Stem-Cells, degenerate Gay Lesbo rights, Abortion, Janet Jackson's boob..what's the problem ??
POSTED BY: JaynezTown
UPDATED: Sunday, December 1, 2024 16:44
VIEWED: 31108
PAGE 12 of 20
Quote:If you scroll up to my first post, you'll see my argument.
Originally posted by Weasy:Quote:
That's not what I'm arguing.
then what ARE you arguing?
'cos we're all clearly not hearing it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
To balance SigmaNunki deceptions I’ll simply reiterate the conclusion drawn from the site.
"Around half of all people diagnosed with AIDS were probably infected with HIV through male-to-male sexual contact, while people exposed through heterosexual contact comprise around 16% of the total." http://www.avert.org/usastatg.htm
The statistics support this conclusion. It is indeed factual.
I never said that this wasn't fact. I just mentioned that you are using it out of context (which you still are). There is a difference.
And you still ignore the time frame-referenced in these numbers. You also don't seem to see that significant word in that sentence "probably."
The male gay community surely in the beginning of all this practice permiscuous sex (but then again, so did a lot of heteros as well). And why wouldn't they? There was no disease that needed to be kept in check, etc nor pregnancy to worry about. And after all, men are men.
This would account for the increased number on the whole time-line with repects with the larger number of gays being infected with HIV.
But what you keep ignoring is that these numbers do not reflect the current situation in the US.
You may be referencing fact, but you are using it in a way that it cannot be used. Therefore you conclusions are false.
It's one of the dangers of statistics. People see what they want to see instead of seeing what's really there. If you would look to where the numbers are coming from (it is on that page you referenced after all) you'd see that this conclusion is unsupportable given the data you reference.
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I did a little bit of math and determined that weighted by percent of population the number of diagnosed cases of AIDS as a result of male homosexual activity (not including the use of illicit drugs) was over 24 times that of cases diagnosed among heterosexuals in 2003. This means that homosexual males are over 24 times more likely to be diagnosed with AIDS then heterosexuals in 2003. (If you use 4%, gay males are 60 times more likely to be diagnosed with AIDS then heterosexuals.)
OK, fine let's go through your numbers.
What age group(s) are you refering to in your numbers? Are you using total population and are getting the numbers from percentages off that? That'd be one hell of a mistake.
If you are so convinced of your numbers, present them and let us know where they come from. Give us your math. After all, if this is so rock solid, then it would be able to stand a little peer review, now wouldn't it?
Basically my conjecture is that you are using these "numbers" to reflect you own opinions instead of trying to find out what is actually said in them. Prove me wrong.
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
The number of gay people in the US is probably closer to 4% of the population.
And where are you getting this "fact."
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
But to answer your question I care because the Declaration of Independence sets forth the “pursuit of happiness” as an inalienable right.
[ snip ]
should be allotted in a democratic manner in furtherance of this doctrine.
Wasn't this Declaration of Independence democraticly created? So, then how do you justify not putting certain laws in accordance with this declaration? Don't gays have a right to be happy? At least by this declaration they do.
And even if this document wasn't democratically created, again, how do you justify not putting certain laws in accordance with this declaration since it seems to be the foundation of you democracy?
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And how is promiscuous gay men/women or the AIDS problem even relevant to gay marriage?
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:According to the CDC, the number of diagnosed cases of AIDS in the US in 2003 as a result of male homosexual contact, not including injection drug use, was 17696 cases. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats.htm#exposure
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
OK, fine let's go through your numbers.
. . .
Basically my conjecture is that you are using these "numbers" to reflect you own opinions instead of trying to find out what is actually said in them. Prove me wrong.
In the same year, the number of diagnosed cases of AIDS due to heterosexual contact is estimated at 13260 cases. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats.htm#exposure
According to the US Census Bureau, the total population of the US in 2003 was 290788976 people. http://www.census.gov/
The only problem is the number of gay people in the US. Many pro-gay organization assume 10%, even though this is probably too large. Some studies have found percentages as low as 1.1%. I’ll use 4%. http://www.avert.org/hsexu1.htm
The number of diagnosed cases of AIDS in the male homosexual community in 2003 was 0.1521%
The number of diagnosed cases of AIDS in the heterosexual community in 2003 was 0.0048%.
The number of diagnosed cases of AIDS per member of the male homosexual community, in this case, is 31.7 times larger then the number of diagnosed cases of AIDS per member of heterosexual community. Roughly, this means that a male homosexual is 31.7 times more likely to be diagnosed with AIDS then a heterosexual.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
@Finn mac Cumhal:
Thank you. But I have a couple of questions.
What about children? They don't claim to be gay nor straight yet your use of these numbers assumes them to be straight. Given that children comprise a large percentage of the US's total population this would skew the numbers significantly.
