NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1692878,00.html

Interesting. Can people who hold extreme views change?

I wasn't going to vote for him. Last debate he seemed a nice guy. Oh well politician....

Some goodies!

"If the federal government is truly serious about doing something with the AIDS virus, we need to take steps that would isolate the carriers of this plague,"

"It is difficult to understand the public policy towards AIDS. It is the first time in the history of civilization in which the carriers of a genuine plague have not been isolated from the general population, and in which this deadly disease for which there is no cure is being treated as a civil rights issue instead of the true health crisis it represents."

"I feel homosexuality is an aberrant, unnatural, and sinful lifestyle, and we now know it can pose a dangerous public health risk."

What does he think this is? The middle ages and leprosy?

What does he think this is? The middle ages and leprosy?

Well, it's basically the same! Even being near teh gays can get you infected with AIDS!

Can people who hold extreme views change?

Yes, but I'm highly skeptical he has.

When I first heard of a Gov. Huckabee of Arkansas I immediately had a mental image of a fat white guy in a white suit who drinks mint juleps on the porch. How disappointed I was to find out otherwise.

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1692878,00.html

Interesting. Can people who hold extreme views change?

I wasn't going to vote for him. Last debate he seemed a nice guy. Oh well politician....

Some goodies!

"If the federal government is truly serious about doing something with the AIDS virus, we need to take steps that would isolate the carriers of this plague,"

"It is difficult to understand the public policy towards AIDS. It is the first time in the history of civilization in which the carriers of a genuine plague have not been isolated from the general population, and in which this deadly disease for which there is no cure is being treated as a civil rights issue instead of the true health crisis it represents."

"I feel homosexuality is an aberrant, unnatural, and sinful lifestyle, and we now know it can pose a dangerous public health risk."

I don't mean to be overly callous here, but to some extent he does have a point. You have a population which carries a virus capable of doing serious harm to others; and yet there are legal protection for the carriers to have the facts of their status as carriers hidden from scrutiny under the guise of "civil rights"... Whereby they can engage in actions unchecked with others thereby infecting them with this same virus; not even in cases where it is the person's own spouse... I think his position is extreme; but does have some meritorious points to it.

I thought the "aidz" witch hunt was long dead?

I say we infect him and see if he practices what he preaches

I don't mean to be overly callous here, but to some extent he does have a point. You have a population which carries a virus capable of doing serious harm to others; and yet there are legal protection for the carriers to have the facts of their status as carriers hidden from scrutiny under the guise of "civil rights"... Whereby they can engage in actions unchecked with others thereby infecting them with this same virus; not even in cases where it is the person's own spouse... I think his position is extreme; but does have some meritorious points to it.

its already illegal to infect someone (knowingly) with an STI, it is also reminiscent of the dark ages to send infected to colonies which turned out to work oh so well...

I don't mean to be overly callous here, but to some extent he does have a point. You have a population which carries a virus capable of doing serious harm to others; and yet there are legal protection for the carriers to have the facts of their status as carriers hidden from scrutiny under the guise of "civil rights"... Whereby they can engage in actions unchecked with others thereby infecting them with this same virus; not even in cases where it is the person's own spouse... I think his position is extreme; but does have some meritorious points to it.

Exactly. If aids patients had be isolated early on perhaps it wouldn't have become so widespread.

A Republican being a homophobic Christian loon? You don't say...

Exactly. If aids patients had be isolated early on perhaps it wouldn't have become so widespread.

Well, I think the need to "isolate" in a literal, physical sense is extreme; but there does need to be some form of "isolation" of AIDS carriers; in the sense of removing some of the so-called "civil rights" protection that carriers of this particular virus have over other types of viral carriers... Since the virus cannot be casually transmitted, physical isolation is extreme; but the checks against informing others, even certain others (such spouses) definitely need to be removed...

Tek, Troll?

Do you understand the process of the disease from infection to showing signs?

Exactly. If aids patients had be isolated early on perhaps it wouldn't have become so widespread.

too bad thats exactly what was attempted then (you' know rather than working on treatment)

Well, I think the need to "isolate" in a literal, physical sense is extreme; but there does need to be some form of "isolation" of AIDS carriers; in the sense of removing some of the so-called "civil rights" protection that carriers of this particular virus have over other types of viral carriers... Since the virus cannot be casually transmitted, physical isolation is extreme; but the checks against informing others, even certain others (such spouses) definitely need to be removed...

these rights are placed to stop witch hunts taking place out of ignorance, your GP should know you have aids anything else has absolutely no value at all in a day to day environment

Not sure about that: I reckon anyone I cough over should know beforehand whether I have TB, so they can get out of the way if they want to. Just the same, I don't think it's unreasonable that anyone who would be put at significant risk of HIV infection by contact with me should at least be told of this risk beforehand, if it is known. Agreed though, that wouldn't be very many people at all - wouldn't include most of my friends & colleagues for example.

Yes it's shitty to have a serious illness; but that doesn't absolve anyone of the duty to avoid causing unnecessary harm to others where possible.

too bad thats exactly what was attempted then (you' know rather than working on treatment)



these rights are placed to stop witch hunts taking place out of ignorance, your GP should know you have aids anything else has absolutely no value at all in a day to day environment

Sorry, I recognize that as the B.S. it is..... A person's spouse should be informed... Rape victims should be informed... I think "isolation" is too extreme... But there are other parties which should know past a persons GP.

We should quarantine people with HIV. Half of them don't even know they have it. All it takes is one sexual activity to infect someone else. I strongly support this idea. Anyone who doesn't must be smoking something I'd like to sell.

We should quarantine people with HIV. Half of them don't even know they have it. All it takes is one sexual activity to infect someone else. I strongly support this idea. Anyone who doesn't must be smoking something I'd like to sell.

If the people with HIV don't know they have it, then nobody does. If nobody knows they have it, how can you justify quarantine? Are you going to check everybody for HIV?

"I feel homosexuality is an aberrant, unnatural, and sinful lifestyle, and we now know it can pose a dangerous public health risk."

Isn't this the guy that had that rapist pardoned ("Wayne"), then the rapist later killed a woman?

Yes it's shitty to have a serious illness; but that doesn't absolve anyone of the duty to avoid causing unnecessary harm to others where possible.

which is why its a crime to infect someone deliberately, would you like to add to this in some way?

Sorry, I recognize that as the B.S. it is..... A person's spouse should be informed... Rape victims should be informed... I think "isolation" is too extreme... But there are other parties which should know past a persons GP.

1) by carrying a big sign around with them? if your having sex with a guy you just met you use a condom this is sense (not that aids sufferers actually do this which leads me to wonder where your pulling that from)

2) hence tests after rape, now leave your emotional words at home please lest you convince even more people that your not thinking (though the fact that your giving only sexual contact infections is proof of your ignorance)

3) so who does need to know? oh wait nobody because you can't even catch aids from using the same glass that they used

We should quarantine people with HIV. Half of them don't even know they have it. All it takes is one sexual activity to infect someone else. I strongly support this idea. Anyone who doesn't must be smoking something I'd like to sell.

I say we quarantine everyone in the name of civilization!

edit: I believe some who have quoted this have had an sarcasm failure so I assert my knowing now

If AIDS were an airborne communicable disease I'd agree with Huckabee about isolation, but being what it is--a bloodborne disease only transmitted through sex with infected individuals and/or sharing needles or blood--it's not necessary. All that should be required is that those with AIDS inform potential partners about it, which I think is already required.

Of course he then goes on to press the whole homosexual "lifestyle" idea, as if homosexuality were something one chose. :rolleyes: Furthermore he ignores the fact that AIDS DOES NOT CARE about your sexuality.

Though I almost wish it did, because in a way it'd be ultimate proof that homosexuality is natural. Not that such proof is truly necessary for scientists and all rational people, but...

Isn't this the guy that had that rapist pardoned ("Wayne"), then the rapist later killed a woman?

I couldn't find anything that stated it outright. Claims he did. Conservative BS about liberal media lies.

However, at the least it appears he had a hand influence on getting him paroled.

1) by carrying a big sign around with them? if your having sex with a guy you just met you use a condom this is sense (not that aids sufferers actually do this which leads me to wonder where your pulling that from)

2) hence tests after rape, now leave your emotional words at home please lest you convince even more people that your not thinking (though the fact that your giving only sexual contact infections is proof of your ignorance)

3) so who does need to know? oh wait nobody because you can't even catch aids from using the same glass that they used


So, you're saying a person's spouse should not be informed? The fact that I am concerned with sexual contact infections (the #1 way the virus is passed to others) makes me uninformed? This virus, if passed posses a certain danger to those who risk exposure to it in the course of their lives... People in that position SHOULD know if someone is a carrier... There is no debate... There is absolutely no reason you could logically provide as to why a spouse for example (my primary contention), shouldn't be informed... I AM thinking.... YOU however, are not.... Not even making an ATTEMPT to exercise a thought... Your only contention is to "protect" a person who posses a SERIOUS danger to another person under the disguise of a "civil rights" issue... It's a lie...

http://www.mulletman.org/images/xmenkelly1.jpg

So, you're saying a person's spouse should not be informed? The fact that I am concerned with sexual contact infections (the #1 way the virus is passed to others) makes me uninformed? This virus, if passed posses a certain danger to those who risk exposure to it in the course of their lives... People in that position SHOULD know if someone is a carrier... There is no debate... There is absolutely no reason you could logically provide as to why a spouse for example (my primary contention), shouldn't be informed... I AM thinking.... YOU however, are not.... Not even making an ATTEMPT to exercise a thought... Your only contention is to "protect" a person who posses a SERIOUS danger to another person under the disguise of a "civil rights" issue... It's a lie...

Ahh for the days of the Scarlet Letter.

So how do you detect people with HIV?

So, you're saying a person's spouse should not be informed?

by the infected not some letter through the post or however you expect to inform people

if the infected don't they get a jolly good telling off to say the least (though how a partner could of missed the aids is worrying)

The fact that I am concerned with sexual contact infections (the #1 way the virus is passed to others) makes me uninformed?

yes because you could of easily made the old argument of catching aids through an open wound, unfortunately your so obsessed with the sex you miss this entirely

It's a lie...

awww you can't understand why a doctor shouldn't follow a guy around who is perfectly capable and trustworthy of informing any partners how sad

tell me do you think everyone who has aids is a serial rapist or something?

by the infected not some letter through the post or however you expect to inform people

And if the infected won't?


if the infected don't they get a jolly good telling off to say the least (though how a partner could of missed the aids is worrying)

Well, now we see who is uninformed.... Someone can carry HIV without showing signs of AIDS which is a SYNDROME (not a disease/virus) caused by the effect of HIV on the persons immune system... HIV can be transmitted BEFORE AIDS has developed in the infected person... If someone has contracted HIV, their spouse should be informed... It would be nice, yes, if the infected person did the informing... I'd rather them get a letter, than NOT KNOW...



yes because you could of easily made the old argument of catching aids through an open wound, unfortunately your so obsessed with the sex you miss this entirely

HIV... not AIDS.... AIDS is a syndrome, an effect of HIV's destruction of the immune system...



awww you can't understand why a doctor shouldn't follow a guy around who is perfectly capable and trustworthy of informing any partners how sad

What about a person NOT trustworthy in informing partners?


tell me do you think everyone who has aids is a serial rapist or something?

No, I do not, and I never voiced that, nice attempt at a strawman though....

But a rapist with HIV is performing an act whereby they can transmit this virus to others... And the others should be informed that their rapist was HIV positive, even if they have not developed AIDS yet...

Ahh for the days of the Scarlet Letter.

So how do you detect people with HIV?

People do get HIV tests you know...

Now, what I would personally like to know, is why people have construed my voiced opinion of "certain people should be informed" to mean that they should have large scarlet letters tattooed into their forehead so that everyone and their mother is informed.... Because the connection being made here boggles my mind... Except maybe that they are attempting to alter my stated views into something other than that, for the purpose of defeating this "invented" argument on their part as a defeat of my own.... Oh, that's right... That is called a STRAW MAN!!!!!

I think that's an excellent solution. You can't deny that it would be effective. If people with AIDS are secluded from people not with AIDS, then clearly the disease won't spread...except by people who have it and don't know, but even then, it'll spread less rapidly.

I'm voting for Huckabee. :D

Why not just burn the lot of em with napalm?

Oh yeah, that was a sarcastic remark.

For me, HIV is some sort of a population control, or, better yet, a "survival of the fittest" mechanism for the modern human.

I think that's an excellent solution. You can't deny that it would be effective. If people with AIDS are secluded from people not with AIDS, then clearly the disease won't spread...except by people who have it and don't know, but even then, it'll spread less rapidly.

I'm voting for Huckabee. :D

Yes, but overly extreme... If someone is HIV positive, and takes measures not to spread it to other, then they pose no risk to others... The only people who have a real NEED to know are spouses and medical practitioners who are left at a direct risk to others... Rapists with HIV who are knowingly carriers of it.... should have additional charged of attempted murder on their head, and be quarantined through the penal system.

People do get HIV tests you know...
So we should get an HIV test anytime we have sex?


Now, what I would personally like to know, is why people have construed my voiced opinion of "certain people should be informed" to mean that they should have large scarlet letters tattooed into their forehead so that everyone and their mother is informed.... Because the connection being made here boggles my mind... Except maybe that they are attempting to alter my stated views into something other than that, for the purpose of defeating this "invented" argument on their part as a defeat of my own.... Oh, that's right... That is called a STRAW MAN!!!!!

You were the one that offered isolation would be a good idea.

So how do you implement it?

Especially when considering how the disease works between infection and showing signs.

You know how the disease works right?

And if the infected won't?

they go to jail whilst the partner feels glad that they had all those sex ed classes on using a condom and having the thought to wonder about all those pills and doctors appointment they did

Well, now we see who is uninformed.... Someone can carry HIV without showing signs of AIDS which is a SYNDROME (not a disease/virus) caused by the effect of HIV on the persons immune system...

awww look your now trying to show how smart you can be too bad this thread is on aids isolation then and when an individual is undergoing treatment for the infection it rather shows at home

I'd rather them get a letter, than NOT KNOW...

how do you propose this? you can't watch the infected 24/7 and you can't expect them to carry special badges

I guess you will just have to trust that someone who lives with an illness won't want to spread it

What about a person NOT trustworthy in informing partners?

who's that?

No, I do not, and I never voiced that, nice attempt at a strawman though....

But a rapist with HIV is performing an act whereby they can transmit this virus to others... And the others should be informed that their rapist was HIV positive, even if they have not developed AIDS yet...

you see the thing here is I thought you knew a thing about what your trying to argue:

A rape victims screening is done by nurses at a hospital which will have access to the medical records of the offender if known (provided by the GP)

then what happens is after the screening there are more tests and the patient is informed regardless of these records that they may become infected

why tell them if the offender was infected it doesn't matter because they will be tested and provided the same treatments regardless

With the lack of any sort of treatment for AIDS, it's not such a bad idea. It's the most effective way to get rid of the problem, if not the most humanitarian...

With the lack of any sort of treatment for AIDS, it's not such a bad idea. It's the most effective way to get rid of the problem, if not the most humanitarian...

Hello Pawpet!

I think that's an excellent solution. You can't deny that it would be effective. If people with AIDS are secluded from people not with AIDS, then clearly the disease won't spread...except by people who have it and don't know, but even then, it'll spread less rapidly.

I'm voting for Huckabee. :D

Oooh, ooh, and then we can start separating people for other reasons too! Let's try separating people based on religion! We'll let all of the Christians have the good land in America and everyone else is forced into the desert!

Oooh, and then we can toss out all of those darkies, and maybe get rid of those silly Protestants.

And then maybe we can get subjugate women so that they're subservient to men! It'd be a blast!

they go to jail whilst the partner feels glad that they had all those sex ed classes on using a condom and having the thought to wonder about all those pills and doctors appointment they did



awww look your now trying to show how smart you can be too bad this thread is on aids isolation then and when an individual is undergoing treatment for the infection it rather shows at home



how do you propose this? you can't watch the infected 24/7 and you can't expect them to carry special badges

I guess you will just have to trust that someone who lives with an illness won't want to spread it



who's that?



you see the thing here is I thought you knew a thing about what your trying to argue

A rape victims screening is done by nurses at a hospital which will have access to the medical records of the offender if known (provided by the GP)

then what happens is after the screening there are more tests and the patient is informed regardless of these records that they may become infected

why tell them if he was infected it doesn't matter because she will be tested and provided the same treatments regardless

I'm not even going to provide a point by point response to the general fecal matter you call a post... From my VERY FIRST POST I was dealing with the virus (HIV)... I never once deviated from that... I also directly expressed disagreement with the Huckabee "isolation" position... And never advocated informing the "general public"... Yes, this thread is about what Huckabee said; and in relation to that I provided my viewpoint (which deviates significantly with Huckabee)... And merely expressed that their is a meritorious element to his position... Not that his position is correct... But that there are things that do need to be done, but no where near the extent he would want to implement them...

Now, how exactly is the fact that I disagree with Huckabee's assertion, and do not advocate rounding up those with AIDS, and that my position is based singularly upon HIV infected persons who are in a place to pose a serious risk to SPECIFIC others (not the general public), and that I have stated who these specific people are, somehow justified your demonstrated illiteracy regarding reading what I actually say in lieu of thinking its about something other than what I specifically said, I have no idea.

Maybe we can isolate whatever Mike Huckabee is spreading. ;)

Oooh, ooh, and then we can start separating people for other reasons too!
Medical quarantine is entirely different from other (non-scientific) forms of segregation. It also has nothing to do with a conservative agenda (excepting that Huckabee, in this case, is the one advocating it).
That said, an AIDS quarantine would be more work than it is worth. Proper sex education would be much cheaper, and probably more effective.

Huckabee has the right idea, but for some reason he's targetting the wrong disease. Pneumonia and influenza caused about 60 thousand deaths in the USA in 2002 compared to 13 thousand deaths from AIDS in the same year and these infections can be spread simply by inhaling infected droplets in the air! Clearly what we need to do is quarantine people suffering from flu from the general population and isolate those that are most likely to spread the disease - asthmatics and smokers.

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1692878,00.html

Interesting. Can people who hold extreme views change?
yes, question is, did it.

can you provide current proof that his views haven't changed?

Some goodies!

"If the federal government is truly serious about doing something with the AIDS virus, we need to take steps that would isolate the carriers of this plague,"

"It is difficult to understand the public policy towards AIDS. It is the first time in the history of civilization in which the carriers of a genuine plague have not been isolated from the general population, and in which this deadly disease for which there is no cure is being treated as a civil rights issue instead of the true health crisis it represents."

"I feel homosexuality is an aberrant, unnatural, and sinful lifestyle, and we now know it can pose a dangerous public health risk." all that was said in 1992.

which is quite different than what he said later.

Since becoming a presidential candidate this year, Huckabee has supported increased federal funding for AIDS research through the National Institutes of Health.

"My administration will be the first to have an overarching strategy for dealing with HIV and AIDS here in the United States, with a partnership between the public and private sectors that will provide necessary financing and a realistic path toward our goals," Huckabee said in a statement posted on his campaign Web site last month.

In 2003, Huckabee said that the U.S. Supreme Court was probably right to strike down anti-sodomy laws, but that states still should be able to restrict things such as gay marriage or domestic partner benefits.

"What people do in the privacy of their own lives as adults is their business," Huckabee said. "If they bring it into the public square and ask me as a taxpayer to support it or to endorse it, then it becomes a matter of public discussion and discourse."

which is a change (some of it minor, others almost an about face) from his 1992 statements.

question is, will you hold him to his 1992 statements or the ones he's making now?

I'm not even going to provide a point by point response to the general fecal matter you call a post...

awww its ok I will just do your post that way at least one of the fecal matter posts will get a good sifting through

From my VERY FIRST POST I was dealing with the virus (HIV)

awww was you?

Well, I think the need to "isolate" in a literal, physical sense is extreme; but there does need to be some form of "isolation" of AIDS carriers; in the sense of removing some of the so-called "civil rights" protection that carriers of this particular virus have over other types of viral carriers... Since the virus cannot be casually transmitted, physical isolation is extreme; but the checks against informing others, even certain others (such spouses) definitely need to be removed...

I support the cause of amnesia awareness

my position is based singularly upon HIV infected persons who are in a place to pose a serious risk to SPECIFIC others (not the general public)

and my position (and that of the civilized medical profession) is that they don't hmmmmm

I have stated who these specific people are

yes clearly the "AIDS carriers"

Medical quarantine is entirely different from other (non-scientific) forms of segregation. It also has nothing to do with a conservative agenda (excepting that Huckabee, in this case, is the one advocating it).
That said, an AIDS quarantine would be more work than it is worth. Proper sex education would be much cheaper, and probably more effective.

I'm well aware of what a medical quarantine actually is. My point was that it's completely unnecessary in this case. AIDS is not an airborne communicable disease. HIV, the cause, is bloodborne and requires either sexual activity, sharing of needles or other ways of sharing blood, or intentional and forced infection. It cannot be spread to other people simply by touching them or living in society normally.

Sensible sexual education as well as a requirement that those who are infected inform potential partners(and not scarlet letter like, but in private like how you would explain any other possible condition) and take proper precautions if they have sex with someone who is not infected. Simple and easily done, and I see no reason why anyone would rationally want to quarantine those infected with AIDS unless they were acting in a discriminatory fashion, as Gens Romae and Mike Huckabee obviously are.

yes, question is, did it.

can you provide current proof that his views haven't changed?


It's not damning but the fact his people wouldn't return calls.

It needs further review. He could very well have changed by an event such as a friend or relation dying.

But my experience via my relatives makes me think he hasn't. People with extreme opinions tend to keep them.

all that was said in 1992.

which is quite different than what he said later.


Of course. He is running for President.

which is a change (some of it minor, others almost an about face) from his 1992 statements.

question is, will you hold him to his 1992 statements or the ones he's making now?

The 92 comments cause me concern. If he can explain what made him change, then I might let them go due to Religious stupidity of the time.

However, I suspect he still thinks the same way.

It's easy to make a declaration of intent and yet not fund it properly as we have seen with No child....

Maybe we can isolate whatever Mike Huckabee is spreading. ;)

But then what will the poor farmers use for fertiliser? Non-politician bullshit isn't cheap you know.

But then what will the poor farmers use for fertiliser? Non-politician bullshit isn't cheap you know.

Ok that made me laugh!

:D

and my position (and that of the civilized medical profession) is that they don't hmmmmm


My position is that THEY ABSOLUTELY do... I really do not care what the "civilized medical profession" thinks in this case... Since they are not performing their duty to do "no harm" by not informing a person's spouse that their partner has contracted HIV, thus putting the spouse at risk if left uninformed... They are assisting in the performing of a harm upon another... And they should have their license to practice revoked if they are unwilling to perform such...

I'm well aware of what a medical quarantine actually is. My point was that it's completely unnecessary in this case. AIDS is not an airborne communicable disease. HIV, the cause, is bloodborne and requires either sexual activity, sharing of needles or other ways of sharing blood, or intentional and forced infection. It cannot be spread to other people simply by touching them or living in society normally.

Sensible sexual education as well as a requirement that those who are infected inform potential partners(and not scarlet letter like, but in private like how you would explain any other possible condition) and take proper precautions if they have sex with someone who is not infected. Simple and easily done, and I see no reason why anyone would rationally want to quarantine those infected with AIDS unless they were acting in a discriminatory fashion, as Gens Romae and Mike Huckabee obviously are.
You couldn't come up with simple paranoia on your own? Death is horrifying, death by disease more so, and death by a disease for which there is no cure is at about the top. Sure, the odds are entirely against the possibility that you'll contract the disease "living in society normally," but, then, your odds of developing cancer from drinking Diet Coke are pretty damn low too.

Oooh, ooh, and then we can start separating people for other reasons too! Let's try separating people based on religion! We'll let all of the Christians have the good land in America and everyone else is forced into the desert!

Oooh, and then we can toss out all of those darkies, and maybe get rid of those silly Protestants.

And then maybe we can get subjugate women so that they're subservient to men! It'd be a blast!


Dude, this is not a civil rights issue. This is a "We have a serious problem on our hands and we need to stop this from spreading by any means necessary" issue.

Yes, but overly extreme... If someone is HIV positive, and takes measures not to spread it to other, then they pose no risk to others... The only people who have a real NEED to know are spouses and medical practitioners who are left at a direct risk to others... Rapists with HIV who are knowingly carriers of it.... should have additional charged of attempted murder on their head, and be quarantined through the penal system.

This is too great a threat to trust individuals.

