REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Stem-Cells, Gay rights, Abortion, Janet Jackson's boob..what's the problem ??

POSTED BY: JAYNEZTOWN
UPDATED: Monday, August 27, 2007 13:48
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 22687
PAGE 3 of 4

Saturday, January 8, 2005 6:28 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:
Originally posted by ReeQueen:
Actually, you're quite wrong about this. AIDS is actually down among gay people …

Buying into a stereotype like the one you, Finn, just presented, ignores the people who were poisoned by a tainted blood supply before all blood was tested for HIV (hepatitis was also a big problem), as well as drug users, and heterosexual people who passed the virus amongst themselves and others. And this is without mentioning the current epidemic of AIDS in the African subcontinent, where it is spread mainly by heterosexual sex.

Promiscuity has little to do with the spread of disease. A good little sexual connoisseur (and I am one, so I know whereof I rant) is aware of risk factors, and always practices safe sex. Naturally, there are exceptions, as there always will be, but blaming a disease on the presumed promiscuity of a certain group of people, or using it as proof of the promiscuity of a certain group of people, is as stupid as it is ignorant. It's a lack of knowledge that prevents someone from practicing safe sex, not the number of partners with whom one boinks.
However, according to AVERT (an international AIDS charity) 55% of all diagnosed cases of AIDS in the USA were the result of Male homosexual activity, while only 16% of the cases were the result of heterosexual activity. AIDS may be down among gay people, as you claim; nevertheless, it is over three times what it is in heterosexual people. And all those other factors that you claim I ignored, actually constitute only 29% of the diagnosed cases of AIDS in the US. It is not a stereotype that I buy into, rather it is the facts.

"Around half of all people diagnosed with AIDS were probably infected with HIV through male-to-male sexual contact, while people exposed through heterosexual contact comprise around 16% of the total." http://www.avert.org/usastatg.htm

The CDC agrees with these statistics, although their information is about a year behind. Not sure why. I probably just couldn't find their 2003 or 2004 information.
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pubs/facts/hispanic.htm

So basically, you're the one who's wrong. The facts are clear. AIDS is predominately spread through the activity of Male homosexuality. While this is not proof of sexual promiscuity (and I never said it was), it is certainly suggestive.
Quote:
Originally posted by ReeQueen:
People can marry each other, without the marriage being recognized by the state.
Then the whole argument of gay marriage and polygamy would seem to be moot.
Quote:
Originally posted by ReeQueen:
Why does this even bother you? Why do you care? It's not like it's any of your business who marries whom, even in multiples. How is the marriage of two men to each other, or two women, or even two men and two women, going to affect you in any way, shape, or form? Just because you "disapprove," for whatever reason (and I think the guesses as to your reason are perfectly reasonable), doesn't mean you're affected in any meaningful way.
First of all, why do you care?

Second, how it affects me depends a great deal on how the laws are structured.

Third, I never said I disapproved. In fact I said right the opposite. This is something you invented, much like (it would appear) your understanding of AIDS epidemiology.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, January 8, 2005 10:10 PM

SIGMANUNKI


Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

"Around half of all people diagnosed with AIDS were probably infected with HIV through male-to-male sexual contact, while people exposed through heterosexual contact comprise around 16% of the total." http://www.avert.org/usastatg.htm


From the same page:
"
The term "male-to-male sexual contact" includes gay men, bisexual men and some men who consider themselves to be neither gay nor bisexual.
"

This would include all the many people in marriages that practice homosexual sex "on the side" or what have you. It would also include those that "experiment" in college, etc who need not be gay.

Also, it seems to me that this stat is from the total since the beginning of all this. Therefore those stats wouldn't reflect the current situation. I get this opinion from the same page, this:
"
The total number of people diagnosed with AIDS in the USA is fast approaching one million. This total increases by more than 40,000 each year.
"
and this:
"
since the beginning of the epidemic
"
From the paragraph preceeding and within the same paragraph as from what you quoted from, respectively.


Again, from the same page for the 2003 stats:
Male-to-male sexual contact 14,532
Heterosexual contact 10,983

These numbers are quite close.

Also, doctors highly recommend to there gay patients that they get tested regularly. So, it would be more likely that a gay man/woman would test positive since heteros are more irresponsible in this regard. Especially since HIV can lay dormant in the system for what, 10 years or so. So, since most people need a reason to get tested, how would they be diagnosed and reflected in this study?

The funny thing is that stats can say a lot of things as long as you read all the notes and know where the numbers are coming from, time frame, etc.

Did you read the notes at the end and fully read the text? Because from where I sit, you haven't. You've just read quickly picking up what supported your way of thinking, ignoring the rest.


Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

The CDC agrees with these statistics, although their information is about a year behind. Not sure why. I probably just couldn't find their 2003 or 2004 information.
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pubs/facts/hispanic.htm


You are aware that one minority cannot reflect the whole of society right? So, why did you post data that only reflects Hispanics?

This just futher supports my conjecture above.


Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

While this is not proof of sexual promiscuity (and I never said it was), it is certainly suggestive.


This does not prove anything. All it suggests is that in the beginning of all this, gays had a certain mentality.

What decade are you living in?


Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

Then the whole argument of gay marriage and polygamy would seem to be moot.


No, what it means is that people can marry unofficially. The discussion here is not about that, it's about official recognition of a fundamental right of a people that is currently being denied.


Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

First of all, why do you care?


Continuing to be evasive aren't we? Why can't you just answer a question that is put to you?


Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

Second, how it affects me depends a great deal on how the laws are structured.


How?


Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

Third, I never said I disapproved. In fact I said right the opposite. This is something you invented, much like (it would appear) your understanding of AIDS epidemiology.


You say one thing and argue and support another. This is logically inconsistent.

And it does appear that your knowledge of HIV epidemiology is accurate for knowledge gained in the 80's. Care to update that a bit?

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 9, 2005 1:53 AM

WEASY


I'm really sorry I brought up AIDS.
But yes, it remains factualy even if there are a higher propertion of homosexuals with AIDS in America than heterosexuals that's certianly not true in a world scale. In Africa the people most likely to die from AIDS are married women, and their children.

Why did I bring up christian thought? well because some of the people that are against gay marriage here have been alluding to it but not actually using it to back up their arguments of what the ideal of marriage is actually about.
Since the argument that marriage is meant to promote procreation is a valid one if not one I necessarily agree with I thought it was worth bringing up.
I think religion does have something to say on moral issues, and will remain to have some as long as people believe in religions - i mean, i realise the pope is practically dead but i think we ought to get some actual yay or nay opinions from him sometimes, and i think that a lot of preachers twist the bible to suit their own ends and that this has happened *a lot* in reference to homosexuality.
the point is, I'm not a christian, I can assure you I don't hate christians either, believe it or not I find religion (and their consideration or moral issues) really interesting.
I'm not intolerant, most of the bible makes perfect sense, I'm just not afraid of saying something in scripture is a bit stupid, or has blatantly been interpreted wrong. As all but one of my christian friends do as well. Scripture was written down by humans - so even if it was 'word of God' originally there's no doubt it's been messed around with since then. You have to take it with a pinch of salt.
Anyway that's my opinion on ALL religions, not just christianity.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 9, 2005 6:17 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


To balance SigmaNunki deceptions I’ll simply reiterate the conclusion drawn from the site.
"Around half of all people diagnosed with AIDS were probably infected with HIV through male-to-male sexual contact, while people exposed through heterosexual contact comprise around 16% of the total." http://www.avert.org/usastatg.htm

The statistics support this conclusion. It is indeed factual.

I did a little bit of math and determined that weighted by percent of population the number of diagnosed cases of AIDS as a result of male homosexual activity (not including the use of illicit drugs) was over 24 times that of cases diagnosed among heterosexuals in 2003. This means that homosexual males are over 24 times more likely to be diagnosed with AIDS then heterosexuals in 2003. (If you use 4%, gay males are 60 times more likely to be diagnosed with AIDS then heterosexuals.)

