Red Cross facing severe blood shortage
Red Cross facing severe blood shortage
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 annoâŠ
You're viewing part of a thread.
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.
Still waiting on you to quantify that risk. This is the third time I've asked you to support your initial assertion.
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:
The organization added there was a 7,000-unit shortfall in blood donations between Christmas Day and New Yearâs 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,â 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.
Yes, exactly:
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.
-