With a rock?
I assume the difference is between one using medical techniques versus one using traditional techniques.
I’d see the outrage if the Gates Foundation was against condoms. But you can’t run out of circumcision, and you can’t reject it once you’ve done for not being manly. So it sounds like a great idea to me. Unless one is an anti-circumcision fanatic, that is.
The original article is pretty sketchy. I can’t find any webpresence for the cited consulting firm. The man quoted in the article is, according to his facebook page, a “business and marketing manager”. The name of the organization holding the conference where the results were supposedly presented, the “College of Medicine” is hilariously vague.
And the statistics cited, even if they’re true, don’t really show what is being claimed (and the poor English makes it kind of hard to even tell exactly what’s being claimed. Saying there’s a low use of condemns by circumsized men, for example, doesn’t really say anything unless its compared to the use by uncircumsized men, which isn’t done.
Pretty much all the evidence in the article is like that.
Penises or Penes are your two choices.
Christ. For a minute there I thought I had a basil and tomato sauce for a lot of cocks.
Yeah, of all the people to attack in the world, let’s choose a self-made bazillionaire turned philanthropist.
Behind every great fortune lies a great crime. Or a series of anti-competitive practices.
I never even mentioned women. That thread’s about the burden of proof, I’ve read about men who make false rape accusations, lots of rape cases ending in wrongful conviction based on misidentification, and so on.Some people just take the smallest criticism of tangentially feminist ideas as hatred of women, I suppose.
Since this is the pit, allow me to give an intellectually lazy but heartfelt response to the OP:
Fuck you. Bill Gates is a hero who has done more for the world - both business-wise and philanthropically - than just about everyone alive today. Rational thought and science underlie his decision-making processes and I bet he knows more about Africa, AIDS transmission, malaria, and a shitload of other subjects, than you ever will.
What the fuck does this have to do with either circumcision or philanthropy? His company is guilty of questionable business practices, therefore everything he does is questionable? That’s bullshit and you know it.
We get it. You don’t like circumcision. And you’re willing to bring up questionable, if not fucking ridiculously stupid, inaccurate, and inane cites and statistics to denigrate anybody who has ever expressed even an iota of support for circumcision. Especially if that person happens to be a well known public figure.
The rape thread just serves further evidence you’re willing to bring up questionable cites and statistics in an attempt to… what? Profit? Spread your message of anti-circumcision and misogynistic love and peace?
It doesn’t matter. At the very least, you don’t come across well, which is not helped at all by your reliance on poor data, pithy replies, and anecdotes.
…says the man with nothing more than a bunch of ideas and nary a thing to show for it.
[QUOTE=blindboyard]
Behind every great fortune lies a great crime. Or a series of anti-competitive practices.
[/QUOTE]
That’s all you got?? 
Good grief, this is one of the lamest pit threads I’ve ever seen. Someone needs to break out the cone of shame…
It’d be nice if Bill Gates poured his resources into making circumcision a voluntary affair here in the US. When you’re 15 or 18 you can decide whether or not you think you have too many parts, whether it is worth the risk and whether or not you’d like some off them lopped off just to be on the safe side. Want it? Cool. No? Keep your anatomy. Win-win.
I don’t think the data really demonstrates any real benefit to circumcision. As has been pointed out, the data are shaky and questionable, promoted because… who knows? It is just a stupid tradition with inertia, probably defended to avoid tens of billions in successful lawsuits. You could hold a gun to your mother’s head and she still wouldn’t be able to produce a coherent, let alone valid, reason why she inflicted this on you (if you are a circumcised male born before 1983 or so). I think it is inappropriate to impose on infants (who aren’t Jewish or Muslim), but that’s all I have to say, I just don’t have the time to go into what is really the problem with it.
Methinks some girl turned him down when he asked her to prom and he never got over it.
Maybe she only likes circumcised guys..
I’m sure he stole the whole idea from St. Jobs in the first place.
If I wasn’t circumcised at birth, Bill could pour $50 million into ME and I wouldn’t let a doc get near my boy with a knife. What surprises me in not the willingness to spend $50 million on adult male circumcision, but the idea that they can find enough adult males to spend that much money snipping.
The fact remains that people die from circumcision, that circumcision is highly ineffective at stopping the spread of HIV and that Bill Gates has pushed it in Africa, and none of your delusional ideas about Bill Gates being some kind of hero of human civilisation and none of your inability to follow hyperlinks is going to change that. Blood on his hands, and the effectiveness of his operating system’s marketing campaigns don’t change that.
Circumcision? No, it’s been around for some time now.
My wife knows a guy who got an infection “down below” at 16 and ended up having to get snipped then. Not much fun in high school.
Apparently it’s not uncommon for uncut older men (especially diabetics) to get recurring yeast infections under the hood, and part of prevention is to get snipped.
“Non-surgical” circumcision uses a little plastic and rubber bad doohicky that cuts off blood supply to the foreskin, causing it to atrophy. It’s supposably fairly painless.
If you lived in a region with a 50% HIV rate and you knew that circumcision could reduce your chances of contracting HIV by 75%, I’d venture you may feel differently.
Far fewer then die from HIV.
It makes transmission 60% less likely
Neither Bill Gates nor yourself are public health experts. The public health experts in the WHO and UNAIDS have advocated circumcision as an effective means of combating HIV in Africa. Gates is smart enough to know that if he wants to spend his money in the most effective way possible, he’s best off consulting the relevant experts.
Your dumb enough to think that your own emotional feelings about circumcision as practiced in the US trumps expert opinion regarding circumcision as an AIDS prevention measure in Africa.