AIDS expenditures and Nation States

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Archaea

hoya and homeboy are gloriously naive about why and how many nations act "altruistically".

Japan frequently acts altruistically by ensuring certain moneys are donated to purchase certain goods from Japanese suppliers.

I'm certain if I examined the donations of all countries, in all but emergency situations, that the same would be true.

Furthermore, excpet through certain private gifting channels, much of the money aimed at helpling the helpless often just end up in the hands of a despot, especially in Africa, which has some of the worst governmental systems known to humanity.

Wow. Well if nothing else, you are most certainly consistent.

[Archaea]

My experience is this: I have worked with the "altruism" arms of several countries.

I have also worked with several gay "private" "charities" which were developed ostensibly to aid AIDS victims. They were really designed to fleece pockets.

Altruism in governmental terms is one of a number chimeras. It's a mirage.

Government has fiscal responsibilities toward its taxpayers. Ours is failing miserably, and most other regimes have as well.

The Marshall Plan was ingenious, as was Douglas McArthur (sp?).

We have no glorious plan with a Endgame. Hence I oppose altruism, at the governmental level, not at the private funding level, because we have no EndGame.

There must be a plan for expenditure with some expected return by a certain date.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

hoya and homeboy are gloriously naive about why and how many nations act "altruistically".

Japan frequently acts altruistically by ensuring certain moneys are donated to purchase certain goods from Japanese suppliers.

I'm certain if I examined the donations of all countries, in all but emergency situations, that the same would be true.

Furthermore, excpet through certain private gifting channels, much of the money aimed at helpling the helpless often just end up in the hands of a despot, especially in Africa, which has some of the worst governmental systems known to humanity.

Your cynicism continues to astound me, though I find you less consistent than homeboy does.

Even assuming everything you said is true (which it most certainly is not), your statement suggests that spending in "emergency situations" is altruistic. Out of curiousity, how can you possibly consider a tsunami that kills over 290,000 an "emergency situation" worthy of receiving tax money but not accept that AIDS in Africa, which has killed millions and will kill tens of millions more, is an "emergency situation?" Does it relate to your belief that the tsunami was nobody's "fault", but that AIDS is?

How ironic that "Christian" beliefs can stand in the way of administering Christian aid.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

Your cynicism continues to astound me, though I find you less consistent than homeboy does.

Consistently cynical is what I meant.

I like you, Arch. Don't get me wrong. But you are one complex guy.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

Your cynicism continues to astound me, though I find you less consistent than homeboy does.

A tsunami is a one time singular event and creates immediate, less than ongoing, needs.

An epidemic with no cure or end in sight, and it is not the result of a singular causative event. It is not an emergency but an epidemic without singular causative event or without end. It is the result of complex social conditions, not a singular causative event with a potentially forseeable termination of assistance.

I see a very consistent distinction.

If somebody resided by a consistently erupting volcanoe then I wouldn't want to see "emergency" relief.

Even assuming everything you said is true (which it most certainly is not), your statement suggests that spending in "emergency situations" is altruistic. Out of curiousity, how can you possibly consider a tsunami that kills over 290,000 an "emergency situation" worthy of receiving tax money but not accept that AIDS in Africa, which has killed millions and will kill tens of millions more, is an "emergency situation?" Does it relate to your belief that the tsunami was nobody's "fault", but that AIDS is?

How ironic that "Christian" beliefs can stand in the way of administering Christian aid.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

A tsunami is a one time singular event and creates immediate, less than ongoing, needs.

An epidemic with no cure or end in sight, and it is not the result of a singular causative event. It is not an emergency but an epidemic without singular causative event or without end. It is the result of complex social conditions, not a singular causative event with a potentially forseeable termination of assistance.

I see a very consistent distinction.

If somebody resided by a consistently erupting volcanoe then I wouldn't want to see "emergency" relief.

Do you not see the circular nature of your argument? You don't want to put any money into finding a cure for AIDS because there is no cure in sight (which would be the direct result of not funding the search for a cure to AIDS).

Again your statements reflect an ignorance about the African continent and the AIDS epidemic. You revert to your argument that AIDS is the fault of the individuals who have it by comparing their plight to that of people who knowingly live at the base of a consistently erupting volcano. There is a clear distinction to be drawn: Most in Africa have NO IDEA how AIDS is spread and have no way of preventing the spread of AIDS in many instances. A person who decides to move to the base of a consistently erupting volcano DOES know that living on that volcano will almost certainly result in death. The propriety of assisting the person on the volcano can be debated, but comparing that person to an African with AIDS is misguided to say the least.

Oddly enough, you seem to suggest that if we had a cure to AIDS, you would classify it as an emergency (because it would then fit your criteria of something that had a clear end and a foreseeable termination of assistance). And yet, you oppose funding efforts to find a cure for AIDS.

Much like the bacteria you are named after, you are a hard person to figure out.

[Archaea]

There is no legitimate reason to throw money down a black hole. As no cure has been discovered since billions and billions have been poured down that hole. Still no cure. WE don't know if there ever will be.

When that is the case, then it's important to do it at a reasonable pace. Spend some money sure. But do it in proportion to the deaths here in the US. And reallocate those funds to cancer which kills more here.

Proportionality. We know progress is being made, great progress, in certain areas of cancer research where drastically less is spent.

It seems unreasonable to spend our limited research dollars on an epidemic outside our borders, where we have severe problems of our own.

Why should our curable cancer patients suffer because incurable African AIDS patients divert valuable funds away from research?

Intellectually, it sounds as if you're arguing based on emotion, not intellect and pragmatic results.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Why should our curable cancer patients suffer because incurable African AIDS patients divert valuable funds away from research?

Help me out here Arch. How is cancer (in general) more "curable" than AIDS. I think one could make a very strong case that we are more likely to find a vaccine for AIDS than we are to find a cure for cancer.

[Archaea]

There are many promising cures and treatments of cancer that aren't being fully funded due to AIDS research. I really don't want to go get specifics, but my family is deep into supporting cancer treatment, and it's very frustrating that much of the premium dollars are being diverted toward AIDS, especially in light of the money that could be diverted proportionally to cancer.

You have adult cancers and children's cancers. Many children's cancers are curable. Many adult cancers are not, but we are making progress.

AIDS is the result of a retro-virus, but last I looked there aren't any vaccines for retro-viruses. I don't know if they are theoretically possible.

Cancer research can also extend into diet and other causative factors which can benefit many more persons that just cancer victims.

Based on what I know, as an interested but obviously unqualified non-scientist, I would say, many cancers are more curable than AIDS.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

There is no legitimate reason to throw money down a black hole. As no cure has been discovered since billions and billions have been poured down that hole. Still no cure. WE don't know if there ever will be.

When that is the case, then it's important to do it at a reasonable pace. Spend some money sure. But do it in proportion to the deaths here in the US. And reallocate those funds to cancer which kills more here.

Proportionality. We know progress is being made, great progress, in certain areas of cancer research where drastically less is spent.

It seems unreasonable to spend our limited research dollars on an epidemic outside our borders, where we have severe problems of our own.

Why should our curable cancer patients suffer because incurable African AIDS patients divert valuable funds away from research?

Intellectually, it sounds as if you're arguing based on emotion, not intellect and pragmatic results.

Of course emotion plays a part in my analysis! How can it not when you are talking about millions of people dying! An entire generation of people lost! The difference, however, is that I am cognizant of the role emotion is playing in my analysis whereas you want to pretend that it is playing no role in yours.

What is it that makes cancer curable and AIDS not curable? Why is AIDS a research black hole but cancer is not? Do you find it ironic that this entire discussion was instigated by the possibility that a BYU professor has ALREADY FOUND the cure for AIDS???


I can't keep up with your positions on AIDS funding. You have gone from no funding, to some funding to proportional funding. It appears to me that your arguments are being strongly influenced by your belief that AIDS victims somehow deserve what they got because they presumably engaged in immoral behavior, thus your comparison to a person who lives at the base of a constantly erupting volcano.

Let me ask you this: do you favor funding the search for a cure to lung cancer? It is overwhelmingly caused by smoking. Do you favor finding a cure to diabetes? It is overwhelmingly related to obesity. Do you favor finding a cure to STD's? They are overwhelmingly related to sexual activity.

If I were a betting man, I would say that you are in favor of funding lung cancer research and diabetes, but not STD's. Could it be because you are emotionally opposed to assisting those who engage in immoral activity but not opposed to helping others who engage in "lesser" sins?