|
Nintendo Kid posted:Public health officials didn't really do any math to come up with the lifetime ban in the first place, it was straight up "gays have a mysterious disease that goes through blood, we can barely test for it, ban it because it's the mid 80s and we hate gays anyway". Yes, I'm sure you've reviewed every study that every relevant public health agency has done from the time the ban was first considered til today. Oh wait, you're Fishmech, so it doesn't matter if you've done that because you're just going to backpedal in a technically logical way to try and deflect peoples' attention from the fact that this is an incredibly stupid thing to say. edit: And don't even be a whiny bitch and say "but I was only talking about the initial time" because the post of mine you quoted originally wasn't referring to that and you know it. Lutha Mahtin fucked around with this message at 02:42 on Dec 26, 2014 |
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 02:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 02:32 |
|
|
If anyone's being a whiny bitch it's probably the smug dipshit saying "DO THE MATH" and not posting any proof or whatever. The blood ban is a SUPER debated thing and there's poo poo like Portugal and I think a couple South American countries that totally lifted their bans and, as far as I know, didn't have a sudden outbreak of HIV and AIDS.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 02:58
|
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:Yes, I'm sure you've reviewed every study that every relevant public health agency has done from the time the ban was first considered til today. Oh wait, you're Fishmech, so it doesn't matter if you've done that because you're just going to backpedal in a technically logical way to try and deflect peoples' attention from the fact that this is an incredibly stupid thing to say. All of the study has been done years, sometimes decades after the bans were implemented, is the point. And no well regarded study actually supports that lifetime bans are appropriate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 03:40
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:All of the study has been done years, sometimes decades after the bans were implemented, is the point. And no well regarded study actually supports that lifetime bans are appropriate. Really, you personally have collected every relevant study? Oh wait, no you haven't 
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 03:43
|
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:Really, you personally have collected every relevant study? Oh wait, no you haven't You sure haven't. You know who did? The Red Cross, which is why they're supporting the end of lifetime bans on the basis that they have no valid support or reason. Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 03:48 on Dec 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 03:44
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:You sure haven't. Which is irrelevant, because my original point was that public health agencies, in general, do things based on studying them and taking into consideration things like their funding and the arbitrary mandates imposed on them by reactionary politicians. You said this doesn't matter because public health officials didn't "do math" in some specific instance, and an existential argument against a universal such as this only has any relevance if actual evidence exists. You have not provided any, thus the existential is moot. If you want to actually debate the universal go ahead, otherwise 
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 03:49
|
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:Really, you personally have collected every relevant study? Oh wait, no you haven't Please provide studies by health groups that say a lifetime or even a longterm ban is the best idea.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 03:49
|
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:Which is irrelevant, because my original point was that public health agencies, in general, do things based on studying them and taking into consideration things like their funding and the arbitrary mandates imposed on them by reactionary politicians. You said this doesn't matter because public health officials didn't "do math" in some specific instance, and an existential argument against a universal such as this only has any relevance if actual evidence exists. You have not provided any, thus the existential is moot. If you want to actually debate the universal go ahead, otherwise All public health agencies that authorize ongoing lifetime bans of gays from donating are in opposition to all reliable evidence with regards to the efficacy of such bans.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 03:52
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:All public health agencies that authorize ongoing lifetime bans of gays from donating are in opposition to all reliable evidence with regards to the efficacy of such bans. Again, making an existential statement in an attempt to disprove a universal requires evidence that the existential is true. Thus, claiming what you just have requires proving that the statement is true, and you're Fishmech so you obviously haven't read
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 03:55
|
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:Again, making an existential statement in an attempt to disprove a universal requires evidence that the existential is true. Thus, claiming what you just have requires proving that the statement is true, and you're Fishmech so you obviously haven't read You sure are having fun making word salad, but you're not amounting to anything. There was no study done befoe the rules were implemented, and no study done after they were implemented justified lifetime bans. The most any reliable research has come up with is bans that last for "time for current tests to come back positive plus a few extra weeks/months as a buffer just to be sure". This is particularly evidenced by the fact that bans on women for having sex with men that had sex with men have almost never been indefinite, even though both situations should pose the same risk, given that we effectively say "having sex with a dude once means you might as well be HIV+" in attempting to justify lifetime bans.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 04:00
|
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:Again, making an existential statement in an attempt to disprove a universal requires evidence that the existential is true. Thus, claiming what you just have requires proving that the statement is true, and you're Fishmech so you obviously haven't read Hmm I'm not seeing any evidence that a lifetime ban is a good idea so, let's get rid of it. I guess it's possible that The FDA posted:the results of several recently completed scientific studies and recent epidemiologic data. (and)...the recommendation of an independent expert advisory panel the HHS Advisory Committee on Blood and Tissue Safety and Availability are all wrong and bullshit, but I'd have to see some studies showing that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 04:01
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:Hmm I'm not seeing any evidence that a lifetime ban is a good idea so, let's get rid of it. I guess it's possible that None of which matters, because the post of mine you quoted had nothing to do with that subject matter, and in fact was just an attempt to underline the complete inability of the person I was replying to's ability to form a coherent thought on this (or perhaps any other) issue.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 04:05
|
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:None of which matters, because the post of mine you quoted had nothing to do with that subject matter, and in fact was just an attempt to underline the complete inability of the person I was replying to's ability to form a coherent thought on this (or perhaps any other) issue. So what do you think of the blood ban?
