|
|
|
|
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Date: 12/9/2001 10:12:00 AM
From Authorid: 47296
Hugo, if we can identify them, by all means let's do so. How though are we gonna castrate the women? Sew them up? What about the drug users, who share needles? Maybe we could cut off their hands so they can't use a needle anymore. AIDS is a serious thing. The only way to stop AIDS though is through even more education, and through increased efforts to find a cure. <Warrior Spirit>  |
Date: 12/9/2001 10:15:00 AM
From Authorid: 10722
Quarintine all of them.  |
| Date: 12/9/2001 10:19:00 AM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 37354 Possible using a cattle brand to burn a big A on their forehead would be a better solution. Hugo |
Date: 12/9/2001 10:20:00 AM
From Authorid: 40881
OMG! lmfao..how could you say that? There are people whith aids that are on drugs and are sleeping around, but the rest of the people with aids are normal people who live normal lives and they can fall in love...they can still be safe and not spread it. Ummm let me ask you somthing...Say..you fall in love, get married and find out you have aids..so does the one you love. Well you both have it ...right? So why suffer the rest of your life castrated? My point is..MOAST people whith aids dont go around giving it to other people.  |
|
Date: 12/9/2001 10:21:00 AM
From Authorid: 10722
That may work Hugo..lol |
|
Date: 12/9/2001 10:25:00 AM
From Authorid: 15621
I do think if they have the disease it should be known to others,maybe a way of letting others know somehow? anyway,I say a funny hat the other day it said "...ahh,never mind....lol,...better not say it here  |
| Date: 12/9/2001 10:27:00 AM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 37354 What if after you are married you get mad at your spouse and go sleep with someone else? Hugo |
|
Date: 12/9/2001 10:30:00 AM
From Authorid: 40881
Sorry I had to say one more thing...Brand them? You know thats sad you think that way..I guess you have never loved someone with aids...People with aids are not cattle,or animals that hide out in dark rooms doing drugs,...they are our mothers,sisters,brothers,family,and friends. I had a best friend with aids...he's gone now but he was a beautiful person...not somkthing that should be ((Quarintined..Castrated..or branded)) |
|
Date: 12/9/2001 10:30:00 AM
From Authorid: 47296
The problem with HIV is that a person can contract it and not know it for years. Even testing in the early stages may miss it. Education is the key to all things. |
|
Date: 12/9/2001 10:32:00 AM
From Authorid: 40881
No Hugo..lmao..I was saying one of you could have it without the other knowing..even if you were tested first..it could show up months after |
Date: 12/9/2001 10:44:00 AM
From Authorid: 16845
these people have to live out their lives suffering because they KNOW that they are going to die. we've advanced in medicine YES but there is still not a cure. It would take one heartless souless person to KNOWINGLY go around trying to spread the disease.....WHY would we want to make them suffer any more? there's this girl who was in my speech class over the summer 18....a son who's not even a year old and she has aids.....think of how horribly she would have felt if she had been 'branded' it's the responsibilty of YOU to find out if your partner is infected. 9 times out of 10 I'm sure people don't ask. But it's YOUR responsibility and your PARTNERS to make sure your each aware of any diseases....not the govenrments...these people have been handed down a death sentence don't make them suffer any more....  |
|
Date: 12/9/2001 10:47:00 AM
From Authorid: 15621
Then they should leave you..LOL..what is that?..get mad at them so you go sleep with someone else..LOL.....you kill me...ok,if that happens thats hurting someone besides yourself and they should be punished |
|
Date: 12/9/2001 10:57:00 AM
From Authorid: 47296
As for my first comments, that was more tongue in cheek sarcasm. My daughter's mom, whom I divorced back in the 80s, contracted HIV in the mid 90s. On New Year's Day of this year she was placed in a hospital, and put into a drug induced coma to keep her from fighting a breathing machine that was keeping her alive. She was taken off the machine on the 4th of January, and promptly passed away. Nothing can ever describe the pain and agony that showed in her eyes. The knowing that she was going to die, that she was living on borrowed time. She attempted on several occasions to take her own life. There were scars on her wrists, she had attempted to step in front of a moving vehicle, and at one point when her system was way down, she had stayed out in a cold rain hoping to contract pneumonia and die. No one can ever place themselves in the shoes of an AIDS victim. I doubt there are any who even be willing to live one day of their life. <Warrior Spirit> |
|
Date: 12/9/2001 11:15:00 AM
From Authorid: 44850
wow, i thought this post was a joke when i first read it . . . tell me you are all not serious .... branding? castrating? okay, sure, and why stop there, lets make sure no one can legally carry a needle so they have to share a needle when taking drugs--legal or illegal--then we can get to brand everyone that does drugs.... oooopps, sorry, i forgot that was already done. Yeah, that's the ticket, like that one kid that got aids because his mother shot heroin years ago, cut him too ..... maybe, just maybe, if we brand everyone that has aids and casterate them, they will be treated like lepers, and no one will even get near them, in fact, since we casterated them, they won't reproduce and BAM! the epidemic is over . . . . what a great idea!!! puuuuhhhleazzeee ................  |
| Date: 12/9/2001 11:59:00 AM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 37354 What if they are simply resident aliens without the full rights of citizenship is it OK to brand or castrate them then? Hugo |
Date: 12/9/2001 12:04:00 PM
From Authorid: 34775
People that have Aids, can live with the disease normally just as you or I, having meaninful and fulfilling sexual relationships with partners, malke or female. I personally, would not hold that against someone, and would deal with it gladly if I happened to fall in love with someone that had the HIV virus...I think that this idea is darn near barbaric...~  |
| Date: 12/9/2001 12:14:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 37354 Why are there always new cases of this disease? Obviously many HIV positive people are giving the death sentence to others. Hugo |
|
Date: 12/9/2001 12:22:00 PM
From Authorid: 34775
Hugo, that is not essentialy true..it is up to people that are NOT HIV positive to protect themselves and be knowelegeable about the people they are sleeping with as well,,,shouldn't people take the responsibility on for themselves if they are entering a sexual relationship? They are just as full of blame as those with HIV... |
|
Date: 12/9/2001 12:24:00 PM
From Authorid: 44850
i am having a hard time following your logic . . . we should take our time and responsibility to discover those with aids then deny them civil rights, but we shouldn't take the time to know whom we are having sex with . . . ?????? |
Date: 12/9/2001 12:26:00 PM
From Authorid: 24673
My brother died of Aids, he didn't ask for it, he contracted it because back in 1987 and earlier it was pretty much an unknown disease. Through education, the spread of it has diminished quite a bit; but we do need further education and research--we need a cure. I've read that it is spreading in Europe.*****bye  |
| Date: 12/9/2001 12:26:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 37354 I do not believe people should receive the death sentence for one act of irresponsibility. You are responsible for your safety when you are driving on a mountainous road, they still often have warning signs such as DANGEROUS CURVES AHEAD. Branding foreheads would be accomplishing the same goal. Hugo |
| Date: 12/9/2001 12:28:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 37354 I will bet many of those with HIV today wish the person they acquired the virus from had been branded. Hugo |
Date: 12/9/2001 12:39:00 PM
From Authorid: 34078
First you'd have to test everybody.  |
Date: 12/9/2001 12:54:00 PM
From Authorid: 33088
OH MY GOD, Hugo!!! How do you castrate a baby? How about a female baby? Why would you castrate someone who got AIDS from FACTOR 8, used to treat their hemophilia? How 'bout a housewife who got it from a pint of blood during her child's birth? You'd brand her on the forehead???? What about castrating the firefighter who got AIDS from rescuing an AIDS victim from a fire or car accident? You can get IADS from your dentist's drill, Hugo. Surely if such a fate befell you, you would want ME to defend your right to NOT be branded or castrated! There are always new cases of this disease because it has up to a 20 YEAR incubation period, not because people are irresponsibly running around having risky sex! Want me to send you some scientific literature Hugo?  |
| Date: 12/9/2001 1:33:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 37354 It would be a long war but I think if we instituted branding and castration now along with allowing forced blood tests of those dubbed at high risk within 50 years AIDS could be obliterated. Would not the saving of many lives and ending this terrible disease be worth inconvienancing the current HIV positive individuals? Hugo |
| Date: 12/9/2001 1:37:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 37354 If my dentist had an A branded on his forehead I would not use him. This would go a long way toward preventing AIDs contraction from this method. If you are speaking of cross contamination from improperly sterilized medical devices I am sure if a dentist saw patients coming through with an A branded on their forehead he would be more aware of the importance of proper sterilization. Hugo |
|
Date: 12/9/2001 2:46:00 PM
From Authorid: 40881
I was going to say somthing..but then I looked at your profile..and your under 13..so lmfao..*shakes head* nevermind.. |
| Date: 12/9/2001 2:50:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 37354 Actually I am 43 so go ahead and say it. I just have not filled out a profile. Hugo |
| Date: 12/9/2001 2:51:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 37354 The fact is we could possibly save hundreds of thousands of lives by taking the right steps now. Hugo |
| Date: 12/9/2001 2:55:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 37354 Actually, Amaranth, you would wait until the baby is a few months old where the surgery would be low risk. Though the more I think about this the more I believe branding alone might be all that is neccesary. Hugo |
| Date: 12/9/2001 3:08:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 37354 I cannot believe everybody here does not believe we should not brand a simple A about 2" high on someones forehead in order to save hudreds of thousands of lives. Hugo |
| Date: 12/9/2001 3:10:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 37354 I see Daijha that you are under 30 so I will be easy on you. Hugo |
Date: 12/9/2001 3:14:00 PM
From Authorid: 46704
There are very few people who would knowingly give someone HIV. Most people don't even know they have it until they get sick years down the road. Branding them is completely inhumane, people who have AIDS have the right to live the rest of thier life, without others being afraid of them. As far as required testing, yes I do agree with that people who are positive need to know so they won't spread the disease any further. Cloudfire  |
| Date: 12/9/2001 3:22:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 37354 Branding only takes three or 4 seconds. The forehead could be numbed before the branding if the humaneness of the branding is an issue. It is clear there will never be a cure and we need to take drastic actions now. The humane thing to do is eliminate this disease, branding seems a viable option. Hugo |
|
Date: 12/9/2001 3:55:00 PM
From Authorid: 34078
How about a tattoo instead of a brand? |
|
Date: 12/9/2001 4:39:00 PM
From Authorid: 47296
Why not put a 666 there while we are at it. What you are talking about is a liscense to discriminate. There is enough of that already. What's a little more discrimination. <Warrior Spirit> |
|
Date: 12/9/2001 5:44:00 PM
From Authorid: 34078
Or they could put 777 on their forehead. That way anybody seeing them would feel lucky to stay away. |
| Date: 12/9/2001 6:19:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 37354 A brand is neccesary. A tattoo is removable. The uglier the brand the better. It will be a greater deterrant to the young who believe they are immortal. Sickness and death does not scare them, but ugly does. We are talking about saving lives here.Hugo |
| Date: 12/9/2001 6:30:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 37354 The thought of putting a 666 is horrible. That is a cruel and insensitive idea. Hugo |
| Date: 12/9/2001 6:56:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 37354 I think one single A branded on the forehead is enough to be both a warning and deterrent to others. I do not see any extra benefit to additional numbers or letters. I think you two are forgetting these are human beings we are talking about here. Hugo |
|
Date: 12/9/2001 7:30:00 PM
From Authorid: 47296
Branding anyone with anything because of a terminal illness that they may not even be responsible for is the same as putting a gun to their heads and pulling the trigger. I have watched two people die of AIDS, and know of a third who will probably be dead within the year. All of them were involved in what could be deemed as normal heterosexual relationships with people who were unaware of their own exposure to HIV. The person who it is believed exposed one of my cousins to HIV has as of yet to show any sign at all of the disease. Do you brand them as a potential carrier? This thread has become what I feel is a kneejerk reaction to a serious situation, or someone's sick idea of a joke. Regardless, I am finished with this thread. <Warrior Spirit> |
| Date: 12/9/2001 7:43:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 37354 Boy, he sure was a sensitive guy. Hugo |
Date: 12/9/2001 11:10:00 PM
From Authorid: 47218
hm, I think that such would violate the constitution, would be an offense to reason and compassion, and would, above all, be extremely unethical. We might just as well make them wear a star.  |
Date: 12/10/2001 12:51:00 AM
From Authorid: 38474
What a PROFOUND thought, LOL. And should we brand a 2 inch "T" on every Muslim because they might be a terrorist? Terrorism also kills, 9/11 will attest to that, as well as the continuing attacks between Isreal and Palestine. The idea of branding also reminds me of Hitler's concentration camps, the star of David was also used as a brand, that little bit of branding wiped out nearly 6 million Jews. Or do you remember the Scarlet Letter, where the puritans decided to brand whomever they saw as amoral? Sorry but castrating and branding someone is an infringement upon their individual rights. That person is a living, breathing feeling human being just like you and me. Although they may be already be dying that gives us NO right to kill their hope and spirit. I would always thought you of all people would be totally against this, as it is an infringement upon an individual's rights. I always thought you rebuked the "for the greater good" theory. I never pictured you agreeing with a utilitarianism ideal. Hugo I wasn't even going to respond to this, honestly I wasn't but I just couldn't stop myself, I just do not agree with it but that is JMHO.............  |
|
Date: 12/10/2001 2:05:00 AM
From Authorid: 38474
"I would always thought you of all people would be totally against this, as it is an infringement upon an individual's rights." Sorry should have been "I always thought you of all people would be totally against this, as it is an infringement upon an individual's rights." Kinda tired it is 5:10 am here and I am not typing to the best of my ability............. |
| Date: 12/10/2001 8:01:00 AM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 37354 Racquie, You got my point. The point is that we have to be careful about repressing individual freedoms using the excuse it is protecting lives. Individuals or unanimously, and rightfully so, against the idea of branding HIV sufferers, but seem to be much more open to not allowing SUSPECTED terrorist basic Constitutional rights. I think it may have something to do with people knowing more HIV sufferers than AIDS victims. You are correct I would be the last to agree with the proposal of branding or castrating. I took a devil's advocate position. The fact is branding might save lives at a cost that is too high. Same with certain laws now proposed or enacted to combat terrorism. Hugo |
Date: 12/10/2001 9:19:00 AM
From Authorid: 33817
It's hard to believe how many people are so ignorant of you're unique brand of humor and continued to argue as though you were serious. It is a good way to keep a conversation going though, isn't it? I always thought you should have made bedwetters in school wear signs so you knew who NOT to invite to your sleepovers...  |
| Date: 12/10/2001 9:43:00 AM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 37354 It is kind of like the Phil Henry show, Power One. If they have that on radio where you live you should listen to it.I think you would like it. Hugo |
Date: 12/10/2001 10:19:00 AM
From Authorid: 33817
No Phil Henry show that I know of and I can't seem to find any info on the net. Oh well, Im probably just not looking hard enough. The best part about this whole post is how RIGHT all your arguments were!!! As offensive and mean as the content itself was, you backed up your points with facts and your usual dose of Ghoombonian wit.  |
|
Date: 12/10/2001 10:19:00 AM
From Authorid: 33817
No Phil Henry show that I know of and I can't seem to find any info on the net. Oh well, Im probably just not looking hard enough. The best part about this whole post is how RIGHT all your arguments were!!! As offensive and mean as the content itself was, you backed up your points with facts and your usual dose of Ghoombonian wit. |
|
Date: 12/10/2001 10:20:00 AM
From Authorid: 33817
I wanted to give a "Great" rating, but missed the radio button, so I just went and hit it and hit submit again. Im such a goon. |
|
Date: 12/10/2001 11:27:00 AM
From Authorid: 47218
aw, I knew you were playing devil's advocate. I don't think that there's a sane person on this planet that would believe that the recommendation to brand people with a *cattle prod* would come across as an acceptable prospect to other people. The absurdity of that aside, I thought you were doing it just to get under people's skins and create controversy, not to make a point. And I agree with the point you're making. We shouldn't brand HIV carriers, we shouldn't brand muslims, we shouldn't round up citizens and residents of this country during a time a war, divest them of all their property and force them to live in prison just because they happen to be from the country that we're fighting the war against. No initiative for public safety should come at the expense of the individual freedoms which we hold so dear, for which this country was founded. Thus concluded our founding fathers: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." They really had something there, and we should strive to preserve it. If one person's liberty and happiness are compromised, then we have given our government free reign to do as it will. Your and my freedom will probably be next. |
Date: 12/10/2001 1:15:00 PM
From Authorid: 23796
You need to become more educated on AIDs and how individuals become infected with aids. This is very narrow minded post, but you have a right to your opinion as we all do.  |
| Date: 12/10/2001 3:47:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 37354 You do not believe branding would save lives Shadow? Hugo |
|
Date: 12/10/2001 6:32:00 PM
From Authorid: 33817
It continues... |
|
Date: 12/10/2001 6:34:00 PM
From Authorid: 33817
I actually have to disagree here with mollycat. I think there are hundreds of thousands, if not MILLIONS of sane sapient beings on this planet who see branding as a valid and honestly, effective methods of singling out individuals for certain (usually criminal) activities or characteristics. Not to lessen your overall morally thingamabob you were talking about there. |
|
Date: 12/10/2001 7:52:00 PM
From Authorid: 47218
with a cattle prod? Thus equating people with cattle? uh-huh. "sane" is the keyword here. |
|
Date: 12/11/2001 6:37:00 AM
From Authorid: 33817
No, molly, i don't think "sane" is the right term. There are, like I just mentioned, legions of "sane" people, who just don't happen to come from the same upstanding breeding that you do, who support the idea of branding. I think you're looking for "civilized" or something along those lines. And besides, you brand with a brand, not a cattle prod. Those are to make them mooooo-ve!! heheheh |
| Date: 12/11/2001 8:35:00 AM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 37354 Cattle prod. Yes, no need to use a cattle prod. What a horrible idea. Hugo |
|
Date: 12/11/2001 10:12:00 AM
From Authorid: 47218
sorry-- you're right...cattle brand. (you can tell I didn't crow up on a ranch, lol) Okay, the point is-- let's say you are a reasonably intelligent person in possession of all your sensibilities. You want to convince other people that branding is a reasonable idea. You could suggest that it would be a relatively painless and sanitized process, done in an office setting with special equipment especially designed to make the procedure painless and hygenic, afterall, it's not all that bad, people have themselves branded as a form of bodyart nowadays, right? So you're reader is thinking, "hey, that part of it doesn't sound so bad." But no, you suggest we do it with a cattle brand-- thus leading your reader to make the worst of all connections-- to forcefully brand people is to treat them like cattle-- and subsequently alienating the majority of them. I'm just saying that a person that would argue this way is either foolish, crazed, or not really trying to persuade people to his view point. I gave Hugo the benefit of the doubt with the latter of the three. |
Date: 12/11/2001 3:50:00 PM
From Authorid: 12341
I won't touch the branding of HIV positive people question with a ten foot pole, don't really like the idea too much. (ouch), But on the other hand after seeing all the self-mutalation that I have seen it just might catch on with a vengence, hey, people stick nails(at least it looks like nails) threw their eyebrows, nose holes, ears and mutilate practically every orifice they have, (As a nurse, I have some gruesome stories I could share), but back to HIV positive, I don't think this is the answer, although I think I know where you are coming from with this post and it most probably isn't what bothers me most about HIV positive's spreading this virus. In my state, my county has the highest HIV rate of the whole state, many are in high schools, numbers are growing all the time, not decreasing, most of the patients I deal with worry about pregnacy and STD'S, their minds won't allow the possibility that anything worse can and will happen when they pull their pants down so fast with people they don't know. Warrior Spirit gave a real good description of someone dying of AIDS related illness, partcularly pneumonia, they keep getting it until it gets them, they struggle to breath with lungs that are more like giant sponges filled with fluid. Watching someone die like this is horrendous, their entire body is struggeling to breath and they suffer even being on a respirator, only thing to do is paralize them with drugs which helps them breath easier. At some point the family gives up and the respirator is unplugged, and the patient dies. Sorry for the gruesomeness, but this is one reason I could never work in that type of caregiving again, I prefer to work with patients who live with diseases that can be treated and cured, sounds sorry a**ed maybe, but I couldn't take all the dying day after day, (time to quit)  |
Date: 12/11/2001 8:28:00 PM
From Authorid: 17525
Oh yes! But how will we distinguish those who did not acquire the disease from sex from those who indulge in injection drugs? Hmmm maybe a small "i" for injected. Yeah, but we shouldn't stop there, all hepatitis victims should have an "H" on their heads. Oh and if you have a cold, a temporary "C" should be placed in full view somewhere on your body for all to see and know to avoid you like the plague you carry. Alcoholics might need a "bottle" tatoo somewhere visible so we know when NOT to give them money on the street corner. I see this as society's answer to all it's ills. Brand people! Ahh, yes, I can imagine the compassion and good will it will foster in humanity. I can see donations to medical research sky-rocketing too. Wow, what a profound solution. This is the best one I've heard in a long time. I seem to remember Hitler trying this method with Jews and homosexuals. It worked for him. Why not? |
|
Date: 12/11/2001 8:31:00 PM
From Authorid: 17525
I'm sorry hugo, I didn't read all your replies. Your irony here is well taken as you can tell from my reply. Good work! |
|
Date: 12/11/2001 8:50:00 PM
From Authorid: 34078
Phil Hendrie show link http://www.philhendrieshow.com/ |
|
Date: 12/12/2001 10:13:00 AM
From Authorid: 33817
So where's the line for the "bottle" tattoos? |
| Date: 12/12/2001 11:34:00 AM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 37354 Thanks, Perky. Guess I had the last name wrong. Hugo |
| Date: 12/12/2001 12:47:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 37354 The point of the post is that, as Racquie recognized, utilitarianism, briefly defined as the greatest good for the greatest number, can be used to justify all kinds of atrocities. The latest terrorism laws are an example of utilitarianism, so are drug and open container laws. Hugo |
|
Date: 12/12/2001 1:04:00 PM
From Authorid: 33817
Drug laws are the WORST!! Do you know how many idiots would have killed themselves by now if drugs were legal? The population control possiblities ALONE are enough of a driving factor to abolish the laws. Let ALONE the saving on incarcerating "drug offenders". "Sorry, didn't realize I couldn't CHEW ON THAT BUSH or LIGHT THOSE LEAVES ON FIRE. I'm SO SORRY!!!" |
|
Date: 12/12/2001 1:13:00 PM
From Authorid: 47218
I gotta disagree with you Hugo-- some public safety laws are GOOD, people are prone to do stupid, crazy stuff and I'm glad that there is a system in place to keep them in check. We live as a society, not as islands onto ourselves, and there is a compromise implicit in this arrangement-- some freedoms we have to do without-- such as the freedom to behave in a manner that would put other people's lives at risk. I'm personally glad that if some bone-headed maniac wants to operate a potentially deadly machine under the influence of a mind-altering substance that there are laws in place that allow authorities to take him/her off the road and to give him/her something to think twice about before he/she goes through with such a thing. I simply disagree with laws that target and persecute a specific population of people (other than law-breakers) and laws that violate constitutionally-protected rights. |
| Date: 12/12/2001 1:24:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 37354 If you wish to penalize reckless driving, then penalize reckless driving. Do not makes laws penalizing actions that MIGHT lead to reckless driving. Hugo |
|
Date: 12/12/2001 1:50:00 PM
From Authorid: 47218
given that even a small amount of alcohol can substantially impair your cognitive abilities, I think that having "miller time" in your car is pretty reckless. |
|
Date: 12/12/2001 2:23:00 PM
From Authorid: 33817
Having an open container isn't having "Miller time" in your car. Besides, just a small amount of "stupid" can cause accidents, but we throw people in jail for being stupid. Hey, I just got an idea for another post... |
|
Date: 12/12/2001 4:02:00 PM
From Authorid: 47218
exactly-- many people are poor enough drivers as it is, they don't need anything further to hinder their abilities. And, if you're not drinking it, what's it doing there open? Do you normally keep an open, full container of beverage in your car that you never drink out of? |
| Date: 12/12/2001 4:43:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 37354 The fact is it is legal to drive after consumption of moderate amounts of alcohol. The fact that someone drinks a beer on his way home after a long day at work does not make him a dangerous driver. It is the same philosophy behind open container laws as exists with the branding AIDs victims proposal. Hugo |
|
Date: 12/12/2001 6:48:00 PM
From Authorid: 47218
Just because you're not legally intoxicated doesn't mean your ability to drive isn't impaired. Saw it in my boyfriend's drivers safety video-- even a slight increase in your b.a.l. can decrease your reaction time by an alarming amount. Rule of thumb for defensive driving- you need the highest level of awareness possible at all times for your own personal safety and for the safety of those around you.You really shouldn't drink at all, but if you do than you need to allow an hour between each drink, before you drive, which you certainly can't do if you are drinking *while* you're driving. So yeah, having a brewsky while you're on the road is dangerous and it shouldn't be allowed. Come to think of it, there are similar bans on drinking and operating heavy machinery other places that we wouldn't question-- can you imagine being on a ride at a amusement park and seeing the ride operator chugging down a beer? Would you think to yourself, "oh its okay, I'm sure he's not *legally* intoxicated." Or getting onto a plane and seeing the flight crew in the cockpit having a round cocktails? Or how 'bout if the pilot kept a bottle of, say, whiskey open under his seat but then told you, "Oh, don't worry about it, I'm not drinking it now." Would you find that acceptable? Certainly we respect the risks of operating heavy machinery in these situation, why don't we afford the same respect to automobiles? |
| Date: 12/12/2001 7:00:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 37354 So should parking lots in bars be allowed? Should HIV positive people be allowed to have sex? Hugo |
| Date: 12/12/2001 7:04:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 37354 I see a lot of people who come out of a bar and then wait in the parking lot 1 or 2 or 3 hours until all the alcohol is out of their system. Don't you? Hugo |
|
Date: 12/12/2001 8:11:00 PM
From Authorid: 47218
Yes, many people wait for the alcohol to wear off before they drive. That's what they should do. Good for them. And, the amount of time that they need to allow really depends on how much they've had to drink. 2-3 hours could still not be enough.Like I said, the guideline is one drink per hour. As for parking lots in bars-- it's rather nice to have a place for the designated drivers to park and for people to keep their cars until the booze wear off. Otherwise, they could just as well park somewhere else. In fact, many bars don't actually have parking lots. What's your point? And sure, HIV positive people should be allowed to have sex, as long as the other person is aware that they're HIV positive. How we would regulate that, I don't know...if it really seems to be enough of a problem to warrant regulation, I suppose we could make people sign contracts, e.g.: "On this day, the (blank) of (blank), 200_ I declare that (blank, blank) has fully disclosed to me his status as HIV positive, and I thereby I relenquish the rights to any claim of liability against this person should sexual relations commence between us, that I am fully aware of the risks thereof, that I am in full possession of my senses on this day and was not coerced into signing this contract by anyone in or outside of the mafia, blah blah...lawyerly mumbo-jumbo...(signature) (witness's signature) *notary seal*,etc. |
| Date: 12/13/2001 8:20:00 AM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 37354 You are living in a fantasy world if you believe for one moment a significant number of those drinking in bars have a designated driver or wait until the effects of alcohol wear off before driving.Wear I live all bars have parking lots.The point is limiting individual freedom based on the concept that an action MIGHT be harmful to others is a prescription for tyranny. Hugo |
|
Date: 12/13/2001 9:17:00 AM
From Authorid: 47218
Didn't you just say, "I see a lot of people who come out of a bar and then wait in the parking lot 1 and 2 and 3 hours until the alcohol wears off" ? And now you're saying that they don't. I mean, I really don't know one way or the other, I'd be happy to see if I could drag up some statistics for you, but really, the fact that people committ one illegal, dangerous action in one place doesn't excuse another one. Yes, drinking in your car is a risk-- even just one drink can double your response time, alcohol impairs your ability to drive, and I betcha that the type of person that would travel with a drink in hand isn't the type of person that would just sip on it. It's not that it *might* harmful, it is harmful and it's not just your life that you're putting at risk, it's other people's as well. It just happens that requiring people not to drive while they're taking a drink is an easy thing to regulate and deter. Whether people are completely sober before they get on the road isn't so easy to monitor-- short of giving everyone a breathalizer test-- which is forbidden by the constitution-- or banning alcohol altogether, which I think, as we discovered from the abolition, would be impossible. And if you took the parking lots out, people'd just find another place to park-- they sure do in this city. Operating a vehicle is considered a privelege in this country, not a right, and when they grant you that liscence you are agreeing to abide by their rules- one of which happens to be not to drive with a drink in hand- or risk having that privelege taken away from you. |
Date: 12/13/2001 9:20:00 AM
From Authorid: 25828
LOL i haven't read all the comments but i agree that most drinker DON'T have a driver..and most bars don't care...i know someone that got drunk at a bar, couldn't stand up to walk out, they made him leave cause he was starting to pass out, while driving home, he hit a backhoe in the road..almost died...NOW..to the aids issue...i think they should either be kept in areas where others have aids, or brand with an A on the forehead, good idea there. yes, something should be done, some crazies try to infect as many as possible, we've seen this on the news...so - no to castration, they should be able to have sex with other aids victims...but yes to a BRAND that never goes away 8-)  |
|
Date: 12/13/2001 9:21:00 AM
From Authorid: 25828
LOL @ this topic,,,hey will you come to my debate if i put one up about selective breeding? hehe...i've always been pro selective breeding, not all of the gene pool needs to be recycled *-) |
| Date: 12/13/2001 9:34:00 AM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 37354 The initial reply that I see individuals waiting outside bars to sober up before they go home was sarcasm. Your utilitarian philosophy leads to tyranny.Reckless behavior should be punished not actions that just MIGHT lead to them. Heather, I am against selective breeding. I am also against social welfare programs which propagate survival of the unfittest. Hugo |
|
Date: 12/13/2001 9:50:00 AM
From Authorid: 33817
Im all for selective breeding. I'd like to populate the entire planet with my demon spawn. Where's the post, Heather? |
|
Date: 12/13/2001 12:01:00 PM
From Authorid: 47218
well, I looked up some statistics. It seems that, in a poll of drivers between the ages of 16 and 60, only 23% of drivers indicated that they had driven within 2 hours of alcohol consumption. A high amount, perhaps, but this does show that many, or rather most, people do wait before they drive. Anyhow, drinking while you are operating a vehicle IS reckless behavior and it should be regulated. And how does requiring people to spare the drinking until they're off the road lead to tyranny? I think this is quite a stretch, don't you? There are many laws that dictate proper behavior, such as prohibitions against murder and theft. Does this mean that, in regulating these things, our government is exercising absolute power over us? As for the utilitarian thing-- you seem to believe that utilitarianism is the benchmark of absolute evil. If the philosophy of utilitarianism is that a law or action is good if it does the most good for the most number of people-- then aren't most laws utilitarian in nature? If utilitarianism is absolutely wrong, does that mean that any law that protects the most number of people is wrong? Should we limit ourselves to laws that protect only the smallest number of people? |
| Date: 12/13/2001 12:20:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 37354 Laws against murder and theft are laws against actions thay inherently harm others. Consumption of alcoholwhile driving is not reckless behavior. The federal government defines intoxicated driving at .08. Consuming a drink ao the way home will not put you above that limit. 23% is a substantial number. I believe that only 12% of the population is black. We could reinstitute slavery under your philosophy. Hugo |
|
Date: 12/13/2001 12:32:00 PM
From Authorid: 47218
As I've said before, just because the government sets the "legal" level of intoxication at .08%, that does not mean that having a lower b.a.c. does not impair your driving. As I've emphasized several times now, consuming just one drink can double your reaction time. There is no such thing as "safely" driving and drinking, any amount of alcohol that you consume impairs your ability, puts other people's lives at risk, and it is therefore reckless to drink while you are operating a vehicle. I am afraid I can't follow your reasoning on how regulating alcohol use in vehicles leads to slavery. You'll have to guide me along that slope. |
|
Date: 12/13/2001 12:32:00 PM
From Authorid: 25828
LOL power one...8-) and hugo, i guess cutting off social welfare would lead to selective breeding, but it still takes decades for them to die off on their own. one day i think we'll face some issue like this, when we become too populated...one day something will be done, whether we like it or not, methinks. (yes, too much control by the govt at times) |
| Date: 12/13/2001 1:13:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 37354 I follow a libertarian philosophy. Individual freedom should reign supreme and restrictions on those freedoms should be restricted to actions that are INHERENTLY harmful to others.You espouse tyranny of the majority. Under your reaction time scenario we could outlaw all older drivers for having slow reaction times. You have no right to impose your beliefs on others. Hugo |
| Date: 12/13/2001 6:07:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 37354 Do you not believe all sexual activity by HIV positive individuals carries risk to his or her partner. Therefore all HIV infected persons should be prohibited from having sex. Hugo |
|
Date: 12/15/2001 1:30:00 PM
From Authorid: 38474
So you think drinking and driving should NOT be punished more severely than a reckless op??? I feel that ANYONE AND EVERYONE who gets DRUNK and then proceeds to drive and jeopardize others because they simply cannot CONTROL themselves long enough to sit at the bar and sober up should be punished as severely as the law will allow. It is more than reckless driving. Recklessly = indifferent= when a person is indifferent to their conduct and consequences to it. Knowingly = PROBABLY = WHEN A PERSON IS AWARE THAT HIS CONDUCT WILL PROBABLY CAUSE A CERTAIN RESULT. I am sure you know the statistics that alcohol plays in traffic accidents. I am sure you will agree that a person under the influence of alcohol or drugs has a MUCH higher probability of being involved in an accident than a person who is not under the influence. I HATE DRUNK DRIVERS and I ARREST THEM, NO MATTER WHO THEY ARE. I arrested the brother of the mayor for DUI, and yes I still have my job. Although it was kinda uncomfortable for a little while. There is NO excuse for a person not being able to control themselves long enough to make it home before they pop open a can of Bud Light. I really pity anyone who feels alcohol is THAT important, ummm can you say ALCOHOLIC???? JMHO........... |
|
Date: 12/15/2001 1:46:00 PM
From Authorid: 38474
And I am proud to say that due to the diligence of our local police depts, sheriffs dept, and our state highway patrol, there have been ONLY 4 FATALITIES in our county to date this year DUE TO DRINKING AND DRIVING. There were 7 fatalities last year because of alcohol related crashes. Hopefully there will be NONE next year. We post the numbers on a board outside our local state highway patrol post so everyone will see we are cracking down hard on drunk drivers. THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR DRINKING AND DRIVING.............. |
| Date: 12/15/2001 1:59:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 37354 Drunk driving is a subset of reckless driving. There are levels of alcohol that the law admits are acceptable for one who is driving. I believe most drunk drivers that are pulled over are pulled over because they are driving recklessly. If I had a loved one killed by a reckless driver I do not think I would care if the SOB was sober or not. A wide range of punishment for reckless driving would be the best way to handle the problem of reckless driving. I have occassionally pulled in an bought a single beer before facing rush hour traffic. Many others do the same without endangering anyone. Those who have enough alcohol it causes them to drive recklessly can be punished just as severely under a reckless driving law, without punishing responsible adults who might wish to consume an alcoholic beverage while driving. Hugo |
| Date: 12/15/2001 2:02:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 37354 Racquie, I am sure you arrest them no matter who they are. The courts convict disproportionately those without the funds for adequate legal counsel. Hugo |
|
Date: 12/19/2001 2:08:00 PM
From Authorid: 38474
Hugo, I do have to agree with your statement about some of our "courts." Here's a little story that happened a few years back. My husband's uncle ran our county LAPP program, basically if you were convicted of any drug/alcohol offense you were required to attend LAPP. Uncle *Harry* was a total alcoholic himself and one night he got drunk and wrecked the LAPP van. He totaled it. He got away with it. He "resigned" his job but he was only charged with a reckless op. JUST NOT RIGHT.............. |
|
Date: 12/19/2001 9:37:00 PM
From Authorid: 34078
I agree with libertarians. |
Date: 12/26/2001 7:20:00 AM
From Authorid: 28363
Obviously a good debate post must start with a nice *unpolitically correct* opening statement, so I will bypass that part (lol) -- I think that just like the cure for cancer, the cure for aids has been turned into just another for-profit corporation by the AMA to line their pockets. There will only be bandaids and expensive symptom treatments available, as long as the medical community (in the upper echelons) continue this practice.  |
| Date: 12/26/2001 8:22:00 AM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 37354 Controversial titles do seem to get more responses. Hugo |
Date: 1/22/2002 12:04:00 PM
From Authorid: 7152
This might be one topic you and I agree on. You want to get rid of Aids? Wear condoms! End of story.  |
Date: 1/23/2002 11:57:00 PM
From Authorid: 9130
why not just kill them all?  |
Date: 1/24/2002 12:15:00 AM
From Authorid: 27554
lol- Funny post. No I don't think that we should do that.  |
Date: 3/2/2002 12:56:00 PM
From Authorid: 26321
AIDS was supposed to curb all this recreational sex , but i guess it did not work . What a shame . Raz aka  |
Renasoft is the proud sponsor of the Unsolved Mystery Publications website.
See: www.rensoft.com Personal Site server, Power to build Personal Web Sites and Personal Web Pages
All stories are copyright protected and may not be reproduced in any form, except by specific written authorization
