• 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]

Again you miss the point and play some 'victim'. (You made a very blatant personal attack and only got a warning, so chill)

You just can't seem to grasp the overwhelming majority here see excellent reasons why a relatively new disease that was at one time as fatal to those contracting it as breast cancer was in the 60's.

HUGE sums were spent on breast cancer up til now. AIDS being new and extremely fatal got huge sums thrown at it.

Repeating your 'position' doesn't change anything. You are an opinion of one. You might as well go find a new dead horse to dead.... :peace
 
HIV/AIDS gets so much funding because famous celebrities have pushed that agenda item.
 
Again you miss the point and play some 'victim'. (You made a very blatant personal attack and only got a warning, so chill)

You just can't seem to grasp the overwhelming majority here see excellent reasons why a relatively new disease that was at one time as fatal to those contracting it as breast cancer was in the 60's.

HUGE sums were spent on breast cancer up til now. AIDS being new and extremely fatal got huge sums thrown at it.

Repeating your 'position' doesn't change anything. You are an opinion of one. You might as well go find a new dead horse to dead.... :peace

So you are saying breast cancer has basically been cured and funds for it have been reduced because of that. Please show me some figures that show anywhere near the 3 billion spent annually on AIDS research has ever been spent on breast cancer. All I can find is this and breast cancer seems to get a few more bucks every year so you just may be mistaken.


Cancer Type

2008 Spending
(in millions)

2009 Spending
(in millions)

2010 Spending
(in millions)



Lung

$247.6

$246.9

$281.9



Prostate

285.4

293.9

300.5



Breast

572.6

599.5

631.2
 
Again you miss the point and play some 'victim'. (You made a very blatant personal attack and only got a warning, so chill)

You just can't seem to grasp the overwhelming majority here see excellent reasons why a relatively new disease that was at one time as fatal to those contracting it as breast cancer was in the 60's.

HUGE sums were spent on breast cancer up til now. AIDS being new and extremely fatal got huge sums thrown at it.

Heres some more info for you since you seem to think breast cancer is now a big yawn. If they catch it early your chances are excellent but the later they catch it the deadlier it is. You may want to rethink your position on this.









Stage


5-year
Survival Rate






0


93%




I


88%




IIA


81%




IIB


74%




IIIA


67%




IIIB


41%*




IIIC


49%*




IV


15%
 
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.

For starters, 28,000,000 reasons were given why lots of $$ should be spent on HIV/AIDS research. Another reason given is it it a communicable disease - unlike any you named.

Your reason of gays and promiscuous people DESERVE to have AIDs is NO reason whatsoever. You have given no reason other than you want gays and promiscuous people to die horrible deaths - and innocent deaths from HIV/AIDS are just unfortunate collateral damage in your hoped genocidal morality biological warfare. Biological war is prohibited including for the good reason that the biological war if a communicable disease does not limit who it kills. It can kill anyone and everyone on earth. Even you.
 
Again you miss the point and play some 'victim'. (You made a very blatant personal attack and only got a warning, so chill)

You just can't seem to grasp the overwhelming majority here see excellent reasons why a relatively new disease that was at one time as fatal to those contracting it as breast cancer was in the 60's.

HUGE sums were spent on breast cancer up til now. AIDS being new and extremely fatal got huge sums thrown at it.

Heres some more info for you since you seem to think breast cancer is now a big yawn. If they catch it early your chances are excellent but the later they catch it the deadlier it is. You may want to rethink your position on this.
....................................................................

Not one person on this thread advocates people getting breast cancer or reducing funding for it. This constant false strawman and red herring you post in which you debate yourself and declare you won. That's just nonsense.
 
For starters, 28,000,000 reasons were given why lots of $$ should be spent on HIV/AIDS research. Another reason given is it it a communicable disease - unlike any you named.

Your reason of gays and promiscuous people DESERVE to have AIDs is NO reason whatsoever. You have given no reason other than you want gays and promiscuous people to die horrible deaths - and innocent deaths from HIV/AIDS are just unfortunate collateral damage in your hoped genocidal morality biological warfare. Biological war is prohibited including for the good reason that the biological war if a communicable disease does not limit who it kills. It can kill anyone and everyone on earth. Even you.

It is 99% only communicable if you share needles or have unprotected sex, it is no danger to the general public. As the pie chart I posted earlier showed a whopping 1% of AIDS cases effect anyone else. Hope you were not offended by my earlier comment. Your Star called me a drama queen once and she's a mod so I thought it was OK and I thought it was funny, I even "liked" her post. As for the gay thing I have nothing against gays so I don't consider that an attack. You are gay aren't you? I am assuming you are because you are so emotional on this subject.
 
It is 99% only communicable if you share needles or have unprotected sex, it is no danger to the general public.

So what? If everyone wore HEPA filter masks no one would have to worry about influenza, TB and many more diseases.

In just one influenza epidemic, 50,000,000 people died - and in your reasoning they all deserved it too - and all influenza/flu research now should be stopped because anyone who get it deserves it. You don't have to worry about it you do not do unprotected breathing in public, so it is no danger to the general public.
 
Last edited:
Sawyer-
again you are being very dishonest in the discussion. NO WHERE and NO HOW did I say Breast Cancer has been cured. NO WAY has breast cancer research been canceled. Quit playing silly games, you are an extremely small minority who can't get alot of all this very straight.
 
Probably time to call this thread over, the very few left in here would rather discuss me than the issue. I started this wondering how many people felt like I do on this and I got my answer, damn few. I have learned alot researching things though and am amazed how much money us taxpayers are on the hook for with this disease. Three billion for research and fifteen billion annually for drugs to keep AIDS victims alive. This dwarfs spending on any other disease and may just rival spending on all other diseases put together so the next time you hear some AIDS activist whining that not enough is being done to fight the disease you may want to say, yeah right. :roll:
 
HIV/AIDS gets so much funding because famous celebrities have pushed that agenda item.

In part but at least at the educational level its a good thing, IMHO. In parts of Africa 1 out of every 4 people are infected because they ignored it for years.
 
In part but at least at the educational level its a good thing, IMHO. In parts of Africa 1 out of every 4 people are infected because they ignored it for years.

I have heard stories that some in Africa believe that you cure AIDS by sleeping with virgins. I think the problem there may have more challenges than a celebrity PSA will cure.
 
I have heard stories that some in Africa believe that you cure AIDS by sleeping with virgins. I think the problem there may have more challenges than a celebrity PSA will cure.

True and a big part of the problem. Southern Africa is the child rape capital of the world. At the same time educational efforts in Uganda have caused a surprising decline in the rate of HIV.



An overarching policy known as "ABC", which consisted of abstinence, monogamy and condoms, was set up with the aim of helping to curb the spread of AIDS in Uganda, where HIV infections reached epidemic proportions in the 1980s.[3] The prevalence of HIV began to decline in the late 1980s and continued throughout the 1990s. In fact, between 1991 and 2007, HIV prevalence rates declined dramatically.



HIV/AIDS in Uganda - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Probably time to call this thread over, the very few left in here would rather discuss me than the issue. I started this wondering how many people felt like I do on this and I got my answer, damn few. I have learned alot researching things though and am amazed how much money us taxpayers are on the hook for with this disease. Three billion for research and fifteen billion annually for drugs to keep AIDS victims alive. This dwarfs spending on any other disease and may just rival spending on all other diseases put together so the next time you hear some AIDS activist whining that not enough is being done to fight the disease you may want to say, yeah right. :roll:

Again, you distort statistics and appear incapable of even addressing the distinction between a disease that only kills the person who has it and a disease that is transmittable. It is you who refuses to discuss this topic outside the topic of yourself and your openly expressed extreme personal prejudices and moral judgments.
 
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.

AIDS is a bit of a quandry. There will NEVER be a cure found, making it one of the most destructive diseases ever, yet its the easiest to irradicate. STOP having sex with multiple partners! Take the morality issue out of it, and its still good advise. The AIDS virus mutates every time we think we have a cure, and its going to keep doing so.
 
AIDS is a bit of a quandry. There will NEVER be a cure found, making it one of the most destructive diseases ever, yet its the easiest to irradicate. STOP having sex with multiple partners! Take the morality issue out of it, and its still good advise. The AIDS virus mutates every time we think we have a cure, and its going to keep doing so.

I fully disagree. There is nothing to show a cure will never be found.

To claim it will be irraticated by moralizing about sex is what is not a cure and is what is impossible - and nonsense.

Even if, as you and Sawyer apparently believe for who knows what reasons - that you can convince everyone to not have sex with anyone unless:

1. you have the other person physically examed to make sure she is a virgin (which I believe neither you nor Sawyer did) or
2.have him take double blind CAT scan polygraph exams - which no one does - for which for the rest of your lives neither of you ever have sex with anyone else even if you break up or one of you dies - then only if another provable virgin is found - and some bizarre belief that everyone (but you) would do that -

oh, and at least quarterly polygraph exams to insure neither of you had sex with someone else nor had any needle stuck in you for any reason - if neither of you can ever have sex with anyone again - not even another virgin -

- even then that would not irraticate AIDS. Nor:

3. and if all gays also died of it or successfully completed gay-cure therapy as Sawyer wishes - and

4. even if everyone agreed to never use a needle again for anything -

5. - exactly none of that ever is going to happen - and

6. it still would not irraticate AIDS.

I understand some people share your and Sawyer's extreme sexual moral codes and extremely restrained sexual life and activities - or just have no sex life and never will, but most people do not. Nor want to. Sex is one of the wonderful things about being an adult.

At its core, where I MOST disagree with Sawyer and you is at the very core of the "morality" claim. I see the extreme limits AIDS puts on sexuality as of itself a horrific harm and lose to people and many levels - from assault victims to accidents, to promiscuous sex, to the severe restrictions "safe" sex puts on intimacy and sexuality. I intensely believe that ANY disease that restricts consentual sex between 2 (or more) people of legal age, that disease a horrific disease that should be irraticated, reduced, controls or a treatment found if anyway possible - regardless of mutation prospects.

Influenza also mutates. It could be limited if everyone wore HEPA filters. Thus, you certainly must INSIST no more research be done on the transmittable disease that probably has killed more people than any other - because all people need to is avoid other people and wear HEPA filters.

Of course, neither you nor Sawyer ever advocate that - and ALWAYS ignore it when brought up - and likely would claim it absurd, people shouldn't have to wear HEPA filter masks and people won't do it anyway.

The distinction is your and his view of "sex sins." Not about the disease. As Sawyer stated in his OP, the goal is to USE AIDS as a deadly punishment force to stop sinful, decadent sex as he sees it.

It IS the moral condemnations against sex that is at the core of your reasoning - for which you fashion unique diversionary excuses that you apply to no other disease that your so-called reasons apply to.

Except for herpes, cures were found for STDs where there used to be no cure. A vaccine or cure for HIV/AIDS is not impossible at all. You just claim it is to argue your view of sexual morality. When cures were found to lethal STDs and none existed, the resulting "free sex" did NOT destroy society. "Free consentual sex" can not destroy society or the human race, can not genocide it. A transmittable disease can.

And for your noting that HIV/AIDS, like all transmittable diseases, mutates, it has to potential to mutate to be transmitted by any fluid passing (kissing, coughing, lack of perfect purifying kitchenware, sneezing, etc.) Your "AIDS" mutants is another reason finding a cure or treatment critical - as another member noted.

Did herpes of the mouth mutate to genital herpes - or the other way around? So could AIDS. If aids does mutate to be more tranmittable (it is now thru eye ducts as example) such as to the mouth and mouth fluids, it could kill everyone on earth. Quickly Or become transmittable by mesquito bites. The next plague to wipe out 1/3rd of all people - or more since people more mobile.

The fact is you could never have sex in your life and never use a needle - and still contract HIV/AIDS never knowing it happened by the end of the week. So could your children. So can anyone.

Make it anything other than a sex-disease in your mind, and you can understand my message.
 
Last edited:
I fully disagree. There is nothing to show a cure will never be found.

To claim it will be irraticated by moralizing about sex is what is not a cure and is what is impossible - and nonsense.

Even if, as you and Sawyer apparently believe for who knows what reasons - that you can convince everyone to not have sex with anyone unless:
You are the one that brought morality into my comment. Im saying that its good common sense REGARDLESS of your view on morality. Your saying the pros of having unrestricted sex with as many partners as you can find, outweighs the cons of having AIDS.


1. you have the other person physically examed to make sure she is a virgin (which I believe neither you nor Sawyer did) or
2.have him take double blind CAT scan polygraph exams - which no one does - for which for the rest of your lives neither of you ever have sex with anyone else even if you break up or one of you dies - then only if another provable virgin is found - and some bizarre belief that everyone (but you) would do that -

oh, and at least quarterly polygraph exams to insure neither of you had sex with someone else nor had any needle stuck in you for any reason - if neither of you can ever have sex with anyone again - not even another virgin -

You are really stuck on the sex aspect of this, far more so than the AIDS aspect. There is nothing wrong with being tested for AIDS, nor is there anything wrong with asking your partner to be tested for AIDS, in fact its a very mature thing to do. There is absolutly ZERO danger of contracting AIDS from needles, unless of course your using and or sharing used needles, which i can see no reason for anyone to do.

3. and if all gays also died of it or successfully completed gay-cure therapy as Sawyer wishes

Being gay doesnt raise your risk of contracting AIDS if you still only have one partner. Obviously due to the trauma caused to the anus during gay intercourse, there is a greater risk for blood exchange that would result in contracting AIDS if the other person had it, but then again, why would they have it if they only had one partner?

4. even if everyone agreed to never use a needle again for anything -

Again, needles are only dangerous if they are used.


5. - exactly none of that ever is going to happen - and

6. it still would not irraticate AIDS.

Actually, since that is how AIDS is spread, thats exaclty how it would be irraticated.

I understand some people share your and Sawyer's extreme sexual moral codes and extremely restrained sexual life and activities - or just have no sex life and never will, but most people do not. Nor want to. Sex is one of the wonderful things about being an adult.
Obviously you are free to sleep with whomever you want and as many as you want. But i think its pretty stupid considering all the things you just said. Its people like you who have helped create the AIDS epidemic we now have. You can make fun of us extremely restrained sexual types, but we are the ones who dont have to worry about our bodies breaking down to the point that we eventually die of the common cold.

Influenza also mutates. It could be limited if everyone wore HEPA filters. Thus, you certainly must INSIST no more research be done on the transmittable disease that probably has killed more people than any other - because all people need to is avoid other people and wear HEPA filters.

Of course, neither you nor Sawyer ever advocate that - and ALWAYS ignore it when brought up - and likely would claim it absurd, people shouldn't have to wear HEPA filter masks and people won't do it anyway.

If we were having an influenza outbreak, then i would absolutely advocate wearing a HEPA filter, it would be stupid not to. Remember when the swine flu was hitting everywhere? What did everyone do? They wore face masks! Not because they were moraly obligated to do so, but because it was the smart thing to do!

The distinction is your and his view of "sex sins." Not about the disease. As Sawyer stated in his OP, the goal is to USE AIDS as a deadly punishment force to stop sinful, decadent sex as he sees it.

It IS the moral condemnations against sex that is at the core of your reasoning - for which you fashion unique diversionary excuses that you apply to no other disease that your so-called reasons apply to.

I havent once said anything about sex being a sin, so i fail to see why you keep bringing it up.


And for your noting that HIV/AIDS, like all transmittable diseases, mutates, it has to potential to mutate to be transmitted by any fluid passing (kissing, coughing, lack of perfect purifying kitchenware, sneezing, etc.) Your "AIDS" mutants is another reason finding a cure or treatment critical - as another member noted.

Actually it doesnt have the ability to become airborne, you have been watching to much tv. AIDS is a blood borne virus, so unless you spit a blood covered loogy in someones face and call that airborne, AIDS will always be a STD.

Did herpes of the mouth mutate to genital herpes - or the other way around? So could AIDS. If aids does mutate to be more tranmittable (it is now thru eye ducts as example) such as to the mouth and mouth fluids, it could kill everyone on earth. Quickly Or become transmittable by mesquito bites. The next plague to wipe out 1/3rd of all people - or more since people more mobile.

Seriously? Herpes is a virus, its the same virus weather its in your crotch or your mouth. It usually exhibits symptoms at the site of infection i.e the mouth through kissing or the crotch through bumping uglies, but its still the same virus, there was no "mutation" involved.

The fact is you could never have sex in your life and never use a needle - and still contract HIV/AIDS never knowing it happened by the end of the week. So could your children. So can anyone.

Make it anything other than a sex-disease in your mind, and you can understand my message.

Yes but the odds of contracting it any other way are astronomical, and they become even more astronomical as the rates of those with AIDS decline. The problem is idiots there are out there who put their own physical pleasure above all else.
 
Probably time to call this thread over, the very few left in here would rather discuss me than the issue. I started this wondering how many people felt like I do on this and I got my answer, damn few. I have learned alot researching things though and am amazed how much money us taxpayers are on the hook for with this disease. Three billion for research and fifteen billion annually for drugs to keep AIDS victims alive. This dwarfs spending on any other disease and may just rival spending on all other diseases put together so the next time you hear some AIDS activist whining that not enough is being done to fight the disease you may want to say, yeah right. :roll:

I want to discuss the issue. I've asked if we should spend money on treating obesity and all the health problems that are associated with obesity, since obesity is certainly treatable. Should we treat a smoker who has lung cancer? Should we treat an alcoholic who has liver disease?
 
