|
|
|
1) unprotected sex does not lead to death in every case
2) there are other ways to get dead
3) there are other ways to get HIV
HIV leads to death, not unprotected sex. Do you increase your chances of getting HIV by having unprotected sex? Sure, but the analogy doesn't follow at that point because continuing slavery (which would be the analogical equivalent of having unprotected sex) did not precipitate the war. Seceding did.
unprotected sex --> HIV --> death
having slavery --> secession --> war
So unprotected sex = having slavery, HIV = secession (because they are the precipitants of the last event), death = war. Similarly, the North could have chosen other alternatives than invading and making war on the south, just like unprotected sex doesn't necessarily mean death - eventually the south would have seen that it would not be able to compete in the world without the people, money and industrialization of the north, and would have remained a very economically poor nation. We definitely could have fed ourselves, and the steel industry down here would have been very helpful as would the fact that we have ports and lots of coastline (or that may have been a hindrance to protecting our borders?) but who knows what would have happened? Diplomacy was not considered as far as I know.
Aside from all that, HIV is now a chronic disease that can be managed with medications, like cancer or diabetes, rather than a death sentence. This is because the virus has attenuated to the point where it's much less virulent than when it was first introduced into the north american population. At least that's what I heard on an NPR report not too long ago. But this has nothing to do with your analogy, I just thought it was interesting.
|
|
|
Re your analogy, no, I don't agree that having unprotected sex was the cause of death because New 
BoaterTalk 
