• 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]

kerussll said:
That's not what they do, but they make a huge difference in life expectancy. The fact that you think because we don't have a vaccine now, we will never have a vaccine is very ignorant.
Click to expand...

Your talking about medications designed to treat the symptoms of the HIV virus, not the virus itself. VERY different thing. The HIV virus breaks down the immune system. AIDS victims then die of some other sickness because their immune system is shot. Scientist have thought they were close to a cure to AIDS many times, and every time they get close, the virus mutates in such a way that it still does the same thing, but the treatment being developed no longer touches it. My opinion is that a cure to cancer will never be found, that doesnt make me ignorant. They may end up developing something that allowes us to cure the symptoms, but again, this isnt the same thing as a cure to the disease. Just to show me how wrong i am though, why dont you give me some examples of a VIRUS that has been cured through medicine. For every one you can provide, i will provide 10.
 
Dpetty said:
Your talking about medications designed to treat the symptoms of the HIV virus, not the virus itself. VERY different thing. The HIV virus breaks down the immune system. AIDS victims then die of some other sickness because their immune system is shot. Scientist have thought they were close to a cure to AIDS many times, and every time they get close, the virus mutates in such a way that it still does the same thing, but the treatment being developed no longer touches it. My opinion is that a cure to cancer will never be found, that doesnt make me ignorant. They may end up developing something that allowes us to cure the symptoms, but again, this isnt the same thing as a cure to the disease. Just to show me how wrong i am though, why dont you give me some examples of a VIRUS that has been cured through medicine. For every one you can provide, i will provide 10.
Click to expand...

People with HIV are given anti viral drugs that slow the progression of the disease. They are indeed treating the virus and slowing it down. There is no cure obviously, but that doesn't mean we couldn't someday stop the spread of HIV with a vaccine or keep lengthening the lives of people afflicted with it. I think you're playing semantics with the word "cure" when everyone else is talking about stopping the spread and eradicating a disease so we don't need a magic pill you pop once you get HIV to cure you. An extremely worthwhile cause.

Here's the list of some viruses that people don't have to die or suffer from anymore thanks to research that has developed vaccines:

Polio
Small Pox
The Flu
RSV
Measles
Mumps
Rubella
Hepatitis B
Hepatitis A
HPV
Chicken Pox
Shingles
Viral Pneumonia
Viral Meningitis
Hib
Rabies
Yellow Fever
Japanese encephalitis
Rotavirus

So tell me why continuing research for HIV is hopeless?
 
kerussll said:
People with HIV are given anti viral drugs that slow the progression of the disease. They are indeed treating the virus and slowing it down. There is no cure obviously, but that doesn't mean we couldn't someday stop the spread of HIV with a vaccine or keep lengthening the lives of people afflicted with it. I think you're playing semantics with the word "cure" when everyone else is talking about stopping the spread and eradicating a disease so we don't need a magic pill you pop once you get HIV to cure you. An extremely worthwhile cause.
Click to expand...

A lot of those diseases are still pretty prevelant in other areas of the world. In most cases, its the spread of the disease that has been controlled more than actually curing the disease. If you read any of my earlier posts, you would have read how to control the spread of AIDS as well. Unfortunatly people think its more important to have indiscriminate sex, than it is to control the spread of STD's.

Here's the list of some viruses that people don't have to die or suffer from anymore thanks to research that has developed vaccines:
Click to expand...

Now who is playing semantics?? The word "cure" has a pretty straight forward defenition. For example, we havent cured polio. We have developed vaccines to prevent contracting it, but when people do get it, we cant rid it from their bodies.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
You must not have read this whole thread, I have put numbers and pie charts documenting everything I say, Three BILLION in AIDS research, fifteen BILLION annually in drugs to keep AIDS victims above ground.
Click to expand...

As compared to what? Throwing out numbers is rather meaningless unless you have other numbers to compare them to and I haven't seen you provide anything regarding the numbers of research into other diseases.
 
Um, HIV affects humans, it's deadly, it's communicable.


Why would it NOT be OK to spend tax dollars to fight it, if we also spend tax dollars fighting the flue?
 
Dpetty said:
Now who is playing semantics?? The word "cure" has a pretty straight forward defenition. For example, we havent cured polio. We have developed vaccines to prevent contracting it, but when people do get it, we cant rid it from their bodies.
Click to expand...

