|
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#21
December 10th, 2003, 07:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Fat people, get real
"Brandon Berg" wrote in message news:QNxBb.295531$Dw6.991090@attbi_s02...
"A J Davenport" wrote in message om... And by stating that you show rather narrow focus. The point is that crap Fumento spews is not balanced. Balanced in the sense of containing truth and falsehood in equal measures? No, balanced as in not forcing his agenda by ignoring the facts when they don't conform to reality. You know, like REAL news reporting. AJ Because, somebody has to be the Diva! 
|
|
#23
December 10th, 2003, 07:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Fat people, get real
Sarah Jane wrote in message ...
In A J Davenport wrote: Sarah Jane wrote in message news: ... In A J Davenport wrote: Daedalus wrote in message news: ... On 8 Dec 2003 12:36:55 -0800, (A J Davenport), wrote: (ADP) wrote in message news:HKFFNSRQ37963. ... http://archive.salon.com/sept97/news/news970912.html STOP THE INSANITY, GET OUT OF THE ZONE. AND DON'T, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES TELL YOURSELF IT'S OK TO BE OBESE. Fat people, get real! ---------------------------------------- STOP THE INSANITY, GET OUT OF THE ZONE. AND DON'T, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES TELL YOURSELF IT'S OK TO BE OBESE. BY LORI LEIBOVICH | it's one of the great American paradoxes. The more we snatch up diet books, ab busters and fen-phen, the fatter we get. Approximately one-third of adult Americans are overweight. Fatness -- more politely known as obesity -- results in hundreds of thousands of deaths each year from heart disease, high blood pressure, diabetes and cancer. Last year, a spate of "fat acceptance" books made us feel a little better about our pear- shaped physiques. All of a sudden, anti-diet authors fed us the tasty news: You can be fit and fat. Enter Michael Fumento. Gee, would this be the same Michael Fumento who claims that hetrosexuals don't get AIDS? Why am I not surprised to find you, yet again, distorting the truth to give your own position more credibility? Quotes directly from the horses ass: AIDS: Are Heterosexuals at Risk? By Michael Fumento Commentary Magazine, November 1987 Copyright 1987 Commentary Magazine http://www.fumento.com/img1/fumentoglobe.gif In fact, the risk to the male, or penetrating, partner of acquiring AIDS in vaginal intercourse is so small that this alone could be enough to prevent any substantial heterosexual spread of the disease. Women, in other words, act as a "firebreak" against the spread of the virus. Do you see the words "the risk...is so small"? That's "small", not "nonexistent". Yes, and it does nothing to address that the highest risk group in the heterosexual population is women who risk AIDS at a much higher rate than men do in indulging in unprotected heterosexual sex. First of all, that has nothing to do with your original statement. Though I admit that no where does he say heterosexual people don't get AIDS, it is implied in his blathering about the risk being insignificant. Secondly, that's not the point of the book. Which you claim you haven't read further on. Tell me Sarah Jane how do you know the point of the book without reading it? The fastest growing segment of new AIDS cases is among women, who have a much higher risk of transmission than men do. And where does he say otherwise? He does not say that heterosexuals don't get AIDS; he essentially says that it's unlikely to run rampant through the heterosexual population, because although women can get it from men, they're highly unlikely to spread it to other men. So it is ok if women get AIDS because they can't pass it to men? What about the AIDS children that will be born to the women who get AIDS from the men because the risk is "so small" that men won't practice safe sex because they aren't at risk? His information also ignores the rampant spread of AIDS in places like China, Africa and India where the rise is primarily among the Heterosexual population. The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS: The Hazard of Using Misiniformation to Restore Morality By Michael Fumento Crisis Magazine, October 1988 Copyright 1988 by Crisis Magazine http://www.fumento.com/hetmyth.html 10 years after the first heterosexual AIDS cases began showing up in New York City, remains confined almost exclusively to homosexuals, intravenous (IV) drug abusers, recipients of blood products prior to 1986, and their steady sexual partners. Do you see the word "almost" before the word "exclusively"? Yes I did. And by stating that you show rather narrow focus. No, I was pointing out your error. You were pointing out a single qualifier in each of the sentences. IOW narrow focus. The point is that crap Fumento spews is not balanced. That's not what you said originally - you said that he denied the existence of heterosexual AIDS, which is not true. And what do you mean by "balanced"? He's trying to make a point, one that you obviously don't comprehend. Just a cursory review of the writings on his web site reveals the following in his writings. AIDS is a very small risk to hetrosexuals. Agent Orange is not to blame for any level of sickness in Vietnam vets and gulf war syndrome is just the new agent orange. Anti-abortion slant to many of his writings. Partial birth abortions are mostly elective and not for genetic reasons. Opposes environmental changes, seems to believe we aren't poisoning the planet. Supports the wide spread use of pesticides despite health risks associated with their use. Is in favor of altering food with chemicals and radiation. In general is pro-big business and makes no bones about showing that stance with regard to chemical production, pharmaceuticals and breast implant manufactures. And we won't even go into his notoriously biased obesity news, which includes parroting the 300,000 obesity deaths per year misinformation. He is, of course entitled to his opinions. But don't expect people to not see the blatant bias in the stuff he chooses to write about and thus mistrust his writings. He is not a NEWS reporter, he is a opinion writer. It does not contain the information necessary to protect a heterosexual person from contracting AIDS, Because that's not what the book is about. There's plenty of that information available elsewhere. And you, who admits that they have not read the book would know what the book is about how? It encourages them to take risks with their lives by engaging in unprotected sex because they are sure that they as a heterosexual are protected by the almost exclusive part of the above statement. Where does he tell people to engage in unprotected sex? I didn't say he tells people to engage in unprotected sex. Re-read the above paragraph for content. And a book with a title like The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS implies that heterosexual people don't have to protect themselves. dmittedly, I haven't read the book, but I've read excerpts and never seen anything of the kind. Although he doesn't believe that there's a high risk of contracting HIV through normal heterosexual contact, I don't think he denies the risks of getting syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, herpes, HPV, etc. All of which are treatable, and when treated, far from life threatening. End quotes: Looks a lot like denial of heterosexual AIDS to me. Then you should learn to read. And perhaps you should learn to read without such narrow focus. You're the one with the narrow focus. You can't see the difference between saying something is unlikely and saying it's impossible. You also apparently don't understand the difference between talking about individuals and populations, nor do you understand the difference between a sex-ed manual and a political diatribe. The whole point of my post is obviously wasted on you. My post was in response to somebody posting one of Fumento's biased pieces. I was telling people to be aware of the source of the misinformation. That you didn't choose to see that broad picture and then focused on the use of two small qualifiers shows an incredibly narrow focus. Fumenento is biased, and thus anything he writes should be viewed with that piece of information firmly in mind. AJ Because, somebody has to be the Diva!
|
|
#24
December 11th, 2003, 12:48 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Fat people, get real
In A J Davenport wrote:
Sarah Jane wrote in message news: ... In A J Davenport wrote: Sarah Jane wrote in message news: ... In A J Davenport wrote: Daedalus wrote in message news: ... On 8 Dec 2003 12:36:55 -0800, (A J Davenport), wrote: (ADP) wrote in message news:HKFFNSRQ37963. ... http://archive.salon.com/sept97/news/news970912.html STOP THE INSANITY, GET OUT OF THE ZONE. AND DON'T, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES TELL YOURSELF IT'S OK TO BE OBESE. Fat people, get real! ---------------------------------------- STOP THE INSANITY, GET OUT OF THE ZONE. AND DON'T, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES TELL YOURSELF IT'S OK TO BE OBESE. BY LORI LEIBOVICH | it's one of the great American paradoxes. The more we snatch up diet books, ab busters and fen-phen, the fatter we get. Approximately one-third of adult Americans are overweight. Fatness -- more politely known as obesity -- results in hundreds of thousands of deaths each year from heart disease, high blood pressure, diabetes and cancer. Last year, a spate of "fat acceptance" books made us feel a little better about our pear- shaped physiques. All of a sudden, anti-diet authors fed us the tasty news: You can be fit and fat. Enter Michael Fumento. Gee, would this be the same Michael Fumento who claims that hetrosexuals don't get AIDS? Why am I not surprised to find you, yet again, distorting the truth to give your own position more credibility? Quotes directly from the horses ass: AIDS: Are Heterosexuals at Risk? By Michael Fumento Commentary Magazine, November 1987 Copyright 1987 Commentary Magazine http://www.fumento.com/img1/fumentoglobe.gif In fact, the risk to the male, or penetrating, partner of acquiring AIDS in vaginal intercourse is so small that this alone could be enough to prevent any substantial heterosexual spread of the disease. Women, in other words, act as a "firebreak" against the spread of the virus. Do you see the words "the risk...is so small"? That's "small", not "nonexistent". Yes, and it does nothing to address that the highest risk group in the heterosexual population is women who risk AIDS at a much higher rate than men do in indulging in unprotected heterosexual sex. First of all, that has nothing to do with your original statement. Though I admit that no where does he say heterosexual people don't get AIDS, it is implied in his blathering about the risk being insignificant. No, he says specifically that heterosexuals can get AIDS, just that it's not running rampant through the hetero population, and that it's not going to. Secondly, that's not the point of the book. Which you claim you haven't read further on. Tell me Sarah Jane how do you know the point of the book without reading it? If you can't figure out what a book is about from reading reviews and numerous excerpts, then you have a serious reading comprehension problem. The fastest growing segment of new AIDS cases is among women, who have a much higher risk of transmission than men do. And where does he say otherwise? He does not say that heterosexuals don't get AIDS; he essentially says that it's unlikely to run rampant through the heterosexual population, because although women can get it from men, they're highly unlikely to spread it to other men. So it is ok if women get AIDS because they can't pass it to men? That's not what he says. He says that because women are so unlikely to pass it on to men, those men who are therefore *not* infected will *not* pass it on to other women, who will therefore *not* pass it on to other men, etc. He's not saying that it's okay for anyone to get AIDS. Once again, you don't understand the difference between talking about individuals and talking about populations. What about the AIDS children that will be born to the women who get AIDS from the men because the risk is "so small" that men won't practice safe sex because they aren't at risk? And how are these men getting AIDS? The vast majority of women who get AIDS are getting it by being regular sexual partners of IV drug users, not from men who got AIDS through heterosexual sex. Therefore telling those men that they don't need to protect *themselves* from getting AIDS through hetero sex won't change anything. And any woman who is having sex with an IV drug user is considered should know to protect herself. His information also ignores the rampant spread of AIDS in places like China, Africa and India where the rise is primarily among the Heterosexual population. And those are places where needles are often reused for vaccinations and for drawing blood, and places where people are already sick and have open sores that facilitate transmission. And again, this has nothing whatsoever to do with your original statement. The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS: The Hazard of Using Misiniformation to Restore Morality By Michael Fumento Crisis Magazine, October 1988 Copyright 1988 by Crisis Magazine http://www.fumento.com/hetmyth.html 10 years after the first heterosexual AIDS cases began showing up in New York City, remains confined almost exclusively to homosexuals, intravenous (IV) drug abusers, recipients of blood products prior to 1986, and their steady sexual partners. Do you see the word "almost" before the word "exclusively"? Yes I did. And by stating that you show rather narrow focus. No, I was pointing out your error. You were pointing out a single qualifier in each of the sentences. IOW narrow focus. The single qualifier that made your unqualified statement wrong. The point is that crap Fumento spews is not balanced. That's not what you said originally - you said that he denied the existence of heterosexual AIDS, which is not true. And what do you mean by "balanced"? He's trying to make a point, one that you obviously don't comprehend. Just a cursory review of the writings on his web site reveals the following in his writings. AIDS is a very small risk to hetrosexuals. Yes. And I see now you've decided he's saying there's a small risk, rather than a non-existent one. Agent Orange is not to blame for any level of sickness in Vietnam vets and gulf war syndrome is just the new agent orange. And this is relevant how? And we won't even go into his notoriously biased obesity news, which includes parroting the 300,000 obesity deaths per year misinformation. Yes, that is misinformation - the paper I saw said 280,000. Do you think that number is incorrect? If so, please point out the errors in the meta- analysis. He is, of course entitled to his opinions. But don't expect people to not see the blatant bias in the stuff he chooses to write about and thus mistrust his writings. He is not a NEWS reporter, he is a opinion writer. Yes, but he also presents facts, which you have yet to do. It does not contain the information necessary to protect a heterosexual person from contracting AIDS, Because that's not what the book is about. There's plenty of that information available elsewhere. And you, who admits that they have not read the book would know what the book is about how? Once again, if you're unable to tell what a book is about from reading reviews and numerous excerpts, you have a serious reading comprehension problem. It encourages them to take risks with their lives by engaging in unprotected sex because they are sure that they as a heterosexual are protected by the almost exclusive part of the above statement. Where does he tell people to engage in unprotected sex? I didn't say he tells people to engage in unprotected sex. My mistake - you said he encourages them to. But I don't see that anywhere either. Re-read the above paragraph for content. And a book with a title like The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS implies that heterosexual people don't have to protect themselves. Only for people with reading comprehension problems. dmittedly, I haven't read the book, but I've read excerpts and never seen anything of the kind. Although he doesn't believe that there's a high risk of contracting HIV through normal heterosexual contact, I don't think he denies the risks of getting syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, herpes, HPV, etc. All of which are treatable, and when treated, far from life threatening. They're all treatable, but some of them are not curable. Furthermore, some of them are potentially life-threatening, and there may not be any symptoms until they've reached that point. The bottom line is that no one would choose to have those conditions, and people who are informed about those diseases, and who are concerned for their health, would choose to protect themselves. End quotes: Looks a lot like denial of heterosexual AIDS to me. Then you should learn to read. And perhaps you should learn to read without such narrow focus. You're the one with the narrow focus. You can't see the difference between saying something is unlikely and saying it's impossible. You also apparently don't understand the difference between talking about individuals and populations, nor do you understand the difference between a sex-ed manual and a political diatribe. The whole point of my post is obviously wasted on you. You keep changing your point, so no one can even tell what it is. My post was in response to somebody posting one of Fumento's biased pieces. I was telling people to be aware of the source of the misinformation. Right, and in doing so, you gave misinformation. So by your own logic, no one should trust anything you say. That you didn't choose to see that broad picture and then focused on the use of two small qualifiers shows an incredibly narrow focus. My point was that you were wrong. The most direct way to show how wrong you were was to point out those qualifiers. Qualifiers may be small words, but they can make a big difference. Fumenento is biased, and thus anything he writes should be viewed with that piece of information firmly in mind. And obviously you're biased(and wrong), and anything you write should be viewed with that piece of information in mind.
|
|
#25
December 11th, 2003, 08:55 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Fat people, get real
"A J Davenport" wrote in message
om... His information also ignores the rampant spread of AIDS in places like China, Africa and India where the rise is primarily among the Heterosexual population. According to Fumento, there is a chapter in his book devoted to this topic. Here is a portion of his argument: http://www.fumento.com/comment.html Furthermore, a practice known as "dry sex," which is pretty much what it sounds like, is widespread in Africa and contributes to increased transmission rates, as may widespread malnutrition. Whatever the reason, Fumento was absolutely correct about the transmission patterns in the United States. The CDC attributes only 15% of all cases of HIV in males to heterosexual activity, and this is almost certainly overstated, given that the use of narcotics is illegal and that homosexual is still largely taboo. There is really no way we can know for sure, but the findings when claims of heterosexual transmission have been investigated seem to suggest that it is substantially overstated.
|
|
#26
December 11th, 2003, 06:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Fat people, get real
"Brandon Berg" wrote in message news:oiWBb.507487$Fm2.491469@attbi_s04...
"A J Davenport" wrote in message om... His information also ignores the rampant spread of AIDS in places like China, Africa and India where the rise is primarily among the Heterosexual population. According to Fumento, there is a chapter in his book devoted to this topic. Here is a portion of his argument: http://www.fumento.com/comment.html Furthermore, a practice known as "dry sex," which is pretty much what it sounds like, is widespread in Africa and contributes to increased transmission rates, as may widespread malnutrition. Whatever the reason, Fumento was absolutely correct about the transmission patterns in the United States. The CDC attributes only 15% of all cases of HIV in males to heterosexual activity, and this is almost certainly overstated, given that the use of narcotics is illegal and that homosexual is still largely taboo. There is really no way we can know for sure, but the findings when claims of heterosexual transmission have been investigated seem to suggest that it is substantially overstated. Fumentos basic point about about AIDS in healthy, non-drug using heterosexuals has been amplily born out in experience. The incidence of males getting the disease from females in N. America and W. Europe has had many years to reveal itself and that incidence is very low. Poor, sickly countries with peculiar sex practices are a different matter, but then, they nearly always are when the subject is public health and disease transmission. For example, many kinds of parasitic worm infestation are extremely common all over the poor parts of Africa and S. America but very rare in the affluent parts of those continents. The difference is not because of the availability of treatment, it is because malnutrition makes one much more vulnerable to parasites. (Life is not fair). In regard to genes and obesity: Virtually ever gene controls something that effects calorie demand and utilization. It is stupid to limit that figure to "300". It is even stupider to imagine that the human genome would change drastically, almost over night, at the same time that fatty food became popular and available and the TV remote control came to be seen as an essential device, one supplied with even the cheapest DVD player, as if it would be unimaginable to get off the couch to control it.
|
|
#27
December 12th, 2003, 12:08 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Fat people, get real
"Brandon Berg" wrote in message news:oiWBb.507487$Fm2.491469@attbi_s04...
"A J Davenport" wrote in message om... His information also ignores the rampant spread of AIDS in places like China, Africa and India where the rise is primarily among the Heterosexual population. According to Fumento, there is a chapter in his book devoted to this topic. Here is a portion of his argument: http://www.fumento.com/comment.html Furthermore, a practice known as "dry sex," which is pretty much what it sounds like, is widespread in Africa and contributes to increased transmission rates, as may widespread malnutrition. I've not heard of the "dry sex" practice. Though I can pretty much imagine what that term implies. There are a variety of reasons AIDS is widespread in Africa. Probably the biggest single reason for the spread is the African tradition of female circumcision. And I don't understand how malnutrition could propagate the spreading of AIDS. Care to tell me what you mean by that statement? Whatever the reason, Fumento was absolutely correct about the transmission patterns in the United States. The CDC attributes only 15% of all cases of HIV in males to heterosexual activity, and this is almost certainly overstated, given that the use of narcotics is illegal and that homosexual is still largely taboo. There is really no way we can know for sure, but the findings when claims of heterosexual transmission have been investigated seem to suggest that it is substantially overstated. It may very well be overstated in the US. But then the US is not representative of the world. There is a risk for heterosexuals and an even greater risk for female heterosexuals. Writings like Fumentos that don't address that risk in a responsible way, do a great disservice. AJ Because, somebody has to be the Diva!
|
|
#28
December 12th, 2003, 12:08 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Fat people, get real
Sarah Jane wrote in message ...
In A J Davenport wrote: Sarah Jane wrote in message news: ... In A J Davenport wrote: Sarah Jane wrote in message news: ... In A J Davenport wrote: Daedalus wrote in message news: ... On 8 Dec 2003 12:36:55 -0800, (A J Davenport), wrote: (ADP) wrote in message news:HKFFNSRQ37963. ... http://archive.salon.com/sept97/news/news970912.html STOP THE INSANITY, GET OUT OF THE ZONE. AND DON'T, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES TELL YOURSELF IT'S OK TO BE OBESE. Fat people, get real! ---------------------------------------- STOP THE INSANITY, GET OUT OF THE ZONE. AND DON'T, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES TELL YOURSELF IT'S OK TO BE OBESE. BY LORI LEIBOVICH | it's one of the great American paradoxes. The more we snatch up diet books, ab busters and fen-phen, the fatter we get. Approximately one-third of adult Americans are overweight. Fatness -- more politely known as obesity -- results in hundreds of thousands of deaths each year from heart disease, high blood pressure, diabetes and cancer. Last year, a spate of "fat acceptance" books made us feel a little better about our pear- shaped physiques. All of a sudden, anti-diet authors fed us the tasty news: You can be fit and fat. Enter Michael Fumento. Gee, would this be the same Michael Fumento who claims that hetrosexuals don't get AIDS? Why am I not surprised to find you, yet again, distorting the truth to give your own position more credibility? Quotes directly from the horses ass: AIDS: Are Heterosexuals at Risk? By Michael Fumento Commentary Magazine, November 1987 Copyright 1987 Commentary Magazine http://www.fumento.com/img1/fumentoglobe.gif In fact, the risk to the male, or penetrating, partner of acquiring AIDS in vaginal intercourse is so small that this alone could be enough to prevent any substantial heterosexual spread of the disease. Women, in other words, act as a "firebreak" against the spread of the virus. Do you see the words "the risk...is so small"? That's "small", not "nonexistent". Yes, and it does nothing to address that the highest risk group in the heterosexual population is women who risk AIDS at a much higher rate than men do in indulging in unprotected heterosexual sex. First of all, that has nothing to do with your original statement. Though I admit that no where does he say heterosexual people don't get AIDS, it is implied in his blathering about the risk being insignificant. No, he says specifically that heterosexuals can get AIDS, just that it's not running rampant through the hetero population, and that it's not going to. In the US perhaps he is correct. But the US is hardly representative of the world. Secondly, that's not the point of the book. Which you claim you haven't read further on. Tell me Sarah Jane how do you know the point of the book without reading it? If you can't figure out what a book is about from reading reviews and numerous excerpts, then you have a serious reading comprehension problem. Nice ad homium attack there, Sarah Jane. I agree with you in theory, but this whole debate started because I see Fumento's writings, his bias and campaign of misinformation for what it is. And reviews of his books point that out pretty well. The fastest growing segment of new AIDS cases is among women, who have a much higher risk of transmission than men do. And where does he say otherwise? He does not say that heterosexuals don't get AIDS; he essentially says that it's unlikely to run rampant through the heterosexual population, because although women can get it from men, they're highly unlikely to spread it to other men. So it is ok if women get AIDS because they can't pass it to men? That's not what he says. He says that because women are so unlikely to pass it on to men, those men who are therefore *not* infected will *not* pass it on to other women, who will therefore *not* pass it on to other men, etc. He's not saying that it's okay for anyone to get AIDS. Once again, you don't understand the difference between talking about individuals and talking about populations. The implication is there, if you chose not to see it than you are not reading for content. What about the AIDS children that will be born to the women who get AIDS from the men because the risk is "so small" that men won't practice safe sex because they aren't at risk? And how are these men getting AIDS? The vast majority of women who get AIDS are getting it by being regular sexual partners of IV drug users, Can you provide statistics that support this? not from men who got AIDS through heterosexual sex. I would say that the vast majority of women who get AIDS are getting by being regular sexual partners of bisexual/homosexual [out or closeted] men. Therefore telling those men that they don't need to protect *themselves* from getting AIDS through hetero sex won't change anything. And any woman who is having sex with an IV drug user is considered should know to protect herself. Any woman who is having sex with any man [bi, iv drug user, hemophiliac, whatever] should be protecting herself. When a woman has sex with a man, she is having sex with every person he has had sex with for the last 7-15 years [the incubation period] and given that most men have sex with many more partners than most women, that is a huge risk. His information also ignores the rampant spread of AIDS in places like China, Africa and India where the rise is primarily among the Heterosexual population. And those are places where needles are often reused for vaccinations and for drawing blood, and places where people are already sick and have open sores that facilitate transmission. Among other things that facilitate transmission, between heterosexual populations. It doesn't matter how somebody gets AIDS for this debate only that they are heterosexual. And again, this has nothing whatsoever to do with your original statement. My original statement was to consider the source. That is, the writings of Michael Fumento The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS: The Hazard of Using Misiniformation to Restore Morality By Michael Fumento Crisis Magazine, October 1988 Copyright 1988 by Crisis Magazine http://www.fumento.com/hetmyth.html 10 years after the first heterosexual AIDS cases began showing up in New York City, remains confined almost exclusively to homosexuals, intravenous (IV) drug abusers, recipients of blood products prior to 1986, and their steady sexual partners. Do you see the word "almost" before the word "exclusively"? Yes I did. And by stating that you show rather narrow focus. No, I was pointing out your error. You were pointing out a single qualifier in each of the sentences. IOW narrow focus. The single qualifier that made your unqualified statement wrong. Correct. I did overstate my case. Sarcasm aside. The point is that crap Fumento spews is not balanced. That's not what you said originally - What I said is that the reader should consider the source of the information. you said that he denied the existence of heterosexual AIDS, which is not true. No, that is not what I said. I said he claims that heterosexual people don't get AIDS. Of course we both knew that isn't true. And what do you mean by "balanced"? He's trying to make a point, one that you obviously don't comprehend. So you do comprehend his point? What point would that be? That heterosexual don't need to worry about AIDS because the chances that they are going to get it is so small? Or the point that only women need to really worry about protecting themselves because the chances of a heterosexual man getting it from a woman are almost negligible? The above is obviously his point from the writings I quoted. Just a cursory review of the writings on his web site reveals the following in his writings. AIDS is a very small risk to heterosexuals. Yes. And I see now you've decided he's saying there's a small risk, rather than a non-existent one. I did overstate. Sarcasm is impossible to discern in typed communication. Agent Orange is not to blame for any level of sickness in Vietnam vets and gulf war syndrome is just the new agent orange. And this is relevant how? Shows a pattern of spreading misinformation on Fumento's part. As do the other examples cited in my last message. And we won't even go into his notoriously biased obesity news, which includes parroting the 300,000 obesity deaths per year misinformation. Yes, that is misinformation - the paper I saw said 280,000. Do you think that number is incorrect? Yes, as the original study writers did not attribute the deaths to obesity. If so, please point out the errors in the meta- analysis. The deaths are attributed to high fat diets and/or sedentary life style. Not the same thing as obesity. He is, of course entitled to his opinions. But don't expect people to not see the blatant bias in the stuff he chooses to write about and thus mistrust his writings. He is not a NEWS reporter, he is a opinion writer. Yes, but he also presents facts, which you have yet to do. I'm expressing my opinion, just as Fumento does. Facts that he uses to further his agenda while ignoring other facts that do not, do nothing to promote truth. It does not contain the information necessary to protect a heterosexual person from contracting AIDS, Because that's not what the book is about. There's plenty of that information available elsewhere. And you, who admits that they have not read the book would know what the book is about how? Once again, if you're unable to tell what a book is about from reading reviews and numerous excerpts, you have a serious reading comprehension problem. Repetitive ad homium attack there, Sarah Jane. It encourages them to take risks with their lives by engaging in unprotected sex because they are sure that they as a heterosexual are protected by the almost exclusive part of the above statement. Where does he tell people to engage in unprotected sex? I didn't say he tells people to engage in unprotected sex. My mistake - you said he encourages them to. But I don't see that anywhere either. By downplaying the risks, he encourage people to engage in unsafe behavior. Re-read the above paragraph for content. And a book with a title like The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS implies that heterosexual people don't have to protect themselves. Only for people with reading comprehension problems. Really repetitive ad homium attack there, Sarah Jane. admittedly, I haven't read the book, but I've read excerpts and never seen anything of the kind. Although he doesn't believe that there's a high risk of contracting HIV through normal heterosexual contact, I don't think he denies the risks of getting syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, herpes, HPV, etc. All of which are treatable, and when treated, far from life threatening. They're all treatable, but some of them are not curable. But when treated, even if not cured [herpes, warts, etc.], they are not life threatening. Furthermore, some of them are potentially life-threatening, and there may not be any symptoms until they've reached that point. The bottom line is that no one would choose to have those conditions, and people who are informed about those diseases, and who are concerned for their health, would choose to protect themselves. Yes, and misinformation like The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS does nothing to encourage people to protect themselves. End quotes: Looks a lot like denial of heterosexual AIDS to me. Then you should learn to read. And perhaps you should learn to read without such narrow focus. You're the one with the narrow focus. You can't see the difference between saying something is unlikely and saying it's impossible. You also apparently don't understand the difference between talking about individuals and populations, nor do you understand the difference between a sex-ed manual and a political diatribe. The whole point of my post is obviously wasted on you. You keep changing your point, so no one can even tell what it is. No, you just chose not to see the original point which was that people should consider the source of the information of the original article. My post was in response to somebody posting one of Fumento's biased pieces. I was telling people to be aware of the source of the misinformation. Right, and in doing so, you gave misinformation. So by your own logic, no one should trust anything you say. I did give misinformation that is true. And you have the right to not trust what I say. Just as I have the right not to trust anything Fumento has to say. That you didn't choose to see that broad picture and then focused on the use of two small qualifiers shows an incredibly narrow focus. My point was that you were wrong. The most direct way to show how wrong you were was to point out those qualifiers. Qualifiers may be small words, but they can make a big difference. The difference between small and none, yes that is a difference. A small difference. Fumento is biased, and thus anything he writes should be viewed with that piece of information firmly in mind. And obviously you're biased(and wrong), and anything you write should be viewed with that piece of information in mind. Yes, I am biased against Fumento and his rants, roudly so. If you chose to see that as wrong, you have that right. But that doesn't make everything I've said wrong. AJ Because, somebody has to be the Diva!
|
|
#29
December 12th, 2003, 12:08 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Fat people, get real
Sarah Jane wrote in message ...
In A J Davenport wrote: Sarah Jane wrote in message news: ... In A J Davenport wrote: Sarah Jane wrote in message news: ... In A J Davenport wrote: Daedalus wrote in message news: ... On 8 Dec 2003 12:36:55 -0800, (A J Davenport), wrote: (ADP) wrote in message news:HKFFNSRQ37963. ... http://archive.salon.com/sept97/news/news970912.html STOP THE INSANITY, GET OUT OF THE ZONE. AND DON'T, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES TELL YOURSELF IT'S OK TO BE OBESE. Fat people, get real! ---------------------------------------- STOP THE INSANITY, GET OUT OF THE ZONE. AND DON'T, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES TELL YOURSELF IT'S OK TO BE OBESE. BY LORI LEIBOVICH | it's one of the great American paradoxes. The more we snatch up diet books, ab busters and fen-phen, the fatter we get. Approximately one-third of adult Americans are overweight. Fatness -- more politely known as obesity -- results in hundreds of thousands of deaths each year from heart disease, high blood pressure, diabetes and cancer. Last year, a spate of "fat acceptance" books made us feel a little better about our pear- shaped physiques. All of a sudden, anti-diet authors fed us the tasty news: You can be fit and fat. Enter Michael Fumento. Gee, would this be the same Michael Fumento who claims that hetrosexuals don't get AIDS? Why am I not surprised to find you, yet again, distorting the truth to give your own position more credibility? Quotes directly from the horses ass: AIDS: Are Heterosexuals at Risk? By Michael Fumento Commentary Magazine, November 1987 Copyright 1987 Commentary Magazine http://www.fumento.com/img1/fumentoglobe.gif In fact, the risk to the male, or penetrating, partner of acquiring AIDS in vaginal intercourse is so small that this alone could be enough to prevent any substantial heterosexual spread of the disease. Women, in other words, act as a "firebreak" against the spread of the virus. Do you see the words "the risk...is so small"? That's "small", not "nonexistent". Yes, and it does nothing to address that the highest risk group in the heterosexual population is women who risk AIDS at a much higher rate than men do in indulging in unprotected heterosexual sex. First of all, that has nothing to do with your original statement. Though I admit that no where does he say heterosexual people don't get AIDS, it is implied in his blathering about the risk being insignificant. No, he says specifically that heterosexuals can get AIDS, just that it's not running rampant through the hetero population, and that it's not going to. In the US perhaps he is correct. But the US is hardly representative of the world. Secondly, that's not the point of the book. Which you claim you haven't read further on. Tell me Sarah Jane how do you know the point of the book without reading it? If you can't figure out what a book is about from reading reviews and numerous excerpts, then you have a serious reading comprehension problem. Nice ad homium attack there, Sarah Jane. I agree with you in theory, but this whole debate started because I see Fumento's writings, his bias and campaign of misinformation for what it is. And reviews of his books point that out pretty well. The fastest growing segment of new AIDS cases is among women, who have a much higher risk of transmission than men do. And where does he say otherwise? He does not say that heterosexuals don't get AIDS; he essentially says that it's unlikely to run rampant through the heterosexual population, because although women can get it from men, they're highly unlikely to spread it to other men. So it is ok if women get AIDS because they can't pass it to men? That's not what he says. He says that because women are so unlikely to pass it on to men, those men who are therefore *not* infected will *not* pass it on to other women, who will therefore *not* pass it on to other men, etc. He's not saying that it's okay for anyone to get AIDS. Once again, you don't understand the difference between talking about individuals and talking about populations. The implication is there, if you chose not to see it than you are not reading for content. What about the AIDS children that will be born to the women who get AIDS from the men because the risk is "so small" that men won't practice safe sex because they aren't at risk? And how are these men getting AIDS? The vast majority of women who get AIDS are getting it by being regular sexual partners of IV drug users, Can you provide statistics that support this? not from men who got AIDS through heterosexual sex. I would say that the vast majority of women who get AIDS are getting by being regular sexual partners of bisexual/homosexual [out or closeted] men. Therefore telling those men that they don't need to protect *themselves* from getting AIDS through hetero sex won't change anything. And any woman who is having sex with an IV drug user is considered should know to protect herself. Any woman who is having sex with any man [bi, iv drug user, hemophiliac, whatever] should be protecting herself. When a woman has sex with a man, she is having sex with every person he has had sex with for the last 7-15 years [the incubation period] and given that most men have sex with many more partners than most women, that is a huge risk. His information also ignores the rampant spread of AIDS in places like China, Africa and India where the rise is primarily among the Heterosexual population. And those are places where needles are often reused for vaccinations and for drawing blood, and places where people are already sick and have open sores that facilitate transmission. Among other things that facilitate transmission, between heterosexual populations. It doesn't matter how somebody gets AIDS for this debate only that they are heterosexual. And again, this has nothing whatsoever to do with your original statement. My original statement was to consider the source. That is, the writings of Michael Fumento The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS: The Hazard of Using Misiniformation to Restore Morality By Michael Fumento Crisis Magazine, October 1988 Copyright 1988 by Crisis Magazine http://www.fumento.com/hetmyth.html 10 years after the first heterosexual AIDS cases began showing up in New York City, remains confined almost exclusively to homosexuals, intravenous (IV) drug abusers, recipients of blood products prior to 1986, and their steady sexual partners. Do you see the word "almost" before the word "exclusively"? Yes I did. And by stating that you show rather narrow focus. No, I was pointing out your error. You were pointing out a single qualifier in each of the sentences. IOW narrow focus. The single qualifier that made your unqualified statement wrong. Correct. I did overstate my case. Sarcasm aside. The point is that crap Fumento spews is not balanced. That's not what you said originally - What I said is that the reader should consider the source of the information. you said that he denied the existence of heterosexual AIDS, which is not true. No, that is not what I said. I said he claims that heterosexual people don't get AIDS. Of course we both knew that isn't true. And what do you mean by "balanced"? He's trying to make a point, one that you obviously don't comprehend. So you do comprehend his point? What point would that be? That heterosexual don't need to worry about AIDS because the chances that they are going to get it is so small? Or the point that only women need to really worry about protecting themselves because the chances of a heterosexual man getting it from a woman are almost negligible? The above is obviously his point from the writings I quoted. Just a cursory review of the writings on his web site reveals the following in his writings. AIDS is a very small risk to heterosexuals. Yes. And I see now you've decided he's saying there's a small risk, rather than a non-existent one. I did overstate. Sarcasm is impossible to discern in typed communication. Agent Orange is not to blame for any level of sickness in Vietnam vets and gulf war syndrome is just the new agent orange. And this is relevant how? Shows a pattern of spreading misinformation on Fumento's part. As do the other examples cited in my last message. And we won't even go into his notoriously biased obesity news, which includes parroting the 300,000 obesity deaths per year misinformation. Yes, that is misinformation - the paper I saw said 280,000. Do you think that number is incorrect? Yes, as the original study writers did not attribute the deaths to obesity. If so, please point out the errors in the meta- analysis. The deaths are attributed to high fat diets and/or sedentary life style. Not the same thing as obesity. He is, of course entitled to his opinions. But don't expect people to not see the blatant bias in the stuff he chooses to write about and thus mistrust his writings. He is not a NEWS reporter, he is a opinion writer. Yes, but he also presents facts, which you have yet to do. I'm expressing my opinion, just as Fumento does. Facts that he uses to further his agenda while ignoring other facts that do not, do nothing to promote truth. It does not contain the information necessary to protect a heterosexual person from contracting AIDS, Because that's not what the book is about. There's plenty of that information available elsewhere. And you, who admits that they have not read the book would know what the book is about how? Once again, if you're unable to tell what a book is about from reading reviews and numerous excerpts, you have a serious reading comprehension problem. Repetitive ad homium attack there, Sarah Jane. It encourages them to take risks with their lives by engaging in unprotected sex because they are sure that they as a heterosexual are protected by the almost exclusive part of the above statement. Where does he tell people to engage in unprotected sex? I didn't say he tells people to engage in unprotected sex. My mistake - you said he encourages them to. But I don't see that anywhere either. By downplaying the risks, he encourage people to engage in unsafe behavior. Re-read the above paragraph for content. And a book with a title like The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS implies that heterosexual people don't have to protect themselves. Only for people with reading comprehension problems. Really repetitive ad homium attack there, Sarah Jane. admittedly, I haven't read the book, but I've read excerpts and never seen anything of the kind. Although he doesn't believe that there's a high risk of contracting HIV through normal heterosexual contact, I don't think he denies the risks of getting syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, herpes, HPV, etc. All of which are treatable, and when treated, far from life threatening. They're all treatable, but some of them are not curable. But when treated, even if not cured [herpes, warts, etc.], they are not life threatening. Furthermore, some of them are potentially life-threatening, and there may not be any symptoms until they've reached that point. The bottom line is that no one would choose to have those conditions, and people who are informed about those diseases, and who are concerned for their health, would choose to protect themselves. Yes, and misinformation like The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS does nothing to encourage people to protect themselves. End quotes: Looks a lot like denial of heterosexual AIDS to me. Then you should learn to read. And perhaps you should learn to read without such narrow focus. You're the one with the narrow focus. You can't see the difference between saying something is unlikely and saying it's impossible. You also apparently don't understand the difference between talking about individuals and populations, nor do you understand the difference between a sex-ed manual and a political diatribe. The whole point of my post is obviously wasted on you. You keep changing your point, so no one can even tell what it is. No, you just chose not to see the original point which was that people should consider the source of the information of the original article. My post was in response to somebody posting one of Fumento's biased pieces. I was telling people to be aware of the source of the misinformation. Right, and in doing so, you gave misinformation. So by your own logic, no one should trust anything you say. I did give misinformation that is true. And you have the right to not trust what I say. Just as I have the right not to trust anything Fumento has to say. That you didn't choose to see that broad picture and then focused on the use of two small qualifiers shows an incredibly narrow focus. My point was that you were wrong. The most direct way to show how wrong you were was to point out those qualifiers. Qualifiers may be small words, but they can make a big difference. The difference between small and none, yes that is a difference. A small difference. Fumento is biased, and thus anything he writes should be viewed with that piece of information firmly in mind. And obviously you're biased(and wrong), and anything you write should be viewed with that piece of information in mind. Yes, I am biased against Fumento and his rants, proudly so. If you chose to see that as wrong, you have that right. But that doesn't make everything I've said wrong. AJ Because, somebody has to be the Diva!
|
|
#30
December 12th, 2003, 12:47 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Fat people, get real
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Article: Variety of choice tempts people to continue eating | Carol Frilegh | General Discussion | 0 | June 5th, 2004 11:02 PM |
| Evolution of Stupidity? | Benjamin Holdt | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 15 | April 17th, 2004 01:44 PM |
| Atkins Diet | cc0104007 | General Discussion | 19 | April 11th, 2004 02:55 AM |
| Fat people, get real | ADP | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 48 | December 15th, 2003 11:25 PM |
| Obese people fight for rights | Steve Chaney, aka Papa Gunnykins ® | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 32 | October 10th, 2003 07:26 PM |
Linear Mode
