Talk Hearts Daily News Thread

[Fire Doinks]

From reading the article, it seems that the logic behind it is that people were avoiding being tested and infecting others unknowingly as a result, as then they couldn't be charged with the felony. Not sure what the impact of the change in the law will be there (and I'm not sure if such felony charges could be applied retrospectively i.e. would you be charged if you had infected someone without knowing but then got tested?), but if it encourages more testing and prevents more unknowing cases, which I would probably guess would be far more common, then it may actually be a positive (no jokes pls) change in terms of reducing cases overall?

Yeah, I get the reasoning from quote in the article. You'd only avoid testing if you felt it was likely that you had contracted it, so I don't see that as much of a defence. They don't want to take the test because it might lead to consequences for the risky behaviour that they want to continue doing, to me that's very selfish and putting other people at risk.

I don't know what the answer is, I just feel that it's something that deserves to be punished if you do something like that knowingly putting another person at risk. Even if it's manageable, that's not the point, it changes that person's life forever.

[Fire Doinks]

Interesting  that you'd link the two, given that the NRA/right make those arguments about people advocating gun control. What are you advocating - Muslim control?

I don't think that the two are comparable, because the equation with guns is a lot more simple. Someone shoots lots of people with a gun - people say maybe it'd have been less likely to happen if there were less guns in circulation. That's hardly jumping on an issue, particularly given that the tone of these people tends to be upset/emotional.

Compare and contrast with you seeing that some people had been knocked down and immediately logging onto Talkhearts dot co dot uk to post 'hurhur religion of peace' without waiting to see if the incident  was either an attack or related to Islam. Not the same, at least not unless you think that 'less Muslims' is as self-evident a solution as 'less guns'.

To pick up on the debate over whether these people are 'legitimate' Muslims, I'm not convinced it's a discussion worth having. To the extent that they draw on aspects of Salafism, Wahhabism, and going back further Kharijitism, you can point to a recognisable tradition that they draw on. Then again, even most Salafis/Wahhabis don't support violent jihad. The dominant interpretation of the Quran holds that any reading which doesn't take its overall message into account is false - and it makes clear that violence is only acceptable when you, directly, are under attack. Not when 'the Muslim world' is under attack - you personally. That said, me saying that as a western non-Muslim won't change these people's minds and nor will even other Muslims saying it. Clearly any text written over 1000 years ago will be able to be interpreted more or less any way you like.

That's why there are extremists in every religion - see Christian militia in Uganda, Hindu nationalism in India, the Zionist far right in Israel, and Buddhist hate preachers in Myanmar. What these places have in common is geopolitical tension - as does much of the 'Muslim world'. That's the lens through which extremists linking themselves to Islam should be viewed - as demonstrated by the abundance of evidence that ISIS fighters lack a basic understanding of Islam. Not whether or not they're 'real Muslims', which will be largely irrelevant for as long as they consider themselves as such.

What I've noticed you do on these threads is that you start with a provocative statement implicating Muslims as a whole (I.e. 'religion of peace strikes again') then immediately retreat when challenged to arguments along the lines of 'you can't say they're not real Muslims'. Why is that?

Exactly

On the last bit, 'religion of peace' is a statement that has been trotted out by a lot of people in the last 15 years or so, mainly by people who want to attack ignorant statements from bigots, but seem to do it from a position of ignorance themselves. It's demonstrably untrue that it is a religion of peace, just like most religions as the examples you cite in that post prove. So it's not a generalising attack on islam as a whole, but a criticism of people who attack those that speak out against certain precepts of the faith and the attacks carried out in its name. They're happy to shit on people who want to discuss the issue (not just EDL bigots, but respectable and educated individuals too) but they never bother themselves to learn anything about islam.

[Shuto Makino]

If those are the people you're criticising, fine - my experience has been that those who make the 'religion of peace' argument the most tend to be Muslims looking to distance themselves from terrorists. As I said, I don't think you can impose one meaning on any religion, but I think it's important that they shouldn't be mocked for doing that.

I think some of the problems that arise when people debate Islam come from the fact that the same words mean different things to different people. Often, when people talk about 'Islam', what they really mean is 'Muslims as a social group' - on both sides of the coin (I.e. 'Islam is barbaric' often means 'Muslims are barbarians', and 'Islam is peaceful' often means 'Muslims are peaceful'). That leads to misunderstandings of all kinds when people want to discuss the religion itself.

[Herman Boyce]

Was listening to Panti Bliss recently, an irish drag act who's been positive for 20 years. The conversation wasn't about HIV but when it came up he explained that the affect on his life nowadays extends to a tablet once a day. No side affects, he's not contagious under any circumstances and his condition won't degrade.

It's a cowardly crime to commit but, as far as i'm aware, the material affect on someone's life would, thankfully, be almost nought.

Medically you're right, but I think you need to consider the psychological impact being HIV positive would have on someone before saying the effect on someone's life would be almost nought.

That band clearly have a fantastic attitude towards it but I don't think everyone would necessarily be the same. I don't mean that in a patronising way at all.

[2MatoFish]

Medically you're right, but I think you need to consider the psychological impact being HIV positive would have on someone before saying the effect on someone's life would be almost nought.

That band clearly have a fantastic attitude towards it but I don't think everyone would necessarily be the same. I don't mean that in a patronising way at all.

In fairness, I said the 'material affect'.

I should've said, 'material effect', but that's another story.

[Del-icious]

https://www.theguardian.com/business/201...SApp_Other

People are weird


https://www.reddit.com/r/rickandmorty/co...h/do1z9s5/

[Big Physical Acey]

[Walter Sobchak]

Interesting follow up on the HIV discussion earlier. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4645386/ha...ver-texts/

Sounds like a thoroughly horrible guy.

[Cheeky Gnando’s]

That's absolutely awful - don't disagree with anyone who says that's a despicable crime. Would the new law in California allow for someone like that to be tried under an additional offence, as Dank is right when he says that something like that should be punished heavily.

[Big Physical Acey]

Interesting follow up on the HIV discussion earlier. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4645386/ha...ver-texts/

Sounds like a thoroughly horrible guy.

If that's all true, what an absolute cunt. Can't imagine the mentality you'd need to have to deliberately do something like that.

[Fire Doinks]

Completely disgusting, that's pretty much the kind of thing I had in mind when I posted about this but the whole texting thing is an extra level of sadistic behaviour.

I have heard that there's an element of HIV positive people who are obsessed and turned on by the idea of spreading their disease, but it's a small number of sickos for sure. It's things like that where I'd be concerned about a change in the law.

As I said before, deciding not to get tested means you're afraid of the outcome and don't wish to change your risky sexual behaviour. It's selfish, dangerous and morally wrong.

[PHOODLE-OUt]

What does this mean for CC and his games of aids roulette with African hoors?

[Fire Doinks]

Not much of a game if all the chambers are loaded

[Big Physical Acey]

[Johnny]

http://www.scotsman.com/news/woman-left-...-1-4582036

[Zizou]

Fucking brutal tbh. The boy needs an absolute leathering.

[Zizou]

See Harvey Weinstein has turned out to be a bit rapey. Are we supposed to be surprised by this news? Is it not well known this is how things used to work in Hollywood?

[PHOODLE-OUt]

Thats disgusting. Cant imagine the type of lowlife that would do that/find that amusing

[PHOODLE-OUt]

See Harvey Weinstein has turned out to be a bit rapey. Are we supposed to be surprised by this news? Is it not well known this is how things used to work in Hollywood?

Aye, pretty well known. Youtube autoplayed me some outtakes of a Scary Movie and they were joking about Cosby slipping something in drinks. That was15 years ago

[Fire Doinks]

Horrible thing to do, the cruelty of letting her get to Amsterdam and doing that I just can't understand.