• 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]

zstep18 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I have made my position very clear, how would you prioritize funding of diseases. What would be your criteria for which diseases to focus on?
 
Dpetty said:
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.
Click to expand...

But, even then, it can have a ripple effect. Suppose someone only slept with one person, but the person slept with, say, 3 people before that. And then each one of those 3 people slept with one or multiple people. And on and on.

If I remember the stat correctly, I think it's 1 in 4 people who have AID's don't know they have it.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
I have made my position very clear, how would you prioritize funding of diseases. What would be your criteria for which diseases to focus on?
Click to expand...

I don't think there is one single way to prioritize diseases. It's a combination of frequency, how deadly it is, whether it affects mainly younger population or older populations, whether or not it's spreadable, etc, etc.
 
zstep18 said:
But, even then, it can have a ripple effect. Suppose someone only slept with one person, but the person slept with, say, 3 people before that. And then each one of those 3 people slept with one or multiple people. And on and on.

If I remember the stat correctly, I think it's 1 in 4 people who have AID's don't know they have it.
Click to expand...

Your making my argument for only having one sex partner even more appealing. Im saying everyone should only have one sex partner, not just every 10th person. If we all only have one, we either wont catch it, or we wont spread it, either way it stops it in its tracks. I thinks its the simplicity of the plan that is throwing everyone off...
 
zstep18 said:
I don't think there is one single way to prioritize diseases. It's a combination of frequency, how deadly it is, whether it affects mainly younger population or older populations, whether or not it's spreadable, etc, etc.
Click to expand...

So old people who get Alzheimer's through no fault of their own should be put behind a young needle sharing drug addict just because he's young?
 
Dpetty said:
Your making my argument for only having one sex partner even more appealing. Im saying everyone should only have one sex partner, not just every 10th person. If we all only have one, we either wont catch it, or we wont spread it, either way it stops it in its tracks. I thinks its the simplicity of the plan that is throwing everyone off...
Click to expand...

It's not really simple....

I don't disagree that everyone having only one sex partner would help prevent the spreading of AID's. However, I don't expect everyone to have just one sex partner their entire lives. And even so, there's also the problem of how it would be enforced.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
So old people who get Alzheimer's through no fault of their own should be put behind a young needle sharing drug addict just because he's young?
Click to expand...

How about a young person who made a poor choice in not using protection?

I don't think they should pay for it by dying from this terrible disease.
 
zstep18 said:
It's not really simple....

I don't disagree that everyone having only one sex partner would help prevent the spreading of AID's. However, I don't expect everyone to have just one sex partner their entire lives. And even so, there's also the problem of how it would be enforced.
Click to expand...

It would be enforced by common sense! Im not advocating a law stating we can only have one sex partner. Only small children need to have every faucet of their lives dictated to them. Us mature adults operate on laws of decency and common sense when allowed to. Common sense says if you are going to sleep around with multiple people, you should be tested for STD's OFTEN! Common sense says if you are going to sleep with people who sleep with other people, you would expect the same of them! The fact that the majority of people do neither of those things, speaks volumes to the lack of common sense in this world.
 
zstep18 said:
How about a young person who made a poor choice in not using protection?

I don't think they should pay for it by dying from this terrible disease.
Click to expand...

You are answering a question with a question to avoid answering the question I asked you. I was hoping for better.
 
Dpetty said:
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.

False. I am saying people should be able to have consentual sex without fear of deadly disease. STDs do not come from "partners," but from a partner.

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.

Nothing wrong with HIV/AIDS testing, although it is not an assurance nor an assurance a month later.

The number of medical personnel, dental personnel, EMT personnel etc to have contracted HIV/AIDS establishes that you are wrong.

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?

Because the partner has it at a stage before testing or contracts it later.

Again, needles are only dangerous if they are used.


False. Every needle used instantly becomes a used needle - so it is a pointless statement on your part.

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


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.

How is it "people like me" who have helped create the AIDS epidemic? I suspect it is people like you. Were you and every person you've even been with tested for HIV and now tested every month since? If not, you are just wrong and - hmmm - blaming me for AIDS. Wow. Naw, that's not judgmental on your part. I'm just responsible for spreading AIDS according to you.

Here's the fact, Jack. I do not have HIV/AIDS so I have spread it to no one. But it truly sucked all necessary and all lost to avoid it. Really sucked. And my employer required frequent HIV/AIDS testing as well.

Mature promiscuous people are likely FAR more "safe sex" than such as you - because you don't believe people like you could ever have it or any good-person like you would be with. How many times have you now explained that YOU can't get HIV/AIDS - only people like me can. So you are dangerous to others fool and likely spreader of it, not me.

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!

That is particularly false. Not 1 in 100 people wore HEPA filters

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


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.

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.

So you are claiming HIV/AIDS can not mutate. GREAT! Find a cure or vaccine and then it is forever gone!

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.
Click to expand...

Evil physical pleasure again? AIDS testing does NOT insure a person does not have AIDS NOR insure that person won't after the testing. I certainly was a strict condom man and other safeguards too - but condoms severely restrict sexual activities.

"Astronomical odds?" 3,400,000 million children have AIDS. From nurses to paramedics have AIDS. 1 in 5 women will be sexually assaulted and rapists do not wear condoms. People, including children, have gotten it from toothbrushes.

I could go on.

There is a risk from deep, open-mouth kissing if there are sores or bleeding gums and blood is exchanged - which the other person may not know of.
The New York Times reports the first documented case in 1997:

A woman apparently acquired the AIDS virus from deep kisses with an infected man, Federal health officials said yesterday. They said the case was the first reported transmission of H.I.V., the AIDS virus, through kissing.

So you need to add "no kissing" and HIV/AIDS testing before anyone kisses anyone else.

Oh yes, and avoid all contact sports too. That also can pass blood.

But here's the reality. People are not going to stop having sex. Men are not going to stop raping women either. Or children. Needles are still going to be used. Blood is going to pass between people. Telling people to stop having sex is no solution whatsoever because exactly everyone knows that's not going to happen.

Sorry about colors, I don't know how to split apart quotes.
 
Last edited:
zstep18 said:
How about a young person who made a poor choice in not using protection?

I don't think they should pay for it by dying from this terrible disease.
Click to expand...

But that's what this thread is about, punishing people for behavior that some don't like. It's like religion only stupider.
Infants get AIDs from their mother but they want them punished too. It gives some people the jollies I guess.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
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?.
Click to expand...

Why draw the line at HIV? Why fund cancer research? Obviously people who get cancer lived a risky lifestyle, either by getting too much sun, or living near facilities that produced chemicals or radiation, or by smoking, etc. Why should I be forced to pay so those people can avoid the consequences of their behavior?
 
Dpetty said:
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.
Click to expand...

And what profound knowledge of microbiology is that based on? The fact that we've never made a vaccine to a virus? The fact that we've haven't already developed antiretroviral drugs that extend people's lives significantly :roll:
 
sawyerloggingon said:
So old people who get Alzheimer's through no fault of their own should be put behind a young needle sharing drug addict just because he's young?
Click to expand...

It doesn't work like that. There's no reason not to research both. Resources are not unlimited, true, but you also can't just throw unlimited money at any particular disease. Throw our entire military budget at Alzheimer's research and you're only going to speed up the research so much.

While the disease may not be your responsibility, the results are. You pay for the healthcare of others. You always have and you always will, because the alternative is letting people just die of preventable conditions, or in pain, or whatever, and society has decided that's unacceptable. Maybe you think AIDS patients should be just told to **** off, but you are thankfully a minority in this thinking.
 
Last edited:
CriticalThought said:
Why draw the line at HIV? Why fund cancer research? Obviously people who get cancer lived a risky lifestyle, either by getting too much sun, or living near facilities that produced chemicals or radiation, or by smoking, etc. Why should I be forced to pay so those people can avoid the consequences of their behavior?
Click to expand...

Not a good example because you can get cancer for basically no reason at all. Sometimes cell division just goes bad all by itself.
 
Deuce said:
It doesn't work like that. There's no reason not to research both.
Resources are not unlimited, true, but you also can't just throw unlimited money at any particular disease.
Click to expand...
Throw our entire military budget at Alzheimer's research and you're only going to speed up the research so much.

While the disease may not be your responsibility, the results are. You pay for the healthcare of others. You always have and you always will, because the alternative is letting people just die of preventable conditions, or in pain, or whatever, and society has decided that's unacceptable. Maybe you think AIDS patients should be just told to **** off, but you are thankfully a minority in this thinking.
Click to expand...

We are doing very close to just that with our exorbitant spending on AIDS.
 
CriticalThought said:
Why draw the line at HIV? Why fund cancer research? Obviously people who get cancer lived a risky lifestyle, either by getting too much sun, or living near facilities that produced chemicals or radiation, or by smoking, etc. Why should I be forced to pay so those people can avoid the consequences of their behavior?
Click to expand...

Most types of cancer are not caused by lifestyle choices, the ones that specifically are should be put behind those that are not. Allocation of resources is required when our funding is limited. There should be some system in place besides the "squeaky wheel" system we currently have.
 
Deuce said:
It doesn't work like that. There's no reason not to research both. Resources are not unlimited, true, but you also can't just throw unlimited money at any particular disease. Throw our entire military budget at Alzheimer's research and you're only going to speed up the research so much.

While the disease may not be your responsibility, the results are. You pay for the healthcare of others. You always have and you always will, because the alternative is letting people just die of preventable conditions, or in pain, or whatever, and society has decided that's unacceptable. Maybe you think AIDS patients should be just told to **** off, but you are thankfully a minority in this thinking.
Click to expand...

Sawyer continually raises a false dicotomy claiming cancer research prevents Alzheimer's rearch which prevents AIDs research etc.

THE ONLY PERSONS advocating reducing medical research of any disease is Sawyer and the few who support him. Thus he asserts his own red herring strawman and declares he defeated his own argument.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Most types of cancer are not caused by lifestyle choices, the ones that specifically are should be put behind those that are not. Allocation of resources is required when our funding is limited. There should be some system in place besides the "squeaky wheel" system we currently have.
Click to expand...

More control freakism to try to use disease and death as personal and social control on a moral basis. Your morals.
 
Of course not! Why spend money on an extremely dangerous disease that doesn't only affect those who made those choices! Screw kids born with AIDs! Screw the people that were accidentally introduced to it through blood! Such heathens!

The assertion that AIDs research money should be revoked is absolutely disgusting and beyond idiotic.
 
TheLastIndependent said:
Of course not! Why spend money on an extremely dangerous disease that doesn't only affect those who made those choices! Screw kids born with AIDs! Screw the people that were accidentally introduced to it through blood! Such heathens!

The assertion that AIDs research money should be revoked is absolutely disgusting and beyond idiotic.
Click to expand...

Not revoked just greatly reduced.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
No, but I know you got your "close to (military spending)" out of nothing....in other words...you made it up.
Click to expand...

You must have me confused with someone else but while I am at it you left out the 15 billion a year we spend buying AIDS drugs annually in your last post so the real AIDS number is 18 billion a year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom