|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 60 (9208 total) |
| |
The Rutificador chile | |
Total: 919,509 Year: 6,766/9,624 Month: 106/238 Week: 23/83 Day: 2/4 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Moral Judgments | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Tal Member (Idle past 5936 days) Posts: 1140 From: Fort Bragg, NC Joined: |
No, because it is boneheadedly stupid to use the United States as the model of how HIV is represented in the various sexual orientations. In fact, the US is pretty much the last place on earth to find HIV primarily transmitted via male-male sex. I'm glad you brought statistics to back that up. Oh wait...you didn't. Not to worry, I will provide more statistical data to support my argument.
Not even in Europe is it primarily male-male sex. It's primarily transmitted via heterosexual sex. Three-quarters of all HIV transmissions in the world were from heterosexual sex. Wrong again skippy.
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. So, if you would kindly retract your statement: "In fact, the US is pretty much the last place on earth to find HIV primarily transmitted via male-male sex."
And, of course, you have completely overlooked the fact that homosexuality does not mean gay men. Wrong again! The statistics were specifically of homosexual men.
If you're going to use HIV transmission as the criterion for morality with regard to sexual activity, then lesbians must be god's favorite because it's practically unheard of to find HIV transmitted via female-female sex. This seems to be the case. Why do you think that is?
Female homosexuals have practically no HIV transmission, male homosexuals have an incredibly small percentage, and heterosexuals have the lion's share. Again, you are wrong, except about female homosexuals. This message has been edited by Tal, 01-15-2005 09:30 AM 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: |
This thread has been giving an unintended review of practices that subjectivists and absolutists might use to defend their moral systems against the existence of other moral systems.
Historically, moral absolutists have argued that logic and evidence must be used in order to support the moral system they hold. If it were allowed to function without regard to the consideration of moral or legal consequence then the result would be an overturn of moral and legal order and bad things would ensue. While this did not cause absolutists to invent the fallacy of using threats to alter debate, they definitely used such fallacies to a great extent. We can see this in many debates through time including famous ones such as heliocentrism, evolution, protestantism, democracy, slavery, communism, cultural relativism, and homosexuality. The use of threats can include a sort of reductio, in which the opponent is faced with the dire consequences of what it would mean for everyone (including the opponent) if the logic and evidence were followed to a certain conclusion. It of course assumes that the opponent holds the same moral standards and/or believe that the conclusion is realistic given the logic and evidence. This is common to relativists and subjectivists debating the merits of relativism as one usually ends up hearing at some point, "but then we can all kill each other and have no laws". But as I have mentioned there are other versions. The use of threats can also include direct threats intended to force an opponent to recant, or "rethink", their statements regarding logic or evidence. This was quite effective on poor Galileo as well as many less famous people throughout history. Of course many that defied the threat, found it became a material reality and thus may not be known to history. Both uses of threats within debate are fallacies and not a sign of a skilled debater. It not only weakes ongoing debate, but stifles some debates before they occur. It also makes the debate arena a rather unpleasant one. I hope that everyone on this site will agree that as far as criticizing another's logical arguments, evidentiary statements, or moral and legal theories, these two argumentative fallacies are poor form and should not be used. Profitable debate IMO allows logic and evidence to enter freely without coercion and ends where it will depending on logic and evidence, and not predetermined by ethnocentric standards which must be enforced. 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18651 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 4.2 |
holmes writes: It is interesting to bring up Galileo. My argument has been from the premise of God being a very real and living "absolute" which gives definition to morality. Legality is another issue, as we are nor in my opinion ever SHOULD be a theocracy. The use of threats can also include direct threats intended to force an opponent to recant, or "rethink", their statements regarding logic or evidence. This was quite effective on poor Galileo as well as many less famous people throughout history. Of course many that defied the threat, found it became a material reality and thus may not be known to history. Both uses of threats within debate are fallacies and not a sign of a skilled debater. It not only weakes ongoing debate, but stifles some debates before they occur. It also makes the debate arena a rather unpleasant one.In Galileos case, he was up against a church that professed absolute authority in the name of God yet was woefully ignorant soas to represent God. The same could be said of the far right Christians of today. Shaz writes: From a Christian point of view, I would assert that in theory,if I surrender my "self" on the internal throne of rationale, decision making, and moral belief, God as a living absolute then makes my view objective rather than subjective. Of course, my critics would rightly say that I would need to use the Bible as the objective lawbook, and that the Bible is anything but objective. The one thing I am picking up throughout this thread; is that morality tends to stem purely from ones subjective reasoning. Though it may be proposed that actions are regarded objectively, it still appears to me that judgment is done on a subjective basis, because we have no universal absolute of right or wrong. So therefore I propose that there can be no absolute judgment of morals (no matter whom is ones God), though there is judgment made against actions. Perhaps, but I would maintain that God as my internal Spirit is totally objective. So did the church that tried Galileo, however. Looking at the big, BIG picture:
holmes writes: Logically someone cannot say well clearly A and B are disimilar due to the presence of X, which is what they use for their own formulations, and so my system is right and yours is wrong. Tal can equally say A and B are similar based on Y, which is what he uses for his formulations, and so my system is right and yours is wrong. The Tree of Knowledge of God and A-Z would theoretically propose that without adapting the "Tree mentality" of choice, no relative freedom ever could have been given to humans. With the Tree mentality, God becomes as valuable as A, B, C, or Z! Thus, the tree by definition reduced Absolute morality forever to a relativistic concept. Perhaps it was mean't to be. At any rate, fundamentalists argue for an absolute standard based on Jesus as God---thus negating the A-Z options, yet are viewed by others as merely a far right definition that is within the A-Z set of values. This proves that all of our arguments will forever be relativistic. (I hope that you guys understood my weird logic!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 6078 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
The Tree of Knowledge of God and A-Z would theoretically propose that without adapting the "Tree mentality" of choice, no relative freedom ever could have been given to humans. With the Tree mentality, God becomes as valuable as A, B, C, or Z! Thus, the tree by definition reduced Absolute morality forever to a relativistic concept. This was something I wondered about. If the Tree gave actual knowledge of objective right and wrong, why then did we have to be told later what we should and should not do? After all after gaining the knowledge A&E immediately started acting on that knowledge, so wouldn't that mean they'd always do everything right? It seems to me you are suggesting something along the lines of what I am lately thinking is a more reasonable (theological) interpretation which is that the tree gave humans the ability to assert knowledge of right and wrong (like gods), and thus created a relativism. Am I getting you right?
Perhaps it was mean't to be. At any rate, fundamentalists argue for an absolute standard based on Jesus as God---thus negating the A-Z options, yet are viewed by others as merely a far right definition that is within the A-Z set of values. This proves that all of our arguments will forever be relativistic. I'm not sure, but that looks like we are in agreement. 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18651 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 4.2 |
holmes writes: You said it better than I could! That is exactly what I believe. That is why one must lose their life in order to find it.
It seems to me you are suggesting something along the lines of what I am lately thinking is a more reasonable (theological) interpretation which is that the tree gave humans the ability to assert knowledge of right and wrong (like gods), and thus created a relativism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 6078 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
You said it better than I could! That is exactly what I believe. Sweet! 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 writes:
quote: No, you didn't. You showed poorly analyzed evidence that any competent person would realize was nothing more than a variation of quote mining. You picked the lone, unusual example and then tried to extrapolate that singular example to the community at large despite overwhelming evidence that your example is an outlier. Did you bother to read your own source? It says directly that HIV is primarily transmitted via heterosexual sex in the world. The US is one of the last places in the world where it isn't.
quote: No. It would be stupid to do so. By your logic, the election of the president is reasonably determined by asking a single person. After all, that one person surely is representative of the entire population as a whole, is he not? Question: How many people in the world have HIV? Question: How many people in the US have HIV? Question: What is the most common method of transmission of HIV in Africa? Europe? Asia? Australia? South America? North America? Question: Given those numbers, does it make sense to consider the US a representative sample of the whole? Do you really think that Bill Gates is a good example of typical family income? Perhaps we could pull a sample out of those who live on the Upper West Side of Manhattan. Surely they're representative. Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bob_gray Member (Idle past 5272 days) Posts: 243 From: Virginia Joined: |
Not that this has anything to do with morality but I would like to raise your paltry 2,350,000 total aids cases that you were able to muster by 15,000,000 women and children (under 15) with AIDS in Sub-Saharan Africa. (That was out of 23,000,000 cases.) My math isn't very strong; can you calculate for me the percentage of women and children who have AIDS as opposed to men?
