Poll: AIDS, it could be eradicated but human rights would need to be sacrificed.

[martin's a madman]

snip

I did read the whole thing you... What were you suggesting? Oh yes, sending everyone who has AIDS off to some far away place. Shut up. Didn't my post maybe suggest that no, I don't believe the end justifies the means, especially if the means wouldn't work anyway.

No... just no.

And the end never justifies the means.

But sometimes it does. E.G-The use of nuclear weapons on japan in ww2

You're being sarcastic right? The atomic bombing of japanese civilians is one of the worst crimes against humanity in history.

I was not suggesting that I want this to happen, read the whole thing before you judge something. Also, the atomic bombs weren't as bad as other acts of war like the fire bombings of Tokyo which claimed more initial lives. If the war had continued there would be a lot more casualties than what the bombs caused anyway. But this post isn't about WW2 so I am going to stop there.

 

[Chicago Ted]

But sometimes it does. E.G-The use of nuclear weapons on japan in ww2

You're being sarcastic right? The atomic bombing of japanese civilians is one of the worst crimes against humanity in history.

Yes, but it was better than what would have happened the other way. If they didn't drop the atomic bombs on Japan, the war would have kept going for years. The price would have been thousands more American and Japanese soldiers and not to mention civilian casualties as well. As ugly as it was, it was a far better alternative to a long dragged out war that would take years and ultimately gain little.

 

[dontworryaboutit]

A friend of mine suggested putting every HIV positive person and everyone with full blown AIDS into New Jersey, sealing it off and then setting it on fire.

Ahh, two birds with one stone eh?


Sounds like its worthwhile to try...

I believe that was his intention, yes.

 

[EMFCRACKSHOT]

No... just no.

And the end never justifies the means.

But sometimes it does. E.G-The use of nuclear weapons on japan in ww2

You're being sarcastic right? The atomic bombing of japanese civilians is one of the worst crimes against humanity in history.[/quote]

It ended the 2nd world war and saved hundereds of thousands of lives. It broka japans bavk. If it hadnt hapened, then they would have fought to the bitter end. We would had to take every last island an mainland japan from an enemy who would rather kill himself than surrender. Think how many would have died in an invasion of mainland japan, the cost would have been far more than the death toll of hiroshima and nagasaki

 

[furnatic]

Of course a good solution, while it won't entirely eradicate AIDS is to take precautions and play it safe. Straight or gay, practice safe sex. Use a condom. If something happens, and shit does happen, get tested immediately and have your partner tested! Don't share needles if your into that, (I don't condone drug use anymore.), if you get a tat or piercing, find out if the shop has a functioning autoclave, etc.

Remember, the first step in the cure is the prevention!

 

[Azhrarn-101]

There's no need to isolate all people who have AIDS and let them die, there are people on the planet that are immune to several strains already, and their immune system is being studied to see if it may yield a vaccine.
I don't doubt that we'll have found a cure for HIV and AIDS within a decade or so.

 

[sallene]

The funny thing to put this in perspective...

Is that if someone had a particularly resistant strain of TB they would get quarantined right away, let alone if a large group of people had it.


So while we think this is deplorable for Aids, what would be people's thoughts on other diseases?

 

[The Infamous Scamola]

No... just no.

And the end never justifies the means.

But sometimes it does. E.G-The use of nuclear weapons on japan in ww2

You're being sarcastic right? The atomic bombing of japanese civilians is one of the worst crimes against humanity in history.

It ended the 2nd world war and saved hundereds of thousands of lives. It broka japans bavk. If it hadnt hapened, then they would have fought to the bitter end. We would had to take every last island an mainland japan from an enemy who would rather kill himself than surrender. Think how many would have died in an invasion of mainland japan, the cost would have been far more than the death toll of hiroshima and nagasaki[/quote]
First of all, Japan was already broken, the Americans could have marched straight through Tokyo. The only idiots who were still going off about winning the war were all the crazed general, who had lost all connections with your average soldier and civilian. Also, the Russian already had plans to descend from the north.

Secondly, if what you said was true, you saved the lives of hundreds of American G.I.s, who all knew that what they were doing was risky and that they might not have made it home, to kill a bunch of innocent old people, women and children who had done nothing wrong, except being part of the wrong country at the wrong time.
And to this day, people are still dieing of tumors and children are being born with horrible deformities because of it
The Americans could have achieved the same effect of terror by just detonating the bombs off the japanese coast, without harming anybody.

