Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Boston.com)   Fark Libs' favorite senator demands the federal government end ban on blood donations from gays, In other news, the federal government has a ban on blood donations from gays   (boston.com) divider line 411
    More: Asinine, donating blood, federal government, donations, Jim McGovern, senator, blood, gays  
•       •       •

2265 clicks; posted to Politics » on 03 Aug 2013 at 12:16 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



411 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-08-03 12:19:00 PM  
Yeah, it came about because of the HIV/AIDS epidemic. It made sense temporarily, even if it was a bit heavy handed and based on prejudice.
 
2013-08-03 12:20:43 PM  

efgeise: Yeah, it came about because of the HIV/AIDS epidemic. It made sense temporarily, even if it was a bit heavy handed and based on prejudice.


Um yeah and science has come a long way in thirty years.
 
2013-08-03 12:21:13 PM  
As I understand it, blood is tested for HIV (and other things) after donation or maybe pre-donation?

So, yeah, this is a stupid rule and needs to be abolished.
 
2013-08-03 12:22:07 PM  

Fart_Machine: efgeise: Yeah, it came about because of the HIV/AIDS epidemic. It made sense temporarily, even if it was a bit heavy handed and based on prejudice.

Um yeah and science has come a long way in thirty years.


Hence why I specifically said "temporarily."
 
2013-08-03 12:22:43 PM  
Well, the current ban is on any male who has had any homosexual contact since 1977.  That's far too broad.  It could be safely shortened to 5 years.  Testing is better, but it still takes time for the HIV antibodies to appear in the blood so it can be tested.

Getting a transfusion with HIV contaminated blood has a 100% transmission rate.  The cost of treating HIV infection is very high, so it makes sense to eliminate the possibility of transmission.

I have gay friends in committed relationships but I wouldn't let them donate because even if the donating partner has been monogamous it's no guarantee that the other has been.
 
2013-08-03 12:25:25 PM  

jenlen: As I understand it, blood is tested for HIV (and other things) after donation or maybe pre-donation?

So, yeah, this is a stupid rule and needs to be abolished.


It still takes a minimum of 6 weeks for someone who is HIV positive to test HIV positive.

While every pint is tested and false positives far outnumber false negatives there are still false negatives it just isn't worth it to eliminate those questions.
 
2013-08-03 12:27:05 PM  

Mr. Eugenides: Well, the current ban is on any male who has had any homosexual contact since 1977.  That's far too broad.  It could be safely shortened to 5 years.  Testing is better, but it still takes time for the HIV antibodies to appear in the blood so it can be tested.

Getting a transfusion with HIV contaminated blood has a 100% transmission rate.  The cost of treating HIV infection is very high, so it makes sense to eliminate the possibility of transmission.

I have gay friends in committed relationships but I wouldn't let them donate because even if the donating partner has been monogamous it's no guarantee that the other has been.


There's no guarantee that either of the partners in a hetero relationship are monogamous either, yet that doesn't stop them from donating. Anyone can have HIV. The reason it showed up quickly in the gay population was because transmission rates are much higher from buttsechs.
 
2013-08-03 12:27:08 PM  
I guess Subby hasn't donated blood even once since 1977
 
2013-08-03 12:27:12 PM  

Mr. Eugenides: Well, the current ban is on any male who has had any homosexual contact since 1977.  That's far too broad.  It could be safely shortened to 5 years.  Testing is better, but it still takes time for the HIV antibodies to appear in the blood so it can be tested.

Getting a transfusion with HIV contaminated blood has a 100% transmission rate.  The cost of treating HIV infection is very high, so it makes sense to eliminate the possibility of transmission.

I have gay friends in committed relationships but I wouldn't let them donate because even if the donating partner has been monogamous it's no guarantee that the other has been.


Are you aware that anyone can be HIV positive regardless of sexual orientation?
 
2013-08-03 12:27:18 PM  

Mr. Eugenides: jenlen: As I understand it, blood is tested for HIV (and other things) after donation or maybe pre-donation?

So, yeah, this is a stupid rule and needs to be abolished.

It still takes a minimum of 6 weeks for someone who is HIV positive to test HIV positive.

