Replies

The last two people I knew with AIDS are now dead. I also know smokers who have cancer and obese people with blown knees and clotted arteries. I have known drunks who died of cirrhosis. Does that all count?

Now, I'll admit I haven't conducted a formal audit of your posts, but I don't recall ever reading you castigating the obese, alcoholics, tobacco smokers, people with blown knees, etc. on any thread I've come across. And even when people criticize tobacco smoking, I have never, ever heard anyone suggest that the CDC should stop funding for lung cancer research because that will just encourage smokers. Nor have I seen condemnation of Lipitor, even though most people wouldn't need Lipitor if they exercised regularly ate healthily throughout their lives... we don't blame the victims there.

And yet... for some reason... every time we have any thread concerning HIV/AIDS, the same folks come out with cruel jokes and snide comments and make statements that you'd never see regarding any other disease. Why do you think that is? Most diseases are preventable. That includes most instances of stroke, most instances of heart disease and most instances of cancer. Why is HIV/AIDS treated differently from them?

Well - I don’t know that I’ve castigated anyone. So far you are making the same point I made. HIV/AIDS can be prevented by self-control. And then I made some points you seem to agree with (many diseases are preventable with a little prevention). I’m glad we agree.

Why is HIV/AIDS treated differently from them?

Because we spend way too much money per capita on it than we should. Homosexuality is an abomination to God. Homosexuality is being pushed on our kids as if it is normal. My sister has a friend in the CDC, she says the disease will never be cured.

It is curious that you negate the moral distinction between contracting HIV and the common cold. Unless I lived in a sterile environment I could wash my hands all day and still get the common cold, while the first word in AIDS is "acquired;" i.e., one must actively choose to engage in activity one knows carries the risk of infection in order to be infected.

IOW your analogy is worthless for the purpose of positing moral equivalence. Given that there exists an easily-understood and effective means of rendering its epidemiological impact to one of extreme rarity, and that said means (monogamy) is demonstrably beneficial to the general good of a society, then to argue that hundreds of billions of money be confiscated by force to be spent on prevention and treatment does not put HIV on the same level as any other infectious disease.