CONCLUSION: Potential sources of error, assessment of causality, implications of the findings, and future research needs are discussed. Because a substantial body of evidence links noncircumcision in men with risk for HIV infection, consideration should be given to male circumcision as an intervention to reduce HIV transmission. from: The association between lack of male circumcision and risk for HIV infection: a review of the epidemiological data. Plummer, et al. 1994
One epidemiological review: "However, substantial data exist to support the conclusions that uncircumcised males have greater incidences of urinary tract infections, especially in the first 6 months of life when complications are greatest, greater incidences of ulcerative sexually transmitted infections, and increased transmission of human immunodeficiency virus." You wouldn't have to look very far to find lots of other studies, either.
OK, tandy, Try this. Read the wikipedia article on circumcision. Then look up the sources that are actually peer reviewed scientific and medical journals. What you will learn is that penile cancer only exists in uncircumsized men. You will learn that the rate of infection for AIDS and every other venereal disease is higher for uncircumcized men. You will learn that the rate of infection of STD's like cervical cancer is higher for women who are partners of uncircumcized men. Try it.
I am a scientist, and I have-including checking for scientific credibility.
Better yet,how about you try using the scientific method and use its requirements for scientific credibility--that of ALWAYS needing to fulfill prediction. When you do, you find that the real world EMPIRICAL evidence refutes the claims of any reduction. REALITY rules!
Its wierd in the US to be uncut. Look at a porno, see what I mean. Besides, if you get him cut he can never get penile cancer. If he starts getting infections in childhood, he'll have to get cut anyway and that will really hurt. Just chop him and be done with it.
Don't fuken do it! your clitoris is like a dick! YA REALLY! it is! and it has forskin to to protect it. Hence you have to REVEAL IT. how would u like it if it was rubbing up against ur jeans, and after years, you hade way less sensation in there! U GET RID OF IT, U GET RID OF MUCH OF HIS PLEASURE AS A MAN ON THIS EARTH FOREVER! DON"T FUKEN DO IT! I REPEAT. DOO NOTTT. Look it up. uncircumsized more pleasure! BE KIND! AND REWIND!!
But according to some here, this is so much more attractive than a normal penis...along with scars and a dried-out leathery appearance. But then again, this speak volumes about them. To them a hairy shaft is an appearance bonus.
Circumcision is nothing but God's secret handshake. Are you religious and afraid that someone's going to Hell if your son's penis remains intact? If so, ask yourself why you believe this and if it makes any sense whatsoever. Morally, nobody has the right to mutilate their son's genitals without their son's consent.
If you're not religious, don't do it. All of the alleged benefits have been debunked.
"and afraid that someone's going to Hell if your son's penis remains intact?"
No.
"Morally, nobody has the right to mutilate their son's genitals without their son's consent."
Since a minor- the practice, as with all surguries, has been justified by the parents- under the law- and under the privacy and protection they have with their physician: No one needs to "justify" anything to you.
@Tandykane - You did get an answer: go answer it. "One case?" you've yet to actually demonstrate there's actually an accurate account of one case. Also? That's not a rate- "one case in...." "one case every x years" are examples of rates. Again, to establish any risk, then what's the rate?
Every day I really do find new ways of not taking you seriously :) You make this way too easy :)
It is hilarious and pathetic to watch you dance away from answering if even ONE single case of those consequences I have listed are acceptable for an unnecessary practice.
Like I said, you DARE not answer because, by doing so, will expose the ethical and moral bankruptcy of circumcision..
But I must again: is even ONE case of those I have mentioned acceptable fro an unnecessary practice?
@Tandykane - You miss the point-again. It doesn't matter what your ethics are- they're YOUR ethics. Subjective. Either way, the parents have made the determination, recommended by their physician. Again, what is "accptbaiel" is SUBJECTIVE. In asking me what is acceptable, then you will demonstrate there's actually an accurate account of one case. Also? That's not a rate- "one case in...." "one case every x years" are examples of rates. Again, to establish any risk, then what's the rate?
And you are dodging the point over and over..until you can provide any PROVEN benefit from circumcision, we are left with PROVEN harm and risks, and until you address what is acceptable from an unnecessary practice, you are merely blowing smoke out of your arse...
So is even ONE of the horrible consequences posted from this unnecessary practice acceptable?
Dance and BS, al you want, but this question is still here.
@Tandykane You miss the point-again. It doesn't matter what your ethics are- they're YOUR ethics. Subjective. Either way, the parents have made the determination, recommended by their physician. Again, what is "accptbaiel" is SUBJECTIVE. In asking me what is acceptable, then you will demonstrate there's actually an accurate account of one case. Also? That's not a rate- "one case in...." "one case every x years" are examples of rates. Again, to establish any risk, then what's the rate?
Opinions and beliefs are not going to hack it. You need to provide EVIDENCE that proves non-therapeutic infant circumcison IS necessary. And that evidence must include adverse consequences an intact infant might suffer from that are worse than those that have been cited that cut infants can experience FROM circumcision.
@Tandykane - Why not? You do it, on every video you troll- you old hypocrite. And I will continue to do so until everyone is clued into totally irrelevant scumbags like you.
Your opinion is null and worthless: We have determined it is necessary, our physician and medical team have recommended it- so again: Since the practice has been justified by the parents- under the law- and under the privacy and protection they have with thier physician: Why do they need to "justify" anything to you?
I do not live in an evidence-free world where opinions and beliefs are considered facts. MY world requires evidence, so.
You need to provide EVIDENCE that proves non-therapeutic infant circumcison IS necessary. And that evidence must include adverse consequences an intact infant might suffer from that are worse than those that have been cited that cut infants can experience FROM circumcision.
@Tandykane You miss the point-again. It doesn't matter what your ethics are- they're YOUR ethics. Subjective. Either way, the parents have made the determination, recommended by their physician. Again, what is "accptbaiel" is SUBJECTIVE. In asking me what is acceptable, then you will demonstrate there's actually an accurate account of one case. Also? That's not a rate- "one case in...." "one case every x years" are examples of rates. Again, to establish any risk, then what's the rate?
@Tandykane - "Faulty logic-- if a risk is seen..."
Risk is not "seen-" it's assessed; and it's assessed based on it's frequency and rate. Again, we and our medical team have made the determination it is necessary, and what is "acceptable" is SUBJECTIVE. In asking me what is acceptable, then you will demonstrate there's actually an accurate account of one case. Also? To establish any risk, then what's the rate? Unless high in prevalence, we've determined it is necessary.
@Tandykane= "we do not need to know the rate of them--only that they exist."
Got it- so you're admittedly ignorant of the risks, because you don't know the rate- and fine with that. Wow- how objective and empirical of you Robert, you fucking ignorant codger, you. So if the death rate for vaccination was "2" (that's not a rate, but you think it is, so I'll dumb it down to a level you can understand), you'd avoid getting vaccinated? How full of shit are you?
I know the rates, but your not knowing them does not prevent you from offering your subjective opinion as to whether or not even one unnecessary death from an unnecessary practice is acceptable to YOU.
Bullshit- you just stated "we do not need to know the rate of them--only that they exist."
Got it- so you're admittedly ignorant of the risks, because you don't know the rate. Wow- how objective and empirical of you Robert, you fucking ignorant codger, you. So if the death rate for vaccination was "2" (that's not a rate, but you think it is, so I'll dumb it down to a level you can understand), you'd avoid getting vaccinated? How full of shit are you?
"You need to provide EVIDENCE that proves non-therapeutic infant circumcison IS necessary. And that evidence must include adverse consequences an intact infant might suffer from that are worse than those that have been cited that cut infants can experience FROM circumcision."
@Tandykane - I've given you dozens, tell me what error you find in their data, or shut up. The AAP's Circumcision Policy Statement, which follows EVERY other accredited medical bodies' and the law all give parental right for this determination to be made- our physician and medical team have recommended it- so again: Since the practice has been justified by the parents- under the law- and under the privacy and protection they have with thier physician: no one needs to justify anything to you.
Apparently you did not understand that your precious AAP stated that infant circumcision cannot be MEDICALLY justified, so that leaves culture and/or religion--neither of which are rational, and hence do not afford a rational reason.
@Tandykane - Once again, a straight up lie- they make NO such claim, and in fact place import, EXPLICITLY stating they support the important stance on parental choice in the procedure, while citing all of the lower incidences and rates of STI's for circumcised individuals while stressing that your stupid sensitivity claim is purely anecdotal and negligible.
Still trying to ignore the FACT that the AAP states that infant circumcision cannot be MEDICALLY justified and that parents can choose an excuse as irrational as culture and religion as an appropriate EXCUSE?
Do you have comprehension difficulties, or it this deception intentional?
Does the AAP state that an unnecessary death from an UNNECESSARY practice is acceptable, or do YOU even state that it is?
@Tandykane - Once again, a straight up lie- they make NO such claim, and in fact place import, EXPLICITLY stating they support the important stance on parental choice in the procedure, while citing all of the lower incidences and rates of STI's for circumcised individuals while stressing that your stupid sensitivity claim is purely anecdotal.
Care to prove your lie that "AAP stated that infant circumcision cannot be MEDICALLY justified?" When no such claim was ever made, you fucking liar?
Just so all here can see that our alaskan boy has comprehension difficulties..here is the statement from his precious AAP:
American Academy of Pediatrics
‘Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision.’
Now in his fever-ridden brain he saw that which was not stated.
@Tandykane - Tell me if you have difficulty comprehending the difference between these to sentences: the first one, a lie, is your claim: "AAP states that infant circumcision cannot be MEDICALLY justified."
Stance 2, as posed by the AAP: "data is not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision.’"
Tell me and the rest of the viewers, right now, if you think these two sentences the same/ synonymous, etc. so we can put this shit to bed, once and for all.
Like yourself, the AAP tries to ignore the unnecessary deaths of infants from an unnecessary practice, which shows they are as morally and ethically bankrupt as your self.
So, for the umpteenth time, do YOU find a single unnecessary death from unnecessary circumcision acceptable?
@Tandykane "the AAP tries to ignore the unnecessary deaths.." - Really? Prove they're ignoring it- oh, and what is the death rate? You're admittedly ignorant of the risks, because you don't know the rate. Wow- how objective and empirical of you Robert, you fucking ignorant codger, you. So if the death rate for vaccination was "2" (that's not a rate, but you think it is, so I'll dumb it down to a level you can understand), you'd avoid getting vaccinated? How full of shit are you?
@Tandykane Yeah- the opinions and beliefs of actual medical bodies, as opposed to NOHARMM. Yeah- acceptability based on the risks as reported by the American Academy of Pediatrics- which CLEARLY state it is up to the parent- as opposed to your rate-less spews of fear. Yeah- acceptable to us via the AAP reports of the wide array of lower incidences of STIs including HIV for circumcised males- yeah- it IS acceptable to us, because it has been made by us, protected under the law w/ our physician.
So, oblivious to facts and evidence and totally reliant on OPINIONS.
How does the AAP explain away the fact that the cutting USA has the HIGHEST rates of ALL STD's (including HIV) than all of the other INTACT industrialized nations?
Hate to tell you, but reality is NOT effected by OPINIONS.
@Tandykane- "So, oblivious to facts and evidence and totally reliant on OPINIONS."
Correct- that is NOHARM's position statement.
"How does the AAP explain.."
If you have a question about AAP's position on circumcision, take it up with their medical board. Looks like a medical body articulates parental choice & laundry list the lower rates (you know what those are, right?) of circumcised.
"Maybe you ought to take Facts & Evidence 101"
Like the kind provided by my AAP; or by your NOHARM? :)
@Tandykane- "So, oblivious to facts and evidence and totally reliant on OPINIONS."
Correct- that is NOHARM's position statement.
"How does the AAP explain.."
If you have a question about AAP's position on circumcision, take it up with their medical board. Looks like a medical body articulates parental choice & laundry list the lower rates (you know what those are, right?) of circumcised.
