Missouri Man Charged with spreading HIV to over 300 people

[Jordan]

Sickening

What's sickening?  The fact the title of this thread is a lie or the fact as usual the forum either a) didn't read the story or b) got sex ed in Texas and is clueless about STIs?

I have no idea how the OP came to his ludicrous conclusion and I am amazed that everyone else just shrugged their shoulders and went along with it.  Worst part is most of the offenders are red avatars.  Guys actually read the articles and if you don't understand them please ask someone to explain them instead of just going into infantile hysterics.  This stuff is serious and irrational fear mongering is what allowed the HIV epidemic to get out of control in the US in the first place.

Yes, I think that someone who lies about having AIDS and then proceeds to have sex with that person is sickening.

The article didn't say anything about anyone having AIDS.  Maybe you were thinking of a different article?

Okay HIV.

Yes, I think that someone who lies about having HIV or AIDS and then proceeds to have sex with that person is sickening.


Now lets hear you defend your high-risk, HIV infected, lying, sex-addict now.

[Kitteh]

I'm surprised Cory doesn't support this as a natural act of social darwinism

[Kitteh]

Interesting fact - if the State would provide proper medical services such people would be 'under treatment' and thus would be at extremely low risk of passing on the virus.

Two words, Ryan White.

Sickening

What's sickening?  The fact the title of this thread is a lie or the fact as usual the forum either a) didn't read the story or b) got sex ed in Texas and is clueless about STIs?

I have no idea how the OP came to his ludicrous conclusion and I am amazed that everyone else just shrugged their shoulders and went along with it.  Worst part is most of the offenders are red avatars.  Guys actually read the articles and if you don't understand them please ask someone to explain them instead of just going into infantile hysterics.  This stuff is serious and irrational fear mongering is what allowed the HIV epidemic to get out of control in the US in the first place.

I've read the article. The only thing that could be misleading is the "spread" claim as we don't know how many who were exposed actually contracted HIV. This is somewhat splitting hairs as the point is that he knowingly exposed them to it. Otherwise there is nothing false about the OP, and there is nothing in the article that would mitigate this man's culpability in the crimes.

Splitting hairs?!

I don't know if this is a reading comprehension problem or an issue with basic math or science.  Perhaps it's all of the above.  Read this ONE very short paragraph from the article...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How does 15 to 20=HUNDREDS!!!

And the article says"instances."  It does not say "partners."  So we don't know whether this occurred with 15-20 people or 5 people with an average of 3 "instances" each.

Or maybe people just don't know how HIV is transmitted.  Given that a lot of the posters are American that is probably the case.  Anyway there is no scientific or rational reason for the vast majority of these people to even give this two seconds thought.

Here's a plan.  If people don't want to learn about STIs and safe sex then why don't they just abstain from having dudes stick their junk into their anus and mouth?  I've gone my whole life abstaining from that kind of behavior.  I'm living proof it's possible.  I just think it is pure evil to ask that someone else be thrown in jail because you don't want to go to school.  Snowden lover's take note... this is an example of real tyranny.  Learn to recognize it.

[Cory]

You could volunteer to be a human guinea pig. 

If I got HIV/AIDS, yes. Too bad "most people" are too weak and stupid to do the same.

[Link]

Sickening

What's sickening?  The fact the title of this thread is a lie or the fact as usual the forum either a) didn't read the story or b) got sex ed in Texas and is clueless about STIs?

I have no idea how the OP came to his ludicrous conclusion and I am amazed that everyone else just shrugged their shoulders and went along with it.  Worst part is most of the offenders are red avatars.  Guys actually read the articles and if you don't understand them please ask someone to explain them instead of just going into infantile hysterics.  This stuff is serious and irrational fear mongering is what allowed the HIV epidemic to get out of control in the US in the first place.

Yes, I think that someone who lies about having AIDS and then proceeds to have sex with that person is sickening.

The article didn't say anything about anyone having AIDS.  Maybe you were thinking of a different article?

Okay HIV.

Yes, I think that someone who lies about having HIV or AIDS and then proceeds to have sex with that person is sickening.


Now lets hear you defend your high-risk, HIV infected, lying, sex-addict now.

I didn't realize stating scientific fact was now considered being "defensive."

Speaking of risk assessment.  I don't think someone who conflates someone who is merely HIV positive with someone with full blown AIDS should be in the healthcare risk assessment business.  Anyone that knows anything about HIV and AIDS knows those are two entirely different scenarios with very different risk profiles.

