User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 8:14:17 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You can't be "out and proud" if you are forced to lie. Forced. 
Given the months-long period between HIV infection and testing positive, and given the numbers of homosexual men who are infected, this is a ridiculous notion. Spread the misery--so typical these days.  Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Or, they could just...I don't know...lie. 
What a dumb "ban". I presume the blood is tested, given that some people...I don't know...lie. You can't be "out and proud" if you are forced to lie. Forced.
Given the months-long period between HIV infection and testing positive, and given the numbers of homosexual men who are infected, this is a ridiculous notion. Spread the misery--so typical these days. I'm just saying - nobody at a Red Cross is going to know if you're "out and proud", unless you walk in and immediately start cutting hair and redecorating the place. Ergo, I kind of hope they're testing the blood, instead of taking a donor's word for it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 8:15:02 AM EDT
[#2]
Only if the Gay blood is given to gay people. It only makes sense. The gays should be willing to except THEIR risky behavior by ONLY excepting donated gay blood. OH, what's the matter, you're not afraid of YOUR own risky blood are you?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 8:15:22 AM EDT
[#3]
So it's not SOP to test all donated blood?
I never donated blood, so do they just make you pinky swear or something that you're clean? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 8:16:31 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm just saying - nobody at a Red Cross is going to know if you're "out and proud", unless you walk in and immediately start cutting hair and redecorating the place. Ergo, I kind of hope they're testing the blood, instead of taking a donor's word for it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Or, they could just...I don't know...lie.
What a dumb "ban". I presume the blood is tested, given that some people...I don't know...lie. You can't be "out and proud" if you are forced to lie. Forced.
Given the months-long period between HIV infection and testing positive, and given the numbers of homosexual men who are infected, this is a ridiculous notion. Spread the misery--so typical these days. I'm just saying - nobody at a Red Cross is going to know if you're "out and proud", unless you walk in and immediately start cutting hair and redecorating the place. Ergo, I kind of hope they're testing the blood, instead of taking a donor's word for it. ALL blood is tested before it is used. The problem is the testing is (and can't be) 100%. One can have the HIV virus in their blood and not test positive for several months. Want some? The idea is people who donate tend to be honest and honorable. There is no reason to want to donate so badly you would lie during the screening questions. Hopefully. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 8:17:59 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So it's not SOP to test all donated blood? I never donated blood, so do they just make you pinky swear or something that you're clean? Both. You are asked to answer a series of questions while alone, and then certify the veracity of your answers. They do all they can to screen out unsuitable folks, but there's no way to be 100% on it. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 8:18:29 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well a petition seems like a great way to set public health policy. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Seems like a really bad idea to me, but special snowflakes only think the fda and red cross are being mean and descriminating. petition to remove ban on gays donating Well a petition seems like a great way to set public health policy. #ACCEPTOURBLOODDONATION |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 8:18:42 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Maybe we could come up with some kind of gay background check. Good luck closing the gay loophole. No closing that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 8:19:47 AM EDT
[#8]
+1
Quote HistoryQuoted:
ALL blood is tested before it is used. The problem is the testing is (and can't be) 100%. One can have the HIV virus in their blood and not test positive for several months. Want some? The idea is people who donate tend to be honest and honorable. There is no reason to want to donate so badly you would lie during the screening questions. Hopefully. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Or, they could just...I don't know...lie.
What a dumb "ban". I presume the blood is tested, given that some people...I don't know...lie. You can't be "out and proud" if you are forced to lie. Forced.
Given the months-long period between HIV infection and testing positive, and given the numbers of homosexual men who are infected, this is a ridiculous notion. Spread the misery--so typical these days. I'm just saying - nobody at a Red Cross is going to know if you're "out and proud", unless you walk in and immediately start cutting hair and redecorating the place. Ergo, I kind of hope they're testing the blood, instead of taking a donor's word for it. ALL blood is tested before it is used. The problem is the testing is (and can't be) 100%. One can have the HIV virus in their blood and not test positive for several months. Want some? The idea is people who donate tend to be honest and honorable. There is no reason to want to donate so badly you would lie during the screening questions. Hopefully. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 8:24:10 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm just saying - nobody at a Red Cross is going to know if you're "out and proud", unless you walk in and immediately start cutting hair and redecorating the place. Ergo, I kind of hope they're testing the blood, instead of taking a donor's word for it. You're a smart guy, Sub. It's a statistics issue. Sure, they test blood. Tests are only X% effective. The more contaminated blood you put in the supply, the higher the chance is that infected blood will get through. Of the methods of HIV exposure that are out there, blood transfusion has the highest contraction rate out of all of them...which isn't surprising, really. There are other diseases of concern out there too which can condemn someone who is supposed to be getting life-saving treatment to something that can prove fatal or needlessly diminish their quality of life. It's not worth the risk...and due to the lifestyle risks that come along with male homosexuality the RC asks them not to donate the same way they ask people who have spent X amount of time in certain countries or who have used IV drugs or who have gotten tattoos not to donate...because it makes the blood supply riskier. Even with the bans in place and the screenings currently done, every year a few people contract HIV (or other diseases) from blood transfusions. Doing things that will increase that number of people is fucking evil. The forces of political correctness, of course, will not tolerate any judgment on approved lifestyles...even when there's a solid medical and scientific basis to do so. Because fuck that little kid who needs a blood transfusion to survive, nobody is going to disapprove of my lifestyle in any way! |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 8:25:55 AM EDT
[#10]
This is a conspiracy to turn everyone gay via blood
And it is just a bad idea. It's not a matter of civil rights to recognize that homosexual males are at extreamly high risk of bloodbourne diseases. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 8:26:57 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The idea is people who donate tend to be honest and honorable. There is no reason to want to donate so badly you would lie during the screening questions. Hopefully. It's got nothing to do with a desire to donate. It's got everything to do with getting rid of anything perceived as a "judgment" on someone's lifestyle. If the motive was to actually, you know, fucking help people then people would be reasonable and would seek to do no harm. The people screeching about this are exercising their own vanity, not any genuine altruism. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 8:27:07 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You are mad at "special snowflakes" for wanting to make donations to the Red Cross?
Oh the horror! What charity will they demand to give to next?! yea, doc. stats are a pain, as is AIDS. so, just because you want disease in your blood does not mean I do. and the fact that "can't you just test for aids?" how about why can't IV drug users give blood? how about blood born disease folks giving blood? we can test for it, correct? how about diabetic folks giving blood? we can test for it. I just love that gays are just like everyone else. lifestyle choices have consequences. gay is a lifestyle with risks. why must they demand everyone else bless their choices? did you know that blood banks don't like diabetics? well, we should demand they take our blood. it is not fair! so, you get in a car accident and need some blood. IV drug users are donating blood. you want that? I guess your trust is greater than me. blood is already expensive. to test for every known and unknown disease in every pint of blood so that a select group does not feel left out? now that is accommodation. what about law suits from giving bad blood and causing disease in an otherwise healthy person? naw, that would not happen.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 8:28:26 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You're a smart guy, Sub. It's a statistics issue. Sure, they test blood. Tests are only X% effective. The more contaminated blood you put in the supply, the higher the chance is that infected blood will get through. Of the methods of HIV exposure that are out there, blood transfusion has the highest contraction rate out of all of them...which isn't surprising, really. There are other diseases of concern out there too which can condemn someone who is supposed to be getting life-saving treatment to something that can prove fatal or needlessly diminish their quality of life. It's not worth the risk...and due to the lifestyle risks that come along with male homosexuality the RC asks them not to donate the same way they ask people who have spent X amount of time in certain countries or who have used IV drugs or who have gotten tattoos not to donate...because it makes the blood supply riskier. The forces of political correctness, of course, will not tolerate any judgment on approved lifestyles...even when there's a solid medical and scientific basis to do so. Because fuck that little kid who needs a blood transfusion to survive, nobody is going to disapprove of my lifestyle in any way! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I'm just saying - nobody at a Red Cross is going to know if you're "out and proud", unless you walk in and immediately start cutting hair and redecorating the place. Ergo, I kind of hope they're testing the blood, instead of taking a donor's word for it. You're a smart guy, Sub. It's a statistics issue. Sure, they test blood. Tests are only X% effective. The more contaminated blood you put in the supply, the higher the chance is that infected blood will get through. Of the methods of HIV exposure that are out there, blood transfusion has the highest contraction rate out of all of them...which isn't surprising, really. There are other diseases of concern out there too which can condemn someone who is supposed to be getting life-saving treatment to something that can prove fatal or needlessly diminish their quality of life. It's not worth the risk...and due to the lifestyle risks that come along with male homosexuality the RC asks them not to donate the same way they ask people who have spent X amount of time in certain countries or who have used IV drugs or who have gotten tattoos not to donate...because it makes the blood supply riskier. The forces of political correctness, of course, will not tolerate any judgment on approved lifestyles...even when there's a solid medical and scientific basis to do so. Because fuck that little kid who needs a blood transfusion to survive, nobody is going to disapprove of my lifestyle in any way! Yeah, I get it now. Thanks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 8:29:11 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
yea, doc. stats are a pain, as is AIDS. so, just because you want disease in your blood does not mean I do. and the fact that "can't you just test for aids?" how about why can't IV drug users give blood? how about blood born disease folks giving blood? we can test for it, correct? how about diabetic folks giving blood? we can test for it. I just love that gays are just like everyone else. lifestyle choices have consequences. gay is a lifestyle with risks. why must they demand everyone else bless their choices? did you know that blood banks don't like diabetics? well, we should demand they take our blood. it is not fair! so, you get in a car accident and need some blood. IV drug users are donating blood. you want that? I guess your trust is greater than me. blood is already expensive. to test for every known and unknown disease in every pint of blood so that a select group does not feel left out? now that is accommodation. what about law suits from giving bad blood and causing disease in an otherwise healthy person? naw, that would not happen.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You are mad at "special snowflakes" for wanting to make donations to the Red Cross?
Oh the horror! What charity will they demand to give to next?! yea, doc. stats are a pain, as is AIDS. so, just because you want disease in your blood does not mean I do. and the fact that "can't you just test for aids?" how about why can't IV drug users give blood? how about blood born disease folks giving blood? we can test for it, correct? how about diabetic folks giving blood? we can test for it. I just love that gays are just like everyone else. lifestyle choices have consequences. gay is a lifestyle with risks. why must they demand everyone else bless their choices? did you know that blood banks don't like diabetics? well, we should demand they take our blood. it is not fair! so, you get in a car accident and need some blood. IV drug users are donating blood. you want that? I guess your trust is greater than me. blood is already expensive. to test for every known and unknown disease in every pint of blood so that a select group does not feel left out? now that is accommodation. what about law suits from giving bad blood and causing disease in an otherwise healthy person? naw, that would not happen.
How's this? Make the ban on receptive promiscuous sex rather than on being gay? A pair of married gays are no more likely to have aids than anyone else. A hooker in sub saharan Africa though........... |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 8:30:26 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why cant they donate? I dont get it. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/gender/msm/facts/index.html Get it now? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 8:30:32 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You can't be "out and proud" if you are forced to lie. Forced.
Given the months-long period between HIV infection and testing positive, and given the numbers of homosexual men who are infected, this is a ridiculous notion. Spread the misery--so typical these days. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Or, they could just...I don't know...lie.
What a dumb "ban". I presume the blood is tested, given that some people...I don't know...lie. You can't be "out and proud" if you are forced to lie. Forced.
