21-05-2004 19:54									#151
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Even Mr. Fun thinks Adam Smith is right with the numbers, and HE'S ON YOUR SIDE!

Since when was Mr. Fun's opinion a barameter for correctness? Doesn't it work the other way?

And he's not on my side, his position is ridiculous as most social-science positions are. The issue is with facts and statistical risk, not with being PC like he wants. His position and opinion is worthless for this debate.

quote: There is no one here that has come to your defense, while many who were outraged have said "Adam Smith makes a good case" (monkspider) or something similar. That ought to tell you something.

You're seriously using monkspider and Mr. Fun as "proof' that the vacuous statements Adam Smith is making are correct?

Why don't you think for yourself for a bit.

	21-05-2004 19:56									#152
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

When people who are on your side, agree with your opponent, while no one is agreeing with you (except for the final what is to be done) that is a sign of PWNage. The fact of the matter is that you haven't convinced anyone, but AS has most definetly.

	21-05-2004 19:57									#153
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui When people who are on your side, agree with your opponent, while no one is agreeing with you (except for the final what is to be done) that is a sign of PWNage. The fact of the matter is that you haven't convinced anyone, but AS has most definetly.

MrFun and Monkspider are NOT on my side. MrFun may be gay, but he's also a whacked Christian and a history major, and is easily overwhelmed in debates and caves to be polite.

Monkspider is just...erm...special.

Why don't you actually answer the questions I've posed, rather than ignoring them and trying to break my spirits so I quit? You know that doesn't work on me.

Answer my questions, otherwise drop the pom-poms and go back to watching the Devils play.

I also don't gauge my opinions and beliefs on what's popular or who's agreeing with me (which apparently you do, because I honestly don't think you even read most of this debate). I think for myself and make opinions myself, whether or not 99% of Poly agrees or disagrees with me is irrelevant.

	21-05-2004 20:01									#154
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

I think the fact that you and AS both refuse to address the most pertinent issues, and instead rely on ad hominem-like attacks, says more about how the debate is going than what MrFun's opinion is.

	21-05-2004 20:07									#155
	Increase Your PM Length

Someone kill Asher for me the next time he babbles on about "tests will be made anyway"?

Get this into your head: Tests can and will fail. People will be infected by HIV from blood and sperm donations as long as such are carried out.

Now, if you share my belief that donations are to serve the recipients, not the donators, the goal clearly should be to get the needed amounts of donations and those as safely as possible, to minimize the numbers infected. If reaching those goals are best met by excluding black people with the letter 'j' in their middle name, fine by me (I do recognize that some exclusions would be politically impossible, but discluding gays clearly isn't).

You, OTOH, seem to believe that donations are some sort of affirmation of the human worth of the donators. I'm sorry, but I find that a rather sick view.

Last edited by Last Conformist on 21-05-2004 at 20:14

	21-05-2004 20:13									#156
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Last Conformist Someone kill Asher for me the next time he babbles on about "tests will be made anyway"? Get this into your head: Tests can and will fail. People will be infected by HIV from blood and sperm donations as long as such are carried out. Now, if you share my belief that donations are to serve the recipients, not the donators, the goal clearly should be to get the needed amounts of donations and those as safely as possible. If reaching those goals are best met by excluding black people with the letter 'j' in their middle name, fine by me (I do recognize that some exclusions would be politically impossible, but discluding gays clearly isn't). You, OTOH, seem to believe that donations are some sort of affirmation of the human worth of the donators. I'm sorry, but I find that a rather sick view.

I also find it a rather blatant strawman, but whatever.

Perhaps in your world, you can make it so only that straight, white men can donate. Women have a higher rate than men, and blacks have a rate about 5x higher than whites, but I don't consider that acceptable.

You seem to be under the impression that there's an abundance of people donating blood. Over here at least, there's almost always a shortage, and continually restricting who can donate based on stereotypes is ridiculous.

Ask who has had unprotected sex, not which gender they have sex with.

I find your view rather sick, where we can freely discriminate based on stereotypes in an area that constantly is asking for more people to donate.

	21-05-2004 20:13									#157
	Increase the size of your Attachments

If it'll shut you up:

http://www.cdc.gov/od/oc/media/pressrel/r020710.htm

quote: In a large CDC study, conducted in sexually transmitted disease (STD) clinics in five major U.S. cities, researchers found the rate of new HIV infections among men who have sex with men (MSM) to be nine times higher than among women and heterosexual men.

So now you can be officially PWNED. Not only have your 'allies' backed the other horse, but you were dead wrong on the stats.

	21-05-2004 20:14									#158
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui If it'll shut you up: http://www.cdc.gov/od/oc/media/pressrel/r020710.htm quote: In a large CDC study, conducted in sexually transmitted disease (STD) clinics in five major U.S. cities, researchers found the rate of new HIV infections among men who have sex with men (MSM) to be nine times higher than among women and heterosexual men. So now you can be officially PWNED. Not only have your 'allies' backed the other horse, but you were dead wrong on the stats.

I already know it's higher, I've said that repeatedly.

But it's still ridiculously small to ban the entire minority, which is the issue.

As I thought, you haven't been reading this thread.

In order to be "dead wrong' compared to women and heterosexual men, wouldn't I have had to say that gays had a lower infection rate than them? Which I certainly did not.

Try reading before responding next time.

	21-05-2004 20:17									#159
	Increase Your PM Length

Also, from you link:

quote: Other research has also shown higher infection rates among MSM of color compared to white MSM. For example, a CDC study of young MSM, ages 23 to 29 in six U.S. cities, found that African-American MSM had an annual infection rate of 14.7 percent, compared to 2.5 percent among whites.

So why is sexuality the only factor, not race?

	21-05-2004 20:21									#160
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

So much fury over masterbating into a cup.

	21-05-2004 20:22									#161
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

There's something fishy about those numbers, I think.

If 4.8% of gay men are infected annually, and there are 14.5M gay men, that means 696,000 gay men are infected annually.

Edit: Looking at the study, I don't think it's a good source to use: the numbers are based on "high risk" patients, not the entire country on average, which is why the figures are f*cked. It was a nice try though, Imran.

	21-05-2004 20:30									#162
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Asher I also find it a rather blatant strawman, but whatever.

If that's no your view (and note I never claimed it was), then care to tell what is your view.

quote: Perhaps in your world, you can make it so only that straight, white men can donate. Women have a higher rate than men, and blacks have a rate about 5x higher than whites, but I don't consider that acceptable.

I've gathered that.

quote: You seem to be under the impression that there's an abundance of people donating blood. Over here at least, there's almost always a shortage, and continually restricting who can donate based on stereotypes is ridiculous.

In case you've not noticed, I'm talking principles here, not practical implementation. Anyway:

With blood it's pretty clear-cut - it's better taking a somewhat higher risk to infect someone with HIV than letting them die from blood loss, so if there's a shortage, it makes sense to take in higher-risk categories of donators. (Of course, we may indeed see political limits as to what the public will accept.)

With semen it's trickier - no-one needs a donation like you may need a blood transfusion. But we can't very well allow the recipient to accept to chose whatever level or risk she's ready to accept, because if things go wrong, it's the taxpayers that are gonna pay for her treatment. I guess the best solution would be to define a societally acceptable level of risk, and if there aren't enough donors below that level, well tough luck for the would-be recipients.

quote: Ask who has had unprotected sex, not which gender they have sex with.

Ask both.

quote: I find your view rather sick, where we can freely discriminate based on stereotypes in an area that constantly is asking for more people to donate.

I've explained why I find discrimination acceptable in this area, while you, near as I can tell, have not why you don't, beyond hinting it's not because of a right to donate.

The discrimination against gays, BTW, does have a grounding in epidemological facts.

	21-05-2004 20:32									#163
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Try reading before responding next time.

I did. Obviously you haven't. The question is who is a high risk. If you are 9 times more likely to get a disease than the majority of people, then you are a high risk! This isn't hard to understand. Even if it is under 1% it is still 9 times higher than the average.

quote: So why is sexuality the only factor, not race?

And you lecture ME on reading?

African-American MSM

So yes black gay guys definetly shouldn't be donating. Also you still haven't paid attention to the fact that blacks also have a higher percentage of drug users. So saying that being black itself leads to higher risk AIDS is ignorant if you don't discount IV drug users.

