TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Circumcision should be outlawed
Pages (6): « 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 »

quote:

Originally posted by tiesto14 dunno man...i am circumsised and can say if i expereinced any more pleasure from sex i would probally drop dead....but eh thats me

first of, me and a few of my crew have been cut later on in life. i did it at 14, meaning i know what getting a blowjob and jacking off feels with and without...without=MILLION times better. now my cousin just got circumcised a few months ago, alphastarred = 21. so we'll see how that goes for him.

and yes american ones prefer it. the european ones probably never had it, though from my experience they loved it anyway

quote:

Originally posted by tiesto14 Then so is cutting your hair and clipping your nails, as well as shaving etc etc etc...the guy was a retard. And i higly doubt it hurts as much as you think...its a fast snip snip...not mutilation like you claim.

no it doesn't hurt whatsoever. i wasn't even asleep when i got it, i was just laying there playing gameboy color, super mario. swear on it!

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T highly doubtful considering this is israel, and the only reason he is 'out of his mind' in the judge's view is probably because there's some verses in the torah that commands jews to preform circumcisions (which would be 'slightly' idiotic considering we were supposedly made the way we were by god).

highly not.

and all the websites you link and quote are anti-circumsision. so therefore it's bullshit. also show me a photo copy of a sience journal that was validated by a team and research center because the internet is not a reliable source of information. it only is to kids like you who want to twist reality to their own needs or beliefs

quote:

Originally posted by Lepanto first of, me and a few of my crew have been cut later on in life. i did it at 14, meaning i know what getting a blowjob and jacking off feels with and without...without=MILLION times better. now my cousin just got circumcised a few months ago, alphastarred = 21. so we'll see how that goes for him. and yes american ones prefer it. the european ones probably never had it, though from my experience they loved it anyway no it doesn't hurt whatsoever. i wasn't even asleep when i got it, i was just laying there playing gameboy color, super mario. swear on it! highly not. and all the websites you link and quote are anti-circumsision. so therefore it's bullshit. also show me a photo copy of a sience journal that was validated by a team and research center because the internet is not a reliable source of information. it only is to kids like you who want to twist reality to their own needs or beliefs

why do you want me to provide validation to something you validated just a few paragraphs ago?

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T why do you want me to provide validation to something you validated just a few paragraphs ago?

because i've spoken from experience you're relying on internet links.

quote:

Originally posted by Lepanto because i've spoken from experience you're relying on internet links.

FFS, you are fucking slow!

you have just validated it for me, why the hell should i bother to provide validation?!

wank off with soap daily will keep ur willy clean.
:P

circumcision aint that bad.
well it better not be.
i'm gonna have it done in a couple of months.

Yup, as expected this thread has turned into personal insults and "facts" taken from websites slanted in the favor of the original poster. I'm sorry you're so obsessed with the skin, or lack thereof, at the tip of the penis, but as is already seen, both sides can go back and forth statings facts and anecdotes on their behalf. It just reverts back to personal attacks.

If you want to read some "educated responses," try the original thread.

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...threadid=174144

The fun starts on page 7.

mostly im surprised by the amount of men claiming to have had or are getting circumcised as an adult.

america and israel are the only countries in the world that have a large number of circumcised men, most of the world doesnt give a shit. and at birth i doubt the difference matters much, but if you are a teenager or grown adult and you think how your dick looks interferes with your ability to get women or perform sex...too bad|

the middle east and the balkans do it too, imbecile .

So is only us Jews and Muslims who get it done?

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T you have just validated it for me, why the hell should i bother to provide validation?!

Actually he validated the opposite.. read it agian.






As for me, I'm circumcised, and have no problem with it. If you claim I could of had better orgasms with it, well I don't care, my sex drive is too all consuming as it is... And on that note, I would wonder if people with foreskin tend to premature ejaculate more often (perhaps why women prefer circumcised? )

But regardless, to all those who have ever caught a bit of their little guy in the zipper of their pants, I think we those of us without foreskin should be greatful for the wise choice of our parents.

