4 ms·

Their statement for "third party payment" is industry jargon for "don't ban it," because Americans equate "uninsured service" with "unavailable service." Outsid

Their statement for "third party payment" is industry jargon for "don't ban it," because Americans equate "uninsured service" with "unavailable service." Outside the headline, their strongest position is "don't make it unavailable." And what argument do they make for it? They trawled the data for things like reducing the transmission of HIV - which it does, in third-world country where condom usage is low, antiretroviral usage is low, pre-exposure prophylaxis is low. In first-world countries, circumcisions have not been shown to be protective, because in a setting with a higher baseline level of antiretroviral and condom usage, its effect is somewhere between negligible and non-existent. The AAP is writing recommendations for America, not the third world. Likewise, the reduction in cancers is a tiny effect. Small to begin with and, again, negligible in first-world countries. As other pediatric bodies outside the AAP noted, including these "benefits" is a reach, and the AAP got raked over the coals for doing so. So, no, not literally - the AAP made a strong political soundbite headline, and then walked it back in the text of their position paper, because they couldn't defend that headline. And certainly not unambiguously, when they were widely criticized for relying on weak studies that didn't apply to the population in question. The AAP isn't a terrible organization, but it's not immune to politics, and this shift in their official stance was political, not data-driven.

RHSeeger 6y ago
I said > The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) says the benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks. You said > Not exactly. And then proceeded to write up why you believe they are wrong. I said > I agree there's some room for argument as to whether it should be recommended or not, but and > I'm sorry, but... they do. Literally and unambiguously. You replied, once again, indicating why you believe they are wrong. To be very clear here... 1. They do say the benefits outweigh the risks. Period. That they say this is a fact. 2. I'm not arguing they are right. I'm saying they say it and a lot of people value what they say. 3. I also think that comparing it to FGM is patently absurd, but that is completely orthogonal to your argument that they didn't say what they very clearly did.
- arkades 6y ago
  I said that they state it as a headline, and then walk it back in their actual paper. Yes, that's relevant - they literally did it so that pro-circumcision folks could tout the very headline you're touting, and they'd still have room to defend themselves from everyone calling them out for a headline they can't defend. If I print a headline that says "ALL DOGS ARE RED" followed by a text qualifying the words "all," "dogs", and "red", you certainly can assert until the cows come home that I said "All dogs are red", but that would also be incorrect, given anything but the most superficial reading. Lastly, to the extent that you're presenting the AAP statement as a direct argument from authority, I'm pointing out those other organizations not to argue "I disagree with the AAP", but to point out that in this instance "an argument from authority is invalid, they're roundly criticized by the other authorities."
  - RHSeeger 6y ago
    I disagree with your conclusion that they walked back what they said in the headline enough to say that what they said in the headline isn't what they said. Besides that, I concur with most of what you said (in our discussion, not the previous point comparing circumcision to FGM). That being said, I think we're obviously talking past each other here, so I'll just agree we have different views on the subject.
    - BearJerCares 6y ago
      You must not be aware that one of the MOST common forms of female genital mutilation (FGM) is LESS radical than the MOST common form of male circumcision done in the United States. Furthermore, MUTILATION was a word coined by the Apostle Paul himself. The King James version uses an obscure word CONCISION in Philippians 3:2 and Strong's Greek Dictionary tells you it means MUTILATION. Another point you probably are unaware is that the Jewish rabbis changed their method of circumcision to be the "laying bare of the glans" in about 140 A.D., a fact verified as true by the Jewish Encyclopedia itself. CircumcisionInBible.WordPress.com

RHSeeger 6y ago

I said > The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) says the benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks. You said > Not exactly. And then proceeded to write up why you believe they are wrong. I said > I agree there's some room for argument as to whether it should be recommended or not, but and > I'm sorry, but... they do. Literally and unambiguously. You replied, once again, indicating why you believe they are wrong. To be very clear here... 1. They do say the benefits outweigh the risks. Period. That they say this is a fact. 2. I'm not arguing they are right. I'm saying they say it and a lot of people value what they say. 3. I also think that comparing it to FGM is patently absurd, but that is completely orthogonal to your argument that they didn't say what they very clearly did.

arkades 6y ago
I said that they state it as a headline, and then walk it back in their actual paper. Yes, that's relevant - they literally did it so that pro-circumcision folks could tout the very headline you're touting, and they'd still have room to defend themselves from everyone calling them out for a headline they can't defend. If I print a headline that says "ALL DOGS ARE RED" followed by a text qualifying the words "all," "dogs", and "red", you certainly can assert until the cows come home that I said "All dogs are red", but that would also be incorrect, given anything but the most superficial reading. Lastly, to the extent that you're presenting the AAP statement as a direct argument from authority, I'm pointing out those other organizations not to argue "I disagree with the AAP", but to point out that in this instance "an argument from authority is invalid, they're roundly criticized by the other authorities."
- RHSeeger 6y ago
  I disagree with your conclusion that they walked back what they said in the headline enough to say that what they said in the headline isn't what they said. Besides that, I concur with most of what you said (in our discussion, not the previous point comparing circumcision to FGM). That being said, I think we're obviously talking past each other here, so I'll just agree we have different views on the subject.
  - BearJerCares 6y ago
    You must not be aware that one of the MOST common forms of female genital mutilation (FGM) is LESS radical than the MOST common form of male circumcision done in the United States. Furthermore, MUTILATION was a word coined by the Apostle Paul himself. The King James version uses an obscure word CONCISION in Philippians 3:2 and Strong's Greek Dictionary tells you it means MUTILATION. Another point you probably are unaware is that the Jewish rabbis changed their method of circumcision to be the "laying bare of the glans" in about 140 A.D., a fact verified as true by the Jewish Encyclopedia itself. CircumcisionInBible.WordPress.com