LogFAQs > #979266761

LurkerFAQs, Active Database ( 12.01.2023-present ), DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	To circumcise or not?
Tanthalas 03/08/24 7:45:38 PM #218:	Zonbei posted... One sec, do you.. you think that when researching the health implications of something, the CDC consults with organizations that are against that thing for ethics reasons? Because thats no thats not how anything works. Why would it work that way. They didnt consult with pro-circumcision organizations either. Given those would all just be like religious groups. Well, cant argue against you claiming that the document says nothing and an organization is just stamping its feet! I mean except pointing out that they literally provide where you can find evidence summaries and supporting documents. And that anyone who actually read it could easily see youre full of shit and they are very comprehensively addressing comments. Oh there you go again, trying to shift the argument to something else to weasel yourself out of it. There are plenty of organizations that are against circumcision because there is no real scientific proof that it provides any real benefits. Yet the CDC somehow managed to not consult any of them. This isn't an ethics thing. Somehow the CDC only consulted with organizations that defend circumcision and only one lonely doctor in the whole group had ever published an article against the procedure. The CDC's rebuttal doesn't address that at all (or if it did, I didn't find it, which is why I'm asking you to point out where this happened), yet you linked to that rebuttal as if it did. --- Sir Markham pointed out, drinking another brandy. "A chap who can point at you and say 'die' has the distinct advantage". <cite>Tanthalas posted [p:979266761] in To circumc... [t:80716158]...</cite> <quote>Zonbei posted... </cite><quote>One sec, do you.. you think that when researching the health implications of something, the CDC consults with organizations that are against that thing for ethics reasons? Because thats no thats not how anything works. Why would it work that way. They didnt consult with pro-circumcision organizations either. Given those would all just be like religious groups. Well, cant argue against you claiming that the document says nothing and an organization is just stamping its feet! I mean except pointing out that they literally provide where you can find evidence summaries and supporting documents. And that anyone who actually read it could easily see youre full of shit and they are very comprehensively addressing comments.</quote>Oh there you go again, trying to shift the argument to something else to weasel yourself out of it.There are plenty of organizations that are against circumcision because there is no real scientific proof that it provides any real benefits. Yet the CDC somehow managed to not consult any of them. This isn't an ethics thing.Somehow the CDC only consulted with organizations that defend circumcision and only one lonely doctor in the whole group had ever published an article against the procedure.The CDC's rebuttal doesn't address that at all (or if it did, I didn't find it, which is why I'm asking you to point out where this happened), yet you linked to that rebuttal as if it did. --- Sir Markham pointed out, drinking another brandy. "A chap who can point at you and say 'die' has the distinct advantage".</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1