Data | Be in the KNOW I don’t remember who started the harm = immoral argument but you seemed to go along with it. If these numbers show that there is no more harm in being homosexual than heterosexual does that make both equally moral/immoral? edited to correct a spelling error This message has been edited by bob_gray, 01-15-2005 22:30 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member (Idle past 266 days) Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Tal responds to me:
quote: That's because you had mentioned your source, I know it, and I admonished you to read the whole thing. Instead, you decided to go quote mining and only mention the US numbers as if they are indicative of the world as a whole. But since you insist, fine. These are all from Avert. Please note, Avert gets its information from UNAIDS/WHO. Strange how you are relying upon UN numbers when you don't seem to hold the UN in very high esteem, but I digress. To the numbers: World estimates of the HIV & AIDS epidemics at the end of 2004 Now, let's take a look at these numbers. Do you see the reason for the breakdown? Yes, that's right. There's a difference between the total number of people infected and the people who were recently infected. It allows us to trace the history of the epidemic and see what is going on. It is stupid to look at the total numbers and think that they are applicable to the current situation. But let's continue, shall we?Regional statistics for HIV & AIDS end of 2004 Now, let's take a look at these numbers. What do we see? The epidemic is primarily concentrated in Africa, accounting for a little more than 82% of the total. Looking at North America, we find that they make up only about 2.5% of the total. So one has to ask: Why would anybody look at the US as a representative sample of how the epidemic has spread? It represents such a tiny, tiny fraction of the total. But then again, there is a difference between the total and the current, so let's look at that ratio. Africa makes up about a little more than 81% of the total of new infections and North America makes up only 0.9% of the total of newly infected. It would seem that HIV infection rates are falling in North America compared to the rest of the world. But we still need to wonder: Why would anybody look at the US as a representative sample of how the epidemic is spreading since it makes up such a tiny, tiny fraction of the newly infected. But let's continue, shall we? Estimated adult and adolescent HIV diagnoses in 2003 by exposure category * Because totals are calculated independently of the subpopulations, the values in each column may not sum exactly to the figure in the Total row Here we see that, once again, there is no indication of heterosexual sex and IDU. It is merely assumed that if you use drugs and are straight, you got your HIV from the drug use, not the sex. That is an extremely unreasonable thing to do, so let's be fair. If we're going to count MSM and IDU, we should also count heterosexual sex and IDU. Those with male-male sex as a vector accounts for 49.4% of the total. For those with heterosexual sex as a vector accounts for 49.5%. Well, whaddaya know! In 2003, there were more heterosexuals being infected with HIV than gay men were! Not many, to be sure, but it would seem that straight people aren't nearly as pure as some would have us believe. Now, of course, there are many more straights than gays in the population. While the raw number of straights and MSM (and let us never forget that MSM does not mean gay) are equivalent, the percentage of their resective populations is important and, indeed, the average gay man is more likely to be infected than the average straight person. But not by much. We went through this in another thread. Shall we continue? Estimated adult and adolescent AIDS diagnoses by exposure category * Because totals are calculated independently of the subpopulations, the values in each column may not sum exactly to the figure in the Total row In this case, we find that for the total, those with MSM as a risk total 49.6% of the total while those with heterosexual sex as a risk total 43.1%. Not that far off. And notice, since we just found out that the current year shows that there are more heterosexuals newly infected than MSM, we find that HIV is become increasingly a heterosexually transmitted disease in the US. But that's just the US. Now, my claim is that looking only at the US is a stupid thing to do, so let's take a look at some other places. How about the UK, for example? How people probably became infected by year Looky here! It would seem that heterosexuals (and remember, the heterosexual statistic doesn't include those who use drugs while the MSM statatistic does) became the most common form of transmission of HIV in the UK back in 1999! And it kept on getting worse! So where do you get off saying that it's primarily a MSM disease? Oh, that's right! You confused total numbers with yearly numbers. See, I said that that was an incorrect thing to do before you did it, so why did you do it? But that's just the UK. What about the rest of Europe? Well, from the Avert site:
Of the 18,030 people with newly diagnosed HIV which the West reported in 2003,
58%, Tal. What do you think that means? Isn't that more than half? And again, they separate out the IDUs from the heterosexuals while including the IDUs with the gays, so 58% is actually an underestimate of the problem for straights while 30% is an overestimate of the problem for gays. But that's just Western Europe. What about the rest? Well, Central Europe is difficult given the governmental situation there. Only 1440 cases of HIV infection were reported in 2003 and only 21,043 total cases. They don't include much information about transmission rates but we do know that Central Europe has the highest number of pediatric cases in Europe due to an outbreak in Romania. Eastern Europe? From Avert:
Of the 54,504 new diagnoses of HIV reported in 2003, only 59% were reported with a transmission group. Of these, 61% were in injecting drug users, 24% were from heterosexual infections, and 0.3% were in men who have sex with men. Well hell, it would seem that heterosexuals are 100 times more likely to have been infected with HIV than MSM, but we have a problem with governmental reporting. But let's put it all together: Western Europe has HIV being predominantly transmitted via heterosexual sex...more than half. Central Europe has practically no cases. Eastern Europe has it mostly as IDU (and again, they seem to think that if you're straight and a drug user, you always got it via the drugs and not the sex), but the next one up there is heterosexual sex and MSMs are practically non-existent. Therefore, we can say that Europe has HIV transmitted primarily through heterosexual sex compared to male-male sex. Let's not forget Canada: AIDS cases in adults (15 or over) by exposure category Canada's a bit like Central Europe. They have practically no cases. Only 20,000 cases total and only 250 were infected in 2003. But looky! In 2003, 85 MSM (including the IDUs) were infected with HIV while 108 heterosexuals were infected...and that doesn't include the IDUs! Once again, we find that HIV is now being transmitted primarily through heterosexual sex. Now, Australia is still following the classic 80s US model. Most cases of HIV infection are still happening among MSM. In the past five years, 85% of all cases of infection seem to have happened via MSM. Note, this is much higher than the US. But then again, Australia is kinda like Canada: They only have about 24,000 cases of HIV total. They are hardly much of a factor in an epidemic that is numbered in the tens of millions. Now, we can go on and on and indeed, the US is not the single, only place in the world where MSM outpaces heterosexual sex. But again, the US and Latin America and Australia make up a tiny fraction of the epidemic as a whole. HIV is primarily found in places like Africa and South East Asia where HIV is primarily transmitted via heterosexual sex. When you look at the whole, three-quarters of all HIV transmission throughout the world for the entire length of the epidemic happened via heterosexual sex. The next most common is IDU, and that ignores the possibility that those people might have acquired it through heterosexual sex. For you to say, "Look at the US!" and then try to claim that this is some grand example of how homosexuality is cursed because of the prevalence of HIV is simply stupid. It would be akin to saying that since most people in the US are white, most people in the world are white. There are very specific reasons why the US has a high percentage of HIV transmission via MSM. They cannot survive in the long term and, indeed, we're seeing it happen: Transmission via MSM has declined while transmission via heterosexual sex has skyrocketed.
quote: Nope. That would be lying. You wouldn't want me to lie, would you?
quote:quote: Incorrect. Why do you think they call it "men who have sex with men" rather than "homosexuality/bisexuality"? It's because that simply counting the number of penises and vaginas in the room does not tell you if the participants are gay or not. By that logic, only gay people go to prison. By that logic, the military is filled with gay people and we should simply abandon DADT as completely ridiculous. You seem to be of the opinion that it doesn't matter how many women a man has sex with...suck one dick and you're gay. And, of course, there is the big void in your story: You're assuming that "homosexual" means "gay male." Women are gay, too. You are claiming that homosexual sex is bad because of HIV, but women have homosexual sex, too, and HIV transmission from women having sex with women is almost unheard of.
quote:quote: Biology. But you seem to think it has something to do with morality. You are the one saying that homosexuality is bad because homosexuality is connected with HIV transmission. But lesbians are homosexual, too, and woman/woman sex has practically no chance of HIV transmssion. Therefore, by your own logic, homosexuality is actually a good thing because it is an extremely low chance of HIV transmission. Since when did "homosexual" equate to male?
edited to move /pre tags to fix page width - the Queen This message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 01-15-2005 21:54 AM Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member (Idle past 266 days) Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
holmes, you really need to get over your obsession with me. It isn't healthy.
Only you can control your posts. Nobody is forcing you to read my posts...or are they? Are you trying to tell us something? Should I actually be calling the cops because you've been kidnapped and are being forced to do things against your will? But if, as I suspect, you are an autonomous individual, the solution is quite clear: Stop reading posts with my name on them. It will save you a great deal of angst and stress. If you find yourself drawn to my posts despite your known aversion to them, perhaps you should seek counseling to help you overcome this psychotic obsession you have with me. Grow up, holmes. Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member (Idle past 266 days) Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
holmes writes (as quoted by Phatboy):
quote: Actually, that is precisely what logic allows you to do. You see, it doesn't matter how similar things are when trying to distinguish between two things. What matters is how they are different. Equilateral triangles and squares have a lot in common: Equal length sides, equal angles at all corners, etc. But what separates equalateral triangles from squares is that the triangle has only three sides while the squares has four. To ignore this fact and say that equilateral triangles and squares are equivalent is to ignore reality. We are looking for differences and to discount the differences simply because there are similarities is illogical. Once again, one has to ask: Does the word "consent" mean nothing to you? Edited to more accurately describe the attribution This message has been edited by Rrhain, 01-15-2005 23:01 AM Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tal Member (Idle past 5936 days) Posts: 1140 From: Fort Bragg, NC Joined: |
Therefore, by your own logic, homosexuality is actually a good thing because it is an extremely low chance of HIV transmission. The number show just the opposite. Good try though! 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4386 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
In what way?
You need to raise your game on this one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tal Member (Idle past 5936 days) Posts: 1140 From: Fort Bragg, NC Joined: |
See message 226.
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4386 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
What about it ? some weak off the cuff remarks?
RRhain is kicking your arse on this one.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024