Angels & Demons
discussion
Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion?
C-Cose wrote: Please don't ever presume to know my intentions, the causes I fight for / against, or my thoughts. I can categorically state that you are woefully uneducated on those fronts. You may know much else; you don't know me. "You sound as though I have touched a nerve, you seem to be over reacting.
I did not know if you were gay, so fighting from your corner was a way of saying 'to defend something that you believe in'. Having checked your profile I assume that to be so.
is that of fair treatment for all that comes from minimized bias: be that treatment of GLBT(Q) people, those with mental / psychological difficulties, the poor, women, neglected children, the elderly, or the person that can't get a simple coffee at Starbucks w/o listening to a sing-song litany while it's being prepared ... well maybe not the last one ...
...... and do you think that others don't have their own causes to fight from the other side?
C-Cose wrote: If ... caught speeding = disclosure of risky sexual activityThen ... all "caught speeding" would be disallowed from blood donation."
Correct, I think you have proved my point. :)
.....not all are caught.
cHriS wrote: "...... and do you think that others don't have their own causes to fight from the other side? "I don't know where I've ever said that. I think it's safe to assume that most people have their own causes to fight ... from any "side".
As for my nerves ... the only thing that effects them on a regular basis these days is fibromyalgia. Assumptions about me certainly don't. It was a simple request for you not to make baseless assumptions about me.
cHriS wrote: "C-Cose wrote: If ... caught speeding = disclosure of risky sexual activityThen ... all "caught speeding" would be disallowed from blood donation."
Correct, I think you have proved my point. :)
...."
Can you not read cHriS? Seriously. The terms in my logical proof were distinctly defined.
Specifically, "But ... not all (in Canada) are forced to disclose that information."
If it's any easier, I can always post a Venn Diagram for you.
cHriS wrote: "and do you think that others don't have their own causes to fight from the other side?"It depends on what you mean is your 'side'. I, for example, am actually straight, but my 'side' is the one against prejudice.
Since you have argued for the right for people to hate and the right for people to be prejudice, it seems you have declared your side. Unless you wish to correct me and denounce prejudice?
cHriS wrote: "Correct, I think you have proved my point. :)
.....not all are caught."
It proves the point that if you want to "catch" all risks then you don't ignore the majority and police only the minority.
cHriS wrote: "C-Cose wrote: If ... caught speeding = disclosure of risky sexual activity
Then ... all "caught speeding" would be disallowed from blood donation."
Correct, I think you have proved my point. :)
...."
I'm confused as to what point you're trying to make cHriS. Truly.
Are you trying to say that two wrongs make a right? I'm sure that's not what you're trying to say, but it looks that way.
If two cars are speeding beside one another or one in front of the other, the drivers from both cars should be pulled over ....
Because ....
... both drivers pose the same risk to society.
One could say that is the point.
If the police officer pulls over the out-of-state driver instead of the in-state driver, she might be showing bias.
Or, if the police officer pulled over the Lexus instead of the Corolla, he might be showing bias.
Yeah, let's say they were both going 90. Same speed. Same risk.
Just because some police officers might pull over some drivers who pose a risk and not others, doesn't, in my mind, mean we should allow some people who pose a risk to the blood supply to donate and not others.
Then ... all "caught speeding" would be disallowed from blood donation."
Correct, I think you have proved my point. :)
...."
I'm confused as to what point you're trying to make cHriS. Truly.
Are you trying to say that two wrongs make a right? I'm sure that's not what you're trying to say, but it looks that way.
If two cars are speeding beside one another or one in front of the other, the drivers from both cars should be pulled over ....
Because ....
... both drivers pose the same risk to society.
One could say that is the point.
If the police officer pulls over the out-of-state driver instead of the in-state driver, she might be showing bias.
Or, if the police officer pulled over the Lexus instead of the Corolla, he might be showing bias.
Yeah, let's say they were both going 90. Same speed. Same risk.
Just because some police officers might pull over some drivers who pose a risk and not others, doesn't, in my mind, mean we should allow some people who pose a risk to the blood supply to donate and not others.
Shannon wrote: Given the fact that you don't agree with that, I'd ask .... What is more important to you? Safe blood transfusions or taking a stand against the idea that applying the same standard to all, in order to protect the populous, is bowing to the pressure to be politically correct?
Safe blood transfusions or the refusal to appear politically correct?
I'm going for safe blood transfusions. "
PC does not come into it.
In an ideal world everyone can give blood and the blood will be safe.
We are not in an ideal world and compromise has to be made. I guess this is because of cost, the supply of blood, the short time the blood lasts and many other factors.
In the Uk they ask some gay men to wait 12 months(details above),I guess because they feel there could be a risk and it is less costly to minimise the risk that way than to test the blood. Where as it would be more difficult to do this for everyone and that would cause a shortage of blood. Maybe in Canada their rules are tighter.
Because of homosexual promiscuity the infection rates are much higher in gay man. That is the belief much of society has. May be it's true maybe it's not. But it is the perception that counts. Change that perception if it is not true and views will change.
Maybe this is where science could be more helpful.
If you have had a transfusion in Canada, as far as I am aware you could not give blood in the UK. I don't think it's because we object to Canadian blood.
Gary wrote: But bullying is fine according to you,..."I did not say that, but it good to know that bullying was what you were doing.
cHriS wrote: "Because of homosexual promiscuity the infection rates are much higher in gay man. That is the belief much of society has. May be it's true maybe it's not. But it is the perception that counts. Change that perception if it is not true and views will change."cHriS,
How exactly is one to change the perception of people regarding "homosexual promiscuity"?
From Cambridge Online
"a belief or opinion, often held by many people and based on how things seem" -- emphasis added.
Would you suggest abstinence from sexual activity for all gay men? How about monogamy? No? Sexual activity only within the confines of a legal union or marriage? Or how about sterilization of gay men?
By definition, it is near impossible to changes someone else's perception of anything ... as it is "based on how things seem". One's perception is their own to change ... it cannot be done by anyone else.
Well, we definitely don't live in an ideal world. Certain diseases, HIV and hepatitis, can be passed through our blood. So, not everyone should give blood.
I don't think policies, especially if they're set by scientists, medical professionals, or governments should be based on perception. My opinion.
I don't think it's, necessarily, here nor there that people perceive gay men to be promiscuous. (Unless we're talking about why people might discriminate against others ... due to perceptions ... perceptions that they're different and, maybe, wrong.)
Personally, I try not to deal in over generalizations any more than I can help it. I've also read articles stating certain practices within certain segments of the homosexual community are changing ... due to, for example, the threat of HIV. I read those articles a looooonnnnggg time ago. So, are those perceptions accurate?
