|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 60 (9208 total) |
| |
The Rutificador chile | |
Total: 919,510 Year: 6,767/9,624 Month: 107/238 Week: 24/83 Day: 3/4 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Moral Judgments | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Taqless Member (Idle past 6172 days) Posts: 285 From: AZ Joined: |
Rrhain:
I stand corrected. Must say I'm not surprised as law is not my specialty....just didn't remember hearing anything in major news.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taqless Member (Idle past 6172 days) Posts: 285 From: AZ Joined: |
Holmes,
I also stayed away from the legal issues, which I stated are separate from moral ones. However, I think most consider law to be morally based...hence the thin line of relevance bewteen the OP and the introduction of law. I think morals=law or vice versa is a misguided assumption, but I think that was clear from my first example. In addition, I've seen multiple posts on how the U.S. system is based on Christian morals, principles, ideals, etc. The was my last kick to the already dead horse
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18652 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 4.2 |
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy contains some good arguments referring to definition of terms---which we all can glean from. For example, concerning morality and law, this source states:
The term morality can be used either Remember when I said that the Tree of Knowledge of God and A-Z allowed for relativism to be allowed? The encyclopedia states:1. descriptively to refer to a code of conduct put forward by a society or, a) some other group, such as a religion, or b)accepted by an individual for her own behavior or 2. normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons. To take morality to refer to an actually existing code of conduct is quite likely to lead to some form of relativism. Even for an absolutist who sees God as the source theologically, spiritually, and realistically as the source of wisdom, the human view sees Absolutist belief as just another possibility and thus relativistic.We can derive our definitions of morality from philosophical or theological roots. There is a difference, however. St. Thomas Aquinas described another model for the relationship between philosophy and theology. According to the Thomistic model, philosophy and theology are distinct enterprises. The primary difference between the two is their intellectual starting points. Which in essence represent the choices within the Tree of knowledge Philosophy takes as its data the deliverances of our natural mental faculties: what we see, hear, taste, touch, and smell. These data can be accepted on the basis of the reliability of our natural faculties with respect to the natural world. Theology, on the other hand takes as its starting point the divine revelations contained in the Bible. Or perceived and believed to have originated from God. These data can be accepted on the basis of divine authority, in a way analogous to the way in which we accept, for example, the claims made by a physics professor about the basic facts of physics.If you trust the source, that is.
On this way of seeing the two disciplines, if at least one of the premises of an argument is derived from revelation, the argument falls in the domain of theology; otherwise it falls into philosophy's domain. Since this way of thinking about philosophy and theology sharply demarcates the disciplines, it is possible in principle that the conclusions reached by one might be contradicted by the other. This message has been edited by Phatboy, 01-16-2005 14:25 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member (Idle past 266 days) Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Tal responds to me:
quote:quote: Excuse me? Did you not read my post? You decided to post numbers from just the US. I posted numbers for the entire world. You remember...showing that North America has less than 3% of the entire HIV population of the world. How Africa has 82%. How three-quarters of all HIV infections everywhere were transmitted through heterosexual sex and how that is an underestimate due to the counting method that discounts heterosexual sex as a vector when dealing with an IDU who is straight. The numbers are staring you in the face. Please tell me how in a world where 75% of cases were transmitted via heterosexual sex, where less than 5% of all cases of HIV transmission involved a man who has sex with men, and where transmission between women who have sex with women is practically unheard of somehow indicates that homosexuality is the primary vector of HIV transmission. Please tell me how 75 is smaller than 5. Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member (Idle past 266 days) Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Tal writes:
quote: See Message 234 Is this what we've been reduced to? Argument by footnote? Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tal Member (Idle past 5936 days) Posts: 1140 From: Fort Bragg, NC Joined: |
Excuse me? Did you not read my post? You decided to post numbers from just the US. I posted numbers for the entire world. Really? Let's look at what I posted. Oh look, numbers from the entire world, not just the US!
UK Aids Cases Sex between men - 12,534 Sex between men and women -5355 Injecting drug use - 1211 But you do have hope with your claim with Western Europe
Of the 18,030 people with newly diagnosed HIV which the West reported in 2003, 58% probably acquired HIV through heterosexual contact30% were homo/bisexual men 11% were injecting drug users 37% were female 29% were less than 30 years old. Note, there are no actual statistics here, just a "probably." But in Austrailia, you lose some ground.
