Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 2/28/08 10:03 AM, Heatherrrr wrote: And the tattoo idea? Thats just fucking stupid. Firstly, if AIDS is so much of a threat, what sane tattoo artist would risk working on someone with a disease that volatile? Secondly, sure these people were careless and contracted the disease, but think about them, they KNOW they have it. Do they really want to look down and themselves and be constantly reminded of their one mistake? And if you think about it, its pointless. If YOU got AIDS...are you seriously telling me you wouldn't have sex for the rest of your life? Its human nature. There isn't just a quick fix to something like AIDS. It's similar to cancer in some respects. People will have it and go on with their daily lives, waiting for a cure to become available. Until then in the AIDS case, people will carry on having sex. Its a personal choice.

What would you propose?

Infected people can't have sex without the chance of passing on the disease.

If a way could be found to change that then it would be ok, would you allow a person with small pox to wander around town?

In the end my suggestion is much better than the quarantine idea, at least they will be able to go about their lives as normal.

Don't mistake my tone, I have nothing but sympathy for people afflicted with this disease, I just want to end it.

At 2/28/08 11:59 AM, GaiusIuliusTaberna wrote: What would you propose?

I dunno, maybe condoms? I bring this up for two reasons:

1. You said it yourself earlier on: some protection > no protection.
2. You are living proof of the benefits of wearing a condom.

I love how a group of people who raise a hue and cry over censorship of video games are okay with singling out and impeding the rights of an entire group of people because of their ignorant fear.

HIV is difficult to spread through any contact other than sexual. Most HIV+ people do not go around having uninformed sex with negative people. Even though Gaius says he doesn't want the tattoo to be a "punishment," it is. You are marking someone permanently under the assumption that they might be irresponsible. Maybe the idea came from Hammurabi, but those were criminals. Most HIV/AIDS patients are law-abiding citizens. So wherever you think you got the idea, it's much closer to the Stars of David. Sorry. And you can call Godwin's Law if you like.

Forbidding people with HIV/AIDS from giving blood is already policy. Forbidding them from giving birth, etc? Firstly, there are ways to minimize the risk in those situations. Secondly, how do you plan to enforce that? Oooh, I know, let's sterilize 'em! Oh, wait. They already tried that. It's called eugenics. And it was one of the darkest practices in American history.

We have a bloated and bureaucratic government. I do not trust them to properly administer the lives of these patients. Maybe I'm a deluded small-government idealist, but I don't think we should be giving the government the kind of power that would be necessary to stop the spread of HIV in this country.

At 2/27/08 11:50 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 2/27/08 11:38 PM, GaiusIuliusTaberna wrote:

At 2/27/08 11:34 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

What problems do you have with my suggestions?

It destroys the rights of the individual.

Truth be told, just as with other animals, there are "individuals" in this world who need to be 'fixed' just as animals.

At 2/28/08 02:29 PM, Memorize wrote: Truth be told, just as with other animals, there are "individuals" in this world who need to be 'fixed' just as animals.

Who gets to decide that?

At 2/28/08 02:32 PM, SkunkyFluffy wrote:

Who gets to decide that?

It should be common knowledge.

For example: Half of all abortions are repeats. Therefore if we acknowledge that these are unfit to be parents, then why should be allowed to engage in sexual activity that could bring about a child? If they are unfit, they should be "fixed".

Same with people who obtained STDs over their habits, such as a one night stand.

At 2/28/08 05:24 PM, Memorize wrote:

:For example: Half of all abortions are repeats. Therefore if we acknowledge that these are unfit to be parents, then why should be allowed to engage in sexual activity that could bring about a child? If they are unfit, they should be "fixed".

Same with people who obtained STDs over their habits, such as a one night stand.

So they should be forced to do it?

At 2/27/08 10:38 PM, arcansi wrote: As we all know, Auto Immune Defeciency...

I read nothing beyond this point.

Someone who doesn't even know what AIDS IS (ACQUIRED Immunodeficiency Syndrome) can not possibly have anything valuable to say.

;

At 2/28/08 05:38 PM, reviewer-general wrote:

At 2/27/08 10:38 PM, arcansi wrote: As we all know, Auto Immune Defeciency...

I read nothing beyond this point.

Someone who doesn't even know what AIDS IS (ACQUIRED Immunodeficiency Syndrome) can not possibly have anything valuable to say.

You're a dumb shit. Even if AIDS wasn't once reffered to as both (and yes, it was), they would mean the same fucking thing anyways. Acquired Immune=victim got the virus from someone else, while Auto Immune=it causes the immune system to degrade itself to a point, which I believe does occur.

At 2/28/08 05:59 PM, Sistine1408 wrote: You're a dumb shit. Even if AIDS wasn't once reffered to as both (and yes, it was), they would mean the same fucking thing anyways. Acquired Immune=victim got the virus from someone else, while Auto Immune=it causes the immune system to degrade itself to a point, which I believe does occur.

;
Auto immune system is your body destroying/attacking itself.
Got nothing to do with AIDs/HIV
Fuck, old age is an auto immune difficiency, arthritis , diabetes all of these diseases can be caused by the bodies own immune system attacking itself, because it no longer recognises the difference between invading bacteria etc, from its own tissues

GOT F' all to do with the HIV dude !

At 2/28/08 05:24 PM, Memorize wrote: It should be common knowledge.

Common knowledge is hardly common. And I do not wish to live in a country where my reproductive rights are decided by a faceless governmental body.

For example: Half of all abortions are repeats. Therefore if we acknowledge that these are unfit to be parents, then why should be allowed to engage in sexual activity that could bring about a child? If they are unfit, they should be "fixed".

What is to say that whoever ends up making the decision (shall we say there would be an agency? Department of Health and Human Services?) will not abuse it? You make less than $40,000 per year? Sorry, no baby. You had an abortion when you were seventeen and scared? Sorry, no baby. You contracted a curable STD because you were young and stupid and fooled around? Sorry, no baby. America strives to be a land of opportunity, expanded rights, and equality. You are suggesting something that is draconian and morally treacherous.

Same with people who obtained STDs over their habits, such as a one night stand.

People change. Are you suggesting that we should hold everyone's mistakes against them for the rest of their lives?

At 2/28/08 06:36 PM, SkunkyFluffy wrote:

Common knowledge is hardly common. And I do not wish to live in a country where my reproductive rights are decided by a faceless governmental body.

Rights are limited.

You have free speech, but it's against the law to threaten another individual.
You have the right to privacy, but sex offenders are placed on a registry.

Why should this be any different if people are contributing to children being abused, beaten, and placed in adoption?

What is to say that whoever ends up making the decision (shall we say there would be an agency? Department of Health and Human Services?) will not abuse it? You make less than $40,000 per year? Sorry, no baby. You had an abortion when you were seventeen and scared? Sorry, no baby. You contracted a curable STD because you were young and stupid and fooled around? Sorry, no baby. America strives to be a land of opportunity, expanded rights, and equality. You are suggesting something that is draconian and morally treacherous.

Key word: Repeats.

Only 15% involve people who are underage.

People change. Are you suggesting that we should hold everyone's mistakes against them for the rest of their lives?

Don't we?

At 2/28/08 01:21 PM, KeithHybrid wrote:

At 2/28/08 11:59 AM, GaiusIuliusTaberna wrote: What would you propose?

I dunno, maybe condoms? I bring this up for two reasons:

1. You said it yourself earlier on: some protection > no protection.

Yes a condom would be preferable to nothing, but condoms can break. I would concept that if the likely hood of passing it on could be reduced to say 75% then it would be a better option than mandatory celibacy.

I also would point out that I would place no prohibitions on two infected people having sex, so long as they don't have a child, they should adopt or use surrogate volunteers to do so.

Like I said before I am not trying to persecute infected people, I am merely proposing a way to contain the disease and at the same time mitigate the need for coronations which is the point of this topic.

2. You are living proof of the benefits of wearing a condom.

Do you make a habit of rudely insulting people who disagree with you? You should work on that.

At 2/27/08 10:46 PM, arcansi wrote: Have you heard of the new strain? It can be transmitted by almost any body fluid; blood, snot, spit, urine and vomit.

It sound like ebola.

At 2/28/08 01:21 PM, KeithHybrid wrote:

At 2/28/08 11:59 AM, GaiusIuliusTaberna wrote: What would you propose?

I dunno, maybe condoms? I bring this up for two reasons:

1. You said it yourself earlier on: some protection > no protection.

Yes a condom would be preferable to nothing, but condoms can break. I would concede that if the likely hood of passing it on could be reduced to say 75% then it would be a better option than mandatory celibacy.

I also would point out that I would place no prohibitions on two infected people having sex, so long as they don't have a child, they should adopt or use surrogate volunteers to do so.

Like I said before I am not trying to persecute infected people, I am merely proposing a way to contain the disease and at the same time mitigate the need for quarantine which is the point of this topic.

2. You are living proof of the benefits of wearing a condom.

Do you make a habit of rudely insulting people who disagree with you? You should work on that.

At 2/28/08 08:08 PM, GaiusIuliusTaberna wrote:

At 2/28/08 01:21 PM, KeithHybrid wrote:

At 2/28/08 11:59 AM, GaiusIuliusTaberna wrote: What would you propose?

I dunno, maybe condoms? I bring this up for two reasons:

1. You said it yourself earlier on: some protection > no protection.

Yes a condom would be preferable to nothing, but condoms can break. I would concede that if the likely hood of passing it on could be reduced to say 75% then it would be a better option than mandatory celibacy.

I also would point out that I would place no prohibitions on two infected people having sex, so long as they don't have a child, they should adopt or use surrogate volunteers to do so.

Like I said before I am not trying to persecute infected people, I am merely proposing a way to contain the disease and at the same time mitigate the need for quarantine which is the point of this topic.

It may not be your intent, but that's how it's coming out. Shit like that used to be donw on people with yellow fever or leporasy (sp?), and it wasn't right then. Why would it be right in the 21st century, where first-world nations strive for equality?

2. You are living proof of the benefits of wearing a condom.

Do you make a habit of rudely insulting people who disagree with you? You should work on that.

It's called "sarcasm". It requires its recipient to have a highly elusive quality known as a "sense of humor".

Hey that's sounds like a good idea!

At 2/28/08 05:38 PM, reviewer-general wrote:

At 2/27/08 10:38 PM, arcansi wrote: As we all know, Auto Immune Defeciency...

I read nothing beyond this point.

Someone who doesn't even know what AIDS IS (ACQUIRED Immunodeficiency Syndrome) can not possibly have anything valuable to say.

;

Though I disagreed with the individuals premise for his post, I hardly believe a single typing mishap or small factual error is enough to nulify the legitimacy of the entire rhetoric. Though in this particular case you saved yourself some trouble.

At 2/28/08 09:20 PM, KeithHybrid wrote: It may not be your intent, but that's how it's coming out. Shit like that used to be donw on people with yellow fever or leporasy (sp?), and it wasn't right then. Why would it be right in the 21st century, where first-world nations strive for equality?

Maybe so, but we've also come to understand infectious diseases better than we did then, and quarantine is still considered an option if a disease is spreading too rapidly. I think that we really aught not consider isolating populations with AIDS until a country reaches a certain infection rate; however, I do believe that infecting someone with AIDS should legally amount to manslaughter (or murder, if it was consciously transmitted).

At 2/28/08 08:08 PM, GaiusIuliusTaberna wrote:

Yes a condom would be preferable to nothing, but condoms can break. I would concede that if the likely hood of passing it on could be reduced to say 75% then it would be a better option than mandatory celibacy.

I think making an even BETTER condom would be a better idea then quarantining people.

You are talking about the new strain of staph infection that is frequently seen in the San Francisco Castro District, mostly in the gay community.

that may be why he's worried

At 3/1/08 07:52 PM, Elecmonkey wrote:

I think making an even BETTER condom would be a better idea then quarantining people.

If people obtain the aids virus or any other kind of STD through sexual activity with a person who they do not plan to comitt to, then they deserve what they get.

At 2/28/08 02:29 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 2/27/08 11:50 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 2/27/08 11:38 PM, GaiusIuliusTaberna wrote:

At 2/27/08 11:34 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

the rights of the individual.

Truth be told, just as with other animals, there are "individuals" in this world who need to be 'fixed' just as animals.

Well, unless we make a new part of the government that's job is to "Fix Individuals that we decide aren't worthy" and break open whole new doors of tyranny, it isn't going to happen.

So don't worry your mind over it.

At 2/28/08 12:48 AM, DariusR wrote: Quarantining is isolationism.

Isolationism is dehumanization.

Dehumanization is bad.

lol, Star Wars meets AIDS. I reckon that would be a great musical.

Carry on Yoda!
"These aren't the droids you're looking for. Move along."

At 3/1/08 10:53 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

Well, unless we make a new part of the government that's job is to "Fix Individuals that we decide aren't worthy" and break open whole new doors of tyranny, it isn't going to happen.

So don't worry your mind over it.

It's fairly simple. All repeat abortions should all come with that "fixing". If they weren't ready for the first child, and didn't learn their lesson, and have no decided they aren't fit for another, then why should they be allowed to have children at all?

At 3/2/08 12:01 AM, Memorize wrote:

It's fairly simple. All repeat abortions should all come with that "fixing". If they weren't ready for the first child, and didn't learn their lesson, and have no decided they aren't fit for another, then why should they be allowed to have children at all?

Are you saying they should be forced to get fix?

why does that sound wrong to me

At 3/2/08 12:01 AM, Memorize wrote:

At 3/1/08 10:53 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

It's fairly simple. All repeat abortions should all come with that "fixing". If they weren't ready for the first child, and didn't learn their lesson, and have no decided they aren't fit for another, then why should they be allowed to have children at all?

Your really slow aren't you.

First off, not going to happen.

Second off, what happens between a doctor and a patient (be it abortion or not) is protected under the right to privacy and can be withheld from government attention.

At 3/2/08 12:04 AM, LordJaric wrote:

Are you saying they should be forced to get fix?

Why not?

They're contributing the neglect of children.

Do you not believe that legalizing abortion lead to a slippery slope? After all, now teenagers can have one without the consent of their parents.

We'd be doing the majority of them a favor. Repeats obviously want sexual pleasure without the child attachment; why not give them what they want?

Since, after all, only 17% are by underage teens, while 55% are from the middle class, and 62% are done by women who already have at least one other child. Whereas 50% are repeats.

At 3/2/08 12:01 AM, Memorize wrote:

At 3/1/08 10:53 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

Well, unless we make a new part of the government that's job is to "Fix Individuals that we decide aren't worthy" and break open whole new doors of tyranny, it isn't going to happen.

So don't worry your mind over it.

It's fairly simple. All repeat abortions should all come with that "fixing". If they weren't ready for the first child, and didn't learn their lesson, and have no decided they aren't fit for another, then why should they be allowed to have children at all?

What about those idiotic teenage girls who have 5 partners without protection a week. Should women be forced to never have kids cause of their stupid mistakes? What about the women who are raped repeatedly by their boyfriends? Actions and laws like that ussually don't work out since there are always rare exceptions which create bylaws and those bylaws tie up the legal system.

At 3/2/08 12:08 AM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

Your really slow aren't you.

Aren't you?

First off, not going to happen.

I never said it would.

I said it's how it should be.

Second off, what happens between a doctor and a patient (be it abortion or not) is protected under the right to privacy and can be withheld from government attention.

Really? So I guess having underage sex and obtaining an abortion while still living under your parent's home is protected under privacy?

There's no such thing as a right to privacy. Even still, rights have limits. That's why sex offenders are placed on a registry, and why those who make threats are placed in prison.

If you really wanted to stop the abortion argument and reduce the child abuse, beatings and their being placed in adoption homes, then you should give those repeat'ers what they want: Sexual pleasure without the responsibilities.