Let me ask you this.  If you were perfectly healthy and were to go out and have a one night stand with an attractive woman you just met and after you finished the deed she tells you she is HIV+ what are the odds you have HIV?  I would love to hear your answer about this "high risk" individual.

[Jordan]

And more deflection.

[Link]

And more deflection.

Just to summarize.

The title of the thread is a lie.  This guy did not "spread HIV to over 300 people."  Your post was a lie.  The article said nothing about anyone having AIDS.  Your follow up post was also totally inaccurate.  You cannot conflate being merely HIV+ with full blown AIDS.  And finally being merely HIV positive and having protected sex is not a "high risk" activity.

I was just stating you are wrong.  I don't know how that is a "deflection."  If you think any of the scientific facts I posted are inaccurate just tells us which one and why and we will discuss.  I'm always down to learn new things or be corrected when I'm wrong.

I just think if you are going to deprive someone of their liberty it should be done based upon facts not hysterical lies.

[Jordan]

So according to you, it is okay for someone with HIV or STDs to lie about having it, then have protected or unprotected sex with the person or persons that he or she duped, and if that person or other people doesn't get infected, then no crime was committed?

[Link]

So according to you, it is okay for someone with HIV or STDs to lie about having it, then have protected or unprotected sex with the person or persons that he or she duped, and if that person or other people doesn't get infected, then no crime was committed?

Jordan the problem with you and most people in this thread is you are making broad strokes imprecise statements and playing fast and loose with medical terminology.  Those words have a precise meaning for a reason.  It is not just "splitting hairs."  Saying "HIV or STDs" and "protected or unprotected sex" is lumping together tons of stuff with wildly different risk profiles.  Depriving people of their liberty based upon arbitrary and capricious judgements is the sort of thing or Constitution was designed to stop.

And to answer your question throwing someone in prison for 15 years for a single instance of protected sex just because they are HIV+ is the behavior of barbarians.  If you knew the true risks involved with that single act and if you care about public safety and not just persecuting gays or HIV+ people you would be throwing a bunch of people in jail for 15 years for all kinds of activities.  Someone can leave their children in a car on a hot summer day and not do 15 years and you want to throw a guy who had protected sex once in jail for 15 years just because they are HIV+?!  Which do you think is a riskier behavior?

Jordan I asked you what the risk of such a contact was because I am trying to find out what probability you are plugging into your equation to come up with that 15 year sentence.  Because unless this is just about HIV and the gays then you would have to throw everyone in prison that exposes you to that level of risk as you make your way through the course of the day.  Sleepy drivers, drunk drivers, guy who fails to wash his hands properly after doing number two then makes you a sandwich, etc.

[Jordan]

It's not that he has HIV or STDs that concerns me.

What concerns me is that the person is lying about it and therefore the unsuspecting partners can't make an informed decision regarding risk.

If someone who is HIV positive wants to have unprotected (or protected) sex with someone who doesn't have HIV, I'm all for it, but the other person should be informed of the other person's status.  Therefore the person can make an informed decision.

Does the risk of contracting HIV or STDs outweigh the joy of having sex with this person?

Each person can then answer this for his or herself and make an informed decision.


I won't have sex with anyone who is HIV+.

It is nothing personal.  It is just a risk I don't want to take.

[King]

We will cure aids long before we settle the moral and ethical debate on it

[emailking]

Splitting hairs?!

I don't know if this is a reading comprehension problem or an issue with basic math or science.  Perhaps it's all of the above.  Read this ONE very short paragraph from the article...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How does 15 to 20=HUNDREDS!!!

And the article says"instances."  It does not say "partners."  So we don't know whether this occurred with 15-20 people or 5 people with an average of 3 "instances" each.

Or maybe people just don't know how HIV is transmitted.  Given that a lot of the posters are American that is probably the case.  Anyway there is no scientific or rational reason for the vast majority of these people to even give this two seconds thought.

Here's a plan.  If people don't want to learn about STIs and safe sex then why don't they just abstain from having dudes stick their junk into their anus and mouth?  I've gone my whole life abstaining from that kind of behavior.  I'm living proof it's possible.  I just think it is pure evil to ask that someone else be thrown in jail because you don't want to go to school.  Snowden lover's take note... this is an example of real tyranny.  Learn to recognize it.

Yes it is splitting hairs. It's not a problem of reading comprehension or scientific capabilities. You can get HIV from protected sex. All it does it reduce the liklihood. (That's why you may want to know if your partner has HIV before having protected sex with him/her.)  If you weren't aware of that, maybe you're the one who needs to learn about STDs.

[Link]

What concerns me is that the person is lying about it and therefore the unsuspecting partners can't make an informed decision regarding risk.

