Has anyone heard of Susanne Eman?

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

Many homosexuals died from aids in the 80's and 90's. Do we say "Oh, if only we forced them to undergo gay conversion therapy, they would have never caught AIDS and died?" (i.e. -/+). No. Instead we've worked to advance science enough to the point where we have made AIDs a much lesser threat than it once was (homosexuality is now virtually +/+).

Fuck me you are deluded. More people - ie gays - are contracting HIV now than ever before. You may believe that homosexuality is +/+ but nothing could be further from the truth. It's not just HIV among gays that poses a negative problem - it's drug use and a high number of sexual partners (ie promiscuity) too.

What I meant was that it's much more treatable and manageable than now than it once was. Conceivable, it's curable in the future. Do you think we should cure AIDs or should we promote heterosexuality and abstinence? I doubt in this case you'd promote the latter (-/+), you'd promote a cure (+/+) yet in the case of fat admirers, you insist (-/+) which makes you inconsistent.

Likewise, for another analogy, even though cars were once metal death traps, we didn't say "let's ban cars", we made cars safer with air bag and seat belts.

Now, as far as her responsibilities as parent go, you may be right. I'm just for doing what you want insofar as that doesn't hurt other people. Is going to an early grave hurting your love ones? Do you have a duty to sustain yourself for the sake of those closest to you? I'm not sure yet. If that's the case, where do you draw the line then? Because logically, if we have a duty to sustain our lives for the sake of others, then all six billion of us should be ethically compelled to be spending all our lives studying to be doctors so we could then spend our lives to find the cure for death. Where do you draw the line?

Straw man argument.

I can't make a straw man argument out of an argument no body made. This is what seems to be the logical result of your position whether you realize it our not. I'm trying to try debunk your argument by showing how absurd it'd be if applied consistently.

Maybe we should?

Um, no we shouldn't. Why would you consciously choose to give somebody negative reinforcement?

It's only "negative" by your standards. I'm merely being trying to be consistent.