[mikhael]

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.

[mikhael]

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.

[Kazan]

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

[Odyssey]

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.

[adwight]

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.

[Kazan]

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

[Odyssey]

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?

[Setekh]

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.

[Kazan]

[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*

[Odyssey]

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.

[Kazan]

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]

[Odyssey]

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.

[Grey Wolf]

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.

[Kazan]

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

[Odyssey]

I wouldn't label Kazan a fanatic by any stretch of the imagination, he's just "one of strong opinions"™

[Grey Wolf]

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.

[Kazan]

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

[Grey Wolf]

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

[Drew]

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.

[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