It needs further review. He could very well have changed by an event such as a friend or relation dying.
Or he could just, you know, have grown out of it.
But my experience via my relatives makes me think he hasn't. People with extreme opinions tend to keep them.
If people with positions that you, as a modern westerner, would view as extreme were really so resistant to change, we'd never have gotten out of the Middle Ages.

This is too great a threat to trust individuals.

You planning on implementing mandatory HIV tests? And the associated state health-care system to initiate such? I have a feeling neither you nor Huckabee would do such... Sure you'ld talk about it... But it conflicts with other stated goals of his platform... Of course, then, I've never put it past a politician to be hypocritical in their implementation of their end goals... Since more often than not the ends justify the means in their case.

You planning on implementing mandatory HIV tests? And the associated state health-care system to initiate such? I have a feeling neither you nor Huckabee would do such...

I think it's a brilliant idea.

My position is that THEY ABSOLUTELY do... I really do not care what the "civilized medical profession" thinks in this case... Since they are not performing their duty to do "no harm" by not informing a person's spouse that their partner has contracted HIV, thus putting the spouse at risk if left uninformed... They are assisting in the performing of a harm upon another... And they should have their license to practice revoked if they are unwilling to perform such...

So where in the oath does it suggest that?

I swear by Apollo the physician, by Aesculapius, Hygeia, and Panacea, and take to witness all the gods, all the goddesses, to keep according to my ability and my judgement the following oath:

To consider dear to me as my parents him who taught me this art;

To live in common with him and if necessary to share my goods with him, to look upon his children as my own brothers, to teach them this art if they so desire without fees or written promise;

To impart to my sons and the sons of the master who taught me and the disciples who have enrolled themselves and have agreed to the rules of the profession, but to these alone, the precepts and the instruction.

I will prescribe regimen for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgement and never to do harm to anyone. To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug, nor give advice which may cause his death. But I will preserve the purity of my life and my art. I will not cut for stone, even for patients in whom the disease is manifest. I will leave this operation for practitioners (specialists in the art).

In every house where I come I will enter only for the good of my patients, keeping myself from all intentional ill-doing and all seduction, and especially from the pleasures of love with women or men, be they free or slaves. All that may come to my knowledge in the exercise of my profession or outside my profession or in daily commerce with men, which ought not to be spread abroad, I will keep secret and will never reveal.

If I keep this oath faithfully, may I enjoy my life and practice my art, respected by all men and in all times; but if I swerve from it or violate it, may the reverse be my lot.

I think it's a brilliant idea.

Now, YOU scare me... But then, I've seen everything posited here in NSG...

I agree with Huckabee, but I'm still not going to vote for him.

AIDS is spreading exponentially. To anyone who knows anything about exponential mathematics, we're not even on the curve yet. However, AIDS will EXPLODE in its numbers in not too long if we do nothing to stop it.

My position is that THEY ABSOLUTELY do... I really do not care what the "civilized medical profession" thinks in this case...

oh your so funny, tell me are you the editor of the daily mail?

Since they are not performing their duty to do "no harm" by not informing a person's spouse that their partner has contracted HIV, thus putting the spouse at risk if left uninformed... They are assisting in the performing of a harm upon another... And they should have their license to practice revoked if they are unwilling to perform such...

I still have no idea how you mean to implement this beyond maybe having some trust in people

Dude, this is not a civil rights issue. This is a "We have a serious problem on our hands and we need to stop this from spreading by any means necessary" issue.

look a time traveler! how did you manage to assemble a working time machine in the 80's?

aids is not a serious issue if dealt with properly through education, research and treatments

This is too great a threat to trust individuals.

oooh I'm so scared of aids never mind all those things that kill far more people like obesity or cancer, this might be more serious than terrorism!

Now, YOU scare me... But then, I've seen everything posited here in NSG...

Tekania, why are you so opposed to the idea? Isn't a reduction of civil liberties permissible if it is for the greater good, which is to say, more people not dying from this disease?

A large part of the problem with AIDS and HIV is the very secrecy which attaches to it. The civil rights many are so eager to promote hurts the entire cause, rather than helping it.

Any educated person knows what HIV is, and knows how it's passed. Logically, that is..because they're also told their entire lives that the people with HIV are being "protected" from the world's rage by having their identities concealed.

Emotionally, almost any human is automatically going to think that someone who must be protected in this fashion is, in fact, somehow at fault for their own condition. After all, if someone gets into a car accident they're not vilified. If someone loses a limb, they're not vilified. If someone gets some horrendous disease, they're not vilified. Unless it's HIV, because of the frantic claims that they WILL be vilified and therefore must be protected.

This is the same mindset which keeps rape from being reported...women are told, over and over again, that if they are raped it is not their fault...which leads to the niggling little voice which says, "If they have to tell me I'm not at fault, then I must really be at fault." In trying to protect victims, we must first lower them to the status of victim.

Will there be incidents if the list of known HIV carriers is released? Sure. But there are incidents now, and generally they are far worse because the world at large feels uncomfortable with the disease and blame the people who carry it. If the list was published, so many people would find out members of their own family carry this disease, and it would become a lot harder for people to throw stones when its their own Uncle Joe or Cousin Suzy.

As for the social aspects, if the list is published, what's the first thing that's going to happen? The HIV carrier is, without a doubt, going to find him/herself without a date on Saturday night. Is this really such a terrible thing? Given how the disease is most often spread, can it really be that hideous if a known carrier of HIV fails to have sex?

Will this stop the disease? Nope. There are hundreds of thousands, probably even into the millions, of people out there who don't know they're carriers. The disease isn't going to stop until a cure is found, and even then, without a massive sweep through the population to inoculate, it's still going to be out there. The only thing we can possibly cure right now is the feeling that having this disease makes a person less than a person.

Of course. He is running for President. and he was running for office back then. so his viewpoints could've been tailored for his consituants back then also. ;)

which is why I never fully believe in what any politician says during their campaign.

The 92 comments cause me concern. If he can explain what made him change, then I might let them go due to Religious stupidity of the time. why would the explation be important? it could be anything from "A close friend/family member died of AIDS" to "I learned more about it".

of course... he could try for the honesty vote and say "because that's what you want to hear" but I'll truly doubt anyone would say that. :p

However, I suspect he still thinks the same way. he very well could. or he could not. one won't truely know what a politican thinks and feels until they get into office.

It's easy to make a declaration of intent and yet not fund it properly as we have seen with No child....
NO Child actually had a great motive behind it. The execution left alot to be desired, but the intent was great.

and never to do harm to anyone.

Hmm, knowing a person is infected with HIV, who does not inform their spouse; and in turn also not inform this spouse does not indicate to me "doing no harm"... One would definitively be aiding in the performing of a harm upon another... But then, I suppose, from a certain viewpoint ones hands could be considered "clean" if they, afterall weren't the ones who actively performed the harm upon the other... Afterall, THEY didn't actually do anything... And the COP who had the opportunity to stop the armed criminal, but didn't do anything did not have a part in the later murder either...

Or he could just, you know, have grown out of it.

Sure it's possible. Time will tell.

If people with positions that you, as a modern westerner, would view as extreme were really so resistant to change, we'd never have gotten out of the Middle Ages.

So nobody is resistant to change? There will always be a minority that will refuse to give up stances(ie Homosexuality is a choice).

Even in this case, the majority of people wouldn't follow his viewpoint.

I agree with Huckabee, but I'm still not going to vote for him.

AIDS is spreading exponentially. To anyone who knows anything about exponential mathematics, we're not even on the curve yet. However, AIDS will EXPLODE in its numbers in not too long if we do nothing to stop it.

Er.. no its not. HIV infection rates in most countries, including the USA, have peaked. For growth to be exponential the rate of infections would have to be increasing each year, not plateauing.

Hmm, knowing a person is infected with HIV, who does not inform their spouse; and in turn also not inform this spouse does not indicate to me "doing no harm"... One would definitively be aiding in the performing of a harm upon another... But then, I suppose, from a certain viewpoint ones hands could be considered "clean" if they, afterall weren't the ones who actively performed the harm upon the other... Afterall, THEY didn't actually do anything... And the COP who had the opportunity to stop the armed criminal, but didn't do anything did not have a part in the later murder either...

Actuatully that statement is in matters such as using your skills to kill someone as in executions.

Tekania, why are you so opposed to the idea? Isn't a reduction of civil liberties permissible if it is for the greater good, which is to say, more people not dying from this disease?

No... The "reduction" of such is not permissible even for the "greater good"... I only will advocate under the specific criteria whereby a person is operating in such a manner where they will pose a significant risk to another... I will not operate generally in this case... Since there is no way to transmit the virus in a "general" way.

This is the same mindset which keeps rape from being reported...women are told, over and over again, that if they are raped it is not their fault...which leads to the niggling little voice which says, "If they have to tell me I'm not at fault, then I must really be at fault." In trying to protect victims, we must first lower them to the status of victim.

erm...as silly as your whole argument is the "evidence" is also wrong, men are raped as well (*gasp*) yet despite never having the same telling still remain silent only to a much larger degree which further pulls at your evidence

lets not forget you rather loose psychological analysis

I seriously don't understand how this is not a privacy issue. HIV is not an airborne virus, it's not something you can get by just going out in public and sitting on a bus next to someone with AIDS.

The idea of some "quarenteen" is ludicrus. I can understand it for ebola, or some forms of TB, or other things where merely being out in public can cause infection. It is, however, near impossible to "accidentally" get HIV.

There are three primary ways to get HIV:

1) having sex with someone with HIV

2) sharing needles with someone with HIV

3) a blood transfusion/organ replacement from someone with HIV

#3 almost never happens these days, and proper standards, rigorous testing and proper funding can effectively eliminate it

#2 again can be combated by proper rehabilitation programs with necessary funding, and getting rid of this ludicrus prudish mentality that if we provide clean needles to addicts, they're somehow going to do "more drugs". A dirty needle isn't going ot stop a heroin addict from doing heroin, it's just going to give that heroin addict HIV. Recognize that drug addicts will do drugs, help them with that, and at least ensure that they are given clean needles at the very least, and that will go away

so that leads us with #1. And that, too, can be countered easily with proper education, explanation of how to use a fucking condom and teaching them to say "not until you get an HIV test" and that, too, will go away.

But what a shock, a republican, instead of advocating a real solution that would actually require properly funded comprehensive sex education, instead wants to violate human rights.

Shocking indeed....:rolleyes:

erm...as silly as your whole argument is the "evidence" is also wrong, men are raped as well (*gasp*) yet despite never having the same telling still remain silent only to a much larger degree which further pulls at your evidence

lets not forget you rather loose psychological analysis

Ah, yes, because the social stigma of men being raped isn't that much worse than a woman being raped. Men are treated as if they should have stopped it, rather than being told they're not at fault...which makes it even worse, because it implies a sense of control over the situation, and the idea that if they didn't stop it they wanted it.

so that leads us with #1. And that, too, can be countered easily with proper education, explanation of how to use a fucking condom and teaching them to say "not until you get an HIV test" and that, too, will go away.

My god, you're right! What we need is education! Because we NEVER inform the public on how HIV is transmitted, and we NEVER tell people they shouldn't have unprotected sex.

Oh, wait...we do all those things. Reports are published, people are educated, and despite all this, HIV becomes more and more prevalent. So I think education alone can't be the key to this problem.

Ah, yes, because the social stigma of men being raped isn't that much worse than a woman being raped. Men are treated as if they should have stopped it, rather than being told they're not at fault...which makes it even worse, because it implies a sense of control over the situation, and the idea that if they didn't stop it they wanted it.

yep as such it would appear the little voice hypothesis you propose needs more evidence first

So I think education alone can't be the key to this problem.

actually having people listen also helps as does raising people out of poverty

A Republican being a homophobic Christian loon? You don't say...

Hehe. Hard to believe, I know :p

My god, you're right! What we need is education! Because we NEVER inform the public on how HIV is transmitted, and we NEVER tell people they shouldn't have unprotected sex.

Oh, wait...we do all those things. Reports are published, people are educated, and despite all this, HIV becomes more and more prevalent. So I think education alone can't be the key to this problem.

No, we don't. Or, to be more precise, we don't tell the people who should be told. Namely kids in school. Abstinence only education and all that.

My god, you're right! What we need is education! Because we NEVER inform the public on how HIV is transmitted, and we NEVER tell people they shouldn't have unprotected sex.

Oh, wait...we do all those things. Reports are published, people are educated, and despite all this, HIV becomes more and more prevalent. So I think education alone can't be the key to this problem.

It never is... Education alone solves nothing really... Same with "rehabilitation"... Such systems are only as effective as the people in them are willing to let them be... Which means they could just as easily turn someone around as leave them exactly where they were before...

Well, it's basically the same! Even being near teh gays can get you infected with AIDS!Depends on what you do with them while being near, you know...

yep as such it would appear the little voice hypothesis you propose needs more evidence first

Strangely enough, no. The entire hypothesis is based on the social stigma, of rape or of HIV.

By hiding any problem, by treating the problem by pretending it doesn't exist, and by treating the people who are known to have the problem as victims, you're telling these people they're less than human. You're telling them they're nothing but a victim, and in certain circumstances, you're telling them they asked for it, or making this the implication...that they're at fault for what has happened to them.

You're also telling the public at large that they're victims, or that they have chosen what's happened to them. By hiding the facts, you're making what they have a social stigma, something unspeakable.

And before you babble on about how much education has been done to remove this stigma, consider this...how many people can stand up in a public place and say, "I have HIV"? HIV carriers are the lepers of today's society, because society today believes this is something which must be hidden away and safely ignored. Bring it into the open, publish the lists, and we could start treating it as any other disease.

HIV is not something one gets, it is something one takes. And if one is for whatever reason not using protection, there is no reason not to have the one bear the consequences.

We should quarantine people with HIV. Half of them don't even know they have it. All it takes is one sexual activity to infect someone else. I strongly support this idea. Anyone who doesn't must be smoking something I'd like to sell.

If even they do not know they have it how should the rest of us in order to quarantine them?

If even they do not know they have it how should the rest of us in order to quarantine them?

You didn't know? The CDC has clairvoyants in its employ.

HIV is not something one gets, it is something one takes. And if one is for whatever reason not using protection, there is no reason not to have the one bear the consequences.

What about children who get it from their parents? Those who got it pre-1985 in a blood transfusion? Rape victims? Those who got in through unsanitary supplies in hospitals?
Besides, this idea has huge logistic problems, where would these people go, their family members etc.
Biggest problem though it that it wouldn't help. If you knew that you would be isolated for having HIV and you thought that you might, you would hide it. You could not possible test everyone, furst because of the cost and secondly because some will be able to slip through the cracks and not go and get help for their infection/disease. This people who do not know if they have HIV would pose a huge threat.

You didn't know? The CDC has clairvoyants in its employ.

There are three in a tank, and they dream of who is infected and who will get infected...

If even they do not know they have it how should the rest of us in order to quarantine them?

Obviously you round up the homosexuals since it's a gay disease!

While we are at it; we should round up men still living with their moms, like broadway and know how to dress!

While HIV/AIDS is a cause for concern, isolation solves nothing given that it is a blood borne disease and not spread through the air or water like most of the communicable diseases that exist. If we isolate people for one thing, why don't we isolate people for other things?

Better yet, why don't we just allow for an increase in funding for research so we don't have to isolate people? These people may have a disease but that doesn't mean they have to be isolated, they can still contribute to society. With funding we can equip ourselves with the means to fight it.

Included in the research would be methods to improve protection during sexual intercourse, which would help fight other STIs.

Research would help develop a type of medication that would be available for people to take before they have symptoms; a pill or medication that acts like an inhibitor so they don't need to take other medication.

Why should we isolate people when we can use this golden moment in our time to learn how to defend ourselves against an invisible enemy? Even if we get rid of it through isolation, if it got back in, we'd be back in square one and have no means by which to fight it.

If we combine education, research and just plain logical ideas it is possible to let people live without being forced into isolation. Why ignore what methods we have when we can use them and improve on them through usage?

Homosexuality isn't the sole cause of HIV, heterosexuality is also VERY capable of spreading it too.

The way some of you people talk, it's as if the carriers of HIV wake up one morning and think, "gee, I think I'd like to go out, have lots of unprotected sex so I can become infected."

How utterly asinine. No one would actually actively seek it out.

Let's imagine what would have happened if we decided that we didn't need to make a vaccine against Ruebella and instead isolated people who got it. You know what, we'd have far more sick people than imaginable. If we did the same thing with the flu, we'd be a very tiny population.

