Is AIDS a thing of the past?

[James2097]

They should stop all the religious stuff in Africa - it stopped many people over there using condoms for a long time, cause the church said it was bad. The church is a major contributor to the spread of AIDS worldwide. A harsh statement but true, undeniably.

 

[BMWteamPTG]

They should stop all the religious stuff in Africa - it stopped many people over there using condoms for a long time, cause the church said it was bad. The church is a major contributor to the spread of AIDS worldwide. A harsh statement but true, undeniably.

ouch..harsh statement but i kinda have to agree. especially knowing that the catholic church denies their congregation the use of condoms. its against their beliefs.why...i dont know

im not catholic...methodist i am...

 

[Swift]

They should stop all the religious stuff in Africa - it stopped many people over there using condoms for a long time, cause the church said it was bad. The church is a major contributor to the spread of AIDS worldwide. A harsh statement but true, undeniably.

First, you shouldn't say the "church" That implies every single person that believes in Christ.

Now, a total view of my faith in regard to sex is abstinance outside of marriage. Hence no need for condoms because you're not having sex. You can't blame the spead of AIDS on the church. That's like blaming murders on guns. People choose to have unprotected sex. It's rough but if they contract HIV, that's part of the risk.

Did the "church" say go "have sex with whoever you want and don't use a condom." Or did they say, "Don't use a condom because you should be married before having sex" Big difference there.

 

[Danoff]

*ahurm* (I know we've talked of this before)...

But there has been a recent development...

Much as I agree that AIDS and combatting it is a problem best solved by abstinence, condoms and education (hey, let's A.C.E. A.I.D.S.), none of those "cures" have proven to work very well.

Because people are stupid.

Education - same as abstinence. Not likely to work very well in areas where the basics of education aren't very well established anyway.

Ah, proving my point.

I agree, people are stupid, but are you going to let those screwed virgins suffer for other people's mistakes?

So you don't think the virgins are stupid? Maybe they were raped. Yes, it sucks to get aids from someone as a result of rape - is that what the cure is for?

This cocktail is much like the condom solution. Works to prevent it if you don't have it, thus, it does nothing for those who already have AIDS. Not to mention the cost... how much would it cost a non-Westerner to dose up every time they want to shack up? That's part of what hampers condom use in the real world, and if you have to take these drugs continuously, this development means zip for a lot of "at-risk" populations out there.

These drugs are a little better than condoms in that they'd work for women as well as men.

People have been getting the big "C" for ages... it's not entirely preventable, but given the proper diet and environmental conditions, chances are minimal, and with early intervention, it's cureable. So why should we waste money on something people can avoid having or cure if they spot it quickly enough? (Just to throw the question back at you guys... I do believe Cancer Research is a worthy endeavor).

Because you can't avoid cancer and it isn't curable. Yes, you can reduce your chances. Yes, maybe you can have surgery to have the infected part of your body removed. Yes, you can damn near kill yourself by blasting the cancer with radiation in hopes of getting rid of it. But none of that is guaranteed to work.

Cancer is a much bigger threat than AIDS. If everyone used condoms, AIDS could be eliminated quickly. There is no easy solution for the elimination of cancer.

 

[James2097]

First, you shouldn't say the "church" That implies every single person that believes in Christ.

You know as well as I do that I only meant it in the sense of the catholic teachings that they don't like people using condoms.

Now, a total view of my faith in regard to sex is abstinance outside of marriage. Hence no need for condoms because you're not having sex. You can't blame the spead of AIDS on the church. That's like blaming murders on guns. People choose to have unprotected sex. It's rough but if they contract HIV, that's part of the risk.

Talk about solutions for a world that doesn't exist anymore. Be part of the solution, not the problem! People are gonna have sex regardless of your morals or idealised world viewport regarding sex. Accepting this as the way things are, you still want people in Africa to not use condoms and get AIDS and die? Its not their fault. Humans are just programmed to have sex when they like each other, regardless of faith, marriage, whatever.

