Whatever you answered... why?
On a similar note, do you donate blood?
And for whatever you answered, why?
Edit: This is just curiosity. I saw someone else asking the question in another place, and I think it's interesting to see and discuss different viewpoints.
2) Never thought about it
3) No
4) Don't feel like it
As for blood... I used to donate blood regularly as it's a safe thing to do and can really save someone's life. What's half an hour of laying on a couch staring at the ceiling while getting a strange iron taste on your tongue compared worth? Possibly a life. So I used to give every few months (however often it is you can safely donate).
I don't now because due to my life choices I no longer pass the little interview they do before you donate, and more discussion would take this thread in a direction I don't wnat it to go.
As for blood, they won't let me donate blood even when I was willing to part with it. Something about me living in Europe in the late '80s to early '90s...
As for donating blood...
On my left arm. One drop for each gallon donated.
As for why? Mainly because I'm a big believer in Balance in my life, and if I maybe don't have quite as much to make up for in the past as I might sometimes think, I'm sure that having a positive tally on my cosmic balance sheet will come in handy at some point in the future - I just kind of have one of those lives, y'know? :D
I used to give blood, but I often just barely pass the iron-content. I haven't donated since I was pregnant (when I actually had to take iron pills).
I donate blood whenever I can. Since I'm a veteran, I feel I should give everything I can to make sure more people survive as I did. It helps that I'm a universal doner.
Apparently donating OTHER peoples blood and organs without their consent is considered "wrong."
No, but seriously, I've tried to donate blood, but they can never find a good vein, so I've never succeeded.
why: It is a small thing to do to help others, IMO.
blood donor: yes, when possible
why: see above
sidenote: Being diabetic limits some things I can donate. I don't think they would use my kidneys simply because I am diabetic. If they do pancreas donations, mine probably would not be used...Also, I can give blood. However, the last time that I tried was at a Naval base and since I took an insulin many years ago (mid 80') that was made with cow proteins they automatically disqualify me because of some strict rules regarding mad cow disease despite there being no cases of or evidence that one could get it in such a way.
Because I won't need them after I die.
However this may change as it turns out that pretty much all my blood/organs contain tumor markers, thus making any organ reciever very unlucky.
Blood - No
Because for the longest time I thought you needed to know your blood type in order to donate (I'm B something)
I do not donate blood. I never really felt like doing it for whatever reason and then the whole 9/11 thing happened and it made me angry at the whole system. What a waste. Anyhoo, I couldn't donate it half the time anyway. I have pills I have to take and I'm pretty sure that means I couldn't donate. I'm not positive about that, but I think it's true. Who knows? I doubt I'd donate, though. Just not my thing, I guess.
Because I'm dead. Frankly I won't need the organs anymore.
Do I donate blood?
No... I have a thing about Needles. I'm fine with blood.. but something about doctors +needle= me not being conscious anymore.
It's a tough decision and I don't blame people for wanting to live, but it's not helping us out as a race, nor is it helping out the other denizens of Earth. It's pretty selfish really, wanting to live beyond your time.
I don't donate blood for the same reason. I'm not willing to be a part of such a horrendous undertaking.
No, I am not an organ donor because I favor nature over nurture. If it's my time to die, that's fine, I don't want help living longer. People need to start dying to take some of the stress off of the poor planet and off of the people and other animals that nature has deemed worthy of living.
It's a tough decision and I don't blame people for wanting to live, but it's not helping us out as a race, nor is it helping out the other denizens of Earth. It's pretty selfish really, wanting to live beyond your time.
I don't donate blood for the same reason. I'm not willing to be a part of such a horrendous undertaking.
So you don't wash your hands, or wipe your backside either?
Sanitation is actually the biggest reason why we are so populated.
So you don't wash your hands, or wipe your backside either?
Sanitation is actually the biggest reason why we are so populated.
That doesn't make much since. I don't see China as all that sanitary.
That doesn't make much since. I don't see China as all that sanitary.
China has too much sex is their problem :P
*then again with nothing else to do I can't blame them*
You'd be surprised though. Sanitation, is more than just washing your own hands, and the like. It also includes things like Proper Waste Disposal (which is actually the biggest reason out of all of the others as to why humanity population boomed)
I have broken my foot and several of my fingers, at different times, and you can totally tell it. I just did my best not to use them until they didn't hurt when I forgot.
