Pro-Life Means Protect the Earth

[Nikolai]

A bit off topic, but did you ever try the Laphroaig ?

No, I never came around to do that.

[BeBMan]

Pro-Hive means to attack the Earth!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Why do people persist on grabbing straws just to say I'm wrong!

The "straw grabbing" is so the math looks far more favorable for your case.

Basically, like I said, get better at math. You are embarrasing yourself far more than usual.

[David Floyd]

All I'm assuming is that everyone who has sex has an equal chance of contracting an STD.

That's DEMONSTRABLY UNTRUE. I think we can agree that Thais and South Africans have as much sex as Americans (not that the amount apparently matters, according to your logic, or wait, it does matter, according to your logic, which is it again?), yet Thais and South Africans have much higher rates of AIDs. Coincidentally enough, condom use in South Africa and Thailand is much much lower than in the US.

The point is, if the above is your premise, then your premise is wrong. Everyone who has sex does NOT have the same chance of contracting an STD, because some of them will use condoms, and some will not. Even if you control for condom use (ie either everyone or no one uses a condom) the odds are STILL not the same, because you have to account for factors such as race and geographic location.

Everyone is NOT equally at risk for an STD, because SOME OF US choose to take protective measures. And that's what you're failing to understand.

Yes, I readily agree that if you never have sex, you have a 0% chance of contracting an STD (well, close enough to zero, anyway), and if you only have sex with one person, your wife, who you know doesn't have an STD, then your chance is also 0%.

But we all know that isn't the argument here. The only dispute is whether I'm safer using a condom or not using one. We're assuming that I'm having sex regardless, just as we're assuming that 90% of everyone else will. Again, you have to deal with the world as it exists, not as you would like for it to exist. As much as 100% abstinence until marriage would virtually eliminate STD transmission, we all know that won't happen.

So, then, if we choose to deal with reality, we have to admit that condom use will decrease STD use.

And by the way, if you really think you're better off having unprotected sex once than I am having protected sex with 10 different partners, I really, really think that you need to re-evaluate your position, as most people would disagree with you. I've had both protected and unprotected (in limited circumstances) sex with a number of women greater than 10 and less than 100 (I'd post the number but someone would accuse me of bragging), and I don't have an STD. QED, condom use and smart partner selection drastically reduces risk.

[BlackCat]

and if you only have sex with one person, your wife, who you know doesn't have an STD, then your chance is also 0%.

My experience with women, especially married women says that you are wrong

[Ben Kenobi]

That's DEMONSTRABLY UNTRUE. I think we can agree that Thais and South Africans have as much sex as Americans (not that the amount apparently matters, according to your logic, or wait, it does matter, according to your logic, which is it again?), yet Thais and South Africans have much higher rates of AIDs.

I'm assuming you only have sex with people in America, and I'm using the American stats wrt to HIV transmission. Nice try though.

The point is, if the above is your premise, then your premise is wrong. Everyone who has sex does NOT have the same chance of contracting an STD, because some of them will use condoms, and some will not.

Which does nothing to counter my point that I am assuming that STD risk is equally shared across everyone. Statistics are not kept of each HIV incident vis a vis condom use.

Even if you control for condom use (ie either everyone or no one uses a condom) the odds are STILL not the same, because you have to account for factors such as race and geographic location.

I've controlled for geographic location by using American statistics and I have controlled for condoms by assuming that no one uses condoms. I am simply using the total number currently infected with HIV and the number of those who die.

Everyone is NOT equally at risk for an STD, because SOME OF US choose to take protective measures. And that's what you're failing to understand.

The same is also true of traffic fatalities. Those who fail to wear seatbelts are disproportionately afflicted with death when involved in an accident. Rather then arguing safety feature vs safety feature, I've argued for the base rate of both. The net effect is that it gives us a better understanding of the ratio of risk in driving a car vs having sex.

But we all know that isn't the argument here. The only dispute is whether I'm safer using a condom or not using one.

Yes, and I've shown that this depends on the number of partners you have. The static safety factor wrt to condom use, cannot overcome the exponential growth in risk which comes from an increasing number of partners.

We're assuming that I'm having sex regardless, just as we're assuming that 90% of everyone else will. Again, you have to deal with the world as it exists, not as you would like for it to exist.

Which is why I'm trying to show you why it's not a good idea to sleep with lots of partners, and how having a particular number of partners each year puts you at a serious risk of contracting an STD, condom or not.

So, then, if we choose to deal with reality, we have to admit that condom use will decrease STD use.

Not if you have more partners. Only with the caveat, that all else must remain the same.

And by the way, if you really think you're better off having unprotected sex once than I am having protected sex with 10 different partners, I really, really think that you need to re-evaluate your position, as most people would disagree with you.

Most people don't understand statistics. I've taken your bet. How's it working out for you btw?

I've had both protected and unprotected (in limited circumstances) sex with a number of women greater than 10 and less than 100 (I'd post the number but someone would accuse me of bragging), and I don't have an STD. QED, condom use and smart partner selection drastically reduces risk.

Bravo. I don't have an STD either. Congratulations btw.

[BlackCat]

No, I never came around to do that.

You should do it - even go to the monopoly is worth it. Though, I must admit that it probably is the only binary scotch - either you like it or you hate it (well, youre still young, so hate could turn into love as you get older )

[David Floyd]

I'm assuming you only have sex with people in America, and I'm using the American stats wrt to HIV transmission. Nice try though.

But you're still wrong. If I use a condom and you don't, you are vastly more likely to contract an STD.

Which does nothing to counter my point that I am assuming that STD risk is equally shared across everyone. Statistics are not kept of each HIV incident vis a vis condom use.

So you are implying that in the complete absence of condoms, the HIV rate would be THE SAME? Absurd.

I've controlled for geographic location by using American statistics and I have controlled for condoms by assuming that no one uses condoms. I am simply using the total number currently infected with HIV and the number of those who die.

Congratulations, but I've already explained why using the total number is a stupid measure. If I accept there is a risk in using condoms, but I partially control for that risk by not sleeping with urban blacks, then I reduce the risk further, don't I?

The same is also true of traffic fatalities. Those who fail to wear seatbelts are disproportionately afflicted with death when involved in an accident. Rather then arguing safety feature vs safety feature, I've argued for the base rate of both. The net effect is that it gives us a better understanding of the ratio of risk in driving a car vs having sex.

No, it's a strawman, because it isn't the argument. The argument is that, GIVEN THAT people will be having sex, condoms are safer than not having condoms.

Yes, and I've shown that this depends on the number of partners you have. The static safety factor wrt to condom use, cannot overcome the exponential growth in risk which comes from an increasing number of partners.

The only person who thinks the risk of condom use vs. not using condoms exponentially increases risk is you. I doubt even your "family doctor" would agree.

Which is why I'm trying to show you why it's not a good idea to sleep with lots of partners, and how having a particular number of partners each year puts you at a serious risk of contracting an STD, condom or not.

No, it doesn't put me at a "serious risk", because either I'd have an STD by now, as would several of my friends, or we're like the luckiest 6 guys in the world.

Not if you have more partners. Only with the caveat, that all else must remain the same.

Why does condom use assume more partners? Yeah, for me, it does, but for most people, it probably isn't statistically significant, because quite frankly, 90%+ of people aren't as callous about sex as I am. But then again, given that I will literally stick my (condom covered) dick into anything given enough alcohol (as long as they aren't urban blacks or Mexican prostitutes), and I don't have an STD, maybe you don't have such a good point.

Most people don't understand statistics. I've taken your bet. How's it working out for you btw?

Still no STDs. Have you slept with someone without a condom yet? If not, STFU.

Bravo. I don't have an STD either. Congratulations btw.

And you'll never have one, if you never have sex. That isn't the argument or the point, except in your fantasy world where you assume that teaching abstinence only will equate to people being abstinent.

[Ben Kenobi]

I partially control for that risk by not sleeping with urban blacks, then I reduce the risk further, don't I?

Good point. However, and this is the point I was trying to get across, we cannot do the same with condom use. We don't know the percentage of those who contracted HIV were wearing condoms.

No, it's a strawman, because it isn't the argument. The argument is that, GIVEN THAT people will be having sex, condoms are safer than not having condoms

Missed the point. We can't confirm the percentage of those who die from HIV despite wearing condoms. Therefore, it makes no sense to throw in an unconfirmed number, with confirmed numbers, such as the numbers of those who die in a traffic accident despite wearing their seatbelt. This makes the data useless.

OTOH, we can compare raw data with raw data, to get a good estimate as to how dangerous each activity compares with each other.

The only person who thinks the risk of condom use vs. not using condoms exponentially increases risk is you. I doubt even your "family doctor" would agree.

Where did I say that the risk of condom use exponentially increases risk?

I did not say it, so I'll say it again, and maybe you'll get it this time.

Increasing the number of partners you have exponentially increases your risk, regardless of whether you wear condoms or not. It is an independent risk factor that needs to be controlled when comparing condoms with no condom use.

Condom protection remains static. It does not increase over time. Therefore, it's sensible to assume that risk will increase alongside the number of partners you have had, and eventually overtake, whatever protection you derive from condoms.

No, it doesn't put me at a "serious risk", because either I'd have an STD by now, as would several of my friends, or we're like the luckiest 6 guys in the world.

So condoms make you bulletproof? Good luck with that ascientific principle.

Why does condom use assume more partners?

Sigh. Once more.

NUMBER OF PARTNERS IS AN INDEPENDENT RISK FACTOR

IF YOU INCREASE THE NUMBER OF PARTNERS, YOUR TOTAL RISK WILL INCREASE EXPONENTIALLY

CONDOMS HAVE A STATIC RISK FACTOR WHICH DOES NOT CHANGE OVER TIME.

Therefore, IF YOU HAVE LOTS OF PARTNERS, IT CAN EXCEED THE PROTECTION YOU GET FROM USING CONDOMS.

But then again, given that I will literally stick my (condom covered) dick into anything given enough alcohol (as long as they aren't urban blacks or Mexican prostitutes), and I don't have an STD, maybe you don't have such a good point.

I'm content to match science against you.

[David Floyd]

Good point. However, and this is the point I was trying to get across, we cannot do the same with condom use. We don't know the percentage of those who contracted HIV were wearing condoms.

No, but that's a distraction point. The relevant point is that the percentage of those who contracted HIV who didn't use a condom is certainly higher than the percentage of those who contracted it while using one.

Missed the point. We can't confirm the percentage of those who die from HIV despite wearing condoms. Therefore, it makes no sense to throw in an unconfirmed number, with confirmed numbers, such as the numbers of those who die in a traffic accident despite wearing their seatbelt. This makes the data useless.

You're reaching and grasping, Ben. You're missing the forest for the trees, so to speak. Just because we don't know the exact number of people who contracted HIV while using a condom vs. the exact number of people who contracted it without using one, it is not even a little bit of stretch to say that the vast majority contracted HIV when the did not use a condom.

[David Floyd]

Also, you probably should respond to the rest of my points, unless of course you'd rather just concede them, which, admittedly, would be wise.

[Ben Kenobi]

Just because we don't know the exact number of people who contracted HIV while using a condom vs. the exact number of people who contracted it without using one, it is not even a little bit of stretch to say that the vast majority contracted HIV when the did not use a condom.

I'm not arguing against you here. But in the comparison, I need to know more then this, or contaminate the data. I'd wager if we asked people who contract HIV as to whether they've ever used a condom, you'd find this not to be the case.

So rather then using dubious statistics, I'll assume the worst case both ways and get a fair estimate.

As for the experiment, so far it's Ben: 0 and Floyd: 0.

[David Floyd]

Well, at least you admit you're not RIGHT, which is as much as a concession as anyone's ever gotten out of you.

But what more data do you need to know? I'm not understanding your point. I'm conceding everything you expressly state, which is mainly that abstinence prevents STDs. Duh. My point is that in the absence of abstinence (say that 5 times fast), condoms are more effective than no condoms. Doesn't seem like a stretch.

[Ben Kenobi]

What I'd need is very specific.

I'd need the total sample of people infected with HIV, with their division into those who were wearing a condom when they were infected and those who were not.

In a crash, it can be determined if someone were wearing their seatbelt, the same way they can figure out what speed you were travelling. You can't really do this with HIV transmission. You might not know who you caught HIV from, you might not know the specific instance, etc. I hope this makes some bit of sense. With race, it's quite a bit easier.

The other problem is that I would have to take in all the safety factors involved. I just can't throw in condoms without doing the same for driving. The 'safe driving' comment is a very good one and it's the main reason why I chose to do it the way I've done.

Please, David, I'm not trying to prove you wrong, I was as interested in the question as you, how many partners would I have to have before my sexual activity would make it as likely for me to contract HIV as my current driving risk is of getting into a fatal accident. It turns out that the answer is about 4 partners in a year, assuming you drive 25 thousand kms in a year.

[David Floyd]

Please, David, I'm not trying to prove you wrong, I was as interested in the question as you, how many partners would I have to have before my sexual activity would make it as likely for me to contract HIV as my current driving risk is of getting into a fatal accident. It turns out that the answer is about 4 partners in a year.

While I'm not going to dispute that number, because it seems made up, the point remains that the chances of getting into a fatal accident are pretty damn small. So if your point is that I'm equally likely to die of a car accident as I am to die of HIV, then I might provisionally grant you the point, given that the odds are highly stacked against either, assuming I wear seatbelts, drive defensively, and use condoms.