• Register
  • TOS
  • Privacy
  • @NeoGAF
  • Like

ZealousD
Makes world leading predictions like "The sun will rise tomorrow"
(10-08-2017, 01:10 AM)
ZealousD's Avatar

Originally Posted by titiklabingapat

That's a terrorism charge...

And your point? That's still a crime, right?

And even if it didn't meet the definition of terrorism, I'm pretty sure the authorities aren't going to look the other way if I send an individual a letter with anthrax in it. Intentionally inflicting somebody with a disease at least has to be considered assault...
royalan
Lotus Member
(10-08-2017, 01:21 AM)
royalan's Avatar

Originally Posted by Menchi

I understand the law doesn't "work" and I understand the stigma, all too well, but pretending that the people who -knowingly- decide to sleep with other people whilst aware of sexual health issues are some poor victims at the behest of a law that penalizes only them is massively disingenuous.

NOBODY is doing this. Don't come into the thread with a preconceived idea of what people are arguing and instead read the points people are making.

I am NOT forgiving the person who purposely has sex without disclosing. I am going to repost what I wrote and bold for emphasis:

So in some cases we have to consider what a law or punishment is ACTUALLY achieving. Has spreading HIV being considered a felony done a damn thing to curtail HIV from spreading? Almost all signs point to no. Has putting HIV in a special class done a lot of stigmatize what is now a very manageable condition, which intimidates sexually active people and encourages them to not get tested and take an active role in their sexual health? Yes.

This has nothing to do with coddling the person who is having unprotected sex while having HIV. It has everything to do with asking the questions, "does this law achieve its policy goal? Does it cause more harm than good?" And the overwhelming consensus to these two questions, as time goes on, is no and yes.
Forward
Banned
(10-08-2017, 01:24 AM)

Originally Posted by GaimeGuy

The solution is to make it a crime to knowingly expose others to all STDs without telling them, not to decriminalize spreading HIV.


One step back

Preach.
Menchi
Member
(10-08-2017, 01:31 AM)
Menchi's Avatar

Originally Posted by royalan

NOBODY is doing this. Don't come into the thread with a preconceived idea of what people are arguing and instead read the points people are making.

I am NOT forgiving the person who purposely has sex without disclosing. I am going to repost what I wrote and bold for emphasis:



This has nothing to do with coddling the person who is having unprotected sex while having HIV. It has everything to do with asking the questions, "does this law achieve its policy goal? Does it cause more harm than good?" And the overwhelming consensus to these two questions, as time goes on, is no and yes.

Yes, people are arguing they shouldn't have to disclose their sexual health if -they- don't think it is an issue, as you can see below. This isn't a unique stance, and the post I initially quoted sympathized with the idea of "not getting tested as I could become a criminal for knowing" - which is a pretty shitty thing to do, to protect your own skin. Get tested, don't back out 'cause you're scared of -knowing- you've risked someone else health.

Originally Posted by plagiarize

If your viral load is zero, I see zero reason why you should have to tell anyone.

Why should one infectious disease be singled out?

You've got to look at it from the perspective not of 'Should it be a crime to expose people to HIV?' but of 'Should HIV be the only disease it is a crime to expose people to?'

The answer to that second question is clearly "Fuck no."

As for worrying whether the law is "working" or not. I don't care. if you -KNOWINGLY- go into a sexual relation with an STI, and you -do not- disclose it, then you're scum, and you deserve to be legally penalized.
necrosis
Member
(10-08-2017, 01:34 AM)
necrosis's Avatar

Originally Posted by Amory

Wow, wtf. This seems like it should absolutely be illegal

What a POS thing to do

uh, why? if both parties know what they're getting into i don't see why it should matter
Menchi
Member
(10-08-2017, 01:36 AM)
Menchi's Avatar

Originally Posted by necrosis

uh, why? if both parties know what they're getting into i don't see why it should matter

Um... The point is only -one- party knows what they're getting in to, and they're taking the decision that it "doesn't matter" as they are "low risk" thus, removing sexual agency of the partner.
Aztechnology
Member
(10-08-2017, 01:37 AM)
Aztechnology's Avatar
Ohhhh, ok. I somehow misread this as "Knowlingly exposing others to HIV without their knowledge" or something.
SoRuffShoNuff
Member
(10-08-2017, 01:37 AM)

Originally Posted by necrosis

uh, why? if both parties know what they're getting into i don't see why it should matter

Both parties don't know what they are getting into, one knows they have HIV and the other has no clue.
Aztechnology
Member
(10-08-2017, 01:40 AM)
Aztechnology's Avatar

Originally Posted by SoRuffShoNuff

Both parties don't know what they are getting into, one knows they have HIV and the other has no clue.

No, unless I'm wrong it reads as the criminal offense before was an act of transmitting HIV with knowledge, even to a willing sexual partner could be construed as a criminal act. I don't think this protects someone from lying or hiding they have HIV and sleeping with others. Now a discussion about whether or not it could lead to legal issues around that area, is something else.

Or am I wrong. Because if I am, and it protects people from transmitting HIV effectively without consent, then I'm 100% not ok with that.
Last edited by Aztechnology; 10-08-2017 at 01:45 AM.
royalan
Lotus Member
(10-08-2017, 01:42 AM)
royalan's Avatar

Originally Posted by Menchi

Yes, people are arguing they shouldn't have to disclose their sexual health if -they- don't think it is an issue, as you can see below. This isn't a unique stance, and the post I initially quoted sympathized with the idea of "not getting tested as I could become a criminal for knowing" - which is a pretty shitty thing to do, to protect your own skin. Get tested, don't back out 'cause you're scared of -knowing- you've risked someone else health.

In this case, it's not just them. It's science.

And again, I'll say, I agree with you on what people SHOULD do. What we're talking about is what should happen when people inevitably do what they shouldn't. Outside of satisfying a need for payback, listing HIV as the felony STD hasn't done much of anything to aid the fight against HIV. If anything, it's hurting the fight by adding to the stigma surrounding the virus and the fear of getting tested.
Menchi
Member
(10-08-2017, 01:56 AM)
Menchi's Avatar

Originally Posted by royalan

In this case, it's not just them. It's science.

And again, I'll say, I agree with you on what people SHOULD do. What we're talking about is what should happen when people inevitably do what they shouldn't. Outside of satisfying a need for payback, listing HIV as the felony STD hasn't done much of anything to aid the fight against HIV. If anything, it's hurting the fight by adding to the stigma surrounding the virus and the fear of getting tested.

A near 0% risk is still a risk, and one that should be left up to your partner to decide to engage in. I get it, it's almost pathetic to worry about, given the odds, but it should be up to the partner to decide if they're okay with that. Science can reinforce those odds, but it is still up to someone to take those risks.

I know legislation doesn't work, but removing it isn't exactly going to change things either. I should qualify, I'm from the UK, so this doesn't affect me, but I want as many people as possible to know their own health as possible, and react accordingly.

We're on the same side, just different angles.
McLovin
Member
(10-08-2017, 02:11 AM)
McLovin's Avatar

Originally Posted by plagiarize

OH LOOK ANOTHER PERSON WHO HAS NO IDEA HOW TREATABLE HIV IS THESE DAYS.

Dear EVERYONE in this thread decrying this, please look at the current state of treatment for being HIV positive, rather than throwing around fearmongering based on attitudes and treatments that date back to the 80s.

Thank you.

Sure because everyone in the US has access to quality insurance. Fuck HIV, if someone has it they need to take precautions not to transmit it and tell anyone they sleep with that they have it. I dont care if your viral load is zero, this is seriously fucked up.
Niko Bellic
Junior Member
(10-08-2017, 02:15 AM)
Niko Bellic's Avatar

Originally Posted by Kebiinu

As a gay in NYC, I support this.

You support being able, with impunity, to knowingly expose a sexual partner to HIV without disclosure? Seriously?

Originally Posted by Enco

Secretly infecting people with HIV defense force?

Got damn gaf..

Lol, I know right?
MisterR
Member
(10-08-2017, 02:18 AM)
MisterR's Avatar

Originally Posted by Enco

Secretly infecting people with HIV defense force?

Got damn gaf..

Sad but not surprising. Lots of folks trying to justify shitty, should be criminal behavior.
iPaul93
Member
(10-08-2017, 02:18 AM)
iPaul93's Avatar
Wow.Thatís messed up.
MisterR
Member
(10-08-2017, 02:19 AM)
MisterR's Avatar

Originally Posted by plagiarize

OH LOOK ANOTHER PERSON WHO HAS NO IDEA HOW TREATABLE HIV IS THESE DAYS.

Dear EVERYONE in this thread decrying this, please look at the current state of treatment for being HIV positive, rather than throwing around fearmongering based on attitudes and treatments that date back to the 80s.

Thank you.

You talk about ignorance. How about you realize how expensive and unavailable health care is to a lot of people in this country.
plagiarize
Member
(10-08-2017, 02:20 AM)
plagiarize's Avatar

Originally Posted by Niko Bellic

You support being able, with impunity, to knowingly expose a sexual partner to HIV without disclosure? Seriously?

Lol, I know right?

No one is supporting that with impunity. It is still illegal. It should still be illegal. Where there is no risk of transmission there is no need for disclosure. As it should have been.
royalan
Lotus Member
(10-08-2017, 02:22 AM)
royalan's Avatar

Originally Posted by MisterR

Sad but not surprising. Lots of folks trying to justify shitty, should be criminal behavior.

Who?

Who, specifically, is arguing that people should be allowed to "secretly infect people with HIV"?

Words mean things.
Moosichu
Member
(10-08-2017, 02:22 AM)
Moosichu's Avatar

Originally Posted by GaimeGuy

The solution is to make it a crime to knowingly expose others to all STDs without telling them, not to decriminalize spreading HIV.


One step back

No, because as the OP says - laws like these create perverse incentives NOT to get tested.
plagiarize
Member
(10-08-2017, 02:23 AM)
plagiarize's Avatar

Originally Posted by royalan

Who?

People with HIV shouldn't be allowed to do things that pose zero risk to other people because those other people don't realize they are at zero risk!!! See, I am a monster.
Da-Kid
Member
(10-08-2017, 02:25 AM)
Da-Kid's Avatar

Originally Posted by plagiarize

No one is supporting that with impunity. It is still illegal. It should still be illegal. Where there is no risk of transmission there is no need for disclosure. As it should have been.

No...
No...
..... No...
No. Stop right there.

If you have any STD you should disclose it before sex. You can't just say "Welp I got a condom, time to go to work"... No.

This is exactly how the hell STD's spread.
plagiarize
Member
(10-08-2017, 02:25 AM)
plagiarize's Avatar

Originally Posted by MisterR

You talk about ignorance. How about you realize how expensive and unavailable health care is to a lot of people in this country.

Whether you have cancer or are HIV positive or any other disease that requires daily expensive medication that needs to change.

That's no reason to keep a bad law that is doing more harm than good.
Menchi
Member
(10-08-2017, 02:25 AM)
Menchi's Avatar

Originally Posted by plagiarize

No one is supporting that with impunity. It is still illegal. It should still be illegal. Where there is no risk of transmission there is no need for disclosure. As it should have been.

There is currently, a risk of transmission, even at low viral load. You not disclosing, is an implicit removal of someone else's sexual agency, and should NOT be up to you. It should be up to your partner,
Moosichu
Member
(10-08-2017, 02:26 AM)
Moosichu's Avatar

Originally Posted by Menchi

Sorry, I'm a sexually active Bi/Gender fluid guy. Anyone who doesn't ascribe to the -SHOULD- needs to be penalized for fucking someone else's well-being out of selfish, shitty behavior. I don't care if it "doesn't work" why should someone be allowed to -KNOWINGLY- withhold sexual information away from a partner? Simply put, they shouldn't, and there needs to be legal ramifications for those who don't give a damn about the health of their sexual partners.

I understand the law doesn't "work" and I understand the stigma, all too well, but pretending that the people who -knowingly- decide to sleep with other people whilst aware of sexual health issues are some poor victims at the behest of a law that penalizes only them is massively disingenuous.

The people who flount that law, by having sex, knowingly infected with an STI, not just HIV, aren't exactly paragons of virtue who consider other people before their own sexual desires. Sorry if I think someone who can't manage to communicate to their partner they have an STI they know about. To me, it's the most basic courtesy your afford your partner and if you don't give a damn about that, there should be a repercussion for doing so.

I'll remind you, I'm talking about more than just HIV, I think -any- transmissible disease, that can be -easily- prevented from spreading by simple communication, or preventatives should be have legal ramifications. Three key words, intent, knowingly, & easily. As such, something like Ebola or the Flu would be out of the question, but, as far as I'm aware, we don't have sexy time with everyone we meet.

It's worth pointing out though, that with laws, you should consider their effects only, because the intentions ultimately don't matter if they don't achieve the desired results.
plagiarize
Member
(10-08-2017, 02:28 AM)
plagiarize's Avatar

Originally Posted by Da-Kid

No...
No...
..... No...
No. Stop right there.

If you have any STD you should disclose it before sex. You can't just say "Welp I got a condom, time to go to work"... No.

This is exactly how the hell STD's spread.

STDs aren't spread because of people who aren't infectious. I mean, that's clearly factual. If the CDC feels that it is safe based on scientific consensus when their whole purpose is to stop the spread of disease, that's good enough for me.
Last edited by plagiarize; 10-08-2017 at 02:31 AM.
plagiarize
Member
(10-08-2017, 02:31 AM)
plagiarize's Avatar

Originally Posted by Menchi

There is currently, a risk of transmission, even at low viral load. You not disclosing, is an implicit removal of someone else's sexual agency, and should NOT be up to you. It should be up to your partner,

At low viral load you should disclose and it is illegal to do so. At undetectable viral load there is no risk so you shouldn't have to.

You aren't taking away anyone's agency to not tell them about a health issue you have that poses them zero risk. Like I said, believing there is a risk when the science says otherwise is no different to being afraid of using the same toilet seat as someone with HIV. Unless you think people with HIV should disclose whenever they use a public toilet...
Earthbound64
Member
(10-08-2017, 02:34 AM)
Earthbound64's Avatar
Viral load

Originally Posted by plagiarize

your viral load is zero

Originally Posted by plagiarize

viral load has been measured as 0

Originally Posted by plagiarize

undetectable viral load

Originally Posted by plagiarize

undetectable viral load

Originally Posted by plagiarize

undetectable viral load

Originally Posted by plagiarize

viral load is undetectable.

Originally Posted by plagiarize

undetectable viral load

Originally Posted by plagiarize

undetectable viral load

Originally Posted by plagiarize

undetectable viral load.

Originally Posted by plagiarize

viral load is undetectable

Effectively

Originally Posted by plagiarize

effectively no risk

Originally Posted by plagiarize

effectively zero risk

Originally Posted by plagiarize

effectively zero

Originally Posted by plagiarize

effectively no risk

Originally Posted by plagiarize

effectively impossible

Originally Posted by plagiarize

effectively zero risk

Originally Posted by plagiarize

effectively zero

Originally Posted by plagiarize

effectively zero

Originally Posted by plagiarize

effectively zero

"infinity" and "0"

Originally Posted by plagiarize

1/infinity is effectively zero no? I mean, in mathematics, we can replace 1/infinity with zero, even though 1/infinity is > 0, because it's still effectively 0.

Originally Posted by plagiarize

you can treat the odds of the thing happening as zero, even if we can't say for certain that the odds are zero.

You could take that less than one in ten thousand and make it less than one in ten million and we could still not say it was definitely zero.


I did this for a couple of reasons:

1) To highlight the absurdity of the circularity here, and that essentially* nothing was changing from the earlier posts to the later posts

1*) Except going from "your viral load is 0" to "undetectable" - which, to give credit where it's due, was an increase in accuracy. However, this improvement was not met by an accompanying improvement in the arguments.

