Sex! Sex! Sex! Please! Can I have your STI identification card first.

[Vegosiux]

Or not put your junk into other peoples' junk that you met approximately 8 beers ago.

I am so stealing that one.

This isn't a case of needing people carrying around a fucking scrapbook, with pictures of their genitals and where each herpes spot is. This is a case of dumb people doing dumb shit, that they shouldn't be doing. It boils down to this: Bad sex-ed courses, and being completely drunk and out of their damn minds.

Ayep. And a lack of regular and accessible STD check-ups, I think, as well. I mean, even if you're playing it safe, it'd be a good idea to get checked up every now and then, just in case.

 

[sumanoskae]

no, it wasn't sarcasm... one nighters you get what you deserve no matter what happens....

Why would somebody deserve to get an STI just because they have a one night stand?

Let's rephrase the question: why would somebody who made a bad choice that could have easily been avoided deserve to deal with the consequences?

And I /do/ believe anyone who knows they have an STI should, at the very least, inform /all/ potential partners. They definitely deserve all the blame for being the kind of scumbag that would go around knowingly spreading herpes or HIV. That doesn't mean I'm going to trust a stranger to be honest just because they should.

That makes no sense, that's like saying boxers don't deserve medical treatment because they knew the risks. Making an insignificant mistake shouldn't condemn you to living with the consequences for the rest of your life.

Further more, why should people be allowed to do malicious shit simply because their victims lacked the foresight or intelligence to prevent it?

What are the negative connotations to this hypothetical law? True, you may be intelligent enough not to trust strangers, but why should you be held responsible for their poor behavior, and why should you have to be so vigilant if the potential danger could be prevented?

Actually, it's more like saying if you don't want to get beaten up badly enough to need medical attention, don't get in the boxing ring. I said nothing about medical attention, getting medical attention is kind of important if you have an STD. Or a concussion, for that matter. Also, check who you're arguing with. I'm not in favor of the stupid card. I'm in favor of, you know, wearing a condom, and generally not sleeping with total strangers, but wearing a condom if you decide to anyway.

It was an analogy.

Getting punched in the face isn't a risk to a boxer, it's a guarantee. Getting knocked over and cracking your skull is not, and that's a more fitting equivalent.

STD's are not a guarantee, they're a risk. And as you said, a small one if you wear a condom (Discounting things other than standard intercourse).

What other negative consequences does anonymous sex have besides the spread of disease? Why should the potential risks not be mitigated?

No law is going to entirely prevent poor behavior, this is true, but the law can still discourage it. Obviously, a card is not going to work, but I think a similar procedure could be effective.

Just hypothetically, if everyone could ensure that nobody would get sick from anonymous sex, why should they still not have it?

Fine, so where does not getting medical care play into this? Because that doesn't work as an analogy. You said it yourself, in boxing it's getting your skull cracked open that's the risk. Not being able to access medical care for whatever reason is neither here nor there.

And for the hypothetical: there wouldn't be, if they could also guarantee nobody would get pregnant unless both parties wanted it. Problem is we don't live in a hypothetical perfect world, which is what the people who cry "victim blaming!" and "slut shaming!" all the time don't seem to be capable of[footnote]Or rather, willing to[/footnote] understanding.

I am not referring to medical attention in regards to STD's, I'm arguing that making a poor decision doesn't make you undeserving of assistance or sympathy.

When you argue that by making a poor decision, a decision with consequences which only affect you in this case, you deserve whatever happens to you no matter how dire, the argument you're making is that the worth of a human life can be measured by their intellect and caution alone.

I have my doubts that you actually believe that death by AIDS is a fitting punishment for casual sex, so when you said "Why would somebody who made a bad choice that could have easily been avoided deserve to deal with the consequences?", you were not attempting to imply that yes, you deserve the consequences to your poor decision making skills even when they can kill you.

If you have unprotected sex and catch AIDS, regardless of whether or not you should have been smart enough to avoid it, you have fucking AIDS and are deserving of sympathy, not a lecture. What does making them feel like shit about their condition accomplish?

You are absolutely right, the world is not a perfect place, people get fucked over for mild mistakes all the time, just because it happens doesn't mean they deserve it.

In terms of the boxer metaphor, I will try to explain it as simply as possible; if a boxer's rib is shattered by a punch he could have easily avoided, and the broken bone pierces his lung and kills him, does he deserve this fate simply because it "could have been easily avoided"?

On a similar note, if young man has unprotected sex with a prostitute (Out of sheer stupidity or for whatever reason) and contracts HIV which later becomes AIDS and kills him, does he deserve his fate simply because it "could have been easily avoided"?

I believe this whole debate started with the subject of STI cards, in the interest of full disclosure, I would agree that such a system would never work as proposed. However, I would argue that the idea of an infected individual being recognizable by anyone they could spread the infection to has merit.

And who said anything about denying people assistance or sympathy? I'd be sympathetic that a person had an STD. I'd give assistance, if appropriate. But I wouldn't have much sympathy for the actions that led to it if those actions were frequent, unprotected sex with strangers. And hell yes a young man who has unprotected sex with a prostitute deserves whatever he gets. That's darwin award level stupidity right there. As for the boxer? He may not deserve it, but he knew the risk going in. If he wasn't okay with the chance he might get killed in the ring, he shouldn't have stepped in it in the first place.

Basically, you seem to have an issue with the idea of personal responsibility.

So because I don't think innocent people deserve to die of AIDS, I take issue with personal responsibility?

What does "Sympathy for their actions" even mean? I don't understand how you could simultaneously feel sympathy for someone and feel the need to help them, but also hold the opinion that they deserve death; that sounds like serious emotional conflict to me. Do you really believe that a person deserves to be condemned to death for an action that hurt nobody but themselves?

I take no issue with personal responsibility, I don't know how you inferred that conclusion from the argument that people don't deserve to die for being lax. I don't see how harboring personal resentment for people who partake in self destructive behavior is evidence in a belief in personal responsibility. When did I ever imply that this sort of behavior was positive? It is unhealthy behavior, but it only hurts you, it doesn't make you malicious or unkind, it doesn't devalue you as a human being.

No matter how stupid you are, your life is yours to do with it as you will as long as you do not violate that right in others. You dob't need to despise those lacking in a virtue to appreciate it. I admire intelligence and responsibility, but I don't think dumb people should be left to die because they lack intellect.

The philosophy that the lazy and ignorant do not deserve to live is not a respect for personal responsibility, it's a demand for it.

What I take issue with is Darwinism.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

no, it wasn't sarcasm... one nighters you get what you deserve no matter what happens....

Why would somebody deserve to get an STI just because they have a one night stand?

Let's rephrase the question: why would somebody who made a bad choice that could have easily been avoided deserve to deal with the consequences?

And I /do/ believe anyone who knows they have an STI should, at the very least, inform /all/ potential partners. They definitely deserve all the blame for being the kind of scumbag that would go around knowingly spreading herpes or HIV. That doesn't mean I'm going to trust a stranger to be honest just because they should.

That makes no sense, that's like saying boxers don't deserve medical treatment because they knew the risks. Making an insignificant mistake shouldn't condemn you to living with the consequences for the rest of your life.

Further more, why should people be allowed to do malicious shit simply because their victims lacked the foresight or intelligence to prevent it?

What are the negative connotations to this hypothetical law? True, you may be intelligent enough not to trust strangers, but why should you be held responsible for their poor behavior, and why should you have to be so vigilant if the potential danger could be prevented?

Actually, it's more like saying if you don't want to get beaten up badly enough to need medical attention, don't get in the boxing ring. I said nothing about medical attention, getting medical attention is kind of important if you have an STD. Or a concussion, for that matter. Also, check who you're arguing with. I'm not in favor of the stupid card. I'm in favor of, you know, wearing a condom, and generally not sleeping with total strangers, but wearing a condom if you decide to anyway.

It was an analogy.

Getting punched in the face isn't a risk to a boxer, it's a guarantee. Getting knocked over and cracking your skull is not, and that's a more fitting equivalent.

STD's are not a guarantee, they're a risk. And as you said, a small one if you wear a condom (Discounting things other than standard intercourse).

What other negative consequences does anonymous sex have besides the spread of disease? Why should the potential risks not be mitigated?

No law is going to entirely prevent poor behavior, this is true, but the law can still discourage it. Obviously, a card is not going to work, but I think a similar procedure could be effective.

Just hypothetically, if everyone could ensure that nobody would get sick from anonymous sex, why should they still not have it?

Fine, so where does not getting medical care play into this? Because that doesn't work as an analogy. You said it yourself, in boxing it's getting your skull cracked open that's the risk. Not being able to access medical care for whatever reason is neither here nor there.

And for the hypothetical: there wouldn't be, if they could also guarantee nobody would get pregnant unless both parties wanted it. Problem is we don't live in a hypothetical perfect world, which is what the people who cry "victim blaming!" and "slut shaming!" all the time don't seem to be capable of[footnote]Or rather, willing to[/footnote] understanding.

I am not referring to medical attention in regards to STD's, I'm arguing that making a poor decision doesn't make you undeserving of assistance or sympathy.

When you argue that by making a poor decision, a decision with consequences which only affect you in this case, you deserve whatever happens to you no matter how dire, the argument you're making is that the worth of a human life can be measured by their intellect and caution alone.

I have my doubts that you actually believe that death by AIDS is a fitting punishment for casual sex, so when you said "Why would somebody who made a bad choice that could have easily been avoided deserve to deal with the consequences?", you were not attempting to imply that yes, you deserve the consequences to your poor decision making skills even when they can kill you.

If you have unprotected sex and catch AIDS, regardless of whether or not you should have been smart enough to avoid it, you have fucking AIDS and are deserving of sympathy, not a lecture. What does making them feel like shit about their condition accomplish?

You are absolutely right, the world is not a perfect place, people get fucked over for mild mistakes all the time, just because it happens doesn't mean they deserve it.

In terms of the boxer metaphor, I will try to explain it as simply as possible; if a boxer's rib is shattered by a punch he could have easily avoided, and the broken bone pierces his lung and kills him, does he deserve this fate simply because it "could have been easily avoided"?

On a similar note, if young man has unprotected sex with a prostitute (Out of sheer stupidity or for whatever reason) and contracts HIV which later becomes AIDS and kills him, does he deserve his fate simply because it "could have been easily avoided"?

I believe this whole debate started with the subject of STI cards, in the interest of full disclosure, I would agree that such a system would never work as proposed. However, I would argue that the idea of an infected individual being recognizable by anyone they could spread the infection to has merit.

And who said anything about denying people assistance or sympathy? I'd be sympathetic that a person had an STD. I'd give assistance, if appropriate. But I wouldn't have much sympathy for the actions that led to it if those actions were frequent, unprotected sex with strangers. And hell yes a young man who has unprotected sex with a prostitute deserves whatever he gets. That's darwin award level stupidity right there. As for the boxer? He may not deserve it, but he knew the risk going in. If he wasn't okay with the chance he might get killed in the ring, he shouldn't have stepped in it in the first place.

Basically, you seem to have an issue with the idea of personal responsibility.

So because I don't think innocent people deserve to die of AIDS, I take issue with personal responsibility?

What does "Sympathy for their actions" even mean? I don't understand how you could simultaneously feel sympathy for someone and feel the need to help them, but also hold the opinion that they deserve death; that sounds like serious emotional conflict to me. Do you really believe that a person deserves to be condemned to death for an action that hurt nobody but themselves?

I take no issue with personal responsibility, I don't know how you inferred that conclusion from the argument that people don't deserve to die for being lax. I don't see how harboring personal resentment for people who partake in self destructive behavior is evidence in a belief in personal responsibility. When did I ever imply that this sort of behavior was positive? It is unhealthy behavior, but it only hurts you, it doesn't make you malicious or unkind, it doesn't devalue you as a human being.

No matter how stupid you are, your life is yours to do with it as you will as long as you do not violate that right in others. You dob't need to despise those lacking in a virtue to appreciate it. I admire intelligence and responsibility, but I don't think dumb people should be left to die because they lack intellect.

The philosophy that the lazy and ignorant do not deserve to live is not a respect for personal responsibility, it's a demand for it.

What I take issue with is Darwinism.

People are responsible for their own choices. If those choices cause them to die, and they knew that was a significant risk from those actions, then it's their fault. I might feel sorry for them, but I'm not gonna sit there and go "there, there, it wasn't your fault." Because it totally was. Wear a friggin' condom for God's sake. It's not that hard.

Edit: By the way, we're talking about AIDS here. If the only person who was harmed by that risk was you if you didn't wear a condom, nobody would ever get aids, because there would be nobody to get it from. You harm not just yourself, but anyone who you might happen to sleep with before you find out you're infected. So yes, I will blame people who make stupid choices, and hold them responsible for their actions. Because it's really /not/ just them that they hurt.

I mean, hell, we haven't even gotten into the effects that their dying of AIDS will have on their friends and family yet, just the random strangers they may pass it on to if they're having unprotected sex that frequently. And all of their families and friends, and so on and so forth. Might want to think about who the victims really are before you go crying "victim blaming."

 

[sumanoskae]

no, it wasn't sarcasm... one nighters you get what you deserve no matter what happens....

Why would somebody deserve to get an STI just because they have a one night stand?

Let's rephrase the question: why would somebody who made a bad choice that could have easily been avoided deserve to deal with the consequences?

And I /do/ believe anyone who knows they have an STI should, at the very least, inform /all/ potential partners. They definitely deserve all the blame for being the kind of scumbag that would go around knowingly spreading herpes or HIV. That doesn't mean I'm going to trust a stranger to be honest just because they should.

That makes no sense, that's like saying boxers don't deserve medical treatment because they knew the risks. Making an insignificant mistake shouldn't condemn you to living with the consequences for the rest of your life.

Further more, why should people be allowed to do malicious shit simply because their victims lacked the foresight or intelligence to prevent it?

What are the negative connotations to this hypothetical law? True, you may be intelligent enough not to trust strangers, but why should you be held responsible for their poor behavior, and why should you have to be so vigilant if the potential danger could be prevented?

Actually, it's more like saying if you don't want to get beaten up badly enough to need medical attention, don't get in the boxing ring. I said nothing about medical attention, getting medical attention is kind of important if you have an STD. Or a concussion, for that matter. Also, check who you're arguing with. I'm not in favor of the stupid card. I'm in favor of, you know, wearing a condom, and generally not sleeping with total strangers, but wearing a condom if you decide to anyway.

It was an analogy.

Getting punched in the face isn't a risk to a boxer, it's a guarantee. Getting knocked over and cracking your skull is not, and that's a more fitting equivalent.

STD's are not a guarantee, they're a risk. And as you said, a small one if you wear a condom (Discounting things other than standard intercourse).

What other negative consequences does anonymous sex have besides the spread of disease? Why should the potential risks not be mitigated?

No law is going to entirely prevent poor behavior, this is true, but the law can still discourage it. Obviously, a card is not going to work, but I think a similar procedure could be effective.

Just hypothetically, if everyone could ensure that nobody would get sick from anonymous sex, why should they still not have it?

Fine, so where does not getting medical care play into this? Because that doesn't work as an analogy. You said it yourself, in boxing it's getting your skull cracked open that's the risk. Not being able to access medical care for whatever reason is neither here nor there.

And for the hypothetical: there wouldn't be, if they could also guarantee nobody would get pregnant unless both parties wanted it. Problem is we don't live in a hypothetical perfect world, which is what the people who cry "victim blaming!" and "slut shaming!" all the time don't seem to be capable of[footnote]Or rather, willing to[/footnote] understanding.

I am not referring to medical attention in regards to STD's, I'm arguing that making a poor decision doesn't make you undeserving of assistance or sympathy.

When you argue that by making a poor decision, a decision with consequences which only affect you in this case, you deserve whatever happens to you no matter how dire, the argument you're making is that the worth of a human life can be measured by their intellect and caution alone.

I have my doubts that you actually believe that death by AIDS is a fitting punishment for casual sex, so when you said "Why would somebody who made a bad choice that could have easily been avoided deserve to deal with the consequences?", you were not attempting to imply that yes, you deserve the consequences to your poor decision making skills even when they can kill you.

If you have unprotected sex and catch AIDS, regardless of whether or not you should have been smart enough to avoid it, you have fucking AIDS and are deserving of sympathy, not a lecture. What does making them feel like shit about their condition accomplish?

You are absolutely right, the world is not a perfect place, people get fucked over for mild mistakes all the time, just because it happens doesn't mean they deserve it.

In terms of the boxer metaphor, I will try to explain it as simply as possible; if a boxer's rib is shattered by a punch he could have easily avoided, and the broken bone pierces his lung and kills him, does he deserve this fate simply because it "could have been easily avoided"?

On a similar note, if young man has unprotected sex with a prostitute (Out of sheer stupidity or for whatever reason) and contracts HIV which later becomes AIDS and kills him, does he deserve his fate simply because it "could have been easily avoided"?

I believe this whole debate started with the subject of STI cards, in the interest of full disclosure, I would agree that such a system would never work as proposed. However, I would argue that the idea of an infected individual being recognizable by anyone they could spread the infection to has merit.

And who said anything about denying people assistance or sympathy? I'd be sympathetic that a person had an STD. I'd give assistance, if appropriate. But I wouldn't have much sympathy for the actions that led to it if those actions were frequent, unprotected sex with strangers. And hell yes a young man who has unprotected sex with a prostitute deserves whatever he gets. That's darwin award level stupidity right there. As for the boxer? He may not deserve it, but he knew the risk going in. If he wasn't okay with the chance he might get killed in the ring, he shouldn't have stepped in it in the first place.

Basically, you seem to have an issue with the idea of personal responsibility.

So because I don't think innocent people deserve to die of AIDS, I take issue with personal responsibility?

What does "Sympathy for their actions" even mean? I don't understand how you could simultaneously feel sympathy for someone and feel the need to help them, but also hold the opinion that they deserve death; that sounds like serious emotional conflict to me. Do you really believe that a person deserves to be condemned to death for an action that hurt nobody but themselves?

I take no issue with personal responsibility, I don't know how you inferred that conclusion from the argument that people don't deserve to die for being lax. I don't see how harboring personal resentment for people who partake in self destructive behavior is evidence in a belief in personal responsibility. When did I ever imply that this sort of behavior was positive? It is unhealthy behavior, but it only hurts you, it doesn't make you malicious or unkind, it doesn't devalue you as a human being.

No matter how stupid you are, your life is yours to do with it as you will as long as you do not violate that right in others. You dob't need to despise those lacking in a virtue to appreciate it. I admire intelligence and responsibility, but I don't think dumb people should be left to die because they lack intellect.

The philosophy that the lazy and ignorant do not deserve to live is not a respect for personal responsibility, it's a demand for it.

What I take issue with is Darwinism.

People are responsible for their own choices. If those choices cause them to die, and they knew that was a significant risk from those actions, then it's their fault. I might feel sorry for them, but I'm not gonna sit there and go "there, there, it wasn't your fault." Because it totally was. Wear a friggin' condom for God's sake. It's not that hard.

Edit: By the way, we're talking about AIDS here. If the only person who was harmed by that risk was you if you didn't wear a condom, nobody would ever get aids, because there would be nobody to get it from. You harm not just yourself, but anyone who you might happen to sleep with before you find out you're infected. So yes, I will blame people who make stupid choices, and hold them responsible for their actions. Because it's really /not/ just them that they hurt.

I mean, hell, we haven't even gotten into the effects that their dying of AIDS will have on their friends and family yet, just the random strangers they may pass it on to if they're having unprotected sex that frequently. And all of their families and friends, and so on and so forth. Might want to think about who the victims really are before you go crying "victim blaming."

The hypothetical we were discussing was not somebody who risked infecting others with STD's. Your original statement was that ANYONE who had unprotected sex with strangers deserved whatever fate they suffered, at no point did you qualify your statement with the assertion that they did not frequently ensure they were not infected with and STD before engaging in such an act, nor did you state that such a thing would change your feelings towards them.

Deserving something and having it be your fault are not the same thing; you may meet your death due to laziness, apathy or masochism, this does not, however, automatically identify you as deserving of death.

When you suggest that anyone who lacks caution and self-preservation "Deserves whatever they get", you seem to interpret the statement as "Their unfortunate situation is a result of their own actions"

Generally speaking, when someone "Deserves" something, the word describes an ideal situation or result; as in this person, by justice, "Deserves" a particular thing. This word has nothing to do with what WILL happen, only what SHOULD happen.

Would it not be preferable for a kind person with self destructive patterns of behavior to simply be highly fortunate and never suffer if their actions didn't put others at risk? Again, we're not talking about what WOULD happen, we're talking about what SHOULD.

 

[Yuno Gasai]

If you have a head on your shoulders and any kind of regard for your sexual health, you'll encourage your partner to take an STI test (along with yourself) before you start sleeping together.

It helps to ensure a clean bill of health for the both of you, and also means that if either of you have anything, you have time to get it sorted out before you start spreading it around.

I don't agree with the idea of a "card", I think that would add yet more stigma to the whole STI/STD fiasco. We shouldn't be shaming people who have sexually transmitted infections or diseases, we should be helping them, and encouraging more people to get themselves checked so that they can get the help that they need ASAP.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

no, it wasn't sarcasm... one nighters you get what you deserve no matter what happens....

Why would somebody deserve to get an STI just because they have a one night stand?

Let's rephrase the question: why would somebody who made a bad choice that could have easily been avoided deserve to deal with the consequences?

And I /do/ believe anyone who knows they have an STI should, at the very least, inform /all/ potential partners. They definitely deserve all the blame for being the kind of scumbag that would go around knowingly spreading herpes or HIV. That doesn't mean I'm going to trust a stranger to be honest just because they should.

That makes no sense, that's like saying boxers don't deserve medical treatment because they knew the risks. Making an insignificant mistake shouldn't condemn you to living with the consequences for the rest of your life.

Further more, why should people be allowed to do malicious shit simply because their victims lacked the foresight or intelligence to prevent it?

What are the negative connotations to this hypothetical law? True, you may be intelligent enough not to trust strangers, but why should you be held responsible for their poor behavior, and why should you have to be so vigilant if the potential danger could be prevented?

Actually, it's more like saying if you don't want to get beaten up badly enough to need medical attention, don't get in the boxing ring. I said nothing about medical attention, getting medical attention is kind of important if you have an STD. Or a concussion, for that matter. Also, check who you're arguing with. I'm not in favor of the stupid card. I'm in favor of, you know, wearing a condom, and generally not sleeping with total strangers, but wearing a condom if you decide to anyway.

It was an analogy.

Getting punched in the face isn't a risk to a boxer, it's a guarantee. Getting knocked over and cracking your skull is not, and that's a more fitting equivalent.

STD's are not a guarantee, they're a risk. And as you said, a small one if you wear a condom (Discounting things other than standard intercourse).

What other negative consequences does anonymous sex have besides the spread of disease? Why should the potential risks not be mitigated?

No law is going to entirely prevent poor behavior, this is true, but the law can still discourage it. Obviously, a card is not going to work, but I think a similar procedure could be effective.

Just hypothetically, if everyone could ensure that nobody would get sick from anonymous sex, why should they still not have it?

Fine, so where does not getting medical care play into this? Because that doesn't work as an analogy. You said it yourself, in boxing it's getting your skull cracked open that's the risk. Not being able to access medical care for whatever reason is neither here nor there.

And for the hypothetical: there wouldn't be, if they could also guarantee nobody would get pregnant unless both parties wanted it. Problem is we don't live in a hypothetical perfect world, which is what the people who cry "victim blaming!" and "slut shaming!" all the time don't seem to be capable of[footnote]Or rather, willing to[/footnote] understanding.

I am not referring to medical attention in regards to STD's, I'm arguing that making a poor decision doesn't make you undeserving of assistance or sympathy.

When you argue that by making a poor decision, a decision with consequences which only affect you in this case, you deserve whatever happens to you no matter how dire, the argument you're making is that the worth of a human life can be measured by their intellect and caution alone.

I have my doubts that you actually believe that death by AIDS is a fitting punishment for casual sex, so when you said "Why would somebody who made a bad choice that could have easily been avoided deserve to deal with the consequences?", you were not attempting to imply that yes, you deserve the consequences to your poor decision making skills even when they can kill you.

If you have unprotected sex and catch AIDS, regardless of whether or not you should have been smart enough to avoid it, you have fucking AIDS and are deserving of sympathy, not a lecture. What does making them feel like shit about their condition accomplish?

You are absolutely right, the world is not a perfect place, people get fucked over for mild mistakes all the time, just because it happens doesn't mean they deserve it.

In terms of the boxer metaphor, I will try to explain it as simply as possible; if a boxer's rib is shattered by a punch he could have easily avoided, and the broken bone pierces his lung and kills him, does he deserve this fate simply because it "could have been easily avoided"?

On a similar note, if young man has unprotected sex with a prostitute (Out of sheer stupidity or for whatever reason) and contracts HIV which later becomes AIDS and kills him, does he deserve his fate simply because it "could have been easily avoided"?

I believe this whole debate started with the subject of STI cards, in the interest of full disclosure, I would agree that such a system would never work as proposed. However, I would argue that the idea of an infected individual being recognizable by anyone they could spread the infection to has merit.

And who said anything about denying people assistance or sympathy? I'd be sympathetic that a person had an STD. I'd give assistance, if appropriate. But I wouldn't have much sympathy for the actions that led to it if those actions were frequent, unprotected sex with strangers. And hell yes a young man who has unprotected sex with a prostitute deserves whatever he gets. That's darwin award level stupidity right there. As for the boxer? He may not deserve it, but he knew the risk going in. If he wasn't okay with the chance he might get killed in the ring, he shouldn't have stepped in it in the first place.

Basically, you seem to have an issue with the idea of personal responsibility.

So because I don't think innocent people deserve to die of AIDS, I take issue with personal responsibility?

What does "Sympathy for their actions" even mean? I don't understand how you could simultaneously feel sympathy for someone and feel the need to help them, but also hold the opinion that they deserve death; that sounds like serious emotional conflict to me. Do you really believe that a person deserves to be condemned to death for an action that hurt nobody but themselves?

I take no issue with personal responsibility, I don't know how you inferred that conclusion from the argument that people don't deserve to die for being lax. I don't see how harboring personal resentment for people who partake in self destructive behavior is evidence in a belief in personal responsibility. When did I ever imply that this sort of behavior was positive? It is unhealthy behavior, but it only hurts you, it doesn't make you malicious or unkind, it doesn't devalue you as a human being.

No matter how stupid you are, your life is yours to do with it as you will as long as you do not violate that right in others. You dob't need to despise those lacking in a virtue to appreciate it. I admire intelligence and responsibility, but I don't think dumb people should be left to die because they lack intellect.

The philosophy that the lazy and ignorant do not deserve to live is not a respect for personal responsibility, it's a demand for it.

What I take issue with is Darwinism.

People are responsible for their own choices. If those choices cause them to die, and they knew that was a significant risk from those actions, then it's their fault. I might feel sorry for them, but I'm not gonna sit there and go "there, there, it wasn't your fault." Because it totally was. Wear a friggin' condom for God's sake. It's not that hard.

Edit: By the way, we're talking about AIDS here. If the only person who was harmed by that risk was you if you didn't wear a condom, nobody would ever get aids, because there would be nobody to get it from. You harm not just yourself, but anyone who you might happen to sleep with before you find out you're infected. So yes, I will blame people who make stupid choices, and hold them responsible for their actions. Because it's really /not/ just them that they hurt.

I mean, hell, we haven't even gotten into the effects that their dying of AIDS will have on their friends and family yet, just the random strangers they may pass it on to if they're having unprotected sex that frequently. And all of their families and friends, and so on and so forth. Might want to think about who the victims really are before you go crying "victim blaming."

The hypothetical we were discussing was not somebody who risked infecting others with STD's. Your original statement was that ANYONE who had unprotected sex with strangers deserved whatever fate they suffered, at no point did you qualify your statement with the assertion that they did not frequently ensure they were not infected with and STD before engaging in such an act, nor did you state that such a thing would change your feelings towards them.

Deserving something and having it be your fault are not the same thing; you may meet your death due to laziness, apathy or masochism, this does not, however, automatically identify you as deserving of death.

When you suggest that anyone who lacks caution and self-preservation "Deserves whatever they get", you seem to interpret the statement as "Their unfortunate situation is a result of their own actions"

Generally speaking, when someone "Deserves" something, the word describes an ideal situation or result; as in this person, by justice, "Deserves" a particular thing. This word has nothing to do with what WILL happen, only what SHOULD happen.

Would it not be preferable for a kind person with self destructive patterns of behavior to simply be highly fortunate and never suffer if their actions didn't put others at risk? Again, we're not talking about what WOULD happen, we're talking about what SHOULD.

As I was once told, "don't should on yourself.[footnote]pronounced quickly, so it sounds like "shit" at first. This in a speech with advice for a crop of Senior education majors who were about to go into their final internship, a place where worrying about what should happen, instead of what was happening, would just make things worse.[/footnote]" "Should" has no place in a discussion like this. Only "may" or "will." Because we live in the real world, not some fantasy world where poor choices don't have far reaching consequences.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

no, it wasn't sarcasm... one nighters you get what you deserve no matter what happens....

Why would somebody deserve to get an STI just because they have a one night stand?

Let's rephrase the question: why would somebody who made a bad choice that could have easily been avoided deserve to deal with the consequences?

And I /do/ believe anyone who knows they have an STI should, at the very least, inform /all/ potential partners. They definitely deserve all the blame for being the kind of scumbag that would go around knowingly spreading herpes or HIV. That doesn't mean I'm going to trust a stranger to be honest just because they should.

That makes no sense, that's like saying boxers don't deserve medical treatment because they knew the risks. Making an insignificant mistake shouldn't condemn you to living with the consequences for the rest of your life.

Further more, why should people be allowed to do malicious shit simply because their victims lacked the foresight or intelligence to prevent it?

What are the negative connotations to this hypothetical law? True, you may be intelligent enough not to trust strangers, but why should you be held responsible for their poor behavior, and why should you have to be so vigilant if the potential danger could be prevented?

Actually, it's more like saying if you don't want to get beaten up badly enough to need medical attention, don't get in the boxing ring. I said nothing about medical attention, getting medical attention is kind of important if you have an STD. Or a concussion, for that matter. Also, check who you're arguing with. I'm not in favor of the stupid card. I'm in favor of, you know, wearing a condom, and generally not sleeping with total strangers, but wearing a condom if you decide to anyway.

It was an analogy.

Getting punched in the face isn't a risk to a boxer, it's a guarantee. Getting knocked over and cracking your skull is not, and that's a more fitting equivalent.

STD's are not a guarantee, they're a risk. And as you said, a small one if you wear a condom (Discounting things other than standard intercourse).

What other negative consequences does anonymous sex have besides the spread of disease? Why should the potential risks not be mitigated?

No law is going to entirely prevent poor behavior, this is true, but the law can still discourage it. Obviously, a card is not going to work, but I think a similar procedure could be effective.

Just hypothetically, if everyone could ensure that nobody would get sick from anonymous sex, why should they still not have it?

Fine, so where does not getting medical care play into this? Because that doesn't work as an analogy. You said it yourself, in boxing it's getting your skull cracked open that's the risk. Not being able to access medical care for whatever reason is neither here nor there.

And for the hypothetical: there wouldn't be, if they could also guarantee nobody would get pregnant unless both parties wanted it. Problem is we don't live in a hypothetical perfect world, which is what the people who cry "victim blaming!" and "slut shaming!" all the time don't seem to be capable of[footnote]Or rather, willing to[/footnote] understanding.

I am not referring to medical attention in regards to STD's, I'm arguing that making a poor decision doesn't make you undeserving of assistance or sympathy.

When you argue that by making a poor decision, a decision with consequences which only affect you in this case, you deserve whatever happens to you no matter how dire, the argument you're making is that the worth of a human life can be measured by their intellect and caution alone.

I have my doubts that you actually believe that death by AIDS is a fitting punishment for casual sex, so when you said "Why would somebody who made a bad choice that could have easily been avoided deserve to deal with the consequences?", you were not attempting to imply that yes, you deserve the consequences to your poor decision making skills even when they can kill you.

If you have unprotected sex and catch AIDS, regardless of whether or not you should have been smart enough to avoid it, you have fucking AIDS and are deserving of sympathy, not a lecture. What does making them feel like shit about their condition accomplish?

You are absolutely right, the world is not a perfect place, people get fucked over for mild mistakes all the time, just because it happens doesn't mean they deserve it.

In terms of the boxer metaphor, I will try to explain it as simply as possible; if a boxer's rib is shattered by a punch he could have easily avoided, and the broken bone pierces his lung and kills him, does he deserve this fate simply because it "could have been easily avoided"?

On a similar note, if young man has unprotected sex with a prostitute (Out of sheer stupidity or for whatever reason) and contracts HIV which later becomes AIDS and kills him, does he deserve his fate simply because it "could have been easily avoided"?

I believe this whole debate started with the subject of STI cards, in the interest of full disclosure, I would agree that such a system would never work as proposed. However, I would argue that the idea of an infected individual being recognizable by anyone they could spread the infection to has merit.

And who said anything about denying people assistance or sympathy? I'd be sympathetic that a person had an STD. I'd give assistance, if appropriate. But I wouldn't have much sympathy for the actions that led to it if those actions were frequent, unprotected sex with strangers. And hell yes a young man who has unprotected sex with a prostitute deserves whatever he gets. That's darwin award level stupidity right there. As for the boxer? He may not deserve it, but he knew the risk going in. If he wasn't okay with the chance he might get killed in the ring, he shouldn't have stepped in it in the first place.

Basically, you seem to have an issue with the idea of personal responsibility.

So because I don't think innocent people deserve to die of AIDS, I take issue with personal responsibility?

What does "Sympathy for their actions" even mean? I don't understand how you could simultaneously feel sympathy for someone and feel the need to help them, but also hold the opinion that they deserve death; that sounds like serious emotional conflict to me. Do you really believe that a person deserves to be condemned to death for an action that hurt nobody but themselves?

I take no issue with personal responsibility, I don't know how you inferred that conclusion from the argument that people don't deserve to die for being lax. I don't see how harboring personal resentment for people who partake in self destructive behavior is evidence in a belief in personal responsibility. When did I ever imply that this sort of behavior was positive? It is unhealthy behavior, but it only hurts you, it doesn't make you malicious or unkind, it doesn't devalue you as a human being.

No matter how stupid you are, your life is yours to do with it as you will as long as you do not violate that right in others. You dob't need to despise those lacking in a virtue to appreciate it. I admire intelligence and responsibility, but I don't think dumb people should be left to die because they lack intellect.

The philosophy that the lazy and ignorant do not deserve to live is not a respect for personal responsibility, it's a demand for it.

What I take issue with is Darwinism.

People are responsible for their own choices. If those choices cause them to die, and they knew that was a significant risk from those actions, then it's their fault. I might feel sorry for them, but I'm not gonna sit there and go "there, there, it wasn't your fault." Because it totally was. Wear a friggin' condom for God's sake. It's not that hard.

Edit: By the way, we're talking about AIDS here. If the only person who was harmed by that risk was you if you didn't wear a condom, nobody would ever get aids, because there would be nobody to get it from. You harm not just yourself, but anyone who you might happen to sleep with before you find out you're infected. So yes, I will blame people who make stupid choices, and hold them responsible for their actions. Because it's really /not/ just them that they hurt.

I mean, hell, we haven't even gotten into the effects that their dying of AIDS will have on their friends and family yet, just the random strangers they may pass it on to if they're having unprotected sex that frequently. And all of their families and friends, and so on and so forth. Might want to think about who the victims really are before you go crying "victim blaming."

The hypothetical we were discussing was not somebody who risked infecting others with STD's. Your original statement was that ANYONE who had unprotected sex with strangers deserved whatever fate they suffered, at no point did you qualify your statement with the assertion that they did not frequently ensure they were not infected with and STD before engaging in such an act, nor did you state that such a thing would change your feelings towards them.

Deserving something and having it be your fault are not the same thing; you may meet your death due to laziness, apathy or masochism, this does not, however, automatically identify you as deserving of death.

When you suggest that anyone who lacks caution and self-preservation "Deserves whatever they get", you seem to interpret the statement as "Their unfortunate situation is a result of their own actions"

Generally speaking, when someone "Deserves" something, the word describes an ideal situation or result; as in this person, by justice, "Deserves" a particular thing. This word has nothing to do with what WILL happen, only what SHOULD happen.

Would it not be preferable for a kind person with self destructive patterns of behavior to simply be highly fortunate and never suffer if their actions didn't put others at risk? Again, we're not talking about what WOULD happen, we're talking about what SHOULD.

As I was once told, "don't should on yourself.[footnote]pronounced quickly, so it sounds like "shit" at first. This in a speech with advice for a crop of Senior education majors who were about to go into their final internship, a place where worrying about what should happen, instead of what was happening, would just make things worse.[/footnote]" "Should" has no place in a discussion like this. Only "may" or "will." Because we live in the real world, not some fantasy world where poor choices don't have far reaching consequences.

Actually by using the word deserve you kinda brought should into this yourself. Deserving something would mean you "should" get it.

Semantics. I'm talking about natural consequences of actions[footnote]Example of a natural consequence: you drive while drunk, so you wreck your car. Example of artificial consequence: you drive while drunk, so you go to jail.[/footnote], you're talking about an artificial world where such a thing doesn't exist.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

no, it wasn't sarcasm... one nighters you get what you deserve no matter what happens....

Why would somebody deserve to get an STI just because they have a one night stand?

Let's rephrase the question: why would somebody who made a bad choice that could have easily been avoided deserve to deal with the consequences?

And I /do/ believe anyone who knows they have an STI should, at the very least, inform /all/ potential partners. They definitely deserve all the blame for being the kind of scumbag that would go around knowingly spreading herpes or HIV. That doesn't mean I'm going to trust a stranger to be honest just because they should.

That makes no sense, that's like saying boxers don't deserve medical treatment because they knew the risks. Making an insignificant mistake shouldn't condemn you to living with the consequences for the rest of your life.

Further more, why should people be allowed to do malicious shit simply because their victims lacked the foresight or intelligence to prevent it?

What are the negative connotations to this hypothetical law? True, you may be intelligent enough not to trust strangers, but why should you be held responsible for their poor behavior, and why should you have to be so vigilant if the potential danger could be prevented?

Actually, it's more like saying if you don't want to get beaten up badly enough to need medical attention, don't get in the boxing ring. I said nothing about medical attention, getting medical attention is kind of important if you have an STD. Or a concussion, for that matter. Also, check who you're arguing with. I'm not in favor of the stupid card. I'm in favor of, you know, wearing a condom, and generally not sleeping with total strangers, but wearing a condom if you decide to anyway.

It was an analogy.

Getting punched in the face isn't a risk to a boxer, it's a guarantee. Getting knocked over and cracking your skull is not, and that's a more fitting equivalent.

STD's are not a guarantee, they're a risk. And as you said, a small one if you wear a condom (Discounting things other than standard intercourse).

What other negative consequences does anonymous sex have besides the spread of disease? Why should the potential risks not be mitigated?

No law is going to entirely prevent poor behavior, this is true, but the law can still discourage it. Obviously, a card is not going to work, but I think a similar procedure could be effective.

Just hypothetically, if everyone could ensure that nobody would get sick from anonymous sex, why should they still not have it?

Fine, so where does not getting medical care play into this? Because that doesn't work as an analogy. You said it yourself, in boxing it's getting your skull cracked open that's the risk. Not being able to access medical care for whatever reason is neither here nor there.

And for the hypothetical: there wouldn't be, if they could also guarantee nobody would get pregnant unless both parties wanted it. Problem is we don't live in a hypothetical perfect world, which is what the people who cry "victim blaming!" and "slut shaming!" all the time don't seem to be capable of[footnote]Or rather, willing to[/footnote] understanding.

I am not referring to medical attention in regards to STD's, I'm arguing that making a poor decision doesn't make you undeserving of assistance or sympathy.

When you argue that by making a poor decision, a decision with consequences which only affect you in this case, you deserve whatever happens to you no matter how dire, the argument you're making is that the worth of a human life can be measured by their intellect and caution alone.

I have my doubts that you actually believe that death by AIDS is a fitting punishment for casual sex, so when you said "Why would somebody who made a bad choice that could have easily been avoided deserve to deal with the consequences?", you were not attempting to imply that yes, you deserve the consequences to your poor decision making skills even when they can kill you.

If you have unprotected sex and catch AIDS, regardless of whether or not you should have been smart enough to avoid it, you have fucking AIDS and are deserving of sympathy, not a lecture. What does making them feel like shit about their condition accomplish?

You are absolutely right, the world is not a perfect place, people get fucked over for mild mistakes all the time, just because it happens doesn't mean they deserve it.

In terms of the boxer metaphor, I will try to explain it as simply as possible; if a boxer's rib is shattered by a punch he could have easily avoided, and the broken bone pierces his lung and kills him, does he deserve this fate simply because it "could have been easily avoided"?

On a similar note, if young man has unprotected sex with a prostitute (Out of sheer stupidity or for whatever reason) and contracts HIV which later becomes AIDS and kills him, does he deserve his fate simply because it "could have been easily avoided"?

I believe this whole debate started with the subject of STI cards, in the interest of full disclosure, I would agree that such a system would never work as proposed. However, I would argue that the idea of an infected individual being recognizable by anyone they could spread the infection to has merit.

And who said anything about denying people assistance or sympathy? I'd be sympathetic that a person had an STD. I'd give assistance, if appropriate. But I wouldn't have much sympathy for the actions that led to it if those actions were frequent, unprotected sex with strangers. And hell yes a young man who has unprotected sex with a prostitute deserves whatever he gets. That's darwin award level stupidity right there. As for the boxer? He may not deserve it, but he knew the risk going in. If he wasn't okay with the chance he might get killed in the ring, he shouldn't have stepped in it in the first place.

Basically, you seem to have an issue with the idea of personal responsibility.

So because I don't think innocent people deserve to die of AIDS, I take issue with personal responsibility?

What does "Sympathy for their actions" even mean? I don't understand how you could simultaneously feel sympathy for someone and feel the need to help them, but also hold the opinion that they deserve death; that sounds like serious emotional conflict to me. Do you really believe that a person deserves to be condemned to death for an action that hurt nobody but themselves?

I take no issue with personal responsibility, I don't know how you inferred that conclusion from the argument that people don't deserve to die for being lax. I don't see how harboring personal resentment for people who partake in self destructive behavior is evidence in a belief in personal responsibility. When did I ever imply that this sort of behavior was positive? It is unhealthy behavior, but it only hurts you, it doesn't make you malicious or unkind, it doesn't devalue you as a human being.

No matter how stupid you are, your life is yours to do with it as you will as long as you do not violate that right in others. You dob't need to despise those lacking in a virtue to appreciate it. I admire intelligence and responsibility, but I don't think dumb people should be left to die because they lack intellect.

The philosophy that the lazy and ignorant do not deserve to live is not a respect for personal responsibility, it's a demand for it.

What I take issue with is Darwinism.

People are responsible for their own choices. If those choices cause them to die, and they knew that was a significant risk from those actions, then it's their fault. I might feel sorry for them, but I'm not gonna sit there and go "there, there, it wasn't your fault." Because it totally was. Wear a friggin' condom for God's sake. It's not that hard.

Edit: By the way, we're talking about AIDS here. If the only person who was harmed by that risk was you if you didn't wear a condom, nobody would ever get aids, because there would be nobody to get it from. You harm not just yourself, but anyone who you might happen to sleep with before you find out you're infected. So yes, I will blame people who make stupid choices, and hold them responsible for their actions. Because it's really /not/ just them that they hurt.

I mean, hell, we haven't even gotten into the effects that their dying of AIDS will have on their friends and family yet, just the random strangers they may pass it on to if they're having unprotected sex that frequently. And all of their families and friends, and so on and so forth. Might want to think about who the victims really are before you go crying "victim blaming."

The hypothetical we were discussing was not somebody who risked infecting others with STD's. Your original statement was that ANYONE who had unprotected sex with strangers deserved whatever fate they suffered, at no point did you qualify your statement with the assertion that they did not frequently ensure they were not infected with and STD before engaging in such an act, nor did you state that such a thing would change your feelings towards them.

Deserving something and having it be your fault are not the same thing; you may meet your death due to laziness, apathy or masochism, this does not, however, automatically identify you as deserving of death.

When you suggest that anyone who lacks caution and self-preservation "Deserves whatever they get", you seem to interpret the statement as "Their unfortunate situation is a result of their own actions"

Generally speaking, when someone "Deserves" something, the word describes an ideal situation or result; as in this person, by justice, "Deserves" a particular thing. This word has nothing to do with what WILL happen, only what SHOULD happen.

Would it not be preferable for a kind person with self destructive patterns of behavior to simply be highly fortunate and never suffer if their actions didn't put others at risk? Again, we're not talking about what WOULD happen, we're talking about what SHOULD.

As I was once told, "don't should on yourself.[footnote]pronounced quickly, so it sounds like "shit" at first. This in a speech with advice for a crop of Senior education majors who were about to go into their final internship, a place where worrying about what should happen, instead of what was happening, would just make things worse.[/footnote]" "Should" has no place in a discussion like this. Only "may" or "will." Because we live in the real world, not some fantasy world where poor choices don't have far reaching consequences.

Actually by using the word deserve you kinda brought should into this yourself. Deserving something would mean you "should" get it.

Semantics. I'm talking about natural consequences of actions[footnote]Example of a natural consequence: you drive while drunk, so you wreck your car. Example of artificial consequence: you drive while drunk, so you go to jail.[/footnote], you're talking about an artificial world where such a thing doesn't exist.

I'm not talking about anything, I think you might have mistaken me for the person you were having the back and forth with. I just pointed out that with no should there's no deserves. You said should has no place in this but really you're the one who brought it in.

I see what you're talking about, but that "don't should on yourself" is more of a reminder that the world isn't perfect, and you need to stop worrying about what /should/ happen and just deal with what /does./ What I said about deserving something was basically, if you actively do the thing that causes that bad thing that "shouldn't" happen, it's your own dumb fault and there's nobody to blame but you, because actions have consequences. The person I've been going back and forth with was saying "but it shouldn't happen to them!" like it mattered in the real world.

 

[sumanoskae]

no, it wasn't sarcasm... one nighters you get what you deserve no matter what happens....

Why would somebody deserve to get an STI just because they have a one night stand?

Let's rephrase the question: why would somebody who made a bad choice that could have easily been avoided deserve to deal with the consequences?

And I /do/ believe anyone who knows they have an STI should, at the very least, inform /all/ potential partners. They definitely deserve all the blame for being the kind of scumbag that would go around knowingly spreading herpes or HIV. That doesn't mean I'm going to trust a stranger to be honest just because they should.

That makes no sense, that's like saying boxers don't deserve medical treatment because they knew the risks. Making an insignificant mistake shouldn't condemn you to living with the consequences for the rest of your life.

Further more, why should people be allowed to do malicious shit simply because their victims lacked the foresight or intelligence to prevent it?

What are the negative connotations to this hypothetical law? True, you may be intelligent enough not to trust strangers, but why should you be held responsible for their poor behavior, and why should you have to be so vigilant if the potential danger could be prevented?

Actually, it's more like saying if you don't want to get beaten up badly enough to need medical attention, don't get in the boxing ring. I said nothing about medical attention, getting medical attention is kind of important if you have an STD. Or a concussion, for that matter. Also, check who you're arguing with. I'm not in favor of the stupid card. I'm in favor of, you know, wearing a condom, and generally not sleeping with total strangers, but wearing a condom if you decide to anyway.

It was an analogy.

Getting punched in the face isn't a risk to a boxer, it's a guarantee. Getting knocked over and cracking your skull is not, and that's a more fitting equivalent.

STD's are not a guarantee, they're a risk. And as you said, a small one if you wear a condom (Discounting things other than standard intercourse).

What other negative consequences does anonymous sex have besides the spread of disease? Why should the potential risks not be mitigated?

No law is going to entirely prevent poor behavior, this is true, but the law can still discourage it. Obviously, a card is not going to work, but I think a similar procedure could be effective.

Just hypothetically, if everyone could ensure that nobody would get sick from anonymous sex, why should they still not have it?

Fine, so where does not getting medical care play into this? Because that doesn't work as an analogy. You said it yourself, in boxing it's getting your skull cracked open that's the risk. Not being able to access medical care for whatever reason is neither here nor there.

And for the hypothetical: there wouldn't be, if they could also guarantee nobody would get pregnant unless both parties wanted it. Problem is we don't live in a hypothetical perfect world, which is what the people who cry "victim blaming!" and "slut shaming!" all the time don't seem to be capable of[footnote]Or rather, willing to[/footnote] understanding.

I am not referring to medical attention in regards to STD's, I'm arguing that making a poor decision doesn't make you undeserving of assistance or sympathy.

When you argue that by making a poor decision, a decision with consequences which only affect you in this case, you deserve whatever happens to you no matter how dire, the argument you're making is that the worth of a human life can be measured by their intellect and caution alone.

I have my doubts that you actually believe that death by AIDS is a fitting punishment for casual sex, so when you said "Why would somebody who made a bad choice that could have easily been avoided deserve to deal with the consequences?", you were not attempting to imply that yes, you deserve the consequences to your poor decision making skills even when they can kill you.

If you have unprotected sex and catch AIDS, regardless of whether or not you should have been smart enough to avoid it, you have fucking AIDS and are deserving of sympathy, not a lecture. What does making them feel like shit about their condition accomplish?

You are absolutely right, the world is not a perfect place, people get fucked over for mild mistakes all the time, just because it happens doesn't mean they deserve it.

In terms of the boxer metaphor, I will try to explain it as simply as possible; if a boxer's rib is shattered by a punch he could have easily avoided, and the broken bone pierces his lung and kills him, does he deserve this fate simply because it "could have been easily avoided"?

On a similar note, if young man has unprotected sex with a prostitute (Out of sheer stupidity or for whatever reason) and contracts HIV which later becomes AIDS and kills him, does he deserve his fate simply because it "could have been easily avoided"?

I believe this whole debate started with the subject of STI cards, in the interest of full disclosure, I would agree that such a system would never work as proposed. However, I would argue that the idea of an infected individual being recognizable by anyone they could spread the infection to has merit.

And who said anything about denying people assistance or sympathy? I'd be sympathetic that a person had an STD. I'd give assistance, if appropriate. But I wouldn't have much sympathy for the actions that led to it if those actions were frequent, unprotected sex with strangers. And hell yes a young man who has unprotected sex with a prostitute deserves whatever he gets. That's darwin award level stupidity right there. As for the boxer? He may not deserve it, but he knew the risk going in. If he wasn't okay with the chance he might get killed in the ring, he shouldn't have stepped in it in the first place.

Basically, you seem to have an issue with the idea of personal responsibility.

So because I don't think innocent people deserve to die of AIDS, I take issue with personal responsibility?

What does "Sympathy for their actions" even mean? I don't understand how you could simultaneously feel sympathy for someone and feel the need to help them, but also hold the opinion that they deserve death; that sounds like serious emotional conflict to me. Do you really believe that a person deserves to be condemned to death for an action that hurt nobody but themselves?

I take no issue with personal responsibility, I don't know how you inferred that conclusion from the argument that people don't deserve to die for being lax. I don't see how harboring personal resentment for people who partake in self destructive behavior is evidence in a belief in personal responsibility. When did I ever imply that this sort of behavior was positive? It is unhealthy behavior, but it only hurts you, it doesn't make you malicious or unkind, it doesn't devalue you as a human being.

No matter how stupid you are, your life is yours to do with it as you will as long as you do not violate that right in others. You dob't need to despise those lacking in a virtue to appreciate it. I admire intelligence and responsibility, but I don't think dumb people should be left to die because they lack intellect.

The philosophy that the lazy and ignorant do not deserve to live is not a respect for personal responsibility, it's a demand for it.

What I take issue with is Darwinism.

People are responsible for their own choices. If those choices cause them to die, and they knew that was a significant risk from those actions, then it's their fault. I might feel sorry for them, but I'm not gonna sit there and go "there, there, it wasn't your fault." Because it totally was. Wear a friggin' condom for God's sake. It's not that hard.

Edit: By the way, we're talking about AIDS here. If the only person who was harmed by that risk was you if you didn't wear a condom, nobody would ever get aids, because there would be nobody to get it from. You harm not just yourself, but anyone who you might happen to sleep with before you find out you're infected. So yes, I will blame people who make stupid choices, and hold them responsible for their actions. Because it's really /not/ just them that they hurt.

I mean, hell, we haven't even gotten into the effects that their dying of AIDS will have on their friends and family yet, just the random strangers they may pass it on to if they're having unprotected sex that frequently. And all of their families and friends, and so on and so forth. Might want to think about who the victims really are before you go crying "victim blaming."

