|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/09/2010 10:51:19 PM · #76 |
What an interesting thread to say the least - well worth the read. I have only one point to add to the conversation:
** Numbers are numbers. They are not people, they are not a group or social minority. Numbers can be made to convincingly say anything by anyone. In short, numbers LIE. **
My life is certainly not shortened by being who I am and who I was created to be. I'm not particularly old, but I have outlived many of my friends and schoolmates already due to cancer, accidents and suicide - to my knowledge, none of them were gay - I am.
It is perhaps a downfall of humanity that we will always read into the pandering of wanna-be leaders. (Implying the study authors, not any of the posts here - discourse is better than trolling any day of the week.) People will always hear what we want to hear - whether it is said, intended - or not there at all. It's called HOPE. We all hope to be right, to be loved, to be wanted. This one word - HOPE - is what proves our sentience. The ability to strongly believe in something that has no basis in fact or truth.
Ultimately we all live, and then we die. What purpose do the numbers, studies and arguments serve except to divide us from working together to improve all of humanity.
Erik
|
|
|
|
08/09/2010 11:06:19 PM · #77 |
Originally posted by JulietNN:
I can not donate blood cos I have been in England. Mad cow disease. Ludicrous on all accounts |
I can't donate blood either because I've lived in Germany. I agree that on some level it is ludicrous, but the explanation I was given is one of preception. The public needs to have a complete faith in the fidelity of the blood supply, so they way overexclude donors to only take from the "best of the best". The downside is that they are always begging for blood (when there are likely many people like us who are willing to give but have been denied).
That's the explanation anyway. It certainly isn't that the Red Cross is somehow anti-gay.
PS: I was only quoting you Juliet, not saying you are saying any of this. |
|
|
|
08/10/2010 01:37:46 AM · #78 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Louis:
Yeah, I think it's called for. Guess how fuckin sick of this kind shit I might be? |
Take a deep breath and drink a cosmo or something Louis.
The OP posted a study. He questioned whether it could possibly be true or whether it was the crazy religious people were making things up. At that point you know me well enough that I would feel compelled to defend my faith (versus attacking anything). Having a medical and statistical background I then proceed to explain how the CDC shows that being gay increases your risk of HIV by 40x and that this certainly could represent a reason why the original article might reflect the truth (especially given it was back in 1997 when fatality rates were probably higher).
How that attacks you or anybody else, I dunno. You were the first to get personal. There was a time when I thought we were friends, but I came to the realization that you have little or no respect for me. Being that friendships are built on some sort of mutual respect, I concluded I was mistaken. |
Why does it seem to me that Lionel Richie should be playing in the background every time you post, waxing poetic as you do about the days of yore? I'm not getting personal. YOU are, by invoking pathos, and insisting on continually dredging up past conversations that have nothing to do with the issues at hand.
Everyone here is acting according to his well-know trope. Yanko with the incising one-liner, David Ey with the grammatically incoherent sidewinders, Bear_Music with his baffling and persistent defence of everything you say, Louis with his salty displaced outrage, scalvert with the pointed and pointy reason, K10DGuy working the lines with his pale watchfulness, and you, good Doctor, with the need to defend the indefensible finer points of your most prejudiced faith. |
I'm not sure whether to be insulted or not ;) |
|
|
|
08/10/2010 01:48:20 AM · #79 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Everyone here is acting according to his well-know trope. Yanko with the incising one-liner, David Ey with the grammatically incoherent sidewinders, Bear_Music with his baffling and persistent defence of everything you say, Louis with his salty displaced outrage, scalvert with the pointed and pointy reason, K10DGuy working the lines with his pale watchfulness, and you, good Doctor, with the need to defend the indefensible finer points of your most prejudiced faith. |
Don't forget Art with his popcorn, beer, and now a folding chair...
 
(the chair is for throwing if things get too rough) |
|
|
|
08/10/2010 08:52:28 AM · #80 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by JulietNN:
I can not donate blood cos I have been in England. Mad cow disease. Ludicrous on all accounts |
I can't donate blood either because I've lived in Germany. I agree that on some level it is ludicrous, but the explanation I was given is one of preception. The public needs to have a complete faith in the fidelity of the blood supply, so they way overexclude donors to only take from the "best of the best". The downside is that they are always begging for blood (when there are likely many people like us who are willing to give but have been denied).
That's the explanation anyway. It certainly isn't that the Red Cross is somehow anti-gay.
PS: I was only quoting you Juliet, not saying you are saying any of this. |
lol, I know Dr. ands I can understand their reasoning but to me it is weird as the last outbreak was 15 years ago. you would have thought I would be mad by now. and I am not gay (just to add) |
|
|
|
08/10/2010 11:02:40 AM · #81 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Bear_Music with his baffling and persistent defence of everything you say... |
Why is it baffling? I don't mostly get involved in these discussions a lot, and when I actually DO involve myself it's often because I see a group of people "piling on" someone else. In these particular "gay threads" that's what happens to Doc. People seem to take a perverse (pun intended) pleasure in completely ignoring the usually-neutral stance he takes as he tries to explore the "other side" of the issue, choosing instead to pepper him with knee-jerk responses apparently designed to expose him as a homophobe.
So I just try to even the odds.
Heck, I don't even AGREE with Doc's position most of the time, believe it or not; I just think he gets unjustly accused by knee-jerk liberals who ought to know better. I believe in God, but not the Bible and the divinity of the Christ. I 100% support "gay marriage" and despise any sort of discrimination against homosexuals. But even more than I believe any of these things, I believe in civilized debate, and it just pushes my buttons whenever I see people cloak themselves in assumed righteousness as they engage in their own witch hunts against those who dare to even QUESTION the received wisdom of their holy points-of-view.
R.
Message edited by author 2010-08-10 11:08:20.
|
|
|
|
08/10/2010 11:06:29 AM · #82 |
| Posts like that really make me want to meet Robert... +1 for acting civilized. |
|
|
|
08/10/2010 11:24:55 AM · #83 |
If straight women who hang out with gay men are called fag hags and straight men who hang out with gay men are fruit flies, then what are straight men who hang out with lesbians called?
Voyeurs. |
|
|
|
08/10/2010 12:16:27 PM · #84 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
But even more than I believe any of these things, I believe in civilized debate, and it just pushes my buttons whenever I see people cloak themselves in assumed righteousness... |
Then it's all the more curious that you have never, not once, challenged DrAchoo, who has on countless occasions debased his position not just with prejudice but with ad hominem even in the face of cool reason, on anything he has said, ever. |
|
|
|
08/10/2010 01:01:28 PM · #85 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
But even more than I believe any of these things, I believe in civilized debate, and it just pushes my buttons whenever I see people cloak themselves in assumed righteousness... |
Then it's all the more curious that you have never, not once, challenged DrAchoo, who has on countless occasions debased his position not just with prejudice but with ad hominem even in the face of cool reason, on anything he has said, ever. |
I'm being calm and collected here Louis, but I want to explain that when you write something like DrAchooHatesFags.com, using a term I have never once used in all my posts on DPC (frankly I haven't said that word since junior high), you are doing nothing but disparaging my character. What is a third party supposed to think? Clearly you are trying to associate me with a group I have no respect for. Now I am being the one castigated and stereotyped. I don't have any idea how you cannot see that.
I wish I were as eloquent as Robert.
Message edited by author 2010-08-10 13:01:40. |
|
|
|
08/10/2010 01:18:17 PM · #86 |
I have done some research, and found out that many of these tests are done by the SAME GROUP OF PEOPLE, over and over with different names, but the EXACT SAME DATA. This was a bit odd, so I did some more research and came up with the Family Research Institute. They're website and wikipedia page told me all I needed to know.
The Family Research Institute it just a group of religious people that goes around trying to "scientifically" prove the bible right. (thought most of the bible is just "theories and ideas" and they cannot be tested by science) We all know, when you're looking for proof of something, you'll find it.
As for the tests, all they had to do was pick and choose the data that best represented they're cause, "it's unhealthy to be gay". After reading a New York Times expose on FRI, I found that they lied in they're drug survey results as well. They tried to prove that drugs give you HIV if you're gay, simply because gay people doing drugs often got HIV.
The tests are flawed because they put pieces together that aren't there. I can say that, "because more people in Montana, smoke more then any other state in America, (not true, this is just an example) then I can say it's unhealthy NOT to live in other states." But does that really make sense?
The bottom line, FRI is a shady, bias, and lying "cult" of people that tries to persuade people into thinking like them by creating faulty tests and calling themselves "scientists". The "it's unhealthy to be gay" test is one of those.
|
|
|
|
08/10/2010 01:29:37 PM · #87 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
But even more than I believe any of these things, I believe in civilized debate, and it just pushes my buttons whenever I see people cloak themselves in assumed righteousness... |
Then it's all the more curious that you have never, not once, challenged DrAchoo, who has on countless occasions debased his position not just with prejudice but with ad hominem even in the face of cool reason, on anything he has said, ever. |
It's not curious, because I have never NEEDED to. You guys do that for me. Although I think he's rarely all that, and only when he's being attacked in a similar vein. You are also ignoring occasions when I HAVE debated Jason, but I'm not motivated enough to dig them up.
I think the way Jason's treated in these threads is really embarrassing. If guys like you and Shannon represent what it means to be a liberal in 21st-century America, I'm ashamed to call myself one. And YOU should be ashamed of yourself. I'm stunned you have yet to apologize for that "DrAchooHatesFags.com" crack you threw up there; that was despicable.
R.
|
|
|
|
08/10/2010 01:31:13 PM · #88 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
I meant no disrespect Doc. |
I'm sorry I responded to his statement. If I could take it back I would. :{ |
|
|
|
08/10/2010 01:32:30 PM · #89 |
| This type thread is likely why the site is loosing visitors. |
|
|
|
08/10/2010 01:40:39 PM · #90 |
Originally posted by ApertureJack:
I have done some research, and found out that many of these tests are done by the SAME GROUP OF PEOPLE, over and over with different names, but the EXACT SAME DATA. This was a bit odd, so I did some more research and came up with the Family Research Institute. They're website and wikipedia page told me all I needed to know.
The Family Research Institute it just a group of religious people that goes around trying to "scientifically" prove the bible right. (thought most of the bible is just "theories and ideas" and they cannot be tested by science) We all know, when you're looking for proof of something, you'll find it.
As for the tests, all they had to do was pick and choose the data that best represented they're cause, "it's unhealthy to be gay". After reading a New York Times expose on FRI, I found that they lied in they're drug survey results as well. They tried to prove that drugs give you HIV if you're gay, simply because gay people doing drugs often got HIV.
The tests are flawed because they put pieces together that aren't there. I can say that, "because more people in Montana, smoke more then any other state in America, (not true, this is just an example) then I can say it's unhealthy NOT to live in other states." But does that really make sense?
The bottom line, FRI is a shady, bias, and lying "cult" of people that tries to persuade people into thinking like them by creating faulty tests and calling themselves "scientists". The "it's unhealthy to be gay" test is one of those. |
I'm not sure where you get the info that FRI did this study? If you look it up you can see the affiliations of the authors:
* British Columbia Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, St Paul’s
Hospital, 608–1081 Burrard Street, Vancouver, BC, Canada, V6Z 1Y6.
** Departments of Health Care and Epidemiology,† Pathology and
‡ Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia,
Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Now, the FRI may be taking the data and spinning it to their on purposes, but they were not responsible for the study itself. |
|
|
|
08/10/2010 01:41:00 PM · #91 |
Originally posted by Jac:
Originally posted by scalvert:
It shouldn't surprise anyone that rate of STDs (and related deaths) will be higher among individuals for whom marriage is not an option. Society effectively discourages committed, monogamous relationships, so what would you expect? In a twist of irony, the AIDs rate among Catholic priests (75% heterosexual) is apparently over four times the general U.S. population. |
Astonishing but why am I surprised?
I'm going to have to look this up. Any links? |
Sorry- I tried to include the link, but I was on the iPad last night and it turned out to be frustratingly difficult. Here ya go. I was only looking to compare another group where marriage is discouraged (celibate priests). I would expect similar results for ANY group that doesn't have the benefit of officially sanctioned relationships. People are going to have sex— it's a biological imperative— so vows of celibacy and teaching teens abstinence are somewhat like promising not to breathe. When relationships are open and accepted by society, it's far easier to maintain monogamy. Without marriage's official commitment to society, it's no big deal to move on to the next partner since they're effectively single. Barring unusual circumstances (the marriage customs in sub-Saharan Africa, for example), the rate of AIDs will be significantly lower among married people in all groups, and the OP's study is just a tactic to spin this fact. |
|
|
|
08/10/2010 01:45:13 PM · #92 |
| Losing. One "o". Carry on. |
|
|
|
08/10/2010 01:51:15 PM · #93 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Now, the FRI may be taking the data and spinning it to their on purposes, but they were not responsible for the study itself. |
As I said, FRI is responsible for MANY other studies. Those were done in the late 1970's along with some drug tests. It was when everyone was REALLY concerned with HIV and AIDS, so, FRI decided to do a test similar to Paul Cameron's test from the 50's and 60's. All of these tests have the same data, and as I said in an earlier post, were all directly influenced by each-other. The FRI copied Paul Cameron's data, and MANY other organizations copied FRI's tests. All of these organizations have the same goals, to put down homosexuals and say they are "unhealthy". FRI is just one of many.
As I have said before, on a basic level, these are ALL THE SAME GOD DAMNED TESTS. They have THE SAME DATA, and are done by the SAME GROUPS OF ANTI-GAY PEOPLE.
Message edited by author 2010-08-10 13:58:57.
|
|
|
|
08/10/2010 01:52:36 PM · #94 |
I think I am going to get this thread closed, only a quarter of it is actual, intellectual discussion about an important topic. The rest is just people bad-mouthing each-other! O.O
|
|
|
|
08/10/2010 01:55:40 PM · #95 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm not sure where you get the info that FRI did this study? If you look it up you can see the affiliations of the authors:
* British Columbia Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, St Paul’s
Hospital, 608–1081 Burrard Street, Vancouver, BC, Canada, V6Z 1Y6.
** Departments of Health Care and Epidemiology,† Pathology and
‡ Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia,
Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Now, the FRI may be taking the data and spinning it to their on purposes, but they were not responsible for the study itself. |
The excerpt of the first paragraph of the article the ApertureJack posted is:
The study, entitled “Gay obituaries closely track officially reported deaths from AIDS”, has been published in Psychological Reports.
That study was done by the FRI.
ETA link:
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16050624
Message edited by author 2010-08-10 13:59:16. |
|
|
|
08/10/2010 01:58:32 PM · #96 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
But even more than I believe any of these things, I believe in civilized debate, and it just pushes my buttons whenever I see people cloak themselves in assumed righteousness... |
Then it's all the more curious that you have never, not once, challenged DrAchoo, who has on countless occasions debased his position not just with prejudice but with ad hominem even in the face of cool reason, on anything he has said, ever. |
I'm being calm and collected here Louis, but I want to explain that when you write something like DrAchooHatesFags.com, using a term I have never once used in all my posts on DPC (frankly I haven't said that word since junior high), you are doing nothing but disparaging my character. What is a third party supposed to think? Clearly you are trying to associate me with a group I have no respect for. Now I am being the one castigated and stereotyped. I don't have any idea how you cannot see that. |
You're right, of course. In my wayward attempt to be funny, I've clearly gone overboard. I apologize for that one.
Edit: offered before seeing Bear_Music's demand. :P I may be sorry, but I'm still conceited.
Message edited by author 2010-08-10 14:00:44. |
|
|
|
08/10/2010 02:16:35 PM · #97 |
| Oh look, it's in rant now :) |
|
|
|
08/10/2010 02:24:24 PM · #98 |
Originally posted by salmiakki:
Oh look, it's in rant now :) |
lmao, I know...
|
|
|
|
08/10/2010 02:28:04 PM · #99 |
Originally posted by salmiakki:
Oh look, it's in rant now :) |
That was me. ;-) |
|
|
|
08/10/2010 02:50:52 PM · #100 |
Originally posted by VitaminB:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm not sure where you get the info that FRI did this study? If you look it up you can see the affiliations of the authors:
* British Columbia Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, St Paul’s
Hospital, 608–1081 Burrard Street, Vancouver, BC, Canada, V6Z 1Y6.
** Departments of Health Care and Epidemiology,† Pathology and
‡ Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia,
Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Now, the FRI may be taking the data and spinning it to their on purposes, but they were not responsible for the study itself. |
The excerpt of the first paragraph of the article the ApertureJack posted is:
The study, entitled “Gay obituaries closely track officially reported deaths from AIDS”, has been published in Psychological Reports.
That study was done by the FRI.
ETA link:
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16050624 |
Oh yeah, well frankly I'd be suspicious of a study coming out of a group like that which seems to have an agenda. It doesn't mean the data is automatically wrong, but it certainly makes you want to analyze things for yourself.
I don't know if this has anything to do with what AJ said about drugs, but back in the early 80s when AIDS was first hitting, epidemiologists were not sure what the cause was. It was clear there was something that was causing odd infections and cancers in the gay community (hence the original designation for AIDS was GRID "gay related immunodeficiency"). There was an area of investigation related to the behavior of gays using amyl nitrates, or "poppers", as a sexual enhancer. At first there seemed to be a relationship and some wondered if this was the cause, but it later turned out that taking "poppers" was associated with a high number of sexual partners. What seems obvious to us in retrospect isn't nearly as clear when a disease is first emerging. If you want an interesting account of the search for HIV, I suggest The Coming Plague. It's a good read and covers the history of other diseases as well like Ebola, Hanta, Legionaire's. You can probably find it at your library since it's been out a while.
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 04/20/2024 06:41:51 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/20/2024 06:41:51 AM EDT.
|