As for the argument of whether it is better for you or not - I don't know. Medicine will one day tell you orange are good for you and the next day release a study that says they are bad or don't do anything for you. Its probably the same with circumcision. When it comes to such things, I prefer to look at the tradition that Judism considered it through more than 5000 years a good, necessary, and clean thing, so therefore I consider it such as well. At least until modern medicine can come to terms with its beliefs.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Actually he validated the opposite.. read it agian.

oh damn, you're right - i apologise lepanto, i missed one word in your post.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Yup, as expected this thread has turned into personal insults and "facts" taken from websites slanted in the favor of the original poster. I'm sorry you're so obsessed with the skin, or lack thereof, at the tip of the penis, but as is already seen, both sides can go back and forth statings facts and anecdotes on their behalf. It just reverts back to personal attacks.

except that while the "facts" you gave in that thread have been refuted one by one (mostly by arbiter), none of the facts presented against circumcision have been refuted.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Medical research indicates that circumcision produces no demonstrable benefit almost unilaterally. The few exceptions are demonstrably flawed, and I, as well as many others, have demonstrated their flaws time and time again. You can choose to ignore the truth - for whatever reason - and continue to believe that circumcision is a beneficial procedure despite the dearth of credible evidence to support that hypothesis. Alternately, you can choose to educate yourself about the reality of the procedure and realize the simple fact that, like all other forms of genital mutilation, it is a cruel, barbaric, and disgusting procedure which produces no benefit whatsoever, and which perpetuates itself only through cultural and religious tradition and widespread ignorance - such as your own. The choice is yours. I have neither the ability nor the desire to force your eyes open so that you can recognize the obvious truth of the matter. I have provided you with the resources necessary if you are genuinely interested in uncovering the truth about the purported UTI/circumcision relationship. You can use them and learn, or ignore them and remain ignorant.

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T except that while the "facts" you gave in that thread have been refuted one by one (mostly by arbiter), none of the facts presented against circumcision have been refuted.

You didn't read the whole thread, because that in fact did not happen. In the end he questioned the scientific efficacy of clinical trials themselves. He then stopped the conversation.

Maybe you can show me where "one by one" the facts where coherently argued against, along with their sources, and my lack of a counter-argument.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono You didn't read the whole thread, because that in fact did not happen. In the end he questioned the scientific efficacy of clinical trials themselves. He then stopped the conversation.

i did read the whole thread, and in the end, he did say that the clinical trials referred to should be questioned, and his reasoning behind that claim is convincing. had he replied to your following reply you would have side tracked to a red herring.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Maybe you can show me where "one by one" the facts where coherently argued against, along with their sources, and my lack of a counter-argument.

i'll have another look in a bit and see what i can come up with.

this thread should be started and participated in ONLY, and i do mean ONLY BY WOMEN!

http://www.circumcision.org/benefits.htm
http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/vanhowe4/

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter quote: Originally posted by NeoPhono My sources included: the University of Washington, the University of Michigan, the World Health Organization and the Canadian Pediatric Society, all from the last ten years. If you can find me more reputable sources than these contradicting their results, using comperable scientific methods, I'm all ears. Until then, saying that they somehow contain "false research and outdated information" without a shred of proof comes down to your word versus theirs. I think I'm going to side with the PhD/MDs. That's exactly the problem. You haven't posted any "scientific methods" at all. You've posted articles which purport to interpret scientific data which is hidden from the reader. None of the articles you posted were written by PhD/MDs, none of them listed the methodology which was used in order to obtain their "results". And their "results" as presented are in direct contradiction to accepted medical dogma throughout the vast majority of the western world. There are two possibilities. Either: 1. Medical associations in the United States are privy to some information which is unavailable to those in Europe, where circumcision largely ceased to be an issue decades ago since medical evidence so unilaterally indicated it was a harmful procedure with no benefits, and therefore the U.S. institutions are producing more accurate results. or 2. Medical assocaitions in the United States have framed their research from the standpoint of attempting to justify, rather than analyzing objectively, dated genital mutilation practices of entirely theistic origin. By manipulating results via positive outcome bias and through hiding the details of their studies behind "reports" such as the ones you posted which contain no analyzable data of any kind, they are able to avoid actually addressing the issue while purporting to espouse medical fact. One of these is realistic. One of them is not. It's time for a wake-up call. If we listened to people like you, we'd still be sacrificing virgins at the sun temple to ensure a prosperous growing season.

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T i did read the whole thread, and in the end, he did say that the clinical trials referred to should be questioned, and his reasoning behind that claim is convincing. had he replied to your following reply you would have side tracked to a red herring.

He questioned the entirety of current scientific research and procedure. When I questioned that stance he didn't reply. He didn't question the technique used in the isolated studies I showed, he questioned all scientific/medical studies using trial groups. His argument was that because real-world research doesn't use the control/one variable experimental method discussed in logic/philosophy and hypothetical experimentation, we cannot assume any real-world medical experimentation can ever be seen as true.

And what is this "red herring" that I would have slapped on the table?

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono He questioned the entirety of current scientific research and procedure. When I questioned that stance he didn't reply. He didn't question the technique used in the isolated studies I showed, he questioned all scientific/medical studies using trial groups. His argument was that because real-world research doesn't use the control/one variable experimental method discussed in logic/philosophy and hypothetical experimentation, we cannot assume any real-world medical experimentation can ever be seen as true. And what is this "red herring" that I would have slapped on the table?

the red herring would have been a discussion about the legitemacy of all(*) scientific/medical studies.


* i use logic to discern truths, i have little educational background in the relavant fields and i haven't taken a particular interest to the subject of scientific studies, hence i can't say for sure whether arbiter was in fact questioning all studies, or just a select few tending to diets and other fields which produce contradictory information. i believe it's the latter at the moment though.

so you base your opinion and knowledge of a subject on a study, right Psy-T? As do most of us here and as Yoepus (i think) has mentioned you show me one study saying one thing i'll show you a study saying another. this is most true for circumcision and a million other researches and/or scientific/medicinal topics.

other hot topics that are inconclusive = cholesterol, diets, birth control, abortions, etc. you see?

me for example, i base my opinions on experience and interaction with the world around me.

I upset my (Jewish) mother when I tell her I'm not going to circumcise my future children. She said they won't be Jewish and doesn't seem to understand my rationale that if there is a god, then foreskin wasn't put on a penis for us to cut it off...unless god is demented.

mom - "But circumcision brings you closer to god"

me - "Well then when I die, I'll circumcise god and we'll see if it brings him closer to me"

quote:

Originally posted by Jake Benson She said they won't be Jewish and doesn't seem to understand my rationale that if there is a god, then foreskin wasn't put on a penis for us to cut it off...unless god is demented.

You know, you could make a similar argument for the appendix.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka You know, you could make a similar argument for the appendix.

difference is - the foreskin is useful.

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T difference is - the foreskin is useful.

What vital function does it serve? Last I checked I wasn't any less functional without it and I don't know of anyone in the history of the world who could argue the opposite. There are theories that centuries ago the appendix actually did serve a function--other than occasionally bloating, rupturing and causing sepsis.

Complete this sentence: Without foreskin I am unable to ____.

quote:

Originally posted by Nou recieve the same amount of pleasure from people that do not have it.

Can you qualify that completely subjective statement? Science or no science, pleasure is a completely subjective matter whose measureable level is dependent on the mental interpretation of each specific subject. Furthermore, is the penis any more or less functional with or without the foreskin?

Lastly, I think your fill-in-the-blank came off wrong. Sounds like you're implying something homosexual. Change "from" to something like "than".

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T difference is - the foreskin is useful.

for spreading HPV and HIV and cancer..yeah it is

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.