Bigotry nonsense

We are making some progress... You provided an interesting statistic about HIV and now we know your point was NOT to suggest bigotry toward homosexuals or restrictions against homosexuals. Are we getting closer to learning what your point IS ?

 

I too would like to know what his point is.

 

No one has ever been able to explain to me why the naked human form is to be avoided in public.
And don't come that rubbish about original sin in the Garden of Eden.

 

Well yeah, Eve hacked an Apple computer, and it was a McIntosh, and Bill Gates declared everyone gets 40 DOHs ! etc..... Never breast feed in public blah blah blah......

 

You were talking to me, following my statement of fact that 67% of the new HIV cases are among MSM. Stating "You didn't post any facts." Are you referring to a different "you" than I? Or are you just spouting meaningless BS in response, to fulfill your need to respond?

- - - Updated - - -

That 67% of the new HIV cases are among men who have sex with men. You know, the fact you so vehemently deny.

 

Nope, different words you posted as facts.

 

As I mentioned yesterday... You posted some statistics about HIV. You told us what your point is NOT. Are you afraid to admit what your point IS?

 

All definitions I've ever seen of racism still makes it one thinking one race is superior to another. Maybe you just get RW BS definitions.
But as things evolve, so do meanings of words. Not many words today means exactly the same as they did 100 yrs ago, 200 yrs ago. Heck, our language started in England? Many of our words describing the same thing between USA and England aren't even the same.
So to whine about how the meaning of something changes is kinda infantile.

People must adapt.

- - - Updated - - -

More whining? If you don't like California, move. It's a free country. Or adapt.

- - - Updated - - -

I established his point days ago.
And in the end, he has no point. That has been established.

- - - Updated - - -

Deception and 1/16th truths. All he's got. And for no reason. He likes gays.

- - - Updated - - -

I've asked 3 times if he's ever told the truth. One time. No answer.
So that may be the only truth, albeit, by not answering.

 

Good question. Why do the alleged Religious, seem to have more of a problem with human sexuality in modern times, than with a timeless, abomination of hypocrisy?

 

IT IS NOT A FACT, it is a falsehood.
What is your point ?

 

No I'm speaking out against their actions. Besides even if I was speaking out against gay people it's no different than saying I'm speaking out against murderers. That doesn't mean that I hate them.

Actually nothing. I may strongly disagree but I'm not offended.

You need to get an education before you can expand your horizon. Or at least keep an open mind when you expand. Then it won't seem like you slept through school.[/QUOTE]

Because I disagree I'm not educated?

 

Being attracted to something is an action.

 

When people speak out against murderers, their purpose might be to make sure murderers go to trial, or convicted murderers get the death penalty. They have a purpose in speaking out.

What is your purpose in speaking out against homosexuals?

 

Refer to Merriam-Webster: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/attraction

ATTRACTION (noun)

Simple Definition of attraction

: something interesting or enjoyable that people want to visit, see, or do

: a performer who people want to see

: a feeling that makes someone romantically or sexually interested in another person

The action words are called verbs.

 

I have REPEATEDLY. The prevalence of HIV is much higher among men who have sex with men. The point so vehemently denied here.

 

Numbers are meaningless on their own. What point are you trying to support with these numbers? What do you want us all to do about these numbers?

 

... it's a state of being. According to your own words.

Do you believe being white, tall, or heavy is an action?




​

 

What kind of action is it? What is the person doing?

 

I don't want you to do anything. Dairyair spouted

To which I replied

DIRECTLY refuting Dairy's claim. What part don't you understand?

 

And you are wrong !
The vector of men having sex with men spreading AIDS is not accurate or prevalent.
AIDS is spread in Heterosexual contact than men with men.
That includes men and female prostitutes who are often IV drug users that share needles and engage in many high risk activities.

Your studies that you so dearly love to quote are merely the tip of a greater iceberg of disease and vectors and asymptomatic Un-Diagnosed carriers of AIDS.

So your notion of a small fraction of patients or sampling from clinical observation has no relevance to the actual situation and total number of infected patients out there, neither are the percentages you quote relevant to the spread ir halting the spread of AIDS, and neither accurate to define AIDS as a result of men on men sexual relations.

 

So the numbers have been discussed... it is pretty clear that some number of homosexuals contract HIV each year. You raised this issue of the relative prevalence of HIV in this thread about bigotry, so the part I don't understand is... What is your point? Do you not understand the question or are you afraid to answer as to how this relates to bigotry?

 

Yeah, you just keep trying to convince yourself of that while the rates of HIV among men who have sex with men continue to increase. Tell that to the majority of those with HIV in the US, who are men who have sex with men. What are you boys up to now? more than 57% of all the HIV positive in the US.

 

Any CDC statistics of tip of the iceberg studies are tools not meant for non clinicians, you are not qualified to wield a scalpel, however, in the hands of a skilled Surgeon, that is quite another matter.

You keep trying to bolster your sagging Anti Gay agenda by quoting out of context cause & effect randomly sampled incomplete data.

 

Im not using them as a tool. I am merely quoting them. And it isn't a tip of the iceberg study of HIV in the US.

And your point that every case of HIV in the US hasn't been yet discovered is irrelevant to my claims regarding statistics of diagnosed cases of HIV. Also irrelevant because nothing would indicate the prevalence of men who have sex with men among undiscovered HIV cases, is the any less prevalent than among the diagnosed cases. Probably even higher.

 

Stats don't lie, but liars do stats. You take stats out of context.
I don't embrace. It has zero effect on my life. I just like to point out ignorance of others who post misleading stats.