zigzag Yep exactly the pro-circ faction simply relies on the principle of lying faster than they can be refuted.
Just to elaborate further on the study:-
BJ Morris is just a lying moron whose arguments can be easily refuted, in his meta analysis he quotes studies from African nations where circumcision is the norm, even before the UN plan, and its the same with America as well. For the Canadian study over 85 percent of the women in the study never even knew what an intact penis looked like by their own admission and had only experienced cut penises because the researchers specifically chose the fw provinces of Canada where circumcision was still in the majority, and funnily enough even then the women and gay men in the study overwhelmingly stated that intact penises fest better and were easier to work with just by what they had heard from others quite amusingly. As for the Mexican and Japanese study they too showed a preference for uncut penises in matters like pleasurability, functionality,etc but he only shows a few parameters such as on looks and overall asthetics and claims that they would cut their sons somehow. Plus there are others such as one in India where they literally get a bunch of young women who have are sexually inexperienced if not outright Virginia by their own admission and put them in atleast and hour long ‘orientation session’ on circumcision where they lied completely even stating that circumsion makes you almost invulnerable from/to STD’s and only then asked them their preference, which obviously violates every ethical practice for a study i can think of and probably some more.
Lastly for the European studes, especially the Danish one he has the worst counterarguments I have ever seen he says that the study has cultural biases even thought that applies to almost all of the ones that he has used, and then he claims that the researchers were biased as the lead researcher felt that compulsory neonatal circumcision was unnecessary even though by that logic BJ’s friend was jailed for peodophilia and he was part of the lead for a number of studies that BJ quotes and was a part of himself sowhat about the effect on the team then? Plus that applies to any study that BJ and his friends produce as they all believe the opposite .i.e. that all babies need to be mutilated at birth and that sentiment applies to almost all of BJ’s team members not just the team head/lead so by their own logic they can fall prey to their own biases themselves. Lastly he screws up his last two point about the data by completely goofing up the context and values.
