Ah the good old circumcision debate

[jpgray]

Can we all agree that this chiefly cultural/cosmetic operation isn't that big of a deal? Most guys with turtlenecks are fine with that, most guys without are fine with that. It doesn't totally ruin one's sexual pleasure to be cut, and people don't generally find foreskins hideous to gaze upon--and those who've kept them can clean themselves just fine, thanks. It's possible that being cut will reduce HIV transmission, but most of the people arguing here are relatively monied compared to the people affected most in the study, and have received (in some amount) education concerning our very available prophylactics.

It's not mutilation comparable to female circumcision, foot-binding, ear-cutting, or whatever loony over the top analogy you are so weirdly breathless to make. At worst, it's like a small piercing or tattoo--changes you, yeah, but not in any truly drastic way. Just a silly little cultural snip that takes away some flesh but doesn't have any real profound impact on your life that is worthy of thousands and thousands of words debating its pros and cons. I think the best analogy to describe the way I've seen guys and gals look at it is the innie/outie belly button dichotomy. Neither is shameful or really seen as better or worse, though they are different.

I've spoken to a lot of guys, cut and uncut, about the heated debates here on the issue. The conclusion?

"Why are they so obsessed about it while we, both snipped and unsnipped, aren't?"

I dunno. :D This isn't a nanny post telling you to shut up and keep your opinions to yourself, just saying it's my opinion that the debate is way out of proportion to the importance of the issue, and I don't understand why that is. Maybe someone can tell me?

[Mythsaje]

1. Speaking for myself

This really tops the list of things I couldn't give a shit about.

I wouldn't bother debating it at gunpoint.

[11 Bravo]

5. Yet here you are.

:eyes:

[Nikki Stone1]

7. Not exactly. This OP speaks good sense, and I'll recommend it for that alone

I personally think you shouldn't snip off any part of a baby that isn't cancerous or gangrenous, but I don't think the topic deserves all the available threads in GD.

[Jonathan50]

50. But you didn't know that when you clicked on the topic

Face it, you are interested or you wouldn't have clicked on the topic.

I don't click on topics which do not interest me and I doubt that many here do, there is too much else to look at that does interest me.

[Virginian]

94. I opened my mouth and inserted my foot.

I had just moved to a more conservative area of the state and was in the jewelry department of Best, picking up a resized ring when I heard a man commented on the earrings. "If God had intended women to have pierced ears, they would have been born that way."

My foot flew into my mouth as I responded, "If God had intended men to be circumcized, they would have been born that way." Then I quietly hopped away, struggling to extract my foot. It had just come out of my mouth without any connection to the thought process. The first my brain knew about it was when my ears heard it.

I really have no strong opinions either way.

[Jonathan50]

113. You didn't put you foot in your mouth at all..

You were precisely correct..

And I agree with both statements..

[La Lioness Priyanka]

2. yeah these threads are beyond stupid.

[Writer]

3. Can we please add to this the equally pointless debate on public breastfeeding?

Thanks for a great post.

Writer.

:hi:

[liberal renegade]

4. turtlenecks

I think not, more like an anteater........

[Monk06]

37. The Helmut Heads. The Blue Acorns. etc ......

[Viva_La_Revolution]

6. I apologized to my oldest boy once...

coincidently after reading a DU debate thread.

He just turned a little red and said "Don't feel guilty, I'm happy with how everything works."

He's such a good boy. :loveya:

[phaseolus]

8. I joined DU in the summer of 2001...

...and I remember a pointless circumcision flamewar the first month I joined. I remember at least a half dozen others here, and at least a dozen I've seen on other forums since then.

Thank you for your sane comments.

[TZ]

9. I only joined DU in January of this year...

and I remember talking to someone here about what topics were likely to start flame wars, and she mentioned this topic. I didn't believe her really..it seemed such a nonissue to me...well, Horse With No Name...you were right on the button, and yet, I find I must look (like a train wreck I suppose):) BTW- The OP is indeed a good point about how I feel about the topic...

[El Supremo]

10. I told one of my old friends that it wasn't important and he was pissed.

You see he's a doctor who has been leading the charge against it. I said we need to pay more attention to such things as getting health care for the poor.

[Solly Mack]

11. Did you know about "foreskin restoration"? I didn't - until just a minute ago

This is a "foreskin restorer"



Do not ask me how it works. I don't know. I don't want to know.

I am not posting a link.

Google "foreskin restoration" for yourself.

[jpgray]

15. That terrifies me

:scared:

[Solly Mack]

19. Me too!!! I can't even begin to imagine...

[Kali]

35. I read once how Jews in concentration camps tried various things

to try to stretch some type of foreskin replacement. That is almost too serious for the current debates, but it always stuck with me as yet another example of real life or death needs v. our easy lives.

[Solly Mack]

129. That I understand

[many a good man]

40. Would that then be called a "mock turtleneck" ???

:rofl:

[valerief]

62. I just spit out my coffee! nt

[Recovered Repug]

105. I believe the correct term for a mock turtleneck is "dickey".

[ContraBass Black]

127. The sight of that instrument frightens me.

I don't want to know what goes where.

[WinkyDink]

12. I guess some guys need a reason to talk about..................

[Lilith Velkor]

130. Mmm-hmm

:eyes:

[sam sarrha]

13. well considering i lost 10's of thousands of nerve endings off the end of my dick.. it's mutilation.

and i am not even F'n JEWISH.. if someone wants to start a conspiracy about jews.. forget about world banking conspiracy and take a look at what they did to my dick.!!!:shrug: :cry: :sarcasm:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

16. You Do Know It's A Muslim Ritual Too...

BTW-Mohamed adopted a lot of Jewish law in the hope of converting the Jews...

[Madspirit]

14. k& 5th r

I was really surprised to log on and find all those threads on this. Wow.
I rather talk about Anna Nicole... : >
Lee

[Canuckistanian]

17. Speaking as an impassioned "crew-neck"

Who gives a F&^%$#?

