Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MetalSlimeHunt]

MSH: Sure, circumsising ain't foolproof. But it helps, and in certain circumstance it's worth the risk. After all, parent vaccine their kids without their kids' consents, and no one bat an eyelid, despite the fact that vaccination do in fact pose a risk.

Vaccination has an uncontested success rate above 99% and fatal allergic reactions from it are in the order of one in a million. Vaccines successfully eliminated various diseases from most of the world and have completely eliminated Smallpox. Vaccines also do not constitute a permanent physiological alternation.

Circumcision has a success rate is that, even if we accept the numbers of the people pushing it, 60% per exposure when concerning HIV. Circumcision can not and will not eliminate HIV, or even appreciably slow it down. You only need look at the fact that it didn't keep it from becoming a pandemic to know that.

Circumcision is common in the US and rare in Europe, but the US and Europe have similarly low HIV rates. Why is this? Could it be that actual medicine and HAART usage work better at preventing disease spread than cutting parts of people's dicks off?

[Mictlantecuhtli]

This is quite the hard debate. Everyone's so rigid.

[freeformschooler]

This is quite the hard debate. Everyone's so rigid.

I've been trying to erect a pun like this, but it's so hard.

[Leafsnail]

Not really a relevant criticism? An analogy will typically not be perfect, because if it were it'd be a comparison between two identical things. I wasn't talking there about the legality or morality of something, but of how silly it is to throw numbers that, while true, are between meaningless and completely lacking in context.

It really doesn't work as an analogy though.  For it to work there has to be the implicit assumption "but the white blood cells in tonsils are useless and we remove them", but this isn't true.  Tonsils are currently believed to have multiple functions including some related to the immune system (such as trapping pathogens and allowing the immune system to dispose of them in place that isn't the lungs), and this fact along with the potential complications of tonsillectomies is why surgery to remove them is only performed when the benefits are deemed to outweigh the risks.

I could pick something else, if you wanted, like the volume of the Earth's atmosphere to prove that CO₂ emissions from human sources are so small that anthropogenic global warming must be wrong*. Would that be preferable?

The premise this analogy is based on is correct this time, but it's also completely different and not really comparable at all, except in that you think both arguments are bad.

[frostshotgg]

Not really a relevant criticism? An analogy will typically not be perfect, because if it were it'd be a comparison between two identical things. I wasn't talking there about the legality or morality of something, but of how silly it is to throw numbers that, while true, are between meaningless and completely lacking in context.

It really doesn't work as an analogy though.  For it to work there has to be the implicit assumption "but the white blood cells in tonsils are useless and we remove them", but this isn't true.  Tonsils are currently believed to have multiple functions including some related to the immune system (such as trapping pathogens and allowing the immune system to dispose of them in place that isn't the lungs), and this fact along with the potential complications of tonsillectomies is why surgery to remove them is only performed when the benefits are deemed to outweigh the risks.

I could pick something else, if you wanted, like the volume of the Earth's atmosphere to prove that CO₂ emissions from human sources are so small that anthropogenic global warming must be wrong*. Would that be preferable?

The premise this analogy is based on is correct this time, but it's also completely different and not really comparable at all, except in that you think both arguments are bad.

And this is exactly why this thread was doomed to die. You aren't actually reading what was said. You're reading what you want to read. He's not trying to argue. He's trying to express why this thread is falling off the rails and becoming people shouting "NO U" at each other. You're imagining what he said so that you can attack it pointlessly. Go back, and read the last few posts without your "CIRCUMCISION IS HORRIBLE I HAVE TO CRUSADE" hat off and making sure you understand what Bauglir was actually saying.

[Leafsnail]

And this is exactly why this thread was doomed to die. You aren't actually reading what was said.

I responded to both of his analogies very specifically, and you're going into a kneejerk THIS THREAD IS TERRIBLE reaction.  The issue is that Bauglir's analogy didn't really demonstrate anything (if anything it kindof went against his point).

[moocowmoo]

deleted

[lordcooper]

As someone who honestly doesn't give a shit either way, this thread is hilarious.

[Aqizzar]

Okay, I read through this trainwreck of a thread, as befitting its content, and all I can think is that the whole "circumcision tied to less sexual pleasure" premise is inherently flawed.

This might be impolite, but I'm going to offer a personal perspective.  My father made the decision for me to be circumcised before I was able form any memory of the event, and not out of any kind of religious reasons.  because he was circumcised, and every penis he had ever seen was circumcised including his own father, and figuring it would be the same for me he didn't want his son growing up silently wondering "why does my wily look different from everyone else's?"

Ever since I found out what circumcision is, I've never had a strong opinion on it.  The "less sexual pleasure" argument seems to crop up on the Internet about three years or so, and it seems downright silly to me.  Because never once have I been using my penis for anything and though, "Boy this feels pretty good, but I sure wish it was even more sensitive."  If the foreskin' job description is "feel good when touching things", I think my circumcised one works just fine.

[scriver]

Most of what I see in these discussions, when it comes to opposing circumcision, are appeals to emotion ("How can you possibly support genital mutilation?"), premature claims about a parent's rights (all of which assume it's agreed that circumcision is a Bad Thing because they point out, quite rightly, that limits can be placed on objectively wrong parental actions), and arguments from contextless data. I don't think we're going to have many interesting discussions while that's the case. Yeah, I get that it's an emotional issue for you, but it isn't for most of the people you're trying to convince so you're probably not going to get anywhere by getting upset at me for looking for something rational.

And it isn't for those who approve of circumcision? Most pro-cut arguments boil down to "There's nothing wrong with my penis! Stop saying there's something wrong with my penis!" or "It doesn't matter to me because tradition says it should be done".

But seriously. And this goes to Aqizzar above and all others in the "I don't care" group. You don't think that whether to cut your foreskin off or not should be an thing that people should choose for themselves?

[Aqizzar]

You don't think that whether to cut your foreskin off or not should be an thing that people should choose for themselves?

See, that's the problem.  I'm not saying it shouldn't be, and I'm not really saying it should be either.  If I ever have a son I'll have to put some thought into it, and definitely want his mother's opinion on it, and might wind up just not doing anything.  But I think the argument about it is kinda silly.

And yes I'm going to stand by that, and slap the smug off of anyone who tries to extrapolate that stance into other realms like female-circumcision or really any other topic on the planet.  Because I believe in little things called "details" and "particulars", and it the case of male circumcision I just don't see what there is to be worked up about.

[Xantalos]

It can basically be summed up in 'MAH FREEDUMZ'.

[scriver]

See, that's the problem.  I'm not saying it shouldn't be, and I'm not really saying it should be either.  If I ever have a son I'll have to put some thought into it, and definitely want his mother's opinion on it, and might wind up just not doing anything.  But I think the argument about it is kinda silly.

You see, I just don't get that logic. It doesn't connect for me at all. I don't understand hoe anyone can have such a sense of ownership of another person that they "definitely want the mother's opinion in it" but completely disregard the opinion of the person it is being done to. Why just not let the person choose for himself, as adult? How is that not the best way for everyone involved?

[Ricky]

This thread was painful to read. I never knew people fought over foreskins so avidly. As someone who is cut, a decision made by my parents, I have no problem with it.

And I think there hasn't been any real hard scientific evidence on the usefulness of foreskins because they're just foreskins

[Xantalos]

This thread was painful to read. I never knew people fought over foreskins so avidly. As someone who is cut, a decision made by my parents, I have no problem with it.

And I think there hasn't been any real hard scientific evidence on the usefulness of foreskins because they're just foreskins

Again,

It can basically be summed up in 'MAH FREEDUMZ'.