2) As highlighted in the above 2 points, and in the statement on various division equations above, a fundamental misunderstanding of "0" and points near 0.

Basically, as long as the continued process of:
"effectively 0" == 0
"undetectable viral load" == "0 viral load"
Continues, there's going to be no meaningful change in the repeated rejoinders, as highlighted in the multiple quotes above.
Last edited by Earthbound64; 10-08-2017 at 02:36 AM.
Fred-87
Member
(10-08-2017, 02:38 AM)
Fred-87's Avatar

Originally Posted by metalslimer

You still have it, it means that the amount of virus inside of you is so small the machines can't detect it which makes it virtually impossible to spread the virus. That is the goal of treatment currently


I do think that people need to be cautious though. Medications can randomly fail or if the patient isn't consistently you can have a spike in the viral load. The current law though just stigmatized people with HIV though

So if you go on vacation and forget your meds. You think ah fuck it. Ill have sex anyway. Its possible to infect someone? Because your spike went up.

If that is true its way too dangerous.
Aztechnology
Member
(10-08-2017, 02:38 AM)
Aztechnology's Avatar

Originally Posted by Aztechnology

No, unless I'm wrong it reads as the criminal offense before was an act of transmitting HIV with knowledge, even to a willing sexual partner could be construed as a criminal act. I don't think this protects someone from lying or hiding they have HIV and sleeping with others. Now a discussion about whether or not it could lead to legal issues around that area, is something else.

Or am I wrong. Because if I am, and it protects people from transmitting HIV effectively without consent, then I'm 100% not ok with that.

Wait so can someone clarify for me? Did it read it wrong?
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
(10-08-2017, 02:39 AM)
SapientWolf's Avatar

Originally Posted by plagiarize

At low viral load you should disclose and it is illegal to do so. At undetectable viral load there is no risk so you shouldn't have to.

You aren't taking away anyone's agency to not tell them about a health issue you have that poses them zero risk. Like I said, believing there is a risk when the science says otherwise is no different to being afraid of using the same toilet seat as someone with HIV. Unless you think people with HIV should disclose whenever they use a public toilet...

I think you should tell regardless of your viral load, because they should know that they're trusting you to take your meds. If someone misses two days then that statement about zero risk is no longer true. The toilet analogy doesn't hold at all.
MegaManTrigger
Member
(10-08-2017, 02:40 AM)
MegaManTrigger's Avatar

Originally Posted by plagiarize

At low viral load you should disclose and it is illegal to do so. At undetectable viral load there is no risk so you shouldn't have to.

You aren't taking away anyone's agency to not tell them about a health issue you have that poses them zero risk. Like I said, believing there is a risk when the science says otherwise is no different to being afraid of using the same toilet seat as someone with HIV. Unless you think people with HIV should disclose whenever they use a public toilet...

I'm sorry but what...?

Is that for you to decide or for them to? Because it sounds like you're making the decision for them, which in turn is taking away the other person's agency. I get the whole scientific argument, but that doesn't mean you should just ignore the other person and not disclose (even if HIV viral load is close to 0, which is still a risk even if it's so slim it might as well be nonexistent).
Last edited by MegaManTrigger; 10-08-2017 at 02:42 AM.
sjboi
Junior Member
(10-08-2017, 02:41 AM)

Originally Posted by plagiarize

That's no reason to keep a bad law that is doing more harm than good.

Is it doing more harm though? Being potentially convicted of a felony is a pretty big incentive to disclose oneís poz status. Without such ramifications, shitty people will be less inclined to disclose such information.
Niko Bellic
Junior Member
(10-08-2017, 02:42 AM)
Niko Bellic's Avatar

Originally Posted by plagiarize

No one is supporting that with impunity. It is still illegal. It should still be illegal. Where there is no risk of transmission there is no need for disclosure. As it should have been.

Is that true though? From a quick google search I found this:

Being undetectable is a great result because it means your virus is under control. However, undetectable does not mean that you have been cured of HIV or that you cannot pass it to others. It just means that there is not enough HIV in your bloodstream for the test to measure.

It is my understanding that transmission is still possible, even if unlikely, if your viral load is at zero, or undetectable levels. I deeply empathize with anyone afflicted with HIV trying to get their rocks off. But sorry, it's unethical not to disclose you have HIV to a prospective partner: it should be up to them to determine for themselves if even a trivial level of risk is acceptable. They should not unwittingly have their exposure to this risk determined for them.
plagiarize
Member
(10-08-2017, 02:45 AM)
plagiarize's Avatar

Originally Posted by Earthbound64

I did this for a couple of reasons:

1) To highlight the absurdity of the circularity here, and that essentially* nothing was changing from the earlier posts to the later posts

1*) Except going from "your viral load is 0" to "undetectable" - which, to give credit where it's due, was an increase in accuracy. However, this improvement was not met by an accompanying improvement in the arguments.

2) As highlighted in the above 2 points, and in the statement on various division equations above, a fundamental misunderstanding of "0" and points near 0.

Basically, as long as the continued process of:
"effectively 0" == 0
"undetectable viral load" == "0 viral load"
Continues, there's going to be no meaningful change in the repeated rejoinders, as highlighted in the multiple quotes above.

Why should my point change when the science remains the same and when you and other people have done nothing to demonstrate that scientists and the CDC are wrong to label the risk as effectively zero?

You failing to grasp it isn't going to convince me to stop saying it. If you think the CDC are wrong to tell people there is effectively no risk, then tell them why the large volume of science they reviewed before making this major statement should be disregarded.

If you need to have it explained to you why scientists say things like negligible risk or effectively zero, and can't grasp it, then you can't blame me for continuing to try.

Trust me if I thought you were incapable of grasping the concept I would have given up.

Effecticely zero risk, is about as strongly worded a conclusion as a scientist is going to give you. If they wanted people not to do it due to a small risk of something really bad happening they wouldn't say effectively zero.
Menchi
Member
(10-08-2017, 02:48 AM)
Menchi's Avatar

Originally Posted by plagiarize

At low viral load you should disclose and it is illegal to do so. At undetectable viral load there is no risk so you shouldn't have to.

You aren't taking away anyone's agency to not tell them about a health issue you have that poses them zero risk. Like I said, believing there is a risk when the science says otherwise is no different to being afraid of using the same toilet seat as someone with HIV. Unless you think people with HIV should disclose whenever they use a public toilet...

If you're not able to disclose to me that you're HIV+, with it being as treatable as it is, why would I trust that you're on your meds 100% - You -should- always disclose. You do not remove the choice of your partner because you think you know better, risk be damned. The toilet seat analogy doesn't work, as you're not -actively- engaging in sexual practices with them.
plagiarize
Member
(10-08-2017, 02:49 AM)
plagiarize's Avatar

Originally Posted by Niko Bellic

Is that true though? From a quick google search I found this:

It is my understanding that transmission is still possible, even if unlikely, if your viral load is at zero, or undetectable levels. I deeply empathize with anyone afflicted with HIV trying to get their rocks off. But sorry, it's unethical not to disclose you have HIV to a prospective partner: it should be up to them to determine for themselves if even a trivial level of risk is acceptable. They should not unwittingly have their exposure to this risk determined for them.

The current understanding is that the risk with viral zero load is zero. As we have gained more and more studies and monitored more and more patients, the confidence in the risk has continued to shrink all the way down to zero. Something scientists weren't prepared to say with less data a few years back. Every year our understanding gets better.
necrosis
Member
(10-08-2017, 03:02 AM)
necrosis's Avatar

Originally Posted by Menchi

Um... The point is only -one- party knows what they're getting in to, and they're taking the decision that it "doesn't matter" as they are "low risk" thus, removing sexual agency of the partner.

yeah, i misread the OP, my bad

this is kind of fucked
pixelation
Member
(10-08-2017, 03:02 AM)
pixelation's Avatar

Originally Posted by MisterR

You talk about ignorance. How about you realize how expensive and unavailable health care is to a lot of people in this country.

PREACH.
pixelation
Member
(10-08-2017, 03:05 AM)
pixelation's Avatar

Originally Posted by Menchi

There is currently, a risk of transmission, even at low viral load. You not disclosing, is an implicit removal of someone else's sexual agency, and should NOT be up to you. It should be up to your partner,

Don't try to make him understand, he doesn't want to.
Father_Brain
Samus made me a Widower :(
(10-08-2017, 03:29 AM)
Father_Brain's Avatar

Originally Posted by pixelation

Don't try to make him understand, he doesn't want to.

Most of GAF clearly doesn't want to understand why next to no one who actually works in HIV prevention for a living supports criminalizing transmission.
metalslimer
Member
(10-08-2017, 03:32 AM)
metalslimer's Avatar
Armchair analysts here obviously understand HIV far better than the people who have been on the front line of treating it for decades now
Brock Reiher
Member
(10-08-2017, 03:32 AM)
Brock Reiher's Avatar

Originally Posted by sjboi

Is it doing more harm though? Being potentially convicted of a felony is a pretty big incentive to disclose oneís poz status. Without such ramifications, shitty people will be less inclined to disclose such information.

No, it's an incentive to never find out of you have it in the first place until you're hospitalized and already spread it.

Originally Posted by metalslimer

Armchair analysts here obviously understand HIV far better than the people who have been on the front line of treating it for decades now

But germs are scary
Last edited by Brock Reiher; 10-08-2017 at 03:34 AM.
Kebiinu
Member
(10-08-2017, 03:35 AM)
Kebiinu's Avatar

Originally Posted by Niko Bellic

You support being able, with impunity, to knowingly expose a sexual partner to HIV without disclosure? Seriously?

Lol, I know right?

That's not at all what I said, or what the bill states. But sure, try again.
metalslimer
Member
(10-08-2017, 03:35 AM)
metalslimer's Avatar

Originally Posted by Brock Reiher

No, it's an incentive to never find out of you have it in the first place until you're hospitalized and already spread it.

Which is exactly why many people have been pushing for this decriminalization in the first place but people aren't listening to any logic when it comes to HIV. They would rather go with their gut reaction rather than listen to anything else.

People shouldn't worry though, the data will bear what the right decision was because this will be heavily studied
titiklabingapat
Member
(10-08-2017, 03:36 AM)
titiklabingapat's Avatar

Originally Posted by Enco

Secretly infecting people with HIV defense force?

Got damn gaf..

There is no such thing.
Moosichu
Member
(10-08-2017, 03:37 AM)
Moosichu's Avatar

Originally Posted by Enco

Secretly infecting people with HIV defense force?

Got damn gaf..

Can you quote anyone defending that please?
titiklabingapat
Member
(10-08-2017, 03:38 AM)
titiklabingapat's Avatar

Originally Posted by ZealousD

And your point? That's still a crime, right?

And even if it didn't meet the definition of terrorism, I'm pretty sure the authorities aren't going to look the other way if I send an individual a letter with anthrax in it. Intentionally inflicting somebody with a disease at least has to be considered assault...

That you are equating someone living with HIV to a terrorist, point blank.
Brock Reiher
Member
(10-08-2017, 03:38 AM)
Brock Reiher's Avatar

Originally Posted by metalslimer

Which is exactly why many people have been pushing for this decriminalization in the first place but people aren't listening to any logic when it comes to HIV. They would rather go with their gut reaction rather than listen to anything else.

People shouldn't worry though, the data will bear what the right decision was because this will be heavily studied

...Data, huh? You some kind of disease loving sociopath?
titiklabingapat
Member
(10-08-2017, 03:40 AM)
titiklabingapat's Avatar

Originally Posted by Menchi

There is currently, a risk of transmission, even at low viral load. You not disclosing, is an implicit removal of someone else's sexual agency, and should NOT be up to you. It should be up to your partner,

Low viral load and undetectable are two completely different things.
metalslimer
Member
(10-08-2017, 03:40 AM)
metalslimer's Avatar

Originally Posted by Brock Reiher

...Data, huh? You some kind of disease loving sociopath?

As someone in the medical field now you would be saddened how many people don't know a thing about HIV

Thread Tools