• 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!

Fears that World Cup could increase spread of HIV

MrVicchio said:
Hear? Really?


I'm for banning it all together. Why is it you people think the answer to wrong/immoral/dangerous and DUMB behavior is to legalize it?

That boggles the mind to be frankly honest.
Click to expand...

Because its called Personal Responsibly I though you conservatives believed that concept or does that only apply to money? If you hate stupid people you should be for them taking themselves out of the gene pool via their own stupid mistakes.
 
stalin_was_a_nice_being said:
Whats wrong/immoral to you might not be for me. And what you may find safe/moral I most likely won't. See I have a problem with people who believe that they have the RIGHT to tell me how to live my life. But yet when you tell them the way to live theirs, they are all like "DON'T TELL ME HOW TO LIVE ITS MY LIFE SO MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS!".

There are things that are inherently wrong like murder. We have comed a far way that the majority of people are not ok with killing someone anymore. And that is a good thing. But have we comed far enough to have prostitution totally illegal? No. Why not? Because people want and desire sex much more than killing.

And its not dumb because you say it is. I think its dumb to have so many conservatives in one country but still there are many. And I think its dumb to have so many people waving the flag to politicians that promise freedom but they go ahead and write laws that limit all of our freedom.

Why? Because there are people like you who don't want to live a life where you don't boss others around. You believe that the "greatest freedom is the freedom to oppress others". But that is not freedom that is tyranny. So really you hide behind words like "immoral, dumb, dangerous, wrong" to hide the fact that you really are a tyrant.
Click to expand...

Sleeping with prostitutes, is DUMB. Period. Even the "clean" ones in Vegas. DUMB!!!! And what about the effect on the women in the business? It's amazing to me that you think this is all about "sins" and has nothing to do about treating women respectfully.
 
chevydriver1123 said:
Because its called Personal Responsibly I though you conservatives believed that concept or does that only apply to money? If you hate stupid people you should be for them taking themselves out of the gene pool via their own stupid mistakes.
Click to expand...

I don't support legalizing destructive behavior just because it's "easier" to deal with it. That's the biggest problem I have with the Libertarian movement. This belief that society doesn't have an obligation to hold itself to a higher standard.
 
MrVicchio said:
I don't support legalizing destructive behavior just because it's "easier" to deal with it. That's the biggest problem I have with the Libertarian movement. This belief that society doesn't have an obligation to hold itself to a higher standard.
Click to expand...

Why do you care if South Africa has prostitution?
 
MrVicchio said:
This belief that society doesn't have an obligation to hold itself to a higher standard.
Click to expand...

Question: which one of the following people is adhering to a higher standard:

Person 1: I didn't sleep with the prostitute because I think that it is wrong
Person 2: I didn't sleep with a prostitute because it is illegal and I'd get in trouble.
 
MsRetro said:
I agree that prostitution should be legalized, but pimping/pandering should remain criminalized.

Can't get behind "the buyers deserve what they get". Many of these men are married, and almost certainly have unprotected sex with their wives.
Click to expand...

I can't get what good is it to blame someone for a system that should be regulated. Its like if a surgeon operated on your wrong leg would that be your fault?
 
Tucker Case said:
Question: which one of the following people is adhering to a higher standard:

Person 1: I didn't sleep with the prostitute because I think that it is wrong
Person 2: I didn't sleep with a prostitute because it is illegal and I'd get in trouble.
Click to expand...

You forgot,
Person 3: I didn't sleep with a prostitute because I don't have to pay for sex.

I understand why you didn't add that... paying being a norm for you, however...
 
stalin_was_a_nice_being said:
I can't get what good is it to blame someone for a system that should be regulated. Its like if a surgeon operated on your wrong leg would that be your fault?
Click to expand...

I'm not quite sure I completely understand your question, but, are you asking why I think prostitution should be legal, but pandering should not?

It is because this removes the element of a pimp coercing and living off the efforts of a prostitute. This also reduces the involvement of organized crime. Canadian law already reflects this, and it's regarded by many as successful.
 
MrVicchio said:
You forgot,
Person 3: I didn't sleep with a prostitute because I don't have to pay for sex.

I understand why you didn't add that... paying being a norm for you, however...
Click to expand...

I wasn't giving an exhaustive list of reasons to not use prostitutes.

Otherwise I would have included:

Person 4. There's no prostitute on Earth who needs the money that bad


as one of the options so that you wouldn't feel left out :2razz:

Seriously, though, which of the two options I did give would you consider a higher standard of behavior?
 
MrVicchio said:
You forgot,
Person 3: I didn't sleep with a prostitute because I don't have to pay for sex.

I understand why you didn't add that... paying being a norm for you, however...
Click to expand...

You forgot,
Person 4: I paid for a prostitute because I was too lazy to put in the effort of getting a freebie.

Really why do you care what people do with their money? You think its ok to have sex with a girl who you've just met is any better than paying for a hooker? What about the number of guys who get free sex, players, who don't respect women? Are they somehow better than a guy who pays for a hooker?
 
MsRetro said:
I'm not quite sure I completely understand your question, but, are you asking why I think prostitution should be legal, but pandering should not?

It is because this removes the element of a pimp coercing and living off the efforts of a prostitute. This also reduces the involvement of organized crime. Canadian law already reflects this, and it's regarded by many as successful.
Click to expand...

No you got it completely wrong. I was saying that the poster who said you get what you deserve is completely wrong for saying that. Because bad things happen but they happen less with responsibility and regulation than it being completely illegal.

Also, in the RLD of Amsterdam there is a serious problem with crime. You'd be surprised how many of the girls there are from the US.
 
stalin_was_a_nice_being said:
No you got it completely wrong. I was saying that the poster who said you get what you deserve is completely wrong for saying that. Because bad things happen but they happen less with responsibility and regulation than it being completely illegal.

Also, in the RLD of Amsterdam there is a serious problem with crime. You'd be surprised how many of the girls there are from the US.
Click to expand...

Thank you, it makes sense now!
 
MrVicchio said:
Do you think that was the point? Or is it such a "mean" thought, that you felt you needed to show how small the problem really was? Of course, your rosey numbers merely show ignorance, if the threat was so small... why is there an article?
Click to expand...

Did you actually just say "if the threat is so small, why did the media make a big deal about it?"

:rofl

Are you completely unfamiliar with the way that journalism works?

If HIV infection is so weak, why is it a problem?
Click to expand...

Because most people transmit it through repeated, long term intercourse, more risky intercourse, or intravenous drug use. Again, the transmission rate I used is science. You don't have to like it, but you don't get to just toss it out because it doesn't sound right to you or doesn't fit your narrative.

The point I was trying to make, and the one you missed in your righteous indignation... is very simple. HIV is easily avoidable, don't sleep with high risk people.

The Paid Ladies in South Africa have a known 50% infection rate.

Only an IDIOT would risk it
Click to expand...

I agree. However, it's obviously not the huge deal that you're making it seem.

That's common sense, but no... that's too mean for the likes of you. No no, you think this was a hate thread from a judgmental Bible thumper. So you came in to show not all "conservative minded people" are so hateful. I'm well aware of your gig RightinNYC.
Click to expand...

You don't have to be a bible-thumper to make ignorant statements about people with HIV.

Oh and your statistic, assumed that every condom worn would be worn perfectly. You know damned well condoms aren't worn properly.
Click to expand...

So let's pretend that every single person goes bareback. We're up to 12 and a half infections now.
 
RightinNYC said:
Again, the transmission rate I used is science. You don't have to like it, but you don't get to just toss it out because it doesn't sound right to you or doesn't fit your narrative.
Click to expand...

Sorry to barge in on your dismantling of MrV (which I do so enjoy), but I just wanted to say that even though it's science, it does not make the numbers accurate. They are accurate within the full means of scientific testing, but there are plenty of gaps in HIV rate reports. It relies on people who are willfully coming forward to be tested, and those numbers have always been in the minority, especially among heterosexuals.

So, based on your model , we can say that the worst case scenario is that 12 people will be infected, but in the realm of undocumented cases, the numbers are probably much higher.

Remember, the worldwide HIV rate is based on reported numbers, which are gathered from people who get tested; just like the usage rates for condoms come from self-reporting, which people could easily be lying about out of guilt.

This is why statistics are useful as a guideline but not for policy making. You need to rely on ground workers and their anecdotal experiences with these communities to get more accurate information on the probability of higher infection rates.
 
Orius said:
Sorry to barge in on your dismantling of MrV (which I do so enjoy), but I just wanted to say that even though it's science, it does not make the numbers accurate. They are accurate within the full means of scientific testing, but there are plenty of gaps in HIV rate reports. It relies on people who are willfully coming forward to be tested, and those numbers have always been in the minority, especially among heterosexuals.

So, based on your model , we can say that the worst case scenario is that 12 people will be infected, but in the realm of undocumented cases, the numbers are probably much higher.

Remember, the worldwide HIV rate is based on reported numbers, which are gathered from people who get tested; just like the usage rates for condoms come from self-reporting, which people could easily be lying about out of guilt.

This is why statistics are useful as a guideline but not for policy making. You need to rely on ground workers and their anecdotal experiences with these communities to get more accurate information on the probability of higher infection rates.
Click to expand...

I agree that it's not certain, but the studies which those numbers are based on are pretty rigorous. They usually involve taking a few hundred stable couples that have one infected partner and then periodically testing them to determine transmission rates.

Comparison of female to male and male to female transmission of HIV in 563 stable couples. European Study Group on Heterosexual Transmission of HIV.

Heterosexual transmission of human immunodeficienc... [Am J Epidemiol. 1998] - PubMed result

I'd argue that those are much more reliable than relying on reported numbers, though there's still a chance that selection bias might be skewing things.
 
Tucker Case said:
I wasn't giving an exhaustive list of reasons to not use prostitutes.

Otherwise I would have included:

Person 4. There's no prostitute on Earth who needs the money that bad


as one of the options so that you wouldn't feel left out :2razz:

Seriously, though, which of the two options I did give would you consider a higher standard of behavior?
Click to expand...

Person 1. Obviously.
 
MrVicchio said:
Person 1. Obviously.
Click to expand...

I agree.

So if we hold our society to the higher standard, we allow them to make that their choice instead of adding punishments arbitrarily to the lower standard choice as a way to deter that lower standard of behavior.

Under the current laws, it's fairly easy to say "I don't use the services of prostitutes because it's wrong" when there is a clear punishment that exists for using the services of a prostitute. This is because it has been clearly labeled as "wrong" by a society that punishes the alternative behavior.

But if we were held to the highest standard, we would remove the punishments for the alternative behavior and still abstain from the behavior. In that situation a person is being held to the highest standard of behavior possible: self-control.

If they fail to hold themselves to that standard, then they are still be held to the highest standard of behavior, they are simply not living up to the standard.
 
RightinNYC said:
With a half million fans, let's assume that 5% patronize prostitutes - 25,000. Assume that 50% are smart and use condoms. Since the odds of contracting HIV from unprotected sex with an infected female are 1 in 2000, that means there should be about six people who contract HIV thanks to the World Cup. Roughly.
Click to expand...

wouldn't this depend upon how rampant the infected is? I mean if they in treatment and have it under control is it not harder to infect others, than if it is left untreated and allowed to run amok until the carrier dies? I am kind of assuming hookers in S. Africa do not have access to 'great healthcare'
 
MrVicchio said:
I don't support legalizing destructive behavior just because it's "easier" to deal with it. That's the biggest problem I have with the Libertarian movement. This belief that society doesn't have an obligation to hold itself to a higher standard.
Click to expand...

In other words its your counter argument to letting people be in charge of their own bodies is nothing but emotional bull****.
 
chevydriver1123 said:
In other words its your counter argument to letting people be in charge of their own bodies is nothing but emotional bull****.
Click to expand...

Yes, you got me. Society shouldn't care ever what someone does, or the negative secondary problems. who are we to set standards in society?
:roll:
 
Wishing everyone a safe World Cup...
That's 6 journalists in 2-days. What about the general population?

South Africa warns against crime ahead of World Cup - Yahoo! News
Chinese state media reported on Thursday that four Chinese journalists were also robbed at gunpoint when they stopped their car on a roadside on their way to Johannesburg. The thieves took a small amount of cash and a camera.

South Africa has one of the world's highest crime rates -- with an average 50 killings a day -- making security one of the biggest headaches for World Cup organisers.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom