Topic: Crime (And Punishment) (Read 29230 times)

xolik · « **Reply #75 on:** May 31, 2007, 10:27:57 AM »

People who know they are infected with a very bad disease, yet still go on not giving a shit if they infect other people really, really, REALLY piss me off.

TheJudge · « **Reply #76 on:** May 31, 2007, 10:45:58 AM »

Those bastards should be shot!

xolik · « **Reply #77 on:** May 31, 2007, 12:23:20 PM »

If you know you have HIV, aren't doing jack shit about it, and continue to lie to everybody telling them that you're clean knowing full damn well that you're going to infect your new partner (but who cares, it's not like you ever intend to see him again after tonight, right?) then, yes, you should be shot.

TheJudge · « **Reply #78 on:** May 31, 2007, 01:09:15 PM »

Right in the nuts in fact.

Zephyr · « **Reply #79 on:** May 31, 2007, 02:00:12 PM »

Quote from: xolik on May 31, 2007, 12:23:20 PM

If you know you have HIV, aren't doing jack shit about it, and continue to lie to everybody telling them that you're clean knowing full damn well that you're going to infect your new partner (but who cares, it's not like you ever intend to see him again after tonight, right?) then, yes, you should be shot.

People who have sex and don't get tested annually for STDs should be severely shaken.

pbsaurus · « **Reply #80 on:** May 31, 2007, 02:07:16 PM »

I have sex and don't get tested annually for STDs.

Evonus · « **Reply #81 on:** May 31, 2007, 02:08:19 PM »

Quote from: pbsaurus on May 31, 2007, 02:07:16 PM

I have sex and don't get tested annually for STDs.

Do you wish to be shaken or stirred?

pbsaurus · « **Reply #82 on:** May 31, 2007, 02:22:25 PM »

Variety is the spice of life.

Zephyr · « **Reply #83 on:** May 31, 2007, 02:22:53 PM »

Okay, you have more than one partner in the span of your previous test to your next, then you should get tested regularly. Obviously if you're married and not having affairs, it's unnecessary.

pbsaurus · « **Reply #84 on:** May 31, 2007, 02:40:41 PM »

I learned something today. It's not a good idea to make blanket statements, well unless, they're about blankets, and then be careful, because we all know what blankets did to the native americans, but anyway, one size does not fit all, generalizations generally over-simplify, and there are many perspectives, none of which are absolute truth.

12AX7 · « **Reply #85 on:** May 31, 2007, 03:06:05 PM »

Quote from: pbsaurus on May 31, 2007, 02:40:41 PM

but anyway, one size does not fit all, generalizations generally over-simplify, and there are many perspectives, none of which are absolute truth.

And that's the truth. :raspberry:

d_money · « **Reply #86 on:** June 05, 2007, 08:51:31 AM »

Quote from: TheJudge on May 31, 2007, 10:45:58 AM

Those bastards should be shot!

Can't you be charged with murder for giving somebody aids if you knew you had it and told them otherwise?

xolik · « **Reply #87 on:** June 05, 2007, 01:58:46 PM »

Quote from: d_money on June 05, 2007, 08:51:31 AM

Can't you be charged with murder for giving somebody aids if you knew you had it and told them otherwise?

In a perfect world......YES. Can't wait until I'm Dictator-For-Life. One of my first acts, after painting the White House pink, would be to make this one of the new laws.

RelandR · « **Reply #88 on:** June 05, 2007, 02:31:32 PM »

HIV is what is given, AIDS may or may not develope later but in either case death would have to occur before murder could be claimed. Nonetheless, there are laws on reckless transmission allready... some with fairly severe penalties and some new laws evolving.

d_money · « **Reply #89 on:** June 05, 2007, 02:44:31 PM »

i think if you're a dude and you know you have hiv or aids and you purposely don't tell somebody you have it and sleep with them anyways you should have you're dong cut off

BizB · « **Reply #90 on:** June 05, 2007, 02:47:56 PM »

I think punctuation is under appreciated and under used.

Does your shift key work?

RelandR · « **Reply #91 on:** June 05, 2007, 03:01:53 PM »

I think that if one has any STD, and regardless of whether one is a Dude or a Dudette, serious repercusions should be applicable as a penalty for any deliberate and/or reckless endangerment.

... The cutting off of body parts however, would create another can of worms though.

d_money · « **Reply #92 on:** June 05, 2007, 03:18:44 PM »

Quote from: BizB on June 05, 2007, 02:47:56 PM

I think punctuation is under appreciated and under used.

Does your shift key work?

From now on I'll be sure to try my best as to use correct punctuation to better accommodate you. Sorry for the previous incorrect posts.

[/quote]

Quote from: RelandR on June 05, 2007, 03:01:53 PM

I think that if one has any STD, and regardless of whether one is a Dude or a Dudette, serious repercusions should be applicable as a penalty for any deliberate and/or reckless endangerment.

... The cutting off of body parts however, would create another can of worms though.

I believe the cutting off of the limbs was a little too much, but I definitely agree with serious repercussions being taken for these crimes.

BizB · « **Reply #93 on:** June 05, 2007, 03:41:31 PM »

How would you prove it?

Many people react almost instantly (days) to Herpies for example; however, some don't develop symptoms for weeks or months. Some never show symptoms, but they're definitely infected. How would you determine the source?

d_money · « **Reply #94 on:** June 05, 2007, 03:46:32 PM »

Quote from: BizB on June 05, 2007, 03:41:31 PM

How would you prove it?

Many people react almost instantly (days) to Herpies for example; however, some don't develop symptoms for weeks or months. Some never show symptoms, but they're definitely infected. How would you determine the source?

That is a good point. I guess these punishments would only be applicable in certain situations, almost making them useless, because the people needing to be protected by them most likely are the ones with multiple partners who wouldn't be able to pinpoint, or prove the person(s) that gave them the std(s).

RelandR · « **Reply #95 on:** June 05, 2007, 04:12:26 PM »

Good point indeed.

In order for such laws to work, the operative words "deliberate", "reckless" and "endangerment" would have to be clearly defined and provable.

In the same [similar] spirit as laws to protect against potential harm to others by negligence (towards children, employees, etc.) there are many penalties for merely exposing to danger/harm and these can become increased if and when actual harm occurs.

ivan · « **Reply #96 on:** June 05, 2007, 04:18:22 PM »

Just criminalize sex and be done with it.

BizB · « **Reply #97 on:** June 05, 2007, 04:24:34 PM »

If you outlaw sex, only outlaws will have sex.

I forget, was I a white-hat, or a black-hat H4xx0r at HN?

RelandR · « **Reply #98 on:** June 05, 2007, 04:28:56 PM »

A whole new social class will be created...

Sexy pot smoking Outlaws with guns ... oh my.

Paladin · « **Reply #99 on:** June 05, 2007, 04:34:08 PM »

Quote from: ivan on June 05, 2007, 04:18:22 PM

Just criminalize sex and be done with it.

You mean it's legal where you live?!

News:

Recent Forum Posts

Shout Box

Author Topic: Crime (And Punishment) (Read 29230 times)

12AX7