The hypothetical we were discussing was not somebody who risked infecting others with STD's. Your original statement was that ANYONE who had unprotected sex with strangers deserved whatever fate they suffered, at no point did you qualify your statement with the assertion that they did not frequently ensure they were not infected with and STD before engaging in such an act, nor did you state that such a thing would change your feelings towards them.

Deserving something and having it be your fault are not the same thing; you may meet your death due to laziness, apathy or masochism, this does not, however, automatically identify you as deserving of death.

When you suggest that anyone who lacks caution and self-preservation "Deserves whatever they get", you seem to interpret the statement as "Their unfortunate situation is a result of their own actions"

Generally speaking, when someone "Deserves" something, the word describes an ideal situation or result; as in this person, by justice, "Deserves" a particular thing. This word has nothing to do with what WILL happen, only what SHOULD happen.

Would it not be preferable for a kind person with self destructive patterns of behavior to simply be highly fortunate and never suffer if their actions didn't put others at risk? Again, we're not talking about what WOULD happen, we're talking about what SHOULD.

As I was once told, "don't should on yourself.[footnote]pronounced quickly, so it sounds like "shit" at first. This in a speech with advice for a crop of Senior education majors who were about to go into their final internship, a place where worrying about what should happen, instead of what was happening, would just make things worse.[/footnote]" "Should" has no place in a discussion like this. Only "may" or "will." Because we live in the real world, not some fantasy world where poor choices don't have far reaching consequences.

Actually by using the word deserve you kinda brought should into this yourself. Deserving something would mean you "should" get it.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[sumanoskae]

no, it wasn't sarcasm... one nighters you get what you deserve no matter what happens....

Why would somebody deserve to get an STI just because they have a one night stand?

Let's rephrase the question: why would somebody who made a bad choice that could have easily been avoided deserve to deal with the consequences?

And I /do/ believe anyone who knows they have an STI should, at the very least, inform /all/ potential partners. They definitely deserve all the blame for being the kind of scumbag that would go around knowingly spreading herpes or HIV. That doesn't mean I'm going to trust a stranger to be honest just because they should.

That makes no sense, that's like saying boxers don't deserve medical treatment because they knew the risks. Making an insignificant mistake shouldn't condemn you to living with the consequences for the rest of your life.

Further more, why should people be allowed to do malicious shit simply because their victims lacked the foresight or intelligence to prevent it?

What are the negative connotations to this hypothetical law? True, you may be intelligent enough not to trust strangers, but why should you be held responsible for their poor behavior, and why should you have to be so vigilant if the potential danger could be prevented?

Actually, it's more like saying if you don't want to get beaten up badly enough to need medical attention, don't get in the boxing ring. I said nothing about medical attention, getting medical attention is kind of important if you have an STD. Or a concussion, for that matter. Also, check who you're arguing with. I'm not in favor of the stupid card. I'm in favor of, you know, wearing a condom, and generally not sleeping with total strangers, but wearing a condom if you decide to anyway.

It was an analogy.

Getting punched in the face isn't a risk to a boxer, it's a guarantee. Getting knocked over and cracking your skull is not, and that's a more fitting equivalent.

STD's are not a guarantee, they're a risk. And as you said, a small one if you wear a condom (Discounting things other than standard intercourse).

What other negative consequences does anonymous sex have besides the spread of disease? Why should the potential risks not be mitigated?

No law is going to entirely prevent poor behavior, this is true, but the law can still discourage it. Obviously, a card is not going to work, but I think a similar procedure could be effective.

Just hypothetically, if everyone could ensure that nobody would get sick from anonymous sex, why should they still not have it?

Fine, so where does not getting medical care play into this? Because that doesn't work as an analogy. You said it yourself, in boxing it's getting your skull cracked open that's the risk. Not being able to access medical care for whatever reason is neither here nor there.

And for the hypothetical: there wouldn't be, if they could also guarantee nobody would get pregnant unless both parties wanted it. Problem is we don't live in a hypothetical perfect world, which is what the people who cry "victim blaming!" and "slut shaming!" all the time don't seem to be capable of[footnote]Or rather, willing to[/footnote] understanding.

I am not referring to medical attention in regards to STD's, I'm arguing that making a poor decision doesn't make you undeserving of assistance or sympathy.

When you argue that by making a poor decision, a decision with consequences which only affect you in this case, you deserve whatever happens to you no matter how dire, the argument you're making is that the worth of a human life can be measured by their intellect and caution alone.

I have my doubts that you actually believe that death by AIDS is a fitting punishment for casual sex, so when you said "Why would somebody who made a bad choice that could have easily been avoided deserve to deal with the consequences?", you were not attempting to imply that yes, you deserve the consequences to your poor decision making skills even when they can kill you.

If you have unprotected sex and catch AIDS, regardless of whether or not you should have been smart enough to avoid it, you have fucking AIDS and are deserving of sympathy, not a lecture. What does making them feel like shit about their condition accomplish?

You are absolutely right, the world is not a perfect place, people get fucked over for mild mistakes all the time, just because it happens doesn't mean they deserve it.

In terms of the boxer metaphor, I will try to explain it as simply as possible; if a boxer's rib is shattered by a punch he could have easily avoided, and the broken bone pierces his lung and kills him, does he deserve this fate simply because it "could have been easily avoided"?

On a similar note, if young man has unprotected sex with a prostitute (Out of sheer stupidity or for whatever reason) and contracts HIV which later becomes AIDS and kills him, does he deserve his fate simply because it "could have been easily avoided"?

I believe this whole debate started with the subject of STI cards, in the interest of full disclosure, I would agree that such a system would never work as proposed. However, I would argue that the idea of an infected individual being recognizable by anyone they could spread the infection to has merit.

And who said anything about denying people assistance or sympathy? I'd be sympathetic that a person had an STD. I'd give assistance, if appropriate. But I wouldn't have much sympathy for the actions that led to it if those actions were frequent, unprotected sex with strangers. And hell yes a young man who has unprotected sex with a prostitute deserves whatever he gets. That's darwin award level stupidity right there. As for the boxer? He may not deserve it, but he knew the risk going in. If he wasn't okay with the chance he might get killed in the ring, he shouldn't have stepped in it in the first place.

Basically, you seem to have an issue with the idea of personal responsibility.

So because I don't think innocent people deserve to die of AIDS, I take issue with personal responsibility?

What does "Sympathy for their actions" even mean? I don't understand how you could simultaneously feel sympathy for someone and feel the need to help them, but also hold the opinion that they deserve death; that sounds like serious emotional conflict to me. Do you really believe that a person deserves to be condemned to death for an action that hurt nobody but themselves?

I take no issue with personal responsibility, I don't know how you inferred that conclusion from the argument that people don't deserve to die for being lax. I don't see how harboring personal resentment for people who partake in self destructive behavior is evidence in a belief in personal responsibility. When did I ever imply that this sort of behavior was positive? It is unhealthy behavior, but it only hurts you, it doesn't make you malicious or unkind, it doesn't devalue you as a human being.

No matter how stupid you are, your life is yours to do with it as you will as long as you do not violate that right in others. You dob't need to despise those lacking in a virtue to appreciate it. I admire intelligence and responsibility, but I don't think dumb people should be left to die because they lack intellect.

The philosophy that the lazy and ignorant do not deserve to live is not a respect for personal responsibility, it's a demand for it.

What I take issue with is Darwinism.

People are responsible for their own choices. If those choices cause them to die, and they knew that was a significant risk from those actions, then it's their fault. I might feel sorry for them, but I'm not gonna sit there and go "there, there, it wasn't your fault." Because it totally was. Wear a friggin' condom for God's sake. It's not that hard.

Edit: By the way, we're talking about AIDS here. If the only person who was harmed by that risk was you if you didn't wear a condom, nobody would ever get aids, because there would be nobody to get it from. You harm not just yourself, but anyone who you might happen to sleep with before you find out you're infected. So yes, I will blame people who make stupid choices, and hold them responsible for their actions. Because it's really /not/ just them that they hurt.

I mean, hell, we haven't even gotten into the effects that their dying of AIDS will have on their friends and family yet, just the random strangers they may pass it on to if they're having unprotected sex that frequently. And all of their families and friends, and so on and so forth. Might want to think about who the victims really are before you go crying "victim blaming."

The hypothetical we were discussing was not somebody who risked infecting others with STD's. Your original statement was that ANYONE who had unprotected sex with strangers deserved whatever fate they suffered, at no point did you qualify your statement with the assertion that they did not frequently ensure they were not infected with and STD before engaging in such an act, nor did you state that such a thing would change your feelings towards them.

Deserving something and having it be your fault are not the same thing; you may meet your death due to laziness, apathy or masochism, this does not, however, automatically identify you as deserving of death.

When you suggest that anyone who lacks caution and self-preservation "Deserves whatever they get", you seem to interpret the statement as "Their unfortunate situation is a result of their own actions"

Generally speaking, when someone "Deserves" something, the word describes an ideal situation or result; as in this person, by justice, "Deserves" a particular thing. This word has nothing to do with what WILL happen, only what SHOULD happen.

Would it not be preferable for a kind person with self destructive patterns of behavior to simply be highly fortunate and never suffer if their actions didn't put others at risk? Again, we're not talking about what WOULD happen, we're talking about what SHOULD.

As I was once told, "don't should on yourself.[footnote]pronounced quickly, so it sounds like "shit" at first. This in a speech with advice for a crop of Senior education majors who were about to go into their final internship, a place where worrying about what should happen, instead of what was happening, would just make things worse.[/footnote]" "Should" has no place in a discussion like this. Only "may" or "will." Because we live in the real world, not some fantasy world where poor choices don't have far reaching consequences.

Actually by using the word deserve you kinda brought should into this yourself. Deserving something would mean you "should" get it.

Semantics. I'm talking about natural consequences of actions[footnote]Example of a natural consequence: you drive while drunk, so you wreck your car. Example of artificial consequence: you drive while drunk, so you go to jail.[/footnote], you're talking about an artificial world where such a thing doesn't exist.

I'm not talking about anything, I think you might have mistaken me for the person you were having the back and forth with. I just pointed out that with no should there's no deserves. You said should has no place in this but really you're the one who brought it in.

I see what you're talking about, but that "don't should on yourself" is more of a reminder that the world isn't perfect, and you need to stop worrying about what /should/ happen and just deal with what /does./ What I said about deserving something was basically, if you actively do the thing that causes that bad thing that "shouldn't" happen, it's your own dumb fault and there's nobody to blame but you, because actions have consequences. The person I've been going back and forth with was saying "but it shouldn't happen to them!" like it mattered in the real world.

You began the argument with what you people deserved, and you've talked about what people deserve for most of the debate. Don't act like you've been arguing this point clearly from the beginning when you've only just now made the distinction.

If you're simply arguing that the people in this hypothetical situation created the situation on their own, I would agree. The point you appeared to be arguing was that these people deserved their fate, as in it "Should" happen to them.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

no, it wasn't sarcasm... one nighters you get what you deserve no matter what happens....

Why would somebody deserve to get an STI just because they have a one night stand?

Let's rephrase the question: why would somebody who made a bad choice that could have easily been avoided deserve to deal with the consequences?

And I /do/ believe anyone who knows they have an STI should, at the very least, inform /all/ potential partners. They definitely deserve all the blame for being the kind of scumbag that would go around knowingly spreading herpes or HIV. That doesn't mean I'm going to trust a stranger to be honest just because they should.

That makes no sense, that's like saying boxers don't deserve medical treatment because they knew the risks. Making an insignificant mistake shouldn't condemn you to living with the consequences for the rest of your life.

Further more, why should people be allowed to do malicious shit simply because their victims lacked the foresight or intelligence to prevent it?

What are the negative connotations to this hypothetical law? True, you may be intelligent enough not to trust strangers, but why should you be held responsible for their poor behavior, and why should you have to be so vigilant if the potential danger could be prevented?

Actually, it's more like saying if you don't want to get beaten up badly enough to need medical attention, don't get in the boxing ring. I said nothing about medical attention, getting medical attention is kind of important if you have an STD. Or a concussion, for that matter. Also, check who you're arguing with. I'm not in favor of the stupid card. I'm in favor of, you know, wearing a condom, and generally not sleeping with total strangers, but wearing a condom if you decide to anyway.

It was an analogy.

Getting punched in the face isn't a risk to a boxer, it's a guarantee. Getting knocked over and cracking your skull is not, and that's a more fitting equivalent.

STD's are not a guarantee, they're a risk. And as you said, a small one if you wear a condom (Discounting things other than standard intercourse).

What other negative consequences does anonymous sex have besides the spread of disease? Why should the potential risks not be mitigated?

No law is going to entirely prevent poor behavior, this is true, but the law can still discourage it. Obviously, a card is not going to work, but I think a similar procedure could be effective.

Just hypothetically, if everyone could ensure that nobody would get sick from anonymous sex, why should they still not have it?

Fine, so where does not getting medical care play into this? Because that doesn't work as an analogy. You said it yourself, in boxing it's getting your skull cracked open that's the risk. Not being able to access medical care for whatever reason is neither here nor there.

And for the hypothetical: there wouldn't be, if they could also guarantee nobody would get pregnant unless both parties wanted it. Problem is we don't live in a hypothetical perfect world, which is what the people who cry "victim blaming!" and "slut shaming!" all the time don't seem to be capable of[footnote]Or rather, willing to[/footnote] understanding.

I am not referring to medical attention in regards to STD's, I'm arguing that making a poor decision doesn't make you undeserving of assistance or sympathy.

When you argue that by making a poor decision, a decision with consequences which only affect you in this case, you deserve whatever happens to you no matter how dire, the argument you're making is that the worth of a human life can be measured by their intellect and caution alone.

I have my doubts that you actually believe that death by AIDS is a fitting punishment for casual sex, so when you said "Why would somebody who made a bad choice that could have easily been avoided deserve to deal with the consequences?", you were not attempting to imply that yes, you deserve the consequences to your poor decision making skills even when they can kill you.

If you have unprotected sex and catch AIDS, regardless of whether or not you should have been smart enough to avoid it, you have fucking AIDS and are deserving of sympathy, not a lecture. What does making them feel like shit about their condition accomplish?

You are absolutely right, the world is not a perfect place, people get fucked over for mild mistakes all the time, just because it happens doesn't mean they deserve it.

In terms of the boxer metaphor, I will try to explain it as simply as possible; if a boxer's rib is shattered by a punch he could have easily avoided, and the broken bone pierces his lung and kills him, does he deserve this fate simply because it "could have been easily avoided"?

On a similar note, if young man has unprotected sex with a prostitute (Out of sheer stupidity or for whatever reason) and contracts HIV which later becomes AIDS and kills him, does he deserve his fate simply because it "could have been easily avoided"?

I believe this whole debate started with the subject of STI cards, in the interest of full disclosure, I would agree that such a system would never work as proposed. However, I would argue that the idea of an infected individual being recognizable by anyone they could spread the infection to has merit.

And who said anything about denying people assistance or sympathy? I'd be sympathetic that a person had an STD. I'd give assistance, if appropriate. But I wouldn't have much sympathy for the actions that led to it if those actions were frequent, unprotected sex with strangers. And hell yes a young man who has unprotected sex with a prostitute deserves whatever he gets. That's darwin award level stupidity right there. As for the boxer? He may not deserve it, but he knew the risk going in. If he wasn't okay with the chance he might get killed in the ring, he shouldn't have stepped in it in the first place.

Basically, you seem to have an issue with the idea of personal responsibility.

So because I don't think innocent people deserve to die of AIDS, I take issue with personal responsibility?

What does "Sympathy for their actions" even mean? I don't understand how you could simultaneously feel sympathy for someone and feel the need to help them, but also hold the opinion that they deserve death; that sounds like serious emotional conflict to me. Do you really believe that a person deserves to be condemned to death for an action that hurt nobody but themselves?

I take no issue with personal responsibility, I don't know how you inferred that conclusion from the argument that people don't deserve to die for being lax. I don't see how harboring personal resentment for people who partake in self destructive behavior is evidence in a belief in personal responsibility. When did I ever imply that this sort of behavior was positive? It is unhealthy behavior, but it only hurts you, it doesn't make you malicious or unkind, it doesn't devalue you as a human being.

No matter how stupid you are, your life is yours to do with it as you will as long as you do not violate that right in others. You dob't need to despise those lacking in a virtue to appreciate it. I admire intelligence and responsibility, but I don't think dumb people should be left to die because they lack intellect.

The philosophy that the lazy and ignorant do not deserve to live is not a respect for personal responsibility, it's a demand for it.

What I take issue with is Darwinism.

People are responsible for their own choices. If those choices cause them to die, and they knew that was a significant risk from those actions, then it's their fault. I might feel sorry for them, but I'm not gonna sit there and go "there, there, it wasn't your fault." Because it totally was. Wear a friggin' condom for God's sake. It's not that hard.

Edit: By the way, we're talking about AIDS here. If the only person who was harmed by that risk was you if you didn't wear a condom, nobody would ever get aids, because there would be nobody to get it from. You harm not just yourself, but anyone who you might happen to sleep with before you find out you're infected. So yes, I will blame people who make stupid choices, and hold them responsible for their actions. Because it's really /not/ just them that they hurt.

I mean, hell, we haven't even gotten into the effects that their dying of AIDS will have on their friends and family yet, just the random strangers they may pass it on to if they're having unprotected sex that frequently. And all of their families and friends, and so on and so forth. Might want to think about who the victims really are before you go crying "victim blaming."

The hypothetical we were discussing was not somebody who risked infecting others with STD's. Your original statement was that ANYONE who had unprotected sex with strangers deserved whatever fate they suffered, at no point did you qualify your statement with the assertion that they did not frequently ensure they were not infected with and STD before engaging in such an act, nor did you state that such a thing would change your feelings towards them.

