Annoying asshole help requested

[Justforfun000]

http://www.progressiveu.org/075032-same ... pro-or-con


In a blog I decided to get involved in there is this one named Leland who is trying to be oh so clever and throw around so called facts about homosexuals having shorter and disease-prone lives. After generally challenging him he throws these two links at me that are from such ridiculously biased religious sites and then has the nerve to start throwing out the names of logical fallacies at me thinking I've never heard of them. Look at the little weasels post to me:

OK, here are a couple of links to get you started. (But from now on, you need to start doing your own homework.)

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2559

http://theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/22SxSo/ ... lifspn.htm

You’ll probably try to dismiss those sources just because the people who did them might also be religious, so while you’re checking those out, you might also want to look up the following logical fallacies:

ad hominem; personam; non sequitur; genetic fallacy; straw man

You committed some others, but start with those.

(Me)
KPartington said:
"Only the fringe quacks out there keep trying to pretend this is a behaviour issue and without exception you'll find them all religiously motivated."

That’s an example of personam and the straw man attack. (Look them up, you can do it.)

Anyhow, he goes on and I was through a good 20 minute rebuttal to him when I hit a link that opened within the page and I LOST it all.

I'm making another crack at it tomorrow, but if someone can throw some advice on the best way to invalidate his so called sources? I can say the simple "Well these sites are biased, and none of the major organizations concur", but I would think there is a better way to show that these so called "studies" are false. The first link has the most ridiculous correlation I've ever seen as they just seem to compare randomly two newspapers obituaries and some gay publications listing people who died of AIDS and suggesting that the lifespan percentage between the two groups shows quite clearly that the gay lifestyle is "shorter".

Anyway, I'm tired and frustrated after that loss of post. If anyone has suggestions I'll give it another go tomorrow.

[Superman]

Personally, I seriously doubt that even unbiased facts would change his simple mind. These types don't operate from the portion of the brain which is responsible for rational thinking and reason; they're more childlike and emotionally driven.

It's late and I'm about to go to bed. The only suggestion I can think of is the American Psychological Association's published studies. [Hereis one to get you started. Have a look around the site for more. Also try the American Psychiatric Association's site and dig through the journals that they have posted. APA

Unlike his bogus references, the studies in the psychological and psychiatric journals are legit.

[Justforfun000]

Personally, I seriously doubt that even unbiased facts would change his simple mind. These types don't operate from the portion of the brain which is responsible for rational thinking and reason; they're more childlike and emotionally driven.

Normally I'd agree and just move on, but the little prick is throwing logical fallacy definitions at me and so I should be able to make him put up or shut up.

What's also a little aggravating is that I probably should have been more careful myself in my posts. I should have qualified some of my assertions with "most" or "almost". I believe I said a couple of absolutes I'll have to backpedal a bit from. *sigh*. Unfortunate side effect of posting after returning from a night out of revelry. I should know better than to post serious content when not totally sober.

[mr friendly guy]

Living a homosexual lifestyle is far from “safe.” In fact, homosexuals experience a shorter lifespan than heterosexuals—a fact that is not often reported in the national press. In an effort to estimate the life expectancy of homosexuals, Paul Cameron and his colleagues reviewed 6,714 obituaries from sixteen United States homosexual journals (1993). They then compared those results to obituaries from two conventional newspapers. Cameron and his colleagues reported the following results:

Yet, according to the Center for Disease Control, the average life expectancy rate in the United States is 77.2 (according to 2001 data). Thus, the average homosexual (without AIDS) dies 35.2 years earlier.

Cameron, et al., also demonstrated that if the person had not died of AIDS, homosexuals faced a great deal more violence than their heterosexual counterparts. They discovered that homosexuals died:

* 10 times more often in accidents
* 17 times more frequently in traffic
* 26 times more often from suicide
* 87 times more from murder
* 23 times more often from heart attacks (compared to white men aged 25-44)

Cameron and his colleagues presented their findings at the Eastern Psychological Association, concluding that homosexuals do not live to old age, when compared to non-homosexual counterparts. Their study clearly established that homosexuals experience shorter life spans compared to heterosexuals.

This whole thing smacks of a false cause fallacy. The very fact that they quote homosexuals as likely to suffer violence when homosexuality is not the cause shows it. This is like me punching every Christian I meet in the nose and concluding that being Christian leads to higher incidence of blood noses. Seriously, I am sure if I look hard enough I can show how Christian minority groups get ostracised in Muslim countries or in the PRC and therefore conclude being Christian is hazardous to your health.

The first part about homosexuals having a higher incidence of AIDS therefore homosexual lifestyle is not safe, is another false cause fallacy. higher incidence of AIDS is due to unsafe sex, see Africa where AIDS affects mainly heterosexuals.

Study after study reveals that homosexuality, whether male or female, can take anywhere from 10, 20 to 30 years off of someone's lifespan. With all the attention on smoking, which the National Cancer Institute says takes from 7 to 10 years off someone's life, why not the same human outcry on homosexuality? Here's a behavior that's killing people 2 to 3 times the rate of smoking, yet nobody seems to care. In fact, we are encouraging and affirming individuals into the "gay" lifestyle. If you truly love someone, you would steer them away from self-destructive behaviors, rather than towards them, shouldn't you? Homosexuals need our tough love, not blind love, the kind of love that is going to love them no matter what they say and do. We must extend that helping hand and say " I think your worth saving, let's work on it together."

Another moron who doesn't understand its not enough to have an association between A and B to conclude A leads to B.

[wolveraptor]

They seriously believe being gay leads to a greater risk of car accidents? What the fuck?

[LaCroix]

Maybe they think being gay makes you drive like a.... forget it...

[Crossroads Inc.]

Heres what I found "interesting"

A Homosexual is likely to die from:

* 26 times more often from suicide
* 87 times more from murder
* 23 times more often from heart attacks (compared to white men aged 25-44)

Does he not find it even SLIGHTLY odd that, gee, maybe the reasons that the rate of Suicide, murder and Heart attacks for Gays is so high because of all the F'ing Homophobes out ther?

[petesampras]

The first part about homosexuals having a higher incidence of AIDS therefore homosexual lifestyle is not safe, is another false cause fallacy. higher incidence of AIDS is due to unsafe sex, see Africa where AIDS affects mainly heterosexuals.

Of course, you can point out that Lesbians are LESS likely to get HIV than heterosexuals.

[Molyneux]

This is only somewhat on-topic, but has anyone read any studies relating to physical health problems for homosexuals? The author of a blog I post on has made (unsupported) claims of various conditions and diseases that are much higher amongst gay men than straight, presumably because of homosexuality, and I haven't been able to find any pertinent data either supporting or denying his position on my own.

[petesampras]

This is only somewhat on-topic, but has anyone read any studies relating to physical health problems for homosexuals? The author of a blog I post on has made (unsupported) claims of various conditions and diseases that are much higher amongst gay men than straight, presumably because of homosexuality, and I haven't been able to find any pertinent data either supporting or denying his position on my own.

In the UK, concerning HIV,

http://www.avert.org/uksummary.htm

and

http://www.avert.org/stats.htm

It is not unreasonable to state that gay men, in general, are at higher risk of HIV than heterosexuals or lesbians in most developed countries.

[The Guid]

This is only somewhat on-topic, but has anyone read any studies relating to physical health problems for homosexuals? The author of a blog I post on has made (unsupported) claims of various conditions and diseases that are much higher amongst gay men than straight, presumably because of homosexuality, and I haven't been able to find any pertinent data either supporting or denying his position on my own.

In the UK, concerning HIV,

http://www.avert.org/uksummary.htm

and

http://www.avert.org/stats.htm

It is not unreasonable to state that gay men, in general, are at higher risk of HIV than heterosexuals or lesbians in most developed countries.

Indeed, but that hardly supports the origonal poster. And indeed I imagine lesbians are safer off than hetreosexual women.

[petesampras]

This is only somewhat on-topic, but has anyone read any studies relating to physical health problems for homosexuals? The author of a blog I post on has made (unsupported) claims of various conditions and diseases that are much higher amongst gay men than straight, presumably because of homosexuality, and I haven't been able to find any pertinent data either supporting or denying his position on my own.

In the UK, concerning HIV,

http://www.avert.org/uksummary.htm

and

http://www.avert.org/stats.htm

It is not unreasonable to state that gay men, in general, are at higher risk of HIV than heterosexuals or lesbians in most developed countries.

Indeed, but that hardly supports the origonal poster. And indeed I imagine lesbians are safer off than hetreosexual women.

Yes, Lesbians(with no other risk factors eg drug use) are considered very low risk group for HIV. This is a combination of the facts that HIV is not very prevalent in the lesbian community and that the highest risk sexual activity Lesbians tend to practice is unprotected oral sex - which is much safer than unprotected vaginal sex.

[Molyneux]

This is only somewhat on-topic, but has anyone read any studies relating to physical health problems for homosexuals? The author of a blog I post on has made (unsupported) claims of various conditions and diseases that are much higher amongst gay men than straight, presumably because of homosexuality, and I haven't been able to find any pertinent data either supporting or denying his position on my own.

In the UK, concerning HIV,

http://www.avert.org/uksummary.htm

and

http://www.avert.org/stats.htm

It is not unreasonable to state that gay men, in general, are at higher risk of HIV than heterosexuals or lesbians in most developed countries.

Okay, thanks...but what about other conditions? This guy's claimed some pretty nasty stuff - incontinence, intestinal parasites, and the like - and I'd really love to know if he's just blowing smoke or if they are a risk of active homosexuality. (I'm *really* hoping that he's wrong, but if he's right, it'd be kinda good for me to know about it before it becomes a personal issue.)

[petesampras]

This is only somewhat on-topic, but has anyone read any studies relating to physical health problems for homosexuals? The author of a blog I post on has made (unsupported) claims of various conditions and diseases that are much higher amongst gay men than straight, presumably because of homosexuality, and I haven't been able to find any pertinent data either supporting or denying his position on my own.

In the UK, concerning HIV,

http://www.avert.org/uksummary.htm

and

http://www.avert.org/stats.htm

It is not unreasonable to state that gay men, in general, are at higher risk of HIV than heterosexuals or lesbians in most developed countries.

Okay, thanks...but what about other conditions? This guy's claimed some pretty nasty stuff - incontinence, intestinal parasites, and the like - and I'd really love to know if he's just blowing smoke or if they are a risk of active homosexuality. (I'm *really* hoping that he's wrong, but if he's right, it'd be kinda good for me to know about it before it becomes a personal issue.)

In my opinion, you're better off taking the argument to its root.

IF it is the case the gay men are at higher risk of diseases than straight men, does he see that as an argument that men should be straight?

If so, tell him that lesbians are at lower risk of HIV than straight women, so is that an argument that women should be lesbians.

If he disagrees, point out the flaw in his logic.

Also, having children can damage a womans health. So should women not have children, etc, etc...

[Molyneux]

In the UK, concerning HIV,

http://www.avert.org/uksummary.htm

and

http://www.avert.org/stats.htm

It is not unreasonable to state that gay men, in general, are at higher risk of HIV than heterosexuals or lesbians in most developed countries.

Okay, thanks...but what about other conditions? This guy's claimed some pretty nasty stuff - incontinence, intestinal parasites, and the like - and I'd really love to know if he's just blowing smoke or if they are a risk of active homosexuality. (I'm *really* hoping that he's wrong, but if he's right, it'd be kinda good for me to know about it before it becomes a personal issue.)

In my opinion, you're better off taking the argument to its root.

IF it is the case the gay men are at higher risk of diseases than straight men, does he see that as an argument that men should be straight?

If so, tell him that lesbians are at lower risk of HIV than straight women, so is that an argument that women should be lesbians.

If he disagrees, point out the flaw in his logic.

Also, having children can damage a womans health. So should women not have children, etc, etc...

I'm not trying to find this out just for the sake of the argument - I really do want to know whether he's accurate, but I haven't been able to find much pertinent data on my own.

[Lord Zentei]

Some time ago, I posted an article that might be of help.

Here: Linka.

Of course, there are elements that can be misquoted, so be careful. Still, it suggests that the lower life expectancy is due to societal factors, not due to intrinsic ones.

[Justforfun000]

In my opinion, you're better off taking the argument to its root.

IF it is the case the gay men are at higher risk of diseases than straight men, does he see that as an argument that men should be straight?

If so, tell him that lesbians are at lower risk of HIV than straight women, so is that an argument that women should be lesbians.

If he disagrees, point out the flaw in his logic.

I already referenced that idiot argument before he even posted to me in a previous post when I said:

First off, I think Leland should actually put up or shut up in regards to the ridiculous assertion that homosexual men and women have shorter and more disease prone lives. Show the studies and link them please!
And in general, do you realize how stupid it is to suggest that a couple of decades old disease that has been a complete non-issue to homosexuals for the last hundreds of thousands of years is all of a sudden a "reason" to show that homosexuality is wrong? Give your head a shake.

As someone else pointed out anyway, it has nothing to do with orientation anyhow. Straights are just as vulnerable. That kind of idiot reasoning could be turned around and suggest that because you can get Trichomonas from a female, males are being morally responsible to sleep only with other men since they can't contract it from them.

And that's when he threw his links out. Apparently even though he's tossing accusations of logical fallacies at me, he doesn't see his own.

[DPDarkPrimus]

And that's when he threw his links out. Apparently even though he's tossing accusations of logical fallacies at me, he doesn't see his own.

Well, make sure to point that out.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Actually, the Avert's page on statistics show that the majority of HIV infections in Europe were probably acquired through heterosexual contact. If anything, this is a perfect example to demolish their pathetic argument from faulty correlation of HIV infection rates. If the majority of people in Europe acquired HIV through heterosexual sex, that must mean heterosexual sex is harmful! Better go gay then!

[petesampras]

Actually, the Avert's page on statistics show that the majority of HIV infections in Europe were probably acquired through heterosexual contact. If anything, this is a perfect example to demolish their pathetic argument from faulty correlation of HIV infection rates. If the majority of people in Europe acquired HIV through heterosexual sex, that must mean heterosexual sex is harmful! Better go gay then!

That link says "30% were homo/bisexual men ... 56% probably acquired HIV through heterosexual contact", you are aware that you have to take into account the relative numbers of gay/bisexual versus straight people in Europe? Or do you think that gay/bisexual men make up 30% of the population of Europe???

In Europe (and other developed countries), for HIV..
Male homosexual is more dangerous than heterosexual
Heterosexual is more dangerous than female homosexual
This is what the statistics say.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

That link says "30% were homo/bisexual men ... 56% probably acquired HIV through heterosexual contact", you are aware that you have to take into account the relative numbers of gay/bisexual versus straight people in Europe? Or do you think that gay/bisexual men make up 30% of the population of Europe???

Of course not. Most homophobes that argue that homosexual sex is harmful with HIV statistics typically don't think very hard about the statistics they use to make their case. It merely highlights their inability to look beyond the numbers at face value.

In Europe (and other developed countries), for HIV..
Male homosexual is more dangerous than heterosexual
Heterosexual is more dangerous than female homosexual
This is what the statistics say.

The statistics say no such thing. STDs are more easily transmissible for the 'recipient' of bodily fluids, hence women, 'bottoms' and such are at a higher risk of contracting STDs. The genders involved in the sexual activity is irrelevant. A 'top' guy fucking a guy is probably less likely to contract an STD than a woman being fucked.

[petesampras]

That link says "30% were homo/bisexual men ... 56% probably acquired HIV through heterosexual contact", you are aware that you have to take into account the relative numbers of gay/bisexual versus straight people in Europe? Or do you think that gay/bisexual men make up 30% of the population of Europe???

Of course not. Most homophobes that argue that homosexual sex is harmful with HIV statistics typically don't think very hard about the statistics they use to make their case. It merely highlights their inability to look beyond the numbers at face value.

In Europe (and other developed countries), for HIV..
Male homosexual is more dangerous than heterosexual
Heterosexual is more dangerous than female homosexual
This is what the statistics say.

The statistics say no such thing. STDs are more easily transmissible for the 'recipient' of bodily fluids, hence women, 'bottoms' and such are at a higher risk of contracting STDs. The genders involved in the sexual activity is irrelevant. A 'top' guy fucking a guy is probably less likely to contract an STD than a woman being fucked.

The statement male homosexual sex is higher risk of HIV than heterosexual sex refers to the overall risk. Obviously if you break it down into subsets in won't hold. A homosexual man who practices safe sex an monogamy is going to be at lower risk than a heterosexual man who has unprotected sex regulary with drug users and prostitutes, but that is a special case. If you have a gay guy who exclusively practices 'top' sex, the figures may be different, but that is besides the point.

Look at this stats, http://www.avert.org/stats.htm, are you seriously arguing that homosexual men are not at higher risk of HIV?

The reasons for the higher risk are the greater relative proportion of gay men who have HIV, and that gay men are more likely to be practicing anal sex which is the highest risk form of sexual contact.

Of course, that is in NO WAY an argument that homosexuality is wrong, but to argue that it is not that case that gay men are at higher risk of HIV in general strikes me as ignoring the facts.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

The statement male homosexual sex is higher risk of HIV than heterosexual sex refers to the overall risk. Obviously if you break it down into subsets in won't hold. A homosexual man who practices safe sex an monogamy is going to be at lower risk than a heterosexual man who has unprotected sex regulary with drug users and prostitutes, but that is a special case. If you have a gay guy who exclusively practices 'top' sex, the figures may be different, but that is besides the point.

Look at this stats, http://www.avert.org/stats.htm, are you seriously arguing that homosexual men are not at higher risk of HIV?

No, I'm not arguing that gay men are at a higher risk of being exposed to HIV infections in most developed countries. I misunderstood your highly generalized and grammatically incorrect statements. And by the way, why are you using UK statistics when I made reference to statistics for Europe?

The reasons for the higher risk are the greater relative proportion of gay men who have HIV, and that gay men are more likely to be practicing anal sex which is the highest risk form of sexual contact.

I beg to differ. Anal sex increases the risk of STD transmission but not to the extent that it becomes the primary factor of the disproportionate rate of HIV infections in the gay community. Unsafe sex practices and the general proportion of HIV positive members in the community play a larger role in determining those statistics. Considering that unprotected vaginal sex is far more dangerous than protected anal sex, you're going to tell me that anal sex alone is the largest contributing factor to HIV rates in the gay community?

If a certain group of people have a larger percentage of HIV positive members, it's a no brainer that it's going that same group of people are going to have more infections than another group that have a much smaller percentage of HIV positive members. And if we assume that gay men in general are more likely to develop self-esteem issues, then it's probable that gay men in general are more likely to practice unsafe sex.

[petesampras]

The statement male homosexual sex is higher risk of HIV than heterosexual sex refers to the overall risk. Obviously if you break it down into subsets in won't hold. A homosexual man who practices safe sex an monogamy is going to be at lower risk than a heterosexual man who has unprotected sex regulary with drug users and prostitutes, but that is a special case. If you have a gay guy who exclusively practices 'top' sex, the figures may be different, but that is besides the point.

Look at this stats, http://www.avert.org/stats.htm, are you seriously arguing that homosexual men are not at higher risk of HIV?

No, I'm not arguing that gay men are at a higher risk of being exposed to HIV infections in most developed countries. I misunderstood your highly generalized and grammatically incorrect statements. And by the way, why are you using UK statistics when I made reference to statistics for Europe?

The reasons for the higher risk are the greater relative proportion of gay men who have HIV, and that gay men are more likely to be practicing anal sex which is the highest risk form of sexual contact.

I beg to differ. Anal sex increases the risk of STD transmission but not to the extent that it becomes the primary factor of the disproportionate rate of HIV infections in the gay community. Unsafe sex practices and the general proportion of HIV positive members in the community play a larger role in determining those statistics. Considering that unprotected vaginal sex is far more dangerous than protected anal sex, you're going to tell me that anal sex alone is the largest contributing factor to HIV rates in the gay community?

If a certain group of people have a larger percentage of HIV positive members, it's a no brainer that it's going that same group of people are going to have more infections than another group that have a much smaller percentage of HIV positive members. And if we assume that gay men in general are more likely to develop self-esteem issues, then it's probable that gay men in general are more likely to practice unsafe sex.

Pretty obviously, since I stated the higher prevalence of HIV in the male gay community as a risk factor, I wasn't stating that higher probability of anal sex alone was the reason for the higher risks.

You are comparing protected anal sex with unprotected vaginal sex, this is hardly a fair comparison, is it? You have to compare like with like, so unprotected anal sex with unprotected vaginal sex. According to this source...

http://www.medical-library.org/journals ... ention.htm

The risk of receptive anal sex per exposure is 0.8%. The risk of receptive vaginal sex ranges from 0.05% to 0.15%.

Although HIV can enter the body via mucous membranes, it much prefers to enter through cuts and abrasions. These are much more likely during anal sex because the skin of the rectum is thin and easily ruptured.

I have seen no evidence that gay men are more likely to practice unsafe sex.

[Justforfun000]

Ooooh. He's really getting nasty now. Without boring you with the very long post he is throwing at me, could someone refresh me on some logical fallacies here...I know he's obfuscating the whole pot here and I think some of you will be better at spotting the tricks better than I:

Now then... Kpartington... let’s chat, shall we?
You do know how to clutter and scramble a thread up with noise and nonsense, K, I’ll give you that much. And there’s so much nonsense to respond to, as well!

Isn't this also a form of fallacy? I don't think it's ad hominem since he isn't attacking me exactly, it's everything I said as a sweeping generalization. I'm sure I've seen Mike call this something in the past though when people try it on him....

(After throwing out his list of logical fallacy names at me and suggesting I look them up assuming I never heard of such thing before, I threw this at him)

I said:
Listen boy, I've been tearing people's arguments apart for YEARS with logical fallacies and I'm a writer who just recently did a piece on critical thinking and the necessity of spotting these types of arguments.

Yes, the use of logical fallacies is obviously your method. (OK, that and a deluge of words and vitriol.) You’ve got personam and the appeal to authority fallacy in that one sentence alone. And you’ve barely even started!
Tell us about sophistry, K! (You’re apparently an expert at it.)
And do also tell us the title of your “piece” and where it is published (seriously). On the basis of what you’ve offered us so far, I’m sure it really will be an excellent text on sophistry.

Of course he acts as if I said I was an EXPERT on the subject instead of just informing him I know exactly what logical fallacies are. Deceiving little dipshit.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Appeal to Authority only valid if I claimed to be RIGHT over something in this sentence? All I did was state that I knew exactly what logical fallacies are and why. His annoying repeating of "personam" is happening a lot too. From my research it looked like that was simply a part of the ad hominem falalcy and called him on it as the same thing and he claims this back to me:

Now K, as the author of a “piece” on logical fallacies, you should know that while all personam is ad hominem, not all ad hominem is personam. So they are actually not “one and the same”.
Ad hominem is basically trying to discredit someone by engaging in character assassination. (Suggesting that someone’s lack of virtue or knowledge alone makes his argument false, for example; when in fact even the most malicious fool is able to posit truth on occasion, and even the most sincere genius is capable of error.)
Persomam is assassinating someone’s character specifically by name-calling. (Like when people scream “Bigot! Hatemonger! Homophobe!” at you. Condescendingly addressing someone as “boy” would be another example. But hey, one has to develop a very thick skin to swim with sharks without becoming one.) That is why argumentum ad personam is sometimes called ad hominem abusive. Maybe that’s what you were thinking about.
(I do so hope you already included all of that in your piece!)

He throws other accusations back at me about my so-called fallacies in my posts, but I think can handle those. Would appreciate more in depth on the above though. He's a tricky prick.