Current Events > Cali now has harsher laws for pronoun violations than purposely spreading HIV

(+) Yeah! (+)

Asherlee10 posted...

Balrog0 posted...

darkjedilink posted...

It is literally possible in California to spend more time in jail for misgendering someone than knowingly giving someone HIV.

LITERALLY NOTHING MAKES THAT OKAY. No situation, no focus, NOTHING should make mean words more criminal than killing someone.

Get it yet?

no one in this topic has argued with that, at least no one has yet

plus having sex with someone with HIV isn't the same as getting HIV, which is itself not AIDS which isn't the same thing as dying

I already said I don't agree with the change but equivocating between this and literal murder is almost as bad as what california is doing

Basically this. No one is arguing that. These two laws are unrelated to each other.

They don't have to be related to each other for the fact that you can spend more time in jail for misgendering someone than knowingly giving them HIV to be fucked up.

That it is a factual thing proves the fucked-up sense of liberal priority.
---

darkjedilink posted...

They don't have to be related to each other for the fact that you can spend more time in jail for misgendering someone than knowingly giving them HIV to be fucked up.

I mean I don't disagree but many laws are like this

there are people who spend more time in jail for marijuana than for murder
---

darkjedilink posted...

What 'context' changes the fact that gradeschool bullying is treated more harshly in California than LITERALLY KILLING SOMEONE!?

Between these two who cares if one is harsher than the other so long as they are harsh punishments since you shouldn't be doing either of those in the first place.
---

Asherlee10 posted...

These two laws are unrelated to each other.

Sure in a literal sense they're unrelated, but both are new, both are ridiculous, and this goes to show just how fucked up the state is.
---

Leave it to some leftist sanctuary commune to make it legal to give someone fullblown aids

Smh america. Smh california.

Doom_Art posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

Is it or is it not true that a long term medical center employee will get jail time for calling someone the wrong gender will get them jail time?

Is it or is it not true that knowingly giving someone HIV is only a misdemeanor and will NOT get you jail time?

what is it with conservatives and being unable to apply context to anything

Answer the fucking question.
---

HIV laws are stupid and an example of the "repeat" law phenomenon rampant in many state law books, there is usually a host of all types of shit you can charge an individual with the virus who with intentional knowledge spreads it around already on the books.
---

The gay community has been doing nothing but spreading positivity about HIV and how it's not that bad so no f that. Knowingly causing someone to be completely dependent upon medication for their rest of their lives should have harsh penalties.

Rate of infection is going UP in the gay community while we've got stuff like prep out there to protect us, that isn't enough to just pretend like HIV is okay now, it still leads to AIDS and just because we have preventive measures available doesn't mean we should just be like "oh you gave someone HIV on purpose? No big."

The best claim I hear is people would be more willing to get themselves tested if HIV had less harsh penalties but I highly doubt anyone scared to get tested because they are afraid of having it would find out either way.

And let's not forget that this is a community that used to have plenty of people who thought of AIDS as some kind of badge and had bug parties. So, again, f that.
---

Asherlee10 posted...

About the HIV Law:
The sentence max was downgraded because California believed HIV is a public health problem and therefore intentional transfer is therefore in line with all life long communicable diseases. It has no negative effect on the LGBT community. In fact by many in the community the penalty was seen as discriminatory upon it's enactment. There is an argument saying that HIV tolerability is gonna bring death sentences to people that contract it, but modern medicine has shown that is not the case and those statements are pretty ignorant as a whole to medical progress regarding the virus. You're much more likely to die from hep C intentional transfer which is also a misdemeanor.

that's kinda dumb, though, because arguably one of the reasons HIV leads to fewer deaths is that there was an aggressive campaign to promote prevention, which this law was a part of

maybe it wasn't an effective part of it but those facts alone don't really support the idea that the change in the law is sensible

to be fair, I assume they mean "more people die of hep c than HIV" which is true, rather than "if you contract hep c you are more likely to die than if you contract HIV" which I do not know enough about either thing to know if its true
---

coolboy11 posted...

HIV laws are stupid and an example of the "repeat" law phenomenon rampant in many state law books, there is usually a host of all types of shit you can charge an individual with the virus who with intentional knowledge spreads it around already on the books.

that is a good point, too, though
---

The costs of contracting it and avoiding death is taking pills every day for the rest of your life and having to cnstantly get check ups to test your viral load. If you ever waver in your discipline or forget, you put yourself at risk. You also now risk passing it down to your children or risk endangering any sexual partner of the same.

Just because it isn't an instant death scenario doesn't mean it should be brought down to some sort of trivial thing, the bills accrued and impositions getting such a disease causes means it 100% should still be taken seriously. I think the distance of time is the biggest problem with how these people act like the disease isn't serious, too many young gays don't know anyone with first had experience of how bad it can be.
---

Balrog0 posted...

coolboy11 posted...

HIV laws are stupid and an example of the "repeat" law phenomenon rampant in many state law books, there is usually a host of all types of shit you can charge an individual with the virus who with intentional knowledge spreads it around already on the books.

that is a good point, too, though

It's at least assault.

Vicious_Dios posted...

That's fucking insane.

No wonder it's on fire

Asherlee10 posted...

Balrog0 posted...

Asherlee10 posted...

