FOR FRAK'S SAKE THIS IS GOING TOO PEECEE FRAKKING FAR!!

Yes.

You are trying to talk sense into a person that practically has none. She will believe what she wants to believe, regardless of data, statistics or any scientific evidence otherwise. Same with mostlyharmless. They are both brainless idiots.

...

I don't give a fuck who's feelings are hurt or what assumptions are made when it comes to a public safety issue.

It is this kind of ludicrous thinking that gets old women pulled aside at airports when most terrorists are Middle-Eastern men.

Once in awhile it is appropriate to discriminate...and yes, if black women become as high-risk as gay men, then they, too, should be turned away. And that is because it has nothing to do with her skin, just like it has nothing to do with gayness aside from documented fact that that population contracts certain diseases more.

Of course, ironically, the reason why more black women are getting AIDS is their male partners having gay sex on the "down low" and bringing diseases home.

I'm all for getting the government out of the process. As a privately owned charitable organization, they should be able to discriminate based on any criteria they deem acceptable.

A sound policy would be to screen people based on sexual activity..how much, and what kind..rather than the orientation of the person.

Untrue.
More black women are getting HIV because of intravenous drug use, and unprotected sex with men who have contracted HIV through intravenous drug use.

It's stupid to take anyone's word for anything.

If we're serious about this, the screening process should involve sodium pentathol and polygraphs, followed by sample testing that is completed and verified before any donation can be made.

That's illogical.
If the whole point is to screen out a "health risk" it doesn't matter if black women surpass gay men as a statistical group. It matter only that they supposedly pose a legitimate health risk. And if gay men do, so do black women.

Alternatively, they could just screen the blood, which - surprise! - they already do.

I'd love to know the details of those instances where contaminated blood was used. Was it a failure of the testing, or a failure of the human beings administering the tests? Guess which one I think it is?

I bet you believe in spontaneous generation, too.

What are your thoughts on alchemy?

You were the one who brought up "surpassing gay men" as a sticking point. I only responded to what you said. And my point was that "fast growth" doesn't really matter until they "grow" into numbers that of equal significance. "Fastest growing" doesn't mean they are there yet, and until they do it's just a transparent debate tactic. "See! They're getting it, too, so you shouldn't pay any attention to our statistics!" Get the fuck out of here with that crap.

And if you want to invoke logic on this subject, you must do everything in your power, both blood screenings and disqualification of groups proven to be a higher risk, with absolutely no regard for how anyone "feels" about it.

If half of all purple people are known to cause genital herpes with a handshake, are you gonna gamble on encountering one of the "safe" half, or abstain from shaking all purple hands, just to be sure?

The latter, of course. Pragmatism does not consider anything but the desired result. Everything else, feelings, tolerance, inclusion, social engineering and politics, are completely fucking irrelevant.

They should do everything in their power, not just the things that don't hurt anyone's feelings.

All the more reason to hedge your bets with additional levels of screening.

I was thinking more of the cost of all the extra manpower to conduct all those extensive interviews. Not to mention the exasperation of would-be blood donors at having to wait so long to be processed...

I'm sure a newly-infected hepatitis or HIV patient would be greatly comforted to hear about all the cost and exasperation their tainted blood transfusion saved everyone.

Again, this is prevented by screening the *blood*, which is done anyway. If a tainted donation slips through, it's because the *blood* was not screened properly.

Guy could come in with a fresh tat covered by his shirt, and a fondness for barebacking international hookers, and check the "no" box on the form and donate. Of course, he's less likely to donate than someone who's not high-risk, but there's nothing but his word stopping him.

People lie. Blood doesn't.

See? This is why most here think that you are a frakking biotch! A lot of people here have scientifically AND satistically given figures on WHY gay men are not allowed to donate blood. And what do you do? Throw those figures out and make mockery of them.

Stupid khanki maagi tui ekta.

What figures have you provided? Either your communication skills are deteriorating, or you're essentially saying "gayness gives you AIDS." Try again.

It can also be prevented by disqualifying groups proven to be of a higher risk. You can refuse to admit this all day, and it won't become any less valid. It may be a bit heavy-handed, but you can't deny the utility of it.

I'd disqualify him, too, so I don't feel the need to defend my position against that.

But people who test blood are fallible, and disqualifying those proven to be of a higher risk is a sensible preventative that can only compliment the screening. You cannot refute this. You can only attempt to dismiss and marginalize it.

Now dance!!!

When was the last time you donated blood? You'd be amazed at the reasons why people are disqualified. Then the Red Cross whines about shortages.

And you'd know he wasn't qualified because -?

I guess it would be preferable to have transfusion recipients complaining about tainted blood.

I already dealt with the "taking people at their word" angle. Don't waste my fucking time by making me repeat myself.

Let the hatred floooow through you!!

So your solution is to add more manpower and more paperwork. Okay.

No, let's make it easier and more expedient for diseased blood to make it to the banks.

I'm sure you'd be just as worried about the paperwork when confronted with the grieving surivivors of a death caused by a bad transfusion.

More paperwork is not going to solve the problem.

BTW, does anyone have any hard stats on the incidence of bad transfusions in the U.S.? Preferably broken down by HIV vs. Hep-B, etc.? I'd be really interested in seeing that.

Okay, quick search found this:

• An estimated 1 in 450,000 to 1 in 660,000 donations per year are infectious for HIV but are not detected by current antibody screening tests
  
  The risk of contracting hepatitis B per unit of blood is approximately 1 in 250,000, and the risk for contracting hepatitis C is less than 1 in 3,300.

There's only one possible solution - we have to ban heterosexuals from donating blood!

And I never claimed that it would. Extra levels of screening will reduce the problem, not solve it entirely. But the paperwork is just a peripheral detail of the screening, and it's a bullshit tactic to imply that I'm claiming more paperwork itself is any kind of solution.

^Based on the stats, the only solution is to ban heterosexuals from donating blood.

You're all gay.

Of the ass?