51–58 of 58 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are attributing to malice what could easily be attributed to stupidity.
It's entirely fair to consider the possibility of malice as a subconscious motivation among some people. The very frequent blind application of Hanlon's razor seems to me to be almost worse than ignoring it entirely.
Male circumcision is prevalent in Africa mostly as as the norm. It is painless at childhood but gruesome when done to older kids. In some cultures around the world male circumcision is akin to piercing the ears of a baby girl for earrings.
In places where circumcision is a ritual, it gets done to older kids (early teens) as a rite of passage into adulthood. To me that will be more agonizing considering the awareness of the pain eg. when your dick gets caught in a zipper.
I personally dont find male circumcision at birth repugnant because I literally have no memory of it and I but I appreciate it was done to me appropriately.
According to https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5422680/
"The timing and reason for circumcision in boys or men vary across the continent. Circumcision is prevalent in as much as 93% of the countries in Northern Africa compared to 62% of countries in sub-Saharan Africa. Whereas the procedure is done for religious purposes in Western and Northern parts of Africa, it is seldom performed in neonates in Eastern and Southern regions of the continent where circumcision is, often, a rite of passage into adulthood"
What I'll love to see if the comparative AIDS footprint between countries with varying degrees of circumcision.
The page currently times out loading, but from what I gather from the title, it seems that my distrust in the circumcicion against AIDS stories was on track. It always felt a bit like puritans trying to find empiric evidence for their moral and cultural traditions.
It’s unbelievable how far people will twist themselves in knots trying to find utilitarian justifications for what is, at the end of the day, non-consensual mutilation done for no reason other than “because tradition.”
It is tempting to think that the 60% figure that’s being thrown around in media reports is just too large a percentage to ignore–even if the studies had some flaws. But do you know what the “60%” statistic is actually referring to? Boyle and Hill explain: What does the frequently cited “60% relative reduction” in HIV infections actually mean? Across all three female-to-male trials, of the 5,411 men subjected to male circumcision, 64 (1.18%) became HIV-positive. Among the 5,497 controls, 137 (2.49%) became HIV-positive, so the absolute decrease in HIV infection was only 1.31%.
That’s right: 60% is the relative reduction in infection rates, comparing two very small percentages
I don't even know where to begin. What does he think people will interpret it to mean? His entire point here is made in bad faith. What he's saying basically comes down to "the infection rate in this trial was low to begin with, therefore there's no point trying to make it lower," which is preposterous. The authors claim a reduction, which any speaker of the English language should know how to interpret.
I think it's entirely valid to argue the validity of the study and the blowback issue, but his sloppy argumentation throughout the article is underscored here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The article is very old now, so that was a fair point... when it was published. But in 2018 we have a lot of evidence that show the effect on transmission is real -- and we also have evidence that circumcised people do not engage in more risky behavior. [1] So that's why I think this is similar to denying climate change or claiming vaccines cause autism. It could have a real impact on public health. I suspect I'm get…
> I suspect I'm getting downvoted because some people are passionately anti-circumcision. And that's fine! Nobody is going to make you get circumcised. Yeah, the problem is that this "science" is inevitably used to justify performing an invasive, unnecessary procedure on babies because in 15+ years it will reduce his risk of acquiring HIV during unprotected sex with an HIV-positive woman from 4/10,000 to 2.4/10,000.…
I am a 59 y/o male and an "Intactivist." Tomorrow morning, I'll be flying from my home in Kirkland, Washington, to Orlando, Florida, to join my colleagues in protesting non-therapeutic circumcision at the site where the AAP is hosting its convention. I routinely join the Bloodstained Men and their Friends in their various protests / education events. I also carry my various signs in front of a local hospital (Evergre…
There is no legal basis for circumcision but unfortunately the law cannot help in this case as it reflects public opinion.
Check this out written by the author of this article https://youtu.be/sQQTIpBWqvY
I am considering retraining from software engineering into health policy to combat non-therapeutic infant circumcision in the UK
This piece from 2012 (posted now why?) loses all credibility in the section called "2. Misleading results": It is tempting to think that the 60% figure that’s being thrown around in media reports is just too large a percentage to ignore–even if the studies had some flaws. But do you know what the “60%” statistic is actually referring to? Boyle and Hill explain: What does the frequently cited “60% relative reduction”…
In fact, the "absolute decrease [of] only 1.31%" claimed by the article, if anything, is misleading, because that number (representing 60% of the 2.49%) is over a certain small amount of time, and therefore will only grow larger as time passes.