In message <F132oBJHsxPCFj2AhGw00000eea at hotmail.com>, jan carowan <jancarowan at hotmail.com> writes
>In the case of Aids contraction, you seem to me to be ignoring or
>downplaying the hidden variables while resting with very imperfect
>statistical knowledge: if you are gay or a drug user or African the chance
>of the random event of Aids is significantly higher than it is for "most
>people." Such "knowledge" is not causally relevant, but it does lead to
>invidious categorization.
I'm sorry but it is plainly relevant in health promotional campaigns. Not only is it wasteful to direct health campaigns where they are not needed, it is cruel to frighten people who are not at risk, and it promotes anti-gay prejudice.
>You seem to me to be defining straight woman as one who precisely does not
>also fall into a high risk category. This seems to me to be essentialist,
>invidious categorization.
I just don't understand this pedantic bandying about of words. There is some responsibility on your part to make yourself understood. In what language is 'essentialist' a common expression? In what philosophy is the distinction between essence and appearance invidious?
In message <Pine.LNX.4.04.10012032301290.8428-100000 at nuance.dhs.org>,
Marco Anglesio <mpa at the-wire.com> writes
>
>Let's consider this one thing first: a 1% infection rate in low-risk
>groups is by no means negligible. It's low, but it isn't negligible, and
>it is an indication that AIDS has spread into those so-called low-risk
>groups.
No. Low risk groups make up one per cent of the total of Aids cases. Aids cases make up a negligible per centage of the total number in the low risk categories: British popn. 60 million, minus children, minus high risk categories = <60m; 252 / <60M = a negligible amount.
>
>Now, let's look at this from a policy-maker's perspective.
Hmmmm ... interesting methodology: 'Let's look at this from the point of view of the powers-that-be'?
> They
>*have* to go ahead and fight HIV before a higher percentage within the
>general population is infected.
Assuming that the disease shows any such propensity. Which it does not. In which case, 'from the policy makers perspective' what's the rational course? Why, to promote a health panic over venereal disease of course. Don't you know that sexual conservatives have been telling people that sex will kill them for thousands of years? What have facts got to do with that higher imperative, the policy makers' perspective. -- James Heartfield