So, let me ask- what is an appropriate expenditure of tax money?
Fire? pshaw - I haven’t personally had a fire, don’t need that.
Police? well, but only a part time force, since I rarely need that.
Research into heart disease? Hey, it doesn’t run in my family.
The arguement that you’re trying to support here isn’t new. Many people in the past have suggested that tax money should only be spent on things that they personally find worthwhile. No welfare for individuals (but farm subsidies, well that’s ok etc.)
Our system has a variety of checks and balances. No one individual will ever agree with absolutely every expenditure of their tax money, and it’s unrealistic to think it would happen (in any society comprising more than one individual).
I’m sure if you really, really put your vast mental resources to the test, you could come up with a more stupid comparison, but frankly, I don’t know what it could be.
Obviously the evil AIDS Stormtroopers are going around, rounding people up and forcing them to take HIV injections. It’s surely not that certain people’s behavior is risky and makes them more likely to contract the disease… :rolleyes:
Yes, I think that a vaccine would be worth it, but as one of the “bad guys” already pointed out, as long as there is no cure or vaccine, the so-called “moral/behavioral solution” is the only one. So why do you bitch every time somebody who is not a doctor says that monogamy and not shooting drugs are the best risk-reduction factors? Especially since that’s exactly the same thing doctors say…does that make them gay-bashers? Judgemental assholes? Hate-filled bigots? Or maybe they’re people who recognize that stupid and irresponsible behavior can have dire consequences.
No…I haven’t seen many people doing this in this thread.
It’s when people say that we shouldn’t try to find a cure BECAUSE it’s ‘only happening to people in Africa and homosexuals’…then we may start thinking people are ‘hate filled bigots’(but then I haven’t seen people saying that either so I don’t know exactly why you’re saying these things).
The point has been made that currently aids is predominately passed through irresponsible behavior. Shout it to the heavens, I hear you on this. BUT, to then move from that to ‘and die because I see no reason to spend money on treatment for this’ is a whole 'nother matter.
Oh Tars, let’s not get all literal with everything!
Joe Cool:
Um, lesse… this “moral solution” is wildly unrealistic that no society since recorded history has been able to implement it? Nah, that can’t be relevent.
But for the purpose of debate, surely you can assume that everyone in this thread pays taxes, yes? In which case it’s spending OUR money, making US compassionate if we spend it for the general good. No-one’s saying “let’s send in the shock troops, get Mr. Mortiss to pay for some drug research,” it’s a case of having a communal pot of money, and expressing an opinion on how it might best be spent. How many times can it be said that AIDS research is not the personal agenda of a couple of junkies and some gay men, but is something which will benefit the vast majority of the human race?
Incidentally, though I did withdraw the comment, I am not wondering about it. Has there been any society of appreciable size that has been able to enforce any sort of morality efficiently? Hell, we can’t even get rid of something as obvious as murder, you know? so I don’t completely withdraw the comment, but instead sort of toss it out there: yeah, it is a solution (and if things were different they wouldn’t be the same), but is it really a reasonable one? Especially taking into account my comments here:
I mean, limiting a person to one sexual partner ever, for life? That’s “non-risky” behavior that is reasonable? I’m sorry… I can’t buy it for the life of me.
Esprix: I gotta say, after my embarassing tango on the whole use of the word “gay” with you… anytime.
And you know what? That’s what it comes down to - yes, we can all take reasonable precautions and still maintain our joie de vie, no matter what form it takes (we are, after all, granted life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness). In the end, however, nobody ever asked to get it. By saying, “Your behavior equates to deserving it” you are saying (a) they asked for it; and (b) they are not worthy of compassion because of their behavior (which begs [c] your behavior is immoral).
I’d like to throw in my comment that you do have a say where your money goes. Tis called a “vote”. You may say you voted against people that would support this. Well, most people didn’t. Do you still want to withdraw your money? Why not just decide that your money went to be spent on things you appreciate, and them bleedin’ heart liberals are paying for HIV research? Works much nicer that way.
What interests me about this thread is how the OP seems to have placed a dollar figure on human life. From the position that spending X number of dollars to save people who don’t deserve it (paraphrasing, of course) is a waste of money, I believe you can logically get to X number of dollars is worth it to save people who do deserve it. I’m curious as to how you decide who deserves it and what the dollar figure is that makes the balance sheet equal out when weighing human lives against money for vaccines. One deserving human saved? Two? Three hundred? One million? Your mother?
So basically what you’re saying is that because you don’t like the nature of the solution, society has to pay the price for your knowingly putting your health at risk? I don’t like having to wear a seatbelt. It’s inconvenient and uncomfortable. But if I crash my car, I’ll be glad I did wear it. I’m sorry you don’t like the behavioral solution, but at this point it is the only one. If you choose to ignore it and catch AIDS, it’s nobody’s fault but your own, and you don’t get to expect me to pay for research to cure the consequences that you reaped for your irresponsible actions.
Esprix, nobody is saying anybody deserves AIDS. But At the same time, there is no excuse for anybody this day and age to get it through sex. We all know the dangers and how to minimize the risks. If you are running around screwing a bunch of people without taking the obvious precautions, you ARE asking for it.
So you (generic) can’t whine about society not caring about your plight, if you go out there and take that risk KNOWING BETTER. If I’m screwing around on my roof without proper safety precautions and I fall and break my neck, is it your responsibility to do something about it? Or am I reaping what I sowed? Do you petition the government for a chicken in every pot and a safety railing on every roof? Or do you shake your head and say “stupid ass, you should have been more careful”?
Again, I do support research for a cure, but that’s because I think it would be a good thing, not because I feel obligated to rescue people who basically did it to themselves.
