Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

"HIV-positive man a 'real and present danger,' court hear

Public Health AIDS 2007

  • Please log in to reply
139 replies to this topic

#41 Raina

Raina

    Cpt. Raina 'Starlee'

  • Validation Team
  • 6,009 posts

Posted 23 December 2007 - 03:14 AM

View PostScottEVill, on Dec 22 2007, 02:43 PM, said:

Nor did anyone ever claim to have calculated a "definitive" life expectancy for HIV+ people.  What this study (and others like it) demonstrated is that *young* people who have access to, and who conscientiously adhere to, HAART therapy will live an average of 35 years post infection.  

Which is to say: on average, they can expect to enjoy a normal life expectancy.
That's a lot of if's there. IF they were already healthy, IF they have access to the proper therapy and IF they don't have any other complications, they Could live for another 35 years. This isn't even a normal Canadian life expectancy, considering that his youngest victim was 16. So if she's lucky, she may actually live until her 50's.


View PostBad Wolf, on Dec 22 2007, 11:43 PM, said:

If you know you are HIV positive and you go around having unsafe sex how exactly is that different than getting behind the wheel while drunk?  Why would one be okay and the other not?
Imho, the penalties for drunk driving should be much higher than they are. There was some controversy a few years back when some guy was about to get his driver's license back for the 3rd time after having it suspended for drunk driving. He had been in drunk driving accidents twice before, and at least one of those times (maybe both), people died and/or got hurt. I think that someone like him should be locked away for a good long time or at the very, very least, banned from ever driving again, in any jurisdiction. People like that are a menace to society.

Edited by Raina, 23 December 2007 - 03:15 AM.


"First thing they tell you is to assume you're already dead... dead men don't get scared or freeze up under fire. Me, I'm just worried that hell's gonna be a lonely place. And I'm gonna fill it up with every toaster son of a bitch I find." -Racetrack

"I believe what goes around comes around and if I am the instrument of 'coming round' then I'll do it happily. " -Shal


Viper Squadron CAG
Roman Warrior
Browncoat

#42 Chakoteya

Chakoteya

    Playing Devil's Advocate

  • Islander
  • 3,035 posts

Posted 23 December 2007 - 04:40 AM

Well, personally, I think anyone with an STI, from crabs to syphilis to HIV/AIDS should inform any potential partner what they might be getting.
Likewise TB, or anything else contagious.
And just because it may not be obviously life-threatening or shortening, doesn't mean it's not potentially dangerous to someone else.
Andromeda, Star Trek (all shows) and Doctor Who franchise episode transcripts.


Just because I didn't post a reply doesn't mean I wasn't tempted to.

#43 wiggy

wiggy
  • Islander
  • 468 posts

Posted 23 December 2007 - 07:44 AM

View PostScottEVill, on Dec 20 2007, 08:58 PM, said:

None of these women would be HIV+ today if they hadn't agreed to let this man put his penis in their vaginas without wearing a condom.
... he probably popped in via the tradesmen's entrance too.... dirty bastid

#44 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 23 December 2007 - 08:13 AM

View PostScottEVill, on Dec 20 2007, 08:58 PM, said:

None of these women would be HIV+ today if they hadn't agreed to let this man put his penis in their vaginas without wearing a condom.



Sorry Scott that sounds almost like the line  "they would not have been raped if they had not worn that skimply little dress" as to try and pass the buck on the fact this man preyed on these women.  Your  trying to throw the comdom use or the lack there of as a way to say they deserved this.
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#45 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 23 December 2007 - 08:15 AM

Quote

Scott: I thought he was a scumbag for not disclosing his status -- but not a criminal.


I think he's both. :) And not just technically. Aside from the fact that he violated a very specific law by failing to disclose his status, anyone with any empathy for others would let them know if they were about to expose them to HIV or any STD.


Quote

This article alleges *date rape*, which is something else altogether. I will say no more about him.

