quote Originally posted by User00013170: Id rather have that then the death we have today.

I agree that the death we have today is terrible. I just believe that in order to make a larger change to affect future death we need to alter the way that we approach things.

There's not much more I think that can be done to prevent the death of today through STDs. There are millions of dollars being pumped into research already. I don't think the additional 2.4 million would change things. I think this is probably the only thing we truly disagree on.

quote Originally posted by Darth88Formula: I know what he was getting at as well, but it's a valid point. The sex we have for pleasure is not a vital thing we need for survival.

What is the point of life without "pleasure".

There are all kinds of things that we don't "need" to do, and as many things as there are there is a list of things that some overbearing dickhead will think "you" don't need and scream loudly to try and effect your choices and behavior to suite his warped views.

I know, let's all huddle in a corner and try not to move too much so we don't unnecessarily waste any money and resources.

Yup, I did not read the article though the "Origami" condom heading is hysterical. I thought it would be a new thing instead of folding paper animals. Something like balloon tying

quote Originally posted by carnut122: What's the long term costs to tax-payers to keep one AIDS patient alive, or to raise one successive generation on welfare. food stamps. etc? It might be money well spent if one looks at the long term.

Cost to a taxpayer to keep an Aids patient alive, ? Let 'em die. Aids is not a contagious disease. It is a self inflicted disease. Why spend money on prevention when prevention exists. Big Pharma spends enough on medicinal research and there is no shortage of dollars invested into it. Regardless, a super cool condom is not going to make anyone use it.

quote Originally posted by User00013170: So people with AIDS ( and sick, many have it and dont even know it yet ) don't deserve to live?

Sure they do. For as long as they can. Just like the rest of us.

quote Originally posted by User00013170: What is the price on a person's life?

No more than what an individual himself places on it.

quote Originally posted by User00013170: Does it matter who they are or does Ryan White get lumped in the same bucket?

Life is not fair. It never has been, never will be. What happened to him is very unlikely to ever happen again. If it does, someone will be negligent and responsible for his care (which didn't even exist at the time).

[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 03-09-2014).]

quote Aids is not a communicable disease.

FYI--The word "communicable" does in fact mean that it is spread from person to person. HIV/AIDS stands for Human immunodeficiency virus infection / acquired immunodeficiency syndrome. HIV causes AIDS by depleting T cell counts.
Communicable diseases are illnesses caused by microorganisms and transmitted from an infected person or animal to another person or animal.
Both are consideredby US CDC to be communicable by virtue of the initial infection (HIV) being infectious and ultimately causing the other (AIDS).

quote Originally posted by maryjane: FYI--The word "communicable" does in fact mean that it is spread from person to person.

Heh, that makes sense. I'll change it to contagious.

quote Originally posted by cliffw: Heh, that makes sense. I'll change it to contagious.

So you changed it to another word that means essentially the same thing. Contagious and communicable are synonyms.

quote Originally posted by Red88FF: What is the point of life without "pleasure". There are all kinds of things that we don't "need" to do, and as many things as there are there is a list of things that some overbearing dickhead will think "you" don't need and scream loudly to try and effect your choices and behavior to suite his warped views. I know, let's all huddle in a corner and try not to move too much so we don't unnecessarily waste any money and resources. Yup, I did not read the article though the "Origami" condom heading is hysterical. I thought it would be a new thing instead of folding paper animals. Something like balloon tying

The OP (or me or someone...I'm not going back to figure out who it was) was talking about diseases. Of course, we all do stuff for pleasure. I ride a motorcycle for pleasure but I never asked for anyone to give me $2.4 million to do it. Having unprotected sex with an unreliable partner is one you can certainly live without doing especially when it costs ME (the taxpayer) money.

quote Originally posted by cliffw: It is a self inflicted disease.

I'm assuming you're joking.

quote Originally posted by cliffw: It is a self inflicted disease.

That is an incredibly ignorant view on things. There are plenty of people out there that have been unwittingly infected with this disease by sick people who knowingly have this disease and lie about it and even go as far as to poke holes in the condoms they are using just to try to spread the disease as far as possible...

Just because it is most commonly spread through sexual intercourse does not mean that i cannot be transmitted through other bodily fluids as well. Saliva and even tears can carry it. It just doesn't live nearly as long in saliva or tears. It's incredibly difficult(and nearing impossible) to catch it when not in blood, semen, or vaginal secretions, but not impossible.

And once again we as taxpayers have to step up and be responsible for someone elses choices.

Aids,STDs,and even unwanted pregnancies are extremely avoidable,as for the purpose of the initial reason of this post.We are forced to fund for a activity that selfish people are performing with no reguards but for themselves.
.Now before someone says you cant help if you get raped or don't have protection__for the rape this condom wasn't ment for a rape victim
and when they say we didn't have one,it slipped/ broke...well this is an excuse that is best left at the door. If someone is trying to spread a STD by poking holes or damaging it
then the condom isn't going to help either

When you engage in risky avoidable behavior and lose man up and deal with the consequences,it was your fault....not mine
that money should be left with me in my paycheck so I decide where it should go,and not a buerecrat trying to fund pet projects..

[This message has been edited by fireboss (edited 03-10-2014).]

quote Originally posted by User00013170: if it was up to me, it would all come to me.

well (from the above linked article) :

The NIH ... providing two grants worth $1,130,670 to design and test the Origami RAI condom for “receptive anal intercourse.”

Looks like there's a few bucks to be made on design and test if you're interested ....

[This message has been edited by PaulJK (edited 03-10-2014).]

quote Originally posted by cliffw: It is a self inflicted disease.

quote Originally posted by Monkeyman: I'm assuming you're joking.

quote Originally posted by Darth88Formula: That is an incredibly ignorant view on things.

Not joking and not an ignorant view. Sure, accidental infections happen as do malicious infections. The percentages ? Minuscule. STD's are also self inflicted diseases. If for no reason than people do not use protection, whiled engaged in risky behaviors no less, .

quote Originally posted by Formula88: So you changed it to another word that means essentially the same thing. Contagious and communicable are synonyms.

The word I am looking for escapes me.

The thing is, not that I think gooberment should be funding Big Pharma's research, I would be ok if cure type projects were funded. What we have here is taxpayer dollars funding a Los Angeles businessman, Danny Resnic, out to “reinvent the condom. Is he gonna repay those research grants ? He is from Los Angeles you ask ? Whose taxpayer pool did he get money from you wonder ? Why that would be the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (there is a mouthful). Yes, Maria Shiver is married to Kalifornia Governor Arnold Schearneager.
The mission of the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development ?

quote The mission of the NICHD is to ensure that every person is born healthy and wanted, that women suffer no harmful effects from reproductive processes, and that all children have the chance to achieve their full potential for healthy and productive lives, free from disease or disability, and to ensure the health, productivity, independence, and well-being of all people through optimal rehabilitation.

How do condoms ensure every person is born ?

quote Originally posted by fireboss: And once again we as taxpayers have to step up and be responsible for someone elses choices.

You forgot to mention driving, flying, drinking, smoking, eating, playing sports, farming, walking, exercising, learning.... how dare our government fund projects that will help the citizens live longer, healthier lives... sigh... Oh wait, this is about the project and the stigmas associated with it.... I forgot....

quote Originally posted by fireboss: When you engage in risky avoidable behavior and lose man up and deal with the consequences,it was your fault....not mine that money should be left with me in my paycheck so I decide where it should go,and not a buerecrat trying to fund pet projects..

BTW, you do have control over where you taxpayer dollars go. The people making the choices of funding are ELECTED. Now, maybe you don't agree with the elected officials, but the majority of voters do.

Oh... here is a good read...
http://www.cato-unbound.org...unding-public-health

[This message has been edited by jaskispyder (edited 03-10-2014).]

As silly as this is, we are talking millions not billions. 2.4 is a drop in the bucket compared to even more worthless endeavors such as renewable energy and electric car stuff which I don't necessarily disagree with in principal but so far huge money and ZERO return. Or even worse in my mind, foreign aid (foreign aids) which dwarfs this "investment".

Would 2.4 million even pay for half an Obama family vacation?

Yes I know, watch the pennies and the dollars will soon take care of themselves.
Do I agree with the new condom research? sure if done by the private sector with their own money with the hope and promise of profit in the future, as it should be. Fact is, we don't get to decide where are tax money goes, certainly NOT through the election process, that one is a joke. I am hearing a lot of this as of late." my money, cost ME money" therefore I have the right and will control your behavior because of it! they got us right where they want us for the kill.

quote Originally posted by Red88FF: Would 2.4 million even pay for half an Obama family vacation? Fact is, we don't get to decide where are tax money goes, certainly NOT through the election process,

Obama vacation? I would be more concerned with the amount of money we are spending on Pakistan.... '

As for where the money goes.... yes, you do control it through the election process. Obama got into office TWICE....

quote Originally posted by Darth88Formula: I wasn't talking about the malicious people either. I was talking about how that the information out there can cause a paradigm shift into the way the "normal" person thinks. This isn't the best example, but smoking is similar. Societal norms have begun to shift, and smokers have a lot more of a social stigma than before. Smoking isn't seen as the "cool" thing to do anymore. It is by some, but not all. And the way of thinking that oh well there's a cure for the disease so I don't have to take any precautions is a dangerous way of thinking. There's no real personal responsibility if that way of thinking continues. Oh well, we will deal with the consequences later and not worry about things right now. I'm not saying people will change their way of thinking overnight, but it'll happen. And this is a good step in that direction.

Heres a good example of a paradigm shift, as well as not thinking about consequences:



"If the current trend continues, sometime between 2028 and 2034 the US marriage rate will reach zero."

Divorce rate •1879 3%

Divorce rate •1985 50%

http://www.the-spearhead.co...e-end-of-marriage-2/
http://divorce.lovetoknow.c...orce_Rate_Statistics

[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 03-10-2014).]

quote Originally posted by jaskispyder: Obama vacation? I would be more concerned with the amount of money we are spending on Pakistan.... ' As for where the money goes.... yes, you do control it through the election process. Obama got into office TWICE....

Certainly not going to disagree with your vacation to Pakistan example but I only put that forth to illustrate a point. There is a butt load of other examples we could all put out there. Point is, with the massive examples of pointless waste, 2.4 million for condoms is what people are excited about.

Elections? I will disagree with that only due to the evidence that it hasn't worked at all, and seams to be getting worse every year.

Ps: I hate Obama

quote Originally posted by Red88FF: Elections? I will disagree with that only due to the evidence that it hasn't worked at all, and seams to be getting worse every year. Ps: I hate Obama

What you missed is the fact that people have grown tired of the GOP way of doing things (those two wars didn't help).... so here comes "change"... ie.... Obama. He claimed to be an outsider, and to bring about a new way of doing things. Right or wrong, he shook things up. The same can apply to any election. Look at the tea party, they did the same thing.

The problem is that "pork" is used to buy votes and I doubt that will change no matter what the candidate says.... it is how politics work. Frankly, I would rather spend $2.4M here in the US on condom research, vs spending $2.4M overseas.

quote Originally posted by jaskispyder: I would rather spend $2.4M here in the US on condom research, vs spending $2.4M overseas.

Amen!

quote Originally posted by jaskispyder: What you missed is the fact that people have grown tired of the GOP way of doing things (those two wars didn't help)....

I disagree. The media sold the general public a bill of goods, and worked hard to lie and convince them that things were so bad we needed something different. Different doesn't always mean better, as ha been proven yet again.

No one i know personally was having a problem with how things were going in general.

quote Originally posted by jaskispyder: You forgot to mention driving, flying, drinking, smoking, eating, playing sports, farming, walking, exercising, learning.... how dare our government fund projects that will help the citizens live longer, healthier lives...

Indeed !
Every way they can help us, leads to controlling us.

quote Originally posted by Red88FF: Point is, with the massive examples of pointless waste, 2.4 million for condoms is what people are excited about.

My thread, not my point. Funding to a private business man, and funding for condoms, and 2.4 million all piss me off. Government funding in general pisses me off. Specific funding ? Meh, maybe. As mentioned, much of it is vote buying. Also, if all the alphabet agencies don't spend their budgets they don't get more money, more as in increased.
$682,570 to study stress in shrimp for one study of 'Shrimp On A Treadmill'.

quote According to the National Science Foundation (NSF) website, the money has been granted to the “Taking the Pulse of Marine Life in Stressed Seas” research conducted by biology professors Louis and Karen Burnett at the College of Charleston. The research page describes the professor’s "big question" as “How are human-made marine stresses affecting the marine life that we need?”

The recipients of this grant money state that ...

quote “More answers money is needed”, as research is ongoing.

But hey, we did get this cool video for our money ...


Brought to you by these people who need a real job ...

An important qualification to receive Nobama money ?
Kiss Nobama azz ...

quote Originally posted by cliffw: Indeed ! Every way they can help us, leads to controlling us.

Yawn.... same old rhetoric... Hard to believe that you can sit there and ignore the positive advancements that publicly funded research as brought to the US and the world.

As for the shrimp on the treadmill... there is more about the whole story. I am not saying it is a good use of tax payer money, but there is more to this research that is ignored.

http://www.npr.org/2011/08/...ics-of-silly-studies

[This message has been edited by jaskispyder (edited 03-11-2014).]

quote Originally posted by jaskispyder: Hard to believe that you can sit there and ignore the positive advancements that publicly funded research as brought to the US and the world.

I am not one to not appreciate research and the positives it brings. It is not governments job to do research. Government doesn't even appreciate the value of a dollar, doesn't know how to control spending, and should not be picking winners and losers.
Most of the positive advancements happened without government funding. The train, the auto, the telegraph, the telephone, electricity, the list is endless. If anyone of the research projects came up as a separate vote, instead of a rider, they would not pass. It is a way to buy politician's votes on other issues which may not stand on their own merits. They prostitute the government process. A study proved it, .
We have a spending problem. We have a debt problem. They are called negative advancements.

quote Originally posted by cliffw: I am not one to not appreciate research and the positives it brings. It is not governments job to do research. Government doesn't even appreciate the value of a dollar, doesn't know how to control spending, and should not be picking winners and losers. Most of the positive advancements happened without government funding. The train, the auto, the telegraph, the telephone, electricity, the list is endless. If anyone of the research projects came up as a separate vote, instead of a rider, they would not pass. It is a way to buy politician's votes on other issues which may not stand on their own merits. They prostitute the government process. A study proved it, . We have a spending problem. We have a debt problem. They are called negative advancements.

Phone? Automobile? Electricity? You are kidding? I guess you think these things get to your house magically!

BTW, yes, spending problem... two unfunded wars, a recession.... yup... I would rather the US government invest in the US.

But keep living in the dark....

Further reading...
"Funding existing technologies is more complicated. Sometimes it works. The Air Force and NASA were the only buyers of semiconductor chips when they were first manufactured in the 1950s and through the early 1960s — when costs started plummeting and private industry got interested. Or consider “fracking,” a technology that was developed using Energy Department grants and loans starting in the late 1970s." http://www.washingtonpost.c...JQApDmJrV_story.html

"Other Silicon Valley companies, like Google, have profited in a similarly immense fashion: Google’s algorithm was funded by the National Science Foundation. Many of the “new economy” companies that like to portray themselves as the heart of U.S. “entrepreneurship” have very successfully surfed the wave of U.S. government-funded investments. Hence, one secret to Silicon Valley’s success has been its active and visible hand, in stark contrast to the Ayn Rand/Adam Smith folklore often bandied about." http://blogs.hbr.org/2013/0...elped-apple-but-app/

[This message has been edited by jaskispyder (edited 03-11-2014).]

quote Originally posted by Darth88Formula: I was talking about how that the information out there can cause a paradigm shift into the way the "normal" person thinks.

Just 50 years ago in this very country, there was a social stigma against having multiple sexual partners before marriage. There was also a social stigma about even being divorced. And there was an even stronger social stigma against homosexual sex. And a strong stigma against being an unwed mother.

I doubt that there was less interest in teenagers having sex in the late '50s and early '60s. But the social stigma against being that kind of a person, I'm sure, peer pressured large numbers of teenagers into not engaging in it.

That was a very protective environment against std spread.
In the late '60s, the free love movement began, and really got rolling in the '70s. Multiple sex partners. More homosexual sex. By early 1980's, the AIDS virus started causing people to have illnesses, and people didn't even know what it was.
In the 1960's, oral contraceptives were developed. 1973 Roe v. Wade.
All fall in the category of sex without consequences.

No social stigma.
Less chance of pregnancy. A "solution" if became pregnant.
Less chance of std's.
You can like it. You can not like it. Sex is a behavior that carries a certain level of risk.


Put it in the category of any activity with risk. You do what you can to reduce the risk. But unless you have a level of responsibility, there are going to be a percentage of people who get hurt.


Why those consequences becomes the responsibility financially of the U.S. taxpayers is beyond me.

quote Originally posted by jaskispyder: Phone? Automobile? Electricity? You are kidding? I guess you think these things get to your house magically!

, neither one is funded by government. Roads ? Meh, not a waste of taxpayer dollars. Actually supported by road users.

quote Originally posted by jaskispyder: BTW, yes, spending problem... two unfunded wars ...

... not that deflection canard again, . How did Kennedy fund the Vietnam war ? Why didn't the Dumbs who voted for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq insist on funding them ? Your bro has been in office for almost six years. Why hasn't he started paying for them ? What about his unfunded spending on steroids ?

quote Originally posted by jaskispyder: ... a recession.... yup...

Dumbocrat induced. Everybody should own a home is what caused that.

quote Originally posted by jaskispyder: I would rather the US government invest in the US.

Ah, "invest". Code speak for spend money. Yes, yes I tell you. We need government to spend our money for us. They are so much better at it. They spend it all, including future money, on mostly wasteful endeavors.

quote Originally posted by jaskispyder: Further reading... http://www.washingtonpost.c...JQApDmJrV_story.html

Oh yeah, that's good. Get a left wing opinion writer to make your case for you. One with worse abilities than you.
His source for the flawed opinion that government spending is the savior of Americans ? A guy who got the gooberment money for a study,

quote “From a simple return on investment, the financial stake made in mapping the entire human genome is clearly one of the best uses of taxpayer dollars the U.S. government has ever made,” says Greg Lucier, chief executive of Life Technologies, whose foundation sponsored the study cited above and whose company produces the $1,000 gene-sequencing technology.

Then there is this ...

quote Government investment in basic science has had huge commercial payoffs. For example, 13 Nobel laureates had devoted major parts of their careers to cholesterol research before cholesterol-reducing statins came to market. Now it is the largest-selling class of drugs in the world: More than 40 million people take them.

No mention of the gooberment spending which enhanced cholesterol-reducing statins. Heh, he goes on ...

quote Funding existing technologies is more complicated. Sometimes it works. On the other hand, there are Solyndra and many flops like it. Even here, however, the case for funding basic science is unimpeachable. If solar panels are to become a subsidy-free form of energy,

Heh, heh, he goes on above to say ... here it gets hilarious, ...

quote Several companies have started using compounds that are now expensive, one of which, Alta Devices, occupies an office building that once served as the headquarters for Solyndra.

To be fair, he is not championing your point. As to your second claim of your opinion vindication ...

quote "Other Silicon Valley companies, like Google, have profited in a similarly immense fashion: Google’s algorithm was funded by the National Science Foundation. Many of the “new economy” companies that like to portray themselves as the heart of U.S. “entrepreneurship” have very successfully surfed the wave of U.S. government-funded investments.

Why are not the taxpayers sharing this created wealth ? Jobs created and services gained, nice as they are, are not just compensation for the making of billionaires. Billionaires who now have a near monopoly.
Most funding is done by azzkissing and lobbyist bribery.

quote Originally posted by jaskispyder: Phone? Automobile? Electricity? You are kidding? I guess you think these things get to your house magically!

Not magic, but drone.

quote Originally posted by cliffw: Roads ? Meh, not a waste of taxpayer dollars. Actually supported by road users.

You do know that the highways were initially funded by the US government? Sigh.... Same with the phone lines and other such large investments. It took the resources of the government to make these things happen, and to lessen the risk. But keep denying the truth, it is pretty funny.

quote Originally posted by jaskispyder: You do know that the highways were initially funded by the US government? Sigh.... Same with the phone lines and other such large investments. It took the resources of the government to make these things happen, and to lessen the risk. But keep denying the truth, it is pretty funny.

I think you are both are really saying the same thing, as where do you think the funds come from that the government has to use? Us.. via taxes.. both use-tax and 'just because' tax

quote Originally posted by jaskispyder: You do know that the highways were initially funded by the US government?

Yeah gooberment. The US gooberment uses it today to control us. The funding is no longer needed. It should be up to the states to maintain them, if ... if they want to attract traffic and business. Just as it was for local towns/people who wanted the railroad to enrich their area. Did the gooberment also fund the many cattle trails which fed America ?

quote Originally posted by jaskispyder: Sigh.... Same with the phone lines and other such large investments. It took the resources of the government to make these things happen, and to lessen the risk.

Source ?

quote Originally posted by cliffw: Yeah gooberment. The US gooberment uses it today to control us. The funding is no longer needed. It should be up to the states to maintain them, if ... if they want to attract traffic and business. Just as it was for local towns/people who wanted the railroad to enrich their area. Did the gooberment also fund the many cattle trails which fed America ?

GOVERNMENT?

Used to control us? Ah... ok.... I am surprised, you are using the internet... it was also developed with the help of NSF (taxpayers) money. Oh well, you use taxpayer roads, and tax payer internet, tax payer computers....yet you say it shouldn't be this way and that businesses will do all of this given the need. Ah.... ok, keep believing what you want, but I would rather have my GOVERNMENT invest in our future, where commercial risk is too great.

In the end, nothing beats bare back.

quote Originally posted by Tony Kania: In the end, nothing beats bare back.

quote Originally posted by jaskispyder: Cliffw believes government funded research is bad ...

Sure I did. It's right here in this thread for lying eyes to read,

quote Originally posted by frontal lobe: Just 50 years ago in this very country, there was a social stigma against having multiple sexual partners before marriage. There was also a social stigma about even being divorced. And there was an even stronger social stigma against homosexual sex. And a strong stigma against being an unwed mother. I doubt that there was less interest in teenagers having sex in the late '50s and early '60s. But the social stigma against being that kind of a person, I'm sure, peer pressured large numbers of teenagers into not engaging in it. That was a very protective environment against std spread. In the late '60s, the free love movement began, and really got rolling in the '70s. Multiple sex partners. More homosexual sex. By early 1980's, the AIDS virus started causing people to have illnesses, and people didn't even know what it was. In the 1960's, oral contraceptives were developed. 1973 Roe v. Wade. All fall in the category of sex without consequences. No social stigma. Less chance of pregnancy. A "solution" if became pregnant. Less chance of std's. You can like it. You can not like it. Sex is a behavior that carries a certain level of risk. Put it in the category of any activity with risk. You do what you can to reduce the risk. But unless you have a level of responsibility, there are going to be a percentage of people who get hurt. Why those consequences becomes the responsibility financially of the U.S. taxpayers is beyond me.

Yep.

And why those consequences became the responsibility financially of the U.S. taxpayers is...

[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 03-12-2014).]