Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-updates-gov-brown-downgrades-from-felony-to-1507331544-htmlstory.html

Just...yeah, disturbing.

insane

Also includes people who donate blood and do not disclose they have HIV. Just awesome. I know some leftist here will try to defend this, I know it. I await the insanity.

HIV The Disease of Love.

Some interesting points in that article.

"HIV has been the only communicable disease for which exposure is a felony under California law. The current law, Wiener argued, may convince people not to be tested for HIV, because without a test they cannot be charged with a felony if they expose a partner to the infection."

Why is HIV the only one where it's a felony? Seems dumb. If anything they should make intentionally exposing people to any serious infectious disease a felony.

Originally posted by BackFire
Some interesting points in that article.

"HIV has been the only communicable disease for which exposure is a felony under California law. The current law, Wiener argued, may convince people not to be tested for HIV, because without a test they cannot be charged with a felony if they expose a partner to the infection."

Why is HIV the only one where it's a felony? Seems dumb. If anything they should make intentionally exposing people to any serious infectious disease a felony.

Do you think intentionally exposing someone to HIV should be a felony?

Yes I do. I think if anything it should be expanded to include other diseases.

That said, I do also see how it could be difficult to prosecute. It would essentially be one person's word against the other's. How do you really prove that one person didn't consent to intercourse even after being told?

That I agree with.

Now in California you can potentially suffer more from using the wrong pronoun than you could intentionally infecting someone with HIV.

Why does this state deserve to be taken seriously?

Sadly the Pronoun Misuse will probably become a Felony but the HIV thing won't.

What boggles the mind is how these people see themselves as morally superior to everyone else lol.

Being a Hypocrite takes care of that.

You have to take the good with the bad with Cali unfortunately. We may have some weird/dumb laws pass, but also some good ones pass as well.

For instance, recently it was signed into law that it is no longer legal for pet stores to sell dogs that they bought from puppy mills. All dogs must now be rescue dogs.

Also the first year of community college is now free from tuition.

Also weed is legal, or will be soon, I guess.

I saw the pet stuff, that is cool, but it's kinda pointless when you live in a state you can go to jail for using the wrong pronoun.

Let us hope the new pet owners don't think the wrong thoughts or say the wrong things.

Only in California. Insane. Please make sure your partner signs a disclosure form before 'mingling'.

Originally posted by BackFire
Why is HIV the only one where it's a felony? Seems dumb. If anything they should make intentionally exposing people to any serious infectious disease a felony.


Originally posted by Surtur
Do you think intentionally exposing someone to HIV should be a felony?


Originally posted by BackFire
Yes I do. I think if anything it should be expanded to include other diseases.

That said, I do also see how it could be difficult to prosecute. It would essentially be one person's word against the other's. How do you really prove that one person didn't consent to intercourse even after being told?

Originally posted by Flyattractor
That I agree with.


I enjoyed reading this very short conversation. Great point from Backfire and Surtur's concern is satisfactorily addressed. Every one of us agrees with Backfire.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I Every one of us agrees with Backfire.


Yes It does sound HORRIBLE don't it.

I'm glad you all agree with my point that having sex with corpses should remain legal and federally funded.

I just await someone to defend this. Knowing this board I think there are some who would agree, I wonder if they will come out and admit it.

Originally posted by BackFire
You have to take the good with the bad with Cali unfortunately. We may have some weird/dumb laws pass, but also some good ones pass as well.

Right. Off topic, but I like the law about what overtime really is. More than 8 hours, overtime. Instead of more than 40 hours, it's more than 8 hours in a day.

This stopped some very abusive practices and almost gerrymandering-like schedule packing and cracking to skirt around the 40 hour overtime cutoff.


I had to deal with the 8 hour rule when standing up an IT Site in LA. We had to do scheduling for a very large IT contract of the Federal Government. No overtime was allowed on the contract because the federal government peeps didn't want to pay it. So I had to staff in a way that satisfied the labor laws in all 3 sites I stood up.

It was certainly a logic puzzle of f*ckering in the beginning. But after I saw how abusive some of the other contracts could get with their 40 hour work week, it made sense. One of my employees, after someone reported the abusive cracking and packing of the schedules to get around the 40 hour a week limit, actually got a $6000 paycheck for back pay on overtime worked. He was a good employee. Came into work, did his job, and went home. But his time was certainly abused to get around the 40 hour thing.

So, yes, I agree with the 8 hour rule that CA has. It is a labor law put into place to protect exploited employees. Can't schedule someone to work two 16 hour days in a row but get around having to pay overtime just because the "work week" started anew! Brilliant and wonderful labor law.

Originally posted by BackFire
I'm glad you all agree with my point that having sex with corpses should remain legal and federally funded.

But only if they sign that Permission slip first...Cause You do live in Califunny after all!

Originally posted by dadudemon
Right. Off topic, but I like the law about what overtime really is. More than 8 hours, overtime. Instead of more than 40 hours, it's more than 8 hours in a day.

This stopped some very abusive practices and almost gerrymandering-like schedule packing and cracking to skirt around the 40 hour overtime cutoff.


I had to deal with the 8 hour rule when standing up an IT Site in LA. We had to do scheduling for a very large IT contract of the Federal Government. No overtime was allowed on the contract because the federal government peeps didn't want to pay it. So I had to staff in a way that satisfied the labor laws in all 3 sites I stood up.

It was certainly a logic puzzle of f*ckering in the beginning. But after I saw how abusive some of the other contracts could get with their 40 hour work week, it made sense. One of my employees, after someone reported the abusive cracking and packing of the schedules to get around the 40 hour a week limit, actually got a $6000 paycheck for back pay on overtime worked. He was a good employee. Came into work, did his job, and went home. But his time was certainly abused to get around the 40 hour thing.

So, yes, I agree with the 8 hour rule that CA has. It is a labor law put into place to protect exploited employees. Can't schedule someone to work two 16 hour days in a row but get around having to pay overtime just because the "work week" started anew! Brilliant and wonderful labor law.

The law isn't quite as cut and dry as you may think. It is possible to work over 8 hours a day without overtime. My gf has a government job and works 9 hour days, but she only works 4 days every other week. She does not get overtime pay. She chooses this schedule over the regular 8 hours 5 days a week schedule so she gets an extra day off. I don't know the specifics of the law, but it seems if employees sign off on working more than 8 hour days like my gf did, they do not get overtime pay as a result.

White People Problems or what?

Originally posted by BackFire
The law isn't quite as cut and dry as you may think. It is possible to work over 8 hours a day without overtime. My gf has a government job and works 9 hour days, but she only works 4 days every other week. She does not get overtime pay. She chooses this schedule over the regular 8 hours 5 days a week schedule so she gets an extra day off. I don't know the specifics of the law, but it seems if employees sign off on working more than 8 hour days like my gf did, they do not get overtime pay as a result.


This is the exact case that can get around the rule: the employee has to sign-off on the schedule in very explicit terms.

There were several employees in CA who complained about not getting to work 4 days, 10 hour shifts. They loved it. So after 1 year where none of the CA employees getting to work 4-tens, we sent some ideas to legal and they said that it has to be in clear terms and signed by the employees that they want to work 4-tens. And we did it. So, yes, you're correct: that specific labor law is not ironclad and I'm quite sure people have been covertly threatened with termination if they did not sing-off their right to the 8+ hour overtime.

However, in general, I think this kind of law is a step in the correct direction. The libertarian side of me says that we shouldn't have laws like this and to let the employee and employer make their own rules. But the relationship, from the beginning, is very one-sided so there will never be equitable terms in these kinds of cases. Hence labor laws need to exist.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
White People Problems or what?

Having a full time job is white-people problems?

I mean, this issue kinda reflects the issues I have with both the social left and social right in regards to sex. My issue with the social right's stance on sex is that it's too authoritarian and puritan and shit, such as with "abstinence only sex-ed," weird attempts to legislate what sex activities are allowed, opposition to gay marriage, etc. This leads to people not being equipped with the knowledge needed to participate in safe sex. Whereas my issue with the social left's stance on sex is that it's too swept up in "sexual liberation" to consider the necessity of sexual responsibility, which is apparent with being so sex-positive as to celebrate sex and suggest that discouraging casual sex is ****-shaming, or the people who are outraged when a pro-life person suggests that nobody is forcing anyone else to have a baby and that people should simply be responsible about and for their sexual activities. This dangerous attitude leads to the growing single motherhood rate.

As Jordan Peterson put it, we're not mature enough as a society to have an open an honest conversation about what the proper place of sex in our society should be.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
I mean, this issue kinda reflects the issues I have with both the social left and social right in regards to sex. My issue with the social right's stance on sex is that it's too authoritarian and puritan and shit, such as with "abstinence only sex-ed," weird attempts to legislate what sex activities are allowed, opposition to gay marriage, etc. This leads to people not being equipped with the knowledge needed to participate in safe sex. Whereas my issue with the social left's stance on sex is that it's too swept up in "sexual liberation" to consider the necessity of sexual responsibility, which is apparent with being so sex-positive as to celebrate sex and suggest that discouraging casual sex is ****-shaming, or the people who are outraged when a pro-life person suggests that nobody is forcing anyone else to have a baby and that people should simply be responsible about and for their sexual activities. This dangerous attitude leads to the growing single motherhood rate.

As Jordan Peterson put it, we're not mature enough as a society to have an open an honest conversation about what the proper place of sex in our society should be.

I mean you reflect more or less about how I feel when it comes to casual sex, etc. I'm not looking for a virgin, but nor am I looking for the town pump.

Originally posted by dadudemon
This is the exact case that can get around the rule: the employee has to sign-off on the schedule in very explicit terms.

There were several employees in CA who complained about not getting to work 4 days, 10 hour shifts. They loved it. So after 1 year where none of the CA employees getting to work 4-tens, we sent some ideas to legal and they said that it has to be in clear terms and signed by the employees that they want to work 4-tens. And we did it. So, yes, you're correct: that specific labor law is not ironclad and I'm quite sure people have been covertly threatened with termination if they did not sing-off their right to the 8+ hour overtime.

However, in general, I think this kind of law is a step in the correct direction. The libertarian side of me says that we shouldn't have laws like this and to let the employee and employer make their own rules. But the relationship, from the beginning, is very one-sided so there will never be equitable terms in these kinds of cases. Hence labor laws need to exist.

Definitely. It's good to have a choice, my gf loves getting an extra day off every other week so I'm glad the option exists. It seems like a pretty cool deal.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Having a full time job is white-people problems?

I don't really call a 4 days every other week a full time job exactly. But then it is Government Work ...

It's full time. She works 40 hour weeks, and it's local government, not federal government. It's not easy work, either. Some of it is very stressful and hectic.

I am suddenly having a work pop into mind but I don't know exactly how to phrase it...

Originally posted by Surtur
I mean you reflect more or less about how I feel when it comes to casual sex, etc. I'm not looking for a virgin, but nor am I looking for the town pump.
Yeah my moral stance on sex is that it should be between two people in a genuine relationship.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Yeah my moral stance on sex is that it should be between two people in a genuine relationship.




And in cases where it is not, they should both have informed-consent.

Originally posted by dadudemon



And in cases where it is not, they should both have informed-consent.

Does it have to be "Written Consent"?

Originally posted by Flyattractor
Does it have to be "Written Consent"?

These days it does. Some feminists think if you f*ck a dude and regret it...it is rape, the girl got raped.

So damn, by that logic I've been raped by fat chicks.

Originally posted by Surtur
These days it does. Some feminists think if you f*ck a dude and regret it...it is rape, the girl got raped.

So damn, by that logic I've been raped by fat chicks.

This reminds me of this young girls talking and they firmly believed that U.S Colleges are now the RAPE capitols of the World...so yea..Bring on the Sex Bots.

Do they need to make chubby sexbots just to be fair?

Just as long as we don't let the bots Unionized...

