Cure for HIV discovered
-
your skills in setting up strawmen is legendary.Originally posted by boka:I see your new here.
try me with your limited knowledge.
I have manage to shut most forumite up even in contraversial issues.
Little boy,go back to biology 101 and tell your biology teacher u are comparing domestic animals and those which are born in the wilderness.
I'm amazed with how someone compares apple with orange.
seriously.
anyone who observes this thread closely will see that you were the one who came up with these analogies. I hate to use internet lingo, but this is, i believe, a classic example of self-pwn.
It's not hard to shut most of these forum users up, considering they literally have the maturity level of mid teenagers(because they are). You, i'm assuming is considerably older(or are pretending to be), so i expect more from you. Setting up circular arguments is stooping so low.
for those who just tuned in, let me refresh what transpired in the last 24 hours
1) boka sets up an analogy of kittens going for alpha males for sex(omg kittens, think of the children!)
2) I argue that Kittens certainly do no such thing. There's no social ladder in domestic cats
3) Boka proceeds to patiently lecture me that domestic cats are unsuitable for such discussions, and my argument is thus null and void.
In essence, boka is an idiot who just pwned himself.
Then boka gets bolder, he decides to pretend i'm mixing technology with evolution. Either he has never been taught the meaning of "context", or he is deliberately misleading everyone with his arguments.
Really boka, those all caps posts have ruined whatever authority you might have had before i joined in. You've already proven yourself incapable providing decent counter-arguments in this debate.
And you tell me you're gonna win this?? -
oh you started the insults first.Originally posted by boka:I see your new here.
try me with your limited knowledge.
I have manage to shut most forumite up even in contraversial issues.
Little boy,go back to biology 101 and tell your biology teacher u are comparing domestic animals and those which are born in the wilderness.
I'm amazed with how someone compares apple with orange.
Finesse of my language are not for low life like u,it is reserve for intelligent and civilised people like badmazro.
The moment u throw personal insults,i take it personal with u and the only thing that is coming out of my mouth are vile and defilled words.
yeah, i know, don't confuse you with the facts, right? -
ANother idiotic statement.Originally posted by deathbait:i so do not need to meet up with someone who thinks HIV cures are bad.
but good for you, you located your caps lock key after all
Every research has to go through a debate in a science committee.
Just like how many people have thought cloning would be a benificial cause,it is still controversial in many countries.
There are numerous factors such as ethics,morals and principle of conducting such a research.
U are a narrow person and lack the vision or open mind to even talk about such issues.
U think HIV cure shld be here because it saves life.
Thats all.
full stop.
But an intelligent person does not stop there.
They weight the cause and effect.
U call yourself smart?
even cloning has it's fair share of debates among scientist and u want to proclaim u are smarter than scientist who debate over "yes" and "no" to cloning.
I think it's time for u to stop acting smart and return to elementary school.
I wonder what are elementary teachers teaching kids like u nowadays.
U dare not meet me up because
1)u are an insecure person and do not have the confident to make your valid point in a face to face conversation,hence the need to hide behind the screen so if anything gets bust,u can duck
2)i dare to meet u and debate with u over coffee because i know my facts and i have the knowledge to do so.
I can even engage a stranger,anyone and ask them their opinion to our topic.
I am an outspoken person online and offline.
Try me.
Go out and compare apple and orange and watch the laughter. -
give me some time to expose your lies.Originally posted by deathbait:your skills in setting up strawmen is legendary.
seriously.
anyone who observes this thread closely will see that you were the one who came up with these analogies. I hate to use internet lingo, but this is, i believe, a classic example of self-pwn.
It's not hard to shut most of these forum users up, considering they literally have the maturity level of mid teenagers(because they are). You, i'm assuming is considerably older(or are pretending to be), so i expect more from you. Setting up circular arguments is stooping so low.
for those who just tuned in, let me refresh what transpired in the last 24 hours
1) boka sets up an analogy of kittens going for alpha males for sex(omg kittens, think of the children!)
2) I argue that Kittens certainly do no such thing. There's no social ladder in domestic cats
3) Boka proceeds to patiently lecture me that domestic cats are unsuitable for such discussions, and my argument is thus null and void.
In essence, boka is an idiot who just pwned himself.
Then boka gets bolder, he decides to pretend i'm mixing technology with evolution. Either he has never been taught the meaning of "context", or he is deliberately misleading everyone with his arguments.
Really boka, those all caps posts have ruined whatever authority you might have had before i joined in. You've already proven yourself incapable providing decent counter-arguments in this debate.
And you tell me you're gonna win this??
wait. -
i can answer your entire query by repeating my point(for the third time)Originally posted by boka:ANother idiotic statement.
Every research has to go through a debate in a science committee.
Just like how many people have thought cloning would be a benificial cause,it is still controversial in many countries.
There are numerous factors such as ethics,morals and principle of conducting such a research.
U are a narrow person and lack the vision or open mind to even talk about such issues.
U think HIV cure shld be here because it saves life.
Thats all.
full stop.
But an intelligent person does not stop there.
They weight the cause and effect.
U call yourself smart?
even cloning has it's fair share of debates among scientist and u want to proclaim u are smarter than scientist who debate over "yes" and "no" to cloning.
I think it's time for u to stop acting smart and return to elementary school.
I wonder what are elementary teachers teaching kids like u nowadays.
U dare not meet me up because
1)u are an insecure person and do not have the confident to make your valid point in a face to face conversation,hence the need to hide behind the screen so if anything gets bust,u can duck
2)i dare to meet u and debate with u over coffee because i know my facts and i have the knowledge to do so.
I can even engage a stranger,anyone and ask them their opinion to our topic.
I am an outspoken person online and offline.
Try me.
Go out and compare apple and orange and watch the laughter.
hopefully this time, you will actually read it.
Human society has survived without HIV for hundreds of years, thousands even. It will not fall apart just because HIV is suddenly gone again.
Your argument about clones simply do not hold true for this case. Stop confusing facts with fiction. We debate before we embark on a change that could change life as we know it, not if we already have sufficient records to prove otherwise.
To hear you speak of it, you probably condemn the vaccine for Polio too. Think of those ppl who were supposed to die, but never did! CONTROVERSY! -
I don't want to meet up with you because you are an extremist. And to me, an extremist such as you is an unstable individual. I doubt anyone really wants to meet up with you.
You're probably just unaccustomed to someone actually bothering to stand up to your nonsense. Unfortunately for you, i'm bored. -
while i'm waiting for your (hopefully) entertaining rebuttal, i think i'll do a preemptive strike on what i think you're about to do.(because you are so predictable)
you are NOT allowed to shift the focus from the family corruption angle to the ethical debate on gene manipulation. That was not the platform for your original argument, and you don't get to change topics without acknowledging defeat first. -
what's the problem?
-
wow such intense argument here if only the insults would stop but nvm it adds flavour..Originally posted by deathbait:i can answer your entire query by repeating my point(for the third time)
hopefully this time, you will actually read it.
Human society has survived without HIV for hundreds of years, thousands even. It will not fall apart just because HIV is suddenly gone again.
Your argument about clones simply do not hold true for this case. Stop confusing facts with fiction. We debate before we embark on a change that could change life as we know it, not if we already have sufficient records to prove otherwise.
To hear you speak of it, you probably condemn the vaccine for Polio too. Think of those ppl who were supposed to die, but never did! CONTROVERSY!
Just a few things to take note of.. I agree with Boka when he said this,
"U think HIV cure shld be here because it saves life.
Thats all.
full stop.
But an intelligent person does not stop there.
They weight the cause and effect."
You see, I wouldn't think that boka is the kind of guy that would think cures are bad. Its all about weighing the cost benefits.
You mentioned this, "Human society has survived without HIV for hundreds of years, thousands even. It will not fall apart just because HIV is suddenly gone again."
What you failed to realise is over the thousand of years, culture, living conditions, environment, beliefs, moral standards, ethics, and all have changed. You cannot simply compare the two era of time and just think that the effects would be similar.
For me, I wouldn't dare to take a stand on whether a cure for HIV is good or bad cos I feel that decisions like that especially something so serious that could affect billions of people, or rather the whole world, should be considered its pros and cons. The effects of such decisions may not be all good.
