TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- When Fundies attack: AIDS scientists fear their research is in jeopardy

When Fundies attack: AIDS scientists fear their research is in jeopardy

This article is a bit old, but I just came across it:

quote:

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c...&type=printable AIDS, sex scientists on federal list fear their research is in jeopardy Sabin Russell, Chronicle Medical Writer Tuesday, October 28, 2003 A government document naming 157 scientists who study AIDS and human sexuality is alarming university researchers, who call it a Republican "hit list'' that may be used to target prevention programs that some members of Congress find offensive. National Institutes of Health program officers, who are responsible for overseeing research funded by the federal agency, have been asking members on the list for thumbnail descriptions about the "public benefit" of their projects, which in most cases have already been approved and funded, according to several scientists familiar with the list. Named on the list are researchers from some of the most prestigious universities in the country, including Johns Hopkins University, Harvard and UCSF. The purpose of the inquiries, NIH has told members of Congress, is to help the agency defend those grants should they come under attack. But many researchers, drawing hints from notations included in the document, see the process as a step toward shutting down their work. In a letter sent Monday to Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson, Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles, labeled the list "scientific McCarthyism'' and called for an investigation to determine exactly who wrote the document. As ranking minority member of the House Committee on Government Reform, Waxman said researchers have been calling his office, fearful that they would be subpoenaed. As to the origin of the list, Waxman told Thompson that "there are strong clues that this was an inside job. Officials within HHS appear to have been directly involved in the creation of this list.'' According to the Associated Press, an electronic copy of the list includes comments from The Traditional Values Coalition about several studies, including one by a Michigan researcher about teenagers' sexual and mental health. The comments read: "Promotes a 'sex positive' attitude among teens; endorses sexual behavior and condom use among teens." Andrea Lafferty, the coalition's executive director, told the Associated Press that the grants were a "total abuse of taxpayer dollars." "We know for a fact that millions and millions of dollars have been flushed down the toilet over years on this HIV, AIDS scam and sham," Lafferty said. "We know what it takes to prevent getting the disease. It takes not engaging in risky sexual behaviors." Sixteen current UCSF researchers are included on the list, as is UCLA professor Tom Coates, who until September was director of the UCSF AIDS Research Institute. The list includes more than 250 different grants, 14 of which are his projects. The only way to clear the air, Coates suggested, is to call a public hearing, where he said he and other fellow researchers can defend their work. Coates said that the disclosure of the list has created a huge stir in the AIDS research community. "The general feeling is one of fear and intimidation,'' he said. "Anyone who has engaged in this kind of research and sees their name on such a list wonders if one's funding is going to be in jeopardy.'' Among the other UCSF researchers named on the list are Nancy Padian, whose project is studying sexually transmitted diseases within groups of Latino youth in San Francisco's Mission District; William Woods, who is studying HIV risk in bath houses and sex clubs; and Ruth Malone, who is studying the tobacco industry's targeting of gays and lesbians. The concern for possible funding loss is based in precedent. In July, Congress fell two votes shy of passing an amendment that would have stripped funding of a continuing study of HIV among Asian prostitutes in San Francisco massage parlors.

15% of eligible voters voted in the 2002 elections.

So now we see the consequences of when the religious extremists go vote in droves and everyone else stays home on their asses, drinks beer, and listens to Howard Stern.

Hmm, maybe some of those fat assess will get to the polls now that Stern has been stung by the Fundies too.

This is also why we need fair congressional districts so people won't feel disenfranchised, and not vote.

heres a recent article on a virus that fights HIV

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994742

Call me cold and heartless, but there is a cure for AIDS. Its called don't let anyone with it fuck anybody else.

I know it's cruel and unusual, but don't allow anyone with the disease to spread it to anyone else. In only a few generations we will have virtually eliminated the disease. It may be inhumane to not allow those with the disease to procreate, but I consider the passing on of the disease, and the disease itself to be even more inhumane. Call me a facist or heartless, but we spend millions looking for a cure that may never come, when we can get rid of AIDS/HIV through testing and sterilization. And yes, there are non-sexually transmitted AIDS cases as well, but these too would drop over time with the same meausres. Desperate times call for desperate actions, and I would volunteer to lose my procreating "abilities" if it meant no one else had to carry the same horrible disease that I had.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Call me cold and heartless, but there is a cure for AIDS. Its called don't let anyone with it fuck anybody else. I know it's cruel and unusual, but don't allow anyone with the disease to spread it to anyone else. In only a few generations we will have virtually eliminated the disease. It may be inhumane to not allow those with the disease to procreate, but I consider the passing on of the disease, and the disease itself to be even more inhumane. Call me a facist or heartless, but we spend millions looking for a cure that may never come, when we can get rid of AIDS/HIV through testing and sterilization. And yes, there are non-sexually transmitted AIDS cases as well, but these too would drop over time with the same meausres. Desperate times call for desperate actions, and I would volunteer to lose my procreating "abilities" if it meant no one else had to carry the same horrible disease that I had.

