It's the only thing that makes sense. First off people who have AIDs can't live full lives and they should accept the fact that their lives are finished and allow die in a quick and respectable manner instead of lingering around being all dirty and diseased and slowly wasting away.

The amount of money that we're spending on these dirty adizos is disgusting. It's running up the cost of all our medical care.

And the most concentrated AIDs population is in Africa where they are already overpopulated and can't even afford to feed their people let alone treat them for one of the most expensive and uncurable diseases known to man.

1. HIV suspressors keep HIV harmless. In western countries HIV can stay HIV and not become AIDS with these new drugs. It would be like having astma or something, your just stuck with pills all your life. The fact that Africans are still dieing is because they can' t afford the medicine.

2. If people choose to slowly die in agony because they fucked up in life and got infected, then that is their choice. If they wan' t to end it humanely then that is their choice too. In my perspective if someone got infected by buttfucking one another or sticking a dirty needle in their arm then by all means, suffer.

How do you justify the constitutionality of this??

How do you justify the constitutionality of this??

plenty of the governments policies are unconstitutional but that doesn't stop them.

for the most part though this could just be implemented in Africa where they don't have laws anyway.

How do you justify the constitutionality of this??

You see a fire, wouldn't you put it out instead of letting it spread?

Maybe those who have HIV or AIDS, and continue to spread it to other people should be killed, but not those who don't. I get the idea kill those who have the disease to kill the infection, but we start doing that where are we going to stop, are we going to kill those who caught the common cold. If we start killing every disease then when a mediocre disease comes along we will have no immunity, do you know how this disease works. Think of it like a battle, an enemy soldier sneaks into your fort, and past your soldiers, he can then make himself appear as though he was one of your soldiers, he can then slowly kill all of your soldiers, anyone goes to look for the enemy he appears as one of yours gets them close enough to kill them too. Now this enemy soldier doesn't stop their he also turns your own soldiers against you. The fact of the matter is that HIV and AIDS are the most sophisticated viruses possible to create. The only way to stop the enemy is to quarentene it, so that it he doesn't kill or infect others. I mean you wouldn't want to kill them all to caught the one enemy soldier.

You see a fire, wouldn't you put it out instead of letting it spread?

yes...but fires are not people. Every American citizen is entitled to "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." So I can't say killing them is okay unless they knowingly spread their disease. by which, they could be considered a murderer and then be sent to jail/death penalty

And yes, I know the government does unconstitutional things, but as a person who respects the constitution I like to make sure laws are constitutional

yes...but fires are not people. Every American citizen is entitled to "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." So I can't say killing them is okay unless they knowingly spread their disease. by which, they could be considered a murderer and then be sent to jail/death penalty

And yes, I know the government does unconstitutional things, but as a person who respects the constitution I like to make sure laws are constitutional

They aren't people in the first place in Africa.

They aren't people in the first place in Africa.

well...fuck the africans.

I'm talking about Americans with the disease. After all, Americans are people.

well...fuck the africans.

I'm talking about Americans with the disease. After all, Americans are people.

That is until they get AIDZ

A nice big widespread testing scheme would be brilliant.
Know who has it, know who probably doesn't and most importantly keep updating the results.

In a perfect world they'd be marked in some way, the last thing I would want to do is do the right thing and rock on with the first aid and then get the news that I'm on a death sentence (and probably spread it without my knowledge). Being able to tell at a glance whether a person is infected or not is important to the safety of those around them if that person becomes injured. If I was to become infected (and decided not to kill myself) I would like others to know I was also, so that If I get hurt and someone helps out I don't end up wrecking their life.

If I got AIDs my first thing to buy is a shotgun and some nice buckshot ammo to scatter my brains

First off, AIDS has a capital S.

It's the only thing that makes sense. First off people who have AIDs can't live full lives and they should accept the fact that their lives are finished and allow die in a quick and respectable manner instead of lingering around being all dirty and diseased and slowly wasting away.

I bet you'd completely change you point of view if you got AIDS.

The amount of money that we're spending on these dirty adizos is disgusting. It's running up the cost of all our medical care.

