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 |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Fat people, get real
Chet:
We all know some lucky people that can eat whatever they like, yet stay very slim. For others, it's just the opposite.... What that have to do with anything? Junk food doesn't make people automatically fat, it's all about daily calorie intake and portion SIZES. Do you think the average slim person with a "fast metabolism" has enough space in his stomach to shove 3 double cheesburgers and 2 large fries like a 320 lb obese person?? It's just a vicious cycle, a slim person tends to be more active physically and more social so they burn more calories than people who keep getting fatter and fatter every year.... |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Fat people, get real
"Ron in Houston TX" wrote in message
om... | Chet: | | We all know some lucky people that can | eat whatever they like, yet stay very slim. For others, it's just the | opposite.... | Do you think the average slim person with a "fast metabolism" | has enough space in his stomach to shove 3 double cheesburgers and 2 | large fries like a 320 lb obese person?? A technical point he some have even MORE room. If you research the ifoce - an organization of people who compete in eating contests - you'll notice that the consistent winners are not necessarily fat. In fact, there's a spot on their website where they claim that obesity is more likely to *hamper* one's ability to gorge, since a stomach unencumbered by much surrounding fat can often hold more. Who should know better? Robin |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Fat people, get real
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. 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. 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. Why are you so invested in defending him/his writings? 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. 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. 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. 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. [Sidebar, I had no idea that the percent of IV drug users approached 40% of the total population as seems to be the case in perusing the web in search of information. Yikes!] 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. 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. 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. 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. Right. See above. The source being the very obvious bias of the writer. Fumento is an opinion writer and Op-ed writing is far from news reporting. 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 beween them I can't help you. Of course we both knew that isn't true. Right, and it's not what he said. As I've conceded, the interpretation, sarcastic as it was, was mine. 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? Actually, his point is that because the risk to the general population is so small, much of the money that's being spent to inform/scare the crap out of the general population would be better spent on AIDS prevention for people who truly are in high-risk groups. The above is obviously his point from the writings I quoted. Which are taken out of context. How about this, from http://www.fumento. com/mythexc.html "But what can be said with certainty is that during the six years that I have labored to get our nation to treat AIDS like a disease instead of a political weapon, hundreds of millions of AIDS-designated dollars have been squandered and tens of thousands of Americans have been needlessly infected and will die horribly. No matter how successful the second edition of this book, it will never bring them back." Do you still think he's saying that it's okay for people to get AIDS? Sarah Jane, I didn't claim that Fumento said it is ok for people to get AIDS. Who is misquoting who now? 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. "Obesity" is not listed on death certificates. No it isn't. Thus an argument could be made that nobody dies from obesity. Not that I would make that argument. If so, please point out the errors in the meta- analysis. The deaths are attributed to high fat diets and/or sedentary life style. Attributed by whom? I don't think we're talking about the same paper. Attributed by the researchers who performed the original study. Not the same thing as obesity. No, it's not. However, the paper I'm referring to correlated BMI (which in populations, although not necessarily in individuals, is a suitable proxy for body composition) with mortality. This is the abstract for the one I'm talking about. You and I are talking about different studies. Here is a reference to the one I was talking about "Actual Causes of Death in the United States" that appeared in November 1993 in the Journal of the American Medical Association. But the study -- a review of death certificates filed in 1990 -- never said obesity killed that many people. It said, rather, that "dietary factors and activity patterns that are too sedentary are together accountable for at least 300,000 deaths each year." The source of the above material. http://www.junkscience.com/news/slipstat.htm http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content...ct/282/16/1530 This abstract is pretty non-informative. As there is no information as to what constituetes "obesity-attributable death" is. The information seemed only to report how many fat people died. In other words, and yes I'm exaggerating here, an obese person could die in a plane crash and the authors could have attributed the death to obesity not to the crash. Not enough information to really make a case for any number from the link you posted although it may very well exist in the full study. 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's still "ad hominem", and it's still not an ad hominem attack. I know that the book is not a sex-ed manual. If you read the excerpts, you'd know that too. I know that it isn't a sex-ed manual, that isn't the point. 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. Maybe if they take his statements out of context, as you're doing. The context remain even in the fragments of quotes. 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. But many of them don't get treated, because they don't have symptoms. And still, no one would choose to have them. No, most rational people would not choose to have them. 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. Because as I said, it's not a sex-ed manual. And where did I say it was? 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. IOW your point was your ad hominem attack. Definition from American Heritage Dictionary of ad hominem Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason: Debaters should avoid ad hominem arguments that question their opponents' motives. My attack was to point out that this writer is an opinion writer not a news reporter. It was an appeal to reason which by definition is not an ad hominem attack. I didn't question his motives in writing, just made the observation that his writing is rather biased overall and went on to provide examples to back that assertion. 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. So if Fumento has said things that are wrong, everything he says is wrong. But if you say things that are wrong, it doesn't mean everything you say is wrong. Do I have that right? Do you have what right? The right not to belive what I say? Of course you do. But I provided numerous examples of Fumento's inaccuracies to back my assertion. You provided only one example of my misquoting Fumento to back yours. Now children, which one of these things is not like the other? AJ Because, somebody has to be the Diva! |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Fat people, get real
"Ron in Houston TX" wrote:
Do you think the average slim person with a "fast metabolism" has enough space in his stomach to shove 3 double cheesburgers and 2 large fries like a 320 lb obese person?? I couldn't eat anything like that, even when I was a lot bigger than I am now. I definitely couldn't manage it now. There has to be something else going on. -- Lexin www.redrosepress.co.uk www.livejournal.com/~lexin LC since 9 June 2003 (300/242/182) |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Fat people, get real
(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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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? 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Right. See above. The source being the very obvious bias of the writer. Fumento is an opinion writer and Op-ed writing is far from news reporting. Yes, but his opinions are based in fact. You haven't been able to point out any errors in his facts, it's just that your interpretation of them and what should be done about them is different from his. 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 beween 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. Of course we both knew that isn't true. Right, and it's not what he said. As I've conceded, the interpretation, sarcastic as it was, was mine. It wasn't sarcasm; it was misrepresentation of the facts. 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? Actually, his point is that because the risk to the general population is so small, much of the money that's being spent to inform/scare the crap out of the general population would be better spent on AIDS prevention for people who truly are in high-risk groups. The above is obviously his point from the writings I quoted. Which are taken out of context. How about this, from http://www.fumento. com/mythexc.html "But what can be said with certainty is that during the six years that I have labored to get our nation to treat AIDS like a disease instead of a political weapon, hundreds of millions of AIDS-designated dollars have been squandered and tens of thousands of Americans have been needlessly infected and will die horribly. No matter how successful the second edition of this book, it will never bring them back." Do you still think he's saying that it's okay for people to get AIDS? Sarah Jane, I didn't claim that Fumento said it is ok for people to get AIDS. Scroll up. You said "So it is ok if women get AIDS because they can't pass it to men?" Who is misquoting who now? No one is misquoting. You were misinterpreting. 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. "Obesity" is not listed on death certificates. No it isn't. Thus an argument could be made that nobody dies from obesity. Not that I would make that argument. Good, because it would be a ridiculous argument. If so, please point out the errors in the meta- analysis. The deaths are attributed to high fat diets and/or sedentary life style. Attributed by whom? I don't think we're talking about the same paper. Attributed by the researchers who performed the original study. Ok, different study. Not the same thing as obesity. No, it's not. However, the paper I'm referring to correlated BMI (which in populations, 2although not necessarily in individuals, is a suitable proxy for body composition) with mortality. This is the abstract for the one I'm talking about. You and I are talking about different studies. Here is a reference to the one I was talking about "Actual Causes of Death in the United States" that appeared in November 1993 in the Journal of the American Medical Association. But the study -- a review of death certificates filed in 1990 -- never said obesity killed that many people. It said, rather, that "dietary factors and activity patterns that are too sedentary are together accountable for at least 300,000 deaths each year." The source of the above material. http://www.junkscience.com/news/slipstat.htm http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content...ct/282/16/1530 This abstract is pretty non-informative. As there is no information as to what constituetes "obesity-attributable death" is. The information seemed only to report how many fat people died. The actual paper is much more informative. I did have a link to a pdf, but the link is broken now. In other words, and yes I'm exaggerating here, an obese person could die in a plane crash and the authors could have attributed the death to obesity not to the crash. No, they didn't include accidental deaths. Not enough information to really make a case for any number from the link you posted although it may very well exist in the full study. I wish I could find it again. It's much more informative. 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's still "ad hominem", and it's still not an ad hominem attack. I know that the book is not a sex-ed manual. If you read the excerpts, you'd know that too. I know that it isn't a sex-ed manual, that isn't the point. But you're expecting the book to tell people how to protect themselves. That's just not the point of the book. It encourages them to take risks with their lives by engaging in unprotected sex because they are sure that the2y 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. Maybe if they take his statements out of context, as you're doing. The context remain even in the fragments of quotes. No, the entire context is not there. 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. But many of them don't get treated, because they don't have symptoms. And still, no one would choose to have them. No, most rational people would not choose to have them. So even though they don't think they could get AIDS, they would still protect themselves from those other diseases by using condoms. And then they would also be protected from HIV. 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. Because as I said, it's not a sex-ed manual. And where did I say it was? It was implied by the type of information you apparently expect it to provide. 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. IOW your point was your ad hominem attack. Definition from American Heritage Dictionary of ad hominem Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason: Debaters should avoid ad hominem arguments that question their opponents' motives. My attack was to point out that this writer is an opinion writer not a news reporter. It was an appeal to reason which by definition is not an ad hominem attack. No, it was an appeal to ask people to consider other things he's written, not his reasoning in this particular case. That is an ad hominem attack that implicitly questions his motives. And BTW, you also explicitly questioned my motives. I didn't question his motives in writing, just made the observation that his writing is rather biased overall and went on to provide examples to back that assertion. Saying that he's biased doesn't have anything to do with questioning his motives? 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. So if Fumento has said things that are wrong, everything he says is wrong. But if you say things that are wrong, it doesn't mean everything you say is wrong. Do I have that right? Do you have what right? The right not to belive what I say? Of course you do. Sorry, I should have said "correct". I know I have the right to believe or disbelieve whatever I choose. But I provided numerous examples of Fumento's inaccuracies to back my assertion. But you gave example of what you consider inaccuracies in his other arguments, not in the one being discussed. You provided only one example of my misquoting Fumento to back yours. There was no misquoting. And I provided reasoning based on relevant facts, facts which you have been unable to refute. Now children, which one of these things is not like the other? Good question. AJ Because, somebody has to be the Diva! |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Fat people, get real
(Weight Watcher) wrote in message ...
On 11 Dec 2003, (A J Davenport) wrote: 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. Prove your claim with verifiable facts. Keep in mind that what is written on a death certificate is often just the terminal problem. Cancer patients often have some other problem listed as the proximate cause of death. |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Fat people, get real
|
#49
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |
help needed on where to start | Diane Nelson | General Discussion | 13 | April 21st, 2004 06:11 PM |
Atkins Diet | cc0104007 | General Discussion | 19 | April 11th, 2004 02:55 AM |
Heavier People May Experience Workplace Discrimination | NR | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 2 | November 4th, 2003 02:15 PM |
Study: People found unattractive if they stand next to obese friends | Steve Chaney, aka Papa Gunnykins ® | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 1 | October 22nd, 2003 12:07 PM |