TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- are you circumcised?
Pages (18): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 »

I'm just using the same tactics as someone else. And technically that was summary (not even an abstract) probably not written by a doctor. Also, the article lists no statistics or clinical findings, merely the interpretation of the author(s), who is not cited with the article.

Besides, even though they do not recommend circumcision in every case, it does exactly say what I have been saying the entire time, that there are medical benefits to circumcision.

From the article.

quote:

While circumcision is not essential to a child's well being at birth, it does have potential medical benefits. The research shows that circumcised males have fewer urinary tract infections. They also have a lesser chance of developing penile cancer...

If anything the article is urging analgesics to be used during the proceedure, which is already done in American hospitals.

Look at these d00ds get into medical facts like it's really important if someone has a hoodie or not, damn let it go.
Here's all that matters:
If the girl you're dating likes it the way it is (whatever way it is) then you're all good.
If you're ok with it, then it's all good too. Except if you got it cut off and want it back, then you're f'ed cuz they can't go find it and sew it back on.
But me, if I ever feel like it's an impediment i can just get it cuz off and deal with the swelling for 2-3 weeks (that's what the doctor said )

quote:

any religion that condons the mutilation of a baby is pretty wack.

Not if God told you to do it

quote:

Originally posted by Electronicmaji Not if God told you to do it

Unless of course, their god was pretty whack.

quote:

Originally posted by arctic Unless of course, their god was pretty whack.

or didnt exist.

quote:

Originally posted by butterfly or didnt exist.

Hey, you're talking to an atheist here.

aaa

i dont like cut men!!!!!!!!!!

quote:

Originally posted by TrAnCeAkI aaa i dont like cut men!!!!!!!!!!

well even if you dont Beleive in God he beleives in you...


and its pretty hard not to listen to what God tells you when hes provided for you plenty of times before and also talks directly to you ...face to face...

quote:

Originally posted by Electronicmaji well even if you dont Beleive in God he beleives in you...

Thanks for that riveting piece of information.

quote:

and its pretty hard not to listen to what God tells you when hes provided for you plenty of times before and also talks directly to you ...face to face...

Are you familiar with schizophrenia by any chance?

It's one thing to hear voices in your head, but when you start talking to god face to face, it's time to seek help.

And LOL @ Ian, msn emoticons are teh pwn.

the problem is that schizophrenia didnt happen 6000 years ago barely any mental illnesses happened they have only developed today because of war tragedy and other things...I really doubt its war probably some reason we cant figure out yet..

quote:

Originally posted by Electronicmaji the problem is that schizophrenia didnt happen 6000 years ago barely any mental illnesses happened they have only developed today because of war tragedy and other things...I really doubt its war probably some reason we cant figure out yet..

ok im with you partly on the god thing, but this dosent make any sense, there was war jsut as bad along time ago as now.

but arctic, all your lucifer shit is starting to piss me off

lmao

quote:

Originally posted by Electronicmaji well even if you dont Beleive in God he beleives in you... and its pretty hard not to listen to what God tells you when hes provided for you plenty of times before and also talks directly to you ...face to face...

Dude, when you talk to God it's faith, when God talks back, you're bordering on schizophrenia.

Speaking of which, it has nothing to do with war tragedies. Wars have occured for as long as the human race has existed, and the earlier you go back, the more apparent the violence and cruelty of the world. Mental illness has also existed for as long as records exist. They used to call it demonic possession, since the advent of psychology, terms like schizophrenia and psychosis have been coined to describe what we now recognise as various forms and manifestations of mental illness.

quote:

Originally posted by Nou OK NOW YOU ARE REALLY CRAZY...... thank god you live in a country with one of the highest murder rates.

rofl wow the topic started from penises and now its about some god and religion and schizophrenia..!? WTF?!

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Please look at these two articles again and tell me there is no scientific methods, and that they weren't from PhD/MDs. I am yet to see any "evidence" to the contrary done in a controlled, scientific manner that would have me believe otherwise. I have heard very much rhetoric, with little to no substance. If this truly is not the case, and circumcision is such an obvious tragedy and detriment to human health, where is the overwhelming evidence from leading scientific researchers? Where is there proof from any throughly performed scientific research? It is easy to say that I am wrong, but I am still waiting for any evidence of that. http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/UTI/to/ http://www.lib.umich.edu/taubman/re...choenEdgarJ.pdf

Both studies completely fail to establish the slightest semblance of causality.

First of all, neither experiment conforms to the scientific method by possessing a single variable. Furthermore, both draw conclusions based on fallacious post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning.

