Cure for HIV discovered

last SG · 2007-09-23T14:06:52+00:00

much of those ppl who got hiv and are dying are not the resultant of their own fault. like children who were born with it. are you saying they deserve it? y...

deathbait SG

boka, that's all you could come up with?

anyone who actually goes over this thread and reads it in chronological order will realise what you're doing.

god that's 1 hour of my time wasted waiting for you to come up with a decent reply i'll never get back

boka SG

i'm making a darn simple point here.
My fear or issue here is not the increase in no. of HIV carrier if the cure is not found.
My issue is there will be more people discarding morality and having casual sex because the risk if no longer there.

dinky1409 SG

lazy to go back to the various pages to relate back.. but

He's main point was that it would lead to social degrading or something like that. And it made sense to me.

I would still believe that social issues will arise from the cure. Whether, its something minor or major, that's not my expertise to decide.

deathbait SG

i never said casual sex was bad. That's bako's job.

What's really bad is uneducated/unprotected sex though.

boka SG

Originally posted by deathbait:

your skills in setting up strawmen is legendary.
seriously.

anyone who observes this thread closely will see that you were the one who came up with these analogies. I hate to use internet lingo, but this is, i believe, a classic example of self-pwn.

It's not hard to shut most of these forum users up, considering they literally have the maturity level of mid teenagers(because they are). You, i'm assuming is considerably older(or are pretending to be), so i expect more from you. Setting up circular arguments is stooping so low.

for those who just tuned in, let me refresh what transpired in the last 24 hours

1) boka sets up an analogy of kittens going for alpha males for sex(omg kittens, think of the children!)
2) I argue that Kittens certainly do no such thing. There's no social ladder in domestic cats
3) Boka proceeds to patiently lecture me that domestic cats are unsuitable for such discussions, and my argument is thus null and void.

In essence, boka is an idiot who just pwned himself.

Then boka gets bolder, he decides to pretend i'm mixing technology with evolution. Either he has never been taught the meaning of "context", or he is deliberately misleading everyone with his arguments.

Really boka, those all caps posts have ruined whatever authority you might have had before i joined in. You've already proven yourself incapable providing decent counter-arguments in this debate.

tell me you're gonna win this??[/quote]

[boka]Dear stupid

1) boka sets up an analogy of kittens going for alpha males for sex(omg kittens, think of the children!)[deathbait]

[boka]Kittens/cat like any other animals in the wild will go for the alpha males.

2) I argue that Kittens certainly do no such thing. There's no social ladder in domestic cats[deathbait]

[boka]There are no social ladder among domestic animals.
Domestic animals grew up in an artifical enviroment and similarly like how culture and envoriment affect the thoughts and behaviour of humans,animals are influenced the same way.

If u claim that natural social ladder that exist in wild kitten or any other animals would remain in domestic animals then answer this:
why do domestic kittens and domestic dogs which grew up together from birth share a loving bonding?
If domestic animals were to retain their primal traits then according to science and from scientific studies,both the domestic dog and domestic cat can never grow up in harmony and behave like they would in the wild.
They do not behave like the wild cats and dogs in the wild because these pets are domestic and their living enviroment from birth affects them.

If domestic animals retain their primal mind and abilities then why does a tiger/lion that grow up in the zoo have a 80% chances of dying of hunger as compared to their counterparts who grew up in the african plains?
Shouldn't they still know how to hunt as good as their counterparts who grew up in the wild if what u claim is true?
Scientist have done research and found animals which grew up in the wild and zoo are toally different.
those which grew up in the zoo CANNOT HUNT WELL and DO NOT REGONISE A SOCIAL LADDER[well unless they manage to continue living for the next decades of their life in the wild then perhaps they will learn something from their counterparts] because an animal from birth is nutured and taught by it's mother the survival skills and the ability to regconise what is a social ladder.
Do u NOT KNOW that an animal,any animal,do not cary their primal traits from young?
These skills are passed on by their mothers,they teach them how to hunt and what to avoid.

Asian are conservative.
Are they conservative by nature of is it their enviroment.
U claim domestic animals retain their primal charteristic and judging from your analogy, your stand would be they are conservative BY NATURE.
My stand however is different.
I say it's their enviroment.
An asian who grew up in an asian country is more convservative than their counterparts who grew up in a western community.
This has nothing to do with what nature because how someone or something turns out to be is the work of their culture and enviroment.

3) Boka proceeds to patiently lecture me that domestic cats are unsuitable for such discussions, and my argument is thus null and void.[deathbait]

[boka]Your arguments are null and void.
U claim that natural selection takes place in domestic animals.
Mr death,what is the gauge that u use in your measurement of "natural selection"?
My stand is that,natural selection do not take place in domestic animals because
1)they from young are not taught what is needed in the animal kingdom and they do not know who to mate with[there are no guildlines]
2)more often,it is the owners of these domestic animal which determind who they mate with,U are saying that TRUE natural selection is when the owners put 2 BEAUTIFUL coloured skin kittens to mate,that to u is called natural selection.
But that is not true natural selection for kittens.
For a female butterfly to mate with a colourful male is true naturalselection because in the animal world,brightness of a colour are used to determind which are the alpha males[colours are used as a sign of fertility and strenght]
The same goes for birds liek the peacock.
For kittens however,they are like other mammals.
Their "guildlines" on who is stronger is not often based on colours,it is based on a compeition,a fight.
The winners is the strongest.

deathbait SG

it would at the very worst revert to a situation similar to the summer of love in the states just before HIV hit.

And some would argue that was probably the best time of all to be alive.

boka SG

[Posted by deathbait]

..

This is how evolution(in this case, natural selection) works. Sick ppl die, Healthy ppl develop the immunity AFTER they recover and pass it on. Your precious society is the one that's been preventing the latter from happening. We stopped evolving in most ways a long time ago. Go look up the basics of evolution first, k?

[boka]Time and time again u proved to be an idiot.
HIV is a natural thing that would happen if humans partake in casual sex.
The reason why HIV is here is because casual sex among humans was not meant to take place in the beginning.
If causal sex is ok and what nature wants us to do and as u said for gene diversification then why is mother nature infecting humans with a deadly virus when her sole purpose from your point of view is to diversify the race?

Nature immunity and artificial immunity is different.
Again u compares apple and orange.
Evolution is about being better IN THE NATURAL WAY.
If sick animal dies and strong animal lives in a natural competition then that is called evolution.
However, when u inject and animal/human with a vaccine and they live,u consider them STRONG?
Like I said u are stupid.
If I were to help a lion bleeding to death and it survive, IS THAT CALLED SURVIVAL OF THE FITESS?

WE STOPPED EVOLVING A LONG TIME AGO?
DO U KNOW THE TRUE MEANING OF EVOlVING?
EVOLUTION IS CONSTANTLY TAKING PLACE AND IT EVEN NOW WE HUMANS ARE IN THE PROCESS OF EVOLUTION.
THERE ARE NO RESULT OF EVOLUTION BECAUSE IT TAKES PLACE CONSTANTLY.
WE EVOLVE TO ADAPT.
AS THE EARTH WARMS UP AND ENVIROMENTAL CHANGES OCCUR,WE HUmANS WILL EVOLVE TO ADAPT TO THE ENVIROMENT[LESSER HAIRS AND LARGE SWEAT GLANDS IN SOME WAYS]

GO READ UP ON BIOLOGY 101 IDIOT.

[deathbait]
--Because a cure will lead to an increase in casual sex, fuck the HIV infected. We don't need no stinking cure.

What cult are you in again?

I shall repeat my points for sake of clarity.

1) casual sex is not a bad result in the bigger scheme of things. It leads to diversification of the gene pool, which is always a good hedging mechanism.

[boka]WOW!
IF PEOPLE PARTAKE IN CASUAL SEX FOR THE PURPOSE OF DIVERSIYING THE GENE POOL THEN WHY ARE THEY USING CONDOMS AND OTHER CONTRACEPTIVE METHODS TO PREVENT PREGNANCY?
TRY TO PULL THAT OFF IDIOT!

2) On the family level, you have no need to worry about cures of HIV leading to casual sex unless your family is already unstable. In which case, the existance of a HIV cure is the least of your worries

3) Societies with strong family ties(arguably stronger than the current era) have been built in the past with no threat of HIV at all. To suggest that the elimination of HIV will break down the family structure of society is to deny all existance of proof readily available.

[me]This is more than just family ties.
We live in a society and not just within our family.

4) The monogamy is/was not always the only family structure in the world. Just because your society practices a system of monogamy does not mean it is natural, nor does it mean it has to stay that way lest civilization as we know it collapse around us. In fact, monogamy is an unnatural result of humans having outgrown their primal needs.

5) you are an idiot. Stop worrying about how to deny cures to the terminally ill and start worrying about your mom's infidelity. I assume that's why you're so insecure about family ties. No? In that case, just stop worrying.[/b][/quote]

[boka]Personal attacks?

dumbdumb! SG

erm, guys, don't mean to interrupt, but you guys don't need to get so worked up, since your opinions aren't going to be much influence to the decision.

anyway, i still think that the HIV cure will do more good than harm, its a disease, and it should be treated like any other diseases. why would scientists try to come up with a cure or vaccine for the avian flu, or the small pox, or cough or cold, but not HIV?

its still a disease, its still causing pain and suffering. Sad

deathbait SG

Give it a rest boka.

Creative edit of your posts to make me look stupid is useless when ppl can actually go back to read the original posts.

Give actual arguments, instead of resorting to this. You're just being sad now. In fact, i'm almost tempted to meet you for lunch.

dinky1409 SG

Right for me to decide to punish????

Once again I say, you may think it is not wrong, but others might think it is wrong. 'Nuff said.

No I'm not deluded when I think that way. Cos I sincerely believe it will cause social issues.

boka SG

U are contridicting yourself here.

U claim casual sex is good because it promote gene diversification but if that is what mother nature wanted and encouraged,then why couldn't u answer the rise of HIV because of casual sex.

secondly,u said casual sex is good because it promote gene diversification but...then why are humans wearing condom to avoid pregnancy and STD[the main issue STD]

The point here is HUMANS ARE PLAYING God AND HOPES TO USE TECHNOLOGY TO ERASE WHAT IS CONSDIERED UNACCEPTABLE.

deathbait SG

or if you want, you can be really Machiavellian and say HIV is good after all because it culls the population where population controls are needed most....

how's that for playing devil's advocate?

boka SG

u are the sad one here.
Why u scared?
i had to post that up so that the public could view our actual arguemnt.
U evaded tons of my questions and contridict yourself time and time again.

I have answered all ur question but u couldn't give me a proper reply.

u said casual sex acceptable and encoruaged by mother nature,but why is there HIv?
pls answer.

u said domestic animals retain their primal traits.
really?then why do domestic dog and domestic cats live in harmony?
pls answer.

until u answer,u are just someone who attempt to play smart but the only title your getting is being "smart alex"

dumbdumb! SG

i nv said that hiv is good. i think diseases are bad. Sad

boka SG

Deathbait and i will stop post for 24hrs and see what the community has to say.
Until then,he and i will not continously flood the board.

I believe my important points are on the last page and it is in hope the public can comment.

deathbait SG

wait, are you seriously telling me you want to mix two completely different arguments together?

1) casual sex promotes gene diversification->nothing to do with HIV. Mother nature is a fairy tale told to kids. Nature is red in tooth and claw. There is no grand plan. We will die out to HIV, or evolve to survive. If we are to evolve to survive, gene diversification is how to do it. Get the cycle now?

2) Because we're not looking to diversify our genes. The goals of the herd is not the goal of the individual. It would be most beneficial to the human "herd" if we allowed the sick and old to die, to allow people to have as many children as they can support. But like i said, the goals of the individual is not the same as the goals of the herd.

btw, nice to see you actually having creative thoughts again boka, though i think you need to look up "contradict" in the dictionary.

furb SG

Yes, I noticed that you are worrying about people discarding morality and having casual sex because the risk is no longer there. Which, in simple term, also means you are using HIV as a casual sex deterrence isn't it? After all, this sentence of yours appear in this HIV thread.

Regarding your worry, I already addressed it in one way or another. Anyway, I will quote it out for easy reference.

Originally posted by furb:
Our younger generation nowadays are having sex at a younger age and this younger age gets lower each year. When I'm talking about younger generation, I'm not only talking about Singapore but the world.

So, if X gets his/her first sex at the age of maybe 17, what's make you think he/she will not have another sex maybe a few months later? If X were to have sex at such a young age, the risk of getting infected with HIV will become higher as the time goes.

Think about this, if majority of our younger generation do this, in future, every people you see on the street will be infected with HIV and the thought of it is indeed frighteningly.

This problem can no longer be controlled, scare tactics like HIV is no longer working effective on this young generation. Schools recognised this problem thats why they started to teach their students about condoms and other protective measures, in the past this were considered like a taboo and not taught in school.[/b]

This I'm trying to tell you that whether is there HIV or not and more people discarding morality or not, casual sex is already happening and it is showing sign of increase. So it doesn't really matter will there be more people discarding their morality or not because even with HIV, more and more people are doing it and can no longer be stopped.

Originally posted by furb:
However, I would like to point out that it might not be what you think it is. Why? I presume that the cure for HIV would not be like cough syrup, where you can get it over the counter. I also presume that the cure for HIV would not be cheap AND the cure for HIV is not 100% effective.

If your idea is to use HIV for sex deterrence, with or without cure it would still work. Why? The availability of the cure, the price of the cure and the effectiveness of the cure. No cure is perfect, the disease might still come back.[/b]

Regarding about people have casual sex because risk is no longer there, as I mentioned above, with or without cure, there is still a risk and most likely the cure would be costly. Taking a cure is like taking a gamble, 2 outcomes, either you win or you lose. People still die from having fever when there is cure for fever, do you see what I mean? So, if X's mind is set to have casual sex, it doesn't really matter is there HIV or is there cure for HIV.

X can always use a condom, it also help reduce chance of getting HIV. After all, what is the difference between chance of getting HIV when using a condom and chance of cure failing when you have HIV? Its the same, all in all, it is still risk. So, it doesn't matter is there cure for HIV, no cure? Use condom instead!

P.S - I'm not pointing out is cure for HIV good or bad, I'm just trying to point out that Boka's decision about cure for HIV is bad because of the above reasons is, how should I say it, pointless?

deathbait SG

what i meant from my post was that your point while being valid, led me to think of the one i just posted.

dinky1409 SG

understand the concern heck I'm for saving the unfortunate ones who are born in this world with defaults and imperfections but then again why am i being so cautious to just readily say lets go for all this cures? Have my reasons, and I state them out. Your right, our opinions arent gonna influence, thanks for reminding.. Wink and no im not worked up.. Wink

boka SG

Have u passed english paper?
check up metaphor.

mother nature=nature=science.

Wheather it is the goal of the individual or the heard,it is nature that decrete HIV birth because humans partake in casual sex.
Why isn't HIV rampant in other animals except humans?

« Previous Page Next Page »