Given the months-long period between HIV infection and testing positive, and given the numbers of homosexual men who are infected, this is a ridiculous notion. Spread the misery--so typical these days. Bingo. They're just pissed they they are being fingered for the perverts that they are. The rate of AIDS among them is sky-high compared to normal people, and it's INCREASING. So no, thanks. Other folks are also excluded, and for damned good reasons. You wanna bone other men in the cornhole (or vice-versa)? Go right ahead, but your behavior has consequences you need to live with. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 8:31:35 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well a petition seems like a great way to set public health policy. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Seems like a really bad idea to me, but special snowflakes only think the fda and red cross are being mean and descriminating. petition to remove ban on gays donating Well a petition seems like a great way to set public health policy. People feelings are at stake; don't you even care? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 8:32:14 AM EDT
[#18]
Dem AIDS
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 8:32:30 AM EDT
[#19]
All higher risk populations should be banned.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 8:34:32 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You're a smart guy, Sub. It's a statistics issue. Sure, they test blood. Tests are only X% effective. The more contaminated blood you put in the supply, the higher the chance is that infected blood will get through. Of the methods of HIV exposure that are out there, blood transfusion has the highest contraction rate out of all of them...which isn't surprising, really. There are other diseases of concern out there too which can condemn someone who is supposed to be getting life-saving treatment to something that can prove fatal or needlessly diminish their quality of life. It's not worth the risk...and due to the lifestyle risks that come along with male homosexuality the RC asks them not to donate the same way they ask people who have spent X amount of time in certain countries or who have used IV drugs or who have gotten tattoos not to donate...because it makes the blood supply riskier. Even with the bans in place and the screenings currently done, every year a few people contract HIV (or other diseases) from blood transfusions. Doing things that will increase that number of people is fucking evil. The forces of political correctness, of course, will not tolerate any judgment on approved lifestyles...even when there's a solid medical and scientific basis to do so. Because fuck that little kid who needs a blood transfusion to survive, nobody is going to disapprove of my lifestyle in any way! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I'm just saying - nobody at a Red Cross is going to know if you're "out and proud", unless you walk in and immediately start cutting hair and redecorating the place. Ergo, I kind of hope they're testing the blood, instead of taking a donor's word for it. You're a smart guy, Sub. It's a statistics issue. Sure, they test blood. Tests are only X% effective. The more contaminated blood you put in the supply, the higher the chance is that infected blood will get through. Of the methods of HIV exposure that are out there, blood transfusion has the highest contraction rate out of all of them...which isn't surprising, really. There are other diseases of concern out there too which can condemn someone who is supposed to be getting life-saving treatment to something that can prove fatal or needlessly diminish their quality of life. It's not worth the risk...and due to the lifestyle risks that come along with male homosexuality the RC asks them not to donate the same way they ask people who have spent X amount of time in certain countries or who have used IV drugs or who have gotten tattoos not to donate...because it makes the blood supply riskier. Even with the bans in place and the screenings currently done, every year a few people contract HIV (or other diseases) from blood transfusions. Doing things that will increase that number of people is fucking evil. The forces of political correctness, of course, will not tolerate any judgment on approved lifestyles...even when there's a solid medical and scientific basis to do so. Because fuck that little kid who needs a blood transfusion to survive, nobody is going to disapprove of my lifestyle in any way! If he needs the blood to survive and the only available donor was gay would you turn down the small risk of disease or just let him go ahead and die with no blood at all? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 8:34:35 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How's this? Make the ban on receptive promiscuous sex rather than on being gay? A pair of married gays are no more likely to have aids than anyone else. A hooker in sub saharan Africa though........... Once again your inability to research anything rears it's ugly head. Had you actually ever given blood before, you'd know they ask very detailed and invasive questions about your sex life including about unprotected heterosexual sex...and if you answer incorrectly they will very politely explain to you why they can't take your blood. IF you admit to being an IV drug user, they will very politely explain to you why they won't take your blood. Etc. Anal sex has a high contraction rate for any number of diseases, HIV included. Homosexual men, as a group, tend to engage in lots of unprotected anal sex with relative strangers...which is why HIV rates are far higher among homosexual males than, say, lesbian females. Look up the CDC numbers on this shit. It's not hard. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 8:34:43 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Why cant they donate? I dont get it. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/gender/msm/facts/index.html Get it now? Still dont get it. Straight people can get AIDS also. Should we only take blood from Virgin children? Iam cool if that ends up being the case. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 8:35:43 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If he needs the blood to survive and the only available donor was gay would you turn down the small risk of disease or just let him go ahead and die with no blood at all? We're not presented with that choice. The blood supply is not in such a drastically low state that we have to choose between a riskier blood supply or not having enough blood. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 8:35:58 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
