Jake Wasket has been profusely debating circumcision online in open forums for years advocating circumcision. Lately he has had little success, so it seems he is trying a new tactic...
He now does not respond directly on the open forum, he merely directs people to his response on his own blog where he can control the content, as in this example..
http://www.rollingdoughnut.com/2009/10/science_requires_ethics.html#comments
His site:
http://circumcisionnews.blogspot.com/2009/10/analysing-analysis-of-analysis-of.html
I responded on his site and a few went though fine--after questioning the tactics he was using, he deleted my responses.
When I continued questioning HIS responses, he started to moderate the response under the pretext that I was indulging in repetition by continuing to request answers tocrucial and scientific questions, all the while offering nothing but repetition of HIS question.
It seems he is more comfortable debating when he can censor what is posted.
I am inviting people who have come upon this new tactic to post their experiences here--as well as inviting Jake's comment
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Jake has used his considerable Wiki editing skills to perform over 10,000 Wiki edits, mostly on circumcision topics.
ReplyDeleteHe modifies the content to suit his viewpoints.
So his tactics on his blog don't surprise me.
Wow-10,000 posts--he must be as obsessed with trying to justify or defend circumcision as he was in getting one.
ReplyDeleteThanks-nice to know
Here is another open fourum that jake chooses not to respond in, but chooses to start his own blog in which to do so.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.rollingdoughnut.com/2009/10/science_requires_ethics_revisi.html
Here is his personal blog, which at present is NOT moderated. Since he has gotten responses not favorable, I wonder when he will start "moderating" this one.
http://circumcisionnews.blogspot.com/2009/10/in-ongoing-inter-blog-discussion-about.html
OPPS, a day later, he has changed this one to moderation also. so much for an OPEN forum.
ReplyDeleteI thought it might be interesting to have a running talley of what Jake "moderates" out. It might provide a pattern of what he "moderates'.
ReplyDeleteWhat I have observed so far is that it seems he has little facts and evidence and seems to rely mainly on the following:
1. Biased anecdotes he pretends is evidence
2. Unsupported assertions also pretneding to be evidence
3. Speculations trying to be a rebuttal.
Here is the first--Jake's posts included in "..
"I disagree. It seems unlikely that every medical condition for which circumcision is indicated would adversely affect sexual satisfaction: a medical problem involving the penis is not necessarily a sexual problem. So it would not seem reasonable to expect improvement in every case on that basis alone."
Again, we are supposed to accept idle speculation and/or unsupported assumptions as evidence?
"Also, if the consequences of removal of the foreskin were all that terrible, one might reasonably expect to see evidence of this whether or not medical conditions were present beforehand."
Rebuttal by assumption? When is that a valid rebuttal?
"Most reported no significant change. Of the remainder who cited a difference, three-fourths said sex got worse and only a fourth said sex got better after circumcision."
So, again, now anecdotes are to be considered valid evidence? Science scoffs at such "evidence".
"Kim and Pang's study was rather unusual in this regard. Masood et al., for example, found improved satisfaction in 61% of subjects, worsened satisfaction in 17%, and no change in 22%. These again were cases in which circumcision was medically indicated. If you want studies of volunteers, you could take a look at Krieger et al. or Kigozi et al.."
So, how do they explain that a decrease in sensation can rationally relate to "improved satisfaction"?
And we are supposed to accept such subjective anecdotes as evidence? I am sorry, but science demands something more compelling and objective to qualify as evidence.
"Actually, I can't think of any reason why participants should be forced to be circumcised, and that might introduce unnecessary bias. Voluntary adult circumcision seems more than sufficient."
THAT is the ONLY way one can assume that the response is UNBIASED. Voluntary circumcision automatically includes a bias towards circumcision, by the very nature of CHOOSING it--for whatever the reason.
Yet infants CAN be forced into circumcision, and adults not??
2nd "moderation"
ReplyDelete"First, I disagree that volunteers for circumcision would be predisposed to find sexual benefit from it. That might make sense if there were an expectation of sexual benefit beforehand. But if, for example, someone volunteers to be circumcised in hopes of reducing his risk of HIV, then why should he expect sexual benefit?"
A specious argument--any person CHOOSING circumcision for ANY reason will be inclined to not accept or admit the loss of sensation BECAUSE he then would have to admit that it was not a good choice.
"Second, your implication is that any medical condition that is an indication for circumcision will necessarily affect sexual sensation and/or satisfaction. While that may well be the case for some conditions to some extent, I don't think it's likely to be true of all."
Again, nothing but specualtion--and speculation is not a rebuttal
"Third, if what Ron says is true (in other words, if the foreskin makes a substantial contribution to sexual pleasure) then this ought to be apparent in studies whether or not some or all of these studies have a bias in favour of benefit. Put another way, saying that the results of these studies can be attributed to biases is equivalent to saying that the contribution of the foreskin is fairly small, sufficiently so that relatively minor biases like these can compensate for its loss. And that itself contradicts Ron's argument."
This speculation ignores the concrete scientific evidence that nerves ARE lost.
And there is no collection of anecdotes that alter this basic fact.
"Finally, as an aside, I have a question for you. Do you honestly believe that the difference betweeen a circumcised man having an awful sex life and having an enjoyable one can be nothing more than expectation? And if so, how can you justify spending so much time on the Internet telling circumcised men that circumcision has damaged them? How can it be ethical to act in a way that, you believe, is damaging to others?"
The question is irrelevant, as nerves are lost, and it is hardly logical to assume that there can rationally be satisfation increase with this loss. Take a sugar pill and call me in the morning is an oft quoted position on the placebo effect.
And since this is the case, how you justify spending so much time on the internet telling circumcised men that they do not have this loss simply because you do not wish to believe it and which is counter to the evidence--HOW is that ethical?
3rd "moderation"
ReplyDelete"In the case of non-therapeutic circumcision, the reason is that the parents have chosen circumcision for the child."
But this assumes that this is a rational reason..and there is none, so this excuse is not valid...UNLESS you can finally provide one.
Again, when we ask the crucial questions..you still cannot answer them--merely provide excuses.
4th "moderation"
ReplyDelete"I haven't specified any particular reasoning for the parent's request, because it's not relevant for the purpose of analysing the situation from the doctor's point of view. Furthermore, I think it is more productive to think about general, more abstract issues than a particular line of reasoning."
From the ethical point of view, reasoning IS paramount--even for doctors--without a RATIONAL reason, it cannot be considered ethical--and hence is nothing but an excuse--as stated before.
"The fact that I didn't specify a particular line of reasoning, though, doesn't imply that none exists, nor does it imply that such reasoning constitutes an "irrational excuse". I don't see any way to make such a conclusion unless the actual reasoning was known."
If you do not specify any reason, then there is no existing one--only some possible, vague, and nebulous one. And unless the "reason" is a rational one, then it still remains nothing but an excuse--and the word games continue without addressing the crucial question.