Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Kazan on October 28, 2003, 06:45:26 pm
-
We should all feel violated, we all have been violated. Who are we? Circumcised males, particularily those of us (like myself) that were multilated as infants.
Circumcision practices in western society are completely based upon myth[/i] - both religious and medical.
I will attack the medical myth to avoid the legions of zealots ready to defend their "moral decision" without logic. The medical myths are as follows:
1) That circumcision is more clean - this is a myth of oversimplification, the circumcised penis is easier to keep clean, but it is no more clean than the uncircumcised penis. uncircumcised males must simply manually retract their foreskin to clean
2) Ignorance is rampant among medical people about penile and foreskin development. Many still believe that the foreskin must be retractable at birth or by ages 3 to 5. They often diagnose this non-retractability as "phimosis" and will either suggest circumcision or try to forcibly retract the foreskin. ( http://www.noharmm.org/knowrights.htm )
For the long list of the damages caused by circumcision read http://www.noharmm.org/advantage.htm
What must you do? Lend your sons the same protection that you lend your daughters, do not let their genitals be multilated!
What about those of us that were multilated Some (nonsurgical) restoration is possible, but the more complex/important functions are lost forever - read up on what can/cannot be restored at http://www.norm.org/lost.html
-
Well, although it's probably more than you care to know, I've not been cut, so...
-
I don't mind openness, consider yourself very lucky -- rest assured i consider you very lucky
little snippet that is burried in there on "female lubrication problems" - it's not really a problem with the woman, but a problem with the male - the circumcised male penis pulls the lubrication out of the vagina where it will evaporate - and the intact male penis's foreskin never fully retracts - reducing friction - not to mention one of the purposes of the foreskin is the lubricate the glans and protect it
-
Hehe. 'Moist'.
-
come on.. none of that - no useless posting in this thread please - I want a serious discussion on this
-
Oh, and before i look at any of the websites you posted, could you assure me that there's no pictures on them?
kthx
-
There are none.
-
there are some pictures on them - but they warn you about those pages - i haven't directly linked to any pictures again
an0n: we're not advocating antisematism - just combating MGM
-
I'm not anti-semitic. People can believe whatever the hell they want. It's just that the leaders and influential members of the Jewish religion tend to do some questionable things nowadays. Therefore anyone who subscribes the ideals of those people is somewhat tainted in my book.
In short: I'm fine with the religion, it's just Jewish people that I don't like.
-
anyone who subscribes to any religion is intellectually dishonest in my book - but i didn't want to get into that in this thread - and this is off topic in relation to the thread
-
Me? Don't care. It doesn't actually impair anything (the whole "lubricant" bit is a stretch and a half, and the loss of nerve tissue isn't typically as serious as they try to make it sound, I don't think), is done at an age where you've got the memory of a goldfish and an already nonexistent pain tolerance and hence doesn't matter on that account, and just plain isn't as much of a deal as, say, the female version, which is quite harmful. I think I can manage to live a life without smegma, it's just one of those things I really don't need to get my day going.
-
Guess I'll never know (circumcised here). Not really too fussed about what I can't do anything about - I'll consider it more if I have a son.
-
I am a Jehovah's Witness you goddamn fool. Now shut up and/or post on-topic.
-
oh, and i'm not circumcised... (*attempts to get thread back on-topic*)
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Me? Don't care. It doesn't actually impair anything (the whole "lubricant" bit is a stretch and a half), is done at an age where you've got the memory of a goldfish and an already nonexistent pain tolerance and hence doesn't matter on that account, and just plain isn't as much of a deal as, say, the female version, which is quite harmful. I think I can manage to live a life without smegma, it's just one of those things I really don't need to get my day going.
the lubricant thing is _not_ a stretch and a half - do your research
the male version is QUITE harmfull - why don't you read the advantage page posted above
THERE IS NO MEDICAL VALUE TO MALE GENITAL MULTILATION - do you reading before you post
and babies do have a pain tolerance, and studies show that male babies who are circumcised have their pain tolerance _lowered_
your response is a classic example of psychological conditioning
------
Setekh - yes, read up now, do not make any children you have subject to genital multilation - but there are some ways to partially restore yourself - none of the fancy things that require nerves and special cells - but the mechanical functionality [which is a fairely important thing in and of itself] can be restored along with the volume of the skin - but it takes time
-
Ehh..... Why is this topic on the forum anyway? Seems like an odd thing to talk about on a forum for a site devoted to a space combat game.
-
No it's not. It just shows the maturity level of some members. :p
[that was meant for stealth, but works for this too]
and babies do have a pain tolerance, and studies show that male babies who are circumcised have their pain tolerance _lowered_
Really? Wow. There's alot of information on that site. I do suggest reading it.
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
Ehh..... Why is this topic on the forum anyway? Seems like an odd thing to talk about on a forum for a site devoted to a space combat game.
Men's health is not important to you?
-
I feel I should point out that by having the fore-skin removed, your....err...'phallus's sensetivity is reduced meaning you can.....'copulate' for longer.
Hey, I never used profanity! That's gotta be a first.
-
What's the point in circumsicion anyway?
-
Jewish tradition mostly.
-
And it helps them how?
... which is strange by the way, because my family isn't even jewish.
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
Ehh..... Why is this topic on the forum anyway? Seems like an odd thing to talk about on a forum for a site devoted to a space combat game.
That was lame..
-
Actually it stemmed from Egyptian, but that's beside the point.
-
Originally posted by Raa Tor'h
Men's health is not important to you?
Most people on the board who would be circumcised would have already had it done to them. And if I were about to have a son, I'd most likely get my information from a better source than a site with an oddly-spelled domain name before I made a decision like that.
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
Most people on the board who would be circumcised would have already had it done to them. And if I were about to have a son, I'd most likely get my information from a better source than a site with an oddly-spelled domain name before I made a decision like that.
A valid point, but before judgement is made, check out the resources listed, as well.
-
Originally posted by Knight Templar
:wtf:
I'd think somebody like you or Greywolf would notice that we are for the most part mature enough to have a forum on general discussion. That forum being Hardlight and the discussion being Circumsicion, his statement, comming from a long time member, seemed lame.
Get it now? I know it's hard, but thinking through your posts, if not at least your insults, would be A-1 supar.
I acknowledge your maturity, and I did not mean to insult anyone. I just believe that this is a rather odd place to have this sort of conversation, and that it is important to back up your point with sites from reputable sources, such as a government study by the NIH or by a study done by an independent university. It's just that there is quite a bit of information posted on the internet, and the validity of the information varies quite severely from source to source, with some sites run by people who actually know what they are talking about and who make a informative and factually correct site, and others posting things that have been debunked by science many times over. The point of the second half of this post being, does anyone have a link from a site run by a university or anything that would back up or refute the information posted in the original post of this thread?
Also, many of the links on that page link to other pages within that site, or link to one of two other pages ( www. cirp.org www.circumcision.org ). Of two links that I checked that did not lead to one of those 3 websites, one link was dead ( http://archive.abcnews.com/sections/living/DailyNews/circumcision981113.html ) and one link ( http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/317/7173/1616/b ) does not even make one mention of circumcision.
-
So...what?
This has been done for many thousands of years to what effect?
What bearing does this have on my day to day life? It was done 25 years ago and hasn't drastically changed my outlook on ,um, things.
I must be abnormal because my memory doesn't extend back to when I was an infant. Anybody who says a young child has a finely tuned sense of pain has never played with a two year old.
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
I acknowledge your maturity, and I did not mean to insult anyone. I just believe that this is a rather odd place to have this sort of conversation, and that it is important to back up your point with sites from reputable sources, such as a government study by the NIH or by a study done by an independent university. It's just that there is quite a bit of information posted on the internet, and the validity of the information varies quite severely from source to source, with some sites run by people who actually know what they are talking about and who make a informative and factually correct site, and others posting things that have been debunked by science many times over. The point of the second half of this post being, does anyone have a link from a site run by a university or anything that would back up or refute the information posted in the original post of this thread?
Well that's a point.. but on the other hand, why would someone make up a bunch of facts about how bad circumsicion of they weren't so against it as to make a website about it. Not to mention Kazan being so strong about it. Not only that, but from a view of common sense, or mine at least (:nervous: ) circumsizing doesn't seem to have any positive effects and appears to have a lot of negative effects, fake facts or not.
Which brings me back to the point, what do the Jews, or Egyptians have to gain from cutting 'important' skin off of their cocks? Yeah, it could be some kind of weird religous **** I guess, but what the **** is it doing in today's anti-religous world?
-
Originally posted by Knight Templar
Well that's a point.. but on the other hand, why would someone make up a bunch of facts about how bad circumsicion of they weren't so against it as to make a website about it.
You have to remember: People make websites saying that NASA worships matter and that the world is run by the Knights Templar and the Illuminati. Some people just have nothing to do with their time except go and make massive websites explaining their views, no matter how crazy they are. So the existence of the website is not enough to prove its validity. To prove that, you need independent studies done by a variety of sources that do not have a partisan interest in the result of the study.
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
You have to remember: People make websites saying that NASA worships matter and that the world is run by the Knights Templar and ....
You're saying it's not? :drevil:
Really though, does it matter as long as circumsizing is a bad thing, or are you just saying you don't like the long list of suspected unsubstantiated side effects?
-
Originally posted by Knight Templar
You're saying it's not? :drevil:
Really though, does it matter as long as circumsizing is a bad thing, or are you just saying you don't like the long list of suspected unsubstantiated side effects?
I'm saying I don't like the long list of effects since they don't really list any evidence on that site which isn't on a site which would favor their cause. That's sort of like a person writing that NASA worships matter (sorry, I like using that example :P ) linking to a page saying that NASA not only worships matter, but worships devils, as proof, and having both of them be Geocities pages on the same account :p
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
I'm saying I don't like the long list of effects since they don't really list any evidence on that site which isn't on a site which would favor their cause. That's sort of like a person writing that NASA worships matter (sorry, I like using that example :P ) linking to a page saying that NASA not only worships matter, but worships devils, as proof, and having both of them be Geocities pages on the same account :p
Well that makes sense, to an extent then.
-
Uh oh, this thread is doomed to being locked, so i`d better speak now or foverever hold my peace.
Back to subject.....
My dad lived to the age of 69 and was never deprived of his foreskin, as far as I can say he never had any problems..
Oh and foreplay makes for...... I`ll say no more. ;7
(edit)
I`d tell you to ask my wife but then, she would kill me, or deprive me of my manhood. :nervous: :shaking:
Both are very painfull and I will shutup now..
-
Stop feeding the trolls.
One more insult/flame/whatever and I'll close this and start banning people. The lack of maturity in here is just disgusting. Act like grownups for once. I don't get paid to babysit.
-
Shrike - thanks
-
Hmm... interesting thread. Too bad Shrike intervened before I got here - I was of a mind to do something a bit more drastic than ban a few people here and there.
Circumcision:
- I've never heard of any Egyptian thing concerning it, so I'm totally ignorant of that possible origin.
- The custom of circumcision in the western world arrived due the the Jewish roots of Christianity, and the Christian roots of the USA, plain and simple.
- Considering my faith, I'm fairly well-versed in the religious side of "why", so...
Circumcision is the sign of the covenant God made with Abraham and his decendants, to make him a father of many nations, to be Their God, and they His people, and to give them the land of Canaan as an everlasting possession. (Genesis 17 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=GEN%2B17&showfn=on&showxref=on&language=english&version=NKJV&x=13&y=5))
Pretty much the whole formation of Judaism and the Jewish People centers on this covenant, and circumcision is the sign of this covenant.
-
hey this is good one Kaz i must read all those links
btw i do have son:) :yes:
another thread that got flaming when it's stop:sigh:
-
Sandwich: i don't appreciate other peoples religion multilating my body
-
Gaahhhhh. I hope I never have to delete two whole pages of flames again. :sigh:
Heed your warnings.
-
Thanks oh might Setekh... it's a little bit more on topic now.. though you did cut out a post of mine that was a two part post half *****ing about the OTness and have on topic... meh wish i remembered what i wrote in the on topic version
i must sleep.. therefore i will go to bed.
-
if we wherent supposed to have it, we woulnt be born with it.
Its pretty crappy that the babies or child does have a say in it.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
Sandwich: i don't appreciate other peoples religion multilating my body
I agree with you as far as that goes, Kazan. I was simply explaining the origins to those who might not know, as well as a bit about why it became the default for newborns in the US.
Seeing as the reasons are a covenant of faith between God and the Jews, I don't see any reason why non-Jews should have to circumcise their children. Whether they decide to do so out of medical/health reasons that may or may not have been explained to them truthfully or accurately is another story, which I'm not going to get into.
-
I was circumsized due to a nasty infection during my first year alive. It was either that or live without a penis. And I'm happy. I've seen guys without circumsision and I'm even very happy. Ugly foreskin :ick
Let me put it this way: Tiara is happy (very :D) I am happy, nothing else matters :D
-
some times circumcision is needed
-
I'm not circumcised. :ha:
Infact, I've rarely seen anyone in Estonia, who is.
-
But then, have you been actively looking?
-
Research shows that in African tribes that do circumsize there are fewer cases of AIDS compaired to those that dont. This is because the foreskin doesnt have the same protective substance the rest of the skin does.
Personally I'm not circumsized. I don't really think its that important - either way has advantages and disadvantages - but its not really a tradition in my family or religion (well i'm not religious) so i wasn't circumsized as a kid. And quite frankly, I dont want it done now.
-
[color=66ff00]Frankly I'm pro choice. Religion and commonpractice be damned, nobody should have that kinda decision made for them.
[/color]
-
Hear hear.
-
Got ,er, cut when I was around 10. It hurt for two weeks, and I had to go around the house in a sarong. Meh.
-
Originally posted by Petrarch of the VBB
But then, have you been actively looking?
There's a lot of nude people in estonia, trust me on that.
[edit] on another note, is legal for Stealth to insult members in his sig. Although, looking at the members, I'm not sure they'd mind.
-
Sandwich is right, circumcision did originate biblically.
-
Originally posted by TheCelestialOne
I was circumsized due to a nasty infection during my first year alive. It was either that or live without a penis.
same here.
But what difference does it make to a 2 year old? Circumcision (when they were younger) hasnt psycological harmed or affected any ppl i know. While the kids are young, i guess its the descision of the parents; they usually have a good reason.
(personal experience, it dosnt really matter to a 3 year old. Really, it dosnt. The only thing i actually remeber is me being able to eat all the hospital junk food i wanted to and being put to sleep right before the procedure, other than that i really cant remmember a thing.)
but i can see how being cut when your older has its problems
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by beatspete
Research shows that in African tribes that do circumsize there are fewer cases of AIDS compaired to those that dont. This is because the foreskin doesnt have the same protective substance the rest of the skin does.
Personally I'm not circumsized. I don't really think its that important - either way has advantages and disadvantages - but its not really a tradition in my family or religion (well i'm not religious) so i wasn't circumsized as a kid. And quite frankly, I dont want it done now.
those studies were falsified
the foreskin has important immune system structures in it that are permanantly destroyed in circumcision - go read the linked pages
-
At ten? I'd have bloody well murdered someone.
I'm cut and I never gave it any thought until very recently. I've certainly never been bothered by my own cock. My wife and I are considering children right now (well, for after we move back to Australia). We're the sort that thing way too much about stuff, so we're already thinking about how to teach the children about sex, whether boys will be cut, if we'll christen/baptise the children, etc.
If you had asked me two years ago, or maybe even six months ago, I'd probably have given a reflexive 'Yes, he'll be cut.'. Somehwere along the line, very recently, I've been thinking more strongly about it and now I'm not sure. I'm actually leaning heavily toward the "not cut" end of the spectrum. I really can't explain why, either.
I won't go so far as to call this "male genital mutilation" and without a medical practioner weighing in, I'm not going to buy into the list of bad things. I'm just thinking of this on purely personal moral grounds. I just have to figure out where I really stand on the subject.
-
There are plenty of medical reasons for circumcision. I was subject to one of them when I was between 5-10 (can't remember when), and everything's fine and dandy now.
I do see an argument against rampant circumcision for no reason, since logic tells me that the foreskin has got to be there for something, even if it is minor.
And I really expected more maturity from this community surrounding the topic. It came up in school recently and half the boys reverted back to juvenile idiocy - I like to think that the HLP members are a little more sophisticated than my mid-secondary school yeargroup.
-
well, i just saw some slides on STD's, so i am not really up to commenting.
i am not circumcised.
-
I've been circumcised, and I don't remember it, so I guess I have no idea what I'm missing.
Mutilating babies is still wrong though.
-
Kaz: Oh, yes, everyone who disagrees is brainwashed. Uh huh. Because you know all that intensive penis-slicing propoganda out there. Dem durn Jews, they's not gonna stop till they've destroyed every foreskin in the world!
Seriously man, look at the hysterics that go on there. Did you even care about this before you read that page? Did you even notice any problem with it? If you've got, ah, performance problems and wanna blame it on your parents, that's fine, just face up to the fact that we all might not have such a big issue with such a small (and commonplace) thing. I read the entire page- it reads like every other half-deranged polemic against something obscure like microwaves or water flouridation I've ever read, and I have no basis- from personal experience or otherwise- to credit it any more than I do the guy who says the alien love gardners are killed by radiation from optical mice. You might as well face it, Kazan- whether they're right or not, they have absolutely no support for what they're saying on there, so they could just as well have pulled it out of their ass, and in fact most likely did. It isn't a fact just because some guy made a reasonably well-designed page about it- hell, were that the case, I think we'd all be obligated to join the Raelian church- they don't support anything they say, but they say a lot and they've got some SWEET flash animations to go with it.
Also, infants have a pain tolerance and a memory? Go to a playground sometime and watch the circus- every ten seconds one of 'em will fall down, brush their knee slightly against something, go wailing like their leg's been blown off, then forget completely about it in another ten seconds. When you've got such an undeveloped brain a little pain (in an undeveloped part of the body) isn't going to exactly scar you for life. And until I see some actual reasoning or factual support behind all this shrieking, that's the story and I'm sticking to it.
-
I'm not even sure about all this pain thing. I'm pretty darn sure I was given anaesthetic. Does anaesthetic kill babies or something?
-
This thread is making me cringe. Anyone waving a blade at my dangly bits gets a smack in the gob, I'll tell you that.
-
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
This thread is making me cringe. Anyone waving a blade at my dangly bits gets a smack in the gob, I'll tell you that.
That's one agile trouser snake you got there son.
-
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
This thread is making me cringe. Anyone waving a blade at my dangly bits gets a smack in the gob, I'll tell you that.
Too late for me, but I can always perform voodoo curses on the people that performed the operation...even though voodoo doesn't actually work...:nervous:
-
Originally posted by 01010
That's one agile trouser snake you got there son.
He didn't say he'd smack the guy with his penis.:wtf:
-
Yay! I finally found people who are voluntarily discussing my penis! I knew you guys had to be out there somewhere. Give us a hug...
-
*backs away from DG and waves a gun*
Don't touch me.
-
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
Yay! I finally found people who are voluntarily discussing my penis! I knew you guys had to be out there somewhere. Give us a hug...
Well I would, but I don't want to break my jaw.
Hmm, that sounds wrong.
Kinda OT I guess but, does anyone have a name for their penis? Cause I know a few people that do and I just find it odd.
-
everything from DG's first post in this thread sounds wrong.
-
Originally posted by 01010
Kinda OT I guess but, does anyone have a name for their penis? Cause I know a few people that do and I just find it odd.
People give their dicks NAMES? Now I'm really freaked out.:wtf::ick
-
I was going to make reference to Little Diamond Geezer my first post, but I decided to avoid the inevitable 'hurr hurr, little, hurr hurr hurr'
-
(http://dynamic4.gamespy.com/~freespace/forums/images/smilies/wtf.gif)
-
excuse me, naming your dick?
i think it's time to, erm,.....,uhm, do my homework! yes, indeed, i need to do some important homework.
/me moves away fast
-
That's the most sensible thing I've heard all day.
-
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
I was going to make reference to Little Diamond Geezer my first post, but I decided to avoid the inevitable 'hurr hurr, little, hurr hurr hurr'
Not to mention the abbreviated form, LDG, sounds like either a drug or and STD.
Drugs and STD's, now THERE'S an idea.
-
I would check my homework diary if I didn't know there wasn't anything I had to do :S
Time to watch TV and/or play games, ja?
-
peoples don't go off topic please:)
-
Does off-topic include desperately trying to avoid a related and very, uhh, unsavory topic?
-
Back on topic children. Please?
-
I'd have thought that anything that could be said, has been.
-
if some you don't want talk about this so DON'T POST!
this thread is only for (Male Genital Multilation aka Circumcision )
-
Originally posted by Petrarch of the VBB
I'd have thought that anything that could be said, has been.
I'm suprised that so much came from so little. Like a midget in a porn film.
-
Hey, I'm fine talking about circumcision, I just - like a few others - got a little worried when it switched to penis names.
-
Maeg's point is the most valid.
And for the record, and yes this feels surreal saying this to you all, I am not circumcised.
-
It's like a friggin AA meeting in here.
-
What, like 'hello, my name's DG and my sidekick still has his hat on'?
-
:lol:
But does he wear his wellingtons when he goes into wet places? ;)
Sorry admins, I couldn't resist
-
No, he wears a rubber mac
Bah, this is too easy
-
:blah:
some peoples don't understant to stay in topic
-
Look, Gloriano mate, I appreciate what you're saying but is this really the first time you've noticed that threads on this board rarely stay OT for more than four posts?
-
Ahem.... we should stop now
-
k
-
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
Look, Gloriano mate, I appreciate what you're saying but is this really the first time you've noticed that threads on this board rarely stay OT for more than four posts?
yea i know that sadly it's true:)
-
EDIT: n/mind
-
but peoples can try staying in topic
-
[q]but peoples can try staying in topic[/q]
Alright subject is dicks. Hmm, you're doing a good job actually. :p :lol:
So, next big one (pardon the pun) - Would you have your (future) son cirucmcised?
-
Originally posted by vyper
So, next big one (pardon the pun) - Would you have your (future) son cirucmcised? [/B]
nope because my first son is not cirucmcised so no
and i said that that peoples can try stay in topics in all threads
-
I wouldn't. I'd not have him Christened, nor send him to a religious school. Forcing things on children before they're old enough to have a say on it is one of the (many) things that fills me with rage.
-
Ah, but don't parents always force things on their children?
I'm not sure if I'll have my son circumcised. My wife thinks he should be; I'm undecided. On the one hand, as I said before, I'm fine with my cock. But the question that picks at my brain is, 'what if I'm missing out on something?' and what if by circumcising my son, it costs HIM something? And of course there's the whole idea that we are talking about removing a bit of flesh for (if you're not jewish) purely aesthetic reasons. And there's the whole emotional, male-gut-response issue: can I really stand by and let someone take a knife to my childs genitals? Or the other side of it: how much do I want my child to be like me?
Its too loaded. It puts my brain into circles.
Then there's Christening. I think my wife and I will christen our children. She's catholic and I'm a deist. I figure there's no harm in a meaningless ceremony and she figures if she's right, the child has won Pascal's wager (or at least has a chance to make the wager).
-
no.
-
Originally posted by Holy Imperial Gloriano
and i said that that peoples can try stay in topics in all threads
Trying to stay on topic in every thread is like trying to pour the Pacific Ocean into a thimble.
As for the question, no, because mutilating someone against his will is wrong.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Ah, but don't parents always force things on their children?
Only thing i,ve had forced on me is reading when i was younger. I was christened when i was nine, after being informed over a few weeks by the Priest of what it entailed. That is of course different, to having your parents decide you need bits of you removing, especially when it has detremental effects.
Personally, i have a undamaged john thomas.
-
I'm increasingly tempted to sing "Isn't it awfully nice to have a penis"
-
Or possibly Ivor Biggun's "I'm a wanker"
-
Yes, but given the subject of the thread, it would lead me back to threads of old, either here or on PCG, about the benefits, in terms of masturbation, of being circumsised.
I've said too much.
-
Why do i always walk back into this place in the middle of a huge argument?
-
Five letters, starts and ends with R and rymes with 'Razor'
*runs*
-
Originally posted by Petrarch of the VBB
Yes, but given the subject of the thread, it would lead me back to threads of old, either here or on PCG, about the benefits, in terms of masturbation, of being circumsised.
I've said too much.
My primary concern for the "chopped" population is that, doesn't masturbation require lots of lube and patience? Also, loose fingernails = pain.
I personally, have not received the chop.
Mik: I think that when it comes to circumcision, it'd be better to let your son make the decision for himself if it ever even comes to it (unless there was a specific medical reason). I personally see no gain from circumcision, but conversely, I don't see all that much loss in it either. The whole baptism thing is something else entirely however.
Originally posted by Petrarch of the VBB
I'm increasingly tempted to sing "Isn't it awfully nice to have a penis"
It's swell to have a stiffy, it's divine to own a dick. From the tiniest little tadger, to the worlds biggest prick.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Ah, but don't parents always force things on their children?
I'm not sure if I'll have my son circumcised. My wife thinks he should be; I'm undecided. On the one hand, as I said before, I'm fine with my cock. But the question that picks at my brain is, 'what if I'm missing out on something?' and what if by circumcising my son, it costs HIM something? And of course there's the whole idea that we are talking about removing a bit of flesh for (if you're not jewish) purely aesthetic reasons. And there's the whole emotional, male-gut-response issue: can I really stand by and let someone take a knife to my childs genitals? Or the other side of it: how much do I want my child to be like me?
Its too loaded. It puts my brain into circles.
Then there's Christening. I think my wife and I will christen our children. She's catholic and I'm a deist. I figure there's no harm in a meaningless ceremony and she figures if she's right, the child has won Pascal's wager (or at least has a chance to make the wager).
My opinion is close to this, however I feel that it is the child's choice upon reaching maturity to decide wether to take on Pascal's wager.
Afterall, would it not be better for someone to truly decide to believe (or not to) in a religion on their own, as opposed to being indoctrinated into it from childhood?
-
technically, im a confirmed christian.
in practise im more of a new age practitioner sooo.... *shrug*
If the religion doesn't work for them , they wont stick with it. simple.
-
Indoctrination is designed to make the religion "work for them". It's a euphemism for brainwashing IMO.
-
Indeed. That's what angers me greatly. Children being forced into Christianity from the moment they start school. We used to have assembly every morning, with singing hymns, praying, etc, and had a priest once a week.
-
well, you've got to be indocrinated into somethng, if you don't indoctronate you're childeren someone else will
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
well, you've got to be indocrinated into somethng, if you don't indoctronate you're childeren someone else will
Not necessarily, I never had anything forced upon me by my parent and I've never really paid much attention to anyone elses attempt to indoctrinate me.
-
what did you do as a child?
generaly speaking
-
Stryke: I am not going to respond to your posts after this one - you derailed this thread origionally and started a flame war - you are trying to do it again - you have just blatantly insulted my intelligence - which a massively unwise thing to do.
Someone who is biased is the most likely to call someone else biased, someone who is extremely impressionable is most likely to accuse someone else of the same thing, someone who is out of touch with reality is likewise most likely to accuse someone else of the same thing
To generalize the statement: Someone who is guilty of something is most likely to accuse someone else of being guilty of the same thing.
Do not accuse me of being guilty of your crimes against intellectualism - they are your crimes, not mine
-
My issue
I had no choice in this matter
My parents and my doctor chose to permanantly and irreversably modify my genitals, and destroy massive ammounts of nerve tissue, immune system tissue, lymphatic tissue, and modify the mechanical functionality of the penis in sex
They chose to impose a permanant alteration upon my body when I was just days old based upon myth and ignorance perpetuated by so-called doctors
Wide spread circumcision was brough to US hospitals are a cure for: MASTERUBATION and the supposed problem of male baby's foreskins being unretractable, which they are not suppose to be
My Parents and Doctor chose to MUTILATE my genitals, they imposed their decision upon me when I was helpless to defend myself
Now I must live this their decision, knowing that I am not how I should be - knowing that I will never know how I am suppose to be - finally able to articulate the feelings my more primative brain has been trying to wisper to my higher brain for years.
-
Kaz, I sense anger in you. Anger leads to hate and hate leads to suffering and all that. I don't know about you, but my doc did a reasonably good job on me--and luckily he cut conservatively, so I still have a little bit of flesh there. Just don't do it to your son, and make sure, when he gets older, that he understands why you didn't (he WILL ask, I'm sure, since he'll see the other boys after gym and wonder what's going on). But don't go on with the sturm und drang. Its doesn't do any good. Spread the word, but don't become the sort of freaky frothing fundamentalist that pushed this sort of thing on the rest of us in the first place.
"Cures" for masturbation make me laugh. They might as well have attempted to "cure" urination or the like. :lol:
-
Kazan, you're starting to scare me...
You said it your self, you were days old. As an infant you were incapable of complex thought, you were an eating and pooping machine just like the rest of us.
It takes a while for this little bit of wisdom to sink in, years usually and some never get it: You are the sum of your knowledge, experiences and faith. No alteration to your physicality, especially at so young an age, makes you a different person than you would have been otherwise.
-
Liberator: WRONG
Your statement is outright wrong - pyschial things can be a dormant issue - until you realize exactly what has been done to you - My body was altered, against my will, without my consent
Now that I know what they did to me I wish they would not have done it. It takes make me a different person, it makes me different than I want to be, than I would chose to be.
I am outraged that they damaged my sexual organs
-
mikhael: there is a thing known as reperations. I have the right to demand reperations for medical malpractice - the precident for this situation is out there - I need to but file a case at my leasure
-
Originally posted by Kazan
I am in a lot of financial hurt
...
reperations
ok, now this rant is starting to make more sense :D
BTW, don't take that as an insult, just saw it and had to say it
and you'r kinda right but, eh, it's sort of odd how you are so passionatly fighting this thing,
cause, honsetly, dick sensitivity realy isn't that big a issue for me
-
From a morale stand-point (a place where I usually don't bother to venture) you're entitled to some form of compensation. From a legal stand-point (another place I dislike) you're entitled to ****-all. Your parents/legal-guardians can basically do what the hell they want to you until you're 16/18/21. It sucks but there's nothing you can do about it.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
I have the right to demand reperations for medical malpractice
what do you mean by medical malpractice? how have they wronged you? (seriously)
and what right are you claiming exactaly? Where is it in the US constitution that says, you have the right to sue whoever because they had your dick trimmed when you were 2.
plz, your parents brought you into the world clothed you, fed you, all that stuff. They chose to trim you for some reason. Go take it up with them. I think sueing someone is a little extreme.
-
an0n: actually from a legal standpoint i am entitled - if the doctor misinformed them [which i haven't asked them yet]
Drew: How have they wronged me? Are you that daft? THEY CUT OFF MY ****ING FORESKIN
GOD you're a moron - people always try to use the constitition as the end off of everything "it's not in the constitution so.." you know jack**** about law - read up oni the site you ****ing moron
parents do not have the right to mutilate their children
some people are ****ing stupid
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
what did you do as a child?
generaly speaking
Pretty much normal kid stuff, hung around with friends, played computer games, went to school, the usual crap y'know.
I think that the UK is not as bad as other countries when it comes to freedom of (from?) religion, considering the majority of the country is secular anyway.
-
Kazan, I agree with you if its done for non-medical reasons unlike with me. I had a nasty infection and there litterally was no choice. If its done for belief/pre-emptive medical reasons its utter crap indeed. I agree with that...
But there are positive reasons. You said it was a myth that it was cleaner and you'd have less chance of infections. Why do you think they removed my foreskin? Yes, to cure an infection. Also numerous research projects have shown this to be true. Maybe not to th extend those doctors belive but it does help.
In the sexual area it also has a positive side. Because you lost nerves, it takes longer for you to reach your... pinnacle of joy (:p). Hence it allows more pleasure for the woman you are sleeping with. Many men reach their point too fast for a woman to be fully satisfied. Cut ppl have far less problems with this
Also, the orgasm feeling is not reduced. It just comes slower as explained above. The orgasm itself is the same as with non-cut people as it relies on the nerves in the tip of your penis not the ones in your foreskin.
I think you are looking to much to the negative sides while it has some serious advantages to it as well. I have Tiara as prove! :p
-
Originally posted by Petrarch of the VBB
Forcing things on children before they're old enough to have a say on it is one of the (many) things that fills me with rage.
So we should just let children run around and do what they want because if we told them not to stick the screwdriver into the electrical outlet, wouldn't we be "forcing something on them before they're old enough to have a say"?
Seriously, at many points, the parents have to decide some things for the child and if they decide to have their child circumsized, so be it. It's basically the parents decision until the child is 16/18/21 like someone said before. Take it up with the parents, not the religious people, not the Constitution, and not with whoever else people have started blaming. But if you start blaming, then its like.. wow I could blame my parents for keeping me from doing drugs. Dang darn my parents for keeping me from those drugs! I could be so much happier with them! I'm going to speak out and plead with parents to allow their kids to do drugs because I didn't get the opportunity. I mean.. it's just a matter of what the parents decide, and however they come to the decision, fine. I know I'm exaggerating here and am going completely off, but it seems like that's what everyone else was doing before.. so maybe I'm just following suit.
Originally posted by Petrarch of the VBB
Forcing things on children before they're old enough to have a say on it is one of the (many) things that fills me with rage.
So, if you ever become a parent, you're probably going to be either a really bad parent or really pissed at yourself all the time for forcing things on your own child.
And "genital mutilation" makes it out a little more than it is IMO.... unless the doctor really screwed up. :shaking: :eek2: :shaking:
-
Originally posted by Petrarch of the VBB
Forcing things on children before they're old enough to have a say on it is one of the (many) things that fills me with rage.
By simply raising a child in a civil manner, you are forcing innumerable thought patterns onto them. As Ulala points out, it is the necessary responsibility of parents to make decisions for them.
-
yes freedom from religion - it almost doesn't exist over here
our current president's father thought is quoted as saying that athiests shouldn't be citizens/have rights
he said that while he was in office
-
Originally posted by Setekh
By simply raising a child in a civil manner, you are forcing innumerable thought patterns onto them. As Ulala points out, it is the necessary responsibility of parents to make decisions for them.
yup i got son so i know:)
-
Originally posted by TheCelestialOne
Kazan, I agree with you if its done for non-medical reasons unlike with me. I had a nasty infection and there litterally was no choice. If its done for belief/pre-emptive medical reasons its utter crap indeed.
I agree with that...
:)
Originally posted by TheCelestialOne
But there are positive reasons. You said it was a myth that it was cleaner and you'd have less chance of infections. Why do you think they removed my foreskin? Yes, to cure an infection. Also numerous research projects have shown this to be true. Maybe not to th extend those doctors belive but it does help.
Faulty logic - correlation != causation
tissue with an intrenched infection sometiems has to be removed - in your case it was your foreskin which sucks large goat testis
Originally posted by TheCelestialOne
In the sexual area it also has a positive side. Because you lost nerves, it takes longer for you to reach your... pinnacle of joy (:p). Hence it allows more pleasure for the woman you are sleeping with. Many men reach their point too fast for a woman to be fully satisfied. Cut ppl have far less problems with this
Fallacy - the only way it would make you last longer is if you were circumcised after you became fully sexually active - so you're 'threshold' was at one point, and then your sensory input was reduced so it would take longer to reach that threshold
Originally posted by TheCelestialOne
Also, the orgasm feeling is not reduced. It just comes slower as explained above. The orgasm itself is the same as with non-cut people as it relies on the nerves in the tip of your penis not the ones in your foreskin.
So what - orgasm isn't all of sex.
Originally posted by TheCelestialOne
I think you are looking to much to the negative sides while it has some serious advantages to it as well. I have Tiara as prove! :p
It has no advantages - you have commited logical fallacies in your support of it - and you have quoted old falsified studies
-
Ulala and Setekh
you're both commiting the fallacy of false analogy -- permanant and irreversable modification of the body is NOT similiar to enforcing rules/instilling ideas.
Rules/Ideas can change be changed. Irreversable body modifications cannot be - that's why they're called irreversable
-
Well, you might not be happy with your cock, I am. Its done, can't be reversed. Live with it. Period.
[/blunt mode]
-
You go ahead and choose to not complain about being mutilated - that's your perogative - it is not your right to say "live with it. period." though
some of us are forced to live with something they dont want
-
I don't see why you call it mutilated. I'm perfectly happy the way it is. I think an uncut penis is goddamn ugly. :p
-
i agree with TCO
-
because it serves NO purpose - and it destroys are lot of important structures, not to mention it destroys the correct mechanical working of the penis
you can go ahead and be perfectly happy - it's your perogative to give into societal lunacy and the statis quo
I am not one to do so though
-
but some time it's needed like in TCO case
-
Originally posted by Kazan
because it serves NO purpose - and it destroys are lot of important structures, not to mention it destroys the correct mechanical working of the penis
Originally posted by TheCelestialOne
Kazan, I agree with you if its done for non-medical reasons unlike with me. I had a nasty infection and there litterally was no choice. If its done for belief/pre-emptive medical reasons its utter crap indeed. I agree with that...
:rolleyes:
Also, the "correct" mechanical working of the penis DOES NOT rely on the foreskin. Not by a long shot. Its like saying your finger needs a fingernail to function properly. It doesn't.
-
life would be a lot more dificult without fingernails, I don't think that is a good example for you'r argument, pick up a dime off a hard floor without useing your fingernail and tell me the nail isn't needed for proper functionality
-
but that said, I don't see how foreskin is so vital to the function of the penis
-
TheCelestialOne: You're massively uneducated
I suggest you start doing some research
--- for quick reference ---
the foreskin creates a "sheath->sheath" mechanism - ie the vaginal sheath then the foreskin sheath thus reducing friction - but not stimulation - during sex. Also the foreskin never fully leaves the woman, thereby not drawing the natural lubrication out to evaporate.
[painful sex for the woman can most often be attributed to circumcision of the male]
Also - the foreskin contains most of the sexual sensory tissues of the human penis - and when the foreskin is removed so is the frenulum, the so-called "male g-spot"
-
you haven't been reading bobboau: http://www.noharmm.org/advantage.htm
-
Originally posted by Setekh
By simply raising a child in a civil manner, you are forcing innumerable thought patterns onto them. As Ulala points out, it is the necessary responsibility of parents to make decisions for them.
Of course. But circumcision is not something that should EVER be done without medical reasons, and it should be punishable by years of hard labor. (fortunately the doc didn't remove all of my soldier's helmet--I still have a little foreskin left)
-
well you and TCO got they own points
circumcision is bad if it's not needed that's my point
-
I agree that circumcision is sometimes needed - for infections etc - and then AND ONLY THEN is it ok
[if someone chooses in adulthood to have it done to them fine - but they're being stupid]
-
Originally posted by Kazan
[if someone chooses in adulthood to have it done to them fine - but they're being stupid] [/B]
:nod:
-
and i think it's rather a stretch to say you need to remove it because of an infection unless that's one hellatious infection
ever heard of antibiotics
-
Really, Kazan, that all depends on who does the snip. My frenulum, though snipped (no foreskin obviously) is loose. Its all there, with all those excellent nerves. :D
It is possible to restore some of the sheathe-function of the foreskin, though not frenulum breve.
You'll not be able to sue the doctors, I'm almost certain. There's going to be a statute of limitations that prevents it for sure. Your parents, on the other hand, you can sue for abuse. Though, I somehow don't think that's going to help. I wish you the best, but as a juror, I honestly would vote against you. You can show that the original reasoning was false (and I'll agree with you onthat) or that studies were falsified (though you'll have to bring forth a mountain of evidence), but I can't buy into abuse, or harm. It sucks, but since you've personally got no standard to compare against personally, you can't show harm, in my opinion.
Dude. Its done. Just prevent it from happening in the future.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
and i think it's rather a stretch to say you need to remove it because of an infection unless that's one hellatious infection
ever heard of antibiotics
but some times they don't work but antibiotics worked for me
-
Originally posted by mikhael
.
Dude. Its done. Just prevent it from happening in the future.
He should become a supervillain. The foreskinator, sent from 300 years in the future with one purpose, TO DESTROY THE FORESKIN.
Dun dun dunnnn.
-
You need to lay off those drugs, 01010.
-
yes 01010 is on something
mikhael: you need to do a little reading on the sites i've linked
-----
the statued of limitations gets reset when an old abuse causes a new psychological trauma
-
Originally posted by Woolie Wool
You need to lay off those drugs, 01010.
Any in particular, you want the list?
The irony of course being that, whilst I do partake in the occasional (yeah right!) bit of substance abuse, I'm clean and sober right this moment. Give me an hour or so though.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Really, Kazan, that all depends on who does the snip. My frenulum, though snipped (no foreskin obviously) is loose. Its all there, with all those excellent nerves. :D
Same here actually... anyway, its a moot point to discuss... Kazan hates it... I don't mind it... we ain't gonna change our minds about it one way or another. :p
This discussion was over as soon as it began...
-
Originally posted by 01010
Any in particular, you want the list?
The irony of course being that, whilst I do partake in the occasional (yeah right!) bit of substance abuse, I'm clean and sober right this moment. Give me an hour or so though.
Stop taking the ones that caused you to make up that Foreskinator crap.
-
this discussion is really about your right to choose - pre-adult circumcision removes your right to choose - especially infantile circumcision
-
Isn't this blame business somewhat akin to blaming all them darn sperm for not making you a female, and making choices for you? :p
-fanatic-
We would never have had this argument if it wasn't for those darn sperm, because we wouldn't have had penises! Sue! Sue!
-/fanatic-
Kazan, I appreciate your points, but you can't just keep saying 'read the source'. If we wanted we'd all start replying with 'read the source', referring to another source that claims your source is false. It gets us nowhere, and stalls discussion.
My stance is that while I'm circumcised, and don't have a problem with it because if I wasn't it'd bloody hurt every time I went for a pee, I wouldn't circumcise anyone for no reason. It would be pointless and illogical, and if they wanted to be circumcised they could have it done later in life - the process does not work the other way around. It's not something I'd argue vehemently about though, since there really isn't a major reason to or not to.
-
Originally posted by Woolie Wool
Stop taking the ones that caused you to make up that Foreskinator crap.
That was a product of sobriety I'm afraid, which, in another stroke of irony, is the form that I'm least in. Go figure.
-
Someone's projecting.
Anyway. What "right to choose" do you really think a child has? None legally, certainly- you're technically property of your parents until you turn 18- you get about as many rights as the family pet. Who typically, if male, has its balls cut off- be glad you got a better deal. Your parents can't kick the **** out of you on a regular basis, can't put you out with the garbage or otherwise engage in gross negligence, but if they imagine something's for your own good and are mentally competent (in the legal sense), then they're basically entitled to do it. The doctor cannot be sued for malpractice, even if he did misinform your parents (which is still far from established, you're still looking to be panicking about a whole lot of wholly unsupported generalizations and claims), because not only is he most likely retired by now, but he did what he did in good faith, and was engaging in a highly common practice accepted worldwide.
Morally? You're an infant when it happens. You don't have a say in what happens in your life- you couldn't even form a coherent thought to make a decision if you did. You're basically just there- not a functional human being yet, just a thing that has only those rights and entitlements that others choose to give you (which is, incidentially, about the case now as well, but that's neither here nor there). Your "right to choose" at that point is entirely fictitious. Do you really think you could have made a rational choice about this at that age? Do you think your parents and doctors were entitled to just stand back whenever administering any form of care might have done some harm at some point in the future? Do you want, say, your umbilical cord back? How about suing for all those painful vaccinations that gave a fair probability you'd survive to this age? You certainly didn't want them then, and there are plenty of cases of bad vaccinations causing horrible diseases and deformities later in life- never mind that it's commonly accepted that they save thousands of lives every year, they fly in the face of infant rights and unnecessarily endanger children for a cultural superstition that little germ things are going to kill people unless they get poked with needles!
If you don't want your kids to get circumcised, that's quite all right- that's a personal choice, and you have your reasons. But you're not gonna be able to sue your old doctor, and you're not winning any converts with this vehement defense of a rather crappy webpage- you wanna support the idea that it's any more than a subjective decision, that any of that stuff is true? Find a page that supports it- we've all seen plenty of looney-tune paranoid wacked-out freako pages on the Internet in our time, if one wants to stand out from all that and make a claim that goes against what basically anyone else says they'd better damn well have documentation, or at least something better than a couple of generalized terms and phrases they could just as well have made up. We know you're capable of rational thought, and sometimes rational arguments, if you really can't do better than this it's somewhat a disservice to your case, as it looks like there really isn't much better than baseless claims and hyperbole.
Or, you can sit there and sniffle about how the big bad Stryke is hurting your feewings by comparing your favoritest page in the world to the other wierd pages that don't ever bother support their wild claims. Not sure what you think it'll get you, but that, once again, is your prerogative.
-
Kaz, I did read some of the material you linked. The problem is that they didn't produce anything I would consider credible evidence. Like I said, they sound like the same frothing fundamentalists that come to my door on Sunday mornings.
I must admit, though, had my circumcision been screwed up to the point where I had 'skin bridges' or gouges, or the like, I'd be pretty damned angry. It was not, however (nor has that of anyone else I've ever seen in the gym, etc) so I don't think its that big a deal.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
this discussion is really about your right to choose - pre-adult circumcision removes your right to choose - especially infantile circumcision
That is honestly the most salient point you've made so far. We don't live in a society, however, that's about ensuring a person's right to choose anything. We seem to live in a society that is dedicated to protecting every persons right to choose what someone else does.
-
Odyssey:[/i] It is something you should argue vehemently about - because there are major reasons not to - the greatest of which is you're inflicting a permanant change on someone that they may later not like - you are infliction a change on them which is beyond their control
Stryke:[/i] I said I wouldn't respond to you - but I guess I will
Bull**** - you are not property, children have human rights. Circumcision is just another form of abuse - it is kicking the **** out of you, just in a different way. keyword: faith, second it is not an worldwide accepted practice - third Religion is highly common as well - and it's al oad of bull****
Exactly - you don't have say, so anything permanant inflicted upon you which later may be against you will is a violation of your basic human rights. Stryke are a dyed in the whool antichoicist, You have nohting to say here YOU are unable to make an argument without false analogies, petitio principii and many other logical fallacies. You make false analgoies CONSTANTLY - Until you clean up your act and are able to make a logically sound argument YOU HAVE NOTHING TO SAY - Get out of my thread. NOW
(the validity of a webpage cannot be judged by the HTML skills of it's authors)
Mikhael:[/i] did you bother to follow up into their sources - mine wasn't botched up - _but_ - that doesn't mean I'm not angry that it was done in the first place as it destroyed important structures of the penis.
I don't agree with your statement about society - provide your grounds for that statement
-
Calm... Think calm thoughts... Deep blue oceans... Bobbing up and down...
Kazan, I'm never going to do it to any children I may have. Solid on that front, unless any evidence comes up to say it's going to kill them if I don't. However, it's such a minor issue - sure it's destroying humongous quantities of nerve endings, but have you any idea how many nerves would be destroyed if you, say, gave yourself a little prick with a needle on the tip of your thumb? As far as I'm concerned, I'm living a perfectly happy normal life - I don't know if it affects sex, since I'm only an ickle kiddie, but maybe I'll report back to you after I've conducted further studies in that area.
