Subject:
|
Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 24 May 2000 10:50:40 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
764 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> I'm not sure why you two continue to intermittantly duke it out. Larry thinks
> you're an evil commie, and you think he's an evil...umm...I can't think of a
> good word...robber baron?
engineer of the ME generation. :')
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ed Jones writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > [snip]
> > >
> > > Do people need to take (moral/financial) responsibility for
> > > things that they choose to do, things that entail risk, or
> > > don't they?
>
> > Ah, Hobson's choice number one.
>
> How so?
Simple, its not a black and white, yes or no, question.
> > However, your question (and your eternal preaching on this
> > subject) makes the asumption that everyone knows all the
> > risks involved in everything they do.
>
> That's not really true. Obviously I agree with Larry on many things, but I'm
> not going to be rude. I truely would like to understand your side of this
> discussion. First, what if Larry's question was presented with just the "Do
> people need to take (moral/financial) responsibility for things that they
> choose to do" part?
It doesn't change a thing. A very simple example - if, according to you and
LAR, people should "take (moral/financial) responsibility for things that they
"choose to do'", if I'm driving down the street and someone runs a red light
and smashes into my car, under your philosophy, I should take the
responsibility for the damages because it was a risk of driving I choose to
take. There was risk involved, the accident was not my fault, but I should
assume the responsibility for the damages? Not a court in the land would
agree.
Yes there is no fault insurance, however, in my example above, my rates would
instantly be raised by my insurance company through no fault of my own.
> Do you, in the general case, believe that people need to take responsibility
> for themselves more than we see in society?
In general yes.
> Do you agree (and this is why I simplified Larry's question) that every action
> -- and even inaction -- includes risk? Some of it can reasonably be foreseen,
> and some can't.
Yes, but the responsibility for the results of the risk cannot always be the
responsibility of the risk taker - see my example above.
> I'm assuming that the answers are yes to both. (If not, I guess we're done.)
> Now, the government as an absorber or moderator of risk is basically • insurance.
> Right? Insurance is a good thing.
>
> Why must we all be forced into a particular insurance system, or to have
> insurance at all? If AIDS insurance is something that you value, go for it.
> I'll pass. And I'll take the consequences.
>
> I know that one of your big points is that the early sufferers of HIV • infection
> didn't know. That's true, and there wouldn't be any AIDS insurance available
> to them. But general medical insurance would have been.
Actually, many medical insurance plans dropped people who had AIDS. They are
no longer permitted to do so.
I have a strong
> health-care insurance. I pay out the nose for extra services beyond the • basics
> from my wife's employer.
>
> But personal insurance isn't exactly the main point, since this all started
> talking about research dollars. Why not have the people who're funding the
> research decide what should be researched? Really, no one would then have a
> reasonable complaint. Right? You and your associates want disease X
> researched, so you fund it. I want disease Y researched, so I fund that. (Or
> more likely, I don't, because I'm funny about medical research on animals.)
Because it would create a moral delimna - should white supremists be allowed to
deny research funds for Sickle Cell Anemia?
> > Merely assuming that someone should know the risks of something
> > they do does not equate to them fully knowing and understanding
> > the risks.
>
> I don't think that people should (or more to the point, can) know or • understand
> all the risks of their behaviors. It's none of my business. But _I_ should
> know that there are risks lurking everywhere and I try to provide for my
> future.
>
> > > Is it appropriate in a mixed economy to
> > > carry out an cost benefit analysis of various social programs and make the
> > > decision of which to fund based on which apparently have the most benefit?
>
> > YES.
>
> So then, do you have a problem with the way Larry and I think that those
> cost-benefit analyses should be carried out? I suppose objectivity (to
> whatever extent it exists) needs to be ardently worked toward. How can we do
> so?
Well, since you and LAR are most concerned over how tax dollars out of your
wallet are spent, taxes you would refuse to pay if you could, how about by long
term fiscal responsibility? Which medical research would prolong the working
life of the most individuals? Which medical research would prevent the
affected from becoming a Welfare/Medicare/Medicaid dependant?
> thanks,
>
> Chris
Your welcome
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?
|
| (...) ED: My name is Lar, not LAR. By spelling it or capitalizing it in a way that I don't choose, you are trying to use a form of namecalling. You know better. people should "take (moral/financial) responsibility for things that they (...) (...) (24 years ago, 24-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?
|
| (...) Oh, OK, Thanks. :-) (...) Something that struck me while reading Ed's and Larry's responses to all this is that ultimately it's not a matter of need. We _DO_ take moral and financial responsibility for these things. If you sleep around, you (...) (24 years ago, 25-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?
|
| I'm not sure why you two continue to intermittantly duke it out. Larry thinks you're an evil commie, and you think he's an evil...umm...I can't think of a good word...robber baron? (...) How so? (...) That's not really true. Obviously I agree with (...) (24 years ago, 24-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
|
|
|
|