"Maybe you ought to take Facts & Evidence 101"
Like the kind provided by my AAP; or by your NOHARM? :)
@Tandykane - You did get an answer: go answer it. "One case?" you've yet to actually demonstrate there's actually an accurate account of one case. Also? That's not a rate- "one case in...." "one case every x years" are examples of rates. Again, to establish any risk, then what's the rate?
Every day I really do find new ways of not taking you seriously :) You make this way too easy :)
@Alaska47Boy Certain religions command circumcision, ergo, it's necessary to be "part of the club". Some clubs have a secret handshake. Get it?
It matters not if it can be done legally with parental consent. It's unnecessary mutilation being done to someone without their consent and without anesthesia. As it's unnecessary, it is without question immoral. It may even technically be torture. Would it be OK if your parents had a doctor cut your nose off when you were 16?
@Tandykane In the west analgesics ARE Used- as opposed to the fucking IDIOTIC story of the SW Asian adolescents getting it done in rivers. When parents request it- which, if they're informed, they should- it is used, and highly affective, per the The American Academy of Pediatrics' Circumcision Policy Statement.
Look, Robert - the fact that you have no life, which is, literally spent trolling the entire internet on infant circumcision, shouldn't preclude you from getting better at it.
@Tandykane - No, not "difficulties understanding," difficulties taking serious :) We'll be using analgesics, and it's offered prevalently in the west- specifically compared with countries in the "articles" you've spewed- you haven't rebutted that fact. And "states that not ALL unnecessary pain is eliminated--" and, "only an estimated 50%?" Interesting- 50% of "what?" cite that stat properly.
So, when can we expect YOUR evidence for the prevalence of analgesic usage and effectiveness, or are we supposed to take seriously This crap you just pulled out of your rectum?
I have the studies supporting my statements, WHAT evidence for your silly assertions do you have?
once again, nothing but dismissal based on what emits from your rectum?
@Tandykane - So another POS lie spouted with no back-up- just how full of shit are you, Robert?
"crap I just pulled?" Um- you mean the policy statement of one of the biggest, most respected pediatric medical bodies? We'll be using analgesics, and it's effective- AAP "states only an estimated 50%?" Interesting- 50% of "what?" cite that stat,fucking liar. Once again pulling stats out of your ass with NO substantiation- tell me, do you spin a wheel at the old folks home on your make-believe stats?
I know you are unable to deal with logic and facts and evidence, but just for shits and giggles, you might wish to check this out..you were given this before BTW..
Eleven male newborns were circumcised with a local dorsal penile nerve block, and 13 controls were circumcised without anesthetic. The adrenal cortisol response to surgery was not significantly reduced by the administration of lidocaine...once an idiot, always an idiot.
@Tandykane - Sad- just like all your other claims, can't substantiate your stats. How pathetic. So another POS lie spouted with no back-up- just how full of shit are you, Robert? AAP "states only an estimated 50%?" Interesting- 50% of "what?" cite that stat,fucking liar. Once again pulling stats out of your ass with NO substantiation- tell me, does the lying get easier with old age, or just a habit with you, since you've been trolling for so long? Come back when you're relevent and truthful.
Sorry, I am not into word games, name-calling, opinions, or denial of facts and evidence..however I would be interested in your opinion as to whether or not an unnecessary death from an unnecessary practice is acceptable or not.
And how about any of these: MRSA, gangrene, necrostising fasciatis,diptheris, Osteomyelitis,denudation of the penis, partial or total loss of the glans,Excessive penile skin loss, penile loss,Meatal ulceration, meatal stenosis,Glans necrosis...want more?
@Tandykane - Could have fooled us- since you do all the above, already- so saying "you're not into" those makes you a clueless liar, on top of being blatantly hypocritical.
Yeah, again- you listing these things doesn't pose an issue for a rational person, who would WANT TO KNOW THE RATES of these things. What's the rate? If you had to get ANY other medical procedure, and the rate of any given complication is 90 percent- that is something to be concerned about. Come back when you're able to.
@Tandykane- So another POS lie spouted with no back-up- just how full of shit are you, Robert?
Again- We have determined it is necessary, using our moral paradigm, our physician and medical team have recommended it, it has ben deemed necessary; the practice has been justified by the parents- under the law- and under the privacy and protection they have with thier physician, there's no need to prove it's right to you.
@ChipArgyle - Interesting- define where it states one cannot be a practicer of Judaism and be uncircumcised; and check YOUR facts- Circumcision of neonates is still quite often done with anesthesia in the west, especially compared to non Western countries. "Slavery?" yeah- hardly a debate on moral grounds. Which moral paradigm, by the way? Yours? It is easily stated that circumcision, done in the best interest and preventative health of the infant, is EXACTLY a moraly-based argument.
@Alaska47 Circumcision is mandatory in mainstream Judaism. An adult uncircumcised male entering the religion MUST get circumcised and have a pants-down confirmation performed by a rabbi. Only reform sects make it optional.
There are no preventative health issues associated with circumcision. All such assertions have been scientifically disproved.
Hey check it out - you just learned two new things today.
Nothing on 16 year old's nose though? Unfair of me; it's the "checkmate" argument.
@ChipArgyle sentence #1: "If a man is uncircumcised, he CANNOT be a practicing Jew: non-negotiable." Now- sentence #2: "Only reform sects make it optional." - which one is it?
You miss the bigger point- if a religious practice's moral paradigm makes this apart of it, then your morals argument is moot- their moral stance on the issue more than trumps yours, and at the very least they're on equal standing. "16-year-old's nose. Notice how the same rules as circumcision apply-" they don't.
@Alaska47Boy #2 is for practicing reform sect Jews, #1 is for practicing mainstream Jews-my original point. Are you arguing semantics?
Superstitious practitioners of 2000 year-old writings don't have a morally superior position on anything because a fictional book says they do. The Bible says rape is OK if you marry the woman afterwards.
I'll make it easy. Same baby. Cut off his foreskin and his nose. You claim parental consent is all that's required for unnecessary surgery on a minor.
The ONLY requirement for being Jewish is to have a Jewish mother. All of the rest of the BS is so different sects can exert different amounts of control over others. Circumcision is solely to control the sexuality of others, as noted by the 13th century doctor and scholar Maimonides.
@Tandykane - "All the rest of the BS?" Got it- so other's morals and religious beliefs are "BS" to you- tell us why should any one listen to or respect any position you take when you don't with theirs? Not having the first iota of a clue about Judaism doesn't stop you from guessing your way through it- while only demonstarting one thing: how utterly fucking ignorant you are of others' religious or personal morals and beliefs. You don't get those- fine, just don't expect others to on yours.
Thanks for the childish rant, but I still would like to know if you think an unnecessary death from an unnecessary practice is acceptable..
you might wish to address these also:MRSA, gangrene, necrotising fasciatis,diphtheria, Osteomyelitis,denudation of the penis, partial or total loss of the glans--want more?
Told you OUR discussion is over UNTIL and IF you ever answer this crucial question--otherwise your OPINIONS, name-calling, and rants will be ignored--as they should be.
@Tandykane- Yeah, again- you listing these things doesn't pose an issue for a rational person, who would WANT TO KNOW THE RATES of these things. You've already acknowledged that acceptibility IS subjective, and that means YOUR SUBJECTIVE opinion on acceptibility doesn't matter- to anyone, nor should it. The rates of complication- ANY complication- has been proved to be minimal and negligible. Get over it, old man. You're irrelevant.
Rational people do not need to know that rate of unnecessary adverse events, only to know that they occur, and that you are unable or unwilling to state whether even one of them is acceptable..
So, are they acceptable, or not?
but keep ignoring the crucial word "unnecessary" if it hlps you to cope with a damaged dildo.
@Tandykane - "Rational people do not need to know that rate of unnecessary adverse events, only to know that they occur,"
- Bwa ha ha- got it. Please- leave this statement up for everyone to see. you've just acknowledged that people don't need to know the rates and acceptability IS subjective, that means YOUR SUBJECTIVE opinion on acceptibility doesn't matter- to anyone, nor should it. The rates of ANY complication is proved to be minimal and negligable, as shown by medical groups. Idiot :)
Are ANY of these accepatable for an unnecessary practice? MRSA, gangrene, necrostising fasciatis,diptheris, Osteomyelitis,denudation of the penis, partial or total loss of the glans,Excessive penile skin loss, penile loss,Meatal ulceration, meatal stenosis,Glans necrosis,Penile urethral fistula,pulmonary embolism, gastric rupture,Concealed penis,Neonatal septicemia,Abdominal distension,meningitis,Myocardial injury,Penile adhesions,Tachycardia and heart failure,Methemoglobinemia
@Tandykane - All fictitious risks until you show the rates. You've already admitted that both the term "necessary" and "acceptable" are subjective- therefore, what you subjectively deem either one to be doesn't concern or interest me. Better I have the opinions of established medical bodies vice NOHARM, you biased old man:) How does it feel to know the practice has been justified by the parents- under the law- and under the privacy and protection they have with thier physician. Get over it:)
And I have repeatedly asked for your SUBJECTIVE opinion if any of these are acceptable to you from an unnecessary practice, but you keep repeating this nonsense and refusing to answer the question--and this reveals much more than you realize. Running scared much?
@Tandykane- Of COURSE it's acceptable, old man- otherwise we wouldn't be doing it to our 4th son. You've already admitted that both the term "necessary" and "acceptable" are subjective- therefore, what YOU subjectively deem either one to be doesn't concern or interest me. How does it feel to know the practice has been justified by the parents- under the law- and under the privacy and protection they have with thier physician. You're subjective opinion is irrelevant- Get over it:)
So, to you, an unnecessary death and other adverse consequences are acceptable to you? So much for a rational ethical position.
You STILL need to provide EVIDENCE that proves non-therapeutic infant circumcison IS necessary. And that evidence must include adverse consequences an intact infant might suffer from that are worse than those that have been cited that cut infants can experience FROM circumcision.
@Tandykane - Nope- all I've done is agree with you: You've already admitted that both the term "necessary" and "acceptable" are subjective- therefore, what YOU subjectively deem either one to be doesn't concern or interest me. You haven't established meaningful risks, and these risks have been deemed negligible. The practice has been justified by the parents- under the law- and under the privacy and protection they have with thier physician. You're subjective opinion doesn't matter.
Still with the usual BS and word games..anything to not face reality?
Is ANY unnecessary adverse consequence MORALLY justified from an unnecessary practice?
You STILL need to provide EVIDENCE that proves non-therapeutic infant circumcison IS necessary...what adverse consequences an intact infant might suffer from that are worse than those that have been cited that cut infants can experience FROM circumcision?
I have realized that I have made a fundamental mistake in trying to have a rational ethical and moral discussion with someone who has neither--just a compulsion to mutilate genitals. Both sad and pathetic. and the children must suffer from this sick compulsion!
@Tandykane - "I have realized that I have made a fundamental mistake in trying to have a rational ethical and moral discussion."
Bwa HA Ha ha- when the hell did THAT happen ?! :) Get the fuck outa' here, you subjective old man- Samson, the day you have an objective ANYTHING is the day they take away parental rights. Go shit in your hand, and wish in another, and see which one fills up faster :)
Come back when your opinion is non-subjective and relevant.
We KNOW! We get it already that your obsession with an unnecessary and harmful practice is so strong that any and all adverse consequences(even death) plays no part in your rationalization.
And it seems the name-calling and childish insults are the only thing left for you. Thanks for this glimpse into the mindset of circumcisers--and what a sick and pathetic picture this glimpse offers to rational people.
This is a sure sign of ethical and moral bankruptcy.
@Tandykane - "Obsession?" YOu've been at this for years, Samson- you fucking old troll- your entire life is spent trolling any and all websites for what has to be the lamest cause in the history of causes :) Believe me- you don't "get it," or else I wouldn't be here, having already proven to you how antiquated, subjective,and worthless your opinion is. No, Bobby- you DON'T "get it," or you wouldn't have quit 85 posts ago. You haven't the first notion of ethics or morals, or you WOULD 'get it."
@Tandykane - Your fucking idiotic "last refuge" line gets stupider every time. you hear that somewhere and . "Adverse consequences?" What adverse consequences? you haven't shown ANY consequences- tell me- is that because you're incapable of giving unbiased data, or because you can't find it on the NOHARM website? You've already admitted that both the term "necessary" and "acceptable" are subjective- therefore, what YOU subjectively deem either one to be doesn't concern or interest me.
So, in your fantasy world, the loss of normal, healthy, functioning tissue is NOT an adverse consequence? If so then you admit it is the DESIRED consequence?
You need to provide EVIDENCE that proves non-therapeutic infant circumcison IS necessary. And that evidence must include adverse consequences an intact infant might suffer from that are worse than those that have been cited that cut infants can experience FROM circumcision.
@Tandykane - Nope, not any more than the loss of any other worthless body part, like the appendix, adenoids, or wisdom teeth. I've already provided dozens of studies on this thread, and not reposting, go find them. End of the day? I "need" to provide you two things: 'jack' and 'shit,' and Jack left town a long time ago. The practice has been justified by the parents- under the law- and under the privacy and protection they have with thier physician. no one needs to "justify" a thing to you.
@Tandykane - Um- That's exactly what YOU are doing, old man: stating risk without stats, using biased sources to defend your spurious claims, and thinking your subjective opinion matters to anyone. It doesn't- my morals are mine, and if you agree with them or not, doesn't chnage that we're allowed this right- The practice has been justified by the parents- under the law- and under the privacy and protection they have with thier physician. no one needs to "justify" a thing to you.
@Tandykane Thank you for admitting explicitly that my morals are mine and that what qualifies both as "acceptable" and "necessary" are subjective: therefore, I do not need to answer you on what I find as such- it will remain subjective no matter the answer. 1, 2, 3, 100- it doesn't matter- it will always remain subjective and ours to make. The practice has been justified by the parents- under the law- and under the privacy and protection they have with thier physician. Get over it.
@Tandykane - Exactly- none of your business (BTW- morals go "low?" What, like on some "moral scale?" Funny) what my morals are. They're based on the studies, evidence, and reasoning we've chosen- so again, yours differs, that doesn't make it right. If you actually brought me actual number or rates, then perhaps I'd choose to discuss it but again, that's the point- my call, and my choice :)
@Tandykane - "Questionable studies?" You haven't questioned my studies, and blamed you inability to do so on a "character limit." My moral and ethical standards are acceptible because I say they are, there needs nothing more ot explained about them- least of all to someone like you. "Simple question?" Simple answer: whatever I say it is. And since you've admitted acceptability is subjective, there's no ned to explain what is and is nto as such- again, least of all to someone like you.
"I like that saying, but it's too bad you only apply it to others." It might appear to be so, but only to those who are unable to actually recognize what is BS.
"Of COURSE it's acceptable, old man" OK, now you have admitted that to you unnecessary adverse problems are acceptable, let's establish which are, and how many..
Are ANY in that list NOT acceptable?
And of the ones that ARE acceptable, how many of each are still acceptable?
@Tandykane - faulty premise- it's your subjective, unfounded opinion that the medical procedure is "unnecessary," You've already acknowledged that acceptibility IS subjective, and that means YOUR SUBJECTIVE opinion on acceptibility doesn't matter- to anyone, nor should it. The rates of ANY complication- has been proved to be minimal and negligable, as both shown by medical groups, and the (lack of) supporting documentation and rates from you. Get over it, old man. You're irrelevant.
@Alaska47Boy You need to provide EVIDENCE that proves non-therapeutic infant circumcison IS necessary. And that evidence must include adverse consequences an intact infant might suffer from that are worse than those that have been cited that cut infants can experience FROM circumcision.
@Tandykane You're an idiot: "my subjective opinion as to the acceptability?" That means two things: 1) you've just acknowledged that acceptibility IS subjective, and 2) that means YOUR SUBJECTIVE opinion on acceptibility doesn't matter- to anyone, nor should it.
The rates of complication- ANY complication- has been proved to be minimal and negligable, as both shown by medical groups, and the (lack of) supporting documentation and rates from you. Get over it, old man. You're irrelevant.
@ChipArgyle - Nope- your "original point was this: "If a man is uncircumcised, he CANNOT be a practicing Jew: non-negotiable."
Nope- I'll make it easy: You've amended it- you calling it "semantics" tells me one of two things: 1) you aren't man enough to take ownership of what is clearly your mia culpa, 2) you think it "semantical" in comparing a "practicing Jew" with a "reform Sect Jew," meaning you don't have the foggiest idea about Juaism- or 3) "All of the Above." so is it 1, 2, or 3)?
Because the foreskin is functionless, the pain will never be remembered, and removal is dirt cheap the cancer equation is a no brainer. Keeping the foreskin also raises the chances of contracting and passing on STD's such as AIDS and cervical cancer. These have a much higher rate than penile cancer.
Functionless? Where did you get this nonsense? It is one of the most highly innervated parts of the body--do you think sensation is not a function? How about we chop off your clit?
And for these other claims, do you have any valid evidence for them?
Dirt cheap? $400 -- %1000?
And what about the other costs--in complications, up to and including DEATHS? A life is cheap to you?
@Tandykane - "highly innervated?!" Oh man! Look- go ask cicumcised men if they think they don't experience any feeling or sensation in thier penis- see what they say, genius. Sensation is not used ot mean function. The major and higher level functioning of the penis- erection, urination, and ejaculation- are the primary purposes of the penis. To that end- function remains the same.
Good job on STILL not providing either death rate or even amount of sensitivity lost because the procedure.
Excuse me for relying on facts and evidence more than on self-serving anecdotes--or your illogical belief that nerves and sensation have no function. Perhaps your OPINION might have merit is they were logical or supported by evidence.
But other than superficial OPINIONS, it is obvious that since you have no facts or valid evidence to support those opinions, they remain OPINIONS.
Nature defines the function of the penis, , and no matter how you slice it, beliefs are not EVIDENCE.
@Tandykane - You're relying on shit, old man- your "facts" are as useless as you are. You can't interpret the studies you provide, you're studies are biased, you get any and all studies you throw from anti-circ sites- you're objective? What a fucking joke. Try using evidence that PROVE significant risk of anything.
@Tandykane- There WAS a difference due to the selection- These 139 women were RECRUITED THROUGH AN ANTI-CIRCUMCISON NEWSLETTER- are you THAT fucking stupid that you don't consider this BIASED? You DO know what it means having an already-non-random, BIASED group serve as their own control, right, dip-shit? Please tell me you know what that does to the results. Please tell me you are not so fucking idiotic as to actually not know what the implications of doing this would be. Wow, what a Doofus.
@Tandykane - ANY evidence? Um, yeah, moron- These 139 women were RECRUITED THROUGH AN ANTI-CIRCUMCISON NEWSLETTER- The sample group is NON RANDOM - the only reporting was non-controlled, mail-in questionnaires- The group SERVED AS THEIR OWN CONTROL- Please tell me you are not so fucking idiotic as to actually not know what the implications of doing this would be. How in the world could you NOT think any of this would not clearly demonstrate bias? You're not that moronic, are you?
When you are done l ranting and raving about alleged bias with no evidence to suggest the it has affected the results, how about answering the crucial question: what adverse affects are acceptable from an unnecessary practice?
Nor will the insults or name-calling
This question is not going away no matter how many dodges you make to avoid the question.
@Tandykane - Not affected the results?! Bwa ha ha! ANY evidence? Moron- These 139 women were RECRUITED THROUGH AN ANTI-CIRCUMCISON NEWSLETTER- right THERE it will affect te results. The sample group is NON RANDOM - the only reporting was non-controlled, mail-in questionnaires- The group SERVED AS THEIR OWN CONTROL- How in the world could you NOT think any of this would not clearly demonstrate bias? You're not that moronic, are you?
@Tandykane YOU DON'T ANSWER these questions- what is the rate? You haven't gauged the risks- the doctors and parents have- YOU have not gauged the situation, the benefits, and the recommendation by doctors- parents have. YOU are using "necessary" as a SUBJECTIVE Term - that you, and ONLY you use- NO ONE ELSE.
The practice has been justified by the parents- under the law- and under the privacy and protection they have with their physician: No one needs to "justify" anything to you.
Funny this, since you cannot even provide even a single PROVEN benefit for infant circumcision.
Sorry but one-sided BS is not acceptable.. speaking of which, and ignoring your BS, when are you going to answer what and how much adverse consequences are acceptable from an unnecessary practice?
@Tandykane -Show the dozen studies and findings I've posted over these videos, wrong; otherwise I have. YOU have not gauged the situation, the benefits, and the recommendation by doctors- parents have. YOU are using "necessary" as a SUBJECTIVE Term - that you, and ONLY you use- NO ONE ELSE.
The practice has been justified by the parents- under the law- and under the privacy and protection they have with their physician: No one needs to "justify" anything to you.
@Tandykane - YOU DONN'T ANSWER these questions- what is the rate? You haven't gauged the risks- the doctors and parents have- YOU have not gauged the situation, the benefits, and the recommendation by doctors- parents have. YOU are using "necessary" as a SUBJECTIVE Term - that you, and ONLY you use- NO ONE ELSE.
The practice has been justified by the parents- under the law- and under the privacy and protection they have with their physician: No one needs to "justify" anything to you.
@Alaska47Boy And YOU have not answered the critical questions as to what ARE accptable, and we know WHY you have not.
YOU DARE NOT!
These questions question the very foundations of circumcision--the rationale, ethics and morality of it,
There is only one rational, ethical and moral answer to these question, and we all know that if that answer is given, circumcision will be shown to be bankrupt.
And ANY other answer damns it also. So, you DARE not answer.
@Tandykane - Parents make the determination of what is "acceptable," not you. Your opinion is null and worthless: the parents have determined it is necessary, the physicians and medical team have recommended it- so again: Since the practice has been justified by the parents- under the law- and under the privacy and protection they have with thier physician: no one needs to "justify" necessity to you.
@Tandykane - Try using evidence that PROVE significant risk of anything.
Your response: "Better yet..."
Reply: Nope- let's start there. Use evidence to PROVE SIGNIFICANT risk of anything. I don't want to hear "proven risk" (i.e., all stated risks- by definition- have to have been proved)- I don't want to hear "documented risks" ; i.e., 1 incident of TB occurance in the last 60 years is technically "documented," but rational people want to know the actual risk percentages- what is it?
"go ask cicumcised men if they think they don't experience any feeling or sensation in thier penis." Done, as has been provided to you again and again--and denial does not change the info:
A Preliminary Poll of Men Circumcised in Infancy or Childhood
T. Hammond, BJU International (83, Suppl. 1), p. 85-92, January, 1999 circumcised intact
@Tandykane - Great- so the majority of circumcised men are happy, or don't care about the difference- so much for your loss of all that sensitivity- which you are incapable of measuring.- what was the total lost, by the way? :)
THIS IS NOT A STUDY, and IS BOGUS- you idiot- You only get this FROM THE SAME ORGANIZATION that put out female response rate- it's BIASED- and it's published AS A SUPPLEMENTAL- not an actual article. It uses polls taken by - NOHARMM- you know that, right? The CITATIONS use books advertised ON THE "ARTICLE" to buy at the NOHARMM website. There isn't even a methods section- and the introduction is a pledge of action BY NOHARMM. How can you be so STUPID as to think this credible? Wow- idiot.
"Good job on STILL not providing either death rate or even amount of sensitivity lost because the procedure." Still not providing what for each is acceptable for an unnecessary procedure.
Funny that, you demand answers yet provide none yourself--nice double standard there!
