Jusunlee.com Forums - Eradication of AIDS

Pages (3): « 1 [2] 3 »
Show all 41 posts from this thread on one page

Jusunlee.com Forums (https://www.jusunlee.com/forums/index.php)
- Debate (https://www.jusunlee.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?forumid=19)
-- Eradication of AIDS (https://www.jusunlee.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=10716)

Posted by Crazydeb8ter on 02-20-2003 12:45 AM:

before i begin, i will state right off that the reason why i even replied was that you put a clear negative view upon science and technology. I will support this by pointing to the fact that you jump to the conclusion that a cure for AIDS will not be developed anytime soon as a result of your assertion that "technology and science is mostly steering down the road of new inventions of wants and clones." These two factors are apparently have no use for humankind, as you stated yourself. This answers:

quote:
Originally posted by Ladi Jay
Now, when did I say that tech and science is not a good thing?

quote:
Originally posted by Ladi Jay
In wants I mean things that people want---Neccesities that aren't as necessary as being "healthy and live a life at ease."

being healthy and living an easy life are neccesities. By implicating that there is a gradation among needs you either should 1) have been more specific in your original post or 2) recognize that needs and wants are relative to each individual person. By establishing a standard of neccesity, you are imposing your personal views upon others, basing your argument off of what you believe should have more or less emphasis.
--

quote:
Originally posted by Ladi Jay
" Besides, I didn't say that ALL of todays tech and science is used for my "little term" wants and needs

a very large proportion then. Either way, the statement is incorrect.
--

quote:
Originally posted by Ladi Jay
BTW, how does cloning help someone who "wants to be healthy and live a life at ease"?

Notice how i kept the cloning clause seperate from the little rant about "wants and needs."

__________________
ni pour ni contre; ça m'est égal

"The weight of this sad time we must obey,/ Speak what we feel, not what we ought to say./ The oldest hath borne most; we that are young/ Shall never see so much, nor live so long."
King Lear (V.3.300-304)

Posted by Ladi Jay on 02-20-2003 12:52 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by Crazydeb8ter
before i begin, i will state right off that the reason why i even replied was that you put a clear negative view upon science and technology. I will support this by pointing to the fact that you jump to the conclusion that a cure for AIDS will not be developed anytime soon as a result of your assertion that "technology and science is mostly steering down the road of new inventions of wants and clones." These two factors are apparently have no use for humankind, as you stated yourself. This answers:

--

being healthy and living an easy life are neccesities. By implicating that there is a gradation among needs you either should 1) have been more specific in your original post or 2) recognize that needs and wants are relative to each individual person. By establishing a standard of neccesity, you are imposing your personal views upon others, basing your argument off of what you believe should have more or less emphasis.
--

a very large proportion then. Either way, the statement is incorrect.
--

Notice how i kept the cloning clause seperate from the little rant about "wants and needs."

let's not "talk" about it here because it's not what this thread is for... start a new thread and I'll join!

Posted by Crazydeb8ter on 02-20-2003 01:40 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by Ladi Jay
let's not "talk" about it here because it's not what this thread is for... start a new thread and I'll join!

then i ask myself: is it really worth the time or effort?

Posted by Ladi Jay on 02-20-2003 06:19 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Crazydeb8ter
then i ask myself: is it really worth the time or effort?

of course you think it's worth the time because you took time to reply to my other posts... cheer up victor, you don't have to act like a bad ass

all in all victor, you perceived my short reply negatively when my intentions weren't so. I'm sorry for you lack of understanding and I'll consider being more specific next time...

oh, one more thing...

quote:

Originally posted by Ladi Jay:
In wants I mean things that people want---Neccesities that aren't as necessary as being "healthy and live a life at ease."

Originally posted by CrazyDeb8ter:
being healthy and living an easy life are neccesities.

Note the bold parts and emphasize the italics... you seem to agree with my statement or maybe you should have been more specific.

But hey, if you really want to... I'm up to it!^^

Thanks! Come again!

Posted by |vaSh| on 02-20-2003 09:38 PM:

Must be tested before sex. And have it every 6 months only. Btw about killing ur mother just because she has aid does seem a bad idea... How about not allowing her to have sex unless the person has aids 2. Btw if a mother and a child both have aids there is no point of them living much. Funny thing is aids doesnt actually kill you. A simple virus like a flu does because u have no imunity. Btw how about living in a house thats covered by a huge air fitlered bubble!!

__________________

Posted by Alchemist on 02-20-2003 11:26 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Crazydeb8ter
being healthy and living an easy life are neccesities. By implicating that there is a gradation among needs you either should 1) have been more specific in your original post or 2) recognize that needs and wants are relative to each individual person. By establishing a standard of neccesity, you are imposing your personal views upon others, basing your argument off of what you believe should have more or less emphasis.

I thought Ble was hardcore...

Posted by Crazydeb8ter on 02-21-2003 01:25 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by Ladi Jay
cheer up victor, you don't have to act like a bad ass

oh but i am

quote:
Originally posted by Ladi Jay
I'm sorry for you lack of understanding and I'll consider being more specific next time...

none of the former, all of the latter

quote:
Originally posted by Ladi Jay
Note the bold parts and emphasize the italics... you seem to agree with my statement or maybe you should have been more specific.

-snort- of course i saw that. Reading comprehension, my friend- You missed the entire point of the paragraph. It has nothing to do with me being specific.

Posted by Spartan on 02-21-2003 05:32 AM:

CrezyD is totally harsh.

__________________
**rei ayanami is hot**

Posted by kryogenix on 02-28-2003 07:57 PM:

Re: Re: Eradication of AIDS

quote:
Originally posted by Crazydeb8ter
hmm..i believe the description of yourself under your username is incorrect.
Instead of "unbearably cynical", make it "unbearably retarded"

regardless, the french have a potential vaccine being tested as we speak, thereby nullifying your temporal assumption.

I heard on the news that the vaccine doesn't work!!! ha ha ha !!! my assumption lives on!!!

Posted by Crazydeb8ter on 03-01-2003 12:32 AM:

Re: Re: Re: Eradication of AIDS

quote:
Originally posted by kryogenix
I heard on the news that the vaccine doesn't work!!! ha ha ha !!! my assumption lives on!!!

source cite.

Posted by kryogenix on 03-11-2003 07:40 PM:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Eradication of AIDS

quote:
Originally posted by Crazydeb8ter
source cite.

In New York, there is a AM radiostation called 1010 wins. That's the source. Oh yeah, read this:
http://www.studentbmj.com/back_issu.../news/442b.html

Posted by PsychoSnowman on 03-11-2003 10:50 PM:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Eradication of AIDS

quote:
Originally posted by kryogenix
In New York, there is a AM radiostation called 1010 wins. That's the source. Oh yeah, read this:
http://www.studentbmj.com/back_issu.../news/442b.html

daaamn, victor's (crazydeb8ter) entire stance just goes away now!

Ok, sorry for jumping in victor, but just becuase one of the recent tests thought to be successful has failed doesn't mean that they haven't learned anything from it. Granted i haven't even read this article yet and assuming what you said is correct, but it never even mattered. Victor's advocacy was to research for a vaccine or any other preventative measure in the present and your article still supports his view since it's research being done and they've gotten a little bit closer (actually now i'm wondering if that was your view, i didn't read the thread entirely i admit, only a couple posts, sorry if it's wrong), your view was to create some sick dichotomized existence or something, i'm not sure what to call it. Your isolation of the healthy and unhealthy in terms of a certain disease...ugh.

And then you follow up with a post about how ridiculing your idea is bad when you don't supply another alternative...ok, so we might as well initiate your dichotomy i guess since there's nothing better....oh wait! how about we just research and find a cure that way, all right sounds good.

__________________
Long messages do not equal aggravation of any sort,
rather they reflect nothing more than a response of insight
that should always be read in a matter-of-fact tone.

"Those womyn that seek equality with men, lack determination."

"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be wrong."
-Cromwell

Posted by Crazydeb8ter on 03-12-2003 02:51 AM:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Eradication of AIDS

quote:
Originally posted by PsychoSnowman
Ok, sorry for jumping in victor,

lol not at all- your points were great.

Posted by kryogenix on 03-12-2003 07:55 PM:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Eradication of AIDS

quote:
Originally posted by PsychoSnowman
daaamn, victor's (crazydeb8ter) entire stance just goes away now!

Ok, sorry for jumping in victor, but just becuase one of the recent tests thought to be successful has failed doesn't mean that they haven't learned anything from it. Granted i haven't even read this article yet and assuming what you said is correct, but it never even mattered. Victor's advocacy was to research for a vaccine or any other preventative measure in the present and your article still supports his view since it's research being done and they've gotten a little bit closer (actually now i'm wondering if that was your view, i didn't read the thread entirely i admit, only a couple posts, sorry if it's wrong), your view was to create some sick dichotomized existence or something, i'm not sure what to call it. Your isolation of the healthy and unhealthy in terms of a certain disease...ugh.

And then you follow up with a post about how ridiculing your idea is bad when you don't supply another alternative...ok, so we might as well initiate your dichotomy i guess since there's nothing better....oh wait! how about we just research and find a cure that way, all right sounds good.

So, the Mods are ganging up on me, ok i'll have to work harder to prove that cures may not be possible. Of course, you know that viruses mutate. So developing a cure, if possible, would only help a few thousand at most. If it's ok, I'll restate my original statement. "Can any of you guys think of a way to eradicate AIDS (besides a cure)? Right now, the only way i can think of is isolation or killing all of the AIDS victims."

Posted by PsychoSnowman on 03-12-2003 08:50 PM:

the mods are ganging up on you? please.

Anyway, right now i think think of a solution to cure aids, we research right now and continue to do so. That's better than your isolation, and it'd be more effective since we couldn't contract it from animals or something after that. I think you are confusing right now, with "right now, immediate, instantaneous cure", when it's really just what can we do about aids. We can research. And, that answers the question you posed in the first post...you are changing it now.

Posted by kryogenix on 03-17-2003 07:36 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by PsychoSnowman
the mods are ganging up on you? please.

Anyway, right now i think think of a solution to cure aids, we research right now and continue to do so. That's better than your isolation, and it'd be more effective since we couldn't contract it from animals or something after that. I think you are confusing right now, with "right now, immediate, instantaneous cure", when it's really just what can we do about aids. We can research. And, that answers the question you posed in the first post...you are changing it now.

Please? Thank you. if it takes two mods to refute the ideas of a normal user, i would consider that ganging up on. oh yeah, you said "right now i think think" which is a typo. i don't understand why isolation is such a bad idea. society used isolation on lepers, why not on aids, which is probabaly much worse than aids. i'm not saying stop reasearch. if we can find a cure, then that's great. i'm just saying it would be faster to isolate/eradicate all hosts of aids.

Posted by PsychoSnowman on 03-17-2003 09:00 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by kryogenix
Please? Thank you. if it takes two mods to refute the ideas of a normal user, i would consider that ganging up on.

it doesn't take two mods, i just decided to jump in. All right, sure continue with your plea, i'm just not a big fan of victimization cards. Play it if you want, it's not getting you anywhere. Mods aren't somehow better than "normal users" as you put it, you didn't say they are better i'm implicating that and dont' harp over that word i'm just saying that you differentiate us. Sure, there's a structural difference, but i don't see why you see the need to think we're ganging up on you. We aren't some gang. We're just two other users on jsl that happen to share a view. I thought if i interject it would help to represent my views as well that are different than victors in whatever intricacies there are.

quote:

oh yeah, you said "right now i think think" which is a typo.

your point?

quote:

i don't understand why isolation is such a bad idea. society used isolation on lepers, why not on aids, which is probabaly much worse than aids. i'm not saying stop reasearch. if we can find a cure, then that's great. i'm just saying it would be faster to isolate/eradicate all hosts of aids.

it's a bad idea because it's creating a dichotomized existence between the healthy and the unhealthy. It's repulsive you would think so highly of the sick that you would have the audacity to suggest such an oppressive and selfish move. I think a big fault in your thinking is the fact that you use history to endorse your rationale. Just because we have done it in the past, doesn't mean it was good or justifieid. I mean we held people in internment camps, are you saying if we found some danger within asian people that we would be justified in putting them back in tehre on the simple basis that we've done it in the past? that is no justification, it's just foolish to follow blindly like that. And, yes that is exactly what you are saying whether you realize it or not.

it would be faster, oppressive, inhumane, selfish, and just stupid to isolate/eradicate all hosts of aids that way. Furthermore, you never answer the key point of if AIDS were to arise again through animals or wherever. I guess i can't see why you think it's such a great idea, it sounds so terrible and you've shown no sign that you've thought through all of this. You just keep reiterating and plea the victim. Sorry, not working.

-edit-: i wish i remembered some details about the Sontag Critique of AIDS as a metaphor or whatever. I feel like reading up on it now, maybe i'll post later about it.

Posted by kryogenix on 03-18-2003 07:54 PM:

quote:
[i]it's a bad idea because it's creating a dichotomized existence between the healthy and the unhealthy. It's repulsive you would think so highly of the sick that you would have the audacity to suggest such an oppressive and selfish move. I think a big fault in your thinking is the fact that you use history to endorse your rationale. Just because we have done it in the past, doesn't mean it was good or justifieid. I mean we held people in internment camps, are you saying if we found some danger within asian people that we would be justified in putting them back in tehre on the simple basis that we've done it in the past? that is no justification, it's just foolish to follow blindly like that. And, yes that is exactly what you are saying whether you realize it or not.

it would be faster, oppressive, inhumane, selfish, and just stupid to isolate/eradicate all hosts of aids that way. Furthermore, you never answer the key point of if AIDS were to arise again through animals or wherever. I guess i can't see why you think it's such a great idea, it sounds so terrible and you've shown no sign that you've thought through all of this. You just keep reiterating and plea the victim. Sorry, not working.

-edit-: i wish i remembered some details about the Sontag Critique of AIDS as a metaphor or whatever. I feel like reading up on it now, maybe i'll post later about it. [/B]

You say discriminating against racial groups is unjustified? the US government is doing this right now to middle eastern men. they feel justified because of the terrorist threat. oh yeah, you also mention AIDS arising from animals. i'm suprised that you didn't think that HIV causes AIDS. the H in HIV means human, so why would an animal get infected with a human virus?

Posted by PsychoSnowman on 03-18-2003 10:27 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by kryogenix
You say discriminating against racial groups is unjustified? the US government is doing this right now to middle eastern men. they feel justified because of the terrorist threat. oh yeah, you also mention AIDS arising from animals. i'm suprised that you didn't think that HIV causes AIDS. the H in HIV means human, so why would an animal get infected with a human virus?

First i make a typo, then i mention the possiblity of animals, god dammit! i care so much....hehe

. It's funny how you dwell on trivialities all the time. "and oh yeah, you made a typo!" As if you win some sort of victory from it. But hey, it's the only thing you can win, so why not go for it. The point isn't so much about the specifics of what i said rather than the idea. The idea is what happens if it comes back? Notice, i say "animals or wherever." I realized the possibility of it not coming from animals because i don't know that much about AIDS, which is why i said "wherever" as a disclaimer. conveniently you ignore that. Good job budday.

You implicate too much overall, look what you said, "they" feel justified. That's not me, that's their thinking. In fact i think discriminating can neither be justified. Where did you get the idea i supported imperialism, and the war on iraq and the like? It's really irrelevent. Maybe if you asked me if i did, then you could make something of it. But, as of now the point just goes nowhere.

Posted by aznkid1008 on 03-18-2003 11:53 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by kryogenix
the H in HIV means human, so why would an animal get infected with a human virus?

well its an STD or now called STI so if an animal were 2 get it i first would ask saddam wat he was doin wit his llamas last nite.

__________________
the fool is the one who thinks he is wise, yet the wise one is the one who thinks he is a fool

Remember the heros
Remember the lives
Remember the day
God bless

All times are GMT. The time now is 09:57 AM.

Pages (3): « 1 [2] 3 »
Show all 41 posts from this thread on one page