MGM UK

[Delphic Oracle]

Why? Because I won't play along with your absurd scenario?

I've been straightforward throughout this thread. I've been open and honest about my experience. For that I've received insults and mockery. You don't want straightforward. You want dysfunction. A circumcised man has straightforwardly told you that the procedure caused him no noticeable suffering, and cost him no measurable function. You responded by creating a fantasy in which he's dysfunctionally incapable of acknowledging a problem he doesn't even have. Your argument is offensive. It's dishonest. It's anything but straightforward. You're not concerned about my foreskin. You're just upset because I'm not expressing Correct Thought.

I would like to reiterate that I created an entirely fictitious person and I have never once suggested any member here has a dead and/or gangrenous penis.

/facepalm

ETA: hard to know loss of measurable function if there was never unaltered function to measure. Hard to run an experiment with no control group.

I did link a study which showed a proper corrective procedure in circumcised adults with significant differences in "measurable function."

Hmmm...replies thus far continue to boil down to "don't you dare say that about my penis."

 

[sphenisc]

Maybe you should read the whole thread rather than nitpicking in this way. We've been talking about an irreversible surgical procedure from the outset. Hair and nail clipping are irrelevant to the gist of the discussion.

Yeah maybe, or maybe not.

 

[Mycroft]

No one can logically defend cutting bits of of people as a practice...

I don't think it needs defending. It's a very safe procedure with minor benefits and only imaginary harm. Describing it as "cutting bits off of people" is hyperbole and downright silly.

It's like how if I were discussing the merits of having one leg or two.

A better analogy would be discussing the benefits of having webbing between your toes.

That being said it's a very illogical and shady debate tactic.

Not any more illogical and shady than your tactics of silly hyperbole or equating it to losing a leg.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

 

[quadraginta]

I wonder what the long term result would be if all references to circumcision, including within the medical community and literature, were to be replaced with "male genital mutilation".

"Is this Dr. Blade's office?"

"Yeah, we want to schedule our son's male genital mutilation."

"Thursday next? 9:00am?"

"Sure. That'll be fine."

 

[sadhatter]

I know what gangrene is. I'm trying to figure out why Delphic Oracle keeps trying to make an analogy between reporting no ill effects from circumcision and reporting no ill effects from gangrenous limb loss.

Oh so you just didn't get any of it, I'd have more sympathy but the analogy and it's point have been explained quite a few times.

 

[Mycroft]

That is not serious answer to the actual question, if it was you'd be up to the millions and equating a male's foreskin to a dead skin cell.

The actual question is a "slippery slope" argument. It doesn't follow that believing circumcision is okay that a person must have and justify a whole list of acceptable procedures.

It's silly.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

 

[sadhatter]

A lot of men actually quite like the idea of having a sub par penis. Try not to stereotype so hard.

Anyway, some people in this thread seem to be extremely triggered by the idea of male circumcision. Personally, I think the practice should probably be discontinued. It doesn't seem to have much benefit, and it brings a lot of unnecessary risks. But that said--and also personally--as a "victim" of the procedure I really don't get the outrage being expressed by some people here.

I mean, you keep making all these appeals to emotion, and I'm like, what? You're trying to tell me how I'm supposed to feel about my own dick? That's the argument you're going with? Honestly, I think you're probably more unhappy about my penis than I am. Which is why I asked.

But hey, if you're uncomfortable talking about my penis, that's okay. Go ahead and make your calm, medical argument against male circumcision. Let's see if you can manage it without the melodrama.

Please show me how my arguement is emotional in nature.

 

[sadhatter]

I don't think it needs defending. It's a very safe procedure with minor benefits and only imaginary harm. Describing it as "cutting bits off of people" is hyperbole and downright silly.



A better analogy would be discussing the benefits of having webbing between your toes.



Not any more illogical and shady than your tactics of silly hyperbole or equating it to losing a leg.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

Only imaginary harm.

So a Google search of botched circumcision should return no results then?

Also I was not equating it to losing a leg, I was showing an example of why people tend to stop arguing when someone refuses to not personalize an arguement.

Read people's whole post and you will find your level of understanding rises.

 

[sadhatter]

The actual question is a "slippery slope" argument. It doesn't follow that believing circumcision is okay that a person must have and justify a whole list of acceptable procedures.

It's silly.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

But if you say it is okay people are going to ask for your logic. If said logic is inconsistent people are not going to be convinced.

It would be like if I said it is acceptable to steal a chocolate bar but not a similarly priced bag of skittles. If I cannot logically state why the two are different enough to warrent support one but not the other three chances of me convincing people are going to be close to zero.

 

[Mycroft]

Why? Because I won't play along with your absurd scenario?

I've been straightforward throughout this thread. I've been open and honest about my experience. For that I've received insults and mockery. You don't want straightforward. You want dysfunction. A circumcised man has straightforwardly told you that the procedure caused him no noticeable suffering, and cost him no measurable function. You responded by creating a fantasy in which he's dysfunctionally incapable of acknowledging a problem he doesn't even have. Your argument is offensive. It's dishonest. It's anything but straightforward. You're not concerned about my foreskin. You're just upset because I'm not expressing Correct Thought.

QFT.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

 

[Mycroft]

Please show me how my arguement is emotional in nature.

The following is purely emotive.

I wonder what the long term result would be if all references to circumcision, including within the medical community and literature, were to be replaced with "male genital mutilation".

"Is this Dr. Blade's office?"

"Yeah, we want to schedule our son's male genital mutilation."

"Thursday next? 9:00am?"

"Sure. That'll be fine."

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

 

[Mycroft]

Only imaginary harm.

So a Google search of botched circumcision should return no results then?

Rule of so.

Read people's whole post and you will find your level of understanding rises.

I did. The removal of a piece of skin is still not comparable to a leg.


Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

 

[Mycroft]

But if you say it is okay people are going to ask for your logic. If said logic is inconsistent people are not going to be convinced.

It's been okay for thousands of years now, so I would think it would be more natural to enquire about the logic of the person who believes they have the right to interfere with someone else's decision.

As for my logic, I've already explained it. It's a very low risk procedure with some minor benefits.

It would be like if I said it is acceptable to steal a chocolate bar but not a similarly priced bag of skittles. If I cannot logically state why the two are different enough to warrent support one but not the other three chances of me convincing people are going to be close to zero.

I think the onus is on you to say why your opinion gives you the right to interfere with someone else's decisions.


Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

 

[quadraginta]

The following is purely emotive.

Why is a medically accurate description of the procedure "purely emotive".

""Emotive"? Perhaps. Many medically accurate descriptions have that quality. Being emotion, the relevance tends to vary with the individual.

But "purely"? I don't think so, unless you are trying to dismiss the medically accurate part entirely.

An effort which some might view as "emotive" in its own right.

 

[Babbylonian]

My mother actually apologized to me - out of the blue - for having my foreskin removed. She learned the facts and decided that she had done the wrong thing due to her perception of societal norms. I was touched and, once again, impressed by her ability to discard bad information when provided with better information.

 

[Ryokan]

Rule of so.

The stupidest rule on the internet.

Only imaginary harm?

The public debate on male circumcision in Norway started not so long ago because there were deaths.

Yes, deaths. From circumcision, on a baby boy, in a hospital, by a doctor. It happens.

Of course, deaths are rare. But it happens. Much more common are botched circumcisions. It's a very small area to operate on. Cutting away too much is not uncommon. I suggest you do try that google search.

I mean, I didn't use the word "so", so you'll give more credence to my post, right?

 

[Darat]

Why? Because I won't play along with your absurd scenario?

I've been straightforward throughout this thread. I've been open and honest about my experience. For that I've received insults and mockery. You don't want straightforward. You want dysfunction. A circumcised man has straightforwardly told you that the procedure caused him no noticeable suffering, and cost him no measurable function. You responded by creating a fantasy in which he's dysfunctionally incapable of acknowledging a problem he doesn't even have. Your argument is offensive. It's dishonest. It's anything but straightforward. You're not concerned about my foreskin. You're just upset because I'm not expressing Correct Thought.

That is not factually correct, a circumcision removes functional tissue.

 

[Darat]

I don't think it needs defending. It's a very safe procedure with minor benefits and only imaginary harm. Describing it as "cutting bits off of people" is hyperbole and downright silly.

...snip...

It removes functional tissue i.e. it removes, skin, nerves and so on. The "harm" may be slight but it is certainly not imaginary.

And of course there is the very real issue of serious complications following the surgical procedure.

...snip...

A better analogy would be discussing the benefits of having webbing between your toes. ..snip...

Er no it wouldn't.

 

[Darat]

I wonder what the long term result would be if all references to circumcision, including within the medical community and literature, were to be replaced with "male genital mutilation".

"Is this Dr. Blade's office?"

"Yeah, we want to schedule our son's male genital mutilation."

"Thursday next? 9:00am?"

"Sure. That'll be fine."

The campaign against female genital mutilation used this approach and it seems to have had the desired effect.

 

[Darat]

The actual question is a "slippery slope" argument. It doesn't follow that believing circumcision is okay that a person must have and justify a whole list of acceptable procedures.

It's silly.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

But it does show a lack of consistency in reasoning.