"It shouldn't be illegal for people with AIDS to spit at, bite or throw blood at "

[Avatar4321]

How is not having a special class of laws going to allow a blood transfusion from an HIV patient?

Again, we have laws called assault, terroristic threads, harassment, murder. How do these cases not fall under these laws?

You say HIV patient. NOt all know nor care that they have or may have it.

It takes 2 weeks minimum for it to show up in a blood test. Takes up to 6 months to show up in a blood test.

Someone could get infected the week before donating blood and they will likely infect the recipient because it won't show up in the blood test. You think they are going to charge the donor with a crime? The recipient's life is totally fucked though.

Manslaughter. Not to mention Assault has reckless elements.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Umm, attempts by politicians to repeal laws that prevent HIV patients from expressing their frustration by spitting, throwing blood or biting people?

I give up.

It's amazing to me that you think that there are frustrated people with AIDS just waiting to spit AIDS at you, and the only thing stopping them is a law against it.

Yet, it's NEVER ACTUALLY HAPPENED.

EVER.

So why repeal the law? There are all sorts of other laws they never remove from the books. However we need to waste legislative time to placate gays and other liberal deviant groups?

Why?

So that hopefully, the next generation of Americans won't be as willfully ignorant as you insist on being.

 

[whitehall]

Perhaps you should take a few minutes to read through the thread...

Umm, attempts by politicians to repeal laws that prevent HIV patients from expressing their frustration by spitting, throwing blood or biting people?

I give up.

It's amazing to me that you think that there are frustrated people with AIDS just waiting to spit AIDS at you, and the only thing stopping them is a law against it.

Yet, it's NEVER ACTUALLY HAPPENED.

EVER.

What's the point? Should we make it legal for HIV patients to terrorize (normal) citizens because they are offended by the laws?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Umm, attempts by politicians to repeal laws that prevent HIV patients from expressing their frustration by spitting, throwing blood or biting people?

I give up.

It's amazing to me that you think that there are frustrated people with AIDS just waiting to spit AIDS at you, and the only thing stopping them is a law against it.

Yet, it's NEVER ACTUALLY HAPPENED.

EVER.

What's the point? Should we make it legal for HIV patients to terrorize (normal) citizens because they are offended by the laws?

Why are you so worried about being "terrorized" by HIV patients?

Why does that even cross your mind?

 

[Avatar4321]

Umm, attempts by politicians to repeal laws that prevent HIV patients from expressing their frustration by spitting, throwing blood or biting people?

I give up.

It's amazing to me that you think that there are frustrated people with AIDS just waiting to spit AIDS at you, and the only thing stopping them is a law against it.

Yet, it's NEVER ACTUALLY HAPPENED.

EVER.

What's the point? Should we make it legal for HIV patients to terrorize (normal) citizens because they are offended by the laws?

There are still laws against terrorizing people. Laws against harassment, assault, manslaughter, murder. Doing so is illegal whether your method is spreading HIV or some other way.

 

[novasteve]

How is not having a special class of laws going to allow a blood transfusion from an HIV patient?

Again, we have laws called assault, terroristic threads, harassment, murder. How do these cases not fall under these laws?

You say HIV patient. NOt all know nor care that they have or may have it.

It takes 2 weeks minimum for it to show up in a blood test. Takes up to 6 months to show up in a blood test.

Someone could get infected the week before donating blood and they will likely infect the recipient because it won't show up in the blood test. You think they are going to charge the donor with a crime? The recipient's life is totally fucked though.

Manslaughter. Not to mention Assault has reckless elements.

If you read my link an dgoogle the issue, they want to completely decriminalize infecting others with HIV.

 

[novasteve]

I give up.

It's amazing to me that you think that there are frustrated people with AIDS just waiting to spit AIDS at you, and the only thing stopping them is a law against it.

Yet, it's NEVER ACTUALLY HAPPENED.

EVER.

So why repeal the law? There are all sorts of other laws they never remove from the books. However we need to waste legislative time to placate gays and other liberal deviant groups?

Why?

So that hopefully, the next generation of Americans won't be as willfully ignorant as you insist on being.

What's more ignorant? That or the epidemic of barebacking in the gay community and the resulting increase in HIV infections?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

So why repeal the law? There are all sorts of other laws they never remove from the books. However we need to waste legislative time to placate gays and other liberal deviant groups?

Why?

So that hopefully, the next generation of Americans won't be as willfully ignorant as you insist on being.

What's more ignorant? That or the epidemic of barebacking in the gay community and the resulting increase in HIV infections?

They're both ignorant.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Why do you support outdated and unnecessary laws?

HIV kills. Infecting someone with it on purpose is rightfully a CRIME. Moron.

 

[novasteve]

I give up.

It's amazing to me that you think that there are frustrated people with AIDS just waiting to spit AIDS at you, and the only thing stopping them is a law against it.

Yet, it's NEVER ACTUALLY HAPPENED.

EVER.

What's the point? Should we make it legal for HIV patients to terrorize (normal) citizens because they are offended by the laws?

There are still laws against terrorizing people. Laws against harassment, assault, manslaughter, murder. Doing so is illegal whether your method is spreading HIV or some other way.

That's not how it goes when liberal deviant groups are at issue. NY state went from having allegations of homosexuality being per se defamation (meaning you didn't need to prove harm to reputation, just that they stated you were a homosexual) to it not even possible for allegations of homosexuality to constitute defamation anymore.

 

[Avatar4321]

You say HIV patient. NOt all know nor care that they have or may have it.

It takes 2 weeks minimum for it to show up in a blood test. Takes up to 6 months to show up in a blood test.

Someone could get infected the week before donating blood and they will likely infect the recipient because it won't show up in the blood test. You think they are going to charge the donor with a crime? The recipient's life is totally fucked though.

Manslaughter. Not to mention Assault has reckless elements.

If you read my link an dgoogle the issue, they want to completely decriminalize infecting others with HIV.

And if you use common sense, they can't do that as long as assault is on the books.

 

[novasteve]

Why?

So that hopefully, the next generation of Americans won't be as willfully ignorant as you insist on being.

What's more ignorant? That or the epidemic of barebacking in the gay community and the resulting increase in HIV infections?

They're both ignorant.

But one is a lot more ignorant than the other given it actually impacts people, unlike "falsely" believing having blood thrown on you can transmit HIV.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Why do you support outdated and unnecessary laws?

HIV kills. Infecting someone with it on purpose is rightfully a CRIME. Moron.

Again, as has been pointed out a thousand times already.

Getting spit on, bitten, or drenched in a bucket of blood are not vectors of infection of AIDS.

 

[Avatar4321]

What's more ignorant? That or the epidemic of barebacking in the gay community and the resulting increase in HIV infections?

They are both ignorant. What's the point of your question?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

What's more ignorant? That or the epidemic of barebacking in the gay community and the resulting increase in HIV infections?

They're both ignorant.

But one is a lot more ignorant than the other given it actually impacts people, unlike "falsely" believing having blood thrown on you can transmit HIV.

You must be very proud to be slightly less ignorant than people who have high-risk unprotected sex.

 

[novasteve]

Manslaughter. Not to mention Assault has reckless elements.

If you read my link an dgoogle the issue, they want to completely decriminalize infecting others with HIV.

And if you use common sense, they can't do that as long as assault is on the books.

It won't be assault if you willingly have sex. They are taking away the ability to do what you are saying, otherwise what would be the point of decriminalizing the transmission of HIV? You'll be charged with assault under the proposed change like you'd be charged with assault if you lied about income to get a woman into bed. It aint gonna happen in this country.

The next demand is the decriminialization of the knowing transmission of HIV. better get used to it becaucse liberals get everything they want.

 

[novasteve]

Why do you support outdated and unnecessary laws?

HIV kills. Infecting someone with it on purpose is rightfully a CRIME. Moron.

Again, as has been pointed out a thousand times already.

Getting spit on, bitten, or drenched in a bucket of blood are not vectors of infection of AIDS.

Yet somehow a dentist infected 6 of his patients with HIV.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

What's the point? Should we make it legal for HIV patients to terrorize (normal) citizens because they are offended by the laws?

There are still laws against terrorizing people. Laws against harassment, assault, manslaughter, murder. Doing so is illegal whether your method is spreading HIV or some other way.

That's not how it goes when liberal deviant groups are at issue. NY state went from having allegations of homosexuality being per se defamation (meaning you didn't need to prove harm to reputation, just that they stated you were a homosexual) to it not even possible for allegations of homosexuality to constitute defamation anymore.

So, you can't sue someone for calling you gay. Is that really something you're outraged about?

 

[Avatar4321]

If you read my link an dgoogle the issue, they want to completely decriminalize infecting others with HIV.

And if you use common sense, they can't do that as long as assault is on the books.

It won't be assault if you willingly have sex. They are taking away the ability to do what you are saying, otherwise what would be the point of decriminalizing the transmission of HIV? You'll be charged with assault under the proposed change like you'd be charged with assault if you lied about income to get a woman into bed. It aint gonna happen in this country.

The next demand is the decriminialization of the knowing transmission of HIV. better get used to it becaucse liberals get everything they want.

You consent to have sex, not to have a lifethreatening disease. It's still assault.

Your lying to get sex analogy still fails.

 

[Avatar4321]

There are still laws against terrorizing people. Laws against harassment, assault, manslaughter, murder. Doing so is illegal whether your method is spreading HIV or some other way.

That's not how it goes when liberal deviant groups are at issue. NY state went from having allegations of homosexuality being per se defamation (meaning you didn't need to prove harm to reputation, just that they stated you were a homosexual) to it not even possible for allegations of homosexuality to constitute defamation anymore.

So, you can't sue someone for calling you gay. Is that really something you're outraged about?

Honestly, I dont think that's ever crossed my mind. Then again i prefer to be the attorney than the client.