Might I ask why AIDs isn't more common in the US...

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: JLGatsby

Originally posted by: Pablo

Originally posted by: JLGatsby
It's mostly poor people who get AIDs.

Any respectable person need not worry about it.

lol... you'd be suprised. but, ignorance is bliss i guess...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/quer...PubMed&list_uids=7755917&dopt=Abstract

Poor people are 4 times as likely to get AIDS than upper middle class people. And this is Los Angeles, where a LARGE portion of the population is gay.

Bullsh!t, a large portion of the population of LA County is not Gay, it's a very small minority. It might be larger than Dumfukistan where you live but it's no where near a large portion.

And an even larger portion is very "sexually promiscuous." A lot of gay people are educated and have decent incomes, which is why a good number of well off people in LA get AIDS.

Again Bullsh!t, your ignorance is overwhelming. Now if you were to say that the Porn industry or even the Artistic Industry which is centered in LA County has a disproportionate cases of AIDS themn you'd be close to being correct.

Now imagine what the statistics would be like in a normal city where there are less gays and less people who "sleep around." Poor people are probably 10 - 20 more likely to get AIDS than higher income people in normal cities.

A large population or a number that is larger than most communities? BTW that report is over ten years old and since then the number of AIDs cases in the US has drop significantly due to education/information, not misinformation which you seem to love to spew on these forums

 

[JLGatsby]

Originally posted by: Pablo

Originally posted by: TGS
So I'm missing where they put in their study, if you are poor you are a dirtbag. Also I'm missing where the population of LA is largely gay. Could you point that out to me? I was also under the impression the content of one's character determined if they were respectable. I could be wrong, can you tell me why people that have money are automatically amazing people? Thanks.

What JLGatsby was trying to say, i think, is that poor people are not respectable.

Either that or he was just trolling... :gasp;

I need to put this in my signature. This is the zillionth time I've said it both here and everywhere I've ever posted in my entire life. Unless you are near braindead, you should have already known this, buy here it goes.

WHEN A STATEMENT IS MADE ABOUT A PORTION OF THE POPULATION, 99.9% OF THE TIME, IT ONLY RELFECTS A "MAJORITY," NOT THE EXACT WHOLE. THERE ARE ALWAYS PEOPLE IN EVERY GROUP WHO DEFY TRENDS. THERE ARE WHITE RAPPERS (EMINEM), BLACK GOLFERS (TIGER WOODS), AND SOCIALLY INEPT BERKLEY STUDENTS WITH HIT ALBUMS (WILLIAM HUNG). I AM ONLY SPEAKING ABOUT THE MAJORITY.

SO DON'T EVER SAY I SAID "ALL PEOPLE OF A CERTAIN GROUP ARE LIKE THIS," OR "HE THINKS ALL ____INSERT GROUP HERE___ ARE SCUM."

Understand?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: JLGatsby

Originally posted by: Pablo

Originally posted by: TGS
So I'm missing where they put in their study, if you are poor you are a dirtbag. Also I'm missing where the population of LA is largely gay. Could you point that out to me? I was also under the impression the content of one's character determined if they were respectable. I could be wrong, can you tell me why people that have money are automatically amazing people? Thanks.

What JLGatsby was trying to say, i think, is that poor people are not respectable.

Either that or he was just trolling... :gasp;

I need to put this in my signature. This is the zillionth time I've said it both here and everywhere I've ever posted in my entire life. Unless you are near braindead, you should have already known this, buy here it goes.

WHEN A STATEMENT IS MADE ABOUT A PORTION OF THE POPULATION, 99.9% OF THE TIME, IT ONLY RELFECTS A "MAJORITY," NOT THE EXACT WHOLE. THERE ARE ALWAYS PEOPLE IN EVERY GROUP WHO DEFY TRENDS. THERE ARE WHITE RAPPERS (EMINEM), BLACK GOLFERS (TIGER WOODS), AND SOCIALLY INEPT BERKLEY STUDENTS WITH HIT ALBUMS (WILLIAM HUNG). I AM ONLY SPEAKING ABOUT THE MAJORITY.

SO DON'T EVER SAY I SAID "ALL PEOPLE OF A CERTAIN GROUP ARE LIKE THIS," OR "HE THINKS ALL ____INSERT GROUP HERE___ ARE SCUM."

Understand?

That you are a Moron? Yes most definately!

 

[JLGatsby]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Bullsh!t, a large portion of the population of LA County is not Gay, it's a very small minority. It might be larger than Dumfukistan where you live but it's no where near a large portion.

I'm not implying that like 30% of the populatin in LA is gay, but I would guess there are between 3 and 5 times as many gays in LA (on a per capita basis) than most of the country.

Again Bullsh!t, your ignorance is overwhelming. Now if you were to say that the Porn industry or even the Artistic Industry which is centered in LA County has a disproportionate cases of AIDS themn you'd be close to being correct.

I'm speaking of a social groups who do not value not having sex until marraige.

To say that in Los Angeles, people are just as sexually conservative as anywhere else in the country is beyond insane.

A large population or a number that is larger than most communities? BTW that report is over ten years old and since then the number of AIDs cases in the US has drop significantly due to education/information, not misinformation which you seem to love to spew on these forums

A much smaller number of the overall population has AIDS today as opposed to 10 years ago, but the demographics of AIDS victims is still very much the same. In fact, the income disparity with AIDS victims may even be more skewed because the education may have benefited the middle and middle upper classes more so than the poorer areas of the population.

 

[miri]

The HIV rate in Los Angeles is actually lower than the national average for cities with over 500,000 residents.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats/hasr1402/tableA5.htm

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: JLGatsby

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Bullsh!t, a large portion of the population of LA County is not Gay, it's a very small minority. It might be larger than Dumfukistan where you live but it's no where near a large portion.

I'm not implying that like 30% of the populatin in LA is gay, but I would guess there are between 3 and 5 times as many gays in LA (on a per capita basis) than most of the country.

Then say it, don't use a blanket statement " a large portion of the population" because it is false.

Again Bullsh!t, your ignorance is overwhelming. Now if you were to say that the Porn industry or even the Artistic Industry which is centered in LA County has a disproportionate cases of AIDS themn you'd be close to being correct.

I'm speaking of a social groups who do not value not having sex until marraige.

To say that in Los Angeles, people are just as sexually conservative as anywhere else in the country is beyond insane. [/quote] LA's no different than most large population centers. Promiscuity is just as prevelent in Chicago, Dallas, OK City as it is in LA. NYC or Boston. Now the Gay population may not be as large in proportion to the Population in the Midwest cities because of the ignorant intolerence towards them there.

A large population or a number that is larger than most communities? BTW that report is over ten years old and since then the number of AIDs cases in the US has drop significantly due to education/information, not misinformation which you seem to love to spew on these forums

A much smaller number of the overall population has AIDS today as opposed to 10 years ago, but the demographics of AIDS victims is still very much the same. In fact, the income disparity with AIDS victims may even be more skewed because the education may have benefited the middle and middle upper classes more so than the poorer areas of the population.[/quote]I grant you that but that's due more to intravenous drug use among the poor than the Middle Class and Upper Class.

 

[JLGatsby]

Originally posted by: miri
The HIV rate in Los Angeles is actually lower than the national average for cities with over 500,000 residents.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats/hasr1402/tableA5.htm

Irrelevant and I would be interested to know which areas they are including in that study.

I just used LA because it was the only study I could find that mentioned income in detail.

But for the metro, it's dilluted. You have vast areas of normal and wealthy people, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura County, Orange County.

I'd like to see one for just Los Angeles county.

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: PingSpike
Because we don't live in mud huts and go raping the %80 HIV infected population for fun.

waffle.

 

[miri]

Cities with higher HIV prevalence rate then Los Angeles

Atlanta, GA
Bakersfield, CA
Baltimore, MD
Baton Rouge, LA
Charleston, SC
Chicago, IL
Dallas, TX
Daytona Beach, FL
Fort Lauderdale, FL
Hartford, CT Necma
Houston, TX
Indianapolis, IN
Jacksonville, FL
Jersey City, NJ
Las Vegas, NV-AZ
Memphis, TN-AR-MS
Miami, FL
Nashville, TN
N Havn-Brpt-Dnbry-Wtrbry, CT Necma
New Orleans, LA
New York, NY
Norfolk-VA Beach-Newport News, VA
Orlando, FL
Philadelphia, PA-NJ
Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill, NC
San Francisco, CA
San Juan-Bayamon, PR
Sarasota-Bradenton, FL
Tampa-St Pete.-Clearwater, FL
Washington, DC-MD-VA-WV
West Palm Beach-Boca Raton, FL
Wilmington-Newark, DE-MD

 

[JLGatsby]

Originally posted by: miri
Cities with higher HIV prevalence rate then Los Angeles

Atlanta, GA
Bakersfield, CA
.................

Read what I said in my previous post miri. The statistics are flawed.

 

[JLGatsby]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
LA's no different than most large population centers. Promiscuity is just as prevelent in Chicago, Dallas, OK City as it is in LA. NYC or Boston.

Congrats. That officially the dumbest statement I've ever heard.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: JLGatsby

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
LA's no different than most large population centers. Promiscuity is just as prevelent in Chicago, Dallas, OK City as it is in LA. NYC or Boston.

Congrats. That officially the dumbest statement I've ever heard.

Well we are waiting for your next post to see if you can top yourself for officially the dumbest statements we've ever heard.

 

[miri]

Originally posted by: JLGatsby

Originally posted by: miri
The HIV rate in Los Angeles is actually lower than the national average for cities with over 500,000 residents.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats/hasr1402/tableA5.htm

Irrelevant and I would be interested to know which areas they are including in that study.

I just used LA because it was the only study I could find that mentioned income in detail.

But for the metro, it's dilluted. You have vast areas of normal and wealthy people, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura County, Orange County.

I'd like to see one for just Los Angeles county.

The stats are for Los Angeles city/county not the surrounding cities. If you notice they have Riverside-San Bernardino, Orange County and Ventura County on the list of cities as separate cities and not part of Los Angeles. And even if they did add surrounding areas which I doubt they did, all cities on that list would include richer affluent suburbs.

 

[JLGatsby]

Originally posted by: miri
The stats are for Los Angeles city/county not the surrounding cities. If you notice they have San Bernardino, Orange County and Ventura County on the list of cities. And even if they did add surrounding areas which I doubt they did, all cities on that list would include richer affluent suburbs.

You are very wrong.

If they do not include surrounding towns and cities, which are independently incorporated, they are not including Compton, Watts, West Hollywood, Inglewood, and tons of other little cities within Los Angeles county which have very high populations living in poverty.

Or did you say it's just for LA county? If it is, then I do not believe those statistics for a second.

 

[Mik3y]

Originally posted by: tfinch2
Condoms?

barely anyone uses those nowadays in so cal. everyone's reliant on the morning after pill or birth control.

 

[miri]

nm

 

[Ophir]

Originally posted by: JLGatsby

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
LA's no different than most large population centers. Promiscuity is just as prevelent in Chicago, Dallas, OK City as it is in LA. NYC or Boston.

Congrats. That officially the dumbest statement I've ever heard.

Have you ever even been to LA. The VAST majority of people do not live in West LA or West Hollywood. MOST of LA is a giant blue-collar suburb.

You watch too much damn TV.

 

[JLGatsby]

Originally posted by: miri

Originally posted by: JLGatsby

Originally posted by: miri
The stats are for Los Angeles city/county not the surrounding cities. If you notice they have San Bernardino, Orange County and Ventura County on the list of cities. And even if they did add surrounding areas which I doubt they did, all cities on that list would include richer affluent suburbs.

You are very wrong.

If they do not include surrounding towns and cities, which are independently incorporated, they are not including Compton, Watts, West Hollywood, Inglewood, and tons of other little cities within Los Angeles county which have very high populations living in poverty.

Or did you say it's just for LA county? If it is, then I do not believe those statistics for a second.

It is LA county. If you do not want to believe the CDC numbers thats fine.

Not all of the country is part of the city. In fact, MOST of LA county is not part of the incorporated city of Los Angeles. LA county reaches as far as Malibu, Claremont, and Lancaster.

Your claims and the explanation to the stats are questionable.

 

[miri]

Originally posted by: JLGatsby

Originally posted by: miri

Originally posted by: JLGatsby

Originally posted by: miri
The stats are for Los Angeles city/county not the surrounding cities. If you notice they have San Bernardino, Orange County and Ventura County on the list of cities. And even if they did add surrounding areas which I doubt they did, all cities on that list would include richer affluent suburbs.

You are very wrong.

If they do not include surrounding towns and cities, which are independently incorporated, they are not including Compton, Watts, West Hollywood, Inglewood, and tons of other little cities within Los Angeles county which have very high populations living in poverty.

Or did you say it's just for LA county? If it is, then I do not believe those statistics for a second.

It is LA county. If you do not want to believe the CDC numbers thats fine.

Not all of the country is part of the city. In fact, MOST of LA county is not part of the incorporated city of Los Angeles. LA county reaches as far as Malibu, Claremont, and Lancaster.

Your claims and the explanation to the stats are questionable.

show us some numbers showing Los Angeles has a much higher HIV prevalence rate than other large cities in the United States.

Yes, there are a lot of HIV cases in Los Angeles but it is the same story with every other large city in this country.

 

[zendari]

Homosexuality used to be controlled. Now its the new fad and spreading rampant.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Bumrush99
The spread of AIDS in places like Africa are due to people having various other STD's that make it easier for the virus to spread. Getting HIV from a one night stand is very difficult, especially for men, even if no protection is used. However, if you have an open sore on your genitals, the "transfer" rate is a lot higher.

That and we don't have superstitious beliefs like they do in Africa that results in the disease spreading faster. There was one in Africa that said that if you have HIV and have sex with a virgin then you'll be cured. Think that helped much?

Throw in higher education levels and better medical care as well.

There was also the one that you cant get AIDS from anal sex.

 

[Ophir]

Originally posted by: JLGatsby

Originally posted by: miri

Originally posted by: JLGatsby

Originally posted by: miri
The stats are for Los Angeles city/county not the surrounding cities. If you notice they have San Bernardino, Orange County and Ventura County on the list of cities. And even if they did add surrounding areas which I doubt they did, all cities on that list would include richer affluent suburbs.

You are very wrong.

If they do not include surrounding towns and cities, which are independently incorporated, they are not including Compton, Watts, West Hollywood, Inglewood, and tons of other little cities within Los Angeles county which have very high populations living in poverty.

Or did you say it's just for LA county? If it is, then I do not believe those statistics for a second.

It is LA county. If you do not want to believe the CDC numbers thats fine.

Not all of the country is part of the city. In fact, MOST of LA county is not part of the incorporated city of Los Angeles. LA county reaches as far as Malibu, Claremont, and Lancaster.

Your claims and the explanation to the stats are questionable.

Yes, but LA city includes the Valley, central LA, and K-Town as well.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: zendari
Homosexuality used to be controlled. Now its the new fad and spreading rampant.

It might be a fad for you and one you engage in for kicks but to most if not all straights it's not something we'd ever consider.

 

[TGS]

Originally posted by: JLGatsby

Originally posted by: miri

Originally posted by: JLGatsby

Originally posted by: miri
The stats are for Los Angeles city/county not the surrounding cities. If you notice they have San Bernardino, Orange County and Ventura County on the list of cities. And even if they did add surrounding areas which I doubt they did, all cities on that list would include richer affluent suburbs.

You are very wrong.

If they do not include surrounding towns and cities, which are independently incorporated, they are not including Compton, Watts, West Hollywood, Inglewood, and tons of other little cities within Los Angeles county which have very high populations living in poverty.

Or did you say it's just for LA county? If it is, then I do not believe those statistics for a second.

It is LA county. If you do not want to believe the CDC numbers thats fine.

Not all of the country is part of the city. In fact, MOST of LA county is not part of the incorporated city of Los Angeles. LA county reaches as far as Malibu, Claremont, and Lancaster.

Your claims and the explanation to the stats are questionable.

Link

vs

Link2

 

[JLGatsby]

Originally posted by: TGS

Link

vs

Link2

Noob.

The "greater Los Angeles" is not the same as "within the city limits of the incorporated city of Los Angeles." It's been 100% established that the statistics were not for the "greater LA area."

We were debating whether or not the statistic table posted was for Los Angeles county, or for the incorporated city of Los Angeles, as seen below.

Look at the map on the right, look at the red part, that's all Los Angeles is. The entire metro comprises of dozens of incorporated little cities. Each one of those has it's own mayor and police force.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles%2C_California