| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/13/2003 01:16:52 AM · #251 |
Originally posted by Geocide:
Originally posted by rcrawford:
-It's been deleted but here's the jist...he said that why should we care about those in Africa and the the innercities(mind you it is a problem in the subburbs too, just not as big) because we know the way this disease is transmitted- |
There's a good idea, when the cause and effect of a given affliction are known then we should just forget about controling it. Away with mother aginst drunk driving, away with TB contol, away with the alcholism programs, just let them die...right?
You comments rcrawford are silly. What we should be doing is do what we do for any other disease, work to find a solution to the problem. |
realistically adam, you don't think america and its citizens give the most in aid to africa? i'd be willing to bet that we give by far the most. this also isn't just a US issue. it is a world issue. it obviously has been mysteriously overlooked. this definitely has something to do with drug companies not being able to create generic AIDS drugs i'm assuming because of patent issues. but i bet the US leads the world in that category as poor as the support seems. |
|
|
|
03/13/2003 01:17:41 AM · #252 |
Originally posted by Geocide:
Originally posted by rcrawford:
-- |
There's a good idea, when the cause and effect of a given affliction are known then we should just forget about controling it. Away with mother aginst drunk driving, away with TB contol, away with the alcholism programs, just let them die...right?
You comments rcrawford are silly. What we should be doing is do what we do for any other disease, work to find a solution to the problem. |
I am not trying to be silly. We have spent more money on AIDS research than other diseases that kill far more people than AIDS. I have family members that have died from cancer. We don't know how to prevent it and in my opinion getting AIDS is a choice (except for the poor children that are born with it) Don't get me wrong I know AIDS is a huge problem and I don't want anybody to suffer, I just wonder if our finite research/medical budget is being allocated correctly.
Message edited by author 2003-03-13 01:22:48. |
|
|
|
03/13/2003 01:22:09 AM · #253 |
Originally posted by rcrawford:
Originally posted by Geocide:
Originally posted by rcrawford:
-- |
There's a good idea, when the cause and effect of a given affliction are known then we should just forget about controling it. Away with mother aginst drunk driving, away with TB contol, away with the alcholism programs, just let them die...right?
You comments rcrawford are silly. What we should be doing is do what we do for any other disease, work to find a solution to the problem. |
I am not trying to be silly. We have spent more money on AIDS research than other diseases that kill far more people than AIDS. I have family members that dies from cancer. We don't know how to prevent it and in my opinion getting AIDS is a choice (except for the poor children that are born with it) Don't get me wrong I know AIDS is a huge problem and I don't want anybody to suffer, I just wonder if our finite research/medical budget is being allocated correctly. |
i disagree that AIDS is preventable in Africa, because the biggest problem there is education. I think i heard recently that the majority of people with the disease contract it as a result of heterosexual sex, as opposed to how it is in the US for instance. There is really a lack of knowledge in Africa that has led to the spread of AIDS there. |
|
|
|
03/13/2003 01:26:50 AM · #254 |
The Aids issue is a tuff one. The numbers suggest that if we don't do something to stop it, it will wipe out millions upon millions of people. I wish I had an answer. Given the nature of the HIV virus (isn't seen in the blood very easily till about 3 months) makes it a very very big threat to everyone, especially in our promiscuous society.
rcrawford-
Sorry to hear about you family members and cancer. I too have had people die of cancer, it's very hard to deal with.
The thing is we know several things that cause caner but many people still ignore the warnings and many corporations are governed more by money than health standards. I have a short film on my film site that depicts one instance of this very problem:
//www.filmexposure.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=23&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0
I think we should do everything in our power to contain and eliminate this issue reguardless of race and nationality.
|
|
|
|
03/13/2003 01:29:56 AM · #255 |
I wonder if this thread will ever die.
This has got to be a DPC record. Anyway I like a good vigorous discussion and I've learned a lot from you all. |
|
|
|
03/13/2003 01:32:13 AM · #256 |
Originally posted by achiral:
Would you call being in a country on a student visa an immigrant? hardly. also the situation in america is different to that of australia. we have a positive birthrate, and we have other countries to the north and south of us connected by land, something australia doesn't have. |
It doesn't take much effort to get here from Indonesia on a clapped out fishing boat... which is precisely why our Government recently decided that Christmas Island is no longer Australian territory for the purposes of deterring asylum seekers. Now they have to get all the way to the coast of Western Australia. Our situation is only marginally different to your situation with Cuba... except that instead of one little island we have the world's most populous Muslim nation to our north, a place where a lot of asylum seekers from the middle east and central asia arrive after fleeing their countries, only to be kept waiting indefinitely to have their claims processed.
