CDC makes this fallacious argument

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Logic
  3. » CDC makes this fallacious argument

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Sat 13 Mar, 2010 02:05 am
This is text book fallacy VIA confusing correlation and causation. This is the reason my ex gave me for the reason i only get to hold 99ish % of my son. See if you think this can be explained more simply by circumcised men in Africa being less likely to have sex with women with AIDs or that some may be circumcised for religious reasons and not sleep around or that men in Africa that can afford to be circumcised get cleaner tail. also note that the test doesn't say that they all had sex with someone with aids. for all this says it could very well be that AIDs is communicable 100% of the time as unless the men all slept with a person with AIDs the same amount of time under the same circumstances it seams to me to prove nothing at all. I could go on for days with alternative explanations for these results.

Enjoy your tax dollars going to coax people into baby penis mutilation. I almost want to sue the CDC for what seams almost to illogical to be anything but propaganda.

p.s. sorry for the rhetoric this is a heated topic for me.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/PDF/circumcision.pdf
 
Krumple
 
Reply Sat 13 Mar, 2010 02:13 am
@Doubt doubt,
Doubt doubt;139250 wrote:
This is text book fallacy VIA confusing correlation and causation. This is the reason my ex gave me for the reason i only get to hold 99ish % of my son. See if you think this can be explained more simply by circumcised men in Africa being less likely to have sex with women with AIDs or that some may be circumcised for religious reasons and not sleep around or that men in Africa that can afford to be circumcised get cleaner tail. also note that the test doesn't say that they all had sex with someone with aids. for all this says it could very well be that AIDs is communicable 100% of the time as unless the men all slept with a person with AIDs the same amount of time under the same circumstances it seams to me to prove nothing at all. I could go on for days with alternative explanations for these results.

Enjoy your tax dollars going to coax people into baby penis mutilation. I almost want to sue the CDC for what seams almost to illogical to be anything but propaganda.

p.s. sorry for the rhetoric this is a heated topic for me.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/PDF/circumcision.pdf


Well for as much as you are against it, don't you think people should also have the right to do what they want to do to their own child as long as it doesn't actually cause them harm?

I mean why is it you get to protest and wish that people would stop circumcising infant boys. What gives you the right to decide how others should make a choice for their own child?

You don't have to agree with it, but you do have to accept others decisions. Don't be hypocritical. If you don't want it for your child that is up to you and no one should be able to stand in your way of your choice, except for maybe the mother of your child. Other than that, no one should be able to tell you what you can or can not do.

I do agree with you though, shouldn't the child have some say in it anyways? I know there are a lot of people against the practice, but I don't see anything wrong with it at all. There are a million other things that are far more important than circumcision.
 
Doubt doubt
 
Reply Sat 13 Mar, 2010 03:54 am
@Krumple,
Krumple;139251 wrote:
Well for as much as you are against it, don't you think people should also have the right to do what they want to do to their own child as long as it doesn't actually cause them harm?

of course people should be able to do what they want to do as long as what they want to do is not to keep people from doing what they want to do. I think you have a pretty lax definition of harm if causing physical pain to someone without their permission is not harm. there is a huge list of harm that can come from this and its sad you could even make this statement. What there is not is a scientific list of good that can be proven to come from it and i will except nothing less in a reason to cause my child physical pain. i swear i get so sick of people spouting the party line to me. If it were your child maybe you wouldn't just take the Benefactor's word on it.



I mean why is it you get to protest and wish that people would stop circumcising infant boys. What gives you the right to decide how others should make a choice for their own child?

I cant see how im protesting. I believe there is a difference me becoming a dictator and outlawing circumcision and me hoping people would need a good reason to inflict physical pain on child or anyone for that matter. besides i haven't mentioned these things until now.



You don't have to agree with it, but you do have to accept others decisions. Don't be hypocritical. If you don't want it for your child that is up to you and no one should be able to stand in your way of your choice, except for maybe the mother of your child. Other than that, no one should be able to tell you what you can or can not do.

I completely accept others decisions. Unfortunately the world will never know what her decision would have been had she been given facts and not propaganda by a government agency.



I do agree with you though, shouldn't the child have some say in it anyways? I know there are a lot of people against the practice, but I don't see anything wrong with it at all. There are a million other things that are far more important than circumcision.


I am not saying anything about what others should do besides look at this example of a CDC sponsored fallacious argument. this takes away peoples right too make an informed decisions and led to the taking of my sons foreskin. If you want to make an informed decision and assume the CDC will present valid arguments that will inform you then you cant do what you want. my opinion may be known to be against circumcision but if you can find where i try to influence others decision i would like to see it. I dont think its a stretch to assume that most people would expect the center for disease control to provide truthful information about disease. My ex saw this as compelling information from a reliable source which it is not. I have looked into this long and hard to find one reason other than being Jewish to be circumcised and i have found none that is anything but speculation, propaganda and opinion. Personally i feel the burden of proof is on the people telling me to remove my sons foreskin. I dont know about you but if im going to have someone inflict pain on my children there had better be a damn good reason.
 
Khethil
 
Reply Sat 13 Mar, 2010 07:08 am
@Doubt doubt,
I read the whole thing over and didn't see anywhere where "cause" was even mentioned. The whole report responsibly states the correlations (and non-correlates) found. I found it to be quite responsibly written, even though I share your sentiments on the "mutilation" factor
 
Jebediah
 
Reply Sat 13 Mar, 2010 09:13 am
@Doubt doubt,
If you don't live in Africa and are going to teach your kid to use a condom, the article isn't a good argument for circumcision. Although kids don't always do what they are taught, lol.

The study seems valid enough. To show causation experimentally they would have to randomly select people, circumcise them, and then have them sleep with someone with aids. Obviously you can't do that. You can't do that for smoking and cancer either though. Correlation isn't meaningless.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sat 13 Mar, 2010 09:17 am
@Jebediah,
Jebediah;139318 wrote:
If you don't live in Africa and are going to teach your kid to use a condom, the article isn't a good argument for circumcision. Although kids don't always do what they are taught, lol.

The study seems valid enough. To show causation experimentally they would have to randomly select people, circumcise them, and then have them sleep with someone with aids. Obviously you can't do that. You can't do that for smoking and cancer either though. Correlation isn't meaningless.


Correlation is often a good indication of causation, because causation often is the best explanation for a correlation. But, then, of course, you require evidence for causation being the best explanation for a particular case of correlation. As you indicated, controlled experiments and studies are very good evidence of causation, if they can be had.
 
Night Ripper
 
Reply Sat 13 Mar, 2010 09:37 am
@Krumple,
Krumple;139251 wrote:
Well for as much as you are against it, don't you think people should also have the right to do what they want to do to their own child as long as it doesn't actually cause them harm?


No. Children aren't property. They're individuals that can't assert themselves. Also, I'm pretty sure a scalpel to the tip of your penis wouldn't feel too wonderful.

Krumple;139251 wrote:
What gives you the right to decide how others should make a choice for their own child?


There are no such things as rights (other than legal rights). No one has a right to decide for others. It's something we just do because we can and want to.
 
Jebediah
 
Reply Sat 13 Mar, 2010 09:49 am
@Night Ripper,
Night Ripper;139323 wrote:
No. Children aren't property. They're individuals that can't assert themselves. Also, I'm pretty sure a scalpel to the tip of your penis wouldn't feel too wonderful.


I don't think having a needle stuck in your arm and being injected with a vaccine feels wonderful either. Parents have the responsibility to make those kinds of decisions about their kids.

How comparable circumcision is to vaccines is the question.
 
Doubt doubt
 
Reply Sat 13 Mar, 2010 10:00 am
@Khethil,
Khethil;139279 wrote:
I read the whole thing over and didn't see anywhere where "cause" was even mentioned. The whole report responsibly states the correlations (and non-correlates) found. I found it to be quite responsibly written, even though I share your sentiments on the "mutilation" factor



The data states that in Africa of the men in the study the circumcised men where less likely to get AIDs. It is fallacious argument because there is no logical reason to believe that circumcision is the root cause for the circumcised men to get AIDs less often. The same date could be used as "proof" that of the men in Africa that can afford circumcision are less likely to get AIDS. It could be used as proof that men in Africa that are circumcised are less likely to sleep with people with AIDs. It could be used as proof that in Africa circumcised men have the ability to get transportation to a hospital so they may be able to get a ride to have the people they sleep with tested for AIDs before they sleep with them. It could be used as proof that in Africa if you are circumcised and dont have access to proper means to keep your wound clean you will get an infected penis and never have sex again or your penis could fall off. It could be used as proof that in Africa women dont find circumcised penises appealing and leave laughing before they give them AIDs.

America and Jerusalem are the only country's in the world where circumcision is common. It seams like if it isnt common in Africa, Africans may receive the same type of discrimination that uncircumcised men in America receive. In America if you are on government medical insurance they will pay for your child to be circumcised as apposed to England where you would have to pay cash because it is considered cosmetic.

The point is there is not logical reason to say circumcision and likelyhood of AIDs contraction is correlated any more than any of the possible correlations I have stated.

Why assume the circumcision caused less AIDs? Why not the circumcision caused less sex and less sex caused less AIDs or circumcisions cause more penises to fall off. less penises less sex less AIDs.

Fallacious argument aside dont you think they would tell you if they had a statistic? How could anything be more important. I mean if they could say a circumcised man can sleep with someone with AIDs five times and 70% get AIDs but uncircumcised men who sleep with a person with AIDs get it 90% of the time that they would? if fact they have no idea because its not know whether any of the men that didnt get AIDs slept with someone with AIDs at all. This test says nothing of any use what so ever from a scientific standpoint and is text book Fallacious argument.

to illustrate i will offer the only test that would tell you the chances of contracting AIDs. you can get the volunteers.

you need say 100 guys that dont have AIDs and 100 women with AIDs. They would then have to have sex with the women with AIDs and if ten of them got it you would be in the ballpark of ten percent chance to get aids if you have sex with a women with AIDs. you could never get a accurate statistic unless all the dudes penises where the same length, as there could be a correlation between depth of penetration and likelihood of transmission. they would have to all last the same amount of time and be with a girl thats just as contagious as the rest. you would need 100 girls with AIDs because good luck finding a volunteer to go sloppy fiftieth on the AIDs girl who is now all torn up and bleeding now.

So what if uncircumcised guys have a 75% chance to get AIDs and Circumcised guys only have a 74.9% chance. does that justify penis surgery? Basically this "evidence" is bogus and needs to be taken down. If one person with a scientific background believed this including the people spreading it around i would be amazed. This is clearly propaganda and a fallacious argument on many levels.

this argument exhibits:
Special Pleading
Argument From Authority
False Cause
Confusing Correlation And Causation (Best fit. my Fav)
Argument By Half Truth
Argument By Selective Observation
Least Plausible Hypothesis
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Logic
  3. » CDC makes this fallacious argument
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 08/12/2020 at 07:24:44