My left index finger won't straighten out the whole way and the middle finger next to it has a nice leftward curve. I've never been very sick, no chicken pox or anything, and I don't even take an aspirin when I have a headache. I have had my shots only because I was young then and under the control of my parents.
I suppose it's true, Zombie, that the world will end when I do.
No, I am not an organ donor because I favor nature over nurture. If it's my time to die, that's fine, I don't want help living longer. People need to start dying to take some of the stress off of the poor planet and off of the people and other animals that nature has deemed worthy of living.
It's a tough decision and I don't blame people for wanting to live, but it's not helping us out as a race, nor is it helping out the other denizens of Earth. It's pretty selfish really, wanting to live beyond your time.
I don't donate blood for the same reason. I'm not willing to be a part of such a horrendous undertaking.
So, it is selfish for not wanting your poor dying child to grow up and live a full life? I make this point because children do receive donated organs and especally blood.
How do you define "helping us out as a race"?
Why is your definition superior to that of others? (I am assuming you feel it is, otherwise this wouldn't make any sense...)
How are defining "your time"? If someone tries to kill you by his (or her) choice and you are dying from a stab wound or a gunshot wound, how is it your time to die and you are not allowed to try to live longer? Why does someone else get to decide for you when your time is?
How has nature "deemed worthy of living" anything? It is not a god. It does not make decisions.
Why is helping the planet more important than helping people? It is one thing to argue that we need to do more for the planet but it is quite another to argue that people need to die for the planet.
I'm asking because none of this makes any sense.
If the answe had been "No, because I don't give a damn," that would have been callous but I would understand it.
Actually, no, I don't go to the doctor. I do draw the line at wiping my back side though, don't want my jeans sticking to my bum.
I have broken my foot and several of my fingers, at different times, and you can totally tell it. I just did my best not to use them until they didn't hurt when I forgot.
My left index finger won't straighten out the whole way and the middle finger next to it has a nice leftward curve. I've never been very sick, no chicken pox or anything, and I don't even take an aspirin when I have a headache. I have had my shots only because I was young then and under the control of my parents.
I suppose it's true, Zombie, that the world will end when I do.
Fair enough. I won't challenge any of that. And yes, your world will end when you do. It's something I seem to end up getting in arguments about alot lately. Seems some people don't like that POV.
So, it is selfish for not wanting your poor dying child to grow up and live a full life? I make this point because children do receive donated organs and especially blood.
It is selfish because determining that your child should grow beyond the time clock that nature has set for them puts a burden on those that were fit to live.
How do you define "helping us out as a race"?
Why is your definition superior to that of others? (I am assuming you feel it is, otherwise this wouldn't make any sense...)
A person that is meant to die, by whatever means, that does not do so, consumes resources needed by those that nature has determined, through ages of evolution and careful cherry picking, is fit to continue carrying the torch for that particular race. I don't know about superior, Rumplestix, but I do feel it's a viable position worth defending, as it's the way things are for the rest of the animals on Earth.
How are defining "your time"? If someone tries to kill you by his (or her) choice and you are dying from a stab wound or a gunshot wound, how is it your time to die and you are not allowed to try to live longer? Why does someone else get t decide for you when your time is?
How come a mother wildebeest, caught by a lion, is not allowed to live longer? She has a child to take care of. Shouldn't that child be allowed a full life? Do you see what I'm getting at here?
How has nature "deemed worthy of living" anything? It is not a god. It does not make decisions.
Nature was the first god and the inspiration for all the gods that ever were. Gods are nothing more than an attempt to put a sense to nature that early humans couldn't understand fully.
It's the cheetah's nature to be fast enough to catch the antelope and it's a virus' nature to multiply and defeat it's own host. If the antelope is fast and sound enough in body, it will live to see another day. If the virus' host is healthy, the virus will be defeated. That's how nature deems subjects worthy of living. By breeding into them across generations the tools they need to do so.
Why is helping the planet more important than helping people? It is one thing to argue that we need to do more for the planet but it is quite another to argue that people need to die for the planet.
Helping the planet is helping people. The planet can't handle such a population overload. There's nothing wrong with letting people die when they're supposed to.
I'm asking because none of this makes any sense.
If the answe had been "No, because I don't give a damn," that would have been callous but I would understand it.
I hope I've clarified some for you.
Fair enough. I won't challenge any of that. And yes, your world will end when you do. It's something I seem to end up getting in arguments about alot lately. Seems some people don't like that POV.
I don't know why, it makes sense.
Actually, no, I don't go to the doctor. I do draw the line at wiping my back side though, don't want my jeans sticking to my bum.
I have broken my foot and several of my fingers, at different times, and you can totally tell it. I just did my best not to use them until they didn't hurt when I forgot.
My left index finger won't straighten out the whole way and the middle finger next to it has a nice leftward curve. I've never been very sick, no chicken pox or anything, and I don't even take an aspirin when I have a headache. I have had my shots only because I was young then and under the control of my parents.
Wow, you seem to be one tough cookie.
Nature was the first god and the inspiration for all the gods that ever were. Gods are nothing more than an attempt to put a sense to nature that early humans couldn't understand fully.
It's the cheetah's nature to be fast enough to catch the antelope and it's a virus' nature to multiply and defeat it's own host. If the antelope is fast and sound enough in body, it will live to see another day. If the virus' host is healthy, the virus will be defeated. That's how nature deems subjects worthy of living. By breeding into them across generations the tools they need to do so.
Nature doesn't determine anything. It just is.
Examining the nature decides through evolution bit causes it to fall apart.
To go further, if nature is doing the determining it has determined to allow us to develop so that we can take care of ourselves and our young. We can choose to do such things because nature has deemed through natural selection that we should have the capacity to do so. One of the strongest feeling/emotions that has been bred into nature is the desire to survive. Those who use the tools available to them to survive are merely undergoing the process of how nature has selected them to act and using our more developed mental capacity to make use of the things developed by other humans who have made use of their more developed mental capacity.
If the things of how species are selected by nature according to the capabilities that allow them to survive (survival of the fittest) apply to animals then they apply to humans as well. We have naturally developed these things as a result of our natural development of genetics through nature. Our culture and language which passes this on is a result of natural development. Everything we have to survive is a natural development born out of our natural desire to survive. Every tool and means that we have at our disposal is a natural development of this. It is only natural.
Animals naturally do what they can to keep their young alive. The farther the animal is in intelligence the farther it will go to doing so. Mother chimps will continue to carry around a child that they know is dead. Why? Because they want that child to be alive. If they had the mental capacity to understand how to take care of their children with medicine there is every indication to believe that they would. It is only natural.
The problem with the line of reasoning being given is that it argues that preserving life is going against the natural order and then criticizes it for doing so on a moral ground that others are more worthy. The fact that we have naturally developed the means to do so is the proof of the worthiness. Nature deemed us worthy enough to develop such techniques to do so and we have succeeded in what nature has given us the opportunity to do.
I also give blood as often as possible. Unfortunately I'm usually underway when the base does blood drives.
At boss kitty:
Nature doesn't determine anything. It just is.
Examining the nature decides through evolution bit causes it to fall apart.
To go further, if nature is doing the determining it has determined to allow us to develop so that we can take care of ourselves and our young. We can choose to do such things because nature has deemed through natural selection that we should have the capacity to do so. One of the strongest feeling/emotions that has been bred into nature is the desire to survive. Those who use the tools available to them to survive are merely undergoing the process of how nature has selected them to act and using our more developed mental capacity to make use of the things developed by other humans who have made use of their more developed mental capacity.
If the things of how species are selected by nature according to the capabilities that allow them to survive (survival of the fittest) apply to animals then they apply to humans as well. We have naturally developed these things as a result of our natural development of genetics through nature. Our culture and language which passes this on is a result of natural development. Everything we have to survive is a natural development born out of our natural desire to survive. Every tool and means that we have at our disposal is a natural development of this. It is only natural.
Animals naturally do what they can to keep their young alive. The farther the animal is in intelligence the farther it will go to doing so. Mother chimps will continue to carry around a child that they know is dead. Why? Because they want that child to be alive. If they had the mental capacity to understand how to take care of their children with medicine there is every indication to believe that they would. It is only natural.
The problem with the line of reasoning being given is that it argues that preserving life is going against the natural order and then criticizes it for doing so on a moral ground that others are more worthy. The fact that we have naturally developed the means to do so is the proof of the worthiness. Nature deemed us worthy enough to develop such techniques to do so and we have succeeded in what nature has given us the opportunity to do.
You are right, and in this explanation you can see how humans are much like the AIDS virus. We continually adapt so that no matter what is thrown at us, we continue to live and multiply faster than a normal death rate can keep up with. We are slowly killing our host simply by not dying off at a normal rate. (By normal rate I mean at the rate any other species procreates and dies)
Wow, you seem to be one tough cookie.
Most people just think I'm an idiot! :D Actually, I could never understand paying a doctor for helping me with something I can live through, and I'm certainly not going to pay one if I'm going to die anyway! I always kind of thought of them as parasites, making money off of sick people.
Why? Likely, I'm too young, but I'd like to be a donor.
Blood Donor: No.
Why? Too young (have to be at least 17 - meaning 2 more years). My mom can't give blood because she was in England during the mad cow outbreak.
Blood Donor: Yes. As often as I can.
Blood donor? Yes.
Going for a jog a pint low can be fun.
Oh, and I still haven't thought about donating blood or organs.
Oh, and I still haven't thought about donating blood or organs.
Yah right, I know ya donate to your local high school cheerleaders whenever there's a big game. Dontcha try to convince anyone otherwise. Ya scalliwag.
Organ donor? No.
Blood donor? Yes.
Going for a jog a pint low can be fun.
Whoa... where did the Minja come from?
As for donating blood, I can't. I am under the weight limit.
Whoa... where did the Minja come from?
Duh. Don't you remember? She's a ninja silly. :P
Duh. Don't you remember? She's a ninja silly. :P
True.
Too true.
I'm surprised Minja is on though.
I'm surprised Minja is on though.
She's... not.
*Eerie music and wind*
blood: no. why? no convenient transportation to get to the donor clinic on my days off. i wouldn't mind giving blood, but it requires going a bit out of my way to do so and paying 20$ taxi (10$ each way) to give blood is kinda rough.
No, this is mainly because when getting my license, you needed parental consent (I was under 18). If it were just a box to check, I would've checked it. But now, I have no idea what process is necessary plus I assume they'd charge me for giving me a new licenses.
Blood:
Yes. I typically try to donate regularly. Its basically donating without any loss. I feel fine after giving blood so its like giving without losing. And now, it seems places are always giving stuff away ranging from free fast food to Best Buy gift cards to ball game tickets. So everyone gets something!
Note: I'm surprised how many people say they don't weigh enough to give blood. Maybe its different in my area, but the requirement is 100 or 110 lbs. I know very little people who are THAT light.
Note: I'm surprised how many people say they don't weigh enough to give blood. Maybe its different in my area, but the requirement is 100 or 110 lbs. I know very little people who are THAT light.
It is also dependent on height. I am 115 lbs. But I am also 5'9" so the combo of height with being light means no giving blood.
I donate blood ocassionally, when they give me things.
The idea of my corpse being butchered and chunks of my meat being shoved into other people freeks me out.
As to blood, my body doesn't give it up readily. I'm just not a bleeder. When I have to have it taken for medical reasons they can usually pull maybe half a vial before my body shuts the pipe down. They usually need to tap me three or four times in different spots to get enough to work with.
It is selfish because determining that your child should grow beyond the time clock that nature has set for them puts a burden on those that were fit to live.
When prey is cornered by a predator should it just give up and die because it is Nature's will or should it fight back by any means necessary? Isn't our society's capability to extend the lifespan of its own members through science an example of evolution applied to society as a whole? Receiving the donated organ in a way is the "prey's"(said victim) defense against said "predator"(death by organ failure).
A person that is meant to die, by whatever means, that does not do so, consumes resources needed by those that nature has determined, through ages of evolution and careful cherry picking, is fit to continue carrying the torch for that particular race. I don't know about superior, Rumplestix, but I do feel it's a viable position worth defending, as it's the way things are for the rest of the animals on Earth.
A person staving off old age by any means necessary is a completely different animal compared to someone staving off death at a young age from war, disease, famine, etc.
How come a mother wildebeest, caught by a lion, is not allowed to live longer? She has a child to take care of. Shouldn't that child be allowed a full life? Do you see what I'm getting at here?
Many animals collectively have methods of putting off death by predators. Some of them travel in large herds so that the predator might hesitate to attack. Sometimes the mother wildebeest gets caught and eaten by the lion, but that is because the mother wildebeest's method to live longer ended up failing in the end.
Nature was the first god and the inspiration for all the gods that ever were. Gods are nothing more than an attempt to put a sense to nature that early humans couldn't understand fully.
It's the cheetah's nature to be fast enough to catch the antelope and it's a virus' nature to multiply and defeat it's own host. If the antelope is fast and sound enough in body, it will live to see another day. If the virus' host is healthy, the virus will be defeated. That's how nature deems subjects worthy of living. By breeding into them across generations the tools they need to do so.
Humans are a collective animal. We don't evolve as individuals seperately from each other. The collective benefits as a whole when it is able to help even those who may fall behind on an individual leve.
Helping the planet is helping people. The planet can't handle such a population overload. There's nothing wrong with letting people die when they're supposed to.
A better method in my opinion to help the population overload is for the more advanced countries that are suffering from low population growth to cut down on consumption. We could ride bikes instead of driving cars to locations not far away. We could destigmatize mass transit. We can cut back on AC/heating usage when not absolutely necessary.
While the advanced countries are doing this, the developing countries could do something about taking steps to bring their birth rate to be more in line with the advanced countries. I understand that agrarian societies oftentimes need big families for farm work, but some countries that suffer from famine or require large commodity imports obviously could obviously do with more birth control and/or abstinence.
You don't need to arbitrarily condemn large sections of the planet's population to death just to solve a problem. There is almost always a better way.
I don't actively go out of my way to donate blood, but when I see an organized blood drive I'll usually try to donate despite my severe dislike of needles.
However, I don't plan on ever becoming an organ donor. I, for some reason, always imagine that a celebrity or VIP with the same blood type as me would need an organ while I'd be in the hospital for something that could possibly be fatal. A corrupt or overly ideological doctor has the means to make my heart, kidneys, or liver "available" if their favorite politician needs a transplant badly.
It is selfish because determining that your child should grow beyond the time clock that nature has set for them puts a burden on those that were fit to live.
That is a gross oversimplification and misrepresentation of what nature is. Nature doesn't decide anything. Living beings do.
A person that is meant to die, by whatever means, that does not do so, consumes resources needed by those that nature has determined, through ages of evolution and careful cherry picking, is fit to continue carrying the torch for that particular race. I don't know about superior, Rumplestix, but I do feel it's a viable position worth defending, as it's the way things are for the rest of the animals on Earth.
It is perfectly rational to want to live and seek help to do so. Animals seek help when in trouble. Why shouldn't humans? Humans aren't different. And humans have perfected more ways to survive than other animals, so we are more fit than most animals to survive because of our intelligence.
So no, your position is not worth defending and not rational. Get help for your injuries in the future.
How come a mother wildebeest, caught by a lion, is not allowed to live longer? She has a child to take care of. Shouldn't that child be allowed a full life? Do you see what I'm getting at here?
It should, but wildebeests can't muster the intelligence. Humans can. It is our main characteristic as a species. A human child that gets hit by a car has not "run out out its clock." It can be saved, and so it should be saved.
Nature was the first god and the inspiration for all the gods that ever were. Gods are nothing more than an attempt to put a sense to nature that early humans couldn't understand fully.
Nature is not and never was a god. It is an amalgam of processes and axioms.
It's the cheetah's nature to be fast enough to catch the antelope and it's a virus' nature to multiply and defeat it's own host. If the antelope is fast and sound enough in body, it will live to see another day. If the virus' host is healthy, the virus will be defeated. That's how nature deems subjects worthy of living. By breeding into them across generations the tools they need to do so.
And thus a human child being run over a car should not get a second chance? Your analogy fails because animals would save their young if they could. That is what is rational. Fatalism is not.
Helping the planet is helping people. The planet can't handle such a population overload. There's nothing wrong with letting people die when they're supposed to.
And who determines "supposed to?" People were supposed to die of smallpox in the 15th century but not now? How could that make sense? Laws of reality don't change over time (you being a fan of nature should realize this). Fighting tooth and nail is the basic principle of survival, and we have a major advantage.