By the way, from your posts, you looked like someone who just finished or is taking some Analytical Skills Studies or something... -
Since the HIV epidemic broke out only in the mid 80s, i don't quite understand your point "two different eras". That's just 20 years of HIV we've lived with. Humans haven't really changed much since then.Originally posted by dinky1409:wow such intense argument here if only the insults would stop but nvm it adds flavour..
Just a few things to take note of.. I agree with Boka when he said this,
"U think HIV cure shld be here because it saves life.
Thats all.
full stop.
But an intelligent person does not stop there.
They weight the cause and effect."
You see, I wouldn't think that boka is the kind of guy that would think cures are bad. Its all about weighing the cost benefits.
You mentioned this, "Human society has survived without HIV for hundreds of years, thousands even. It will not fall apart just because HIV is suddenly gone again."
What you failed to realise is over the thousand of years, culture, living conditions, environment, beliefs, moral standards, ethics, and all have changed. You cannot simply compare the two era of time and just think that the effects would be similar.
For me, I wouldn't dare to take a stand on whether a cure for HIV is good or bad cos I feel that decisions like that especially something so serious that could affect billions of people, or rather the whole world, should be considered its pros and cons. The effects of such decisions may not be all good.
By the way, from your posts, you looked like someone who just finished or is taking some Analytical Skills Studies or something...
I'm just saying, when you take into account the long period of time humans have managed to stay sane without HIV keeping them from humping the nearest mammal compared to the last 2 decades of HIV scare, you can pretty much predict in all certainty that the elimination of HIV will not destroy the basic family structure as boka claims. -
oh by the way deathbait,Originally posted by deathbait:i can answer your entire query by repeating my point(for the third time)
hopefully this time, you will actually read it.
Human society has survived without HIV for hundreds of years, thousands even. It will not fall apart just because HIV is suddenly gone again.
Your argument about clones simply do not hold true for this case. Stop confusing facts with fiction. We debate before we embark on a change that could change life as we know it, not if we already have sufficient records to prove otherwise.
To hear you speak of it, you probably condemn the vaccine for Polio too. Think of those ppl who were supposed to die, but never did! CONTROVERSY!
he uses cloning as an example to prove a point about decision makings.. What was the negative effects for a "cure" for Polio? -
Personally, I think Boka, you are not thinking ahead. You are only thinking about the current issues, which is people is having casual sex. However, have you think about this?
Our younger generation nowadays are having sex at a younger age and this younger age gets lower each year. When I'm talking about younger generation, I'm not only talking about Singapore but the world.
So, if X gets his/her first sex at the age of maybe 17, what's make you think he/she will not have another sex maybe a few months later? If X were to have sex at such a young age, the risk of getting infected with HIV will become higher as the time goes.
Think about this, if majority of our younger generation do this, in future, every people you see on the street will be infected with HIV and the thought of it is indeed frighteningly.
This problem can no longer be controlled, scare tactics like HIV is no longer working effective on this young generation. Schools recognised this problem thats why they started to teach their students about condoms and other protective measures, in the past this were considered like a taboo and not taught in school.
Younger generation this day do not think about consequences before they act and the problem is even after doing the act, they still do not reflect about the consequences.
You mentioned that if a cure for HIV were to be found, people will start to have casual sex without giving a thought for consequences.
However, I would like to point out that it might not be what you think it is. Why? I presume that the cure for HIV would not be like cough syrup, where you can get it over the counter. I also presume that the cure for HIV would not be cheap AND the cure for HIV is not 100% effective.
If your idea is to use HIV for sex deterrence, with or without cure it would still work. Why? The availability of the cure, the price of the cure and the effectiveness of the cure. No cure is perfect, the disease might still come back.
Plus, think about those innocent newborn babies who gotten HIV from their mothers, don't you think they deserve a chance to live in this world for they done nothing wrong?
Also, think about those people (man or woman) who got HIV because they are raped? Do you think they deserve it? Do you really think they deserve to be raped?
What about those who got infected with HIV because of blood transfusion?