But, when someone has the vaccine it is no longer possible to contract polio. We've pretty much eliminated polio in the United States, along with many other diseases, which used to many, many people.

Oh, and when people get rabies, the rabies vaccine will "cure" them, provided they don't receive the vaccine too late.
 
CriticalThought said:
As compared to what? Throwing out numbers is rather meaningless unless you have other numbers to compare them to and I haven't seen you provide anything regarding the numbers of research into other diseases.
Click to expand...

You need to look again, I provided alot of numbers on other diseases and they get funding in the low millions as compared to 18 billion for AIDS.
 
zstep18 said:
But, when someone has the vaccine it is no longer possible to contract polio. We've pretty much eliminated polio in the United States, along with many other diseases, which used to many, many people.

Oh, and when people get rabies, the rabies vaccine will "cure" them, provided they don't receive the vaccine too late.
Click to expand...

Its still possible to contract polio even with the vaccine, lets not start making claims that arent true. A vaccine is not a guarantee. As far as rabies is concerned, the vaccine needs to be administered before the incubation period is over, so technically before the person actually developes rabies. If not, then the vaccine as about as effective as a sugar pill...
Where AIDS is concerned, there is already a vaccine. Its called common sense.
 
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...

Two things wrong with your post.

1: Bold: You admit that AIDS does not affect only those with risky behavior. The fact that it does not is in itself enough of a reason to find a cure for AIDS.

2: The fact that you apparently singled out gays and practically say that being gay is just a trend shows that you have something against gays. The whole post reads as if you would prefer to just let gays suffer for something that you consider a type of risky behavior that does not deserve help. Totally ignoring the fact that there are millions of different risky behaviors that everyone, including you, participate in every single day and yet you no doubt support in the helping with. We don't live in a bubble where every bad little thing is hidden and doesn't affect us. We drive. We drink. We eat things that are not good for us. We fly. We take time out of our day to watch tv or post on forums (not exactly healthy exercise is it?). We walk across streets..half the time while not at a crosswalk. And the list goes on and on and on.

If you really were against spending money on "risky behavior" then you would not support any tax dollars that goes towards ANY risky behavior that is preventable. Not just single out one thing that happens to affect a group of people that you apparently are against. The whole "we should spend money on things like "childhood leukemia, MS, Parkinson's etc" is just a distraction and an empty face saving morality stance.
 
Last edited:
Kal'Stang said:
Two things wrong with your post.

1: Bold: You admit that AIDS does not affect only those with risky behavior. The fact that it does not is in itself enough of a reason to find a cure for AIDS.

2: The fact that you apparently singled out gays and practically say that being gay is just a trend shows that you have something against gays. The whole post reads as if you would prefer to just let gays suffer for something that you consider a type of risky behavior that does not deserve help. Totally ignoring the fact that there are millions of different risky behaviors that everyone, including you, participate in every single day and yet you no doubt support in the helping with. We don't live in a bubble where every bad little thing is hidden and doesn't affect us. We drive. We drink. We eat things that are not good for us. We fly. We take time out of our day to watch tv or post on forums (not exactly healthy exercise is it?). We walk across streets..half the time while not at a crosswalk. And the list goes on and on and on.

If you really were against spending money on "risky behavior" then you would not support any tax dollars that goes towards ANY risky behavior that is preventable. Not just single out one thing that happens to affect a group of people that you apparently are against. The whole "we should spend money on things like "childhood leukemia, MS, Parkinson's etc" is just a distraction and an empty face saving morality stance.
Click to expand...

I never singled out gays, that is your imagination talking. I said over and over promiscuous sex and people who share needles. Maybe it is you who equates all promiscuous sex to be gay sex. The fact is though gays vastly outnumber hetros in contracting AIDS. How much of this is due to promiscuity I have no idea but I do know anal sex is far riskier than male female intercourse.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
I never singled out gays, that is your imagination talking. I said over and over promiscuous sex and people who share needles. Maybe it is you who equates all promiscuous sex to be gay sex. The fact is though gays vastly outnumber hetros in contracting AIDS. How much of this is due to promiscuity I have no idea but I do know anal sex is far riskier than male female intercourse.
Click to expand...

You mentioned drug use and promiscuous sex once in that post in the opening line. And then proceeded to make the rest of the post about gays. And no. Gays do not "vastly outnumber hetros in contracting AIDS". Unless of course you ignore 3/4 of the world and focus on one little area that happens to support your belief.

And you didn't address the rest of my post. Why?
 
Dpetty said:
Just to show me how wrong i am though, why dont you give me some examples of a VIRUS that has been cured through medicine.
Click to expand...

There is a genetic mutation in the CCR5 receptor gene which renders approximately 10% of the population of Europe completely immune to HIV. Bone marrow transplants from individuals with that mutation to patients with HIV have been shown to cure the virus.

sawyerloggingon said:
The fact is though gays vastly outnumber hetros in contracting AIDS.
Click to expand...

Not on a global scale and I think there is a greater amount of unreported cases among heterosexuals in the United States.
 
Dpetty said:
A lot of those diseases are still pretty prevelant in other areas of the world. In most cases, its the spread of the disease that has been controlled more than actually curing the disease. If you read any of my earlier posts, you would have read how to control the spread of AIDS as well. Unfortunatly people think its more important to have indiscriminate sex, than it is to control the spread of STD's.
Click to expand...

Yes, we should work on stopping the spread of the disease as well as helping people who have it. What are we arguing about here?



Now who is playing semantics?? The word "cure" has a pretty straight forward defenition. For example, we havent cured polio. We have developed vaccines to prevent contracting it, but when people do get it, we cant rid it from their bodies.
Click to expand...


I didn't use the word cure at all.....The bolded part is just you repeating my point exactly. I think we're done here.
Click to expand...
 
Kal'Stang said:
You mentioned drug use and promiscuous sex once in that post in the opening line. And then proceeded to make the rest of the post about gays. And no. Gays do not "vastly outnumber hetros in contracting AIDS". Unless of course you ignore 3/4 of the world and focus on one little area that happens to support your belief.

And you didn't address the rest of my post. Why?
Click to expand...

I have posted dozens of times on this subject and have made every effort not to single out gays but the pie chart I put up does show they are by far the vast majority to contract AIDS in America. Africa is a different ball game.
 
Napoleon said:
There is a genetic mutation in the CCR5 receptor gene which renders approximately 10% of the population of Europe completely immune to HIV. Bone marrow transplants from individuals with that mutation to patients with HIV have been shown to cure the virus.



Not on a global scale and I think there is a greater amount of unreported cases among heterosexuals in the United States.
Click to expand...

The American tax payer is not responsible for the world and that is why I focus on American AIDS.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
I have posted dozens of times on this subject and have made every effort not to single out gays but the pie chart I put up does show they are by far the vast majority to contract AIDS in America. Africa is a different ball game.
Click to expand...

sawyerloggingon said:
The American tax payer is not responsible for the world and that is why I focus on American AIDS.
Click to expand...

No. You focus on America because it suits you. I can't count how many times i've heard the phrase that America is not alone in this world and shouldn't act that way. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised at all if you have said something similar in times past. And you would be right. America is not alone in this world. What happens in other countries can affect us. Indeed that is exactly how AIDS got into America in the first place. It was brought here from another country. So while the American taxpayer may not be responsible for the world it is responsible for the American taxpayer. And sometimes that means going to other countries and spending money to affect something which has a good possibility of affecting the American taxpayer. Such as AIDS.

We also have a responsibility to keep the negative things that happens in America from affecting other countries. As such spending money on our problems also keeps our negative things from affecting other countries. This includes AIDS.

And again. Why didn't you address the rest of my first post?
 
Kal'Stang said:
No. You focus on America because it suits you. I can't count how many times i've heard the phrase that America is not alone in this world and shouldn't act that way. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised at all if you have said something similar in times past. And you would be right. America is not alone in this world. What happens in other countries can affect us. Indeed that is exactly how AIDS got into America in the first place. It was brought here from another country. So while the American taxpayer may not be responsible for the world it is responsible for the American taxpayer. And sometimes that means going to other countries and spending money to affect something which has a good possibility of affecting the American taxpayer. Such as AIDS.

We also have a responsibility to keep the negative things that happens in America from affecting other countries. As such spending money on our problems also keeps our negative things from affecting other countries. This includes AIDS.

And again. Why didn't you address the rest of my first post?
Click to expand...


I scrolled and assume you mean this?

"If you really were against spending money on "risky behavior" then you would not support any tax dollars that goes towards ANY risky behavior that is preventable. Not just single out one thing that happens to affect a group of people that you apparently are against. The whole "we should spend money on things like "childhood leukemia, MS, Parkinson's etc" is just a distraction and an empty face saving morality stance."

I didn't address it because I considered it an unfounded personal attack with no merit whatsoever. What am I supposed to say in response? Believe about me what ever you want, I am here to discuss subjects not each other nor am I here to defend myself against people who want to attack me.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
[/B]

I scrolled and assume you mean this?

"If you really were against spending money on "risky behavior" then you would not support any tax dollars that goes towards ANY risky behavior that is preventable. Not just single out one thing that happens to affect a group of people that you apparently are against. The whole "we should spend money on things like "childhood leukemia, MS, Parkinson's etc" is just a distraction and an empty face saving morality stance."

I didn't address it because I considered it an unfounded personal attack with no merit whatsoever. What am I supposed to say in response? Believe about me what ever you want, I am here to discuss subjects not each other nor am I here to defend myself against people who want to attack me.
Click to expand...

More like what is bolded now. Just how many risky behaviors are there that you support tax dollars going towards that is preventable? HWY's so that we can drive? Flying? The millions of other things that the government spends money on that is about helping with something that is preventable by simply not engaging...ie risky behavior?

The fact that you are willing to support some types of risky behavior and not others is my foundation against your arguement. And my posts so far is not so much an attack on you as it is an attack on your position. If you take it personally that is no fault of mine.
 
Kal'Stang said:
More like what is bolded now. Just how many risky behaviors are there that you support tax dollars going towards that is preventable? HWY's so that we can drive? Flying? The millions of other things that the government spends money on that is about helping with something that is preventable by simply not engaging...ie risky behavior?

The fact that you are willing to support some types of risky behavior and not others is my foundation against your arguement. And my posts so far is not so much an attack on you as it is an attack on your position. If you take it personally that is no fault of mine.
Click to expand...

It's a long thread and others have asked me this and I answered. I don't expect you to read nearly 300 post though .I would prioritize funding based on how preventable the disease is through life style choices and AIDS would be at the bottom of the list instead of the top where it currently resides.
 
Dpetty said:
Its still possible to contract polio even with the vaccine, lets not start making claims that arent true. A vaccine is not a guarantee. As far as rabies is concerned, the vaccine needs to be administered before the incubation period is over, so technically before the person actually developes rabies. If not, then the vaccine as about as effective as a sugar pill...
Where AIDS is concerned, there is already a vaccine. Its called common sense.
Click to expand...

The point is that we have eliminated many deadly diseases through the use of vaccines.
 
zstep18 said:
The point is that we have eliminated many deadly diseases through the use of vaccines.
Click to expand...


I never said we couldnt vaccinate against diseases, but you are still neglecting to remember that a virus is not like other diseases. Even if we find a vaccine it could still mutate and make that vaccine useless.. Which is has done multiple times already.
 
Dpetty said:
I never said we couldnt vaccinate against diseases, but you are still neglecting to remember that a virus is not like other diseases. Even if we find a vaccine it could still mutate and make that vaccine useless.. Which is has done multiple times already.
Click to expand...

You know all those diseases we have effective vaccines for that I listed for you are viruses, right?
 
sawyerloggingon said:
It's a long thread and others have asked me this and I answered. I don't expect you to read nearly 300 post though .I would prioritize funding based on how preventable the disease is through life style choices and AIDS would be at the bottom of the list instead of the top where it currently resides.
Click to expand...

And highways?
 
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...

Yes. It is the essence of civilization. We strive against the ravages of biology and nature and seek to tame and master them for the betterment of our fellow man. Luckily, or unluckily depending on how you choose to see it, HIV/AID's research is continuing at a rapid pace and private funding dwarfs taxpayer assistance. But in the age of biotechnology it can often be the underfunded firm who has pioneered a critical delivery system or genetic patent that could be revolutionary. Government seed funding for medical research should continue without hesitation.

The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death the bible says, but I hope to fight towards that end here on earth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom