3 ms·
The question is whether you want to deal with the STD health problem or not. Moralising doesn't get you anywhere. People are engaged in this behaviour either w
by mjburgess 6y ago
The question is whether you want to deal with the STD health problem or not. Moralising doesn't get you anywhere.
People are engaged in this behaviour either way, it doesn't require subsidy.
What you do by enabling everyone to self-monitor is solve the collective harm of harmful viruses spreading.
So do you want to preserve your moral sensibility, or do you want to stop the spread of viruses?
I think it is perfectly reasonable to say, of people who choose the former, that they aren't very praiseworthy people.
- Natsu 6y ago> Moralising doesn't get you anywhere. Society is terrible at this, though. Issues like this tend to become proxy wars for other things. I mean, look how mask wearing has become moralized. It should never have become a silly political fight, it should've been people helping people get masks and avoid disease. Instead, we have all sorts of nonsense like idiots burning masks or arresting someone alone on a deserted beach for not having a mask.
- castlecrasher2 6y agoYou're advocating taking money from those who don't participate in these health-risking activities to subsidize those who do, and you're chastising the parent post for moralizing? How absurd.
- mjburgess 6y agoIt's not a subsidy. It's the cost of avoiding public health crises.