What the heck is going on in California?

[Elijah John]

I first heard this story on Tucker Carlson's show, that California has lessened the penalty of knowingly inflicting HIV on another to a misdemeanor. The California lawmaker on Carlson's show defended the move on the grounds that AIDs is not as deadly as it once was.

I did a Google search to confirm, because I just could not believe such a defiance of common sense and common decency was possible, even in California. But sure enough, the lessening of the penalty in that state is a fact:

http://southfloridagaynews.com/National ... g-hiv.html

Unless I missed it, AIDS is still a very very serious disease, and still potentially deadly. And costly, at the very least, to cure.

For debate,

1) Is it ethical to knowingly inflict AIDs on someone who doesn't have it?

2) How serious a crime should this be?

3) Is this insanity the natural consequence of Liberalism carried to extremes?

4) Should homosexuals and other vulnerable groups be exempt from acting responsibly?

Or do they get special consideration by virtue of being a favored minority, at least in California?

[Rufus21]

From what I understand, and I'm not saying that I agree with any of it, the argument goes something like this:

Criminalizing the disease did not reduce the number of cases. If anything, it discouraged people from getting tested for fear that they would become a potential criminal and/or their partner could be arrested. And now that the disease is not as deadly as it once was (many infected people have lived long lives and a few have even been "functionally cured") it seems less reasonable to criminalize the spread of AIDS more harshly than other similar infectious disease. The argument seems to be that a mixture of openness and awareness is the best approach to preventing the spread of this disease. The hope is that it will give people with the disease a chance to behave responsibly instead of being forced to sneak around and hide from the truth.

I don't know how much of that is true, but that seems to be the consensus from people on that side of the argument. California seems to be in a tough spot - they can either lessen the penalty and be called liberal extremists, or keep the overly severe punishment for a primarily treatable sickness and be called liberal extremists. It's the perfect self-fulfilling prophecy for people trying to spin the news to suit their political agenda (cough, cough...Fox).

[bluethread]

This appears to be similar to the games over policing in low income neighborhoods. First, these neighborhoods cry racism because they are not getting police protection. So, policing in those neighborhoods is increased. Then, people cry racism because arrests are going up. So, the police become more reluctant to arrest criminals. Then people say that is racist. They are racist regardless of what they do.

It is the same with AIDS. First, people claim discrimination because the government doesn't pass enough legislation to curtail the spread of the disease. So, they criminalize having sex without informing the other party that you have AIDS, if you know you do. Now, since they claim that the number of cases is going down, they are saying that they should repeal the law, because the law makes homosexuals look bad. So, any bets as to what will happen if AIDS cases start going back up again? No matter what, it's always the fault of someone else. How dare you tell me that I should be responsible for myself.

[Rufus21]

First, people claim discrimination because the government doesn't pass enough legislation to curtail the spread of the disease.

Did people really complain about that? I don't remember that. As you said, this is purely a problem of personal responsibility and medical prevention. Do you have examples of people who were asking for legislative solutions to the problem?

Now, since they claim that the number of cases is going down, they are saying that they should repeal the law, because the law makes homosexuals look bad.

That's not what they are saying. It has nothing to do with the law making homosexuals look bad. Where did you hear that?

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 2 by Rufus21]

It's not a matter of "criminalizing the disease" it's a matter of the common sense criminalization of the deliberate infliction of a serious disease on another.

And it's not a matter of name calling or discimination, it's a matter of public health and safety.

I'm very disappointed in Governor Brown for weakening the law and who seems to have forgotten his Jesuit backrground and seems to have bought into the extreme liberal agenda hook line and sinker.

He puts the lives and safety of others at risk by signing this legislation. Seems to have forgotten the Golden Rule in favor of political correctness.

If this kind of nonsense is embraced by other states, and by the Democratic party at large, say hello to another term for President Trump, the rough but common sense candidate.

[Rufus21]

...it's a matter of the common sense criminalization of the deliberate infliction of a serious disease on another.

Keep in mind that when you say "deliberate infliction of a serious disease" you are talking about sex. That is a very difficult thing to criminalize. Some would say that trying to mandate abstinence is not common sense. It didn't work for other STDs, it didn't work for teen pregnancies, and it didn't work for AIDS.

And it's not a matter of name calling or discimination, it's a matter of public health and safety.

But at this point does it still make sense to treat this disease more harshly than similar infections diseases? Shouldn't they all be treated the same?

He puts the lives and safety of others at risk by signing this legislation.

Can you explain how? His supporters say that he is saving lives and increasing public safety as I explained above.

[Divine Insight]

And it's not a matter of name calling or discimination, it's a matter of public health and safety.

The link you provided made a good argument that changing this legislation is indeed in the interest of increased public health and safety.

Apparently you simply disagree with their argument.

By the way, you have totally misrepresented their position when you said in the OP:

1) Is it ethical to knowingly inflict AIDs on someone who doesn't have it?

That is not even remotely what they are supporting. To the contrary they are actually suggesting that this is not what will happen. And they even explain why this is the case in the last paragraph of their article.

So your reaction is unwarranted since you are grossly misrepresenting their arguments.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 7 by Divine Insight]

I think it is the Left and their apologists who are doing the misrepresenting. Who the heck is advocating criminalizing people with HIV?

Clearly it is the behavior that was being criminalized. That is, knowingly infecting others with the AIDS virus.

But conflation is a common Left Wing tactic, it seems.

And now that the penalty has been weakened, don't you think it's effect will be to encourage irresponsible sex?

One wonders if this is the kind of thing that led to the fall or Rome, or to the destruction of Sodom.

[Elijah John]

This appears to be similar to the games over policing in low income neighborhoods. First, these neighborhoods cry racism because they are not getting police protection. So, policing in those neighborhoods is increased. Then, people cry racism because arrests are going up. So, the police become more reluctant to arrest criminals. Then people say that is racist. They are racist regardless of what they do.

It is the same with AIDS. First, people claim discrimination because the government doesn't pass enough legislation to curtail the spread of the disease. So, they criminalize having sex without informing the other party that you have AIDS, if you know you do. Now, since they claim that the number of cases is going down, they are saying that they should repeal the law, because the law makes homosexuals look bad. So, any bets as to what will happen if AIDS cases start going back up again? No matter what, it's always the fault of someone else. How dare you tell me that I should be responsible for myself.

By defending black criminals, BLM seems to be protesting for their "right" to commit crimes, unhindered by law enforcement.

And by coming out in support of the weakening of this law, some homosexuals and their liberal allies seem to be advocating for irresponsible sex, even at the risk of the health and safety of others.

[Rufus21]

Clearly it is the behavior that was being criminalized. That is, knowingly infecting others with the AIDS virus.

And that is still a crime, just like the intentional spread of any other infectious disease. That has not changed. I don’t know why you are so upset over this.

One wonders if this is the kind of thing that led to the fall or Rome, or to the destruction of Sodom.

A bit melodramatic, don’t you think? Or do you actually believe that our civilization is going to be destroyed by the fair and equitable application of law?

I’m not trying to be a jerk here, I honestly want to offer you some advice. You are obviously very emotional about this and you have been given some bad information by a very unreliable source. I would suggest that you take a little break from Fox news. Take a break from the "war on coal", the "war on religion", the "war on women", the "war on terror", the "war on marriage", the "war on meat", the "war on success", the "war on the poor", the "war on Christmas" or whatever war they’re trying to invent this week. Obviously they are trying to work people into a frenzy over nothing at all. Take a deep breath, clear your head and come back to the real world.