QueenZone discussion #1340046

Zebonka12 wrote: The point I'd like to make at this juncture is that such moral judgement or evaluation from you guys is pretty well worthless - might as well submit Freddie to a cross-examination from a babushka doll. It'd have the same weight, in my esteem. Aside from that, give me five minutes with the full details of your lives and I could probably find examples of similar levels of irresponsibility - it's just that yours didn't wind up killing you dead. And the key word here, really, is 'dead'. For people so caught up in moral considerations, you keep missing the big payoff - he paid for his awful fucking sins already! He pissed himself and asphyxiated. Can we move on now? These daft questions might not be beneath you, but it's beneath me to be on the same forum as them, so cut it out.

Zebonka12 wrote: 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.

Zebonka12 wrote: 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.

Zebonka12 wrote: "I think the guy has the right to say whatever the hell he wants" The only thing you got right in your post.

AlexRocks wrote: 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.

ANAGRAMER wrote:

AlexRocks wrote: 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.

Your language is debatable; 'murdering' Maybe your choice of words requires a bit more thought

Mark_Glasgow wrote: 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.

Zebonka12 wrote: "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.

ANAGRAMER wrote: Be a man and drop it mr.Jingles

Zebonka12 wrote: "The fact of the matter is you attacked the guy for asking the question" There's that bloody 'attacking' word again - I wasn't attacking him! Measured against the silliness of the original post, I think the response has been pretty restrained. You seem to think that any unfavourable response to a topic is some sort of attack on the rights of the person to ask a question in the first place - not so. If they ask a silly question, they should expect responses of all kinds. Otherwise, why post it in the first place?

Mr.Jingles wrote: From what I read, Freddie didn't know he had AIDS until a lump was removed from his body in 1987 and he was officially diagnosed with the disease.

magsmagenta wrote: The shift since then has been enormous in both the gay and straight communities, and what happened to Freddie and others like Kenny Everett had a lot to do with that.

GratefulFan wrote:

magsmagenta wrote: The shift since then has been enormous in both the gay and straight communities, and what happened to Freddie and others like Kenny Everett had a lot to do with that.

I think that's true now in retrospect, but at the time it played a role in reinforcing unjust perceptions that depended on a sense of distance from the disease. Privileged gay celebrities struck down by AIDS supported the narrative that defined HIV as a judgement on immorality and self indulgence and it maintained the illusion of remoteness. Attitudes ultimately changed because they had to. One by one the imagined barriers between the disease and the average person fell away until we all knew this could be any of us in the blink of one bad decision or stroke of ill luck. Only then I think the culture could collectively look at people like Fred and Kenny and Rock Hudson and fully see humanity and tragedy, and only then could they become effective symbols of awareness and compassion.

GratefulFan wrote:

magsmagenta wrote: The shift since then has been enormous in both the gay and straight communities, and what happened to Freddie and others like Kenny Everett had a lot to do with that.

I think that's true now in retrospect, but at the time it played a role in reinforcing unjust perceptions that depended on a sense of distance from the disease. Privileged gay celebrities struck down by AIDS supported the narrative that defined HIV as a judgement on immorality and self indulgence and it maintained the illusion of remoteness. Attitudes ultimately changed because they had to. One by one the imagined barriers between the disease and the average person fell away until we all knew this could be any of us in the blink of one bad decision or stroke of ill luck. Only then I think the culture could collectively look at people like Fred and Kenny and Rock Hudson and fully see humanity and tragedy, and only then could they become effective symbols of awareness and compassion.