I'd rather the liberals picked up the tab on this one, as they are the shepherds of sexuality.Absolutely, yes. Seeking out cures for life threatening diseases should ovveride any bizzare notions of moral prequisites. In no way is the loss of life that could have otherwise been prevented any less tragic. The fact that you seemed distressed at the mere thought of those with differing lifestyles regaining the chance to live healthily or simply to see another day is deeply disturbing.
I'd rather the liberals picked up the tab on this one, as they are the shepherds of sexuality.
<But, despite all the years of warnings about the preventable illness, new cases continue to be diagnosed each month. And, now there is a growing demographic of those infected by HIV and AIDS — older, heterosexual adults.>
Editorial: Older adults leading in new cases of AIDS in St. Lucie County » TCPalm.com
AIDS is a disease that for the most part is due to promiscuous sex or drug abuse and IMO taking money from things like childhood leukemia, MS, Parkinson's etc and giving it to a group of people who pretty much deserve what they got is a huge waste of resources. The only reason we spend so much money on it is that so many people that have it or fear they may contract it are so vocal and being gay is
so trendy as a current human right. So heres the question, should we be funding research to cure these people or worse yet find a vaccine to let them engage in their risky lifestyle with no consequences?
EDIT: sorry I blew the poll part but I would be interested in your opinions.
9 year old Ryan White was not only NOT promiscuous, he was also not gay.
Of COURSE we should spend money on AIDS research and helping those with it who don't have insurance to get whatever treatment is available. YOU pay for all the HEART transplants for Cheney and HE"S making TRILLIONS on these wars. Why wouldn't you help someone who contracted AIDS?
My opinion on this is based on logic
Yes the poor kid would be in that tiny 1% sliver in the pie chart whereas 100% of kids with childhood leukemia would be in that piece of pie. See the difference?
"Childhood luekemia" is just a red herring you keep throwing out to disguise your hatred of gays.
FAR more money is spend on diseases - and diseases others can not be infected with - with or without the person's participation - than AIDS for which the person is the cause of the disease.
Behaviors of smoking, obesity, bad diet, lack of exercise are all known to be the primary causes of those #1, #2, and #3 causes of pre-mature death - and the amount of money spend on medical care, treatment and research dwarfs HIV/AIDS.The amount of money spent on research and treatment of lung cancer, OCPD, and heart disease dwarfs what is spend on AIDS in this country.
Nor can anyone with such a disease give it to another person - meaning there are no innocent victims of it.
Since you totally ignore those well known facts, because you wanted to post as outrageously hateful - as hatefully as could possibly be other than Tigger declaring gays should be executed - message against everyone from age 13 to 83 - because YOU think most are 1.) gay 2.) not mongamously married or 3.) use drugs - and you SOOOOO hate those people you literally want them to die.
Of the 2.5 MILLION children with HIV/AIDS - that also drawfs the number of children with leukemia - your view is that they must die too - to be sacrificed, slaughtered - FOR YOUR RAW PURE HATRED of those other people as you express in your OP. So let's all not pretend you give a damn about children with any disease. You want them to die too. By the millions.
My opinion on this is based on logic and prioritizing of limited funds, the rest of you are forming opinions on an emotional response. Spock would be on my side.:lol:
Uhh $234 on lung cancer research? Not 234 million?? Seem like a typo to anyone else?
I will ignore your personal attacks on me and your mind reading act , instead I will stick to the facts and here they are.
President Obama’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 federal budget
request, released on February 1, includes an estimated $27.2
billion for combined domestic and global HIV/AIDS activities.1
Domestic HIV/AIDS is funded at $20.5 billion and global at
$6.7 billion.2 The FY 2011 request represents a 4.6% increase
($1.2 billion) over FY 2010, which totaled $26 billion.
Congress will now consider the request and is expected to
finalize spending levels in late 2010."
http://www.kff.org/hivaids/upload/7029-06.pdf
Breast Cancer
US Government research funding: $7865 million/year 2,3
Results: significant increase in 5-year survival rates: 4
- Early 1970s – 75%
- Today – 90%
•HIV/AIDS
US Government research funding: $3 billion in 2011 2
Results:
- AIDS was once a near-immediate death sentence.
- Today – with anti-retroviral drug therapy, the 3-year survival rate is 90%.
•Lung Cancer
US Government research funding: Only $234 in 2011 2,3
Results: very little change in 5-year survival rates: 4
- Early 1970s – 12%
- Today – 16%
Lung Cancer Research
So you would rather concentrate on a typo instead of the 234 million spent on lung cancer vs the 3 billion spent on AIDS.LOL
As a woman I think you would be more interested in the paltry $7,865 million spent on breast cancer vs the 3 billion spent on AIDS.
My opinion on this is based on logic and prioritizing of limited funds, the rest of you are forming opinions on an emotional response. Spock would be on my side.:lol:
NOTHING could be more deliberately false from you to claim I am "reading your mind." YOU TOLD YOUR MIND IN YOUR OP OF THIS THREAD:
Originally Posted by sawyerloggingon
AIDS is a disease that for the most part is due to promiscuous sex or drug abuse and IMO taking money ... and giving it to a group of people who pretty much deserve what they got is a huge waste of resources. The only reason we spend so much money on it is that so many people that have it or fear they may contract it are so vocal and being gay is so trendy as a current human right. So heres the question, should we be funding research to cure these people or worse yet find a vaccine to let them engage in their risky lifestyle with no consequences?
YOUR REASON WAS NOT a money comparison. YOUR STATEMENT:
People who have AIDS deserve to have AIDS because they are promiscuous or gay - and the worst thing possible would be to find a vaccine to allow them to continue to live gay or promiscious lives.
That is your EXACT words in your OP. So it should be debated from YOUR CLAIM THAT GAYS AND NON-MONOGAMOUS PEOPLE DESERVE TO HAVE AIDS. And the "WORSE" thing that could happen is to find a vaccine to allow "these people" to continue to live their "lifestyle." They DESERVE the CONSEQUENCE of being infected with AIDS. That is your morality, motive and reason given - ONLY REASON you gave.
THAT ^ SINGULARLY, WAS YOUR STATED MOTIVE
I'm not speculating or reading your mind. I'm quoting your message. So THAT is the issue. Whether gays and "promiscuous" people DESERVE to have AIDS and pro-actively denied cure and vaccine even if one is found to stop their living their "lifestyle."
And since you posted that I DESERVE to be infected with HIV/AIDS and many other people I know and have known, this is NOT a 3rd person discussing about "these people." The people you declare deserve to die of AIDS is also myself, just about everyone I have ever cared for, and probably over half the members of this forum. It isn't your wanting "these people" to die of AIDS, you want US to die of AIDS because you claim we deserve it.
I'm "debating" the MOTIVE and MORALITY of your reason of your OP message - which you now run from.
I don't even know what the real number is since your link doesn't clearly state it. I'd be interested in seeing the real number from a site that is reputable enough to not have major typos like that. So I can't say I am totally confident their other numbers are correct, but assuming they are: No, I'm not too concerned about the difference in federal funding between AIDS and breast cancer when breast cancer has the Susan G. Komen foundation that everyone and their sister donates to, runs a 5k for, or buys a product from a company that donates to breast cancer research. There's an entire month donated to breast cancer awareness and we even have every pro football player wearing pink for it! All great stuff, and the survival rate for breast cancer is pretty good now. The same can't be said for the majority of people in the world with AIDS who don't even have access to decent medical care.
So in short, I have no problem with the amount of money donated to fighting AIDS. And I haven't heard anyone else on here (besides you) who does. Maybe instead of trying to fight all these people who are thoroughly disgusted with you, you should reevaluate your position here.
I will do some research tomorrow on how many women get breast cancer vs how many people get aids and we can discuss allocation of funds. Tonight I have more fun plans. Have a good evening.
Yes the poor kid would be in that tiny 1% sliver in the pie chart whereas 100% of kids with childhood leukemia would be in that piece of pie. See the difference?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?