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.
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:
[list=1][*]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.[/list]
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.
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:
[list=1][*]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.[/list]
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. 👆
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.
Originally posted by Adam_PoESo 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.
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:
[list=1][*]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.[/list]
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.
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.