15
   

Why are people hopeful for the cure for AIDS?

 
 
edgarblythe
 
  3  
Reply Sun 10 Jun, 2012 09:31 pm
When humans start giving up they will go extinct for certain. Not an option, with many of us.
Val Killmore
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jun, 2012 11:21 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Yes there is a small chance that the Sun could be flung across the threshold of the twin monsters/super massive-black-hole, but that is with the current model, and it's not a 100% accurate, and just a minute miscalculation, can have the orders reversed where Earth's chance of escaping the warring commotion becomes less probable. I suppose more studies on the matter can only really tell the future of Earth's placement. And with no luck, even the least of probabilities may come true, and so in a sense only time holds the answer

I wonder what in the end, will all black holes amalgamate, and every particle will collapse into one singularity.... and maybe another big bang?
0 Replies
 
Val Killmore
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jun, 2012 11:37 am
@edgarblythe,
I'm aware of that, but not all humans are damned with circumstances that one can do nothing to stop. The lucky ones and/or the ones who makes prudent choices are devoid of such circumstance will survive, evolve, and their genes will prosper.

Extinction will more like be from omnicide. With the current state of affairs, I don't trust the contemporary mindset of miscreant foreign nation with incapacitating war machines and armaments, who will do anything in the name of religion and the words of corrupt leaders.
Val Killmore
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jun, 2012 12:59 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
Not necessarily. Some diseases have been wiped out or almost wiped out.


There is a solution, although it may not suit well with the public.
AIDS can be wiped out with strict monitoring (privacy maybe a concern). One easy way to wipe it from the population is to stop having unprotected sex, as well as medical scrutiny.
Could you imagine, before anyone had sex, both partners had to go to the hospital and take a blood test, wait one week for the results to develop, and show each other their health history. This will quickly stop the spread of HIV, and then when those are infected with it eventually (as despairing as it is) die, then the virus can not spread to fresh hosts.
But that will never be implemented, due to privacy issues...
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jun, 2012 08:34 pm
@Val Killmore,
Quote:
I'm aware of that, but not all humans are damned with circumstances that one can do nothing to stop.
I shall disagree with this all the way to my deathbed....which I hope will be very comfortable.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jun, 2012 07:00 am
@Val Killmore,
You do realize that the majority of HIV infections happen in places where you couldn't possibly implement such a strategy, don't you? There simply aren't the resources to test, let alone enforce.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jun, 2012 07:12 am
@parados,
...yes the utopia of enforcing it is, a very linear, very straightforward American strategy...
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jun, 2012 07:14 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
The thought of stopping people from having sex with a government body is preposterous. Parents can't even keep their kids from having sex and they have far more control than governments do over their citizens.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jun, 2012 07:26 am
@parados,
...yes it gives me the creeps...this sort of linear reasoning is precisely what college degrees should prevent in the first place...the only thing that can enforce anything is knowledge...shape the mind and you will shape the heart...mobs are controlled by shaping them to an end and not by enforcing upon them...
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jun, 2012 10:37 am
You single out people who've acquired AIDS through sex for your contempt and scorn, and tie the idea of prudence with ideas about evolutionary survival of the fittest.

Sexually frustrated, much?
Val Killmore
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jun, 2012 10:38 am
@parados,
Who says the government is stopping people from having sex?

Say if the strategy I said is implemented, then it is up to the people to decide. If their partner has AIDS and they still want to commit to it, then that is their problem. Although I doubt individuals will commit if they know their partner has it.

All I'm saying is people have a right to know if their partner have AIDS or not.
Cause I see from these documentaries in Africa, newly weds getting AIDS because their husband went to so and so whore house, and brought AIDS to home. That is just totally messed up.

And I'm sure blood tests are cheap.

Although even if the strategy is implemented, I doubt you can stop druggies from sharing needles with people who have aids.

However, the spread of AIDS will be greatly hindered.
Val Killmore
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jun, 2012 10:41 am
@InfraBlue,
Come on dude you don't make sense. Say if someone had Tuberculosis, you definitely want to quarantine them from the public.

Similar to AIDS, but not in the strict sense of stopping human to human social interaction, but sexual contact, by letting the partners decide...

This strategy is by far the cheapest way to stop the quick spread of HIV.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jun, 2012 11:22 am
@Val Killmore,

Quote:
Who says the government is stopping people from having sex?

You said it or at least pretty heavily implied it because the express purpose was to stop the spread of HIV-
Quote:
Could you imagine, before anyone had sex, both partners had to go to the hospital and take a blood test, wait one week for the results to develop, and show each other their health history

Who is going to make the people get a blood test? Who is going to pay for it? Polio was only wiped out because of vaccinations mandated and paid for by the government.

Quote:
Although even if the strategy is implemented
How do you propose to implement the strategy without government.

Your strategy requires government and requires government stopping people from having sex until such time that they have had blood test and waited a week for results. You must not know much about the human drive for sex for you to think it in no way stops people from having sex.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jun, 2012 11:29 am
@Val Killmore,
Quote:

This strategy is by far the cheapest way to stop the quick spread of HIV.

By cheapest do you mean unworkable ?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jun, 2012 11:32 am
@parados,
I just read part of the first page of this thread, and arrived at the conclusion that VK doesn't have a clue about human suffering, and the spread of disease that attacks innocent people all around the world.

It's "natural" for humans to seek ways to stop the spread of any disease - including HIV/AIDS. Why anyone can't think in these terms lacks the compassion and necessary thinking ability to understand that these disease can attack your own family and friends.

'nuf said.
Val Killmore
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jun, 2012 11:33 am
@parados,
It is logically possible, but I agree, not realistic.

As I said before:
Quote:
But that will never be implemented, due to privacy issues...

Ceili
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jun, 2012 11:50 am
@cicerone imposter,
Not only that, but he doesn`t seem to grasp that many deadly viruses have been either wiped off the map or now controlled with vaccines and other meds. I won`t give up on the ingenuity of humankind. He`s welcome to, but everyday there are advancement in medicine and technology. Imagine if we all had that depressing view of the world??
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jun, 2012 11:54 am
@Val Killmore,
Val Killmore wrote:

It is logically possible, but I agree, not realistic.


No, it's NOT logically possible because 100% of humans will never be willing to wait 1 week to have sex. It's not only not realistic it's not possible. You completely ignore one of the most basic human drives and pretend that you can eliminate it with logic.
Val Killmore
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jun, 2012 12:15 pm
@parados,
I'm still having a hard time getting my thoughts around just not waiting one week consented sex. (The week can be shortened to a a few days with better detecting enzymes, which researchers are currently working on).

I mean if you were given an option of one week, just one week, an action that prevent AIDS, you would let your desires overpower your logical sense, and by chance have AIDS for the rest of your life.

What are we, feral animals?

I thought that is what separates humans from animals, the ability to control our desires, and not act on primary instincts through rational thinking.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jun, 2012 12:21 pm
@Val Killmore,
Quote:

What are we, feral animals?


Yes. Do you not to know that because you live in a cave?


Quote:
you would let your desires overpower your logical sense,

People do that all the time. Why do you think there are so many jokes about men thinking with their little head instead of their big one?

Here's a story in the news today that may illustrate it for you.
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/12/12185759-border-patrol-agents-accused-of-sex-act-during-cirque-du-soleil-performance?lite
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 09/22/2020 at 02:45:46