Sex and Circumcised POLL

[D_Miranda_Wrights]

Just because you can make a declarative sentence out of something does not mean it is a sound argument, let alone a rebuttal. I'm just going to tell what arguments you're ignoring in favor of re-asserting your opinion. That way, you can address the arguments directly and we can move on, avoiding an infinite loop of position-staking.

What does it wrong? Again, we differ on what we perceive is wrong about circumcision. Parents make decisions for kids ALL the time. This is why they are the parents. This in itself to me is soooooo insignificant I could care less what a parent decides on with respect to circumcising their son.

Begging the question on parental proxy ethics without responding to my arguments on that subject

I dont feel circumcision harms a kid. It didnt harm me and it didnt harm any of my cousins. It didnt harm my father.

Begging the question on cost-benefits without responding to my arguments on that subject, and with an exhaustive sample size of n=<10 to boot

I understand your argument of the main fact that it differs from mine and you know, that is fine. I havent demeaned your argument , what you have is yours.

Another assertion that you calling my argument wrong is not demeaning, but me calling yours wrong somehow is (which doesn't have any relevance to the quality of arguments anyway)

There are many beliefs that people said were wrong that just so happened to be that person's opinion. I believe your belief is your belief. I am arguing that you have no grounds to state my belief is wrong.

If your argument is logically or ethically unsound, it's logically or ethically unsound. Why does it matter if you discover that yourself, or I point it out? Logic is not an apellate court. You don't have to argue standing and jurisdiction. If you want to live your life without any external challenge on your beliefs, don't enter debates, and just pray that you don't end hurting someone because you were threatened by the prospect of having your mind changed.

Or, alternatively, just step up and defend the rationality and logic of your beliefs. If not for me, for yourself (because no one is perfect and even good people need to poke at their beliefs), and for any undecided folks reading this.

 

[JTalbain]

There are many beliefs that people said were wrong that just so happened to be that person's opinion. I believe your belief is your belief. I am arguing that you have no grounds to state my belief is wrong.

You're from the Bahamas and not the US, correct? In the US, he actually has legal rounds for doing so. Courts have routinely upheld that your rights to practice your protected rights (religion, expression, etc.) stop where another person's body begins. This extends to medical decisions, with extra care being taken to gather the child's consent whenever possible, and ensuring everything is solely within the child's best interests when a parent or guardian must act as a proxy. It is both logical and correct to point out circumcision of children as an abberation to this. Unless you can provide a compelling reason why circumcision should be done in the best interests of the child then by the rules which govern medical ethics in our country, it shouldn't be done. Can you provide such a reason?

 

[darkbond007]

Just because you can make a declarative sentence out of something does not mean it is a sound argument, let alone a rebuttal. I'm just going to tell what arguments you're ignoring in favor of re-asserting your opinion. That way, you can address the arguments directly and we can move on, avoiding an infinite loop of position-staking.



Begging the question on parental proxy ethics without responding to my arguments on that subject

Your stance on ethics differs from mine.

Begging the question on cost-benefits without responding to my arguments on that subject, and with an exhaustive sample size of n=<10 to boot

Let's add in the muslims and jews seeing as you want to be cheeky.

Another assertion that you calling my argument wrong is not demeaning, but me calling yours wrong somehow is (which doesn't have any relevance to the quality of arguments anyway)

I never said your argument was wrong. I dont care what your argument is.

If your argument is logically or ethically unsound, it's logically or ethically unsound. Why does it matter if you discover that yourself, or I point it out? Logic is not an apellate court. You don't have to argue standing and jurisdiction. If you want to live your life without any external challenge on your beliefs, don't enter debates, and just pray that you don't end hurting someone because you were threatened by the prospect of having your mind changed.

Your logic is your logic. Your ethics are your ethics. Both are subjective and trust me youre no threat to me.

Or, alternatively, just step up and defend the rationality and logic of your beliefs. If not for me, for yourself (because no one is perfect and even good people need to poke at their beliefs), and for any undecided folks reading this.

Or why not accept that we differ. I have explained myself a billion times to you and it never gets through.

ou're from the Bahamas and not the US, correct? In the US, he actually has legal rounds for doing so. Courts have routinely upheld that your rights to practice your protected rights (religion, expression, etc.) stop where another person's body begins. This extends to medical decisions, with extra care being taken to gather the child's consent whenever possible, and ensuring everything is solely within the child's best interests when a parent or guardian must act as a proxy. It is both logical and correct to point out circumcision of children as an abberation to this. Unless you can provide a compelling reason why circumcision should be done in the best interests of the child then by the rules which govern medical ethics in our country, it shouldn't be done. Can you provide such a reason?

Wait...you are speaking to me about US versus Bahamas on a topic of circumcision?

In the aspect of circumcision he has no legal grounds to question me as a parent. NONE whatsoever. In fact that goes for about 99% of the world.

As for reasons...which I have stated before...which are my own...

I feel its aesthetically more pleasing and in the climate I am in it is easier to maintain. Additionally it is a tradition in my family (even though I was left uncut it was not due to the breaking of the tradition but more to do with doctor interference) one that I intend to pass on however I would like for it to be passed on in the most informed manner possible.

 

[D_Miranda_Wrights]

Your stance on ethics differs from mine.

Let's add in the muslims and jews seeing as you want to be cheeky.

I never said your argument was wrong. I dont care what your argument is.

Your logic is your logic. Your ethics are your ethics. Both are subjective and trust me youre no threat to me.

Or why not accept that we differ. I have explained myself a billion times to you and it never gets through.

I think it's a shame that you see having your mind changed by a rational argument as "a threat."

Anyway, every time you re-assert your opinion without addressing my logical rebuttal to it, you commit logical fallacy known as begging the question. You're doing it again. Do you forget my arguments, or are you actively (for some reason) choosing not to engage them?

P.S. We don't have access to "the Muslims and Jews" except to know that, if circumcision is objectively harmful, its harm is infrequent/minor enough that it has not prompted these populations to avoid it in spite of their religious/cultural beliefs. That's not a reasonable empiric for "objectively harmful," unless you think things aren't "objectively harmful" until they are blatantly and egregiously harmful. Low-level carcinogens, by the implicit standards, would not be "objectively harmful." How do you reject rationalists who dislike being cut but don't think religious traditionalists are "manipulated"? Mind-numbing, man. For what it's worth, the person who helped convinced me that RIC is wrong is a pious-Jew-turned-agnostic.

 

[gigantor68]

I had a long reply all written up and even posted but in the end I dont want to digress on this subject.

1. You are an anti-circ bully.
2. You try to attack at the core of a person's psyche to make them change their mind. A less willed person this would affect.
3. You assume people care what your thoughts on circumcision may be. They are your beliefs and not mine.
4. My stance on RIC, abortion and life still remain as they did before your little rant.
5. What you read in books and experience with your own penis only supports half of this argument and it's the only half you believe in. You try to make it seem like your interested in something intelligent or philisophical but really you are only trying to make someone change their mind.
6. All of that and STILL there are no peer reviewed and bulletproof studies that emphatically support either side of this argument.
7. Your beliefs are yours. You live with them. Mine are mine. I will live with mine. If I cared what other people did in their life I wouldnt have time to live my own.

I was circumcised as an adult. In hindsight I wished I was RIC. I dont have problems with my penis and sex, masturbation, getting a hardon, using my fleshlight, my bare head rubbing in underwear all if it is a great experience

Fact: There is nothing wrong with being circumcised.
Attack me in another thread on a day I feel up to it, I would like for this one to get back on topic.

Here's where I stand and if you find this irrational then you have bigger problems:
I refuse to make or have questioned any type of life or parental decisions based on the notions or beliefs of people I met on the internet.

