|
|
Post by bombmaniac on Aug 8, 2010 16:42:43 GMT -5
quarantine people with aids until they die...until the virus is eradicated. yes? no? why?
go.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kevak on Aug 8, 2010 16:56:35 GMT -5
Make them use a condom. Duh.
|
|
|
|
Post by 4iner on Aug 8, 2010 16:58:58 GMT -5
no
|
|
|
|
Post by bombmaniac on Aug 8, 2010 17:08:36 GMT -5
Make them use a condom. Duh. thats right...staple it to their dicks how about women? |
|
|
|
Post by Kevak on Aug 8, 2010 17:15:10 GMT -5
Heck I don't know. Don't have sex.
|
|
|
|
Post by NormanTheOne on Aug 8, 2010 17:20:29 GMT -5
quarantine people with aids until they die...until the virus is eradicated. yes? no? why? go. This actually is similar to what I think would be an excellent yet inhumane way of dealing with diseases. The only issue with your idea is that when a disease goes extinct, it mutates into another disease. What I was thinking could happen, was that we give a couple people a disease, and another couple people another disease, and etc. And keep sure at at least 1 but no more than 2 people, have that disease and that's it. The only issue is how selfish and disgusting that idea is, because no-one would volunteer, and no-one would deserve that. |
|
|
|
Post by bombmaniac on Aug 8, 2010 17:39:26 GMT -5
what you said makes no sense norman...if teh virus is perfectly contained then all it's mutations are contained as well. as for humane...no one said teh conditions of teh quarantine couldnt be pleasant
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2010 18:11:45 GMT -5
- Nobody likes to be quarantined, no matter how pleasant are the conditions;
- It is too hard for conditions to be pleasant unless you can insert healthy people who can help the sick (for incapacitating/deadly diseases);
- Animals have diseases too, which can be transfered to humans (the case of Bird flu, H1N1, etc), and controlling animal population is close to impossible without the eradication of forests... UPDATE: It is also hard to keep tracks of all sick people, so your concept is also flawed in there (if it was possible to keep track of people, most organized crime wouldn't exist);
- 4th: Some diseases have different forms of spreading, and unless we know all possible ways, a quarantine is hard (read/see the book/movie "Blindness") (of course, this isn't the case with AIDS).
Just my 2¢. |
|
|
|
Post by 4iner on Aug 8, 2010 19:08:54 GMT -5
The whole idea behind quarantine is to keep an airborne, or otherwise very easily transmittable, disease from spreading. Besides, think about the resources that would be needed to find and quarantine everyone with aids, not to mention keeping them quarantined. It'd be like a prison, with them knowing that they would pose little to no danger in normal society, as long as they didn't have sex.
|
|
|
|
Post by bombmaniac on Aug 8, 2010 22:37:40 GMT -5
it would be...but then again give it a few generations and AIDS would be history
|
|
|
|
Post by krzych32 on Aug 8, 2010 23:09:41 GMT -5
quarantine people with aids until they die...until the virus is eradicated. yes? no? why? go. This actually is similar to what I think would be an excellent yet inhumane way of dealing with diseases. The only issue with your idea is that when a disease goes extinct, it mutates into another disease. What I was thinking could happen, was that we give a couple people a disease, and another couple people another disease, and etc. And keep sure at at least 1 but no more than 2 people, have that disease and that's it. The only issue is how selfish and disgusting that idea is, because no-one would volunteer, and no-one would deserve that. Plz, tell me you were joking.... |
|
|
|
Post by Lex on Aug 8, 2010 23:15:30 GMT -5
I seriously hope that this is just a hypothetical thing and that you aren't serious about this.
|
|
|
|
Post by bombmaniac on Aug 8, 2010 23:23:19 GMT -5
do you have an opinion on it?
|
|
|
|
Post by Lex on Aug 8, 2010 23:25:24 GMT -5
do you have an opinion on it? I think its utterly ridiculous. Wait... is this some sort of moral dilemma or social experiment? |
|
|
|
Post by bombmaniac on Aug 8, 2010 23:27:06 GMT -5
i hardly see why that's relevant, if you have an opinion state it. if you don't, you shouldn't feel the need to post here simply because the thread exists.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lex on Aug 8, 2010 23:34:58 GMT -5
i hardly see why that's relevant, if you have an opinion state it. if you don't, you shouldn't feel the need to post here simply because the thread exists. My opinion was that the idea is completely ridiculous. And evidently, this is some sort of moral dilemma, so I'm going to back out of this and watch you all squabble over the "right" answer. |
|
|
|
Post by bombmaniac on Aug 8, 2010 23:38:02 GMT -5
its no dilemma...i was bored and i was looking for a fight so i made this thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by jmejia1187 on Aug 9, 2010 0:18:27 GMT -5
Logically speaking, this is an ultimate solution for eradicating aids.
Just because it is an ultimate solution, does not mean I support it.
I do not support it because people with Aids can live very long lives! AIDS is not a stamp of death, as it once was. Sure antiviral drugs are not the coolest drugs on the market (I'll put my money on 420 on the BLACK MARKET), but the truth is, if YOU are afraid of getting AIDS, then YOU should use a condom. If you don't want to use a condom, then make sure your partner gets tested for AIDS before having sex (while you're at it, you should also get tested for Ghonnorea, Hepatitis, Chlamidia, Crabs...).
The responsibility for not contracting AIDS should be on the shoulders of the individuals who don't want AIDS.
As for Quarantine... I believe we should quarantine old people until they die. That way, we can eradicate old unappealing people, who apparently are keeping their jobs for a very long time, and not letting me take their place! Those old bastards.
|
|
|
|
Post by bombmaniac on Aug 9, 2010 0:28:38 GMT -5
there is a difference. old people aren't spreading fatal diseases. as for the responsibility being on the one who does not have ADIS...really? really? gimme a break.
|
|
|
|
Post by jmejia1187 on Aug 9, 2010 0:34:59 GMT -5
there is a difference. old people aren't spreading fatal diseases. as for the responsibility being on the one who does not have ADIS...really? really? gimme a break. Think about it like this: people with aids cannot spread it to other people with aids... So if you do not have aids, you should be protecting yourself... If you do not protect yourself, and you get aids, well whose fault is it? THink about it, not everyone with aids know they have it. So if you get it, it might not be the other persons fault if they didn't know, which comes back to my original argument, that if you are having unprotected sex, you should get tested anyway. Also, old people spread a fatal disease called cultural intolerance... It is fatal because it kills me to hear them talk that bullshit... |
|
