| |
|
From NYtimes, use Bugmenot.com to get in.
When I read this article I had somewhat mixed feelings. Now, what this Positive Health Project is doing is admirable- there are too few groups helping out with gay health issues, and even fewer working with minorities, fewer still targeting Meth use (I'm in Oregon right now, and though I can't speak for the gay community, Meth is really out of control here). What struck me as a bit...icky, morally speaking, was the methods that well-meaning people like Terry Evans in the article are using, 'baiting and switching' to get their message across rather than being honest and upfront about it. It's undeniably for a good cause, and he has managed to persuade several men to significantly improve their health and lives by giving up Meth use, which seems to greatly increase a sexually active gay man's chance of contracting HIV, but it seems to me that lying to a 'target audience' just creates resentment towards your message, now matter how positive it is.
Also, if this tactic catches the attention of the media (and seeing as the article is on NYtimes.com, we can assume it has somewhat), it is likely to be adopted other groups with a much nastier agenda- like wanted to 'cure' gay men (with a healthy dose of Vitamin Jesus) rather than enable them to lead risk-free sex lives.
So, questions: Is this tactic likely to be effective? Is it moral? |
|
|
