John X Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 Why are you refering to me,unless of course your not who you pretend to be. Or.................... more than ONE person knows what certain people got up to in Thailand, which isn't hard as it's all over the internet! I love it when a plan works so easily! John X P.S. If you think I'm not who I am then why don't you report me to admin and have me banned! lol Also EVERYBODY is not who they pretend to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightlight59 Posted September 9, 2011 Author Share Posted September 9, 2011 Or.................... more than ONE person knows what certain people got up to in Thailand, which isn't hard as it's all over the internet! I love it when a plan works so easily! John X P.S. If you think I'm not who I am then why don't you report me to admin and have me banned! lol Also EVERYBODY is not who they pretend to be. Im not the first who knows who you really are ;)your posting style is such a giveaway.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John X Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 Im not the first who knows who you really are ;)your posting style is such a giveaway.. You lot on the far-right are so paranoid! You think I'm norks, AJ Sheffield thinks I'm someone called Eric or Keith. Some character called scentral thinks I'm Titanic99 (good user name by the way). I guess it's because you lot have been on here under so many different names over the years, that you think everyone is at it! As for my posting style being the same as norks', maybe Halibut, melthebel and boyfriday could cast a vote on that one. I'd say you couldn't have two more differing styles! (she sends her love by the way and tells bf to stay away from those spiders!) Anyway, back on topic. In a time of real shortages of blood supply to the NHS, why do you think homophobic predjudice should overrule sound medical advice? John X/norks/Titanic99/Eric/Keith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hard2miss Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 If you argue that gay men can't donate blood because they have a higher chance of having aids, then the same logic applies to all the sexually active population, because they have a higher chance aswell.No it does not, how can it? If the percentage of people having it in a minority of our society is greater than the rest, then that is saying that the risk is greater. You cannot say that because the rest of society has more people then that so how evens it up because there is always going to be a greater percentage of people within that group that don't have it, that's how percentages work isn't it ? If we are looking to cut down the odds of passing on the disease then its logical to exclude the part of society with the higher percentage of people with it, its not hard to understand that concept. Its not ideal but its a practical solution. Now you have moved onto another argument, being that the benefits out weigh the risks. Well that's down to a reliance this group of scientists interpretation of the facts, and like I said its not hard to get another group to come up with conflicting arguments or use your own judgment on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hard2miss Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 The risks of homosexuals donating blood and the benefits of allowing more people to donate have been considered, and it has deemed negligible enough to lift the ban. [Committee member Prof Deirdre Kelly said ...] the data showed that "the risk from a 12-month deferral was equivalent to permanent deferral" so "the evidence does not support the maintenance of a permanent ban". Mean while in the states... A federal committee recommends maintaining the policy preventing gay men from donating blood in the United States, provoking disappointment and anger from gay activist groups. The Federal Advisory Committee on Blood Safety and Availability voted 9 to 6 against lifting the ban Friday. This committee makes recommendations to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. This was last year but shows just how difference of opinion is even among those that have looked into it and weighed it all up. Yes this is in the US, but equally as irrelevant is the fact that more people live in the states, maybe that makes them more right ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John X Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 down to a reliance this group of scientists interpretation of the facts, and like I said its not hard to get another group to come up with conflicting arguments or use your own judgment on it. Go on then! John X Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulgarian Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 Never mind the risk of catching HIV, what about the risk of having the 'gay gene' inserted into your body, and becoming gay? at least your dress sense would improve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big time Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 I know the evidence seems to point to it being ok to do so but I still have a uneasy feeling about this,in fact Im not comfortable with it,even the slightest risk of contracting aids has to be not worth the risk. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-14824310 Can, open, worms everywhere! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 If we are looking to cut down the odds of passing on the disease then its logical to exclude the part of society with the higher percentage of people with it, its not hard to understand that concept. Its not ideal but its a practical solution. In which case - as he just posted - you should be arguing to exclude all people who have ever had sexual intercourse. The whole of that group has a higher percentage of people with HIV than the group that has never had sex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big time Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 Where the hell did AIDS come from? no one had AIDS in this country the 60's and 70's, when, lets face it, everyone was at it; but then all of a sudden it seems, in the mid eighties, AIDs was a big thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.