This would of been a good idea when AIDS first appeared, GOOD FUCKING JOB REAGAN YOU ASSHAT! However today, it's much harder to do especially when people are to scared or don't bother to get tested for AIDS.

Yea! I'm all for isolating those people with AIDS! As a matter of fact, whenever ANY new disease pops up, we should immediately take action and put everybody in these summer camps so they don't infect anyone else! That way all of us will be disease free, and they'll have plenty of time to concentrate, disease each other, and do some of the other stuff they like to do. What could possibly go wrong?

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Yea! I'm all for isolating those people with AIDS! As a matter of fact, whenever ANY new disease pops up, we should immediately take action and put everybody in these summer camps so they don't infect anyone else! That way all of us will be disease free, and they'll have plenty of time to concentrate, disease each other, and do some of the other stuff they like to do. What could possibly go wrong?

Well, that's actually already done. Its called a quarantine. I think you'll remember that when SARS hit Asia, that exact same thing was done. When you have a contagious, non-hereditary disease, quarantine is a very acceptable course of action. I'm not saying you shouldn't try to find a cure, but you should also act to stop preventable infection.

how do you quarantine anyone in this day and age?



no one can go to Africa anymore?

its not inhumane per se to limit or remove sexual contact. it would suck to be sure, but not as much as AIDS. frankly HIV AIDS is a sign of things to come. the US should be investigating it - because the problem is exponentially growing in places like China and Russia, where no one will foot the bill for any research much less containment|

HIV/AIDS testing is far less expensive then AIDS treatment, at least in terms of a large scale population that in all reality can afford neither. I'm for the wide scale testing for AIDS/HIV, especially in countries where the disease is rampant. I'm not going to say we should force sterilzation, but it should be an option for those individuals who want it. I know it would be a logistical nightmare, but at this point so is having virtually every citizen of a country infected with a communicable disease. Right now the choice seems to be to keep working towards a cure (which in 20+ years we have gotten virtually nowhere) while millions more become infected every year, or take steps to make sure the millions that have the disease do not continue spreading it. Which is more inhumane?

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Well, that's actually already done. Its called a quarantine. I think you'll remember that when SARS hit Asia, that exact same thing was done. When you have a contagious, non-hereditary disease, quarantine is a very acceptable course of action. I'm not saying you shouldn't try to find a cure, but you should also act to stop preventable infection.

Heh, I would place the quarantine of a SARS paitent in a COMPLETELY different realm than the quarantine of an AIDS patient. First of all, I recognize that an inalienable right is not always an absolute right. While the right to travel is a basic liberty, it is only a prima facie right whereby if a person is carrying a dangerous and highly contagious disease, there is a moral justification for temporarily overriding their right to travel to protect others by putting them in quarantine. You know that saying ... my rights end where yours begin. Therefore, society has an obligation to protect citizens who, through no fault of their own (you can probably see where I'm going with this), are at risk from exposure to SARS patients, TB patients, etc.

Patients of indefinite diseases communacable by choice on the other hand are a whole new ball park. Since there is no reciprosity on society's part, there is simply no moral justification to quarantine patients to protect society's right to practice risky behaviour. Society is WELL aware of the risks of unprotected sex, therefore when an individual chooses to engage in risky sexual activity, they assume the burden of responsibility for their choice. So in effect, your solution to this problem is to punish all socially responsible and irresponsible AIDS victims to protect the socially irresponsible public? No, in my opinion the correct course of action is that the responsible public do not get the disease, and the irresponsible public continue their behaviour with willing acceptance of the risks involved.

Furthermore, a quarantine on diseases such as AIDS fails my second test of ethical action: it would not be effective. How are you going to quarantine all AIDs patients? How are you going to prevent them from procreating? How are you going to keep them separate from society? How are you going to determine who has AIDS? How do you make sure society is cleansed of AIDS and miscreants do not run wild knowingly or unknowingly spreading the disease? How do you deal with society's knee jerk response to a "clean" dating pool when they have massive orgies because sex isn't killing you anymore? What do you do when other STDs rise? Where do we draw the line with other diseases? What about genetic disorders? I mean the concept gives rise to so many other ethical dilemmas that it boggles the mind. Mandatory testing of society, mandatory sterlization, eugenics, etc.

C'mon, you're a libertarian

quote:

Originally posted by occrider C'mon, you're a libertarian

Okay, here goes...

I am a libertarian as far as the rights of others do not affect to a direct, traceable and recognizable degree the rights and privelages of others. However, along with the rights I would be willing to give others, I also expect those individuals to have personal responbility in accordance to their rights, and also their personal actions. This being said, I would expect someone with a communicable disease to take it upon themselves to do what it takes to make sure they do not spread a disease they knowingly have. If this requires that an individual no longer has sex, until a cure is found or other reasonable measures, then I would expect the person to do just that.

As I said before, I would be very willing to use my tax dollars to pay for wide scale testing for AIDS/HIV. After an individual knows that s/he is a carrier, I would expect them to no longer have sex with uninfected individuals. If they want to continue having sex with others that are also carriers, I have no problems, as long as they are not doing so in hopes of procreating, for a variety of reasons.

I believe that people should know if they do or do not have AIDS/HIV. If they are knowing carriers of the virus, it is their responsiblity to no longer have sex, at least with uninfected individuals, in order to protect others from the disease. If an individual choses to violate this responsiblity, he should be punished, and if a group continually violates their responsiblity, then it needs to be enforced. Africa is a perfect example of this. Whereas in America, with testing and prevention, new AIDS cases continue to fall, they only increase in heavily affected African nations. It has gotten to the point where I only see two options (short of a cure, which is unlikely). Allow everyone to get AIDS and die off, or forecably prevent its spread. We cannot treat everyone in Africa for AIDS that has AIDS, but we can test them, and prevent them from spreading it.

Although not perfectly analagous, I liken in to a persons "right" to drive. If you become blind, you should take it upon yourself to no longer drive, due to the fact you may injure others. Since many would not be responsible enough to do this, the state checks your vision when you renew your licsence. Although blindness is not contagious, this is an example where I see a need for personal responsiblity, backed by the state having to enforce it. (In a perfect world, my world, enforcement would not be needed.)

Rights *with* responsibility.

Sorry this post is so jumbled, it was written at work in pieces.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Okay, here goes... I am a libertarian as far as the rights of others do not affect to a direct, traceable and recognizable degree the rights and privelages of others. However, along with the rights I would be willing to give others, I also expect those individuals to have personal responbility in accordance to their rights, and also their personal actions. This being said, I would expect someone with a communicable disease to take it upon themselves to do what it takes to make sure they do not spread a disease they knowingly have. If this requires that an individual no longer has sex, until a cure is found or other reasonable measures, then I would expect the person to do just that. As I said before, I would be very willing to use my tax dollars to pay for wide scale testing for AIDS/HIV. After an individual knows that s/he is a carrier, I would expect them to no longer have sex with uninfected individuals. If they want to continue having sex with others that are also carriers, I have no problems, as long as they are not doing so in hopes of procreating, for a variety of reasons. I believe that people should know if they do or do not have AIDS/HIV. If they are knowing carriers of the virus, it is their responsiblity to no longer have sex, at least with uninfected individuals, in order to protect others from the disease. If an individual choses to violate this responsiblity, he should be punished, and if a group continually violates their responsiblity, then it needs to be enforced. Africa is a perfect example of this. Whereas in America, with testing and prevention, new AIDS cases continue to fall, they only increase in heavily affected African nations. It has gotten to the point where I only see two options (short of a cure, which is unlikely). Allow everyone to get AIDS and die off, or forecably prevent its spread. We cannot treat everyone in Africa for AIDS that has AIDS, but we can test them, and prevent them from spreading it. Although not perfectly analagous, I liken in to a persons "right" to drive. If you become blind, you should take it upon yourself to no longer drive, due to the fact you may injure others. Since many would not be responsible enough to do this, the state checks your vision when you renew your licsence. Although blindness is not contagious, this is an example where I see a need for personal responsiblity, backed by the state having to enforce it. (In a perfect world, my world, enforcement would not be needed.) Rights *with* responsibility. Sorry this post is so jumbled, it was written at work in pieces.

