5 ms·

Pence particularly caused a HIV outbreak: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mike-pence-indiana-hiv_us_57f53b9be4b002a7312022ef http://www.huffingtonpost.com/e

Pence particularly caused a HIV outbreak: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mike-pence-indiana-hiv_us_57f53b9be4b002a7312022ef http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mike-pence-indiana-hiv_u... And for the rest: Anyone who wants to remove Obamacare without having a more inclusive plan ready.

BeetleB 10y ago
>Pence particularly caused a HIV outbreak: I read the article, and I'm sorry, I do not think you know the meaning of the word "cause". He did not cause any outbreak. Not providing help is not going to cause anyone to suffer. What causes people to suffer are other factors (for HIV, it's usually unprotected sex, careless intermingling of blood, etc). Refusing assistance doesn't cause people to die. The disease kills them. Now if you make a case that Pence was directly involved in infecting them, then yes, he caused it. Assistance is exactly what it is: It is help. My refusing to help someone does not mean I caused his misery. Nor is it punishment, another word often used in these situations. While I disagree with Pence's actions, I can also point out false allegations made against him.
- Mithaldu 10y ago
  I said he caused an outbreak. Yes, he did not personally infect anybody, however he removed the testing, and he acted directly in delaying aid that would've kept it under control, thus allowing it to become an outbreak. Being responsible for one's inaction is a thing, especially so when one is in a position whose job description it is to be responsible for such things. If you're a chicken farmer and you fail to feed your chickens, then you did cause your chickens to starve. E: Thanks for the reply though. It was fascinatingly insightful for me.
  - BeetleB 10y ago
    >I said he caused an outbreak. And I still disagree. He refused to prevent one. >Being responsible for one's inaction is a thing, Yes, he is responsible for his inactions. Nevertheless, he did not cause an outbreak. >If you're a chicken farmer and you fail to feed your chickens, then you did cause your chickens to starve. I'm afraid not. I can be held responsible for not feeding them, but I did not starve them (unless I prevented them from getting food by confining them). Sorry, but my goal is not to be obtuse or difficult. When this usage of the world causes problems with people sympathetic to your view, you can understand its ineffectiveness in convincing anyone of your perspective. If I were organizing a campaign to convince Indiana voters not to reelect him (assuming he were not the VP), I would exclude people with your rhetoric. It will cause people to side with him more.
    - Mithaldu 10y ago
      The reality of the matter is that as governor he has a moral obligation to keep all of his citizens as safe as possible. He, at one point, chose to reduce the safety of his citizens, and at another chose not to protect his citizens. These choices of his directly led to the outbreak. Whether you are unhappy about this reality being stated is no concern of mine, since, as stated elsewhere, nothing i can say will actually have an effect on the situation. I'm just a dude who's watching a country prepare to send multiple of his friends to the chopping block just because they had the misfortune of being born in a place where "socialist" is an insult.
      - BeetleB 10y ago
        >The reality of the matter is that as governor he has a moral obligation to keep all of his citizens as safe as possible. And by that criterion, every governor has failed. >Whether you are unhappy about this reality being stated is no concern of mine, since, as stated elsewhere, nothing i can say will actually have an effect on the situation. So you are saying all this because...? >I'm just a dude who's watching a country prepare to send multiple of his friends to the chopping block just because they had the misfortune of being born in a place where "socialist" is an insult. I'm failing to understand your perspective. I'll ask the same question: You felt the need to write that because...?
    - epmaybe 10y ago
      In this situation, I'm not sure what the functional difference is between causing an outbreak and refusing to prevent one. Let me walk through this (for my own benefit). People get HIV/Hep C from IV drug abuse. Needle exchanges are a way to get infected needles off the street. There was a statewide ban on needle exchange programs. Pence agreed with this sentiment and voted for public health funding cuts (2011). 2013, Pence is governor, and planned parenthood in Scott County shuts down. January 2015, outbreak happened, and cause was identified. April 2015, Pence allowed a temporary needle exchange in Scott County. So this makes me think that, yes, Pence supported things that led to the outbreak. Inaction is still an action, is it not? But at the same time, he changed his mind (after 3 months, but better late than never) once he realized it was no longer gubernatorially (is that a word?) feasible to stick to his position.
  - codesuela 10y ago
    humans have more agency than chickens

BeetleB 10y ago

>Pence particularly caused a HIV outbreak: I read the article, and I'm sorry, I do not think you know the meaning of the word "cause". He did not cause any outbreak. Not providing help is not going to cause anyone to suffer. What causes people to suffer are other factors (for HIV, it's usually unprotected sex, careless intermingling of blood, etc). Refusing assistance doesn't cause people to die. The disease kills them. Now if you make a case that Pence was directly involved in infecting them, then yes, he caused it. Assistance is exactly what it is: It is help. My refusing to help someone does not mean I caused his misery. Nor is it punishment, another word often used in these situations. While I disagree with Pence's actions, I can also point out false allegations made against him.

Mithaldu 10y ago
I said he caused an outbreak. Yes, he did not personally infect anybody, however he removed the testing, and he acted directly in delaying aid that would've kept it under control, thus allowing it to become an outbreak. Being responsible for one's inaction is a thing, especially so when one is in a position whose job description it is to be responsible for such things. If you're a chicken farmer and you fail to feed your chickens, then you did cause your chickens to starve. E: Thanks for the reply though. It was fascinatingly insightful for me.
- BeetleB 10y ago
  >I said he caused an outbreak. And I still disagree. He refused to prevent one. >Being responsible for one's inaction is a thing, Yes, he is responsible for his inactions. Nevertheless, he did not cause an outbreak. >If you're a chicken farmer and you fail to feed your chickens, then you did cause your chickens to starve. I'm afraid not. I can be held responsible for not feeding them, but I did not starve them (unless I prevented them from getting food by confining them). Sorry, but my goal is not to be obtuse or difficult. When this usage of the world causes problems with people sympathetic to your view, you can understand its ineffectiveness in convincing anyone of your perspective. If I were organizing a campaign to convince Indiana voters not to reelect him (assuming he were not the VP), I would exclude people with your rhetoric. It will cause people to side with him more.
  - Mithaldu 10y ago
    The reality of the matter is that as governor he has a moral obligation to keep all of his citizens as safe as possible. He, at one point, chose to reduce the safety of his citizens, and at another chose not to protect his citizens. These choices of his directly led to the outbreak. Whether you are unhappy about this reality being stated is no concern of mine, since, as stated elsewhere, nothing i can say will actually have an effect on the situation. I'm just a dude who's watching a country prepare to send multiple of his friends to the chopping block just because they had the misfortune of being born in a place where "socialist" is an insult.
    - BeetleB 10y ago
      >The reality of the matter is that as governor he has a moral obligation to keep all of his citizens as safe as possible. And by that criterion, every governor has failed. >Whether you are unhappy about this reality being stated is no concern of mine, since, as stated elsewhere, nothing i can say will actually have an effect on the situation. So you are saying all this because...? >I'm just a dude who's watching a country prepare to send multiple of his friends to the chopping block just because they had the misfortune of being born in a place where "socialist" is an insult. I'm failing to understand your perspective. I'll ask the same question: You felt the need to write that because...?
  - epmaybe 10y ago
    In this situation, I'm not sure what the functional difference is between causing an outbreak and refusing to prevent one. Let me walk through this (for my own benefit). People get HIV/Hep C from IV drug abuse. Needle exchanges are a way to get infected needles off the street. There was a statewide ban on needle exchange programs. Pence agreed with this sentiment and voted for public health funding cuts (2011). 2013, Pence is governor, and planned parenthood in Scott County shuts down. January 2015, outbreak happened, and cause was identified. April 2015, Pence allowed a temporary needle exchange in Scott County. So this makes me think that, yes, Pence supported things that led to the outbreak. Inaction is still an action, is it not? But at the same time, he changed his mind (after 3 months, but better late than never) once he realized it was no longer gubernatorially (is that a word?) feasible to stick to his position.
- codesuela 10y ago
  humans have more agency than chickens