	21-05-2004 20:34									#164
	Inflate your Upload Space

And if you don't like that number, try this one from a pro-homosexual site:

http://www.homohealth.org/taskforce/manifesto.htm

quote: one in seven Gay, Bisexual, and other men who have sex with men are infected with HIV.

(Psst... I think they are talking about all gay men here and not 'high risk' patients).

	21-05-2004 21:59									#165
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

One in 7 sexually-active gay men have HIV? Bloody hell...

Although I thought about the stats for those with AIDS that I posted earlier and came to a similar conclusion: that the problem is far greater than I initially thought. It may indeed be justified to ban donations from gay men given these statistics, although I still think only those who have unprotected sex should be banned.

	21-05-2004 22:10									#166
	Got spare money?

Just dropping a few statistics here...

quote: Of new infections among men in the United States, CDC estimates that approximately 60 percent of men were infected through homosexual sex, 25 percent through injection drug use, and 15 percent through heterosexual sex. Of newly infected men, approximately 50 percent are black, 30 percent are white, 20 percent are Hispanic, and a small percentage are members of other racial/ethnic groups.

Source: http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/aidsstat.htm

Attachment source: http://www.cdc.gov/nchstp/od/hiv_plan/
(or more specifically http://www.cdc.gov/nchstp/od/hiv_pl...0With%20Men.htm)

I'd like to agree with Asher, but well, I just don't know really. In any case, as Last Conformist said, the donations are to serve the recipients, not the donators. But I guess it also depends on how accurate the tests are, and what other factors could reduce the risk. Like only allowing those who claim to have had only protected sex. I'm not sure how that would change the statistics.

	21-05-2004 22:56									#167
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui And if you don't like that number, try this one from a pro-homosexual site: http://www.homohealth.org/taskforce/manifesto.htm quote: one in seven Gay, Bisexual, and other men who have sex with men are infected with HIV. (Psst... I think they are talking about all gay men here and not 'high risk' patients).

That's f*cking bullshit, I know LOTS of gay people and I don't know of ANY with HIV.

It's pretty obvious that site is intended to scare many gays into getting tested, since they don't even cite a source for that outrageous number.

Have you no bullshit detector, Imran?

	21-05-2004 23:01									#168
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui I did. Obviously you haven't. The question is who is a high risk. If you are 9 times more likely to get a disease than the majority of people, then you are a high risk! This isn't hard to understand. Even if it is under 1% it is still 9 times higher than the average.

Higher than average does not equate high risk, Imran.

By your logic, if 1 in 1,000,000,000 people has a disease and is white, and 5 in 1,000,000,000 people have a disease and are brown, brown people are "high risk". In actuality, both are low risk, and combined with tests that are 99.99% accurate, I think it's not appropriate to ban them.

quote: So yes black gay guys definetly shouldn't be donating. Also you still haven't paid attention to the fact that blacks also have a higher percentage of drug users. So saying that being black itself leads to higher risk AIDS is ignorant if you don't discount IV drug users.

So we're going to play with stereotypes, but only selectively? Isn't the gay stereotype promiscuous sex AND drugs?

Why do you constantly bring up blacks using IV drugs, and not gays? Do you think no gays use IV drugs?

	21-05-2004 23:02									#169
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Mercator Just dropping a few statistics here... quote: Of new infections among men in the United States, CDC estimates that approximately 60 percent of men were infected through homosexual sex, 25 percent through injection drug use, and 15 percent through heterosexual sex. Of newly infected men, approximately 50 percent are black, 30 percent are white, 20 percent are Hispanic, and a small percentage are members of other racial/ethnic groups.

This is why I don't get why the gay "community" is being singled out -- the black "community" is also "high risk" if we're going to assign everything higher than a straight, white male the label of "high risk" like Imran and AS do so conveniently.

	21-05-2004 23:03									#170
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Why do you constantly bring up blacks using IV drugs, and not gays? Do you think no gays use IV drugs?

*points to Mercator's graph... especially the difference in IDU and MSM & IDU sections*

	21-05-2004 23:05									#171
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui *points to Mercator's graph... especially the difference in IDU and MSM & IDU sections*

Not saying they're the same, but they're sizable in both.

	21-05-2004 23:11									#172
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Another major issue: the VAST majority of HIV infections come from dumbasses who have unprotected sex.

