|
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 |
|
|
| | |
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
