Taking a stance against kissing

[brimstoneSalad]

I thought you were saying people who are 'sluts' should be considered 'impure' and morally wrong,

They may or may not be impure from a pathological standpoint: they are just much more probably so. They have "Schrodinger's" STD until tested and proved clean. When anything has been exposed to a high risk of contamination, we assume it's contaminated until proven otherwise.

They are also morally wrong for engaging in high risk behavior, though, just like it's wrong to shoot into a crowded theater even if by luck you don't hit anybody.
Somebody with an STD may or may not have been a slut; it could have happened because a monogamous partner cheated, or been contracted from the environment without sex, through contaminated fluids, a blood transfusion, or something.

It's not OK to give somebody an STD even if he or she consents, not just because of the likely state of ignorance in consent, but because that person becomes a vector for the disease transmitting to others.

It's also not OK to risk receiving and transmitting STDs. It's not even OK to choose to get an STD which may cause medical complications in the future for you and hurt those you care about, and burden the healthcare system. It's not OK to proactively create a risk for your future partner (whom you may not have even met yet). It's not OK to hurt yourself when it affects others, or may do so in the future.

I guess it is still a moral issue to be promiscuous, but if you use protection you'll still probably be fine.

Protection malfunctions. Is it OK to point a loaded gun at somebody just because the safety is supposedly on? No. Not unless there's a good reason that justifies it.

Protection makes it a smaller moral issue.

In the context of a long term monogamous relationship, the harm is vastly overwhelmed by the good provided by the relationship, the contribution to pair bonding, particularly if you have children or adopt and are contributing to the next generation.

If you're just hooking up for sexual pleasure, it's a trade of personal pleasure for risk of harm to others.


I responded to the comparison of "retarded" to "gay" here:
http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=2284

You're de-valued in a way that isn't a stigma, because it isn't personal.

There is no such thing as "personal" or "impersonal". It's imaginary, like the theistic concept of a soul or free will. "Personal" isn't a thing because there's objectively no such thing as the "person".

There are bodies of flesh made from cells containing DNA. There are brains that process information to varying degrees of efficiency, store information, and contain memes and diverse sets of interests.

We have illusory concepts of self, based on our own self definitions, but those are highly subjective as I discussed before.

It doesn't suggest you are culpable for anything; it's just acknowledging a medical condition.

Culpability is a completely different issue of pragmatism based on uncertainty, not a definite existential state.

No, you misunderstand. 'Retard' is a special case,

You're misunderstanding my point.

Are you trying to say that a "personal" insult is one the giver of the insult means to be negative?
That's not useful.

If you're trying to say something else, maybe address it in the other thread. Let's keep this about what you think "personal insults" are. This is getting too long.

Again: Define "personal attack"
And do it in such a way that it makes clear what is and is not a personal attack. You can't just give a list of examples: that's not a definition.

I thought you were effectively asking for examples, but I didn't just give examples; I defined it as an attack on YOU as a person, as in it has to do with your character or personality, not things that are out of your control like a medical condition.

Saying it's an attack on a "person" is not helpful, because such a thing is undefined.
What is your character or personality? You think people can choose their personalities?

What "race" you are is out of your control. So is a racial slur not a personal attack? It's just a fact?
Being ugly is not in somebody's control; maybe he or she has a messed up face, or severe acne. Calling somebody a "pizza face" is not a personal attack?
If somebody has anxiety, it's not a personal attack to insult him or her on those grounds?

Or is it a personal attack if the speaker says it in a derogatory way, regardless of whether it's in the target's control or not?

How about if somebody CHOOSES to murder people. Is calling that person a "murderer" a personal attack? It was a choice; it was in that person's control.

So any time we criticize the choices people make, it IS a personal attack, but criticizing something the person can not control, it's not a personal attack?

That's pretty close the complete opposite of what most people regard as a personal attack.
That said, and I think I've made it clear, "personal attack" is not a coherent objective term, because "personal" is not a coherent objective term.

The same with being retarded, supposedly: except such a person obviously does have less value in some respects (mental), just as somebody with another disability has less value in other respects (physical), or somebody with an STD has less value in still others (social/sexual).

Having less value doesn't mean you have done something wrong, or that you DESERVE to have less value. But being valued less can still be appropriate in the market, and it's not appropriate to judge others negatively for correctly understanding your market value.

By being less valued, I mean as a person.

Same thing, since there is no "person" as distinct from the lump of tissue and ideas that makes up what people see and pass value judgement on.

A stigma has to involve some kind of perceived culpability of wrongness with the subject of stigma, not just an impersonal problem like a medical infection.

No it doesn't. Even if it did, that would be relative.

See our discussions on anxiety and cowardice.

That's very different, because you were literally saying that people are culpable for their mental health conditions. You ARE attacking peoples' characters in that case and condemning them, it is a personal attack. That actually is a legitimate stigma.

I think you should re-read that discussion.

I said it's part of you if you DEFINE yourself as including that attribute.
It's a matter of perception and definition.

There is no objective "person".

No, you're misunderstanding my definition. It's not a personal attack just because the person gets offended. If I say that I can't go to your house because it is being fumigated and is dangerous, and you take offense to that, it's still not a personal attack.

How about if you say "I can't go to your house because you're literally medically retarded, as such you have less social value, and your friendship isn't as valuable to me as those of others, so the opportunity cost of socializing with you is not worth it to me."

That wouldn't be a personal attack, according to you.

Or "I can't go to your house because your appearance is physically revolting to most people including myself, and looking at you makes me feel uncomfortable. In addition, nobody wants to be friends with you so you have less social value, so it's not worth being friends with you."

That's not a personal attack. Just the facts! Things the person can't change and has no control of.

But, "I can't go to your house because every time I do you choose to stab me with knives despite promising not to, which has demonstrated a character of habitual dishonesty and violence and I have no reason to believe you have changed"

That's a personal attack since it questions the character of the person as dishonest and violent, which is something the person has control over?

It's a personal attack when it is an attack on you that is personal.

Incoherent.

It's like defining a soul as the thing god put in everybody that gives them free will. Then defining free will as what god gave us to let our souls make choices and be god-like. And defining god as... indefinable.

How does this help us advance on an understanding of what a personal attack is if "personal" has no clear definition and existential identity is up in the air? You'd even have to nail down an objective definition of free will to do this -- I've barely even touched on that.

YOU meaning your character and personality. You don't choose to be mentally challenged.

What do we choose? Nature and Nurture: we don't control either one.

Is this free will? What is it? Where does it come from?

With regards to ignorance, if you choose to be ignorant by ignoring facts, then it is personal about you. If you happened to be brought up in a society that brainwashed you and kept you ignorant, and you're trapped in it, that's not your fault.

Can you define precisely the difference?

Regardless of where the line is drawn, though, there is a line between what is personal to you and an impersonal aspect of your existence that is out of your control.

You make this assertion, but provide no basis for it.
You can't just make a bold existential claim like this.

If you have an STD, your value is a bit less in the social market.
[...]
Anything that's wrong with you affects your value, whether you consider it personal or not. That's not subjective.

Not when it comes to the type of value I am referring to, which is the one I think really matters.

The type of "value" you're referring to is imaginary, like a soul or theistic free will. It's illusory: a thing that only exists in your mind and you've made up; a failed attempt to interpolate to objective reality a gut feeling.

Why is it so hard to understand there's no distinction there?

I don't know what complete definition you're talking about, but the one you're using is not coherent, which rules it out as potentially valid.

The complete definition, as in the list of different definitions you posted instead of the simple one, of which the second one refers to personal fault.

If it does, then that part of the definition is not useful because "personal" is itself not properly defined.

It could be a fact, sure. It's a fact that could be used as a personal attack, because it is your fault if you don't cook well. I mean, it's not really a relevant fault, but it's personal in nature.

Is it really your fault? Is it only your fault if you chose it by magical free will? Isn't it really just a product of your DNA and your environment, which you had no true existential control over?

I would say it is technically a personal attack to give a student an F, because you're indirectly insulting the student's mathematical ability.

You realize that sounds nutty, right?
Do you imagine any usage panel on Earth would regard that as the correct usage of the word?

That's not the point of the grade, but IMO it is technically involved, even though that seems counter-intuitive.

You're digging a pit of counter intuitive claims to support your original false intuitive claim that there's an objective distinction in what's "personal" and what isn't.
This is what I meant about a can of worms.

At a certain point, you have to question your original assumptions. This is only going to become more and more absurd.

-----------------
STD stuff:

What does this have to do with bug chasers?

It's a consequence of a disease being prevalent. In order to access the larger dating pool without worry, people will just catch the disease intentionally, then they don't have to worry.

It's a negative consequence, perhaps, of inadequate stigmatization.

Something like that. I'm sure you could find way to bring it up that's not so dramatic.

Can you give me a scenario in which it doesn't seem kinda ridiculous?

Say, "Hey, before we go any further, we should talk about safety and getting tested."

Ah, I see. It's still a very tiny risk, though. I don't think you should worry about it.

If you already have it, no. Worrying won't help. Although it would be good practice to never touch your eye or open wounds or orifices after touching your mouth, particularly if you have a sore. That's good practice anyway, due to oral bacteria.

How many cases of blindness does oral herpes cause a year?

"Oral herpes" causes none. It's called ocular herpes when it gets into the eyes (it can come from the mouth, it's the same virus, it's just named based on where it's infecting). So you have to search for "ocular herpes".

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2907955/

Ocular HSV is the most common cause of corneal blindness in high-income countries, and is the most common cause of unilateral corneal blindness worldwide.

The prevalence of ocular herpes was 149/100,000 population (95% CI 115/100,000 to 183/100,000).

Of high income people with herpes (around 50%), about 0.3% chance, or around one in 300 get it.

Damage varies. Blindness is not a binary proposition (not just sighted or blind), it's a matter of scarring and varying levels of loss of vision.
I don't know how many are legally blind, but if you look up statistics on blindness, that should give you an idea.

It's actually very different in terms of what STIs you can potentially get and how likely you are to get those STIs.

There aren't condoms for kissing. I'm not sure why you linked to that...

[onlyifchased]

Hello, I am the STI information fairie, this thread is sorely in need of some information about STIs and I am here to help!

1) HSV 1 ("oral herpes") will happily also live on your genitals, and HSV 2 ("genital herpes") will happily also live on your mouth. There is a distinction and they act as if they have weak "preferences" for location, but it is not a super meaningful or useful distinction for the purposes of most people. Hell, if you have herpes orally like almost everyone, you can accidentally give yourself genital herpes, I'll let you figure out how.
http://www.herpes.org.nz/patient-info/myths-vs-facts/

2) At 80%+ infection rates, we aren't going to eradicate HSV any time soon via stigmatization of people who have it. Vaccines, however, are becoming more and more effective, and have the bonus of not causing social/psychological harm like stigmatization.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=117961
http://acsh.org/news/2016/03/10/a-vacci ... -the-news/

3) Gonorrhea is almost always curable, it is not life-long.
http://www.cdc.gov/std/gonorrhea/stdfact-gonorrhea.htm

4) HIV and Hep C, the big scary STIs that you probably think of as "uncurable killers" are becoming not necessarily so much (in first world countries). Hep C is curable in the vast majority of cases, and Australia has declared the AIDS epidemic to be over due to medications that reduce viral load to practically nil. New HIV infection rates are dropping dramatically in the first world and approaching eradication levels.
http://hepc.liverfoundation.org/diagnos ... -be-cured/
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/07/ ... ds-not-hiv

Put me on team pro-kissing.

[brimstoneSalad]

Hell, if you have herpes orally like almost everyone, you can accidentally give yourself genital herpes, I'll let you figure out how.
http://www.herpes.org.nz/patient-info/myths-vs-facts/

Even ocular herpes, which is scarier.

3) Gonorrhea is almost always curable, it is not life-long.
http://www.cdc.gov/std/gonorrhea/stdfact-gonorrhea.htm

Bacteria are usually much less scary than viruses, but there is growing prevalence of antibiotic resistance of many strains, so the tides may turn on this one some day soon as we begin to run out of our long relied upon antibiotics.
When it comes to kissing, I'm more worried about virulent strains of H. Pylori ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helicobacter_pylori ), commonly transmitted by saliva, almost impossible to kill with antibiotics, and which cause stomach cancer.

Unfortunately, it's very hard to get tested for it.
But that's kind of the point: the things we test for are limited to the worst of the worst in terms of short term symptoms, and the most aesthetically jarring, while there are more things in mucus and spit than are dreamt of in our pathology.

2) At 80%+ infection rates, we aren't going to eradicate HSV any time soon via stigmatization of people who have it. Vaccines, however, are becoming more and more effective, and have the bonus of not causing social/psychological harm like stigmatization.

4) HIV and Hep C, the big scary STIs that you probably think of as "uncurable killers" are becoming not necessarily so much (in first world countries).

Vaccines are great, and we should employ them. But I'm not just talking about HSV here, I'm talking about the unknown and the novel too. Viruses can and do mutate, and new viruses are introduced into the population all of the time.

People frequently forget this, but HIV is a relatively a new virus. There may not be as many people around the forum who remembers the early days, but it was first observed clinically in 1981. There's no reason to believe it will be the last new virus, particularly as the population grows and evolution and greater exposure ensure that the rate of genesis and proliferation of new and mutated strains will accelerate. And then we even have bioterrorism to look out for on the horizon.

There could be a silent pandemic brewing as we speak. Our first and best line of defense as a society is being safe, and increasing the barriers to transmission. That means covering our mouths when we sneeze and cough (and avoiding people if possible when we do so), and it means being a little more discerning about exchanging fluids with people. Limiting ourselves to longer term monogamous relationships (or at least mutually committed groups) creates a nearly impermeable disease barrier and makes the spread of the worst real and potential viruses and other pathogens very difficult. It's not just about keeping ourselves safe, but like herd immunity with respect to vaccines it's about protecting society as a whole.

It's a level of precaution comparable to the sensible policy (which also isn't followed) of hardening essential computer systems against E.M.P., or properly securing national borders against smuggling of radioactive materials. The difference being that it's pretty much free, and it's something we can all choose to contribute to by playing it a little safer.

It's fine to be optimistic about the immediate future of pathology and eradication and control of human disease, but let's not let optimism get in the way of taking precautions.

Kissing is great, let's have more kissing! But... with fewer partners.

[onlyifchased]

Interesting that you mention h. pylori. My whole family has it (or had it at one point in the past), and we were told it was likely we got it from living in close quarters with each other, and uh, we don't kiss each other on the mouth. Is there really anything you'll prevent by not kissing that you won't be just as likely to catch from say... drinking from an imperfectly cleaned glass, using a public water fountain, etc.? Most HSV 1 (oral herpes) cases arise in childhood, before we start kissing people on the mouth...

Frankly to me, the risk-benefit analysis of kissing people when I want to and possibly getting a virus of some kind that we don't even know about yet is simply not worth it. Good to know about all the potential risks, sure, and others with the same information might make a different decision, but to me... I'll still take the kissing.

edit: I guess I mainly disagree with your suggestion that it's "pretty much free." Kissing only within a monogamous or polyfidelitous group is going to be a cost with different value depending on the individual.

[brimstoneSalad]

Interesting that you mention h. pylori. My whole family has it (or had it at one point in the past), and we were told it was likely we got it from living in close quarters with each other, and uh, we don't kiss each other on the mouth. Is there really anything you'll prevent by not kissing that you won't be just as likely to catch from say... drinking from an imperfectly cleaned glass, using a public water fountain, etc.?

Probably not categorically if it's "imperfectly" cleaned, meaning somebody wiped the slobber off with a napkin and immediately drank out of it. If it has dried, though, most viruses and bacteria will not long survive. A good rinsing in addition is probably pretty safe.
That said, people also shouldn't drink or eat after each other, particularly if it's immediate. Alcohol may reduce that risk to nil, as might hot (temperature) or salty food, but I wouldn't count on it. It's best avoided, or minimized as much as possible.

Public water fountains pose very little risk since there shouldn't be any physical contact, and germs typically survive poorly on such surfaces. Run the water for a few seconds before you begin drinking, though. Children probably should not be allowed to drink from them unless it's bone dry in an area it likely receives little use, and even then, hold them so they don't mouth the thing.

Most HSV 1 (oral herpes) cases arise in childhood, before we start kissing people on the mouth...

Most caught from parents or other relatives, right. But often from mouth kisses given to children. A practice that should be abolished.

Frankly to me, the risk-benefit analysis of kissing people when I want to and possibly getting a virus of some kind that we don't even know about yet is simply not worth it. Good to know about all the potential risks, sure, and others with the same information might make a different decision, but to me... I'll still take the kissing.

It's not just you, though. It's the people you're kissing, too. Choosing to take a risk yourself is fine. But becoming a vector for disease those less well informed and perhaps less responsible about informing others is a moral negative (assuming you inform people you have h. pylori, etc. before making out).
It's like the anti-vaxx position: "Yeah, I get that you're OK with the risk of not vaccinating, but this isn't just about you when it comes to contagious diseases."

Disease is why ancient civilizations became so prudish: it was social evolution. They had no idea where it came from, it was just the wrath of god, but social rules evolved to control it. Sometimes a little overkill, sometimes ineffective, but for the most part functional.