107 replies to this topic

[Sweeney]

Do you mean to say only infectious disease? A disease is any abnormal condition that affects an organism, otherwise the phrase genetic disease would be nonsense.

However, I concede the point that the common use of the word disease might cover your comment.

Given that he referred to "catching diseases", then yes, infectious disease.
You don't "catch" a genetic disorder.

[Sweeney]

Post hoc reasoning.

Are you disputing said reasoning, or just sad that your input was superfluous?

[Sweeney]

I called it post hoc, thereby indicating that your argument is deeply flawed. You can not redefine the term disease by a contextual construct when the term itself is self-evident.

"Post hoc" alone doesn't indicate a logical flaw, only a dependence on hindsight. The term "disease" was modified and narrowed by its specific context.

[Sweeney]

If you don't understand the rules of logical debate, this is going to go way to slow for my tastes. You have to reconstruct the context to suit your argument, when a rational person would not. Had the discussion been about infectious disease, it should have been specified rather than post hoc argument to support a flawed point.

The problem is that you don't recognise the fact that you misread his post. Unless you're saying that you can "catch" autism?
The nature of the discussion was defined beforehand, but you didn't recognise that, and had to have it explained afterwards.

Excellent use of the "flounce away from an argument" technique, though. Sorry, I don't know the Latin.

[iargue]

I'm saying it's unfair for women to pay higher premiums due to a condition that's equally the fault of a man in every situation.

Yeah. Those damn sperm donors. 100% their fault that the woman used their sperm. PUNISH THEM.

Edited by iargue, 28 June 2012 - 12:55 PM.

[shrouded]

It allows the FDA to approve more generic drugs. This will drive down prices. This is fantastic.
Increase in drug rebates. Also fantastic.
Will lead the way to get rid of "pre-existing" conditions for insurance. Also fantastic.
Tax on tanning booths! This is great because tanning booths are stupid and pale chicks are hot.
No pre existing condition for children under the age of 19. Amazing.
Isurers can't drop customers once they get sick. This is extremely important and will lead to better lives for all.
Creates a limit on insurers profit. This will cause the price of insurance to be less.
Increase of taxes by 0.9% if you make over 200k. 200k is a ton of money and way above the national average anyway.
Doctors pay will be determine by quality of their care not how many people they treat. This may cause issues with people wanting to become doctors less.

Overall, I believe this will be a huge benefit to our society and perhaps we one day will finally treat our citizens as well as other countries in the EU treat their own.

Oh my, another radical engineer.

[iargue]

Do you mean to say only infectious disease? A disease is any abnormal condition that affects an organism, otherwise the phrase genetic disease would be nonsense.

However, I concede the point that the common use of the word disease might cover your comment.

I did not mean to say. I infact did say. You can look back over my post where I clearly stated catching a disease, which would imply infectious disease and nothing else.

If we want to go into genetic disorders.

Autism can affect females as well as males.Turner Syndrome affects only women. Uterus cancer counters out testicular cancer. Rett Syndrome (although, thats just a form of Autism, which you claim only affects males).

Duchenne Muscular dystrophy is an x linked recessive disease, meaning it affects men more then it affects women. Because the male always receives his mothers x chromosome he will always inherit it from his mother. The daughter on the other hand has just a 50% chance of getting it. Thus it is predominant in males, but still exists in females. (There are plenty of these, and plenty more in reverse)

Edited by iargue, 28 June 2012 - 04:36 PM.

[iargue]

Nope,had my beloved check my statements. She's better at logical constructs than any living person I know and she agrees with my reading of the original statement. Her decision is final.

However, she was impressed at your near understanding of reason, you did an excellent job.

BTW, just as a point of fact, on very rare occasions both chromosomes are inherited from one parent. My beloved is one of those very rare cases, it is called uniparental disomy, and she was very lucky not to be a carrier as her father died of alpha-1 antii-trypsin deficiency. It took a full genetic marker work up to convince the doc that she was legitimate. Her father was also one of those rare one that did not develop any pulmonary involvement, and only liver failure. Had a transplant for 10 year, got killed by a flu,

A diagnosis of autism in females is far rarer than males Since the cause of autism is unknown, it could be an infectious agent, it seemed valid. The problem with medicine, there is almost always a counter example to any sweeping statement.


BTW, Stweety, some of us have lives and wives to take to supper. I have not lost my way to the degree that I'd rather argue in the electronic darkness than to take my beloved one for some trendy beansoup and re-fried corn bread. Even massaging her sore neck while watching Burn Notice is better than suffering through some people's irritating unneeded graphics.

E)You also are capable of catching all diseases as men are (I have never heard of any rare disease that only catches men, but maybe i'm wrong)

"catching all diseases as men"
"Catching"
"Catching"

"Catching"

I do not understand how that is even close to not being clear? You cannot catch a genetic disorder. You are born with it. 100%. And I clearly state as well that Autism is more common in males, but females can get it more. And since Autism isn't something you test for, but is diagnosed, like ADD, millions could have it an not know. And as I pointed out, there is a form of Autism that affects only females, which would 100% counter your argument that only males get it.. So you essentially just states my point back to me, as if it changed anything?

And again you give me this rant about someone that inherited both chromosomes? So what? That changes nothing about the base argument. You said that an x linked recessive gene was male only, when it wasn't male only. It was simply predominate in male, but females still had it, they just had a lower chance to be born with it. Good for her being born and inheriting all gene's. It changes nothing at all about the argument though. It shows that males have it most of the time, females get it some of the time.

[Senrath]

Okay, I have to butt in at this point. This is the internet, as far as we know you're actually a 12 year old kid who thinks that talking with big words makes you sound smart, who got their mom in as an "expert". Not to mention, even if you are who you say you are, the fact that this expert of yours is apparently your significant other or similar means that there's likely to be so much bias in there as to render her opinion suspect.

Also, the way you phrased the post before your most recent one makes you sound like an asshole.

Edit: Oh, and using seniority as something that actually means something in this given context? Pointless and stupid. This isn't about something that being older gives your opinion more weight on.

Edited by Senrath, 28 June 2012 - 09:00 PM.

[ElBastardoVerde]

Well, technically, you can catch autism I suppose. Correct me if I'm wrong, but apparently the injections they give you at birth can lead to retardation/autism.


That would be catching it, right?

[Senrath]

As far as I'm aware there's been no evidence that those things are at all related, destruct.

[Bone]

Well, technically, you can catch autism I suppose. Correct me if I'm wrong, but apparently the injections they give you at birth can lead to retardation/autism.


That would be catching it, right?

You are wrong. So, so, so wrong.

[Senrath]

Again, we have no proof beyond your words, which means that they have very little weight.

[ElBastardoVerde]

]You are wrong. So, so, so wrong.

Alright, I'm wrong. I had a feeling I would be, my bad.

[Bone]

Again, we have no proof beyond your words, which means that they have very little weight.

Nobody on this entire forum has any proof for anything they say beyond their words. I don't see why you're picking out coltom.

[Senrath]

Alright, I'm wrong. I had a feeling I would be, my bad.

Hey, you admit it and you're willing to learn. That automatically makes you better than most people who talk about vaccines causing autism.

Nobody on this entire forum has any proof for anything they say beyond their words. I don't see why you're picking out coltom.

Because he's presenting himself as an expert in a matter, and that as such we should take his word for it without second thought.

I'll forgive you,you have no idea how offensive that is to my culture.

I'm sorry, but in what culture is it offensive to not blindly take someone you've never met's word for something?

Edited by Senrath, 28 June 2012 - 09:13 PM.

[iargue]

Dude, take a chill, we're having a friendly discussion. Catching is hardly technically specific term I learned in my pre-med courses and graduate school. You obviously believe that you meant infectious disease, if you were one of my peons I'd correct your work and send it back. You know the intent of your words, therefore your own opinion of the clarity of your own work should be taken with a grain of salt. You think catching modifies your argument to only infectious, I'm not swayed. I'm unfamiliar with anyone saying a "disease that catches men". Strange phrasing.

Now we're at an impasse. We could just take my word at this point, as I am your senior, but I brought in an expert as a tie breaker. While my beloved certainly sees your point she ruled in my favor.

Now you could argue that Sweetey's on your side and its still a tie, or we could be adults and drop the subject.

How about I show it to every english professor in my college? They will also side with me.

"He caught an infection disease"
"I hope you don't catch an infectious disease"
"The room was so dirty I was afraid to enter it in fear I would catch an infection disease"

Whereas, this never happens

"He caught autism" - impossible
"He caught prostate cancer" - impossible
"He caught down syndrome" - impossible

Catch
   [kach] [url=""%5DShow IPA%5B/url%5D verb, caught, catch·ing,noun, adjective

verb (used with object)
1.
to seize or capture, especially after pursuit: to catch acriminal; to catch a runaway horse.
2.
to trap or ensnare: to catch a fish.
3.
to intercept and seize; take and hold (something thrown,falling, etc.): to catch a ball; a barrel to catch rain.
4.
to come upon suddenly; surprise or detect, as in someaction: I caught him stealing the pumpkin.
5.

to receive, incur, or contract: to catch a cold.

In grammar, an adjective is a 'describing' word; the main syntactic role of which is to qualify a noun or noun phrase, giving more information about the object signified.

Now. I may have only take up to English 3 so far in college, but as far as I can understand An adjective (catching) modifies the noun (disease) to provide you with more information. In this catch it defines disease as only those were are caught. Given that none of the diseases that you listed can be caught, they do not fall upon the definition that my adjective provided and they cannot be used to refute my argument. Unless you ignore all of the rules of english.


The thing about getting older is that the first thing to go is your memory. That means all of the lessons years ago when your teacher tells you that an adjective can completely and utterly change a sentence, you forget those, slowly but surely, until eventually you are convinced that "catch" means "being born with" still. I'll take my statement in to my English teachers tomorrow and ask them to sign a piece of paper stating that this sentence applies to only diseases that can be "caught". If you wish to dispute 3 people who have a phd in the English language, then that is your choice. You could just accept that you misread my initial statement, and we can move given that no only did it not match the original statement, everything you listed were blatantly false (Except testicular cancer, but that doesn't change anything because girls can get ovular cancer just the same)

Edited by iargue, 28 June 2012 - 09:20 PM.