I got neg repped by a Jewish woman on another forum for agreeing with a guy ....not because he was making personal attacks but i agree with his strong stance on parents mutilating babies....well what else am I supposed to think about people who gladly merrily mutilate their own children, especially babies who can't consent to it? I make no apologies for saying what i think of that behavior.
Circumcision reduces chances of HIV infection by 60%, says World Health Organization
- Thread starter Danaaaaa
- Start date
So you got neg repped for agreeing with someone who was launching personal attacks against someone who had a medical procedure done to their kids--a medical procedure endorsed by the World Health Organization. Are we supposed to feel bad for you because of this?
And why did you feel the need to comment on the religion of the person who downvoted you? About 98% of Americans who have their boys circumcised AREN'T Jewish or Muslim and AREN'T doing it for religious reasons.
And why did you feel the need to comment on the religion of the person who downvoted you? About 98% of Americans who have their boys circumcised AREN'T Jewish or Muslim and AREN'T doing it for religious reasons.
I didnt see any personal attacks against her. I saw someone taking offense to those in general who cut their kids. Including her cause she had it done to her son.
i named the religion because she called us anti semites because we disagreed with what many parents had done to their kids.
Btw i wonder something. You had said you hate the word retarded because it is offensive to your boy. Yet you have no qualms about cutting him. Maybe he wont like that either when he grows up but he didnt get a choice.
And I happen to know 2 men who's parents had it done to them as babies and they hate what was done to them and resent it.
i named the religion because she called us anti semites because we disagreed with what many parents had done to their kids.
Btw i wonder something. You had said you hate the word retarded because it is offensive to your boy. Yet you have no qualms about cutting him. Maybe he wont like that either when he grows up but he didnt get a choice.
And I happen to know 2 men who's parents had it done to them as babies and they hate what was done to them and resent it.
bballgurlis
Member
- Apr 11, 2008
- 38
- 0
- 6
That doesn't make ANY sense. You're comparing (1) a medical procedure where some major medical authorities advocate its performance, and (2) using offensive slurs to refer to people with congenital conditions. There's literally nothing in common between the two. That was an awkward, and unsuccessful, attempt to make what was a scientific and policy debate a personal insult contest.
Maybe she was out of line. Maybe someone besides you HAD said something anti-Semitic. I'm not going to take a firm position either way, since (1) she's not a member of this forum and can't tell her side of the story, (2) you haven't linked to the thread so we can see her side of the story, and (3) I really don't care that much about what someone said to you on a forum I'm not even a member of.
Certainly, a lot/most opposition to circumcision isn't remotely anti-Semitic. But some is. For example, the Foreskin Man comic book.
I don't know what happened in that other thread. Maybe she wasn't justified in calling some of the people attacking her parenting decision anti-Semitic, but maybe she was.
I happen to know dozens of American men who are circumcised and are happy with it. I've never met someone who was circumcised who wished he wasn't. So what.
Maybe my kids will resent this choice. Maybe if I didn't have it done at birth, they'd resent me because (1) they wanted it because of the medical benefits, but (2) they wished it was done at birth because of the lower risks of complication, shorter healing period, and the fact that they wouldn't remember the procedure or the healing period. No matter what choice I make, there's a chance my kids will resent me for it and there's a chance my kids will be thankful for it. All I can do is make the best decision for them I can with the information available to me. That's called parenting.
Maybe she was out of line. Maybe someone besides you HAD said something anti-Semitic. I'm not going to take a firm position either way, since (1) she's not a member of this forum and can't tell her side of the story, (2) you haven't linked to the thread so we can see her side of the story, and (3) I really don't care that much about what someone said to you on a forum I'm not even a member of.
Certainly, a lot/most opposition to circumcision isn't remotely anti-Semitic. But some is. For example, the Foreskin Man comic book.
I don't know what happened in that other thread. Maybe she wasn't justified in calling some of the people attacking her parenting decision anti-Semitic, but maybe she was.
