Health AIDS spreading fast worldwide

Maciamo

Veteran member
Admin
Messages
9,880
Reaction score
3,140
Points
113
Location
Lothier
Ethnic group
Italo-celto-germanic
Check this out :
BBC News : Global HIV rates at record high

The global spread of HIV

In summary, 40 million people are infected with HIV worldwide, with 14.000 new cases daily. In Southern African countries, up to 40% of the people are contaminated ! Imagine 4 people out of 10 in the streets with HIV/AIDS. :mad:

current_figures_416.gif
 
I have been an advocate of AIDS for years now. It is population control. One thing that makes me crazy about living here in the states is all the warnings and disclaimers. Don't put the hair dryer in the shower? why not??? I have a very low tolerence for stupidity!

I can empathise with the people who have it and feel bad. The bad choices I have made are coming back to bite me in the butt too. I just try to make better decisions. I live as safe as I can using the common sense I have.

Sorry for the ranting.
 
"I have been an advocate of AIDS for years now. It is population control."

You're kidding right? Because if you aren't... then that it is quite possibly the most insensitive and ignorant thing I have ever heard anyone say. Have you ever known someone with full-blown AIDS or witnessed what they and their families have had to go through? I'm guessing not... And to quote yourself at this juncture:

"I have a very low tolerence for stupidity!"

Well, at least we agree on something...
 
I have 2 friends in the hospital with AIDS right now. One of them is going to die with in the next 5 days, says the doctor. In what I wrote, I said I could empathize with these people. I can feel their pain, based on some of the suffering I have had to endure through the years. I don?t care to discuss some of the things I have gone through.

I had a friend in the cancer ward in a Chicago hospital. His jaw had to be removed from chewing tobacco and smoking. He had to be fed with a tube and you could see the roof of his mouth, upper teeth, stub where they left part of the tongue, and a few other nasty things. The nurse had to come in and squirt his gaping hole so it wouldn?t dry out. I sat with him and was supportive until the day he died. In that time we conversed on many topics, via speech and writing.

One thing we discussed was population control through the history of man. If it weren?t for famine, wars, disease, and many other nasty things that can seem inhuman, this place would be well over populated. Not to mention the fact that people are sensitive to things and if they don?t exist, there is nothing to be sensitive of. With a lack of stimuli in a negative way, the human race would have basically gone one of two ways. They would be so innocent and naive or they would have created it on their own through boredom and lack of stimulus.

I don?t want to ramble on here, but disease, war, and things of that nature are often good in the long run. That is if you can get over your stigmas and out of your little head and look at the big picture!
 
samuraitora said:
IOne thing we discussed was population control through the history of man. If it weren?t for famine, wars, disease, and many other nasty things that can seem inhuman, this place would be well over populated. Not to mention the fact that people are sensitive to things and if they don?t exist, there is nothing to be sensitive of. With a lack of stimuli in a negative way, the human race would have basically gone one of two ways. They would be so innocent and naive or they would have created it on their own through boredom and lack of stimulus.
I don't know much about this at all, but a couple of obvious points : 1). modern, humane family planning techniques now make population control through "natural" methods nearly obsolete (unless you are an advocate of AIDS even in countries that are actually striving for a higher birth rate) 2). a distinction needs to be drawn between human and natural "population control" disasters and plagues. It could be, for instance, that the balance between human and natural, nonrenewable resources is by definition a final, determining population control measure outside the realm of theoretically "preventable" causes or man made acts such as disease, war, etc. Although the boredom issue is a wholly different matter....
 
In response to:
1) If you follow modern family planning population control methods, the people with the biggest families will populate the planet. I am not advocating AIDS and saying that I am happy it is here. I just thing that AIDS is a better population control than War, because people whom contract it (["for the most part"]) deserve it. That may seem short sided, but if your having unprotected sex or utilizing intravenous needles for drug use, you deserve it. No if, ands, or buts. You know the consequences and still are doing it. Like my friend in the hospital, I empathize with his pain and situation, but still blame him for putting himself in the hospital. He knew the consequences of his actions.

2) Is there really much of a distinction? Most humans have the rationalization and intelligence to be able to extend and find new ways to cope with nonrenewable resources depletion. Tornados, Hurricanes, Lightning, Earth Quakes, and things of that nature can be avoided, predicted, but not made extinct. They will, most likely, always be natural disasters.
 
samuraitora said:
In response to:
1) If you follow modern family planning population control methods, the people with the biggest families will populate the planet. I am not advocating AIDS and saying that I am happy it is here. I just thing that AIDS is a better population control than War, because people whom contract it (["for the most part"]) deserve it. That may seem short sided, but if your having unprotected sex or utilizing intravenous needles for drug use, you deserve it. No if, ands, or buts. You know the consequences and still are doing it. Like my friend in the hospital, I empathize with his pain and situation, but still blame him for putting himself in the hospital. He knew the consequences of his actions.


Unless you have data showing that wars which kill the most people tend to occur in places most in need of population control ( aside from genocide or so-called ethnic cleansing) I don't think this comparison really goes anywhere. Likewise, whether they "deserve" it or not is a moral judgement that seems unrelated to the need to keep the population under control. It certainly hasn't had that effect in the US anyway with the disproportionally large non-child bearing demographics that have been impacted.

2) Is there really much of a distinction? Most humans have the rationalization and intelligence to be able to extend and find new ways to cope with nonrenewable resources depletion. Tornados, Hurricanes, Lightning, Earth Quakes, and things of that nature can be avoided, predicted, but not made extinct. They will, most likely, always be natural disasters.
I was thinking more of environmental degradation such as overusing the land, the extinction of game used for food or resources such as oil, minerals, etc that are integral to maintaining a community. And now maybe someone more familiar with these issues can step in.
 
Elizabeth said:
Unless you have data showing that wars which kill the most people tend to occur in places most in need of population control ( aside from genocide or so-called ethnic cleansing) I don't think this comparison really goes anywhere. Likewise, whether they "deserve" it or not is a moral judgement that seems unrelated to the need to keep the population under control. It certainly hasn't had that effect in the US anyway with the disproportionally large non-child bearing demographics that have been impacted.

The reason that this has a valid point is because the population control opens a area for people to migrate to, move to, or utilize. It isn't always accurate or effective. It is a non-denominational population minimizer. Child bearing or not. If they are not here, the resources that would have been utilized on them can now be saved or redistributed. I am not saying that the theory is perfect or that it works well. This is just my opinion.

.
I was thinking more of environmental degradation such as overusing the land, the extinction of game used for food or resources such as oil, minerals, etc that are integral to maintaining a community. And now maybe someone more familiar with these issues can step in.

So, I should be quiet now...ouch...lol
As man, look at what we used 200 years ago, 150, 100, even 50 years ago. We only utilize part of what we need and everyone is freaking out saying that we are going to run out of oil, land, air, and so on.
Land-not an issue with population control and the fact that we can build up or down.
Oil-again, not an issue. We are moving to electric/solar power and 100 years ago didn't even use Gasoline!!! The oil that we did use, came from whales.
Extinction of Game-nonsense. We may make "wild" game extinct, but we can farm more cows, chickens, and pigs than this country could use.
I am not saying your wrong, just enjoying a good debate.
Thank you.
 
samuraitora said:
The reason that this has a valid point is because the population control opens a area for people to migrate to, move to, or utilize. It isn't always accurate or effective. It is a non-denominational population minimizer. Child bearing or not. If they are not here, the resources that would have been utilized on them can now be saved or redistributed. I am not saying that the theory is perfect or that it works well. This is just my opinion.

I guess I don't understand the point here. Certainly urban civilization as we know it today couldn't exist had there never been efforts towards eradicating disease, sanitation and such which go hand in hand with improved quality of life that then leads to effective artificial population control through family planning, birth control, etc.

So, I should be quiet now...ouch...lol
As man, look at what we used 200 years ago, 150, 100, even 50 years ago. We only utilize part of what we need and everyone is freaking out saying that we are going to run out of oil, land, air, and so on.
Land-not an issue with population control and the fact that we can build up or down.
Oil-again, not an issue. We are moving to electric/solar power and 100 years ago didn't even use Gasoline!!! The oil that we did use, came from whales.
Extinction of Game-nonsense. We may make "wild" game extinct, but we can farm more cows, chickens, and pigs than this country could use.
I am not saying your wrong, just enjoying a good debate.
Thank you.
Yes, there are ways around it....but then the question becomes what is the need for population control in the first place if more and more people can be sustained at a reasonable level on fewer and fewer natural resources.
 
Elizabeth,
You are fabulous. Thank you. I haven't had a good debate in a long time.

I can't argue/debate with anything that you said. It is a double edge sword. Population control is good, if we don't want to anihilate what we have now. But on the other had, it isn't really neccessary because we can sustain whatever population we grow.
 
"That is if you can get over your stigmas and out of your little head and look at the big picture!"

You have the gall to call me narrow-minded after making statements like:

"I just thing that AIDS is a better population control than War, because people whom contract it (["for the most part"]) deserve it. That may seem short sided, but if your having unprotected sex or utilizing intravenous needles for drug use, you deserve it."

No, they "deserve" to be educated and informed rather than have a death sentence cast over them. Quit judging people. You're not qualified.

You also contradict yourself by saying in your first reply:

"I have been an advocate of AIDS for years now. It is population control."

And in your third reply:

"I am not advocating AIDS and saying that I am happy it is here."

So which is it? Quit waffling and trying to backpedal your way out (I noticed your recently added "Disclaimer"...). Personally, I find it tragic that in this day and age there are people like you all across America (and the world for that matter) who still cling to archaic and narrow-minded beliefs like yours. But whatever... I think our mutual opinion of each other is pretty clear at this point.
:)
 
samuraitora said:
Elizabeth,
You are fabulous. Thank you. I haven't had a good debate in a long time.

I can't argue/debate with anything that you said. It is a double edge sword. Population control is good, if we don't want to anihilate what we have now. But on the other had, it isn't really neccessary because we can sustain whatever population we grow.
Although unfortunately most of the world still doesn't have access to sustainable solutions. And personal responsibility is crucial, it just isn't that different from the situation even in the US with the number of people receiving medical care for smoking, drinking, lack of exercise, unwanted pregnancy and other avoidable public health problems. :(.
 
I've had 2 dear friends of mine pass away due to AIDS and HIV. They didn't do anything to deserve it either. It was caused by an outbreak in the blood system for our bleeding disorder that we have (Hemophilia, Von Willebrand's Disease) (We get medicine from the blood)This caused tons of Hemophiliacs to get infected with HIV and eventually AIDS this was in the 80's so one of my friends, Glen who was 34 got news that he was HIV positive and killed himself, due to the shock of it all. And my dear friend Jim Love, died from HIV and complications with the initial disease, Hemophilia. It's been hard for me to get over this.
 
@ Iron Chef
Why is it you think you?re the one I was talking to with the narrow-minded comment? Are you really that special that I should be concerned by or with what you think? It was a general comment; about people whom either don't know or wont know. You don't mean enough to me to slam you. I am not trying to be an @$$. Just making a point. I will be the first to apologize if I screw something up. I have never been called close-minded in my entire life. About whether they deserve it or not has to do if they make stupid choices. If you chose to have unprotected sex, after you have been informed of the AIDS virus, you do deserve it. That is my point. I don?t see how that is archaic. That is simple and I teach my son the same thing. If you do something, something else is going to happen. Equal and opposite reactions for every action. He is 4 and seems to understand this better than most of the population of the planet. The fact you implied that I don't like you is ludicrous. I have not told you anything about my feelings towards you. I actually think you are quite intelligent. I don?t always agree with you, and I don?t see how that is such a problem. If I agreed with everything you said, that would be an issue.

@Everyone
I used the word advocate wrong in my first post. My most sincere apologies to all of you.

@ Elizabeth
I think you just hit it right on the head with saying that personal responsibility is crucial. That is the issue. Most people don?t take responsibility for their actions.

@Silver Angel
I am sorry to hear about your friends. Those are the people that I can empathize with. They didn?t make a choice to do something that caused their contraction of the virus. They were inflicted with it and that was unfair. I hope you have someone you can talk to, to help you work through this.
 
"Why is it you think you?re the one I was talking to with the narrow-minded comment? Are you really that special that I should be concerned by or with what you think? It was a general comment; about people whom either don't know or wont know. You don't mean enough to me to slam you."

Let's see... you posted your original reply, I replied to your post, and in the last line of your immediate reply after me you wrote:

"That is if you can get over your stigmas and out of your little head and look at the big picture!"

General comment aimed at no one in particular? Yeah right... Next time don't use "you" and "your" in the same line (three times no less) and maybe it won't be taken out of context...

And re: your last comment about slamming me... LOL, rest assured if I wanted to REALLY let you know how I feel I most certainly would. I have far too much respect for Thomas, this site, and the rest of our members though to do such a thing publicly. Sorry, but when people make comments like yours I have absolute zero tolerance for them. You have your beliefs and I have mine and apparently I am the only one to take issue with your callousness. So be it.
:)
 
The "issue" is I don't tolerate people who make comments like "anybody that gets AIDS deserves to die" which is essentially what he's saying. If you don't think I have shown considerable restraint in my replies to date, you are sorely mistaken. I have already stated in my reply above that I would not stoop so low as to publicly slander him on these boards. Don't presume to lecture me on forum etiquette.
 
im not lecturing anyone, that was one sentance and it was directed at both you and samuraitora. its not just this thread either, there have been others. i just chose to comment on this one as its the most recent.
 
I think probably more useful than ranting and name calling is to look at why some groups of people in developing countries particularly continue to engage in these behaviors if they are so aware it is a death sentence and try to address these proactively though social awareness and education. Unfortunately discussions of sex and gender is so culturally sensitive in some places such as South Africa or Asia that is extremely difficult to get past the denial stage, not to mention the lack of health care, testing, free or low cost condoms, clean needles and other practical prevention measures. Women especially are often in untenable situations with husbands that may have picked it up while away for extended periods, but would likely face abuse or worse by refusing sex. Most are uneducated and many forced into prostitution or the sex trade to earn the family wage. If anything has come of this thread, it should bring a much more nuanced awareness then either "most of the 40 million sufferers obviously have a death wish and are completely responsible for their behavior" or that "they all deserve our sympathy equally and without question."
 

This thread has been viewed 31357 times.

Back
Top