Your Health and LIFE May be at Risk for Sake of being PC

[JayS]

@walter

If you are going to exclude “high risk” sexual behavior, homo or otherwise, then it doesn’t really matter, the whole argument takes care of itself. If you loped off the whole population based on sexual preference alone then its a bit different.

Peg A in Slot B is a lot less of a factor to me than a persons behavior/ethics/etc. You can have all the butt plugging you want, but if you are monogamous, or even just smart/safe, you are far less likely to contract something than sally club whore fucking every johnny 2 inches in the bathroom at da club with no rubber.

See, now you’re taking a small minority from your set of data and trying to use it to argue a point for your entire set of data. Sally club whore and mr gay male who’s only had one partner are not the norm in the data. The majority have had multiple partners but are not promiscuous. Statistically this major set in the data is going to have a higher incidents of HIV infection amount the homosexual individuals. Hence, the policy.

And Nick, I’m actually quite liberal in my social views. But those policies really don’t affect me nearly as much as economic and geopolitical policies, so I vote conservative. It’s why I was a big Rudy supporter.

[walter]

If you are arguing this, it is because you are closed minded, unless you also don’t drink, don’t eat most foods, never drive or never lave the house because if you are this afraid of catching AIDS from gay blood, then you sure as shit are terrified of all the actual posibilities out there like getting hit by a mac truck on the way to work.

[d3x]

@JayS

The problem is most of the non male to male aids case would already be denied blood donation under the current system. Their high risk drug injection or high risk heterosexual activity would preclude them.

I agree, the typical donor is a more conscientious person but that doesn’t exclude them from having a sexual past. As you admitted, the pure physics involved in homosexual intercourse leads them to be at a higher risk for hiv transmission. To put it bluntly, tab A was never meant to fit in slot B.

If they are higher at risk, and the screening test isn’t 100%, I just can’t agree with the idea that they should be allowed to donate. Find a screening test that is 100% accurate and no problem.

And before any of you label me as some conservative homophobe I support gay marriage, have gay friends, support health insurance coverage for “domestic partners”, and support gay adoption. What I don’t support is putting our blood supply at increase risk, even slightly increased risk, so we can “feel better”.

And d3x, go back to “flying” your car on the 290.

like men are the only ones who get tab A put in their slot B?

btw, my slow camry doesnt fly nearly as good as the mighty LSx you got under your hood. maybe if i pop in some Disturbed i can fly as good as you? :headbang:

[walter]

@JayS

See, now you’re taking a small minority from your set of data and trying to use it to argue a point for your entire set of data. Sally club whore and mr gay male who’s only had one partner are not the norm in the data. The majority have had multiple partners but are not promiscuous. Statistically this major set in the data is going to have a higher incidents of HIV infection amount the homosexual individuals. Hence, the policy.

And Nick, I’m actually quite liberal in my social views. But those policies really don’t affect me nearly as much as economic and geopolitical policies, so I vote conservative. It’s why I was a big Rudy supporter.

Now you are skewing your statistical outcomes by comparing non-equivalent data sets. :shrug:

The data that says homosexual males are the leaders does not even show that they are the majority with any sort of significance. I find it hard to believe that 5% of ESTIMATED numbers is as night and day as you are trying to portray.

If that is the case, why don’t you go on to say that only lesbians should be allowed to donate, because they are far less likely to have AIDS than straighties?

[walter]

@d3x

like men are the only ones who get tab A put in their slot B?

:lol:

winner :hitit:

[JayS]

Lets try another approach.

Do any of you have a problem with them turning away heterosexuals who admit to having sexual activities that make them high risk?

[Blue_Eyed_Devil]

@walter

Because clearly gay blood means you’ll get the hiv. :cjerk:

I think I’d rather have the .0005% chance of getting aids as opposed to the

“man, your husband survived the first 10 hours of surgery to bring him out of his 4 month coma, but we ran out of blood and had to let him go… good news though, he died with none of those faggy red blood cells in his system though” :bloated:

I agree, it was just a joke.
Relax.

[Joe]

@JayS

Lets try another approach.

Do any of you have a problem with them turning away heterosexuals who admit to having sexual activities that make them high risk?

if they actually admitted it, absolutely not. Not sure how much truth you’d get in those kind of questions though.

[RedGoober4Life]

So you have gay friends and tout it as some charitable act in defense of your inability to interpret statistically data?

Are your gay friends as moronic as you?

[RedGoober4Life]

@Joe

if they actually admitted it, absolutely not. Not sure how much truth you’d get in those kind of questions though.

You wouldn’t. People lie on questionaires to seem desirable. It could be something as anonymous as a telephone survey.

[Nikuk]

The point is not to exclude people because of their orientation.

As far as safety is concerned, orientation is on the same plane as drug use, and hookers. Why? Not because people are phobic, and not because people don’t approve of heroin in their coffee.
Rather because there is “statistical proof” of higher risk in both IV drug use, homosexuality, promiscuity (sp).