Originally posted by Emperordmb
I mean, this issue kinda reflects the issues I have with both the social left and social right in regards to sex. My issue with the social right's stance on sex is that it's too authoritarian and puritan and shit, such as with "abstinence only sex-ed," weird attempts to legislate what sex activities are allowed, opposition to gay marriage, etc. This leads to people not being equipped with the knowledge needed to participate in safe sex. Whereas my issue with the social left's stance on sex is that it's too swept up in "sexual liberation" to consider the necessity of sexual responsibility, which is apparent with being so sex-positive as to celebrate sex and suggest that discouraging casual sex is ****-shaming, or the people who are outraged when a pro-life person suggests that nobody is forcing anyone else to have a baby and that people should simply be responsible about and for their sexual activities. This dangerous attitude leads to the growing single motherhood rate.

As Jordan Peterson put it, we're not mature enough as a society to have an open an honest conversation about what the proper place of sex in our society should be.

We're a society of selfish assholes.

One side doesn't want to be told who, when, where, or how to ****,,and the other side doesn't want to pay for their kids (And honestly, both sides don't want to pay. It's just one is willing to put the burdon on society, while the other just doesn't want to pay for society..)

Originally posted by Surtur
Also includes people who donate blood and do not disclose they have HIV. Just awesome. I know some leftist here will try to defend this, I know it. I await the insanity.

Didn't take long to show that you don't really give a shit about people being knowingly infected with HIV but just want to attack imaginary leftist stances.

Unsurprising.

Originally posted by jaden101
Didn't take long to show that you don't really give a shit about people being knowingly infected with HIV but just want to attack imaginary leftist stances.

Unsurprising.

Didn't take long for you to show that you will support your Leftist Stances over the safety of people.

Unsurprising.

Get the written consent, the prenuptial agreement, everything. Women these days are relentless. Almost not worth getting your dick wet for.

Originally posted by Flyattractor

Didn't take long for you to show that you will support your Leftist Stances over the safety of people.

Unsurprising.

Show me where I did that.

Originally posted by jaden101
Show me where I did that.

....Ok...

*See Every Time Jaden Posts some thing "Blah blah Surter is a Righty" blah blah blah*


There. YOU HAPPY NOW!?

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Isuggest that discouraging casual sex is ****-shaming
Uh, isn't sex a casual thing?

Originally posted by jaden101
Didn't take long to show that you don't really give a shit about people being knowingly infected with HIV but just want to attack imaginary leftist stances.

Unsurprising.

Lol nope, nice try. I do care, and it's people on the left putting together these asinine things. So yes indeed, I am VERY eager to see folk try to defend this, and yep I know the only ones who do will come from the left. You see I do not care just about this though, but what it could lead to. There is a problem when using the wrong pronoun can potentially land you in jail for longer than purposely infecting someone with HIV. I'm curious as to which side you feel has more responsibility for us getting to that point?

Also, did you have any comments on the batshit insanity of them making this no longer a felony?

Originally posted by Flyattractor
....Ok...

*See Every Time Jaden Posts some thing "Blah blah Surter is a Righty" blah blah blah*


There. YOU HAPPY NOW!?

So you can't then. 👍 smashing.

Originally posted by Surtur
Lol nope, nice try. I do care, and it's people on the left putting together these asinine things. So yes indeed, I am VERY eager to see folk try to defend this, and yep I know the only ones who do will come from the left. You see I do not care just about this though, but what it could lead to. There is a problem when using the wrong pronoun can potentially land you in jail for longer than purposely infecting someone with HIV. I'm curious as to which side you feel has more responsibility for us getting to that point?

Also, did you have any comments on the batshit insanity of them making this no longer a felony?

And yet no one here on the left has defended it. You continually create ridiculous strawmen and attack those imaginary leftists that exist solely in your mind and proclaim them to be representative of all people on the left. I've lost count of the number of times on these boards you and others have claimed "leftists will defend this" and when none of them do you still try and pin it on people.

I don't give a **** about pronouns.

Not prosecuting people who knowingly infect others with HIV is idiocy of the highest magnitude. It should be attempted murder if the person doesn't die and murder if they eventually develop AIDS and die.

Originally posted by Kurk
Get the written consent, the prenuptial agreement, everything. Women these days are relentless. Almost not worth getting your dick wet for.

Even written consent isn't iron clad.

Lawyers and judges without common sense can pervert anything.

Originally posted by jaden101
Didn't take long to show that you don't really give a shit about people being knowingly infected with HIV but just want to attack imaginary leftist stances.

Unsurprising.

Bingo

Originally posted by jaden101
And yet no one here on the left has defended it. You continually create ridiculous strawmen and attack those imaginary leftists that exist solely in your mind and proclaim them to be representative of all people on the left. I've lost count of the number of times on these boards you and others have claimed "leftists will defend this" and when none of them do you still try and pin it on people.

I don't give a **** about pronouns.

Not prosecuting people who knowingly infect others with HIV is idiocy of the highest magnitude. It should be attempted murder if the person doesn't die and murder if they eventually develop AIDS and die.
#nailedit

Originally posted by jaden101
And yet no one here on the left has defended it. You continually create ridiculous strawmen and attack those imaginary leftists that exist solely in your mind and proclaim them to be representative of all people on the left. I've lost count of the number of times on these boards you and others have claimed "leftists will defend this" and when none of them do you still try and pin it on people.

I don't give a **** about pronouns.

Not prosecuting people who knowingly infect others with HIV is idiocy of the highest magnitude. It should be attempted murder if the person doesn't die and murder if they eventually develop AIDS and die.

There are those that do defend it though. Mostly coming from the gay community. You also don't need to care specifically about pronouns, but you should care that technically you could get jail time for not using the pronoun a person wants you to use.

And what I do isn't really any different from what people here do with conservatives.

Originally posted by Robtard
Bingo


#nailedit

Any thoughts on the thread? Do you agree that this should be a felony?

Originally posted by Surtur
Any thoughts on the thread? Do you agree that this should be a felony?

As a sensible person, of course I believe knowingly infecting someone with a life altering and potentially deadly virus should be a criminal offense.

See, and here you were hoping I would have been one of those "leftist" you keep inventing and attacking, but it seems they do only exist in your silly imagination.

I know we live in a world now that everything is liberal or conservative.

how phucking ridiculous but this is how basic most people seem to be.

however, i wonder how many liberals honestly support this.

Originally posted by Robtard
As a sensible person, of course I believe knowingly infecting someone with a life altering and potentially deadly virus should be a criminal offense.

See, and here you were hoping I would have been one of those "leftist" you keep inventing and attacking, but it seems they do only exist in your silly imagination.

It still is a criminal offense, it is just no longer a felony. Do you think it should be a felony?

Originally posted by Surtur
There are those that do defend it though. Mostly coming from the gay community. You also don't need to care specifically about pronouns, but you should care that technically you could get jail time for not using the pronoun a person wants you to use.

And what I do isn't really any different from what people here do with conservatives. Focus on the issues not the left or the right. Pretty simple.

laws like this make me believe the gov created AIDS

Well I'm no eLawyer, but instinctively I say yes, considering how lethal HIV can be but I'm going on feelings here.

I'd be open to hearing the legal reason(s) why the felony aspect is dropped, considering certain criteria has to be met for a crime to be a felony.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Focus on the issues not the left or the right. Pretty simple.

I find it funny this is what people on the left tend to say when they are the ones in the hot seat.

Originally posted by Surtur
I find it funny this is what people on the left tend to say when they are the ones in the hot seat. See its people like you who shouldn't be taken seriously because it's about issues not the left or the right.

Originally posted by Robtard
Well I'm no eLawyer, but instinctively I say yes, considering how lethal HIV can be but I'm going on feelings here.

I'd be open to hearing the legal reason(s) why the felony aspect is dropped, considering certain criteria has to be met for a crime to be a felony.

Oh I can give you the reasons they gave. The main reason is ending the "stigma" that keeps some from learning their HIV status. Oh they also said a person who undergoes treatment has a negligible chance of infecting others.

Originally posted by Surtur
There are those that do defend it though. Mostly coming from the gay community. You also don't need to care specifically about pronouns, but you should care that technically you could get jail time for not using the pronoun a person wants you to use.

And what I do isn't really any different from what people here do with conservatives.

This isn't even a left/right issue yet within 2 posts you tried to make it exactly that by inventing a strawman. You derailed your own thread with nonsense.

Originally posted by jaden101
This isn't even a left/right issue yet within 2 posts you tried to make it exactly that by inventing a strawman. You derailed your own thread with nonsense.

No I disagree, this is an issue involving the left. It's SJW type shit that lead to something like this.

As for derailing the thread, well there isn't really going to be a big back and forth here anymore over this. If you disagree with me it is cool, I'm not here to convince you.

Originally posted by quanchi112
See its people like you who shouldn't be taken seriously because it's about issues not the left or the right.

See, you have zero business talking about people who should not be taken seriously.

And sorry no, this is absolutely from the left, it's what their shit has lead to, where using the wrong pronoun can potentially net you jail time, but infecting someone on purpose with HIV will net you less time.

I'm sorry if you do not like this fact, but do not take it out on me for pointing it out. This is what I mean, when some on the left expose they are utter lunatics suddenly it is "it's not a left vs right thing". Nope sorry, it is for this.

Originally posted by Surtur
Oh I can give you the reasons they gave. The main reason is ending the "stigma" that keeps some from learning their HIV status. Oh they also said a person who undergoes treatment has a negligible chance of infecting others.

Neither of those sounds like legal reasons/speak and considering your agenda into trying to twist things/anything into some anti "Leftist" angle, I don't know if you should be taken seriously here.

Originally posted by Robtard
Neither of those sounds like legal reasons/speak and considering your agenda into trying to twist things/anything into some anti "Leftist" angle, I don't know if you should be taken seriously here.

And Rob I think you saying others shouldn't be taken seriously is priceless.

But we will ignore that for now. I'm relating to you what they are saying. A specific legal reason..I believe they say that when the laws were passed there was no effective treatment for HIV and there was rampant discrimination against people with HIV at the time. Look at this:

http://twitdoc.com/view.asp?id=422347&sid=91VV&ext=PDF&lcl=100617-Governor-Signs-Bill-Modernizing-California-s-HIV-Laws.pdf&usr=AsmToddGloria

What I can't understand is why they think having a hefty penalty for purposely spreading this disease would make people not want to come get tested.

"we are helping to reduce the stigma that keeps some from learning their HIV status and getting into treatment to improve their health, extend their lives, and prevent additional infections." -snip

"We are going to end new HIV infections, and we will do so not by threatening people with state prison time, but rather by getting people to test and providing them access to care." -snip

"it is not only fair, but it's good public health. When people are no longer penalized for knowing their status, it encourages them to come forward, get tested and get treatment." -snip

That all sounds good, lowering infection rates. I still don't see the 'X' reason why the knowingly infecting someone with HIV is no longer a felony? Are you sure this is actually a thing and not something TheBlaze invented?

Oh it's a thing. If it makes you feel better: CNN reported on it too, so did WaPo, among others.

Did they report on the actual legal reasons as to why? Cos that's what I'm curious about, not your usual "but Leftist/Liberals/Progesssives!" buttf##kery

I think we can tell which people in this thread do and don't have STI's if you get my vibe....

Originally posted by Robtard
Did they report on the actual legal reasons as to why? Cos that's what I'm curious about, not your usual "but Leftist/Liberals/Progesssives!" buttf##kery

No lol. Example:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/07/health/california-hiv-bill-signed/index.html

Originally posted by Kurk
I think we can tell which people in this thread do and don't have STI's if you get my vibe....

If that was an attack on me, I've never had a sexually transmitted disease. Not because I'm in Incel like you, but because I'm both careful and responsible.

Originally posted by Surtur
No lol. Example:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/07/health/california-hiv-bill-signed/index.html

Actually, that would have been a "yes" and thank you for finally posting the reason(s)

"argued California law was outdated and stigmatized people living with HIV, especially given recent advancements in medicine. Evidence has shown that a person with HIV who undergoes regular treatment has a negligible chance of spreading the infection to others through sexual contact." -snip

Well that sounds stupid, as HIV is still deadly as shit, even with new advances.

"The most effective way to reduce HIV infections is to destigmatize HIV," Wiener told CNN. "To make people comfortable talking about their infection, get tested, get into treatment." -snip

I can see their point here, to the overall greater good. I just don't see why the "knowingly infecting" where it can be proven is off the felony table. I can see accidental infections being lowered.

Originally posted by Robtard
Actually, that would have been a "yes" and thank you for finally posting the reason(s)

"argued California law was outdated and stigmatized people living with HIV, especially given recent advancements in medicine. Evidence has shown that a person with HIV who undergoes regular treatment has a negligible chance of spreading the infection to others through sexual contact." -snip

Well that sounds stupid, as HIV is still deadly as shit, even with new advances.

"The most effective way to reduce HIV infections is to destigmatize HIV," Wiener told CNN. "To make people comfortable talking about their infection, get tested, get into treatment." -snip

I can see their point here, to the overall greater good. I just don't see why the "knowingly infecting" where it can be proven is off the felony table. I can see accidental infections being lowered.

But I posted this:

Originally posted by Surtur
Oh I can give you the reasons they gave. The main reason is ending the "stigma" that keeps some from learning their HIV status. Oh they also said a person who undergoes treatment has a negligible chance of infecting others.

The thing you just quoted talks about the stigma of people with HIV(like I do in this post) and I also talked about the chances of spreading it being negligible.

Other posts by me cover the circumstances in which the laws were passed.

But anyways meh, like you said there is no reason for intentionally infecting someone to not be a felony.

Originally posted by Surtur
No I disagree, this is an issue involving the left. It's SJW type shit that lead to something like this.

As for derailing the thread, well there isn't really going to be a big back and forth here anymore over this. If you disagree with me it is cool, I'm not here to convince you.

Well feel free to prove that rather than you just wanting it to be the case.

Originally posted by Surtur
But I posted this:



The thing you just quoted talks about the stigma of people with HIV(like I do in this post) and I also talked about the chances of spreading it being negligible.

Other posts by me cover the circumstances in which the laws were passed.

The way your worded it, it looked like your usual tactics, you've also made it abundantly clear that your entire agenda in here is to shit on Liberals, so don't get pissy if people don't take your games seriously; why I asked for actual proof.

Originally posted by jaden101
So you can't then. 👍 smashing.

More like Don't Wanna...because well that would be like...

https://i.makeagif.com/media/10-20-2015/IlaRrL.gif

Originally posted by jaden101
Well feel free to prove that rather than you just wanting it to be the case.

Prove what? It's an opinion. It's not like there was a study done. IMO this is the result of the identity politics and SJWs. It is why I brought up the pronoun stuff, because I feel these are the type of craziness this shit ultimately leads to.

Originally posted by Robtard
If that was an attack on me, I've never had a sexually transmitted disease. Not because I'm in Incel like you, but because I'm both careful and responsible. how does that work if you let your wife sleep with other men? Do you make sure they're clean?

Originally posted by Robtard
The way your worded it, it looked like your usual tactics, you've also made it abundantly clear that your entire agenda in here is to shit on Liberals, so don't get pissy if people don't take your games seriously; why I asked for actual proof.

My agenda here is to show where the agenda of liberals ultimately leads. This is utterly ridiculous. *You know this* it's why you're still trying to make sense of it, but you never will because there is no rational reason for purposely infecting someone with HIV not being a felony.

The lunacy has gotten to the point where they just say things that make no actual sense. For someone to knowingly infect you with HIV they would have to know they had HIV. Yet these people are talking about "lifting the stigma" and people being more willing to come in and get tested. But as I said, if you haven't gotten tested you can't knowingly infect someone lol. They seem to be trying to appeal to peoples emotions because they know this makes no actual sense. Hell even if it's rare that doesn't mean the penalty should be lessened.

Originally posted by Surtur
Prove what? It's an opinion. It's not like there was a study done. IMO this is the result of the identity politics and SJWs. It is why I brought up the pronoun stuff, because I feel these are the type of craziness this shit ultimately leads to.

Exactly. It's an opinion. It's not even based on anything. It's just what you want to be true. Attributing actions to a group you hate in order to attack them. The hilarious thing is that SJW's actually do more than enough batshit moronic stuff that you don't need to make shit up to point out how dumb they are but you still do it anyway.

Scotland's hitting every nail on the head

Originally posted by jaden101
Exactly. It's an opinion. It's not even based on anything. It's just what you want to be true. Attributing actions to a group you hate in order to attack them. The hilarious thing is that SJW's actually do more than enough batshit moronic stuff that you don't need to make shit up to point out how dumb they are but you still do it anyway.

But it's my opinion, I didn't "make shit up". Anything else?

Originally posted by Robtard
Scotland's hitting every nail on the head

No, not even close.

Originally posted by Surtur
My agenda here is to show where the agenda of liberals ultimately leads. This is utterly ridiculous. *You know this* it's why you're still trying to make sense of it, but you never will because there is no rational reason for purposely infecting someone with HIV not being a felony.

The lunacy has gotten to the point where they just say things that make no actual sense. For someone to knowingly infect you with HIV they would have to know they had HIV. Yet these people are talking about "lifting the stigma" and people being more willing to come in and get tested. But as I said, if you haven't gotten tested you can't knowingly infect someone lol. They seem to be trying to appeal to peoples emotions because they know this makes no actual sense. Hell even if it's rare that doesn't mean the penalty should be lessened.

We've covered that, your agenda (like usual) is to shit on Liberals, even when it's not a Liberal Vs Conservative issue. HIV doesn't care about your politics or your feelings, it will kill you just the same.

We could discuss the rampant unequal treatment of Gay men being subjected to this horrible disease in far greater numbers then how it effects gay women.

Originally posted by Kurk
how does that work if you let your wife sleep with other men? Do you make sure they're clean?

Can we not have posts like this here please? Come on.

Originally posted by Robtard
We've covered that, your agenda (like usual) is to shit on Liberals, even when it's not a Liberal Vs Conservative issue. HIV doesn't care about your politics or your feelings, it will kill you just the same.

Lol, nobody said HIV cares about politics or feelings. What is being said is that their agenda(the SJW and identity politics bullshit) lead to this.

Nobody framed it the way you are, HIV not caring about politics is utterly irrelevant, the politics come into play with the law not the disease itself. Surely you understood that.

Originally posted by Kurk
how does that work

1) By using protection
2) By not sleeping with women I have no idea about
3) Being monogamous when in a relationship

Not 100% safe, but that's life. Now take my sage advice and try and get laid, hiding in your room in your mother's house while pretending you could be knee deep in pussy if you wanted isn't healthy from a mental standpoint.

Originally posted by BackFire
Can we not have posts like this here please? Come on. Where can I post them then?

Originally posted by Kurk
Where can I post them then?

I dunno, 4chan or something.

Originally posted by Surtur
Lol, nobody said HIV cares about politics or feelings. What is being said is that their agenda(the SJW and identity politics bullshit) lead to this.

Nobody framed it the way you are, HIV not caring about politics is utterly irrelevant, the politics come into play with the law not the disease itself. Surely you understood that.

The politics of 'Us Vs Them' came into play when you tried to make this thread into yet another anti-Liberal thread.

Originally posted by Robtard
1) By using protection
2) By not sleeping with women I have no idea about
3) Being monogamous when in a relationship

Not 100% safe, but that's life. Now take my sage advice and try and get laid, hiding in your room in your mother's house while pretending you could be knee deep in pussy if you wanted isn't healthy from a mental standpoint. Kinda difficult to do that in college and not face some sort of consequence.

Originally posted by Kurk
Kinda difficult to do that in college and not face some sort of consequence.

Yes, because every woman in college is a whore-**** who has unprotected sex sixteen times a day; all of it anal while simultaneously injecting heroin with a well used needle and just waiting to falsely accuse the man of rape.

Or you could grow up?

Originally posted by Robtard
The politics of 'Us Vs Them' came into play when you tried to make this thread into yet another anti-Liberal thread.

If the leftist identity politics and SJW bullshit lead to this I feel there is nothing wrong with pointing it out. And IMO, those things are what lead to this.

Originally posted by Robtard
Yes, because every woman in college is a whore-**** who has unprotected sex sixteen times a day; all of it anal while simultaneously injecting heroin with a well used needle and just waiting to falsely accuse the man of rape.

Or you could grow up?

Man, I really need to go back to college.

Originally posted by Robtard
Yes, because every woman in college is a whore-**** who has unprotected sex sixteen times a day; all of it anal while simultaneously injecting heroin with a well used needle and just waiting to falsely accuse the man of rape.

Or you could grow up? I work in EMS so I'm biased. Yes they're all druggies.

Originally posted by Surtur
If the leftist identity politics and SJW bullshit lead to this I feel there is nothing wrong with pointing it out. And IMO, they are what lead to this.

This is what you're reduced to, making everything be about your imagined "leftist identity politics and SJW bullshit".

Originally posted by BackFire
Man, I really need to go back to college. It's not worth it. I want to drop out, but I'm driven by my hatred

Originally posted by Robtard
This is what you're reduced to, making everything be about your imagined "leftist identity politics and SJW bullshit".

Lol and you just kinda show why it needs to be brought up. Since no, I am not imagining the identity politics and SJW bullshit going on in this country.

How would you even argue that, given the pronoun thing? It makes no sense. I didn't imagine that.

You just switched to this being some Liberal issue/problem being just your opinion as a reason to not show evidence when asked (by Jaden), sport. So yeah, seems like you're imagining enemies up again to attack.

Originally posted by Robtard
You just switched to this being some Liberal issue/problem being just your opinion as a reason to not show evidence when asked (by Jaden), sport. So yeah, seems like you're imagining enemies up again to attack.

Lol um..what? It was ALWAYS my opinion. I never said a scientific study had been done and concluded it or anything like that. So no, I'm not imagining *anything*.

Originally posted by Surtur
But it's my opinion, I didn't "make shit up". Anything else?



No, not even close.

"Infecting people with HIV is no longer a felony because lefty SJW's because I say so"

Do you actually expect to be taken seriously?

I'm actually curious as to which members you thought would leap to the defence it

This law reduces the offense of intentionally exposing someone to HIV to a misdemeanor, but the offense of intentionally infecting someone with HIV remains a felony.

The reason for this is twofold:

A person who is HIV+ with an undetectable viral load cannot transmit HIV. Therefore, exposing someone to HIV when there is no risk of transmission should not carry the same consequence as exposing someone to HIV with the intent to infect them.

Laws criminalizing HIV exposure cause people to purposely go untested as a defense against the law. That is, one cannot be charged with intentionally exposing someone to HIV if he does not know his HIV status in the first place. This leads to a public health crisis, because people who do not know they are HIV+ do not receive treatment, and people with untreated HIV are more infectious. Instead of acting as a deterrent to HIV exposure, these laws actually lead to more infections.

All blood donations are already screened for HIV, so that point is moot.

The change in the law is about recognizing advancements in HIV treatment that make exposure and infection different offenses, and recognizing that the law as it stood had negative unintended consequences.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. If the law is not working, then it needs to be changed. If advances in science change the lay of the land, the law needs to change to reflect that.

It is entirely non-controversial. I avoided posing in this thread, because it is clearly a hit-piece by a right-wing media outlet to get uninformed conservatives up in arms about liberals. But there is so much misinformation in this thread that somebody had to come in and clear it up. Especially since none of the people decrying the change to the law could identify the reason for it.

Ah, so Surtur was indeed twisting the facts.

Originally posted by Robtard
Ah, so Surtur was indeed twisting the facts. nothing new

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
This law reduces the offense of intentionally exposing someone to HIV to a misdemeanor, but the offense of intentionally infecting someone with HIV remains a felony.

The reason for this is twofold:

A person who is HIV+ with an undetectable viral load cannot transmit HIV. Therefore, exposing someone to HIV when there is no risk of transmission should not carry the same consequence as exposing someone to HIV with the intent to infect them.

Laws criminalizing HIV exposure cause people to purposely go untested as a defense against the law. That is, one cannot be charged with intentionally exposing someone to HIV if he does not know his HIV status in the first place. This leads to a public health crisis, because people who do not know they are HIV+ do not receive treatment, and people with untreated HIV are more infectious. Instead of acting as a deterrent to HIV exposure, these laws actually lead to more infections.

All blood donations are already screened for HIV, so that point is moot.

The change in the law is about recognizing advancements in HIV treatment that make exposure and infection different offenses, and recognizing that the law as it stood had negative unintended consequences.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. If the law is not working, then it needs to be changed. If advances in science change the lay of the land, the law needs to change to reflect that.

It is entirely non-controversial. I avoided posing in this thread, because it is clearly a hit-piece by a right-wing media outlet to get uninformed conservatives up in arms about liberals. But there is so much misinformation in this thread that somebody had to come in and clear it up. Especially since none of the people decrying the change to the law could identify the reason for it.

Glad you did decide to post. Because that was excellent.

Surtur has been exposed again. He likes being mocked.

Okay I admit I was wrong, but no I wasn't twisting anything. I had assumed "exposing" was the same as infecting.

semantics can get all of us

Though I will say CNN, The Washington Post, etc. never clarified that at all. I can't see why most people wouldn't assume "exposing" meant infecting.

I feel like that would be a thing they would love correcting...if this was indeed some right wing media hit piece.

a lot of news is partisan shiit. most people are just amped and ready to call libs crazy and cons retarded. it's no wonder that click bait stuff gets misconstrued.

Originally posted by Raisen
a lot of news is partisan shiit. most people are just amped and ready to call libs crazy and cons retarded. it's no wonder that click bait stuff gets misconstrued.

Given the pronoun thing it wasn't hard to imagine this was true, but I apologize since apparently it wasn't.

TBF, my two best friends who are both relatively neutral and not really vitriolic about politics to the same extent any of us on here are had a WTF reaction upon hearing about this.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
This law reduces the offense of intentionally exposing someone to HIV to a misdemeanor, but the offense of intentionally infecting someone with HIV remains a felony.

The reason for this is twofold:

A person who is HIV+ with an undetectable viral load cannot transmit HIV. Therefore, exposing someone to HIV when there is no risk of transmission should not carry the same consequence as exposing someone to HIV with the intent to infect them.

Laws criminalizing HIV exposure cause people to purposely go untested as a defense against the law. That is, one cannot be charged with intentionally exposing someone to HIV if he does not know his HIV status in the first place. This leads to a public health crisis, because people who do not know they are HIV+ do not receive treatment, and people with untreated HIV are more infectious. Instead of acting as a deterrent to HIV exposure, these laws actually lead to more infections.

All blood donations are already screened for HIV, so that point is moot.

The change in the law is about recognizing advancements in HIV treatment that make exposure and infection different offenses, and recognizing that the law as it stood had negative unintended consequences.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. If the law is not working, then it needs to be changed. If advances in science change the lay of the land, the law needs to change to reflect that.

It is entirely non-controversial. I avoided posing in this thread, because it is clearly a hit-piece by a right-wing media outlet to get uninformed conservatives up in arms about liberals. But there is so much misinformation in this thread that somebody had to come in and clear it up. Especially since none of the people decrying the change to the law could identify the reason for it. So glad I came back and read this because I knew there had to be something more going on than just what Surtur was saying. If it was how Surtur said, it would have been madness. This makes a lot of sense though.

Originally posted by Scribble
So glad I came back and read this because I knew there had to be something more going on than just what Surtur was saying. If it was how Surtur said, it would have been madness. This makes a lot of sense though.

Indeed yeah my bad, I figured since both the right wing outlets and the left leaning ones were covering it the same way it was true, but I guess I learned a lesson.

Originally posted by Surtur
Indeed yeah my bad, I figured since both the right wing outlets and the left leaning ones were covering it the same way it was true, but I guess I learned a lesson. It's good that you admitted your fault though, so props, man. Not everyone would

Originally posted by Surtur
Given the pronoun thing it wasn't hard to imagine this was true, but I apologize since apparently it wasn't.

you manned up and admitted wrong. better than most would do on here. no reason to beat a dead horse. adam got the facts out too...good on him

Originally posted by Surtur
Okay I admit I was wrong, but no I wasn't twisting anything. I had assumed "exposing" was the same as infecting. Exposed.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Exposed.
You mean infected.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
You mean infected.

No. He probably didn't have any pants on when he posted that.

No that was me.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
You mean infected. No.

Originally posted by BackFire
No that was me.


That is a very well known given.

Since Adam seems to know about laws...please tell me the pronoun thing is wrong. This is not sarcasm, I legit 100% hope I am wrong. Please tell me I misunderstood something. Please tell me there is no possible way to receive any jail time in California for using the wrong pronoun, even if it's used 1,000 times in a row I do not care it doesn't warrant jail time or anything like that.

Hoping I'm wrong here, hopefully you'll tell me I am.

Right, just tell me flat out: jail for the wrong pronoun: possible or not? It's a yes or no. The answer should be no, and in any non insane society will be no, so I expect a no. That is what I'm looking for. Just tell me no, you can't ever go to jail under any circumstance for pronoun shit. Tell me there can be no fines either.

I don't need a novel, I need a "No Surtur, not possible under any circumstance to be penalized for using the wrong pronoun". Cuz that's the only non-batshit insane option.

Originally posted by Surtur
Right, just tell me flat out: jail for the wrong pronoun: possible or not? It's a yes or no. The answer should be no, and in any non insane society will be no, so I expect a no. That is what I'm looking for. Just tell me no, you can't ever go to jail under any circumstance for pronoun shit. Tell me there can be no fines either.

I don't need a novel, I need a "No Surtur, not possible under any circumstance to be penalized for using the wrong pronoun". Cuz that's the only non-batshit insane option.



https://kiwicdn.akamaized.net/4198/96nz2s7ULdzcARH6w78mjR.jpg

So Adam, I give two shits about accidentally calling someone something. What I'm saying is even doing it on purpose does not deserve jail time.

Tell me someone doing it on purpose never can receive it. You can include clever pictures if you want, no doubt you'll get a "bingo" out of someone.

You see, it says charges will only be followed if it shows it will cause serious death or risk of harm. Problem is I don't know how dipshits in Cali define that. Are hurt feelings harm?

Like wait, we can solve this right now. Give me an example of using the wrong pronoun causing death or harm. Like how would that work? Thanks in advance for being so helpful.

Originally posted by Surtur
So Adam, I give two shits about accidentally calling someone something. What I'm saying is even doing it on purpose does not deserve jail time.

Tell me someone doing it on purpose never can receive it. You can include clever pictures if you want, no doubt you'll get a "bingo" out of someone.

You see, it says charges will only be followed if it shows it will cause serious death or risk of harm. Problem is I don't know how dipshits in Cali define that. Are hurt feelings harm?

Like wait, we can solve this right now. Give me an example of using the wrong pronoun causing death or harm. Like how would that work? Thanks in advance for being so helpful.

I have a serious question. No sarcasm, no underlying motive. Just a straight answer. Why didn't you just create a new topic about this gender topic? This thread has been proven null and void.

Originally posted by Surtur
So Adam, I give two shits about accidentally calling someone something. What I'm saying is even doing it on purpose does not deserve jail time.

Tell me someone doing it on purpose never can receive it. You can include clever pictures if you want, no doubt you'll get a "bingo" out of someone.

You see, it says charges will only be followed if it shows it will cause serious death or risk of harm. Problem is I don't know how dipshits in Cali define that. Are hurt feelings harm?

Like wait, we can solve this right now. Give me an example of using the wrong pronoun causing death or harm. Like how would that work? Thanks in advance for being so helpful.

One more time for the folks who cannot read:

So as long as it only stays at the You have to take Medications and make Regular visits to Medical Specialists for the rest of your life ....Hey its all GOOD!

Califunny is a Suck Hole now. STAY AWAY!!!!!!!

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
One more time for the folks who cannot read:

And HOW does using the wrong pronoun cause risk of death or harm?

If someone purposely calls a person the wrong pronoun and that person then goes and slits their wrists...is that the type of shit you mean?

Originally posted by Surtur
And HOW does using the wrong pronoun cause risk of death or harm?

If someone purposely calls a person the wrong pronoun and that person then goes and slits their wrists...is that the type of shit you mean? Are you serious ? You must have the world's tiniest brain.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Are you serious ? You must have the world's tiniest brain.

How does using the wrong pronoun lead to serious harm or death?

It surely can't be talking about using the wrong pronoun and then physically beating someone down. It's already against the law to beat the shit out of someone. But hey, feel free to give me an example of what is being talked about then.

Originally posted by Surtur
How does using the wrong pronoun lead to serious harm or death?

It surely can't be talking about using the wrong pronoun and then physically beating someone down. It's already against the law to beat the shit out of someone. But hey, feel free to give me an example of what is being talked about then. So you don't believe emotional damage has ever done anyone harm ? Are you serious ? What planet do you live on.

Originally posted by quanchi112
So you don't believe emotional damage has ever done anyone harm ? Are you serious ? What planet do you live on.

Okay so you think someone should be penalized and possibly jailed if they use the wrong pronoun on purpose and hurt the feelings of others?

Since sorry, I do not remotely trust the definition of "emotional harm" people in California would have.

Originally posted by Surtur
Okay so you think someone should be penalized and possibly jailed if they use the wrong pronoun on purpose and hurt the feelings of others?

Since sorry, I do not remotely trust the definition of "emotional harm" people in California would have. Are they jailing people for just that ? Is emotional damage real ? Has anyone ever been affected ?

Lol...hurt feelings is emotional damage, is it not? I know you will say it said "serious" damage, and again: this is California. I do not trust their definition of what would be "serious damage". Because there are tons of snowflakes there. Look at Berkeley, those whiny brats would tell you serious emotional harm has been done to them by conservative speakers.

I do believe that using the "wrong pronoun" can cause harm.

Just go over to the movie forums and see how many times Quanny nearly has a stroke every time some one makes fun of Snoke!!!!!

Its HILARIOUS by the way.

Originally posted by Surtur
And HOW does using the wrong pronoun cause risk of death or harm?

If someone purposely calls a person the wrong pronoun and that person then goes and slits their wrists...is that the type of shit you mean?

Jesus Christ, you cannot be this ****ing stupid.

The bill only provides for criminal penalties for violations of existing health and safety laws. Meaning that the provider would have to actively physically harm the resident, or neglect them in a fashion that leads to their death.

Groups opposed to protections for LGBT people took this portion of the bill about penalties for physically abusing LGBT seniors because they are LGBT, or denying HIV treatment to seniors resulting in their death, and misrepresented it, leading people to believe that it is the penalty for misgendering someone.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Are you serious ? You must have the world's tiniest brain.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Jesus Christ, you cannot be this ****ing stupid.

The bill only provides for criminal penalties for violations of existing health and safety laws. Meaning that the provider would have to actively physically harm the resident, or neglect them in a fashion that leads to their death.

Groups opposed to protections for LGBT people took this portion of the bill about penalties for physically abusing LGBT seniors because they are LGBT, or denying HIV treatment to seniors resulting in their death, and misrepresented it, leading people to believe that it is the penalty for misgendering someone.

Fair enough I understand now, but you realize the person you're quoting was talking about "emotional damage" from using the wrong pronoun and shit, right?

The Gays are all the Crazy?

Bt26Wbnf0HE