A Weightloss and diet forum. WeightLossBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » WeightLossBanter forum » alt.support.diet newsgroups » Weightwatchers
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Fat people, get real



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old December 16th, 2003, 12:25 AM
A J Davenport
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Fat people, get real

(SJ) wrote in message . com...
(A J Davenport) wrote in message . com...
Sarah Jane wrote in message ...
In A J Davenport wrote:
Sarah Jane wrote in message news:
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.

The book is mainly about the US.


And I say again the US is hardly representative of the world.


But when people write books, they can choose what topic to focus on.
That's what he did.


Using on the US as a representative of the whole world skews the
numbers in such a way that his whole point is compromised.

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.

It's "ad hominem", but that's not an ad hominem attack. You asked me how
I knew the point of the book, and I told you. And furthermore, your
entire argument has been an ad hominem attack on Fumento.


You know you look incredibly inept at debate when you have to resort
to typo/spelling/grammar patrol.


I just thought next time you used the term you'd want to spell it
correctly.


Is that why you felt the need to bring it up more than once?

Rhetorical
The attack on Fumento is an attack against his writings. I have no
personal vendetta against him and feel no need to attack him
personally.


You're saying that because he's said some things that you don't agree
with, no one should listen to anything he says. That's ad hominem.


I pointed out that the man has a pattern of manipulating "facts" in
such a way as to make the "results" he "reports" suspect at best and
downright wrong at worst.

I didn't attack his motives, as I have no idea what they might be.

Why are you so invested in defending him/his writings?


I'm not. I'm invested in logic, not Fumento. He's said some things I
agree with completely, some I partially agree with, and some I totally
disagree with. Much of what he says about heterosexual AIDS makes
sense to me.


Much of what he says about AIDS make very little sense to me. The
Myth of Heterosexual Aids being a prime example.

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.

No, it's not there. You're not reading for content. You still don't
understand the difference between talking about populations and talking
about individuals.


Women are a population! I am not talking about an individual I am
talking about half of the world's population.


Right. And he's talking about why although a few individuals may have
it, it is unlikely to spread throughout that population.


A few individuals? 46 million people have AIDS worldwide! I'm not
saying that all 46 million are heterosexual or that they have unsafe
sex. But to narrow your focus and ignore the overall spread of the
disease is not rational!

The implication is that men [the other half of the population] don't
need to worry about protecting themselves, since women [half the
population] are so ineffective at passing the AIDS virus to them. If
you can't see the implication that it is ok for men [as a group]not to
practice safe sex in the above then you are in a deep state of denial.


Again, you're not understanding what he's saying - if men don't get
it, how do they pass it on to women?


I'm obviously not going to get you to see my point here, so I'm not
even going to try any further.

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 off the top of my head, but I can probably find them.


That should be interesting to read.


Yup, when I have a chance to find it.

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.

Do you have statistics for this?


Just like you, no not off the top of my head.

And in looking for information regarding these two groups you are
probably right as the % of IV drug users is much higher than % of
those who identify as gay or bisexual.

Thus my assertion above is probably in error. My bad.


Right. And IV drug users and their partners are one of the high-risk
groups Fumento thinks more AIDS prevention money should be spent on.


In perusing Fumento's writings on his web site I don't see him saying
that anywhere.

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.

No, she is not having sex with everyone he's had sex with for the last 7-
15 years. Read the part again about how unlikely it is for a man to get
HIV from a woman.


By extension she is having sex with everyone he's had sex with, and
although it may be "unlikely" that he would get AIDS from a woman
during normal vaginal sex there are certain sexual behaviors
[heterosexual behaviors] that increase those chances.


So she's not having sex with everyone he's had normal vaginal sex
with.


Yes she is! Fumento himself doesn't say there is NO Risk in vaginal
sex he says the risk is low. I don't happen to agree with him
[perhaps my being a woman and thus at higher risk of contracting it
than he a man does, has something to do with it]. There can be small
tears and other skin breaks during normal vaginal sex, and having
normal vaginal sex during the woman's menstrual period will also
increase the chances of transmission.

Granted if neither of the above set of circumstances is operative the
risk is smaller but still not something most people should be willing
to take a chance with.

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.

No, the debate is not about heterosexuals getting AIDS; it's about
people getting AIDS through heterosexual sex.


The debate was about heterosexuals getting AIDS, not how they got it.
To dismiss the other behaviors as of no consequence and not count them
in the numbers of heterosexuals with AIDS IMO compromises the sample
set to the point where the original numbers have very little meaning.


Of course they're counted in the numbers of heterosexuals with AIDS.
But that's not what the debate is about. If you don't consider the
different ways that people can get it, you can't figure out how to
tell people how to protect themselves, and which groups are at higher
risk and therefore need more resources for information and prevention.


Heterosexual people, men or women should not be having unprotected
sex. That it is spread that way, through the heterosexual population,
means that the resources currently aren't getting the job done.

And writings like Fumento's that downplay the risk certainly aren't
helping the job get done.

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

There you go, getting all ad hominem.


So calling him Michael Fumento is an attack? I do believe it is the
man's name.


No, saying "consider the source" is ad hominem. You're talking about
him and other things he's said, not what he's saying in this
particular case.


If you see "consider the source" as an ad hominem attack then there
isn't much I could say that you wouldn't see as such an attack.

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.

How is that different?


If you can't look at the two sentences above and understand the
difference between them I can't help you.


If you really think there's a difference between heterosexual people
getting AIDS and the existence of heterosexual AIDS, you should be
able to explain what that difference is.


To say that the risk of heterosexual men getting sex from heterosexual
sex is so small that we should ignore the risk is to deny heterosexual
AIDS.

To deny that heterosexual people get AIDS is to say that AIDS cares
about the sexual orientation if the host. People get AIDS from all
kinds of behaviors. That makes it AIDS contracted through risky
behavior. [Only one of which is having unprotected sex.]

And writings like Fumento's perpetuate the myth [his own words] that
heterosexual people don't get AIDS. He is quite clear in his writings
that heterosexual sex will not, in his opinion, lead to heterosexual
men getting AIDS. This ignores the fact that heterosexual women do
get AIDS from heterosexual sex and that they can pass it on to
heterosexual men, as there are men who do get AIDS from their female
partners [yes, men who claim to never having used IV drugs, or engaged
in sex with a man].

No The Myth of Hetrosexual Aids is not a sex-ed manual, [the way you
seem to justfiy Fumento spouting his crap while ingoring the need to
impart information to his readers that would allow them to protect
themselves] his book is a treasure trove of misinformation, given the
veneer of fact by a man who is an op-ed writer not a AIDS researcher.

To give his writings the merit of being truthful, the fact that the
man is nothing more that an op ed writer should be considered. It
doesn't really matter what the topic is, nor do his motives matter,
what does matter is that his writings are only op-ed peices based on
his view of "facts" he chooses to believe while ignoring other "facts"
that do not conform to his opinion. If he were known as a fiction
writer you would make the same determination as to the veracity of his
claims as those of a opinion writer.

We could go on for another 4 or 5 posts each and I don't think either
one of us is going to change the others mind.

I do thank you for a debate that provided me with an opportunity to
educate myself about the rampant use of IV drugs. Other than that,
you haven't given me one reason to believe that my initial assessment
of Fumentno's writings is in error.

And thus, I'm still going to say, consider the source every time I see
somebody post his opinions. His continuing pattern of justification
for prejudice and perpetrating the spread of misinformation should
definitely be a consideration for all readers.

AJ
Because, somebody has to be the Diva!
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 16th, 2003 12:25 AM
Obese people fight for rights Steve Chaney, aka Papa Gunnykins ® Low Carbohydrate Diets 32 October 10th, 2003 07:26 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:04 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 WeightLossBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.