Homosexuality: Genetics and random factors - Page 12

Idealogically Promiscuous · #**111** (**permalink**) 07-12-2008, 04:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fxashun

Only if you consider certain parts of Africa the whole "world". And "heterosexual sex" just means two heterosexuals screwed and says nothing about what sexual practices they participated in. Considering 90% of the world is het....It would kinda make sense that they should lead the stats by a huge margin. Only in Africa is that the case..."The world" doesn't live in Sub Saharan Africa.

So let me get this straight...you want to blame AIDS transmission on homosexuals but you won't acknowledge that the majority of AIDS cases are confirmed in heterosexuals without equivocating the location of those cases? Oooooo-kaaaaay.

fxashun · #**112** (**permalink**) 07-12-2008, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Idealogically Promiscuous

So let me get this straight...you want to blame AIDS transmission on homosexuals but you won't acknowledge that the majority of AIDS cases are confirmed in heterosexuals without equivocating the location of those cases? Oooooo-kaaaaay.

Obviously you have it crooked.

I and most other medical professionals blame AIDS on anal sex and drug use and the sex trade. Usually in that order. On the other populated continents other than the sections of Africa, those are the "smoking guns" for HIV spread. "Homosexual men" are just a segment to the population in nearly every society that performs a vast majority of the anal sex. Just as "homosexual women" don't so they are relatively safe from the disease. OOOOKKAAAAYYYY?
And in the U.S. MSM's is the hardest hit segment of the population. And even among females that aren't prostitutes or drug addicts themselves, there's usually a drug addicted or Bisexual male that is is the lynchpin to their infection.

fxashun · #**113** (**permalink**) 07-12-2008, 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by foundit66

I had to explain the obvious to you...
That I was using sarcasm, and that I DID NOT hold to the position that "heterosexuality" is pointless.

And now I'm having to explain to you WHAT I was previously explaining to you?

Can you be bothered to pay attention?

Actually I'm not asking you to do anything but admit that even in your sarcasm, you were FOS. You CAN'T hold that position at all, so why would you even post what you did as some kind of sarcasm?

Quote:

Originally Posted by foundit66

I am routinely convinced by people who tell me to prove their own claims for them with anecdotal evidence...
"Anecdotally", I can prove heterosexuality is a failure as well.

Oh wait. A 50% divorce rate isn't an "anecdote", is it...

It looks to me like you were trying to prove the failure of heterosexuality by using the divorce rate as an example as an opposition to Jaaman's statement. Even as sarcasm that doesn't make sense. Although actually, it looks more like one of your usual comparisons like the racial ones that seems to pop up.

Quote:

You didn't like it...
I'm crushed..

When you have a meaningful reply on the ACTUAL SUBSTANCE of what was said, let me know.
Otherwise, you are again wasting my time.

No, it looks like you are wasting your own time. I actually DID reply to your..

Once again, a thoroughly meaningless response from you.
Were you really stupid enough to think that I believed heterosexuality to be a failure?
The fact that I actually had to explain I was being sarcastic just boggles my mind.

with 2 sentences, not one. Not to mention that there really isn't anything there to reply to. Looks like another one of your usual bullshit tactics to just take a partial snippet of a reply and pretend like someone didn't address your previous bullshit.

Quote:

This claim is just stupid on its merits.
Before the Wright Brothers, we had all sorts of "failures" in flying.
Heck, the Wright Brothers flight was "unremarkable" in modern flying standards.
Of course you can have something be a "failure" at a time when all options are "failures".
That doesn't mean that the situation can't be fixed, which is what you are presuming.
But NONE of this has anything to do with anything.
You're just squabbling to try to claw some semblance of criticism cause you're in that mood, and you're not even talking about what was REALLY said.

