Originally Posted by Jefferson

Oh Boo-Frickin'-Hoo. Cry me a river, you baby!
I can't donate blood either, because I've been overseas.
THE RED CROSS IS DISCRIMINATING AGAINST ME!!!!!!! Boo-Stinking-Hoo.

Originally Posted by Jefferson

Maybe if people like you and Trista were concerned with anything beyond the end of your penis, you'd consider the health risk you're posing to innocent people.

Originally Posted by JayD

Heres the point, alot more gay people have aids (pound for pound) then striaght people.

Originally Posted by JayD

Therefore it is within the right of any blood donation org to refuse to accept blood from those individuals. To lie about your sexual prefrence to donate blood boarders on striaght evil intentions.

Originally Posted by foundit66

1) Technically, 48% IS a minority.
2) Secondly, DO THE MATH.
48% of all HIV victims are gay?
That doesn't mean anything about how many GAYS have HIV.
Of course it does.

Do you understand that those are two ENTIRELY DIFFERENT numbers?

Of course I do.
3) Do you want to take another example?

Not really, but go ahead anyway.
We can take the percentage of violent criminals in jail who are black.
Does that mean the majority of blacks are violent criminals?
Not nesessarily. But it does point to certain facts. Such as poverty levels equating crime.
Or even HIV statistics and blacks. As Tristan pointed out, why not look at black females and HIV.
Does that mean that black females should be banned from donating blood?

I think that has more to do with folks in Africa (where aids is running ramped) That being the case, YES I think we should avoid blood donations from africa that are given by African women. Safty first.

These tools of mathematical misinterpretation and stereo-typing are frequently used against minority groups. But for some reason, people can't seem to figure out that it's still wrong when it's applied to a group they do not like...

Mathmematical misinterpretation? 48% of the people on this earth with Aids are gay. You only represent at most 6% of the whole population. That number is through the roof. Dont you see?

Originally Posted by JayD

Of course it does.

Originally Posted by JayD

Of course I do.

Originally Posted by JayD

Not nesessarily. But it does point to certain facts. Such as poverty levels equating crime.

Originally Posted by JayD

I think that has more to do with folks in Africa (where aids is running ramped) That being the case, YES I think we should avoid blood donations from africa that are given by African women. Safty first.

Originally Posted by JayD

Mathmematical misinterpretation? 48% of the people on this earth with Aids are gay. You only represent at most 6% of the whole population. That number is through the roof. Dont you see?

Originally Posted by foundit66

Here's a counter-point.
The VAST MAJORITY of gay people DO NOT have HIV or AIDS.

And world-wide, the MAJORITY of HIV victims are straight.

Striaght people represent at least 94% of the population. Talk about mathmatical misinterpretation.



Quite frankly, I am in a monogamous relationship with my partner of five years.
I do not have any STDs.

Thats cool. But we cant take into account personal situations. How do we really know your monogamous, or your partner for that matter?

So WHY should I be prohibited from donating blood?

Cause you represent 48% of people with Aids. How do you not see the risks? Should we put people in harms way, trusting your personal situation? I think not.

People are presuming a risk based on ONE FACTOR

Yea, one HUGH factor.
while ignoring everything else. It's essentially a use of a stereo-type which is very poorly applied.



And for the record JayD, ignoring most of my arguments is not helping your cause.

What cause? I have no dilutions that you will hear a word I say. But I have the winter off, so there really isnt much more to do.

Originally Posted by foundit66

No. Actually, it means incredibly little besides giving you a baseline for how many gay HIV victims there are.
The percentage of gays with HIV could be 0.01% or 100%, depending on the number of gays.

YOU ONLY REPRESENT AT MOST 6% OF THE POPULATION

Your previous post belies that claim.

How?

And that's another issue.
OTHER factors in play besides just the one.
But on the other hand, does that mean that being black CAUSES them to be poor?

Some of them would argue it does.


Actually, most countries statistics on HIV show a majority caused by heterosexual sex. Not just the African continent.

No kidding. One last time though. Striaght people represent AT LEAST 96% of the population. And gays (who only represent at most 6%) have nearly HALF the hiv cases. Its not hard to see there is a serious problem going on here.



I see there is a serious problem with SOME portions of the gay community.
Now we are getting somewhere. Knowing full well that there is a "serious problem with some of the gay community" Why should people be put at risk, and allow them to donate blood?

But that doesn't correlate to the ENTIRE gay community.

No one is saying it is. What we are saying is, there is just to much of a risk, and not enough quick effective screening, to use blood from people who are gay. Being that the posibility of them having Aids is FAR GREATER, then those who are not gay. These people dont just make this stuff up.


The vast majority of gays still DO NOT have HIV.
Do you get that?


Because if you still don't comprehend that, DO THE MATH.

The math? The math tells me I have a greater risk of contacting HIV from blood donations from gay people, then I do striaght people. The math says the samething to health professionals as it does to me, hence the discussion at hand. I for one would never put anyone in such a situation.

Originally Posted by foundit66

Yes. The red cross is discriminating against you.
And I realize you've got your head too stuck in lala land to realize that I acknowledge that some discrimination is ENTIRELY JUSTIFIED.
My arguments typically regard the JUSTIFICATION for the discrimination, but of course you'll be too lost to actually realize what I am ACTUALLY arguing against.

Did you ever stop to QUESTION THE REASON behind their policy, instead of just blindly supporting it?



I've asked before.
WHAT health risk?
They screen the blood.

And as Tristan pointed out, which you conveniently avoided, if we're talking about these standards as viable, WHY are black women still allowed to donate?
Why can't you answer that?

Originally Posted by foundit66

I've asked before.
WHAT health risk?
They screen the blood.

And as Tristan pointed out, which you conveniently avoided, if we're talking about these standards as viable, WHY are black women still allowed to donate?
Why can't you answer that?