Further, I actually know heterosexuals, male and female, who have been ridiculously promiscuous.
So, again ....
If promiscuity is the issue, not just a particular sex act, shouldn't we exclude anyone who might have been promiscuous?
I mean ....
If we want to keep the blood supply safe and if we want to keep people safe, wouldn't we want to ask anyone who has placed him/herself at risk or who has been placed at risk by another (assault), to wait 12 months prior to donating?
That, in my mind, would be about keeping everyone safe. It wouldn't be about gay rights or being PC. I'm not even, necessarily, saying I want all gay men to be able to give blood. Woo Hoo! Gay men! That's not what this is about. (Though, I find it hard to stomach when people, regardless of how they might be "different" from the majority, are treated as degenerates, or less than, or deficient, or .... But, that's truly another subject.)
If the blood supply isn't as safe as doctors have blathered on about, we need to address the issue. If it's not safe because HIV might takes 12 months to show in blood, we have a serious issue. I don't give a flying fig about percentages. Anyone who is at risk should not be allowed to donate. Period.
Now, if it's about something else, .... Maybe we should deal with that.
I don't think policies, especially if they're set by scientists, medical professionals, or governments should be based on perception. My opinion.
I don't think it's, necessarily, here nor there that people perceive gay men to be promiscuous. (Unless we're talking about why people might discriminate against others ... due to perceptions ... perceptions that they're different and, maybe, wrong.)
Personally, I try not to deal in over generalizations any more than I can help it. I've also read articles stating certain practices within certain segments of the homosexual community are changing ... due to, for example, the threat of HIV. I read those articles a looooonnnnggg time ago. So, are those perceptions accurate?
Further, I actually know heterosexuals, male and female, who have been ridiculously promiscuous.
So, again ....
If promiscuity is the issue, not just a particular sex act, shouldn't we exclude anyone who might have been promiscuous?
I mean ....
If we want to keep the blood supply safe and if we want to keep people safe, wouldn't we want to ask anyone who has placed him/herself at risk or who has been placed at risk by another (assault), to wait 12 months prior to donating?
That, in my mind, would be about keeping everyone safe. It wouldn't be about gay rights or being PC. I'm not even, necessarily, saying I want all gay men to be able to give blood. Woo Hoo! Gay men! That's not what this is about. (Though, I find it hard to stomach when people, regardless of how they might be "different" from the majority, are treated as degenerates, or less than, or deficient, or .... But, that's truly another subject.)
If the blood supply isn't as safe as doctors have blathered on about, we need to address the issue. If it's not safe because HIV might takes 12 months to show in blood, we have a serious issue. I don't give a flying fig about percentages. Anyone who is at risk should not be allowed to donate. Period.
Now, if it's about something else, .... Maybe we should deal with that.
In addition, ....
Why would anyone's sexual orientation be relevant to this discussion?
For me, the point seems simple.
Either medical professionals or the government has not been upfront with us regarding the safety of the blood supply or a certain segment of our population is not allowed to give blood due to bigotry.
It's, in my mind, that simple.
If it's safe for a heterosexual who partakes in certain acts to give blood, it's safe for a gay man.
If it's truly not safe for a gay man to give blood unless he's abstained for the past 12 months, etc..., it's not safe for a heterosexual who partakes in certain acts to give blood.
If that's the truth of it, we need to change our policies.
That's what we've been arguing. I have. C and Gary have.
Why would anyone's sexual orientation come into play?
If we want to divulge that ... if we want to talk about our personal lives, etc..., that's our choice. We can make that part of the discussion. We, all of us, know I have.
But, why would this be relevant to the current discussion?
Why would anyone's sexual orientation be relevant to this discussion?
For me, the point seems simple.
Either medical professionals or the government has not been upfront with us regarding the safety of the blood supply or a certain segment of our population is not allowed to give blood due to bigotry.
It's, in my mind, that simple.
If it's safe for a heterosexual who partakes in certain acts to give blood, it's safe for a gay man.
If it's truly not safe for a gay man to give blood unless he's abstained for the past 12 months, etc..., it's not safe for a heterosexual who partakes in certain acts to give blood.
If that's the truth of it, we need to change our policies.
That's what we've been arguing. I have. C and Gary have.
Why would anyone's sexual orientation come into play?
If we want to divulge that ... if we want to talk about our personal lives, etc..., that's our choice. We can make that part of the discussion. We, all of us, know I have.
But, why would this be relevant to the current discussion?
C-Cose wrote: ". . How exactly is one to change the perception of people regarding "homosexual promiscuity ."The subject of blood and some gay men not being able to give blood is discussed here, you have an interest in the subject because it may possibility effect you. It does not effect me. But like a lot of other discussions I have a point of view, with the right debate that view could be changed.
My view is that if the authorities concerned set the guidelines , unless I know otherwise I assume they have reasons for doing so.
If they change the guidelines regarding gay men then public perception will change.
Shannon wrote: "In addition, ....Why would anyone's sexual orientation be relevant to this dscussion"
What are we discussing then?
cHriS wrote: "My view is that if the authorities concerned set the guidelines , unless I know otherwise I assume they have reasons for doing so.If they change the guidelines regarding gay men then public perception will change."
So in this matter then, your perceptions will change based on the guidelines as set by the "authorities". Understood.
As your perceptions are unlikely to change in the near future, I see no benefit in discussing your views with you. I'll reserve any future comments--to you--for the "authorities" should they ever decide to grace this discussion board.
I've said all that I can discuss with you.
C-Cose wrote: "cHriS wrote: "My view is that if the authorities concerned set the guidelines , unless I know otherwise I assume they have reasons for doing so.If they change the guidelines regarding gay men the..."
As I said......
with the right debate that view could be changed.
but your mind is already made up, anyone who does not follow your line of thought must be a bigot.
Assuming all blood is tested after the person donates it, and is rejected if tainted. That's all fine, except for some diseases that may not show up for years afterwards like HIV. Besides, how would you weed out all people who have engaged in all types of dangerous behaviour - you can ask them in a questionnaire before they donate, but they could always lie. How could you be sure. I'm with the Jehovah's Witnesses - in most cases bloodless procedures are safe and successful - it's just that the surgeons have to be a lot more careful knowing they don't have that bag of blood there if they make a mistake. Many don't want the added stress.
cHriS wrote: "but your mind is already made up, anyone who does not follow your line of thought must be a bigot. "cHriS,
Once again you are placing words in my mouth that I did not utter. I wrote that the policy could be attributed to bigotry regarding this issue. I did not call you, or anyone else that disagrees with me a bigot. You may also have noticed that bigot was not the only descriptor that I used.
cHriS wrote: "Shannon wrote: "In addition, ....
Why would anyone's sexual orientation be relevant to this dscussion"
What are we discussing then?"
??
Well ....
C brought up something he considered to be "bad science" ... if I remember correctly. He told us that gay men aren't allowed to donate blood or organs, to differing extents. C contended, if memory serves, that this was an example of "bad science" given the fact that it seemed, to him, to be about (can't remember his wording) bias against gay men.
I said, "WHAT?!" I'd never heard of such a thing.
Then, I took us down a similar but different path.
Are scientists and medical professionals lying to us when they say the blood supply is safe? Scientists and medical professionals lie? Withhold the truth? I'm simply shocked! (Sarcasm intended.) I thoughts scientists were all about the facts and evidence. 24/7. (Yeah, given the fact that they're humans, just like the rest of us, I'm guessing they might have issues with this sometimes ... just like the rest of us ... especially if they think they know better than we do ... after all, we're not as edjumacated.)
Then, I went into my personal thoughts on the matter (never believed it was safe to begin with because, duh, I actually use my brain and think for myself) and gave personal anecdotes ... including why I refused a blood transfusion and said I refused any they might want to give me ... and discussed doctors I've had in the past who lied or withheld part of the truth or ....
Of course, the other piece of this is ....
If the blood bank isn't as safe as they've told us, it wouldn't be safe due to that nasty little fact that HIV can take 12 months to show up in blood. Whoops! Not something the doctors talk about when they tell you to have a blood transfusion. In my experience, at least....
Well, shoot ...!
If the blood supply isn't as safe as they say, for that reason, aren't there a lot of other people who shouldn't be allowed to donate. Like, people who have unprotected sex, anyone who has anal sex, anyone who shoots up .... You know.
(I'm actually wondering if you have bets on how many times I'll actually type "anal sex" and that's why you continue on your current path.)
At which point, if memory serves, you started talking about PC and safety and the fact that we should trust the government. Shudder. That if the government says ... we should ... Double shudder. Not shuddering at you, though. Shuddering at that kind of faith in the government.
And, we've been trying to say ... you know, it's really not about being PC or not being PC. Really, it's about whether or not the blood supply is safe and ensuring its safety. And, ... if it is safe, then, it's probably safe for gay men ... or some gay men ... to donate. 'Cause they're not the only ones on the planet to have sex, unprotected sex, or anal sex. Nor are they the only ones to be promiscuous.
(In fact, for years and years, a couple of women in my area would walk up to strange men at our local Walmart and say, "Want sex? My car in 15 minutes." They'd give the description of the car and its location. Yeah.... And, no, they didn't charge. Interestingly, I knew two men who admitted to trysts with them. And ... I'm pretty sure one of my family members might have partaken in the backseat delights offered so generously ... given the glint in his eye when he mentioned going to the Walmart here ... once a month ... despite living almost two hours away. I wonder if those women donated blood? I wonder if the men donated blood? Almost makes me wish I could go back in time and accept that blood transfusion.)
Now, it seems to me, by discussing how forcefully Gary and C are making their points and questioning their sexuality, you're making a judgment.
Only gay men would argue that all people who pose a risk to the blood supply should be turned away from blood draws. And, .... That has been their argument. I think. I don't think they're saying, "Gay men should give blood morning, noon and night. In fact, let's only let gay men give blood. Let's sing songs from Glee and, in order to promote gay rights, have blood drives that solicit gay men!"
Now, that was flip. The balance I've been trying to find is tipping. Might have started to tip a few paragraphs ago.
No, I think they're saying something along the lines of ... fair is fair ... risk is risk.
I've been saying ... if it's about risk and safety, we need to suck it up, act like functioning adults and deal with the problem. In order to do that, we'd actually need to get real and ask everyone about their sexual histories and we wouldn't allow people who are at risk donate.
Anything else, ... well ... it looks like bigotry. What else would one call it? Stupidity?
Do you truly think only gay men would argue that point? Gay men and one woman who jumps in to defend anyone or any group that seems to be treated inappropriately, in her opinion.
I don't think so. I think a lot of people, who were willing to look at this logically, would make this argument, regardless of whether we sleep alone at night or with someone of the same or opposite sex.
This is about logic and safety ....
This is about the fact that ...
The government and medical profession has lied to us, to one extent or the other. (If so, we need to deal with that ... if we actually care about safety.)
OR....
The government and medical profession makes policies based on bias, in this case, bias against gay men.
As an aside, I find that to be a rather odd irony. After all, for years both have had a bias toward men ... in general.
Yup. I just said it.
But, hey, they did just start doing medical tests that are specific to women ... since, in truth, men's bodies and women's bodies aren't the same. When did they start doing that? Ummmm.... Two minutes ago.
Balance tipping in a rather precarious manner ....
So, if it's not, after all, about safety, it is, I think, about bigotry.
Are homosexuals the only people who are concerned with bigotry?
I think not.
And, cHriS .... On the off chance you are taking bets as to how often I'll use the words "anal" and "sex" and ... hey, "tearing" ..., I hope you bet high. 'Cause ... I'm there. I'm going to spend the next little bit of time looking for percentages .... Yup. I'm gonna.
You have a right to your opinion, cHriS. That's cool. Even if I disagree with you to the height of Everest and back. But ....
Let's consider, each of us, what lines we'll cross in order to debate this subject. I don't think questioning Gary's sexuality or C's sexuality should enter into the debate. My opinion. (I can no longer even spell the word "balan.....")
Why would anyone's sexual orientation be relevant to this dscussion"
What are we discussing then?"
??
Well ....
C brought up something he considered to be "bad science" ... if I remember correctly. He told us that gay men aren't allowed to donate blood or organs, to differing extents. C contended, if memory serves, that this was an example of "bad science" given the fact that it seemed, to him, to be about (can't remember his wording) bias against gay men.
I said, "WHAT?!" I'd never heard of such a thing.
Then, I took us down a similar but different path.
Are scientists and medical professionals lying to us when they say the blood supply is safe? Scientists and medical professionals lie? Withhold the truth? I'm simply shocked! (Sarcasm intended.) I thoughts scientists were all about the facts and evidence. 24/7. (Yeah, given the fact that they're humans, just like the rest of us, I'm guessing they might have issues with this sometimes ... just like the rest of us ... especially if they think they know better than we do ... after all, we're not as edjumacated.)
Then, I went into my personal thoughts on the matter (never believed it was safe to begin with because, duh, I actually use my brain and think for myself) and gave personal anecdotes ... including why I refused a blood transfusion and said I refused any they might want to give me ... and discussed doctors I've had in the past who lied or withheld part of the truth or ....
Of course, the other piece of this is ....
If the blood bank isn't as safe as they've told us, it wouldn't be safe due to that nasty little fact that HIV can take 12 months to show up in blood. Whoops! Not something the doctors talk about when they tell you to have a blood transfusion. In my experience, at least....
Well, shoot ...!
If the blood supply isn't as safe as they say, for that reason, aren't there a lot of other people who shouldn't be allowed to donate. Like, people who have unprotected sex, anyone who has anal sex, anyone who shoots up .... You know.
(I'm actually wondering if you have bets on how many times I'll actually type "anal sex" and that's why you continue on your current path.)
At which point, if memory serves, you started talking about PC and safety and the fact that we should trust the government. Shudder. That if the government says ... we should ... Double shudder. Not shuddering at you, though. Shuddering at that kind of faith in the government.
And, we've been trying to say ... you know, it's really not about being PC or not being PC. Really, it's about whether or not the blood supply is safe and ensuring its safety. And, ... if it is safe, then, it's probably safe for gay men ... or some gay men ... to donate. 'Cause they're not the only ones on the planet to have sex, unprotected sex, or anal sex. Nor are they the only ones to be promiscuous.
(In fact, for years and years, a couple of women in my area would walk up to strange men at our local Walmart and say, "Want sex? My car in 15 minutes." They'd give the description of the car and its location. Yeah.... And, no, they didn't charge. Interestingly, I knew two men who admitted to trysts with them. And ... I'm pretty sure one of my family members might have partaken in the backseat delights offered so generously ... given the glint in his eye when he mentioned going to the Walmart here ... once a month ... despite living almost two hours away. I wonder if those women donated blood? I wonder if the men donated blood? Almost makes me wish I could go back in time and accept that blood transfusion.)
Now, it seems to me, by discussing how forcefully Gary and C are making their points and questioning their sexuality, you're making a judgment.
Only gay men would argue that all people who pose a risk to the blood supply should be turned away from blood draws. And, .... That has been their argument. I think. I don't think they're saying, "Gay men should give blood morning, noon and night. In fact, let's only let gay men give blood. Let's sing songs from Glee and, in order to promote gay rights, have blood drives that solicit gay men!"
Now, that was flip. The balance I've been trying to find is tipping. Might have started to tip a few paragraphs ago.
No, I think they're saying something along the lines of ... fair is fair ... risk is risk.
I've been saying ... if it's about risk and safety, we need to suck it up, act like functioning adults and deal with the problem. In order to do that, we'd actually need to get real and ask everyone about their sexual histories and we wouldn't allow people who are at risk donate.
Anything else, ... well ... it looks like bigotry. What else would one call it? Stupidity?
Do you truly think only gay men would argue that point? Gay men and one woman who jumps in to defend anyone or any group that seems to be treated inappropriately, in her opinion.
I don't think so. I think a lot of people, who were willing to look at this logically, would make this argument, regardless of whether we sleep alone at night or with someone of the same or opposite sex.
This is about logic and safety ....
This is about the fact that ...
The government and medical profession has lied to us, to one extent or the other. (If so, we need to deal with that ... if we actually care about safety.)
OR....
The government and medical profession makes policies based on bias, in this case, bias against gay men.
As an aside, I find that to be a rather odd irony. After all, for years both have had a bias toward men ... in general.
Yup. I just said it.
But, hey, they did just start doing medical tests that are specific to women ... since, in truth, men's bodies and women's bodies aren't the same. When did they start doing that? Ummmm.... Two minutes ago.
Balance tipping in a rather precarious manner ....
So, if it's not, after all, about safety, it is, I think, about bigotry.
Are homosexuals the only people who are concerned with bigotry?
I think not.
And, cHriS .... On the off chance you are taking bets as to how often I'll use the words "anal" and "sex" and ... hey, "tearing" ..., I hope you bet high. 'Cause ... I'm there. I'm going to spend the next little bit of time looking for percentages .... Yup. I'm gonna.
You have a right to your opinion, cHriS. That's cool. Even if I disagree with you to the height of Everest and back. But ....
Let's consider, each of us, what lines we'll cross in order to debate this subject. I don't think questioning Gary's sexuality or C's sexuality should enter into the debate. My opinion. (I can no longer even spell the word "balan.....")
Maria wrote: "Assuming all blood is tested after the person donates it, and is rejected if tainted. That's all fine, except for some diseases that may not show up for years afterwards like HIV.
Besides, how ..."
Somewhat unclear as to your point, Maria. But, I would like to say, .... No, people don't always lie.
I donated blood once. I answered all of the questions asked. I can't remember all of the questions. But, I do think they asked about protected and unprotected sex. I answered. Truthfully. That was my freshman year in college. I'd try to donate twice before but was turned away. They tested my blood prior and found I was anemic.
Then, at the end of that year, I contracted mono-hepatitis. I was told it wasn't the BAD hepatitis. I couldn't pass it on to anyone. It hadn't wrecked my liver. However, the doctor told me I'd never be allowed to donate blood. Why? I asked a ton of questions. Was he sure I couldn't pass it on to someone else? My boyfriend. My husband when I married. OMG! No, he assured me I couldn't. It wasn't that kind. Given that, it made no sense to me that they wouldn't allow me to donate. My doctor told me it didn't make sense. But, they wouldn't let me.
I went to donate after that. I was asked about unprotected sex. I was asked about hepatitis. I explained the situation. Sure enough ... they wouldn't let me donate.
I was sorely ticked off. It's something my family does. Hundreds of pints. Thousands of pints. I always thought I would continue that. Nope. Raging ticked off, Maria. Friends told me to go and lie.
Guess what? I won't lie. I won't lie on big things. I'm sure as shoot not going to lie about something as asinine as that.
So, while I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at, I can promise you something. Not everyone lies.
Besides, how ..."
Somewhat unclear as to your point, Maria. But, I would like to say, .... No, people don't always lie.
I donated blood once. I answered all of the questions asked. I can't remember all of the questions. But, I do think they asked about protected and unprotected sex. I answered. Truthfully. That was my freshman year in college. I'd try to donate twice before but was turned away. They tested my blood prior and found I was anemic.
