hard2miss Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 Lets put this to bed because the goal posts keep getting moved here. Right if you have 100 heterosexuals give blood and 5 of them have aids, and then you have 10 gay men give blood and 3 of them have aids, then the logic is that although there maybe 5 heterosexuals with aids and only 3 from the gay men there is a higher percentage of gay men with it. The problem is not as big in heterosexuals as the percentages of gay men with aids is much greater. Now you can't have the argument that if you are to stop 3 people with aids by banning the gay men, you then must stop all the heterosexuals to stop the 5 because the greater number do not have it so your cutting your legs off to spite your face. Should we exclude gay men ? Probably not, but sometimes you have to do things you would not wish to because its necessary. None of it is ideal but its practical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 Lets put this to bed because the goal posts keep getting moved here. Right if you have 100 heterosexuals give blood and 5 of them have aids, and then you have 10 gay men give blood and 3 of them have aids, then the logic is that although there maybe 5 heterosexuals with aids and only 3 from the gay men, the problem is not as big as the percentages of gay men with aids is much greater. Nobody has yet disagreed with that, and in any event it's irrelevant to this entire argument. Most certainly it's irrelevant to the question that you still refuse to answer. Do you believe that people who are higher risk than other people, should be barred from giving blood? Yes or no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hard2miss Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 The question remains exactly the same regardless of which group is represented by X. Either you want groups banned which are at higher risk than other groups, or else you do not. Which is it? I want groups banned that are a higher risk IE: gay men, and have said so through out. Im not sure what your point is ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hard2miss Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 Nobody has yet disagreed with that, and in any event it's irrelevant to this entire argument. Most certainly it's irrelevant to the question that you still refuse to answer. Do you believe that people who are higher risk than other people, should be barred from giving blood? Yes or no? Where is the confusion on your part ? I have said ban the group with the highest risk, now answer my question, Is it your assumption that because there may be more heterosexuals found to have aids when giving blood you think that that then puts heterosexuals in a high risk category ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big time Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 Do you believe that people who are higher risk than other people, should be barred from giving blood? Yes or no? Give it a rest will you, no one thinks you're funny or clever! if it was virgins only then they'd be hardly any bloodstocks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BritPat Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 Nobody has yet disagreed with that, and in any event it's irrelevant to this entire argument. Most certainly it's irrelevant to the question that you still refuse to answer. Do you believe that people who are higher risk than other people, should be barred from giving blood? Yes or no? Your question is facile. You would end up with one blood donor (or a small group of blood donors that tied with the lowest risk rating) Levels of risk have to be accepted the question is what risk level makes blood donation worse than not collecting the blood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hard2miss Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 Another question, are you daft enough to suggest that we should ban all heterosexuals and just have none sexually active people give blood, given that people become sexually active now in their teens ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 Where is the confusion on your part ? There is no confusion on my part. You are the one whose position is contradictory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big time Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 I want groups banned that are a higher risk IE: gay men, and have said so through out. Im not sure what your point is ? This makes perfect sense of course, but in an attempt to be clever, HN reckons that by this logic, only people that are not sexualy active should give blood because they are of course the lowest risk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hard2miss Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 Heading north Are you suggesting that we should just take blood from kids because to not do so would mean we would have to lift a ban on gay men because they feel excluded, even though they are excluded because of their lifestyle choice ? I hope this is not what your going to say and stand by it because I will have to leave the forum another year to be able to stop laughing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.