Naked Protesters Storm Boehner’s Office

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meshuga Mikey

I liven In San Anslemo. Marin Co...and haven't been to "the city" since the "turn of the century" and then only to Golden Gate Park.

The hppies in Mill Valley and Fairfax....I see all the time.

these non running streakers were from act up? they need to change their group's name to ACT OUT...but that would be asking too much I suppose

http://i204.photobucket.com/albums/b...AINABLE4-1.gif

---

An acquaintance of mine had a store in San Anselmo, something Japanese. At the time, I was living in SF and thought anything north, south, or east of there might as well be the moon. I did live in Rockridge (Oakland) and San Mateo for a while. Now that I am moving back there, I find San Miguel to be more my speed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zeus

According to CDC stats in the article which only lists new diagnoses in 2009 for Black MSM it's 37% and that's part of the 2 %.

---

The function is still the same. Clearly, black people are over represented in HIV infections. As they are in most sexually transmitted diseases. There is no point to this fact, which is the point in bringing it up.

http://www.cdc.gov/std/health-disparities/race.htm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Novaheart

The function is still the same. Clearly, black people are over represented in HIV infections. As they are in most sexually transmitted diseases. There is no point to this fact, which is the point in bringing it up.

http://www.cdc.gov/std/health-disparities/race.htm

---

You really can't intellectually comprehend statistical measurements & percentages ?

Your argument seems to be akin to while mexican illegals make up 80%+/- of all illegals, all illegals only comprise 6% of the total population so it's no big deal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zeus

You really can't intellectually comprehend statistical measurements & percentages ?

Your argument seems to be akin to while mexican illegals make up 80%+/- of all illegals, all illegals only comprise 6% of the total population so it's no big deal.

---

I understand the statistics perfectly. I am saying that you are dividing the population up in a way that you find appealing to your opinions. "Gay people are over represented in the HIV statistics." is a true statement. However, it doesn't really mean anything because about half of all gay people are Lesbians who are at no significant risk of contracting HIV unless they had a blood transfusion, are IV drug users or functioning as heterosexual prostitutes. There are no known cases of female to female transmission through sex. Ipso fatso- being gay has nothing to do with HIV transmission. If you had an argument, it went down the tube at that point.

There are a variety of behaviors which transmit HIV more easily than others. There are populations which are disproportionately afflicted and those populations vary regionally. HIV is a disease, not a moral judgement or a personality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Novaheart

However, it doesn't really mean anything because about half of all gay people are Lesbians who are at no significant risk of contracting HIV unless they had a blood transfusion, are IV drug users or functioning as heterosexual prostitutes. T

---

What you are saying then is that 1% of the population has 51% of AIDS's cases, Nova if you ever get in trouble don't try to defend yourself, get a lawyer and say as little as possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rockntractor

What you are saying then is that 1% of the population has 51% of AIDS's cases, Nova if you ever get in trouble don't try to defend yourself, get a lawyer and say as little as possible.

---

Actually it's a fraction of whatever figure you want to use. And that is the point. But why do I bother? You just start doing blah blah blah and other simpleminded shit when the conversation get's too technical or philosophical. What difference does it make and what is the point? A very small group of people are way over represented in the HIV infections. Just about every disease has a niche. But unlike most diseases, AIDS not only has a niche, it also has a field. If it makes you feel superior or immune to think this is a gay disease or perhaps something even more simpleminded than that, have a ball with it. But you aren't making sense and you certainly aren' executing a righteous "gotcha" or "fail" or whatever juvenile thing that is on the tips of your fingers.

Moreover, because the niche of AIDS in European cultures has been across economic and racial lines, it has generated a huge body of work into the building blocks of human biology and disease resistance. Immunology should have been getting the dedicated funding and attention it has gotten for AIDS long before AIDS was on the front page. This is work that needed to be done. And the population affected (largely middle class, insured, or First World government healthcare) has served as a kind of guinea pig that advanced research can only dream of.

Some dead gay man may save your life one day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Novaheart

And that is the point. But why do I bother?

---

Facts have never been known to slow a liberal down.http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_0108.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Novaheart

I understand the statistics perfectly. I am saying that you are dividing the population up in a way that you find appealing to your opinions. "Gay people are over represented in the HIV statistics." is a true statement. However, it doesn't really mean anything because about half of all gay people are Lesbians who are at no significant risk of contracting HIV unless they had a blood transfusion, are IV drug users or functioning as heterosexual prostitutes. There are no known cases of female to female transmission through sex. Ipso fatso- being gay has nothing to do with HIV transmission. If you had an argument, it went down the tube at that point.

There are a variety of behaviors which transmit HIV more easily than others. There are populations which are disproportionately afflicted and those populations vary regionally. HIV is a disease, not a moral judgement or a personality.

---

Gays are over represented as cases of HIV infection due to voluntary participation in certain actions of gays themselves. There was a demonstrable drop in the ocurrance of and spread of Aids/HIV for awhile back when contracting HIV was essentially a death sentence but now with the inhibitors able to basically put HIV in check for anIndeterminate amount of time it has escalated once again. So yes it is a personal moral judgement as indicated by behavior of a very small subset of society.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zeus

Gays are over represented as cases of HIV infection due to voluntary participation in certain actions of gays themselves. There was a demonstrable drop in the ocurrance of and spread of Aids/HIV for awhile back when contracting HIV was essentially a death sentence but now with the inhibitors able to basically put HIV in check for anIndeterminate amount of time it has escalated once again. So yes it is a personal moral judgement as indicated by behavior of a very small subset of society.

---

And one day there will be a vaccine and a cure. What will be your problem then?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Novaheart

And one day there will be a vaccine and a cure. What will be your problem then?

---

You currently apparently have no problem with a miniscule subset of society being directly/indirectly responsible for the spread of a disease that kills thousands of people a yr when a little responsibility in care/precaution could reduce the spread the disease and number of deaths immensely.
The vast majority of those deaths are gay people, why do you have such a low regard of gay people.