bugchasing and HIV

[bankside]

I didn't bring up quarantine into it. Stopping the spread of HIV should mean sex education, easy access to protection and finding a cure/vaccine. The marginal percentage of HIV+ people involved in big chasing can't be controlled and wouldn't solve anything if it could.

No, you didn't bring up quarantine, you brought up concentration camps. And the HIV prevention strategy you speak about is insufficient because it doesn't address personal responsibility. There is no reason for the law to make it legal for people to consensually transmit disease.

 

[Rolyo85]

Moot point. This is an invalid argument, lest we not address any crimes.

As in any crime, the crime isn't addressed until it is reported. Murders, illicit drugs, embezzlement, etc., go unmitigated until discovered.

Not a moot point, but I can see yours too. I still see this as a different issue though.

 

[Rolyo85]

No, you didn't bring up quarantine, you brought up concentration camps. And the HIV prevention strategy you speak about is insufficient because it doesn't address personal responsibility. There is no reason for the law to make it legal for people to consensually transmit disease.

Actually sex education is in large part teaching personal responsibility. And I'm embarrassed for you if you don't see the easy step from quarantining people for their entire lives and a concentration camp...

 

[eastofeden]

Actually sex education is in large part teaching personal responsibility. And I'm embarrassed for you if you don't see the easy step from quarantining people for their entire lives and a concentration camp...

People spread the flu...knowingly...all the time...and people die because they contracted the flu. With HIV...unless there is an instance where one person did not consent and THAT is actually a crime....people who choose not to wear protection are well aware of the risks so they are a bit ahead of the person who contracts the flu.

It appears as though the "naughty things" **cough **sex**cough** is really the thing on trial because if it was just spreading a disease and protecting the "innocent" we would need to quarantine the flu spreaders as well. .

Seems to me a lot of people have Joseph McCarthy syndrome

 

[bankside]

Actually sex education is in large part teaching personal responsibility. And I'm embarrassed for you if you don't see the easy step from quarantining people for their entire lives and a concentration camp...

Well you're embarrassed for people a lot, so I'll take that with a grain of salt. Quarantine is a legitimate way of containing disease when people are unwilling or unable to prevent others from being exposed. It is used even today with tuberculosis patients who don't follow their program of treatment, nor what they have been taught about transmission. That's because responsibility is more than just being exposed to knowledge through some education program, it's about accountability to implement what has been learned. It's nothing like a concentration camp; those are used to house political prisoners.

 

[eastofeden]

Well you're embarrassed for people a lot, so I'll take that with a grain of salt. Quarantine is a legitimate way of containing disease when people are unwilling or unable to prevent others from being exposed. It is used even today with tuberculosis patients who don't follow their program of treatment, nor what they have been taught about transmission. That's because responsibility is more than just being exposed to knowledge through some education program, it's about accountability to implement what has been learned. It's nothing like a concentration camp; those are used to house political prisoners.

...and how would you figure out which persons with HIV transmitted it to others? So many of the actual transmitters are people who are unaware that they have the virus. Hell...one slut who doesn't know they are infected can spread the virus to hundreds of guys.

So...is it better to punish the honest bug chasers and let the liars and fools continue to do the actual damage? ...or would we need a police state to forcibly test EVERYONE and then keep them all in quarantine for the "window" so they can all get tested again? ...and that would be a great idea until they decide to have sex again...but maybe we could figure out a way to know when everyone is having sex! Maybe we could quarantine the newly diagnosed HIV patient because they obviously made a choice to contract the disease! You would have to go all the way once you started because when you open this Pandora's Box the first thing you will do is scare people from ever getting tested.

Big Brother is already here...why not give him even more power! What a great idea

 

[Rolyo85]

Well you're embarrassed for people a lot, so I'll take that with a grain of salt. Quarantine is a legitimate way of containing disease when people are unwilling or unable to prevent others from being exposed. It is used even today with tuberculosis patients who don't follow their program of treatment, nor what they have been taught about transmission. That's because responsibility is more than just being exposed to knowledge through some education program, it's about accountability to implement what has been learned. It's nothing like a concentration camp; those are used to house political prisoners.

I already pointed out the glaring flaw in the quarantine train of thought (not even going into what eastofeden wrote above), and that is that HIV carriers are not a threat to anyone by their presence alone, which is pretty much the biggest requirement to quarantine someone. What you're trying to control here is behavior, not the disease. And behavior can't be controlled with a quarantine - that's my concentration camp reference.

