 |
|
Caligastia
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Solomwi
Cali, you just hit on the flaw in Thorn's statement (assuming it wasn't just a throwaway). Isn't the right wing position generally that homosexuals choose their orientation? |
The religious right wing, yes.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
SlowwHand
|
 |
of The Cooler
Sep 1999
time: 23:36
|
|
Bullshit, Cal.
The majority here, for right ot wrong, labe me a religious right winger, and I have said time and again that Gays don't choose.
I'll say this, I get tired of Gays, Blacks, New Zealanders, whomever thinking it's terrible to generalize about their specific group, but quite all right to generalize about others.
You do that, you can go **** yourself as far as I'm concerned.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Japher
|
 |
Ook! Ook! Ack! Ack! Ack!
Jun 2002
time: 05:36
|
|
quote:
My point was that if the right wing is convinced it's a choice, as many of them seem to be, then it's pretty silly to ban the sperm of gay men based on fears of increasing the possibility of the produced child being gay. |
I agree. We are very hypocritical, we like to keep ya'll guessing
quote:
I'm sorry, why does a chemical engineer have some kind of superiority when talking about legal issues and biological issues? I must miss the connection.
So you deal with the FDA at work. So what. I deal with LLNL and NASA, but I'm no nuclear scientist nor rocket scientist, and I don't use those as excuses. |
I think my experience with the FDA DOES give me superiority when talking about the FDA, especially when the thread title says to F'em.
My job is to design processes that insure that the product is made according to production specs, specs which I define. I work with regulatory, validation, and quality assurance all of whom trust in what I say and trust in what I know such that the FDA can be convinced that product won't have any ill effect on those who take it. These are not legal issues, as far as I am concerned, but I know that I can't make something that you are to consume without knowing EXACTLY what is in it, and what it will do to you.
As for biologic issues, I do work with micobiologist and biochemist, I am no expert in these fields. However having worked as a bioprocess engineer in the field of protein purification I do like to think I know a thing or two about biology. Also, my speciallty is now water chemistry and cleaning validations which has to do with sterilization and santization of bioreactors, and this does have quite a bit to do with microbiology. On top of that my wife manages a vivarian colony for genetic research, she is quite educated in biological sciences. And, sadly, she likes to talk to me about that crap.
Chemical Engineer is my current title and my formal education, but it is a poor descriptor of what I actually do.
Oh, and the dealing with the FDA is a little tougher than dealing with some ISO 9000 certified metal shop. If the FDA doesn't like what I am doing they can lock up my shop and arrest my CEO, so maybe "dealing" is the wrong word.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Adam Smith
|
 |
Maryland, USA
Jan 1970
time: 00:36
|
|
I don’t even know where to start with you idiots…
First, basic public health. If you are trying to prevent the spread of an infectious disease, first you screen out high risk populations based on risk factors, then you test. You do it this way because testing is time-consuming and expensive. Gay men are high risk for HIV, so they get screened out just like other high risk groups such as drug users, people who have contact with hepatitis, or literally 20 other risk factors in the regs, including risk factors that heterosexuals face.
Second, this is part of a set of procedures to prevent the spread of a variety of diseases including HIV, hepatitis, SARS, West Nile Virus, and a host of others. Its got nothing to do with singling out gays and somehow preventing them from reproducing covertly. The regs apply to any kind of donation from risk groups, not just semen from gays.
Third, the first article posted contains no hint of any of these considerations, and instead plays up the gay angle exclusively. That is either absolute crap journalism by the writer (Agence France Presse?), or selective editing by the poster.
HERE are the proposed regs, if you bothered to look.
Note:
1. My wife is a physician / epidemiologist who works for the FDA
2. U R All Gay *****
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
MrFun
|
 |
of Iowa
Nov 2000
time: 23:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Adam Smith
I don’t even know where to start with you idiots…
First, basic public health. If you are trying to prevent the spread of an infectious disease, first you screen out high risk populations based on risk factors, then you test. You do it this way because testing is time-consuming and expensive. Gay men are high risk for HIV, so they get screened out just like other high risk groups such as drug users, people who have contact with hepatitis, or literally 20 other risk factors in the regs, including risk factors that heterosexuals face.
Second, this is part of a set of procedures to prevent the spread of a variety of diseases including HIV, hepatitis, SARS, West Nile Virus, and a host of others. Its got nothing to do with singling out gays and somehow preventing them from reproducing covertly. The regs apply to any kind of donation from risk groups, not just semen from gays.
Third, the first article posted contains no hint of any of these considerations, and instead plays up the gay angle exclusively. That is either absolute crap journalism by the writer (Agence France Presse?), or selective editing by the poster.
HERE are the proposed regs, if you bothered to look.
Note:
1. My wife is a physician / epidemiologist who works for the FDA
2. U R All Gay ***** |
Sorry -- to justify unjust discrimination because "it will cost a little more" does not sound right.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:36.
Apolyton Time is 00:36. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
21-05-2004 01:49
|