|
Circumcision should be outlawed (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Psy-T |
| quote: | Originally posted by NeoPhono
Yup, as expected this thread has turned into personal insults and "facts" taken from websites slanted in the favor of the original poster. I'm sorry you're so obsessed with the skin, or lack thereof, at the tip of the penis, but as is already seen, both sides can go back and forth statings facts and anecdotes on their behalf. It just reverts back to personal attacks. |
except that while the "facts" you gave in that thread have been refuted one by one (mostly by arbiter), none of the facts presented against circumcision have been refuted.
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
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. |
|
|
|
| NeoPhono |
| quote: | Originally posted by Psy-T
except that while the "facts" you gave in that thread have been refuted one by one (mostly by arbiter), none of the facts presented against circumcision have been refuted. |
You didn't read the whole thread, because that in fact did not happen. In the end he questioned the scientific efficacy of clinical trials themselves. He then stopped the conversation.
Maybe you can show me where "one by one" the facts where coherently argued against, along with their sources, and my lack of a counter-argument. |
|
|
| Psy-T |
| quote: | Originally posted by NeoPhono
You didn't read the whole thread, because that in fact did not happen. In the end he questioned the scientific efficacy of clinical trials themselves. He then stopped the conversation. |
i did read the whole thread, and in the end, he did say that the clinical trials referred to should be questioned, and his reasoning behind that claim is convincing. had he replied to your following reply you would have side tracked to a red herring.
| quote: | Originally posted by NeoPhono
Maybe you can show me where "one by one" the facts where coherently argued against, along with their sources, and my lack of a counter-argument. |
i'll have another look in a bit and see what i can come up with. |
|
|
| Lepanto |
| this thread should be started and participated in ONLY, and i do mean ONLY BY WOMEN! |
|
|
| Psy-T |
http://www.circumcision.org/benefits.htm
http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/vanhowe4/
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
| quote: | Originally posted by NeoPhono
My sources included: the University of Washington, the University of Michigan, the World Health Organization and the Canadian Pediatric Society, all from the last ten years. If you can find me more reputable sources than these contradicting their results, using comperable scientific methods, I'm all ears. 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. |
That's exactly the problem. You haven't posted any "scientific methods" at all. You've posted articles which purport to interpret scientific data which is hidden from the reader. None of the articles you posted were written by PhD/MDs, none of them listed the methodology which was used in order to obtain their "results". And their "results" as presented are in direct contradiction to accepted medical dogma throughout the vast majority of the western world.
There are two possibilities. Either:
1. Medical associations in the United States are privy to some information which is unavailable to those in Europe, where circumcision largely ceased to be an issue decades ago since medical evidence so unilaterally indicated it was a harmful procedure with no benefits, and therefore the U.S. institutions are producing more accurate results.
or
2. Medical assocaitions in the United States have framed their research from the standpoint of attempting to justify, rather than analyzing objectively, dated genital mutilation practices of entirely theistic origin. By manipulating results via positive outcome bias and through hiding the details of their studies behind "reports" such as the ones you posted which contain no analyzable data of any kind, they are able to avoid actually addressing the issue while purporting to espouse medical fact.
One of these is realistic. One of them is not. It's time for a wake-up call. If we listened to people like you, we'd still be sacrificing virgins at the sun temple to ensure a prosperous growing season. |
|
|
|
| NeoPhono |
| quote: | Originally posted by Psy-T
i did read the whole thread, and in the end, he did say that the clinical trials referred to should be questioned, and his reasoning behind that claim is convincing. had he replied to your following reply you would have side tracked to a red herring. |
He questioned the entirety of current scientific research and procedure. When I questioned that stance he didn't reply. He didn't question the technique used in the isolated studies I showed, he questioned all scientific/medical studies using trial groups. His argument was that because real-world research doesn't use the control/one variable experimental method discussed in logic/philosophy and hypothetical experimentation, we cannot assume any real-world medical experimentation can ever be seen as true.
And what is this "red herring" that I would have slapped on the table? |
|
|
| Psy-T |
| quote: | Originally posted by NeoPhono
He questioned the entirety of current scientific research and procedure. When I questioned that stance he didn't reply. He didn't question the technique used in the isolated studies I showed, he questioned all scientific/medical studies using trial groups. His argument was that because real-world research doesn't use the control/one variable experimental method discussed in logic/philosophy and hypothetical experimentation, we cannot assume any real-world medical experimentation can ever be seen as true.
And what is this "red herring" that I would have slapped on the table? |
the red herring would have been a discussion about the legitemacy of all(*) scientific/medical studies. :)
* i use logic to discern truths, i have little educational background in the relavant fields and i haven't taken a particular interest to the subject of scientific studies, hence i can't say for sure whether arbiter was in fact questioning all studies, or just a select few tending to diets and other fields which produce contradictory information. i believe it's the latter at the moment though. |
|
|
| Lepanto |
so you base your opinion and knowledge of a subject on a study, right Psy-T? As do most of us here and as Yoepus (i think) has mentioned you show me one study saying one thing i'll show you a study saying another. this is most true for circumcision and a million other researches and/or scientific/medicinal topics.
other hot topics that are inconclusive = cholesterol, diets, birth control, abortions, etc. you see?
me for example, i base my opinions on experience and interaction with the world around me. |
|
|
| Jake Benson |
I upset my (Jewish) mother when I tell her I'm not going to circumcise my future children. She said they won't be Jewish and doesn't seem to understand my rationale that if there is a god, then foreskin wasn't put on a penis for us to cut it off...unless god is demented.
mom - "But circumcision brings you closer to god"
me - "Well then when I die, I'll circumcise god and we'll see if it brings him closer to me" |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jake Benson
She said they won't be Jewish and doesn't seem to understand my rationale that if there is a god, then foreskin wasn't put on a penis for us to cut it off...unless god is demented.
|
You know, you could make a similar argument for the appendix. |
|
|
| Psy-T |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
You know, you could make a similar argument for the appendix. |
difference is - the foreskin is useful. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by Psy-T
difference is - the foreskin is useful. |
What vital function does it serve? Last I checked I wasn't any less functional without it and I don't know of anyone in the history of the world who could argue the opposite. There are theories that centuries ago the appendix actually did serve a function--other than occasionally bloating, rupturing and causing sepsis.
Complete this sentence: Without foreskin I am unable to ____. |
|
|
|
|
