RE: California reduce penalties for knowingly exposing partners to HIV

RE: California reduce penalties for knowingly exposing partners to HIV (Full Version)

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

Message

Danemora -> RE: California reduce penalties for knowingly exposing partners to HIV (10/10/2017 9:46:10 PM)
Im addressing YOUR ignorance because you've yammered on and on about it. And I dont want anyone basing their medical decisions based on your foolishness...though I suspect the regulars here already know how clueless you appear to be. Tread drift, sweet cheeks. Deal with it

Greta75 -> RE: California reduce penalties for knowingly exposing partners to HIV (10/10/2017 9:55:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV In recent years, voters have also approved ballot measures to help further reduce overcrowding. Great! Now it is a prison space problem. But I put people who KNOWS they have HIV and INTENTIONALLY spread it, as people who are the same as murderers. As HIV can lead to death. So I think it's the wrong type of crime for them to reduce prison sentence on if they want to free up prison space. (And I honestly wonder if Obama care pays for HIV). No insurance in my country pays for it. Unless by needles, like a professional doctor negligence and inject you with a needle with HIV. But all sexually transmitted diseases are basically not covered in my country's insurances available. And also not government subsidized. So if you get one, you are fucked for life. Unless you are rich.

JVoV -> RE: California reduce penalties for knowingly exposing partners to HIV (10/10/2017 10:01:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV Does that not apply to one's sexual health? Is there no information about HIV/AIDS available? Is there no pill that can reduce the risk of infection? Do condoms not exist? Is it OK to be completely ignorant, and expect everyone else to be punished for your stupidity? I can't say that I agree with you, JVoV. Especially among kinky people, our standard shouldn't be the lower bar of consent. It should be the higher standard of informed consent. The parallel would be 'some people have HIV, so safer sex practices are advisable,' as opposed to 'person knowing they have HIV and not disclosing that fact, depriving the other person the informed choice whether to engage with them or not.' The person who knowingly has HIV, and does not tell the potential partner, has increased that person's risk factor. It is specifically information hidden from the other person. I don't know what your tastes in BDSM are, but if you are a top negotiating with a bottom about play, do you think you should have a reasonable expectation for the bottom to inform you of any conditions that you should be aware of prior to engaging? If the other person knows they have a blood born pathogen, do you feel you have the right to know? Sex isn't always about kink. But as a gay man, I don't think I can risk the luxury of trust without verification regarding my partner's HIV status. I have to assume that if it's not a committed relationship, and they're wanting to bareback with me, then there's a high probability that they've done so or are doing so with others. Also, knowing myself as I do, I would likely be too emotionally distraught upon learning of an HIV infection to worry about dealing with prosecution. And did he even tell me his real name? Was I supposed to check his ID? Run a credit check maybe? It may also be important to note that I do have my own trust issues, and don't have much faith in monogamy. Again, I am on a pill each day for PReP (Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis). A quick visual inspection of any partner's junk for warts or sores can be played off as a part of foreplay, but seems necessary since there are other STDs aside from HIV. Outside of a relationship, and a very select few, I always use condoms. More because I have no way of knowing whether the dude is 'spring fresh' or has eaten a gallon of chunky peanut butter in the last day or so. This is nonnegotiable. If they want to swallow when it's time, I'm OK with that.

Danemora -> RE: California reduce penalties for knowingly exposing partners to HIV (10/10/2017 10:05:02 PM)
Im not sure how it is in the UK or Canada, but I do know the US covers STI treatment and HIV. Unfortunately we all are at the mercy of Big Pharma when it comes to medications because prices here are ridiculous.

Drakvampire -> RE: California reduce penalties for knowingly exposing partners to HIV (10/10/2017 10:05:20 PM)
By your own words you have 100 plus men a year x many ten years and boast openly of your own disgusting filth, Can you name anyone one on here you have called and had with your rampant pox? :Lucky men!

JVoV -> RE: California reduce penalties for knowingly exposing partners to HIV (10/10/2017 10:05:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV In recent years, voters have also approved ballot measures to help further reduce overcrowding. Great! Now it is a prison space problem. But I put people who KNOWS they have HIV and INTENTIONALLY spread it, as people who are the same as murderers. As HIV can lead to death. So I think it's the wrong type of crime for them to reduce prison sentence on if they want to free up prison space. (And I honestly wonder if Obama care pays for HIV). No insurance in my country pays for it. Unless by needles, like a professional doctor negligence and inject you with a needle with HIV. But all sexually transmitted diseases are basically not covered in my country's insurances available. And also not government subsidized. So if you get one, you are fucked for life. Unless you are rich. It was always a prison space problem. And it has nothing to do with your country.

Greta75 -> RE: California reduce penalties for knowingly exposing partners to HIV (10/10/2017 10:08:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Drakvampire By your own words you have 100 plus men a year x many ten years and boast openly of your own disgusting filth, Can you name anyone one on here you have called and had with your rampant pox? :Lucky men! Doesn't matter how many men I have sex with. I have my criterias and safety regulation, a very strict no liquid exchange policy, that's why even no french kissing is allowed, or any form of oral, and his cum or saliva does not touch me, and I get tested regularly. Also, I often have sex with foreigners who work here. This means that, their work permit is reliant on them not having any sexually transmitted diseases. They have compulsory testing annually, some companies do it every 6 months. IF they failed, their work permit gets revoked and they get deported. So I know what I am doing to prevent myself from getting infected. And these men if they want to keep their jobs, need to keep themselves clean. They can't run away from government compulsory testing. Our government does this to prevent HIV spreading to be rampant in our country.

JVoV -> RE: California reduce penalties for knowingly exposing partners to HIV (10/10/2017 10:16:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV everyone else to be punished for your stupidity? I don't understand why you are defending lying people who wants to infect others with their incurable diseases intentionally? I am sorry to say this. But if this is mentality of a typical gay person. This is why HIV incidence is the absolute highest in the gay community. This is because they feel it is okay and the right thing to do NOT TO bother to inform their partners of their HIV and happily spread it around keeping their partners ignorant of their conditions. This is how it happens. I get it now. So if gay people feels that it's not their responsibility to inform others they have HIV before donating blood or engaging in sex. THEN WHY should blood donation clinics even accept them if their modus operandi is dishonesty? Just creating more work and more hassle for them over blood they cannot even use. I think you're twisting this. I've never said that people shouldn't be honest about their HIV status. But reality isn't always what we want it to be, and they may just not know the truth of their status. So I keep my health as my responsibility, and do everything I can to ward off the risk. That includes ruling out self-proclaimed cumdumps as potential partners. And I get checked regularly. How the fuck is that any different than what you claim to do?

Greta75 -> RE: California reduce penalties for knowingly exposing partners to HIV (10/10/2017 10:18:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV How the fuck is that any different than what you claim to do? The fact that you are defending people who withhold HIV information from their partners. And saying that, it's not their responsibility to tell. If by some freak incident, I ever have HIV. I am literally never touching a non-HIV partner. I will find fellow people who already has HIV. Because if I think about it. If I care alot for someone. Why the hell would I want to put them at risk and potentially inflict onto them my illness. All it needs is a broken condom.

Drakvampire -> RE: California reduce penalties for knowingly exposing partners to HIV (10/10/2017 10:18:58 PM)
And many men want sex with an aids-HIV ridden fat mutt like you? Feel free to name one monster moo, I wager none will say they had you.

Greta75 -> RE: California reduce penalties for knowingly exposing partners to HIV (10/10/2017 10:20:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Drakvampire And many men want sex with an aids-HIV ridden fat mutt like you? Feel free to name one monster moo, I wager none will say they had you. You do realise only men who can't get laid love to say things like these right? I get you haven't had sex for a long time. I just had sex whole of last weekend. I'm not the one spending all day on here moaning that everyone is a fake. You'd never hear me talk about men being fakes, because they are not and I get to meet plenty of real ones.

JVoV -> RE: California reduce penalties for knowingly exposing partners to HIV (10/10/2017 10:35:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV How the fuck is that any different than what you claim to do? The fact that you are defending people who withhold HIV information from their partners. And saying that, it's not their responsibility to tell. If by some freak incident, I ever have HIV. I am literally never touching a non-HIV partner. I will find fellow people who already has HIV. No. Again, you're twisting what I'm saying. If you consent to having sex with a new partner, then that inherently comes with a certain amount of risk. Even if they have papers from last month saying they're totally clean, that doesn't mean they haven't had risky sex and became infected since then. If you get infected with HIV, it no longer matters to your personal health whether that partner infected you knowingly or not. There are no takebacks, no do-overs. And you have to live with that for the rest of your life. If someone knowingly infects you, they've likely done the same to others, and will probably continue infecting others until they're stopped. So I'm not arguing that this shouldn't be a felony. I just don't see much of a real difference between a 4 years and a 6 years sentence. When it's a statistic, 4 years seems OK. If it were me being infected... well, let's just say that I hope I'd be of sound enough mind at the time to get my gun collection away from me for a while. And I agree with your last statement. I wouldn't want to infect anyone else either.

