[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

[Bobboau]

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.

[mikhael]

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.

[adwight]

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.

[Kazan]

Adwight: people like you are exactly why 90% of american males have their human rights violated

mikhael false analogy


bobboau: read the references f00


Admins lock please - since nobody is going to honestly check sources

[Carl]

whatca' guys talkin' bout? penises?

[TheCelestialOne]

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...

[Kazan]

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

[Bobboau]

you'r references don't seem to have anything behind them, point me to numbers, you do have numbers, right?

[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

also if you spent 10 minutes or noharmm you'd find statisical abstracts

[Sandwich]

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.

[Kazan]

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

[Bobboau]

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

[Kazan]

are you unable navigate a website?

nocirc
noharmm
circumstitions

not really based off e/o

[Kamikaze]

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 )

[Kazan]

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

[Bobboau]

you do know that's part of his sig right?

[Kazan]

lol! i didn't bother to read the date to notice that

[Ulala]

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?

[Kazan]

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