Consensus on being born gay?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Per capita or as a total?

This distinction is important as it gives to completely different interpretations of your implied point.

Come on, you should know better: I do stats as part of my daily job function. 😐

my bad, I don't think my point was clear

afaik, black people do commit, per capita, more crime than other races, and I'd imagine they are also more likely to be the victims of crime.

If we apply rudester's stance on STI testing to this, we would say something like, black people are more criminal, therefore we need to be vigilant about crime if we are around black people or if we are a black person.

Which is ridiculous. People, based on whatever immediate context they are in need to vigilant of crime, likewise with STIs. Its not something a reasonable person would parse out the importance of based on things like race, gender or sexual preference.

Additionally, the underlying basis for rudester's blanket statement that homosexual men need testing every 3 months perpetuates a fairly damaging steryotype of gay men. Yes, the CDC says rates of infection in gay men are much higher than in straight, but this would be hardly relevant for someone in a monogamous relationship. Similarly, a heterosexual who has frequent unprotected sex should probably be screened at least every 3 months.

Claiming certain safe behaviour is attached to the qualities of an individual (race, gender, orientation) rather than their lifestyle choices is stupid. Should a gay man seek STI screening every 3 months? If they are having frequent unprotected sex, yes, the same standard that would apply to all other people who behave that way.

Olive North stop playing with your bedsheets you kkk racist. 'ill get back to you on this because I am eating.

YouTube video

Claiming certain safe behaviour is attached to the qualities of an individual (race, gender, orientation) rather than their lifestyle choices is stupid. Should a gay man seek STI screening every 3 months? If they are having frequent unprotected sex, yes, the same standard that would apply to all other people who behave that way.

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
I didnt mean offend anyone, I was just joking for the most part

Im not homophobic, was just bored and trying to get someone angry.

Originally posted by Oliver North
If we apply rudester's stance on STI testing to this, we would say something like, black people are more criminal, therefore we need to be vigilant about crime if we are around black people or if we are a black person.

That would be true if a very large portion of the black community were criminals/had committed crime. Instead of 15%...it was something like...I dunno....35%.

I would caution a person against making a sweeping conclusion based on a 35% crime rate among a race. I would say, "That's probably skewed by several urban areas (it really is...Oklahoma City, Detroit, Oakland, LA, just to name a few that have stupid high Black Crime rates). I would tell them if they are worried about crime by race to look up the crime rates, by race, for their place of living. 1 out of 3 is rather high. How many are repeat offenders? There are just too many variables to really justify fearing a particular race because of the crime they commit.

Translate this over to homosexual activity. Well, then the comparison doesn't work well at all. Why would you fear someone because they have sex more often than another demographic? I guess the fear thing doesn't really come into play and it is more or less the stats portion I discussed.

Originally posted by Oliver North
..a heterosexual who has frequent unprotected sex should probably be screened at least every 3 months.

I agree.

Originally posted by Oliver North
Claiming certain safe behaviour is attached to the qualities of an individual (race, gender, orientation) rather than their lifestyle choices is stupid.

I don't understand this point. A superficial interpretation of what you're trying to say here: it's smart, not stupid.

Explain this statement better and maybe I will interpret it differently.

But how I interpret what you're saying...you're saying that Rudster claims that those individuals that practice safe sex are more likely to be straight people than gay people, right?

Well, Rudster is right. But it cannot be sweepingly conclusive. Gay men do have more unprotected sex compared to their hetero counter parts. But I don't think it was anymore than 10-20% of a difference (I don't remember the CDC numbers for the heteros, quite well).

Let['s pretend the hets have 10% rate of unprotected sex with strangers. It's 25% for gay males. That's a 15% difference. Instead of 1 in 10 it is 1 in 4. Still a minority. Not much difference. I'm just guessing on the het levels.

Anyway, you can still infer something about a demographic, contrary to what you're saying. But if you're saying that the inference shouldn't be sweeping, I agree. More like you can only infer a greater percentage, at best.

Unless I missed your point entirely...correct me, please, if I did.

Originally posted by Oliver North
Should a gay man seek STI screening every 3 months? [b]If they are having frequent unprotected sex, yes, the same standard that would apply to all other people who behave that way. [/B]

I agree here, as well.

Originally posted by Zampanó
This is a particularly important point given that anyone whose engaged in male-male sexual activity is disbarred from donating blood (and maybe semen?); even a clean bloodtest is insufficient to lift the prohibition. I was actually completely unaware of that policy until relatively recently. I wonder how long it will take for the aftereffects of the HIV scare to bleed over (!) into the way the hetero population is treated. (Or if it ever will.) That is to say, shouldn't the most egregiously easy socialites be tested before donation, regardless of sexuality?

I think the best measure should be how man sexual partners you have had...sexual orientation be damned.

Originally posted by dadudemon

Let['s pretend the hets have 10% rate of unprotected sex with strangers. It's 25% for gay males. That's a 15% difference. Instead of 1 in 10 it is 1 in 4. Still a minority.

You mean 15 percentage points.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You mean 15 percentage points.

No I don't.

Not another f*cking statistics argument...

Originally posted by dadudemon
No I don't.

15*1.15 = 17.25

You're welcome.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
15*1.15 = 17.25

You're welcome.

No thank you.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Let's pretend the hets have 10% rate of unprotected sex with strangers. It's 25% for gay males. That's a 15% difference.

http://www.icoachmath.com/math_dictionary/Difference.html

"Definition of Difference
Difference is the result that you get when you subtract one number from another.
Examples of Difference
The difference between 5 and 2 is 3.
The difference between 6.3 and 9.8 is 3.5."

But I understand that you and Marius are wanting it to mean something else because you're bored. Not much else to talk about, eh?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Not another f*cking statistics argument...

Even worse: math fundamentals.

Haha, this place hasn't changed.

Indeed but I don't let arguments go in circles, anymore: I end them by calling out the circular arguments after a few volleys.

I dont understand the math and stuff here. Can someone summerize whats being argued here?

Are you guys saying that 35% of black criminals are gay, therefore the black community needs to get tested for HIV? 😐

Priceless. 😐

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
I dont understand the math and stuff here. Can someone summerize whats being argued here?

Are you guys saying that 35% of black criminals are gay, therefore the black community needs to get tested for HIV? 😐

Originally posted by dadudemon
But how I interpret what you're saying...you're saying that Rudster claims that those individuals that practice safe sex are more likely to be straight people than gay people, right?

[...]

But if you're saying that the inference shouldn't be sweeping, I agree. More like you can only infer a greater percentage, at best.

actually, the whole point was that rudester said that gay men need to get STI screening every 3 months. A sweeping statement that implicitly attaches risk of STI to homosexuality, not lifestyle, and promotes what is a fairly negative stereotype of gay people: that they are either just naturally "dirtier" or that unprotected sex is an inherent part of the gay lifestyle.

The actual numbers are unrelated to my point, which is specifically about a sweeping inference, and certainly not more pedantic than what you commonly pick out of people's posts.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I think the best measure should be how man sexual partners you have had...sexual orientation be damned.

Originally posted by Zampanó
This is a particularly important point given that anyone whose engaged in male-male sexual activity is disbarred from donating blood (and maybe semen?); even a clean bloodtest is insufficient to lift the prohibition. I was actually completely unaware of that policy until relatively recently. I wonder how long it will take for the aftereffects of the HIV scare to bleed over (!) into the way the hetero population is treated. (Or if it ever will.) That is to say, shouldn't the most egregiously easy socialites be tested before donation, regardless of sexuality?

thats so weird, why wouldn't they just test the blood?

Originally posted by dadudemon
http://www.icoachmath.com/math_dictionary/Difference.html

"Definition of Difference
Difference is the result that you get when you subtract one number from another.
Examples of Difference
The difference between 5 and 2 is 3.
The difference between 6.3 and 9.8 is 3.5."

But I understand that you and Marius are wanting it to mean something else because you're bored. Not much else to talk about, eh?

not to get this going... but you are sort of both right. You meant "percent difference" in terms of percent as a unit of measure, the same way you could have a "cm difference" or "apple difference".

the term "percent difference", and this is for sure true in what I do, tends to mean the change in percent between 2 values, like 4 is 100% larger than 2.

I think you would be correct in terms of common usage, but I'd get nailed for that in an assignment.

Originally posted by dadudemon
No thank you.

http://www.icoachmath.com/math_dictionary/Difference.html

"Definition of Difference
Difference is the result that you get when you subtract one number from another.
Examples of Difference
The difference between 5 and 2 is 3.
The difference between 6.3 and 9.8 is 3.5."

But I understand that you and Marius are wanting it to mean something else because you're bored. Not much else to talk about, eh?

Even worse: math fundamentals.

The difference you've been talking about is still measured in "percentage points" not "percent".

Something as pedestrian as "being wrong" isn't enough to make dadude wrong. You should have learned that by now.

Originally posted by Col. Novine
A friend recently told me that "every scientific and psychological organization in the nation recognizes that [people] are born homosexual." A Google search gives me conflicted results and the scientific angle is well out of my wheelhouse. For those among us who are more versed in both fields than the layman, is this claim true?

I knew a guy who asked this same question. But, he didn't want to know whether the claim was true, he only wanted to know whether he could carry on as a homophobic with "proof" to back him.