Question concerning AIDs cure...

[Ganryu]

Tcsenter says:

"I meant Moralistic Tower, by attempting to seize the moral high ground in an issue and portray your opponent as a 'dirty, rotten,
uncaring, and all around bad' person because his opinions differ from yours. Its like calling someone a racist, or homophobe, an attempt to shut down the debate because you don't want to deal with their arguments. "

I am perfectly happy to deal with your arguments but you tend to evade them or try to counter mine with misinterpreted data.

I said it was apparent from your statements that you are a racist and homophobe because of your constant references to issues as "gay agendas," "pro-homo lobbies," and gay people and prostitutes as "cretins" as well as your statement that "It is none of my concern what affects Uba Duba Dyba and his 40 starving children in Sub-Saharan Africa"

It has been my experience that debating with people with similar opinions is usually fruitless.

I am not trying to portay you as an "uncaring, and all around bad person." You yourself have done that with the above statements and those such as:

"I have no interest in "curing" a disease to the tune of tens of billions of dollars that is ALREADY easily prevented!"
There are >40 million people with AIDS and you offer no suggestion as to what to do with them.

"You give these cretins a pill and they will simply abuse it, misuse it, or take it for granted, now they have a 'cure', facilitating wide-spread drug resistance to mutations of HIV."

"HIV is an epidemic in Sub-Saharan Africa, and perhaps a couple other dung-heaps of the world, but it is not remotely approaching an epidemic anywhere else."
Last time I checked, the people living in these dunghill's are also PEOPLE, and I have issues with the way your callous disregard for their lives.

 

[p0ntif]

Originally posted by: Zakath15

Originally posted by: Ganryu
Zakath, just a quick point.. HIV is hardy in the sense that it undergoes mutations that render it resistant to treatment or can lay dormant even in the presence of treatment.. its not hardy in the sense that outside of the body it dies very very quickly (unlike the flu for instance, which is one of the reasons its not transmissible through the air).

I realize that it dies quickly when outside of the body, again, one of the reasons why I find the concept of it developing a mechanism that could enable it to survive outside of the body very scary. Or, even less than that, transmission through saliva, etc. What if it did mutate to a form where it had some sort of protection against the elements that cause it to perish outside of the body. (is it exposure to oxygen that kills the virus, or something else?)

Just my speculation... again, I'm not a molecular biologist, just an economics undergrad who's read too much in his lifetime, 😉.

Zakath, this is very unlikely. The russians attempted to develop an airborne form of AIDS and failed miserably. There's a general rule of thumb, and typically when something becomes extremely speciailized, it loses other aspects. HIV in particular is too large (fragile even) to exist outside of a host for very long. And by host I do mean blood or serum. AIDS in serum or blood can become aerosolized, but its survival is pretty slim, and thus is not a evolutionary prospect.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: p0ntif

Zakath, this is very unlikely. The russians attempted to develop an airborne form of AIDS and failed miserably. There's a general rule of thumb, and typically when something becomes extremely speciailized, it loses other aspects. HIV in particular is too large (fragile even) to exist outside of a host for very long. And by host I do mean blood or serum. AIDS in serum or blood can become aerosolized, but its survival is pretty slim, and thus is not a evolutionary prospect.

Okay, cool. That's what I was wondering. 🙂

 

[tcsenter]

I am not trying to portay you as an "uncaring, and all around bad person." You yourself have done that with the above statements and those such as:

"I have no interest in "curing" a disease to the tune of tens of billions of dollars that is ALREADY easily prevented!"

Ah, you're attacking my humanity, except your premise could not be any more incorrect.

Compassion has nothing to do with being so foolishly open minded that your brains fall out. Compassion has nothing to do with yielding rational thought and reason to pure emotional appeal. Compassion has nothing to do with foolish or romantic altruism. Compassion has nothing to do with being blind to reasonable expectations of culpability for one's own willfull choices. Compassion has nothing to do with failing to understand there are consequences to indiscriminant and unlimited compassion.

These are not measures of "compassion". They are something else, but definitely not compassion.

Do I 'feel sorry' for a person who is serving 20 years for armed robbery?

Do I 'feel sorry' for a person who contracts a disease after chosing to inject substances into their veins for a buzz?

Do I 'feel sorry' for a person who contracts a disease after chosing to engage in high risk sexual practices?

Do I 'feel sorry' for the drunk whose chronic alcoholism has resulted in liver failure?

Do I 'feel sorry' for the drunk who gets behind the wheel and injures himself?

Do I 'feel sorry' for the criminal who choses the wrong victim and gets a slug in the chest for his troubles?

Do I 'feel sorry' for a person who cannot find meaningful employment because he has a few felony convictions?

Not a hint of sympathy, none. Does that mean I'm not compassionate? The very suggestion that these things mean I'm without compassion is absurd! It means I reserve my sympathy and compassion for those who are deserving of it because they did not through reckless, deliberate, and willfull behavior bring consequences upon themselves they do not find to their liking and are victims of circumstances that were beyond their reasonable control.

BTW, to answer your incessant question, only cancer receives more funding than AIDS, every other disease or illness pales by comparison in funding to those two. Now that AIDS is a controllable disease and fully preventable, fewer people are both contracting HIV and dying from AIDS, the disproportionate nature of the AIDS funding in relation to the number of people who are affected and are truly at risk grows in comparison to other diseases.

I am FULLY prepared to live with the consequences of all my decisions and I would NEVER expect anyone to alievate or remediate the extent or degree of those consequences simply because I find the consequences of my behavior to be unpleasant. Choices and decisions have consequences, it is a tragic and misguided fool who believes we should live in a consequence-free world.

Conversely, I am FULLY prepared to allow everyone else to live with the consequences of their decisions. I would never have for another what I wouldn't have for myself.