Pro-Life Means Protect the Earth

[Dinner]

I'm not positive but I'd guess shortly after birth.

[Ben Kenobi]

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.

Yes, you're finally starting to understand. I'm looking at the point at which the two risks intersect absent any protective factors. I'm assuming that car accidents go up linearly with the distance you drive, while partner risk goes up exponentially.

This is why I'm interested in the ratio between the two, and not the absolute risk values.

[David Floyd]

Yes, you're finally starting to understand. I'm looking at the point at which the two risks intersect absent any protective factors. I'm assuming that car accidents go up linearly with the distance you drive, while partner risk goes up exponentially.

Yes, but driving shorter distances without a seatbelt while speeding is more dangerous than driving long distances while wearing a seatbelt and not speeding. So I'm not sure what you're getting it.

[Ben Kenobi]

It's also questionable whether fatal accident ratio increases linearly, or as the square root of distance. In that case, the ratio would be even smaller.

[David Floyd]

Oh for Christ's sake. You are complicating the obvious.

[Dauphin]

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

Increasing the number of partners you have exponentially increases your risk

[I] don't understand statistics.

.

[David Floyd]

Ben, there's no shame in admitting you're wrong. I mean, for Christ's sake, you really aren't wrong - abstinence until marriage DOES ABSOLUTELY drastically reduce STD transmission.

All we are arguing is that, while that is a valid lifestyle for you, and likely a very safe one, it isn't the state of reality. That's it! You aren't wrong in your premise, just wrong in your attempts to extend your premise to the rest of the world. Take your semi-victory and move on, if you want my advice

[Nikolai]

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 )

I tasted a great whisky the other day, called Glenkinchie. A relative had got it cheaply from the distillery when he was visiting Scotland a while ago. Really great stuff. Have you tried it?

[Ben Kenobi]

All we are arguing is that, while that is a valid lifestyle for you, and likely a very safe one, it isn't the state of reality. That's it! You aren't wrong in your premise, just wrong in your attempts to extend your premise to the rest of the world. Take your semi-victory and move on, if you want my advice

Except that this isn't my argument. My argument is that partner reduction is a more effective means of protecting yourself than condom use, and that condom use exposes you to greater risks if you have more partners.

I'm not sure why I should concede that I'm wrong, when you haven't understood my argument.

[Ben Kenobi]

Dauphin, what's the problem with each statement? Statement two is aggregate risk, statement one is individual risk. Each particular act of sex has the same chance of you contracting HIV, is an assumption that I am making. Over time your aggregate risk increases exponentially with each partner.

[Ecofarm]

Why would repeated exposure be exponential instead of linear?

As you add opportunities, the equation is expressly linear:

1% + 1% + 1% (Probability)

Or just 1% flat (Odds)

I don't see anything exponential there by any quantitative method.

[Ben Kenobi]

You have to take into account the number of partners that each of your partners have had.

If you have sex with someone who's had many partners, you are far more likely to catch HIV than someone who's only had a few.

This sets up the exponential, if you assume that each of your partners have had the same number of partners as you.

[Ecofarm]

That's pretty shaky, but I guess I see it with presumed partners of partners and no protection. Of course, if you use a condom... your odds are about .01% regardless of partners of partners of partners (condom failure).


Thus, one has a greater chance of contracting an STD by having unprotected sex twice than protected sex 1000 times. Going down the unprotected road seems very unwise.

[Ben Kenobi]

That's pretty shaky, but I guess I see it with presumed partners of partners and no protection. Of course, if you use a condom... your odds are about .01% regardless of partners of partners of partners (condom failure).

The exponential is true regardless of whether you use protection or not. Your base will simply be lower.

Eventually, what happens is that the exponential overtakes the difference.

[Berzerker]

My argument is that partner reduction is a more effective means of protecting yourself than condom use, and that condom use exposes you to greater risks if you have more partners.

Partner reduction is more effective with condoms than without condoms. I dont know how a condom exposes you to greater risk. That risk comes with more partners, not condoms. The condoms reduce the risk...