MLD Woody Posted October 21, 2014 Report Share Posted October 21, 2014 Sooo... A scorch the earth policy devpid of all ethics and moral decency. No thanks. Even if you are putting them "out of their misery" you're still murdering the 30% that would survive. Not to mention killing every sick person you can see is no sure fire way to stop the disease. Oh, and pissing a ton of countries off, that's great too. But I'm sure we'll be received well when we show up... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted October 21, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 21, 2014 Sooo... A scorch the earth policy devpid of all ethics and moral decency. No thanks. Even if you are putting them "out of their misery" you're still murdering the 30% that would survive. Not to mention killing every sick person you can see is no sure fire way to stop the disease. Oh, and pissing a ton of countries off, that's great too. But I'm sure we'll be received well when we show up... as harsh is it may seem I kind of agree with that policy but only, & I stress the word only, if we would be sure eliminating the virus.(not wipe out hundreds of thousands or millions of innocent people) And I don't think that's even close to being a realistic option. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Osiris Posted October 21, 2014 Report Share Posted October 21, 2014 Contained to the region killing how many? You're essentially advocating sentencing the well to a horrible painful blood puking death. There's already thousands and thousands of cases. Every new one up to 5-10,000 a week increases the odds that it will mutate and spread further out of control. I'd rather they contain it but you don't send soldiers in harms way to contain. If you send them there its one mission only. Kill it. Kill it with fire. First, let's not state speculation of the WHO official in the article as fact. I'm not saying we won't get 5-10K cases per week, but he is projecting. Second, the 70% death rate is a projection based on his claim that deaths are under-reported. But you know what else is under-reported? The survivors. Why? Because the stigma is attached to contracting the disease, not just dying from it. So survivors are also not reporting it. Historically Ebola kills 25-85%. So until someone has positive evidence (instead of speculating on under-reporting), I'm sticking with the 50% number. The thing about this disease is peoples' behavior plays a critical factor in the spread of the disease. People dramatically increase their chance of not contracting the disease if, as hard as it is, they buck custom and refrain from touching their relatives that die from Ebola. They increase the chance of both surviving and containing the disease if they immediately seek medical attention, which many are not doing because of the stigma attached to this disease. So I'm not sentencing the well to a horrible death, people there are sentencing themselves and the best thing we can do is try to get them to stop doing so. Suppose we did get an Ebola epidemic in some city in the USA. Would you be okay with a foreign military coming in and razing San Francisco, or Houston, or Tampa, or Boston? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted October 21, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 21, 2014 Osiris so far nearly 37 million people have died from AIDS. And we've known for decades that all they have to do is refrain from unprotected anal sex and using dirty needles. (by the way I'm just discussing things and still of the opinion that this will be a non issue in 6 months) WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Osiris Posted October 21, 2014 Report Share Posted October 21, 2014 Osiris so far nearly 37 million people have died from AIDS. And we've known for decades that all they have to do is refrain from unprotected anal sex and using dirty needles. (by the way I'm just discussing things and still of the opinion that this will be a non issue in 6 months) WSS And did we apply a scorched earth policy in dealing with AIDS? That's what Cysko is arguing for (in the Ebola case) and I'm arguing against. And I agree with you, this will be a non-issue for America in 6 months, though I think it will continue to be an issue for Africa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted October 21, 2014 Report Share Posted October 21, 2014 I'm arguing that we shouldn't even be sending soldiers there. If they have to go there the mission should be clear. If they're trying to contain it send 5000 doctors not 5000 soldiers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted October 21, 2014 Report Share Posted October 21, 2014 First, let's not state speculation of the WHO official in the article as fact. I'm not saying we won't get 5-10K cases per week, but he is projecting. Second, the 70% death rate is a projection based on his claim that deaths are under-reported. But you know what else is under-reported? The survivors. Why? Because the stigma is attached to contracting the disease, not just dying from it. So survivors are also not reporting it. Historically Ebola kills 25-85%. So until someone has positive evidence (instead of speculating on under-reporting), I'm sticking with the 50% number. The thing about this disease is peoples' behavior plays a critical factor in the spread of the disease. People dramatically increase their chance of not contracting the disease if, as hard as it is, they buck custom and refrain from touching their relatives that die from Ebola. They increase the chance of both surviving and containing the disease if they immediately seek medical attention, which many are not doing because of the stigma attached to this disease. So I'm not sentencing the well to a horrible death, people there are sentencing themselves and the best thing we can do is try to get them to stop doing so. Suppose we did get an Ebola epidemic in some city in the USA. Would you be okay with a foreign military coming in and razing San Francisco, or Houston, or Tampa, or Boston? If it meant stopping a plague that threatened to kill everyone I love I'd live with it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted October 21, 2014 Report Share Posted October 21, 2014 And did we apply a scorched earth policy in dealing with AIDS? That's what Cysko is arguing for (in the Ebola case) and I'm arguing against. And I agree with you, this will be a non-issue for America in 6 months, though I think it will continue to be an issue for Africa. You can't just get aids from touching something someone with aids coughed on. 99% of the time you contract aids from making Retarded choices. You think these nurses in Dallas were sucking on Duncan's bloody rags? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted October 21, 2014 Report Share Posted October 21, 2014 You can't just get aids from touching something someone with aids coughed on. 99% of the time you contract aids from making Retarded choices. You think these nurses in Dallas were sucking on Duncan's bloody rags? I'd like to see that number backed up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted October 21, 2014 Report Share Posted October 21, 2014 If it meant stopping a plague that threatened to kill everyone I love I'd live with it There's a plague out there that threatens to kill everyone? Where? I must have missed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted October 21, 2014 Report Share Posted October 21, 2014 I'd like to see that number backed up I'd like to see you disprove it. Are you going to say more than 1% are caused by blood transfusions and spontaneously catching it from a doorknob? Or is caused by intravenous drug use and irresponsible (usually gay) sexual activity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted October 21, 2014 Report Share Posted October 21, 2014 I'd like to see you disprove it I don't think that's how it works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted October 21, 2014 Report Share Posted October 21, 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted October 21, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 21, 2014 Actually Woodrow it kind of does work that way. I bet the numbers might be a little different but not much. You get AIDS from getting fucked in the ass or for shooting up drugs with a dirty needle or from transfusions, but that was decades ago. If you agree give or take a few percentage points, then we have no problem and don't need to provide the exact numbers anna static of paperwork. If on the other hand, you think he or I are lying then prove it. But I don't think you believe we are lying. You probably know that it's true but don't like it. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted October 22, 2014 Report Share Posted October 22, 2014 No, it doesn't Steve. Ex: 99% of Musicians have sucked a cock at some point in their lives. Until I am proven wrong, its true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted October 22, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 22, 2014 We should be able to speak in good faith. Do you think AIDS is primarily passed by straight sex or not? WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted October 22, 2014 Report Share Posted October 22, 2014 Here is the CDC's data. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/statistics/basics/ It looks like Heterosexual Contact is about 30% Also, I'm not so much commenting on "not liking it", or w/e the fuck yo were saying. I'm commenting on throwing a number around like 99% and not having anything to back it up... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted October 22, 2014 Report Share Posted October 22, 2014 There's also many ways of making irresponsible Retarded choices. Straight sex when unprotected with suspect partners classifies as a Retarded choice in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted October 22, 2014 Report Share Posted October 22, 2014 My point is you don't just get aids from being near someone with aids. You have to fuck them or share needles with them. Hell you can share a drink from the same glass and not get it. That's not the case with ebola Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted October 22, 2014 Report Share Posted October 22, 2014 Your fucking problem is you want to argue about percentiles while dodging the ultimate point because you think that makes you intelligent. Who cares if 1% or 5% of people get aids from a situation that doesn't stem from a personal choice? Ebola doesn't work that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted October 22, 2014 Report Share Posted October 22, 2014 Your fucking problem is you want to argue about percentiles while dodging the ultimate point because you think that makes you intelligent. Who cares if 1% or 5% of people get aids from a situation that doesn't stem from a personal choice? Ebola doesn't work that way. Regardless of whatever point you were trying to make with the AIDs thing, I disagree with your strategy of "kill everyone in Africa that might have ebola" strategy... ... also, I'm not trying to argue percentiles to feel intelligent. If we can just throw around numbers now though, then great. Its not like most of this board's "debates" weren't shit enough already. Now we don't even have to show any kind evidence for any data we post. Good to know Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted October 22, 2014 Report Share Posted October 22, 2014 There is no evidence one way or the other. There's a racial and sexual preference chart that states who is likelier to get it. I looked there's no data on how it was transmitted case by case. Therefore I feel confident armed with those numbers to back my statement that infection of aids in 99% of cases or more is preventable by making certain choices or not making questionable decisions which lead to infection. It's not communicable by indirect contact or even direct contact with the infected. Medical technology is a thousand fold what it was in the 1980s. You just don't get it from blood transfusions anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted October 22, 2014 Report Share Posted October 22, 2014 If you were the intelligent being you claim to be you'd put your outrage aside and note that I never supported sending soldiers in the hot zone. The only way I said I could stomach that decision is if their mission was eradication of the disease. Soldiers are not doctors and it's not their duty to care for plague victims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted October 22, 2014 Report Share Posted October 22, 2014 I'm outraged? oh man... then i better leave and cool off Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted October 22, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 22, 2014 http://www.avert.org/usa-hiv-aids-statistics.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted October 22, 2014 Report Share Posted October 22, 2014 http://www.avert.org/usa-hiv-aids-statistics.htm .... Steve.... that article you just posted uses the article I previously posted as its major source... lol It takes what I just said, and puts it in to a pie chart. What point are you trying to make? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted October 22, 2014 Report Share Posted October 22, 2014 http://www.avert.org/usa-hiv-aids-statistics.htm That chart shows that African Americans have the highest incidence. Obviously Aids was made by the White establishment in the 80's to eradicate the black man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted October 22, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 22, 2014 .... Steve.... that article you just posted uses the article I previously posted as its major source... lol It takes what I just said, and puts it in to a pie chart. What point are you trying to make? I didn't see yours. Nothing more. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted October 22, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 22, 2014 Also take into consideration the left chart shows approximately 1/8 transmission by heterosexual sex. Now look at the right pie chart. Those are almost all females. You get the disease most easily by being fucked in the ass. So the number of transmissions through heterosexual sex is skewed by the obvious fact that heterosexual women are having sex with infected males. I'm sure you've heard of bisexuality? The point is that given that set of statistics it's obvious how AIDS is spread. Bickering over decimal points does what exactly? Nothing? And keep in mind that gays are maybe 4 percent the population. (and this has what to do with ebolq)? WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted October 22, 2014 Report Share Posted October 22, 2014 We should be able to speak in good faith. Do you think AIDS is primarily passed by straight sex or not? WSS In Africa, I suspect so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.