Walter, you of all people I would’ve expected to see the law of large numbers at play.

[d3x]

@JayS

Lets try another approach.

Do any of you have a problem with them turning away heterosexuals who admit to having sexual activities that make them high risk?

noone who states they are clean should be turned away period. anyone can be carrying something harmful no matter what group statistics can put them in.

[Nikuk]

@d3x

noone who states they are clean should be turned away period. anyone can be carrying something harmful no matter what group statistics can put them in.

Blood screening is not 100% accurate. Its not even 99.9999%.

So, of 10,000,000 units on hand, that means 100,000 units cannot be varified as safe.

And that is after the social screening.

Yea, all reformed drug addicts who caught Hep (tommy lee & pam anderson?), or otherwise in the past, should be allowed to worsen your families odds of a bad transfusion.

[d3x]

@Nikuk

Blood screening is not 100% accurate. Its not even 99.9999%.

So, of 10,000,000 units on hand, that means 100,000 units cannot be varified as safe.

And that is after the social screening.

Yea, all reformed drug addicts who caught Hep (tommy lee & pam anderson?), or otherwise in the past, should be allowed to worsen your families odds of a bad transfusion.

if someone says they have hepatitis they wouldnt be clean would they

im waiting for the statistic that says gay men are more likely to lie about being clean…

[Nikuk]

lol, you assume that it all boils down to bigotry?

[JayS]

@Joe

if they actually admitted it, absolutely not. Not sure how much truth you’d get in those kind of questions though.

Generally I bet the answers are pretty truthful. If you’re there trying to help people by giving blood chances are you aren’t going to lie on the survey that is designed to keep the blood supply safe. If you’re getting paid for that donation that’s a whole other story, but we’re talking about voluntary blood drives here. Not saying it doesn’t happen, but it would be rare. Again, you do what you can to LESSEN the risk. You socially screen first, then medically screen since your medical screening is only about 98%. 1 million units of blood with a 98% catch rate isn’t going to cut it, so you screen socially so hopefully most of the blood that makes it to the lab testing already has a higher chance of being safe.

So if you’re saying admitted risky sexual behavior is grounds for being banned from giving blood, how can you argue that admitted homosexuals should be allowed to donate? No one can argue that homosexual sex carries an increase risk of HIV transmission, the same as anal sex between a male and a female, which is also one of the risky activities that gets you denied as a donor.

No, not all homosexuals have aids. :duh: Just like not all 16 year olds with fast cars get in accidents. But the facts are they both are in a higher risk pool, and that’s why one group can’t give blood and the other has high insurance rates.

[zwarbyt]

what is worse is i heard if you get gay blood in you that you are likely to suck cock and fuck kids

its true

[JayS]

@JayS

Generally I bet the answers are pretty truthful. If you’re there trying to help people by giving blood chances are you aren’t going to lie on the survey that is designed to keep the blood supply safe. If you’re getting paid for that donation that’s a whole other story, but we’re talking about voluntary blood drives here. Not saying it doesn’t happen, but it would be rare. Again, you do what you can to LESSEN the risk. You socially screen first, then medically screen since your medical screening is only about 98%. 1 million units of blood with a 98% catch rate isn’t going to cut it, so you screen socially so hopefully most of the blood that makes it to the lab testing already has a higher chance of being safe.

So if you’re saying admitted risky sexual behavior is grounds for being banned from giving blood, how can you argue that admitted homosexuals should be allowed to donate? No one can argue that homosexual sex carries an increase risk of HIV transmission, the same as anal sex between a male and a female, which is also one of the risky activities that gets you denied as a donor.

No, not all homosexuals have aids. :duh: Just like not all 16 year olds with fast cars get in accidents. But the facts are they both are in a higher risk pool, and that’s why one group can’t give blood and the other has high insurance rates.

@RedGoober4Life

So you have gay friends and tout it as some charitable act in defense of your inability to interpret statistically data?

Are your gay friends as moronic as you?

Stick to washing cars, it’s all you’ll ever be good at.

[Nikuk]

@JayS

the same as anal sex between a male and a female, which is also one of the risky activities that gets you denied as a donor.

BUT THEY AREN’T HOMOSEXUAL, THEREFORE THEY ARE BAD, HORRIBLE PEOPLE AND IT SERVES THEM RIGHT TO NOT GIVE BLOOD! THEY SHOULD RECIEVE NO BLANKET PROTECTION JUST CAUSE THEY LIKE IT IDB

Just like not all 16 year olds with fast cars get in accidents. But the facts are they both are in a higher risk pool, and that’s why one group can’t give blood and the other has high insurance rates.
:lol:

[ultradriver10000]

I love Violator, and no I am not gay.

I actually agree on 98% of what he says, ever.

Want to cuddle?