Then, at the end of that year, I contracted mono-hepatitis. I was told it wasn't the BAD hepatitis. I couldn't pass it on to anyone. It hadn't wrecked my liver. However, the doctor told me I'd never be allowed to donate blood. Why? I asked a ton of questions. Was he sure I couldn't pass it on to someone else? My boyfriend. My husband when I married. OMG! No, he assured me I couldn't. It wasn't that kind. Given that, it made no sense to me that they wouldn't allow me to donate. My doctor told me it didn't make sense. But, they wouldn't let me.
I went to donate after that. I was asked about unprotected sex. I was asked about hepatitis. I explained the situation. Sure enough ... they wouldn't let me donate.
I was sorely ticked off. It's something my family does. Hundreds of pints. Thousands of pints. I always thought I would continue that. Nope. Raging ticked off, Maria. Friends told me to go and lie.
Guess what? I won't lie. I won't lie on big things. I'm sure as shoot not going to lie about something as asinine as that.
So, while I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at, I can promise you something. Not everyone lies.
cHriS wrote: "C-Cose wrote: "cHriS wrote: "My view is that if the authorities concerned set the guidelines , unless I know otherwise I assume they have reasons for doing so.
If they change the guidelines regarding gay men the..."
As I said......
with the right debate that view could be changed.
but your mind is already made up, anyone who does not follow your line of thought must be a bigot. "
cHriS ...
Why are you choosing to debate this topic in this way?
Why would you question people's sexuality?
What are your intentions when it comes to engaging in this thread?
Obviously, you can choose to answer or not. That's your right. I find myself wanting to know the answers to those questions. Therefore, I asked.
If they change the guidelines regarding gay men the..."
As I said......
with the right debate that view could be changed.
but your mind is already made up, anyone who does not follow your line of thought must be a bigot. "
cHriS ...
Why are you choosing to debate this topic in this way?
Why would you question people's sexuality?
What are your intentions when it comes to engaging in this thread?
Obviously, you can choose to answer or not. That's your right. I find myself wanting to know the answers to those questions. Therefore, I asked.
Rut ro ....
Don't look now, but ....
If we're to believe the government and government-type agencies, it would seem that a lot of heterosexuals have committed "unnatural" acts.
The CDC collected data from 12,571 men and women in the US. Then, they did some sort of freakish mathematical acrobatics and turned that sampling into percentages of US men and women in general. (Must disclose the fact that I don't understand or fully trust said freakish mathematical acrobatics. Be advised.)
In 2005, they reported that 40% of men and 35% of women age 15-44 have had ...
anal sex ...
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
...with members of the opposite sex.
That means ... heterosexuals seem to have anal sex ... a lot. Well, define a lot. I guess, to be fair, I'd have to say a lot of heterosexuals have partaken. Whether or not they've done so a lot wasn't mentioned.
If it's about risk and the safety of the blood supply, ummm, should we be looking into this? Figuratively, of course.
Don't look now, but ....
If we're to believe the government and government-type agencies, it would seem that a lot of heterosexuals have committed "unnatural" acts.
The CDC collected data from 12,571 men and women in the US. Then, they did some sort of freakish mathematical acrobatics and turned that sampling into percentages of US men and women in general. (Must disclose the fact that I don't understand or fully trust said freakish mathematical acrobatics. Be advised.)
In 2005, they reported that 40% of men and 35% of women age 15-44 have had ...
anal sex ...
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
...with members of the opposite sex.
That means ... heterosexuals seem to have anal sex ... a lot. Well, define a lot. I guess, to be fair, I'd have to say a lot of heterosexuals have partaken. Whether or not they've done so a lot wasn't mentioned.
If it's about risk and the safety of the blood supply, ummm, should we be looking into this? Figuratively, of course.
Shannon wrote: "Rut ro ....Don't look now, but ....
If we're to believe the government and government-type agencies, it would seem that a lot of heterosexuals have committed "unnatural" acts.
The CDC collected..."
Greetings Shannon :)
Your figures don't surprise me in the slightest. I also wanted to thank you for providing a more balanced voice to this discussion than I seem to have given :)
C-Cose wrote: "Greetings Shannon :)
Your figures don't surprise me in the slightest. I also wanted to thank you for providing a more balanced voice to this discussion than I seem to have given :) "
Ahahahaha! I actually thought I was being a bit flip! Glad you thought I was somewhat balanced. ;)
Forgot my link ...
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ad/ad362...
They have all sorts of very helpful charts and/or graphs, by the way. They're even color coded. Most helpful.
And, C ... I didn't think you lacked balance.
Your figures don't surprise me in the slightest. I also wanted to thank you for providing a more balanced voice to this discussion than I seem to have given :) "
Ahahahaha! I actually thought I was being a bit flip! Glad you thought I was somewhat balanced. ;)
Forgot my link ...
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ad/ad362...
They have all sorts of very helpful charts and/or graphs, by the way. They're even color coded. Most helpful.
And, C ... I didn't think you lacked balance.
Shannon wrote: "They have all sorts of very helpful charts and/or graphs, by the way. They're even color coded. Most helpful."LOL!!!
BTW ... I think "voodoo" is a somewhat inaccurate description for the math involved. Collated and run through a series of equations and null-sum scenarios to the point of near insensibility might be a better one ;)
It also looks like a lot of people have unprotected sex. A. lot. of. people.
http://www.nypost.com/pagesixmag/issu...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9574299/n...
http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/1...
http://www.nypost.com/pagesixmag/issu...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9574299/n...
http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/1...
Listening to Cher's "Half-Breed" ... blasting it actually. That's just an aside, though. Thought I'd share.
Now, take a look at this one ...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/...
People might want to pay special attention to the end of the article. Gay men are more likely to develop HIV than heterosexuals. But, from my reading of the article, it's not about promiscuity. It's about the act. You know, anal sex. That's the way I read it, at least. And, I'm thinking, ... Whoa, Nellie! If that's the case and if the CDC's freakish mathematic gymnastics are correct and that many heterosexuals are partaking, should we rethink this policy thing?
Now, take a look at this one ...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/...
People might want to pay special attention to the end of the article. Gay men are more likely to develop HIV than heterosexuals. But, from my reading of the article, it's not about promiscuity. It's about the act. You know, anal sex. That's the way I read it, at least. And, I'm thinking, ... Whoa, Nellie! If that's the case and if the CDC's freakish mathematic gymnastics are correct and that many heterosexuals are partaking, should we rethink this policy thing?
C-Cose wrote: "Shannon wrote: "They have all sorts of very helpful charts and/or graphs, by the way. They're even color coded. Most helpful."
LOL!!!
BTW ... I think "voodoo" is a somewhat inaccurate description..."