And the most concentrated AIDs population is in Africa where they are already overpopulated and can't even afford to feed their people let alone treat them for one of the most expensive and uncurable diseases known to man.

I'm guessing, fuck that, I know you haven't done any research on this whatsoever. I just can't believe you posted this here. Take it to HB.

On another note, read my acrostic poem:

African
Infant
Death
Syndrome

OP is an idiot.
You're gonna die eventually too, so can I kill you?

People with AIDS should be branded on their face.

It will be cured within the next 100 or so years, like cancer it may seem powerful now but so did all the other mediocre diseases in time past.

So there is no point killing people that 'may' help our society. Yes working a basic job is still helping. The people who further our race need a shit ton of other stuff which is made by everyone else.

I say we just make up some bullshit about giving fags free money for past discrimination, then ship them off to REX 84 internment camps for destruction when they show up to collect their compensation.

No they shouldn't. The disease spreaders and evil fucks who willingly chose not to keep their viral infection to themselves, aren't deserving of life... but HIV is far from a death sentence, these days. And it's very likely they may eventually come up with a cure.

HIV/AIDs is a complicated issue. Not all those infected get infected via risky/perverse behavior, especially in the case of sex and relationships.

Spencerists like the OP should probably be killed. It's the only thing that makes sense.

Spencerists like the OP should probably be killed. It's the only thing that makes sense.

This post reeks of AIDZ

Didn't you see Philadelphia?

According to your theory, all persons and animals with any type of potentially terminal disease should be culled.

Hmm. Considering aging is terminal, I suppose you could say you'd like everybody killed.

How wonderful.

If aging were a disease he would be saying that.

It isn't though.

So he isn't either.

Hmm. Considering aging is terminal, I suppose you could say you'd like everybody killed.

How wonderful.

For a guy accusing someone of oversimplifying you aren't practicing what you preach.

If I got AIDs my first thing to buy is a shotgun and some nice buckshot ammo to scatter my brains

I'd empty my bank account on getting the best stuff in my life, feeling amazing.
Then when its all gone, do the above.

You see a fire, wouldn't you put it out instead of letting it spread?

I'd see if there was anything valuable in the building, and nobly dash in to save it. And take it home.

If aging were a disease he would be saying that.

It isn't though.

So he isn't either.
Anything that breathes oxygen should be killed. They're killing themselves by breathing oxygen. You do know that aging is caused by changes in the inefficiency in your cells to process oxygen, so it builds up, oxidizes your body, and eventually kills you, right?

The common cold can be terminal to some people, should everyone that gets the cold be murdered? Driving a car can be terminal, should everyone driving a car be murdered? Alcohol can kill you, should everyone that drinks be murdered?

Your argument against AIDS fails.

This will never happen because people are selfish greedy pigs who will fight for there meaningless lives.

This will never happen because people are selfish greedy pigs who will fight for there meaningless lives.

Are you talking about people with or without AIDS?

We can quarantine them.

You gotta figure I have seen AIDS go from a handful of faggot carriers to 30+ million people infected today. In my lifetime I have seen that. Just imagine what it will be like in 20 more years.

They need to be dealt with one way or another and you idiots talking about how cruel/unconstitutional/wrong it is need to pull your heads out of your asses.

If AIDS were passed on through the air you would jump right into line wanting to quarantine them wouldn't you? Of course you would. But because it's transported by body fluids you think it's safer.
It is true that it's slower, but its no more safer than if it were transported by air.

Then again, it sure does kill a lot of niggers.

Then again, it sure does kill a lot of niggers.

There wouldn't be any niggers left after we quarantine them;)

Or we should just find a fucking cure already.

People with AIDs/HIV are victims until they willingly participate in disease spreading activities. I know that sex is a basic human right, but there is no reason that people should continue the spreading of an "incurable" disease.

"Being killed" is a rather extreme idea, in the set boundaries of society, but you have something going. They shouldn't be existent among those who aren't infected as to protect the healthy ones from unnecessary afflictions. When look at as a disease, I see plainly that <i>it</i> should be wiped out.

But they are people, you see, that are the infected. It could be you. Most people are incapable of seeing this idea from such an extensive level as to sacrifice themselves for the better of the entire race. We exist independently. Most, if not all Totse users know someone or care about someone with this disease and probably cannot even imagine the extermination going through.

Or we should just find a fucking cure already.
People with AIDs/HIV are victims until they willingly participate in disease spreading activities. I know that sex is a basic human right, but there is no reason that people should continue the spreading of an &quot;incurable&quot; disease.
&quot;Being killed&quot; is a rather extreme idea, in the set boundaries of society, but you have something going. They shouldn't be existent among those who aren't infected as to protect the healthy ones from unnecessary afflictions. When look at as a disease, I see plainly that <i>it</i> should be wiped out.
But they are people, you see, that are the infected. It could be you. Most people are incapable of seeing this idea from such an extensive level as to sacrifice themselves for the better of the entire race. We exist independently. Most, if not all Totse users know someone or care about someone with this disease and probably cannot even imagine the extermination going through.

tl/dr, its easier to just kill them.

Acualy HIV is harmless

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TLmmBq67-M&NR=1 :eek:

I can't find the whole video though :(

You gotta figure I have seen AIDS go from a handful of faggot carriers to 30+ million people infected today. What a fucking ignorant thing to say.

What a fucking ignorant thing to say.

Sorry, HIV, not AIDS. It's not ignorant to type the wrong thing it's a typo.

1. HIV suspressors keep HIV harmless. In western countries HIV can stay HIV and not become AIDS with these new drugs. It would be like having astma or something, your just stuck with pills all your life. The fact that Africans are still dieing is because they can' t afford the medicine.

2. If people choose to slowly die in agony because they fucked up in life and got infected, then that is their choice. If they wan' t to end it humanely then that is their choice too. In my perspective if someone got infected by buttfucking one another or sticking a dirty needle in their arm then by all means, suffer.

There is a cure for HIV, the drug companies will make more money if they just give people drugs to keep it undercontrol for the rest of their lives = guarenteed money. A cure - yeah its guarenteed money but its limited.

How do you justify the constitutionality of this??

Whats up Mr American man?

The thread title itself is funny. It's such a strong subject to be throwing out there when you aren't 100% sure of your opinion.

The thread title itself is funny. It's such a strong subject to be throwing out there when you aren't 100% sure of your opinion.

it's called getting lots of posts

There is a cure for HIV, the drug companies will make more money if they just give people drugs to keep it undercontrol for the rest of their lives = guarenteed money. A cure - yeah its guarenteed money but its limited.

There is no cure - but you're right in that there is no cure because of the pharmaceutical companies. They don't fund research because managing the disease requires a lifetime of pills and a cure suggests a singular procedure.

Don't give up yet though:

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/06/gene-editing-co.html

Gene Editing Could Make Anyone Immune to AIDS
By Aaron Rowe EmailJune 30, 2008 | 5:16:56 PMCategories: Biotechnology, Chem Lab, Disease


Some people have a mutation that makes them amazingly resistant to HIV -- and now, scientists may have found a way to give that immunity to anyone.

Viruses enter cells and take them over, but to get inside, they need a handhold. HIV pulls itself in by grabbing onto a protein called CCR5, which decorates the surface of T-cells, which are one of the two major types of white blood cells and play an important role in helping the body fight infections. Back in the 1990's, researchers took interest in a handful of promiscuous gay men who were able to engage in sexual relations with their HIV-positive partners with impunity. Most of them had a mutation that kept their cells from producing normal CCR5 protein.

Armed with that knowledge, scientists have developed several tactics to block the production of CCR5 or perturb its shape so that the HIV virus can't grab onto it during the first step of its hijacking attempt. The strategy is much akin to cutting your hair before a wrestling match: It gives your opponent one less thing to grab onto.

In the latest version of this defense, Carl June and his colleagues at the University of Pennsylvania used a highly engineered protein, called a zinc finger nuclease, to clip the CCR5 gene out of some T-cells. Left without the recipe for that protein, the cells are nearly impenetrable. His report appeared on the Nature Biotechnology website yesterday.

June tested the procedure on cultured T-cells and mice -- not humans -- so it should be a source of guarded optimism, because it's not certain the technique would work in humans. In theory, AIDS doctors could take some T-cells out of an infected person, edit their genomes, and stick them back into their patient. Once they have returned to the body, each resistant cell will thrive and multiply in spite of the disease. This trick would not eliminate the virus, but it might be able to permanently raise the T-cell counts of AIDS patients, increasing their ability to resist secondary infections and remain healthy.

I believe that this problem can be solved by one intrepid Totsean (or an enterprising young supervillian-to-be) with enough knowledge of cellular biogenetics; a fast-reproducing virus could be engineered to ONLY harm those with the HIV virus, killing them quickly while leaving uninfected people unaffected (e.g. re-engineer Ebola [specifically chosen for its "quick-killing" effect] for our 'target audience', perhaps making the new virus exhibit a "key in the lock" effect, being activated by the presence of HIV in an individual)... make sizeable quantities of this new virus, then spread it over the whole world quickly with cloudseeding-type planes, and within the week, the AIDS epidemic COULD become an historical footnote.

I believe that this problem can be solved by one intrepid Totsean (or an enterprising young supervillian-to-be) with enough knowledge of cellular biogenetics; a fast-reproducing virus could be engineered to ONLY harm those with the HIV virus, killing them quickly while leaving uninfected people unaffected (e.g. re-engineer Ebola [specifically chosen for its "quick-killing" effect] for our 'target audience', perhaps making the new virus exhibit a "key in the lock" effect, being activated by the presence of HIV in an individual)... make sizeable quantities of this new virus, then spread it over the whole world quickly with cloudseeding-type planes, and within the week, the AIDS epidemic COULD become an historical footnote.


This is what should be done. If everyone with AIDs or HIV would die the world would be a better place.

Or, if that dirty nigger in Africa hadn't sexed a monkey and contracted it, the world wouldn't be in this shitty mess its in.

But i do believe it was created in a lab.

What's stopping them from commiting suicide? I say whether they live it out or or die quickly should be up to the individual.

I was thinking his quite a while ago, I thought " Why didn't whoever contracted AIDs get killed? Someone must have known how bad it could get." Well thats my 5

Anything that breathes oxygen should be killed. They're killing themselves by breathing oxygen. You do know that aging is caused by changes in the inefficiency in your cells to process oxygen, so it builds up, oxidizes your body, and eventually kills you, right?

The common cold can be terminal to some people, should everyone that gets the cold be murdered? Driving a car can be terminal, should everyone driving a car be murdered? Alcohol can kill you, should everyone that drinks be murdered?

Your argument against AIDS fails.


Your counter argument fails. You liberals always use this same type of argument arguing against anything. You have to draw a line somewhere, and the OP is talking about drawing it at AIDS, not anyone who breathes, drives or drinks. He's talking about euthanasia of faggots who decide to take dicks up their asses and druggies who shove dirty needles up their arms in order to contain one of the deadliest diseases there is.

Your counter argument fails. You liberals always use this same type of argument arguing against anything. You have to draw a line somewhere, and the OP is talking about drawing it at AIDS, not anyone who breathes, drives or drinks. He's talking about euthanasia of faggots who decide to take dicks up their asses and druggies who shove dirty needles up their arms in order to contain one of the deadliest diseases there is.

And what about the Africans? They are neither gay nor heroin addicts.

And what about the Africans? They are neither gay nor heroin addicts.

http://www.wearepartofyou.org/images/STAY_LRG.jpg

And what about the Africans? They are neither gay nor heroin addicts?

I thought we were talking about Americans with the disease...

And what about the Africans? They are neither gay nor heroin addicts.

They're just terminally stupid in most aspects of their lives. Not only in their "let's try our best to catch an STD" lifestyle but in their high levels of corruption, mismanagement and assorted douchebaggery.

We should treat people with AIDS as zombies :D

I agree with Dread_Lord, it's a pandemic, just because the virus spreads more slowly compared to other diseases doesn't mean we shouldn't try to prevent new infections, the only viable way to do so is by enforcing a quarantine of all people that are known to be affected by the virus.

I agree with Dread_Lord, it's a pandemic, just because the virus spreads more slowly compared to other diseases doesn't mean we shouldn't try to prevent new infections, the only viable way to do so is by enforcing a quarantine of all people that are known to be affected by the virus.

This man speaks the truth, although ifit's a pandemic, but a slow one, then we COULD evolve a resistance to it? Couldn't we?

This man speaks the truth, although ifit's a pandemic, but a slow one, then we COULD evolve a resistance to it? Couldn't we?

Why risk infecting everyone (because there's no use only having a handful of a small segment of the total population resistant) and waiting for a fraction to develop resistance when you can prevent new infections?

There's evidence for a similar pandemic (with a similar virus) occurring 10 million years ago. The viral DNA was rendered ineffective through mutations which takes time and lots of deaths. In this day and age I don't think anyone will purposefully put up with that when there is other ways to avoid the problem. Depending on who is being infected the resistance might not be passed on to the rest of the population, which means the threat from the disease won't end for most of us.

A better method would be to come up with a mechanism to accelerate the mutation (and inactivation) of the dangerous material so that resistance could be given to the population without having to take a massive population loss.

if there was a button that would instantly incinerate every hiv/aids carrier, i would feel morally compelled to press it.

if there was a button that would instantly incinerate every hiv/aids carrier, i would feel morally compelled to press it.

^This

Empathy, oh where are you now? Oh Western Civilization, in making us comfortable you have made as dumb as the german public of the thirties, are we really the brats you make us out to be? You realize, I HOPE, that AIDS is not restricted to niggers and fags, but it attacks white, straight people too. And beyond that, it could be one of you, and damn I hope it is. For then maybe you will think back on things you said like: "Just killing yourself humanely" "It's just logical" and assorted other ignorant babbling. You embody the humanity you see. brats.

Empathy, oh where are you now? Oh Western Civilization, in making us comfortable you have made as dumb as the german public of the thirties, are we really the brats you make us out to be? You realize, I HOPE, that AIDS is not restricted to niggers and fags, but it attacks white, straight people too. And beyond that, it could be one of you, and damn I hope it is. For then maybe you will think back on things you said like: "Just killing yourself humanely" "It's just logical" and assorted other ignorant babbling. You embody the humanity you see. brats.

You really think we think HIV is for blacks and poofs only? You're dreaming.

Disease is caught primarily by engaging in risky behaviours, like anal sex, intravenous drug use and unprotected sex with a shitload of partners. By NOT doing these things you increase your chances of not being infected. By taking a bit of time to stop and think you can actually save your own life (and the lives of those you will probably infect before you find out you're carrying it).

Shouldn't the infected people consider the lives THEY have wrecked by infecting others? They should also consider the risk to those who come to their assistance after a car crash or other incident.

In a lot of places getting tested for this sort of thing is covered by the .gov's health system. You may not agree with government health care, but that's a resource that's available and worth using politics be damned.

You really think we think HIV is for blacks and poofs only? You're dreaming.

Disease is caught primarily by engaging in risky behaviours, like anal sex, intravenous drug use and unprotected sex with a shitload of partners. By NOT doing these things you increase your chances of not being infected. By taking a bit of time to stop and think you can actually save your own life (and the lives of those you will probably infect before you find out you're carrying it).

Shouldn't the infected people consider the lives THEY have wrecked by infecting others? They should also consider the risk to those who come to their assistance after a car crash or other incident.

In a lot of places getting tested for this sort of thing is covered by the .gov's health system. You may not agree with government health care, but that's a resource that's available and worth using politics be damned.

Did you not see the word "not" right before restricted? I have no idea why you quoted me, as you in no way responded to what I said. Read it again.

Of course the simplest way to eradicate AIDS is to kill everyone infected.

But most people's moral compass would say that it is an unethical idea.

One day we might cure it.

A resistance is evolving in Africa, too. Give it another 200 years and it probably won't be as big a problem, even if we stopped providing medicine.

One day we might cure it.

A resistance is evolving in Africa, too. Give it another 200 years and it probably won't be as big a problem, even if we stopped providing medicine.

How will the resistance get transferred to the rest of the population?
It's no good to have one segment resistant and the rest still vulnerable.

I think a cure would be quicker than waiting for the right genetics to spread across the world.

But then eazy e and freddy merk wouldn't have made their last albums

How will the resistance get transferred to the rest of the population?
It's no good to have one segment resistant and the rest still vulnerable.

I think a cure would be quicker than waiting for the right genetics to spread across the world.

Well, the non-resistant ones die, and the resistant ones live.

A small proportion of a population being resistant to something can have a massive effect on the proliferation of the disease.

I do agree with you though. It's just that nature means the problem is going to peak at some point and then decrease in importance, irrespective of cures.

But yes, like you said, a cure would be quicker. They're using these immune people for research to try and help develop a cure.

Well, the non-resistant ones die, and the resistant ones live.

A small proportion of a population being resistant to something can have a massive effect on the proliferation of the disease.

I do agree with you though. It's just that nature means the problem is going to peak at some point and then decrease in importance, irrespective of cures.

But yes, like you said, a cure would be quicker. They're using these immune people for research to try and help develop a cure.

If Everyone was infected with HIV you'd have a point, but as it stands it's usually IV drug users, hookers (see above), homos/bi and people in poorer countries who are infected.

There are plenty of non resistant people who could conceivably survive this epidemic by being smart.

I believe the best way to prevent the spread of AIDS is offer free yearly AIDS screenings, and give those who pass a card that states their results.

Ingrain this into our culture, through government sponsered advertisements and celebrity spokesmanship, and before you know it everyone will have it. Then before you fuck someone without wearing a condom, ask to see their Test Card.

This would cost far less time, money, and resources, and has a much greater likelihood of ever happening, than the primitive, simplistic idea of tracking down and murdering those who are infected.

Remember kids, think before we speak...no matter how angsty, hardcore, and thus cool your ideas seem in your head.

I believe the best way to prevent the spread of AIDS is offer free yearly AIDS screenings, and give those who pass a card that states their results.

Ingrain this into our culture, through government sponsered advertisements and celebrity spokesmanship, and before you know it everyone will have it. Then before you fuck someone without wearing a condom, ask to see their Test Card.

This would cost far less time, money, and resources, and has a much greater likelihood of ever happening, than the primitive, simplistic idea of tracking down and murdering those who are infected.

Remember kids, think before we speak...no matter how angsty, hardcore, and thus cool your ideas seem in your head.

I said a testing program would be good, but you'd have to make sure that EVERYONE had it and you'd have to have a quick effective way to tell if someone is infected which will actually be on them 24/7, not a card that people can 'forget' or just not carry with them on purpose (for example, the danger to yourself from this disease might make you rethink your decision to render aid after a vehicle crash or similar incident). You do not want to get HIV while you're trying to do the right thing, and DRABC requires that you evaluate the danger to yourself.

There may be a cure developed in the future, but I don't see that coming for a long time, and the epidemic will likely be eradicated before a cure is discovered, tested and marketed successfully.

I didn't want death squads roaming, I wanted it to be a decision reached (with little deliberation) by the infected. I wanted them to do the right thing, finalise their affairs, get their revenge on the person who infected them and then disappear. That is what I would do (since having that disease basically bars me from doing most of the things I want to achieve in life, and most of the things that I enjoy in life).

If Everyone was infected with HIV you'd have a point, but as it stands it's usually IV drug users, hookers (see above), homos/bi and people in poorer countries who are infected.

There are plenty of non resistant people who could conceivably survive this epidemic by being smart.

Absolutely. Writing, I was thinking of just epidemic areas in Africa, even though I might not have stated it.

The fact is, even with cures, there will still be a fuckin high incidence, as there will always be idiots.

Anyway, killing them seems fairly extreme.

I was about to suggest the idea of something that blocks the action of reverse transcriptase, but I realized that must be what the pills do?