[Revamp]

Great, just great. Now one of the most regularly read pro-intact commentators has modified his position:

http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/200...html#trackback

Wonderful.

In the trackback section you can read a pair of marvellous rebuttals but that is a scanty consolation.

 

[Revamp]

Oh yes and this is the sort of thing that Sullivan should have written: http://www.rollingdoughnut.com/2006/...ck_mach_1.html

 

[eightyferrettoes]

That rebuttal was truly amazing. Gosh, yes, there were a million things wrong with the article Sullivan linked to. Like how can "hardening" the glans be a GOOD thing?

Yuck.

 

[Revamp]

Quote:

Originally Posted by eightyferrettoes That rebuttal was truly amazing. Gosh, yes, there were a million things wrong with the article Sullivan linked to. Like how can "hardening" the glans be a GOOD thing? Yuck.

I actually find the whole thing pretty hilarious, almost unbelievably so.

For years the claims of keratanisation had been our thing! The pro-circs were meant to roll their eyes everytime that we brought it up and talk about unproven nonsense.

Yet now all of a sudden they have done a full 180 and are now proclaiming the merits and benefits of the fact of keratanisation, this proven and totally certain, undisputable fact.

Most bizarre.

The rebuttal was indeed perfect, I am very impressed with that author and I will be certain to read more of his stuff. I am very, very dissapointed with Andrew. It hurts especially to see him take such a suddenly cloudy stance because his blog was one of the things which really inspired my opposition to the atrocity of RIC.

To see even him fall is really worrying.

 

[Lula's Mom]

My thoughts exactly on the keratinization, James.

It's always been one of those things dreamed up by "crazy intactivists". Men would say "I'm plenty sensitive! I haven''t lost anything!" And now suddenly it's touted as something circumcision does cause, and something you want?

 

[Revamp]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lula's Mom My thoughts exactly on the keratinization, James. It's always been one of those things dreamed up by "crazy intactivists". Men would say "I'm plenty sensitive! I haven''t lost anything!" And now suddenly it's touted as something circumcision does cause, and something you want?

It is a pretty astounding stunt to pull really...

 

[Revamp]

Hrrrrrmmmmm...

Perhaps this is some vague improvement:

http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/200..._aids_in_.html

Ending AIDS in Four Decades

11 Aug 2006 06:26 pm

It could be done. How? By massive use of anti-retrovirals. The key point about the anti-HIV drugs often missed by non-experts is that they drastically reduce the amount of virus in blood and semen and so make HIV-infected people much less infectious. If you get a critical mass of people with HIV with highly suppressed levels of the virus, you can reach a tipping point at which the virus cannot spread. This approach, using drugs we already have, is far more feasible than all the money wasted on the search for a vaccine that will never exist. And cost-effective too. Here's what I regard as a persuasive case by the president-elect of the International AIDS Society. Read it. It makes more sense than many other ideas.