Professor: If You Read To Your Kids, You’re ‘Unfairly Disadvantaging’ Others
"“I don’t think parents reading their children bedtime stories should constantly have in their minds the way that they are unfairly disadvantaging other people’s children, but I think they should have that thought occasionally,” he said."
That is why I love the UK, they always make me feel a little bit better about the craziness that occurs here.
Does anyone here think it should not be a felony to purposely infect someone with HIV? If you don't think that it should be a felony you can move to California, they just made it so that it isn't. Even if you have HIV and give blood and do not divulge your status..not a felony.
Inflicting a life altering disease that will never be cured and will force you to change your lifestyle and be on medication the rest of your life? Meh, not a felony.
Best part is dipshits saying leaving it as a felony is anti-gay. And just to be crystal clear: this is not for accidents. This is for doing it on purpose. I think you can now get a harsher penalty for using the wrong pronoun than infecting someone with HIV on purpose in California. The maximum penalty for that is 1 year, the maximum penalty for the HIV thing is now 6 months.
What I really look forward to is the people who will try to defend this. I can imagine asinine comments about how it shouldn't be a felony because the disease isn't a death sentence anymore, etc. But nah, that's not acceptable. Getting this disease requires a permanent change in life style and a life time of medications just to maintain any normalcy. Sorry: if you don't like it do not purposely infect someone with HIV. That doesn't even take into account the massive costs of a lifetime of care for this disease.
A lot wrong with that, if true.
1. It pins HIV as a "gay issue", which is a position that's considered both bigoted and ignorant.
2. If it were a "gay issue", decriminalizing knowingly/purposely infecting someone would be the anti gay position, as by logic of it being a "gay issue", it will harm the lgbtq community almost exclusively. (With some junkies also getting blowback.. But liberals don't care about addicts either, I guess.)
Originally posted by cdtm
A lot wrong with that, if true.1. It pins HIV as a "gay issue", which is a position that's considered both bigoted and ignorant.
2. If it were a "gay issue", decriminalizing knowingly/purposely infecting someone would be the anti gay position, as by logic of it being a "gay issue", it will harm the lgbtq community almost exclusively. (With some junkies also getting blowback.. But liberals don't care about addicts either, I guess.)
Indeed, it's disgusting:
HIV patients in California who expose others to disease will no longer face felony charges
The only people who benefit are...pieces of utter subhuman slime who feel they should be able to purposely infect others with very little consequence.
According to The Root:
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that African Americans represent more than one-third (40 percent) of all people living with HIV (pdf) and almost half (45 percent in 2015) of all people with newly diagnosed infections. Black gay and bisexual men are the most affected, followed by black heterosexual women.
So minorities are vastly overrepresented among those at risk.
A running theme for decriminalizing is that the law mostly targets sex workers.. There's plenty of other excuses given, like effectiveness of the law, or how many other diseases only net you a misdemeanor, like knowingly transmitting tuborculosis.
Fair enough, good reasons. But you can really justify any reasons.. A bill can be "anti immigration" or "anti human trafficking", depending on how they present it.
What I'm wondering is, what's the real motivation behind this. What's at stake, and who benefits? Because minorities sure won't benefit either way.
Somehow, this is probably about money.. Like everything. *sigh*
Another funny thing is how some in the MSM are treating this Weinstein case. People, like Jake Tapper, have tried to shoehorn trump into any discussion about Weinstein. That is hilarious.
To be fair at least they are being consistent. During the sex scandal with Bill O'Reilly these same people would shoehorn Bill Clinton into the discussion. Oh wait no, they wouldn't. Maybe they did for Roger Ailes? Oh, nope. Well damn.
Lol...
Originally posted by Robtard
Hate crime hoaxes you say? Did Cuckder cover the recent one where the Alt-right guy stabbed himself in the hand like a fool and then called the police claiming a random Black guy stabbed him for having an 'Alt-right haircut'? Good times
No he didn't, probably because a majority of fake hate crimes seem to be committed by leftists. Lol@ the poop swastika, too funny.
Originally posted by Robtard
So he's biased. Good to see you admit that openly.
Wotta SHOCK!
People like Robbie also don't have probs with stuff like THIS either..
Racy Federal Public School Survey Asks 10 year olds about Oral Sex
Cause Robbie is a Leftist and that means he is perverted.
So a parent shouldn't be held responsible for their child's crappy actions now? You really need to make up your mind and stick with one narrative on this., flippyflops.
Personally, if my child were to commit a crime; even minor like stealing a candy bar, I'd take responsibility in not raising them better. maybe that's just my crazy sense of "Liberal" accountability.
Originally posted by Robtard
So a parent shouldn't be held responsible for their child's crappy actions now? You really need to make up your mind and stick with one narrative on this.Personally, if my child were to commit a crime, even minor like stealing a candy bar, I'd take responsibility in not raising them better.
You're triggered over me posting a link to a story lol. Now go on, talk about how I "implied" something despite doing nothing but posting a link.