David Cat wrote:Do they? I was referring more to spreading it by accident, which is why they should be quarantined, or at least marked in some way, to make this less likely.

It only gets spread accidentally because they don't know they have it. If you're screening everyone to find the ones carrying HIV, that's enough. You don't need to brand them; if they know they have it they won't spread it.

They could still spread it accidentally, most likely through unintentional blood contact.

How much unintentional blood contact actually happens, especially if you know you have HIV and are being careful to avoid spreading it?

Sorry to contradict you, Sent, but i'm sure some people with HIV will spread it conciously, whether by irresponsable sex or by concious design bred from bitterness to infect as many people as they can.

Some people kill other people. Let's pre-emptively lock everybody up to stop that tiny percentage from killing anybody!

you are going to find more people willing to be f*cked than stabbed...

Because murderers get consent from their victims, of course..

Exactly her point, i believe.

It is harder to persuade someone to walk down a dark alleyway in order to be killed, than it is for someone to say "D'you fancy a one night stand" and have them accompany them back to their house.

Also, murder by HIV would be virtually unproveable.

exactly my dear kat.




sent, you are dense sometimes...

...
I'm not entirely sure what you're arguing here. That people with HIV are somehow more likely to give other people HIV because it's easier than knifing someone or whatever? That even if that is true, it justifies branding and criminalising all of them?

Abel wrote:meh, dont see why everyone loves him so much. its weird to trust a politican like that.

That is really the only problem I have with him and the Democratic Party. They want us to put so much trust in the politician that it makes one feel uneasy.

All politicians want you to trust them. (For that matter, all politicians make me feel uneasy.) You can't blame the Democratic Party for being like all other politicians - they'd never get elected if they weren't, after all.

wrote:Some people kill other people. Let's pre-emptively lock everybody up to stop that tiny percentage from killing anybody!

wrote:I'm not entirely sure what you're arguing here. That people with HIV are somehow more likely to give other people HIV because it's easier than knifing someone or whatever? That even if that is true, it justifies branding and criminalising all of them?

we are arguing that 'normal' people with HIV are more likely to kill others than 'normal' people without HIV

Abel wrote:

wrote:Some people kill other people. Let's pre-emptively lock everybody up to stop that tiny percentage from killing anybody!

wrote:I'm not entirely sure what you're arguing here. That people with HIV are somehow more likely to give other people HIV because it's easier than knifing someone or whatever? That even if that is true, it justifies branding and criminalising all of them?

we are arguing that 'normal' people with HIV are more likely to kill others than 'normal' people without HIV

Yes, well it's not like they purposely go around infecting people on purpose.

Oh wait...

Abel wrote:we are arguing that 'normal' people with HIV are more likely to kill others than 'normal' people without HIV

Okay. Do you have any evidence for this? Do you have any arguments for why they should all be branded pre-emptively because of the actions of the tiny few who might kill others that cannot also be applied to all people, or all people from London, or all people from America, or any other group with a slightly higher rate of murders (which, I should reiterate, you have no evidence is the case for HIV-positive people)?

point is they can kill people just by having them touch their blood. they might not do it on purpose but they can still do it.

And if they are branded or whatever, people would be a lot more careful around them.

Should we brand anyone with a contagious disease, then? (Most of which are far more contagious that requiring blood contact, I should point out.. accidental blood contact is very unlikely) Spanish flu killed between 40 and 100 million people in two years; HIV 25 million since 1981. Should we brand anyone who catches flu, then, in case it mutates into a strain that causes another massive pandemic?

We should brand everyone with a contagious desease that is 100% fatal.

Right. Cunning plan. Put your brands away then, angry mob. No disease is 100% fatal, not even HIV. There are people who catch HIV but never develop AIDS.