You want me to kiss your ass now, CanvasShoes the enlightened?
You disagree with me, you don’t like me. Big fucking deal. You are not better than me, you don’t need to scold me like I’m three years old. I’ve been called ‘batshit insane’ and a ‘cunt’ by exactly two people in this thread, and quite honestly I think they’re the ones with an anger problem.
Disagreeing with someone’s opinion on a subject, or on their behaviour in “debating” that subject does NOT = not liking them, thinking you’re better than them, etc.
The people calling you batshit insane have spent long periods of time PRIOR to calling you that trying to explain things in reasonable ways. You don’t respond in kind, as do the other procirc folks, which results in them becoming exasperated. Exasperated and perplexed as to your complete inability to see others’ points even if you don’t agree with them isn’t an “anger problem”, if you notice, they’re not posting such to Choti or some of the others who are anti circ.
The difference is in their behaviour, and NOT in the subject matter, for they also are against circumcision.
That also does NOT = they don’t like you, or hate you, etc. It is your behaviour, as is demonstrated in your posts that they are protesting, yes, in a smartassed sarcastic way, but it’s still just an exasperated, or annoyed response. At any rate, it’s your behaviour that’s creating their reactions, NOT your opinion, and not that they “don’t like you” or think they’re better, or what have you.
Personally, I’ve seen you behave with SUCH class and maturity, that your return to this sort of thing surprises and dismays me. But it is your choice to do so of course.
And I repeat my question: which medical evidence do you find compelling enough to sway you slightly, from ‘I see no reason to do it’ to ‘I am neutral and I will consider it’?
There is the HIV thing (though I personally consider behavioral choices to be a much larger risk factor), the slightly higher risk of UTI for infants (but not for adults)…was it these, or something else? I’m quite genuinely interested.
Thank you.
Actually, I most assuredly do hate her. Although I’m sure my grudge would dissipate quickly if given reason - I’m terrible at holding grudges. But I don’t hold out much hope I’ll have a reason to change my mind. Seriously, though, CanvasShoes, is there really any point in engaging her? Trying to get her to act like a reasonable human being instead of a batshit insane moron is a losing battle, and it’s only distracting the rest of us from having an actual discussion.
I wish I could doubt that this were true, but I’ve heard stories from doctors. The entire notion of claiming that circumcision doesn’t hurt the kid is ridiculous - I’ve heard audio recordings of boys being circumcised by doctors, and they’re heart-rending. I’m glad that medicine is moving towards recognizing this; any doctor who would claim that the child is hurting is not only ignoring reality, he’s a heartless bastard.
I’m glad that it’s not generally considered acceptable anymore to do a circumcision without anaesthesia; it’s a pretty sad and frightening thing that it was. And any doctor who still performs one without anaesthesia oughta be shot.
Unfortunately, I think you’re exactly right that doctors can become inured to the pain they’re causing. Especially if they assume the patient won’t remember it. It’s probably fairly easy for it to happen - you simply ignore it as a necessary evil until you stop thinking about it entirely. The kid isn’t able to tell the doctor that he’s in excruciating pain, so while an adult patient who’s not cowed by the experience has a shot of making their doctor knock it off, the kid just gets to cry.
Does anyone know of a link to more information about the HIV link? I have no idea where to start searching - I heard about it when it made the news, but I don’t really have much concept of how strong a link it is, or how well-proven.
Quite paradoxal a statement coming from someone who has resorted to name-calling in half his posts in this thread.
I think you should avoid lecturing other people…
Thanks. I’m going to check it out.
Actually, dearie, before catsix started her batshit insane ranting, the thread stayed quite calm and productive. You managed to arrive (with whatever agenda you’re endorsing; I can’t figure it out) when catsix had already shown herself for what she really is.
If you’ll note, every time I called anyone names, I preceeded it with rather long, in depth arguments designed to appeal to a desire for rational discussion. Both you and catsix appear to lack that desire; still, you’ll note that I tried for several posts to pretend that you two were rational, thinking people. And even after I gave up and resorted to name-calling in an attempt to get rid of you, I always had the courtesy to respond to your points first. I think the fact that both you and catsix fail to do that probably has to do with the weakness of your arguments.
At any rate, I didn’t think it polite to discontinue discussion with you without letting you know. I told catsix as well; I don’t wish to see you taking the futile step of arguing with someone who won’t reply. This is the last post in this thread addressed to you that I’ll write, clair. I’m hoping others more interested in the issue at hand (circumcision, in case anyone’s forgotten) will fill the void.
Well, in the CIRP library there is a page listing 70 different articles in peer-reviewed journals about HIV and circumcision status, and none of these appear to lay the highest risk factor at the feet of the uncircumcised penis - there are just too many confounding or compounding factors, including condom usage, “dry sex” as practiced in some cultures in Africa, . However, there was an article in the British Medical Journal (here reviewed) wherein the claim is made that circumcision does seem to offer a protective benefit by removing tissue with specific cells from the inner prepuce.
I don’t know how to weigh 70 articles against 1 article (which apparently references 8 other recent studies, I couldn’t find them). Perhaps there are others, but this is what I’ve been able to dig up.
HA!
There is NOTHING at the CIRP cite which could be considered “peer-reviewed” as we generally mean it on these boards, I wouldn’t believe them if they said the sky was blue and had an interview with God to back it up. CIRP is the leading site of the batshit inasne anti-circ-at-all-costs folks, as an information source they’re about as reliable as Bert and Ernie.
Wait, wait . . . I know that as a website cirp is run by the batshit-insane crowd, but is all the information they have thus tainted? Do they write all their own stuff (in which case I wouldn’t trust it) or is it links to articles and abstracts from journals? Cherry-picking articles to support their cause doesn’t make the articles themselves bad. Is there really nothing there that comes from a peer-reviewed source?
The only real difference between this and other threads is that my belief here centers on the consent issue, which has been dismissed although I haven’t seen proof that it should be, and that I don’t make a religious exception. I started thinking that some people on the other side were far too extreme with their view when saying that they would violate the law to be able to circumcise their kids because, again, I place so much importance on consent when it comes to permanent body alteration.
I’ve already said that the exceptions I can see would stem from verified medical problems presenting a clear and urgent medical need for the procedure, but that I don’t support the parents ability to mark their religion on their kid in a permanent physical manner.
For that people suggested I am anti-Semetic, that I wish to flatly outlaw the Jewish religion, that I’m stupid, and that I’m crazy. Oddly enough, it’s been primarily two people who have thrown those insults, and for the most part (other than the heated exchange with DocCathode) they haven’t been that I know, Jewish posters. Zev Steinhardt has been polite but firm in his opinions, and for that I respect him a great deal although I will very likely never agree with him.
I don’t know why you want to lecture me, or why you count me to be the sole cause of all problem in this thread, but that seems to be your opinion and you are certainly entitled to it, although I disagree.
Therein lies the problem. You simply believe that I am not a rational, thinking person, thus your pretending is obvious through your tone. I had no problem with you to begin with, until the whole idea that consent just doesn’t matter was raised. The response that parents have the ultimate right to consent was met with the argument that there are laws limiting what parents can do to their children, and that no one has defined why circumcision seems to be an exception to the limit of pain and harm (Yes, I believe that removing a fully functional part of the body is harm.) that parents can legally cause. The only response since then has been ‘batshit insane.’
If you want a constructive discussion, we could discuss that. Also, please bear in mind that a firm belief and unwillingness to change it no more makes me crazy than it does people who are firm and unwilling to change on the other side.
There are many good reasons for this. You don’t wait until they grow up to wipe their bottoms, because it would be awfully unsanitary to act thus. You don’t wait until they have grown up to perform circumcision, because circumcision on a grown penis is a much more major operation than one on an infant penis. You don’t wait until they grow up to perform cosmetic orthodontia, because teeth grow in and it is much more difficult to correct them later in life.
2 “My body, my choice”. How nice. In relation to babies, it makes no sense whatsoever. One may as well label ass-wiping as some form of harassment. After all, babies don’t choose to have such an indignity performed upon them.
Treating babies as if they were adults is absurd.
I have no idea why anesthetic isn’t used more often.
I remember getting my teeth drilled without anesthetic, either. I wouldn’t recommend it, but I survived.
Why are you directing this at me? I agree anesthetic should be used.
I merely pointed out that examples of doctors being inconsiderate to adults has no bearing on the discussion. You want the “doctors are in general assholes” thread.
Survival isn’t exactly the optimum here. And for a baby, who has no idea what’s going on, and who doesn’t have any idea how long the pain will last or why he’s being subjected to this, it’s gotta be worse. It’s completely unacceptable, in my opinion, to visit this on a child. I know that you’re not arguing that point, and so I obviously have no desire to argue it with you, but I think the baby’s suffering would be pretty dramatic in this case.
Doctors who are inconsiderate to adults are likely to be inconsiderate to children. Think about Chotii’s experience: the doctor performed the procedure in what was, for her, the most expeditious manner. When Chotii indicated to the doctor that she was in pain, the doctor dismissed her concerns, and it required not just alerting the doctor but demanding that she change her technique to convince her to switch.
That doctor was completely blasé about causing pain, not out of sadism or even uncaring but because the thought simply hadn’t occured to her. A newborn kid doesn’t get to inform their doctor (twice!) that they’re in pain, and it’s not a big leap to imagine doctors not really thinking about the kid’s pain at all.
Of COURSE they cherry-pick. But how that invalidates the “peer reviewed” nature of the articles below, including ones in the New England Journal of Medicine, I really don’t know. Below I’ve listed the first 18 of the aforementioned 70 articles about the tenuous link between HIV protection and circumcision (many of which are linked from the CIRP site so one doesn’t have to subscribe to Medline to see them). If people are going to start discarding them willy-nilly merely because they’ve been quoted by CIRP to defend their position, then there’s really no point whatsoever in “providing peer-reviewed journal articles” to support my position or anyone else’s position (which by the way, Excalibre, is why I said before that I felt reluctant to go to the effort of finding such cites - they’ll just be discarded with no cited article to show why they have been debunked - just discarded, sorry Chotii, try again, go find something acceptable.) God forbid, you know, that the AMA Assn. website might link to some of the very same studies to support their position statement on neonatal circumcision. Nope, boys, them articles’ve been contaminated now, the anti-circ crowd use 'em! Toss 'em out!
Oddly enough, I thought I was being entirely fair, trying to find that article I’d heard about which would have damaged my position - the one about the recent study showing a protective effect against HIV (but not other venereal diseases) via circumcision. As it happens, I couldn’t find the actual citation. I did find a review, which I provided, and the review mentions 8 other studies which also by the way were not cited. That’s not my fault. And I’m not shelling out however many bucks to Medline just so I can say my journal cites came from an “untainted” source. Because then of course I’d be accused of cherry-picking anyway. Right?
What nonsense. Talk about intellectual dishonesty.
Prakash S, Raghuram R, Venkatesan, et al. Sub-preputial wetness - Its nature. Ann Nat Med Sci (India) 1982;
Fink AJ. A possible explanation for heterosexual male infection with AIDS [letter]. N Engl J Med 1986;315:1167.
Carael M, Van de Perre PH, Lepage PH, et al. Human immunodeficiency virus transmission among heterosexual couples in Central Africa. AIDS 1988 2:201-205.
Hrdy DB. Cultural practices contributing to the transmission of human
immunodeficiency virus in Africa. Rev Infect Dis 1987;9(6):1109-19.
Surick I, McLaughlin M, Chaisson M. HIV infection and circumcision status. [New York City Department of Health, NY, NY, USA.] Int Conf AIDS, Montreal, June 4-9 1989, 5:113 [abstract TAP89].
Poland RL. The question of routine neonatal circumcision. N Eng J Med 1990; 322:1312-1315.
Guimaraes M, Castilho E, Ramos-Filho C, et al. Heterosexual transmission of HIV-1: a multicenter study in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. VII International Conference on AIDS. Florence, June 1991 [abstract MC3098].
Hooykaas C, van der Velde FW, van der Linden MM. et al. The importance of ethnicity as a risk factor for STDs and sexual behaviour among heterosexuals. Genitourin Med 1991; 67(5): 378-83.
Runganga A, Pitts M, McMaster J. The use of herbal and other agents to enhance sexual experience. Soc Sci Med 1992;35(8):1037-42.
Pépin J, Quigley M, Todd J, et al. Association between HIV-2 infection and genital ulcer diseases among male sexually transmitted disease patients in The Gambia. AIDS 1992;6:489-493.
Barongo LR, Borgdorff MW, Mosha, FF, Nicoll A., Grosskurth H, et al. The epidemiology of HIV-1 infection in urban areas, roadside settlements and rural villages in Mwanza Region, Tanzania. AIDS 1992;6:1521-1528.
O’Farrell N, Hoosen AA, Coetzee KD, van den Ende J. Sexual behaviour in Zulu men and women with genital ulcer disease. Genitourin Med 1992;68(4):245-8.
Brown JE, Ayowa OB, Brown RC. Dry and tight: sexual practices and potential AIDS risk in Zaire. Soc Sci Med 1993;37(8):989-94.
Chao A, Bulterys M, Musanganire F, et al. Risk factors associated with prevalent HIV-1 infection among pregnant women in Rwanda. National University of Rwanda-Johns Hopkins University AIDS Research Team. Int J Epidemiol 1994; 23:371-380.
Malamba SS, Wagner HU, Maude G, et al. Risk factors for HIV-1 infection in adults in a rural Ugandan community: a case-control study. AIDS 1994;8:253-257.
Moses S, Plummer FA, Bradley JE, Ndinya-Achola JO, Nagelkerke NJ, and Ronald AR. The association between lack of male circumcision and risk for HIV infection: a review of the epidemiological data. Sex Transm Dis 1994;21:201-210.
de Vincenzi I, Mertens T. Male circumcision: A role in HIV prevention? AIDS 1994;8:153-160.
Kault DA. Modelling AIDS reduction strategies. Int J Epidemiol 1995;24:188-197.
The problem I have with the list of articles is not that an article in JAMA is not a peer eviewed journal, it’s two fold:
#1 Saying “This article says X” does not guarantee that it does actually say “X”, a link to the actual article is needed, there was an article from the AMA linked a couple of pages ago that, while quite interesting, didn’t say exactly what it was represented to have said.
#2 The linking of specifice articles is just the first part of the peer review process, you have to see if the findings mentioned are replecated by other researchers. For example, you could publish an article saying that reading the Straight Dope website led to increased stimulation of the brain, which is great and all, but if you don’t read the 5 follow up articles over the next year that show that no, it doesn’t, then you don’t have the full picture.
Chotii, love, I was asking Weirddave (note who I was quoting) to justify his position than any information from cirp was to be assumed false. Because the website doesn’t have that JDT-loco kinda feel (in fact, I take back what I said about it being run by the batshit insane - it looks reasonable, even if it is an advocacy organization.) Weirddave acted as though citing anything from cirp was automatic grounds for dismissal - and I was asking him to explain why. The place looks fairly solid to me.
What possible piece of writing could satisfy this requirement? I understand the process of peer review, but I don’t quite understand how you imagine us, here, conducting that process. Are we only to link to studies if we can find enough later studies that duplicate their findings? I can’t see how that would be possible.
I don’t understand this objection.
Are you saying some docs can be asses? If so, I agree. That sounds like an argument about doctors, not about a specific procedure which may or may not be performed by doctors - right?
No, not at all, and for all I know CIRP may have gotten less looney, I haven’t been there in 4 years, back then what I saw was definitely on the order of batshit insane, but I am just pointing out the caution one must use when taking cites from an extremely biased source, I’d say the same if it was a rabidly pro-circ website as well.
Quote:
CanvasShoes said:
Personally, I’ve seen you behave with SUCH class and maturity, that your return to this sort of thing surprises and dismays me. But it is your choice to do so of course.
Well, you have one thing right, the only difference between your behaviour in this thread, and others is the subject matter, in this case that of the consent issue, and the religious issue.
Secondly, your points have NOT been “dismissed”. They were read, acknowledged, answered and DISAGREED with. There is a difference. Presenting the same exact viewpoint in escalating degrees of desparation is NOT going to make people abandon THEIR beliefs and come to your side.
You don’t seem, based on your posts in this and many threads, to be able to grasp the difference between people not agreeing with you, and people, in YOUR words, “making fun of you” “dismissing” you and so on.
People ANSWERED your points regarding the consent of the infant. MANY people answered that point of yours. Over and over they answered it. With many different points of their own.
Their points were clear, their points were proof to THEIR side that it “should be”. That you don’t AGREE with that is your right, but it doesn’t mean they dismissed your point, or that they didn’t provide clear answers to it.
You act as if your simply saying your point should suddenly bowl everyone with an opposing viewpoint over. In ANY debate, whether it’s this, or your pet project of protecting men from the evil conspiracy against them, people from the opposing viewpoint CAN and WILL disagree with the other side’s beliefs and that CAN and WILL occur no matter how much “proof” the other side thinks they have.
The difference in THIS thread, is that the pro side has provided cites, reasons, “proof” and very clear ones at that, and YOU have not. All you have provided are what amount to anecdotal what ifs.
You’ll notice I didn’t chime in with a single post regarding the jewish faith? That’s because I don’t know very much about their faith. I’d suggest perhaps, that you do the same. I don’t know about THEIR faith, but I know about mine. And if that particular covenent is as core to their faith, as certain doctrines are to mine, then I can understand it. But I still wouldn’t presume to tell someone how they can practice their faith if I have not one single clue about it.
Asked/commented upon and answered, at least several doxen times by several different posters in this thread.
I don’t want to “lecture” you. You have asked several times why you’re being singled out for that treatment. I answered you as to why.
I don’t think you are the single source of “all problems in this (or any) thread”. Again, I am answering YOUR complaint as to why you’re being singled out for insults etc.
IMHO, you’re your OWN worst enemy, most of the posters, in this, and other threads, who’ve had trouble with your posting behaviour, probably don’t give two figs for you outside the few minutes that they spend in here. And I’d wager that what they “do” to you in here is more from annoyance and exasperation to your inability to see what’s being discussed rather than true hatred of you.
But I can’t speak for them of course, I’m just guessing from their posts. And posts in the “males are being persecuted” threads.