Circumcision in uk

[peter7]

But seriously, ask around, go to 5-6 of them if you have to, ask about a dorsal slit, ask about a minimal operation, don't let some idiot with a medical degree butcher you.

I am definitely an advocate of seeking many opinions but there are very few real alternatives to circumcision if it is medically required. You talk about a dorsal slit - that really is just an emergency procedure and not a long term solution.

Doctors of course are wrong, often, but I doubt many of them actually wish to harm their patients, an hopefully those that do are jailed!

I think your issues are clearly very important to you as genuinely you are upset by what happened, when answering people's questions however I think it is best to limit our own subjectivity and try to give information in an objective manner. Else we are simply being self serving.

Also I think you may struggle to get 5-6 opinions unless you are paying for them all, and let's be honest if you have had the same information 2,3,4 times from a professional in a highly regulated area, if you suddenly get a very different opinion from someone else - I myself would be wary of a potential maverick!

 

[darkbond007]

So basically I cant say...Circumcision is great! But youre allowed to challenge me by insinuating that I better not be saying that circumcised is greater than uncircumcised. Which I did not say...

Thanks but no thanks.

This is absurd, but OK, here's the top dictionary results:

1. A greater liking for one alternative over another or others

2. A thing preferred ("Prefer" being "to like [one thing or person] better than another or others")

So, under definition #2, one can prefer something they can't have. If a blind due was like, "I'd prefer to be able to see," would that not make sense to you? If yes, I don't understand your objection here. If no...I'm not sure what point you're getting at. I was referring to you, and this is a "subjective preference" under your own definition. Even if it weren't, and you want to use another word, that would not affect my substantive point at all.

And just to point out your flaw if you are using definition two it uses the word "prefer" which uses definition one which is more explicit. In the special case of a man being circumcised at birth he has never known about being uncut so he truly cant say he has a preference at all. The example you use about the blind man would is flawed at best and truthfully it insinuates that you are saying that being circumcised is akin to being blind. The blind man can say "Id prefer to be able to see" but truthfully the context is incorrect. The correct syntax would be, "I'd rather I were able to see" or "I'd rather have the ability to see". You cannot have a preference if the issue is devoid of choice. You dont have a choice in being RIC or being blind.

He made an assumption that any rational reader would have, which is that you were expressing an opinion that it's "GREAT!" in a medically-oriented thread.

Again...I am not saying his assumption wasn't valid. I am saying the way he decided to address it IS NOT valid. He could have simply asked for clarification...could he not...ANSWER THAT...COULD HE NOT?????????

I know it would be convenient for your arguments in other threads if I were as apathetic towards others' preferences as you are, but I'm not.

I could care less about whatever you feel towards others or myself. Youre just a circumcision argument hunter the one of many and I no longer have time to argue on it. The only reason I'm even continuing this is because I believe your thoughts on the word "preference" are flawed.

 

[surto]

I am definitely an advocate of seeking many opinions but there are very few real alternatives to circumcision if it is medically required. You talk about a dorsal slit - that really is just an emergency procedure and not a long term solution.

Doctors of course are wrong, often, but I doubt many of them actually wish to harm their patients, an hopefully those that do are jailed!

I think your issues are clearly very important to you as genuinely you are upset by what happened, when answering people's questions however I think it is best to limit our own subjectivity and try to give information in an objective manner. Else we are simply being self serving.

Also I think you may struggle to get 5-6 opinions unless you are paying for them all, and let's be honest if you have had the same information 2,3,4 times from a professional in a highly regulated area, if you suddenly get a very different opinion from someone else - I myself would be wary of a potential maverick!

Points taken Peter and we agree to disagree on the rest.

 

[erratic]

The OP has started about 10 threads saying he needs or wants a circumcision since he joined, all with slightly different stories. Strange guy.

Curiouser and curiouser...

 

[D_Miranda_Wrights]

So basically I cant say...Circumcision is great! But youre allowed to challenge me by insinuating that I better not be saying that circumcised is greater than uncircumcised. Which I did not say...

Thanks but no thanks.

...Instead of this totally screwy paraphrase, how about you read what I actually wrote to understand my argument?

DB, I'm pointing out how ridiculous you're being to complain that others were instigating a debate. You instigated the debate by making the claim that circumcision is "GREAT!", which seems like an expression of personal preference. I really don't think any reasonable person would interpret your post as saying "some people like being circumcised." It's not what you said. It's not at all implicit in what you said. He made an assumption that any rational reader would have, which is that you were expressing an opinion that it's "GREAT!" in a medically-oriented thread.

You have ignored the substance of my argument in favor of criticizing (incorrectly) my use of the word "preference," even though you understand what concept I'm describing and the word chosen does not affect my argument's substance.

And just to point out your flaw if you are using definition two it uses the word "prefer" which uses definition one which is more explicit. In the special case of a man being circumcised at birth he has never known about being uncut so he truly cant say he has a preference at all. The example you use about the blind man would is flawed at best and truthfully it insinuates that you are saying that being circumcised is akin to being blind. The blind man can say "Id prefer to be able to see" but truthfully the context is incorrect. The correct syntax would be, "I'd rather I were able to see" or "I'd rather have the ability to see". You cannot have a preference if the issue is devoid of choice. You dont have a choice in being RIC or being blind.

I gave you the definition of "prefer" in my post. You are using a narrow definition of "prefer" while the dictionary includes a more expansive definition -- "to like [one thing or person] better than another or others." You also didn't answer any of my questions about why you're making this point...my substantive argument stands even if you use another word besides "preference." Are you just deciding to abandon substance and pursue this semantic argument (which is, again, wrong)?

Again...I am not saying his assumption wasn't valid. I am saying the way he decided to address it IS NOT valid. He could have simply asked for clarification...could he not...ANSWER THAT...COULD HE NOT?????????

Except your statement wasn't unclear...you just said something completely different than you're claiming you meant. Did anyone here read DarkBond's "circumcision is GREAT!" statement as meaning "some people don't mind being circumcised"? My intuition is that everyone instead read it like I did, as being a personal statement about your attitude toward circumcision. And you can't expect people to ask for clarification if a statement seems clear; they can't read your mind to recognize the dissonance between what you wrote and what you "meant to say."

I could care less about whatever you feel towards others or myself. Youre just a circumcision argument hunter the one of many and I no longer have time to argue on it. The only reason I'm even continuing this is because I believe your thoughts on the word "preference" are flawed.

This isn't an argument about circumcision. This is an argument about how you behaved in a medical thread that happens to be about circumcision.

I'm glad to know you have time to debate the dictionary definition of the word "preference," but don't have time to debate substance. Do you have an hour penciled in every day on your calendar labeled "Frivolous Things Only"?

 

[darkbond007]

You have no substance to your argument. This is an attack. Instead of Gymfresh asking me to clarify he made a ludicrous statement.

Youre never wrong not even with the definition of prefer.

I dont have to justify anything to you. I promised myself not to enter the typical circumcision threads but obviously you peruse them all. It's best I just ignore you.

 

[gymfresh]

He could have simply asked for clarification...could he not...ANSWER THAT...COULD HE NOT?????????

Well, that's exactly what I did. I asked whether you think intact penises can be great, too. How is that not asking for a clarification? I was specifically seeking a clarification of whether you were saying that circumcision was THE great way to go or A great way to go, if needed or desired.

There's no conceivable way that was a debate. Did I say one was better? All I did was inquire whether you did.

And why are you screaming?

 

[D_Miranda_Wrights]

You have no substance to your argument. This is an attack. Instead of Gymfresh asking me to clarify he made a ludicrous statement.

I mean, if you consider a critical comment an "attack"...I guess. But how do I have no substance in my argument? It's kind of useless for you to make a semantic attack and then ignore the substantive parts without explaining why they aren't substantive.

Youre never wrong not even with the definition of prefer.

...You criticize something, I respond, and instead of addressing my response, you just complain that I didn't agree that I was wrong. come on man.

I'm wrong plenty, just like anyone else, but I don't believe I'm wrong unless I have a reason to. You're not even trying to show me reason.

I dont have to justify anything to you. I promised myself not to enter the typical circumcision threads but obviously you peruse them all. It's best I just ignore you.

I don't even get what you're criticizing me for. I pay attention to the circumcision threads? Yeah; I have a strong opinion on RIC and know a decent amount about the subject. I criticized you here? Yes; I thought your conduct made no sense.

You can ignore me if you want, but I don't get why. So far in this thread, I criticized you, you attacked my word use instead of replying to substance, I replied to that superficial criticism, and then you were like "it's best I just ignore you." You don't have to justify anything to me, but it's a waste of your time (and, consequentially, ours) to discuss if you don't try to justify things.

 

[D_Dr_Dickmento]

lol at y'all

 

[Snozzle]

I am definitely an advocate of seeking many opinions but there are very few real alternatives to circumcision if it is medically required.

... by definition. But it is a fact that in circumcising cultures (such as the US) doctors are not well informed about the alternatives - some of their anatomy textbooks don't even show the foreskin! and define it as "the part of the penis that is removed by circumcision"), whereas in cultures where circumcision is rare, doctors are not themselves circumcised and they are educated about the alternatives, they are much less likely to circumcise. (Anecdotally, I had sex with a German guy who had two little protrusions on his foreskin that he told me were from an operation he had had to loosen it - probably a Z-plasty, I have since learnt) In the UK, probably older doctors are more likely to go for circumcision and younger ones to look for alternatives.

You talk about a dorsal slit - that really is just an emergency procedure and not a long term solution.

On the contrary it is a standard form of "circumcision" in some cultures, such as the Philippines and Kiribati. If it is done before puberty, the foreskin doesn't grow and the result looks very like circumcision, but with elastic "ears" that can be pulled to almost cover the glans. If done in adulthood it might hang down the sides in a peculiar way, but that would depend how far back the slit went, and it wouldn't need to go all the way to have the desired effect.

 

[CJF88]

Get it done, I’m booked in for as soon as covid is over.