All higher risk populations should be banned. They pretty much are. Hell, if you got a tattoo within a certain time frame you can't donate. I can't donate because I spent most of the 80's in Europe, 20+ years later, I might have teh mad cow. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 8:37:39 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Still dont get it. Math is hard. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/statistics/basics/ I repeat: Every year people are infected by HIV or other diseases due to transfusions with contaminated blood. Even with all the precautions it still happens, albeit rarely when you look at the population as a whole. This is about keeping that rare event rare. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 8:38:06 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I've never donated blood so I don't know how it works, but can't they just say they aren't gay? That's not the point they are trying to make, it's not about the act of donating blood at all. "I'm gay, I'm proud, I donated blood, and I'm normal like everyone else in every way" .....that's the point behind this bullshit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 8:40:35 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If he needs the blood to survive and the only available donor was gay would you turn down the small risk of disease or just let him go ahead and die with no blood at all? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm just saying - nobody at a Red Cross is going to know if you're "out and proud", unless you walk in and immediately start cutting hair and redecorating the place. Ergo, I kind of hope they're testing the blood, instead of taking a donor's word for it. You're a smart guy, Sub. It's a statistics issue. Sure, they test blood. Tests are only X% effective. The more contaminated blood you put in the supply, the higher the chance is that infected blood will get through. Of the methods of HIV exposure that are out there, blood transfusion has the highest contraction rate out of all of them...which isn't surprising, really. There are other diseases of concern out there too which can condemn someone who is supposed to be getting life-saving treatment to something that can prove fatal or needlessly diminish their quality of life. It's not worth the risk...and due to the lifestyle risks that come along with male homosexuality the RC asks them not to donate the same way they ask people who have spent X amount of time in certain countries or who have used IV drugs or who have gotten tattoos not to donate...because it makes the blood supply riskier. Even with the bans in place and the screenings currently done, every year a few people contract HIV (or other diseases) from blood transfusions. Doing things that will increase that number of people is fucking evil. The forces of political correctness, of course, will not tolerate any judgment on approved lifestyles...even when there's a solid medical and scientific basis to do so. Because fuck that little kid who needs a blood transfusion to survive, nobody is going to disapprove of my lifestyle in any way! If he needs the blood to survive and the only available donor was gay would you turn down the small risk of disease or just let him go ahead and die with no blood at all? I don't know if you thought your silly question is witty, or if you intended to be snarky, but just as silly-- If YOU, or your beloved child, needed blood to survive, and you could choose between mine, which has been tested for many years and KNOWN to be "clean" and that of a homosexual man donating for the first time, would you choose the homosexual man's blood just to show "solidarity" with him? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 8:41:42 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They pretty much are. Hell, if you got a tattoo within a certain time frame you can't donate. I can't donate because I spent most of the 80's in Europe, 20+ years later, I might have teh mad cow. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
All higher risk populations should be banned. They pretty much are. Hell, if you got a tattoo within a certain time frame you can't donate. I can't donate because I spent most of the 80's in Europe, 20+ years later, I might have teh mad cow. We're watching you, so don't act odd, at all, or we will be forced to put you down. 
Heh! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 8:42:53 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Still dont get it. Straight people can get AIDS also. Should we only take blood from Virgin children? Iam cool if that ends up being the case. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Why cant they donate? I dont get it. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/gender/msm/facts/index.html Get it now? Still dont get it. Straight people can get AIDS also. Should we only take blood from Virgin children? Iam cool if that ends up being the case. Gays are a statistically small portion of the population that have an insanely high amount of diseases. The mathematical increase in risk isn't worth the benefit. Here, I'll simplify it for you. Would you increase the blood supply by 10%, and be willing to accept a 100% increase in contamination? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 8:43:26 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How's this? Make the ban on receptive promiscuous sex rather than on being gay? A pair of married gays are no more likely to have aids than anyone else. A hooker in sub saharan Africa though........... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You are mad at "special snowflakes" for wanting to make donations to the Red Cross?
Oh the horror! What charity will they demand to give to next?! yea, doc. stats are a pain, as is AIDS. so, just because you want disease in your blood does not mean I do. and the fact that "can't you just test for aids?" how about why can't IV drug users give blood? how about blood born disease folks giving blood? we can test for it, correct? how about diabetic folks giving blood? we can test for it. I just love that gays are just like everyone else. lifestyle choices have consequences. gay is a lifestyle with risks. why must they demand everyone else bless their choices? did you know that blood banks don't like diabetics? well, we should demand they take our blood. it is not fair! so, you get in a car accident and need some blood. IV drug users are donating blood. you want that? I guess your trust is greater than me. blood is already expensive. to test for every known and unknown disease in every pint of blood so that a select group does not feel left out? now that is accommodation. what about law suits from giving bad blood and causing disease in an otherwise healthy person? naw, that would not happen.