Well Ok, I agree with many of the things you've said above. An Aids patient should bear responsiblity for their disease, a patient should take preventative measures to prevent the spread of their disease, a patient should restrict some of their social activities, and so on and so forth. What you are professing however, is government pre-emption to invade the privacy of people's lives and remove basic civil liberties by assuming they are incapable of bearing that responsibility. Not only that, but you are advocating that we should eliminate an inalienable right to privacy and freedom for an activity that bears joint responsibility by both parties. You mentioned before that aids patients have a responsiblity to limit the spread of the disease, well what of the responsiblities of the healthy individual to be aware of the risks of sex and to take precaution to ensure that their partner is not afflicted with a disease?

As I mentioned before, there needs to be a system of reciprocity whereby a just, equitable distribution of the burden falls upon society as a whole ... not simply the minority. Otherwise, why place any ethical limitations on anything so long as it accomplishes the "greater good"? In this case, we are permenantly suspending the bill of rights for a segment of the population in order to alleviate the proportionate burden of responsibility that is assigned to the majority. Society doesn't like wearing a rubber or getting tested before they stick it in, so their response to this grave injustice is to remove the civil liberties of a popluation afflicted with a terrible disease? I'm sorry, but that decision doesn't seem very ethical to me. Well why don't we increase education of the public towards the risks they are taking, increase the frequency and ease of use of testing facilities, interject a cultural acceptance and attitude for the need to be sexually knowledgeable of your partner's history, i mean there are a million of things that can be done that are far more acceptable than sick camps where you keep all the ill. You stated that you are all for increased funding to help cure the disease, well how would you price the value of your civil liberties?

With respect to your analogy, I would say that it is somewhat flawed in that driving is not a right ... it is a privelidge. The freedom to travel, maintain privacy, etc., are rights.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Well Ok, I agree with many of the things you've said above. An Aids patient should bear responsiblity for their disease, a patient should take preventative measures to prevent the spread of their disease, a patient should restrict some of their social activities, and so on and so forth. What you are professing however, is government pre-emption to invade the privacy of people's lives and remove basic civil liberties by assuming they are incapable of bearing that responsibility. Not only that, but you are advocating that we should eliminate an inalienable right to privacy and freedom for an activity that bears joint responsibility by both parties. You mentioned before that aids patients have a responsiblity to limit the spread of the disease, well what of the responsiblities of the healthy individual to be aware of the risks of sex and to take precaution to ensure that their partner is not afflicted with a disease? As I mentioned before, there needs to be a system of reciprocity whereby a just, equitable distribution of the burden falls upon society as a whole ... not simply the minority. Otherwise, why place any ethical limitations on anything so long as it accomplishes the "greater good"? In this case, we are permenantly suspending the bill of rights for a segment of the population in order to alleviate the proportionate burden of responsibility that is assigned to the majority. Society doesn't like wearing a rubber or getting tested before they stick it in, so their response to this grave injustice is to remove the civil liberties of a popluation afflicted with a terrible disease? I'm sorry, but that decision doesn't seem very ethical to me. Well why don't we increase education of the public towards the risks they are taking, increase the frequency and ease of use of testing facilities, interject a cultural acceptance and attitude for the need to be sexually knowledgeable of your partner's history, i mean there are a million of things that can be done that are far more acceptable than sick camps where you keep all the ill. You stated that you are all for increased funding to help cure the disease, well how would you price the value of your civil liberties? With respect to your analogy, I would say that it is somewhat flawed in that driving is not a right ... it is a privelidge. The freedom to travel, maintain privacy, etc., are rights.

I agree with what you have said in your first paragraph, for the most part, and under normal circumstances. I would also like to clarify that I am talking about the AIDS/HIV epidemic in Africa, not the United States. I believe that here, with education and the prevention techniques available, for the most part the spread of AIDS is (relatively speaking) under control.

In some areas of Africa however, this is most definately not the case. There you have situations where the majority of individuals carry HIV/AIDS and the number continues to grow. At that point you have to ask yourself what good the government, or the rights it protects would be if every member of that society was dead. In that case I think it has none. What I'm getting at is the government is, in my opinion, in the business of insuring rights as well as life, as in times of war, famine and disease. If it gets to the point that the only way to insure survival is to remove the rights of some, in order to guarantee the survival of a society/culture, then that is what, in my opinion, needs to be done.

In times of war, we have rationing, the draft, etc. all set in place to remove some rights/civil liberties, in order to help insure the survival of the group. If I were the part of the governing body of an African nation that could foresee its own demise, as well as a way to circumvent said destruction, I believe the only ethical thing to do would be to suspend the liberties of some in order to ensure the survival of the whole.

I am a libertarian, and I am very much opposed to ANYONE who would choose to take away my, or any other individuals, freedoms. However, I also realize that without anyone to enjoy those freedoms, they are useless.

guys:

God created AIDS...to PUNISH THE GAYS.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono I agree with what you have said in your first paragraph, for the most part, and under normal circumstances. I would also like to clarify that I am talking about the AIDS/HIV epidemic in Africa, not the United States. I believe that here, with education and the prevention techniques available, for the most part the spread of AIDS is (relatively speaking) under control. In some areas of Africa however, this is most definately not the case. There you have situations where the majority of individuals carry HIV/AIDS and the number continues to grow. At that point you have to ask yourself what good the government, or the rights it protects would be if every member of that society was dead. In that case I think it has none. What I'm getting at is the government is, in my opinion, in the business of insuring rights as well as life, as in times of war, famine and disease. If it gets to the point that the only way to insure survival is to remove the rights of some, in order to guarantee the survival of a society/culture, then that is what, in my opinion, needs to be done. In times of war, we have rationing, the draft, etc. all set in place to remove some rights/civil liberties, in order to help insure the survival of the group. If I were the part of the governing body of an African nation that could foresee its own demise, as well as a way to circumvent said destruction, I believe the only ethical thing to do would be to suspend the liberties of some in order to ensure the survival of the whole. I am a libertarian, and I am very much opposed to ANYONE who would choose to take away my, or any other individuals, freedoms. However, I also realize that without anyone to enjoy those freedoms, they are useless.

Well, I can't really comment on the Africa situation since I know virtually nothing about what their society is willing to do, and how much they're willing to sacrifice to accomplish that. I typically am against segregating or discriminating a segment of society without good reason since there ar etypically a number of better ideas. For instance, why not put the ability to reveal medical history in the hands of the individual? Start up a public testing agency that gathers data for display to others. It could show your last test, whether you have any stds, etc. It seems that the healthy segments of society would be quite willing to prove they're disease free, without compromising the privacy of others. If a person you're interested in isn't in the database, then it is an assumed risk. Therefore free will, choice, and responsibility all lay where they belong ... with the individual.

quote:

Originally posted by nic01445 guys: God created AIDS...to PUNISH THE GAYS.

it appears that you all support the quarantine of the HIV addled. if the addicted make it with the addicted it seems alright with you.


virus' do mutate tho, and exposure is exposure.

quote:

Originally posted by biznology it appears that you all support the quarantine of the HIV addled. if the addicted make it with the addicted it seems alright with you. virus' do mutate tho, and exposure is exposure.

I would of supported quarantine when it first broke out, its too late now

quote:

Originally posted by biznology it appears that you all support the quarantine of the HIV addled. if the addicted make it with the addicted it seems alright with you. virus' do mutate tho, and exposure is exposure.

I never did.

quote:

I would of supported quarantine when it first broke out, its too late now

Why? Has some sort of magic number been reached such that it's not ok to remove civil liberties now as opposed to back then? Sorry, but to me that logic doesn't fly.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Why? Has some sort of magic number been reached such that it's not ok to remove civil liberties now as opposed to back then? Sorry, but to me that logic doesn't fly.

Well, in hopes of not sounding like a broken record, civil liberties are vital, but only if you have people around to enjoy them. Unfortunatly there is a time and a place for those liberties to be temporarily or voluntarily suspended in order to insure survival. It's a tragic reality, but it seems that Africa as a whole is not able to voluntarily work towards lowering the sexual transmission of the HIV virus, so I really see no other choice but to use other means to lower its spread.

By the way, here is a good website for world as well as African AIDS facts and statistics.

LINK

I would also like to add, although I definatly don't believe AIDS is some sort of God-made punishment, I do think it is a very natural means of population control. That does not mean we should just let it run its course with no hope or desire to find a cure, but it is found in densely populated areas, where most virulant diseases are spread. I do think this makes it more difficult to find a cure, as a disease naturally has increased virulance in high population centers.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Well, in hopes of not sounding like a broken record, civil liberties are vital, but only if you have people around to enjoy them. Unfortunatly there is a time and a place for those liberties to be temporarily or voluntarily suspended in order to insure survival. It's a tragic reality, but it seems that Africa as a whole is not able to voluntarily work towards lowering the sexual transmission of the HIV virus, so I really see no other choice but to use other means to lower its spread.

Ok well fine, let's take that idea of removing civil liberties for the "greater public good" and run with it for a little bit. One can safely say that a great purveyor of communicable diseases that threaten society is poverty. Therefore, according to the reasoning that civil liberties are only safe until the point that society is at threat, we could logically arrive at the conclusion that the right to private property is null and void and therefore a redistribution of wealth program is ethically justifiable for the furtherance of the survival of society. If there aren't poor people, we're going to have a lot less sick people. Or another example would be that if the country were at war (like we are now) is the government ethically justified in removing civil liberties (such as property rights once again) in order to have the economic means necessary to fight the war in order to ensure the "survival" of society? I'm specifically using property rights as an example because I know exactly what you think about that because we often share the same stance when it comes to property rights . Ultimately, each case needs to be looked at individually and when I look at the case of quarantines with AIDs, it simply doesn't pass the ethical test of being the "correct" thing to do. It unfairly distributes the burden of responsibility on the AIDs victim as opposed to addressing the societal issues of WHY it is such a prevalent problem to begin with and it fails to hold society accountable for its actions as well.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider It unfairly distributes the burden of responsibility on the AIDs victim as opposed to addressing the societal issues of WHY it is such a prevalent problem to begin with and it fails to hold society accountable for its actions as well.

Socialist .

The Great Cookie Monster does advocate socialism, provided there be enough cookies for all to consume, including Himself......

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Socialist . The Great Cookie Monster does advocate socialism, provided there be enough cookies for all to consume, including Himself......

You take that back!!! I've been a GOOD capitalist my entire life! I like money, I worship money, I want more money, I don't like giivng away money, and I watch the Apprentice! Adam Smith would be proud!

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Ok well fine, let's take that idea of removing civil liberties for the "greater public good" and run with it for a little bit. One can safely say that a great purveyor of communicable diseases that threaten society is poverty. Therefore, according to the reasoning that civil liberties are only safe until the point that society is at threat, we could logically arrive at the conclusion that the right to private property is null and void and therefore a redistribution of wealth program is ethically justifiable for the furtherance of the survival of society. If there aren't poor people, we're going to have a lot less sick people. Or another example would be that if the country were at war (like we are now) is the government ethically justified in removing civil liberties (such as property rights once again) in order to have the economic means necessary to fight the war in order to ensure the "survival" of society? I'm specifically using property rights as an example because I know exactly what you think about that because we often share the same stance when it comes to property rights . Ultimately, each case needs to be looked at individually and when I look at the case of quarantines with AIDs, it simply doesn't pass the ethical test of being the "correct" thing to do. It unfairly distributes the burden of responsibility on the AIDs victim as opposed to addressing the societal issues of WHY it is such a prevalent problem to begin with and it fails to hold society accountable for its actions as well.

Dealing with poverty, I see two factors that seperate a person living in poverty from someone living with AIDS. First would be that poverty is not a disease in the sense that it cannot be passed on due to contact. A middle-class individual does not become poor simply by having direct physical contact with someone with AIDS even if that individual wishes to have sex with the impoverished. Secondly, there is a "cure" for poverty, in fact an individual living below the poverty line can even "cure" themselves (at least in my utopian society ) through work and education, freely available to all citizens. I would also argue that the rate at which poverty spreads disease throughout a society, at least the American society, is much too low to deam a threat to the population as a whole. Therefore, removing their property rights, or any other rights, is not justified in my opinion. If there was an army of mutant diseased poor people running around, then it would probably be a different story.

War and the removal of rights is also based on its degree of severity. Right now in Iraq, Afghanistan, where ever, our troops are well-fed, well-armed and for all intents and purposes winning (no sarcastic comments, please). However, if it came to the point, similar to WWII, where we could see a loss in supplies and troops that could ultimately lead to our defeat, then the suspension of rights might be necissary. Even as a libertarian I would give up some rights, knowing they would be restored later, then let the country that gave me those rights be over-run.

