tyler811
Diamond Member
- Jan 27, 2002
- 5,385
- 0
- 71
Originally posted by: jinduy
they should inject him with the virus again to make sure
Your bad
Originally posted by: jinduy
they should inject him with the virus again to make sure
Originally posted by: LuNoTiCK
First off, I don't think the guy is obligated to do anything nor help anyone. You may not look upon it as right, but it's his life, his choice. To say he should die because he has refused is absurd. If he wants to, he should help. He should probably also get some compensation. They will be running countless tests on him, and there can be billions made, so he should get some as well.
Originally posted by: bleeb
The government or anyone has no rights to force him to comply with testing procedures. However, he would be a selfish a-hole for not doing what he can to better humanity.
Utilitarianism isn't the only philosophy out there.Originally posted by: dug777
Originally posted by: LuNoTiCK
First off, I don't think the guy is obligated to do anything nor help anyone. You may not look upon it as right, but it's his life, his choice. To say he should die because he has refused is absurd. If he wants to, he should help. He should probably also get some compensation. They will be running countless tests on him, and there can be billions made, so he should get some as well.
****** that...in that situation it's more than an obligation to help imo, and if he decided he didn't want to help, i'd vote for the party that passed legislation forcing him to. Millions of lives potentially saved vs. one selfish douchbag's rights, i know which i, and any other rational person would value more...
Originally posted by: Howard
Utilitarianism isn't the only philosophy out there.Originally posted by: dug777
Originally posted by: LuNoTiCK
First off, I don't think the guy is obligated to do anything nor help anyone. You may not look upon it as right, but it's his life, his choice. To say he should die because he has refused is absurd. If he wants to, he should help. He should probably also get some compensation. They will be running countless tests on him, and there can be billions made, so he should get some as well.
****** that...in that situation it's more than an obligation to help imo, and if he decided he didn't want to help, i'd vote for the party that passed legislation forcing him to. Millions of lives potentially saved vs. one selfish douchbag's rights, i know which i, and any other rational person would value more...
Originally posted by: Iron Woode
There are also a fair number of people that are immune to HIV/AIDS because of a subtle yet little known birth defect. Basically the virus can't hook in to the immune cells. The person will test positive for exposure to HIV but has no infection.
Originally posted by: dug777
Originally posted by: LuNoTiCK
First off, I don't think the guy is obligated to do anything nor help anyone. You may not look upon it as right, but it's his life, his choice. To say he should die because he has refused is absurd. If he wants to, he should help. He should probably also get some compensation. They will be running countless tests on him, and there can be billions made, so he should get some as well.
****** that...in that situation it's more than an obligation to help imo, and if he decided he didn't want to help, i'd vote for the party that passed legislation forcing him to. Millions of lives potentially saved vs. one selfish douchbag's rights, i know which i, and any other rational person would value more...
Originally posted by: joshsquall
Originally posted by: dug777
Originally posted by: LuNoTiCK
First off, I don't think the guy is obligated to do anything nor help anyone. You may not look upon it as right, but it's his life, his choice. To say he should die because he has refused is absurd. If he wants to, he should help. He should probably also get some compensation. They will be running countless tests on him, and there can be billions made, so he should get some as well.
****** that...in that situation it's more than an obligation to help imo, and if he decided he didn't want to help, i'd vote for the party that passed legislation forcing him to. Millions of lives potentially saved vs. one selfish douchbag's rights, i know which i, and any other rational person would value more...
This is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. How would you feel if you were in the same situation? You have just beaten AIDS and found out that you have another 50 years to look forward to. Now, after that trauma of thinking you'd be dead within 5 years, the government forces you to submit your body to hundreds or thousands of tests, scans, needles, etc. for who knows how long? Is that fair? No. Is that morally or ethically right? No. Is that for the greater good? It doesn't matter.
Originally posted by: dug777
Like i said 'Millions of lives potentially saved vs. one selfish douchbag's rights, i know which i, and any other rational person would value more...'
Originally posted by: joshsquall
Originally posted by: dug777
Like i said 'Millions of lives potentially saved vs. one selfish douchbag's rights, i know which i, and any other rational person would value more...'
It's awesome how freely you give away the rights of others.
Originally posted by: dug777
oh..and right back at ya with more spin that you can handle, how would you feel if you had AIDs, or a kid with AIDs?
![]()
Originally posted by: statik213
clone him
Originally posted by: Continuity28
Originally posted by: joshsquall
Originally posted by: dug777
Like i said 'Millions of lives potentially saved vs. one selfish douchbag's rights, i know which i, and any other rational person would value more...'
It's awesome how freely you give away the rights of others.
It's awesome how some freely give away the LIVES of others.
Originally posted by: joshsquall
Originally posted by: dug777
oh..and right back at ya with more spin that you can handle, how would you feel if you had AIDs, or a kid with AIDs?
![]()
I'd say leave the guy alone. He has his natural rights, I have mine. These aren't rights dictated by law.. they are basic rights that humanity grants to themselves.
Originally posted by: joshsquall
Originally posted by: dug777
Like i said 'Millions of lives potentially saved vs. one selfish douchbag's rights, i know which i, and any other rational person would value more...'
It's awesome how freely you give away the rights of others.
Originally posted by: bleeb
The government or anyone has no rights to force him to comply with testing procedures. However, he would be a selfish a-hole for not doing what he can to better humanity.
Originally posted by: Qosis
Originally posted by: dug777
Originally posted by: ribbon13
Originally posted by: Qosis
If he doesn't cooperate, could someone kill him and then use his body to figure out what was special about his immune system? Or does he need to be alive?
Sadly, I'm not kidding! What a pity if this prick decides not to help out others dying from the disease.
I'm sorry, but you're the prick.
Do you realize exactly how much danger he is in? There is millions of dollars of money on the line. Pharmaceutical companies rely on 'treatments' to generate constant revenue, not 'cures'
He's going to be assassinated or come up missing. At least, that's my guess.
wtf mate?
i want whatever you're smoking![]()
If the person doesn't willfully want to help, then yes, I do think he should be murdered. He knows better than anyone how devastating that disease is, and any reasonable person would not then turn around and be unwilling to help others who suffer from the same ailment.
Oh, also, it's not millions of dollars, it's billions.
Originally posted by: dug777
Originally posted by: Howard
Utilitarianism isn't the only philosophy out there.Originally posted by: dug777
Originally posted by: LuNoTiCK
First off, I don't think the guy is obligated to do anything nor help anyone. You may not look upon it as right, but it's his life, his choice. To say he should die because he has refused is absurd. If he wants to, he should help. He should probably also get some compensation. They will be running countless tests on him, and there can be billions made, so he should get some as well.
****** that...in that situation it's more than an obligation to help imo, and if he decided he didn't want to help, i'd vote for the party that passed legislation forcing him to. Millions of lives potentially saved vs. one selfish douchbag's rights, i know which i, and any other rational person would value more...
indeed, but i'm a 4th year law/economics student, where do you think i sit?![]()
Originally posted by: Sentinel
In terms of evolution, this would be something expected.
