Welcome to Thunderdome

Which is more important?

Gordon made an interesting statement in regards to the news that Grindr was no longer sharing if their users had HIV or not. He said:

GORDON wrote:That fucking information should be on a readily available public look-up.

My imagination immediately took me to a world where people were branded based upon the diseases they have, ala The Scarlet Letter.

Anyway, the question is: does stopping the spread of communicable diseases mean more than privacy?

Louis CK did a bit once about peanut allergies where he said, "What if we did nothing about peanut allergies for 10 years? All the people with it would die off, and perhaps the gene would die with them." (I'm paraphrasing.)

Is he making a fair point? If we took steps to eliminate some diseases/conditions by preventing them from spreading would the net positive be worth the net negative?

If so, the "how" gets interesting:
-Laws requiring disclosure would be about as effective as any other law, so not at all.
-What if people actually did get branded once they were discovered to have a disease/condition? The brand could be a simple letter on the hip where it could be shown, but always hidden by clothes. Imagine a world where you check your partner's hip to see if there's a letter there. "Oh, I see you have an H for herpes. Thankfully, I have a condom." (And honestly, in this case doesn't the issue then become "your privacy versus another person's protection"?

The pros:
1. People could avoid lifetime baggage in communicable diseases.
2. Theoretically, we could eliminate some diseases/conditions.

The cons:
1. Privacy concerns.
2. Potentially labeling someone to society as worthless when it comes to sex and marriage.

This topic is easy to discuss with something like AIDS. It, literally, means your privacy and desire to bust a nut versus someone else's life. However, what about things like herpes? Or even conditions like Cystic Fibrosis (both parents have to be carriers I believe)? Could we wipe out herpes and its ilk as they are viruses? I assume wiping out things like CF wouldn't happen this way as it's in the genes, but it could make people rethink mating with someone if their chances of having a kid with it are high.

In a world where the government pays for our medical care and will be dictating our habits in relation to health is this inevitable?

So I was raised that life is precious, etc, etc... but honestly, we've got 7B people, it doesn't matter if we have more... we don't need more people. So on the one hand, who cares? People die, or don't... there's always more people, unless the disease is sufficiently virulent.

I guess I tend towards privacy, even for AIDS/HIV.

Leisher wrote: In a world where the government pays for our medical care and will be dictating our habits in relation to health is this inevitable?

Different discussion. Maybe. But then do we also get prenatal screening and decide if the kid who needs $50k/yr of care gets aborted?

My first thought when Gordon posted that was "Why? You fuckin' that many dudes?"

I think people need to be responsible for protecting themselves. I don't need criminals to be branded to protect me from them, etc. If you're not sure someone's clean, don't fuck 'em. It's not hard to not get HIV, etc, from sex.

TheCatt wrote: So I was raised that life is precious, etc, etc... but honestly, we've got 7B people, it doesn't matter if we have more... we don't need more people. So on the one hand, who cares? People die, or don't... there's always more people, unless the disease is sufficiently virulent.

See, I didn't want to go to that extreme with the discussion. It was more about simply preventing the spread of something to ultimately eliminate it forever.

TheCatt wrote: But then do we also get prenatal screening and decide if the kid who needs $50k/yr of care gets aborted?

In a government paid for system, you know that's coming. Look at the kid in England that the government gave a death sentence despite the U.S. and Switzerland both offering to fix him.

Cakedaddy wrote: I think people need to be responsible for protecting themselves. I don't need criminals to be branded to protect me from them, etc. If you're not sure someone's clean, don't fuck 'em. It's not hard to not get HIV, etc, from sex.

Easier said than done. Infected folks don't slum on the streets or just hang out in bars. They're your friends, neighbors, family, etc. I know more than one person who got free lifetime baggage from the first person they ever slept with. By the way, some criminals are absolutely branded. Some do it themselves. Others are required by the law to introduce themselves to all their neighbors and not live close to schools...

You can marry, fuck, and have kids with someone who has herpes, and do so without contracting it yourself. However, that's done through being careful. A branding isn't a death sentence, it's just protection. Gay people were telling Grindr if they had HIV/AIDS or not, but straight people can't admit if they have herpes? We suck.

