|
hackbunny posted:Checking in a day later and yep, still angry It's good to be angry, we should be angry, it's when you start spouting nonsense about having our own version of the Rodney King riots and even when you acknowledge it wouldnt do anything youre still going on about doing it anyway just because.
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 21:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:02 |
|
|
Hollismason posted:I know this got lost in the shuffle but has anyone seen any news on the young woman who was in the anti gay camp? Latest update from the GoFundMe (3 days ago) was that she'd been released.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 21:51
|
|
|
I need something to do. What are some LGBT political groups to donate to that are good? Who are the people in Washington down the throats of people who do stuff? Who can I throw money at or give time to?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 21:53
|
|
|
BigRed0427 posted:I need something to do. What are some LGBT political groups to donate to that are good? Who are the people in Washington down the throats of people who do stuff? http://www.glaad.org/
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 22:00
|
|
|
BigRed0427 posted:I need something to do. What are some LGBT political groups to donate to that are good? Who are the people in Washington down the throats of people who do stuff? Can you donate blood?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 22:08
|
|
|
Keeshhound posted:Can you donate blood? Nope, I've had sex with someone with a penius.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 22:12
|
|
|
you can just lie, like how they gonna find out
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 22:17
|
|
|
yea unless the next part of that post is 'and I have a disease from it' then there's zero ethical reason to go along with the bullshit regulation especially in this context. I'm out and proud and all that poo poo but when I donate blood suddenly I love pussy, weirdest thing, must be that whole sexuality spectrum thing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 22:20
|
|
|
BigRed0427 posted:Nope, I've had sex with someone with a penius. Figures. As much as both ABC and ARC whine about not having enough blood, you'd think they'd be more receptive to changing their guidelines to just asking people if they'd engaged in unsafe sex in the last year. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
Keeshhound posted:Figures. As much as both ABC and ARC whine about not having enough blood, you'd think they'd be more receptive to changing their guidelines to just asking people if they'd engaged in unsafe sex in the last year. to be fair last I checked both of them 100% were in the camp of 'these rules are loving stupid'
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 22:28
|
|
|
BigRed0427 posted:I need something to do. What are some LGBT political groups to donate to that are good? Who are the people in Washington down the throats of people who do stuff? I'm told the GLBT Center of Central Florida is a good local organization. http://www.thecenterorlando.org/
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 22:33
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:to be fair last I checked both of them 100% were in the camp of 'these rules are loving stupid' Also, Orlando's lifted that ban on donations. Florida's LGBT community understandably has been eager to donate blood and the folks in Orlando decided to remove the ban for them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 22:50
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:Also, Orlando's lifted that ban on donations. Florida's LGBT community understandably has been eager to donate blood and the folks in Orlando decided to remove the ban for them. Sadly it's "temporary " but I hope there's a push to make it permanent.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 23:03
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:Sadly it's "temporary " but I hope there's a push to make it permanent. hopefully with a large enough gay presence they will see that willingly removing such a large amount of donors is stupid
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 23:04
|
|
|
Is the MSM blood donation ban an administrative rule or an actual law? Can the FDA lift it without waiting on Congress?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 23:05
|
|
|
joat mon posted:Latest update from the GoFundMe (3 days ago) was that she'd been released. Yeah I'd read that it was great to hear, but I'm wondering if we'll ever hear from her regarding the whole Heartland place.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 23:08
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:Is the MSM blood donation ban an administrative rule or an actual law? Can the FDA lift it without waiting on Congress? It's an FDA policy. The problem is that much of the old guard in the FDA is very, very hesitant to roll back restrictions on blood supply-- not necessarily out of homophobia, but remembering the AIDS epidemic at its peak. It's not a great situation, and to an extent I understand their reasoning in attempting to maintain it, but it's not exactly a tenable position when it comes to both the evidence and the social climate.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 23:19
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:That being said, nothing's going to happen. If we couldn't do anything after a bunch of innocent kids were murdered during school then we're certainly not going to do anything for a bunch of folks who "choose" to live a sinful lifestyle getting shot up at a sin den nightclub. It's easy to want it as a knee jerk reaction, but the push always tapers off, and Congress is hostile to the idea. Given the SCOTUS precedent in the last few years, the only thing that's going to make sweeping gun control happen is a full on repeal of the 2nd, and you couldn't right this minute get 2/3 of Congress to agree to call the fire department if the statehouse were on fire at that moment, much less get 3/4 of the States to ratify. It sucks that we can't even really have a rational conversation about it. I mean, I'm pretty blatantly pro-2nd Amendment, and don't see any way short of mass confiscation that would have kept a guy who could pass the background checks to work as an armed guard for a federal contractor from obtaining a weapon, but there's got to be some way we can better prevent this kind of thing. Liquid Communism fucked around with this message at 23:52 on Jun 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 23:49
