 |
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:35
|
|
That's a blanket statement that isn't always true. If there's a method 100% effective towards keeping me from getting AIDs, then I'd say that if I'm at all intelligent that will be the method I use, especially if I'm in a high risk environment (Thailand and sub Saharan Africa being the obvious examples).
We're making progress, though. It seems that now you're admitting the abstinence solution would work, it just wouldn't be much fun. If that's your assertion, I freely acknowledge your "point".
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pekka
|
 |
em seu burro dos pais!
Feb 2002
time: 07:35
|
|
I don't know if this is a good thing or a bad thing. I kind of think it's a bad thing, condoms would help a lot of people, but then again, having sex is not a right. If you go have sex with multiple people, you take the consequences of that. Teaching is important. Sharing information is important. Condoms are important too, but they will never replace infomation and RESPONSIBILITY.
There are lots of parts in the world, where these facts and info is not known enough, thus they don't know how to be responsible, but spreading condoms IMO does less than sharing that information and forcing everyone to hear about it, and take the responsibility. If someones head is so thick that they won't believe the information, and goes ahead and has sex with multiple partners, then it's their own fault. However I think distributing condoms should be continued.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Last Conformist
|
 |
of Calakmul
Jul 2003
time: 06:35
|
|
The problem with this debate is that one side believes that the goal is to minimize the human and economical costs of AIDS, while the other, apparently, thinks it's about letting people reap what they sow. Including, apparently, people who do not get infected by AIDS, but are nonetheless killed off by the epidemic's side effects.
As for abstinence being 100% effective if practiced, apart from not being technically ture, it misses the, from the cost minimization POV, fairly basic point that it's not going to be universally practiced - all experience tells us this. Condom use may be less effective in a case-by-case basis, but still cut harder into overall infection rates.
Obviously, the most effective approach in practice is promoting both. This is what Uganda's done with reasonable success, and it's essentially have sexually-transmitted HIV has been contained in the Western world.
I still don't understand the position that we should be promoting abstinence only campaigns only. It's demonstrably not the most cost effective method, and should thus not to be prefered from the damage minimization POV, while from the "I don't care about Africans" POV, the sensible thing would, one assumes, be not spending any money on AIDS prevention at all.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:35
|
|
quote:
As for abstinence being 100% effective if practiced, apart from not being technically ture, it misses the, from the cost minimization POV, fairly basic point that it's not going to be universally practiced - all experience tells us this. |
I don't think that's the point, though. If I live in Thailand, and I know that if I have sex I'll likely get AIDs, I am quite sure I won't have sex. Period. I guess I'm just smarter than most people, but whatever.
quote:
Obviously, the most effective approach in practice is promoting both. |
I agree. Sex education should consist of telling kids that abstinence is the only truly 100% effective way of avoiding STDs, but that condoms also will minimize the risk. I have no problem with that. But I don't support handing out condoms in school any more than I support handing out condoms in Africa.
quote:
I still don't understand the position that we should be promoting abstinence only campaigns only. It's demonstrably not the most cost effective method, |
No, but abstinence is the most effective method, although I more agree with your next implied solution below...
quote:
the sensible thing would, one assumes, be not spending any money on AIDS prevention at all. |
Right - I don't support foreign aid, and that includes aid to combat AIDs (although not for the reason you state). AIDs can be stopped - or at least greatly curbed - by taking responsibility for one's own actions, and using one's intelligence.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:35
|
|
quote:
If you define smarter as assigning a higher value to minimizing risks relative to sexual gratification, yes. |
Using the phrase "minimizing risks" is sorta silly, when we're talking about certain areas of the world. In those areas, if you have unprotected sex - at least with more than a couple of people - you are virtually guaranteed to get AIDs. In that situation, what you are really doing is valuing your life against sexual gratification.
quote:
(This assuming you'd be in a position to make unforced decision wrt sex - otherwise we might have to define smarter as assigning a higher value to avoiding aids relative to avoiding death.) |
Unfortunately, enforced prostitution exists in the world. When and where it does, it's up to the local government to do something about it, not the United States.
