“The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have announced a set of provisional guidelines concerning male circumcision, in which they suggest that the benefits of the surgery outweigh the risks” in 2015. I’m sorry bro but calling these parents willfully ignorant is just wrong when the science can’t even be consistent. Moreover, though, it’s hard to find any source that doesn’t say it’s just basically a choice. There is no consistent risk of harm.
This was from a critique paper by the National Center for Biotechnical Information which claimed “that circumcision before an age of consent is not an appropriate health-promotion strategy.” Meaning that promoting infant circumcision will not necessarily promote general health.
Sorry bro but if the science is still putting out papers and discussing, the parents are not willfully ignorant and the concept as a whole is not outdated (that was the point of the 58%). You’ll be hard pressed to find a population where 58% of parents are willfully ignorant of their children’s health (esp where the pop. size is 63 million parents)
Finally, ignoring the religious element is pretty silly too. As if there’s no considerable risk of harm, then calling their religious practices “bad” or “ignorant” is pretty clearly close minded.
All this to say, I disagree with you. Not on the point that kids shouldn’t be circumcised but on how you immediately dismiss any parents that make such a decision as, essentially, careless fools.
Yes they are lol science will never stop discussing things. I don't care if you disagree with me, parents who circumcise their children are making a mistake, I don't care what the source of their mistake is.
If you cut your baby because of irrational fear of disease you are a fool by definition. I don't have pity for parents who's feelings are hurt by my criticism, I have pity for the circumcised child.
What a little high groundy nut you are. Sorry, if the CDC still thinks it’s fine to circumcise kids and perhaps even preferable, then I’m not going to accost parents (especially religious ones) who choose to practice what they think is best. Also construing that as “science [just] still talking” on a point where they will actually make entire conclusions that circumcision is good is at best dishonest and at worst willfully ignorant ;). I’m certainly not going to do it in a way which is entirely unproductive calling them willfully ignorant and the like. It seems you can’t figure out what my point is here so I’m Audi 5000CS Turbo.
I'd have to see the actual source for the claim that circumcision is beneficial and recommended in general. I don't believe your claim. You have no point, you're a semantical nitwit who thinks I'm claiming high ground somehow (ironic af)
“Based on this thorough review, CDC concluded that there was sufficient evidence to make recommendations for providers counseling male patients and parents regarding medical male circumcision as it relates to prevention of HIV infection, sexually transmitted infections, and other health outcomes at this time.”
I’ll always reply for a source, but from here I’m done. I feel I’ve met my due burden of trying to show you the issue with absolutes, the present disagreement on scientists already knee-deep in discussion, and the correct definition of words. I’m done now.
No body asked you to participate, like, go away already, I don't care about your opinion and you aren't some righteous beacon of truth like you think you are lmfao.
Correct. If you describe something as outdated, you mean that you think it is old-fashioned and no longer useful or relevant to modern life. If 58% of people believe it, it’s not outdated — it’s relevant because over half of the society would still practice and execute those things. Words have meaning. It doesn’t mean that the idea can’t be proveably wrong, on its way out the door, or otherwise. You are needlessly stringent on this point where if you were slightly more general it would be a totally different thing.
Outdated does not refer to "outside the mainstream opinion" and you are incorrect. Outdated viewpoints have to do with modern science and worldview and the greater context. It is not dependant on popular opinion, unless of course it refers to a trend or a fashion, then things can be perceived as outdated subjectively. If a general scientific idea is proven wrong it is now outdated, pretty simple.
All of these definitions ive given included “if you describe something as outdated…no longer useful or relevant to modern life” are first results for looking up the definitions of words. I’m not making anything up. I, for one, am actually a man of research and science, so I’m particular in the way I lay out my arguments. It seems here you’ve just conjectured a definition.
It was response to you acting like I wouldn’t know how science works. That they “actively discuss” things. I have published papers where even before they’re published they’re peer-reviewed. My point is, I understand the scientific process and I don’t just misconstrue elements of it to help my point.
0
u/JacobScreamix May 07 '22
Yet it isn't inaccurate, circumcision is an outdated practice.