I happen to know dozens of American men who are circumcised and are happy with it. I've never met someone who was circumcised who wished he wasn't. So what.
Maybe my kids will resent this choice. Maybe if I didn't have it done at birth, they'd resent me because (1) they wanted it because of the medical benefits, but (2) they wished it was done at birth because of the lower risks of complication, shorter healing period, and the fact that they wouldn't remember the procedure or the healing period. No matter what choice I make, there's a chance my kids will resent me for it and there's a chance my kids will be thankful for it. All I can do is make the best decision for them I can with the information available to me. That's called parenting.
FashionDiva
New member
- Feb 26, 2008
- 28
- 0
- 1
I saw that cartoon and honestly dont see the anti semitism in it. I never saw it. Then someone pointed out that the guy is blond. aryan type. and i said Um ok. maybe. But i didnt pick out the anti jewish in it.
Parenting obviously means different things to you than to me. Parenting to me shouldnt involve hitting kids or cutting them. If they want the 'medical benefits' if there are any, from cutting, let them decide when they get old enough. I dont see what is so wrong with that.
It just seems though that people who make these threads are people who have had it done to their kids and try to justify what they did, or else their people who are just not against it.
Parenting obviously means different things to you than to me. Parenting to me shouldnt involve hitting kids or cutting them. If they want the 'medical benefits' if there are any, from cutting, let them decide when they get old enough. I dont see what is so wrong with that.
It just seems though that people who make these threads are people who have had it done to their kids and try to justify what they did, or else their people who are just not against it.
doodlesnicker
Member
- Mar 2, 2008
- 30
- 0
- 6
You're kidding surely? The stereotypical Jews in the background looking sinister? It's just like a Nazi cartoon!
yinyellowx
New member
- Apr 9, 2008
- 29
- 0
- 1
I had a quick look at the web link provided and I couldn't see anything that states what the actual mechanism is that reduces HIV infection in circumcised men. And that does worry me a little. When it's difficult to separate the mechanism that leads to a particular result from the rest of the lobbying fluff. Then I question how valid this research is.
If the mechanism is for example simple hygiene. Then why not just teach better hygiene?
So what is the actual mechanism at play here?
If the mechanism is for example simple hygiene. Then why not just teach better hygiene?
So what is the actual mechanism at play here?
Actually recently medical opinion has been changing with regard to the appendix. It turns out when you have a case of "the runs". All the good bacteria in your gut gets washed out along with whatever is causing the problem. So how then does this essential good bacteria re-establish itself? Well the appendix acts like a reservoir or fallout shelter.
People forget doctors and scientists don't know everything and sometimes they tend to push their own theory and agenda for the sake of their career rather than the sake of the public health. If a doctor or scientist can't explain why something works then they've clearly missed something and we should be asking some very hard questions.
People forget doctors and scientists don't know everything and sometimes they tend to push their own theory and agenda for the sake of their career rather than the sake of the public health. If a doctor or scientist can't explain why something works then they've clearly missed something and we should be asking some very hard questions.
"After adjustment for confounding factors in the population-based studies, the relative risk for HIV infection was 44% lower in circumcised men."
There's a heck of a lot of difference between 44% and the 60% quoted earlier. Why the difference? The sources you're quoting are showing a lot of variation in the numbers. That again makes me question the validity of the research. It seems there's more going on here than just circumcision.
There's a heck of a lot of difference between 44% and the 60% quoted earlier. Why the difference? The sources you're quoting are showing a lot of variation in the numbers. That again makes me question the validity of the research. It seems there's more going on here than just circumcision.
Studies such as this are going to vary wildly in their results, because they often only monitor small numbers of patients. And some studies only monitor patients in high risk groups. And methodologies differ.
I do wonder what it would take for you to accept a study that makes a conclusion in favour of circumcision.
I do wonder what it would take for you to accept a study that makes a conclusion in favour of circumcision.
Specific reference to what it is about circumcision that makes the difference. As I asked earlier. What is the actual mechanism at play here?
I don't recall the link to the WHO's web site showing anything that actually states why circumcision seems to have an impact on the incidence of HIV infection. Could it be that those men who have been circumcised are more likely to simply have better standards of personal hygiene? Similarly in the other studies there are a lot of "seems to be" and "could be" mentioned. But no definitive answers as to why circumcision seems to have an impact. If the difference is indeed the presence of a particular bacteria then promoting simple hygiene would seem to be a better rout to take over a campaign for circumcision.
It seems that a few studies have latched on to a particular trend. But rather than trying to understand what is actually causing that trend to occur they've simply sold the trend as the "end result". Which I think is just lazy science.
So before I accept the results of these studies I would like to see;
The actual underlying cause of the trend identified.
A much larger study conducted to confirm the findings of the smaller studies.
A comparative study conducted in western developed countries.
The reason I would like studies done in the west and in the developing countries of Africa is because time and again simple hygiene proves to be a major factor in disease prevention and at this point in time I see no reason why HIV should be treated any differently. In the west basic hygiene and sanitation is generally a world apart from that found in the developing countries of Africa.
I don't recall the link to the WHO's web site showing anything that actually states why circumcision seems to have an impact on the incidence of HIV infection. Could it be that those men who have been circumcised are more likely to simply have better standards of personal hygiene? Similarly in the other studies there are a lot of "seems to be" and "could be" mentioned. But no definitive answers as to why circumcision seems to have an impact. If the difference is indeed the presence of a particular bacteria then promoting simple hygiene would seem to be a better rout to take over a campaign for circumcision.
It seems that a few studies have latched on to a particular trend. But rather than trying to understand what is actually causing that trend to occur they've simply sold the trend as the "end result". Which I think is just lazy science.
So before I accept the results of these studies I would like to see;
The actual underlying cause of the trend identified.
A much larger study conducted to confirm the findings of the smaller studies.
A comparative study conducted in western developed countries.
The reason I would like studies done in the west and in the developing countries of Africa is because time and again simple hygiene proves to be a major factor in disease prevention and at this point in time I see no reason why HIV should be treated any differently. In the west basic hygiene and sanitation is generally a world apart from that found in the developing countries of Africa.
Or maybe it's an evolving field and not all problems are answered in a day. As I've said before, I don't see any sort of economic conspiracy here. This is a simple procedure that costs somewhere between $25 and $200, and that money is not pooled with one company (like a drug company selling vaccines); it's spread amongst tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of individual medical providers.
To answer your question about causation...they don't know for sure yet. Some studies try to figure out if there's a correlation, and various studies (in the US dealing with gay men and in Africa dealing with straight men) all suggest there are--somewhere around 50%, give or take 10% for each individual study. A link to anaerobic bacteria is one explanation currently being scrutinized; fewer microtears on the glans of a circumcised man is a theory that makes sense to me but hasn't been investigated yet.
To answer your question about hygiene...remember that there were multiple studies in the US involving gay men as well that gave similar results. I have no reason to think that American gay men have poor hygiene on average--they certainly don't live in Uganda-like conditions. So hygiene alone doesn't explain the correlation that's been found between circumcision and lower HIV rates.
To answer your question about causation...they don't know for sure yet. Some studies try to figure out if there's a correlation, and various studies (in the US dealing with gay men and in Africa dealing with straight men) all suggest there are--somewhere around 50%, give or take 10% for each individual study. A link to anaerobic bacteria is one explanation currently being scrutinized; fewer microtears on the glans of a circumcised man is a theory that makes sense to me but hasn't been investigated yet.
To answer your question about hygiene...remember that there were multiple studies in the US involving gay men as well that gave similar results. I have no reason to think that American gay men have poor hygiene on average--they certainly don't live in Uganda-like conditions. So hygiene alone doesn't explain the correlation that's been found between circumcision and lower HIV rates.
zerojake96
New member
- Apr 14, 2008
- 27
- 0
- 1
What Hannibal and JWT said. And if you don't see any anti-Semitism in that comic book, it makes me wonder about the thread where you complained that a Jewish woman raised accusations of anti-Semitism when, once again, you said none was present.
How about jamming needles in them while they kick and scream? If you do it because you're a sadist or because you think pain is good for kids, it's wrong and it's the equivalent of hitting your kids. But if you're doing it for a valid medical purpose, then it's good parenting.
Vaccination made my kids sicker than circumcisions ever did. Sometimes they'd be running high fevers and be limp and drugged-feeling for days. Circumcision gave them numerous health benefits (reduced chances of early childhood UTI, almost complete elimination of chances of penile cancer, reduced chances of topical infections should they find themselves in a situation where daily soap-and-hot-water bathing isn't feasible--such as camping or trips to the third world, etc) with less pain and distress than their routine vaccinations caused.
It's one hell of a straw man argument to compare a medical procedure, carried out by a medical professional, that has numerous health benefits even though you find it philosophically offensive, TO BEATING YOUR KID. Get real.
As I've already stated, I started this thread to share medical evidence with other people who might be interested in it, not because I'm trying to justify my parenting choices to a bunch of people I've never met. In your past couple posts, you've basically called me a hypocrite and an abuser, and you know what? It didn't cause me to lose any sleep last night. I'm not here try to win anyone's approval; I'm here to share medical evidence with people who might want to know it.
How about jamming needles in them while they kick and scream? If you do it because you're a sadist or because you think pain is good for kids, it's wrong and it's the equivalent of hitting your kids. But if you're doing it for a valid medical purpose, then it's good parenting.
Vaccination made my kids sicker than circumcisions ever did. Sometimes they'd be running high fevers and be limp and drugged-feeling for days. Circumcision gave them numerous health benefits (reduced chances of early childhood UTI, almost complete elimination of chances of penile cancer, reduced chances of topical infections should they find themselves in a situation where daily soap-and-hot-water bathing isn't feasible--such as camping or trips to the third world, etc) with less pain and distress than their routine vaccinations caused.
It's one hell of a straw man argument to compare a medical procedure, carried out by a medical professional, that has numerous health benefits even though you find it philosophically offensive, TO BEATING YOUR KID. Get real.
As I've already stated, I started this thread to share medical evidence with other people who might be interested in it, not because I'm trying to justify my parenting choices to a bunch of people I've never met. In your past couple posts, you've basically called me a hypocrite and an abuser, and you know what? It didn't cause me to lose any sleep last night. I'm not here try to win anyone's approval; I'm here to share medical evidence with people who might want to know it.
Yes of course it is which is why it worked here in the west. All the same I'd like to see the difference between circumcised men in the western world and circumcised men in Africa. It's not enough to simply discover an apparent correlation that's "encouraging". We need to understand the mechanism at work that actually makes the difference before advocating a particular course of action.
Well my dentist charges me £10 for a check up, clean and polish. And drives a Porche. Now $25 in Africa as I understand it can be as much as a months wages or more depending on which country you're in. From your perspective it's not a lot.
So given that the actual mechanism hasn't been identified. Why rush in blind. A while back the WHO decided to eradicate malaria. It went very badly wrong because they didn't do their home work properly. Circumcision leaves a wound that takes time to heal. There's a hell of a lot more disease in Africa to contend with than just HIV.
Lets say those who are circumcised don't practice good hygiene before they are properly healed. What then? I don't understand the rush to advocate this surgery when a condom is much cheaper. In fact advocating this elective surgery citing the benefit as HIV protection is likely to undermine efforts to get people using condoms.
Well my dentist charges me £10 for a check up, clean and polish. And drives a Porche. Now $25 in Africa as I understand it can be as much as a months wages or more depending on which country you're in. From your perspective it's not a lot.
So given that the actual mechanism hasn't been identified. Why rush in blind. A while back the WHO decided to eradicate malaria. It went very badly wrong because they didn't do their home work properly. Circumcision leaves a wound that takes time to heal. There's a hell of a lot more disease in Africa to contend with than just HIV.
Lets say those who are circumcised don't practice good hygiene before they are properly healed. What then? I don't understand the rush to advocate this surgery when a condom is much cheaper. In fact advocating this elective surgery citing the benefit as HIV protection is likely to undermine efforts to get people using condoms.
Antenociticus
New member
- Feb 28, 2008
- 29
- 0
- 1
I swear I didnt see it. Somebody posted it also in the thread i mentioned. I didnt see it then either.
and yeah mitlov, i do see some hypocracy going on there. Btw I looked up health benefits and also bad stuff that can happen with circumcisions. Including death from it. Its a waaaay longer list than the supposed 'health benefits'
and yeah mitlov, i do see some hypocracy going on there. Btw I looked up health benefits and also bad stuff that can happen with circumcisions. Including death from it. Its a waaaay longer list than the supposed 'health benefits'
Well if someone posted the Foreskin Man comic and other members were defending that comic, it's small wonder that she cried anti-Semitism. Hell, Hannibal and JWT aren't even fans of circumcision and they saw that comic for what it is in the blink of an eye.
I hope you're enjoying the name-calling, because calling me a hypocrite and an abuser isn't doing anything productive for the debate. Regardless, I'm guessing you got your list of risks from an anti-circumcision advocacy website instead of a neutral source? Here's what the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (aka the CDC, a branch of the US federal government) has to say:
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm (follow the link to see the footnotes)
I hope you're enjoying the name-calling, because calling me a hypocrite and an abuser isn't doing anything productive for the debate. Regardless, I'm guessing you got your list of risks from an anti-circumcision advocacy website instead of a neutral source? Here's what the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (aka the CDC, a branch of the US federal government) has to say:
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm (follow the link to see the footnotes)
sunnydayxx
New member
- Apr 8, 2008
- 28
- 0
- 1
Ah yes, but don't confuse the length of the list with the probability of something on the list happening.
If I take Antibiotics
Good: Cures infection
Bad: Diarrhoea, Vomiting, allergic reactions from the minor, to the severely irritating (red man syndrome - Yay macrolides
), to the lethal (mulitple organ failure). Writing out all the allergic reactions and specific kidney/liver issues that can occur would take PAGES to write out - but they're all really quite rare and don't override the singular benefit to taking the pills.
I'm not a fan of circumcision mind you... But it's not dangerous if performed professionally.
If I take Antibiotics
Good: Cures infection
Bad: Diarrhoea, Vomiting, allergic reactions from the minor, to the severely irritating (red man syndrome - Yay macrolides
), to the lethal (mulitple organ failure). Writing out all the allergic reactions and specific kidney/liver issues that can occur would take PAGES to write out - but they're all really quite rare and don't override the singular benefit to taking the pills.I'm not a fan of circumcision mind you... But it's not dangerous if performed professionally.
squirrelmaster
New member
- Apr 5, 2008
- 22
- 0
- 1
well i happen to think most of the people i know are hypocrites in one way or another.
anybody can be a hypocrite. I wouldn't get upset about that.
Some people would think I'm a hypocrite. Meh. Doesn't bother me.
i don't wanna fight or make enemies because we don't see eye to eye on circumcision.
and the cartoon - I don't think I've seen very many anti semetic cartoons or posters in my life. So no, i wouldnt really know one if i saw one.
anybody can be a hypocrite. I wouldn't get upset about that.
Some people would think I'm a hypocrite. Meh. Doesn't bother me.
i don't wanna fight or make enemies because we don't see eye to eye on circumcision.
and the cartoon - I don't think I've seen very many anti semetic cartoons or posters in my life. So no, i wouldnt really know one if i saw one.