Why should I pay to support someone's sexual habits, when they can avoid AIDs (or, in the US, more likely pregnancy) for free?
quote:
And crime can be stopped by people stopping to be criminals. It doesn't help if it's not gonna happen. |
Stop dancing around the point. If you knew, for a fact, that if you had unprotected sex, you would contract AIDs, and if your choices boiled down to either celibacy or sex plus AIDs, which would you pick?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:35
|
|
I have no problem ADVOCATING the use of condoms along with telling people that abstinence is the only 100% effective method. That's fine. I'm just opposed to handing out condoms.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Last Conformist
|
|
of Calakmul
Jul 2003
time: 06:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
Using the phrase "minimizing risks" is sorta silly, when we're talking about certain areas of the world. In those areas, if you have unprotected sex - at least with more than a couple of people - you are virtually guaranteed to get AIDs. In that situation, what you are really doing is valuing your life against sexual gratification. |
Difference being?
quote:
Why should I pay to support someone's sexual habits, when they can avoid AIDs (or, in the US, more likely pregnancy) for free? |
Well, that depends on your views. You might want to minimize human suffering. You might want to reduce the economical and social costs caused to society by STDs. You may want to encourage sexual liberty. Or you might not, in which case you've got no reason to support it.
quote:
Stop dancing around the point. If you knew, for a fact, that if you had unprotected sex, you would contract AIDs, and if your choices boiled down to either celibacy or sex plus AIDs, which would you pick? |
Exactly what point am I dancing around?
What I would do is of very limited interest; I amount to a tiny proportion of humanity. What's important is the statistical distribution of choices. Clearly, quite a few people chose to continue risky behaviour even if faced with a near-certainty of contracting AIDS. For some, it's a rational decision to the end of postponing death, for some it's suicidal. It doesn't really matter - the epidemic goes on.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:35
|
|
MrFun,
quote:
The problem I have is with people who think we should withold compassion for those who failed to be responsible for their own actions. |
"Withhold compassion"? Come on, MrFun - what you are saying is that even though people make irresponsible decisions, I should still be FORCED to help those people. Bullshit! I don't oppose giving people information and letting them make their own decisions - I oppose giving them information, letting them make their own decisions, and then when they make the wrong one, patting them on the head like a small child and telling them "It's OK, mommy and daddy still love you."
GePap,
quote:
That's becuase as Speer said, you are one cold mofo with extremist liberterian views. |
I am pretty cold, if by that you mean I don't like people who refuse to take personal responsibility and then come crying for help after they **** up.
diplomat,
quote:
If you give AIDS to someone, you are definitely hurting someone else. |
Then don't have sex if you have AIDs - and if you don't have AIDs, and live in a high risk environment, and don't have/can't afford a condom, THEN DON'T HAVE SEX!
LC,
In the United States - at least in most parts - if you have unprotected sex with, say, 15 people, you MOST LIKELY won't get AIDs, statistically speaking. If you have unprotected sex with, say, 4 or 5 people (and that's overestimating it) in certain parts of the world, odds are you will get AIDs. The difference is, in the US, one can have sex with a reasonable expectation of not getting AIDs. That expectation isn't so reasonable in South Africa or Thailand.
quote:
Well, that depends on your views. You might want to minimize human suffering. |
I'm already trying to do that, by encouraging people to avoid AIDs by avoiding sex in high risk environments.
quote:
You might want to reduce the economical and social costs caused to society by STDs. |
What economic and social costs do you think I incur by rampant AIDs in the Third World? Not a hell of a lot is the answer.
quote:
You may want to encourage sexual liberty. |
Hmmm, and I thought "sexual liberty" - as you put it, I'd use the phrase "whoring yourself out for fun" - was part of what caused the massive spread of AIDs in Africa to begin with 
quote:
What I would do is of very limited interest; I amount to a tiny proportion of humanity. |
Stop dodging the question. I'll put that question to anyone on Apolyton, and anyone I run into outside in the real world - "If you have the option between a VERY high risk of contracting AIDs, or celibacy, which would you pick?" My answer is the same as your answer, and our answers are the same as most other people's, too. Some people just don't think about it, and that's their fault.
quote:
Clearly, quite a few people chose to continue risky behaviour even if faced with a near-certainty of contracting AIDS. For some, it's a rational decision to the end of postponing death, for some it's suicidal. It doesn't really matter - the epidemic goes on. |
So it does. And I don't see why I should pay for the poor choices of others. They had a way to avoid AIDs, and people who currently don't have AIDs have a way to avoid it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Last Conformist
|
|
of Calakmul
Jul 2003
time: 06:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
In the United States - at least in most parts - if you have unprotected sex with, say, 15 people, you MOST LIKELY won't get AIDs, statistically speaking. If you have unprotected sex with, say, 4 or 5 people (and that's overestimating it) in certain parts of the world, odds are you will get AIDs. The difference is, in the US, one can have sex with a reasonable expectation of not getting AIDs. That expectation isn't so reasonable in South Africa or Thailand. |
This relates to difference between minimizing risk and trying and avoiding death how?
quote:
I'm already trying to do that, by encouraging people to avoid AIDs by avoiding sex in high risk environments.
What economic and social costs do you think I incur by rampant AIDs in the Third World? Not a hell of a lot is the answer.
Hmmm, and I thought "sexual liberty" - as you put it, I'd use the phrase "whoring yourself out for fun" - was part of what caused the massive spread of AIDs in Africa to begin with |
I was listing reasons one might want to "support people's sexual habits" (by handing out condoms.
quote:
Stop dodging the question. I'll put that question to anyone on Apolyton, and anyone I run into outside in the real world - "If you have the option between a VERY high risk of contracting AIDs, or celibacy, which would you pick?" My answer is the same as your answer, and our answers are the same as most other people's, too. Some people just don't think about it, and that's their fault.
|
You do not know what my choice would be.
quote:
So it does. And I don't see why I should pay for the poor choices of others. They had a way to avoid AIDs, and people who currently don't have AIDs have a way to avoid it. |
You should pay because the powers that be have decided you should. Tough luck.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:35
|
|
quote:
This relates to difference between minimizing risk and trying and avoiding death how? |
Well, I have had no sleep in almost 24 hours, but I just don't see your point. I'm simply saying that while one may have a reasonable expectation of not getting AIDs in the US, even without using a condom, that expectation doesn't exist in much of Africa. As a result, one can have a lot of unprotected sex in the US without getting sick, which would be virtually impossible elsewhere in the world.
I believe this line of argument started when someone (forget who) used the phrase "reasonable expectation" of being able to have sex, or something like that.
quote:
I was listing reasons one might want to "support people's sexual habits" (by handing out condoms. |
And I was rebutting those reasons.
quote:
You do not know what my choice would be. |
Then why don't you tell me? 
Perhaps because it would make my point?
quote:
You should pay because the powers that be have decided you should. Tough luck. |
Hehe, and here I thought we were arguing "should", rather than "is".
In that case, the US policy is abstinence, because the powers that be decided it should be. Tough luck, end of discussion.
And for that matter, WRT Africa, the powers that be have decided that I DON'T have to pay for their condoms, apparently. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DanS
|
 |
Kickball Capital of the World
Jan 1970
time: 00:35
|
|
quote:
Obviously, the most effective approach in practice is promoting both. This is what Uganda's done with reasonable success, and it's essentially have sexually-transmitted HIV has been contained in the Western world. |
Despite all the bluster, this is the US policy under the Bush administration. The US gives out hundreds of millions of condoms free each year to fight AIDS.
The US is spending $3 billion a year for its anti-AIDS effort overseas, and we catch so much **** that I'm inclined not to spend a cent of my money for the UN anti-AIDS establishment. We would catch **** for free, so why are we spending money for catching ****? We should discontinue the $200 million that we give to them each year and move it into bilateral spending.
In the end, this is a stupid bureaucratic struggle. The UN anti-AIDS establishment wants the US billions to flow through the UN and is perfectly willing to smear the good efforts of the US to try to redirect US funding. Well, screw them. And screw the French for making an issue out of it, while we're at it.
Last edited by DanS on 14-07-2004 at 20:20
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:35.
Apolyton Time is 00:35. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
13-07-2004 11:37
|
|