 |
|
Sava
|
 |
GO GO GO!
Mar 2001
time: 23:27
|
|
quote:
However, we cannot stand by and not try! I mean, yes, totally selling our pharma companies up the river without a paddle is a piss poor, idiotic idea, but we should do everything else we can. |
Sorry, I think millions of lives are more important than millions of dollars, but hey, I'm not a capitalist. 
Anyways, considering the insane amount of money those companies make, I think they'll survive. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by skywalker
You're talking about those drugs that are supposed to keep AIDS at bay, right? THOSE are extremely expensive, toxic, and don't work too well. I don't think it would help to 'let them make generic versions', because we haven't been stopping them. Also, I read a few science magazines (I'm also in Biology right now), and it seems that to combat AIDS once you're infected that's all we'll ever be able to do, as it's a virus. |
These are yet more baseless assertions. "Don't work too well?" I can introduce you to several friends of mine who are alive today because those drugs work very well. The drug cocktails are crucial for people staying alive, since we don't have a cure. The virus has mutated, making some new cases less responsive to the known cocktails, but new treatments are arising for those cases that are effective.
I'd strongly urge you to check out the work done by the International AIDs Vaccine Initiative:
http://www.iavi.org/science/possible.htm
Reading a few science mags and being in a biology class doesn't qualify you as an expert. I'd take Dr. Seth Berkley's expertise over BAMs any day.
There are several drugs that are effectively used to treat viral infections; however, they work in a different manner than anti-bacterial drugs. The main target of anti-virals is DNA or RNA intracellular replication. For instance, the drug acyclovir is a purine analog which when incorporated into a growing viral DNA strand halts further replication. This drug has been shown to stop viral growth both in vitro and in vivo. There are many more types of anti-virals, each attacking a different step in viral replication, from uncoating and cell invasion, to packaging of the completed virus particle.
Last edited by Boris Godunov on 30-04-2003 at 21:36
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:27
|
|
Boris,
quote:
Study some history of Africa, particularly the relation of the current quality of governments to the history of European colonialism. The people have the governments that Europeans thought they deserved, and that wealthy Western countries like the U.S. have a vested interest in keeping in power to suit economic aims. Tell me, does Mugabe rule by the will of his people? |
This may be so, but African colonialism did not really involve the US, so even if you think SOMEONE should pay for it, it certainly shouldn't be the US, and no matter where I live, I wasn't involved in it, so it certainly shouldn't be me personally either.
monolith,
quote:
Rulers are expected to show empathy. |
And they can do so by donating their own money, if they so desire.
monkspider,
quote:
Wow, do you really think this is a bad idea Dave? That's not cool man. |
It's a horrible idea. I have nothing against charity or helping others - I have a major problem being forced to help others, and forced to correct a health issue I didn't create, and, not only that, but forced to correct a health issue that, in many cases, is the fault of the people involved.
obiwan,
quote:
No, because buying kidneys on the black market is illegal. |
Yes, this is a problem.
quote:
I'm thinking more along the lines of providing shelter to someone out in the cold, who comes to your door. |
Great - so I should have to let bums into my house, by law, on the basis that they're bums? 
Sorry, but that would probably drive the crime rate WAY up.
Menlas,
Fool me once shame on....fool me once shame on you, fool me twice....uh, wait a second....
AS,
quote:
are not idiots who are bringing AIDS onto themselves. |
The ones who are having casual sex with multiple partners certainly are. I'm not paying for their ignorance.
quote:
they simply do not realize the full implications of having sex. |
So now I'm responsible for making sure everyone is aware of the full implications of their actions? Mind boggling.
quote:
What good does it do to have them die by the millions when this problem could at least partially be corrected through education... |
What good? Gosh, I dunno - that's not really the point, though. The point is that it isn't RIGHT to make me pay to fix a situation that isn't my own fault, and is, in fact, the fault of many of the people afflicted with AIDs.
quote:
Are you against AIDS education in America, Floyd? |
If I have to pay for it for other people, and have no choice in the matter, absolutely.
Sandman,
quote:
If a dictator had killed 30 million people, the world would unite to stop him. |
Obviously, I would oppose this too. I might volunteer, or I might not - but I certainly won't be forced.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:27
|
|
quote:
So only bums get caught outside on a cold winter's day? |
I never said that - the bum comment was simply an obvious hypothetical from your example. What you said is that I must give shelter, food, and clothing to people
I don't know. This is obviously dangerous, not to mention a gross violation of my rights.
quote:
Why don't we just shoot all the homeless since they may steal from the richer people in society? |
How about not, but the good news is you've touched on what the right to life actually means! Your right to life doesn't mean I have to take every possible measure to prevent your death. It simply means I can't kill you.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:27
|
|
Imran,
quote:
You do/did have a choice in the matter. You voted (or at least I hope you did). |
That's pretty silly. If a dictator were elected, who used the military to eliminate freedom, etc., etc., would it be my choice just because I voted against him?
obiwan,
quote:
Minimal. You touched on the big question, does the right to life imply a standard to basic care or does it mean the right to not be killed? I would argue that the right to life implies basic care, food and shelter alongside the right not to be killed. In this, a small loss of property realises a very great benefit in sustaining a person's life. |
Why would the right to life imply any such thing? First of all, if you grant the right to property, and also grant that my right to life can't violate your right to property, and vice versa, that position is indefensible.
Secondly, the phrase "right to life" simply states that you have a right to your own life. Would you argue that the right to property says that one MUST own property? Hopefully not - that would be a silly argument. All the right to property means is that you have the right to any property you can legitimately (morally) acquire. Similarly, the right to life simply means you have the right to your own life, not that you have the right to prolong your life at the expense of another.
And the level of expense doesn't matter. Drawing those lines are totally arbitrary, and are a personal determination one must make for themselves.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:27
|
|
quote:
Flip the situation around, DFloyd. Suppose you were outside in the cold, seeking shelter? How would you want to be done by? |
Relevance?
All you're doing is arguing for the Golden Rule. Yes, maybe it would be nice if everyone lived by it, but there is certainly no imperative written into natural law that one MUST live by the Golden Rule.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:27
|
|
quote:
It wouldn't be YOUR choice, but you DID have a choice in the matter. |
That's a pretty weak argument, Imran. You can't reasonably argue that I have a choice in what a dictator decides to do after being legitimately elected, especially if elected on false principles, and ESPECIALLY if I saw what the problem was and voted for the other guy.
You might say it's my choice to stay in the country, and you are correct - but the entire point is that I shouldn't have to move somewhere else in order to enjoy freedom.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:27
|
|
quote:
First of all, if you grant the right to property, and also grant that my right to life can't violate your right to property, and vice versa, that position is indefensible.
|
Tough.  I said that the natural rights to life, liberty and happiness can conflict long ago in this thread.
quote:
Would you argue that the right to property says that one MUST own property? Hopefully not - that would be a silly argument. All the right to property means is that you have the right to any property you can legitimately (morally) acquire. Similarly, the right to life simply means you have the right to your own life, not that you have the right to prolong your life at the expense of another.
|
You can charge a mother for neglect, if she fails to take care of her child. There are certain things required for life, food and shelter, without which, one could not have a meaningful right to life. Is there any difference between slitting the throat of your child, or leaving the child in the open to die from exposure? I would say no. This is the same reasoning with the man who comes to your door. By refusing shelter, you are leaving this man to die.
You are right in that we should not expect the right to 'prolong' life, but giving food and shelter is hardly prolonging life.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:27
|
|
obiwan,
quote:
I said that the natural rights to life, liberty and happiness can conflict long ago in this thread. |
Then you have the wrong concept of freedom.
quote:
You can charge a mother for neglect, if she fails to take care of her child. |
So? The mother voluntarily chose to become responsible for a child, through the act of birth and not giving him/her up for adoption. This isn't coercive - it's voluntary.
quote:
There are certain things required for life, food and shelter, without which, one could not have a meaningful right to life. |
Ah, so now the right has become a right to a MEANINGFUL life! Interesting.
quote:
Is there any difference between slitting the throat of your child, or leaving the child in the open to die from exposure? |
Again, the child argument is silly, because the obligation to take care of a child is voluntary, which you can withdraw from at any time through adoption.
quote:
I would say no. This is the same reasoning with the man who comes to your door. By refusing shelter, you are leaving this man to die. |
It's not the same at all. If this stranger came from your womb, you might have a point - but even then, your obligation to take care of your child ends when the child can take care of himself. Stop with the silly analogy of mother/child - it's not relevant.
quote:
You are right in that we should not expect the right to 'prolong' life, but giving food and shelter is hardly prolonging life. |
Sure it is. How is it not?
quote:
Besides, you failed to answer the question. What would you want if you were in the situation of the man in the cold? Would you agree that his right to property should take precedence over your life? |
Hopefully I would. His right to property would not be in conflict with my right to life. The fact that I am destitute, without transportation, in the cold, whatever, isn't his fault, and if it were, then yes, he would be responsible for helping me.
Imran,
quote:
No it isn't. You said you don't want to back something where you have 'no choice in the matter'. THOSE WERE YOUR WORDS! |
Now you're arguing semantics. You know good and goddamn well what I meant.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:27
|
|
quote:
I think you KNOW what you meant, and it was having 'no choice in matter' rather than 'it wasn't my choice'. For the later to be US policy, you'd have to be dictator. Anyone that believes in democratic governance (though I'm not so sure you do) would say something is invalid because he had no choice in matter, and not because it wasn't their specific choice. |
Lookit. If there are 100 people, and 99 of them want to kill me, I effectively have no choice in the matter. Likewise, in an election (assuming straight democracy) if 51% of the people want to limit or eliminate the freedom of the other 49% (or any part of that), then I, as part of the minority, effectively have no choice.
That's why I don't support democracy - it is simply majority rule. It's much better, in my opinion, to have a set of rules that even a supermajority cannot get around, and cannot change. This eliminates the possibility of my freedom being taken away by 51% of the population. If the majority still want to do something that I disagree with, they still can, as long as it doesn't violate my rights.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:27
|
|
quote:
You think just about everything someone wants to force on you is a right, |
Well, certainly. I believe in the right to life, liberty, and property, and there's not a lot one can do to me without violating one of those rights.
quote:
so you don't really believe in a democracy |
Duh. I thought this was clear.
quote:
The majority can't do anything as long as it doesn't violate whatever you think your rights are. |
What I think has nothing to do with what is absolutely true. Oh, I forgot, you take the contradictory position of not believing in absolutes.
quote:
So the country is ruled by men who own the most money and the people have no voice. |
The people have no voice? Well, they certainly have no ability to steal other people's money, if that's what you're getting at. Nothing wrong with that.
quote:
Btw, doesn't taking your money for a military force (to defend the US) violate your right to property? |
Yep, although I'm also open to the user-fee argument for a military used by Berzerker, assuming the military is entirely defensive and not capable of offensive operations outside the country, and assuming the military is not 1% stronger than necessary to maintain a minimum defense, and assuming conscription is not employed.
I'm open to hearing more about the argument, but I don't necessarily agree with it.
On the other hand, taxation for the current US military is clearly theft - it is taking my money to fund foreign wars and a huge military in an era where there is no significant conventional military threat to the US.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:27
|
|
quote:
True freedom means being a hermit and living off the land. Freedom within a society, by definition, is limited, by having to take other people into account. |
A hermit who lives off the land might indeed by truly free. However, this is not the only way one can be free. Freedom is simply the lack of coercion - one does not exercise freedom by murdering another person. Murder is a coercive act and anti-thetical to freedom. Of course you have to take other people into the account, to the degree that you can't violate their rights. This is obvious, and fits the definition of freedom easily.
quote:
What if I argue that becoming a part of society entails certain rights and responsibilities from all the members? If you don't like the society, you can leave. |
Interesting argument. Suggest a place I can go where I will be absolutely free of societal constraints, and I might say you have a point.
Of course, you don't have a point, because even if I go to Antarctica, I still won't be able to do as I please. There are international treaties to think of, you know.
But in any case, the point of government is simply to protect individual freedom, so how can joining a society run by a government (that is, a moral society/government) imply that one must give up individual liberty?
quote:
How can you have a right to life without some provision for food and shelter? |
Quite easily. Rights only involve human interactions, not interactions between you and a bear. A bear can't violate your right to life - it isn't human. And certainly the weather can't violate your rights. Thus, the need for food and shelter are natural. If you can't get them, you die of natural causes. But since your death was not caused by another human, you can't claim a right violation. It wouldn't make any sense.
quote:
Nobody can live without food and shelter of some sort. |
So what? No one can live without a kidney, either, but that doesn't mean that I'm morally compelled to donate a kidney.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:27
|
|
quote:
It's legalized theft, so you'll have to deal, non-entity |
Legalizing a violation of a natural right is impossible. The whole point of a natural right is that a law of man can't violate it.
quote:
Would you say that your government is an oligarchy or benevolent dictatorship where the 'leader(s)' make sure that no one violates other people's inherant rights? |
My ideal government is simply based around a constitution, which simply states the powers reserved to the government, as well as the functions the government MUST undertake. That is, the government MUST protect individual liberty, and cannot violate individual liberty for any reason other than retaliatory force. If I kill someone, the government retains the necessary police powers to prevent me from killing again, or stealing, or whatever.
This constitution would NOT include a provision for change - that is, the absolute limit on government intrusions on individual liberty, with the one exception of retaliatory force, would be just that, absolute, and not even 99.999% of the population could change that.
But the details aren't that relevant right now. The main point is that the government should not EVER be allowed to violate my right to life, liberty, and property, except in the case of retaliatory force.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:27
|
|
quote:
Or does that not matter as long as some basic rights are protected? |
As long as individual rights are paramount and held inviolable, the actual form of government doesn't matter to me.
quote:
There is no such thing as a natural right. |
And I suppose there is no such thing as an absolute right or wrong either, huh?
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:27.
Apolyton Time is 00:27. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
30-04-2003 21:21
|