Here you go:
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/statistics/surveillance/incidence/.
As I stated in my previous response to CowboyLogic,
simply being gay is not a risk factor for HIV, so Ford's statement is quite inaccurate - and the inference is insulting to the gay community. (Ford himself admitted as much when he apologized for the comment years later, a story which the Star covered in happier times.) An accurate statement would have been: "If you
don't engage in high-risk behaviours, you probably won't get AIDS." The virus doesn't discriminate based on your sexuality. But that wouldn't have served Ford's agenda to cut funding from educational programs for HIV prevention.
Ford's attempt to label the disease as a "gay" disease so as to stigmatize it and imply that those affected (and those at risk of infection) do not deserve support from the community is what's homophobic. Is it relevant in any way that the disease is more prevalent in the gay community? Nope - not unless you see homosexuality as a reason to restrict access to care and prevention programs. This perspective is straight out of 1982.
If Ford's statement had begun: "If you're not doing needles and you're not black..." - in reference to a disease that was prevalent in the black community, then absolutely no one would be defending it, and rightly so.
Nobody said simply being gay is a risk factor for HIV - what Ford said was that if you're not gay or not a drug user, chances are you won't get HIV. That
is true. In 2006, a combined 79% of males with HIV got it through male-to-male sexual contact or through drug use. Being gay doesn't make you magically more susceptible to HIV, but if you are gay, statistically your chances of contracting HIV are higher. Not to mention that anal sex (which not all gay men engage in, but some do) has a higher transmission rate for HIV than vaginal sex.
The fact is that what he said is true by any reasonable measure. If people want to discuss the implications of his statement, that's fine, but this notion that the statement itself was homophobic is just false.
I don't think he tried to stigmatize it as a gay disease. I think his point was that a broad awareness campaign is not needed for a problem that specifically effects only a small subset of the population.
CowboyLogic:
But the question then becomes - are people from the suburbs actually neglected and ignored by Toronto politicians? If one insist on critical thinking, shouldn't said 34% of the populace a) engage in the same and b) see through the blatantly false rhetoric? Surely that is the hallmark of critical thinking - i.e. not falling for the soundbite.
You're right, that is a question that should be examined. Unfortunately, people who simply go off the base assumption that 34% of the city is populated by morons will never ask this question. Denigrating an entire POV or opinion by not pointing out what's wrong with it but rather simply labeling it "stupid" or "moronic" is a way to avoid having to critically engage with it. There
is some reason that the suburbs feel neglected, whether or not they're justified.
There seems to be a misunderstanding here. People think I'm saying that Ford supporters are equally as correct on every issue as Ford detractors. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that ad hominem attacks and labeling your opponents "idiots" is just a way to avoid critically thinking about these issues. Its a lot easier to assume people disagree with you because they're "dumb" than it is to admit they might have some sort-of point.
He was utterly silent for 7 full days and provided a subsequent response that is parsed to high heavens - does that sound like someone who "spoke his mind", much less not engaging in doublespeak or PR (note the constant use of code words and soundbites throughout his campaign and mayoralty). What does one's critical thinking tells you?
These are two separate issues. He speaks his mind clearly and plainly on most political issues, and you always know exactly where he stands on any given issue. This is something you guys have lambasted him for, so I'm not sure why you would deny it now.
Compassion is offered for those without the means to defend themselves - is Rob Ford in that category, considering his background? And shouldn't those who demand compassion from others be the first to offer it to others less fortunate than they are, instead of supporting someone who see nothing wrong with labelling and otherwise denigrating them, under the guise of "little regard for political/social niceties"?
And yes, calling someone "left of Stalin" in public is definitely the highlight of "unprecendent" hate and attacks.
AoD
I've noticed that a lot of the people on this forum like to deflect or change the topic.
The issue here is whether or not the "left" is more compassionate. Now you're bringing up something entirely different: whether Ford is deserving of compassion and whether he is compassionate.
Well...that's not what we were talking about.
Regardless, I think everyone can agree that there is a fundamental difference from politicians calling each other out, a pretty standard part of politics, and wishing death on somebody. If you want to make the argument that Ford saying someone is "left of Stalin" is the same as someone wishing he has a heart attack, be my guest. I think you know the difference here and you're being willfully partisan.