LogFAQs > #979267245

Tanthalas posted...

It is a counter, because you use studies conducted in Africa when it suits your argument, and completely ignore data from other places when it doesn't suit your argument.

You can't go "oh those don't count because a lot of different things can affect it in Europe" but then go "See! Circumcision definitely has a positive effect in Africa!".

I have at no point said those dont count because a lot of different things can affect it in Europe. The comment about comparing rates and the comment about Africa were completely different contexts and actually
support the exact same conclusion anyways. You are WILDLY confused.

Africa having circumcision doesnt make its rate lower than Europe because thats not how that works. Europe not having circumcision but having a lower rate of STI doesnt mean circumcision isnt effective at all, because thats not how that works. These are the same exact statement applied to different situations. The overall rate in both places is affected by other factors. I dont understand why you arent grasping this.

The entire point is you cant directly compare overall numbers of STI infection between countries and draw a conclusion about circumcision. which has FUCK ALL to do with whether you can use studies about other countries to prove OTHER THINGS.

How youve somehow concluded that is beyond me.