Flytrap #2 - Possible NSFW Content and WAW fail , Whiskey Bacon and tamale hootch

Status
Not open for further replies.

dbzeag

Wants to kiss you where it stinks
Jun 9, 2006
16,992
451
298
42
After yesterday you shouldn't ever call someone else thick-skulled ever again! :lol:

Funny enough, I am not alone.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/61389464/Repeal-Hiv-Discrimination-Act-Draft

In most States, individuals with no intent to transmit HIV may be punished as harshly as a person who actually intends to transmit the virus. Similarly, low- and no-risk activities may be punished as harshly as riskier exposure activities. In most States, any sexual exposure—regardless of whether protection is used—is subject to the same
punishment as actual transmission.
(11) According to the CDC, correct and consistent condom use reduces the risk of HIV transmission. Nonetheless, most State HIV-specific laws and prosecutions do not treat the use of a condom during sexual intercourse as a mitigating factor or evidence that the defendant did not intend to transmit HIV.
(12) In addition, criminal laws and prosecutions do not take into account the reduced risk of infection by an individual who is taking antiretroviral medication, which can significantly reduce viral load to undetectable levels, posing a very low risk of transmitting the virus.
(13) Although HIV/AIDS currently is viewed as a chronic, treatable medical condition, people living with HIV have been charged under aggravated assault, attempted murder, and even bioterrorism statutes because prosecutors, courts, and legislators continue to view and characterize the blood, semen, and saliva of people living with HIV as a ‘‘deadly weapon’’.

Opinions on the subject

First, the proposed bill states that “The criminalization of exposure to and/or transmission of HIV without the requirement of malicious intent violates the civil and human rights of individuals who are HIV-positive,” and it’s correct. According to Housing Works, the largest community-based AIDS organization in the U.S., HIV-crimes do more harm than good even though their supporters claim these policies protect the public health.

The proposed bill goes onto say that “The criminalization of exposure to and/or transmission of HIV without the requirement of malicious intent violates the civil and human rights of individuals who are HIV-positive.”

But worst of all, HIV-criminalization laws not only perpetuate anti-HIV animus by suggesting the idea that HIV-positive people are disease-spreading pariahs worthy of extra societal punishment, but they also provide a good reason NOT to get tested. After all, if neither you nor anyone else knows your HIV-status, how can anyone accuse you of knowingly trying to spread it?

Repealing these laws would help us re-direct local resources to where the real HIV-battle is: reducing transmission in the first place as well as educating and treating those who are already infected.
 

plot

Morning Boehner
Oct 16, 2006
20,031
4,165
323
kansas city
Yea, but those guys are idiots. Don't be one of them.

The not getting tested argument shows how selfish people are, not caring if they spread a deadly disease as long as they get laid.
 

dbzeag

Wants to kiss you where it stinks
Jun 9, 2006
16,992
451
298
42
Yea, but those guys are idiots. Don't be one of them.

The not getting tested argument shows how selfish people are, not caring if they spread a deadly disease as long as they get laid.

A responsible adult should get regularly tested and before engaging in questionable behavior question the other party involved of their status to be serocompatible. It should not, however, be mandated. And it certainly should not be discriminated against.

An man that spits onto a police officer might get a "minor" felony charge. But if he's HIV-positive, it's a 35 year prison sentence. And the intent was not to ineffectively spread HIV, but to show frustration at the scene. His serostatus had nothing to do with his actions, but because he was positive, they tacked on a huge prison sentence.

Or the case of a man in Iowa with an undetectable HIV viral load having concentual and protected sexual encounter with a person that did not involve transmission (the receiver was still negative afterward) received a 25 year sentence and was put on the sexual offender list, barred from visiting any children in his family like nephews and nieces.

The bill is to help with this type of blatent discrimination. I think what would help matters is court cases that genericize diseases and not focus on HIV. If there was a court case or arrest, the person spread "highly dangerous infection disease", not HIV explicitly.
 

dbzeag

Wants to kiss you where it stinks
Jun 9, 2006
16,992
451
298
42
On a lighter note:

tumblr_lnf4r6bucS1qjx9myo1_500.jpg
 

dbzeag

Wants to kiss you where it stinks
Jun 9, 2006
16,992
451
298
42
No, but Db is saying 'If you get it, it's not the guys fault who had it for not telling you he did'.

which is effed up thinking in any parallel universe.

If you didn't ask your partner what his or her history is but you made the choice of sleeping with that person anyway, why should that completely dissolve any blame? It was your choice and responsibility to find out your partner's history and it is your responsibility to protect yourself with proven STD-prevention methods or it is your choice to abstain from any action with someone that you suspect is "loaded". Why would it be automatically the top's fault in those non-malicious situations?
 

Duke

. . first name's "Daisy" boys
May 12, 2008
55,859
18,142
41
Brandon, FL
Yup, you still don't get it.

How the hell is knowing you have it, and know that if you raw dog someone that they have a good chance of getting it not in any way malicious.

You're concept of intent is so off center on this I can't even fathom it.
 

dbzeag

Wants to kiss you where it stinks
Jun 9, 2006
16,992
451
298
42
Yup, you still don't get it.

How the hell is knowing you have it, and know that if you raw dog someone that they have a good chance of getting it not in any way malicious.

You're concept of intent is so off center on this I can't even fathom it.

There are people that are into "giftgiving" and WANT to spread the disease to others. This is a fringe group, however. Most just want to have sex and leave the responsibility to the other person. Since I am responsible, I would make sure my partner knew any condition I have. But I shouldn't be lawfully mandated to tell them. Certainly if it's just a one night stand without intent of "giftgiving". It's just innocent sex that is a bit more dangerous because of the fear of infection as a possibility. I personally know of people that do not know their status because they don't care, they just want to have sex and enjoy themselves. Sometimes they wrap up, sometimes not. It's their partner's call if they want to wrap up or not. It is not malicious intent, it's just sex for sex's sake. Should that be a felony? Sure it's irresponsible, but you want to police that bedroom activity, too?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.