What about those numbers that aren't counted? Those numbers being from areas that don't have an amonymous testing program http://www.avert.org/usastatg.htm:
"
The HIV statistics presented on this page include only the 33 areas with a history of confidential name-based HIV reporting, as listed in our USA AIDS Summary.
"
I've also heard of numbers of the gay population that range from 4-15%, never as low as 1.1%. So, how do you claim to have anything regarding reliable stats given these admissions?
How is it even possible to gain reliable stats regarding the gay population in the US, when gays will probably lie to pollers given the homophobic nature of the society in the US in general (note: I'm not saying you are, I'm only stating what I get from the media, talking to people from the US, etc).
Also, you might note that given that the gay population started with an increased percentage of HIV+ people, even if they practiced as safe sex as heteros at this point, even if they had sex in the same proportion as heteros as well, they would still have increased infection given that more of them would be infected. Basically, different initial conditions.
Also, you said before:
"
(If you use 4%, gay males are 60 times more likely to be diagnosed with AIDS then heterosexuals.)
"
but now:
"
Roughly, this means that a male homosexual is 31.7 times more likely to be diagnosed with AIDS then a heterosexual.
"
Which is it? I asked for where you got your numbers and it's obvious that you've changed them. Your being rather inconsistent.
Given these large uncertainties and large discrepancies, how do you claim to be able to come to your conclusion that gays are promiscuous?
I've also asked other questions in other posts that have gone unanswered. Please do so.
EDIT:
Given the nature of sexual contact in male-to-male relations, it is far more likely that an infection will occur. Source Sue Johanson.
So, given any same number of sexual contacts the gays will recieve more infections than heteros.
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Since children are represented in both the samples and normalized by population, it has no effect. Furthermore, the diagnosed cases of AIDS include children, so removing them from the total population would introduce error. However, the contribution from children is negligible.
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
What about children? They don't claim to be gay nor straight yet your use of these numbers assumes them to be straight. Given that children comprise a large percentage of the US's total population this would skew the numbers significantly.
Quote:A source of error, only if you assume that the number of diagnosed cases are reported with some bias. An assumption for which I know of no bases. In the absence of such a bias, the ratios are accurate. The CDC numbers are statistical estimates based on 33 samples.
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
What about those numbers that aren't counted? Those numbers being from areas that don't have an amonymous testing program
Quote:I cited my source.
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
I've also heard of numbers of the gay population that range from 4-15%, never as low as 1.1%. So, how do you claim to have anything regarding reliable stats given these admissions?
Quote:Which is why I originally used 10% as an upper bound. In order for the rate of AIDS diagnoses to be equal, homosexuals would have to be over 56% of the population.
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
How is it even possible to gain reliable stats regarding the gay population in the US, when gays will probably lie to pollers given the homophobic nature of the society in the US in general (note: I'm not saying you are, I'm only stating what I get from the media, talking to people from the US, etc).
Quote:Since I used cases diagnosed in 2003, this has no effect.
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Also, you might note that given that the gay population started with an increased percentage of HIV+ people, even if they practiced as safe sex as heteros at this point, even if they had sex in the same proportion as heteros as well, they would still have increased infection given that more of them would be infected. Basically, different initial conditions.
Quote:The statistics are sound. The discrepancy lies in how I interpreted the percent of gay population. In the first case, I assumed a total homosexual population of 4% of the US population and an even split between male and female, which gives 2% male homosexual population. I also used an estimate for the 2003 US population, based on the 2005 estimate. In the second case, I used 4% (as cited) as male homosexual population and I looked up the 2003 US census. Halfling the gay population will double the outcome. If you don’t believe me, just do the math. You’ll see readily that the numbers fall out as I’ve said.
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Also, you said before:
"
(If you use 4%, gay males are 60 times more likely to be diagnosed with AIDS then heterosexuals.)
"
but now:
"
Roughly, this means that a male homosexual is 31.7 times more likely to be diagnosed with AIDS then a heterosexual.
"
Which is it? I asked for where you got your numbers and it's obvious that you've changed them. Your being rather inconsistent.
Quote:I find this unlikely, but if you cite a source, I’ll consider it.
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Given the nature of sexual contact in male-to-male relations, it is far more likely that an infection will occur. Source Sue Johanson.
So, given any same number of sexual contacts the gays will recieve more infections than heteros.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Very nicely posted, thanks, SigmaNunki. I'm not going to do the quote'n'rebut thing with Finny-Finn-Finn-Finn again, because....boring. 
Anyway. I discussed this whole thing with my husband yesterday, because I let the statistical thing disturb me. Which was wrong and dumb, but there ya go. What we came up with was this: anal sex is (theoretically) the most risky sexual practice, re: spreading disease. The tissues of the rectum are not as stretchy or as thick as those of the vagina, and more prone to tears. Thus, it is conceivably easier for disease vectors to percolate into the system more easily. So, we can see that homosexuals practicing anal sex may be more at risk to spread HIV.
Also, men do tend to be men with regards to having a perceivably higher tendency to have more than one sexual partner at a time, or more partners over time. When two men are together, well, the little heads may do the thinking for the big heads, who knows? (Naturally, it's riskier if they aren't using condoms, but what isn't?)
Of course, the above caters to all kinds of stereotypes regarding both straight and gay males, but perhaps it somewhat explains why what's-his-name thinks the way he does on the issue of gays and AIDS. Dunno for sure, because Finn, to be quite frank, isn't very good at saying what he might mean, or being clear even when he says he is saying what he means (which he will then say he didn't mean, don't take his words out of context! or assume something he didn't say!).....
"There is no grace under pressure for a cat on fire." Cosi
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Furthermore, the diagnosed cases of AIDS include children, so removing them from the total population would introduce error.
Actually, the figure was 17,969 for Male-to-male sexual contact not 17696 as you stated above. Be more careful.
Secondly this number does not include childern. I quote from the site you cited http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats.htm#exposure:
"
Following is the distribution of the estimated number of diagnoses of AIDS among adults and adolescents by exposure category.
"
Which http://www.avert.org/usastatg.htm states specifically before the numbers in the charts "children under 13 years" and these tables are for "adult and adolescent"s. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats.htm#exposure echos this by stating that "The term "children" refers to persons under age 13 at the time of diagnosis." Which is under a different table entirely.
http://www.census.gov/popest/national/asrh/NC-EST2003-as.html which puts the exstimate of children ages 0 - 14 at ~60,000,000.
You have incurred enormous error by just these things as you are diluting your numbers ie 4/60 is more than 4/100, seriously.
You use http://www.avert.org/hsexu1.htm to get a figure of 4% for estimated gay population in the US, where this page actually says - for males:
"
37% reported some homosexual contact;
13% reported more homosexual than heterosexual contact;
* 4% reported exclusively homosexual contact.
"
So, are these 33% of men you don't count somehow immune to HIV through homosexual contact?
You are clearly involved in such poor statistical practices, that you'r numbers say nothing. You are just taking the numbers that support your conjecture instead of doing good statistics.
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
What about those numbers that aren't counted? Those numbers being from areas that don't have an amonymous testing program
A source of error, only if you assume that the number of diagnosed cases are reported with some bias. An assumption for which I know of no bases. In the absence of such a bias, the ratios are accurate. The CDC numbers are statistical estimates based on 33 samples.
No, it's a source of error because people aren't being counted. It has nothing to do with bias. A greater source of error is incurred simply because the sample size is limited.
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Which is why I originally used 10% as an upper bound.
Then tell me why you decided to use 4% again? Especially because of the quoted facts above.
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Also, you might note that given that the gay population started with an increased percentage of HIV+ people, even if they practiced as safe sex as heteros at this point, even if they had sex in the same proportion as heteros as well, they would still have increased infection given that more of them would be infected. Basically, different initial conditions.
Since I used cases diagnosed in 2003, this has no effect.
You really need to learn something about math/stats.
If there is a greater number of people (%) in a population that is infected then an uninfected person will have a greater chance of getting it. Thus, since the gay population is smaller and suffered the first losses while the docs where still trying to figure this all out in the 80's, there infection numbers will be higher (%) and as such a greater chance of getting HIV for those not infected.
And if you still don't think that initial conditions matter, disease propagation is a non-linear system (chaotic if you will). From http://www.amazon.ca/exec/obidos/ASIN/0521476852/qid%3D1105501891/701-
9084938-5583543 page 1:
"
The unique character of chaotic dynmaics may be seen most clearly by imagining the system to be starte
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by ReeQueen:
Very nicely posted, thanks, SigmaNunki.
Thanks
Quote:
Originally posted by ReeQueen:
Anyway. I discussed this whole thing with my husband yesterday, because I let the statistical thing disturb me.
I think that this is a natural reaction to something that we really don't know much about. I after all, only know these things because I have a gay cousin and as such have had motivation to think things out and do the research.
I'm also am finishing off a math degree this year, so I can see the large mistakes that are being made here (I would guess) more readily.
I also watch an "abnormal" amount of educational programming.
The important thing is that we think about these things, talk about them and don't let our prejudice get in the way, but to do these things with a "clean slate" if you will. It seems as though you and your husband are some of the rare few that still do this these days.
Quote:
Originally posted by ReeQueen:
[snip]
Dunno for sure, because Finn, to be quite frank, isn't very good at saying what he might mean, or being clear even when he says he is saying what he means (which he will then say he didn't mean, don't take his words out of context! or assume something he didn't say!).....
LOL, I think you just hit the nail on the head!!!
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME