Replies

Not all AI is the same, as shown just yesterday comparing POE with Perplexity on a basic verifiable revelatory bias test. See post here, though needing better formatting by me.

Which culminated in my asking,

Regarding bias, based upon typical treatment of media, what you think the reaction would be if a consensual Christian practice - lets say the Lord's supper - was shown to be responsible for up to 81% of new HIV cases aged 13 and older among men - - despite only representing approximately 4% of the male population - and 92% of new HIV among youth, and (historically) a greatly increased incidence of other infectious diseases and premature death (all of which is documented by CDC stats [https://peacebyjesuscom.blogspot.com/2019/10/negative-effects-of-homosexual.html]), and despite decades of attempting to tame it into being "safe? "

https://www.perplexity.ai/search/i-contend-that-atheism-is-a-po-neQZZp0PQIGqXZIM6YBm8g (part of a series) answered (and later formatted it as html upon request):

Media Treatment of Religion and Disease
Religious Practices and Disease Spread: When religious or traditional practices have been shown to contribute to the spread of infectious diseases (such as Ebola or COVID-19), media coverage has often been direct, critical, and sometimes harsh. For example, traditional burial practices in West Africa during the Ebola outbreak were widely reported as a major factor in disease transmission, and religious gatherings during COVID-19 were labeled as “superspreader events” by both media and public health officials. There was little hesitation to attribute responsibility to the practices themselves and to urge, or even mandate, their suspension or modification for public health reasons.
Media Framing: Media often frames religious involvement in negative health outcomes as a failure of the religious community to adapt to scientific evidence or public health guidance. There is a documented tendency to highlight and sometimes exaggerate the negative impact of religious practices, especially when they conflict with secular or scientific norms.
Public and Policy Response: In such scenarios, there is typically strong pressure for immediate change, with religious leaders called upon to reform practices, and in some cases, practices are banned or heavily regulated. Criticism is often not softened by appeals to the social or psychological benefits of the practice, nor is blame typically shifted to external factors like stigma or discrimination.
Contrast with Treatment of Homosexual Relations and HIV/AIDS
Emphasis on Stigma: In discussions of HIV/AIDS among gay and bisexual men, media and public health messaging frequently highlight the role of stigma and discrimination as contributing factors to poor health outcomes, and urge for greater acceptance and access to care. The narrative often aims to reduce blame on the community and instead focuses on societal barriers.
Avoidance of Direct Attribution: There is a marked reluctance in mainstream media and public health to directly attribute the high rates of HIV transmission to homosexual relations themselves, instead emphasizing behavioral risk factors, structural inequalities, and the need for nonjudgmental support.
Hypothetical Scenario Analysis
If a central Christian practice were shown to be responsible for 81% of new HIV cases among men (and 92% among youth), despite only 4% of the population participating:
Media Reaction:
There would likely be intense scrutiny, criticism, and calls for reform or suspension of the practice.
Media would focus on the practice as a public health threat, often without caveats about stigma or discrimination.
Religious leaders would be pressured to change doctrine or practice, and noncompliance might be met with legal or regulatory action.
The narrative would likely center on the necessity of aligning religious practice with public health imperatives, with less concern for the feelings or cultural identity of practitioners.
Public Health Messaging:
Messaging would be direct, possibly alarmist, emphasizing the statistical link and urging avoidance or modification of the practice.
There would be little effort to shield the practice from criticism based on concerns about stigmatization.
Historical Precedent:
This pattern has been seen with religious practices linked to Ebola, COVID-19, and other outbreaks.
Why the Difference?
Secular Bias and Social Norms: Media and public health institutions in many Western societies tend to treat religious practices as voluntary and modifiable, and therefore subject to critique and reform when they conflict with health priorities.
Sexual Orientation vs. Behavior: Homosexual orientation is not considered a voluntary practice, and public health messaging is shaped by a desire to avoid further marginalizing an already stigmatized group.
Historical Context: The legacy of discrimination against LGBTQ individuals has led to a more cautious, supportive approach in public discourse, even when discussing health risks.
Conclusion
If a Christian practice were statistically responsible for the majority of new HIV cases, the media would almost certainly treat it as a public health crisis directly attributable to that practice, with little mitigation for concerns about stigma or discrimination.
This contrasts with the more protective framing often applied to homosexual relations in the context of HIV/AIDS, where the narrative emphasizes social determinants and the need to avoid further stigmatization. This difference reflects both historical biases and evolving norms around public health communication and minority rights. --- Answer from Perplexity: https://www.perplexity.ai/search/i-contend-that-atheism-is-a-po-neQZZp0PQIGqXZIM6YBm8g?utm_source=copy_output