Page 17 of 30 FirstFirst ... 7151617181927 ... LastLast
Results 161 to 170 of 295

Thread: Should we spend taxpayer dollars on AIDS [W: 139]

  1. #161
    Guru
    Smeagol's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Last Seen
    02-19-17 @ 11:35 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,147

    Re: Should we spend taxpayer dollars on AIDS [W: 139]

    Quote Originally Posted by Fisher View Post
    HIV/AIDS gets so much funding because famous celebrities have pushed that agenda item.
    In part but at least at the educational level its a good thing, IMHO. In parts of Africa 1 out of every 4 people are infected because they ignored it for years.
    Having opinions all over the map is a good sign of a person capable of autonomous thinking. Felix -2011

  2. #162
    Sage
    Fisher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    12-06-13 @ 02:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    17,002

    Re: Should we spend taxpayer dollars on AIDS [W: 139]

    Quote Originally Posted by Smeagol View Post
    In part but at least at the educational level its a good thing, IMHO. In parts of Africa 1 out of every 4 people are infected because they ignored it for years.
    I have heard stories that some in Africa believe that you cure AIDS by sleeping with virgins. I think the problem there may have more challenges than a celebrity PSA will cure.

  3. #163
    Guru
    Smeagol's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Last Seen
    02-19-17 @ 11:35 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,147

    Re: Should we spend taxpayer dollars on AIDS [W: 139]

    Quote Originally Posted by Fisher View Post
    I have heard stories that some in Africa believe that you cure AIDS by sleeping with virgins. I think the problem there may have more challenges than a celebrity PSA will cure.
    True and a big part of the problem. Southern Africa is the child rape capital of the world. At the same time educational efforts in Uganda have caused a surprising decline in the rate of HIV.



    An overarching policy known as "ABC", which consisted of abstinence, monogamy and condoms, was set up with the aim of helping to curb the spread of AIDS in Uganda, where HIV infections reached epidemic proportions in the 1980s.[3] The prevalence of HIV began to decline in the late 1980s and continued throughout the 1990s. In fact, between 1991 and 2007, HIV prevalence rates declined dramatically.



    HIV/AIDS in Uganda - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Having opinions all over the map is a good sign of a person capable of autonomous thinking. Felix -2011

  4. #164
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    12-16-17 @ 04:30 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,569
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Should we spend taxpayer dollars on AIDS [W: 139]

    Quote Originally Posted by sawyerloggingon View Post
    Probably time to call this thread over, the very few left in here would rather discuss me than the issue. I started this wondering how many people felt like I do on this and I got my answer, damn few. I have learned alot researching things though and am amazed how much money us taxpayers are on the hook for with this disease. Three billion for research and fifteen billion annually for drugs to keep AIDS victims alive. This dwarfs spending on any other disease and may just rival spending on all other diseases put together so the next time you hear some AIDS activist whining that not enough is being done to fight the disease you may want to say, yeah right.
    Again, you distort statistics and appear incapable of even addressing the distinction between a disease that only kills the person who has it and a disease that is transmittable. It is you who refuses to discuss this topic outside the topic of yourself and your openly expressed extreme personal prejudices and moral judgments.

  5. #165
    Educator Dpetty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    04-05-17 @ 10:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    967

    Re: Should we spend taxpayer dollars on AIDS [W: 139]

    Quote Originally Posted by sawyerloggingon View Post
    AIDS is a disease that for the most part is due to promiscuous sex or drug abuse and IMO taking money from things like childhood leukemia, MS, Parkinson's etc and giving it to a group of people who pretty much deserve what they got is a huge waste of resources. The only reason we spend so much money on it is that so many people that have it or fear they may contract it are so vocal and being gay is
    so trendy as a current human right. So heres the question, should we be funding research to cure these people or worse yet find a vaccine to let them engage in their risky lifestyle with no consequences?

    EDIT: sorry I blew the poll part but I would be interested in your opinions.
    AIDS is a bit of a quandry. There will NEVER be a cure found, making it one of the most destructive diseases ever, yet its the easiest to irradicate. STOP having sex with multiple partners! Take the morality issue out of it, and its still good advise. The AIDS virus mutates every time we think we have a cure, and its going to keep doing so.

  6. #166
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    12-16-17 @ 04:30 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,569
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Should we spend taxpayer dollars on AIDS [W: 139]

    Quote Originally Posted by Dpetty View Post
    AIDS is a bit of a quandry. There will NEVER be a cure found, making it one of the most destructive diseases ever, yet its the easiest to irradicate. STOP having sex with multiple partners! Take the morality issue out of it, and its still good advise. The AIDS virus mutates every time we think we have a cure, and its going to keep doing so.
    I fully disagree. There is nothing to show a cure will never be found.

    To claim it will be irraticated by moralizing about sex is what is not a cure and is what is impossible - and nonsense.

    Even if, as you and Sawyer apparently believe for who knows what reasons - that you can convince everyone to not have sex with anyone unless:

    1. you have the other person physically examed to make sure she is a virgin (which I believe neither you nor Sawyer did) or
    2.have him take double blind CAT scan polygraph exams - which no one does - for which for the rest of your lives neither of you ever have sex with anyone else even if you break up or one of you dies - then only if another provable virgin is found - and some bizarre belief that everyone (but you) would do that -

    oh, and at least quarterly polygraph exams to insure neither of you had sex with someone else nor had any needle stuck in you for any reason - if neither of you can ever have sex with anyone again - not even another virgin -

    - even then that would not irraticate AIDS. Nor:

    3. and if all gays also died of it or successfully completed gay-cure therapy as Sawyer wishes - and

    4. even if everyone agreed to never use a needle again for anything -

    5. - exactly none of that ever is going to happen - and

    6. it still would not irraticate AIDS.

    I understand some people share your and Sawyer's extreme sexual moral codes and extremely restrained sexual life and activities - or just have no sex life and never will, but most people do not. Nor want to. Sex is one of the wonderful things about being an adult.

    At its core, where I MOST disagree with Sawyer and you is at the very core of the "morality" claim. I see the extreme limits AIDS puts on sexuality as of itself a horrific harm and lose to people and many levels - from assault victims to accidents, to promiscuous sex, to the severe restrictions "safe" sex puts on intimacy and sexuality. I intensely believe that ANY disease that restricts consentual sex between 2 (or more) people of legal age, that disease a horrific disease that should be irraticated, reduced, controls or a treatment found if anyway possible - regardless of mutation prospects.

    Influenza also mutates. It could be limited if everyone wore HEPA filters. Thus, you certainly must INSIST no more research be done on the transmittable disease that probably has killed more people than any other - because all people need to is avoid other people and wear HEPA filters.

    Of course, neither you nor Sawyer ever advocate that - and ALWAYS ignore it when brought up - and likely would claim it absurd, people shouldn't have to wear HEPA filter masks and people won't do it anyway.

    The distinction is your and his view of "sex sins." Not about the disease. As Sawyer stated in his OP, the goal is to USE AIDS as a deadly punishment force to stop sinful, decadent sex as he sees it.

    It IS the moral condemnations against sex that is at the core of your reasoning - for which you fashion unique diversionary excuses that you apply to no other disease that your so-called reasons apply to.

    Except for herpes, cures were found for STDs where there used to be no cure. A vaccine or cure for HIV/AIDS is not impossible at all. You just claim it is to argue your view of sexual morality. When cures were found to lethal STDs and none existed, the resulting "free sex" did NOT destroy society. "Free consentual sex" can not destroy society or the human race, can not genocide it. A transmittable disease can.

    And for your noting that HIV/AIDS, like all transmittable diseases, mutates, it has to potential to mutate to be transmitted by any fluid passing (kissing, coughing, lack of perfect purifying kitchenware, sneezing, etc.) Your "AIDS" mutants is another reason finding a cure or treatment critical - as another member noted.

    Did herpes of the mouth mutate to genital herpes - or the other way around? So could AIDS. If aids does mutate to be more tranmittable (it is now thru eye ducts as example) such as to the mouth and mouth fluids, it could kill everyone on earth. Quickly Or become transmittable by mesquito bites. The next plague to wipe out 1/3rd of all people - or more since people more mobile.

