40 replies to this topic

[Nollog]

Who said that?

 

Sheesh.

 

Now you again show your ability to miss the point.  Anyone can be irresponsible.  hetero or not, it's irresponsible to not get tested if your are going to make those kinds of lifestyle choices.

 

if someone was saying "hey, you can't buy cereal because of your private choices" then that would be messed up.  but someone saying, "hey, we can't afford to keep paying for all of these samples that we can't use" is simple math.  and there is the safety factor too.  What if there was a screening mistake? then your mom needs a transfusion and gets HIV.  I'm sorry, but if someone is going to have a pity party because they can't have their blood in someone else's body over cost and safety issues, then they have some other kind of problem going on.  and then to try to overturn it just so they can "feel better" but drive up the cost of providing life-saving services while simultaneously bringing down the safety of that service - that's just selfish and sick.

You did.

 

You said all gay people have HIV and AIDs, and they irresponsibly donate blood just so it costs the red cross and co. extra money to screen the samples.

[Socalmuscle]

You did.

You said all gay people have HIV and AIDs, and they irresponsibly donate blood just so it costs the red cross and co. extra money to screen the samples.

No I didn't.

You simply revealed a lack of basic understanding and reading comprehension. All I did was state facts.

I never said all gay people have aids. Go back and read. I sad the percentage or the ratio of gay men with HIV/aids is tremendously higher. It's not my opinion or anyone else's. it is fact. It's not my own little idea. It's not a "bash." It's the truth. Next thing I know, you'll be starting a petition against doctors saying that smokers have higher rates of lung cancer.

I also never accused anyone of using the donation process to get free testing. However, once that entered the discussion, I did point out that if they did so, it's irresponsible and wrong. And apparently, those who were involved in massive donations and screening have concluded that's what was happening. I didn't say it. They did. You may not like it. That's too bad. It's just the way it is.

Learn to read and comprehend instead of ignorantly lashing out at anything that resembles a contradiction of your own pet beliefs, while simultaneously embarrassing yourself by failing to address the actual content of what was presented. Instead you judge intent, which isn't even what you think it is.

In spite of the evidence presented concerning:

A ) the scientific, factual truth th gay men have disproportionately higher HIV/aids than any other group

B ) the costs associated with the staffing, equipment, utilities, lab screen, etc. being too high to support continued sampling from this group, which ends up with most of its blood samples requiring destruction. Therefore little to no return on investment and not at all fiscally viable or responsible. (Separate and apart from the issue stardust brought up. This has nothing to do with those who would do this on purpose just to get a free std screen - which is quite obviously reprehensible)

C ) the danger of that much blood having to be screened from a group known to exhibit radically higher instances of life-threatening and quality of life lowering diseases is contradictory to the actual mission of taking said blood: saving lives. And labs are not infallible. Nor are the persons who work in them. There is possibility of "bad blood" being given the green light. And someone could be infected and needlessly suffer as a result. The more that probability is cut down, the better.

It's all common sense. But if you want to continue to pretend there is some ulterior motive, have at it. You've probably got nothing better to do.

Edited by Socalmuscle, 21 August 2013 - 11:20 PM.

[Nollog]

No I didn't.

You simply revealed a lack of basic understanding and reading comprehension. All I did was state facts.

I never said all gay people have aids. Go back and read. I sad the percentage or the ratio of gay men with HIV/aids is tremendously higher. It's not my opinion or anyone else's. it is fact. It's not my own little idea. It's not a "bash." It's the truth. Next thing I know, you'll be starting a petition against doctors saying that smokers have higher rates of lung cancer.

I also never accused anyone of using the donation process to get free testing. However, once that entered the discussion, I did point out that if they did so, it's irresponsible and wrong. And apparently, those who were involved in massive donations and screening have concluded that's what was happening. I didn't say it. They did. You may not like it. That's too bad. It's just the way it is.

Learn to read and comprehend instead of ignorantly lashing out at anything that resembles a contradiction of your own pet beliefs, while simultaneously embarrassing yourself by failing to address the actual content of what was presented. Instead you judge intent, which isn't even what you think it is.

