Knowingly exposing others to HIV will no longer be a felony in California

im all for reducing the amount of extraneous laws, so totally removing the law and having cases where someone willingly transmits aids to people being tried under attempted murder for instance would be acceptable to me.

however, in this case they are simply replacing the law with another law that makes it a slap on the wrist.


so yea, its no good. liberals when will they learn.

a reply to: snarfbot

however, in this case they are simply replacing the law with another law that makes it a slap on the wrist.

No, no new law.

a reply to: Phage

so its the same law, just with a much lessened sentence? how is that good?

a reply to: snarfbot

No that law was repealed. HIV is now classed with other infectious diseases under an existing law.

But, as you have pointed out, there are other laws which can come into play.

a reply to: Phage

you know what im okay with this then

a reply to: snarfbot

3 posts ago liberals will never learn though?

How is it not clear what the barriers are in society with the attitude you just displayed?

This is why everyone calls the Right hypocritical, because your gut reaction is to just denounce everything 'they do', but the very moment you think about it even a little you agree most of the time, and move onto the next thread to unconsciously bash liberals.

Perfect example of natural selection. Let them kill each other off!!

a reply to: Phage

Then you agree that a law specific to HIV is unnecessary.

I agree that there may be other legal means besides a specific law. A specific law would be preferable, since it would clearly indicate to the general public what is and is not acceptable.

As well as being ineffective as a public health effort and possibly counterproductive toward that end.

This I do NOT agree with. That's like saying a law against murder is responsible for people being murdered, and all we have to do is remove the laws against murder to ensure that the murder rate drops. That, sir, is preposterous.

So the retribution you seek...

Whoa, Nelly! The "retribution" I seek? I am simply arguing on the side of reasonable laws that restrict one individual from doing great harm to another for selfish desires. I happen to believe such laws are good and proper, and a boon for a civilized society. Do you disagree?

You probably missed both times I posted this:

No, I saw it. I just ignored it. I tend to do that when confronted with illogical propaganda with obviously no basis in reality.

I'm surprised you fell for it. I guess sometimes I just expect too much...

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

This I do NOT agree with. That's like saying a law against murder is responsible for people being murdered, and all we have to do is remove the laws against murder to ensure that the murder rate drops.

That does not resemble what was stated.

I am simply arguing on the side of reasonable laws that restrict one individual from doing great harm to another for selfish desires.

And those laws exist. Even in your state. You cited one, quite boldly.

No, I saw it. I just ignored it. I tend to do that when confronted with illogical propaganda with obviously no basis in reality.

Ah. Confirmation bias. Ignore the research because it conflicts with your paradigm Got it. Exposure laws do not influence sexual behaviors any more than sodomy laws do/did.

Oh well.

a reply to: Mandroid7

Had to come from a California democrat... He is making it a misdemeanor if someone with HIV knowingly infects another person with HIV...

originally posted by: Phage
Ah. So HIV is gay.

No...knowingly infecting another person with HIV is criminal... It is similar to knowingly poisoning another person...

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: Phage
Ah. So HIV is gay.

No...knowingly infecting another person with HIV is criminal... It is similar to knowingly poisoning another person...

Murder Is also a criminal offence, do you think increased punishment for murderers will make murderers think twice or should I say decide not to murder based on the legislated punishment?

BRING Back knife dualing then,because if a person IS infected they will KILL the person who murdered them with AIDs.

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
BRING Back knife dualing then,because if a person IS infected they will KILL the person who murdered them with AIDs.

Bring back hangings. That worked too. You can't argue with a guy weilding a hatchet can ya? haha!

originally posted by: keys2heaven
a reply to: Mandroid7

But calling a person by the wrong gender could lead to imprisonment up to a year!

JAIL TIME FOR USING WRONG GENDER

PROGRESS!

Disagree, nazi?

a reply to: HeadCrunchMcRockGroin

I was making a comparison. Surely, infecting someone with a potentially fatal disease is far worse than calling someone by the wrong pronoun?

You don't know me, let's leave it at that.

What's the penalty for spreading Hepatitis A?

Seems like a big outbreak starting in San Diego.

17 dead 500 sick, spreading to San Fran and LA.

Gonna be going state wide.

a reply to: Phage

That does not resemble what was stated.

Yes it does, Phage. Your source(s) stated clearly that they believed a strict law against neglecting to inform a potential partner of a serious disease that could be transmitted through sexual conduct acted to increase the problem. Why is this law different from a law against murder, rape, or robbery? If a law encourages the behavior it punishes, then it does that across the board.

And those laws exist.

Do you disagree with them? Do you believe they should be repealed?

That is the question.

Ah. Confirmation bias. Ignore the research because it conflicts with your paradigm

No, conduct research and examine the results. If the results do not agree with expectations, then yes, those results are questionable. It's called "peer review" and something I would think you would be familiar with, since you are normally so fond of using the term.

But, if it soothes your ego to call peer review "confirmation bias," then by all means, proceed.

TheRedneck

a reply to: ADSE255

No need to hang WE have GUNS.
But DUELING with them is pointless now,unless you are trained,then it's an imbalance.
ANYONE can figure out what to do with a knife...eventually.

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Murder Is also a criminal offence, do you think increased punishment for murderers will make murderers think twice or should I say decide not to murder based on the legislated punishment?

And knowingly passing HIV to other people is in essence a slow, and painful death penalty for the person being infected.

What you would be arguing in the case of "murder also being a criminal offence", and in reference to what this California democrat has done, is to make murder a misdemeanor... But in this case what they did was to make the "knowingly infecting other people with HIV a misdemeanor"... Which is a really dumb thing to do.

And as to your question...yes, having a harsh penalty for essentially ruining another's person life with an illness that is a death sentence, and harsh penalties will stop at least some people from doing it.

In the case of murder, since the death penalty has been rescinded have violent crimes like murder increased or decrease in those states that rescinded the death penalty? What do you think, would the death penalty for murder make murderers think twice about murdering, or would a lifelong penalty living in prison having cable, 3 meals a day, not having to pay for electricity, water, sewer, rent etc deter more murderers?... It should be obvious what the answer is to your question.