If you had the chance, would you cure all disease?

[sharky]

But what if you did find a cure to all the diseases out there today? who's to say some disease commonly shows up in people that are 120 years old. Cancer patients tend to be older.

But this is the way life is. Do I think its fair? NO way! I'm a cancer survivor, its not fair. But who cares if you die in a car accident or from a disease? the most important thing is not how you die but how you live your life.

[Anthony]

If I could cure a disease, I would cure AIDS, the most horrific and unfair disease around. Yes, I do think that classifying a disease as 'unfair' is ridiculous, and could be used to classify all diseases as such, but its unfair that people should get a disease only because they chose to love each other in a physical way. Rono's expression of 'diseases people get when they fuck around' is inaccurate and lacks conviction; you don't need to 'fuck around' to get AIDS, all you need to do is have sex with the wrong person and you're marked. Now, that IS unfair. Its not as bad as smoking your lungs out and then getting lung cancer, its unfair that people should be punished for something so human; expressing love in a physical way.

Ant.

[speedracer]

You'd absolutely have to limit reproduction to twice per lifetime for a couple.

[Klodomir]

Originally posted by speedracer:
You'd absolutely have to limit reproduction to twice per lifetime for a couple.

Okay, I know I'll be getting myself into trouble again for this, but I actually think we should have that limit right now.

[Angela Harlem]

Some places do already Klod. It seems to cause problems though.

[Klodomir]

There must be a more intelligent way of handling it than China has. There has to be.

[Anthony]

Originally posted by Klodomir:
There must be a more intelligent way of handling it than China has. There has to be.

What's wrong with the way China does it?

Ant.

[speedracer]

Originally posted by Anthony:
What's wrong with the way China does it?

Ant.

Well, the 1 child per household rule was rumored to have caused problems because boys are favored over girls.

[Anthony]

Originally posted by speedracer:
Well, the 1 child per household rule was rumored to have caused problems because boys are favored over girls.

Rumours, and mere rumours. That would be more inherent in India or Pakistan, where it has been known that they bury baby girls alive. However, in China its pretty strict; you have a child and you're stuck with it. I admire China for its strong efforts, and, despite people cricising it, I think that they are justified in using their methods.

Also, I have always been one to support China in most of its policies. For instance, I hate it when Amnesty International pokes its nose into China's business and criticises it for executing too many people. China knows how to solve its own problems, and, as long as it doesn't harm anyone, its fine by me (even though I do NOT support the death penalty).

I only wish the rest of the world could follow its one child policy.

Ant.

[Salome]

Originally posted by The Wanderer:
I would like to end suffering from disease, and perhaps the abruptness of it, but disease is an inevitable part of life contributing to death, which must occur as the opposite reacton to life

I agree

------------------
Salome
Shake it, shake it, shake it

[Hans Moleman]

Well, I must correct something here, at least in what I think I know about this.

The One-Child Rule is not as clean as this. In rural areas, the law is generally that you are allowed two, if the first is a girl, but, even then, it is not often strictly enforced, except during periodic crackdowns, where there are often forced sterilizations of those who are known to have their alloted child. Chinese tradition is harder to break in rural areas. Infanticide isn't incredibly common, but abandonment of female children is, and the orphanages are packed full of them in China.

~melon

------------------
"Oh no...my brains."

[Anthony]

Hans Moleman;

I'm not saying their system is completely clean at all; what system doesn't have its faults, its errors, its occasional cold-bloodedness? Human nature always ruins things in some way or another. However, it IS a system and I don't think you can discredit its validity and effectiveness; China IS trying, and they are the only ones who are trying hard enough in my opinion.

Ant.

[U2Bama]

Originally posted by Anthony:
Also, I have always been one to support China in most of its policies. For instance, I hate it when Amnesty International pokes its nose into China's business and criticises it for executing too many people. China knows how to solve its own problems, and, as long as it doesn't harm anyone, its fine by me (even though I do NOT support the death penalty).

"as long as it doesn't harm anyone" is key here, right?

[Anthony]

Originally posted by U2Bama:
"as long as it doesn't harm anyone" is key here, right?

Yes. For instance, I don't approve of the Chinese invasion of Tibet and the consequent expulsion of the Dalai Lama. However, there has always been in my opinion, a cold shoulder and judgemental sentiment from the West (including the US) when it came to China, especially due to its Communism which is a highly dubious reason (I for one, don't think Communism is a bad idea at all. Idealistic, yes, misguided - maybe, but it is not the evil of the world as so many people are ready to point out, anyway I'm a Socialist). I have a lot of respect for China, and I think its political structure is something that is to be desired by other countries (Britain, for one) as in - it actually has a political spine.

I am sick of seeing countries bow down to the ideals of Amnesty International (which, if you haven't noticed by now, is an organisation I really despise), its good to see a country telling Amnesty International where they can shove their ideals (pardon the expression). Also, again, China is the only country who is actually doing anything about the problem with over-population.

Ant.

[U2Bama]

I don't agree with every campaign that Amnesty International takes on, but I am opposed to governments that incarcerate, torture or kill citizens for political or religious reasons. I know personally of a family from here in Burmingham who was incarcerated in China due to religious materials they had (Falun Gong). And as for their treatment of political dissidents, we need only to look back at the Tianenmen Square debacle of the late 80s. Those are examples of China going too far, if you ask me.

What are some other nations whose business you think AI needs to butt out of?

~U2Alabama

[Anthony]

U2Bama;

As always, you speak with calm reason and balanced wisdom, a quality I will never posses, especially when speaking of AI.
My main hatred of AI comes from its involvement with the Pinochet case, when he could have been extradited to the hands of Spain, however, AI spoke against it and warned all the parties concerned of HIS rights as a human being. This comes as no surprise, as AI aims to uphold all the articles of the Convention of Human Rights, another thing I THOROUGHLY disagree with.

Now, I have done a lot of work on Amnesty INternational, this stems back to monumental research I did for a project back in Catholic School, and basically, I realised that AI was there to uphold EVERYONE'S rights, including those who (in my eyes) clearly do not deserve them and endanger other people. Thanks to AI, they helped make Pinochet walk free, they made a mockery of justice and spat in the face of Spain who DESERVED to have Pinochet on trial to answer for the countless of deaths of Spaniards in his country during his dictatorship.

In that case, Amnesty International proves its arrogancy and lunacy; providing rights for those who trample on everybody else's.

As for China going too far, I regard its treatment of political dissidents as justified, though no one should be tortured for religious reasons. It is different when it comes to political activism, I believe that political activism is a very dangerous thing in the hands of certain individuals; the Chinese dealing with certain dissidents, in their eyes, would be like Germany dealing with the Nationalist PArty these days.

Ultimately, Amnesty International are a bunch of hypocrites, they accuse China of barbarism regarding its views on the death penalty, but never mentioning the fact that America has plenty of executions every year. I don't see them making a big deal out of that. Amnesty International has a big mouth and a self-righteous attitude to everything. To hell with that.

Ant.

Originally posted by U2Bama:
I don't agree with every campaign that Amnesty International takes on, but I am opposed to governments that incarcerate, torture or kill citizens for political or religious reasons. I know personally of a family from here in Burmingham who was incarcerated in China due to religious materials they had (Falun Gong). And as for their treatment of political dissidents, we need only to look back at the Tianenmen Square debacle of the late 80s. Those are examples of China going too far, if you ask me.

What are some other nations whose business you think AI needs to butt out of?

~U2Alabama

[DebbieSG]

I thought we were talking about diseases here.

[U2Bama]

Ant:

Okay, I agree, in part, with your general view on AI's defense of some of the most ruthless criminals and dictators once those criminals/dictators are out of power. I'm sure they will claim it is just a matter of being consistent, but I recall in the 1980s when AI campaigned AGAINST the atrocities committed by Pinochet's regime (that and Sting's "They Dance Alone - Gueca Solo" are how I became so aware of it at the age of 14), yet more recently, as you pointed out, they didn't want him to face the accusers who had the most evidence against him! The same goes for today; a few months ago, they were campaigning against the Taliban, now they speak for them, to an extent.

But being an absolute free speech advocate, I have to dissent from your view on political activism for "certain individuals," but I can see where you are coming from (like the American Civil Liberties Union defending the KKK here). I guess I trust public opinion to the extent that such radicals on either extreme will not be a threat via political speech alone.

And FYI, AI DOES campaign against the U.S.'s death penalty; in fact, I think they made a plea on behalf of Timothy McVeigh a few months ago. But keep in mind that "murder" is not the only crime for which China administers the death penalty, whereas it is the only crime for which the U.S. has done so, recently.

P.S. So far, you have seemed to approach this thread with "calm reason and balanced wisdom," which you seem to do in all of your posts. I do not always agree with what you have to say, but you usually say it well and you back it up. Free speech rules! Thanks.

~U2Alabama

[U2Bama]

And that is a good point you made, DebbieSG.

[Rono]

Originally posted by U2Bama:
And that is a good point you made, DebbieSG.

Yes, it is.

43 % more aidspatients in Amsterdam. Well, maybe it is a little hard to say i will not want to cure people who fuck around. But getting a infection here in this western world is for 90% your own fault.


Now i think about it, i could make a lot of money if i had a cure, i could get a patent on it.