Boka, your mind is only set to see what you can see in front of you, you should broaden your mindset, look further away and not just HIV for sex deterrence. A cure for HIV = save many innocent lifes. -
i'm glad you asked.Originally posted by dinky1409:oh by the way deathbait,
he uses cloning as an example to prove a point about decision makings.. What was the negative effects for a "cure" for Polio?
I was using polio as an example to point out the difference between a cure for a disease and the introduction of a new vector in our way of life.
The cure for an existing disease that erupted not too long ago should not require much debate. But cloning opens the Pandora's box. The reason it's a pandora box is because we have no idea what will happen after. And we have no existing data to find out. So we argue endlessly about the pros and cons without the hope of ever getting meaningful data unless we go ahead with it.
You wish to know the harm of curing polio? Polio is now nearly extinct. Take a step back and realise what this means. We have traded an entire line of bacteria in exchange for a few human lives. Actually, it doesn't sound like such bad news, does it? But neither does a cure for aids. Which is worse, the probable outcome of already shaky marriages failing prematurely, or people dying?
In the end, the whole thing about polio was meant to bring up one single point, which i think is pretty damning against the clone/discussion argument. Life before HIV is known data. Life after cloning is not. Therein lies the difference, and why debates are necessary for cloning, and not so much for HIV cures. -
You were mentioning about humans surviving without HIV for thousand of years.. Not when HIV epidemic broke out..Originally posted by deathbait:Since the HIV epidemic broke out only in the mid 80s, i don't quite understand your point "two different eras". That's just 20 years of HIV we've lived with. Humans haven't really changed much since then.
I'm just saying, when you take into account the long period of time humans have managed to stay sane without HIV keeping them from humping the nearest mammal compared to the last 2 decades of HIV scare, you can pretty much predict in all certainty that the elimination of HIV will not destroy the basic family structure as boka claims.
My point is, sorry if not clear, during Pre-HIV, the culture, moral standards, ethics, blah blah, are pretty much different from today. Last time, pre-marital sex/casual sex is considered taboo. A no-no. Now? Heck we even have f*ck buddies.. That is my point on the "different eras".
Long time ago, humans probably managed to stay sane cos the fruit is still considered to be forbidden. Now, too many people have tasted the fruit that it hardly has that same magnitude of resistance.
This is where it becomes debatable again. Cos some of us have absolutely no problem with casual sex. While some of us have issues with it. The range of ethical standards have now been widened. That is why cost benefit analysis will differ from people to people... -
Yes excellent, this is the kind of analysis that is wanted around here.. But you cannot default boka totally.. He analysed the situation more than people who just think that cure is good therefore it shall be implemented.Originally posted by furb:Personally, I think Boka, you are not thinking ahead. You are only thinking about the current issues, which is people is having casual sex. However, have you think about this?
Our younger generation nowadays are having sex at a younger age and this younger age gets lower each year. When I'm talking about younger generation, I'm not only talking about Singapore but the world.
So, if X gets his/her first sex at the age of maybe 17, what's make you think he/she will not have another sex maybe a few months later? If X were to have sex at such a young age, the risk of getting infected with HIV will become higher as the time goes.
Think about this, if majority of our younger generation do this, in future, every people you see on the street will be infected with HIV and the thought of it is indeed frighteningly.
This problem can no longer be controlled, scare tactics like HIV is no longer working effective on this young generation. Schools recognised this problem thats why they started to teach their students about condoms and other protective measures, in the past this were considered like a taboo and not taught in school.
Younger generation this day do not think about consequences before they act and the problem is even after doing the act, they still do not reflect about the consequences.
You mentioned that if a cure for HIV were to be found, people will start to have casual sex without giving a thought for consequences.
However, I would like to point out that it might not be what you think it is. Why? I presume that the cure for HIV would not be like cough syrup, where you can get it over the counter. I also presume that the cure for HIV would not be cheap AND the cure for HIV is not 100% effective.
If your idea is to use HIV for sex deterrence, with or without cure it would still work. Why? The availability of the cure, the price of the cure and the effectiveness of the cure. No cure is perfect, the disease might still come back.
Plus, think about those innocent newborn babies who gotten HIV from their mothers, don't you think they deserve a chance to live in this world for they done nothing wrong?
Also, think about those people (man or woman) who got HIV because they are raped? Do you think they deserve it? Do you really think they deserve to be raped?
What about those who got infected with HIV because of blood transfusion?
Boka, your mind is only set to see what you can see in front of you, you should broaden your mindset, look further away and not just HIV for sex deterrence. A cure for HIV = save many innocent lifes. -
your lack of understanding my points stems from the difference in context.Originally posted by dinky1409:You were mentioning about humans surviving without HIV for thousand of years.. Not when HIV epidemic broke out..
My point is, sorry if not clear, during Pre-HIV, the culture, moral standards, ethics, blah blah, are pretty much different from today. Last time, pre-marital sex/casual sex is considered taboo. A no-no. Now? Heck we even have f*ck buddies.. That is my point on the "different eras".
Long time ago, humans probably managed to stay sane cos the fruit is still considered to be forbidden. Now, too many people have tasted the fruit that it hardly has that same magnitude of resistance.
This is where it becomes debatable again. Cos some of us have absolutely no problem with casual sex. While some of us have issues with it. The range of ethical standards have now been widened. That is why cost benefit analysis will differ from people to people...
STDs have always been around. The argument here is whether the FEAR of HIV has given humanity pause in desolving into decadence. The fear of HIV stems from the 1980s outbreak of HIV. If you read your history right, the culture on which ours is slowly mirroring was, at that point at the hight of decadence.
BUT, the family structures held strong. Casual sex did nothing to break up marriages that weren't already heading towards oblivion.
If your only argument against HIV treatment is casual sex that does not lead to family structure degradation, i can only pose this question to you :
how is casual sex bad then?
If you answered pregnancy, a follow up if you will:
Do ppl who practice protected sex do so now more to avoid pregnancies, or to avoid HIV?
If you answered pregnancy again, then your question, i hope, is answered. -
[boka]Dear stupidOriginally posted by deathbait:your skills in setting up strawmen is legendary.
seriously.
anyone who observes this thread closely will see that you were the one who came up with these analogies. I hate to use internet lingo, but this is, i believe, a classic example of self-pwn.
It's not hard to shut most of these forum users up, considering they literally have the maturity level of mid teenagers(because they are). You, i'm assuming is considerably older(or are pretending to be), so i expect more from you. Setting up circular arguments is stooping so low.
for those who just tuned in, let me refresh what transpired in the last 24 hours
1) boka sets up an analogy of kittens going for alpha males for sex(omg kittens, think of the children!)
2) I argue that Kittens certainly do no such thing. There's no social ladder in domestic cats
3) Boka proceeds to patiently lecture me that domestic cats are unsuitable for such discussions, and my argument is thus null and void.
In essence, boka is an idiot who just pwned himself.
Then boka gets bolder, he decides to pretend i'm mixing technology with evolution. Either he has never been taught the meaning of "context", or he is deliberately misleading everyone with his arguments.
Really boka, those all caps posts have ruined whatever authority you might have had before i joined in. You've already proven yourself incapable providing decent counter-arguments in this debate.
tell me you're gonna win this??
1) boka sets up an analogy of kittens going for alpha males for sex(omg kittens, think of the children!)[deathbait]
[boka]Kittens/cat like any other animals in the wild will go for the alpha males.
2) I argue that Kittens certainly do no such thing. There's no social ladder in domestic cats[deathbait]
[boka]There are no social ladder among domestic animals.
Domestic animals grew up in an artifical enviroment and similarly like how culture and envoriment affect the thoughts and behaviour of humans,animals are influenced the same way.
If u claim that natural social ladder that exist in wild kitten or any other animals would remain in domestic animals then answer this:
why do domestic kittens and domestic dogs which grew up together from birth share a loving bonding?
If domestic animals were to retain their primal traits then according to science and from scientific studies,both the domestic dog and domestic cat can never grow up in harmony and behave like they would in the wild.
They do not behave like the wild cats and dogs in the wild because these pets are domestic and their living enviroment from birth affects them.
If domestic animals retain their primal mind and abilities then why does a tiger/lion that grow up in the zoo have a 80% chances of dying of hunger as compared to their counterparts who grew up in the african plains?
Shouldn't they still know how to hunt as good as their counterparts who grew up in the wild if what u claim is true?
Scientist have done research and found animals which grew up in the wild and zoo are toally different.
those which grew up in the zoo CANNOT HUNT WELL and DO NOT REGONISE A SOCIAL LADDER[well unless they manage to continue living for the next decades of their life in the wild then perhaps they will learn something from their counterparts] because an animal from birth is nutured and taught by it's mother the survival skills and the ability to regconise what is a social ladder.
Do u NOT KNOW that an animal,any animal,do not cary their primal traits from young?
These skills are passed on by their mothers,they teach them how to hunt and what to avoid.
Asian are conservative.
Are they conservative by nature of is it their enviroment.
U claim domestic animals retain their primal charteristic and judging from your analogy, your stand would be they are conservative BY NATURE.
My stand however is different.
I say it's their enviroment.
An asian who grew up in an asian country is more convservative than their counterparts who grew up in a western community.
This has nothing to do with what nature because how someone or something turns out to be is the work of their culture and enviroment.
3) Boka proceeds to patiently lecture me that domestic cats are unsuitable for such discussions, and my argument is thus null and void.[deathbait]
[boka]Your arguments are null and void.
U claim that natural selection takes place in domestic animals.
Mr death,what is the gauge that u use in your measurement of "natural selection"?
My stand is that,natural selection do not take place in domestic animals because
1)they from young are not taught what is needed in the animal kingdom and they do not know who to mate with[there are no guildlines]
2)more often,it is the owners of these domestic animal which determind who they mate with,U are saying that TRUE natural selection is when the owners put 2 BEAUTIFUL coloured skin kittens to mate,that to u is called natural selection.
But that is not true natural selection for kittens.
For a female butterfly to mate with a colourful male is true naturalselection because in the animal world,brightness of a colour are used to determind which are the alpha males[colours are used as a sign of fertility and strenght]
The same goes for birds liek the peacock.
For kittens however,they are like other mammals.
Their "guildlines" on who is stronger is not often based on colours,it is based on a compeition,a fight.
The winners is the strongest.
Let me refresh the audience of your stupidty with what i have posted.
let's see..
[Posted by deathbait]
Â…..
This is how evolution(in this case, natural selection) works. Sick ppl die, Healthy ppl develop the immunity AFTER they recover and pass it on. Your precious society is the one that's been preventing the latter from happening. We stopped evolving in most ways a long time ago. Go look up the basics of evolution first, k?
[boka]Time and time again u proved to be an idiot.
HIV is a natural thing that would happen if humans partake in casual sex.
The reason why HIV is here is because casual sex among humans was not meant to take place in the beginning.
If causal sex is ok and what nature wants us to do and as u said for gene diversification then why is mother nature infecting humans with a deadly virus when her sole purpose from your point of view is to diversify the race?
Nature immunity and artificial immunity is different.
Again u compares apple and orange.
Evolution is about being better IN THE NATURAL WAY.
If sick animal dies and strong animal lives in a natural competition then that is called evolution.
However, when u inject and animal/human with a vaccine and they live,u consider them STRONG?
Like I said u are stupid.
If I were to help a lion bleeding to death and it survive, IS THAT CALLED SURVIVAL OF THE FITESS?
WE STOPPED EVOLVING A LONG TIME AGO?
DO U KNOW THE TRUE MEANING OF EVOlVING?
EVOLUTION IS CONSTANTLY TAKING PLACE AND IT EVEN NOW WE HUMANS ARE IN THE PROCESS OF EVOLUTION.
THERE ARE NO RESULT OF EVOLUTION BECAUSE IT TAKES PLACE CONSTANTLY.
WE EVOLVE TO ADAPT.
AS THE EARTH WARMS UP AND ENVIROMENTAL CHANGES OCCUR,WE HUmANS WILL EVOLVE TO ADAPT TO THE ENVIROMENT[LESSER HAIRS AND LARGE SWEAT GLANDS IN SOME WAYS]
GO READ UP ON BIOLOGY 101 IDIOT.
[deathbait]
--Because a cure will lead to an increase in casual sex, fuck the HIV infected. We don't need no stinking cure.
What cult are you in again?
I shall repeat my points for sake of clarity.
1) casual sex is not a bad result in the bigger scheme of things. It leads to diversification of the gene pool, which is always a good hedging mechanism.
[boka]WOW!
IF PEOPLE PARTAKE IN CASUAL SEX FOR THE PURPOSE OF DIVERSIYING THE GENE POOL THEN WHY ARE THEY USING CONDOMS AND OTHER CONTRACEPTIVE METHODS TO PREVENT PREGNANCY?
TRY TO PULL THAT OFF IDIOT!
2) On the family level, you have no need to worry about cures of HIV leading to casual sex unless your family is already unstable. In which case, the existance of a HIV cure is the least of your worries
3) Societies with strong family ties(arguably stronger than the current era) have been built in the past with no threat of HIV at all. To suggest that the elimination of HIV will break down the family structure of society is to deny all existance of proof readily available.
[me]This is more than just family ties.
We live in a society and not just within our family.
4) The monogamy is/was not always the only family structure in the world. Just because your society practices a system of monogamy does not mean it is natural, nor does it mean it has to stay that way lest civilization as we know it collapse around us. In fact, monogamy is an unnatural result of humans having outgrown their primal needs.
5) you are an idiot. Stop worrying about how to deny cures to the terminally ill and start worrying about your mom's infidelity. I assume that's why you're so insecure about family ties. No? In that case, just stop worrying.[/b][/quote]
[boka]Personal attacks? -
My point here is that HIV is no polio. It comes with social issues and not only health issues. Looking at health issues, no doubt a cure is always good. When I asked for negative effects, I was looking more for social effects.Originally posted by deathbait:i'm glad you asked.
I was using polio as an example to point out the difference between a cure for a disease and the introduction of a new vector in our way of life.
The cure for an existing disease that erupted not too long ago should not require much debate. But cloning opens the Pandora's box. The reason it's a pandora box is because we have no idea what will happen after. And we have no existing data to find out. So we argue endlessly about the pros and cons without the hope of ever getting meaningful data unless we go ahead with it.
You wish to know the harm of curing polio? Polio is now nearly extinct. Take a step back and realise what this means. We have traded an entire line of bacteria in exchange for a few human lives. Actually, it doesn't sound like such bad news, does it? But neither does a cure for aids. Which is worse, the probable outcome of already shaky marriages failing prematurely, or people dying?
In the end, the whole thing about polio was meant to bring up one single point, which i think is pretty damning against the clone/discussion argument. Life before HIV is known data. Life after cloning is not. Therein lies the difference, and why debates are necessary for cloning, and not so much for HIV cures.
Another point to take note. As mentioned, different people now have different takes in life. But for me, I wouldn't take death as something really bad. But that's because I have a religion, my own sets of beliefs and principles and standards that mould my thinking process. Yours may differ from mine.
-
But there's a difference between playing devil's advocate and just voicing objections just because it's controversial.Originally posted by dinky1409:Yes excellent, this is the kind of analysis that is wanted around here.. But you cannot default boka totally.. He analysed the situation more than people who just think that cure is good therefore it shall be implemented.
My gripe with boka has always been that his arguments made absolutely no sense to the intelligent observer.
If he had come out swinging with an argument about gene manipulation and introducing new stuff to our bodies, THEN he would have been justified.
But he decided to go the route of misquoting stuff and spreading disinformation. That is intolerable. -
how is casual sex bad then?Originally posted by deathbait:your lack of understanding my points stems from the difference in context.
STDs have always been around. The argument here is whether the FEAR of HIV has given humanity pause in desolving into decadence. The fear of HIV stems from the 1980s outbreak of HIV. If you read your history right, the culture on which ours is slowly mirroring was, at that point at the hight of decadence.
BUT, the family structures held strong. Casual sex did nothing to break up marriages that weren't already heading towards oblivion.
If your only argument against HIV treatment is casual sex that does not lead to family structure degradation, i can only pose this question to you :
how is casual sex bad then?
If you answered pregnancy, a follow up if you will:
Do ppl who practice protected sex do so now more to avoid pregnancies, or to avoid HIV?
If you answered pregnancy again, then your question, i hope, is answered.
Read the last part of my post in your quote.. -
If you think a cure for HIV will cause social issues, you're clearly deluded. The summer of love was cut short due to HIV, but was it really a social issue?Originally posted by dinky1409:My point here is that HIV is no polio. It comes with social issues and not only health issues. Looking at health issues, no doubt a cure is always good. When I asked for negative effects, I was looking more for social effects.
Another point to take note. As mentioned, different people now have different takes in life. But for me, I wouldn't take death as something really bad. But that's because I have a religion, my own sets of beliefs and principles and standards that mould my thinking process. Yours may differ from mine.
What right do you have to decide to punish those who are capable of seeking more partners, really?
And what is wrong with having more partners if you have not already tied yourself to one. -
boka, that's all you could come up with?
anyone who actually goes over this thread and reads it in chronological order will realise what you're doing.
god that's 1 hour of my time wasted waiting for you to come up with a decent reply i'll never get back -
i'm making a darn simple point here.Originally posted by furb:Personally, I think Boka, you are not thinking ahead. You are only thinking about the current issues, which is people is having casual sex. However, have you think about this?
Our younger generation nowadays are having sex at a younger age and this younger age gets lower each year. When I'm talking about younger generation, I'm not only talking about Singapore but the world.
So, if X gets his/her first sex at the age of maybe 17, what's make you think he/she will not have another sex maybe a few months later? If X were to have sex at such a young age, the risk of getting infected with HIV will become higher as the time goes.
Think about this, if majority of our younger generation do this, in future, every people you see on the street will be infected with HIV and the thought of it is indeed frighteningly.
This problem can no longer be controlled, scare tactics like HIV is no longer working effective on this young generation. Schools recognised this problem thats why they started to teach their students about condoms and other protective measures, in the past this were considered like a taboo and not taught in school.
Younger generation this day do not think about consequences before they act and the problem is even after doing the act, they still do not reflect about the consequences.
You mentioned that if a cure for HIV were to be found, people will start to have casual sex without giving a thought for consequences.
However, I would like to point out that it might not be what you think it is. Why? I presume that the cure for HIV would not be like cough syrup, where you can get it over the counter. I also presume that the cure for HIV would not be cheap AND the cure for HIV is not 100% effective.
If your idea is to use HIV for sex deterrence, with or without cure it would still work. Why? The availability of the cure, the price of the cure and the effectiveness of the cure. No cure is perfect, the disease might still come back.
Plus, think about those innocent newborn babies who gotten HIV from their mothers, don't you think they deserve a chance to live in this world for they done nothing wrong?
Also, think about those people (man or woman) who got HIV because they are raped? Do you think they deserve it? Do you really think they deserve to be raped?
What about those who got infected with HIV because of blood transfusion?
Boka, your mind is only set to see what you can see in front of you, you should broaden your mindset, look further away and not just HIV for sex deterrence. A cure for HIV = save many innocent lifes.
My fear or issue here is not the increase in no. of HIV carrier if the cure is not found.
My issue is there will be more people discarding morality and having casual sex because the risk if no longer there. -
lazy to go back to the various pages to relate back.. butOriginally posted by deathbait:But there's a difference between playing devil's advocate and just voicing objections just because it's controversial.
My gripe with boka has always been that his arguments made absolutely no sense to the intelligent observer.
If he had come out swinging with an argument about gene manipulation and introducing new stuff to our bodies, THEN he would have been justified.
But he decided to go the route of misquoting stuff and spreading disinformation. That is intolerable.
He's main point was that it would lead to social degrading or something like that. And it made sense to me.
I would still believe that social issues will arise from the cure. Whether, its something minor or major, that's not my expertise to decide. -
i never said casual sex was bad. That's bako's job.Originally posted by dinky1409:how is casual sex bad then?
Read the last part of my post in your quote..
What's really bad is uneducated/unprotected sex though.