[Awaiting Approval]

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

[Awaiting Approval]

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> [Awaiting Approval]

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

[Awaiting Approval]

WickedsDesire

Posts: 9362
Joined: 11/4/2015
Status: offline

[Awaiting Approval]

Profile

Post #: 21

RE: California reduce penalties for knowingly exposing ... - 10/8/2017 2:36:13 PM

ThatDizzyChick

Posts: 5490
Status: offline

Yeah, that's pretty fucking dumb. Especially the donating blood bit, we had a shit load of people infected through blood and blood products here in Canada years back.

_____________________________

Not your average bimbo.

(in reply to Greta75)

Profile

Post #: 22

[Awaiting Approval]

WickedsDesire

Posts: 9362
Joined: 11/4/2015
Status: offline

[Awaiting Approval]

Profile

Post #: 23

RE: California reduce penalties for knowingly exposing ... - 10/8/2017 3:07:50 PM

JVoV

Posts: 3664
Joined: 3/9/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

Yeah, that's pretty fucking dumb. Especially the donating blood bit, we had a shit load of people infected through blood and blood products here in Canada years back.

That's from inadequate testing of donated blood, and inadequate screening of donors. Most sexually active people aren't as responsible with their sexual health as they should be, and don't get tested for infections as often as is recommended (every 3 months in most cases).

Another issue here is that many places, particularly Bloodmobiles, offer gift cards for blood donations. People in need can easily lie about their sexual activity or health status, or may simply be unaware of an issue due to inadequate or unused healthcare options.

But to discriminate against anyone that's been involved in homosexual or bisexual activity was a huge concern. Not all of us have HIV/AIDS, and to prohibit us from donating blood is denying us the ability to help during major disasters, or help loved ones through surgeries. And it's just damn wrong.

(in reply to ThatDizzyChick)

Profile

Post #: 24

RE: California reduce penalties for knowingly exposing ... - 10/8/2017 3:22:50 PM

BlackSinMaster

Posts: 89
Joined: 11/15/2012
Status: offline

can i call you shut the fuk up

(in reply to JVoV)

Profile

Post #: 25

RE: California reduce penalties for knowingly exposing ... - 10/8/2017 3:37:03 PM

JVoV

Posts: 3664
Joined: 3/9/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BlackSinMaster

can i call you shut the fuk up

Do you have anything informational or productive to add to the thread? Or to society in any way at all?

(in reply to BlackSinMaster)

Profile

Post #: 26

RE: California reduce penalties for knowingly exposing ... - 10/8/2017 4:03:54 PM

Spiritedsub2

Posts: 3316
Joined: 7/18/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

quote:

ORIGINAL: BlackSinMaster

can i call you shut the fuk up

Do you have anything informational or productive to add to the thread? Or to society in any way at all?

It’s Wickeddesire. Nutter. Hundreds of profiles so when they block one he moves to the next. Always readily identifiable through.

_____________________________

Don’t grieve. Anything you lose comes round in another form.
~ Rumi

Laughing Dolphin

(in reply to JVoV)

Profile

Post #: 27

RE: California reduce penalties for knowingly exposing ... - 10/8/2017 4:25:48 PM

JVoV

Posts: 3664
Joined: 3/9/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Spiritedsub2

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

quote:

ORIGINAL: BlackSinMaster

can i call you shut the fuk up

Do you have anything informational or productive to add to the thread? Or to society in any way at all?

It’s Wickeddesire. Nutter. Hundreds of profiles so when they block one he moves to the next. Always readily identifiable through.

Yeah, but he usually at least takes a stand on any given issue before going full fucktard.

(in reply to Spiritedsub2)

Profile

Post #: 28

RE: California reduce penalties for knowingly exposing ... - 10/8/2017 4:49:26 PM

stef

Posts: 10215
Joined: 1/26/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

Yeah, but he usually at least takes a stand on any given issue before going full fucktard.

Those days are long past.

_____________________________

Welcome to PoliticSpace! If you came here expecting meaningful BDSM discussions, boy are you in the wrong place.

"Hypocrisy has consequences"

(in reply to JVoV)

Profile

Post #: 29

RE: California reduce penalties for knowingly exposing ... - 10/8/2017 5:04:42 PM

Greta75

Posts: 9968
Joined: 2/6/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JstAnotherSub
Again, I am not saying I agree or disagree with the law, I am saying that people like you that equate having AIDS with being HIV+ are part of the problem with the discrimination against anyone who is HIV positive.

No, I am saying that IT IS NOT OKAY to lower the punishment of people who intentionally infect you with HIV! The fact that they would sexually engage with you without informing you that they have HIV.

Is fucked up!

Are they gonna pay for my medical bills for life?

Why the fuck are you saying like HIV is not a death sentence? What if I can't afford the medicine? It is gonna lead to AIDS eventually.

This isn't persecuting people with HIV. This is persecuting vindictive people who INTENTIONALLY spread their diseases to others without their consent. It is essentially murder.

(in reply to JstAnotherSub)

Profile

Post #: 30

RE: California reduce penalties for knowingly exposing ... - 10/8/2017 5:08:05 PM

Greta75

Posts: 9968
Joined: 2/6/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BlackSinMaster

You should be ashamed of what you said Greta75. I cannot believe you said what you said.

I am 100% not ashamed of what I said at all. Exactly what should I be ashamed of?

That it's okay for HIV people to lie to me about their HIV and take away my CHOICE to choose to have HIV from me?

This law punishes people WHO INTENTIONALLY spread HIV to others without their consent!

It doesn't punish people for JUST having HIV.

They would have to intentionally lie to someone that they don't have HIV just to have sex with that person to get in trouble.

(in reply to BlackSinMaster)

Profile

Post #: 31

RE: California reduce penalties for knowingly exposing ... - 10/8/2017 5:12:41 PM

Greta75

Posts: 9968
Joined: 2/6/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
HIV is less virulent, less contagious and more treatable. not everyone exposed to it will get it, and not everyone who gets it will develop AIDS and not everyone who gets that will die.

I have already posted a link that clearly says HIV is NOT curable. And it will eventually lead to AIDS without treatment.

And you are assuming this person could afford the treatment. Not everybody can afford their medical care.

And this is unfair to force someone to have to pay additional money for life for a disease they didn't ask for.

This law punishes people who lie about having HIV with their sexual partners.

This is absolutely wrong, and I think when you put somebody's life at risk. It is intentional murder and even 8 years is too short! 6 months is an injustice.

Because when you get HIV, it's for life!

The fact that US medical care is more expensive than any other medical care in the world. California better start the free medical shit to pay for this IF they are saying it's okay for people to spread HIV around.

(in reply to bounty44)

Profile

Post #: 32

RE: California reduce penalties for knowingly exposing ... - 10/8/2017 5:18:50 PM

Greta75

Posts: 9968
Joined: 2/6/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

HIV/AIDS, though still scary as hell, is not the automatic death sentence it once was.

The point is. IT can lead to death sentence. Why do people get Aids? Because they discovered they have HIV too late. Because some idiot fucked them without informing them they got HIV.

And it leads to a life time of heavy medical bills! EVEN if a country gives free medical. That is still burdening a country with unnecessary medical condition to take care of. As this is INTENTIONAL spreading.

This law punishes INTENTIONAL spreading.

Just like idiots who donate blood knowingly they have HIV too.

(in reply to JVoV)

Profile

Post #: 33

RE: California reduce penalties for knowingly exposing ... - 10/8/2017 5:24:29 PM

Greta75

Posts: 9968
Joined: 2/6/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV
But to discriminate against anyone that's been involved in homosexual or bisexual activity was a huge concern. Not all of us have HIV/AIDS, and to prohibit us from donating blood is denying us the ability to help during major disasters, or help loved ones through surgeries. And it's just damn wrong.

The law punishes people who KNOWINGLY knows they have HIV, and donate their blood anyway! (How can they prove this? IF there is a medical record of them being diagnosed with HIV)

Nothing to do with discrimination against homosexuals.

(in reply to JVoV)

Profile

Post #: 34

RE: California reduce penalties for knowingly exposing ... - 10/8/2017 5:27:58 PM

bounty44

Posts: 6374
Joined: 11/1/2014
Status: offline

greta---again, nuances in English.

if not everyone who gets it dies from it, then its not really a "death sentence."

when you start adding "what ifs" then its always HIV + whatever else necessary to make a "death sentence."

(in reply to Greta75)

Profile

Post #: 35

RE: California reduce penalties for knowingly exposing ... - 10/8/2017 5:28:54 PM

JVoV

Posts: 3664
Joined: 3/9/2015
Status: offline

Well, anyway, back to the subject at hand.

So many on this board are all about "personal responsibility", but that doesn't seem to include sexual health, unless we're talking about chicks and how to control their vajayjays.

Personally, with as much information as there is available about HIV/AIDS these days, I see throwing your ass in the air and crying "breed me daddy" no different than jogging laps through an active gun range.

HIV medications can now make the viral load undetectable. This doesn't eliminate all risk of transmission, but it does greatly reduce the possibility. Sadly, that makes many that are infected believe they're totally safe from infecting others, which isn't the case.

The highest likelihood of HIV transmission (sexually) comes from taking on a partner that thinks they're immune to everything, or just doesn't get tested for whatever reason. Initial infection symptoms aren't much different than a flu.

headache
fever
tiredness
swollen lymph nodes
sore throat
rash
muscle and joint pain
night sweats
diarrhea

How many of you would run to the doctor with just these symptoms? Or just treat it as the flu and let it pass, then go on with your life, including sex as normal?

Less unlikely, but more noticeable:
ulcers in the mouth
ulcers on the genitals

OK, so now you're more likely to go to the doc, hopefully.

Anyone that is sexually active has to take precautions. You may not be in a relationship as monogamous as you think. Your massive cock may just totally rip that hot (while you're drunk) chick wide open. That muscle stud at the bar may be a total slut, or an escort (prostitute).

And everyone that wants to get in your pants is capable of either flat out lying, or just omitting certain truths.

(in reply to stef)

Profile

Post #: 36

RE: California reduce penalties for knowingly exposing ... - 10/8/2017 5:34:23 PM

JVoV

Posts: 3664
Joined: 3/9/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV
But to discriminate against anyone that's been involved in homosexual or bisexual activity was a huge concern. Not all of us have HIV/AIDS, and to prohibit us from donating blood is denying us the ability to help during major disasters, or help loved ones through surgeries. And it's just damn wrong.

The law punishes people who KNOWINGLY knows they have HIV, and donate their blood anyway! (How can they prove this? IF there is a medical record of them being diagnosed with HIV)

Nothing to do with discrimination against homosexuals.

The FDA, under the Obama Administration, ended a 32 year ban on gays and bisexuals donating blood in 2015. Prohibiting such donations was one of the first acts the Reagan Administration made in regards to HIV/AIDS, as a knee jerk reaction to the outbreak.

I won't say that Reagan's FDA was wrong for doing it. But 32 years later, it was time for the policy to end.

Don't worry, there's always a catch

(in reply to Greta75)

Profile

Post #: 37

RE: California reduce penalties for knowingly exposing ... - 10/8/2017 5:37:47 PM

bounty44

Posts: 6374
Joined: 11/1/2014
Status: offline

by the way, one of the best written books ive ever read:

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/52614.Borrowed_Time

(in reply to JVoV)

Profile

Post #: 38

RE: California reduce penalties for knowingly exposing ... - 10/8/2017 5:45:28 PM

JVoV

Posts: 3664
Joined: 3/9/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV
But to discriminate against anyone that's been involved in homosexual or bisexual activity was a huge concern. Not all of us have HIV/AIDS, and to prohibit us from donating blood is denying us the ability to help during major disasters, or help loved ones through surgeries. And it's just damn wrong.

The law punishes people who KNOWINGLY knows they have HIV, and donate their blood anyway! (How can they prove this? IF there is a medical record of them being diagnosed with HIV)

Nothing to do with discrimination against homosexuals.

I'm not saying that there shouldn't be punishment for intentionally infecting others with any disease. I think Florida's stand your ground law should protect me if I spray coughy/sneezy people at WalMart in the face with Lysol.

But intent can be difficult to prove.

And there are still "bug chasers". Google it.

(in reply to Greta75)

Profile

Post #: 39

RE: California reduce penalties for knowingly exposing ... - 10/8/2017 5:49:16 PM

Greta75

Posts: 9968
Joined: 2/6/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV
The highest likelihood of HIV transmission (sexually) comes from taking on a partner that thinks they're immune to everything, or just doesn't get tested for whatever reason. Initial infection symptoms aren't much different than a flu.

This law isn't punishing people who were unaware they have HIV. This law also doesn't punish people who have sex despite having HIV as long as they seek their partner's consent first.

This law is punishing people who were already told and diagnosed with HIV. And despite that, still went ahead and "donate blood" or have "unprotected sex" with somebody without informing they have HIV.

So all these other scenarios are moot point. They do not come under the category of, "I INTENTIONALLY LIED TO SOMEONE TO GET SEX! And as a result infect them with a lifetime disease for life!"

The consequences of these could be really bad. A scenario could be a husband cheating on his wife, got HIV from some women who never told him she was diseased. THEN he spreads it to his wife. Then his wife got pregnant. Then the poor kid is born with HIV.

It's like, there was a reason for a high sentencing in the first place.

(in reply to JVoV)

Profile

Post #: 40