Donating Blood (merged)

Indeed, I would like to echo Samhain's apology for any offence caused. Self Control, I was not judging you as a person, to do so from a few sentences on a computer screen would be foolish. All my comments addressed to you were directed specifically at the argument you presented.

 

I stand behind SelfControl...

 

There's a world of gay joke potential right there, isn't there.

I don't know, maybe I was rash to assume that suggesting an ulterior motive to giving blood implied some kind of personality problem. We're all supposed to at least kid ourselves that we give to charity altruistically, but really, we've all doing it for the endorphines we get primarily. It seems odd to pillory someone for doing it out of "pride", when no-one can really state pure motives. I don't see any real advantage to anyone in homosexuals being meek little victims immobilised by some arcane notion that letting ourselves be subjugated will get us into heaven (it's not like any of us are getting in anyway, at least by those same old-fashioned standards).

I'd liken it to marajuana legalisation, really. The arguments being made for legalising it and for keeping it illegal are both pretty patchy, but change is taking place as a result of mass action/inaction on the part of the public and those in authority respectively. Using marajuana is still considered illegal, but is effectively unpunished in this country. Gradually, the law has been slackened, because it has turned out to be unpoliceable.

Honestly, I don't see how I can further elaborate on my position. I've said everything about it, really. I don't claim that it's perfect. I just encountered a grey area, where lying or being lied to (denied a right on the basis of predjudice) was pretty much a 50-50 choice, and I just choose action rather than inertia. It seems Samhain and Phoenix prefer inertia. That's their perogative, this is mine.

 

I think this is a really unfair statement, you don't like it when we speak our mind and feel like we're attacking you, but then you come out with a statement like this, that seems baited to get the arguement going again.
I think its very clear from our past statements that both myself and Peace Phoenix, don't feel this way and that there are ways of going about this and taking action that don't involue lying, this seems far from the inertia that would be involued in decieveing, where the organistion think that less gay people are bothering to go so they don't need to change anything.
but anyway unfortuantly we don't agree we you, which you take as a personnal slant, so i suggest you ethier do what you say you where going to do and let this one rest or carrying on making statements like the above, however if you do you need to stop being so sensitive when comments are directed at disagreeing with you
you can't have it both ways, we have explained that abusive language is not permitted, we have apologised for any offensive caused that may have prompted you to use the language, what more do you want, because we're not going to agree with you on this issue. My apology to you would have been the last post I had made on this thread that would have been directed to you, because I thought we had reached some sort of understanding but after this you seem determined to twist the meaning of my message and not let the arguement go

S

 

To be honest, I was interested in discussing it, and it bothered me that the two of your were fixating on this being my "pride" issue, and didn't seem willing to listen to any other explanation for it.

I felt justified in the statement you quoted though. Without wishing to sound self-aggrandising, Rosa Parks wouldn't have provided nearly as much of an impetus to the Civil Rights movement if she'd been too afraid of causing trouble to flaunt the rules of the day. If unjust laws are adhered to, they don't change.

 

my question still stands, do you want to continue argueing this, if you do stop being sensitive when we are speaking our minds and abusing us, we don't agree with you or think that you are doing the right thing, or at least I will speak for myself, i don't, if you want to get involued in a discussion thats the risk you take, that people won't agree with you if you don't like that, then you need to take a step back from it.

"i do not agree with what you are saying on this thread" if thats uncomfortable for you to hear then you need to stop continuing this debate, because its not personnal its people responding to statements you have said
S

 

Maybe this is just me continuing to be a dork, but I can't help but feel that we could've been continuing this debate for quite a while instead of going down this road. So I swore, big deal. If I hadn't, would it have been okay for me to have hurt feelings at someone accusing me of being motivated solely by my own pride?

I mean, you guys can wait for an apology and refuse to go anywhere else with this debate if you want, but I for one won't respect you any more for holding the thread up as I imagine you do me.

 

I don't think you get where i'm coming from at all.
I don't agree with you lieing and having blood taken, its as simple as that, you can't expect everyone to agree with you on an issue and soemtimes people have to agree to differ without people taking it to heart or people trying to get other people to change their minds.

the other issue is you breaking forum rules and becoming abusive, if your not sorry don't apologise, but don't break forum rules again, its unfortuante you have got into a discussion with two moderators that are going to remind members of forum rules if you break them
S

 

I think you know me well enough from this forum to know that I don't take other people disagreeing with me personally. But I don't see it as a reason not to debate something either. What would be the point in debating place if we all agreed? The fact that neither of you agree isn't a major stumbling block for me, and I'm pretty sure that I was not the one who claimed otherwise.

The whole purpose of a forum is to discuss. What could possibly be served by "agreeing to differ"? Suppose everyone did that.

 

at some point people have to, when its just got nasty and this is what I'm going to do now, because this is going round in circles.
if you feel confused about what I have said reread what I said about flamming people on this thread.
S

 

Meh, call it flaming if you want. Do you actually want to talk about this anymore? I hate to talk in terms of "winning" debates.

 

Well this is the central issue of contention for me. Whilst I do not agree with the ban on homosexual men giving blood, neither do I think that this issue is fundamentally comparable with that of Rosa Parks or the Civil Rights movement. I think if you're going to mobilise action and protest against the ban, you have to go into it knowing what it is for. I think it would be a stretch of the imagination too far to assume that the ban is an explicitly homophobic one. The ban was justified internally for practical reasons, and targets a great many other higher risk groups than homosexual males. For instance, it would probably be sensible to continue to ban blood donations from intravenous drug users. Even if the ban is unfair, it would be difficult to see it as homophobic. And for that reason, I really don't think lying to the health services to give blood is the best way to change things....

 

Did mommy and daddy forget to teach you life isn't fair and lying is wrong? You are all worked up because you cannot donate blood???? Get over yourself! There are more important things in life to be upset about. How is it Discrimination? As a person who has had many, many blood transfusions do you think it is fair to me that you lie and possibly one day give an innocent person a disease? Do you think it's fair that my sister contracted Hep C from tainted blood because the donor lied about his life? You are a foolish little boy that needs to put this situation into perspective.

If you don't like the rules you can either not give blood or do something constructive to change the rules instead of playing the victim on a message board. You really need to stop playing the victim and grow up. There will always be something in our lives that prevents us as individuals to participate in everything we want to do. That's life.


FYI: more people die from AIDS than waiting for blood products.

 

"Gradually, the law has been slackened, because it has turned out to be unpoliceable."

i'm pretty sure people are getting arrested this very minute for marijuana possession. i don't know what your talking about.

 

Maybe in the US. Maybe not in the UK.

 

I gave blood last week, I dont see how it makes a difference, homosexual or not, it all gets tested for HIV. At least this is what I was told at the clinic. Homosexuals blood without HIV is the same as my blood without HIV.

 

The gap in HIV risk between homosexuals and heterosexuals is shrinking by the day. Whether it's implicitly homophobic or not, there is an injustice in that the reason to exclude homosexuals is reducing over time, yet the law remains the same.

I compare it to Rosa Parks for that reason only; that there was not, and is not, any reason for the segregation, that it exists because it is ingrained in habit, especially if the samples are, as has been said, screened for blood diseases anyway. I don't see the logic in filtering out "high-risk" groups if the risk is presumed in all donors already.

 

It is unfortunate.

Twas very different in here when there were no mods.

 

well things change, we all have to adjust and get used to it
S

 

Indeed!