Date: April 15th, 2009 10:21 AM Author: razzmatazz chest-beating faggot firefighter
How do you feel about the fact that this disease of choice receives tens of millions of dollars in funding for treatment and research at the expense of, for example, children's cancer, which no one can choose not to get?
Date: April 15th, 2009 10:32 AM Author: razzmatazz chest-beating faggot firefighter
I don't know how you feel about the children. You can tell me if you want.
What I want to know is how you feel about the fact that so many resources are devoted to a disease that 99.9% of those infected acquired it through easily preventable behavior.
Date: April 15th, 2009 10:36 AM Author: razzmatazz chest-beating faggot firefighter
What? This isn't about taxation, it's about allocation of resources. I have always found it interesting that so much is spent on a disease that people acquire through poor lifestyle choices. I feel that money would be better spent on diseases that people acquire by chance/genetics/etc. Thoughts?
Date: April 15th, 2009 10:56 AM Author: frisky gay wizard becky
I knew you'd find something wrong with it. You seem to enjoy the myth that gays are more affluent because it might benefit you, but it doesn't benefit gays in general. That's selfish on your part.
Would you prefer that I further take your burden of proof on this one and find an "academic" article? Does it have to be from a T14, or will you accept any article? Give me your criteria here before I go searching and pull back an article that you disapprove of for some reason or another.
Date: April 15th, 2009 11:42 AM Author: Rusted bipolar lay potus
Don't lots of gay couples adopt kids? Don't plenty of straight adults either choose not to or cannot have kids?
You're making this argument about yourself, instead of the gay community as a whole. Presumably, you don't have HIV, so you could really be making the same arguments about the government researching that.
Just admit you're wrong and you're being selfish, go back to your kylie minogue records and crystal meth addiction, and we'll call it a day. K?
Meh, your retorts have been weak and contained no real points.
But, I suppose, "THIS IS XOXO AND THIS IS HOW WE DO THINGS HERE!!!!!21!!!" I guess I shouldn't expect to find intelligent conversation on this board about such a hot-button issue.
Date: April 15th, 2009 1:18 PM Author: Electric sickened shrine
I actually feel good now.
I used the word irony, which later you parroted. I pointed the original irony out, in which you missed the irony and then you misused the word irony later.
But, for argument's sake assume it was. Why would this make you feel better?
Are you going to go to your gay friends and state the arguments I made and then tell them how you walloped me by making a claim that I used a word improperly?
Date: April 15th, 2009 10:48 AM Author: razzmatazz chest-beating faggot firefighter
I didn't make an argument with respect to gays. Are you sure you are replying to the correct person?
Now please tell me how you feel about all the children who die of cancer every year. Children who might have a chance at life if more money were spent battling their diseases.
I want to know how you feel about so much money being spent on a disease like HIV, which people get through poor lifestyle choices, when that money could be spent helping kids with cancer get a second chance at life.
Date: April 15th, 2009 10:51 AM Author: frisky gay wizard becky
Economics aside, don't you think that it's unfair that lots of funding goes to AIDs when AIDs is typically (note I said TYPICALLY, not ALWAYS) contracted through consensual choices while diseases like cancer typically develop through no fault of the victim?
Date: April 15th, 2009 10:54 AM Author: provocative orchestra pit dragon
it seems fair enough as a lot of money is donated to AIDS cures and AIDS is an international problem that is not likely to be fixed by responsible behavior whether or not it could conceiveably be
Date: April 15th, 2009 10:58 AM Author: provocative orchestra pit dragon
children with cancer get plenty of money donated to them as well, and in all honesty, to teh extent cancer is a genetic condition, we probably don't want to keep these kids in the gene pool
Date: April 15th, 2009 11:05 AM Author: provocative orchestra pit dragon
to the extent cancer is hereditary, which seems to be teh case for many cancers as they usually list family history as one of the main risk factors, genes would be involved in the passing on of that hereditary risk
Date: April 15th, 2009 11:00 AM Author: razzmatazz chest-beating faggot firefighter
There is a finite amount of money spent on medical research and there is a finite amount of resources period, so every dollar spent on HIV is a dollar that cannot be spent on cancer research.
How do you feel about the fact that so much is spent on HIV, which people get voluntarily, when childhood cancer could be receiving that money?
Date: April 15th, 2009 11:04 AM Author: razzmatazz chest-beating faggot firefighter
I have not been telling you what I think. I have been asking you what you think. Why won't you tell me how you feel about all the children who die of cancer, when they might stand a chance if more money were spent on them rather than HIV, the voluntary disease?
Date: April 15th, 2009 1:19 PM Author: Nighttime Address
Why do you think that all of the money spent on HIV research would go to cancer research? A lot of the money is raised specifically for HIV research... why do you think this money would magically go to cancer research if HIV didn't exist?
Date: April 15th, 2009 1:27 PM Author: Nighttime Address
Most of the people who got HIV through blood transfusions are dead. They all contracted it before 1985, and there were no good anti-retrovirals back then, so most died.
Date: April 15th, 2009 10:26 AM Author: Pearl corner fat ankles
It most certainly did!
Suggesting that Ryan White created HIV in his basement laboratory in the early 80s is apparently fair game, but couching such an absurdism in vaguely godhatesfags-esque language is highly inflammatory.
Date: April 15th, 2009 11:02 AM Author: provocative orchestra pit dragon
it does if you enjoy other equally dicky threads that just happen to not relate to something that is close to you, but that is a really subjective thing
Date: April 15th, 2009 11:11 AM Author: provocative orchestra pit dragon
you shouldn't think flames are only offensive when they are about something you care about, either it is all open season or we all need to consider feelings, I say open season
Date: April 15th, 2009 10:54 AM Author: frisky gay wizard becky
Strangely enough I know no one with HIV.
Presumably your social circles contain lots of gays.
It's certainly not coincidence that they have AIDs.
AIDs funding is basically the same as the taxpayer bailout of the auto industry. The auto industry got themselves into this mess, and now we, the people who didn't make the stupid choices, have to bail them out.
Date: April 15th, 2009 11:07 AM Author: Comical lake heaven
That's only true if you presume that over their lifetimes these children will consume more than they produce. This is obviously true of some poors but I don't think it's true of most. I mean Madcat is clearly a net contributor to society, and she's pretty poor.
Date: April 15th, 2009 11:14 AM Author: Comical lake heaven
You have to measure deficits over a lifetime, a measurement which includes awesomely hard-to-quantify factors, in order to decide whether someone is a net loss to society.
Otherwise you wind up saying things like "a bank with more liabilities than assets has less social value than a positive net-worth individual, for instance this bum with a shopping cart for of cans AND NO DEBT."
Date: April 15th, 2009 11:48 AM Author: Comical lake heaven
Now who's mistakenly taking whose arguments and jokes literally?
We clearly misunderstood each other: you don't think children are worthless and I don't think MadCat's (or indeed anyone's) lives can be evaluated in terms of social costs.
Date: April 15th, 2009 11:13 AM Author: razzmatazz chest-beating faggot firefighter
Unfortunately things don't work this way. Will you join me in calling for the elimination of the income tax so that we can all spend our money on stuff we think is important?
Date: April 15th, 2009 10:58 AM Author: cerebral tanning salon
This is mornonic, btw.
We spend tons of money researching lung cancer, liver cancer, cirrhosis, other STDs, diabetes and all other sorts of maladies associated with being a fat turd, drug and alcohol addiction, and all other sorts of crap that this largely caused by poor decision making.
And we do so in part because people aren't going to stop doing these stupid things and because we don't just let people with treatable ailments die in this country. So its cheaper in the long term if you can cure or find more efficent treatments for these problems, since the government ends up paying to treat them anyway.
Date: April 15th, 2009 10:55 AM Author: Pearl corner fat ankles
I was really hoping it would just slip to the bottom once Gay Posse made me feel like the world's worst person; but NoBama has decided to run with it and turn it into a homophobic rant veiled as a policy argument, which is unfortunate.
Date: April 15th, 2009 11:22 AM Author: razzmatazz chest-beating faggot firefighter
Just stop contesting unfounded accusations of bigotry? No thanks. Is this what you resort to, calling people "homophobic" because they think the volitional element of HIV should be factored into medical research resource allocation?
Date: April 15th, 2009 11:25 AM Author: Comical lake heaven
In all seriousness, you didn't come off well in this thread. NoBama is of course being a huge dick, which is his shtick. You on the other hand seem sincerely to believe that childless gays are being robbed by poors and people with kids.
Date: April 15th, 2009 11:36 AM Author: razzmatazz chest-beating faggot firefighter
I am not bitching about anything. I am asking you how you feel about the fact that so much money is spent on HIV, which is contracted through poor lifestyle choices 99.9% of the time, when that money could be spent on children suffering from cancer. How do you feel about this?
Date: April 15th, 2009 11:45 AM Author: razzmatazz chest-beating faggot firefighter
Why won't you answer such a simple question? The implication is clear: you don't care about kids with cancer. At least not as much as you do about HIV. Your thoughts are clear. You just look like an evasive douche by refusing to say as much.
Date: April 15th, 2009 11:35 AM Author: provocative orchestra pit dragon
this is the same topic. The point is that your argument against AIDS funding can be made for any program that isn't recognized as "THE" most important possible use for money
but we don't feel bad about getting dessert after dinner when we "could" donate that money to St. Judes, there are always other possible uses that may have more net social benefits, but that just isn't a useful way to make decisions
Date: April 15th, 2009 11:40 AM Author: razzmatazz chest-beating faggot firefighter
Please restate my argument and link to supporting quotations. All I've done in this thread is ask Gay Posse to state how he feels about current allocation.
Date: April 15th, 2009 11:42 AM Author: provocative orchestra pit dragon
your questions have repeatedly suggested that it is wrong to spend money on AIDS when childhood cancer remains uncured, if you don't think this everything you have said has been utterly pointless
Date: April 15th, 2009 11:48 AM Author: provocative orchestra pit dragon
you have been asking loaded questions that clearly imply a point of view and suggest that his stance on AIDS research is wrong, quit being a little pussy about it, you will not be vindicated by refusing to acknowledge how stupid the point is just b/c you have yet to make it in a declarative sentence
Date: April 15th, 2009 11:31 AM Author: Silver Crackhouse Wagecucks
Heart disease and many forms of cancer are caused by poor lifestyle choices. Eating like a fattie is a lifestyle choice. Smoking is a lifestyle choice. Eating smoked or grilled meats is a lifestyle choice. Staying out in the sun without sunscreen is a lifestyle choice. Not getting screened for cancer regularly is a lifestyle choice. The only reason he singles out HIV is clearly because of his hostility to homosexuals.
For a person who is a self-professed libertarian, Nobama sure is dedicated to using the allocation of government funding to enforce his personal prejudices.
Date: April 15th, 2009 11:38 AM Author: razzmatazz chest-beating faggot firefighter
Strawman. I am asking you how you feel about the fact that so much money is spent on HIV, which is contracted through poor lifestyle choices 99.9% of the time, when that money could be spent on children suffering from cancer. How do you feel about this?
Date: April 15th, 2009 11:42 AM Author: razzmatazz chest-beating faggot firefighter
How do you feel about the fact that so much money is spent on HIV, which is contracted through poor lifestyle choices 99.9% of the time, when that money could be spent on children suffering from cancer. How do you feel about this?
Date: April 15th, 2009 11:50 AM Author: razzmatazz chest-beating faggot firefighter
How do you feel about the fact that so much money is spent on HIV, which is contracted through poor lifestyle choices 99.9% of the time, when that money could be spent on children suffering from cancer. How do you feel about this?
Date: April 15th, 2009 11:52 AM Author: razzmatazz chest-beating faggot firefighter
How do you feel about the fact that so much money is spent on HIV, which is contracted through poor lifestyle choices in almost all cases, when that money could be spent on children suffering from cancer. How do you feel about this?
Date: April 15th, 2009 2:35 PM Author: Silver Crackhouse Wagecucks
You're setting up a false dichotomy. Money can be spent on both HIV and cancer. In fact, that's what's happening. Why don't you shut the fuck up already?
Date: April 15th, 2009 11:46 AM Author: Comical lake heaven
"The net social benefit is a good thing all around. Otherwise we wouldn't fund it."
Oh, so what you meant is existing social spending is justified as the legitimate output of the political process and thus all misallocation arguments are specious?
Date: April 15th, 2009 11:54 AM Author: bateful cordovan famous landscape painting electric furnace
Gay Posse: worst poster?
I hate the gay fags on this board who get uptight like him and wintergreen. This isn't the US Code, its a racist hate filled message board. Deal or leave.
Um. Looks to me like Gay Posse was pissed off at something someone was saying, arguing about it and resorting to personal insults and the traditional xo credo of "blah blah blah" WRONG WRONG WRONG
That is what we DO on xo. If you object to that, methinks it is you who does not belong.
Date: April 15th, 2009 12:09 PM Author: bateful cordovan famous landscape painting electric furnace
I know you're his little internet buddy and all but this is a light hearted joke/meme and GP's response was "You're a fucking dick" which was followed by an irrational avalanche of irrelevant bullshit about children.
Look, some guy posted a comment he thought was funny and was told off for being a dick. All the dog killing, 9/11 threads also get the typical you're a dick responses. I know, I've given some of them without getting any crap over it. Then some troll/s came in and started baiting and like a good xo poster, Gay Posse responded. And where would we all be if we did not feed the trolls?
THIS IS XO THIS IS WHAT WE DO. You can't complain about that, it's ridiculous. Well I guess you could, but it just makes you a n00b.
Date: April 15th, 2009 1:02 PM Author: Nighttime Address
ah my bad
I just read through the first 4 or so posts where he said the same thing over and over again and it seemed amazing that he was missing such a huge point.
Date: April 15th, 2009 1:08 PM Author: Nighttime Address
Also, he seems to think that there's some centralized pool of money that must all be spent on diseases, and that all money not spent on HIV research would go to other diseases. He may have a point wrt public funding, but what about the money that is raised from private individuals, companies and organizations? Who's to say that these people would be donating their money to curing "children's cancer" or whatever he's talking about above? Diseases aren't fungible; certain issues resonate more strongly than others.
The funny thing is that it's the people who actually live this stuff that are the most informed. I can understand the average Joe Public being confused, but when you're gay and defending AIDs research, it's pretty incredulous to not know that non-gays get AIDs, too.
Date: April 15th, 2009 1:22 PM Author: Chrome internet-worthy chapel
I never thought I'd see the day that NoBama would win an argument. Is AIDs preventable 99% of the time? Absolutely. Is it more preventable than cancer in children? Sure. Should we fund AIDs research? Absolutely.
We already spend a shit ton of money on cancer research. Additional funding has reached the point where there really is serious diminishing returns.
AIDs is a pretty fascinating virus (from a scientific standpoint). Honestly, if we can figure out what makes AIDs tick, it would be a monumental help in figuring out and treating other viruses such as influenza. Right now, we're kinda at the "a virus is a virus stage" and AIDs research can really shed some light on a pretty foggy area that will have severe human health implications in the future.
We have AIDs to thank for nearly all of our advances in antivirals. I guess you could argue that if not for the "AIDs scare", we would have simply spent tons of money on some other virus like influenza and gotten just as much progress. Either way, it's good to study it from multiple angles and there's a lot of benefits to funding AIDs research (as well as research into other viruses).
We already spend a shit ton [definition?] of money on cancer research. [source?] Additional funding has reached the point where there really is serious diminishing returns. [source?]
AIDs is a pretty fascinating virus (from a scientific standpoint). Honestly, if we can figure out what makes AIDs tick, it would be a monumental help in figuring out and treating other viruses such as influenza. [source?] Right now, we're kinda at the "a virus is a virus stage" and AIDs research can really shed some light on a pretty foggy area that will have severe human health implications in the future. [source discussing benefits relative to other uses of the money?]
Date: April 15th, 2009 1:44 PM Author: Nighttime Address
My biggest problem with his argument is his assumption that all money not being used for AIDS research would go to research for other, more worthwhile diseases. As a lot of money is raised specifically for AIDS research, I doubt this is the case.
Date: April 15th, 2009 1:49 PM Author: Chrome internet-worthy chapel
I agree that a lot of money is given specifically for AIDs research and should certainly be used as such. I think the better question to ask is "whether or not a significant portion of the money that is currently donated would be given to fund AIDs research at all if people were more informed about the disease?"
Prolly not. I end up supporting the uneasy status quo of AIDs scare tactics in favor of getting people to donate. Ahhh well, it's not my job to educate every donor.
I was quoting the post immediately prior to my reply and asking for citations. Can you really be this fucking stupid?
Date: April 15th, 2009 1:22 PM
Author: OJuiceSimpson
I never thought I'd see the day that NoBama would win an argument. Is AIDs preventable 99% of the time? Absolutely. Is it more preventable than cancer in children? Sure. Should we fund AIDs research? Absolutely.
We already spend a shit ton of money on cancer research. Additional funding has reached the point where there really is serious diminishing returns.
AIDs is a pretty fascinating virus (from a scientific standpoint). Honestly, if we can figure out what makes AIDs tick, it would be a monumental help in figuring out and treating other viruses such as influenza. Right now, we're kinda at the "a virus is a virus stage" and AIDs research can really shed some light on a pretty foggy area that will have severe human health implications in the future.
We have AIDs to thank for nearly all of our advances in antivirals. I guess you could argue that if not for the "AIDs scare", we would have simply spent tons of money on some other virus like influenza and gotten just as much progress. Either way, it's good to study it from multiple angles and there's a lot of benefits to funding AIDs research (as well as research into other viruses).
Date: April 15th, 2009 2:03 PM Author: deep vibrant haunted graveyard
Date: April 15th, 2009 2:02 PM
Author: NoBama (Back By Popular Demand)
I was quoting the post immediately prior to my reply and asking for citations. Can you really be this fucking stupid?
Date: April 15th, 2009 1:22 PM
Author: OJuiceSimpson
I never thought I'd see the day that NoBama would win an argument. Is AIDs preventable 99% of the time? Absolutely. Is it more preventable than cancer in children? Sure. Should we fund AIDs research? Absolutely.
We already spend a shit ton of money on cancer research. Additional funding has reached the point where there really is serious diminishing returns.
AIDs is a pretty fascinating virus (from a scientific standpoint). Honestly, if we can figure out what makes AIDs tick, it would be a monumental help in figuring out and treating other viruses such as influenza. Right now, we're kinda at the "a virus is a virus stage" and AIDs research can really shed some light on a pretty foggy area that will have severe human health implications in the future.
We have AIDs to thank for nearly all of our advances in antivirals. I guess you could argue that if not for the "AIDs scare", we would have simply spent tons of money on some other virus like influenza and gotten just as much progress. Either way, it's good to study it from multiple angles and there's a lot of benefits to funding AIDs research (as well as research into other viruses).
Date: April 15th, 2009 2:10 PM Author: Chrome internet-worthy chapel
Let's face it, most people in the U.S. are either homophobic, really anti-drug use, racist or the trifecta. Transmission through blood transfusions or heterosexual sex is much less common than believed by the average person. Hell, blood transfusions haven't been a problem in a long time.
You don't think funding would take a dip if people knew that the vast majority that are affected are blacks, gays, and drug users?
Date: April 15th, 2009 2:27 PM Author: Chrome internet-worthy chapel
Nah, maybe in NY, LA, etc... I think most people still believe that it's a heterosexual epidemic as well. Hell, we still have states that are trying to teach creationism and abstinence.
Date: April 15th, 2009 2:23 PM Author: bateful cordovan famous landscape painting electric furnace
TITCR. He is really bad. He is overly sensitive AND dumb. He didn't make any points in this thread, only Stabby and BlueSmoke did. I'm not sure why people here like him.
Date: April 15th, 2009 2:26 PM Author: wonderful queen of the night
Putting aside the long argument in this thread, the subject/OP was actually pretty hilarious. But I laugh at lots of jokes that are "wrong," so maybe I'm alone on this one.