This is why affirmative should remain in tact

[PNym]

MM's attack on Sowell's argument is based on alleging that he asserted that only homosexuals get AIDS, an assertion that is easily disproven. However, there is nothing in the article that even suggests that AIDS is *exclusively* a homosexual disease. The author doesn't mention heterosexuals getting it, but that lack of mention does not mean he thinks that only gays get the disease (FWIW, such a statement would be out of place given the points he was trying to make). You're reading your own biases favoring gays, and dislike of the author's political stance, into the interpretation of the article. This is very intellectually dishonest, but something that I've expected from you.

I'm also not sure how you know the attitude Sowell had while writing this piece. If your basing this assertion on your telephathic skills, which are so unreliable as to suggest to you that I'm caucasian ("a special little snowflake"), you might want to get your head examined. Since you already know a lobotomist, I don't think that would require you to exert too much effort.

Giuliani wrote in his book that people whose ability to convinced lied solely in their credentials and ability to bluster, rather than their provision of real arguments, often become further enraged if you pointed out the senselessness of what they were saying and insulted their credentialing institution. Since you fit the bill, and I want to piss you off, I thought I might try that tactic.

- Your special little snowflake

You have real reading comprehension problems.  MM writes that Sowell suggests "that AIDS exclusively afflicts homosexuals," which is certainly something a reasonable person could get out of the article.  Sowell links the two and never hedges from his point by pointing out that the majority of AIDS cases involve two heterosexual people, etc.  Sowell claims that homosexual activists have gotten money for AIDS even though other diseases kill more people.  He's specifically implying that gay people care about AIDS because it kills them (and other diseases kill other people).  He claims that homosexuality is a deathstyle in the era of AIDS.  Since 9 times as many straight people have AIDS, I wonder what he thinks about heterosexuality.  This point alone is appalling, but it does go to MM's position.*  He then does his best Ann Coulter impression (he's not that good) and goes to attack "so-called 'AIDS education'" which is just appalling.  The use of quotes and the perjorative so-called, followed by the claim that these programs promote homosexuality is incredible.  He's making it very clear in that line that AIDS is something for homosexuals.  If you want to continue to defend the piece, go ahead.  The suggestion is there and more importantly, the piece is disgusting.  Quote Guiliani all you want, but you're the one clinging to a bigot because you like something else he had to say.


*If I pulled rape statistics regarding Chinese-Americans and then referred to it as a Rapenicity, I don't think you'd be too happy.

So basically, you're upset by Sowell's choice of words and read your own interpretations into his statements, rather than what his statements explicitly say. And you're further upset that he didn't mention the rate of AIDS in straight people, even though making such a point wouldn't add anything to his article. And instead of addressing arguments, you blast people who disagree with you with bogeyman words such as "bigot," "snowflake," et al.

Do leftists come off an assembly line? Ad hominem attacks, paying inordinate attention to inconsequential details, projecting your biases onto another person rather than paying attention to what they have actually stated, and asking someone defending an opposing position to defend your position when you would not make the same concession if hell froze over seem to be character traits that all good little leftists possess.

Oh no, have I hurt your precious little ego with my choice of rhetoric? Are you going to tar me as a "hater," a "bigot," a "snowflake," or whatever bogeyman perjorative you can come up with?

Are my insults not nasty enough? Oh please teach me how to be nastier, your highnessness. You seem to be carrying a full load of nasty with that chip on your shoulder; perhaps the professional would be willing to teach the amateur?

[PNym]

*If I pulled rape statistics regarding Chinese-Americans and then referred to it as a Rapenicity, I don't think you'd be too happy.

Well, if those statistics showed that Chinese Americans were likelier than other ethnic groups to rape someone, I wouldn't be too happy about it, but I'd concede the point because it'd be true (assuming the statistics were accurate).

[7S]

MM's attack on Sowell's argument is based on alleging that he asserted that only homosexuals get AIDS, an assertion that is easily disproven. However, there is nothing in the article that even suggests that AIDS is *exclusively* a homosexual disease. The author doesn't mention heterosexuals getting it, but that lack of mention does not mean he thinks that only gays get the disease (FWIW, such a statement would be out of place given the points he was trying to make). You're reading your own biases favoring gays, and dislike of the author's political stance, into the interpretation of the article. This is very intellectually dishonest, but something that I've expected from you.

I'm also not sure how you know the attitude Sowell had while writing this piece. If your basing this assertion on your telephathic skills, which are so unreliable as to suggest to you that I'm caucasian ("a special little snowflake"), you might want to get your head examined. Since you already know a lobotomist, I don't think that would require you to exert too much effort.

Giuliani wrote in his book that people whose ability to convinced lied solely in their credentials and ability to bluster, rather than their provision of real arguments, often become further enraged if you pointed out the senselessness of what they were saying and insulted their credentialing institution. Since you fit the bill, and I want to piss you off, I thought I might try that tactic.

- Your special little snowflake

You have real reading comprehension problems.  MM writes that Sowell suggests "that AIDS exclusively afflicts homosexuals," which is certainly something a reasonable person could get out of the article.  Sowell links the two and never hedges from his point by pointing out that the majority of AIDS cases involve two heterosexual people, etc.  Sowell claims that homosexual activists have gotten money for AIDS even though other diseases kill more people.  He's specifically implying that gay people care about AIDS because it kills them (and other diseases kill other people).  He claims that homosexuality is a deathstyle in the era of AIDS.  Since 9 times as many straight people have AIDS, I wonder what he thinks about heterosexuality.  This point alone is appalling, but it does go to MM's position.*  He then does his best Ann Coulter impression (he's not that good) and goes to attack "so-called 'AIDS education'" which is just appalling.  The use of quotes and the perjorative so-called, followed by the claim that these programs promote homosexuality is incredible.  He's making it very clear in that line that AIDS is something for homosexuals.  If you want to continue to defend the piece, go ahead.  The suggestion is there and more importantly, the piece is disgusting.  Quote Guiliani all you want, but you're the one clinging to a bigot because you like something else he had to say.


*If I pulled rape statistics regarding Chinese-Americans and then referred to it as a Rapenicity, I don't think you'd be too happy.

So basically, you're upset by Sowell's choice of words and read your own interpretations into his statements, rather than what his statements explicitly say. And you're further upset that he didn't mention the rate of AIDS in straight people, even though making such a point wouldn't add anything to his article. And instead of addressing arguments, you blast people who disagree with you with bogeyman words such as "bigot," "snowflake," et al.

Do leftists come off an assembly line? Ad hominem attacks, paying inordinate attention to inconsequential details, projecting your biases onto another person rather than paying attention to what they have actually stated, and asking someone defending an opposing position to defend your position when you would not make the same concession if hell froze over seem to be character traits that all good little leftists possess.

Oh no, have I hurt your precious little ego with my choice of rhetoric? Are you going to tar me as a "hater," a "bigot," a "snowflake," or whatever bogeyman perjorative you can come up with?

Are my insults not nasty enough? Oh please teach me how to be nastier, your highnessness. You seem to be carrying a full load of nasty with that chip on your shoulder; perhaps the professional would be willing to teach the amateur?

It's Sowell's sneaky assertions. It is about intellectual honesty. The facts were available to him and yet, this Stanford grad, chose ideology over substanitive data.

[PNym]

There's no question that you're more likely to catch AIDS if you're gay.  

But I think the converse is true, that is, that AIDS is more likely to affect homosexuals than heterosexuals.

Do some research.

HIV/AIDS is "primarily spread by heterosexual sex." Directly sourced from (http://www.purposedriven.com/en-US/HIVAIDSCommunity/FastFacts/10_myths_about_HIV_AIDS.htm)

Reiterated here: "Most of the new cases of HIV and AIDS are due to sexual contact between a man and woman." (http://www.uihealthcare.com/topics/hivinfectionsaids/hivi4616.html)

And here: "Worldwide, more than 90 percent of all adolescent and adult HIV infections have resulted from heterosexual intercourse." (http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/womenhiv.htm)

Now, I've given you three sources (A Christian group, a university hospital, and the US Health and Human Services Dept.) If you deny the facts here, you've lost all credibility.

You are more likely to catch AIDS if you have unprotected sex - not if you're gay. Sowell perpetuates myths with regards to Gays and AIDS. For me, without any retraction, I don't trust his "expertise" in other matters. He's a non-pragmatic idealist.

Even if most new HIV cases come from heterosexual sex, that doesn't mean you are more likely to contract it if you are a straight than gay. The straight population is larger than the gay one.

Let's say there are 1050 people in a studied population, and 50 of those people are gay. Let's also say that 100 people from the group of 1050 have recently contracted AIDS, and of those 100, 90 were infected from heterosexual sex, 10 from homosexual sex.

In this scenario, 90% of the new cases of AIDS cases were due to heterosexual sex. Yet the likelihood of a gay person being infected, which is 20% (10/50), is much higher than the likelihood of a straight person being infected, which is 9% (90/1000).

Regardless of this point, or how one feels about gays or AIDS, a reasonable person would agree that Media Matters blatantly misrepresented Sowell's statements.

If you have to make up a statistical scenario to disprove the statistics I gave from credible sources, you have truly lost your way.

Well, no, I was trying to show you that the conclusion you drew from the statistical data presented was not supported by that data. That doesn't mean that your conclusion isn't true, but that the data doesn't support it.

I wasn't trying to disprove your statistics. I haven't looked at the methodology used to gather them, so I have no means of evaluating their truth. However, whether the statistics are true or not is irrelevant to the conclusion you tried to draw from them.

[7S]

There's no question that you're more likely to catch AIDS if you're gay.  

But I think the converse is true, that is, that AIDS is more likely to affect homosexuals than heterosexuals.

Do some research.

HIV/AIDS is "primarily spread by heterosexual sex." Directly sourced from (http://www.purposedriven.com/en-US/HIVAIDSCommunity/FastFacts/10_myths_about_HIV_AIDS.htm)

Reiterated here: "Most of the new cases of HIV and AIDS are due to sexual contact between a man and woman." (http://www.uihealthcare.com/topics/hivinfectionsaids/hivi4616.html)

And here: "Worldwide, more than 90 percent of all adolescent and adult HIV infections have resulted from heterosexual intercourse." (http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/womenhiv.htm)

Now, I've given you three sources (A Christian group, a university hospital, and the US Health and Human Services Dept.) If you deny the facts here, you've lost all credibility.

You are more likely to catch AIDS if you have unprotected sex - not if you're gay. Sowell perpetuates myths with regards to Gays and AIDS. For me, without any retraction, I don't trust his "expertise" in other matters. He's a non-pragmatic idealist.

Even if most new HIV cases come from heterosexual sex, that doesn't mean you are more likely to contract it if you are a straight than gay. The straight population is larger than the gay one.

Let's say there are 1050 people in a studied population, and 50 of those people are gay. Let's also say that 100 people from the group of 1050 have recently contracted AIDS, and of those 100, 90 were infected from heterosexual sex, 10 from homosexual sex.

In this scenario, 90% of the new cases of AIDS cases were due to heterosexual sex. Yet the likelihood of a gay person being infected, which is 20% (10/50), is much higher than the likelihood of a straight person being infected, which is 9% (90/1000).

Regardless of this point, or how one feels about gays or AIDS, a reasonable person would agree that Media Matters blatantly misrepresented Sowell's statements.

If you have to make up a statistical scenario to disprove the statistics I gave from credible sources, you have truly lost your way.

Well, no, I was trying to show you that the conclusion you drew from the statistical data presented was not supported by that data. That doesn't mean that your conclusion isn't true, but that the data doesn't support it.

I wasn't trying to disprove your statistics. I haven't looked at the methodology used to gather them, so I have no means of evaluating their truth. However, whether the statistics are true or not is irrelevant to the conclusion you tried to draw from them.

I didn't make the assertion. This is well known in the medical community. You and Sowell just haven't got the memo.

[PNym]

There's no question that you're more likely to catch AIDS if you're gay.  

But I think the converse is true, that is, that AIDS is more likely to affect homosexuals than heterosexuals.

Do some research.

HIV/AIDS is "primarily spread by heterosexual sex." Directly sourced from (http://www.purposedriven.com/en-US/HIVAIDSCommunity/FastFacts/10_myths_about_HIV_AIDS.htm)

Reiterated here: "Most of the new cases of HIV and AIDS are due to sexual contact between a man and woman." (http://www.uihealthcare.com/topics/hivinfectionsaids/hivi4616.html)

And here: "Worldwide, more than 90 percent of all adolescent and adult HIV infections have resulted from heterosexual intercourse." (http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/womenhiv.htm)

Now, I've given you three sources (A Christian group, a university hospital, and the US Health and Human Services Dept.) If you deny the facts here, you've lost all credibility.

You are more likely to catch AIDS if you have unprotected sex - not if you're gay. Sowell perpetuates myths with regards to Gays and AIDS. For me, without any retraction, I don't trust his "expertise" in other matters. He's a non-pragmatic idealist.

Even if most new HIV cases come from heterosexual sex, that doesn't mean you are more likely to contract it if you are a straight than gay. The straight population is larger than the gay one.

Let's say there are 1050 people in a studied population, and 50 of those people are gay. Let's also say that 100 people from the group of 1050 have recently contracted AIDS, and of those 100, 90 were infected from heterosexual sex, 10 from homosexual sex.

In this scenario, 90% of the new cases of AIDS cases were due to heterosexual sex. Yet the likelihood of a gay person being infected, which is 20% (10/50), is much higher than the likelihood of a straight person being infected, which is 9% (90/1000).

Regardless of this point, or how one feels about gays or AIDS, a reasonable person would agree that Media Matters blatantly misrepresented Sowell's statements.

If you have to make up a statistical scenario to disprove the statistics I gave from credible sources, you have truly lost your way.

Well, no, I was trying to show you that the conclusion you drew from the statistical data presented was not supported by that data. That doesn't mean that your conclusion isn't true, but that the data doesn't support it.

I wasn't trying to disprove your statistics. I haven't looked at the methodology used to gather them, so I have no means of evaluating their truth. However, whether the statistics are true or not is irrelevant to the conclusion you tried to draw from them.

I didn't make the assertion. This is well known in the medical community. You and Sowell just haven't got the memo.

I said that gay people are more likely to contract AIDS than straight people. That is, the overall rate of infection is higher in the gay population than the straight one.

Your argument was that this is incorrect, and that straight people are just as likely, or more likely to contract AIDS as gay people. That is, the overall rate of infection is equal or higher in the straight population than the gay one.

You attempted to support your conclusion with evidence that most AIDS cases are due to straight sex.

However, the relevant statistic is not the proportion of AIDS cases arising from straight sex vs. arising from gay sex, but the infection rate between the two populations.

Since the straight population is much larger than the gay one, it is possible that the AIDS rate is lower in the straight community than the gay community, even though it has a larger number of overall infections.

Since the statistics you provided don't provide information on the infection rates in the gay and straight populations, your conclusion is not supported by them.

Saying something about a memo, or appealing to what "is well known in the medical community," does not change the fact that the conclusion you provided is not supported by your evidence.

[Lindbergh]

MM's attack on Sowell's argument is based on alleging that he asserted that only homosexuals get AIDS, an assertion that is easily disproven. However, there is nothing in the article that even suggests that AIDS is *exclusively* a homosexual disease. The author doesn't mention heterosexuals getting it, but that lack of mention does not mean he thinks that only gays get the disease (FWIW, such a statement would be out of place given the points he was trying to make). You're reading your own biases favoring gays, and dislike of the author's political stance, into the interpretation of the article. This is very intellectually dishonest, but something that I've expected from you.

I'm also not sure how you know the attitude Sowell had while writing this piece. If your basing this assertion on your telephathic skills, which are so unreliable as to suggest to you that I'm caucasian ("a special little snowflake"), you might want to get your head examined. Since you already know a lobotomist, I don't think that would require you to exert too much effort.

Giuliani wrote in his book that people whose ability to convinced lied solely in their credentials and ability to bluster, rather than their provision of real arguments, often become further enraged if you pointed out the senselessness of what they were saying and insulted their credentialing institution. Since you fit the bill, and I want to piss you off, I thought I might try that tactic.

- Your special little snowflake

You have real reading comprehension problems.  MM writes that Sowell suggests "that AIDS exclusively afflicts homosexuals," which is certainly something a reasonable person could get out of the article.  Sowell links the two and never hedges from his point by pointing out that the majority of AIDS cases involve two heterosexual people, etc.  Sowell claims that homosexual activists have gotten money for AIDS even though other diseases kill more people.  He's specifically implying that gay people care about AIDS because it kills them (and other diseases kill other people).  He claims that homosexuality is a deathstyle in the era of AIDS.  Since 9 times as many straight people have AIDS, I wonder what he thinks about heterosexuality.  This point alone is appalling, but it does go to MM's position.*  He then does his best Ann Coulter impression (he's not that good) and goes to attack "so-called 'AIDS education'" which is just appalling.  The use of quotes and the perjorative so-called, followed by the claim that these programs promote homosexuality is incredible.  He's making it very clear in that line that AIDS is something for homosexuals.  If you want to continue to defend the piece, go ahead.  The suggestion is there and more importantly, the piece is disgusting.  Quote Guiliani all you want, but you're the one clinging to a bigot because you like something else he had to say.


*If I pulled rape statistics regarding Chinese-Americans and then referred to it as a Rapenicity, I don't think you'd be too happy.

So basically, you're upset by Sowell's choice of words and read your own interpretations into his statements, rather than what his statements explicitly say. And you're further upset that he didn't mention the rate of AIDS in straight people, even though making such a point wouldn't add anything to his article. And instead of addressing arguments, you blast people who disagree with you with bogeyman words such as "bigot," "snowflake," et al.

Do leftists come off an assembly line? Ad hominem attacks, paying inordinate attention to inconsequential details, projecting your biases onto another person rather than paying attention to what they have actually stated, and asking someone defending an opposing position to defend your position when you would not make the same concession if hell froze over seem to be character traits that all good little leftists possess.

Oh no, have I hurt your precious little ego with my choice of rhetoric? Are you going to tar me as a "hater," a "bigot," a "snowflake," or whatever bogeyman perjorative you can come up with?

Are my insults not nasty enough? Oh please teach me how to be nastier, your highnessness. You seem to be carrying a full load of nasty with that chip on your shoulder; perhaps the professional would be willing to teach the amateur?

It's Sowell's sneaky assertions. It is about intellectual honesty. The facts were available to him and yet, this Stanford grad, chose ideology over substanitive data.

It sounds like Sowell is a naughty boy.  A bad, naughty boy.  And it sounds like you, on behalf of the left, may well try to show him to be a nasty, bad, naughty boy.

Good luck with that. 

[Lindbergh]

Well, I believe Sowell was focusing on the U.S., right?  

I'm honestly not sure that the risks are in fact the same in Uganda, although sexual practices there clearly make straight sex far more dangerous (because there's simply far more promiscuity, unprotected sex, and consequent infection).  However, age of female partners is also a factor both in Africa and in the U.S.  Younger women are more likely to catch AIDS, and younger women are generally more sexually active, at a younger age, in Uganda.  (There's also probably far more rape, etc.)

I don't believe he clarified his idiotic statements.

Sowell continued: "They have already succeeded to a remarkable degree in our public schools.

He was clearly discussing the U.S.

Moreover, given that Sowell is clearly far more intelligent and educated than you, where do you get off calling him idiotic?  Isn't that kind of silly?

These general statements...Old bean, where do you get your facts?

They're pretty widely accepted.  Do some research.

[Lindbergh]

Good to see you thinking for yourself. 

Don't play me, playa.   I could have copied and pasted. We were thinking along the same lines. And tj please....Pseudo and Lindbergh (no offense) have been regergitating conservative psycho-babble throught this thread.

Just stating the facts.  As usual, however, you don't want to accept them.

Whatever.  It's still a free country.   

where? Bill O'Reily is that you?

If you bothered to read them, you'd find them.

Michael Moore, is that you?  Guess you should just keep with the left's tradition of making stuff up.

[Lindbergh]

MM's attack on Sowell's argument is based on alleging that he asserted that only homosexuals get AIDS, an assertion that is easily disproven. However, there is nothing in the article that even suggests that AIDS is *exclusively* a homosexual disease. The author doesn't mention heterosexuals getting it, but that lack of mention does not mean he thinks that only gays get the disease (FWIW, such a statement would be out of place given the points he was trying to make). You're reading your own biases favoring gays, and dislike of the author's political stance, into the interpretation of the article. This is very intellectually dishonest, but something that I've expected from you.

I'm also not sure how you know the attitude Sowell had while writing this piece. If your basing this assertion on your telephathic skills, which are so unreliable as to suggest to you that I'm caucasian ("a special little snowflake"), you might want to get your head examined. Since you already know a lobotomist, I don't think that would require you to exert too much effort.

Giuliani wrote in his book that people whose ability to convinced lied solely in their credentials and ability to bluster, rather than their provision of real arguments, often become further enraged if you pointed out the senselessness of what they were saying and insulted their credentialing institution. Since you fit the bill, and I want to piss you off, I thought I might try that tactic.

- Your special little snowflake

You have real reading comprehension problems.  MM writes that Sowell suggests "that AIDS exclusively afflicts homosexuals," which is certainly something a reasonable person could get out of the article.  Sowell links the two and never hedges from his point by pointing out that the majority of AIDS cases involve two heterosexual people, etc.  Sowell claims that homosexual activists have gotten money for AIDS even though other diseases kill more people.  He's specifically implying that gay people care about AIDS because it kills them (and other diseases kill other people).  He claims that homosexuality is a deathstyle in the era of AIDS.  Since 9 times as many straight people have AIDS, I wonder what he thinks about heterosexuality.  This point alone is appalling, but it does go to MM's position.*  He then does his best Ann Coulter impression (he's not that good) and goes to attack "so-called 'AIDS education'" which is just appalling.  The use of quotes and the perjorative so-called, followed by the claim that these programs promote homosexuality is incredible.  He's making it very clear in that line that AIDS is something for homosexuals.  If you want to continue to defend the piece, go ahead.  The suggestion is there and more importantly, the piece is disgusting.  Quote Guiliani all you want, but you're the one clinging to a bigot because you like something else he had to say.


*If I pulled rape statistics regarding Chinese-Americans and then referred to it as a Rapenicity, I don't think you'd be too happy.

So basically, you're upset by Sowell's choice of words and read your own interpretations into his statements, rather than what his statements explicitly say. And you're further upset that he didn't mention the rate of AIDS in straight people, even though making such a point wouldn't add anything to his article. And instead of addressing arguments, you blast people who disagree with you with bogeyman words such as "bigot," "snowflake," et al.

Do leftists come off an assembly line? Ad hominem attacks, paying inordinate attention to inconsequential details, projecting your biases onto another person rather than paying attention to what they have actually stated, and asking someone defending an opposing position to defend your position when you would not make the same concession if hell froze over seem to be character traits that all good little leftists possess.

Oh no, have I hurt your precious little ego with my choice of rhetoric? Are you going to tar me as a "hater," a "bigot," a "snowflake," or whatever bogeyman perjorative you can come up with?

Are my insults not nasty enough? Oh please teach me how to be nastier, your highnessness. You seem to be carrying a full load of nasty with that chip on your shoulder; perhaps the professional would be willing to teach the amateur?

It's Sowell's sneaky assertions. It is about intellectual honesty. The facts were available to him and yet, this Stanford grad, chose ideology over substanitive data.

P.S.:  We've made the facts clear to you repeatedly in this thread, and yet you continue to make sneaky, inaccurate assertions about Sowell, choosing ideology over substantive data.  It appears that you are the nasty, naughty, bad boy here.