Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tradition is Smarter (2018)

scholars-stage.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 174 posts

Re: Tradition is Smarter (2018)

#71

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

nehal3m wrote: post #65
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Maybe your traditions are blinding you to the fact that male circumcision falls in the same category. No, they are not. Perhaps this is "oversharing", but I (male) was circumcised when I was 11 years old, and it was my choice - I wasn't circumcised at birth because I had jaundice when I was born. I had "tight foreskin", making it difficult to follow my doctor's instructions to clean under the foreskin when bathing,…

They're not equivalent in most cases (not all female genital mutilation is performed the same way and I cannot fathom a medical reason for any sort). But that doesn't mean they aren't in the same general category when defined as surgical alterations of people's genitalia performed for religious or cultural reasons without any medical necessity. A medically required circumcision when reasoned and self-chosen is an alt…

Except, ironically enough, male circumcision is the perfect example of something that was done for "traditional" religious reasons, but for which now there is ample medical support for it.

For example, circumcision is extremely common in the US, despite the fact that it is relatively very rare for it to be done for religious reasons (only about 2-3% of the US population is Muslim or Jewish). It is done because the medical community broadly recommends it due to its health benefits: https://www.healthline.com/health-news/cdc-encourages-circum...

Re: Tradition is Smarter (2018)

#72

Post by criley2 »

nehal3m wrote: post #65
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Maybe your traditions are blinding you to the fact that male circumcision falls in the same category. No, they are not. Perhaps this is "oversharing", but I (male) was circumcised when I was 11 years old, and it was my choice - I wasn't circumcised at birth because I had jaundice when I was born. I had "tight foreskin", making it difficult to follow my doctor's instructions to clean under the foreskin when bathing,…

They're not equivalent in most cases (not all female genital mutilation is performed the same way and I cannot fathom a medical reason for any sort). But that doesn't mean they aren't in the same general category when defined as surgical alterations of people's genitalia performed for religious or cultural reasons without any medical necessity. A medically required circumcision when reasoned and self-chosen is an alt…

It's horrifying that these are even compared. The foreskin is just some skin and absolutely not required to experience sexual pleasure or climax. But for women, they cut their clitoris out, fundamentally altering their ability to have sex forever.

You cannot compare this. There is no equivalence here. IMO, female genital mutilation is comparable to male gelding --- removal of the entire penis. Both are designed to ruin sexual pleasure

Always weirds me out when a dude compares a circumcision to FGM, like someone is intentionally conflating a much lesser evil with a far greater one.

Re: Tradition is Smarter (2018)

#73

Post by nehal3m »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #67
mikkergp wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Definitively proven? I can’t wait to see that randomized controlled clinical trial. FWIW the language I see used is compelling evidence, where are you getting definitively proven from?

FWIW all I had to do was Google "male circumcision hiv clinical studies", it's not that hard to find: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4233247/ From the introduction: "Three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in sub-Saharan Africa have shown that adult male circumcision reduces the risk of HIV acquisition in men by about 60% [1-3]."

Except a few results down the page there's an article that links a bunch of studies that claim the studies your article quotes are faulty:

https://intaction.org/circumcision-hiv-a-dangerous-mistake/

https://www.aidsmap.com/news/aug-2012/male-circumcision-may-...

https://www.aidsmap.com/news/feb-2013/circumcision-makes-no-...

https://web.archive.org/web/20210509203032/https://www.monit...

Which by the way would invalidate the CDC's encouragement of circumcision since that advice is based on the three studies your article a few comments up quotes:

"The guidelines point to research, much of it done in sub-Saharan Africa, showing that circumcision reduces the transmission of STDs, including HIV and the human papillomavirus, which can cause cancer."

Re: Tradition is Smarter (2018)

#74

Post by nehal3m »

criley2 wrote: post #72
nehal3m wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're not equivalent in most cases (not all female genital mutilation is performed the same way and I cannot fathom a medical reason for any sort). But that doesn't mean they aren't in the same general category when defined as surgical alterations of people's genitalia performed for religious or cultural reasons without any medical necessity. A medically required circumcision when reasoned and self-chosen is an alt…

It's horrifying that these are even compared. The foreskin is just some skin and absolutely not required to experience sexual pleasure or climax. But for women, they cut their clitoris out , fundamentally altering their ability to have sex forever. You cannot compare this. There is no equivalence here. IMO, female genital mutilation is comparable to male gelding --- removal of the entire penis. Both are designed to r…

One, how do you know I am a dude? I am, but you're assuming. Two, I did not compare them, I explicitly said they are NOT equivalent, even accounting for the type of female genital mutilation where the clitoris is merely nicked.

Re: Tradition is Smarter (2018)

#75

Post by 77pt77 »

trention wrote: post #53
77pt77 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pick up any book on Quantum Mechanics.

Using this as an example of "tradition being wrong" in the context of the linked article is literally peak autism on top of the fact that our "common sense" understanding of physical processes being wrong (is it even wrong at the level of abstraction we work on?) says nothing about our understanding of social phenomena.

> literally peak autism

Thanks. That completely invalidates everything I wrote.

Super effective technique you have there.

Re: Tradition is Smarter (2018)

#76

Post by yCombLinks »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #61
nehal3m wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To your point, assuming you're a Westerner, I quote you: "female circumcision wouldn't be questioned as the mutilation that it is" Maybe your traditions are blinding you to the fact that male circumcision falls in the same category. I agree with the sentiment though, and the italicized part of your comment is quite an elegant way to put it.

> Maybe your traditions are blinding you to the fact that male circumcision falls in the same category. No, they are not. Perhaps this is "oversharing", but I (male) was circumcised when I was 11 years old, and it was my choice - I wasn't circumcised at birth because I had jaundice when I was born. I had "tight foreskin", making it difficult to follow my doctor's instructions to clean under the foreskin when bathing,…

It doesn't matter if there are (extremely overstated) medical benefits. Cutting off pieces of a babies genitals is wrong. Full stop.

Re: Tradition is Smarter (2018)

#77

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

nehal3m wrote: post #73
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FWIW all I had to do was Google "male circumcision hiv clinical studies", it's not that hard to find: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4233247/ From the introduction: "Three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in sub-Saharan Africa have shown that adult male circumcision reduces the risk of HIV acquisition in men by about 60% [1-3]."

Except a few results down the page there's an article that links a bunch of studies that claim the studies your article quotes are faulty: https://intaction.org/circumcision-hiv-a-dangerous-mistake/ https://www.aidsmap.com/news/aug-2012/male-circumcision-may-... https://www.aidsmap.com/news/feb-2013/circumcision-makes-no-... https://web.archive.org/web/20210509203032/https://www.monit... Which by the way would invali…

Wow, talk about cherry-picking, and apparently you picked all the rotten cherries.

First, the comment I was responding to specifically requested randomized, controlled studies, which is what I responded with. I just looked at the first 3 of your links, and these are just observational/questionnaire studies, a decidedly less definitive source of evidence.

Most hilarious to me is that your second link, titled "Male circumcision may not make much difference to overall male HIV incidence in Caribbean context" and from 2012, even has a big box at the top stating "This article is more than 10 years old. Click here for more recent articles on this topic". Clicking that link brings up a page with loads of articles, and a summary header: "Voluntary male medical circumcision (VMMC) lowers the risk of female-to-male sexual HIV transmission by about 60%. VMMC is an important part of public health programmes in African countries with a high prevalence of HIV and a low rate of male circumcision."

Even your own links argue against your points.

Re: Tradition is Smarter (2018)

#78

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

yCombLinks wrote: post #76
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Maybe your traditions are blinding you to the fact that male circumcision falls in the same category. No, they are not. Perhaps this is "oversharing", but I (male) was circumcised when I was 11 years old, and it was my choice - I wasn't circumcised at birth because I had jaundice when I was born. I had "tight foreskin", making it difficult to follow my doctor's instructions to clean under the foreskin when bathing,…

It doesn't matter if there are (extremely overstated) medical benefits. Cutting off pieces of a babies genitals is wrong. Full stop.

Not arguing your point, but ending a comment with "... Full stop." doesn't make you somehow more right, it just broadcasts that you are uninterested in hearing any arguments or data that are contrary to your opinion. Which is good, I guess, to let us know that we shouldn't waste our time.

Re: Tradition is Smarter (2018)

#79

Post by nehal3m »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #77
nehal3m wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except a few results down the page there's an article that links a bunch of studies that claim the studies your article quotes are faulty: https://intaction.org/circumcision-hiv-a-dangerous-mistake/ https://www.aidsmap.com/news/aug-2012/male-circumcision-may-... https://www.aidsmap.com/news/feb-2013/circumcision-makes-no-... https://web.archive.org/web/20210509203032/https://www.monit... Which by the way would invali…

Wow, talk about cherry-picking, and apparently you picked all the rotten cherries. First, the comment I was responding to specifically requested randomized, controlled studies, which is what I responded with. I just looked at the first 3 of your links, and these are just observational/questionnaire studies, a decidedly less definitive source of evidence. Most hilarious to me is that your second link, titled "Male cir…

I don't think the age of an article invalidates it's findings by default, but of course I'd expect new insights with the passage of time.

I'm doubting myself as ever in light of your comment, but the fact that there are studies, with any credibility at all, with a conclusion contrary to your earlier point namely that it is "definitively proven to greatly reduce the chance of HIV transmission from females to males" shows that that's pushing it at the very least.

And even if you're right, that doesn't excuse genital mutilation.

Re: Tradition is Smarter (2018)

#80

Post by karaterobot »

klyrs wrote: post #48
karaterobot wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sometimes, Chesterson's fence was erected by a shepherd who no longer uses the field that you'd rather play soccer on. It was useful in its day, but no longer. I mean, that's the point of the metaphor: before knocking down the fence, figure out what purpose it served in the first place. It's not a question of "don't ever knock down a fence" or "always knock down fences".

> It's not a question of "don't ever knock down a fence" or "always knock down fences". Exactly my point. "Tradition is smarter than you" implies that I won't be able to out-think it. When, in fact, tradition is overturned quite regularly and quite often with extremely good reasoning. Always doing the same thing is dumb -- be that holding or throwing out tradition. Mindless adherence to tradition is just as stupid as…

Your upstream comment made me think you were interpreting the linked article as saying "if something is traditional, it must be wise, thus we should follow it." But it is not saying that, by my reading. It is saying: because the pace of generational change is increasing, applying the Chesterton's Fence rule to traditions is increasingly difficult, thus many people abandon it and try to work from first principles."
Post reply on HN