New USA policy to jail sick people!

[Slowsis]

Ok enough name calling or we'll lock the thread.

Haven't read the rules for discussion? Or do they just not apply any more?

You're fucking oblivious to everything lately.

What exactly is he oblivious to?

[cammel]

It's definitely worth it to sacrifice a person's quality of life to save countless others from contracting horrible diseases. Cold hard fact. I'm not saying we should kill sick people, but we live in such a populated world that it would be stupid not to take those steps to protect everyone else.

I agree. I would feel really bad if this person had a disease that he couldnt take steps to controll, but this asshole had ways to protect others and live a semi-normal life but he didnt do what the doctors said to keep other people safe. No sympathy at all here. well maybe a little... but he's still a dick.

[Jeremy]

Haven't read the rules for discussion? Or do they just not apply any more?

You're fucking oblivious to everything lately.

What exactly is he oblivious to?

Everything, obviously

[Switch Kicker]

What exactly is he wrong about?

He says there's no better way to deal with this, though I have already given several other ideas, that would work.

Do you have a concrete argument about why this person should not be detained? Give us a paragraph or two explaining why this man should not be detained

Already did that, read the first page.

I have disproved your argument three times now

When and where is this? And what exactly did you disprove?

Please respond without insults....facts only. That is a challenge. A challenge to actually debate a topic, instead of blowing up the second you see a crack in your own arguments and insulting and flaming the people that have revealed it.

Again, first page.

Jeremy called you out on your poor reasoning, and instead of rebutting his claim, you proceeded to call him a "fucking idiot" a "stuck up asshole" and a big ass hypocrite".

You only want this thread locked because you are wrong, and want it to disappear.[/quote]

Jeremy ignorantly repeated the same god damn questions over and over even though I gave him the same god damn solid answer each time. And he's only arguing this because he's a stuck up ass that just can't let me fuckin' be right for once. And that last thing was not an opinion, he is a big ass hypocrite.

You only want this thread locked because you are wrong, and want it to disappear.

I don't believe you're the one operating my brain, thanks. I want this thread locked because it's been ruined by some hypocritical ass wipe that would sooner suck a dick on the Golden Gate Bridge than admit he's wrong.

Thousands of starving children under the age of 5 is completely disastrous, however, the human rights of a man completely being put aside and disregarded is completely acceptable? What the hell is your malfunction Jeremy?

[Jeremy]

Thousands of starving children under the age of 5 is completely disastrous, however, the human rights of a man completely being put aside and disregarded is completely acceptable? What the hell is your malfunction Jeremy?

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're saying?

It sounds like you're saying that because 35,000 children under the age of 5 die of starvation every day (the statistic I quoted in another topic that I presume you're referring to), we should worry about the human rights of 1 person, whose human rights are apparently being violated in order to try to prevent other people from contracting a deadly contagious disease.

Have I summed that up correctly? Can you see why I would care about 35,000 children dying under 5 more than I care about one person being detained in order to save people's lives?

[Switch Kicker]

Thousands of starving children under the age of 5 is completely disastrous, however, the human rights of a man completely being put aside and disregarded is completely acceptable? What the hell is your malfunction Jeremy?

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're saying?

It sounds like you're saying that because 35,000 children under the age of 5 die of starvation every day (the statistic I quoted in another topic that I presume you're referring to), we should worry about the human rights of 1 person, whose human rights are apparently being violated in order to try to prevent other people from contracting a deadly contagious disease.

Have I summed that up correctly? Can you see why I would care about 35,000 children dying under 5 more than I care about one person being detained in order to save people's lives?

You're really bad at manipulation.

It sounds like I'm saying that you're some footbagging guy, that sits around at home, discussing the importance of human rights, ALL day, EVERY day of your miserable life(DESPITE, the fact that you have no ability to change these things you say you wish you could change, and will probably make no effort in the future to attempt to make such changes.). And now, you're switching it, being ignorant, and just, really dumb compared to your usual behavior.

I can imagine it's hard for you to socialize in real life.

[Slowsis]

Thousands of starving children under the age of 5 is completely disastrous, however, the human rights of a man completely being put aside and disregarded is completely acceptable? What the hell is your malfunction Jeremy?

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're saying?

It sounds like you're saying that because 35,000 children under the age of 5 die of starvation every day (the statistic I quoted in another topic that I presume you're referring to), we should worry about the human rights of 1 person, whose human rights are apparently being violated in order to try to prevent other people from contracting a deadly contagious disease.

Have I summed that up correctly? Can you see why I would care about 35,000 children dying under 5 more than I care about one person being detained in order to save people's lives?

You're really bad at manipulation.

It sounds like I'm saying that you're some footbagging guy, that sits around at home, discussing the importance of human rights, ALL day, EVERY day of your miserable life(DESPITE, the fact that you have no ability to change these things you say you wish you could change, and will probably make no effort in the future to attempt to make such changes.). And now, you're switching it, being ignorant, and just, really dumb compared to your usual behavior.

I can imagine it's hard for you to socialize in real life.

The human rights of the thousands of people this man could come into contact with are more important than his own, if he is unwilling to follow the necessary precautions. Jeremy understands that for thousands of people to be safe, one man must suffer. If house arrest was an option the government would have used it.

[Switch Kicker]

If house arrest was an option the government would have used it.

Just like if the government could drop gas prices, they would.

If they could've fixed the water level walls in New Orleans, they would've.

All this woulda coulda shoulda bullshit is getting sickening.

Gas prices were under 2 bucks during the elections last year. Guess where they're at now. 10 cents more than they were before the elections.

The US is full of lazy corrupt idiots that are too lazy to do anything the right way, no matter how small the job is, such as making sure one man is treated properly according to his own rights.

[Slowsis]

If house arrest was an option the government would have used it.

Just like if the government could drop gas prices, they would.

If they could've fixed the water level walls in New Orleans, they would've.

First of all, the US (and Canadian) government does not control the price of gas, oil companies do.

Secondly, the government didn't fix the sea walls in New Orleans because it would have cost tens of millions of dollars. They have nothing to gain by jailing this man, except the safety of their citizens.

[Tsiangkun]

Secondly, the government didn't fix the sea walls in New Orleans because it would have cost tens of millions of dollars.

Then why did the government break iraq, it's costing us $200M/day !

The answer of course is "George Bush don't like black people".

[crazylegs32]

I started the thread and now I feel bad for how its turning out

[crazylegs32]

Lets set it into a new direction- TB is supposedly non transmissible with a mask?? So they throw him in jail for not wearing a mask. BTW- how is that safe for other prisoners, I wouldnt trust the jail ventilation system to handle deadly germs.
Now what if people get a really deadly and highly transmissible case of bird flu or Ebola? Now based on what theyre already doing to this tb guy the govt. may decide to put them into a prison or some island like they used to do to lepers.

[cammel]

Secondly, the government didn't fix the sea walls in New Orleans because it would have cost tens of millions of dollars.

Then why did the government break iraq, it's costing us $200M/day !

The answer of course is "George Bush don't like black people".

...maybe the government saw a reason to go into iraq(im not agreeing with it) and didnt see a reason to fix the walls.....

no thats stupid. you're right he just hates black people.



Anyway, im going to try and summarize this and cut out all the personal attacks and you two tell me if this is about right.

It seems like everyone agrees that this guy should be kept away from society in some way because he is endangering others. And he wasnt taking precautions needed to protect other people.

I think all switch kicker is saying is that maybe he should be able to bathe and have a tv etc. And maybe even be put under house arrest only. Seems like an alright suggestion seeing as he has not been charged with a crime.

I think that is all that has been said in these three pages. The rest has just been off topic and jeremy you've been goading him into a flame war in which you can look cool and composed while he explodes... you definitely did ask some stupid questions like

"What should be the response to deadly and contagious diseases?

Please give an answer that takes into account the current infrastructure, and assumes the problem is now (ie. building a quarantined containment building is obviously not a solution)."

that had no relevance to the comversation. he had said that he should be quarantined or put under house arrest or something instead of a room with out mirrors or showers or something. That question would provoke him and you knew it. And then you were ready to jump in with more facts and figures you got by searching WHO and then you guys argued over stuff that had very little to do with this man.

Is there anything im missing? Is that an accurate representation of your position switch kicker? And is there anything that you see as terribly wrong with giving this man a bath or a tv or maybe even house arrest jeremy?

[cammel]

Lets set it into a new direction- TB is supposedly non transmissible with a mask?? So they throw him in jail for not wearing a mask. BTW- how is that safe for other prisoners, I wouldnt trust the jail ventilation system to handle deadly germs.
Now what if people get a really deadly and highly transmissible case of bird flu or Ebola? Now based on what theyre already doing to this tb guy the govt. may decide to put them into a prison or some island like they used to do to lepers.

I assume masks do because the doctors giving him medication wear them when they enter his room.

"The ventilation system draws out the air and filters it to capture the bacteria-laden droplets he expels when he coughs. The filters are periodically burned." -the article

i assume if someone had either of those disseases and the government was able to catch them before anyone else got infected they would do the exact same thing they are doing with this man. With Ebola he wouldnt have long to wait though and i think not have a tv would be the least of his worries

sorry for double post but you posted while i was writing my last post

[Switch Kicker]

Secondly, the government didn't fix the sea walls in New Orleans because it would have cost tens of millions of dollars.

Then why did the government break iraq, it's costing us $200M/day !

The answer of course is "George Bush don't like black people".

...maybe the government saw a reason to go into iraq(im not agreeing with it) and didnt see a reason to fix the walls.....

no thats stupid. you're right he just hates black people.



Anyway, im going to try and summarize this and cut out all the personal attacks and you two tell me if this is about right.

It seems like everyone agrees that this guy should be kept away from society in some way because he is endangering others. And he wasnt taking precautions needed to protect other people.

I think all switch kicker is saying is that maybe he should be able to bathe and have a tv etc. And maybe even be put under house arrest only. Seems like an alright suggestion seeing as he has not been charged with a crime.

I think that is all that has been said in these three pages. The rest has just been off topic and jeremy you've been goading him into a flame war in which you can look cool and composed while he explodes... you definitely did ask some stupid questions like

"What should be the response to deadly and contagious diseases?

Please give an answer that takes into account the current infrastructure, and assumes the problem is now (ie. building a quarantined containment building is obviously not a solution)."

that had no relevance to the comversation. he had said that he should be quarantined or put under house arrest or something instead of a room with out mirrors or showers or something. That question would provoke him and you knew it. And then you were ready to jump in with more facts and figures you got by searching WHO and then you guys argued over stuff that had very little to do with this man.

Is there anything im missing? Is that an accurate representation of your position switch kicker? And is there anything that you see as terribly wrong with giving this man a bath or a tv or maybe even house arrest jeremy?

I envy your patience and calm collect approach. Yes, that's a very good representation of what I had in mind.

[Jeremy]

The obviously problem with house arrest is that it requires large resources to enforce. Jail, on the other hand, is the same, except you already have the resources in place.

I would also suspect that they're testing the waters for how they'd react with a serious outbreak of something like a new mutated bird flu.

Considering the inconsiderate and anti-social behaviour of this person, I think it's clear that he's really suffering the consequences of his own actions. Many countries are bringing in laws that make it illegal to infect people with diseases that you have intentionally or through neglect (including Australia right now), and just because there isn't currently a law against it in that particular part of the US, I think we can see that it's clearly anti-social and immoral.

I reject the notion that I was goading Switch Kicker; he was posting rubbish and I was calling him on it, like I usually do when I see ridiculous posts.

Instead of instantly always attacking authority, he should try to think about what the goal of having authority in society is.

[Switch Kicker]

The obviously problem with house arrest is that it requires large resources to enforce. Jail, on the other hand, is the same, except you already have the resources in place.

I would also suspect that they're testing the waters for how they'd react with a serious outbreak of something like a new mutated bird flu.

Considering the inconsiderate and anti-social behaviour of this person, I think it's clear that he's really suffering the consequences of his own actions. Many countries are bringing in laws that make it illegal to infect people with diseases that you have intentionally or through neglect (including Australia right now), and just because there isn't currently a law against it in that particular part of the US, I think we can see that it's clearly anti-social and immoral.

I reject the notion that I was goading Switch Kicker; he was posting rubbish and I was calling him on it, like I usually do when I see ridiculous posts.

Instead of instantly always attacking authority, he should try to think about what the goal of having authority in society is.

Excuse me?

[HG]

wait a minute, wont he infect a lot of prisoners?

[BainbridgeShred]

I didn't read the article so I don't know what level security of prison (Or if it is a prison to begin with) this guy is in, but I don't think you guys know how shitty prison really is. This is definitely a tough call, but prison isn't just somewhere you put people who aren't complying with health codes. If that was the case, we'd all be in jail for driving our cars and smoking cigarette's on the street.

Of course an airborn pathogen is a whole nother issue. I'm really at a loss on this one, which of course isn't normal for me. Although, and I speak from personal experience, jail should be the last resort option for only the most violent, sociopathic people in society.

[Switch Kicker]

I didn't read the article so I don't know what level security of prison (Or if it is a prison to begin with) this guy is in, but I don't think you guys know how shitty prison really is. This is definitely a tough call, but prison isn't just somewhere you put people who aren't complying with health codes. If that was the case, we'd all be in jail for driving our cars and smoking cigarette's on the street.

Of course an airborn pathogen is a whole nother issue. I'm really at a loss on this one, which of course isn't normal for me. Although, and I speak from personal experience, jail should be the last resort option for only the most violent, sociopathic people in society.

Possibly the first time I agree with Dan Feary.