While every pint is tested and false positives far outnumber false negatives there are still false negatives it just isn't worth it to eliminate those questions.


You do know that it's not just possible to transmit HIV via homosexual contact, right?
 
2013-08-03 12:27:41 PM  

Mr. Eugenides: Well, the current ban is on any male who has had any homosexual contact since 1977.  That's far too broad.  It could be safely shortened to 5 years.  Testing is better, but it still takes time for the HIV antibodies to appear in the blood so it can be tested.

Getting a transfusion with HIV contaminated blood has a 100% transmission rate.  The cost of treating HIV infection is very high, so it makes sense to eliminate the possibility of transmission.

I have gay friends in committed relationships but I wouldn't let them donate because even if the donating partner has been monogamous it's no guarantee that the other has been.


And that's not true for heterosexual couples?
 
2013-08-03 12:27:42 PM  
In this case, Fark Lib's favorite Senator is completely reasonable and dead on target.

Again.

Which makes her ... Five for five? Eight for eight? Eleventy for eleventy?

Really, has she even come down on the dumb side, ever?

Thanks, Massachusettians! She was a damn good investment of your voting votes.
 
2013-08-03 12:28:40 PM  
I should also point out that the percentage of the population that is eliminated by this ban isn't that large.  If 10% of people are gay, then gay men represent 5% of the total potential donor population.

How many people is it worth infecting with HIV in order to increase the donor pool by 5%?

/Has 8 gallon donor pin and will get the 9 gallon pin later this year.
/If you think this is unreasonable then get off your own ass and donate every 56 days so there isn't an issue with blood supply.
 
2013-08-03 12:30:06 PM  
People who spent more than 6 months in England in the 90's are also banned.
 
2013-08-03 12:30:32 PM  

Mr. Eugenides: How many people is it worth infecting with HIV in order to increase the donor pool by 5%?


How is it more of a risk than a straight non-monogamous person donating?
 
2013-08-03 12:31:03 PM  

efgeise: Fart_Machine: efgeise: Yeah, it came about because of the HIV/AIDS epidemic. It made sense temporarily, even if it was a bit heavy handed and based on prejudice.

Um yeah and science has come a long way in thirty years.

Hence why I specifically said "temporarily."


Wasn't disagreeing with you.  Which is why the current prohibition is stupid but I'm sure some will still fight lifting it.
 
2013-08-03 12:31:54 PM  

Mr. Eugenides: I should also point out that the percentage of the population that is eliminated by this ban isn't that large.  If 10% of people are gay, then gay men represent 5% of the total potential donor population.

How many people is it worth infecting with HIV in order to increase the donor pool by 5%?

/Has 8 gallon donor pin and will get the 9 gallon pin later this year.
/If you think this is unreasonable then get off your own ass and donate every 56 days so there isn't an issue with blood supply.


I see so as long its a small population we treat unscientific like they have the plague its ok with you.
 
2013-08-03 12:32:17 PM  

Fart_Machine: efgeise: Fart_Machine: efgeise: Yeah, it came about because of the HIV/AIDS epidemic. It made sense temporarily, even if it was a bit heavy handed and based on prejudice.

Um yeah and science has come a long way in thirty years.

Hence why I specifically said "temporarily."

Wasn't disagreeing with you.  Which is why the current prohibition is stupid but I'm sure some will still fight lifting it.


Ah, my apologies then.
 
2013-08-03 12:32:32 PM  

Mr. Eugenides: How many people is it worth infecting with HIV in order to increase the donor pool by 5%?


You're more likely to have blood contaminated by heterosexual donors and there is already blood screening.  So this is a foolish argument.
 
2013-08-03 12:32:44 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Mr. Eugenides: How many people is it worth infecting with HIV in order to increase the donor pool by 5%?

How is it more of a risk than a straight non-monogamous person donating?


To be fair, studies by the CDC have shown gay men are more likely to contract HIV. I still disagree with Eugenides because the article mentions other sexual risk factors will be taken into account.
 
2013-08-03 12:33:14 PM  

Mr. Eugenides: Well, the current ban is on any male who has had any homosexual contact since 1977.  That's far too broad.  It could be safely shortened to 5 years.  Testing is better, but it still takes time for the HIV antibodies to appear in the blood so it can be tested.

Getting a transfusion with HIV contaminated blood has a 100% transmission rate.  The cost of treating HIV infection is very high, so it makes sense to eliminate the possibility of transmission.

I have gay friends in committed relationships but I wouldn't let them donate because even if the donating partner has been monogamous it's no guarantee that the other has been.


Wat? HIV hasn't been a "homosexual man's disease" since 1987. If sexual promiscuity is the concern, then why not keep anyone who's had sexual contact in the last five years from donating blood? Being straight and/or female has no bearing on one's chance of contracting HIV from an HIV positive partner.

/apologies if this was covered elsewhere
/dnrtfa
 
2013-08-03 12:35:08 PM  

Mr. Eugenides: Well, the current ban is on any male who has had any homosexual contact since 1977.  That's far too broad.  It could be safely shortened to 5 years.  Testing is better, but it still takes time for the HIV antibodies to appear in the blood so it can be tested.

Getting a transfusion with HIV contaminated blood has a 100% transmission rate.  The cost of treating HIV infection is very high, so it makes sense to eliminate the possibility of transmission.

I have gay friends in committed relationships but I wouldn't let them donate because even if the donating partner has been monogamous it's no guarantee that the other has been.


Are you ok with putting the same restrictions on African Americans?
 
2013-08-03 12:35:39 PM  

numbquil: Are you aware that anyone can be HIV positive regardless of sexual orientation?


Are you aware that being on the receiving end of butt sex is the single most common transmission vector and the gay male population has a much higher infection rate than the general population?

It's not about anyone can have it.  Anyone can have vCJD.  Anyone can have various other blood parasites.  There is always risk in the blood donation pool.  Reducing that risk makes sense.

This isn't about prejudice, it's about science.  Lifting the ban in a blanket fashion is about knee jerk political correctness not sound policy.
 
2013-08-03 12:36:40 PM  

Mr. Eugenides: I should also point out that the percentage of the population that is eliminated by this ban isn't that large.  If 10% of people are gay, then gay men represent 5% of the total potential donor population.

How many people is it worth infecting with HIV in order to increase the donor pool by 5%?

/Has 8 gallon donor pin and will get the 9 gallon pin later this year.
/If you think this is unreasonable then get off your own ass and donate every 56 days so there isn't an issue with blood supply.


Blacks also have a higher rate of infection and are a small percent of population. Do you think they shoul be banned too?

If not why?
 
2013-08-03 12:38:17 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Mr. Eugenides: How many people is it worth infecting with HIV in order to increase the donor pool by 5%?

How is it more of a risk than a straight non-monogamous person donating?


See for yourself.
 
2013-08-03 12:38:25 PM  
Okay, blood donation. I donate my blood to the Red Cross, free for nothing. They sell my blood to a hospital for cash money, like a lot of cash money. Why do we need them, again? If hospitals wanted to pay me even half of what the Red Cross gets, they could have, like, all of my blood. As it stands now, they get nothing because I'm not getting a needle in my arm for a cookie and some juice. Juice doesn't even go with cookies. Cookies and milk go together.

Also, is it gay if you didn't find out she was a dude until later? I'm asking for a friend.
 
2013-08-03 12:38:32 PM  

Mr. Eugenides: numbquil: Are you aware that anyone can be HIV positive regardless of sexual orientation?

Are you aware that being on the receiving end of butt sex is the single most common transmission vector and the gay male population has a much higher infection rate than the general population?

It's not about anyone can have it.  Anyone can have vCJD.  Anyone can have various other blood parasites.  There is always risk in the blood donation pool.  Reducing that risk makes sense.

This isn't about prejudice, it's about science.  Lifting the ban in a blanket fashion is about knee jerk political correctness not sound policy.


Blacks are the highest race with almost half of infected HIV patients being black.

Should they also be banned?
 
2013-08-03 12:38:52 PM  

GoodDoctorB: Mr. Eugenides: Well, the current ban is on any male who has had any homosexual contact since 1977.  That's far too broad.  It could be safely shortened to 5 years.  Testing is better, but it still takes time for the HIV antibodies to appear in the blood so it can be tested.

Getting a transfusion with HIV contaminated blood has a 100% transmission rate.  The cost of treating HIV infection is very high, so it makes sense to eliminate the possibility of transmission.

I have gay friends in committed relationships but I wouldn't let them donate because even if the donating partner has been monogamous it's no guarantee that the other has been.

Wat? HIV hasn't been a "homosexual man's disease" since 1987. If sexual promiscuity is the concern, then why not keep anyone who's had sexual contact in the last five years from donating blood? Being straight and/or female has no bearing on one's chance of contracting HIV from an HIV positive partner.

/apologies if this was covered elsewhere
/dnrtfa


You must not be a very good doctor. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/gender/msm/facts/index.html
http://www.aidsmap.com/HIV-transmission-risk-during-anal-sex-18-time s- higher-than-during-vaginal-sex/page/1446187/


I don't agree with Eugenides but you shouldn't spread disinformation.
 
2013-08-03 12:39:20 PM  
Yeah, they ask every time I donate if I've had gay sex. Also if I'm selling my body, and I've never had the guts to ask them if they really think I could get a good price prostituting myself out.

It's stupid and ought to be done away with. If you're worried about HIV transmission, it makes more sense to ask about things like number of recent partners of any gender.
 
2013-08-03 12:39:45 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Mr. Eugenides: How many people is it worth infecting with HIV in order to increase the donor pool by 5%?

How is it more of a risk than a straight non-monogamous person donating?


Considering rates of transmission and relative population size, one is far more likely to receive HIV tainted blood from a young, unmarried, heterosexual. But good luck convincing Mr Eugenides of that.

The bad made sense when we were still struggling with developing a reliable test and the disease was primarily limited to homosexual makes and IV drug users. That hasn't been the case in a very long time. Time to update out policies based on more recent data.
 
2013-08-03 12:41:06 PM  

Mr. Eugenides: numbquil: Are you aware that anyone can be HIV positive regardless of sexual orientation?

Are you aware that being on the receiving end of butt sex is the single most common transmission vector and the gay male population has a much higher infection rate than the general population?

It's not about anyone can have it.  Anyone can have vCJD.  Anyone can have various other blood parasites.  There is always risk in the blood donation pool.  Reducing that risk makes sense.

This isn't about prejudice, it's about science.  Lifting the ban in a blanket fashion is about knee jerk political correctness not sound policy.


No one is saying you don't still screen by asking questions about high risk behavior. You seem to think all gays just have sex all the time with different partners.
 
2013-08-03 12:42:57 PM  

Corvus: Mr. Eugenides: I should also point out that the percentage of the population that is eliminated by this ban isn't that large.  If 10% of people are gay, then gay men represent 5% of the total potential donor population.

How many people is it worth infecting with HIV in order to increase the donor pool by 5%?

/Has 8 gallon donor pin and will get the 9 gallon pin later this year.
/If you think this is unreasonable then get off your own ass and donate every 56 days so there isn't an issue with blood supply.

Blacks also have a higher rate of infection and are a small percent of population. Do you think they shoul be banned too?

If not why?


It's interesting that he hasn't responded to this.
 
2013-08-03 12:44:13 PM  
the only thing I will add to this is that I have several gay friends. two of them do have hiv. the rest are constantly worried about it. they party pretty damn hard and as one guy puts it.... imagine the horniest you've ever been. now imagine that everyone in the same room as you is just as horny and they are all, including you, total sluts.

these are good people, but yeah... I would not want them to donate blood.

and this is not a civil rights issue, unless you believe their right to donate blood is being infringed upon (and it is not - they can donate to themselves and to each other, just not into the main blood supply).
 
2013-08-03 12:44:22 PM  

Corvus: Mr. Eugenides: numbquil: Are you aware that anyone can be HIV positive regardless of sexual orientation?

Are you aware that being on the receiving end of butt sex is the single most common transmission vector and the gay male population has a much higher infection rate than the general population?

It's not about anyone can have it.  Anyone can have vCJD.  Anyone can have various other blood parasites.  There is always risk in the blood donation pool.  Reducing that risk makes sense.

This isn't about prejudice, it's about science.  Lifting the ban in a blanket fashion is about knee jerk political correctness not sound policy.

No one is saying you don't still screen by asking questions about high risk behavior. You seem to think all gays just have sex all the time with different partners.


Dude, all my gay friends have gay sex with everyone, gay or not.

Jeez, get your facts straight (http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lyowlfKOQE1qbn3fio1_500.gif).
 
2013-08-03 12:44:51 PM  
What's a Fark Lib?
 
2013-08-03 12:45:05 PM  

Corvus: Blacks also have a higher rate of infection and are a small percent of population. Do you think they shoul be banned too?

If not why?


From the article I linked: Although MSM represent about 4% of the male population in the United States,4 in 2010, MSM accounted for 78% of new HIV infections among males and 63% of all new infections.2 MSM accounted for 52% of all people living with HIV infection in 2009, the most recent year these data are available.1

Eliminating 4% of the donor pool eliminates 63% of HIV infected blood.  As for a blanket elimination of black people, after you eliminate the gay/bisexual black men from the pool they aren't a significant risk.

Now, let me turn the table on you.  If you want to prevent HIV from entering the blood donation pool and you can reduce exposure by nearly 2/3rds by eliminating 1 in 25 potential donors why isn't it worth it?
 
2013-08-03 12:45:17 PM  

Corvus: Blacks also have a higher rate of infection and are a small percent of population. Do you think they shoul be banned too?

If not why?


i.imgur.com
 
2013-08-03 12:45:57 PM  

Mr. Eugenides: Are you aware that being on the receiving end of butt sex is the single most common transmission vector and the gay male population has a much higher infection rate than the general population?


So.... no straight women or gay men. Great, lets restrict blood donations to lesbians so we're all perfectly safe.
 
2013-08-03 12:46:03 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: What's a Fark Lib?


Based on usage, it seems to mean "sane people".
 
2013-08-03 12:49:27 PM  

Mr. Eugenides: Eliminating 4% of the donor pool eliminates 63% of HIV infected blood.


No it doesn't, it eliminates 63% of new infections. Only about half the people currently infected are gay. Can't you read your own articles?
 
2013-08-03 12:49:43 PM  

Fart_Machine: Mr. Eugenides: How many people is it worth infecting with HIV in order to increase the donor pool by 5%?

You're more likely to have blood contaminated by heterosexual donors and there is already blood screening.  So this is a foolish argument.


That's actually not true.  More than half of all new infections are due to male on male sexual contact.

The fastest growing population of new HIV infections is women who let bisexual male farkers stick it in their butt without protection, but they are still a fairly small fraction of the overall infection rate.  Lower than IV drug users.

Perhaps I should post the statistics XKCD, that might help you understand that going from 2% to 4% is a 100% increase but still only a small part of the overall pool.
 
2013-08-03 12:50:12 PM  

Arthur Jumbles: Mr. Eugenides: Are you aware that being on the receiving end of butt sex is the single most common transmission vector and the gay male population has a much higher infection rate than the general population?

So.... no straight women or gay men. Great, lets restrict blood donations to lesbians so we're all perfectly safe.


Finally, my dream of a world populated by lesbian vampires can be fulfilled!
 
2013-08-03 12:50:25 PM  

numbquil: cameroncrazy1984: Mr. Eugenides: How many people is it worth infecting with HIV in order to increase the donor pool by 5%?

How is it more of a risk than a straight non-monogamous person donating?

To be fair, studies by the CDC have shown gay men are more likely to contract HIV. I still disagree with Eugenides because the article mentions other sexual risk factors will be taken into account.


Sure, but seriously... unless the statistic is "100% of homosexuals have contracted HIV in the past 6 weeks during 'butt sex' they weren't aware they were having," maybe the process could be altered slightly to allow homosexuals whose chances of having contracted HIV (NO 'butt sex' they didn't realize they were participating in) are the exact same as anyone else's, and could be tested thusly?

As in, "have you had sexual contact (up to and including 'butt sex') in the past 6 weeks with an individual you have NOT had sexual contact with in the six weeks prior?"

"No? Great! We could really use some more farking blood."

Sorry, that first sentence really got away from me.

/butt sex
 
2013-08-03 12:50:56 PM  
Someone here thinks it's still 1989.
 
2013-08-03 12:51:21 PM  

Mr. Eugenides: Perhaps I should post the statistics XKCD, that might help you understand that going from 2% to 4% is a 100% increase but still only a small part of the overall pool.


Perhaps you ought to take your own advice. 63% of new infections isn't all that many when new infections are decreasing.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-08-03 12:51:44 PM  
In Florida you can't donate if you've been in jail for more than 72 hours.  I guess they figure that's how long you can avoid buggery in a Florida jail.
 
2013-08-03 12:52:15 PM  

Mr. Eugenides: Corvus: Blacks also have a higher rate of infection and are a small percent of population. Do you think they shoul be banned too?

If not why?

From the article I linked: Although MSM represent about 4% of the male population in the United States,4 in 2010, MSM accounted for 78% of new HIV infections among males and 63% of all new infections.2 MSM accounted for 52% of all people living with HIV infection in 2009, the most recent year these data are available.1

Eliminating 4% of the donor pool eliminates 63% of HIV infected blood.  As for a blanket elimination of black people, after you eliminate the gay/bisexual black men from the pool they aren't a significant risk.

Now, let me turn the table on you.  If you want to prevent HIV from entering the blood donation pool and you can reduce exposure by nearly 2/3rds by eliminating 1 in 25 potential donors why isn't it worth it?


So then then let me turn that around. Why not ban black people because they can't lie and say they are not black instead of playing the honor system with gays? Wouldn't that work better?

You gave me a false decision. I have a better option where you ask people about if they participate in more specific high risk activities that would still cut down the infection rate AND let more people donate blood.
 
2013-08-03 12:52:23 PM  

GoodDoctorB: numbquil: cameroncrazy1984: Mr. Eugenides: How many people is it worth infecting with HIV in order to increase the donor pool by 5%?

How is it more of a risk than a straight non-monogamous person donating?

To be fair, studies by the CDC have shown gay men are more likely to contract HIV. I still disagree with Eugenides because the article mentions other sexual risk factors will be taken into account.

Sure, but seriously... unless the statistic is "100% of homosexuals have contracted HIV in the past 6 weeks during 'butt sex' they weren't aware they were having," maybe the process could be altered slightly to allow homosexuals whose chances of having contracted HIV (NO 'butt sex' they didn't realize they were participating in) are the exact same as anyone else's, and could be tested thusly?

As in, "have you had sexual contact (up to and including 'butt sex') in the past 6 weeks with an individual you have NOT had sexual contact with in the six weeks prior?"

"No? Great! We could really use some more farking blood."

Sorry, that first sentence really got away from me.

/butt sex


BUT THAT MAKES SENSE AND ISN'T PREJUDICE, THEREFORE IT HAS NO PLACE IN OUR COUNTRY.
 
2013-08-03 12:53:05 PM  

Mr. Eugenides: Now, let me turn the table on you.  If you want to prevent HIV from entering the blood donation pool and you can reduce exposure by nearly 2/3rds by eliminating 1 in 25 potential donors why isn't it worth it?


Why not simply require a recent HIV test for high risk pools and a statement that they had not engaged in recent high risk behavior. Also, I can guarantee you that asking "have you engaged in any hot man on man action since 1977" is not going to catch closeted individuals. One of the reasons infection rates are so high among black females is that some black males swing both ways but keep it a secret due to cultural taboos.
 
2013-08-03 12:53:05 PM  

Mr. Eugenides: Fart_Machine: Mr. Eugenides: How many people is it worth infecting with HIV in order to increase the donor pool by 5%?

You're more likely to have blood contaminated by heterosexual donors and there is already blood screening.  So this is a foolish argument.

That's actually not true.  More than half of all new infections are due to male on male sexual contact.

The fastest growing population of new HIV infections is women who let bisexual male farkers stick it in their butt without protection, but they are still a fairly small fraction of the overall infection rate.  Lower than IV drug users.

Perhaps I should post the statistics XKCD, that might help you understand that going from 2% to 4% is a 100% increase but still only a small part of the overall pool.


The link you provided says black males are the highest risk group.  So we should ban them as well?
 
Displayed 50 of 411 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report