[Beyond Borders]

Does anybody ever actually make moves to leave the US after saying it's "time to leave the US"?

[Ingocnito]

I'm disturbed. Roosh has said a few things over the years that I've trusted and not questioned, but left open to interpretation until I saw proof in the US where I live in the midwest. One of those predictions was that the US was literally turning gay as fuck.

I figured much like legalizing weed, gay marriage rights would follow a similar path of assimilation, sure a few more might jump aboard in each state as it's legalized (pot, or gayness, take your pick) , but no rush of increased pot use would take place. Now I'm much more convinced Roosh's Nostradamas prophecy based on his worldly experiences and comparisons has come true regarding gayness. I posted this on another thread after what I witnessed today. And no it wasn't gay pride day at the park either: http://www.rooshvforum.network/thread-48908-page-2.html

[Easy_C]

(07-09-2015 12:19 AM)Beyond Borders Wrote:  

Does anybody ever actually make moves to leave the US after saying it's "time to leave the US"?

Yep.

My efforts are currently in their infancy, but I have a plan to leverage my graduate program into overseas opportunity. Plan A is to get an international offer while in school, Plan B is to use my degree (it's a name-brand business school) to get into a company with international reach and either get an internal transfer or use that resume bullet to get hired abroad.

[Beyond Borders]

^ You don't have to do all that. Just leave.

To each his own and your way certainly sounds more responsible, but if you plan to internal transfer within a company after you graduate, you've got quite a few years ahead of you. Just from what I've read, mind you. I'm certainly no expert on the corporate route.

After my first semester abroad, I just came back and said fuck it and left. I never got a degree and it hasn't held me back one bit.

Seems like guys who do the long-term/safe plan to get out never end up leaving (too many opportunities to get sidetracked), but then again, I'm sure that doesn't apply to everyone. If you want to make it happen your way and are willing to stick to the goal, I'm sure it's very doable too, so I don't mean to be a downer.

Good on you for making moves, anyhow.

[Days of Broken Arrows]

Thanks to the LACK of oversight of the blood supply, the kid in the video below, Ryan White, contracted AIDS through a blood transfusion at 13. He died at 19. This was major news in the '80s. Apparently it's been forgotten now.

Do you like Frank Sinatra? His best arranger, Nelson Riddle ("Songs for Swinging Lovers," "Wee Small Hours"), died in 1985. His son, Chris Riddle says in the book "Sinatra! The Song is You: A Singer's Art" that there was a possibility his dad died from AIDS-related complications from an AIDS-tainted transfusion (source here).

The early '80s policy is not something we should even consider going back to.

Where is the compassion about lives lost from the gay community? Where is the #lovewins? If there was really love and compassion, that group would be stepping up, using Ryan White as an example and saying "Never again."

[Gustavus Adolphus]

The true cultural "fuck you" will be when they have the science to wash this shit and make it good to go for all recipients. I have O- and the blood banks beat me down with donor requests. Currently, I can only receive my type if I was in need. If that time comes in the future, I would prefer that it not be from needle junkies and pillow biters. Is that too much to ask? If it is, I'd rather just bleed out.

[lemko]

(07-08-2015 06:08 PM)Dan Woolf Wrote:  

How can you test if someone's gay before they donate blood?

"Are you gay?"
"Nope."
"Okay."

They can try this method:

[Belgrano]

One of the principles of law is that equal things should be treated equally and unequal things unequally.
Or, in its modernized form:
"Individuals should be treated the same, unless they differ in ways that are relevant to the situation in which they are involved."

I would say that being a member of a group that, although a tiny minority, has by far the highest probability to be infected as well as the highest absolute number of carriers of a terrifying, deadly disease is pretty FUCKING relevant in the context of blood donating.

Quote:

"Against this background of huge social change in the cause of equality, it is still forbidden for a sexually active gay man to donate blood. Is it based on science? Or is it still based on the 1980s view of HIV and Aids?"

It is based on science and the law. A society that disregards not only one, but both of them, only to cater to people´s feelings, is doomed.

[Socrates]

(07-08-2015 06:03 PM)Foolsgo1d Wrote:  

Fabricant says other groups are more likely to have a higher risk of HIV infection. "Thankfully, 1. HIV is no longer the killer disease that it once was, though it still cannot be cured. But its detection is almost instant, so anyone with HIV can be prevented from donating blood. HIV is not unique to gay men; it is prevalent in straight people too. 2. If a gay man practises safe sex, and can prove he does not have HIV, why should he not be able to donate?"

1. So essentially it's no big deal now so hey let's just infect everybody. Why take precautions against it when it is such a minor thing!?

2. Oxymoron.

[The Beast1]

(07-08-2015 10:01 PM)Atlanta Man Wrote:  

(07-08-2015 06:20 PM)The Beast1 Wrote:  

Don't they test blood for diseases like this?

Yes they test blood for HIV but it is a stupid risk to take. What if there is a new strain of HIV that PCR DNA testing misses, or a new virus altogether that is found in immunocompromised people. I am all for equal rights but this is just unnecessary, and dumb.

Figured as much, all it takes is one person. Someone should start a "Remember Ryan White" meme.

[puckerman]

All blood is tested for HIV. There is no reason at all for this ban.

I am disappointed that this discussion is even taking place here.

[Phoenix]

(07-09-2015 08:19 PM)puckerman Wrote:  

I am disappointed that this discussion is even taking place here.

... and?

(07-09-2015 08:19 PM)puckerman Wrote:  

All blood is tested for HIV. There is no reason at all for this ban.

There is a reason, tests aren't perfect.

[achromaticmike]

(07-09-2015 08:19 PM)puckerman Wrote:  

All blood is tested for HIV. There is no reason at all for this ban.

I am disappointed that this discussion is even taking place here.

Well you might want to do five seconds of research on the available tests for AIDS and how accurate they are on new infections before spouting off.

[scubadude]

(07-10-2015 02:27 PM)achromaticmike Wrote:  

(07-09-2015 08:19 PM)puckerman Wrote:  

All blood is tested for HIV. There is no reason at all for this ban.

I am disappointed that this discussion is even taking place here.

Well you might want to do five seconds of research on the available tests for AIDS and how accurate they are on new infections before spouting off.

The tests are very accurate and I don't have the statistics on hand but without a doubt allowing this population to donate WILL lead to infections. The soonest after exposure that tests are reliable is 7-9 days. Do you think they will abstain from that long before donation?

The CDC facts are not up for interpretation. Over 80% of HIV infections are in the gay population. 50%, yes HALF of all gay men will have HIV by the time they turn 50. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/group/msm/index.html

There is not a shortage of blood in this country that is resulting in people dying. There is no need to take this risk.

[Remington]

I just donated blood this week. If I was in the hospital and needed blood, I would want to know if it was a straight person or a homo that donated it.

If conscious, I would demand straight person blood just to have a smaller chance of getting HIV.

[samsamsam]

Are gays fighting to donate blood? Another wall of oppression that needs to be destroyed? Why can't they just own the statistics? I don't have an extreme dislike of gays like some on this forum. I actually have a couple of gay friends. I have never heard them say, "You know what is really pissing me off samsamsam? I really want to donate blood, but I can't. Man I am losing sleep over this."

I bet a gay man who needs a blood transfusion (if you can get him to be honest), would be prefer straight blood also.

It just has to be some shitliber (just learned this term) thinking how cool it would be to tinker with shit that isn't broken.

I have always considered myself a moderate, but lately I am starting to think the left needs to have a few setbacks. They don't know the long term implications of some of the shit they are complaining about.

[Hannibal]

(07-09-2015 12:19 AM)Beyond Borders Wrote:  

Does anybody ever actually make moves to leave the US after saying it's "time to leave the US"?

Yeah, I'm currently working on the early retirement idea but I'll take it a step further. Gonna save up about 200k, learn how to invest it like the ERE guy and expatriate to a more sane country with a lower cost of living. Depending on where it is I could probably buy a house outright and actually own the land, as opposed to paying rent to the government in the form of property taxes.

The biggest risk to this plan is just like you said, it's easy to get sidetracked in the five or so years it will take to accomplish.

Like a lot of posters have said, make money in the US then get the fuck out.

[Deepdiver]

There is a lot of precedent law that if you give a sexual partner a life threatening disease you are liable for a number of serious criminal and civil charges up to and including aggravated assault and or attempted murder depending upon the jurisdiction - posters in gay bars and bath houses that proclaim Do NOT let HIV keep you from great sex do NOT help...

iirc Robin Williams was successfully sued for giving herpes HSV2 (Genital) to a female groupie sex partner and it was settled quietly out of court and that seemed the beginning of the end for an eventually suicidal Robin Williams. Clearly transmitting HIV or Hepatitis are far more serious crimes.

[TonySandos]

Some of you "autists" are really good at data plugging to back up laissez faire attitude of vital medical practices.

Let me use a few metaphors to explain my discomfort in opening blood donations to the highest risk HIV community.

Imagine the human eye could look at a cloud with a special light and differentiate water from dirt and metal. There are countless particles of each in a single cloud. By careful examination, each particle could be categorized in time. This is a lot like blood. Billions of cells exist in small amounts of tissue. Finding the needle in each haystack is not only tedious, but requiring great method. Now imagine someone invented a chemical or computer for the same function, just automated now. Yes, there's an error inherent each method; whether it be an inattentive eye, a unbounded chemical or a under lap in some computers detection algorithm, it could always lead to a particle going undetected. The mistake is exponential increasing the risk by allowing a risk that isn't necessary. Gay people aren't being harmed by this. Damn this emotional era where one can claim injury over hurt feelings.

[polar]

(07-10-2015 04:39 PM)scubadude Wrote:  

(07-10-2015 02:27 PM)achromaticmike Wrote:  

(07-09-2015 08:19 PM)puckerman Wrote:  

All blood is tested for HIV. There is no reason at all for this ban.

I am disappointed that this discussion is even taking place here.

Well you might want to do five seconds of research on the available tests for AIDS and how accurate they are on new infections before spouting off.

The tests are very accurate and I don't have the statistics on hand but without a doubt allowing this population to donate WILL lead to infections. The soonest after exposure that tests are reliable is 7-9 days. Do you think they will abstain from that long before donation?

The CDC facts are not up for interpretation. Over 80% of HIV infections are in the gay population. 50%, yes HALF of all gay men will have HIV by the time they turn 50. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/group/msm/index.html

There is not a shortage of blood in this country that is resulting in people dying. There is no need to take this risk.

Scuba - I agree with most of your post and numbers, but I'd like to see a citation on the above. I skimmed your link and didn't find it. What are the assumptions for the 50% by 50 claim?

[Gorgiass]

(07-11-2015 01:40 AM)polar Wrote:  

Scuba - I agree with most of your post and numbers, but I'd like to see a citation on the above. I skimmed your link and didn't find it. What are the assumptions for the 50% by 50 claim?

That makes two of us, I was going to ask the same thing. I did see this in his link though, which is scary enough for me -

Quote:

Results of HIV testing conducted in 20 cities as part of the National HIV Behavioral Surveillance System (NHBS) indicated that 18% of gay and bisexual men tested in 2011 had HIV and that HIV prevalence increased with increasing age.

1 in 5, at least in the average city. I had no idea rates were that high.

[Troll King]

^^^^

Damn, that is a scary statistic. I wonder how that plays out city by city though. I remember reading that in places like DC 40% of new AIDS cases happen in black women and this is largely due to black guys being on the down low or IV drug use. Also, DC has one of the largest gay male populations, with something like 8% of the DC population being gay compared to less than 2% in the greater US.

I wonder if DC and San Francisco aren't inflating the numbers.

Either way, that is still fucking scary. Imagine getting dragged to a gay bar with some females, has happened to me a few times, and you could literally be surrounded by a couple dozen AIDS infected guys. Creepy.

[TonySandos]

I'm a healthcare professional and I used to work at an non-profit for HIV lgbt people. HIV infected people are everywhere.


Luckily, most I've encountered aren't reckless with their disease and maintain human concern for others.

On the darker end of things, some still behave wantonly irresponsible and that's why I have an issue with the blood donations. Poorer straight people are enough risk.

When I worked at this non-profit support center for HIV positives, I happened to strike up conversation with one of my coworkers that lead to a realization. She explained to me why they incorporated so many classes before handing out certain benefits to the more poor clients and why transsexuals were given different treatment from the rest. She mentioned in the same breathe that many of the transsexuals are actively prostituting to make funds for hormone treatment and surgery.

After having this blow my mind, I had to see for my self. It's common known fact in the US that all types of degenerate behavior happens on the craigslist and backpage personals classified ads. I looked over the ads betting that I'd find at least one of the clients posting an ad for random sex or prostitution.
Lo and behold, the psychotic and gruesome looking tranny that regularly visited the non-profit had an advertisement posted in the S&M Fetish section. Nothing can surprise now about how careless and depraved some people will go.

[valmont]

^

How does it work when a man with an obviously stereotypically effeminate gay personality tries to donate blood? Is he turned away even if answers "no" to those questions?

You never hear about lawsuits regarding this, but you think there would be some.

[TonySandos]

I've never worked at a blood donation center, so I wouldn't have a clue.