Originally posted by inimalist
you probably will only cater to a very niche crowd, if you are able to do buisnuiss at all
Question is, should it be legal or not?
Originally posted by Naz
The color of their skin doesn't directly endanger the rest of your customers.
True but does HIV?
And even so, the argument of many people in this thread was that business owners should be allowed to decide who they ban or not, no matter if they pose a danger or if you hate the color of their skin.
Originally posted by Fishy
What if you ban blacks from your private business?Anyways as for the topic, the chances are so small that I really wouldn't consider it a danger, at least not more then when the kid would walk around normally. The kid is two years old so will likely stay around his parents for most of the time. If the water can't spread the infection then there is no reason to ban the kid.
However I wouldn't expect the people in the pool to actually know this, and know exactly what viruses can spread and which one's can't so it seems a logical decision from him.
I am all for banning blacks actually. Should be up to the owner of said business.
On a general note, should the parents of the other kids and other swimmers be informed about it? Do they have to be informed? Can they just be lie to? What if there are severe losses in revenues because of it?
Originally posted by Bardock42
I am all for banning blacks actually. Should be up to the owner of said business.On a general note, should the parents of the other kids and other swimmers be informed about it? Do they have to be informed? Can they just be lie to? What if there are severe losses in revenues because of it?
I knew you would be for banning based on skin color...
Don't see why they should be informed... I wonder how many customers of certain pools have HIV anyways. Or how many people let their kids swim in rivers and what not, it's likely that some HIV patients swam in that water as well. The question should be is the kid in anyway endangering the health of the other people, beyond the level of a normal 2 year old.
If the answer to that question is not yes, then the kid should be banned.
Originally posted by inimalist
I can't comprehend what gives government the right to dictate to people who they can and can't provide service tooh wait, they have the guns...
It has it's purposes at times...
Originally posted by Fishy
True but does HIV?And even so, the argument of many people in this thread was that business owners should be allowed to decide who they ban or not, no matter if they pose a danger or if you hate the color of their skin.
Potentially, yes.
I realize that the kid was 2, so that did make me wonder, "well, are they really going to be interacting with the other kids that much?" And no, probably not. But if the kid had been 5 or older, then I would say definitely, yes. I remember my playground days, and now I volunteer for summer day camps, and I know that playgrounds are a bloody buisness, and it would be likely that the virus could spread. Now, on second thought, maybe they shouldn't have been banned, that's just not fair, but every other parent should have been informed that there was a kid with HIV on the playground.
Then why is HIV found in the blood stream, the blood, where oxygen is found?
The HIV virus hosts itself into a healthy cell and then so on with the process of the infection. Wiki is your friend.
Contrary to popular belief, if the HIV virus enters your bloodstream, that doesn't automatically mean you HIV+. It still has to infect a host. If it fails to infect the host in the limited gap of time it takes for the virus to die than congrats, you dodged the bullet.
However, sexual transmission gives the HIV virus the perfect environment and window of opportunity to find and infect a host.
Originally posted by Naz
Okay, so maybe the chlorine would have killed it. But you still can't convince me that there was no way, or atleast a low enough chance, that that kid couldn't have spread HIV. I wasn't a kid that long ago, there's a lot of blood involved in pools and playgrounds.
No, I'm saying there's about the same chance of spreading HIV through pools as there is for Nicole Richie to get a 1800 on the SATs....through her own brainpower....
Originally posted by Naz
Potentially, yes.
I realize that the kid was 2, so that did make me wonder, "well, are they really going to be interacting with the other kids that much?" And no, probably not. But if the kid had been 5 or older, then I would say definitely, yes. I remember my playground days, and now I volunteer for summer day camps, and I know that playgrounds are a bloody buisness, and it would be likely that the virus could spread. Now, on second thought, maybe they shouldn't have been banned, that's just not fair, but every other parent should have been informed that there was a kid with HIV on the playground.
Thank you, exactly. Just inform the parents that there's an HIV+ person in the pool. Don't have to tell anybody who.
Originally posted by Naz
Yes, I think they were right. Though I know swimming in the same pool as a kid with HIV won't mean that you get it, I know from swimming as a little kid myself, you can get cut up just from some rough tiles on the side of the pool. But then again, the kid is two, and probably can't get in and out of the pool without his parents, thus eliminating that. If the child had been older, then they definitely should have gotten that doctor's information and then done something accordingly. But even now, it was a safety precaution.
unless your drinking thier bodily fluids you have no reason to worry whatsoever. A person with HIV could suffer a shotgun blast to the chest, allowing th enitre pool too fill with their blood. You still will not contract the virus. 1 out of every 10 people you pass on a daily basis has aids. Wonder how aids victims there are in pools ona regular consistency
If it always required a host, and oxygen was as deadly to it as you make it out to be, needles wouldn't spread it. and water park janitors are trained to never handle blood so that it would make skin contact, always wear gloves.
and there's this:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8194137&dopt=Abstract
Singlet oxygen (1O2) when generated either in the cytoplasm or in the cell nucleus can also promote an important HIV-1 reactivation from treated cells.
So how long after the initial injury will the HIV in the spilled blood last until it dies due to oxygen exposure? Is there a chance of someone else getting to the blood and becoming infected in the mean time?
"Couple: HIV+ 2-Year-Old Barred from Pool" ABC News. . . Americans are not educated enough about HIV.
Medical experts said the HIV virus is unable to spread through casual contact.
"There's absolutely no way you can get HIV from a pool or a shower casual contact using the same facilities," said David Little, director of South Alabama CARES, an AIDS education and outreach organization that serves 12 counties in south Alabama. "It just doesn't happen."
🙄
Originally posted by Goddess Kali
IF the child had a skin rash, he or she would not be allowed in. I don't see much difference. It's not racial or handycap discrimination, this is a safety issue.Safety comes first over being politically correct.
But as soon as said child got into the pool wouldn't the chlorine and bleach instantly sterilize it?
I've swam in a pool with someone I knew had AIDS. It didn't bother me because I, ya know, know my biology and chemistry facts...
There are no more X-factors in a kid swimming in pool who is HIV positive then there is with a kid who is HIV positive walking down the street.
In my opinion, morally speaking, if a kid isn't allowed to swim in a pool (One of the most sterile places to be if you had AIDS) because he is HIV positive then he shouldn't be allowed to live should he? He's no more dangerous in the pool then eh is on a playground, or walking down the street.
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
too many X factors there. you have to look at it this way, what if YOU were in the pool, and you knew that someone with AIDS was about to get in?
There is absolutely no way you can get HIV from using the same pool or shower facilities as someone who is HIV+. What is the issue?