The Energon Pub

News Credits: 1 · by **God Optimus Prime** » Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:18 pm

An HIV-positive New Zealand man pricked his sleeping wife with a needle tainted with his blood, infecting her with the virus, court papers have revealed.

It is believed the man wanted to give her the virus, which leads to Aids, so she would have sex with him again, the New Zealand Sunday Star-Times reported.

According to the documents, the man twice pricked his wife with a sewing needle tainted with his blood.

The man has admitted infecting his wife and faces up to 14 years in jail.

The 35-year-old man, who cannot be named for legal reasons, has been remanded in custody and will be sentenced at Auckland High Court early next year.

According to the court documents obtained by the newspaper, the husband discovered he was HIV-positive during health checks when the family arrived in New Zealand in 2004.

His wife and children were not infected.

'Sting-like mark'

The wife said she wanted to stay with her husband for the sake of their children but refused to have sex with him for fear of contracting the disease.

But she said that in May last year she found "a sting-like mark" on her left thigh and two days later awoke to a stinging feeling in her leg.

She said she also saw her husband handling a syringe full of his blood.

Four months later during a routine check-up she was told she was HIV-positive.

She said she confronted her husband who admitted pricking her with an infected needle.

"All he said [was] he was sorry. He said, 'I used needles on you because I wanted you to be the same as me so that you can live with me and you won't leave me'," she said in a statement.

The husband was charged in October last year.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8397683.stm

Wow...that's really messed up and dude is freakin stupid.

News Credits: 1 · by **Scatterlung** » Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:36 pm

... We truly are a magnificent species.

by **Just Negare** » Mon Dec 07, 2009 4:05 am

Apparently he was a refugee and they caught his HIV status on the pre-immigration tests, but his wife and child were negative.

And just recently there was another scum bag who was sleeping with people, without protection, knowing he was HIV. He got found guilty of attempted murder or something serious as he infected a few people. He died in prison a week or so ago, probably suicide from what's been mentioned in the media.

Privacy is all very well and good, but not disclosing the HIV fact to someone you plan to shag is a bit dicey.

With that said, it should be lesson to all, keep it in your pants or wear protection EVERY SINGLE TIME!!!!!!

by **homelessjunkeon** » Sat Dec 12, 2009 3:20 pm

You think that's bad?

cp Edit: Offensive/violating materials removed.

News Credits: 767 · by **Dead Metal** » Sat Dec 12, 2009 3:46 pm

Dude Homeless, better put a disclaimer on that.
Seriously it's amazing how effed up some people can be. :shock:

During sexual education at school my teacher told us a story of his daughter waking up one morning after a passionate night with some random guy just to find him gone but not without leaving a message written with lipstick on her mirror:

Welcome to the club of AIDS infected! : )

by **homelessjunkeon** » Sat Dec 12, 2009 3:57 pm

You know I'm starting to think maybe we should get doctors to report people with HIV/AIDS to some government authority and quietly "dissapear" them.

I'm not sure I can believe I just wrote that, since it goes against the vast majority of what I stand for, but the mentally ill who seem to want it, both for themselves and others, are unfit to live, and those who aren't spreading it deliberately remain a threat to the rest of the population.

News Credits: 2 · by **Shadowman** » Sun Dec 13, 2009 5:40 pm

homelessjunkeon wrote:You know I'm starting to think maybe we should get doctors to report people with HIV/AIDS to some government authority and quietly "dissapear" them.

I'm not sure I can believe I just wrote that, since it goes against the vast majority of what I stand for, but the mentally ill who seem to want it, both for themselves and others, are unfit to live, and those who aren't spreading it deliberately remain a threat to the rest of the population.

So, first, you post graphic descriptions of gay sex. Then you say we should off people because they have a specific illness, even if they haven't done anything wrong and actively try to prevent spreading it?

Wow, you are just full of bad ideas in here, huh?

So you think we should commit genocide against a group of people because of something that isn't their fault, simply because a very small percentage of these people use it for malicious purposes? And that makes sense to you?

by **Just Negare** » Mon Dec 14, 2009 2:38 am

Dead Metal wrote:During sexual education at school my teacher told us a story of his daughter waking up one morning after a passionate night with some random guy just to find him gone but not without leaving a message written with lipstick on her mirror:

Welcome to the club of AIDS infected! : )

Holy crap!

My friend told me she shagged some guy and after he said to her, "you know that joke, what's the difference between love and herpes?" And she's like "Yeah, yeah, love doesn't last for ever". He then replied, "Now you have a personal connection to the joke!!"

He thought it was f**king hi-larious that she now had herpes! Mind you, he stopped laughing when she broke his nose.

