Charlie Sheen is HIV positive

[garbon]

I'm sure it was criminalized because of the sensationalized fear of the 80s/early 90s HIV epidemic in America that's largely quieted down when we basically made it a chronic condition by cycling retrovirals. That doesn't mean it's bad law--it may mean the legislature responded to a panic, but that's largely a function, not a bug, of representative democracy. To me it's an example of good law that should be expanded to other STDs.

This is good law for people who do not understand how HIV infection works.

Maybe you can tell us how you think HIV infection works.

I already did in this thread. So did garbon.

I was hoping for something a little more honest.  I remember a discussion with Derspeiss where he mentions a type of fire arm isn't "that deadly", which means of course if you get shot with it there you will be badly wounded and may die.  In this situation wearing a condom doesn't mean you can't spread and contract HIV, to which you said

(first of all, you could be using a condom; secondly, if your cell count is very low, you are creating no actual danger of infection;

This is a falsehood.

It is true, he made an overreach. Oh well.

[crazy canuck]

It's really bizarre to me how strong European "privacy rights" are, when they have weaker property and free speech rights than the United States. I personally just don't value privacy rights very highly, I think there should be a default state of privacy from government. But anything you disclose to others (such as corporations) I don't really feel there should be legal privacy other than in the form of contract law if the corporation agrees to protect it and then fails to do so you would have cause of action. I also have no problem with government infringing on the privacy right regularly for purposes of public policy.

As long as you're secure in your possessions, protected from investigatory actions by the warrant requirement, and have the rights to free expression I don't really see a lot of value in overly-rigorous privacy rights. Maybe my view is mainstream in America and that is why privacy isn't nearly the issue here that it is in Europe.

I will also say that maybe the younger group here are jumping on russel a little too quickly, when I got married we had to do the blood test (it's no longer required in this State), and to be honest I know that it was a pretty standard thing in most states at that time. A lot of them were repealed very rapidly in the 90s as they were seen as an "old school" outdated practice from the turn of the century.

I think your view of the importance of privacy laws (or rather the lack thereof) is outdated and doesn't reflect the amount of information now routinely and easily gathered about individuals.

Please, I'm not some white hair unfamiliar with the word around me, I'm a technological trailblazer. I just don't actually think nonsense people spew out into the internet is very important from a privacy perspective. I view the Internet as fundamentally not a private place, akin to a public street. If I wear a shirt out in public that says "I have a fetish for goats", then that's not private. If I put that out on the Internet, that's not private. If I want something to be private, I don't say it in public places or share it publicly, and I'd be upset if the government came to it without a warrant. But if the government in some large sweeping surveillance effort accumulates embarrassing data about me that I freely put on the Internet (which they'd likely never look at anyway), that's on me.

I am with you on the material people knowingly and voluntarily publish about themselves.  Where we part company is there is a lot of information people are compelled to disclose to employers, financial institutions, government etc that should be protected.   

[Razgovory]

It is true, he made an overreach. Oh well.

If he's wrong about this, what else could he be wrong about?

[garbon]

It is true, he made an overreach. Oh well.

If he's wrong about this, what else could he be wrong about?

Many things but I don't see why that matters. I've been the main one arguing the position in this thread.

[Caliga]

Poor Bree.

I'm a fan of her work.

[jimmy olsen]

Seems like this attitude has had predictable ramifications.

http://www.nbcnews.com/health/sexual-health/cdc-sees-alarming-increase-sexually-transmitted-diseases-n465071

Another big factor is a change in behavior among gay and bisexual men.

"The increase in syphilis among gay men is concerning because we have been seeing this increase for almost a decade," Bolan said. "It seems to correlate with the advent of HIV treatment."

Bolan's quick to say that HIV treatment is not responsible for the change. But the cocktails of powerful HIV drugs that are now available have made the infection a chronic disease that can be managed, instead of a death sentence. HIV patients know they can stay healthy if they take the drugs, and that they are less likely to infect someone else.

"People are excited about it," Bolan said. And some may have stopped using condoms so consistently, because they are no longer afraid of a deadly infection.

"But, unfortunately, HIV treatment has no impact on prevention of (other) STDs," she added. "Unless you are using condoms consistently and correctly, you are putting yourself at risk for STDs."

And uninfected people can also take HIV drugs to protect themselves from infection. That might make people think they're even safer from HIV. A study just published Monday supports this. Researchers across the country found that people at high risk of HIV who took the drugs in a practice called pre-exposure prophylaxis or PrEP almost never caught HIV, but they did catch syphilis and gonorrhea.

"There is some data suggesting that there is less condom use in some populations now," Bolan said.

[garbon]

Seems like this attitude has had predictable ramifications.

http://www.nbcnews.com/health/sexual-health/cdc-sees-alarming-increase-sexually-transmitted-diseases-n465071

Another big factor is a change in behavior among gay and bisexual men.

"The increase in syphilis among gay men is concerning because we have been seeing this increase for almost a decade," Bolan said. "It seems to correlate with the advent of HIV treatment."

Bolan's quick to say that HIV treatment is not responsible for the change. But the cocktails of powerful HIV drugs that are now available have made the infection a chronic disease that can be managed, instead of a death sentence. HIV patients know they can stay healthy if they take the drugs, and that they are less likely to infect someone else.

"People are excited about it," Bolan said. And some may have stopped using condoms so consistently, because they are no longer afraid of a deadly infection.

"But, unfortunately, HIV treatment has no impact on prevention of (other) STDs," she added. "Unless you are using condoms consistently and correctly, you are putting yourself at risk for STDs."

And uninfected people can also take HIV drugs to protect themselves from infection. That might make people think they're even safer from HIV. A study just published Monday supports this. Researchers across the country found that people at high risk of HIV who took the drugs in a practice called pre-exposure prophylaxis or PrEP almost never caught HIV, but they did catch syphilis and gonorrhea.

"There is some data suggesting that there is less condom use in some populations now," Bolan said.

Ah that's the attitude borne of not dying if you aren't safe - not the attitude that people shouldn't be imprisoned for lack of disclosure.

[alfred russel]

I wonder if garbon extends his aversion to mandating disclosure beyond sexual matters. For example, if I'm trying to sell shares in my publicly traded business, should I have to disclose potential risks to the business?

[crazy canuck]

I wonder if garbon extends his aversion to mandating disclosure beyond sexual matters. For example, if I'm trying to sell shares in my publicly traded business, should I have to disclose potential risks to the business?

Why would a shareholder have to disclose anything when selling their shares in a publicly traded company?  I suspect what you meant to say is disclosure requirements of an IPO?

[alfred russel]

I wonder if garbon extends his aversion to mandating disclosure beyond sexual matters. For example, if I'm trying to sell shares in my publicly traded business, should I have to disclose potential risks to the business?

Why would a shareholder have to disclose anything when selling their shares in a publicly traded company?  I suspect what you meant to say is disclosure requirements of an IPO?

Yes.

[lustindarkness]

I was wondering why this thread had so much activity, it was high jacked from the get go. Glad to see no one really cares about Charlie Sheen.

[crazy canuck]

I was wondering why this thread had so much activity, it was high jacked from the get go. Glad to see no one really cares about Charlie Sheen.

Who?

[katmai]

I was wondering why this thread had so much activity, it was high jacked from the get go. Glad to see no one really cares about Charlie Sheen.

Who?

Ex Boyfriend of one of Caliga's favorite porn stars.

[crazy canuck]

I was wondering why this thread had so much activity, it was high jacked from the get go. Glad to see no one really cares about Charlie Sheen.

Who?

Ex Boyfriend of one of Caliga's favorite porn stars.

Oh, that guy.

[Eddie Teach]

Who?

The guy who tried to replace Michael J Fox on Spin City.