Discussion in 'Asia' started by sec, Feb 25, 2014.
Your white flag of surrender is noted .
And that long post aside, I'd simply remind you that "proof" and "facts" dont include words like maybe and possibly. If it isn't conclusive...it's not a fact.
Yes, because it's convenient for you to constantly move the goalpost until you're in a tiny corner. It's only a matter of time. Even still, the results of testing show a 'strong link' between smoking and cancer. So go light up. Because if you believe what you say, it should be blanket for all studies of any sort that use this language. So in your world, smoking hasn't been proven to cause cancer because it's only been suggested by tests that there's an undeniable link.
I, as a straight, white male, don't have anywhere near the same risk as a needle using druggie or anal sex having homo.
Statistical fact, and you know it.
No surrender here. STILL, tax breaks and governmental entitlements arent freedoms.
how did I move the goalpost?? You presented articles...and you called them FACTS. Im simply responding to what you presented and reminding you that there is nothing ambiguous about facts. When you read an article that says "evidence points to" or something like that, it is to be interpereted as it's not conclusive. I.E. not a fact.
Has it? proven?
How come some people can smoke a lifetime and not get cancer? Shouldn't it be 100%?
I didn't present any articles.
I'm saying your rejection of language used I'd be willing to bet is only relating to things you yourself reject. Nothing more.
I would have to disagree. Tax breaks, as in getting taxed less, is a freedom. Dont you think taxes limit ones freedom ? Do you have a choice to pay taxes? What happens if you dont ?
May just have to agree to disagree.
I read a magazine article a few months ago Entitled The problem with the AIDS no one Mentions
It showed many cases of people with AIDS Who Became angry And were doing anything they could To spread Aids
And many people were interviewed throughout the country that said someone gave it to me I will give it to everybody I can
One exwrestler in Ohio claimed he has had unprotected sex With 300 people In a year And 1/2
After he found out he had AIDS when taking a physical required for him to wrestle
If 53% of the HIV is men who have sex with men, I wouldnt be surprised if a large portion of the other 47% are women who had sex with those same men.
Statistics, sadistics. or damn lies.
However ,the argument that I am making is not your sexual orientation that puts you at risk, it is the sexual practice that puts you at risk. Whether you have anal sex with a man or a woman, and whether you are hetero or homo, that specific sexual act, among others, makes you at risk if you do not use protper protection in said sexual activity.
Yes. cheating husbands and wives can get tax breaks with head of household filing status, payment of alimony, or receipt of child support.
I think the risk is higher becasue of the lack of protection being used rather than the specific sexual act itself.
And if you read the article, or the study, I think their focus was the prevntion of the disease and not the sexual orinetation of the group. Thus the study was aimed more at MSM to persuade them to use protectionrather than criticize their sexual behavior.
Actually, a man having anal sex with a man who has sex with men, has about 30 times the risk of contracting HIV as a man having anal sex with a woman.
I believe the problem is not Sexual orientation
It is the lack of safe sex practices
Men who have sex with men are more likely not to use protection and more likely to have more partners. Among heterosexuals, protection is important if pregnancy is to be avoided, and when its not, monogamy is important to know who is the father when children result.
Lucky Hong Kong -- just 53%. It's even worse in the rest of the world including America where being gay is a badge of honor.
Every since Democratic President Jimmy Carter (circa 30 years ago) invited and encouraged over one million AIDS-infected Haitians (as a part of the Mariel boat lift, q.v.) to come to America as political refugees, the infestation of HIV has spread over the entire globe.
Wrong. Anal sex is inherently more disease-ridden. This is because an anus is not designed to be genitalia. Bleeding is an issue, as is fecal contamination.
The intention of the authors does not preclude individual interpretation of the facts. One need not let one's thinking be done for him/her.
it's ignorance like this is why gays lead the way in HIV/AIDs
some how i get the feeling you do not like gays
somehow i would get the feeling you'd be wrong.
I do not like how they lead the HIV/AIDs world and then try to somehow blame homophobia for their own poor choices in safe sex...
so it's not the gay I don't like, it's the agenda that promotes a victim mentality and that it's somehow 'not your fault, it's homophobia. So just stay the course and don't worry about changing a risky behavior.
you want to be gay... be gay.... noone is stopping you. But the truth is, gay sex is far riskier than straight sex.
It's not the only factor but it simply wrong to dismiss it as even indirectly irrelevant.
I agree that would be wrong, but it would be equally wrong to blame HIV on homosexual men. You're as close to the latter as anyone here is to the former.
Really? You link an article about homosexuality in Africa and then say nobody is stopping anyone from being gay? There are plenty of people who would be more than happy to beat AIDS to killing homosexuals if they thought they could get away with it (and not just in Africa).
In general terms that's true, but it also depends of the specifics. A homosexual man in a monogamous relationship with another man is at a much, much lower risk than a heterosexual woman having sex with multiple strangers. What you do is infinitely more significant that who you are. Talking about gay men being the problem is closer to the line of "don't worry changing risky behaviour" than what anyone else is saying because it entirely overlooks actual behaviour, implying that simply being gay is the risk factor.
except that safe sex is taught to EVERYBODY equally, so the onus falls back onto the individual that chooses NOT to participate in safe practices.....
Last time I bought condoms... the clerk didn't ask me if it was going to be for straight sex or gay sex before she was allowed to sell them to me....
that is your own false projection onto who I am... I have never blamed gay men for AIDs, I simply pointed out that the CDC says gay men are at the most risk. Facts /= blame.
a woman who sleeps with a bisexual man is at increased risk, too.... and any man who then sleeps with her.... but I have never once, said "aids is a gay disease" nor do I believe it. So, please quit hoping that's what I think so you can dismiss my facts. Even if I did think that way, the facts remain the same... gays are the riskiest demographic.
I linked two, just in case you tried to do what you just did, ignore one because it's Africa.... My links are valid, and all you are doing is speculating....
individually, very true.... but number of cases and percentages of new infections each year scream the problem is STILL on the gay man.
Only where is isn't taught at all! Most practical sex education focuses exclusively on vaginal sex. That isn't really the manner in which I see discrimination as relevant though.
This was my initial response to the OP; http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=344855&page=8&p=1063645358#post1063645358
Sorry, you misunderstood me. I wasn't saying you are blaming gay men for AIDS, I was saying nobody is promoting the victim mentality of directly blaming AIDS on homophobia. I was identifying both statements are generally untrue.
It isn't speculation that homosexuals can be killed in parts of the world and it isn't speculation that they can be actively discriminated against in many more, including the USA. To say "nobody is trying to stop you being gay", especially in a global context, is simply wrong.
It's not on "the gay man". It's on a proportion of gay men and an (albeit smaller) proportion of heterosexuals (plus a proportion of IV drug users and a handful of other things). You're still focusing on one class of people rather than (all!) risky behaviour. Until you correct that, you're going to find yourself continuously defending yourself from accusations of blaming gay men for AIDS and you're not going to be helping in finding any real answers.
not at all is still equal amoung the groups. it's not like they are segregating straights from gays and giving 2 different safe sex lectures....
I saw that and I replied.... full recognition of marriage does not lead to less AIDs as long term relationships are not exclusive to just married couples.
the APA seems to be....
in the global context.... sure. but I don't see gays getting killed for being gay in the US. What I do see a lot of is people who are killed who happen to be gay, and then the victim's family blaming it on the fact he was gay. Of course, not many will come to the defense of the murderer who was probably a POS in his own right.
not everything bad that happens to a gay is because they are gay.... maybe something bad.... like aids.... happened because the gay guy acted like an idiot and didn't think it was an issue.
I'm not disqualifying IV drug users, or black males, or anyone else who gets AIDs.... but each of it always has the same answer..... safe sex. Trying to make it about homophobia is simply pushing an agenda.
Separate names with a comma.