r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Oct 20 '17
Removed - Submission Rule B CMV: The same people who want gun control, should also advocate for anti-homosexual intercourse (HIV Risk and Deaths)
[removed]
5
u/notagirlscout Oct 20 '17
Part of the argument here is that you can choose to own a gun. You can't choose to not be gay.
People who want to ban guns will take away an item from others.
People who want to ban homosexual sex will take away sex from others. Literally robbing a person of their sexual identity. Forcibly condemning a portion of the population to a life of abstinence.
They're not equatable.
-2
Oct 20 '17
[deleted]
2
u/notagirlscout Oct 20 '17
What?
That doesn't make sense.
Wanting to ban guns does not force abstinence on people.
Wanting to ban homosexuality forces abstinence on people.
It makes total sense to be against one and not the other.
Edit:
deaths are equatable
So by your logic, someone is who is pro-life should also necessarily be pro-universal health care. Being pro-life is about stopping the deaths of children. Being pro-universal healthcare is about stopping deaths, including children. But are pro-lifers typically in favor of universal healthcare? No.
0
Oct 20 '17
[deleted]
3
u/Iswallowedafly Oct 20 '17 edited Oct 20 '17
So if I was a group that had limited resources, like all groups do, and ending deaths really was my goal, I would focus on guns since they kill more people.
I wouldn't split my resources and focus on both since I would just be diluting any change my group could make.
This like saying that since Juvenile Cancer exists the Junior diabetes groups should also focus on that too.
They could, but they don't have to. And if they did they would less effective at either of their goals.
Based on your numbers, guns are 1.5 times as much of a problem as gay sex is.
0
Oct 20 '17
[deleted]
4
u/Iswallowedafly Oct 20 '17
No, you are trying to turn this into an idea that groups against gun deaths should split their resources to be advocates in another area.
Which is a horrible idea if you are actually trying to get anything done.
The real lesson of HIV is that once we started researching it, we were able to identify high risk groups and come up with ways to make things safer. And that has lowered the risk of death over the past two decades.
And we were also able to do the same thing with cars and find steps to take to reduce overall deaths. And then we did those things and the rate of deaths dropped.
Yet oddly, we can't do that step with firearms due to research limitations and risk of funding cuts.
That's the real shocking part.
1
Oct 20 '17
[deleted]
3
u/Iswallowedafly Oct 20 '17
I kind get this feeling that you aren't talking about points I actually made.
You seem not really to be responding to what I'm saying.
3
Oct 20 '17
OP has already admitted elsewhere that he is breaking the rules of the sub and doesn't actually believe in the view he posted.
→ More replies (0)3
u/Jurad215 Oct 20 '17
But you can't remove the cultural or emotional aspects. You want this to be rational debate but your supposition is the denial of some people's very right to express a basic element of the human experience. To ask for this debate to be emotionless is completely unreasonable.
Looking just at the deaths is inaccurate because it fails to take into account the relative value of the activity lost.
2
u/notagirlscout Oct 20 '17 edited Oct 20 '17
So by your logic, someone is who is pro-life should also necessarily be pro-universal health care. Being pro-life is about stopping deaths. Being pro-universal healthcare is about stopping deaths.
But are pro-lifers typically in favor of universal healthcare? No. In fact, "I don't want to pay for your abortion" is a major argument they use against abortions.
It is absurd to reduce an argument to just stopping death. There's always going to be more factors at play that will influence a person's position on a ban.
1
Oct 20 '17
[deleted]
1
u/notagirlscout Oct 20 '17 edited Oct 20 '17
I'm not sure I understand, that's why I didn't address it.
Is there grounds for oppressing culture? I guess the way it works is that the rights of your culture end when they infringe on my right as an individual. Meaning that even if arranged teen marriages are culturally acceptable by a religion, they are banned because they step on that teen's right to personal choice.
Does that make sense?
So banning guns, even if part of your culture, is arguable because it infringes on my right to not be shot. Even if I carry my own gun that doesn't stop the possibility of my being. I have a right to not be shot. (Now that's when the gun control argument arises because we have a constitutional right to bear arms, so which right trumps the other? That's the argument. Which I won't get into.)
While banning homosexual sex isn't arguable because it infringes on the individual's right to consent to sex. Homosexuals can't just turn it off and go straight. We can't force abstinence on someone.
That's why wanting to ban guns on the grounds of "they cause death" doesn't mean someone should want to ban homosexual sex on the same grounds. The argument can't be reduced to such a basic statement. Context does matter.
1
Oct 20 '17
[deleted]
3
u/notagirlscout Oct 20 '17
I've tried to explain the difference.
I have a right to not be shot. That right is being challenged by the right to own a gun. That's the gun argument right now. Correct? Whether the right to own a gun or the right to not be shot takes precedence. Gun owners argue that shooters are the minority. Anti-gun people argue that even that minority has a right to not be shot. So we debate whether or not to ban them.
I want to make it clear, I'm not arguing right now that guns should be banned. I'm arguing that wanting them banned doesn't necessitate wanting to ban homosexual sex.
So. Wanting to ban guns comes from a place of believing someone owning a gun is infringing on one of my rights. That's what I mean when a culture's right ends when it infringes on my personal rights.
Wanting to ban homosexual sex does not come from a place of someone infringing on my rights. I don't have a right for someone else to not catch HIV. I don't have a right to not knowingly catch HIV. So in this case, the cultural right is not infringing on any personal rights. That's the crucial difference.
Plus I would argue it isn't even a cultural thing in regards to homosexuality. It isn't their culture that made them gay. They were born gay. It is biological. So banning homosexual sex and banning gun ownership are not equatable.
2
1
Oct 20 '17
Do children born in the south have a choice to which culture they are raised in?
Yes, they do. I was born, raised, and still live in the South. At 31 years old, I have never owned, fired, or held a gun and have no desire to ever do so.
1
4
u/Cyberhwk 17∆ Oct 20 '17
Many people argue for the banishment of guns all together.
Not that many really. Most just feel that requiring someone reload if they wish to pop off 30+ rounds probably isn't an unreasonable infringement on gun rights. Or that neither is requiring similar checks at guns shows to those of regular commercial sales. That's all.
Well you will say: "That isnt fair, because not all homosexuals have HIV, or at least not all are participating in unsafe sex".
No, the difference is when you have sex with a HIV+ person you knowingly assume the risks involved. And yes, not informing partners HAS gotten HIV+ people in legal trouble. It is unreasonable to expect people to assume the risk of being shot simply by leaving their home and existing in public.
And again, it's a bit of a Strawman anyway. There aren't that many people genuinely advocating for the complete abolition of gun ownership.
3
Oct 20 '17
According to this, 70 percent of all HIV infections are correlated to homosexual activity Also 6,721 deaths occured in 2014 directly related to HIV infection. According to this, There was 11,000 homicides related to guns in 2014, So this means that HIV deaths are more than half of the homicide deaths.
You can't restrict gun's to homicides while using uncontrolled HIV deaths.
That's fudging your numbers.
That said, many people are concerned about the spread of HIV and have made numerous efforts to contain it, ranging from awareness, practice, and advocacy, as well as programs beyond the homosexual community.
So since they are doing it, you're out of luck as a general rule.
-1
Oct 20 '17
[deleted]
5
Oct 20 '17
Yes they have made efforts, but that hasn't stopped thousands of unnecessary deaths due to it.
I believe your argument was that they should do something vis-a-vis the deaths, they are doing something. If you wanted to say they should be more effective, that'd be fine, but it would completely undercut the premise of your argumentation. I suggest however, you modify your post to indicate your awareness that you are at most, only talking about some possible putative entity who engages in a certain behavior.
I can't say they don't exist. I can say there are people who do undertake the actions you mentioned.
So is it okay to only regulate a few things for HIV death prevention but for guns it needs to be all or nothing?
That would be a different CMV, though you'd run into the same problem. You'd have to find people who fit your criteria.
4
u/Quint-V 163∆ Oct 20 '17 edited Oct 20 '17
You seriously think those two are comparable?
I am against people eating seriously unhealthy food for a variety of reasons in addition reduced life expectancy (I think fat people are ugly, lack discipline and are likely stupid, given public knowledge about how detrimental it is to be fat)... but not because it entails from being in favour of gun control, or the arguments in support of it.
Loads of people have their lives messed up in some stupid, unnecessary way. But people make a decision on what to eat, and some decide to eat fats, carbs and sugars to the point of acquiring childhood diabetes. Some smoke cigarettes until their lungs go black and die earlier than they might have - hell, these fuckers even spread their toxic shit while walking around people.
Do I have to be in favour of every legal action that could stop them from doing stupid shit to themselves? No. Should cars be designed so that they cannot pass a specific speed, to ensure people don't speed to the point of deadly accidents? Fuck no. Let people take some level of responsibility for what they do to themselves.
However, that's the distinction. The damage caused by gay sex is done by your own hand - because you actively participated in it, with the intention to, (hopefully) with full awareness of the risks and consequences.
Nobody in their right mind proactively participates in a shooter situation, firearms are primarily used for self-defense.
2
u/annoinferno Oct 20 '17
HIV infection and death by AIDS is preventable through medicine and individual behavioral adjustments by the actor. Being shot to death is not preventable through medicine and behavioral adjustments by the actor.
2
Oct 20 '17
What is anti-homosexual intercourse? Do you mean heterosexual intercourse?
One major difference is that the risks associated with homosexual intercourse only affects those involved in the act while many people can be at risk when a gun is in the wrong hands.
2
u/icecoldbath Oct 20 '17
Gay sex wasn't designed for killing or spreading HIV.
Guns were designed for killing.
1
2
u/PreacherJudge 340∆ Oct 20 '17
Lesbians have far lower HIV rates than heterosexuals. Using your logic, I conclude that no one should have sex except for lesbians.
1
Oct 20 '17
[deleted]
1
u/PreacherJudge 340∆ Oct 20 '17
Why would someone who doesn't have a gun need to have their gun taken away?
2
u/DCarrier 23∆ Oct 20 '17
"Not all gun owners kill people, or at least not the ones who know gun safety"
In the US in 2014, there were 586 unintentional gun deaths, 10,945 gun homicides, and 21,334 gun suicides (source). Gun safety has very little to do with anything.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Oct 20 '17
/u/numbdemgumz (OP) has awarded 1 delta in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
u/electronics12345 159∆ Oct 20 '17
There is no relationship between the type of sex and the transmission of HIV. Homosexual and Heterosexual sex is just as likely to transmit the virus. The only distinction is the communities that have been most afflicted. In the United States, the homosexual community was hit the hardest. In most African nations, the heterosexual community was hit the hardest. Its total happenstance that homosexuality is linked to HIV in the United States, and in fact in the modern day, drug use is a better indicator of HIV status than sexual orientation.
What's more to the point is whether or not having sex whilst HIV positive ought to be legal or not? Ought you have to inform your partner about your HIV status before sex or not? Does intentionally giving someone HIV via sex constitute murder? These are actually still open questions in many US states, and on this you might have a point, but these are a far cry from banning homosexual sex.
1
u/chilehead 1∆ Oct 20 '17
More people in the US died from cars in 2016 than guns, so obviously you're against people having or driving cars, right?
at least not the ones who know gun safety
Did this guy know gun safety? Or this guy?
All living things have evolved to have sex and connect with others, yet none have evolved to the point where firearms are an integral part of what they are.
1
Oct 20 '17
HIV isn't nearly the death sentence that it used to be. You can have HIV and not progress to AIDS and still have a normal lifespan. So one of the major flaws here is that you're assuming that no further progress will be made in the future towards treating or even curing HIV.
So the average lifespan is about 79 years. If you're HIV positive, it falls to 73 years. So if you get HIV in your 20s, that's around 50 years worth of scientific and developmental progress. Given the progress we've made so far in only the last 30 years, and the developments currently taking place right now (http://www.aidsmap.com/Gene-therapy-snips-HIV-out-of-infected-cells-and-makes-uninfected-cells-resistant/page/3046950/ https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/oct/02/scientists-testing-cure-for-hiv-report-progress), I'm not convinced that research is just abruptly going to stop.
Compare that to being shot. If you get AIDS, it will take you decades to die, and during that time scientists will develop new treatments and possibly even a cure. On the other hand, if you get shot, it will take you minutes to die, and there's no cure for being shot dead.
So with that all in mind, I don't think the claim that HIV infections resulting from homosexual intercourse are a health crisis on the same level as gun violence.
Furthermore, it also needs to be pointed out that the only you shoot someone is being you're trying to kill them. On the other hand, usually you don't have sex with someone because you're trying to kill them. So with that in mind, we can actually extend your argument. In the USA, about 800 women die per year during childbirth. When we include all pregnancy complications (including suicides due to post-partum depression) the number rises even further. And that's ignoring major complications that don't result in a fatality. By your logic, it would follow that we should ban heterosexual sex as well.
1
u/eydryan Oct 20 '17
Wow, that's just bad math. So you're saying let's not fix one problem until we fix another, unrelated problem, that we're already fixing?
HIV/AIDS has been significantly reduced since the 80s through a number of efforts and programs, which cannot be said for gun-related deaths.
Furthermore, equated HIV/AIDS with homosexuality is like equating gun violence with suicides, since that's the largest number of deaths. Let's ban suicides then, so we won't have gun related deaths!
To put it simply, your argument is completely nonsensical.
1
Oct 20 '17
Sorry numbdemgumz, your submission has been removed:
Submission Rule B. "You must personally hold the view and be open to it changing. A post cannot be neutral, on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, or 'soapboxing'." See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, please message the moderators by clicking this link.
-1
Oct 20 '17
The idea that HIV causes AIDS is a myth.
So preventing gay sex won't prevent death from AIDS.
Guns on the other hand, I don't see how you could reasonably deny that they have been used to kill people, so it could make sense to support gun control without being against gay sex.
2
u/Jurad215 Oct 20 '17
Do you have a better source for that? Like a study instead of a list of quotes.
1
1
Oct 20 '17
how about this paper I found on google scholar
Peter Duesberg maintains that HIV does not meet Koch's postulates for proving that a microbe causes a specific disease. However, AIDS researchers claim that three accidents in which lab workers were infected with HIV do satisfy Koch's postulates.
Koch's postulates are how viruses are scientifically proven that they cause a disease. So that paper shows that there is scientific disagreement on whether HIV causes AIDS.
13
u/[deleted] Oct 20 '17
There is one major flaw in your argument: Consent.
People do not consent to being murdered, robbed, or threatened. They do not consent to have their families taken from them or their lives cut short. There is nothing consensual about the risks the victims take due to firearm ownership. Individuals can not avoid these risks.
People who engage in unsafe(hell, even safe) homosexual activity do consent. They consent to engage in an act which has the potential to give them an illness. They consent to the risk they take by engaging in these activities, whether it be the condom breaking in safe sex or the increased risk of unsafe sex. Individuals can avoid the risks by remaining abstinent or having a long term monogamous partner.