News Credits: 2 · by **Shadowman** » Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:05 pm

homelessjunkeon wrote:those who aren't spreading it deliberately remain a threat to the rest of the population.

I wanted to point out one other thing: have you not read any news regarding AIDS since 1981? Unless you have AIDS and live in a Vampire-heavy area, or you have AIDS and another disease that makes you unintentionally spray blood and reproductive fluids everyone, you're not a thread to anyone. I really thought that "Being near someone with AIDS can contract the virus" mentality had died years ago. Blood, reproductive fluid, sexual contact and breastmilk are the only things that spread AIDS, and outside of unfortunate accidents, it's very easy to not spread AIDS.

by **Just Negare** » Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:05 pm

Shadowman wrote: I really thought that "Being near someone with AIDS can contract the virus" mentality had died years ago. Blood, reproductive fluid, sexual contact and breastmilk are the only things that spread AIDS, and outside of unfortunate accidents, it's very easy to not spread AIDS.

My brother and is wife are off to volunteer in Africa for a year in a few months. His friend said to him that if he came back with HIV/AIDs he'd never go near him again. He wasn't joking.

There are people my brother is telling me about, and that I have met, who truly think you can get "AIDs" from people who sneeze on you, from toilet seats, from drinking from the same cup, from even sitting on the same chair they just sat on. I couldn't believe it!! Its 2009! Its New Zealand (there was a huge public debacle in the 90s surrounding a girl who contracted HIV from a blood transfusion who was essentially booted out of an Aussie pre-school and so they came across here).

Its amazing the kind of ignorance that still exists around HIV. I mean, HIV virus is not very strong, it doesn't last long outside the body.

by **homelessjunkeon** » Wed Dec 16, 2009 9:36 pm

Shadowman wrote:So, first, you post graphic descriptions of gay sex. Then you say we should off people because they have a specific illness, even if they haven't done anything wrong and actively try to prevent spreading it?

We do the same to livestock, even when we can cure or innoculate them against the diseases. It just so happens that culling is the most effective means of preventing the spread of contagion.

So you think we should commit genocide against a group of people because of something that isn't their fault, simply because a very small percentage of these people use it for malicious purposes? And that makes sense to you?

Firstly that's not genocide, since they're not a discrete race or ethnic group. Secondly I said it's against my nature to think such things, and that what I posted above tempts me towards those kinds of thoughts.

I wanted to point out one other thing: have you not read any news regarding AIDS since 1981?

No, I haven't read any news about HIV/AIDS since three years before I was born.

Unless you have AIDS and live in a Vampire-heavy area, or you have AIDS and another disease that makes you unintentionally spray blood and reproductive fluids everyone, you're not a thread to anyone.

Yes, because those are the only means by which one can contract HIV.
Vampires and spraying bodily fluids.
People don't bleed on each other during fights, or car crashes, or anything of that nature. You know, not entirely unusual circumstances that innocent people can get caught up in without any effort on their part.

I really thought that "Being near someone with AIDS can contract the virus" mentality had died years ago.

You know, if it sounds like someone is saying something idiotic, then you're more than likely not understanding what they are saying.

If you want to have a super-cereal discussion about a subject it helps to not wade in and spew hyperbole everywhere.

News Credits: 2 · by **Shadowman** » Wed Dec 16, 2009 11:06 pm

homelessjunkeon wrote:
Shadowman wrote:So, first, you post graphic descriptions of gay sex. Then you say we should off people because they have a specific illness, even if they haven't done anything wrong and actively try to prevent spreading it?

We do the same to livestock, even when we can cure or innoculate them against the diseases. It just so happens that culling is the most effective means of preventing the spread of contagion.

So AIDS patients are as human as livestock. You're really winning me over.

homelessjunkeon wrote:Firstly that's not genocide, since they're not a discrete race or ethnic group. Secondly I said it's against my nature to think such things, and that what I posted above tempts me towards those kinds of thoughts.

Mass murder, genocide, whatever. All words meaning the same thing. It's wrong, and you should be truly ashamed of yourself for even THINKING it, much less posting it.

homelessjunkeon wrote:People don't bleed on each other during fights, or car crashes, or anything of that nature. You know, not entirely unusual circumstances that innocent people can get caught up in without any effort on their part.

Oh, right. I fight AIDS patients all the time.

You know, if you really think rare occassions, ones that have a very, VERY slim chance of occurring under such specific circumstances, are grounds for mass murder, then you really need to step back and think of how insane what you're suggesting is.

homelessjunkeon wrote:You know, if it sounds like someone is saying something idiotic, then you're more than likely not understanding what they are saying.

