|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
jinju
Joined: 22 Jan 2006
|
 Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 9:24 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| nautilus wrote: |
Oh dear. You've lost the debate.
bye.  |
Says the guy who gives links to scietific papers that contradict his position.
Never have I come across someone who was so bad at debating.
Tuck that tail between your legs and run, boy, run. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 9:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jinju wrote: |
| Wheres your proof that circumsition helps to prevent anything? It used to be believed it prevented penile cancer. There were studies, right? Yet the ACS of all people now says the studies were faulty. Aghast, could it really be that studies may be poorly designed? Conclusion drawn from them be false? Again, whats better, antibiotics or mutilation? I know what Jeffrey Dahmer would choose, he liked mutilation too. |
Science is always subject to revision. Because one aspect of scientific thinking was later shown to be incorrect doesn't mean you should automatically toss out all research. Geez. Sure, one should not talk in definitive truth. And this was one study. Studies need to be replicated. You also have to understand how studies are done. And why maybe penile cancer/circumcision had an initial correlation. Very few hypothesises are tested initially as large expensive iron clad trials for the New England Journal of Medicine. They're first done as smaller trials. If some effect is suggested by the smaller trial, a large one will be done, and then one most scientists will agree is definitive enough. If the large trial doesn't show the effect, then "poor design" (which could mean a number of things, including simply not being large enough sample size) would explain things.
The study in question is based on correlation. Correlation is weak evidence unless there is some plausible mechanism to explain how A could cause B. In the circumcision study, it was hypothesized that the weaker foreskin tissue is more susceptible to tearing during sex. If true, a scientist would then hypothesize we should see higher rates of AIDS among people with foreskins who are also having unprotected sex. So they go out and do this study. Lo, we find this. Conclusion, the real world observation is consistent with the hypothesis that foreskins are more at risk of tearing and exposure.
Read that final sentence again if you don't get the implication. If the study did not find a correlation, then this would provide evidence against the hypothesis.
That's the data. The bioethics people, the politicians, and the individual are now free to make choices for their people.
A vaccination hurts and terrorizes the hell out of a small child. It's very traumatic. But it also protects a child. Some children even die from vaccinations. The risks always have to be balanced with the risks presented by the actual disease. One reason we stopped giving Small Pox in the early '70s is because it was pretty much eliminated from Western nations by then. The risk of getting Small Pox was less than the risk of the complications.
Clearly the risks presented to those with foreskins is closer to the nil side in the west. And yes we can argue condoms and education are much much more effective than circumcision in Africa. Of course, that's the same argument the religious right makes against vaccinating young girls against HPV. If they just didn't have sex they won't get HPV. But come on. People have sex without condoms and no amount of education or free condoms will eliminate that. And there can be no doubt there is the "rain eater tire" effect. If they assume they're now protected, they will engage in far riskier behavior. But that's out of the scope of the OP's study.
The study simply suggests the public health departments in Africa have another tool to reduce the rate of HIV infections. Would money be better spent on condoms and education or snipping little boys? I'll leave that up to the people of Africa to decide for themselves.
Last edited by mindmetoo on Thu Mar 01, 2007 10:18 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
belzoond
Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Location: united states
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 9:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I think we should all be mindful that nautilus is having an intense conversation with himself right now which we are merely interrupting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jinju
Joined: 22 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 9:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| belzoond wrote: |
| I think we should all be mindful that nautilus is having an intense conversation with himself right now which we are merely interrupting. |
 Its called schizophrenia LOL looks like circumsision doesnt preven that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
IlIlNine
Joined: 15 Jun 2005
Location: Gunpo, Gyonggi, SoKo
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 12:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
I can't believe that I just read 6 pages of this argument. It really loses sight of one major thing...
Other than the UTI (which there are antibioics for) , there is no good reason to circumsize infants. Most of what you guys are arguing is related to sexually-active adults. Given this fact, what problem is there in waiting until the child is on the verge of being sexually active, giving them all the current evidence for and against, and letting the child (teenager) decide?
It seems to me that given that there is so much debate about this procedure, it's only logical to err on the side of caution and hold off getting it done.
(rambling ...)
It's kind of funny that this is actually up for debate. Of course, this is only the case because of the prevaling traditions around the globe. It's funny that doctors don't consider other forms of amputation as preemptive solutions to medical problems.
Last edited by IlIlNine on Fri Mar 02, 2007 2:48 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 1:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| IlIlNine wrote: |
Other than the UTI (which there are antibioics for) , there is no good reason to circumsize infants. Most of what you guys are arguing is related to sexually-active adults. Given this fact, what problem is there in waiting until the child is on the verge of being sexually active, giving them all the current evidence for and against, and letting the child (teenager) decide? |
That's true. Although I would sure rather get cut back when I was a baby and can't remember anything. But your logic is valid. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
IlIlNine
Joined: 15 Jun 2005
Location: Gunpo, Gyonggi, SoKo
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 2:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
That's true. Although I would sure rather get cut back when I was a baby and can't remember anything. But your logic is valid. |
Why?
I guess the question is -- and I hope this isn't too much of a strech --
If it was found that chopping a little part of somewhere else (you pick!) had similar health benefits to circumcision, would you do it?
This, to be honest, is how I've formed my opinion about this topic. I wouldn't - in my fully concious state - choose to do it... so why would I condone it being done to my (say) son? Granted -- your answer may be different... and I assure you, I didn't mean to put you on the spot (so feel free not to answer).
Arguing on the internet is fun.. but if science found that trimming off some skin from your scrotum (sorry) meant that you were (debatably and inconclusively) 23% (random number) less likely for you to contract some (pick one!) STD that's otherwise prevented by condom use (or something else equally as simple) - would you do it? Even if some girls said it looked pretty?
I'm willing to go out on a limb here and say (well, guess really..) that if everyone in the US waited until they were 16 to get it done - not many would get it done. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
belzoond
Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Location: united states
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 7:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| People have sex without condoms and no amount of education or free condoms will eliminate that. |
Probably true, but to what degree? The population of gay men in America is an example of a population among which condoms and education over the last 20 years have been phenomenally successful in cutting down infection rates and saving the lives of those concerned. Point is, it can and should be done - is anyone willing to do it?
| mindmetoo wrote: |
A vaccination hurts and terrorizes the hell out of a small child. It's very traumatic. But it also protects a child. Some children even die from vaccinations. The risks always have to be balanced with the risks presented by the actual disease. |
That is true, but it's not a very good comparison. A vaccination 1) does not involve a lengthy recovery process, 2) removes no body part, and 3) is not performed upon a newborn infant.
The first year of life is now widely considered to be one of the most crucial stages of psychological development. When someone makes any decision ignores this, I would submit that they simply do not know what they are doing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ilsanman
Joined: 15 Aug 2003
Location: Bucheon, Korea
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 7:40 am Post subject: yes |
|
|
Foreskin or no foreskin, the risk may or may not be lower, but there is still a risk.
Africans raping babies with no foreskin will not protect the babies.
| belzoond wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| People have sex without condoms and no amount of education or free condoms will eliminate that. |
Probably true, but to what degree? The population of gay men in America is an example of a population among which condoms and education over the last 20 years have been phenomenally successful in cutting down infection rates and saving the lives of those concerned. Point is, it can and should be done - is anyone willing to do it?
| mindmetoo wrote: |
A vaccination hurts and terrorizes the hell out of a small child. It's very traumatic. But it also protects a child. Some children even die from vaccinations. The risks always have to be balanced with the risks presented by the actual disease. |
That is true, but it's not a very good comparison. A vaccination 1) does not involve a lengthy recovery process, 2) removes no body part, and 3) is not performed upon a newborn infant.
The first year of life is now widely considered to be one of the most crucial stages of psychological development. When someone makes any decision ignores this, I would submit that they simply do not know what they are doing. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
daskalos
Joined: 19 May 2006
Location: The Road to Ithaca
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 11:38 am Post subject: Re: yes |
|
|
| Ilsanman wrote: |
Foreskin or no foreskin, the risk may or may not be lower, but there is still a risk.
Africans raping babies with no foreskin will not protect the babies. |
I'm sorry, wh-wh-what? Perhaps I'm missing something here, but isn't this an issue calling for a new thread?
Or were you just really drunk when you posted this? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
belzoond
Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Location: united states
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 12:30 pm Post subject: Re: yes |
|
|
| daskalos wrote: |
| Ilsanman wrote: |
Foreskin or no foreskin, the risk may or may not be lower, but there is still a risk.
Africans raping babies with no foreskin will not protect the babies. |
I'm sorry, wh-wh-what? Perhaps I'm missing something here, but isn't this an issue calling for a new thread?
Or were you just really drunk when you posted this? |
He's referring to the widespread folk belief in many parts of Africa that having sex with a virgin will cure a man of HIV. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 5:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| belzoond wrote: |
That is true, but it's not a very good comparison. A vaccination 1) does not involve a lengthy recovery process, 2) removes no body part, and 3) is not performed upon a newborn infant.
The first year of life is now widely considered to be one of the most crucial stages of psychological development. When someone makes any decision ignores this, I would submit that they simply do not know what they are doing. |
Circumcision on a baby doesn't involve a long recovery process. It's a removal of a fold of skin. It's not lung surgery. You're not bed ridden for weeks. Vaccinations leave visible scars (some worse than others... check out the arms of many Koreans). Remove some skin. Leave a scar. Both "mutilate" the body in some way. We accept the scarring from vaccination because of the benefit. The argument to be made by the African politicians, based on this research and future research, is if this form of "mutilation" is acceptable given the potential health benefits. If a nation's health system decides the costs/risks make circumcision acceptable, when is the best time? When one is an adult male and totally not prepared to undergo the pain? Or when one is a baby and the person will have no memory of it. If you wanted 100% compliance, the new born phase would be ideal.
What evidence, beyond supposition, do you have that circumcision can affect a human's mental development because x amount of non-reoccurring pain was inflicted in the first year of life?
So in sum my argument:
In the west: circumcision should be legal for religious reasons. If people still have a strong religious/cultural motivation, again, it should be legal. People who don't believe in it should not get it. They further should have every right to stand outside of circumcision clinics and shout at people who are trying to mutilate their babies. Showing them horrible pictures and all that. The market place of ideas.
In Africa: If research gives solid support that foreskins put one at a greater risk of a prevalent disease and circumcision (in conjunction with a free condom/education campaign) can truly reduce infection rates and the cost burden to the state, then from an ethical perspective, the benefits outweigh the "mutilation" argument. I leave it up to a nation to make that choice. Like vaccinations, if you want to put your child in public school you need to get vaccinated (save for some religious objections), the procedure might be considered mandatory by some African governments. If mandatory, doing it to a new born would ensure the highest compliance rate, with the least complications. A baby doesn't have to knock off work for 3 days to recover. A baby that dies, while sad, does not leave a family without a working male. Sadly babies are not given a free choice in many, many things that might affect their life for ill. They're not given a choice in a vaccination that might kill them or leave them with an unsightly scar.
Last edited by mindmetoo on Fri Mar 02, 2007 6:47 pm; edited 5 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 5:56 pm Post subject: Re: yes |
|
|
| belzoond wrote: |
| daskalos wrote: |
| Ilsanman wrote: |
Foreskin or no foreskin, the risk may or may not be lower, but there is still a risk.
Africans raping babies with no foreskin will not protect the babies. |
I'm sorry, wh-wh-what? Perhaps I'm missing something here, but isn't this an issue calling for a new thread?
Or were you just really drunk when you posted this? |
He's referring to the widespread folk belief in many parts of Africa that having sex with a virgin will cure a man of HIV. |
I think he's clear on that. It's just this is a non-sequitur. He's going from a study which seeks evidence to confirm a hypothesis that foreskin is subject to more tearing and exposure, to some point about raping babies.
I'm not sure how the two are connected and daskalos is probably implying the same. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jinju
Joined: 22 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 7:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="mindmetoo"]
| belzoond wrote: |
So in sum my argument:
In the west: circumcision should be legal for religious reasons. If people still have a strong religious/cultural motivation, again, it should be legal. People who don't believe in it should not get it. |
I agree. It should be legal to get circumcision past the age of, 16 or 18. When a person has the mental ability to make a rational decision based on whetever the hell floats theit boat. Your paragraph makes no sense though. You say:
"If people still have a strong religious/cultural motivation, again, it should be legal. People who don't believe in it should not get it."
the problem is that the peole who do get it are not people who have a religious belief. The people who get it are BABIES. Do babies have the mental capacity to make such a decision? Circumcision should be legal for adults. It shouldnt be legal to force it onto babies. *beep* religion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2007 4:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| jinju wrote: |
the problem is that the peole who do get it are not people who have a religious belief. The people who get it are BABIES. Do babies have the mental capacity to make such a decision? Circumcision should be legal for adults. It shouldnt be legal to force it onto babies. *beep* religion. |
Babies don't have the mental capacity to opt out of being Christian Scientist and asking for a blood transfusion. Babies don't have the ability to ask to be taken to a real doctor instead of Benny Hinn. Unfortunately in our society we currently let parents let their children suffer horribly and die because of their beliefs. Yes, I agree religion can go fork itself. But simply saying that won't change anything. I'll await the day the state can step in.
How do you suppose we affect this change? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