Leisher wrote: Easier said than done. Infected folks don't slum on the streets or just hang out in bars. They're your friends, neighbors, family, etc.

Ya. And I'm not fucking them.

Leisher wrote:I know more than one person who got free lifetime baggage from the first person they ever slept with.

Cause they weren't careful.

Sure, a brand would make it easier. But you faced the same dangers. Did you just get lucky? Or were you smart? You took it upon yourself to protect yourself. Well, unless your answer is that you got lucky.

I'm okay with Grindr doing what they want. I'm not okay with California lifting the legal consequence of knowingly infecting someone with HIV.

Cakedaddy wrote: Ya. And I'm not fucking them.

You're not now, but you used to...not the family thing as this isn't Alabama, but you get my point.

Cakedaddy wrote: Cause they weren't careful.

Bullshit. People don't want to fuck, they need to fuck. You can't turn that off. People need to so badly they blatantly lie about being clean. Or they get infected without realizing it and then spread it to someone else, including their committed partners. Also, condoms aren't 100% effective at stopping the spread of disease nor is oral sex.

So the ONLY way to be 100% careful is to be abstinent, and that's completely unrealistic.

Example: Rob is giving Jane the attention she's not getting at home for whatever reason. She bangs him and then goes home to Harry and unknowingly gives him the herp. Harry sure wasn't careful, right? If Rob had an itty bitty little "H" on his hip Jane would have been given more information to help her protect herself and Harry.

Cakedaddy wrote: Did you just get lucky? Or were you smart? You took it upon yourself to protect yourself. Well, unless your answer is that you got lucky.

I was mostly very lucky. I wore a condom here and there, but admittedly, not often. I'm fully expecting to discover I have a kid(s) out there. Caught one very treatable thing once, scabbies. However, got that from drinking water, not relations. It's happens to also be an STD. (A heavily used drinking fountain in the barracks was the source.)

Vince wrote: I'm not okay with California lifting the legal consequence of knowingly infecting someone with HIV.

Every California law seems to be about making sure people don't have to blame themselves for their lot in life and/or their actions.

The argument I'm seeing made is that people with communicable diseases have zero obligation to disclose them, and if you aren't careful and catch it, then ha ha it just sucks to be you.

Fuck that. That's stupid and evil.

GORDON wrote: The argument I'm seeing made is that people with communicable diseases have zero obligation to disclose them, and if you aren't careful and catch it, then ha ha it just sucks to be you.

Fuck that. That's stupid and evil.

I don't agree with that, either. But I am saying that people shouldn't be forced to register it somewhere.

Sure. And if they knowingly spread it, it should be a felony.

GORDON wrote: Sure. And if they knowingly spread it, it should be a felony.

I'm probably not arguing with that either.

So write the app that people VOLUNTARILY join where they post their verified clean bills of health. It gets popular and then it becomes the go-to for the dating community, If you aren't registered, no one fucks you because they assume you're unclean.

Then give me 10% royalties.

GORDON wrote: So write the app that people VOLUNTARILY join where they post their verified clean bills of health. It gets popular and then it becomes the go-to for the dating community, If you aren't registered, no one fucks you because they assume you're unclean.

Then give me 10% royalties.

That, I'm completely fine with.

Bullshit. People don't want to fuck, they need to fuck. You can't turn that off. People need to so badly they blatantly lie about being clean. Or they get infected without realizing it and then spread it to someone else, including their committed partners. Also, condoms aren't 100% effective at stopping the spread of disease nor is oral sex.

Sounds like a stamp isn't going to do anything either cause people GOTS to fuck!

So write the app that people VOLUNTARILY join where they post their verified clean bills of health. It gets popular and then it becomes the go-to for the dating community, If you aren't registered, no one fucks you because they assume you're unclean.

A clean bill of health is only good till you fuck again. Does the app know you fucked since your last test? "No baby. . . You're the only one. I promise."

