 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 11 Feb 10 - 02:42 PM But I don't know why in 40 years it has not crossed over to heterosexuals via bisexuals, needle sharers and early blood doners. Behaviour and practices is all I can think of though. Please educate me with the unprejudiced reasons. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Royston Date: 11 Feb 10 - 12:21 PM Oh my, Keith. Now you sound very silly and very deeply prejudiced. You are very good at telling us who is affected by the virus. That is the easy bit, the numbers. It is the "why" where you fall down and expose your prejudice for all to see. Like I said, fewer people will be prepared to regard you as an impartial reporter of facts from now on and, to that extent, a lot of good has been achieved here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 11 Feb 10 - 11:18 AM I need the numbers to make my argument objective. I make quantitative, objective, verifiable statements instead of loaded value judgements. I think that is a good thing. If the virus had a shred of Left/liberal credentials, it would attck all groups equally. I am sorry that it does not, but it is not my fault. I just report it. The virus is racist and homophobic. I am not. You only try that on because you have no other reply. And you say that I am a nasty piece of work! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 11 Feb 10 - 11:10 AM Sounds nice Smedley. He says he has my number. I'll wait for the call! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Royston Date: 11 Feb 10 - 10:38 AM OK, Keith. Enough is enough. As I rather suspected, if we take away your numbers, you are left arguing an unsupported right-wing, reactionary position that gays and black are dirty and bring the consequences of HIV upon themselves in ways that other 'normal' folks don't. There is nothing 'neutral' or 'academic' or 'impartial' about your interventions. I suspect you will be in a minority of two (possibly three) in opposing that assessment. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Smedley Date: 11 Feb 10 - 10:30 AM Or rent a holiday villa ? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 11 Feb 10 - 10:23 AM The expert says not as important as types of sexual network. No he does not. And, in 40 years, there has been ample opportunity to cross into heterosexual community via bisexuals. But it has not happened. And, there is still no sign of it doing so. If you deny that you are wrong according to the experts. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Royston Date: 11 Feb 10 - 10:11 AM Keith: That is inadequate. There have to be reasons or it would have, decades ago. Behaviour and practices are important factors. For gawd's sake, practice and behaviour is important. The expert says not as important as types of sexual network. HIV has had low heterosexual prevalence in the UK, because the gay men that were unlucky (or silly) enough to get it were hardly likely to spread it to Doris, Maud, Janet and Jane, were they? Recently the numbers of straight carriers were dramatically increased by folks who got it somewhere else and brough it here. There has been a contingent rise (500%) in the rate of HIV infections acquired in this country. You're not arguing statistics, Keith, you are desperately trying to hang on to your earlier racist and homophobic statement. We've got your number, old chap. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Smedley Date: 11 Feb 10 - 10:10 AM Can't you two just get a room ????? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 11 Feb 10 - 10:06 AM "Behaviour is important but it doesn't seem to explain [all] the differences between populations. Even if the total number of sexual partners [in sub-Saharan Africa] is no greater than in the UK, there seems to be a higher frequency of overlapping sexual partnerships creating sexual networks that, from an epidemiological point of view, are more efficient at spreading infection." You must keep the "all" in the first sentence or the meaning is changed. A higher frequency of overlapping sexual partnerships is the kind of difference in behaviour I am talking about. That must stay in. Also, concurrent sexual partnerships |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Royston Date: 11 Feb 10 - 10:04 AM On the subject of risk. Insurance companies used to ask "Have you had an HIV test?" or similar words with the same effect. They largely stopped doing that. Actuaries realised that the underwriting risk was not particularly associated with those people that did choose to get tested. They were a somewhat better risk than someone of the same demographic that didn't. So the question tended to shift to one along the lines of "Have you ever been medically advised to take an HIV test", because they worked out that the greater risk came from people who were contracting other STI's, turning up at the GUM clinic in ignorance, testing positive for Herpes or Chlamyidia or whatever, and were then told that this proved them at high risk of contracting HIV and that they ought to be tested for it for their own safety and that of others. And France, USA and UK are still top of the UN for late diagnosis - that is the level of undiagnosed - heterosexual HIV. Food for thought. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 11 Feb 10 - 10:00 AM ...that HIV has thus far not infiltrated the sexual networks of the majority in the UK, to the extent that other diseases have. That is inadequate. There have to be reasons or it would have, decades ago. Behaviour and practices are important factors. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Royston Date: 11 Feb 10 - 09:46 AM What is your correct, PC ending to the sentence, "The difference between general population UK, effectively zero prevalence, and the MSMs and African born, is ....." ? ...that HIV has thus far not infiltrated the sexual networks of the majority in the UK, to the extent that other diseases have. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Royston Date: 11 Feb 10 - 09:43 AM Keith a lot of your 08:48 is good and fair enough. But is unfair of you to keep quoting de Cock as saying "Behaviour is important..." without quoting the rest of that sentence, which continues "...but it doesn't seem to explain [all] the differences between populations. Even if the total number of sexual partners [in sub-Saharan Africa] is no greater than in the UK, there seems to be a higher frequency of overlapping sexual partnerships creating sexual networks that, from an epidemiological point of view, are more efficient at spreading infection." And I invite people to consider a reasonable contraction of that statement: Behaviour is important...but doesn't explain the differences between populations...sexual networks...from an epidemiological point of view, are more efficient at spreading infection Because that is my point. That the circumstances people faultlessly and blamelessly find themselves in, from an epidemological viewpoint, are more efficient at spreading infection, than just behaviour. Behaviour is patently important - don't have sex and you certainly won't contract HIV unless you are staggeringly unlucky. But given that all groups share and practice the same sexual transmission vectors, the reasons for differing outcomes lie elsewhere We can go further with the at-risk heterosexual groups. Let's leave the numbers for a moment, talk about common sense issues. Chlamydia and other STI's spread by promiscuous sexual activity involving unprotected penetrative sex. They can also hit the unlucky person that has one encounter with a carrier. The people most at risk of contracting STI's are the most sexually active people - typically adolescents and "young adults". So that is consistent with, it explains, the prevalence (up to 10%) of some STI's amongst young women, for instance. They were either statistically unlucky on a one night stand in a sexual network of overlapping partners or they acuired it by being a regular member of such a network. That is exactly the sexual network that propagates HIV. All it takes is for the virus to be introduced into the network. That the networks exist is proven by the prevalence of other STI's. All that's missing is a few HIV+ people in each town centre on a friday or saturday and we know the numbers of carriers are rising and that we are particularly singled out by UNAIDS for late-diagnosis of heterosexual carriers. So it is clear that if we are to prevent pockets of HIV outbreaks in these at-risk heterosexual people - and quite a lot of them as well - then we have to be looking at a more concerted general education and outreach program, don't we? We need to persuade these at-risk young men and women to come and get tested, don't we? Or should we, as Ake says, bring in compulsory testing annually for them? As well as for gay men? It is, of course, silly to send condoms and leaflets to Granny, there is no point blanket testing WI meetings, but all sexually active people outside of a monogamous relationship are at risk and there is no real differentiation between gay straight, black or white when it comes to prevention. Incidentally, while the only safe sex is to abstain until married and then never "stray". the reality (and reality is all that matters) is that this does not happen universally. A couple, where one or both has a sexual history, could not declare themselves "safe" until 6 months of celibacy with an HIV test at each end and then a lifetime commitment to each other. Food for thought. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 11 Feb 10 - 08:48 AM I do not hold those reactionary views, and the statement carries no stigma. What is your correct, PC ending to the sentence, "The difference between general population UK, effectively zero prevalence, and the MSMs and African born, is ....." ? Fair play to you for withdrawing your earlier assertion. De Cock said "very unlikely" and said there is "no generalised epidemic" "No risk to heterosexual population" should read "Except for high risk groups, there is negligeable risk to heterosexual population." Behaviour and practices. De Cock says it is "important" Why should I doubt him? "minorities suffering most with HIV are not suffering because their behaviour is "worse" or "less good" or "more risky" than the behaviours of others" I would have to leave in "more risky." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Royston Date: 11 Feb 10 - 08:34 AM Keith: "I have played your game so many times where you put up points and I have to respond. You have excelled yourself with this list." That sounds a lot like you do agree with me, but just can't bring yourself to say it. Putting up points, stating beliefs, raising issues is exactly what a debate is about isn't it? There has to be a point, doesn't there? You've made yours with your "practices" comment, haven't you? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Royston Date: 11 Feb 10 - 08:30 AM And seriously, if you don't hold reactionary views against gay men or black people, do you understand that people will find that hard to accept from someone who said: "The difference between general population UK, effectively zero prevalence, and the MSMs and African born, is to do with their practices." And that you might have to rethink some of your assumptions about yourself and your motivations? It's a rhetorical question, one that everyone should ask of themselves. I do regularly: recheck my assumptions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Royston Date: 11 Feb 10 - 08:25 AM What I said on 11 Jan was wrong. It certainly went beyond the available evidence. The only thing that can be concluded is that it "Probably" won't happen. Exactly as de Cock says. Now are you ready to withdraw your "no risk to our heterosexual population" comment? And are you ready, finally, to engage on the real reasons for HIV prevalence in certain groups - which cannot be differentiated by behaviours, as these behaviours are shared by the most affected and by the least affected groups. It is the essence of this whole debate: that minorities suffering most with HIV are not suffering because their behaviour is "worse" or "less good" or "more risky" than the behaviours of others. That there should be no moral judgement against some, in the fight to control and defeat the spread of HIV. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 11 Feb 10 - 08:10 AM I have played your game so many times where you put up points and I have to respond. You have excelled yourself with this list. Let me have a turn. On 11th Jan you said, "This is how it played out in Africa, it is how it will play out here" Do you now accept that you were wrong? I have not been "twisting and turning." I have been steadily attacking that position you took on 11th Jan. I say that in UK there is no significant infection and certainly no epidemic outside the high risk groups. Am I right? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Royston Date: 11 Feb 10 - 07:38 AM Keith, the link to UNAIDS statement about the undiagnosed sraight cases is in my 04:05. I can't repeat it here, you will just have to scroll down and read. Are we going to get a reply to the specific points from you any time? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Royston Date: 11 Feb 10 - 07:37 AM No, Keith, I do not say those things. Look. I say that a generalised African-style epidemic is unlikely in Western Europe. Is that clear enough for you, Keith. The UN says the same thing. You say the same thing. Is that clear now? I say that there has been a 500% increase in heterosexual UK-acquired infections year on year. That is true, you do not dispute it. You said "there is no risk to our heterosexual population. That is wrong and dangerous. I say that there has only been a 74% increase in homosexual infections over the same period. That is true, you do not dispute it. I say that behaviour alone is not what differentiates straight from gay or black from white. HIV is spread by unprotected intercourse. The prevalence of other diseases, acquired by unprotected intercourse, in straight people proves that the behaviour alone, of straight people, is just as risky as is the behaviour of gay people. So what differentiates the groups is some other factor. It is wrong to say that homosexual practice and behaviour alone is the 'cause' of gay HIV prevalence. It is no more the sole-cause than is the behaviour of straight people. Do you agree to those things? They are the things I am saying. They are simple, they are right in front of your nose. Everyone can see them as well as you can. So answer me. Do you agree these things? Yes, or No? As a secondary issue, de Cock says that what differentiates is sexual networks. Those worst affected happen to be in sexual networks where there are tighly overlapping sexual, or other-vector, relationships. That is prostitutes and their punters, sexual minorities with a greatly reduced pool of available partners (like gay men) and needle-sharing drug users. I had to introduce "other-vector" networks because, of course, junkies don't necessarily contract HIV sexually, the vectors in their network are the needles they share. The generalised epidemic in Africa started in tightly overlapping sexual networks but spread because of political or labour-driven mass migration of male workers that provided the high-volume sexual networks necessary to propagate the disease - prostitution and prion-style homosexuality and, to some extent, rape as weapon of war. They then took the disease back home and infected their families and children because of ignorance about the disease and lack of access to healthcare and treatment. Bingo, generalised epidemic. That is unlikely here for all the obvious reasons. We are very lucky not to live in such political, economic and social conditions. We have healthcare and treatment on-tap. But anyone practicing risky behaviour is at risk of contracting HIV. Go to any town-centre nightclub on a friday or saturday and you'll witness a real meat-market of overlapping sexual relationships. Things probably won't get 'Africa' on us, but they could get pretty fucking back for a lot of people. The risk gets worse with every carrier out there - diagnosed or not. Unless we get stronger intervention, support, socially tolerant and inclusive attitudes, pervasive general - as well as targeted - education programs. The last paragraph is, of course, my opinion but it is also advocated by UNAIDS and every UN government. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 11 Feb 10 - 07:23 AM Finally, some hard evidence from Royston! He says "UNAIDS say that britain is at the top of the table for undiagnosed heterosexual carriers." No link though. Anyway, we know that those heterosexual carriers are overwhelmingly confined to a single high risk group. It is not generalised. So, not worth posting really. Just making an even bigger arse of yourself. Keep it up. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 11 Feb 10 - 07:06 AM You will have to explain that! He says "no generalised epidemic." You say there is one or is about to be one. He says "a heterosexual epidemic is very unlikely." You say it is very likely. Either he is wrong or you are. You are making an arse of yourself. Keep going. I am happy to help you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Royston Date: 11 Feb 10 - 07:02 AM But stop saying that I, and others, have argued things that we have not argued. I have argued that heterosexual infections have risen at a faster rate in the uk than have other demographics. This sign true. I have argued that the reason HIV has not been more prevalent in British heterosexuals is NOT just because they behave better. Their behaviour is as risky as is that of other groups and the proof is in the rates of abortion, teenage pregnancy and other STI's UNAIDS say that britain is at the top of the table for undiagnosed heterosexual carriers. de Cock argues that behaviour is NOT the principle reason for the shape of the different epidemics of HIV. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Royston Date: 11 Feb 10 - 06:53 AM Thank you, Keith. I rest my case. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 11 Feb 10 - 05:39 AM He says no heterosexual epidemic. You have been telling us it has already started, or now that it is about to start but we have been "lucky" He says no heterosexual epidemic. Here is the extra bit you asked for. In the industrialised world transmission of HIV among men who have sex with men is not declining and in some places has increased. "In the developing world, it has been neglected. We have only recently started looking for it and when we look, we find it. And when we examine HIV rates we find they are high. "It is astonishing how badly we have done with men who have sex with men. It is something that is going to have to be discussed much more rigorously." The biggest puzzle was what had caused heterosexual spread of the disease in sub-Saharan Africa – with infection rates exceeding 40 per cent of adults in Swaziland, the worst-affected country – but nowhere else. "It is the question we are asked most often – why is the situation so bad in sub-Saharan Africa? It is a combination of factors – more commercial sex workers, more ulcerative sexually transmitted diseases, a young population and concurrent sexual partnerships." "Sexual behaviour is obviously important but it doesn't seem to explain [all] the differences between populations. Even if the total number of sexual partners [in sub-Saharan Africa] is no greater than in the UK, there seems to be a higher frequency of overlapping sexual partnerships creating sexual networks that, from an epidemiological point of view, are more efficient at spreading infection." Low rates of circumcision, which is protective, and high rates of genital herpes, which causes ulcers on the genitals through which the virus can enter the body, also contributed to Africa's heterosexual epidemic. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Royston Date: 11 Feb 10 - 05:25 AM Well done, Keith. As I said, de Cock says an African style epidemic is 'unlikely' He does not support what you say. Why don't you quote in full his comments on networks, as I won't be at a computer until Saturday morning now. Not possible to research and paste on a blackberry. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 11 Feb 10 - 05:14 AM Kevin de Cock, the head of the WHO's department of HIV/Aids said there will be no generalised epidemic of Aids in the heterosexual population outside Africa. Dr De Cock, an epidemiologist who has spent much of his career leading the battle against the disease, said understanding of the threat posed by the virus had changed. Whereas once it was seen as a risk to populations everywhere, it was now recognised that, outside sub-Saharan Africa, it was confined to high-risk groups including men who have sex with men, injecting drug users, and sex workers and their clients. Dr De Cock said: "It is very unlikely there will be a heterosexual epidemic in other countries. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Royston Date: 11 Feb 10 - 04:22 AM And to boil down the essential point here, HIV is spread by vaginal sex. Quite effectively so. Straight adolescents and young adults are contracting STI's at a very high rate and so are having high rates of unprotected intercourse. The only reason that HIV is not more prevalent is that those people, behaving as they do, have not yet had sex with an HIV+ person. That is good fortune, because the number of straight carriers has been low, historically. The numbers of straight carriers in this country has grown greatly (regardless of origin) over recent years. The number of UK-acquired cases has grown 500% over recent years. African people may tend to find partners in their own communities so the disease may have been contained to a large extent in what amounts to an African social/sexual network. That is de Cock's point, by the way, about the importance of networks in edpidemiology. Black and white people (outside your racist fantasies) do have sex together. And you say their is "No risk to our heterosexual population" As in no risk (at all). Really, Keith? You could exchange African for Gay, in that analysis - it is the sexual/social network that contained HIV in gay men in this country. Straight people bevave just as badly as gay people, it's just that the disease emerged in one network, whose members do not find partners in the other network. As I have been saying all along. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Royston Date: 11 Feb 10 - 04:05 AM Keith, you say I am like Canute, after that Lear-esque outburst which included "De Cock, head of the AIDS Department of WHO said that there is no risk to our heterosexual community. He did not say that. You wish that he said that. He actually said that he does not believe there will be an African-style pandemic in Europe or America. That is not to say "no risk tio straight people" And your rant included: "There is no threat to our heterosexual community" which is just your stupid comment. Nobody can possibly take that seriously. You see, Keith, we all agree with WHO and UNAIDS. No dispute at all. It's just that you have tried to twist their work to prove an agenda that you kept hidden until yesterday. Your agenda is that you fervently believe that gay men and black people are dirty and bring HIV on themselves in ways that decent, white, straight people do not. WHO and UNAIDS do not support your view. They assert that views of that sort are part of the HIV problem. Let's look at UNAIDS, shall we? http://data.unaids.org/pub/FactSheet/2009/20091124_FS_nawce_en.pdf Where the majority of HIV cases (53%) in Central Europe were heterosexually transmitted. Central Europe (I have travelled there extensively) has little or no immigration. You certainly won't see Africans there. So what's happening? The report also singles out the UK, France and USA for having the largest proportions of undiagnosed heterosexual carriers - Ake, we'd better start that compulsory testing with you, hadn't we? Don't come back here and whittle away at all the numbers on Africans and Gay men, all the numbers are agreed and accepted. What matters is your beliefs about WHY these groups are so affected by this disease. de Cock said - and I explained in more detail why this is true - that what defines the epidemic-affected groups is sexual networks - small, confined sexual networks that propagate the disease so effectively. It is not behaviour that defines those affected as being apart from those unaffected, becasue the other STI data shows that all demographic groups are pretty poor with their sexual hygiene in our part of the world. You have confessed your beliefs, and there is not much more to be said on the subject. This has now boiled down to your fundamental beliefs, which others do not share. Numbers, now, are pointless. People will be less inclined to accept your neutrality in future, that is a good thing. Me, I have never claimed neutrality or impartiality. That is why I argue my belief, explain my personal justifications and any external support I think I have, then leave people to make their own minds up. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 11 Feb 10 - 03:40 AM You might think that there is appalling behaviour among straight people, and I might agree with you, but "good fortune" is not a factor in epidemiology. Non African heterosexuals are not getting AIDS. However unfair, that is the fact. You are more Canute than Canute, floundering on the sea bed and still denying that the tide is coming in. You are wrong. There is no significant AIDS in the Non African, non MSM, non needle sharing population. This is what the Terence Higgins Trust says. However, the numbers of heterosexual HIV infections that were probably acquired here in the UK have been rising steadily in recent years. Over a quarter of heterosexual HIV infections that were diagnosed in 2008 were probably acquired in the UK. The majority of these diagnoses are likely to be amongst the British black African community. I can google up any amount of stuff because it is true. You can find nothing because you are wrong. I have given you 2 bang up to date, lengthy, authoritative reports on AIDS in our African communities. They endorse what I say. You must have scoured them by now for any crumb of comfort. You have found nothing. You are wrong. De Cock, head of the AIDS Department of WHO said that there is no risk to our heterosexual community. Everything he said contradicts your stance except his one reference to networks which is neutral. And you say we should dismiss his expert opinion and believe you. Why should we believe you over every world expert either of us has been able to find? You are wrong. There is no threat to our heterosexual community. If you have any evidence put it up. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Royston Date: 11 Feb 10 - 03:21 AM No Keith, you are still twisting and turning. Nobody denies that behaviour is the SOLE factor in THE ACT of HIV transmission between two individuals. You idiot. The point - all along, the whole reason for this discussion - is that the behaviour of people, whether gay or straight or black or white or African or European, is pretty much as fallable, as compromising, as human as anyone else's behaviour. You can't cast blame in epidemiology, you have to care for and protect everyone in equal measure. Africans have two principal misfortunes - that HIV emerged there first when it crossed the species barrier and that it emerged in the straight population. There are secondary issues - the effect on sexual networking of mass labour-migration and a higher rate of ulcerative STI's. In "The West", straight people demonstrate appalling sexual hygiene as demonstrated by the prevalence of other STI's transmitted by promiscuous unprotected sex. It is a matter of good fortune that HIC is not prevalent in that sexual network, yet and hopfeully for ever. This debate was always about refuting the homophobic and racist assertions that gays and blacks were "dirty" and brought the problem of HIV on themselves. Those are the views that you have been supporting. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 11 Feb 10 - 01:43 AM The difference between general population UK, effectively zero prevalence, and the MSMs and African born, is to do with their practices. The second part is not racist. It acknowledges that the virus does not discriminate between racial groups. The difference is what people do. That includes Royston's precious networks, but the networks established in Africa would take time to become established here. In my links you will find details of the high risk practices that were found to be prevalent in the African communities here. When considering epidemiology in a population of 60 million Royston, "luck" can not regarded as a serious factor! Lox, I have been pointing out that the infection levels in heterosexuals are far lowere that the rare disease criteria. Now we see that most of those are accounted for by a newly arrived high risk group. They caused your dogleg up turn. Before that upturn the incidence was, and still is, comparable with lightning strike. no one is campaigning for intervention on the risk of that! I do not have any specialist knowledge and merely report the work and considered opinions of the experts in the field. Royston and Lox, from what position of authority do you challenge these groups who all endorse the information I have provided? Avert, Terence Higgins trust, Department of Health, National Aids Trust, Afrivan HIV Policy Network • Action For Men • Addington Afro-Ethnic Health Promotion Group (AAEGRO) • Africa Advocacy Foundation • African Caribbean Resource Centre • The African Child • African Communities Team at Camden PCT • African Community Involvement Association • African Community Development Association • African Community Partnership • African Culture Promotions (ACP) • African Development Network |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Royston Date: 10 Feb 10 - 06:52 PM I just couldn't let this pass as an example of Keith's racist and homophobic fantasies. He said Here I have posted objective, factual and verifiable evidence and statistics. And then one sentence later The difference between general population UK, effectively zero prevalence, and the MSMs and African born, is to do with their practices. The latter is not a fact, it is a very telling example of Keith's prejudices and his real agenda. Where is the support for statement of fact number 2 above. As Lox pointed out, as I pointed out weeks ago, the rate of STI's amongst straight people demonstrates that they must be practicing horrific levels of unprotected promiscuous sex and are simply bloody lucky that HIV has not, thus far, been prevalent in their sexual network. As the WHO pointed out, thanks Keith, it is mostly about sexual networks. But this clearly demonstrates Keith's desire to prove his belief that gays and blacks are dirty and "bring it on themselves". But you're just a facts man, of course, Keith. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Lox Date: 10 Feb 10 - 06:50 PM "How can a fact be evidentially untrue?" What fact? That "The difference between general population UK, effectively zero prevalence, and the MSMs and African born, is to do with their practices."? That isn't a fact, that is a judgement call. One which I questioned on the basis of evidence concernng other STI's. These were not contracted as a result of safe sex. 5% of Gay men have HIV. 10% of young hetero women and adolescent girls have chlamydia. In both cases, the practice which resulted in infection was unsafe sex. So why are Chlamydia, Ghonnorhea, Syphilis, HPV etc more prevalent in young women, and why is HIV more prevalent in gay men? It is an intriguing paradox for someone trying to apply a simple formula of "different sexual practices = different risk factor" I call it bad luck. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 10 Feb 10 - 06:25 PM ""We all want to see health education, condom use, etc....but the truth is that in general terms homosexuals have not been listening."" Quote from Ake's personal opinion. ""This is evidentially untrue as young women and adolescent girls make up the highest demographic to suffer from ALL other STI's. Chlamydia affects 10% of young women, while HPV affects a much higher number than that."" Quote by Lox from official figures. Four percent of gays are infected with HIV Ten percent of young women and adolescent girls are infected with Chlamydia and even more with HPV. Yet Ake wants special measures for gay men only. What does this tell us about gay men? What does it tell us about young womens' likely future exposure to the risk of HIV infection? Most importantly, what does it tell us about the hypocrisy (correct spelling) of people like Ake, who are prepared to stand by and watch young women take risks, but will twist the truth into a pretzel, trying to rid the world of gay men, under the guise of protecting them? Don T |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: akenaton Date: 10 Feb 10 - 04:44 PM All you've got Royston, is more of the same. Unaids conclusions say we need "New and Effective" measures to tackle the new hiv infections among homosexuals. We all want to see health education, condom use, etc....but the truth is that in general terms homosexuals have not been listening. As I said before, hedonism and risky sexual behaviour appears part and parcel of a large part of the homosexual community. If a group, in the face of very bad health statistics, continue to behave in a manner dangerous to themselves and possibly the rest of society, then measures other than the current ones need to be taken. Ignoring the problem as you seem to be advocating is not a "new or effective" measure. If homosexual infection rates continue to grow, at some point we have to consider compulsory testing and extensive contact tracing. All immigrants from at risk areas should be tested before and after entry for a period of one year. If they refuse the test they should be refused admittance. This is not bigotry, this is simple common sense. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Royston Date: 10 Feb 10 - 04:30 PM Anyway, at this stage of the game you have accepted my 5 assertions of substance on these issues. It's clear that you and I are never going to agree on anything else and we are just going around in circles. It's on the grounds of that circuity alone that I am going to call it a day here; others are just going to have to read this if they care enough and form a view - probably that we're both bleedin' idiots. They'd probably be right. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Royston Date: 10 Feb 10 - 04:10 PM Keith: Ake supports stigma and prejudice towards at-risk minorities. In his own small way, he is part of the problem and a hindrance to effective prevention of the spread of the disease. I did not say that HIV was breaking out the high risk groups. I said - repeatedly - that there has been a 500% rise in heterosexual UK-acquired infections in recent years, that is a rise about 3 times greater than in gay men (regardless of place of acquisition) and that should be a cause for concern, not swept under the carpet. That figure was introduced because others claimed that HIV prevalence was some sort of punishment reserved for sexual minorities who didn't behave like "normal folk". That figure stands as proof that such comparisons are stupid and futile - that straight people can manage such growth in the rate of new infections from such a low-risk starting point, is quite extraordinary. The figure was a demonstration that everyone is at risk of this disease.You have accepted the truth of this, what the hell are you arguing now? So when you sailed in and - totally neutrally - tried to disprove the comparisons supporting the common-sense position, what were you doing other than to add support to the bigoted views of others. When eventually you had to concede the point - to Lox even if it you couldn't bear to admit that to anyone else. That is your right wing, bigoted dogma. This is why these bloody numbers are so silly. You have been right, you have been spectacularly wrong. You have had to retract much of what you said and you have had to disown your sources. I have misinterpreted some data and placed undue emphasis on others. So we keep bashing each other the head with them. Great. But silly. It's as silly for you as it is for me. But, Keith, it's all you've got! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 10 Feb 10 - 02:55 PM Lox, maybe luck but probably not. How can a fact be evidentially untrue? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 10 Feb 10 - 02:52 PM Keith: We all knew that you would come back and whine "I only post facts that I find, it's not my fault..." A safe bet Royston, because it is true! It is not my fault that the facts I find demolish your argument. "The statistics are to a very large extent silly. " They were OK when you thought that they supported you. Page 6 Table A remember? Now that they have all been shown to demolish your argument, they are silly! You say to Ake "you are a hindrance to tackling the spread of the disease amongst at-risk minorities." The only at risk groups are MSMs, African born, and needle sharers. Have I missed any? Who is hindering and how? "The experts whose advice you say you value, all assert that prejudice and bigotry are factors acting against HIV prevention in at-risk groups" I agree with them on that and on the fact that AIDS is not breaking out of the high risk groups. You disagree with them on issues that they are world authorities on, and you expect anyone to take you seriously? I bet you have been frantically googling for days to find anyone who holds your utterly discredited opinions. No luck so far then. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Lox Date: 10 Feb 10 - 02:49 PM "The difference between general population UK, effectively zero prevalence, and the MSMs and African born, is to do with their practices." This is evidentially untrue as young women and adolescent girls make up the highest demographic to suffer from ALL other STI's. Chlamydia affects 10% of young women, while HPV affects a much higher number than that. If it were down to practice, the levels of other STI's would be as low comparably as the levels of HIV. In light of this information, it seems that Young Women and adolescent girls are lucky they have remained HIV free for so long. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Royston Date: 10 Feb 10 - 02:34 PM And both of you, we have all been wrong on various occasions with our statistical analyses. That is the whole bloody point. The statistics are to a very large extent silly. These discussions should always be about the issues. Ake, I can't believe that you have the nerve to come back here since every "soltution" to the HIV problem that you advocated - in any group of people - has been thrashed by your own evidence (from UNAIDS) and from your Cuban report. Basically, Ake, you are the cause of a degree of HIV misery and you are a hindrance to tackling the spread of the disease amongst at-risk minorities. The experts whose advice you say you value, all assert that prejudice and bigotry are factors acting against HIV prevention in at-risk groups. So that is why nobody takes you seriously. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Royston Date: 10 Feb 10 - 02:25 PM Akenaton: The sound of one hand clapping. Keith: We all knew that you would come back and whine "I only post facts that I find, it's not my fault..." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: akenaton Date: 10 Feb 10 - 02:10 PM "So, if you and Ake and a few other right wing reactionaries or suckers for all the lies that the media feed you, get the hump and get annoyed by me, then good. That is my intention." Thats a fuckin' laugh......You obviously haven't been reading my posting history!.....As far as radicalism goes, I would leave you in the long grass. You're no radical Royston, you're just another small minded busybody who thinks it's cool to join the "liberal gang". Keith and I seem to be at opposite ends of the political spectrum, but I know he's an honourable guy with an independent mind who can think for himself......I prefer to debate with people who hold original ideas (regardless of the labels you like to stick on them).....not the knee jerk, PC crap parroted by you and your mates. You have been proved wrong here Royston....and I'm sorry to say, a bullying numbskull. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 10 Feb 10 - 10:08 AM I have never, ever posted in a supportive or any other manner against any group except paramiltaries. Here I have posted objective, factual and verifiable evidence and statistics. You can not find any other can you. We know that we are all equally prone to the infection. The difference between general population UK, effectively zero prevalence, and the MSMs and African born, is to do with their practices. Are you saying that because we have established a community of people from Subsaharan Africa, that the locals are going to take up their customs?? I see no signs of that. Experience suggests that the reverse will happen as they slowly integrate. That is why I am sure that it is not going to break out of those communities now, for the same reasons it has never done before. That is why I am not at all surprised that all the experts in the world hold the same opinion as me, and you can not find a single one that agrees with you. Because you are wrong. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Royston Date: 10 Feb 10 - 09:47 AM Keith: This is not some come all blog. This is a forum of friends in folk. You could easily find yourself standing next to me at the bar in some venue singing the same chorus. If you can not express differing views with others in a tolerant and acceptable way, you should take your filthy insults somewhere else." Now you really are dragging the bottom of the barrel. This isn't Freemasonry, we don't owe each other anything just because we happen to like folk music. I have friends on here who are friends in the real world. There are people here that I wouldn't care to spend any time with, people that wouldn't care to spend time with me and I am quite certain that they are the same people...and then some more. C'est la vie. Keith, if you actually go and read your posting history (as I just did, to make sure that I wasn't getting you wrong) then even you would have to concede that people would be justified - on the evidence of your posting - to suspect you of the things that I accuse you of being. Without exception, you post in a supportive manner against homosexuals, Muslims, immigrants, progressive social ideas, settled ethnic minorities, human rights legislation, multiculturalism, Islam. Or alternatively your contributions give support to those who rail against those people, groups or concepts. That you do so in a rather weasel-like way; never actually saying what you believe, just twisting the discussion in a very particular way with what are, at times, downright dodgy statistics from scandalous sources, doesn't let you off the hook as far as I am concerned. So, if you and Ake and a few other right wing reactionaries or suckers for all the lies that the media feed you, get the hump and get annoyed by me, then good. That is my intention. -------------------------------------------------- PS - I am not going to repost the examples of the positions you support or lend credence to. I have just been back over your posting history. Other people can do likewise. If anyone other than you or Ake or one of the usual suspects, thinks that you have not posted in the way I suggest, then I will take the time to provide them with some choice examples of each of the issues I listed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Royston Date: 10 Feb 10 - 09:42 AM Keith: This is not some come all blog. This is a forum of friends in folk. You could easily find yourself standing next to me at the bar in some venue singing the same chorus. If you can not express differing views with others in a tolerant and acceptable way, you should take your filthy insults somewhere else. Now you really are dragging the bottom of the barrel. This isn't Freemasonry, we don't owe each other anything just because we happen to like folk music. I have friends on here who are friends in the real world. There are people here that I wouldn't care to spend any time with, people that wouldn't care to spend time with me and I am quite certain that they are the same people...and then some more. C'est la vie. Keith, if you actually go and read your posting history (as I just did, to make sure that I wasn't getting you wrong) then even you would have to concede that people would be justified - on the evidence of your posting - to suspect you of the things that I accuse you of being. Without exception, you post in a supportive manner against homosexuals, Muslims, immigrants, progressive social ideas, settled ethnic minorities, human rights legislation, multiculturalism, Islam. Or alternatively your contributions give support to those who rail against those people, groups or concepts. That you do so in a rather weasel-like way; never actually saying what you believe, just twisting the discussion in a very particular way with what are, at times, downright dodgy statistics from scandalous sources, doesn't let you off the hook as far as I am concerned. So, if you and Ake and a few other right wing reactionaries or suckers for all the lies that the media feed you, get the hump and get annoyed by me, then good. That is my intention. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Don Firth Date: 09 Feb 10 - 07:21 PM Yes, GfS, I met two homosexuals who insisted that they had been "cured." But it was plainly obvious to those who knew them much better than I did that the form their "cure" had taken was that they were completely abstaining from sexual activity of any kind, and that they were showing signs of anxiety, depression, and hostility. I was told that they had been reasonably happy individuals until they were intimidated by the conservative, fundamentalist church they attended to "take the cure." Which, incidentally, consisted primarily of being told repeatedly that homosexuality is a mortal sin for which they would burn in Hell forever, along with aversion therapy (being presented with provocative material, then given electric shocks). Two extremely screwed-up, unhappy, and hostile people. Cured? I think not!! I explained all this before—but, of course, you either didn't read it or simply refused to retain it in that highly selective memory of yours. As to your father, I was simply playing back the story you told in the Prop 8 thread, as an example of how you "knew for a fact" that homosexuality is a matter of choice. The story was YOURS! And your comments about my relationship with my son and his mother have nothing to do with reality. I don't think you have the capability to understand the actual situation or the reasons for the decisions that were made—for the benefit of all concerned, not just my son and his mother. I made a substantial sacrifice for the benefit of others. And, no, I'm not going to explain it to you because, first, it's none of your business, and second, you simply have neither the brains nor the heart—nor the understanding of common decency—to understand anything like that. As to the rest of your most recent post, once again I invite people here who have the stomach for it to go back over our posts in both threads and see for themselves who said what. There is enough bovine fecal matter in your last post alone to fertilize the roses in a three state area. By the way, the kind of hostility you are displaying toward me, I have seen before. From the two self-proclaimed "cured" homosexuals I talk about in the first paragraph. What's your excuse? And also by the way, venting your bile by screwing around with someone's name is really childish. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 09 Feb 10 - 06:12 PM We both know that we are all equally prone to the infection. The difference between general population UK, effectively zero prevalence, and the MSMs and African born, is to do with their practices. Are you saying that because we have established a community of people from Subsaharan Africa, that the locals are going to take up their customs?? I see no signs of that. Experience suggests that the reverse will happen as they slowly integrate. That is why I am sure that it is not going to break out of those communities now, for the same reasons it has never done before. That is why I am not at all surprised that all the experts in the world hold the same opinion as me, and you can not find a single one that agrees with you. Because you are wrong. There is no disgrace in arguing a point that proves to be wrong. It could even happen to me one day. What is unforgivable is that you have spewed out with your false arguments the most hurtful, offensive abuse. This is not some come all blog. This is a forum of friends in folk. You could easily find yourself standing next to me at the bar in some venue singing the same chorus. If you can not express differing views with others in a tolerant and acceptable way, you should take your filthy insults somewhere else. |
