Ethics and the U.N.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sat Mar 05, 2005 10:50 pm

Sometimes you just got to wonder why some here in America think we need to style our social model from the U.N.templet:

"UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Jeers and catcalls greeted the top U.S. delegate to a global women's conference on Friday as she stressed Washington's opposition to abortion and support for sexual abstinence and fidelity.

The loudest catcalls, unusual at the world body, came when she articulated U.S. policy on AIDS prevention for adolescents: "We emphasize the value of the ABC -- abstinence, be faithful, and correct and consistent condom use where appropriate -- approach in comprehensive strategies to combat the spread of HIV/AIDS and the promotion of abstinence as the healthiest and most responsible choice for adolescents."

http://tinyurl.com/5plss

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sat Mar 05, 2005 11:45 pm

"We emphasize the value of the ABC -- abstinence, be faithful, and correct and consistent condom use where appropriate"

way to talk out of both sides of your mouth.

People aren't going to stop having sex because someone says "don't do it"

If they can't figure that out, they're retarded. plain and simple.

Pebkac · Post by **Pebkac** » Sun Mar 06, 2005 12:10 am

Well, that's why abstinence isn't the only choice on the list. I'd say it's retarded to be throwing millions of dollars at a problem that could easily be solved for free by excercising a small measure of self control and following that advice:

A. Don't ★■◆● at all.
B. If you're gonna ★■◆●, be faithful to your partner, don't go out and ★■◆● anything with a pulse.
C. If you're gonna have multiple partners, always wear a condom/insist that your partner wear a condom.

That list as a method of combatting the spread of AIDS is not retarded at all.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sun Mar 06, 2005 1:09 am

Well you can figure out that part because you have a brain Pebkac. but I'm talking about the people who figure 'abstinence is the only thing that is allowed' do' means 'only abstinence is allowed or you're in trouble'

Mobius · Post by **Mobius** » Sun Mar 06, 2005 2:02 pm

The Whitehouse' position runs counter to every modern thought and flies in the face of all facts. Idiots.

Abstinence. Yeah Right. "Just Say No." LOL.

Now, get your heads out of the sand and see what's actually going on.

dissent · Post by **dissent** » Sun Mar 06, 2005 2:29 pm

ok, so if a group of people are driving on a road and heading for a cliff, and I tell them that it is dangerous to drive over cliffs, that makes me the idiot? Abstaining from driving over cliffs will always be the ideal for survival, but some fraction of the population will simply ignore good sense. Since when is this new. Out on the prehistoric African savanna these types were usually the easy targets for predators, thus removing them from the gene pool. Now we have no predators to winnow the chaff from the grain. If people want to engage in high risk sexual behaviors then they should expect high risk outputs. So who's got who's head in the sand (Oh, I can do this, it won't happen to me, etc.)

Yeah, idiots.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sun Mar 06, 2005 4:35 pm

having sex is not the same as driving off a cliff.

Pebkac · Post by **Pebkac** » Sun Mar 06, 2005 5:02 pm

The Whitehouse' position runs counter to every modern thought and flies in the face of all facts. Idiots.

Abstinence. Yeah Right. "Just Say No." LOL.

Now, get your heads out of the sand and see what's actually going on.

JEBUS! Can you not manage to read three lines of text before flipping out? It seems like some of you have the attention span of a fruit fly.

If you would read past the first line and not be so quick to go into monkey-throwing-feces mode, you'd see that the makers of the list realize that abstinence is probably gonna be the road less travelled. That's why there are THREE (3) items in that list, two of which deal with the more likely scenario of someone rejecting abstinence.

dissent · Post by **dissent** » Sun Mar 06, 2005 5:05 pm

Ferno wrote:having sex is not the same as driving off a cliff.

Whoa, thanks for clearing that up for me, Ferno.

Umm, in English we call this an analogy. The question is not whether you're having sex, but if you're having sex with a person who is either HIV positive or has full-blown AIDS.

I'll tell ya what; you go first.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sun Mar 06, 2005 6:09 pm

I know it was an analogy. but it was a poor one. If you're going to make one, make sure it's relevant. I'm sure you learned that in engish class too.

/digress

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Sun Mar 06, 2005 8:49 pm

FACT: The absolute best way to slow the spread of AIDS, or any other disease, is to reduce the transmission rate.

The ways to slow disease transmission are (1) reducing the number of opportunities to transmit it and (2) reducing the likelihood of it being transmitted during one of those opportunities.

Because AIDS is sexually transmitted:

(1) is easily accomplished by, simply put, not having sex with someone with AIDS (if you don't have it), or not having sex with people without it (if you do). Essentially, reducing the total number of sexual partners you have reduces the spread of AIDS. Between abstinance and faithfulness, you've got this covered...

(2) can be accomplished by consistant use of condoms. Reducing the chance you'll get AIDS from a particular encounter reduces the spread of AIDS.

The 3 policy recommendations given are *all* effective at combatting AIDS, individually. Abstainance is the most effective but the hardest sell, while condoms are the least effective and easist sell. A policy that advocates all of them, in that order, and includes education to describe *why* they're good behavioral patterns for avoiding AIDS, is the right policy to take. Dissent's analogy was entirely accurate -- warning people about getting AIDS and telling them how to minimize their risk is exactly like warning somebody there's a cliff ahead and telling them what to do to avoid it. Calling people idiots for giving warning (like Mobius did) is stupid.

The only thing in this thread that "flies in the face of facts" is Mobi's knee-jerk reaction to the mention of abstinance. He made the same mistake the UN made -- "omg, you can't argue against FREE LOVE! That's unenlightened! Quit trying to push your religion on me!" No, you trolling fool, it's not unenlightened or against modern thought to encourage safe behavior. It doesn't fly in the face of all facts to encourage people to do the safest thing possible.

Not everyone is going to take that advice; not everyone will reduce their own risk. But if *some* people take the advice, those people will be safer, and the population as a whole will be too. Even a small change in the behavior of a small number of people can have a large effect on the spread of the disease overall. (If you don't believe me, go study disease outbreak models for a quarter.)

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Mon Mar 07, 2005 8:07 am

Ferno wrote:having sex is not the same as driving off a cliff.

It is if you are having it with someone who has or is at high risk of having HIV.

Flabby Chick · Post by **Flabby Chick** » Mon Mar 07, 2005 11:02 am

Lothar wrote:FACT: The absolute best way to slow the spread of AIDS, or any other disease, is to reduce the transmission rate.

This of course is spot on, but not the issue.

I'm afraid whether ya'll like it or not the US is percieved at the moment as being a big old bully on the verge of taking the road towards theocracy and border line colonialism. When somone gets up and starts preaching the anti-abortion line similar to the "fanatics" in the States.... they get jeered.

If it was a Brit or a Kraut who made the speech i bet you the reaction would be different.

WarAdvocat · Post by **WarAdvocat** » Mon Mar 07, 2005 11:22 am

Ferno wrote:I know it was an analogy. but it was a poor one. If you're going to make one, make sure it's relevant. I'm sure you learned that in engish class too.

The analogy WAS relevant, in that it drew a parallel as follows: "If given a choice between engaging in a high-risk behavior and abstaining from such behavior, abstaining is the correct choice."

I think you're the irrelevant one fernz

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Mon Mar 07, 2005 12:01 pm

Your self-preservation mode doesn't kick in when you have sex with someone who is HIV positive, but it does kick in when you near the edge of a cliff. that's where it differs.

A better analogy would have been "Having sex with an HIV positive person is like overdosing on Cocaine"

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Mon Mar 07, 2005 12:27 pm

Ferno wrote:Your self-preservation mode doesn't kick in when you have sex with someone who is HIV positive,

Mine sure as hell would. That's why I would never do it.

WarAdvocat · Post by **WarAdvocat** » Mon Mar 07, 2005 12:44 pm

Sorry for the continued digression...

I wrote:The analogy WAS relevant, in that it drew a parallel as follows: "If given a choice between engaging in a high-risk behavior and abstaining from such behavior, abstaining is the correct choice."

I think you're the irrelevant one fernz

Allow me to paraphrase myself:

The analogy addressed the stupidity of consensually engaging in a KNOWN contra-survival behavior.

Quibbling over shades of validity is beneath you Ferno, you're intelligent to connect the dots.

As for the UN reaction, I'm horrified such behavior was aimed at someone speaking simple common sense in the halls of such an August Body. It is apparent that bias and prejudice is rampant in this worthless "world government".

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Mon Mar 07, 2005 3:37 pm

Flabby Chick wrote:
Lothar wrote:FACT: The absolute best way to slow the spread of AIDS, or any other disease, is to reduce the transmission rate.
This of course is spot on, but not the issue.
... When somone gets up and starts preaching the anti-abortion line similar to the "fanatics" in the States.... they get jeered.

I can understand the jeering about the anti-abortion line... but when the jeering gets louder when someone gives an absolutely correct AIDS prevention strategy, there's something wrong.

That's the issue being discussed in this thread. The abortion comments are not the issue -- the fact that the jeers got louder when a completely correct anti-AIDS strategy was presented is the issue. What's wrong with the UN, that they would react that way? Obviously something is wrong with their understanding of reality (and with Mobi's, which is what my comment was directed at.)

dissent · Post by **dissent** » Mon Mar 07, 2005 6:00 pm

Ferno wrote:Your self-preservation mode doesn't kick in when you have sex with someone who is HIV positive, but it does kick in when you near the edge of a cliff. that's where it differs.

A better analogy would have been "Having sex with an HIV positive person is like overdosing on Cocaine"

Ok, Ferno, so if you overdose on cocaine, you're dead.
And if you have dangerous sex and get AIDS, you're dead.
And if you drive over a cliff, you're dead.
Only difference is the time it takes.

If your self-preservation mode isn't kicking in, better have it checked and reprogrammed. The reason why this is something of an epidemic is that people simply aren't paying attention to the public health information out there. More like russian roulette.

Genghis · Post by **Genghis** » Mon Mar 07, 2005 6:46 pm

Well the 3-point prevention recommendations make perfect sense to me. I agree with them and that the reaction at the UN was inane. I further agree that the best way to avoid getting or spreading AIDS is to abstain from sex entirely.

That said, I'm going to have to continue with the topic derailment and talk about that analogy. Now, I realize that rule #1 on this board is to never admit you're wrong, and rule #19 is that it's always enjoyable to make fun of Ferno, but man, that analogy is way too facile.

It's a matter of degree. Driving off a cliff will kill you 99% of the time, and the effects are, well, immediate. Having unprotected sex with a stranger may kill you eventually, and having repeated unprotected sex with a high-risk stranger will probably kill you eventually.

So its a lot more like smoking two packs a day, habitually doing hardcore drugs, or having obscenely high colestorol. Of course the risk with AIDS is a lot higher than those examples, but it's certainly not 100% and immediate. It's somewhere in between my list and the cliff thing.

Let's face it, people aren't very good at planning ahead and they're way too impulsive. This is why people smoke, drop out of school, do drugs, eat too much, cheat on their partners, or declare bankrupcy. And I'd be surprised if most of us don't have at least a few friends who are guilty of at least one of those things.

These AIDS victims aren't all complete retards, they're just human.

...

Of course they're not rocket surgeons either. I mean, really, you're in Africa and not using a condom? Please.

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Mon Mar 07, 2005 9:11 pm

The problem with condom use as the "C" part is that HIV can be spread through ANY body fluids. That includes kissing.

btw, "AIDS" encompasses something like 28 different deseases.

dissent · Post by **dissent** » Tue Mar 08, 2005 1:02 am

Genghis wrote: but man, that analogy is way too facile. ...

Let's face it, people aren't very good at planning ahead and they're way too impulsive. ...

Of course they're not rocket surgeons either. I mean, really, you're in Africa and not using a condom? Please.

Yeah, I guess that's the point of the analogy, to try to make it simple for the folk who just don't seem to get it. It's facile to try to make it direct.

btw, what IS a "rocket surgeon"???

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Tue Mar 08, 2005 1:50 am

Duper wrote:The problem with condom use as the "C" part is that HIV can be spread through ANY body fluids. That includes kissing.

btw, "AIDS" encompasses something like 28 different deseases.

Contrary to what you've heard, the HIV virus does not spread through kissing. There may be minute quantities in saliva/sweat, but nothing near what is required to infect someone. The only transmission vectors for HIV are blood (whether transfusion or shared needle) and semen/vaginal secretions.

I also think you're confused about AIDS representing 28 different diseases. There may be different variations on the human immunodeficiency virus, but they all act in pretty much the same way: they utterly decimate your immune system. You don't actually die from HIV; you die from some other disease that your body would normally be strong enough to fight off without a problem. One of the requirements for the classification of AIDS is the presence of one of these "signature diseases," as well as a white blood cell count below a certain level.

As for the whole condom issue, putting aside any ethical/moral debates, let me pose this question to you: are you willing to trust a thin piece of rubber to prevent you from catching a 100% fatal disease? I've heard conflicting information on the actual ability of a condom to stop transmission of the AIDS virus through it; even if they were theoretically impervious to the virus, would you be willing to trust your life to an assembly-line product?

I also resent the statement that teenagers can't "keep it in their pants." True, your average slob may think with his dick before his brain, but there are a lot of teens out there with more intelligence than that. I don't understand why teaching an abstience-based program should be blamed for kids not knowing how to use a condom. Someone's telling you that promiscuous sex carries risks; you go out and do it anyway. The consequences are on your shoulders. And don't tell me that some kid determined to have sex anyway couldn't figure out how to put a condom on; that's pretty pathetic. Maybe if popular culture weren't so focused on promoting promiscuous premarital sex as a good thing, we wouldn't need to have this discussion. Your mind need not be ruled by a flood of hormones; commitment to abstinence isn't as much of an impossibility as much of the media seems to portray it as.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Tue Mar 08, 2005 2:10 am

Dissent: The reason I chose those two parts is twofold: first you feel great when you do it, but then when you realize that you've overdosed or that the person has HIV and you find out later, it's too late to do anything about it. you go into coma or you got an incurable disease. It's not like someone enjoys driving off a cliff unless they have suicidal tendencies.

I'm sure there are some people that will be up front and tell you that they are HIV positive, and to make sure you use a condom when you do the nasty, but there are some people that don't tell you they're HIV positive.

Also, there are some people that do everything correctly and remain monogamous, but their partner decides to go out to the bar, have some booze, and come home with more than just alcohol on their breath.

Duper: AIDS is the short for Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, where you become much more susceptible to other diseases, such as smallpox. It's a catalyst of sorts for other diseases which you normally would be able to fight off to take hold and wreak havoc. There was one documented case where it did get transferred via oral, but that was when they had very poor dental helath (probably bleeding gums on both sides).