Because of all this, there is a VERY large xenophobic movement in my country, which I do not agree with at all. We are taking out our fear on the victims of opression who simply want to find a safe haven.
Originally posted by achiral:
i think it's totally different. i don't think any country "needs" to allow immigration, and i don't see any problem with not allowing immigration if that is the country's choice. |
I'm sure your indigenous population would have loved to have that choice. But then, they immigrated from Russia across the Bering Strait themselves. The world is only populated because of immigration... we didn't evolve all over the world at once. All of us are descended from people who came together through waves of immigration. It's a fact of history, and a fact of nature. To imagine you can stop it is just ludicrous.
Originally posted by achiral:
what right does anyone else have to say that they should be allowed to immigrate to any other country for whatever reason. do you see any positives in the american system lisa? i don't sit around worrying about what australia does because it's not my damn business and they can do whatever they want, besides nuke new zealand. |
There are many positives to America, but most are under attack from paranoid conservatives.
What right does anyone have to say that just because they were born on a certain piece of land, they have a greater claim to it than someone who was born in hardship and oppression and has worked hard all their life to create a better life for themselves? Tell me that?
You get everything you want through luck and an accident of birth. |
|
|
|
03/13/2003 01:35:53 AM · #257 |
Originally posted by lisae:
There are many positives to America, but most are under attack from paranoid conservatives. |
I second that motion.
|
|
|
|
03/13/2003 01:40:19 AM · #258 |
You made some great points lisae. I very much agree.
|
|
|
|
03/13/2003 01:47:00 AM · #259 |
Originally posted by Geocide:
Originally posted by lisae:
There are many positives to America, but most are under attack from paranoid conservatives. |
I second that motion. |
Wow! I see it just the other way around (not the positives to America the under attack from paranoid conservatives part)
From my perspective, the conservatives are trying to preserve the American ideals that made this such a great country and we are under attack from the Left.
Go figure.
|
|
|
|
03/13/2003 01:51:56 AM · #260 |
yeah, i think there's a double edge sword here. The democrats in recent times have not been very trust worthy(bill Clinton, though I like the man, blew a lot of a good image) but I also believe that the republicans are over compensating and are compromising liberty for the sake of the appearance of security and integrity. We’re suppose to be a free country.
|
|
|
|
03/13/2003 01:57:17 AM · #261 |
| I agree with you there. I for one do not want to give up freedom for perceived security. What do you end up with... neither. |
|
|
|
03/13/2003 02:56:33 AM · #262 |
Originally posted by rcrawford:
Originally posted by Geocide:
Originally posted by lisae:
There are many positives to America, but most are under attack from paranoid conservatives. |
I second that motion. |
Wow! I see it just the other way around (not the positives to America the under attack from paranoid conservatives part)
From my perspective, the conservatives are trying to preserve the American ideals that made this such a great country and we are under attack from the Left.
Go figure. |
Interesting how this dovetails into the AIDS discussion from above. We agree that AIDS is a world wide problem and that our promiscuous society exacerbates it. Lisa and Adam agree that America is under attack from conservatives. I think America is under attack from the Left.
So how are these thing related?
So far there is no cure for AIDS and the drugs for treatment are too expensive for the third world to ever hope to get them in the quantities that they are needed and the problem continues to gets worse. This only leaves one possible solution and that is education and the education must consist of the message that abstinence or complete fidelity are the only real weapons that we have in this fight. To me that is a conservative approach.
The Left legitimized promiscuity (think Bill Clinton). Don’t misunderstand, there are plenty of promiscuous conservatives but at least they are ashamed if they get caught.
Message edited by author 2003-03-13 02:57:36. |
|
|
|
03/13/2003 03:40:42 AM · #263 |
Originally posted by rcrawford:
So far there is no cure for AIDS and the drugs for treatment are too expensive for the third world to ever hope to get them in the quantities that they are needed and the problem continues to gets worse. This only leaves one possible solution and that is education and the education must consist of the message that abstinence or complete fidelity are the only real weapons that we have in this fight. To me that is a conservative approach.
The Left legitimized promiscuity (think Bill Clinton). Don’t misunderstand, there are plenty of promiscuous conservatives but at least they are ashamed if they get caught. |
This is a very weird idea that I only ever seem to hear from Americans. It must be the influence of those old puritans still hanging around.
Teaching abstinence has not been shown to work at all, in preventing teenage pregnancies or STDs, or any other outcome. People are going to have sex, always have and always will. If you give people a decent sex education and lots of condoms, you'll actually prevent AIDS. It worked in the west when infection rates dropped after education campaigns kicked in during the late 80s and 90s. Unfortunately, no one kept that education campaign going long enough.
I know a lot of Americans have no idea what sex education is like in other countries. In a normal, government funded school over here we were taught the basics about sex at age 12, and some more advanced things at 17, including all the details about common STDs and risks associated with fetishes, how women get a pap smear, how men get checked for prostate cancer, etc. Only people with extreme religious views ever advocate teaching abstinence in schools here - whether they fall into your categories of "conservative" or "liberal" is irrelevant.
(By the way, our conservative political party is called "the Liberal Party"... so the word "liberal" has a different meaning here.) |
|
|
|
03/13/2003 05:57:49 AM · #264 |
Originally posted by lisae:
[quote=rcrawford]
(By the way, our conservative political party is called "the Liberal Party"... so the word "liberal" has a different meaning here.) |
This sounds much more appropriate. I have always wondered why the "liberals" always seem to want more government control which equates to "less freedom"....This is back-assword in America.
|
|
|
|
03/13/2003 09:00:53 AM · #265 |
Originally posted by lisae:
Originally posted by rcrawford:
So far there is no cure for AIDS and the drugs for treatment are too expensive for the third world to ever hope to get them in the quantities that they are needed and the problem continues to gets worse. This only leaves one possible solution and that is education and the education must consist of the message that abstinence or complete fidelity are the only real weapons that we have in this fight. To me that is a conservative approach.
The Left legitimized promiscuity (think Bill Clinton). Don’t misunderstand, there are plenty of promiscuous conservatives but at least they are ashamed if they get caught. |
This is a very weird idea that I only ever seem to hear from Americans. It must be the influence of those old puritans still hanging around.
Teaching abstinence has not been shown to work at all, in preventing teenage pregnancies or STDs, or any other outcome. People are going to have sex, always have and always will. If you give people a decent sex education and lots of condoms, you'll actually prevent AIDS. It worked in the west when infection rates dropped after education campaigns kicked in during the late 80s and 90s. Unfortunately, no one kept that education campaign going long enough.
I know a lot of Americans have no idea what sex education is like in other countries. In a normal, government funded school over here we were taught the basics about sex at age 12, and some more advanced things at 17, including all the details about common STDs and risks associated with fetishes, how women get a pap smear, how men get checked for prostate cancer, etc. Only people with extreme religious views ever advocate teaching abstinence in schools here - whether they fall into your categories of "conservative" or "liberal" is irrelevant.
(By the way, our conservative political party is called "the Liberal Party"... so the word "liberal" has a different meaning here.) |
your argument about prevention of AIDS by use of condoms is amazing. considering you know the only true perfect way to protect yourself is abstinence. but yet you settle for an argument like everyone will always be doing it, there's nothing we can do, so let's throw condoms their way in hopes they'll use them. and you are wrong when you say there is no evidence that abstinence when taught is ineffective. that is probably the only way that will slow down the AIDS process in Africa. condoms carry a stigma in africa that often prevent the use of them.
this argument paralells another great idea by the Australian government. they say let's allow there to be shops set up in sydney so that junkies can cleanly use heroine without legal ramifications. so while these addicts cleanly use heroine, they further the ruinance of the people's lives by endorsing the use of injectable drugs.
the idea that somehow moral reletavism will solve the world's problems is quite a bit more ludicrous than teaching the only true way to prevent transferable diseases.
|
|
|
|
03/13/2003 09:42:43 AM · #266 |
Originally posted by achiral:
your argument about prevention of AIDS by use of condoms is amazing. considering you know the only true perfect way to protect yourself is abstinence. |
Nooo.... the only "true" perfect way to protect yourself is probably castration. Why not advocate that?
