Conquer Club

Symmetry wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

Symmetry wrote:So, anyway, what's bothering you? Can we get down to the central issue you have with me?

Are you a gay man with HIV?

Why would you ask that?

Because, apparently surprisingly, that's the topic of this thread. It was the topic I was discussing until you, once again, decided to derail it by screaming that everyone is out to get you, as you are wont to do.

saxitoxin wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

Symmetry wrote:So, anyway, what's bothering you? Can we get down to the central issue you have with me?

Are you a gay man with HIV?

Why would you ask that?

Because, apparently surprisingly, that's the topic of this thread. It was the topic I was discussing until you, once again, decided to derail it by screaming that everyone is out to get you, as you are wont to do.

The topic was about whether I'm gay and have HIV? No dude, you hit a new low with that question.

saxi, are you a gay man with HIV?

Symmetry wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

Symmetry wrote:So, anyway, what's bothering you? Can we get down to the central issue you have with me?

Are you a gay man with HIV?

Why would you ask that?

Because, apparently surprisingly, that's the topic of this thread. It was the topic I was discussing until you, once again, decided to derail it by screaming that everyone is out to get you, as you are wont to do.

The topic was about if I'm gay and have HIV? No dude, you hit a new low with that question.

Hi Symmetry. If you'd like to discuss yourself, could you please start a thread called "Thread to Discuss Symmetry" instead of trying to reframe each thread into a discussion of Symmetry? The community has decided that is a more efficient way to organize my forums. Thanks.

Army of God wrote:saxi, are you a gay man with HIV?

#1 - I do not have HIV
#2 - I'm not gay (assuming you're not counting a few weekends in university during tennis team trips when REMOVED BY MOD)

saxitoxin wrote:Hi Symmetry. If you'd like to discuss yourself, could you please start a thread called "Thread to Discuss Symmetry" instead of trying to reframe each thread into a discussion of Symmetry? The community has decided that is a more efficient way to organize my forums. Thanks.

Given your obvious predilection toward my posts and threads, and general musings on my personality, I kind of feel that you're more likely to start a "Thread to Discuss Symmetry". So what's up dude? Why all these posts in reply to me saying that you're not bothered?

Something is at the heart of your behaviour, surely?

Symmetry wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:Hi Symmetry. If you'd like to discuss yourself, could you please start a thread called "Thread to Discuss Symmetry" instead of trying to reframe each thread into a discussion of Symmetry? The community has decided that is a more efficient way to organize my forums. Thanks.

Given your obvious predilection toward my posts and threads, and general musings on my personality, I kind of feel that you're more likely to start a "Thread to Discuss Symmetry". So what's up dude? Why all these posts in reply to me saying that you're not bothered?

Something is at the heart of your behaviour, surely?

Due to your insistence in continuing to derail this thread with discussions of yourself, I have had to report you to the valued mods for violation of the community guidelines.

ed: sp

saxitoxin wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:Hi Symmetry. If you'd like to discuss yourself, could you please start a thread called "Thread to Discuss Symmetry" instead of trying to reframe each thread into a discussion of Symmetry? The community has decided that is a more efficient way to organize my forums. Thanks.

Given your obvious predilection toward my posts and threads, and general musings on my personality, I kind of feel that you're more likely to start a "Thread to Discuss Symmetry". So what's up dude? Why all these posts in reply to me saying that you're not bothered?

Something is at the heart of your behaviour, surely?

Do to your insistence in continuing to derail this thread with discussions of yourself, I have had to report you to the valued mods for violation of the community guidelines.

Go for it, I can only ask again what is at the core of your problem with me. I see no other way to deal with the issue if you won't explain.

So if one out of five men who have sex with other men have HIV, how can people possibly think it's a god-given right that they be permitted to give blood without question?

BOOM got the answer right!

pimpdave wrote:So if one out of five men who have sex with other men have HIV, how can people possibly think it's a god-given right that they be permitted to give blood without question?

Firstly rights aren't God given, secondly all donations undergo testing. What's the ploblem?

This is sort of a leading question from which you might guess my point, but since this thread suffers from the same flaw, I'll ask anyway.

As far as HIV infections within a particular population go, where do you feel the appropriate cutoff is for blood donations? One in ten? One in twenty? One in fifty? Where do you feel the risk/benefit ratio is appropriate, pimpdave?

Just going to put this out there. Sex=/= sexuality.

The best example of this would be prison. Prison has high instances of heterosexual men having sex with men. Also Heterosexuals may have experimented at some point, simply interacting with a penis does not alter your inherent sexuality.

So MSM would likely include individuals than simply homosexual.

I don't know what the population of MSM people the CDC got their numbers from. However if their sample population includes say prison inmates or former inmates, and it very well could as they only care about MSM not homosexuals then that may explain the high incidence.

That's a good question, Neoteny. I don't know, but I trust the experts (same as I do when it comes to things like global climate change) and don't think they should be protested against and have vituperations cast against them just because some people feel as though they've been emotionally abused by the decision to decline their donations.

Baron Von PWN wrote:Just going to put this out there. Sex=/= sexuality.

The best example of this would be prison. Prison has high instances of heterosexual men having sex with men. Also Heterosexuals may have experimented at some point, simply interacting with a penis does not alter your inherent sexuality.

So MSM would likely include individuals than simply homosexual.

I don't know what the population of MSM people the CDC got their numbers from. However if their sample population includes say prison inmates or former inmates, and it very well could as they only care about MSM not homosexuals then that may explain the high incidence.

Usually, in the footnotes, CDC reports of this nature put the little disclaimer that MSM refers to behavior and not sexuality. For what that's worth.

pimpdave wrote:That's a good question, Neoteny. I don't know, but I trust the experts (same as I do when it comes to things like global climate change) and don't think they should be protested against and have vituperations cast against just because some people feel as though they've been emotionally abused by the decision to decline their donations.

Trusting the experts is an ok thing. If you feel emotionally abused by the decisions of said experts though, you should certainly protest. Your protests should be honest and realistic, but one should protest in that situation, I think.

I haven't read the whole thread yet, but has anyone tried to correlate high incidence of HIV with innate immorality yet?

Timminz wrote:I haven't read the whole thread yet, but has anyone tried to correlate high incidence of HIV with innate immorality yet?

The whole thread is definitely worth reading, and no, not yet, you could be the one.

pimpdave wrote:

Timminz wrote:I haven't read the whole thread yet, but has anyone tried to correlate high incidence of HIV with innate immorality yet?

The whole thread is definitely worth reading, and no, not yet, you could be the one.

I'll get to it, and no, I could not.

Neoteny wrote:

Baron Von PWN wrote:Just going to put this out there. Sex=/= sexuality.

The best example of this would be prison. Prison has high instances of heterosexual men having sex with men. Also Heterosexuals may have experimented at some point, simply interacting with a penis does not alter your inherent sexuality.

So MSM would likely include individuals than simply homosexual.

I don't know what the population of MSM people the CDC got their numbers from. However if their sample population includes say prison inmates or former inmates, and it very well could as they only care about MSM not homosexuals then that may explain the high incidence.

Usually, in the footnotes, CDC reports of this nature put the little disclaimer that MSM refers to behavior and not sexuality. For what that's worth.

I'm sure the CDC doese. Not sure CC posters do.

Baron Von PWN wrote:

Neoteny wrote:

Baron Von PWN wrote:Just going to put this out there. Sex=/= sexuality.

The best example of this would be prison. Prison has high instances of heterosexual men having sex with men. Also Heterosexuals may have experimented at some point, simply interacting with a penis does not alter your inherent sexuality.

So MSM would likely include individuals than simply homosexual.

I don't know what the population of MSM people the CDC got their numbers from. However if their sample population includes say prison inmates or former inmates, and it very well could as they only care about MSM not homosexuals then that may explain the high incidence.

Usually, in the footnotes, CDC reports of this nature put the little disclaimer that MSM refers to behavior and not sexuality. For what that's worth.

I'm sure the CDC doese. Not sure CC posters do.

Yeah, it's in the footnote at the bottom of the graph. Sad that PD wants the CDC link to say something that it specifically does not say.

I don't understand why people want to give blood anyway. It's my blood, I'm not giving hand outs. Make the people who need the blood work for it.

Army of GOD wrote:I don't understand why people want to give blood anyway. It's my blood, I'm not giving hand outs. Make the people who need the blood work for it.

You usually get a cookie.

Symmetry wrote:Pretty simple really. The CDC data doesn't talk about gay men.

Yeah, they just decided to title the report that way for the fun of it.