Conquer Club

rdsrds2120 wrote:Actually, they make it very clear that they're not referring to sexuality, and that they're watching you:
-rd

Okay, well, that's a little nit-picky, but it doesn't destroy the point I'm going to end up making with this thread, so fair enough.

But I did say earlier on that this is men who have sex with other men, although I didn't say that specifically in every single post. The number of gay men who have never had gay sex with another man has still got to be a miniscule proportion of the gay population, one not known at any point in history for being chaste.

Pretty simple really. The CDC data doesn't talk about gay men.

In a study of 21 major U.S. cities in 2008, MSM
had high levels of HIV infection, and many of
those infected with HIV did not know it.
• Overall, one in five MSM participating in the
study was infected (19 percent). While MSM of
all races and ethnicities were severely affected,
black MSM were particularly impacted.
• Among those who were infected, nearly half
(44 percent) were unaware of their HIV status.
Young MSM and MSM of color were least likely
to know they were infected.

That is what he's referring, aye?

Juan_Bottom wrote:

In a study of 21 major U.S. cities in 2008, MSM
had high levels of HIV infection, and many of
those infected with HIV did not know it.
• Overall, one in five MSM participating in the
study was infected (19 percent). While MSM of
all races and ethnicities were severely affected,
black MSM were particularly impacted.
• Among those who were infected, nearly half
(44 percent) were unaware of their HIV status.
Young MSM and MSM of color were least likely
to know they were infected.

That is what he's referring, aye?

Indeed, and it doesn't refer to gay men.

Symmetry, I suppose next you're going to say the sky is never blue.

Are we going to talk about donating blood again?

pimpdave wrote:Symmetry, I suppose next you're going to say the sky is never blue.

Sweetie, your data doesn't say what you want it to say, live with it.

Are gay men also "men who have sex with men" (i.e. MSM)?

BigBallinStalin wrote:Are gay men also "men who have sex with men" (i.e. MSM)?

According to PD, they are the same thing. Ignoring, of course:

1) The data deals with bisexual men as well as gay men.
2) Not all gay men have sex with men.
3) The survey data relies on men who are willing to tell a stranger that they have sex with men.
4) The data is solely confined to the US.
5) The CDC makes no claim at all in the report about the rates of HIV infection in gay men, either within the US, or in general.

Symmetry wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Are gay men also "men who have sex with men" (i.e. MSM)?

According to PD, they are the same thing. Ignoring, of course:

2) Not all gay men have sex with men.

Also,
(3) some gay men may have been misdiagnosed as men sexing each other but were actually Sears mannequins stacked on top of each other
(4) some gay men may have thought they had sex with other men but were actually doing hairy Ukrainian women the whole time
(5) a bunch of other statistically normal occurrences that are very likely to render the data invalid

saxitoxin wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Are gay men also "men who have sex with men" (i.e. MSM)?

According to PD, they are the same thing. Ignoring, of course:

2) Not all gay men have sex with men.

Also,
(3) some gay men may have been misdiagnosed as men and are actually women and/or bipedal cats
(4) some gay men may have thought they had sex with other men but never actually got it all the way in
(5) a bunch of other statistically normal occurrences that are likely to render the data invalid

Meh, if I took a set of stats about sexually active heterosexuals and bisexuals and their rates of STDs, then applied it to all heterosexuals, I'd expect to be called out on flawed reasoning.

Symmetry wrote:Meh, if I took a set of stats about sexually active heterosexuals and bisexuals and their rates of STDs, then applied it to all heterosexuals, I'd expect to be called out on flawed reasoning.

We can't accept collective responsibility for your intense paranoia.

saxitoxin wrote:

Symmetry wrote:Meh, if I took a set of stats about sexually active heterosexuals and bisexuals and their rates of STDs, then applied it to all heterosexuals, I'd expect to be called out on flawed reasoning.

We can't accept collective responsibility for your intense paranoia.

My reasoning is pretty sound. Still going to claim you're not irrationally bothered by my posts? What's up Saxi?

saxitoxin wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Are gay men also "men who have sex with men" (i.e. MSM)?

According to PD, they are the same thing. Ignoring, of course:


1) The data deals with bisexual men as well as gay men.
2) Not all gay men have sex with men.
3) The survey data relies on men who are willing to tell a stranger that they have sex with men.
4) The data is solely confined to the US.
5) The CDC makes no claim at all in the report about the rates of HIV infection in gay men, either within the US, or in general.

Also,
(3) some gay men may have been misdiagnosed as men sexing each other but were actually Sears mannequins stacked on top of each other
(4) some gay men may have thought they had sex with other men but were actually doing hairy Ukrainian women the whole time
(5) a bunch of other statistically normal occurrences that are very likely to render the data invalid

#1. If a bisexual male is having sex with a man, at that time, he's being homosexual.
#2. Correct. I guess that amount is about 5% of the population of gay men.
#3. A reasonable concern about sample bias.