In spite of the evidence presented concerning:

A ) the scientific, factual truth th gay men have disproportionately higher HIV/aids than any other group

B ) the costs associated with the staffing, equipment, utilities, lab screen, etc. being too high to support continued sampling from this group, which ends up with most of its blood samples requiring destruction. Therefore little to no return on investment and not at all fiscally viable or responsible. (Separate and apart from the issue stardust brought up. This has nothing to do with those who would do this on purpose just to get a free std screen - which is quite obviously reprehensible)

C ) the danger of that much blood having to be screened from a group known to exhibit radically higher instances of life-threatening and quality of life lowering diseases is contradictory to the actual mission of taking said blood: saving lives. And labs are not infallible. Nor are the persons who work in them. There is possibility of "bad blood" being given the green light. And someone could be infected and needlessly suffer as a result. The more that probability is cut down, the better.

It's all common sense. But if you want to continue to pretend there is some ulterior motive, have at it. You've probably got nothing better to do.

Who said I started this petition?

SEE WHAT I DID THERE

[Hunter]

A man who has slept with a prostitute only has to wait 12 months before being able to donate. So i guess he is more responsible than a gay man?

 

A man who was treated for syphilis, gonorrhea, herpes, and chlamydia in the past year is still allowed to donate. Is he more responsible than a gay man?

 

This idea that most gay men go around having unprotected sex with several partners makes me think some people are still living in the 80s. This law is outdated and our understanding of science and sex has hugely increased since the early 80s when this law was passed.

Edited by Hunter, 21 August 2013 - 11:54 PM.

[Socalmuscle]

A man who has slept with a prostitute only has to wait 12 months before being able to donate. So i guess he is more responsible than a gay man?

A man who was treated for syphilis, gonorrhea, herpes, and chlamydia in the past year is still allowed to donate. Is he more responsible than a gay man?

This idea that most gay men go around having unprotected sex with several partners makes me think some people are still living in the 80s. This law is outdated and our understanding of science and sex has hugely increased since the early 80s when this law was passed.

Apparently, the medical institutions that actually see, diagnose, and treat these matters find that men who engage in gay physical relations with other men have a disproportionate ratio of life-threatening std infection. Nothing to do with one person being overrall more responsibile than anothe. Everything to do with disease. Closing blood donations to the group that shows a staggering percentage of infection is the logical conclusion, whether that group is hero, not, or any other thing.

HIV/aids is incureable. Different from other stds (herpes notwithstanding).

Again, it's all about the viability of saving lives. This costs money and must be done to ensure maximum safety. Closing donations from folks who have an extremely high likelihood of either a ) having their blood rejected after screening or b ) having infected blood pass screening as a result of lab failure isn't viable.

It really is that simple.

Who said I started this petition?SEE WHAT I DID THERE

No one did.

By stating you'd start a Petition against doctors giving facts on smokers and lung cancer, the correlation was being made that you simply are upset about the truth. You imply motive where there is none and simply ignore the facts. That wasn't relating you to the OP nor the petition they linked to.

So your post is officially r-a-n-d-o-m.

Edited by Socalmuscle, 22 August 2013 - 01:24 AM.

[Nollog]

No one did.

By stating you call every gay irresponsible and sex-crazed people, the correlation was being made that you simply are upset about the truth. You imply motive where there is none and simply ignore the facts. That wasn't relating you to the OP nor the petition they linked to.

So your post is officially r-a-n-d-o-m.

Maybe you see what I did there now?

Edited by Nollog, 22 August 2013 - 06:07 AM.

[Socalmuscle]

Maybe you see what I did there now?

 

You mean completely ignoring what was posted and inserting your own words into someone else's mouth in order to support your misunderstanding?

 

Yes.  Everyone reading this sees what you did there.

[Kokirii]

If I remember correctly, there are a number of behaviors that bar someone from being eligible to donate blood.  For example, people who have used non-prescription intravenous drugs at any time in their lives are ineligible to donate because they have a statistically disproportionate incidence of infectious disease.  It's just the way it is.  They are cutting costs by screening out the people whose blood is statistically most likely to contain disease.  

Edited by kokirii, 22 August 2013 - 11:04 AM.

[Nollog]

You mean completely ignoring what was posted and inserting your own words into someone else's mouth in order to support your misunderstanding?
 
Yes.  Everyone reading this sees what you did there.

In a way, yes.
Since I was posting as you had been.

[Socalmuscle]

In a way, yes.
Since I was posting as you had been.

 

Actually, no. 

 

i posted facts.  you posted knee-jerk reactions to what you THOUGHT might have been intended, rather than simply reading and understanding what exactly was being presented.

 

You had simply chosen to ignore the facts I (and others) presented so your lack of comprehension skills weren't so exposed. EVERYTHING you are arguing against are things you have actually made up yourself.  That's what is so pathetic.

 

It's over.  You have embarrassed yourself enough.  It's a good idea for you to just let it go now.

 

There are good reasons why certain people of various lifestyles are not eligible for donating blood.  They are good reasons that have been showcased very clearly in this thread. 

 

Once it devolves into childish little things you are doing now, it is obvious that this thread has run its course.

If I remember correctly, there are a number of behaviors that bar someone from being eligible to donate blood.  For example, people who have used non-prescription intravenous drugs at any time in their lives are ineligible to donate because they have a statistically disproportionate incidence of infectious disease.  It's just the way it is.  They are cutting costs by screening out the people whose blood is statistically most likely to contain disease.  

 

Nice post.  Clear.  Logical.  Factual.  Not caught up in personal feelings.  

 

Here is the Red Cross list of eligibility requirements for donating blood.

 

http://www.redcrossb...betical-listing

 

 

They aren't singling out some group because "eeeew, that's yucky!" They are simply following practical safety and financial guidelines.  Safety being the chief issue.

 

The end.

Edited by Socalmuscle, 22 August 2013 - 02:23 PM.

[stardust]

In a perfect world, everyone should be giving blood.  At the same time, that perfect world would likely have everyone holding hands and singing "kumbaya" by the fire.

[Nollog]

Actually, no. 
 
i posted facts.  you posted knee-jerk reactions to what you THOUGHT might have been intended, rather than simply reading and understanding what exactly was being presented.
 
You had simply chosen to ignore the facts I (and others) presented so your lack of comprehension skills weren't so exposed. EVERYTHING you are arguing against are things you have actually made up yourself.  That's what is so pathetic.
 
It's over.  You have embarrassed yourself enough.  It's a good idea for you to just let it go now.
 
There are good reasons why certain people of various lifestyles are not eligible for donating blood.  They are good reasons that have been showcased very clearly in this thread. 
 
Once it devolves into childish little things you are doing now, it is obvious that this thread has run its course.

The end.

What childish little things?
You said I said something I didn't, I said you said something you say you didn't say.
The only childish part about it is that it took us 4 posts to come to terms with this, because I didn't outright say you're putting words inside my mouth.

http://www.chicagore...ent?oid=3386384
http://www.independe...ers-394898.html

I link this because it's similar, yet there are laws against using these studies to blanket discriminate against people.

Earlier you said you think sexual preference is a choice.
I don't think it is.
You have a choice to act on it, remain dis-satisfied with your life to satisfy other people and the status quo of society.
Or, you can enjoy yourself and love who your brain or heart wants to, and have minimal effect on other people in society.

[Gaymer]

What childish little things?
You said I said something I didn't, I said you said something you say you didn't say.
The only childish part about it is that it took us 4 posts to come to terms with this, because I didn't outright say you're putting words inside my mouth.

http://www.chicagore...ent?oid=3386384
http://www.independe...ers-394898.html

I link this because it's similar, yet there are laws against using these studies to blanket discriminate against people.

Earlier you said you think sexual preference is a choice.
I don't think it is.
You have a choice to act on it, remain dis-satisfied with your life to satisfy other people and the status quo of society.
Or, you can enjoy yourself and love who your brain or heart wants to, and have minimal effect on other people in society.

That's exactly what bothered me about his argument. The fact that he thinks this is a lifestyle choice, and continued to say it even after I addressed it. No one chooses who they are attracted to and fall in love with. 

Edited by Gaymer, 22 August 2013 - 04:12 PM.

[stardust]

That's exactly what bothered me about his argument. The fact that he thinks this is a lifestyle choice, and continued to say it even after I addressed it. No one chooses who they are attracted to and fall in love with. 

 

I beg to differ:

http://en.wikipedia....bert_John_Bardo

 

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/BTK_Killer

Edited by stardust, 22 August 2013 - 05:22 PM.

[Socalmuscle]

You can argue if it's a lifestyle choice all you want. That's only your opinion. There is no evidence to the contrary.

But...

And that's not even the subject of this thread. You get derailed so easily.

The subject is that men who ve sex with men are of such disportionately infected percentage of people groups, that it is neither safe nor fiscally wise to take their blood meant for another persons body.

Plain and simple.

You might not like the idea of it bring a lifestyle choice. And I will leave that argument as its not the point of this thread, which wuite obviously has run it's course when it's reduced to arguing side issues or one guy arguing with himself after putting words into others' mouths.

Deader than a doornail

[Gaymer]

You get derailed so easily.

You say that as if you kept track of the little bit of posts I make on this forum, which are mostly on topic.

 

As for the rest of what you said, it isn't my opinion. I am living it. I, myself, am my own proof that this isn't a chosen lifestyle. Unless you're implying that sexual preference itself is a choice? If so, then there is nothing more to discuss.

 

Anyway, I'll leave it at that. Hopefully this thread is closed soon, as it was pretty silly to begin with.

 

 

 

I beg to differ:

http://en.wikipedia....bert_John_Bardo

 

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/BTK_Killer

What do those articles have to do with anything I said?

Edited by Gaymer, 22 August 2013 - 08:33 PM.

[stardust]

You say that as if you kept track of the little bit of posts I make on this forum, which are mostly on topic.

 

As for the rest of what you said, it isn't my opinion. I am living it. I, myself, am my own proof that this isn't a chosen lifestyle. Unless you're implying that sexual preference itself is a choice? If so, then there is nothing more to discuss.

 

Anyway, I'll leave it at that. Hopefully this thread is closed soon, as it was pretty silly to begin with.

 

 

 

What do those articles have to do with anything I said?

"No one chooses who they are attracted to and fall in love with. "

[Gaymer]

"No one chooses who they are attracted to and fall in love with. "

And my point still stands. Are you trying to disprove something? Because you're not doing a very good job.

[stardust]

And my point still stands. Are you trying to disprove something? Because you're not doing a very good job.

Your point doesn't stand.  As you can see, people make CHOICES in life on what they do and who they have an attraction to.  Those CHOICES can sometimes lead to violent outcomes.  So you can't say people don't make these CHOICES, because clearly they do.

 

If they aren't the ones who are responsible CHOOSING who they "are attracted to and fall in love with" - then who or what is?  

 

Your world of nonsense suggests these murders had no choice at all on who they "are attracted to and fall in love with" when they stalked and killed their victims.  Unbelievable.

Edited by stardust, 22 August 2013 - 09:06 PM.

[Gaymer]

Your point doesn't stand.  As you can see, people make CHOICES in life on what they do and who they have an attraction to.  Those CHOICES can sometimes lead to violent outcomes.  So you can't say people don't make these CHOICES, because clearly they do.

 

If they aren't the ones who responsible CHOOSING who they "are attracted to and fall in love with" - then who or what is?  

I'm sorry, but I cannot take you seriously. People most definitely make choices on what they do. However, no one chooses who they are attracted to, and you are the first person I've ever met who has even made an attempt to say otherwise. Attraction is boiled down to biology. Whether it turns to violence or not doesn't change that fact. My point most definitely does stand. Please try again.

 

Stalking and murdering someone is a choice. Being attracted to them is not. Why are you trying to combine them together? You make absolutely no sense and sound ridiculous.

Edited by Gaymer, 22 August 2013 - 09:10 PM.