wouldnt it make sense to make AIDS testing mandatory and tatoo people infected
- Thread starter Ree
- Start date
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2015
- Messages
- 714
Re: wouldnt it make sense to make AIDS testing mandatory and tatoo people infect
i would guess it would have to be a simple sighn(maybe an x or a line) because nurses are not tatoo artists....the tatoo would be put on the iiner thigh so as not to cause unnecesary stigma,only a potential sex partner would be able to see it
i would guess it would have to be a simple sighn(maybe an x or a line) because nurses are not tatoo artists....the tatoo would be put on the iiner thigh so as not to cause unnecesary stigma,only a potential sex partner would be able to see it
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2013
- Messages
- 1,897
Re: wouldnt it make sense to make AIDS testing mandatory and tatoo people infect
So I guess in theory if everyone with AIDS had a tattoo then they could only date other people with AIDS tattoos preventing the further spread of the disease and eventually all die off, thus banishing the disease from humanity?
So I guess in theory if everyone with AIDS had a tattoo then they could only date other people with AIDS tattoos preventing the further spread of the disease and eventually all die off, thus banishing the disease from humanity?
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2013
- Messages
- 1,897
Re: wouldnt it make sense to make AIDS testing mandatory and tatoo people infect
Proposed Agenda
1st order of business - Mandatory AIDS Tattooing
2nd order of business - Restrengthen the gene pool by President Ree giving bastard children to all sexually available women in major cities
Should be an exciting campaign
Proposed Agenda
1st order of business - Mandatory AIDS Tattooing
2nd order of business - Restrengthen the gene pool by President Ree giving bastard children to all sexually available women in major cities
Should be an exciting campaign
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2015
- Messages
- 714
Re: wouldnt it make sense to make AIDS testing mandatory and tatoo people infect
hhahahhaha......you typed president...is that a typo?....i think you meant high priest ayatollah Grand supreme leader king REE
Mr.Rob said:Proposed Agenda
1st order of business - Mandatory AIDS Tattooing
2nd order of business - Restrengthen the gene pool by President Ree giving bastard children to all sexually available women in major cities
Should be an exciting campaign
hhahahhaha......you typed president...is that a typo?....i think you meant high priest ayatollah Grand supreme leader king REE
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2013
- Messages
- 1,897
Re: wouldnt it make sense to make AIDS testing mandatory and tatoo people infect
Lol I forgot you were more the sociopathic fascist type of guy.
I feel like you'd make a good person to go invade and overthrow a failing 3rd world government and start a new civilization with. When America implodes lets make a point to do that... If we're successful we'll split the country 50/50 and then plot to kill each other to see who gets the whole country.
Lol I forgot you were more the sociopathic fascist type of guy.
I feel like you'd make a good person to go invade and overthrow a failing 3rd world government and start a new civilization with. When America implodes lets make a point to do that... If we're successful we'll split the country 50/50 and then plot to kill each other to see who gets the whole country.
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2015
- Messages
- 714
Re: wouldnt it make sense to make AIDS testing mandatory and tatoo people infect
on a serious note there is a very rural patch of kenya called nyanza.....i reallyy want to one day go there and try to industrialise itMr.Rob said:
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2012
- Messages
- 6,275
Re: wouldnt it make sense to make AIDS testing mandatory and tatoo people infect
Another excellent moral question, Ree.
At first blush it's something I feel like should be refuted. But I can't think of any valid moral grounds to refute it on.
At first I was going to say it's a slippery slope. Because once you start tattooing people with one bad thing, that opens the door to tattooing them with other things. Pretty soon anyone who belongs to a religious affiliation or political group currently out of favor with the ruling elites sports a brand. But actually, not necessarily. They used to do scarlet letters for adulteresses and that never turned into scarlet letters for revolutionists. We have a sex offenders list in America, but haven't started creating lists of people who are Sunni Muslim. Etc. At least not any lists the public has access to, anyway.
And knowing who can infect you with a life-altering disease would seem to outweigh the compassion we'd extend to the diseased person. It's sad to brand someone who has a terrible disease. But if that person is willing to engage in an act that could transfer that disease without telling his partner(s), that's a deeply selfish, terrible act that we could prevent with a tattoo.
I guess you'd want it inconspicuous to anyone not engaged in a sex act.
So maybe like a big tattooed arrow on the penis or vagina that says "AIDS HERE" or something.
You couldn't even do it on the pelvis because men with AIDS would just shag with their pants up but unzipped, and women could conceal it with lingerie. So it'd have to be directly on the sex organ.
