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

[Spectral]

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.

[Allybeboba]

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 - - -

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 - - -

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.

[Deleted]

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?

[Vyuvarax]

Is this really a thing?

Yes? Why are you commenting with such a low level understanding of the issue?

[Deleted]

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

[Vyuvarax]

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.

[Mafic]

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 - - -

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 - - -

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.

[Vyuvarax]

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.

[Sunseeker]

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.

[Mafic]

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 - - -

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.

[Vyuvarax]

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.

[Mafic]

What is the acceptable civil damages for infecting someone with a 100% fatal disease?

This is the big problem that this opens up....

- - - Updated - - -

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.

[Masark]

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.

[Vyuvarax]

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 - - -

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?

[Masark]

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!".

[solinari6]

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.

[Rukh]

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?

[GreenJesus]

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.

[Garnier Fructis]

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.'

[GreenJesus]

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?