German Court rules circumcision as assault

[Frisivisia]

Now you're behaving like a spoiled child.

... Not surprising, all things considered.

How is it logical to make an assertion and demand the other person prove it? "OH YEAH, WELL PROVE THERE ISN'T A GOD!!!!"

Burden of proof falls on you, brosafa.

[The Mongol Ilkhanate]

How is it logical to make an assertion and demand the other person prove it? "OH YEAH, WELL PROVE THERE ISN'T A GOD!!!!"

Burden of proof falls on you, brosafa.

Exactly. if you say "It's been proven your wrong", then PROVE that I'm wrong.

[The Mongol Ilkhanate]

How is it logical to make an assertion and demand the other person prove it? "OH YEAH, WELL PROVE THERE ISN'T A GOD!!!!"

It isn't, which is why we're all so exasperated with your skill at ignoring everything but your own voice.

• You made the assertion
• This assertion was then shown to be wrong in a multitude of posts throughout this thread
• You ignored all of them and continue to make the same assertion that's been killed repeatedly, while simultaneously accusing everyone else of doing what you've been doing
• You pretend to be the 'Victim' by way of apparently missing, at a conservative guess, several dozen posts either directly or indirectly addressing your claims, declaring that they somehow do not exist

This thread has 133 pages. You can hit ctrl+f and look for the relevant keywords - HIV, Aids, cancer - on every page. Or, hell, for Nazis in Space, Page or Torcularis Septentrionalis, so you get our posts the quick way. It's not actually that many. It can be done in rather less time than you've thus far spent on this thread.

We already made our arguments. That you casually ignored them in order to be able to appeal to ignorance and pretend they aren't there isn't our fault. We didn't make them somewhere else, they're made in this thread, in plain sight.

If you refuse to read the very thread you're arguing in, well, then frankly, there's no helping you.

But frankly, if you're not going to read what others write, I suggest that you don't participate in the debate at all. Sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting your opinion without being willing to at least recognise the existence of criticisms isn't a valid debate tactic, it's just plain sad.

We're not willing to entertain you by repeating arguments we've already made - with you around and posting at the time, no less - and which you consciously choose to pass up on. You had the opportunity to read and reply to them. You still do. They're in this very thread you're already spending a shitton of time on, anyway.

Show you're willing to actually put some effort into the debate rather than simply shouting your opinion with no regard for everyone else.

Otherwise, be disregarded.

I just searched the word urologist, urology, etc. Nothing came up. Nobody has addressed the Urology journal source.

[Frisivisia]

Burden of proof falls on you, brosafa.

Exactly. if you say "It's been proven your wrong", then PROVE that I'm wrong.

I never did, but they're saying that they already have.

[The Mongol Ilkhanate]

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.asp ... id=1104451

http://www.springerlink.com/content/g5x ... 34/?MUD=MP

Read them.

Just reposting these.

Nobody's touched those.

[No Water No Moon]

That sometimes fails, circumcision lowers the risk. It's a way to slow the pandemic in Africa because it's just a one time deal, rather than each time.

That's like saying we shouldn't remove tonsils because taking strep throat medication every week means you won't get a sore throat.

1. Studies are thus far inconclusive, and many studies Such as this one so no statistically significant difference between HIV risks. The studies people often cite are ones that were done inconclusively and extrapolated.

Right. The link that was posted to 'support' the claim that circumcision was preventing HIV in Africa... quite clearly described how the trial was never even completed. They stopped it halfway.

[No Water No Moon]

So, we should be allowed to preform cosmetic surgery on infants if studies establish that having or not having certain features helps them? Because, hey, they can't make their own choice!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleft_lip_and_palate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polydactyly

We already do.

Reparative surgery can be argued as medically necessary.

"I think cocks look better if you cut the end off"... not so much.

[No Water No Moon]

So instead we should forego condoms and just mutilate babies when the evidence of it preventing HIV is highly debated AND it in no way would ever have the ability to stop HIV with the effectiveness of condoms even if the studies you've cited were correct.
I'd like to point you towards Australia, a Highly uncircumcised country with extremely low rates of HIV. Verses highly circumcised America, which has a horribly high HIV rate. The difference between those to countries? SEX EDUCATION.

And you're SERIOUSLY using the "Well, he could get caught up in the moment" excuse for not wearing a condom? No. That just means they were not taught correctly and are irresponsible. There is never an excuse for not using a condom.

Strawman. I never said stop doing condoms. I said including circumcision will help.

Which is a false assumption. If they are using condoms, circumcision is irrelevant. The only way you can cite the alleged 'advantage' of circumcisions as statistically meaningful, is if it is an alternative to condoms.

So, either you ARE arguing to 'stop doing condoms', or your point is irrelevant.

[No Water No Moon]

That's why it's good for it to be illegal perform on infants. To prevent stupid parents from violating their child's bodily autonomy for stupid reasons.

But there are medical benefits, even the small risk of penile cancer one which has been acknowledged.

Are you talking about the source that showed that circumcision spawns cancer in the scar?

[Torcularis Septentrionalis]

Strawman. I never said stop doing condoms. I said including circumcision will help.

Which is a false assumption. If they are using condoms, circumcision is irrelevant. The only way you can cite the alleged 'advantage' of circumcisions as statistically meaningful, is if it is an alternative to condoms.

So, either you ARE arguing to 'stop doing condoms', or your point is irrelevant.

He thinks that people are too horny to use condoms. No. That's called uneducated. He apparently doesn't realize that he's talking to the horniest person on NSG and a former sex addict, who STILL managed to use a condom every time.

[Galloism]

Which is a false assumption. If they are using condoms, circumcision is irrelevant. The only way you can cite the alleged 'advantage' of circumcisions as statistically meaningful, is if it is an alternative to condoms.

So, either you ARE arguing to 'stop doing condoms', or your point is irrelevant.

He thinks that people are too horny to use condoms. No. That's called uneducated. He apparently doesn't realize that he's talking to the horniest person on NSG and a former sex addict, who STILL managed to use a condom every time.

*ahem*

[No Water No Moon]

Just reposting these.

Nobody's touched those.

What do you want - someone to just post a conflicting source? Or are you expecting someone to go through and refute each numbered source?

Because obviously, one of those tasks is much more intensive than the other.

The first thing that leaps out at me, though - is how much Aaron Tobian relies on his own conclusions, which is a risky starting point in science.

He claims that there are "Three randomized trials in Africa demonstrated that adult male circumcision decreases human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) acquisition in men by 51% to 60%" and that there are "a large number of observational studies in Africa and in the United States that found male circumcision reduces the risk of HIV infection in men".

But if you check the foot notes, he's citing his own paper as support for... his own paper.

Continuing on, he starts talking about the evidence to support claims about "Two trials demonstrated that male circumcision reduces the risk of acquiring genital herpes by 28% to 34%" and "trials found that male circumcision reduces the risk of oncogenic high-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) by 32% to 35%". Who authored this research? Yep - you guessed it, once again we're being offered a paper BY Aaron Tobian, as evidence to support a paper by Aaron Tobian.

Indeed, it's not till we get to THIS claim: "the risk of HR-HPV for female partners was reduced by 28%, the risk of bacterial vaginosis was reduced by 40%, and the risk of trichomoniasis was reduced by 48%" - that we get presented with a different source. Well, two sources. The first source is that same paper by Aaron Tobian. The new source we're being cited as evidence? Yup, another paper by Aaron Tobian.

The next sourced claim is: "However, observational data of men predominantly circumcised during childhood support the findings of the 3 randomized trials conducted in Africa" - and yep, we're back to Aaron Tobian's first cited paper again.

In fact, coming up on halfway through the paper on "The Medical Benefits of Male Circumcision", and the supporting evidence for Dr Aaron Tobian's claims - have been Dr Aaron Tobian's claims.

Even if we ignore Dr Aaron using himself as a source, three of the sources are questionable on the face of it. In a discussion about the effectiveness of circumcision via Medicaid insurance - two sources cite data from Uganda, and one cites data from Kenya.

One of the other sources presents data collected in the US - but ONLY from African Americans, and ONLY in Baltimore.


Does this mean Dr Aaron Tobian is wrong?

I haven't even addressed that yet - all I've been doing is looking at the relevance and validity of the sources - and so far, it's not looking very good.

[Milks Empire]

He thinks that people are too horny to use condoms. No. That's called uneducated. He apparently doesn't realize that he's talking to the horniest person on NSG and a former sex addict, who STILL managed to use a condom every time.

*ahem*

AQed!

[Galloism]

*ahem*

AQed!

I tolerate no blasphemers in my presence.

[Torcularis Septentrionalis]

He thinks that people are too horny to use condoms. No. That's called uneducated. He apparently doesn't realize that he's talking to the horniest person on NSG and a former sex addict, who STILL managed to use a condom every time.

*ahem*

It's literally not possible for you to be hornier than I am.
I get turned on by hands for fuck's sake.

[Milks Empire]

*ahem*

It's literally not possible for you to be hornier than I am.
I get turned on by hands for fuck's sake.

*clears out before this gets ugly*

[Galloism]

*ahem*

It's literally not possible for you to be hornier than I am.
I get turned on by hands for fuck's sake.

Ever heard the phrase "there's always a bigger fish"?

... Yeah.

You just met him.

[Torcularis Septentrionalis]

It's literally not possible for you to be hornier than I am.
I get turned on by hands for fuck's sake.

Ever heard the phrase "there's always a bigger fish"?

... Yeah.

Oh you aren't a bigger fish.

[Galloism]

Ever heard the phrase "there's always a bigger fish"?

... Yeah.

Oh you aren't a bigger fish.

I'm famous for being a bigger fish around here, at least with regard to that.

[Zeyad]

Oh you aren't a bigger fish.

I'm famous for being a bigger fish around here, at least with regard to that.

Kanye, is that you?

[Milks Empire]

Ever heard the phrase "there's always a bigger fish"?
... Yeah.

Oh you aren't a bigger fish.

*snicker snicker*
Bigger fish.

[Torcularis Septentrionalis]

Oh you aren't a bigger fish.

I'm famous for being a bigger fish around here, at least with regard to that.

You need glasses so you can see...I am a far larger fish. I could devour you in horniness.
... Say, why fight? Make love not war, right? So... Where you from, baby?

[Galloism]

I'm famous for being a bigger fish around here, at least with regard to that.

You need glasses so you can see...I am a far larger fish. I could devour you in horniness.
... Say, why fight? Make love not war, right? So... Where you from, baby?

Originally?

[Seperates]

He thinks that people are too horny to use condoms. No. That's called uneducated. He apparently doesn't realize that he's talking to the horniest person on NSG and a former sex addict, who STILL managed to use a condom every time.

*ahem*

*gets on protective gear for the imminent cock-fight*

[Torcularis Septentrionalis]

You need glasses so you can see...I am a far larger fish. I could devour you in horniness.
... Say, why fight? Make love not war, right? So... Where you from, baby?

Originally?

Just tell me how we can get together and, *ahem* settle this peacefully.