There is NO WAY to know for sure no matter what the app or test results say. That's why it's on YOU to protect yourself. So what if grinder collected VOLUNTARY HIV info. If I said "no", doesn't mean it's true. "Ya I was tested today. But that was done before I fucked the nurse that gave me the results." SHE'S the only one that knows for sure! Well, unless you fucked in the bathroom while she was working on it.

An app won't mean shit. A clean bill of health from your doctor won't mean shit. You need instant, infallible field tests.

Are you arguing that it's up to someone else to keep you safe? Punish those that hurt you. Absolutely. But you better plan on protecting yourself because no one else can/will.

Why are we all ignoring that Leisher had penis scabies?

And since everyone knows you can't catch them from sitting on the toilet seat, he went with "the drinking fountain". Too bad there wasn't an app for that.

TheCatt wrote: Why are we all ignoring that Leisher had penis scabies?

Literally cured by a balm. Although, being in the military they initially fucked up and prescribed everyone some antibiotic that didn't work. It wasn't just a penis thing either. It was on the webs of our hands and feet.

Cakedaddy wrote: And since everyone knows you can't catch them from sitting on the toilet seat, he went with "the drinking fountain".

I'd bet most people have no idea scabbies even exists or how you can get it.

Cakedaddy wrote: Sounds like a stamp isn't going to do anything either cause people GOTS to fuck!

As it turns out, sex is life affirming and just a lot of fun. Pretty cool that Mother Nature makes people need to have it so we can continue on as a species.

GORDON wrote: So write the app that people VOLUNTARILY join where they post their verified clean bills of health. It gets popular and then it becomes the go-to for the dating community, If you aren't registered, no one fucks you because they assume you're unclean.

This is a million dollar idea. Thing is Tinder and their ilk could easily beat you to the punch.

Cakedaddy wrote: A clean bill of health is only good till you fuck again. Does the app know you fucked since your last test? "No baby. . . You're the only one. I promise."

There is NO WAY to know for sure no matter what the app or test results say. That's why it's on YOU to protect yourself. So what if grinder collected VOLUNTARY HIV info. If I said "no", doesn't mean it's true. "Ya I was tested today. But that was done before I fucked the nurse that gave me the results." SHE'S the only one that knows for sure! Well, unless you fucked in the bathroom while she was working on it.

No system will be perfect. However, something is better than nothing. If you combined severe penalties for knowingly infecting someone with some form of notification (not public to protect privacy) that's better than "fuck it". "Fuck it" has given us more than 1 out of every 6 people aged 14-49 with herpes.

Who has the "Fuck it" attitude? Everyone gave up on being safe?

1 out of every 6 figures include HVS-1 which is cold sores. Which can be caught by handling something someone with HVS-1 handled. Doesn't require sex of any kind. You touch your sore, touch the crayon, share the crayon with me, I rub my eye or pick my nose and I'm infected. That's why most transmissions of HVS-1 occur during childhood when hygiene is at its worse. Did you even read the article or did you just copy the one sentence that google showed you!?

Leisher wrote: Literally cured by a balm. Although, being in the military they initially fucked up and prescribed everyone some antibiotic that didn't work. It wasn't just a penis thing either. It was on the webs of our hands and feet.

I actually had scabies as a kid as well, on my hands. The most disturbing thing was being in the doctor's office, and I remember The Tide Is High was playing on the soundsystem, and they had a big picture of a "penis with scabies" on the wall, and I'm like WTF? It was very scarring to 7(?) year old me. Maybe that's what I was more careful than Leisher.

Cakedaddy wrote: Who has the "Fuck it" attitude? Everyone gave up on being safe?

We all do if we're not willing to try something more than what's already being done.

Cakedaddy wrote: Doesn't require sex of any kind. You touch your sore, touch the crayon, share the crayon with me, I rub my eye or pick my nose and I'm infected.

Oh! I see. You mock my drinking fountain story, but you caught your herpes from a crayon...

Cakedaddy wrote: Did you even read the article or did you just copy the one sentence that google showed you!?

No, I googled it based on remembering the actual stat. I had read the story many moons ago.

TheCatt wrote: Maybe that's what I was more careful than Leisher.

Probably. When I was a young man I absolutely had the "I'm invincible" mindset that young men tend to have.