Yeah, I went back and changed it. I didn't want to insult people who practice voodoo, as a religion, by linking them with mathematicians.
So, I went back and changed to "acrobatics" and "gymnastics" ...
Damn ... would that be an insult to the US gymnastics team?
Shoot!
Going to go with it anyway.
LOL!!!
BTW ... I think "voodoo" is a somewhat inaccurate description..."
Yeah, I went back and changed it. I didn't want to insult people who practice voodoo, as a religion, by linking them with mathematicians.
So, I went back and changed to "acrobatics" and "gymnastics" ...
Damn ... would that be an insult to the US gymnastics team?
Shoot!
Going to go with it anyway.
No. I don't really and truly have anything against mathematicians, if you're fretting that I do. It's just that, ... I have dyscalculia and certain math phobias, so ....
My cousin posted the following on FB the other day ...
"There are 3 kinds of people in this world. Those who are good at math and those who aren't."
;)
But, I digress. What will I find next ...?
My cousin posted the following on FB the other day ...
"There are 3 kinds of people in this world. Those who are good at math and those who aren't."
;)
But, I digress. What will I find next ...?
Ooooohhhhh!!!!
Remember when I mentioned paying for blood ...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/06/bus...
Yeah, not only do we pay for blood, all of these centers are cropping up on the border with Mexico.
Ahhh.... Isn't that sweet? Nice? Lovely?
I thought it was being done in the big cities. Well, heck, yah. It is. But, there are a lot of really poor people (of a certain color) on the Mexican border, sooooo.....
Now, one of my favorite parts is when the doctor with the FDA basically says he doesn't know what's wrong with it ... it's not like they're taking kidneys.
Ahhhh.... I think I just shed a little tear.
Now, I feel it only right to note the government also says the blood is safe. Yet, these are the same people who regulate these centers and have doctors who say ... it's not like we're asking for kidneys.
To trust or not to trust ....
What's the t-shirt I saw at the Pow Wow this summer?
Want to know whether or not to trust the government? Ask an Indian.
Given the fact that I want to sleep tonight and fear I might have some rather nasty dreams if I continue with my current research, I'm going to stop ... for now ...
Also going to go take my iron supplement and Vitamin C. Given everything, well, I'd rather not go all kinds of crazy anemic again. Water, iron, Vitamin C .... I'm on my way.
Remember when I mentioned paying for blood ...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/06/bus...
Yeah, not only do we pay for blood, all of these centers are cropping up on the border with Mexico.
Ahhh.... Isn't that sweet? Nice? Lovely?
I thought it was being done in the big cities. Well, heck, yah. It is. But, there are a lot of really poor people (of a certain color) on the Mexican border, sooooo.....
Now, one of my favorite parts is when the doctor with the FDA basically says he doesn't know what's wrong with it ... it's not like they're taking kidneys.
Ahhhh.... I think I just shed a little tear.
Now, I feel it only right to note the government also says the blood is safe. Yet, these are the same people who regulate these centers and have doctors who say ... it's not like we're asking for kidneys.
To trust or not to trust ....
What's the t-shirt I saw at the Pow Wow this summer?
Want to know whether or not to trust the government? Ask an Indian.
Given the fact that I want to sleep tonight and fear I might have some rather nasty dreams if I continue with my current research, I'm going to stop ... for now ...
Also going to go take my iron supplement and Vitamin C. Given everything, well, I'd rather not go all kinds of crazy anemic again. Water, iron, Vitamin C .... I'm on my way.
Now I'm listening to "Good Lovin" by The Rascals ...
Yeah ... blasting it ....
FYI
Yeah ... blasting it ....
FYI
So not joking ...
Have been listening to those music stations on the TV....
Now, ...
"Little Red Riding Hood" ....
Ahahahahaha!
I think it's fate.
Now, I know the atheists will say, "No. There is no such thing as fate. It's mere coincidence. Probability and statistics, maybe."
Still think it's fate ....
Have been listening to those music stations on the TV....
Now, ...
"Little Red Riding Hood" ....
Ahahahahaha!
I think it's fate.
Now, I know the atheists will say, "No. There is no such thing as fate. It's mere coincidence. Probability and statistics, maybe."
Still think it's fate ....
Shannon, you are like the last 5 posts in a row ! Long posts ... Wait - 7 .
Shannon wrote: ". .. Why would you question people's sexuality "Where have I done that? I am interest to know why you perceive this to be so because I know I have never asked anyone any personal questions here.
Shannon... Let's consider, each of us, what lines we'll cross in order to debate this subject. I don't think questioning Gary's sexuality or C's sexuality should enter into the debate. My opinion. (I can no longer even spell the word "balan.....") "Shannon. You are way of course, totally wrong in your assumption and you are accusing me of something you perceive rather than know. You may get passionate about a subject, and I think this passion is clouding your judgement.
I know what you think I said, but you have read it out of context. But show me anyway. If nothing else I can answer your questions.
a few points, I've been looking, and this is from an HIV information site:Testing for HIV has rapidly advanced in recent years but you often read incorrectly that you have to wait three, six or even 12 months to get a reliable HIV test result. In fact, you can now get an HIV test with an accurate result from four weeks after potential infection. Results can be returned between 20 minutes and two weeks, depending on the type of test you take
so, actually no need for a 12 month ban, again, its just misinformation and discrimination.
The majority of new HIV diagnoses in 2010 were acquired heterosexually, while approximately a third of people with HIV in the UK are women
It also includes information on how the major modes of transmission are unprotected sex, both vaginally and anally, (so I feel focusing on anal sex is somewhat pointless), and through sharing of needles during drug taking (and drug users aren't allowed to give blood anyway).
http://www.hivaware.org.uk/nat.php
cHriS wrote: "I did not say that, but it good to know that bullying was what you were doing."Read posts that are made. I never said I was bullying, I said that according to your views on allowing people hate and prejudice if that's the "way they feel" then you implicitly support bullying.
Though it seems that you only support bullying of minorities. Unless you want to clearly state you don't?
cHriS wrote: "Shannon wrote: ". .. Why would you question people's sexuality "
Where have I done that? I am interest to know why you perceive this to be so because I know I have never asked anyone any personal..."
cHriS ...
You wrote ...
"Maybe one or both are Gay and they are only fighting their corner, so I give them the benefit of the doubt."
Are you going to say that's not questioning their sexuality?
Well, Shannon, take a look at that sentence. It's a statement. Not a question. I never asked them the question. Just made a statement. So, in reality, I didn't question their sexuality.
Is that what you're going to say?
