Homosexuality: Genetics and random factors - Page 13

mlurp · #**121** (**permalink**) 07-14-2008, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Idealogically Promiscuous

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.

You know how many American house wifes get HIV each year because their husbands cheat or go to a hooker? Same sex isn't the only way this sadness travels. Lack of Honor, is the biggest carrier of this sadness.

Or some young adult gets prison time for drunk driving, or stealing something, what ever you get my point now!

This site list several countries and states want to avoid HIV do get married: TO AVOID HIV INFECTION, DON’T GET MARRIED HIV/AIDS Skepticism

Nicaragua: SpringerLink - Journal Article

African-American HIV/AIDS Resource Center: African-American HIV/AIDS Resource Center: Profiles in Courage: Joyce McDonald

High HIV/AIDS rates among returning Nepalese women from India
Surya B. Prasai
February 14, 2008: American Chronicle | High HIV/AIDS rates among returning Nepalese women from India

Now that is just a taste of the "629,000 for How many American house wives get HIV each year?". In this one search. read them and then do your own search.

dabateman · #**122** (**permalink**) 07-14-2008, 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mlurp

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.

Mlurp, it's not about you, it's about the larger point of choice versus innate characteristics. You have always been rational in your approach which is all that anyone can ask for and the most we should expect. There has to be a balance of understanding in a pluralistic society.

There are bigots on both sides of the equation, homosexuals who push the issue into mandatory recognition by churches of homosexual relationships (something not even done for heterosexual relationships). And there are those who proclaim to be Christian that want to impose their values on others in such a fashion as to create laws limiting legal recognition of relationships.

fxashun · #**123** (**permalink**) 07-14-2008, 11:36 PM

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".

Well you are gonna have to repeat it again, because you are still FOS. You can't prove heterosexuality a failure using ANY evidence. You were just posting crap to have something to say. Just like you are now. You do that often. How am I misrepresenting Jaaman's argument?

Quote:

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.

Not too big of words...Just unclear ones. Especially these...

"Anecdotally", I can prove heterosexuality is a failure as well.
Oh wait. A 50% divorce rate isn't an "anecdote", is it...

Quote:

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".

But we aren't talking about fractals....Is this another one of your useless analogies?

Quote:

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...

OOOHHH...Now I understand, when you create these bullshit analogies, you are just diverting attention from the fact you realy have nothing to say about the actual point, and then if someone calls you on your bullshit, you were being sarcastic. Now I understand. Cool.

Quote:

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...

I know what's going on. Absolutely nothing.

Quote:

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...

You weren't saying anything. Yours was the first dead end criticism, that not surprisingly wasn't all that dead end. If it were dead end, you would have just left it.

Quote:

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.

Naa, just as here, there's nothing to reply to. Just a lot of hot air.

Quote:

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.

Being intellectually honest would have had you not make that "sarcastic" comment in the first place. Or instead of making such a comment, you would have done something that you never do, actually address his point head-on instead of "sarcasm" or a "sarcastic analogy".

Quote:

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".

Oh yeah, it was sarcasm right?

Quote:

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.

But you said "heterosexuality", not "heterosexuals". There's a difference.

Quote:

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

Actually what he said was...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaaaman

Actually, they are both congruent with reality. The way I feel about this subject and much of the anecdotal evidence out there go hand in hand. Google it and you will see what I am saying.

I googled his anecdotal evidence.

I understand anecdotal, google, AND congruent

Quote:

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...

Okay.

Quote:

Do you really want me to blow THAT lie out of the water too?

Yes, if you use your usual tactics, I'm confident it won't happen.

Quote:

1) You were already fixating on it on the "DtT" board BEFORE I squashed you like a little bug and you ran away.

No, I've been there for a long while.

Quote:

2) You discuss gays on MULTIPLE boards where I have never even been.

So do you. Is that a problem for you? Not for me.

Quote:

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.

Naaa, I debate it because the threads are there. It's not like I'm alone. And it's not like I'm talking to myself.

Why don't you google "foundit gay" and see what you get?

fxashun · #**124** (**permalink**) 07-15-2008, 01:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by foundit66

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

I don't know you or your partner. Many women don't know their husbands are on the down-low or drug addicts. Especially in the Black community.

Quote:

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.

And the risk is greater for anal sex than vaginal sex. No protection is 100%. Condoms slip or break. We are talking about ALL, not just YOU or ME. Protected sex can become unprotected in a hurry.

Quote:

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.

That's a shame. Driven by drug addicts and bisexual men. Here's a writeup from 2001.
Black Women, Gay and Bisexual Men Face High HIV Risks in U.S., Canada - Population Reference Bureau
It's still actions and not race driving the infections.

Quote:

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

I don't deflect, while you create BS "analogies".

Quote:

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?

The gender mix also is distinctly different when viewed by race. Just as my above link indicated. Here's another link...
HIV & Black Women

Quote:

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.

But the heterosexual transmissions to women are driven by the men catching it in the first place. It's still sex with men.
The primary mode of HIV transmission for both men and women was sexual contact with men.
And men are still catching it from drugs and MSM.

Quote:

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?

But he blamed the huge disparity on lack of condom use, but among Black people, drug use is the biggest scourge that effects both male and females in that drug addicts are more likely to engage in risky behavior.
AIDS & HIV Statistics for USA by race and ethnicity

Quote:

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 â€“ the number of people living with HIV â€“ 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.

Liar. One city? Here's CDC stats.
AIDS Cases Up in Men Who Have Sex with Men health
Between 2001 and 2006, male-to-male sex was the largest HIV transmission category in the US, and the only one associated with an increasing number of HIV/AIDS diagnoses, according to a report from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

foundit66 · #**125** (**permalink**) 07-15-2008, 11:54 AM

Before I go on, to the rest of the board, did ANYBODY ELSE have any confusion in their mind on the point I was making (or that it was sarcastic) in my following statement:

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...

http://www.politicalwrinkles.com/civ...html#post33214

Does anybody else not understand the sarcasm at work?
Is it JUST fxashun?

Secondly, I just have to define "anecdote" for him...
anecdote:
a usually short narrative of an interesting, amusing, or biographical incident

NONE of the evidence you have posted is "anecdotal".
As a black man, if fxashun can't understand why "anecdotal" evidence is flawed in making summary judgment about MILLIONS of people based on a "biographical incident" or even a collection of them, then I am astounded...

I originally stopped posting on DtT because of one troll, and another poster who had the capacity for intellectual debate but reveled in acting trollish.
And he's doing it again now.
I've already explained what I was saying, but the fact that he repeatedly refuses to acknowledge it and ridiculously insists that I be able to "defend" a statement I have repeatedly stated was sarcastic is absurd.
Fxashun obviously understands what an analogy is, but repeatedly ignores them with lame excuses, thus completely ignoring the argument at hand.

I repeatedly see that most people trounce fxashun's arguments, and then leave him to wallow when he can't get why he's been exposed.
And for some reason, I stick around and try to explain to him why he's lost...

Fxashun, if you're going to prove yourself unworthy of discussion by failing to comprehend simple analogies, I think I should take that to heart...

aaronssongs · #**126** (**permalink**) 07-15-2008, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by foundit66

Before I go on, to the rest of the board, did ANYBODY ELSE have any confusion in their mind on the point I was making (or that it was sarcastic) in my following statement:

http://www.politicalwrinkles.com/civ...html#post33214

Does anybody else not understand the sarcasm at work?
Is it JUST fxashun?

Secondly, I just have to define "anecdote" for him...
anecdote:
a usually short narrative of an interesting, amusing, or biographical incident

NONE of the evidence you have posted is "anecdotal".
As a black man, if fxashun can't understand why "anecdotal" evidence is flawed in making summary judgment about MILLIONS of people based on a "biographical incident" or even a collection of them, then I am astounded...

I originally stopped posting on DtT because of one troll, and another poster who had the capacity for intellectual debate but reveled in acting trollish.
And he's doing it again now.
I've already explained what I was saying, but the fact that he repeatedly refuses to acknowledge it and ridiculously insists that I be able to "defend" a statement I have repeatedly stated was sarcastic is absurd.
Fxashun obviously understands what an analogy is, but repeatedly ignores them with lame excuses, thus completely ignoring the argument at hand.

I repeatedly see that most people trounce fxashun's arguments, and then leave him to wallow when he can't get why he's been exposed.
And for some reason, I stick around and try to explain to him why he's lost...

Fxashun, if you're going to prove yourself unworthy of discussion by failing to comprehend simple analogies, I think I should take that to heart...

FoundIt,
You have nothing to prove. FX doesn't get it because he doesn't want to get it. It's his cottage industry, and you can't take it from him. Stop trying.
I've been there and did that. You're not the one that's "touched".

mlurp · #**127** (**permalink**) 07-15-2008, 07:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dabateman

Mlurp, it's not about you, it's about the larger point of choice versus innate characteristics. You have always been rational in your approach which is all that anyone can ask for and the most we should expect. There has to be a balance of understanding in a pluralistic society.

There are bigots on both sides of the equation, homosexuals who push the issue into mandatory recognition by churches of homosexual relationships (something not even done for heterosexual relationships). And there are those who proclaim to be Christian that want to impose their values on others in such a fashion as to create laws limiting legal recognition of relationships.

About me????? that is about me. Your lower than _________!

You set my attitude off with the stupid and useless lie opening you used. Now you go with the rest of the clowns or worst. Ignore list. Bye bye. I won't miss you

tristanrobin · #**128** (**permalink**) 07-15-2008, 07:44 PM

he's going to have the entire membership on ignore soon

LOL

why does he bother going to forums?

dabateman · #**129** (**permalink**) 07-15-2008, 07:50 PM

Man, I've tried to be nothing but respectful but it appears it was an exercise in futility. Shame because I don't have anything against him personally and found the majority of his analysis to be rational and reasonable.

dabateman · #**130** (**permalink**) 07-16-2008, 08:05 PM

The research explains why individuals of African descent are more likely to become infected than an Anglo.

washingtonpost.com

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

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

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to dabateman For This Useful Post:
crazyflamingos, Idealogically Promiscuous, tristanrobin

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

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

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