Hicup
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2009
- Messages
- 9,081
- Reaction score
- 2,709
- Location
- Rochester, NY
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Someone needs to learn properly about STD's before saying such ignorant comments.
I was tired, it was late for me on the east coast. What I should have said is that in western societies, heterosexuals with no known risk factors have a statistically zero chance of acquiring HIV. Heterosexuality, in and of itself is not stated as a risk factor to acquiring HIV, whereas homosexuality is, according to the CDC.
Tim-
Individuals infected through heterosexual contact account for 31% of annual new HIV infections and 28% of people living with HIV.
HIV and AIDS in the United States | Factsheets | Resources by Format | CDC HIV/AIDS
No, MALE homo and bisexuals have higher incidence of HIV. Female homosexuals have extremely low risk.
And, Hicup said heterosexuals have an "even statistically zero chance of getting HIV," which is about the most ****ing retarded thing I've read on this forum and your little link and graph only proved just how ****ing retardedly ignorant such a claim was.
Btw... from the CDC:
I guess that kinda blows the "near 0%" presentation out of the water.
Please provide a link for that information.
I was tired, it was late for me on the east coast. What I should have said is that in western societies, heterosexuals with no known risk factors have a statistically zero chance of acquiring HIV.
Tex did... That's all I needed. It is also the most current data available. The claim I make is 100% accurate.
Tim-
Oh I'm not done with you yet.. I am just spending some time on this HIV thing first in orde to put it to bed. It means nothing to this thread in any meaningful way, and it meant nothing other than to illustrate a galring inconsistency with your whole "negatives" approach to the States interest in marriage. But, this is just a preliminary warning to let you know that I intend to review your responses to me in my absence, and if they have merit, I will address them.
Tim-
And I just demonstrated that his information was faulty. Took about 3 seconds.
Now that I have put the HIV issue to bed, feel free to comment on my posts from last night. But do try to get my argument correct, rather than arguing what you WANT me to have said.
yeah but you made the same mistake that other poster did, you looked at global statistics. Tex posted the relevant graph, and to what it was I was referring last night. Ok, so I got sloppy, it was late and I was tired. I don't normally make a claim like that with providing a link. It slipped my mind, as my attention was on the legal aspects being brought out in this thread. The comment about HIV was unimportant in the grand scheme.
Look, if you and the others wishing to make this into 20 pages about statistical analysis I'd be happy to join a separate thread on it. I have experience with statistics ya know, and would love to share it with y'all..But, in the interest of moving this thread forward on the central issue, can we please disregard the HIV coment for now?
Pretty please with sugar on top?
CC, you have no idea how wrong you are about the "HIV" thing.. But like I said, if you really and truly believe that my analysis of those statistics is wrong, then start another thread on it. I already gave you the answer, but hey, if that makes no sense to you then have at er.. I'll clarify more for you, and the others..
Just so we're clear though, when and if I do reply to your posts in my absence, I am directly being challenged to refute your argument that you posted in 4/4/2009, correct?
Tim-
Tim-
yeah but you made the same mistake that other poster did, you looked at global statistics. Tex posted the relevant graph, and to what it was I was referring last night. Ok, so I got sloppy, it was late and I was tired. I don't normally make a claim like that with providing a link. It slipped my mind, as my attention was on the legal aspects being brought out in this thread. The comment about HIV was unimportant in the grand scheme.
Look, if you and the others wishing to make this into 20 pages about statistical analysis I'd be happy to join a separate thread on it. I have experience with statistics ya know, and would love to share it with y'all..But, in the interest of moving this thread forward on the central issue, can we please disregard the HIV coment for now?
Pretty please with sugar on top?
CC, you have no idea how wrong you are about the "HIV" thing.. But like I said, if you really and truly believe that my analysis of those statistics is wrong, then start another thread on it. I already gave you the answer, but hey, if that makes no sense to you then have at er.. I'll clarify more for you, and the others..
Just so we're clear though, when and if I do reply to your posts in my absence, I am directly being challenged to refute your argument that you posted in 4/4/2009, correct?
The problem with your "statistical analysis" is you are looking at numbers and reaching a faulty conclusion. I repeat: a gay man who engages in low risk activities is less likely to contract HIV than a strait man engaging in high risk activities. Now, I wonder why that is....
Further, you cannot throw gay women out of the "analysis" just because they disprove your claim. They do happen to be...surprise, gay.
Ok, Redress... Start a thread on it, but not here in this one. I'll show you why you're wrong on all counts, except the gay female issue. Even if you include gay woman, I'm still 100% accurate with my analysis. I excluded them because their instance of contracting HIV is even less statistically significant than straight woman. In other words, they didn't matter to the analysis, nor the claim. Now, please, bring it up in another thread.
Tim-
Ok, so now can we move on? Thanks for the courtesy, Captain. Give me a bit, I generally like to go back a few pages from where I left off just so I can ease my way back into it.
Shouldn't take more than about 20 min or so..
Tim-
No. This doesn't just get to stand as is. All you are doing is manipulating statistics. You don't get to exclude a group because it counters your position.
And why is HIV even brought up? How does HIV affect your civil rights?
they'd want gays to get married.
No, no. Marriage is only a punishment fit for straight people. It's why the homosexual population hasnt fought hard for it yet... Now they are just greedy, right? hahaha.
Human Rights are never debateable.
The end.
I was wondering that too; haven't bothered to read the whole thread.
You'd think if these guys believe HIV is a strictly "gay" disease, they'd want gays to get married.
At least then they'd be more likely to be monogamous, thus less spread of HIV.
:shrug:
So I know that I'm just jumping in the middle of this and there is much I didnt read (with 144 pages, how could I?), but I firmly believe that the constitution is ALWAYS meant to protect and give rights and never limit. When CA put a constitution BAN on the civil union (as marriage is a religious thing and the government has no place in that and it no place in the government) between two people of the same gender, they spat in the face of liberty.
And why is HIV even brought up? How does HIV affect your civil rights? My southern baptist preacher has HIV. Do you know how he got it? Blood transfusion...
My grandmother always has very wise things to say in her very, very thick Russian accent. I think we could all learn from something she told me very recently: "Austin... Come here. Why the fu*k do you care? Does it really matter? Will this affect your life in any way?"
Does it really? No.
But hey----At least with gay couples, there is no fear about unwanted pregnancies draining the social security tit.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?