Honestly, strange religious ideas like "promiscuity is bad, mkay!" only make sense to people who believe in that religious idea. It's not logically correct. It's a value judgement that you have been brought up with, and does not hold for people from other cultures, other religions, other societies, etc. You may call it "moral relativism" if I disagree with you, but from my point of view I'm just disagreeing.
Sex is fun, it's not evil. It's possible to do it safely, so why not advocate that instead of imposing a weird ideal that goes against human nature?
Originally posted by achiral:
condoms carry a stigma in africa that often prevent the use of them. |
They used to carry a stigma in all kinds of places. It's not very difficult to overcome.
Originally posted by achiral:
this argument paralells another great idea by the Australian government. they say let's allow there to be shops set up in sydney so that junkies can cleanly use heroine without legal ramifications. so while these addicts cleanly use heroine, they further the ruinance of the people's lives by endorsing the use of injectable drugs. |
No, that was the New South Wales state government. The Federal government was opposed to it and shut it down.
It wasn't a shop, it was a safe injecting room run by a religious based charity, where addicts could be supervised while they injected themselves. They were not selling heroin, simply supervising its use. This is something that has been trialed in the Netherlands and other places prior to being tried here. |
|
|
|
03/13/2003 09:58:48 AM · #267 |
Originally posted by lisae:
Nooo.... the only "true" perfect way to protect yourself is probably castration. Why not advocate that? |
good argument. pretty amateurish for you to say something like that. let's just say you were joking.
Originally posted by lisae:
Honestly, strange religious ideas like "promiscuity is bad, mkay!" only make sense to people who believe in that religious idea. It's not logically correct. It's a value judgement that you have been brought up with, and does not hold for people from other cultures, other religions, other societies, etc. You may call it "moral relativism" if I disagree with you, but from my point of view I'm just disagreeing.
Sex is fun, it's not evil. It's possible to do it safely, so why not advocate that instead of imposing a weird ideal that goes against human nature? |
Condoms aren't 100% even when used correctly, that's undeniable. Birth control when used correctly isn't 100% effective. The only thing that is is abstinence or as you would like to say to trivialize the matter, castration. These are all undeniable. So why is that a bad thing. I'm sorry you find you can't live without sexual fulfillment all the time. Sure sex is human nature, but the only reason it's human nature is for reproductive purposes. Mankind has created the idea that sex should be used explicitly for pleasure. But whatever, my point was about how to prevent the spread of AIDS but you seem to want to skirt the issue and spread a minority opinion, which is fine, but doesn't do much for the discussion.
Originally posted by lisae:
They used to carry a stigma in all kinds of places. It's not very difficult to overcome. |
go tell that to aid workers in Africa. it takes a lot of nerve to say stuff like that.
|
|
|
|
03/13/2003 10:21:00 AM · #268 |
achiral, your ideals never cease to amaze me.
Short of being as strict as some a our middle east neabours i don't see how it's a wise solution to stop an enitre continent from having sex. Sex isn't evil (IMHO). It is dangerious.
Abstenence isn't working in our high schools, what makes you think its going to work in another culture?
AIDS is a pandemic, if it was treated the way 9/11 was treated, then the drugs would not be too expensive for any country to afford. Remember what happened when companies tried to benifit off the death of all of those victums? They were very much frowned upon. The AIDS pandemic kills that hunreds of times the number people who died on 9/11.
For those of you who are reupublican or right wing at all, you better be careful or you'll find youself with out your cheap labor and you'll have to do some work yourself (that last comment was tounge and cheek)
|
|
|
|
03/13/2003 10:23:43 AM · #269 |
"So why is that a bad thing. I'm sorry you find you can't live without sexual fulfillment all the time. Sure sex is human nature, but the only reason it's human nature is for reproductive purposes."
Not ture. Humans ans dolphins require sex for mental health. I want you to try only having sex for reproductive purposes and see how long you remian sane. ie. if you want to have 3 kids, you have sex about 3-4 times in you life time.
Wake up, man.
|
|
|
|
03/13/2003 10:31:44 AM · #270 |
achiral, have you ever traveled to other countries and tried to get to know the natives? I don't necessarly mean indigiions tribes but the people to call the land your visiting home. In other words, not a tourist exploiting their culture.
I ask this because, many americans that have such strong consertive foreign relationship polcies never can grasp in their heart that nationality was invented. We all are people. If you beleive in one of the major religions then you know that in the eyes of "God" nationality is meaingless. If you can help someone it is your moral obglation to do so. Reguardless of their religion, race(also invented), nationality or sex.
I honestly don't know who people can live with themselves if they see some one laying in the street in need of help but don't help them because they're diffrent in some way.
|
|
|
|
03/13/2003 10:36:10 AM · #271 |
achiral - Yes, the part about castration was a joke.
No, my own sex life has no bearing on my argument that sex is a normal part of human life and should not be stigmatised. My scientific background has far more to do with it.
And AIDS workers in Africa are doing plenty to overcome the stigma of condoms. I saw a news story that covered a touring stage show where actors dressed up in big fluffy condom costumes and acted out educational sketches (since people in rural areas don't tend to have TVs). That's only one way they're attempting it.
|
|
|
|
03/13/2003 10:38:57 AM · #272 |
every time i think i'm going to add to this thread, i open a reply box and then am overwhelmed by a huge feeling of futility, given how adamant yet polarized everyone seems to be on this topic (going to war).
no matter what the viewpoint, everyone seems to be able to come up with a series of rationalizations to support it. so what's the point, other than wasting breath? If the disapproval of the other powerful nations of the world arent going to affect or change what Bush does, our arguing on a web photography site forum isn't either. I haven't seen one person change their viewpoint as a result of this 'discussion.'
but fwiw, here's my take on the situation:
i am an american citizen. i didnt vote for bush, though. he never seemed to have the intellectual or experiential credentials to be a good president of this country. note that i dont generally care about party lines. i just consider each candidate on their merits. i try not to have an emotional response to issues.
after the voting debacle, and bush took power, i think people assumed he would be pretty low-key and try to make up for the fact that he really wasn't the man the people had elected. of course, he got assertive really quick.
fast forward to this war. To me, none of the elements add up.
WMD? If they exist why hasnt anyone found them? Why havent the iraqis used them against us or any of their other enemies, previously? why dont any of the other powerful nations of the world have any intelligence about their existence? Their existence seems totally implausible based on those facts. they seem to be a manufactured bugaboo created to drive the agenda of war.
Meanwhile, there are other countries, both neutral and actively hostile that have WMD that everyone has seen and KNOWS about! Yet we are not aggressing against these countries? It doesnt add up.
Connection with Al-Qaeda? Disavowed by both sides, and no real connection has ever been found. Also implausible because of their religious and sectarian differences.
Prevention of terror. Again, most of the terrorists came from Saudi! Not Iraq. An unjustified attack against a moslem country though will obviously galvanise people from all over the region to retaliate and increase terror attacks. Not to mention that the one terror attack that occurred while huge, mostly succeeded because of the element of surprise. The US wasnt in vigilance mode and now that it is, it's not very likely that things like that are going to happen again.
Our economy. Why o why, would we bankrupt our country, that is currently having economic trouble, and basically throw away our resources and prosperity by building up a huge deficit, to attack a country that is poor and shattered? Why can't we expend those resources to help our country itself? We are currently having huge problems with unemployment, education cuts (teachers laid off by the truckload), natural resources. These things are our true future, not some flash in the pan war that's going to bankrupt us for no good reason.
I get the impression that Bush is totally irrational when it comes to this issue and topic. He's not acting out of any kind of logical framework. And that makes me realize that, just because he happens to be the leader of this nation, does not automatically make him perfect or infallible. He's a man, a human being, like any other human being. He's had a history of emotional and drug problems - alcohol, cocaine. His own daughters were publically out of control.
He's just a fallible human being, and I can't believe that people can so blindly put their faith in him, and not question or examine his premises. Which is supposed to be what our democratic system is all about.
The war against Iraq, when considered in logical terms and what is best for our country, just does not add up.
If you read this far, thanks for bearing with me.
|
|
|
|
03/13/2003 10:43:14 AM · #273 |
---This is a comment on the AIDS issue---
As is the case with the American population, i don't think that the entire problem is education. I believe that there is a huge misconception of African countries. Africans are not dumb and in need of American enlightenment. Everyone here in the Midwest seems to think that Africa is nothing but lions jungle and pyramids. There are full sized metropolitan cities in several of the African countries. I think more of the problem is that just like everywhere else, no one believes that it can happen to them.
Message edited by author 2003-03-13 10:46:50.
|
|
|
|
03/13/2003 10:45:27 AM · #274 |
|
|
|
03/13/2003 10:47:17 AM · #275 |
|