|
|
|
The MSM not donating blood thing is almost directly related to Ryan White who was a child who was a hemophiliac who got HIV from a blood transfusion and died of AIDS.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 00:27
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:The MSM not donating blood thing is almost directly related to Ryan White who was a child who was a hemophiliac who got HIV from a blood transfusion and died of AIDS. Well, that wasn't quite the direct cause. He was part of the larger cause, which was the sudden realization that it was blood-borne via HIV, and that there had been no screening of donated blood for it. As a result, something like 90% of hemophiliacs in the late 80s and early 90s acquired HIV/AIDS. He was certainly a very prominent face of the issue, though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 00:33
|
|
|
Teddybear posted:Well, that wasn't quite the direct cause. He was part of the larger cause, which was the sudden realization that it was blood-borne via HIV, and that there had been no screening of donated blood for it. As a result, something like 90% of hemophiliacs in the late 80s and early 90s acquired HIV/AIDS. He was certainly a very prominent face of the issue, though. Yeah, he isn't the exact cause but his case was what really brought to light that it was a blood borne illness. I agree with the ban when it happened at that point in time in history ,but today agree with the AMA that it should be lifted.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 00:48
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:Sadly it's "temporary " but I hope there's a push to make it permanent. That doesn't make any sense. If there's a risk from certain groups donating blood, then it's not like that risk is going to temporarily disappear during a tragedy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 04:43
|
|
|
shadowvine118 posted:That doesn't make any sense, if there's a risk from certain groups donating blood, then it's not like that risk is going to temporarily disappear during a tragedy. No, you see, gays can be temporarily treated like humans after a bunch of them get murdered.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 04:45
|
|
|
We already screen blood for HIV. http://www.cdc.gov/bloodsafety/basics.html Like it's just kind of dumb at this point because we have methods to detect it. In the 80s and 90s those tests were very prohibitively expensive etc.. especially during the 80s when they didn't really have a test so it was a actual reasonable measure to take.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 05:06
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:We already screen blood for HIV. The tests are also not infallible. Unless you can't find alternative donors it makes sense to avoid using blood that is at elevated risk of being dangerous for the patient receiving it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 05:26
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:The tests are also not infallible. Unless you can't find alternative donors it makes sense to avoid using blood that is at elevated risk of being dangerous for the patient receiving it. Yeah, but the same standards to which straight people are held to work for gays too; "Have you had unprotected sex with a new partner in the last year?" "No." "Have you had sex with anyone who is HIV positive in the last year?" "No." "Ok, but was it anal sex with a man who isn't HIV positive?" "Yes." "I'm sorry, anal sex just spontaneously produces AIDS particles sometimes. We don't know how it happens, but we can't take your blood, sorry."  It's a blatant double standard, and a dumb one that is actively hurting people because bloodbanks are constantly dealing with blood shortages, but they're forced (in normal circumstances) to turn away prospective donors because of the type of sex they're having, rather than whether or not both partners are clean, or they're practicing safe sex. Keeshhound fucked around with this message at 05:37 on Jun 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 05:33
|
|
|
Keeshhound posted:Yeah, but the same standards to which straight people are held to work for gays too; I would prefer if the permanent MSM deferral was not a thing because it reinforces a stigma against gay people, but statistically it still is more prevalent among gay and bisexual men (and for extra racism points, black Africans) The reason it's phrased the way it is is because asking people "are you gay?" is ambiguous, asking people about their specific sexual activity is not. So, if we assume that not all people who have it know they have it, it becomes necessary to defer people based on membership of at-risk categories. Your options for policy are: Lessen the prohibition against MSM blood donation, increase statistical risk of any given donation being HIV positive as a higher risk category is now donating, and thus the possibility of screening not detecting that. Or: Keep the restrictions as they are and risk blood not being available when it is needed due to insufficient supply. If the latter is a greater problem than the former, it makes sense to change the restriction, otherwise it does not. I would suggest that perhaps which of those is more of a concern would not be constant across geography and time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 05:45
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:The tests are also not infallible. Unless you can't find alternative donors it makes sense to avoid using blood that is at elevated risk of being dangerous for the patient receiving it. There's actually more risk from white males who are not monogamous or people who are intravenous drug users. Several countries have removed the restriction. I agree that testing is neccessary ,but you can make the same arguments for Hep B , A , and C.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 06:51
