- Boards
- Current Events
- Knowingly exposing others to HIV will no longer be a felony in California.
|
http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-updates-gov-brown-downgrades-from-felony-to-1507331544-htmlstory.html
http://kmph.com/news/local/knowingly-infecting-someone-with-hiv-is-now-a-misdemeanor-in-california https://www.aclusandiego.org/governor-signs-bill-modernizing-california-hiv-laws/ This is dangerous.
i.imgur.com/VDLyhiI.gif
|
|
Lmaofornia, always one step forward and two steps back
"How come you can believe in God but not Bigfoot?" V-E-G-Y http://i.imgur.com/AqR3aeX.jpg http://i.imgur.com/vvuUXpp.jpg
|
|
|
|
"The measure also applies to those who give blood without telling the blood bank that they are HIV-positive."
The fuck?
I'm Mary Poppins y'all.
http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/665/328/d75.gif |
|
According to that last article, this was unfair to gays, black people, and drug users who are the largest groups who have HIV. In typical liberal fashion, the left-wing policy makers can't tell who the proper victims are in this case and simply rely of the Pyramid of Oppression. Anything unfair to "marginalized groups" must be an injustice.
To be honest, I would say knowingly and deliberately infecting someone with HIV is a justifiable reason for murder. I would absolutely acquit someone for that if I was on a jury in that situation.
- The Admiral
|
|
What the god damn fuck
|
|
The Admiral posted...
To be honest, I would say knowingly and deliberately infecting someone with HIV is a justifiable reason for murder. I would absolutely acquit someone for that if I was on a jury in that situation. knowingly infecting someone with HIV should definitely be a life sentence or a death penalty probably a life sentence since it's more of a punishment than being put to sleep forever imo |
|
pikachupwnage posted...
"The measure also applies to those who give blood without telling the blood bank that they are HIV-positive." i would imagine they test blood for HIV before giving it to people, however it just makes more sense to defer such people before taking their blood as to not waste resources and unneeded lab work |
|
lowtides posted...
Hundreds of health organizations with research and evidence on HIV believe this will help public safety. Prove it, show us the research because all I can find is that it's "discriminatory."
~Dr. FishyStick| Welcome Back.
http://i.imgur.com/z50xS2H.jpg |
|
smoliske posted...
pikachupwnage posted..."The measure also applies to those who give blood without telling the blood bank that they are HIV-positive." and in the case where it's not detectable but still there? IIRC we don't know 100% if it can still be passed in those circumstances |
|
FLUFFYGERM posted...
lowtides posted...Hundreds of health organizations with research and evidence on HIV believe this will help public safety. Yeah I really want to see some compelling evidence because right now I don't understand how willingly infecting someone with something you know will lower their quality of life isn't being considered up there with willingly crippling someone.
Immanentize the eschaton
|
|
Looks like our politicians are now receiving more money from big pharma than the prison industry. Step ya corruption game up.
|
|
Unquestionable posted...
FLUFFYGERM posted...lowtides posted...Hundreds of health organizations with research and evidence on HIV believe this will help public safety. it wouldn't just lower their quality of life. it'd basically end it. HIV treatment medication is expensive as fuck (several thousand per month without insurance) and it has some awful side effects and you have to take it religiously. and it doesn't cure it, it just makes it undetectable so that hopefully you don't get AIDS later. and you still have the stigma of telling your sexual partners you have it, which 99% of the time is going to mean that you're getting rejected. |
|
Tappor posted...
ruining someone's life intentionally shouldn't be rewarded with a misdemeanor literally the argument was that "there's drugs to fix it now." It's not a death sentence because you can just take drugs for the rest of your like and that makes it ok. like the biggest facepalm I've ever made.
From: CJayC | Posted: 6/3/2003
GameFAQs isn't going to be merged in with GameSpot or any other site. We're not going to strip out the soul of the site. |
Criminalization serves only to fuel continued stigma and discrimination against people living with HIV,” Equality California argued in a paper supporting a change in the law. “These laws work against public health. They provide an incentive not to know your HIV status because you can only be prosecuted if you know you are HIV-positive. They create mistrust of public health professionals, making people who have tested HIV-positive less likely to cooperate with partner notification, treatment adherence and prevention programs. And they place HIV-negative people in harm's way by making them believe they can engage in risky behaviors without the risk.” |
|
lowtides posted...
Criminalization serves only to fuel continued stigma and discrimination against people living with HIV,” Equality California argued in a paper supporting a change in the law. “These laws work against public health. They provide an incentive not to know your HIV status because you can only be prosecuted if you know you are HIV-positive. They create mistrust of public health professionals, making people who have tested HIV-positive less likely to cooperate with partner notification, treatment adherence and prevention programs. And they place HIV-negative people in harm's way by making them believe they can engage in risky behaviors without the risk.” So Equality California is one of those "hundreds of health organizations" you mentioned?
- The Admiral
|
|
FLUFFYGERM posted...
Unquestionable posted...FLUFFYGERM posted...lowtides posted...Hundreds of health organizations with research and evidence on HIV believe this will help public safety. Except now you wouldn't have to really tell anyone as there is basically no consequence.
Mind post. XBL:Cyanide Sucker PSN:Paters1 IGN:SuperPattyCakes
|
|
The Admiral posted...
lowtides posted...Criminalization serves only to fuel continued stigma and discrimination against people living with HIV,” Equality California argued in a paper supporting a change in the law. “These laws work against public health. They provide an incentive not to know your HIV status because you can only be prosecuted if you know you are HIV-positive. They create mistrust of public health professionals, making people who have tested HIV-positive less likely to cooperate with partner notification, treatment adherence and prevention programs. And they place HIV-negative people in harm's way by making them believe they can engage in risky behaviors without the risk.” I’m just bringing up one argument for the bill And yeah I’d trust organizations that have had tons of contact, research, and experiences with/on those with HIV over randoms on the internet |
|
"How in the world did Trump become president?!" Asked the left as they finished drafting their bill to decriminalize knowingly infecting someone with HIV.
Crazy times we live in.
~Dr. FishyStick| Welcome Back.
http://i.imgur.com/z50xS2H.jpg |
|
lowtides posted...
They provide an incentive not to know your HIV status because you can only be prosecuted if you know you are HIV-positive. Ok, finally a valid point. It's still wrong. It should remain a felony.
My sister's dog bit a hole in my Super Mario Land cartridge. It still works though - Skye Reynolds
3DS FC: 3239-5612-0115 |
|
IfGodCouldDie posted...
Except now you wouldn't have to really tell anyone as there is basically no consequence. This is really the crux of it. It basically allows HIV+ gay men and MtF transgenders -- who are the primary ones being charged with these felonies -- to no longer even worry about the consequences of having reckless, unprotected sex.
- The Admiral
|
|
Fishy posted...
"How in the world did Trump become president?!" Asked the left as they finished drafting their bill to decriminalize knowingly infecting someone with HIV. Not decriminalize it’s being brought in line with the criminalization of spreading of other diseases |
|
lowtides posted...
Fishy posted..."How in the world did Trump become president?!" Asked the left as they finished drafting their bill to decriminalize knowingly infecting someone with HIV. What other terminal diseases can you deliberately infect someone with and not get charged with a felony?
- The Admiral
|
|
The Admiral posted...
lowtides posted...Fishy posted..."How in the world did Trump become president?!" Asked the left as they finished drafting their bill to decriminalize knowingly infecting someone with HIV. Cancer? Like I mean just look at the tobacco industry.
Mind post. XBL:Cyanide Sucker PSN:Paters1 IGN:SuperPattyCakes
|
|
JE19426 posted...
The Admiral posted... Uh, no. Pretty sure if I deliberately inject you with cancer cells and you contract the disease, I'm not getting a slap on the wrist. So don't think you're quite right on this one.
- The Admiral
|
|
The Admiral posted...
IfGodCouldDie posted...Except now you wouldn't have to really tell anyone as there is basically no consequence. I'd be interested to see the trends of HIV transmission in response to new medications and legislation. It's plausible that felony charges had a reverse effect.
You gotta fly like an eagle and not.b... be like a turkey
|
|
The Admiral posted...
IfGodCouldDie posted...Except now you wouldn't have to really tell anyone as there is basically no consequence. Actually studies show women and POC (in particular black people and latinos) are disproportionately targeted by these laws “HIV criminalization disproportionately affects women and people of color. Forty-three percent of those criminalized under California’s HIV-specific criminal laws are women, despite comprising only 13 percent of people living with HIV in the state. Blacks and Latinos make up two-thirds of people who came into contact with the criminal justice system based on their HIV status, despite comprising only about half of people living with HIV/AIDS in California.“ |
|
Seriously what other terminal communicable disease is there that would even have this same situation. I doubt if you have Ebola you'll be in any shape to go spitting on people. We dont need a law for each disease, if CA wants to fold HIV under an all-inclusive "No Purposefully Infecting Someone With a Deadly Disease" law that's one thing but reducing the penalty is just lunacy.
~Dr. FishyStick| Welcome Back.
http://i.imgur.com/z50xS2H.jpg |
- Boards
- Current Events
- Knowingly exposing others to HIV will no longer be a felony in California.
- Boards
- Current Events
- Knowingly exposing others to HIV will no longer be a felony in California.
pikachupwnage posted..."The measure also applies to those who give blood without telling the blood bank that they are HIV-positive."
The fuck?
There needs to be a federal law that mandates the separation of second rate blood donated in California from blood donated from everywhere else.~A little nonsense, now and then, is relished by the wisest men ~
TWSSted since~ 3/27/12 https://i.imgur.com/zlaENmx.pngSo this means that a doctor can lace his syringes with HIV and get community service for it, which he could probably just get signed off at the hospital he works at anyway?REFUGEES WELCOME!
https://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/408-JE19426 posted...The Admiral posted...
Uh, no. Pretty sure if I deliberately inject you with cancer cells and you contract the disease, I'm not getting a slap on the wrist. So don't think you're quite right on this one.
You couldn't give someone cancer by doing that.
Better example, if I sent packages of food laced with inorganic arsenic to these politicians (definitely causes cancer) should I not be punished for it?
And no, I'm not suggesting that I would actually do this (have to include this for our less intelligent posters)~A little nonsense, now and then, is relished by the wisest men ~
TWSSted since~ 3/27/12 https://i.imgur.com/zlaENmx.pngJE19426 posted...The Admiral posted...
Uh, no. Pretty sure if I deliberately inject you with cancer cells and you contract the disease, I'm not getting a slap on the wrist. So don't think you're quite right on this one.
You couldn't give someone cancer by doing that.
Yeah I got a chuckle out of that one.Zodd3224 posted...LoL, this thread has played out just as expected.
Admiral, could you draw me The Pyramid of Oppresion? I would like to see where I rank on it.
I probably should, it would be a useful guide for a lot of the users here who are uncertain how to be outraged in some cases. For example, when there was that story about the Native American reservation that refused to uphold gay marriage laws because it violated their traditions. The pyramid would have immediately resolved which side a virtuous liberal should take.- The AdmiralZodd3224 posted...Lowering the punishment in the hopes more will get tested or admit they have it... I dunno. Its a pretty unforgivable crime. But if lowering the punishment means less people infected, may be worth it.
Or impose even harsher penalties for people in high risk groups who deliberately do not get tested. If the end goal is simply to get people tested, there are certainly ways to do that without gutting the penalties for deliberate transmission.- The AdmiralThe Admiral posted...Zodd3224 posted...
LoL, this thread has played out just as expected.
Admiral, could you draw me The Pyramid of Oppresion? I would like to see where I rank on it.
I probably should, it would be a useful guide for a lot of the users here who are uncertain how to be outraged in some cases. For example, when there was that story about the Native American reservation that refused to uphold gay marriage laws because it violated their traditions. The pyramid would have immediately resolved which side a virtuous liberal should take.
Plz do. Would be good for a laugh at least."Must of dabed in the wrong neighborhood."
- Mr. Dabmcpwnia posted...What the god damn fuck
The Admiral posted...Zodd3224 posted...
Lowering the punishment in the hopes more will get tested or admit they have it... I dunno. Its a pretty unforgivable crime. But if lowering the punishment means less people infected, may be worth it.
Or impose even harsher penalties for people in high risk groups who deliberately do not get tested. If the end goal is simply to get people tested, there are certainly ways to do that without gutting the penalties for deliberate transmission.
How do you enforce that though? Make a minimum requirement for gays, trans, blacks, etc. to get tested? Good luck with that!"Must of dabed in the wrong neighborhood."
- Mr. Dabif you dont want HIV/AIDS try not sleeping around and having unprotected sex. Why do we need the big daddy government punishing people for giving others STDs? It is your own fault if you got a STD. :vZodd3224 posted...The Admiral posted...
Zodd3224 posted...
Lowering the punishment in the hopes more will get tested or admit they have it... I dunno. Its a pretty unforgivable crime. But if lowering the punishment means less people infected, may be worth it.
Or impose even harsher penalties for people in high risk groups who deliberately do not get tested. If the end goal is simply to get people tested, there are certainly ways to do that without gutting the penalties for deliberate transmission.
How do you enforce that though? Make a minimum requirement for gays, trans, blacks, etc. to get tested? Good luck with that!
Like this: if you infect someone with HIV, are a part of a high-risk group (gay, MtF, IV drug user, promiscuous), and have not been tested, you receive a much harsher penalty. Ignorance of your HIV status when you are in a high-risk group is no longer an excuse to avoid a felony.- The AdmiralOpheliaAdenade posted...if you dont want HIV/AIDS try not sleeping around and having unprotected sex. Why do we need the big daddy government punishing people for giving others STDs? It is your own fault if you got a STD. :v
both people are at fault, the person who transmits for not getting tested and the person who gets the disease for not being more safe and also asking about their status
however if the former knowingly did it unprotected anyway, that's malice and therefore criminal.The Admiral posted...Zodd3224 posted...
The Admiral posted...
Zodd3224 posted...
Lowering the punishment in the hopes more will get tested or admit they have it... I dunno. Its a pretty unforgivable crime. But if lowering the punishment means less people infected, may be worth it.
Or impose even harsher penalties for people in high risk groups who deliberately do not get tested. If the end goal is simply to get people tested, there are certainly ways to do that without gutting the penalties for deliberate transmission.
How do you enforce that though? Make a minimum requirement for gays, trans, blacks, etc. to get tested? Good luck with that!
Like this: if you infect someone with HIV, are a part of a high-risk group (gay, MtF, IV drug user, promiscuous), and have not been tested, you receive a much harsher penalty. Ignorance of your HIV status when you are in a high-risk group is no longer an excuse to avoid a felony.
You honestly think anything like that would ever pass? "Oh the defendant is gay? Double that prison sentence."
🤣"Must of dabed in the wrong neighborhood."
- Mr. DabOpheliaAdenade posted...if you dont want HIV/AIDS try not sleeping around and having unprotected sex. Why do we need the big daddy government punishing people for giving others STDs? It is your own fault if you got a STD. :v
What about those pozzy thrill seekers that poke holes in the condom without you knowing. :vThese laws treat people living with HIV differently than those living with other serious communicable diseases and can result in felony prosecution, even when the individual does not engage in any behavior that could result in transmission of HIV. Criminalizing people living with HIV in this way is a discriminatory and stigmatizing relic from decades of homophobia, misunderstanding, and outdated AIDS hysteria. SB 239, by Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) and Assemblymember Todd Gloria (D-San Diego), would modernize HIV criminal laws and bring them in line with evidence-based means to prevent the spread of HIV.
Research now shows indisputably that if a person living with HIV takes medication suppressing their viral load, it is impossible for them to transmit the virus to their partners — even when a condom is not used. That’s why the absolute best way to prevent new HIV infections is to ensure that everyone who is HIV positive knows their HIV status and has quality medical care.
But laws designed to target people with HIV have been shown to increase stigma, thus reducing testing and engagement in care. You cannot be prosecuted if you don’t know your HIV status and recent studies have found that many people do not get tested out of fear of prosecution. The message these laws send? Take the test and risk arrest.
Current law is especially dangerous for women. Research shows that 43 percent of HIV-related prosecutions in California were women, despite the fact that women comprise less than 13 percent of people living with HIV in the state. As leader of a national network of women living with HIV, I have seen women remain in violent or otherwise abusive relationships because partners, aware of their HIV status, threatened to prosecute them. Shame, fear of losing employment or housing, and the threat of violence to themselves or their children can be immobilizing. And they have good reason to be afraid: proving that a former partner knew their HIV status is virtually impossible and people have faced discrimination and deadly violence when their HIV positive status was publicly disclosed. Current law puts people living with HIV in a situation where they have to prove their innocence.
For HIV-positive women in relationships with male partners where physical violence is a factor, condom use may never even have been possible. A woman can’t force her partner to use a condom or use one discreetly without his awareness. Although she may have no control in this situation, she would still face the risk of prosecution. What she may be able to control, however, is whether she consistently takes her anti-retroviral medication improve her own health and to protect her sexual partner from acquiring HIV. SB 239, by reducing fear and adding new protections, will help women living with HIV stay healthy while avoiding the economic and emotional extortion made possible by existing law.
To be clear, SB 239 maintains criminal penalties for those extremely rare bad actors who intentionally transmit or try to transmit HIV to another person. But the bill ensures that people living with HIV cannot be prosecuted if they take measures to reduce the risk of transmission ― like using a condom or being on treatment. These changes will keep our communities safe, while preventing the unfair prosecution of people living with HIV and other communicable diseases. Iowa reformed its laws in 2012, and Colorado did so in 2016. Now it’s time for California, a renowned leader in humane and fair treatment of all its residents, to advance the safety and dignity of people living with HIV and improve public health. SB 239 awaits signature on Governor Jerry Brown’s desk; it is in our state’s best interest that he sign it promptly into law.
http://gearsofbiz.com/criminalizing-hiv-status-is-wrong-and-governor-brown-should-stop-it/103992lowtides posted...These laws treat people living with HIV differently than those living with other serious communicable diseases and can result in felony prosecution
The Admiral posted...What other terminal diseases can you deliberately infect someone with and not get charged with a felony?
Still waiting for you to actually answer this. Which other terminal diseases that you can infect someone with like HIV get lighter treatment for deliberate infection?- The AdmiralThe Admiral posted...lowtides posted...
These laws treat people living with HIV differently than those living with other serious communicable diseases and can result in felony prosecution
The Admiral posted...What other terminal diseases can you deliberately infect someone with and not get charged with a felony?
Still waiting for you to actually answer this. Which other terminal diseases that you can infect someone with like HIV get lighter treatment for deliberate infection?
Cancer? Cigarette companies are still allowed to sell their cancer sticks to peopleThis isn't about "marginalized groups" this is a safety and health issue. It's dangerous and should be punished harshly, thought hopefully there are only a few very indecent human beings who would feel the need to do such a thing. Idk about you guys but I doubt the majority of gay guys and black people would want to catch HIV lol this is a really disturbing step in a very wrong direction.You know you love me...
XOXOTrigg3rH4ppy posted...Better example, if I sent packages of food laced with inorganic arsenic to these politicians (definitely causes cancer) should I not be punished for it?
Yes you should be punished for it. Who's saying otherwise?
Piersons_Fox posted...So, it’s perfectly legal to go on a killing spree in CA as long as it’s done with a syringe?
No.Darklit_Minuet posted...The Admiral posted...
lowtides posted...
These laws treat people living with HIV differently than those living with other serious communicable diseases and can result in felony prosecution
The Admiral posted...What other terminal diseases can you deliberately infect someone with and not get charged with a felony?
Still waiting for you to actually answer this. Which other terminal diseases that you can infect someone with like HIV get lighter treatment for deliberate infection?
Cancer? Cigarette companies are still allowed to sell their cancer sticks to people
I thought people were posting this as a joke, because no one could possibly think such a stupid answer was a legitimate comparison to infecting someone with HIV without their knowledge.
Can anyone provide a real response?- The AdmiralThe Admiral posted...Darklit_Minuet posted...
The Admiral posted...
lowtides posted...
These laws treat people living with HIV differently than those living with other serious communicable diseases and can result in felony prosecution
The Admiral posted...What other terminal diseases can you deliberately infect someone with and not get charged with a felony?
Still waiting for you to actually answer this. Which other terminal diseases that you can infect someone with like HIV get lighter treatment for deliberate infection?
Cancer? Cigarette companies are still allowed to sell their cancer sticks to people
I thought people were posting this as a joke, because no one could possibly think such a stupid answer was a legitimate comparison.
Can anyone provide a real response?
Care to explain how knowingly getting people addicted to your cancer-causing products and continuing to sell to them is a bad comparison? I'd argue it's far worse, based solely on the scale of people who have gotten cancer from cigarettesThe Admiral posted...Darklit_Minuet posted...
The Admiral posted...
lowtides posted...
These laws treat people living with HIV differently than those living with other serious communicable diseases and can result in felony prosecution
The Admiral posted...What other terminal diseases can you deliberately infect someone with and not get charged with a felony?
Still waiting for you to actually answer this. Which other terminal diseases that you can infect someone with like HIV get lighter treatment for deliberate infection?
Cancer? Cigarette companies are still allowed to sell their cancer sticks to people
I thought people were posting this as a joke, because no one could possibly think such a stupid answer was a legitimate comparison to infecting someone with HIV without their knowledge.
Can anyone provide a real response?
I posted it as a joke.Mind post. XBL:Cyanide Sucker PSN:Paters1 IGN:SuperPattyCakesthe best solution is just not to have sex out of wedlock. only sure fire way to prevent STDs. :vlowtides posted...OpheliaAdenade posted...
the best solution is just not to have sex out of wedlock. only sure fire way to prevent STDs. :v
What if your partner cheats/lies though?
that's what chasity cages are for. lock his junk up, only unlock it when you're around.If anything they should force people with hiv to have some sort of identifying mark so you know that fucking them or doing blood transfusion play with them can be fatalRESIDENT EVIL COMMUNITY BOARD
http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/1074-resident-evil-past-present-and-futureDarklit_Minuet posted...The Admiral posted...
Darklit_Minuet posted...
The Admiral posted...
lowtides posted...
These laws treat people living with HIV differently than those living with other serious communicable diseases and can result in felony prosecution
The Admiral posted...What other terminal diseases can you deliberately infect someone with and not get charged with a felony?
Still waiting for you to actually answer this. Which other terminal diseases that you can infect someone with like HIV get lighter treatment for deliberate infection?
Cancer? Cigarette companies are still allowed to sell their cancer sticks to people
I thought people were posting this as a joke, because no one could possibly think such a stupid answer was a legitimate comparison.
Can anyone provide a real response?
Care to explain how knowingly getting people addicted to your cancer-causing products and continuing to sell to them is a bad comparison? I'd argue it's far worse, based solely on the scale of people who have gotten cancer from cigarettes
you aren't very smart because one is a decision people make knowing the risks, the other is human scum knowingly spreading a deadly disease without telling the other personI am thinking about just walking into the river now that Megaupload is gone and condoms are in porn.-FubonisThe Admiral posted...lowtides posted...
These laws treat people living with HIV differently than those living with other serious communicable diseases and can result in felony prosecution
The Admiral posted...What other terminal diseases can you deliberately infect someone with and not get charged with a felony?
Still waiting for you to actually answer this. Which other terminal diseases that you can infect someone with like HIV get lighter treatment for deliberate infection?
There’s HPV which can lead to cancer, especially for men.Oh god, more reason to stay the fuck away from that shitholelowtides posted...The Admiral posted...
lowtides posted...
