Making light of thingies.

Jump to navigation Jump to search

1: I think part of the reason for this is its use as a means to derail FGM discussions and whine about the feminazis.
2: The studies aren't necessarily flawed -- just the JAQing off that tends to surround them.
3: "If someone said "cutting off your tits at 13 will INSURE you don't get breast cancer" who would say "ok" to that." I lol'd. "Yes, the world is quite different now. There are no more elephants. There is also no more unethical treatment of elephants."

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)18:03, 6 October 2011

1. Indeed, that's the context is important. But I think it's a more general observation. PZ blasting someone for being a dick is one thing, someone going out and actively defending their position that male circumcision Isn't A Big Deal So Get The Fuck Over It is something else.

2. Studies are studies. Assessing them is the hard part.

3. Actually, there's a serious point, related to no.2, in there about weighing up the pros and cons of a medical treatment. Lobbing bits off you to help prevent illness is a balancing act between how well it prevents that illness, and how big the bit is.

Adkgraffiti.png...I'll plagiarize your bathtub!18:09, 6 October 2011

On that #2 point, the WHO studies are flawed, mostly, because all peer-review attempts to replicate their results have proven inconclusive. Even the WHO admit that their data only showed a minor impact. As WfG mentioned somewhere earlier, condoms are extremely effective AIDS prevention, so why isn't the WHO going head-over-heels in promoting condoms instead? Especially because of all the religious nonsense that surrounds condom use, you'd think they'd rather be tackling the issue with a public information about condoms preventing AIDS campaign.

The Spikey Punk I'm punking my punk!18:17, 6 October 2011

I would almost say that it's because of the religious nonsense. God (or at least His agents on Earth) are okay with one, not the other. What option will people have an automated respect for? The UN and WHO are massive organisations ran by people, they're not a skeptical organisation that would specifically want to work against religious rulings on prophylactics.

Adkgraffiti.png...I'll advocate your bat!18:35, 6 October 2011

WEll... here's another reason religion comes in. The UN with strong voting blocks in the muslim community, not to mention the power of the US has a HUGE buy in for keeping male circumcision "ok".

And if you can find non-religious reasons to justify it -- well how much better would that be. One of the French authors I read, a physician who is strongly critical of the UN and WHO's views, has said publicly that he thinks this entire "AIDS" connection is about justifying the practice of male circumcision. I personally, not being a physician or an advoisor to the UN, would not be surprized that this is an underlying factor.

Pink mowse.pngGodotThe Peyote God awaits18:40, 6 October 2011
 

"even the WHO admit their data shows minor impact" (i keep seeing 'who' and think 'whoville'.) And yet they publish that they are certain it can have a 50-60% impact (their words).

I just come back to the fact that circumcision woo is really just that, woo. there **might** be something there, but the there is not "that there".

Pink mowse.pngGodotThe Peyote God awaits18:36, 6 October 2011

Currently, they publish it as having a 50-60% impact. But when they originally came up with that idea, I remember reading in my local newspaper's AP syndication that they were claiming it had a 20-25% impact. But, back to point, I completely agree with your points.

The Spikey Punk I'm punking my punk!08:40, 9 October 2011
 
 

"big", or rather "important. mine are big. but they aren't necessarily all that much more important that a little woman's. ;-) heheheheheh

Pink mowse.pngGodotThe Peyote God awaits18:34, 6 October 2011