Debate, and discuss, just dont Bore me.
To Spite Your Face
Published on February 1, 2008 By Dr Guy In Current Events

In what can only be described of another example of political correctness gone stupid (as if the movement itself was not example enough of that), San Jose State University has banned all blood drives.  Is the why even important? (Because the FDA prohibits gay people from donating.)

Now personally I think the ban is stupid.  And should they want to demonstrate against it, write letters to congressmen/women or call the clowns who make the rules boobs, I will be on the front lines with them.  It is stupid!  Where I work there are about 900 people, and each blood drive garners about 40 pints.  Less than 5%.  Automatically disallowing any segment of the population from giving is stupid as not enough can or will give.  But that is beside the point.

Barring donations is akin to starving yourself because you don't like milk!  These donations go to anonymous donors who may be gay, black, white, chartreuse or green.  The recipients only have one thing in common.  A need for blood to live.  And these jerks at SJSU are denying these innocent people that gift.  Denying them perhaps a chance to live.  Because of a stupid idiot that thinks by denying the supply of blood they are going to affect some faceless bureaucrats in Washington.

What is even more saddening perhaps are the supposed "intelligent" students who support the idiocy.  "Yea, he is standing on principal!".  What principal?  The Red Cross and other Blood collecting agencies are not making the rules (and indeed are trying to get them changed).  The victims in need of the blood are not making the rules.  The only people making the rules are those that are really unaffected by the donations.  The idiots running the university, and the idiots in Washington.  But none of those (hopefully) will ever suffer due to their own stupidity.  But many innocents may.

Standing on principal is fine, if you are standing against the right people.  Cutting off your nose because you do not like your nose job, however, is just stupid. But given the climate in this country today, I wonder how many have even enough brains to figure out just how stupid they are being.  They may claim to be standing on principal, but in reality they are just mean, spiteful, hateful idiots.  Who are hurting a lot of innocent people through their stupidity.


Comments (Page 1)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Feb 01, 2008
They prohibit gay people from donating? Let me guess: AIDS?

Sorry to break it too them, but straight people have AIDS too...good Christ, are people really this stupid?

Banning all the blood drives because of that is idiocy on top of stupidity. Is there one person I could punch to make it all better?...I mean, if one person was being that retarded, I could understand...but organizations? schools? students for God's sake?

*sigh*

~Zoo
on Feb 01, 2008
but organizations? schools? students for God's sake?


Just be glad that at least Miami has smarter students and faculty.
on Feb 01, 2008
Just be glad that at least Miami has smarter students and faculty.


Sometimes...sometimes. However, I'll be the first to put my foot up their ass for this level of idiocy.

~Zoo
on Feb 01, 2008
That's too bad that they are doing that. Blood drives are so important.
on Feb 01, 2008
However, I'll be the first to put my foot up their ass for this level of idiocy.


You are a good man Charlie Brown.
on Feb 01, 2008
Blood drives are so important.


And so apolitical. Everyone has it, but only some can give, and many need it. I do not know if the person who gets mine has anything in common with me. And I really dont care. Their life is worth more than some petulant fit.
on Feb 01, 2008

I'm not allowed to give.  Neither is Dave, and he's got a pretty rare blood type.  Shea can't donate, and neither can Davey - and no, their ages don't have anything to do with it.

We cannot donate because we lived in the UK for more than 6 months.  It used to be 'for more than 6 months in the last 10 years' but they've changed that and have put a moratorium on anyone who lived in the UK for more than 6 months.

Why?  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy.  (Creutzfeld-Jakob variant disease).  Mad Cow disease, in other words.  Anyone who ate British beef is at risk of developing it at a later date, and there isn't any test that can tell you you have it - you've got to wait until symptoms develop before you can get a diagnosis.

I can understand denying people's donations because of a disease risk, but to do so because of a person's gender, skin color or sexual preference?  That's silly.

on Feb 01, 2008

I can understand denying people's donations because of a disease risk, but to do so because of a person's gender, skin color or sexual preference? That's silly.

I dont agree with all the restrictions, and do think that barring a whole segment of the population is stupid.  And as I said, I will join anyone who wants to demonstrate against the FDA on the issue.  But banning the collection because of some idiot bureaucrats?  That to me is cutting your nose off to spite your face.

on Feb 03, 2008
I too feel that such a ban is uncalled for. Is the reason political correctness or any other.
on Feb 03, 2008
I feel a little awkward here...but the bans on donated blood are necessary and important...they have nothing to do with politics or gender or sexual preference. The bans focus on high risk blood. Gays DO have a higher risk for AIDs and other STDs. It sounds noble to protest these bans but practically speaking, if you are in need of a transfusion, wouldn't you be concerned about where the blood you receive has been? I can't give blood either, and I am not gay. Should we line up and protest the exclusion of fat old men who have spent half their lives overseas and contracted various diseases and are currently diabetic?
on Feb 04, 2008
I too feel that such a ban is uncalled for. Is the reason political correctness or any other.


I was thinking after writing this that a more apt comparison might be that people against genocide are boycotting Sudan peacekeepers because they are trying to keep the peace and failing in Darfur.

It is not the injured, or the collectors of blood making these rules, yet it is they who will suffer from this boycott.
on Feb 04, 2008
The bans focus on high risk blood. Gays DO have a higher risk for AIDs and other STDs. It sounds noble to protest these bans but practically speaking, if you are in need of a transfusion, wouldn't you be concerned about where the blood you receive has been?


Don't feel awkward. I know it is a sore subject with Dharma because of the mad cow disease in Britain. And yes, Gays are more prone to having AIDs. But it is not anywhere near 100% in that community, and the screening process has gotten better. They can get AIDS from a hetero donor. Barring them just on their sexual orientation is not right (on their behavior, if they are a highly promiscuous, yes).

And for those who feel strongly about the ban on Gays giving, then let us protest the source of the ban! But this university does not have the brains to realize this simple fact, so they instead penalize the innocent.

And that is why I am so outraged, not at the Red Cross or the poor schmuck who just was tboned by a drunk driver, but at the jerks who cant tell the difference between them and some fat cat in DC.

And I am also sad that these idiots are in a position to "teach" (and I use the word lightly) and influence our nations young. As is demonstrated by some of the quotes in the article by the "students".
on Feb 06, 2008
And I am also sad that these idiots are in a position to "teach" (and I use the word lightly) and influence our nations young. As is demonstrated by some of the quotes in the article by the "students".


not to forget people like KFC who continue to propagate stupidities and ignorance about some people's birthbeing on the guise of "free speech"
on Feb 06, 2008
Surely the simple in this case would be for the Red Cross to set up donation facilities outside the University itself and then advertise so those who would like to donate still can. Or simply that all blood donated, regardless, be tested before being made available for use. Setting limitations is always going to put someone's nose out of joint.
on Feb 06, 2008
Or simply that all blood donated, regardless, be tested before being made available for use


I know that in Quebec, they already do that. Why wouldn't be done in the U.S.?
3 Pages1 2 3