| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
aztrorisk
United States896 Posts
On November 29 2010 14:17 Krigwin wrote: Well, the way I was told as a child was, anteater (not circumcised), or worm wearing a helmet (circumcised). But really, just google it. Damn it! I hate my parents. I can't believe that they never told me. FML | ||
|
Malarkey817
United States163 Posts
On November 29 2010 15:31 Zalfor wrote: LOL I shave my own head, try another analogy. | ||
|
dogabutila
United States1438 Posts
In this case, the net benefit of keeping circumcisions is a lowered rate of certain diseases (which dont happen if you take care of yourself anyways). against the net negative of some of the procedures going horribly wrong. The procedure itself doesn't normally go wrong, but it is less then straight forward because they never know how much to cut. And sometimes things go wrong. It happens less then people get diseases due to not having a circumcision.... but not as much as one would think. And the significance of the problem is greater. Much greater. Scope? Probably slightly better to not outlaw circumcisions. Significance? Its definitely better to do away with a somewhat risky and superfluous surgery. Esp when it only helps due to a failure of the person in question. | ||
|
Applecakes
Australia319 Posts
On November 29 2010 15:34 Rebornlife wrote: Agree with the guy above me. Also, being circumsized, I think it's actually more of a visual thing thing than anything. It looks better that way to me. And from random (often drunken) convos with other people they say it's for aesthetics more than anything nowadays, and they usually agree it looks better circumsized. Erect or flaccid? Erect circumcised penis's look worse to me with the strange scaring. There is also the question of how penis aesthetics is influenced by what we see. In particular most of our images of genitals, I'd assume, come from pornography - a great deal of which is produced in the USA. What would our opinions be if most pornography was produced in Europe/Australasia? I don't think you can underestimate the power of pornography in dictating the aesthetic ideals of genitals. We already see the affects of such things with concern over the size of penises and breasts, and now even the shapes of vulvas. | ||
|
blitzkrieger
United States512 Posts
On November 29 2010 15:32 Applecakes wrote: Babies can't make decisions for themselves so I'd just judge what is best for them by trying to work out how they would decide if they were an adult. An adult would get vaccinated so the baby should be too. An adult wouldn't want someone to chop their wang, so I wouldn't force it upon a baby. I don't really care if people have foreskin or not. It's a non-issue. I guess more important for the law is the ethics of it. I once spoke to an expectant mother who said she was going to get her child circumcised. When I asked her why she said it "looked better". I thought that was rather disgusting. A medical argument would make more sense from an ethical point of view. Although I'm not really sure there is one. Yeh I agree. Lets also not abort babies and wait till they are 18 and then they can decide if they want to die. Good idea. If you disagree with circumcision then don't do it for your kids. But making a law to ban it is just stupid. Man I can't wait for God to put all these liberals in hell... | ||
|
Krigwin
1130 Posts
On November 29 2010 15:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: It's not a strawman. I certainly wasn't harmed by my circumcision. And heck, if the probability of me getting certain diseases was lowered, that sounds like a pretty good deal to me! Please watch the sweeping generalizations and hyperbole with statistics. 1% here, 100% there. I have a degree in mathematics, and it makes me facepalm when people get a little too excited with making up numbers that don't properly represent reality. I'm not sure how many times I have to point out that the diseases that circumcision can help prevent can be contracted as a baby. Babies cannot make informed decisions. Neither can adolescents. This isn't just about STDs. I've listed many infections and problems. This is about parents deciding if the best, most protective course of action for their babies is to cut off a little snip of skin. It's not mutilation. It's not killing the kid. It's not even something they'll remember if they're babies. But it can be beneficial to them. And you accuse me of strawman arguments? Sounds like a good deal to you? Wonderful, then please go ahead and have it done if it sounds so good to you. Oh wait, you can't, because that choice was already made for you before you had the ability to decide for yourself! Again with the accusations of exaggerations. I am not exaggerating anything. 100% of babies being circumcised feel pain until you give me evidence of a Hulk baby. That is not an exaggeration. 100% of people who have been circumcised end up losing their foreskin, which necessarily includes some loss of neurosensitivity. That is not an exaggeration either. That's kind of the entire point. Some diseases have their risks lowered by 1% by circumcision? Again, not an exaggeration, it depends on the disease and it depends on the study at hand you're referencing. If you have better numbers to "represent reality", then please contribute them instead of senselessly accusing others of hyperbole. And I'm not sure why you feel the need to point out that the diseases that circumcision can prevent can be contracted as a baby. That seems pretty irrelevant to the general debate of whether the benefits outweigh the risks. The numbers, from either side, seem too low, poorly substantiated, or otherwise insignificant to warrant allowing parents to decide this course of action, as you put it. If it, say, prevented many infections and problems by a rate of 50-100%, then you might have a case arguing that parents should be allowed to do so. I honestly cannot even believe you're attempting to make a medical argument when the numbers given (by both sides) are all so low it's not enough to justify pretty much anything (such as a vaccine), much less a procedure as permanent as this. And this is not even factoring the other risks of circumcision, which in some cases can actually be more harmful than the diseases whose risks you're supposedly lowering. | ||
|
meegrean
Thailand7699 Posts
| ||
|
MadVillain
United States402 Posts
Lets be honest here. ITS A BABY. For the next 4 years of its life (and for even longer) you are going to be making literally every single decision for it, and almost all of them are going to be more substantial then whether they have a small amount of skin on their penis or not. That argument is just silly. With the exception of religious reasons, parents get their child circumcised because they think it will help ward of possible disease, which has been proven in some cases. Its a decisions based off parenting instinct, just like all the other decisions that your parents made for you as you were growing up. And please don't bring out the word play "its shameless irreversible, excruciating MUTILATION, of a helpless babies genitals, only a soulless heathen would submit a newborn to such torture". Just shut up. People have been getting circumcised for thousands of years, and still do in our modern society. Why do people feel the need to bring up issues that arent even really issues? I think society was ok with this one, now people are attempting to set up a law that basically takes a small bit of parenting power away from me. No thanks. And from my experiences with girls/discussions with girls I've noticed an overwhelming trend that favors a cut penis. It just looks better apparently. | ||
|
aztrorisk
United States896 Posts
On November 29 2010 15:48 blitzkrieger wrote: Yeh I agree. Lets also not abort babies and wait till they are 18 and then they can decide if they want to die. Good idea. If you disagree with circumcision then don't do it for your kids. But making a law to ban it is just stupid. Man I can't wait for God to put all these liberals in hell... Hey! I beg to disagree man. I just recently found out that I was circumcized and I don't like it one bit. Let the child grow til their 18 and decide if they want to get circumcized or not. I think they should ban circumcision and abortion because the parents have no right to choose your fate. | ||
|
Roe
Canada6002 Posts
On November 29 2010 15:48 blitzkrieger wrote: Yeh I agree. Lets also not abort babies and wait till they are 18 and then they can decide if they want to die. Good idea. If you disagree with circumcision then don't do it for your kids. But making a law to ban it is just stupid. Man I can't wait for God to put all these liberals in hell... you kinda flip flopped on your talking points there...? | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On November 29 2010 15:51 MadVillain wrote: And from my experiences with girls/discussions with girls I've noticed an overwhelming trend that favors a cut penis. It just looks better apparently. and I prefer a pretty vulva. Should we allow parents to force their daughters into labiaplasties as well? more power for parents, right? | ||
|
Meta
United States6228 Posts
That said, I don't think they need to be banned/outlawed. If you're not circumcised as a baby you're probably never gonna go through with the procedure as an adult because as a baby you don't remember the pain. From a perspective that solely looks at physical pain I don't think it's that unethical, considering nobody remembers the pain that you feel after only being alive for a few days. However it is completely ridiculous, a waste of time and money and like most traditions, founded in bullshit. | ||
|
MadVillain
United States402 Posts
On November 29 2010 15:55 Mindcrime wrote: and I prefer a pretty vulva. Should we allow parents to force their daughters into labiaplasties as well? Right cause a circumcision vs a labiaplasty is a totally valid comparison. Stop trolling. | ||
|
Yamoth
United States315 Posts
On November 29 2010 15:48 blitzkrieger wrote: Yeh I agree. Lets also not abort babies and wait till they are 18 and then they can decide if they want to die. Good idea. If you disagree with circumcision then don't do it for your kids. But making a law to ban it is just stupid. Man I can't wait for God to put all these liberals in hell... One of the main argument between prolife and prochoice is at what point that a fetus can considered to be a life or human. Circumcision on that other than mainly focus two factor; how much pain does the baby feels as a result of this, and does it have any medical benefit or is it mainly aesthetic. Apple and orange, trying to draw similarities between circumcision and abortion is just stupid. | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On November 29 2010 15:57 MadVillain wrote: Right cause a circumcision vs a labiaplasty is a totally valid comparison. Stop trolling. you didn't refute his point at all. his point was very valid. you already claimed the basis for circumcision, for you, is cosmetic. so how is that not a valid comparison? | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On November 29 2010 15:57 MadVillain wrote: Right cause a circumcision vs a labiaplasty is a totally valid comparison. Stop trolling. If aesthetics and "power for parents" are the arguments you're going to resort to, yes, it is a valid reductio ad absurdum. | ||
|
MadVillain
United States402 Posts
On November 29 2010 15:57 Meta wrote: I was circumcised when I was a few days old. Honestly I wish I hadn't been. There's no reason for circumcision beyond ridiculous superstition and societal factors. If I ever have a son there's no way in hell I'm getting him circumcised. The whole ritual is tribalistic and brutal. It's just unnatural. That said, I don't think they need to be banned/outlawed. If you're not circumcised as a baby you're probably never gonna go through with the procedure as an adult because as a baby you don't remember the pain. From a perspective that solely looks at physical pain I don't think it's that unethical, considering nobody remembers the pain that you feel after only being alive for a few days. However it is completely ridiculous, a waste of time and money and like most traditions, founded in bullshit. Thing is, especially in the past it was not based on just superstition. Believe it or not there was a time when people didn't have access to showers/baths everyday. (this is still the case in many places throughout the world) And circumcision becomes immediately beneficial as it significantly decreases your risks of contracting disease on your dick. This isn't really the case anymore for reasons that were just stated, but it definitely wasn't a practice rooted purely in superstition. Edit: That last part of my post was MY opinion, the rest of my post gave the reasons that should actually used in an argument. I'll restate them if you missed them: 1. It does slightly reduce the risk of contracting some diseases and makes proper hygiene easier 2. Its a decision that parents deserve to have, just as they have the powe to make decisions about every other aspect of a newborn babies life. I mean whether the child has a piece of skin on his dick or not is one of the more minor decisions that a parent will have to make. 3. Its an overstep of governments authority, this issue shouldn't even be up for debate as society was perfectly fine with it before. If you want your child to be circumcised then say yes, if not say no. Why does the government need to intervene here? Its pretty silly imo. | ||
|
Ferrose
United States11378 Posts
On November 29 2010 16:00 MadVillain wrote: Thing is, especially in the past it was not based on just superstition. Believe it or not there was a time when people didn't have access to showers/baths everyday. (this is still the case in many places throughout the world) And circumcision becomes immediately beneficial as it significantly decreases your risks of contracting disease on your dick. This isn't really the case anymore for reasons that were just stated, but it definitely wasn't a practice rooted purely in superstition. Edit: That last part of my post was MY opinion, the rest of my post gave the reasons that should actually used in an argument. I'll restate them if you missed them: 1. It does slightly reduce the risk of contracting some diseases and makes proper hygiene easier 2. Its a decision that parents deserve to have, just as they have the powe to make decisions about every other aspect of a newborn babies life. I mean whether the child has a piece of skin on his dick or not is one of the more minor decisions that a parent will have to make. 3. Its an overstep of governments authority, this issue shouldn't even be up for debate as society was perfectly fine with it before. If that isn't the case anymore, why should we still do it today? | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
| ||
|
Ancestral
United States3230 Posts
That being said, I'm American, and my captain has his hat. I have a friend who always rails about how unjust the procedure is, and being in my unique (for my country) position I can say it only matters in the sense that it matters to YOU, an individual. I've never had a problem but if some girl refused to blow me, even if I went down on her, which I can assure you is on average a more arduous than sucking cock (though I never have, I've heard from girls who have done both that muff diving is worse then penis fellating), I would feel violated. What I oppose is ignorance, and I think it would take an ignorant person to care at all. If you're socially aware you should be aware of the procedure and that the changes are minimal enough that society is split. I wash my penis every day, by the way. It's pretty nice. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Other Games |
|
WardiTV Weekly
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Afreeca Starleague
Monday Night Weeklies
GSL
PiGosaur Cup
Replay Cast
The PondCast
IntoTheTV X SOOP
CranKy Ducklings
|
|
|
EPT
