Was it irresponsible from Freddie "not to know" he had AIDS

[QUOTE] [b]Zebonka12 wrote:[/b]

Yeah but seriously - why the fuck does it matter if he was irresponsible? At this point it'd make just as much sense for me to be asking if Genghis Khan was irresponsible. They're both as dead as the dinosaurs, so who cares? We can't drag either of them before the Hague for mass murder.

In Freddie's case though, it makes even less sense to be so critical. As I said before (and I think y'all ignored this point) it's not 'murder' in the case of Freddie infecting people with AIDS. If you are to take the assumption that people were all as informed about HIV in the mid-80's as we are today, then his partners were at least as culpable as he was. One can argue about the irresponsibility or ignorance as much as they like, but by definition it would've been a case of shared blame. Or joint-suicide. Whatever.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE] [b]Zebonka12 wrote:[/b]

Yeah but seriously - why the fuck does it matter if he was irresponsible? At this point it'd make just as much sense for me to be asking if Genghis Khan was irresponsible. They're both as dead as the dinosaurs, so who cares? We can't drag either of them before the Hague for mass murder.

In Freddie's case though, it makes even less sense to be so critical. As I said before (and I think y'all ignored this point) it's not 'murder' in the case of Freddie infecting people with AIDS. If you are to take the assumption that people were all as informed about HIV in the mid-80's as we are today, then his partners were at least as culpable as he was. One can argue about the irresponsibility or ignorance as much as they like, but by definition it would've been a case of shared blame. Or joint-suicide. Whatever.[/QUOTE]

i agree with the above post....

I think the guy has the right to say whatever the hell he wants. He raises a good question no matter how much you all want to defend Freddie. I see all the time "That's a pointless question on here"....well why the fuck do they even have the site if some of you feel like you have the right to say what is and what isn't relevant on here? If you don't agree with the guy for raising the question that's one thing but to type a 3 paragraph response to him bashing him asking the question is about as fucking stupid as anything. Its not that damn serious. Moral of the story is if your running around thinking you might have HIV/AIDS and you prefer "not to know" then you are fucking responsible and that's not being judgmental that's just FACT....smh

Pants post, get a friggin' job yer barmy twerp.

"I think the guy has the right to say whatever the hell he wants"

The only thing you got right in your post.

It is incredibly difficult to appreciate the AIDS climate of the 1980's unless you were alive and old enough at the time to recall the fear and panic and prejudice. The prospect of a diagnoses of HIV/AIDS was not just the prospect of a terrible, looming physical death but one that carried a psychological burden of such enormity I can think of no current comparison. There was no broad support network to step into, the scantest practical medical hope and a diffuse climate of visceral fear and revulsion waiting to curl through your life and change virtually every last meaningful thing. The evolution of individual willingness to face such a grim fate through pre-emptive testing closely tracked the related scientific and social evolutions through the 80's and early 90's. Being symptom free and 'knowing' of course was not even an option until the middle of the first decade. It wasn't until the latter part of that decade that public faces of the disease emerged to challenge the fear and misinformation and prejudice, and even then those challenges were taken up only by the 'innocent' like Ryan White and Kimberly Bergalis, who both still suffered rejection and isolation even as they battled to change perceptions.

I think the plane of 'responsibility' is not really the right one for this subject in that time, and I'd note that in fact the burden of knowing and the pressures against it for a decent and ethical person were that much greater because of the conversations and actions that must morally follow - actions that Fred did ultimately take in 1987 on diagnosis. I think he would not have just had to have been responsible in seeking out early testing, he would have in many ways had to have been remarkable. He was a remarkable musician, a remarkable showman, a man of remarkable drive and self belief with a remarkable ability to slip out of himself and into a stage persona that left such brilliance that it's difficult to imagine that it will every truly disappear from the cultural landscape. Those are the ways in which he was remarkable. That he was ordinary and human in the gruesome face of the early HIV/AIDS crisis is in its own way a gift of sorts to those who want to open it. A key perhaps to greater tolerance and empathy and appreciation for the unique circumstances of others.

Great question and great discussion. I wiki'd criminal infection and it comes up, BUT, later. gator, than 1987. People were starting to get it about protected sex but not quite action with full awareness about safe behavior.
Freddie was a man of his times and not these times. Unfortunately, he wanted to protect his image (The Great Pretender). Just too unable to deal with cold facts.Want to mention that just being around Freddie's house would not put a person at risk for AIDS. Big kudos to all who surrounded him with love during his illness!

I still think it is fascinating that David Bowie dropped down on his knees and recited the Lord's Prayer after his Mercury Tribute performance. WTF was that about?

[QUOTE] [b]Zebonka12 wrote:[/b]

"I think the guy has the right to say whatever the hell he wants"

The only thing you got right in your post.[/QUOTE]

Glad you're keeping score. Unlike you, I don't think I'm the leading authority on Queen on here....That guy has just as much right to his opinion as anybody. You are nobody to criticize him.

[QUOTE] [b]AlexRocks wrote:[/b]

It's 100 % legit to ask these questions. Freddie very possibly was responsible for murdering untold numbers of people. People go to jail for willingly "not knowing". I am beyond dumbfounded that they said what they did in the documentary. Even if it were true for christsakes lie. Jesus. [/QUOTE]


Your language is debatable; 'murdering'

Maybe your choice of words requires a bit more thought

[QUOTE] [b]ANAGRAMER wrote:[/b]

[QUOTE] [b]AlexRocks wrote:[/b]

It's 100 % legit to ask these questions. Freddie very possibly was responsible for murdering untold numbers of people. People go to jail for willingly "not knowing". I am beyond dumbfounded that they said what they did in the documentary. Even if it were true for christsakes lie. Jesus. [/QUOTE]


Your language is debatable; 'murdering'

Maybe your choice of words requires a bit more thought[/QUOTE]

Or possibly "some" thought ...

"Unlike you, I don't think I'm the leading authority on Queen on here"

This isn't even a discussion about Queen, you numpty. This is about the personal life of a very dead man, and as much as it probably upsets you to hear this - neither you, or the topic starter, or myself are really in a position to be an authority on it. Therefore (as I've already said) what's being said about Freddie here can't (and does not) carry much weight.

The fact that this is seemingly difficult for you to understand speaks volumes.

Seems to be a lot of people getting their knickers in a twist here lol. Personally I think the question is a bit pointless as no one will know the full facts and its all speculation. But its sparked some debate anyway so maybe thats what it was intended to do, rather than come to a conclusive answer, which doesnt seem possible.

But anyone can ask any question they want, I dont see why the originator should get abuse for it. If people dont like the question being asked, why dont they just stop answering and responding and it ill just die out. Simples.

[QUOTE] [b]Mark_Glasgow wrote:[/b]

Seems to be a lot of people getting their knickers in a twist here lol. Personally I think the question is a bit pointless as no one will know the full facts and its all speculation. But its sparked some debate anyway so maybe thats what it was intended to do, rather than come to a conclusive answer, which doesnt seem possible.

But anyone can ask any question they want, I dont see why the originator should get abuse for it. If people dont like the question being asked, why dont they just stop answering and responding and it ill just die out. Simples.[/QUOTE]

Couldn't agree more