I'm going to do what indifferent people do, which is to probably not do anything (if I ever get one of those little things with a penis).
Elki on
0
Options
Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
edited May 2010
Why are we the ones having to prove that circumcision is harmful? The very fact that it involves permanent removal of part of one's genitals WHILE STLL AN INFANT is harm enough to justify not doing it ever, unless there are significant positive benefits, which the onus is on you to prove.
EDIT: holy fuck, did you just compare tiny arguable benefits from circumcision to being EDUCATED?
are you the world's silliest goose deliberately?
Well it's a good thing we have circumcision to save us from the massive epidemic of STIs all those OTHER 1st world nations where it isn't nearly so prevalent have to worry about.
Why are we the ones having to prove that circumcision is harmful? The very fact that it involves permanent removal of part of one's genitals WHILE STLL AN INFANT is harm enough to justify not doing it ever, unless there are significant positive benefits, which the onus is on you to prove.
EDIT: holy fuck, did you just compare tiny arguable benefits from circumcision to being EDUCATED?
are you the world's silliest goose deliberately?
Being different from a natural state does not make something worse. Thinking otherwise makes you the highest form of idiot, as the appeal to nature is the most laughable fallacy.
Are we arguing about scale now? Where's the border between making a choice for the child when the choice is safest and forcing a a person to attend an institution against his wishes with the giant sign proclaiming "fascism?"
Why are we the ones having to prove that circumcision is harmful? The very fact that it involves permanent removal of part of one's genitals WHILE STLL AN INFANT is harm enough to justify not doing it ever, unless there are significant positive benefits, which the onus is on you to prove.
EDIT: holy fuck, did you just compare tiny arguable benefits from circumcision to being EDUCATED?
are you the world's silliest goose deliberately?
Being different from a natural state does not make something worse. Thinking otherwise makes you the highest form of idiot, as the appeal to nature is the most laughable fallacy.
Are we arguing about scale now? Where's the border between making a choice for the child when the choice is safest and forcing a a person to attend an institution against his wishes is the giant sign proclaiming "fascism?"
The line is where there are measurable and significant positive benefits to doing something.
If you're trying to say that the benefits to circumcision (whatever they may be) are as significant as the benefits of being educated then I have no idea what to say to you.
Not to mention that the drawbacks of not being educated are HUGE whereas the drawbacks of not being circumcised are...ummm...maybe...I guess a slightly higher risk of a disease you shouldn't get anyway unless you're having constant unprotected sex with anyone you can find.
Well it's a good thing we have circumcision to save us from the massive epidemic of STIs all those OTHER 1st world nations where it isn't nearly so prevalent have to worry about.
Like...
It looks like you're insisting that only the place with the most STI's has STI's. I endorse your proposal to eradicate AIDS in Africa by tainting the Canadian blood donation system.
That's not a detriment of the procedure, that's a detriment of a botched procedure. Luckily, we now hove modern medicine, so that won't be an issue.
We also have condoms.
So what's the benefit again?
Haven't you told more than a couple people that they should be using the pill in addition to condoms?
This just in: redundancy is good.
I'm a little concerned here that you think birth control pills are a redundancy against STIs.
You're also ignoring the fact that by the time a person is actually sexually active, they can decide for themselves if they want the procedure. Given that STDs aren't a major out of control problem in any other first world nation that doesn't automatically circumcise infants, I'm not seeing the necessity.
Quid on
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
Well it's a good thing we have circumcision to save us from the massive epidemic of STIs all those OTHER 1st world nations where it isn't nearly so prevalent have to worry about.
Like...
It looks like you're insisting that only the place with the most STI's has STI's. I endorse your proposal to eradicate AIDS in Africa by tainting the Canadian blood donation system.
Seriously, do you read before you post?
No actually it looks like I'm insisting that public policy on issues such like circumcision should probably be made by looking at the effects of lack of said thing in similar nations.
Seriously, do you read my posts before your reply or do you just initiate Glenn Beck mode and distort it automatically for your benefit?
Why are we the ones having to prove that circumcision is harmful? The very fact that it involves permanent removal of part of one's genitals WHILE STLL AN INFANT is harm enough to justify not doing it ever, unless there are significant positive benefits, which the onus is on you to prove.
EDIT: holy fuck, did you just compare tiny arguable benefits from circumcision to being EDUCATED?
are you the world's silliest goose deliberately?
Being different from a natural state does not make something worse. Thinking otherwise makes you the highest form of idiot, as the appeal to nature is the most laughable fallacy.
Are we arguing about scale now? Where's the border between making a choice for the child when the choice is safest and forcing a a person to attend an institution against his wishes is the giant sign proclaiming "fascism?"
The line is where there are measurable and significant positive benefits to doing something.
If you're trying to say that the benefits to circumcision (whatever they may be) are as significant as the benefits of being educated then I have no idea what to say to you.
Not to mention that the drawbacks of not being educated are HUGE whereas the drawbacks of not being circumcised are...ummm...maybe...I guess a slightly smaller risk of a disease you shouldn't get anyway unless you're having constant unprotected sex with anyone you can find.
No, I'm saying that you only think that children should have the freedom of choice when you disagree with what they lack choice on. Basically, you think that freedom of speech is only important when the speech is something you agree with.
Being different from a natural state does not make something worse.
When that "being different" involves permanently removing flesh from someone and the individual having the flesh removed from them has no say in the matter, then it's not a matter of that unnatural state of being better or worse, its a matter of you not having any moral authority to decide the state or shape that person's flesh should take.
You have yet to show any substantial benefit, either in the short term or the long term, that justifies circumcising children before they can make the decision for themselves, or even circumcision for adults that CAN make the decision for themselves. I'm not going to begrudge an adult their personal decisions, but when your decisions permanently alter something as personal as the flesh of another human being, then the burden is not only on you to prove there is a benefit of doing so that precludes waiting for the individual's rational consent, but also the amount of benefit before it becomes moral to make that decision for them increases exponentially. In fact, I'd say it might even have to be a matter of immediate life or death before you have the kind of moral authority to permanently remove flesh from someone else without their consent.
Thinking otherwise makes you the highest form of idiot, as the appeal to nature is the most laughable fallacy.
Hahah. And where do you gather this? Please quote where you are deriving that that is a fallacy? Or don't even bother because this is not a matter of natural versus unnatural, it's a matter of one person - parent or not - having the moral authority to have flesh removed from another person without their consent.
Are we arguing about scale now? Where's the border between making a choice for the child when the choice is safest and forcing a a person to attend an institution against his wishes with the giant sign proclaiming "fascism?"
The border is when it is a clear matter of immediate health or provable significant long-term health. Does a parent have a right to consent a doctor to perform an appendectomy if necessary? Absolutely. The burden is on you to prove that circumcision has such a profound beneficial impact on a person's health that it grants a third party the moral authority to make that decision for someone. You've yet to do so.
Drez on
Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
0
Options
Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
edited May 2010
I don't know where you got that idea from.
I don't object to parents making decisions for their children. If children could decide what they wanted at every turn, why even have parents? Just pull them out of the womb and loose them upon the world!
My concern is when there is a surgical procedure of arguable benefit, and arguable drawbacks, involving the permanent removal of flesh, and the benefits of which have no tangible reward until well into the child's life, maybe we should wait until the child can decide for himself whether he wants to risk it or go for it.
That's not a detriment of the procedure, that's a detriment of a botched procedure. Luckily, we now hove modern medicine, so that won't be an issue.
We also have condoms.
So what's the benefit again?
Haven't you told more than a couple people that they should be using the pill in addition to condoms?
This just in: redundancy is good.
I'm a little concerned here that you think birth control pills are a redundancy against STIs.
You're also ignoring the fact that by the time a person is actually sexually active, they can decide for themselves if they want the procedure. Given that STDs aren't a major out of control problem in any other first world nation that doesn't automatically circumcise infants, I'm not seeing the necessity.
Where did I say that I thought birth control prevented STI's? Are we assuming that STI's are more desirable than unintended pregnancies?
I showed a study showing that waiting for the child to be old enough to choose makes the procedure unsafe. That means that by waiting I'm endangering my child no matter what he chooses.
The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
0
Options
Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
edited May 2010
You haven't really shown any sort of information that you're endangering your child any more by not getting him circumcised than you are by getting him circumcised. If you take the risks of the operation into account the chances of harm there sound about equivalent to the chances of negative effects from not being circumcised.
Being different from a natural state does not make something worse.
When that "being different" involves permanently removing flesh from someone and the individual having the flesh removed from them has no say in the matter, then it's not a matter of that unnatural state of being better or worse, its a matter of you not having any moral authority to decide the state or shape that person's flesh should take.
You have yet to show any substantial benefit, either in the short term or the long term, that justifies circumcising children before they can make the decision for themselves, or even circumcision for adults that CAN make the decision for themselves. I'm not going to begrudge an adult their personal decisions, but when your decisions permanently alter something as personal as the flesh of another human being, then the burden is not only on you to prove there is a benefit of doing so that precludes waiting for the individual's rational consent, but also the amount of benefit before it becomes moral to make that decision for them increases exponentially. In fact, I'd say it might even have to be a matter of immediate life or death before you have the kind of moral authority to permanently remove flesh from someone else without their consent.
Thinking otherwise makes you the highest form of idiot, as the appeal to nature is the most laughable fallacy.
Hahah. And where do you gather this? Please quote where you are deriving that that is a fallacy? Or don't even bother because this is not a matter of natural versus unnatural, it's a matter of one person - parent or not - having the moral authority to have flesh removed from another person without their consent.
Are we arguing about scale now? Where's the border between making a choice for the child when the choice is safest and forcing a a person to attend an institution against his wishes with the giant sign proclaiming "fascism?"
The border is when it is a clear matter of immediate health or provable significant long-term health. Does a parent have a right to consent a doctor to perform an appendectomy if necessary? Absolutely. The burden is on you to prove that circumcision has such a profound beneficial impact on a person's health that it grants a third party the moral authority to make that decision for someone. You've yet to do so.
Can you show any harm from lacking that piece of skin? If not, it is not, by definition, harmful. Your only argument for harm has been a difference from his natural state, which is not actually harmful.
Your last argument would mean that you can't do anything with a baby unless said baby is on the verge of death because babies can't give consent. Maybe he'll decide twenty years later that he was mutilated by being rocked back and forth while being sung to. According to the arguments put forward on this thread, he would be right, as mutilation is apparently in the eye of the whiner.
I don't object to parents making decisions for their children. If children could decide what they wanted at every turn, why even have parents? Just pull them out of the womb and loose them upon the world!
My concern is when there is a surgical procedure of arguable benefit, and arguable drawbacks, involving the permanent removal of flesh, and the benefits of which have no tangible reward until well into the child's life, maybe we should wait until the child can decide for himself whether he wants to risk it or go for it.
Can you undo years of education? How about a vaccination? I'm pretty sure labatomies (sic) and t-cell replacements are more difficult than skin grafts.
Well it's a good thing we have circumcision to save us from the massive epidemic of STIs all those OTHER 1st world nations where it isn't nearly so prevalent have to worry about.
Like...
It looks like you're insisting that only the place with the most STI's has STI's. I endorse your proposal to eradicate AIDS in Africa by tainting the Canadian blood donation system.
Seriously, do you read before you post?
No actually it looks like I'm insisting that public policy on issues such like circumcision should probably be made by looking at the effects of lack of said thing in similar nations.
Seriously, do you read my posts before your reply or do you just initiate Glenn Beck mode and distort it automatically for your benefit?
You should probably look at the study I posted. It's a look at whether circumcision is worth it for the AIDS protection alone in the US. The answer is yes.
Then you should explain how "Well it's a good thing we have circumcision to save us from the massive epidemic of STIs all those OTHER 1st world nations where it isn't nearly so prevalent have to worry about" resembles replying to "it's not like there's no studies in the US."
Edit: Actually, come to think of it, if you replace "STI's" with "polio," you've just given an anti-vaccine argument word for word.
I don't object to parents making decisions for their children. If children could decide what they wanted at every turn, why even have parents? Just pull them out of the womb and loose them upon the world!
My concern is when there is a surgical procedure of arguable benefit, and arguable drawbacks, involving the permanent removal of flesh, and the benefits of which have no tangible reward until well into the child's life, maybe we should wait until the child can decide for himself whether he wants to risk it or go for it.
Can you undo years of education? How about a vaccination? I'm pretty sure labatomies (sic) and t-cell replacements are more difficult than skin grafts.
Education and vaccinations are not permanent body modifications with no to little benefits. Circumcision is. The fact you can't grasp the difference here is pretty wierd.
Again, I want to tattoo a swastika into the back of by newborn. Should I be allowed to do so? Or am I infringing on his or her rights to his or her body, in a non-life threatening situation, in a cosmetic/religious choice?
I may be a guardian of someone, but guess what, I don't have full rights to their body. Would you mind if someone circumsized/tattooed/pierced an 30-year old severely retarded person, or a comatose person? In both these cases they have the legal rights of a guardian over these people.
Can you show any harm from lacking that piece of skin? If not, it is not, by definition, harmful. Your only argument for harm has been a difference from his natural state, which is not actually harmful.
You think so, but only because you don't really comprehend the argument.
So let's ignore circumcision for a moment and speak in general terms.
