Since epidemics are indeed specifically bound to a particular population, especially a geographical population, there can be no doubt the AIDS is an epidemic if it only epidemic in sub-Saharan Africa.
The question then is whether it is also epidemic in a greater region, for instance multiple continents or world wide. Since there are subsets of the population in all areas where it is widespread, it seems fair to say that it is pandemic.
Cause and mode of transmission are not relevant to the definition of epidemic or pandemic that you have selected.
So your argument goes like this:
P1. An epidemic is the rapid spread of a disease to a large number of people in a given population within a short period of time. (definition)
P2. AIDS has spread rapidly through people in sub-Saharan Africa and male homosexuals worldwide. (observation)
P3. People in sub-Saharan Africa are not a population. (assertion)
P4. Male homosexuals worldwide are not a population. (assertion)
P5. AIDS spreads sexually, via blood transfusions etc. (observation)
---------- (by P1-P5)
C1. Therefore, AIDS is not an epidemic.
P6. A pandemic is a widespread epidemic, spreading through multiple populations e.g. multiple continents or worldwide. (definition)
----------- (by C1 and P6)
C2. Therefore, AIDS is not a pandemic.
But from this, P3 and P4 are obviously false and P5 is not relevant since mode of transmission is not referred to in P1.
I don't feel like I'm at risk of getting AIDS, so it's a little hard for me to worry about AIDS as if it's a pandemic. But that doesn't mean AIDS isn't a pandemic. It's definitely epidemic according to the definition you picked - I'm just not part of the relevant populations through which it is spreading. You're definitely arguing poorly, since you demand we hold premises that are obviously false and you introduce irrelevant points that have nothing to do with your case.
My objection to labeling AIDS as a pandemic is the "rapidly" part of the definition of epidemic. I don't think AIDS spread all that rapidly. It took decades to become a problem in sub-Saharan Africa. And it was probably spreading for years among male homosexuals before anybody noticed anything. That would put it on the slower end of the continuum when measured against most communicable diseases that I can think of.
The question then is whether it is also epidemic in a greater region, for instance multiple continents or world wide. Since there are subsets of the population in all areas where it is widespread, it seems fair to say that it is pandemic.
Cause and mode of transmission are not relevant to the definition of epidemic or pandemic that you have selected.
So your argument goes like this:
P1. An epidemic is the rapid spread of a disease to a large number of people in a given population within a short period of time. (definition)
P2. AIDS has spread rapidly through people in sub-Saharan Africa and male homosexuals worldwide. (observation)
P3. People in sub-Saharan Africa are not a population. (assertion)
P4. Male homosexuals worldwide are not a population. (assertion)
P5. AIDS spreads sexually, via blood transfusions etc. (observation)
---------- (by P1-P5)
C1. Therefore, AIDS is not an epidemic.
P6. A pandemic is a widespread epidemic, spreading through multiple populations e.g. multiple continents or worldwide. (definition)
----------- (by C1 and P6)
C2. Therefore, AIDS is not a pandemic.
But from this, P3 and P4 are obviously false and P5 is not relevant since mode of transmission is not referred to in P1.
I don't feel like I'm at risk of getting AIDS, so it's a little hard for me to worry about AIDS as if it's a pandemic. But that doesn't mean AIDS isn't a pandemic. It's definitely epidemic according to the definition you picked - I'm just not part of the relevant populations through which it is spreading. You're definitely arguing poorly, since you demand we hold premises that are obviously false and you introduce irrelevant points that have nothing to do with your case.