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... )
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.
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