Subject:
|
Re: GODMONEY (was re: Anthrax worse than AIDS?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 26 Oct 2001 15:02:14 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
405 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Simpson writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti writes:
>
> > Nobody cares if thousands of homosexuals suffer and die. Bible sales are up.
>
> > I'm not sure what you are getting at. Can you please elaborate? Who is this
> > "nobody" that you are referring to? What connection are you assuming between
> > Bible-purchases and AIDS deaths? If I purchase a Bible (which I have in the
> > last year), am I therefore culpable for the deaths of people who have
> > contracted AIDS in non-risky-behavior by virtue of not giving said money to
> > AIDS-related charity?
> > Do you assume that because I'm religious I am pleased when people get AIDS?
>
> I read from Richard's post a concern that a disease that has claimed
> millions of lives is still perceived as a "fringe" disease, while a disease
> that recently has claimed fewer than 10 lives has been the front page story
> in every news source for two weeks. In my interpretation, Richard's post
> does not condemn bible purchases per se; he's instead collating two
> simultaneous issues and making a statement about priorities. To that end, I
> think he's correct.
I understand that the root of his issue was not bible purchases per se, but his
GodMoney comments were red herrings meant to attack willy-nilly and make broad-
brush generalizations about people of faith and their motives and concerns.
> Obviously, the fact that the current anthrax outbreaks result from an
> attack makes it tangibly different from the propogation of AIDS, but the
> tragedy of deaths resulting from anthrax is certainly no greater (neither in
> number or "innocence") than AIDS or any other pre-existing disease.
> Moreover, anthrax is curable, while AIDS and many other pre-existing
> diseases are not.
I never postulated a tragedy-calculus. In terms of public health numbers,
Anthrax is small potatos, but the difference lies in the fact that it is being
purposefully propagated and spread, and, as such, deserves immense public
attention.
> I can see how a reader would interpret Richard's statement as a sort of
> eye-rolling at increased Bible sales, but you're jumping to conclusions when
> you assume that Richard is equating Bible sales with the incidence of AIDS.
My comments were spoken facetiously. His comments implied that--or even subtly
accused--religious people of being unconcerned with AIDS sufferers. I
understand that bibles aren't part of the issue. I got that part. They were
red herrings, and that is what I took issue with
> "Risky behavior" is also a devastatingly open-ended label.
> "Opening the
> mail" is now risky behavior, as are "breathing" and "touching." When you
> imply, as you have implied, that certain behaviors make it all right for
> individuals to contract fatal diseases, the burden is on you, first to
> explain the moral calculus by which you arrived at such an assertion, and
> second to explain how you determine which of these people "deserve" to get
> the disease.
I made no such implication whatsoever; I never, never implied that it is "all
right" (i.e. a just punishment) for said people to contract AIDS. Contraction
is a natural risk and consequence of risky behavior. That's just a fact. But I
never said that it was just punishment, or any other such thing. Do I think that
said category of people "got what they deserved?" By no means. We all make
mistakes, and I believe in helping and loving human beings. People who *know*
the risks of sharing needles or having unprotected sex deserve kindness and
help--for a number of reaons that I can postulate if you'd like. *However*,
there is a *difference* between people who stand in the way of danger by virtue
of wanton risky behavior and those who do not, or those who endanger themselves
for a greater good - such as being a nurse.
> What about a hypothetical IV-drug user who contracts HIV
> because she volunteers at a hospital and is splashed by infected blood? Is
> her illness somehow more valid because she didn't get it through "risky"
> behavior?
> Further, the threat of anthrax is nothing new:
> http://skepdic.com/refuge/funk.html#anthrax
>
> I caution that your quickness to perceive Richard's post as an
> anti-religious diatribe is short-sighted and reactionary.
And I answer that his ad-hominem generalizations were inappropriate.
> He makes an
> excellent point (albeit it a somewhat in-your-face way!) that priorities
> need to be carefully considered.
I *completely* agree.
> In addition, when such level-headed
> individuals as Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson go on the record to blame the
> Sept11 attacks on gays and liberals, one can hardly fault people who argue
> that there are larger issues at play than infected mail.
>
> Dave!
What do those crack-pots have to do with me (as a representative member of the
bible-buying religious segment of our population?) I don't claim to follow JF
or have him as a spokesman. (I'm not suggesting that you're saying this, but,)
equating the attitude of JF with the attitude of Christians et-al is the same
kind of rhetoric that makes Muslims guilty by association to terrorists.
james
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: GODMONEY (was re: Anthrax worse than AIDS?)
|
| (...) As currently deployed, it is indeed small potatoes. I'm sure more people are killed by food poisoning than anthrax. As a terrorist weapon it is very effective. I expect the economic cost of its impact must be huge. If the government treats it (...) (23 years ago, 26-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: GODMONEY (was re: Anthrax worse than AIDS?)
|
| (...) All right, I retract that statement (which was admittedly unfair). I'm still not comfortable with "risky behavior," though, because it carries a vibe of "got what was coming to them," whether you intend it or not. (...) Agreed--just as David (...) (23 years ago, 26-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: GODMONEY (was re: Anthrax worse than AIDS?)
|
| I think Dave! did a pretty good job of expanding on what I was intimating in my little Godmoney venting. I do think our priorities are completing screwed. I think we should BY FAR be more concerned with security, emergency response, and how to (...) (23 years ago, 26-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: GODMONEY (was re: Anthrax worse than AIDS?)
|
| (...) I read from Richard's post a concern that a disease that has claimed millions of lives is still perceived as a "fringe" disease, while a disease that recently has claimed fewer than 10 lives has been the front page story in every news source (...) (23 years ago, 26-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
22 Messages in This Thread:
   
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
