Samuraikoku wrote: I don't believe male homosexuals are any more prone to other group to contract HIV.
According to the statistical data your belief is erroneous.
Advertisement
by Cthag-antil » Mon Jul 18, 2011 7:57 am
Samuraikoku wrote: I don't believe male homosexuals are any more prone to other group to contract HIV.
by Daircoill » Mon Jul 18, 2011 8:02 am
by Furious Grandmothers » Mon Jul 18, 2011 8:06 am
Why?Cthag-antil wrote:Furious Grandmothers wrote:Admittedly, I have not been following the argument of you two (mind giving me a quick update if you wanna let me into the argument?), but even if 99% of the things that I bought for my room are brightly colored, logic and critical reasoning tells me that the proportion of brightly colored things I bought for my room has NO bearing at all on the probability that the next item I buy for my room will be brightly colored. I have 99% chance of finding an object in my room that I bought to be brightly colored. However, the probability does not carry over into what you do in the future. It is only relevant to the PRESENT set of items you bought for your room.
It does have bearing on what you will buy obviously...
No. You are assuming too much that a pattern that occurred in the past will continue to recur into the future.Cthag-antil wrote:compared to me you are more likely to buy coloured things than I am...and that likelihood can be calculated as a probability.
By extension of the above analogy, this is false. That something has been happening in the past doesn't mean it will continue to happen into the future. Circumstances constantly evolve, nullifying the predicative power of probability. Moreover, the contexts of each and every person, or for the purposes of your argument, gay person, are very different.Cthag-antil wrote:
So homosexual males whom contract HIV more readily than any other demographic...show that demographic to be more vulnerable to HIV infection than other demographics...thus the next gay male I meet has a higher chance (probability) of being HIV positive than the next gay female I meet.
Cthag-antil wrote:
What is it about this simple concept that you all find so terribly difficult to understand?
by The Alma Mater » Mon Jul 18, 2011 9:31 am
by Samuraikoku » Mon Jul 18, 2011 9:31 am
by Ifreann » Mon Jul 18, 2011 9:37 am
by Furious Grandmothers » Mon Jul 18, 2011 9:51 am
Ifreann wrote:Cthag-antil wrote:
According to the statistical data your belief is erroneous.
Not really, no. As I've said before, correlation doesn't imply causation. If there is a greater proportion of homosexuals who are HIV positive than heterosexuals, that doesn't mean that being homosexual somehow makes you more prone to HIV infection. There are such things as coincidences, you know.
by Cthag-antil » Mon Jul 18, 2011 2:48 pm
Ifreann wrote:Cthag-antil wrote:
According to the statistical data your belief is erroneous.
Not really, no. As I've said before, correlation doesn't imply causation. If there is a greater proportion of homosexuals who are HIV positive than heterosexuals, that doesn't mean that being homosexual somehow makes you more prone to HIV infection. There are such things as coincidences, you know.
by Cthag-antil » Mon Jul 18, 2011 2:48 pm
Furious Grandmothers wrote:Ifreann wrote:Not really, no. As I've said before, correlation doesn't imply causation. If there is a greater proportion of homosexuals who are HIV positive than heterosexuals, that doesn't mean that being homosexual somehow makes you more prone to HIV infection. There are such things as coincidences, you know.
Somewhat related to my point, which Cthag-antil doesn't seem to be getting too.
by Cthag-antil » Mon Jul 18, 2011 2:50 pm
by Cthag-antil » Mon Jul 18, 2011 2:56 pm
by Ceannairceach » Mon Jul 18, 2011 2:57 pm
by Vermmeria » Mon Jul 18, 2011 2:59 pm
Gravonia wrote:I'm against it myself as I prefer women.
Everyone else can marry whoever the fuck they like as far as I'm concerned.
by Cthag-antil » Mon Jul 18, 2011 3:00 pm
Ceannairceach wrote:What does all this HIV talk have to do with gay marriage?
by New Lusitaniagrad » Mon Jul 18, 2011 3:00 pm
by Cthag-antil » Mon Jul 18, 2011 3:01 pm
by Ceannairceach » Mon Jul 18, 2011 3:03 pm
by Cthag-antil » Mon Jul 18, 2011 3:05 pm
Mizuni wrote:Any union between two or more consenting adults should be legal.
by Cthag-antil » Mon Jul 18, 2011 3:07 pm
by Terra Mariana » Mon Jul 18, 2011 3:09 pm
by Ceannairceach » Mon Jul 18, 2011 3:10 pm
by Cthag-antil » Mon Jul 18, 2011 3:10 pm
Terra Mariana wrote:Page 141 and still no conclusion. Guess that's what these forums are for...
I think gay marriage is wrong for the simple reason that man is not supposed to be another man's wife. That's what women are for. Likewise, a man is not supposed to bang another man in the rear (or a girl do another girl), because that's why there is an opposite sex. Everything is supposed to be in harmonious opposites (yin/yang), and in the animal kingdom, those creatures that for whatever reason break this principle suffer the penalty of not passing their genes to the new generation.
There, said it. Hope this stirs up a fuss, otherwise it looks the action has died down a bit.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Bovad, DataDyneIrkenAlliance, Eragon Island, Kostane, New-Minneapolis, Plan Neonie, The Jamesian Republic, Uiiop
Advertisement