Let me make sure I've got this down:
1. You claim that the program is a net positive, so it should be kept.
2. I point out that unless you know the actual costs and opportunity costs, the fact that it's a net positive doesn't mean anything.
3. You claim that the program works, but provide a study with flaws, and then claim that the program is cheap, but ask me to provide you with how much the program costs in CA.
5. You claim that it's my job to prove that the program doesn't work and that it's not cost effective.
6. I futilely try to remind you that you're missing the point altogether.
That about right?
Not once did i state that a lack of SEP's causes a 5%+ increase in the spread. If you can find where
I did, then you have my apology. I only asked you politely if you would supply the other half of the data required to truly engage in this debate. Your failure to do so illustrates you are not inclined to have a debate on the topic at hand, and are more concerned with ganging up with your fellow republican boyfriend because someone showed that your opinions and facts do not line up accordingly.
I point out the obvious flaw in the first study, and then remind you that it's not my burden to do your research.
You are implying that NEP's do not reduce the spread of HIV, under a falsified assumption. Again, the fact that you took a 200 lvl math class and have a conservative opinion does not constitute the study insufficient. If you are going to put your foot in your mouth by claiming false, then do so in its entirety.
Bull****. You expressed clearly that "I want to live a long and prosperous life, but i dont want to spend even a % of that time working to pay for someone who has no desire to do the same." Whether the program taking your money is run by the state or by the federal government has no bearing on that statement.
Who the **** are you to tell me my views on government have "no bearing"? Enacting a NHS and preventing a spreadable disease are completely two different topics without even considering their respective reach. It is not of my own self interest to pay for someone else's health care, but it is of my self interest to want to see the spread of HIV decrease. Reason be, i like to get *****, and condom's are only 99% effective against the spread.
You're making ridiculously contradictory statements and attacking others for expressing the same thoughts that you yourself have stated.
No, that is what you are trying to make it out to be, but in reality that cannot be any farther from the truth. Your grasping at straws big time.
If anything, jallman's position is even more humane. He is opposed to a program that would take his money and give it to someone who was a drug addict and prostitute. You're opposed to a program that would take your money and give it to all poorer people, the vast majority of whom are not drug addicts or prostitutes.
When all is lost, resort to grasping at straws huh:roll: He stated:
Perhaps HIV is Darwin's way of telling us some people should be cut out of the gene pool and they will do so by their own stupidity.
He is implicitly suggesting that those people (of which he disagrees with their activities) deserves to die.
This discussed program "takes his money and gives it to drug addicts and prostitutes?" Wrong again. The program has been shown to reduce the spread of HIV. You claim the report is "doctored", although you have not read the study in its abstract or entirety. Talk about a bunch of bull****, i would have to guess the color of your eyes is brown...