Amen. Jesus Christ this topic, makes my head hurt with the absurd wrongness of some of these posts.
Yeah, that's my reaction too. What the fuck is going on here?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Knowingly exposing others to HIV will no longer be a felony in California
- Thread starter koji kabuto
- Start date
Amen. Jesus Christ this topic, makes my head hurt with the absurd wrongness of some of these posts.
Yeah, that's my reaction too. What the fuck is going on here?
Yep, that's my stance on this.
No..
plagiarize
Banned
I think the misunderstanding is coming from fear, based on both outdated information, and on the anti homosexual fear mongering that went on in the past. I only hope that people will stop being afraid of this outdated bogeyman, and stop being so paranoid about catching HIV.
I presume that everyone paranoid about it is taking all the sensible steps they can to minimize their own risk, and I certainly don't discourage people from continuing to do that. There are lots of nasty sexually transmitted diseases. HPV doesn't get nearly the coverage it should, for example, given how rapidly it seems to be spreading.
But please people, please, read up on the latest science on this, because your chance of catching it from someone undergoing proper treatment is incredibly small (and effectively zero, if they have an undetectable viral load), and even if you did catch it, it's not nearly as scary as it used to be.
It's not doing society any good to put people in prison that haven't passed the virus on, or to act as if it's the worst communicable disease out there.
SoRuffShoNuff
Member
I just don't see how having to tell someone you want to sleep with that you have HIV and giving them that choice to have sex with you is a punishment. You have an incurable serious STD and are trying to sleep with someone without letting them know you have it, that should be punished harshly. The answer isn't to lower the punishment for HIV its to increase the punishment for other diseases to match.
plagiarize
Banned
People used to be afraid of catching AIDS off toilet seats. Should an HIV positive person have to disclose before they use a toilet seat?
If there's zero risk why do they have to tell you?
titiklabingapat
Member
Nowhere in my post did I say that you should not disclose. You should. Everyone should. Just that if you choose not to do it, it should not be a felony if no infections occur.
Brock Reiher
Banned
I agree with a lot of this, but for a young person who doesn't know they're infected from the get go its probably the worst communicable disease out there. Outside of like ebola or smallpox lol
Are you serious?
I have a few HIV friends who aren't ashamed (displaying their status even on their Twitter bio), and they are all in favor of this bill. Shit did a lot more harm than it did good.
pixelation
Member
Well post the updated information... no?
plagiarize
Banned
Yes. I am. We now believe many people with HIV pose no more risk of transmitting HIV via intercourse than they do transmitting it via toilet seat. So why should those people have to disclose before either?
If you are infected with hiv you would have to be pretty fucking stupid if you think that your future partners would be ok with you not disclosing the disease, no matter how small the risk is.
And jesus christ at the "ok it's not curable, but it's perfectly treatable if you take your meds for the rest of your life!"
This is not a valid argument against disclosing.
And jesus christ at the "ok it's not curable, but it's perfectly treatable if you take your meds for the rest of your life!"
This is not a valid argument against disclosing.
titiklabingapat
Member
Why is it more harm that they are broadcasting their status proudly? Isn't that partly the intention of the new law?
This does not work.
ElfArmy177
Member
At this point I think plagarized is just saying things to get a rise out of people...
Then you don't understand math.
His point is sound. If someone pulls a Frank Reynolds and thinks that a handshake from a pos person is going to get them infected, we as a society recognize that that person is being irrational. Only now that same logic applies to sex with a pos person (on appropriate medication, undetectable viral load, etc.).
Hickbilly Deluxe
Banned
Because thats not their fucking choice? Its not their health thats being put at risk, its their partners.
I'm talking about the bill being passed, lol. I think it's dope that they're proudly broadcasting their status.
Brock Reiher
Banned
This change in law isn't arguing that people infected with HIV shouldn't disclose.
plagiarize
Banned
???
It's linked right there in my post.
The CDC's stance as of last month is that there is effectively no risk of transmitting the HIV virus through intercourse if you have an undetectable viral load.
They sure as shit didn't make such a statement because they wanted to convey the message that there was a small risk of transmitting the disease in those circumstances. This is the CDC.
In both cases they aren't putting anyone else's health at risk.
That's the entire point.
One example you gave is purely false - you cant catch AIDS from a toilet seat. While the chances are extremely slim that someone with HIV can give someone the infection if theyre undetectable, its still not virtually impossible. Youre still dealing with someone elses health, and it should be their right to know so that they can take the proper precautions.
SoRuffShoNuff
Member
Because having sex with someone is a wee bit more personal than taking a shit!
titiklabingapat
Member
In the perfect world, this is how it would work.
In the real world, people would just not go to testing at all and won't seek treatment. After all, if I don't know I have it, then it's not a crime.
Brock Reiher
Banned
It's been that way since the start of the thread. Plagarized has good points but then throws in a weird insult or childish remark which isn't helpful when emotions are so high when it comes to this subject in the first place.
Their health isn't being put at risk because someone with HIV, on meds, with an undetectable viral load poses essentially zero risk to them.
skullmuffins
Banned
the thing is, there are many heath organizations that believe it is not just virtually impossible, but literally impossible to transmit if your viral loads are undetectable. that's the growing consensus.
While i do think a law banning not disclosing is fine, my post was mostly directed against the posters who doesn't think that not disclosing is a big deal.
Earthbound64
Banned
As someone with a degree in Mathematics, the people in here equating "essentially zero" with "zero" are making my head hurt.
Many health organizations say its literally impossible to get HIV from oral, while others say the chances are extremely slim. Until its undisputable, Im taking that information as there is still the possibility.
If I ask someone before hand if theyre clean and they say yes, and later find out they lied and actually do have HIV (regardless of whether its undetectable or not) I would be furious. The pure selfishness is disgusting.
plagiarize
Banned
It's just plagiarize.
And yes, my tone hasn't always been helpful here I can admit but I'm exasperated by people who just want to shove their heads into the sand and ignore the science. When the CDC makes a public disclosure like that, you know they're pretty damn positive that there is no longer any risk, and you can bet that the science justifying that belief has been thoroughly vetted.
I don't think the toilet seat post was pushing any boundaries. So yes, I can be confrontational, but I'm not trolling. My emotions are high too. Getting called a liar and a sociopath obviously didn't go over well with me.
Brock Reiher
Banned
Yeah. The whole "there are worse infections than HIV" thing is a weird turn that I don't agree with. I'm not sure what the severity of HIV infections has to do with this story.
Sorry about messing up your name, that's my bad. And I completely agree, but I think it's fair why people may still be concerned since people could in retrospect just say they thought their viral loads were low eve if they weren't, you know? But again, if making a felony makes people less likely to get tested for HIV in the first place I don't think it matters how easily transmitted it is in relation to this law.
The toilet seat thing still freaks me out every once in a while in real life 😅
plagiarize
Banned
They shouldn't.
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.
And_Gignac
Member
If you are undetectable you shouldn't be judged for not disclosing, since it has been proven to be impossible to transmite the disease under such circumstances. The hysteria of the ignorant shouldn't be feed.
Of course, the most honest course of action is to disclose and hope the other person is not ignorant of current scientific knowledge.
But! Willingly putting a person in risk of getting infected, wether is because you are aware of you condition, you are not undetectable and you are not using protection should be considered a law situation. Dunno if this change in law covers that.
Of course, the most honest course of action is to disclose and hope the other person is not ignorant of current scientific knowledge.
But! Willingly putting a person in risk of getting infected, wether is because you are aware of you condition, you are not undetectable and you are not using protection should be considered a law situation. Dunno if this change in law covers that.
pixelation
Member
Yes, i honestly wonder if he is POS.
That's cool and all, doesn't change the fact that you are a piece of shit if you don't disclose having an incurable disease because you're afraid of rejection and not getting laid.
What do you think? Should a person who's POS answer truthfully when asked if they're HIV +?, or is it okey to lie because... you know... highly maneagable disease!
PREACH!!!
Earthbound64
Banned
This is so unbelievably wrong it's not even funny.
Like, just miles away from the target.
If you kids are jumping into this topic late, just know that you should be getting tested every six months, kissing random people on the lips can give you incurable diseases, and it's important to disclose your health to your partners.
But no, HIV is not some big bad. They're all big bad. Especially these days. So don't expect somebody to watch out for your health, because more often than not, they won't. Yeah it's a "miserable way to look at things" but it's the world we live in.
Be safe, get tested, wear a condom. Protect your health! Don't expect someone else to do it for you.
Uh, no shit. Will I expect them to? Fuck no. That's why I say, "If you want to have raw sex, we need to both get tested together." and there are still risks after the fact.
But no, HIV is not some big bad. They're all big bad. Especially these days. So don't expect somebody to watch out for your health, because more often than not, they won't. Yeah it's a "miserable way to look at things" but it's the world we live in.
Be safe, get tested, wear a condom. Protect your health! Don't expect someone else to do it for you.
Uh, no shit. Will I expect them to? Fuck no. That's why I say, "If you want to have raw sex, we need to both get tested together." and there are still risks after the fact.
Bumblebeetuna
Member
I know GAF generally has a defense force for everything, but I really think we've hit rock bottom here with our new "there's a chance you'll get HIV but it's such a small chance, I shouldn't have to tell you!" HIV defense force. What a fucking disgusting thread to read. Oh sure HIV medicine works for most people, if you can afford it. So best case scenario you're HIV+ the rest of your life and dealing with expensive medicine and doctor bills, plus the hassle of having to stick to a strict medicine regimen. But the chance was so small, I'm sure you'll forgive the piece of shit who felt they didn't need to tell you. Jeebus.
Then you spent too much time dealing with theoretical mathematics and not enough dealing with the practical. Yes, when you want to deal with limits and shit the difference between zero and 0.00000000001 can be important. When we're talking about the real world, however, that distinction is often irrelevant.
You want to talk numbers, math guy? How's this for numbers:
In real life, the difference between "zero" and "somewhere less than one in ten thousand" is not significant.
If you ask and they lie, that's mildly scummy. But if you don't ask, should the pos person be obligated to disclose?
Obviously not.
1/a big number is nowhere close to whatever 1/infinity is trying to represent. 1/2 is just as close to 1/infinity as 1/9999999999999999999999999999999999 is.
And_Gignac
Member
Actually the piece of shit is the person not informed enough to know that HIV CANNOT be transmitted through unprotected sex if the hiv positive person is undetectable. This is not about your opinion or feelings, this is a scientific fact.
Should HIV people also disclose to everyone they give a hand, a hug or a kiss before doing so? No, they shouldn't. The "piece of shit" is the person expecting their fear and ignorance to be validated ( I don't actually believe such people are PoS, the fear is understandable and still culturally prevalent. But that fear should be challenged. That's what science does; challenging ignorance and irrational fears).
...who is suggesting that it's ok to lie about your status?
You've kind of positioned where you are on this issue by describing lying about having HIV as "mildly scummy".
legacyzero
Banned
Because you keep using data and breakthroughs from A MONTH AGO. Lets give it time to ensure it all sticks. If anything, you have the great news for your new partner that you had it, but youre no longer able to transmit it. Again, I feel like somebody should know either way. And this sounds insensitive, but the feelings and potential of being passed on matters little in comparison to the well-being and the agency to chose and consent or not.
Again, the day that we get a sure fire, easy, and inexpensive cure, you should be expected to inform.
pixelation
Member
Can they say that there's 100% certainty that you can't get it though?, because i don't see that. There is still room for infection, miniscule as it may be. And its only civil to let your partner know before you decide to act selfish putting her/his health (and wallet) at risk.
psynergylover
Member
Fucking this. I don't get how this is so hard to understand...
plagiarize
Banned
Thank you. That puts it better than I did. In science it's very hard to rule something as impossible, hence you get statements like 'effectively zero'. But the whole point of that statement is saying that 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.
But if people are going to point to a statement saying the chances of something happening are negligible as confirmation that it still could happen, I'm going to roll my eyes. Espescially if they did mathematics degrees.