Ah crap! I forgot to login. That's me up there. ^

Anonymous wrote:You have just completley missed my point.

If everyone in Africa dies this very instant, quite a few million lives are lost. I AKNOWLEDGE THAT THIS IS UNFORTUNATE, but it is for the greater good. However, If Africans continue to live and reproduce children with AIDS, they are creating misery for others, namely, their own children. Those children grow up and create more AIDS infected children who will live barely enough to reproduce and they will die miserable deaths. This horrible cycle will continue unless one of two things happen.

A) All Africans cease to have sex, which is unfeasable.

B) All of them are eliminated by artificial means.

Although this is very drastic action, this action must be taken to prevent suffering of future generations. I am essentially saying what I have said before in my previous posts. Read before you reply, jackass. Or is it that you cannot understand paragraphs? I'll bring it down to a simpler level.

If things are left the way they are: AIDS problem continues, infinite death and suffering for future generations

If my plan is enacted: Very many initial deaths, but problem is immediatley solved.

In time, the death toll if things are left the way they are will surpass Africa's current population. My plan is perfectly logical for this reason.

Another fortunate side effect of my plan would be the elimination of uneducated masses. Once they are eliminated, educated people can populate the area and live in hapiness. THIS IS NOT, I REPEAT, THIS IS NOT WHY THEY SHOULD DIE IN THE FIRST PLACE, IT IS NOT A GOOD ENOUGH REASON. The AIDS problem is why my plan should be enacted, I'm simply pointing out that this is a good side effect. I hope I've made things a bit clearer.

I notice 'African' has now become synonymous with 'HIV positive individual' in your post. Interesting.

Ah, so millions of Africans dying is a good thing then? I mean, their only poor people abandoned by corrupt or poverty stricken governments, why not let them go and bring in the educated white man, eh?

Let's not try and help or educate them, oh no - after all, they're sub-human, not as good. Let's abandon them to die.

Nice plan - next time you call someone a jackass, try looking in the mirror. Imagine it's your life that you're tossing away like a discarded piece of paper.

What are you impying now, that I'm a racist?

Very many Africans are HIV positive. 1 in 3 are in some countries. The epidemic is spreading so fast that inevidably more than 3/4 of them will have it by 2015.

I am not a f#####g racist. I am not implying that they are idiots by nature, but because of their situation, it would be IMPOSSIBLE to educate all of them given the funds that governments are willing to put out.

I'm not gonna lie. If it was my life, I would protest and no doubt be angry. But that's the way things go.

AND FOR THE LAST f#####g TIME IT'S BY NO MEANS A 'GOOD' THING, BUT IT IS NECCISARY! I EVEN PUT IT IN ALL CAPS AT THE BEGINNING OF MY POST! CAN YOU READ?!?!

And this is why you were denied access to the lunatic fringe bar and grill.

I'm sorry, but when people start accusing me without good reason I get irked a bit.

And how the heck did you find out about that?

It's not 'necessary', it's not logical, and it's certainly not a solution.

And yes, you do sound like a racist; I don't use the term because I won't use it lightly, but it's hard not to draw the connotation when you're happily advocating letting millions of people die, simply because it would cost money to help them, and then directly only applying your 'solution' to Africa. To me, that sounds pretty racist or at least prejudiced in nature; particularly the implication that these people are effectively too difficult to educate. That somehow they're not worth the money, or the effort, that the rest of the world presumably is.

What if the solution to all epidemics was to let the sufferes die because it required a bit of effort to help them? Where would that lead us as a race?

MRSA, the hospital 'superbug' is often cause by lax hygiene on contracted hospital cleaners. That means it takes a bit more money to hire and train cleaning staff. But we don't need to do that, by your reckoning, because MRSA will perform a nice bit of eugenics in cleaning up the weak of society whilst they are in hospital.

And as far as being a solution.... well, killing off all humanity would probably solve it, so why not advocate that? Not to mention that HIV/AIDS exists across the world; even if you could somehow 'cleanse' Africa of it (and a few billion people - but hey, they're poor! Who cares so long as it saves me a few quid of tax?), there'd be nothing to stop reintroduction of it from, for example, sex tourists. Because, after all, what you're advocating would lead to the complete collapse of what government there is, so there wouldn't be any police to stop that, or indeed anything atall.

Oh, and it's 'necessary'; there's no i in the word.

EDIt;

oh, and

Another fortunate side effect of my plan would be the elimination of uneducated masses. Once they are eliminated, educated people can populate the area and live in hapiness. THIS IS NOT, I REPEAT, THIS IS NOT WHY THEY SHOULD DIE IN THE FIRST PLACE, IT IS NOT A GOOD ENOUGH REASON. The AIDS problem is why my plan should be enacted, I'm simply pointing out that this is a good side effect. I hope I've made things a bit clearer.

That's simply apalling. Not to mention that HIV sufferers - which is not the specificty you make, because you simply imply the general population from my reading - are effectively regarded as disposable. non-human. People who 'should' die.

Are you advocating lebensraum? Because it sounds distinctly that way.

To be perfectly frank, I'm disgusted someone can even hold that sort attitude with a straight face.

Firstly, pointing out spelling mistakes is a way to sidetrack the issue at hand. I'm not the best speller in my class, but that has nothing to do with this argument.

It's not worth the money to educate AIDS infected people. Not because they are wothless, but because they will die before passing on their knowledge.

My plan will save many more lives than it kills. Not at first, but in the future. I've said it before and I'll say it again.

KappaWing wrote: In time, the death toll if things are left the way they are will surpass Africa's current population. My plan is perfectly logical for this reason.

So there is the root of my opinion. I am saving lives indirectly, just as you claim the pope is killing people indirectly.

I don't have the words to express how disgusting I find Kappa Wing's views.

I don't even know where to start.

Liar. You're saying that because you can't argue against my logical viewpoint. Instead of rambling on about how 'disgusting' I am, maybe you should start thinking about how good my plan will be. Not in the short term, but in the long-run. You think in the moment and nowhere else, while I think ahead and forsee future problems. I think this is where our viewpoints mainly differ.

KappaWing wrote:Firstly, pointing out spelling mistakes is a way to sidetrack the issue at hand. I'm not the best speller in my class, but that has nothing to do with this argument.

If you decide to call me a 'jackass' & imply illiteracy, best to make sure you're not throwing stones in glass houses. Especially big capital letter stones.

KappaWing wrote: It's not worth the money to educate AIDS infected people. Not because they are wothless, but because they will die before passing on their knowledge.

Rubbish. Firstly, it's worth pointing out HIV!=AIDS anyways; HIV positive individuals do not always contract the AIDS virus immediately (in some cases it is over 12 years), but the person they pass HIV onto may; that's why you allocate money to test them, inform them, and ensure that if they choose to have sex, they takle precautions and are aware of the risk.

Secondly, substantial work has been done on the treatment of AIDS itself. For example, a 97-98 survey found that 82% lived 10 years after diagnosis; this is now up to 20 years in some cases. Even in poorer countries, it takes several years.

Thirdly, you don't seem to understand the concept of education. Education is an ongoing process which affects the whole of the population; it (or provides information to help) stops HIV positive individuals from passing on the disease, and also informs uninfected individuals on what HIV is ans how to avoid contracting it. It's a fairly simple principle.

KappaWing wrote: My plan will save many more lives than it kills. Not at first, but in the future. I've said it before and I'll say it again.

And it'd still be wrong. You'll have achieved nothing except destroyed a continent. How will your almighty extermination plan stop the spread of AIDS in the 'developed' world? Or Arab countries, or Asian? Or South America?

What's to stop your great influx of 'superior' reoccupants carrying HIV/AIDS with them?

KappaWing wrote:

KappaWing wrote: In time, the death toll if things are left the way they are will surpass Africa's current population. My plan is perfectly logical for this reason.

So there is the root of my opinion. I am saving lives indirectly, just as you claim the pope is killing people indirectly.

No, you're advocating doing less. You're taking a problem, and saying the way to solve it is to do nothing, and damned be the consequences.

If the current reaction to the HIV/AIDS crisis was a sticking plaster over a wound, your 'logical' solution would be to slit the artery and hope for a transfusion after the person loses a few pints or so.

It's a calculated death sentence for an entire continent; it's not a cure, not a solution.

Do you even know what the 'AIDS problem' is? It's that AIDS is killing millions of people in Africa who don't even know about it. And your solution is to deliberately worsen it, in the hope that it miraculously cures itself in the rest of the world.

All your solution is, is a solution to the problem of people living in Africa. you might as well nuke them (which you pretty much suggested anyways). Tell me, if it was Europe, or the US, would you suggest the same?

KappaWing wrote:Liar. You're saying that because you can't argue against my logical viewpoint. Instead of rambling on about how 'disgusting' I am

No. It's the fact that as someone who is half Angolan who still has family in Africa I'm finding it hard to not to rip off your head and s### down your neck for daring to spew such obviously racist crap in my vicinity.

But that's exactly what a troll wants so I'll confine myself to this.


Welcome to Ignoreville on Sea.

Population. You.

Firstly, I would indeed suggest the same, but I never implied nuking. A nuclear attack would render the land useless. Instead, I would suggest a military invasion.

Secondly, 'Jackass' does not imply illiteracy.

Thirdly, do you have any idea how LARGE africa is? Do you have any clue how DIFFICULT it would be to educate all of them? The reason it has spread so much in africa and not the rest of the world is because Africa is not educated. Educating them would be impossible. They are simply too deep in their hole to rescue. That is why drastic action must be taken. Imagine your world in 10 years from now. Due to lack of funding, your 'education' plan has only reached a small part of Africa, the rest of Africa is still suffering and dying. I don't want people to suffer and die. Now imagine my world in 10 years. No suffering, no dying, no pain due to AIDS.

Fourthly, I am not a racist I've already explained that, and how the hell am I a troll? you have the right to disagree with me, but just because we differ in viewpoints, that doesen't make me a troll.

karajorma wrote:No. It's the fact that as someone who is half Angolan who still has family in Africa I'm finding it hard to not to rip off your head and s### down your neck for daring to spew such obviously racist crap in my vicinity.

Rip off my head.... s### down my neck.... Who are you calling a troll again?

KappaWing wrote:Liar. You're saying that because you can't argue against my logical viewpoint. Instead of rambling on about how 'disgusting' I am, maybe you should start thinking about how good my plan will be. Not in the short term, but in the long-run. You think in the moment and nowhere else, while I think ahead and forsee future problems. I think this is where our viewpoints mainly differ.

future problems? You've just came up with the most ludicrous, idiotic and bigoted 'solution' (final solution?) to AIDs possible. How about this for 'future problems'?

One; reinfection from without. Unless you plan on killing the world as well as Africa, or building a big wall round the continent to keep people out

Two; reinfection from within. The source of the virus has never been traced; suggestions are it may be from somewhere on Africa; so again we have the prospect of infection.

Three; Asia. Did I mention they have the 2nd highest rate of infection? Should we kill them too?

Four; Emigration; what happens when HIV infected Africans leave the country to seek medical help? Because you're advocating maximum infection; anyone could tell you the more infected - the more carriers. And , oddly enough, Africans can drive, swim, pilot boats and use aircraft; bet you never saw that coming, eh?

Five; Mutation; there is a very slight (and ludicrous) arguement that infecting everyone might lead to the dominance of an immunity gene. Unfortunately, the same arguement also entails the more carriers, the more likelihood of the virus mutating to a more dangerous form. And, you'd also sacrifice a vast part of the human genepool. Maybe you don't value that part of the genepool, but I do.

I'm not a racist. I am only advocating what I see would be best for the African people. I would think the same for Asia and the US for that matter. I just wan't people to stop suffering and dying. The initial death toll would outweigh the long term death toll. I am not a troll, I am not a racist. Those hurt pretty bad, considering I want to STOP suffering and dying. fighting fire with fire, you might say.

But it seems that some people do not agree with me, as I am deeply offended by karajorma's post. He still implies, after I cleared it up several times, that I am a racist, which is simply not the case.

KappaWing wrote:Firstly, I would indeed suggest the same, but I never implied nuking. A nuclear attack would render the land useless. Instead, I would suggest a military invasion.

Ah, ethnic cleansing. What was that about not being racist?

KappaWing wrote: Secondly, 'Jackass' does not imply illiteracy.

'can you read' in capitals does.

KappaWing wrote: Thirdly, do you have any idea how LARGE africa is? Do you have any clue how DIFFICULT it would be to educate all of them? The reason it has spread so much in africa and not the rest of the world is because Africa is not educated. Educating them would be impossible. They are simply too deep in their hole to rescue. That is why drastic action must be taken.

Yes, it's difficult. Yes, it's expensive. So what?

You'd rather bury them alive, then. Kill rather than try to help. Very noble of you.

Oh, and 'Africa is not educated' is a pretty wide and more-than-borderline racist comment (see end).

KappaWing wrote: Imagine your world in 10 years from now. Due to lack of funding, your 'education' plan has only reached a small part of Africa, the rest of Africa is still suffering and dying. I don't want people to suffer and die. Now imagine my world in 10 years. No suffering, no dying, no pain due to AIDS.

That's clearly idiotic. AIDS exists outside Africa and is rising; in China, Asia in general, in South America, in the United State, and in Eastern Europe.

As for 'lack of funding'... well, that's your assumption to fit your own bizarre opinion. 'My' education plan, strangely, is that purported by the medical experts and qualified individuals.

Fourthly, I am not a racist I've already explained that, and how the hell am I a troll? you have the right to disagree with me, but just because we differ in viewpoints, that doesen't make me a troll.

You are a racist (and I do not use the term lightly); it's obvious from your attitude that Africans are uneducatable and 'should die' (to quote). You've already classed them as pre-dispensible humans, your master plan is nothing more than a recipe for genocide.