| > Everyone already knows that many religious conservatives are in favor of denying treatment to HIV positive people belonging to social groups that they don’t like. I'm sure there's malice, but I also get it. It's like -- Sometimes idiot hikers will set out into a wilderness with absolutely zero preparation, end up stranded in a life-threatening situation, and need to be helicoptered out of their plight for something like a million dollars of somebody else's money -- let's say the Park Service's. No, I don't think they should be left to freeze to death, but if I'm funding the Park Service I have a right to be annoyed with them, especially if this isn't a one-off thing, but rather something that keeps happening. In a world where antivirals cost a bajillion dollars, HIV can seem similar. "Get out of my risk pool." But even from that perspective, this HIV vaccine is great. Give people the vaccine and now you aren't stuck paying for a lifelong prescription for Truvada or whatever else. Again, win-win. Personally, when these vaccines get the kinks worked out, I will absolutely get them, even though I have zero intention of being at or of putting anyone at risk. > It seems that what you’re saying here is rooted in some kind of stereotype of crazy hedonism, rather than a more realistic understanding of the psychology of unsafe sex. If you delve into what has been written by radicals, you find all kinds of crazy shit, including the belief that STDs should be celebrated as a badge of courage. People as now-mainstream as Focault knowingly had unprotected sex, while HIV-positive, with anonymous men, wrapped it up (heh) in philosophical language, and sold it on to credulous academics. And there are other, slightly more fringe, characters whose names I forget; one guy I remember arguing that it was his political duty to "pos" people. To my ears this is batshit insanity and barely-disguised evil. Yet, though I know this thinking is not actually representative, it is often enough loudly defended (by trollish morons with no intention of living those values) for no reason other than that it's from "one of us". Conservatives are clearly reacting to that, in the age-old tradition of seeking out the worst crazy "the left" can provide. |
Of course you don’t. But the OP would see this as a tricky ethical dilemma about balancing ‘mercy’ and ‘justice’. Or at least they should, if they’re not just selectively targeting groups of people that they don’t like.
> If you delve into what has been written by radicals, you find all kinds of crazy shit
You could say this about any group of people. No-one on this thread has defended any of these ‘radical’ ideas, and people have unprotected sex because they’re horny, not because Focault (who 99% of them have never heard of) told them to. So why are you even bringing any of this stuff up? It’s just muddying the waters.
> Yet, though I know this thinking is not actually representative, it is often enough loudly defended
No, deliberately giving people STDs is not an action that’s often loudly defended.