A few comments on AIDS, which just had its 40th anniversary

[Craig234]

I've already shown the post where you minimalized their actions by saying not to blame them. And your only defense for that statement was some vague reference to some of them who got shot, raped, or robbed - which is a totally separate issue from the fact that they caused the spread of AIDS by knowingly and voluntarily engaging in behaviors that were known to have a high risk for spreading AIDS.

Yes, I said not to blame them *for what the government did wrong.* I never said not to blame them for their condom choices. It's pretty clear I'm wasting my time though.

 

[Randomutation]

Yes, I said not to blame them *for what the government did wrong.*

That's not what you said..
And even if it was, it would have been completely irrelevant anyway because nothing I said blamed them for anything the government did or failed to do. I blamed them only for their own actions - not those of the government.
I blamed them for knowingly and voluntarily engaging in behaviors that were known to have a high risk for spreading AIDS. Period.

 

[Craig234]

That's not what you said..
And even if it was, it would have been completely irrelevant anyway because nothing I said blamed them for anything the government did or failed to do. I blamed them only for their own actions - not those of the government.
I blamed them for knowingly and voluntarily engaging in behaviors that were known to have a high risk for spreading AIDS. Period.

Yes, it is. Let's review what was actually said.

It was pointed out that Reagan had caused a lot of harm neglecting to respond as president to AIDS. *You* raised the issue of gay people who refused condoms no one had defended, and demanded that Reagan could be criticized ONLY if those people were said to be equal in blame.

You want to deny that's what you said? I'll quote you: : "As long as you are just as critical of those who persisted in voluntary behaviors known to spread the disease."

Nowhere did I deny the harm the people who refused condoms did. I said that I'm not going to blame their wrong actions that caused harm as *equal* the harm of the president who was an enemy of fighting AIDS, essentially on the side of the disease; that the wrongs of some gay people who fought condoms did not have anything to do with Reagan's wrongs and you were wrong to try to mix them together.

When I said you were blaming the victim, my point was that gay people (mostly, and others) were the victim of Reagan's wrongs, and even gay people who refused condoms and caused harm, were still victims of the Reagan policies, and demanding Reagan can't be criticized unless they are called equally bad is trying to blame them instead of Reagan.

They're victims in terms of Reagan's actions, even if they're also wrongdoers if they rejected condoms. You don't have to try to change the subject from Reagan to the condom rejecters in order to discuss the blame Reagan deserves. The condom rejecters DID cause a lot of harm, and that is a separate issue you are wrong to try to use to deflect blame for Reagan.

Nowhere did I minimize what they did. What I did was to criticize you trying to change the subject from Reagan to them, and doing so my misrepresenting what I said. Saying as I did, that you should not conflate the government and the citizens' issues", is not saying what you claimed, minimizing the harm they did. That was a lie. What I said was that it's a different issue that does NOT excuse Reagan's wrongs.

You insisted on misrepresenting what I said, such as when I said that regardless of their wrongs they were victims of Reagan's bad policies, you misrepresented that as my saying they had no blame and were only victims of Reagan.

That wasn't your only error. You also wrongly claimed they were at fault for not completely stopping the spread of AIDS - and indeed you implied ONLY they, not Reagan, had any blame. Want to deny it? Here's the quote: "It depends on how many times you try to minimize the guilt of those who actually caused the disease to spread." They 'actually' caused it, no mention of Reagan's response as a problem.

I pointed out to you the practical issue of dealing with issues like AIDS or the Coronavirus. Both could have been 'stopped' if people stopped having sex or sharing any needles in the case of AIDS, or any contact breathing near each other in the case of Coronavirus.

As a practical matter, expecting everyone to be that safe is not realistic. And the government has responsibilities to try to do their part, and if they are terribly negligent and cause a lot of harm by not doing so, it's blaming the victims of that to demand that they get the blame instead of the government, even if they are also at fault.

A citizen who is a drug addict being reckless with needle sharing, an ignorant and angry gay person refusing a condom, a trump nut angrily refusing a mask, are all people who are doing wrong and helping spread the virus; but I have a lower standard for those citizens' bad behaviors than I do for a president who is terribly negligent like Reagan or trump, and I don't support excusing the presidents because citizens did wrong.