[jpgray]

18. Let's hope "stroke! stroke! stroke!" punnery will stay far away from your crew-neck metaphor

[DemocratSinceBirth]

28. What's A Crew-Neck And What's An Ant-Eater

Our etymology never went beyond "cut" and "uncut"...

I never thought much about my circumcision before the advent of the "internets"...

[terrya]

20. It really isn't that big of a deal.

It's...unnecessary. And yeah, I sort of wish that my parents hadn't circumcised me. But I think in that time (the 1950's) when I was born, almost all parents had their sons circumcised.

But it's not some horrible trauma for me. There are far more important things to get angry about.

My .01. :-)

[Solo_in_MD]

21. Yep, the trolls are out in force on circumsion this weekend, must not be any real issues out there

[BlooInBloo]

22. I've learned my lesson. I'll never bitch about DUers and Anna Nicole, The View, or Paris again.

[KG]

23. i find it creepy that some men feel somehow traumatized about a minor operation

that happened to them before the were able to form memories, or brutalized because they had no say. those people have some issues i'm sure i don't want to know about.

[BlooInBloo]

34. They don't. They just want a slice of "victim pie".

[Jonathan50]

85. How did you learn to become a mind reader?

Or were you just born that way?

[frogcycle]

24. Well, its all well and good to be dismissive of a topic as important as this

but just how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

[jpgray]

27. I dunno, but I think if you snip the pin a bit the angels can't give it AIDS.

:shrug:

[rug]

25. It has echoes of the sneetch debate.

[jpgray]

26. Oh the Places DU'll Go!

[Gold Metal Flake]

29. I feel this is just the tip of something larger.

Meanwhile, Cheney is still safely in office.

[jpgray]

30. How long before someone claims Cheney's behavior is a displaced reaction to his being cut/uncut?

:P

[GOPisEvil]

31. This might be the most sensible thing you've ever posted.

Who knew you had it in ya? :D

But yeah, I got what I got, ya know.

[jpgray]

39. Ha! That's not saying much

About the sensibleness, I mean. :P

[Jonathan50]

32. LOL, a week or so ago there were probably thirty or forty threads about Paris Hilton..

I care far more about mutilation than I do Paris Hilton.

And yet very few people complain about multiple Hilton threads going on at the same time..

Even here on DU we let the MSM lead us around by the freakin' nose..

And earlobes are no more or less important than foreskins..

Every time I try to post about a deadly serious topic, the incredibly high incarceration rate in America, I get at most a couple or three dozen replies.

Sometimes I just like to put up a post to which I know people will respond..

I think the best thread I've had yet was when I said internal combustion vehicles are more efficient than electrics.. Wow did I get a lot of replies..

Sanskritwarrior's rant thread the other day was pretty good too, I really enjoyed that one.

[jpgray]

33. I think it's because people agree on most of the serious issues here

If there's no argument, there's no engine to generate a high volume of posts.

[Jonathan50]

36. Health care posts generate a lot of traffic

And I think there is a general consensus about that here..

I personally think it is shame which is driving the lack of posts on incarceration threads..

You constantly see people here advocating harsher and harsher punishments for ever more trivial crimes.

It really hit me on the thread about the guy doing two years of hard time for junk in his freakin' yard, practically everyone posting there thought he deserved it and more..

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

38. Way I See It, It's Up To Each Family And Not Anyone Else's Concern. I'm Thankful My Parents Did It.

Both my sons had it done within days of their birth as well. I'm not sure why this is such a heated topic on here. It's a decision for each family to make on their own.

[Jonathan50]

41. Serious question..

Why on earth are you "thankful" for something which you think is so trivial?

[jpgray]

42. I'm thankful for eggs in the morning. Sometimes bacon too.

I can be grateful for superficial and superfluous things. :D

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

44. Flawed Question.

I never said it was 'trivial'. You did.

All I said was that it's something that's left up to each family, and not of anyone else's concern.

So next time, don't put words in my mouth ok? Thanks. :hi:

[Jonathan50]

48. "I'm not sure why this is such a heated topic on here."

If you think circumcision is important then you would understand why it is a heated topic.

That you do not understand why it is a heated topic means that you do not think it is important.

Hence you think it is trivial.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

51. Jesus Now There's Some Warped Logic For Ya.

Method of deduction: F
Conclusion: F
Premise: F
Logical analysis: F
Accuracy: F
Creativity: B-

[Jonathan50]

56. Please show me how my logic is flawed

Chapter and verse..

Here is a list of logical fallacies, which one have I committed?

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html

If you are so sure that my logic is flawed you will have absolutely no problem showing me exactly which fallacy I have committted.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

60. Jesus Are You For Real? Sighhhhhhhh. You Are Saying That Just Because Someone Doesn't Understand

why people get outraged about things that are essentially none of their business, that means they think the topic is trivial. That's monumentally ludicrous and false in premise and of immensely flawed logic.

If you don't get that, ya don't get that. But trust me when I tell you the concept is absurd.

[Jonathan50]

64. So you can't show me how my logic is flawed

Even when I point you to an excellent resource on the subject.

Game, set, match.

Female circumcision is none of anyone else's business either and yet it is taken very seriously here.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

76. Oh My God You've Got To Be Kidding.

If you don't recognize how nonsensical and flawed your deduction is that concluded that it then must be 'trivial', then I really can't help you. It is so blatant; so obvious; so readily discerned.

I really don't see the use in talking to you any further if you can't grasp how silly that premise is. I'm not really sure what else to say. Holy cow. Holy friggin cow. :rofl:

[Jonathan50]

78. I will concede that you are correct if you but show me the flaw in my logic..

I pointed you to an excellent resource.

Since you are such an expert on logic I'm sure that you will have no problem pointing out exactly which logical fallacy I'm guilty of.

Show me and I will happily concede that you are indeed correct.

On edit: Your own words:

"Jesus Now There's Some Warped Logic For Ya."