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:The tests are also not infallible. Unless you can't find alternative donors it makes sense to avoid using blood that is at elevated risk of being dangerous for the patient receiving it. Possibility and probability are not mutually inclusive so please do not conflate the two: quote:A large study of HIV testing in 752 U.S. laboratories reported a sensitivity of 99.7% and specificity of 98.5% for enzyme immunoassay (45), and studies in U.S. blood donors reported specificities of 99.8% and greater than 99.99% (46–47). http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=718529 And from Wikipedia on the issue: quote:However, based upon the HIV prevalence rates at most testing centers within the United States, the negative predictive value of these tests is extremely high, meaning that a negative test result will be correct more than 9,997 times in 10,000 (99.97% of the time). The very high negative predictive value of these tests is why the CDC recommends that a negative test result be considered conclusive evidence that an individual does not have HIV. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnosis_of_HIV/AIDS#Accuracy_of_HIV_testing edit: Echoing other people who talked about when the epidemic started in the 80's and there weren't very accurate testing, it made sense that, at the time, gay men couldn't donate. That isn't the case anymore for fucks sake dan fucked around with this message at 07:08 on Jun 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 07:05
|
|
|
Looks like Omar was probably gay. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...s-a7081041.html
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 13:11
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Looks like Omar was probably gay. On one hand, whoop-de-doo, big surprise On the other hand, great, now we're no longer just degenerates, we have no honor either
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 13:27
|
|
|
hackbunny posted:On one hand, whoop-de-doo, big surprise It looks like more evidence that anti-LGBT rhetoric and social discrimination/bigotry/the pressures of being LGBT in America are what contributed to this, IMO.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 14:29
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:It looks like more evidence that anti-LGBT rhetoric and social discrimination/bigotry/the pressures of being LGBT in America are what contributed to this, IMO. Or, it will just feed into the old narrative that gay men are over-represented among serial and spree killers e: for example, didn't they try their damnedest to find a gay angle to Columbine? e2: sometimes a pipe bomb is just a pipe bomb hackbunny fucked around with this message at 14:48 on Jun 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 14:43
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:It looks like more evidence that anti-LGBT rhetoric and social discrimination/bigotry/the pressures of being LGBT in America are what contributed to this, IMO. Yeah, but that's not the narrative being pushed; no one wants to talk about anti-gay hatred, it's all "how was he radicalized? Which terrorist organization was he actually working for? Is it radical Islam or radical islamism?"
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 14:44
|
|
|
Well it's not like someone being radicalized because all they hear about being gay is "pray harder and and it will go away" is unheard of.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 15:00
|
|
|
hackbunny posted:Or, it will just feed into the old narrative that gay men are over-represented among serial and spree killers
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 15:02
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:There's actually more risk from white males who are not monogamous or people who are intravenous drug users. Several countries have removed the restriction. I agree that testing is neccessary ,but you can make the same arguments for Hep B , A , and C. You can and I would. Donor blood needs to be as close to 100% safe as possible, both for the benefit of those in receipt of it and for the welfare of the concept itself. If people don't believe the blood supply is safe then they may refuse treatment, which in turn may cause more deaths. So even a vanishingly small probability may still pose a disproportionate risk. But then perhaps I'm partisan given that a quarter of my family were wiped out by the aforementioned hemophiliac problem in the 80's. My desire to donate blood is rather trivial compared to that. Donation is not a right.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 15:06
|
|
|
Great, he's another Elliot Rogers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 15:09
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:The tests are also not infallible. Unless you can't find alternative donors it makes sense to avoid using blood that is at elevated risk of being dangerous for the patient receiving it. The thing is that the questionnaire has no way to prove you lied about being gay or really any of the other things on there, when you go to donate blood. I don't understand why people insist on thinking the ban on the donations is self-enforcing. OwlFancier posted:You can and I would. Donor blood needs to be as close to 100% safe as possible, both for the benefit of those in receipt of it and for the welfare of the concept itself. If people don't believe the blood supply is safe then they may refuse treatment, which in turn may cause more deaths. So even a vanishingly small probability may still pose a disproportionate risk. But again, dudes who just had gay sex or injected drugs or anything else the night before are already donating blood and have been donating blood for years. They don't have a gay test they can use on you at the Red Cross office to detect that you lied about having sex with dudes. So given that we know people have been flouting the rules and the blood supply's remained safe anyway, it's obvious we should start formally lowering those restrictions.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 15:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:02 |
|
|
People may conceivably lie about any of the screening questions but that doesn't mean we should do away with the screening altogether. That people want it to be changed suggests that it is, in part, self enforcing. Which is better than nothing. Deterring at-risk donations and screening all donations are both facets of ensuring the supply is safe for use. Again while it is a nice feeling to donate blood, it is not done for the benefit of the donor. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 16:02 on Jun 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 15:59
|
|