The American Red Cross sounded the alarm Sunday over a severe blood shortage facing the U.S. as the number of donors dropped to the lowest levels in two decades. The Red Cross said in an anno…
Your uninformed opinion on proven medical fact is irrelevant, especially when you don’t even know that paid plasma isn’t directly transfused into patients, unlike actual donated plasma, and you think there’s supply and demand in action for fucking blood transfusions.
Paid plasma is used for the manufacture of various products, anything from makeup to clotting factors. Which, as it happens, are notable for being an increased infection risk over directly transfused blood because their sources can’t be trusted to tell the truth about their risk factors.
Blood can only be donated every 8 weeks, plasma twice a week. After donating blood, you can’t donate plasma for 8 weeks.
The hypothetical “untrustworthy” plasma donors you’re talking about are earning about $640 in 8 weeks. I don’t see them switching to whole blood donation for $50 or $100 compensation. I’m not seeing how the risk to the blood supply is going to increase at all, let alone significantly enough to exceed the risk of critical shortages in the blood supply.
Defend your claim that established practice is safe to change. Defend your assertion that the only solution is to open up paid transfusions because the donations are down, compared to efforts to increase those donations instead.
The organization added there was a 7,000-unit shortfall in blood donations between Christmas Day and New Year’s Day alone.
One of the most distressing situations for a doctor is to have a hospital full of patients and an empty refrigerator without any blood products,” Pampee Young, chief medical officer of the Red Cross, said in a statement.
I leave you with two options:
Demonstrate that your claimed threat to the blood supply is more dangerous to patients than a shortage of 7000 units per week; or,
Drop this claimed threat as an argument against paying donors.
Description: Making a claim that needs justification, then demanding that the opponent justifies the opposite of the claim.
In your initial response, you made a claim that needs justification:
Hell, if you’d stopped to think for half a second you’d realize all that will do is increase patient costs and endanger the blood supply.
You are now demanding that I either accept your unsubstantiated claim, or prove it false. As the link you have spammed in response demonstrates, your argument is fallacious, and the burden of proving your initial claim rests with you.
The only claim arising before yours is the idea that paying people for blood could increase the blood supply. Technically, that claim does require proof, and technically, that proof has not been provided. But, the concept of “basic economics” has been so well demonstrated that refusing to accept that premise would be a profound exercise of intellectual dishonesty.
Edit: since you added a “false dichotomy” argument, I’ll address it as well. You were asked to choose between defending your previous claim or not defending your claim. That is a Boolean condition. There is no intermediate or alternate position. Any action you take will either be in defense of your position, or not in defense of your position.
You have the choice of maintaining your claim or not maintaining your claim. That is a second Boolean condition. Again, there is no intermediate or alternate condition. Any action you take will either be to maintain your previous claim, or not
Two Boolean conditions leaves a total of four options. Defend and maintain, defend and not maintain, not defend and maintain, not defend and not maintain. Of those four conditions, only two are rational. Defending your claim, yet abandoning it is not rational; not defending your claim yet maintaining it is not rational.
The options I provided are the only two rational options regarding your initial claim. “False dilemma” only applies to this scenario if you wish to pursue one of the two demonstrably irrational options.
Your uninformed opinion on proven medical fact is irrelevant, especially when you don’t even know that paid plasma isn’t directly transfused into patients, unlike actual donated plasma, and you think there’s supply and demand in action for fucking blood transfusions.
Paid plasma is used for the manufacture of various products, anything from makeup to clotting factors. Which, as it happens, are notable for being an increased infection risk over directly transfused blood because their sources can’t be trusted to tell the truth about their risk factors.
Quantify the risk, please.
Blood can only be donated every 8 weeks, plasma twice a week. After donating blood, you can’t donate plasma for 8 weeks.
The hypothetical “untrustworthy” plasma donors you’re talking about are earning about $640 in 8 weeks. I don’t see them switching to whole blood donation for $50 or $100 compensation. I’m not seeing how the risk to the blood supply is going to increase at all, let alone significantly enough to exceed the risk of critical shortages in the blood supply.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Shifting-of-the-Burden-of-Proof
Nice try, but no.
Defend your claim that established practice is safe to change. Defend your assertion that the only solution is to open up paid transfusions because the donations are down, compared to efforts to increase those donations instead.
Still waiting on you to quantify that risk. This is the third time I’ve asked you to support your initial assertion.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Shifting-of-the-Burden-of-Proof
Yes, that is exactly what you are doing. Still waiting on you to demonstrate your initial claim that paying donors would endanger the blood supply.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens's_razor
From the article:
I leave you with two options:
Demonstrate that your claimed threat to the blood supply is more dangerous to patients than a shortage of 7000 units per week; or,
Drop this claimed threat as an argument against paying donors.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Shifting-of-the-Burden-of-Proof
https://www.scribbr.com/fallacies/false-dilemma-fallacy
Yes, exactly:
In your initial response, you made a claim that needs justification:
You are now demanding that I either accept your unsubstantiated claim, or prove it false. As the link you have spammed in response demonstrates, your argument is fallacious, and the burden of proving your initial claim rests with you.
The only claim arising before yours is the idea that paying people for blood could increase the blood supply. Technically, that claim does require proof, and technically, that proof has not been provided. But, the concept of “basic economics” has been so well demonstrated that refusing to accept that premise would be a profound exercise of intellectual dishonesty.
Edit: since you added a “false dichotomy” argument, I’ll address it as well. You were asked to choose between defending your previous claim or not defending your claim. That is a Boolean condition. There is no intermediate or alternate position. Any action you take will either be in defense of your position, or not in defense of your position.
You have the choice of maintaining your claim or not maintaining your claim. That is a second Boolean condition. Again, there is no intermediate or alternate condition. Any action you take will either be to maintain your previous claim, or not
Two Boolean conditions leaves a total of four options. Defend and maintain, defend and not maintain, not defend and maintain, not defend and not maintain. Of those four conditions, only two are rational. Defending your claim, yet abandoning it is not rational; not defending your claim yet maintaining it is not rational.
The options I provided are the only two rational options regarding your initial claim. “False dilemma” only applies to this scenario if you wish to pursue one of the two demonstrably irrational options.
www.logicalfallacies.org/justfuckinlyin