Dutch HIV Sex Party (HIV used as a bioweapon)

I'd go with Ham's acid bath thing.

Wait, no. That would be too merciful. They'd still die, whereas their victims would have to suffer the effects of AIDS.

They should be infected with AIDS like their victims were. Then sent to a particularly brutal jail made specifically for scum like them where they'd be beaten up and raped every day. Oh, and have their genitalia cut off. With no anaesthesia.
 
One of the points of a justice system is to try and keep the victims from becoming worse than the criminals.
 
visceral_instinct they already have AIDS, i sugest they just be sent to prision, no medical treatment just left there
 
Asguard said:
visceral_instinct they already have AIDS, i sugest they just be sent to prision, no medical treatment just left there
Click to expand...
What, denying medical care? That would violate their rights! The only just solution is to put them to death. What you suggest would never be done in a Western nation. Furthermore, imprisoning them leaves open the possibility that they'll infect more people. Execute them like the scum they are. Do not give the opportunity to commit further atrocities.
 
what would be the point?
to be honest your right, i do tend to say things in anger which in reality i would never surport. I would never withold medical treatment no matter who they were.
 
swarm said:
Then why is it not a legal justification for your actions?
Click to expand...

Same reason kids get punished for defending themselves when someone hits em in the playground. We don't like to think that sometimes you actually have to use violence, or that sometimes it is justified.
 
visceral_instinct
We don't like to think that sometimes you actually have to use violence, or that sometimes it is justified.
Click to expand...

That's not true. Violence in self defense or in defense of another or even in some cases of defense of your property is permitted. But all revenge is not permitted.

Why is that VI?
 
It depends what exactly is that deed being committed in the name of revenge.

If you beat the crap out of someone in retribution for hurting someone else, sure, that's justice.

But if, say, you do not direct your violence at the one who actually did something wrong, and attack someone close to them, no, that's not vengeance, it is harming an innocent.
 
(Insert title here)

Visceral Instinct said:

Vengeance doesn't make you worse than the criminal.
Click to expand...

True. It makes you equal to the criminal.

• • •​

The crime, while horrifying, is hardly new. In the early 1990s, people in Oregon were shocked to learn that a man was being charged with intentionally infecting a teenage girl with HIV. That was a while ago; I can't recall her name, so I'm having trouble calling up a link. More recently, in 2004, a man was accused of intentionally infecting at least six women over a period of eight years.

Admittedly, the bit with drugging the victims and then injecting them with infected blood is a bit new to me, but in truth, I would be surprised if it took this long before someone tried it.
____________________

Notes:

"Man May Have Infected Women In Two States With HIV". KOCO.com. April 1, 2004. http://www.koco.com/news/2969140/detail.html
 
Tiassa, probably because the needles needed to do it are hard to come by.

As far as im aware most drug uses give there injections sub cut or IM (even though they keep being called IV drug uses) and the needles arnt long enough to hit a vain. Nor is the syringe large enough to actually hold enough blood

This is the same for insulin dependent diabities
 
NP, there was also a dentist in the early 90's late 80's who infected a number of patients. I'm thinking in Florida. But I'm fuzzy enough on the details I couldn't get a lock down on an article.
 
Thinking back ....

Swarm said:

NP, there was also a dentist in the early 90's late 80's who infected a number of patients. I'm thinking in Florida. But I'm fuzzy enough on the details I couldn't get a lock down on an article
Click to expand...

I recall the story, but I thought that was accidental. Or maybe I'm thinking of something else. Especially in the '80s, HIV/AIDS was a confusing, terrifying issue. I still remember being in fifth grade, and my teacher, for reasons I failed at the time to understand, pausing as he walked into the classroom and saying, "Look, we need to get one thing clear: no, you cannot get AIDS from a toilet seat."

That would have been, what, 1984?

I guess that one was running around the school at the time. But I kept hearing that one into the '90s, and used to see graffiti reading "No Fags!" scrawled on men's room doors.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top