Also, the pain response exists to indicate behavior that should evolutionarily be avoided. Having an enjoyable response for a dangerous act or one that should be avoided is not beneficial. However, things presenting pain as a side-effect (surgeries, medication) improve people's chances of reproduction all the time, proving that pain is not negative 100% of the time.
It is a mistake to equate "pleasure" or "lack of pain" with "good." The final moments of anoxia are near-orgasmic, but it will still kill you in the end. A headshot is painless, but doing it to an innocent is cruel.
Irrespective of laws, I see no compelling arguments for me to take a particularly strong opinion on either side of the male circumcision debate. I am weakly ambivalent, i.e., indifferent.
Irrespective of laws, I see no compelling arguments for me to take a particularly strong opinion on either side of the male circumcision debate. I am weakly ambivalent, i.e., indifferent.
You daft fucking cunt. We've established dozens of times that the procedures in each sex are not even remotely related. It's the difference between being roughed up on the schoolyard for several years in grade school; and being tortured, raped, and left to starve to death. Seriously. They aren't even structurally related. For "female circumcision" to be equitable, male circumcision would have to entail cutting off your entire dick with a scalpel. Get it?
Also, calling male circumcision in the west "mutilation" is incredibly disrespectful to the entire medical profession. You may not like how it's elected for, but it's done in a controlled setting by doctors with years of training, instruments thoroughly sterilized, and medications to prevent infection. It's not some fucking hack job done with the village elder's ritual parang, for fuck's sake. At that rate, you might as well call any form of plastic surgery mutilation. I mean, hell, big breasts are appreciated in our culture for purely aesthetic reasons, I guess breast enlargement is mutilation, huh?
I can't honestly tell if you're being serious in relating the two as being part of the same issue and in calling a surgery mutilation, or if you're just trolling incredibly effectively. In which case 15/10, I fucking raged. If I could jaw you with the fucking coffee mug on my desk through the internet, I'd do it.
The daft fucking cunt in this thread is you, and the people who think like you, which is actually quite remarkable for someone who is declaring himself indifferent.
I'm not making an argument about severity. Is female circumcision worse than male circumcision? Of course. However, that doesn't fucking make male circumcision acceptable. It has absofuckinglutely no influence whatsoever. It's like saying murder is acceptable compared to genocide.
And yes, male circumcision is mutilation. It is cutting off a body part. That is pretty much a dictionary definition of the word "mutilate". Hell, amputation of limbs is also mutilation, despite being performed in hospitals. The difference is that amputation is done when it is necessary, whereas circumcision is entirely elective and forced upon unknowing children whose feelings are usually not even taken into consideration of or made possible for them to decide once they are capable to.
As for TheWhaleShark, one PubMed study is hardly anything as for example you could whip out a different thing on PubMed showing the direct opposite. The proposed reduction rates of HIV transmission and penile cancer rates are also not an argument. For one, they haven't been conclusively demonstrated (which is why I used those words). But more importantly, if you want those prospective benefits, you can still get a circumcision once you are of the age of consent, when you are legally allowed to have sex and are allowed to be had sex with and when you can legally mutilate yourself all you want and I won't care! The problem I have is with parents forcing their children into a painful, harmful procedure without taking the child even into consideration and those prospective benefits aren't part of that equation. Penile cancer doesn't usually occur in 1-year-olds, nor are 1-year-olds known to have sex and contract HIV!
THE THING IS, a lot of the people arguing for the benefits or otherwise harmless nature of circumcision are circumscribed themselves. If you met somebody that was beaten with a bag of oranges they would NOT be arguing in support of it. Beating a kid with oranges does have a demonstrable psychological effect at least, and circumcision clearly does not.
Not if they're beaten so hard that they don't remember, or were too young to remember. Which is essentially the argument I hear from circumcision proponents. "Oh, it's okay, because the kid was so young that he doesn't remember how bad it hurt and how much he screamed." Oh, and male circumcision can and does have some demonstrable psychological effect when performed when the child is old enough to be capable of having such effects. Oh, and there are in fact also deadbeat parents who have been beaten themselves as children and do favor corporal punishment for children as a method of raising them.
It's like saying murder is acceptable compared to genocide.
No it's not, oh my god. I find it difficult to take any of this anti-circumcision argument seriously when the people making it keep throwing out these extreme comparisons.
t's like saying murder is acceptable compared to genocide.
No it's not, oh my god.
Yes it is. It is the exact same argument that has been presented over and over and over again in this very thread. "Male circumcision is okay because it isn't as bad as female circumcision". That very sentiment has been declared here over and over again.