Statistics were taken from the CDC and an upper bound of 10% was used for the total number of homosexuals in the US. The number of gay people in the US is probably closer to 4% of the population.

Weasy: I don’t believe you’ve said anything that I would construe as intolerant towards Christians.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 9, 2005 6:34 AM

WEASY


I'm a bit confused actually as to whether people think I'm being intolerent towards christians or towards homosexuals. I'm really not trying to be either - I was actually trying to point out that the two can play nicely together.

I'm sorry Finn but you're still only concentrating on the US - on a world wide scale AIDS those stats simply aren't relevent.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 9, 2005 6:42 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:
Originally posted by Weasy:
I'm a bit confused actually as to whether people think I'm being intolerent towards christians or towards homosexuals. I'm really not trying to be either - I was actually trying to point out that the two can play nicely together.
I can’t speak for people in general; I can simply say that I don’t see you as either.
Quote:
Originally posted by Weasy:
I'm sorry Finn but you're still only concentrating on the US - on a world wide scale AIDS those stats simply aren't relevent.
The issue is not about gay marriage in Africa. It is about gay marriage in the US. I understand that AIDS in Africa is a different thing, but we’re talking about the US, so it is relevant. The African statistics are not relevant to the current discussion. If you would like to talk about Africa, then just say so.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 9, 2005 6:48 AM

REEQUEEN


Finn:
Quote:
First of all, why do you care?


Ah, but you've been asked, first, and have yet to answer it.

I think it should be obvious, why I care. I care because people are people, and all should be treated as such, not one group here or there denied rights, privileges, and benefits that everybody else has simply because they're not a part of a particular group.

As for your statistics - all I know is what I've experienced. I'm very leery of stats because they tend to be gathered and used for the particular reasons of the group gathering and/or using the information. Statistics can be skewed to provide any kind of answer wanted, no matter what the numbers actually may be.

For AIDS organizations, the motivation would be to make the disease look more widespread than it is, to make people afraid and take better precautions. I'm not saying that's a bad motivation, but it is bad science. I'm not saying they would all do this, either, but the possibility is there.

As for yourself, you clearly want the statistics to prove your point. You may do so, I don't really give a rat's ass. Because what you do when you do what you do do, is show everybody where you're really coming from, what you're personally afraid of, and what you really believe, despite what you say and keep reminding us that you said.

But, please, keep up the entertainment. You're funny!

"There is no grace under pressure for a cat on fire." Cosi

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 9, 2005 6:57 AM

WEASY


Quote:
The issue is not about gay marriage in Africa. It is about gay marriage in the US. I understand that AIDS in Africa is a different thing, but we’re talking about the US, so it is relevant. The African statistics are not relevant to the current discussion. If you would like to talk about Africa, then just say so.


I'm sorry, but if you're going to argue that AIDS is a reason why we shouldn't have gay marriage in America shouldn't that be true of all countries? And the fact is that two-thirds of all people infected with AIDS live in Africa, so if it actually applied there I could see your logic in saying it should apply in the US - but it doesn't.
so your logic is not logical!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 9, 2005 7:05 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:
Originally posted by ReeQueen:
Finn:
Quote:
First of all, why do you care?


Ah, but you've been asked, first, and have yet to answer it.

I think it should be obvious, why I care. I care because people are people, and all should be treated as such, not one group here or there denied rights, privileges, and benefits that everybody else has simply because they're not a part of a particular group.
It’s not obvious. In fact, at times it has appeared as if I were the only one in this discussion that actually did care. All I see from many of you is a desire to attack people who disagree with you, not to argue in favor of an institutionalized gay marriage. Unfortunately for the gay community, many gay rights activists seem to have usurped the issue of gay marriage as a platform from which to attack the Right, not to promote gay rights. It has been argued by me (and further demonstrated by you) that such ideals represent a lack of maturity in the gay rights activists’ arguments.

But to answer your question I care because the Declaration of Independence sets forth the “pursuit of happiness” as an inalienable right. Now, even though the Declaration of Independence is not a legally enforceable document it still defines the ‘spirit’ of how our legal system should seek to interpret itself. While I believe in the tradition of marriage and precedent of its historical and cultural definition as existing between a man and woman, I also believe in the tradition of Pursuit of Happiness and therefore contend that gay marriage, in some form, should be allotted in a democratic manner in furtherance of this doctrine.
Quote:
Originally posted by Weasy:
I'm sorry, but if you're going to argue that AIDS is a reason why we shouldn't have gay marriage in America shouldn't that be true of all countries? And the fact is that two-thirds of all people infected with AIDS live in Africa, so if it actually applied there I could see your logic in saying it should apply in the US - but it doesn't.
so your logic is not logical!
That's not what I'm arguing.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 9, 2005 7:14 AM

WEASY


Quote:
That's not what I'm arguing.

then what ARE you arguing?
'cos we're all clearly not hearing it.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 9, 2005 7:21 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:
Originally posted by Weasy:
Quote:
That's not what I'm arguing.

then what ARE you arguing?
'cos we're all clearly not hearing it.
If you scroll up to my first post, you'll see my argument.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 9, 2005 2:12 PM

SIGMANUNKI


Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
To balance SigmaNunki deceptions I’ll simply reiterate the conclusion drawn from the site.
"Around half of all people diagnosed with AIDS were probably infected with HIV through male-to-male sexual contact, while people exposed through heterosexual contact comprise around 16% of the total." http://www.avert.org/usastatg.htm

The statistics support this conclusion. It is indeed factual.


I never said that this wasn't fact. I just mentioned that you are using it out of context (which you still are). There is a difference.

And you still ignore the time frame-referenced in these numbers. You also don't seem to see that significant word in that sentence "probably."

The male gay community surely in the beginning of all this practice permiscuous sex (but then again, so did a lot of heteros as well). And why wouldn't they? There was no disease that needed to be kept in check, etc nor pregnancy to worry about. And after all, men are men.

This would account for the increased number on the whole time-line with repects with the larger number of gays being infected with HIV.

But what you keep ignoring is that these numbers do not reflect the current situation in the US.

You may be referencing fact, but you are using it in a way that it cannot be used. Therefore you conclusions are false.

It's one of the dangers of statistics. People see what they want to see instead of seeing what's really there. If you would look to where the numbers are coming from (it is on that page you referenced after all) you'd see that this conclusion is unsupportable given the data you reference.


Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

I did a little bit of math and determined that weighted by percent of population the number of diagnosed cases of AIDS as a result of male homosexual activity (not including the use of illicit drugs) was over 24 times that of cases diagnosed among heterosexuals in 2003. This means that homosexual males are over 24 times more likely to be diagnosed with AIDS then heterosexuals in 2003. (If you use 4%, gay males are 60 times more likely to be diagnosed with AIDS then heterosexuals.)


OK, fine let's go through your numbers.

What age group(s) are you refering to in your numbers? Are you using total population and are getting the numbers from percentages off that? That'd be one hell of a mistake.

If you are so convinced of your numbers, present them and let us know where they come from. Give us your math. After all, if this is so rock solid, then it would be able to stand a little peer review, now wouldn't it?

Basically my conjecture is that you are using these "numbers" to reflect you own opinions instead of trying to find out what is actually said in them. Prove me wrong.


Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

The number of gay people in the US is probably closer to 4% of the population.


And where are you getting this "fact."

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 9, 2005 2:30 PM

SIGMANUNKI


Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

But to answer your question I care because the Declaration of Independence sets forth the “pursuit of happiness” as an inalienable right.

[ snip ]

should be allotted in a democratic manner in furtherance of this doctrine.


Wasn't this Declaration of Independence democraticly created? So, then how do you justify not putting certain laws in accordance with this declaration? Don't gays have a right to be happy? At least by this declaration they do.

And even if this document wasn't democratically created, again, how do you justify not putting certain laws in accordance with this declaration since it seems to be the foundation of you democracy?

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 9, 2005 2:33 PM

SIGMANUNKI


And how is promiscuous gay men/women or the AIDS problem even relevant to gay marriage?

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 9, 2005 2:54 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
OK, fine let's go through your numbers.

. . .

Basically my conjecture is that you are using these "numbers" to reflect you own opinions instead of trying to find out what is actually said in them. Prove me wrong.
According to the CDC, the number of diagnosed cases of AIDS in the US in 2003 as a result of male homosexual contact, not including injection drug use, was 17696 cases. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats.htm#exposure

In the same year, the number of diagnosed cases of AIDS due to heterosexual contact is estimated at 13260 cases. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats.htm#exposure

According to the US Census Bureau, the total population of the US in 2003 was 290788976 people. http://www.census.gov/

The only problem is the number of gay people in the US. Many pro-gay organization assume 10%, even though this is probably too large. Some studies have found percentages as low as 1.1%. I’ll use 4%. http://www.avert.org/hsexu1.htm

The number of diagnosed cases of AIDS in the male homosexual community in 2003 was 0.1521%

The number of diagnosed cases of AIDS in the heterosexual community in 2003 was 0.0048%.

The number of diagnosed cases of AIDS per member of the male homosexual community, in this case, is 31.7 times larger then the number of diagnosed cases of AIDS per member of heterosexual community. Roughly, this means that a male homosexual is 31.7 times more likely to be diagnosed with AIDS then a heterosexual.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 9, 2005 9:22 PM

SIGMANUNKI


@Finn mac Cumhal:
Thank you. But I have a couple of questions.

What about children? They don't claim to be gay nor straight yet your use of these numbers assumes them to be straight. Given that children comprise a large percentage of the US's total population this would skew the numbers significantly.

What about those numbers that aren't counted? Those numbers being from areas that don't have an amonymous testing program http://www.avert.org/usastatg.htm:
"
The HIV statistics presented on this page include only the 33 areas with a history of confidential name-based HIV reporting, as listed in our USA AIDS Summary.
"

I've also heard of numbers of the gay population that range from 4-15%, never as low as 1.1%. So, how do you claim to have anything regarding reliable stats given these admissions?

How is it even possible to gain reliable stats regarding the gay population in the US, when gays will probably lie to pollers given the homophobic nature of the society in the US in general (note: I'm not saying you are, I'm only stating what I get from the media, talking to people from the US, etc).

Also, you might note that given that the gay population started with an increased percentage of HIV+ people, even if they practiced as safe sex as heteros at this point, even if they had sex in the same proportion as heteros as well, they would still have increased infection given that more of them would be infected. Basically, different initial conditions.

Also, you said before:
"
(If you use 4%, gay males are 60 times more likely to be diagnosed with AIDS then heterosexuals.)
"
but now:
"
Roughly, this means that a male homosexual is 31.7 times more likely to be diagnosed with AIDS then a heterosexual.
"

Which is it? I asked for where you got your numbers and it's obvious that you've changed them. Your being rather inconsistent.


Given these large uncertainties and large discrepancies, how do you claim to be able to come to your conclusion that gays are promiscuous?

I've also asked other questions in other posts that have gone unanswered. Please do so.


EDIT:
Given the nature of sexual contact in male-to-male relations, it is far more likely that an infection will occur. Source Sue Johanson.

So, given any same number of sexual contacts the gays will recieve more infections than heteros.


----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 9, 2005 10:17 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
What about children? They don't claim to be gay nor straight yet your use of these numbers assumes them to be straight. Given that children comprise a large percentage of the US's total population this would skew the numbers significantly.
Since children are represented in both the samples and normalized by population, it has no effect. Furthermore, the diagnosed cases of AIDS include children, so removing them from the total population would introduce error. However, the contribution from children is negligible.
Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
What about those numbers that aren't counted? Those numbers being from areas that don't have an amonymous testing program
A source of error, only if you assume that the number of diagnosed cases are reported with some bias. An assumption for which I know of no bases. In the absence of such a bias, the ratios are accurate. The CDC numbers are statistical estimates based on 33 samples.
Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
I've also heard of numbers of the gay population that range from 4-15%, never as low as 1.1%. So, how do you claim to have anything regarding reliable stats given these admissions?
I cited my source.
Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
How is it even possible to gain reliable stats regarding the gay population in the US, when gays will probably lie to pollers given the homophobic nature of the society in the US in general (note: I'm not saying you are, I'm only stating what I get from the media, talking to people from the US, etc).
Which is why I originally used 10% as an upper bound. In order for the rate of AIDS diagnoses to be equal, homosexuals would have to be over 56% of the population.
Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Also, you might note that given that the gay population started with an increased percentage of HIV+ people, even if they practiced as safe sex as heteros at this point, even if they had sex in the same proportion as heteros as well, they would still have increased infection given that more of them would be infected. Basically, different initial conditions.
Since I used cases diagnosed in 2003, this has no effect.
Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Also, you said before:
"
(If you use 4%, gay males are 60 times more likely to be diagnosed with AIDS then heterosexuals.)
"
but now:
"
Roughly, this means that a male homosexual is 31.7 times more likely to be diagnosed with AIDS then a heterosexual.
"

Which is it? I asked for where you got your numbers and it's obvious that you've changed them. Your being rather inconsistent.
The statistics are sound. The discrepancy lies in how I interpreted the percent of gay population. In the first case, I assumed a total homosexual population of 4% of the US population and an even split between male and female, which gives 2% male homosexual population. I also used an estimate for the 2003 US population, based on the 2005 estimate. In the second case, I used 4% (as cited) as male homosexual population and I looked up the 2003 US census. Halfling the gay population will double the outcome. If you don’t believe me, just do the math. You’ll see readily that the numbers fall out as I’ve said.
Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Given the nature of sexual contact in male-to-male relations, it is far more likely that an infection will occur. Source Sue Johanson.

So, given any same number of sexual contacts the gays will recieve more infections than heteros.
I find this unlikely, but if you cite a source, I’ll consider it.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 10, 2005 11:35 AM

REEQUEEN


Very nicely posted, thanks, SigmaNunki. I'm not going to do the quote'n'rebut thing with Finny-Finn-Finn-Finn again, because....boring.

Anyway. I discussed this whole thing with my husband yesterday, because I let the statistical thing disturb me. Which was wrong and dumb, but there ya go. What we came up with was this: anal sex is (theoretically) the most risky sexual practice, re: spreading disease. The tissues of the rectum are not as stretchy or as thick as those of the vagina, and more prone to tears. Thus, it is conceivably easier for disease vectors to percolate into the system more easily. So, we can see that homosexuals practicing anal sex may be more at risk to spread HIV.

Also, men do tend to be men with regards to having a perceivably higher tendency to have more than one sexual partner at a time, or more partners over time. When two men are together, well, the little heads may do the thinking for the big heads, who knows? (Naturally, it's riskier if they aren't using condoms, but what isn't?)

Of course, the above caters to all kinds of stereotypes regarding both straight and gay males, but perhaps it somewhat explains why what's-his-name thinks the way he does on the issue of gays and AIDS. Dunno for sure, because Finn, to be quite frank, isn't very good at saying what he might mean, or being clear even when he says he is saying what he means (which he will then say he didn't mean, don't take his words out of context! or assume something he didn't say!).....

"There is no grace under pressure for a cat on fire." Cosi

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 11, 2005 6:23 PM

SIGMANUNKI


Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

Furthermore, the diagnosed cases of AIDS include children, so removing them from the total population would introduce error.


Actually, the figure was 17,969 for Male-to-male sexual contact not 17696 as you stated above. Be more careful.

Secondly this number does not include childern. I quote from the site you cited http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats.htm#exposure:
"
Following is the distribution of the estimated number of diagnoses of AIDS among adults and adolescents by exposure category.
"
Which http://www.avert.org/usastatg.htm states specifically before the numbers in the charts "children under 13 years" and these tables are for "adult and adolescent"s. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats.htm#exposure echos this by stating that "The term "children" refers to persons under age 13 at the time of diagnosis." Which is under a different table entirely.

http://www.census.gov/popest/national/asrh/NC-EST2003-as.html which puts the exstimate of children ages 0 - 14 at ~60,000,000.

You have incurred enormous error by just these things as you are diluting your numbers ie 4/60 is more than 4/100, seriously.


You use http://www.avert.org/hsexu1.htm to get a figure of 4% for estimated gay population in the US, where this page actually says - for males:
"
37% reported some homosexual contact;
13% reported more homosexual than heterosexual contact;
* 4% reported exclusively homosexual contact.
"
So, are these 33% of men you don't count somehow immune to HIV through homosexual contact?

You are clearly involved in such poor statistical practices, that you'r numbers say nothing. You are just taking the numbers that support your conjecture instead of doing good statistics.


Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:

What about those numbers that aren't counted? Those numbers being from areas that don't have an amonymous testing program


A source of error, only if you assume that the number of diagnosed cases are reported with some bias. An assumption for which I know of no bases. In the absence of such a bias, the ratios are accurate. The CDC numbers are statistical estimates based on 33 samples.


No, it's a source of error because people aren't being counted. It has nothing to do with bias. A greater source of error is incurred simply because the sample size is limited.


Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

Which is why I originally used 10% as an upper bound.


Then tell me why you decided to use 4% again? Especially because of the quoted facts above.


Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:

Also, you might note that given that the gay population started with an increased percentage of HIV+ people, even if they practiced as safe sex as heteros at this point, even if they had sex in the same proportion as heteros as well, they would still have increased infection given that more of them would be infected. Basically, different initial conditions.


Since I used cases diagnosed in 2003, this has no effect.


You really need to learn something about math/stats.

If there is a greater number of people (%) in a population that is infected then an uninfected person will have a greater chance of getting it. Thus, since the gay population is smaller and suffered the first losses while the docs where still trying to figure this all out in the 80's, there infection numbers will be higher (%) and as such a greater chance of getting HIV for those not infected.

And if you still don't think that initial conditions matter, disease propagation is a non-linear system (chaotic if you will). From http://www.amazon.ca/exec/obidos/ASIN/0521476852/qid%3D1105501891/701-
9084938-5583543 page 1:
"
The unique character of chaotic dynmaics may be seen most clearly by imagining the system to be started twice, but from slightly different initial conditions. We can think of this small initial difference as resulting from measurement error, for example. For nonchaotic systems this uncertainty leads only to an error in prediction that grows linearly with time. For chaotic systems, on the other hand, the error grows exponentially in time, so that the state of the system is essentially unknown after a very short time. This phenomenon, which occurs only when the governing equations are nonlinear, is known as sensitivity to initial conditions.
"


Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

The discrepancy lies in how I interpreted the percent of gay population. In the first case, I assumed a total homosexual population of 4% of the US population and an even split between male and female, which gives 2% male homosexual population. I also used an estimate for the 2003 US population, based on the 2005 estimate. In the second case, I used 4% (as cited) as male homosexual population and I looked up the 2003 US census. Halfling the gay population will double the outcome. If you don't believe me, just do the math. You'll see readily that the numbers fall out as I¿ve said.


Good stats reveals where the numbers are coming from. You stated 4% in your previous post which is not 2% which is more than misleading, etc.

Basically, I asked where you're numbers came from and you changed them by your own admission. That being said, there are still, clearly, serious problems with how you did both of them, then and currently.


Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:

Given the nature of sexual contact in male-to-male relations, it is far more likely that an infection will occur. Source Sue Johanson.

So, given any same number of sexual contacts the gays will recieve more infections than heteros.


I find this unlikely, but if you cite a source, I'll consider it.


Actually I did cite my source, you clearly decided to not read that. If you wanted a link, ask for it, but don't tell me that I didn't cite my source when it was clearly visible. Quoting myself, "Source Sue Johanson" (also retained from your quote of me above). What did you think this meant?

ReeQueen, you're bang on! Here's the revalent part of what Sue has to say about it for our discussion here.

Please note that this part of my post contains what some may refer to as "uncomfortable information". If you do not want to read things about the biology of male-male sex vs male-female sex don not read any further. You have been warned!

Begin "uncomfortable content"

http://www.talksexwithsue.com/analsex.html
"
The mucous membrane lining of the rectum is not as heavy as the lining of the vagina, so it can tear quite easily and it does not heal as quickly as the vagina. Because feces, loaded with bacteria, are passing by, any tear is vulnerable to infection.
"

http://www.talksexwithsue.com/AIDS.html
"
gains access to her body through minute tears in her vaginal walls or cervix.
"
"
Males are less vulnerable if his female sexual partner is HIV positive, but not immune.
"

So, putting this things together, male-male sex, since it produces tears more readily, is more prone to getting STD's including HIV.

End "uncomfortable content"

Now, since I've become dragged into some side note that I don't care to waste my time on, I'll return to ask a question that must be answered before I continue this current discussion (I've also asked it before).

How does this gays being promiscuous argument, have anything to do whether gays are allowed to marry or not? That is assuming that they are promiscuous, which is far from proven.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 11, 2005 6:45 PM

SIGMANUNKI


Quote:
Originally posted by ReeQueen:

Very nicely posted, thanks, SigmaNunki.


Thanks


Quote:
Originally posted by ReeQueen:

Anyway. I discussed this whole thing with my husband yesterday, because I let the statistical thing disturb me.


I think that this is a natural reaction to something that we really don't know much about. I after all, only know these things because I have a gay cousin and as such have had motivation to think things out and do the research.

I'm also am finishing off a math degree this year, so I can see the large mistakes that are being made here (I would guess) more readily.

I also watch an "abnormal" amount of educational programming.

The important thing is that we think about these things, talk about them and don't let our prejudice get in the way, but to do these things with a "clean slate" if you will. It seems as though you and your husband are some of the rare few that still do this these days.


Quote:
Originally posted by ReeQueen:

[snip]
Dunno for sure, because Finn, to be quite frank, isn't very good at saying what he might mean, or being clear even when he says he is saying what he means (which he will then say he didn't mean, don't take his words out of context! or assume something he didn't say!).....


LOL, I think you just hit the nail on the head!!!

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 11, 2005 7:52 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Secondly this number does not include childern.
So noted.
Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
You have incurred enormous error by just these things as you are diluting your numbers ie 4/60 is more than 4/100, seriously.
God you’re dumb. It makes no difference, because children are equally represented in both samples. You would have known that if you had bothered to recalculate the statistics.

Incidentally I have recalculated them, removing children and using the corrected figure for the diagnosed cases for homosexual contact. Accordingly, a homosexual male was 32.2 times more likely to be diagnosed with AIDS in 2003 then a heterosexual, based on CDC estimates.
Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
So, are these 33% of men you don't count somehow immune to HIV through homosexual contact?
So the gay population is 37% of the total population? That doesn’t make sense. Most gay rights organizations have been fighting to keep the illusion of the 10% figure (known as the Kinsey population) in order to inflate their numbers. Why would they insist on this number, if there were any basis for 37%? Aside from the absurdity of the notion that over 1 in 3 people in the country are gay. Furthermore, many recent studies cast serious doubt on the Kinsey number, and in fact, place the number of gays in the country at around 4%. Some studies have placed them as low as 1.1%. Here is an article summarizing recent studies: http://www.leaderu.com/marco/special/spc11b.html

4% is a perfectly reasonable estimate for the number of homosexuals in the US. You’d know that if you did any measure of research on the subject.
Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
No, it's a source of error because people aren't being counted. It has nothing to do with bias. A greater source of error is incurred simply because the sample size is limited.
No bias, no error.
Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
You are clearly involved in such poor statistical practices, that you'r numbers say nothing. You are just taking the numbers that support your conjecture instead of doing good statistics.

You really need to learn something about math/stats.
Really? I find this rather amusing coming from someone who apparently can’t even do the arithmetic here.
Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
If there is a greater number of people (%) in a population that is infected then an uninfected person will have a greater chance of getting it. Thus, since the gay population is smaller and suffered the first losses while the docs where still trying to figure this all out in the 80's, there infection numbers will be higher (%) and as such a greater chance of getting HIV for those not infected.
True.
Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Actually I did cite my source, you clearly decided to not read that. If you wanted a link, ask for it, but don't tell me that I didn't cite my source when it was clearly visible. Quoting myself, "Source Sue Johanson" (also retained from your quote of me above). What did you think this meant?
No, you didn’t cite your source. Giving someone’s name is not citing your source. You need to learn to cite your sources, if you are going to make arrogant speeches like this.
Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
ReeQueen, you're bang on! Here's the revalent part of what Sue has to say about it for our discussion here.
Finally you actually cited a source. And now that I know what you’re talking about, I can tell you that your argument is wrong. While it is true that anal sex is more risky then vaginal sex in terms of contracting HIV, this cannot explain why AIDS is so much more common in the gay community, since there are as many (or possibly more) heterosexuals who practice anal sex as there are homosexual males doing so. So the increased risk factor of anal sex is shared by both the homosexual and the heterosexual communities.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 12, 2005 7:51 AM

REEQUEEN


SigmaNunki:
Quote:

I think that this is a natural reaction to something that we really don't know much about. I after all, only know these things because I have a gay cousin and as such have had motivation to think things out and do the research.


No, I don't know much about numbers, but that's mostly because numbers'll fool ya (unlike words, which would never do such a thing!), and I managed to score high enough on my ACTs that I didn't need to take any math in college.

Quote:
I'm also am finishing off a math degree this year, so I can see the large mistakes that are being made here (I would guess) more readily.


I just used cynicism, which is slightly less of a basis to say "bullshit" about stats. Hah. But I have seen stats to prove opposite things at the same time, usually by two warring factions each trying to hold their ground. I think that's pretty much all I need, although somewhat less scientifically correct.

Quote:
I also watch an "abnormal" amount of educational programming.


Don't we all? If I didn't have the History Channel I'd not know about a torture instrument called the Pear. Ew.

Quote:
The important thing is that we think about these things, talk about them and don't let our prejudice get in the way, but to do these things with a "clean slate" if you will. It seems as though you and your husband are some of the rare few that still do this these days.


I think we're all prejudiced, just that some of us are prejudiced in a good way. Heh. I think another important part of this, though, is that we not only talk, we read up. I like to learn stuff, all the time, about anything that takes my interest. I don't want to fossilize, set my opinions in stone, then live the rest of my life that way (especially given my whole issue with immortality). I would be bored, and that's one of my biggest fears.

I think, besides loving to argue, that's one of the reasons I engage people like Finn ("I didn't say that!") - I can't understand why they don't want to learn anything new, why they let themselves fossilize into one type of thinking pattern, and why they don't want to see where they're so obviously wrong. It's fascinating.


"You mean they have the internet on computers now?" Homer

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 12, 2005 11:37 AM

SIGMANUNKI


Finn, I find it interesting that you tell us that we're immature, name call, etc and now you call me "dumb." That's called being a hypocrite.

I'll quote myself from my last post.

Now, since I've become dragged into some side note that I don't care to waste my time on, I'll return to ask a question that must be answered before I continue this current discussion (I've also asked it before).

How does this gays being promiscuous argument, have anything to do whether gays are allowed to marry or not? That is assuming that they are promiscuous, which is far from proven.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 12, 2005 12:01 PM

SIGMANUNKI


@ReeQueen:
It's true that we're all prejudiced, but it's when that gets in the way of doing good research that's when it becomes a problem. ie If you think something and go to prove it and ignore the data that suggests otherwise. That is letting it get in the way, which I believe Finn is doing, which I've stated before, which he didn't comment on, which I'm not surprised by.

ReeQueen wrote:
"I can't understand why they don't want to learn anything new, why they let themselves fossilize into one type of thinking pattern, and why they don't want to see where they're so obviously wrong. It's fascinating."

Isn't it though


Getting back to the gay marriage thing, I'll quote Voltaire:
"I disagree with what you have to say but will fight to the death to protect your right to say it."

Which is the way I think people should view gay marriage if they disagree with it. Otherwise, what's all that "freedom" thing I keep hearing them talk about? Or is it, I have the "freedom" to suppress whoever is in the minority?

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 12, 2005 3:27 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Finn, I find it interesting that you tell us that we're immature, name call, etc and now you call me "dumb." That's called being a hypocrite.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
Quote:
Originally posted by ReeQueen:
I think, besides loving to argue, that's one of the reasons I engage people like Finn ("I didn't say that!") - I can't understand why they don't want to learn anything new, why they let themselves fossilize into one type of thinking pattern, and why they don't want to see where they're so obviously wrong. It's fascinating.
You want to learn something ‘new,’ as long as it doesn’t contradict the old thinking? You accuse me of being closed minded, but have you seriously considered anything I’ve said in this thread?

You have insisted from your first post that my position is necessarily wrong. Not because there is evidence or critical analysis to disprove me; by and large, the arguments put forth against me in the thread, have been strawman fallacies, but simply because my criticism of the gay rights movement is deemed heretical. “Thou shalt not criticize gay rights activists.” But why shouldn’t we criticize the gay rights movement? If we can’t criticize the gay rights movement then we necessarily sanction it. It ceases then to be a movement based on reason, grounded in critical analysis, and becomes one based on dogma, as a religion.

This is often the reason why people who criticize the gay rights movement are labeled bigots. It’s not because they necessarily are bigots, but rather because many pro-gay rights people don’t want to hear what they have to say, so they use ad homenem arguments to protect their own preconceptions. Like the stereotypical fundamentalists preacher who proclaims that anyone who doesn’t follow his interpretation is going to hell. They aren’t interested in learning why or what traditionalists believe. They are interested in protecting their own dogma. The pro-gay marriage argument is, then, as sectarian as the anti-gay marriage argument.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 12, 2005 7:56 PM

SIGMANUNKI


Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:

Finn, I find it interesting that you tell us that we're immature, name call, etc and now you call me "dumb." That's called being a hypocrite.


Pot. Kettle. Black.


You again state something without proof. I stated an example of you being a hypocrite. Perhaps you should do the same.


I'll quote myself from my last post and the one before that... at least.

Now, since I've become dragged into some side note that I don't care to waste my time on, I'll return to ask a question that must be answered before I continue this current discussion (I've also asked it before).

How does this gays being promiscuous argument, have anything to do whether gays are allowed to marry or not? That is assuming that they are promiscuous, which is far from proven.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 12, 2005 8:01 PM

SIGMANUNKI


@ReeQueen:
How many times do you think I'll have to ask before I get an answer?... Or will I?

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 12, 2005 8:13 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
You again state something without proof. I stated an example of you being a hypocrite. Perhaps you should do the same.
I refer you to your previous posts.
Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
[B]@ReeQueen:
How many times do you think I'll have to ask before I get an answer?... Or will I?
You mean, other then the half-dozen or so times I’ve already answered this question? Once again I refer you to previous discussion. Half this thread has been in response to that issue. If you have something original to add, that hasn’t already been run into the ground, then by all means present it.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 13, 2005 3:40 AM

REEQUEEN


Sigma - do you mind if I call you Sigma?

Quote:
How many times do you think I'll have to ask before I get an answer?... Or will I?


Good question. Fair. I think the answer depends on what kind of answer we should expect. Should we expect a straight, but disingenous answer? Or should we expect a disingenuos, but straight answer? I think our Finn ("I didn't say that!") will answer, at some point, but the answer ("Out of context!") will be pretty much the same....stuff.

Hard to know. heh.....

"You mean they have the internet on computers now?" Homer

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 13, 2005 7:18 AM

SIGMANUNKI


Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:

You again state something without proof. I stated an example of you being a hypocrite. Perhaps you should do the same.


I refer you to your previous posts.


This answer is unresponsive. Provide a quote.

You did notice those "'s in my post, right? So, if you want to prove your point, you must do the same.

You said that we are immature and name call, etc.
"their use of adhomenem and insults"
"I’m trying to point out how immature the pro-gay marriage argument has become."
"rather I think it is the gay rights activists, who are operating on immature arguments"
"or an immature attitude which needs revising? "

Then you said,
"God you’re dumb."

Hypocritical.

To say that I'm the same way, you must show that I've made some claim not to be immature or not insult you or others, AND, you must quote what I've done that contradicts this.

I've done this to back up my claim, how about you?


Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:

@ReeQueen:
How many times do you think I'll have to ask before I get an answer?... Or will I?


You mean, other then the half-dozen or so times I’ve already answered this question? Once again I refer you to previous discussion. Half this thread has been in response to that issue. If you have something original to add, that hasn’t already been run into the ground, then by all means present it.


Again, an unresponsive post.

All I've gotten from you in this thread is that part of your reason for not wanting gays to marry is that they are promiscuous, or so you say, this particular point remains unproven.

So, provide a quote from yourself that is an answer to my question. That is that, why being promiscuous somehow makes gays not eligible for marriage.

But, if you've said this before, it'll be quite easy for you to do this. So, why not do it? It'd be rather painless... wouldn't it?

NOTE: Stating that gays are promiscuous is not stating why that matters. Provide an answer please.


I'll quote myself from my last post and the one before that and the one before that... at least.

Now, since I've become dragged into some side note that I don't care to waste my time on, I'll return to ask a question that must be answered before I continue this current discussion (I've also asked it before).

How does this gays being promiscuous argument, have anything to do whether gays are allowed to marry or not? That is assuming that they are promiscuous, which is far from proven.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 13, 2005 7:28 AM

SIGMANUNKI


Quote:
Originally posted by ReeQueen:

Sigma - do you mind if I call you Sigma?


Not at all


Quote:
Originally posted by ReeQueen:

Quote:
How many times do you think I'll have to ask before I get an answer?... Or will I?


Good question. Fair. I think the answer depends on what kind of answer we should expect.
[snip]

Hard to know. heh.....


Well, the first response was... unresponsive. So, to me, the probability of getting an answer is getting lower.

I don't understand why answering a straight question with a straight answer is so difficult.

It makes me want to do what Riley suggested and put him in a cage and do experiments on him

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 13, 2005 9:27 AM

REEQUEEN


Good morning, Sigma, Finn.

Sigma:
Quote:
Well, the first response was... unresponsive. So, to me, the probability of getting an answer is getting lower.


Clearly. I was being over-optimistic. Giving the benefit of the doubt to my fellow Finn ("Pink thong! Pink thong!"). I was weak.

Quote:
I don't understand why answering a straight question with a straight answer is so difficult.


Ooh! Ooh! I can answer this: because that would mean Finn ("If you're gay you're promiscuous!") would have to actually think about what he's saying. He'd have to ask himself a hard question or two, examine his assumptions, and justify his conclusions. Mental gymnastics can be exhausting, especially when you're unused to self-examination in the first place.

Quote:
It makes me want to do what Riley suggested and put him in a cage and do experiments on him


This way is probably more humane if somewhat more irritating.

"You mean they have the internet on computers now?" Homer

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 14, 2005 4:00 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:
Originally posted by ReeQueen:
Quote:
It makes me want to do what Riley suggested and put him in a cage and do experiments on him


This way is probably more humane if somewhat more irritating.
"You two are the two who are the two. I'm the other one."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 14, 2005 8:20 PM

SIGMANUNKI


Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

"You two are the two who are the two. I'm the other one."


1) What?!?!?

2) There was a = joke... at least mostly

3) I'll quote myself from my last post and the one before that and the one before that and the one before that... at least.

Now, since I've become dragged into some side note that I don't care to waste my time on, I'll return to ask a question that must be answered before I continue this current discussion (I've also asked it before).

How does this gays being promiscuous argument, have anything to do whether gays are allowed to marry or not? That is assuming that they are promiscuous, which is far from proven.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 14, 2005 8:26 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


This has already been answered.

You're obsessed. You need to let it go and move on with your life.

Incidentally, the quote in my previous post was said by Willow from Buffy.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 14, 2005 8:36 PM

SIGMANUNKI


Quote:
Originally posted by ReeQueen:

Clearly. I was being over-optimistic. Giving the benefit of the doubt to my fellow Finn ("Pink thong! Pink thong!"). I was weak.


Giving the benifit of the doubt and second chances is what makes up accepting and it gives our selves a chance to learn. If Finn would step back for a second and give a "second chance" to the gay community, I have no doubt that given what facts and logic that have been brought up here, he'd change his mind. But that is given that he is open to that, which it doesn't seem that he is.


I know this guy that was in my Quantum class and he was telling us about this religion class he was taking. It was titled, "Science and Religion" or something like that.

He told us that everybody has some swing with regards to what they believe. For some, what they are willing to accept, that isn't what they believe, given proof to the contrary, is greater than others. The part of someones belief that they won't change even given a mountain of proof is what the prof. called everyones "black box."

I will conjecture that we've stepped into Finn's black box. I really think, that no matter how many holes I/we put into his stats. How many times I/we logically, etc counter his arguments that there'll even be a chance at changing his mind.

Especially since he says such silly things like, "since there are as many (or possibly more) heterosexuals who practice anal sex as there are homosexual males doing so."

If my conjecture is true, I pitty him.


Quote:
Originally posted by ReeQueen:

Ooh! Ooh! I can answer this: because that would mean Finn ("If you're gay you're promiscuous!") would have to actually think about what he's saying. He'd have to ask himself a hard question or two, examine his assumptions, and justify his conclusions. Mental gymnastics can be exhausting, especially when you're unused to self-examination in the first place.


Well said!


Quote:
Originally posted by ReeQueen:

Good morning, Sigma, Finn.


It's night time right now here, so, good night

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 14, 2005 8:51 PM

SIGMANUNKI


@Finn:
Actually, NO you haven't. To do so, you would have to cite yourself and not just refer me to "earlier posts."

You do remember berating me about not citing my sources properly, right? Oooo, another example of you being a hypocrite.

So, please, cite your sources. Give me quotes, because it does seem as though you are not able to do so. Prove me wrong.


And, are you aware that context were the meaning comes from in many quotes? This would seem to be the case in the one you stated. So, again, what?


Also, this isn't obsession. What I am doing is forcing you to actually answer the question. One which was posed to you on a number of occassions, but never answered. You may think you've addressed this issue but you haven't.

You must realize that just because you are thinking about something when you type, and you're "inner voice" explains everything clearly, we aren't listening to your inner most thoughts while you are typing your posts.

We only read the end post, which it is clear that they have enough missing information so as to not answer the question.


I'll quote myself from my last post and the one before that and the one before that and the one before that and before that... at least.

Now, since I've become dragged into some side note that I don't care to waste my time on, I'll return to ask a question that must be answered before I continue this current discussion (I've also asked it before).

How does this gays being promiscuous argument, have anything to do whether gays are allowed to marry or not? That is assuming that they are promiscuous, which is far from proven.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 14, 2005 9:03 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Also, this isn't obsession. What I am doing is forcing you to actually answer the question. One which was posed to you on a number of occassions, but never answered. You may think you've addressed this issue but you haven't.
I have answered it. Half the posts in this thread deal with that exact issue. If you can’t grasp that simple thing, then citing specific posts isn’t going to help you.

If you had spent more time actually reading my posts instead of inventing strawman reasons to call me a bigot, you would already have your answer. I’m not to blame for your inability to objectively examine an issue.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, January 15, 2005 7:20 AM

SIGMANUNKI


Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

I have answered it. Half the posts in this thread deal with that exact issue. If you can’t grasp that simple thing, then citing specific posts isn’t going to help you.

If you had spent more time actually reading my posts instead of inventing strawman reasons to call me a bigot, you would already have your answer. I’m not to blame for your inability to objectively examine an issue.


Listen.

I've already explained that although I fully believe that you think you've answered this question all that matters is what the people who actually read your posts in this regard.

All you've said in this thread is that gays shouldn't marry because they are promiscusous. But you have not given any reason why.

Provide the reason why.

And even if you've stated this before, then a copy/paste would be easy for you now wouldn't it? And I don't know anyone that'll go through 100+ posts to find just one statement by anyone, so to ask that is unreasonable.

So, instead of prattling on about how the answer is there, why not provide it? Instead of continuing this pointless exercise. You have the power to end this with (apparently) one copy/paste.


I'll quote myself from my last post and the one before that and the one before that and the one before that and before that and before that... at least.

Now, since I've become dragged into some side note that I don't care to waste my time on, I'll return to ask a question that must be answered before I continue this current discussion (I've also asked it before).

How does this gays being promiscuous argument, have anything to do whether gays are allowed to marry or not? That is assuming that they are promiscuous, which is far from proven.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, January 15, 2005 8:18 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
All you've said in this thread is that gays shouldn't marry because they are promiscusous. But you have not given any reason why.
Because I’ve never said this. I’ve never said anything like this. This is apparently a figment of your imagination. Until you are willing to set aside these ridiculous strawman arguments, it’s a waste of my time to continue giving you information that you won’t listen to.
Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Especially since he says such silly things like, "since there are as many (or possibly more) heterosexuals who practice anal sex as there are homosexual males doing so."

If my conjecture is true, I pitty him.
There’s nothing stupid about it. But I supposed it you can’t do arithmetic you might find it hard to figure out. Save your pitty, though. I stand completely behind everything I’ve said in this thread. I think I've made my case well.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, January 15, 2005 10:15 AM

TETHYS


Quote:
Originally posted by JaynezTown:


Big, long epistle



Ok, I want you to bear in mind that I am a very intelligent, sensible individual. I also, unlike most "so-called" christians, have actually read the Bible cover-to-cover (lot of time in the army), as well as the Quran, and yes for those thaty don't get it, the Torah, since it's part of the Bible (LOL :P).

I have studied (extensively) Eastern and Western Philosophy and religions. Also, governmental policies, precedents, etc etc.

So, on to my personal opinion that is firmylo ground in that background, as well as stone-cold-in-your-face-don't-give-a-shit-what-your-stupid-inbred-ass-has-to-say LOGIC.




THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think stem cell research can possibly help mankind more than harm. Genetic engineering on the other hand......(Such as recombinant DNA for those that want to find loopholes in my logic, or human cloning.

As for Janet Jackson, I could care less. Granted, children saw that, but then again, it didn't show anything. It's nothing mroe than can be found in typical primetime television, or hell....even the cheerleaders in the background.
But then again, that's what happens when your country is founded by a bunch of religous fanatics.

And gay marriage. This is the funniest crap I have ever heard "Faggots can't marry" Let me ask you inbreds out there a question. Would you want to marry a gay man (ladies) or a lesbian (men). The answer would of course be no, so why worry about it? Or is the fact that someone out there gets a little happiness a little hard for you schmucks to swallow? And as a matter of fact, the Bible says nothing about gay marriage, simply about sadomizitation, which is having sex with young boys. The BIBLE makes a bigger crime to not love than to love a member of the same sex.

Thus, my epistle is done.

"Your mouth is talking. Might wanna see to that"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, January 15, 2005 3:47 PM

NEUTRINOLAD


Quote:
Originally posted by tethys:
...sadomizitation, which is having sex with young boys.


I think you mean "sodomize".
And no I don't. I think you mean "pedophilia".
Oh, and the Bible also says nothing of marrying a yak. You ought not pretend you don't understand the actual definition of marriage just to press an argument.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, January 15, 2005 4:19 PM

TETHYS


Quote:
Originally posted by NeutrinoLad:
Quote:
Originally posted by tethys:
...sadomizitation, which is having sex with young boys.


I think you mean "sodomize".
And no I don't. I think you mean "pedophilia".
Oh, and the Bible also says nothing of marrying a yak. You ought not pretend you don't understand the actual definition of marriage just to press an argument.





sodomize = to perform sodomy
sodomization = the action(s) of sodomy, to perform sodomy i.e. realization = the act of realizing something

Sodomy also refers to any, or all, twisted sex acts, such as sex with boys (pedophilia is sex with children, idiot, boy sex is specifically reffered to as sodomy, sex with animals, including your yaks, shoving a turkey baster up your wazoo, etc etc)

and btw, in trying to disprove my eloquent point about marriage, you just so happened to back it up with your reference to "marrying a yak", though the Bible DOES refer to "sexual congress with animals". SO BITE ME.

I define marriage as any other does, *ahem*

"THE JOINING OF TWO PEOPLE OF ANY RACE, CREED, RELIGION, OR BACKGROUND (insert sex), COMING TOGETHER TO PLEDGE THEIR LIVES AND LOVE TO EACH OTHER , AND TO REMAIN FAITHFUL TO THEIR MATE FOR THE REST OF SAID LIVES."

If you don't define marriage that way, then I truly feel sorry for your spouse, nor should you marry if you are not.



"Your mouth is talking. Might wanna see to that"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, January 15, 2005 6:17 PM

NEUTRINOLAD


Quote:
Originally posted by tethys:

sodomize = to perform sodomy
sodomization = the action(s) of sodomy, to perform sodomy i.e. realization = the act of realizing something

Sodomy also refers to any, or all, twisted sex acts, such as sex with boys (pedophilia is sex with children, idiot, boy sex is specifically reffered to as sodomy, sex with animals, including your yaks, shoving a turkey baster up your wazoo, etc etc)

and btw, in trying to disprove my eloquent point about marriage, you just so happened to back it up with your reference to "marrying a yak", though the Bible DOES refer to "sexual congress with animals". SO BITE ME.

I define marriage as any other does, *ahem*

"THE JOINING OF TWO PEOPLE OF ANY RACE, CREED, RELIGION, OR BACKGROUND (insert sex), COMING TOGETHER TO PLEDGE THEIR LIVES AND LOVE TO EACH OTHER , AND TO REMAIN FAITHFUL TO THEIR MATE FOR THE REST OF SAID LIVES."

If you don't define marriage that way, then I truly feel sorry for your spouse, nor should you marry if you are not.


Oh, dear. I do not want to believe an adult can be this ignorant, so I'll assume it's an adolescent trolling. I'm such an easy mark

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, January 15, 2005 6:26 PM

TETHYS


LMMFAO!!!!!!

Who's the ignorant one here?

Almost 30 years old, veteran non-commisioned officer in the army, an IT major in college, AND OOPS a THEOLOGY Minor. Of course, college educated, and highly intelligient.


So, go insult someone else, and don't belittle this board with your narrow-mindedness.

oh, and btw my wife of four years seems to see nothing wrong with how I view marriage, which might explain why I have been married for twice the norm for the first (and only) marriage, by statistics (18 months).



"Your mouth is talking. Might wanna see to that"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 16, 2005 8:14 AM

REEQUEEN


The Thread That Just Won't Die

Good.

Quote:
Giving the benifit of the doubt and second chances is what makes up accepting and it gives our selves a chance to learn.


Learning is something I need. I need to learn, I need to observe things and make my own hyptheses, and I also need to be proven wrong, or merely mistaken, on occasion.

Of course, the last bit rarely happens. While that fact often makes me condescending, supercilious, and disdainful - parts of my personality which aren't so nice, but integral so I've adjusted - I'm also capable of realizing that having my mind, ideas, opinions, conjectures, or whatever, set in stone, is not only unattractive but counter-productive to any growth I strive for.

I need to grow and change. Mostly because I'm afraid of turning into my mother, but I digress.

I'd like all people to want to grow and change, but that just doesn't seem to be the case. Ossification seems to be comfortable for a lot of people, happy in their rigidity, and unable to view the world with new eyes every day.

Quote:
He told us that everybody has some swing with regards to what they believe. For some, what they are willing to accept, that isn't what they believe, given proof to the contrary, is greater than others. The part of someones belief that they won't change even given a mountain of proof is what the prof. called everyones "black box."

I will conjecture that we've stepped into Finn's black box. I really think, that no matter how many holes I/we put into his stats. How many times I/we logically, etc counter his arguments that there'll even be a chance at changing his mind.


The black box must be comfy, because a lot of people reside in their own. It makes me sad and tired to think about, really.

Quote:
Especially since he says such silly things like, "since there are as many (or possibly more) heterosexuals who practice anal sex as there are homosexual males doing so."


Wow. See, I'm to the point where I'm totally skipping Finn's posts. Repetitive, and yet uninteresting. So I didn't see that....wow.

Quote:
It's night time right now here, so, good night


I'm a bit of a time-zone chauvinist. Right now it's Sunday morning, and I'm entering the Long, Dark, Teatime of the Soul. Just about to go see how many baths I can usefully take....

/Hitchhiker's Guide reference.

"You mean they have the internet on computers now?" Homer

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 16, 2005 6:40 PM

SIGMANUNKI


Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:

All you've said in this thread is that gays shouldn't marry because they are promiscusous. But you have not given any reason why.


Because I’ve never said this. I’ve never said anything like this. This is apparently a figment of your imagination. Until you are willing to set aside these ridiculous strawman arguments, it’s a waste of my time to continue giving you information that you won’t listen to.


We are in a thread talking about certain things. One of them being gay marriage. So, when you say and make certain statements they take on meaning in that context. You can't get around this, it's called speaking English.

A quick search through this thread shows that you said:
"Traditionalists don't like sexual promiscuity among heterosexuals anymore then they like it under homosexuals, particularly the ones who have teen-age daughters."

And I quote you:
Quote:
Originally posted by FINN MAC CUMHAL:

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:

So, you never said that gays are promiscuous? Wait a minute, you did.


Some gays are.



So, you have said that gays are promiscuous, or at least have used it in your agruments towards the end that you seek. This coupled with your "statistics" is quite telling.

If you don't want people to come to wrong conclusions then don't say such things or be clear! Because it is clear that you haven't been clear throughout this thread.


Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

There’s nothing stupid about it.


You remember our conversation about the biology of male-male sex and initial conditions, right?


Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

But I supposed it you can’t do arithmetic you might find it hard to figure out.


LOL, you have no clue!

I never said that your math was wrong, I said your statistics were (and still are) wrong. There is a difference. This is something that you should look up.

Oh, and this would be another example of yourself being rude and insulting. Being a hypocrite again, eh?


Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

I stand completely behind everything I’ve said in this thread. I think I've made my case well.


I've no doubt that you stand behind what you've said in this thread. You actually seem to believe it, which is rather sad.

But no, you haven't made your case well. Given the mass amounts of misunderstanding that you claim that is involved here, contradict this entirely. You really are self contradictory, and the sad thing is that you don't seem to realize it


Since this discussion has everything to do with gay marriage, and I've at least never strayed from that discussion, you'll have to inform me and others, how any of this (HIV, promiscuous behavour, etc) has anything to do with if gays are allowed to marry or not. Or if the HIV thing wasn't to produce the result that gays are promiscuous, please tell us what your point actually is, because it is rather elusive.

It'd also be good if you could go back and answer the landslide of questions that you've completely ignored along the way.


I'll quote myself from my last post and the one before that and the one before that and the one before that and before that and before that and before that... at least.

Now, since I've become dragged into some side note that I don't care to waste my time on, I'll return to ask a question that must be answered before I continue this current discussion (I've also asked it before).

How does this gays being promiscuous argument, have anything to do whether gays are allowed to marry or not? That is assuming that they are promiscuous, which is far from proven.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 16, 2005 7:02 PM

SIGMANUNKI


Quote:
Originally posted by ReeQueen:

Learning is something I need. I need to learn, I need to observe things and make my own hyptheses, and I also need to be proven wrong, or merely mistaken, on occasion.


I'm pretty much the same.

Finn doesn't like to do this. He thinks that his stats are good but doesn't seem to realize that if you are trying to come to a real life conclusion then you numbers must reflect that reality.

ie
He included children < 13. First off the basic assumption here is that the population is sexually active. Otherwise how would they have the chance at having male-male sex right? So, basically Finn is saying that approximatly 4% of children < 13 are having gay male sex. Sounds rather wrong doesn't it?

He also doesn't include any stats for bisexuals and experimenters (spelling?). They will have an increased chance of getting HIV because of involvment with a community that has increased numbers of HIV+ people.

Finn doesn't seem to realize that people having male-male sex are not just going to be gay. The percentages that I've quoted from his cites proves that there is a significant percentage of bi/straight people have gay male sex. Yet it isn't reflected in his stats? = problem.


I point out things that are problems and he ignores them saying things like the numbers are normalized, etc. Fine, that may well be, I haven't done the calculations myself as I have a busy life right now. But that all this means is that by chance, the numbers at the end are the same (if he is doing things right, which is have doubts about given the "logic" he's shown here). This doesn't mean that the stats are correct for the above reasons and more.


Quote:
Originally posted by ReeQueen:

The black box must be comfy, because a lot of people reside in their own. It makes me sad and tired to think about, really.


To a certain extent we all have one. I for instance will never wish to go around killing people for no good reason. This is something that I won't change for anyone or anything (save effects from nerve gas, etc ). But aside from these things that I would think they are quite common "beliefs". I gather that I'm pretty open to new not killing indiscriminantly ideas, and I assume that you're the same way.


Quote:
Originally posted by ReeQueen:

Wow. See, I'm to the point where I'm totally skipping Finn's posts. Repetitive, and yet uninteresting. So I didn't see that....wow.


Fasinating isn't it?


Quote:
Originally posted by ReeQueen:

I'm a bit of a time-zone chauvinist. Right now it's Sunday morning, and I'm entering the Long, Dark, Teatime of the Soul. Just about to go see how many baths I can usefully take....

/Hitchhiker's Guide reference.


Which book is that from? Is it actually the first one? If so I don't remember that. I've just started the second.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 16, 2005 7:06 PM

SIGMANUNKI


Quote:
Originally posted by tethys:

"THE JOINING OF TWO PEOPLE OF ANY RACE, CREED, RELIGION, OR BACKGROUND (insert sex), COMING TOGETHER TO PLEDGE THEIR LIVES AND LOVE TO EACH OTHER , AND TO REMAIN FAITHFUL TO THEIR MATE FOR THE REST OF SAID LIVES."


For what it's worth, I actually really like this definition


Quote:
Originally posted by tethys:

If you don't define marriage that way, then I truly feel sorry for your spouse, nor should you marry if you are not.


Agreed!!!

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 16, 2005 7:11 PM

SIGMANUNKI


Quote:
Originally posted by tethys:

oh, and btw my wife of four years seems to see nothing wrong with how I view marriage, which might explain why I have been married for twice the norm for the first (and only) marriage, by statistics (18 months).

"Your mouth is talking. Might wanna see to that"


Boo-Yah!!!

And your sig is rather appropriate right now, don't you think?

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Sir Jimmy Savile Knight of the BBC Empire raped children in Satanic rituals in hospitals with LOT'S of dead bodies
Thu, November 21, 2024 13:19 - 7 posts
Matt Gaetz, typical Republican
Thu, November 21, 2024 13:13 - 143 posts
Will Your State Regain It's Representation Next Decade?
Thu, November 21, 2024 12:45 - 112 posts
Fauci gives the vaccinated permission to enjoy Thanksgiving
Thu, November 21, 2024 12:38 - 4 posts
English Common Law legalizes pedophilia in USA
Thu, November 21, 2024 11:42 - 8 posts
The parallel internet is coming
Thu, November 21, 2024 11:28 - 178 posts
Is the United States of America a CHRISTIAN Nation and if Not...then what comes after
Thu, November 21, 2024 10:33 - 21 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, November 21, 2024 10:17 - 7469 posts
The Rise and Fall of Western Civilisation
Thu, November 21, 2024 10:12 - 51 posts
Biden* to punish border agents who were found NOT whipping illegal migrants
Thu, November 21, 2024 09:55 - 26 posts
Hip-Hop Artist Lauryn Hill Blames Slavery for Tax Evasion
Thu, November 21, 2024 09:52 - 11 posts
GOP House can't claim to speak for America
Thu, November 21, 2024 09:50 - 12 posts
 VIEW MORE TOPICS 

FFF.NET SOCIAL