Greta75 -> RE: California reduce penalties for knowingly exposing partners to HIV (10/10/2017 10:40:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV If you consent to having sex with a new partner, then that inherently comes with a certain amount of risk. Even if they have papers from last month saying they're totally clean, that doesn't mean they haven't had risky sex and became infected since then. Please read what I said here http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=5080688 This is completely irrelevant. This topic isn't about people WHO DON'T KNOW they have HIV! This topic is about PEOPLE WHO IS DIAGNOSED WITH HIV and then DESPITE THAT still intentionally go out there to Donate Blood and Intentionally withhold info and have sex! So stop bringing up cases about people who are unaware they have HIV, because those people are not subjected to any punishment if they didn't know! The law doesn't prosecute those! They are completely irrelevant to this law. The Key Word is, "KNOWINGLY". My whole point is people who are AWARE and DIAGNOSED positive should be trial as murderers. IF they withhold info from their sexual partners and then their sexual partners got infected.

JVoV -> RE: California reduce penalties for knowingly exposing partners to HIV (10/10/2017 10:43:37 PM)
I'm not discussing cases, Greta. I'm discussing your health and mine. Hopefully there will never be 'cases' involved in either. Whether the person that infects you lies or just doesn't know, you're still infected.

Greta75 -> RE: California reduce penalties for knowingly exposing partners to HIV (10/10/2017 10:44:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV I'm not discussing cases, Greta. I'm discussing your health and mine. Hopefully there will never be 'cases' involved in either. This whole topic is about the ridiculousness of reducing punishment for people who INTENTIONALLY spread HIV to others ON PURPOSE! Why are we discussing my health and yours?

JVoV -> RE: California reduce penalties for knowingly exposing partners to HIV (10/10/2017 10:46:20 PM)
Mostly because you refuse to discuss the main reason for the reduction in sentences, which is again, prison overcrowding. Which legally, has to be corrected.

Greta75 -> RE: California reduce penalties for knowingly exposing partners to HIV (10/10/2017 10:50:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV Mostly because you refuse to discuss the main reason for the reduction in sentences, which is again, prison overcrowding. Which legally, has to be corrected. Which there are many other crimes they could reduce sentence for. And I disagree that this is one of them, as this is the equivalent of murder. Maybe they can reduce sentences of people who took drugs for example. Zero prison time. Pure therapy.

JVoV -> RE: California reduce penalties for knowingly exposing partners to HIV (10/10/2017 10:56:57 PM)
Did that already. Prop 47, 2014. "Requires misdemeanor sentence instead of felony for certain drug possession offenses. Requires misdemeanor sentence instead of felony for the following crimes when amount involved is $950 or less: petty theft, receiving stolen property, and forging/writing bad checks. Allows felony sentence for these offenses if person has previous conviction for crimes such as rape, murder, or child molestation or is registered sex offender. Requires resentencing for persons serving felony sentences for these offenses unless court finds unreasonable public safety risk. Applies savings to mental health and drug treatment programs, K–12 schools, and crime victims"

tamaka -> RE: California reduce penalties for knowingly exposing partners to HIV (10/10/2017 10:57:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV Mostly because you refuse to discuss the main reason for the reduction in sentences, which is again, prison overcrowding. Which legally, has to be corrected. Which there are many other crimes they could reduce sentence for. And I disagree that this is one of them, as this is the equivalent of murder. Not in this country it isn't.

JVoV -> RE: California reduce penalties for knowingly exposing partners to HIV (10/10/2017 11:13:37 PM)
The United States has the highest rate of incarceration of any country on the planet, aside from Seychelles, and the absolute most people incarcerated of any country. And yet, we're "the land of the free". Add the number of people on probation or parole, and the numbers just get more astounding.

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875