Infant Circumcision

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

BattleMoose
Posts: 1993
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 8:42 am UTC

Re: Infant Circumcision

Postby BattleMoose » Mon Sep 10, 2012 1:56 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:No one in this thread has suggested circumcision as an alternative treatment for STIs. It has only been suggested that circumcision might provide an invisible 'safety net' to reduce STI rates in conjunction with all our other measures. How are you not getting this?


Its been suggested for the past few pages that it could have a positive effect in the USA, where the measures I have listed are largely, not happening. And the studies listed which support the efficacy of circumcision are done in contexts where the before mentioned measures are certainly not happening.

Unprotected sex with a stranger who doesn't know they are infected, you're a moron.

This is a breathtakingly ignorant--and ugly--sentiment


How is this ignorant? Its a dangerous thing to be doing. I think people who drink drive and run red lights and don't look for cyclists on the road, to be morons too, they are all dangerous actions that people should not be doing. They are moronic actions.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Infant Circumcision

Postby The Great Hippo » Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:15 pm UTC

BattleMoose wrote:Its been suggested for the past few pages that it could have a positive effect in the USA, where the measures I have listed are largely, not happening. And the studies listed which support the efficacy of circumcision are done in contexts where the before mentioned measures are certainly not happening.

...

How is this ignorant? Its a dangerous thing to be doing. I think people who drink drive and run red lights and don't look for cyclists on the road, to be morons too, they are all dangerous actions that people should not be doing. They are moronic actions.
By your own admission above, you secede that we are not doing enough to combat the spread of STIs--not enough education, not enough awareness, not enough access to condoms, not enough access to medical procedures. Then, in the second paragraph, you see fit to describe the people we are failing to educate as morons.

But let's put aside your overwhelming sense of snobbish entitlement and ignorant, hypocritical attitude. Even if you weren't simultaneously deriding the very people you claim you want to help, it wouldn't matter: It's still ugly to dismiss people as morons for not having safe sex. Because you don't know them. You don't know who they are, what their situation is, or what context they live in. You don't even necessarily know why they're having unsafe sex. Or sex at all.

It's one thing to say that unsafe sex is dangerous, and often moronic. It's completely different to describe the people who engage in it as morons. Don't do that.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4585
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: Infant Circumcision

Postby LaserGuy » Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:39 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
LaserGuy wrote:Unless people who are circumcised on these grounds then (mistakenly) believe that they are vaccinated from STIs and go on to do riskier behaviour than they would otherwise. Risk compensation of this nature is a fairly common phenomenon.


The only reasonable environment I can see that happening is if, every night, when their parents tuck them in, they remind them why they're circumcised.

"Now, remember to say your prayers, Bobby. And that by circumcising your penis, we have created an INVINCIBLE CYCLOPTIC MONSTER THAT CAN DEFLECT BULLETS, CURE HERPES, AND FIGHT CRIME."


Er... we've already seen this effect happen (to some extent or other) in areas where circumcision has been used as a method of STI prevention.

BattleMoose
Posts: 1993
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 8:42 am UTC

Re: Infant Circumcision

Postby BattleMoose » Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:43 pm UTC

TGH:

You've gone and taken something far too literally. Its a completely moronic act, assuming you know about HIV and aren't compelled into sex work because of hard life conditions and all other hosts of caveats that I didn't include because the point would be completely lost.

On the statics of transmission.

Condom failures are at about 2%.
Transmission of HIV, heterosexual vaginal intercourse. 5 for insertive and 10 for receptive transmission per 10 000 incidents of exposure to an infected source. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =382844244
PEP is also effective. TLDR, 6 out of 700 people on PEP contracted the virus, but they also had exposures before the PEP course. Another study of 350 people on PEP, no one contracted. The details in the different studies matter, see for details. http://www.avert.org/pep-prep-hiv.htm
Then there's also the chance both parties don't have HIV at all.

So with condoms and PEP and the very low transmission rate that already exists with HIV transmission, what is the ultimate probability of transmission? And realistically how much can circumcision already reduce the chance of transmission?

Even if you weren't simultaneously deriding the very people you claim you want to help,


I am trying to protect peoples right to bodily integrity, so that their bodies are not messed with without their consent. And I will deride people who have unprotected sex, with strangers and a hoard of other caveats that may make it not moronic. Its a moronic thing to do in the vast majority of circumstances.

But let's put aside your overwhelming sense of snobbish entitlement and ignorant, hypocritical attitude.


I am self entitling myself to what exactly? And how am I being ignorant? And how is my attitude hypocritical? And you certainly don't get to insult me and then try and put that aside.

I've said it to you before and Ill say it again, be civil.

EDIT:
I also deride people who drink drive, run red lights and almost hit me on the road because they cannot be arsed to look for cyclists.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Infant Circumcision

Postby The Great Hippo » Mon Sep 10, 2012 3:20 pm UTC

LaserGuy wrote:Er... we've already seen this effect happen (to some extent or other) in areas where circumcision has been used as a method of STI prevention.
Oh? Can you show me relevant examples? It's not that I disbelieve the possibility; it just runs counter to what I'd expect to see. Are you talking about infant circumcision, by the way? Because that's what I'm talking about, and that's what I'm suggesting I find unlikely.
BattleMoose wrote:TGH:

You've gone and taken something far too literally.
Yes, I'm one of those annoying people who assumes you actually mean the things you say.
BattleMoose wrote:I am trying to protect peoples right to bodily integrity, so that their bodies are not messed with without their consent. And I will deride people who have unprotected sex, with strangers and a hoard of other caveats that may make it not moronic. Its a moronic thing to do in the vast majority of circumstances.
Yes, because what the dialogue about preventing STIs needs are more judgmental generalizations. Dismissing people as morons is definitely going to encourage them to engage in protected sex. It certainly won't shame them when they get an STI, and it definitely won't perpetuate a culture where we feel that the people with STIs somehow 'deserve' to have them because of their 'moronic behavior'.
BattleMoose wrote:I am self entitling myself to what exactly? And how am I being ignorant? And how is my attitude hypocritical? And you certainly don't get to insult me and then try and put that aside.
Don't worry; I'm not going to sweep aside what I said by claiming you're taking me 'far too literally'.

It's hypocritical because you claim you want to educate people, then you call them morons when they do something that demonstrates a lack of sufficient education. It's ignorant because you seem to think calling them morons somehow helps, or at the very least, doesn't make things worse. And it's entitled because you think you possess the power, knowledge, and moral authority to separate the 'morons' having unsafe sex from the 'poor victims of circumstance' having unsafe sex. Shall we arrange them in rows so you can make the call on each person, one-by-one? I dunno about you, but I'm desperate to know which people having unprotected sex are morons and which ones aren't!

Effectively helping people means putting aside your judgment and just helping them. Deriding people you don't know as morons for the choices they make in no way improves the quality of those choices. It is the snobbish behavior of petulant children. This isn't about judging, it isn't about blame, it isn't about fault--it's about giving people more choices and trying to improve the quality of the ones they have. Describing the people who make suboptimal choices as morons? Doesn't help. Not one fucking bit.
BattleMoose wrote:I've said it to you before and Ill say it again, be civil.
I call spades spades, and hypocritical, ignorant, entitled attitudes hypocritical, ignorant, entitled attitudes.

A more civil way to express what I'm expressing might be to point out that you're wrong, and your attitude sucks. If that makes you feel better, by all means: Pretend that's what I said.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4585
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: Infant Circumcision

Postby LaserGuy » Mon Sep 10, 2012 4:54 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
LaserGuy wrote:Er... we've already seen this effect happen (to some extent or other) in areas where circumcision has been used as a method of STI prevention.


Oh? Can you show me relevant examples? It's not that I disbelieve the possibility; it just runs counter to what I'd expect to see. Are you talking about infant circumcision, by the way? Because that's what I'm talking about, and that's what I'm suggesting I find unlikely.


Here's a study that gives the phenomenon a bit of a look. Part of the problem is that most of the studies that examine the effect of circumcision on STI transmission (as well as condom usage, etc.) also include a component where the study subjects (both the study group and the control group, presumably) also receive risk-reduction education which may suppress this effect compared to "real-world" situations. Here's some general examples of the phenomenon. The research on circumcision seems to be mixed--the Wiki article there also quotes a study suggesting the opposite effect *shrug*.

BattleMoose
Posts: 1993
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 8:42 am UTC

Re: Infant Circumcision

Postby BattleMoose » Mon Sep 10, 2012 11:05 pm UTC

Like I already said, you took what I said way too literally. And your entire post was an extrapolation of an attitude I already told you was not an accurate expression of my attitude.

So well done on arguing against an attitude I don't posses and actually completely ignoring the content in the post that is actually relevant to the discussion. This is discussion is so completely dysfunctional.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Infant Circumcision

Postby The Great Hippo » Tue Sep 11, 2012 12:31 am UTC

BattleMoose wrote:Like I already said, you took what I said way too literally.
Yes. You said that. And then you qualified that what you actually meant was that only certain people are morons for engaging in unprotected sex with strangers. You then went on to give some vague conditions necessary to qualify them as morons, and some even vaguer exceptions. I then went on to explain how even with this qualification, it's still a hypocritical, ignorant, and entitled thing to say. After you specifically asked me why it's a hypocritical, ignorant, and entitled thing to say.

But if you want to move on, that's fine. I just don't appreciate you calling people in these situations--and making these choices--morons.

BattleMoose
Posts: 1993
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 8:42 am UTC

Re: Infant Circumcision

Postby BattleMoose » Tue Sep 11, 2012 3:15 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:I just don't appreciate you calling people in these situations--and making these choices--morons.


I explained already that the comment I made about people making these choices as being morons has been taken too literally. I didn't mean that they are incredibly stupid people. I meant and explained that it is the act that I am calling moronic.

And suffice to say that your allegations or hypocrisy, entitlement and ignorance only make sense if you make some very unfounded assumptions on what I think.

Anyways, I am done with this game of people hurling abuse at me for not reading my posts properly and making bad assumptions about my attitudes especially after I've corrected them.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Infant Circumcision

Postby The Great Hippo » Tue Sep 11, 2012 3:18 am UTC

BattleMoose wrote: I meant and explained that it is the act that I am calling moronic.
No, you didn't. This is the first time you've actually made that clarification. I even explained that distinction to you myself, in a post prior. Thank you for finally explaining what you actually meant.

BattleMoose
Posts: 1993
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 8:42 am UTC

Re: Infant Circumcision

Postby BattleMoose » Tue Sep 11, 2012 3:25 am UTC

viewtopic.php?p=3123979#p3123979

TGH:

You've gone and taken something far too literally. Its a completely moronic act, assuming you know about HIV and aren't compelled into sex work because of hard life conditions and all other hosts of caveats that I didn't include because the point would be completely lost.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Infant Circumcision

Postby The Great Hippo » Tue Sep 11, 2012 3:30 am UTC

Same post:
BattleMoose wrote:And I will deride people who have unprotected sex
Emphasis mine.

Not the act. The people. Later on (again, same post):
BattleMoose wrote:I also deride people who drink drive, run red lights and almost hit me on the road because they cannot be arsed to look for cyclists.
'Also' is synonymous to 'in addition to', which means you deride people who have unprotected sex with strangers 'in addition to' the people who drink and drive. Again--not the act, but the people.

There's a few possible ways for me to reasonably interpret these sentences. None of those interpretations involve assuming you deride the act of unprotected sex rather than the people who engage in unprotected sex.

You sent mixed, conflicting messages and expressed your point poorly. Now that you've finally clarified that what you actually said was not what you actually meant, we can move on.

BattleMoose
Posts: 1993
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 8:42 am UTC

Re: Infant Circumcision

Postby BattleMoose » Tue Sep 11, 2012 4:19 am UTC

If someone drink drives or commits some other offense, then they are worthy of derision. This does not necessarily mean that they are bad people or moronic.

How can you possibly be struggling with the concept of expressing contempt for the behavior of others?

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Infant Circumcision

Postby The Great Hippo » Tue Sep 11, 2012 4:49 am UTC

Look, why don't we get back to this when you actually figure out what you want to say?

I agree that unprotected sex with strangers is bad (because it spreads STIs). I agree that we should encourage people not to do that (to prevent the spread of STIs). I agree that we might even describe that action as 'moronic', with some very careful caveats (it is certainly, at the very least, dangerous).

I do not agree that having unprotected sex with strangers makes you worthy of derision. I find that sentiment contemptible, and counter to my desire to move toward a sex-positive, shame-free culture. I don't like it when people decide that other people they know nothing about are 'worthy of derision' or whatever the heck you've finally settled on. So rather than deriding a bunch of hypothetical people you know exactly jack shit about, let's just agree that we should do what we can to create a context for better, safer, more well informed choices?

BattleMoose
Posts: 1993
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 8:42 am UTC

Re: Infant Circumcision

Postby BattleMoose » Tue Sep 11, 2012 5:11 am UTC

I was expressing contempt for a behavior that I find contempt worthy. You don't think this particular behavior is contempt worthy and I guess thats fine. You also think that my contempt is worthy of contempt and I guess thats fine too. (I do think its very odd that a high risk behavior which can lead to the spread of a dangerous STI isn't contempt worthy but contempt for that behavior is. But no matter, this is all secondary to the point I am trying to make which is.)

In response to my assertion that people who take part in this behavior are morons. You could have said:

"Hey BattleMoose, calling people morons for such a behavior isn't okay, you don't know anything about those people and they may actually be very decent people. Who just happened to do this thing, which, while a foolish thing to do, doesn't make them morons."

To which I could have responded.

"Hey TGH, thats right, I should not have called them morons. But I do find the behavior contempt worthy and I was expressing my contempt. They should have been using a condom, which would not only help protect themselves from STI's but potentially also future sex partners."

And we could have gotten to where we are now, without abuse or assuming too much about what the other person said or didn't say. It could have been civil.

KrytenKoro
Posts: 1487
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:58 pm UTC

Re: Infant Circumcision

Postby KrytenKoro » Thu Sep 13, 2012 9:34 pm UTC

Just wondering here, but can you give a hypothetical situation in which it would not be a poor decision to consensually (i.e., under no duress) have unprotected sex with a stranger (i.e., someone you cannot confirm the health condition of, and will not be forming a committed relationship with).

All I can come up with right now is "Maybe you have no reason to believe in the existence of STDs, and your religion places sex with strangers as a sacrament of some sort." I mean, I honestly can't think of any situation in which the decision could be seen as a desirable outcome where duress is not involved.


Personally though, I think the whole bungle is a giant sham and am looking forward to when transhumanism lets us avoid the whole silly topic by allowing cheap-and-easy test-tube babies.
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

fifiste
Posts: 217
Joined: Sat May 12, 2012 11:48 am UTC

Re: Infant Circumcision

Postby fifiste » Fri Sep 14, 2012 7:56 am UTC

Maybe if the partner would not have sex with you with protection.
And you are desperately horny? As "I haven't gotten any for decades? and If I don't get this shag I might never well be?" and I'm fucking decided already that I'm going to kill myself rather than continue this miserable existence if I just don't get one shag?"
Do not underestimate the level of frustration and/or desire some people might have.
It might not be good idea to endanger your life for a quick fulfilment of your desire, but if the quick fulfilment of these kind of desires IS the epitome of what life itself ever can give to (buy your most basic I mean axiomatic values) you then it would be actually rather stupid not to do it.

KrytenKoro
Posts: 1487
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:58 pm UTC

Re: Infant Circumcision

Postby KrytenKoro » Fri Sep 14, 2012 1:32 pm UTC

fifiste wrote:Maybe if the partner would not have sex with you with protection.
And you are desperately horny? As "I haven't gotten any for decades? and If I don't get this shag I might never well be?" and I'm fucking decided already that I'm going to kill myself rather than continue this miserable existence if I just don't get one shag?"
Do not underestimate the level of frustration and/or desire some people might have.
It might not be good idea to endanger your life for a quick fulfilment of your desire, but if the quick fulfilment of these kind of desires IS the epitome of what life itself ever can give to (buy your most basic I mean axiomatic values) you then it would be actually rather stupid not to do it.

That sounds like an extreme form of nymphomania, I guess, and I'm having trouble seeing how "If I don't get sex right now I should just kill myself" doesn't count as nonsensical or ignorant. Especially since this person who is catastrophically-desparate for release can always, well, have a date with Rosie Palms.

Unless, okay, roll with me here:

It's like "Crank: High Voltage", except instead of adrenaline the person needs sex to live, and needs it right now, and their hands have been cut off.

That feels like we're getting into the realm of fantasy or magic, though.

Is there a realistic situation in which this choice would be rational, or are we stuck with these unbelievable parodies of action thrillers?
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Infant Circumcision

Postby The Great Hippo » Fri Sep 14, 2012 1:41 pm UTC

KrytenKoro wrote:Just wondering here, but can you give a hypothetical situation in which it would not be a poor decision to consensually (i.e., under no duress) have unprotected sex with a stranger (i.e., someone you cannot confirm the health condition of, and will not be forming a committed relationship with).
Whether or not it's a good decision isn't what I found relevant; I was talking about whether or not making that decision made you worthy of derision and contempt. If the only piece of data we have is that you had unprotected sex with a stranger, I don't feel comfortable deriding you based on that data--and adding qualifiers ('it was purely consensual!' -- 'you've been educated in the dangers of STIs!') doesn't help.

KrytenKoro
Posts: 1487
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:58 pm UTC

Re: Infant Circumcision

Postby KrytenKoro » Fri Sep 14, 2012 5:18 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
KrytenKoro wrote:Just wondering here, but can you give a hypothetical situation in which it would not be a poor decision to consensually (i.e., under no duress) have unprotected sex with a stranger (i.e., someone you cannot confirm the health condition of, and will not be forming a committed relationship with).
Whether or not it's a good decision isn't what I found relevant; I was talking about whether or not making that decision made you worthy of derision and contempt. If the only piece of data we have is that you had unprotected sex with a stranger, I don't feel comfortable deriding you based on that data--and adding qualifiers ('it was purely consensual!' -- 'you've been educated in the dangers of STIs!') doesn't help.

Okay, because I'm honestly curious:

Is there any hypothetical situation in which a person could have unprotected sex without trying to confirm their partner's sexual health, that you would consider them to be a moron/extremely stupid?

Basically, (1) do you accept the existence of morons, (2) if so, does having the aforementioned act preclude these people?

(Please don't read this as an accusation of stupidity at people who make this decision, I'm just curious about your own view because of the strong opinion you espoused earlier)


On a semi-related note, do those species of fish that perform fertilization outside of the body, can they even catch STDs?
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Infant Circumcision

Postby The Great Hippo » Fri Sep 14, 2012 5:44 pm UTC

KrytenKoro wrote:Okay, because I'm honestly curious:

Is there any hypothetical situation in which a person could have unprotected sex without trying to confirm their partner's sexual health, that you would consider them to be a moron/extremely stupid?

Basically, (1) do you accept the existence of morons, (2) if so, does having the aforementioned act preclude these people?
I accept the existence of morons. I know some. I've been one myself, from time to time. (Edit) I suppose, in rethinking it a bit, I even accept the existence of hypothetical morons, although I'm reluctant to do so.

I don't like the intersection between hypothetical morons and the decisions you make concerning your own body and what you do with it, though. On one hand, decisions like unprotected sex carry risks that extend beyond your body (it extends to everyone who might ever possibly sleep with you--if you get sick, they're at risk too), so I think it's fair to call it, on some level, 'irresponsible'. But I'm incredibly uninterested in judging people for what they do to their own bodies, and would much rather concentrate on increasing the quality of their choices--and encouraging healthier, more responsible choices. I don't think they deserve my contempt, and would much rather try to understand them than deride them. When someone expresses contempt toward them, I get frustrated and angry, because I see people in this situation as being vulnerable (getting an STI obviously sucks, and can be lethal), and I don't like it when we deride vulnerable people. I want to work with them to reduce their vulnerability--not dismiss them.

Also, when we start creating these 'hypothetical morons' who make all the wrong decisions regardless of what we do, what we're really doing is creating an easy boogeyman for us to project all our frustrations on. Drug-addiction, for example--we'll talk about how there are drug-addicts who really don't want to get cured, and have no one but themselves to blame for their addiction. Which leads to the creation of this evil, leech-like drug-addict1. Who might actually exist, sure--but that's irrelevant, because the real point of this boogeyman is to justify attacks on policies designed to address the problems of drug-addiction--to create a hierarchy of properties you need to have before we consider your drug-addiction 'valid' enough for us to address--to create a hierarchy of humans who deserve help, and who do not deserve help. And I cannot tell you how angry that sentiment makes me.

Finally, expressing contempt for a segment of the population I know nothing about isn't the sort of activity I really want to be part of.

1Then, people will respond to this evil drug-addict by proposing an equally ridiculous alternative--that all drug-addicts want to be cured, or that there are no reprehensible drug-addicts. And you end up with a debate that misses the point spectacularly well; the point isn't that drug-addicts are evil or that they're good; it's that we should strive to help them.

KrytenKoro
Posts: 1487
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:58 pm UTC

Re: Infant Circumcision

Postby KrytenKoro » Fri Sep 14, 2012 7:03 pm UTC

So, as a generalization, it's sort of a "Hate the failure, love the failee" type of thing?

Makes sense to me.
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Infant Circumcision

Postby The Great Hippo » Fri Sep 14, 2012 7:13 pm UTC

KrytenKoro wrote:So, as a generalization, it's sort of a "Hate the failure, love the failee" type of thing?
Not even that--because it's not like I hate unprotected sex with strangers. I hate STIs, though, and I want to encourage choices that lead to their disappearance.


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests