50234
49256

Oral sex can lead to cancer

Health, well-being, medicine, aging.

Re: Oral sex can lead to cancer

Postby vegas1500 » Nov 27th, 2017, 7:15 pm

Even Steven wrote:Pretty much anything good in this life causes cancer.

Sunshine
Chocolate
Cigarettes
Oral Sex
Cell phones

Oh well. Bring it on.

Who the hell wants to live past 70 anyway.


Someone who is 69! :up:
User avatar
vegas1500
Generalissimo Postalot
 
Posts: 838
Likes: 2465 posts
Liked in: 1026 posts
Joined: Aug 4th, 2013, 5:53 pm

Re: Oral sex can lead to cancer

Postby Verum » Nov 27th, 2017, 8:23 pm

Glacier wrote:It's common knowledge and that's been scientifically known for decades.

Stefan spills out the graphs and facts (yes, i know he's got his biases, but the facts are facts even when nutbars post them):


I didn't bother listening to Stefan for more than a short while, since I'd sooner read the sources. I had a quick look at the Heritage Foundation's report. Keeping in mind that they are "A research and educational institution whose mission is to build and promote conservative public policies", I would be careful accepting any reports they produce that blatantly supports their own stated mission, since in general such reports from other similar institutes are largely self serving in nature.

Anyway, their report, which is somewhat based in interpretation of statistics, seems to be a lot of correlation and not any causation. Certainly nothing within it suggests beyond simple correlation that the act of having sex with a woman will "decrease their odds of having a happy and successful marriage". It is at least as reasonable, if not far more so, to say that women who are predisposed to having unhappy marriages, will be more likely to have a large number of sexual partners because they are unable to form a meaningful bond with anyone. Other possible contributing factors include poverty, low self-esteem, low educational attainment, and many other possibilities. To assume that having more sexual partners, does, in and of itself reduce the chance that you will have a happy marriage is a serious stretch from the facts provided.

You are right, facts don't lie, but people will twist facts to present the story they want. Stefan does this a lot. Groups like The Heritage Foundation will do so too, though it is clear that unlike Stefan, they are careful to avoid stating explicit causation conclusions, a sort of plausible deniability, if you will. Similar groups on the other end of the spectrum will do similar. I certainly wouldn't trust a report from anti-vax groups on vaccinations, or GMO awareness group on GMOs, etc. Stefan and the Heritage Foundation's report are shady at best, and down right manipulative at worst. Lies, damn lies and statistics.
"Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience." Explains why so few people reply to me, and why I might not reply

Poindexter likes this post.
Verum
Board Meister
 
Posts: 605
Likes: 307 posts
Liked in: 462 posts
Joined: Oct 5th, 2017, 11:31 pm

Re: Oral sex can lead to cancer

Postby bjsilent » Nov 29th, 2017, 5:01 pm

removed.
Last edited by Triple 6 on Nov 30th, 2017, 11:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: off topic comment.
bjsilent
 
Posts: 75
Likes: 3 posts
Liked in: 85 posts
Joined: Mar 8th, 2013, 8:34 am
Location: Kelowna

Re: Oral sex can lead to cancer

Postby Glacier » Nov 30th, 2017, 9:21 am

previous posters reply removed.
User avatar
Glacier
Admiral HMS Castanet
 
Posts: 25915
Likes: 2442 posts
Liked in: 8071 posts
Joined: Jul 6th, 2008, 9:41 pm

Re: Oral sex can lead to cancer

Postby Glacier » Nov 30th, 2017, 9:32 am

Verum wrote:I didn't bother listening to Stefan for more than a short while, since I'd sooner read the sources. I had a quick look at the Heritage Foundation's report. Keeping in mind that they are "A research and educational institution whose mission is to build and promote conservative public policies", I would be careful accepting any reports they produce that blatantly supports their own stated mission, since in general such reports from other similar institutes are largely self serving in nature.

Anyway, their report, which is somewhat based in interpretation of statistics, seems to be a lot of correlation and not any causation. Certainly nothing within it suggests beyond simple correlation that the act of having sex with a woman will "decrease their odds of having a happy and successful marriage". It is at least as reasonable, if not far more so, to say that women who are predisposed to having unhappy marriages, will be more likely to have a large number of sexual partners because they are unable to form a meaningful bond with anyone. Other possible contributing factors include poverty, low self-esteem, low educational attainment, and many other possibilities. To assume that having more sexual partners, does, in and of itself reduce the chance that you will have a happy marriage is a serious stretch from the facts provided.

You are right, facts don't lie, but people will twist facts to present the story they want. Stefan does this a lot. Groups like The Heritage Foundation will do so too, though it is clear that unlike Stefan, they are careful to avoid stating explicit causation conclusions, a sort of plausible deniability, if you will. Similar groups on the other end of the spectrum will do similar. I certainly wouldn't trust a report from anti-vax groups on vaccinations, or GMO awareness group on GMOs, etc. Stefan and the Heritage Foundation's report are shady at best, and down right manipulative at worst. Lies, damn lies and statistics.

LOL! This is like saying that if some flat earther says that the GMOs are good, that this makes David Suzuki and the Environmentalist crowd right about GMOs being bad. Also, just because Environmentalists are wrong about GMOs that doesn't make them wrong about every environmental issue.

You can see Stefan discussing this with two people who took issue with his video:



Basically, they didn't make the stats up, your rebuttal is anti-science and anti-truth in that you attack the source, not the arguments. It's like if I say that 9/11 was an inside, it would be stupid to say that "ah, but you're a Muslim, therefore, your argument is invalid."

It doesn't matter if I'm a Muslim or not, that doesn't change whether or not 9/11 was in inside job. Similarly, it doesn't matter if the Heritage Foundation or the Centre for Policy Alternatives or the Fraser Institute or the Brookings Institute or CAIR or any other think tank produced the graphs. If the data is wrong, point that at, but don't use the appeal to authority fallacy. It's just not an argument.
User avatar
Glacier
Admiral HMS Castanet
 
Posts: 25915
Likes: 2442 posts
Liked in: 8071 posts
Joined: Jul 6th, 2008, 9:41 pm

Re: Oral sex can lead to cancer

Postby Verum » Nov 30th, 2017, 10:15 am

Glacier wrote:
Verum wrote:I didn't bother listening to Stefan for more than a short while, since I'd sooner read the sources. I had a quick look at the Heritage Foundation's report. Keeping in mind that they are "A research and educational institution whose mission is to build and promote conservative public policies", I would be careful accepting any reports they produce that blatantly supports their own stated mission, since in general such reports from other similar institutes are largely self serving in nature.

Anyway, their report, which is somewhat based in interpretation of statistics, seems to be a lot of correlation and not any causation. Certainly nothing within it suggests beyond simple correlation that the act of having sex with a woman will "decrease their odds of having a happy and successful marriage". It is at least as reasonable, if not far more so, to say that women who are predisposed to having unhappy marriages, will be more likely to have a large number of sexual partners because they are unable to form a meaningful bond with anyone. Other possible contributing factors include poverty, low self-esteem, low educational attainment, and many other possibilities. To assume that having more sexual partners, does, in and of itself reduce the chance that you will have a happy marriage is a serious stretch from the facts provided.

You are right, facts don't lie, but people will twist facts to present the story they want. Stefan does this a lot. Groups like The Heritage Foundation will do so too, though it is clear that unlike Stefan, they are careful to avoid stating explicit causation conclusions, a sort of plausible deniability, if you will. Similar groups on the other end of the spectrum will do similar. I certainly wouldn't trust a report from anti-vax groups on vaccinations, or GMO awareness group on GMOs, etc. Stefan and the Heritage Foundation's report are shady at best, and down right manipulative at worst. Lies, damn lies and statistics.

LOL! This is like saying that if some flat earther says that the GMOs are good, that this makes David Suzuki and the Environmentalist crowd right about GMOs being bad. Also, just because Environmentalists are wrong about GMOs that doesn't make them wrong about every environmental issue.

You can see Stefan discussing this with two people who took issue with his video:



Basically, they didn't make the stats up, your rebuttal is anti-science and anti-truth in that you attack the source, not the arguments. It's like if I say that 9/11 was an inside, it would be stupid to say that "ah, but you're a Muslim, therefore, your argument is invalid."

It doesn't matter if I'm a Muslim or not, that doesn't change whether or not 9/11 was in inside job. Similarly, it doesn't matter if the Heritage Foundation or the Centre for Policy Alternatives or the Fraser Institute or the Brookings Institute or CAIR or any other think tank produced the graphs. If the data is wrong, point that at, but don't use the appeal to authority fallacy. It's just not an argument.

Okay, I don't see where I used the appeal to authority fallacy, though I understand that the fact that I place less weight in the drawn conclusions because they have significant, and obvious bias. The Heritage Foundation even admits that it does.

I do not see any attempt to address by the complete lack of causal evidence whatsoever. When a group use correlating evidence to back up their cause and a claim to a causal relationship, without showing causal evidence, they are either too dumb to notice, or hoping their followers are. Which is it in this case? Either way, show me causal data, not correlating data. One is of value in this case, the other is minimally so, and I suspect you know this.

By the way, if a Muslim advocacy group tells me something positive about Muslims caused another positive thing, by their reckoning, using correlating data, and not causal data, I'm going to be sceptical. The same is true about any group with a self-interest or expressed bias. If you can't show me causal information but you are trying to draw a causal relationship, you're making a huge mistake and wasting your time and mine.
"Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience." Explains why so few people reply to me, and why I might not reply
Verum
Board Meister
 
Posts: 605
Likes: 307 posts
Liked in: 462 posts
Joined: Oct 5th, 2017, 11:31 pm

Re: Oral sex can lead to cancer

Postby Gixxer » Nov 30th, 2017, 10:58 am

Veovis wrote:Everything causes cancer these days apparently, best to not enjoy anything in life and live in fear.



I read somewhere that enjoying life can cause cancer
Gixxer
Lord of the Board
 
Posts: 4227
Likes: 857 posts
Liked in: 1356 posts
Joined: Jul 26th, 2007, 7:24 am

Re: Oral sex can lead to cancer

Postby Glacier » Nov 30th, 2017, 12:27 pm

Verum wrote:Okay, I don't see where I used the appeal to authority fallacy, though I understand that the fact that I place less weight in the drawn conclusions because they have significant, and obvious bias. The Heritage Foundation even admits that it does.

I do not see any attempt to address by the complete lack of causal evidence whatsoever. When a group use correlating evidence to back up their cause and a claim to a causal relationship, without showing causal evidence, they are either too dumb to notice, or hoping their followers are. Which is it in this case? Either way, show me causal data, not correlating data. One is of value in this case, the other is minimally so, and I suspect you know this.

By the way, if a Muslim advocacy group tells me something positive about Muslims caused another positive thing, by their reckoning, using correlating data, and not causal data, I'm going to be sceptical. The same is true about any group with a self-interest or expressed bias. If you can't show me causal information but you are trying to draw a causal relationship, you're making a huge mistake and wasting your time and mine.

No one is drawing any definitive causal relationship, though strong correlation can be evidence for causation. These are statistics that you can do with what you want. I don't think it takes a rocket scientist though to conclude that the more people you sleep with, the higher your odds of STDs. Beyond that, and in the video above (sorry, it's kinda long), these are correlations. There are likely many factors as to why your odds of a successful marriage diminish with each sexual partner. The biggest gap is actually between 0 and 1. Once you hit 20 or so, you could go up to 50,000 and see very little change in odds (if there is causation here).
User avatar
Glacier
Admiral HMS Castanet
 
Posts: 25915
Likes: 2442 posts
Liked in: 8071 posts
Joined: Jul 6th, 2008, 9:41 pm

Re: Oral sex can lead to cancer

Postby Poindexter » Nov 30th, 2017, 1:29 pm

Enjoying the educated statistical debate between glacier and verum but I'm going to dumb it down a bit. One thing the study can't measure is good looks. Those that are attractive to the opposite sex will tend to have more partners prior to marriage. They are also statistically more likely to have opportunities for infidelity once married which would lead to more divorces and STD's for this segment.

In other words Verum is right, the study in many ways is incomplete and open to interpretation that could lead to conclusions that would reflect bias more than fact. This is because any statistical correlation found would fall within a properly calculate the margin of error making any conclusion subject to question.
User avatar
Poindexter
Lord of the Board
 
Posts: 4967
Likes: 2867 posts
Liked in: 3414 posts
Joined: May 26th, 2008, 10:44 am

Re: Oral sex can lead to cancer

Postby Glacier » Nov 30th, 2017, 1:31 pm

Studies show that conservatives better looking than liberals, which might explain why they're getting more sex (and STDs, I assume).

Poindexter likes this post.
User avatar
Glacier
Admiral HMS Castanet
 
Posts: 25915
Likes: 2442 posts
Liked in: 8071 posts
Joined: Jul 6th, 2008, 9:41 pm

Re: Oral sex can lead to cancer

Postby Poindexter » Nov 30th, 2017, 1:48 pm

facebook_1512175543427.jpg
User avatar
Poindexter
Lord of the Board
 
Posts: 4967
Likes: 2867 posts
Liked in: 3414 posts
Joined: May 26th, 2008, 10:44 am

Previous

Return to Health

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Thinktank and 2 guests