Ireland becomes first country to legalize gay marriage via pop vote

[Belsnickel]

(05-28-2015, 06:04 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I also showed you 2 large countries where it's not legal and their rates dropped dramatically in the number of infections and deaths.

1. So how come it fell dramatically in 2 countries where's it's not legal and yet stayed the same or slightly increased in those that made it legal?
2. Again, you seem to have difficulties understanding the simple concept that I laid out for you. Let me say it slower..

Small % of total population makes a choice (are you still with me?)

Consequences (almost done)

Spread a deadly disease amongst the population. (now that wasn't so difficult was it?)


Now that fact that it is so much harder to get Aids yet at the rate that it is growing should be even more alarming (no no, ignore this sentence, it will probably just confuse you or send you round the bend because you want to play the technicalities game).

3. LOL I guess if you likey the ickey then you can manipulate the data anyway you want. I clearly included 2 countries where it's not legal and showed how the numbers are going down vs countries where it's legal where the infected pop has almost doubled and the rate remained the same or slightly increased. I guess you can ignore that if you want, but it's still there and supports my views about SSM more so than yours.

1. There could be any number of reasons for the decline in prevalence. Your interpretation of data doesn't take this into account and is overly simplistic.

2. Still a false equivalency. But you can just keep ignoring that since it seems to confuse you.

3. Onto the whole overly simplistic approach you take to these numbers. I'm sure it is no coincidence you chose those countries instead of looking at someplace like Russia, where the HIV prevalence increased and has stayed steady as well, or maybe Pakistan, or any number of other countries where SSM is not legal and the rates are steady or even growing. Picking and choosing countries for your argument like that shows an attempt to manipulate the data in a biased way. You're not taking into account public health initiatives that may have been implemented for instance. That's just the tip of the iceberg for the number of variables involved with this sort of thing and why your attempt to interpret the data in such an overly simplistic way is falling flat. You can't just compare country to country on a whim for any real sort of statistics example. The only value this has for this conversation is one country sprwad over the years, and the fact is that the prevalence did not significantly change after SSM was legalized.

So no, there is no support for your argument for anyone with even a modicum of understanding of statistics.