milkass
-
Posts
17 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Recent Profile Visitors
1,306 profile views
.thumb.jpg.6afbb273a5323e0a2d33d409d8f943a1.jpg)
milkass's Achievements
-
There nothing to feel sorry for you for. You don't have HIV. The only thing wrong with you is your entitlement complex, which, admittedly, is rather pitiful, but that's the whole point.
-
Yeah .. when I'm on a forum proclaiming my right to charge society thousands of dollars a month for my sex life then you can compare my actions with yours.
-
No, you ARE victim-mongering, by equivocating between legitimate cases of victimisation and tragedy, and reckless, self destructive behaviour. If not victimising yourself, you do it indirectly by refusing to acknowledge what's going on in a community you are involved in. Thinking of me as "hateful" might help you avoid certain facts that you are apparently uncomfortable with, but it doeskin change facts.
-
Ha. Yeah I bitch about these people the way I bitch about Bernie Maddoff. I envy the richness, not the choices he made to become rich.
-
OK well that's absurd. It's not possible to contain the flu, given its asymptomatic, airbourne nature. The only way would be to quarantine everybody 100% of the time. Since this is absurd, the only practical option is for people to do the best they can not to spread it -immunisation, limiting contact etc. Also flu's don't require a lifetime of expensive drugs to treat. But hey whatever makes you feel better about your publicly funded sex life.
-
People who did not who are not trying to catch hiv on purpose have nothing to do with anything I have said .. absolutely nothing. I think you're projecting here with your victim-mongering; You're obviously so used hiding behind victimisation arguments that you deploy when when they have no relevance. A person person who intentionally catches HIV is not a victim of anything but his or her own choices. It is indeed insulting to them for you to say legitimate hiv victims should be afforded the same 'compassion' as people who intentionally got it - either by pointed choice or negligent sexual practices. I know the difference between hiv and aids. I use the the term 'anti-aids meds' because it covers two relevant medications - prep and antiretroviral drugs.
-
For those demanding I show more compassion, who am I supposed to have compassion for? What is it about a subsidized cumdump that I am supposed to feel sorry for? I'd be more inclined to feel envy for him. Who wouldn't want such a libertine sex life?
-
I can't believe you would actually say that cold's are asymptomatic and then go on to suggest that it can they can easily be contained all in the same paragraph. How are you going to contain an asymptotic, airborne virus? Are we all supposed to stay in a state of permanent quarantine to prevent the spread of the common cold? Colds and flus are just a fact of live. What does not have to be a fact of life in 2016 is the hiv virus, which is spread 99% of the time by infected semen entering an anus. There are simple ways to contain it: 1 is condoms. 2 is only having sex with people who are tested and disease free. 3 is taking medication that effectively immunizes you from AIDS. Now any of these are valid options. But I can't see how 3 is ethical if you are cannot pay for it. I'm a taxpayer and I'm allowed to express an opinion about what my taxes are paying for. I don't want to pay taxes to subsidize peoples promiscuous sex lives. I'd rather pay taxes to help HOMELESS PEOPLE or SICK PEOPLE. People do moralize about kids whose parents refuse to have them vaccinated. The are excluded from schools. Honestly they only valid argument that has been put forth against mine in the one about medicines being socialized. In a better world, all medicines would be available for everybody and excluded from profiteering. But the fact is, with the world the way it is, capitalist investment in research is the only way a lot of medicines are produced. In the future I expect that anti-hv meds will me cheap. Amoxicillin is cheap now because it has been around forever.
-
Cancer is not only a lifestyle problem. People get cancer for genetic reasons The causal link between environment, genetics and cancer is impossible to disentangle. When a lifelong smoker gets lung cancer a lot of people might say "Oh well, he brought it on himself". That's not fair ether but you can't pretend it doesn't not happens. Not having to worry about AIDS is problematic if society is paying for it. If there was a drug that immunized me from lung cancer but it cost $1500 a month and I shifted that cost onto insurance companies and tax payers so I could smoke carefree I believe people would be justifiably upset, if they new. Whatever HIV stigma is there is is being made worse by bugchasing.Really people who contracted the disease accidentally are affected as much as anyone. I show grace by being happy to pay taxes to support people who are unlucky or underprivileged. I'm not going to be gracious about paying taxes so some entitled person can be a whore.
-
I meant for a cold .. not a flu. But anyway your egample is silly. No reasonable person would expect you to stay put on a gasmask or biohazard suit to stop transferring a cold. The usual cold/flu etiquette is you stay home from work if youre too contagious, otherwize don't share people's cups, sneez in their face, avoid hugging them etc. That is a reasonable expectation. It's also a reasonable expectation that you don't ask society to pay $1500 a month so you can have anonymous sex. It's not even just you, honestly. In the scheme of things I don't care what you do. It doesn't effect me. But this general attitude now that "we don't have to worry about AIDS any more" is problematic. I'm surprised the mainstream media haven't cottoned on yet, but soon they will, and people will be stigmatising gays.
-
Actually I work so I pay cost price for antibiotics when I get a flu once every second year. I remember the last time I paid $64. So even if your analogy wasn't absurd it would still not be applicable.
-
Thanks for posting that. You have a very well rounded perspective. I know exactly what you mean about trying to "educate people". You are 100% correct that I should not generalize. I think I just overreacted when I saw some rather nihilistic thread titles. Sometimes I get the sense that it is more of a fantasy than a reality. I hope it is to be honest. Apologies for being disrespectful.
-
I'm not going to defend smoking but smokers do pay a massive tax on cigarettes.. in australia for example 70% of a pack of cigs goes straight to the government ... and insurance companies will ask you if you are a smoker as well .... you don't pay a tax every time you risk getting HIV by having bareback sex
-
Thanks for whoever it was that clarified "deviance" ... there's nothing essentially wrong with being a deviant. But you know I mean if cannot afford to pay for the costs of your deviance then it's like saying to society "hey ... i'm gonna go out and have this awesome carefree sex life and you are going to pay for it" It's true you can make analogies with welfare moms and obese people etc ... but I mean what's your point? That you are ethically comparable to an obese welfare slob? Being a sloth should not be subsidized by society but Imean eating disorders can be complex. Eating is a necessary part of life and it's easy to overeat / under-eat if you have depression or anxiety issues metaolic issues, some fat people are perfectly healthy. I'm not saying it's good to be overweight, but eating addiction is a thing and I'm not convinced that your insatiable need to have random cum up your ass is really comparable .... smoking yeah but I mean smokers at least pay taxes on their cigarettes whille they are alive ..catching HIV intentionally safe in the knowledge that there is a medical safety net would be like if tax payers were paying you to smoke...
-
Obviously I'm not talking about people who didn't intentionally catch HIV.