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

[Krakyn]

You cant stop it. The world just wants to have our plastic.

LMAO. Classic George Carlin!

I don't think it's justified. I see it as population control. I know it sounds bad, but there's way too many of us.

I actually agree with your statement. AIDS is advanced natural selection. Use your brain and wear a condom or die a horrible death. This way, only the smart survive (except for those poor doctors or receivers of blood transfusions who get it, I feel sorry for them).

 

[martin's a madman]

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few? As long as it didn't turn into a Resident Evil style apocalypse scenario, I don't see why limited human experimentation shouldn't be used to help millions. Why not use those death row and multiple life sentence convicts? That solves not only the disease problem, but prison overcrowding as well. And it limits the ethical impacts, because they were going to die soon anyways.

The problem with that is it doesn't remove ethics because they are only going to die because people are going to kill them. If they were about to die naturally then helping humans may be something of merit. But if we are about to kill them, then killing them while helping still has ethical impact. Of course ethics are all a point of view anyway but I won't be posting my piece on that today.

 

[Xifel]

AIDs is a big problem, but not the biggest problem. 48000 ppl/day die from bad water/lack of water.

And considering that malaria, which is pretty simple to cure, but those poor counties just don't have the money. Maybe the west should help with those before starting locking people up.

But I understand what you are saying, I just don't have the cultural reference. AIDs is a really tiny problem where I live...

And what goes for Africa I really hope we find I cure soon. And as I said, the west is willing to offer this cure so people can afford it.

 

[martin's a madman]

Fatal flaw, you can have it and still test negative for it.

That being true but if there was a huge campaign like this there would probably be a preliminary year of mulitple testing on intervals. Very unlikely to avoid that.

 

[demoman_chaos]

I've had this idea for years, and even thought of a few good places to put them. Shove them all in Cuba, let them breed amongst themselves and all that crap. Just need to keep them from swimming to Florida. As for the real Cubans, we can spread them amongst the nations to make up for the people we shipped out.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few? As long as it didn't turn into a Resident Evil style apocalypse scenario, I don't see why limited human experimentation shouldn't be used to help millions. Why not use those death row and multiple life sentence convicts? That solves not only the disease problem, but prison overcrowding as well. And it limits the ethical impacts, because they were going to die soon anyways.

Another great idea that won't happen. Human rights are a lie, we don't have anymore rights than a mouse. We make these things up so we feel better. The only rights humans have in this world are the rght to die, the right to be taxed, and the right to be controlled by other human's who invented positions of power so they could be in them.

 

[DigitalSushi]

Recently an AIDS suferer had to have a bone marrow transplant, the good marrow cured him of AIDS.

Crazy shit gentlemen, also in the Nineties two American where found to be immune to HIV, they got a shedload of money to get tested.

We can currently suppress AIDS and HIV quite well, just stopping the spread is key to winning. The minute we figure out how to stop it we'll have another even worse virus on our hands though....

edit: also circumsition seems to stop the spread of HIV, dont know how, I'll find out more.

 

[LOOY]

AIDS isnt that bad, theres alot worse out there, it would be better to just create a drug that almost neutralises it.

 

[The Infamous Scamola]

Also, if I was an AIDS victim, I would find this thread extremely fickin' offensive. You're pretty much just dehuminazing a whole group of people.

And thanks tto modern medicine many AIDS sufferers can lead long, normal lives. Just stop it with the stupid extremist solutions.

Sometimes I'm really embarassed by what level people drag this site to.

 

[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

This seems to me to be the standard utilitarian argument. The good of the many vs the good of the few. Would the suffering of these people with aids and the breaches of privacy and civil liberties create more happiness at removing aids than pain from what people had suffered. Probably not. It is almost impossible to predict the outcome, especially on something as large scale as this.

I personally think people who have aids have a moral resonsibility not to spread it. If you don't know you have it then it can't be helped, but if you do know and you continue to have unprotected sex then you could well be considered to be murdering the other person.

 

[martin's a madman]

Also, if I was an AIDS victim, I would find this thread extremely fickin' offensive. You're pretty much just dehuminazing a whole group of people.

And thanks tto modern medicine many AIDS sufferers can lead long, normal lives. Just stop it with the stupid extremist solutions.

Sometimes I'm really embarassed by what level people drag this site to.

You obviously never read the entire thing, which makes you equally prejudice to the level you accused me of. I never said we should nor did I say this was my belief this is just something that is possible. Extremely offensive? The whole point was to ask if human rights could and should be sacrificed to solve major problems. I am embarassed by people who won't read up to the point where it says I am not suggesting this should happen, and instead spout insults and accuse me of being extremist.

 

[martin's a madman]

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

This seems to me to be the standard utilitarian argument. The good of the many vs the good of the few. Would the suffering of these people with aids and the breaches of privacy and civil liberties create more happiness at removing aids than pain from what people had suffered. Probably not. It is almost impossible to predict the outcome, especially on something as large scale as this.

I personally think people who have aids have a moral resonsibility not to spread it. If you don't know you have it then it can't be helped, but if you do know and you continue to have unprotected sex then you could well be considered to be murdering the other person.

I agree about a moral responsibility that would have the same outcome as what I have written here but without the controversial method. Alas, the same flaw takes place as not everyone will co-operate.

 

[Rand-m]

28 Weeks Later.

Anyone that's seen that movie knows why this idea will not work.

Also, it's just too inhumane. I'd rather dump tons of money into research than let 38 million people die.

 

[sallene]

Its funny but there was a movie about his very solution made back when the HIV/AIDs histeria was on full strength.

It was called "Daybreak" and it was about how the goverment rounded up everyone that tested positive with HIV/AIDs and marks them with a P and then puts them in sealed off areas under guard.


Though, a good analog for this debate would be the current immigration debate going on in the US as if you were to take away people infected it has the potential to leave behind children and family members who are not and that can have reprocussions for the government on down the line.

 

[martin's a madman]

Its funny but there was a movie about his very solution made back when the HIV/AIDs histeria was on full strength.

It was called "Daybreak" and it was about how the goverment rounded up everyone that tested positive with HIV/AIDs and marks them with a P and then puts them in sealed off areas under guard.


Though, a good analog for this debate would be the current immigration debate going on in the US as if you were to take away people infected it has the potential to leave behind children and family members who are not and that can have reprocussions for the government on down the line.

Ahh a movie already did this? I was going to write something.

 

[thebigtw]

It is impossible.

To many lives would be lost and its not 100% fullproof. Plus. Monkeys can still spread it.

That's a considered and well-informed opinion you have there, buddy.

 

[Atvomat_Nikonov]

You could cull all people with AIDs.

But that really would be a breach of human rights.

To be honest, that's what I thought the OP was gonna be talking about. Just a show of my cynicism, I guess?

 

[The Infamous Scamola]

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.

 

[martin's a madman]

You could cull all people with AIDs.

But that really would be a breach of human rights.

To be honest, that's what I thought the OP was gonna be talking about. Just a show of my cynicism, I guess?

Genocide wouldn't work because when the poor countries came to killing theirs they would have to use methods that would be dirty like a sword of firing squad. It would defeat the purpose if you went to kill someone with a dagger to stop the spread of AIDS but their blodd gave you aids.

 

[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.

 

[sallene]

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...