Deserving something and having it be your fault are not the same thing; you may meet your death due to laziness, apathy or masochism, this does not, however, automatically identify you as deserving of death.

When you suggest that anyone who lacks caution and self-preservation "Deserves whatever they get", you seem to interpret the statement as "Their unfortunate situation is a result of their own actions"

Generally speaking, when someone "Deserves" something, the word describes an ideal situation or result; as in this person, by justice, "Deserves" a particular thing. This word has nothing to do with what WILL happen, only what SHOULD happen.

Would it not be preferable for a kind person with self destructive patterns of behavior to simply be highly fortunate and never suffer if their actions didn't put others at risk? Again, we're not talking about what WOULD happen, we're talking about what SHOULD.

As I was once told, "don't should on yourself.[footnote]pronounced quickly, so it sounds like "shit" at first. This in a speech with advice for a crop of Senior education majors who were about to go into their final internship, a place where worrying about what should happen, instead of what was happening, would just make things worse.[/footnote]" "Should" has no place in a discussion like this. Only "may" or "will." Because we live in the real world, not some fantasy world where poor choices don't have far reaching consequences.

Actually by using the word deserve you kinda brought should into this yourself. Deserving something would mean you "should" get it.

Semantics. I'm talking about natural consequences of actions[footnote]Example of a natural consequence: you drive while drunk, so you wreck your car. Example of artificial consequence: you drive while drunk, so you go to jail.[/footnote], you're talking about an artificial world where such a thing doesn't exist.

I'm not talking about anything, I think you might have mistaken me for the person you were having the back and forth with. I just pointed out that with no should there's no deserves. You said should has no place in this but really you're the one who brought it in.

I see what you're talking about, but that "don't should on yourself" is more of a reminder that the world isn't perfect, and you need to stop worrying about what /should/ happen and just deal with what /does./ What I said about deserving something was basically, if you actively do the thing that causes that bad thing that "shouldn't" happen, it's your own dumb fault and there's nobody to blame but you, because actions have consequences. The person I've been going back and forth with was saying "but it shouldn't happen to them!" like it mattered in the real world.

You began the argument with what you people deserved, and you've talked about what people deserve for most of the debate. Don't act like you've been arguing this point clearly from the beginning when you've only just now made the distinction.

If you're simply arguing that the people in this hypothetical situation created the situation on their own, I would agree. The point you appeared to be arguing was that these people deserved their fate, as in it "Should" happen to them.

The distinction shouls (there I go using it) be obvious. You make your choices, and you deal with the consequenses. That's how things work in thereal world, something often.forgotten in the rush to cry "victim blaming." When you're a victim of your own stupidity, as people whoo wint up diseased or pregnant after an unprotected one night stand, they are to blame, completely and utterly. The fact that they were the person negatively affected changes nothing about that reality. I apologize in advance for any typos, as I'm writing this on a cellphone that won't let me see the text and edit it at the same time. I've never seen forum software that scaled worse than whatever. It is they use around here.

Edit: The sad thing is I was completely sober and using a phone with a physical keyboard when I wrote this. @Kross: Update the CSS, Plox. Or at least make an app/mobile version available

 

[sumanoskae]

no, it wasn't sarcasm... one nighters you get what you deserve no matter what happens....

Why would somebody deserve to get an STI just because they have a one night stand?

Let's rephrase the question: why would somebody who made a bad choice that could have easily been avoided deserve to deal with the consequences?

And I /do/ believe anyone who knows they have an STI should, at the very least, inform /all/ potential partners. They definitely deserve all the blame for being the kind of scumbag that would go around knowingly spreading herpes or HIV. That doesn't mean I'm going to trust a stranger to be honest just because they should.

That makes no sense, that's like saying boxers don't deserve medical treatment because they knew the risks. Making an insignificant mistake shouldn't condemn you to living with the consequences for the rest of your life.

Further more, why should people be allowed to do malicious shit simply because their victims lacked the foresight or intelligence to prevent it?

What are the negative connotations to this hypothetical law? True, you may be intelligent enough not to trust strangers, but why should you be held responsible for their poor behavior, and why should you have to be so vigilant if the potential danger could be prevented?

Actually, it's more like saying if you don't want to get beaten up badly enough to need medical attention, don't get in the boxing ring. I said nothing about medical attention, getting medical attention is kind of important if you have an STD. Or a concussion, for that matter. Also, check who you're arguing with. I'm not in favor of the stupid card. I'm in favor of, you know, wearing a condom, and generally not sleeping with total strangers, but wearing a condom if you decide to anyway.

It was an analogy.

Getting punched in the face isn't a risk to a boxer, it's a guarantee. Getting knocked over and cracking your skull is not, and that's a more fitting equivalent.

STD's are not a guarantee, they're a risk. And as you said, a small one if you wear a condom (Discounting things other than standard intercourse).

What other negative consequences does anonymous sex have besides the spread of disease? Why should the potential risks not be mitigated?

No law is going to entirely prevent poor behavior, this is true, but the law can still discourage it. Obviously, a card is not going to work, but I think a similar procedure could be effective.

Just hypothetically, if everyone could ensure that nobody would get sick from anonymous sex, why should they still not have it?

Fine, so where does not getting medical care play into this? Because that doesn't work as an analogy. You said it yourself, in boxing it's getting your skull cracked open that's the risk. Not being able to access medical care for whatever reason is neither here nor there.

And for the hypothetical: there wouldn't be, if they could also guarantee nobody would get pregnant unless both parties wanted it. Problem is we don't live in a hypothetical perfect world, which is what the people who cry "victim blaming!" and "slut shaming!" all the time don't seem to be capable of[footnote]Or rather, willing to[/footnote] understanding.

I am not referring to medical attention in regards to STD's, I'm arguing that making a poor decision doesn't make you undeserving of assistance or sympathy.

When you argue that by making a poor decision, a decision with consequences which only affect you in this case, you deserve whatever happens to you no matter how dire, the argument you're making is that the worth of a human life can be measured by their intellect and caution alone.

I have my doubts that you actually believe that death by AIDS is a fitting punishment for casual sex, so when you said "Why would somebody who made a bad choice that could have easily been avoided deserve to deal with the consequences?", you were not attempting to imply that yes, you deserve the consequences to your poor decision making skills even when they can kill you.

If you have unprotected sex and catch AIDS, regardless of whether or not you should have been smart enough to avoid it, you have fucking AIDS and are deserving of sympathy, not a lecture. What does making them feel like shit about their condition accomplish?

You are absolutely right, the world is not a perfect place, people get fucked over for mild mistakes all the time, just because it happens doesn't mean they deserve it.

In terms of the boxer metaphor, I will try to explain it as simply as possible; if a boxer's rib is shattered by a punch he could have easily avoided, and the broken bone pierces his lung and kills him, does he deserve this fate simply because it "could have been easily avoided"?

On a similar note, if young man has unprotected sex with a prostitute (Out of sheer stupidity or for whatever reason) and contracts HIV which later becomes AIDS and kills him, does he deserve his fate simply because it "could have been easily avoided"?

I believe this whole debate started with the subject of STI cards, in the interest of full disclosure, I would agree that such a system would never work as proposed. However, I would argue that the idea of an infected individual being recognizable by anyone they could spread the infection to has merit.

And who said anything about denying people assistance or sympathy? I'd be sympathetic that a person had an STD. I'd give assistance, if appropriate. But I wouldn't have much sympathy for the actions that led to it if those actions were frequent, unprotected sex with strangers. And hell yes a young man who has unprotected sex with a prostitute deserves whatever he gets. That's darwin award level stupidity right there. As for the boxer? He may not deserve it, but he knew the risk going in. If he wasn't okay with the chance he might get killed in the ring, he shouldn't have stepped in it in the first place.

Basically, you seem to have an issue with the idea of personal responsibility.

So because I don't think innocent people deserve to die of AIDS, I take issue with personal responsibility?

What does "Sympathy for their actions" even mean? I don't understand how you could simultaneously feel sympathy for someone and feel the need to help them, but also hold the opinion that they deserve death; that sounds like serious emotional conflict to me. Do you really believe that a person deserves to be condemned to death for an action that hurt nobody but themselves?

I take no issue with personal responsibility, I don't know how you inferred that conclusion from the argument that people don't deserve to die for being lax. I don't see how harboring personal resentment for people who partake in self destructive behavior is evidence in a belief in personal responsibility. When did I ever imply that this sort of behavior was positive? It is unhealthy behavior, but it only hurts you, it doesn't make you malicious or unkind, it doesn't devalue you as a human being.

No matter how stupid you are, your life is yours to do with it as you will as long as you do not violate that right in others. You dob't need to despise those lacking in a virtue to appreciate it. I admire intelligence and responsibility, but I don't think dumb people should be left to die because they lack intellect.

The philosophy that the lazy and ignorant do not deserve to live is not a respect for personal responsibility, it's a demand for it.

What I take issue with is Darwinism.

People are responsible for their own choices. If those choices cause them to die, and they knew that was a significant risk from those actions, then it's their fault. I might feel sorry for them, but I'm not gonna sit there and go "there, there, it wasn't your fault." Because it totally was. Wear a friggin' condom for God's sake. It's not that hard.

Edit: By the way, we're talking about AIDS here. If the only person who was harmed by that risk was you if you didn't wear a condom, nobody would ever get aids, because there would be nobody to get it from. You harm not just yourself, but anyone who you might happen to sleep with before you find out you're infected. So yes, I will blame people who make stupid choices, and hold them responsible for their actions. Because it's really /not/ just them that they hurt.

I mean, hell, we haven't even gotten into the effects that their dying of AIDS will have on their friends and family yet, just the random strangers they may pass it on to if they're having unprotected sex that frequently. And all of their families and friends, and so on and so forth. Might want to think about who the victims really are before you go crying "victim blaming."

The hypothetical we were discussing was not somebody who risked infecting others with STD's. Your original statement was that ANYONE who had unprotected sex with strangers deserved whatever fate they suffered, at no point did you qualify your statement with the assertion that they did not frequently ensure they were not infected with and STD before engaging in such an act, nor did you state that such a thing would change your feelings towards them.

Deserving something and having it be your fault are not the same thing; you may meet your death due to laziness, apathy or masochism, this does not, however, automatically identify you as deserving of death.

When you suggest that anyone who lacks caution and self-preservation "Deserves whatever they get", you seem to interpret the statement as "Their unfortunate situation is a result of their own actions"

Generally speaking, when someone "Deserves" something, the word describes an ideal situation or result; as in this person, by justice, "Deserves" a particular thing. This word has nothing to do with what WILL happen, only what SHOULD happen.

Would it not be preferable for a kind person with self destructive patterns of behavior to simply be highly fortunate and never suffer if their actions didn't put others at risk? Again, we're not talking about what WOULD happen, we're talking about what SHOULD.

As I was once told, "don't should on yourself.[footnote]pronounced quickly, so it sounds like "shit" at first. This in a speech with advice for a crop of Senior education majors who were about to go into their final internship, a place where worrying about what should happen, instead of what was happening, would just make things worse.[/footnote]" "Should" has no place in a discussion like this. Only "may" or "will." Because we live in the real world, not some fantasy world where poor choices don't have far reaching consequences.

Actually by using the word deserve you kinda brought should into this yourself. Deserving something would mean you "should" get it.

Semantics. I'm talking about natural consequences of actions[footnote]Example of a natural consequence: you drive while drunk, so you wreck your car. Example of artificial consequence: you drive while drunk, so you go to jail.[/footnote], you're talking about an artificial world where such a thing doesn't exist.

I'm not talking about anything, I think you might have mistaken me for the person you were having the back and forth with. I just pointed out that with no should there's no deserves. You said should has no place in this but really you're the one who brought it in.

I see what you're talking about, but that "don't should on yourself" is more of a reminder that the world isn't perfect, and you need to stop worrying about what /should/ happen and just deal with what /does./ What I said about deserving something was basically, if you actively do the thing that causes that bad thing that "shouldn't" happen, it's your own dumb fault and there's nobody to blame but you, because actions have consequences. The person I've been going back and forth with was saying "but it shouldn't happen to them!" like it mattered in the real world.

You began the argument with what you people deserved, and you've talked about what people deserve for most of the debate. Don't act like you've been arguing this point clearly from the beginning when you've only just now made the distinction.

If you're simply arguing that the people in this hypothetical situation created the situation on their own, I would agree. The point you appeared to be arguing was that these people deserved their fate, as in it "Should" happen to them.

The distinction shouls (there I go using it) be obvious. You make your choices, and you deal with the consequenses. That's how things work in thereal world, something often.forgotten in the rush to cry "victim blaming." When you're a victim of your own stupidity, as people whoo wint up diseased or pregnant after an unprotected one night stand, they are to blame, completely and utterly. The fact that they were the person negatively affected changes nothing about that reality. I apologize in advance for any typos, as I'm writing this on a cellphone that won't let me see the text and edit it at the same time. I've never seen forum software that scaled worse than whatever. It is they use around here.

See, now it seems like you're saying there's no difference between what people deserve and what they get. It's one thing to be realistic, it's another to be callous.

And I don't see how you expected me to infer that you were using the word "Deserve" incorrectly. You said this hypothetical person deserved to face the consequences, so I presumed you meant that they deserved to face the consequences.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

no, it wasn't sarcasm... one nighters you get what you deserve no matter what happens....

Why would somebody deserve to get an STI just because they have a one night stand?

Let's rephrase the question: why would somebody who made a bad choice that could have easily been avoided deserve to deal with the consequences?

And I /do/ believe anyone who knows they have an STI should, at the very least, inform /all/ potential partners. They definitely deserve all the blame for being the kind of scumbag that would go around knowingly spreading herpes or HIV. That doesn't mean I'm going to trust a stranger to be honest just because they should.

That makes no sense, that's like saying boxers don't deserve medical treatment because they knew the risks. Making an insignificant mistake shouldn't condemn you to living with the consequences for the rest of your life.

Further more, why should people be allowed to do malicious shit simply because their victims lacked the foresight or intelligence to prevent it?

What are the negative connotations to this hypothetical law? True, you may be intelligent enough not to trust strangers, but why should you be held responsible for their poor behavior, and why should you have to be so vigilant if the potential danger could be prevented?

Actually, it's more like saying if you don't want to get beaten up badly enough to need medical attention, don't get in the boxing ring. I said nothing about medical attention, getting medical attention is kind of important if you have an STD. Or a concussion, for that matter. Also, check who you're arguing with. I'm not in favor of the stupid card. I'm in favor of, you know, wearing a condom, and generally not sleeping with total strangers, but wearing a condom if you decide to anyway.

It was an analogy.

Getting punched in the face isn't a risk to a boxer, it's a guarantee. Getting knocked over and cracking your skull is not, and that's a more fitting equivalent.

STD's are not a guarantee, they're a risk. And as you said, a small one if you wear a condom (Discounting things other than standard intercourse).

What other negative consequences does anonymous sex have besides the spread of disease? Why should the potential risks not be mitigated?

No law is going to entirely prevent poor behavior, this is true, but the law can still discourage it. Obviously, a card is not going to work, but I think a similar procedure could be effective.

Just hypothetically, if everyone could ensure that nobody would get sick from anonymous sex, why should they still not have it?

Fine, so where does not getting medical care play into this? Because that doesn't work as an analogy. You said it yourself, in boxing it's getting your skull cracked open that's the risk. Not being able to access medical care for whatever reason is neither here nor there.

And for the hypothetical: there wouldn't be, if they could also guarantee nobody would get pregnant unless both parties wanted it. Problem is we don't live in a hypothetical perfect world, which is what the people who cry "victim blaming!" and "slut shaming!" all the time don't seem to be capable of[footnote]Or rather, willing to[/footnote] understanding.

I am not referring to medical attention in regards to STD's, I'm arguing that making a poor decision doesn't make you undeserving of assistance or sympathy.

When you argue that by making a poor decision, a decision with consequences which only affect you in this case, you deserve whatever happens to you no matter how dire, the argument you're making is that the worth of a human life can be measured by their intellect and caution alone.

I have my doubts that you actually believe that death by AIDS is a fitting punishment for casual sex, so when you said "Why would somebody who made a bad choice that could have easily been avoided deserve to deal with the consequences?", you were not attempting to imply that yes, you deserve the consequences to your poor decision making skills even when they can kill you.

If you have unprotected sex and catch AIDS, regardless of whether or not you should have been smart enough to avoid it, you have fucking AIDS and are deserving of sympathy, not a lecture. What does making them feel like shit about their condition accomplish?

You are absolutely right, the world is not a perfect place, people get fucked over for mild mistakes all the time, just because it happens doesn't mean they deserve it.

In terms of the boxer metaphor, I will try to explain it as simply as possible; if a boxer's rib is shattered by a punch he could have easily avoided, and the broken bone pierces his lung and kills him, does he deserve this fate simply because it "could have been easily avoided"?

On a similar note, if young man has unprotected sex with a prostitute (Out of sheer stupidity or for whatever reason) and contracts HIV which later becomes AIDS and kills him, does he deserve his fate simply because it "could have been easily avoided"?

I believe this whole debate started with the subject of STI cards, in the interest of full disclosure, I would agree that such a system would never work as proposed. However, I would argue that the idea of an infected individual being recognizable by anyone they could spread the infection to has merit.

And who said anything about denying people assistance or sympathy? I'd be sympathetic that a person had an STD. I'd give assistance, if appropriate. But I wouldn't have much sympathy for the actions that led to it if those actions were frequent, unprotected sex with strangers. And hell yes a young man who has unprotected sex with a prostitute deserves whatever he gets. That's darwin award level stupidity right there. As for the boxer? He may not deserve it, but he knew the risk going in. If he wasn't okay with the chance he might get killed in the ring, he shouldn't have stepped in it in the first place.

Basically, you seem to have an issue with the idea of personal responsibility.

So because I don't think innocent people deserve to die of AIDS, I take issue with personal responsibility?

What does "Sympathy for their actions" even mean? I don't understand how you could simultaneously feel sympathy for someone and feel the need to help them, but also hold the opinion that they deserve death; that sounds like serious emotional conflict to me. Do you really believe that a person deserves to be condemned to death for an action that hurt nobody but themselves?

I take no issue with personal responsibility, I don't know how you inferred that conclusion from the argument that people don't deserve to die for being lax. I don't see how harboring personal resentment for people who partake in self destructive behavior is evidence in a belief in personal responsibility. When did I ever imply that this sort of behavior was positive? It is unhealthy behavior, but it only hurts you, it doesn't make you malicious or unkind, it doesn't devalue you as a human being.

No matter how stupid you are, your life is yours to do with it as you will as long as you do not violate that right in others. You dob't need to despise those lacking in a virtue to appreciate it. I admire intelligence and responsibility, but I don't think dumb people should be left to die because they lack intellect.

The philosophy that the lazy and ignorant do not deserve to live is not a respect for personal responsibility, it's a demand for it.

What I take issue with is Darwinism.

People are responsible for their own choices. If those choices cause them to die, and they knew that was a significant risk from those actions, then it's their fault. I might feel sorry for them, but I'm not gonna sit there and go "there, there, it wasn't your fault." Because it totally was. Wear a friggin' condom for God's sake. It's not that hard.

Edit: By the way, we're talking about AIDS here. If the only person who was harmed by that risk was you if you didn't wear a condom, nobody would ever get aids, because there would be nobody to get it from. You harm not just yourself, but anyone who you might happen to sleep with before you find out you're infected. So yes, I will blame people who make stupid choices, and hold them responsible for their actions. Because it's really /not/ just them that they hurt.

I mean, hell, we haven't even gotten into the effects that their dying of AIDS will have on their friends and family yet, just the random strangers they may pass it on to if they're having unprotected sex that frequently. And all of their families and friends, and so on and so forth. Might want to think about who the victims really are before you go crying "victim blaming."

The hypothetical we were discussing was not somebody who risked infecting others with STD's. Your original statement was that ANYONE who had unprotected sex with strangers deserved whatever fate they suffered, at no point did you qualify your statement with the assertion that they did not frequently ensure they were not infected with and STD before engaging in such an act, nor did you state that such a thing would change your feelings towards them.

Deserving something and having it be your fault are not the same thing; you may meet your death due to laziness, apathy or masochism, this does not, however, automatically identify you as deserving of death.

When you suggest that anyone who lacks caution and self-preservation "Deserves whatever they get", you seem to interpret the statement as "Their unfortunate situation is a result of their own actions"

Generally speaking, when someone "Deserves" something, the word describes an ideal situation or result; as in this person, by justice, "Deserves" a particular thing. This word has nothing to do with what WILL happen, only what SHOULD happen.

Would it not be preferable for a kind person with self destructive patterns of behavior to simply be highly fortunate and never suffer if their actions didn't put others at risk? Again, we're not talking about what WOULD happen, we're talking about what SHOULD.

As I was once told, "don't should on yourself.[footnote]pronounced quickly, so it sounds like "shit" at first. This in a speech with advice for a crop of Senior education majors who were about to go into their final internship, a place where worrying about what should happen, instead of what was happening, would just make things worse.[/footnote]" "Should" has no place in a discussion like this. Only "may" or "will." Because we live in the real world, not some fantasy world where poor choices don't have far reaching consequences.

Actually by using the word deserve you kinda brought should into this yourself. Deserving something would mean you "should" get it.

Semantics. I'm talking about natural consequences of actions[footnote]Example of a natural consequence: you drive while drunk, so you wreck your car. Example of artificial consequence: you drive while drunk, so you go to jail.[/footnote], you're talking about an artificial world where such a thing doesn't exist.

I'm not talking about anything, I think you might have mistaken me for the person you were having the back and forth with. I just pointed out that with no should there's no deserves. You said should has no place in this but really you're the one who brought it in.

I see what you're talking about, but that "don't should on yourself" is more of a reminder that the world isn't perfect, and you need to stop worrying about what /should/ happen and just deal with what /does./ What I said about deserving something was basically, if you actively do the thing that causes that bad thing that "shouldn't" happen, it's your own dumb fault and there's nobody to blame but you, because actions have consequences. The person I've been going back and forth with was saying "but it shouldn't happen to them!" like it mattered in the real world.

You began the argument with what you people deserved, and you've talked about what people deserve for most of the debate. Don't act like you've been arguing this point clearly from the beginning when you've only just now made the distinction.

If you're simply arguing that the people in this hypothetical situation created the situation on their own, I would agree. The point you appeared to be arguing was that these people deserved their fate, as in it "Should" happen to them.

The distinction shouls (there I go using it) be obvious. You make your choices, and you deal with the consequenses. That's how things work in thereal world, something often.forgotten in the rush to cry "victim blaming." When you're a victim of your own stupidity, as people whoo wint up diseased or pregnant after an unprotected one night stand, they are to blame, completely and utterly. The fact that they were the person negatively affected changes nothing about that reality. I apologize in advance for any typos, as I'm writing this on a cellphone that won't let me see the text and edit it at the same time. I've never seen forum software that scaled worse than whatever. It is they use around here.

See, now it seems like you're saying there's no difference between what people deserve and what they get. It's one thing to be realistic, it's another to be callous.

And I don't see how you expected me to infer that you were using the word "Deserve" incorrectly. You said this hypothetical person deserved to face the consequences, so I presumed you meant that they deserved to face the consequences.

There isn't if it's as a direct, natural result of their actions. There's a huge difference between natural consequences (you drive drunk, so you crash your car. You have unprotected sex with a stranger, so you contract an STI) and artificial ones (you drive drunk, so you get arrested. You contract an STI, so you have to register for an STI Identification card/tatoo/whatever else people have given as a suggestion in this thread). Natural consequences are always deserved, and to say otherwise is to deny personal responsibility and/or agency. Artificial consequences can be debated, depending on the nature of the consequence.

 

[ShipofFools]

This thread... I keep coming back to it.
Some wonderful points have been made, but some posts seem to lack, well, humanity.

My favorite crackpot Terrence McKenna said that governments would make sex illegal if they knew how.
Looks like some people here are trying to solve that problem!

 

[sumanoskae]

no, it wasn't sarcasm... one nighters you get what you deserve no matter what happens....

Why would somebody deserve to get an STI just because they have a one night stand?

Let's rephrase the question: why would somebody who made a bad choice that could have easily been avoided deserve to deal with the consequences?

And I /do/ believe anyone who knows they have an STI should, at the very least, inform /all/ potential partners. They definitely deserve all the blame for being the kind of scumbag that would go around knowingly spreading herpes or HIV. That doesn't mean I'm going to trust a stranger to be honest just because they should.

That makes no sense, that's like saying boxers don't deserve medical treatment because they knew the risks. Making an insignificant mistake shouldn't condemn you to living with the consequences for the rest of your life.

Further more, why should people be allowed to do malicious shit simply because their victims lacked the foresight or intelligence to prevent it?

What are the negative connotations to this hypothetical law? True, you may be intelligent enough not to trust strangers, but why should you be held responsible for their poor behavior, and why should you have to be so vigilant if the potential danger could be prevented?

Actually, it's more like saying if you don't want to get beaten up badly enough to need medical attention, don't get in the boxing ring. I said nothing about medical attention, getting medical attention is kind of important if you have an STD. Or a concussion, for that matter. Also, check who you're arguing with. I'm not in favor of the stupid card. I'm in favor of, you know, wearing a condom, and generally not sleeping with total strangers, but wearing a condom if you decide to anyway.

It was an analogy.

Getting punched in the face isn't a risk to a boxer, it's a guarantee. Getting knocked over and cracking your skull is not, and that's a more fitting equivalent.

STD's are not a guarantee, they're a risk. And as you said, a small one if you wear a condom (Discounting things other than standard intercourse).

What other negative consequences does anonymous sex have besides the spread of disease? Why should the potential risks not be mitigated?

No law is going to entirely prevent poor behavior, this is true, but the law can still discourage it. Obviously, a card is not going to work, but I think a similar procedure could be effective.

Just hypothetically, if everyone could ensure that nobody would get sick from anonymous sex, why should they still not have it?

Fine, so where does not getting medical care play into this? Because that doesn't work as an analogy. You said it yourself, in boxing it's getting your skull cracked open that's the risk. Not being able to access medical care for whatever reason is neither here nor there.

And for the hypothetical: there wouldn't be, if they could also guarantee nobody would get pregnant unless both parties wanted it. Problem is we don't live in a hypothetical perfect world, which is what the people who cry "victim blaming!" and "slut shaming!" all the time don't seem to be capable of[footnote]Or rather, willing to[/footnote] understanding.

I am not referring to medical attention in regards to STD's, I'm arguing that making a poor decision doesn't make you undeserving of assistance or sympathy.

When you argue that by making a poor decision, a decision with consequences which only affect you in this case, you deserve whatever happens to you no matter how dire, the argument you're making is that the worth of a human life can be measured by their intellect and caution alone.

I have my doubts that you actually believe that death by AIDS is a fitting punishment for casual sex, so when you said "Why would somebody who made a bad choice that could have easily been avoided deserve to deal with the consequences?", you were not attempting to imply that yes, you deserve the consequences to your poor decision making skills even when they can kill you.

If you have unprotected sex and catch AIDS, regardless of whether or not you should have been smart enough to avoid it, you have fucking AIDS and are deserving of sympathy, not a lecture. What does making them feel like shit about their condition accomplish?

You are absolutely right, the world is not a perfect place, people get fucked over for mild mistakes all the time, just because it happens doesn't mean they deserve it.

In terms of the boxer metaphor, I will try to explain it as simply as possible; if a boxer's rib is shattered by a punch he could have easily avoided, and the broken bone pierces his lung and kills him, does he deserve this fate simply because it "could have been easily avoided"?

On a similar note, if young man has unprotected sex with a prostitute (Out of sheer stupidity or for whatever reason) and contracts HIV which later becomes AIDS and kills him, does he deserve his fate simply because it "could have been easily avoided"?

I believe this whole debate started with the subject of STI cards, in the interest of full disclosure, I would agree that such a system would never work as proposed. However, I would argue that the idea of an infected individual being recognizable by anyone they could spread the infection to has merit.

And who said anything about denying people assistance or sympathy? I'd be sympathetic that a person had an STD. I'd give assistance, if appropriate. But I wouldn't have much sympathy for the actions that led to it if those actions were frequent, unprotected sex with strangers. And hell yes a young man who has unprotected sex with a prostitute deserves whatever he gets. That's darwin award level stupidity right there. As for the boxer? He may not deserve it, but he knew the risk going in. If he wasn't okay with the chance he might get killed in the ring, he shouldn't have stepped in it in the first place.

Basically, you seem to have an issue with the idea of personal responsibility.

So because I don't think innocent people deserve to die of AIDS, I take issue with personal responsibility?

What does "Sympathy for their actions" even mean? I don't understand how you could simultaneously feel sympathy for someone and feel the need to help them, but also hold the opinion that they deserve death; that sounds like serious emotional conflict to me. Do you really believe that a person deserves to be condemned to death for an action that hurt nobody but themselves?

I take no issue with personal responsibility, I don't know how you inferred that conclusion from the argument that people don't deserve to die for being lax. I don't see how harboring personal resentment for people who partake in self destructive behavior is evidence in a belief in personal responsibility. When did I ever imply that this sort of behavior was positive? It is unhealthy behavior, but it only hurts you, it doesn't make you malicious or unkind, it doesn't devalue you as a human being.

No matter how stupid you are, your life is yours to do with it as you will as long as you do not violate that right in others. You dob't need to despise those lacking in a virtue to appreciate it. I admire intelligence and responsibility, but I don't think dumb people should be left to die because they lack intellect.

The philosophy that the lazy and ignorant do not deserve to live is not a respect for personal responsibility, it's a demand for it.

What I take issue with is Darwinism.

People are responsible for their own choices. If those choices cause them to die, and they knew that was a significant risk from those actions, then it's their fault. I might feel sorry for them, but I'm not gonna sit there and go "there, there, it wasn't your fault." Because it totally was. Wear a friggin' condom for God's sake. It's not that hard.

Edit: By the way, we're talking about AIDS here. If the only person who was harmed by that risk was you if you didn't wear a condom, nobody would ever get aids, because there would be nobody to get it from. You harm not just yourself, but anyone who you might happen to sleep with before you find out you're infected. So yes, I will blame people who make stupid choices, and hold them responsible for their actions. Because it's really /not/ just them that they hurt.

I mean, hell, we haven't even gotten into the effects that their dying of AIDS will have on their friends and family yet, just the random strangers they may pass it on to if they're having unprotected sex that frequently. And all of their families and friends, and so on and so forth. Might want to think about who the victims really are before you go crying "victim blaming."

The hypothetical we were discussing was not somebody who risked infecting others with STD's. Your original statement was that ANYONE who had unprotected sex with strangers deserved whatever fate they suffered, at no point did you qualify your statement with the assertion that they did not frequently ensure they were not infected with and STD before engaging in such an act, nor did you state that such a thing would change your feelings towards them.

Deserving something and having it be your fault are not the same thing; you may meet your death due to laziness, apathy or masochism, this does not, however, automatically identify you as deserving of death.

When you suggest that anyone who lacks caution and self-preservation "Deserves whatever they get", you seem to interpret the statement as "Their unfortunate situation is a result of their own actions"

Generally speaking, when someone "Deserves" something, the word describes an ideal situation or result; as in this person, by justice, "Deserves" a particular thing. This word has nothing to do with what WILL happen, only what SHOULD happen.

Would it not be preferable for a kind person with self destructive patterns of behavior to simply be highly fortunate and never suffer if their actions didn't put others at risk? Again, we're not talking about what WOULD happen, we're talking about what SHOULD.

As I was once told, "don't should on yourself.[footnote]pronounced quickly, so it sounds like "shit" at first. This in a speech with advice for a crop of Senior education majors who were about to go into their final internship, a place where worrying about what should happen, instead of what was happening, would just make things worse.[/footnote]" "Should" has no place in a discussion like this. Only "may" or "will." Because we live in the real world, not some fantasy world where poor choices don't have far reaching consequences.

Actually by using the word deserve you kinda brought should into this yourself. Deserving something would mean you "should" get it.

Semantics. I'm talking about natural consequences of actions[footnote]Example of a natural consequence: you drive while drunk, so you wreck your car. Example of artificial consequence: you drive while drunk, so you go to jail.[/footnote], you're talking about an artificial world where such a thing doesn't exist.

I'm not talking about anything, I think you might have mistaken me for the person you were having the back and forth with. I just pointed out that with no should there's no deserves. You said should has no place in this but really you're the one who brought it in.

I see what you're talking about, but that "don't should on yourself" is more of a reminder that the world isn't perfect, and you need to stop worrying about what /should/ happen and just deal with what /does./ What I said about deserving something was basically, if you actively do the thing that causes that bad thing that "shouldn't" happen, it's your own dumb fault and there's nobody to blame but you, because actions have consequences. The person I've been going back and forth with was saying "but it shouldn't happen to them!" like it mattered in the real world.

You began the argument with what you people deserved, and you've talked about what people deserve for most of the debate. Don't act like you've been arguing this point clearly from the beginning when you've only just now made the distinction.

If you're simply arguing that the people in this hypothetical situation created the situation on their own, I would agree. The point you appeared to be arguing was that these people deserved their fate, as in it "Should" happen to them.

The distinction shouls (there I go using it) be obvious. You make your choices, and you deal with the consequenses. That's how things work in thereal world, something often.forgotten in the rush to cry "victim blaming." When you're a victim of your own stupidity, as people whoo wint up diseased or pregnant after an unprotected one night stand, they are to blame, completely and utterly. The fact that they were the person negatively affected changes nothing about that reality. I apologize in advance for any typos, as I'm writing this on a cellphone that won't let me see the text and edit it at the same time. I've never seen forum software that scaled worse than whatever. It is they use around here.

See, now it seems like you're saying there's no difference between what people deserve and what they get. It's one thing to be realistic, it's another to be callous.

And I don't see how you expected me to infer that you were using the word "Deserve" incorrectly. You said this hypothetical person deserved to face the consequences, so I presumed you meant that they deserved to face the consequences.

There isn't if it's as a direct, natural result of their actions. There's a huge difference between natural consequences (you drive drunk, so you crash your car. You have unprotected sex with a stranger, so you contract an STI) and artificial ones (you drive drunk, so you get arrested. You contract an STI, so you have to register for an STI Identification card/tatoo/whatever else people have given as a suggestion in this thread). Natural consequences are always deserved, and to say otherwise is to deny personal responsibility and/or agency. Artificial consequences can be debated, depending on the nature of the consequence.

So hypothetically, say you're drunk and are about to operate a vehicle, are your friends morally obligated to let you kill yourself?

WHY do you deserve these natural consequences? What have these hypothetical people done that's so awful as to warrant a death sentence?

And to be clear, what exactly defines a natural consequence?

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

no, it wasn't sarcasm... one nighters you get what you deserve no matter what happens....

Why would somebody deserve to get an STI just because they have a one night stand?

Let's rephrase the question: why would somebody who made a bad choice that could have easily been avoided deserve to deal with the consequences?

And I /do/ believe anyone who knows they have an STI should, at the very least, inform /all/ potential partners. They definitely deserve all the blame for being the kind of scumbag that would go around knowingly spreading herpes or HIV. That doesn't mean I'm going to trust a stranger to be honest just because they should.

That makes no sense, that's like saying boxers don't deserve medical treatment because they knew the risks. Making an insignificant mistake shouldn't condemn you to living with the consequences for the rest of your life.

Further more, why should people be allowed to do malicious shit simply because their victims lacked the foresight or intelligence to prevent it?

What are the negative connotations to this hypothetical law? True, you may be intelligent enough not to trust strangers, but why should you be held responsible for their poor behavior, and why should you have to be so vigilant if the potential danger could be prevented?

Actually, it's more like saying if you don't want to get beaten up badly enough to need medical attention, don't get in the boxing ring. I said nothing about medical attention, getting medical attention is kind of important if you have an STD. Or a concussion, for that matter. Also, check who you're arguing with. I'm not in favor of the stupid card. I'm in favor of, you know, wearing a condom, and generally not sleeping with total strangers, but wearing a condom if you decide to anyway.

It was an analogy.

Getting punched in the face isn't a risk to a boxer, it's a guarantee. Getting knocked over and cracking your skull is not, and that's a more fitting equivalent.

STD's are not a guarantee, they're a risk. And as you said, a small one if you wear a condom (Discounting things other than standard intercourse).

What other negative consequences does anonymous sex have besides the spread of disease? Why should the potential risks not be mitigated?

No law is going to entirely prevent poor behavior, this is true, but the law can still discourage it. Obviously, a card is not going to work, but I think a similar procedure could be effective.

Just hypothetically, if everyone could ensure that nobody would get sick from anonymous sex, why should they still not have it?

Fine, so where does not getting medical care play into this? Because that doesn't work as an analogy. You said it yourself, in boxing it's getting your skull cracked open that's the risk. Not being able to access medical care for whatever reason is neither here nor there.

And for the hypothetical: there wouldn't be, if they could also guarantee nobody would get pregnant unless both parties wanted it. Problem is we don't live in a hypothetical perfect world, which is what the people who cry "victim blaming!" and "slut shaming!" all the time don't seem to be capable of[footnote]Or rather, willing to[/footnote] understanding.

I am not referring to medical attention in regards to STD's, I'm arguing that making a poor decision doesn't make you undeserving of assistance or sympathy.

When you argue that by making a poor decision, a decision with consequences which only affect you in this case, you deserve whatever happens to you no matter how dire, the argument you're making is that the worth of a human life can be measured by their intellect and caution alone.

I have my doubts that you actually believe that death by AIDS is a fitting punishment for casual sex, so when you said "Why would somebody who made a bad choice that could have easily been avoided deserve to deal with the consequences?", you were not attempting to imply that yes, you deserve the consequences to your poor decision making skills even when they can kill you.

If you have unprotected sex and catch AIDS, regardless of whether or not you should have been smart enough to avoid it, you have fucking AIDS and are deserving of sympathy, not a lecture. What does making them feel like shit about their condition accomplish?

You are absolutely right, the world is not a perfect place, people get fucked over for mild mistakes all the time, just because it happens doesn't mean they deserve it.

In terms of the boxer metaphor, I will try to explain it as simply as possible; if a boxer's rib is shattered by a punch he could have easily avoided, and the broken bone pierces his lung and kills him, does he deserve this fate simply because it "could have been easily avoided"?

On a similar note, if young man has unprotected sex with a prostitute (Out of sheer stupidity or for whatever reason) and contracts HIV which later becomes AIDS and kills him, does he deserve his fate simply because it "could have been easily avoided"?

I believe this whole debate started with the subject of STI cards, in the interest of full disclosure, I would agree that such a system would never work as proposed. However, I would argue that the idea of an infected individual being recognizable by anyone they could spread the infection to has merit.

And who said anything about denying people assistance or sympathy? I'd be sympathetic that a person had an STD. I'd give assistance, if appropriate. But I wouldn't have much sympathy for the actions that led to it if those actions were frequent, unprotected sex with strangers. And hell yes a young man who has unprotected sex with a prostitute deserves whatever he gets. That's darwin award level stupidity right there. As for the boxer? He may not deserve it, but he knew the risk going in. If he wasn't okay with the chance he might get killed in the ring, he shouldn't have stepped in it in the first place.

Basically, you seem to have an issue with the idea of personal responsibility.

So because I don't think innocent people deserve to die of AIDS, I take issue with personal responsibility?

What does "Sympathy for their actions" even mean? I don't understand how you could simultaneously feel sympathy for someone and feel the need to help them, but also hold the opinion that they deserve death; that sounds like serious emotional conflict to me. Do you really believe that a person deserves to be condemned to death for an action that hurt nobody but themselves?

I take no issue with personal responsibility, I don't know how you inferred that conclusion from the argument that people don't deserve to die for being lax. I don't see how harboring personal resentment for people who partake in self destructive behavior is evidence in a belief in personal responsibility. When did I ever imply that this sort of behavior was positive? It is unhealthy behavior, but it only hurts you, it doesn't make you malicious or unkind, it doesn't devalue you as a human being.

No matter how stupid you are, your life is yours to do with it as you will as long as you do not violate that right in others. You dob't need to despise those lacking in a virtue to appreciate it. I admire intelligence and responsibility, but I don't think dumb people should be left to die because they lack intellect.

The philosophy that the lazy and ignorant do not deserve to live is not a respect for personal responsibility, it's a demand for it.

What I take issue with is Darwinism.

People are responsible for their own choices. If those choices cause them to die, and they knew that was a significant risk from those actions, then it's their fault. I might feel sorry for them, but I'm not gonna sit there and go "there, there, it wasn't your fault." Because it totally was. Wear a friggin' condom for God's sake. It's not that hard.

Edit: By the way, we're talking about AIDS here. If the only person who was harmed by that risk was you if you didn't wear a condom, nobody would ever get aids, because there would be nobody to get it from. You harm not just yourself, but anyone who you might happen to sleep with before you find out you're infected. So yes, I will blame people who make stupid choices, and hold them responsible for their actions. Because it's really /not/ just them that they hurt.

I mean, hell, we haven't even gotten into the effects that their dying of AIDS will have on their friends and family yet, just the random strangers they may pass it on to if they're having unprotected sex that frequently. And all of their families and friends, and so on and so forth. Might want to think about who the victims really are before you go crying "victim blaming."

The hypothetical we were discussing was not somebody who risked infecting others with STD's. Your original statement was that ANYONE who had unprotected sex with strangers deserved whatever fate they suffered, at no point did you qualify your statement with the assertion that they did not frequently ensure they were not infected with and STD before engaging in such an act, nor did you state that such a thing would change your feelings towards them.

Deserving something and having it be your fault are not the same thing; you may meet your death due to laziness, apathy or masochism, this does not, however, automatically identify you as deserving of death.

When you suggest that anyone who lacks caution and self-preservation "Deserves whatever they get", you seem to interpret the statement as "Their unfortunate situation is a result of their own actions"

Generally speaking, when someone "Deserves" something, the word describes an ideal situation or result; as in this person, by justice, "Deserves" a particular thing. This word has nothing to do with what WILL happen, only what SHOULD happen.

Would it not be preferable for a kind person with self destructive patterns of behavior to simply be highly fortunate and never suffer if their actions didn't put others at risk? Again, we're not talking about what WOULD happen, we're talking about what SHOULD.

As I was once told, "don't should on yourself.[footnote]pronounced quickly, so it sounds like "shit" at first. This in a speech with advice for a crop of Senior education majors who were about to go into their final internship, a place where worrying about what should happen, instead of what was happening, would just make things worse.[/footnote]" "Should" has no place in a discussion like this. Only "may" or "will." Because we live in the real world, not some fantasy world where poor choices don't have far reaching consequences.

Actually by using the word deserve you kinda brought should into this yourself. Deserving something would mean you "should" get it.

Semantics. I'm talking about natural consequences of actions[footnote]Example of a natural consequence: you drive while drunk, so you wreck your car. Example of artificial consequence: you drive while drunk, so you go to jail.[/footnote], you're talking about an artificial world where such a thing doesn't exist.

I'm not talking about anything, I think you might have mistaken me for the person you were having the back and forth with. I just pointed out that with no should there's no deserves. You said should has no place in this but really you're the one who brought it in.

I see what you're talking about, but that "don't should on yourself" is more of a reminder that the world isn't perfect, and you need to stop worrying about what /should/ happen and just deal with what /does./ What I said about deserving something was basically, if you actively do the thing that causes that bad thing that "shouldn't" happen, it's your own dumb fault and there's nobody to blame but you, because actions have consequences. The person I've been going back and forth with was saying "but it shouldn't happen to them!" like it mattered in the real world.

You began the argument with what you people deserved, and you've talked about what people deserve for most of the debate. Don't act like you've been arguing this point clearly from the beginning when you've only just now made the distinction.

If you're simply arguing that the people in this hypothetical situation created the situation on their own, I would agree. The point you appeared to be arguing was that these people deserved their fate, as in it "Should" happen to them.

The distinction shouls (there I go using it) be obvious. You make your choices, and you deal with the consequenses. That's how things work in thereal world, something often.forgotten in the rush to cry "victim blaming." When you're a victim of your own stupidity, as people whoo wint up diseased or pregnant after an unprotected one night stand, they are to blame, completely and utterly. The fact that they were the person negatively affected changes nothing about that reality. I apologize in advance for any typos, as I'm writing this on a cellphone that won't let me see the text and edit it at the same time. I've never seen forum software that scaled worse than whatever. It is they use around here.

See, now it seems like you're saying there's no difference between what people deserve and what they get. It's one thing to be realistic, it's another to be callous.

And I don't see how you expected me to infer that you were using the word "Deserve" incorrectly. You said this hypothetical person deserved to face the consequences, so I presumed you meant that they deserved to face the consequences.

There isn't if it's as a direct, natural result of their actions. There's a huge difference between natural consequences (you drive drunk, so you crash your car. You have unprotected sex with a stranger, so you contract an STI) and artificial ones (you drive drunk, so you get arrested. You contract an STI, so you have to register for an STI Identification card/tatoo/whatever else people have given as a suggestion in this thread). Natural consequences are always deserved, and to say otherwise is to deny personal responsibility and/or agency. Artificial consequences can be debated, depending on the nature of the consequence.

So hypothetically, say you're drunk and are about to operate a vehicle, are your friends morally obligated to let you kill yourself?

WHY do you deserve these natural consequences? What have these hypothetical people done that's so awful as to warrant a death sentence?

And to be clear, what exactly defines a natural consequence?

For god's sake, no, but they're not to blame if you sneak off and do it anyway. You are. You seem to need a refresher on reality 101. And I've given the definition with examples multiple times in this thread, your homework for tonight is to re-read it.

 

[sumanoskae]

no, it wasn't sarcasm... one nighters you get what you deserve no matter what happens....

Why would somebody deserve to get an STI just because they have a one night stand?

Let's rephrase the question: why would somebody who made a bad choice that could have easily been avoided deserve to deal with the consequences?

And I /do/ believe anyone who knows they have an STI should, at the very least, inform /all/ potential partners. They definitely deserve all the blame for being the kind of scumbag that would go around knowingly spreading herpes or HIV. That doesn't mean I'm going to trust a stranger to be honest just because they should.

That makes no sense, that's like saying boxers don't deserve medical treatment because they knew the risks. Making an insignificant mistake shouldn't condemn you to living with the consequences for the rest of your life.

Further more, why should people be allowed to do malicious shit simply because their victims lacked the foresight or intelligence to prevent it?

What are the negative connotations to this hypothetical law? True, you may be intelligent enough not to trust strangers, but why should you be held responsible for their poor behavior, and why should you have to be so vigilant if the potential danger could be prevented?

Actually, it's more like saying if you don't want to get beaten up badly enough to need medical attention, don't get in the boxing ring. I said nothing about medical attention, getting medical attention is kind of important if you have an STD. Or a concussion, for that matter. Also, check who you're arguing with. I'm not in favor of the stupid card. I'm in favor of, you know, wearing a condom, and generally not sleeping with total strangers, but wearing a condom if you decide to anyway.

It was an analogy.

Getting punched in the face isn't a risk to a boxer, it's a guarantee. Getting knocked over and cracking your skull is not, and that's a more fitting equivalent.

STD's are not a guarantee, they're a risk. And as you said, a small one if you wear a condom (Discounting things other than standard intercourse).

What other negative consequences does anonymous sex have besides the spread of disease? Why should the potential risks not be mitigated?

No law is going to entirely prevent poor behavior, this is true, but the law can still discourage it. Obviously, a card is not going to work, but I think a similar procedure could be effective.

Just hypothetically, if everyone could ensure that nobody would get sick from anonymous sex, why should they still not have it?

Fine, so where does not getting medical care play into this? Because that doesn't work as an analogy. You said it yourself, in boxing it's getting your skull cracked open that's the risk. Not being able to access medical care for whatever reason is neither here nor there.

And for the hypothetical: there wouldn't be, if they could also guarantee nobody would get pregnant unless both parties wanted it. Problem is we don't live in a hypothetical perfect world, which is what the people who cry "victim blaming!" and "slut shaming!" all the time don't seem to be capable of[footnote]Or rather, willing to[/footnote] understanding.

I am not referring to medical attention in regards to STD's, I'm arguing that making a poor decision doesn't make you undeserving of assistance or sympathy.

When you argue that by making a poor decision, a decision with consequences which only affect you in this case, you deserve whatever happens to you no matter how dire, the argument you're making is that the worth of a human life can be measured by their intellect and caution alone.

I have my doubts that you actually believe that death by AIDS is a fitting punishment for casual sex, so when you said "Why would somebody who made a bad choice that could have easily been avoided deserve to deal with the consequences?", you were not attempting to imply that yes, you deserve the consequences to your poor decision making skills even when they can kill you.

If you have unprotected sex and catch AIDS, regardless of whether or not you should have been smart enough to avoid it, you have fucking AIDS and are deserving of sympathy, not a lecture. What does making them feel like shit about their condition accomplish?

You are absolutely right, the world is not a perfect place, people get fucked over for mild mistakes all the time, just because it happens doesn't mean they deserve it.

In terms of the boxer metaphor, I will try to explain it as simply as possible; if a boxer's rib is shattered by a punch he could have easily avoided, and the broken bone pierces his lung and kills him, does he deserve this fate simply because it "could have been easily avoided"?

On a similar note, if young man has unprotected sex with a prostitute (Out of sheer stupidity or for whatever reason) and contracts HIV which later becomes AIDS and kills him, does he deserve his fate simply because it "could have been easily avoided"?

I believe this whole debate started with the subject of STI cards, in the interest of full disclosure, I would agree that such a system would never work as proposed. However, I would argue that the idea of an infected individual being recognizable by anyone they could spread the infection to has merit.

And who said anything about denying people assistance or sympathy? I'd be sympathetic that a person had an STD. I'd give assistance, if appropriate. But I wouldn't have much sympathy for the actions that led to it if those actions were frequent, unprotected sex with strangers. And hell yes a young man who has unprotected sex with a prostitute deserves whatever he gets. That's darwin award level stupidity right there. As for the boxer? He may not deserve it, but he knew the risk going in. If he wasn't okay with the chance he might get killed in the ring, he shouldn't have stepped in it in the first place.

Basically, you seem to have an issue with the idea of personal responsibility.

So because I don't think innocent people deserve to die of AIDS, I take issue with personal responsibility?

What does "Sympathy for their actions" even mean? I don't understand how you could simultaneously feel sympathy for someone and feel the need to help them, but also hold the opinion that they deserve death; that sounds like serious emotional conflict to me. Do you really believe that a person deserves to be condemned to death for an action that hurt nobody but themselves?

I take no issue with personal responsibility, I don't know how you inferred that conclusion from the argument that people don't deserve to die for being lax. I don't see how harboring personal resentment for people who partake in self destructive behavior is evidence in a belief in personal responsibility. When did I ever imply that this sort of behavior was positive? It is unhealthy behavior, but it only hurts you, it doesn't make you malicious or unkind, it doesn't devalue you as a human being.

No matter how stupid you are, your life is yours to do with it as you will as long as you do not violate that right in others. You dob't need to despise those lacking in a virtue to appreciate it. I admire intelligence and responsibility, but I don't think dumb people should be left to die because they lack intellect.

The philosophy that the lazy and ignorant do not deserve to live is not a respect for personal responsibility, it's a demand for it.

What I take issue with is Darwinism.

People are responsible for their own choices. If those choices cause them to die, and they knew that was a significant risk from those actions, then it's their fault. I might feel sorry for them, but I'm not gonna sit there and go "there, there, it wasn't your fault." Because it totally was. Wear a friggin' condom for God's sake. It's not that hard.

Edit: By the way, we're talking about AIDS here. If the only person who was harmed by that risk was you if you didn't wear a condom, nobody would ever get aids, because there would be nobody to get it from. You harm not just yourself, but anyone who you might happen to sleep with before you find out you're infected. So yes, I will blame people who make stupid choices, and hold them responsible for their actions. Because it's really /not/ just them that they hurt.

I mean, hell, we haven't even gotten into the effects that their dying of AIDS will have on their friends and family yet, just the random strangers they may pass it on to if they're having unprotected sex that frequently. And all of their families and friends, and so on and so forth. Might want to think about who the victims really are before you go crying "victim blaming."

The hypothetical we were discussing was not somebody who risked infecting others with STD's. Your original statement was that ANYONE who had unprotected sex with strangers deserved whatever fate they suffered, at no point did you qualify your statement with the assertion that they did not frequently ensure they were not infected with and STD before engaging in such an act, nor did you state that such a thing would change your feelings towards them.

Deserving something and having it be your fault are not the same thing; you may meet your death due to laziness, apathy or masochism, this does not, however, automatically identify you as deserving of death.

When you suggest that anyone who lacks caution and self-preservation "Deserves whatever they get", you seem to interpret the statement as "Their unfortunate situation is a result of their own actions"

Generally speaking, when someone "Deserves" something, the word describes an ideal situation or result; as in this person, by justice, "Deserves" a particular thing. This word has nothing to do with what WILL happen, only what SHOULD happen.

Would it not be preferable for a kind person with self destructive patterns of behavior to simply be highly fortunate and never suffer if their actions didn't put others at risk? Again, we're not talking about what WOULD happen, we're talking about what SHOULD.

As I was once told, "don't should on yourself.[footnote]pronounced quickly, so it sounds like "shit" at first. This in a speech with advice for a crop of Senior education majors who were about to go into their final internship, a place where worrying about what should happen, instead of what was happening, would just make things worse.[/footnote]" "Should" has no place in a discussion like this. Only "may" or "will." Because we live in the real world, not some fantasy world where poor choices don't have far reaching consequences.

Actually by using the word deserve you kinda brought should into this yourself. Deserving something would mean you "should" get it.

Semantics. I'm talking about natural consequences of actions[footnote]Example of a natural consequence: you drive while drunk, so you wreck your car. Example of artificial consequence: you drive while drunk, so you go to jail.[/footnote], you're talking about an artificial world where such a thing doesn't exist.

I'm not talking about anything, I think you might have mistaken me for the person you were having the back and forth with. I just pointed out that with no should there's no deserves. You said should has no place in this but really you're the one who brought it in.

I see what you're talking about, but that "don't should on yourself" is more of a reminder that the world isn't perfect, and you need to stop worrying about what /should/ happen and just deal with what /does./ What I said about deserving something was basically, if you actively do the thing that causes that bad thing that "shouldn't" happen, it's your own dumb fault and there's nobody to blame but you, because actions have consequences. The person I've been going back and forth with was saying "but it shouldn't happen to them!" like it mattered in the real world.

You began the argument with what you people deserved, and you've talked about what people deserve for most of the debate. Don't act like you've been arguing this point clearly from the beginning when you've only just now made the distinction.

If you're simply arguing that the people in this hypothetical situation created the situation on their own, I would agree. The point you appeared to be arguing was that these people deserved their fate, as in it "Should" happen to them.

The distinction shouls (there I go using it) be obvious. You make your choices, and you deal with the consequenses. That's how things work in thereal world, something often.forgotten in the rush to cry "victim blaming." When you're a victim of your own stupidity, as people whoo wint up diseased or pregnant after an unprotected one night stand, they are to blame, completely and utterly. The fact that they were the person negatively affected changes nothing about that reality. I apologize in advance for any typos, as I'm writing this on a cellphone that won't let me see the text and edit it at the same time. I've never seen forum software that scaled worse than whatever. It is they use around here.

See, now it seems like you're saying there's no difference between what people deserve and what they get. It's one thing to be realistic, it's another to be callous.

And I don't see how you expected me to infer that you were using the word "Deserve" incorrectly. You said this hypothetical person deserved to face the consequences, so I presumed you meant that they deserved to face the consequences.

There isn't if it's as a direct, natural result of their actions. There's a huge difference between natural consequences (you drive drunk, so you crash your car. You have unprotected sex with a stranger, so you contract an STI) and artificial ones (you drive drunk, so you get arrested. You contract an STI, so you have to register for an STI Identification card/tatoo/whatever else people have given as a suggestion in this thread). Natural consequences are always deserved, and to say otherwise is to deny personal responsibility and/or agency. Artificial consequences can be debated, depending on the nature of the consequence.

So hypothetically, say you're drunk and are about to operate a vehicle, are your friends morally obligated to let you kill yourself?

WHY do you deserve these natural consequences? What have these hypothetical people done that's so awful as to warrant a death sentence?

And to be clear, what exactly defines a natural consequence?

For god's sake, no, but they're not to blame if you sneak off and do it anyway. You are. You seem to need a refresher on reality 101. And I've given the definition with examples multiple times in this thread, your homework for tonight is to re-read it.

I don't know how I can say this more simply; being the cause of your death and deserving your death are not the same thing. I'm not arguing philosophically, the statements express two factually different things.

When you are said to "Deserve" something, the implication is that a specific thing should happen to you (SHOULD, not WILL).

When you are the cause of something, it merely means you took an action that resulted in that specific reaction, it doesn't mean you "Deserve" that reaction, even if you consciously sought it out, because the concept of deserving is entirely subjective, it changes with the thoughts and feelings of the beholder, whilst cause and effect is an objective fact that remains the same regardless of your perception of it. You may believe that you deserve any reaction you cause, but that is not a fact.

They are not the same thing, so one does not always equal the other; 1 cannot equal 2.

If you assert that making a decision, regardless of the nature of the decision, means that you deserve any foreseeable consequences of that decision (Which is what I understand you to believe a natural consequence is), killing yourself because you chose to drive while intoxicated is among those deserved consequences.

You chose to drive drunk, you are aware that you may die, so thus you deserve to die. Anyone who attempts to prevent you from getting what you deserve stands in obstruction of justice. After all, you deserve to die, any other reaction would be unsatisfactory.

You choose to sacrifice your life to save another. The consequence of this action is death and you are aware of it. Therefore, by your logic, you deserve to die. This is a direct, natural consequence of your action, after all.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

no, it wasn't sarcasm... one nighters you get what you deserve no matter what happens....

Why would somebody deserve to get an STI just because they have a one night stand?

Let's rephrase the question: why would somebody who made a bad choice that could have easily been avoided deserve to deal with the consequences?

And I /do/ believe anyone who knows they have an STI should, at the very least, inform /all/ potential partners. They definitely deserve all the blame for being the kind of scumbag that would go around knowingly spreading herpes or HIV. That doesn't mean I'm going to trust a stranger to be honest just because they should.

That makes no sense, that's like saying boxers don't deserve medical treatment because they knew the risks. Making an insignificant mistake shouldn't condemn you to living with the consequences for the rest of your life.

Further more, why should people be allowed to do malicious shit simply because their victims lacked the foresight or intelligence to prevent it?

What are the negative connotations to this hypothetical law? True, you may be intelligent enough not to trust strangers, but why should you be held responsible for their poor behavior, and why should you have to be so vigilant if the potential danger could be prevented?

Actually, it's more like saying if you don't want to get beaten up badly enough to need medical attention, don't get in the boxing ring. I said nothing about medical attention, getting medical attention is kind of important if you have an STD. Or a concussion, for that matter. Also, check who you're arguing with. I'm not in favor of the stupid card. I'm in favor of, you know, wearing a condom, and generally not sleeping with total strangers, but wearing a condom if you decide to anyway.

It was an analogy.

Getting punched in the face isn't a risk to a boxer, it's a guarantee. Getting knocked over and cracking your skull is not, and that's a more fitting equivalent.

STD's are not a guarantee, they're a risk. And as you said, a small one if you wear a condom (Discounting things other than standard intercourse).

What other negative consequences does anonymous sex have besides the spread of disease? Why should the potential risks not be mitigated?

No law is going to entirely prevent poor behavior, this is true, but the law can still discourage it. Obviously, a card is not going to work, but I think a similar procedure could be effective.

Just hypothetically, if everyone could ensure that nobody would get sick from anonymous sex, why should they still not have it?

Fine, so where does not getting medical care play into this? Because that doesn't work as an analogy. You said it yourself, in boxing it's getting your skull cracked open that's the risk. Not being able to access medical care for whatever reason is neither here nor there.

And for the hypothetical: there wouldn't be, if they could also guarantee nobody would get pregnant unless both parties wanted it. Problem is we don't live in a hypothetical perfect world, which is what the people who cry "victim blaming!" and "slut shaming!" all the time don't seem to be capable of[footnote]Or rather, willing to[/footnote] understanding.

I am not referring to medical attention in regards to STD's, I'm arguing that making a poor decision doesn't make you undeserving of assistance or sympathy.

When you argue that by making a poor decision, a decision with consequences which only affect you in this case, you deserve whatever happens to you no matter how dire, the argument you're making is that the worth of a human life can be measured by their intellect and caution alone.

I have my doubts that you actually believe that death by AIDS is a fitting punishment for casual sex, so when you said "Why would somebody who made a bad choice that could have easily been avoided deserve to deal with the consequences?", you were not attempting to imply that yes, you deserve the consequences to your poor decision making skills even when they can kill you.

If you have unprotected sex and catch AIDS, regardless of whether or not you should have been smart enough to avoid it, you have fucking AIDS and are deserving of sympathy, not a lecture. What does making them feel like shit about their condition accomplish?

You are absolutely right, the world is not a perfect place, people get fucked over for mild mistakes all the time, just because it happens doesn't mean they deserve it.

In terms of the boxer metaphor, I will try to explain it as simply as possible; if a boxer's rib is shattered by a punch he could have easily avoided, and the broken bone pierces his lung and kills him, does he deserve this fate simply because it "could have been easily avoided"?

On a similar note, if young man has unprotected sex with a prostitute (Out of sheer stupidity or for whatever reason) and contracts HIV which later becomes AIDS and kills him, does he deserve his fate simply because it "could have been easily avoided"?

I believe this whole debate started with the subject of STI cards, in the interest of full disclosure, I would agree that such a system would never work as proposed. However, I would argue that the idea of an infected individual being recognizable by anyone they could spread the infection to has merit.

And who said anything about denying people assistance or sympathy? I'd be sympathetic that a person had an STD. I'd give assistance, if appropriate. But I wouldn't have much sympathy for the actions that led to it if those actions were frequent, unprotected sex with strangers. And hell yes a young man who has unprotected sex with a prostitute deserves whatever he gets. That's darwin award level stupidity right there. As for the boxer? He may not deserve it, but he knew the risk going in. If he wasn't okay with the chance he might get killed in the ring, he shouldn't have stepped in it in the first place.

Basically, you seem to have an issue with the idea of personal responsibility.

So because I don't think innocent people deserve to die of AIDS, I take issue with personal responsibility?

What does "Sympathy for their actions" even mean? I don't understand how you could simultaneously feel sympathy for someone and feel the need to help them, but also hold the opinion that they deserve death; that sounds like serious emotional conflict to me. Do you really believe that a person deserves to be condemned to death for an action that hurt nobody but themselves?

I take no issue with personal responsibility, I don't know how you inferred that conclusion from the argument that people don't deserve to die for being lax. I don't see how harboring personal resentment for people who partake in self destructive behavior is evidence in a belief in personal responsibility. When did I ever imply that this sort of behavior was positive? It is unhealthy behavior, but it only hurts you, it doesn't make you malicious or unkind, it doesn't devalue you as a human being.

No matter how stupid you are, your life is yours to do with it as you will as long as you do not violate that right in others. You dob't need to despise those lacking in a virtue to appreciate it. I admire intelligence and responsibility, but I don't think dumb people should be left to die because they lack intellect.

The philosophy that the lazy and ignorant do not deserve to live is not a respect for personal responsibility, it's a demand for it.

What I take issue with is Darwinism.

People are responsible for their own choices. If those choices cause them to die, and they knew that was a significant risk from those actions, then it's their fault. I might feel sorry for them, but I'm not gonna sit there and go "there, there, it wasn't your fault." Because it totally was. Wear a friggin' condom for God's sake. It's not that hard.

Edit: By the way, we're talking about AIDS here. If the only person who was harmed by that risk was you if you didn't wear a condom, nobody would ever get aids, because there would be nobody to get it from. You harm not just yourself, but anyone who you might happen to sleep with before you find out you're infected. So yes, I will blame people who make stupid choices, and hold them responsible for their actions. Because it's really /not/ just them that they hurt.

I mean, hell, we haven't even gotten into the effects that their dying of AIDS will have on their friends and family yet, just the random strangers they may pass it on to if they're having unprotected sex that frequently. And all of their families and friends, and so on and so forth. Might want to think about who the victims really are before you go crying "victim blaming."

The hypothetical we were discussing was not somebody who risked infecting others with STD's. Your original statement was that ANYONE who had unprotected sex with strangers deserved whatever fate they suffered, at no point did you qualify your statement with the assertion that they did not frequently ensure they were not infected with and STD before engaging in such an act, nor did you state that such a thing would change your feelings towards them.

Deserving something and having it be your fault are not the same thing; you may meet your death due to laziness, apathy or masochism, this does not, however, automatically identify you as deserving of death.

When you suggest that anyone who lacks caution and self-preservation "Deserves whatever they get", you seem to interpret the statement as "Their unfortunate situation is a result of their own actions"

Generally speaking, when someone "Deserves" something, the word describes an ideal situation or result; as in this person, by justice, "Deserves" a particular thing. This word has nothing to do with what WILL happen, only what SHOULD happen.

Would it not be preferable for a kind person with self destructive patterns of behavior to simply be highly fortunate and never suffer if their actions didn't put others at risk? Again, we're not talking about what WOULD happen, we're talking about what SHOULD.

As I was once told, "don't should on yourself.[footnote]pronounced quickly, so it sounds like "shit" at first. This in a speech with advice for a crop of Senior education majors who were about to go into their final internship, a place where worrying about what should happen, instead of what was happening, would just make things worse.[/footnote]" "Should" has no place in a discussion like this. Only "may" or "will." Because we live in the real world, not some fantasy world where poor choices don't have far reaching consequences.

Actually by using the word deserve you kinda brought should into this yourself. Deserving something would mean you "should" get it.

Semantics. I'm talking about natural consequences of actions[footnote]Example of a natural consequence: you drive while drunk, so you wreck your car. Example of artificial consequence: you drive while drunk, so you go to jail.[/footnote], you're talking about an artificial world where such a thing doesn't exist.

I'm not talking about anything, I think you might have mistaken me for the person you were having the back and forth with. I just pointed out that with no should there's no deserves. You said should has no place in this but really you're the one who brought it in.

I see what you're talking about, but that "don't should on yourself" is more of a reminder that the world isn't perfect, and you need to stop worrying about what /should/ happen and just deal with what /does./ What I said about deserving something was basically, if you actively do the thing that causes that bad thing that "shouldn't" happen, it's your own dumb fault and there's nobody to blame but you, because actions have consequences. The person I've been going back and forth with was saying "but it shouldn't happen to them!" like it mattered in the real world.

You began the argument with what you people deserved, and you've talked about what people deserve for most of the debate. Don't act like you've been arguing this point clearly from the beginning when you've only just now made the distinction.

If you're simply arguing that the people in this hypothetical situation created the situation on their own, I would agree. The point you appeared to be arguing was that these people deserved their fate, as in it "Should" happen to them.

The distinction shouls (there I go using it) be obvious. You make your choices, and you deal with the consequenses. That's how things work in thereal world, something often.forgotten in the rush to cry "victim blaming." When you're a victim of your own stupidity, as people whoo wint up diseased or pregnant after an unprotected one night stand, they are to blame, completely and utterly. The fact that they were the person negatively affected changes nothing about that reality. I apologize in advance for any typos, as I'm writing this on a cellphone that won't let me see the text and edit it at the same time. I've never seen forum software that scaled worse than whatever. It is they use around here.

See, now it seems like you're saying there's no difference between what people deserve and what they get. It's one thing to be realistic, it's another to be callous.

And I don't see how you expected me to infer that you were using the word "Deserve" incorrectly. You said this hypothetical person deserved to face the consequences, so I presumed you meant that they deserved to face the consequences.

There isn't if it's as a direct, natural result of their actions. There's a huge difference between natural consequences (you drive drunk, so you crash your car. You have unprotected sex with a stranger, so you contract an STI) and artificial ones (you drive drunk, so you get arrested. You contract an STI, so you have to register for an STI Identification card/tatoo/whatever else people have given as a suggestion in this thread). Natural consequences are always deserved, and to say otherwise is to deny personal responsibility and/or agency. Artificial consequences can be debated, depending on the nature of the consequence.

So hypothetically, say you're drunk and are about to operate a vehicle, are your friends morally obligated to let you kill yourself?

WHY do you deserve these natural consequences? What have these hypothetical people done that's so awful as to warrant a death sentence?

And to be clear, what exactly defines a natural consequence?

For god's sake, no, but they're not to blame if you sneak off and do it anyway. You are. You seem to need a refresher on reality 101. And I've given the definition with examples multiple times in this thread, your homework for tonight is to re-read it.

I don't know how I can say this more simply; being the cause of your death and deserving your death are not the same thing. I'm not arguing philosophically, the statements express two factually different things.

When you are said to "Deserve" something, the implication is that a specific thing should happen to you (SHOULD, not WILL).

When you are the cause of something, it merely means you took an action that resulted in that specific reaction, it doesn't mean you "Deserve" that reaction, even if you consciously sought it out, because the concept of deserving is entirely subjective, it changes with the thoughts and feelings of the beholder, whilst cause and effect is an objective fact that remains the same regardless of your perception of it. You may believe that you deserve any reaction you cause, but that is not a fact.

They are not the same thing, so one does not always equal the other; 1 cannot equal 2.

If you assert that making a decision, regardless of the nature of the decision, means that you deserve any foreseeable consequences of that decision (Which is what I understand you to believe a natural consequence is), killing yourself because you chose to drive while intoxicated is among those deserved consequences.

You chose to drive drunk, you are aware that you may die, so thus you deserve to die. Anyone who attempts to prevent you from getting what you deserve stands in obstruction of justice. After all, you deserve to die, any other reaction would be unsatisfactory.

You choose to sacrifice your life to save another. The consequence of this action is death and you are aware of it. Therefore, by your logic, you deserve to die. This is a direct, natural consequence of your action, after all.

And all that's a load of philosophical waffle. You seem to be going on some grand cosmic meaning of deserve, where anything that should happen, does happen. I'm going on a more concrete, actions have consequences level. There can be no reconciliation here because at the end of the day, you're just pissed off about one word I used, and are using every trick in the book to justify it, while I'm sick of all those tricks being used to absolve people of personal responsibility for their actions.