How's this? Make the ban on receptive promiscuous sex rather than on being gay? A pair of married gays are no more likely to have aids than anyone else. A hooker in sub saharan Africa though........... Yes they are Guys should have the freedom to fuck whoever they want But they take the risks with it. So do heteros that take part in highly sexual lifestyles, but the gay population really is dirty and risky in terms of pure statistical fact. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 8:43:35 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If he needs the blood to survive and the only available donor was gay would you turn down the small risk of disease or just let him go ahead and die with no blood at all? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm just saying - nobody at a Red Cross is going to know if you're "out and proud", unless you walk in and immediately start cutting hair and redecorating the place. Ergo, I kind of hope they're testing the blood, instead of taking a donor's word for it. You're a smart guy, Sub. It's a statistics issue. Sure, they test blood. Tests are only X% effective. The more contaminated blood you put in the supply, the higher the chance is that infected blood will get through. Of the methods of HIV exposure that are out there, blood transfusion has the highest contraction rate out of all of them...which isn't surprising, really. There are other diseases of concern out there too which can condemn someone who is supposed to be getting life-saving treatment to something that can prove fatal or needlessly diminish their quality of life. It's not worth the risk...and due to the lifestyle risks that come along with male homosexuality the RC asks them not to donate the same way they ask people who have spent X amount of time in certain countries or who have used IV drugs or who have gotten tattoos not to donate...because it makes the blood supply riskier. Even with the bans in place and the screenings currently done, every year a few people contract HIV (or other diseases) from blood transfusions. Doing things that will increase that number of people is fucking evil. The forces of political correctness, of course, will not tolerate any judgment on approved lifestyles...even when there's a solid medical and scientific basis to do so. Because fuck that little kid who needs a blood transfusion to survive, nobody is going to disapprove of my lifestyle in any way! If he needs the blood to survive and the only available donor was gay would you turn down the small risk of disease or just let him go ahead and die with no blood at all? But thats not the case. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 8:44:32 AM EDT
[#32]
I don't want any fag blood. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 8:47:39 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The problem with that is there are many strains of AIDS and the more strains that one has, the more difficult survival is.  Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Anyone seen recent data on infectious diseases in gay men? I know that a lot of them are really complete whores (?) who think nothing of pulling a train on a Saturday night. AIDS testing has got better but Hep C, Syphilis and God knows what else are out there, contaminated blood does not mean HIV only. Signal & Noise, book by Nate Silver, had an interesting bit of data on that. Fear of HIV led to a drop in promiscuity. It seems, however, that gay men have started hooking up based on HIV status. So positives will look for other positives, and negatives for negatives. The spread of HIV drops, but other STDs are unaffected. The problem with that is there are many strains of AIDS and the more strains that one has, the more difficult survival is. You are glad aids kills them? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 8:48:47 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't want any fag blood. Thanks. Might want to edit |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 8:49:59 AM EDT
[#35]
I've been banned from donating blood ( O negative) on account of having lived in Europe during the 1990s and eating meat (mad cow disease scare).
It's their rules, so I'm fine with it. But would I demand that they take my blood? No. If they don't want it, I don't want to give it. So what's this really about if not once again demanding to be treated 'equally' even though they're NOT equal as in 'identical'.... they intentionally expose themselves to pathogens that can kill and have no cure. But then want to be treated as one of the guys? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 8:50:32 AM EDT
[#36]
New HIV Cases for 2010
The MSM/Red denotes Men who have Sex with Men. So either gay or bi. That year there were an estimated 38,000 new HIV infections among men in the United States. Seventy-eight percent (29,800) of these were among MSM(Gay/Bi). |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 8:50:38 AM EDT
[#37]
I'm sorry, but I don't really want this dudes blood in the system.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 8:50:44 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If he needs the blood to survive and the only available donor was gay would you turn down the small risk of disease or just let him go ahead and die with no blood at all? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The forces of political correctness, of course, will not tolerate any judgment on approved lifestyles...even when there's a solid medical and scientific basis to do so. Because fuck that little kid who needs a blood transfusion to survive, nobody is going to disapprove of my lifestyle in any way! If he needs the blood to survive and the only available donor was gay would you turn down the small risk of disease or just let him go ahead and die with no blood at all? IF being the keyword in your hypothetical statement. IF the kid needs the blood and the only available doner was gay then most sane people would take the blood and hope for the best. However, there are many available doners that are not gay. In fact, most would-be doners are not gay. So, if you have a choice to give the little kid blood from a large body of doners from low-risk categories, or blood from a very slightly larger body of doners from low-to-high risk categories, which do you choose? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 8:51:23 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryI always heard math was for faggots. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 8:51:25 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
New HIV Cases for 2010 http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/images/web/msm_hiv_cases_graph_2014.jpg The MSM/Red denotes Men who have Sex with Men. So either gay or bi. That year there were an estimated 38,000 new HIV infections among men in the United States. Seventy-eight percent (29,800) of these were among MSM(Gay/Bi). The other 18% won't admit to their gay activities |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 8:51:47 AM EDT
[#41]
lol
But inkies ARE allowed to donate blood?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 8:52:27 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You are mad at "special snowflakes" for wanting to make donations to the Red Cross?