These laws treat people living with HIV differently than those living with other serious communicable diseases and can result in felony prosecution
The Admiral posted...What other terminal diseases can you deliberately infect someone with and not get charged with a felony?
Still waiting for you to actually answer this. Which other terminal diseases that you can infect someone with like HIV get lighter treatment for deliberate infection?
There’s HPV which can lead to cancer, especially for men.
fortunately there is a vaccine series to help prevent HPV- Boards
- Current Events
- Knowingly exposing others to HIV will no longer be a felony in California.
- Boards
- Current Events
- Knowingly exposing others to HIV will no longer be a felony in California.
andel posted...Darklit_Minuet posted...
The Admiral posted...
Darklit_Minuet posted...
The Admiral posted...
lowtides posted...
These laws treat people living with HIV differently than those living with other serious communicable diseases and can result in felony prosecution
The Admiral posted...What other terminal diseases can you deliberately infect someone with and not get charged with a felony?
Still waiting for you to actually answer this. Which other terminal diseases that you can infect someone with like HIV get lighter treatment for deliberate infection?
Cancer? Cigarette companies are still allowed to sell their cancer sticks to people
I thought people were posting this as a joke, because no one could possibly think such a stupid answer was a legitimate comparison.
Can anyone provide a real response?
Care to explain how knowingly getting people addicted to your cancer-causing products and continuing to sell to them is a bad comparison? I'd argue it's far worse, based solely on the scale of people who have gotten cancer from cigarettes
you aren't very smart because one is a decision people make knowing the risks, the other is human scum knowingly spreading a deadly disease without telling the other person
Going by that logic, wouldn't the infectee also be a person making a decision to fuck another person that they don't know the sexual history/health of while knowing the risks?Mind post. XBL:Cyanide Sucker PSN:Paters1 IGN:SuperPattyCakesandel posted...Darklit_Minuet posted...
The Admiral posted...
Darklit_Minuet posted...
The Admiral posted...
lowtides posted...
These laws treat people living with HIV differently than those living with other serious communicable diseases and can result in felony prosecution
The Admiral posted...What other terminal diseases can you deliberately infect someone with and not get charged with a felony?
Still waiting for you to actually answer this. Which other terminal diseases that you can infect someone with like HIV get lighter treatment for deliberate infection?
Cancer? Cigarette companies are still allowed to sell their cancer sticks to people
I thought people were posting this as a joke, because no one could possibly think such a stupid answer was a legitimate comparison.
Can anyone provide a real response?
Care to explain how knowingly getting people addicted to your cancer-causing products and continuing to sell to them is a bad comparison? I'd argue it's far worse, based solely on the scale of people who have gotten cancer from cigarettes
you aren't very smart because one is a decision people make knowing the risks, the other is human scum knowingly spreading a deadly disease without telling the other person
And having sex with random strangers without knowing their sexual history isn't a decision you make knowing the risk?lowtides posted...The Admiral posted...
lowtides posted...
These laws treat people living with HIV differently than those living with other serious communicable diseases and can result in felony prosecution
The Admiral posted...What other terminal diseases can you deliberately infect someone with and not get charged with a felony?
Still waiting for you to actually answer this. Which other terminal diseases that you can infect someone with like HIV get lighter treatment for deliberate infection?
There’s HPV which can lead to cancer, especially for men.
There's no test for HPV in men tho.smoliske posted...lowtides posted...
The Admiral posted...
lowtides posted...
These laws treat people living with HIV differently than those living with other serious communicable diseases and can result in felony prosecution
The Admiral posted...What other terminal diseases can you deliberately infect someone with and not get charged with a felony?
Still waiting for you to actually answer this. Which other terminal diseases that you can infect someone with like HIV get lighter treatment for deliberate infection?
There’s HPV which can lead to cancer, especially for men.
fortunately there is a vaccine series to help prevent HPV
HPV is the most common STD though.Krojen posted...OpheliaAdenade posted...
if you dont want HIV/AIDS try not sleeping around and having unprotected sex. Why do we need the big daddy government punishing people for giving others STDs? It is your own fault if you got a STD. :v
What about those pozzy thrill seekers that poke holes in the condom without you knowing. :v
Or they just straight up pull it off during sex.AffligemFR posted...Knowingly infecting someone with HIV should always - ALWAYS - be considered a serious crime.
Anything else is just plain old stupid, and that's putting it mildly.
This is California, being “pants on head” stupid is their nature."Always two there are, a master and an apprentice"That's despicable. The people that passed that law need to be removed from...everything before they seriously hurt and kill someone. That's actually psychotic to pass that.http://www.warwithwords.com
He Who Leads: Global Ebook Award Winner:https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01CE0TLLMWhy is this NOT a felony? Knowingly infecting someone with HIV is about as evil as slipping poison into the food of someone you don't like. It should absolutely be illegal and a felony.Come check out Iido's Gaming Den for let's plays 'n other stuff! Tons 'n tons 'o games! :D https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqZW13u9eQiTvhqKG1L6Egpikachupwnage posted..."The measure also applies to those who give blood without telling the blood bank that they are HIV-positive."
Good GOD.My arts- http://gopherguy.deviantart.com/From what I read in the article, the reasoning was:
-Enforcement of the old law was inconsistent, because of the need to prove intent.
-People have not been getting tested because if they test positive and an accident ends with their partner with HIV, they can be chargef with a felony, depsite the lack of intent.
So, I disagree with the law change. Think its stupid. But I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt for now. If it leads to more people getting tested and that leads to fewer infections, it'll be worth it.
In the mean time, individuals should probably be a bit more picky about their partners. >_>Currently Binging: Ghost in the Shell - Stand Alone Complex
http://i.imgtc.com/YQId2Bz.pngAnd least gun nuts on the right support harsh penalties for people who are negligent with their firearms causing injury to theirs. Liberals literally want it to be a slap on the wrist to willfully infect others with HIV because of "but muh marginalization". There is no doubt anymore which is the immoral side."If the day does not require an AK, it is good." The Great Warrior Poet, Ice CubeDifferentialEquation posted...And least gun nuts on the right support harsh penalties for people who are negligent with their firearms causing injury to theirs. Liberals literally want it to be a slap on the wrist to willfully infect others with HIV because of "but muh marginalization". There is no doubt anymore which is the immoral side.
HIV is going to be the norm one day, isn't it?!?Number of legendary 500 post topics: 26, 500th posts: 16; PiO ATTN: 2
RotM wins 1, Caring is sharing: https://imgur.com/a/W3bEoYaridovich posted...That blood bank thing infuriates me
I don’t know how people could literally let this shit pass, it is a death sentence to everyone who accepts blood now once one person infects the whole god damn supply.
They should demand you tell if you have HIV, and if you try to donate being infected and knowing you have HIV it should be serious jail time ir death penalty."Always two there are, a master and an apprentice"The fact that they are giving people who KNOWINGLY spread death a slap on the wrist is fucking insane. If the person knowingly is spreading death they should have the book thrown at then big time as they infected someone else on purpose.
If it was a case of they did not know then this should apply but not for people infecting others on purpose aware they have a deadly disease."Always two there are, a master and an apprentice"lowtides posted...So are you going to trash Iowa and Colorado for changing HIV laws or is your goal to come at California over anything?
Given how arrogant and self-righteous California has been acting as of late? It deserves the heap of scorn and being called out.
But yeah, it's pretty fucked up that *any* state would de-criminalize this kind of thing. Never had much of an opinion of Colorado and Iowa before, but you can bet this just tanked my view of them.Les aristocrates a la lanterne!
Les aristocrates on les pendra!Offworlder1 posted...The fact that they are giving people who KNOWINGLY spread death a slap on the wrist is fucking insane. If the person knowingly is spreading death they should have the book thrown at then big time as they infected someone else on purpose.
If it was a case of they did not know then this should apply but not for people infecting others on purpose aware they have a deadly disease.
Yeah well, that's what happens when libs are in charge, or in other words, when the inmates run the asylum.- Boards
- Current Events
- Knowingly exposing others to HIV will no longer be a felony in California.
No comments:
Post a Comment