I know. But you've both posted graphic descriptions of gay sex, and then went on to suggest mass murder. How exactly am I supposed to take you seriously?

by **Bloodlust** » Wed Dec 16, 2009 11:50 pm

We do the same to livestock, even when we can cure or innoculate them against the diseases. It just so happens that culling is the most effective means of preventing the spread of contagion.

So if someone you knew, say YOUR FAMILY member accidentally caught HIV, then you would send him to the slaughter house? I think you're getting cut out of the will.

Firstly that's not genocide, since they're not a discrete race or ethnic group. Secondly I said it's against my nature to think such things, and that what I posted above tempts me towards those kinds of thoughts.

I'm sure Hitler thought the same thing. It can still be concidered genocide since it's against a certain GROUP

No, I haven't read any news about HIV/AIDS since three years before I was born.

So you've never gone to school or taken a health class? No wonder you think these things, you're il educated.

Yes, because those are the only means by which one can contract HIV.
Vampires and spraying bodily fluids.
People don't bleed on each other during fights, or car crashes, or anything of that nature. You know, not entirely unusual circumstances that innocent people can get caught up in without any effort on their part.

That was pure blatent sarcasm on Shadowman's part. You do know that HIV CANNOT survive contact with air outside of the human body? Wait, you haven't taken a health class yet. Seriously the only way you can contract HIV is through direct contact of YOUR Blood/body fluids and the infected. The likelyness is sooooooooo low that if you made out with somebody who had a cut in their mouth, you STILL wouldn't contract the virus, or it's a miniscule amount.

You know, if it sounds like someone is saying something idiotic, then you're more than likely not understanding what they are saying.

If you want to have a super-cereal discussion about a subject it helps to not wade in and spew hyperbole everywhere.

So you're a hypocrite because YOU'RE spewing hyperbole everywhere. WTF is super-cereal? Do you mean super-SURREAL?

Before starting an argument look over the facts.

http://www.medicinenet.com/human_immunodeficiency_virus_hiv_aids/article.htm
^Try here.

I'm sorry if I sound rude, but working in the medical, It helps to educate these people.

News Credits: 1 · by **Scatterlung** » Thu Dec 17, 2009 7:04 am

This thread doesn't need to exist.

One of my best friends contracted HIV recently. His first and only sexual encounter and it's going to kill him.

But I'm not going to lump him with the sick-minded folk in those posted images because he's a good person and I'd rather contract the illness than reason to cull them all off.

We claim to be the most advanced species on the planet, yet we'd still rather kill people off instead of doing the human thing and fixing the problem?

**** that.

This thread does not need to exist.

by **Just Negare** » Thu Dec 17, 2009 7:26 am

Scatterlung wrote:This thread doesn't need to exist.

One of my best friends contracted HIV recently. His first and only sexual encounter and it's going to kill him.

That sucks.

But HIV isn't really a terminal disease anymore, its more of a chronic illness. As long as he takes his meds and is compliant with treatment there's no reason he can't live a long and healthy life.

With that said, it both depends on the strand of the virus, how long it took before it was picked up and his health care providers.

We claim to be the most advanced species on the planet, yet we'd still rather kill people off instead of doing the human thing and fixing the problem?

Yeah, no kidding. There are laws that allow for snuffing "human problems".

Its only natural that the same twisted logic that spurned those laws will extend into other aspects of society where other groups of people can be targetted.

This thread does not need to exist.

[/quote]

On the contrary it defintely does. The replies alone show that either by moral defect or ignorance a lot of people don't have a good understanding of HIV/AIDs. Education is what will destory this stupidity. We need threads like this to show by the ignorance we're facing and to allow people to express the truth and hope that does exist.

by **Transfaner** » Thu Dec 17, 2009 11:58 am

This topic got off hand...

Anyways, back to case in point about man infecting his wife. I do not condone his actions. But quite simply, a man CANNOT live in a sexless marriage. If they were only staying together for the sake of the kids, then he should have been given the "go ahead" to find other HIV positive women (or men...) to satisfy those needs. It's only human being as how the true "meaning of life" is to spread your seed.

This is just my personal opinion, and in no way meant to cause any fight, or to disrespect anyone elses viewpoint. I'm not trying to start any arguments here, just say how I feel.

News Credits: 1 · by **Scatterlung** » Thu Dec 17, 2009 1:25 pm

Just Negare wrote:
Scatterlung wrote:This thread doesn't need to exist.

One of my best friends contracted HIV recently. His first and only sexual encounter and it's going to kill him.

That sucks.

But HIV isn't really a terminal disease anymore, its more of a chronic illness. As long as he takes his meds and is compliant with treatment there's no reason he can't live a long and healthy life.

Actually he was quite far along when they found it. Showed up in a routine check-up.

Doctor's actually gave him no longer than a year.

News Credits: 127 · by **Counterpunch** » Thu Dec 17, 2009 1:48 pm

Locked for review.

Don't be surprised if you get a warning or whatnot in your PM box.

News Credits: 127 · by **Counterpunch** » Thu Dec 17, 2009 2:01 pm

Guys, use the 'Report Post' button when things get ugly.

You won't be penalized if your reporting is found to be unnecessary.

by **homelessjunkeon** » Thu Dec 17, 2009 4:15 pm

Shadowman wrote:
homelessjunkeon wrote:
Shadowman wrote:So, first, you post graphic descriptions of gay sex. Then you say we should off people because they have a specific illness, even if they haven't done anything wrong and actively try to prevent spreading it?

We do the same to livestock, even when we can cure or innoculate them against the diseases. It just so happens that culling is the most effective means of preventing the spread of contagion.

So AIDS patients are as human as livestock. You're really winning me over.

It's funny that you're so desperate to pick an internet fight that you're completely ignoring what is actually being said.
I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I don't think it would be right, or that it should actually happen.

Aristotle said "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

homelessjunkeon wrote:Firstly that's not genocide, since they're not a discrete race or ethnic group. Secondly I said it's against my nature to think such things, and that what I posted above tempts me towards those kinds of thoughts.

Mass murder, genocide, whatever. All words meaning the same thing.

Not even close.
Genocide comes from the greek word "genos", meaning a kinship group, usually a "clan".
Genocide is defined by the specifically racist nature of the crime.

It's wrong, and you should be truly ashamed of yourself for even THINKING it, much less posting it.

It's over Anakin, I have the moral high-ground!

homelessjunkeon wrote:People don't bleed on each other during fights, or car crashes, or anything of that nature. You know, not entirely unusual circumstances that innocent people can get caught up in without any effort on their part.

Oh, right. I fight AIDS patients all the time.

You know, if you really think rare occassions, ones that have a very, VERY slim chance of occurring under such specific circumstances, are grounds for mass murder, then you really need to step back and think of how insane what you're suggesting is.

See first response above.
Oh, and more hyperbole.

homelessjunkeon wrote:You know, if it sounds like someone is saying something idiotic, then you're more than likely not understanding what they are saying.

I know. But you've both posted graphic descriptions of gay sex, and then went on to suggest mass murder. How exactly am I supposed to take you seriously?

You tell me, you evidently did.

Bloodlust wrote:
We do the same to livestock, even when we can cure or innoculate them against the diseases. It just so happens that culling is the most effective means of preventing the spread of contagion.

So if someone you knew, say YOUR FAMILY member accidentally caught HIV, then you would send him to the slaughter house? I think you're getting cut out of the will.

Again with the reading comprehension and moral outrage.

Firstly that's not genocide, since they're not a discrete race or ethnic group. Secondly I said it's against my nature to think such things, and that what I posted above tempts me towards those kinds of thoughts.

I'm sure Hitler thought the same thing. It can still be concidered genocide since it's against a certain GROUP

Godwin's Law fulfilled in record time.

No, I haven't read any news about HIV/AIDS since three years before I was born.

So you've never gone to school or taken a health class? No wonder you think these things, you're il educated.

"That was pure blatent sarcasm"

Yes, because those are the only means by which one can contract HIV.
Vampires and spraying bodily fluids.
People don't bleed on each other during fights, or car crashes, or anything of that nature. You know, not entirely unusual circumstances that innocent people can get caught up in without any effort on their part.

That was pure blatent sarcasm on Shadowman's part. You do know that HIV CANNOT survive contact with air outside of the human body? Wait, you haven't taken a health class yet. Seriously the only way you can contract HIV is through direct contact of YOUR Blood/body fluids and the infected. The likelyness is sooooooooo low that if you made out with somebody who had a cut in their mouth, you STILL wouldn't contract the virus, or it's a miniscule amount.

I didn't know this because I've spent the last couple of decades living in a cave, on mars, with my eyes closed and my fingers in my ears going "LALALALALA" as loud as I can.

You know, if it sounds like someone is saying something idiotic, then you're more than likely not understanding what they are saying.

If you want to have a super-cereal discussion about a subject it helps to not wade in and spew hyperbole everywhere.

So you're a hypocrite because YOU'RE spewing hyperbole everywhere.

Show me where. (PROTIP: You can't)
Here's the dictionary definition of hyperbole for you:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hyperbole