ForgedinHell wrote:...Male circumcision is such a false issue it is unbelievable any anti-semite would raise it. The facts are that the most recent research shows that it lowers the incidence of male prostrate cancer, penile cancer, urinary tract infections, and the transmission of diseases, including herpes. It also means a man does not have to bleed from the foreskin while having sex. In America, the vast majority of people who circumcize their boys are Christians. In any event, because the risks of the procedure are so minor and there are rational benefits for the procedure, referring to it as "mutilation" is idiotic. IF it were so barbaric, then why do physicians perform the procedure so readily?
In America I assume its because they get paid for it or for religious conviction. Since we have little of either over here we don't have this barbaric practice and we appear to have little difference in the rates of incidence of the diseases you mention. This practice also desensitises the nerves at the end of the penis so presumably reduces the males sexual pleasure.
"It also means a man does not have to bleed from the foreskin while having sex." Must be useful for the rapist, try foreplay before you shove it in!
ForgedinHell wrote:...Male circumcision is such a false issue it is unbelievable any anti-semite would raise it. The facts are that the most recent research shows that it lowers the incidence of male prostrate cancer, penile cancer, urinary tract infections, and the transmission of diseases, including herpes. It also means a man does not have to bleed from the foreskin while having sex. In America, the vast majority of people who circumcize their boys are Christians. In any event, because the risks of the procedure are so minor and there are rational benefits for the procedure, referring to it as "mutilation" is idiotic. IF it were so barbaric, then why do physicians perform the procedure so readily?
In America I assume its because they get paid for it or for religious conviction. Since we have little of either over here we don't have this barbaric practice and we appear to have little difference in the rates of incidence of the diseases you mention. This practice also desensitises the nerves at the end of the penis so presumably reduces the males sexual pleasure.
"It also means a man does not have to bleed from the foreskin while having sex." Must be useful for the rapist, try foreplay before you shove it in!
Oh, so, how come they don't routinely kill people when asked to commit suicide? They could get paid for that? They perform the procedure because medically there are rational reasons for doing so. Science trumps your bullshit, once again.
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Elvis must have been grubby then. I don't think many people can remember that far back, doesn't mean it wasn't cruel at the time.
Cruel? So is removing tonsils when a child is sick. That is painful, isn't it? So is giving a child cough syrup when they have a cough. If the pain caused no benefit, then maybe you'd be onto something, but weighing the costs and benefits of the procedure, one may rationally chose circumcision. And it is easier to perform on a baby than an adult.
Elvis was not grubby.
Here is the thing. If you don't want to circumcize a boy, then don't. But, since it is a rational procedure, what right do you have to tell a parent whether to have it done for their own child? You don't. If they were talking about chopping the kid's head off, then I would deny them that right, but we are talking about a relatively minor procedure with medical benefits.
ForgedinHell wrote:Oh, so, how come they don't routinely kill people when asked to commit suicide? They could get paid for that? They perform the procedure because medically there are rational reasons for doing so. Science trumps your bullshit, once again.
Logic trumps yours as we don't do this over here and the difference between us is that whilst we have medicine as well our doctors don't get paid for it so they don't do unnecessary procedures and we're not religious loons.
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:IF it were so barbaric, then why do physicians perform the procedure so readily?
what a retarded question
physicians used to readily do all sorts of shit that can be regarded as barbaric and that was very bad for one's health
bloodletting anyone?
how about 19th century antimasturbation devices promoted by physicians
the mere fact that physicians readily perform some procedure does not by itself mean the procedure is worthwhile
And how does knowing what physicians did in the distant past help us understand why they would do the procedure today? It doesn't. Today, there have been numerous medical studies done showing advantages to the procedure. Also, can you name a single guy who has been traumatized by the procedure? I can't. It actually may be barbaric to deny the procedure, since just the lower risk of prostate cancer alone makes the procedure a rational choice.
Kayla wrote:there is no religion that permits child rape
Your ignorance is dangerous, and could cost human lives. The recent Muslim uprisings are evidence that your stunted, mentally deficient, crippled intellect is not genetically fit to deal with or comprehend the Islamic tradition. Child rape is permissible, even encouraged, in Islam. Your ignorance is too dangerous not to punish. And ignorance like this tends to filter itself out of the gene pool one way or another.
The spread of Islam must come to a grinding halt, lest these child rapists spread their ideology to the Western world. Feminism and Judaism are against this, the rights of women must remain protected by God, and holy. Kayla, you are a threat to the safety of young girls, girls who suffer horribly in the Middle East, and soon will be suffering in the ruins of England, after Muslims conquer that degenerate country.
ForgedinHell wrote:
And how does knowing what physicians did in the distant past help us understand why they would do the procedure today? It doesn't. Today, there have been numerous medical studies done showing advantages to the procedure. Also, can you name a single guy who has been traumatized by the procedure? I can't. It actually may be barbaric to deny the procedure, since just the lower risk of prostate cancer alone makes the procedure a rational choice.
my point was that the mere fact that physicians are willing to perform some procedure is worthless as a defense against that procedure
i have not been paying much attention to this particular controversy, but as far as i know the question of cost vs benefits has not exactly been settled - as you seem to think
i do know that there have been multiple instances of botched circumcisions so if you want to say that no one at all has ever been traumatized by it you are wrong
ForgedinHell wrote:Name another religion that has legalized child rape in the modern world?
this is a stupid question
there is no religion that permits child rape
there are bigoted assholes who will claim that judaism and/or islam permits it
for someone who goes on and on how you hate bigots you are an incredibly bigoted asshole
You are an idiot. Islam does make child rape legal. It is legal in both Saudi Arabia and Iran. When 8 year old girls and 10 year old girls routinely get married in those nations, that is child rape. The fact you don't give a damn about young Arab chidlren being brutalized shows your bigotry, not mine.
ForgedinHell wrote:
And how does knowing what physicians did in the distant past help us understand why they would do the procedure today? It doesn't. Today, there have been numerous medical studies done showing advantages to the procedure. Also, can you name a single guy who has been traumatized by the procedure? I can't. It actually may be barbaric to deny the procedure, since just the lower risk of prostate cancer alone makes the procedure a rational choice.
my point was that the mere fact that physicians are willing to perform some procedure is worthless as a defense against that procedure
i have not been paying much attention to this particular controversy, but as far as i know the question of cost vs benefits has not exactly been settled - as you seem to think
i do know that there have been multiple instances of botched circumcisions so if you want to say that no one at all has ever been traumatized by it you are wrong
Name one person who had a botched operation? I have lived my entire life in a nation where most men are circumcized and have never heard of any such bothced operation. Ever. Only on the web sites that makes this an issue. If it is so harmful, then wouldn't people be bitching about how it screwed them up, and we would be hearing a lot about it? It's a non issue.
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Elvis must have been grubby then. I don't think many people can remember that far back, doesn't mean it wasn't cruel at the time.
Cruel? So is removing tonsils when a child is sick. That is painful, isn't it? So is giving a child cough syrup when they have a cough. If the pain caused no benefit, then maybe you'd be onto something, but weighing the costs and benefits of the procedure, one may rationally chose circumcision. And it is easier to perform on a baby than an adult.
Elvis was not grubby.
Here is the thing. If you don't want to circumcize a boy, then don't. But, since it is a rational procedure, what right do you have to tell a parent whether to have it done for their own child? You don't. If they were talking about chopping the kid's head off, then I would deny them that right, but we are talking about a relatively minor procedure with medical benefits.
Did I tell anyone not to do it? No. I pointed out that it's cruel. Only an idiot would deny that. People seem to think babies can't feel pain. How ridiculous is that? Tonsils are not generally removed without anaesthetic. You can hardly compare taking cough medicine to surgery without anaesthesia. I'm not disagreeing with the benefits you quote, I haven't looked into it that deeply, but it's a procedure I wouldn't opt for on behalf of a baby. If it's as beneficial as you say then perhaps men should think about having it done.
Last edited by vegetariantaxidermy on Mon Sep 17, 2012 12:12 am, edited 2 times in total.
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:IF it were so barbaric, then why do physicians perform the procedure so readily?
what a retarded question
physicians used to readily do all sorts of shit that can be regarded as barbaric and that was very bad for one's health
bloodletting anyone?
how about 19th century antimasturbation devices promoted by physicians
the mere fact that physicians readily perform some procedure does not by itself mean the procedure is worthwhile
And how does knowing what physicians did in the distant past help us understand why they would do the procedure today? It doesn't. Today, there have been numerous medical studies done showing advantages to the procedure. Also, can you name a single guy who has been traumatized by the procedure? I can't. It actually may be barbaric to deny the procedure, since just the lower risk of prostate cancer alone makes the procedure a rational choice.
Perhaps we should reinstitute the practice of Human Sacrifice, I believe history records that it was widely practiced by the Mayans, and others. Slavery is another practice that was common in the past. I think the idea is to learn from the past so as to not repeat the mistakes of the past. The trick is to know which were the mistakes and which were not.
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Elvis must have been grubby then. I don't think many people can remember that far back, doesn't mean it wasn't cruel at the time.
Cruel? So is removing tonsils when a child is sick. That is painful, isn't it? So is giving a child cough syrup when they have a cough. If the pain caused no benefit, then maybe you'd be onto something, but weighing the costs and benefits of the procedure, one may rationally chose circumcision. And it is easier to perform on a baby than an adult.
Elvis was not grubby.
Here is the thing. If you don't want to circumcize a boy, then don't. But, since it is a rational procedure, what right do you have to tell a parent whether to have it done for their own child? You don't. If they were talking about chopping the kid's head off, then I would deny them that right, but we are talking about a relatively minor procedure with medical benefits.
Did I tell anyone not to do it? No. I pointed out that it's cruel. Only an idiot would deny that. People seem to think babies can't feel pain. How ridiculous is that? Tonsils are not generally removed without anaesthetic. You can hardly compare taking cough medicine to surgery without anaesthesia. I'm not disagreeing with the benefits you quote, I haven't looked into it that deeply, but it's a procedure I wouldn't opt for on behalf of a baby.
If you haven't looked into it, then how can you rationally make a decision to not do it?
Must be useful for the rapist, try foreplay before you shove it in!