Based on the above objections, we can only conclude that it is very likely that 20% of the population of gay men in the US are infected with HIV.

Symmetry wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

Symmetry wrote:Meh, if I took a set of stats about sexually active heterosexuals and bisexuals and their rates of STDs, then applied it to all heterosexuals, I'd expect to be called out on flawed reasoning.

We can't accept collective responsibility for your intense paranoia.

My reasoning is pretty sound.

nope

saxitoxin wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

Symmetry wrote:Meh, if I took a set of stats about sexually active heterosexuals and bisexuals and their rates of STDs, then applied it to all heterosexuals, I'd expect to be called out on flawed reasoning.

We can't accept collective responsibility for your intense paranoia.

My reasoning is pretty sound.

nope

Elaborate...

When you give me an accurate number for any STD in a population... your thread will have merit.


I mean what is Herpes in Mexicans?

What is crabs is indians.


Give me a break... these numbers are skewed to a indefinite level.

Not even Aids Orgs take these numbers as fact.

Symmetry wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

Symmetry wrote:Meh, if I took a set of stats about sexually active heterosexuals and bisexuals and their rates of STDs, then applied it to all heterosexuals, I'd expect to be called out on flawed reasoning.

We can't accept collective responsibility for your intense paranoia.

My reasoning is pretty sound.

nope

Elaborate...

Is there a point? You subscribe to a fundamentally irrational, unscientific view of life. You actively seek-out scenario-driven, statistical anomalies to use to dismiss data-sets that create discomfort for your worldview. I don't waste time arguing with self-convinced religious nuts - whether or not their particular brand of religion is based around a god or the absence of one.

saxitoxin wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:
We can't accept collective responsibility for your intense paranoia.

My reasoning is pretty sound.

nope

Elaborate...

Is there a point? You subscribe to a fundamentally irrational, unscientific view of life. You actively seek-out scenario-driven, statistical anomalies to use to dismiss data-sets that create discomfort for your worldview. I don't waste time arguing with self-convinced religious nuts - whether or not their particular brand of religion is based around a god or the absence of one.

It's nice to know that you put so much thought into how much you don't care about responding to me in each and every one of your many many replies to me, and, of course, in your carefully crafted sigs.

However, much as I find you amusing, and, yes, on occasion annoying, there seems to be a a kind of desperate neediness behind your trolling of late. A search for relevance, perhaps?

You seem to want to police these threads, but often end up frustrated. Is it me?

this thread is dicks











hiv infected dicks

Meh, it's simple idiocy featuring a poll.

Symmetry wrote:However, much as I find you amusing, and, yes, on occasion annoying, there seems to be a a kind of desperate neediness behind your trolling of late. A search for relevance, perhaps?

You seem to want to police these threads, but often end up frustrated. Is it me?

You seem to have a single line of response to any post I make - that I'm somehow "frustrated" or beside myself in a rage with your posts. While it's funny (though a bit gauche) that you have to tell others your posts are important - as no one else seems to be offering this endorsement for you - the maniacal, savant-like intensity with which you do it is a bit off-kilter. As if you're campaigning to get others to sign-on.

Symmetry, have you ever read The Talented Mr. Ripley? You'll understand if I sometimes feel like I'm Dickie Greenleaf during your increasingly public fits of paranoia ...

saxitoxin wrote:

Symmetry wrote:However, much as I find you amusing, and, yes, on occasion annoying, there seems to be a a kind of desperate neediness behind your trolling of late. A search for relevance, perhaps?

You seem to want to police these threads, but often end up frustrated. Is it me?

You seem to have a single line of response to any post I make - that I'm somehow "frustrated" or beside myself in a rage with your posts. While it's funny (though a bit gauche) that you have to tell others your posts are important - as no one else seems to be offering this endorsement for you - the maniacal, savant-like intensity with which you do it is a bit off-kilter. As if you're campaigning to get others to sign-on.

Symmetry, have you ever read The Talented Mr. Ripley? You'll understand if I sometimes feel like I'm Dickie Greenleaf ...

I have indeed read it, and am somehow not surprised that rather than quoting it, you referred to the movie (which, to be fair, I haven't seen).

So, anyway, what's bothering you? Can we get down to the central issue you have with me?

Symmetry wrote:So, anyway, what's bothering you? Can we get down to the central issue you have with me?

Are you a gay man with HIV?

saxitoxin wrote:

Symmetry wrote:So, anyway, what's bothering you? Can we get down to the central issue you have with me?

Are you a gay man with HIV?

Why would you ask that?