Dividing people up into two groups, and drawing conclusions based upon different frequencies of some event between the two groups is not science. If it were, it would be scientific fact that black people are genetically prone to commit crimes, living in Africa lowers your IQ, and having a penis reduces your risk of breast cancer. None of these are facts.

No one, upon objectively analyzing the data presented in either study, could come to the scientific conclusion that circumcision has medical benefits. It does not follow from the supporting body of evidence.

That's why the UTI studies have been classified as a miserable failure by the vast majority of the medical community.

http://faculty.washington.edu/gcd/C...N/v1n1.html#ab6
http://www.circumcision.org/benefits.htm
http://www.menweb.org/circintr.htm
http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/UTI/altschul/
http://www.acsh.org/publications/pr...904/circno.html
http://www.eskimo.com/~gburlin/mgm/facts.html

The list just goes on and on.

I have repeatedly and directly refuted the specific and inherently flawed methodology of the UTI/circumcision studies both by personally pointing out the fallacious reasoning which underlies these studies and by posting a myriad of links to the work of qualified professionals who have analyzed the data and also drawn the veracious conclusion that it does not support the hypothesis that circumcision reduces the risk of UTI. I have demonstrated the complete and utter failure of that research to establish any relationship whatsoever between urinary tract infections and circumcision. I have categorically and overwhelmingly refuted each and every argument which anyone has attempted to make in favor of this barbaric procedure.

Medical research indicates that circumcision produces no demonstrable benefit almost unilaterally. The few exceptions are demonstrably flawed, and I, as well as many others, have demonstrated their flaws time and time again. You can choose to ignore the truth - for whatever reason - and continue to believe that circumcision is a beneficial procedure despite the dearth of credible evidence to support that hypothesis. Alternately, you can choose to educate yourself about the reality of the procedure and realize the simple fact that, like all other forms of genital mutilation, it is a cruel, barbaric, and disgusting procedure which produces no benefit whatsoever, and which perpetuates itself only through cultural and religious tradition and widespread ignorance - such as your own. The choice is yours. I have neither the ability nor the desire to force your eyes open so that you can recognize the obvious truth of the matter. I have provided you with the resources necessary if you are genuinely interested in uncovering the truth about the purported UTI/circumcision relationship. You can use them and learn, or ignore them and remain ignorant.

I believe your fault comes from your confusion of pure logic with modern scientific reasoning. By claiming that my sources are in fact using "faulty" "post hoc ergo propter hoc," logic, you are denying the clinical basis for medical discovery. If you take an isolated event and from its conclusion establish a mode of causality, I agree your assumption can be proven wrong logically using the falicy listed above. However, when you expand both your control group (in this case uncircumcised individuals, used both in the articles I linked to, as well as your first source) and your experimental subset (in our case circumcised individuals), you can draw inferences from the occurence of selected events. Furthermore, the use of a chi-squared test can be used, based on both your sample size and null hypothesis, to further show that your results are in fact non-trivial. If you are refuting this use of statistical analysis in medicine, you are proposing that virtually all research done by this method is invalid. Since resources are limited, you must realize that a test group can only be so big. You must also realize that the approach used by clinicians is to arbitrarily define one subset as "control," modify one variable and check for results.

If anything, I would call into contest your use of "argumentum ad numerum" or even "ad populum" as you state that a minority of western cultures still practicing routine circumcision is a valid point of argument. Surely you must realize your own mistake by putting this forth as a proving point for your stance.

I would also call into question many of the sources you listed. As many of these sites are more or less founded on the basis of portraying the "evils" of circumcision. It would be easy to allow bias to lead to selective summariztion of the works they cite. That is why I gave unsummarized sources (apart from the conclusions drawn by the researchers), along with all data backing these conclusions. When using web sites that have set out to propogate their own agenda as a means of proof, their ability to selectively choose which facts to present, in even a manner that appears objective, make me very weary in agreeing with their results.

In conclusion, by you saying that there is no causality in my sources calls into question the very scientific method used in today's medical clinical trials. As a side note, the first article you linked used the exact same subsets as the two articles I posted. Surely you must notice the hypocracy. If we are unable to take a set, divide it into subsets by changing one variable (in our case the foreskin) and look for differences in results, then drug trials and dietary studies must also be called into question. What I believe you are failing to take into consideration is the use of large sample sizes and chi-squared test to seperate "post hoc ergo propter hoc" from true causality. Lastly, your attempt at "argumentum ad hominem" by calling into question my objective reasoning abilities is both uncalled for and does nothing to further your case.

STOP THE PENOR THREADSW PLEAse1!11!!

but what if God talks to you and your not schitzophrenic...Actaully a lot of people I know have talked to God and have passed tests to show there perfectly mentally sound.....Its not impossible...so dont try to dissaprove everything with talk of mental illness...

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono I believe your fault comes from your confusion of pure logic with modern scientific reasoning. By claiming that my sources are in fact using "faulty" "post hoc ergo propter hoc," logic, you are denying the clinical basis for medical discovery.

If "modern scientific reasoning" is logically fallacious, then the conclusions of that reasoning cannot be accepted as true. The reality is that there is a large body of medical research which, due to this fact, is completely and totally worthless. It has not proven itself - and indeed is often marked by studies which purport to demonstrate contradictory results. Clearly, these methodologies are inherently flawed. If that is the "clinical basis for medical discovery," then you are quite right that I am denying it. It isn't a valid form of reasoning and it doesn't magically become a valid form of reasoning when you apply it to medicine.

quote:

If you take an isolated event and from its conclusion establish a mode of causality, I agree your assumption can be proven wrong logically using the falicy listed above. However, when you expand both your control group (in this case uncircumcised individuals, used both in the articles I linked to, as well as your first source) and your experimental subset (in our case circumcised individuals), you can draw inferences from the occurence of selected events. Furthermore, the use of a chi-squared test can be used, based on both your sample size and null hypothesis, to further show that your results are in fact non-trivial. If you are refuting this use of statistical analysis in medicine, you are proposing that virtually all research done by this method is invalid. Since resources are limited, you must realize that a test group can only be so big. You must also realize that the approach used by clinicians is to arbitrarily define one subset as "control," modify one variable and check for results.

If they did in fact modify one variable, then it would be perfectly acceptable. However, they did not control for innumerable other variables. With reference to the UTI studies, recall:

quote:

Confounding factors�for example, hygiene habits, outpatient treatment, modes of urine collection, socioeconomic status, race, prematurity, and perinatal health�were not taken into account. Any one of the confounding factors could explain the UTI-incidence difference�a difference of less than 1 percent�between circumcised and noncircumcised boys.

None of these variables was controlled for. Hence the scientific method was not followed, and hence the results are not scientifically valid. You can't violate the fundamental precepts of science and claim to have produced a scientifically valid conclusion. The explanation for these weak attempts was presented in another of the links I posted:

quote:

Maurer and Maurer explain why so much �nonsense� is published: (1) Experimental design and statistical analysis are not typically taught in medical school; and (2) medical schools discourage questioning of authorities. Our science is affected by our cultural values. Circumcision reflects a cultural value, and a principal method for preserving cultural values is to disguise them as truths that are based on scientific research. This �research� can then be used to support medical practices. This explains the claimed medical �benefits� of circumcision. Maurer, D. & Maurer, C., The World of the Newborn (New York: Basic Books, 1988), 240.

The scientific methods used were invalid. They are widely recognized as invalid. There are many other studies which are likewise invalid - but this does nothing to enhance the validity of the UTI studies.

quote:

If anything, I would call into contest your use of "argumentum ad numerum" or even "ad populum" as you state that a minority of western cultures still practicing routine circumcision is a valid point of argument. Surely you must realize your own mistake by putting this forth as a proving point for your stance.

A weak straw man, if I've ever seen one.

The overwhelming perception of circumcision as a procedure with no benefits in western medicine bears specific relevance to your attempt at an appeal to authority here:

quote:

Until then, saying that they somehow contain "false research and outdated information" without a shred of proof comes down to your word versus theirs. I think I'm going to side with the PhD/MDs.

If PhD/MDs possess superior knowledge and reasoning regarding the procedure as you claim, then the widespread belief among PhD/MDs that the procedure possesses no benefits is directly relevant to the veracity of your claims.

quote:

I would also call into question many of the sources you listed. As many of these sites are more or less founded on the basis of portraying the "evils" of circumcision. It would be easy to allow bias to lead to selective summariztion of the works they cite.

You're welcome to go to your public library and check out any of the sources cited to point out any inconsistencies which may exist. Otherwise, this tactic is a fallacious instance of poisoning the wells:

http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay...ments.html#well

quote:

That is why I gave unsummarized sources (apart from the conclusions drawn by the researchers), along with all data backing these conclusions. When using web sites that have set out to propogate their own agenda as a means of proof, their ability to selectively choose which facts to present, in even a manner that appears objective, make me very weary in agreeing with their results.

It's interesting that you feel that way given that you aren't weary to agree with the results of studies which are demonstrably flawed in their methodology - a textbook example of the ostrich argument.

quote:

In conclusion, by you saying that there is no causality in my sources calls into question the very scientific method used in today's medical clinical trials.

The widespread nature of pseudoscience speaks not of the veracity of its claims.

quote:

As a side note, the first article you linked used the exact same subsets as the two articles I posted. Surely you must notice the hypocracy.

Perhaps you didn't read it very closely. The comments given on the link were:

quote:

Of interest is that this study was done where the majority of boys are not circumcised during the newborn period. The results differ dramatically from the studies performed by Wiswell. The odds ratio is significantly lower than Wiswell's as are the rates of bacteremia. This study had twice the number of cases as Wiswell, but no cases of meningitis (Wiswell had two; Fischer's exact test p = 0.054). The reasons for these differences are easily explained. Wiswell looked at boys under one month of age. These boys had systemic infections acquired transplacentally which seeded the urinary tract. Because of the infection the boys were "too sick" to circumcise. One third of the intact boys in Wiswell's study population were intact for this reason. Craig et al. did not find a statistically significant difference in the incidence of UTIs in boys under one year of age or in boys over one year of age. It is only when the numbers are combined that a statistically significant difference is found. When the numbers are combined, however, there is a statistically significant difference between cases and controls in regards to age. But as pointed out above, when controlled for age, there is no statistically significant difference. The numbers are too small to make any statistical claim. If only one more circumcised boy had a UTI, then combined result would not have been statistically significant. More than a third of intact boys with UTIs had their urine collected without swabbing the urethra with disinfectant. The authors cite a study that swabbing did not affect the contamination rate. This cited study found no difference only because the size of the study was not big enough. The cited study found an asymptomatic rate of bacteriuria of 2%. These cases cleared without intervention.

The only conclusion drawn from the data is that it isn't sufficient to establish any relationship between circumcision and UTI. In order for it to be hypocrisy, they would have to be drawing a conclusion from the flawed data - not criticizing the flawed nature of the data.

quote:

If we are unable to take a set, divide it into subsets by changing one variable (in our case the foreskin) and look for differences in results, then drug trials and dietary studies must also be called into question.

Many drug trials and dietary studies are clearly inherently flawed. Why do you think they so frequently espouse contradictory results? They certainly ought to be called into question. Also, I would question how frequently the division only affects the distribution of a single variable. If other variables are skewed by these divisions, then the studies do not conform to the scientific method.

quote:

What I believe you are failing to take into consideration is the use of large sample sizes and chi-squared test to seperate "post hoc ergo propter hoc" from true causality.

These statistical methodologies are only useful in an experiment with a single variable. There is no evidence that the UTI studies made any attempt to control for a plethora of other variables. It is both highly possible and widely regarded as likely that incidental factors which were not even recorded accounted for the extremely small apparent difference between circumcised and uncircumcised individuals.

quote:

Lastly, your attempt at "argumentum ad hominem" by calling into question my objective reasoning abilities is both uncalled for and does nothing to further your case.

Your conclusion does not follow from any reasonable premises. There are two possibilities. Either your reasoning is flawed, or you are lying. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt.

Hey you guys, have some compassion for the victims eh? We get it, the alleged medical benefits haven't been proven. I never said I was going to have my future kids cut either, but it's kind of rough reading about how we've all been subjected to a "cruel, barbaric, and disgusting" procedure. Let's try to stay emotionally aloof on that issue alright...

Same with the guys posting in their sigs and in every single totally unrelated thread about how glad they are that they're uncut... you know what, we don't really care, I was cut when I was 10 days old so it's not like I made a conscious choice here.

how many uncircumcised snow penises do you see? I think that should settle this once and for all.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Hey you guys, have some compassion for the victims eh? We get it, the alleged medical benefits haven't been proven. I never said I was going to have my future kids cut either, but it's kind of rough reading about how we've all been subjected to a "cruel, barbaric, and disgusting" procedure. Let's try to stay emotionally aloof on that issue alright... Same with the guys posting in their sigs and in every single totally unrelated thread about how glad they are that they're uncut... you know what, we don't really care, I was cut when I was 10 days old so it's not like I made a conscious choice here.

I suppose you're right that using emotionally charged diction is probably inappropriate in this instance. I don't have anything against people who are circumcised - and anyone who feels the need to go around bragging about the fact that they weren't seems to have some issues to me.

I do have a very serious problem with this operation being perfomed on young children just because the parents think it ought to be done, and I do have a bit of a gripe with those who advocate the circumcision of others without providing valid and sufficient justification for such a procedure.

when some one is under 18 the person who makes medical decisions for them are the parents..unless its something that will serious hurt or cause malfunction outside of medical reasons like cutting of there arm.....circumsision still allows sexaul function and can have medical reasons for it be happenedso basically the parents are right in the eye of lthe law...

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.