The Health Benefits of Circumcision: The "Naturalistic Fallacy" gets the boot.

[ianzin]

@ambushed

Why, I’m quite shocked that a man in the cheap-ass, socialized medicine State of the United Kingdom – which still refuses to fund circumcisions primarily because of budgetary reasons and against the scientific and medical best interests of their citizens – just isn’t convinced in the least by such a sound, rational, scientifically proved-a-dozen-times set of unassailable facts! Who would have ever guessed such a thing might be possible?

I’ve been reliably informed that most of the upper class males – royalty and so forth – almost always are circumcised. But perhaps I was misinformed.

These comments are both ignorant and stupid.

‘Cheap-ass’ is a sloppy, slang expression. If you want your so-called argument to be taken seriously, then it might help if you make the effort to express yourself in correct written English, assuming that you can do so. If you cannot, and this usage suggests you cannot, then it is difficult to admire either your case or your ability to present it.

There is nothing ‘cheap’ about healthcare in the UK. On the contrary, we have universal health care that is extremely well-funded, and it’s something of which we are rightly proud.

The inclusion of the term ‘Socialised’ does not have, and cannot have, anything to do with whatever rational case you are trying to make. It is perhaps the case that you consider ‘socialised’ to be a derogatory term. First of all, it isn’t a derogatory term. It just means that we’re all happy with the idea of paying for universal healthcare via collective taxation. Secondly, this is irrelevant to whatever point you are trying to make. If I am in error here, perhaps you could point out the relevance.

The United Kingdom does not ‘refuse to fund circumscisions’. It is quite impossible for this statement to be true, and if you knew what you were talking about you would realise why. Perhaps you would like to go away and check your facts before you continue to write about things that you don’t understand.

As for the second quoted paragraph, you cannot consistently suggest both that you are ‘reliably informed’ and that you have been ‘misinformed’. These are mutually exclusive claims.

Advertising your ignorance and stupidity in this way only serves to undermine whatever cogency you might otherwise have been able to muster.

[bup]

So did this article get published?

[hotflungwok]

Neither title of article nor the word ‘circumcision’ appears in any of the Skeptical Inquirer’s archive listings going back to the beginning of 2008. I’m guessing it didn’t get published.

[ambushed]

@jackdavinci

It all seems so reasonable, until you put things in perspective - for the article to be really be fair it needs to look at circumcision not in a vacuum but in various contexts…

I dearly hope that no one decides to Fuck you repeatedly, jackdavinci, bareback in the ass with an HIV-riddled uncut dick for being such a cretinous yahoo asshole as to revive this two-year-old thread for such pointless twaddle as the shitload of crap you decided was so earth-shatteringly important that you had to dump it on us all.

For the record, my OP was not published, on the grounds that it was far too long; a perfectly fair and valid point I could not dispute. And yet you decided to bring this all back from the dead anyway. And why? Because it wasn’t nearly long enough to deal with all the self-important, sophomoric crap you now contend it should have! Did you think I intended to write a book here in the Pit?

Start your own Pit thread next time, dammit, and you would be well advised to not exploit any two or more year old threads while ascending your personal soap box!

I’ll just address the first of your utterly off-base rantings: Too many people think that just because ancient peoples were ancient, they were somehow incapable of making empirical observations and establishing procedures to bring the fruits of those observations into life-improving practices.

Almost certainly, the “original justification” for male circumcision in Jews (which was wisely carried over into Islam) derives from the fact that they lived in the desert. You know, the desert? The desert with all that “sand”?

Live and eat and travel and fight for very long in the desert wearing loose-fitting garb, and soon the next time you enter your partner, you can be assured of some irritating complaints, not all of which would be expressed verbally by your partner but would instead be delivered via the nervous system from your little partner.

Do I need to draw a picture for you?

People who can think no more clearly than to believe that religious verbiage defending a practice actually is the original justification for that practice should not throw sand in others’ faces.

I won’t be replying to other posts from you on this topic.

[ambushed]

@Cesario

Why, in all this back-and-forth (that apparently happened almost two years ago) did not one person on either side mention the very simple fact that if you don’t circumcise your infant sons, there is nothing stopping them from deciding to get themselves circumcised later on in life if they feel the benefits are worth it?

Why, indeed… Might it possibly be because the original poster did, in fact, cover that issue in the actual OP, of all places?

@ambushed

Some also argue that parents should not make the decision for their sons. This is trite and misguided, to say the least. What other vital health decisions would anyone argue that parents forgo for their infants? Isn’t a major part of their very purpose in life to make such early decisions? This is particularly true for circumcision, because the maximum health benefits – such as near-perfect prevention of penile carcinoma, drastic reduction in urinary tract infections, and the serious scarring that often accompanies UTI – only accrue if the procedure is performed neonatally.* It’s therefore harmful to your sons to wait for them to make the decision (which they’re not likely to even broach with you when they reach puberty anyway, thus forfeiting the decision to the parents after all). All we can say for sure is that a handful of sons will complain no matter which way the parents decide, but that’s no excuse for not choosing wisely when your son is an infant.

---

[sup]*[/sup] “Circumcision is the removal of all (or a part) of the foreskin. This procedure is most often done in infants but it can be done later in life. Circumcision seems to protect against penile cancer when it is done SHORTLY AFTER BIRTH. Men who were circumcised as babies have less than half the chance of getting penile cancer than those who were not.” (American Cancer Society)

“Squamous cell carcinoma of the penis is an uncommon malignancy in the United States, accounting for less than 1% of cancers in males. By contrast, the incidence of squamous cell carcinoma of the penis ranges from 10% to 20% of male malignancies in some parts of Asia, Africa, and South America. A striking correlation exists between the practice of circumcision and the occurrence of penile cancer. Circumcision confers protection; hence, this cancer is extremely rare among Jews and Moslems and is correspondingly more common in populations in which circumcision is not routinely practiced. It is postulated that circumcision is associated with better genital hygiene, which, in turn, reduces exposure to carcinogens that may be concentrated in smegma and decreases the likelihood of infection with potentially oncogenic human papillomavirus (HPV).” (Robbins and Cotran)

“Of those with invasive penile cancer where the circumcision status is known, 97.7% of them were uncircumcised. Worldwide, Israel has the lowest number of cases while countries where circumcision is rare can see as much as 4000% higher incidences. In Uganda, penile cancer is the most common cancer among men, and it results in 17% of all malignancies in some areas of Brazil. (Owor R. Carcinoma of the penis in Uganda.” IARC Sci Publ. 1984;63: 493–497; Ornellas AA, Seixas ALC, Marota A, Wisnescky A, Campos F, de Moraes JR. Surgical treatment of invasive squamous cell carcinoma of the penis: retrospective analysis of 350 cases. J Urol. 1994;151:1244–1249)

[ambushed]

@Mikkel

The glans is protected, that’s probably all.
My opinion is that the foreskin feels nice and mine have never given me trouble in my life (54 years old). I use more time washing my feet than washing under my foreskin so the inordinate time isn’t much of an argument, both places are naturally clean when I’m finished. Should my foreskin ever give the trouble some people predict, it can easily be rectified, I will still have had the advantage of having had that nice plaything most of my life.

"Compared to before they were circumcised, 64.0% of circumcised men available at 24 months reported their penis was “much more sensitive,” and 54.5% rated their ease of reaching orgasm as “much more”. (J.N. Krieger, S.D. Mehta, R.C. Bailey, K. Agot, J.O. Ndinya-Achola, C. Parker, N. Pugh, G.A. Magoha, S. Moses: Adult male circumcision: effects on sexual function and sexual satisfaction, J Sex Med. 2008 Nov;5(11):2610-22. Epub 2008 Aug 28.)

[ambushed]

@ianzin

These comments are both ignorant and stupid.

How very respectable, scientific and rational of you. Clearly, “you want your so-called argument to be taken seriously”.

@ianzin

‘Cheap-ass’ is a sloppy, slang expression. If you want your so-called argument to be taken seriously, then it might help if you make the effort to express yourself in correct written English, assuming that you can do so. If you cannot, and this usage suggests you cannot, then it is difficult to admire either your case or your ability to present it.

How very respectable, scientific and rational of you. I’m so glad “you want your so-called argument to be taken seriously”.

The comments that you are so vapidly venting your rabidly enraged spittle upon were obviously not part of my proposed article in the OP, or did the two-year time lag confuse you? Perhaps it’s still January 2008 out there in the crumbling, dissolute Fallen Empire of the UK?

They were written in annoyed retort (this is the Pit, did you notice?) to another respectable, scientific and rational citizen of the UK who knew even less than you what he was blathering about, and my response deliberately included epithets directed at that Kingdom (as distinct from my “crumbling dissolute Empire” slurs, of course) merely because it fostered his existence. And now yours.

Perhaps your obviously very meager comprehension of my deeply annoyed retort in question might be improved if you read it again a few times, taking more care to grasp the full complexities of all the layers of fact, argument, and openly mocking slurs into account. As you read, ask yourself these questions:
(1): “Might ambushed have not been seeking to portray the character and attributes of his antagonist with unimpeachable scientific rigor and accuracy?”,

and,

(2): “Had this actually been part of ambushed’s OP, would he have expressed himself the same way?”,

and,

(3): “If ambushed were to author an article covering the same topics in December 2009, might he have written it differently than he did in January, 2008?”
Ponder these conundrums with all due diligence, as any respectable, scientific and rational reader would.

[Miller]

I’m putting this zombie down.