If you aren't/weren't already circumcised then would you consent to the procedure right now? think about it. Grab your foreskin, take a sharp knife and cut a slice off. Consider actually doing that right now.
Now consider that someone else was about to do it to you against your will.
I will bet that there would be a lot less circumcisions if you had to do it to yourself instead of have someone "wack" you when you have no choice in the matter. If you believe that it is right then you do it to yourself at the age of concent.
Why are nobody calling out the rabbi when he says that jews have a greater chance at winning a Nobel price???. It reminds me about WW2. Something about superior races right?
Hitchens was the one who STARTED the flippancy / humour with his throwaway remark about " You're not doing it properly, then " I also note he didn't have the balls to look Blue in the eye whilst addressing him.
@Tandykane So he wasn't talking to anyone? He might as well been alone and giving a speech if he won't have the common decency to talk to the man he disagrees with.
It's astounding that the religinuts demanding 'We are made perfect and in a God's image!' are also the same religinuts demanding "God orders us to amputate parts of ourselves!"
hmm, i dont know what to think of this....a lot of non religious people circumcise there boys,,at least where i'm from anyway, and a lot of girls don't like it when dudes aren't because apparently they cum faster, and if u don't wash it can get stinky and dry and painful,,, but it is fucked up when u think about it lol
@JusBlazeDR I'm all in favour of giving the girls what they want, but (a) are they saying having the snip makes you cum faster or are thet saying NOT having the snip makes you cume faster and (b) are they COMPLAINING about the cuming faster..
Saying that circumcision is acceptable because other experiences are comparatively worse is a terrible argument to start with.
I couldn't get away with punching my child in the leg because of my beliefs with the justification that falling off his bike is more painful.
Arguing that it’s not a big deal is missing the point. It’s an unjust act with no positive effects, done in the name of religion. And it’s just another example of how religions archaic traditions have no place in modern society.
"Saying that circumcision is acceptable because other experiences are comparatively worse is a terrible argument to start with."
This is the tire old apologia known as relativistic morality--thinking one finds one act more evil than another, somehow makes the less evil one acceptable.
Hitchens thinks about little boys' penises too much. My parents had me circumcised when I was a baby. I'm fine with it and have had no dysfunction or trauma and I feel pleasure just fine.
@Tandykane Yes, it is true. I've never had issues masturbating, exploring my sexuality, or satisfying my partner. Maybe you want me to think I should be unhappy, but I'm not. It seems like a hyper sensitive penis would lead to quicker ejactulation and less satisfaction to me. "Safety and Efficacy of Nontherapeutic Male Circumcision: A Systematic Review" < No loss of satisfaction or function in sex compared to non-circumcised penises. The only "evidence" that is in your theory is anecdotal.
@Tandykane No, you really don't The doctors do the studies. You worship Hitchens and read studies you agree with. All you people are doing is insulting every person who was circumcised, telling them they're not normal, they were abused and their parents didn't love them. You say this even if they have a normal sex life. Really sick shit, if you ask me.
They do lose the nerves in the foreskin, but those aren't necessary to experience pleasure or orgasm unlike the clit in REAL mutilation.
"They do lose the nerves in the foreskin, but those aren't necessary to experience pleasure or orgasm unlike the clit in REAL mutilation. " You may not believe so for you personally, but your belive does not justify it for any one else.
Don't try the FGM argument--the foreskin contains MORE nerves than the clitoris--do your research, and stop with the assumptions, myths, and superstitions.
@Tandykane With the clit there is no sexual sensation or orgasm. With the foreskin, I'm losing one type of sensation and keeping equal shaft, equal or more sensitive glans (depending on what you read, even hocus pocus epidemiology lmao) and balls. If people can function and achieve orgasm normally, you shouldn't insult them by calling them unnatural or claiming they're abused/their parents didn't love them. It's like hating on people with piercings. My body is different than yours, but so what?
@Tandykane It's pretty amazing you hold a Nigerian study to the same standards as American, British, Dutch, and Australian studies. So it really just seems you discount what isn't yours as the equivalent of Nigerian support of genital mutilation.
That is no way to have a discussion and it's close-minded.
@Tandykane Yes. Apart from reviews that find conflicts of interest in the Nigerian study (since their government actively supports it) "Female Circumcision as a Public Health Issue". New England Journal of Medicine, (1994)
"Changing attitudes to female circumcision" BBC News (sources a Sudanese surgeon) April 8th, 2002
And finally "What is female genital mutilation?" in the Amnesty International archives.
You'll also find a fact sheet on WHO's (World Health Organization's) website.
Good, now show that conflicts of interest actually exists and that it invalidates THIS study, especially with the tons of conflict from organizations that promote MGM.
LOOK at your pathetic attempt at dismissal and see the utter hypocrisy of it--Goose -gander argument!
BTW, I asked for a rebuttal STUDY, not a collection of OPINIONS and SPECULATION- particularly when the same aspect is not even part of these articles!
@Tandykane Again with the caps lock.... and they were studies. If you don't think the WHO is reputable as a source, then I can't help that.
You're the one trying to make it a relativistic argument. I'm saying that it isn't mutilation at all. It's just a pathos-loaded piece of rhetoric. If you hav sexual functioning, miss one type of sensation, and have health benefits (also people who claim MGM say there aren't "enough"), it isn't mutilation. You type like Hitchens talks, rudely.
Like I said if you content MGM is not mutilation, then please provide a rational argument for why it isn't--repetition of unsupported assertions is not substantiation.
YOU do not get to re-define the functions of a penis--nature does this with every male born.
Please provide SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN health benefits that justifies non-therapeutic infant genital mutilation.
@Tandykane It doesn't need to be proven non-mutilation. You are the people who came in after years and years of circumcision and started calling it something else. The burden of proof rests with you in determining that. The WHO calls FGM a human rights violation and says nothing about your position. It isn't mutilation, it isn't "surgical rape" and there is nothing wrong with a circumcised penis, just like there is nothing wrong with clothes, electricity, or other things "unnatural"
This is exactly why it is so difficult to have a rational discussion about circumcision with circumcisers--they constantly use cognitive dissonance, doubletalk, double-think, hypocrisy--whatever you call this double standard you use.
Hell you don;t even use the dictionary
NO, the burden of proof lies with you to rationally ethically justify non-therapeutic infant circumcision.
Just so I am being perfectly clear--using your "conflict of interest" REASONING, every pro-circ study done by any country that practices or promotes MGM MUST be dismissed due to a "conflict of interest"?
Poof, there goes the vast majority of pro-circ studies.
@Tandykane "Nigeria: Female Genital Mutilation" on UNICEF . org.
There is your rebuttal from a legit organization.
Health benefits: lowered UTI chance in early (diaper) years (Archives of Disease in Childhood AUG-2005), lowered chance of penile cancer (AAP 1999), significantly lowered chance of HIV in high risk populations (World Journal of Urology 2011), and lower chance of some STIs (Weiss HA, Thomas SL, Munabi SK, Hayes RJ 2006).
Good, now all you have to do is provide evidence for the existence of these claims in the real world..becasue when I look for it these, I see the empirical evidence refutes these claims.
BTW, advocates of FGM claim these :benefits" also --same as advocates do for MGM...with as much valid evidence--NONE!
Again, don't thin k that appeal to authority supersedes appela to the valid evidence.
@Tandykane Well relativistic morality are your words, not mine. I think calling it MGM is incorrect morally and academically, and the reason I bring up FGM or RGM (real genital mutilaton) is because you're using a strong phrase to bump up your rhetoric and scare people. Pro-life people do it by calling children "survivors of the American holocaust"
Libertarians call government regulation and taxes "slavery"
None of the statements are true. They're underhanded, pathos-loaded forms of rhetoric
You believe calling MGM is incorrect, fine, now all you need to do is provide a rational reason just why it cannot be called this? I will await this rational reason.
Witch burning is worse than FGM, so FGM is acceptable; the Spanish inquisition is worse, so witch burning is acceptable, etc, etc........ the holocaust is the absolute worse, all all lesser evils are acceptable?
"I've never had issues masturbating, exploring my sexuality, or satisfying my partner." Maybe not you personally, but the O'Hara and Danish studies show that overall circumcised men do.
