Or this source?
Lemme guess - you just cut and pasted these from some website without bothering to check them, didn't you? That's why there are no links to any of these sources and why the one that DOES have a link is a dead website.
Of course I copied and pasted the source, exactly what did you think I or anyone else would do? Almost all source material is given in textual form with no link. I would guess 95% plus are. That is how it has been done for over a thousand years. If you give me the data that had a dead link I will provide another source for it if I can't verify it. The list of sources is inexhaustible for this data. You can easily find it your self on the net or even in this thread. I am starting to suspect you are using a delaying tactic here. This stuff is not a mystery.
I've already listed the claims I believe you are wrong about. What's the matter - don't you read my posts?
Yes but you apparently can't comprehend mine. You kept listing information you thought I was making up or something as silly without agreeing to my conditions for providing it. At the very end of that list you finally did agree and so I indicated I had then to go back and supply the data because the condition was agreed to at the end of the list. Which I did and surprise surprise weird contentions about whether I copied and pasted were brought up but he agreement not adhered to.
Actually, you haven't provided a source for anything yet. None of your sources above had links except for a dead end.
Sources almost always are footnoted at the bottom of research. This is not utube or Wikipedia this is scholarship. The source names and works WERE provided. Just going by what you said only one source was untraceable and I will bet I can do it anyway. I provided sources as promised even if they took a few seconds to access. What do you think? Did I invent authors and books to justify made up data? I am far too lazy for that, and have no need.
I'm not doing your homework for you. You want me to see the sources, you present them.
I did and you did not do your homework.
From the bit where you said that you don't like it but didn't believe it was up to you to find a solution to it.
That is exactly correct. I can hate and condemn murder whether I can solve it or not. Moral quality and solutions are two independent issues and you know this which makes that claim sensationalistic grandstanding not serious contention. .
Then why did you say, "This is a genetic fallacy"?
Because actual genes have nothing to do with a genetic fallacy.
I think you should learn how to.
On that basis if any topic is discussed and found inconvenient for the one erroneously defending it then all topics must be. That is like saying English lit must be explained in a physics forum.
Oh, you demand perfection from this, yet you would be happy to continue with other things that carry far more risk. Hypocrisy.
I demanded perfection from nothing. It would be futile discussing anything with your side. If you do not stop mangling what I did say into a unrecognizable form that even then can't be contended I can't justify discussing this. If you want to argue with what you invent, I am unnecessary for that.
Your comprehension skills seem to be very poor. I said it is promiscuity that leads to the spread of disease, not homosexuality.
I had dealt with that in the 20 times I had posted my two sentence primary claim and I can't get a single one of you defenders of death to deal with more than 50% of a two sentence argument. Heterosexuality has justification, homosexuality does not even if both have risks. I never claimed promiscuity was right for either sexuality. The CDC does not tie a disease to a group unless that disease is spread by the specific habits of that group. Tell them they are wrong. It is they who did not even use the word promiscuity in the article I provided that linked Homosexuality (not promiscuity) with aids. So your claim here is not true, would be irrelevant even if true, and contradicts the greatest experts on disease in human history and an army of statisticians.
We have. You just keep pulling the same tired arguments out
NO YOU HAVE NOT and no one else has either. My two primary claims are not effected by pointing at something worse, condemning something else, picking subgroups that have less risk, disagreeing with CDC data, claims that aids in Africa acts contradictory to aids in the US, or even complaints about what for sources are given in.
Well, if you;d come up with some VALID arguments instead of the same old double standards and cherry picking and alarmist claims, we could respond to that.
When my very first two arguments are even dented or have near misses I will require others until then they are standing as tall and unassailable as ever.
Actually, you misinterpret what the sources say. I and others have tried to show you but you refuse to listen because you don't want to change your mind (or so it seems). And I still don't see how you have six arguments.
I did not say I have six arguments, I said in several thousand posts your side at best has six ineffective arguments. I have two that have not even been directly challenged. Assertions devoid of evidence are certainly never going to cut it. Utilize the sources (and give me the link that did not work), make arguments that apply to both my primary claims at once, make arguments that apply to either, provide evidence with assertions, or punt because I am bored to tears.