About the HIV Law:
The sentence max was downgraded because California believed HIV is a public health problem and therefore intentional transfer is therefore in line with all life long communicable diseases. It has no negative effect on the LGBT community. In fact by many in the community the penalty was seen as discriminatory upon it's enactment. There is an argument saying that HIV tolerability is gonna bring death sentences to people that contract it, but modern medicine has shown that is not the case and those statements are pretty ignorant as a whole to medical progress regarding the virus. You're much more likely to die from hep C intentional transfer which is also a misdemeanor.

that's kinda dumb, though, because arguably one of the reasons HIV leads to fewer deaths is that there was an aggressive campaign to promote prevention, which this law was a part of

maybe it wasn't an effective part of it but those facts alone don't really support the idea that the change in the law is sensible

to be fair, I assume they mean "more people die of hep c than HIV" which is true, rather than "if you contract hep c you are more likely to die than if you contract HIV" which I do not know enough about either thing to know if its true

Perhaps the law did play a role in reducing the spread. What I'm understanding from the lawmakers in Cali about this is that advances in medicine and treatment are what did it, therefore they changed the law to suit that circumstance. I'm not saying I necessarily agree with this, but there are some underlining points that do make sense.

There is no circumstances that make it okay for misgendering to be more criminal than knowingly giving someone HIV.
---

Balrog0 posted...

darkjedilink posted...

They don't have to be related to each other for the fact that you can spend more time in jail for misgendering someone than knowingly giving them HIV to be fucked up.

I mean I don't disagree but many laws are like this

there are people who spend more time in jail for marijuana than for murder

Show me a state that intentionally sets the max punishment for murder to be lower than the max punishment for pot.
---

I live in CA. Its possible to believe the GOP is evil and to be utterly annoyed by libruls.
---

Asherlee10 posted...

darkjedilink posted...

Asherlee10 posted...

Balrog0 posted...

Asherlee10 posted...

About the HIV Law:
The sentence max was downgraded because California believed HIV is a public health problem and therefore intentional transfer is therefore in line with all life long communicable diseases. It has no negative effect on the LGBT community. In fact by many in the community the penalty was seen as discriminatory upon it's enactment. There is an argument saying that HIV tolerability is gonna bring death sentences to people that contract it, but modern medicine has shown that is not the case and those statements are pretty ignorant as a whole to medical progress regarding the virus. You're much more likely to die from hep C intentional transfer which is also a misdemeanor.

that's kinda dumb, though, because arguably one of the reasons HIV leads to fewer deaths is that there was an aggressive campaign to promote prevention, which this law was a part of

maybe it wasn't an effective part of it but those facts alone don't really support the idea that the change in the law is sensible

to be fair, I assume they mean "more people die of hep c than HIV" which is true, rather than "if you contract hep c you are more likely to die than if you contract HIV" which I do not know enough about either thing to know if its true

Perhaps the law did play a role in reducing the spread. What I'm understanding from the lawmakers in Cali about this is that advances in medicine and treatment are what did it, therefore they changed the law to suit that circumstance. I'm not saying I necessarily agree with this, but there are some underlining points that do make sense.

There is no circumstances that make it okay for misgendering to be more criminal than knowingly giving someone HIV.

They are both misdemeanors.

So? Misgendering has the harsher sentence.
---

Vicious_Dios posted...

That's fucking insane.

Yes. Yes it is.
---

Asherlee10 posted...

I'd have to go back and read the documentation, but both are misdemeanors. How is one harsher than the other when they are both misdemeanors?

Different misdemeanors have different maxium punishments.

Now that we've covered that it's completely fair for caretakers to be punished for deliberately and repeated harassing those in their care by misgendering, I'll address the HIV thing.

Infecting others with HIV was only a crime if you knowingly infect people with it. This results in many people refusing to get tested in order to avoid the penalties. This can lead to HIV spreading even more. Lawmakers hope that lowering the scale of the crime to match that of other diseases will let more people feel comfortable about being tested.

I'm not saying it's right, but the IS a logic behind it. It's not all about "muh feelings" like Breitbart tries to make it sound.
---

The logic behind it is stupid. Anyone who would rather not take the test so that they can have sex without fearing being persecuted for giving someone HIV isnt going to get themselves tested either way since they clearly dont care about their own wellbeing, let alone the wellbeing over others. HIV rates are on a strict rise not fall now that eere taking it less seriously; making it even more trivial sentencing wise is a dumb move and there is no proper sense to it.
---

Xelltrix posted...

Anyone who would rather not take the test so that they can have sex without fearing being persecuted for giving someone HIV isnt going to get themselves tested either way

We'll see after some time. Again, I'm not saying it's right, but we don't know if it will work or not yet.

In the meantime, just don't have unprotected sex with anyone in California. Should be simple for you.
---

No, they should just not do it. There is no lets see, its a simple as it should NOT be a thing. Removing a law like that as a case study or whatever is stupid and anyone in favor of it is equally stupid.
---

Too bad, it's already happened.
---

Yeah it is and its stupid that they think it will help anything.
---

We'll see after some time.
---

Really easy to just say wait and see but the fact that its rising at such a stupendous rate because of all the idiots having unprotected sex and thinking HIV isnt a big deal anymore is only showing how bad this thought process is. Lowering the penalty just further increases this idea in our community that AIDS arent a big deal while also not changing how many people get themselves tested. I say that last part with conviction because, with the plethora of diseases out there and how bad some of them are, someone who wont get tested because they fear theyll get convicted for infecting someone with HIV is most certainly not getting tested either way.
---

Xelltrix posted...

someone who wont get tested because they fear theyll get convicted for infecting someone with HIV is most certainly not getting tested either way.

We'll see.
---