BF2S Forums Aids!!

AIDS is a collection of symptoms and infections that result from HIV.

So technically, you'd want to quarantine everyone with HIV.  And it'd take a lot of time, money and effort that world superpowers would rather spend killing people to protect oil reserves.

Here's a random fact, if everyone was put on an anti-bacterial drug (like penicillin) and refrained from sexual contact for 2 weeks, bacterial STDs could be wiped off the face of the earth.  (gonorrhea, chlamydia.. etc)

lowing wrote:

Yeah Cam, I know, but the victims might have a different opinion. I wonder how they would feel about it if quarantine prevented them getting infected a few years ago.

Also
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1779480.stm


http://www.worldrevolution.org/news/article1857.htm


http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.h … A9649C8B63


AIDS is on track to claiming 65 million lives by 2020.

Are you saying quarantining purhaps 100,000 people in 1983 would not be worth saving 65 million?? Knowing this, you still would not quarantine back then?



The thing is the "safe sex" solution OBVIOUSLY is not a working solution.

Does part of your plan involve mandatory testing for every man, woman and child? What's the punishment for disagreeing to take the test? How do foreigners travelling to your country on business or for pleasure get validated? They present a certificate of 'cleanliness' or something? Do you set up a global watchdog to certify the testing procedure in other countries?

The problem are fucking retards like this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/1465326.stm

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-04-02 17:12:34)

It is a gay disease for the most part.  If you are a guy and don't take it up the pooper you are pretty damn safe, but with women it is a different deal.  If a woman gets nailed by someone that has it they could be screwed and get the shit.  As a guy it would be extremely rare for you to get it from a woman.

Moral of the story is that it is the dudes that go both ways that are causing the problem because they can kill off an unknowing woman through lethal injection.

Now I know you can get it through dirty needles blah blah blah, well don't do drugs or have incompetant health care givers.

The big scary one for a straight married guy like me is blood transfusions.  If you know you are going to need blood ahead of time you can donate your own blood or have a family member do it.  The red cross is a scarey organization when it comes to this shit.

Now watch as the liberals decend upon me for clarifying their beloved disease.

Last edited by Lotta_Drool (2008-04-02 17:23:04)

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

Yeah Cam, I know, but the victims might have a different opinion. I wonder how they would feel about it if quarantine prevented them getting infected a few years ago.

Also
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1779480.stm


http://www.worldrevolution.org/news/article1857.htm


http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.h … A9649C8B63


AIDS is on track to claiming 65 million lives by 2020.

Are you saying quarantining purhaps 100,000 people in 1983 would not be worth saving 65 million?? Knowing this, you still would not quarantine back then?



The thing is the "safe sex" solution OBVIOUSLY is not a working solution.

Does part of your plan involve mandatory testing for every man, woman and child? What's the punishment for disagreeing to take the test? How do foreigners travelling to your country on business or for pleasure get validated? They present a certificate of 'cleanliness' or something? Do you set up a global watchdog to certify the testing procedure in other countries?

The problem are fucking retards like this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/1465326.stm

Cam if ya followed the OP you would know that quarantine works, the details as to how it would be governed is not to be part of your decison. All you know is that it can be contained through quarantine. Do you agree to do it or not to save the 65 million people that will die from this disease. Do not hit me with 1000 "what if" scenarios. I am asking if your morality will allow you to decide that quarantine ( because it works in this discussion) is better than 65 million dead. Yes or no, I promise we can get to the details of it later. But for now just know that quarantine works and you can see in your crystal ball that 65 million people are destined to die by this disease. Do you take action this drastic?

Lotta_Drool wrote:

It is a gay disease for the most part.  If you are a guy and don't take it up the pooper you are pretty damn safe, but with women it is a different deal.  If a woman gets nailed by someone that has it they could be screwed and get the shit.  As a guy it would be extremely rare for you to get it from a woman.

Moral of the story is that it is the dudes that go both ways that are causing the problem because they can kill off an unknowing woman through lethal injection.

Now I know you can get it through dirty needles blah blah blah, well don't do drugs or have incompetant health care givers.

The big scary one for a straight married guy like me is blood transfusions.  If you know you are going to need blood ahead of time you can donate your own blood or have a family member do it.  The red cross is a scarey organization when it comes to this shit.

Now watch as the liberals decend upon me for clarifying their beloved disease.

In America and Europe, it is a primarily gay disease, but in Asia and Africa, there are strains that are passed around mostly by heterosexuals.  It all depends on where you live as to the frequency of infection and the communities involved.  This is why immigration is such a huge hole in lowing's plan.  The average Sudanese person is far more likely to have AIDS than, say, the average Mexican.

lowing wrote:

Cam if ya followed the OP you would know that quarantine works, the details as to how it would be governed is not to be part of your decison. All you know is that it can be contained through quarantine. Do you agree to do it or not to save the 65 million people that will die from this disease. Do not hit me with 1000 "what if" scenarios. I am asking if your morality will allow you to decide that quarantine ( because it works in this discussion) is better than 65 million dead. Yes or no, I promise we can get to the details of it later. But for now just know that quarantine works and you can see in your crystal ball that 65 million people are destined to die by this disease. Do you take action this drastic?

Personally, no. AIDS is mostly a punishment for people's stupidity. And I'm a firm believer in stupidity being punished. I also think the world is becoming dangerously overpopulated.

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

Cam if ya followed the OP you would know that quarantine works, the details as to how it would be governed is not to be part of your decison. All you know is that it can be contained through quarantine. Do you agree to do it or not to save the 65 million people that will die from this disease. Do not hit me with 1000 "what if" scenarios. I am asking if your morality will allow you to decide that quarantine ( because it works in this discussion) is better than 65 million dead. Yes or no, I promise we can get to the details of it later. But for now just know that quarantine works and you can see in your crystal ball that 65 million people are destined to die by this disease. Do you take action this drastic?

Personally, no. AIDS is mostly a punishment for people's stupidity. And I'm a firm believer in stupidity being punished. I also think the world is becoming dangerously overpopulated.

Cam, I can't lie, I am a little taken back by your answer. I did not expect that at all

lowing wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

Cam if ya followed the OP you would know that quarantine works, the details as to how it would be governed is not to be part of your decison. All you know is that it can be contained through quarantine. Do you agree to do it or not to save the 65 million people that will die from this disease. Do not hit me with 1000 "what if" scenarios. I am asking if your morality will allow you to decide that quarantine ( because it works in this discussion) is better than 65 million dead. Yes or no, I promise we can get to the details of it later. But for now just know that quarantine works and you can see in your crystal ball that 65 million people are destined to die by this disease. Do you take action this drastic?

Personally, no. AIDS is mostly a punishment for people's stupidity. And I'm a firm believer in stupidity being punished. I also think the world is becoming dangerously overpopulated.

Cam, I can't lie, I am a little taken back by your answer. I did not expect that at all

Well it's the truth. Nature taking its course.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-04-02 17:57:28)

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

I HAVE NO PLAN.... It is assumed for this discussion that this disease is containable through quarantine...DO YOU DO IT to prevent millions of deaths?

If only 50 people in the world had AIDS, and you had the power to quarantine them before they spread the disease further....  Yes, I would do it.

But not, say 500,000 in order to save 64,500,000 more people?

Once the number gets that big, it becomes rather futile in trying to isolate the disease.  This is especially true because of the dormancy of HIV.  You can have HIV for years without knowing it and spread it to various partners only to come to a rude awakening years later.

If AIDS/HIV was easier to detect, I'd entertain the thought of a quarantine, but for now, it's highly unrealistic.  Also, keep in mind that a lot more than 500,000 people have AIDS.  Think about 33 million worldwide.  Even if we could properly identify all people with HIV, it would be the equivalent of quarantining a population the size of Canada if we followed this idea.

HIV is preventable.

Therefore it shouldn't be quarantined.

If you get it, more than likely you got it from sex, and it's more than likely your fault.

/thread

Turquoise wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

HIV is preventable.

Therefore it shouldn't be quarantined.

If you get it, more than likely you got it from sex, and it's more than likely your fault.

/thread

The reasoning here is flawed.  While a quarantine isn't logical, to see AIDS as a punishment for sex is rather...  narrowminded.  Think about how many of us daily have unprotected sex.  Now, think of how many people have protected sex but still manage to get STDs.   There is no 100% effective contraception method other than abstinence, so you're essentially implying people should remain abstinent for the entirety of their lives.

AIDS isn't a punishment, it's often a fucked up consequence of bad judgment but sometimes just bad luck.   A lot of times, people get AIDS taking the same risks most of us do, but they just fuck the wrong person.

I wouldn't simplify it down to stupidity on the part of the person unless they really did something stupid like fuck a drug addict, share a needle, or fuck a skanky prostitute.  Since it's still possible to get AIDS from someone who doesn't seem sketchy, it's not cut and dry.

Well, perhaps I should have said unprotected sex.

If you have protected sex and get AIDS, then no, it's not your fault. But if you have unprotected sex and get it, then yes, it's your own damn fault.

Poseidon wrote:

Well, perhaps I should have said unprotected sex.

If you have protected sex and get AIDS, then no, it's not your fault. But if you have unprotected sex and get it, then yes, it's your own damn fault.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but consider this...   Let's say you're married, but your wife is secretly cheating on you with someone who doesn't know he has HIV.  Your wife ends up getting HIV without knowing it, and then you get it from her.   Assuming you aren't having protected sex with her all the time, it wasn't really your fault that you got it, was it?