|
|||
|
You're the one who stated my stats were invalid because they didn't take into account non-injection-drug-users. Non-injection drugs have nothing to do with AIDS though. posted by Tiefling |
|||
|
|||
| in-my-opinion.orgTechnology, Computers, Science, InternetScience (Assorted topics)Homosexuality spreads AIDS, heterosexuality not really |
|
|||
|
Tiefling: Non-injection drugs have nothing to do with AIDS though. Proof? I gave you already the counter-proof: Crack users are 3x more likely to get AIDS. You speak like someone who takes drugs himself (or has friends who do so) and wants to have a piece of mind thinking "As long as I use condoms and don't inject I won't get AIDS". Keep on crackin' posted by knn |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
You must see that smoking crack or taking any other non-injectible drugs does not make one more likely to contract AIDS. It's most likely the fact that people in low income neighborhoods are likely to have less education and less positive role models, therefore are more likely to either smoke crack or have AIDS. Or smoke crack and have AIDS. Whatever. I think that what you're trying to do it say that "bad things happen to bad people" but AIDS can clearly be contracted by anyone. Even a Christian non druggie virgin can get a bad blood transfusion . . . AIDS is a problem for everyone. posted by Dark Star |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dark Star: Even a Christian non druggie virgin can get a bad blood transfusion . . . AIDS is a problem for everyone. Yes, blood transfusion AIDS can happen. Sure. Dark Star: You must see that smoking crack or taking any other non-injectible drugs does not make one more likely to contract AIDS. It's most likely the fact that people in low income neighborhoods are likely to have less education and less positive role models, therefore are more likely to either smoke crack or have AIDS Yes, your explanation why crackies get more likely AIDS is very valid. However it's also valid that drugs lower your immune system, thus you are more likely to develop AIDS. But the hole point is about this: A group of people classified as "Heterosexuals who got AIDS while NOT taking injection drugs" is a complete unsatisfactory statement for itself, since it subsums "crack prostitutes" and "hemophiliacs". It invalidely alters the "whole picture" by subjectively claiming that ANYONE can get AIDS. While it technically is true, it practically never happens in real life, that a healthy+hetero+nondruggie gets AIDS, no matter with how many people he has sex. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Magic Johnson posted by Dark Star |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
knn: However it's also valid that drugs lower your immune system, thus you are more likely to develop AIDS. rofl. There is so much wrong with that statement, I don't even know where to start. knn: But the hole point is about this:
A group of people classified as "Heterosexuals who got AIDS while NOT taking injection drugs" is a complete unsatisfactory statement for itself, since it subsums "crack prostitutes" and "hemophiliacs". (1) Smoking crack doesn't increase your chance of getting AIDS. Period. If you have proof otherwise (NOT JUST A CORRELATION), provide it. (2) Hemophiliacs are included in the "Other" category, if they didn't contract HIV through heterosexual or homosexual sex. (3) What is wrong with including prostitutes in the heterosexual category? *Someone* is having heterosexual sex with those prostitutes. Prostitutes are promiscuous heterosexuals. If we exclude promiscuous heterosexuals from the stats, then we should also exclude promiscuous homosexuals from the stats. knn: It invalidely alters the "whole picture" by subjectively claiming that ANYONE can get AIDS. While it technically is true, it practically never happens in real life, that a healthy+hetero+nondruggie gets AIDS, no matter with how many people he has sex. The data don't make any claims. It's you that's subjectively claiming that not everyone can get AIDS. You have no facts to backup your statement. posted by Tiefling |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Here's one way crack spreads AIDS: Miami - The young black women from Miami's impoverished Overtown and Liberty City neighborhoods are coming in more frequently now, shocked at the news that they are infected with the AIDS virus and telling remarkably similar stories. "They tell me they stopped shooting drugs because of AIDS, so instead they started smoking crack," says Sonja Singleton, who works with the University of Miami's Health Crisis Network. "And now they're infected." It turns out that the women get infected by having sex in exchange for the high-grade crack cocaine. "Every crack house has an extra room for sex," sighs Singleton. "There are only two things that go on in crack houses - drugs and sex." But if you notice... it's the sex that's spreading AIDS. Crack is simply the motivation for the sex. So once again, it's promiscuity, not drug use, that's spreading AIDS. posted by Tiefling |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dark Star: Magic Johnson Magic Johnson has no AIDS, as far as I know. He was merely tested HIV positive. Big difference. Please also note that the test conducted in 1991 was prone to test top athletes "positive". But that's another story. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tiefling: (1) Smoking crack doesn't increase your chance of getting AIDS. Period. If you have proof otherwise (NOT JUST A CORRELATION), provide it. Wrong. Smoking crack doesn't increase your chance to get HIV infected. But smoking crack increases your chance to develop AIDS. Tiefling: (3) What is wrong with including prostitutes in the heterosexual category? Because I am not a prostitute. If you include all kinds of risk groups into the heterosex category you are blanatly distort the picture for the NORMAL+HEALTHY+HETERO+NON-DRUG group of people. Why is that so hard to get? Show me please the statistic that shows how many healthy+non-drug heterosexuals got AIDS. Tiefling: The data don't make any claims. It's you that's subjectively claiming that not everyone can get AIDS. You have no facts to backup your statement. I never ever claimed that. Tiefling: It turns out that the women get infected by having sex in exchange for the high-grade crack cocaine. "Every crack house has an extra room for sex Let me repeat again: Such drugging, poverty-prostitutes are subsummed into the "heterosex category". Sorry, but I want statistics that apply to me. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tiefling: What is wrong with including prostitutes in the heterosexual category? It's the same thing as with including children in the children category. ALthough it is technically correct it completely distorts the picture, since many of these children are children born by drugging/prostituting mothers. Thus these stats are worthless until accurately split into "risk groups" and "non-risk groups". posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Because of this favoritism or bias of the dominant media, the facts about homosexuality often come as an unpleasant surprise to a lot of people. But our goal is not to hurt or upset anybody. All we want to do is present facts.