 

[dereperez]

People spread the flu...knowingly...all the time...and people die because they contracted the flu. With HIV...unless there is an instance where one person did not consent and THAT is actually a crime....people who choose not to wear protection are well aware of the risks so they are a bit ahead of the person who contracts the flu.

It appears as though the "naughty things" **cough **sex**cough** is really the thing on trial because if it was just spreading a disease and protecting the "innocent" we would need to quarantine the flu spreaders as well. .

Seems to me a lot of people have Joseph McCarthy syndrome

That's just the thing though. I do think those that intentionally spread the flu should be punished as well, especially if the victim contracts the flu and dies or becomes seriously sick. How exactly can it be implemented in the judicial system? I'm not sure...but the fact is I do think it should be considered a crime to spread destruction. This is not about internalized homophobia (as you stated in an earlier post) or that I just want to go after the "naughty things". If people willfully spread around contagions of any sort, then there should be consequences from the law.

 

[eastofeden]

That's just the thing though. I do think those that intentionally spread the flu should be punished as well, especially if the victim contracts the flu and dies or becomes seriously sick. How exactly can it be implemented in the judicial system? I'm not sure...but the fact is I do think it should be considered a crime to spread destruction. This is not about internalized homophobia (as you stated in an earlier post) or that I just want to go after the "naughty things". If people willfully spread around contagions of any sort, then there should be consequences from the law.

I like that you are consistent and treat the spreading of any disease a crime...even though I disagree...I don't think for you it is about "naughty things"... because you are consistent....

The problem is...do you know how many people spread the flu...and spread the disease? At what point is the recipient responsible for their own choices? Shouldn't the person who barebacks or refuses to get the flu shot bear some responsibility as well? Do we criminalize/punish them too?

 

[bankside]

I also think if someone visits a hospital ward knowing they have the flu and then five seniors and people with compromised immune systems die as a result, then yes, charges are in order.

But again not all of this is criminal law. Asylums and quarantine facilities have many purposes and many legal authorities that are not based in criminal law. Or political persecution for that matter.

 

[dereperez]

I like that you are consistent and treat the spreading of any disease a crime...even though I disagree...I don't think for you it is about "naughty things"... because you are consistent....

The problem is...do you know how many people spread the flu...and spread the disease? At what point is the recipient responsible for their own choices? Shouldn't the person who barebacks or refuses to get the flu shot bear some responsibility as well? Do we criminalize/punish them too?

Well as I stated earlier I would not know the perfect way to go about "catching" people who intentionally spread any disease/bug. But there could at least be laws that prohibit it. Just like the system isn't perfect in catching every single murderer, thief, drug lord, etc...at least there is a system in place that works on trying to limit those events by punishing the guilty. Why not have a system that goes after disease spreaders and chasers like there is one for drug sellers and buyers? By having laws that prohibit disease spreading, it could potentially discourage even just a few people from otherwise intentionally spreading the disease...and in end, isn't that worth it?

Isn't that what we should strive as a society: to limit the amount of damage as much as possible? Again, it may not be practical but to me it makes sense. But maybe it's because I am young, naive, and just have this "idealistic" notion that I can't get out of my head.

 

[eastofeden]

Well as I stated earlier I would not know the perfect way to go about "catching" people who intentionally spread any disease/bug. But there could at least be laws that prohibit it. Just like the system isn't perfect in catching every single murderer, thief, drug lord, etc...at least there is a system in place that works on trying to limit those events by punishing the guilty. Why not have a system that goes after disease spreaders and chasers like there is one for drug sellers and buyers? By having laws that prohibit disease spreading, it could potentially discourage even just a few people from otherwise intentionally spreading the disease...and in end, isn't that worth it?

Isn't that what we should strive as a society: to limit the amount of damage as much as possible? Again, it may not be practical but to me it makes sense. But maybe it's because I am young, naive, and just have this "idealistic" notion that I can't get out of my head.

Well...the drug analogy...the US Government is the biggest drug peddler on the planet so I have a lot of thoughts on that...I also think some drugs are intentionally distributed in certain areas...but again...another subject.

I can't get past the idea of consenting adults. I don't really think it is OK to tell someone what to do with their own body...even if it means killing themselves. Unless there was one party who was not consenting...I think the responsibility rests on each of us as individuals to protect ourselves. I don't really see one person being the victim...I see a 50/50 scenario when it involves consent and lack of protection.