But we all know what it was, Big boy America had a knew toy to test out in the playground, and he was just waiting for an excuse to do so.

 

[martin's a madman]

I am surprised so far. I expected the third option to have the most votes. I figured the first would be last but dang I guess escapist has less objectivists than I thought.

 

[sallene]

But we all know what it was, Big boy America had a knew toy to test out in the playground, and he was just waiting for an excuse to do so.

Way to stereotype there guido mussolini.


the A-bomb droppings will forever be contested but that last line of yours is just ignorance.


The problem with being a monday morning quarterback is that you dont have the viewpoint someone has when they make a decision, you only have the effects after the decision is made.

 

[Shock and Awe]

Whats the point of protecting humanity if we sacrifice our humanity as well?

 

[The Infamous Scamola]

Way to stereotype there guido mussolini.

Wow, the irony is killing me.

And I was referencing the American government, not the people. And you can't deny that a great part of the reason why they dropped the bomb was due to pure curiosity.

 

[Ignignoct]

God moves in mysterious ways.

I think we should wait and allow a hero to rise up with a cure. Irony will be that it's too expensive to supply to Africa.

I do feel bad for those born with it, though, and the girls who're raped for their virginity. Apparently there's an unfortunate rumor that it will cure the rapist of AIDS.

I think that rumor was /b/'s doing, personally.

 

[lava_lamp]

no it wouldn't work

remember 28 weeks later, that's how AIDs would survive

 

[The Bandit]

Is anyone else annoyed when people say "no, because it couldn't work?"

I think OP's question doesn't revolve around the possibility of it working (he seemed pretty pessimistic about it), but whether you think it's OK to sacrifice individual rights for the masses.

Quit avoiding the question.

 

[EMFCRACKSHOT]

First of all, Japan was already broken, the Americans could have marched straight through Tokyo. The only idiots who were still going off about winning the war were all the crazed general, who had lost all connections with your average soldier and civilian. Also, the Russian already had plans to descend from the north.

Secondly, if what you said was true, you saved the lives of hundreds of American G.I.s, who all knew that what they were doing was risky and that they might not have made it home, to kill a bunch of innocent old people, women and children who had done nothing wrong, except being part of the wrong country at the wrong time.
And to this day, people are still dieing of tumors and children are being born with horrible deformities because of it
The Americans could have achieved the same effect of terror by just detonating the bombs off the japanese coast, without harming anybody.

But we all know what it was, Big boy America had a knew toy to test out in the playground, and he was just waiting for an excuse to do so.

Japan may have been broken, but their code of honour that most amongst the military and many civillians embraced at the time would not have let them surrender without a long drawn out fight costing i believe the estimate was over 500,000 lives. And that was purely in terms of armed forces, not civillian casulties. Tokyo would probably have been bombed completely flat, like berlin or dresden.
And setting off two big bombs off the coast does not have the same effect as destroying two small cities.
Point made, i think we have derailed this thread enough

 

[Russian_Assassin]

No matter how harsh it sounds, I think this should happen. I know that life is worth, but I believe in the idea of killing 10 people to save 10.000. Plus, there would be less deranged people, determined to infect as much people as they can before dying. Although there still would be those monkey fuckers... maybe if they had a death penalty for bestiality...

(Man, I am kinda evil :S)

 

[sallene]

Way to stereotype there guido mussolini.

Wow, the irony is killing me.

And I was referencing the American government, not the people. And you can't deny that a great part of the reason why they dropped the bomb was due to pure curiosity.

Actually I can, Not everyone in the US goverement during that time were bloodthirsty bastards without morals. Curiosity had nothing to do with it. I can see if you argured selfishness seeing as how it was to prevent further allied casualties, but to say they did out of flippant curiosity is pretty ignorant.


Edit - also, I was going for irony.

 

[martin's a madman]

Way to stereotype there guido mussolini.

Wow, the irony is killing me.

And I was referencing the American government, not the people. And you can't deny that a great part of the reason why they dropped the bomb was due to pure curiosity.

Actually I can, Not everyone in the US goverement during that time were bloodthirsty bastards without morals. Curiosity had nothing to do with it. I can see if you argured selfishness seeing as how it was to prevent further allied casualties, but to say they did out of flippant curiosity is pretty ignorant.


Edit - also, I was going for irony.

Also they tested the bombs before implementing them into war anyways. If it makes a very large explosion they could speculate what would happen when people are under it. But this isn't about the bombs!