If Mort Divine ruled the world

[Einherjar86]

I'm just commenting on the statistics regarding health benefits. There aren't any competing data there, beyond Dak's observation that there can be alternative reasons for those statistics. But the correlation still stands.

If there is any substance to that correlation, then I'd say a little pain early in life is desirable over lifelong illness later.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

I'm just commenting on the statistics regarding health benefits. There aren't any competing data there, beyond Dak's observation that there can be alternative reasons for those statistics. But the correlation still stands.

If there is any substance to that correlation, then I'd say a little pain early in life is desirable over lifelong illness later.

lmao, what lifelong illness do uncircumcised men suffer from? afaik most studies showing any health benefits of circumcision are extremely mild at best.

 

[CiG]

By that logic, would you support removing the breast buds of girls as they put them at much higher risk than a foreskin does?

 

[Einherjar86]

STDs are lifelong.

 

[CiG]

Anyway, since this only started up again because Vilden commented, I'm in favour of dropping this subject entirely. I definitely think this was the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen you state on UM. The mental gymnastics are fucking top shelf stuff.

Women are oppressed because parents aren't allowed to mutilate their genitals but they can do so to boys. Damn male privilege.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

STDs are lifelong.

Condoms are cheap and don't permanently mutilate male genitalia.

 

[Einherjar86]

You guys are a trip and a half.

You know what's great? You can all choose not to circumcise your male children if you want. Isn't that great? They have the right to enjoy what CIG calls "bodily autonomy." You don't have to make them get circumcised! It's awesome, how many rights and freedoms we have in the West. Parents can choose not to circumcise their child - or... or, if they believe there are health benefits to doing so, they can have their child circumcised. It's amazing the amount of freedom we have in this country.

But you're right, clearly the government doesn't care about bodily autonomy for men at all if it allows such freedoms to be exercised. Christ, you'll warp a topic into Gordian knots if it makes you feel better about your political convictions. You're a whole new brand of social justice: "Foreskins for munchkins!"

 

[CiG]

You're the only one doing the warping here.

You're entirely focused on what the parents are allowed to do and clearly aren't considering the child.

That's a cute slogan, maybe I'd prefer something like "bodily autonomy for the defenseless."

 

[HamburgerBoy]

So, to reiterate, you're OK with female circumcision (even if it is only the removal of the clitoral hood to be analogous to male circumcision) as long as the parents *believe* there are health benefits?

The only reason male circumcision is so prominent in America is because 1) fundamentalist Christian ancestors and 2) doctors push it on the parents strongly immediately after birth (in part because they get kickbacks for selling foreskin to make women's cosmetics). They take it at the doctor's word that there are health benefits, but most of them are incredibly mild at best (we're talking barely within statistical significance) for a surgery that will affect a person permanently, cutting most of the nerves required to feel sexual pleasure.

 

[Einherjar86]

So, to reiterate, you're OK with female circumcision (even if it is only the removal of the clitoral hood to be analogous to male circumcision) as long as the parents *believe* there are health benefits?

No, because female circumcision is illegal based on medical evidence. Male circumcision isn't. But nice try genius.

I'll be honest, I don't feel informed enough about it one way or another. Based on things I've read, which were confirmed by quick online searches today, there are health benefits to circumcising a male child. But I just asked my wife for shits and giggles, and we both admitted that neither of us really know enough about it to say one way or another whether we would do it.

I never warped anything. I merely suggested that there is data to oppose whatever health risks you're saying exist (which I'm still uncertain what they are, exactly).

But more importantly, I think it's a stupid and pointless topic when trying to discuss something like male privilege vs. female privilege. There's nothing tactile here, you have no argument and, what's worse, no evidence. You're simply regurgitating the phrase "bodily autonomy" over and over again like it's a fucking mantra.

I'm done with this debate, it has done nothing and has proven nothing (except that CIG is bad at coming up with examples for female privilege - a better one would have been all the money that goes into breast cancer research).

 

[HamburgerBoy]

No it isn't, "genius". Do you think there were medical experts evaluating male circumcision and its protection from STDs 300 years ago? It's a cultural artifact, and one that didn't apply to women because the Bible didn't say anything about that. You could probably find medical benefits of an intact hymen though if you asked a doctor with the right biases. Or avoiding shellfish. Just look at the tobacco industry if you honestly think legality of ANYTHING is decided on a purely objective basis by scientists.

Do you deny that male circumcision is more than aesthetic? Any place you read will tell you that it permanently cuts through (i.e. destroys) most nerve endings associated with sexual pleasure.

 

[CiG]

Breast cancer research funding is not a better example of female privilege. It's entirely warranted and if you're saying it is a privilege in comparison to the funding for prostate cancer, I didn't know you were an MRA.

Breast cancer is the much deadlier of the two cancers by quite a margin so I think the uneven funding is not really an example of privilege but rather of intelligent allocation of funds.

Edit: Anyway, this has been pure insanity and I respect you a lot less now, for whatever little that is worth. How a rube such as myself can see that clearly it's not a case of more choice as a baby can't choose anything but rather that very little value is put on a male infant's right to an in tact body is beyond me. It should be illegal. I'm out.

 

[Einherjar86]

I respect myself a lot less. It was like going to bed with the really trashy girl at the party.

Breast cancer is the much deadlier of the two cancers by quite a margin

I'm done arguing, but this isn't accurate.

EDIT: I can quote famous thinkers too -

 

[CiG]

I agree with the quote you posted. So...

Prostate cancer has a higher mortality rate especially around the age of 60 and + whereas breast cancer overwhelmingly affects women much younger and I suppose I'd personally put an ethical emphasis on the health of younger people.

I respect myself a lot less. It was like going to bed with the really trashy girl at the party.

All you've been doing is whining and bitching and moaning and insulting, if you're going to stop debating, do it before you lose all credibility you dork.

 

[Baroque]

What preventative reasons are those? Preventing masturbation, and the ensuing blindness, insanity, hairy palms, and various other maladies that come with it? That's how circumcision became commonplace in America. Doctors have been coming up with new reasons for it ever since the original justification ceased to make sense.



So, if the parents want a girl because they already have several boys, should they be able to have sexual reassignment surgery performed on their male infant? After all, it's their property to with as they will, apparently.

The parents should have the decision to make on circumcision, not the government. The example you chose is obviously far more extreme than circumcision, it's not a fair analogy.

 

[Einherjar86]

Prostate cancer has a higher mortality rate especially around the age of 60 and + whereas breast cancer overwhelmingly affects women much younger and I suppose I'd personally put an ethical emphasis on the health of younger people.

Ah. Well see, that's different.

Ok, I'm done now.

 

[rms]

i thought circumcision was a jewish thing, hence why the Brits don't do it since they kicked em all out?

 

[arg]

i bet you're all uncircumcised faggots

 

[Vilden]

Lol posted that right before bed. Massive argument when I wake up.
Sadly I must agree with CIG here, alot of you have demonstrated (imo) really shitty opinions that makes me respect you guess alot less. Thank god for the sane people like CIG, Serjeant and HBB (didin't think the day would come were I call HBB sane).

Health is certainly a good reason. As far as religious/cultural well how about piercings and tattoos? Also it's really up to the parents how they want their child to be. The infant has no opinion or say on the matter, or any matter, they're an infant. It's more dangerous and painful for them to get it done later in life.

Not gonna a start this all up again I just have to be sure I'm not reading this right. Are you actually saying you should be allowed to tattoo your babies? If you do that, then I think the goverment should forcibly take them from you.

 

[Baroque]

Lol posted that right before bed. Massive argument when I wake up.
Sadly I must agree with CIG here, alot of you have demonstrated (imo) really shitty opinions that makes me respect you guess alot less. Thank god for the sane people like CIG, Serjeant and HBB (didin't think the day would come were I call HBB sane).

Not gonna a start this all up again I just have to be sure I'm not reading this right. Are you actually saying you should be allowed to tattoo your babies? If you do that, then I think the goverment should forcibly take them from you.

No, he mentioned body mutilation for religious/cultural reasons, and i said piercings and tattoos are another example of them in general. People do give their babies ear piercings all the time. I don't think a tattoo is any reason to remove someone's child from them either btw. Not saying I would personally have a child tattooed.

Also, tattoos can be removed.. yet they're somehow more shocking to you than piercings or circumcision?

"allowed" is such an authoritarian word. It belies submissiveness of yourself to your government also. I don't think we'll see eye to eye on any of this. No I do not think I should be "allowed" to do things, i should just do them if i wish and have no consequences except the natural effects of my actions. The government should only intervene in extreme cases.