.. non-prestigious journal pointing out extremely basic methodological and reasoning problems in Translational Psychiatry, published by Nature, by authors with a pretty obvious foregone conclusion https://www.jctres.com/media/filer_public/a4/48/a4482da7-a99a-49bf-848e-9927590a77b7/boyle2017jclintranslres_epub.pdf …
-
-
The legal history is the reason why you are not winning this argument & will likely never win it. I’ve read a lot of your papers & I like Robert’s work, but the use of bans on circumcision to attack Jews looms large; it goes back to the Bar Kochba revolt in 135 AD.
-
I don't call for a ban, and have explicitly argued against doing so in various venues. Most of my work presents moral arguments that I hope people will find persuasive. I'm not sure what measure you are using for 'winning this argument' though I must say
-
It’s just as well you don’t call for a ban, shall we say.
-
I'm really not sure what this comment as saying ... it feels vaguely threatening, but perhaps I am misreading it
-
Your argument would be much weaker if you did call for a ban, but as it is the moral arguments are probably only persuasive to people who are half-way to being on your side already (like me).
-
That is precisely the audience I am writing for; I have no illusions that I'll somehow convert every last person to my point of view; I am also always willing to reconsider & adjust my point of view in response to those who disagree with me (as I have done iteratively over time)
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.