[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k] [s4s] [vip] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/news/ - Current News


Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 24 posters in this thread.

05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
06/20/16New 4chan Banner Contest with a chance to win a 4chan Pass! See the contest page for details.
[Hide] [Show All]



File: download.png (4 KB, 250x167)
4 KB
4 KB PNG
http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-updates-gov-brown-downgrades-from-felony-to-1507331544-htmlstory.html


>California
>the left
>>
>>185091
>Be Californian
>Get catfished by tranny
>Don't want to be called transphobic by my CalArts peers
>Fuck tranny
>Tranny gives me aids
>Yell at tranny for giving me aids
>Forced to give tranny 100 grand for emotional damage costs
>Die of aids

At least I'm not homophobic, right guys?
>>
That is terrifying! Wtf California?
>>
>>185091

"HIV has been the only communicable disease for which exposure is a felony under California law. The current law, Wiener argued, may convince people not to be tested for HIV, because without a test they cannot be charged with a felony if they expose a partner to the infection.

“We are going to end new HIV infections, and we will do so not by threatening people with state prison time, but rather by getting people to test and providing them access to care,” Wiener said."

Wow, it's fucking nothing.jpg
>>
>>185113
How is it nothing?

It means someone can knowingly infect you with a life-altering disease and face no consequences, all because "we think it's stopping people from getting tested!"
>>
>>185125

I'm not going to bother typing out a serious reply because I know for a fact you didn't read the article.

Fuck outta here with your baseless fear-mongering.
>>
>>185127
>Fear mongering
Oh yeah, I'm sorry if you think it's A-okay to donate blood knowing you're infectad, among other things.
Totally fine... Actions don't need consequences, we need to encourage people to test themselves by not punishing felons, amazing logic old chap!

As someone who is related to a terrible individual who willingly spreads this shit, you're full of shit for thinking this shit is in any way sensible.
>>
>>185130

Read the article, dipshit
>>
>>185125
The entire point in making it a felony is to encourage folks to be open with their partners to prevent the spread of HIV, but it might actually be counter-productive.

if one is having sex with a stranger and not using the right protection, the idea that knowingly transmitting HIV is a felony might give one a false sense of security that folks who are infected would be fourth-coming.
At the same time, it heightens the stigma against those with HIV and makes it less likely that irresponsible people will volunteer to get tested.
>>
>>185130
>if you're a known AIDS patient and infect someone, we'll charge you!
>wow, why are so many people not admitting to having AIDS so we can't charge them?

See how infantile your logic is? Also, what makes you think there aren't other criminal offences that HIV-spreaders can't be prosecuted under?
>>
>>185091
>HIV spreads like crazy
>flu season hits hard
>people drop like flies

I guess a lot of people are about to die in California. Make sure you wall off California with Mexico.
>>
>>185091
This is ", progressive"
>>
>>185091
Anyone that thinks this is okay needs to google 'pozzing', 'bugchasers' and 'bugcatchers'
>>
>>185152
This "logic" makes no sense whatsoever.
Anyone who suspects that the might have HIV, but chooses not to get tested in order to technically remain within the confines of the law is clearly a cold blooded lunatic.
Nobody with a single shred of empathy would avoid getting tested just so they could avoid punishment if they infect a whole bunch of people.
If there are people that selfish, then it seems unlikely to me that they would choose to get tested just because the punishment is now a misdemeanor. If they didn't care about the lives of their sexual partners before, then why would they care now?

>the idea that knowingly transmitting HIV is a felony might give one a false sense of security
This makes even less sense. Perhaps we should make home invasion a misdemeanor so everyone will put bars on their windows instead of assuming that their fellow citizens are good at heart.

>>185176
It seems highly unlikely to me that the prosecution would not throw the book at someone who avoided testing because they believed they might be infected.
As I said before, you would have to be incredibly selfish or downright murderous to do that sort of thing.

>Also, what makes you think there aren't other criminal offences that HIV-spreaders can't be prosecuted under?
You just invalidated your own argument. Good work. If they're still getting charged with a felony for spreading the disease, then the change in the law will do nothing to encourage others to get tested.

>The measure also applies to those who give blood without telling the blood bank that they are HIV-positive.
How do you people defend this part? What logical reason is there to go easy on someone who INTENTIONALLY tried to sneak HIV infected blood into a blood bank? Donating blood does not provide you with any monetary reward or anything like that. There is no reason for someone to donate blood when they're infected other than pure malice.
>>
>>185176
Having AIDS isn't a fucking crime you retard. If YOU! cannot admit to having AIDS THAT'S YOUR FAULT!
>>
The obvious solution should have been to make it a felony regardless of whether or not you knew you had it.
>>
>>185125
>and face no consequences,
It will still be a crime right?
Otherwise the story would say 'no longer a crime' so basically they are making the law the say for all incurable diseases.
If the live in CA and don't like it maybe use protection with anyone who hasn't shown you a recent test result.

>>187889
And for other incurable diseases?
>>
>>185113
The law only applies to someone trying to pass on the disease on purpose. Reducing the punishment is pure progressive retardation.
>>
>>185309
>It seems highly unlikely to me that the prosecution would not throw the book at someone who avoided testing because they believed they might be infected.
they can throw the book at them however they want, the law as it was previously written did not make them culpable if they never received valid documentation of their status with respect to HIV infection.

>If there are people that selfish, then it seems unlikely to me that they would choose to get tested just because the punishment is now a misdemeanor. If they didn't care about the lives of their sexual partners before, then why would they care now?
Even if they are psychopaths, at least they will get tested out of self-interest (knowing if they're infected) if the penalty is lower for knowingly infecting someone else.

Again, the entire point is to reduce transmission of HIV. If the same or better results can reasonably be achieved with less of a penalty for knowingly infecting someone else, then that's the optimal solution.
>>
>>185091
HIV shouldn't be treated any differently than any other disease. However, purposefully infecting someone with a potentially deadly disease should have a punishment comparable with (attempted) murder or assault with deadly weapon.
>>
>>187900
>at least they will get tested out of self-interest (knowing if they're infected) if the penalty is lower for knowingly infecting someone else.
Why would they do that when not getting tested would allow them to spread it with impunity should they so choose?

>If the same or better results can reasonably be achieved with less of a penalty for knowingly infecting someone else, then that's the optimal solution.
"Oh, now that I wont get punished for knowingly spreading it maybe I'll finally stop spreading it knowingly"

You're a gullible idiot. When the HIV rate spikes in California, I hope karma makes you one of the unfortunate statistics of this kind of careless "progressiveness".
>>
This story is old and shit.
So is your 'debate'.
>>
>>187893
That depends on the disease. If you get aids you had to have been doing something you knew was risky, having sex without proper protection or without knowing your partner very well, so you would at least have the suspicion that you caught something and thus the responsibility to get checked. This can't be said for all diseases, however.
>>
>>185091
Kinda the same in Canada. They figure if you consent to sex it's a 50/50 responsibility and the infected person doesn't have to reveal, but can't lie when asked.

True story: woman has casual sex w/ guy who has hiv but didn't ask. L8r she tests positive, now very angry, pissed off at the world, figures her time on Earth is shorter than expected decides 'to hell with everyone' fucks as many guys as she can before it's too late. Out with a bang. Scary shit eh.
>>
>>187911
How about other STD's or just not doing critical vaccinations?
>>
>>187972
>other STDs
I'd imagine he'd say same deal
>not getting critical vaccinations
Not getting a vaccine is not nearly as much of a guarantee to get infected as fucking someone with an STD, and so not comparable.
>>
>>185091
I mean, can't you just tell the courts that you asked if they had std's and they said no.
how the fuck would they know if you're lying
>>
>>187918
>Why would they do that when not getting tested would allow them to spread it with impunity should they so choose?
Because they have some personal interest in knowing whether they have HIV. And if they find they are infected, they would not be deterred from informing their partners that they were exposed for fear of criminal liability. Which in turn would presumably helps to reduce transmission of the disease as a consequence of ignorance.
They're not getting rid of the penalty. They're just reducing it under consideration that the current penalty doesn't strike the optimal balance in encouraging testing and openness that would achieve the lowest rate of transmission.
>>
>>185091
The more i learn about Calif the more I want to stay away. It almost seems like the entire state is being run by pussies who: can't be hard on crime, want to please as many PC faggots as possible, and are desperately trying to bankrupt the entire state. Then i start thinking...maybe Calif really just wants to kill off as many of its worthless citizens as possible...those leeches. Then it kinda makes sense.
>>
>>185091
>>California
>>the left

that's everything I had to know, thanks op
>>
>>187972
Other STDs don't really have much potential to kill you in the modern society(and no, I don't consider increasing the chances of getting cervical cancer or whatever to be on the same level as HIV infection). Should it be a crime? Obviously, but it's not really as severe as exposing someone to plague or polio.

Vaccinations are more of a grey area. Yes, you're potentially exposing other people to dangerous diseases... But, as long as the disease in question is not a clear and present danger, it's only POTENTIALLY. So as much as I hate anti-vac movement, the individual act of not getting your child vaccinated shouldn't be criminal to that degree.
>>
>>185091

This is the same state who lowered the penalty on things like DUI because too many illegals were being convicted and deported. Liberals are a cancer that must be cleansed from society.
>>
>>185212
*hard wheeze laugh*




Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.