• 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!

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

sawyerloggingon said:
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.
Click to expand...

It also results from medical malpractice, rape, forced prostitution, and being uneducated. There are many children living today with the disease because they were either born with it, or contracted it during rape.

Of course the government should have a role in funding education programs, prevention, and granting financial resources towards developing a cure.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Theres only so much money to go around and spending 18 billion a year on AIDS takes money from other diseases that people get through no fault of their own. The fact that you can't see that speaks volumes.
Click to expand...

That's nonsense. AIDS does not take money from other diseases. You assert that linkage with NOTHING to back it up.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Childhood leukemia


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Jump to: navigation, search


Childhood leukemia is a type of leukemia, usually acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL), that affects children. The cure rate of childhood leukemia is generally higher than adult leukemia, approaching 90%, although some side effects of treatment last into adulthood. The older aggressive treatments of cranial irradiation and anthracyclines (such as doxorubicin) caused increased risk of solid tumors, heart failure, growth retardation, and cognitive defects.[1]

Leukemia is a hematological malignancy or a cancer of the blood. It develops in the bone marrow, the soft inner part of bones where new blood cells are made. When a child has leukemia, the bone marrow produces white blood cells that do not mature correctly. Normal healthy cells only reproduce when there is enough space for them. The body will regulate the production of cells by sending signals of when to stop production. When a child


Multiple sclerosis (MS) affects women more than men. The disorder is most commonly diagnosed between ages 20 and 40, but can be seen at any age.

MS is caused by damage to the myelin sheath, the protective covering that surrounds nerve cells. When this nerve covering is damaged, nerve signals slow down or stop.

The nerve damage is caused by inflammation. Inflammation occurs when the body's own immune cells attack the nervous system. This can occur along any area of the brain, optic nerve, and spinal cord.

It is unknown what exactly causes this to happen. The most common thought is that a virus or gene defect, or both, are to blame. Environmental factors may play a role.

You are slightly more likely to get this condition if you have a family history of MS or live in an part of the world where MS is more common.


Parkinson's disease most often develops after age 50. It is one of the most common nervous system disorders of the elderly. Sometimes Parkinson's disease occurs in younger adults. It affects both men and women.

In some cases, Parkinson's disease runs in families. When a young person is affected, it is usually because of a form of the disease that runs in families.

Nerve cells use a brain chemical called dopamine to help control muscle movement. Parkinson's disease occurs when the nerve cells in the brain that make dopamine are slowly destroyed. Without dopamine, the nerve cells in that part of the brain cannot properly send messages. This leads to the loss of muscle function. The damage gets worse with time. Exactly why these brain cells waste away is unknown.

Satisfied?
Click to expand...

Of course your red herring of luekemia has absolutely nothing to do with any of this. Wanting AIDS to kill promiscuous and gay people has nothing to do with Luekemia and research on HIV/AIDS does not in any manner prohibit research on luekemia. NOR do promiscuous and gay people cause luekemia.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
They are getting it through unprotected sex. Not only that but anal sex is widely used in Africa as a form of birth control.Anal sex generally has some bleeding involved which greatly increases the risk of aids so if you are having unprotected anal sex and get aids it is your own dumb ass fault. Now lets compare that to childhood leukemia. Kids get this disease through no fault of their own. Where should the research dollars go in your opinion?
Click to expand...

And medical malpractice, and rape, and misinformation, etc. etc. In countries like South Africa, being sexually active means you are at risk. If you're raped, get a blood transfusion, or your mom has HIV then you're at high. In fact, if you live in Africa, then you're at a much higher risk than somebody living in a country like Iceland.

You can't help where you were born, if you need a blood transfusion, or if you were raped.

Rape should not be a death sentence.
 
notquiteright said:
I addressed that dodge.

YOU didn't address why AIDS and not the dozens of other diseases like diabetes, smoking, drinking...etc... remember that post of mine?

The problem with picking any other disease is do you really think the money diverted from AIDS will go to the one you think 'means more'?

I was not attacking you on this... I was agreeing with you.

As you said you couldn't have been more wrong about a Willard Win.

You are just as wrong here.
Click to expand...

I've asked the same question twice now and he hasn't responded. There are many many illnesses and health problems which are certainly preventable. Yet, we treat them.
 
Last edited:
notquiteright said:
I addressed that dodge.

YOU didn't address why AIDS and not the dozens of other diseases like diabetes, smoking, drinking...etc... remember that post of mine?