Oh oh. More BS. We aren't talking about airplanes though. We are talking about heterosexuality and your saying it's a failure. Why don't you justify your OWN comparison first before you start BS'ing your way into some other BS comparisons. What can be "fixed" about the sexual orientation of hetoerosexuality? Right after you tell me what "broken" about it, that might be a decent discussion. You are so FOS, I bet you have fecal footprints.

Quote:

And you're about to pull your usual bait and switch.
I replied to Jaaaman's post where he claimed ANECDOTAL evidence of his argument, and he demanded OTHERS research it for them.

And I did. And I found some information. Which you curiously didn't dispute. Wanna talk about bait and switch? What is totally glossing over information called? Pu$$ying out?

Quote:

THAT is what I was SPECIFICALLY responding to with my argument.
And you're about to pull some utterly dishonest bullsh!t in trying to reframe the issue and talk about something I was NOT applying my argument to.
Evidently, you haven't changed a bit...

Nor have you dude. But now that I have decided to devote more time to actually pay attention to how you do every one of the same tctics that you accuse other people of, I think I'm gonna have a HUGELY great time here. Cause honestly, I missed you over at DtT. You are the reason I debate this subject. I know you're happy to hear that.

Quote:

I'll get back to YOUR additions in a bit, but you're pulling the same lame stunts that you've pulled time and time again. Nothing new.

Bring it on.

Idealogically Promiscuous · #**114** (**permalink**) 07-12-2008, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fxashun

Obviously you have it crooked.

I and most other medical professionals blame AIDS on anal sex and drug use and the sex trade. Usually in that order. On the other populated continents other than the sections of Africa, those are the "smoking guns" for HIV spread. "Homosexual men" are just a segment to the population in nearly every society that performs a vast majority of the anal sex. Just as "homosexual women" don't so they are relatively safe from the disease. OOOOKKAAAAYYYY?
And in the U.S. MSM's is the hardest hit segment of the population. And even among females that aren't prostitutes or drug addicts themselves, there's usually a drug addicted or Bisexual male that is is the lynchpin to their infection.

No. You are absolutely wrong on almost every count here. The rising hardest hit segment of the population are the latino and black communities. That is because they are 3 to 1 less likely to use a condom compared to their white counterparts, due in part to cultural and religious issues (latinos are by and large Catholic and are taught that condoms are a sin). Couple this with lower education standard in inner cities and you have a pot ready to boil over.

HIV transmission rates among gay men are on a sharp decline yearly. This is mainly due to the fact that the homosexual community mobilized to educate homosexuals about the dangers of STD when the government under Reagan failed to address the issue. Of course the gay population was hardest hit because they were more likely not to use protections because there was no threat of pregnancy, which was why condoms were introduced into society to start with.

You need to take your thoughts a step further. You have a bad habit of "arriving" at conclusions that support your asinine ideas and abandon following the line of logic to its conclusion.

fxashun · #**115** (**permalink**) 07-12-2008, 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Idealogically Promiscuous

No. You are absolutely wrong on almost every count here. The rising hardest hit segment of the population are the latino and black communities. That is because they are 3 to 1 less likely to use a condom compared to their white counterparts, due in part to cultural and religious issues (latinos are by and large Catholic and are taught that condoms are a sin). Couple this with lower education standard in inner cities and you have a pot ready to boil over.

I understand that some races are showing disproportionate rates of infection.
But they are still DOING certain acts that make them more likely to be victims. Drug abuse and certain sex acts still drive the infections by a HUGE margin. Here's a link that breaks it down.
AIDS & HIV Statistics for USA by race and ethnicity
Male-to-male sexual contact probably caused the majority (66%) of infections in white people living with AIDS. An additional 13% of white people were exposed through injection drug use, 11% through high-risk heterosexual contact and 8% through both male-to-male sexual contact and injection drug use. Among black people living with AIDS, male-to-male sexual contact, high-risk heterosexual contact and injection drug use each account for around 30% of infections.

Quote:

HIV transmission rates among gay men are on a sharp decline yearly. This is mainly due to the fact that the homosexual community mobilized to educate homosexuals about the dangers of STD when the government under Reagan failed to address the issue. Of course the gay population was hardest hit because they were more likely not to use protections because there was no threat of pregnancy, which was why condoms were introduced into society to start with.

AIDS & HIV Statistics for USA by race and ethnicity
The numbers look rather steady actually. Here they are..
I don't see a decline for any race. And you can see the differences in infection sources. Blacks statistics are driven at a higher percentage of drug abuse than whites. And that translates to more females getting infected. And drug abuse can lead to more risky sex even between men...Here's an article about it referring to meth.
Meth Use May Increase Risk Of Spreading HIV and other STDs, Study Suggests
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/21/nyregion/21meth.html

Quote:

You need to take your thoughts a step further. You have a bad habit of "arriving" at conclusions that support your asinine ideas and abandon following the line of logic to its conclusion.

It looks like you need to start your thoughts in the first place. Because I don't see a single one of your assertions that pans out in true observed findings.
But I'd be willing to read your information though.

foundit66 · #**116** (**permalink**) 07-14-2008, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fxashun

Actually I'm not asking you to do anything but admit that even in your sarcasm, you were FOS. You CAN'T hold that position at all, so why would you even post what you did as some kind of sarcasm?

I find myself repeating myself a lot around you.
I find the original proposition just as "FOS", and I used Jaaaman's ORIGINAL argument (not the one you want to misrepresent now) to show how "anecdotal" evidence that others are supposed to research for themselves is not justification for his conclusion, but actually makes him "FOS".

Am I using too big of words?
Cause you seem having difficulty with the fact that I was NOT "holding that position", even though I have explained it repeatedly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fxashun

It looks to me like you were trying to prove the failure of heterosexuality by using the divorce rate as an example as an opposition to Jaaman's statement. Even as sarcasm that doesn't make sense. Although actually, it looks more like one of your usual comparisons like the racial ones that seems to pop up.

If you show a fractal pattern to a child, they probably won't get the underlying math geometry of it.
They'll just think it's "pretty", or maybe even "boring".

What something "looks like" to you is irrelevant to me. Cause you just don't get what's REALLY going on...
Even after it's explained to you...
Insisting on talking about what it "looks like" after I have explained it is even more pointless...

I have already, REPEATEDLY explained EXACTLY what I was doing.
For you to post what you just did at this stage? Only proves you're clueless and not interested in figuring out what's REALLY going on, even when somebody tells you...

Quote:

Originally Posted by fxashun

No, it looks like you are wasting your own time. I actually DID reply to your..

Once again, a thoroughly meaningless response from you.
Were you really stupid enough to think that I believed heterosexuality to be a failure?
The fact that I actually had to explain I was being sarcastic just boggles my mind.

with 2 sentences, not one.

And neither of them were able to comprehend what I was actually saying, nor did they actually argue a point.
Instead, a fruitless dead-end criticism...

Quote:

Originally Posted by fxashun

Not to mention that there really isn't anything there to reply to. Looks like another one of your usual bullshit tactics to just take a partial snippet of a reply and pretend like someone didn't address your previous bullshit.

No.
You REPLIED, but you did not ADDRESS it.
There's a difference which you repeatedly fail to realize, cause you routinely drag these conversations into a meaningless level as you ignore the SUBSTANCE of the arguments, so that you can instead simply make personal judgment observations that have nothing to do with an objective discussion of the TOPIC.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fxashun

Oh oh. More BS. We aren't talking about airplanes though. We are talking about heterosexuality and your saying it's a failure.

I swear.
In the other thread, I thought you had a grasp on what an analogy was. I thought you were making headways and maybe we wouldn't have to deal with this stupid crap anymore where you saying "your analogy "B" isn't the same as the original "A"" wouldn't be an argument attempt.
What's more disturbing is the thought that you actually don't have a problem with "analogies" at all, cause when YOU need to use it YOU can comprehend it.
Refusing to be intellectually honest would sure be consistent with your admiration of the resident DtT troll who is refused access here.
NOW, I think what's really going on is that you KNOW the argument underlying the analogy, but you have no intelligent response to it.
But you want to lash out anyways, so you do so by playing dumb.

