101 karma · joined December 22, 2017
There are not "so many" muggings/fights/etc., but I do know several people who have encountered them. That's not so many; don't you? With respect to bullies, there is tons of bullying in every school. Any one who tells you otherwise is lying to himself.
Many of the martial artists whom I know began training for purposes of self-defense. Some began as adults, and some were placed in training by their parents after being bullied.
> cycling
That's totally out of the scope of this conversation; I made no claims as to the seriousness with which cycling ought to be treated. I think most sports are given too much credence.
>> It's also exercise
> Aren't those equally true of this hobbyhorse-dressage?
No, not from the gif of a "competition" at the top of the article. It does not appear to contain any serious exertion.
Most sports involve pushing yourself physically. This does not involve such exertion and improvement. If kids want to do it, that's fine (all though still weird as all getout). But I don't think them saying to not "say they are playing" because it "strips away what we've made" is really reasonable. Kids are playing dress-up; it's fine to remind them it's just dress-up. And it's ridiculous to compare it to real sports.
Is it recreational in some way? Sure. But again, it has real benefits, while I don't see any in riding a toy stick (aside from enjoyment gained).
This extends to many other sports and activities: you can practice at a serious level or an amateur one. The difference here is that I see no serious level for this. Same thing with comics, which I saw some one else mention earlier.
I guess if the kids are having fun, fine. This does seem incredibly weird, but I guess it's between them and their parents. However, I don't understand this demand to be taken seriously. It's a hobby; they do it for fun, and that's fine.
I get switching can be a pain, but most people (the people regulation is crafted to cover) do not upgrade on the schedule of many tech enthusiasts. Consumers are also keeping devices progressively longer as time goes by.
I'm still happy with micro-usb, usb-a, hdmi, etc. for now. People do not switch out devices all at once, and it seems that forcing them to do so would create waste.
Lastly, how do they enforce it? Any one can go on amazon.com and buy a non-standard charger and a plug adapter, right? I would imagine those who do want things like quick charge would just buy the stuff.
I understand bottles are different, but I felt a bit of a need to mention what a bad idea the phone charger thing was. "Design by committee" is a pejorative for a reason. Also, knowing governments, they would do something crazy like mandate the standard soda cup to be small (see NYC).
Why do you call it these things? Your opinion is not a source. I think both of us can agree it is 100% effective with respect to disease prevention. We're running into antibiotic-resistant STDs because people won't stop sleeping around. From the CDC: "Gonorrhea has progressively developed resistance to the antibiotic drugs prescribed to treat it." [0]
> cervical cancer is just 2 of the 14 strains of cancer causing HPV that we know of.
"The main type of cancer linked to HPV infection is cervical cancer. Virtually all cases of cervical cancer are caused by HPV." [1] Yes there are risks of other cancer, but they are very small unless you are gay.
[0] https://www.cdc.gov/std/gonorrhea/arg/default.htm
[1] https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/causes-of-canc...
This is exactly the problem. How do you plan to convince men to get vaccinated to prevent a cancer that affects women?
> Moralistic arguments are what keep us from mass-vaccinating against HPV-strains.
This is not a moralistic argument; I made no argument about what is right or wrong. What keeps that from happening is that many people who would need to do so would get little benefit. It's a positive externality.
> Literally 2019 and arguing on the internet for abstinence only?
I didn't argue for it, but there's nothing wrong with it. What's bad about that approach? It's 100% effective at preventing the spread of disease. Literally 2019 and we have super-STDs because people won't stop sleeping around. From the CDC: "Gonorrhea has progressively developed resistance to the antibiotic drugs prescribed to treat it." [0] Show me another approach that will work. Vaccine? Oh wait, we don't have one for that, and our antibiotics don't work. It's for good reason that society used to shun this sort of behavior. Promiscuous people are causing a serious public health issue because they are too lazy to keep it in their pants.
No, because I said nothing about pre-marital anything. There is still a risk, even in marriage, though people who take only one sexual partner are less likely to contract such diseases. That's not a judgement, as I am not saying whether anything is right or wrong, it is simply a fact.
> And your stance that it's "less important" is based on the idea that simply abstaining from sex prevents all HPV exposure, correct? That is not a science-based conclusion. HPV can be transmitted outside of sex by walking barefoot across a bathroom floor.
Correct. You are correct about some varieties, none of which are currently known to cause caner.
> But if you want a morality-driven argument it is IMHO undeniably imperative to vaccinate the general public against disease including cancer causing disease regardless of the mode of transmission of said disease and that imperative and benefits outweigh any counter argument that simply abstaining from a given behavior lowers that risk.
Again, I didn't say that it was necessarily bad, I was pointing out that it was less important than MMR or other such vaccinations, an assertion by which I stand.
> If I can find the citation for the article I mentioned (I did Google for it but couldn't find it the first time) I'll happily address whether in fact it's one prevented by Gardasil, etc.
I couldn't find it through internet-searching either, which is why I made the above point.
I still maintain that a HPV vaccination is less important than other vaccinations. This is especially true for men, as the largest cancer risk by far is for cervical cancer. You are unlikely to get major traction for people being vaccinated against a disease that will most harm another at their expense and pain. Why did you take such issue with a passing remark I made as part of a broader, positive point? I am not saying anything that is wrong; the risks are there and the benefits for a large part of the population that would be required to achieve herd immunity are not.
Again, there is reason it is not standard or required. The herd immunity argument is not as relevant because it is much less important for men (especially because existing vaccines focus mostly on strains that cause cervical cancer) and so a large portion of the population will remain unvaccinated against it.
A 100% effective vaccination? Also, I didn't imply any moral judgement, I'm simply stating it's not as important as others.
With respect to the baby story, was that a strain which was prevented by a HPV vaccination?
I understand there is a benefit, and wasn't disputing that. All I was saying was that it was elective and less important. There is a reason it is not required for schools as MMR is, and that it is not standard.
Edit: down-voters care to explain why I'm wrong?
It's a tough question, and I'm not quite sure how to solve it. We will likely face many more issues of disease in the years to come, with antibiotic resistance becoming a growing threat. The idea of a society where a small nick very well may cause a fatal infection is not a pleasant one.
Also, fungi are a rising threat: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19590180
It still takes "gourmet" vegetarian food to compare to regular meat.
[0] https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/animal-vs-plant-protein
I'll avoid updating until I know more.
It's an extreme expansionary policy designed to keep the economy afloat by making people pay money to keep it in banks. Normally this is done by dropping interest rates below inflation; this is the nuclear option for economies. The fact that they are still stuck on this is not a good sign for what may happen to Europe next recession.
This is one of the inherent limitations of a shared currency: Greece needs expansion; Germany needs contraction. Help one; harm the other. It's very difficult to do the kind of things America (or most other nations) can do with Europe for this reason.