8 big names speak out of abuse from christian

[Ts RedVeX]

The chance of contracting HIV during receptive intercourse with an HIV positive person is a fraction of percent and it goes even lower from there, the less of a creampie the intercourse ends with. Your tables show no proof of Christian's argument to be untrue.


Personally, I would even question these "scientists' " competence, as they clearly do not know how probability works:

"The risk of getting HIV varies widely depending on the type of exposure or behavior (such as sharing needles or having sex without a condom). Some exposures to HIV carry a much higher risk of transmission than other exposures. For some exposures, while transmission is biologically possible, the risk is so low that it is not possible to put a precise number on it. But risks do add up over time. Even relatively small risks can add up over time and lead to a high lifetime risk of getting HIV. In other words, there may be a relatively small chance of acquiring HIV when engaging in a risk behavior with an infected partner only once; but, if repeated many times, the overall likelihood of becoming infected after repeated exposures is actually much higher. "

- For arguments sake, let's assume that risks are additive. Let's assume that the risk of winning the National lottery is 1%, (or probability is 0,01) That means you have 100% chance of winning the lottery in case that you buy 100 tickets. (complete bullshit, of course). Moreover, if you buy 101 or more tickets, probability reaches values above 1, and risk - of above 100%, which is of course nonsense.

- Maths aside, I would personally argue with statements like "the more you get exposed to a bacteria or virus, the higher the risk you will actually get sick". I think everybody can agree that this is actually the opposite to the truth and would contradict the whole idea of vaccination, or various germs getting immune to drugs.

[LongTom101]

"It may be a good idea for Christian to give the models a form to fill out with questions that encourage them to provide information of "Do's" and "Don'ts", information that they may be uncomfortable verbally communicating. Maybe that's already done and is being ignored. I don't know." - bassman2546

- I am really looking forward to Steven addressing my question about democracy within a socialist company I have raised here: http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/showthread.php?73366-The-FAST-Approaching-Gun-Ban&p=1805022&viewfull=1#post1805022 Might as well answer here, as it is more relevant since someone brought it up.


Also, fred41, I am also really looking forward to "Somebody" to propose establishing a Ministry of Porn in order to put things in order, so that no Chelsea Poo is going to feel offended, abused, excluded etc.

As in :
'Will you or won't you have unpaid off camera sex with me regardless of how much you don't want to and as long as I bully, coerce, sulk and tantrum throw enough until you give in ?'

[bassman2546]

As in :
'Will you or won't you have unpaid off camera sex with me regardless of how much you don't want to and as long as I bully, coerce, sulk and tantrum throw enough until you give in ?'

Yeah, that's the opposite of what I wrote and the opposite of the attitude I'm portraying.

[trish]

I have no desire to enter into this argument. I do wish to correct some statements as they pertain to matters that could effect the future health of readers who take them to be true.

The chance of contracting HIV during receptive intercourse with an HIV positive person is a fraction of percent and it goes even lower from there, the less of a creampie the intercourse ends with. Your tables show no proof of Christian's argument to be untrue.


Personally, I would even question these "scientists' " competence, as they clearly do not know how probability works:

"The risk of getting HIV varies widely depending on the type of exposure or behavior (such as sharing needles or having sex without a condom). Some exposures to HIV carry a much higher risk of transmission than other exposures. For some exposures, while transmission is biologically possible, the risk is so low that it is not possible to put a precise number on it. But risks do add up over time. Even relatively small risks can add up over time and lead to a high lifetime risk of getting HIV. In other words, there may be a relatively small chance of acquiring HIV when engaging in a risk behavior with an infected partner only once; but, if repeated many times, the overall likelihood of becoming infected after repeated exposures is actually much higher. "

- For arguments sake, let's assume that risks are additive. Let's assume that the risk of winning the National lottery is 1%, (or probability is 0,01) That means you have 100% chance of winning the lottery in case that you buy 100 tickets. (complete bullshit, of course). Moreover, if you buy 101 or more tickets, probability reaches values above 1, and risk - of above 100%, which is of course nonsense.

- Maths aside, I would personally argue with statements like "the more you get exposed to a bacteria or virus, the higher the risk you will actually get sick". I think everybody can agree that this is actually the opposite to the truth and would contradict the whole idea of vaccination, or various germs getting immune to drugs.

To be fair, the quote is “...risks do add up over time...” which is not the same as saying the risks are additive. If the risk of winning the lottery by purchasing one ticket is 1% , and you buy 100 tickets, then the probability that at least one is a winner is (1-(0.99^100)); i.e. just over 63%. In this sense risks do indeed add up over time.

The more you get exposed to a bacteria or virus the greater becomes the risk that you will indeed become infected. Once infected you may or may not develop an immunity. That all depends on the nature of the infectious agent and whether the human immune system is capable of dealing with it. We know that there is no effective immune response to HIV. In fact HIV attacks the human immune system.

[broncofan]

The chance of contracting HIV during receptive intercourse with an HIV positive person is a fraction of percent and it goes even lower from there, the less of a creampie the intercourse ends with. Your tables show no proof of Christian's argument to be untrue.


Personally, I would even question these "scientists' " competence, as they clearly do not know how probability works:

The probability according to the cdc of contracting hiv from insertive anal is 11 per 10,000. This is a little bit more likely than 1 in a 1000. Do you think that's only slightly different from 1 in 10,000,000?

One might say that the odds do not apply in his case because of multiple contingencies that make it less likely he's hiv positive, but that defeats the purpose of using available statistics...if he does not have hiv then the probability of transmission is zero, no matter what the exposure. The issue is how likely these acts are to transmit hiv, and in the case of insertive anal, it's not something that doesn't happen or that is so remote to be a non-risk.

Did your intuition tell you that the person with two lottery tickets was not more likely to win than the person with one? Forget whether it's linear or how to calculate it for a second, the language in the article only said that the more exposures a person has, the more likely overall they are to contract hiv. Given the fact that the immune system does not effectively combat the virus, why would that not be true?

Anyhow, the point was not to attack Christian or weigh in at all on the other questions, except on one thing which we can all agree on. Let's not further confuse the issues by making hiv transmission seem so remote that there is only one route of transmission....a fairly minor point that has consequences for people beyond their interactions with one person, but as a matter of general health. Can't we agree that people should check the available epidemiological data if they are concerned about hiv?

[LittleGuy]

To be honest, I dont think christian is a good performer. All his shoots are boring. I avoid all his videos, even if the hottest women are in them.

[Nikka]

To be honest, I dont think christian is a good performer. All his shoots are boring. I avoid all his videos, even if the hottest women are in them.

you didn´t

[LongTom101]

Yeah, that's the opposite of what I wrote and the opposite of the attitude I'm portraying.

Yeah, no shit Shercock !

[Ts RedVeX]

Trish, I would like you to give me the title of the book that teaches thah probability works the way you suggest... It does not matter how many times you play the lottery, or how many tickets you buy, the probability of winning remains the same.

The probability contracting HIV depends heavily on the amount of viral load and the immune system of the load's recipient. I don't know what sort of people were the "lab rats", I actually find it difficult to believe that anyone sane and fully healthy would even participate in it, but there are many factors that may diminish the risks shown by the table - whether to as little as 1:10M, i dunno - just making a point. Because once again you are given something with "gov" in it and you blindly believe in it as if it was some sort of an oracle.

[broncofan]

Trish, I would like you to give me the title of the book that teaches thah probability works the way you suggest... It does not matter how many times you play the lottery, or how many tickets you buy, the probability of winning remains the same.

The probability contracting HIV depends heavily on the amount of viral load and the immune system of the load's recipient. I don't know what sort of people were the "lab rats", I actually find it difficult to believe that anyone sane and fully healthy would even participate in it, but there are many factors that may diminish the risks shown by the table - whether to as little as 1:10M, i dunno - just making a point. Because once again you are given something with "gov" in it and you blindly believe in it as if it was some sort of an oracle.

A couple of things real quickly. One site is a government site but if you look at some of the footnotes in what I provided, they are articles in journals such as the American Journal of Epidemiology.

You are right that it's difficult to get quality data, but if you cite a statistic, it should be based on available data; would it be useful to calculate probability of contracting hiv given multiple risk factors and more details about the nature of the acts and the members of the cohorts? Yes, but you may not have data to analyze such specific risk factors, in which case, you might say why there is reason to believe the real probability is less or more but you can't say by how much.

Finally, I believe you are conflating the odds of hiv per act versus what the odds are cumulatively based on many acts. The same principle applies to your lottery example...