I want to discuss the issue. I've asked if we should spend money on treating obesity and all the health problems that are associated with obesity, since obesity is certainly treatable. Should we treat a smoker who has lung cancer? Should we treat an alcoholic who has liver disease?

I answered that already, IMO diseases should get higher priority if you get them through no fault of your own. Diseases you bring on yourself through lifestyle choices should be at the bottom of the funding list not at the very top as AIDS is. I think this is the third time I have said this. :roll:
 
AIDS is a bit of a quandry. There will NEVER be a cure found, making it one of the most destructive diseases ever, yet its the easiest to irradicate. STOP having sex with multiple partners! Take the morality issue out of it, and its still good advise. The AIDS virus mutates every time we think we have a cure, and its going to keep doing so.

:doh AIDs spread by other means than sex, and in many cases, many people don't know that their partners have AIDs and many of the partners don't know it themselves.
Other than that, why do you think AIDs is incurable? Most people 2 centuries ago thought that flight was impossible due to the never-ending failures. ㅡㅡ;;
 
I answered that already, IMO diseases should get higher priority if you get them through no fault of your own. Diseases you bring on yourself through lifestyle choices should be at the bottom of the funding list not at the very top as AIDS is. I think this is the third time I have said this. :roll:

AIDs can be spread by other means than sex, and in many cases, many people don't know that their partners have AIDs and many of the partners don't know it themselves.
So you and your wife have sex. It's perfectly normal, no? Then you and your wife discovers that you both have AIDs, from your wife, then to yourself. Is it lifestyle that you can blame? Or what about an AIDs-infected blood donation?
Also, your premise rests on the assumption that medical spending should be prioritized based on whether the disease was the patient's own fault. Then should be decrease spending on cures for liver or lung cancer? What about care for those involved in traffic accidents? Should there be courts finding whether the accidents were their fault and promptly withdraw funding?
Things are a lot more complicated than "American" values of responsibility and such.
 
AIDs can be spread by other means than sex, and in many cases, many people don't know that their partners have AIDs and many of the partners don't know it themselves.
So you and your wife have sex. It's perfectly normal, no? Then you and your wife discovers that you both have AIDs, from your wife, then to yourself. Is it lifestyle that you can blame? Or what about an AIDs-infected blood donation?
Also, your premise rests on the assumption that medical spending should be prioritized based on whether the disease was the patient's own fault. Then should be decrease spending on cures for liver or lung cancer? What about care for those involved in traffic accidents? Should there be courts finding whether the accidents were their fault and promptly withdraw funding?
Things are a lot more complicated than "American" values of responsibility and such.

You are late to the conversation, I posted a pie chart of who gets AIDS and why. 99% get it from making bad decisions on unprotected promiscuous sex and or sharing needles.
 
I answered that already, IMO diseases should get higher priority if you get them through no fault of your own. Diseases you bring on yourself through lifestyle choices should be at the bottom of the funding list not at the very top as AIDS is. I think this is the third time I have said this. :roll:

So, using this premise, should Alzheimer's research receive more funding than AID's research? Even though AID's affects younger populations whereas Alzheimer's affects mainly older populations?

Also, should money be spent on how many people receive the disease or how deadly the disease is? Lung cancer is the most deadly cancer yet it receives less funding than many other different types of cancers.
 
:doh AIDs spread by other means than sex, and in many cases, many people don't know that their partners have AIDs and many of the partners don't know it themselves.
Other than that, why do you think AIDs is incurable? Most people 2 centuries ago thought that flight was impossible due to the never-ending failures. ㅡㅡ;;

Your right, AIDS is spread by other means than sex, but the cases are few and far between. Not nearly enough cases to perpetuate the disease on its own. As far as partners not knowing or not telling that they have AIDS, that also would be a non issue if they limited themselves to a single sex partner. Contrary to popular belief, you can be cool and still only sleep with one person.
 
So, using this premise, should Alzheimer's research receive more funding than AID's research? Even though AID's affects younger populations whereas Alzheimer's affects mainly older populations?

Also, should money be spent on how many people receive the disease or how deadly the disease is? Lung cancer is the most deadly cancer yet it receives less funding than many other different types of cancers.

Yes Alzheimers should most definately get more funding for research than AIDS. Think of what that would do to our life expextancy if we cured that!
Dont even get me started on the cancer thing, i think breast cancer gets way to much attention. Not that its not a terrible disease, but as you stated, there are many other cancers that are neglected because of it.
 
Back
Top Bottom