[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Come on...now you are just objecting to the facts in order to make your point.

First - cervical cancer is effectively contagious to the extent it is viral in origin. There is no rationale for distinguishing between the cancer itself and the virus in this case.

Second - A negative externality is a cost incurred by someone outside the transaction. The transaction in this case is a vaccination. The refusal of a girl to be vaccinated increases the prevalence of a disease. The increased prevalence of the disease increases my odds of contracting it. I know you understand this. You don't really think that vaccinations don't have any value beyond the recipient, do you?

If you still need help, google "vaccine externality".

[/ QUOTE ]

don't tell me to google about externalities when i said in my original post that flu vaccines are an example of good that creates positive externalities because it eliminates the flu which carries negative externalities with it.

HPV IS NOT THE FLU. the only way to get HPV is via a VOLUNTARY TRANSACTION (omitting the irrelevant, and it is irrelevant for this argument, case of rape). If the costs are only carried by individuals who voluntarily engage in the transaction it is BY DEFINITION not an external cost.

PWNED.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think thats quite the pwning you think it is. How is 'going out of your house' not voluntarily engaging in a transaction? You aren't going to be getting the flu if you don't leave your house.

Is it just because you think lots of sex is dirtier or immoral or somehow lower, and therefore we don't have to treat STDs are communicable diseases but instead as social diseases for degenerates?