specialone
Female
I thought about this for a few days, spoke with others & here is my revised view, though main idea stays the same. Inspired by recent scenes involving Charlie Sheen's public outcry over Aids' status, do you feel it's right in sympathizing with such a person AS compared with a person suffering from various cancers?
Personally, I feel one must help people who are sick with any disease whether it's their fault or not. If a ******* junky over-drove or if a ******* driver gets injured, then it's a doctor's duty to help him or her heal. HOWEVER, I can't sympathize with a ******* driver who breaks a leg or even gets killed while ******* driving because they took a reckless risk. With AIDS victims, if a baby gets the disease from their mom, then yes they're sympathetic victims just as if a person gets AIDS from a bad ******* transfusion. In those cases it's not the victims fault. But gay AIDS victims or couples engaging in risky sex have themselves to blame. If a straight man did it with many women, not use condoms & caught deadly Venereal Disease (VD), (such as Charlie Sheen's case), then I have no sympathy.
If a smoker dies of lung cancer (have known 2 people who have), I'd say that while it's bad that the smoker died, they knew the risks but chose to take them. At best, their company can help the smoker quit their habit. Many smokers (incl. a neighbor who died of lung cancer) would ask not to sympathize with them if they get lung cancer because they understood the harms involved.
I know that b2w users will differ with why I don't sympathize. But it's for the easy reason-if you take part in reckless conduct knowing the risks, then I can't sympathize with you. Some will talk about construction workers who do dangerous jobs, etc. My answer there is that if you do a dangerous job & if you're not going to follow safety rules such as a construction worker who doesn't wear safety glasses, helmet, gloves, insurance etc. & you get seriously injured or killed, well you were negligent & I can't sympathize. Now on the other hand if you're educated & wealthy but still choose to eat poorly, then proceed at your own risk.
It's not politically wrong to say you do not sympathize with ******* drivers who get injured or killed yet you get decried & scored when you say that you don't sympathize with gay AIDS victims for reasons given. Anyhow, your turn, but please try to understand why I can't sympathize with gay/hyper-sexual AIDS victims just as I can't sympathize with others who knowingly are reckless & then get injured or killed in the other examples given above...
Personally, I feel one must help people who are sick with any disease whether it's their fault or not. If a ******* junky over-drove or if a ******* driver gets injured, then it's a doctor's duty to help him or her heal. HOWEVER, I can't sympathize with a ******* driver who breaks a leg or even gets killed while ******* driving because they took a reckless risk. With AIDS victims, if a baby gets the disease from their mom, then yes they're sympathetic victims just as if a person gets AIDS from a bad ******* transfusion. In those cases it's not the victims fault. But gay AIDS victims or couples engaging in risky sex have themselves to blame. If a straight man did it with many women, not use condoms & caught deadly Venereal Disease (VD), (such as Charlie Sheen's case), then I have no sympathy.
If a smoker dies of lung cancer (have known 2 people who have), I'd say that while it's bad that the smoker died, they knew the risks but chose to take them. At best, their company can help the smoker quit their habit. Many smokers (incl. a neighbor who died of lung cancer) would ask not to sympathize with them if they get lung cancer because they understood the harms involved.
I know that b2w users will differ with why I don't sympathize. But it's for the easy reason-if you take part in reckless conduct knowing the risks, then I can't sympathize with you. Some will talk about construction workers who do dangerous jobs, etc. My answer there is that if you do a dangerous job & if you're not going to follow safety rules such as a construction worker who doesn't wear safety glasses, helmet, gloves, insurance etc. & you get seriously injured or killed, well you were negligent & I can't sympathize. Now on the other hand if you're educated & wealthy but still choose to eat poorly, then proceed at your own risk.
It's not politically wrong to say you do not sympathize with ******* drivers who get injured or killed yet you get decried & scored when you say that you don't sympathize with gay AIDS victims for reasons given. Anyhow, your turn, but please try to understand why I can't sympathize with gay/hyper-sexual AIDS victims just as I can't sympathize with others who knowingly are reckless & then get injured or killed in the other examples given above...
