• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

MGM UK

Mycroft said:
Because neither common usage nor the words definitions support that.

Sure, technically you could refer to a surgical incision as an "injury", but that would be an unusual use of the word.



Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Wrong. And I have the scars to prove it. FFS I have metal plates in my body. The Surgeons actually described the insertion of same as injuries pre-op and even described how we might minimise same. So are you claiming that you are right, I am wrong, my surgical teams are wrong and everybody is wrong except you?

Have you no concept of rehab and Physio? Are you really that naive? I have effectively a titanium ankle (and a fabric stomach musculature) . The only thing that will keep me ticking over is attention to detail.

But by your lights I should simply chuck that out. Because something.

The quacks were, in fairness, quite forthright pointing out that the surgery in and of itself were in fact injuries and had consequences. Only a child would fail to grasp this.
 
Mycroft said:
Correct, religious freedom is not absolute.

At the same time, I also think you would need a very good reason, and I really don't believe this qualifies.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I would apply the principle of harm in this case and in others.

Usually when talking about freedoms such as of speech, religion, the press etc... there should be tolerance for it unless it causes harm. Circumcision seems a pretty clear...ahem...cut example of a practice that causes harm. I think most people who are proponents of circumcision who have, themselves, been circumcised make the claim that they have not been harmed on the basis that they do not remember it being harmful. That doesn't mean it isn't harmful.
 
Repeating myself I know (I added an 's' to make sure it has a different voice :) )- So it goes

Snip Snip Snip
Slit a fine clit

Snip Snip Snip
Cut a fine
Dick

Snip Snip Snip
God told me
 
Mycroft said:
Maybe instead you should pick one of them and show me how it's not a strawman.

Do that right after you cite some examples where "injury" is used to describe a surgical incision.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Or you could simply not create strawmen?
ETA: In case the above was a bit cryptic what I meant was if you stopped calling things that aren't strawman strawman?
 
Last edited:
Babbylonian said:
There are "wound care clinics" all over the United States, too; I'd say the world but I know that terminology differs according to both language and culture.
Click to expand...
It's amazing how much attention is paid to inconsequential matters such as this, you'd almost think there was an attempt to deflect the actual point under discussion which is why should a parent be allowed to decide to have functional, healthy tissue removed because

1) bad hygiene can mean an unpleasant odor
2) a religious tradition exists of removing healthy tissue
3) the child penis will look different to theirs
4) never did the male parent any harm
 
abaddon said:
Wrong. And I have the scars to prove it. FFS I have metal plates in my body. The Surgeons actually described the insertion of same as injuries pre-op and even described how we might minimise same. So are you claiming that you are right, I am wrong, my surgical teams are wrong and everybody is wrong except you?

Have you no concept of rehab and Physio? Are you really that naive? I have effectively a titanium ankle (and a fabric stomach musculature) . The only thing that will keep me ticking over is attention to detail.

But by your lights I should simply chuck that out. Because something.

The quacks were, in fairness, quite forthright pointing out that the surgery in and of itself were in fact injuries and had consequences. Only a child would fail to grasp this.
Click to expand...

My disagreeing that "injury" being used to describe surgery is common in your opinion proves that:

1) I must believe you, your surgical team, and the entire world to be wrong. Later on you identify this same surgical team to be quacks?

2) I have no concept of rehab and physical therapy.

3) I am very naive.

4) I think you should chuck something out, exactly what being unidentifiable.

5) I must be a child because I fail to grasp something?

After a couple of days to cool down, do you still agree with all that?
 
Last edited:
We're all very shocked that this conversation has devolved into bickering over definitions of words and impugning each others motives.

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk
 
Mycroft said:
My disagreeing that "injury" being used to describe surgery is common in your opinion proves that:

1) I must believe you, your surgical team, and the entire world to be wrong. Later on you identify this same surgical team to be quacks?

2) I have no concept of rehab and physical therapy.

3) I am very naive.

4) I think you should chuck something out, exactly what being unidentifiable.

5) I must be a child because I fail to grasp something?

After a couple of days to cool down, do you still agree with all that?
Click to expand...

6. You are wrong.
 
Darat said:
It's amazing how much attention is paid to inconsequential matters such as this, you'd almost think there was an attempt to deflect the actual point under discussion which is why should a parent be allowed to decide to have functional, healthy tissue removed because

1) bad hygiene can mean an unpleasant odor
2) a religious tradition exists of removing healthy tissue
3) the child penis will look different to theirs
4) never did the male parent any harm
Click to expand...
If you are going to make such a list, perhaps you should also include some of the possible benefits listed on this page, hosted by the Mayo clinic.

http://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/circumcision/basics/why-its-done/prc-20013585
 
Distracted1 said:
If you are going to make such a list, perhaps you should also include some of the possible benefits listed on this page, hosted by the Mayo clinic.

http://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/circumcision/basics/why-its-done/prc-20013585
Click to expand...
Accent on the might. If it was scientifically proven to provide significant health benefits, it would be standard practice for doctors to recommend it instead of leaving it entirely up to parents.

Also, none of the listed "possible benefits" would cause consideration of preemptive surgery in any other part of the body, especially without the consent of the patient. If a kid is getting urinary tract infections because of poor penile hygiene, responsibility for that shouldn't be hung (sorry) on the foreskin; it's up to the parents to teach their kids to keep their junk clean.

If circumcision was truly of significant medical benefit in the western world, doctors would be recommending it to their uncircumcised adult patients, and I don't think anyone here would have a problem with an adult choosing circumcision. Hell, I'd have little problem with, say, a 14-year-old choosing circumcision, even if it was purely for religious reasons. Infants, however, deserve to have their options as open as possible until they're capable of making decisions for themselves.
 
Babbylonian said:
Accent on the might. If it was scientifically proven to provide significant health benefits, it would be standard practice for doctors to recommend it instead of leaving it entirely up to parents.

Also, none of the listed "possible benefits" would cause consideration of preemptive surgery in any other part of the body, especially without the consent of the patient. If a kid is getting urinary tract infections because of poor penile hygiene, responsibility for that shouldn't be hung (sorry) on the foreskin; it's up to the parents to teach their kids to keep their junk clean.

If circumcision was truly of significant medical benefit in the western world, doctors would be recommending it to their uncircumcised adult patients, and I don't think anyone here would have a problem with an adult choosing circumcision. Hell, I'd have little problem with, say, a 14-year-old choosing circumcision, even if it was purely for religious reasons. Infants, however, deserve to have their options as open as possible until they're capable of making decisions for themselves.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Eight pages of discussion has not changed my mind. How can a bunch of skeptics rationalize circumcision? I've read all 8 pages - so far they cannot.

Isn't the fact that a lot of people who have been circumcised are not happy about it enough of a reason to abolish the practice? What other reason do we need?

I am not happy you unnecessarily removed part of my body without my consent. Especially that part. The. End.
 
It's really disappointing that so many people don't want to address the very obvious harm that occurs during circumcision. It is an extremely painful procedure. We don't even have to address things like the removal of flesh, or scary words like "mutilation" or "injury." If you want to slice someone with a knife and claim that it is for their benefit, then you had better come up with an extremely compelling reason. So far, the possible benefits don't come anywhere near any other procedure, such as vaccination.

And I'm equally disappointed that on a skeptic's forum, issues like ethnicity, religion, or tradition are being propped as though they have any moral weight whatsoever. If you really think this is a factor to be considered, then please illustrate its application. For example:

I punched my daughter in the stomach because we're Mongolian.

Does that make sense? I don't see how the person's ethnicity should factor into our moral judgment. But if any among you see reason why it should, or why we should consider his religion or local traditions instead, I'd like to hear it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom