User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 9:00:26 AM EDT
[#1]
if more people died from aids then we would work harder on the cure, plus it works to control the population
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 9:01:51 AM EDT
[#2]
I fully support a ban on people who's lifestyles constitutes an undo risk to the blood supply. IV drug uses and people engaged in in high risk unprotected sex seem to be two good ones to ban.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 9:02:58 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
if more people died from aids then we would work harder on the cure, plus it works to control the population As we all know, AIDS was invented by white people at the CIA so as to kill off the black race. Troof! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 9:04:37 AM EDT
[#4]
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). I'm amazed that Female Heterosexual sex is now a bigger risk than IV drug use. In the 90s IV drug use was as bad as Male Homosexual sex. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 9:05:56 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I always heard math was for faggots. Quote HistoryQuoted:
I always heard math was for faggots. No, that's reading... try and keep up... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 9:06:07 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. 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. 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. Yeah, between JW_777 and TBK1 taking the time to explain it, I get the rationale now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 9:08:51 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
if more people died from aids then we would work harder on the cure, plus it works to control the population <slaps sarcasm meter> Is this thing on? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 9:09:45 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
lol But inkies ARE allowed to donate blood? Just the ones in the closet 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 9:09:58 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Is blood from gay people untestable for diseases or are you all afraid of transferring the gay? they used to donate as a way to get tested free |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 9:18:53 AM EDT
[#10]
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? There is a questionnaire that everyone fills out before they actually take your blood, and one of the questions asks "if you are man and you sexual contact with another man in the 1 year," if you answer "yes," they won't take your blood. It is also asks if you stay in the GB for more than a year, if you have been to Haiti and Africa, a yes to any of those will disqualify you and they put you on a list not donating blood. It is pretty much on the honor system. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 9:21:23 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Just the ones in the closet Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
lol But inkies ARE allowed to donate blood? Just the ones in the closet Those are the most dangerous and insidious of their kind!! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 9:22:55 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: <slaps sarcasm meter> Is this thing on? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: if more people died from aids then we would work harder on the cure, plus it works to control the population <slaps sarcasm meter> Is this thing on? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 9:23:39 AM EDT
[#13]
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?! AIDS! |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 9:25:48 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Put their donated blood in jars marked "Gay Blood - for Gays Only".  I'm picturing the large glass jar from Borat labeled "Gypsie Tears" |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 9:25:55 AM EDT
[#15]
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?! I suspect it has more to do with them being slighted and wanting to force the issue to make a scene than it is them wanting to give so bad they'd fight over it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 9:26:14 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryWhat's really crazy is looking at the wording of all the reasons behind different eligibility statements and the only one that is "political" is the statement on men who have sex with men. All the others just say wait a certain amount of time or just no with possibly some simple justifications. If I was homosexual, I wouldn't be offended by a simpler statement. Statistics matter. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 9:27:28 AM EDT
[#17]
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! It just can't be said any better than this. But of course, facts are racist straightist? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 9:29:10 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
But of course, facts are racist straightist? IIRC, 'hetero-normative' is the latest buzzword among the Pro-Gays. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 9:41:21 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Gay does not equal child molester. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
i guess they are in favor of letting child molesters volunteer at preschools too? fucking idiots. no thanks, i'd rather not get aids Gay does not equal child molester. Analogy doesn't mean synonym. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 9:47:37 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You are glad aids kills them? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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? You are a very sick person if you think that. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 9:54:49 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
if more people died from aids then we would work harder on the cure, plus it works to control the population Not true. Current funding for AIDS far exceeds what many more common diseases get.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 9:55:12 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I suspect it has more to do with them being slighted and wanting to force the issue to make a scene than it is them wanting to give so bad they'd fight over it. 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?! I suspect it has more to do with them being slighted and wanting to force the issue to make a scene than it is them wanting to give so bad they'd fight over it. The "fight" here is an online petition, so it isn't much of a crusade. Overall, I certainly believe it is a symbolic effort. It is about breaking stereotypes. No one questions the legitimacy of restricting blood donations according to certain activities or medical concerns. Instead, it appears to be an effort to redirect the focus of one type of restriction. Does the ban prohibit anyone who self-describes themselves as gay? For instance, are lesbians prohibited? Or do restrictions focus on specific activities according to each individual? (One can be gay and not sexually active, just as someone can be straight and not sexually active.) |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 9:56:18 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not true. Current funding for AIDS far exceeds what many more common diseases get. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
if more people died from aids then we would work harder on the cure, plus it works to control the population Not true. Current funding for AIDS far exceeds what many more common diseases get. AIDS is also a more severe disease that most common diseases, with no known treatment beyond "hope you don't die tomorrow". Why would it make you angry that it receives a lot of funding? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 9:58:05 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The "fight" here is an online petition, so it isn't much of a crusade. Overall, I certainly believe it is a symbolic effort. It is about breaking stereotypes. No one questions the legitimacy of restricting blood donations according to certain activities or medical concerns. Instead, it appears to be an effort to redirect the focus of one type of restriction. Does the ban prohibit anyone who self-describes themselves as gay? For instance, are lesbians prohibited? Or do restrictions focus on specific activities according to each individual? (One can be gay and not sexually active, just as someone can be straight and not sexually active.) 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?! I suspect it has more to do with them being slighted and wanting to force the issue to make a scene than it is them wanting to give so bad they'd fight over it. The "fight" here is an online petition, so it isn't much of a crusade. Overall, I certainly believe it is a symbolic effort. It is about breaking stereotypes. No one questions the legitimacy of restricting blood donations according to certain activities or medical concerns. Instead, it appears to be an effort to redirect the focus of one type of restriction. Does the ban prohibit anyone who self-describes themselves as gay? For instance, are lesbians prohibited? Or do restrictions focus on specific activities according to each individual? (One can be gay and not sexually active, just as someone can be straight and not sexually active.) This is more of an FAQ than a legal document, but here's the FDA's answer. Blood Donations from Men Who Have Sex with Other Men Questions and Answers Edit: TL;DR, men who have had sex with other men since 1977. Presumably works on the same honor system that the "have you been Scotland since 1986" type questions do. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 9:59:30 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You are a very sick person if you think that. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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? You are a very sick person if you think that. I was trying to figure out if you were being sarcastic. Not accusing just asking It wouldn't put it past a lot her to say that though. It's probably in the thread already and I missed skimming it |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 10:07:02 AM EDT
[#26]
Russian Roulette with the blood supply....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 10:07:19 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: lol But inkies ARE allowed to donate blood? If they got an unregulated tattoo, they have to wait 12 months. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 10:14:39 AM EDT
[#28]
Gotta love seeing the GD social warriors out fighting against the statistics and science that show homosexual blood donations to be a bad idea.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 10:18:38 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
AIDS is also a more severe disease that most common diseases, with no known treatment beyond "hope you don't die tomorrow". Why would it make you angry that it receives a lot of funding? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
if more people died from aids then we would work harder on the cure, plus it works to control the population Not true. Current funding for AIDS far exceeds what many more common diseases get. AIDS is also a more severe disease that most common diseases, with no known treatment beyond "hope you don't die tomorrow". Why would it make you angry that it receives a lot of funding? I can't answer for him, but perhaps because AIDS/HIV is almost exclusively lifestyle and behavior-oriented in its transmission, and therefore easily avoided, whereas people are simply stricken with other diseases. If various ones care so little about their life and future as to engage in risky behavior--while knowing the risks--then why should tax money be used to save them from themselves, and at the expense of other diseases most would therefore consider to be more worthy? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 10:23:23 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yeah, between JW_777 and TBK1 taking the time to explain it, I get the rationale now. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. 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. Yeah, between JW_777 and TBK1 taking the time to explain it, I get the rationale now. The fact that it took some sort of explanation for you to agree that people who are super high risk for carrying an incurable blood transferred virus shouldn't be allowed to donate blood is pathetic. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 10:32:01 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. Reading comprehension is fundamental and all that. The promiscuity and being on the receiving end of it is what bumps up the risk. Both men and women have butt holes, so you can have an anal slut with tits or with balls. That said, I have given blood, many many times. They don't want mine lately because of the places I work, but I'm pretty familiar with the process. Unless they've changed their questions, they don't ask if you've taken a lot of dicks up your butt (what they're concerned about). They ask if you've had sex with a dude. Not necessarily the same, and Anal Alice might fit the danger zone for that than a lot of queers. I'm not trying to defend promiscuous butt seks. I'm trying to say they could structure the automatic deferral differently and reduce the risk. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 10:32:25 AM EDT
[#32]
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? They ask you a series of questions about potentially risky behavior, some of which is sexual.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 10:34:47 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. Not having any direct experience in this, I have no way to confirm your claim. What was your sample size and how did you conduct your study? I mean, did you go to gay bars, or just meet dudes on the web or what? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 10:35:10 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The fact that it took some sort of explanation for you to agree that people who are super high risk for carrying an incurable blood transferred virus shouldn't be allowed to donate blood is pathetic. I'll bet you're a hoot at parties. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 10:38:44 AM EDT
[#35]
Why does a petition having anything to do with protection of public health?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 10:41:21 AM EDT
[#36]
I support equal protection under the law and all that, but I believe that we should all be equally protected from the risk of contracting AIDS.
I'm going with that's a bad idea. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 10:42:20 AM EDT
[#37]
Hey, what the hell, why not stop testing blood donations for the AIDS and hepatitis viruses while they're at it too. What could go wrong.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 10:43:37 AM EDT
[#38]
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. Yep. I lived there for a few years and as a result, they will not allow me to donate blood or platelets. I don't take it personally. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 10:44:48 AM EDT
[#39]
A small segment (between 1-3% of population) makes up for what percentage of AIDS and other blood borne pathogens?
I don't have the exact figure but I believe it's somewhere in the neighborhood of "pretty fucking high" Stupid fucking idea. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 10:46:11 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not having any direct experience in this, I have no way to confirm your claim. What was your sample size and how did you conduct your study? I mean, did you go to gay bars, or just meet dudes on the web or what? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. Not having any direct experience in this, I have no way to confirm your claim. What was your sample size and how did you conduct your study? I mean, did you go to gay bars, or just meet dudes on the web or what? Stats are in this thread |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 10:55:01 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not during the first year after they are defiled. Same with piercings. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
lol But inkies ARE allowed to donate blood? Not during the first year after they are defiled. Same with piercings. Clearly, that's not enough time for the stain on their soul to fade. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 11:06:11 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
At one time those people were banned too. 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?! Ya, and IV drug users, men who frequent prostitutes, prostitutes, women who have sex w/ men that have sex w/ men, and people likely to be exposed to other blood born diseases due to geographical influences and vocational pursuits should be encouraged to "donate" as well. At one time those people were banned too. They still are. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 11:18:26 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: lol But inkies ARE allowed to donate blood? Not for a year after getting inked, iirc. Same with living high risk areas like Iraq. I've had several time-outs from being a donor. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 11:55:21 AM EDT
[#44]
Anyone who advocates to increase the risk of HIV into the blood supply is a complete and utter moron. Blood and blood products are used in more ways than just car accidents. Take a quick look at the chart above and you will see where and who the majority of blood is going to. And let that sink in that's who is going to get your tainted blood supply. Just because they want to be "Loud & Proud" or be "Accepted as Normal" doesn't mean you get to force all those groups above to play Russian roulette with your tainted blood. Are you that damn cold & callous that you would infect a child undergoing chemotherapy....or a new mother and baby who just survived a complicated pregnancy....with your tainted HIV blood and blood products.......just so your aberrant lifestyle fits more into the norm of society? All of those groups listed above have compromised immune systems in some way. A father who just received full body radiation treatment; a haemophiliac 5th grader who is undergoing platelet therapy; some little leaguer who broke his arm sliding into home; an uncle who needs a kidney transplant....these are the people who will suffer for your actions. Look, if you want to run in these high risk groups (I.V. drug users, MSM's) fine. That's your choice, but do not advocate spreading your diseases to the weakest and most innocent of society. Mother Nature doesn't give a rat's ass about your advocacy for social justice. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 12:03:15 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Stats are in this thread Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
[ 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. Not having any direct experience in this, I have no way to confirm your claim. What was your sample size and how did you conduct your study? I mean, did you go to gay bars, or just meet dudes on the web or what? Stats are in this thread If they are the same stats I responded to, the ones that made him think a pair of MARRIED gay dudes had a higher risk than a sub saharan African whore.......Let's say they lack a certain credibility. I've seen stats all over the place saying amazingly, exactly what the people who put them together were paid to make em say. I'll make my own call based on the causal mechanisms involved. Someone who takes a lot of dicks in the butt should not donate. Someone who doesn't do that, or share needles, etc, should be OK. The questionnaire should ask about how many different bareback anal shots you've taken in the last year, not whether you suck dicks. One behavior increases risk regardless of gender. The other not so much, regardless of gender. The goal should be to have a safe abundant blood supply and a simple change to how they structure the auto-deferral would help do that without increasing risk. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 12:03:52 PM EDT
[#46]
OH SNAP! You got da AIDS...for the sake of political correctness. Enjoy!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 12:15:53 PM EDT
[#47]
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?! No, we're mad about queers et al pushing their agenda on society at every possible turn and into every possible corner. In this case, a risky agenda based on risky aberrant behavior. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 12:20:49 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why can't they mark that blood? I would not want it. Once it has been screened, it's going to be dumped. That means the product, time to capture the blood, and cost to store the blood were wasted, and that waste could have been avoided. Some clever guy will get the idea that what we need are "gay blood banks"; I don't expect to see a long line of patients that want to use that blood, they are going to ask for the good stuff that is less likely to be poison. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 12:25:32 PM EDT
[#49]
They don't really even ask if you are gay, they ask males if they've had sex with another male.
Lesbians and celibate gays are g2g. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 12:25:37 PM EDT
[#50]
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........... The blood donation form will ask if you have ever "received money for sex", so the hooker would be excluded. Their guidelines are based on the real world, not prejudice or social experimentation. Also, FYI for people who have never given blood, the relevant question to this thread is worded as "If you are a man, have you ever had sex with another man (even once)" at the blood bank I go to. |
|
|
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.