Oh the horror! What charity will they demand to give to next?! Financial donations are one thing. Bodily fluid donations are completely different. If you have a problem with this ... ask Arthur Ashe and Isaac Asimov what the downside of this can be. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 8:52:55 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Or, they could just...I don't know...lie.
What a dumb "ban". I presume the blood is tested, given that some people...I don't know...lie. But many probably don't lie. I do t think anyone is under the impression that it's foolproof. It's about minimizing risk. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 8:54:17 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Same reason they don't let people who lived in Scotland during a certain time period donate blood. Which, if I recall correctly, has a lower chance of contaminating the blood supply that a gay donation of blood would. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Is blood from gay people untestable for diseases or are you all afraid of transferring the gay? Considering gay people only make up 1.6% of the population it simply isn't worth the higher risk of contaminating the supply. Cost-benefit and all that. Same reason they don't let people who lived in Scotland during a certain time period donate blood. Which, if I recall correctly, has a lower chance of contaminating the blood supply that a gay donation of blood would. It's expanded from Scotland to Europe. I used to give blood, then they changed it to encompass my time in Germany. TXL |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 8:54:29 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Anyone seen recent data on infectious diseases in gay men? I know that a lot of them are really complete whores (?) who think nothing of pulling a train on a Saturday night. AIDS testing has got better but Hep C, Syphilis and God knows what else are out there, contaminated blood does not mean HIV only. You'd be surprised how many straight folks are walking incubators. , A gay man or woman in a relationship for 10 years is less likely to be a carrier, than the 23 yr old, college student. By a long shot. Maybe we need to ask if they're a pedophile before donating. Who the hell knows what shit they've gotten in to. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 8:54:33 AM EDT
[#46]
i hope i don't ever need blood, i do not want the aids. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 8:54:51 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
But many probably don't lie. I do t think anyone is under the impression that it's foolproof. It's about minimizing risk. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Or, they could just...I don't know...lie.
What a dumb "ban". I presume the blood is tested, given that some people...I don't know...lie. But many probably don't lie. I do t think anyone is under the impression that it's foolproof. It's about minimizing risk. Sadly yes. I know one man who donated anyway, despite his at-risk sexual practices. We've reached a sad low when people put their egos above the lives of others |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 8:56:35 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm just saying - nobody at a Red Cross is going to know if you're "out and proud", unless you walk in and immediately start cutting hair and redecorating the place. Ergo, I kind of hope they're testing the blood, instead of taking a donor's word for it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Or, they could just...I don't know...lie.
What a dumb "ban". I presume the blood is tested, given that some people...I don't know...lie. You can't be "out and proud" if you are forced to lie. Forced.
Given the months-long period between HIV infection and testing positive, and given the numbers of homosexual men who are infected, this is a ridiculous notion. Spread the misery--so typical these days. I'm just saying - nobody at a Red Cross is going to know if you're "out and proud", unless you walk in and immediately start cutting hair and redecorating the place. Ergo, I kind of hope they're testing the blood, instead of taking a donor's word for it. They do test rather than just taking the word. But fewer contaminated donations means less chance for mistakes to occur. Risk mitigation is multi-tiered. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 8:57:06 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
lol But inkies ARE allowed to donate blood? 6 months after their last tattoo. AND or (depending on location) A document from the Tattoo Studio outlining how their universal precautions, Autoclave test logs etc. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 8:58:20 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
lol But inkies ARE allowed to donate blood? Not during the first year after they are defiled. Same with piercings. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
