Title Loan Man said:
Have you not done the same? At least I didn't attack another person based on this supposed lack of support.
Actually, I didn't attack
you at all. I attacked some statements you made. I apologize if it came off as a personal attack, because it was not intended that way. I actually do have some respect for you as you do tend towards posting well reasoned (and easily
readable) arguments.
You were incredibly aggressive and condescending in your rant, yet you would accuse me of beng unreasonable. Pssh!
Can we say straw man? I didn't accuse you of being unreasonable at all.
I was, however,
intentionally condescending in response to your own condescending tone. I apologize.
Now, remember the date of your article, and the fact that it was released not long before the (now falsified) articles of 1989 that make the same claim.
Now remember... I cited TWO articles. The second was from 2000. A relatively recent study that says... essentially the same thing about circumcisions effect on the risk of UTI as the article that you linked to.
The fact of the matter is that all benefits are purely theoretical and unsupported. The only remotely conrete benefit is that of UTI, and this is only substantiated for the first year of life, not those that follow
Furthermore, the procedure is not risk free. You're looking at very minor, very theoretical benefits vs very real (albeit unlikely in a sterile environment) harm.
You seem to assuming that I've taken a stance in the debate over whether a circumcision is a good idea as a means of prevention. I have not. Honestly, this is because I don't really have an opinion one way or the other on that issue.
You're an intelligent person, I'm sure that if you re-read my initial post you'll see that my core statement was that "What's really debated is whether it reduces the risk by an amount significant enough to warrant the procedure in a healthy person."
It's not "down right idiotic" to doubt the support of a completely ludicrous claim.
Note: I didn't say it was idiotic to
doubt the existence of supporting evidence. It isn't. I said it was idiotic to
assume there was none. It is always idiotic to assume that someone has no support because you can never know all there is to know about a topic and there is always the chance that the opposition is aware something that you're not. Your response didn't just express doubt, rather you flat out told me that I had no support.
Further, as you've clearly researched the topic, you should be aware that there is plenty of evidence that a circumcision decreases the chances of UTI... which is exactly what I claimed. So how is it a ludicrous claim?
Hell, even the article that YOU posted flat out says: "There is little doubt that the uncircumcised infant is at higher risk for urinary tract infection (UTI), although the magnitude of this risk is debatable."
That would be... pretty much the jist of what I said in my initial post.
And the demand for support is assumed with direct contention to substantiality. Any fool should recognize this.
Any fool should recognize that even veiled ad hominems are obvious. If you perceived something I said as a personal attack, again, I apologize. But even if I had intended to insult, you
should be better than me. And just so there's no doubt, my use of the phrase "any fool..." was meant to be a facetious mirroring of your statement.
Anyway, the thing of it is... I knew that your response was a request for my support. It was just a somewhat rude way of asking for it, so I provided my support in a dickish fashion. For that I apologize.
Please. Get out of here with that weak ass sensationalism and projected egocentrism.
Sensationalism? Yeah, maybe a little. But projected egocentrism? Well... I believe the juvenile phrase is the most appropriate response: I know you are, but what am I?
Seriously though, I didn't mean to project any egocentrism (I'm the most fallible person I know, after all)... I apologize if I came off that way.
Don't blame topicality for a fault on your part.
I can admit when I'm wrong... you're right on that front. I should have posted my support from the get go. It's my habit to not post support until it's requested as people in net debates have the
incredibly annoying tendency to not bother reading it. I've found that when someone asks for the support, they'll actually take the effort to look at them.
You claimed yourself that I "never" asked for support, yet you (by your own words) delve off topic in this ridiculous rant to appease me? Lose the straw men.
While you are right in your core assessment... there's really no straw man.
I didn't see fit because the overwelming majority of the people that I have debated here have been (quite frankly) ridiculously stubborn ignoramuses who refuse to accept their own failures no matter how many times they are disproven with link, after link, after link, yet will not ever support their claim with anything other than "I'm right and everyone else in the world is wrong". It really kills your desire to go out of your way for a link, so I wait until the opposition actually attempts to support their claim (and am I wrong? look how long it took for someone to do so).
Honestly, I can empathize. I didn't really follow the other thread (most of the posts seemed to be irrational, one way or the other).
Oh... would it annoy you if I pointed out that the article you posted didn't actually disprove my universal negative? :P
This is entirely fallacious. Incoherence is a failure to represent your thoughts in a logical, harmonious, or intelligent manner. You cannot seriously claim that "You either" rises above this standard and then pretend to have any reliability whatsoever.
Do not assume an idiotic rambling isn't incoherent just because it is capable of being understood.
"You either." is not standing alone coherent. But when taken in the context of the surrounding, it was coherent. Basically, a response to your statement that I didn't didn't provide support with a statement that you didn't either. If it hadn't been a direct response, it would have been incoherent. It wasn't just capable of being understood:
I understood it immediately and drew the required logical connections without difficulty. Reading it in context, I found it to be a coherent observation.
I will grant, that it was non-specific enough that it could have been read as a response to your universal negative rather than your specific negative. If it was in response to the "no credible evidence" standment, then you're right in saying it was an incoherent statement.
The claim "there is no support" is a universal negative.
Yes... it is. It's an
incorrect universal negative, though. Plenty of evidence exists showing decreased risk of UTI. I was not, however referring to that statement.
I was actually referring to your contention to my own universal negative. Just as it fell to me to disprove your negative, it falls to you to disprove mine. As of yet, I'm still unaware of any studies that have found that circumcisions
don't decrease the risk of UTI. Incidentally, I also assumed that's what Faeroe's "you either" statement was referring to... I could very well be wrong about that, though.
You're not really bringing anything to the table here; all you're doing is disputing every single thing I say and supporting it with straw.
I'll let that slide. I do, however, recommend curbing your own condenscending tone in the future. It was the sole reason for my aggressive posting style.
