The burden of the Intellectual

[Runa216]

Kasz216 said:
I specifically quoted a study that was pro circumscion from 2011.

Going with scientific conesus is the act of a middle ground adopter.   Sure it's better then being a luddite, but a true intellectual is someone who stays on the cutting edge of research, looks at a research project and still has questions beyond it,  wonders about the implications on other things, and realizes that often times in science, things that are considered 100% right, are often wrong... and keeps that in mind.

Having a scientific high ground no doubt should be considered a giant advantage, but pretending it means you are 100% right for sure.  Is foolish.

100% right in the context of the arguement?  You can make that arguement sure, but an undeniable truth is a claim that goes against the very nature of science and of an intellectual.  The farthest an intellectual should go, and that scientists do go in their actual journal articles, is to say that such a thing is "Highly probable based on the available data."   They teach you to phrase your worlds like that in a Scientific Methods class for a reason.  It's also why the scientific method requires you start out with the opinion that in fact.... you are wrong.  Humility is the most important virtue of a scientist.

Again, while i agree with you on circumsicion, I think one would be stupid to call it bad as an undeiable truth. 

 

As for later articles.  The CDC's pros and cons are all 2000 and later more or less.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm

Did you know that removing the mammary glands results in a 100% reduction in breast cancer rates in women!  

Just becuase something has a tiny benefit (the slightly decreased risk of infection and disease) does not mean that it's an acceptable thing to do.  The potential benefits (which really only matters if you're fucking someone unprotected that has HIV or another STD) do not outweigh the very real and undeniable issues (permenent loss of sensitivity, virtually irreversible).  

See, being circumcised does in fact 'protect' against the risk of STD transmission, but it's a tiny margin (like I think ~1% if my reading is correct), not to mention that difference ONLY matters if you're putting yourself at risk in the first place.  I mean, condoms or not having sex with someone with an STD is a good start, and most people DO use condoms or just don't do things with people who have STD's, so it's a small percentage of a small amount of sexual encounters.  The 'benefits' are so infinitesimal that they barely register, whereas the issues that arise do so in far higher rates, in fact they are also guaranteed.  Plus you're taking a decision away from said child.  I know if I grew up circumcised and I decided I wanted my foreskin back, I'd be raising hell.  If you want to get it cut when you're an adult, I encourage you do do so.  If you chose the benefits over the risks/losses, then that's your decision and I give you my best wishes, but to do it to a kid, at a state where he has no choice in the matter, in a point in his life where he's not at risk of STD transmission (I surely fucking hope so) is barbaric.