If my logic is warped it will be easy to show me how.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

84. Whether You Concede Or Not Is Irrelevant Towards The Fact Your Premise Is Flawed. But If I Must,

I shall spoon feed you. As far as your 'excellent resource' goes, I didn't even click on it. Nor do I feel any desire to. I don't need a link to show why your logic is flawed. In fact, I think it has to be one of the most absurd things ever requested here. But I digress. Let's revisit your statement, shall we?

"If you think circumcision is important then you would understand why it is a heated topic."

Let's boil this down to its fundamental parts ok?

If you think _____ is important then _____ is a heated topic.

Ok, that's a good start. But it can be simplified further:

If ____ is important, ____ is a heated topic.

Still with me?

In its simplest form, it comes down to simply this:

Anything that's important is also then a heated topic.

Ok, let's test that hypothesis shall we?

I think being able to have food to eat is important. Should I expect that if I said this to people, they'd consider that a heated topic? Should I be of the understanding that some people would confront me in a heated manner, and declare "that's BULLSHIT mannnnnn, food isn't important. What are you talking about? People don't need food mannnnnn, you're an asshole for saying food's important!"? I mean, rilly? I should expect that confrontation? Survey says??????? Bzzzzzzzt. Not gonna happen.

So right there the ridiculous premise that starts the whole thing off is already shown to be false. But maybe the first test was a fluke. Let's try a second, even though all it takes is one failure to deem the logic not sound anyway:

I think having a safe working environment is important. Based on your logic, should it be my understanding that my saying so to people would run the risk of sparking outrage, and that I should expect some to shout "fuck that! Who needs a safe environment. SO WHAT if Bob chops his hand off! He has another one right? How can you say a safe working environment is important? That shit don't matter. Who gives a shit if the ceiling collapses on you. You're still making money right?"? Well, maybe if you're lucky there's a handful of people on earth who might say such stupidity. But does that make it a heated topic? Of course not. A heated topic is not one in which an insignificant and unrecognizable minority might have inclination to disagree. A heated topic is one in which it can be expected that such disagreement would be commonplace. So would we find that here? Survey says!!!!! Bzzzzztt. Nope. Test failed again.

So now that we've dealt squarely with that one, and your premise has already been now shown to have a tragic flaw within it, let's continue:


"That you do not understand why it is a heated topic means that you do not think it is important."

Ummmmm, ok. So this is just taking the first tragically flawed premise and reversing it on itself. Since the first was proven false, then based on the laws of logic this one is false as well. For example, if A <> B, then B <> A either. But for shits and giggles, lets dissect it anyway:

Actually, just on its face while beginning to dissect it, it just comes down to the same thing again. In its basic form it says "If you think something is important, then it is also a heated topic". Same shit as the first flawed statement. Already proved it wrong. No need to repeat the exercise.

"Hence you think it is trivial."

Jeez. Really? Ok I digress. Let's stick to logic here. Forsaking the fact that I've already proven your first two parts to be false, then this last line of conclusion is extremely irrelevant on its face; since in order to have any legitimacy, the parts preceding it would've had to have been legitimate. But they weren't, were they. But again for shits and giggles, we'll break it down anyway. Let's see what we've got:

First, let's combine the premises to get a fuller picture of what the conclusion is stating ok?

"If you think something isn't important, then you think it is trivial". One must only need basic access to a dictionary to prove that one false. Important means of great significance. Trivial means of little or no significance. Do you not think there's a middle ground there? I mean, can't there be things with SOME significance? Are you saying that every single thing in life has to either be important or trivial? For example, I wouldn't classify my cable modem as necessarily 'important', but I wouldn't feel too accurate considering it to be 'trivial' either. There is a middle ground. But showing that isn't even relevant nor necessary in this exercise anyway, since your first two parts (which were essentially the same phrase anyway) were shown to be false. In order for your conclusion of 'hence you think it is trivial' to be legitimate, it would first had to have been legitimate that I found it to be not important (which of course, only applies if I let you get away with the whole 'everything is either of great significance or no significance' concept) to begin with, which would've been concluded by an assertion that if something isn't a heated topic then it isn't important. But since I've already blown that ridiculous theory out of the water, then the conclusion that I found it to be unimportant cannot be made and therefore neither can a conclusion about then finding it to be trivial.

So your entire premise fell apart. It evaporated. There wasn't a bit of sound logic in it. It's been destroyed, decimated and buried. It's done.

Game set and match pal. See ya.

[Jonathan50]

87. Logical fallacies all have names

And have for at least two thousand years since they were deduced by the Greek philosophers.

If you cannot name the fallacy of which I am guilty, then you do not understand logical fallacies.

I have studied formal logic and it is exquisitely obvious that you have not.

Here is a very truncated list of logical fallacies.

# Accent
# Ad hoc
# Affirmation of the consequent
# Amphiboly
# Anecdotal evidence
# Argumentum ad antiquitatem
# Argumentum ad baculum / Appeal to force
# Argumentum ad crumenam
# Argumentum ad hominem
# Argumentum ad ignorantiam
# Argumentum ad lazarum
# Argumentum ad logicam
# Argumentum ad misericordiam
# Argumentum ad nauseam
# Argumentum ad novitatem
# Argumentum ad numerum
# Argumentum ad populum
# Argumentum ad verecundiam
# Audiatur et altera pars
# Bifurcation
# Circulus in demonstrando
# Complex question / Fallacy of interrogation / Fallacy of presupposition
# Fallacies of composition
# Converse accident / Hasty generalization
# Converting a conditional
# Cum hoc ergo propter hoc
# Denial of the antecedent
# The fallacy of accident / Sweeping generalization / Dicto simpliciter
# Fallacy of division
# Equivocation / Fallacy of four terms
# The extended analogy

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

92. Dude, I Just Decimated Your Whole Premise. Who Gives A Shit What Technical Name It's Called?

My god this just gets sillier and sillier.

Call it whatever the fuck ya want. Do you think anyone gives a rats fat ass as to what technical name is given to your logical violation? I know I don't. All I know is I just took it and decimated it. You should be more concerned with that, and the fact that your premise was shown to be absurd, then you are about what friggin name we choose for why it was absurd.

This has to be the silliest return response I've ever seen in response to a logical premise being destroyed. See pal, there was only one point to this conversation: Did your question have merit, or didn't it. Did your logic used in deriving that question have merit, or didn't it. That's the ONLY thing this conversation comes down to. My previous post handily pointed out why there was no legitimacy to the premise. I was gracious enough to actually take my time to prove something that most people would recognize off the top of their heads. That's all this subthread was about. Was the premise sound or was it tragically flawed. I've shown it to be tragically flawed. There's nothing more to discuss. Call it whatever friggin name you want LOL. Still doesn't bring any legitimacy back to a premise that has already been logically decimated.

This is done now. Your question had no merit. I've spelled out explicitly the reasons why. I'm floored that you somehow still feel the need to continue. I don't. I already accomplished what was necessary; which was proving why the question was tragically flawed in premise. So better luck next time! :hi:


(oh, and on edit, you've studied formal logic and I haven't, yet I'm the one who just destroyed your logical premise with my own 'untrained' logic. So what does that tell you? :rofl:

See, logic is something that one either gets or doesn't get. You don't need classes to see it. You just need a mind to understand it. Yay for you that you know a whole bunch of technical names of logical arguments. But if you can't actually recognize what is and isn't logical, then I fail to see how knowledge of what the names of your flaws are helps your situation any. But I digress)

[Jonathan50]

97. So, you claim to be better at something you admit you have never studied

Than one who has.

How do you get out of bed carrying the weight of your ego?

All your histrionics impress neither me nor anyone else here..

In fact they make you appear quite childish.

It would appear that you do not even realize your own ignorance.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

112. Look A Few Replies Upward. I'd Say In This Case It Is Now More Of A Fact Than A Claim.

But forsaking that glaring obviousness, I can even blow this current flawed logic of yours out of the water:


"So, you claim to be better at something you admit you have never studied Than one who has."

Let's break this one down ok?

In essence you're trying to imply the following:

If one hasn't studied something in the classroom, then they cannot be better then someone who has.

Ummmm, rilly?

My father never took a piano lesson in his life. Can't read a note of music. If you tell him to play a song he's heard just few enough times to recognize, he can play it right then and there, first time trying, without a flaw. How many piano students can do that?

I've never studied or taken a class on coding in my life. Yet I was just promoted a few weeks ago to a systems specialist. I'm the best query guru my work has ever had and I am now well capable of writing script in SQL, PL/SQL, VB and some others. I am skilled in database creation and other tasks as well. I've figured this all out on my own, using my own brain. I'm better at it now then anyone else in my company, that have taken scores of classes and have studied it for years.

I could give you a brazillion examples that would continue to show how ridiculous of a premise this was as well. Do you truly think that to be better than someone at something, one must had to have taken a class where the other didn't? Do you seriously think for a second that something that requires such intellectual power, such inherent ability to deduce and such capable method of analyzing such as logic, is something that can be acquired from simply studying it? That's the biggest flawed logic of them all. Logic is something you either grasp or don't grasp. I'm sure there are many students in logic classes that couldn't even begin to put forth any real logic that carries legitimacy. But hey, at least they might now the name of the flaw to use in describing their failures, right? Guess that stands for something (nothing).


"How do you get out of bed carrying the weight of your ego?"

Arrogance, yes. Ego? No. I'm just confident in my ability, and am capable of proving why. That's not an ego. But I do put it forth arrogantly, yes. But arrogance doesn't weight much, so I get out of bed just fine.

"All your histrionics impress neither me nor anyone else here.."

Actually, I impress people all the time. Too bad we can't forward PM's here. You'd see so quickly how wrong you are there LOL. But that's inconsequential anyway. I don't set out to impress. I set out to make whatever point it is that I choose to make. If you post to impress, well more power to ya. But I'm not sure how well you've fared tonight.

"In fact they make you appear quite childish."

You put forth a completely flawed premise that directly assigned a concept to me that didn't exist. All I did was intellectually and soundly defeat that premise with pure logic. That isn't childish. What could be childish is your persistence in now using character attack in order to conclude your argument, since the logical parts of it were decimated.

"It would appear that you do not even realize your own ignorance."

That's novel. I'm the one who showed quite precisely how your premise was tragically flawed. You, on the other hand, are stubbornly holding firm to the ideal that you had been right somehow, despite not providing any return refutation as to why or how. In fact, all you could say in response to my post which blew your logic out of the water was "yeah? Well what is the failure called?". I mean, give me a friggin break. Now you conclude that it is I that is on the level of ignorance? That's fairly amusing, since you can't poke a hole in a damn thing I've said.

So let's be done with this. I have refuted logical point after logical point of yours. Must we continue? I think this subject is pretty well dead now, and I'm not sure I want to see what kind of twisted logic would be coming next.

So off to bed I go, to awake once more with my prominent yet light enough to carry arrogance. Sleep well, better luck to you tomorrow.

[Jonathan50]

117. "I've never studied or taken a class on coding in my life."

You have never read a book on coding?

You just sat down one day and immediately started churning out world class code?

Somehow, I kind of doubt that.

It took me considerable effort to learn to code. I bought a Timex Sinclair 1000 in 1985, bought a book on programming on the TS 1000 and sweated it out myself, and I've been improving ever since.

But I did it all on my own, I've never taken any sort of formal training beyond HS, I am entirely an autodidact.

Frankly, you use too many words to be a good logician, tight logic, like tight code is sparse and carefully arranged.

You write like a spaghetti coder.

On edit:

Your claim above to be a great logician without knowing even the names of any logical fallacies is like someone claiming to be a great coder who has never even heard of a FOR NEXT loop.

I've programmed in everything from Z80 machine code to 6809 assembly language to LOGO to FORTH to many varieties of BASIC to C+ (which I think bites hard) to various microcontroller languages, both compiled and interpreted.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

121. Nope. Never Read One Book On It.

Never had one class.

Never had any mentor.

I played around, and slowly but surely got a knack for it. I'd see other people's code and be able to deduce what it was it was trying to do. Slowly but surely I learned. Then I taught myself further and further. Just experimenting and learning. Got me far enough that I'm now so good at what I do that I'm a systems specialist in the AMS group and do it as good as anyone there. But I recognize that there are many concepts I don't yet know, so I'm thinking of taking a few courses of advanced techniques.

But still, up to this point I've had no other training or studies then what I have figured out for myself. 100% self taught.

But the point is, you were putting forth a premise that one who has taken an official course on something is better by default then someone who hasn't. Such a concept is patently absurd and quite silly of one to put forth.

And as for your knock on my code, I bet ya I'd blow you away insofar as technique, speed, simplicity, resources, and intended output. But that's a challenge for another day. :evilgrin:

In any case, please accept that your logic has been thoroughly refuted for all to see throughout this entire thread. You'll feel better tomorrow for having done so; I promise.

Goodnight.

[Jonathan50]

123. You have a true talent for reading things which are not written..

"But the point is, you were putting forth a premise that one who has taken an official course on something is better by default then someone who hasn't."

Once again you leap to unwarranted conclusions.

Please show me where I said I had taken a class in formal logic.

"Studied" may have an implication of taking a formal class but that implication is not always correct.

I never mentioned your code, I have never seen your code so I have no way of knowing how well you code.

What I wrote was "You *write* *like* a spaghetti coder".

Just wondering, would you go to an autodidact surgeon?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

125. Let It Go Dude. You've Been Thoroughly Debunked In This Subthread. It's Time To Walk Away.

Let's not lose sight of what this is all about: Your saying that the context of the OP was trivial to me, because I found it unimportant, which was derived from my stating that I didn't understand why it's such a heated topic. I have by now blown that ridiculously conceived warped logic out of the water. There's nothing more to talk about. The context of the subthread has already been long proven in my favor. It's time to take your ball and go home; so to speak.

I don't care what kind of studies you've had on the subject, you require further studying. My logic is my own, from my own mind, from my own capability, from my own genius. It was more than enough to tear yours to shreds, and I say that not out of ego but out of simple reality of action. It's all still there up above. So maybe you shouldn't be touting your studies of the field so much, if you are going to so thoroughly fail in their application in the real world.

This has been fun for me. You've made it too easy. But I'm confident in not only being able to declare that I have PROVEN your premise to be flawed as stated originally, but that just about anyone else following this as well can plainly see that to be the case as well. Therefore, I'm outtie. If you want to stick your believe that you are well studied and that helped your argument somehow, then I can't stop you. But of all the logical battles I've found myself in, this was hands down one of the most simplistic and easy to refute ones I've come across. I thought that to be so obvious up front, that I reckoned you'd recognize it on your own without my having to spoon feed it to you. But alas, I did have to anyway, and I did. That's where I decimated your entire premise to the point that no shred of it could be saved.

Like I said; ya can't win em all pall. Get some sleep and try again with some other premise tomorrow. File this one away as a lesson learned that hopefully you can do better from next time.

Goodnight :hi:

[Name removed]

126. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[petronius]

133. The fallacy you committed in Post 48 is 'Begging the Question'

Thanks for the list; I've been looking for that one...

[Jonathan50]

134. Perhaps you could explain your reasoning?

I don't follow you..

[petronius]

136. You based you argument on the premise that if OMC cared about the topic

he would have understood why it got heated. You then used this premise to demonstrate that he didn't care because he didn't understand. IOW, you created a questionable premise to support a conclusion that you wanted - which makes the comclusion questionable...

[Jonathan50]

138. But you have failed to demonstrate why the premise is questionable..

[petronius]

139. That sounds like 'Shifting the Burden of Proof'

:)

The premise is questionable because you pulled it out of thin air to support your intended conclusion. It's your job to demonstrate that it's valid, not mine.

Beyond that, it seems quite reasonable to me that a poster might consider any number of topics crucially important, and yet be gobsmacked when these topics turn into flamefests...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

43. You Forgot The Controversy Started By The Spanking Threads...

I started a spanking poll that got over four hundred responses ...

[Chulanowa]

45. It's not a big deal

But should we be snipping off bits of our babies to meet a cultural aesthetic? It's always just struck me as weird.

[jpgray]

46. It's a totally valid question. I don't want to dispute that.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

47. There Are Obvious Health Benefits You Know...

eom

[Jonathan50]

49. If foreskins are such an evolutionary disadvantage..

Then why have they not evolved off the human penis?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

54. I Don't Have A Fucking Clue

I do know that the medical research suggests circumcision reduces the risk of spreading HIV/AIDS, the humanpappiloma virus which cause cervical cancer, phismosis and paraphimosis....

[DemocratSinceBirth]

57. And Penile Cancer

eom

[Jonathan50]

61. But you are so informed on the topic..

Mechanisms which are evolutionarily disadvantageous tend to evolve themselves out of a species.

You do believe in evolution, don't you?

And you do believe the fittest genes are those which have the greatest chance of being passed on to the next generation, don't you?

If foreskins were evolutionarily disadvantageous then one would logically expect that some human population would have lost the foreskin.

And yet, there are no human populations in which the foreskin has shrunken or disappeared.

I know that you will bring up the appendix and the gall bladder.

Both the appendix and the gall bladder are problems which usually show up after the breeding age is over in primitive populations, hence they have little effect on the passage of genes on to the next generation.

According to your reports, that is not true with foreskins, they have a significant impact well before the breeding age is over in primitive populations, hence they have an effect on the passage of genes to the next generation.

Cats have foreskins, dogs have foreskins, as far as I am aware, the majority of mammalian species have foreskins.

Why might this be?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

68. Hmmmm

"Cats have foreskins, dogs have foreskins, as far as I am aware, the majority of mammalian species have foreskins."

I'm not a dog or cat...I'm a human being... And as human beings we have the ability to think and adapt to our environments before waiting for nature to take its course...