Fine-touch pressure thresholds in the adult penis Morris L. Sorrells, James L. Snyder, Mark D. Reiss 2 0 07 BJU INTERNATIONAL 2007
@Tandykane - Yeah, strike out, again- WE HAVE BEEN OVER THIS- that gives neither the rate of loss or total loss, either by location tested or total penis.
It's not and was never a "simple bar graph," old man- I know you obviously never went to college, because you can't understand a simple t-test. NOTHING IN THE STUDY SHOWS 100% LOSS OF SENSITIVITY, idiot- Show a RATE of sensitivity loss at 100%- this study DOES NOT SHOW THAT. How do you substantiate your fucking LIE that shows 3/4 loss of sensitivity? This study shows is the different parts of the penis- it EXPLICITLY STATES: "no attempt was made to quantify the specialized nerve endings."
See, restating this shows you unwillingness to read what is written.. the RATE of sensation loss is 100%, the quantity of loss is another subject altogether. And IF you cannot understand where the up to 3/4 loss comes from, again, either obfuscation or stupidity.
@Tandykane - HOW THE FUCK DOES THAT SHOW 100 PERCENT LOSS OF SENSITIVITY, YOU DOOFUS?! How does that show 3/4 loss of sensitivity, like the lying SHIT you spew? All this study shows is the different parts of the penis- it EXPLICITLY STATES: "no attempt was made to quantify the specialized nerve endings...The present study examined the area as a whole rather than analyzing it point by point." This study merely examines sensory tissue- THAT'S IT! Get the fuck outa' here, you knucklehead :)
When you are finished with your name-calling, and insults and rants,and raves about what you are unable to understand. please answer these crucial questions:
How many unnecessary risks, pain, complications, harm, dissatisfaction, and deaths are acceptable from an unnecessary practice.
@Tandykane - HOW THE FUCK DOES THAT SHOW 100 PERCENT LOSS OF SENSITIVITY, YOU DOOFUS?! How does that show 3/4 loss of sensitivity, like the lying SHIT you spew? All this study shows is the different parts of the penis- it EXPLICITLY STATES: "no attempt was made to quantify the specialized nerve endings...The present study examined the area as a whole rather than analyzing it point by point." This study merely examines sensory tissue- THAT'S IT! Get the fuck outa' here, you knucklehead :)
@Tandykane - Then prove the rebuttal is BS- NOTHING IN THE STUDY SHOWS 100% LOSS OF SENSITIVITY- Show a RATE of sensitivity loss at 100%- this study DOES NOT SHOW THAT. How do you substantiate your fucking LIE that shows 3/4 loss of sensitivity? This study shows is the different parts of the penis- it EXPLICITLY STATES: "no attempt was made to quantify the specialized nerve endings." If you can't interpret your own results, you need to have the gumption to say so, ignoramus.
NOTHING IN THE STUDY SHOWS 100% LOSS OF SENSITIVITY, YOU DOOFUS- Show a RATE of sensitivity loss at 100%- this study DOES NOT SHOW THAT. How do you substantiate your fucking LIE that shows 3/4 loss of sensitivity? This study shows is the different parts of the penis- it EXPLICITLY STATES: "no attempt was made to quantify the specialized nerve endings." Don't know why you'd care, anyway, gramps- you haven't had sex in years- Get the fuck outa' here.
I see you have made a lot of assertions here, but it is important to see valid evidence for them--WHEN can we expect you to provide this evidence? This is important because real world empirical evidence shows these claims to be not true.
All of the scientific studies quoted below support circumcision, as well as the fact that circumcised men cannot get penile cancer.
olivelevel 2 months ago
@olivelevel
Thanks for the studies. Now to show that they are credible, you have to show all the empirical evidence refuting these claims does not exist.
The REAL WORLD evidence shows these studies are crap!
Sorry, but the USA has HIGHER rates of penile cancer than does intact Sweden.. so spare this studid "no cancer" crap!
AND it is the same with HIV..
REALITY rules!
Tandykane 1 month ago
CONCLUSION: Potential sources of error, assessment of causality, implications of the findings, and future research needs are discussed. Because a substantial body of evidence links noncircumcision in men with risk for HIV infection, consideration should be given to male circumcision as an intervention to reduce HIV transmission. from: The association between lack of male circumcision and risk for HIV infection: a review of the epidemiological data. Plummer, et al. 1994
olivelevel 2 months ago
Just a few:
Effects of Circumcision on urinary Tract Infection and Sexually Transmitted Disease
Stephen Shei-Dei Yang, Cheng-Hsing Hsieh, Shang-Jen Chang
An evidence-based approach to male circumcision: what do we know?
Kimberly K Updegrove CNM, MSN, MPH
Male circumcision and risk of HIV-1 and other sexually transmitted infections in India Steven J Reynolds MD, et al. The Lancet.
Circumcision reduces risk of herpes and HPV infection Johns Hopkins Univ. study quoted in CNN Health, 2009.
olivelevel 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
One epidemiological review: "However, substantial data exist to support the conclusions that uncircumcised males have greater incidences of urinary tract infections, especially in the first 6 months of life when complications are greatest, greater incidences of ulcerative sexually transmitted infections, and increased transmission of human immunodeficiency virus." You wouldn't have to look very far to find lots of other studies, either.
olivelevel 2 months ago
Keep the skin, sex is much better. It's the way were made it's only natural.
imfraeglasgow 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Genital mutilation for females and males should be illegal. Period.
CleverDjembe 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CleverDjembe - Parental consent rights means it's not your call to make. Period.
Alaska47Boy 2 months ago
OK, tandy, Try this. Read the wikipedia article on circumcision. Then look up the sources that are actually peer reviewed scientific and medical journals. What you will learn is that penile cancer only exists in uncircumsized men. You will learn that the rate of infection for AIDS and every other venereal disease is higher for uncircumcized men. You will learn that the rate of infection of STD's like cervical cancer is higher for women who are partners of uncircumcized men. Try it.
olivelevel 2 months ago
@olivelevel
I am a scientist, and I have-including checking for scientific credibility.
Better yet,how about you try using the scientific method and use its requirements for scientific credibility--that of ALWAYS needing to fulfill prediction. When you do, you find that the real world EMPIRICAL evidence refutes the claims of any reduction. REALITY rules!
Tandykane 2 months ago
@Tandykane - YOU're a scientist?! Bwa ha ha- yeah, good one. Nice job refuting what olivelevel just said. You're a burnt-out old man. Get over it.
Alaska47Boy 2 months ago
Its wierd in the US to be uncut. Look at a porno, see what I mean. Besides, if you get him cut he can never get penile cancer. If he starts getting infections in childhood, he'll have to get cut anyway and that will really hurt. Just chop him and be done with it.
olivelevel 2 months ago
@olivelevel
Weirtd in the US? Don't know the rate is almost 50 - 50?
What in hel does being cut affect the rate of cancer and/or infections.
WHY would he have to be cut later? Only 6 in 100,000. (0.006%)
Will really hurt> Hello, it hurts MORE when done as a baby.
Seems you are living in a fact and evide4nce free world.
Tandykane 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Tandykane - " it hurts MORE when done as a baby?" Proof, please. Or is the earth flat to you, as well.
Alaska47Boy 2 months ago
Definitely don't do it. If he wants to get circumcised later in life, let that be his decision.
mochalex 2 months ago
Don't fuken do it! your clitoris is like a dick! YA REALLY! it is! and it has forskin to to protect it. Hence you have to REVEAL IT. how would u like it if it was rubbing up against ur jeans, and after years, you hade way less sensation in there! U GET RID OF IT, U GET RID OF MUCH OF HIS PLEASURE AS A MAN ON THIS EARTH FOREVER! DON"T FUKEN DO IT! I REPEAT. DOO NOTTT. Look it up. uncircumsized more pleasure! BE KIND! AND REWIND!!
dirosaga 2 months ago
FUCK circumcision. Why? Because I don't like having pubic hair on my shaft.
pyrolimeade 2 months ago
@pyrolimeade
But according to some here, this is so much more attractive than a normal penis...along with scars and a dried-out leathery appearance. But then again, this speak volumes about them. To them a hairy shaft is an appearance bonus.
Tandykane 2 months ago
Circumcision is nothing but God's secret handshake. Are you religious and afraid that someone's going to Hell if your son's penis remains intact? If so, ask yourself why you believe this and if it makes any sense whatsoever. Morally, nobody has the right to mutilate their son's genitals without their son's consent.
If you're not religious, don't do it. All of the alleged benefits have been debunked.
ChipArgyle 3 months ago
@ChipArgyle -"God's secret handshake?" Please clarify.
"Are you religious?"
Perhaps.
"and afraid that someone's going to Hell if your son's penis remains intact?"
No.
"Morally, nobody has the right to mutilate their son's genitals without their son's consent."
Since a minor- the practice, as with all surguries, has been justified by the parents- under the law- and under the privacy and protection they have with their physician: No one needs to "justify" anything to you.
Alaska47Boy 3 months ago
@Alaska47Boy
Is getting an infection of the "flesh-eating" bacteria (MRSA) acceptable from an unnecessary and harmful practice?
Tandykane 3 months ago
@Tandykane - You asked this on the other video thread, already- go there for the response.
Alaska47Boy 3 months ago
@Alaska47Boy
And didn't get an answer THERE--just the usual evasive BS.
So, is even ONE case acceptable from an unnecessary practice.
Tandykane 3 months ago
@Tandykane - You did get an answer: go answer it. "One case?" you've yet to actually demonstrate there's actually an accurate account of one case. Also? That's not a rate- "one case in...." "one case every x years" are examples of rates. Again, to establish any risk, then what's the rate?
Every day I really do find new ways of not taking you seriously :) You make this way too easy :)
Alaska47Boy 3 months ago
@Alaska47Boy
It is hilarious and pathetic to watch you dance away from answering if even ONE single case of those consequences I have listed are acceptable for an unnecessary practice.
Like I said, you DARE not answer because, by doing so, will expose the ethical and moral bankruptcy of circumcision..
But I must again: is even ONE case of those I have mentioned acceptable fro an unnecessary practice?
Tandykane 3 months ago
@Tandykane - You miss the point-again. It doesn't matter what your ethics are- they're YOUR ethics. Subjective. Either way, the parents have made the determination, recommended by their physician. Again, what is "accptbaiel" is SUBJECTIVE. In asking me what is acceptable, then you will demonstrate there's actually an accurate account of one case. Also? That's not a rate- "one case in...." "one case every x years" are examples of rates. Again, to establish any risk, then what's the rate?
Alaska47Boy 3 months ago
@Alaska47Boy
And you are dodging the point over and over..until you can provide any PROVEN benefit from circumcision, we are left with PROVEN harm and risks, and until you address what is acceptable from an unnecessary practice, you are merely blowing smoke out of your arse...
So is even ONE of the horrible consequences posted from this unnecessary practice acceptable?
Dance and BS, al you want, but this question is still here.
Tandykane 3 months ago
@Tandykane You miss the point-again. It doesn't matter what your ethics are- they're YOUR ethics. Subjective. Either way, the parents have made the determination, recommended by their physician. Again, what is "accptbaiel" is SUBJECTIVE. In asking me what is acceptable, then you will demonstrate there's actually an accurate account of one case. Also? That's not a rate- "one case in...." "one case every x years" are examples of rates. Again, to establish any risk, then what's the rate?
Alaska47Boy 3 months ago
@Alaska47Boy
Opinions and beliefs are not going to hack it. You need to provide EVIDENCE that proves non-therapeutic infant circumcison IS necessary. And that evidence must include adverse consequences an intact infant might suffer from that are worse than those that have been cited that cut infants can experience FROM circumcision.
Tandykane 3 months ago
@Tandykane - Reference the dozen studies I've submitted- and get back to me once you have.
Alaska47Boy 3 months ago
@Alaska47Boy
BTW
Repeating this same OPINIONS and beliefs are not addressing the crucial questions you are still failing to address.
Copy and pasting the same drivel is NOT going to make the questions go away--and not addressing them will make your posts less and less pertinent.
Tandykane 3 months ago
@Tandykane - Why not? You do it, on every video you troll- you old hypocrite. And I will continue to do so until everyone is clued into totally irrelevant scumbags like you.
Your opinion is null and worthless: We have determined it is necessary, our physician and medical team have recommended it- so again: Since the practice has been justified by the parents- under the law- and under the privacy and protection they have with thier physician: Why do they need to "justify" anything to you?
Alaska47Boy 3 months ago
@Alaska47Boy
I do not live in an evidence-free world where opinions and beliefs are considered facts. MY world requires evidence, so.
You need to provide EVIDENCE that proves non-therapeutic infant circumcison IS necessary. And that evidence must include adverse consequences an intact infant might suffer from that are worse than those that have been cited that cut infants can experience FROM circumcision.
Tandykane 3 months ago
@Tandykane You miss the point-again. It doesn't matter what your ethics are- they're YOUR ethics. Subjective. Either way, the parents have made the determination, recommended by their physician. Again, what is "accptbaiel" is SUBJECTIVE. In asking me what is acceptable, then you will demonstrate there's actually an accurate account of one case. Also? That's not a rate- "one case in...." "one case every x years" are examples of rates. Again, to establish any risk, then what's the rate?
Alaska47Boy 3 months ago
@Alaska47Boy
"Again, to establish any risk, then what's the rate?" Faulty logic-- if a risk is seen, there is no necessity to know that rate--only that it exists..
so is even ONE single case of UNNECESSARY adverse consequences acceptable for an UNNECESSARY practice?
Tandykane 3 months ago
@Tandykane - "Faulty logic-- if a risk is seen..."
Risk is not "seen-" it's assessed; and it's assessed based on it's frequency and rate. Again, we and our medical team have made the determination it is necessary, and what is "acceptable" is SUBJECTIVE. In asking me what is acceptable, then you will demonstrate there's actually an accurate account of one case. Also? To establish any risk, then what's the rate? Unless high in prevalence, we've determined it is necessary.
Alaska47Boy 3 months ago
@Alaska47Boy
So, you have stated this belief over and over, but still have danced away from the question this leads to like a crippled ballerina...
We have recorded instances of adverse consequences, and we do not need to know the rate of them--only that they exist.
So, in YOUR subjective evaluation is a single death or horrible consequence of an unnecessary practice acceptable?
Spare us the double talk--answer the question. We already see your pattern of avoidance.
Tandykane 3 months ago
@Tandykane= "we do not need to know the rate of them--only that they exist."
Got it- so you're admittedly ignorant of the risks, because you don't know the rate- and fine with that. Wow- how objective and empirical of you Robert, you fucking ignorant codger, you. So if the death rate for vaccination was "2" (that's not a rate, but you think it is, so I'll dumb it down to a level you can understand), you'd avoid getting vaccinated? How full of shit are you?
Alaska47Boy 3 months ago
@Alaska47Boy
I know the rates, but your not knowing them does not prevent you from offering your subjective opinion as to whether or not even one unnecessary death from an unnecessary practice is acceptable to YOU.
So, is it or not?
Tandykane 2 months ago
@Tandykane- "I know the rates..."
Bullshit- you just stated "we do not need to know the rate of them--only that they exist."
Got it- so you're admittedly ignorant of the risks, because you don't know the rate. Wow- how objective and empirical of you Robert, you fucking ignorant codger, you. So if the death rate for vaccination was "2" (that's not a rate, but you think it is, so I'll dumb it down to a level you can understand), you'd avoid getting vaccinated? How full of shit are you?
Alaska47Boy 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Alaska47Boy
WHAT do you not understand about this statement?
"You need to provide EVIDENCE that proves non-therapeutic infant circumcison IS necessary. And that evidence must include adverse consequences an intact infant might suffer from that are worse than those that have been cited that cut infants can experience FROM circumcision."
Tandykane 3 months ago
@Tandykane
So your entire position boils down to childish word games and avoidance? hence this adamant dancing to avoid answering a very simple question.
DO YOU believe a single death from an unnecessary practice is acceptable?
Tandykane 3 months ago
@Tandykane - I've given you dozens, tell me what error you find in their data, or shut up. The AAP's Circumcision Policy Statement, which follows EVERY other accredited medical bodies' and the law all give parental right for this determination to be made- our physician and medical team have recommended it- so again: Since the practice has been justified by the parents- under the law- and under the privacy and protection they have with thier physician: no one needs to justify anything to you.
Alaska47Boy 3 months ago
@Alaska47Boy
Apparently you did not understand that your precious AAP stated that infant circumcision cannot be MEDICALLY justified, so that leaves culture and/or religion--neither of which are rational, and hence do not afford a rational reason.
Tandykane 2 months ago
@Tandykane - Once again, a straight up lie- they make NO such claim, and in fact place import, EXPLICITLY stating they support the important stance on parental choice in the procedure, while citing all of the lower incidences and rates of STI's for circumcised individuals while stressing that your stupid sensitivity claim is purely anecdotal and negligible.
Huh? Whaddya know- a medical bpdy which stresses
Alaska47Boy 2 months ago
@Alaska47Boy
Still trying to ignore the FACT that the AAP states that infant circumcision cannot be MEDICALLY justified and that parents can choose an excuse as irrational as culture and religion as an appropriate EXCUSE?
Do you have comprehension difficulties, or it this deception intentional?
Does the AAP state that an unnecessary death from an UNNECESSARY practice is acceptable, or do YOU even state that it is?
Tandykane 2 months ago
@Tandykane - Once again, a straight up lie- they make NO such claim, and in fact place import, EXPLICITLY stating they support the important stance on parental choice in the procedure, while citing all of the lower incidences and rates of STI's for circumcised individuals while stressing that your stupid sensitivity claim is purely anecdotal.
Care to prove your lie that "AAP stated that infant circumcision cannot be MEDICALLY justified?" When no such claim was ever made, you fucking liar?
Alaska47Boy 2 months ago
@Alaska47Boy
Just so all here can see that our alaskan boy has comprehension difficulties..here is the statement from his precious AAP:
American Academy of Pediatrics
‘Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision.’
Now in his fever-ridden brain he saw that which was not stated.
BUT, he is good at unfounded personal attacks.
Tandykane 2 months ago
@Tandykane - Tell me if you have difficulty comprehending the difference between these to sentences: the first one, a lie, is your claim: "AAP states that infant circumcision cannot be MEDICALLY justified."
Stance 2, as posed by the AAP: "data is not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision.’"
Tell me and the rest of the viewers, right now, if you think these two sentences the same/ synonymous, etc. so we can put this shit to bed, once and for all.
Alaska47Boy 2 months ago
@Alaska47Boy
Like yourself, the AAP tries to ignore the unnecessary deaths of infants from an unnecessary practice, which shows they are as morally and ethically bankrupt as your self.
So, for the umpteenth time, do YOU find a single unnecessary death from unnecessary circumcision acceptable?
UNTIL you answer this, our discussion is over.
Tandykane 2 months ago
@Tandykane "the AAP tries to ignore the unnecessary deaths.." - Really? Prove they're ignoring it- oh, and what is the death rate? You're admittedly ignorant of the risks, because you don't know the rate. Wow- how objective and empirical of you Robert, you fucking ignorant codger, you. So if the death rate for vaccination was "2" (that's not a rate, but you think it is, so I'll dumb it down to a level you can understand), you'd avoid getting vaccinated? How full of shit are you?
Alaska47Boy 2 months ago
@Alaska47Boy
We have different views on what determines what is acceptable:
Mine is objective and based on evidence; your is that it is subjective and based on opinions and beliefs.
So, in YOUR SUBJECTIVE OPINION, is one unnecessary death from an unnecessary practice acceptable?
Tandykane 3 months ago
@Tandykane Yeah- the opinions and beliefs of actual medical bodies, as opposed to NOHARMM. Yeah- acceptability based on the risks as reported by the American Academy of Pediatrics- which CLEARLY state it is up to the parent- as opposed to your rate-less spews of fear. Yeah- acceptable to us via the AAP reports of the wide array of lower incidences of STIs including HIV for circumcised males- yeah- it IS acceptable to us, because it has been made by us, protected under the law w/ our physician.
Alaska47Boy 3 months ago
@Alaska47Boy
So, oblivious to facts and evidence and totally reliant on OPINIONS.
How does the AAP explain away the fact that the cutting USA has the HIGHEST rates of ALL STD's (including HIV) than all of the other INTACT industrialized nations?
Hate to tell you, but reality is NOT effected by OPINIONS.
Maybe you ought to take Facts & Evidence 101?
Tandykane 2 months ago
@Tandykane- "So, oblivious to facts and evidence and totally reliant on OPINIONS."
Correct- that is NOHARM's position statement.
"How does the AAP explain.."
If you have a question about AAP's position on circumcision, take it up with their medical board. Looks like a medical body articulates parental choice & laundry list the lower rates (you know what those are, right?) of circumcised.
"Maybe you ought to take Facts & Evidence 101"
Like the kind provided by my AAP; or by your NOHARM? :)
Alaska47Boy 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Alaska47Boy
"Looks like a medical body articulates parental choice & laundry list the lower rates (you know what those are, right?) of circumcised."
STILL ignoring the laundry list of empirical evidence that contradicts those OPINIONS---again OPINIONS vs FACTS?
I still suggest you take "Facts & Evidence 101; as it seems you are stuck in OPINIONS 101.
And after taking the course, provide a single PROVEN benefit for non-therapeutic infant circumcision.
Tandykane 2 months ago
@Tandykane- "So, oblivious to facts and evidence and totally reliant on OPINIONS."
Correct- that is NOHARM's position statement.
"How does the AAP explain.."
If you have a question about AAP's position on circumcision, take it up with their medical board. Looks like a medical body articulates parental choice & laundry list the lower rates (you know what those are, right?) of circumcised.
"Maybe you ought to take Facts & Evidence 101"
Like the kind provided by my AAP; or by your NOHARM? :)
Alaska47Boy 2 months ago
@Alaska47Boy
Google Necrotizing fasciitis circumcision--is THIS acceptable from an unnecessary practice?
Tandykane 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Tandykane - You did get an answer: go answer it. "One case?" you've yet to actually demonstrate there's actually an accurate account of one case. Also? That's not a rate- "one case in...." "one case every x years" are examples of rates. Again, to establish any risk, then what's the rate?
Every day I really do find new ways of not taking you seriously :) You make this way too easy :)
Alaska47Boy 3 months ago
@Alaska47Boy Certain religions command circumcision, ergo, it's necessary to be "part of the club". Some clubs have a secret handshake. Get it?
It matters not if it can be done legally with parental consent. It's unnecessary mutilation being done to someone without their consent and without anesthesia. As it's unnecessary, it is without question immoral. It may even technically be torture. Would it be OK if your parents had a doctor cut your nose off when you were 16?
ChipArgyle 3 months ago
@ChipArgyle - "Some clubs have a secret handshake. Get it?"
Not really- circumcision isn't necessarily a part of being a certain sect or religion, and doesn't "disqualify" someone from being apart of it.
"It matters not if it can be done legally with parental consent."
Actually- that's all that matters.
"done to someone without their consent and without anesthesia."
**Um- all medical procedures are given to minors without their consent, and in the west, it is indeed done with anesthesia.
Alaska47Boy 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Alaska47Boy
"and in the west, it is indeed done with anesthesia." STILL making crap up, I see..
A recent retrospective study was performed at a top hospital in Chicago.
Publlshed October 11, 2004, by Peggy Peck----Out of 108 circumcisions, only 8 were marked for anesthetic.
Now, is this acceptable for an unnecessary practice?
Tandykane 3 months ago
@Tandykane In the west analgesics ARE Used- as opposed to the fucking IDIOTIC story of the SW Asian adolescents getting it done in rivers. When parents request it- which, if they're informed, they should- it is used, and highly affective, per the The American Academy of Pediatrics' Circumcision Policy Statement.
Look, Robert - the fact that you have no life, which is, literally spent trolling the entire internet on infant circumcision, shouldn't preclude you from getting better at it.
Alaska47Boy 3 months ago
@Alaska47Boy
Having difficulties understanding what is posted?
"Out of 108 circumcisions, only 8 were marked for anesthetic."
What do you NOT understand the difference between "highly effective" and "completely effective"?
Even the AAP states that not ALL unnecessary pain is eliminated--only an estimated 50%.
Tandykane 2 months ago
@Tandykane - No, not "difficulties understanding," difficulties taking serious :) We'll be using analgesics, and it's offered prevalently in the west- specifically compared with countries in the "articles" you've spewed- you haven't rebutted that fact. And "states that not ALL unnecessary pain is eliminated--" and, "only an estimated 50%?" Interesting- 50% of "what?" cite that stat properly.
Alaska47Boy 2 months ago
@Alaska47Boy
So, when can we expect YOUR evidence for the prevalence of analgesic usage and effectiveness, or are we supposed to take seriously This crap you just pulled out of your rectum?
I have the studies supporting my statements, WHAT evidence for your silly assertions do you have?
once again, nothing but dismissal based on what emits from your rectum?
Tandykane 2 months ago
@Tandykane - So another POS lie spouted with no back-up- just how full of shit are you, Robert?
"crap I just pulled?" Um- you mean the policy statement of one of the biggest, most respected pediatric medical bodies? We'll be using analgesics, and it's effective- AAP "states only an estimated 50%?" Interesting- 50% of "what?" cite that stat,fucking liar. Once again pulling stats out of your ass with NO substantiation- tell me, do you spin a wheel at the old folks home on your make-believe stats?
Alaska47Boy 2 months ago
@Alaska47Boy
I know you are unable to deal with logic and facts and evidence, but just for shits and giggles, you might wish to check this out..you were given this before BTW..
Eleven male newborns were circumcised with a local dorsal penile nerve block, and 13 controls were circumcised without anesthetic. The adrenal cortisol response to surgery was not significantly reduced by the administration of lidocaine...once an idiot, always an idiot.
Tandykane 2 months ago
@Tandykane - Sad- just like all your other claims, can't substantiate your stats. How pathetic. So another POS lie spouted with no back-up- just how full of shit are you, Robert? AAP "states only an estimated 50%?" Interesting- 50% of "what?" cite that stat,fucking liar. Once again pulling stats out of your ass with NO substantiation- tell me, does the lying get easier with old age, or just a habit with you, since you've been trolling for so long? Come back when you're relevent and truthful.
Alaska47Boy 2 months ago
@Alaska47Boy
Sorry, I am not into word games, name-calling, opinions, or denial of facts and evidence..however I would be interested in your opinion as to whether or not an unnecessary death from an unnecessary practice is acceptable or not.
And how about any of these: MRSA, gangrene, necrostising fasciatis,diptheris, Osteomyelitis,denudation of the penis, partial or total loss of the glans,Excessive penile skin loss, penile loss,Meatal ulceration, meatal stenosis,Glans necrosis...want more?
Tandykane 2 months ago
@Tandykane - Could have fooled us- since you do all the above, already- so saying "you're not into" those makes you a clueless liar, on top of being blatantly hypocritical.
Yeah, again- you listing these things doesn't pose an issue for a rational person, who would WANT TO KNOW THE RATES of these things. What's the rate? If you had to get ANY other medical procedure, and the rate of any given complication is 90 percent- that is something to be concerned about. Come back when you're able to.
Alaska47Boy 2 months ago
@Alaska47Boy
Is unnecessary pain from an unnecessary practice morally acceptable?
Wow, how many of these questions of morality and ethics have you avoided so far?
Tandykane 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Tandykane- So another POS lie spouted with no back-up- just how full of shit are you, Robert?
Again- We have determined it is necessary, using our moral paradigm, our physician and medical team have recommended it, it has ben deemed necessary; the practice has been justified by the parents- under the law- and under the privacy and protection they have with thier physician, there's no need to prove it's right to you.
Alaska47Boy 2 months ago
@Alaska47Boy If a man is uncircumcised, he CANNOT be a practicing Jew: non-negotiable.
Circumcision of neonates is still quite often done without anesthesia "in the west". Check your facts.
Just because something is legal does not make it moral. Slavery was legal in the USA for quite some time. Was it moral?
Answer the question about cutting off a 16-year-old's nose. Notice how the same rules as circumcision apply.
ChipArgyle 3 months ago
@ChipArgyle
"If a man is uncircumcised, he CANNOT be a practicing Jew: non-negotiable."
Simply put--NONSENSE! It only means that he is not a radical orthodox Jew--but only according to those exact same radical orthodox Jews.
Tandykane 2 months ago
@ChipArgyle - Interesting- define where it states one cannot be a practicer of Judaism and be uncircumcised; and check YOUR facts- Circumcision of neonates is still quite often done with anesthesia in the west, especially compared to non Western countries. "Slavery?" yeah- hardly a debate on moral grounds. Which moral paradigm, by the way? Yours? It is easily stated that circumcision, done in the best interest and preventative health of the infant, is EXACTLY a moraly-based argument.
Alaska47Boy 2 months ago
@Alaska47Boy
What in hell do you not understand about this?
A recent retrospective study was performed at a top hospital in Chicago.
Publlshed October 11, 2004, by Peggy Peck, this study is titled "Analgesia Underused for Management of Circumcision Pain".
In this study, a researcher went back through 5 years (1999-2004) of hospital records and checked whether anesthetic use had been recorded.
Out of 108 circumcisions, only 8 were marked for anesthetic.
Tandykane 2 months ago
@Alaska47 Circumcision is mandatory in mainstream Judaism. An adult uncircumcised male entering the religion MUST get circumcised and have a pants-down confirmation performed by a rabbi. Only reform sects make it optional.
There are no preventative health issues associated with circumcision. All such assertions have been scientifically disproved.
Hey check it out - you just learned two new things today.
Nothing on 16 year old's nose though? Unfair of me; it's the "checkmate" argument.
ChipArgyle 2 months ago
@ChipArgyle sentence #1: "If a man is uncircumcised, he CANNOT be a practicing Jew: non-negotiable." Now- sentence #2: "Only reform sects make it optional." - which one is it?
You miss the bigger point- if a religious practice's moral paradigm makes this apart of it, then your morals argument is moot- their moral stance on the issue more than trumps yours, and at the very least they're on equal standing. "16-year-old's nose. Notice how the same rules as circumcision apply-" they don't.
Alaska47Boy 2 months ago
@Alaska47Boy #2 is for practicing reform sect Jews, #1 is for practicing mainstream Jews-my original point. Are you arguing semantics?
Superstitious practitioners of 2000 year-old writings don't have a morally superior position on anything because a fictional book says they do. The Bible says rape is OK if you marry the woman afterwards.
I'll make it easy. Same baby. Cut off his foreskin and his nose. You claim parental consent is all that's required for unnecessary surgery on a minor.
ChipArgyle 2 months ago
@ChipArgyle
The ONLY requirement for being Jewish is to have a Jewish mother. All of the rest of the BS is so different sects can exert different amounts of control over others. Circumcision is solely to control the sexuality of others, as noted by the 13th century doctor and scholar Maimonides.
Tandykane 2 months ago
@Tandykane - "All the rest of the BS?" Got it- so other's morals and religious beliefs are "BS" to you- tell us why should any one listen to or respect any position you take when you don't with theirs? Not having the first iota of a clue about Judaism doesn't stop you from guessing your way through it- while only demonstarting one thing: how utterly fucking ignorant you are of others' religious or personal morals and beliefs. You don't get those- fine, just don't expect others to on yours.
Alaska47Boy 2 months ago
@Alaska47Boy
Thanks for the childish rant, but I still would like to know if you think an unnecessary death from an unnecessary practice is acceptable..
you might wish to address these also:MRSA, gangrene, necrotising fasciatis,diphtheria, Osteomyelitis,denudation of the penis, partial or total loss of the glans--want more?
Told you OUR discussion is over UNTIL and IF you ever answer this crucial question--otherwise your OPINIONS, name-calling, and rants will be ignored--as they should be.
Tandykane 2 months ago
@Tandykane- Yeah, again- you listing these things doesn't pose an issue for a rational person, who would WANT TO KNOW THE RATES of these things. You've already acknowledged that acceptibility IS subjective, and that means YOUR SUBJECTIVE opinion on acceptibility doesn't matter- to anyone, nor should it. The rates of complication- ANY complication- has been proved to be minimal and negligible. Get over it, old man. You're irrelevant.
Alaska47Boy 2 months ago
@Alaska47Boy
Rational people do not need to know that rate of unnecessary adverse events, only to know that they occur, and that you are unable or unwilling to state whether even one of them is acceptable..
So, are they acceptable, or not?
but keep ignoring the crucial word "unnecessary" if it hlps you to cope with a damaged dildo.
Tandykane 2 months ago
@Tandykane - "Rational people do not need to know that rate of unnecessary adverse events, only to know that they occur,"
- Bwa ha ha- got it. Please- leave this statement up for everyone to see. you've just acknowledged that people don't need to know the rates and acceptability IS subjective, that means YOUR SUBJECTIVE opinion on acceptibility doesn't matter- to anyone, nor should it. The rates of ANY complication is proved to be minimal and negligable, as shown by medical groups. Idiot :)
Alaska47Boy 2 months ago
@Alaska47Boy
Are ANY of these accepatable for an unnecessary practice? MRSA, gangrene, necrostising fasciatis,diptheris, Osteomyelitis,denudation of the penis, partial or total loss of the glans,Excessive penile skin loss, penile loss,Meatal ulceration, meatal stenosis,Glans necrosis,Penile urethral fistula,pulmonary embolism, gastric rupture,Concealed penis,Neonatal septicemia,Abdominal distension,meningitis,Myocardial injury,Penile adhesions,Tachycardia and heart failure,Methemoglobinemia
Tandykane 2 months ago
@Tandykane - All fictitious risks until you show the rates. You've already admitted that both the term "necessary" and "acceptable" are subjective- therefore, what you subjectively deem either one to be doesn't concern or interest me. Better I have the opinions of established medical bodies vice NOHARM, you biased old man:) How does it feel to know the practice has been justified by the parents- under the law- and under the privacy and protection they have with thier physician. Get over it:)
Alaska47Boy 2 months ago
@Alaska47Boy
And I have repeatedly asked for your SUBJECTIVE opinion if any of these are acceptable to you from an unnecessary practice, but you keep repeating this nonsense and refusing to answer the question--and this reveals much more than you realize. Running scared much?
Tandykane 2 months ago
@Tandykane- Of COURSE it's acceptable, old man- otherwise we wouldn't be doing it to our 4th son. You've already admitted that both the term "necessary" and "acceptable" are subjective- therefore, what YOU subjectively deem either one to be doesn't concern or interest me. How does it feel to know the practice has been justified by the parents- under the law- and under the privacy and protection they have with thier physician. You're subjective opinion is irrelevant- Get over it:)
Alaska47Boy 2 months ago
@Alaska47Boy
So, to you, an unnecessary death and other adverse consequences are acceptable to you? So much for a rational ethical position.
You STILL need to provide EVIDENCE that proves non-therapeutic infant circumcison IS necessary. And that evidence must include adverse consequences an intact infant might suffer from that are worse than those that have been cited that cut infants can experience FROM circumcision.
Tandykane 2 months ago
@Tandykane - Nope- all I've done is agree with you: You've already admitted that both the term "necessary" and "acceptable" are subjective- therefore, what YOU subjectively deem either one to be doesn't concern or interest me. You haven't established meaningful risks, and these risks have been deemed negligible. The practice has been justified by the parents- under the law- and under the privacy and protection they have with thier physician. You're subjective opinion doesn't matter.
