Look, circumcision should be a non-subject. It's not worth the debate, purely because of technical reasons: uncircumcised men shouldn't bash circumcised men, because there's nothing they can do about it, ever (you cannot "uncircumcise" yourself). You can try to restore a foreskin, but that's not worth the effort, and the results are often stupid.
It's a bit like penis size: if you're tiny, there's nothing you can do about it, *ever*, so don't even bash a tiny dude. He can have surgery, his only option, but likewise, the results tend to be stupid and outright destructive.
There are many advantages to circumcision and to keeping the foreskin:
Circumcision:
- -circumcision helps somewhat in preventing HIV transmissions
- -circumcision poses fewer problems with hygiene
- -circumcision creates a cultural bond amongst some people
- -circumcision can help in the case where the foreskin is too tight
Foreskin:
- -the foreskin acts as a natural lubricant
- -the foreskin acts as an "edging" device during intercourse
- -the foreskin is nature's choice
- -the foreskin keeps the glans moist and sensitive
In short, pros and cons. I'm uncircumcised myself, but I have no problem whatsoever with the practise of circumcision, as long as it is done on the basis of free choice, and on an adult individual (except in medical cases it can be done on boys).