According to the run-down of what happened to each of his victims--and they were victims--he's a predator. Even when he didn't drug them, he chose his partners carefully: young and gullible women who would believe him when he said he was "clean" and be willing to engage, condom-free, in the very kinds of sexual acts best suited to transmission. Just because a criminal has a gullible victim, that doesn't mean he didn't commit a crime. Deliberately exposing others to HIV (and IMO other STDs) without their informed consent is criminal--even if condoms are used.

Quote

My opinion on the issue in general remains unchanged: no one should exepct a casual sex partner to disclose his or her status, and CERTAINLY no one should ever take the word of a casual sex partner that s/he is negative as license to throw condoms away. If they do, they're responsible for their own seroconversion.

I agree that it is absolutely foolish to have sex without condoms outside a long-term, monogamous relationship. But Scott, the way you continue to frame this, it sounds like a classic blame-the-victim. If I leave my door unlocked while I walk my dog and come home to find that someone stole my television, is the person who robbed me no longer a thief because I was foolishly trusting?

These young women were foolish--no argument. But their foolishness does not negate this man's sociopathy.

And while it's true that progress has been made in HIV treatment in recent years, it still shortens life. I know hope is important and it's wonderful to see progress. But no one who is poz is ever 100% out of the woods. And I'm sure we've both dealt with the heartbreak of seeing a friend who's been well for years take a sudden turn for the worse. As one of my best students ever told me last year before he had to quit school to die: "the protocols are great, but they don't work forever." At some point, the damned virus works its way around the meds and wins.

So that's what these young, gullible women will have to live with now. Yeah, I think the guy is a criminal. I think whoever infected him is a criminal, too, if that person knew his or her status and failed to divulge it before sex.
"Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Reagan at the 1988 Republican National Convention, attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "Facts are stubborn things"

"Although health care enrollment is actually going pretty well at this point, thousands and maybe millions of Americans have failed to sign up for coverage because they believe the false horror stories they keep hearing." -- Paul Krugman

#46 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 23 December 2007 - 08:20 AM

View PostRaina, on Dec 23 2007, 03:14 AM, said:

Imho, the penalties for drunk driving should be much higher than they are. There was some controversy a few years back when some guy was about to get his driver's license back for the 3rd time after having it suspended for drunk driving. He had been in drunk driving accidents twice before, and at least one of those times (maybe both), people died and/or got hurt. I think that someone like him should be locked away for a good long time or at the very, very least, banned from ever driving again, in any jurisdiction. People like that are a menace to society.

This is where I look over and say this is why the death penalty needs expaned. How long are you going to keep him locked up?Ten years? Tenty? Fifty? When does a menace stop being a menace that you will ever trust outside a prison wall.

  I do not say drunk drivers should be put to death... But if they cause a death then I think it is time to consider  it. espically after their second or third violation. I was my drunk drivers first accident but fourth conviction. I was thankfully unharmed. But if he had hit the otherside of the car it would be a different story and my birthday might not be happening today. He sa driving without a licence so he was not at all caring about the laws he broke.

So I say again when is a menace no longer a menace?
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#47 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,300 posts

Posted 23 December 2007 - 12:25 PM

For the following post, G1223 has earned a warning:
http://www.exisle.ne...p...t&p=1069004

Quote

No a tree shredder and quick lye and 8' deep hole is the order of the day.
Putting him in a cage for the rest of life is higher on my list than comming up with any terms for a parole.

In determining this warning, the following guideline provisions were considered:

Quote

Part II. Unacceptable Behavior by Members and Staff

A. The following list contains violations deemed so severe that they may lead to immediate suspension and will almost certainly receive a warning

      2. Posting anything libelous or threatening real and specific harm to anyone. Any post, PM, or other entry, which makes a credible threat against a member's or public figure's life or welfare is forbidden. We will consider all such threats to be real and actual, not satire or hyperbole, and act accordingly. Threats to the security of Ex Isle will be treated in the same manner.
   3. Posting anything that violates Ex Isle's Terms of Service agreement.
   4. Posting anything promoting illegal activities, or linking to sites which promote such activities. This includes but is not limited to cracking ("hacking"), phreaking, warez, and pyramid schemes.