    The fact is you could never have sex in your life and never use a needle - and still contract HIV/AIDS never knowing it happened by the end of the week. So could your children. So can anyone.

    Make it anything other than a sex-disease in your mind, and you can understand my message.
    Last edited by joko104; 12-04-12 at 05:53 PM.

  7. #167
    Educator Dpetty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    04-05-17 @ 10:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    967

    Re: Should we spend taxpayer dollars on AIDS [W: 139]

    Quote Originally Posted by joko104 View Post
    I fully disagree. There is nothing to show a cure will never be found.

    To claim it will be irraticated by moralizing about sex is what is not a cure and is what is impossible - and nonsense.

    Even if, as you and Sawyer apparently believe for who knows what reasons - that you can convince everyone to not have sex with anyone unless:
    You are the one that brought morality into my comment. Im saying that its good common sense REGARDLESS of your view on morality. Your saying the pros of having unrestricted sex with as many partners as you can find, outweighs the cons of having AIDS.


    1. you have the other person physically examed to make sure she is a virgin (which I believe neither you nor Sawyer did) or
    2.have him take double blind CAT scan polygraph exams - which no one does - for which for the rest of your lives neither of you ever have sex with anyone else even if you break up or one of you dies - then only if another provable virgin is found - and some bizarre belief that everyone (but you) would do that -

    oh, and at least quarterly polygraph exams to insure neither of you had sex with someone else nor had any needle stuck in you for any reason - if neither of you can ever have sex with anyone again - not even another virgin -
    You are really stuck on the sex aspect of this, far more so than the AIDS aspect. There is nothing wrong with being tested for AIDS, nor is there anything wrong with asking your partner to be tested for AIDS, in fact its a very mature thing to do. There is absolutly ZERO danger of contracting AIDS from needles, unless of course your using and or sharing used needles, which i can see no reason for anyone to do.

    3. and if all gays also died of it or successfully completed gay-cure therapy as Sawyer wishes
    Being gay doesnt raise your risk of contracting AIDS if you still only have one partner. Obviously due to the trauma caused to the anus during gay intercourse, there is a greater risk for blood exchange that would result in contracting AIDS if the other person had it, but then again, why would they have it if they only had one partner?

    4. even if everyone agreed to never use a needle again for anything -
    Again, needles are only dangerous if they are used.


    5. - exactly none of that ever is going to happen - and

    6. it still would not irraticate AIDS.
    Actually, since that is how AIDS is spread, thats exaclty how it would be irraticated.

    I understand some people share your and Sawyer's extreme sexual moral codes and extremely restrained sexual life and activities - or just have no sex life and never will, but most people do not. Nor want to. Sex is one of the wonderful things about being an adult.
    Obviously you are free to sleep with whomever you want and as many as you want. But i think its pretty stupid considering all the things you just said. Its people like you who have helped create the AIDS epidemic we now have. You can make fun of us extremely restrained sexual types, but we are the ones who dont have to worry about our bodies breaking down to the point that we eventually die of the common cold.

    Influenza also mutates. It could be limited if everyone wore HEPA filters. Thus, you certainly must INSIST no more research be done on the transmittable disease that probably has killed more people than any other - because all people need to is avoid other people and wear HEPA filters.

    Of course, neither you nor Sawyer ever advocate that - and ALWAYS ignore it when brought up - and likely would claim it absurd, people shouldn't have to wear HEPA filter masks and people won't do it anyway.
    If we were having an influenza outbreak, then i would absolutely advocate wearing a HEPA filter, it would be stupid not to. Remember when the swine flu was hitting everywhere? What did everyone do? They wore face masks! Not because they were moraly obligated to do so, but because it was the smart thing to do!

    The distinction is your and his view of "sex sins." Not about the disease. As Sawyer stated in his OP, the goal is to USE AIDS as a deadly punishment force to stop sinful, decadent sex as he sees it.

    It IS the moral condemnations against sex that is at the core of your reasoning - for which you fashion unique diversionary excuses that you apply to no other disease that your so-called reasons apply to.
    I havent once said anything about sex being a sin, so i fail to see why you keep bringing it up.


    And for your noting that HIV/AIDS, like all transmittable diseases, mutates, it has to potential to mutate to be transmitted by any fluid passing (kissing, coughing, lack of perfect purifying kitchenware, sneezing, etc.) Your "AIDS" mutants is another reason finding a cure or treatment critical - as another member noted.
    Actually it doesnt have the ability to become airborne, you have been watching to much tv. AIDS is a blood borne virus, so unless you spit a blood covered loogy in someones face and call that airborne, AIDS will always be a STD.

    Did herpes of the mouth mutate to genital herpes - or the other way around? So could AIDS. If aids does mutate to be more tranmittable (it is now thru eye ducts as example) such as to the mouth and mouth fluids, it could kill everyone on earth. Quickly Or become transmittable by mesquito bites. The next plague to wipe out 1/3rd of all people - or more since people more mobile.
    Seriously? Herpes is a virus, its the same virus weather its in your crotch or your mouth. It usually exhibits symptoms at the site of infection i.e the mouth through kissing or the crotch through bumping uglies, but its still the same virus, there was no "mutation" involved.

    The fact is you could never have sex in your life and never use a needle - and still contract HIV/AIDS never knowing it happened by the end of the week. So could your children. So can anyone.

    Make it anything other than a sex-disease in your mind, and you can understand my message.
    Yes but the odds of contracting it any other way are astronomical, and they become even more astronomical as the rates of those with AIDS decline. The problem is idiots there are out there who put their own physical pleasure above all else.

  8. #168
    Professor
    zstep18's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Somewhere
    Last Seen
    02-24-14 @ 02:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,770

    Re: Should we spend taxpayer dollars on AIDS [W: 139]

    Quote Originally Posted by sawyerloggingon View Post
    Probably time to call this thread over, the very few left in here would rather discuss me than the issue. I started this wondering how many people felt like I do on this and I got my answer, damn few. I have learned alot researching things though and am amazed how much money us taxpayers are on the hook for with this disease. Three billion for research and fifteen billion annually for drugs to keep AIDS victims alive. This dwarfs spending on any other disease and may just rival spending on all other diseases put together so the next time you hear some AIDS activist whining that not enough is being done to fight the disease you may want to say, yeah right.
    I want to discuss the issue. I've asked if we should spend money on treating obesity and all the health problems that are associated with obesity, since obesity is certainly treatable. Should we treat a smoker who has lung cancer? Should we treat an alcoholic who has liver disease?

  9. #169
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Where they have FOX on in bars and restaurants
    Last Seen
    09-14-14 @ 02:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    14,700

    Re: Should we spend taxpayer dollars on AIDS [W: 139]

    Quote Originally Posted by zstep18 View Post
    I want to discuss the issue. I've asked if we should spend money on treating obesity and all the health problems that are associated with obesity, since obesity is certainly treatable. Should we treat a smoker who has lung cancer? Should we treat an alcoholic who has liver disease?
    I answered that already, IMO diseases should get higher priority if you get them through no fault of your own. Diseases you bring on yourself through lifestyle choices should be at the bottom of the funding list not at the very top as AIDS is. I think this is the third time I have said this.

  10. #170
    Global Moderator
    Custom User Title
    LaughAtTheWorld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Seoul/Chicago
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:08 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    9,542

    Re: Should we spend taxpayer dollars on AIDS [W: 139]

    Quote Originally Posted by Dpetty View Post
    AIDS is a bit of a quandry. There will NEVER be a cure found, making it one of the most destructive diseases ever, yet its the easiest to irradicate. STOP having sex with multiple partners! Take the morality issue out of it, and its still good advise. The AIDS virus mutates every time we think we have a cure, and its going to keep doing so.
    AIDs spread by other means than sex, and in many cases, many people don't know that their partners have AIDs and many of the partners don't know it themselves.
    Other than that, why do you think AIDs is incurable? Most people 2 centuries ago thought that flight was impossible due to the never-ending failures. ㅡㅡ;;
    "The misery of being exploited by capitalists is nothing compared to the misery of not being exploited at all" - Joan Robinson
    "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries" - Winston Churchill

Page 17 of 30 FirstFirst ... 7151617181927 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •