Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: This is why affirmative should remain in tact  (Read 25773 times)

H4CS

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2527
    • View Profile
Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
« Reply #120 on: August 30, 2007, 11:06:13 AM »
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.

7S

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2647
  • Self-determination.
    • View Profile
Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
« Reply #121 on: August 30, 2007, 11:14:49 AM »
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.

dito.
It is easy to change the language of oppression without changing the sociopolitical situation of its victims.

1654134681665465

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 715
    • View Profile
Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
« Reply #122 on: August 30, 2007, 01:19:05 PM »
Seventhson!  I haven't seen you on here for awhile.  How did an AA thread turn in homo hetero death styles? 

7S

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2647
  • Self-determination.
    • View Profile
Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
« Reply #123 on: August 30, 2007, 01:50:36 PM »
Seventhson!  I haven't seen you on here for awhile.  How did an AA thread turn in homo hetero death styles? 

LOL!  :D I have a way with these threads I guess.
It is easy to change the language of oppression without changing the sociopolitical situation of its victims.

7S

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2647
  • Self-determination.
    • View Profile
Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
« Reply #124 on: August 30, 2007, 02:25:51 PM »
Kinda skimmed through the last few pages.  I didn't read the linked articles, but saw what people quoted in the threads.  Does anyone actually support what Sowell is saying?  I don't think lindbergh or pseudo actually buy into what he's saying.  It seems like the argument is going something like "Sowell is an idiot"  "The person writing the article is an idiot"  The two sides in this thread don't necessarily disagree.  Can we all just agree that we like neither Sowell nor the article criticizing him?

 ;)
It is easy to change the language of oppression without changing the sociopolitical situation of its victims.

7S

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2647
  • Self-determination.
    • View Profile
Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
« Reply #125 on: August 30, 2007, 02:43:54 PM »
Kinda skimmed through the last few pages. I didn't read the linked articles, but saw what people quoted in the threads.  Does anyone actually support what Sowell is saying?  I don't think lindbergh or pseudo actually buy into what he's saying.  It seems like the argument is going something like "Sowell is an idiot"  "The person writing the article is an idiot"  The two sides in this thread don't necessarily disagree.  Can we all just agree that we like neither Sowell nor the article criticizing him?

 ;)

Haha, well I just wanted to point out that the article doesn't seem intellectually honest either.  But I guess my main point is that the captain and lindbergh seemed to be arguing past each other, more than arguing with each other.

lol. nah it's cool. those articles are pretty lenghty.

The data was pretty interesting though.
It is easy to change the language of oppression without changing the sociopolitical situation of its victims.

Lindbergh

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 4358
    • View Profile
Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
« Reply #126 on: August 30, 2007, 05:41:07 PM »
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.


None of this changes the fact that you're more likely to catch AIDS if you have unprotected gay sex vs. unprotected straight sex, or the fact that you're far more likely to catch AIDS if you're gay, or the fact that AIDS has devastated the gay community. 

(1.  A higher percentage of gays already have AIDS.  2.  AIDS is spread most easily through anal sex.  3.  Anal sex is more common in gay sex.)

This is the reason gay activists are far more vocal on the issue than other groups.  They certainly consider it a gay issue to some extent.  Claiming otherwise is simply ridiculous. 

Lindbergh

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 4358
    • View Profile
Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
« Reply #127 on: August 30, 2007, 05:46:27 PM »
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.

So would heterosexuality be a deathstyle then?  Would AIDS education still be about homosexual activists CONVERTING OUR CHILDREN!!!!  Christ almighty, look at what you're defending.


Well, if a segment of the hetero community began focusing on promiscuous, uprotected anal sex, I would certainly call it a deathstyle.  And the fact is that a large segment of the male gay community pursued that lifestyle in the 70's and early 80's. 

Sowell is therefore right as far as that goes.  What he's wrong about is in assuming that homosexuality HAS to follow that pattern.  While some gays still live like that, many (probably most) do not, and allowing gay marriage (or at least civil unions) would probably encourage less promiscuous behavior among gays. 

Lindbergh

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 4358
    • View Profile
Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
« Reply #128 on: August 30, 2007, 05:50:48 PM »
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.


Do really not understand the difference between rates among subgroups and absolute amounts?  Please answer the following question:  Who is more likely to be affected by AIDS?  A straight person, or a gay person?  Is there a higher incidence (%) of AIDS in the gay community, or the straight community? 

Let me give you another example:  There are far more poor white people in the U.S. than poor minorities.  Does this mean poverty is more of a problem for whites than it is for minorities?


And I'm a reasonable person, and I don't believe MM misrepresented Sowell's statements. He implied exactly what he wanted the flock to believe.


MM clearly mispresented Sowell's statements.  To claim otherwise is to belie your initial claim.

Lindbergh

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 4358
    • View Profile
Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
« Reply #129 on: August 30, 2007, 05:52:26 PM »
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.

dito.


Good to see you thinking for yourself.  ;)