Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

Cellardoor, are you in favor of rejecting Black Organs for the risk of aids?

Weird question, but i'm interested in knowing.

I know your Anti-rascism impulses are definitely weaker than most of the people on this forum including myself, but i'm still curious.

---

At 1/11/08 04:10 PM, Grammer wrote:

Now I know that may seem confusing for conservative minds out there, but just try to understand, k?

You do realize that i'm agreeing with you, right?

---

At 1/11/08 12:15 AM, Grammer wrote: But that's just for New York. This is for women in general

http://www.annalsnyas.org/cgi/rapidpdf/a nnals.1425.013v1

That's world-wide, not New-York which you just referenced, and not the US as a whole. If you look at that link, it's talking about infections in places like sub-Saharan Africa.

You're using two different demographics, in entirely different cultures.

Nice try though.

Why do you have such a problem acknowledging you're wrong every time?

Lol, the funny thing is, you're wrong AGAIN, like you always are. Every single thing you've said has been wrong or inapplicable. Not only did the first link you provide NOT support what you said, but you still haven't proved that HIV/AIDS is higher among women in western countries like the US, or New York.

In fact, your first link in this post referenced women:

The rate of AIDS among black women is 27 times the rate among white women.

Your VERY first link, which is what I was addressing, shows:

"In 1993, the AIDS infection rate for white men in the United States was 57 cases per 100,000 people. The rate for African- American men was 266 per 100,000 population, or more than four times that of white men.

The AIDS infection rate for white women was 5 per 100,000. But the AIDS rate for African- American women was 73 per 100,000, or 15 times as high."

Thus showing that it's not higher among women in general, but BLACK WOMEN. Because white women have the lowest infection rate out of the compared groups, it's several times lower. And, if you look, black women are lower than black men, as white women are lower than white men. Thus showing that it's higher among men in the respective racial groups.

Thus completely disproving your own argument, with your own link.

You stated that there are more cases for white men having it than blacks

No I didn't.

I quoted the very link you used, to show you that what it addressed WAS NOT the relative rate among blacks and women, but of black women.

but you didn't speak of the current risk. Right now, the three groups that are contracting HIV at the highest rate, is gays, blacks, and women. End of story.

NOPE!

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/resour ces/factsheets/msm.htm

In the United States, HIV infection and AIDS have had a tremendous effect on men who have sex with men (MSM). MSM accounted for 71% of all HIV infections among male adults and adolescents in 2005 (based on data from 33 states with long-term, confidential name-based HIV reporting), even though only about 5% to 7% of male adults and adolescents in the United States identify themselves as MSM

Transmission categories of male adults and adolescents with HIV/AIDS diagnosed during 2005

---

Oh and by the way, since it's CANADA we're talking about:

http://www.actoronto.org/website/home.ns f/pages/hivaidsstatscan

Men who have sex with men (MSM) continue to account for the largest number and proportion of positive HIV test reports. In 2005, they accounted for 43.2% of all positive HIV diagnoses in Canada, up from about 36% in 2001.

---

It's the highest number and proportion both.

Apparently it's not discriminatory to prevent them from donating, but rather completely logical given the statistics. They are cutting out a risky demographic from potential donors because that demographic is the biggest risk for HIV/AIDS.

---

Now, Grammer, before you freak out into a tantrum and start talking about things that are irrelevant or unrelated to Canada... know that I already provided my proof.

I showed that gays who engage in gay sex represent the biggest risk group in Canada, which is the group being addressed in this topic. You haven't shown that blacks or women are higher.

Provide proof that HIV/AIDS is higher among blacks or women in Canada than it is among MSM gays, otherwise you're arguing yourself into a corner even more.

Provide proof.

Go.

we all know you can't, but humor us by actually attempting to argue relative information for once.

---

At 1/11/08 05:33 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: Oh and by the way, since it's CANADA we're talking about:

http://www.actoronto.org/website/home.ns f/pages/hivaidsstatscan

Men who have sex with men (MSM) continue to account for the largest number and proportion of positive HIV test reports. In 2005, they accounted for 43.2% of all positive HIV diagnoses in Canada, up from about 36% in 2001.

---

It's the highest number and proportion both.

Apparently it's not discriminatory to prevent them from donating, but rather completely logical given the statistics. They are cutting out a risky demographic from potential donors because that demographic is the biggest risk for HIV/AIDS.

Even if we argue this from a completely statically point, it's still with flaws.

It's a non-tolerance rule, thus, even if a gay person takes a thousand tests proving he is perfect, he still can't donate anything.

I could understand that gay required more tests, but, not at all? That doesn't match, even with the statistic

---

At 1/11/08 06:02 PM, Drakim wrote: Even if we argue this from a completely statically point, it's still with flaws.

It's called being rational.

It's a non-tolerance rule, thus, even if a gay person takes a thousand tests proving he is perfect, he still can't donate anything.

Canada has a universal healthcare system, if they are trying to be cost-effective, or more efficient, then obviously it's not very reasonable to give gay people special treatment just so that they can donate. If there is a group that is incredibly high-risk, it's only reasonable to exclude them, to be more efficient and safe.

---

At 1/11/08 06:10 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 1/11/08 06:02 PM, Drakim wrote: Even if we argue this from a completely statically point, it's still with flaws.

It's called being rational.

It's a non-tolerance rule, thus, even if a gay person takes a thousand tests proving he is perfect, he still can't donate anything.

Canada has a universal healthcare system, if they are trying to be cost-effective, or more efficient, then obviously it's not very reasonable to give gay people special treatment just so that they can donate. If there is a group that is incredibly high-risk, it's only reasonable to exclude them, to be more efficient and safe.

I'm not sure, there is a pretty big organ shortage, while money seems to be plentiful. Wouldn't taking extra test be a possibility to produce more organs, instead of say, putting out ads for the same cost? (if it's more effective, number wise)

---

At 1/11/08 06:12 PM, Drakim wrote:

At 1/11/08 06:10 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 1/11/08 06:02 PM, Drakim wrote: Even if we argue this from a completely statically point, it's still with flaws.

It's called being rational.

It's a non-tolerance rule, thus, even if a gay person takes a thousand tests proving he is perfect, he still can't donate anything.

Canada has a universal healthcare system, if they are trying to be cost-effective, or more efficient, then obviously it's not very reasonable to give gay people special treatment just so that they can donate. If there is a group that is incredibly high-risk, it's only reasonable to exclude them, to be more efficient and safe.

I'm not sure, there is a pretty big organ shortage, while money seems to be plentiful.

Money isn't plentiful in the Canadian healthcare system. It's controlled by their government therefore cost cuts are pretty widespread.

It wouldn't be feasible to create a system to cater to gay people specifically just so that they can donate. If they are at a very high risk, disproportionately high compared to the general population, then it's

Wouldn't taking extra test be a possibility to produce more organs

You're talking about a bureaucracy that is slow anyway, allowing people who are at high risk for infection slow it down even further in order to have more or better tests would be worse for the system as a whole, especially if the tests will show that their blood/organs aren't suitable anyway. And as shown, gays will be more likely to be infected... so cutting them out from the beginning is not hurting anyone.

It's called logic.

---

I hate gays but you have an excellent point as long as there are no diaseses its fine

---

In the case of there being a probability of disease I can see that point but its not like its just gays that may have STDs and such, anyone could.

---

Cellar answer me please...

Since the rates are higher among black men and women should we exclude them too?

---

At 1/11/08 06:33 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Since the rates are higher among black men and women should we exclude them too?

Ugh. You obviously haven't read this whole thread. He going to shove his statistics up your ass, and continue to do so until you provide "proof" of your point.

---

so if you smoke a pack of fags does it make your lungs gay?

---

At 1/11/08 08:26 PM, Grammer wrote:

At 1/11/08 04:55 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: Nice try though.

The fact remains that women and blacks are at a higher risk for AIDs then white straight males

The fact remains that in CANADA, which is the country this topic is discussing, both absolutely and proportionately, gays constitute the highest risk for HIV/AIDS.

Men who have sex with men (MSM) continue to account for the largest number and proportion of positive HIV test reports. In 2005, they accounted for 43.2% of all positive HIV diagnoses in Canada, up from about 36% in 2001.

Why do you have such a problem acknowledging you're wrong every time?

Lol, the funny thing is, you're wrong AGAIN, like you always are. Every single thing you've said has been wrong or inapplicable.

I'm rarely ever wrong

LOL, you're wrong about almost everything you ever say. And then when you get proved wrong, you deny it because you're so disconnected from reality that you continue to argue a point that has been conclusively proved wrong just for the sake of argument.

Once again, the very foundation of your argument is wrong. This time, not only have your very own links been used to disprove the reasoning that you used them for, but your entire argument, your entire presentation of links is inapplicable to the subject.

HIV/AIDS is much more prominent among gay men in Canada than it is among other groups, thus justifying the policy of disallowing gays who have recently had gay sex from donating.

but you have this knack for looking at the smallest little inconsistencies, then extrapolate them to say it is irrelevant.

LOl what?

This subject is about Canada, not New York, and not Africa. Even though your links about New York and Africa (and now the UK) aren't applicable to the argument about the situation in Canada, and have been used against you, you continue to post irrelevant stats and think they support your argument, even though they don't at all.

The fact that you think I'm always wrong just proves how ignorant and close-minded you are. Of course, I should expect this from your kind, after all.

Making reference to the "kind" of people who disprove you in an argument... wow. You're getting desperate again.

Not only did the first link you provide NOT support what you said, but you still haven't proved that HIV/AIDS is higher among women in western countries like the US, or New York.

I didn't mention anything about western countries, but here's a link for you to chew on.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/women/reso urces/factsheets/wsw.htm

This speaks to women who have had sex with women, but the stats also name

Um...

Who said ANYTHING about lesbians???

What an interesting way of trying to create a distraction from the argument you've already completely lost.

Thus showing that it's not higher among women in general, but BLACK WOMEN.

Blacks and women. Being a black women is just a double whammy.

Lol wtf are you talking about? Women are less likely to have HIV/AIDS in their demographics, the rate among black women is only slightly higher than that of white males, but MUCH lower than that of white females. And this is in the US, not Canada, which is the point of discussion.

Even then, your own link completely shattered the source of your own argument.

In 1993, the AIDS infection rate for white men in the United States was 57 cases per 100,000 people. The rate for African- American men was 266 per 100,000 population, or more than four times that of white men.

The AIDS infection rate for white women was 5 per 100,000. But the AIDS rate for African- American women was 73 per 100,000, or 15 times as high.

Thus completely disproving your own argument, with your own link.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/backgr ound_briefings/aids/209156.stm

Women 'more at risk from Aids than men'

LOL how desperate are you when you intentionally misuse the very link you base your argument on.

It does NOT show the relative infected rate among women compared to the general population, it's only showing that women are more vulnerable to HIV infection than men are because of a difference in their immune system.

Holy hell, do you lack ANY sense of integrity whatsoever?

I win, you lose (yet again, what a surprise), get over it.

Lol, you lose, and you completely get proved wrong across the board like always. And even though you get conclusively proved wrong, you keep talking trash.

You're in denial, buddy.

I can't really even imagine a single debate in which you could come out thinking you've wong.

Every single time you've had the moxie to attempt to argue with me, you get proved wrong. And then after it becomes apparent, you keep arguing and throwing out nonsense that doesn't have any affect on the argument just so you can add empty substance to an argument to distract people from the fact that every single thing you've said has been wrong.

I've proven you wrong on health care, gun control, and now HIV risk among women. Damn, I'm good.

Actually I've proved YOU wrong in healthcare 1, 2, gun control, and now HIV risk in Canada.

------------------------------

BUT WAIT - THERE'S MORE

http://www.avert.org/women.htm

AHAHAHAHA

Around 76% of women living with HIV are in sub-Saharan Africa. Among young people living with HIV in this region, three in every four are female.

Now, you keep ignoring that in Canada:

Men who have sex with men (MSM) continue to account for the largest number and proportion of positive HIV test reports. In 2005, they accounted for 43.2% of all positive HIV diagnoses in Canada, up from about 36% in 2001.

Information drawn from different studies shows that during heterosexual sex, women are about twice as likely to become infected with HIV from men as men are from women.

And yet women create a much smaller portion of the population that are HIV/AIDS infected.

Are you intentionally trying to show that you're a liar, or do you really have a problem understanding the simplest of concepts?

And last time I checked, black women are women too, so my point stands that if you're going to discriminate against gays for being more prone to HIV/AIDs infections, then let's ban blacks and women too, and of course black women.

Prove that black women have a higher rate of HIV/AIDS than gays in Canada.

GO!

Next time don't debate me if you don't want to be embarrassed... again.

AHAHA.

---

what makes me chuckle about this thread, is that most people seem to assume that all gays are walking STD's

---

At 1/11/08 08:04 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 1/11/08 06:33 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Since the rates are higher among black men and women should we exclude them too?

Ugh. You obviously haven't read this whole thread. He going to shove his statistics up your ass, and continue to do so until you provide "proof" of your point.

Stop responding to his posts, and make it so that he can ONLY answer mine.

Cellar has already proved that blacks [men and women] are more likely to get HIV corresponding to their white counterparts, he gave his OWN resources which confirmed this fact. I don't need to prove something he already asserted was true.

Is there a 'drawn line' in terms of whether or not a person can donate based on how many more times likely they are to contract HIV, are gays even more likely than blacks and therefore worse off? [I think that may have been cellars point... It's hard to tell b/c i am not a smart person :P]

He may have already answered my question, his posts are rather large... And he's too busy arguing with the 2 of you.

I assume he has an answer in the same way i could ask the 'Gun control question' to somone who was in favor of gun control, and hopefully they would give an answer.

---

So straight HIV is ok?
Cool.

---

At 1/12/08 09:33 AM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Cellar has already proved that blacks [men and women] are more likely to get HIV corresponding to their white counterparts

And yet they are still way, way less likely to have HIV/AIDS compared to gay men who have gay sex. MSM gays pose the largest risk group, both proportionately and absolutely in Canada. And it's in Canada, not New York, not the US, and certainly not Sub-Saharan Africa, where these stats matter, because it's in Canada where MSM gays are barred from donating organs according to the topic starter.

It's not the fact that they are gay that is preventing them donating, it's the simple fact that gay sex, male to male, is a common trait among gays, and it's that form of sex that is the risk. They aren't discriminating against gays, they are discriminating against people who have behavior that dramatically increases the risk of HIV/AIDS. In Canada, MSM is the unifying factor for the risk group that happens to be the highest risk group in the country altogether, even though MSM gays make up only a small percentage of the population. Thus completely justifying preventing them from donating.

It's called common sense. You can't emphasize and maintain political correctness at the expense of medical expertise. They probably realized that MSM gays have such a high risk factor, that extra testing and special treatment is uncalled for, and screening MSM gays would not produce enough organs to justify the greater expense and effort it would take to screen them, when much of the ones who would be screened would end up being HIV/AIDS positive.

He may have already answered my question, his posts are rather large... And he's too busy arguing with the 2 of you.

I assume he has an answer in the same way i could ask the 'Gun control question' to somone who was in favor of gun control, and hopefully they would give an answer.

Um, to answer your question, no. Even though blacks are more likely to have HIV/AIDS than whites or the general population at large, the risk factor isn't nearly as high as it is for MSM gays. So even though it's relatively high among blacks, it's not high enough to warrant preventing them from donating organs. Whereas the risk factor with MSM gays is so high that it does warrant screening them based on their sexual practices because those sexual practices create a much higher risk than simply belonging to a certain race.

Health Canada didn't bar gay people from donating, they barred people who have recently had gay sex. So that's not even on the same level of banning certain races, because it's not the race or the sexual orientation itself that is the matter, it's the behavior... having unprotected sex and using intravenous drugs isn't a unifying factor among blacks, but having gay sex obviously is at least a perceived unifying factor among gays. So even though gays may be offended that their practice is supposedly being discriminated against, it's not because it's gay, it's because it simply creates an enormous statistical risk. So both the dynamic of the situation and the risk factor is way different between MSM gays and blacks.

A gay person getting offended that they aren't allowed to donate due to having recent gay sex is almost as absurd as a heroine addict getting angry that he/she can't donate because he/she recently shared needles with people. In fact, it's more absurd... because in Canada MSM sex is the LARGEST propagator of HIV/ADS, intravenous drug use isn't.

So if you remove all the emotion from the situation, if you actually use logic to interpret this situation, there's nothing wrong at all.

---

At 1/10/08 01:12 PM, Drakim wrote:

At 1/10/08 12:59 PM, SEXY-FETUS wrote: http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic/8132 43
There all the debate all the statistics put together on why theres a higher health risk.

First of all, as it was pointed out, you are still tested for various things before they use your organ.

Secondly, there is an organ shortage.

But, why do we never see the same logic applied to for example black people? They have, on average, a higher percentage of AIDS than white people. Shouldn't they be blocked too?

Wow. That is both hilarious and tragic at the same time.

Heck, shouldn't poor people be blocked out? They have a higher chance of most unhealthy things than rich people.

OK when has blocking out a certian race/group of people ever worked out well? If the the gay dude is likely to have a "gay" problem with his organs then at least have them checked out first, Don't turn him away the second he says "he's gay." That's... retarded. People need kidneys and all that junk so why make it so they're are not able to get a donation. I thought Canada was an awsome country but now I'm not sure(which means America doesn't suck as much, w00t!) Also I know there are a lot of smart asses here so I'm expecting a smart ass reply.