Transmission in Australia continues to occur primarily through sexual contact between men. A history of male homosexual contact was reported in more than 85% of newly acquired HIV infection diagnosed in the period 1999 to 2003. Canada?
Men who have sex with men - 16706 Heterosexual contact - 2312 Injection drug use - 3176 India? Well all we have is the number of males and females with AIDS, but this proportion should be aparant.
Male 62050 Female 23978 Thailand is actually almost down the middle.
Adults - 560,000 Female - 200,000 Burma
Adults - 320,000 Female - 97,000 China
Adults - 830,000 Female - 190,000 Latin America...no statistics but In the majority of South American countries, injecting drug use and sex between men are the most important routes of HIV transmission You do gain some ground in Haiti though.
The predominant route of HIV transmission in the Caribbean is heterosexual contact. In many places, much of this transmission is associated with commercial sex. However, the virus is also spreading in the general population, especially in Haiti. Cultural and behavioural patterns (such as early initiation of sexual acts, and taboos related to sex and sexuality), gender inequalities, lack of confidentiality, stigmatization and economic need are some of the factors influencing vulnerability to HIV and AIDS in the Caribbean. The numbers are staring you in the face. Yes they are. Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8 No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Nighttrain Member (Idle past 4252 days) Posts: 1512 From: brisbane,australia Joined: |
Hi,PB, my definition of 'morality'. A system of propaganda to which ruling elites pay lip service.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Lizard Breath Member (Idle past 6954 days) Posts: 376 Joined: |
Hi Shaz,
Sorry that I'm so late in replying to your post. My vocation in the military takes me out at the most unpredictable schedules, and when I'm not out deployed I have to spend time staying in shape to do the job and then give time to my family and it all piled up last week. So being a gub'ment employee, I have the holiday off so I can spend some time in the forum. As I get older, I have to spend more time in the gym to pay for my indulgences such as Hershey bars with almonds. I used to be able to eat them like a chain smoker and never gain an ounce but now if I look at an ad for one in a magazine I gain 2 pounds!
quote: I see where you are coming from with your reply and your entire train of thought. You would make a good neighbor. But addressing the issue from a purly "natural " perspective like if you were to explain the formation of our Sun, then there is no such thing as "basic rights". This is because there is no definable equation on how to repeat basic rights without bringing in human consciousness and judgements and both are just phenomena resulting from the electro/chemical activity of the human brain. If I display the simple equation of 3 + 6 + 5 = X. Solve the equation and you are only dealing with integers, then everyone in the world would solve the equation the same exact way. No margin for swaying. If you ask how our solar system was formed, you will get similiar conclusive answers all based on observable occurances and sound mathmatical calculation. No margin for swaying. If you drop an object from the sky, the results are the same if a Muslim drops it, a Christian, a Buddist, a Rhamtha follower or an Aethist. No margin for swaying. But when you talk about basic rights, you are envoking one of two possibilites. The first is you are trying to merge the phenomena of human thought with the absoluteness of science. This doesn't work because it requires you to weight human thought as having some value and from the natural perspective, it has none. No human or for that matter any intellegent thought was required for the universe to come into existance, for the solar system to form, evolution to occur, or humans to exist, or any other macro scale process. Since human thought or even human existance has no value or purpose in the universe, but is just a chance occurance of the universe itself, then any conclusions from human thought are also of no value from a natural perspective. The second possibility is that you are recognizing the existance of a being outside of our space/time dimension who would place a concept of wrong and right and basic decency as valueable. The concept of right/wrong only makes sence as a universal concept (which is what this thread is trying to descide) if there is such a Being/Creator who possesses this attribute, because the physical universe from a natural perspective does not require this to explain itself. As humans, we find this right/wrong compass the biggest issue we deal with in life. Aethesists describe it as "basic rights" and religions call it sin. So to an Aethist, you violate a basic right when you do something like my be-heading example. What is the macro - ramifications for this type of violation? The death of the victim and maybe the death of the perpetrator through a judicial system, but basically their elements are recycled into the ecosystem and the Earth continues to revolve around the Sun for Billions of more years. No real meaning or consequence. To the religious, the Creator who is outside the boundries of our space/time dimmension, and who holds right/wrong in high value, great interest is taken in the committing of the sin. And because the value of right/wrong is outside the boundries of the physical world, so are it's ramifications. So the entire physical universe could disappear but the ramifications of the violation act could