>> ^A10anis:

I'd be interested to know how many of the people promoting this medieval nonsense use modern medicine at all. Do they pray away infections, tooth decay, etc, etc? Do they refuse medicine for their kids? This is just another frightening example of how dangerous religion can be. The sooner religion is taught as a history subject, the better off we will all be.


That's how it usually is with selfish people. It's OK for *ME* to have modern treatment and health care, but it's not OK for *YOU* to have it.

It wouldn't shock me at all to find out someone of the higher ups in that church have HIV and are getting modern treatment for it, they're just telling everyone else they should die.

My best friend has MS. I have a form of Parkinsons. I have had cancer and survived.

I am also studying bioethics at Monash.

Judging by your overly defensive nature even before any retorts you are clearly not at ease with the ethical decisions you have made. I won't lecture you. Rather I will just say that you value certain things above others that have limited ethical grounding.
>> ^MycroftHomlz:

Do you have friends that have AIDS or HIV? Do you know someone (or know someone that knows someone) suffering MS? Parkinsons? Dushanes? Has anyone you known every gotten cancer and survived? Are you vaccinated? Do you take antibiotics when you get sick? Do you know anyone who has been the recipient of an organ transplant? Do you upvote Michael J. Fox videos?
Ask yourself these questions before you question how I sleep...
I think it is naive and hypocritical to on one hand use modern medicine and curl the other to a fist to bash its teeth in. You can't have it both ways. Sure it is sad that we have to use animal models. The best we can hope for is that they are treated as humanely as possible and their use is tightly regulated. All of which is true in the current paradigm.
>> ^Kofi:
Whatever helps you sleep at night.

Suffering from HIV, at a time when you're probably most vulnerable, scared and confused, I can sort-of-kind-of understand what might drive you to this. But you're still an idiot, sorry.

Fucking think.

Do you have friends that have AIDS or HIV? Do you know someone (or know someone that knows someone) suffering MS? Parkinsons? Dushanes? Has anyone you known every gotten cancer and survived? Are you vaccinated? Do you take antibiotics when you get sick? Do you know anyone who has been the recipient of an organ transplant? Do you upvote Michael J. Fox videos?

Ask yourself these questions before you question how I sleep...

I think it is naive and hypocritical to on one hand use modern medicine and curl the other to a fist to bash its teeth in. You can't have it both ways. Sure it is sad that we have to use animal models. The best we can hope for is that they are treated as humanely as possible and their use is tightly regulated. All of which is true in the current paradigm.

>> ^Kofi:

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

I remember this being a story on Oz...black guy pricked an old guy with an HIV infested needle or something. I was really young watching that.

HIV travel ban?

*research research*

Holy shit, seriously?

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Amy Lockwood, condom, Congo, Aids, Hiv, TED, sex' to 'Amy Lockwood, condom, Congo, Aids, Hiv, TED, sex, manforce bull' - edited by ponceleon

From here it's only a short jump from gays-as-equals to gays as protected class with special rights and privileges.

Headlines coming soon:

Gay officer accuses command of denied promotion due to being gay

VA struggles with costs of caring for HIV-positive soldiers

Gay soldiers seek separate housing

>> ^JiggaJonson:

Nevermind the fact that Washington University, the school that created the Foldit program, is a public (that is to say, funded by the state; a.k.a. statist) institution.


Right, and I'm sure the researchers there are fantastic. Still, they opened the market to allow more people to work on what they themselves and others weren't able to succeed at.

>> ^JiggaJonson:

Nevermind the fact that healthcare, up until very recently, has been privatized (excluding medicare and medicaid) for a substantial time now; yet the lifetime cost of HIV medications and treatment is roughly $385,000.


And available only from big pharma. And that's thanks to government regulations. Jonas Salk developed the polio vaccine privately and offered it without patent. If he were to bring the same drug to market today by FDA restrictions he'd have to pay millions.

>> ^JiggaJonson:

Shouldn't free market generic meds have landed in your local Wally World for $5 a month by now? Why is the free market dictating these insane prices where how much you can pay is directly relational to how long you get to live.


The pharmaceutical industry is heavily regulated. I think you're erroneously conflating corporatism with free market.

>> ^JiggaJonson:

Now, as we know, if the market was not worthy, pharmaceutical businessmen would not get involved with it and essentially let the project die. The logical solution to these huge dilemmas in cost then is to create a larger customer base. All they need now is a furtive way to deliver the virus to a sect of the population that is either expendable and large or rich and small.


Again, you're claiming the current market is free. If it was, people like Salk could enter and compete (much like the gamers in the article above) without retribution from government. What you have today is a limited amount of pharma companies that can compete in the market, and because there's less competition, you have higher prices.

>> ^Ryjkyj:

I don't see where the "market" part comes in. Just the "free" part.


The market is just a system of exchange. Look at my example of Salk above. He developed and released a cure to polio, but today the restrictions on the market makes this kind of charitable action illegal. But in regards to the article specifically, Wash. Univ. opened their system of exchange and asked the online gaming community to help in figuring out a complex structure of an AIDS protein. The exchange was charitable. That's the free market.

Now if there was a regulation against this sort of thing because the online gamers weren't "licensed" for instance, then that would be a restrictive market. Right?

Nevermind the fact that Washington University, the school that created the Foldit program, is a public (that is to say, funded by the state; a.k.a. statist) institution.

Nevermind the fact that healthcare, up until very recently, has been privatized (excluding medicare and medicaid) for a substantial time now; yet the lifetime cost of HIV medications and treatment is roughly $385,000.

Shouldn't free market generic meds have landed in your local Wally World for $5 a month by now? Why is the free market dictating these insane prices where how much you can pay is directly relational to how long you get to live.

Maybe if these drugs were mass produced... but herein lies a new problem: New HIV infections have been reduced by 17% over the past eight years! Urgh that's what you get with big government. Free market thinkers know the bigger your customer base is, the better it is for business, and the consumer therefore is the ultimate winner.

Now, as we know, if the market was not worthy, pharmaceutical businessmen would not get involved with it and essentially let the project die. The logical solution to these huge dilemmas in cost then is to create a larger customer base. All they need now is a furtive way to deliver the virus to a sect of the population that is either expendable and large or rich and small.

What's that little Timmy? Blankfist's bullshit posts give you AIDS of the eyes when you read them? Well it's a start. FREEDOM!

"Poison HIV" Wasn't there an outbreak of HIV in Porn just recently...I think we have a new suspect.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Dark Knight, Rises, XXX, Porn, Parody, Trailer, Poker, Buttman, Poison HIV, Scatwoman' to 'Dark Knight Rises, XXX, Porn, Parody, Trailer, Poker, Buttman, Poison HIV, Scatwoman' - edited by xxovercastxx

>> ^heropsycho:

I think you're catching on to me not wanting any discourse with you. Congrats!


And yet you were crying about lack of "civil discourse".

Sounds like another cop-out to me. This time out of fear of an informed response.

>> ^heropsycho:

You then called someone else a state-owned or ignorant "tool" (your idea I guess of being civil is saying it's either/or, not both)

reading comprehension fail or straw-man argument? 🤦

>> ^heropsycho:

Dude, seriously? I'm thinking accusing someone of having a "re-occuring reading comprehension problem" is pretty douchey, especially when I had only responded to you once. You then called someone else a state-owned or ignorant "tool" (your idea I guess of being civil is saying it's either/or, not both) who is also very arrogant, for, oh horror of horrors, disagreeing with you.
Probably doesn't help with a follow up that you think me calling you out for this is a "pathetic cop-out".
I really can't see how any of that would be considered civil discourse outside of an episode of Jerry Springer.


Well, if you want to have any discourse at all it might help to tag who you are talking to or use the reply function. This is a re-occurring problem you have also.

If you're not having problems understanding what you are reading then you're repeatedly making straw-man arguments on purpose. That's what I call pretty "douchey".

And I was right. pathetic cop-out.