I haven’t seen such knee-jerk “Chicken Little” responses to any and every action taken by a President…well, since Ken Starr.
So nice to see that you are at least consistent.
Twisting facts and studies to support whatever piece of propaganda hqppens to be floating around in your head.
Please provide cites if you wish to declare that Aids among Gay men is declining. When you are done with that, cites concerning infection rates among IV drug users, homosexuals, those needing transfusions and heterosexuals will be useful to support your other assertions.
Dear Hypocrite:
You have ignored any and all previous cites. Now you want me to provide more cites just so you can wave your lily white hand and dismiss them? Go back to your heterosexual world of privelege and keep telling yourself how you are always right and those silly homosexuals are always wrong.
**
I’m sure he’ll flame you. I won’t. He’s quite right however.
in a five-year study ending in 1994, AIDS rates among black gay men increased 31 percent, 39 percent among Latinos, while declining 31 percent among white gay men.
The majority of gay men are white. I don’t really feel like doing the rest of your work for you.
I’d be interested to see what percentage of people who have HIV contracted it because of their behavior (unprotected sex or IV drug use) vs something out of their control (blood transfusion or whatever else) Anyone have any stats on that? I imagine that the vast majority of HIV transmission is a result of behavioral choices. I could easily be wrong here, but I’d like to see.
From the CDC website, their statistics show:
In 1997, there were 17,649 cases of HIV diagnosed in white males.
In 1998 there were 10,236 cases diagnosed.
In 1999, there were 8,338 cases diagnosed.
The reported cases for white males and other ethnicities have been dropping substantially since 1990.
I guess you’re right. That’s why they don’t list sluts and IV drug users as groups with a higher risk of contracting HIV. Oh wait a second…they do.
Marc
{sigh}
Could everyone please just wear a condom?
Thank you.
Esprix
Hastur quotes from CDC data:
Except that these numbers are only the number of cases reported to the CDC, which is some fraction of the number of cases diagnosed, which itself is some fraction of the cases which occur.
That the fractions mentioned above are substantially different than 1 is supported by the study cited by neutron star indicates that 71% of men found to be HIV positive did NOT know that they were infected. Thus the CDC figures above significantly underestimate the actual incidence of new infections. The trend exhibited may or may not be valid, depending on whether the fractions of infected individauls diagnosed, and of diagnosed cases reported to the CDC were constant through the reporting period.
Its the best data we had, though, which is the real shame. The infection rates found by the recent study are higher than even most of the worst-case scenarios had projected.
Unless I’m mistaken, we have only argued on one other thread, and you only offered one cite where we differed on it’s interpretation.
Your cite offered no numbers, percentages or any direct claims to support your assertions.
No, I want you to take your limp wristed faggot hand and start making some sense instead of demonizing all the evil people who are straight.
ooo that’s right. For a straight person to refer to you as a limp wristed faggot would come off as ignorant and INTOLERANT, while your comments about lily white hands and assumption of privelege are just calling it as it is.
Thank you for making my point once again, that you are intolerant. But…this is the Pit, so fire away as you see fit.
Finally.
A real cite from you. Now we can talk.
Yes, Aids among gay men is declining. However, your link shows that among ALL cases, new Aids cases arising from blood transfusion is about 1%.
(mouthbreather - your answer is on this link)
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats/hasr1201/table6.htm
To deny that individual irresponsibility is not to blame for the vast majority of these cases is itself irresponsible.
You want to shoot up heroin?
Fine, then get your own needle.
You want to sleep with hundreds of people?[sub]Is it hundreds yet esprix?[/sub]
Fine, then use a condom.
I have no anti-gay agenda to drive home Hastur, it’s just plain old dislike for your bigotry and intolerance that bugs me.
oldscratch
Thanks for not flaming me. I’ll return the favor. My post was not cited for the simple reasons that this is the Pit, I wasn’t the one making assertions, I was continuing a previous “feud,” and I was more interested in throwing around trouble than I was argueing a point.
Another poster or another forum, and my whole post would have been different. But this was Hastur in the Pit.
[channeling handy]
But condoms don’t protect you against HPV, the virus that causes genital warts and accounts for X% of cases of cervical cancer.
[/channeling handy]
**
disclaimer – I am not using a calculator, but my math will be pretty accurate for the purpose of this discussion. If you have beef with my numbers, get a calculator and do it yourself.
From the CDC link, we see that out of the roughly 90,000 adults who have a discernable reason how they contracted HIV between 7/99 and 6/00, only about 1250 of them contracted it through a blood transfusion or because of hemophelia/coagulation disorder. That’s less than 2%, actually closer to 1% (It’s curious that rape isn’t listed there, but I can only go by the info they give)
So that means that greater than 98% of these HIV cases were because of behavioral activites. Unsafe sex and shooting smack.
No, Hastur, it’s not just sluts (I don’t even like your choice of words. One can have sex one time – that doesn’t make that person a slut, but that can get a person HIV. ) and junkies who get HIV. But the overwhelming majority of new cases of HIV infections are contracted by “sluts and junkies”. That being the case, I don’t think that MGibson’s comments:
were out of line at all.
And Sue Duhnym, too goddammed funny.
Let’s see how a mod feels about this.
That was not only uncalled for, it is a slur. A hateful slur that shows exactly how homophobic you are. You want to be superior? Try taking the moral high road. You never do that. In all your threads you viciously attack those you disagree with and ignore their cites in lieu of making fun of them and heaping derision on them.
In this culture, the assmuption of privelege for a white male is not a far cry off. White men, even lower class white men, exist in a protected status which elevates them above other races and their opposite gender.
Calling me a limp wristed faggot is not only incorrect, it is a hate based slur.
I came in here thinking that I could rant and rave about the sorry news story about the AIDS and Race offices in the White House.
What kinda a shit did I find at the end of this thread?
Oh, for christ sakes. This sort of messages on SDMB is almost as stupid as Sharon’s declaration that Jerusalem is Israeli. Both of you shut the fuck up.
And this:
…is the epitome of tolerance and acceptance? Heterophobe.
SPOOFE? Does your pea brain not comprehend the difference between a racist, or homophobic slur and something not being the pinacle of tolerance, politeness, and acceptance.
Jesus Fucking Christ on a Crapper.
Oh, I recognize it. It’s just my Oh-So-Humble Opinion that Hastur is a hot-head who throws around the word “homophobe” too easily.
I do not find Freedom’s post homophobic. I find it a means of showing an example. His post following the line that Hastur quoted indicated that. While I don’t condone his words, I find that Hastur started that exchange, not Freedom.
Go fuck yourself, and we’ll make it a hundred and one.
I do, thank you very much, and remain HIV-.
To reiterate to everyone - please wear a condom.
Thank you.
Esprix
Oh… my… god!!
To make the true statement that heterosexuals are privileged in our society is heterophobic?
But telling Hastur directly to “take [his] limp wristed faggot hand and start making some sense” is not homophobic?
My god, when did we declare today Opposite Day? I can understand you may not have that much experience as a victim of prejudice, Spoofe, but calice, can’t you recognize fairly obvious hate speech when you read it?
Boy, am I sorry I started this thread, as it turns out the AP story I based it on was wrong in the first place.
As it has degenerated from decrying Bush’s lack of concern about AID and race relations into a straight/gay food fight, would one of the mods please close it down? Anyone who wishes to continue their arguments are more than welcome to open their own—more aptly-titled—Pit thread.