|
Braavos36392 Posts
On April 22 2009 05:54 DreaM)XeRO wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2009 05:52 Chef wrote:
You can't miss what you never knew you had, but does that give someone a right to take it away when you're born? :o honestly who gives a shit
If people are discussing it they clearly care about it. Your post is useless trash, it adds nothing to the discussion other than single you out to moderators as an idiot. If people didn't care they wouldn't post and this thread wouldn't get bumped. That's how forums work.
On April 22 2009 06:16 Chef wrote:
Not wearing a condom is what will give you problems with disease transmission. I don't really see it as being much safer to not have foreskin if your sexual partner has a contagious disease. I mean, you're asking me for evidence that they'd be the same, I'm asking you for reason to believe they'd be different. I don't really feel like the burden of proof is on me to debunk a claim that is clearly ridiculous.
It doesn't really matter how 'well thought out' your posts are, if you don't do your own research.
Dude he gave you plenty of research and sources that pretty clearly refuted everything you said. What more do you want?
|
United States24768 Posts
On April 22 2009 06:27 n.DieJokes wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2009 03:13 micronesia wrote:It's a requirement at many Jewish sororities. On April 22 2009 03:01 choboPEon wrote:
Just to throw out the cleanliness factor - this was true when, you know, people were terrible with hygiene. In 2009, with showers and soap, it is really really not an issue - I promise. Soroities?....
Somebody asked the same exact thing in this thread, and I responded. Read the thread...
Edit: Hot_Bid that other guy went about it the wrong way, but making the point that it's not something you should care about is reasonable imo.
|
Braavos36392 Posts
On April 22 2009 07:12 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2009 06:27 n.DieJokes wrote:On April 22 2009 03:13 micronesia wrote:It's a requirement at many Jewish sororities. On April 22 2009 03:01 choboPEon wrote:
Just to throw out the cleanliness factor - this was true when, you know, people were terrible with hygiene. In 2009, with showers and soap, it is really really not an issue - I promise. Soroities?.... Somebody asked the same exact thing in this thread, and I responded. Read the thread... Edit: Hot_Bid that other guy went about it the wrong way, but making the point that it's not something you should care about is reasonable imo.
That's entirely the point I'm making. You can't go into a thread and say "honestly who gives a shit". How is that an acceptable post? He's not making a rational argument that the effects of circumcision and non circumcision is negligible. That would be reasonable.
|
http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/STD/
http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/
Just instead of relying CDC as the only source of information
Studies from Africa
A number of studies from Africa point to the fact that the regions of Africa most troubled with HIV infection tend to overlap with the regions where male circumcision is rare. However, this does not imply a causal link: If the same argument were applied to the industrialized world, one would note that the United States has a high circumcision rate, and also has the highest prevalence of HIV.28,31,32 38 Circumcision alone cannot explain these differences. Furthermore, the applicability of data from Africa vis-à-vis the conditions in developed countries—where hygiene standards, prevalence of different STDs, and strains of HIV differ greatly—is questionable. Rather, these variances can be explained by looking at cultural differences and sexual practices.
|
United States12607 Posts
On April 22 2009 07:35 Wotans_Fire wrote:http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/STD/ http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/Just instead of relying CDC as the only source of information Studies from Africa Show nested quote +A number of studies from Africa point to the fact that the regions of Africa most troubled with HIV infection tend to overlap with the regions where male circumcision is rare. However, this does not imply a causal link: If the same argument were applied to the industrialized world, one would note that the United States has a high circumcision rate, and also has the highest prevalence of HIV.28,31,32 38 Circumcision alone cannot explain these differences. Furthermore, the applicability of data from Africa vis-à-vis the conditions in developed countries—where hygiene standards, prevalence of different STDs, and strains of HIV differ greatly—is questionable. Rather, these variances can be explained by looking at cultural differences and sexual practices.
Um yeah, that site definitely looks comparable to the CDC in integrity (sarcasm)
...did you bother to check out the homepage, or just blindly click on it because it was the first result in Google? Maybe you should take a look:
http://www.cirp.org/
Yeah...you know a site is host to a plethora of accurate scientific information when it has 6 colorful badges!
Not to mention it hasn't been updated since 2007, and the point you quoted isn't relevant to any of the sources I used or arguments I've made. Also I'd like to note that the CDC is not the only source I used, just merely a particularly respected/comprehensive one.
PS cirp.org is apparently run by "Tilted Media Group" and about 2 seconds of reading their homepage will alert you to the fact that they are clearly biased on this issue.
Edit: oh man this is almost too good, one of the links on their main page is to the homepage of MUSIC (404s now, what a great and reliable website cirp.org is): Musicians United to Stop Involuntary Circumcision. Amazing
|
Well I admit that it was because it was the first result in google I don't really feel the need to research the topic in depth and I guess I should trust the american government sponsored research ... however thought that the point about rate of HIV in America is quite high to be a valid point. Anyway the point is that those african studies are really quite extreme and cultural differences vary.
|
circumcision adds the risk of babies in hospitals getting their penis cut off on accident. Doctors then pump them full of hormones and turn their penis into a vagina.
The sad reality for some transsexuals
On the actual issue of male circumcision, there really isn't a difference except its supposedly cleaner but doesn't feel as good
|
I think since this is a paper about ethics, it should be more about "do other people have the right to make decisions concerning your body for you?" and less about the potential pros and cons of circumcision.
But only if the pros and cons are close, as in western culture, where issues like HIV are much less apparent. In africa, it seems, the benefits to health outweigh the cons, and it should be treated similarly to a vaccination. And a mediocre one at that.
|
United States47024 Posts
On April 22 2009 08:31 seppolevne wrote:
I think since this is a paper about ethics, it should be more about "do other people have the right to make decisions concerning your body for you?" and less about the potential pros and cons of circumcision.
But only if the pros and cons are close, as in western culture, where issues like HIV are much less apparent. In africa, it seems, the benefits to health outweigh the cons, and it should be treated similarly to a vaccination. And a mediocre one at that.
Generally speaking, parents have the right to make medically-related decisions for a child who is not capable of consenting (e.g. infants), such as whether or not they receive vaccinations, or surgery for various conditions. I fail to see how circumcision should be any different. It should require parental consent, but should be a choice either way.
|
United States24768 Posts
On April 22 2009 09:00 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2009 08:31 seppolevne wrote:
I think since this is a paper about ethics, it should be more about "do other people have the right to make decisions concerning your body for you?" and less about the potential pros and cons of circumcision.
But only if the pros and cons are close, as in western culture, where issues like HIV are much less apparent. In africa, it seems, the benefits to health outweigh the cons, and it should be treated similarly to a vaccination. And a mediocre one at that. Generally speaking, parents have the right to make medically-related decisions for a child who is not capable of consenting (e.g. infants), such as whether or not they receive vaccinations, or surgery for various conditions. I fail to see how circumcision should be any different. It should require parental consent, but should be a choice either way.
I think it's very debatable when talking about elective surgery and the like.
I am thinking about it ethically rather than legally.
|
United States47024 Posts
On April 22 2009 09:08 micronesia wrote:
I think it's very debatable when talking about elective surgery and the like.
I am thinking about it ethically rather than legally.
Even from an ethical standpoint, I think allowing parents to handle such decisions on a case-by-case basis is much more acceptable than having an arbitrary standard of "yes we should perform the operation in all cases" or "no we shouldn't perform the operation in all cases". Frankly, because of the varying cultural opinions of circumcision, how acceptable circumcision is will be different to different people, and it seems rather insensitive to make a single verdict about such a wide array of situations.
|
Circumcision arguments are incredibly pointless. Everyone will just argue for how their own penises are. It isn't like someone will go and say "You're right, my penis is the inferior shape."
But regardless, it sparks debates and discussion.
+ Show Spoiler +Also, we're all talking about dicks.
|
United States12607 Posts
Ellis, can't you make that point about any argument?
On April 22 2009 09:19 Ellis wrote:
Circumcision All arguments are incredibly pointless. Everyone will just argue for how their own penises are he is. It isn't like someone will go and say "You're right , my penis is the inferior shape."
But regardless, it sparks debates and discussion.
A discussion board probably isn't the best place to point out that discussion is pointless.
|
On April 22 2009 07:02 Hot_Bid wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2009 05:54 DreaM)XeRO wrote:On April 22 2009 05:52 Chef wrote:
You can't miss what you never knew you had, but does that give someone a right to take it away when you're born? :o honestly who gives a shit If people are discussing it they clearly care about it. Your post is useless trash, it adds nothing to the discussion other than single you out to moderators as an idiot. If people didn't care they wouldn't post and this thread wouldn't get bumped. That's how forums work. Show nested quote +On April 22 2009 06:16 Chef wrote:
Not wearing a condom is what will give you problems with disease transmission. I don't really see it as being much safer to not have foreskin if your sexual partner has a contagious disease. I mean, you're asking me for evidence that they'd be the same, I'm asking you for reason to believe they'd be different. I don't really feel like the burden of proof is on me to debunk a claim that is clearly ridiculous.
It doesn't really matter how 'well thought out' your posts are, if you don't do your own research. Dude he gave you plenty of research and sources that pretty clearly refuted everything you said. What more do you want?
His source admits several times that it's inconclusive and still not entirely sure. Even though it has a spin that sounds like it's supporting the idea that it's more healthy, if you read what it's actually saying it's saying "There are correlations, but they're not very convincing.' "Could" "maybe" "possibly" "might." Survey information can INDICATE that there's a problem, but it doesn't present biological fact.
I should make it clear that this passage in particular is what I find sketchy, because it's nonobjective. It's telling the truth, but it's doing more than just presenting the facts, which is unprofessional of whoever wrote that particular bit.
|
United States12607 Posts
On April 22 2009 09:46 Chef wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2009 07:02 Hot_Bid wrote:On April 22 2009 05:54 DreaM)XeRO wrote:On April 22 2009 05:52 Chef wrote:
You can't miss what you never knew you had, but does that give someone a right to take it away when you're born? :o honestly who gives a shit If people are discussing it they clearly care about it. Your post is useless trash, it adds nothing to the discussion other than single you out to moderators as an idiot. If people didn't care they wouldn't post and this thread wouldn't get bumped. That's how forums work. On April 22 2009 06:16 Chef wrote:
Not wearing a condom is what will give you problems with disease transmission. I don't really see it as being much safer to not have foreskin if your sexual partner has a contagious disease. I mean, you're asking me for evidence that they'd be the same, I'm asking you for reason to believe they'd be different. I don't really feel like the burden of proof is on me to debunk a claim that is clearly ridiculous.
It doesn't really matter how 'well thought out' your posts are, if you don't do your own research. Dude he gave you plenty of research and sources that pretty clearly refuted everything you said. What more do you want? His source admits several times that it's inconclusive and still not entirely sure. Even though it has a spin that sounds like it's supporting the idea that it's more healthy, if you read what it's actually saying it's saying "There are correlations, but they're not very convincing.' "Could" "maybe" "possibly" "might." Survey information can INDICATE that there's a problem, but it doesn't present biological fact.
Oh yeah? Well YOUR source...oh shit, you don't have a single one, you're apparently just making stuff up.
I can't get over this: you're busy harping on how the CDC uses very cautious language in the paragraph I quoted, seemingly posting in an alternative universe where it's acceptable to carry on faulting the opposition without addressing any of its difficult questions or citing a single source which supports or explains your position.
OK, let's drop the CDC article for a moment and return to where this all started, with your main original claim:
On April 22 2009 02:16 Chef wrote:
Some people will throw statistics at you like 'people with foreskin are more likely to get an infection' but they're too stupid to realise that's only because doctors are pulling it back forcibly, not because it's dirty. If one just stretches their foreskin normally and healthily, they don't have this problem.
I'm going to spell this out for you as clearly as possible, and if you still refuse to answer I'm going to just abandon this argument as a lost cause. Here are the two (main) questions I have:
1. How exactly does "doctors pulling [foreskin] back forcibly" explain statistics which show that people with foreskin are more likely to get an infection (what is the medical phenomenon which causes premature foreskin retraction to make men more susceptible to infections over their lifetimes)?
2. Can you provide any evidence from any source which shows this medical phenomenon exists?
(Note I asked these questions several pages back, and have already repeated them.)
+ Show Spoiler [edit to your edit] +I should make it clear that this passage in particular is what I find sketchy, because it's nonobjective. It's telling the truth, but it's doing more than just presenting the facts, which is unprofessional of whoever wrote that particular bit. First, this isn't a "clarification" of your original position (that the entire "pamphlet" is "sketchy") but rather a revision. And there are several bizarre elements to this statement. First, you acknowledge that it's telling the truth? Great! Then you have to concede there are positive health benefits to circumcision (counter to your original statement that there are no good arguments for circumcision). Second, have you perhaps considered that the facts are simply that circumcision does have positive health benefits? Just because a document takes a position does not mean it's nonobjective - I think you are unsure on the definition of "nonobjective". Third, how is writing a conclusion (even if it is nonobjective opinion) to a long document which is grounded in experiment results and science unprofessional?
Anyone who's curious why I'm even bothering with this: I'm stuck in bed sick, so this is my best form of entertainment at the moment  .
|
As someone uncircumcised, I think the extra pleasure (that you simply can't feel anywhere else) is eternally worth it. Perhaps slightly less hygienic, but if you're not a moron there's no difference.
|
I don't understand why people don't just get the best of both worlds. Just make a series of parallel cuts so that all the foreskin is still there, yet it doesn't allow bacteria growth.
|
why would anyone want to admit that his dick is faulty? O_O
LOL
I'm not circumcized, but it pulls back all the way when it's erect...
|
On April 22 2009 14:32 fight_or_flight wrote:
I don't understand why people don't just get the best of both worlds. Just make a series of parallel cuts so that all the foreskin is still there, yet it doesn't allow bacteria growth.
Hmmm, unless it's a spiral, it's not going to stay on 
|
On April 22 2009 14:42 Cambium wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2009 14:32 fight_or_flight wrote:
I don't understand why people don't just get the best of both worlds. Just make a series of parallel cuts so that all the foreskin is still there, yet it doesn't allow bacteria growth. Hmmm, unless it's a spiral, it's not going to stay on
not rings, but a mop
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
