3 ms·
Perhaps unavoidable, but we shouldn't gloat about it either. In principle, people who are willing to tolerate certain kinds of risks from each other should be a
by cat_plus_plus 4y ago
Perhaps unavoidable, but we shouldn't gloat about it either. In principle, people who are willing to tolerate certain kinds of risks from each other should be able to live in voluntary communities and those who unwilling should be able to stay away. With COVID millions would have taken the risks and millions of others would have gladly isolated until vaccines arrived, both groups were denied important agency to choose what they thought was the least bad option in a bad situation. Monkeypox and AIDS can be largely eradicated through serial monogamy/monoandry with testing before starting a new relationship, should we start arresting people who don't comply?
- hyperpape 4y agoYour analogy is badly misguided. Having non-monogamous sex has a risk of getting/spreading HIV. Being around people has a risk of getting/spreading tuberculosis. Those are analogous. The direct analogy in this case is criminal non-disclosure of HIV positivity to sexual partners. While you will find some disagreement about second order effects of laws against it, and it raises serious questions, there have been prosecutions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_transmission_of_HIV https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_transmission_of_HIV.
- cat_plus_plus 4y agoSure, and we shouldn't gloat about either case. Ideally should be vaccines and treatments for HIV, so that someone who had too much to drink and had sex without discussing their medical history could be treated like a jerk rather than a full criminal. It could be that we can think of no other way to safeguard ourselves, but we should keep thinking how we can respect everyone preferences. Maybe HIV positive bars where everyone understands issues from the start.