Then you don’t understand the meaning of stereotyping, which has zero application to the discussion of being persuaded to engage in activities under certain conditions that you would otherwise choose not to. ALL humans are susceptible to brainwashing, it just varies quite a bit in what it takes based on a number of variables. Legally a person is generally responsible for their actions, although there are exceptions. That doesn’t mean they don’t make different choices given different stressors.
Which is all very general and off topic EXCEPT as anyone might think it applies to this shooter. It would be absurd to just say “he is responsible” and consider that a complete explanation. The role of charismatic leaders in preying on people’s weaknesses, the role of his own fears and weaknesses preceding that, etc. all lead to a picture that can be extremely useful in preventing similar incidents.
Does it bother you to be labeled homophobic? Why do you find it hateful? It doesn’t mean people don’t love you, they just maybe hate that one choice that you make.
I just read the transcript on the Washington Post website. It’s barely edited. It’s pretty clear exactly what he said and who he claimed to be working for.
@romanigypsyeyes ,according to what I’ve read recently, even with the more sensitive modern tests there is at least a 12 day window during which a person can be infected and their blood can “pass the tests,” so to speak, but still can infect someone. Some blood products are apparently treated in a manner that will kill the virus, but some cannot be and still work. The question is whether that is an acceptable risk.
In the early 80s, I had gay friends who objected to the ban–there were no tests yet–because they said it would be awkward for men whose workplaces held blood drives, and might result in outing them. They even defended the idea of a man who KNEW he was infected giving blood in those circumstances. While I had total sympathy for a man in this position, IMHO, doing so would have been just about the equivalent of committing random murder. (Remember, this was when there was not only no test for donated blood, but no effective treatment for AIDS.) Sadly, one of the two men died of AIDS a couple of years later.
Now that the tests are better, the one year deferment seems reasonable.
I can’t give blood because I lived in England during the BSE outbreak. That was more than 25 years ago.
Consolation, yes, it can take a few weeks to detect HIV. So here’s a radical idea: ban EVERYONE who has had unprotected sex with a non-monogamous partner within the last 6 weeks. The fact that it’s limited to MSMs and it doesn’t even allow for MSMs who are in monogamous relationships defies logic, science, and statistics.
I am an HIV counselor. “Risky” behavior (as it relates to HIV exposure) is not limited to MSMs. The fact that a woman can go and have unprotected sex with 30 men and go donate but a man who has had unprotected sex with his husband cannot makes absolutely zero sense.
I cannot give blood because of my blood treatments. I understand that. That makes sense. This policy does not.
Instead of going on about “the LBGT community” being discriminated against, the Atlantic author needs to acknowledge that the rule does not apply to lesbians. But of course that would count against his thesis that it is almost wholly attributable to homophobia.
I do agree completely that it would be more accurate to base donor status on people’s specific sexual habits. I’d have no problem if they wanted to derive a set of questions that took a detailed last-14-days sexual history from every donor. I tend to think that it would decrease donations, though.
As both articles state, “MSM do still make up the majority of new and current HIV infections.” I honestly do not think the current rule is motivated by homophobia. I think it is driven by statistics, and by a reluctance to ask donors even more detailed personal questions. May also by an excess of caution. And convenience.
BTW, I know someone who can’t donate blood because of the BSE rule who was a vegetarian when she lived there.
*Drifted way off topic again. This is not a thread about religion and its views on homosexuality, it is about what the shooter might have believed, along with other issues directly related to the event. The quality/correctness of those beliefs or lack thereof is not the point, only that he thought it. Or he didn’t. Discussing that is fine, based on whatever evidence is out there. Branching off into the rest of it is off topic AND against the Terms of Service since it is directly discussing religion AS the topic.
If there is no more to say about the shooter, the victims, and the incident itself then the thread can be closed. Given that this is a continually developing story, I am EXTREMELY reluctant to do that. Please keep it on topic. Ask yourself before posting “Does this really relate to the Orlando event DIRECTLY”. Thank you.*
I suspect they’re just trying to avoid other similarly damaged people from copycatting or becoming a hero to them. The last thing people like that is more of a rallying cry.
Apparently these transcripts were already out there, because we’ve been reading about them on the news for some time. And they decided to redact anything that refers to his terrorist intent, and then release it? And when there’s an outcry, they decide to release the entire thing.
Who is running this zoo, anyways? So much is already out there, I guess whomever is in charge thinks we’re all pretty stupid and wouldn’t notice anything. It’s kind of creepy. If they didn’t want to release the information, they should have delayed it until they felt they could release the entire version.
Heard an interview on the radio this morning with a teacher who taught the shooter’s wife in elementary school. Shooter’s wife was in special education and according to this teacher could not distinguish between actions and consequences. Sounds like the defense is already gearing up for what she did.
Erasing actual evidence from a 911 call reminds me of Benghazi - it was “a spontaneous outburst” because of some low budget film that no one knew about, not a planned terror attack that officials were actually warned about. Thankfully they have back tracked and decided not to “scrub” the 911 transcripts. Maybe the guy was nuts and trying to cover his true motives but rewriting what actually happened is not the answer.
Well, there was an undoubtedly good reason to substitute ‘God’ for ‘Allah’ and in the fullness of time it will undoubtedly be made clear. Good thing, because all I can come up with at the moment is an amateurish attempt to make it sort of resemble a fundamentalist Christian, right-wing homophobic kind of mass shooting…,. the kind we’re supposed to be worrying about. Daily.
Mmm, if you jigger what qualifies as a ‘mass shooting’ you’ll find one happened, on the dot, every time you stop by Starbucks.
Does the 'Radical Islam" qualifier disqualify the Fort Hood shooter? Can’t be the body count, since he did 13.