Subject:
|
Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 12 May 2000 10:40:49 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
877 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Peter Callaway writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> Hence I believe those who have contracted it through sexual contact before the
> accepted social awareness date (if that can in fact be nailed down) are still
> responsible for their actions, as it has been known for ages that you can
> contract seriously debilitating diseases through unprotected sex.
While I sort of agree with the general thrust here, there are two problems I
can see
- Most other STD have short incubation periods and obvious symptoms. SO one
could have, in 1984, beleived oneself to be completely disease free and thus
told one's parter the absolute truth, and yet been a vector for HIV.
- nailing down the accepted social awareness date is hard. Who's going to look
someone in the eye and say, sorry pal, you got it in march of 1987 and we all
decided the date was feb 87 so you're out of luck.
>
> The voluntary thing I agree on, but governments are elected by the majority,
> and if the majority voted for a government who's policy is to allocate funding
> to these sorts of things, then by and large you have to go along with it.
> Don't like it? Vote them out. This may not be in accord with Libertarian views
> on governments and such, but it's current reality.
Warning, plowed ground alert:
It might be reality but there is a difference between what one goes along with
and what is morally right. I begrudginly pay my taxes because the other options
available to me aren't as palatable and because the government has bigger guns.
The fact that a semi democratic process decided the amounts to loot from me
and allocated where it went doesn't make how the government spends my hard
earned money morally right. In other words, you cannot vote something that is
morally wrong to be right. That's true of voting to subsidise the corner coffee
shop as much as it is true of voting to exterminate all redheaded lefthanders
because they write funny. Difference in degree, not in kind.
The majority cannot legislate morality, it is what it is, and the government is
operating without the sanction of this particular victim.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?
|
| (...) True, but there are still inherent risks with unprotected sex (including a dishonest partner "sure, honey, I'm clean"), and unless you're prepared to accept the responsibilities, wrap it up or put it away. (...) My point exactly, it's just (...) (25 years ago, 12-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?
|
| (...) I would go one step further. Venereal diseases have been around (and have been known about) for a lot longer than AIDS has been on the scene. Most are curable, some are not, and not all are limited in transmission to sexual contact. My point (...) (25 years ago, 12-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
228 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- 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
|
|
|
|