Ex Isle's Terms of Service, which may be found through a link in the guidelines, state the following:

Quote

You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this bulletin board to post material which is knowingly false, defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law.


If anyone would like to discuss this action, please do so by Private Message or in AQG.

Thank you,

The OT Mods

Een Draght Mackt Maght


#48 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 23 December 2007 - 12:31 PM

View PostBad Wolf, on Dec 22 2007, 11:56 PM, said:

I think people are making this about his disease when it's about his reckless conduct *in light of* his disease.

The second article makes it clear that I was totally wrong about him, so--again--I'm done defending him.  I also want to make it clear that I do agree HIV+ people should disclose their status, always, even if condoms are used, even if it's a casual hook-up.  

That said, I still think this is a rotten law that does nothing to help public health -- and may actually hurt by saying, "if your partner is Poz, he has to tell you on pain of a potential lie sentence."  Of course, that leads logically, and inevitably, to the thought, "if he hasn't told me, he must not be Poz.  And if he's not Poz, then we don't need condoms."  

That's how most HIV infections happen. Through crazy assumptions like that leading people to consent to unsafe sex.  Instead of making laws that punish HIV+ people for failing to disclose, I think we should recognize that it's everyone's own, personal responsibility to protect themselves.  If everyone did so, HIV infections would plummet.

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#49 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 23 December 2007 - 02:25 PM

I'm not quoting anyone else's posts here, but there is a valid point that needs to be made:

Do we really believe that if this jerk had told his partners he was HIV+ they would still have had sex with him?   :wacko: He knowingly withheld the information to get sex. And I would be just as angry if we were talking about syphilis, except that in the early stages, syphilis, like most other STD's, is easily cured. HIV isn't in the same ball park.

Being stupid and having unprotected sex is one thing (and yes, it's incredibly dumb) - but even protected sex is a risk, because condoms aren't fail-proof. Period.

This man has no business having sex with anyone, safe or otherwise, without disclosing his condition. And that should be true of anyone that has a sexually transmitted disease.

Scott, it is true that the life expectancy of people with HIV is a lot longer than it used to be - except when it isn't.   :sarcasm: And the statistics don't look that good if you're on the losing side of them.
The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#50 Nikcara

Nikcara

    confused little imp

  • Islander
  • 3,500 posts

Posted 24 December 2007 - 07:32 AM

I had posted something similar to this before, but it got lost and it's taken me a while decide to retype it

Yes, people with HIV can live much longer then they used to, but they're still the issue of quailty of life too.  The meds that you take for HIV are horrid.  It's daily nausea, vomiting, weakness, dizziness, headaches, etc.  Long enough on the drugs can actually induce dementia.  Of course, not taking the meds properly can allow diseases that also induce dementia.  after about 10-15 years, most HIV+ people have a marked decline in mental status and ability, either due to disease or the drugs themselves.  If you fali to take the drugs reguarly, then the disease progresses surprisingly quickly during every one of those gaps in treatment.  Many people decide that the drugs are so awful, and interfer with their lives so much, that they would rather not take anything and die sooner then live longer with those side effects.
Then you have the fact that HIV adapts to the drug cocktails themselves, so they have to be changed somewhat regularly.  Also, if you're HIV+ and on drug cocktail A and have unprotected sex with someone who is HIV+ on drug cocktail B, then both of you can get a strain of HIV that is resistant to both A and B.

Oh, and there's a strain outbreak that hasn't been recieving much in the way of news coverage that not only is resistant to the drugs used to treat HIV (which honestly was only a matter of time before it evolved) but which also progresses much faster than regular HIV - turning into AIDS typically in a matter of months instead of years.

I would rather have Hep C.  It is sometimes curible (only about a 50% chance or less though) and the drugs aren't half as misery-inducing as the drugs for HIV are.
We have fourty million reasons for failure, but not a single excuse  -- Rudyard Kipling

Develop compassion for your enemies, that is genuine compassion.  Limited compassion cannot produce this altruism.  -- H. H. the Dalai Lama

#51 szhismine

szhismine

    why must you hurt me in this way Harry...

  • Islander
  • 13,661 posts

Posted 24 December 2007 - 08:52 AM

can i just say Nikcara (this is a bit off-topic), i love the quotes in your sig. :)
Neville: "My grandmother forbids me from using raunchy language."
Harry: "Well your grandmother is a Blast-Ended Skank!"
Neville: *GASP*
Hermione: "He doesn't mean it Neville, he's just testing out some wizard swears."
Harry: "I mean every word I ever say ever, because I'm Harry Potter." --'Wizard Swears', Potter Puppet Pals

Hermione: "What's your problem Harry?"
Harry: "My parents are dead, my life sucks, I can't hold down a girlfriend, and I'm surrounded by f*ck*ng goblins and sh*t all the time. I mean what the f*ck?"
Ron: "But it's magic Harry. The goblins are magical!" --'Wizard Angst', Potter Puppet Pals

Me: "It's just a matter of looking past [McKay's] arrogant exterior to see his warm, fuzzy, probably angst-filled interior."
Hawkeye: "You harperchondriac girls think everyone has an angst filled interior."

"Good gods, you sniff out angst like a police dog sniffs out drugs." --Lyric (to me)

#52 Hibblette

Hibblette
  • Islander
  • 4,228 posts

Posted 24 December 2007 - 04:53 PM

This caught my attention:

Quote

When she asked him to wear a condom, he refused, assuring her he was "OK."

Sounds extremely criminal to me.

I don't think this law is suppose to be a preventive so much as to make sure someone who does do this will be punished.
"There are many ways of going forward, but there is only one way of standing still."  FDR explaining why Liberals are so often divided and Conservatives are so often united.

"I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat."  Will Rogers

#53 Cheile

Cheile

    proud J/Cer ~ ten years and counting

  • Islander
  • 10,776 posts

Posted 27 December 2007 - 10:38 PM

View PostRhea, on Dec 23 2007, 11:25 AM, said:

I'm not quoting anyone else's posts here, but there is a valid point that needs to be made:

Do we really believe that if this jerk had told his partners he was HIV+ they would still have had sex with him?

bingo.

Scott, take note of this point, please.

Posted Image


"Andromeda may be over but it's not dead. Not as long as we have fanfic writers dedicated to keeping it alive.  Whether you accept everything as canon or stop at a certain point. Whether you accept and enjoy Nu Drom or only accept Classic Drom, it will never be over.  Not as long as we have each other [and Beka], who binds us all together." ~ Mary Rose

Twitter * Facebook * ExIsle at Facebook

icon by mercscilla @ LJ

#54 EChatty

EChatty

    Lurker Extaordinaire

  • SuperMod
  • 22,730 posts

Posted 29 December 2007 - 03:07 PM

Nowhere did I see Scott saying that the women deserved what they got-what he said was they were responsible-they should not have had unprotected sex with him. Granted, the two who were drugged were the only ones who weren't responsible because they were drugged and couldn't insist. But, the other three should have either insisted on a condom or refused to have sex with him. Show me where he said they deserved what they got. Three of them consented to unprotected sex with him, now they have to live with the consequences of that decision.

This is pretty much what he's been trying to say each time he posted:


ScottEvill said:

I think we should recognize that it's everyone's own, personal responsibility to protect themselves. If everyone did so, HIV infections would plummet.


#55 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 29 December 2007 - 03:24 PM

When he jumped on the idea  that this being's behavior was excusable. I guess the 16 yr old victim should have known and been more on the ball about sex.  Scott in his posts did all he could to pass the blame onto the victims.

They should have used protection. Yes they should but never does he  accept that this guy did this with malaice. He makes it out to be a big misunderstanding  or that the victims should have done anything to stop from being tricked.