Why should one disease be treated differently than others? They may not act the same, but in the end, they're all a threat to humanity and deserve to all be treated like that and be eradicated. Isolating the victim is no way to win the war.

No, we don't. Or, to be more precise, we don't tell the people who should be told. Namely kids in school. Abstinence only education and all that.

Okay, let me see if I have this straight.

Children are taught, in school, that there is this horrific disease out there, transmitted through (among other things) unprotected sex. Or, even in the most rigorous of school systems, let's just call it transmitted through sex, leaving out even the question of protection.

Children are taught, in school, one method of avoiding contagion of this disease...abstinence. I'll grant you, it's a fairly lame method, as it has so very few proponents among the teenage set. However, it must be granted that this method is, in fact, taught to the average child.

In the mainstream media, through the internet, movies, current books, and generally through better educated friends, these children are almost certain to come into contact with the various other ways this horrific and deadly (did I mention deadly?) disease can be counteracted. Condoms, testing, etc.

Now, one would presume, if one knew there was a horrific and deadly disease out there, one would go to whatever lengths was necessary to avoid catching it. There's just one small problem. The average youth believes he or she is immortal and invulnerable. Evidence to the contrary, no matter how many times they are told otherwise, no matter if their friend just died of this horrific and deadly disease...the average youth is convinced, down to his very soul, that he cannot be touched. The average youth FEELS this, rather than thinks this, which makes it much more insidious and difficult to disillusion.

Education alone will not solve this problem.

Let's imagine what would have happened if we decided that we didn't need to make a vaccine against Ruebella and instead isolated people who got it. You know what, we'd have far more sick people than imaginable. If we did the same thing with the flu, we'd be a very tiny population.

Why should one disease be treated differently than others? They may not act the same, but in the end, they're all a threat to humanity and deserve to all be treated like that and be eradicated. Isolating the victim is no way to win the war.

I don't think there's agreement here on what we mean by 'isolate'. I'm pretty sure nobody on the forum is suggesting leper colonies, just a slightly more determined effort to prevent spread of this particularly nasty disease from person to person. That's no different from other illnesses: as well as seeking a cure, it makes sense also to contain the disease as far as possible and make sure as few people as possible get infected.

It would certainly be odd if, while still working on a cure for, say, bird flu, we didn't make some effort to quarantine those infected - and bird flu can't currently be passed between people at all. Obviously the approach has to be different for something that's already as massively widespread as HIV, but the problem does seem to be getting worse, not better. In particular, I don't think the alarmingly popular "fingers crossed someone will come up with a cure" or "there's no such thing as HIV!" strategies will do much good.

(For the record, and in common with a reassuringly large number of comments above, I also don't think it's acceptable to use HIV as camouflage for homophobia.)

"It is difficult to understand the public policy towards AIDS. It is the first time in the history of civilization in which the carriers of a genuine plague have not been isolated from the general population, and in which this deadly disease for which there is no cure is being treated as a civil rights issue instead of the true health crisis it represents." His comparison is off. Even though AIDS is comparable to the Black Death or other plagues in lethality, it's still an STD. You quarantine people because of transmitability, not lethality.

His comparison is off. Even though AIDS is comparable to the Black Death or other plagues in lethality, it's still an STD. You quarantine people because of transmitability, not lethality.But isn't that the problem? That in those geographic areas and parts of society where HIV is rampant folks cannot keep their genitalia in their pants?

But isn't that the problem? That in those geographic areas and parts of society where HIV is rampant folks cannot keep their genitalia in their pants?A quarantine hits everyone afflicted or suspected to be afflicted, not just geographic areas or parts of society.

A quarantine hits everyone afflicted or suspected to be afflicted, not just geographic areas or parts of society.And reduces transmissibility/infectiousness, which is the purpose of quarantine, as you said.

And reduces transmissibility/infectiousness, which is the purpose of quarantine, as you said.And it's rather pointless, since quarantines are last ditch efforts to prevent the spread of highly transmittable diseases. AIDS is not a highly transimitable disease.

And it's rather pointless, since quarantines are last ditch efforts to prevent the spread of highly transmittable diseases. AIDS is not a highly transimitable disease.It is in certain geographic areas and some parts of society. And exactly because of the behavior of the people. In those geographic areas and those parts of society fucking around without protection is OK. Gays and Africans seem to be incapable of keeping their dicks in their pants.

It is in certain geographic areas and some parts of society. And exactly because of the behavior of the people. In those geographic areas and those parts of society fucking around without protection is OK. Gays and Africans seem to be be incapable of keeping their dicks in their pants.AIDS is not a highly transmitable disease. It is an STD.

AIDS is not a highly transmitable disease. It is an STD.If you fuck someone else every day and everyone around you does that as well, it becomes a highly transmissible disease.

If you fuck someone else every day and everyone around you does that as well, it becomes a highly transmissible disease.If you sneeze on someone, you won't infect them with HIV. Therefore, AIDS is not a highly transmittable disease. It is an STD.

If you sneeze on someone, you won't infect them with HIV. Therefore, AIDS is not a highly transmittable disease. It is an STD.I don't speak of sneezing. I speak of sexual intercourse. Anything unclear about that?
If someone's behavior increases the possibility of contracting HIV, I see no reason to help that person afterwards. Who seeks the danger should die in it.

I don't speak of sneezing. I speak of sexual intercourse. Anything unclear about that?I speak of highly transmittable diseases versus sexually transmittable diseases. As in diseases which are highly transmittalbe (such as AIDS is not) and diseases which are primarily transmitted through sexual intercourse (such as AIDS). Anything unclear about that, specifically as to why AIDS falls into the second category while things such as the flu or pink eye fall into the first?
If someone's behavior increases the possibility of contracting HIV, I see no reason to help that person afterwards. Who seeks the danger should die in it.Hope you never have to eat those words. They'll taste bitter.

I speak of highly transmittable diseases versus sexually transmittable diseases. As in diseases which are highly transmittalbe (such as AIDS is not) and diseases which are primarily transmitted through sexual intercourse (such as AIDS). Anything unclear about that, specifically as to why AIDS falls into the second category while things such as the flu or pink eye fall into the first?So you deny that promiscuity increases the height of transmissability?

Hope you never have to eat those words. They'll taste bitter.I am not fucking around.

Err...UB, you see, the reason AIDS is so widespread in Africa is due to a lack of solid education as well as the lack of contraceptives and other protections against STIs. Furthermore, the Catholic Church, among other organizations, is intentionally misinforming millions of Africans daily which makes the situation even worse.

So it's not a case of not being able to keep from sex so much as not understanding that sex is the problem.

So you deny that promiscuity increases the height of transmissability?Indeed I do. It'll heighten chances of transmission, but not transmittability itself. And it certainly won't change its status to a highly transmittable disease.

I am not fucking around.Not just talking about AIDS, kiddo.

Indeed I do. It'll heighten chances of transmission, but not transmittability itself. And it certainly won't change its status to a highly transmittable disease.Transmissibility is the ability of transmission. Hence the word.

Not just talking about AIDS, kiddo.But I do. HIV and AIDS are not like other diseases. HIV and AIDS lie in one's own responsibility.

Transmissibility is the ability of transmission. Hence the word.Yeah, and the ability of transmission is still limited to contact with bodily fluids, meaning it doesn't increase.

Yeah, and the ability of transmission is still limited to contact with bodily fluids, meaning it doesn't increase.And if you increase the contact with bodily fluids considerably? Does that not subsequently increase the ability of transmission?

If AIDS were an airborne communicable disease I'd agree with Huckabee about isolation, but being what it is--a bloodborne disease only transmitted through sex with infected individuals and/or sharing needles or blood--it's not necessary. All that should be required is that those with AIDS inform potential partners about it, which I think is already required.

Of course he then goes on to press the whole homosexual "lifestyle" idea, as if homosexuality were something one chose. :rolleyes: Furthermore he ignores the fact that AIDS DOES NOT CARE about your sexuality.

Though I almost wish it did, because in a way it'd be ultimate proof that homosexuality is natural. Not that such proof is truly necessary for scientists and all rational people, but...

Well said.

And if you increase the contact with bodily fluids considerably? Does that not subsequently increase the ability of transmission?You're confusing likelihood with ability. No matter how often you expose yourself to HIV, you won't change its path of infection, just your likelihood of infection.

Back to the original point: You're advocating a quarantine on an STD. That makes no sense.

Logically, of course, there's nothing to prevent a government testing every one of its citizens for HIV, and then locking up anyone found to be positive. (That almost sounds like an NS 'issue'.) I don't think this would be at all the right thing to do, and like any other quarantine it wouldn't be perfect, but it's a theoretical possibility.

Regardless of how a disease is passed from one person to the next, as long as it can be detected it's always going to be possible to inhibit its spread by separating those who are infected from those who are not. I think your point (with which I agree) is that it doesn't make a whole lot of practical sense in this case - for several different reasons.

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1692878,00.html

Interesting. Can people who hold extreme views change?

I wasn't going to vote for him. Last debate he seemed a nice guy. Oh well politician....

Some goodies!

"If the federal government is truly serious about doing something with the AIDS virus, we need to take steps that would isolate the carriers of this plague,"

"It is difficult to understand the public policy towards AIDS. It is the first time in the history of civilization in which the carriers of a genuine plague have not been isolated from the general population, and in which this deadly disease for which there is no cure is being treated as a civil rights issue instead of the true health crisis it represents."

"I feel homosexuality is an aberrant, unnatural, and sinful lifestyle, and we now know it can pose a dangerous public health risk."

Where are you from that you consider quarantine "extreme"?

Where are you from that you consider quarantine "extreme"?

When it's not an airborne communicable disease.

When it's not an airborne communicable disease.

May I recommend a megaphone? I think you're dealing with some deaf people sporting this season's new sexy design in blinders. Somehow, they may not get the message otherwise.

Yes, you're right though. It isn't airborne. I'm more afraid of catching the flu than of any STIs. Why? Because I breath the same air that inconsiderate people like to sneeze and cough in.

Furthermore, the Catholic Church, among other organizations, is intentionally misinforming millions of Africans daily which makes the situation even worse.

I wouldn't go that far, the catholic church do generally believe what they are saying, and don't think that they are misinforming Africans when they speak against contraceptives.

I wouldn't go that far, the catholic church do generally believe what they are saying, and don't think that they are misinforming Africans when they speak against contraceptives.first of all, the catholic church is telling africans not to sleep around. and guess what: that would in fact solve the problem.

first of all, the catholic church is telling africans not to sleep around. and guess what: that would in fact solve the problem.

Hmmm just don't do drugs and you won't get addicted? Just don't kill and you won't be a murderer? Just don't drink and you won't be an alocholic? Just don't steal and you won't be a thief?

How many people have only one sexual partner their whole lives?

Sounds like a failed policy.

Never mind the fact the Church lost a great deal of "moral" authority over recent events....

Why don't we just give individuals who test HIV positive (twice to avoid a false positive) a little tattoo of "HIV" somewhere that will be covered by their underwear/swimwear, but will be apparent when two individuals are about to engage in sexual intercourse.

If it's unobtrusive, and only visible to potential sex partners, what's the problem (other than the whole forced tattooing being unconstitutional)?

Why don't we just give individuals who test HIV positive (twice to avoid a false positive) a little tattoo of "HIV" somewhere that will be covered by their underwear/swimwear, but will be apparent when two individuals are about to engage in sexual intercourse.

If it's unobtrusive, and only visible to potential sex partners, what's the problem (other than the whole forced tattooing being unconstitutional)?

You know who else wore a "little" tattoo, the Jews.

Way to go Kryozerkia... You've won the "Relating Something Completely Different to the Holocaust Award". A big hand for Kryozerkia everybody!

Way to go Kryozerkia... You've won the "Relating Something Completely Different to the Holocaust Award". A big hand for Kryozerkia everybody!

And it's different how?

Because I'm not advocating rounding them up, loading them onto trains and shipping them off to concentration camps where they can break rocks until I throw them into the gas chambers and then the ovens. I'm not running around doing a full arm salute shouting "Heil Hitler" either.

I'm trying to advocate a rational, and feasible way to inform potential sex partners that the person they're about to sleep with has HIV. Everyone can lie, but it's a lot harder to have a tattoo removed...

Hmmm just don't do drugs and you won't get addicted? Just don't kill and you won't be a murderer? Just don't drink and you won't be an alocholic? Just don't steal and you won't be a thief?

How many people have only one sexual partner their whole lives?

Sounds like a failed policy.

Never mind the fact the Church lost a great deal of "moral" authority over recent events....Too bad. If you sleep around and get HIV, that's the fault of the catholic church then? Idiot.

Way to go Kryozerkia... You've won the "Relating Something Completely Different to the Holocaust Award". A big hand for Kryozerkia everybody!

Way to miss the point.

If you seek to isolate a group for one trait when they aren't a threat (the way some people talk, it's as if gays have magical means by which to infect poor straight God-fearing folk with their gay juice infected with HIV, and increasing the chance of turning us gay...), then yes, the comparison is warranted. However, let's pretend HIV can be transmitted like some of those crackpot religious nuts would have us believe, then maybe isolation would work, however, HIV isn't. It isn't just an STI, it is also transmitted through un-sanitised medical equipment, tainted blood, or through mother-to-child (though this can be reduced with caesareans sections, with the chance down to 1%; or through breast feeding).

The same people who want to isolate HIV carriers are also ignoring that Huckabee isn't referring to all sexual orientations, just the homosexuals.

HIV is also not communicable in the same way most other illness are (ie: flu, the common cold, SARS). This requires sexual contact, with zero protection.

Tattoos are also a good way to get HIV if the needle isn't properly sterilise. Hence, if you have a false positive, you label the person who doesn't actually carry it then when they get tattooed, they invariably contract it.

Too bad. If you sleep around and get HIV, that's the fault of the catholic church then? Idiot.

If the Church uses it's influence to stymie knowledge and prevent condom use, it is the fault of the Church.

Increased knowledge and condom use led more to the drop in aids infections; then the Holy Abstinence Avengers.

Way to miss the point.

If you seek to isolate a group for one trait when they aren't a threat, then yes, the comparison is warranted. However, let's pretend HIV can be transmitted like some of those crackpot religious nuts would have us believe, then maybe isolation would work, however, HIV isn't.

The same people who want to isolate HIV carriers are also ignoring that Huckabee isn't referring to all sexual orientations, just the homosexuals.

HIV is also not communicable in the same way most other illness are (ie: flu, the common cold, SARS). This requires sexual contact, with zero protection.

Tattoos are also a good way to get HIV if the needle isn't properly sterilise. Hence, if you have a false positive, you label the person who doesn't actually carry it then when they get tattooed, they invariably contract it.

What it boils down to in my argument, is that I do not have faith in human nature. So, I'd like to take the humanity out of the equation.

Also, I don't support discrimination against homosexuals in this instance, I would support this policy for all individuals infected with HIV until either a cure is discovered, or it goes the way of smallpox.

I'm not an idiot... I do know that HIV is communicable almost exclusively through blood to blood contact, or sexual fluid contact... that's why the tattoo would be hidden where people are legally mandated to wear clothing when in public!

On the issue of tattooing needles passing the infection to individuals with a false positive (an issue I addressed in my first post), anyone who owns/runs/has worked at a tattoo parlor can tell you that the prevention of this is paramount to the success of their business. The use of sterile needles (in most cases a new needle for each customer) mitigates the risk of this occuring.

What it boils down to in my argument, is that I do not have faith in human nature. So, I'd like to take the humanity out of the equation.

Also, I don't support discrimination against homosexuals in this instance, I would support this policy for all individuals infected with HIV until either a cure is discovered, or it goes the way of smallpox.

I'm not an idiot... I do know that HIV is communicable almost exclusively through blood to blood contact, or sexual fluid contact... that's why the tattoo would be hidden where people are legally mandated to wear clothing when in public!

On the issue of tattooing needles passing the infection to individuals with a false positive (an issue I addressed in my first post), anyone who owns/runs/has worked at a tattoo parlor can tell you that the prevention of this is paramount to the success of their business. The use of sterile needles (in most cases a new needle for each customer) mitigates the risk of this occuring.

By making it a requirement, many people who already have issues with going to the doctor, may further resist. Thus, how do you resolve that? There is no legal requirement for people to go to the doctor in their lives, ever. The only time it's required is for parents to ensure the child's well being, but even then, adults who have the right to consent to medical procedures can easily avoid not going to the doctor.

And exactly what do you hope to achieve through creating a stigma? There is already one due to over-zealous dogma.

Imagine for a moment, you're a teenager, and you're in a locker room with a bunch of your peers and you already feel self-conscious due to the awkwardness of the age. Now imagine you have a tattoo that would otherwise not be noticeable, and it's there because you contracted HIV because your mother was given tainted blood while she carried you. You accidentally get your towel taken... now you've been ostracised because you had no control over it; the same goes for your mother.

Humanity is damn bloody intolerant enough. We are already divided along enough lines, why do you advocate adding another?

By making it a requirement, many people who already have issues with going to the doctor, may further resist. Thus, how do you resolve that? There is no legal requirement for people to go to the doctor in their lives, ever. The only time it's required is for parents to ensure the child's well being, but even then, adults who have the right to consent to medical procedures can easily avoid not going to the doctor.


A valid point, and it warrants more consideration. If you're about to essentially be made a social outcast by testing positive, why get tested at all? Blissful ignorance would win out I'm sure... The only strategy I can come up with is mandating annual blood donations or something of the like, that way you kill two birds with one stone. Increase the national supply of whole blood, and also are able to conduct testing for STI's and other infections of interest (whatever they may be).

As for the situational argument... trickier, but I'm not sure of the likelihood of that given situation... it requires a pretty specific series of events to occur, and certainly that happening to one or a few teenagers would be "acceptable losses"? Is that an ok way to put that?

A valid point, and it warrants more consideration. If you're about to essentially be made a social outcast by testing positive, why get tested at all? Blissful ignorance would win out I'm sure... The only strategy I can come up with is mandating annual blood donations or something of the like, that way you kill two birds with one stone. Increase the national supply of whole blood, and also are able to conduct testing for STI's and other infections of interest (whatever they may be).

As for the situational argument... trickier, but I'm not sure of the likelihood of that given situation... it requires a pretty specific series of events to occur, and certainly that happening to one or a few teenagers would be "acceptable losses"? Is that an ok way to put that?

How would the annual drive be enforced? If you tied it to the license, you'd see people like me slip beneath the radar because we rely on public transit and prefer not to drive given our locale. Also, how would it deal with people who have low blood pressure and those who can't stand needles? Or any number of reasons.

How would you target a Jehovah's Witness? They don't give or accept blood, and this would result in a constitutional challenge, right? Or are religious rights going to be overridden now?

What about illegal immigrants? They would surely slip under the radar, since this would mean associating with officials. They would not know if they were positive or not, and would be even less likely to seek help.

You couldn't restrict mobility of a person without a court injunction, sanctioning the violation of that right, proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are a threat. It would be hard to force someone when there are laws that make it illegal to restrict the movements of a law-abiding citizen not under probationary terms. Thus how would you do travel restrictions if they go between cities?

Because this is a medical procedure, forcing people would violate their rights when it comes to their body. How would this be dealt with?

The problem with mandatory blood donations is that there are too many exceptions, and even if you closed the loophole on some, there would be court challenges to undo the whole legislation, effectively returning the idea to phase one if it can be shown to be in violation of human rights.

Aye, but the plan warrants consideration, no? Given that we've already discussed it thus far, and are now debating various logistical problems.

its already illegal to infect someone (knowingly) with an STI

Is this not a good thing?

On a random note, if you replaced every mention of "AIDS" with "Christianity" there'd be a riot.

You know who else wore a "little" tattoo, the Jews.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

I think if Barrack Obama doesn't get nominated on the democratic ticket I'm going to vote third party....

If the people with HIV don't know they have it, then nobody does. If nobody knows they have it, how can you justify quarantine? Are you going to check everybody for HIV?

Not a bad idea as part of a routine checkup. And then catch it quickly and isolate them before they can advance the scourge further.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

May want to read your link

] For example, there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically "lost" whatever debate was in progress. This principle is itself frequently referred to as Godwin's law. It is considered poor form to raise such a comparison arbitrarily with the motive of ending the thread. There is a widely recognized codicil that any such ulterior-motive invocation of Godwin's law will be unsuccessful (this is sometimes referred to as "Quirk's Exception").[6]

I think that's an excellent solution. You can't deny that it would be effective. If people with AIDS are secluded from people not with AIDS, then clearly the disease won't spread...except by people who have it and don't know, but even then, it'll spread less rapidly.

I'm voting for Huckabee. :D

I'm voting to have you isolated, based on the fact that I believe all people of this opinion should be.

You clearly admit the major fault in doing committing to this solution (besides the moral reasons). A massive number of those infected with HIV don't know they have it, or refuse to get checked for it. That would only slow down the continued infections by a little. I'll pull some statistics if needed.

As a side note, I'm simply debating this specific reasoning, and I for one am completely against the proposed solution for many reasons, as stated before me.

Not a bad idea as part of a routine checkup. And then catch it quickly and isolate them before they can advance the scourge further.

Right, because once they know that they have HIV, they're gonna run out and infect others like the zombies in Resident Evil. :rolleyes:

Yes, but I'm highly skeptical he has.

When I first heard of a Gov. Huckabee of Arkansas I immediately had a mental image of a fat white guy in a white suit who drinks mint juleps on the porch. How disappointed I was to find out otherwise.
Wow, thats not a major stereotype or anything.

On a random note, if you replaced every mention of "AIDS" with "Christianity" there'd be a riot.
Yeah since Christianity is a terminal illness and all. Im not a Christian, but all REAL Christians that I have met have been very nice people...not the Bible whacking ZOMGZ U GO 2 HELL that many ignorant people beleive them to be.

Wow, thats not a major stereotype or anything.

An awesome stereotype. Had he been like that he may have gotten my vote.

Huckabee said Saturday that his comments came at a time when the public was still learning about HIV and AIDS and promised to do "everything possible to transform the promise of a vaccine and a cure into reality."



Need I say more? He said it in 1992, so what?


A Southern Baptist preacher, Huckabee has been a favorite among social conservatives for his vocal opposition to gay marriage. In 2003, Huckabee said that the U.S. Supreme Court was probably right to strike down anti-sodomy laws, but that states still should be able to restrict things such as gay marriage or domestic partner benefits.

"What people do in the privacy of their own lives as adults is their business," Huckabee said. "If they bring it into the public square and ask me as a taxpayer to support it or to endorse it, then it becomes a matter of public discussion and discourse."



I find those interesting.

Need I say more? He said it in 1992, so what?

Considering he is a Christian preacher; it's something to be concerned about. Time doesn't always change opinions. Especially in the area of Christian viewpoints on homosexuality. I still remember the early days of aids where Christians were saying it's a gay disease....

I find those interesting.

Typical political white noise for electoral purposes.

What changed his opinion?

Yeah since Christianity is a terminal illness and all. Im not a Christian, but all REAL Christians that I have met have been very nice people...not the Bible whacking ZOMGZ U GO 2 HELL that many ignorant people beleive them to be.

Whats the difference between "Christians" and "REAL Christians" ?

Whats the difference between "Christians" and "REAL Christians" ?

The same difference between a Scotsman and a True Scotsman, obviously.

Huckabee? more like Suckabee! amirite?

May want to read your link
For example, there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically "lost" whatever debate was in progress. This principle is itself frequently referred to as Godwin's law. It is considered poor form to raise such a comparison arbitrarily with the motive of ending the thread. There is a widely recognized codicil that any such ulterior-motive invocation of Godwin's law will be unsuccessful (this is sometimes referred to as "Quirk's Exception")

I did, thank you, including the bit you quoted.

I don't see how my post can be interpreted as any attempt to end this thread; I was just trying to shoot down what looks to me like an obvious bit of hysterical hyperbole, with as little fuss as possible.

People keep talking about how EVERYONE needs to know about everyone else's HIV status. That's a bit extreme. You don't get it by simply standing next to someone who has it. And it's true, a lot of people who carry the virus don't even know they have it. So what's the solution you say?

Don't have sex of any kind with someone until you BOTH get tested and you've SEEN the other person's test results in your own hands!

Might be an awkward thing to ask of your sweetpea and if that's so, then you get to live with the nagging thought that you might have HIV...

How much more would it cost for governments to simply make testing free to anyone who asks as opposed to treating ALL of the people who eventually progress to AIDs?