Getting back to AIDS, I don't believe that my quarantine system is necissarily a fair one, however I believe it is a logical one. As we have both said before, I think the individual should take it upon themselves to make sure they do not have sex with someone not having AIDS, and they do not have sex with someone carrying AIDS if they are not a carrier. In some parts of Africa however, this is obviously not happening and as a result you have several countries that have 1/3 or more of their population currently infected. At this level of infection you are reaching the point where if the spread continues, in all reality you will have a dead society in only a few more generations. To me, it would be unacceptable to allow things to continue the way they are, leading to the destruction of a society, when there was a way to prevent it.

To open up another can of worms, I am picky as to what rights can and cannot be removed, even in dire circumstances. For instance, during war I have no problem with rationing or the draft. I do have a problem with suspending the writ of habeas corpus, however. So yes, I do think that Lincoln was very over rated (on many levels), especially since in order "protect" the constitution, he violated it. Am I contradicting myself, maybe? But I can justify it in my crazy little head.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Dealing with poverty, I see two factors that seperate a person living in poverty from someone living with AIDS. First would be that poverty is not a disease in the sense that it cannot be passed on due to contact. A middle-class individual does not become poor simply by having direct physical contact with someone with AIDS even if that individual wishes to have sex with the impoverished. Secondly, there is a "cure" for poverty, in fact an individual living below the poverty line can even "cure" themselves (at least in my utopian society ) through work and education, freely available to all citizens. I would also argue that the rate at which poverty spreads disease throughout a society, at least the American society, is much too low to deam a threat to the population as a whole. Therefore, removing their property rights, or any other rights, is not justified in my opinion. If there was an army of mutant diseased poor people running around, then it would probably be a different story. War and the removal of rights is also based on its degree of severity. Right now in Iraq, Afghanistan, where ever, our troops are well-fed, well-armed and for all intents and purposes winning (no sarcastic comments, please). However, if it came to the point, similar to WWII, where we could see a loss in supplies and troops that could ultimately lead to our defeat, then the suspension of rights might be necissary. Even as a libertarian I would give up some rights, knowing they would be restored later, then let the country that gave me those rights be over-run. Getting back to AIDS, I don't believe that my quarantine system is necissarily a fair one, however I believe it is a logical one. As we have both said before, I think the individual should take it upon themselves to make sure they do not have sex with someone not having AIDS, and they do not have sex with someone carrying AIDS if they are not a carrier. In some parts of Africa however, this is obviously not happening and as a result you have several countries that have 1/3 or more of their population currently infected. At this level of infection you are reaching the point where if the spread continues, in all reality you will have a dead society in only a few more generations. To me, it would be unacceptable to allow things to continue the way they are, leading to the destruction of a society, when there was a way to prevent it. To open up another can of worms, I am picky as to what rights can and cannot be removed, even in dire circumstances. For instance, during war I have no problem with rationing or the draft. I do have a problem with suspending the writ of habeas corpus, however. So yes, I do think that Lincoln was very over rated (on many levels), especially since in order "protect" the constitution, he violated it. Am I contradicting myself, maybe? But I can justify it in my crazy little head.

Well, I consider them somewhat more similar than you. First, poverty is not contagious or transferrable by contact, that is correct. Poverty is, ideally, contracted by choice. Similarly AIDS is largely a disease contracted through choice. You make the risky choice to piss away your life and you end up poor ... you make the risky choice of unprotected sex with someone you don't really know and you end up with AIDS. In my mind, I see little reason recognize choice in one situation whilst ignoring choice in the other. Second, society DOES possess a "cure" for its AIDs affliction. By making educated, informed choices society doesn't have to be scourged by this disease. Given that this "cure" is readily available, I see no justification to discriminate or remove civil liberties in my opinion.

Furthermore, what kind of feasability is there in this AIDS quarantine? How would you enforce it? Would you go about testing every member of society every month? A costly logistical nightmare. Would you publish all medical records? This would only serve to drive those afflicted with aids underground in order to avoid detection and discrimination. Furthermore, as I alluded to in my second or third post, you would only feed fuel to the fire of already reckless sexual behaviour. The best analogy I can think of is a society whereby everyone throws garbage out of their windows so the whole city is a sanitary nightmare. Eventually some people get sick. In an effort to avoid contracting the sickness from the sick, the healthy people devise a "solution" to quarantine all the sick people so they can continue their garbage throwing lifestyle with peace of mind.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.