A GMO labeling analogy I'd make in GD if it wasn't for the inevitable miss-the-point shit storm

[Silent3]

I'd ask people if they'd support labeling blood for blood transfusions with the race of the blood donor.

DISCLAIMER FOR ANY NON-SKEPTICS WHO WANDER INTO THIS FORUM WHO DON'T/WON'T UNDERSTAND THAT THE FOLLOWING LIST OF QUESTIONS ARE NOT MY OWN REAL QUESTIONS, BUT POSTED IN THE VOICE OF A SATIRICAL HYPOTHETICAL BIGOT:

THE FOLLOWING LIST OF QUESTIONS ARE NOT MY OWN REAL QUESTIONS, BUT POSTED IN THE VOICE OF A SATIRICAL HYPOTHETICAL BIGOT.

After all, the consumer has a "right to know", right?

If the race of blood donors doesn't matter, why are blood banks "afraid" to share that information?

How many studies have been done to "prove" black people's blood isn't harmful to white people?

The reason I haven't posted this in GD is I know how emotion kicks in in situations like this. People would be screaming that I was essentially equating Rosa Parks and Monsanto, when that's clearly not the point of the analogy.

The point would be (with little chance of success) to lead people think about to what degree other people have a right to their own irrational prejudices, and whether government can reasonably be expected to facilitate decisions based on irrational prejudices.

Since it would be impossible for most of the GDers (or at least the loudest ones) to hold the idea in their heads, even hypothetically, that fear of GMOs could maybe possibly be an irrational prejudice, and that it might not make any sense to lump all GMOs together as if they were a single thing that could conceivably have common risks across all possible GMs, there would be nothing left but foaming-at-the-mouth anger for their brains to settle on given a provocative premise and an actual point being made which they cannot for a moment entertain.