As I said, it's two different issues. They drug addict who shares a needle is wrong and helped spread AIDS. That has nothing to do with the issue of Reagan's actions. That's my point, and that point is NOT minimizing the harm the drug addict did as you wrongly said.

 

[Randomutation]

For all your sound and fury accusing others of lying, your own post is so full of lies I hardly know where to begin.

*You* raised the issue of gay people who refused condoms no one had defended, and demanded that Reagan could be criticized ONLY if those people were said to be equal in blame.

No, I did not DEMAND anything. I only stated what they SHOULD do. Your labelling that a "demand" is a lie.

. . . demanding Reagan can't be criticized unless they are called equally bad is trying to blame them instead of Reagan.

No. I did not try to blame them INSTEAD OF Reagan. I said we should be “just as critical” of them as Reagan. You changed “just as” to “instead of”. By changing what I said, you lied.

you misrepresented that as my saying they had no blame and were only victims of Reagan.

No it is not true that I “misrepresented that as [you] saying they had no blame”. You yourself were the one who said “Don't try to blame the victim here and conflate the government and the citizens' issues.”
If that’s not what you meant to say, then you should have corrected it rather than blaming me for your own ambiguity. But instead of simply correcting it, you chose instead to falsely claim that I had lied. Your false claim was a lie.

You also wrongly claimed they were at fault for not completely stopping the spread of AID

I did say they could have stopped the spread of the disease. But that’s a fact. They were the ones that were spreading the disease. And they were doing so through voluntary behavior. So if they would have voluntarily stopped the voluntary behavior they would have stopped the spread of the disease. Logic 101.

and indeed you implied ONLY they, not Reagan, had any blame. Want to deny it?

Of course, I deny. It is just another version of the same lie I caught you trying to get away with above.

As a practical matter, expecting everyone to be that safe is not realistic.

The fact that they refused to stop the behavior that was spreading the disease does not change the fact that they could have done so. In fact, it’s their refusal to stop that constitutes their guilt. It is illogical to try and use their refusal to do it as an argument against the fact that they could have done it. They could have stopped the behavior that caused the disease to spread. They could have stopped the spread of AIDS far quicker and much more effectively than anything the government could have done. They chose not to do it.

 

[Craig234]

For all your sound and fury accusing others of lying, your own post is so full of lies I hardly know where to begin.

No, I did not DEMAND anything. I only stated what they SHOULD do. Your labelling that a "demand" is a lie.

So, your response to being called on a lie isn't to tell the truth, but to lash out and desperately look to call other things a lie, even you have to lie to do it.

You said that Reagan's wrongs should only be criticized if others are equally criticized as well. That is demanding it.

No. I did not try to blame them INSTEAD OF Reagan. I said we should be “just as critical” of them as Reagan. You changed “just as” to “instead of”. By changing what I said, you lied.

No, you simply didn't understand the language used. By saying instead of Reagan, it meant you were shifting the focus to them instead of where I had put it only on Reagan. I agree with you that you said to criticize them equally.

No it is not true that I “misrepresented that as [you] saying they had no blame”. You yourself were the one who said “Don't try to blame the victim here and conflate the government and the citizens' issues.”
If that’s not what you meant to say, then you should have corrected it rather than blaming me for your own ambiguity. But instead of simply correcting it, you chose instead to falsely claim that I had lied. Your false claim was a lie.

You're just digging yourself into a hole. I never said, as this is the third or fourth time correcting you, that some people weren't guilty of bad behavior that worsened the spread of AIDS, any the phrase 'blame the victim' referred to you responding to criticisms of Reagan by pointing at their wrongdoing, trying to blame the victims of Reagan's inaction whatever wrong they had done. You were wrong, and misrepresented what I said.

I did say they could have stopped the spread of the disease. But that’s a fact. They were the ones that were spreading the disease. And they were doing so through voluntary behavior. So if they would have voluntarily stopped the voluntary behavior they would have stopped the spread of the disease. Logic 101.

I argued that your statement here was clueless, and it is. I explained that as well which you also ignored.

Coronovirus could have been completely stopped almost immediately with almost no infections if everyone did not breath air from infected people. As I said, as a *PRACTICAL* matter, you can't get people in society to act 'perfectly' in terms of safety. The fact that citizens don't act safely is not an excuse for the government, and not a reasonable demand for how to solve the problem.

People want to socialize, and some take risks on Coronavirus. People want to have sex, and some took risks on AIDS. Some people get drug addictions and shared needles, taking risks. And some people explicitly refused condoms just as some people explicitly refused to wear masks, or help things like big wedding super-spreader events defying public safety.

You can acknowledge the harm from various bad behavior, but it's not any excuse or related to bad government policy. If a state banned cities from mask requirements, that caused harm, and you can't point at people refusing masks and say you can only criticize the government if you also criticize them equally.

If you had asked for me to agree with criticism of people who caused harm, I would have. The issue is, you said Reagan could ONLY be criticized if you also criticized others who did other harmful things - which is wrong - and you demanded they be EQUALLY criticized, when the blame might not not be equal.

 

[Craig234]

Of course, I deny. It is just another version of the same lie I caught you trying to get away with above.

When you say one thing one place and something else another, you can't just pick and choose which to deny saying the other. As I said, you initially did say Reagan and others should be equally criticized. But my comment here is about what you said later when you ONLY blamed others, to quote you yet again: "It depends on how many times you try to minimize the guilt of those who actually caused the disease to spread."

Putting aside your repeated lie that I minimized their guilt, all you said that was that others "actually" caused the disease to spread". That is only blaming them, with no mention of any wrongdoing by Reagan, making them the only problem. It's making Reagans' actions a non-issue not getting any mention and saying the problem "actually" is others.

The fact that they refused to stop the behavior that was spreading the disease does not change the fact that they could have done so. In fact, it’s their refusal to stop that constitutes their guilt. It is illogical to try and use their refusal to do it as an argument against the fact that they could have done it. They could have stopped the behavior that caused the disease to spread. They could have stopped the spread of AIDS far quicker and much more effectively than anything the government could have done. They chose not to do it.

There's a big difference you refuse to understand between human beings who act imperfectly on socializing, on sex, on drug use, and the mistakes they make, which are all but impossible to actually totally prevent 100%, and the utter, cold-blooded negligence on policy by the president of the country to make any effort to address the problem. His only excuse was his not caring about the people, making him a lot worse.

So your argument is, with a tiny acknowledgement Reagan deserves some blame, the real issue is people who took risks on sex and drug use. No. The behavior of those people IS a problem and caused a lot of harm, but that in no way mitigates Reagan's cold-blooded inaction, and does not have to be mentioned in response to criticism of Reagan as if it mitigates it.

 

[Randomutation]

You said that Reagan's wrongs should only be criticized if others are equally criticized as well. That is demanding it.

That’s as illogical as claiming that I DEMAND that people exercise when all I said is that people SHOULD exercise.
Your excuse is rejected. You lied when you said I demanded that others be criticized. .

No, you simply didn't understand the language used. By saying instead of Reagan, it meant you were shifting the focus to them instead of where I had put it only on Reagan. I agree with you that you said to criticize them equally.

No, it’s not a problem of “understanding the language”. You specifically accused me of “trying to blame them instead of Reagan.” There’s no problem understanding the language there. Those were your exact words. And that was a lie.

I never said, as this is the third or fourth time correcting you, that some people weren't guilty of bad behavior that worsened the spread of AIDS, any the phrase 'blame the victim' referred to you responding to criticisms of Reagan by pointing at their wrongdoing, trying to blame the victims of Reagan's inaction whatever wrong they had done. You were wrong, and misrepresented what I said.

That’s another lie. The people you called “victims” were the people I had blamed for their voluntary AIDS-spreading behavior (you replied “don’t blame the victim”). And since I only blamed those who refused to stop engaging in behavior known to spread AIDS, no innocent people with AIDS were included in my comments.

Coronovirus could have been completely stopped almost immediately with almost no infections if everyone did not breath air from infected people. As I said, as a *PRACTICAL* matter, you can't get people in society to act 'perfectly' in terms of safety. The fact that citizens don't act safely is not an excuse for the government, and not a reasonable demand for how to solve the problem.

Yeah, you attacked a couple of strawmen. I did not say it was “practical” to expect the people spreading AIDS to stop spreading AIDS. And I never said that the government should have had a policy based on such an expectation. All I said was that the people spreading AIDS could have stopped it through voluntary choice. And I said I blame them for choosing to not stop it. If your only reply to that is that it would have been “impractical” to expect assholes to not be assholes, then I rest my case.

 

[Randomutation]

When you say one thing one place and something else another, you can't just pick and choose which to deny saying the other. As I said, you initially did say Reagan and others should be equally criticized. But my comment here is about what you said later when you ONLY blamed others, to quote you yet again: "It depends on how many times you try to minimize the guilt of those who actually caused the disease to spread."

Putting aside your repeated lie that I minimized their guilt, all you said that was that others "actually" caused the disease to spread". That is only blaming them, with no mention of any wrongdoing by Reagan, making them the only problem. It's making Reagans' actions a non-issue not getting any mention and saying the problem "actually" is others.

I see that you are desperate enough to try the old pull-quote-out-of-context trick. I was discussing your use of the term “victim” to refer to the people I had blamed for their voluntary and risky behavior. And I correctly pointed out that these so-called “victims” actually caused AIDS to spread.

Reagan wasn’t included there because you did not call him a “victim”. If you thought he was a victim, you should have said so and I would have added him as a so-called “victim” who refused to use his power to fight the spread of AIDS.

So your argument is, with a tiny acknowledgement Reagan deserves some blame, the real issue is people who took risks on sex and drug use. No. The behavior of those people IS a problem and caused a lot of harm, but that in no way mitigates Reagan's cold-blooded inaction, and does not have to be mentioned in response to criticism of Reagan as if it mitigates it.

No. That is not my argument. My position is that those who engaged in high risk behavior are to blame for spreading AIDS. President Reagan is to blame for not doing anything as president to stop the spread of AIDS.

We could debate the relative weight of guilt if and when the trash talk ends.

 

[Craig234]

I was discussing your use of the term “victim” to refer to the people I had blamed for their voluntary and risky behavior. And I correctly pointed out that these so-called “victims” actually caused AIDS to spread.

And I was discussing Reagan, when you tried to change the subject to blame others, and demand they get equal blame. I've only said that some people behaved badly to increase the spread of AIDS, and that has nothing to do with the topic of Reagan, other than to try to deflect. They're victims not for their actions, but of Reagan's inaction. If Charles Manson was killed because Putin nuked his prison, Manson would be a victim of Putin whatever his crimes.

Reagan wasn’t included there because you did not call him a “victim”. If you thought he was a victim, you should have said so and I would have added him as a so-called “victim” who refused to use his power to fight the spread of AIDS.

Reagan was horribly negligent. Reagan was not a victim of his own actions whatsoever. Sharon Tate was a victim of Manson, even if she had intentionally spread diseases or anything else; Manon was not a victim of Manson's violence.

No. That is not my argument. My position is that those who engaged in high risk behavior are to blame for spreading AIDS.

Except that's not all you said. You said Reagan can only be criticized if citizens are criticized equally for other unrelated actions. And you said I minimized the harm of those citizens by calling them victims of Reagan's inaction, which did not minimize anythig.

President Reagan is to blame for not doing anything as president to stop the spread of AIDS.

Yes, he was. That was my topic. You want to talk about others and their unrelated actions, which I did not disagree with other than you insisting Reagan cannot be criticized alone, without bringing in other people and unrelated actions, getting equal blame. I don't care about weighing the different people - my topic is Reagan. I'm not disagreeing others caused harm or minimizing anything about it, as you falsely claimed, you're trying to inject them into the Reagan topic.

 

[Craig234]

That’s as illogical as claiming that I DEMAND that people exercise when all I said is that people SHOULD exercise.

No, that's called a false analogy. 'You can only criticize Reagan if you equally criticize others' is demanding to criticize others. If you don't understand the English language, when we won't agree. If you can point me to the word should in your original post - if you're going to criticize Reagan, you should add that others also caused harm - quote away, because it's not there. You can only if is a demand.

Yeah, you attacked a couple of strawmen. I did not say it was “practical” to expect the people spreading AIDS to stop spreading AIDS. And I never said that the government should have had a policy based on such an expectation. All I said was that the people spreading AIDS could have stopped it through voluntary choice. And I said I blame them for choosing to not stop it.

Your continuing to post falsehoods and to be offensive ends this exchange. You should see a doctor to help you out of the knots you twisted yourself in in that last line though.