Alaska47Boy 2 months ago
@Alaska47Boy
Still with the usual BS and word games..anything to not face reality?
Is ANY unnecessary adverse consequence MORALLY justified from an unnecessary practice?
You STILL need to provide EVIDENCE that proves non-therapeutic infant circumcison IS necessary...what adverse consequences an intact infant might suffer from that are worse than those that have been cited that cut infants can experience FROM circumcision?
Tandykane 2 months ago
@Alaska47Boy
I have realized that I have made a fundamental mistake in trying to have a rational ethical and moral discussion with someone who has neither--just a compulsion to mutilate genitals. Both sad and pathetic. and the children must suffer from this sick compulsion!
Tandykane 2 months ago
@Tandykane - "I have realized that I have made a fundamental mistake in trying to have a rational ethical and moral discussion."
Bwa HA Ha ha- when the hell did THAT happen ?! :) Get the fuck outa' here, you subjective old man- Samson, the day you have an objective ANYTHING is the day they take away parental rights. Go shit in your hand, and wish in another, and see which one fills up faster :)
Come back when your opinion is non-subjective and relevant.
Alaska47Boy 2 months ago
@Alaska47Boy
We KNOW! We get it already that your obsession with an unnecessary and harmful practice is so strong that any and all adverse consequences(even death) plays no part in your rationalization.
And it seems the name-calling and childish insults are the only thing left for you. Thanks for this glimpse into the mindset of circumcisers--and what a sick and pathetic picture this glimpse offers to rational people.
This is a sure sign of ethical and moral bankruptcy.
Tandykane 2 months ago
@Tandykane - "Obsession?" YOu've been at this for years, Samson- you fucking old troll- your entire life is spent trolling any and all websites for what has to be the lamest cause in the history of causes :) Believe me- you don't "get it," or else I wouldn't be here, having already proven to you how antiquated, subjective,and worthless your opinion is. No, Bobby- you DON'T "get it," or you wouldn't have quit 85 posts ago. You haven't the first notion of ethics or morals, or you WOULD 'get it."
Alaska47Boy 2 months ago
@Alaska47Boy
Nice way to address the lack of necessary evidence--scream and shout, rant and rave..and name-calling.
Character assassination is indeed the last refuge of the incompetent.
Now, how many of the adverse consequences from an unnecessary practice do you think is rationally, morally, and/or ethically acceptable?
Tandykane 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Tandykane - Your fucking idiotic "last refuge" line gets stupider every time. you hear that somewhere and . "Adverse consequences?" What adverse consequences? you haven't shown ANY consequences- tell me- is that because you're incapable of giving unbiased data, or because you can't find it on the NOHARM website? You've already admitted that both the term "necessary" and "acceptable" are subjective- therefore, what YOU subjectively deem either one to be doesn't concern or interest me.
Alaska47Boy 2 months ago
@Alaska47Boy
So, in your fantasy world, the loss of normal, healthy, functioning tissue is NOT an adverse consequence? If so then you admit it is the DESIRED consequence?
You need to provide EVIDENCE that proves non-therapeutic infant circumcison IS necessary. And that evidence must include adverse consequences an intact infant might suffer from that are worse than those that have been cited that cut infants can experience FROM circumcision.
How many unnecessary deaths?
Tandykane 2 months ago
@Tandykane - Nope, not any more than the loss of any other worthless body part, like the appendix, adenoids, or wisdom teeth. I've already provided dozens of studies on this thread, and not reposting, go find them. End of the day? I "need" to provide you two things: 'jack' and 'shit,' and Jack left town a long time ago. The practice has been justified by the parents- under the law- and under the privacy and protection they have with thier physician. no one needs to "justify" a thing to you.
Alaska47Boy 2 months ago
@Alaska47Boy
That's the usual crap..deny anything you don't like and then say no evidence was given to you.
STILL waiting for some scientifically proven benefit..got any? Your rebuttal to Sorrels is what?
Let's see how far your moral and ethically bankruptcy goes....
Now how many unnecessary deaths and other adverse consequences from unnecessary circumcision are acceptable to you?
Tandykane 2 months ago
@Tandykane - Um- That's exactly what YOU are doing, old man: stating risk without stats, using biased sources to defend your spurious claims, and thinking your subjective opinion matters to anyone. It doesn't- my morals are mine, and if you agree with them or not, doesn't chnage that we're allowed this right- The practice has been justified by the parents- under the law- and under the privacy and protection they have with thier physician. no one needs to "justify" a thing to you.
Alaska47Boy 2 months ago
@Alaska47Boy
Yes, your morals are yours, and those are what we need to qualify and quantify with this crucial question.
So, when can we expect you to answer how many unnecessary deaths from an unnecessary practice do you think is ethically and morally acceptable?
Tandykane 2 months ago
@Tandykane Thank you for admitting explicitly that my morals are mine and that what qualifies both as "acceptable" and "necessary" are subjective: therefore, I do not need to answer you on what I find as such- it will remain subjective no matter the answer. 1, 2, 3, 100- it doesn't matter- it will always remain subjective and ours to make. The practice has been justified by the parents- under the law- and under the privacy and protection they have with thier physician. Get over it.
Alaska47Boy 2 months ago
@Alaska47Boy
Fine, I am still wondering how low your morals and ethics go for your obsession..
So, how many unnecessary deaths do you SUBJECTIVELY consider acceptable from an unnecessary practice?
1, 2, 10, 100, 1000?
Tandykane 2 months ago
@Tandykane - Exactly- none of your business (BTW- morals go "low?" What, like on some "moral scale?" Funny) what my morals are. They're based on the studies, evidence, and reasoning we've chosen- so again, yours differs, that doesn't make it right. If you actually brought me actual number or rates, then perhaps I'd choose to discuss it but again, that's the point- my call, and my choice :)
Alaska47Boy 2 months ago
@Alaska47Boy
Based on questionable studies, but divorced from the real world.
So, how many unnecessary deaths from an unnecessary practice meets YOUR moral and ethical standards as acceptable?
HOW MANY???????
BS repeated still remains BS. ANY PROVEN benefit for your obsession?..simple question.
Tandykane 2 months ago
@Tandykane - "Questionable studies?" You haven't questioned my studies, and blamed you inability to do so on a "character limit." My moral and ethical standards are acceptible because I say they are, there needs nothing more ot explained about them- least of all to someone like you. "Simple question?" Simple answer: whatever I say it is. And since you've admitted acceptability is subjective, there's no ned to explain what is and is nto as such- again, least of all to someone like you.
Alaska47Boy 2 months ago
@Tandykane I like that saying, but it's too bad you only apply it to others.
CaptainArrrgh 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CaptainArrrgh
"I like that saying, but it's too bad you only apply it to others." It might appear to be so, but only to those who are unable to actually recognize what is BS.
Tandykane 2 months ago
@Alaska47Boy
"Of COURSE it's acceptable, old man" OK, now you have admitted that to you unnecessary adverse problems are acceptable, let's establish which are, and how many..
Are ANY in that list NOT acceptable?
And of the ones that ARE acceptable, how many of each are still acceptable?
Tandykane 2 months ago
@Tandykane - faulty premise- it's your subjective, unfounded opinion that the medical procedure is "unnecessary," You've already acknowledged that acceptibility IS subjective, and that means YOUR SUBJECTIVE opinion on acceptibility doesn't matter- to anyone, nor should it. The rates of ANY complication- has been proved to be minimal and negligable, as both shown by medical groups, and the (lack of) supporting documentation and rates from you. Get over it, old man. You're irrelevant.
Alaska47Boy 2 months ago
@Alaska47Boy You need to provide EVIDENCE that proves non-therapeutic infant circumcison IS necessary. And that evidence must include adverse consequences an intact infant might suffer from that are worse than those that have been cited that cut infants can experience FROM circumcision.
Tandykane 2 months ago
@Tandykane You're an idiot: "my subjective opinion as to the acceptability?" That means two things: 1) you've just acknowledged that acceptibility IS subjective, and 2) that means YOUR SUBJECTIVE opinion on acceptibility doesn't matter- to anyone, nor should it.
The rates of complication- ANY complication- has been proved to be minimal and negligable, as both shown by medical groups, and the (lack of) supporting documentation and rates from you. Get over it, old man. You're irrelevant.
Alaska47Boy 2 months ago
@ChipArgyle - Nope- your "original point was this: "If a man is uncircumcised, he CANNOT be a practicing Jew: non-negotiable."
Nope- I'll make it easy: You've amended it- you calling it "semantics" tells me one of two things: 1) you aren't man enough to take ownership of what is clearly your mia culpa, 2) you think it "semantical" in comparing a "practicing Jew" with a "reform Sect Jew," meaning you don't have the foggiest idea about Juaism- or 3) "All of the Above." so is it 1, 2, or 3)?
Alaska47Boy 2 months ago
@Alaska47Boy You've ignored the baby's nose too long. I'm bored with you. Bye.
ChipArgyle 2 months ago
@ChipArgyle - "The baby's nose?" Well- at least you're worried about a body part that actually matters :) Toodles.
Alaska47Boy 2 months ago
When you go in to have your son's genitals mutilated get your clit cut off and have them sow your pussy shut.
Swa253 3 months ago
have a live birth abortion because that is always fun. Sounds like you may enjoy that
Swa253 3 months ago
leave the kids genitals alone and try not to be a sick twisted nutcase.
Swa253 3 months ago
You sound like a serial killer. Why don't you disembowel the kid and drain it's blood and then eat the kid.
Swa253 3 months ago
Because the foreskin is functionless, the pain will never be remembered, and removal is dirt cheap the cancer equation is a no brainer. Keeping the foreskin also raises the chances of contracting and passing on STD's such as AIDS and cervical cancer. These have a much higher rate than penile cancer.
olivelevel 3 months ago
@olivelevel
Functionless? Where did you get this nonsense? It is one of the most highly innervated parts of the body--do you think sensation is not a function? How about we chop off your clit?
And for these other claims, do you have any valid evidence for them?
Dirt cheap? $400 -- %1000?
And what about the other costs--in complications, up to and including DEATHS? A life is cheap to you?
Tandykane 3 months ago
@Tandykane - "highly innervated?!" Oh man! Look- go ask cicumcised men if they think they don't experience any feeling or sensation in thier penis- see what they say, genius. Sensation is not used ot mean function. The major and higher level functioning of the penis- erection, urination, and ejaculation- are the primary purposes of the penis. To that end- function remains the same.
Good job on STILL not providing either death rate or even amount of sensitivity lost because the procedure.
Alaska47Boy 3 months ago
@Alaska47Boy
Excuse me for relying on facts and evidence more than on self-serving anecdotes--or your illogical belief that nerves and sensation have no function. Perhaps your OPINION might have merit is they were logical or supported by evidence.
But other than superficial OPINIONS, it is obvious that since you have no facts or valid evidence to support those opinions, they remain OPINIONS.
Nature defines the function of the penis, , and no matter how you slice it, beliefs are not EVIDENCE.
Tandykane 3 months ago
@Tandykane - You're relying on shit, old man- your "facts" are as useless as you are. You can't interpret the studies you provide, you're studies are biased, you get any and all studies you throw from anti-circ sites- you're objective? What a fucking joke. Try using evidence that PROVE significant risk of anything.
Alaska47Boy 3 months ago
@Alaska47Boy
These tired old repeated claims of bias might deserve merit IF you ever provided evidence of this alleged bias ever affecting the results..GOT ANY?
Tandykane 3 months ago
@Tandykane- There WAS a difference due to the selection- These 139 women were RECRUITED THROUGH AN ANTI-CIRCUMCISON NEWSLETTER- are you THAT fucking stupid that you don't consider this BIASED? You DO know what it means having an already-non-random, BIASED group serve as their own control, right, dip-shit? Please tell me you know what that does to the results. Please tell me you are not so fucking idiotic as to actually not know what the implications of doing this would be. Wow, what a Doofus.
Alaska47Boy 3 months ago
@Alaska47Boy
So, ANY evidence that recruitment "bias" has affected the results?
Tandykane 3 months ago
@Tandykane - ANY evidence? Um, yeah, moron- These 139 women were RECRUITED THROUGH AN ANTI-CIRCUMCISON NEWSLETTER- The sample group is NON RANDOM - the only reporting was non-controlled, mail-in questionnaires- The group SERVED AS THEIR OWN CONTROL- Please tell me you are not so fucking idiotic as to actually not know what the implications of doing this would be. How in the world could you NOT think any of this would not clearly demonstrate bias? You're not that moronic, are you?
Alaska47Boy 3 months ago
@Alaska47Boy
When you are done l ranting and raving about alleged bias with no evidence to suggest the it has affected the results, how about answering the crucial question: what adverse affects are acceptable from an unnecessary practice?
Nor will the insults or name-calling
This question is not going away no matter how many dodges you make to avoid the question.
Tandykane 3 months ago
@Tandykane - Not affected the results?! Bwa ha ha! ANY evidence? Moron- These 139 women were RECRUITED THROUGH AN ANTI-CIRCUMCISON NEWSLETTER- right THERE it will affect te results. The sample group is NON RANDOM - the only reporting was non-controlled, mail-in questionnaires- The group SERVED AS THEIR OWN CONTROL- How in the world could you NOT think any of this would not clearly demonstrate bias? You're not that moronic, are you?
Alaska47Boy 3 months ago
@Alaska47Boy
Sorry, you have exceeded you BS quota, now we must concentrate on the crucial questions:
1. Unnecessary pain
2. unnecessary common problems
3. unnecessary catastrophic problems
4. How much unnecessary sensation and sensitivity loss
5. how many unnecessary deaths
6. how many dissatisfied victims
Tandykane 3 months ago
@Tandykane YOU DON'T ANSWER these questions- what is the rate? You haven't gauged the risks- the doctors and parents have- YOU have not gauged the situation, the benefits, and the recommendation by doctors- parents have. YOU are using "necessary" as a SUBJECTIVE Term - that you, and ONLY you use- NO ONE ELSE.
The practice has been justified by the parents- under the law- and under the privacy and protection they have with their physician: No one needs to "justify" anything to you.
Alaska47Boy 3 months ago
@Alaska47Boy
Funny this, since you cannot even provide even a single PROVEN benefit for infant circumcision.
Sorry but one-sided BS is not acceptable.. speaking of which, and ignoring your BS, when are you going to answer what and how much adverse consequences are acceptable from an unnecessary practice?
Tandykane 3 months ago
@Tandykane -Show the dozen studies and findings I've posted over these videos, wrong; otherwise I have. YOU have not gauged the situation, the benefits, and the recommendation by doctors- parents have. YOU are using "necessary" as a SUBJECTIVE Term - that you, and ONLY you use- NO ONE ELSE.
The practice has been justified by the parents- under the law- and under the privacy and protection they have with their physician: No one needs to "justify" anything to you.
Alaska47Boy 3 months ago
@Alaska47Boy
"Try using evidence that PROVE significant risk of anything"
Better yet:
Infant Circumcision is UNNECESSARY, so how much of these are acceptable:
1. Unnecessary pain
2. unnecessary common problems
3. unnecessary catastrophic problems
4. How much unnecessary sensation and sensitivity loss
5. how many unnecessary deaths
Tandykane 3 months ago
@Tandykane - YOU DONN'T ANSWER these questions- what is the rate? You haven't gauged the risks- the doctors and parents have- YOU have not gauged the situation, the benefits, and the recommendation by doctors- parents have. YOU are using "necessary" as a SUBJECTIVE Term - that you, and ONLY you use- NO ONE ELSE.
The practice has been justified by the parents- under the law- and under the privacy and protection they have with their physician: No one needs to "justify" anything to you.
Alaska47Boy 3 months ago
@Alaska47Boy And YOU have not answered the critical questions as to what ARE accptable, and we know WHY you have not.
YOU DARE NOT!
These questions question the very foundations of circumcision--the rationale, ethics and morality of it,
There is only one rational, ethical and moral answer to these question, and we all know that if that answer is given, circumcision will be shown to be bankrupt.
And ANY other answer damns it also. So, you DARE not answer.
Tandykane 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Tandykane - Parents make the determination of what is "acceptable," not you. Your opinion is null and worthless: the parents have determined it is necessary, the physicians and medical team have recommended it- so again: Since the practice has been justified by the parents- under the law- and under the privacy and protection they have with thier physician: no one needs to "justify" necessity to you.
Alaska47Boy 3 months ago
@Tandykane - Try using evidence that PROVE significant risk of anything.
Your response: "Better yet..."
Reply: Nope- let's start there. Use evidence to PROVE SIGNIFICANT risk of anything. I don't want to hear "proven risk" (i.e., all stated risks- by definition- have to have been proved)- I don't want to hear "documented risks" ; i.e., 1 incident of TB occurance in the last 60 years is technically "documented," but rational people want to know the actual risk percentages- what is it?
Alaska47Boy 3 months ago
@Alaska47Boy
WHEN can we expect you to provide PROVEN or DOCUMENTED evidence for ANY benefits for circumcision.
HOW unnecessary much risk from an unnecessary practice is acceptable? Rational moral, and ethical people want to know. WHAT is acceptable?
Tandykane 3 months ago
@Tandykane - check the other video thread- already did. Oh- and on this one, too.
Alaska47Boy 3 months ago
@Alaska47Boy
"go ask cicumcised men if they think they don't experience any feeling or sensation in thier penis." Done, as has been provided to you again and again--and denial does not change the info:
A Preliminary Poll of Men Circumcised in Infancy or Childhood
T. Hammond, BJU International (83, Suppl. 1), p. 85-92, January, 1999 circumcised intact
Satisfied 38% 78%
Dissatisfied 20% 3%
Ambivalent 41% 17%
So, STILL floundering, I see.
Tandykane 3 months ago
@Tandykane - Great- so the majority of circumcised men are happy, or don't care about the difference- so much for your loss of all that sensitivity- which you are incapable of measuring.- what was the total lost, by the way? :)
Alaska47Boy 3 months ago
@Alaska47Boy
So, you see ONLY what you wish to see? Look at the other numbers.
Tandykane 3 months ago
THIS IS NOT A STUDY, and IS BOGUS- you idiot- You only get this FROM THE SAME ORGANIZATION that put out female response rate- it's BIASED- and it's published AS A SUPPLEMENTAL- not an actual article. It uses polls taken by - NOHARMM- you know that, right? The CITATIONS use books advertised ON THE "ARTICLE" to buy at the NOHARMM website. There isn't even a methods section- and the introduction is a pledge of action BY NOHARMM. How can you be so STUPID as to think this credible? Wow- idiot.
Alaska47Boy 3 months ago
@Alaska47Boy
"Good job on STILL not providing either death rate or even amount of sensitivity lost because the procedure." Still not providing what for each is acceptable for an unnecessary procedure.
Funny that, you demand answers yet provide none yourself--nice double standard there!
Fine-touch pressure thresholds in the adult penis Morris L. Sorrells, James L. Snyder, Mark D. Reiss 2 0 07 BJU INTERNATIONAL 2007
Tandykane 3 months ago
@Tandykane - Yeah, strike out, again- WE HAVE BEEN OVER THIS- that gives neither the rate of loss or total loss, either by location tested or total penis.
Come back with a study that matters.
Alaska47Boy 3 months ago
@Alaska47Boy
STILL haven't learned how to understand a simple bar graph? perhap you might find a 7th grader to explain it to you?
Tandykane 3 months ago
It's not and was never a "simple bar graph," old man- I know you obviously never went to college, because you can't understand a simple t-test. NOTHING IN THE STUDY SHOWS 100% LOSS OF SENSITIVITY, idiot- Show a RATE of sensitivity loss at 100%- this study DOES NOT SHOW THAT. How do you substantiate your fucking LIE that shows 3/4 loss of sensitivity? This study shows is the different parts of the penis- it EXPLICITLY STATES: "no attempt was made to quantify the specialized nerve endings."
Alaska47Boy 3 months ago
@Alaska47Boy
See, restating this shows you unwillingness to read what is written.. the RATE of sensation loss is 100%, the quantity of loss is another subject altogether. And IF you cannot understand where the up to 3/4 loss comes from, again, either obfuscation or stupidity.
Tandykane 3 months ago
@Tandykane - HOW THE FUCK DOES THAT SHOW 100 PERCENT LOSS OF SENSITIVITY, YOU DOOFUS?! How does that show 3/4 loss of sensitivity, like the lying SHIT you spew? All this study shows is the different parts of the penis- it EXPLICITLY STATES: "no attempt was made to quantify the specialized nerve endings...The present study examined the area as a whole rather than analyzing it point by point." This study merely examines sensory tissue- THAT'S IT! Get the fuck outa' here, you knucklehead :)
Alaska47Boy 3 months ago
@Alaska47Boy
When you are finished with your name-calling, and insults and rants,and raves about what you are unable to understand. please answer these crucial questions:
How many unnecessary risks, pain, complications, harm, dissatisfaction, and deaths are acceptable from an unnecessary practice.
Tandykane 3 months ago
@Tandykane - HOW THE FUCK DOES THAT SHOW 100 PERCENT LOSS OF SENSITIVITY, YOU DOOFUS?! How does that show 3/4 loss of sensitivity, like the lying SHIT you spew? All this study shows is the different parts of the penis- it EXPLICITLY STATES: "no attempt was made to quantify the specialized nerve endings...The present study examined the area as a whole rather than analyzing it point by point." This study merely examines sensory tissue- THAT'S IT! Get the fuck outa' here, you knucklehead :)
Alaska47Boy 3 months ago
@Alaska47Boy
AGAIN, you have exceeded you BS quota, time to address the crucial question of what is acceptable from an unnecessary practice?
Tandykane 3 months ago
@Tandykane - Then prove the rebuttal is BS- NOTHING IN THE STUDY SHOWS 100% LOSS OF SENSITIVITY- Show a RATE of sensitivity loss at 100%- this study DOES NOT SHOW THAT. How do you substantiate your fucking LIE that shows 3/4 loss of sensitivity? This study shows is the different parts of the penis- it EXPLICITLY STATES: "no attempt was made to quantify the specialized nerve endings." If you can't interpret your own results, you need to have the gumption to say so, ignoramus.
Alaska47Boy 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NOTHING IN THE STUDY SHOWS 100% LOSS OF SENSITIVITY, YOU DOOFUS- Show a RATE of sensitivity loss at 100%- this study DOES NOT SHOW THAT. How do you substantiate your fucking LIE that shows 3/4 loss of sensitivity? This study shows is the different parts of the penis- it EXPLICITLY STATES: "no attempt was made to quantify the specialized nerve endings." Don't know why you'd care, anyway, gramps- you haven't had sex in years- Get the fuck outa' here.
Alaska47Boy 3 months ago
@olivelevel
I see you have made a lot of assertions here, but it is important to see valid evidence for them--WHEN can we expect you to provide this evidence? This is important because real world empirical evidence shows these claims to be not true.
Tandykane 3 months ago
OK, try this. If you circumcise him, his chances of penile cancer is 0%.
The chances of cancer if you don't are more than 0%. That should be enough to help you make a decision. Cut him.
olivelevel 3 months ago 2
@olivelevel
Using this "logic", what other body parts do you recommend we forcefully amputate at birth? And is this supposed to pass as RATIONAL THINKING?
Do you even KNOW the rate of FORESKIN cancer? Hint--WAY less than 1 in 100,000!
Tandykane 3 months ago
Sex feels soo much better without the foreskin
OhNoThanks 3 months ago 3