do the ends justify the means?

[Nova Andromeda]

Nova's position appears to be based on the assumption that he might be one of the 100,000, but he can't possibly get AIDS. In other words, it's pure self-interest, which I suppose we should have come to expect from him by now.

He basically said that in his first post, which said that if it was cancer then he would attempt to cure it by killing the 100,000.

--You have misread my post. I was talking about volunteering for such a proposal. I should also say that I would volunteer for the AIDS proposal if others were willing to volunteer for the cancer proposal.

[Wedge]

if you could cure aids, but it would cost the lives of 100,000 non volunteers -

would you do it?

I would NOT do it. My reasons are the following, here in Europe it's "not-easy" to get AIDS. I mean it's not like Africa, here in Europe if you get infected it will be in most cases your own fault.
So why kill 100,000 non volunteers for stupid guys that got infected by their own fault?
Of course thats very different in Africa and that's were MORE people die of it, but I would not risk the fact to being myself or one of my family members one of the 100.000 (selfish I know).
On the other hand, if you tell me that you could cure cancer, I would totally support it risking myself and familymembers to be one of the non volunteers.

[InnerBrat]

Nova, I would like to know what makes you arrogant enough to believe you will never get AIDS.

Presumably you will never have any piercings or tattoos..

Are you a card carrying JW who is guaranteed never to recieve a blood transfusion?

Are you completely celibate?

Are you so sure of your self defence abilites that you know you will never ever be raped?

Do you have a phobia of needles so great you refuse to have any vaccinations?



(As for the question - actually I don't generally believe the end justifies the means, and I would not murder innocents, even to save the lives of millions. Sorry.)

[The Duchess of Zeon]

if you could cure aids, but it would cost the lives of 100,000 non volunteers -

would you do it?

Yes. It would be no excuse, and since they would be presumably people I had medically experimented on, I would turn myself in for a trial at a human rights court (in a country that has the death penalty, I don't want to spend my life in prison and in that sense I am selfish), I have no illusions about the horrors nor the size of the HIV epidemic as it stands now, and as it stands to spread in the future. There would be no real personal justification for it, but a higher justification in the sense of saving those countless numbers who would die and those countless more who might die otherwise, if one can perhaps understand the fine distinction between such justifications--that is to say, I did not have the right to make that choice, but made it anyway, feeling it pressingly necessary for a higher cause.

[Nova Andromeda]

Nova, I would like to know what makes you arrogant enough to believe you will never get AIDS.

Presumably you will never have any piercings or tattoos..

Are you a card carrying JW who is guaranteed never to recieve a blood transfusion?

Are you completely celibate?

Are you so sure of your self defence abilites that you know you will never ever be raped?

Do you have a phobia of needles so great you refuse to have any vaccinations?



(As for the question - actually I don't generally believe the end justifies the means, and I would not murder innocents, even to save the lives of millions. Sorry.)

--Your wrath isn't going to change the fact that I'm vastly less likely to get AIDS than the average person. I don't have nor am I going to get tatoos or peircings since I don't like them and have enough scars already (if you like them that is your thing and I really don't care). I'm not likely to get a blood transfusion anytime soon (since I'm far more careful than the average person) and even if I do the likelihood of me getting AIDS from it is terribly remote. I'm not going to have sex with anyone who currently has AIDS or is much more likely than I to get AIDS. The likelihood of me being raped is so small it probably matches the likelihood of me getting AIDS from a blood transfusion. And finally, I'm more likely to get AIDS from my cat who scratches me every other week than from vacinations that number less than once a year.
-So do you actually have point other than irrational hate?

[InnerBrat]

-So do you actually have point other than irrational hate?

My main point is that you're flouting your ignorance and showing behaviour that is nothing short of bigoted.

You don't know you will never get AIDS - and until you actually have to go through the agonising process of having an HIV test, you keep your mouth shut about how you consider yourself immune.

[InnerBrat]

FYI - stats on male rape from FOROM indicate about 3% of males have been victims of "non-consensual sexual experiences as adults"

[The Duchess of Zeon]

FYI - stats on male rape from FOROM indicate about 3% of males have been victims of "non-consensual sexual experiences as adults"

That's not really surprising, as male-male sex has often be used to reinforce societal bonds, or as an outright indication of power of the one, over the other, in the relationship. Older warriors bedding the younger, and "educational relationships" etc which establish positions in society. Sex as a dominance function is a reality, and as such it is inevitable that it exists as a danger for men as well as women.

[Nova Andromeda]

-So do you actually have point other than irrational hate?

My main point is that you're flouting your ignorance and showing behaviour that is nothing short of bigoted.

You don't know you will never get AIDS - and until you actually have to go through the agonising process of having an HIV test, you keep your mouth shut about how you consider yourself immune.

--Perhaps you should look up the definition of bigot before you throw that word around. I'm also not suggesting that I'm 100.00000000~% immune from getting AIDS, but I am saying that I'm vastly less likely to get AIDS than the average person.

[InnerBrat]

--Perhaps you should look up the definition of bigot before you throw that word around. I'm also not suggesting that I'm 100.00000000~% immune from getting AIDS, but I am saying that I'm vastly less likely to get AIDS than the average person.

Perhaps you should look up the definition of never before you throw that word around.

And I stand by my choice of words.

[Drooling Iguana]

In the situation Talen described, where I'd be absolutely positively certain that those were my only two options, I'd do it. I'd feel really bad about it, but I'd do it.

In a more realistic situation, though, I'd find another option. There's always another option.

[Nova Andromeda]

FYI - stats on male rape from FOROM indicate about 3% of males have been victims of "non-consensual sexual experiences as adults"

--Sexual experience covers a very large area. Furthermore, I don't see where in my life this might possibly happen. You won't find me in scenes amenable to rape such as jail or passed out at a strangers house. I'd say my chance of being raped is considerably less than 3% since that 3% includes people in jail, gay people (where male-male sex is common), people who get themselves into bad situations because they messed up on drugs, etc. That isn't to say it will never happen, just that it probably won't happen.

[Nova Andromeda]

--Perhaps you should look up the definition of bigot before you throw that word around. I'm also not suggesting that I'm 100.00000000~% immune from getting AIDS, but I am saying that I'm vastly less likely to get AIDS than the average person.

Perhaps you should look up the definition of never before you throw that word around.

And I stand by my choice of words.

--Your choice of words is poor since I'm not intolerant of people with AIDS or people trying to fight AIDS. BTW, I have a chance of being teleported to the moon, however, I bet you wouldn't complain if said that will never happen. You're trying to use rhetoric to twist what I have said and nitpick my arguement.

[haas mark]

If it were up to me as to whom to have be the "non-volunteers," then yes. If not, then I don't know.

As per your stance, Nova, you seem to be on that it's purely a choice. It's NOT your choice as to who the 100,000 are. However, the question remains, if you are the one with the cure, would you necessarily be one of those 100,000? Probably not. However, there isn't cause for saying anything about volunteering because there ARE NOT VOLUNTEERS. I am sure there would be resistance on people's parts, however, if they are non-volunteers, then it really doesn't matter, now does it? After all, they wouldn't necessarily tell you what they're doing (they being the people doing the "curing"), would they? Again, not necessarily.

One can't say much as per what a "volunteer" would or would not do, but that's for a real life situation.

~ver

[Korvan]

Not a chance. AIDS is both preventable and to a certain extent (ie you have money), treatable. (Hmmm, maybe if the 100,000 are all drug execs ) A vaccine or cure will be developed anyway and the information gained developing such a cure will most likely prove invaluable with other virus based diseases.

If you can excuse the 100,000 deaths as justifiable, then perhaps the Nazi doctors can be excused as well. They experimented on a bunch of non-volunteers as well. Of course, that didn't stop us from using the results of their research, on hyperthermia, for instance.

[Rye]

Hmmm....kinda tough. I hate these kinds of things. I think i would though. It's just numbers at the end of the day.

[Gambler]

if you could cure aids, but it would cost the lives of 100,000 non volunteers -

would you do it?

I wouldn't sacrifice 100.000 random lives just to get a cure for aids immediately. If you get infected, bad luck, life is a bitch. I would rather wait a little longer than finding a cure immediately at such a cost (assuming 100.000 random people), not for aids or any other illness. After all, when the farmaceutic (sp?) industry thinks to have find a cure to an illness we don't rush research immediately for human experimentation.
The only exception for me I can think of, would be somekind of supervirus that threatens human extinction or some such.
Also this is all theoretical, I can not possibly say I would not endorse such an idea if something drastically changes for me, like I don't know, becoming infected and more selfish because of self preservation

[SirNitram]

I'd do it, but I'd never be able to look myself in the mirror again.

[Dark Hellion]

If its just random people, that makes it a much harder decision. If the 100,000 people are going to die while testing the cure, and can be chosen, then good-bye stupid people. 100,000 stupid people for an AIDS cure sounds very good to me. If it where random, I would worry a bit about myself being one of the random people. As much as I like helping people, I like being alive more. I would still probably do it.
Nova, you arrogant little fuck. Stop talking like you're so much fucking better than everyone else, Mr. Wong is also very unlikely to end up in a situation where he can get AIDS, in fact all married members, or members with long term relations aren't, as is anyone who is careful. your little well it'll never happen to me so tough luck attitude is really fucking immature, and is not what anyone wanted on this thread.

[Gambler]

I would like to reiterate that my stance above would only be if the sacrificed are random picked people, if they are not and I get to chose the 100.000, then hell yeah! I get a cure for aids and smite the people I hate or simply don't like


hey are you looking funny at me? are you? because I am going to chose you! Get them to the laboratory...

[Gil Hamilton]

Who said it was a vaccine? It said that it was a "cure", not a prevention.

HIV/AIDS is a virus, the only good way to "cure" it is via prevention. Unless we are talking about magic medicine that you snap your fingers and the virus disappears.

[victorhadin]

The randomness of the 100'000 actually makes it easier, as I see it. It absolves you of some of the personal feelings you will have acting against you, since you at no point have to choose.


Hell yes. I'd certainly go through with it. I can't see how anyone wouldn't.

[Nova Andromeda]

Nova, you arrogant little fuck. Stop talking like you're so much fucking better than everyone else, Mr. Wong is also very unlikely to end up in a situation where he can get AIDS, in fact all married members, or members with long term relations aren't, as is anyone who is careful. your little well it'll never happen to me so tough luck attitude is really fucking immature, and is not what anyone wanted on this thread.

--I'm not the one spouting profanities and claiming I'm holier than thou. My arguement is simple, but apparently too hard for you people to understand. I'm willing to help people out if they are willing to return the favor. I'm not willing to help them out if they are not willing to return the favor. This proposal is the same as some random guy who wrecked his car demanding that I help him pay for it even though he refused to get insurance (despite being able to).
-Let me guess you don't see the connection right? It is also very simple. This proposal demands that someone risk my life (for their good and not mine) without my permission and at the same time refuse to risk their life for my good and not theirs.

[Gambler]

The randomness of the 100'000 actually makes it easier, as I see it. It absolves you of some of the personal feelings you will have acting against you, since you at no point have to choose.


Hell yes. I'd certainly go through with it. I can't see how anyone wouldn't.

I have stated above that under normal circumstances I wouldn't do it and please don't act like the answer to this moral question is somehow so OBVIOUS that you can't see how anyone wouldn't agree with you.
And if I am allowed the question, how does the randomness make the decision in this dilema any easier? It would maybe be easier for your consciousness in a psicological way because you don't point the finger to the person and say "You", but the effects of your decision remain the same, 100.000 innocents die because of your decision and they aren't just a number on a piece of paper you can throw away and forget. In a way the randomness should make your decision harder, because you don't get to pick people which under such a circumstance you could consider "expendable", like all sorts of criminal scum (rapists,murderers and the like).

[Sir Sirius]

Yes, I would do it. 100 000 out of six billion is insignificant and HIV/AIDS kills ten times that many a year, every year.