Texas Governor Rick Perry has issued a Gubernatorial order requiring all girls entering the 6th grade in the state of Texas to receive the HPV vaccine Gardisil, which is sold by Merck. The treatment costs $360. Perry’s order apparently avoids opposition from the Legislature and family rights groups. Merck has been lobbying across the country for mandatory vaccination but stepped up its efforts in Texas, funneling money through the group Women in Government, an advocacy group made up of female legislators. The governors mother in law is a state director for the group. Sound fishy yet?
Don’t get me wrong, there are upsides to this as well, the vaccine does indeed help prevent the spread of HPV, a leading cause of cervical cancer. However this method of forcing it on people is a blatant slap in the face to individual rights. Governor Perry claims that this is simply like vaccinating against polio, except for one thing. You can avoid infection by not having sex or only having sex with a partner who is also not infected. Polio was highly communicable through food water and human contact, it was incredibly difficult to avoid its spread, unlike HPV. Gov. Perry has overstepped his bounds and apparently one so due to the influence of a pharmaceutical looking to make lots of money, and is claiming to do so for completely altruistic reasons. Hopefully the measure will be struck down and the families and individuals of Texas will be given the choice about this vaccine.
|
Categories: Health Care & Medicine, The Law & The Courts
|
February 3rd, 2007 at 3:57:55 am
From the article:
Texas allows parents to opt out of inoculations by filing an affidavit objecting to the vaccine on religious or philosophical reasons.
February 3rd, 2007 at 4:03:20 am
You should read the stats on HPV. I believe somewhere around 60 percent of women get HPV at some point in their lives. Your point that people can avoid HPV by avoiding sex with someone that has HPV is also flawed. Most of the time men develop no symptoms so they can unknowningly give the disease to their partner.
February 3rd, 2007 at 4:14:54 am
I think it’s funny that it’s David getting upset about this…generally it is the conservatives around the country who are objecting to this.
February 3rd, 2007 at 4:54:51 am
Actually, with any luck, they will stop being sexist and will require it for males as well … it’s not just females that can end up with cancer from HPV …
And it can be transmitted in non-sexual ways, too …
I haven’t read the details, but I’ll bet cash money that there is a way for parents to opt out …
And I also know that *I* am choosing to have my daughters receive the vaccine even though we will pay for it ourselves …
February 3rd, 2007 at 8:30:17 am
Why does nobody seem to get the difference? He’s not saying that the vaccine is a bad idea. I think we all agree it’s a good idea. He’s against the use of coercion rather than the use of persuasion.
“Force shites upon reason’s back.” - Poor Richard’s Almanack
February 3rd, 2007 at 9:18:41 am
Perry said:
“If there are diseases in our society that are going to cost us large amounts of money, it just makes good economic sense, not to mention the health and well-being of these individuals to have those vaccines available,” he said.
This is Texas we’re talking about, a state where poor children with conditions requiring expensive intervention to stay alive…are ‘allowed’ to die…rather than drain the public coffers.
You know what else is going to cost us large amounts of money? Heart bypass surgery. Long-term cancer treatment. Major organ transplants.
Our friends the Canadians deal with public health issues that are going to cost (them) large amounts of money by making people wait several months for the expensive treatments described above, ensuring that many Canadians conveniently die before draining the public coffers, similar to the poor kids in Texas.
Read between the lines of Perry’s statement, and realize that a similar rationing of health care is coming to the USA, if its not here already.
Which may be inevitable - but its such a huge isssue it seems we should tackle it head-on, rather than dance around it with discussions about rights and freedoms, et al.
February 3rd, 2007 at 9:26:53 am
Making the default “opt-out” instead of “opt-in” is not coercion. Coercion would be pinning some necessity on receiving the vaccine without any recourse. Since the parents have a means of opting out so their daughters can still go to school, this is not coercion.
I wonder how many other non-conservatives will get upset over this simply because it’s Perry proposing it? I am NO fan of Perry, but, notwithstanding his motivation, placing a default stricture in place that innoculates young women against a highly common virus that can eventually cause cancer seems like a pretty good thing to me. Imagine if there were a vaccine for lung cancer. Would we criticize a similar regulation for that vaccine just because people can avoid getting lung cancer by not smoking? Ah, but there are second-hand smokers–just like there are young women who have sex with trusted partners and get HPV anyway.
It’s a good vaccine, and the default does not deprive any one of their rights. It simply does what much legislation does–imposes a default that, absent other factors, will create an overall benefit for people. And if they don’t like that default, they can choose to opt-out.
February 3rd, 2007 at 10:29:00 am
David, your facts are so bad that it’s laughable. A woman cannot necessarily avoid getting it just by being careful who she sleeps with. A woman could have only one partner in her entire life, and she could still get it if that partner had sexual contact (not necessarily intercourse) with one other womn. Since very few men have only one partner during their entire lives, many women could unknowingly contract it from their husbands, even if that’s the only man they’ve ever been with! And since many strains of HPV (including two of the strains this vaccine protects against) cause no symptoms in men, these men don’t even know they are carriers!
And then we have the issue of infidelity. What if a woman is being monogamous, but she doesn’t realize he’s stepping out on her? Yeah, we’d all like to hope that doesn’t happen, but the fact is that it does. And when it comes to preventing cancer, nobody should be forced to trust that someone else will act responsibly if there is some pro-active step she can take.
And finally, we have my favorite - sexual assault. If the statistic that 1 out of ever 4 women is sexually assaulted is correct (and for this argument, let’s just assume that it is), then there are a lot of women who have forced sexual contact at some point in their lives. And unless the perpetrator happens to be a virgin, there’s a good chance he’s carrying HPV. Even if he’s considerate enough of his victim to use a condom, she could still get it since condoms don’t fully protect against transmission.
Here’s the bottom line, David: Yes, promiscuous women are more at risk for contracting HPV and thus cervical cancer. There are, however, many scenarious that could lead to contracting the virus and increase the risk of cervical cancer. Many of these reasons are entirely out of a woman’s control - partner’s past sexual history, partner’s future infidelity, sexual assault.
And ultimately, who pays the price for this? Women. Women get cervical cancer as a result of HPV. Men might get some unsightly warts on their genitals if they happen to get a wart-causing strain. But women get cervical cancer. So when I hear a man - who is not a doctor - telling us how we can prevent a cancer-causing disease without this vaccine, I get a little indignant. And if that sounds sexist, so be it - this is a sexist disease we’re dealing with.
Wait until you have a daughter, David. Wait until you’re worried that she might get raped. Or that the boy who takes her to the prom just might seduce her. Methinks your thoughts on the matter might change a bit.
As far as individual rights, I don’t really care. There is an opt-out measure. That’s enough. This is a public health issue like any other. That the disease is transmitted through sexual contact does not make it any less of a public health matter.. I do think that if it’s going to be required by law, it should be mandatory that insurance covers it and it should be subsidized by the state for those without insurance due to its high cost. But those are technical issues regarding implementation.
Bravo to Gov. Perry. This is the first time I’ve been proud of the governor.
February 3rd, 2007 at 10:44:56 am
I’m a libertarian minded, Texas medical student, so this issue is close to my heart.
I don’t know how many serotypes of HPV there are, but there are a lot. Indeed, most of them aren’t transmitted sexually.
In any case, a few types of HPV are transmitted sexually and of these a few are associated with the development of cervical dysplasia and cancer. HPV sertotypes 16 and/or 18 are found in something like 70% of all cervical cancers.
I have a very important fact to mention in defense of making this vaccine mandatory:
16 and 18 do not cause genital warts! In fact they don’t cause any symptoms in men.
There is no test to determine infection in men.
Because of this, the idea that women can avoid acquiring HPV by being careful is not nearly as strong as it is with other STDs.
Despite any opposition to government mandates I can live with the HPV requirement because of the simple opt out provision.
Indeed, more than simply accept it, I applaud this decision.
February 3rd, 2007 at 10:59:18 am
Alasdair, unfortunately the current vaccines don’t work on males or I’d be with you on that point. Regardless, this seems to be one of those issues where David has put on his highly conservative Catholic church blinders endangering the lives and well being of others because he must fight for a irrational and self contradictory mythology
February 3rd, 2007 at 11:09:38 am
Well said IW,
Most of what you need to know about this controversy is contained in a single sentence from the linked article:
Even with such provisions [the opt-out], however, conservative groups say such requirements interfere with parents’ rights to make medical decisions for their children.
Um… how’s that?
This isn’t about parent’s rights. It’s about religion and culture and s-e-x.
February 3rd, 2007 at 11:30:12 am
I would like to make one comment on the comparison to the Polio vaccination. You focus on one thing the Polio vaccination did-namely infect individual people; however, you ignore the other thing it did, effectively eliminate the disease from the Western world. If some people have to get vaccines they won’t ever need, isn’t that a small price to pay to prevent all women from contracting cervical cancer?
February 3rd, 2007 at 11:31:46 am
A correction to my comment, the second sentence should read *namely prevent infection in individual people
February 3rd, 2007 at 11:32:28 am
But Anonymous, didn’t you read David’s comment? Women can clearly control all the ways in which they could contract this disease! Obviously, it’s their own fault if they get it!
February 3rd, 2007 at 11:33:00 am
by comment, I meant the entire post, but you knew that
February 3rd, 2007 at 11:56:04 am
Hey, Dave, I was forced, FORCED, to get tetanus shots as a kid. MY CIVIL RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED!!!1
February 3rd, 2007 at 11:57:33 am
I don’t know where it says that the vaccine costs $360. I asked my doctor about it a few months ago, and she said it cost about $90.
February 3rd, 2007 at 12:09:06 pm
I really don’t see how this is all that different from various other required vaccines shots etc. required for children to be able to go to school. And as usage goes up that $90 (or even if that $360) price tag should start to come down.
February 3rd, 2007 at 12:11:28 pm
Reminds me of the opt-out option for schools to send student information to recruiters. You just have to know the law inside and out - which the lawmakers are sure not to go out of their way to tell you.
Seriously, you people think nobody would get the vaccine if it weren’t required by law?
February 3rd, 2007 at 12:12:42 pm
The Vaccine cost $360 per shot and three shots are requred.
The real problem is that insurance companies are not covering the cost right now.
February 3rd, 2007 at 12:13:36 pm
Hey, people, you’ve got a non-conservative arguing against it right here! I’ve got nothing against sex and I hate rapists. Wanna actually address my point instead of resorting to cheap attacks and questioning motives?
February 3rd, 2007 at 1:06:20 pm
I agree that $360 sounds too high. I once met a girl who said she would give me HPV for $50. But then I was like, “That’s all right, Senator Clinton. You just do a good job with the politics and what not.”
February 3rd, 2007 at 1:29:41 pm
David, your post is laughable — which is sad because I’m halfway sympathetic to the libertarian impulse that opposes this type of state action. Look, if you want to argue that this vaccine should be opt-in instead of opt-out, fine — I’m okay with oppposition based on that reflex. But, as people far more informed than you have already pointed out, HPV is not so easily avoidable for most women considering that most male carriers never show any symptoms of the virus, so your attempt to separate HPV from the example of polio is pathetic. You’re either for mandatory vaccines in both cases, or your against mandatory vaccines in both cases.
Additionally, the insinuations that Gov. Perry is doing this at the behest of Merck and his mother is downright laughable. I have no doubt Merck is behind this effort in part because higher sales of the vaccine means more revenue for Merck, but come on — do you really think most politicians push legislation and support policies solely because they’re being paid off? Don’t you think it’s much more obviously true that politicians support a measure and then those with the money come around and back them up financially? Don’t you think it’s much more likely that Gov. Perry and his mother both sincerely believe in this cause?
The fact that your default assumption is that Gov. Perry is pushing the HPV vaccine because he’s on the take says far more about your cynicism and lack of experience in the political arena than it does about Gov. Perry or his mother. There’s simply nothing “fishy” about Perry’s push for HPV vaccines, so stop trying to paint it as a scandal just because you happen to disagree with it.
February 3rd, 2007 at 1:30:52 pm
That was me. Don’t know why my name didn’t show up.
February 3rd, 2007 at 1:34:59 pm
By the way, am I the only one who found it amusing that David used the words “screw” and “fishy” in his post when talking about a subject that peripherally involves female genitalia?
February 3rd, 2007 at 2:10:03 pm
Regarding the supposed “fishiness” of the whole situation, let me ask you a question, David: If you were a lobbyist for a drug company and you had an HPV vaccine that you wanted to see made mandatory for both fiscal and public health reasons, why would you NOT work through a group called Women in Government? Face it, a lot of the old men in the legsilature probably don’t give a rat’s ass about HPV. And what is fishy about Rick Perry’s mother-in-law wanting to protect other women from HPV? Obviously there was money changing hands, and obviously Merck wants this because it will make them money. But when there is a general consensus among health care professionals that this vaccine is a good thing, and a group of powerful women support the measure because it is personally important to them, it’s disingenuous of you to imply that the entire thing was about money. I’m sure that Women in Government doesn’t genuinely care about women’s health issues, right?
I have to stop now. This post just keeps making me angry. Sean’s objections don’t bother me nearly as much as David’s. I’m not responding to them because I’m just not terribly concerned about his concerns in this case and because I am just not interested in discussing that facet of the issue. But David’s ignorant arrogance is just plain maddening.
February 3rd, 2007 at 2:12:17 pm
Sean,
I appreciate the libertarian objection to this. I really do. I’m just not sure how much there is to say about it. Without the opt-out, I think you could make a pretty good case that a fundamental right was being violated. But with the opt-out, we’re left with the same question that applies to all forms of government regulation: does the intrusion upon individual liberty outweigh the public good and/or public safety? As a libertarian, I’m sure you answer that question with a “yes” more often then most people, but unless you’re a really hardcore libertarian (which you don’t seem to be) I doubt you think the question should never even be asked.
I think this thread has pretty solidly demonstrated two things. The implications of this vaccination requirement for public safety are greater than David implies in his post (”just don’t have sex with someone who’s infected”), and the intrusion upon individual liberty is less than he implies. (because he fails to mention the opt-out.)
I brought up the culture-war angle because without it, this issue would not be controversial outside the small circle of principled libertarians such as yourself. You don’t really think otherwise, do you?
February 3rd, 2007 at 2:27:51 pm
I’m really pleased to see that the culture war over this vaccine is actually moving towards its wider implementation (rather than the political purgatory that holds things like Plan B back).
To address Sean’s statements:
coercion rather than…persuasion
I’m generally an opt-in kind of guy myself, but on this matter of public health, there’s enough information that makes me support an opt-out strategy.
First, I do think it’s important that, if there is a opt-out option, it be simple, clear and readily available.
Second, let’s be honest about the two most likely reasons parents would opt-out: #1-cost, #2-a belief that this will encourage promiscuity.
#1 can/should be dealt with through some public measures and insurance companies–it’s important that the cost be not prohibitive.
#2 I find laughable.
(When I get a tetanus shot, it doesn’t mean I have the desire to play with rusty metal…and seriously, who has ever not had sex because they were worried about HPV? It honestly can’t make the top-100 list of things sexually active teenagers are worried about when they have sex.)
But #2 is where the vocal, well-funded far right is going to set up camp to stop this effort.
you people think nobody would get the vaccine if it weren’t required by law?
If it’s not semi-compulsory & cheap/free, a lot of people won’t. The uninsured & poor won’t. The misinformed and moralistic (like David showed here) won’t. And a lot of people won’t take the time & cash to do it if it’s $300+ and takes three separate trips.
A key thing in this campaign is the concept of herd immunity. The more people that are vaccinated the safer everyone, vaccinated & unvaccinated are. Every successfully vaccinated individual is not only protected, but helps prevent the spread of disease amongst others.
In this case, I support a semi-compulsory model over simply offering the vaccine as any increase in the rate of compliance will be better in the long run for everyone.
February 3rd, 2007 at 2:37:14 pm
But David’s ignorant arrogance is just plain maddening.
Your right, how dare I be upset that the governor completely sidestepped the legislature and his constituents! What a cad I must be.
Is it possible to get HPV through sexual assault? Sure it is, but i am going to bet that that is a significantly smaller percentage than is spread through consenual sex. And let me point out, i’m not passing judgement here, if you want to have sex with multiple people, or with someone eles who has had multiple partners that is absolutely your choice. And if you do so I would strongly recommend you GET the vaccine. See, thats where your objections fall apart, I have ZERO problems with people using the vaccine, so all this high and mighty attitude about how it can be spread is ridiculous. Every objection you have can easily be combated by the fact that the vaccine is available and i think people SHOULD get it if they are going to be at risk.
As for Andrew’s laughably ridiculous conclusion here:
You’re either for mandatory vaccines in both cases, or your against mandatory vaccines in both cases.
Well gosh, that logic is astounding Andrew! I clearly must be for both vaccines even though one was an overwhelming health problem that was difficult next to impossible to avoid without shutting yourself off from the world! Again, i point out, the spread of polio was significantly easier than HPV. While HPV has significant consequences, for the most part its an OPT IN infection. And no i’m not saying people are choosing to get it, thats ridiculous. What I am saying is that in order to get it you have to actively engage in behavior that puts you at risk except for a very small amount of cases of forced sexual contact. The two are not even remotely the same. And on top of all that, i’m not against vaccination, just forced vaccination in the way this was done.
Why do I object?
Because the governor completely sidestepped the legislature and the people of Texas.
Because i think its wrong for a drug company to be lobbying for mandatory use of its product when they are the only one who makes it and will reap significant financial reward from it.
And yes i think it objectionable that the WiG group is used to funnel the money that Merck is using to force this issue through. I understand and applaud WiG for wanting to protect the health of young people. I don’t object to their motive, merely their means. If they wanted to support a public awareness campaign that would be completely acceptable to me and i imagine people like Sean as well.
The fact that there is a small opt out provision is heartening but it doesn’t change the fact that the governor and Merck are going about this in a way that i feel is unethical, whatever positive motives may be a part of it. But i suppose if you can’t understand the difference between objecting to the WAY something is done and the motive behind it, then trying to have a reasonable discussion with you is pointless.
February 3rd, 2007 at 2:48:03 pm
The misinformed and moralistic (like David showed here)
Well if you mean i’m morally opposed to forcing it on people and sidestepping all forms of public debate on the issue then yes, i agree, but as i have pointed out now TWICE i am not opposed to the vaccine itself nor efforts to encourage people to have it. I in fact, think they should. Normally i expect this kind of inability to differentiate between the way in which something is done, to the actual thing itself from others, but not you Scientizzle. I’m highly, highly dissapointed.
Oh, btw, tetanus shots aren’t mandatory.
February 3rd, 2007 at 2:53:41 pm
Personally, I think this vaccine should be required for every girl. We have the opportunity to eradicate a disease in this country (and possibly the world) and I don’t see why it shouldn’t be taken. For those that make the argument that this will encourage sexual promiscuity, I find that their argument has no merit. There are plenty of other consequences to sexual promiscuity out there that will remain, such as HIV, other STDs, and pregnancy. Even if a girl doesn’t have sex, she could still contract the virus through sexual assaulted or rape. These experiences are traumatic enough, and the trauma would only be further compounded by a girl contracting a life-threatening virus from the ordeal. If I had daughters, I would be sure to vaccinate them.
February 3rd, 2007 at 2:55:41 pm
Just to add one more point on the subject of libertarian objections:
Suppose we grant for the sake of argument that the intrusion upon the liberty of parents does outweigh the public safety benefits of the vaccination requirement. Even then, and even on libertarian grounds, the question is not a slam dunk. The parent is not the only one involved here. The child is involved as well. We never grant parents complete autonomy to make medical decisions for their children. A parent can’t deny their child life saving surgery, for example.* Granted, vaccinations are different in degree from life saving surgery, but the same kinds of questions still apply, don’t they?
* I’m not actually 100% certain on this. Maybe it’s a state-by-state thing?
February 3rd, 2007 at 3:12:14 pm
David, you’re a moron. I’m sorry, but there’s no other explanation. I bet if they showed HPV gave men ball cancer, you’d have a hard-on for it to be required.
As for the governor of Texas supposedly sidestepping the legislature and people of Texas, let me say two things. 1) As a Texan and former consituent of Gov. Perry’s (only recently moved), I do not feel sidestepped at all. I feel proud of the governor. He finally grew a spine and did something worthwhile, which is really a new thing for him. 2) You are not from, and as far as I am aware from things you have said on this blog, have no connection to the Great State of Texas. So what the hell do you care what the governor of Texas does? Oh, and 3) You’re a dude! You don’t have to get the vaccine! You don’t have kids that have to get the vaccine? WHY DO YOU CARE? This is exactly why it appears that you have moral reasons for opposing this measure that you’re simply couching in terms of “individual liberty”…this is more striking since you are very much NOT a libertarian!
Also, your facts to my response are still laughably ignorant. I asked you to assume that the statistic of 1 in 4 women being sexually assaulted as some point in their life is true. (It’s hard to know the actual number because it’s often not reported, and “sexual assault” is a broader category than forced intercourse.) Assuming for the moment that it’s true, it is much more than “a very small amount of cases of forced sexual contact.” That’s actually a lot of women!
You realize that we have a chance to basically stand up and say, “You know what, cervical cancer? Fuck you!” This vaccine won’t completely eradicate it, but it’s a damn good start. As far as I am concerned, giving cervical cancer the finger is more important than any of the concerns you have raised.
And I like how you object to Women in Government’s “means” of getting this done. What were they supposed to do to raise money - hold a bake sale? Please! They took money from corporations just like all the big boys in Washington. You don’t like it? Boo-fucking-hoo!
One final point: you know why this vaccine needs to be mandatory? Because of the proliferation of abstinence-only in place of comprehensive sex education. (Before anybody argues with me on that one, I want to make it clear that any good comprehensive sex ed program should have information on pregnancy and disease prevention, which includes the fact that abstinence is the only 100% effective method.) The fact is, more and more kids are leaving high school without a full understanding of sexually transmitted diseases and how to prevent them. Do you know how many people I’ve met who 1) don’t know that HPV causes cervical cancer, or 2) don’t know that condoms do not fully protect against it? As long as we are depriving our children of vital education, we should be requiring that they are protected, even if they don’t know it. And yeah, perhaps the answer is better sex ed, but I don’t see that happening any time soon in this country with our Monkey President in office and the Religious Right crying foul at any mention of words like, “condom.”
I don’t really care how many people without a cervix disagree with making the vaccine mandatory. I’m going to say, “Fuck you, cervial cancer!”
February 3rd, 2007 at 3:20:20 pm
There is no optout option.
Right now, with its current formulation, it is 100% ineffective in men, but Merck (along with GSK) is working on making a version that will work with male physiology.
February 3rd, 2007 at 3:26:12 pm
Wow, talk about being a complete and total sexist Indigant Woman.
I bet if they showed HPV gave men ball cancer, you’d have a hard-on for it to be required.
Again, I would support its use, i would encourage its use, but no, i would not demand it be required.
You’re a dude! You don’t have to get the vaccine! You don’t have kids that have to get the vaccine? WHY DO YOU CARE? This is exactly why it appears that you have moral reasons for opposing this measure that you’re simply couching in terms of “individual liberty�…this is more striking since you are very much NOT a libertarian!
And there it is right there. Proof that you are a sexist pig. So because I am male I’m not allowed to have a view on something like personal liberty? Ok, fine. Have you served in the military? Sorry not allowed to have an opinion on war unless you have. Ever been raped? Sorry not allowed to have an opinion on that either. Never been robbed? Nope no opinion on that either. Just because an issue doesn’t directly affect me does NOT mean i can’t and shouldn’t have an opinion on it, especially when i object to the WAY IN WHICH IT WAS DONE. You may be ok with the governor trampling all over individual rights, but i’m not. Your objections are completely without merit and sidestep the details of thise issue.
“You know what, cervical cancer? Fuck you!� This vaccine won’t completely eradicate it, but it’s a damn good start. As far as I am concerned, giving cervical cancer the finger is more important than any of the concerns you have raised.
And again, i must point out, because clearly you have the intellectual abilities of a three year old, that I am in no way opposed to the vaccine. I am in no way opposed to people getting the vaccine. I’m in no way opposed to efforts to encourage that the vaccine be widely used, and FUCK YOU for even implying that I don’t support the eradication of cancer. You know what FUCK YOU STRAIGHT TO HELL YOU HEINOUS BITCH for that because you don’t have a DAMN CLUE how cancer has affected me or my life. NOT A FUCKING CLUE. How dare you, HOW DARE YOU imply that i don’t care, you don’t have even the closest bit of an idea who i am or what my life has been like, so before you go passing your feminazi judgement on me why don’t you go jump off the nearest cliff.
You want to stop the spread of cancer? Great, so do I, but that doesn’t mean that i think this is the right way to go about it, and if you are too full of yourself to grasp that very simple concept than you are stupider than you appear in your incredibly arrogant sexist and ignorant posts here make you out to be. Which in and of itself is an amazing feat.
February 3rd, 2007 at 3:27:17 pm
And I like how you object to Women in Government’s “means� of getting this done. What were they supposed to do to raise money - hold a bake sale? Please! They took money from corporations just like all the big boys in Washington. You don’t like it? Boo-fucking-hoo!
Um, no i never said they couldn’t take money, i object to them pushing for MANDATORY vaccination. Again you are too stupid and sexist to see beyond the twisted little world you have created around you.
February 3rd, 2007 at 3:49:13 pm
David, you insinuated in your original post that Women in Government is supporting this because Merck was “funneling money” through it. Rather than recognizing that Women in Government has a legitimate interest in making the vaccine mandatory, a position with which you disagree, you attempt to depict them as supporting this because of the money. That’s what I call bullshit on. It has nothing to do with sexism.
February 3rd, 2007 at 4:01:44 pm
Yikes.
February 3rd, 2007 at 4:16:57 pm
Well gosh, that logic is astounding Andrew! I clearly must be for both vaccines even though one was an overwhelming health problem that was difficult next to impossible to avoid without shutting yourself off from the world! Again, i point out, the spread of polio was significantly easier than HPV. While HPV has significant consequences, for the most part its an OPT IN infection.
Again David, that’s utterly ridiculous. You say polio was next to impossible to avoid without interacting in the world, yet HPV is very difficult to avoid if you are 99.9% of humans who will have sexual intercourse in their lifetimes (I’m not totally sure whether you are part of that 99.9%, so maybe that’s why you don’t understand the issue here). In fact, far more women now get HPV than people ever got polio, so again your comparison just does not wash. You can say HPV is an “opt in” infection, but only if you’re planning on being a Catholic priest. Then again, polio is also only an “opt in” infection if you only plan on being a Catholic hermit monk.
Frankly, you are absolutely batty on this subject, and I have no rational explanation for it.
February 3rd, 2007 at 4:18:08 pm
Wow. Somehow I missed David’s 3:26 attack. Yikes, indeed.
Look, David, I am NOT trying to imply that you don’t care about cervical cancer. I know I never explictly said that, and I apologize if that’s how it sounded. My questions about why you care were not intended to imply that you have no right to an opinion on the matter. Of course you can have an opinion. You can have an opinion on any matter you want to. My question was more aimed at asking why you are getting all worked up about something that does not affect you personally (as in, you won’t have to get the vaccine) and does not even affect your state. The fact is that nobody is trampling on your individual rights (unless you are planning to move to Texas and have a daughter), so I was wondering why you feel so strongly about this particular issue when there are instances of governments intruding on individual liberty.
As for the rest of your comment, there’s really no reason for all the vitriol. OK, so I called you a moron, and I suppose that was uncalled for. But I never directed any expletives at you (if you notice, they were all directed at cervical cancer), and I never called you anything like the equivalent of a “heinous bitch.” And the suggestions that I should kill myself - wow, I don’t know what to say other than maybe suggesting that you go see your priest because I think you may need Reconciliation.
I don’t wish you any ill will. I simply think your reasoning on this issue is suspect because you’ve suddently adopted a libertarian argument, which is not an argument you generally adopt. Therefore, it made me think that perhaps there is some other reason for your opposition to this lurking under the surface.
And finally, can we all agree that the term “feminazi” never needs to be used again? Nazis attempted to kill off an entire race of people. As a feminist, I want equality, and I disagree with you on this issue. I do not want to extinguish men (I like them, thank you very much!) or advocate anything that the nazis stood for. Calling me a “feminazi” grossly mischaracterizes who I am as a feminist, but worse than that, it trivializes the actual crimes committed by the real Nazis.
February 3rd, 2007 at 4:19:01 pm
Nothing to do with sexism? Bullshit. Your post is loaded with it and i’m going to call you on it because i am so sick of people like you who get away with sexist behavior because your a woman. That itself is the double standard i find so repugnant.
February 3rd, 2007 at 4:21:35 pm
And again Andrew, if you are going to have sex you can still get the vaccine, no problem there. But unlike polio where you were likely to contract the disease through day to day normal life, HPV can easily be avoided by not engaging in sex with multiple partners. There is an entire threshold of difference between the infectious nature of the two diseases and anyone with any knowledge of epidemiology would acknowledge that.
February 3rd, 2007 at 4:25:07 pm
As a feminist, I want equality, and I disagree with you on this issue.
You disagree with me fine, i have no problem with the fact that you disagree with me. What i do have a problem with is not only your implication that i dont’ care about eridicating cancer, unintentional as it may be, but more so the idea that merely because i’m a man i don’t deserve to have an opinion on this. That is absolutely, completely, 100% sexist and unequal.
Now, you are correct, it was not in anyway fair of me to refer to you in the way i did. Completely inexcusable. I take cancer very seriously, its had a signficant impact on my life, and i allowed that to upset me and you dont’ deserve the thigns i said about you regardless of our position on this issue and for that i apologize.
February 3rd, 2007 at 4:33:37 pm
What i do have a problem with is not only your implication that i dont’ care about eridicating cancer, unintentional as it may be, but more so the idea that merely because i’m a man i don’t deserve to have an opinion on this. That is absolutely, completely, 100% sexist and unequal.
Except that I already said I didn’t intend to imply that you don’t care about cancer, and I already said that anybody can have an opinion on anything. But I guess you’d rather keep calling me sexist. At least you apologized for calling me a heinous bitch and a feminazi and encouraging me to commit suicide. Thanks for that.
February 3rd, 2007 at 5:23:35 pm
bet if they showed HPV gave men ball cancer, you’d have a hard-on for it to be required.
Oh, and 3) You’re a dude! You don’t have to get the vaccine! You don’t have kids that have to get the vaccine? WHY DO YOU CARE? This is exactly why it appears that you have moral reasons for opposing this measure that you’re simply couching in terms of “individual liberty�…this is more striking since you are very much NOT a libertarian!
I’m also entertained by how you tell me what my beliefs are, i.e. not a libertarian. While its true i don’t always agree with people like Sean, that doesn’t mean i don’t feel taht their views are appropriate in places. But I guess in addition to being just a “dude” i’m also not allowed to have anything but a specific set of views in life. I hate how people assume you HAVE to fit into a certain bucket on issues.
Oh and if you actually care about equality and fair discussion, just because I don’t bow down and aqueisece to your view, saying this:
David, you’re a moron.
Isn’t going to help your argument one iota. Especially when you are ignoring the things i’m actually bothered by and instead complaining about the parts where i in fact agree with you, but you know, whatever. What do I know? I’m just a dude…
February 3rd, 2007 at 5:36:44 pm
And again Andrew, if you are going to have sex you can still get the vaccine, no problem there. But unlike polio where you were likely to contract the disease through day to day normal life, HPV can easily be avoided by not engaging in sex with multiple partners. There is an entire threshold of difference between the infectious nature of the two diseases and anyone with any knowledge of epidemiology would acknowledge that.
Can you read? Multiple people in this thread have already pointed out how sexual assault can get you HPV, a male monogomous partner who has had previous partners can get you HPV, and a cheating husband can get you HPV. HPV is NOT easily avoided by not having sex with multiple partners. END OF DISCUSSION.
Your morality is downright warped if you think mandatory HPV vaccines are fundamentally wrong but mandatory polio vaccines are not simply because the former are associated with sexual activity.
I’ve got a question for you, David. Assume for the moment that HIV is now only spread through sexual activity and sharing drug needles. Also assume government and industry have together developed a simple and cheap vaccine for HIV. Would you then be against mandatory HIV vaccinations (i.e., an “opt-out” policy) for all Americans who reach pubescence? Would you not support massive government funding to export the vaccine and administer it for free to all Africans — indeed, all of humanity?
If you oppose the HIV vaccinations on libertarian grounds, fine. But if you oppose such mandatory vaccinations because they are driven by sexual behavior and illicit drug use, your sense of morality is so completely warped I wouldn’t even know what to say.
February 3rd, 2007 at 5:46:10 pm
I think I understand one of David’s underlying objections: the use of the school requirement to compel people to do things that are good for them. This is a powerful weapon and it seems to be wielded more and more. One example that really confuses me is the HepB requirement that some states have. Huh? 6th graders sharing needles? A vaccination for chickenpox? Eh?
Where does it stop? Schools are already issuing obesity ‘report cards’. The public health authorities are deciding more and more what is ‘good for us’. While they have good intentions, there is going to be pushback (from all political sides) and this is a great example.
As a conservatarian, I also get the moral objection to the HPV requirement. I don’t think my moral objections convince many people, but I gotta say, I think that this will have any number of unintended consequences.
February 3rd, 2007 at 5:54:52 pm
On a completely dorky note, this discussion reminds me a lot of the question “Who’s the most powerful person on the Starship Enterprise?”
Answer: It’s not the captain — it’s the doctor. The ship’s doctor can declare the captain unfit for duty.
February 3rd, 2007 at 6:06:00 pm
I just wanted to say how much I have enjoyed this thread: Davie going batshit crazy, Andrew insinuating that Davie has never and might never had sex…shall we see someone courageously martyr themselves to put this fire out?
February 3rd, 2007 at 6:38:00 pm
Your morality is downright warped if you think mandatory HPV vaccines are fundamentally wrong but mandatory polio vaccines are not simply because the former are associated with sexual activity.
I’ve got a question for you, David. Assume for the moment that HIV is now only spread through sexual activity and sharing drug needles. Also assume government and industry have together developed a simple and cheap vaccine for HIV. Would you then be against mandatory HIV vaccinations (i.e., an “opt-out� policy) for all Americans who reach pubescence? Would you not support massive government funding to export the vaccine and administer it for free to all Africans � indeed, all of humanity?
Wow Andrew, you are just plain dumb. I don’t know how many times i have to say it to get it through your thick head. THIS IS NOT ABOUT SEX. I don’t care if you get HPV through Sex or through drinking unpasteurized apple juice, the point is that in the majority of cases its spread through voluntary behavior, not intentionally mind you, but still voluntary behavior. Polio was spread through normal, everyday contact, the only way which you could have avoided it was by shutting yourself off from humanity. Polio was unavoidable. HPV is largely NOT unavoidable. And for those who feel they DO need to take it, i’m NOT telling them they shouldn’t. I’m in fact encouraging them to do so! Your so stuck on the fact that sex is involved and trying to pin this on me for some sort of puritanical right wing religious objection that you’ve managed to ignore everything i’ve actually said on the issue.
I DO NOT OPPOSE VACCINATION. Get it yet? I only oppose MANDATORY vaccination for a disease that is not highly communicable and contagious through normal day to day interaction with other people. Is it a threat to health? Yes. So is tetanus, and that one is not mandatory, just recommened. Highly recommended maybe, but still NOT mandatory.
If you oppose the HIV vaccinations on libertarian grounds, fine. But if you oppose such mandatory vaccinations because they are driven by sexual behavior and illicit drug use, your sense of morality is so completely warped I wouldn’t even know what to say.
Yes i would oppose mandatory vaccinations for a disease that is primarily spread thorugh an active choice of behavior. I would however support a government program that provided a low cost vaccine to anyone who wanted it.
I also oppose this because the Governor side stepped the public and the legislature on it. I realize that there are some people who are willing to cede their freedoms to single authority figures. I just don’t happen to be one of them.
February 3rd, 2007 at 6:52:53 pm
Davie hon, I think the disconnect is that most people think of sex as a normal, everyday interaction with another person (or people!).
Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to go make some popcorn. This is FANTASTIC.
February 3rd, 2007 at 7:04:25 pm
David, could you remind me exactly how your freedoms have been impaired by a decision affecting girls ages 10-12 (and their families) in Texas?
February 3rd, 2007 at 7:33:00 pm
As far as I know, all children have to get a tetanus shot to attend school. And every ten years, they have to get a booster.
February 3rd, 2007 at 7:55:24 pm
David, maybe my statement (that you were presenting a “misinformed and moralistic” POV) was out-of-line, but my gut reaction to the post, combined with your Bloy.com discussion history, was that this was a case where your moral stance was the underlying engine in your outrage against the alleged “sidestepping [of] all forms of public debate.” Perhaps my instincts were incorrect.
You could clarify by answering these questions:
1. Would you have reacted the same way if Perry was requiring the chicken pox (or some other morally neutral disease) vaccine rather than HPV?
2. Would your outrage disappear if the legislature were to vote in favor of the HPV vaccination program?
3. Does the existence of an opt-out option (I make no claims as to whether it’s sufficiently simple, fyi) abrogate some of your fears of democracy-stomping?
4. What of all the other required vaccinations? Should there be a public school opt-out for MMR or polio or hep A & B, etc.?
Also, tetanus vaccination (usually as part of the Diphtheria, Tetanus, Pertussis (DTaP) vaccine) is required to enter Oregon public schools, as well as Washington and about every other state. Plus, in an attempt to be snarky, I found the absurd vision of a vaccinated person playing with rusty metal to be a somewhat enlightening, mostly fun smack on the morality police that think an HPV vaccine = teens having crazy animal sex.
February 3rd, 2007 at 8:09:49 pm
Indigant Woman, one does not have their personal rights affected to see that rights are being affected, in this case individual and famiy rights.
Jessica, sex may e a normal everyday behavior for many people however its not like people go around having sex with dozens of people on a daily basis unless they are a prostitute. To conclude that the type of social interactions that could lead to the spread of polio are even remotely close to the kind of social interactions used to spread HPV is patently absurd.
Scientizzle
1). No, because Chicken Pox is far more communicable through every day interaction. As i said above, my objections have ZERO to do with sex and everything to do with forced immunization for a disease that does not present an uncontrolable threat to public health.
2) My outrage might or might not dissapear, but it would be greatly dimished if the legislature had been involved in this decision yes.
3) An opt out makes the situtation slightly better, but as I have said I have other objections
4) MMR, polio, hepetitus are all highly communicable diseases that you are likely to be exposed to through normal daily casual interaction. You can’t avoid them short of shutting yourself off from the world. I don’t know how often i need to point this out. The spread of the disease is significant not for moral reasons, but because one is avoidable the other is not
February 3rd, 2007 at 8:11:46 pm
To all of you who keep missing the point and focusing on the moral/sex argument. If Texas was to offer this vaccine free/cheap to all children of that age I would have ZERO objections.
February 3rd, 2007 at 8:35:41 pm
David,
Leaving aside the (obvious) threshhold question for a second, some number of young girls contract HPV annually through “forced sexual encounters”, and that number could be compared with the number that acquire polio through no “fault” of their own.
“Forced sexual encounters” includes the obvious scourges of rape and sexual assault, which lead to the infection of many thousands of women annually, young and old. Since I’m among lawyers, I’m gonna expand the category of “forced sexual encounters” to also incorporate 14 year old girls “coerced” by overeager teenage boys, lacking the appropriate maturity or perspective to know when and how to say “no”. As I understand it, any sexual act with a 14-year-old girl, even committed by a 14-year-old boy, is definitionally “rape” since we agree that 14-year-olds lack the agency to be responsible for their decisions. Correct me, lawyers, if I’m wrong…
So we add (traditional) rape, and sexual assault, then we throw in (statutory) rape, and now we have many many thousands of cases of HPV-transmission that look a lot like the transmission of polio for which you approve mandatory vaccination.
Now - you have never openly argued this, but I nevertheless wish to ask the question:
Do you oppose the mandatory vaccinations because they “send a message” about sexual activity to teenagers, a message with which you disagree?
February 3rd, 2007 at 8:46:58 pm
One more comment:
Infection of HPV16 or HPV18 can occur at birth from a positive mother to her child. In fact, according to a journal article I’ll link to below, vertical transmission (HPV positive mothers to their infants) happens 30-45% of the time.
This is, of course, an area of debate, and necessary future study of the long-term consequences of HPV infection at such an early age is vital. I only highlight it to show that HPV infection isn’t necessarily avoidable for even the lifelong celibate.
February 3rd, 2007 at 8:47:23 pm
link = http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/61007515/ABSTRACT
February 3rd, 2007 at 9:25:09 pm
Do you oppose the mandatory vaccinations because they “send a message� about sexual activity to teenagers, a message with which you disagree?
No, as I have said above I agree with and encourage voluntary vaccination.
Infection of HPV16 or HPV18 can occur at birth from a positive mother to her child
And this changes nothing in my argument, because again the mother can take the vaccine.
February 3rd, 2007 at 9:37:31 pm
Aren’t there several immunizations required before most kids can enter school? Why should this be any different?
February 3rd, 2007 at 9:38:30 pm
I am a libertarian, and I do not approve David K’s message.
If they came up with an AIDS vaccine (and given its nature it’d probably need to have boosters every five years or so, but that’s by the way), then it is in the interest of the commonweal that Leviathan get everyone immunized.
You can’t just sit there and say, “oh well, it’s only spread by consensual contact”. Yeah, consensual… ’til you get picked up on some charge, merited or not, and boned up the ass by some thug in the lockup. This shit happens, dude.
Also consider that viri mutate. HPV is just an HPV now. But if we let it spread then it might turn into something worse. c.f., the simian immunodeficency virus, referenced above; also, avian flu, measles, cowpox and on and on and on.
The fewer viri around, the better.
February 3rd, 2007 at 9:41:42 pm
You don’t think that a baby catching the virus from a mother is a decent reason for mandating vaccination? Sure, the mother can get vaccinated, but that baby doesn’t get to choose whether it’s born to an infected mother.
Basically, David, relying on the mother’s decision means that if a woman doesn’t get the vaccine (and plenty won’t either because of expense or lack of knowledge), then her daughter can be born with HPV and later get cervical cancer.
Aren’t you opposed to abortion because of the child’s right to life? What about the child’s right to life without HPV? I’m not saying the two are analogous, but it provides some food for thought.
February 3rd, 2007 at 11:43:48 pm
You all need to chill out. Its a vaccine to help people. Seatbelts are mandatory. Helmets for motorcycles in many states are mandatory. They are meant to protect people from themselves and save the healthcare systems millions of dollars. This is no different. You people need more to do…especially David K and the indignant woman. Get a job or something, you’ve both spent way to long arguing. Either that or go out on a date. You sound like a married couple.
February 3rd, 2007 at 11:59:47 pm
Just for fun…
I think it should be mandatory for all girls to take birth control because of the risk that they will be raped and become pregnant by the rapist.
Besides that thought…I am a girl from Texas, and if I were a little younger and under this “law”, I would be outraged. I am one of the (apparently) far too few people who waited until marriage to have sex, and my husband did too. And please don’t disrespect my by saying that I don’t know that for sure. I would have been outraged to be told that I had to take a vaccine that I did not need, want, and could not afford, and that would not affect anyone but me if I did not receive it. I had no problem getting my tetanus shot, because I had a high probability of being affected by tetanus. I was right. While I was in school I accidentally stepped on 2 nails, got scratched by barbed wire, cut myself with a saw, etc. I was under no such risk for contracting HPV.
February 4th, 2007 at 12:35:58 am
I think the trouble here lies in something akin to a logic trap, only in this case it is more of a complacency trap. As I understand it this vaccine is most effective if administered before any sexual activity. As such we are necessarily talking about rather young ages for the vaccine for optimal effectiveness. Parents of persons of such young ages don’t want to even think about their progeny engaging in any of the sorts of behaviors that can transmit the virus. Therefore they won’t think of getting it and or will be in denial about needing to take care of it likely waiting until it is too late, given the prevalence of HPV. The logical thing do do in such a case is to knock someone up side the head and say you need to get this done sooner rather than later even if you don’t want to think about it. And, again, at the ages we are talking about informed consent by the person actually getting the shot does not really figure in–the inherent lack of agency vis-a-vi effectiveness reduces the validity of the libertarian arguments in my mind–agency would be much more of an issue if we were talking about requiring this vaccine for those entering university, in which case we are talking about something that figures in more like the meningitis vaccine–which is opt-in. A meningitis vaccine won’t do you any good if you already have meningitis likewise an HPV vaccine is also useless if administered too late.
February 4th, 2007 at 12:47:35 am
Aren’t there several immunizations required before most kids can enter school? Why should this be any different?
Because those diseases, as has been pointed out over and over, spread through every day casual human contact. This is different. And again its not merely the fact that its spread through primarily consenual means, but the way in which it is being forced upon people by fiat of the governor, not even a chance for the legislature to do its job and represent the will of the people.
Yes there are edge cases of people who didn’t choose for it to happen, but that doesn’t change the fact that the majority of the cases for this disease come through intentional action. I am NOT passing blame on those people. What i am doing is pointing out that unlike other diseases which require mandatory vaccination, this is not spread through every day, normal, human interaction.
Again i should point out to Indignant Woman, and others, because apparently they are so focused on the sex aspect that they refuse to read anything else, that i not only have no problem with the vaccine, i actually would encourage its use, and efforts to educate and promote its use among the public. But forcing it on people in the name of public good, especially at the behest of Merck in a way that will dump a ton of profit in their coffers? Bypassing the legislature and public discussion? Thats not the way to go about this.
February 4th, 2007 at 12:56:32 am
Perry Loves Power, if you are age 26 or under, I would recommend that you still strongly consider getting the vaccine. If you were raped (something I genuinely hope NEVER happens), this would be one less thing you have to worry about. Or if your husband were to die prematurely, you might one day remarry, and that person could be a carrier. (Again, I genuinely hope you never face this situation and that you and your husband grow old together.) Putting aside whether this vaccine should be mandated, I would ask you to consider getting the vaccine, even though you aren’t at a high risk. Think of it as an insurance policy against cervical cancer. It can’t hurt you, and it could save your life.
And dcl, you mention that the HPV vaccine is useless if it’s too late. I just want to point out that it’s still a vaccine worth getting, even if you’re sexually active. In fact, it’s worth getting even if you know you have HPV. Gardasil protects against several strains of HPV, and it is unlikely that a woman has contracted all of the strains.
February 4th, 2007 at 3:30:49 am
Perrylover, your analogy to birth-control pills is inapt. In imposing a regulation such as this, I would imagine that the interest in protecting the public from harm is balanced with the burden that must be beared (born?) by those who need to conform. Obviously, forcing a medication that must be taken frequently and causes physiological changes is too tremendous of a burden to be forced, while a one-time vaccination similar to other required vaccinations is not too onerous to impose when the benefits are so great. I’m guessing that your comment was kind of a throwaway, but it was a bit of a turd.
Davie, I do understand your concerns and see the value of your argument, but I am most persuaded by Andrew’s comparison to the requirement of an HIV/AIDS vaccine, should we be fortunate enough to have one someday. Here are some further thoughts in support of the requirement:
- It seems, perhaps not explicitly, that you are concerned about the cost of the vaccination. However, cost is probably not an issue: Insurance will cover this because of its high preventative value, and as the later version of the AP article states, Governor Perry has ordered the state agency to find funding for low-income and uninsured patients.
- I don’t think you’re giving the opt-out provision enough validity. Patients still have the right to choose not to get this vaccination (which would be a poor one, in my opinion), but for public health purposes, the opt-out requirement is much more effective than the opt-in. At its most basic level, it means more people would get vaccinated. Furthermore, the opt-out requirement sets the “default” as getting the vaccination, and as AIDS testing patterns in Africa show, setting this default makes patients much more likely to get the vaccination.
- Governor Perry’s choice to issue an executive order rather than attempt to get a law passed was one of pragmatism, not abuse of power. The concern that this encourages immorality and promiscuity, which you’re been unfairly accused of in this thread, is very real within their state legislature. Executive order was probably the only way for this to occur, and I would argue that it is the governor’s job to act assuredly in the face of such a significant crisis when the legislature is unwilling to. This is not the Guantanamo that you are trying to make it.
February 4th, 2007 at 3:36:44 am
Finally, Davie, it’s pretty clear from the thread that you are a misogynist with some anger issues. What the f*** was up with that reply to that woman? In addition to severely misconstruing her plain language and motivation behind her comments, calling her a “heinous bitch,” an inherently sexist term, while accusing her of sexism at the same time defies logic. Perhaps you’re off your meds?
February 4th, 2007 at 3:37:32 am
As far as I can tell, they are still studying its effectiveness for males … as such, I doubt that anyone who is familiar with it ca honestly say that it is 100% ineffective for males …
Given the ummm ’sensitive’ areas where HPV can cause cancer, and the cancers caused being nasty ones, the more of our population can be immunised against ‘em, the better … and, as long as the “opt-out” remains part of the scheme, then the civil liberty aspect is covered …
February 4th, 2007 at 3:39:53 am
Well said, Ally. I feel that perhaps Davie is not giving the opt-out provision enough merit: Confirmation bias at its finest.
February 4th, 2007 at 3:40:03 am
Wobbly H - perhaps we need to find an anti-BDS vaccine ?
February 4th, 2007 at 3:43:33 am
Bush Derangement Syndrome? Is that backhanded comment directed toward me, or Davie?
February 4th, 2007 at 9:17:51 am
Wow. You go dancing and this happens…
I’m kinda amazed. Dave and I make almost exactly the same points, yet people leap down Dave’s throat and give me a brush of the hand that basically says, “Whatever, libertarian-boy.” Can you say assuming motives and ad hominem logical fallacies?
Obviously this isn’t as vital a concern for liberty as, say, arresting dissidents or establishing Evangelicism as the state religion or rounding up all the Arabs. But I still say the more choices the better. It all comes down to our fundamental weltanschaaung: are people stupid cattle who need a strong hand to guide them, or are they intelligent, virtuous people on the whole who will gladly look after their best interests if you just let them? I don’t think any of us are going to change the other side’s mind. Especially as this topic steadily flows toward the bottom of the page…
February 4th, 2007 at 11:44:59 am
Wobbly, while I admit that my response to IW was uncalled for, calling my a misogynist is pretty much what got this whole thing started. Why was I so upset? Because she basically accused me of not caring about curing cancer. I will not go into the details on this page or anywhere other than to say cancer has had a significant impact on my life and even the remote accusation that i somehow don’t give a whiff about stopping it is offensive. Beyond THAT she dismissed my opinion merely because I was male. Sorry but nothing is more sexist and worthy of derision than someone who claims to want equality then treats the other sex as somehow less worthy than their own. To call my misogynistic because of my response to ONE person with comments directed at her personally? Sorry Wobbly, but you have no credibility when it comes to respecting women given your screen name, but beyond that I responded to her sa i did based on what she said, not because she was a woman.
February 4th, 2007 at 3:07:24 pm
Nice red herring, Davie. First of all, it takes a lot of work to interpret her comments as saying that you don’t care about curing cancer. I know you’re playing the “it affected my life” card, but it can only go so far. The provocation you’re trying to use to (partially) justify the crazy episode we just saw isn’t persuading me.
Neither are your efforts to say that I have “no credibility” to comment on this because of my handle (not that I understand how a consensual sex act is disrespectful to women, but we won’t touch that unless you want to justify your logic further). Please. When something is clearly true, it doesn’t become false just because of who is saying it. Perhaps if you didn’t refer to women as ‘heinous bitches,’ you might be able to join that 99.9% of people that Andrew referred to earlier.
February 4th, 2007 at 6:30:09 pm
Wobbly, again, i apologized to her and said i let my anger go to far. However i can prove you wrong right now:
Perhaps if you didn’t refer to women as ‘heinous bitches,’
I did not refer to WOMEN with that term, I refered to ONE PERSON with that term. Extrapolating behavior based on one isolated incident that was percipitated by poor behavior on the part of the other person is completely and utterly stupid. I’ve come to expect nothing less from you.
February 4th, 2007 at 9:29:27 pm
A very entertaining thread.
February 4th, 2007 at 9:56:22 pm
David… you kill me. You said -
“And again its not merely the fact that its spread through primarily consenual means, but the way in which it is being forced upon people by fiat of the governor, not even a chance for the legislature to do its job and represent the will of the people.”
but when it comes to gay marriage, you’re more than happy to forget the will of the people and have people like the mayor San Fran jam a law down our throats! You can’t have it both ways.
February 4th, 2007 at 10:34:07 pm
Um, Ed, where did I ever say that? I actually thought that the governor of San Francisco overstepped his bounds as well, but whatever, make up things to suit your own purposes…
February 4th, 2007 at 10:45:25 pm
IW, fair point that there is more that one strain and that it is worth doing even if you’ve already contracted one strain. My point is simply the earlier the better in regards to preventing cancer.
February 5th, 2007 at 2:50:07 pm
David - when you do your work, do you have the “the governor of San Francisco” check it for mistakes and inaccuracies and poor programming ?
February 5th, 2007 at 2:53:01 pm
boo hoo, i typed governor instead of mayor. shockingly i spend very little effort worrying about grammar and spelling on the blog.
seems like you could be using your time better then making smart-ass remarks, but as i said in the other thread, you are incapable of joining the discussion so i’m not surprised.
February 5th, 2007 at 7:25:41 pm
I noticed you start a lot of comments with “boo hoo.”
April 9th, 2007 at 2:18:27 pm
You have to blame the drug companies who tell doctors to dispense drug as if they were candy so that the drug company can make more money. WBR LeoP