• 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]

The Monte Python Parrot sketch was funny when they did it about a dead parrot. It isn't when it is about millions dead and 28,000,000 dying with tens of thousands more every couple of weeks.

What you ignore is the context of the OP. Should we the tax payer fund this? I say no, let it be funded by private donations from people like YOU maybe?
 
Not misquoting you. Not in the slightest. And, notably, you are an extreme gay basher all over the forum, literally blaming gays and promiscuous people for the fall of the Roman Empire - claiming the USA is following that pattern due to less credence with "Judeo-Christian values" - meaning your gay bashing is also your religion - it all be absurd as Rome fell AFTER it has Christianized.

I would think you would at least attempt to have SOME integrity in your messages somehow - rather than just you and God says AIDS should be used to kill off promiscuous people with AIDS as punishment for their lifestyle. The consequence you want for their "lifestyle" is to die of AIDS, for which the worst thing to happen is to find a vaccine against AIDS.

Your messages are overwhelming the most intensely hateful messages against gays on the forum - worse that Tigger's messages. He wants gay executed. You want to kill them slowly by disease - and no matter who else that risks as they are acceptable collateral damage to you in the genocide you want against promiscuous people and gays - such as the 3,400,000 children with AIDS.

Compared to you, Hilter was a humanitarian. But you and Hilter agreed about gays - other than he too was more merciful in how he had them killed that you want in your messages.

That's quite a personal attack you got going on there, joko. Makes me scared to express an opinion... nearly. ;)

I'd be OK with using tax dollars to fight AIDS. But I'd want my money to go into public education programs to spread the word that AIDS kills. You know, that same word gay supporters try so hard to sweep under the rug and pretend doesn't exist?

When's the last time the 'gay marriage' crowd had a heart-to-heart talk about the dangers of AIDS with a young gay man?

I'd bet never.

Spend my tax dollars educating people. Tell women they're becoming infected at a higher rate than men in this country. Often via transmission by a spouse who has sex with other men. Don't believe lots of married man have sex with other men on the side? Log onto an adult chatroom and count the MM4M players. Don't be naive. AIDS kills.
 
When's the last time the 'gay marriage' crowd had a heart-to-heart talk about the dangers of AIDS with a young gay man?

I'd bet never.

You'd be very, very wrong. There are a number of organizations in and outside of the gay community that do exactly that. I'm on my phone right now. Or I'd look them up for you. You might also want to have a word with the right wing jackasses who promote abstinence only sex ed before claiming that pro gay rights people are trying to sweep anything under the rug.
 
You'd be very, very wrong. There are a number of organizations in and outside of the gay community that do exactly that. I'm on my phone right now. Or I'd look them up for you. You might also want to have a word with the right wing jackasses who promote abstinence only sex ed before claiming that pro gay rights people are trying to sweep anything under the rug.

Depends on what you're looking at... gay rights or gay men dying of AIDS.

My stepbrother died of AIDS in April 2012 at the age of 51. Not interested in discussing the circumstances, but suffice it to say I've gone to the funerals of nearly ALL his friends and those who survived him are HIV+.

How many gay senior citizens do you know?
 
Depends on what you're looking at... gay rights or gay men dying of AIDS.

My stepbrother died of AIDS in April 2012 at the age of 51. Not interested in discussing the circumstances, but suffice it to say I've gone to the funerals of nearly ALL his friends and those who survived him are HIV+.

How many gay senior citizens do you know?

I don't know any senior citizens at all. I do know a number of gay men in their 50s.
 
I don't know any senior citizens at all. I do know a number of gay men in their 50s.

They're lucky. The odds are against 'em, depending on the lifestyle they chose when they were young. Gay men usually have many partners. Each partner multiplies the chance of contracting HIV. Add a little partying and some coke... get careless once, and you're living with a death sentence.

You say there are private organizations that educate groups on the dangers of AIDS? Wonder who their audience is... do you know? Not schools, that's for sure. A few statistics may be thrown out... but no way is a liberal institution gonna admit there's any problem associated with being gay.
 
They're lucky. The odds are against 'em, depending on the lifestyle they chose when they were young. Gay men usually have many partners. Each partner multiplies the chance of contracting HIV. Add a little partying and some coke... get careless once, and you're living with a death sentence.

You say there are private organizations that educate groups on the dangers of AIDS? Wonder who their audience is... do you know? Not schools, that's for sure. A few statistics may be thrown out... but no way is a liberal institution gonna admit there's any problem associated with being gay.



This kinda sounds like the transexual that you work with that you mentioned on another forum. Now all of the sudden your brother die of aids? Seems to me that your rants both here and on other forums about gays, transexuals, or anything you do not like. You seem to have to make it a personal story to justify your beliefs. Why is that?
The sad thing is people who are so uncomfortable with themselves call it a "lifestyle". I think our money is better spent on finding a cure for this as opposed to giving corporate welfare, and funding wars we have no business being in. There is nothing wrong with being gay, and the 80's slogan that it a gay problem is very sinical thought process. I find it funny that there are still a few people in this world that think gays sleep around more that straight people. Delusional is what it should be called!
 
Ladies and gentlemen lets get down to the crux of the matter if we can.

The dishonourable gentlemen from Idaho's opinion in the original post is pure, unadulterated, judgemental crap.

Shared only by those who are in extreme opposition to homosexuality and fornication.

The dishonourable gentlemen from Idaho has on many occasions expressed such extreme views as thinking that Gay marriage will lead to legal sex with children so we know where his views come from.

Opposition to gay marriage and sex outside of wedlock is quickly becoming an extinct idea and increasingly becoming viewed as intolerant in an ever changing world that is more accepting of one of our basic human desires, to have sex.

I contest that his views are not only ignorant, but downright disgusting as the very notion that even if someone were to do something that we disagree with, having sex in a way we don't approve of, or being riskier in sexual activities than the general population deserves to die the horrible death that AIDS inflicts on it's victims is not only abbhorent but shows that a person with such views swims in a sea of unintelligence, inexperience, lack of education and most important of all insensitivity to the millions of victims around the world who did not choose their fate, but had this horrible disease thrust upon them.

This disease is a social, economic and moral issue that deserves our utmost attention.

Millions of my countrymen have paid the price for lack of action towards this disease in the 90's and early 2000's due to attitudes like Sawyers and I will oppose it in the strongest terms wherever I see them.

That's the word I stick to it.

Jetboogieman

:peace
 
They're lucky. The odds are against 'em, depending on the lifestyle they chose when they were young. Gay men usually have many partners. Each partner multiplies the chance of contracting HIV. Add a little partying and some coke... get careless once, and you're living with a death sentence.

You say there are private organizations that educate groups on the dangers of AIDS? Wonder who their audience is... do you know? Not schools, that's for sure. A few statistics may be thrown out... but no way is a liberal institution gonna admit there's any problem associated with being gay.

No liberal organization is going to admit that there's a problem with being gay because there isn't a problem with being gay. There are problems associated with unprotected sex, which is certainly a problem in the gay male community (especially the younger ones), just like it's a problem for straight people (especially those who engage in anal sex). But there is no problem with being gay. I live in San Francisco. Most of the older gay men I know are basically monogamous. My first exposure to gay culture came from my uncle (who lives in Manhattan). He and his partner of 30+ years got married a few months ago. The stereotype - which apparently is consistent with your experiences - is waning in popularity.
 
Ladies and gentlemen lets get down to the crux of the matter if we can.

The dishonourable gentlemen from Idaho's opinion in the original post is pure, unadulterated, judgemental crap.

Shared only by those who are in extreme opposition to homosexuality and fornication.

The dishonourable gentlemen from Idaho has on many occasions expressed such extreme views as thinking that Gay marriage will lead to legal sex with children so we know where his views come from.

Opposition to gay marriage and sex outside of wedlock is quickly becoming an extinct idea and increasingly becoming viewed as intolerant in an ever changing world that is more accepting of one of our basic human desires, to have sex.

I contest that his views are not only ignorant, but downright disgusting as the very notion that even if someone were to do something that we disagree with, having sex in a way we don't approve of, or being riskier in sexual activities than the general population deserves to die the horrible death that AIDS inflicts on it's victims is not only abbhorent but shows that a person with such views swims in a sea of unintelligence, inexperience, lack of education and most important of all insensitivity to the millions of victims around the world who did not choose their fate, but had this horrible disease thrust upon them.

This disease is a social, economic and moral issue that deserves our utmost attention.

Millions of my countrymen have paid the price for lack of action towards this disease in the 90's and early 2000's due to attitudes like Sawyers and I will oppose it in the strongest terms wherever I see them.

That's the word I stick to it.

Jetboogieman

:peace

This is great stuff right here !!
 
All of it.

My country of South Africa has been ravaged by HIV aids.

Your thoughts are not only wrong, but disgusting if you are trying to make the claim that 100's of thousands of my countrymen deserve to die because of something you THINK they did but don't actually know.

You're an insult to intelligence.


most if the AIDS in sub-saharan africa comes from several factors that unite in unholy matrimony

the first is the myth that an infected man can cure his AIDS by having sex with virgins.

second is that anal straight intercourse is a common form of "birth control"


third is the nomadic nature of many man in that area

so when you have nomadic men having unprotected anal sex with increasingly younger women that passes on massive amounts of STDS which in turn makes people ideal potential victims of AIDS.


and yes, those young girls who get buggered by infected men who are in turn infected themselves are not to blame. frankly I would lose no sleep if men who knowingly infect young girls were shot or physically rendered permanently incapable of infecting other girls. they are pretty much dead men walking anyway

but we need to continue to try to find a cure for that disease for those who are innocent victims
 
That's quite a personal attack you got going on there, joko. Makes me scared to express an opinion... nearly. ;)

I'd be OK with using tax dollars to fight AIDS. But I'd want my money to go into public education programs to spread the word that AIDS kills. You know, that same word gay supporters try so hard to sweep under the rug and pretend doesn't exist?

When's the last time the 'gay marriage' crowd had a heart-to-heart talk about the dangers of AIDS with a young gay man?

I'd bet never.

Spend my tax dollars educating people. Tell women they're becoming infected at a higher rate than men in this country. Often via transmission by a spouse who has sex with other men. Don't believe lots of married man have sex with other men on the side? Log onto an adult chatroom and count the MM4M players. Don't be naive. AIDS kills.

You make a good point here. Government spends alot educating people on the dangers of smoking but little if any on the danger of behaviors that cause AIDS. I will make an add for them.


aids.jpg


If you engage in promiscuous sex, WEAR A CONDOM!

If you are a drug addict DON'T SHARE NEEDLES!
 
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

And how effective are those drugs at killing the AIDS virus??
 
Ladies and gentlemen lets get down to the crux of the matter if we can.

The dishonourable gentlemen from Idaho's opinion in the original post is pure, unadulterated, judgemental crap.

Shared only by those who are in extreme opposition to homosexuality and fornication.

The dishonourable gentlemen from Idaho has on many occasions expressed such extreme views as thinking that Gay marriage will lead to legal sex with children so we know where his views come from.

Opposition to gay marriage and sex outside of wedlock is quickly becoming an extinct idea and increasingly becoming viewed as intolerant in an ever changing world that is more accepting of one of our basic human desires, to have sex.

I contest that his views are not only ignorant, but downright disgusting as the very notion that even if someone were to do something that we disagree with, having sex in a way we don't approve of, or being riskier in sexual activities than the general population deserves to die the horrible death that AIDS inflicts on it's victims is not only abbhorent but shows that a person with such views swims in a sea of unintelligence, inexperience, lack of education and most important of all insensitivity to the millions of victims around the world who did not choose their fate, but had this horrible disease thrust upon them.

This disease is a social, economic and moral issue that deserves our utmost attention.

Millions of my countrymen have paid the price for lack of action towards this disease in the 90's and early 2000's due to attitudes like Sawyers and I will oppose it in the strongest terms wherever I see them.

That's the word I stick to it.

Jetboogieman

:peace

First of all, your lumping two groups together, that should be separate.
1. Those who contract AIDS by their own actions. (sharing needles or through sexual intercourse)
2. Those who contract AIDS by unfortunate accidents such as contaminated medical equipment or during child birth.

You act like anyone who isn’t in line with your progressive ideas, is behind the time, when in reality those progressive ideas are the very cause of the epidemic in question! You act like you are the ones with all the forward thinking ideas, and the rest of us are uneducated hillbillies. The fact that you can claim to be so informed and educated and still advocate for the ideas of sexual freedom outside of marriage and gay acceptance, and at the same time, turn a blind eye to the dangers associated with both, tells me that you are merely a lost voice in a sea of voices trying to drown out all opposition and rational thought, in an effort to justify your actions.
Just because this gentleman from Idaho disagrees with you, and has a different set of moral values, does not make him dishonorable. To bring his honor into question in such a inappropriate way only goes to show how little you yourself have. The attitude of these forward thinkers, is to do what they want and blame the consequences on those who oppose them, as if the very act of opposition creates the consequences and brings about the reality. This is evidenced in the fact that you blame the fate of your countrymen on the attitude of others, instead of the actions of the men and women who made the choices in the first place! You cannot blame unintelligence, inexperience, lack of education and insensitivity. These may be contributors in certain areas of the world, but you yourself profess to be the opposite of all of these things, and yet in your free thinking attitude, you still maintain that its not only ok, but its encouraged to do the very things that education and experience would dictate otherwise. You want your cake and you want to eat it too, and if there are any problems that arise, blame the guy from Idaho.
 