That's another reason I don't get why they have to ask sexuality: if you have had unprotected sex, you're not eligable. Because of the lack of risk of pregnancy, a lot of gay men are incredibly stupid and have unprotected sex, which is why the HIV infection rate is so damn high.

If you're going to conveniently ignore black injection drug users, why won't you do the same for the vast majority of gay people infected that have had unprotected sex? If you ask the question 'have you used injection drugs' and the question 'have you had unprotected sex' you take care of both, without resorting to stereotyping one's sexuality.

I, for one, am monogamous and have also been tested, and know I'm negative, yet I'm not permitted to give blood, even though I'm Type A and a universal donor. And I can't give blood because of blanket stereotypes like this that you're trying to casually support.

Similarly, I've signed my organ donor card, but because I'm gay, they can't use them (I found out afterwards). So if I die and leave perfectly healthy organs, people will die waiting for other ones because of another blanket stereotype.

	22-05-2004 00:09									#173
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Asher Higher than average does not equate high risk, Imran. By your logic, if 1 in 1,000,000,000 people has a disease and is white, and 5 in 1,000,000,000 people have a disease and are brown, brown people are "high risk". In actuality, both are low risk, and combined with tests that are 99.99% accurate, I think it's not appropriate to ban them.

I don't want to wade into the larger arguement here, but this is just ugly use of logic and statistics. I don't care what the actual percentages are - all other things being equal, if someone says you have a choice between drug A and drug B, but drug B is five times more likely to have serious side effects, how often are you really going to opt for drug B?

Again, continue to argue this issue on other grounds, I'm just saying that this line of reasoning is rediculous.

	22-05-2004 00:13									#174
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Kontiki I don't want to wade into the larger arguement here, but this is just ugly use of logic and statistics. I don't care what the actual percentages are - all other things being equal, if someone says you have a choice between drug A and drug B, but drug B is five times more likely to have serious side effects, how often are you really going to opt for drug B? Again, continue to argue this issue on other grounds, I'm just saying that this line of reasoning is rediculous.

But that was not the argument. Of course you'd prefer to have the one with the least amount of serious side effects, but if that's the logic we used, only heterosexual men above the age of 50 would be able to donate blood or sperm.

The point here is it's ridiculous to claim something is "high risk" when it's still an incredibly low risk. "higher risk" and 'high risk' are not synonymous, despite what Imran and AS think.

	22-05-2004 00:57									#175
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Asher But that was not the argument. Of course you'd prefer to have the one with the least amount of serious side effects, but if that's the logic we used, only heterosexual men above the age of 50 would be able to donate blood or sperm. The point here is it's ridiculous to claim something is "high risk" when it's still an incredibly low risk. "higher risk" and 'high risk' are not synonymous, despite what Imran and AS think.

Hmmm...I would think that the point is that there are other confounding variables, not where you personally draw the line between "acceptable" and "unacceptable" risk.

	22-05-2004 00:59									#176
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Kontiki Hmmm...I would think that the point is that there are other confounding variables, not where you personally draw the line between "acceptable" and "unacceptable" risk.

If there are other confounding variables, why is it that AS and Imran want to simplify it into gay versus not-gay?

	22-05-2004 01:09									#177
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

I dunno. I'm just saying that arguing X percentage risk is acceptable is stupid, and that's one of the points you're trying make.

	22-05-2004 01:09									#178
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Kontiki I dunno. I'm just saying that arguing X percentage risk is acceptable is stupid, and that's one of the points you're trying make.

So no risk is ever acceptable?

	22-05-2004 01:17									#179
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Asher So no risk is ever acceptable?

That's not the point. Why are you being delibertately obtuse?

	22-05-2004 01:20									#180
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Kontiki That's not the point. Why are you being delibertately obtuse?

Let's go through this.

You said:

quote: I'm just saying that arguing X percentage risk is acceptable is stupid, and that's one of the points you're trying make.

Which means that there is no set risk that is ever acceptable.

So how can you say there is any acceptable risk if you reject the notion of saying you can set an acceptable risk level?

If you can't set an acceptable risk level as acceptable, then you either don't look at the risk level (any level is acceptable), or you say no risk level is acceptable (therefore, no risk is ever acceptable).

Which is it?