If it is as part of a general lowering of age restrictions for all sorts of things, then I wouldn't have quite such a hard time with it. But it seems absurd that somebody can have a say in the future of the country, but they can't even go to the cinema and see a movie for adults. Or a drink in the pub. Hell, or even drive a car.
But then the SNP have ever been troubled by arrogance. Their response to the Lib-Dem call for more challenging questions on the question of independance drew from the SNP the official comment that they would take no pointers on how to run a referendum from the Liberal Democrats, following the AV vote fiasco. Which, was about the least mature thing I've heard in politics this week.
I recall a very depressing conversation by social media with a guy from the States about the use of blood products from gay men. It basically went like this.
Him: Homosexuality is unclean.
Me: Have you got any evidence for that bold statement?
Him: Gay men are banned from giving blood in your country.
Me: But this is only because people weren’t sure what was going on with HIV/AIDS and panicked and were a bit homophobic. The evidence suggests that blood from gay men who practise safe sex is as clean as any other blood.
Him: If homosexuality wasn’t unclean why would they ban blood from homosexuals?
Me: Because they made a mistake. There’s no evidence that there is any difference in the quality of the blood.
Him: Yes there is. It’s banned and it’s banned because it comes from homosexuals.
Me: So what you are saying is that blood from homosexuals is unclean because homosexuals are unclean because their blood is unclean.
Him: Yes – why do you keep asking me these questions? Are you too stupid to understand logic and science.
It was a trying day. I was tempted to ask him if he was worried he might catch homosexuality but decided discretion was the better part of picking a fight with a homophobe.
no subject
pete stevens (from livejournal.com)2011-09-21 03:57 pm (UTC)(link)
The pink news suggests that between 5% and 10% of gay men in London have HIV, with one in three not realising they're infected, and gay men accounting for 80% of HIV infections.
Wikipedia suggests that 6% of men have had a homosexual experience, so 3% of the population are 'men who have sex with men'. Consequently the simple rule 'no blood donations from men who have sex with men' results in a 3% drop in the amount of blood donated but an 80% drop in HIV incidence in the amount of HIV infected blood.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
no subject
no subject
Of course, by having done it for other things recently, they can claim that it's a general belief of theirs.
And if they win the referendum then they'll have to generally extend the voting age, if they don't want to look particularly hypocritical.
no subject
But then the SNP have ever been troubled by arrogance. Their response to the Lib-Dem call for more challenging questions on the question of independance drew from the SNP the official comment that they would take no pointers on how to run a referendum from the Liberal Democrats, following the AV vote fiasco. Which, was about the least mature thing I've heard in politics this week.
no subject
no subject
I'm not saying some 16 year olds don't have very profound views on politics of course.
no subject
so threatening to cut off the water too...
no subject
no subject
I was reminded of it by the ten-best Amazon reviews link.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
Him: Homosexuality is unclean.
Me: Have you got any evidence for that bold statement?
Him: Gay men are banned from giving blood in your country.
Me: But this is only because people weren’t sure what was going on with HIV/AIDS and panicked and were a bit homophobic. The evidence suggests that blood from gay men who practise safe sex is as clean as any other blood.
Him: If homosexuality wasn’t unclean why would they ban blood from homosexuals?
Me: Because they made a mistake. There’s no evidence that there is any difference in the quality of the blood.
Him: Yes there is. It’s banned and it’s banned because it comes from homosexuals.
Me: So what you are saying is that blood from homosexuals is unclean because homosexuals are unclean because their blood is unclean.
Him: Yes – why do you keep asking me these questions? Are you too stupid to understand logic and science.
It was a trying day. I was tempted to ask him if he was worried he might catch homosexuality but decided discretion was the better part of picking a fight with a homophobe.
no subject
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-6205.html/
Wikipedia suggests that 6% of men have had a homosexual experience, so 3% of the population are 'men who have sex with men'. Consequently the simple rule 'no blood donations from men who have sex with men' results in a 3% drop in the amount of blood donated but an 80% drop in HIV incidence in the amount of HIV infected blood.
To go all bayesian on you,
P(HIV|gay-man) ~ 10%
P(HIV|not-gay-man) ~ 0.3%