Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst ...
3
4
5
6
7
... LastLast
  1. #81
    Quote Originally Posted by Rukh View Post
    No it doesn't. If you think this is some objectively terrible action with no upside, what do you believe the reason for signing it in to law is then? I'm genuinely curious.
    I think the reasons for signing it into law are exactly what the advocates for it have stated - I don't have any reason at all to question their sincerity. Brown being completely uninterested in bothering to defend it demonstrates to that he's signing something that he knows is garbage in order to please his constituents.

  2. #82
    Quote Originally Posted by Kujako View Post
    Like Reagan?
    One could say that. Reagan was the governor of CA before he was PotUS. That was nearly half a century ago though.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Egomaniac View Post
    No, I'm not saying anything of the kind....I'm talking about people that act like gun control regulations are a waste of time because "criminals don't follow the law".

    So...the thought process they have works like this:

    1) there's a law to stop people from doing something.
    2) criminals don't follow the law so they do that thing anyway.
    3) the law is useless.

    So, if we apply that same logic here

    1) there's a law that makes knowingly infecting people with HIV a felony.
    2) criminals don't follow the law so they knowingly infect people with HIV anyway.
    3) the law is useless.

    Now, once again, I'm not saying I personally agree with this change in the law (In my opinion if you knowingly infect someone with HIV you should be charged with attempted murder)..I'm just pointing out that if you believe "criminals don't follow the law therefore the law is useless"...then the change is ultimately meaningless.
    Some of these people the law is affecting and the reason the people that passed the law are already "criminals". i.e. drug users and prostitutes.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Spectral View Post
    I think the reasons for signing it into law are exactly what the advocates for it have stated - I don't have any reason at all to question their sincerity. Brown being completely uninterested in bothering to defend it demonstrates to that he's signing something that he knows is garbage in order to please his constituents.
    That is why most politicians do what they do. They pander to voters. They really don't care about us. They only care about our vote.

  3. #83
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Vyuvarax View Post
    People are refusing to be tested for HIV under this law because it opens them to potential legal liability, which is creating a rising concern of a public health crisis. If you want this law to stand, how do you prevent a crisis and make people get tested?
    Is this really a thing?

  4. #84
    Quote Originally Posted by adam86shadow View Post
    Is this really a thing?
    Yes? Why are you commenting with such a low level understanding of the issue?

  5. #85
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Vyuvarax View Post
    Yes? Why are you commenting with such a low level understanding of the issue?
    Because I have never once heard of people refusing to be tested for HIV out of legal fear... I have heard of people not disclosing their status out of fear. I doubt many refuse diagnosis and treatment. Seems like something people overexagerate

  6. #86
    Quote Originally Posted by adam86shadow View Post
    Because I have never once heard of people refusing to be tested for HIV out of legal fear... I have heard of people not disclosing their status out of fear. I doubt many refuse diagnosis and treatment. Seems like something people overexagerate
    The number of people getting tested in California for HIV dropped substantially after the law's passage. Southern Cali is also going through a massive STD increase - some STD exposure rates are up as much as 400%. Preventing a pandemic by encouraging blood work without potential legal repercussion is considered necessary by some medical experts to combat other STDs like syphillis and gonorrhea.

  7. #87
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynarii View Post
    Moving it to civil court changes a critical thing though. The felony was 'exposing to', which means that the person can be put into jail even if no actual infection took place. To sue someone in civil court there has to be actual damages that took place. It is acceptable to ask that the guilty party pay for the treatment of their victim, but putting the person in jail can actually prevent that from happening.

    And geez, I have to ask, what kind of world do you all live in where you think that there are significant numbers of HIV-positive people sitting and home thinking "Damn, I really want to go out and infect some people, but I'm afraid of going to jail." Have you considered moving somewhere that isn't primarily populated by sociopaths?
    What world I live in? A world where HIV is a serious threat thanks to the ill conceived actions of California and STD rates are at an all time high in the western world.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by mariovsgoku View Post
    The left LGBT groups say it is a win for them since apparently gay people with HIV want to fuck people without telling the recipient the potential of getting a disease. Apparently these LGBT groups are fine with people not informing their partners before having sex.
    I feel sorry for those that live in Cali. I really do.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Vyuvarax View Post
    The number of people getting tested in California for HIV dropped substantially after the law's passage. Southern Cali is also going through a massive STD increase - some STD exposure rates are up as much as 400%. Preventing a pandemic by encouraging blood work without potential legal repercussion is considered necessary by some medical experts to combat other STDs like syphillis and gonorrhea.
    Yup.

    Quite sad to see all around.

  8. #88
    Quote Originally Posted by Mafic View Post
    What world I live in? A world where HIV is a serious threat thanks to the ill conceived actions of California and STD rates are at an all time high in the western world.

    - - - Updated - - -



    I feel sorry for those that live in Cali. I really do.

    - - - Updated - - -



    Yup.

    Quite sad to see all around.
    So STD rates rise while this law was on the books, yet you're condemning Cali for taking the law OFF the books? Your virtue signaling is embarassing.

  9. #89
    Merely a Setback Sunseeker's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    In the state of Denial.
    Posts
    27,589
    Quote Originally Posted by SupBrah View Post
    Because Californians would elect a reanimated Adolf Hitler as long as he had a "D" next to his name.
    Probably. I voted for Arnold because quite frankly, at the time I was sick of Jerry Brown and his contingent of suck-ups in the government.

    Besides, it's not like we need politicians to represent our demands in California. We have the initiative system. If we REALLY want something on the ballot, we can get enough people together and put it on the ballot. Which honestly, is a system every state should have.
    Human progress isn't measured by industry. It's measured by the value you place on a life.

    Just, be kind.

  10. #90
    Quote Originally Posted by Vyuvarax View Post
    So STD rates rise while this law was on the books, yet you're condemning Cali for taking the law OFF the books? Your virtue signaling is embarassing.
    I do not think the situation will improve. That is the point.

    It is not about virtual signaling.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by adam86shadow View Post
    Because I have never once heard of people refusing to be tested for HIV out of legal fear... I have heard of people not disclosing their status out of fear. I doubt many refuse diagnosis and treatment. Seems like something people overexagerate
    I agree.

    It is more likely people will refuse to test their property in California if they have a fault underneath than test if they are a carrier of HIV.

  11. #91
    Quote Originally Posted by Mafic View Post
    I do not think the situation will improve. That is the point.

    It is not about virtual signaling.

    - - - Updated - - -



    I agree.

    It is more likely people will refuse to test their property in California if they have a fault underneath than test if they are a carrier of HIV.
    If you make sweeping generalizations to cover a dearth of knowledge, then of course you'll conclude that taking steps to solve problems doesn't solve problems. Your logical fallacies can only lead to more logical fallacies, not the other way around.

  12. #92
    Quote Originally Posted by Theodarzna View Post
    What is the acceptable civil damages for infecting someone with a 100% fatal disease?
    This is the big problem that this opens up....

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Vyuvarax View Post
    If you make sweeping generalizations to cover a dearth of knowledge, then of course you'll conclude that taking steps to solve problems doesn't solve problems. Your logical fallacies can only lead to more logical fallacies, not the other way around.
    I didn't make a logical fallacy as I made an analogy.

    What California is doing is irresponsible considering the history the state has with HIV/AIDS of the 1980s. You don't like to hear the truth? Tough.

  13. #93
    The Insane Masark's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    18,027
    Quote Originally Posted by Mafic View Post
    I do not think the situation will improve. That is the point.
    So your "point" is that reversing a policy that caused a problem will not help to correct that problem.

    Warning : Above post may contain snark and/or sarcasm. Try reparsing with the /s argument before replying.
    What the world has learned is that America is never more than one election away from losing its goddamned mind
    Quote Originally Posted by Howard Tayler
    Political conservatism is just atavism with extra syllables and a necktie.
    Me on Elite : Dangerous | My WoW characters

  14. #94
    Quote Originally Posted by Mafic View Post
    This is the big problem that this opens up....

    - - - Updated - - -



    I didn't make a logical fallacy as I made an analogy.

    What California is doing is irresponsible considering the history the state has with HIV/AIDS of the 1980s. You don't like to hear the truth? Tough.
    Data shows the law itself was irresponsible. Your position of maintaining a law that makes a situation worse is, again, terribly ignorant. If you're just spouting a position that runs counter to the evidence available, you're willfully ignorant and virtue signaling. Zero actual value.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Masark View Post
    So your "point" is that reversing a policy that caused a problem will not help to correct that problem.
    Insane that his own claims disprove his own claims, isn't it?

  15. #95
    The Insane Masark's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    18,027
    Quote Originally Posted by Vyuvarax View Post
    Insane that his own claims disprove his own claims, isn't it?
    Or it's just a case ""I reject your facts and substitute my ideology!".

    Warning : Above post may contain snark and/or sarcasm. Try reparsing with the /s argument before replying.
    What the world has learned is that America is never more than one election away from losing its goddamned mind
    Quote Originally Posted by Howard Tayler
    Political conservatism is just atavism with extra syllables and a necktie.
    Me on Elite : Dangerous | My WoW characters

  16. #96
    If only there was something you could do to prevent yourself from catching HIV.... hmmm....

    Honestly, if you are having condomless sex, with the rationalization that "well my partner SAYS he's negative, and he wouldn't lie, because that's a felony, so I'm safe!!" ... you are a moron.

  17. #97
    Quote Originally Posted by Spectral View Post
    I think the reasons for signing it into law are exactly what the advocates for it have stated - I don't have any reason at all to question their sincerity. Brown being completely uninterested in bothering to defend it demonstrates to that he's signing something that he knows is garbage in order to please his constituents.
    That really just moves the question forward a peg. Do you think that the advocates have some nefarious plot?
    While you live, shine / Have no grief at all / Life exists only for a short while / And time demands its toll.

  18. #98
    This shows how society has degraded. Sex is so important that infecting your partner with a disease without them knowing so you can get off is apparently fine.

  19. #99
    Quote Originally Posted by mariovsgoku View Post
    This shows how society has degraded. Sex is so important that infecting your partner with a disease without them knowing so you can get off is apparently fine.
    I don't agree with this law, but did you seriously just say that misdemeanor is 'apparently fine.'
    Quote Originally Posted by Zantos View Post
    There are no 2 species that are 100% identical.
    Quote Originally Posted by Redditor
    can you leftist twits just fucking admit that quantum mechanics has fuck all to do with thermodynamics, that shit is just a pose?

  20. #100
    Quote Originally Posted by Garnier Fructis View Post
    I don't agree with this law, but did you seriously just say that misdemeanor is 'apparently fine.'
    Infecting someone with HIV without their consent isn't a serious crime that deserves felony?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •