I'd like you to explain what any of what you posted had to do with this thread. You don't need to type slower, just understandably. If your poor grammer is due to typing too fast, then yes... please slow down.
i would like to see you write in another language you dumb american fuck, you have not even left your homeland
Well isn't that special. Yes i have left my 'homeland', and do so monthly. And incase you haven't noticed this is an english board. Now, I don't mind your grammer so much, as you saying stuff that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic. Now if you wish to actually discuss and stop bitching, fine... else I'm not going to bother responding to you.
Not everyone with AIDS is evil and/or nuts. Most people would not willingly spread AI Ohh not like whores, or druggies, or ppl who rape. Of course it's all butter and tea. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Get real, there are ppl like that and there are ppl who don't care, and what we are going to let out murderers to because not all of them are going to kill again. Sorry one size does fit all. If we shot all AIDS patients the infection rate would go to zero. Just because something makes the infection rate go down does not make it right. Hedonistic calculus never worked, and your application of it here, without even taking all variables into account, is downright wrong. I;d sadly have that rather then killing 10x more in the future with AIDS. Again your not making any logical sense, see what happens when rights go too far, they essentially hurt society. The Plague is a perfect example and AIDS is a inferno that must be stopped.
Re: Not everyone with AIDS is evil and/or nuts. Most people would not willingly spread AI Originally posted by nico Ohh not like whores, or druggies, or ppl who rape. Well, if all people with AIDS are whores, druggies, or ppl who rape, then don't sleep with whores, druggies, or ppl who rape. We punish murders because they killed. Unless you want to make sex a crime, you can not punish people simply for having AIDS.
then don't sleep with whores, druggies, or ppl who rape. Let ppl who get raped have a choice Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! We punish murders because they killed. Unless you want to make sex a crime, you can not punish people simply for having AIDS. I could consider AIDS patients walking murders as well, or better still walking time bombs. Sorry logicly if you want to rid of a incurrable disease then get rid of the carriers it's as easy as 1,2,3.
Originally posted by nico Let ppl who get raped have a choice Using this logic we should put everyone with muscles in jail because they will eventually hit someone. Do you know what small percentage of AIDS patients also happen to be rapists? Yet you still want to punish all of them? I could consider AIDS patients walking murders as well, or better still walking time bombs. Walking murders? Perhaps they never slept with anyone after getting AIDS. After being told, most of them wouldn't willingly sleep with someone uninfected. So know, not all AIDS patients are time bombs. Sorry logicly if you want to rid of a incurrable disease then get rid of the carriers it's as easy as 1,2,3. Or you could just tell them they have it. If they then spread it, you put them in jail. It's as easy as 1,2,3. If you want to go around punishing innocent people, you are going to hit very stiff resistance. There are many things we could do to save lives, but this does not mean that we do.There are limits to what we as a society will not do. Sending others to prison because they have a disease is one thing society (especially a democratic one) would not do. People would not go for a measure which would send people they know (and possibly themselves) to a prison camp to die. It's funny that you don't believe in trust and responsibility, yet you have no problem assuming that the government would be both. People know EXACTLY how AIDS is spread. If you do not feel like being responsible, they you are responsible for the outcome.
Yet you still want to punish all of them? As you said they all have the ablity to rape so yes. And I think you got a wrong idea about this, i am not going to kill them there own disease will so I feel no problems. Walking murders? Perhaps they never slept with anyone after getting AIDS. After being told, most of them wouldn't willingly sleep with someone uninfected. So know, not all AIDS patients are time bombs. 1/100 maybe, so again unless we have a way to know which one then all must go leave in isolation. U think that I enjoy this? No, but I also recongize that this is a un-nessecary threat on humanity. People know EXACTLY how AIDS is spread. If you do not feel like being responsible, they you are responsible for the outcome. Tell that to wives who get AIDS from there loving husbands please man you sound petty now with democracy, and freedom. What a bunch of poppy cock. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Re: Yet you still want to punish all of them? Originally posted by nico As you said they all have the ablity to rape so yes. All people have ability to kill, so we should put them all in prison? And I think you got a wrong idea about this, i am not going to kill them there own disease will so I feel no problems. No, you are going to put them in prison camps even though they may never do anything. 1/100 maybe, so again unless we have a way to know which one then all must go leave in isolation. All of humanity must be isolated then. After all, we all have the ability to kill. Tell that to wives who get AIDS from there loving husbands If their husbands are that decietful, they have other things to worry about as well besides AIDS. please man you sound petty now with democracy, and freedom. What a bunch of poppy cock. Funny, you are on this board because of freedom. Why, EXACTLY, do you want to isolate these people? Is saving lives the only reason?
All people have ability to kill, so we should put them all in prison? No because unlike rape, rape could be "safe" in terms of STD's but once a person has AIDS it's a done deal. Murder is capable by AIDS patients as well so bascily you are supporting me. AIDS is not something you can get rid of. It does much more damage to the psyche of the victim then a normal victim (not to degrade the pain that was endured by all). No, you are going to put them in prison camps even though they may never do anything. Prison camps, listen if you are going to keep on this deabte stop labelling the situation for what's it's not. All of humanity must be isolated then. After all, we all have the ability to kill. But we can avoid murder by AIDS patient because we know that they all the ability to kill by a simple acts. Murder is on a more individualistic basis and sometimes it is done out of self defence and not all murders are un-ethical. (i.e. a wife beater, a child rapist, HITLER! lol) If their husbands are that decietful, they have other things to worry about as well besides AIDS. but this example destroyes your theory of trust and responsiblity, because if a married couple cannot be trusted who can? Funny, you are on this board because of freedom. What I meant by that (sorry I didn;t elaborate) was that I felt that freedom when it endagners others is ridiculous. Why, EXACTLY, do you want to isolate these people? Is saving lives the only reason? Is there other reasons, but is there a reason more important than that? According to u you seem to be wiling to sacrifice lives for a ethic. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Re: All people have ability to kill, so we should put them all in prison? Originally posted by nico What I meant by that (sorry I didn;t elaborate) was that I felt that freedom when it endagners others is ridiculous. Exactly, and the only freedom that these people have that endager another is that of sex. Therefore, their freedom of sex is the ONLY thing that they should be 'un-free' to do. When they demonstrate that they are not ability to handle this responsibility, then you punish. Is there other reasons, but is there a reason more important than that? According to u you seem to be wiling to sacrifice lives for a ethic. Yes, I am. How many people died fighting Hitler, fighting for freedom, fighting for what they thought was right? It has been demonstrated again and again that lives are sacrificed for ethics. The point is trying to decide what is worth what. Is imprisoning a million people so that 10 don't get infected worth it? How about 1000? 500,000? When someone is infected with AIDS, you are effectivly taking away their freedom to live full lives. You are impossing the same PUNISHMENT on the people who already have AIDs. Why is it OK to punish one group purely to save another (smaller) group? And yes, with mandantory testing the number to be infected would be much smaller then the number that currently have AIDS. I haven't even started harping on how you claim we are going to support the supposedly happy lives of 35 million people.
Persol ok listen this is kindof getting redundant now so let's finish on the up and up. Exactly, and the only freedom that these people have that endager another is that of sex :bugeye: Drug use, Blood transfusion (even galt had to admit that they could take to 2 months or so to detect HIV so that's a huge threat), or even a cut, what is a person get's blood on them and it goes inside there bodies? Too much risk, I am scared even thinking about it. Doctors who are unaware of the patients condition could get AIDS, etc. Yes, I am. How many people died fighting Hitler, fighting for freedom, fighting for what they thought was right? It has been demonstrated again and again that lives are sacrificed for ethics. The point is trying to decide what is worth what. How many ppl who were suposedly fighting hitler actually suported him you'll be surprised, that's another thread. They thought it was right it was their view, that' s imposing on both sides. Ethics vs. saving lives? Plus Hitler was killing I am saving. Is imprisoning a million people so that 10 don't get infected worth it? How about 1000? 500,000? I am reguarding your "prison" statements as ad homs now, seriously it's getting annoying. Those 1 million are going to die anyways, not because of me because of themselves, in some cases not. If I save one life I am happy. Why is it OK to punish one group purely to save another (smaller) group? I think you learn population basics: world popualtion : 6 billion AIDS victims: 35 million (recorded only!) So smaller group? In a way u proved my point why is it ok to punish a larger group for the "rights" of the smaller? I haven't even started harping on how you claim we are going to support the supposedly happy lives of 35 million people. I haven't been able to grasp how you are wiling to risk 6 billion lives for 35 million? :bugeye:
Originally posted by nico or even a cut... Doctors who are unaware of the patients condition could get AIDS... The number of people who have caught it from cuts/patients/rape is almost NILL. It is nowhere near your 35 million. The number who have caught it from people who knew they had AIDS is also almost NILL compared to 35 million. I am reguarding your "prison" statements as ad homs now, seriously it's getting annoying. That's what it is. I even showed you the definition of imprisionment. So yes, I am calling it that. Those 1 million are going to die anyways, not because of me because of themselves, in some cases not. If I save one life I am happy. That's the problem. You are willing to sacrifice the freedoms of an enormous number in order to save 1 life. Quality of life is as important as longevity. The quality of those in these camps would be in the shitter. I think you learn population basics: world popualtion : 6 billion AIDS victims: 35 million (recorded only!) So smaller group? In a way u proved my point why is it ok to punish a larger group for the "rights" of the smaller? You know as well as I that not all of the 6 billion are going to catch AIDS. If mandantory testing was put in place like I said the risk would be more on the order of under a million. Taking the extra step of imprisionment is unneeded.
persol According to your definition of imprisonment, I was illeagally imprisoned by the United States government for two years during the Viet Nam era.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
What do you mean "had to admit"? I pointed it out to you to demonstrate a flaw in your AIDSchwitz plan.
What do you mean "had to admit"? I pointed it out to you to demonstrate a flaw in you Well let;s think about this, the vast majority of ppl with AIDS would be inturned in the "camps" whatever tf u want to call them. The amounts of AIDS cases would go down. Now all those "ppl who are high risk" outside the tested AIDS group will be isolated from the outside for ohh.... 3 months. They would get paid. Then if they are positive then bang into the "camps" Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Those who aren't get to go out free. Simple unless of course u have a viable soultion that can solve this issue I would love to hear it.
Now all those "ppl who are high risk"... And how do you decide if someone is high risk? Especially since you don't trust them to tell you. ...outside the tested AIDS group will be isolated from the outside .... So not only are you imprisioning people with AIDS, but people who are accused of being at risk, who may not have it. for ohh.... 3 months It can take up to six months for it to appear. They would get paid. Wow, that makes it all betterPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image! They'll also lose their jobs, and likely be discriminated against. Those who aren't get to go out free. What a novel concept. People who are guilty of no crime being able to 'go out free'. (oh yeah, that was sarcasm) Simple unless of course u have a viable soultion that can solve this issue I would love to hear it. You have yet to point out why this is better then mandatory testing and a tattoo. That is a much more viable solution, and one that is not going to ruin people's lives.
Persol *YAWN your beating a dead horse* Seriously this conversation is over, I mean u obviously can see I have no compassion for a killer, not the ppl the disease inside them. Surely if there was ever a cure then they can be treated and then allowed back in. My positions are pretty simple: * Mandatory AIDS tests all population * Those with AIDS/HIV are to be segregated into "camps" Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! * They will horrible lives of normality. * They were recieve medical attention (oh my so Warsaw Ghetto) * They are not allowed to leave the premises unless authorized. * If there is a vaccine all ppl's outside the "camps" will get it. * Low risk AIDS patients may go back into the world. (mostly women and children). * Children who are born in the "horrid conditions" of the "camps" will be AIDS free and be closely monitered. Now of course the natural end result is no AIDS cases to speak of. Of course to you this is a horrid thing, NO AIDS! *Fainting spell*. Well I personally think that AIDS is a bad thing that can be solved yet because of idiotcy we are negligant with life. Your stance = Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! TO SOCIETY. My stance = Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! To AIDS
As I've stated, you have yet to explain why your solution is better then the testing/tattoo one. There is no reason to go to the extra step of jail. Instead, you post things that make no sense: Low risk AIDS patients may go back into the world. (mostly women and children). Who decides 'low risk', and why do you expect them to tell the truth when you don't trust the patients? What makes women 'low risk'? Do children get put back in jail when they hit puberty? They will horrible lives of normality. How can you call a life normal when you are completely uprooted and moved against your will? This is all just silly. You have demonstrated NO grasp on reality, and NO reason to go the extra step of imprisionment. You argument basically is summed up to "i'm right, you're wrong". You show no supporting evidence or arguments. That is not a discussion, but the sign of a weak mind spitting rhetoric.