@Tandykane Overall? The review I showed ha 1,300 studies reviewed. There is no evidence that says one functions better than another. All of the evidence from circumcised men is anecdotal. Probably men who have some form of sexual inability or disfunction and blame it on mommy and daddy's "abuse" instead of looking at other reasons.
The American Academy of Pediatrics (1999) stated: "Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In the case of circumcision, in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child."
Ah the AAP BS, use imaginary "potential" benefits and ignore proven harm and many risks, and tell parents that can mutilate their children for "religion or culture"--nothing medical about this position.
Hitchens, yet one more time, falls back upon his insecurity in order to gain applause and then regales in it. His linchpin - genital mutilation - is (was) so long in the tooth that his scheduled appearances were reduced to 'wash, rinse, and repeat', unprepared tantrums. So much so that, in the end, he had nothing to offer save only to complain about things that have no relationship with those who showed up; so full of self-loathing he could never look at his opponent in the face.
Good things sometimes happen to bad people, but it'd also be fair to say that bad things sometimes happen to bad people. Conversely, bad things can happen to good people. But a lot of the time, good things happen to good people.
I think it's our inborn sense of fairness and justice that makes us focus more so on good things happening to bad people, and bad things happening to good people.
The more extreme the unfairness or injustice is, the more it catches our attention.
@peenfluteking Thank you for revealing your low I.Q. It's not every day that someone is willing to write as you have to inform everyone how well you miss the mark.
On the side, if you are able to cut off your daughters fingers then there is something wrong with you in such a way that you should turn yourself in and have DHS come and get your children. Don't worry, you'll be able to write them; unfortunately, they won't be able to write to you; you know, missing fingers and all.
Would you please enlighten me then as to how and in what way the cutting of a non consenting childs genitals is in any way an acceptable act in 21st century western civilisation?
@peenfluteking Easy. It's acceptable practice in those countries which allow it.
It's useless to speak of it in a country that does not practice it. Yet, the practice - reprehensible that it is - is used by folks like Hitchens to evoke an emotional response at the expense of any argument he claims to have concerning the validity/invalidity of religion.
Morals and ethics will not stop this; medical and legal arguments will; but only in the respective countries that allow it.
it is surprising how circumcision has become socially acceptable in particular places. the cost-benefit of performing circumcisions is so low you might as well start lopping off random appendages to avoid potential (and highly highly unlikely) afflictions.
Rabbi Kushner seems like a genuinely decent man. I feel bad that Hitch is slamming his uncircumcised penis so forcefully down the rabbis's throat here.
@itsonlymepeople he is going after the hypocracy he represents - not the man himself. I am not a Hitch lover but I do think he resonates with a large majority of people who are sick of religious hypocracy and those who peddle it for a living.
imagine if you were an 8 day old baby and someone did that to you - you're just getting used to this world and breathing air and wham a load of freaks rip your tiny foreskin off and some rabbi sucks it - that is fucking disgusting and he didnt react enough as far as im concerned
well done hitch - im just as disgusted and he had to force his opinion as unless you do so this disgraceful barbaric abuse will not be stopped
@timewilltell7 "shame on you for defending the babycutters"
What part of me saying "Hitch is slamming his uncircumcised penis so forcefully down the rabbis' throat" led you to think I'm defending the rabbi? Are you really that stupid? And, like most American males, I WAS circumsized as a newborn, dumbass.
I really enjoyed this video. It was a very civil discussion of opinions. Even though I agree with Hitchens, everyone in this video is sympathetic because of their will to lead a civilised discussion.
(At 2:40) actually the fact of the matter is that you 3 guys and the lady wouldn't all be sat up there together if it wasn't for atheist perseverance
@whitt896 notice how the inevitable response to a hitchslap is the slow clap, i wanna study done, there's got to be a causal relationship...one hand makes its way to the other-as in clapping-but along the way slaps a face with logic
Hitchens is trying to conflate female genital mutiliation with circumcision- and he's 100% wrong to do so. The two are entirely different acts - of two entirely different cultures and religions - Hitchens is intentionally misleading viewers in order to falsely smear religion generally. If anyone is acting shamefully, it is Mr Hitchens for his attempt to intentionally deceive.
@thehipi Im sure some kids who were circumcised would beg to differ. It is one's opinion to think of circumcision as mutilation or not. I would personnaly beleive that it is, especially since it is done without the concent of the person receiving it. His point, as he says, is religion makes good poeple do wicked things, and in that case he is 100% right. But that of course is my point of view. Thanks!
@Ourtube144 I was circumcised, as were most all of my peers - I've never heard of a single complaint. Calling it 'mutilitation' is simply spin - you're trying to smear something with innuendo, not logical argument. Circumcision reduces the likelihood of disease, and increases sexual sensitivity. If you think helping your children in this way is 'wicked' - you're ass-backwards confused. Hating religion doesnt make you a better person, it just makes you hateful.
@Tandykane I dont support the practice but in the guys defence it has been scientifically proven that it reduces the transmission of STDs, only because the flap of skin can 'shelter' the fluids and therefore the viruses for a while outside the body. But obviously its kind of irrelevant if people used proper protection etc.
Congrats dick head you've managed to make yourself sound like a proper cunt, he wasn’t talking about it medicinal terms only in ethical. Continuing with his theme you’d agree with cutting off a women clitoris if it had marginal medical benefits….
@Tandykane - I've given you- literally- a dozen studies showing lowered rates and incients of STIs and AIDs as associated with circumcision- so far, you've refuted ZERO of them. When can we expect you to?...
@Tandykane - "And these dozens of studies are worthless unless you can provide a solid accounting for the numerous failures to fulfill prediction."
That means absolutely nothing- the studies and their finding and data are valid unless you can show or demonstrate this is somehow NOT the case. Swing and a miss, Jessica-
Circumcising USA vs other intact industrialized countries..
There are six African countries where men are *more* likely to be HIV+ if they've been circumcised: Cameroon, Ghana, Lesotho, Malawi, Rwanda, and Swaziland.
I don't know why circumcisers have such difficulty with simple logic and reality.
But this difficulty explains WHY they circumcise.
@Tandykane - Doesn't work like that- You've made an idiotic, unfounded claim- the truthfulness of which is NOT based on any other lines of argument which you may or may not believe have been settled- is that truly how idiotic your old mind works, Jessica?
Got it- so happy to spout lies. That's about right :)
@Tandykane - Those studies ALL HAPPENED "in reality," what are you talking about, right now? Which part(s) of them did not "happen in reality?" Fine-point threshold tests do not "happen in reality," but which parts of these data do you think not occur as such?
@Tandykane - There's no "parental consent clause" in the 14th Amendment- Once again- that is NOT how jurisprudence works. Roe ALSO afforded PRIVACY to patients- do you SEE "privacy" or a "privacy clause" anywhere in those Amendments or BOR Sections? That's because the IMPLICIT rights afforded by these Amendments have been deemed by SCOTUS as rights applied under them- the intent- the implication of them is what you're looking for. Again, Jessica- which part of this does not make sense?
So, now you FINALLY admit there is no clause in the 14th amendment.
Now we will await your providing the EXPLICIT part of Roe that provides this "parental right", or in the BOR, and Scotus..because this implicit only exists in your imagination..
@Tandykane - "So now I finally admit?" - Wow you're a moron. Go back to EVERY response I've given to you on this- I have said the EXACT SAME thing- privacy is extended to medical procedures under Roe and parental consent is upheld with incorporation doctrine, and upheld by every Court including California this autumn. Once again- no court or medical body agrees with you- how does it feel to know those same Danish authors struck down your bogus O'Hara lie?
Well you finally DID admitted that the 14th amendment did not have your "parental rights" clause--so we finally have that concession to reality.
Please to provide the "privacy" rulings that state "parental rights" supersede "individual rights".
I would love to see where and how the danish study results differ from those in the O'hara study. Seems we have yet another of your fanciful imaginings.
@Tandykane - You JUST proved yourself wrong- and admitted parental consent rights are both afforded and protected. You disagree with the Court's ruling, and want to have us believe it "supersedes" another right- wow, thanks for that :)
Oh- Try page 12, under "Impact of circumcision on female sexual function", also endnote #33 of the Danish study, where they EXPLICITLY state that O'Hara's results are bogus.
@Tandykane- "Sorry, the only thing the Danish studies provides is a caveat about POSSIBLE bias, but the results are the same."
- They don't use the word "alleged," they state there IS bias, and to be skeptical of the study- now why on EARTH would they state something like that, I wonder?.....
@Tandykane - See- THAT is what you just don't grasp: it doesn't MATTER what the results are if the METHODS section is biased, wrong, and slanted- which is EXACTLY what the Danes call out O'Hara about- their methods are totally skewed, which is why this is a supplemental- it's not peer reviewed, because if it were- it would never have made it into the literature. Haven't you asked yourself why no other study uses O'Hara to bolster their own study's results, and instead draw caution to it?
Such is your ceaseless claims, but you have yet to show that the results have been affected by any alleged bias, but I will breathlessly await this proof.
Totally screwed? 5 of 139 responses? Even if these are removed the results only diminish by ~4%--leaving about a 83% preference for sex with a normal penis.
Into hyperbole much?
Just as I will breathlessly await your comparable studies that have different results.
So, you keep saying, but I really do need the statements in these ruling that allegedly rule that "parental rights" supersede "individual rights"
We went through this crap with the 14th amendment until you finally admitted that you lied about the clause that stated this..are we going through the same crap AGAIN?
@Tandykane - "allegedly rule that "parental rights" supersede "individual rights?" -No one has alleged that any Court has ruled a decision like this- so why are you?
"until you finally admitted that you lied about the clause?" Which clause did I lie about, and where did I "admit" to lying about it?
Again- number of Court cases have discussed BOTH those rights-
and EVERY time have sided with me; which is why today- I STILL enjoy and
@Tandykane - A justification has already been given- and since you have no say in it, and it's been justified by the people in this discussion who matter- what role do you play?
"And how much sensation and sensitivity exists in MISSING body parts?"
-- GREAT question, doofus- and since it was YOU who made the bullshit claim of quantified sensitivity loss, YOU tell us- how much? - that question comes directly from YOUR claim, so why should anyone need to answer such an asinine question?
@Tandykane - A justification has already been given- and since you have no say in it, and it's been justified by the people in this discussion who matter- what role do you play?
"And how much sensation and sensitivity exists in MISSING body parts?"
-- GREAT question, doofus- and since it was YOU who made the bullshit claim of quantified sensitivity loss, YOU tell us- how much? - that question comes directly from YOUR claim, so why should anyone need to answer such an asinine question?
@Tandykane -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?
When you are done with your rant containing empty claims of "bias", perhaps you can supply a rational scientifically credible justification for non-therapeutic justification for infant circumcision...
AND this long promised "parental rights" clause in the 14th amendment.
@Tandykane - "Empty Bias?" This . Is. A. Study. By. NOHARM- which part of this do you not comprehend? - the "Sources" section cites books from the NOHARM book store- the "Introduction" is a call to action BY NOHARM. What about this does your idiotic brain not understand, old man? Also- what part about NOT BEING A STUDY do you not understand- this is s supplemental- NOT a study.
Stop parroting your bullshit to others when you are CLEARLY aware that it's bogus.
"Stop parroting your bullshit to others when you are CLEARLY aware that it's bogus." When can we expect you to provide a rational ethical justification for non-therapeutic infant circumcision?
And how much sensation and sensitivity exists in MISSING body parts..It has been since forever that you have not answered these basic questions.
@Tandykane - A justification has already been given- and since you have no say in it, and it's been justified by the people in this discussion who matter- what role do you play?
"And how much sensation and sensitivity exists in MISSING body parts?"
-- GREAT question, doofus- and since it was YOU who made the bullshit claim of quantified sensitivity loss, YOU tell us- how much? - that question comes directly from YOUR claim, so why should anyone need to answer such an asinine question?
@Tandykane - Both questions have NOTHING to do with the fact that the above supplemental you try to pass off is total bullshit. Again- what part of this do you NOT understand?
I think you need to do some research into both FGM & MGM, and when you do, you will find only superficial differences. AND you will find for every form of FGM, there is a worse form of MGM.
@thehipi "Hitchens is trying to conflate female genital mutiliation with circumcision" No he wasn't! He was conflating female genital mutilation with male ginital mutilation.
@Nifrayu He's referring to circumcision, watch the video again. To call circumcision 'mutiliation' is like calling a medical surgery a 'deadly assault'. You are weak on facts and full of spin, innuendo, and hollow rhetoric. Hating religion doesnt make you a better person, it just makes you hateful.
sounds like you forgot that it is 2012... it is no great accomplishment to make use of "freedom of speach" in a civilized country nowadays... if that is already imposing to you, you should finally wake up and take a look in the calender
There is no excuse for genital mutilation , an adult would be put in jail if they mutilated another adults genitals so why is it ok to mutilate a baby boys , no outrage from feminist groups about the forced mutilation of male children.This then carries on to that odious tramp Sharon Osbourn celebrating the mutilation of a mans penis because he was allegedly sleeping around, as humans we need to resist religion and extremist groups in all forms or we will continue to decline as a species.
both Rabbi Harold Kushner, Rev. Peter Gomes does not 'attack Hitchens' but he (Hitchens) mentions 'Rabbis', 'mullahs' and christians! This is the spirit of hate that runs in himm which only God can remove.
I am not. I was simply generalizing in the same way you did with all atheist. You think atheist are morons. I think that (by projecting my moral code into you) you are a bad person if you rejoice to a god for the death of someone for the sole reason that you don't agree with him (heck, it almost seems that either you think that stupidity is a capital punishment or you saw him as a threat that you happily saw removed)
@synchronyJEM - Atheists are morons if they somehow think the world's problems have anything to do with religion; if they denigrate religion and those who are spiritual, and who push a bigoted agenda because they feel some incessant need to let whole populations know how awful they think they are- That was Hitchens.
The title of this video is "Christopher Hitchens Goes After Rabbi Harold Kushner re: Circumcision," why?- This is an 8 minute video, whereby this Rabbi rips on Hitchens and defends this medical practice. So why would this title somehow hint that Hitchens is somehow one-upping them? Hitchens does nothing of the sort, the Rabbi's the one who gives the bottom line: ""The only statistic [on circumcision] any long-term is that it increases their chances of winning a Nobel Prize." -and he's right.
@Alaska47Boy Medical practices????? On what medical grounds is the genital mutilation of boys in the jewish faith "medical"???? It is because it is written in a book, that was written by man... There are NO medical grounds for this barbaric act and to say there is tarnishes medicine all together! If you can PROVE the medical basis for this then you may have an argument, but it is done because Abraham did it to his son in the bible... and done in the name of "god"
@dav3yboy79 - Except for it being considered a 'medical' procedure, done predominantly-but clearly not always- by 'medical' professionals, likewise in 'medical' facilities, with 'medical' bodies and organizations forming 'medical' studies and positions around such- yeah, I think I'm sticking to terming it 'medical procedure.'
Countless 'medical' studies showing benefits from this 'medical' procedure, and billions are circumcised for a myriad of reasons- medical, religious- name it. Get over it.
@Alaska47Boy More people have died from it than have been saved by it. It's disgusting to any free thinking person not encumbered by the religion that their parents told them was the right one.
If you aren't/weren't already circumcised then would you consent to the procedure right now? think about it. Grab your foreskin, take a sharp knife and cut a slice off. Consider actually doing that right now.
Now consider that someone else was about to do it to you against your will.
dedokta 11 hours ago
I will bet that there would be a lot less circumcisions if you had to do it to yourself instead of have someone "wack" you when you have no choice in the matter. If you believe that it is right then you do it to yourself at the age of concent.
JustaSmuck 21 hours ago
If it was a Muslim Mullah, the moderator would not have tried to move on so quickly.
joel1923 2 days ago 2
Is no one going to comment about how the Jew keeps using financial analogies? Because it's astounding, really.
Also, fuck him. Prick.
jewggernaught 2 days ago in playlist Christopher Hitchens
An interesting article:
Google: intactnews Progressive Rabbis On Creating A Jewish Covenant Without Circumcision
Tandykane 2 days ago
Why are nobody calling out the rabbi when he says that jews have a greater chance at winning a Nobel price???. It reminds me about WW2. Something about superior races right?
Molndannon 2 days ago
@Molndannon
he is so arrogant thats all i could see ...
and they gave obama the nobel peace prize too - so what does that tell you
who issues the prizes is what i want to know
timewilltell7 2 days ago
Genital mutilation is no joke,but religion is !
naybobdenod 3 days ago
As an Agnostic, I'm happy that I've been "cut". I wouldn't want to have a foreskin.
fixedgearplanet 3 days ago
@fixedgearplanet
So, you wouldn't like to have the missing up to 3/4 sensations and sensitivity?
WHY not, you have gained nothing in it's stead?
Tandykane 2 days ago
@Tandykane hey don't worry about my foreskin. ok?
fixedgearplanet 2 days ago
@fixedgearplanet
I don't worry about your foreskin per se, I worry about the basic human rights of helpless infants.
Tandykane 2 days ago 2
Hitchens was the one who STARTED the flippancy / humour with his throwaway remark about " You're not doing it properly, then " I also note he didn't have the balls to look Blue in the eye whilst addressing him.
Spineless !
trousers5184 3 days ago
@trousers5184
Not looking him in the face? Why should he--the audience is the one he was exposing the hypocrisy to. And he succeeded marvelously at this.
No demeanor distracts from the crucial message Hitchens was making.
Tandykane 3 days ago
@Tandykane So he wasn't talking to anyone? He might as well been alone and giving a speech if he won't have the common decency to talk to the man he disagrees with.
TheTerrorUforgot 3 days ago
@TheTerrorUforgot Spot on Tandykane. I agree with YOU
trousers5184 2 days ago
@trousers5184 Then you should reply to him, silly billy.
TheTerrorUforgot 2 days ago
It's astounding that the religinuts demanding 'We are made perfect and in a God's image!' are also the same religinuts demanding "God orders us to amputate parts of ourselves!"
Anyone else see the DoubleThink at play here?
TheHigherVoltage 3 days ago
hmm, i dont know what to think of this....a lot of non religious people circumcise there boys,,at least where i'm from anyway, and a lot of girls don't like it when dudes aren't because apparently they cum faster, and if u don't wash it can get stinky and dry and painful,,, but it is fucked up when u think about it lol
JusBlazeDR 4 days ago
@JusBlazeDR I'm all in favour of giving the girls what they want, but (a) are they saying having the snip makes you cum faster or are thet saying NOT having the snip makes you cume faster and (b) are they COMPLAINING about the cuming faster..
trousers5184 3 days ago
@trousers5184
If, so, then all here should read the O'Hara study which clearly shows that knowing women overwhelmingly(87%) prefer sex with the normal penis.
Tandykane 2 days ago
Aren't you guys missing the fucking point here?
Saying, oh, well circumcision doesn't have too bad effects....
YOU ARE STILL TAKING A CHILD AND MUTILATING ITS BODY.
Do not fucking ACT like its a corrective procedure.
You are blinded by your vapid religion to the point where you can't even clearly see the OBVIOUS REALITY of what you're doing.
STOP mutilating children you fucking SICK fucks.
peenfluteking 5 days ago 24
@peenfluteking CAPS LOCK does a lot to HELP my ARGUMENTS.
TheTerrorUforgot 4 days ago
Saying that circumcision is acceptable because other experiences are comparatively worse is a terrible argument to start with.
I couldn't get away with punching my child in the leg because of my beliefs with the justification that falling off his bike is more painful.
Arguing that it’s not a big deal is missing the point. It’s an unjust act with no positive effects, done in the name of religion. And it’s just another example of how religions archaic traditions have no place in modern society.
bailer4life 5 days ago 7
@bailer4life
"Saying that circumcision is acceptable because other experiences are comparatively worse is a terrible argument to start with."
This is the tire old apologia known as relativistic morality--thinking one finds one act more evil than another, somehow makes the less evil one acceptable.
Tandykane 4 days ago
3 guys in a debate.
1 guy did his homework.
2 guys preyed for a miracle.
guess
cacasarq 5 days ago
Hitchens thinks about little boys' penises too much. My parents had me circumcised when I was a baby. I'm fine with it and have had no dysfunction or trauma and I feel pleasure just fine.
TheTerrorUforgot 5 days ago
@TheTerrorUforgot
That may be what you believe, but it not true--you have lost up to 3/4 of your penile sensation and sensitivity. Like they say, ignorance is bliss.
Fine-touch pressure thresholds in the adult penis Morris L. Sorrells, James L. Snyder, Mark D. Reiss 2 0 07 BJU INTERNATIONAL 2007
It is not about penises, it about basic human rights for helpless infants!
Tandykane 5 days ago
@Tandykane Yes, it is true. I've never had issues masturbating, exploring my sexuality, or satisfying my partner. Maybe you want me to think I should be unhappy, but I'm not. It seems like a hyper sensitive penis would lead to quicker ejactulation and less satisfaction to me. "Safety and Efficacy of Nontherapeutic Male Circumcision: A Systematic Review" < No loss of satisfaction or function in sex compared to non-circumcised penises. The only "evidence" that is in your theory is anecdotal.
TheTerrorUforgot 5 days ago
@TheTerrorUforgot
Gee, more circumciser's attempt to redefine reality--it is NORMAL sensitivity on a normal penis! The Scandinavians found PE occurs more in cut men.
Explain HOW the scientific proof of lost nerves and sensitivity and sensation does not occur-- and support it with objective evidence.
When it come to circumcision, I certainly do know more than most doctors--I know the SCIENCE around it!
Tandykane 5 days ago
@Tandykane No, you really don't The doctors do the studies. You worship Hitchens and read studies you agree with. All you people are doing is insulting every person who was circumcised, telling them they're not normal, they were abused and their parents didn't love them. You say this even if they have a normal sex life. Really sick shit, if you ask me.
They do lose the nerves in the foreskin, but those aren't necessary to experience pleasure or orgasm unlike the clit in REAL mutilation.
TheTerrorUforgot 5 days ago
@TheTerrorUforgot
In case you didn't know it, epidemiology is NOT science--it is questionable statistics..
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False John P. A. Ioannidis
An Epidemic of False Claims--Competition and conflicts of interest distort too many medical findings By John P. A. Ioannidis
BTW, a cut penis is NOT normal in any definition of the term, and neither is the sex life with a cut penis.
Tandykane 5 days ago
@TheTerrorUforgot
"They do lose the nerves in the foreskin, but those aren't necessary to experience pleasure or orgasm unlike the clit in REAL mutilation. " You may not believe so for you personally, but your belive does not justify it for any one else.
Don't try the FGM argument--the foreskin contains MORE nerves than the clitoris--do your research, and stop with the assumptions, myths, and superstitions.
Tandykane 5 days ago
@Tandykane With the clit there is no sexual sensation or orgasm. With the foreskin, I'm losing one type of sensation and keeping equal shaft, equal or more sensitive glans (depending on what you read, even hocus pocus epidemiology lmao) and balls. If people can function and achieve orgasm normally, you shouldn't insult them by calling them unnatural or claiming they're abused/their parents didn't love them. It's like hating on people with piercings. My body is different than yours, but so what?
TheTerrorUforgot 5 days ago
@TheTerrorUforgot
Like I told you, you need to do some research and not just repeat myths....
" Circumcised women experience sexual arousal and orgasm as frequently as uncircumcised women, according to a study in Nigeria. "
Journal reference: BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (vol 109, p 1089)
AGAIN, a mutilated penis is not normal, and circumcised sex is hence not normal.
Tandykane 4 days ago
@Tandykane It's pretty amazing you hold a Nigerian study to the same standards as American, British, Dutch, and Australian studies. So it really just seems you discount what isn't yours as the equivalent of Nigerian support of genital mutilation.
That is no way to have a discussion and it's close-minded.
TheTerrorUforgot 4 days ago
@TheTerrorUforgot
Do you have a study that refutes the findings of the Nigerian study--yes, or no?
Simple as that. If you can't refute it, facile dismissal is not sufficient--this is a prime example of being close-minded.
Tandykane 3 days ago
@Tandykane Yes. Apart from reviews that find conflicts of interest in the Nigerian study (since their government actively supports it) "Female Circumcision as a Public Health Issue". New England Journal of Medicine, (1994)
"Changing attitudes to female circumcision" BBC News (sources a Sudanese surgeon) April 8th, 2002
And finally "What is female genital mutilation?" in the Amnesty International archives.
You'll also find a fact sheet on WHO's (World Health Organization's) website.
TheTerrorUforgot 3 days ago
@TheTerrorUforgot
Good, now show that conflicts of interest actually exists and that it invalidates THIS study, especially with the tons of conflict from organizations that promote MGM.
LOOK at your pathetic attempt at dismissal and see the utter hypocrisy of it--Goose -gander argument!
BTW, I asked for a rebuttal STUDY, not a collection of OPINIONS and SPECULATION- particularly when the same aspect is not even part of these articles!
Tandykane 3 days ago
@Tandykane Again with the caps lock.... and they were studies. If you don't think the WHO is reputable as a source, then I can't help that.
You're the one trying to make it a relativistic argument. I'm saying that it isn't mutilation at all. It's just a pathos-loaded piece of rhetoric. If you hav sexual functioning, miss one type of sensation, and have health benefits (also people who claim MGM say there aren't "enough"), it isn't mutilation. You type like Hitchens talks, rudely.
TheTerrorUforgot 3 days ago
@TheTerrorUforgot
Like I said if you content MGM is not mutilation, then please provide a rational argument for why it isn't--repetition of unsupported assertions is not substantiation.
YOU do not get to re-define the functions of a penis--nature does this with every male born.
Please provide SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN health benefits that justifies non-therapeutic infant genital mutilation.
Tandykane 2 days ago
@Tandykane It doesn't need to be proven non-mutilation. You are the people who came in after years and years of circumcision and started calling it something else. The burden of proof rests with you in determining that. The WHO calls FGM a human rights violation and says nothing about your position. It isn't mutilation, it isn't "surgical rape" and there is nothing wrong with a circumcised penis, just like there is nothing wrong with clothes, electricity, or other things "unnatural"
TheTerrorUforgot 2 days ago
@TheTerrorUforgot
This is exactly why it is so difficult to have a rational discussion about circumcision with circumcisers--they constantly use cognitive dissonance, doubletalk, double-think, hypocrisy--whatever you call this double standard you use.
Hell you don;t even use the dictionary
NO, the burden of proof lies with you to rationally ethically justify non-therapeutic infant circumcision.
Tandykane 2 days ago
@TheTerrorUforgot
"there is nothing wrong with a circumcised penis"
Nothing other than it is not a fully functioning penis--it has lost up to 3/4 of its sensation and sensitivity:
Fine-touch pressure thresholds in the adult penis Morris L. Sorrells, James L. Snyder, Mark D. Reiss 2 0 07 BJU INTERNATIONAL 2007
Tandykane 2 days ago 2
@TheTerrorUforgot
Just so I am being perfectly clear--using your "conflict of interest" REASONING, every pro-circ study done by any country that practices or promotes MGM MUST be dismissed due to a "conflict of interest"?
Poof, there goes the vast majority of pro-circ studies.
Tandykane 3 days ago
@Tandykane Allowing and mandating circumcision are not the same thing. The Nigerian government mandates it. So nothing went "poof"
TheTerrorUforgot 3 days ago
@TheTerrorUforgot
Seems like you have reached the point of grasping for any silly excuse.
Are you now claiming that the Nigerian government MANDATES FGM.
You still have not addressed the implications of your silly "conflict of interest" REASONING. When can we expect you to address this?
IF this conflict of interests invalidates studies, your pro-circ studies have indeed gone poof!
Tandykane 2 days ago
@TheTerrorUforgot
Do you have a rebuttal study to the Nigerian study? If not, it seems your relativistic morality of FGM & MGM is fallacious.
Tandykane 2 days ago
@Tandykane "Nigeria: Female Genital Mutilation" on UNICEF . org.
There is your rebuttal from a legit organization.
Health benefits: lowered UTI chance in early (diaper) years (Archives of Disease in Childhood AUG-2005), lowered chance of penile cancer (AAP 1999), significantly lowered chance of HIV in high risk populations (World Journal of Urology 2011), and lower chance of some STIs (Weiss HA, Thomas SL, Munabi SK, Hayes RJ 2006).
EVIDENCE ON THE OTHER SIDE. S T F U
TheTerrorUforgot 2 days ago
@TheTerrorUforgot
Good, now all you have to do is provide evidence for the existence of these claims in the real world..becasue when I look for it these, I see the empirical evidence refutes these claims.
BTW, advocates of FGM claim these :benefits" also --same as advocates do for MGM...with as much valid evidence--NONE!
Again, don't thin k that appeal to authority supersedes appela to the valid evidence.
Tandykane 2 days ago
@TheTerrorUforgot
RE the UNICEF site--WHERE is the study that refutes the Nigerian study?
In case you didn't notice this:
"It is a fundamental violation of human rights because it is carried out at a very young age when there is no possibility of the individual consent."
HMMM, and just How does this NOT apply to MGM?
Tandykane 2 days ago
@TheTerrorUforgot
Also, I am still waiting to see how MGM is justified on the alleged grounds that you believe FGM is worse.
Try discussing MGM and spare us your relativistic morality.
Tandykane 3 days ago
@Tandykane Well relativistic morality are your words, not mine. I think calling it MGM is incorrect morally and academically, and the reason I bring up FGM or RGM (real genital mutilaton) is because you're using a strong phrase to bump up your rhetoric and scare people. Pro-life people do it by calling children "survivors of the American holocaust"
Libertarians call government regulation and taxes "slavery"
None of the statements are true. They're underhanded, pathos-loaded forms of rhetoric
TheTerrorUforgot 3 days ago
@TheTerrorUforgot
You believe calling MGM is incorrect, fine, now all you need to do is provide a rational reason just why it cannot be called this? I will await this rational reason.
Witch burning is worse than FGM, so FGM is acceptable; the Spanish inquisition is worse, so witch burning is acceptable, etc, etc........ the holocaust is the absolute worse, all all lesser evils are acceptable?
Tandykane 3 days ago
@TheTerrorUforgot
"I've never had issues masturbating, exploring my sexuality, or satisfying my partner." Maybe not you personally, but the O'Hara and Danish studies show that overall circumcised men do.
Tandykane 5 days ago
@Tandykane Overall? The review I showed ha 1,300 studies reviewed. There is no evidence that says one functions better than another. All of the evidence from circumcised men is anecdotal. Probably men who have some form of sexual inability or disfunction and blame it on mommy and daddy's "abuse" instead of looking at other reasons.
TheTerrorUforgot 5 days ago
@TheTerrorUforgot
You are confusing anecdote and opinions with evidence--the ONLY objective evidence clearly shows a degradation in cut penises.
For every anecdote about no difference, I can supply one claiming there is--give me the SCIENCE!
Come back with something scientifically credible.
Tandykane 5 days ago
The American Academy of Pediatrics (1999) stated: "Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In the case of circumcision, in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child."
TheTerrorUforgot 5 days ago
@TheTerrorUforgot
Ah the AAP BS, use imaginary "potential" benefits and ignore proven harm and many risks, and tell parents that can mutilate their children for "religion or culture"--nothing medical about this position.
Tandykane 5 days ago
@Tandykane Yes I'm sure you know more than doctors.
TheTerrorUforgot 5 days ago
Hitchens, yet one more time, falls back upon his insecurity in order to gain applause and then regales in it. His linchpin - genital mutilation - is (was) so long in the tooth that his scheduled appearances were reduced to 'wash, rinse, and repeat', unprepared tantrums. So much so that, in the end, he had nothing to offer save only to complain about things that have no relationship with those who showed up; so full of self-loathing he could never look at his opponent in the face.
cliffandy 5 days ago
He's kind of a dick... but yeah.
ratonL 6 days ago
He meant 'anything' at 6:45 by the way.
TPom8458 6 days ago
Hitchens - fucking genius
xTroop18546x 6 days ago 2
A good example of Hitchens purposefully mixing rumor with fact to support his position.
highintensityairsoft 6 days ago
2:01 "Why do good people do wicked things".... The answer is, they aren't good people, HAHAHAHA..
Databamse 1 week ago
I don't think he deserved death or hated him, but Hitchens was so obnoxious...
tovahification 1 week ago
@tovahification Because he made you realize how stupid religion really is?
Tobbywar 6 days ago
@Tobbywar Nah, because he's obnoxious.
tovahification 6 days ago
The world is a poorer place without Christopher Hitchens.
This video should be more widely shown.
indigofugit 1 week ago
Odds and probability.
Good things sometimes happen to bad people, but it'd also be fair to say that bad things sometimes happen to bad people. Conversely, bad things can happen to good people. But a lot of the time, good things happen to good people.