survive. And if the violation can survive, then so must the violator or it wouldn't make sence. A Creator who made a universe like ours is logical, creative, meticulous and thinks on a grand scale. So it would not be logical for the violator to just be destroyed and never exist again forever. For the right/wrong violation to be of interest to the Creator, the violator must then also have an eternal existance. To a being outside of the restraints of time, an action or judgement against a violator would not be logical if right after the judgement, the violator is terminated. If the Creator is eternal, so are the Creators attributes. The entire concept of basic right/wrong logically steps outside the boundries of space/time and matter and becomes an eternal attribute or element to the religious. It's because of the recognition that there is a universal right/wrong that points humans to the fact that there is a Being who exists outside of our space/time dimension. So to talk about right/wrong, basic rights and morals from the same perspective as you explain the formation of our world and humans themselves through chance and evolution has again been perplexing to me because it makes little sence. Yet I find the same posters who defend evolution (and they defend it from the natural perspective quite well and capable), chiming in on moral issues with the same degree of certainty in their dialect. But logic should hold that the people who defend evolution and chance creation would respond to any notion at all of right/wrong as a laughable excersise in futility, verses the scientifically provable such as matter and gravity. As I said in my first post to this thread, once you recognize that there might be a universal right/wrong concept, then the existance of a Being outside of our space/time dimension becomes appearant. Sorry for all the edits, but spelling is a curse to the one who choses to type. This message has been edited by Lizard Breath, 01-17-2005 07:57 AM This message has been edited by Lizard Breath, 01-17-2005 08:01 AM This message has been edited by Lizard Breath, 01-17-2005 08:09 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Lizard Breath Member (Idle past 6954 days) Posts: 376 Joined: |
quote: I disagee with this application of morals as you state. In reality, from a natural perspective there is little difference between the energy used by one atom to destroy another as there is energy from one human enticing another into doing something destrutive. In a particle accelerator, the particles are acted on by energies outside of their own control as part of their enviorment. So they are sped up and then smash into other particles, destroying them and we collect the data. No moral wrong doen by the particles. In the same way, the adult as a more complex particle, is acted upon by energies in it's enviorment and the result is an action that entices the child to touch the hot plate. Neither situation was wrong, but just energy being transmitted through matter with cause and effect. From a natural perspective, the health of the child has no more value then the state of the particle that was destroyed because the energy from both will be fully recovered in the Big Crunch. What we are doing from a natural perspective is witnessing energy flow from us to entice the child and that energy has a cause and effect relationship to make the child's hand touch the hot plate. But the individual rights of the child did not come in to the equation to allow it to happen. It was all just the natural flowing of energy, be it electro/chemical in the brain or the usage of ATP in the muscles to make the movement. To suggest that a basic right was violated suggests that another factor outside of matter/energy is at work but is unseen or unmeasurable by instrumentation. If so, and the act WAS a violation, it suggests that something is wrong or broken in the enviorment, outside of the visable matter/energy engine that we call reality.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taqless Member (Idle past 6172 days) Posts: 285 From: AZ Joined: |
Since this way of thinking about philosophy and theology sharply demarcates the disciplines, it is possible in principle that the conclusions reached by one might be contradicted by the other. First of all: 1. Within the same person? Which I thought I had clearly? pointed out in the preceding post. This supports my idea in the point below. 2. "In principle" this might be the case, but I challenge that in setting up an individual moral system the theologic starting point at some point will have to access or incorporate the philosophical starting point. Secondly: Hmmm, are you suggesting that a theologic starting point dictates that your moral system is already set up and you follow it? Or that by default the moral system you establish is god-derived due to a theologic starting point? #1 Implies the moral system is not "yours". It's like a hand-me-down. This challenges the idea of an "individual's" choice in establishing a moral system, it becomes more a membership requirement. #2 Implies a theoretical moral system super position. Whereby there is no reproach because one can always claim a higher power...which by each organization's definition usually trumps state power as I've seen it presented here on this forum. Regardless I agree with what both holmes and you arrived at in posts #228 and #229.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Shaz Inactive Member |
Hello Lizard Breath:
No apologies necessary, thank you though for taking the time to explain. It’s also good to know that you have a life outside of the net, unlike me, the net junkie.
I see where you are coming from with your reply and your entire train of thought. You would make a good neighbor. Thank you for the compliment, would you share your Hershey bars though? As for the position I am coming from, I should add that I am an idealist and possibly unhealthily so.
This is because there is no definable equation on how to repeat basic rights Basic right to me is in relation to the premise we all share, the physiological component of life and is relative to action and the natural perspective. The one true objective, I see in all things is that ‘we exist’. Random selectivity of life being subjective means we have no control over, when, where, or how many children are born, but as each draws breath, they automatically become equal in relation to an objective of existence. Therefore I believe that any impact we have on one, becomes part of the domino affect of existence in its entirety.
Solve the equation and you are only dealing with integers, Yes perhaps such would be the case, but if we each held the basic premise, we would not need to enforce our mores upon another. My idealistic perspective, I know. lol
If you drop an object from the sky, the results are the same, I don't believe the results can be the same because each action has a reaction, not only in its deed but from the affect of accomplishing the deed etc. Effect is relative to future thought and affect, including on a universal scale, i.e. the beheaded woman may have a child, who invents time travel to restore her, alternatively he/she may become a mass murderer. It is in what happens today that affects tomorrow. All components are interrelated. So in dropping the object from the sky, you determine a course of events. Who dropped the object will react different to someone else doing the same, and will in turn influence other chains of events, and so on. So though creed race or gender could be objectively regarded as insignificant, individual components involved in anything are not, including the reaction of others to news of the event. The rest of my post is actually more relevant to chance than it is to morals, so rather than confuse this thread I have posted it on the Chance thread and linked both to each other. Sorry if that makes my ideology more confusing. Shaz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 6078 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
This thread really raises an excellent problem for moral subjectivists/relativists, which I have enjoyed deliberating for deca... ahem... years lets say, since entering philosophy.
Let's repeat the opening point:
If we believe that all morality is subjective, or relative, or culture-specific, is it reasonable for us to judge other subjective, relative, or culture-specific moralities? TOOLS OF THE TRADE: My response was that we can, but they will generally be appeals to emotions to convince them that our own morality may be personally preferable, or critically analyzing the stated moral system of an opponent. The former is not a logical criticism, and the latter... though logical criticism... does not make one's own moral system correct. Logical criticism simply aids one in making a particular system seem less preferable, or may even expose it as less a system than an ad hoc system of justifying one's desires at any given time. Consistency, as I have argued, is a large part in exposing ad hoc natures of partcular systems. In this way I am defending subjectivity from criticism that subjectivism collapses into, or supports, ad hoc rationale for morality, while advancing the subjective principle that no moral system can inherently be "right", or an "absolute" system. Interestingly, and unfortunately, those arguing hardest for absolutism have been subjectivists. This admittedly disturbs me more than hearing an absolutist arguing for absolutism and draws my criticism much quicker. In this case logical criticism is applicable with full force, not necesarily against their moral system, but with regard to how they criticize another moral system. It is important that people learn logical fallacies when arguing against moral systems, or criticizing arguments made against moral systems. Here are some very good lists and descriptions of logical fallacies: Datanation, Wikipedia, and Infidels. Logical fallacies are not the end all or be all of applied logic but they can certainly point out common favorites including: ad hominem, ad hoc, begging the question, equivocation, strawman, false analogy, ad nauseum, ad consequentium, and ad baculum. Applying logical rules from other disciplines is not appropriate and prone to error. Especially when discussing moral systems, logic as applied to arguments is the least prone to error. APPLICATION 1: A few subjectivists argued for the absolute superiority of a singular moral system based on its ability to distinguish between two actions using a certain criteria. The problem is that that is a logical fallacy. It is a form of begging the question. That is, it assumes that their criteria, while allowing for a moral distinction, creates a true moral distinction (for all). That is equally usable by their opponent, who uses a different system and different criteria. It is true that the first group can say that according to their system the second system is inaccurate, and so "wrong". But the first group leaves subjectivism to argue that means that the other system is objectively wrong... both as a system and in its labelling. They also leave behind logic as they beg the question (circularly arguing that the rightness of their moral labels proves the rightness of their moral system). APPLICATION 2: For those that continue to insist that the criteria are so absolute as to make their subjective moral system practically absolute, and refuse to admit it fails logic, there is not much which can be done. Essentially it boils down to having to poke holes directly in their claimed subjective- absolute moral system, which goes back to my above position on how a subjectivist can criticize other moral systems. I have already given a tongue in cheek example criticism of crash's absolute criteria for moral judgement (pain and pleasure). He hasn't responded, but I hope he found it funny and not mean spirited (I meant it to be funny). Here I will deliver another example criticism of a moral system, and again the focus will be a "subjective-absolute" moral system... or criteria for a moral system. In this case it will be directed at the argument that "consent" is an objective standard for moral assignments. Not only do I wholly reject that "consent" is an objective standard at all, I also reject that anyone actually uses it for moral assignments, beyond ad hoc reasoning. My first criticism would be to point out that "consent" is an arbitrary socially defined term. There has never been a single definition, nor reasons given for any definition. There are many different ways to choose what constitutes consent and applied separately to many different subjects. For example consent may have separate rules for legal contracts and for sex.
Wikipedia has an excellent review of what age of consent means, and it is pretty clearly subjective social criteria and not objective standards. It can also be seen that it is primarily a legal tool and not a moral or scientific tool. As a note, just to show that Wikipedia isn't infallible, their list of ages of consent is wrong, as well as their particular discussion of sex laws in the Netherlands. I am unsure how they got Dutch law so wrong, but one can see a more accurate list at Avert, and with a description of exact laws (and so why Wiki is wrong on the NL) at Age of Consent. The mistake points up how diverse the subject of consent is, as the dutch law has differences in law based not solely on age, but on use of money, position of authority, and taking of pictures. Crash pointed out that one may even view consent from a totally different definitional position. Is it ability to say one wants to experience something, ability to accurately communicate that desire, our ability to discern that communication? So it may accurately be said that no one knows exactly what consent means in some objective sense, or how it should objectively apply to moral labelling. Or at least no one has explained it in any clear form. Berb used it in a moral sense by claiming that sex under a specific set of age of consent laws inherently causes harm. It is thus not lack of consent itself which is the moral rule used, but the harm which is caused that forms the rule, only it age of consent can be pointed to as an indicator. Unfortunately he never produced any evidence to back this inherent harm claim, and it is quite obvious that other societies would disagree with his assessment. Thus we are still in a state of objective quandry with regard to consent, and how it should be applied. Sometimes added to this term consent is "fully informed", meaning it is not just an ability to consent, but to accurately understand what any decision may mean for one's life. Again there is no evidence presented why that is an objective criteria, especially when it is tied to age rather than status of knowledge. In any case it can be shown that such a concept as "consent" or "fully informed consent" is not actually used in society, except ad hoc with regard to specific social expectations. Consent and especially full informed consent is not expected for many activities engaged in by children or adults with mental disabilities, including activities which could have negative physical or mental impacts. This includes sports (children even die during sports), religious education (how many people are in therapy based on scarring from religious education?), and in some cases sexual activity (many people consider "playing doctor" a natural activity beyond the scope of AOC laws). Interestingly enough many societies (including the US) allow explicitly for adults to touch children's genitals, or vice versa, for the pleasure of the adult. Breast feeding is not necessary, milk can be extracted and then children bottle-fed. Some mothers choose to continue breast feeding until the child no longer desires the activity which can stretch on far longer than is physically necessary, instead being a form of social bonding. Washing children involves genital manipulation but does not necessitate shared baths, yet it can happen and go on well past when children can technically wash themselves just fine. Is there evidence that such touching is inherently harmful because the children are below AOC? What would be the physical defining line and why? It is even allowed to harm children sexually for the desire of adults. Certainly there is no reason for circumcision and that explicitly involves the genital manipulation and mutilation of male genitals to make them "look like others" or "appease God" (who apparently likes the foreskins of young boys). This of course means, appease adults, and it can have psychological and physical repercussions. Why then does "consent" or "fully informed consent" not apply here? (heavy devil's advocate) In addition, many have used consent, or fully informed consent, to argue against homosexual adoption. This would seem to hold some merit, especially if as argued by berb, we must accept social norms. Homosexuals, whether it is fair or not, remain not just a minority but an unpopular minority. And as it stands cannot naturally have children. Even if they desire to pretend to live the otherwise stereotypical Mr & Mrs Smith homelife by raising 2.5 kids, is it fair to force children to take on the risks associated (social, I'm not talking STDs) with being gay in this culture? Certainly the children are unable to be fully informed on these risks, and may even one day regret that they were forced into such a scarring position. It is hard enough to grow up as it is, than have to endure unpopularity due to one's parents. It can also be that they come to dislike homosexuality (perhaps they are "born again") and so feel demeaned or sullied to have been put in a position they have to treat homosexuals as parents. They may also feel let down that they were put in a position where they could not have a parent of each sex, to understand fully what it is to be a child being nurtured both by a mother and a father. It may be argued that there are children raised in similar situations despite the parent(s) being straight. But we are talking about adoption which means society choosing to place a child in that situation, rather than a child falling into that circumstance by events within their natural parents' lives. Is there a reason why fully informed consent should not exclude children from being adopted by gay couples? (/heavy devil's advocate) I am interested in seeing anyone lay out a credible and consistent moral system backed by "consent" or "fully informed consent". I only know of a legal construct which can be practically useful, but does not act a description of objective reality for scientific purposes, nor an absolute basis for moral judgement. Maybe I am wrong? Could be. But an opponent of mine on this matter certainly has their work cut out for them. Especially if they want to stay within the bounds of logic. Hope this works as a good example of subjective criticism. This message has been edited by holmes, 01-19-2005 08:23 AM holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros) "Don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member (Idle past 266 days) Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Tal responds to me:
quote:quote: (*sigh*) I guess we are going to have to resort to argument by footnote. What you posted, Tal, was the number of HIV cases total over the entire course of the epidemic from the first recorded case to the present. That is a stupid way of looking at the state of the epidemic for it gives unreasonable weight to the early course of the epidemic. For example, let's look at your UK numbers. While it is true that 12,500 cases of HIV transmission occurred among MSM, that is looking at all 25+ years of the epidemic. That doesn't tell us how the disease is transmitted now, which is the important thing. We already know that three-quarters of all HIV transmissions took place from heterosexual sex. The thing we are looking for is if the various pockets of other major trends are maintaining their contrariness or whether there has been a shift in the main vector of transmission. And sure enough, we have precisely that shift. How people probably became infected by year See what I mean? Looking at the simplistic total of all years, we find more MSM with HIV than heterosexual transmissions. But look at the last six years. Heterosexual transmission has outpaced MSM transmission and for the last three years, by a 2 to 1 margin. Do you really think that it is intelligent to try and use the total numbers as indicative of how things are today?
quote: Right, because the World Health Organization is such a horrible source. Of course, it's the exact same source for which you got your numbers, so you're in a bit of a bind. How do you justify using the source for your numbers but denying it when it is shown that the source contradicts your conclusion? Typical Republican bullshit. It's the same logic that says that the exit polls that showed a quarter of the US voted for "moral reasons" (which for some reason means "keeping gays from having abortions" as opposed to "keeping the evil man from winning a second term") were absolutely correct with regard to that but were absolutely wrong in showing that Kerry trounced Bush. Strange how a poll that can't determine who was voted for is spot on for determining why he was voted for. You're quoting from WHO, Tal. Why is it you seem to think they're right with regard to who but can't figure out how?
quote:quote: So why are you misreading them? Four thousand heterosexuals compared to fewer than two thousand MSM. What do you think that means with regard to how HIV is transmitted? Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tal Member (Idle past 5936 days) Posts: 1140 From: Fort Bragg, NC Joined: |
By mostly Homosexual males and drug users. When I get back to the states I'll list my other sources.
Typical Republican bullshit. Bitter liberal? Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8 No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 6078 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
When I get back to the states I'll list my other sources. Why would you need to wait in order to list sources? I am also in a quandary why you'd need any more than what was provided to make your point on correlation between STD and sexual practice. It appears quite clear to me that the numbers quoted (even those against you) indicate a greater correlation with homosexuality. That is unless one believes that sheer numbers have any meaning, when it is proportion which begins to have any real strength. Then again, using your logic (correlation to STDs means wrong) having sex in a city is more wrong, or having sex if you are a minority is more wrong. If you don't think those two are correct, then why pick out homosexuality... that is a correlated variable just like any other? If it turned out monotheists were more at risk than atheists, would that mean something to you? holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros) "Don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024