Nearly half of new HIV infections are among young, black males

[Dusty Bake Activate]

Which probably means they have more gays then too huh?? Not to mention the ones named with smaller population having the higher rates...

Yes, they're larger cities so they have more gay people and more AIDS cases...pretty simple. And ATL is still #10 .

Do me a favor, tally up cities that have 350,000 to 450,000 people and tell me where ATL ranks.

 

[Black_Jesus]

Yes, they're larger cities so they have more gay people and more AIDS cases...pretty simple. And ATL is still #10 .

Do me a favor, tally up cities that have 350,000 to 450,000 people and tell me where ATL ranks.

Im talking Major cities nikka
Miami Fl has just over 2mill

Atl has just over 5 mill

Yet Miami is ranked much higher with AIDS

 

[Binary]

Why do people act like black women are only having sex with black men? If anything gay rich white men are the ones spreading it to black women. Back in slave days the white master did not just rape the black woman.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

Im talking Major cities nikka
Miami Fl has just over 2mill

Atl has just over 5 mill

Yet Miami is ranked much higher with AIDS

Atlanta does not have 5 million people. The ATL metro area may have 5 mil or something like that. The city of ATL only has 420,000. Again find cities of about 400,000 and tell me where ATL ranks in AIDS cases.

 

[Black_Jesus]

Atlanta does not have 5 million people. The ATL metro area may have 5 mil or something like that. The city of ATL only has 420,000. Again find cities of about 400,000 and tell me where ATL ranks in AIDS cases.

You're trying too hard to win an argument you've already lost 2 posts ago.... Just fall back right now..

The numbers I posted were Aids cases and populations of the metropolitan areas of those cities...

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

You're trying too hard to win an argument you've already lost 2 posts ago.... Just fall back right now..

The numbers I posted were Aids cases and populations of the metropolitan areas of those cities...

Lol...man just be quiet. You sound ridiculous. You posted a list of cities of new AIDS cases where ATL was number 10 in order to try and prove ATL reputation as a gay mecca is overblown. Most of these cities also have similar reputations as ATL when it comes to homosexuals and all but one or two have more people than ATL. All you did was reinforce ATL's homo rep with that list because all you did was prove ATL has way more AIDS cases than almost every city in the country with a similar population size. There isn't a 1:1 relationship between number of gay people and number of AIDS cases anyway.

 

[Black_Jesus]

Lol...man just be quiet. You sound ridiculous. You posted a list of cities of new AIDS cases where ATL was number 10 in order to try and prove ATL reputation as a gay mecca is overblown. Most of these cities also have similar reputations as ATL when it comes to homosexuals and all but one or two have more people than ATL. All you did was reinforce ATL's homo rep with that list because all you did was prove ATL has way more AIDS cases than almost every city in the country with a similar population size. There isn't a 1:1 relationship between number of gay people and number of AIDS cases anyway.

Top Ten Reported AIDS Cases (Metropolitan Areas)
New York City: 126,237
Los Angeles: 43,448
San Francisco: 28,438
Miami: 25,357
Washington
DC: 24,844
Chicago: 22,703
Philadelphia: 20,369
Houston: 19,898
Newark: 17,796
Atlanta: 17,157

Dumb ass nikka that shyt CLEARLY says metropolitan area... which includes "the city of"

Atlanta METROPOLITAN AREA is just over 5mil
Miami METROPOLITAN AREA is just over 2mil

Atlanta's METROPOLITAN has over 3mil more people than Miami's METROPOLITAN area

YET

Miami has 7, 000 more AIDS cases

Now I posted that to show that if gays are the primary spreaders of AIDS

and

ATL is the "gay capital"

Shouldn't ATL be higher on that list than cities with smaller METROPOLITAN area population s like D.C. Newark, Miami...

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

Top Ten Reported AIDS Cases (Metropolitan Areas)
New York City: 126,237
Los Angeles: 43,448
San Francisco: 28,438
Miami: 25,357
Washington
DC: 24,844
Chicago: 22,703
Philadelphia: 20,369
Houston: 19,898
Newark: 17,796
Atlanta: 17,157

Dumb ass nikka that shyt CLEARLY says metropolitan area... which includes "the city of"

Atlanta METROPOLITAN AREA is just over 5mil
Miami METROPOLITAN AREA is just over 2mil

Atlanta's METROPOLITAN has over 3mil more people than Miami's METROPOLITAN area

YET

Miami has 7, 000 more AIDS cases

Now I posted that to show that if gays are the primary spreaders of AIDS

and

ATL is the "gay capital"

Shouldn't ATL be higher on that list than cities with smaller METROPOLITAN area population s like D.C. Newark, Miami...

As I already said, there is not a 1-to1 relationship between AIDS cases and number or percentage of homosexuals. You're just inventing an imaginary metric. There's a lot more that goes into why AIDS cases would be high. Population density would be one. In an area of dense population, there will be more needles shared and more people packed into a tight space so communicable diseases like HIV spread faster and easier. For instance, Newark has the highest population density in the country and to no surprise it's on the list despite its low population. ATL has a lower population density I'm than probably every city on the list except Houston without looking it up. And ATL is still in the top 10.

You can't measure the number or percentage of gay people in a city by AIDS cases, idiot. You're starting from an indefensible logical leap then trying to work backwards from there. Take a logic and a statistics class. And ATL is fruitier as fukk. Everyone knows this. It's still a nice city though.

 

[Black_Jesus]

As I already said, there is not a 1-to1 relationship between AIDS cases and number or percentage of homosexuals. You're just inventing an imaginary metric. There's a lot more that goes into why AIDS cases would be high. Population density would be one. In an area of dense population, there will be more needles shared and more people packed into a tight space so communicable diseases like HIV spread faster and easier. For instance, Newark has the highest population density in the country and to no surprise it's on the list despite its low population. ATL has a lower population density I'm than probably every city on the list except Houston without looking it up. And ATL is still in the top 10.

You can't measure the number or percentage of gay people in a city by AIDS cases, idiot. You're starting from an indefensible logical leap then trying to work backwards from there. Take a logic and a statistics class. And ATL is fruitier as fukk. Everyone knows this. It's still a nice city though.

when you said Atlanta only has 420,000 trying argue against my point that cities that are millions lower in population than Atlanta have much higher AIDS cases...

You came back strong with that population density shyt
I really hadn't even considered it..... BUT that was a list of Major cities, not cities period... BIG DIFFERENCE... all of this is theoretical... Me saying Miami has more gays because of its high HIV rate is just as unprovable as you saying ATL has more gays because of its population density in relationship to the # of AIDS cases

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

when you said Atlanta only has 420,000 trying argue against my point that cities that are millions lower in population than Atlanta have much higher AIDS cases...

You came back strong with that population density shyt
I really hadn't even considered it..... BUT that was a list of Major cities, not cities period... BIG DIFFERENCE... all of this is theoretical... Me saying Miami has more gays because of its high HIV rate is just as unprovable as you saying ATL has more gays because of its population density in relationship to the # of AIDS cases

I think the problem is the way you're framing your argument. I don't think people consider ATL THE gay mecca. That title would probably go to San Francisco. People do consider ATL the BLACK gay mecca, and a walk down Peachtree at night would give most people all the evidence they need for that designation. You're comparing it to places that are already known for high gay populations anyway. Miami? Everyone knows south Florida is a big rainbow parade.

But most people would agree that ATL is basically San Francisco for gay black people

 

[PartyHeart]

You can't have it both ways. On one hand you admit to why straight black men have higher rates. Incarceration, drugs, risky behavior, etc. Then later your gonna say straight black men rates are higher because they are getting it from women. it can't be both ways. Black people have higher infection rates for a multitude of different reasons, most resulting from poverty, not hetero sex.

You still are not getting that the Black men who are getting it from having sex with men are NOT BEING PUT IN THE SAME CATEGORY AS HETEROSEXUAL MEN. They are being put in the MSM category. THEY ARE TWO SEPARATE CLASSIFICATIONS IN YOUR STATISTICS.

I think this is what your complete failure to understand the posts in this thread is a result of. You do not realize that MSM and heterosexual Black males are classified separately. A man who has had sex with men, whether in prison or otherwise, is not going to be put in the heterosexual pool. Regardless of whether he claims himself to be heterosexual or not. It is the entire reason why its labeled MSM as opposed to Homosexual/Bisexual.

So there is nothing in my posts about me attempting to have it both ways. MSM give it to unsuspecting straight women, straight women give it to straight men.

Men who go to prison and catch HIV never identify themselves as gay, so their numbers get included with straight men.

Now that you have admitted you are not following the way the classifications are done, let me know if you get it now and we can continue. I'm not going to repeat myself breaking down the rest of your post if we can't even get past this simple part of the way the groups are classified.

 

[MeachTheMonster]

You still are not getting that the Black men who are getting it from having sex with men are NOT BEING PUT IN THE SAME CATEGORY AS HETEROSEXUAL MEN. They are being put in the MSM category. THEY ARE TWO SEPARATE CLASSIFICATIONS IN YOUR STATISTICS.

I think this is where your complete failure to understand the posts in this thread is a result of. You do not realize that MSM and heterosexual Black males are classified separately. A man who has had sex with men, whether in prison or otherwise, is not going to be put in the heterosexual pool.


So there is nothing in my posts about me attempting to have it both ways. MSM give it to unsuspecting straight women, straight women give it to men.



Now that you have admitted you are not following the way the classifications are done, let me know if you get it now and we can continue. I'm not going to repeat myself breaking down the rest of your post if we can't even get past this simple part of the way the groups are classified.

No you are wrong. The statistics go by surveys. They ask people about their sexual expierinces. We've already agreed that black men are least likely to admit to homo sex. We've also agreed that ex-convicts are least likely to reveal their sexual exploits inside the jail. Black men are most likely to be ex convicts therefore their numbers are most likely inflated the most.

 

[PartyHeart]

No you are wrong. The statistics go by surveys. They ask people about their sexual expierinces. We've already agreed that black men are least likely to admit to homo sex. We've also agreed that ex-convicts are least likely to reveal their sexual exploits inside the jail. Black men are most likely to be ex convicts therefore their numbers are most likely inflated the most.

When did I ever say the statistics don't go by surveys? What else would they go by?

Sexual experiences =/= sexual preferences. Research scientists are not stupid that they would overlook the implausibility of a guy who says he went to prison but never had MSM or engaged in other risky behavior but somehow wound up with AIDS. Besides, many steps are taken to keep tests blind to subvert the effects of lying. Its the entire reason behind the MSM category.

In addition, HIV/AIDS tests are routinely done on prisons, something like once every 2 or 3 months, where the population is some 25x more likely than the general public to be infected. So often times, researchers will know the guys got HIV in prison and clearly cannot categorize them under heterosexual male (since there would have been no hetero contact in prison). The only choice they'd have would be IDU or MSM.

But ok, you keep on taking logical leaps, MSM is just being classified as hetero in the Black community and only the Black community. That's the only reason their numbers are so high. Hetero Black men aren't getting it from hetero sex because their penises are impenetrable. Going by your logic, I guess we can just assume that there are far more gay men in the Black community than all others. Next I guess we can talk about why that might be

 

[MeachTheMonster]

When did I ever say the statistics don't go by surveys? What else would they go by?

Sexual experiences =/= sexual preferences. Research scientists are not stupid that they would overlook the implausibility of a guy who says he went to prison but never had MSM or engaged in other risky behavior but somehow wound up with AIDS. Besides, many steps are taken to keep tests blind to subvert the effects of lying. Its the entire reason behind the MSM category.

In addition, HIV/AIDS tests are routinely done on prisons, something like once every 2 or 3 months, where the population is some 25x more likely than the general public to be infected. So often times, researchers will know the guys got HIV in prison and clearly cannot categorize them under heterosexual male (since there would have been no hetero contact in prison). The only choice they'd have would be IDU or MSM.

But ok, you keep on taking logical leaps, MSM is just being classified as hetero in the Black community and only the Black community. That's the only reason their numbers are so high. Hetero Black men aren't getting it from hetero sex because their penises are impenetrable. Going by your logic, I guess we can just assume that there are far more gay men in the Black community than all others. Next I guess we can talk about why that might be

So researchers know that a man contracting HIV through hetero sex is far fetched, but you won't admit it.

Anyway you are wrong again. The statistics go by survey only. If a guy tells the CDC that he never had sex with another man, he goes in the hetero category they don't just ignore his answers and place him where they want. The only estimation that takes place is when they give the numbers for Americans living with aids but are unaware that they have it.

I will say it one more time. The CDC and every other health originization disagrees with you. Why don't you believe them?

 

[PartyHeart]

Its hard to argue with someone who doesn’t understand the research they are hanging onto. In that case, I will make one final attempt to make this clear.

In regards to insertive anal sex:

No meta-analysis estimates currently exist for insertive anal sex (inserting the penis into the anus, also known as topping) but two individual studies were conducted to calculate this risk. The first, published in 1999, calculated the risk to be 0.06% (equivalent to one transmission per 1,667 exposures).2 However, due to the design of the study, this number likely underestimated the risk of HIV transmission. The second study, published in 2010, was better designed and estimated the risk to be 0.11% (or 1 transmission per 909 exposures) for circumcised men and 0.62% (1 transmission per 161 exposures) for uncircumcised men.3

This is from the link I quoted that you claim doesn't support what I'm saying. Yet here it is refuting itself, yet putting the rankings in a way that does not reflect that. When you actually look at data and understand it, you find out more than when you only skim it for points that you hope back up your argument.

HIV & AIDS Information :: Risk - HIV risk levels for the insertive and receptive partner in different types of sexual intercourse

More evidence in the link above. Scroll down and see yet another breakdown that makes it pretty explicit that insertive anal sex is far more risky than reported numbers for receptive vaginal sex.

HIV & AIDS Information :: Blood viral load predicts HIV transmission better than semen viral load in small study among MSM

More evidence in the link above. This study isn’t about the type of sex (receptive or insertive) as much as it is the transmission depending on the substance. It makes it clear that blood viral load is a far greater predictor and transmitter of the HIV than semen. And of course, if you are open to using deductive reasoning, you’d put it together than since membrane tearing is some 50-100x more likely in anal sex than vaginal, transmission is more risky in anal of both types than vaginal.

STD Rate Much Higher For Homosexual Men

This study shows that there is a higher prevalence of STDs amongst MSM. And it is of course well documented that chance of HIV transmission is increased when the partner has other STDs. Goes to reinforce that the connection to a riskier group has a huge effect on the probability of transmission. NOT simply whether they are inserting on receiving, because in vaginal sex it is highly unlikely regardless unless other cofactors are at hand.

Finally:

when the researchers excluded studies which involved sexual acts as part of commercial sex work (either as a client or a sex worker), the risk of female-to-male transmission decreased.

Brings home the point that there is clearly a connection between risk of transmission and the high risk level of the group. So when researchers include the studies in which males are exposed to a higher risk group (sex workers) similar to the way women are exposed to the highest risk group (MSM) their transmission rate increases and is in fact higher than M to F transmission! Again, when you look further, and use deductive reasoning, things become clearer. But when you have an agenda I guess why would you look deeper into research that might disprove your point

Now you might ask why would the CDC choose to rank risk as it did despite all data and even with the conflicting evidence from the metanalysis they used. An opinion piece was done by a scientists a while ago that suggested its being done in an attempt to keep HIV from being labeled a gay disease. I’ll post this up when I find a link to it that isn’t only on a restricted academic database. But basically this theory can also in a way be supported by the sheer number of tests done on vaginal receptive as opposed to any other sex method. It is more than all the other tests COMBINED (10 to 9).

(And please, don’t try to act as if my bringing up a theory is somehow denying statistics, I'm merely actually analyzing the numbers. Which is what any smart person is encouraged to do, rather than take everything they see at face value. And seeing as how the statistics you are holding onto come from 2 tests on insertive anal and 3 on insertive vaginal, there would literally be no reason to not look further. That isn't even enough research or barely enough for a meta-analysis to be done. Its why I have been asking you to actually look at the research they are drawing the numbers from, rather than quote them blindly and then act like you have some understanding that I don't.)