You make a good point here. Government spends alot educating people on the dangers of smoking but little if any on the danger of behaviors that cause AIDS. I will make an add for them.


View attachment 67139049


If you engage in promiscuous sex, WEAR A CONDOM!

If you are a drug addict DON'T SHARE NEEDLES!

Exactly. Instead of waiting until it's too late, then paying for ads like this:

hiv_black_men_philly.jpg


AIDS is growing fastest in the black community. Too bad Michelle Obama didn't focus on that issue instead of bullying America's fat kids. Her attention might've made a real difference. Fat chance, huh?
 
Exactly. Instead of waiting until it's too late, then paying for ads like this:

hiv_black_men_philly.jpg


AIDS is growing fastest in the black community. Too bad Michelle Obama didn't focus on that issue instead of bullying America's fat kids. Her attention might've made a real difference. Fat chance, huh?

As they say, "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure".
 
Not a good example because you can get cancer for basically no reason at all. Sometimes cell division just goes bad all by itself.

And you can get HIV through absolutely no fault of your own, such as being punched by someone who is infected (blood to blood transmission) or in the case of infants who get it from their mother's breast milk. Sometimes crap just happens, but if we are gonna start dictating that risky lifestyle choices should be calculated into whether or not research of a disease gets funding, that should also apply to cancer, because you can exponentially increase your chance of cancer through risky behaviors just as you can exponentially increase your risk of HIV infection through risky behaviors.
 
As they say, "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure".

Where did your critical thinking go once the political name dropping started? Why not compare the number of people who die every year as a result of health problems resulting from a sedentary lifestyle as opposed to the number of deaths resulting from AIDS? I think you are going to find far, far more of the former than the latter. If it is a number's game as you have tried to push in this thread, then Michell had it right.
 
Where did your critical thinking go once the political name dropping started? Why not compare the number of people who die every year as a result of health problems resulting from a sedentary lifestyle as opposed to the number of deaths resulting from AIDS? I think you are going to find far, far more of the former than the latter. If it is a number's game as you have tried to push in this thread, then Michell had it right.

I'm not sure I follow you on this. All I am saying is we spend disproportionately on AIDS research and another good point was brought up by bigmouthlady, the money would be far less and far more productive if spent on prevention education instead of cure.

EDIT: Actually I think it's bigmouthwoman, from the Johnny Cash song I bet, long legged man. :lol:
Second EDIT: I looked, its smartmouthwoman, guess thats what I get for b eing a JC fan.
 
Can you justify spending more on AIDS than on any other disease and probably even all other diseases put together?

Because it will indefinitely kill you and it shouldn't even be a factor in human life. Show me the numbers of research money spent by solely taxpayers and I will believe you. Besides, I am almost certain that camcer centers receive more in donations than do AIDS centers.
 
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.

It doesn't matter why AIDS gets spreads. It spreads. And the impact of the disease is very harsh, though medications have greatly improved the standard of living of those who suffer this illness.

So yes, taxpayer money should be spent on AIDS in regards to prevention and treatment.
 
My problem is this is a very preventable disease and it takes research time and money from other diseases that people get through no fault of their own.
HIV Aids sometimes strikes the innocent....that is reason enough to look for a cure. Also, a breakthrough with AIDS might allow us to learn something that helps cure similar illnesses.
So, we should study the disease and seek a cure, but the innocent should be saved first.....
 
I'm not sure I follow you on this. All I am saying is we spend disproportionately on AIDS research and another good point was brought up by bigmouthlady, the money would be far less and far more productive if spent on prevention education instead of cure.

Since you are so informed on this topic...which I highly doubt you are...how much money is actually spent by the government on AIDS research as compared to other diseases and what proportion of all money spent on AIDS is spent on prevention efforts. I mean...when you make the argument that a "disproportionate" amount is spent without knowing any of the numbers that leads me to believe you are just saying that any amount spent on AIDS research is too much.
 
Since you are so informed on this topic...which I highly doubt you are...how much money is actually spent by the government on AIDS research as compared to other diseases and what proportion of all money spent on AIDS is spent on prevention efforts. I mean...when you make the argument that a "disproportionate" amount is spent without knowing any of the numbers that leads me to believe you are just saying that any amount spent on AIDS research is too much.

You must not have read this whole thread, I have put numbers and pie charts documenting everything I say, Three BILLION in AIDS research, fifteen BILLION annually in drugs to keep AIDS victims above ground.
 
And how effective are those drugs at killing the AIDS virus??

That's not what they do, but they make a huge difference in life expectancy. The fact that you think because we don't have a vaccine now, we will never have a vaccine is very ignorant.
 
Back
Top Bottom