• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should those with HIV/Aids be required by law to tell their lover they have HIV/aids

Should those with HIV/Aids be required by law to tell their lover they have HIV/aids


  • Total voters
    40
Re: Should those with HIV/Aids be required by law to tell their lover they have HIV/a

According to the dictionary, a sociopath is, "A person whose behavior is antisocial and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience." Trying to prosecute a small number of people when you know a secondary consequence of this will be to actually increase the incidence of HIV is, indeed, sociopathic.

Idiotic. Try again. Idiot. An utterly foolish person.

I am not antisocial, the exact opposite is actually true. I am acting with moral resposibility, as any morally responsible person would know. The fact that you would question a person looking out for the victoms suggests that you are part of the problem. If you were able to comprehend my point, you would understand that I am not for prosecuting any person that is not criminally negligent. Run along roll. You are boring. I suggest you bring a game next time.
 
Re: Should those with HIV/Aids be required by law to tell their lover they have HIV/a

Idiotic. Try again. Idiot. An utterly foolish person.

I am not antisocial, the exact opposite is actually true. I am acting with moral resposibility, as any morally responsible person would know. The fact that you would question a person looking out for the victoms suggests that you are part of the problem. If you were able to comprehend my point, you would understand that I am not for prosecuting any person that is not criminally negligent. Run along roll. You are boring. I suggest you bring a game next time.

LOL

No I didn't mean to say that you were sociopathic. You incorrectly believed that what you had advocated would reduce HIV transmission. You would only be socipathic if you had realized that it would increase HIV transmission, but advocated for the witch hunt anyway. Thus you are not sociopathic as far as I know, just incorrect about the ramifications of what you proposed.
 
Last edited:
Re: Should those with HIV/Aids be required by law to tell their lover they have HIV/a

LOL

No I didn't mean to say that you were sociopathic. You incorrectly believed that what you had advocated would reduce HIV transmission. You would only be socipathic if you had realized that it would increase HIV transmission, but advocated for the witch hunt anyway. Thus you are not sociopathic as far as I know, just incorrect about the ramifications of what you proposed.

Uh-huh. Whatever. ;)

Is this your attempt to not get infracted. Lame. The wording is clear. Forrest Gump understands what you are implying. I don't debate people that nark on me or bitch about stuff this lame. :2wave:
 
Re: Should those with HIV/Aids be required by law to tell their lover they have HIV/a

Uh-huh. Whatever. ;)

Is this your attempt to not get infracted. Lame. The wording is clear. Forrest Gump understands what you are implying. I don't debate people that nark on me or bitch about stuff this lame. :2wave:

If you look at my original wording in the post where I first used sociopathic, I said it "would be" sociopathic. In the second post the word sociopathic does not apply to you because the "when you know" portion of the post does not apply to you, as you did not understand that what you proposed would increase the incidence of HIV. The format was "if you believe this then that is X," not "you are X."

And for the record I did not report you.
 
Last edited:
Re: Should those with HIV/Aids be required by law to tell their lover they have HIV/a

If you look at my original wording in the post where I first used sociopathic, I said it "would be" sociopathic. In the second post the word sociopathic does not apply to you because the "when you know" portion of the post does not apply to you, as you did not understand that what you proposed would increase the incidence of HIV. The format was "if you believe this then that is X," not "you are X."

And for the record I did not report you.

Ahhh... That "is" x! Not, "you are X". Clear. Got it. OK. I am happy. You are my friend. I like flowers. Have a nice day! :2wave:
 
Last edited:
Re: Should those with HIV/Aids be required by law to tell their lover they have HIV/a

Ahhh... That "is" x! Not, "you are X". Clear. Got it. OK. I am happy. You are my friend. I like flowers. Have a nice day! :2wave:

No it was a conditional "that is X.";)
 
Re: Should those with HIV/Aids be required by law to tell their lover they have HIV/a

No it was a conditional "that is X.";)

I am sooo happy that you were clear. Thank you! :2razz:

I am just happy that we were able to so clearly understand each other. Flowers are nice. The air is fresh. The birds are chirping. Thank you.
 
Back
Top Bottom