-snip-
You're not only terribly wrong you're also a terrible human being.
Aaaaaah, so now you are giving an argument from emotion, to an argument of rationality. Very honest debating tactics.
You try to emotionize a pretty simple concept: Life has consequences, so deal with it.
It's not like there aren't 9999999999 dangers humans face every single day. Why should 1 person externalize his own dangers to others, that is the real evil thing to do.
terrible: bad, dangerous, desperate, extreme, serious, severe
Why do you think it's a question of emotions? It's a pure question of rationality. You're a human being (I guess) and you're both dangerous and extreme, the word terrible applies rather well I'd say.
1/ Don't you think that getting the aids in enough for punishment?
That is the punishment, it is the consequence of their poor actions. It's nature's way of punishing people for bad behavior.
Just as a smoker getting lungh cancer is a selfish hypocrite for running to the government and asking for free healthcare, for making his own poor bad decisions, but want others to pay for it. In other words they dont want to assume responsibility for their actions.
Ok so here:
1/ We already discussed the fact that "responsibility" is FAR from being clear. You can get aids or lung cancer without being responsible of it! And are you even aware that no one gets "free healthcare" we all pay for it? And do you understand that you can smoke 10 cigs a day, have lung cancer and the two might be COMPLETELY UNRELATED or are you so terrible (see it works well) that you can't even imagine something not absolute?
2/You haven't answered this point. HIV isn't enough as a punishment they also have to be ejected from society?
2/ We agree on the fact that in many cases people who got the aids aren't responsible. How do you decide when one is responsible then?
YES.
I dont know: an investigation. A court. It's not like things cant be proven or debated in modern society.
Besides HIV can be probably cured one day, so this is not like it's a permanent punishment, but until that day,
people should be not incentivized to pursue foolish actions.This is a temporary threat management to say, in order to limit the bad behavior and incentivize the good.
Lol?
People are "incentivized" to get aids?
The fact that people with aids can work is for you an incentive for them to not take care of their health when they fuck?
So you're actually saying that A CERTAIN DEATH isn't refraining them from doing dangerous things but that not working would be a good threat?
You even understand how stupid that sounds? Because that's exactly what you're saying.
You're saying that rejecting HIV positive people is a good way to limit bad behaviour...
3/ And the most important, you believe that it should be "survival of the strongest" no?
No. I believe that people have to hold personal responsibility.
I do want to help people who have became victims that have
not been through their own fault. (Rape victims, sick children, etc...)
But
I don't want to help idiots, who have caused the problems for themselves (Smokers getting lungh cancer, Fat people getting diabetes, etc...)
Ok I see what you mean.
You believe that individuals are completely free of their choices. So that they should take alone responsibility of what happens. It's logical.
Problem is that as far as we know it is not the case.
Did you ever heard of neuromarketing?
It's a very important scientific field of marketing, the goal is to use neuroscience to influence people. To manipulate them.
It's now extremely well developed and at heart of our daily life.
The results are terrifying, most of our consuming actions are unconscious. You buy this or that not because you rationally want to, but because hundreds of very small manipulation leads you to do it.
Sadly I would have trouble advising you lectures in English... I can only recommend you Pierre Bourdieux work.
Neuromarketing is just an example.
What you believe, that humans are completely free of their actions, is basically false, and proved wrong.
We leave in a society built on systems, and those systems have gained so much influence that they partially control our life and ways of thinking.
To think that ones is free so completely responsible is not right, it's just... A social convention, nothing more.
To give you an example: would you say there is a difference of judgement to have between a young woman who killed her father who was raping her on a daily basis and a man who just killed his neighbour because he was angry?