I think it's our inborn sense of fairness and justice that makes us focus more so on good things happening to bad people, and bad things happening to good people.
The more extreme the unfairness or injustice is, the more it catches our attention.
acronus 1 week ago
Hey guys
My daughter was born last month.
I cut off her little fingers because it marks the holy covenant of the Daimonola and devotes her forever garments to the soul of love.
Its okay though, because its my religion and everyone I know has been doing it for thousands of years.
--------
See how fucking batshit insane you really are?
peenfluteking 1 week ago 22
@peenfluteking Thank you for revealing your low I.Q. It's not every day that someone is willing to write as you have to inform everyone how well you miss the mark.
On the side, if you are able to cut off your daughters fingers then there is something wrong with you in such a way that you should turn yourself in and have DHS come and get your children. Don't worry, you'll be able to write them; unfortunately, they won't be able to write to you; you know, missing fingers and all.
cliffandy 5 days ago
@cliffandy
I don't think you understand.
It is my Holy Covenant demanded by The One the Lord The God, who wrote the Holy Mp3, that brings so much peace and happiness to my life.
Its okay, its just the tip of her little fingers. It barely makes any difference.
She cried a lot but its okay because my lineage in Zimbabwe have been doing it for thousands of years so its totally normal.
peenfluteking 5 days ago
@peenfluteking: You sir, are a genius.
I used to call circumcision primitive, then I found that pre-Judaism times never involved the practice at all.
chinopisces 5 days ago
@peenfluteking Actually, I do understand; that you don't, I've already covered.
cliffandy 4 days ago
@cliffandy
Would you please enlighten me then as to how and in what way the cutting of a non consenting childs genitals is in any way an acceptable act in 21st century western civilisation?
peenfluteking 4 days ago
@peenfluteking Easy. It's acceptable practice in those countries which allow it.
It's useless to speak of it in a country that does not practice it. Yet, the practice - reprehensible that it is - is used by folks like Hitchens to evoke an emotional response at the expense of any argument he claims to have concerning the validity/invalidity of religion.
Morals and ethics will not stop this; medical and legal arguments will; but only in the respective countries that allow it.
cliffandy 2 hours ago
Comment removed
nakedhands 4 days ago 2
@nakedhands
I like how you abbreviated smegma :P You guys must have a very close relationship
peenfluteking 4 days ago
@nakedhands I noticed you have some ear wax... can I cut off your ears and fill those holes with cement? It will help keep you clean.
God know that is more humane then you using water to clean yourself.
RavenousSky 3 days ago
Hitch smashed the granny out of him there!
leffehoegaarden 1 week ago
that link covering the whole video is really annoying
Morophin3 1 week ago
moderator's kind of a shill, enjoyed the what the rabbi had to say a lil too much and rushed to his defense a lil too quick....
carlo88moe 1 week ago
it is surprising how circumcision has become socially acceptable in particular places. the cost-benefit of performing circumcisions is so low you might as well start lopping off random appendages to avoid potential (and highly highly unlikely) afflictions.
cerebralcereal 1 week ago
Rabbi Kushner seems like a genuinely decent man. I feel bad that Hitch is slamming his uncircumcised penis so forcefully down the rabbis's throat here.
itsonlymepeople 1 week ago
@itsonlymepeople he is going after the hypocracy he represents - not the man himself. I am not a Hitch lover but I do think he resonates with a large majority of people who are sick of religious hypocracy and those who peddle it for a living.
vohshkab 1 week ago
@itsonlymepeople
imagine if you were an 8 day old baby and someone did that to you - you're just getting used to this world and breathing air and wham a load of freaks rip your tiny foreskin off and some rabbi sucks it - that is fucking disgusting and he didnt react enough as far as im concerned
well done hitch - im just as disgusted and he had to force his opinion as unless you do so this disgraceful barbaric abuse will not be stopped
shame on you for defending the babycutters
timewilltell7 1 week ago
@timewilltell7 "shame on you for defending the babycutters"
What part of me saying "Hitch is slamming his uncircumcised penis so forcefully down the rabbis' throat" led you to think I'm defending the rabbi? Are you really that stupid? And, like most American males, I WAS circumsized as a newborn, dumbass.
itsonlymepeople 1 week ago
@itsonlymepeople
i rest my case
timewilltell7 6 days ago
@timewilltell7 What?
itsonlymepeople 6 days ago
he'll stop talking when he damn well pleases
Cdubzhappy 1 week ago
Skip Rabbi and Reverend to 3:24 for Hitchens. The topic is "good" people doing evil things. Believe me you wont miss anything.
YoNiQe 1 week ago
I really enjoyed this video. It was a very civil discussion of opinions. Even though I agree with Hitchens, everyone in this video is sympathetic because of their will to lead a civilised discussion.
HmTastySoup 1 week ago
@HmTastySoup
But I think it would be more compelling if actions instead of empty words lead to a more civilized world.
Tandykane 1 week ago
I'm watching the video and I can hardly believe Hitchens is no longer with us.
TheGerogero 1 week ago
(At 2:40) actually the fact of the matter is that you 3 guys and the lady wouldn't all be sat up there together if it wasn't for atheist perseverance
Seldomsleeper 1 week ago
and BAM, HITCHSLAP
whitt896 1 week ago 30
@whitt896 notice how the inevitable response to a hitchslap is the slow clap, i wanna study done, there's got to be a causal relationship...one hand makes its way to the other-as in clapping-but along the way slaps a face with logic
carlo88moe 1 week ago
This situation got ugly.
Hitchens is right, though... however much of a dick he is about it.
lukey405 1 week ago
Hitchens is trying to conflate female genital mutiliation with circumcision- and he's 100% wrong to do so. The two are entirely different acts - of two entirely different cultures and religions - Hitchens is intentionally misleading viewers in order to falsely smear religion generally. If anyone is acting shamefully, it is Mr Hitchens for his attempt to intentionally deceive.
thehipi 1 week ago
@thehipi Im sure some kids who were circumcised would beg to differ. It is one's opinion to think of circumcision as mutilation or not. I would personnaly beleive that it is, especially since it is done without the concent of the person receiving it. His point, as he says, is religion makes good poeple do wicked things, and in that case he is 100% right. But that of course is my point of view. Thanks!
Ourtube144 1 week ago 16
@Ourtube144 I was circumcised, as were most all of my peers - I've never heard of a single complaint. Calling it 'mutilitation' is simply spin - you're trying to smear something with innuendo, not logical argument. Circumcision reduces the likelihood of disease, and increases sexual sensitivity. If you think helping your children in this way is 'wicked' - you're ass-backwards confused. Hating religion doesnt make you a better person, it just makes you hateful.
thehipi 1 week ago
@thehipi how do you know it increases sexual pleasure if you were circumsised as a child?
Lukeeiiee 1 week ago
@thehipi
When can we expect you to provide valid evidence that circumcision reduces disease in the real world?
How in the world can removing the majority of penile nerves and nearly all of the specialized nerves "INCREASE sensation? Evidence, please!
Fighting stupidity and ignorance that harms helpless children DOES make one a better person.
Tandykane 1 week ago
@Tandykane I dont support the practice but in the guys defence it has been scientifically proven that it reduces the transmission of STDs, only because the flap of skin can 'shelter' the fluids and therefore the viruses for a while outside the body. But obviously its kind of irrelevant if people used proper protection etc.
ProperMuzik 1 week ago
Congrats dick head you've managed to make yourself sound like a proper cunt, he wasn’t talking about it medicinal terms only in ethical. Continuing with his theme you’d agree with cutting off a women clitoris if it had marginal medical benefits….
kaneyp 1 week ago
@kaneyp I wasnt talking about anyone in the video.
ProperMuzik 1 week ago
@ProperMuzik
You are confusing having studies SUGGESTING benefits with having PROOF that it does.But the real world empirical evidence destroys these claims.
SCIENCE demands a theory ALWAYS fulfill its prediction!
Tandykane 1 week ago
@Tandykane - I've given you- literally- a dozen studies showing lowered rates and incients of STIs and AIDs as associated with circumcision- so far, you've refuted ZERO of them. When can we expect you to?...
Alaska47Boy 1 week ago
@Alaska47Boy
And these dozens of studies are worthless unless you can provide a solid accounting for the numerous failures to fulfill prediction.
Don't try to conflate QUANTITY of evidence with QUALITY of evidence--THINK!.
I don;t need to refute when reality does this.
Tandykane 1 week ago
@Tandykane - "And these dozens of studies are worthless unless you can provide a solid accounting for the numerous failures to fulfill prediction."
That means absolutely nothing- the studies and their finding and data are valid unless you can show or demonstrate this is somehow NOT the case. Swing and a miss, Jessica-
Alaska47Boy 1 week ago
@Alaska47Boy
Hardly valid when contradicted by reality..
Circumcising USA vs other intact industrialized countries..
There are six African countries where men are *more* likely to be HIV+ if they've been circumcised: Cameroon, Ghana, Lesotho, Malawi, Rwanda, and Swaziland.
I don't know why circumcisers have such difficulty with simple logic and reality.
But this difficulty explains WHY they circumcise.
Tandykane 1 week ago
@Tandykane - "There are six African countries where men are *more* likely to be HIV+ if they've been circumcised."
Citation, please. Oh, also? You STILL haven't rebutted either the findings or data of the studies provided. Whenever you get a chance- thanks,
Alaska47Boy 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Alaska47Boy
""There are six African countries where men are *more* likely to be HIV+ if they've been circumcised." Citation, please."
How about Right AFTER you provide the specific "parental rights" clauses in whatever ruling you claim has them.
Tandykane 1 week ago
@Tandykane - Doesn't work like that- You've made an idiotic, unfounded claim- the truthfulness of which is NOT based on any other lines of argument which you may or may not believe have been settled- is that truly how idiotic your old mind works, Jessica?
Got it- so happy to spout lies. That's about right :)
Alaska47Boy 1 week ago
@Tandykane - Those studies ALL HAPPENED "in reality," what are you talking about, right now? Which part(s) of them did not "happen in reality?" Fine-point threshold tests do not "happen in reality," but which parts of these data do you think not occur as such?
Alaska47Boy 1 week ago
@Alaska47Boy
How much sensitivity and sensation exists in missing nerve-laden tissue?
Tandykane 1 week ago
@Alaska47Boy
STILL waiting for this alleged "parental rights" clause in the 14th amendment--
Tandykane 1 week ago
@Tandykane - There's no "parental consent clause" in the 14th Amendment- Once again- that is NOT how jurisprudence works. Roe ALSO afforded PRIVACY to patients- do you SEE "privacy" or a "privacy clause" anywhere in those Amendments or BOR Sections? That's because the IMPLICIT rights afforded by these Amendments have been deemed by SCOTUS as rights applied under them- the intent- the implication of them is what you're looking for. Again, Jessica- which part of this does not make sense?
Alaska47Boy 1 week ago
@Alaska47Boy
So, now you FINALLY admit there is no clause in the 14th amendment.
Now we will await your providing the EXPLICIT part of Roe that provides this "parental right", or in the BOR, and Scotus..because this implicit only exists in your imagination..
Tandykane 1 week ago
@Tandykane - "So now I finally admit?" - Wow you're a moron. Go back to EVERY response I've given to you on this- I have said the EXACT SAME thing- privacy is extended to medical procedures under Roe and parental consent is upheld with incorporation doctrine, and upheld by every Court including California this autumn. Once again- no court or medical body agrees with you- how does it feel to know those same Danish authors struck down your bogus O'Hara lie?
Alaska47Boy 1 week ago
@Alaska47Boy
Well you finally DID admitted that the 14th amendment did not have your "parental rights" clause--so we finally have that concession to reality.
Please to provide the "privacy" rulings that state "parental rights" supersede "individual rights".
I would love to see where and how the danish study results differ from those in the O'hara study. Seems we have yet another of your fanciful imaginings.
Tandykane 1 week ago
@Tandykane - You JUST proved yourself wrong- and admitted parental consent rights are both afforded and protected. You disagree with the Court's ruling, and want to have us believe it "supersedes" another right- wow, thanks for that :)
Oh- Try page 12, under "Impact of circumcision on female sexual function", also endnote #33 of the Danish study, where they EXPLICITLY state that O'Hara's results are bogus.
Alaska47Boy 1 week ago
@Alaska47Boy
Please show me the statements in those rulings that state that "parental tights" supersede "individual rights?
I have to ask this because all too often your imaginings of what is said is not what IS said.
Sorry, the only thing the Danish studies provides is a caveat about POSSIBLE bias, but the results are the same.
It seems you have comprehension difficulties--imagination overuling comprehension.
Tandykane 1 week ago
@Tandykane- "Sorry, the only thing the Danish studies provides is a caveat about POSSIBLE bias, but the results are the same."
- They don't use the word "alleged," they state there IS bias, and to be skeptical of the study- now why on EARTH would they state something like that, I wonder?.....
Alaska47Boy 1 week ago
@Alaska47Boy
"However, because participants were recruited through an anticircumcision
newsletter, results should be viewed with scepticism." WHERE is this "is bias"? Comprehension difficulties?
As to why--every objective study SHOULD include known caveats--something no pro-circ studies do.
Now, you need to explain why both studies STILL still found essentially the same results, yet cannot be compelling results.
Tandykane 1 week ago
@Tandykane - You you THAT FUCKING STUPID That you don't see
this for what it is? This goes back to the Parental rights and privacy issue:
The Danish authors do NOT say EXPLICITLY that O'Hara is biased- they
IMPLY it is, by telling everyone to "be skeptical of the results because the
respondents were recruited through an anti-circ newsletter." Now why on
EARTH would they state something like that, I wonder? A rational person can
and does INFER from their statements on O'Hara why this is.
Alaska47Boy 1 week ago
@Alaska47Boy
Funny that the results are essentially the same even with the caveat!
Do you have comparable studies to the Danish and O'Hara studies providing different results?
Tandykane 1 week ago
@Tandykane - See- THAT is what you just don't grasp: it doesn't MATTER what the results are if the METHODS section is biased, wrong, and slanted- which is EXACTLY what the Danes call out O'Hara about- their methods are totally skewed, which is why this is a supplemental- it's not peer reviewed, because if it were- it would never have made it into the literature. Haven't you asked yourself why no other study uses O'Hara to bolster their own study's results, and instead draw caution to it?
Alaska47Boy 1 week ago
@Alaska47Boy
Such is your ceaseless claims, but you have yet to show that the results have been affected by any alleged bias, but I will breathlessly await this proof.
Totally screwed? 5 of 139 responses? Even if these are removed the results only diminish by ~4%--leaving about a 83% preference for sex with a normal penis.
Into hyperbole much?
Just as I will breathlessly await your comparable studies that have different results.
Tandykane 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Tandykane - Where are you getting "5" from? "Alleged?" These
women were RECRUITED THROUGH AN ANTI-CIRCUMCISON
NEWSLETTER- are you THAT fucking stupid that you don't consider
this BIASED? O'Hara even ADMITS her sample was NON-RANDOM-
You DO know what it means having an already-non-random, BIASED
group serve as their own control, right, dip-shit? You've OTHER authors
saying the SAME thing- this NOHARM supplemental is worthless
- NO other study uses it, You a fucking old joke :)
Alaska47Boy 6 days ago
@Alaska47Boy
Now, I am STILL waiting for the explicit statements in your rulings that state that "parental rights" supersede "individual rights?
Or do you just plan on ignoring them as per your usual games and just pick and choose what you wish to address?
Tandykane 1 week ago
@Tandykane - I'm not ignoring them, Jessica, and have already told you
what these Court rulings used in their majority opinions. Tell you what- let
me put this in a way your feeble old mind will comprehend. Right now- legally-
both my privacy and parental rights are intact and protected by the
Constitution. A number of Court cases have discussed BOTH those rights-
and EVERY time have sided with me; which is why today- I STILL enjoy and
am afforded those rights. Care to disagree?
Alaska47Boy 1 week ago
@Alaska47Boy
So, you keep saying, but I really do need the statements in these ruling that allegedly rule that "parental rights" supersede "individual rights"
We went through this crap with the 14th amendment until you finally admitted that you lied about the clause that stated this..are we going through the same crap AGAIN?
Tandykane 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Tandykane - "allegedly rule that "parental rights" supersede "individual rights?" -No one has alleged that any Court has ruled a decision like this- so why are you?
"until you finally admitted that you lied about the clause?" Which clause did I lie about, and where did I "admit" to lying about it?
Again- number of Court cases have discussed BOTH those rights-
and EVERY time have sided with me; which is why today- I STILL enjoy and
am afforded those rights. Care to disagree?
Alaska47Boy 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Alaska47Boy
And when you find time to get around to it,could you answers these critical questions?
When can we expect you to provide a rational ethical justification for non-therapeutic infant circumcision?
And how much sensation and sensitivity exists in MISSING body parts..It has been since forever that you have not answered these basic questions.
Tandykane 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Tandykane - A justification has already been given- and since you have no say in it, and it's been justified by the people in this discussion who matter- what role do you play?
"And how much sensation and sensitivity exists in MISSING body parts?"
-- GREAT question, doofus- and since it was YOU who made the bullshit claim of quantified sensitivity loss, YOU tell us- how much? - that question comes directly from YOUR claim, so why should anyone need to answer such an asinine question?
Alaska47Boy 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Alaska47Boy
When can we expect you to provide a rational ethical justification for non-therapeutic infant circumcision?
And how much sensation and sensitivity exists in MISSING body parts..It has been since forever that you have not answered these basic questions.
Tandykane 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Tandykane - A justification has already been given- and since you have no say in it, and it's been justified by the people in this discussion who matter- what role do you play?
"And how much sensation and sensitivity exists in MISSING body parts?"
-- GREAT question, doofus- and since it was YOU who made the bullshit claim of quantified sensitivity loss, YOU tell us- how much? - that question comes directly from YOUR claim, so why should anyone need to answer such an asinine question?
Alaska47Boy 1 week ago
@thehipi
NO complaints?
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%
Check "mutilation" in the dictionary.
Tandykane 1 week ago
@Tandykane -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?
Alaska47Boy 1 week ago
@Alaska47Boy
When you are done with your rant containing empty claims of "bias", perhaps you can supply a rational scientifically credible justification for non-therapeutic justification for infant circumcision...
AND this long promised "parental rights" clause in the 14th amendment.
Tandykane 1 week ago
@Tandykane - "Empty Bias?" This . Is. A. Study. By. NOHARM- which part of this do you not comprehend? - the "Sources" section cites books from the NOHARM book store- the "Introduction" is a call to action BY NOHARM. What about this does your idiotic brain not understand, old man? Also- what part about NOT BEING A STUDY do you not understand- this is s supplemental- NOT a study.
Stop parroting your bullshit to others when you are CLEARLY aware that it's bogus.
Alaska47Boy 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Alaska47Boy
"Stop parroting your bullshit to others when you are CLEARLY aware that it's bogus." When can we expect you to provide a rational ethical justification for non-therapeutic infant circumcision?
And how much sensation and sensitivity exists in MISSING body parts..It has been since forever that you have not answered these basic questions.
Tandykane 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Tandykane - A justification has already been given- and since you have no say in it, and it's been justified by the people in this discussion who matter- what role do you play?
"And how much sensation and sensitivity exists in MISSING body parts?"
-- GREAT question, doofus- and since it was YOU who made the bullshit claim of quantified sensitivity loss, YOU tell us- how much? - that question comes directly from YOUR claim, so why should anyone need to answer such an asinine question?
Alaska47Boy 1 week ago
@Tandykane - Both questions have NOTHING to do with the fact that the above supplemental you try to pass off is total bullshit. Again- what part of this do you NOT understand?
Alaska47Boy 1 week ago
@thehipi
You are arguing from a point of ignorance--
I think you need to do some research into both FGM & MGM, and when you do, you will find only superficial differences. AND you will find for every form of FGM, there is a worse form of MGM.
Arguing from a point of ignorance
Tandykane 1 week ago
@thehipi "Hitchens is trying to conflate female genital mutiliation with circumcision" No he wasn't! He was conflating female genital mutilation with male ginital mutilation.
Nifrayu 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Nifrayu He's referring to circumcision, watch the video again. To call circumcision 'mutiliation' is like calling a medical surgery a 'deadly assault'. You are weak on facts and full of spin, innuendo, and hollow rhetoric. Hating religion doesnt make you a better person, it just makes you hateful.
thehipi 1 week ago
sounds like you forgot that it is 2012... it is no great accomplishment to make use of "freedom of speach" in a civilized country nowadays... if that is already imposing to you, you should finally wake up and take a look in the calender
Kasparov178 1 week ago
hitchins was full of shitt
MrKapfreebird 1 week ago
@MrKapfreebird You Sir are absolutely right. Anybody who has a moral fibre in their body and stands to defend it, is full of shitt.
TheTallyOBan 1 week ago
Thanks for the video. But fuck you and your advert asshole
mikemoseley 1 week ago
I'm now wondering if the cancer poor Hitchens died from wasnt given to him the the israelis?
Because what he has said here, I'm sure would have had jews all over the place crying out for his bones to be crushed or whatever.
clitmint 1 week ago
Hitch, U are great!!! U will live forever because of what U said thru all this years...
koike28 1 week ago
To the first order of approximation if you look at the raw numbers everyone circumscribed is a Muslim. How many Nobel Prizes there?
SerbAtheist 1 week ago
There is no excuse for genital mutilation , an adult would be put in jail if they mutilated another adults genitals so why is it ok to mutilate a baby boys , no outrage from feminist groups about the forced mutilation of male children.This then carries on to that odious tramp Sharon Osbourn celebrating the mutilation of a mans penis because he was allegedly sleeping around, as humans we need to resist religion and extremist groups in all forms or we will continue to decline as a species.
anto1191 1 week ago
Mr. Hitchens was horrified at the rabbi's attempt at humor, but it only took him 0.5 seconds to shift into Hitchslap mode.
Jbear9 1 week ago
both Rabbi Harold Kushner, Rev. Peter Gomes does not 'attack Hitchens' but he (Hitchens) mentions 'Rabbis', 'mullahs' and christians! This is the spirit of hate that runs in himm which only God can remove.
2479sunny 1 week ago
I am not. I was simply generalizing in the same way you did with all atheist. You think atheist are morons. I think that (by projecting my moral code into you) you are a bad person if you rejoice to a god for the death of someone for the sole reason that you don't agree with him (heck, it almost seems that either you think that stupidity is a capital punishment or you saw him as a threat that you happily saw removed)
synchronyJEM 2 weeks ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
@synchronyJEM - Atheists are morons if they somehow think the world's problems have anything to do with religion; if they denigrate religion and those who are spiritual, and who push a bigoted agenda because they feel some incessant need to let whole populations know how awful they think they are- That was Hitchens.
Alaska47Boy 1 week ago
i see from the comments here jewish ppl getting so angry hehe..hitchens killed him
johnny431 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@johnny431 ...self.
Alaska47Boy 1 week ago
The title of this video is "Christopher Hitchens Goes After Rabbi Harold Kushner re: Circumcision," why?- This is an 8 minute video, whereby this Rabbi rips on Hitchens and defends this medical practice. So why would this title somehow hint that Hitchens is somehow one-upping them? Hitchens does nothing of the sort, the Rabbi's the one who gives the bottom line: ""The only statistic [on circumcision] any long-term is that it increases their chances of winning a Nobel Prize." -and he's right.
Alaska47Boy 2 weeks ago
@Alaska47Boy Medical practices????? On what medical grounds is the genital mutilation of boys in the jewish faith "medical"???? It is because it is written in a book, that was written by man... There are NO medical grounds for this barbaric act and to say there is tarnishes medicine all together! If you can PROVE the medical basis for this then you may have an argument, but it is done because Abraham did it to his son in the bible... and done in the name of "god"
dav3yboy79 2 weeks ago
@dav3yboy79 - Except for it being considered a 'medical' procedure, done predominantly-but clearly not always- by 'medical' professionals, likewise in 'medical' facilities, with 'medical' bodies and organizations forming 'medical' studies and positions around such- yeah, I think I'm sticking to terming it 'medical procedure.'
Countless 'medical' studies showing benefits from this 'medical' procedure, and billions are circumcised for a myriad of reasons- medical, religious- name it. Get over it.
Alaska47Boy 1 week ago
@Alaska47Boy More people have died from it than have been saved by it. It's disgusting to any free thinking person not encumbered by the religion that their parents told them was the right one.
oBARFLYo 1 week ago