Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bono)
    You are still crossing the road, hence there is a far greater need to cross it than to have sex with someone who is at a higher risk.

    If the giver knows he is at a higher than average risk for an STD, although the reciever is willing to take that risk, IMO the giver should not partake in anal intercourse.
    Fine, what about smoking? *A person* smokes, which may harm the health of those around him, including ending up killing himself but the local shop still sells him the cigs.

    There is a *need* or a desire to smoke, like love between 2 couples that have anal sex.


    It is not as if, all homosexuals have a *need* to have anal sex.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 2776)
    Fine, what about smoking? *A person* smokes, which may harm the health of those around him, including ending up killing himself but the local shop still sells him the cigs.

    There is a *need* or a desire to smoke, like love between 2 couples that have anal sex.


    It is not as if, all homosexuals have a *need* to have anal sex.
    There isn't a need to smoke.

    Desire is also different to need, you can't just say "*need* or desire" in implying that either word means the same thing. Completely different.

    In addition, you chose a bad example as regards to the smoking one. The risk of acquiring lung cancer after breathing one person's smoke on one occasion is virtually zero.

    My example about the gay couple having sex did clearly say that the giver was at a higher than average risk, hence my opinion that the giver (potentially) should avoid partaking in anal sex; even if the reciever is willing to take the risk. It is the moral responsiblity that influences my opinion. I don't think the "but he said it was ok, don't have a go at me" argument is appropriate when potentially someone's health is at stake.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    No reply.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    There is however always the case where one partner hasn't informed the partner of the number of partners and the risk that they have. This would surely mean that partner 1 is not knowingly taking a risk if they believe the partner 2 has had one partner and the sex was always protected even if partner 2 is lieing it is not the fault of partner one. Personally I think that if someone who knowingly has HIV has unprotected sex with someone without first informing them that an attempted murder, manslaughter or murder charge should be bought agaist them because they are knowingly trying/suceeding in infecting someone with a deadly virus.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by randdom)
    There is however always the case where one partner hasn't informed the partner of the number of partners and the risk that they have. This would surely mean that partner 1 is not knowingly taking a risk if they believe the partner 2 has had one partner and the sex was always protected even if partner 2 is lieing it is not the fault of partner one. Personally I think that if someone who knowingly has HIV has unprotected sex with someone without first informing them that an attempted murder, manslaughter or murder charge should be bought agaist them because they are knowingly trying/suceeding in infecting someone with a deadly virus.
    I agree.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fairydust)
    I can't stand people who are predudice against others, if you want to be in a gay/lesbian relationship then why not? Love is love and you cant change who you fall in love with.
    Yeh I guess some are just a little scared of differences and change, in the same way some people don't like people of another country, or culture. Hopefully once people see through some of the stereotypes then they'll come to a more understanding conclusion. A bit sad, reflecting on this thread, that in a discussion about why (if it is) being gay is wrong, a lot of posts were about sex lol! Hopefully things are changing; hey Jarrod aka Mr Gay UK won The Games !
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    i dont have anything against it, its ok and i think prejudice against it is wrong
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bono)
    There isn't a need to smoke.

    Desire is also different to need, you can't just say "*need* or desire" in implying that either word means the same thing. Completely different.

    In addition, you chose a bad example as regards to the smoking one. The risk of acquiring lung cancer after breathing one person's smoke on one occasion is virtually zero.

    My example about the gay couple having sex did clearly say that the giver was at a higher than average risk, hence my opinion that the giver (potentially) should avoid partaking in anal sex; even if the reciever is willing to take the risk. It is the moral responsiblity that influences my opinion. I don't think the "but he said it was ok, don't have a go at me" argument is appropriate when potentially someone's health is at stake.
    Tell that to the people who are addicted.

    You must see the bigger picture, by looking at the smaller details and belittling the other's analogies, you are not conducive to the argument.

    Your thinking of someone willing to take the risk of death, after an experience perprotrated by another person, is cruel (which has a chance of killing the participants).

    THAT is the general idea of yuor argument. A close think about this situation brings up many many real world analogies which has a similar situation such as this generic one.

    WHO are we to condemn others? If they take the risk, and willingly knows it, then they have my blessings.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bono)
    No reply.
    I have a life, besides posting on the forums all day.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by randdom)
    There is however always the case where one partner hasn't informed the partner of the number of partners and the risk that they have. This would surely mean that partner 1 is not knowingly taking a risk if they believe the partner 2 has had one partner and the sex was always protected even if partner 2 is lieing it is not the fault of partner one. Personally I think that if someone who knowingly has HIV has unprotected sex with someone without first informing them that an attempted murder, manslaughter or murder charge should be bought agaist them because they are knowingly trying/suceeding in infecting someone with a deadly virus.
    Hmm, this is a tricky situation. We are talking about motives, and the motive to knowingly kill other people. Attempted murder is a possibility, any others are unfounded.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 2776)
    WHO are we to condemn others? If they take the risk, and willingly knows it, then they have my blessings.
    As humans who try to abide by morals and would like to prevent such deaths?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bono)
    As humans who try to abide by morals and would like to prevent such deaths?
    WHO are we to impose such morals unto others?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 2776)
    WHO are we to impose such morals unto others?
    My last answer still applies to this question.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bono)
    My last answer still applies to this question.
    Not really.
    Whose morals?

    What morals?

    Prevention of deaths...such a wide term, so easy to refute.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 2776)
    Hmm, this is a tricky situation. We are talking about motives, and the motive to knowingly kill other people. Attempted murder is a possibility, any others are unfounded.
    I don't know if you premeditatidly decide that you aren't going to tell your partner that you have HIV i believe this meant that you want them to die eventually if you decide to have unprotected sex surely this should be murder because you are infecting them as a means of killing them. If someone injected someone with the virus that would be murder why is this different?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by randdom)
    I don't know if you premeditatidly decide that you aren't going to tell your partner that you have HIV i believe this meant that you want them to die eventually if you decide to have unprotected sex surely this should be murder because you are infecting them as a means of killing them. If someone injected someone with the virus that would be murder why is this different?
    Would it? So the sharing of infected intravenous needles by drug addicts can be said to be a murder charge then?

    For it to tbe a murder charge, you must show as you said, a premeditated plan. Forgetting to tell that person/pleading ignorance of self afflictions, is pretty hard to prove.

    Otherwise, at best it would be manslaughter. And that is disbutable, as the victim hasn't lost the life yet.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 2776)

    What morals?

    Prevention of deaths...such a wide term, so easy to refute.
    The moral that if one can knowingly prevent a death, then he should do so. (Presuming that he can do so without risking himself).

    "Prevention of deaths...such a wide term, so easy to refute" - Yes, the wider the better.

    BTW: The inclusion of the term "refute" in that sentence doesn't seem to fit in, in allowing it to make sense. Refute means "to prove wrong".

    Prove wrong prevention of deaths? Or do you mean:

    "The moral of one should try to prevent deaths if able, is such a wide term, and it can easily be refuted."

    ?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bono)
    The moral that if one can knowingly prevent a death, then he should do so. (Presuming that he can do so without risking himself).

    "Prevention of deaths...such a wide term, so easy to refute" - Yes, the wider the better.

    BTW: The inclusion of the term "refute" in that sentence doesn't seem to fit in, in allowing it to make sense. Refute means "to prove wrong".

    Prove wrong prevention of deaths? Or do you mean:

    "The moral of one should try to prevent deaths if able, is such a wide term, and it can easily be refuted."

    ?
    You "forgot" my question: "Whose morals?"

    If we abided by the moral of prevention of deaths, then what about Abortion? What about euthanesia? What about smoking? What about drinking? What about wars?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 2776)
    For it to tbe a murder charge, you must show as you said, a premeditated plan. Forgetting to tell that person/pleading ignorance of self afflictions, is pretty hard to prove.
    In my view your logic doesn't make sense.

    You say that we are nobody to impose such morals on people in these situations.

    So, by this logic, if a person had HIV (knowingly), used a needle, and then let his friend use the needle who said "I'm willing to take the risk", without telling him he had HIV before hand, then this would be ok?

    Purely because of the "but he was willing to take the risk, who are you to say that I should refuse him of his request"? After all, technically there was no "lie" involved?

    Personally I think morals about one's responsability for caring about the health/safety of others needs to be enforced.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bono)
    You are saying that someone who irrationally kills someone with no plan, cannot be charged with murder?
    No, I did not say that, its you.

    Read the post first, before typing please.
 
 
 
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.