Can we discuss this

Sure you can. I’ll be watching.

LOL, Well I read the first paragraph. I guess that was enough for me to see how backwards the Canadian legal system really is. This is something I would expect from Mississippi not Canada.

American Red Cross has a similar ban on blood from men who have had sex with men. There is talk about changing it, but it doesn’t seem likely to me. It started in the time when no one knew what caused AIDS yet. The two biggest risk factors known then were being gay or Haitian. They banned both groups from blood donation. I’m pretty sure Haitians were dropped from the ban, but the one for gay men stood.

Today the top three at risk groups are gay men, women, and black men. If the idea is to protect the blood supply, all three groups should be banned. That would be a very interesting debate, if they were ever brave enough to propose it. The other side of the issue is being able to get blood. If you go around refusing blood from everyone who might have HIV, you’ll run out of blood altogether.

I would have thought that a simple (or complex, if necessary) blood test would be sufficient to protect the blood supply against anyone with contaminants in their blood, no matter their social or political status.

My issue with this has been that a person`s individual rights should never come before harm to others, potentially or really.

As a correlate, there is a case where a man published a book revealing the identity of a character in a tv show in britain who`s identity had been hidden as part of the character`s persona.

The tv show in question is called top gear, and the character is known as “the stig.”

The stig appears int he show wearing full race gear including a helmet with a reflective visor which he never removes. The stig test-drives cars around a track, much to the delight of exotic car lovers around the world.

The author`s position is that he has the right to publish what he wants, and to hell with the show, the career of the man in the stig get-up and so on, even though the damage to the show and to the stig is large.

The person in the blood case had lied on his donour card several times, yet upheld his position of “privacy” and other percieved rights while potentially exposing those in need of blood to contaminants.

In both cases, I fail to see why the clearly criminal acts of both parties are supported in any way by our society, and exemplify the narcissistic attitude of many today that their personal rights supersede any responsibility for the damage they potentially cause.much like a couple of journalists in iraq who`s right to report “news” trumped covert military actions and troop safety.

Can we talk about lack of conciseness in thread titles?

Edit: I must have been seeing things. Thought there were more thread titles that seemed to say nothing of the topic involved.

Unfucking real. A hell of a lot of difference between identifying a television character and contaminating the blood supply. You are a real piece of work a-unit.

Well yes Thunder, but as you well know journalists and authors carry the burden of responsibility for our culture, and the state of society, which is equally as valuable as the blood supply.

If a man`s right to privacy can be stripped and his job lost then he is redundant, and if courts uphold the rights of writers to inflict such damage with impunity then our society as a whole is in jeopardy.

Geraldo Rivera and his CNN associate thought it was well within their “rights” as writers to give away troop positions on tv during the iraq war as well.

They found out differently as their ideological position was given a gentle shove.

How about sticking to the fucking topic and stopping the bullshit a-unit? Or do I need to trim your access further?

I don’t see a correlation. The book you are talking about, “The Man in the White Suit,” is an autobiography. The man who wrote it claims he is the stig. He has previously been identified as the stig in press reports, and the BBC tried to block him from publishing a book that confirms it. Your whole moan about the author being allowed to violate the actors privacy and ruin his career is bullshit. They are the same person. He is writing a book to further his career.

Ouch.

The blood donor fucked up. I used to donate blood. After I started having sex with men, I stopped. If I see the blood mobile I always ask if I’m allowed to donate blood. (This usually leads to all sorts of funny conversations - and often times they imply they would not care if I lie, they need the blood.) But I won’t until the ban is dropped. If it makes sense any more is a different question.

The guy knew there was a ban on him donating. He lied and donated any ways. Bad move, he is paying for it. If he had a problem with it, he should have worked to change the rules, instead of pretending the rules do not apply because he disagrees.

CNN.com - Military kicks Geraldo out of Iraq - Mar. 31, 2003

Not bullshit thunder.just because you didn`t know. Geraldo was drawing maps of troop positions in the sand on tv and predicting where they would be next, which kills people in wars. There was another guy who did similar things, and he was dropped also.

And I misunderstood who the author of the biography was (auto should have been a clue), but I guess my position still holds that damage was pending due to the release of the identity of the stig, otherwise why would the BBC try to block the publication?

The article I read didn`t clearly name the author of the book as the same person as the stig, and I should have posted the link then.

I love Topgear, I love the stig bit and so on, and it beggers the imagination why anyone would want to fuck up a good show like that for his own personal gain with a tattle tale book.

Pissy small-minded behaviour.

And, for what it`s worth, I`m glad that someone respects a rule regarding blood safety.

And thunder, trim what you want dude.

I`ve said it before, I only came here to make my dick bigger, and that`s happening and I`m grateful for that, but jesus sweet christ I don`t get your attitude toward people who don`t follow your party line.

I told you before I would voluntarily withdraw from discussions where you disagreed with my position but instead you blocked me from areas of the forum (which I only found out about by private message from another member) that I`d already withdrawn from due to unnecessary pettiness.

I find that dishonourable and lacking in respect for the opinions of others.

Private message possibly?

Many forums that I visit clearly state that there are to be no political or religious posts or comments.

These are professional forums discussing mechanics of Psychology and NLP and Psychotherapy and, as such, want to avoid ad hominem attacks.for obvious reasons.

I love the sheer scope of the work you guys do here and I see it as valuable to the greater community of men in a fragile time for our gender in society and I wish I could do more to promote and support your efforts, but for me, the sensitive nature of the prime topic stops me from including this in my other communications.

I even have clients who could substantially benefit from the knowledge contained here, but what can I say?, my values are such that my contact with your site must be kept secret.

I will leave you with this, as it is very much part of the topic I intended to expand upon with this post; Imagine if there were men here who`s careers would be jeopardised if their membership should be revealed, and further that the media got a hold of this knowledge and, for the sake of a "really good" story, revealed the membership of a doctor or a senator or an actor or pro athlete.

It would be easier to discuss “this” we know what “this” is. Your first link is about a pretty simple blood donation case. Parts could be open to discussion, but it’s nothing crazy. Then you want to talk about BBC trying to block publication of one of their actors’ autobiography, without understanding what it was about. But wait, the discussion is about news people revealing troop positions. But wait, really, the whole point is that the media might break a story about someone famous being a member here.

Try picking a topic and sticking to it. Since you started the thread with a link to the blood donation story, let’s consider that to be the topic, and if you want to talk about something unrelated, do it in a separate thread.

I’m asking this seriously A-Unit: any chances that you are gay? Try looking deeply into yourself, you seem to have a fixation on the gay & privacy thing. You can do your coming out here, we’ll not say to anybody.

Back on topic, the Canadian blood services has a rule against taking blood from men having sex with men (MSM). They also have rules against taking blood from partners of HIV positive individuals, people from specific countries, etc, in the interest of protecting the blood supply. I don’t think reasonable people would put some concept of equality above medical safety. Also, it’s Canada, I dint live there, and figure if anyone wants to discuss their rules, it should be Canadians.

The American red cross has similar rules. It’s to protect the safety of donated blood. I do not think that the rules are entirely based on reality. According to the CDC, 53% of new HIV cases were MSM. 46% were black. Not much of a difference. Also, 53% of new cases came from homosexual sex, 31% from heterosexual sex, and 12% came from intravenous drug use. Gay men can not donate, blacks, who have nearly the same risk, can. Heterosexuals who engage in unsafe sex are riskier than drug addicts, but needle users can not donate, an unsafe straight sex is not ever asked about.

I believe that to an extent, the rules are as they are because of societal prejudices. Blacks are nearly at the same risk as gays, but race is such a touchy subject, the red cross would not imagine saying so. We see drug users in a worse light than ordinary red blooded American boys. But the odds are that boy is more likely to have HIV than the addict.

We are told not too worry, because the blood that is collected is screened for HIV. That being the case, why is there any need to turn down people who might be more likely to have it?

I am not a medical expert. I would like to donate blood, but value public safety more. At the same time, I see the rules as being very uneven in who is considered risky and who is not. I say it has more to do with culture and the politics of discrimination than with the medical reality.