Ok people, I know you've all seen these commercials about HPV and how it can cause cervical cancer, but I'm here to clear up a few things about this victimized virus
( Read more... )
OK, at this point the debate is getting silly. In this case, "said" and "implied" are two different words for the same thing: in your original post, you got your point across that you thought HPV was a promiscuous person's disease. It's very clear. I know; I read it.
And now you're pretty much agreeing with me: you say "the chances are only high if one of you got it previously from someone else, then passed it on". Yeah, I know how STDs work, thanks. Either you're not understanding what I'm saying or you're just restating what you've already attempted to say for purposes of making it look like you've got something new, so I'll just say it again: I understand that the less sex you have, the less likely it is you'll catch it. I really do. What I'm saying is: it's STILL common among people who have very few or only one sexual partner. Less common than among the promiscuous, but common nonetheless.
To sum up as simply as I can: you painted it as primarily a promiscuous person's disease, like AIDS or the clap. But it isn't. It affects normal, everyday people, to a slightly lesser extent yes, but still enough to be considered common. It's not something only sluts need to watch out for, as your original post made the case for. It's something EVERYONE having ANY KIND OF SEX needs to watch out for. Okay?
My original post was a piece of satire that you just took a little too personally...simple as that. You've made plenty of broad, inaccurate generalizations about women that you knew weren't true just to be funny, but you don't see me bitching about it, do you?
AIDS and the clap affect normal, everyday people to a lesser extent, too, and I think you would agree AIDS is quite common. Common means "well known," not "easy to contract."
I painted it as an STD. Because it is. That's how it's classified in every related textbook I've read in the last 12 months. How many normal, everyday-type people do you know who have STDs? I'm gonna go ahead and guess, "not so many." (Notice I didn't say "none.")
No, it's not "as simple as that". It is pretty simple, but not in the way you want it to be. You weren't doing absurdist, surrealist, or Dada humor. You are correct in that you were doing satire. Satire means you make a point in a humorous / allegorical fashion. You can't post satire and then say "Hey, lighten up, it was just a joke" because satire is NEVER "just a joke". Underneath it is always an underlying point. You had something to say and you said it with satire. Sometimes I use exaggerated humor to poke fun at women, but sometimes I use satire, and in those cases, you would most certainly have a right to bitch if you disagreed.
Example: if I posted something like "As a boy, every morning L. Ron Hubbard would get up, eat a big bowl of babies, bathe in pig vomit, and then get started on a busy day of screaming at invisible demons and kicking amputees in the throat", I'm using a satirical approach. I don't actually think L. Ron did any of those things, BUT I am making it pretty clear that I think he was a crazy, evil son of a bitch. You could object to what I wrote for really only two reasons. You could disagree morally and be one of those rare people who, for whatever reason, doesn't think eating babies is funny. Or you could disagree with me on a factual level and provide reasons why L. Ron is not an evil person. That's what I'm doing. I'm not disagreeing with you on anything but a factual level: your point was that HPV is for sluts. This is incorrect.
And no, common does not mean "well-known" in any of the conversations I've ever heard. "Common" has always meant "exists in plentiful supply", which HPV does and AIDS does not (in America). When someone means "well-known", they'll say "well-known", or "notorious" or even "infamous". Like bird flu. The media's still trying to scare us to death with bird flu stories. It's most certainly well-known in that anyone who's watched the news since the beginning of 2005 has heard of it. However, fewer than 200 people have contracted it. Definitely not common. And don't try to pull the nurse card again. I bet if I walked into a hospital tomorrow and said I have "that common virus", ebola would be pretty far down the list of things they'd test me for even though everyone's heard of it.
To sum up: I'm not objecting to your use of satire. I'm objecting to the fact that your statement behind the satire was false and misleading.
Ya know, we could argue this till the end of time and it still wouldn't be over. I'd continue to provide textual medical evidence and you'd keep right on arguing semantics.
I have no choice but to pull the nursing card because that's my background.
Now, I don't know about you, but I don't enjoy the thought of having to explain to people that I lost a good friend because of HPV, so I'm going to call this a draw. We're never going to see eye-to-eye on this and I'm tired of trying, so let's just agree that you're wrong and I'm right to disagree and let it be done with, deal?
Actually, I've only been responding to semantic arguments that you're brought up because you refuse to argue my main point. As an example, let me sum up how the debate's gone so far:
1. I make a smartass comment pointing out that you said HPV is a slut's disease, and it isn't. 2. You say you acknowledged that not everyone who gets HPV is a skank. 3. I say "Yes, but you still said that it's mainly a slut's disease, and it isn't". 4. You provide medical stats on the disease, remind me how STD's work, and say that you didn't mean that ONLY promiscuous people get it. 5. I say, "Yes, but you still said that it's MAINLY a slut's disease, and it isn't." 6. You talk about pathology and pap smears, and remind me that it's an STD. 7. I say, "Yes, but you still said that it's mainly a slut's disease, and it isn't." 8. You say that there's a difference between "said" and "implied", and you also state that HPV is more difficult to catch if you have a monogamous partner. 9. I say, "Yes, but you still got the point across that it's mainly a slut's disease, and it isn't. It's easy to catch if you're a slut. It's slightly less easy to catch, but still easy, if you're monogamous." It was also at this point that I was forced to argue semantics to refute you. 10. You say that your original post was just satire that I took too seriously. You try to change the definition of the word "common" to fit your argument. You ask how many people I know who have told me they have STD's. 11. After being forced to clarify what satire is and the definition of the word common, I once again restate my main point: you still said that it's mainly a slut's disease, and it isn't. 12. You threaten to end our friendship unless I throw the debate. You also claim to have been providing the one arguing facts that whole time, then accuse ME of arguing semantics, simply because I'm forced to refute diversionary points that you have raised in order to delay having to reply to my one and only main point.
Which is: In your original post, you made the point, through satire, that HPV is mainly a promiscuous person's disease. It isn't. You were WRONG. Okay?
Re: A draw.the_julieSeptember 1 2006, 19:52:09 UTC
That was NOT a threat to end our frienship. That was me pointing out that if we keep this up, we're likely to not want to be friends anymore, and I don't want that. I don't want to lose my friend in a stupid argument just because we're both too arrogant to shut our damn mouths.
I don't think it's arrogant of me to point out a dangerous fallacy in something you've said and expect a recant, and I'm not on the verge of not wanting to be your friend anymore, but if you'd rather just drop it, that's fine.
Re: A draw.the_julieSeptember 2 2006, 20:26:50 UTC
Yes. I would rather just drop it. This argument is exhausting. I was trying to lighten the mood a bit with the whole "let's just agree that you're wrong am I'm right to disagree" thing and end it...didn't work so well.
Now, for the love of all things sacred, let's call a truce.
And now you're pretty much agreeing with me: you say "the chances are only high if one of you got it previously from someone else, then passed it on". Yeah, I know how STDs work, thanks. Either you're not understanding what I'm saying or you're just restating what you've already attempted to say for purposes of making it look like you've got something new, so I'll just say it again: I understand that the less sex you have, the less likely it is you'll catch it. I really do. What I'm saying is: it's STILL common among people who have very few or only one sexual partner. Less common than among the promiscuous, but common nonetheless.
To sum up as simply as I can: you painted it as primarily a promiscuous person's disease, like AIDS or the clap. But it isn't. It affects normal, everyday people, to a slightly lesser extent yes, but still enough to be considered common. It's not something only sluts need to watch out for, as your original post made the case for. It's something EVERYONE having ANY KIND OF SEX needs to watch out for. Okay?
Reply
AIDS and the clap affect normal, everyday people to a lesser extent, too, and I think you would agree AIDS is quite common. Common means "well known," not "easy to contract."
I painted it as an STD. Because it is. That's how it's classified in every related textbook I've read in the last 12 months. How many normal, everyday-type people do you know who have STDs? I'm gonna go ahead and guess, "not so many." (Notice I didn't say "none.")
Reply
Example: if I posted something like "As a boy, every morning L. Ron Hubbard would get up, eat a big bowl of babies, bathe in pig vomit, and then get started on a busy day of screaming at invisible demons and kicking amputees in the throat", I'm using a satirical approach. I don't actually think L. Ron did any of those things, BUT I am making it pretty clear that I think he was a crazy, evil son of a bitch. You could object to what I wrote for really only two reasons. You could disagree morally and be one of those rare people who, for whatever reason, doesn't think eating babies is funny. Or you could disagree with me on a factual level and provide reasons why L. Ron is not an evil person. That's what I'm doing. I'm not disagreeing with you on anything but a factual level: your point was that HPV is for sluts. This is incorrect.
And no, common does not mean "well-known" in any of the conversations I've ever heard. "Common" has always meant "exists in plentiful supply", which HPV does and AIDS does not (in America). When someone means "well-known", they'll say "well-known", or "notorious" or even "infamous". Like bird flu. The media's still trying to scare us to death with bird flu stories. It's most certainly well-known in that anyone who's watched the news since the beginning of 2005 has heard of it. However, fewer than 200 people have contracted it. Definitely not common. And don't try to pull the nurse card again. I bet if I walked into a hospital tomorrow and said I have "that common virus", ebola would be pretty far down the list of things they'd test me for even though everyone's heard of it.
To sum up: I'm not objecting to your use of satire. I'm objecting to the fact that your statement behind the satire was false and misleading.
Reply
I have no choice but to pull the nursing card because that's my background.
Now, I don't know about you, but I don't enjoy the thought of having to explain to people that I lost a good friend because of HPV, so I'm going to call this a draw. We're never going to see eye-to-eye on this and I'm tired of trying, so let's just agree that you're wrong and I'm right to disagree and let it be done with, deal?
Reply
1. I make a smartass comment pointing out that you said HPV is a slut's disease, and it isn't.
2. You say you acknowledged that not everyone who gets HPV is a skank.
3. I say "Yes, but you still said that it's mainly a slut's disease, and it isn't".
4. You provide medical stats on the disease, remind me how STD's work, and say that you didn't mean that ONLY promiscuous people get it.
5. I say, "Yes, but you still said that it's MAINLY a slut's disease, and it isn't."
6. You talk about pathology and pap smears, and remind me that it's an STD.
7. I say, "Yes, but you still said that it's mainly a slut's disease, and it isn't."
8. You say that there's a difference between "said" and "implied", and you also state that HPV is more difficult to catch if you have a monogamous partner.
9. I say, "Yes, but you still got the point across that it's mainly a slut's disease, and it isn't. It's easy to catch if you're a slut. It's slightly less easy to catch, but still easy, if you're monogamous." It was also at this point that I was forced to argue semantics to refute you.
10. You say that your original post was just satire that I took too seriously. You try to change the definition of the word "common" to fit your argument. You ask how many people I know who have told me they have STD's.
11. After being forced to clarify what satire is and the definition of the word common, I once again restate my main point: you still said that it's mainly a slut's disease, and it isn't.
12. You threaten to end our friendship unless I throw the debate. You also claim to have been providing the one arguing facts that whole time, then accuse ME of arguing semantics, simply because I'm forced to refute diversionary points that you have raised in order to delay having to reply to my one and only main point.
Which is: In your original post, you made the point, through satire, that HPV is mainly a promiscuous person's disease. It isn't. You were WRONG. Okay?
Reply
Reply
Reply
Now, for the love of all things sacred, let's call a truce.
Reply
Leave a comment