A lot of people seem unable to grasp a "well if you assume A, then B logically follows" type of argument. They just hear you asserting B, and totally miss the context. For example: Idealist: "No one should ever go hungry! Food should be available to everyone." Realist: "For free?" Idealist: "Yes, for free, since if you charge money not everyone will be able to pay. Nobody should have to pay for food - in fact that should be made illegal! People need to eat! Its a basic human right! Refusing to give food to someone who's hungry is morally wrong!" Realist: "Such a policy would actually lead to widespread famine, because it would destroy the food supply. Farmers would go out of business if they couldn't recover the costs of growing their crops. And why should they be in the business of growing food at all then anyway?" Idealist: "Oh, so its all about farmers making money, and you don't care if people starve?" Realist: "How do you expect the farmers to produce food for everyone, if they don't get paid for it? It costs them money to farm! They have to buy seeds, fertilizer, gasoline for the machines - all that has to come from somewhere. If a farmer gave away his entire crop for free, as you are demanding, he wouldn't be able to produce any more after that. Then there'd be no food at all for anyone!" Idealist: "So you want people to starve?" Realist: (facepalm) What's this got to do with this thread? See my comments below... That is why socialism tends to destroy economies - too many people for whom its all about "gimme, gimme, gimme!" I wouldn't go that far. The assumption seems to be that antiretrovirals, or other forms of medical care, would have to be given out for FREE. Selling them at a reasonable price to anyone who needed them, and could come up with the money, would be the way to go. As in, "you broke it, you pay to fix it". Its another matter if people get HIV-infected as a result of rape, or unscreened blood-transfusions. In the latter case its the hospital that "broke it". Charity towards the needy is a good thing. But when the "needy" start demanding hand-outs as a right, that's another matter. This gets personal for me, as I recently lost an uncle to lung cancer. And he wasn't stupid - in fact he was one of the most intelligent people I know. But yes, he chose to smoke. Its not as if he had no control over his actions or no clue of the dangers. This seems to the crux of the matter: a lot of posters here seem to regard people as essentially helpless victims of their overpowering sexual drives. Expecting people to be responsible about it is dismissed as unrealistic, or even as heartless. Given such an assumption, I can understand your sentiment. "IF they are such mindless animals, THEN maybe the world is simply better off without them!" The idea of treating people as animals in regard to responsibilities, but as human in regard to rights, has never made sense to me. Its doublethink. It implies that being stupid is some kind of magic "give me everything I want for free" card.