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 04:07
|
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:None of which matters, because the post of mine you quoted had nothing to do with that subject matter, and in fact was just an attempt to underline the complete inability of the person I was replying to's ability to form a coherent thought on this (or perhaps any other) issue. Keep word salading, you still have no support for your (now completely nebulous) "position".
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 04:09
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:So you're fine with racial separation of blood too, from the way you're saying things? At some point you have to stop coddling these people or they'll always be with you. Sorry, I want my generation to be the last one that has to deal with this poo poo, and I'm willing to let pre-moderns make martyrs of themselves if they want. Unless we've done something to not allow people to deny medical treatment recently, I figure it's their right to be dumb. It would be nice to think so. I would, in general, support a move from the lifetime ban to a more practical year long ban (possibly with a monogamy clause) which would be more sensible in terms of preventing infection while increasing the amount of blood that can be donated. Because obviously if useful donations help to save lives then that would make it worthwhile. However, I don't support the idea that just because someone is bigoted and unpleasant that means they can go die in a fire. It's a depressingly common sentiment and not one I really want to be part of.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 05:17
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:However, I don't support the idea that just because someone is bigoted and unpleasant that means they can go die in a fire. It's a depressingly common sentiment and not one I really want to be part of. Why not? I mean, I support Jehovah's Witnessess' rights to likely die due to refusing to get blood transfusions. I may think it's a shame they choose to believe that way, but I support their attempt. Why shouldn't we respect the right of someone to die rather than get GAY BLOOD by allowing them to die?
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 05:21
|
|
|
There's a fairly big line between 'you have the right to autonomy over your body, to the point of dying' and 'good, I'm glad they died'.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 05:24
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Why not? I mean, I support Jehovah's Witnessess' rights to likely die due to refusing to get blood transfusions. I may think it's a shame they choose to believe that way, but I support their attempt. Why shouldn't we respect the right of someone to die rather than get GAY BLOOD by allowing them to die? Tatum Girlparts posted:There's a fairly big line between 'you have the right to autonomy over your body, to the point of dying' and 'good, I'm glad they died'. That, essentially. I don't really see the need to cheer on people too trapped in their own spite and idiocy when it ends up getting them killed. Considering it gets applied to LGBT people often enough, it seems especially inappropriate in context.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 05:27
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:That, essentially. I don't really see the need to cheer on people too trapped in their own spite and idiocy when it ends up getting them killed. I am totally and 100% fine with people choosing to die because they're scared of getting gay blood. It's a good thing, for them, to get what they want. You know, you don't see very many people around anymore who refuse to get black people blood. I wonder why that is? A problem that solved themselves, or did they realize that when they were about to die they didn't have time to be picky about where the blood comes from? Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 05:32 on Dec 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 05:30
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:However, I don't support the idea that just because someone is bigoted and unpleasant that means they can go die in a fire. It's a depressingly common sentiment and not one I really want to be part of. So if someone said they'd only accept a blood transfusion if the Red Cross segregated blood donors to ensure they wouldn't get any black dude's blood, should the Red Cross do it? Bear in mind that this isn't at all impossible and was actually Red Cross policy until 1950. Nintendo Kid posted:I am totally and 100% fine with people choosing to die because they're scared of getting gay blood. It's a good thing, for them, to get what they want. Yeah, this. Almost nobody is actually going to refuse a blood transfusion over bigotry. When it comes down to it, living is better. When people were allowed to insist on segregated blood, they did. When they were told "nope", they grumbled and took the blood because they didn't want to die. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 07:02 on Dec 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 06:36
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:So if someone said they'd only accept a blood transfusion if the Red Cross segregated blood donors to ensure they wouldn't get any black dude's blood, should the Red Cross do it? Probably not as I would imagine that doing that would cost a lot of money that could be better spent on things that will be more conducive to keeping people alive. I don't imagine there are a great many people nowadays who would refuse blood because of that. Or at least not enough to justify the expense. Like I said, even now I would argue that the 'no male/male sex ever' rule probably excludes a lot of people, assuming they're being honest, who could be giving useful, life saving donations, enough to justify the change in the rule even if it did result in deaths. But I'm not OK with saying it's a 'good' thing that people might die over it. Even if they're intensely unpleasant people. If you gave me the choice between social acceptance for me, and life for someone who hates me, I would pick the latter. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 07:10 on Dec 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 07:05
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:
But those people consider it a good thing to die over it (ps when push comes to shove they're not going to die over it). Why not support them? So let them do it, let them die if that's wht they think is the right thing to do. They'll probably change their minds way before it's too late.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 07:16
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:But those people consider it a good thing to die over it (ps when push comes to shove they're not going to die over it). Why not support them? Because I don't generally make a habit of reinforcing the self destructive delusions of the mentally unwell. Also it reads rather like a very limp justification for open sadism.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 07:17
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Because I don't generally make a habit of reinforcing the delusions of the mentally unwell. The fact that you have any hesitation about ending the bans speaks otherwise, friend. Because that's reinforcing the delusions of a much larger set of the "mentall unwell".
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 07:19
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Because I don't generally make a habit of reinforcing the self destructive delusions of the mentally unwell. But you said we should exclude gay people from donating on the off-chance that mentally unwell people refuse blood under the delusion that it's all got the homosyphilAIDS  So it sounds like you're on board with catering to and reinforcing delusions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 07:19
|
|
|
Possibly there are ways to tackle that particular delusion that don't involve gloating over the deaths of those who hold to it?
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 07:25
|
|
|
I don't see how saying "I don't give a poo poo if people die because they're scared that a blood transfusion is going to turn them gay" is gloating.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 07:28
|
|
|
"If you don't take the blood you will die, is that what you want" "No." "Okay, here's your gay blood" *disco ball starts spinning"
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 07:29
|
|
|
I concede the point, I don't want to start another big argument.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 07:46
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Possibly there are ways to tackle that particular delusion that don't involve gloating over the deaths of those who hold to it? I dunno, I don't see much wrong with gloating about the deaths of people who do everything in their power to gently caress me and other people like me over, and would put us in concentration camps if they could.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 14:00
|
|
|
RottenK posted:would put us in concentration camps if they could. I lol'd. Good one.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 23:30
|
|
|
spacetoaster posted:I lol'd. Good one. Literally what many homophobes here in my country would gladly do, including some politicians 
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 23:42
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2n7vSPwhSU
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 23:43
|
|
|
RottenK posted:Literally what many homophobes here in my country would gladly do, including some politicians I lol'd more at the funny image of what the camp would look like in my head.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 23:43
|
|
|
Yep, that guy wants to concentrate them in camps. I want to say that his education level probably prevents him from being a serious threat, but it looks like his club has money.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 23:46
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Possibly there are ways to tackle that particular delusion that don't involve gloating over the deaths of those who hold to it? I will always gloat over the death of anyone so dedicated to his anti gay beliefs that he refuses blood in a matter of life and death because some of it might be from a gay. And I will also respect the absolute depth of conviction that takes, because frankly I suspect that 99.9999% of the people who claim they'd never take gay blood are going to suddenly lose their inhibition when they're the ones 2 minutes from death on the operating table, dig? Frankly, I don't expect there will be many if any people who ever, ever, die due to to refusing to take possibly gay blood. So gloating about the potentiality seems perfectly fine to me, like gloating over the death of anyone who gets killed by a dragon in real life.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 23:53
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:I will always gloat over the death of anyone so dedicated to his anti gay beliefs that he refuses blood in a matter of life and death because some of it might be from a gay. And I will also respect the absolute depth of conviction that takes, because frankly I suspect that 99.9999% of the people who claim they'd never take gay blood are going to suddenly lose their inhibition when they're the ones 2 minutes from death on the operating table, dig? What about komodo dragons?
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2014 00:03
|
|
|
RottenK posted:What about komodo dragons? Those don't fly and spit fire.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2014 00:07
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Those don't fly and spit fire.  http://stewartrobson.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Dragon_march2013_4_LO.jpg
amanasleep fucked around with this message at 00:15 on Dec 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2014 00:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 02:32 |
|
|
That's what they want you to think.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2014 00:15
|
|