You're right about the fact that I can get pretty passionate about things, cHriS. I'm fully aware of that and actually am the first to admit it. Given that, I tend to question myself when I get fiery. Is it my nature, or ....
I don't believe, in this instance, it's me. My passion. My nature. I don't think my judgement is clouded.
After all, ....
After writing the above yesterday, you had Gary writing back that he's heterosexual.
Right? Right.
After seeing that, cHriS, you didn't write back and say, "Whoa, man! I think you misread my post. I wasn't questioning your sexuality. That doesn't have anything to do with the price of tea in China."
No.
When I first brought it up yesterday ... that people's sexuality had nothing to do with the discussion ... you said something along the lines of ... then what are we talking about. Right? Right. You didn't say, "Whoa.... Shannon! What are you talking about? I didn't bring up anyone's sexuality!"
Right? Right.
And, if memory serves, didn't you mention going into C's profile and seeing something that led you to believe that he is homosexual?
Yeah. You did.
"Well, Shannon, I didn't phrase that in the form of a question. It was a statement." Is that what you're going to say? In order to show that you never brought up or questioned anyone's sexuality. It's all about me getting passionate and fuzzy-headed.
If you're going to bring Gary's sexuality into this discussion, cHriS ... If you're going to bring C's sexuality into this discussion ...
Please own up to it if you're called on it ... instead of accusing the one woman who is crying foul of being ... hmmm ... overly emotional.
Where have I done that? I am interest to know why you perceive this to be so because I know I have never asked anyone any personal..."
cHriS ...
You wrote ...
"Maybe one or both are Gay and they are only fighting their corner, so I give them the benefit of the doubt."
Are you going to say that's not questioning their sexuality?
Well, Shannon, take a look at that sentence. It's a statement. Not a question. I never asked them the question. Just made a statement. So, in reality, I didn't question their sexuality.
Is that what you're going to say?
You're right about the fact that I can get pretty passionate about things, cHriS. I'm fully aware of that and actually am the first to admit it. Given that, I tend to question myself when I get fiery. Is it my nature, or ....
I don't believe, in this instance, it's me. My passion. My nature. I don't think my judgement is clouded.
After all, ....
After writing the above yesterday, you had Gary writing back that he's heterosexual.
Right? Right.
After seeing that, cHriS, you didn't write back and say, "Whoa, man! I think you misread my post. I wasn't questioning your sexuality. That doesn't have anything to do with the price of tea in China."
No.
When I first brought it up yesterday ... that people's sexuality had nothing to do with the discussion ... you said something along the lines of ... then what are we talking about. Right? Right. You didn't say, "Whoa.... Shannon! What are you talking about? I didn't bring up anyone's sexuality!"
Right? Right.
And, if memory serves, didn't you mention going into C's profile and seeing something that led you to believe that he is homosexual?
Yeah. You did.
"Well, Shannon, I didn't phrase that in the form of a question. It was a statement." Is that what you're going to say? In order to show that you never brought up or questioned anyone's sexuality. It's all about me getting passionate and fuzzy-headed.
If you're going to bring Gary's sexuality into this discussion, cHriS ... If you're going to bring C's sexuality into this discussion ...
Please own up to it if you're called on it ... instead of accusing the one woman who is crying foul of being ... hmmm ... overly emotional.
cHriS wrote: "Because of homosexual promiscuity the infection rates are much higher in gay man. That is the belief much of society has. May be it's true maybe it's not. But it is the perception that counts. Change that perception if it is not true and views will change."As I understand it, it is nothing to do with promiscuity, it's due to the fact that anal sex has a greater risk of bleeding, hence blood/blood contact or blood exposed to bacteria.
This is fair enough and if the science shows that the risk is increased fine. The problem is that it is not only homosexual men that engage in that activity.
As the article you linked to states they deliberately single out sexually active homosexual men because they think that they will lose less donors making this restriction for safety than they will if they ask personal questions of the majority. They even acknowledge that this will cause offence.
The blood supply would be safer if they asked personal questions of everyone, but instead prudishness and prejudice is selected as a 'reasonable' compromise.
cHriS wrote: "Maybe this is where science could be more helpful."
Agreed.
The only problem is people do not listen to the science when ideology comes into play. Hence, perceptions, bias, assumptions and therefore prejudice prevail.
Hazel wrote: "It also includes information on how the major modes of transmission are unprotected sex, both vaginally and anally, (so I feel focusing on anal sex is somewhat pointless), and through sharing of needles during drug taking (and drug users aren't allowed to give blood anyway). "
While it's VERY true that the major modes of transmission are unprotected sex, it's also very true that anal sex poses more of a risk. It's in all of the literature. Greater risk of tearing. Greater risk of transmission. Unless you're going to tell me that's a myth and all of the literature is wrong .... (But, yes, unprotected sex in general is risky. For sure.)
And, I'm pretty sure, though this is my personal opinion and not based on evidence, that it's (anal sex) the reason the policies are what they are .... The "distaste" for ... the taboo surrounding ....
However, given the percentages in America, I'd question whether or not there's an actual distaste for it.
While it's VERY true that the major modes of transmission are unprotected sex, it's also very true that anal sex poses more of a risk. It's in all of the literature. Greater risk of tearing. Greater risk of transmission. Unless you're going to tell me that's a myth and all of the literature is wrong .... (But, yes, unprotected sex in general is risky. For sure.)
And, I'm pretty sure, though this is my personal opinion and not based on evidence, that it's (anal sex) the reason the policies are what they are .... The "distaste" for ... the taboo surrounding ....
However, given the percentages in America, I'd question whether or not there's an actual distaste for it.
indeed, shannon, anal sex includes more risk of tearing, which is why extra strong condoms are recommended for it, and the use of lube is encouraged. So, while its true that unprotected anal sex has a higher risk of transmission than unprotected vaginal sex, without knowing data on the safe use of condoms among the gay community, we can't really compare protected anal sex with unprotected vaginal sex, for example. It may be that unprotected anal sex has a higher risk of transmission, but a higher percentage of gay men use condoms all the time compared to say, heterosexual men, and so actually have a lower rate of transmission. I just don't know..And its pretty rare for a condom to break, as long as you use it properly. I don't know about you guys, but I was shown how to put a condom on correctly in sex ed at school.
Hazel wrote: "And its pretty rare for a condom to break, as long as you use it properly. I don't know about you guys, but I was shown how to put a condom on correctly in sex ed at school. "
...on a banana...
...on a banana...
yeah, but it was a good grounding. Really set me up for that guy who had the bent dick... ;PI always found the main problem that caused condoms to break was a guy using one that was too small for him.
Hazel wrote: "yeah, but it was a good grounding. Really set me up for that guy who had the bent dick... ;P
I always found the main problem that caused condoms to break was a guy using one that was too small for..."
Ahahahaha....
I always found the main problem that caused condoms to break was a guy using one that was too small for..."
Ahahahaha....
Greetings all :)Well somebody certainly was a busy beaver last night ... lol. I find the info that was collected very ... affirming. By that I mean that it was nice too see that I'm not talking out of my ass; stats in the UK and US seem to support those I've seen over the years for Canada.
One question .... Shannon ... did you snack on Wheaties last night? You seemed to have been on a fact finding mission that I haven't seen from someone in quite some time .... lol. Glad you had some music to keep you company throughout :)
Hazel, my laptop thanks you that I wasn't actually drinking my coffee when you wrote, "I always found the main problem that caused condoms to break was a guy using one that was too small for him." In my experience, men tend to "upsize" their purchases in the hopes that they might grow into it ... lol ;)
It's heartening to see that we're still able to find levity around the edges of this issue. Without it, I think I'd self-combust with frustration :)
C-Cose wrote: "One question .... Shannon ... did you snack on Wheaties last night? You seemed to have been on a fact finding mission that I haven't seen from someone in quite some time .... lol."
;)
I'm chuckling because ....
People who know me, for real, wouldn't be surprised by last night's fact finding mission.
I've been told, by a variety of people, that I'm ... "like a dog with a bone" at certain moments.
In point of fact, people who know me for real would likely be shocked that I didn't post more percentages and links. They'd be shocked, shocked, that I didn't find information regarding how much of that sex was unprotected, etc....
I've been a bit tired this week. Off my game, to a certain extent .... Glad, despite that fact, that it appeared that I was on top of things.
;)
Trying to remember whether or not I snacked while searching an typing. Remember drinking a diet soda pop. Don't think I snacked. Imagine what I could have done if I weren't tired and had been snacking ....
;)
I'm chuckling because ....
People who know me, for real, wouldn't be surprised by last night's fact finding mission.
I've been told, by a variety of people, that I'm ... "like a dog with a bone" at certain moments.
In point of fact, people who know me for real would likely be shocked that I didn't post more percentages and links. They'd be shocked, shocked, that I didn't find information regarding how much of that sex was unprotected, etc....
I've been a bit tired this week. Off my game, to a certain extent .... Glad, despite that fact, that it appeared that I was on top of things.
;)
Trying to remember whether or not I snacked while searching an typing. Remember drinking a diet soda pop. Don't think I snacked. Imagine what I could have done if I weren't tired and had been snacking ....
C-Cose wrote: ". Then ... all "caught speeding" would be disallowed from blood donation." .."You have made the mathematical assumption to produce the result, but I don't agree with your assumption.
Gary wrote: "cHriS wrote: "I did not say that, but it good to know that bullying was what you were doing."Read posts that are made. I never said I was bullying, I said that according to your views on allowin..."
I do not have the right to tell people they should not have the emotion of hate, unless I've been in their shoes.
You have connected hate with bullying. To support you argument maybe.
cHriS wrote: "C-Cose wrote: ". Then ... all "caught speeding" would be disallowed from blood donation." .."
You have made the mathematical assumption to produce the result, but I don't agree with your assumpt..."
What don't you agree with, cHriS?
That all speeders should be picked up with equal diligence, regardless of what state they might be from, what color they might be, etc...?
Or, do you not agree with the idea that any speeder, aka person who poses a risk, should not be allowed to jeopardize the safety of others?
You have made the mathematical assumption to produce the result, but I don't agree with your assumpt..."
What don't you agree with, cHriS?
That all speeders should be picked up with equal diligence, regardless of what state they might be from, what color they might be, etc...?
Or, do you not agree with the idea that any speeder, aka person who poses a risk, should not be allowed to jeopardize the safety of others?
Gary wrote: "cHriS wrote: "Because of homosexual promiscuity the infection rates are much higher in gay man. That is the belief much of society has. May be it's true maybe it's not. But it is the perception tha..."I also agree with you if thats how things are. And that's what I have being saying , the supply of blood must come first. If asking personal questions could put the majority off giving blood, I can see why they would go down that road. If there is a lack of blood everyone's losses
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
Vector Calculus (other topics)The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Ray Kurzweil (other topics)Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
So you are willing to sacrifice people's rights for personal safety?
The point isn't gay rights versus safety, the point is that being gay is being discriminated against because its quicker and easier (Not safer!) not to ask heterosexuals about their sexual habits.
cHriS wrote: "I must be a bigot."
I actually said that if blood infections were as prolific as you wanted me to imply, then bigots would not have to worry about gays for much longer.
Maybe they are looking at gay rights being more important than safer blood transfusions and because I'm not, their only other line of defence is the use of the word bigot.
cHriS wrote: "Using that word without real cause is a form of bullying. "
But bullying is fine according to you, or is that the one bit of PC you support?
Besides I have described judging people based on sexual identity is bigotry, and I have defined that bigots would probably be pleased if gays went away. Who exactly am I calling a bigot?
cHriS wrote: "That is trying to get the best blood possible, while eliminating as much risk as possible without the supplies drying up completely."
Read my post again and read your link. Getting the best blood possible would also mean restricting heterosexuals based on risky behaviour, not just blanket restricting homosexual men.
cHriS wrote: "What is horrific, is how an intelligent man, judging by what he has previously written, even though I don't agree with most of it, can either misread a post or twist what was said just for effect. "
And what was meant by your comment about using the figure 19% instead of 1% for blood borne infections from a supply that included blood from homosexual men? Was that said just for effect?
cHriS wrote: "You are not getting my point. If there is a risk in using some gay mens blood, then saying that there are others who are not gay but may also cause a risk; that is not a reason to use the blood from those gay men in question."
Yet they are happy to take the word of gay men that claim that they have not had sex in a year, but do not ask straight men or women whether they have engaged in similarly risky behaviour.
cHriS wrote: "It seems that you and Gary put the answer down to bigotry, while I do not agree that is what it is."
Well I am certainly open to suggestions of what else is the cause, but the appearance is either institutionalised bigotry or the acceptance of cultural bigotry.
cHriS wrote: "If you are stopped for speeding and your defence is that the cars in front of you were also speeding and they did not get pulled over, that does not make you any less guilty. "
Wow spurious logic 101.
By your analogy, if you banned without trial everyone under the age of 30 from driving because there was a higher percentage of drivers who speeded of that age bracket, would that be prejudice against young people, or just making the roads as safe as possible?