CANADA: PM Justin Trudeau Unveils Trans Rights Bill

[LaLuna 12,732]

It's so funny reading your comments about how you guys think our PM is attractive, because here we tend to make fun of the fact that he's a pretty boy 

But yeah, he's been doing a great job so far, it's a nice change from that conservative d*ckhead Stephen Harper. 

[Poissonche 12,366]

1 hour ago, Goosey said:

Aren't gay men around 40 times more likely to have HIV?

And aren't the tests unable to detect the virus until a few months later?

 

Sorry, I don't believe in "the right to donate blood". The blood bank should be able to choose not to accept blood from at-risk populations when there's no way to ensure it's safe.

It's more than that. If you're a man and have unprotected sex with a different unknown woman every day, if you decide to donate blood, you have to stop the unprotected sex for a year. When that year ends, you get tested, and if there is no trace of HIV in your blood, you have the right to donate blood. However, if you're a man and have sex with another man, regardless if it's protected or not, the waiting period before you can legally donate blood is five years. So, yeah, even if gay men are more likely to have HIV, it doesn't mean that it's going to become detectable slower than for straight men. The measures could be different for gay/bi and straight men, of course, if they're based on science. Right now it's kind of based on bullsh*t.

On topic, yas Justin, continue on being amazing. Happy IDAHOT.

[Economy 52,861]

2 hours ago, Goosey said:

Aren't gay men around 40 times more likely to have HIV?

And aren't the tests unable to detect the virus until a few months later?

 

Sorry, I don't believe in "the right to donate blood". The blood bank should be able to choose not to accept blood from at-risk populations when there's no way to ensure it's safe.

Ive always agreed with that too. Now im gonna get the hate for this stuff too.

 

This is serious stuff. If some groups of people are much more likely to have an infenction of some kind should medical peocautions not be taken because some people might be offended?

 

If theres an outbreak of Ebola do we not cut flights to the most bad areas????

 

Only a small percentage of people in an outbreak area are infected yet we still quarantine.

 

Whats the difference?  

[Economy 52,861]

1 hour ago, TheCountess said:

It's so funny reading your comments about how you guys think our PM is attractive, because here we tend to make fun of the fact that he's a pretty boy 

But yeah, he's been doing a great job so far, it's a nice change from that conservative d*ckhead Stephen Harper. 

How was he a dickhead tho? What did he do??????? He was always so calm and respecful!  

 

In fact in the 9 years Harper was in Office i like never heard him yell exept maybe a couple times which is rare for a politician

 

Also if he did have something negative to say hed always explain why. So how is he a d*ck???

 

You just dont like his right-wing politics so u call him a d*ck  

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

2 minutes ago, Economy said:

Ive always agreed with that too. Now im gonna get the hate for this stuff too.

 

This is serious stuff. If some groups of people are much more likely to have an infenction of some kind should medical peocautions not be taken because some people might be offended?

 

If theres an outbreak of Ebola do we not cut flights to the most bad areas????

 

Only a small percentage of people in an outbreak area are infected yet we still quarantine.

 

Whats the difference?  

The difference is the percentage in occurrence. People are highly unlikely to have AIDs to begin with, and 40x more the normal probability is still a very low probability.

There is less blood in circulation than you think, and often the blood of a clearly health individual is refused on the sole factor that his sexual orientation MAY put him at higher risk for ONE disease, is the only thing that could have stopped a person from dying.

[Economy 52,861]

41 minutes ago, Poissonche said:

It's more than that. If you're a man and have unprotected sex with a different unknown woman every day, if you decide to donate blood, you have to stop the unprotected sex for a year. When that year ends, you get tested, and if there is no trace of HIV in your blood, you have the right to donate blood. However, if you're a man and have sex with another man, regardless if it's protected or not, the waiting period before you can legally donate blood is five years. So, yeah, even if gay men are more likely to have HIV, it doesn't mean that it's going to become detectable slower than for straight men. The measures could be different for gay/bi and straight men, of course, if they're based on science. Right now it's kind of based on bullsh*t.

On topic, yas Justin, continue on being amazing. Happy IDAHOT.

Yes but statistically gay men are more likely to have it. And as such, your more likely to contract it having sex same amount of times

 

and let me be honest, im not surprised at all...

 

Lets be completely honest... Is the average straight female as open to sleeping around with as many dudes and Men usually would be? Some yes but not as many

 

So id assume gay men are able to sleep around with strangers they met at a bar more frequently than straight men

 

Again im generalizing. Not saying its a rule

[Economy 52,861]

6 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

The difference is the percentage in occurrence. People are highly unlikely to have AIDs to begin with, and 40x more the normal probability is still a very low probability.

There is less blood in circulation than you think, and often the blood of a clearly health individual is refused on the sole factor that his sexual orientation MAY put him at higher risk for ONE disease, is the only thing that could have stopped a person from dying.

Well. Thats fair resoning...

 

But i also wonder if such extreme precautions arent taken couldnt desieses start multipying much faster again?

 

In todays day and age most desieses of viral or bacterial Nature in the developed world exist in very small numbers. Yet we still take very extreme precautions with medical stuff.

 

If we stopped being so uptight about it, maybe in no time wed go back to having crazy outbreaks like we did before the 1950s

 

I dont know the actual numbers tho so im not gonna fight too hard on this one. 

 

But assuming theres any added danger medically from a group of people, im inclined to think that needs to be the main thing kept in mind, not whether or not its discriminatory 🤔

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

1 minute ago, Economy said:

Well. Thats fair resoning...

 

But i also wonder if such extreme precautions arent taken couldnt desieses start multipying much faster again?

 

In todays day and age most desieses of viral or bacterial Nature in the developed world exist in very small numbers. Yet we still take very extreme precautions with medical stuff.

 

If we stopped being so uptight about it, maybe in no time wed go back to having crazy outbreaks like we did before the 1950s

 

I dont know the actual numbers tho so im not gonna fight too hard on this one. 

 

But assuming theres any added danger medically from a group of people, im inclined to think that needs to be the main thing kept in mind, not whether or not its discriminatory 🤔

It's definitely a risk like any other that needs to be assessed despite political correctness, but it has been and there has been no proof that the costs outweigh the benefits. Far from it. The only reason these laws still stand is fearmongering. 

[Economy 52,861]

8 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

It's definitely a risk like any other that needs to be assessed despite political correctness, but it has been and there has been no proof that the costs outweigh the benefits. Far from it. The only reason these laws still stand is fearmongering. 

Well, as long as benefits still outway potential risks on a net basis, i can agree to it.

 

I just dont like it if the sole reason people get defensive is because of "oh its discrimination". I find some people in the LGBT get so defensive that the response becomes automatic even if theres a reason that goes beyond just discrimination and it isnt recognized

 

Also theres a tone of potential on bloodless surgeries now

 

Ive read many articles about how many procedures now are available without blood that are safe and have the advantage of not using up stocked blood, not risking desiese contamination that passed screaning test somehow, and avoid blood rejection so you dont risk bad reactions

 

But unfortunately many doctors are not trained on it and some departments in most Countries seem hesitant to challange the standard of blood transfusion for surgeries which has been the standard for many decades

 

A very large hospital in my city finally started promoting the option 5 years ago and theyve had success at reducing blood consumption without added mortality rates

 

Theres many surgeries being done in the 21st century that dont really need blood anymore. In many cases, its outdated

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

Just now, Economy said:

Well, as long as benefits still outway potential risks on a net basis, i can agree to it.

 

I just dont like it if the sole reason people get defensive is because of "oh its discrimination". I find some people in the LGBT get so defensive that the response becomes automatic even if theres a reason that goes beyond just discrimination and it isnt recognized

 

Also theres a tone of potential on bloodless surgeries now

 

Ive read many articles about how many procedures now are available without blood that are safe and have the advantage of not using up stocked blood, not risking desiese contamination that passed screaning test somehow, and avoid blood rejection so you dont risk bad reactions

 

But unfortunately many doctors are not trained on it and some departments in most Countries seem hesitant to challange the standard of blood transfusion for surgeries which has been the standard for many decades

 

A very large hospital in my city finally started promoting the option 5 years ago and theyve had success at reducing blood consumption without added mortality rates

 

Theres many surgeries being done in the 21st century that dont really need blood anymore. In many cases, its outdated

I agree. Political correctness should never factor in anyone's safety, within reason.

Those procedures that you link are still very expensive and not widely available. For now our mundane problems still exist.

[Economy 52,861]

43 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

I agree. Political correctness should never factor in anyone's safety, within reason.

Those procedures that you link are still very expensive and not widely available. For now our mundane problems still exist.

The procedure itself is more expensive. But Hospitals save on shorter stays. No forein blood results in faster recovery. Faster recovery means more patients each year can use same bed/room and take up fewer doctors times

 

So there is potential. But people need to push for them otherwise nothing happens

 

The Cell saver in particular sounds great to me. The one where they suck your lost blood, put run through a machine that cleans it, then runs the blood back into you. My Local hospital Got I think was two units. They were super expensive, i read in the news paper I think was like $280,000 just for 1 unit  

 

But now each patient that uses it has reduced risk of contracting an illness, a bad reaction to forein blood, and the hospital doesnt have to tap into blood reserves for real complex surgeries that actually REALLY need blood and would be dangerous with out it

 

My dad decided to op for no blood when he had his surgery and thats when doctors told of the new options they offered at our hospital

 

Its sick stuff

 

Theres another one that inflates your blood with a fluid thats like a volumizer. Its slightly less efficient at transmiting nutrients and oxygen than real blood but is fine when your uncontious its good enough.

 

Personally Id take the Cell Saver option