 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: GUEST,keith Date: 06 Feb 10 - 06:12 PM Yes Lox. And if it hadn't been for your intelligence, I would have gotten away with it. Why couldn't you leave it to Royston and Don T? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Lox Date: 06 Feb 10 - 04:27 PM Keith. You are missing my point entirely. My point is that your maths is fundamentally flawed. In every fraction there are two numbers - the one on top and the one on the bottom. For the fraction/ratio/percentage to remain the same, the numbers above and below the line have to grow or shrink by the same factor. In this case the number above the line has grown by a a factor of more than one, while the number below the line has grown by a factor of much less than one. Consequently, the fraction has increased in size - the percentage has risen. for the overall percentage to decrease, the number below the line (number of heterosexuals) would have to increase by a larger factor than the number above the line. In other words, for the overall ratio of infected hetero's to all heteros to decrease, the population would have to grow by a higher factor than the number of infected heteros. You would have to have an increase of millions every year. Its elementary I'm afraid. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Paco O'Barmy Date: 06 Feb 10 - 04:09 PM You left wing hippy liberals can batter us all you like. In England, thanks to 12 years of Socialism you've actually managed to change our dictionary in your favour.... BUT you will NEVER convince me or mine that homosexuality is anything other than repugnant and deviant. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 06 Feb 10 - 04:01 PM Jeez, Don, Do you have the attention span of a mayfly?? Read my earlier post, and the CONTEXT of my statement. I was talking about giving homosexuals the CHOICE,(which you seem to object to), for those who were possibly 'going through a 'phase', and may want to have children of their own(with their own female wife). Read the post again. I was not 'bagging' on homosexuals, I was merely saying that SOME, may, (that is if your political doctrines), would PERMIT them!! I also said, that to some, that may not be the case. Not only that, earlier in this thread, it was well covered, though not that much by me, that homosexual partnerships tend to have a higher promiscuity, rate than married heteros. That being said, I'm not in any way excusing heteros from being promiscuous, nor minimizing their roles in doing that either. To me, Promiscuity, in either, is not only dangerous, hurtful, but stupid!!..especially when there is families and/or children involved, in being hurt by it.... Can't you, agree with that????? Allow others to make their choice, for themselves....and not lock that up from them by what you read into a 'political decree'! Fair enough????........or does fairness interfere with your screwed up rigid, misinterpretation of a misconception of 'civil rights'?? Allow people to grow, mature, change their 'orientations', IF THEY WANT!!...and should they want to have their own children, of their own genes, with a woman they have grown to love...LET THEM DO IT!! It happens, has happened, and will continue to happen, whether you like it or not! ...and you describe yourself as a liberal????????????? Just for you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1MHEJT6sjk GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 06 Feb 10 - 01:06 PM 6.3% in 2000 The earlier survey, which was a bigger sample, only got 3.7% (1.9% of pop) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 06 Feb 10 - 01:00 PM I see it is 4.3% and that is for 16 - 24 year olds which is maybe young. The figure for all men who have ever had genital contact sex with men is about 6%, so 3% of population. I am happy to work with that. It still does not change anything i have said. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: GUEST,keith devious and untrustworthy A Date: 06 Feb 10 - 11:21 AM Lox, in your calculation a few posts back, you factored in 10 years rise in infection but only one year's population rise. Try it again and you will see that the proporton infected is falling. The AVERT site Royston recommends, suggest 4.6% of men are MSMs. That means 2.3% of population instead of the 1% I was using. That does not negate a single one of my points. The debate is not advanced one iota. Just empty point scoring. Was it worth it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Don Firth Date: 05 Feb 10 - 11:56 PM Let me assist. mo•nog•a•my Etymology: French monogamie, from Late Latin monogamia, from Greek, from monogamos monogamous, from mon- + gamos marriage, from gamein to marry Date: 1612 1 archaic : the practice of marrying only once during a lifetime 2 : the state or custom of being married to one person at a time 3 : the condition or practice of having a single mate during a period of time — mo•nog•a•mous \mə-ˈnä-gə-məs\ also mono•gam•ic \ˌmä-nə-ˈga-mik\ adjective — mo•nog•a•mous•ly adverb Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Don Firth Date: 05 Feb 10 - 10:51 PM Let me add a little emphasis for your enlightenment and edification, GfS (also, you might try putting your glasses on). Don:Do you own a good dictionary, GfS? Do you ever use it? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 05 Feb 10 - 10:33 PM Ebbie, what word in the posts, did you construe as meaning 'homosexual marriage'? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Ebbie Date: 05 Feb 10 - 10:26 PM P.S. I don't know how you construed me being 'in favor' of same sex marriages....just another one of your twisting of stuff, I suppose, but I guess I'm used to it." GfS Construed from this, possibly: "Don: "Therefore, the intelligent thing to do is to do everything possible to encourage stable, monogamous relationships." "YES!!!!!!!!! MY EXACT POINT FROM THE BEGINNING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!' It seems that you didn't mean it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 05 Feb 10 - 09:57 PM I don't know about the 'IQ' Test..that's not why I posted the links..other than that.....there you two go again!! Grinning, GfS P.S. I don't know how you construed me being 'in favor' of same sex marriages....just another one of your twisting of stuff, I suppose, but I guess I'm used to it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Royston Date: 05 Feb 10 - 07:40 PM OK Keith, Sigma Research. An university of Portsmouth unofficial sex quiz with clipboards at Gay Pride in London. The Gay Men's Sex Survey - an online self-selecting sex quiz with no validation of the participants or academic rigour. Now dropped by Sigma because they worked out that it was meaningless and they admit to it all on their own website Follow Keith's link and browse about. The figure of 500,000 is not their assertion of the number of gay men, it is a big assumption about the number of men who think they will have sex with another man in the next 5 years. The idea comes from the national survey of sexual attitudes and lifestyles, which is only a survey of 11,000 people. It found 8.6% of male respondents reported having had sex with another man. Keith, you are a devious and untrustworthy piece of work. You rarely tell bald les, but you hardly ever tell the truth either, do you? For what it's worth (which is not a lot) look at the discussion of the sexual attitudes and lifestlye survey http://www.avert.org/gay-people.htm |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Ebbie Date: 05 Feb 10 - 07:04 PM Don Firth's statements are accurate to the last degree. If GfS is truly of the opinion that he espoused in his last post, he is delusional. Either that or he hopes others' memories are real, real short. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Don Firth Date: 05 Feb 10 - 06:22 PM So. A couple of clips from the "Celtic Woman" show, with an accompanying on-line "I.Q. test." What's that supposed to prove? In high school I had an I.Q. test (Stanford-Binet), and a similar but different test in my college entrance exams. And for certain jobs, I have had to take similar tests. I can say that I am quite pleased and gratified with the results. But I'm not going to broadcast those results because I have noted that it is characteristic of sessions in which people get to comparing I.Q.s, as it goes around the table, everyone's I.Q. gets higher. No one will fess up that they have a lower I.Q. than any of those who precede them. Besides, whenever I've played with one of those on-line quizzes, it always turns out that someone is trying to sell me something, and I wind up with about a dozen tracking cookies from their web site. You've always been truthful to (about) me? Not bloody likely! With the meager information I mentioned about my private life on the Prop 8 thread, you shuffled the events, interpreted them in your own manner, putting the worst possible spin on them, then blew them all out of proportion and wrote a whole new scenario trying to make me look like a self-centered clod and an irresponsible father. Those who know me and know what the real situation was (is) would be tempted to slap you silly for that attempt to libel me. And THEN—on the basis of your fictions, you have the unmitigated temerity to try to offer me counseling in an open internet forum! GfS, If you actually are a psychological counselor, you would be aware that sort of thing is a gross violation of professional ethics. #### So am I to assume from what you've said in your most recent posts that you now favor same-sex marriages (if only as the best way to reduce promiscuity by encouraging stable, monogamous relationships) and that you no longer maintain that same-sex orientation is a psychopathic condition that can be cured through counseling (despite all the evidence to the contrary), and that you now repudiate Richard Cohen, the self-proclaimed "ex-gay" who, without training or credentials, maintains that he can "cure" homosexuals—by lying on a sofa with them, fondling and caressing them, and assuring them that they are loved? By the way, I would suggest that any Mudcatter who has the stomach for it can go back over what you have posted and what I have posted on both this thread and the "Prop 8" thread and read who actually said what. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 05 Feb 10 - 02:04 PM Don, No I've always been truthful to you...of course, I only had to go with what you gave me!.....However you proved a worthy fiddle! Counseling, was not my primary 'occupation' in life. However, I got real good at it. what a lot of people don't understand is that a good counselor has to be able to draw, the person out!! The rest, gives an opportunity to get one to think, rather than TELL them WHAT to think. Also, a well placed QUESTION, can change a life!!...However, you proved a worthy fiddle! (wink!) Speaking of that very thing........(Oh 'Blue Clicky' magician?????? Need help)..From dearest friends! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qYNwAaduFg AND: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nDrVQ6C5so Enjoy!!! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Lox Date: 05 Feb 10 - 01:51 PM Keith, Your response is sleight of hand I'm afraid. Your comparison is false. Its like comparing the number of Runs scored by Botham to the number of Goals scored by Beckham and saying that Botham is better cos he got more. How is it like that? Because the numbers being compared represent completely different things. The comparison you need to make to decide whether the proportion of infected hetero's is rising or not, is between the Percentage of infected heteros before and percentage of infected heteros after. both percentages are found using the formula "number of infected hetero's divided by number of heterosexuals". You will find that todays percentage is higher than that from 8 years ago. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Don Firth Date: 05 Feb 10 - 12:51 PM Just a couple of simple questions for you, GfS: Are you schizophrenic? Or a victim of multiple personality disorder? Or are there several people using the GfS moniker? YOU have lied through your teeth about ME all through two threads now, and made up libelous stories about me, obviously because you didn't like the data I was posting that refuted your contention that homosexuality can be cured by the right counsellor, and you couldn't argue the points, so you attacked me personally. And now you are trying to say that it's me who's been trying to do that to you! Which boils down to the fact that you are still at it. Truth is something you are not capable of. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Royston Date: 05 Feb 10 - 12:35 PM Keith, I'm in transit again and won't be able to read the site you link to until tomorrow probably. On what I read from your post, do you want to use the time to retract your assertion that there are only about half a million gay men in this country? I did read the sexual attitudes surveys and other official data when I called you out on this point and you ARE wrong. I suspect the THT report concludes something quite different from your claim. Think about It, confession is good for the soul. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 05 Feb 10 - 10:24 AM Don; "Well, Jeez, GfS! why didn't you say so in the first place, instead of saying (for what seems like a couple thousand posts now) "they need to be cured." Why did you repeatedly misquote, re-interpret, change them meaning of what I was saying, to get the other 'catters pissed off at me?? Often you steered the thread into a politically based bias, which got everyone fighting and sounding more hostile than we were. Little Hawk, Joe Offer, and myself had remarked to you, about that. Personally, I was not off base, though I'm aware my rhetoric can be, rather inflammatory, in the satire. When that is turned into being ill spirited, less gets accomplished. That being said, Don, I have to thank you, in an odd sort of way! A LOT of great information got out, that would have not gotten there, had we not 'sparred'. We made music, together!!...even though it took a while to get tuned, in the middle of the piece, and to get the groove going, a lot of people got entertained, danced, and got turned on to the 'message' of the song!!...Wink!! Hope your Day looks up!, Regards!, GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 05 Feb 10 - 07:52 AM I only counted immigrants for the population rise, not births. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 05 Feb 10 - 07:49 AM Lox re your "200/60,000,000 is not a higher proportion than 1200/60,250,000 So the proportion is still increasing." Rise of infected heteros 1200, out of 60m = 0.002% rise Rise of population 250 000 out of 60m =0.4% (200 times bigger) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 05 Feb 10 - 07:39 AM Royston, re your "Look, I'm so sick of wasting my time on Keith's contorted and fantastical half-truths. I just googled 'size uk gay population' and learned enough to know what I suspected - that this 1 percent thing is yet another of Keith's more pernicious concoctions. There are a range of estimates, the page on the subject from avert.org.uk seems quite balanced." This is from the Gay Men's Sex Survey, funded by the Terence Higgins Trust and the Department of Health The Census tells us how many males there are in the UK and this is our starting point to describe the age profile of all men that have sex with men (MSM). The National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles (NSSAL) tells us the proportion of all men that are homosexually active. We estimate that right now in the UK, there are 500,000 men who will have sex with another man in the next five years http://www.sigmaresearch.co.uk/files/GMSS-BS1-age.pdf (500 000 is less than 1% of the population. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Don Firth Date: 04 Feb 10 - 08:39 PM Don: "Therefore, the intelligent thing to do is to do everything possible to encourage stable, monogamous relationships." YES!!!!!!!!! MY EXACT POINT FROM THE BEGINNING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thanks! (until your next post)..wink! Well, Jeez, GfS! why didn't you say so in the first place, instead of saying (for what seems like a couple thousand posts now) "they need to be cured." ???????? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 04 Feb 10 - 06:34 PM Royston, It may be hard, at first, to think I'm not going to be 'on your side', when I post to you, however, I'm on all our sides here; re-read some of my recently posted comments about numbers, and playing Russian Roulette, in our sex lives; the numbers aren't important, as to justify or attack homosexuality vs. heterosexuality. Promiscuity in either, IS STUPID!!! In homosexuality, though to some, it might not seem that way to all, in the current moment..so to them, it isn't; To some, it is a 'phase', and as time goes on, some re-think their position, as witnessed by a flurry of posts, that said, this or that person knew one, to several, who may have changed...that's their business; but it seems rather unfair to those, to whom that may happen, to lock the doors, to that option. Fair enough??? As to those persons, who are miserable during a transition, no matter what the outcome....well, whom wouldn't be?????...even heteros, who found that getting laid had to take an abrupt change,..well, to ANYTHING else. I would think as a person, who cares about the human condition, would be supportive, at least to keeping doors open, doors to the options open, the options open, and the options within the options open!! There is should be no reason, for anyone feeling hostility, for anyone exercising that freedom, and taking that option....and let's not 'hate' anyone, or assume that 'hate' is coming from the one side to the other, and then act, as if that person threatens us. My position is that a political view, in regards to this issue,(others too), should NOT start with a political agenda, to dictate to science, and fit the appropriate doctrine, about what CAN'T be. Hasn't that way of thinking from BOTH sides, done enough to chip away at our personal freedoms????...any more???? Regards, GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Lox Date: 04 Feb 10 - 06:27 PM By The Way .... We have a distinguished contributor to our thread here today ... He might be troll though .... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Lox Date: 04 Feb 10 - 06:19 PM Keith is nearly being a clever clogs, but not quite. 200/60,000,000 is not a higher proportion than 1200/60,250,000 So the proportion is still increasing. But it was just a frivolous diversion anyway. The Criteria Keith sets out in his position is to do with the proportion of new diagnoses per demographic. It is also to do with the rate of increase of the growth in numbers of HIV infections in each demographic. And in Heteros that has been growing at a linear rate for under ten years, and at a contrasting very low rate for the previous twenty odd years. In all, the rate of growth can be seen to increase dramatically less than a decade ago. Overall, the rate of growth has changed, resulting in a dog leg shaped graph Any golfer knows that a dog leg is not linear, and is certanly very unpredictable. The rate of Growth could change again. As for the transmisssion efficiency stats, Keith has to admit that they are not as clear as he makes out. 33.8 times riskier does not make sense as a base rate, only as a subsequent rate once other factors have been included. otherwise the 1 in 10 versus 1 in 3 figures would be unattainable. If you took 33.8 as your base risk factor, it would increase with the inclusion other risk factors. So with the addition of the risk associated with being more likely to encounter a HIV positive partner, the factor of 33.8 would increase several fold. 1 in 10 versus 1 in 3 indicates a factor of just over 3. If you take 1 in 10 as your base factor, then with the addition of other factors you could arrive at an overall factor of 33.8 Someone else can do the actual donkey work. It is also possible that there is a mistake on the page that these figures come from. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Royston Date: 04 Feb 10 - 05:51 PM Look, I'm so sick of wasting my time on Keith's contorted and fantastical half-truths. I just googled 'size uk gay population' and learned enough to know what I suspected - that this 1 percent thing is yet another of Keith's more pernicious concoctions. There are a range of estimates, the page on the subject from avert.org.uk seems quite balanced. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Paul Burke Date: 04 Feb 10 - 05:38 PM It's also been contended that most men are gay. I'm not as far as I'm aware, but I think it's probably closer to the truth. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Royston Date: 04 Feb 10 - 05:30 PM Keith, where do your ever-decreasing estimates of the number of gay men come from? It is an increasingly surprising claim that I think you should back up with some sources. It's irrelevant to the discussion, but I'm interested to understand it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 04 Feb 10 - 04:07 PM The contention all along has been over the relative risks of infection between the different groups. You can only discuss that quantitatively. I have just shown that the tiny proportion of straight people being infected is becoming a yet smaller proportion. There are estimated to be about 500 000 MSMs in UK. That is less than 1% That means that their rise in infection matches the rise in population, while for straight people it is about 250 times lower. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 04 Feb 10 - 03:54 PM Don: "Therefore, the intelligent thing to do is to do everything possible to encourage stable, monogamous relationships." YES!!!!!!!!! MY EXACT POINT FROM THE BEGINNING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thanks! (until your next post)..wink! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Don Firth Date: 04 Feb 10 - 03:47 PM Therefore, the intelligent thing to do is to do everything possible to encourage stable, monogamous relationships. Obvious! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Royston Date: 04 Feb 10 - 03:44 PM Agree with every word of your last post, GfS. A lot of effort has been spent getting us to that consensus. I'm determined to see Keith join us. Keith, had enough numbers yet? Are you finally going to accept the various points that were agreed on and stop trying to prove that some HIV suffering is meaningless while others are to blame for the problem? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 04 Feb 10 - 03:36 PM Royston: "OK, Keith. So no point then. Just numbers. Just so long as we know." Just numbers?? Isn't just one more case a tragedy?? I've lost two close friends to AIDS, as I posted a while ago, in the Prop 8 thread. Please, NO number is 'acceptable' or 'wins' a discussion. In every 'number' is a person, with loved ones, family and friends. If there should be a point to all of this, let it NOT be to prove a point...but to save lives!! Discourage ANYTHING that spreads this fatal disease!! Any form of promiscuity is NOT 'hip'!!!! Regards, GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Royston Date: 04 Feb 10 - 02:47 PM MT, in my 09:00 post I said that an equal distribution of gay/straight in migratory populations was the only reasonable assumption to make in the absence of data. I don't think gay people are selected in or out of migratory communities so that supports the reasonableness of the assumption without making it any less of an assumption. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: mousethief Date: 04 Feb 10 - 02:38 PM If populations split 90/10 gay straight, then 10% of any mass immigration will be gay as well. That's like saying any time you roll a die 6 times, you will get exactly one "three". We need to know a lot more about the immigration to know if the general population ratio holds for the immigrant population as well. Are gays being selected for? selected against? What counts as a "gay"? If somebody has the "gay gene" (assuming there is such a thing) but doesn't self-identify as gay in Africa, and isn't a MSM, how does that affect our numbers? We don't know any of this stuff so it's more than a little glib to say it must be 90/10. O..O =o= |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 04 Feb 10 - 02:36 PM I offered it as a new perspective. In all our discussion we ignored the signifcant fact that the population is increasing at a greater rate than the rates we were discussing. Much greater in the case of heterosexual infection. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Royston Date: 04 Feb 10 - 01:12 PM ok, to cut short a potentially long story, today's discussion represents a zero sum game, nothing new has been added to the debate. Just some more doubt as to motivations. ok. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 04 Feb 10 - 12:08 PM We thrashed out the population figures on another thread. it is all there. I am surprised you want to exclude immigrants from our population. They are here now. Accept it. I exclude no one, but we are discussing transmission of HIV here. Not in subsaharan Africa. I was leaving you to do the sums for the gay population. I worked on a figure of 2% being gay I came up with a rise of about o.2% which you see is also below pop increase. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Royston Date: 04 Feb 10 - 11:25 AM Keith: The rise in population is about 0.5%. (250 times higher) But you attribute that rise - with no evidential support - to immigration. You can't count the immigrants in when it suits you and then count them out again when it doesn't. If you count the immigrants in then you have to accept a 4,200 increase in HIV+ straight people. If populations split 90/10 gay straight, then 10% of any mass immigration will be gay as well. So Immigration increases gay/straight populations at the same rate. So the assertion is doubly meaningless. If you count immigrants out then - because you have claimed previously that 'indigenous' populations are falling - you have to accept a 500% increase increase in UK-acquired infections against the backdrop of a falling indigenous straight population. Either way, your assertion was wrong, wrong-minded, racist and a classic example of what I accused you of - trimming a bit, ignoring a bit, bending a bit, lying a bit...to prove that bollocks ain't bollocks. And it is even more irritating, and supportive of the dim opinion that I and others hold of you, that you continue this nonsense in light of the otherwise quite progressive opinions that you "confessed" to. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Royston Date: 04 Feb 10 - 11:01 AM OK, Keith. So no point then. Just numbers. Just so long as we know. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 04 Feb 10 - 10:32 AM There was a typo Royston 200 a year is the increase in new cases. I had clarified that already when I said, "just over a thousand new cases per year" In proportion to the straight population that is about 0.002% The rise in population is about 0.5%. (250 times higher) Do not confuse the issue with infections acquired in Subsaharan Africa where things are very different to UK. the figures I last posted were from your table A that you have just linked to again, UK acquired heterosexual infections. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Royston Date: 04 Feb 10 - 09:09 AM I found the HPA figure I was looking for again. The correct figure for Keith's stated increase in the "pool of infected heterosexuals<"/b> was 4,200 in 2008 alone. The lowest increase in the "pool of infected heterosexuals" was in 2000 when it increased by 2,100. http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAwebFile/HPAweb_C/1237970242135 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Royston Date: 04 Feb 10 - 09:00 AM Yes, Keith, but you said "The pool of infected heterosexuals is growing by well under 200 per year And that is wrong. It increased by well over 4,000 people in 2008 alone. Of that number, 1,300 were UK-acquired infections. The only thing increasing at 200 per year is the additional number of NEW, UK-ACQUIRED heterosexual infections. That is 200 more, each year than in the previous year. As in the figures you helpfully reprinted today. All those new infections add to the existing pool. You are confusing these numbers of new UK-acquired infections EACH YEAR, with the size of the total pool. Do you not see that? There is no support for your 200,000 figure. Whatever increase in population, it will be comprised of gay and straight in the same proportions. So both demographics rise at the same rate; at least that is the only assumption one could possibly draw. But if you want to tie your immigration judgements to your disease judgments then you will also have to accept the 3,000 or more non-UK acquired infections into your comparison. Because they also add to your "...pool of infected heterosexuals..." And then it all falls apart for you. I was beginning to have some respect for you. Sadly, I was wrong. You are just DESPERATE to twist things around so that HIV appears to be the the responsibility and fault of blacks and gays. When we agreed on stuff - and you agreed the same things with Lox - was that just a provisional agreement while you carried on trying to distort numbers? or do you actually agree those points? If you agree them, why not just shut up now? What point are you trying to make? Or you could carry on making a fool of yourself. Either way is fine by me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 04 Feb 10 - 08:08 AM Just over 1 thousand new cases a year, minus deaths, compared to a poulation increase of over 200 000. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 04 Feb 10 - 07:58 AM UK acquired infection Royston. Remember your link, page 6 table A 240 330 490 600 740 830 870 1000 1130 490 These are the number of new infections from 2000, the last one being incomplete. The number is increasing by well under 200 per year. As a proportion of the population, the total number of infections are decreasing because the population is growing so much faster. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Royston Date: 04 Feb 10 - 07:21 AM Keith: UK acquired infections only. The pool of infected heterosexuals is growing by well under 200 per year. Now Keith, we can't take you seriously if you say things like that. It shows you never understood the numbers to begin with. Without prejudice to all the things on which we do agree, you must understand that you are wrong on this statistical issue that YOU claim is so important. The pool - the number of straight people living with HIV in this country - is not increasing by 200 a year. It increased by over 4,000 in 2008, if I remember the earlier statistics properly. Of those, about 1,300 contracted the disease in this country, the balance contracted it elsewhere. The number of straight people contracting the disease in this country every year is rising by about 200 each year. So 2008 = 1,300, 2007 = 1,100, 2006 = 900 etc etc etc. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 04 Feb 10 - 07:04 AM ""The pool of sexually active heterosexuals is growing by over 200 000 per year."" Some credible support for that bald assumption? Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 04 Feb 10 - 03:04 AM UK acquired infections only. The pool of infected heterosexuals is growing by well under 200 per year. The pool of sexually active heterosexuals is growing by over 200 000 per year. The proporton of infected heterosexuals could multiply 35 times and still be a rare disease, but is actually decreasing. It is an extremely rare disease of heterosexuals in UK, and is getting steadily rarer. |
