When you say shit like this, I can't figure out if you're arguing for parents to be given the option before any issues have occurred, or if you think it should be available if said issues cannot be resolved another way.
-
-
Infants suffering from chronic infection should be circumcised to prevent further infection. That is valid. Gregory here is quoted asking for a blanket ban multiple times. He’s pretty much the only guy I disagree with. This is like having a debate and then the audience joins in.
-
"Infants suffering from chronic infection" Show me one
-
Dude, I gave you two studies. The one you complained about had a statistic in it specifically referring to infants suffering from chronic infection. That’s more than 1 example. That’s a group of examples.
-
Neither of those studies controlled for iatrogenic harm. They're garbage studies.
-
“They’re garbage studies” - a Twitter user. I guess they’re discredited. The number of infections that are iatrogenic in that number is so small that they make no difference. Prove me wrong.
-
I explained to you exactly why they're flawed. "Prove me wrong." The onus is on you. That's the burden of proof. You're the one arguing for invasive surgery, not me.
-
No, you’re the one criticising two medical studies with evidence because they “disagree with you”. And saying they’re objectively wrong. If they are, find someone discrediting them, which would prove me wrong. It’s not like the burden of proof joke with the bible.
-
No, I criticized them because they failed to control for iatrogenesis, a fatal flaw.
- 38 more replies
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.