Did the "church" say go "have sex with whoever you want and don't use a condom." Or did they say, "Don't use a condom because you should be married before having sex" Big difference there.

No, they didn't say that obviously, but they steadfastly refuse to realise the world isn't like their idealised teachings and adapt to the fact people are dying, and are gonna keep dying, but this is apparently OK because these people are making this huge misjudgement and are not good catholics... Hence these teachings are causing a great problem of people dying from AIDS because some people won't use a condom as they think its sinful!

BTW, according to you, every time someone has sex, you want to concieve a child? Talk about a repressed stance from the dark ages or what! The world isn't like this anymore, and its proven to not work at all (ie the majority of people aren't innately evil but they apparently sin a lot)! People still deserve to LIVE and not die!

 

[Swift]

You know as well as I do that I only meant it in the sense of the catholic teachings that they don't like people using condoms.

No I didn't. But now I do.

Talk about solutions for a world that doesn't exist anymore. Be part of the solution, not the problem! People are gonna have sex regardless of your morals or idealised world viewport regarding sex. Accepting this as the way things are, you still want people in Africa to not use condoms and get AIDS and die? Its not their fault. Humans are just programmed to have sex when they like each other, regardless of faith, marriage, whatever.

But people AREN'T going to have sex(just because) if they understand the moral and physical implications of it beyond pregnancy.

No, they didn't say that obviously, but they steadfastly refuse to realise the world isn't like their idealised teachings and adapt to the fact people are dying, and are gonna keep dying, but this is apparently OK because these people are making this huge misjudgement and are not good catholics... Hence these teachings are causing a great problem of people dying from AIDS because some people won't use a condom as they think its sinful!

If people are being taught sex is good and condoms are bad outside of marriage then they are being handed a loaded, chambered gun with the hammer already cocked. That's just stupid. It's like asking a 1 year old not to suffacate while playing with a plastic bag. It's sheer stupidity and not anything that I would associate with.

BTW, according to you, every time someone has sex, you want to concieve a child? Talk about a repressed stance from the dark ages or what! The world isn't like this anymore, and its proven to not work at all (ie the majority of people aren't innately evil but they apparently sin a lot)! People still deserve to LIVE and not die!

Can you show me where I said that? No? Because I never did. What I said was sex is for married couples. Knock yourself out, go for a world record for having as much sex as possible in one day. So, yeah, you may want to check yourself before you tell someone else what they think. I think sex is great, but history and the current state of affairs has proven that if this philosophy was adopted by the people, it would quell the AIDS and other STD's that plague our planet.

 

[James2097]

No I didn't. But now I do.

Good, it wasn't difficult.

But people AREN'T going to have sex(just because) if they understand the moral and physical implications of it beyond pregnancy.

Yes they are. Sex is a VERY strong emotional drive. People will do it no matter what. Besides, we're talking about Africa in particular, its not their fault for not being taught properly about STDs etc!

If people are being taught sex is good and condoms are bad outside of marriage then they are being handed a loaded, chambered gun with the hammer already cocked. That's just stupid. It's like asking a 1 year old not to suffacate while playing with a plastic bag. It's sheer stupidity and not anything that I would associate with.

Its not they're being taught that, they're being taught that condoms are bad, when they are in fact, the single easiest and best (ignoring not having sex which you'll bring up - but just ain't gonna happen) solution to the AIDS epidemic. That's all I'm saying.

Can you show me where I said that? No? Because I never did. What I said was sex is for married couples. Knock yourself out, go for a world record for having as much sex as possible in one day. So, yeah, you may want to check yourself before you tell someone else what they think. I think sex is great, but history and the current state of affairs has proven that if this philosophy was adopted by the people, it would quell the AIDS and other STD's that plague our planet.

I can EASILY and logically imply that, you said people shouldn't ever use condoms (and hence all means of contraception). Even in marriage I assumed. Hence you couldn't help concieving a child every time you have sex (or nearly everytime depending on the time of the month). Of course you could have a lot of sex in a day if you wanted still, but the woman would definately get pregnant (if it was the right time in her cycle).

So basically I hope you realise the terrible catch 22 regarding the situation for many Africans, but choose to just not care ("...not anything that I would associate with") because they aren't educated (which isn't their fault) and they don't stick to your unworkable ideals and strict sense of righteousness about the world, even when its the catholic church's teachings that are helping them die, you feel no sense that this is wrong on the most basic human-rights level. Nice. Let them die then!

 

[Danoff]

its not their fault for not being taught properly about STDs etc!

Actually, it is.

 

[James2097]

Actually, it is.

With limited funding and isolated schools and not every child even going to school? Umm, how is it their fault? I'm sure they would LIKE to be educated about these things, considering its importance!

You made no attemp to explain why you think its their fault.

Is it my fault for not knowing something even though I can't get access to the info cause I live in a mud hut with bugger all facilities and very rare contact with anyone that would actually help me?

 

[Swift]

James, you're so missing the point that it's not even funny.

If the people ARE educated then it becomes logical to NOT have sex, especially without a condom. Think about it. If people knew the implications and high possibility to contract AIDS, do you think for two seconds that most people would still be engaging in sex? Not in the slightest.

If you still want to be stupid and have sex, at least use a condom.

Also, when did I ever say you shouldn't use any means of contraception? If you're married and don't want a baby right now. Use something, a diaphram or a condom or whatever. Make no mistake, my issue is NOT against condom use, but sex outside of marriage.

 

[Danoff]

With limited funding and isolated schools and not every child even going to school?

Who's fault is that?

 

[James2097]

James, you're so missing the point that it's not even funny.

AIDS isn't funny.

If the people ARE educated then it becomes logical to NOT have sex, especially without a condom. Think about it. If people knew the implications and high possibility to contract AIDS, do you think for two seconds that most people would still be engaging in sex? Not in the slightest.

I'm not missing the point at all - I just know that people will have sex no matter what - yes people really are that irrational! Adam still ate that apple though he knew it was quite a bad choice... Sex is INCREDIBLY strong as an emotional force, not everyone is capable of rationally going... "hmm I'm not gonna have sex right now although I REALLY want to and this girl is really coming onto me..."
Especially in Africa, where they AREN'T educated enough at all and hence don't have the luxury of making that rational choice. In the noted absence of sexual education visa-vi STDs and AIDS, shouldn't condoms be encouraged instead of actively discouraged?

If you still want to be stupid and have sex, at least use a condom.

Quite a turnaround there. You at least would rather they don't get AIDS although they still "sin", evil people they are.

Also, when did I ever say you shouldn't use any means of contraception? If you're married and don't want a baby right now. Use something, a diaphram or a condom or whatever. Make no mistake, my issue is NOT against condom use, but sex outside of marriage.

My thoughts were: Catholics don't like condoms. Why? Its a form of contraception. Now, what makes it any different to other forms of contraception? It acheives the same end, which is the main thing the catholic church was having the moral dillemma about in the first place. Hence, all forms of contraception basically function to commit the same "sin". Hence you can't have sex (and not sin) without the woman getting pregnant. Now of course you've softened a little (I only had the catholic church's opinion to go on before) and said condoms are okay in marriage, very 20th century of you.

 

[James2097]

Who's fault is that?

Don't get into the whole hardline republican "just look after your own and screw world aid" thing please. Your point of view only works if everyone in the world is born with equal chance and oppurtunity to succeed in life.
Its not the fault of that PARTICULAR singular individual that has sex in a mud hut. Bloody hell you take a hard line - I know your opinion Danoff, no need to go into this.

 

[Danoff]

Don't get into the whole hardline republican "just look after your own and screw world aid" thing please. Your point of view only works if everyone in the world is born with equal chance and oppurtunity to succeed in life.
Its not the fault of that PARTICULAR singular individual that has sex in a mud hut. Bloody hell you take a hard line - I know your opinion Danoff, no need to go into this.

It sounds like there is a need to go into it. Who's fault is it that they have "limited funding and isolated schools and not every child even going to school?" You haven't answered the question.

 

[Swift]

AIDS isn't funny.

No, but your views on how incredibly stupid people will act AFTER they fully understand the consequences is.

I'm not missing the point at all - I just know that people will have sex no matter what - yes people really are that irrational! Adam still ate that apple though he knew it was quite a bad choice... Sex is INCREDIBLY strong as an emotional force, not everyone is capable of rationally going... "hmm I'm not gonna have sex right now although I REALLY want to and this girl is really coming onto me..."
Especially in Africa, where they AREN'T educated enough at all and hence don't have the luxury of making that rational choice. In the noted absence of sexual education visa-vi STDs and AIDS, shouldn't condoms be encouraged instead of actively discouraged?

No, they shouldn't be. If you have enough time to talk about condoms, you have enough time to talk about the consequences of sex.

Quite a turnaround there. You at least would rather they don't get AIDS although they still "sin", evil people they are.

When did I say people were "evil". Man, you need to stop this generalizing thing that you do. I still find the "Safe Sex" theme to be retarded. Because there is NO such thing.

My thoughts were: Catholics don't like condoms. Why? Its a form of contraception. Now, what makes it any different to other forms of contraception? It acheives the same end, which is the main thing the catholic church was having the moral dillemma about in the first place. Hence, all forms of contraception basically function to commit the same "sin". Hence you can't have sex (and not sin) without the woman getting pregnant. Now of course you've softened a little (I only had the catholic church's opinion to go on before) and said condoms are okay in marriage, very 20th century of you.

I haven't softened at all. I never upheld that doctrine. Sex is of God and should be enjoyed by a married couple. Big deal? So let me get this straight, the catholic church saying that condoms are bad stopped people from using them, but didn't stop them from having sex just because it's a "strong emotional force"? That sounds like it's on the people's head to me.

Anyway, this has very little to do with religion in any form. What I'm talking about would stop or greatly slow the spread of AIDS in ANY nation. If you don't want to do it for spiritual reasons, do it because you don't want to die of AIDS. Whatever the reason behind it is irrelavant, the point is to stop spreading the disease.

BTW, it's the 21st century now.

 

[James2097]

It sounds like there is a need to go into it. Who's fault is it that they have "limited funding and isolated schools and not every child even going to school?" You haven't answered the question.

Danoff, I know EXACTLY your argument for the next 10 pages and I respectfully decline to go into it. Its for another thread and another time. I will never agree with you on this point. Ever. Trust me you'll never ever convince me nor me you, we'll just stalemate on opposing perspectives.

No, but your views on how incredibly stupid people will act AFTER they fully understand the consequences is.

Umm, since when did they understand the conseuences? I just said they didn't! Thats what we've got to work with here! My god you don't listen to a word I say!

No, they shouldn't be. If you have enough time to talk about condoms, you have enough time to talk about the consequences of sex.

They might use the condoms, they won't ever stop having sex. That is FACT.

When did I say people were "evil". Man, you need to stop this generalizing thing that you do. I still find the "Safe Sex" theme to be retarded. Because there is NO such thing.

Illustrating absurdity by being absurd. Since wasn't sinning "evil"? Evil is sin. Come on man, I'm just teasing cause its such a ridiculous thing to say - but why? of course normal people going about their lives can't be evil! Maybe the catholic church's views are outdated? Hmmm?

Besides, whats this safe sex topic coming along now? Condoms greatly reduce the risk of AIDS and are easy, cheap and convenient. Used correctly, they pretty much make you ok to have sex without really worrying to a great extent. Certainly much better than just not using them. Who cares if its not 100% effective, its the only real option we have in terms of combatting AIDS in Africa on a workable scale (ie BIG). Simply telling people to not have sex is laughable as a real-world solution. I'm sure this is a solution the African people are well aware of (as long as they know they get AIDS from having sex - its a pretty basic bit of info to have... I'm sure this much is understood). There is a reason why AIDS is still a problem. People just keep on having sex. Damn and blast!

Whatever the reason behind it is irrelavant, the point is to stop spreading the disease.

Right. By not having sex. Except in marriage. Wait, some Africans have 10 wifes... etc etc. Its just not going to work Swift, not these days! Condoms can work. To not want to advocate their use (from the catholic church's perspective, which you are backing up - although saying you are ok with condoms in marriage which is a more personal view I assume) is really really irresponsible. That is my point all along. There just ISN'T a good, workable solution other than contraception of some type.

BTW, it's the 21st century now.

Your point of view was 20th century. Contraception first became widespread in that century! No crap its the 21st century now! Sheesh.

 

[Danoff]

Danoff, I know EXACTLY your argument for the next 10 pages and I respectfully decline to go into it. Its for another thread and another time. I will never agree with you here. Ever.

Ok, you don't want to answer the question. That's fine. But you might think twice about throwing around statements like this:

its not their fault for not being taught properly about STDs etc!

...when you'll refuse to answer the most basic possible follow-up question - Who's fault do you think it is?

 

[Swift]

Umm, since when did they understand the conseuences? I just said they didn't! Thats what we've got to work with here! My god you don't listen to a word I say!

Actually, you don't listen to me. I said that your views on how people will act AFTER they have been taught the consequenes is funny. That's what I said. If you read it correctly, you can't comeback with your statement.

They might use the condoms, they won't ever stop having sex. That is FACT.

It's not a fact, it's a habit. That's like saying people will never stop drinking or smoking is a fact. If a person wants to do something bad enough they will. Period.

Besides, whats this safe sex topic coming along now? Condoms greatly reduce the risk of AIDS and are easy, cheap and convenient. Used correctly, they pretty much make you ok to have sex without really worrying to a great extent. Certainly much better than just not using them. Who cares if its not 100% effective, its the only real option we have in terms of combatting AIDS in Africa on a workable scale (ie BIG). Simply telling people to not have sex is laughable as a real-world solution. I'm sure this is a solution the African people are well aware of (as long as they know they get AIDS from having sex - its a pretty basic bit of info to have... I'm sure this much is understood). There is a reason why AIDS is still a problem. People just keep on having sex. Damn and blast!

This is getting even funnier. I'm saying educate people on the consequenses of having sex. Not just "don't use condoms" Are you still stuck on that?

Right. By not having sex. Except in marriage. Wait, some Africans have 10 wifes... etc etc. Its just not going to work Swift, not these days! Condoms can work. To not want to advocate their use (from the catholic church's perspective, which you are backing up - although saying you are ok with condoms in marriage which is a more personal view I assume) is really really irresponsible. That is my point all along. There just ISN'T a good, workable solution other than contraception of some type.

By your own admission condoms aren't 100% effective. My solution is. I didn't say it was easy, just that it would work. And to be honest, if people have sex enough with a condom and nothing happens, they tend to get a little confident and go without. But anyway, there are two main ways to contract HIV. Sex and drug needles. If you eliminate those you take care of ninety some percent of the AIDS cases.

Your point of view was 20th century. Contraception first became widespread in that century! No crap its the 21st century now! Sheesh.

Heh heh.

I don't support the catholic churches views on most everything. Espeically priests and nuns being poor and celabate. That's just stupid to me. But keeping sex inside marriage, even when you have 10 wives would still cut down on the spread of the disease.

 

[James2097]

Ok, you don't want to answer the question. That's fine. But you might think twice about throwing around statements like this:



...when you'll refuse to answer the most basic possible follow-up question - Who's fault do you think it is?

Does it have to be any one person's fault? The question isn't even relevant. We aren't talking about HOW these Africans came to be in this position, we're talking about a solution to help them get rid of AIDS. Just inferring they "had it coming" and all but chortling with zero compassion isn't a point of view I have much respect for, nor does it help anyone but yourself.

Like I said, your point of view ONLY works if everyone in the world is born with the exact same opportunities and life choices. Which is certainly not the case for these Africans. Please, I really don't want to talk about it with you. I know we'll just dead-end ourselves.

 

[Swift]

Does it have to be any one person's fault? The question isn't even relevant. We aren't talking about HOW these Africans came to be in this position, we're talking about a solution to help them get rid of AIDS. Just inferring they "had it coming" and all but chortling with zero compassion isn't a point of view I have much respect for, nor does it help anyone but yourself.

Like I said, your point of view ONLY works if everyone in the world is born with the exact same opportunities and life choices. Which is certainly not the case for these Africans. Please, I really don't want to talk about it with you. I know we'll just dead-end ourselves.

Actually, it would be on the shoulders of the respective governments of those countries.

And why don't you want to talk about it with Danoff? I talk about creation with Famine and I know for a fact I'm not about to change his mind.

 

[Carl.]

...when you'll refuse to answer the most basic possible follow-up question - Who's fault do you think it is?

What exactly does that have to do with research on aids being worthwhile or not?

The only thing, besides their lack of education, that contributed to the spread of AIDS is the influence of the Catholic church.

But hey, I see this coming from miles away. It's not OUR fault, so we don't have to do anything for them. Again, that's beside the point. If AIDS remains widespread, that means it remains a risk for everyone, even if it is a much lower risk for us. We all benefit from this in the end, I don't see the issue here.

Do you have any kind of information on the amount being spent on AIDS research by the government (I assume - read: am 400% sure - that this is what you have a problem with) vs the amount spent on cancer research?

 

[James2097]

Actually, you don't listen to me. I said that your views on how people will act AFTER they have been taught the consequenes is funny. That's what I said. If you read it correctly, you can't comeback with your statement.

To talk about what you do after they're educated doesn't really help, I never accepted that platform for disscussion as realistic. Because at the moment, they're not educated. I'm talking about solutions that could actually work today.

It's not a fact, it's a habit. That's like saying people will never stop drinking or smoking is a fact. If a person wants to do something bad enough they will. Period.

Yeah right! Period! People have sex no matter what! Its how we procreate!
You realise I'm just not going to agree here?

This is getting even funnier. I'm saying educate people on the consequenses of having sex. Not just "don't use condoms" Are you still stuck on that?

You have no idea how funny you are yourself. I made it clear you were backing up the catholic church's views, which IS "don't use condoms"! (plus the throwaway bit about not having sex which isn't realistic in the slightest).

By your own admission condoms aren't 100% effective. My solution is. I didn't say it was easy, just that it would work. And to be honest, if people have sex enough with a condom and nothing happens, they tend to get a little confident and go without. But anyway, there are two main ways to contract HIV. Sex and drug needles. If you eliminate those you take care of ninety some percent of the AIDS cases.

Your solution is 100% effective in THEORY. Absolutely laughable in the real world, with real people. Of course it isn't easy - so hard its impossible for the vast majority of people in Africa me thinks - as proven by the fact they know you get AIDS from sex, yet strangely, KEEP HAVING SEX. Funny that. You have no idea how ridiculous you are being! Its all theory and no realism!

My solution is very effective in the real world as a solution to help RIGHT NOW. As has been proven in multiple African communities already.

Heh heh.

I don't support the catholic churches views on most everything. Espeically priests and nuns being poor and celabate. That's just stupid to me. But keeping sex inside marriage, even when you have 10 wives would still cut down on the spread of the disease.

You rebel.

 

[James2097]

Actually, it would be on the shoulders of the respective governments of those countries.

I'm well aware this the answer Danoff wanted me to say... hence the whole thing about people taking responsibility for themselves etc etc that I went on about in regards Danoff's opinions... I'm just a few pages ahead in the convo. Its ok Swift.

And why don't you want to talk about it with Danoff? I talk about creation with Famine and I know for a fact I'm not about to change his mind.

Because its 7am I need to sleep still. And I would happily talk to Famine about anything, he's much less annoying!

I'm just practising something called "not trying to needlessly get myself into another lengthy in-depth debate at 7 in the morning on a topic that will get me frustrated and achieve nothing else". Its also off-topic.

 

[Swift]

To talk about what you do after they're educated doesn't really help, I never accepted that platform for disscussion as realistic. Because at the moment, they're not educated. I'm talking about solutions that could actually work today.

So, you give them a condom and say, "Strap this on and you'll be ok" Sure, short term you may be fine, but in the long run it's NOT going to work. I'm not talking about a band-aid fix here. And neither was danoff, we're talking about a way to stop the situation at the source instead of trying to patch it.

Yeah right! Period! People have sex no matter what! Its how we procreate!
You realise I'm just not going to agree here?

When did I say dont' have sex? I said that people can do what they want to. So, they will have sex when they so choose not just "because". I was putting my statement in more literal terms so that people could understand where I was coming from and the fact that people aren't always slaves to their emotions.

You have no idea how funny you are yourself. I made it clear you were backing up the catholic church's views, which IS "don't use condoms"! (plus the throwaway bit about not having sex which isn't realistic in the slightest).

Just because faiths share a few points doesn't mean I support the catholic church's views. As I already stated. For instance, catholics believe that Mary was born from a virgin as well, they are pretty much they only "religion" to believe that. I do not. See my point?

Your solution is 100% effective in THEORY. Absolutely laughable in the real world, with real people. Of course it isn't easy - so hard its impossible for the vast majority of people in Africa me thinks - as proven by the fact they know you get AIDS from sex, yet strangely, KEEP HAVING SEX. Funny that. You have no idea how ridiculous you are being! Its all theory and no realism!

You know what. Your views remind me of how public school is run in AMerica right now. Just throw something at it to make it look better and appear to be better in the eyes of the media and it'll be fine. That's not how you get things done in the long run.

My solution is very effective in the real world as a solution to help RIGHT NOW. As has been proven in multiple African communities already.

That's great! So, what happens in say 5 years when all the AIDS cases in a particular comminuty are gone? People go back to the way things were and we start that roller coaster all over again.

You rebel.

Nope, I'm just not Catholic. And it seems that's the only viewpoint you have any knowledge of. I would suggest studying a few others as well. It just may enlighten you a bit.

I'm well aware this the answer Danoff wanted me to say... hence the whole thing about people taking responsibility for themselves etc etc that I went on about in regards Danoff's opinions... I'm just a few pages ahead in the convo. Its ok Swift.

Wow, patronizing me, interesting.

I know you know where he was going. But as he's pointed out to me before, should you not have a way of countering it if you KNOW where he's going?

Also, the Edit button is your friend...double posts are bad.

 

[James2097]

Goodnight. Don't be so offended about me patronising you, you've been doing it to me all night. You get what you give. You've just assumed a whole lot of cobblers about what I Do/don't know about, so goodnight for now.

Yes, I will happily debate you and Danoff another day if it would make you so happy.

 

[Swift]

Goodnight. Don't be so offended about me patronising you, you've been doing it to me all night. You get what you give. You've just assumed a whole lot of cobblers about what I Do/don't know about, so goodnight for now.

Yes, I will happily debate you and Danoff another day if it would make you so happy.

Nope, I haven't patronized you once. Just taken from what you've said. Now, if I've mispoke, feel free to correct me. but as of right now I don't believe I have.

You show what you do and don't know about by what you post and the way you post. So if someone misunderstands what you mean, then correct them or change the way you post. Can't have it both ways.

I'm looking forward to your solution of condoms being more then a very short term solution.

Have a good sleep.

 

[Danoff]

Does it have to be any one person's fault? The question isn't even relevant. We aren't talking about HOW these Africans came to be in this position, we're talking about a solution to help them get rid of AIDS. Just inferring they "had it coming" and all but chortling with zero compassion isn't a point of view I have much respect for, nor does it help anyone but yourself.

I didn't say they "had it coming" nor do I think that. I don't have zero compassion on the issue either. Nor am I a republican which you assumed earlier. Nor does a "zero compassion" point of view help myself, OR not help others.

I'm not sure you could have been more wrong there.

I'm well aware of the fact that this is off topic in my thread. But you said something that I take issue with.

Like I said, your point of view ONLY works if everyone in the world is born with the exact same opportunities and life choices. Which is certainly not the case for these Africans. Please, I really don't want to talk about it with you. I know we'll just dead-end ourselves.

Running away from a conversation that hasn't started doesn't strike me as all that confident. But I disagree wholeheartedly that my views only work if "everyone in the world is born with the exact same opportunities and life choices".

What exactly does that have to do with research on aids being worthwhile or not?

Well if it turns out that we're responsible for the AIDS epidemic in Africa, it makes a lot of difference. Another thing that makes a difference is whether people can be held accountable for not getting educated.

But hey, I see this coming from miles away. It's not OUR fault, so we don't have to do anything for them. Again, that's beside the point.

It makes a big difference as to whether we should fund AIDS research actually.

If AIDS remains widespread, that means it remains a risk for everyone, even if it is a much lower risk for us. We all benefit from this in the end, I don't see the issue here.

The issue is that we have an extremely effective prevention method already - so why fund new ones?

Do you have any kind of information on the amount being spent on AIDS research by the government (I assume - read: am 400% sure - that this is what you have a problem with) vs the amount spent on cancer research?

No, I don't. I'm sure that our government funds AIDS research and that it funds all kinds of AIDS prevention activity in Africa. I'd suggest that pretty much all of that money go to cancer if it has to go somewhere (regardless of how much is spent on cancer).

 

[Carl.]

Effective method or not, there is over 1 million cases currently in the US, and around 40K new cases on a yearly basis. It's nowhere as deadly as cancer might be, but that still deserves some attention.

And how you can blame someone for being born at the wrong place, at the wrong time is beyond me, but I guess we already had that discussion several times.

Also how you can complaint about spending a fraction of your military budget to cure a disease is also beyond me, especially considering how costly "liberating" Iraq was.

 

[Danoff]

Effective method or not, there is over 1 million cases currently in the US, and around 40K new cases on a yearly basis. It's nowhere as deadly as cancer might be, but that still deserves some attention.

99% of those cases were probably preventable.

And how you can blame someone for being born at the wrong place, at the wrong time is beyond me, but I guess we already had that discussion several times.

I'm not.

Also how you can complaint about spending a fraction of your military budget to cure a disease is also beyond me, especially considering how costly "liberating" Iraq was.

Is it seriously necessary to bring Iraq into every thread? How about this. Liberating the Iraqis from Saddam's dictatorship has the potential to make Americans (and the world in general) safer. AIDS research? Not so much.

 

[Carl.]

99% of those cases were probably preventable.

I won't pull any percentage out of hot air, but I'm quite sure a lot of cancers are easily avoidable too.

And condoms or not, accident still happen.

I'm not.

You're really close to, if you're not.

Is it seriously necessary to bring Iraq into every thread? How about this. Liberating the Iraqis from Saddam's dictatorship has the potential to make Americans (and the world in general) safer. AIDS research? Not so much.

It's funny, I often wanted to ask if that is necessary to bring libertarianism into every thread.

You know, Iraq is very questionable, but you must be right, stopping a pandemic would never make the word a safer place... point closed.