Hell, fucking WindUpBird made a quite similar statement when I quoted him in the post you quoted me from:
It's the difference between being roughed up on the schoolyard for several years in grade school; and being tortured, raped, and left to starve to death.
Apparently roughing someone up in a schoolyard is perfectly acceptable... While I think male circumcision is hardly as simple as being roughed up in a schoolyard, even if it was, being roughed up in the schoolyard is still something bad and we shouldn't just watch idly as it happens, or even outright condone it being done. It is still something bad! And you assholes are actually cheering for the Bullies to rough someone up!
"Male circumcision is okay because it isn't as bad as female circumcision
NO ONE IS SAYING THAT. We are saying you can't compare the two. So stop it. STOP IT. No one wants you to compare them. THEY AREN'T COMPARABLE. "Female genital cutting" and "male circumcision" can't be used in arguments relating to one another. AT ALL.
"Male circumcision is okay because it isn't as bad as female circumcision
NO ONE IS SAYING THAT. We are saying you can't compare the two. So stop it. STOP IT. No one wants you to compare them. THEY AREN'T COMPARABLE. "Female genital cutting" and "male circumcision" can't be used in arguments relating to one another. AT ALL.
Except WindUpBird was making that exact fucking argument when I quoted him. Please learn to fucking read!
"Male circumcision is okay because it isn't as bad as female circumcision
NO ONE IS SAYING THAT. We are saying you can't compare the two. So stop it. STOP IT. No one wants you to compare them. THEY AREN'T COMPARABLE. "Female genital cutting" and "male circumcision" can't be used in arguments relating to one another. AT ALL.
Except WindUpBird was making that exact fucking argument when I quoted him. Please learn to fucking read!
He wasn't using that to justify male circumcision. He was saying that to get you to STOP COMPARING THEM.
I'm pretty sure at this point Chaos has to be trolling. (Did I just complain about using trolling for arguments you don't agree with? ^_^*)
Anyhow, Chaos are you circumcised? I think Nilia has a point about how generally the people who are anti-circumcision are people that are not themselves circumcised.
Personally I'm of the opinion of Rym where it's hard to get worked up about this issue. When I have children I'll probably weight the benefits. I'll probably move towards circumcision though.. I know that makes me Hitler but whatever.
Hell, fucking WindUpBird made a quite similar statement when I quoted him in the post you quoted me from:
Please read what you're arguing against before you start arguing against it. WingUpBird is NOT saying "male circumcision is like being roughed up in the schoolyard", he is just demonstrating the dramatic difference between male and female circumcision so as to get you to stop putting them in the same argument.
He wasn't using that to justify male circumcision. He was saying that to get you to STOP COMPARING THEM.
Actually he was. He was portraying male circumcision as a mostly harmless, though still violent act done upon a person, and female circumcision as a much more severe violent act. He was making an argument based on severity, while still portraying both as a violent acts (which is what I'm saying) but he is apparently A-OK with one of the violent acts, the roughing up in the school yard.
My question, which still nobody has even come remotely close to answering, is why can't both things be bad?! Yeah, one can be worse than others, but why can't they both be bad things we should try to prevent?
Hell, fucking WindUpBird made a quite similar statement when I quoted him in the post you quoted me from:
Please read what you're arguing against before you start arguing against it. WingUpBird is NOT saying "male circumcision is like being roughed up in the schoolyard", he is just demonstrating the dramatic difference between male and female circumcision so as to get you to stop putting them in the same argument.
Actually, he was saying exactly that. He compared male circumcision to being roughed up in a schoolyard.
The proposed reduction rates of HIV transmission and penile cancer rates are also not an argument. For one, they haven't been conclusively demonstrated (which is why I used those words).
First, I need to point out that this is very wrong. The reduced risk of UTIs, HIV, HPV, and penile cancer are the most valid arguments for circumcision, and they are all well-supported.
Actually, he was saying exactly that. He compared male circumcision to being roughed up in a schoolyard.
For the sake of providing a more extreme comparison after that. If he were to talk about it without talking about female circumcision, he wouldn't make that comparison.
Are you hacking off the whole penis? No? Well then OK.
What you are talking about is removing a portion of something, not rendering it non-functional. There isn't even conclusive evidence that it reduces anything at all. The fact that we can point to conflicting PubMed studies precisely means that we can't draw a conclusion. Yet you stand on your soapbox screaming about how male circumcision is mutilation because it renders the penis less functional! You're a drawing a conclusion where, at best, no conclusion can be drawn.
Support your claim with evidence. I've shown an extensive study wherein circumcision increased sensitivity for the majority of participants. Where's your confluence of evidence? I'll note your study used 373 men, was sparse on details, and has this little gem:
Of the 255 circumcised men, 138 had been sexually active before circumcision, and all were circumcised at >20 years of age.
which really makes me wonder about the methodology. You can't validly compare the experiences of men who have been either circumcised or uncircumcised for their entire lives, because they have no point of reference. You have to study men who were sexually active pre-circumcision, and who are again active after circumcision. Far too many variables.
My study had a larger pool and far better control.
For one, they haven't been conclusively demonstrated
And what constitutes "conclusive?" Did you even read the paper I linked?
Three randomized clinical trials [1–3] support epidemiological data [4] showing that adult male circumcision reduces the risk for HIV acquisition in men by 51–76%.
Or maybe you'll listen to the fucking WHO? Can you please provide your credentials that qualify you to question the recommendations of the WHO?
And how about the neonatal UTI issue? How well do you understand the public health consequences of issues that "only" occur in 3% of the population?
Your argument is flimsy at best, and hand-wavingly ignorable at worst.
He used a comparison because you are being THICK AS ALL FUCK.
Yeah really. I'd be more respective of your (chaosof99) opinion if you weren't going off on this tirade of "everyone who thinks circumcision is okay should burn in hell" nonsense.
Okay, WindUpBird compares one violent act to a much more severe violent act, and condones the first violent act. but I'm of course thick as fuck.
Also, I love the fact that even if all those medical benefits were conclusively proven true, they would only manifest once the person in question is old enough to get himself circumcised by his own volition. None of those benefits require an infant to be circumcised by the enforced decision of the parent!
Yeah really. I'd be more respective of your (chaosof99) opinion if you weren't going off on this tirade of "everyone who thinks circumcision is okay should burn in hell" nonsense.
I didn't say anything like that at all. What I'm saying is that these people are wrong, and to a staggering degree. That they promote child endangerment and child mutilation. Hell, even in WindUpBirds intentionally tame comparison, he still ends up condoning school bullying. Let that go across your mind. Even when he tried to pick the tamest thing he could think of, he still ended up comparing male circumcision to a bad act that should be frowned upon and prevented!
When circumcision is done on an older patient, there is a higher chance of something going wrong. You stated that very fact in your own argument. That is why parents choose to have it done to their child while they're still an infant.
Also, I love the fact that even if all those medical benefits were conclusively proven true, they would only manifest once the person in question is old enough to get himself circumcised by his own volition. None of those benefits require an infant to be circumcised by the enforced decision of the parent!
No, because you have risk of UTIs and penile cancer immediately, rather than before you become sexually active.
I didn't say anything like that at all. What I'm saying is that these people are wrong, and to a staggering degree. That they promote child endangerment and child mutilation. Hell, even in WindUpBirds intentionally tame comparison, he still ends up condoning school bullying. Let that go across your mind. Even when he tried to pick the tamest thing he could think of, he still ended up comparing male circumcision to a bad act that should be frowned upon and prevented!
I'm paraphrasing. You get my point. And he wasn't condoning child bullying. He only chose that comparison because you've been spewing about how it's mutilation, and if he'd have compared it to something tamer you would have gone crazy. This is, at least, how I read his statement. WindUpBird will have to come in here and argue for himself instead of letting us both just interpret (or misinterpret) his statements.
Also, I love the fact that even if all those medical benefits were conclusively proven true, they would only manifest once the person in question is old enough to get himself circumcised by his own volition. None of those benefits require an infant to be circumcised by the enforced decision of the parent!
No, because you have risk of UTIs and penile cancer immediately, rather than before you become sexually active.
From your own link:
A meta-analysis of 12 studies (one randomised controlled trial, four cohort studies and seven case-control studies) representing 402,908 children determined that circumcision was associated with a significantly reduced risk of urinary tract infection (UTI). However, the authors noted that only 1% of boys with normal urinary tract function experience a UTI, and the number-needed-to treat (number of circumcisions necessary) to prevent one urinary tract infection was calculated to be 111. Because haemorrhage and infection are the commonest complications of circumcision, occurring at rate of about 2%, assuming equal utility of benefits and harms, the authors concluded that the net clinical benefit of circumcision is only likely in boys at high risk of urinary tract infection (such as those with high grade vesicoureteral reflux or a history of recurrent UTIs, where the number needed to treat declined to 11 and 4, respectively).[201]
Some UTI studies have been criticized for not taking into account a high rate of UTI's among premature infants, who are usually not circumcised because of their fragile health status.[70] The AMA stated that “depending on the model employed, approximately 100 to 200 circumcisions would need to be performed to prevent 1 UTI," and noted one decision analysis model that concluded that circumcision was not justified as a preventative measure against UTI.[13]
So, essentially, the risk of getting an infection from the circumcision procedure is higher than the risk of UTI.
And of course these bits about penile cancer:
The American Cancer Society (2009) stated, "Most experts agree that circumcision should not be recommended solely as a way to prevent penile cancer."[202]
The American Academy of Pediatrics (1999) stated that studies suggest that neonatal circumcision confers some protection from penile cancer, but circumcision at a later age does not seem to confer the same level of protection. Further, because penile cancer is a rare disease, the risk of penile cancer developing in an uncircumcised man, although increased compared with a circumcised man, remains low.[70]
None of those benefits require an infant to be circumcised by the enforced decision of the parent!
No, but once again, it's a lot less risky to do it on an infant, and it's easier to boot.
And you can be sexually active from the moment you get an erection. That's well before you're an "adult" free from the tyranny of your parents. I highly doubt a 14 year old can afford to get himself circumcised.
Okay, WindUpBird compares one violent act to a much more severe violent act, and condones the first violent act. but I'm of course thick as fuck.
When did he condone the first violent act? When did he say, "It's OK to get roughed up in a schoolyard?" He just said that one is worse than the other and as such need to be handled differently. Saying "A is worse than B" does not mean "B is OK." That's an unsupported leap of logic.
Or do we treat all violence the same? If I slap you, should we treat that the same way as me murdering your face? No. They're different.
Male circumcision is OK because 1) the harm is minimal to non-existent and transient and 2) the benefits to public health far outweigh the costs.
None of those benefits require an infant to be circumcised by the enforced decision of the parent!
No, but once again, it's a lot less risky to do it on an infant, and it's easier to boot.
And you can be sexually active from the moment you get an erection. That's well before you're an "adult" free from the tyranny of your parents. I highly doubt a 14 year old can afford to get himself circumcised.
Okay, WindUpBird compares one violent act to a much more severe violent act, and condones the first violent act. but I'm of course thick as fuck.
When did he condone the first violent act? When did he say, "It's OK to get roughed up in a schoolyard?" He just said that one is worse than the other and as such need to be handled differently. Saying "A is worse than B" does not mean "B is OK." That's an unsupported leap of logic.
Or do we treat all violence the same? If I slap you, should we treat that the same way as me murdering your face? No. They're different.
Male circumcision is OK because 1) the harm is minimal to non-existent and transient and 2) the benefits to public health far outweigh the costs.
WindUpBird said he was okay with male circumcision, and then later out of his own volition compare schoolyard bullying to male circumcision. I didn't make that leap of logic. He did. In fact, that was his premise!
And no, not all violence is the same severity. Nor did I ever say that. In fact, I said quite clearly there was a different degree of severity. However, that doesn't mean we should let one happen, or even encourage it, because it isn't as severe as something else.
The strange thing is that you outright admit that there is harm being done, yet you are okay with that. And the "public health benefits" have hardly been shown to outweigh those costs. Hell, Linkigi even refuted himself with his own link in that regard, despite thinking that he did the exact opposite.
Chaosof99, are you circumcised?
How is that in any way relevant? Only thing I see that being used at all is as an ad hominem argument. The status of my own penis is completely irrelevant to the discussion.
Comments
It is a mistake to equate "pleasure" or "lack of pain" with "good." The final moments of anoxia are near-orgasmic, but it will still kill you in the end. A headshot is painless, but doing it to an innocent is cruel.
I'm not making an argument about severity. Is female circumcision worse than male circumcision? Of course. However, that doesn't fucking make male circumcision acceptable. It has absofuckinglutely no influence whatsoever. It's like saying murder is acceptable compared to genocide.
And yes, male circumcision is mutilation. It is cutting off a body part. That is pretty much a dictionary definition of the word "mutilate". Hell, amputation of limbs is also mutilation, despite being performed in hospitals. The difference is that amputation is done when it is necessary, whereas circumcision is entirely elective and forced upon unknowing children whose feelings are usually not even taken into consideration of or made possible for them to decide once they are capable to.
As for TheWhaleShark, one PubMed study is hardly anything as for example you could whip out a different thing on PubMed showing the direct opposite. The proposed reduction rates of HIV transmission and penile cancer rates are also not an argument. For one, they haven't been conclusively demonstrated (which is why I used those words). But more importantly, if you want those prospective benefits, you can still get a circumcision once you are of the age of consent, when you are legally allowed to have sex and are allowed to be had sex with and when you can legally mutilate yourself all you want and I won't care! The problem I have is with parents forcing their children into a painful, harmful procedure without taking the child even into consideration and those prospective benefits aren't part of that equation. Penile cancer doesn't usually occur in 1-year-olds, nor are 1-year-olds known to have sex and contract HIV!
Not if they're beaten so hard that they don't remember, or were too young to remember. Which is essentially the argument I hear from circumcision proponents. "Oh, it's okay, because the kid was so young that he doesn't remember how bad it hurt and how much he screamed." Oh, and male circumcision can and does have some demonstrable psychological effect when performed when the child is old enough to be capable of having such effects. Oh, and there are in fact also deadbeat parents who have been beaten themselves as children and do favor corporal punishment for children as a method of raising them.
Hell, fucking WindUpBird made a quite similar statement when I quoted him in the post you quoted me from: Apparently roughing someone up in a schoolyard is perfectly acceptable...
While I think male circumcision is hardly as simple as being roughed up in a schoolyard, even if it was, being roughed up in the schoolyard is still something bad and we shouldn't just watch idly as it happens, or even outright condone it being done. It is still something bad! And you assholes are actually cheering for the Bullies to rough someone up!
We are saying you can't compare the two. So stop it. STOP IT. No one wants you to compare them. THEY AREN'T COMPARABLE.
"Female genital cutting" and "male circumcision" can't be used in arguments relating to one another. AT ALL.
I'm pretty sure at this point Chaos has to be trolling. (Did I just complain about using trolling for arguments you don't agree with? ^_^*)
Anyhow, Chaos are you circumcised? I think Nilia has a point about how generally the people who are anti-circumcision are people that are not themselves circumcised.
Personally I'm of the opinion of Rym where it's hard to get worked up about this issue. When I have children I'll probably weight the benefits. I'll probably move towards circumcision though.. I know that makes me Hitler but whatever.
My question, which still nobody has even come remotely close to answering, is why can't both things be bad?! Yeah, one can be worse than others, but why can't they both be bad things we should try to prevent?
What you are talking about is removing a portion of something, not rendering it non-functional. There isn't even conclusive evidence that it reduces anything at all. The fact that we can point to conflicting PubMed studies precisely means that we can't draw a conclusion. Yet you stand on your soapbox screaming about how male circumcision is mutilation because it renders the penis less functional! You're a drawing a conclusion where, at best, no conclusion can be drawn.
Support your claim with evidence. I've shown an extensive study wherein circumcision increased sensitivity for the majority of participants. Where's your confluence of evidence? I'll note your study used 373 men, was sparse on details, and has this little gem: which really makes me wonder about the methodology. You can't validly compare the experiences of men who have been either circumcised or uncircumcised for their entire lives, because they have no point of reference. You have to study men who were sexually active pre-circumcision, and who are again active after circumcision. Far too many variables.
My study had a larger pool and far better control. And what constitutes "conclusive?" Did you even read the paper I linked? Or maybe you'll listen to the fucking WHO? Can you please provide your credentials that qualify you to question the recommendations of the WHO?
And how about the neonatal UTI issue? How well do you understand the public health consequences of issues that "only" occur in 3% of the population?
Your argument is flimsy at best, and hand-wavingly ignorable at worst.
If you really think that's anyone's position, you have major reading comprehension issues, or you're trolling.
Also, I love the fact that even if all those medical benefits were conclusively proven true, they would only manifest once the person in question is old enough to get himself circumcised by his own volition. None of those benefits require an infant to be circumcised by the enforced decision of the parent!
And of course these bits about penile cancer:
And you can be sexually active from the moment you get an erection. That's well before you're an "adult" free from the tyranny of your parents. I highly doubt a 14 year old can afford to get himself circumcised. When did he condone the first violent act? When did he say, "It's OK to get roughed up in a schoolyard?" He just said that one is worse than the other and as such need to be handled differently. Saying "A is worse than B" does not mean "B is OK." That's an unsupported leap of logic.
Or do we treat all violence the same? If I slap you, should we treat that the same way as me murdering your face? No. They're different.
Male circumcision is OK because 1) the harm is minimal to non-existent and transient and 2) the benefits to public health far outweigh the costs.
And no, not all violence is the same severity. Nor did I ever say that. In fact, I said quite clearly there was a different degree of severity. However, that doesn't mean we should let one happen, or even encourage it, because it isn't as severe as something else.
The strange thing is that you outright admit that there is harm being done, yet you are okay with that. And the "public health benefits" have hardly been shown to outweigh those costs. Hell, Linkigi even refuted himself with his own link in that regard, despite thinking that he did the exact opposite.
How is that in any way relevant? Only thing I see that being used at all is as an ad hominem argument. The status of my own penis is completely irrelevant to the discussion.