 

[Randomutation]

Reagan was horribly negligent. Reagan was not a victim of his own actions whatsoever.

Good. If he was not one of these so-called "victims" then there was no reason for me to include him in my comment about the so-called "victims". And therefore your claim that I did not mention him there because I did not want to blame him is bogus.

And you said I minimized the harm of those citizens by calling them victims of Reagan's inaction, which did not minimize anythig.

You minimized their blame when you said “don’t blame” them. The fact that you also referred to them as “victims” is just icing on the cake.

Yes, he was. That was my topic. You want to talk about others and their unrelated actions, which I did not disagree with other than you insisting Reagan cannot be criticized alone, without bringing in other people and unrelated actions, getting equal blame. I don't care about weighing the different people - my topic is Reagan. I'm not disagreeing others caused harm or minimizing anything about it, as you falsely claimed, you're trying to inject them into the Reagan topic.

Wrong. Your topic was AIDS. And under that topic you had 4 points.

A few points;

1

AIDS still does not have a vaccine, but the research looking for one helped speed the development of Coronavirus vaccines;

2

AIDS has killed more Americans than Coronavirus has so far, over 700,000, and many more globally, 32 million.

3

There's a tragic parallel between trump's inaction on Coronavirus - see my sig - and Reagan refusing to even say "AIDS" for several years, as it was largely ignored.

4

There were 'condom refusers' for freedom like 'mask refusers'.

My comment deals with point #4.

 

[Randomutation]

If you can point me to the word should in your original post - if you're going to criticize Reagan, you should add that others also caused harm - quote away, because it's not there.

Since it’s the word that was used in the question that I was responding to, it’s implicit in my reply.

 

[Craig234]

Good. If he was not one of these so-called "victims" then there was no reason for me to include him in my comment about the so-called "victims". And therefore your claim that I did not mention him there because I did not want to blame him is bogus.

The point isn't that you didn't list him as a victim of his own policies, he wasn't someone at high risk for AIDS, either, you are trying to play word games - the point is that you did not list him as somoene deserving blame.

You minimized their blame when you said “don’t blame” them. The fact that you also referred to them as “victims” is just icing on the cake.

No, I did not. For the fifth time at least, let's see if a bold font helps you:

The point was that they were victims of Reagan's policies, nothing to do with anything they did wrong.

Or the last time I said it:

"They're victims not for their actions, but of Reagan's inaction."

Or a time before that.

"The behavior of those people IS a problem and caused a lot of harm, but that in no way mitigates Reagan's cold-blooded inaction, and does not have to be mentioned in response to criticism of Reagan as if it mitigates it."

I could keep going. You are just lying by continuing to say the same lie ignoring the corrections.

Wrong. Your topic was AIDS. And under that topic you had 4 points.

Obviously I was talking about my point in the context of that discussion.

My comment deals with point #4.

Poiint #4 being "There were 'condom refusers' for freedom like 'mask refusers'."

Yes, I'm the one who made that point criticizing them, in an analogy between bad behavior regarding AIDS and Coronavirus. The issue is not that you agree with my point. It's your response saying Reagan can only be criticized if citizens are blamed equally, and the lie that I had minimized their wrongdoing.

Which has been explained to you many times and you keep repeating the same false statements.

If you don't get it yet, I'm done repeating. I've made my points many times.

 

[Randomutation]

The point was that they were victims of Reagan's policies, nothing to do with anything they did wrong.

Or the last time I said it:

"They're victims not for their actions, but of Reagan's inaction."

And that’s where you are wrong. There were some truly innocent victims who contracted AIDS through blood transfusions or other accidental exposure to the virus. Or those who caught AIDS in the early days before much was known about how it was transmitted. But most AIDS “victims” contracted AIDS because of two main factors:

• Their own willful and voluntary choice to engage in behavior that was known to be high risk for AIDS.
• The failure of President Reagan to take steps to protect them from their own recklessness.

"The behavior of those people IS a problem and caused a lot of harm, but that in no way mitigates Reagan's cold-blooded inaction, and does not have to be mentioned in response to criticism of Reagan as if it mitigates it."

And by the same token Reagans failure to act does not mitigate the blame that falls on those who willfully and voluntarily engaged in behavior that was known to be high risk for contracting and spreading AIDS.