Just like the victim of the con artist should know what is going on or so it seems.
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#56 EChatty

EChatty

    Lurker Extaordinaire

  • SuperMod
  • 22,730 posts

Posted 29 December 2007 - 03:33 PM

Yes, he did-did you not read his post upthread? He quite clearly said he was not defending him anymore. But- those women were also responsible for having safe sex. As for the 16 year old-even 16 year olds should know about condoms by the time they're 16-I mean, how long have condoms been on the market and pushed since the beginning of the AIDS epidemic? The only women I am not holding responsible for having unprotected sex are the two who were drugged.

ScottEvill said:

The second article makes it clear that I was totally wrong about him, so--again--I'm done defending him.


#57 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 29 December 2007 - 07:11 PM

View PostG1223, on Dec 29 2007, 03:24 PM, said:

never does he  accept that this guy did this with malaice.

View PostChatterbox, on Dec 29 2007, 03:33 PM, said:

ScottEvill said:

The second article makes it clear that I was totally wrong about him, so--again--I'm done defending him.

Thanks, Chatterbox.  

I'd say an apology is in order, though I won't hold my breath.

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#58 Chakoteya

Chakoteya

    Playing Devil's Advocate

  • Islander
  • 3,035 posts

Posted 30 December 2007 - 04:24 AM

View PostChatterbox, on Dec 29 2007, 08:33 PM, said:

Yes, he did-did you not read his post upthread? He quite clearly said he was not defending him anymore. But- those women were also responsible for having safe sex. As for the 16 year old-even 16 year olds should know about condoms by the time they're 16-I mean, how long have condoms been on the market and pushed since the beginning of the AIDS epidemic? The only women I am not holding responsible for having unprotected sex are the two who were drugged.

ScottEvill said:

The second article makes it clear that I was totally wrong about him, so--again--I'm done defending him.


Ever tried to get a man to put on a condom when you are both already aroused? Especially when he has said no, whilst getting you to a state where you need your itch scratched as much as he does? It ain't easy. Not impossible, I grant you, but it's far simpler to let the animal part of your brain take over while your higher functions sit back and say, 'okay, but NEXT time we'd better.'
Andromeda, Star Trek (all shows) and Doctor Who franchise episode transcripts.


Just because I didn't post a reply doesn't mean I wasn't tempted to.

#59 EChatty

EChatty

    Lurker Extaordinaire

  • SuperMod
  • 22,730 posts

Posted 30 December 2007 - 06:51 AM

You're welcome, Scott.

Chakoteya-it still doesn't negate the fact that the three women who weren't  drugged chose to engage in unsafe sex, therefore they hold some responsibility for the consequences-you can't put it all on the scum 100%-he holds the majority of the blame, but not all of it

You yourself said it-it's not impossible to stop-very hard, but not impossible-if these women were so turned on that they chose not to stop, even though he refused a condom, then yes, they should accept the consequences.


#60 Broph

Broph
  • Islander
  • 6,671 posts

Posted 30 December 2007 - 09:24 AM

View PostChatterbox, on Dec 30 2007, 11:51 AM, said:

Chakoteya-it still doesn't negate the fact that the three women who weren't  drugged chose to engage in unsafe sex, therefore they hold some responsibility for the consequences-you can't put it all on the scum 100%-he holds the majority of the blame, but not all of it

But under that same logic, a storeowner who gets robbed holds some responsibility for not keeping out the robber, who knew that he was a robber and knew that he was going to rob the store.

Some people say that a girl who wears a short skirt who gets raped was "asking for it", but we all know this to be ridiculous logic.

2 people who don't know their condition having unsafe sex is reckless. It's bad decision-making. But when someone knows that he's HIV positive and convinces a woman to have unprotected sex, hiding his condition, it's no longer about being reckless and making a bad decision on his part. Let's face it - he wasn't having unsafe sex with these women just to have unsafe sex. His intention was to infect the women! He was getting off on the fact that he was taking a disease given to him and passing it on to others.



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Public Health, AIDS, 2007

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users