Advertisement

There's no such thing as a stupid question, but they're the easiest to answer.
Login
Search

Advertisement

Controversial Topics Controversial Topics
Search Search
Search for:
Tech Support Guy > > >

Same-sex marriage


(!)

buffoon's Avatar
Community Moderator with 19,153 posts.
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Spain
Experience: comfortably numb
29-Jun-2012, 11:50 AM #751
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ent View Post




I've never said that AIDS doesn't affect hetrosexuals. I merely stated that a male homosexual is, statistically speaking, far more likely to have the disease than a heterosexual. Your links didn't contradict this; they merely said that an increasing number of old people (including, in your third link, homosexuals) are also getting it.


and I state once again that this is not evidenced
http://www.avert.org/worldstats.htm

the link merely distinguishes between men, women and children and does not break things down into homo- and heterosexual nor bisexual males, let alone drug users (infection by syringes) or transfusions. Nevertheless a 50 pct quota of women should show lacking correctness of the statement in question.

The link you initially used (unfortunately, I agree, the first one you came across) is a confirmation of its own (the site operators') bias.

And once again, the NHS link then provided in supposed substantiation doesn't serve as that either. Especially since the NHS does not claim possession of the knowledge that would transfer its recommendation into scientific proof.

And I'll say it again for those prepared to read beyond their own opinionatedness (and in the interest of providing health conducive advice), the greatest method of safety against contraction is protected sex.

No matter with whom you indulge in it.
__________________
Human affairs are not so happily arranged that the best things please the most men. Therefore it is often the sign of a bad cause when it is applauded by the mob. ----Seneca----
buffoon's Avatar
Community Moderator with 19,153 posts.
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Spain
Experience: comfortably numb
29-Jun-2012, 11:58 AM #752
Quote:
Originally Posted by buffoon View Post
and I state once again that this is not evidenced
http://www.avert.org/worldstats.htm
.............and to add further (Europe)

  • 40% acquired HIV through heterosexual contact;
  • 39% became infected through male-to-male sexual contact;
  • 4% became infected through injecting drug use;
  • 27% were female;
  • 10% were 15 to 24 years old;
  • and for 16% transmission was unknown.
http://www.avert.org/hiv-aids-europe.htm
Ent's Avatar
Ent   (Josiah) Ent is online now Ent is a Trusted Advisor with special permissions.
Computer Specs
Trusted Advisor with 5,217 posts.
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Experience: Intermediate
29-Jun-2012, 12:10 PM #753
Quote:
Originally Posted by buffoon View Post
.............and to add further (Europe)

  • 40% acquired HIV through heterosexual contact;
  • 39% became infected through male-to-male sexual contact;
That's great. (The stats, not the fact that so many people get AIDS)
I'm only looking at Europe (actually, I'm concerned about the UK, but Europe is probably similar enough); we both know that the situation is different in other places, including Africa.
But what do these stats tell us?

They say that approximately the same number of people get AIDS through Heterosexual sex as homosexual (male) sex.
We don't know exactly what proportion of the population is homosexual; estimates range from 2% to 10%. I'll be generous, and assume 10. Since we're only dealing with males here; I'll again make that group as large as seems reasonable, and split it at 6% being men and 4% being women.
This tells us that we get the same number of infections concentrated in 6% of population (the male homosexual group) as in 90% of the population (the hetrosexual group). In other words, a random homosexual man is fifteen times as likely as a hetrosexual to have AIDS. If the proportion of homosexuals is indeed 2%, you get between 50 and 100 times as likely. And that, I think, should settle the matter.

Even if all of the remaining 20% were hetrosexual, though I don't think it's likely or relevant, you cannot get past the 10 times line.

Last edited by Ent; 29-Jun-2012 at 12:54 PM..
buffoon's Avatar
Community Moderator with 19,153 posts.
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Spain
Experience: comfortably numb
29-Jun-2012, 01:01 PM #754
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ent View Post
........................ And that, I think, should settle the matter.
Baloney

What's completely missing (and will probably remain so unless somebody is more successful than I at finding any figures on it) is the number of homosexual contacts (or hetero for that matter) NOT resulting in infection.

