Cutting off Your Nose

To Spite Your Face

http://www.mercurynews.com/education/ci_8130671
from JoeUser Forums

In what can only be described of another example of political correctness gone stupid (as if the movement itself was not example enough of that), San Jose State University has banned all blood drives.  Is the why even important? (Because the FDA prohibits gay people from donating.)

Now personally I think the ban is stupid.  And should they want to demonstrate against it, write letters to congressmen/women or call the clowns who make the rules boobs, I will be on the front lines with them.  It is stupid!  Where I work there are about 900 people, and each blood drive garners about 40 pints.  Less than 5%.  Automatically disallowing any segment of the population from giving is stupid as not enough can or will give.  But that is beside the point.

Barring donations is akin to starving yourself because you don't like milk!  These donations go to anonymous donors who may be gay, black, white, chartreuse or green.  The recipients only have one thing in common.  A need for blood to live.  And these jerks at SJSU are denying these innocent people that gift.  Denying them perhaps a chance to live.  Because of a stupid idiot that thinks by denying the supply of blood they are going to affect some faceless bureaucrats in Washington.

What is even more saddening perhaps are the supposed "intelligent" students who support the idiocy.  "Yea, he is standing on principal!".  What principal?  The Red Cross and other Blood collecting agencies are not making the rules (and indeed are trying to get them changed).  The victims in need of the blood are not making the rules.  The only people making the rules are those that are really unaffected by the donations.  The idiots running the university, and the idiots in Washington.  But none of those (hopefully) will ever suffer due to their own stupidity.  But many innocents may.

Standing on principal is fine, if you are standing against the right people.  Cutting off your nose because you do not like your nose job, however, is just stupid. But given the climate in this country today, I wonder how many have even enough brains to figure out just how stupid they are being.  They may claim to be standing on principal, but in reality they are just mean, spiteful, hateful idiots.  Who are hurting a lot of innocent people through their stupidity.

5,297 views 38 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
They prohibit gay people from donating? Let me guess: AIDS?

Sorry to break it too them, but straight people have AIDS too...good Christ, are people really this stupid?

Banning all the blood drives because of that is idiocy on top of stupidity. Is there one person I could punch to make it all better?...I mean, if one person was being that retarded, I could understand...but organizations? schools? students for God's sake?

*sigh*

~Zoo
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
but organizations? schools? students for God's sake?
End of quote


Just be glad that at least Miami has smarter students and faculty.
Siege of Centauri
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
Just be glad that at least Miami has smarter students and faculty.
End of quote


Sometimes...sometimes. However, I'll be the first to put my foot up their ass for this level of idiocy.

~Zoo
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
That's too bad that they are doing that. Blood drives are so important.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
However, I'll be the first to put my foot up their ass for this level of idiocy.
End of quote


You are a good man Charlie Brown.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
Blood drives are so important.
End of quote


And so apolitical. Everyone has it, but only some can give, and many need it. I do not know if the person who gets mine has anything in common with me. And I really dont care. Their life is worth more than some petulant fit.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top

I'm not allowed to give.  Neither is Dave, and he's got a pretty rare blood type.  Shea can't donate, and neither can Davey - and no, their ages don't have anything to do with it.

We cannot donate because we lived in the UK for more than 6 months.  It used to be 'for more than 6 months in the last 10 years' but they've changed that and have put a moratorium on anyone who lived in the UK for more than 6 months.

Why?  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy.  (Creutzfeld-Jakob variant disease).  Mad Cow disease, in other words.  Anyone who ate British beef is at risk of developing it at a later date, and there isn't any test that can tell you you have it - you've got to wait until symptoms develop before you can get a diagnosis.

I can understand denying people's donations because of a disease risk, but to do so because of a person's gender, skin color or sexual preference?  That's silly.

Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top

I can understand denying people's donations because of a disease risk, but to do so because of a person's gender, skin color or sexual preference? That's silly.

I dont agree with all the restrictions, and do think that barring a whole segment of the population is stupid.  And as I said, I will join anyone who wants to demonstrate against the FDA on the issue.  But banning the collection because of some idiot bureaucrats?  That to me is cutting your nose off to spite your face.

Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
I too feel that such a ban is uncalled for. Is the reason political correctness or any other.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
I feel a little awkward here...but the bans on donated blood are necessary and important...they have nothing to do with politics or gender or sexual preference. The bans focus on high risk blood. Gays DO have a higher risk for AIDs and other STDs. It sounds noble to protest these bans but practically speaking, if you are in need of a transfusion, wouldn't you be concerned about where the blood you receive has been? I can't give blood either, and I am not gay. Should we line up and protest the exclusion of fat old men who have spent half their lives overseas and contracted various diseases and are currently diabetic?
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
I too feel that such a ban is uncalled for. Is the reason political correctness or any other.
End of quote


I was thinking after writing this that a more apt comparison might be that people against genocide are boycotting Sudan peacekeepers because they are trying to keep the peace and failing in Darfur.

It is not the injured, or the collectors of blood making these rules, yet it is they who will suffer from this boycott.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
The bans focus on high risk blood. Gays DO have a higher risk for AIDs and other STDs. It sounds noble to protest these bans but practically speaking, if you are in need of a transfusion, wouldn't you be concerned about where the blood you receive has been?
End of quote


Don't feel awkward. I know it is a sore subject with Dharma because of the mad cow disease in Britain. And yes, Gays are more prone to having AIDs. But it is not anywhere near 100% in that community, and the screening process has gotten better. They can get AIDS from a hetero donor. Barring them just on their sexual orientation is not right (on their behavior, if they are a highly promiscuous, yes).

And for those who feel strongly about the ban on Gays giving, then let us protest the source of the ban! But this university does not have the brains to realize this simple fact, so they instead penalize the innocent.

And that is why I am so outraged, not at the Red Cross or the poor schmuck who just was tboned by a drunk driver, but at the jerks who cant tell the difference between them and some fat cat in DC.

And I am also sad that these idiots are in a position to "teach" (and I use the word lightly) and influence our nations young. As is demonstrated by some of the quotes in the article by the "students".
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
And I am also sad that these idiots are in a position to "teach" (and I use the word lightly) and influence our nations young. As is demonstrated by some of the quotes in the article by the "students".
End of quote


not to forget people like KFC who continue to propagate stupidities and ignorance about some people's birthbeing on the guise of "free speech"
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
Surely the simple in this case would be for the Red Cross to set up donation facilities outside the University itself and then advertise so those who would like to donate still can. Or simply that all blood donated, regardless, be tested before being made available for use. Setting limitations is always going to put someone's nose out of joint.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
Or simply that all blood donated, regardless, be tested before being made available for use
End of quote


I know that in Quebec, they already do that. Why wouldn't be done in the U.S.?
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
Cikomyr,

I know that in Quebec, they already do that. Why wouldn't be done in the U.S.?


It makes far more sense to me than giving conservation Christians another excuse to spread their intolerant drivel.

In Australia, there are conditions for giving blood too. But being gay is NOT one of them, thankfully.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
not to forget people like KFC who continue to propagate stupidities and ignorance about some people's birthbeing on the guise of "free speech"
End of quote


I dont see the connection, or even understand that one.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
Surely the simple in this case would be for the Red Cross to set up donation facilities outside the University itself and then advertise so those who would like to donate still can. Or simply that all blood donated, regardless, be tested before being made available for use. Setting limitations is always going to put someone's nose out of joint.
End of quote


The first is difficult due to the size of the campus (on many major universities), but I am sure they will try. Then there is the advertising for it - banned - and how many college students do you know that actually go out of their way to learn about events? Oh sure some do, but most, if you do not put it in their face, it does not exist (boy do I know that one! ;) )

The second is required. When giving any blood, they take 4 (or 5, I don't look so cannot remember) test tubes full of blood that will be used for one purpose only - testing. Multiple tests. Any of them come back hot, and the bag is disposed of. And there are false positives (for more than just AIDS). So not every pint is used that is donated. That is sad, but understandable. Better to be safe than sorry.

The whole bug-aboo with AIDS is that in the 80s (and most of the 90s), you could be infected, and not test positive for it for 6 months (with the HIV actually). More modern testing has dropped that back to weeks and even days. But during the time when the virus lay dormant and undetectable, many were infected by transfusions. So the FDA instead of addressing the problem with a scalpel, took a sickle to it.
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
I know that in Quebec, they already do that. Why wouldn't be done in the U.S.?
End of quote


It is. But as stated, the old tests were not at all effective if the infection was less than 6 months old. Newer ones are much better, but the rules still date from when the tests were not as good.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
In Australia, there are conditions for giving blood too. But being gay is NOT one of them, thankfully.
End of quote


America does not always lead in all areas, and this is one I do hope they will soon follow.
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply By: asaxygirl

Thanks for the low down on the screening side.  Some of it I did not know about.  Especially the Oxygent and Hemopure.  I hope those go well.  I can understand the aversion to tainted blood.  There have been enough horror stories of people infected with it.  It will always be a risk as you point out (until a fool proof method can be used).  And quite simply, homosexuals can still lie (and if they are not positive, no one can tell the difference).  So banning the life style is better than banning a group.  Some homosexuals will always be promiscuous (as will some heteros) and thus more susceptible to getting the disease.

But many are no more promiscuous than any heterosexual couple.  And are no more at risk.  I still maintain that the FDA is over reacting.  But it is the FDA that should be lobbied, not the blood banks.

Banking blood is always a good idea, but unfortunately, most donations go to people that do not have time to do that.  For one reason or another.  And they will always be at risk to someone who slips past.  I am glad I can give, and will continue to do so.  And I will continue to yell at stupid people that try to reduce the number of donors because of a fit of pique.

Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
Couldn't homosexuals just pretend to be straight to donate blood...I mean, is there an FDA agent with a "Gaydar" machine or something? Correct me if I'm wrong, but homosexuals look like normal people, don't they?

~Zoo
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
The educated idiots at San Jose University are so quick to scream "discrimination" they are forgetting a few things.

First of all, "discrimination" can only happen if someone is denied a right. There is no "right" to donating blood.

Also, it's not about being homosexual, it's about high risk groups. There are more heterosexual groups that can't donate blod than homosexual.

You can't donate blood if...

You weigh less than 110lbs.
You are on anticoagulant meds.
You are pregnant or lactating.
You have donated (or lost) a pint of blood in the last 8 weeks.
You are an IV drug user, or have had sex with an IV drug user.
You have had sex for money. (either accepted the money or paid it).
You have had an organ transplant.
You have been to jail or prison for more than 72 hours in the last year.
You had a tattoo in the last year.

The truth is, there are all sorts of people who can't donate blood. It's not about discrimination, it's about protecting the blood supply.

The idiots and San Jose University are doing nothing more than putting their pathetic politics above lives.
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
Aside from some homosexuals who demonstrate characteristics that other folk may deem as odd, homosexuals do look like everyone else.
End of quote


See, there ya go. I just don't know how they could effectively ban them from donating blood. I assume it would be rather rude to question everyone about their sexual identity.

By the way, that's a hell of a story. :D Drag queens riding bikes home at 7AM...you just don't see that very often...unless of course you live in Hillcrest apparently. :P

~Zoo
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
Couldn't homosexuals just pretend to be straight to donate blood...I mean, is there an FDA agent with a "Gaydar" machine or something? Correct me if I'm wrong, but homosexuals look like normal people, don't they?
End of quote


Yes they could. It is an honor system. They do test the blood, and if you test positive for any of the disqualifiers, they basically ban you. But if you do not, they do not know what you do in private life (even if you do test positive they do not know how you got it only that you have it).