Saturday Links

Saturday, July 16th, 2011

Digg it |  reddit |  del.icio.us |  Fark

104 Responses to “Saturday Links”

  1. #1 |  Tony | 

    Leon,

    You didn’t prove those grounds are nonsense. You said “No”, and let that stand as your argument. In comment #61, I offered the argument about loss of function. I’m interested in a rebuttal, but so far you haven’t offered one.

    If one is merely offended, yes, that’s the person’s problem. We’re not talking about offending sensibilities. Circumcision in this context is non-therapeutic surgery, which involves imposing permanent harm. (Even if you pretend that there is no loss of function.) Children have rights, so society has a legitimate role in setting limits on parents. We should define those limits as clearly as possible, of course, but sharing DNA doesn’t grant parents plenary control to do whatever they want because they deserve “tolerance” from the rest of us. Teaching your child your beliefs, however ridiculous others might find them, is legitimate. No intervention is justifiable. But purposely and permanently harming your child, even with the good intent I assume parents have, is not acceptable.

  2. #2 |  Leon Wolfeson | 

    Tony, I need to prove nothing. The evidence, in peer-reviewed papers proves it. The rest of your maundering is screaming to the stars the the evidence doesn’t MATTER. You’d make a good cop.

  3. #3 |  Tony | 

    Leon,

    You’re still doing nothing more than saying “no”, without support. If you don’t need to prove anything, you at least need to offer a rebuttal when your position’s (fatal) flaws have been exposed. Pointing to peer-reviewed papers, and only the ones you prefer, is just an argument to authority. I’m unimpressed with logical fallacies.

    What’s interesting in the context here is that I haven’t said the evidence doesn’t matter. (Or MATTER, if caps implies something different.) All of those peer-reviewed studies? Despite various flaws, I’m willing to grant you any and every possible benefit found in those studies. Decreased risk of UTI in the first year of life? Yep. Decreased risk of female-to-male transmission of HIV in high-risk populations? Check. (Note that the HIV studies were conducted on adult volunteers, not non-consenting children.) Name another study and I’ll probably acknowledge it, as well. So? None of that proves that it may be imposed on a healthy child. Ethics are a part of science.

    What I have said is that circumcision inflicts objective harm on the recipient. Where it is non-therapeutic, there is no justification for allowing one person to impose that on a non-consenting person. You are saying that some evidence doesn’t matter, since the first relevant piece of evidence involved in proxy consent is the individual’s health and lack of need for intervention. You ignore that, and the resulting harm inflicted. You’re pretending that circumcision is a free lunch of possible benefits without negatives.

  4. #4 |  strat | 

    That movie clip is from “Hard Ticket to Hawaii” one in a series of films by Andy Sidaris, along with “Savage Beach,”Picasso Trigger”, and several others.

    Mr. Sidaris’ films are characterized by modest budgets, beautiful tropical locations (along with the occasional trip to LA or Las Vegas), utterly gratuitous explosions from grandiose weaponry, and more than a handful of former Playboy Playmates.

    They usually decompress after a hard day by hanging out in their (undercover) friend’s bar, a hot tub, or both.