Also missing is the number of gay men that are not even infected.

At the same time there's also no data on how many heteros have contracted with no incidence of homosexual contact whatsoever in the prior line of transmission(s).

What we seem to be able to say with surety is that the virus initially found a way of transmission from monkeys to humans and that in its African origin (and greatest spread) carried on from there thru primarily heterosexual contacts.

None of this serves (or should) as an argument for treating contacts with gay men as a negligible matter, by any means (in this I hold the NHS to be perfectly correct). The point I'm trying to drive home is that it shouldn't be done with ANY form of sexual contact. To single out gay men has served as a detraction before by interested parties. Not "interested" in playing down the overall danger but in laying it on to the homosexuals for their assumed despicable and immoral practices. Until it was found that HIV, like any epidemic, stops at no "moral" threshold and the number of people infected that had never had any homosexual contacts at all were as equally in the dirge.

All of this might appear to be distracting from the topic of SSM, but with comments like gays' greater sexual promiscuity and greater propensity for contracting HIV by "unnatural" practices of intercourse, it gives fodder to a general perception held of actually putting condemnation upon gays first of all.

And on the principle that it could be Jews next week and me the week after (possibly you the week following) I won't stand for it. At least certainly not without speaking out.
buffoon's Avatar
Community Moderator with 19,153 posts.
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Spain
Experience: comfortably numb
29-Jun-2012, 01:31 PM #755
Apart from all of which, the proffered math errs.......
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ent View Post
................We don't know exactly what proportion of the population is homosexual; estimates range from 2% to 10%. I'll be generous, and assume 10. Since we're only dealing with males here; I'll again make that group as large as seems reasonable, and split it at 6% being men and 4% being women.
This tells us that we get the same number of infections concentrated in 6% of population (the male homosexual group) as in 90% of the population (the hetrosexual group). In other words, a random homosexual man is fifteen times as likely as a hetrosexual to have AIDS.
.............a "positive" (by the based figures) is as likely to have contracted via homosexual as via heterosexual contact.
Ent's Avatar
Ent   (Josiah) Ent is online now Ent is a Trusted Advisor with special permissions.
Computer Specs
Trusted Advisor with 5,217 posts.
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Experience: Intermediate
29-Jun-2012, 01:35 PM #756
Quote:
What's completely missing (and will probably remain so unless somebody is more successful than I at finding any figures on it) is the number of homosexual contacts (or hetero for that matter) NOT resulting in infection.
Not correct. Remember it's a public health issue. A transfusion of infected blood has a 100% transmission rate for HIV, and all that's relevant is how likely someone is to have the infection. How long it took them to get it is irrelevant.

Quote:
Also missing is the number of gay men that are not even infected.
I agree. There's a world of a difference between a .1%: 1.5% infection level and a 6%: 100% infection rate.

Quote:
None of this serves (or should) as an argument for treating contacts with gay men as a negligible matter, by any means (in this I hold the NHS to be perfectly correct). The point I'm trying to drive home is that it shouldn't be done with ANY form of sexual contact. To single out gay men has served as a detraction before by interested parties. Not "interested" in playing down the overall danger but in laying it on to the homosexuals for their assumed despicable and immoral practices. Until it was found that HIV, like any epidemic, stops at no "moral" threshold and the number of people infected that had never had any homosexual contacts at all were as equally in the dirge.
Actually, it slows and stops fairly quickly given faithfulness to one wife/husband, but that's not terribly likely with humans being what and how they are.

Quote:
All of this might appear to be distracting from the topic of SSM, but with comments like gays' greater sexual promiscuity and greater propensity for contracting HIV by "unnatural" practices of intercourse, it gives fodder to a general perception held of actually putting condemnation upon gays first of all.
All of this was merely to demonstrate a situation where you can, as the NHS blood service does, treat groups of people differently without it being discriminatory, condemnatory, etc.

Quote:
And on the principle that it could be Jews next week and me the week after (possibly you the week following) I won't stand for it. At least certainly not without speaking out.
If there were an empirically veried, medical reason for saying that a certain race shouldn't donate blood then that should be accepted. If you mean to refer to a religion, experience would suggest that religions are more likely to be refusing to donate but again if there's a valid reason to say they shouldn't, they shouldn't.
Ent's Avatar
Ent   (Josiah) Ent is online now Ent is a Trusted Advisor with special permissions.
Computer Specs
Trusted Advisor with 5,217 posts.
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Experience: Intermediate
29-Jun-2012, 01:41 PM #757
Quote:
Originally Posted by buffoon View Post
Apart from all of which, the proffered math errs....................a "positive" (by the based figures) is as likely to have contracted via homosexual as via heterosexual contact.
Yes, if your sample is people with AIDS, they're about as likely to be hetrosexual or homosexual. Actually, they're more likely to be heterosexual.

However, if you select a random person from the population, they're far more likely to have the disease if homosexual than if hetrosexual. It's basic statistics. There are roughly as many people with AIDS in both groups; there are far more people in the hetero group, therefore the proportion infected in the homo group is significantly higher.

Here's the Hetrosexual group:



Here's the Homosexual group:


Diagram not to scale, but it makes the point.

Last edited by Ent; 29-Jun-2012 at 02:03 PM..
buffoon's Avatar
Community Moderator with 19,153 posts.
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Spain
Experience: comfortably numb
29-Jun-2012, 01:55 PM #758
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ent View Post
Not correct. Remember it's a public health issue. A transfusion of infected blood has a 100% transmission rate for HIV, and all that's relevant is how likely someone is to have the infection. How long it took them to get it is irrelevant.
..........that relates to what I said about as much as advising to keep your balcony cactus clean of anthrax by not subjecting it to anti-rheumatic salve


Quote:
I agree. There's a world of a difference between a .1%: 1.5% infection level and a 6%: 100% infection rate.
see above


Quote:
Actually, it slows and stops fairly quickly given faithfulness to one wife/husband, but that's not terribly likely with humans being what and how they are.
....and even if they were, I personally know (knew) a case where infection came thru a transfusion.

Quote:
All of this was merely to demonstrate a situation where you can, as the NHS blood service does, treat groups of people differently without it being discriminatory, condemnatory, etc.
....and I'm demonstrating how that can be used by others in a discriminatory fashion

Quote:
If there were an empirically veried, medical reason for saying that a certain race shouldn't donate blood then that should be accepted. If you mean to refer to a religion, experience would suggest that religions are more likely to be refusing to donate but again if there's a valid reason to say they shouldn't, they shouldn't.
I have no gripe with the recommendations on blood donation (or not) and that was actually also, as you well know, not what I was addressing.
buffoon's Avatar
Community Moderator with 19,153 posts.
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Spain
Experience: comfortably numb
29-Jun-2012, 01:58 PM #759
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ent View Post
Yes, if your sample is people with AIDS, they're about as likely to be hetrosexual or homosexual. Actually, they're more likely to be heterosexual.
Good. And thank you for confirming my point.

Quote:
However, if you select a random person from the population, ................
you err.
Ent's Avatar
Ent   (Josiah) Ent is online now Ent is a Trusted Advisor with special permissions.
Computer Specs
Trusted Advisor with 5,217 posts.
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Experience: Intermediate
29-Jun-2012, 02:02 PM #760
Quote:
Originally Posted by buffoon View Post
you err.
I err? Please explain, (if you want to, reference my smiley diagram), exactly how I err.
Remember, we have approximately the same number of infected people in groups A and B.
Group A is significantly larger than Group B.
Therefore the proportion of infected people in Group B is higher than that in Group A.
Therefore selecting a random person from each group, the one in group B is more likely to be infected.

It is pure, simple mathematics.
buffoon's Avatar
Community Moderator with 19,153 posts.
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Spain
Experience: comfortably numb
29-Jun-2012, 04:05 PM #761
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ent View Post
I err? Please explain,
OK
Quote:
(if you want to, reference my smiley diagram)
no thank you
Quote:
This tells us that we get the same number of infections concentrated in 6% of population (the male homosexual group) as in 90% of the population (the hetrosexual group).
boyohboy, what is this, desperation?

If one wants to apply premises that devoid of logic one could even take 10 pct infection via homosexual contact vs. 90 pct infection via hetero contact and still come out with gay men having the higher propensity of infection (of the overall population). I don't know whether you don't realize it or are being intentionally obtuse but the relevant figure is the number of infected and their path (by percentage) of infection.

By the same logic I can mathematically make a case for drunk driving being the safer form to driving sober in that 10 pct (just making that up) of traffic accident related deaths are caused by lushes driving. From which follows that the other 90 pct are NOT caused by lushes and thus by sober drivers. Thus showing sober driving to be for more unsafe and giving cause to propagate that everyone shouldn't get behind a steering wheel until completely legless.

But, following the chart for UK, if we assume the number of infected men to be around 60,000 (overall 85,000 minus 26,000 women and without making allowances for children and others in the overall figure) and 40 pct of them infected thru heterosexual contact, we have 24,000 men and 26,000 women having infected each other as in one group the other. Which at least makes a case for men sleeping around more than women by about 2,000.

Good mathematics based on crap logic premises become crap mathematics (though it's not their fault) and that's where I AM going to leave the matter as settled.
nittiley's Avatar
Account Disabled with 2,667 posts.
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Experience: Beginner
29-Jun-2012, 04:34 PM #762
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ent View Post

Enjoy.
show off! (i'm joking.. i enjoyed the bouncy! thanks )

Quote:
Insomuch as you're part of the human race, you're part of a group which is and always has been discriminatory in the norm.
in a hurry today, so this will likely be choppy!

so shouldn't an attempt at being non-discriminatory be warranted? i say yes.


Quote:
Of course, that says nothing about your own behaviour, and nothing about the validity of the argument.
we're arguing from different points though. if you want to keep traditional marriage, then how can you accommodate the minority without denying them their right to happiness with a partner of their choice with their own innate preference intact?

maybe that word you mentioned before "mierd" (??) something. how about gay people can have "mierd" which is gay marriage, but we won't term it marriage (even if it technically is marriage in every sense of the situation).

Quote:
Yes, it has. A judgement that someone's behaviour is wrong is perfectly acceptable. It's when you make a judgement that someone is inherently evil or unfit to be part of a society that you get problems.
it may be acceptable to those making the judgement, but that doesn't make it correct . isn't judging very subjective, & also greatly influenced by culture, what point in time is being referenced, religion, et al.?

Quote:
I've never said that AIDS doesn't affect hetrosexuals. I merely stated that a male homosexual is, statistically speaking, far more likely to have the disease than a heterosexual. Your links didn't contradict this; they merely said that an increasing number of old people (including, in your third link, homosexuals) are also getting it.
i can't find the article a the moment, but here is another one. not sure why washing d.c. is popping up so much, but i am taking what immediately surfaces.

Quote:
The HIV/AIDS epidemic in the District of Columbia among youth is growing at an alarming rate. Roughly one out of every 100 young people ages 13 to 24 in the District is HIV infected or has full-blown AIDS. HIV infection rates among District young people tripled for the period 2000 to 2005 compared to the previous five years. http://dchealth.dc.gov/doh/cwp/view,a,1371,q,603088.asp
the over-arching point (& thank goodness i don't have to manage the stats ) is that bias can be deadly in this instance. you could erroneously believe some young woman was more likely to be disease free because she wasn't a gay male. i'll make this situation into a worst-case scenario, horrific nightmare.. you get married. & since you're committed life-long partners than, you don't use a glove. neither of you believed getting tested for any diseases mattered before because neither of you is gay.

however, the young lady slept with 1 single person who happened to be an hiv carrier (i don't have any idea about stats for this, but it's possible, & that's really all that matters). now you're both infected .

ok, enough of that horror show, which will not be happening to you!! yet it's an example of how prejudice can literally be a killer.

--------

speaking of scary, i'm frightening late , so i'll have to finish the rest next time!!

need something a bit more pleasant here.. don't want to leave things on such a sour note. well, no emotion for a happy sunshine or frolicking puppies.. so use your imagination
Ent's Avatar
Ent   (Josiah) Ent is online now Ent is a Trusted Advisor with special permissions.
Computer Specs
Trusted Advisor with 5,217 posts.
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Experience: Intermediate
29-Jun-2012, 06:18 PM #763
Quote:
Originally Posted by buffoon View Post
OKno thank you
boyohboy, what is this, desperation?

If one wants to apply premises that devoid of logic one could even take 10 pct infection via homosexual contact vs. 90 pct infection via hetero contact and still come out with gay men having the higher propensity of infection (of the overall population).
That is correct. For the homosexual men to have the same probability of being infected, they should represent 1-6% of the infected population just as they represent 1-6% of the total population.

Quote:
I don't know whether you don't realize it or are being intentionally obtuse but the relevant figure is the number of infected and their path (by percentage) of infection.
No, the relevant figure is the ratio of infected to not infected people in each group. It's simple, yellow and blue beads in a bag type conditional probability.
Let's have 8 yellow beads and 17 blue ones, so overall the chance of getting a yellow is 32%. P(Y) = .32
If you have four yellow beads in bag A and 1 blue, the chance of getting a yellow bead is 80%. P(Y|A)=.8
If you have 4 yellow beads in bag B and 16 blue, the chance of getting a yellow bead is 20%. P(Y|B)=.2
Here too we've got 50% of the yellow beads in each bag, but the chance of picking yellow is wildly different in the two cases.
The actual numbers will make the case more strongly later, but I'm just trying to remind you of the perfectly legitimate field of probability statistics.

Quote:
By the same logic I can mathematically make a case for drunk driving being the safer form to driving sober in that 10 pct (just making that up) of traffic accident related deaths are caused by lushes driving. From which follows that the other 90 pct are NOT caused by lushes and thus by sober drivers. Thus showing sober driving to be for more unsafe and giving cause to propagate that everyone shouldn't get behind a steering wheel until completely legless.
Well you could, if that were the same logic. You're not considering the total number of drunk and sober people driving (or, probably more usefully, miles driven by drunk and sober people).

And of course, you could prove anything if you can make up the numbers.


Quote:
But, following the chart for UK, if we assume the number of infected men to be around 60,000 (overall 85,000 minus 26,000 women and without making allowances for children and others in the overall figure) and 40 pct of them infected thru heterosexual contact, we have 24,000 men and 26,000 women having infected each other as in one group the other. Which at least makes a case for men sleeping around more than women by about 2,000.
OK, let's use those numbers then.
The UK working population is around 62 million. Assume that half are male, we've got 31 million. Some of those will be too young, but it doesn't actually affect the proportional comparison.
Assume that 10% of men are exclusively homosexual, and 90% are exclusively heterosexual.
That gives 3 million homosexuals and 28 million heterosexuals.
According to your data, we have about 24,000 infected men through heterosexual contact and about 23,000 infected men through homosexual contact.
That gives 1 in every 1167 heterosexual men is HIV-positive.
While 1 in every 130 homosexual men is HIV-positive.
Again that's being as generous as I can with the number of homosexuals. If it were indeed only 2%, the figures would come out at about 1 in 1266 and 1 in 27 respectively.

If your point is to demonstrate that people can and do get infected through heterosexual contact, it's granted of course. 24,000 men is a lot of lives. Further, if you knew that the particular homosexual in question were in a stable, faithful long term relationship with one man while the heterosexual has the sexual integrity of Al Capone, taking blood from the homosexual man would probably be safer. But if you're concerned about the risk of contracting HIV from a random unit of blood, you'd be a lot safer, ceteris paribus, taking it from a heterosexual man than a homosexual one.
nittiley's Avatar
Account Disabled with 2,667 posts.
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Experience: Beginner
30-Jun-2012, 12:47 PM #764
Quote:
Originally Posted by buffoon View Post
What we seem to be able to say with surety is that the virus initially found a way of transmission from monkeys to humans and that in its African origin (and greatest spread) carried on from there thru primarily heterosexual contacts.
ent, before i get on back with where we left off, i had to add a "not necessarily so" to this section of buffoon's post. in the mother of all ironies (as i'm aware he's anti-bias), there may be additional bias in his statements above. i'm not certain if he's comfortable with me directly addressing him, & didn't want to be discourteous to you, hence this intro of sorts .

Quote:
p.86-7
“One of the first widely-publicised origins theories was that AIDS was an old African disease...the earliest examination of old blood samples led to the false conclusion that HIV had been endemic in Africa for decades.. the early blood tests were discredited and it was accepted that AIDS was as new to Africa as it was to the United States and Europe.”

“One of the second most popular origin theories was that HIV had evolved..in wild African green monkeys..turned out to be a case of mistaken identity on the part of US researchers.”

“The possibility that anal intercourse, or intercourse with monkeys, or ritual inoculation of the erogenous zones of men and women with monkey blood, could have passed the virus from animal to human hosts was seen in Europe and the United States as legitimate speculation. In Africa it was seen as offensive and racist.” http://dspace.cigilibrary.org/jspui/...udice,%20race%
nittiley's Avatar
Account Disabled with 2,667 posts.
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Experience: Beginner
30-Jun-2012, 01:06 PM #765
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ent View Post
The UK working population is around 62 million. Assume that half are male, we've got 31 million. Some of those will be too young, but it doesn't actually affect the proportional comparison.
Assume that 10% of men are exclusively homosexual, and 90% are exclusively heterosexual.
That gives 3 million homosexuals and 28 million heterosexuals
.
i just realised something we've over-looked in this discussion --> the people that sleep with both genders -- how do you account for those with the stats?

ugh, back to the marker board.. :s

Quote:
Homosexual men’s organizations in the United States and Europe, several years before governments gave any support..” http://dspace.cigilibrary.org/jspui/...udice,%20race% p. 121
why weren’t the governments supporting --immediately supporting-- disease prevention efforts? prejudice again! had they pushed that veil away, how many lives would that have saved, including protecting the blood supply for donations?

allowing human failings to mess with biological processes is a losing endgame for everybody. believing something is a “gay disease” (or in biblical parlance, not being your brother’s keeper) & you’re ushering in a pandemic. it’s the equivalent of holding open the bloody door & inviting human misery & agony in.

whomever compiled the seven deadly sins was sorely lacking. allow me to edit . adding bias to that list & inserting “irresponsible & utterly unchecked” before lust, pride, & greed. without lust, none of us would be here in the first place , without a measure of pride perhaps we wouldn’t take better care of certain things, & without a bit of greed there wouldn’t be superfluous money to donate to worthy causes.


i'm not advocating for greed, & also not saying the alleged 7 deadlies are problem-free. it's the blanket application & attitudes regarding certain traits that seems to pose the greater problem.

sorry for the extra posts, but i'm trotting back to find the other one to finish up now; it apparently isn't a multi-quote afternoon..

Last edited by nittiley; 30-Jun-2012 at 08:29 PM.. Reason: forgot dashes
As Seen On

BBC, Reader's Digest, PC Magazine, Today Show, Money Magazine
WELCOME TO TECH SUPPORT GUY!

Are you looking for the solution to your computer problem? Join our site today to ask your question. This site is completely free -- paid for by advertisers and donations.

If you're not already familiar with forums, watch our Welcome Guide to get started.


Search Tech Support Guy

Find the solution to your
computer problem!




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools


WELCOME
You Are Using: Server ID
Trusted Website Back to the Top ↑