Think!

87 responses so far ↓

• Sphynx // Nov 29, 2006 at 12:13 pm

  I have to think on this one a bit, but the first questions that popped into my mind while reading this were:

  What if it wasn’t sex? What if it was a used needle while being patted down by cops?

  Doesn’t a ‘right’ become cancelled when it infringes on the safety of another human?

  Anyhows, I’ll think on this more and reply again tomorrow.

• samuel cappiello // Nov 29, 2006 at 2:23 pm

  If a person has an established diagnosis, I do believe it is their duty to refrain from unprotected sexual activity unless their status has been disclosed. Even after it has been disclosed, the implications of intentionally advancing a virus has profound societal implications.

  I was in a serodivergent (HIV+/HIV-) relationship for four years with a man who has AIDS. Knowing his status and knowing mine was a critical part of working to maintain my own negative status. Of course, there was never a guarantee that I would remain negative just because we were mutually informed and “safe.”

  This topic was something we routinely fought about. My position was that no one knows the complexity of HIV and its treatment better than someone who has experienced both. It is irresponsible to assume that the HIV negative partner is fully aware of the consequence of their decision to pair unsafely when HIV is a confirmed risk. It is very much like a parent/child relationship. The life experience of one makes it a duty to inform another when it concerns personal safety. It would a fantastic learning experience to allow children to “discover” that they should look both ways before crossing a street, but we “impose” our wisdom on them. It would also be a great education in electricity to let children stick things into electrical outlets, yet we don’t neglect the opportunity to inform them and to punish them when they appear to have missed the message. Perhaps we do so unfairly. Perhaps out well intended information violates their right to determine for themselves what is and is not safe, but ultimately we would argue the parent who does not inform and guide their child through confirmed dangers is acting irresponsibly and neglectfully.

  In the case of HIV infection, despite advances in treatment, the nature of the virus challenges the individual’s immune system which is ultimately a threat to life. An individual with a confirmed diagnosis of HIV who is less than explicit in their efforts to inform sexual partners is not much unlike someone someone selling cocaine comingled with anthrax. It is unfortunate for sure, to have to view oneself as an unwilling threat to the wellbeing others, but the humanity of the equation does not make the risk any less threatening. Nor does the humanity of the equation exculpate irresponsible, and unnecessary further exposure – we can sympathize, but I don’t feel we can acquit the HIV positive of their personal and societal responsibility to protect others from the difficulties they themselves must intimately incorporate into their daily lives. Viruses are unfair. HIV positive people are not necessarily responsible for their viral status, but once known, they do carry the greater burden of responsibility when chosing to allow the virus to pass from their bodies to others. Negligence is convenient and silence saves face when the opportunity for pleasure presents, but neither make it a right privacy where failing to fully disclose HIV status to a sexual partner is concerned. I might add that full disclosure would need to occur before sexual activity occurs and in terms which are readily understood by the potential sex partner – not merely understood by other people with HIV.

• Scott // Nov 29, 2006 at 10:35 pm

  Playing along the lines of Sphynx (though I have a feeling we have much different intentions):

  What if this situation was one where a man with HIV goes to a bathhouse, where what someone’s viral status is is rarely discussed, and has unprotected sex with several men?

  I very much disagree with samuel cappiello. Your logic compares adult women to children and suggests that we live in a society of idiots. While on one hand we may very well live in a society of morons, I’m not sure you can blame that on people who conceal their HIV status. I feel that we have an extremely impaired health care system in this country. [When I talk about this country I'm not comparing it to other countries because it is the only one that I know.] As a gay man who feels he has had HIV/AIDS shoved down his throat since childhood, I think I have legitimacy in saying that “the system” fails us not because it is the responsibility of “the system” but because “the system” is made up of individuals who are just as ill-informed themselves as the people they claim they want to save. Most health care practitioners that I have ever dealt with, and there’s been a lot, have absolutely no idea when it comes to social issues. I am treated like a naive child every time I walk into a clinic to get tested and I’ll bet I know a whole hell of a lot more about HIV and other STD’s than the average person.

  So what is my point? The minute you start screaming about victims and dishing out punishment to those who you view as being deceptive is the minute we time warp back to the 50’s when pure America held its scared little naive, white, middle class, delusional head under the desk in the classroom. Should I also remind you this was a time of racial segregation, queers were common criminals and sadists (not in a good way) and the middle class actually thought they had it made. We have an ignorant system made up of ignorant individuals. Why do we spend most of our time and resources punishing those we see as sick instead of uplifting those we see as impaired? It is so obvious to me that our priorities are backwards, why isn’t it clear to others?

• Scott // Nov 29, 2006 at 11:07 pm

  I feel a need to comment on the authors statement:

  “Choosing to have unprotected sex is tantamount to trusting your partner with your life.”

  This statement doesn’t hold up. For one thing, HIV does not equate a death sentence. For another, it is hypocritical because the author then later says:

  “Furthermore, don’t laws like these further stigmatize and marginalize everyone that is HIV positive?”

  …and stating that having unprotected sex puts your life in someone else’s hands doesn’t stigmatize people with STD’s? Making bloated “alarmist” statements like that are just as bad as creating laws that ostracize people from society. I understand the objective of this blog entry but I don’t completely agree with the delivery.

• samuel cappiello // Nov 29, 2006 at 11:35 pm

  after reading scott’s post, i really fail to see where exactly he disagrees with me. scott, in fact, you seem to contradict yourself. on the one hand you say that i’ve reduced women to naive little children and then go on to say we have an ignorant system made up of ignorant individuals. it’s precisely this ignorance which i am saying the HIV positive person has a responsibility to combat with honesty and information.

  no one knows better what it’s like to be HIV positive than someone who is – to be on a dozen different medications every day for years – to have irregular stool and a dysfunctional digestive system – to shiver all night long from interleuken II injections – to have warts and shingles and other opportunistic infections crop up at every turn – to have your teeth fall out and your hair thin – to have your face and arms thin while your belly distends from lipodystrophy. no one knows better how much being HIV positive can complicate relationships, employment, insurability, or even a routine case of the flu. no one is more keenly aware of the psychological stress of a chronic and potentially fatal illness.

  the HIV positive individual knows all too well that exposure is not something to be taken lightly or which should be viewed as a mere consequence of casual decision making – not when those decisions can be informed and exposure prevented.

  sure – we’ve all had HIV shoved down our throats – i agree, it’s tiring to hear about. it has reduced free, vibrant sexuality to cold, calculated negotiations between latex-clad parties.

  and yes, healthcare workers act like it’s the first time we’ve ever heard their gospel of safer sex when we’ve been through the pre-/post-test counselling charade more than fifty some odd times….

  still…it’s hypocritically foolish to bother with things like routine blood pressure checks, calorie-counting diets, cholesterol reducing cereal, multivitamins with lutein, and seatbelts when you’re just fine with someone not disclosing their HIV status after you’ve spent a night throwing back cocktails and are looking for a bit of fun.

  i’m not saying people who are unfortunate enough to be HIV positive are criminal – a virus is not a crime. any of us could be positive – through no fault of our own. that said, knowing you are positive and not protecting someone else (with or without their cooperation), in my opinion ranks with working in food preparation with hepatitis A, or driving a schoolbus without taking the Dilantin you need to control your epilepsy, or flying a plane cross-country all the while knowing you forged your pilot’s license.

  people trust too easily – perhaps they shouldn’t. but the fact is, they do. in the end, it all boils down to ethical behavior: doing unto others as you would have done to yourself.

  with few exceptions, i imagine HIV positive people would have appreciated knowing that the individual that infected them was positive sooner than later.

  should the cycle continue with the valiant excuse that “no one told ME?”

• Scott // Nov 30, 2006 at 12:45 am

  What I was saying is that we have a thing called free will. You were responding to a blog entry that addressed the criminalization of doing the opposite of what you are advocating. I think that your perspective is tainted in the sense that you expect some sort of system to do your bidding. It is unfortunate to be sick but it is no excuse to take away freedoms. Your original argument was one of moral/ethical standing. You seemed to be stating that each individual has a moral/ethical responsibility to disclose their status. But the original blog addressed issues of law, not personal belief.

  I don’t think I’m invalidating what you have to say, I’m saying that I don’t find it particularly helpful. I don’t argue against honesty but the ugly truth is that people will always lie and the individual has only the duty to protect themselves. While it would be an ideal world where everyone had the natural drive to uplift others, we still have not produced that world. My suggestion is that we put resources into education over fear driven prevention methods, there IS a difference. Why waste resources spreading fear over information? Punishment is fear. Your descriptions of what it is like to live with HIV, while very vibrant, aren’t going to prevent the spread of HIV. This is not to say that people shouldn’t know these things, just that your delivery isn’t very tactful. I have found fear to be more fuel to the fire as opposed to a successful prevention technique. Based on my experience as a gay man, there are more men willing to put themselves at risk than there are those who uphold virtues of altruism. [This is not to say that the two things are mutually exclusive but based on your rationale, there is an expected standard of one over the other.] I truly believe that is because the prevention methods we value and use do not work (added to that a plethora of other issues revolving around sexual identity).

  Your final sentence in the last entry you submitted speaks volumes. ANY excuse is verbose, not valiant. We live in a free society, my depiction of an ignorant society was meant to be ironic, a demonstration of the ineffectiveness of basing logic on generalizations.

• samuel cappiello // Nov 30, 2006 at 12:59 am

  I understand what your position, but the entire legal system is an attempt at establishing just relations between members of society. Where people pose a risk to others, we draft laws to reduce the risk either by deterring irresponsible behavior or by penalizing those who aren’t deterred. Ultimately, if a person poses a significant threat to society and remains unmoved after being censured by the legal system, we restrict their access to those who might continue to be harmed by them. Is being HIV positive a crime? No. Is failing to assume ethical responsibility for the potential threat you pose to others’ health a crime? Quite possibly.

  (My use of “valiant” to describe excuse was similarly sarcastic. I think it’s interesting that you could have thought otherwise after the preceding discussion.)

• samuel cappiello // Nov 30, 2006 at 1:05 am

  I would also add that I am also a gay man, so that dimension of your perspective is certainly familiar.

• Sphynx // Nov 30, 2006 at 5:35 am

  Ok, after alot of thought, I believe it’s the conscious decision of sex partners to be safe. If I’m not caring about my own safety by not using safety measures (such as a condom) it’s my own fault.

  Willingly (through no obligation) putting oneself in the path of danger is my own responsibility/risk. To try to shift that blame is as naive as blaming a train conducter for me standing in the middle of the tracks.

  In my previous example, the Cop is ‘obligated’ to pat down the suspect. There is no obligation to sex, so the comparissons do not match up. Also the ‘right’ vs ‘endangerment’ does not make a stand here because the ‘right’ belongs to both parties via choice. Rights cancel each other out in this case, in my opinion.

• Thomas // Nov 30, 2006 at 6:16 am

  Lots of very interesting points have been brought up here. While I tried to remain somewhat objective and simply pose several questions in the original post, and while I do still believe that people have shared responsibility in these encounters, I much more strongly agree with Samuel than I do with Scott.

  First, I would go as far as saying Scott’s belief that “HIV does not equate a death sentence” is one of the primary reasons that HIV rates have started to spike again, particularly among younger gay men. No, people aren’t dying left and right like they were in the 80s and 90s. No, fifteen of my gay friends have not died from AIDS in the last year, but the fact remains that when you seroconvert, you will eventually die from complications from a disease for which there is not yet a cure. You can try to argue until you’re blue in the face that it is a chronic illness like diabetes and I won’t buy it. It is a terminal illness and you WILL die from it and along the way, you WILL suffer tremendously. I do not think that my saying having unprotected sex is tantamount to trusting your partner with your life is the same as stigmatizing those with STDs, but rather implies that unless you know otherwise, you should assume that everyone has an STD. After all, you only get one life.

  Perhaps you would argue that I live in constant fear, but I would say it is constant pragmatism. I have isolated an area of life in which I advocate that people simply assume the worst until they know otherwise and I do not exactly see where that is a problem. Perhaps you would say it is hypocritical because I am singling out one particular risk and inherently stigmatizing those with STDS and I would disagree. If I were advocating never trusted anything and constantly questioning everything, THAT would be hysteria and living in constant fear. Take Samuel’s apt comparisons to the fake pilot and such. While on the one hand, I suppose there would be some attorney out there somewhere that would I argue that it was my choice to get on the plane that it was my own fault that I chose not to verify that the pilot was actually certified, that argument is absolutely silly and still would not negates the pilot’s culpability. The same goes for your bathhouse analogy. Yes, I guess if I go into the bathhouse and decided to sleep with the person I see having unprotected sex with seven people, I should probably ask him about his HIV status. If I choose not to or simply forget to do so, however, I am not exactly sure that exculpates him of all responsibility.

  I think that while I may have come down a little hard on the women in this blog, my larger point was to maintain a certain level of shared responsibility. Taking the bathhouse example again. If as Scott says a bathhouse is a place where HIV status is rarely discussed, doesn’t the HIV positive person have a responsibility to stay out of places like that? If he knows that he is ill, and yet willfully goes to a place where he is well aware that no one will ask him his status, simply for the purpose of having unprotected sex, I do not see how this is an acceptable action. He has entered into a place where will knowingly expose others to the virus, and he should be held accountable for that. Those who chose to sleep with him, however, should be prepared to accept some responsibility themselves and NOT place then entire blame on him.

• Scott // Nov 30, 2006 at 5:36 pm

  These responses ignore the larger issue that this blog originated with and that I continue to uphold. There is a major difference between law and moral belief. While both samuel and Thomas have made their personal feelings about moral responsibility clear, they have not committed to what the law should be. Was that not the point of this blog? To bring into question what the law should be? My understanding is that we live in a society of free will and that while most people may very well agree that the morally correct thing to do would be to disclose your STD status (notice that I have not yet once said I disagree with that sentiment), the law is not in place to compensate for the shortcomings of neglectful people. The law is not in place to protect people’s right to be ignorant. Now the health care system, on the other hand, could use some work. That is where I bring issue with the tone of this topic in general. I don’t think you were hard at all on the women you spoke of. I think that if they were ignorant enough to put themselves in a risky situation, we need to take issue with our systems of education, NOT through punishment of some scapegoat. Sure, this person may very well be a piece of shit for doing what he did. But do we have the right to throw him in jail? Is it even useful or effective to do so? Would this be educating the public? What is the overall objective of getting the Criminal Justice System involved in such an issue?

  (my use of “verbose” was a play on your use of “valiant”. I wasn’t attempting to be sarcastic but rather ironic with my illustration of an ignorant society.)

• runnner4ever // Jan 8, 2007 at 2:07 pm

  I don’t think this is a very difficult analysis if you put aside your personal attachments and live by the “golden rule”, or whatever you want to call it.
  Who, in their right mind, can say they love someone when they knowingly do something that could transmit to them a deadly disease? Not that the one who does it is any different than the rest of us who don’t have HIV; I don’t mean to imply anything of the sort. What I intend to state is that everyone on this planet knows that we all have good in us, but sometimes we choose the “selfish road” instead of the selfless one. No selfless person can justify risking another’s life, regardless of whether or not they are adult, child, consenting or not. It is wrong.
  Any person who does so is guilty of intentional harm of another person. What determines the degree of criminality is certainly affected by the curcumstances (age, consent/or not, etc). It would be no different than assisted suicide by Russian Roulette. The one assisting is still guilty according to our laws. We cannot put a social stamp of approval on anything of the kind. Imagine if someone told you that they were going to give your grown child a bunch of sleeping pills (because they asked for them) so that they could possibly end their life. The pill provider could claim that they had no way of knowing if death would result, and s/he could argue that your child could have gotten them from someone else, but would you accept such justifications? No, it would be just like the drug dealer who argues that he had to sell drugs because his were pure and he knew his junkies would get it anyways, but atleast he knew they didn’t get something cheaper and deadlier.
  Sorry, but this type of justification is exactly what has caused our immoral, letigious society. If we all could accept responsibility for thinging our actions through, we would have a much more successful society.

• Jennifer // Jan 24, 2007 at 1:39 am

  It is very disturbing that people even have to debate this topic…there is no debate! If you have HIV or any other STD you should be morally and legally obligated to inform any future sex partners. There are viruses that men unknowingly have but the key word here is unknowingly. No one should go through the pain and suffering that some STDs cause when they could have been prevented. If you have an STD…tell somebody! Don’t tell them after the fact when it is too late!

• Scott // Jan 24, 2007 at 8:56 am

  I appreciate the moral standard that the last two entries uphold but they ignore the concepts of law and basic human rights. If we based all of our laws purely on people’s moral beliefs we would be back in the puritanical age, where sex, gender and sexuality are all dictated by law. Many people believe that it is morally wrong for same sex partners to engage in sexual activities, does that make it acceptable to write into law? Every single individual in this world has the right to either abstain from sex or practice safe sex for themselves. The minute we start prosecuting for sexual practices is the minute we open pandora’s box. This leads to the wasting of an unimaginable amount of resources where we should be using them toward education.

• Jennifer // Jan 29, 2007 at 7:42 pm

  Scott, I appreciate your analysis of our thoughts but I think you misunderstood me. I am not condoning the return of a society that regulates ones practices. If a man wants to sleep with another man…thats his choice. The only thing I think that we as human beings should all have is respect and courtesy for one another. Telling someone that you have HIV or any other STD is not just a moral value, it is a “Basic Human Right” to know and to be informed. I have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness…all of which can be taken from me if I contract AIDS from a partner who knew about it. An informed decision is the right decision. Just because you are not asked stait up,”do you have AIDS or any other STD?” does not mean you sould be let off the hook.

• Scott // Jan 29, 2007 at 8:03 pm

  So then I would ask you, how exactly does the law distinguish between people who “knowingly” infect and those who had no clue they even had the desease? Isn’t it true that a large percentage of serconversion occurs due to sexual exchanges between consciously “negative” people? And if you create laws that do distinguish, wouldn’t that force people to just not get tested? I’m not ignoring your points, I’m simply making a more well rounded analysis, considering all perspectives. I think you are ignoring many of the consequences of your statements that are spawned from your moral beliefs.

• Jennifer // Jan 30, 2007 at 12:43 am

  I am a 8th grade middle school teacher and am legally obligated to inform the proper authorities by law if I know of any child abuse or inappropriate behavior going on with my students. Why shoudn’t people who have tested positive with HIV be obligated to tell any future partners? I undersand your point about people being detered from getting tested, after all it is their health. The problem with that is that when you decide to engage in any sexual activity with another person, your health is not the only one at risk. Let me ask you why you think it is no big deal to have sex with another person, “knowing” you have an STD, and think that it is ok ‘not’ to inform the other person of your unfortunate and incurable condition? . If you met someone in a bar (most of us have), hit it off and continue seeing this person, you almost always end up in bed with them. Don’t you think a person should stop to think about the other person before they think about their own sexual needs? Your own sexual needs do not surpass anothers personal health. Distinguishing between those who don’t know and “knowingly” know is just a technicality. Medical records are records for a reason. If a person is ignorant enough to not get tested because they don’t want to “tell” any of thier partners is just absurd. When your HIV turns into AIDS, the patient will be singing a different tune…”I should have gotten tested”. HIV AIDS is an epidemic! Treating it like its just a harmless condition that you shouldn’t disclose with your sexual partners is just plain ignorant and irresponsible.

• Scott // Jan 30, 2007 at 7:54 pm

  You continue on the same moral argument and I have left that behind.

  How have you assumed that I feel it is “no big deal to have sex with another person, “knowing” you have an STD, and think that it is ok ‘not’ to inform the other person of your unfortunate and incurable condition”?? Where do you get that information from?? I have not once stated my moral belief in this blog because this blog is about the LAW. Not Faith.

  You continue to argue your moral perspective which nobody is claiming is wrong. Yet you completely avoid the legal ramifications. The bottom line is USE PROTECTION for yourself. NOT for other people. You will never live in a perfect world full of saints who live a morally superior life.. I think thats what Hitler thought he could have.. I believe thats the drive behind suicide bombers and terrorists.. these are fanatical idealists who have no rational thought process. I doubt you fall in line with that sort of thinking.. so do me a favor, stop and think about the CONSEQUENCES of what you are saying.. BEYOND your moral beliefs, because a free society does not exist purely on moral objectification.

• Jennifer // Jan 30, 2007 at 9:41 pm

  I think you assume that my morals exists becuase of religioius beliefs…they don’t. I know that we are stating our opinions based on a legal stand point but in no way do you explain your legal stand point. If the legal system didn’t interfere in our lives, our world would no be as it is today. The legal system was created to protect United State citizens from people who break laws. If they do break the law they have to pay certain penalties. If a law was created demanding that those with HIV or other STDs had to divulge said information before hand…THAT IS WHAT OUR LEGAL SYSTEM IS FOR.

• Jennifer // Jan 30, 2007 at 9:59 pm

  Just out of curiousity, how much power should the leal system have in our lives? Where do we draw the line? Should our legal system not interject when adults are sleeping with children? Should we rewrite all of our laws so they can be based off of moral objectification? I don’t think that we should but I think that several of our laws are based on Societal Morals that exists.

• Scott // Jan 30, 2007 at 10:20 pm

  And at this point all logic and sense has left this debate. If anyone else has the energy to interject here and attempt to make some sense out of what Jennifer is trying to say beyond what has already been beat to death, I invite you to.

  Just to set the record straight, I made no assumptions. In fact, your statement that I “assumed that your morals exist because of religious beliefs..” is an assumption in itself.

• Jennifer // Jan 30, 2007 at 10:50 pm

  I see a lot of words but I don’t hear anything SMART. You really should concentrate more on getting to a point rather than using a bunch of words that don’t have any meaning. You don’t debate with people, you use words to intimidate them. Your logic is just as useless as George W. Bushs’ State of the Union… a lot of words but nothing really smart to say!

• Scott // Jan 31, 2007 at 12:43 am

  I made my point long before you even read this blog.. try scrolling up. You’re throwing a temper tantrum because I’m calling you out on your fruitless tangent. You may continue to see no intelligence in my logic but I see it much more as your inability to stray from your one track mind. I do hope, some how, some day, you find a way to consider that there are many more dimensions to any issue than you might have considered. Until then, I see no need to continue this stagnant exchange.

• Scott // Jan 31, 2007 at 12:49 am

  PS: At the risk of sounding petty, which I’m sure I’ve far surpassed at this point anyway… Is anyone else petrified by the fact that Jennifer is in charge of enlightening the young minds of our nation? If only for the simple facts of all her typo’s…

• Jennifer // Jan 31, 2007 at 1:55 am

  ” I do hope that some how(spelled wrong), some day(also spelled wrong), you find a way to consider that there are many more dimensions to any issue than you might consider”. Take your own advice. You are a walking contradiction! The only position you have taken is against everyone else. You have never once considered any other dimensions of these debates. I hardly think that you are educated… just ignorantly opinionated.

• Jennifer // Jan 31, 2007 at 1:57 am

  Don’t talk about people typo’s when you yourself don’t know that somehow and someway are single words…not spelled as two different words!

• Anon // Feb 4, 2007 at 2:43 am

  The man should be charged to the full extent of the law under an attempted murder charge. Period.

• Nicole // Feb 7, 2007 at 12:48 pm

  I agree with you Anon. Those who have argued that morals should not get in the way of judgement are just plain ignorant.

• Scott // Feb 7, 2007 at 8:45 pm

  In case you’re referring to me Nicole (which you must be since I seem to be the only one using any sense of logic in any of this), I don’t think I have ever said that morals should not get in the way of judgment. In fact, morals are judgement. I implore you to go back and reread my arguments without so much predetermined conclusions. Once again, I will reiterate that none of what I have said discounts peoples moral beliefs. Nor have I declared my own moral standing. I’ve simply made the point that, with this particular issue, people’s moral beliefs should be kept out of the law books. Thanks.

• Nicole // Feb 8, 2007 at 12:50 am

  All of our countries Laws are based of societal morals and values. Whether we like it or not, most of what we do in this world is based off of morals.

• Scott // Feb 8, 2007 at 7:48 pm

  But are all of our morals made into laws?

• t.k. // Feb 8, 2007 at 7:59 pm

  you shouln’t have sex w/ them at all if you don’t trust them. whether you have protection or not. they are not 100% safe by the way

• Nicole // Feb 8, 2007 at 8:03 pm

  There is no easy answer to that question. I do believe that a lot of them are…who’s to say?

• Nicole // Feb 8, 2007 at 8:08 pm

  We are all sadly aware of the things we shouldn’t do. Most of us still do them.

• Scott // Feb 8, 2007 at 10:07 pm

  “Who’s to say” Exactly my point. You are making a very sweeping generalization when you say “I do believe that a lot of them are…” Are you referring to racists? or homophobic people? or bigots? Religous zealots? Are the morals of these people righteous enough to make into law? Does the majority of people seem to you to be morally correct? How do you know? Our country is so fractured on the most basic of principles and yet most of what you and the people stating opinions in this blog are basing their arguments on are “the moral opinion” of some “majority”. You said it yourself “We are sadly aware of the things we shouldn’t do. Most of us still do them.” I think it’s sad that you feel that way, but I do think that many people live their lives under the premise of “should”. With that said, how can we make laws, enforcing moral codes that are so widely disregarded??

• Nicole // Feb 8, 2007 at 11:41 pm

  The last question should not be directed to me, I don’t make the laws. You and I don’t know what it takes to pass a piece of legislation, we can only speculate with our opinions. I do have one question for you though. You continuously talk about how everyone who expresses thier opinions on this blog are wrong, why are they wrong?

• Scott // Feb 9, 2007 at 3:58 am

  Have you read all of my responses from the beginning? I’m not going to go over everything I have already stated.. I think it’s sort of an unspoken rule that people read all the responses to a blog before posting their own, that way new responses aren’t redundant.

  To clarify a few things: I haven’t said anyone is wrong. I have merely challenged people’s one-sided, moral arguments. To respond to your comments about legislation, I do happen to know a little bit about lobbying and advocacy, otherwise I wouldn’t be arguing my points so strongly. The problem isn’t necessarily with the government. It’s with the public and pressure put onto our representatives to uphold “moral” codes such as what most people are stating here. Again, I’m not going to go too much into detail (you can get that if you read my earlier responses) but I believe that if the public has an issue with people who take the spread of STD’s lightly, they should take it up with our systems of health care and education before seeking an easy out through punitive measures.

• Nicole // Feb 9, 2007 at 2:14 pm

  “I have merely just challenged people’s one-sided, moral arguments”— Are your arguments not one sided? Are they not redundant? The only reason why your arguments are redundant is because you have not considered any other arguments, just your own. I have read all of your blogs on this website and I can appreciate some of your points and convictions.
  I’m not sure what you ment when you said”if the public has an issue with people who take the spread of STD’s lightly”. I think that this statement is a bit of a tangent but I will comment on it. You know as well as I do that public education and health care are under the control of our government. If our government fails to educate youth on the spread of STD’s and fails to educate the public, is it not our government themselves that take the easy out through punitive measures?
  The public should have a problem with people who take the spread of STD’s lightly. The public health sector has limited resources when it comes to education. Our precious government (no pun intended) falls short in the public awareness department. I don’t think that the public pushes these measures, I think the government resorts to them for the simple fact that people (oblivious most of the time), pay more attention to pieces of legislature that are written into law than they do to educating themselves to be more alert.

• Rudy // Feb 9, 2007 at 3:51 pm

  I have just one comment for Scott. You should really put your copy of “Good Will Hunting” away. You have exhausted your arguments in stating that you are the “only” one using logic on these blogs. Every argumemt I have read uses logic. I pitty someone who so bravely professes his own logic to be ritous against all others. You have made yourself look imprudent by pointing your finger at everyone else but yourself. Your logic also contains flaws and inconsistancies throughout. After reading some of the things you have said it is obvious that you really don’t know, nor have you been formally educated on the various topics you debate. Anyone can read a newspaper and form opinions. Formally educated people debate the topic at hand; they don’t attack the others person’s ideas claiming that their own ideas are infact more correct.

• Scott // Feb 9, 2007 at 11:50 pm

  I really have nothing to say to anyone who wants to come on here and rail me while completely avoiding the topic. I’ve made my basic points very clear (one of which is that I’m not claiming to be “right” over everyone else’s “wrong”, I’m simply taking on a different perspective) and I’ll respond to those who would like to intelligently debate, those who have something of substance to contribute. It’s obvious I hold an unpopular opinion on this blog. You’re not adding anything of substance by insulting me and judging my character based on one small issue that I’ve happened to share my opinion on. Why not try bringing some tangible information instead of emotion driven rhetoric?

  With that said, Nicole, no, my arguments are not one sided because I continuously acknowledge the validity of other peoples opinions, but I understand there is much more that goes into this issue than morals. I don’t completely agree with your outlook on government control. I understand where you are coming from and I think that many people share this perspective that the government controls our health and educational systems, but as you pointed out yourself, it is more a function of the failure of the public to influence these vital societal entities than it is the government’s sole responsibility. I think it is really easy to point fingers at the government (or any other external power) and say, “the blame is over there” instead of taking responsibility for our own roles. The government does play an enormous role but the government is supposed to represent the people. So, what are you doing to change the way our health care and educational systems operate? I ask that question not of you specifically but as a general inventory. Unless we, as individuals, take care to vocalize and act on these extremely significant problems, we have no right to complain. And this brings me full circle. The reason I am so heartily sticking to my guns here is because I really think the tone of this blog and many of the responses to it is that we should be holding someone else responsible for our own VERY PERSONAL actions. By creating laws that regulate what people do in the bedroom, we are expecting someone else to play judge, jury and executioner instead of living up to our own morals and learning by our own actions. This does not solve the problem, it merely masks it and if you ask me, begets further immoral practices. I work in rehabilitation, I know first hand the benefits of learning from experience versus suffering from punishment.

• Nicole // Feb 10, 2007 at 12:41 am

  I agree that people should learn not from just their own experiences, but should really try to learn from others. I really wish there weren’t so many holes in our health care system and educational system. Preventative is always better than having to seek treatment. Our nation has let this topic slip through the cracks and have not done enough to educate the public. I agree with you that creating laws that regulate our personal bedroom activities is a bit extreme but I think these laws are specifically for the people who dicide not to take responsibility for themselves and to protect the innocent from so many unfortunate STD’s.

• Scott // Feb 10, 2007 at 10:50 am

  But again, I do not see how those laws can be regulated.

• Nicole // Feb 10, 2007 at 1:57 pm

  I see what you are saying. I think that they can try and implement it but it would be hard to regulate. If a such law did exists do you think that more people would take responsibility for their sexualy habbits and ultimatly decrease the number of new cases every year?

• Scott // Feb 10, 2007 at 3:38 pm

  No.. I don’t and thats why I hold the position I do. I believe that fear can have a negative effect. The more scared people become, the more trapped and hopeless they may feel. Consequentially, they become more likely to make self destructive decisions. I know not everyone has this sort of response, but many people do. I just don’t think that punitive tactics are as effective as we expect them to be. Not everyone responds to them positively.

• Scott // Feb 10, 2007 at 3:43 pm

  Just to add to what I’ve said before, the concept of taboo has a similar effect on people. Look at teenagers and alcohol and/or drugs. Just because the law states that people under 21 are not allowed to drink certainly does not deter a vast majority of them to do it. In fact, some would argue it has the opposite effects. Just the simple fact that people in authority tell them not to do it makes it more attractive.

• Nicole // Feb 10, 2007 at 4:44 pm

  Would it be worth it if instilling fear in people would cause infection rates to go down? Sometimes exhausting every avenue is worth more than ignoring it. I know that people are going to have sex, the law would not be written to tell people that they cannot have sex. It would be written stating that it is unlawful to have sex with someone without disclosing certain sexual history. Similar to the way that couples used to have to get blood tests before marriage.

• Scott // Feb 10, 2007 at 4:53 pm

  and why don’t we have those laws about blood tests anymore? I don’t think it would work the way you are rationalizing it. This is why it isn’t law. You mention “ignoring it” and that is exactly what I think you are doing by advocating for laws to change instead of putting resources into education.

• Nicole // Feb 10, 2007 at 8:04 pm

  This debate can go on and on. I am going to leave it as is. You have some good things to say but I don’t think beating it to a pulp is going anywhere. Nobody ever really wins when it comes to opinions.

• Rudy // Feb 11, 2007 at 5:44 pm

  So predictable!! Thats too bad!

• Scott // Feb 15, 2007 at 9:04 pm

  Rudy, since you’re so apt at refereeing everyone elses contributions here, why not enlighten us with something on topic?

• Rudy // Feb 16, 2007 at 12:00 am

  I am not inclined to do so simply because there is no one on here that would be even remotely interesting to debate with. I don’t feel like getting my views attacked by you would accomplish anything. I have read all that you have to say and you sadly only accept your way of thinking while discounting all others.

• Scott // Feb 16, 2007 at 12:20 am

  Oddly hypocritical coming from someone who has done nothing but attack me from the get go. I find your comments strangly irrelevant as well, considering I have done nothing but respond to other opinions here in an astute manner. Maybe it’s just me but you seem to have some personal stake in what I have to say. Why else would you try to discredit me through distraction? Anyone with intelligence can read through this blog and see that everything you claim me to be is mindless prattle.

• Rudy // Feb 16, 2007 at 12:47 am

  Astute you are not. The only reason why I have made these observations is because of the manner you have conducted yourself on this site. I do not have a personal stake in what you say; I was simply moved to let you know how I felt after reading what you had to say in its entirety. I have never claimed that I am “not” attacking you. I am not attacking the topic; I am attacking your choice of words and your tacky ways. Why should you be the only one allowed to attack others and their views? I am not using mindless prattle, I am mindfully honest.

• Scott // Feb 16, 2007 at 1:34 am

  I’m tacky, yet you still have not contributed anything useful to this blog. Every insult you initiate has no foundation and no follow through. You’re equatable to an insolent 12 year old. I’m tired of defending myself against a positionless agitator. You’ve used up enough of my life.

• Rudy // Feb 16, 2007 at 12:52 pm

  What I have contributed is worth more than your useless opinions. People like you need to be put in their place. You think you are superior to all others yet no one here has shared your same opinion. Black sheep are always the agitators. Your “personal” life choices make you a pathetic competitor. I feel sorry for you and the useless life you lead.

• Scott // Feb 16, 2007 at 8:14 pm

  Well at least now everyone knows you’re a bigot.

• Rudy // Feb 17, 2007 at 9:53 am

  Meaning…your personal life choice is what you hide behind and what you base all of your opinions.

• Scott // Feb 17, 2007 at 12:47 pm

  Right, bigot.

• Hotwax // Mar 16, 2007 at 2:26 am

  Frankly as far as I am concerned if you are STD positive and you have sex without telling your partner (hetro or gay) and that partner dies becuase of the STD you deserve to be charged with murder. If a person is infected but does not die, you should be charged with grievous body harm.

  My rationale is simple: The infected party knowing he /she was infected decided to imperil the health or life of the other person. That makes it deliberate harm or killing in that you knew but did nothing to stop it. So it is a much a crime as pulling out a gun and shooting someone or nurses infecting people in a hospital with disease.

  Saying thats not right to criminalise sexual matters is like saying we should legalise murder becuase murder is a moral issue. Like hell, murder is just a moral issue becuase it affects another person. You can believe what you want but if it endangers me (or anyone else) you have no right to that belief.

• Jennifer // Mar 18, 2007 at 9:57 pm

  I completely agree with you Hotwax. I can’t wait to see what Scott has to say about this. His opinion is always superior to all others…so he thinks!

• Scott // Mar 18, 2007 at 10:05 pm

  I’d be curious to get a tally of the religious affiliations and locations of all the people who are so adamantly against what I have to say. I also find it interesting that simply having a different opinion immediately implies that you’re “superior to all others”. I’m pretty sure that most people who know me find me to be the farthest thing from arrogant. Even my argument is in support of fighting a totalitarian perspective while everyone else is preaching “lock em up and throw away the key.” I find that to be a far more arrogant position to hold than anything I have said here.

• Jennifer // Mar 18, 2007 at 11:14 pm

  Religion has nothing to do with this. I didn’t see anyone saying anything about religion, you just assume that their arguments are based off of religious beliefs…is this not arrogant?

• Scott // Mar 19, 2007 at 9:18 am

  Nope.. your assumptions about what I’m assuming is though.

• Jennifer // Mar 19, 2007 at 12:41 pm

  You just proved my earlier point. I really enjoy it when degenerates like you make asses out of yourselves.

• Jason // Mar 19, 2007 at 2:24 pm

  Hotwax, you have all the right points. Your rationale is simple but very powerful. I agree that murder is an equally moral issue like this one. Those who try to argue that morals should not be used in an argument is just plain ignorant. It is good to see that people still think with their just minds, unlike so many on this site.

• Hotwax // Mar 19, 2007 at 10:17 pm

  Scott, the reason you are considered arrogant at least by me is the attitude engenderedby your beliefs (regardless of if they are wrong or right). The attitude that your beliefs promote is this: “I don’t care how many people I kill, maim or destroy to feel good. If they stand in my way thats their problem.” It is an attitude society can not afford as it is the attitude behind many of societies rapes, abuses and killings. It is frankly selfish and arrogant. So I regard you as far more arrogant that anyone whos comments I have read here as you seem to think you are a God who has the right to kill, harm and destroy for your pleasure.

  That said I understand your objections to how it would be policed but there is a very simple solution to that. Laws would have to be enacted to allow compulsory testing done at the end of primary school, every year at highschool and university and every time someone hadn’t been tested for a year or more cumpulsory testing at doctors, hospitals amd other health professionals. All results would be exported to an international database, so almost no person would be without knowlege of their status. Intiatally in the first few years it would be comaparitively expensive but over 5 to 10 yrs governments would see a 90% – 95% cost reduction in treating “lethal STDs” and a far lower new infection rate. Maybe I am an optimist even so given 20 -30 yrs on a world wide system like that i believe we could see the eradication of lethal STDs althogether as they would not be able to spread. And if laws where enforced that made spreading STDs a crime with a dramatic penalty such as 20 -30 yrs in prison people would be more likely to not spread STDs and be more likely to check this database before having sex. Also with such a database we would have a better idea how the diseases work as we could see how and when it spread.

  Jason I think you misunderstood me a little. While I agree with you that a moral position should never be disqualified as an arguement becuase it is a moral position but I was saying that regardless of if murder was a moral position its still valid arguement becuase it affect more than just me or you or scott. My point was regardless of moral positions people should be protected from STDs regardless if they have a moral position on it or NOT. Murder still kills another human being regardless of if the killer believes murder is wrong or not, all humans regardless of beliefs deserve protection from murder, in the same way all humans deserve legal protection and justice for knownlying being STD infected.

• Scott // Mar 19, 2007 at 10:59 pm

  Jennifer, you no longer exist to me in Blog land because you are irrational and insulting.

  Hotwax, where did you get this quote from: “I don’t care how many people I kill, maim or destroy to feel good. If they stand in my way thats their problem.”? Because I have never said anything that could even be considered close to that. My logic doesn’t come anywhere close to this warped perspective you have of my opinion. I don’t even see where you might loosely affiliate my opinions with the garbage you are spouting in that quote.

  With THAT said, reacting purely to your solution to “the problem”, I could see why you might think, optimistically that a system like that would eradicate or significantly lower STD rates. Unfortunately, I’m not that optimistic. I don’t think a system like that would work and besides the fact it would never be enacted because we live in a free society. I think if you would want a system like that to work you would have to move to somewhere like China or Cuba where individuals rights do not come before the state.

  Out of curiosity, where do you get your stats from? This hypothesis you have presented, is it something you have read somewhere or something that you came up with yourself?

  I’m also curious what makes you think that once we eradicate the current existing “lethal” STDs, there won’t be more, stronger
  “lethal” STDs that will evolve in the future. The problem with criminalizing the spread of diseases and the basis for my logic to begin with, is that disease is merely natures way of protecting itself from over consumption by human activity. It is natural population growth. We will never be entirely rid of desease. People will always die. If they didn’t, we would over consume all our natural resources, outgrow the planet and destroy ourselves anyway. I’m not advocating for the stopping of STD prevention or halting research into the eradication of horrible diseases. I am simply viewing it in a purely rational fashion, based on where we’ve been and where we’re at now. I mean c’mon, the plague still exists!

• Jennifer // Mar 20, 2007 at 12:11 am

  You should really read over your earlier comments and then tell me who is the insulting one. I believe you called someone a bigot and I do believe you are always the first to insult someone. You really do think that your comments are not arrogant? “disease is merely natures way of protecting itself from over consumption by human activity. It is natural population growth”…this has to be the most arrogant comment used on this blog. You are stating that STDs have to exists to control population growth, I don’t even want to comment on this anymore simply because I am so dumbfounded by your lack of logic. Thank you for giving me a good laugh. I hope you don’t get paid for being an idiot…don’t quit your day job!

• Tina // Mar 20, 2007 at 3:05 pm

  WOW! What an interesting debate. I like all the comments but am more inclined to agree with making laws that could help prevent further spreading. Having an STD is no joke and should not be taken lightly if you have one. If laws were written that mandated people to be tested (much like chicken pox vaccine before kindergarten), we would see fewer new cases every year.

• Scott // Mar 20, 2007 at 7:12 pm

  Tina, there is a huge difference between required vaccines and required testing. Vaccines are preventative measures while forced testing determines who is already sick. What do you suggest be done with people who are found to be positive for the HIV virus? I understand where you are coming from but it scares me to think where it would lead. To me it is reminiscent of a witch hunt. How do you prevent people from engaging in sexual behaviors or drugs? I really don’t see how this would deter people from engaging in risky behaviors. Perhaps it would give HIV negative people an extra opportunity to remain “safe” but the consequences of the loss of privacy (including discrimination among many other horrible things) is not worth it.

• Tina // Mar 21, 2007 at 1:49 pm

  All I really know is that not enough is being done to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS in the United States. People need to be held responsible for their own actions, whether you are protecting yourself against infection or whether you already have the virus and are taking proper measures to prevent further spread. There is not one perfect solution to this problem. It is an innate human quality to “do what we want”. We could try to create laws that criminalize, or we can shove more money into education. Which one would be more successful? Who’s to say without studies? We all have our own opinions on what system would work best. Finding a middle ground is impossible.

• Scott // Mar 21, 2007 at 8:34 pm

  Am I to understand that what you’re saying is that the ONLY two options are: criminalize the spread of HIV or educate the public toward prevention? And that based on those two options you’re choosing to side with criminalization? Thats what I’m getting. Hopefully I’m wrong. It seems super black and white, not to mention pessimistic, to me.

• Jennifer // Mar 21, 2007 at 11:36 pm

  If both were done, what do you think the outcome would look like?

• Tina // Mar 22, 2007 at 12:05 am

  Scott- Education has not been effective enough, I know you don’t agree with criminalizing so what do you suggest our government do? If anything?

  Jennifer- Who’s to say if the outcome would be positive or negative. No one knows until the situation presents itself.

• Scott // Mar 22, 2007 at 7:57 am

  Tina, I’ve presented many theories as to why criminalization is negative. I don’t think the only other choice is education although I think it’s the best start. You’re right that nobody truly knows the outcome of any theory until it presents itself but that is the purpose of history. We should learn from our past mistakes and I’ve certainly learned that throwing people in jail certainly does not deter crime in general. For backup on this I would suggest people study the prison industrial crisis we have in this country. We’re not rehabilitating our citizens, we’re criminalizing them. Do you not see the harm in that?

• Tina // Mar 22, 2007 at 1:16 pm

  Recidivism rates in our country are extremely high, I know. The people who get sent to jail tend to be those with a low SES and have not been properly educated, but what about those who have been properly educated who choose to not take responsibility for themselves. The man in this article deserved his punishment, as does anyone else who is as deceptive as he is. As far as History goes, I don’t know of any past history involving sending people to jail for this matter. This topic is far more sensitive and unique to compare it to past imprisonment issues. Studies show that Drug rehabilitation works but most don’t seek drug treatment until they are forced. You said that my two choices are not they only two, if you would start at education what would be your next choice?

• Scott // Mar 22, 2007 at 6:24 pm

  You want examples of times when disease was criminalized? Heres a few: The Holocaust, lepers, the plague, Native Americans, Slavery, any ghetto that exists or has ever existed… I could go on and on. All of these people were seen as diseased if not physically then metaphorically. It is naive to think that this is something new. Read Foucault. You prove my point with your description of the success and failure of drug rehabilitation based on the desire of the individual to change. Punitive measures are forced, rehab is chosen. This further answers your last question: while education is one option, rehabilitation is another. I realize this is a complicated issue and that there is not one answer, which is a HUGE part of what I’m advocating here. I’m saying that enforcing safe sex through the law is a one way road to discrimination and many other social problems. It will not solve this issue. It seems to me that everyone who is advocating for the law to be responsible for STD prevention is relying on a very simple, hands off solution that could have devastating effects.

• Tina // Mar 22, 2007 at 7:09 pm

  “I don’t know of any past history involving sending people to jail for this matter” meaning AIDS/HIV. What Hitler did to the Jews was genocide, he wanted a pure race. Native Americans were not put in Jail because of a disease, the United States displaced them because they could not enslave them and we wanted the land. Slaves were brought over to the US to cultivate our land and to make our country rich without having to do the work ourselves. How were all these groups criminalized by disease? We criminalize people who don’t drink safely, why is it any different than sex? I don’t see it as a hands off approach. You are responsible for your own actions, if we choose not to take responsibility then we are the ones who suffer the repercussions of our own poor decisions.

• Scott // Mar 22, 2007 at 7:50 pm

  I am not arguing against people taking responsiblity for their own actions but what you and most of the people responding to this blog are advocating for, is not that. You and others are advocating for a systematic policing of sexual promiscuity which in my mind is no different than the nazis thinking their way was the pure way or American settlers viewing Native Americans as savages or whites throughout history viewing any other race as inferior or diseased. It is the same warped rationale.

• Tina // Mar 22, 2007 at 9:42 pm

  Richardson was sent to jail because he chose to be irresponsible. I know that you are not argueing against people taking responsibility for their own actions. What I am advocating for is a system that would punish the person or persons who choose to not to take responsibility for a disease they know they have, and a disease they know is harmful. I fail to see how you can compare sexual promiscuity to Americans “viewing” Native Americans as savages. Having sexual intercourse is a totally diffent story. Sure the Americans viewed and still view other races as inferior but having sex with them and giving them HIV/AIDS purposfully is not the same. Please tell me you see the difference in punishing those who have been deceitful. Of course we would not punish a person who was forth coming and told their partners. If their partners were informed and they chose to continue with the risky relationship that included an intimate one, this is the informed risk that they are willing to take.

• solo // May 6, 2007 at 11:14 am

  If ford motor company knowingly released a vehice which would explode without any warning nor apparent cause and kill the occupant in 10 percent of cars over a 5 year period we would be up in arms about it, I have no doubt that there would be criminal neglance suits lawsuits.

  This may seem irrevelent given the topic at hand, But really, how is it much different, an entity wants something (profit vs pleasure)
  that entity has something to hide (the explosions vs AIDS)
  and someone dies as a result

• Stephanie // Sep 5, 2007 at 9:34 pm

  I know the people involved in this case. On more than one occasion, Mr. Richardson propositioned me even when I asked him to stop, and made it MY fault when I told him he made me uncomfortable.

  I agree that the women involved should take responsibility for their actions; after all, it takes two to tango. However, Mr. Richardson is very smooth and highly persuasive, not to mention extremely intelligent. He knew what he was doing and he did it deliberately. People like that should be punished.

• SUSAN O. // Dec 10, 2007 at 3:59 pm

  During 13 yrs of marriage my husband gave me STD (HERPES). Is there any legal liability on his part, because of this we are in the process of a divorce. What should I discuss with my attorney.

• Scott // Dec 10, 2007 at 6:15 pm

  It’s been a while since I’ve interacted with this blog but it is just as relevant to me now as it was back in March, possibly more so.

  Reading back over the last few entries that I didn’t respond to, specifically from Tina, Solo and Stephanie, in the context of SUSAN O.’s entry, I’m feeling obligated to take it on again.

  Our argument about personal responsibility vs. laws regulating behaviors was incomplete, I feel. One overall point that I failed to make clearly is that we have not gotten to a point, socially or scientifically where we can, without a shadow of a doubt, prove that someone knowingly infected another person with a disease. Unless we’re talking about someone using needles to stab people or rape, I don’t see how anyone can justify a systemic process by which we criminalize people for exchanging bodily fluids or as Tina seems to be hinting toward, promiscuity.

  I can’t give a lesson on oppression here and so won’t be able to make up for the ignorance of anyone reading this blog, but sexual promiscuity, while very likely being immoral in many peoples beliefs, is not a crime, nor should it be a crime in a “free” society. We supposedly live in that “free” society which means EVERYone (with the exception of some convicted criminals and, as I mentioned before, rape victims) has the opportunity to free will. This means that BOTH parties involved in ANY relationship or “intimate” exchange have the ability and “freedom” to choose whether or not they want to be there.

  Now in the case of SUSAN O., I will envelope my opinion by saying that I do feel for you and I think it’s really shitty that you have to experience what you are experiencing. I think that based on the information you gave here, your husband is an ass and deserves what he gets… But, you did choose to marry him. You also chose to stay in the marriage. I may be making some grand, insensitive assumptions here and maybe I’m an ass by thinking there were probably some indications that your husband wasn’t trust worthy. Maybe on the surface he was a complete saint, an expert at deception. If that is the case, I think it is the exception to the rule and I think you should sue him and I hope you get an shit-load of money. But I don’t think that makes him a criminal, just a lying piece of shit that should lose his reputation, his money and his worth. But the system isn’t in place for that. The community may be. Which is why we have free will. We have the opportunity to live in a community that honors this sort of moral obligation. And if we don’t honor that sense of morality, we live somewhere else. Unfortunately, I’m making this seem all so simple and clean when the reality is, it’s not. We all deal with tragedy and strife in some way, at some point in our lives. Some, more than others. But the bottom line is, it’s part of life. If we didn’t have it, what would we contrast with the good? Can it all be good, all the time?

• Tina // Dec 14, 2007 at 12:25 am

  All I ever wanted was for you to admit that there are exceptions to the rules. You have a way with words that never lets up. I appreciate everything that you say and know that we will never change each others minds. Thanks for keeping it interesting!

• Scott // Dec 14, 2007 at 12:38 am

  I understand what you were attempting to get me to do but as you’ve concluded, I don’t think we’re ever going to change one another’s minds. “exceptions to the rules” is an interesting choice of words in this instance considering I’ve been sort of pushing for an abolishment to “the rules” whereas many others have been in support of hardening down on them.

  I am adamantly against punitive measures for most crimes. I believe in rehabilitation over punishment, education over propaganda. Unfortunately I’m a minority in this belief.

  I appreciate you seeing my way with words.. I know I can be tricky in my arguments. I’ve been told that I’m unusual with the way that I define words. Semantics interests me. I see many parallels in the ways that we restrict ourselves with the use of language and the ways that we can’t seem to find more creative solutions away from archaic traditions such as the judicial system. Anyway, thanks to you as well for being a tactful engager.

• Tina // Dec 18, 2007 at 2:02 am

  I could strike up another debate with you but this topic is rather tiresome. I have really enjoyed your comments and would not mind hearing more. Your point of view on “hot topics” may not the majority but it valuable none the less.