I want you to have my organs, but you can't have 'em

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Thoth
Ben not all gay men engage in risky behavior. Over half of the gay men that I know are in stable long term monogamous relationships. They pose a damn sight lower risk than many of the heterosexual tramps I've met.

QFT. It's the old stereotyping: "Irish are drunks; African-Americans are crooks; Mexicans are lazy; homosexuals are promiscuous."

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I already said that, and I made the point that not all intravenous drug users have HIV either. Still, Asher seems perfectly willing to adopt a stereotype if it fits common sense.

What stereotype am I adopting and where?

As I've said, I think IV drug use is inherently more dangerous to organs than homosexual sex. The action destroys the body in many ways, including organs, and the drug sources are not that reliable. Monogamous homosexual sex, on the other hand, is no more dangerous than monogamous heterosexual sex.

You are very confused because to you the situation is simple: "IV drug users" = evil, "homosexuals" = evil. In reality, there are many times of homosexuals...celibates, monogamous, and sluts. The celibates and monogamous homosexuals are no threat for HIV, while every IV drug user has some kind of threat for HIV.

This is yet another strawman by a very confused boy.

[Ben Kenobi]

The problem, which has been REPEATEDLY HAMMERED to no avail...is WHY are you looking at the group at a whole?

That is the question? You opened it up saying that the policy bars gay men as a whole. That is the point of this debate, and I think I'm warranted in taking everyone into consideration, not just cherry picking those who conveniently fit.

For **** sakes. I've said POINT BLANK on at least THREE different occasions in this thread that it has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING DUE TO HURT FEELINGS.

Sure it does. Why were you so eager to jump the gun here? Anyways, it's all moot. CBC pulled the link, apparently the policy is going to remain the same so gay men won't have their feelings hurt.

You're so used to a little delusional world that whenever something makes sense contrary to your twisted value system, you subconsciously misconstrue all of the arguments to be ridiculous.

I think you are wrong. Calling me 'twisted, delusional,' etc isn't helping your case here.

[Ben Kenobi]

The action destroys the body in many ways, including organs, and the drug sources are not that reliable.

Not all intravenous drug users suffer this, and not to all organs either.

What about the ones who use clean needles, who limit their dosages, etc.

I can cherry pick just as well as you do asher, and yes it is a stereotype you are relying on.

If we should permit one class of risky behaviours then why should we bar another? Not all drug users are going to have HIV.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
That is the question? You opened it up saying that the policy bars gay men as a whole. That is the point of this debate, and I think I'm warranted in taking everyone into consideration, not just cherry picking those who conveniently fit.

The whole debate, as plainly cited in the OP's article, is how absurd it is to lump the entire demographic of homosexuals in when asking more specific questions would yield more accurate results with more usable organs. It's not "cherry picking" those who "Conveniently fit in". That's so retarded I don't know where to begin.

Why are you so against using a healthy, monogamous gay man's organs to save other people's lives?

Sure it does. Why were you so eager to jump the gun here?

Jump the gun? The CBC article -- which is now apparently not valid -- said it point blank. Using the article and then discussing what it said is NOT jumping the gun, nor does it indicate hurt feelings. I was more concerned with the stupid waste of valuable human organs as people whithered away and died waiting for such organs. I believe I said this no less than a DOZEN TIMES.

Anyways, it's all moot. CBC pulled the link, apparently the policy is going to remain the same so gay men won't have their feelings hurt.

This IS NOT ABOUT FEELINGS except my now-intense rage for how the Canadian education system has failed you so miserably. It's about getting sick people the organs they need to survive and idiots getting in the way of that.

I'm thrilled that CBC's article was wrong. But that's because -- unlike you -- I wish people waiting for transplants the best. I don't dismiss people who would die without a transplant because the donor was gay as insignificant. That was perhaps the most heartless thing I've seen on Poly, and it did not surprise me at all that it came from a hardcore pro-life Christian. Hypocrits to the grave.

I think you are wrong. Calling me 'twisted, delusional,' etc isn't helping your case here.

Believe me, "twisted, delusional" is me being NICE. You are incapable of reading the arguments being presented here. I've never seen someone so stubborn to understanding such simple concepts before.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Not all intravenous drug users suffer this, and not to all organs either.

The very fact that they're injecting drugs into their blood stream means yes, by definition, it does this to all IV drug users...

What about the ones who use clean needles, who limit their dosages, etc.

Are these people not injecting dangerous substances into their blood streams (And therefore their organs?)

I can cherry pick just as well as you do asher, and yes it is a stereotype you are relying on.

Do you mean the "stereotype" that IV drug users inject drugs into their blood stream? That's what I'm talking about.

I'm not talking about dirty needles. I'm talking about the suspect condition the drugs are produced/packaged in, and the fact that the drugs themselves DO damage organs in the body.

This is not a stereotype, it's a FACT and it applies to 100% of IV drug users, by definition of the fact that they are injecting drugs into their bloodstream, and therefore organs.

[Thoth]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


I already said that, and I made the point that not all intravenous drug users have HIV either.

While it is true that not all IV drug users have contracted HIV or hepatitis, they are all engaging in risky behavior. Injecting drugs is not safe behavior even if clean equipment is used.

In contrast, being gay is not inherently risky.

I really don't see why you have such a hard time differentiating between the two cases.

[Elok]

The point is that you can shove pointy things pretty much anywhere in your body except your ass. I think. Just to clarify, Ben, should people be allowed to donate organs after pushing sterilized hypodermic needles up their backsides? What if the needles are encased in condoms first? Or, if condoms are not acceptable, the rhythm method is used?

[Perfection]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
That is the question? You opened it up saying that the policy bars gay men as a whole. That is the point of this debate, and I think I'm warranted in taking everyone into consideration, not just cherry picking those who conveniently fit.

Except that doctors can cherry pick among the gays!

[Ben Kenobi]

The whole debate, as plainly cited in the OP's article, is how absurd it is to lump the entire demographic of homosexuals in when asking more specific questions would yield more accurate results with more usable organs.

Except for the 'fact' that they aren't being singled out wrt organ donations, and never have been.

The question wasn't phrased 'should we screen everyone', because that is what is done with organs, the question was phrased, by you as whether they were excluding gay men because they were bigots.

Now, you can assert this, or you can acknowledge the fact that, on average, gay men are far more likely to contract HIV then the rest of the population.

As for a subset, I've not commented on it at all. The 7 percent figure you've quoted is the entire sample, not the subset, so you'll have to forgive me for assuming that the subject of this thread was all gay men.

Why are you so against using a healthy, monogamous gay man's organs to save other people's lives?

I'm not, I'm against this thread you've posted here to rally the troops.

And yes, the CBC article has been pulled, so this whole thread is moot. CBC needs to do their research.

It's about getting sick people the organs they need to survive and idiots getting in the way of that.

Oh, so now people are dying because I think it's a bad thing that they get organs that have been improperly screened?

Their blood is obviously on my hands, yes because I have an organ donor card and if it comes to that they will get my organs.

Really, I don't think it's a good thing if people are given organs tainted by HIV, whether they come from gay men or straight.

Believe me, "twisted, delusional" is me being NICE. You are incapable of reading the arguments being presented here. I've never seen someone so stubborn to understanding such simple concepts before.

Oh, stubborn.

Asher, I haven't attacked you once in this entire thread, even though I disagree with your motivations. I would hope that someone as educated as you are would be able to discuss things in a civil manner, even when they are related to a matter that is near and dear to your heart as this one.

Yes, hurt feelings are an issue here, otherwise you would not have posted this thread.

[Ben Kenobi]

While it is true that not all IV drug users have contracted HIV or hepatitis, they are all engaging in risky behavior. Injecting drugs is not safe behavior even if clean equipment is used.

You won't contract HIV if you use clean needles, and don't share with anyone who has HIV.

In this way it is analogous to the gay man who is faithful to one partner his entire life.

There are other health risks there too, but not a risk for HIV.

I'm not sure why this is so difficult to understand.

[Ben Kenobi]

The point is that you can shove pointy things pretty much anywhere in your body except your ass. I think. Just to clarify, Ben, should people be allowed to donate organs after pushing sterilized hypodermic needles up their backsides? What if the needles are encased in condoms first? Or, if condoms are not acceptable, the rhythm method is used?

I guess it doesn't matter so long as you only do it with one person.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Except for the 'fact' that they aren't being singled out wrt organ donations, and never have been.

The question wasn't phrased 'should we screen everyone', because that is what is done with organs, the question was phrased, by you as whether they were excluding gay men because they were bigots.

I never said that. Once again, you have no idea what the arguments are or what people are saying. Don't bother replying if you're just going to spam strawmen, Ben.

Now, you can assert this, or you can acknowledge the fact that, on average, gay men are far more likely to contract HIV then the rest of the population.

This was never contested by anyone! I even said this explicitly and you acknowledged it earlier! Holy ****, what the hell is going on here. This is like some bizarro world you've sucked me into.

Oh, so now people are dying because I think it's a bad thing that they get organs that have been improperly screened?

Their blood is obviously on my hands, yes because I have an organ donor card and if it comes to that they will get my organs.

If you support the policy of not giving them perfectly healthy organs just because it's from a gay man, then yes, the blood would be on your hands. Not that hard a concept.

Oh, stubborn.

Asher, I haven't attacked you once in this entire thread, even though I disagree with your motivations.

My motivations are the well-being of people who need transplants. Why you disagree with that is a mystery to me, but not surprising.

I would hope that someone as educated as you are would be able to discuss things in a civil manner, even when they are related to a matter that is near and dear to your heart as this one.

How can this be discussed civilly when you refuse to do us all the honour of actually paying attention to what is being discussed? All you've done is spew constant strawmen and spewed rhetoric with numbers you've pulled from your ass. It's spam, it's aggravating, and it's not worthy of any kind of respect or politeness. I know you too well over the years to waste time with formality and politeness when you really should know better than to read the thread more carefully.

Yes, hurt feelings are an issue here, otherwise you would not have posted this thread.

Any time a thread is posted it's due to hurt feelings?

It couldn't possibly be because I was outraged perfectly good organs were going to waste, as I've explicitly said over and over and over? The only people who brought up the "feelings" arguments were the people in favour of the ban, and it was only because they had no other argument to resort to but more rhetoric.

Shame on you, Ben.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
You won't contract HIV if you use clean needles, and don't share with anyone who has HIV.

Do you actually know this?

Tell me, Ben. Where do the drugs come from and in what conditions are they produced? Are you seriously telling me there's no risk involved in doing IV drugs to contracting some kind of disease, if you always use clean needles? Are you seriously telling me there's no damage to organs from IV drug use?

This is absurd and in no way analogous to monogamous gay couples.

In this way it is analogous to the gay man who is faithful to one partner his entire life.

There are other health risks there too, but not a risk for HIV.

I'm not sure why this is so difficult to understand.

Because it doesn't make any sense.

The drugs get injected into the bloodstream and **** up the body over long periods of use. Further, the origins of the drugs are suspect in terms of sterility.

[Ben Kenobi]

How can this be discussed civilly when you refuse to do us all the honour of actually paying attention to what is being discussed?

Really, the last time you tried to give my argument you got it wrong. If the issue is comprehension then I'm not sure why you are having trouble with my arguments.

it's not worthy of any kind of respect or politeness.

You are the only one in this thread who has responded that way, other then Mobius. Now, maybe you should reconsider the company you are keeping. There have been replies in this thread that have avoided insults, I am asking that you keep this standard.

I know you too well over the years to waste time with formality and politeness when you really should know better than to read the thread more carefully.

Yes, you don't like me, that's a great excuse asher. I don't like you very much and I'll be the first to admit it. I suspect you'd be happy with a circle jerk here where everyone agrees with you and doesn't challenge your arguments.

I'll be happy to get out of the way of this thread if that is what you prefer Asher.