And where in life does that not occur?  Ever by a used car?  Should all used car salesmen be given 15 years of prison time?  I've had two relatives purchase cars and years down the road discover that the car was in an accident that was never disclosed.  Both these discoveries were made incidentally.  One car had hidden structural damage.  That relative drove his entire family around in that thing numerous times.  Heck I even drove it.

If someone who is HIV positive wants to have unprotected (or protected) sex with someone who doesn't have HIV, I'm all for it, but the other person should be informed of the other person's status.  Therefore the person can make an informed decision.

No one is disagreeing with that.  The question is if you are perfectly healthy and have protected intercourse with a woman during a one night stand and she lies about her status should she be automatically thrown in prison for 15 years?  If yes then should we go around society throwing EVERYBODY that lies to you and exposes you to the same level of risk in prison for 15 years?  If this isn't solely about HIV and the gays why aren't we using this policy throughout society?

I won't have sex with anyone who is HIV+.

It is nothing personal.  It is just a risk I don't want to take.

That's your personal choice.  There is nothing wrong with that.  I wouldn't knowingly have sex with someone who is HIV+ either.  That isn't the question though.  The question is are you going to throw all HIV+ people who lie in prison even if they have protected sex?

Yes it is splitting hairs. It's not a problem of reading comprehension or scientific capabilities. You can get HIV from protected sex. All it does it reduce the liklihood. (That's why you may want to know if your partner has HIV before having protected sex with him/her.)  If you weren't aware of that, maybe you're the one who needs to learn about STDs.

Yes and you can be killed on the road by a sleepy driver.  Should all sleepy drivers be automatically given 15 years in prison even if they've never so much as gotten into a fender bender?  I just want to know why you are having a disproportionate reaction to HIV.  Keep in mind twice as many people die in auto accidents each year than die from HIV in the United States.  I haven't crunched the numbers but if you carve out a lot of the high risk activity and just consider protected sex I'm pretty sure even the annual incidence of HIV is still lower than the number of MVA fatalities.

Everything you do in life has a risk associated with it.  You can't give 15 years to every single person that lies and exposes you to a risk (a risk mind you no one seems to be able to objectively quantify despite being on the second page of posts).  The punishment has to be proportionate to the crime.  Even people that drive the wrong way down a highway at 80 mph with a BAC twice the legal limit and swerving all over the lane don't get an automatic 15 years and that is a heck of a lot more risky than a single contact of protected sex with someone who is merely HIV+.

If this was a straight forward issue why can't anyone quantify the risk and defend their position properly?  Why was there a need to tell an incredibly dumb and transparent lie in the title of the thread?  Anyone that knows the real risks involved would know it would take a herculean effort to "spread HIV to over 300 people."  I thought they were going to say the guy worked at a blood bank or something.  If you are having protected sex 93+% of the time (conservative estimate from the "data" in the article) it is mathematically impossible to "spread HIV to over 300 people" in a ten year time frame.  You would have to be a sex worker that doesn't use condoms on 1 out of every 16 customers or something crazy like that.  Frankly I can't even do the math to figure out what scenario would make the title make any sense.  But I guess "Gay man gives HIV to 300+ people in ten years" is a better internet draw than "Gay man has 15 to 20 instances of unprotected sex over 10 years... like a lot of gay men do."

[emailking]

Yes it is splitting hairs. It's not a problem of reading comprehension or scientific capabilities. You can get HIV from protected sex. All it does it reduce the liklihood. (That's why you may want to know if your partner has HIV before having protected sex with him/her.)  If you weren't aware of that, maybe you're the one who needs to learn about STDs.

Yes and you can be killed on the road by a sleepy driver.  Should all sleepy drivers be automatically given 15 years in prison even if they've never so much as gotten into a fender bender?  I just want to know why you are having a disproportionate reaction to HIV.  Keep in mind twice as many people die in auto accidents each year than die from HIV in the United States.  I haven't crunched the numbers but if you carve out a lot of the high risk activity and just consider protected sex I'm pretty sure even the annual incidence of HIV is still lower than the number of MVA fatalities.

Everything you do in life has a risk associated with it.  You can't give 15 years to every single person that lies and exposes you to a risk (a risk mind you no one seems to be able to objectively quantify despite being on the second page of posts).  The punishment has to be proportionate to the crime.  Even people that drive the wrong way down a highway at 80 mph with a BAC twice the legal limit and swerving all over the lane don't get an automatic 15 years and that is a heck of a lot more risky than a single contact of protected sex with someone who is merely HIV+.

If this was a straight forward issue why can't anyone quantify the risk and defend their position properly?  Why was there a need to tell an incredibly dumb and transparent lie in the title of the thread?  Anyone that knows the real risks involved would know it would take a herculean effort to "spread HIV to over 300 people."  I thought they were going to say the guy worked at a blood bank or something.  If you are having protected sex 93+% of the time (conservative estimate from the "data" in the article) it is mathematically impossible to "spread HIV to over 300 people" in a ten year time frame.  You would have to be a sex worker that doesn't use condoms on 1 out of every 16 customers or something crazy like that.  Frankly I can't even do the math to figure out what scenario would make the title make any sense.  But I guess "Gay man gives HIV to 300+ people in ten years" is a better internet draw than "Gay man has 15 to 20 instances of unprotected sex over 10 years... like a lot of gay men do."

I would be OK with a harsh but reduced sentence for knowingly exposing someone to HIV without their consent if you used a condom. As I said, I'm OK with him being sentenced to 225 years for the 15 instances in which he did not use a condom.

I don't really like the sleepy driver analogy because everyone on the road knows you can get in an accident and die. Everybody has driven with less than 100% alertness. As a society we have decided not to criminalize this, save for the case in which you are so tried that you actually fall asleep at the wheel.

On the other hand, you would not expect to contract HIV from a sexual encounter in which your partner specifically denies having any knowledge of being infected with STDs.

I don't agree with you that the title is a lie. Is it literally true? No, but it accurately conveys the severity of what the guy did. I don't dispute any of your numbers, but I don't care about them. And I especially don't understand why you decided this was a good thread to rant about misleading titles and not reading articles. The guy should obviously go to prison whether it's 15 or 300, protected or unprotected. There appears to be no malicious intent by the OP. It's not a political story with "spin" applied. It's just some eye-opening random news. I've read many threads on this site where I ahd a reaction simialr to yours, but not this one.

[Link]

I would be OK with a harsh but reduced sentence for knowingly exposing someone to HIV without their consent if you used a condom. As I said, I'm OK with him being sentenced to 225 years for the 15 instances in which he did not use a condom

Well that is at least a semi reasonable answer.  Treating protected vs unprotected sex as the same thing is nuts.  Although I don't agree with the harsh part of it for protected sex.

I don't really like the sleepy driver analogy because everyone on the road knows you can get in an accident and die. Everybody has driven with less than 100% alertness. As a society we have decided not to criminalize this, save for the case in which you are so tried that you actually fall asleep at the wheel.

Yeah and to paraphrase Opebo everyone knows if you pick up a random gay guy at a dive bar and let him ejaculate in your rectum you can get HIV and die regardless of what the drunk idiot says.  The fact that society has decided to let sleepy drivers off the hook and go ballistic about HIV+ people (regardless of the circumstances) doesn't mean the law makes sense, is just, nor Constitutional.  This is the same society that decided collectively at one point slavery was a-okay.

On the other hand, you would not expect to contract HIV from a sexual encounter in which your partner specifically denies having any knowledge of being infected with STDs.

I don't even know what to say.  emailking, you would seriously rely on someone's self reported status when deciding what to do with you dick?!  Speak for yourself man.  If some random drunk gay guy said "come over here and let me stick it in your rear, I promise I don't have HIV" are you going to trust that?!



Dude!  1 in 5!  You're okay with playing Russian roulette with those odds but you think having a single instance of protected sex with an HIV positive person should result in "harsh" punishment for that person?!  And let me tell you something about that 1 in 5.  That 1 in 5 is statistically the most infections group of the HIV+ people out on the bar and club scene.  The other group that is highly infectious is the people with full blown AIDS but they don't usually hang out in clubs.  They are usually in a hospital, hospice, at home in bed, etc.  And besides they usually look sick.

Your method gives a free pass to the people most likely to infect you and jails the HIV+ people who are least likely to infect you.  That just doesn't make any sense to me.  What is the point?

I don't agree with you that the title is a lie. Is it literally true? No, but it accurately conveys the severity of what the guy did.

Things that are not true are classically refereed to as lies.  And "spreading HIV to 300+ people" is in an entirely different universe as compared to having protected sex with 300 people regardless of whether you are HIV+ or not.  Conflating the two is 100% irrational and you have to wonder about the motivation for doing it.

I don't dispute any of your numbers, but I don't care about them.

Well at least you are being honest and for once 100% accurate.  People can make all kinds of laws.  That doesn't mean they are defensible or Constitutional.  There are a lot of things I personally frown upon but I realize that doling out "harsh" punishments for them while giving a free pass to equally risky behaviors violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment.  And the law as it stands also violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.

Bottom line if someone knows they are HIV+, lies about it, and has unprotected sex with someone there should be some kind of punishment whether the victim seroconverts or not.  But giving a "harsh" punishment for someone who does that and has protected sex is insane and unconstitutional.

[opebo]

Yes, I think that someone who lies about having HIV or AIDS and then proceeds to have sex with that person is sickening.

Now lets hear you defend your high-risk, HIV infected, lying, sex-addict now.

I could point out that he may be less bigoted than you.

[Jordan]

Yes, I think that someone who lies about having HIV or AIDS and then proceeds to have sex with that person is sickening.

Now lets hear you defend your high-risk, HIV infected, lying, sex-addict now.

I could point out that he may be less bigoted than you.

I never realized that the lying bug infected defenders voting block had so many members.

[emailking]

Hmm...the forum gave me a warning that this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days and I should consider starting a new topic. I'm pretty sure that's a bug...

The fact that society has decided to let sleepy drivers off the hook and go ballistic about HIV+ people (regardless of the circumstances) doesn't mean the law makes sense, is just, nor Constitutional.

It doesn't, although I agree with the law in this case.

I don't even know what to say.  emailking, you would seriously rely on someone's self reported status when deciding what to do with you dick?!  Speak for yourself man.  If some random drunk gay guy said "come over here and let me stick it in your rear, I promise I don't have HIV" are you going to trust that?!

That's a "blame the victim" mantra. I almost never agree with these. Even if you do not ask, if the partner fails to reveal his/her known HIV status, the blame falls squarely and solely on said partner; and I believe a harsh punishment is justified. If his/her known HIV status is requested and the partner lies in the negative, I think that should exacerbate the punishment.

Dude!  1 in 5!  You're okay with playing Russian roulette with those odds but you think having a single instance of protected sex with an HIV positive person should result in "harsh" punishment for that person?!

Even if it was 4 out of 5 I would think so.

Your method gives a free pass to the people most likely to infect you and jails the HIV+ people who are least likely to infect you.

In the situation where a known infected is having sex with someone who does not believe they are infected, the only way an infection could even happen is from the known infected (HIV+) individual to the individual of unknown status.

I don't agree with you that the title is a lie. Is it literally true? No, but it accurately conveys the severity of what the guy did.

Things that are not true are classically refereed to as lies.

No, for it to be a lie you have to intentionally make a false statement. You may be accusing the OP of that, I am not.

[Link]

I don't agree with you that the title is a lie. Is it literally true? No, but it accurately conveys the severity of what the guy did.

Things that are not true are classically refereed to as lies.

No, for it to be a lie you have to intentionally make a false statement. You may be accusing the OP of that, I am not.

Posting on this forum for all of us is a recreational activity.  It is not required for work or survival and you have we have all the time in the world to review our evidence before posting.  I personally have never heard in my life of anyone giving HIV to over 300 people.  If you are going to make such a statement it is your responsibility to make sure it is accurate before posting in on the internet.  I have made plenty of mistakes on this forum as anyone will tell you (nothing of that magnitude of course) and when several of those mistakes have been pointed out to me I have changed thread titles and even deleted posts and acknowledged the mistake I made.

But of course none of that happened here and the thread is filled with illogical statements condoning the original bad behavior and heaping tons more bad behavior onboard just for good measure.

The bottom line is you obviously don't care about math, science, logic, the federal budget, nor the Constitution.  Which of course is your choice.  But that doesn't really give me a frame work to initiate a fruitful discussion.  Picking at random one group that exposes the general public to a low risk and depriving them of their liberty while giving other people who are far more dangerous a relative free pass is not something I can get on board with.  We all make mistakes in logic from time to time but when it's pointed out there should be a pause and some introspection.  Simply saying I don't care about the numbers doesn't cut it.

[emailking]

The bottom line is you obviously don't care about math, science, logic, the federal budget, nor the Constitution.

Link, I can assure you all care about all of those things. I am trained in math and science. My everyday job revolves around them and is dependent on the federal budget (sequester has affected me). I've taken graduate level mathematical logic. I spend an hour or 2 a day on the national news. I've read the Constitution in whole a few times and in part many more. I'm just not being as pedantic as you about an "Oh did you hear this?" post. Link, I think we may need to agree to disagree on this.

Which of course is your choice.

 

To care or not to care is not a choice. It is what it is.


If you really want the subject changed, maybe you should PM the OP. S/he may not be reading this thread anymore.