Obama speaks to half-empty fundraiser--heckled in Florida

Are you really arguing in 2011, that AIDS is a homosexual, and druggie thing?

Here’s your chance to clarify yourself, rather than whine I’m putting words into someone’s mouth. I mean, why stop there? Why not just deny AIDS ever existed.

You seem remarkably immune to simple points.

You said:

A. There are no reliable AIDS/HIV stats.

B. AIDS and HIV are not a homosexual thing, or a drug user thing. Please don’t mislead anyone into thinking otherwise.

I pointed out that if A is true, then you positively cannot make the assertion of B on any basis of fact.

The methodology of how the CDC compiled the statistics for the 2009 is right HERE. I know you didn't time to read this before you replied previously, so it would be informative to know how you know, not deeply or earnestly believe that there are "no reliable AIDS/HIV" statistics.

I've presented the most recent statistics on a disease that's been around at least since the 1970s (aside from possible outliers) compiled by one of the best centers in the world for the study of disease and its epidemiology and your response is basically, "Nuh uh! They don't know what they're talking about. No one does. And because of that I will make an assertion that is also scientifically void because of what I claim but go on to claim that it still has a higher truth quotient, based on the intensity of my feeling of what I think ought to be."

“I pointed out that if A is true, then you positively cannot make the assertion of B on any basis of fact.”

Which I’m sure you think is some great debate tactic for the argument you’re not even comfortable admitting you’re making... unfortunately, we’re talking about HIV. People die from it. They’re not all drug users, or sexual deviants. Your attempts to defend someone who made that characterization puts blood on your hands. It was denialist attitudes like yours that resulted in countless deaths, including those in the medical profession attending to these patients.

To your ridiculous frosh year debate club argument - you will not be able to find 3 independent sources with the same statistics on HIV internationally. Hell, you won’t even find a consensus on wether oral sex can transmit HIV. Much of the disease still remains a mystery.

Finally..

The study *you* provided from the CDC states that 73% of women (the fastest growing demographic of victims) got HIV from heterosexual sex.

So hush.

I said: “I pointed out that if A is true, then you positively cannot make the assertion of B on any basis of fact.”

You: Which I’m sure you think is some great debate tactic for the argument you’re not even comfortable admitting you’re making... unfortunately, we’re talking about HIV. People die from it. They’re not all drug users, or sexual deviants. Your attempts to defend someone who made that characterization puts blood on your hands. It was denialist attitudes like yours that resulted in countless deaths, including those in the medical profession attending to these patients.

To your ridiculous frosh year debate club argument - you will not be able to find 3 independent sources with the same statistics on HIV internationally. Hell, you won’t even find a consensus on wether oral sex can transmit HIV. Much of the disease still remains a mystery.

Finally..

The study *you* provided from the CDC states that 73% of women (the fastest growing demographic of victims) got HIV from heterosexual sex.

So hush.

I'll try it again. You're denying a certain distribution of HIV infections. You claim that there are no reliable statistics. They ONLY way you can deny a certain set of statistics is to point to another set of statistics that have a greater degree of reliability. But you have said that there are no reliable statistics. You have undercut your own case. This is not a "debate tactic," it's a simple thing called rational thought. The way you approach this would be akin to claiming that the statement, "If A is entirely in B and B is entirely in C, then A is entirely in C" is a debate tactic.

You are bringing in other things I didn't even speak about: international HIV infections. You are also talking about what I am comfortable or not admitting, that's just mind-reading. You claim that I'm defending someone. I'm not defending anyone else on this thread. I'm pointing out that your characterizations are self-contradictory: If no statistics are reliable and you are making a claim that can only be substantiated by the use of reliable statistics then you are cutting out from under yourself any basis for your argument. I didn't do that. You did.

Again, at the same time you say there are no reliable statistics, you claim that "CDC states that 73% of women (the fastest growing demographic of victims) got HIV from heterosexual sex."

You're being imprecise: "73% of women got HIV from heterosexual sex" or "73% of women with HIV contracted it through heterosexual sex"?

Also, if heterosexual women are the "fastest growing demographic of victims" then that would mean that the farther in time you go back the smaller the proportion of HIV infections among heterosexual women among all HIV infections, meaning that as women by 2009 have approached a 1:2 ratio of HIV infection compared to homosexual men, the farther back you go, the greater the ratio of infected homosexual men to infected heterosexual women. The figure for HIV among males in 2009 was about 25,000; for females, about 8000; a ratio of about 3:1. The figure for cumulative HIV/AIDS as of 2009 was about 878,000 for males; for females, about 220,000: a ratio of about 4:1. The movement from 4:1 to 3:1 could come as a result of an increasing number of women relative to men becoming infected or could reflect a higher mortality through time for men compared to women.

Also interesting is race/ethnicity across time. In 2009, the estimated number of HIV infections was about 16,700 black versus about 9,500 white or about 1.75:1. Since the beginning of the epidemic through 2009, the number was about 466,300 black versus about 426,100 white, or about 1.1:1. The movement from 1.1:1 to 1.75:1 could come as a result of an increasing minority infection, a decreasing white infection, a higher initial infection among whites and/or a higher mortality of whites.

Or I could say that none of these statistics is reliable and that the only thing we can say is that any person is as likely as any other person to contract HIV. Just as all metals and structural forms are equally weak building materials.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.