Not saying it's not big deal I just want people to be honest and upfront about what these numbers mean. A relative figure outside of context means absolutely diddly squat.

What you just did there with providing the context is what IS helpful and can help people properly evaluate.

Again, you are providing relative figures. Do you not understand the difference between relative and absolute risk?

The science is no doubt good but the relative numbers provide no context. This is my main issue with your claim. Relative risk is USELESS, absolute risk is useful

Not arguing it does, just that not everyone needs to be saving the world. The "omg there are bigger issue" comments don't help and won't change shit, these people have their goal(it probably includes hopes to make a lot of money) and will strive for it. For better or worse.

You still aren't answering my question: what was the initial risk of infection? Is it 80%? 5% 25%?

Without knowing initial risk factors the reduction DOES NOT MATTER BECAUSE IT IS RELATIVE TO THE INITIAL RISK. Please, look up the difference between relative and absolute risk and maybe we can have a useful discussion.

They do not speak for the entirety of men. This is marketing language, plain and simple, to convince people who don't have foreskins that they need them(they don't, not really) but the company has got to get paid.

The yardstick for me is whether or not it's morally ok, and I can't help but feel that taking away…

Sexual pleasure is not the yardstick we should be using to measure this.

This is a body autonomy issue and must be approached from the angle of human rights. Your logic is flawed.

You keep quoting this 60% reduction without supporting it or noting what TYPE of measure it is. If you have a 10% risk of something and reduce that to 5% you can claim it's a 50% reduction.

A relative risk reduction measure, out of context, means absolutely nothing as we don't know what the initial risk was.

Your rational and respectful approach to this debate has been noted and ignored. You're right but you aren't beating the popular drum over here on Jez.

Don't you know it's not a big deal? It's just a nip off the top.

I would be curious to see how the numbers change when circumcised is not considered the "norm" for a penis. How much of it comes from the circumcision and how much comes from the cultural pressure.

It's impossible to miss something you can't remember having.

There's nothing saying that burn victims won't be helped, it's just that THESE particular people aren't doing that. Trying to support your argument would be like saying that people who sell fancy food should be ashamed because there are hungry people out…

Define significantly. According to the AAP there is a benefit but it is not significant enough for them to recommend circumcision be universal.

There are better, less invasive methods of potentially decreasing risks that don't involve cutting off body parts.

Why are you so anxious for people to shut up about having part of their body removed for no good reason without their permission?

I don't know, I would argue that forcing people to witness your sex acts lands in a similar sort of area. And at the end of the day the net result is the same: people who didn't want to see some naked people were forced to see naked people.

They won't be scarred but I would still say that doing this sort of thing shows…

If they don't know a basic like that they frankly shouldn't be a server. Maybe we need an "Unbelievably dumb restaurant employees" story time.

Why shouldn't we get worked up about it? I don't see how this is any different than walking around town flashing your cock at people.

Walls and doors exist for a reason, fuck these people and their lack of concern for the rest of us in society

Maybe I have too much faith in people, but I'm white and from where I stand the KKK very clearly fills the definition for terrorist group.

Anyone who disagrees needs to visit a dictionary

The KKK was accused of being a terrorist organization(quite rightly) all the way back in 1870.

And the border between hate group and terrorist organization is a hazy, they're so very close to being the same damn thing

Terrorism isn't about being Muslim or Christian or white, it's about the actions you take to achieve your goal. If you use terror and death, you are a terrorist.

I would argue that anyone who, with no provocation, murders 3 people is in some way damaged. He may not be mentally ill but that doesn't prevent him from being culturally broken, in this case I would guess that it's related to the media coverage of the Charlie Hebdo attacks.

In the case of Muslim suicide bombings they…

No. Religions have a dogma, Christianity has the Bible, Islam has the Koran and all the Hadith's, these are core ideas that the faithful get behind.

That being said I still wouldn't lay blame for all Muslims at the feet of some arbitrary man or woman, they are only responsible for the things THEY do.