transmit it before knowing you have it)
Click to expand...

If they are involved in high risk behavior, they should get check much more regularly than that. Like whenever they switch partners or take on a new one.



Kal'Stang said:
Irrelevent. Those with compassion would still do what they can to help.
Click to expand...

It may irrelevant for an individual, however, governmental spending does have to take numbers into account.

Kal'Stang said:
Irrelevent. A human life is a human life. The only ones not worth saving are serial killers and child rapists.
Click to expand...

I disagree. A human life only has value to those who actually know and care about the individual. It only has a value to the rest of humanity if that life is a contributer to society instead of a detractor from society or a threat to society.

Kal'Stang said:
You're the one with the claim that they are being irresponsible. Perhaps you should get that data before claiming that they are irresponsible.
Click to expand...

I have more than enough data. If you engage in high risk activities, then you are being irresponsible. If your "protection" fails while voluntarily engaged in high risk activities, it is not an accident to me. The data clearly shows that it is primarily spread by those who voluntarily participate in know high risk activities. We know the risk factors, we know how it is spread, so by participating in the high risk activity, you accept the possibility of infection. Don't want to get infected, stay away from high risk activities, while not a 100% guarantee, data clearly shows that the risk is very, very small if you stay away from known risk factors.

Kal'Stang said:
And how many innocents in the entire world are there? If we found a cure to AID's we would save millions of lives. Not your meager few hundred thousand. Unless of course you wanted to keep the cure away from the rest of the world?
Click to expand...

That depends, I would definitely keep it away from socialist and socialistic countries or dictatorships. I would do more good for them to give them arms to overthrow tyranny than to give them a cure for a mostly voluntary infection that can be easily prevented. If you really care that much about, go buy a box of Trojans and send it to them. For most of those places, like in Africa, they have far more to worry about than just aids.





Kal'Stang said:
If this were true then the federal government had no buisness freeing slaves. Which was allowed under the Constitution at the time.
Click to expand...

Actually, feeing the slaves was a constitutional amendment and one primarily pursued by politicians for political gain, not out of compassion. I don't expect anything but selfish behavior from the people in the government. As far as "compassionate" needs in this country, aids is pretty close to the bottom of the priority list.

Kal'Stang said:
$10 a month. You?
Click to expand...

Nothing. Why would I give to a cause that does not affect me? I have enough medical conditions already, I would give to a cause pursuing research into one of them long before I give to research to find a cure for an almost completely preventable disease, especially a disease that I am not at risk for.


Kal'Stang said:
A cure for AIDS would affect far more people than just US citizens. It would affect the entire world. Where there are millions of innocent victims. Especially in Africa.
Click to expand...

Overthrowing oppressive regimes and educating them would affect a far greater number of people. Of course we really should try doing the same thing here first, before doing it there. And with a change in their societies, the amount of new aids cases would drop to around the same rate as in the US. For most of Africa, if you are not building a new society for them, then you are pretty much just wasting money.
 
DVSentinel said:
Typical socialist behavior, why do something yourself instead of demanding that the government do it for you.
Click to expand...

Ahhh yes the typical "do it yourself attitude"? Well guess what i am doing it myself writing to my congressman, im writing to tell them to keep funding gov funded aids research. Why? Because i believe the government can also help its people instead of killing poor people in some foreign country.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Ahhh yes the typical "do it yourself attitude"? Well guess what i am doing it myself writing to my congressman, im writing to tell them to keep funding gov funded aids research. Why? Because i believe the government can also help its people instead of killing poor people in some foreign country.
Click to expand...

That isn't doing it yourself. That is getting other people to do it for you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom