[Roos]

ok... went back and read it.

Originally Posted by xian

Why? Rewarding particularly bad behavior with a get out of jail free card from their bad acts will go a long way toward ensuring that people continue those bad acts.

When it comes to this subject, that's ridiculous. And inhumane. curing someone of a disease that kills them is not a 'get out of jail free' card.

Originally Posted by xian

So he got it from a blood transfusion? Rape? Because if he got it from voluntary sex or drugs then yes, he got it from an intentional act Michael. Maybe a one naively/poorly chosen but still intentional.

Not that it's anyone's business, but he contracted it through a blood transfusion.

Originally Posted by xian

I think smackpickles was saying those who fail to take precautions and represent a continued threat of the spread of AIDS due to their negligence deserve less sympathy and should have a lower priority in getting their dose of the cure. Not sure I agree but I think the argument has some merit. Do you think the guy who hangs out with people with AIDs and shares heroin needles with them should be given the same degree of concern as the child who got it through a blood transfusion... accepting the fact that there are limited resources... and you have to make choices and allocations.

This argument (which is not what I think he meant, but I'll still address it) has some merit if the cure was not available to every single person with the disease. If that were the case, then maybe the consideration for who should receive it first should be taken. But that's a hypothetical. However, that's not what he said, which is why I said 'think before you type'.

Originally Posted by xian

yes, please, issue your moralizing as the only acceptable take on the subject, declare those whose positions you neither understand nor even read to be wrong and then depart...

yes, gtfo Roos.... geesh man.

Climb the fuck down. No one ever said anyone deserved the damn disease. If you're going to get into the moral debate have the courtesy to read the discussion and engage in it rather than point snide fingers and leave.

I responded to his comment. I didn't throw out hypothetical situations like 'who gets it first if there are limited cures' or 'I think this is what he meant'. I didn't respond to start hypothetical debate. I responded exactly to what he said. So in regards to that comment, I'll stand tall on my box.

Originally Posted by MicahB

what "won't happen" is a cure being withheld because of the reasons someone got it.

And it shouldn't.

NOW I am done.