CDC Wants Male Teens to Know "Benefits" of male genital mutilation

[–]JohnKimble111[S] 15 points16 points17 points 11 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]oneiorosgripwontstfu 12 points13 points14 points 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Griever114 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]oneiorosgripwontstfu 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Griever114 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]oneiorosgripwontstfu 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ocasionallymisspeld 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]oneiorosgripwontstfu 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Spoonwood 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]oneiorosgripwontstfu 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 11 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]oneiorosgripwontstfu 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 16 points17 points18 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]ExplosiveDonkey 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]timoppenheimer 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]ExplosiveDonkey 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]govt_took_my_baby[🍰] 8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

oh the age old STD argument. Yeah, all those sexually active infants spreading HIV and AIDS, something really needs to be done about that...

the study done by the CDC was flawed, i'm going to summarise:

"Voluntary male circumcision reduces hiv infection in sub Saharan African populations however, little is known about the population level effect of adult male circumcision as an hiv prevention method" Test: 2000+3000 men in one township. In the entire continent of Africa.

"...thus, although the observed reduction in hiv prevalence among circumcised men compared to uncircumcised men suggests circumcision provides protection against hiv acquisition within the study population, the results do not conclusively prove this"

From the cdc: "a number of important differences from sub Saharan African settings where the three male circumcision trials were conducted must be considered in determining the possible role for male circumcision in hiv prevention in the US..."

essentially, western hygiene and things such as condoms and something called education, negates the 'benefit' of cutting off foreskins all over the place

Also, there may very well be medical reasons to circumcise a male, but the point is we shouldnt do surgery until its necessary. We certainly shouldnt be doing sensitive pre-emptive surgery on babies genitals.

Also, and this isn't said often enough: the glans isn't separate from the foreskin as an infant. i feel this isn't known widely enough, that and the foreskin isnt a useless flap of 'extra' skin - 20000 nerve endings isn't nothing!

[–]Spoonwood 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]oneiorosgripwontstfu 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]govt_took_my_baby[🍰] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]falshami 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]SaigaFan 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]falshami 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]zulu127 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[+]falshami -7 points-6 points-5 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]lmNotCreativeEnough 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]falshami -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]zulu127 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]falshami 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]shadowguyver 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 11 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]JohnKimble111[S] 8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]atheist4thecause -5 points-4 points-3 points 11 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]JohnKimble111[S] 8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[+]atheist4thecause -9 points-8 points-7 points 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]JohnKimble111[S] 9 points10 points11 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[+]atheist4thecause -12 points-11 points-10 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

If they are going to "educate" on the benefits then they also need to educate on the harms. It's not education if you're only telling people 10% of the story.

I clicked on your link. Then I clicked the "drafted a recommendation" link. It brought me here: http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2014/12/03/368008742/cdc-considers-counseling-males-of-all-ages-on-circumcision

A quote from Dr. Eugene McCray, who is quoted in the article:

"Our role is to insure that physicians have the information that they can then use to counsel or inform patients about the risk and benefits."

You, sir, have been mislead. Their article titled "CDC Wants Male Teens to Know Benefits of Circumcision" is their way of being provocative, and they mislead in order to create that provocative nature.

Are you going to change your opinion, not on circumcision, but about whether this is a good or bad policy with your new information? Does this new information, at the very least, change the strength of dislike for this CDC recommendation?

On a side note, this is exactly why I have a hard time trusting what I am provided by with anti-circumcision people. If their argument is so strong, why do they need to purposefully mislead people?

Btw, I looked up the circumcision study done in Africa. Anti-circumcision people always told me there was only one study done in one African country that the CDC is basing these results off of. That doesn't seem to be the case. A quote from a paper about the studies:

Thirteen studies from nine countries were identified.

Don't believe me? Look for yourself: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10461-006-9169-4/fulltext.html

[–]xNOM 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[+]atheist4thecause -8 points-7 points-6 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]xNOM 8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]JohnKimble111[S] 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]atheist4thecause -4 points-3 points-2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]atheist4thecause -15 points-14 points-13 points 11 years ago (51 children) | Copy Link

So what is your objection exactly? The CDC is making recommendations to educate people on findings of studies done that circumcision does have health benefits. Is your objection that benefits should not be shared? Is your objection that you don't agree with the findings? As long as it is based on sound science, I don't have a problem with education and letting people voluntarily make their own decisions, and I would like to point out that it's "risks and benefits". It's disingenuous to mention that the CDC is recommending the benefits be explained by the doctor without also explaining that the CDC is also recommending the risks be explained.

Let me pose this question: Assume the science is completely 100% sound and circumcision does prevent some things like AIDS at a rate of 50%-60%. Would you still have a problem with the CDC recommending doctors educate patients on the risks and benefits of circumcision?

[–]oneiorosgripwontstfu 13 points14 points15 points 11 years ago (50 children) | Copy Link

[+]atheist4thecause -13 points-12 points-11 points 11 years ago (49 children) | Copy Link

The CDC is also full of shit.

Based on this objection then, your problem is that the science the CDC cites is wrong, correct?

I would also like to point out that Hannah Wallen is EXTREMELY biased on this issue. She considers any circumcised man that defends circumcision to be doing so out of defensiveness. This is a convenient stance for her given that she is anti-circumcision, and it undercuts her credibility on the issue as far as I'm concerned.

The information debunking the findings has been around for years.

So this does seem to go back to if you agree with the science or not. The anti-circumcision people believe the debunking is an adequate debunking, and the pro-circumcision people believe that the debunking is not an adequate debunking (given that they have seen the information). What that be accurate?

But it's not like the CDC relies on facts and logic any longer.

I agree that the CDC is sometimes wrong. That doesn't mean they are wrong here, however, so I can't put a lot of stock into this comment.

After all, we are talking about an agency whose workers are comfortable defining rape to exclude male victims of female perpetrators, even though their own researchers couldn't explain why. Such credibility...

This is really starting to feel like an ad hominem attack. The CDC is full of many different workers that specialize in many different areas. The specialists that dealt with the rape study are not the same specialists that deal with the circumcision studies. Surely, you know this.

This is my real frustration on the subject. I'm trying to get down to what the real objection is and people seem more interested in slinging mud at the CDC then clearly stating their objection. For now, I'm going to assume that you don't think the scientific evidence has reached a threshold high enough to influence policy. If that's a wrong summation of your primary objection you can let me know.

[–]oneiorosgripwontstfu 8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

Based on this objection then, your problem is that the science the CDC cites is wrong, correct?

Read the links in the article. The facts stand on their own.

I would also like to point out that Hannah Wallen is EXTREMELY biased on this issue. She considers any circumcised man that defends circumcision to be doing so out of defensiveness.

I'm Hannah Wallen. Nice to meet you. The rhetorical fallacy you just tried to use is called an ad hominem attack. It is essentially the mistaken belief that inferring bias trumps the presentation of factual information. I see it all the time from feminists, circumcision advocates, vaccine refusal advocates, birthers, and young-earth creationists. I'd call it a nice try, but it's amateur shit.

So this does seem to go back to if you agree with the science or not.

Science isn't something that changes due to agreement or disagreement. Either the methods used are sound, or they are not. Citing a time period when your subjects were told not to have sex as evidence of a drop in new HIV infection is not sound. That is, in fact, a pretty blatant flaw.

The anti-circumcision people believe the debunking is an adequate debunking, and the pro-circumcision people believe that the debunking is not an adequate debunking (given that they have seen the information). What that be accurate?

The same is true of the science that "justifies" female circumcision, yet I bet you aren't interested in promoting that. Again, science is not subjective. Belief doesn't legitimize a group's findings.

This is really starting to feel like an ad hominem attack.

This shows that you don't understand what an ad-hom is. An ad-hom is an attempt to associate an argument with personal attitudes. Criticism is not automatically ad-hom.

"X's facts and information are invalid because X adopts stance Y that I disagree with" (as you did above) is an ad-hom.

"X's claims cannot be trusted because X has a habit of making claims X can't back with facts and information as in example Y" is criticism.

Again, I'd say nice try but again, it's rank amateur shit.

The CDC is full of many different workers that specialize in many different areas.

All of which fall under the same set of rules, policies, and standards. Every large organization can make that claim, and in no case does it justify the organization using false information to promote a harmful and damaging behavior.

This is my real frustration on the subject. I'm trying to get down to what the real objection is and people seem more interested in slinging mud at the CDC then clearly stating their objection.

In other words, you didn't bother reading the article at all, much less look at the links in it. That certainly makes it look like your interest is less in debate or discussion and more in damage control. It's much easier to argue that the CDC is being demonized than it is to address the fatal flaws in the research they're citing and the counterarguments to the many false claims made in support of the procedure.

You should be aware, that is a wholly ineffective tactic, as it leaves the vast majority of the information presented in the article uncontested.

[–]timoppenheimer 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ocasionallymisspeld 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]oneiorosgripwontstfu 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]atheist4thecause -9 points-8 points-7 points 11 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

Read the links in the article. The facts stand on their own.

Except that I was simply asking what your objection is. You are in such a defensive mode, however, you refuse to specifically state your objection to this CDC policy. (Up to this point anyways, maybe you state your objection later in your post.)

I'm Hannah Wallen. Nice to meet you.

Oh good! Hi Hannah. Perhaps you remember me. You told me that I was only pro-circumcision because I was defensive about being circumcised myself. You made a broader claim about all pro-circumcision circumcised men only being so because they are circumcised as well. This happened on the Honey Badger Radio podcast of The Unkindliest Cut or some name like that. (My username was Drew NA). Ever since that day I've been attacking you for that radical stance, so it's nice to be able to disagree with you directly here.

The rhetorical fallacy you just tried to use is called an ad hominem attack.

Nice attempt to turn it around on me. Generally, attacking someone like you did to me is an ad hominem attack, because you are trying to undercut what I say not by attacking my position, but by explaining it away as me, and all other pro-circumcised men who are circumcised, as being defensive. So what you did was absolutely an ad hominem attack.

What I said about you was not an ad hominem attack. The reason is that what I said is completely relevant. You are blocking out information from an entire group of people. For instance, if a feminist only listens to women and completely ignores men, but then they try to go on to talk about gender equality, it is not ad hominem to bring up the fact that they are ignoring men as a whole.

Science isn't something that changes due to agreement or disagreement.

Science doesn't, but what is accepted in science does. This is an extremely semantic point. Do you prefer if I use the term "study"?

Either the methods used are sound, or they are not.

I actually don't agree with that. There are levels of grey. This is why there is a margin of error for scientific polls of what people believe. Exactly how much representation is needed and other things like that are grey. This is not the type of science where either an atom exists or it does not.

Citing a time period when your subjects were told not to have sex as evidence of a drop in new HIV infection is not sound. That is, in fact, a pretty blatant flaw.

Agreed. You seem to have this position as if I was defending the CDC, which I did not due. Before anything, I wanted to find out what your objection was. It's becoming more and more clear that you don't think there is enough good science out there to influence policy. I wish you would've just said that to be honest.

The same is true of the science that "justifies" female circumcision, yet I bet you aren't interested in promoting that. Again, science is not subjective. Belief doesn't legitimize a group's findings.

I was not making an argument. I was asking you to clarify yours.

This shows that you don't understand what an ad-hom is. An ad-hom is an attempt to associate an argument with personal attitudes.

I'd add, and I think you would as well, personal traits. You know, like when you said pro-circumcision men that have been circumcised are defensive in response to my arguments the last time we had this conversation. That was a pretty clear ad hominem attack, correct? Or am I misunderstanding the fallacy?

Criticism is not automatically ad-hom.

Straw man. I never said it was.

"X's facts and information are invalid because X adopts stance Y that I disagree with"

X = CDC; Y = rape stance

(as you did above)

Straw man. I didn't say your arguments were invalid. I said you had an extreme bias because you generalize those who are pro-circumcision men who are circumcised as being "defensive".

Again, I'd say nice try but again, it's rank amateur shit.

Well, if you say so then it must be true, right?

All of which fall under the same set of rules, policies, and standards. Every large organization can make that claim, and in no case does it justify the organization using false information to promote a harmful and damaging behavior.

Another straw man. I never said that because the CDC has different specialists for different topics that this means the organization is justified for using false information to promote a harmful and damaging behavior. Surely, though, you don't think that because there was faulty information from Mary Koss on rape that this means the circumcision information is automatically false.

In other words, you didn't bother reading the article at all, much less look at the links in it.

I'm still waiting for you to clearly state your objections to this CDC policy.

That certainly makes it look like your interest is less in debate or discussion and more in damage control.

How convenient for you. Make my argument for me and then attack that argument. Wow, you really got me there!

It's much easier to argue that the CDC is being demonized than it is to address the fatal flaws in the research they're citing and the counterarguments to the many false claims made in support of the procedure.

I didn't ask you to tell me the flaws of the research. I simply asked you what your objection was specifically. I'm not trying to use any sort of tactic to bombard you with questions that are easy to ask but hard to answer or anything like that.

You should be aware, that is a wholly ineffective tactic,

But I didn't use that tactic...The main thing I did was ask you to clearly state your specific objection to this CDC policy. I wouldn't use that kind of tactic because what I care about is the truth. It's why I'm willing to be skeptical of the anti-circumcision community as an MRA atheist, even though anti-circumcision is a popular MRA and atheist stance.

as it leaves the vast majority of the information presented in the article uncontested.

Why would I contest the article when you haven't stated what your objection to the CDC recommendation is? All that has been stated is basically that there is a disagreement. I have no objection to tear down as I don't know what your objection is because you won't state it. So I'll end by asking if your objection that you don't think the studies (changed my wording for you!) the CDC is referring to is sound research.

[–]oneiorosgripwontstfu 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

Except that I was simply asking what your objection is.

I've stated my objection quite clearly in the article. "I was simply asking" is an attempt at deflecting your responsibility as a debater to address points made rather than make a flailing attempt at distracting from them.

Oh good! Hi Hannah. Perhaps you remember me. You told me that I was only pro-circumcision because I was defensive about being circumcised myself.

Ah, so you're the troll from the hangout chat who said we shouldn't criticize routine neonatal circumcision because it makes circumcised men feel abnormal & used your feelings about your own circumcision as a basis for arguments in favor of continuing the practice. You told men who talked about being harmed by the procedure that they didn't experience what they had experienced, and that they didn't know how to measure their own sensations and emotions because they had nothing to compare to... yet you seemed to think of yourself as an expert on those very same things, simply because of your pro stance. You used your own feelings about your own circumcision as an argument against discussing the damage done by the procedure, then straw-manned replies to those arguments as ad-homs.

You peppered your arguments with requests for explanations that, once given, you denied had been stated and continued to request, just as you are now with your question about the CDC. You then began interpreting arguments directed at you as arguments directed at all circumcised men, throwing strawmen at everyone who contradicted you, and calling statements referencing medical conditions "emotional appeals." In all, you managed to address zero of the points made in the discussion you initiated, while at the same time using loaded questions based on false dichotomies in a predictable attempt to steer your debate opponents into positions you apparently felt you could more easily counter than their actual statements.

You made a broader claim about all pro-circumcision circumcised men only being so because they are circumcised as well.

This was one of your strawmen. While I did say that quite frequently, the train of thought expressed by pro-circumcised men ends up right where yours did when you said what you said, I did not call it the only reason men make that argument.

Ever since that day I've been attacking you for that radical stance, so it's nice

How's that working out for you, Drew? Any converts? XD

Nice attempt to turn it around on me. Generally, attacking someone like you did to me is an ad hominem attack, because you are trying to undercut what I say not by attacking my position, but by explaining it away as me, and all other pro-circumcised men who are circumcised, as being defensive. So what you did was absolutely an ad hominem attack.

Again, this shows that you don't have a grasp on the definition of that term. Your own arguments led back to an overt admission - in your own words, when you specifically stated in the chat that you felt we should not criticize use of the procedure and discuss the damage it does because it might make men feel bad about being circumcised, and when you used your own feelings about the procedure as an argument for continuing the practice. Your behavior in that discussion is fairly common among proponents, but those arguments are not rational, fact-based arguments. They're the very type of emotional arguments you accused men who objected to their circumcision of making when they described their experiences.

What I said about you was not an ad hominem attack. The reason is that what I said is completely relevant. You are blocking out information from an entire group of people.

This is a false statement, as well. Contradicting your claims is not blocking you out. You're not entitled to freedom from contradiction, only to argue your case. If your arguments are easily disproved, and they're countered by others in debate, that is not a refusal to listen to you. It's a rejection of your claim after careful consideration. I will admit, it did throw me for a loop when you made that argument in chat. It's not one I usually get from adult men.

For instance, if a feminist only listens to women and completely ignores men, but then they try to go on to talk about gender equality, it is not ad hominem to bring up the fact that they are ignoring men as a whole.

Not a very good example, as you just admitted that my argument about the CDC, which cherry picked studies to back its position, is valid. The CDC's employees ignored the vast majority of research on circumcision and HIV to focus on flawed studies they could use to promote a claim not backed by solid, unbiased research, exactly as they have with other forms of sexual violence. You just undercut your own argument.

Science doesn't, but what is accepted in science does. This is an extremely semantic point. Do you prefer if I use the term "study"?

What is accepted in science depends on the presentation and confirmation of evidence. What is accepted in politics varies based on opinion. That works exactly the way it is in this argument, with layman discussing the merits or fallacy of claims based on evidence presented by scientists. When an agency selectively presents information to suit a narrative that isn't backed by the facts, that doesn't provide the claim with credibility, but detracts from the credibility of the agency. When they do it repeatedly and it's demonstrable that they've done it by deliberate design, that's a credibility wrecker, making the appeal to authority "the CDC recommends" entirely fallacious.

I actually don't agree with that. There are levels of grey. This is why there is a margin of error for scientific polls of what people believe. Exactly how much representation is needed and other things like that are grey. This is not the type of science where either an atom exists or it does not.

Here, you're conflating popular belief with fact, a fallacy called "fallacious appeal to popularity." Belief does not legitimize itself. If your belief is not backed by solid information, it's not proved true, even if it's widespread. Your approach to this is not scientific, but emotional. The subjectivity of personal experience surveys does not bleed over into methodology involving information which can be physically confirmed or eliminated. Nor does it justify defining the same factor (forced sexual contact involving penetration) differently depending on which gender of reported perpetrator would be likely to commit the act and against which gender of test subject (female rapists would force the victim to penetrate, male rapists would forcibly penetrate) in order to ignore that what results of the survey imply is equally applicable to both sexes. When researchers do that it ceases to be an exercise of the scientific method. It is instead a manipulation of available information to promote an agenda. The same is true with agency's choice to cherry-pick data to present a widely debunked hypothesis (circumcision prevents HIV infection) as confirmed fact.

Agreed. You seem to have this position as if I was defending the CDC, which I did not due

Your own arguments, in response to comment attacking the CDC's credibility in response to a post about the CDC/s stance:

I agree that the CDC is sometimes wrong. That doesn't mean they are wrong here, however, so I can't put a lot of stock into this comment.

The CDC is full of many different workers that specialize in many different areas. The specialists that dealt with the rape study are not the same specialists that deal with the circumcision studies.

I'm trying to get down to what the real objection is and people seem more interested in slinging mud at the CDC then clearly stating their objection.

And that last bit actually ignores the entire linked post full of clearly stated objections in order to make the accusation of mudslinging.

This isn't a rolling chat. Your own words are there to reference. You don't have the luxury here of saying X, then denying that you've said X in order to deflect arguments countering X.

It's becoming more and more clear that you don't think there is enough good science out there to influence policy.

Here, you're attempting to use false framing to avoid acknowledging what I've said in the article. There's plenty of scientific study on this with solid methods and conclusions which can be therefore trusted. It isn't that there's a lack of evidence sufficient to support policy, it's that the evidence soundly contradicts the existing policy. The policy is to advise the public by stating a claim that is contradicted by the evidence.

I was not making an argument. I was asking you to clarify yours.

No, you framed your strawman of the anti-circ position in the form of a question after basing your earlier statements on it as a presumed position, in an attempt to lend legitimacy to the act of treating the debunked research as if it's as valid and valuable as the research debunking it. Your argument is an attempt to make subjective something that is not subjective in order to soften the impact of evidence against the position you're supporting.

Continued here

[–]oneiorosgripwontstfu 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

I'd add, and I think you would as well, personal traits. You know, like when you said pro-circumcision men that have been circumcised are defensive in response to my arguments the last time we had this conversation. That was a pretty clear ad hominem attack, correct? Or am I misunderstanding the fallacy?

Presenting your strawman as evidence of ad-hom in a badly attempted "I know you are but what am I" argument doesn't eliminate what you did. If you're upset at having your own appeals to emotion called out, you shouldn't make them. Calling criticism of your own stated position an ad-hom because you took it personally neither makes it one, nor eliminates that attempting to deflect "the research proponents are using to promote this is flawed" with "the person making this argument said a thing I didn't like, and here's a strawman of it!"

Straw man. I never said it was.

"X's facts and information are invalid because X adopts stance Y that I disagree with"

X = CDC; Y = rape stance

(as you did above)

Straw man. I didn't say your arguments were invalid. I said you had an extreme bias because you generalize those who are pro-circumcision men who are circumcised as being "defensive".

That's a bad dodge when your own words present the claim you deny making, by calling specific statements of criticism ad homs. Chopping bits out of the whole statement to argue out of context does not make your point. It shows that you either didn't understand what you were countering, or are being deliberately dishonest. The full statement:

This shows that you don't understand what an ad-hom is. An ad-hom is an attempt to associate an argument with personal attitudes. Criticism is not automatically ad-hom.

"X's facts and information are invalid because X adopts stance Y that I disagree with" (as you did above) is an ad-hom.

Your reply to this is an attempt to apply my description of your strawman of my criticism of your emotional appeal (Don't argue against circumcision because feelz) to the discussion about the CDC. It's either a deflection attempt or a failure to understand that when I said I was talking about you, I was talking about you.

Back to this:

I said you had an extreme bias because you generalize those who are pro-circumcision men who are circumcised as being "defensive".

Repeating your strawman doesn't legitimize it. You are treating as an attack criticism of your use of "I'm comfortable with my circumcision" as a pro-circumcision argument when you ran out of other arguments. Your defensive response to that criticism does not legitimize your characterization of it. It's rather like listening to a woman respond to "you look nice today" with "Oh, so I'm usually unattractive?"
"Your feelings about your circumcision don't justify imposing it on others" is not a generalization of circumcised men, or a dismissal. It's simple logic.

Another straw man. I never said that because the CDC has different specialists for different topics that this means the organization is justified for using false information to promote a harmful and damaging behavior.

"I never overtly stated that thing I implied as a counter for your criticism of the agency, therefore I get out of responsibility for the implication." FTFY

Surely, though, you don't think that because there was faulty information from Mary Koss on rape that this means the circumcision information is automatically false.

False dichotomy; you've been arguing based on presuming the CDC trustworthy & credible and treating acceptance of their policy as a default. It does not have to be demonstrated that the agency is never trustworthy in order to counter that, but merely that the agency cannot be presumed trustworthy. Showing that the agency has promoted claims based on information known to be false means that it cannot be assumed that because the agency takes a stance the research behind it is sound, as the agency has demonstrated a willingness to abandon sound research to promote an agenda. It shows that the CDC does not merit automatic presumption of credibility.

You've continually argued as if your position is a default that has to be debunked, and as if that position exempts you from challenging the very information that does so. You're backing a claim ("circumcision has benefits") that is being used to recommend imposing a body-altering procedure on people too young to consent to it. Your position is not a default that has to be debunked. The burden of proof is on you.

I might also add, you're defending the agency that earlier in this very argument you claimed you aren't defending. :)

I'm still waiting for you to clearly state your objections to this CDC policy.

This is a ridiculous statement, as you've been given that answer and ignored it.

How convenient for you. Make my argument for me and then attack that argument. Wow, you really got me there!

Pot, kettle.

I didn't ask you to tell me the flaws of the research. I simply asked you what your objection was specifically.

"If I can pretend that your objection isn't what your objection is, I can keep pretending you didn't state it to me."
FTFY

I'm not trying to use any sort of tactic to bombard you with questions that are easy to ask but hard to answer or anything like that.

Are you aware that when you feel compelled to deny something you haven't been accused of, it actually makes you look guilty?

But I didn't use that tactic...The main thing I did was ask you to clearly state your specific objection to this CDC policy. I wouldn't use that kind of tactic because what I care about is the truth.

This actually made me laugh. If you were interested in the truth, you wouldn't have argued that MRAs shouldn't discuss the damage circumcision does because feelings, and you wouldn't have used "I'm comfortable with my circumcision" as a pro-circ argument in response to that discussion about damage. You wouldn't be trying to counter the argument that policy to make a false recommendation for widespread application of a harmful tradition based on badly biased research is bad policy with "But what's your objection? You haven't stated your objection! I don't care about the research, only your objection!" as if the objection is not contained in multiple parts of the discussion. If you were interested in truth the science behind the anti-circ arguments would be more important to you than trying to reduce the discussion to wording you can frame to suit your position.

It's why I'm willing to be skeptical of the anti-circumcision community as an MRA atheist, even though anti-circumcision is a popular MRA and atheist stance.

Which is why in chat you argued that feelings are a reason MRAs shouldn't discuss the damage done by the procedure, treated your personal perception as evidence while denying the personal experiences of the men you were arguing with, and used your own feelings an argument. Skeptical is not a term that describes the position you've taken or the way you've presented it.

Why would I contest the article when you haven't stated what your objection to the CDC recommendation is? All that has been stated is basically that there is a disagreement. I have no objection to tear down as I don't know what your objection is because you won't state it.

Here, we get to the bottom of your repeated denial of what is in front of you. What you've told me with this paragraph is that you don't want to deal in the facts of the debate and are not interested in the truth of the matter, only in finding a way to assert your position. Your paragraph is an admission that your position isn't defensible enough to stand against the information I've presented, and you're looking for something else to strawman or other wise falsely frame, just as you have with my response to your arguments in chat.

[–]aPseudonymPho 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]oneiorosgripwontstfu 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]oneiorosgripwontstfu 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

You know, I've seen this before, too, from other people and on other debate topics. It's a type of discussion pattern that occurs in debate with long-term holders of irrational beliefs. They make emphatic claims about a topic, and when contradicted, they weave the debate through a maze of rhetorical fallacies and posturing.

They usually start by treating the discussion as if burden of proof is reversed and the basis for their own argument is already proved. Any attempt at righting burden of proof is either ignored by the irrational debater, treated as an attack, or met with an attempt to counter that relies on circular reasoning. They'll continually move the goalposts to avoid having that burden of proof met. Some also have a habit of misidentifying criticism of data flaws and even identification of the mistakes in their own arguments as rhetorical fallacies, particularly the fallacies involving types of personal attacks.

In the course of the discussion this particular debate style devolves from actual debate into a cat and mouse kind of game, wherein the irrational debater's goal ceases to be to prove his original claim and becomes a search for any small thing he can call a victory. (Frustrating as it is to address this tactic in circumcision debate, it's nothing compared to what I've seen with vaccine refusal advocates, against whom I've been called irrational and even abusive for pointing out that two substances sharing one ingredient does not make the second substance an ingredient in the first.)

The search for any perceived victory often leads to the irrational debater trying to corner the opponent with loaded questions in order to elicit a specific response the irrational debater wants the opportunity to counter. Sometimes the irrational debater is just looking to create a crack in the opponent's logic, but very often this turns into an attempt to get the opponent to take an actual position the irrational debater wants to counter. Denied their crack to exploit or their position to oppose, this type usually resorts to a combination of posturing and pressure to comply with that effort to manipulate the discussion. In my experience they usually descend from there into distraction tactics, backpedaling, personal attacks, name calling, and eventually the (usually anticlimactic but occasionally hilarious) flouncing rage-quit.

It's interesting to see one continuing to pursue the discussion after having gone through this entire process with me in another forum and failed. I'm not sure whether that's a sign of serious dedication or serious dysfunction.

[–]aPseudonymPho 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]timoppenheimer 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]atheist4thecause -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

I've stated my objection quite clearly in the article.

So in order for me to understand your objection to the CDC's policy of educating people on the risks and benefits, I have to go read an article? You can't just state your objection? This is a sign of not discussing this matter in good faith. You could easily just mention your direct objection.

I just went and skimmed the article, and there was no specific mention to this policy that I saw, which is exactly why I didn't want to go and have to read an article to find out what your objection is. You mentioned some CDC biases and things like that, but you didn't specifically relate anything to this policy. I'm going to stop here, but if you want to clearly state your objection like a big girl, then maybe we can pick the conversation back up.

[–]oneiorosgripwontstfu 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

So in order for me to understand your objection to the CDC's policy of educating people on the risks and benefits, I have to go read an article?

Circular reasoning; the article debunks the claim contained in your statement here.

You can't just state your objection?

Your attempt to shoehorn the discussion into a position you think you can counter is duly noted, and rejected. You don't get an easy sound byte to argue with. Burden of proof is still on you; Justify your stated position that circumcision has benefits, or admit defeat.

I just went and skimmed the article, and there was no specific mention to this policy... You mentioned some CDC biases...

Here, your own words (which oversimplify the article to an astounding degree, as there is literally no credible data backing the CDC's promotion of circumcision) combined with your earlier stated position which presumes that the CDC's promotion is an a legitimate attempt at educating people provides the counter for your own denial; you just proved that you know what the objection is and don't want to address that, so you're looking for something easier.

I'm going to stop here, but if you want to clearly state your objection like a big girl, then maybe we can pick the conversation back up.

There it is, the flounce & rage-quit, posturing and all. You are so predictable. XD

[–]atheist4thecause -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Circular reasoning; the article debunks the claim contained in your statement here.

What is the circle here in asking for you to specifically state your objection to this CDC policy? Your article lists lots of difference reasoning, most of which don't apply here at all, and is primarily anti-circumcision, which says very little about a policy of education of risks and benefits. You are not discussing in good faith, and that is unfortunate.

Your attempt to shoehorn the discussion into a position you think you can counter is duly noted, and rejected.

You mean my attempt to get you to explain your position? I don't know if I disagree with your position because you won't state it.

You don't get an easy sound byte to argue with.

Huh?

Burden of proof is still on you

Of what?

Justify your stated position that circumcision has benefits, or admit defeat.

Do you have a quote of me stating my position is that circumcision has benefits? Up to this point, I've been trying to understand what your objection is to this CDC policy. You won't tell me. I don't understand why. I'm not sure how we can have a discussion about this CDC policy when you refuse to state your specific objection to the policy. Unfortunately, this seems to be about winning and losing to you, not about gaining information. I see that all too often when discussing with anti-circumcision people.

Here, your own words (which oversimplify the article to an astounding degree, as there is literally no credible data backing the CDC's promotion of circumcision)

First of all, you cut out some of what I said. Second of all, it was meant to be a simplification of the article and not be an in-depth analysis of the article. Basically, your article didn't tell me what I need to know about your objection to this CDC policy.

combined with your earlier stated position which presumes that the CDC's promotion is an a legitimate attempt at educating people provides the counter for your own denial;

I asked a question about your position. For someone who accuses others of being amateurish, you really love your fallacies. Hint: When someone hasn't presented their argument but yet you attack their arguments, every attack on their argument is a straw man fallacy from your own projection of what they think.

you just proved that you know what the objection is and don't want to address that, so you're looking for something easier.

I've asked you over and over about what your objection is. I've asked if it is mainly to do with you questioning the evidence the CDC has presented. You have failed to confirm or deny this. I'd also like to ask you what evidence you have of what I do and don't want to address. This is complete projection on your part. I don't mind a little projection here and there for ease, but pretty much everything you say is a projection of what you think I think.

There it is, the flounce & rage-quit, posturing and all. You are so predictable. XD

This is extremely sophomoric of you. It's not a rage-quit to decide to stop talking to someone when they literally won't state their objection. Unlike you, I don't like to argue against myself. I like to actually get the argument from the other person. Crazy me.

Here I will project a bit. I believe that the reason you won't state your objection is because you don't believe I'm discussing this in good faith. I believe that you are paranoid that I'm going to take one of your arguments, take it out of context, and go run and post it somewhere. That's not what I'm looking to do. In fact, I can't remember if it was by you, the other Honey Badgers, or viewers, but I do remember being accused of being a feminist in your chat. I was also called a troll, which you also stated in this discussion, and unfortunately, I'm not sure how to convince you that I'm not a troll, that I am discussing in good faith, and that I only fall under the dictionary definition of feminist as believing in equality for everyone, but that's not what MRA's mean when talk about feminism, and it isn't the definition I use for feminism, either.

I guess I could try to explain my life story. As a child growing up, I cared a lot about social issues, which stemmed from being an atheist that was growing up in a Catholic home. I felt a lot of discrimination, and ended up moving out of my home while still in high school because of it. I argued for rights of many types of people outside of atheists, especially for those in prison or those who were out of prison. Later I found out how closely this was related to men's rights, because at the time I didn't know how male-dominated the prison population was. I argued against other issues that were men's rights issues as well, although I had never heard of the movement before.

About two years ago my father committed suicide after being falsely accused of a crime. This caused me to do some research about men, false accusations, suicide, etc. I read the book "The Myth of Male Power" by Dr. Warren Farrell and it made a lot of sense to me. In fact, I even contacted him about it and gave him some feedback about it.

I kept researching and came across the Men's Rights Subreddit. It had a ton of good information, and this was finally what I was looking for. I now had a combination of steady resources and a community to talk to about these issues. (The community aspect is often underrated in importance to turn people into advocates, btw.) I eventually came across people like Paul Elam, Dean Esmay, Karen Straughn, etc. I'm hoping to some day become a contributor to A Voice For Men, but we'll see if that happens.

You really don't know who I am. For you to try to minimize my opinion and call me a troll is extremely wrong. It also implies that I am trolling the community that helped me understand the statistics behind the suicide of my father. Does that really make sense to you?

Now you might go and try to call me a liar about all this I guess. What you can do is look and see that almost all my posts are in the men's rights subreddit, although I also post places like The David Pakman Show to try and get them to take on men's rights. If you do a search you will be able to see that I have contacted Sen. Tammy Baldwin's office a lot about Men's Rights and I've tried to raise awareness about The Young Turks and hold them accountable for what they say.

So the next time you want to call me a troll, say that I'm only trying to posture, and seem to think that I'm not discussing this in good faith, think about that. The way you are acting is ridiculous.

[–]oneiorosgripwontstfu 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

What is the circle here in asking for you to specifically state your objection to this CDC policy?

Rewording your question to exclude the claim you were making in it before doesn't change what it was when I originally replied to it. You have made two specific claims you have not backed, both of which are debunked by segments of the article.

1) Your statement presumes that routine circumcision has medical benefits.

2) Your use of the phrase "policy of educating people on the risks and benefits" rests on both the above assumption and the assumption that the CDC is offering education and not a sales pitch.

Stating your question with those two assertions contained in it as assumptions is "begging the question," an informal fallacy in which the conclusion you're trying to prove is contained in the argument you're making, in this case in the form of a loaded (with false premise) question. Which is why I made the next statement. "Your attempt to shoehorn the discussion into a position you think you can counter is duly noted, and rejected."

Your article lists lots of difference reasoning, most of which don't apply here at all, and is primarily anti-circumcision, which says very little about a policy of education of risks and benefits.

And here we have outright dishonesty from you, combined with another attempt at imposing unproved assertions on your opponent. The article is available online, and any reader can see that it does, in fact, contain information debunking each of the supposed benefits of circumcision, which says everything that needs to be said in response to your loaded question. Your behavior in this debate makes your statement about good faith projection.

You mean my attempt to get you to explain your position? I don't know if I disagree with your position because you won't state it.

Trying to re-frame your use of a loaded question doesn't legitimize it.

Do you have a quote of me stating my position is that circumcision has benefits?

Every time you've stated your question containing the phrase "policy of educating people on the risks and benefits" or similar phrasing you are putting forth "circumcision has benefits" as a presumed truth. It's dishonest to write as though you're unaware of that.

Up to this point, I've been trying to understand what your objection is to this CDC policy.

Up to this point, you've been trying to frame objection to the policy as an anti-education, flat-earth stance by loading your question with unproved assumptions. That is not an effort to understand anything, but an attempt to shoehorn the discussion into a position you think you can counter. Repeating it ad nauseam does not change that. You continue doing it, I'll continue pointing out what you're doing.

Unfortunately, this seems to be about winning and losing to you, not about gaining information. I see that all too often when discussing with anti-circumcision people.

This is a cop-out argument on your part. Anti-circ debaters have an objection to routinely performing a damaging and unnecessary procedure on infants. When you argue in favor of the procedure, characterizing "I'm not persuaded" or the presentation of counterarguments as "about winning or losing instead of gaining information" is dishonest. Your statement is based on the assumption that your assertions, regardless of how baseless they are and regardless of whether other information disproves them, constitute information that warrants consideration equal to proved facts and logic that stands up to critical analysis.

First of all, you cut out some of what I said.

gets referred to article with information that answers his question
dramatically oversimplifies article and denies that some of it content is there
repeats demand in response to which article was referenced
upon getting referred back to article, whines "you cut out some of what I said" and then goes on to reply to only part of the paragraph from which he's quoting...

Hypocrisy. You haz it.
Regardless, the portions quoted were contained in the same paragraph, demonstrating exactly the part of the paragraph you decided must be isolated out.
When you finally get to that part, you actually have the balls to pretend that a question loaded with a presumption is not a presentation of that presumption as an argument. In order for a counterargument to be a strawman, the position being countered would have to be absent from your question. Since it's not, you don't get out of responsibility for making better faith arguments than that by portraying it as such.

I've asked you over and over about what your objection is.
Your question has been answered repeatedly. Not liking the answer you got isn't justification for behaving as though you didn't get one, no matter how entitled you feel to control the discussion.

I'd also like to ask you what evidence you have of what I do and don't want to address.

Your own behavior is evidence; you have chosen what not to address by arguing on the pretense that it isn't an answer to your question, and continuing to present a loaded question in an attempt to control the answer.

It's not a rage-quit to decide to stop talking to someone when they literally won't state their objection.

No, but it's a rage-quit to falsely make that claim and flounce out of the discussion because someone won't reply to you with the position you want to address, which is what you did.

Unlike you, I don't like to argue against myself. I like to actually get the argument from the other person.

This is also not in good faith; portraying a refusal to stay within your attempted framing of the dialogue and the act of pointing out your manipulative behavior as arguing with myself is another dishonest argument. The pretense of good faith does not hide the manipulation, but highlights the disingenuousness of it.

Here I will project a bit. I believe that the reason you won't state your objection is because you don't believe I'm discussing this in good faith. I believe that you are paranoid that I'm going to take one of your arguments, take it out of context, and go run and post it somewhere. That's not what I'm looking to do.

Remember what I said about denying what you haven't been accused of? I've repeatedly pointed out what you're doing, and that's not it. Making up a different supposition to counter doesn't cover your manipulation, either.

In fact, I can't remember if it was by you, the other Honey Badgers, or viewers, but I do remember being accused of being a feminist in your chat.

That's not surprising. You argue like one.

I was also called a troll, which you also stated in this discussion, and unfortunately, I'm not sure how to convince you that I'm not a troll, that I am discussing in good faith,

For that, you'd have to start discussing in good faith and stop attempting to manipulate the discussion into a position you'd find easier to counter.

I guess I could try to explain my life story.

Your life story is really irrelevant to the topic at hand. It is not a cover for attempting to manipulate the discussion into a position you'd find easier to counter.

You really don't know who I am. For you to try to minimize my opinion and call me a troll is extremely wrong.

Referring to counterarguments against your opinion as minimization is counterproductive in an argument in which you're claiming to not be feminist. That's classic feminist mentality, treating failure to agree as some kind of an attack.

It also implies that I am trolling the community that helped me understand the statistics behind the suicide of my father. Does that really make sense to you?

Sad as your history is, it does not excuse what you're doing in this discussion. Giving me a resume of your men's rights activism doesn't justify the position you've taken in this discussion or the manipulative methods you're using. It just shows that you're running out of arguments and are resorting to appeals to emotion.

If you want to have an open, honest discussion, have one. You're not entitled to control the side of it that isn't you. You're not entitled to be presented with the position you want to counter, and you're not entitled to have your beliefs accepted without evidence, as factual bases for the arguments you're building on them. You don't get a pass on being expected to build your case from the ground up rather than arguing as if your conclusion is a given.

I'll quit calling you a troll when you can engage in a discussion on this topic without making bad faith arguments, attempting to manipulate, trying to dodge your burden of proof, peppering the discussion with rhetorical fallacies, and denying the presence of arguments made and information provided. You claim that MRAs make this discussion about winning or losing instead of gathering information, yet you ignore any information that contradicts your point of view. You admonish that this should be a truth-seeking effort, yet you go from forum to forum making the same fallacious arguments after each time you see them soundly countered in discussion. If you want to be presumed honest, stop making your end of circumcision discussion about validating your beliefs, and actually discuss, listen, and learn.

[–]xNOM 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Either the methods used are sound, or they are not. I actually don't agree with that. There are levels of grey. This is why there is a margin of error for scientific polls of what people believe. Exactly how much representation is needed and other things like that are grey. This is not the type of science where either an atom exists or it does not.

You really need a science education. This is EXACTLY the kind of science "where an atom exists or not." The circumcision procedure either has a statistical net benefit or harm to the population in question. Perhaps you are uncomfortable with the nature of measurement statistics. Then I suggest taking a statistics course as well. In atomic physics, measurements also have uncertainty. ALL measurements have uncertainty. This is why science is not mathematics.

[+]atheist4thecause -7 points-6 points-5 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You really need a science education.

Yup. Anybody who disagrees with you needs an education, because only people who hold your position understand anything.

This is EXACTLY the kind of science "where an atom exists or not.

Ethics are absolutely not a black and white science, especially with our current understanding of ethics.

The circumcision procedure either has a statistical net benefit or harm to the population in question.

In some cases, sure, you can measure the rate at which people die from circumcision and things like that, however, when you are talking about whether circumcision is overall harmful or beneficial, there is nothing black and white about that. For instance, lets assume that HIV transmission is reduced by 50% from male circumcision, but that 1% of the patients will die. Is it ethical to circumcise or not in this scenario? There is nothing black and white about this.

Perhaps you are uncomfortable with the nature of measurement statistics.

Uncomfortable? Oh yeah, things getting measured just gives me goosebumps. Sometimes I even pass out when people take out their rulers to measure the length of a caterpillar.

Then I suggest taking a statistics course as well.

I've already taken one.

In atomic physics, measurements also have uncertainty.

I'm not sure why you are bringing this up. I didn't say anything about the certainty of measurements in atomic physics.

ALL measurements have uncertainty.

Did I say otherwise?

This is why science is not mathematics.

You completely lost me as to why you even stated this. I don't think this statement is as black and white as you think it is, but I'm not interested in a debate about whether math is a science or not.

[–]xNOM 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Yndrd1984 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

I'm trying to get down to what the real objection is...

Well, there's the issue of balance. Nearly every medical organization on earth doesn't recommend it and almost every large-scale study done in industrialized nations has found no significant benefit, but somehow whenever it's discussed in the US that gets ignored in favor of three small, short-term, heavily-criticized studies in third-world African countries. This recommendation is a perfect example, spending 3 1/2 sentences talking about those trials (and mentioning none of the criticism), but completely ignoring more relevant studies (e.g. the recent US military one).

Basically, if American doctors can't convince a significant number of Canadian or English doctors that something's a good idea they probably don't have a good enough case to be pushing it on patients, and if a technique never seems to work on a particular population (even if it works elsewhere) then using it on them seems perverse.

In a similar vein, even if circumcision was 100% effective against female to male HIV transmission via vaginal intercourse, it would have only a small effect on US AIDS rates - transmission there is primarily via anal sex and infected needles. So as a 'public health measure' this seems dubious.

[–]atheist4thecause -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

Nearly every medical organization on earth doesn't recommend it

You know what's interesting is how anti-circumcision people will point to research organizations when it's convenient for them, but will call this a fallacy of authority like Hannah did in her link when it's inconvenient.

Also, in regards to what organizations accept male circumcision and what ones don't, you are ignoring the ones that do accept male circumcision. Even among the groups that restrict circumcision, they tend not to outright ban circumcision even of children. In 2014, the Swedish Medical Association recommended that the minimum age be 12 for male circumcision. You seem to consider this a "win" for your cause, but they are recommending it be allowed on 12 year-olds. And look at the countries you point to: England, Canada, Australia, Sweden, Norway, Finland, the Netherlands: These are all countries with close ethical ideas. There are Asian countries that either have pro-circumcision policies or are considering them to fight AIDS such as China as well. South Korea and Japan does a lot of circumcisions. You basically just a pick a few European countries, or those tied very closely to European countries such as Australia and Canada (both of which still live under the English Queen) while ignoring everybody else.

[–]morningdewdripping 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]atheist4thecause -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Yndrd1984 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

You know what's interesting is how anti-circumcision people will point to research organizations when it's convenient for them, but will call this a fallacy of authority like Hannah did in her link when it's inconvenient.

That's what most human being tend to do. You have been on the internet before, right?

These are all countries with close ethical ideas. ... South Korea and Japan does a lot of circumcisions.

South Korea does, primarily because of American influence on their development. Japan is <20% circumcised.

You seem to consider this a "win" for your cause, but they are recommending it be allowed on 12 year-olds.

You seem confused - they want to ban it (even for religious reasons) for children, and allow it (not recommend it) for people who can consent of their own free will - which is their stance on all other forms of purely cosmetic surgery. And, oddly enough, that's exactly the kind of policy that I advocate for - so how is this not a 'win' for me (if we must use those terms)?

[–]atheist4thecause -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

South Korea does, primarily because of American influence on their development. Japan is <20% circumcised.

20% is quite a bit IMO. Also, about South Korea, if you're going to blame their circumcision on American influence, you have to recognize that countries like Canada, Australia, and many European countries that are against circumcision have English influence.

You seem confused - they want to ban it (even for religious reasons) for children, and allow it (not recommend it) for people who can consent of their own free will - which is their stance on all other forms of purely cosmetic surgery. And, oddly enough, that's exactly the kind of policy that I advocate for - so how is this not a 'win' for me (if we must use those terms)?

So you think 12 year-old's are capable of consenting to this procedure? I don't think they understand it. In fact, I find it more inhumane to do to a 12 year-old who "consented" to something they didn't understand over an infant.

[–]Yndrd1984 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

20% is quite a bit IMO.

Well, the only data I could find quickly only split countries into <20%, <40% ... >80% categories.

many European countries that are against circumcision have English influence.

You have that backwards - medical circumcision only became common in the US, Canada, Australia, etc because of English influence. Victorian-era doctors believed masturbation was a health risk, and damaging the genitals (of both sexes) was just one tool to prevent that.

On the other hand France, Scandinavian countries, in fact most of the world, has always treated circumcision as a religious ritual or cultural practice. They're that way in spite of English influence, not because of it.

And that's what makes the cultural influence so obvious - for the most part people (including doctors) in countries with already high circumcision rates believed that circumcision was 'more hygienic', and then prevented cervical cancer, and then ..., and now prevents HIV infection, while those ideas never took hold in countries with a low rate. This constant turnover of justifications is exactly what you'd expect if people are trying to rationalize what their society has already deemed 'normal', not what you'd expect for people seeking an unbiased medical opinion.

In fact, I find it more inhumane to do to a 12 year-old who "consented" to something they didn't understand over an infant.

I don't know if I agree, but that isn't unreasonable. Would you suggest a ban for those under 16, or under 18?

[–]atheist4thecause -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]Yndrd1984 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

Is England not against circumcision now? By your logic, England would be against circumcision despite it's own influence.

Europe is more secular than the US is, does that mean that the US didn't originally get Christianity from Europe?

I'm against child (post-infant) male circumcision ... I'm okay with infant male circumcision.

Why? Can you name anything else that would be OK to do to an infant but not a child?

All subject to change, but at this point, the intactivists have really pushed me from leaning against circumcision to leaning in favor of it.

You seem to be saying that you're changing your position on an ethical matter based on the fact that some advocates on one side rub you the wrong way. If I were advocating against slavery (or any other cause we both support) how badly would I have to behave to get you to change your mind?

[+][deleted] 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]timoppenheimer 13 points14 points15 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]govt_took_my_baby[🍰] 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Spoonwood 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	CDC Wants Male Teens to Know "Benefits" of male genital mutilation
Author	JohnKimble111
Upvotes	40
Comments	87
Date	January 29, 2015 4:33 AM UTC (11 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/2u1qwl/cdc_wants_male_teens_to_know_benefits_of_male/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/cdc-wants-male-teens-to-know-benefits-of-male.989406 https://theredarchive.com/post/989406

Comments