3 ms·

If this ever materializes as a widely available, easily administered vaccine, can you imagine the uproar from so-called religious folks in the US? A vaccine whi

If this ever materializes as a widely available, easily administered vaccine, can you imagine the uproar from so-called religious folks in the US? A vaccine which safely prevents one from contracting an STD that is a killer of millions. These people are going to lose their shit as they race to the nearest camera to denounce science for supporting "immoral" sexual activity (read: anything but abstinence) or worse, homosexuality (because HIV can really only be gotten from gays). It was already pretty bad when the vaccine came out for HPV. In this case it's not hard for me to imagine Republicans blocking any aid to India or African countries (where the incidence of AIDS is highest) that comes in the form of an HIV vaccine, insisting instead that the money be spent on ineffectual abstinence efforts. Maybe I'm being unnecessarily cynical.

dandelany 16y ago
Maybe I'm being unnecessarily cynical. Yup.
- jessedhillon 16y ago
  I don't think I'm being cynical but I'm open to the possibility. The response from the religious groups to the HPV vaccine was very much along the lines of what I laid out in my original comment. Here's a Catholic perspective on the matter: "...and by eliminating one element of risk it might act as a green light for promiscuous behaviour,” said the Catholic Church spokesman. Taken from, http://www.christiantoday.com/article/catholic.church.warns.new.vaccine.may.increase.underage.sex/4592.htm http://www.christiantoday.com/article/catholic.church.warns.... It's pretty amazing that, on Hacker News, a glib throwaway comment like this gets any votes whatsoever. If you disagree with what I wrote you should at least be able to take a minute to write a few well-formed sentences that make a point, instead of leaving this comment that adds nothing.
  - dexen 16y ago
    There are two groups of reasons to refrain from promiscuous behavior. One is the high-visibility, high-impact kind of reasons, like risk of infections. The other is the low-visibility, high-impact kind of reasons, like effects on morality, family relationships and whatnot. Now the other group, being low-visibility, is much harder to convince people about, than the high-visibility group of reasons. Whoever teaches people to refrain from promiscuity may be naturally fond on the high-visibility group of reasons as an easy argument. Should the high-visibility group be dismounted (by successful vaccinations, in this case), it suddenly becomes harder to get the message through. Which was expressed in a slightly roundabound way with, ``and by eliminating [[the highly-visible risk]] [[people may feel greenlighted]] for promiscuous behavior''. In short, a vaccine by itself isn't a message in any direction (it's neutral), but lessens one of messages left there by evolution (STDs). Uh, that's my take, anyway.
ars 16y ago
If you really believe what you wrote (and I have a hard time believing you believe it) then you are reading reddit (or sites like it) WAY too much.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
Tyrannosaurs 16y ago
Surely they'd need to distinguish between what Chris Morris (satirically) referred to as Good AIDS (from blood transfusions and the like) and Bad AIDS (from gay sex or drug abuse)... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFNs2mOkKzc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFNs2mOkKzc

dandelany 16y ago

Maybe I'm being unnecessarily cynical. Yup.

jessedhillon 16y ago
I don't think I'm being cynical but I'm open to the possibility. The response from the religious groups to the HPV vaccine was very much along the lines of what I laid out in my original comment. Here's a Catholic perspective on the matter: "...and by eliminating one element of risk it might act as a green light for promiscuous behaviour,” said the Catholic Church spokesman. Taken from, http://www.christiantoday.com/article/catholic.church.warns.new.vaccine.may.increase.underage.sex/4592.htm http://www.christiantoday.com/article/catholic.church.warns.... It's pretty amazing that, on Hacker News, a glib throwaway comment like this gets any votes whatsoever. If you disagree with what I wrote you should at least be able to take a minute to write a few well-formed sentences that make a point, instead of leaving this comment that adds nothing.
- dexen 16y ago
  There are two groups of reasons to refrain from promiscuous behavior. One is the high-visibility, high-impact kind of reasons, like risk of infections. The other is the low-visibility, high-impact kind of reasons, like effects on morality, family relationships and whatnot. Now the other group, being low-visibility, is much harder to convince people about, than the high-visibility group of reasons. Whoever teaches people to refrain from promiscuity may be naturally fond on the high-visibility group of reasons as an easy argument. Should the high-visibility group be dismounted (by successful vaccinations, in this case), it suddenly becomes harder to get the message through. Which was expressed in a slightly roundabound way with, ``and by eliminating [[the highly-visible risk]] [[people may feel greenlighted]] for promiscuous behavior''. In short, a vaccine by itself isn't a message in any direction (it's neutral), but lessens one of messages left there by evolution (STDs). Uh, that's my take, anyway.

ars 16y ago

If you really believe what you wrote (and I have a hard time believing you believe it) then you are reading reddit (or sites like it) WAY too much.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

Tyrannosaurs 16y ago

Surely they'd need to distinguish between what Chris Morris (satirically) referred to as Good AIDS (from blood transfusions and the like) and Bad AIDS (from gay sex or drug abuse)... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFNs2mOkKzc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFNs2mOkKzc