CC -
Now, you're showing, CC. Ok, so if behavior, I assume you mean anal sex that causes HIV, and also too, the practice of unsafe sex; then my analysis is still 100% accurate.
No, your analysis draws a conclusion from information that is unfounded. That is the problem with your analysis.
The "state of being" is only to identify the category. Why analyze data that places a conclusion on a group of people, if you're not going to identify who the group of people are?
Problem is that your analysis does not conclude what you are claiming. So categorizing it helps MY position. Now, if you want to do that, be my guest, but, based on how you have debated this issue, you're the one who needs help, not me.
Thanks for pointing out the blatantly obvious?
Good. So we agree. Orientation is irrelevant, behavior IS relevant. I appreciate the assistance, but I don't need it.
No.. I mean you're sampling a large sample to make a more narrow conclusion. You cannot take a single narrow experience, and apply it to a broad sample. That's ridiculous!
I'm not doing that. What you are doing is taking a sample and making an invalid conclusion with it.
Umm.. Yeah, this is what I have been saying?
No, it's not. You tried to eliminate data from lesbians... until you were called on it. You tried to make irrelevant data from heterosexuals... until you were called on it. You've been trying to manipulate statistics from the moment you started debating this issue.
The difference is the word "responsible". That denotes cause. Either change the word, or you sentence is invalid, since you can't prove cause.
No.. Um, no it doesn't, not in the slightest!
Absolutely did, as I showed. Just saying "no it doesn't" is pretty weak debating.
I never made this conclusion, you just did! However, it also happens to be true according to my analysis; at least statistically.
Now you are just lying. Here are your words: 'Therefore it is reasonable, and in fact completely conclusive that homosexuals, as a group, are a risk factor in contracting HIV." Completely conclusive that homosexuals are a risk factor in contracting HIV. That indicates cause. And, you just said it again, contradicting yourself.
So, once again, you have presented an invalid conclusion. Congratulations.
I don't need to show causation. I never made that claim. However, I also proved it in my analysis, you just missed it again for the first time.
I showed how you made the claim and how your analysis failed in it's attempt to prove it. As I have been saying. Go ahead, Hicup. Rebut... and please do it with something other than "nuh huh". I showed where you made the claim and I showed where your claim is invalid. Either show us SOMETHING or stand down.
And I would add that you can't be asking me if I made the claim that homosexuality causes HIV? No one knows what causes HIV, if I did , I'd be rich beyond belief.
So, then this statement is false: "Therefore it is reasonable, and in fact completely conclusive that homosexuals, as a group, are a risk factor in contracting HIV." Good to know.