As far as I know other mammals don't elect to have abortions. If I embrace your logic human beings shouldn't have abortions either....

[Jonathan50]

71. My argument is about evolution

That should be obvious given that I used that word or a variation of it probably eight or ten times in my post..

[Writer]

72. Well, let's see... this is how selective evolution works.

We are all naked. I (a female) decide to shop for a mate by walking down the street. I spot a man.

"Hey, look!" I say. "That man has an especially SHORT foreskin! I want HIM to impregnate me."

Nine months later... I'm admiring my new baby.

"Why, look at that," I say to my dear husband. "He has hardly any foreskin."

A friend of mine throws a baby shower. I'm holding my cute little naked bundle of joy. My friends huddle around.

"Look!" says Suzie. "He hardly has any foreskin!"

"You're right!" says Lucy. "I should find a man with a small foreskin!"

Nine months later, Suzie and Lucy hold their new baby boys, with small foreskins.

"Ahhh... how adorable. What small foreskins they have!"

Forward twenty-five years. My son, now grown, walks down the street naked with his two best friends, Suzie and Lucy's sons.

Three attractive young women approach them.

"Hi!" they say. "I can't help but notice how short your foreskins are! Would you like to impregnate us?"


And there you have it. The beauty of how selective evolution works, boys and girls. :thumbsup:

[Chulanowa]

106. Ever notice...

That the anti-evolutionists are always clothed?

It's a conspiracy, I say! *Shakes fist*

[qdemn7]

103. Why have they not evolved away?

How about Punctuated equilibrium? Does that sort of help? Jeez you sound like some fundie asking questions about EVILution.

Oh yes I was uncircumcised at birth. I had it done when I became an adult. I hated being uncircumcised, I wish it had been done for me as a child. DemocratSinceBirth's description is perfect for me.

"My husband is much happier since he was circumcised. He says sensation is greatly increased for him. He can feel me during intercourse because his glans is always exposed. Before, he used to slide back and forth inside his foreskin, hardly feeling me at all."

[Chulanowa]

55. One could make that argument for a lot of things

And you could get really goofy with it - "Removing fingernails significantly reduces your child's chances of having a nasty and painful ingrown toenail!"

At the bottom line, it's cosmetic surgery to make your son's penis look like you think it should look. Why not give him a prince albert while you're down there? :D

[DemocratSinceBirth]

58. I Think These Benefits Are Greater Than The Benefits Of Reducing The Incidence Of Ingrown Toenails

1) It reduces the rik of HIV/AIDS:


Circumcision appears to reduce a man's risk of contracting AIDS from heterosexual sex by half, United States government health officials said yesterday, and the directors of the two largest funds for fighting the disease said they would consider paying for circumcisions in high-risk countries.

The announcement was made by officials of the National Institutes of Health as they halted two clinical trials, in Kenya and Uganda, on the ground that not offering circumcision to all the men taking part would be unethical. The success of the trials confirmed a study done last year in South Africa.



http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&r...

2) It reduces the risk of transmitting the humanpappiloma virus that is responsible for cervical cancer in women by 300%:



Earlier studies on Western men have shown that circumcision significantly reduces the rate at which men infect women with the virus that causes cervical cancer. A study published in 2002 in The New England Journal of Medicine found that uncircumcised men were about three times as likely as circumcised ones with a similar number of sexual partners to carry the human papillomavirus.



http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9905E0D7...

3) It reduces the incidence of penile cancer:


The National Cancer Institute (NCI) says men who are not circumcised (Read about "Circumcision") at birth may have a higher risk for getting cancer of the penis.

http://www.stayinginshape.com/3osfcorp/libv/c27.shtml

[gollygee]

65. These statistics aren't very useful unless they're compared to the risks of circumcision

First, if the chance of penile cancer goes from 0.00000001% to 0.00000003% or something along those lines, it isn't enough to cause me to put a child through surgery. I realize the rates are higher than that for the other diseases but they're still low.

Second, you would have to compare those risks to the risks of circumcision. There are complications to any surgery. And the foreskin is a fold of skin - no one knows at 2 days of age how much of that skin is going to be needed with the boy reaches sexual maturity. The only reason I have an opinion about circumcision at all is because I dated someone once who had that particular problem - he needed at least some of that skin but didn't have it. Otherwise, I don't think the issue of circumcision would have occurred to me until I was pregnant. And since I had a daughter it probably wouldn't have occurred to me much even then. My husband is circumcised and I'm very happy with him - I don't think it makes any difference sexually. I have no other reason to care except that at I dated someone who had a problem because of his circumcision, and I might someday have a son.

You are pointing out one set of risks - and in the case of the HIV study in Africa, the results can't even be assumed to be relevant to the US. You are ignoring any risks at all associated with circumcision.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

70. Au Contraire

Earlier studies on Western men have shown that circumcision significantly reduces the rate at which men infect women with the virus that causes cervical cancer. A study published in 2002 in The New England Journal of Medicine found that uncircumcised men were about three times as likely as circumcised ones with a similar number of sexual partners to carry the human papillomavirus.



http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9905E0D7...

A study was performed on Western men and the study suggested that uncircumcised men were about three times as likely as circumcised ones with a similar number of sexual partners to carry the human papillomavirus.

I'm not ignoring the dangers associated with circumcision...Like any surgery there are risks involved and one must weigh the potential risks against the potential benefits of the surgery...

[gollygee]

73. The big problem with HPV is that it causes cervical cancer

Only a very small percentage of women actually get cervical cancer, and there's a vaccine now that will bring that number down even more. This is still not in my opinion a large enough risk to warrant the risks of circumcision.

I agree that most men don't need that extra bit of skin, but if you're one who needs it, you really need it and you can't get it back if it was taken off after birth. And there is no way to know at 2 days after birth who will need it. If I have a son and he wants to get it done as an adult, I'll understand. He'll be old enough at that point to know whether he needs the foreskin.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

74. If You Isolate Every Benefit It Changes The Equation

But when you add up all the benefits it becomes tangible...

If you have a son and don't want him circumcised I respect your decision and I hope your respect my decision for what is right for me and right for my son...

I think I am intelligent enough to weigh the pros and cons of any medical procedure and decide what is necessary and what isn't...

[Chulanowa]

75. Your link doesn't go anywhere

Got me curious though - What's the connection between foreskins and these diseases? Do the virii spawn from the foreskin, or is it a matter of hygiene? If it's smegma that's the problem, then Washing the damn thing becomes that much more important (nobody likes a cheesedick anyway) Or perhaps its a matter of there being more skin surface for the viruses to infect - in which case "bigger isn't always better" grows a little more valid :)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

77. Sorry

Heres's one link

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9905E0D71531F937A25751C1A9609C8B63

[Chulanowa]

79. Ahhhh

Interesting article.

So tell me why you have this preference for shaving skin off a penis, rather than using condoms?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

81. Because Condom Compliance Is Pitiful

If condom compliance wasn't pitiful there wouldn't be 3,000,000 new cases of sexually transmitted diseases, 40,000 new cases of HIV/AIDS , and 1,300,000 abortions every year in the United States despite admonitions that you shouldn't have sex with a person whose sexual history you do not know or at least without a condom...

I'm also puzzled... The opponents of circumcision contend that the procedure results in loss of sensation on one hand and then argue if there is any additional health risk to the uncircumcised man this can be eliminated by wearing condoms but certainly a piece of latex between you and your partner is going to reduce a lot of the sensation the anti-circumcision advocates prize...

[Chulanowa]

100. Am I reading right...

So snipping off all those foreskins will prevent 3,000,000 cases of STD's, 40,000 cases of HIV / AIDS, and 1,300,00 abortions ever year in the United States? Seems to me that if you're in the market for preventing disease and unwanted pregnancy, you'd really be better off trying to encourage condom use rather than cutting off some skin and hoping for the best, you know?

I'm not so much an opponent, as I just think it's weird. Just like I think it's weird that my own ancestors put these contraptions on their kid's head to flatten them. Sure your hat fits a little better, and you're more aerodynamic when you're diving headfirst, but it's still weird :) I wouldn't know about sensation loss - my own seems to work just fine. In my head, it's an issue of a practice that would be considered deranged and perverted were it found in a book other than the Big Book of Genocide. That much interest in a child's genitals is just a little on that side of "messed up".

[DemocratSinceBirth]

124. This Makes Sense To Me

I'm a magazine publisher not a scientist but I'll give it a try...

Various studies have suggested that male circumcision can reduce the risk of HIV/AIDS, penile cancer, and the humanpappiloma virus which is one of the causes of cervical cancer. By how much is debateable...

The opponents of circumcision say most of these risks can be lessened or eliminated by just wearing condoms...

But as I demonstrated condom compliance in the United States is pitiful...If "everybody" who was supposed to wear a condom wore one there would not be 3,000,000 cases of STD's, 40,000 cases of HIV / AIDS, and 1,300,00 abortions ever year....


My point is a lot of of people are not wearing them...

[Jonathan50]

128. Monogamy is an excellent prophylactic..

For STDs

Don't fool around, don't get infected.

I've never had a UTI since I met my wife.

It seems like most women get UTIs or yeast infections on a fairly regular basis.

I guess the sewer system is just a little too close to the playground.

[Virginian]

101. Oh, I like this part...

Uncircumcised men are thought to be more susceptible because the underside of the foreskin is rich in Langerhans cells, sentinel cells of the immune system, which attach easily to the human immunodeficiency virus, which causes AIDS. The foreskin also often suffers small tears during intercourse.

So, if a man has a foreskin, the woman doesn't suffer as many "small tears during intercourse?"

[Jonathan50]

80. Ingrown toenails can easily lead to infection, gangrene and death.

I guess you've never had an ingrown toenail.

I've had ingrown toenails and I've had gonorrhea, ingrown toenail hurts a lot worse..

Like I said, I was a child of the sexual revolution. :)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

82. Twenty Two Million People Have Died From Aids Since The Epidemic Began

Surely you aren't suggesting the same number of people died from ingrown toe nails in the past twenty five or so years...

[Jonathan50]

88. And of course every single one of those AIDS deaths could have been

Prevented had only the men involved had circumcisions.

Better try again..

[DemocratSinceBirth]

93. You Compared The Procedures Not Me...

eom

[Jonathan50]

99. But you were the one implying that all AIDS deaths could have been avoided

If but only all the men had been circumcised.

Since you never mentioned a percentage of those who died of AIDS who might have been saved by circumcision, your implication was that all of them would have been.

And I was not the one who originally brought up ingrown toenails, I just picked the ball up and ran with it.

[tjwash]

52. Statement decrying circumsision as worthless and barbarian...

...with camouflaged reference to own gigantic penis size.

Then I'll follow it with a freeper bashing non-sequitor...followed by disparaging comment of your maturity level and critical thinking skills, concluded with the assertion that you're a poopy doo-doo head.

I'll conclude by launching a bitter tirade about how DU ain't what it used to be, and a cane wielding expletive filled rant about getting out of my yard.

[SPKrazy]

53. I'm glad to have been clipped

I'm happy with the decision that was made for me.

I also didn't decide to be born

:shrug:

what's the big deal

[Jonathan50]

66. Why are you glad..

When you really have no idea whether it was a boon or a bane?

I'm not "glad" that I'm intact, I just am.

I'm against body modification without informed consent on general principle.

[SPKrazy]

131. Because it gives me no benefit to be sad about it...

I can't change it, it hasn't been a problem to me, I didn't ask to be born either.

So I make what I make out of the world.

I am glad to be what I am.

That's all.

No principle of good or bad, just is.

:hi:

[The Straight Story]

59. This issue does not affect women so they should shut up about it

:rofl:

Sorry, just had to :)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1155838

[Manifestor_of_Light]

83. Yes, it DOES affect women.

There is a huge difference in sex with an uncut man versus a cut man.

Sex with an uncut man is much more pleasurable and there is far less friction for both parties.

Unfortunately in my age group, uncut men are pretty rare.

[VelmaD]

86. bullshit

My ex was uncut and he was the WORST lover I've ever had. Whether the guy knows what he's doing is WAY more important than whether or not he's circumcised when it comes to pleasurable sex.

Sorry, I normally don't jump into this argument because I think it's none of my business. But I've heard this particular "fact" bandied about one too many times and it's utter nonsense.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

90. Being A Good Lover Is About Genuinely Caring About Your Partner

Being a good mate requires a lot more than having the right genitals...

[Jonathan50]

111. Ahh..

You and I agree completely at last.

I'm glad to find common ground.

On edit:

"Love is the state of caring more about someone else's happiness than your own" -Robert A Heinlein

[Jonathan50]

95. Another mind reader on this thread..

Kewl, I never knew there were so many of you..

Certainly, technique and staying power are more important than the foreskin or lack of one.

But I suspect the lady you were replying to meant to say that all other things being equal, an anteater was more pleasurable for her than a helmet head.

Which you have no way of knowing whether that is true for her or not.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

96. You're Confused...

Both posters shared their personal experience... You chose to embrace the poster whose experience reinforced your prejudice and reject the poster whose experience didn't...

[Jonathan50]

102. No I didn't at all...

Read my post more carefully.. I said that for the original poster, all things being equal, her pleasure was greater with an intact male..

I never said anything about the poster to whom I was replying.

[VelmaD]

98. I don't think I read anything into that post at all

I took it at face value. The poster didn't say "for me" or "in my experience" or even "all other things being equal"...just that sex with an uncut man was better. That there was "a huge difference" and that it was "much more pleasurable". Period. I didn't see any qualifiers in that post or in any of the others every time this issue comes up that say uncut=better sex. It doesn't.

On the other hand, you essentially admit you are reading her mind. Some of what you post would be funny if it wasn't sad.

[Jonathan50]

107. Here are my exact words...

"But I suspect the lady you were replying to meant to say that all other things being equal, an anteater was more pleasurable for her than a helmet head."

I very carefully avoided claiming that I knew what was in her mind..

That is what I meant by "I suspect".

You made exactly the same error of which you are now accusing her.

[VelmaD]

108. you still have failed to ellucidate...

at all how my original reply to the poster in question in ANY way could be construed as trying to read her mind. I merely stated that her premise was, in my experience, wrong. You were the one who felt compelled to jump in with snark. And an interpretation of what she meant.

[Jonathan50]

110. Your exact words..

"But I've heard this particular "fact" bandied about one too many times and it's utter nonsense."

"Utter nonsense" certainly doesn't leave much room for equivocation.

[VelmaD]

115. yet again...

if you re-read the post in question, it was stated, without any equivocation or qualifiers, that sex with uncut men was better. As if it was an un-impeachable fact. Not an opinion. Not an observation from that person's own life. But a fact. The TRUTH. Period.

So my response was equally unequivocal. Because I know from first-hand experience that it is not always true. Apparently it's only ok to be unequivocal in one's opinion when one agrees with you.

What. Ever.

Have a nice life.

P.S. I noticed you didn't answer my point about my alleged mind-reading. But I didn't really expect you to.

[Jonathan50]

118. I did indeed address your point about mind reading..

Your exact words:

'But I've heard this particular "fact" bandied about one too many times and it's utter nonsense."

"how my original reply to the poster in question in ANY way could be construed as trying to read her mind."

"Utter nonsense" means that the statement you are referring to is never true for anyone at any time.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

89. This Woman Disagrees With You

"My husband is much happier since he was circumcised. He says sensation is greatly increased for him. He can feel me during intercourse because his glans is always exposed. Before, he used to slide back and forth inside his foreskin, hardly feeling me at all."

This woman too:

"For me, sexual intercourse was pleasant but not terribly gratifying. It seemed to me that my husband was penetrating his own foreskin rather than my vagina..."

But I respect your opinions and experiences as you should their's...

[qdemn7]

104. Excellent post, thanks

Describes my feelings exactly.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

116. Your Welcome

But it was a plea for personal choice...

I'm cut and happy with my sex life and my partners like me as I am...

If someone is uncut and happy I am happy for them also...

Viva la difference...

[Jonathan50]

109. To each their own..

Everyone is different, and different people experience the same thing in different ways..

[piesRsquare]

119. Speak for yourself

I prefer "cut", thank you very much. I've experienced both.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

120. Let me add, "In my experience". Okay??

To be graphic I have sat in a hot tub of water in pain from a wild weekend with a circumcised man.

I have never had that kind of pain with an uncut one. There is far less friction for both parties, and the glans is not desensitized in an uncut man, from what I have been told.

If I was a man I would not want millions of extremely sensitive nerve cells and endings removed from the most sensitive part of my body without my consent.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

122. Folks Should Respect Your Experience As You Do Their's...

Different strokes for different folks...

I wouldn't presume, in a million years, to tell somebody what is and isn't pleasurable for them...

[JVS]

132. Let's do some other sloganeering

They can take my foreskin when they pry it from my cold dead hand/penis

[valerief]

63. So which prez candies have been snipped? nt

[Writer]

67. Hillary hasn't, from what I understand.

:shrug:

[valerief]

69. Give her time. nt

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

91. I have no skin in this game but

:rofl: has anybody used that yet? Am I the first? :rofl:

I haven't read any of the threads so I dunno and duncare either. But from from the sheer volume of posts I can see that this is an important issue for ever DUer to weigh in on so let me just say that uncut is more fun to play with but it doesn't matter either way because well I'll just keep that to myself.

Sex thread! :woohoo:

[Hissyspit]

114. If we can't get impeachment, can we get circumcision? ...

http://www.imgred.com/

[johnnie]

135. Once again jpgray, you hit the proverbial nail

I really dig your threads, they are always right on.

[Warren DeMontague]

137. Because if we're not talking about dick,

we'll be forced to talk about Dick.