Airplanes is an analogy.
And at this point, considering I have already REPEATEDLY explained what I was ACTUALLY saying regarding heterosexuality, it's just stupid for you to claim I was arguing something else.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fxashun

Why don't you justify your OWN comparison first before you start BS'ing your way into some other BS comparisons.

I already explained my comparison.
You aren't even listening to what I explained. If you did, you wouldn't be continuing with the pretense that "your saying it's (heterosexuality) a failure".

Quote:

Originally Posted by fxashun

What can be "fixed" about the sexual orientation of hetoerosexuality? Right after you tell me what "broken" about it, that might be a decent discussion. You are so FOS, I bet you have fecal footprints.

Already brought up.
50% divorce rate.
There are other topics we could throw in there as well. Abortion. Teenage pregnancy. STD rates which, while statistically less than gays, doesn't mean there aren't underlying problems amongst heterosexuals as well.
These are all things that could be "fixed", or at least improved upon.

Are you making it a point to NOT pay attention and ignore what I am ACTUALLY saying?

Quote:

Originally Posted by fxashun

And I did. And I found some information. Which you curiously didn't dispute.

Do you understand the meaning of ANECDOTAL evidence?
Look up the word and get back to me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fxashun

Wanna talk about bait and switch? What is totally glossing over information called? Pu$ out?

I told you I would get to it.
Quit crying cause you don't have my undivided attention.
Unlike you, I have more important things to do...

Quote:

Originally Posted by fxashun

Nor have you dude. But now that I have decided to devote more time to actually pay attention to how you do every one of the same tctics that you accuse other people of, I think I'm gonna have a HUGELY great time here. Cause honestly, I missed you over at DtT. You are the reason I debate this subject. I know you're happy to hear that.

Do you really want me to blow THAT lie out of the water too?
1) You were already fixating on it on the "DtT" board BEFORE I squashed you like a little bug and you ran away.
2) You discuss gays on MULTIPLE boards where I have never even been.
That's the great thing about a google search engine. I can just plug in "fxashun gay" and see ALL the spots where you attack homosexuality on.
And since you do it in MANY places where I am not, that proves your claim a blatant lie.
You don't "debate this subject" cause of me. You fixate on this subject REGARDLESS of "me".
You debate it because you're an insecure bigot who wants to attack.

aaronssongs · #**117** (**permalink**) 07-14-2008, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by foundit66

I find myself repeating myself a lot around you.
I find the original proposition just as "FOS", and I used Jaaaman's ORIGINAL argument (not the one you want to misrepresent now) to show how "anecdotal" evidence that others are supposed to research for themselves is not justification for his conclusion, but actually makes him "FOS".

Am I using too big of words?
Cause you seem having difficulty with the fact that I was NOT "holding that position", even though I have explained it repeatedly.

If you show a fractal pattern to a child, they probably won't get the underlying math geometry of it.
They'll just think it's "pretty", or maybe even "boring".

What something "looks like" to you is irrelevant to me. Cause you just don't get what's REALLY going on...
Even after it's explained to you...
Insisting on talking about what it "looks like" after I have explained it is even more pointless...

I have already, REPEATEDLY explained EXACTLY what I was doing.
For you to post what you just did at this stage? Only proves you're clueless and not interested in figuring out what's REALLY going on, even when somebody tells you...

And neither of them were able to comprehend what I was actually saying, nor did they actually argue a point.
Instead, a fruitless dead-end criticism...

No.
You REPLIED, but you did not ADDRESS it.
There's a difference which you repeatedly fail to realize, cause you routinely drag these conversations into a meaningless level as you ignore the SUBSTANCE of the arguments, so that you can instead simply make personal judgment observations that have nothing to do with an objective discussion of the TOPIC.

I swear.
In the other thread, I thought you had a grasp on what an analogy was. I thought you were making headways and maybe we wouldn't have to deal with this stupid crap anymore where you saying "your analogy "B" isn't the same as the original "A"" wouldn't be an argument attempt.
What's more disturbing is the thought that you actually don't have a problem with "analogies" at all, cause when YOU need to use it YOU can comprehend it.
Refusing to be intellectually honest would sure be consistent with your admiration of the resident DtT troll who is refused access here.
NOW, I think what's really going on is that you KNOW the argument underlying the analogy, but you have no intelligent response to it.
But you want to lash out anyways, so you do so by playing dumb.

Airplanes is an analogy.
And at this point, considering I have already REPEATEDLY explained what I was ACTUALLY saying regarding heterosexuality, it's just stupid for you to claim I was arguing something else.

I already explained my comparison.
You aren't even listening to what I explained. If you did, you wouldn't be continuing with the pretense that "your saying it's (heterosexuality) a failure".

Already brought up.
50% divorce rate.
There are other topics we could throw in there as well. Abortion. Teenage pregnancy. STD rates which, while statistically less than gays, doesn't mean there aren't underlying problems amongst heterosexuals as well.
These are all things that could be "fixed", or at least improved upon.

Are you making it a point to NOT pay attention and ignore what I am ACTUALLY saying?

Do you understand the meaning of ANECDOTAL evidence?
Look up the word and get back to me.

I told you I would get to it.
Quit crying cause you don't have my undivided attention.
Unlike you, I have more important things to do...

Do you really want me to blow THAT lie out of the water too?
1) You were already fixating on it on the "DtT" board BEFORE I squashed you like a little bug and you ran away.
2) You discuss gays on MULTIPLE boards where I have never even been.
That's the great thing about a google search engine. I can just plug in "fxashun gay" and see ALL the spots where you attack homosexuality on.
And since you do it in MANY places where I am not, that proves your claim a blatant lie.
You don't "debate this subject" cause of me. You fixate on this subject REGARDLESS of "me".
You debate it because you're an insecure bigot who wants to attack.

HALLELUJAH CHORUS!
Someone who "gets it"!
I can testify that on another board, he and I went round and round on this one subject. He never has any substantive evidence to support his claim that "homosexuality is deviant", and "abnormal"....he just makes stuff up, and claims that foreign countries policies against gays justify his claims.
But stop wasting your time...he is entrenched in his position (flawed, as it may be)
People believe what they want to believe...especially if it makes them feel good about themselves (despite the underlying pathology, as you so clearly illustrated)

foundit66 · #**118** (**permalink**) 07-14-2008, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fxashun

I understand that some races are showing disproportionate rates of infection.
But they are still DOING certain acts that make them more likely to be victims.

I have sex with my partner repeatedly.
What are my chances?

The REAL risk factors are PROMISCUITY and UNPROTECTED SEX.
The fact that world-wide, the HIV infection is made up of primarily HETEROSEXUAL sex PROVES this.
If an infected man has sex with a negative woman, the "risk" is very much there.
That is what makes her "more likely to be a victim".

And furthermore, you're avoiding IP's point.
If you look at JUST the heterosexual sex, blacks OUTNUMBER white infection by a margin of 4 to 1.
And it's the WHITES who outnumber the BLACKS by a margin of almost 6 to 1.

Why is that?
Can you give an honest answer without deflection?

Quote:

Originally Posted by fxashun

Drug abuse and certain sex acts still drive the infections by a HUGE margin. Here's a link that breaks it down.
AIDS & HIV Statistics for USA by race and ethnicity
Male-to-male sexual contact probably caused the majority (66%) of infections in white people living with AIDS. An additional 13% of white people were exposed through injection drug use, 11% through high-risk heterosexual contact and 8% through both male-to-male sexual contact and injection drug use. Among black people living with AIDS, male-to-male sexual contact, high-risk heterosexual contact and injection drug use each account for around 30% of infections.

The percentage drops from 66% to 30%, while the heterosexual contact rose from 11% to 30%.
The demographics are SIGNIFICANTLY different.
The NUMBERS per capita are significantly different.

AIDS & HIV Statistics for USA by race and ethnicity
From your web-link.

During 2006, 49% of all new HIV diagnoses and 49% of new AIDS diagnoses were in black people.

Why is that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by fxashun

And you can see the differences in infection sources. Blacks statistics are driven at a higher percentage of drug abuse than whites.

Higher amount of drug use AND a higher amount of infections by HETEROSEXUAL sex.
Funny how you fixate on the one, but fail to acknowledge the other.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fxashun

It looks like you need to start your thoughts in the first place. Because I don't see a single one of your assertions that pans out in true observed findings.
But I'd be willing to read your information though.

What a crock of LYING CRAP.

IP said: "The rising hardest hit segment of the population are the latino and black communities."
From YOUR OWN WEB-LINK, it states: "During 2006, 49% of all new HIV diagnoses and 49% of new AIDS diagnoses were in black people."
Why should he prove something that YOU PROVED yourself?

IP said: "HIV transmission rates among gay men are on a sharp decline yearly."

Since 2000, new HIV infections dropped from 900 and remain stable at 748 per year. The city's HIV prevalence rate – the number of people living with HIV – has also dropped, going from 1 in 3 men who have sex with men to 1 in 4.

Data from 2003 also has shown a dip in the HIV incidence rate among the city's gay and bisexual men. In 2000 the HIV incidence rate was 2.2 percent per year, meaning that out of 10,000 people, 220 became infected with HIV. New data for 2003 has shown an HIV incidence rate of 1.2 percent per year, meaning out of 10,000 people, only 120 contracted HIV. Health officials expect to see the same downward trend in the 2004 data, which will be released later this summer.

You dismissed his statement, and yoru web-site DID NOT EVEN TOUCH gay yearly infections.

You quoted an article "AIDS & HIV Statistics for USA by race and ethnicity", and then you claimed that it looked pretty steady.
That's like me talking about apples, and you pointing to the oranges and insisting you don't see what I'm talking about.

Idealogically Promiscuous · #**119** (**permalink**) 07-14-2008, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fxashun

I understand that some races are showing disproportionate rates of infection.
But they are still DOING certain acts that make them more likely to be victims.

Good; I'm glad we're on the same page then. Homos aren't causing or prolifically spreading HIV. Promiscuity and unsafe sex are what's spreading HIV. Glad we're in agreement.

mlurp · #**120** (**permalink**) 07-14-2008, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dabateman

Right. I choose to acknowledge the fact that I have a right arm. I cannot help the fact that it's there. I choose to ignore my friends complaining, again I cannot help the fact that it's there. A person can choose to acknowledge their homosexuality or not regardless of it's presence.

What have you said that I didn't? I don't judge the fact you have a right arm. Nor do I care. Life goes on. My point is choice. And each has that right. But a right to debase my faith based upon the Bible making a point that those who do make the choice to be different sexuality than most is wrong. No! I don't think so.
I do as Jesus said to do. Not judge others. I don't for the most part (I'm a human being and prone to fail in some cases) But those cases are in different areas dabateman, like putting a person on the ignore list. You know where I stand!

So some do judge. Tough it out.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

The Following User Says Thank You to Idealogically Promiscuous For This Useful Post:
crazyflamingos

The Following User Says Thank You to fxashun For This Useful Post:
aaronssongs

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Idealogically Promiscuous For This Useful Post:
crazyflamingos, tristanrobin

The Following User Says Thank You to foundit66 For This Useful Post:
Idealogically Promiscuous

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Idealogically Promiscuous For This Useful Post:
crazyflamingos, foundit66