If you want to argue about it, go ahead, the soap box is all yours. I just don't see it as something I ought to waste my life campaigning for when it has made such little difference to me.
-
Lets see, I'm circumsized... I don't really find anything wrong with it. I got it as soon as I could (when i was a few days old i guess). There's nothing wrong with it, like I can remember anyways. It's better actually, since I don't have to clean that much u know.
-
cleaning takes a few seconds...
choice in this case
1) 10 seconds less time in shower for lifetime of reduced sexual sensation/function
vs
2) Full sexual sensation and function
I choose 2 hands down
-
As has already been pointed out, and without going into too much explanation, are you sure desensitising the penis a little is such a bad thing?
-
Originally posted by Kazan
Ulala and Setekh
you're both commiting the fallacy of false analogy -- permanant and irreversable modification of the body is NOT similiar to enforcing rules/instilling ideas.
Rules/Ideas can change be changed. Irreversable body modifications cannot be - that's why they're called irreversable
Well, take a look at what I was personally arguing against. I don't think Petrarch's blanket statement is correct - I'm quite with you on the permanent and irreversible change.
That said, rules and ideas can't always practically be changed.
-
[CIRP Note: The results of this survey are somewhat obscurely stated. This survey surveyed 138 women. Of that group 20 (14.5%) preferred non-intact circumcised sexual partners while 118 or (85.5%) preferred intact non-circumcised sexual partners. This means that about 6 out of 7 women preferred intact non-circumcised partners while about 1 out of seven preferred non-intact circumcised partners.]
http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/ohara/
*cough*zing*cough*
-
138 women really isn't that many to base a conclusion on... And remember, people hate statistics...
I'm not saying it's falsified or anything, I'm just saying it's ambiguous.
-
they're valid statistics in a randomized study
oh odyssey - let me quote myself from another forum
Origionally by Kazan
Origionally by StonerHM
I would think that if I gained sensitivity back to my penis my performance in the bedroom wouldn't be as good. I mean, I don't want to only last a few minutes and if I gain sensitivity back then I wouldn't last as long as I do now. I think my girlfriend appreciates the loss of sensitivity. But that's just me...
That makes sense, but it also is slightly short sighted in the issue.
Let's assume of the sake of argument that it is possible to fully restore the penis to it's natural state (ie all the sensory tissue, immunological tissue, etc is restored) [which we know cannot be done - atleast at this time in medical technology]
the 'real' situation in this case would be
1) Restoration surgey performed
2) sensory intensity increases dramatically
3) Time to orgamism does not change - because this is controlled by nerve tissues in the glans - it's not a stimulus-intensity response
but operating off the assumption[/i] that the basic premise in 3 is false we would instead have
1) Restoration surgey performed
2) sensory intensity increases dramatically
3) time to orgasm shortened due to lower 'pleasure threshold'
4) overtime one becomes adjusted to new sensations 'pleasure threshold' raises causing time to orgasm to lengthen
5) time to orgasm restored to origional time
It is my impression that most of you will agree with the basic premis of 4 here - because in expirience I bet everyone has seen the effect of the more sexually an expirienced a guy is the longer he tends to last / more control he gains over how long he will last[/b]
-
I concede defeat on that point, apart from you referring to it as an 'orgamism' at one stage :)
I'm not really on any side of the argument here. I'm just taking the other side for a challenge, or somesuch.
-
You know that site is basically the same as the first site you posted. As I said before, find a page that is on the official site of a major medical journal or scientific organization if you want to convince anyone. Until then, you are basically commiting the same fallacy that has been used throughout the centuries by things such as the Spanish Inquisition: That what you believe is the only thing that is right, and if someone doesn't believe you, they must be forced to, regardless of their wishes.
Also, you are not following a logical line of reasoning, or backing up your hypothesis with studies conducted by a well-known scientific body.
And finally: Kazan, no matter how strongly you feel about this subject, do not become a fanatic. I don't quite agree with your position, but you are only hurting your chances of convincing anyway by going on as you have.
-
orgamism.. forgot about that typo and forget to correct it
Grey Wolf 2009: Things need not to be on a major medical jounral site to be considered valid - read the study data - that's out of a major medical book!
"Fanatic" by asserting that my rights have been violated.. hardly
-
I wouldn't label Kazan a fanatic by any stretch of the imagination, he's just "one of strong opinions"™
-
I was really referring to that post you made where you started typing things in all caps.
And all I'm saying is that it's incredibly easy to fabricate things for websites. For example, if I really wanted to, I could copy a page off of a business news site and have it say that Microsoft has been sold to a little kid for a paper clip and a chunk of used gum, which Bill Gates promptly stuck to the bottom of his shoe. I would just like a link to a site about this which is not from www.circumcision.org, www.cirp.org, or www.noharmm.org.
-
i am one that is slow to form opinions and meticulus (sp?) in the analysis of their validity - once I have come to a conclusion it takes strong evidence to change it - and almost never is their valid evidence found that contradicts it
-
I'm just saying, you've given us a rather small sample group to form an opinion off of. I bet I can find at least that many sites to support the Illuminati/Templar thing in one Google search. So just give us some more information, so we can form our own opinions.
EDIT: I knew I could do it. 4700 sites containing the words "Templar", "Illuminati", and "conspiracy": http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%2Btemplar+%2Billuminati+%2Bconspiracy&btnG=Google+Search
-
Originally posted by Kazan
you know jack**** about law
yeah i probably have a better idea about it than you do, thats why i get offended when ppl claim their its their "right" to bla bla bla.
but dude, you need to chill out.
-
Grey Wolf 2009: getting hits != getting valid sites
the sample group in that study is rather small.. and i am working on getting studies with bigger samples - but due to the search term combiination there is a high false hit ratio
-
Drew
[blah blah bull**** blah blah]
-
Originally posted by Kazan
Grey Wolf 2009: getting hits != getting valid sites
the sample group in that study is rather small.. and i am working on getting studies with bigger samples - but due to the search term combiination there is a high false hit ratio
That is true. These terms would most likely lead to some sites which would most likely not be what you were looking for. As opposed to my search, which leads right to what I was looking for (crazy people :p)
-
First of all, mutilation? **** that. Mutilation is having your arm cut of or being tortured by having someone slicing the skin off your face.
Second of all, chill out. You are really getting overexcited here. I'm getting the feeling you had the worst doctor/person in the world that did your circumcision. I'm circumsized but they left the nerves intact.
Third of all: Get some valid evidence and not opinions or statistics. Get facts. Statistics work on large groups not on smaller groups and opinions are nothing unless backed up by evidence that can't be refuted. Something I've yet to see here.
Last thing: You say it decreases sexual pleasure. That is the most crappy thing I've heard. Utter crap, bull**** and scat on a plate. Have you ever had sex???
-
TheCelestialOne: You clearly didn't read the first sites a posted - i think medical fact that is correlated by the AMA, AAP, EU Health Organizations, UN Human Rights Counsel, etc is well enough established FACT
second - circumcision _period_ destroys vast ammounts o f sensory an immune system tissues [among others] -- whether or not the frenulum is also lost
the links in my first post are _not_ statistics - but medical fact
I HAVE HAD SEX YOU ASS - MANY TIMES -- I say it decreases sexual SENSATION and thereby pleasure because that is a medical fact [ that it reduces sensation -- there are less nerves]
It also alters function - that statistic of women's opinions may not be bulletproof but it's very logical considering an uncircumcised penis is how evolution created it
Get your head out of your ass an reserach a source before you call it biased
-
Well, then you had a ****ing lousy doctor performing your circumsision really.
And because obviously you can't have a normal discussion I'm out of here. I mean, an0n has more reasonable discussion skills... You need to chill out and not get all emotional here.
This thread was useless as obviously you don't let room for discussion anyway.
Cya
-
Dude, it's Kazan. Duh. Am I the only one who has a long-term memory around here?
Though I gotta say there are an awful lot of people like that on this forum. Rather odd, really, though it makes for great theater.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
...I HAVE HAD SEX YOU ASS - MANY TIMES --...
...Get your head out of your ass an reserach a source...
Wow, I sure do feel like supporting Kazan's opinion now. :rolleyes:
-
Stryke 9: SOD off
TCO: I am not the one who made a personal attack on the other person first -- I am not the one who kept making statements contrary to established medical fact
-
Oh, sorry, did I disrupt your indiscriminate flaming of everyone who disagreed with you? Or was it the bit where you kept going on about how you're a pillar of reason and wisdom that I got in the way of? Apologies either way- I aim only to please.
-
Stryke 9: no, you're simply not welcome here since you cannot be in this thread without starting a flame - the reason why this thread was temporarily locked for cleaning was the flameware you started - you're not welcome, go away
-
I think he's still here,
lurking in the shadows,
waiting
-
He always is. ;)
-
:rolleyes:
Calm it down please guys, I was impressed that so much of a thread on this kind of topic was actually mature - don't ruin it now. If the thread is dead then let it go. Don't descend into stupidity.
-
In the interests of providing a medically supported site that takes the other viewpoint, here you go:
http://www.circinfo.net/ - 'Benefits of Circumcision'
Again I remind you I don't really hold a viewpoint here. It hurts my ass, but I'm sitting on the fence.
Here's a nice balanced site, from BUPA, which is a well established medical group here in the UK:
http://www.bupa.co.uk/health_information/asp/healthy_living/children/circumcision/
-
Originally posted by Kazan
Mikhael: did you bother to follow up into their sources - mine wasn't botched up - _but_ - that doesn't mean I'm not angry that it was done in the first place as it destroyed important structures of the penis.
I don't agree with your statement about society - provide your grounds for that statement
First, yes, I did follow thier references. Chill out. I still don't see enough supporting data --in my opinion-- to turn this into "MALE GENITAL MUTILATION!!!!!1111!! BAD! MUST STOPS TEH BASTARDS!!!!11!!!11". You're over-reacting.
On Society:
We don't live in a society... that's about ensuring a person's right to choose anything. We seem to live in a society that is dedicated to protecting every persons right to choose what someone else does.
This country is about everyone's right to tell someone else what they can and cannot do. Look at things like the PMRC (which might be before your time) or the entire "Pro-Life" movement. Look at the so called "Moral Majority" (who are a minority), or all the laws on what kind of sex consenting adults can egage in. This is a country in which the majority of people do not worry about their own rights as much as they care about adjusting the rights of others. I really don't know how to explain it much better than that.
-
mikhael: yes there are people that try that, and they currently have a president who plays along with them - but they don't get that far
circinfo has a far number of irrelevant/outdated references
-
Originally posted by Kazan
I HAVE HAD SEX YOU ASS - MANY TIMES
This makes you sound like a vietnamese prostitute.
-
Grow up. I'm not joking.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
circinfo has a far number of irrelevant/outdated references
Please would you care to present proof that what you say is so, and that your sources are up-to-date? I'll only half-heartedly believe you until then :)
-
Originally posted by mikhael
You're over-reacting.
How can somoene over-react to having part of thier penis cut off? :wtf:
-
Er... quite easily? Just because it's a penis doesn't mean it's sacred or anything.
-
[q]Er... quite easily? Just because it's a penis doesn't mean it's sacred or anything.[/q]
Lets look at it another way, what would you say about someone cutting off the hood of a womans clitoris?
-
For what reason? It depends quite a bit on that.
And anyway, it would probably be accepted that since the female's clitoris would then be unprotected, it would then be desensitised by the constant contact of whatever.
...wait a minute, are you trying to make me worship clits? :S
-
[q]For what reason? It depends quite a bit on that.[/q]
Say for the same reason as for the foreskin?
-
If medical:
So what? Had to happen.
If for no apparent reason:
We're talking about very different constructions, but I don't exactly see it as much of an issue to get frantic about. It's not a vital component of the person's workings, neither is the foreskin. Neither do I see a reason to do it (same as my opinion on male circumcision), but if people want to that's their choice.
-
[q]but if people want to that's their choice.[/q]
Yep but this thread focused on those that had no choice :p
-
Well, as I said, does it really make that much difference to the person who has it done to them? Nah, not really. So, although it might be a minor annoyance, I wouldn't see it as a real big issue. After all, as many people (including me) have pointed out in this thread, they're circumcised and perfectly happy.
-
vyper: thank you
-
I like jews...
I don't like jewes that control the USA or the jewes in Israel that go on bombing inoccent people...
I'm whole b.t.w....hehehehe
-
What do you mean Jews that control the USA? Jews are generally good at managing economies, there's no way they have anything to do with the running of the USA...
-
As far as I'm concerned, mutilating someone against his will is wrong. And circumcision is mutilation: you are removing part of someone's body. If you want to mutilate yourself by piercing your skin or having someone remove your foreskin, go ahead. Don't do it to your children against their will.
-
I was under the impression mutilation meant removing something important. I would not apply mutilation to removing the foreskin any more than I would apply it to grazing a knee, in that while there were loads of nerve endings there that just went kaput, it really isn't life-threatening.
Not that I would force circumcision on anyone, since it's unnecessary. And it costs. Cost = bad.
-
Why does the USA tolerate the action of Israel so much?
If Croatia or Chile or some other county done that, it would have been bombed sensless by now!
Who lives in Israel? - radical Jewes
Who holds a large number of high (economic) positions in the USA? - jewes
-
Calm down... Remember where Nazi Germany came from... Blaming Jews for everything gets you nowhere...
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
Why does the USA tolerate the action of Israel so much?
If Croatia or Chile or some other county done that, it would have been bombed sensless by now!
Who lives in Israel? - radical Jewes
Who holds a large number of high (economic) positions in the USA? - jewes
Jews don't control the US and they aren't part of some conspiracy. We tolerate Israel because working with them gives us a friend in the Middle East.
-
Originally posted by Odyssey
I was under the impression mutilation meant removing something important. I would not apply mutilation to removing the foreskin any more than I would apply it to grazing a knee, in that while there were loads of nerve endings there that just went kaput, it really isn't life-threatening.
this statement is intellectually dishonest
the foreskin is a biologically important thing - go read up http://noharmm.org/advantage.htm
References
1. Taylor, J. R. et al., "The Prepuce: Specialized Mucosa of the Penis and Its Loss to Circumcision," British Journal of Urology 77 (1996): 291-295.
2. Werker, P, Terng, A, Kon, M, "The Prepuce Free Flap: Dissection Feasibility Study and Clinical Application of a Super-Thin New Flap," Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery 102 (1998): 1075-1082.
3. Money, J. and Davison J., "Adult penile circumcision: erotosexual and cosmetic sequelae," The Journal of Sex Research, Vol 19 No. 3, Aug 1983.
4. Hammond, T. "A Preliminary Poll of Men Circumcised in Infancy or Childhood," BJU International 83, Suppl. 1 (1999): 85-92.
5. Bullough, V. L. and Bullough, B. ed., "Circumcision: Male-Effects Upon Human Sexuality," Human Sexuality Encyclopedia,Garland, 1994.
6. O'Hara, K. and O'Hara, J., "The effect of male circumcision on the sexual enjoyment of the female partner," British Journal of Urology, 83, Supplement 1, (1999): 79-84.
7. Cold, C, Taylor, J, "The Prepuce," BJU International 83, Suppl. 1, (1999): 34-44.
8. Bazett, H. C. et al., "Depth, Distribution and Probable Identification in the Prepuce of Sensory End-Organs Concerned in Sensations of Temperature and Touch; Thermometric Conductivity," Archives of Neurology and Psychiatry 27 (1932): 489-517.
9. Dogiel, A. S., "Die Nervenendigungen in der Haut der äusseren Genitalorgane des Menschen," [Nerve endings in human genital mucosa] Archiv fur Mikroskopische Anatomie 41 (1893): 585-612.
10. Winkelmann, R. K., "The Cutaneous Innervation of Human Newborn Prepuce," Journal of Investigative Dermatology 26 (1956): 53-67.
11. Winkelmann, R. K., "The Erogenous Zones: Their Nerve Supply and Its Significance," Proceedings of the Staff Meetings of the Mayo Clinic, 1959.
12. Erickson, J. A., "Three Zones of Penile Skin," five photographs in Lander M. M., "The Human Prepuce," in Denniston, G. C. and Milos, M. F., eds., Sexual Mutilations: A Human Tragedy, Plenum Press (1997): 79-81.
13. Seifer, Judith, R.N. (President, American Assn. of Sex Educators, Counselors and Therapists) "Ask men's health." Men's Health (October 1994): 133
14. Fleiss, P., Hodges, F. M., and Van Howe, R. S., "Immunological Functions of the Human Prepuce," Sexually Transmitted Infections, 1998.
15. Lee-Huang, S, Huang P.L., Sun Y., et al "Lysozyme and RNases as anti-HIV components in beta-core preparations of human chorionic gonadotropin," Proc Natl Acad Sci (U S A) 1999 (Mar 16);96(6):2678-2681.
16. Van Howe, R.S., "Does Circumcision Influence Sexually Transmitted Diseases?" BJU International 83, Suppl. 1 (1999): 52-62.
17. Laumann, E.O. et al., "Circumcision in the United States: Prevalence, Prophylactic Effects, and Sexual Practice," JAMA 277, 1997.
18. Nicoll, A. "Routine male neonatal circumcision and risk of infection with HIV-1 and other sexually transmitted diseases," Archives of Disease in Childhood (London) 1997;77(3):194-195.
19. Smith, G. L. et al., "Circumcision as a Risk Factor for Urethritis in Racial Groups," American Journal of Public Health 77, 1987.
20. Cook, L. S. et al., "Clinical Presentation of Genital Warts among Circumcised and Uncircumcised Heterosexual Men Attending an Urban STD Clinic," Genitourinary Medicine 69 (1993): 262-264.
21. Tanne, J.H., "U.S. has epidemic of sexually transmitted disease," BMJ 1998;317:1616.
22. Hausmann, R. et al., "The Forensic Value of the Immunohistochemical Detection of Oestrogen Receptors in Vaginal Epithelium," International Journal of Legal Medicine 109 (1996): 10-30.
23. Ahmed, A. and Jones, A. W., "Apocrin Cystadenoma: A Report of Two Cases Occurring on the Prepuce," British Journal of Dermatology, 1969.
24. Cleary, D. G. and Kohl, S., "Overwhelming infection with group B beta-hemolytic streptococcus associated with circumcision," Pediatrics, Vol 64, no 3, (September 1979), pp. 301-303.
25. Williams and Kapila, "Complications of Circumcision," British Journal of Surgery, Oct 1993.
26. Diamond, M. and Sigmundson, H. K., "Sex Reassignment at Birth," Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 1997.
27. Money, J., "Ablatio Penis: Normal Male Infant Sex-Reassigned as a Girl," Archives of Sexual Behavior, 1975.
28. Bradley, S. J. et al, "Experiment of Nurture: Ablatio Penis at 2 Months, Sex Reassignment at 7 months, and a Psychosexual Follow-up in Young Adulthood," Pediatrics 1998.
29. "Baby bleeds to death after circumcision," Miami Herald, June 21, 1993.
30. "Boy in coma most of his 6 years dies," Associated Press, July 10, 1992.
31. "Circumcision that didn't heal kills boy," NewsNet5 - Cleveland, Ohio, October 20, 1998.
32. "Permanent foreshortening and disfigurement of the penis," Associated Press, November 30, 1995.
33. Palmer, J. M. and Link, D., "Impotence following anesthesia for elective circumcision," JAMA 1979; 241:2635-6.
34. Pearlman, C. K., "Reconstruction Following Iatrogenic Burn of the Penis," Journal of Pediatric Surgery 11 (1976): 121-122.
35. Persad, R. et al., "Clinical Presentation and Pathophysiology of Meatal Stenosis Following Circumcision," Brit Journal of Urology 75, 1995.
36. Lerner, B. L., "Amputation of the penis as a complication of circumcision," Med Rec Ann 1952; 46: 229-31.
37. Levitt, S. B., Smith R. B., Ship A.G,. "Iatrogenic microphallus secondary to circumcision," Urology 1976; 8: 472-4.
38. Gearhart, J. P. and Rock, J. A., "Total Ablation of the Penis after Circumcision with Electrocautery: A Method of Management and Long-Term Followup," Journal of Urology 142 (1989): 799-801.
39. Gluckman, G. R. et al., "Newborn Penile Glans Amputation during Circumcision and Successful Reattachment," Journal of Urology 153 (1995): 778.
40. Kaplan, G. W., "Complications of Circumcision," Urologic Clinics of North America 10, 1983.
41. Stefan, H., "Reconstruction of the Penis Following Necrosis from Circumcision Used High Frequency Cutting Current," Sbornik Vedeckych Praci Lekarske Fakulty Karlovy Univerzity (Hradci Kralove) vol. 35, no. 5 (Suppl) 1992, pp. 449-454.
42. Strimling, B. S., "Partial Amputation of Glans Penis during Mogen Clamp Circumcision," Pediatrics 87 (1996): 906-907.
43. Taddio, A. et al., "Effect of Neonatal Circumcision on Pain Response during Subsequent Routine Vaccination," Lancet 349 (1997): 599-603.
44. Talarico, R. D. and Jasaitis, J. E., "Concealed Penis: A Complication of Neonatal Circumcision," Journal of Urology 110 (1973): 732-733.
45. Kirkpatrick, B. V. and Eitzman, D. V., "Neonatal Septicemia after Circumcision," Clinical Pediatrics 13 (1974): 767-768.
46. Lee L.D., and Millar A.J.W. "Ruptured bladder following circumcision using Plastibell device," British Journal of Urology 1990; 65: 216-17.
47. Cansever, G., "Psychological effects of circumcision," Br J Med Psychol 1965; 38: 321-31.
48. Marshall, R. E. et al., "Circumcision: II. Effects upon Mother-Infant Interaction," Early Human Development , 1982.
49. Goldman, R., "Circumcision: The Hidden Trauma," Vanguard Publications, 1997.
50. Prescott, J. W., "Genital Pain vs. Genital Pleasure: Why the One and Not the Other?" Truth Seeker 1 (1989): 14-21.
51. Immerman, R. S. and Mackey, W.C., "A Proposed Relationship Between Circumcision and Neural Reorganization," Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1998.
-
Kazan, it isn't all that intellectually dishonest. After all, now to one-up you, here's circinfo's reference list:
http://www.circinfo.net/htmlnew/references.htm
It's got all of 256 references to your 51. If you want to base everything on how many references sites have, that's fine by me.
-
It's not the number of references but the quality of them that matters.
-
The Format shall be
Reference Item # -- Invalidation reason
- 1 --- Appeal to Irrelevant Authority, not a source of medical knowledge
- 1a --- Dubious Study, study is not accepted by major medical organizations, correlation does not prove causation
- 2 -- Dubious Study, out of data, no support from MMOs
- 3 -- Irrevelant Data
- 4 -- Superceded , AAP has declared this statement as invalid and has superceded it
- 9 -- Dubious Study, study was not controlled for all variables (participants behavioral partterns)
- 15 and 16 -- Irrevelant Authority not a source of medical information
- 17 -- Dubious Study
- 18 -- Study out of context
The first 20 (really 21) contained 10 that could be eliminated by the rules of formal logic without in depth analysis!
---------
I smell pwnage
-
I wouldn't base something on number of references, either. It just seemed Kazan was, at first, doing so. So I replied in suit ^_^
Kazan, I'm not really questioning the validity of your sources. I'm merely trying to find the alternative, and there always is one. And comparing your view and the alternative objectively, currently I see yours as a better argument. So well done.
...However, an entire thread where I continually agreed with you would be a little less interesting, no?
-
Originally posted by Odyssey
Calm down... Remember where Nazi Germany came from... Blaming Jews for everything gets you nowhere...
I don't blame for everything... just for beeing responsable for some part of the carap in the world... there are allso MANY other guilty partys.
Jews don't control the US and they aren't part of some conspiracy. We tolerate Israel because working with them gives us a friend in the Middle East.
A friend with blood on their hands... Terotists have to be stopped, I agree, but you wont stop them by demolishing enitre vilages and killing hunderds of inocent people.... you can only make things worse...
USA could have a friend in Croatia, yet they don't seem to help us much...quite the contrary.... They (and some EU powers) seemed intent to generalize the guilt in the war we fought recently and try to turn our generals into monsters.
Darn HAAG..... if that's a real international court, then I am the incarnation of Albert Einstein!*(I do have an IQ of 145, but that's not even close!)*
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
I don't blame for everything... just for beeing responsable for some part of the carap in the world... there are allso MANY other guilty partys.
Prove it.
-
Like one said: LAW not= JUSTICE
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
and try to turn our generals into monsters.
Do you have a problem when other countries voice truthful and fair opinions?
-
Get back on topic
-
Kazan, we would, but the argument is pretty much spent now, no? I mean, this thread is huge...
-
This is not a matter of oppinion - I was there..
I saw what some serb generals did (I could name them, but to what purpose?). We fough to survive, to drive them out of our homes. Now we are the guilty party for defending ourselvs.
I knew one of the generals that was senteced.... that guy wouldn't hurt a fly , and he was accused of a massacre ina village. The strange thing is, he wasn't thereat the time, and HAAG refused the introduction of evidence that could clear him!
Now, they don't alow the defenders of general Gotovina to acquire materials(from Croatian goverment) that the prosecution allready got! If the goverment gives it to them, it won't be allowed at the court!
What nonsense! Th accused can't even defend himself properly!
-
Hey, sorry man. Total misunderstanding on my part, I thought you were referring to US generals in Iraq. Really sorry.
-
NP
-
Thanks. Now where did I put that piece of paper I use that says 'hit head here'? I need it about now...
-
LOL...you can use mine...I have a spare...several spares!
-
Kaz, for every authority you bring up who wrote an article against circumcision, there's a handful that are for it. That route isn't going to get you anywhere. I think it comes down to pure opinion either way. The immune system and nerver ending arguments are good, but they miss the point: these things simply don't matter. You're not being terribly honest with yourself if you think you can miss sensation you've never known and if you haven't gotten sick as a direct result of not having your foreskin, the immunilogical reasoning fails. Its just not important for us: its too late. Worry about your kids.
When it comes to a discussion of who likes what, it gets purely aesthetic. A fair number of men who are cut don't consider themselves mutilated. A fair number of them do. Some don't really care. I certainly don't care if I was cut. I'm happy with my dick. In an informal (very) poll of the straight women and gay/bi men I work with, half like 'em cut, half like 'em whole. It doesn't really matter though.
And gentlemen, please quit with the bull**** about Israel, Serbia, conspiricies, etc. We're here to talk about penis, not dickwaving-with-firepower. Stick to the topic. If you think the thread is spent and want to discuss something else, find an appropriate thread or start one.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
And gentlemen, please quit with the bull**** about Israel, Serbia, conspiricies, etc. We're here to talk about penis, not dickwaving-with-firepower. Stick to the topic. If you think the thread is spent and want to discuss something else, find an appropriate thread or start one.
Actually the Bible and all religion was created by me so that I would get half of the women in the world.
However, it seems a certain portion of the population has rejected religion. It's time to call in some favors and usher in the end-times all over again. In the next incarnation of the universe everyone will be born circumcised except for me...
...and you almost believed that for half a second, be honest now :D
-
Quantity is better than quality in sources?
jsut because you cannot knowingly miss sensations that were robbed from you before you can remember makes it right to rob a person of those sensations?
just because the probability of a symptom of a problem occuring isn't 100% means that the problem doesn't exist?
Just because it's too late to reverse it for us means we should lay down and submit and not be outraged?
A fair number of men who are cut are just as indoctrinated into the myth of benefits as are the people who cut them.
--------------
I agree with the cut the **** abuot israel, serbia, conspirices, etc.
------------
Ace is on spacecrack
-
Originally posted by Kazan
Quantity is better than quality in sources?
Nope. But all things being equal, if the sources are of essentially the same quality (and lets face it, they are, if taken objectively), quantity will win out.
jsut because you cannot knowingly miss sensations that were robbed from you before you can remember makes it right to rob a person of those sensations?
I don't think it is right. I also don't think its wrong. It comes down to aesthetics.
just because the probability of a symptom of a problem occuring isn't 100% means that the problem doesn't exist?
No. The problem does exist. Its just not a serious enough problem to care about. If it were, we'd have stopped circumcising babies by now.
Just because it's too late to reverse it for us means we should lay down and submit and not be outraged?
Actually, no. You should be outraged. You shouldn't turn into a fanatic. There's a healthy middle ground. As for submission: to whom? Whom would you submit to? Its not submission, its an acceptance of reality. That's not submisson, its realism. You're cut, you can't reverse it (you can only sorta kinda repair it) and that's just the way it is. Don't do it to anyone else.
A fair number of men who are cut are just as indoctrinated into the myth of benefits as are the people who cut them.
There you go with the indoctrination thing again. Sure, their parents were sold a bill of goods and that bill of goods was passed down to these men, verbatim. That's not indoctrination, that second-hand ignorance. All you can do is teach them.
Kazan, you're saying this thing is all black and assuming anyone who disagrees with you is declaring it all white. The thing is, there's a hell of a lot of gray in the middle. Perhaps you should try wandering somewhere in there.
-
Originally posted by Odyssey
Here's a nice balanced site, from BUPA, which is a well established medical group here in the UK:
http://www.bupa.co.uk/health_information/asp/healthy_living/children/circumcision/
Thank you. Finally. A site from somewhere which isn't devoted entirely to this cause and has an unbiased opinion. Thanks Odyssey :)
EDIT: OK, after reading that site these appear to be the total number of Pros and Cons as viewed by the medical community:
PROS
-Easier to clean
CONS
-May lower sexual pleasure
-If done in a religious ceremony, there might not be anaesthetic, in which case it would hurt
So basically, if it's done by a doctor, it's hygiene vs. pleasure, at least as far as that site says.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Nope. But all things being equal, if the sources are of essentially the same quality (and lets face it, they are, if taken objectively), quantity will win out.
All things are not equal - the sources are not of the same quality - your sources are of dubious standing at best
Originally posted by mikhael
I don't think it is right. I also don't think its wrong. It comes down to aesthetics.
it does not come down to aesthetics - aesthetics are a culturally conditioned idea.
IT comes down to an issue of everyone has the basic human right to unmodified genitalia
Originally posted by mikhael
No. The problem does exist. Its just not a serious enough problem to care about. If it were, we'd have stopped circumcising babies by now.
You're contradicting yourself - because the problem with the immune system being weakened is much more likely to manifest than ALL OF THE PROBLEMS COMBINED that circumcision "prevents" (there are no studies that show causation, only poorly controlled correlation studies - they are completely invalid because if you cross reference between identical correlation studies of that kind between countries you find out that the problems are actually connected to factors like health care and _not_ circumcision)
Originally posted by mikhael
Actually, no. You should be outraged. You shouldn't turn into a fanatic. There's a healthy middle ground. As for submission: to whom? Whom would you submit to? Its not submission, its an acceptance of reality. That's not submisson, its realism. You're cut, you can't reverse it (you can only sorta kinda repair it) and that's just the way it is. Don't do it to anyone else.
it is often easier to accuse another person of fanaticism when you don't understand them. I stand upon that "healthy middle ground" I demand people be given their rights, I DEMAND people be given their basic human rights. I will not stand silent simply because mine have already been violated and I cannot fix it for myself - I can prevent it from happening to other people though.
The biggest crime is when good people do nothing.
To do nothing is not an acceptance of reality - it is submission - you're submitting to the culture of mutilation by letting it be perpetuated - by perpetuating it yourself by doing nothing
Originally posted by mikhael
There you go with the indoctrination thing again. Sure, their parents were sold a bill of goods and that bill of goods was passed down to these men, verbatim. That's not indoctrination, that second-hand ignorance. All you can do is teach them.
Indoctrination into an idea - indoctrination into ignorance. They are indoctrinated into the cultural of ignorance and mutilation. Why is indoctrination an appropriate word you may ask? People accept the misinformation without question. That is indoctrination in it's purest form.
Originally posted by mikhael
Kazan, you're saying this thing is all black and assuming anyone who disagrees with you is declaring it all white. The thing is, there's a hell of a lot of gray in the middle. Perhaps you should try wandering somewhere in there.
There is no middle ground, no grey area, when it comes to basic human rights - You are either given your basic human rights or they are stolen from you. There is no "they violated his human rights just a little".
----------
Perhaps you should try not to make assumptions of people - ESPECIALLY OF ME - if you ever assume that I haven't looked at all sides of the argument then you're DEAD WRONG. I am the last person to take a side of an arguement without thoroughly inspecting both sides. If you don't know this then you don't know me.
--------------------------------------------
Grey Wolf 2009 your pros/cons are wrong
your single pro has been disproven -- it is not easier to clean, there is actually a higher rate of hygiene problems among circumcised individuals than uncircumcised
cons
not _may_ but _DOES_ - you cannot attribute the term "may" in relation to sensory expirience being reduced when the destruction of the nerves is not conditional - if the nerves are destroyed than the sensation is reduced - this is unequivically true
a large number of infantile circumcisions have no anaesthetic administered
so when it's done by a doctor it's really mythical hygiene vs real hygiene, full sensory expirience, full mechanical functionality, full protective functionality
it's
human arrogance vs biological normalcy
-
I said I was going by that site. I never claimed that it was, or was not, correct. So do not try to put words into my mouth.
-
I think parent-induced circumcision should be illegal.
Fact: Circumcision is the incorigible removal of part of the body.
I don't think parents have the authority to remove parts of the body for religion/aesthetic purposes. Would you let parents remove a fingertip or make a child permanently bald for these purposes?
Possible Fact: Some supposed studies show that circumcision is harmful to the body.
If this is true, then circumcision should not be allowed. Just like religion does not give parents the authority to refuse vital medication, it should not allow people to harm children by removing a part of the body.
-
Kazan, I hate to say it, but you have turned into a flaming lunatic. It is impossible to continue the conversation with you.
You attack my sources--though I gave none. I just compared what you supplied with other sites on the Net. The sites have the same provenence: dubious at best. You said you stand in the middle ground, then say there is no middle ground. You accuse me of perpetuating an institution you don't agree with. I don't have any children with which to perpetuate anything--and I already said I most likely would NOT circumcise my son. You claim to have looked at both sides with careful consideration, but you seem to have only looked at one side.
You've turned into preacher. Well preach on. Spread the good word from on high. Bring the faith to others.
-
to say that the site you provided and my site are the same "provence: dubious at best" is a blatant lie --
get out of my thread - all you want to do is call me names - you're not worth my time
-
you... have semed to go a little... crazy with this subject...
I have looked at the site and (being rather uninterested in the subject in general I only looked breifly so I may have totaly missed it) it seemed only to make clames and not realy back anything up with any sort of numbers, give me a chart for any of the clames that show in one colum cercomsised men and in another uncercomsised men for things like the imune problems and infections and all the lot, and don't just give a genaric link link directly to the chart/graph/hystogram of you'r choice, I want numbers.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
to say that the site you provided and my site are the same "provence: dubious at best" is a blatant lie --
get out of my thread - all you want to do is call me names - you're not worth my time
I didn't provide any site, Kazan. Read "your" thread. I'm not here to call you names. I'm being descriptive about how you're acting.
SCENARIO:
Kazan climbs to top of building and threatens to jump off. Mik calls him "suicidal".
QUESTION:
Is that name-calling, or being descriptive?
I Posit that its being descriptive. You're thumping a web-site bible, declaring a moral opinion from on high, attempting to silence those who dissent with you, and not paying much attention to ration discussion that you don't agree with. Further, you're claiming I did things I HAVE NOT DONE (providing links, for example). You're not being rational here. Take a valium and go re-read the entire thread calmly. Pay close attention to my conduct.
And stop telling people who you disagree with to "get out of my thread". Critical discussion requires dissenting points of view. Either this is a thread for discussion, or it is not. If its not, I suggest we close the thread, so no on else will disagree with you.
-
Kazan I don't get what the real big deal is. You're never going to know what those 'sensations' would feel like anyways(I won't either). Whats done is done. No offense, but you need to move on.
-
Adwight: people like you are exactly why 90% of american males have their human rights violated
mikhael false analogy
bobboau: read the references f00 :P
Admins lock please - since nobody is going to honestly check sources
-
whatca' guys talkin' bout? penises?
-
Originally posted by Kazan
Admins lock please - since nobody is going to honestly check sources
So, people disagree with you thus you want the thread locked... :rolleyes:
-
TCO: No - i've only had to tell people 15 times to go and actually check references properly - if nobody here is capable of following the formal rules of debate than they're not worth debating with
-
you'r references don't seem to have anything behind them, point me to numbers, you do have numbers, right?
-
bobboau: i reference you to sources - who reference their sources
that's called investigating references - i'm not talking about investigating my refereces - im talking about investigating my reference's references
also if you spent 10 minutes or noharmm you'd find statisical abstracts
-
Originally posted by Kamikaze
I think parent-induced circumcision should be illegal.
...
I don't think parents have the authority to remove parts of the body for religion/aesthetic purposes. Would you let parents remove a fingertip or make a child permanently bald for these purposes?
On the other hand, you know as well as I do that there are many who will take this stance and run with it beyond all reason. For example, if parents don't have the right to follow religious beliefs when their child is 8 days old, thus irrevocably changing something in that child, then what right do they have to teach said child about their faith while they are "young and susceptable"?
But I can understand (which is different from agreement, mind you) those points of view... but now take it a step further. Now you'd have people lobbying not only for parents to restrain from teaching their children about their specific beliefs, but also about morals in general, national and/or cultural customs, etc. Heck, with the progress of this "Childhood Freedom" movement, you could eventually end up with parents somehow taking a psyche profile of their babies to judge what language would be best for them to grow up learning to speak in! And if the parents don't speak that language, well too bad for them - they have to give the child up for adoption by parents who do.
See what I'm getting at? Where do you draw the line? And what's to say that 50 years down the road, that line will not be seen as some obscure and outdated relic of humanity's darker times, which should be removed in the current enlightened days. :rolleyes:
-
sandwich: parents shouldn't teach their children religion when they're young and sucsceptable! (careful not to toss out theoreticals that some of us may agree with)
I also happen to be quite anti-religious
You arguement is a slippery slope though btw
-
well then why can't you just link me to them?
you are the one trying to change minds, you are the one who has to go the extra mile,
and is there anything that isn't based on noharm, it seems odd than all your information seems to come from one site or other sites you came to from that site
-
are you unable navigate a website?
nocirc
noharmm
circumstitions
not really based off e/o
-
Some Material to Consider:
Government Sites:
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002998.htm (warning: thumbnails)
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/circumcision.html (lots of links)
Non-profit Organizations:
http://www.circumcision.org/
http://faculty.washington.edu/gcd/DOC/ (doctors against circumcision)
Sandwich: It doesn't make sense to allow something to go on, which is undesirable, because its banning could allow extremists to try to take policies further. That's like saying we should let people use swords, becuase if we ban swords we'll have extremists going around trying to ban kitchen knives too. (It was the best analogy I could get off the top of my head :ick: )
-
kamikazi - that is a nice rebuttal to sandwich, it's very analogous to his arguement
ooh.. you got edited by setekh .. naughty boy
http://www.circumstitions.com
http://www.nocirc.org
-
you do know that's part of his sig right?
-
lol! i didn't bother to read the date to notice that
-
The whole lowering/weakening of the immune system thing due to cutting off a little skin seems a tad on the sketchy side to me... or have I completely read something wrong? If that is what's being said... doesn't seem very plausible. I must be way off? :confused: :doubt:
-
Ulala - that's one of many things
"little skin" - 50% of the mobile skin on the penis
the immune system damage's effect is obviously localized to the penis, i didn't mean to say that it weakens your entire body's immune system - just in that localized area. Thus making that area more prone to infection (including STDs)
that "little skin" also contains 240 feet of nerve tissue, and also the frenulum is almost always destroyed along with the foreskin - the frenulum is the so-called "male g-spot"
the biggest issue here is human rights btw
-
Originally posted by Kamikaze
That's like saying we should let people use swords, becuase if we ban swords we'll have extremists going around trying to ban kitchen knives too. (It was the best analogy I could get off the top of my head :ick: )
Just look at Sept. 11th and the repercussions. After those planes were hijacked by terrorists with knives that came with the meals (apparently and AFAIK), many (all?) airlines or airline security screenings confiscate everything from pocket knives (quite understandable) to ball-point pens ( :wtf: ). And yes, a personal friend of mine had his pen confiscated.
Understand that when people feel threatened, if they have the power or authority to act to change the situation, they will often go to extremes. I'm not saying this is a bad natural reaction, but it needs to be tempered with common sense.
Speaking of which, what a shame that common sense isn't common, eh? ;)
Kazan, I don't want to get off on another tangent, but I'm intensely curious: how do you view the abortion issue? Do you look at it from the POV of the mother (or mother-to-be) who has the right to make her own choices? Or do you view it from the POV of the human embryo, who has the right to have a chance to be born and live? PM me the response if you want, so we don't derail this thread, but I'd be interested in seeing how you view this, as it also deals with parents making choices for their offspring without the offsprings' consent.
-
The statements I make in this post are NOT open for debate _in_ _this_ _thread_ and may not be open to debate in any thread, if you with to inquire about them and possible debate do so in PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
sandwich: i make a differentiation when it comes to the abortion issue - anything in the embryonic state is unequivically part of the mothers body/not yet it's own life - pretty much right up to birth it isn't yet it's own life ..
But to be medically correct you have to say "until it can survive outside of the mothers body without medical assitance" - also babies that come out severely deformed in any way (especially genetic like Downs) should be immediately euthanised. [A) it is cruel to let them live, B) it's a massive economic drain that just slows down human progress, C) blatantly genetically defective individuals may pass on their genes]
Once the baby is born and it has been determined that it's not majorly deformed (genetically or developmentally) it then "inherits" all it's human rights immediately.
-
*Continues discussion via PM*
-
Originally posted by Kazan
The statements I make in this post are NOT open for debate _in_ _this_ _thread_ and may not be open to debate in any thread, if you with to inquire about them and possible debate do so in PM
You know, I suspect you really mean this to apply to the whole thread, Kazan.
-
bobboau: i reference you to sources - who reference their sources
that's called investigating references - i'm not talking about investigating my refereces - im talking about investigating my reference's references
Reference's references? Ooook... And those references have their own references and those references are in turn based on an opinion. That opinion in turn were derived from another reference that was made up out of several other references.
:rolleyes:
-
In other news, George W. Bush is the anti-christ! I hereby present the evidence!
http://www.tylwythteg.com/enemies/Bush/bush24.html
http://mirrors.meepzorp.com/geocities.com/george-bush-antichrist/
http://www.tomdomican.com/heinous.html
http://www.dccsa.com/greatjoy/Illuminb.htm
And if you DARE argue with me, I'll throw those links in your face so many times you'll want to cry!
...no offence or anything, Kazan, but... please get a new discussion technique.
-
*loses patience*
odyssey and TCO - **** you, if you are completely inable to do your freaking 'homework' and check sources then either A) you need to go to college and take some gen ed science and language course or B) your college degree needs to be stripped from you
-
okay first this was good discussion but now it's Bad everyone just chill out:)
-
I checked sources. My outcome was that everything has a source that wants to have a source. So what? IT'S NOT A BIG ISSUE. CALM DOWN.
And as for the college thing, it's going to be all of, oh, 3 years or so before I go there. In other words, I'm still at school. So I know what homework is. Boy, do I know.
Please don't take things so personally. It's never a good trait, because you'll always be on the defensive. And then, this kind of thing happens when people try to tell you what you're doing.
I've tried to keep a balanced viewpoint throughout this argument, but that doesn't seem to have worked either. What would make you happy, eh Kazan?
-
Having finished the university, I must say you need an education my friend. On how to start, have and finish a good debate.
I will now summarize what you have done/done wrong:
1). Started off with some statement that nobody was even ALLOWED to refute. If they did, you freaked out.
2). Gave sources that were invalid. they contained biased information by biased people. Haven't seen any "numbers" or conclusive evidence. For each of your sites that you gave as reference there are dozens of sites that say the contrary. They are just as wrong as their whole premise is based on an opinion and personal assumptions just like your "references".
3). You seem to be unable to keep your cool. If you want anybody to agree with you stay calm and have a good, calm discussion.
4). If your mind is set about something and can't be changed. Don't start a debate as its pointless.
5). Use facts. Always place facts such as concrete numbers and PROVEN facts. Loss of sensation and all things you named differs with each person and thus is variable and can't be called conclusive. Most of this is psychological rather then medical anyway therefor in no way conclusive.
-
1) if you want to refuse a source then investigate their sources and show exactly why their sources are dubious -- i did this, in this thread -- do not just say "oh they're biased", "oh you believe them because you want to" -- you're accusing people of intellectual crimes -- I WOULD NEVER BELIEVE A SOURCE SIMPLY BECAUSE I WANTED TO
2) See response to 1
3) I don't remember being the first one to start making blatant insinuations and insults
4) If I start a debate about something it's me out to convince you, not me out to let you try and change my mine (normally) -- I will no debate about anything that I am not 100% sure I have the most valid scientific sources backing me up on[/n]
5) Um, so the anatomy of the human body isn't fact? almost all my argument was based off the anatomy - very little did I mention the pyschological
-
Just look at Sept. 11th and the repercussions. After those planes were hijacked by terrorists with knives that came with the meals (apparently and AFAIK), many (all?) airlines or airline security screenings confiscate everything from pocket knives (quite understandable) to ball-point pens (:wtf:). And yes, a personal friend of mine had his pen confiscated.
You can do some damage if you stab someone in the eye or stab him elsewhere and push hard enough.:p
Anyway, here are the apparent facts. Circumcision causes:
Lots and lots and lots of pain for around two weeks
Loss of much sexual sensitivity
No real lasting psychological or physical damage, besides loss of sexual sensitivity
Circumcision is done primarily for religious reasons and to prevent masturbation.
I don't really see any real need for circumcision, it causes unnecessary pain and loss of sexual pleasure, and should be outlawed.
-
it's also done routinely here in a america - which has nothing to do with religion - but false medical information
thank you for pipin in woolie
-
Originally posted by Woolie Wool
Circumcision is done primarily for religious reasons and to prevent masturbation.
I don't really see any real need for circumcision, it causes unnecessary pain and loss of sexual pleasure, and should be outlawed.
Prevent maturbation!? Ahem... well let's just say it doesn't help :p
There is NO need for circumsision. I agree 110% with that. That is UNLESS there is an obvious medical reason. Like with me.
As for the loss of sense: Happy me, they left the most imprtant nerve clusters! :p
-
Give a man a penis and he'll play with it for a while. Give a man a thread about his penis and he'll talk about it all day.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
4) If I start a debate about something it's me out to convince you, not me out to let you try and change my mine (normally) -- I will no debate about anything that I am not 100% sure I have the most valid scientific sources backing me up on
Hmm... Then that's not called a debate, AFAIK. It's called a 'persuasive argument' or somesuch.
-
Originally posted by TheCelestialOne
Prevent maturbation!? Ahem... well let's just say it doesn't help :p
Nope...;7
-
Originally posted by Woolie Wool
Nope...;7
Agreed!
-
Originally posted by Kazan
Once the baby is born and it has been determined that it's not majorly deformed (genetically or developmentally) it then "inherits" all it's human rights immediately.
Wait, wait... so babies that are deformed don't have human rights? What about people that were deformed babies, and now they're just physically/mentally handicapped people? They aren't supposed to have human rights either?
[Edit] Disclaimer: The reason I replied to this in the thread instead of PMing is because the thread is originally focused on human rights, I think you might have said so yourself.. so anyway, sorry if this derails the thread a little. :o [/Edit]
-
Ulala: since you have a valid reason to keep it in the thread i'll address it
The needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few. -- This statement has no bearing on the circumcision discussion -- but it has every bearing on the deformities arguement.
The need of the invidiual that is deformed is vastly outweighed by the needs of the generally population - the deformed individual makes no contribution to the gene pool (or even worse: makes a negative contribution), drains the economy, consumes resources, etc. There is no value in keeping alive someone that is massively deformed - it is bad for the species.
No to mention I consider it cruel to keep alive the massively deformed.
-
Okay, but what about like Helen Keller? Deaf, blind, and mute... if she was born today, should she live? Well, I guess those aren't necessarily genetic problems. So depends on what's a genetic deformity and what's not then..
Anyway, what if someone who is genetically deformed doesn't want to die? What if they do? Is it about making the choice for them, or letting them make the choice? Again, I think it comes back to human rights. Isn't it their right to choose? If they don't want to die, should we let them live, reproduce, and "pollute" the gene pool? Or should we end their deformed life?
If they do want to die, should we assist in their suicide?
This isn't really directed in any direction or toward anyone, I'm just thinking aloud.
-
Ulala: the argument of "by that logic this person wouldn't have existed!" means exactly jack trash - if Person X never existed there would be Person Y who did something similiar/same -- the species doesn't revolve around single individuals - it is only influenced by their actions, and only noticably influenced by the actions of groups, typically large groups, of individuals
If they are euthanised before birth/immediately then they never have wants (a baby who is not eventually ends up having wants, needs, etc and therefore gets their human rights)
We should absolutely not let someone who is massively genetically defetive breed - except in one circumstance, they carry the non defective gene and they will do preimplantation genetic diagnosis (and seletion) for their zygotes
If someone, as an adult, wishes to die and are a patient of some sort of major illness then they should go through pysch stuff, etc to see if they're making the right decision -- if they have nothing wrong with them physically they just need psychological help, and it should be given to them.
----------------------------------------------------
Here is why I say the preventing of massively deformed (especially genetically) is a good thing -- The needs of the species vastly outweigh the need of the individual, this individual will do nothing but drain the species, this individual will never know a real life, just a pathetic dependant existance, if this individual is aborted during pregnancy excellent, if the deformation is not found until birth this individual should be humanely euthanised.
One who does not grow into a conscious thinking being doesn't really have rights, a person who will grow into a conscious thinking being has their rights because they will eventually understand them and be capable of making those decisions.
-
Making decisions about the life or death of individuals based on percieved species' need is a much deeper abrogation of human rights as circumcision. Using your beliefs ("No to mention I consider it cruel to keep alive the massively deformed.") to justify your position is the same as a rabbi using his beliefs to justify butchering your penis.
Your hypocrisy undermines your original thesis.
-
Also bear in mind that abortion, especially in later stages, is a very painful process for a pregnant women, both physically and mentally. Even more so if it is forced on her without her choice. Forced aborting of possibly deformed children would cause a lot of controversy.
-
mikhael: there is no hypocrisy in making a distinction between when human rights begin and when you don't have them yet
a child gets their human rights after they're born and are verified non-deformed
read before calling someone a hypocrit, because they may be making a distinction - the needs of a single deformed and totaly useless individual should never go over the species -- someone who will cost $40,000/year to keep alive for the next 60 years resuls in a $2,400,000 drain on the economy -- it's just not a sound decision
who said forced... ever heard of social engineering
-
There you go basing an argument upon your own personal views again. By that, reference your "a child gets their human rights after they're born and are verified non-deformed". I'm not in a position to verify that from a legal perspective, but it's definitely very questionable.
And I said forced, and yes I've heard of social engineering. Sure, you can make the public believe stuff. But not all of them. Oh no. Especially not on an issue such as this. And so long as someone speaks out, the issue will remain. You can't deny the physical fact it causes pain, for one.
-
Kazan, you're talking about eugenics. We all know where THAT path leads.
-
Kazan: I would actually be bothered to support you on this issue if I believed for a second that you were actually sinceare about suing your parents for abuse. So perhaps we can expect to see a scan of the relevant legal documents that you will/have serve(d) to them in the near future otherwise we are to assume that you're not really that bothered and just blowing off steam/attention seeking here.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Kazan, you're talking about eugenics. We all know where THAT path leads.
/me is currently well beyond pissed
bull**** you ****ing intellectually dishonest piece of ****. Not all eugenics goes to ****ing killing people and all the ****ing moronic nazi horse**** -- just because some ****ing morons once in history killed in the name of eugenics doesn't mean eugenics is killing
the nazi "eugenics" program was the furthest thing from a eugenics program you could ever find, they were kkilling the smartest and members of their society. they practiced negative eugenics
Positive Eugenics focuses on encouraging the spread of good genes, and trying to not step on peoples toes are much as possible. If it is possible for you to produce an off spring with less genetic flaws than you then you should do so - be it via Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis, or even relying on the probabilities of passing genes.
The only spot where my form of eugenics encourages any killing is the humane euthanization of massively deformed babies.
In short: GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS - THAT WAS A WHOLE CLUSTER**** OF LOGICAL FALLACIES IN ONE SENTANCE
-
Originally posted by Top Gun
Kazan: I'll be with you on this one if you put your money where your mouth is. Do you really have the guts to try and sue your parents? I would respect you a lot more if I believed that you were actually sinceare. So perhaps we can expect to see a scan of the relevant legal documents that you will/have serve(d) to them in the near future otherwise we are to assume that you're not really that bothered and just blowing off steam here.
why do you always direct it at people's parents - if the parents where misinformed it's not their fault - it's the doctors, which i am willing to believe quite readily from the situation with the medical community
but if my parents made the decision knowing exactly what it was destroying they're going to be seven forms of hell for them to pay -- don't even think I have any compunctions about going after my parents.
-
Maybe not but they're the only people you stand a minute chance of being able to win against which would serve as a deterrant. So if you're that concearned you could attempt to sue them to frighten possibe future parents that might wish to get this done and yours would be colateral damage. Otherwise this amounts to nothing more than letting off steam.
-
Mankind has evolved to the point we are at right now, only though long and painfull processes. Those of us that believe in a less religious, less blindly led world: we can only hope that in the future mankind will evolve to the point where he doesn't require religion (and it will come, as current trends in religious following proves) nor will he require to perform physical alteration to himself or other to feel he is a complete person. The future is unwritten, yet it is predictable through our past - we will change. :) Here endeth the lesson!
-
Originally posted by Kazan
/me is currently well beyond pissed
[personal attacks and offensive rant removed. see above]
You know, Kazan, you really need to get "your head out of your ass". You will also note that I did not mention either the Nazis or germany. You did. I merely stated that you were describing eugenics. You read an awful lot into the statement that had no place being there. In short, you constructed logical fallacies in your head and applied them to my statement.
When I learned formal debate, one of the things I learned was that losing your temper is a bad tactical move. Cursing and telling someone they have their head in their bottoms is also a bad move. I also learned that you should argue the opponent's point, not what you think his point is.
I live in a US state that had a eugenics program until the 1974. It had nothing to do with Nazis, or germany. They sterilized people they felt would contribute negatively to the gene pool. The law that created this board was instituted in 1929, and was not removed until this very year, though the program was defunct in 1974. During this time 8000 Americans had their lives destroyed in the name of 'bettering the gene pool'. Women had their fetuses forcibly aborted. Sterilization was forced removal of the ovaries and womb or removal of the testicles. No mere tubal ligations for these people. They sterilized girls as young as 10.
Forget the Nazis, Kazan. Look at yourself. You come from a culture that allowed that, even after we saw the horrors of World War 2.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Kazan, you're talking about eugenics. We all know where THAT path leads.
After all, Hitler loved eugenics...;);7
-
mikhael - you implying it was enough
I do not 'construct logical fallcies' - i only use the official ones
The situation you describe was negative eugenics - force, I propose to engineer society so that there will be no "force" required - but that people will understand that it is their duty and will not have compunctions with doing their part to help the species.
Yous hould know where I stand before you try and criticize me
-
Originally posted by Kazan
...this individual will never know a real life, just a pathetic dependant existance, if this individual is aborted during pregnancy excellent, if the deformation is not found until birth this individual should be humanely euthanised.
Who's to say this individual will never know a real life? There are lots of challenged individuals who may not know real life the same as you and I, but they still know real life. Shouldn't it be the individual's decision?
Ack, gotta go.. class is out.. will talk later.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
but that people will understand that it is their duty and will not have compunctions with doing their part to help the species.
Bull****. Go marry your girl, get her pregnant, and tell her right before birth that the child will have to be killed if he/she has a "severe" deformity. Then come back here and post a picture of the slap and scratch marks all over your face.
If you think that mentally healthy parents will willingly give up their offspring, then.... gah, nevermind. I'm NOT going there.
-
Originally posted by vyper
Mankind has evolved to the point we are at right now, only though long and painfull processes. Those of us that believe in a less religious, less blindly led world: we can only hope that in the future mankind will evolve to the point where he doesn't require religion (and it will come, as current trends in religious following proves)
Can you show me the statistical proof that the amount of religious people in the world has decreased by an amount to support your concluesion?
According to the data i have, which may not be infalliable, but it at least appears to be somewhat accurate shows the amount of non-religious people is decreasing.
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/8933/wrptext.htm
-
It was a broad sweeping generalised statement - and I have no site based evidence. Just look at the abandonment of churchs in this country.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Bull****. Go marry your girl, get her pregnant, and tell her right before birth that the child will have to be killed if he/she has a "severe" deformity. Then come back here and post a picture of the slap and scratch marks all over your face.
If you think that mentally healthy parents will willingly give up their offspring, then.... gah, nevermind. I'm NOT going there.
wow! what a flaming assumption!!! hahahahahahaha
/me laughs his ass off and doesn't bother to respond -- figure out why i am laughing moron
-
Originally posted by Kazan
mikhael - you implying it was enough
I do not 'construct logical fallcies' - i only use the official ones
The situation you describe was negative eugenics - force, I propose to engineer society so that there will be no "force" required - but that people will understand that it is their duty and will not have compunctions with doing their part to help the species.
Yous hould know where I stand before you try and criticize me
Funny, I wasn't implying anything. You should know where I stand before you presume to criticise me, sir.
I'm glad you stick to official fallacies only. The world would be a worse place if someone added yet more fallacies to it.
The situation I described was eugenics plain and simple. There's no such thing as positive and negative eugenics. Eugenics is a belief system wrought from half-understood ideas of genetics and evolution and the false idea that there is some sort of ideal human form.
You describe a society in which 'force' is not required for people to understand their 'duty' to your vision. A society in which parents would give up a child because of a deformity, or some percieved defect. You may call it science, but its just another form aesthetics. Its a decision to pick and choose the genetics that fit your idea of what is good and right and beautiful. Who gets to decide? You? Me? Would you trust me to pick whether your baby gets to live or die? Would you trust ZylonBane? Stryke9? Thunder? Your mother? The doctor who cut off the tip of your penis? George W. Bush? A priest? The people of the United States? The people of China?
No one gets to decide who lives or dies but the parents. No one else. Anyone who puts the 'good of the species' ahead of the life of their child needs to be sterilized and removed from the gene pool: they obviously don't have what it takes to promote 'the good of the species'.
-
it's aesthetics if you take aesthetics (ie how a person looks) into consideration - which you don't
You do not have a "single person decide it" -- you are oversimplifing which creates problems with it - it's not a simple issue
those who put the species before themselves have what it takes - knowledge, understanding
If you are so preoccupied with being prejudiced against eugenics to understand eugenics than I have nothing more to say to you
-
Originally posted by Kazan
it's aesthetics if you take aesthetics (ie how a person looks) into consideration - which you don't
Really? What makes you think that won't happen? Giving a bit of credit to humanity, I think. You are the one talking about terminating deformed fetuses. What is deformation but an aesthetic judgement?
You do not have a "single person decide it" -- you are oversimplifing which creates problems with it - it's not a simple issue
I didn't rely on a single person. I asked you about a vast group of people, including all the people in China. Lets keep it more local. Which mob gets to decide, Kazan? American Society? The same people that let the tip of your dick get cut off? You would trust them?
those who put the species before themselves have what it takes - knowledge, understanding
Have what it takes to do... what? Have what it takes to kill unborn children? Have what it takes promote the good of an abstract concept (the species) over the good of a concrete individual (the person)?
If you are so preoccupied with being prejudiced against eugenics to understand eugenics than I have nothing more to say to you
Thank you for crediting that I understand eugenics, Kazan. However, I am not 'prejudiced against eugenics'. I think the concept is a fine one, much as I think socialism is a fine concept. I, however, am a realist. I don't trust anyone to make the decision about what is good for myself or my child except me, or my wife. Letting other people decide what is good for your children is what gets the tip of your child's penis get mutilated, remember?
You don't have anything more to say to me, Kazan, because you are a hypocrite. You decry one form of abuse, only to advocate another, worse abuse.
-
mikhael - note how i almost always mentioned _genetic_ deformities, eventually i thought you got the idea about that
How about ****ing geneticists that are certified
"kill unborn children" - you mean teriminate embryios/fetuses - not kill
you are a moron not to see the fine line between htings - and the huge massive line between that which harms the individual and does nothing else and that which harms the species
-
Originally posted by Kazan
mikhael - note how i almost always mentioned _genetic_ deformities, eventually i thought you got the idea about that
Sorry my friend, I thing you're mistaken. I did notice you talking about genetic deformities. I thought you understodd that I got it since we are talking about EUGENICS, which is nothing if not a misapplication of genetic determinism.
How about ****ing geneticists that are certified
Mind your manners and your language. I've told you before.
What right does a geneticist have to decide the fate of my child? What kind of father lets someone else decide that his children are unfit to live?
"kill unborn children" - you mean teriminate embryios/fetuses - not kill
No. I said kill. I meant kill. If I had wanted to say "terminate embryos/fetuses", I certainly have demonstrated my ability to do so. Your opinion of the legitimacy of the life of my child is irrelevant. As a parent, my duty is to ignore your opinion and form my own.
you are a moron not to see the fine line between htings - and the huge massive line between that which harms the individual and does nothing else and that which harms the species
Morons in my state used to get sterilized, you know. Fortunately for me, I don't qualify in any manner as a moron, except in your biased opinion. Let us leave the ad-hominem attacks at home, as we both learned in debate. I called you a hypocrite because you demonstrate contradictory beliefs about the same subject (human rights). I have not, however demonstrated any of the traits of a moron.
There is no fine line between that which harms the individual and does nothing else and that which harms the species. For there to be a line, both possibilities must exist. The species can be harmed. The "species" is an abstract construct, a description of a set of individuals. It has no health. It merely IS or IS NOT. As long as there are homo sapiens sapiens there is a species. The individual is a concrete thing. It has health. It lives and can die. There is only one thing defining it: itself. However, when it dies, the species continues. You anthropomorphize the concept of 'species', treat it like a living thing whose health can be improved. That's the fallacy of eugenics.
-
Kazan, if my rights been violated, so be it. If I find something that big of a deal, I'll do something about it, and I'm sure most of those other 90 % would too. Don't tell me I'm stupid, I'm much more intelligent than you think.
-
mikhael - i no longer respect you enogh not to ad hominem you - after the massive numbers of blatant fallacies yo've made
-
If I've made logical fallacies, point them out. Back up your declaration that they are fallacious. Attack my argument. Do not attack me. If you have to resort to attacking me, it usually means your argument is too weak to defend. We did learn that in formal debate too, didn't we?
-
Originally posted by mikhael
If you have to resort to attacking me, it usually means your argument is too weak to defend. We did learn that in formal debate too, didn't we?
I haven't even had a formal debate class and I knew that.
Originally posted by Kazan
How about ****ing geneticists that are certified
I don't know, like mik said, as a father would you actually let someone else decide whether or not your child lives or dies? The only person who is technically certified is God, but let's not go there. I'm more interested in the whole human rights thing. I don't mean to assume anything, but this is what it seems you're saying: those that don't contribute positively to the gene pool shouldn't be allowed to live? If you're meaning something different, please clarify. If, however, this is in fact what you do mean, then isn't this similar to.. oh I dunno... purifying a race maybe?
-
There is no god
Those who are going to massively harm the progress of the species and massively degrade the gene pool - ie those who are massively deformed genetically should not be put through the torture of a life of being deformed -- i extend that humane euthanasia to the developementally deformed as well -- It jsut happens to be a bonus that the humane thing is also helpful to the species
mikhael's fallacies - argumentum ad hominem, petitio principii, argumentum ad ignorantiam, false dilemma, appeal to a consequence of a belief, Slippery slope
just to name a few i can pick out easily
[/me is suprised he didn't quicky find an argumentum ad verecundiam!]
-
muahahah i cant belive only one guy posted on this. AIDS plain and simple i dont care what that crappy site at the beginning said all i care about is the real life facts that can be attested to by millions average percentage less of aids in a groupe of people who were circumcised... %80 thats enough for me... so if some people decide to do it based on this you can blame them all you like for "mutilating" themselves but i dont think they will really care for those in africa they are saving lives.
-
Splinter - CIRCUMSTANCIAL DATA -- The study is correlational not causal - it doesn't even stop to think about the freaking behaviors of the groups
that's argumentum ad ignorantiam
-
:lol:
you are a bizzare person...
anyway i would agree with you about the "CIRCUMSTANCIAL" evidence but as far as anyone could tell it was the one and only deffrence between all the tribes they witnessed. no change in eating habits sexual habits or anything like that... jsut "mutialtion" so maybe it only works in africa and not where you live but at least it works somwhere and all im saying is because it DOES work liek that shouldnt it be allowed and not... lloked down uppon as you do?
-
Isn't it great how you actually don't need to argue against someone, just attempt to label some rhetorical devices (including maybe a handful of incorrect techniques) you think you see in there, and they're immediately proven wrong?
It's a strategy I'd pick up on, but I find that gratuitous use of Latin leads to severe brain defects and impotence.
-
Splinter: show me this study between tribes and this one with 80% differences, now where did they have one that had such numbers
Stryke 9 - You're not welcome here, but thanks for the example of argumentum ad hominem (excuse me for using formal lnaguage in a formal situation)
-
My cats name is mittens...............
-
Originally posted by Kazan
There is no god
Prove it. Not that I disagree with you. You're arguing ad ignoratum there, yourself.
So let us be formal, Kazan:
1. argumentum ad hominem: At what point did I attack you, instead of your argument? Perhaps you consider it ad-hominem for me to label your position "faithlike" or "like a fundamentalist'. If that is the case, you're guilty through this entire debate of ad hominum attacks. Actually, toward the end of this debate, you openly declare th
2. petitio principi: Please show me where I argued from the basis of assumed truth. I think on a careful review of the entire thread, I did no such thing.
3. argumentum ad ignorantiam: at no point have I claimed something was true on the basis that it had not been proven, nor have I argued something was false on the basis that it had not been proven true. I compared facts from one source to facts given in another source to decide that neither side had been proven sufficiently for me to reach your conclusion. My decision that the facts are inconclusive either way does not constitute an argument to ignorance. If this were the case, simple logical processes, such as the scientific method, could not work.
4. false dilemma: At no point have I artificially limited consequences in order to exclude other outcomes which would be prejudicial to my position. My position is one that you have failed to prove your case and that other sources are insufficient to disprove your case. There is no false dilemma here.
5. appeal to a consequence of a belief: you will find that I have not used consequences to attack your beliefs. You will, in fact, find quite the opposite: I have agreed with your beliefs, and decried the consequences on the grounds that I see no indications that there is anyone who can be trusted to implement those beliefs.
6. Slippery slope: I have not mentioned a single slipperly slope argument. I have specifically avoided them. You are confusing me for several other people who have introduced the slippery slope. At no point have I introduced a series of progressively worse consequences.
[/me is suprised he didn't quicky find an argumentum ad verecundiam!]
I am rather surprised that you found no appeals to authority yourself. Allow me to help you find a few:
Originally posted by Kazan
For the long list of the damages caused by circumcision read http://www.noharmm.org/advantage.htm
Originally posted by Kazan
mikhael: you need to do a little reading on the sites i've linked
Originally posted by Kazan
Mikhael: did you bother to follow up into their sources ...
Originally posted by Kazan
Grey Wolf 2009: Things need not to be on a major medical jounral site to be considered valid - read the study data - that's out of a major medical book!
Originally posted by Kazan
the foreskin is a biologically important thing - go read up http://noharmm.org/advantage.htm
Originally posted by Kazan
also if you spent 10 minutes or noharmm you'd find statisical abstracts
That sums up the appeals to authority. It's nice to appeal to authority, but only after you have actually established the credibility of the authority within the bounds of the debate. Telling people to establish the credibility of your sources, or to go read your sources instead of presenting the data directly is the basic form of argumentum verecundiam, as taught in formal debate.
Now, lets get back on track. Please present your data, not your sources. Please show why your sources are valid and can be accepted as credible in the bounds of this debate. My position remains the same: I have not decided the truth or falsehood either way.
-
mikhael you clearly don't understand argumentum ad verecundiam - it's only a fallacy when the authority has no credibility in the subject in which it is referenced - so all your little "pointing out KAzan's argumentum ad verecundiams" are not AAV's
i'll address the rest of your comments later - when I feel like wasting more time on this thread - i should be doing work instead of bantering with bull****ists
-
Originally posted by Kazan
it's aesthetics if you take aesthetics (ie how a person looks) into consideration - which you don't
You do not have a "single person decide it" -- you are oversimplifing which creates problems with it - it's not a simple issue
those who put the species before themselves have what it takes - knowledge, understanding
If you are so preoccupied with being prejudiced against eugenics to understand eugenics than I have nothing more to say to you
You seem to have an ugly habit of beating people into submission with your beliefs. That's what fundies do and part of the reason I really don't like them.
The parents should decide whether a baby lives or dies if it is deformed. I'm pro-choice on matters of life and death--the parents decide whether or not to have an abortion, and a person with a severe illness and injury should be able to end his life if he so desires. One of the things that separates a free state from a totalitarian one is the right to make choices about your fate.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
mikhael you clearly don't understand argumentum ad verecundiam - it's only a fallacy when the authority has no credibility in the subject in which it is referenced - so all your little "pointing out KAzan's argumentum ad verecundiams" are not AAV's
i'll address the rest of your comments later - when I feel like wasting more time on this thread - i should be doing work instead of bantering with bull****ists
Actually, you are mistaken. AAV is also appeal to unrecognized authority. I don't recognize your authorities. You haven't shown them to be credible. You just tell me they are. You expect me to simply accept that they are valid or to go and prove their validity myself. I'm not here to prove your case. That's your job.
I'm going to ask you once: quit with the personal attacks. They're not warranted. If you can't debate without being offensive, then there's no point in continuing to discuss anything with you.
-
argumentum ad verecundiam
http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/aa.php
you have no idea what you're talking about
/me desubscribes from this thread so he can do work
-
From you source, Kazan.
While sometimes it may be appropriate to cite an authority to support a point, often it is not. In particular, an appeal to authority is inappropriate if:
1. the person is not qualified to have an expert opinion on the subject,
2. experts in the field disagree on this issue.
3. the authority was making a joke, drunk, or otherwise not being serious
A variation of the fallacious appeal to authority is hearsay. An argument from hearsay is an argument which depends on second or third hand sources.
1. You have not shown that your sources are qualified to have an expert opinion.
2. other experts in the field disagree with your experts. These experts were put forward by several other people through the course of the thread.
3. Well, three doesn't apply here. :D
In summary, you do not know what you are talking about. Your future silence will be greatly appreciated. Thank you.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
From you source, Kazan.
1. You have not shown that your sources are qualified to have an expert opinion.
2. other experts in the field disagree with your experts. These experts were put forward by several other people through the course of the thread.
3. Well, three doesn't apply here. :D
In summary, you do not know what you are talking about. Your future silence will be greatly appreciated. Thank you.
I must admit, I was having incredible amounts of fun watching you debate circles around Mr stroppy pants.
-
Ok, well, I'm not going to get involved in this personally, but it does bring up this question in my mind..... Steven Hawkins would have had to have been euthanised for 'his and our' own good?
Flipside :D
-
Originally posted by Flipside
Ok, well, I'm not going to get involved in this personally, but it does bring up this question in my mind..... Steven Hawkins would have had to have been euthanised for 'his and our' own good?
Flipside :D
You are IN MY BRAIN. I was going to raise this EXACT SAME POINT, but never saw an opportunity to slide it in. I've been thinking this all day.
I think to call all deformed people a burden upon humanity is pretty ****ing arrogant to be fairly honest especially considering there's more than enough "normal" (like that term ever means ANYTHING applied to humanity) people to carry the slack from these "lesser" humans.
-
dont cut the pe-pe.
And any person that talks about forskin for more than 300 comments is fruity :lol:
who cares, it dont kill no-one, if parents want to have it done to there kids, let them. been goin on for long enough.
-
Originally posted by 01010
You are IN MY BRAIN. I was going to raise this EXACT SAME POINT, but never saw an opportunity to slide it in. I've been thinking this all day.
I think to call all deformed people a burden upon humanity is pretty ****ing arrogant to be fairly honest especially considering there's more than enough "normal" (like that term ever means ANYTHING applied to humanity) people to carry the slack from these "lesser" humans.
I'm glad you put 'lesser' in quotes ;) LOL
Well, all I can say is this, having a withered arm or leg, or a deformed back, or the inability to speak, once upon a time was a truly fatal disadvantage, but, as Stephen Hawkins (and Joey Deacon before him) proved, the failure is not on the part of the disabled person for being disabled, the failure is on the part of the rest of us for only seeing the disability. It raises the terryfying prospect of 'out of sight, out of mind' I think humanity is better than that.....well....sometimes :) Are we suggesting destroying lives because we truly KNOW they will not achieve anything other than pain with their lives, something that Steven Hawkins already disproved, or is it more because having to look at people with disabilities makes us feel awkward and uncomfortable and it is 'we' who don't know how to deal with it?
Flipside :D
-
Is this a good time to point out that maybe some people just like thier dick in one piece?
-
LOL It's ALWAYS a good time to point that out ;)
Flipside :D
-
Originally posted by Flipside
Ok, well, I'm not going to get involved in this personally, but it does bring up this question in my mind..... Steven Hawkins would have had to have been euthanised for 'his and our' own good?
Flipside :D
No, he didn't get his disease until he was in his 30s.
-
Originally posted by Flipside
I'm glad you put 'lesser' in quotes ;) LOL
Well, all I can say is this, having a withered arm or leg, or a deformed back, or the inability to speak, once upon a time was a truly fatal disadvantage, but, as Stephen Hawkins (and Joey Deacon before him) proved, the failure is not on the part of the disabled person for being disabled, the failure is on the part of the rest of us for only seeing the disability. It raises the terryfying prospect of 'out of sight, out of mind' I think humanity is better than that.....well....sometimes :) Are we suggesting destroying lives because we truly KNOW they will not achieve anything other than pain with their lives, something that Steven Hawkins already disproved, or is it more because having to look at people with disabilities makes us feel awkward and uncomfortable and it is 'we' who don't know how to deal with it?
Flipside :D
I personally have disabled people within my family (huge family, something like 2nd cousin) and I don't think that a disability is as bad for the sufferer (going from birth this is) because if it's all you know, it is impossible to compare their normality to somebody elses. The real problem with the disabled in my view is in interaction with so called "normal" society, but that's because of intolerance on behalf of "normal" people.
Actually, getting quite personal here but, an aunt of mine was told that her child was to be born with three holes in the heart, cerebal palsy and downs syndrome, it would've required almost permananent attention (they had 6 kids already, rabbits) and it would've been in constant pain for the entire three years of life that it was predicted it would have lived. My Aunt had an abortion and she and my uncle were devestated by it, despite the work and attention that the child would've required they wanted to keep it more than anything, the only factor that pointed them down the road they took was that it wasn't fair for both child and family, there was no (benefits not the word i'm looking for) point, I guess, though I don't think thats the right word either, in subjecting both parties to the pain that wouldv'e been caused.
I'd say that "social engineering" would make people believe it's right to kill their child (no matter how malformed) is completely ignorant of how strong the paternal bond between a parent and (even an unborn) child at best.
-
Originally posted by vyper
Is this a good time to point out that maybe some people just like thier dick in one piece?
One piece of what? Fish? Cake? Pie?
You've piqued my interest and I require elaboration on this subject matter.
;)
-
Originally posted by Devils_Hitman
dont cut the pe-pe.
And any person that talks about forskin for more than 300 comments is fruity :lol:
who cares, it dont kill no-one, if parents want to have it done to there kids, let them. been goin on for long enough.
Female genital mutilation doesn't kill women, but it's illegal.
Torture doesn't necessarily kill people, but it's illegal.
Rape doesn't always kill people, but it's illegal
Punching someone in the face won't result in his death, but it's illegal.
Should they be legalized?
There are lots of things that don't kill people that are both wrong and illegal. Circumcision is painful, reduces sexual sensitivity, and is just wrong when it is done to someone who cannot possibly consent to it.
-
Unfortunately it's very hard to find anyone that actually *has* a foreskin who cares.
Probably too busy out enjoying all the extra sensations or something.
-
01010 -- i already told someone else this that "steven hawking" argument doesn't work - that's a false dilema -- if he wouldn't have thought it someone else would have
-
False Dilemma
Definition:
A limited number of options (usually two) is given, while in reality there are more options. A false dilemma is an illegitimate use of the "or" operator.
Putting issues or opinions into "black or white" terms is a common instance of this fallacy.
Examples:
1. Either you're for me or against me.
2. America: love it or leave it.
3. Either support Meech Lake or Quebec will separate.
4. Every person is either wholly good or wholly evil.
Proof:
Identify the options given and show (with an example) that there is an additional option.
Please show how this is a false dilemma. Further please show proof that someone other than Hawking would have done his work. If you can do neither, 01010's point stands and your thesis (re: eugenics) remains invalid.
-
It's more like a non sequitur because Hawking did not fall ill with this disease until well into his adulthood. Hawking's condition is irrelevant to Kazan's argument.
-
Possibly, but surely after Mr Hawkins got horribly ill and was 'no more use to society' he should have been put out of our misery if we follow this route?
I am not saying there is no situation where an abortion is not only advisable, it's actually kind, but this was a thread started about people making choices for children without regarding their consent, their belief or their wishes or wants.
How can we sit here and agree that this is wrong, and then suggest something that makes circumsision look like a day out in Disneyland?
Flipside :D
-
Now, Flipside, THAT is the slippery slope argument.
-
And I said I wasn't going to get involved in this thread too! :o
Sorry Mik, you've genuinely lost me there for a second, if there is a fault with my argument, can you point it out?
Flipside :)