d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate > Giftgivers Rejoice!
Prev14567Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Member
Posts: 65,046
Joined: Jul 7 2008
Gold: Locked
Jul 30 2017 01:31am
Quote (Handcuffs @ Jul 30 2017 12:20am)
Unreal in what way?



How does the law "prevent 1 in 7 people from spreading their disease to partners unwilling to take that risk"? This law doesn't do anything to prevent anything from the 1 in 7 folks. The 1 in 7 people are unaware that they have HIV and have never received a positive HIV test.


Oh I had that backwards. Prevents 6 in 7 people.
Member
Posts: 21,966
Joined: Mar 3 2007
Gold: 1.66
Jul 30 2017 01:36am
Quote (Ghot @ Jul 30 2017 07:24am)
So if I live in a townhouse and shoot a .22 at the wall, and it goes through and kills or injures someone.... I should only be charged with a misdemeanor because I was unaware that there was someone at home in the next townhouse?


I don't understand how this is a comparable example.
Member
Posts: 21,966
Joined: Mar 3 2007
Gold: 1.66
Jul 30 2017 01:37am
Quote (BardOfXiix @ Jul 30 2017 07:31am)
Oh I had that backwards. Prevents 6 in 7 people.


How does the law accomplish this, both in actuality and in theory?
Member
Posts: 104,195
Joined: Apr 25 2006
Gold: 10,655.00
Jul 30 2017 01:59am
Quote (Handcuffs @ Jul 30 2017 02:36am)
I don't understand how this is a comparable example.




I'm harming another human being, unknowingly. Which seems to be your argument for passing SB 239. In that, because I didn't know (by not getting myself tested), that that utter lack of concern for myself and others, should only be a misdemeanor.

I could see a desire to pass a law that said everyone has to be tested.

I just think SB 239 is the wrong way to solve this problem.



Member
Posts: 21,966
Joined: Mar 3 2007
Gold: 1.66
Jul 30 2017 02:01am
Quote (Ghot @ Jul 30 2017 07:59am)
I'm harming another human being, unknowingly. Which seems to be your argument for passing SB 239. In that, because I didn't know (by not getting myself tested), that that utter lack of concern for myself and others, should only be a misdemeanor.

I could see a desire to pass a law that said everyone has to be tested.

I just think SB 239 is the wrong way to solve this problem.


Nah, my argument is just that criminalization bills don't really accomplish much at best in terms of HIV prevention, and at worst, unintentionally make things worse.
Member
Posts: 22,247
Joined: Oct 11 2007
Gold: 1,001.25
Trader: Trusted
Jul 30 2017 02:02am
Quote (Handcuffs @ Jul 30 2017 02:37am)
How does the law accomplish this, both in actuality and in theory?


What are your thoughts about someone who:

  • Knows they've got HIV
  • Refuses to get treatment
  • Keeps it a secret with the intention of getting others infected


Do you think that should still be considered a misdemeanor? :unsure:
Member
Posts: 10,281
Joined: Jan 7 2015
Gold: Locked
Warn: 60%
Jul 30 2017 02:02am
so I guess no one else shares in my excitement..

This post was edited by DCSS on Jul 30 2017 02:03am
Member
Posts: 21,966
Joined: Mar 3 2007
Gold: 1.66
Jul 30 2017 02:24am
Quote (WGUS @ Jul 30 2017 08:02am)
What are your thoughts about someone who:
  • Knows they've got HIV
  • Refuses to get treatment
  • Keeps it a secret with the intention of getting others infected


Do you think that should still be considered a misdemeanor? :unsure:


I think a misdemeanor is certainly better than a felony, but that ultimately what that person needs the most is some help, not incarceration.

Additionally, instances that are of the nature that you described are so infinitesimally small and rare that I think it's important to distinguish between two types of arguments that extend from that specific scenario. There's the argument based on morality and criminality that says that it should be a crime (whether that's a felony or a misdemeanor) and then there's the argument about public health that contends the law is important for HIV prevention. Some people in this thread have previously made the case that the law is about both.

For the former, like I said, I think the person needs help and that incarceration isn't the best way to achieve that. For the latter, criminalization laws do absolutely nothing at best to prevent HIV, and at worst end up worsening the situation.
Member
Posts: 57,901
Joined: Dec 3 2008
Gold: 285.00
Jul 30 2017 07:57am
One of my clients was convicted of bioterrorism because he gave AIDS to so many people.


Quote (majorblood @ Jul 29 2017 10:56pm)
being in a straight monogamous relationship is a pretty safe bet


Monogamy is a safe bet between two informed people. Diseases don't magically appear in any couple.
Member
Posts: 17,897
Joined: Jul 15 2014
Gold: 107.77
Jul 30 2017 07:58am
Quote (ofthevoid @ Jul 29 2017 11:37pm)
Really, it's the semantics of AIDS vs HIV you want to argue?



This guy has some sense in him.



And how much exactly is this treatment you might ask?



Laws like these are necessary for safety. I'm dumbfounded that the lgbbq community, which is probably the most victimized here, is backing this shit, it's self-cannibalizing, where exactly is the deterrence now?


They want to spread their aids and multiply :mellow:
Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
Prev14567Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll