The Sensitive Issue of Circumcision

Olowkow said:
The videos come up with audio but no video. Something amiss here.
Click to expand...

Click the link I provided. All three can be viewed that way, on YT itself. They play in my browser, embedded in the post, but I know sometimes there are problems, which is why I provided the link.
 
robinson said:
Click the link I provided. All three can be viewed that way, on YT itself. They play in my browser, embedded in the post, but I know sometimes there are problems, which is why I provided the link.
Click to expand...

Well, I did and the audio sounds intriguing... I get no video screen from Youtube, just audio and the JREF screen. I would rather be totally freaked out by the video, and have the choice of shutting it off, than just listening the audio description.

The description was getting a little weird for me....
 
I find it extremely difficult to watch the two part video of a circumcision. Mostly the audio, the screaming. At one point the baby sounds like it goes into shock.

I find the Jewish custom of getting the baby drunk first, to be a kindness. Of course, not mutilating the child would be even kinder.
 
OK, it worked in IE, but not in Firefox. I had enough after 1 minute. Thanks, really, but no thanks. I don't think I'll be joining any religions real soon. Religions and street gangs, just too much conformity for me.
 
Last edited:
And I must admit, this time I did not watch them. The last time I posted them in a Circumcision thread, I watched them first. I never want to see it again.

Barbaric.
 
OK. How about eyebrow piercings? Pros and cons? Or should I start a thread of my own?
When my waiter comes up with a dangling thing from his pierced eyebrow, I walk out, and tell him why. I lost my appetite. He looks at me like "I AM WEIRD". Ears, tongue, clit, OK, eyebrows, no. Right out. Excuse me, I have to go have a throw.


DIE THREAD, DIE!!!
 
Last edited:
rocketdodger said:
But I have. It seems perfectly clear to me, so please tell me where my logic errs:

1) Only a very small proportion of adult males undergo adult male circumcisions.
2) Of those, every single one I have ever heard of had a strong overriding reason for doing so.
Click to expand...

Your logic errs in the highlighted part above, plus the fact that you have no idea what the actual reason for each individual uncircumcised man not choosing to be circumcised is.

rocketdodger said:
I guess you are right -- I can't cite any sources saying that nobody does it on a whim. You also cannot prove that god does not exist. So what?
Click to expand...

Er ... comparing proof of men's motives for getting circumcised and proving the non-existence of god are somewhat different, when you think about it. Think about it - don't you agree? What's stopping you from doing your scientific research?
 
Southwind17 said:
Your logic errs in the highlighted part above, plus the fact that you have no idea what the actual reason for each individual uncircumcised man not choosing to be circumcised is.
Click to expand...

The reasons are irrelevant, don't you get it? That there are reasons is what is relevant.

If there are good reasons that natural men choose not to be circumcised, then the position that there is no good reason not to be circumcised is proven incorrect. This is all I am trying to say. Most of the pro-circ crowd misinforms people, either purposefully or out of ignorance, that there really isn't a good reason to have a foreskin. I claim that if that were true then we would see a much greater number of men having adult circumcisions. Frankly, I think you are too intelligent to argue with that. Are you just playing the devil's advocate?

Southwind17 said:
Er ... comparing proof of men's motives for getting circumcised and proving the non-existence of god are somewhat different, when you think about it. Think about it - don't you agree? What's stopping you from doing your scientific research?
Click to expand...

Of course I was exaggerating with the god comparision, but the point remains valid I think.

I used to be into this debate, a few years ago, and I read nearly all the literature available from both sides of the issue. What I remember is that of all the studies that mentioned adult men being circumcised, and all the testimonials on all the web sites I looked at, there was no mention of a man having a circumcision on a whim. There was always a good reason -- medical, cultural, personal, whatever. In other words, natural men don't appear to view this procedure like getting your ear pierced or getting a tatoo -- activities men do undertake on a whim.
 
rocketdodger said:
The reasons are irrelevant, don't you get it? That there are reasons is what is relevant.

If there are good reasons that natural men choose not to be circumcised, then the position that there is no good reason not to be circumcised is proven incorrect. This is all I am trying to say. Most of the pro-circ crowd misinforms people, either purposefully or out of ignorance, that there really isn't a good reason to have a foreskin. I claim that if that were true then we would see a much greater number of men having adult circumcisions. Frankly, I think you are too intelligent to argue with that. Are you just playing the devil's advocate?
Click to expand...

It might be seen that I'm just playing devil's advocate, but I like to think that I'm just being objective. I have little doubt that you're correct, but I'm basing my view on an educated and experienced guess, because I have no evidence to go on. Regardless, the bottom line is that you cannot necessarily inversely correlate people's motivations for doing something with other people's "motivations" for not doing the same thing, and you did actually state:
rocketdodger said:
So I wanted to bring up the fact that effectively zero percent of the adult male population of Earth elect to be circumcised outside of medical/religious/cultural reasons. If your arguments about the "inconclusive" results of circumcision were correct, I would expect to see a much higher number -- if it is 'no big deal' then why don't more adult men have it done?
Click to expand...


rocketdodger said:
Of course I was exaggerating with the god comparision, but the point remains valid I think.
Click to expand...

Well, I'd classify it as more than an exaggeration. You're arguing that my inability to prove something that nobody in the history of time has been able to prove validates your claim that no men, essentially, undergo circumcision on a whim. The two don't really correlate, not to mention that a simple scientific study should easily prove or disprove your claim. And on that note, you wrote:

rocketdodger said:
What I remember is that of all the studies that mentioned adult men being circumcised, and all the testimonials on all the web sites I looked at, there was no mention of a man having a circumcision on a whim. There was always a good reason -- medical, cultural, personal, whatever. In other words, natural men don't appear to view this procedure like getting your ear pierced or getting a tatoo -- activities men do undertake on a whim. [emphasis added]
Click to expand...

So you could cite your sources, if you really wanted to go to the effort, but do those sources actually prove your point? Even if the motivations are clearly identified, that goes no way towards proving that men who choose not to be circumcised do not see a disadvantage in it.

The only way you can answer this question is to ask a representative sample of men whether they would have an aversion to being circumcised, otherwise it's absolutely no different from concluding that the reason that most men choose not to learn to play the accordion is because they have an aversion to the accordion. I'm sure if you could grant any man the instant ability to play the accordion most would accept, even if they never to take up playing it. You simply cannot conclude that a person's passive inaction proves an aversion, unless you actually ask them.
 
The video's Robinson posted do nothing to convince me that this procedure is not painful. I notice also that the doctor states one must not use soap till the tissue has scabbed because it will be sore. This answers my earlier question about whether the infant does not experience pain from a wound in the same way as an adult. So I think the fact is that there is pain and I come back to the fish

ETA. I also loved the reassuring "he has got himself upset". Nice touch
 
Last edited:
I'm all for adults being able to cut off whatever bits and pieces they want for pretty much any reason (even for the NHS picking up the bill for any mess or complications they subsequently suffer from) but lets keep the cutting of kids to just medical reasons.
 
Southwind17 said:
You simply cannot conclude that a person's passive inaction proves an aversion, unless you actually ask them.
Click to expand...

OK I see what you are saying.

Lets start the poll right now. Any of you who have a foreskin -- if you were offered a free circumcision, would you take it?
 
Southwind17 said:
I think we all know what this poll will reveal. It's the next question that's the important one, though: Why/Why Not?
Click to expand...

That doesn't matter, for the following reason.

1) If they had a non-whimsical reason for wanting a circumcision, they would most likely have gotten one already.
2) Because it is free, the only reason they would NOT get one is either a) they have a good reason not to or b) they have a whimsical reason not to.
3) If there is a significant portion of the population that falls under b), one would also expect a significant portion to agree to have a circumcision for whimsical reasons -- since after all it is free and doesn't inconvenience them at all.
4) Therefore, if there is a significant portion of natural men that agree to a free circumcision, then we can assume my argument is wrong. If not, then we can assume it is correct.
 
rocketdodger said:
That doesn't matter, for the following reason.

1) If they had a non-whimsical reason for wanting a circumcision, they would most likely have gotten one already.
Click to expand...
We've already ruled this group out.
rocketdodger said:
2) Because it is free, the only reason they would NOT get one is either a) they have a good reason not to or b) they have a whimsical reason not to.
Click to expand...
Flawed, and here's why: How many free things can you think of that you simply haven't done yet, not because you have good or whimsical reason not to, but because you haven't got around to it yet, are indifferent to it or simply couldn't care less?
rocketdodger said:
3) If there is a significant portion of the population that falls under b), one would also expect a significant portion to agree to have a circumcision for whimsical reasons -- since after all it is free and doesn't inconvenience them at all.
Click to expand...
Well, as I've explained, you haven't shown that there are, so the expectation doesn't follow. Moreover, going to the clinic to have part of your penis lopped off for no reason other reason than it's not "inconvenient" will not, I suspect, motivate many men to go ahead and do it. It certainly doesn't do it for me!
rocketdodger said:
4) Therefore, if there is a significant portion of natural men that agree to a free circumcision, then we can assume my argument is wrong. If not, then we can assume it is correct.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, your logic remains flawed, and hopefully you can see why, now.
 
Southwind17 said:
I think we all know what this poll will reveal. It's the next question that's the important one, though: Why/Why Not?



And your reason I Ratant?
Click to expand...
.
Something about excruciating pain over a long period of time would be #! on #1.
The lack of any reason at all to have it done would be #2.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom