4 ms·

> the people who are already irresponsible about prophylactics > There's no moralizing You can't use the phrase "irresponsible about prophylactics" in this co

> the people who are already irresponsible about prophylactics > There's no moralizing You can't use the phrase "irresponsible about prophylactics" in this context and claim you're not moralizing.

giantg2 4y ago
Please show your reasoning. I could be talking about legal responsibility, not moral responsibility. Irregardless, places like the CDC study what would be effective approaches. What makes you think a vaccine is an effective approach?
- chimeracoder 4y ago
  > Please show your reasoning. I could be talking about legal responsibility, not moral responsibility. You're saying you suddenly and silently shifted the conversation to "legal responsibility" - something which nobody mentioned at all, including you - and didn't reference it? Even if that were plausible (it's not), that would be a form of moralizing. You've made many comments on this post, some of which pass overt and explicit judgements about contracting gonorrhea and condom usage (or lack thereof). There's no need to be coy in this one thread. > Irregardless, places like the CDC study what would be effective approaches. What makes you think a vaccine is an effective approach? What makes you think a vaccine would not be an effective approach, when "places like the CDC" (whom you yourself agree study this topic) uniformly take the opposite stance?
  - giantg2 4y ago
    "Even if that were plausible (it's not)" You can be legally liable for STD transmission. There are many cases that show that. So you're using the technical definition of moralizing rather than the colloquial one. Fine. Seems like an odd point to make. How does this affect anything being said here regarding solutions? You seem to be moralizing that what I'm saying is wrong. Why are you allowed to do that then? "which pass overt and explicit judgements" Other than implying that the majority of cases are from not using protection, what judgements do you think I am exactly making? And more importantly, how do you think that affects what is being discussed around possible solutions to the problem? "uniformly take the opposite stance?" Please, do show me where they recommend a vaccine for gonorrhea. I'm starting to feel like your just trolling. I've clearly laid out that the vast majority of people who are at risk for this disease are one who are irresponsible about prophylactics and would thus be irresponsible with a prophylactic vaccine. We could go farther into trade-offs on benefits vs adverse events. However, that information would be present in the CDC (or other org) documents recommending gonorrhea vaccines since treatments must be shown to be safe, effective, and providing net benefit. You can also see how the HPV vaccine has been a relative flop. Edit: Why disagree?

> the people who are already irresponsible about prophylactics > There's no moralizing You can't use the phrase "irresponsible about prophylactics" in this context and claim you're not moralizing.

giantg2 4y ago

Please show your reasoning. I could be talking about legal responsibility, not moral responsibility. Irregardless, places like the CDC study what would be effective approaches. What makes you think a vaccine is an effective approach?

chimeracoder 4y ago
> Please show your reasoning. I could be talking about legal responsibility, not moral responsibility. You're saying you suddenly and silently shifted the conversation to "legal responsibility" - something which nobody mentioned at all, including you - and didn't reference it? Even if that were plausible (it's not), that would be a form of moralizing. You've made many comments on this post, some of which pass overt and explicit judgements about contracting gonorrhea and condom usage (or lack thereof). There's no need to be coy in this one thread. > Irregardless, places like the CDC study what would be effective approaches. What makes you think a vaccine is an effective approach? What makes you think a vaccine would not be an effective approach, when "places like the CDC" (whom you yourself agree study this topic) uniformly take the opposite stance?
- giantg2 4y ago
  "Even if that were plausible (it's not)" You can be legally liable for STD transmission. There are many cases that show that. So you're using the technical definition of moralizing rather than the colloquial one. Fine. Seems like an odd point to make. How does this affect anything being said here regarding solutions? You seem to be moralizing that what I'm saying is wrong. Why are you allowed to do that then? "which pass overt and explicit judgements" Other than implying that the majority of cases are from not using protection, what judgements do you think I am exactly making? And more importantly, how do you think that affects what is being discussed around possible solutions to the problem? "uniformly take the opposite stance?" Please, do show me where they recommend a vaccine for gonorrhea. I'm starting to feel like your just trolling. I've clearly laid out that the vast majority of people who are at risk for this disease are one who are irresponsible about prophylactics and would thus be irresponsible with a prophylactic vaccine. We could go farther into trade-offs on benefits vs adverse events. However, that information would be present in the CDC (or other org) documents recommending gonorrhea vaccines since treatments must be shown to be safe, effective, and providing net benefit. You can also see how the HPV vaccine has been a relative flop. Edit: Why disagree?