One fact the dominant media is censoring or ignoring is that the anal cancer rate for male homosexuals is way above normal, maybe as high as 50 times normal, according to a 1982 study ... 1) 80% of syphilitic patients are homosexual; 2) about 33% of homosexuals are infected with active anorectal herpes simplex viruses; 3) chlamydia infects 15% of homosexuals; and 4) "a host of parasites, bacterial, viral, and protozoan are all rampant in the homosexual population." Another study found that: 1) amoebiasis, a parasitic disease, afflicts around 32% of homosexuals; 2) giardiasis, also a parasitic disease, afflicts 14% of homosexuals (NO heterosexuals in the study were found to have either amoebiasis or giardiasis); 3) gonorrhea afflicts 14% of homosexuals; and 4) 11% of homosexuals had anal warts. According to another study, anorectal sepsis, a potentially toxic bacterial infection, is four times more common in homosexual than heterosexual men. And another study found that the "prevalence of EBV type 2 among homosexual men was significantly higher than it was among heterosexual men (39% vs. 6%)." (EBV type 2 is the Epstein-Barr type 2 virus, which virus causes infectious mononucleosis and is associated with two types of cancer: Burkitt's lymphoma and nasopharyngeal carcinoma.) And other studies have found abnormally high rates of hepatitis B infection, prostate cancer, colitis, enteritis, proctitis, and proctocolitis in homosexual men. An article in the pro-homosexual New York Times noted that a young male homosexual has about a 50% chance of getting H.I.V. by middle age and that the incidence of gonorrhea among homosexual men rose 74% between 1993 and 1996. A recent study by the Chicago Department of Public Health found that the percentage of Chicago AIDS diagnoses connected to homo/bisexual men increased from 37% in year 2000 to 44% in 2003; and the study also found that homo/bisexual men accounted for approximately 60% of Chicago syphilis cases. There seems to be something very unhealthy when living a homosexual LIFE STYLE. I say life style (rather than "homo-sex"), because I want to include behaviour like promiscuity and drugs (poppers). Discuss... posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dark Star: Why Africa aside? It clearly proves that heterosexuals can very readily contract AIDS. Is it because that doesn't jibe with your argument? I posted the reasons, why I leave Africa aside above. Please read my posts. Moreover I simply don't care about social groups that are as far away as they could from my own social group. I don't care about caries in eskimo tribes. And I don't care about illnesses 500 years ago in Europe, where people had no toilets and lived with rats. And I don't care about AIDS in underdeveloped places like parts of Africa, where they have 1 telephone per 100 square kilometers. In Africa they have several endemies at a time and they have a mortality of 90% where Europeans/USAnians have 10%. If you count African statistics into the worldwide statistics you completely distort the results. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
volonteshiva: 15% of new cases isn't the majority by any means, but it's still an appreciabe number. Well, amongst these 15% there are heavy drug users and people who simply won't admit that they had homosex and that they injected drugs. So even these 15% melt further down. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
volonteshiva: Plus that 500,000 is of reported cases through 2001. It's it estimated to really be btw 800,000 and 900,000. Please note that the 800'000 cases are "HIV tests positives". The number of AIDS death cases is approximately 50x lower. It is approx. 15'000 per year. How ineffective AIDS tests are is another story, but I just wanted to throw that in. So in other words: 15'000 deaths -> 15% heterosexuals -> 7% heterosexuals of your gender -> 3.5% of your race -> 2% told the truth (= are REALLY non-injecting heteros) -> 300 deaths (of guys similar to you) in the whole US. Approx 1 AIDS death (of a guy similar to you) per year somewhere near your neighbourhood (unless you are in a risk group) And that's even without subtracting all those druggies and prostitutes... posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
knn: There seems to be something very unhealthy when living a homosexual LIFE STYLE. I say life style (rather than "homo-sex"), because I want to include behaviour like promiscuity and drugs (poppers).
Discuss... I would add that we probably shouldn't blanket all of homosexuals into one set. There are many today that don't lead a dangerous, promiscuous lifestyle. Many are monogomous and disease-free, especially in light of how much HIV/AIDS has affected the gay community. Also geographical locating matters as well as an urban vs rural setting to some degree... So the hard to stat to find/generate/trust is how many homosexuals are infected? Have the number of cases lowered in the past decade or so? posted by volonteshiva |
|||
|
|||
|
The time now is 9 January 2009, 22:55 php B.B. |