I can say I completely agree and understand exactly 100%

Everyone is entitled to their opinion and you've expressed yours and people should accept it.

This is the whole thing with the anti-circ people, they are bullies and they don't accept there is another way. It's always about trying to show us more anti-circ propaganda, tell us about all the worst case stories, how circumcised people are missing out....etc With any medical procedure there are risks, but the operations get done because they believe the benefits outweigh the risks, not only for circumcision but for anything.

RIC can change a persons appearance, I know there is a belief that some people can tell if a person is circumcised or not by various parts of the body, such as nose, teeth, fingers, feet, all the parts at the end of the body can be altered if a boy is circumcised before the parts have fully developed. Usually a person with a pointy nose or one shaped like a foreskin tends to have a foreskin, where RIC boys tend to have noses that are spread out or a bit wider as they didn't have a foreskin restricting the head. Now if the person gets circumcised later after development, then those parts can't change.

The question I'd like to know for the circumcised people who wish they were left intact is when and why did they feel this?

 

[D_Miranda_Wrights]

I can say I completely agree and understand exactly 100%

Everyone is entitled to their opinion and you've expressed yours and people should accept it.

This is the whole thing with the anti-circ people, they are bullies and they don't accept there is another way. It's always about trying to show us more anti-circ propaganda, tell us about all the worst case stories, how circumcised people are missing out....etc With any medical procedure there are risks, but the operations get done because they believe the benefits outweigh the risks, not only for circumcision but for anything.

All we are doing is arguing the benefits outweigh the risks. I'm pre-med. I'm studying to be a doctor. What, I'm supposed to go "I think this cost-benefits decision is bad for a third party, but I'm not going to say anything?" Otherwise it's bullying? Even if I weren't going into medicine, that seems pretty damn unethical. If I was doing the wrong thing, I'd want my friends, families -- hell, even polite, conscientious strangers -- to take me to task for it.

This is a debate. I'm not going to give anyone a swirlie for disagreeing with me. This is how rational debates are conducted, and I'm growing tired of being accused of "bullying" for engaging consenting adults in rational discourse.

RIC can change a persons appearance, I know there is a belief that some people can tell if a person is circumcised or not by various parts of the body, such as nose, teeth, fingers, feet, all the parts at the end of the body can be altered if a boy is circumcised before the parts have fully developed. Usually a person with a pointy nose or one shaped like a foreskin tends to have a foreskin, where RIC boys tend to have noses that are spread out or a bit wider as they didn't have a foreskin restricting the head. Now if the person gets circumcised later after development, then those parts can't change.

I don't understand the point either way, but...you can't be serious.

 

[darkbond007]

I think it's a shame that you see having your mind changed by a rational argument as "a threat."

I do not see you as a threat

Anyway, every time you re-assert your opinion without addressing my logical rebuttal to it, you commit logical fallacy known as begging the question. You're doing it again. Do you forget my arguments, or are you actively (for some reason) choosing not to engage them?

P.S. We don't have access to "the Muslims and Jews" except to know that, if circumcision is objectively harmful, its harm is infrequent/minor enough that it has not prompted these populations to avoid it in spite of their religious/cultural beliefs. That's not a reasonable empiric for "objectively harmful," unless you think things aren't "objectively harmful" until they are blatantly and egregiously harmful. Low-level carcinogens, by the implicit standards, would not be "objectively harmful." How do you reject rationalists who dislike being cut but don't think religious traditionalists are "manipulated"? Mind-numbing, man. For what it's worth, the person who helped convinced me that RIC is wrong is a pious-Jew-turned-agnostic.

Youre assuming again.

You believe that people even look at circumcision as being harmful at all. Did I say that religious traditionalists are not manipulated? Again here you go assuming. You make it difficult to discuss things with you because you make far too many assumptions.

It's nice a jew convinced you RIC is wrong.

 

[gigantor68]

All we are doing is arguing the benefits outweigh the risks. I'm pre-med. I'm studying to be a doctor. What, I'm supposed to go "I think this cost-benefits decision is bad for a third party, but I'm not going to say anything?" Otherwise it's bullying? Even if I weren't going into medicine, that seems pretty damn unethical. If I was doing the wrong thing, I'd want my friends, families -- hell, even polite, conscientious strangers -- to take me to task for it.

This is a debate. I'm not going to give anyone a swirlie for disagreeing with me. This is how rational debates are conducted, and I'm growing tired of being accused of "bullying" for engaging consenting adults in rational discourse.

Yes and this is the crux of it, you see circumcision as a greater risk and others see circumcision a greater benefit outweighing the risks, no matter what, you won't accept another persons decision if they choose the circumcision path, not matter what even if they have looked at all the information, this is what I think is wrong. There are positives and negatives for either way, that's what people have to decide, it's not like one is a bed of roses and the other is a bed of thorns, if it was there would be no debate.

I don't understand the point either way, but...you can't be serious.

Yes I am serious and there are many people that believe they can tell if a person is circumcised or not by looking at them.

 

[darkbond007]

All we are doing is arguing the benefits outweigh the risks. I'm pre-med. I'm studying to be a doctor. What, I'm supposed to go "I think this cost-benefits decision is bad for a third party, but I'm not going to say anything?" Otherwise it's bullying? Even if I weren't going into medicine, that seems pretty damn unethical. If I was doing the wrong thing, I'd want my friends, families -- hell, even polite, conscientious strangers -- to take me to task for it.

This is a debate. I'm not going to give anyone a swirlie for disagreeing with me. This is how rational debates are conducted, and I'm growing tired of being accused of "bullying" for engaging consenting adults in rational discourse.

No...

Young Native...allow me to share a story with you.

You know of my battle with phimosis. It spanned some 11 years. From when I started to jackoff until I was a very sexually active young man. I dont have to go through the gruesome details but it involved my foreskin tearing many times. Soreness after every masturbation or sex session. My frenulum tearing once. One bout with paraphimosis.

I subsequently got circumcised at the age of 23.

At the age of 25 I came home from college and I was cleaning up my room and I found my old medical record. The first 16 years of my life. The doctor gave it to my mom after I went off to school as a keep sake. She placed it in my room. I started to read through it. I focused on the yearly updates on my genitalia, phimosis 16 years straight. This was all fine and well up to the age of 10 but at 11 and beyond it was infuriarating especially when I saw comments like "phimosis, teen should eventually grow out of" ,"acute phimosis, patient conversation needed", "phimosis, adult penis" basically stating to me that the DOCTOR knew what was wrong with me and never informed me. When I asked my mom about it, she says that the doctor informed her and my mom asked several times for me to have a circumcision and the doctor refused.

REFUSED?!?!?!!?

F***...THAT...

So dont talk to be about consent or ethics or whatever. You have no idea. You have your books and your pre-med classes and your convincing from a jew that supports what you believe in but dont belittle other people's beliefs that you have ABSOLUTELY NO CONTEXT in. Your'e an uncut pre-med student that wants to do right by little boys. Thats all well and fine but dont think for a second you understand everything.

 

[D_Miranda_Wrights]

Yes and this is the crux of it, you see circumcision as a greater risk and others see circumcision a greater benefit outweighing the risks, no matter what, you won't accept another persons decision if they choose the circumcision path, not matter what even if they have looked at all the information, this is what I think is wrong. There are positives and negatives for either way, that's what people have to decide, it's not like one is a bed of roses and the other is a bed of thorns, if it was there would be no debate.

I'm not saying the right choice is obvious. There's a reason I'm being so precise here, and that's because RIC seems superficially defensible to a lot of people. Like I've said a few times, good people with good intentions have, throughout history, held many beliefs we now consider morally objectionable. Why? It wasn't because the defenses were seen as obviously indefensible, and people were just all evil back then.

What changed those misguided beliefs and practices? Generally, pitches to their more fundamental ethical and moral values; philosophically complex and nuanced arguments that sometimes went against social norms. And that's where I think RIC is at. It's why I'm not willing to say "not a big deal, to each his own." Marginal wrong is still wrong and I'm not going to suborn it.

Yes I am serious and there are many people that believe they can tell if a person is circumcised or not by looking at them.

That's a new one to me, but it makes no physiological sense at all.

 

[D_Miranda_Wrights]

No...

Young Native...allow me to share a story with you.

You know of my battle with phimosis. It spanned some 11 years. From when I started to jackoff until I was a very sexually active young man. I dont have to go through the gruesome details but it involved my foreskin tearing many times. Soreness after every masturbation or sex session. My frenulum tearing once. One bout with paraphimosis.

I subsequently got circumcised at the age of 23.

At the age of 25 I came home from college and I was cleaning up my room and I found my old medical record. The first 16 years of my life. The doctor gave it to my mom after I went off to school as a keep sake. She placed it in my room. I started to read through it. I focused on the yearly updates on my genitalia, phimosis 16 years straight. This was all fine and well up to the age of 10 but at 11 and beyond it was infuriarating especially when I saw comments like "phimosis, teen should eventually grow out of" ,"acute phimosis, patient conversation needed", "phimosis, adult penis" basically stating to me that the DOCTOR knew what was wrong with me and never informed me. When I asked my mom about it, she says that the doctor informed her and my mom asked several times for me to have a circumcision and the doctor refused.

REFUSED?!?!?!!?

F***...THAT...

So dont talk to be about consent or ethics or whatever. You have no idea. You have your books and your pre-med classes and your convincing from a jew that supports what you believe in but dont belittle other people's beliefs that you have ABSOLUTELY NO CONTEXT in. Your'e an uncut pre-med student that wants to do right by little boys. Thats all well and fine but dont think for a second you understand everything.

You'll have to explain to me how that anecdote somehow justifies RICs and sufficiently rebuts all of my points. Otherwise, I'm sorry you had a crappy doctor. I'm glad you eventually got a satisfactory resolution; that's more than I can say for my friends who didn't wanted to be RIC'ed.

It also strikes me that you'd have to argue your own irritation is irrational, since while it didn't have to be, your decision (and depending on the Bahamas healthcare system, maybe your mother's) was taken out of your hands. I thought preferences were disordered if they were impossible? Maybe you were "manipulated" into wishing you weren't trapped with phimosis, when in fact external powers (your doctor and your mom's passive acceptance of his refusal) circumscribed your options? I haven't thought through the hard logic on that one, but this is the sort of reason why philosophical consistency is important. Think of how angry this still clearly makes you. Do you want to argue for something that would have the secondary effect of making what you went through OK?

I'm genuinely sorry you suffered. Reading what you wrote made me flinch. I'm glad you were eventually able to get circumcised and are happy now. I don't want to make it seem like your satisfaction is ethically unimportant to me. It's just as important as any other person's--but the trouble is that I can't arbitrarily treat it as more important, and I'm not going to rationalize RIC based on your anecdote if it's a harmful practice in aggregate. And it is.

 

[darkbond007]

You'll have to explain to me how that anecdote somehow justifies RICs and sufficiently rebuts all of my points. Otherwise, I'm sorry you had a crappy doctor. I'm glad you eventually got a satisfactory resolution; that's more than I can say for my friends who didn't wanted to be RIC'ed.

Im not trying to justify RIC or rebut any of your points. It was in reply to you throwing around your pre-med status as if it means much.

It also strikes me that you'd have to argue your own irritation is irrational, since while it didn't have to be, your decision (and depending on the Bahamas healthcare system, maybe your mother's) was taken out of your hands. I thought preferences were disordered if they were impossible? Maybe you were "manipulated" into wishing you weren't trapped with phimosis, when in fact external powers (your doctor and your mom's passive acceptance of his refusal) circumscribed your options? I haven't thought through the hard logic on that one, but this is the sort of reason why philosophical consistency is important. Think of how angry this still clearly makes you. Do you want to argue for something that would have the secondary effect of making what you went through OK?

Cute.

At the time I liked being uncut. I didnt know what phimosis was at the time. I didnt know my doctor refused my circumcision request from my mom until 2 years AFTER my circumcision.

My philosophy on circumcision when I was 20 is different now that I am soon to be 30.

Again, hindsight is 20/20.

I'm genuinely sorry you suffered. Reading what you wrote made me flinch. I'm glad you were eventually able to get circumcised and are happy now. I don't want to make it seem like your satisfaction is ethically unimportant to me. It's just as important as any other person's--but the trouble is that I can't arbitrarily treat it as more important, and I'm not going to rationalize RIC based on your anecdote if it's a harmful practice in aggregate. And it is.

I dont want you to treat it as more important. I just want you to respect it.

I'm not speaking for one and all. I speak for me!

 

[D_Miranda_Wrights]

Im not trying to justify RIC or rebut any of your points. It was in reply to you throwing around your pre-med status as if it means much.

Dude, this is what I was replying to, from gigantor: "This is the whole thing with the anti-circ people, they are bullies and they don't accept there is another way. It's always about trying to show us more anti-circ propaganda, tell us about all the worst case stories, how circumcised people are missing out....etc."

This is the second consecutive person (after you) in this topic who has implied that I'm a sadistic bully, and I was talking about why I actually have an ethical/emotional investment in this topic. That's why I was bringing up my pre-med status. I'm well-aware that being pre-med doesn't inherently make my argument any better, and that's obviously not what I was claiming.

Cute.

At the time I liked being uncut. I didnt know what phimosis was at the time. I didnt know my doctor refused my circumcision request from my mom until 2 years AFTER my circumcision.

My philosophy on circumcision when I was 20 is different now that I am soon to be 30.

Again, hindsight is 20/20.

"Cute" does not respond to what I said in any way, shape or form. What you said subsequently just substantiated the premise of my argument and did not contradict it. Go ahead and try again.

I dont want you to treat it as more important. I just want you to respect it.

I'm not speaking for one and all. I speak for me!

I do respect yours. And mine. And your potential future son's. How am I disrespecting your preference? I think it's good you got circumcised, and if it had been magically evident at birth that you would eventually have that preference, you should have been RIC'ed. However, since that's not actually possible, your anecdote doesn't contribute much re: RIC ethics. I do feel bad that you had to go through that, but that doesn't contribute much re: RIC ethics either unless I assume that, for some reason, you do speak for all.

 

[darkbond007]

Dude, this is what I was replying to, from gigantor: "This is the whole thing with the anti-circ people, they are bullies and they don't accept there is another way. It's always about trying to show us more anti-circ propaganda, tell us about all the worst case stories, how circumcised people are missing out....etc."

This is the second consecutive person (after you) in this topic who has implied that I'm a sadistic bully, and I was talking about why I actually have an ethical/emotional investment in this topic. That's why I was bringing up my pre-med status. I'm well-aware that being pre-med doesn't inherently make my argument any better, and that's obviously not what I was claiming.

No, it's not because it isnt the first time you have brought up your status to support your argument.

"Cute" does not respond to what I said in any way, shape or form. What you said subsequently just substantiated the premise of my argument and did not contradict it. Go ahead and try again.

Did you read what I stated after "Cute"? It was responding to your twisting of context and your lack of understanding what my points are. I responded to your points with a clear contradiction. What I believed then is not what I believe now.

I do respect yours. And mine. And your potential future son's. How am I disrespecting your preference? I think it's good you got circumcised, and if it had been magically evident at birth that you would eventually have that preference, you should have been RIC'ed. However, since that's not actually possible, your anecdote doesn't contribute much re: RIC ethics. I do feel bad that you had to go through that, but that doesn't contribute much re: RIC ethics either unless I assume that, for some reason, you do speak for all.

The business of my future son has nothing to do with you. T

 

[D_Miranda_Wrights]

No, it's not because it isnt the first time you have brought up your status to support your argument.

I can look back. I was probably speaking to intellectual motivation there too, or maybe work experience at pediatric clinic (which doesn't exactly require expertise; it just lets you know how things work at pediatric clinics.) Where did you think I was being all "I'm pre-med so what I say is superior"? I'm not like that, I'm a very "arguments exist on their own merits and not based on who argues them" kind of guy.

Did you read what I stated after "Cute"? It was responding to your twisting of context and your lack of understanding what my points are. I responded to your points with a clear contradiction. What I believed then is not what I believe now.

I'll alluding to a post you made less than an hour ago. I don't know what you're talking about, but the contradiction I was pointing out was between your irritation that your doctor didn't circumcise you, and your attitude about positive vs. negative rights.

The business of my future son has nothing to do with you. T

Sure, it does. You're not allowed to beat him, even if you believe it in his self-interest. Even if beating a kid were legal, if you learned a good, well-intentioned friend was beating his kid, wouldn't you raise concern about it to him? That's just what I'm doing here, albeit with a far more marginal harm. And you keep pulling this "NOT YOUR BUSINESS!" stuff on me, like I was forcing anything on you, or like the idea of custodial limitations was somehow novel.

I care about the well-being of kids who I didn't sire too, dude. If I didn't care about other people, I wouldn't be bothering with ethics in the first place. I'd just be stockpiling Soviet firearms on a compound in Eastern Texas. Fortunately, virtually no one (including myself) rejects the idea that humans don't have an ethical interest in the well-being of other humans, even (maybe especially) if those other humans are powerless children. This is part of what keeps us from being nasty, brutish and short.

 

[B_thickjohnny]

Hey guys, I have a question/observation for you - dumb as it might be. Could doing non-consensual circumcisions on a young teenager (as Muslims do as a mark of the boy becoming a man) be a reason why some of these guys are so fucking violent as men? I think that if my parents took me against my will, kicking and screaming, to get snipped in front of an audience, I'd be one pissed adult. As it were, I was cut as a very young baby and have ZERO recollection of it and therefore have no ill feelings towards anyone.

Just a wild observation.

 

[Snozzle]

I can say I completely agree and understand exactly 100%

Everyone is entitled to their opinion and you've expressed yours and people should accept it.

But they're not entitled to their own facts, and they're not entitled to their own rules of logic.

This is the whole thing with the anti-circ people, they are bullies

It's bullying to argue on behalf of helpless children, and the men they are to grow up to be? And the people who strap a child down and cut part of his genitals off because they can, or because "parents make many decisions for their children" are not bullies? :lmao:

and they don't accept there is another way. It's always about trying to show us more anti-circ propaganda, tell us about all the worst case stories, how circumcised people are missing out....etc

But the bottom line is human rights. Whose body is it?

With any medical procedure there are risks, but the operations get done because they believe the benefits outweigh the risks, not only for circumcision but for anything.

but for "anything" (else) there is a disease or deformity to be treated. Circumcision is unique in removing a healthy, normal body part.

Or consider this:

Doctor: Do you want him circumcised?

Mother (thinks): It'll calm his libido and make him less demanding of his future wife. It'll make his penis smaller so he won't hurt her.

Father (thinks): It'll expose his glans, making it less sensitive, slowing him down so that he enjoys sex more. It'll free the mushroom head to grow, making it bigger so he'll stimulate his partner/s more.

Mother and Father (together): Yes!

Doctor: OK, I'll do it tomorrow.
​

And they never talk about it again, and never know that their reasons were diametrically opposed. Does that sound rational to you? (All those reasons have seriously been offered.)

RIC can change a persons appearance, I know there is a belief that some people can tell if a person is circumcised or not by various parts of the body, such as nose, teeth, fingers, feet, all the parts at the end of the body can be altered if a boy is circumcised before the parts have fully developed. Usually a person with a pointy nose or one shaped like a foreskin tends to have a foreskin, where RIC boys tend to have noses that are spread out or a bit wider as they didn't have a foreskin restricting the head. Now if the person gets circumcised later after development, then those parts can't change.

Wow, that one came out of left field. News to me. Sounds like a folk-tale.

Where do they believe that?

It could be tested, getting people who claim they can recognise these differences to look at a group of men and say what their status is, then checking , by self-report, or inspection just to be sure. It's hard to imagine a non-magical mechanism for such an alteration.

(Some Intactivists claim they can tell whether baby boys are circumcised by looking in their eyes. Again there's anecdotal evidence, but it would take a double blind test. I'm open to the possibility, but I don't think it's likely.)

The question I'd like to know for the circumcised people who wish they were left intact is when and why did they feel this?

Sorry, can't help you. I know some did from the moment they learnt the reason for the difference.

 

[darkbond007]

I can look back. I was probably speaking to intellectual motivation there too, or maybe work experience at pediatric clinic (which doesn't exactly require expertise; it just lets you know how things work at pediatric clinics.) Where did you think I was being all "I'm pre-med so what I say is superior"? I'm not like that, I'm a very "arguments exist on their own merits and not based on who argues them" kind of guy.

One of the other circumcision threads. It comes off rather condescending.

I'll alluding to a post you made less than an hour ago. I don't know what you're talking about, but the contradiction I was pointing out was between your irritation that your doctor didn't circumcise you, and your attitude about positive vs. negative rights.

I am not mad that the doctor did not circumcise me. I am mad that the doctor lied to my parents so that they wouldnt circumcise me yet recorded that I had an issue with my penis knowing full well what the corrective measures that could have taken place. Look, it's one thing to say no to a circumcision, it's another thing not to provide a solution. She never provided a solution and frankly maybe is she did I would have been able to resolve the phimosis issue and possibly still have a foreskin.

So no it's not a contradiction to my stance.

Sure, it does. You're not allowed to beat him, even if you believe it in his self-interest. Even if beating a kid were legal, if you learned a good, well-intentioned friend was beating his kid, wouldn't you raise concern about it to him? That's just what I'm doing here, albeit with a far more marginal harm. And you keep pulling this "NOT YOUR BUSINESS!" stuff on me, like I was forcing anything on you, or like the idea of custodial limitations was somehow novel.

Beating a kid is legal in the Bahamas. If a friend of mine beat his kid I would have nothing to say on it. Truly I wouldnt just as because I am not beating my kid I would not expect my friend to come to me and state that I should beat him, if he did then me and that friend would have words.

I care about the well-being of kids who I didn't sire too, dude. If I didn't care about other people, I wouldn't be bothering with ethics in the first place. I'd just be stockpiling Soviet firearms on a compound in Eastern Texas. Fortunately, virtually no one (including myself) rejects the idea that humans don't have an ethical interest in the well-being of other humans, even (maybe especially) if those other humans are powerless children. This is part of what keeps us from being nasty, brutish and short.

Yes but humans also understand that there are ethical differences. It's illegal in America to beat kids, but its fully legal in the Bahamas to beat kids. We have differences.

 

[darkbond007]

Hey guys, I have a question/observation for you - dumb as it might be. Could doing non-consensual circumcisions on a young teenager (as Muslims do as a mark of the boy becoming a man) be a reason why some of these guys are so fucking violent as men? I think that if my parents took me against my will, kicking and screaming, to get snipped in front of an audience, I'd be one pissed adult. As it were, I was cut as a very young baby and have ZERO recollection of it and therefore have no ill feelings towards anyone.

Just a wild observation.

No. I think it's their culture that breeds the violence within and it has little to do with their circumcision.

 

[B_thickjohnny]

So why isn't anyone screaming to defend the 13 year old Muslim kids?