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...

I'm curious if you realize how much money would be to gain from curing 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...

Since being a slave is a violation of your rights the government would still be in the business of acting on that. Government is not in the business of being compassionate however.

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...

I object. We never killed or targeted just the "poor" people. They were usually the ones we were doing the killing for. In a lot of cases, killing some is helping others, usually far more than we kill.

Writing to a congressman is doing it yourself. It's voicing your opinions and your opinions in an ideal democracy should constitute the actions of those in power.

Government must have its place in preventing disease. Eugenics is a ridiculous arguement, that people deserve to die because of their irresponsible actions (which they must sorely regret).

Would you like to live in a world where the government has no place in curing disease? Where quarantines are unheard of and diseases and devastation are left to run their course, and scientists are without funds to pursue any project.

Good samaritans may or may not donate to an organization combatting aids. Nobody's forcing them to, so who says they will.

Private enterprise works to make a profit. Private enterprise doesn't have morality checks in place to see that the money isn't being misused, that the victims aren't put through more suffering to make an extra buck. There is money to made in disease research. If a vaccine for a disease is found, and one company is the sole possessor of that vaccine, they can jack up the price and profit off of victims' pain. Of couse, this is highly immoral but private enterprise left to its own devices, has no spot for morality. If it makes no money of the vaccine, then it will be left to rely on those good samaritans giving them money. Private enterprise is just fine if it concerns itself with unnecessary items or there is competition in place to assure fairness, but I would not trust it to manage people's well-being.

If morality has no place in government and it has no place in private enterprise, what ensures that we live in a moral world? Good samaritans?

Amigo said:

And suddenly big government is the alternative? :shock: Ever heard of personal responsibility, and person to person charity?

Click to expand...

Personal responsibility and individual charity didn't eradicate smallpox and they're not going to eradicate HIV. It is not sufficient for us to care for people afflicted with terminal, contagious diseases. Both compassion and public order require that we take every reasonable step to contain, minimize, and eventually eradicate these diseases.

Dooble said:

Oh, and there are many others, especially in my circles, who are partial to the same thing.

Click to expand...

Good for you. I hope the benefits of your wisdom and self-control are not compromised by misplaced trust in someone who lacks those qualities-- it would truly be a pity for you to go virgin to your wedding bed and then die of some filthy disease your spouse brought home.

a351 said:

Careful now, you're strolling dangerously close to the Eugenics plank.

Click to expand...

I'm outright walking it. Society can only go so far coddling weakness before that weakness spreads. The problem here is that people are not properly acknowledging contagious diseases as the source of disorder that they are-- infection does not care if you are virtuous.

a351 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Evolution is absurd? The fact that, as biological organisms, humans are built upon and differentiated by a framework of genetic information that determines our individual traits... that's absurd? The fact that natural selection and Darwinian evolution did not mysteriously stop when they produced the first homo sapiens sapiens, that we are still subject to these forces even today, is absurd?

Because it sounds to me that you are arguing the absurd position that we are somehow now exempt from the very biological processes that produced us.

Henrin said:

I'm curious if you realize how much money would be to gain from curing AIDS.

Click to expand...

Very very little compared to treating AIDS. Vaccines are cheap.

belyay said:

Writing to a congressman is doing it yourself. It's voicing your opinions and your opinions in an ideal democracy should constitute the actions of those in power.

Click to expand...

No, writing your congressperson is not doing it yourself, it is asking others to do it, in the case of congress, the government.

belyay said:

Eugenics is a ridiculous arguement, that people deserve to die because of their irresponsible actions (which they must sorely regret).

Click to expand...

No, that is natural selection and is the core of Evolution.

belyay said:

Would you like to live in a world where the government has no place in curing disease? Where quarantines are unheard of and diseases and devastation are left to run their course, and scientists are without funds to pursue any project.

Click to expand...

Quarantining to control the spread of disease is not "government curing disease". It is the government protecting people from the spread of a disease, that falls under defense of the country. Also, Quarantining may have and still could stop the spread of aids and cause it to die out. Want to use it for aids then?

belyay said:

Good samaritans may or may not donate to an organization combatting aids. Nobody's forcing them to, so who says they will.

Click to expand...

No body. If not enough fell strongly about it to donate, then refer back to natural selection occurring.

belyay said:

If morality has no place in government and it has no place in private enterprise, what ensures that we live in a moral world? Good samaritans?

Click to expand...

Where did anyone say that "morality has no place in government", other than when they vote for liberals? Funny you bring up morality to argue for aids research when the lack of morality co-joined with stupidity is the primary cause of the disease spreading.

Henrin said:

I'm curious if you realize how much money would be to gain from curing AIDS.

Click to expand...

Treatments are more profitable than cures. Once someone is cured they no longer have to buy medications,supplements and other forms of treatment from the company.

Henrin said:

I'm curious if you realize how much money would be to gain from curing AIDS.

Click to expand...

Evidentialy not enough, as the drug makers are not working on it.

Like cancer, there is more money in the treatment rather than the cure.

SMTA said:

Evidentialy not enough, as the drug makers are not working on it.

Click to expand...

Why would they work on it? Isn't the government already doing that?

Like cancer, there is more money in the treatment rather than the cure.

Click to expand...

That much is true.

Henrin said:

That isn't doing it yourself. That is getting other people to do it for you.

Click to expand...

Uhh writing to your congressman is doing it yourself. Its expressing your opinion.

TheDemSocialist said:

Uhh writing to your congressman is doing it yourself. Its expressing your opinion.

Click to expand...

Which is telling other people to do what you want. Which is not you helping those you want to help.

Henrin said:

Which is telling other people to do what you want. Which is not you helping those you want to help.

Click to expand...

Actually government funding for aids research is "not telling other people" what to do. Its the public coming in together and funding gov funded research which helps people...

TheDemSocialist said:

Actually government funding for aids research is "not telling other people" what to do. Its the public coming in together and funding gov funded research which helps people...

Click to expand...

Lets see, I don't want my money going to aids research (if I did, I would be giving it to them), however the government takes my money, in the form of taxes, and gives it to aids research, how is that not the government telling me what my money should be used for? It is telling me I have to fund aids research. It is not the public coming together, if that were the case individuals would be donating directly instead of the government taking it and then redistributing it. If the public were all together on the subject, there would be no arguments about it's funding.

P.S. I don't have to take any action to tell my senators and congressman what my stance is, they are already for cutting funding. I guess I could take action and write them a letter congratulating them on doing a good job and to keep up the good work. But, then, I said that to them when I voted for them.

DVSentinel said:

Lets see, I don't want my money going to aids research (if I did, I would be giving it to them), however the government takes my money, in the form of taxes, and gives it to aids research, how is that not the government telling me what my money should be used for?

Click to expand...

Welcome to how a civil society is ran. It is telling me I have to fund aids research. It is not the public coming together, if that were the case individuals would be donating directly instead of the government taking it and then redistributing it. If the public were all together on the subject, there would be no arguments about it's funding.[/QUOTE]
I dont want my money going to wars, i dont want my money going to corporate handouts etc. but guess what it does... And guess what you can speak out against that write to your congressman etc.

P.S. I don't have to take any action to tell my senators and congressman what my stance is, they are already for cutting funding. I guess I could take action and write them a letter congratulating them on doing a good job and to keep up the good work. But, then, I said that to them when I voted for them.

Click to expand...

go ahead.

TheDemSocialist said:

Welcome to how a civil society is ran. It is telling me I have to fund aids research.

Click to expand...

No, that is how a socialist society is run, not a civil one. A civil one would recognize the individuals right for self-determination.

TheDemSocialist said:

I dont want my money going to wars, i dont want my money going to corporate handouts etc. but guess what it does... And guess what you can speak out against that write to your congressman etc.

Click to expand...

I do support mine going to wars.(especially those against socialist) Defense is necessary for the survival of the Nation, aids research is not. We can also accomplish a lot more for a lot more people if we properly used wars than we can funding aids research, including helping fight aids. Unfortunately, since the end of WWII, we haven't shown ourselves to be able to properly manage a war and it's after affects.

As to corporate handouts, I am not sure what you mean. If you mean the bailouts, I was against them, if you mean tax-breaks, I am against some, for some. But then, I am for a flat tax with minimal deductions for individuals and a graduated tax system for corporations based upon their percentage of profit.

DVSentinel said:

No, that is how a socialist society is run, not a civil one. A civil one would recognize the individuals right for self-determination.

Click to expand...

:lamo
no in any civilized society even in capitalists ones there is forms of taxation and the scary "redistribution of wealth".

I do support mine going to wars.(especially those against socialist) Defense is necessary for the survival of the Nation, aids research is not. We can also accomplish a lot more for a lot more people if we properly used wars than we can funding aids research, including helping fight aids. Unfortunately, since the end of WWII, we haven't shown ourselves to be able to properly manage a war and it's after affects.

Click to expand...

Well guess what good for you.

Point being is bud tax dollars being spent cannot make everyone happy. You can agree with some things they go to and disagree with others.

The only way to stop AIDS is for people to stop acting so stupid. Has anyone ever wondered why HIV and AIDS didn't exist before the 1960s? This is a moral issue, not governmental. They should be protesting themselves. Quite sad, actually!