The problem with picking any other disease is do you really think the money diverted from AIDS will go to the one you think 'means more'?

I was not attacking you on this... I was agreeing with you.

As you said you couldn't have been more wrong about a Willard Win.

You are just as wrong here.
Click to expand...

I think you are the one dodging my question. How can you justify spending 15 billion tax payer dollars a year for AIDS when it effects so few people and DWARFS money spent on other diseases? As for your smoking etc question I do believe disease research should be prioritized and those you bring on yourself should be at the bottom of the list. AIDS is somehow at the very top of the list, I have no idea why except maybe politicians and people like you are afraid of being called anti gay, that and the squeaky wheel gets the grease.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
I think you are the one dodging my question. How can you justify spending 15 billion tax payer dollars a year for AIDS when it effects so few people and DWARFS money spent on other diseases? As for your smoking etc question I do believe disease research should be prioritized and those you bring on yourself should be at the bottom of the list. AIDS is somehow at the very top of the list, I have no idea why except maybe politicians and people like you are afraid of being called anti gay, that and the squeaky wheel gets the grease.
Click to expand...

28,000,000 people have HIV/AIDS. About 2,000,000 die a year. Worldwide HIV & AIDS Statistics

People you claim "DESERVE" to die.

Obviously you laugh about the holocaust with 4,000,000 dead, saying "That was nothing and affected so few people as to be not worth mentioning." And reasons were given why they deserved it too.
 
Any serious diseases with a lot of death resulting should be funded, so yes. The amount of funding should be dependent upon the impact the disease has on the general public though IMO.
 
joko104 said:
28,000,000 people have HIV/AIDS. About 2,000,000 die a year. Worldwide HIV & AIDS Statistics

People you claim "DESERVE" to die.

Obviously you laugh about the holocaust with 4,000,000 dead, saying "That was nothing and affected so few people as to be not worth mentioning." And reasons were given why they deserved it too.
Click to expand...

You gay guys are such drama queens.:roll:
 
Sawyer-
SOOOOOO many others have attempted to explain why when it comes to AIDS research and the treatment costs.

You ignore them, I don't see the point of trying after all those folks.

Now IF you had said all diseases you bring on yourself should not receive taxpayer dollars, you MIGHT be a bit more believable. IF you had not kept up the drumbeat of gays and crackheads you MIGHT be a bit more believable. IF you had not made the completely unsubstantiated claim that 99% of the women who got AIDS through hetero sex are whores, you MIGHT be believable. But of course you didn't :roll:

You 'examples' are flinging dirty drawers at the wall hoping one sticks.

Now here is one for you-

If a dozen people look at you and say, "Man, you don't look so good. You feel ok?" You just might want to lay down for a bit... ;)
 
sawyerloggingon said:
You gay guys are such drama queens.:roll:
Click to expand...

YOU are the one who said that those who have AIDS deserve to die. You said that right off the bat with you're original post. I think you are being VERY inconsiderate. The prognosis for AIDS is unlike most disorders/diseases.

There are very few diseases worse the AIDs. Saying that someone "deserves" AIDS is sickening, in my opinion. No one "deserves" AIDS. AIDS is a terrible, terrible tragedy.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
My problem is this is a very preventable disease and it takes research time and money from other diseases that people get through no fault of their own.
Click to expand...

Through out our history veneral diseases have been the scourge of mankind, yet all were as "preventable" as HIV. I'de say that is good reason to spend money for an aids vaccine. Your personal habits have little to do with it.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Theres only so much money to go around and spending 18 billion a year on AIDS takes money from other diseases that people get through no fault of their own. The fact that you can't see that speaks volumes.
Click to expand...

Don't even try to worm your way out of this. We spend billions on various other diseases as well. Cutting HIV/AIDS from the roster does nothing, except fulfill some pathetic imaginary sense of self-righteousness and moral superiority over others.
 
zstep18 said:
YOU are the one who said that those who have AIDS deserve to die.
Click to expand...
You said that right off the bat with you're original post. I think you are being VERY inconsiderate. The prognosis for AIDS is unlike most disorders/diseases.

There are very few diseases worse the AIDs. Saying that someone "deserves" AIDS is sickening, in my opinion. No one "deserves" AIDS. AIDS is a terrible, terrible tragedy.
Click to expand...

Misquoting proves you are not paying attention or you are a liar, which is it?
 
notquiteright said:
Sawyer-
SOOOOOO many others have attempted to explain why when it comes to AIDS research and the treatment costs.
Click to expand...

You ignore them, I don't see the point of trying after all those folks.

Now IF you had said all diseases you bring on yourself should not receive taxpayer dollars, you MIGHT be a bit more believable. IF you had not kept up the drumbeat of gays and crackheads you MIGHT be a bit more believable. IF you had not made the completely unsubstantiated claim that 99% of the women who got AIDS through hetero sex are whores, you MIGHT be believable. But of course you didn't :roll:

You 'examples' are flinging dirty drawers at the wall hoping one sticks.

Now here is one for you-

If a dozen people look at you and say, "Man, you don't look so good. You feel ok?" You just might want to lay down for a bit... ;)
Click to expand...

There has been only one attempt to explain why and I acknowledged it, the rest has been personal attacks on me like your post.
 
iguanaman said:
Through out our history veneral diseases have been the scourge of mankind, yet all were as "preventable" as HIV. I'de say that is good reason to spend money for an aids vaccine. Your personal habits have little to do with it.
Click to expand...

Spending more on AIDS than any other disease and possibly even all diseases put together is not acceptable.
 
Surtr said:
Don't even try to worm your way out of this. We spend billions on various other diseases as well. Cutting HIV/AIDS from the roster does nothing, except fulfill some pathetic imaginary sense of self-righteousness and moral superiority over others.
Click to expand...

Scroll back and look at examples I gave on the amount of money breast cancer etc gets compared to AIDS.
 
Sawyer-
I don't recall any Mod giving me a warning... just you, so you seem not so clear on what a personal attack is.

You have just as warped a definition of what an explanation is, there have been many.

I can understand your frustration, you thought dozens of like minded folks would jump on your bandwagon and instead you seem to be quite the minority.

Facts are facts and if a few sting a mite, well they are still facts. You didn't post this as a waste of taxpayer money but rather being butt hurt over crack heads, whores, and gays getting so much money earmarked for their disease.

You bring up breast cancer yet again but I have already addressed that. You refuse to read and comprehend anything outside your very biased opinion.

As you yourself admit, you were wrong about Willard Winning, you should consider you are wrong now. :peace
 
Paschendale said:
A substantial number of people with HIV... don't know they have it. Nor do they know their partners have it. It's an epidemic, regardless of any backwards notions of sexual morality. Here's a scenario. One partner gets HIV from a cheating spouse. Tell me exactly why that person should be disregarded? No one's plight should be abandoned because sex makes some people uncomfortable.
Click to expand...

HIV is an epidemic? Why haven't I read about this in paper and websites? Why haven't I heard this on the news?
 
I don't care what your self righteous bull**** brain tells you.

No one deserves to die that way and it must stop and we will continue to fight to cure this horrible disease.

Do we stop fighting lung cancer because there are smokers... no.

Do we stop fighting diabetes because some people get it from a bad lifestyle... no.

AIDS is not just about today, it's about future generations. It affects unborn millions to come and I want my grand children or my great grandchildren to inherit an AIDS free world.

Self righteous pricks be damned.
 
American said:
HIV is an epidemic? Why haven't I read about this in paper and websites? Why haven't I heard this on the news?
Click to expand...

I don't really know. It's been described as such for at least twenty years by now. You must have been trying really hard to ignore it. Maybe because it was a "gay" problem for a while?
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Misquoting proves you are not paying attention or you are a liar, which is it?
Click to expand...

You EXACTLY used the word "deserve." Claim he misquoted you makes you the liar - since you injected that word in your message falsely.
 
notquiteright said:
Sawyer-
I don't recall any Mod giving me a warning... just you, so you seem not so clear on what a personal attack is.

You have just as warped a definition of what an explanation is, there have been many.

I can understand your frustration, you thought dozens of like minded folks would jump on your bandwagon and instead you seem to be quite the minority.

Facts are facts and if a few sting a mite, well they are still facts. You didn't post this as a waste of taxpayer money but rather being butt hurt over crack heads, whores, and gays getting so much money earmarked for their disease.

You bring up breast cancer yet again but I have already addressed that. You refuse to read and comprehend anything outside your very biased opinion.

As you yourself admit, you were wrong about Willard Winning, you should consider you are wrong now. :peace
Click to expand...

I don't think we are supposed to discuss mod decisions up here but I would assume there have been quite a few infractions handed out in this thread . I would sure hope so anyway and no there have been no explanations of why we are spending so much on AIDS except for the one I mentioned. My position on the other hand is crystal clear and I have repeated it over and over.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom