> 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.
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."
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.
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
> 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.