Judge outlaws prison group's Bible program

that probably is skewed due to basically the whole african continent, where it was a traditional believe that sleeping with a virgin can cure you of illness (read HIV) so they would rape girls which has facilitated the spread on the continent. (this is what i heard awhile ago, and at present i can't find the source article again, will edit and post it later when i find it)

No, I'm talking about here in US. These are statistics for "African Americans," not "Africans."

(p.s. you're right about that going on in Africa. Other problems with HIV in Africa is the christian religion of choice there being catholicism, which means christian africa is very much against contraception and condoms, and gung-ho for "abstinence only." At least the politicians are. Lot of good it did them though.)

ok so you have heard that as well, whew i thought i was going crazier. and sorry i misinterpreted your original post

I see the problem. You can't look at a single statement and evaluate its truth based on logic and the facts. Good luck making progress in any thread.

Maybe it's just me, but I like to get the facts straight first. Then I'll make policy decisions based on those facts. If we don't care about the facts, then let's just use the bible, it's as good a mythology as any.

Groucho, you're an anus.

But, what I'm assuming you claimed, that gay men are more succeptible to HIV, being a fact, is in fact not a fact...

I agree with your premise. If we are going to discriminate against gays based on the HIV statistics, then we should also discriminate against poor heterosexual african american women.

But it's unsound to propose discrimination against all blacks. We should limit it to the poor heterosexual women.

Oh, and I thnk I can safely speak for Musuko here when I say "Why do you hate poor black women, Rasah? Is it fair for you to group them all together with your fancy 'statistics'?"

Sigh. What possible rationale do you have for saying this? Are you talking "genetically susceptible" or "more susceptible than a Nigerian hooker" or what?

This is just crazy.

Because "they are all cadilac driving, society-sucking, moneygrubbing, welfare mothers?" The same way that all gay people are butt pounding, straight marriage detroying, immoral sodomites. You claim one, you might as well claim the other. No, I don't have anything against black people or... welll... myself in the second case. Just wanted to point out that people claimining Gays <-> HIV are wrong.

I came in late into this conversation (missed out on about a day yesterday), so I was just repying to what I assumed were your words, which were the following:

"Once again, the assertion is (loosely put):

Gay men are more likely to be HIV+ than straight men and a gay man who is not HIV+ is more likely to become HIV+ than a straight man.

And it still stands."

I don't know if you meant it or not. If that's what you are saying, then I was pointing out that straight black men and women were more likely to be HIV+ than anyone else, including gay men. If you were reffering to someone else's assertion, then I apologize, this was aimed at them. Just making sure people know the... well... best guesses based on researched statistics, if not facts.

No, because of the HIV statistics.


Hey, it was your suggestion. I just agreed that you got it right.


Address your complaints to Musuko, then. If you think that poor heterosexual african-american women are at a higher risk of contracting HIV then you obviously do have a problem with them. That's what statistics and "grouping" people together imply. Musuko, will be glad to elaborate on his novel theory.

So I can't say Gays <-> HIV, but you can say "poor heterosexual african-american women" <-> HIV ?

You only think discrimination is an issue when it discriminates against you?

Ahh, so it was the "more susceptible than a Nigerian hooker" alternative.

Hard to argue with that kind of logic.

For the record, I'd rather get my blood transfusion from a random gay American than a Nigerian hooker.

on the assertion of gay men and anal sex - i did point out there are potentially other factors that could explain the higher incidence. Such as the fact that its partually insulated smaller community (gay men tend to have sex primarily with other gay men) and the fact that Aids has been in that community longest.

Therefore extrapolating whether Anal sex is the sole factor as to why they have a higher incidence in the US is more difficult then you seem to suggest.

No, you can't say Gays <-> HIV, because at present, GayHIV < PoorBlackHIV. So when I say "poor heterosexual african-american women" <-> HIV, I mean is as in a correction that no, gays are not the most succeptible group to HIV, that other group is. So please don't lable AIDS as GRIDS. It hasn't been for a very very long time now. I also don't have a problem with black people. I DO have a problem with some of them being poor, uneducated, and lacking means of preventing HIV. That's not their fault though (well, not entirely anyway), it's the fault of their society, surroundings, politicians, and our humanity as a whole.

No, you can't say Gays <-> HIV, because at present, GayHIV < PoorBlackHIV. So when I say "poor heterosexual african-american women" <-> HIV, I mean is as in a correction that no, gays are not the most succeptible group to HIV, that other group is. So please don't lable AIDS as GRIDS. It hasn't been for a very very long time now. I also don't have a problem with black people. I DO have a problem with some of them being poor, uneducated, and lacking means of preventing HIV. That's not entirely their fault though, it's the fault of their society, surroundings, politicians, and our humanity as a whole.

I never said anything about anal sex being the sole factor. It is certainly a factor and helps to explain why the statistics are reasonable. There are many reasons for the correlation I made between gay men and HIV, some of them have been covered in this thread, some have not.

Regardless of the reasons, regardless of whether it is "fair" or not, it is a fact. Deal with it one way or another.

I guess I'm not familiar with the logical sympol "<->". But if you're saying that there is no statistical correlation between homosexuals and HIV, because Nigerian hookers are at a higher risk then I'll have to continue to disagree.

And I'll agree to not label AIDS as GRIDS if you agree not to label AIDS as Flapjacks.


That is a very dangerous statement. I wouldn't like to characterize AIDS as a gay disease or a gay problem at any point in time.


And it's not the "fault" of gay men that they are at greater risk. Replace "gay men" with "poor heterosexual african-american women" at almost any point in the recent part of this thread and my statements will probably still hold.


It's not semantics. It's about people choosing to deny certain inconvenient truths (as Al Gore might say) and twisting statistics into a political position. Thus simultaneously slapping science in the face and devaluing the credibility of their arguments.

your tone seems needlessly argumentitive to me.

i dont have the deal with anything just becuase you tell me too.

And whether or not you have proven your point in a logical manner to me isnt for you to decide.

If i misqote you or something then i made a mistake.

Thank you.

Wait.. what was your point?

I respond in kind. If you work with me and are honestly looking to understand the issues, then I will be very patient. If you insist on being counter-productive then I'll be curt with you.


You always have the option of ignoring the facts. But that's just another way of dealing with it.

Hopefully at the very least you've learned something about the relative risks of insertive and receptive forms of sex. You're welcome. Unless you're waiting for me to "prove" that to you, too. As they say, you can lead a horse to water, ...

"Gay" sex is more dangerous, and being gay (or having sex with a gay man) puts you at a higher risk of getting HIV. Why is it bigoted to say so?

no not waiting for you to proove it to me.

Im telling you just becuase you act like you have doesnt mean you have.

Ive yet to learn anything from you, other than you seem to get annoyed easily.

Nah. You're pre-emptively insulting, rude, and abrasive, in most cases. I'd say that your demeanor only serves to derail the issues we deal with here, to be quite honest. If you could learn that there are ways to debate without coming off as parental, smug, and all-knowing, I think you'd find you would find yourself involved in more cohesive and rational debates, which you keep claiming you want, and basically demanding. Your mocking tone is what really sets the stage for thread derailment, because then people's attentions are drawn away from the issues at hand, because they are put on the defensive, on a personal level. You then chide them for the nature of their responses, yet you elicit those responses from them.

There is no doubt in my mind that you are more than intelligent, but your interaction skills are lacking, to say the least. So please spare us the "I respond in kind" song and dance, because any one with enough lucidity to discern the difference can see, as plain as day, that you just like to argue, and then present yourself as the "winner". My guess is that this is a mechanism whereby you validate your self-worth.

You try to wrangle people into responding in a way which suits you (you call it "thoughtful", "reasonable", or other back-handedly insultive adjectives), but I have been watching, and that is just a carrot on a stick. There is no "right" way to respond to you, because if anyone ever managed that, your ball of string would be gone. You can't allow that, so the ball rolls back and forth... for now.


Could you possibly be more arrogant and patronizing? I don't think you could.

Contrary to what you may believe "Groucho", the SL forums are not your lectern, and we are not your students.

No worries though, because at the rate you're pissing people off, you'll not be taken seriously for long, if you ever were.

Gay sex is more dangerous than what? Having sex with a ga man puts you at a higher risk of HIV as opposed to doing wat? And how is having sex with someone, resulting in putting you at a higher risk, any more relevant than having sex with pretty much anyone else, which puts you at risk? I'm not saying it's bigoted, I'm just wondering why is it relevant? I mean, walking down a hilly road puts you at risk of falling and breaking an ankle but so does walking on a flat road, or climbing down a really steep hill. Simple act of walking puts you at risk. Is there some moral level tied to the relatonship between sex and HIV?

Groucho, if you responded in the debate with statements of your opinions, backed by facts, rather than just calling everyone-else's posts "lame" and not worth your time, maybe then people might not think you're an anus.

""Gay" sex is more dangerous, and being gay (or having sex with a gay man) puts you at a higher risk of getting HIV. Why is it bigoted to say so?"

Not only is it bigoted, but it is incorrect. ANAL sex with men who have had unprotected anal sex with other men is more risky than most (not all) other forms of sex. As has been pointed out to you time and time again, not all gay men have anal sex, and being gay isn't a requirement to having anal sex.

I am a gay man and I am at less risk of HIV than most sexually-active straight people; penetrative sex has never been part of my activity list (and I am by no means sexually inactive). I've had plenty of "gay sex"...but as we've pointed out, gay sex != anal sex.

And by the way, I know this seems pedantic, but:

GAY IS AN ADJECTIVE, NOT A NOUN. IT IS "GAY PEOPLE", NOT "GAYS", IN THE SAME WAY AS IT IS "BLIND PEOPLE", NOT "BLINDS".

Ditto with "black people" rather than "blacks".

Groucho, statistically a certain group might be suchandsuch, but to treat someone of that group differently based on that is prejudicial, and not morally right. It may, unfortunately, be sensible to assume all young males are reckless (and therefore charge them a lot for car insurance) or that all sexually-active gay men are HIV positive (and therefore ban them from giving blood), as it's difficult to get detailed and accurate information about individuals that'd render this kind of grouping unnecessary, but doing so is still not "right". It is an unfortunate and necessary evil, and one that should be minimised where possible.

Does the American blood bank ban donations by black people based on the HIV risk? "Are you a black person who has ever had sex, or are you a person who has ever had sex with a black person?" Would be a bit of a double-standard if they don't.

Musuko.