Anyway. There's no way we could do it right now because people would scream bloody murder about "human rights." Never mind the fact that someone who is willing to conceal AIDS status and infect other people with AIDS is doing way more damage to "human rights" than tattooing a bunch of people with AIDS on the genitals.
There is a deep unspoken value in the West right now that "I can do whatever I want with my body, but it's my body and no one else can force me to do anything with it." So if I want to get 30 tattoos or a sex change or implant horns in my forehead or file my teeth down or get 8 abortions it's cool. But if someone else wants to put a tattoo on me that lets people know I could kill them with AIDS - whoa. Full stop. It's MY body. You can't do that.
I guess that's the main obstacle to a program like this. The Western value (and I know Africa is not "the West", but you guys watch all the Western movies and are as influenced by the current dominant global culture as everyone else outside the West) does not permit this.
The West has entered a period of decline, which its elites have doubled down on. Which pretty much ensures the West as it currently exists does not survive. You'll still have Westerners with Western values, but they're not going to have the same level of global power (cultural or otherwise) within a few decades. So we might have a situation where in 30 or 40 years, a plan like this is not only possible without massive outcries at the U.N., but something a lot of people think is just normal and sensible.
Chase
Another excellent moral question, Ree.
At first blush it's something I feel like should be refuted. But I can't think of any valid moral grounds to refute it on.
At first I was going to say it's a slippery slope. Because once you start tattooing people with one bad thing, that opens the door to tattooing them with other things. Pretty soon anyone who belongs to a religious affiliation or political group currently out of favor with the ruling elites sports a brand. But actually, not necessarily. They used to do scarlet letters for adulteresses and that never turned into scarlet letters for revolutionists. We have a sex offenders list in America, but haven't started creating lists of people who are Sunni Muslim. Etc. At least not any lists the public has access to, anyway.
And knowing who can infect you with a life-altering disease would seem to outweigh the compassion we'd extend to the diseased person. It's sad to brand someone who has a terrible disease. But if that person is willing to engage in an act that could transfer that disease without telling his partner(s), that's a deeply selfish, terrible act that we could prevent with a tattoo.
I guess you'd want it inconspicuous to anyone not engaged in a sex act.
So maybe like a big tattooed arrow on the penis or vagina that says "AIDS HERE" or something.
You couldn't even do it on the pelvis because men with AIDS would just shag with their pants up but unzipped, and women could conceal it with lingerie. So it'd have to be directly on the sex organ.
Anyway. There's no way we could do it right now because people would scream bloody murder about "human rights." Never mind the fact that someone who is willing to conceal AIDS status and infect other people with AIDS is doing way more damage to "human rights" than tattooing a bunch of people with AIDS on the genitals.
There is a deep unspoken value in the West right now that "I can do whatever I want with my body, but it's my body and no one else can force me to do anything with it." So if I want to get 30 tattoos or a sex change or implant horns in my forehead or file my teeth down or get 8 abortions it's cool. But if someone else wants to put a tattoo on me that lets people know I could kill them with AIDS - whoa. Full stop. It's MY body. You can't do that.
I guess that's the main obstacle to a program like this. The Western value (and I know Africa is not "the West", but you guys watch all the Western movies and are as influenced by the current dominant global culture as everyone else outside the West) does not permit this.
The West has entered a period of decline, which its elites have doubled down on. Which pretty much ensures the West as it currently exists does not survive. You'll still have Westerners with Western values, but they're not going to have the same level of global power (cultural or otherwise) within a few decades. So we might have a situation where in 30 or 40 years, a plan like this is not only possible without massive outcries at the U.N., but something a lot of people think is just normal and sensible.
Chase
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2016
- Messages
- 356
Re: wouldnt it make sense to make AIDS testing mandatory and tatoo people infect
The only downside (potentionally) that could be argued is people would intentionally not see a doctor in order to avoid learning they got AIDS and get branded. Still this is just my debater spirit talking. Pros would def outweigh the cons.
Edit: I realize now that the topic says testing should be mandatory. Then the only argument would be my body, my choice lol.
The only downside (potentionally) that could be argued is people would intentionally not see a doctor in order to avoid learning they got AIDS and get branded. Still this is just my debater spirit talking. Pros would def outweigh the cons.
Edit: I realize now that the topic says testing should be mandatory. Then the only argument would be my body, my choice lol.
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2013
- Messages
- 182
Re: wouldnt it make sense to make AIDS testing mandatory and tatoo people infect
What a terrible idea! You do realize that people bleed when they get tattoos, right? Most every tattoo shop has a policy to not tattoo anyone HIV positive, because of the risk of contaminating the entire shop. So even if you forced shops to give these tattoos, your idea would put more people at risk of getting HIV/AIDs than if you did nothing at all.
We're not going to beat HIV/AIDs by forcibly tattooing those who have it. If bad people with HIV want sex without telling a partner, they can still do it. Makeup can cover a tattoo, they can still hide it, rape, etc. There is no easy "anti-PC" solution to HIV/AIDs. We beat AIDs in the long run by increasing government funding to medical research, education, and promoting the use of contraceptives (especially in Africa, where religious authorities still are trying to get people to not use contraceptives, and are quite successful at it).
Poverty and desperation are a big part of the picture too. When you're poor and desperate, your decisions are generally much more short-sighted and irrational. So improving global living conditions is very important for controlling and reducing illnesses like HIV as well.
And as for moral grounds of dispute: doing this would merely demonize the good people with HIV/AIDs, while the bad people who know they have it but are hiding it from partners will still be able to hide it and do whatever they want. So you'd basically be punishing good people with a painful, expensive (would you be putting tax money towards this "plan", lol), embarrassing tattoo, while failing to solve any problems. You're also going to be giving the gullible supporters of this cause reason to think that the issue is simply a matter of correct tattooing, and lend to the narrative that "them damned libruls" (or whatever term you want to use for "the enemy") who want education and medical research spending are fools, and that all we needed to do was tattoo the vulnerable rapey sick people! And if your idea was blocked by a more reasonable branch of government, you could go around crying about how you had a perfect idea, and the "PC librul shadow government elites" selfishly blocked you, and so you should pretty please be given the power of a "grand supreme leader king" now. It's pathetic. This is a classic example of an "idea" that would be used to obfuscate problems (most likely as a shallow form of self-aggrandizement), not solve them.
What we are more likely to see in the future are things like RFID chips implanted in people. This isn't really a major problem in and of itself -- more concerning is how this ties in to the control of information and the willful gullibility of people to authoritarian power through conditioning, falsely bifurcated agenda setting, and good old fashioned hierarchical ass-to-mouth human centipedeing; people kissing each others' asses in the hopes of elevating their sad, pathetic lives -- everyone else be damned.
What a terrible idea! You do realize that people bleed when they get tattoos, right? Most every tattoo shop has a policy to not tattoo anyone HIV positive, because of the risk of contaminating the entire shop. So even if you forced shops to give these tattoos, your idea would put more people at risk of getting HIV/AIDs than if you did nothing at all.
We're not going to beat HIV/AIDs by forcibly tattooing those who have it. If bad people with HIV want sex without telling a partner, they can still do it. Makeup can cover a tattoo, they can still hide it, rape, etc. There is no easy "anti-PC" solution to HIV/AIDs. We beat AIDs in the long run by increasing government funding to medical research, education, and promoting the use of contraceptives (especially in Africa, where religious authorities still are trying to get people to not use contraceptives, and are quite successful at it).
Poverty and desperation are a big part of the picture too. When you're poor and desperate, your decisions are generally much more short-sighted and irrational. So improving global living conditions is very important for controlling and reducing illnesses like HIV as well.
And as for moral grounds of dispute: doing this would merely demonize the good people with HIV/AIDs, while the bad people who know they have it but are hiding it from partners will still be able to hide it and do whatever they want. So you'd basically be punishing good people with a painful, expensive (would you be putting tax money towards this "plan", lol), embarrassing tattoo, while failing to solve any problems. You're also going to be giving the gullible supporters of this cause reason to think that the issue is simply a matter of correct tattooing, and lend to the narrative that "them damned libruls" (or whatever term you want to use for "the enemy") who want education and medical research spending are fools, and that all we needed to do was tattoo the vulnerable rapey sick people! And if your idea was blocked by a more reasonable branch of government, you could go around crying about how you had a perfect idea, and the "PC librul shadow government elites" selfishly blocked you, and so you should pretty please be given the power of a "grand supreme leader king" now. It's pathetic. This is a classic example of an "idea" that would be used to obfuscate problems (most likely as a shallow form of self-aggrandizement), not solve them.
What we are more likely to see in the future are things like RFID chips implanted in people. This isn't really a major problem in and of itself -- more concerning is how this ties in to the control of information and the willful gullibility of people to authoritarian power through conditioning, falsely bifurcated agenda setting, and good old fashioned hierarchical ass-to-mouth human centipedeing; people kissing each others' asses in the hopes of elevating their sad, pathetic lives -- everyone else be damned.
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2012
- Messages
- 6,275
Re: wouldnt it make sense to make AIDS testing mandatory and tatoo people infect
Somewhat tangential, but anyone who is interested in this phenomenon should check out the Black Mirror episode "Nosedive", with Bryce Dallas Howard:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5497778/
A friend suggested I check this out for its social allegory. Probably the most awkward thing I have watched in years. Only made it about halfway in before I had to just speed through it.
It's a rare show that makes me want to scream at the screen (in this case, "Delete the damn app and move somewhere no one uses it!").
Chase
Oskar said:
Somewhat tangential, but anyone who is interested in this phenomenon should check out the Black Mirror episode "Nosedive", with Bryce Dallas Howard:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5497778/
A friend suggested I check this out for its social allegory. Probably the most awkward thing I have watched in years. Only made it about halfway in before I had to just speed through it.
It's a rare show that makes me want to scream at the screen (in this case, "Delete the damn app and move somewhere no one uses it!").
Chase
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2013
- Messages
- 182
Re: wouldnt it make sense to make AIDS testing mandatory and tatoo people infect
You'd have to -- but it's important to underline the inherent risk of tattooing people infected with transfusion-transmitted diseases, in whatever environment.
If there 'was' a surefire way of stopping the spread of HIV/AIDs completely, how deep a cut into human dignity would one be willing to go before it wasn't worth it? Permanently dying the skin of people with HIV green? Castration? Sending them to gulags? What about quaranteening them on islands, like Europe and India did in the Middle Ages with lepers? Or how about using Ludovico’s Technique (a form of brainwashing that incorporates associative learning) from A Clockwork Orange on the sick, to make them pathologically incapable of sex?
For the "dick tattoo" to work in preventing the spread of HIV, as a minimum you'd probably have to first convince anyone who engages in 'irresponsible' sex to not engage in irresponsible sex (i.e., no sex in the dark, no drunk sex, no lying about not having STDs if you have something, etc.). And if you could do that, there would be no need for the tattoo in the first place.
And if one is going to try and do all that, I tell you this: you're going to need one hell of an effective marketing campaign.
Big Daddy said:
You'd have to -- but it's important to underline the inherent risk of tattooing people infected with transfusion-transmitted diseases, in whatever environment.
If there 'was' a surefire way of stopping the spread of HIV/AIDs completely, how deep a cut into human dignity would one be willing to go before it wasn't worth it? Permanently dying the skin of people with HIV green? Castration? Sending them to gulags? What about quaranteening them on islands, like Europe and India did in the Middle Ages with lepers? Or how about using Ludovico’s Technique (a form of brainwashing that incorporates associative learning) from A Clockwork Orange on the sick, to make them pathologically incapable of sex?
For the "dick tattoo" to work in preventing the spread of HIV, as a minimum you'd probably have to first convince anyone who engages in 'irresponsible' sex to not engage in irresponsible sex (i.e., no sex in the dark, no drunk sex, no lying about not having STDs if you have something, etc.). And if you could do that, there would be no need for the tattoo in the first place.
And if one is going to try and do all that, I tell you this: you're going to need one hell of an effective marketing campaign.
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2015
- Messages
- 714
Re: wouldnt it make sense to make AIDS testing mandatory and tatoo people infect
you are so confident yet are unable to grasp the fundamental concept.
i have pointed out the people will be tatooed by health officials.
this would be a relatively simple tatoo in a pubic area.
there would be no risk of infecting healthy individuals because only the infected individuals would be tatooed
Oskar said:
you are so confident yet are unable to grasp the fundamental concept.
i have pointed out the people will be tatooed by health officials.
this would be a relatively simple tatoo in a pubic area.
there would be no risk of infecting healthy individuals because only the infected individuals would be tatooed
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2015
- Messages
- 714
Re: wouldnt it make sense to make AIDS testing mandatory and tatoo people infect
i think you are emotionally opposed to the idea,and you mistakenly thinking you are logically opposed.
,unfortunately logic is not on your side.
1:most people who get stds get them in relationships,(in beds)not in dark alleyways.
2:most people don't know their status..and 40 percent of infected people don't know they are infected.
3:this measure will drastically reduce the number of infected people,sure some people will still infect others in alleyways,but as with any sti....the total number of infected people in a population is a big factor on how easy it is to become infected.
in other words...in a region where one out of ten people have aids,catching aids is obviously easier than catching it in a region where only one out of a hundred have it.
do not take my word for it.
google
Oskar said:
i think you are emotionally opposed to the idea,and you mistakenly thinking you are logically opposed.
,unfortunately logic is not on your side.
1:most people who get stds get them in relationships,(in beds)not in dark alleyways.
2:most people don't know their status..and 40 percent of infected people don't know they are infected.
3:this measure will drastically reduce the number of infected people,sure some people will still infect others in alleyways,but as with any sti....the total number of infected people in a population is a big factor on how easy it is to become infected.
in other words...in a region where one out of ten people have aids,catching aids is obviously easier than catching it in a region where only one out of a hundred have it.
do not take my word for it.
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2013
- Messages
- 182
Re: wouldnt it make sense to make AIDS testing mandatory and tatoo people infect
Genital tattoos for HIV positive people is not difficult to grasp. Could you clarify why you think dick tattoos would reduce transmission rates? It sounds like you're just assuming that people will be about to have sex then see the tattoo, and be like "Hey, you didn't tell me you had AIDS!" Seems like a lot of work and money to address an uncommon problem which can be addressed better in other ways anways. Is people lying about HIV a major problem where you live or something?
And in regards to infections from tattoos, I understand that you want to tattoo infected people. I'm sure in an imaginary world with unlimited funds one could ensure sanitary conditions. But in a poor place like rural Kenya... no way. But the idea to increase (or make "mandatory") AIDS testings isn't necessarily bad. So at least you have that.
It's hard to take someone seriously when they accuse others of being illogical (or "emotional") and then attempt to justify that statement with invalid logic.
Your premise that I made a claim about 'in what situation (in relationship vs not) people get stds' is false. I made no claim about that. This is also the case in regards to whether people know they are carriers or not, and the fact that AIDs is more easily caught in regions where it is more prevalent. These things may be true, but I made no claims about them. Even more, I fail to see a logical connection between them and your thesis that dick tattoos would help reduce HIV infections. These banal facts do not support your argument pro dick tattoos.
Logically, your argument is invalid because the conclusion (that tattooing genitals would reduce HIV infections) doesn't follow the premises.
The laziness with which you attempt to spin and misconstrue what I say is lame, man. If you're going to try and refute me, grow some balls and address what I say (and if there's no language barrier, in it's entirety) instead of making shit up, selecting a sentence here and a sentence there, and citing "Google" at me.
Genital tattoos for HIV positive people is not difficult to grasp. Could you clarify why you think dick tattoos would reduce transmission rates? It sounds like you're just assuming that people will be about to have sex then see the tattoo, and be like "Hey, you didn't tell me you had AIDS!" Seems like a lot of work and money to address an uncommon problem which can be addressed better in other ways anways. Is people lying about HIV a major problem where you live or something?
And in regards to infections from tattoos, I understand that you want to tattoo infected people. I'm sure in an imaginary world with unlimited funds one could ensure sanitary conditions. But in a poor place like rural Kenya... no way. But the idea to increase (or make "mandatory") AIDS testings isn't necessarily bad. So at least you have that.
It's hard to take someone seriously when they accuse others of being illogical (or "emotional") and then attempt to justify that statement with invalid logic.
Your premise that I made a claim about 'in what situation (in relationship vs not) people get stds' is false. I made no claim about that. This is also the case in regards to whether people know they are carriers or not, and the fact that AIDs is more easily caught in regions where it is more prevalent. These things may be true, but I made no claims about them. Even more, I fail to see a logical connection between them and your thesis that dick tattoos would help reduce HIV infections. These banal facts do not support your argument pro dick tattoos.
Logically, your argument is invalid because the conclusion (that tattooing genitals would reduce HIV infections) doesn't follow the premises.
The laziness with which you attempt to spin and misconstrue what I say is lame, man. If you're going to try and refute me, grow some balls and address what I say (and if there's no language barrier, in it's entirety) instead of making shit up, selecting a sentence here and a sentence there, and citing "Google" at me.
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2016
- Messages
- 356
Re: wouldnt it make sense to make AIDS testing mandatory and tatoo people infect
I think it's pretty straight forward no? People will be like "Hey, you didn't tell me you had AIDS!" Or do you think any sane person would engage in sex with someone infected on purpose? A kantian moral argument would work better here not an argument based on effectiveness. It's clear that it would reduce transmission rates.
Oskar said:
I think it's pretty straight forward no? People will be like "Hey, you didn't tell me you had AIDS!" Or do you think any sane person would engage in sex with someone infected on purpose? A kantian moral argument would work better here not an argument based on effectiveness. It's clear that it would reduce transmission rates.
