Nordic countries may finally ban circumcision.

[The Big Dog]

Erm, not everything pointing out hypocrisy is Tu Quoque, you know. Tu Quoque is about one party distracting from a question put to them by raising questions about the questioner's behaviour. Tu Quoque would be if you said you support a parent's choice to circumcise and I said 'but you haven't circumcised your sons,' etc.

Well the good news in this case is that it is being used as a tu quoque and, as I already pointed out, is getting far afield from the actual subject at hand

For example if one were to say that darat's links completely convinced them of the utility of female circumcision, would that resolve the issue of whether non-medically supervised male circumcisions were appropriate?

Probably not.

 

[jdp]

I disagree

Your logical fallacy is Tu Quoque

I am not quite sure where you get that from, I engaged your critisim of Darat's post by noting why it wasn't out of bounds for this discussion.

Your logical fallacy though has been all along been argumentum ad antiquitatem with a touch of special pleading. Now that is tu-quoqu.

 

[The Big Dog]

I am not quite sure where you get that from, I engaged your critisim of Darat's post by noting why it wasn't out of bounds for this discussion.

Your logical fallacy though has been all along been argumentum ad antiquitatem with a touch of special pleading. Now that is tu-quoqu.

And I engaged that by pointing out that the reason that you thought it wasn't out of bounds was a logical fallacy, so that perhaps not "out of bounds," it is essentially pointless and CERTAINLY time consuming.

 

[Rat]

it is essentially pointless and CERTAINLY time consuming.

You haven't got the hang of this "arguing on the internet" thing, have you?

 

[TheGoldcountry]

I disagree

Your logical fallacy is Tu Quoque

You repeatedly leave the argument in favor of counting "points" on your personal scoreboard. Do you actually care about the OP, or do you just like being an *******? (Yes, I realize that will get me suspended, I don't care, ******** need to be called out)

 

[Baylor]

This thread is shockingly reminiscent of parky's final days.

 

[The Big Dog]

You haven't got the hang of this "arguing on the internet" thing, have you?

HAHA!!!

Let me amend to say

it is essentially EVEN MORE pointless and CERTAINLY EVEN MORE time consuming.

Good catch!

 

[jdp]

And I engaged that by pointing out that the reason that you thought it wasn't out of bounds was a logical fallacy, so that perhaps not "out of bounds," it is essentially pointless and CERTAINLY time consuming.

If that's the case, and I can't see how, then the wrong fallacy was selected. Don't worry too much about it though as none really apply.

 

[The Big Dog]

If that's the case, and I can't see how, then the wrong fallacy was selected. Don't worry too much about it though as none really apply.

I don't think they meant to select a fallacy!

But as you say, no worries!

 

[ddt]

rather than comparing countries (which is almost totally worthless) did you compare circumcised v. uncircumcised in the same nation/geographic area?

No, it's not worthless. Let's compare the data of, say, Finland, with the USA, we find:

Finland: circumcision incidence 0.02% (none neonatal); AIDS incidence 0.1%
USA: circumcision incidence 79%; AIDS incidence 0.6%

Now suppose the claim that uncircumcised men are 8.2 times more likely to have HIV than circumcised men were true (Cameron et.al., 1989). Because you want to compare on national scale, we can then calculate the AIDS incidence among uncircumcised American men. Let's call that incidence a, then we have the equation:

0.79 / 8.2 * [I]a[/I] + 0.21 * [I]a[/I] = 0.6

which solves to a = 2.0 .

So, then the comparison becomes that, all other factors being equal, the AIDS incidence rate in the USA is 20 times as high as in Finland among uncircumcised men, while circumcision can only cut back by a factor of 8.2.

Or let's go with Newell and Bärnighausen, who argue for a factor of 2. Then we get for the AIDS incidence rate among uncircumcised Americans:

0.79 / 2 * [I]a[/I] + 0.21 * [I]a[/I] = 0.6

which solves to a = 1.0 ; in other words, American uncircumcised men are 10 times as likely as their Finnish counterparts to get HIV, while the protective effect of circumcision is only a factor of 2.

Now it's high time to quote the conclusion of luchog's post:

So it looks like, if circumcision is a factor in AIDS infection, it's a statistically insignificant one in comparison to high-risk vs. low-risk sexual activity; and sex education.

(highlighting mine).

It's painfully obvious that the USA is doing something wrong with respect to AIDS, compared to Finland. If there is no positive effect of circumcision on HIV infection rates, it's only doing it wrong by a factor of 6. If the positive effect is the highest touted, the USA even does it wrong by a factor of 20. That may be a lack of proper sex-ed as luchog suggested, or any other reason(s). In any case, the above numbers clearly show that circumcision is not the solution, because the problem(s) have a much higher contributing factor.

Feel free to repeat the comparison of the USA with any other European country and get essentially the same results.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

And I engaged that by pointing out that the reason that you thought it wasn't out of bounds was a logical fallacy, so that perhaps not "out of bounds," it is essentially pointless and CERTAINLY time consuming.

No one is forcing you to be there.

 

[The Big Dog]

No one is forcing you to be there.

Oh I agree! That is why I don't intend to participate in that "there" particular (or the toe nail, or ear lobe, or etc etc) thread drift any longer.

 

[tsig]

The answer is simple. The parents' beliefs outweigh the rights of the child when we're talking about something I want to do to my children. The rights of the child outweigh the parents' beliefs when we're taking about something someone else wants to do to their children.

It's simpler than that, if your Johnson's been clipped you favor circumcision if not you don't.

After all who's gonna admit they're lacking in any way in the male department.

It's the ultimate dick waving contest.

 

[Matthew Best]

It's simpler than that, if your Johnson's been clipped you favor circumcision if not you don't.

You may actually have a point here. After all, there's a first time for everything.

 

[sadhatter]

Oh I agree! That is why I don't intend to participate in that "there" particular (or the toe nail, or ear lobe, or etc etc) thread drift any longer.

It's nor drift, it is a perfectly reasonable question that never gets answered. Where is the line for body modification of children? My line is at anything permanent, and not medically required. Yours obviously is different, so why is it so hard to say where it is?

 

[TheGoldcountry]

It's nor drift, it is a perfectly reasonable question that never gets answered. Where is the line for body modification of children? My line is at anything permanent, and not medically required. Yours obviously is different, so why is it so hard to say where it is?

Because his/hers game would be over. Being a troll is hard work, they want to reap the rewards of what they've earned.

 

[luchog]

FFS, why are some of you so obsessed with someone else's penis human rights for children?

ftfy.

 

[The Big Dog]

Well the good news in this case is that it is being used as a tu quoque and, as I already pointed out, is getting far afield from the actual subject at hand

For example if one were to say that darat's links completely convinced them of the utility of female circumcision, would that resolve the issue of whether non-medically supervised male circumcisions were appropriate?

Probably not.

Oh I agree! That is why I don't intend to participate in that "there" particular (or the toe nail, or ear lobe, or etc etc) thread drift any longer.

It's nor drift, it is a perfectly reasonable question that never gets answered. Where is the line for body modification of children? My line is at anything permanent, and not medically required. Yours obviously is different, so why is it so hard to say where it is?

I believe I have explained my position adequately. Thanks!

 

[mijopaalmc]

So orthodontia should be delayed until aberrant dentition precipitates a medical emergency or, in the case where there is no immediate medical necessity, until the patient reaches the age of legal majority?

 

[Rat]

So orthodontia should be delayed until aberrant dentition precipitates a medical emergency or, in the case where there is no immediate medical necessity, until the patient reaches the age of legal majority?

I'm going to hazard a guess that the words "aberrant dentition" are the key words in this question.