Further, I am not required to answer for that as you have failed to show any relevance in that issue. When you can make that position more than a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy without throwing hysterics into it, then I may be inclined to address it.
You basically just decided to make a subject change (back to a subject that scored no points for your argument to start with) because you were losing ground on the current subject within the discussion. Am I to see this as capitulation that you cannot show methodology issues with the studies, therefore the studies are valid? Well, I already knew this all along. Glad you are catching up.
Last edited by jallman; 06-23-09 at 06:27 PM.
And you have debunked nothing. Point for point, you have been shown to be wrong. You have impotently attacked the studies, exhibited futility in linking data that does not link, and defaulted to ad homs when your positions were not holding.
And repeating yourself isn't going to make a difference if you were flat out wrong the first time you voiced your position so not repeating yourself is probably your wisest course of action.
you cannot explain why intact europe and japan have the lowest STD/HIV rates in the world
you ignore the fact that Africa which these studies are based on is filled with poverty and diseases like malaria, superstitions, lack of health care and education on health and sexuality which are responsible for high STD/HIV rates
Which has nothing to do with the methodology of the study when the control group only has one variable's difference from the test group. All of those things may contribute to HIV rates but that in no way diminishes the utility of circumcision in reducing transmission rates.you ignore the fact that Africa which these studies are based on is filled with poverty and diseases like malaria, superstitions, lack of health care and education on health and sexuality which are responsible for high STD/HIV rates
You can keep repeating it from now till the day the server rusts, but it won't make your position any more correct than it was the first time you stated it.
Here's an idea, make the treatment for STD's include castration.
Justify the pre-emptive mutilation of the penises of all new-born infants based on the POTENTIAL for any of them to spread a disease they have not yet contracted. Where does this fit in medical ethics? Answer: it is not ethical.