Let's say you have two options. Given the current body of information you have, it is reasonable to expect that the end result of Option 1 and Option 2 are either entirely equivalent or at most negligibly similar. However, Option 1 involves removing something from one of the individuals involved without their consent. In Option 2, all individuals involved have the ability to give or withhold consent.
Option 2 is far superior to Option 1.
If you don't think so, I really don't know what to say.
Your last argument would mean that you can't do anything with a baby unless said baby is on the verge of death because babies can't give consent. Maybe he'll decide twenty years later that he was mutilated by being rocked back and forth while being sung to. According to the arguments put forward on this thread, he would be right, as mutilation is apparently in the eye of the whiner.
This is so boring. If you want me to respond intelligently, try for some intelligent discourse, please.
Being different from a natural state does not make something worse.
When that "being different" involves permanently removing flesh from someone and the individual having the flesh removed from them has no say in the matter, then it's not a matter of that unnatural state of being better or worse, its a matter of you not having any moral authority to decide the state or shape that person's flesh should take.
You have yet to show any substantial benefit, either in the short term or the long term, that justifies circumcising children before they can make the decision for themselves, or even circumcision for adults that CAN make the decision for themselves. I'm not going to begrudge an adult their personal decisions, but when your decisions permanently alter something as personal as the flesh of another human being, then the burden is not only on you to prove there is a benefit of doing so that precludes waiting for the individual's rational consent, but also the amount of benefit before it becomes moral to make that decision for them increases exponentially. In fact, I'd say it might even have to be a matter of immediate life or death before you have the kind of moral authority to permanently remove flesh from someone else without their consent.
Thinking otherwise makes you the highest form of idiot, as the appeal to nature is the most laughable fallacy.
Hahah. And where do you gather this? Please quote where you are deriving that that is a fallacy? Or don't even bother because this is not a matter of natural versus unnatural, it's a matter of one person - parent or not - having the moral authority to have flesh removed from another person without their consent.
Are we arguing about scale now? Where's the border between making a choice for the child when the choice is safest and forcing a a person to attend an institution against his wishes with the giant sign proclaiming "fascism?"
The border is when it is a clear matter of immediate health or provable significant long-term health. Does a parent have a right to consent a doctor to perform an appendectomy if necessary? Absolutely. The burden is on you to prove that circumcision has such a profound beneficial impact on a person's health that it grants a third party the moral authority to make that decision for someone. You've yet to do so.
Can you show any harm from lacking that piece of skin? If not, it is not, by definition, harmful. Your only argument for harm has been a difference from his natural state, which is not actually harmful.
Your last argument would mean that you can't do anything with a baby unless said baby is on the verge of death because babies can't give consent. Maybe he'll decide twenty years later that he was mutilated by being rocked back and forth while being sung to. According to the arguments put forward on this thread, he would be right, as mutilation is apparently in the eye of the whiner.
Are you for or against the removal of the clitoral hood in female infants? Why or why not?
sidhaethe on
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
Well it's a good thing we have circumcision to save us from the massive epidemic of STIs all those OTHER 1st world nations where it isn't nearly so prevalent have to worry about.
Like...
It looks like you're insisting that only the place with the most STI's has STI's. I endorse your proposal to eradicate AIDS in Africa by tainting the Canadian blood donation system.
Seriously, do you read before you post?
No actually it looks like I'm insisting that public policy on issues such like circumcision should probably be made by looking at the effects of lack of said thing in similar nations.
Seriously, do you read my posts before your reply or do you just initiate Glenn Beck mode and distort it automatically for your benefit?
You should probably look at the study I posted. It's a look at whether circumcision is worth it for the AIDS protection alone in the US. The answer is yes.
Then you should explain how "Well it's a good thing we have circumcision to save us from the massive epidemic of STIs all those OTHER 1st world nations where it isn't nearly so prevalent have to worry about" resembles replying to "it's not like there's no studies in the US."
That 'study' is an extrapolation of data collected from, guess where again, AFRICA. No actual research was conducted on people from the US nor any other country where there are actually LOWER rates of circumcisions and lower rates of HIV/AIDS transmission.
What I'm saying is you're not looking at any other factors that could be used to lower STI risk than surgery like oh say effective sex education, social policy changes, and wider acceptance of contraceptives.
Nope, like a bull-headed Army general you just cut right to the 'snip the dick' option.
Personally I think you just have a fetish.
Kagera on
My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
I don't object to parents making decisions for their children. If children could decide what they wanted at every turn, why even have parents? Just pull them out of the womb and loose them upon the world!
My concern is when there is a surgical procedure of arguable benefit, and arguable drawbacks, involving the permanent removal of flesh, and the benefits of which have no tangible reward until well into the child's life, maybe we should wait until the child can decide for himself whether he wants to risk it or go for it.
Can you undo years of education? How about a vaccination? I'm pretty sure labatomies (sic) and t-cell replacements are more difficult than skin grafts.
Education and vaccinations are not permanent body modifications with no to little benefits. Circumcision is. The fact you can't grasp the difference here is pretty wierd.
Again, I want to tattoo a swastika into the back of by newborn. Should I be allowed to do so? Or am I infringing on his or her rights to his or her body, in a non-life threatening situation, in a cosmetic/religious choice?
I may be a guardian of someone, but guess what, I don't have full rights to their body. Would you mind if someone circumsized/tattooed/pierced an 30-year old severely retarded person, or a comatose person? In both these cases they have the legal rights of a guardian over these people.
You don't think that vaccination changes the body? You couldn't possibly be denying that circumcision has some benefits, because there's more than enough peer-reviewed evidence to bring us back to vaccination opposition and global warming. Now, you might not think that it's worth the negligible risks of the procedure, but that brings it to a judgment call rather than the right of a parent to care for the welfare of his or her child.
Can you show said tattoo is beneficial for the newborn using peer-reviewed evidence? As for the latter example, if said person was responsible for the welfare of said invalid and could show that the act was to promote the wellfare of the invalid, he or she would have been doing his or her job as a caretaker.
I showed a study showing that waiting for the child to be old enough to choose makes the procedure unsafe.
You wouldn't teach your kids about safe sex?
Christ man.
I have to choose one? What's next, asking me why I'm polluting them with knowledge on condoms instead of teaching my kids about abstinance?
One becomes entirely negligible with the other. Of course, since you seem to think chlamydia is as deadly and wide spread as polio I can't say I'd trust you to teach them much at all with any accuracy.
Well it's a good thing we have circumcision to save us from the massive epidemic of STIs all those OTHER 1st world nations where it isn't nearly so prevalent have to worry about.
Like...
It looks like you're insisting that only the place with the most STI's has STI's. I endorse your proposal to eradicate AIDS in Africa by tainting the Canadian blood donation system.
Seriously, do you read before you post?
No actually it looks like I'm insisting that public policy on issues such like circumcision should probably be made by looking at the effects of lack of said thing in similar nations.
Seriously, do you read my posts before your reply or do you just initiate Glenn Beck mode and distort it automatically for your benefit?
You should probably look at the study I posted. It's a look at whether circumcision is worth it for the AIDS protection alone in the US. The answer is yes.
Then you should explain how "Well it's a good thing we have circumcision to save us from the massive epidemic of STIs all those OTHER 1st world nations where it isn't nearly so prevalent have to worry about" resembles replying to "it's not like there's no studies in the US."
That 'study' is an extrapolation of data collected from, guess where again, AFRICA. No actual research was conducted on people from the US nor any other country where there are actually LOWER rates of circumcisions and lower rates of HIV/AIDS transmission.
What I'm saying is you're not looking at any other factors that could be used to lower STI risk than surgery like oh say effective sex education, social policy changes, and wider acceptance of contraceptives.
Nope, like a bull-headed Army general you just cut right to the 'snip the dick' option.
Personally I think you just have a fetish.
Given that it says "given published estimates of U.S. males' lifetime HIV risk, we calculated the fraction of lifetime risk attributable to heterosexual behavior from 2005–2006 HIV surveillance data," I'm pretty sure all of that is already in there, although I would need to check their sources for total confidence. Now, if we know know that the protection exists and to what degree (which we do), there's no reason why we can't apply that data to the US chance of being exposed to said danger and get a perfectly valid cost/benefit analysis.
I showed a study showing that waiting for the child to be old enough to choose makes the procedure unsafe.
You wouldn't teach your kids about safe sex?
Christ man.
I have to choose one? What's next, asking me why I'm polluting them with knowledge on condoms instead of teaching my kids about abstinance?
One becomes entirely negligible with the other. Of course, since you seem to think chlamydia is as deadly and wide spread as polio I can't say I'd trust you to teach them much at all with any accuracy.
I'm not sure what's worse, that you think that one thing being bad means that nothing else is bad (AIDS in Africa v. everywhere else, Polio v. anything else) or that you think that polio being worse (though rarer) makes you fallacious use of vaccine opposition logic somehow better.
Of course, you just used the most common abstinence-only argument to deny your use of evangelical rhetoric:
One becomes entirely negligible with the other
Safe sex becomes entirely negligible with abstinence
The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
edited May 2010
Yes because some radical group COULD use the same argument as Quid makes his NON-radical argument invalid.
So when I use your argument of 'prevention for the greater good regardless of impact' to say, advocate for the genocide of the group with the largest risks for STI infection to lower the rate on a national level, I'd say that makes your argument invalid.
I'm not sure what's worse, that you think that one thing being bad means that nothing else is bad (AIDS in Africa v. everywhere else, Polio v. anything else) or that you think that polio being worse (though rarer) makes you fallacious use of vaccine opposition logic somehow better.
And I could say your argument is just as easily replaced by arguments used for mutilation, child abuse, etc.
But then, that'd be pointless and unnecessarily distracting in a conversation with adults. Maybe you'd like to let us in on when you plan to grow up too.
I'm still curious why Canada, the UK, etc aren't cesspools of STIs.
You couldn't possibly be denying that circumcision has some benefits, because there's more than enough peer-reviewed evidence to bring us back to vaccination opposition and global warming.
The benefits of circumcision are also at best shakenly proven (unlike vaccinations or global warming).
The benefits of either vaccinations nor fighting global warming can be surpassed by common hygiene.
Now, you might not think that it's worth the negligible risks of the procedure, but that brings it to a judgment call rather than the right of a parent to care for the welfare of his or her child.
The benefits, shaky as they are, are not worth cutting on someone's penis without their consent, yes. All the diseases discussed are 99.99% applicable only when the person is old enough to give consent to such a procedure.
Can you show said tattoo is beneficial for the newborn using peer-reviewed evidence?As for the latter example, if said person was responsible for the welfare of said invalid and could show that the act was to promote the wellfare of the invalid, he or she would have been doing his or her job as a caretaker.
Only if they could show that the benefits outweigh the cons. Which they don't.
I'm not sure what's worse, that you think that one thing being bad means that nothing else is bad (AIDS in Africa v. everywhere else, Polio v. anything else) or that you think that polio being worse (though rarer) makes you fallacious use of vaccine opposition logic somehow better.
And I could say your argument is just as easily replaced by arguments used for mutilation, child abuse, etc.
But then, that'd be pointless and unnecessarily distracting in a conversation with adults. Maybe you'd like to let us in on when you plan to grow up too.
I'm still curious why Canada, the UK, etc aren't cesspools of STIs.
Too cold. We don't fuck up here in the winter cause it's instant frostbite on the old dick during the long hard 10 months of winter.
This thread is a cesspool of ignorance about statistics, epidemiology, and how diseases work.
Just as a very quick note to people who forgot everything they ever knew about statistics, a given variable, like say, NumberofPeopleWithAIDS can be affected by more than one factor. So you cannot draw any meaningful conclusions from just the number of people infected with AIDS in a country and the circumcision rate as to how one affects the other.
Posts
EDIT: holy fuck, did you just compare tiny arguable benefits from circumcision to being EDUCATED?
are you the world's silliest goose deliberately?
Because scientists prefer to do their research in areas where said research is most important?
I mean, it's not like there's no studies in the US.
Is the full moon out or something?
Well it's a good thing we have circumcision to save us from the massive epidemic of STIs all those OTHER 1st world nations where it isn't nearly so prevalent have to worry about.
Like...
Being different from a natural state does not make something worse. Thinking otherwise makes you the highest form of idiot, as the appeal to nature is the most laughable fallacy.
Are we arguing about scale now? Where's the border between making a choice for the child when the choice is safest and forcing a a person to attend an institution against his wishes with the giant sign proclaiming "fascism?"
The line is where there are measurable and significant positive benefits to doing something.
If you're trying to say that the benefits to circumcision (whatever they may be) are as significant as the benefits of being educated then I have no idea what to say to you.
Not to mention that the drawbacks of not being educated are HUGE whereas the drawbacks of not being circumcised are...ummm...maybe...I guess a slightly higher risk of a disease you shouldn't get anyway unless you're having constant unprotected sex with anyone you can find.
It looks like you're insisting that only the place with the most STI's has STI's. I endorse your proposal to eradicate AIDS in Africa by tainting the Canadian blood donation system.
Seriously, do you read before you post?
I'm a little concerned here that you think birth control pills are a redundancy against STIs.
You're also ignoring the fact that by the time a person is actually sexually active, they can decide for themselves if they want the procedure. Given that STDs aren't a major out of control problem in any other first world nation that doesn't automatically circumcise infants, I'm not seeing the necessity.
No actually it looks like I'm insisting that public policy on issues such like circumcision should probably be made by looking at the effects of lack of said thing in similar nations.
Seriously, do you read my posts before your reply or do you just initiate Glenn Beck mode and distort it automatically for your benefit?
No, I'm saying that you only think that children should have the freedom of choice when you disagree with what they lack choice on. Basically, you think that freedom of speech is only important when the speech is something you agree with.
When that "being different" involves permanently removing flesh from someone and the individual having the flesh removed from them has no say in the matter, then it's not a matter of that unnatural state of being better or worse, its a matter of you not having any moral authority to decide the state or shape that person's flesh should take.
You have yet to show any substantial benefit, either in the short term or the long term, that justifies circumcising children before they can make the decision for themselves, or even circumcision for adults that CAN make the decision for themselves. I'm not going to begrudge an adult their personal decisions, but when your decisions permanently alter something as personal as the flesh of another human being, then the burden is not only on you to prove there is a benefit of doing so that precludes waiting for the individual's rational consent, but also the amount of benefit before it becomes moral to make that decision for them increases exponentially. In fact, I'd say it might even have to be a matter of immediate life or death before you have the kind of moral authority to permanently remove flesh from someone else without their consent.
Hahah. And where do you gather this? Please quote where you are deriving that that is a fallacy? Or don't even bother because this is not a matter of natural versus unnatural, it's a matter of one person - parent or not - having the moral authority to have flesh removed from another person without their consent.
The border is when it is a clear matter of immediate health or provable significant long-term health. Does a parent have a right to consent a doctor to perform an appendectomy if necessary? Absolutely. The burden is on you to prove that circumcision has such a profound beneficial impact on a person's health that it grants a third party the moral authority to make that decision for someone. You've yet to do so.
I don't object to parents making decisions for their children. If children could decide what they wanted at every turn, why even have parents? Just pull them out of the womb and loose them upon the world!
My concern is when there is a surgical procedure of arguable benefit, and arguable drawbacks, involving the permanent removal of flesh, and the benefits of which have no tangible reward until well into the child's life, maybe we should wait until the child can decide for himself whether he wants to risk it or go for it.
Where did I say that I thought birth control prevented STI's? Are we assuming that STI's are more desirable than unintended pregnancies?
I showed a study showing that waiting for the child to be old enough to choose makes the procedure unsafe. That means that by waiting I'm endangering my child no matter what he chooses.
Can you show any harm from lacking that piece of skin? If not, it is not, by definition, harmful. Your only argument for harm has been a difference from his natural state, which is not actually harmful.
Your last argument would mean that you can't do anything with a baby unless said baby is on the verge of death because babies can't give consent. Maybe he'll decide twenty years later that he was mutilated by being rocked back and forth while being sung to. According to the arguments put forward on this thread, he would be right, as mutilation is apparently in the eye of the whiner.
Can you undo years of education? How about a vaccination? I'm pretty sure labatomies (sic) and t-cell replacements are more difficult than skin grafts.
You should probably look at the study I posted. It's a look at whether circumcision is worth it for the AIDS protection alone in the US. The answer is yes.
Then you should explain how "Well it's a good thing we have circumcision to save us from the massive epidemic of STIs all those OTHER 1st world nations where it isn't nearly so prevalent have to worry about" resembles replying to "it's not like there's no studies in the US."
Edit: Actually, come to think of it, if you replace "STI's" with "polio," you've just given an anti-vaccine argument word for word.
Education and vaccinations are not permanent body modifications with no to little benefits. Circumcision is. The fact you can't grasp the difference here is pretty wierd.
Again, I want to tattoo a swastika into the back of by newborn. Should I be allowed to do so? Or am I infringing on his or her rights to his or her body, in a non-life threatening situation, in a cosmetic/religious choice?
I may be a guardian of someone, but guess what, I don't have full rights to their body. Would you mind if someone circumsized/tattooed/pierced an 30-year old severely retarded person, or a comatose person? In both these cases they have the legal rights of a guardian over these people.
You think so, but only because you don't really comprehend the argument.
So let's ignore circumcision for a moment and speak in general terms.
Let's say you have two options. Given the current body of information you have, it is reasonable to expect that the end result of Option 1 and Option 2 are either entirely equivalent or at most negligibly similar. However, Option 1 involves removing something from one of the individuals involved without their consent. In Option 2, all individuals involved have the ability to give or withhold consent.
Option 2 is far superior to Option 1.
If you don't think so, I really don't know what to say.
This is so boring. If you want me to respond intelligently, try for some intelligent discourse, please.
You wouldn't teach your kids about safe sex?
Christ man.
Are you for or against the removal of the clitoral hood in female infants? Why or why not?
That 'study' is an extrapolation of data collected from, guess where again, AFRICA. No actual research was conducted on people from the US nor any other country where there are actually LOWER rates of circumcisions and lower rates of HIV/AIDS transmission.
What I'm saying is you're not looking at any other factors that could be used to lower STI risk than surgery like oh say effective sex education, social policy changes, and wider acceptance of contraceptives.
Nope, like a bull-headed Army general you just cut right to the 'snip the dick' option.
Personally I think you just have a fetish.
Yeah, let's go ahead and compare the effects of vaccination to circumcision and see which has a significant impact and which doesn't.
I'm sure you'll win THAT argument.
Answer the damn question, Scalfin.
You don't think that vaccination changes the body? You couldn't possibly be denying that circumcision has some benefits, because there's more than enough peer-reviewed evidence to bring us back to vaccination opposition and global warming. Now, you might not think that it's worth the negligible risks of the procedure, but that brings it to a judgment call rather than the right of a parent to care for the welfare of his or her child.
Can you show said tattoo is beneficial for the newborn using peer-reviewed evidence? As for the latter example, if said person was responsible for the welfare of said invalid and could show that the act was to promote the wellfare of the invalid, he or she would have been doing his or her job as a caretaker.
Can you show that said operation would be to her benefit?
I have to choose one? What's next, asking me why I'm polluting them with knowledge on condoms instead of teaching my kids about abstinance?
One becomes entirely negligible with the other. Of course, since you seem to think chlamydia is as deadly and wide spread as polio I can't say I'd trust you to teach them much at all with any accuracy.
Given that it says "given published estimates of U.S. males' lifetime HIV risk, we calculated the fraction of lifetime risk attributable to heterosexual behavior from 2005–2006 HIV surveillance data," I'm pretty sure all of that is already in there, although I would need to check their sources for total confidence. Now, if we know know that the protection exists and to what degree (which we do), there's no reason why we can't apply that data to the US chance of being exposed to said danger and get a perfectly valid cost/benefit analysis.
I'm not sure what's worse, that you think that one thing being bad means that nothing else is bad (AIDS in Africa v. everywhere else, Polio v. anything else) or that you think that polio being worse (though rarer) makes you fallacious use of vaccine opposition logic somehow better.
Of course, you just used the most common abstinence-only argument to deny your use of evangelical rhetoric:
You hear that sound? That's the sound of my argument going clear over your head.
So when I use your argument of 'prevention for the greater good regardless of impact' to say, advocate for the genocide of the group with the largest risks for STI infection to lower the rate on a national level, I'd say that makes your argument invalid.
And I could say your argument is just as easily replaced by arguments used for mutilation, child abuse, etc.
But then, that'd be pointless and unnecessarily distracting in a conversation with adults. Maybe you'd like to let us in on when you plan to grow up too.
I'm still curious why Canada, the UK, etc aren't cesspools of STIs.
Not enough to constitute it as a body modification. Either find a study that constitutes it as a body modification or stop being pedantic.
The benefits of circumcision are also at best shakenly proven (unlike vaccinations or global warming).
The benefits of either vaccinations nor fighting global warming can be surpassed by common hygiene.
Also, it's pretty funny on how you refuse to acknowledge all the peer-reviewed studies that don't support your viewpoints.
http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/vanhowe4/
The benefits, shaky as they are, are not worth cutting on someone's penis without their consent, yes. All the diseases discussed are 99.99% applicable only when the person is old enough to give consent to such a procedure.
Only if they could show that the benefits outweigh the cons. Which they don't.
I'm pretty sure everyone comprehends your argument, as utterly ridiculous as it may be.
Too cold. We don't fuck up here in the winter cause it's instant frostbite on the old dick during the long hard 10 months of winter.
I've never had a woman reject me or even comment on my lack of foreskin.
I haven't seen enough to convince me to remove a part of my body just for the sake of convenience.
I just wash well and wear condoms.
Just as a very quick note to people who forgot everything they ever knew about statistics, a given variable, like say, NumberofPeopleWithAIDS can be affected by more than one factor. So you cannot draw any meaningful conclusions from just the number of people infected with AIDS in a country and the circumcision rate as to how one affects the other.