Found the cost/benefit. If I'm reading it right, neonatal circ reduces a person's chance of contracting HIV by .2992% ("It reduced the 1.87% lifetime risk of HIV among all males by about 16%"). Now, I'm only assuming that the risk of complication is included, but I think the likelyhood is quite high.
Why do you hate my foreskin? Has it offended you? Does my uncut wiener make you mad?
I mean, do people actually get bent out of shape about this in the real world? Cut it off or not, but let the kid choose. If he's worried about the HIV, he'll lop it off. If he looks around and doesn't see a health epidemic being caused by uncut wangs, he'll probably opt not to have surgery to remove a piece of his penis.
LoserForHireX on
"The only way to get rid of a temptation is to give into it." - Oscar Wilde
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Are you really still beating that strawman? Nowhere did I claim the HIV=Polio. I noted that your argument that circumcision is unnecessary because HIV in the US is rare compared to Africa could be (and is) used to oppose vaccines, an argument we know is hilariously stupid. It's textbook reductio ad absurdum, so you can suck it up.
Just like yours could be compared to parents tattooing their children. It goes both ways. So instead, how about you offer up a real argument?
I don't know why I ask you to since all you do is claim all other studies wrong, ignore reality itself, and eventually disappear when you finally accept no one will accept you're half thought out blustering.
I know you had this already on the first page but: holy shit, it never even occured to me that this could be a 40-page argument.
It doesn't seem to really affect... anything? There are maybe/maybe not health benefits? It feels like most of the excitement comes from buyer's pride more than anything. Obviously my circumsized/uncircumsized dick is better because well wouldn't it suck if it weren't?
Hey, does anyone else here think that in the countries where circumcision could possibly be used to prevent HIV, the circumcision is probably done in such unsterile conditions that the end result is lot of dead people anyway?
Possible complications of adult circumcision include infection, bleeding, poor cosmetic results and a change in sensation during intercourse.
Yes, shitty surgeon will fuck up adult circumcision, but the same shitty surgeon will also fuck up infant circumcision. Neither are medically dangerous if performed by a professional.
I know you had this already on the first page but: holy shit, it never even occured to me that this could be a 40-page argument.
It doesn't seem to really affect... anything? There are maybe/maybe not health benefits? It feels like most of the excitement comes from buyer's pride more than anything. Obviously my circumsized/uncircumsized dick is better because well wouldn't it suck if it weren't?
It's like reading a 360/PS3/Wii debate.
Which is precisely why I find the pro-circ insane insistence that it MUST be done to infants incapable of consent instead of older children or adults who can choose if they want it or not.
The health benefits are so small and easily avoidable by proper hygiene that only arguments are in the end cosmetic and religious. Neither which allows you to do permanent useless genital surgery on your infant.
I've never claimed that circumcision is any more or any less dangerous then tattoos or piercings, but then again my argument has never been about the physical issues here.
Found the cost/benefit. If I'm reading it right, neonatal circ reduces a person's chance of contracting HIV by .2992% ("It reduced the 1.87% lifetime risk of HIV among all males by about 16%"). Now, I'm only assuming that the risk of complication is included, but I think the likelyhood is quite high.
Seriously? You're in favor of removing a healthy body part because doing so reduces an already very low risk by a tiny amount for the average American male? Also, the general lifetime risk for men getting HIV isn't distributed evenly among men in the American population. HIV doesn't strike people out of the blue. In the US, at least, HIV is much more common in certain demographics, based on behavioral patterns. In the case of the people who are actually significantly at-risk for HIV, circumcision wouldn't have any significant impact on their infection rates, as their behavior (sharing needles, sex with multiple male partners) has a much, much greater impact on their chances of becoming HIV-positive.
Following this logic, women should have masectomies to reduce their chances of getting breast cancer.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
I know you had this already on the first page but: holy shit, it never even occured to me that this could be a 40-page argument.
It doesn't seem to really affect... anything? There are maybe/maybe not health benefits? It feels like most of the excitement comes from buyer's pride more than anything. Obviously my circumsized/uncircumsized dick is better because well wouldn't it suck if it weren't?
It's like reading a 360/PS3/Wii debate.
Keep watching, the debate comes full circle about every 3rd page.
It's amazing, like watching a cat chase it's tail.
I know you had this already on the first page but: holy shit, it never even occured to me that this could be a 40-page argument.
It doesn't seem to really affect... anything? There are maybe/maybe not health benefits? It feels like most of the excitement comes from buyer's pride more than anything. Obviously my circumsized/uncircumsized dick is better because well wouldn't it suck if it weren't?
It's like reading a 360/PS3/Wii debate.
Keep watching, the debate comes full circle about every 3rd page.
It's amazing, like watching a cat chase it's tail.
Exactly. I mean, no one is claiming that Cut or Uncut penises are inherently better (well, I guess some people are, using specious reasoning). We're not insulting your penis, guys, whatever side of the fence you fall on. Maybe cut down on the vitriol? The issue, as has been stated SO MANY times in this thread is about whether it's ok to do it to an infant, or if it's better to let that individual decide what kind of penis they want when they are able to make that decision for themselves.
Alright, big post coming up
Everything you've ever wanted to know about circumcision coming up
If you guys seriously want to continue this discussion, at least read this, so we can get the BS out of the way and weigh shit for ourselves
If you want some to know more about some of the references or citations, let me know and i'll follow that link for you
Hasn't most of that info been brought up in one form or another in this thread already?
somewhat in bits and pieces, but people keep arguing about the varacity and accuracy of each other's claims so i figured i'd put it all in one place fully references so hopefully we can push past arguing about citations and the credibility of each others' claims.
I know you had this already on the first page but: holy shit, it never even occured to me that this could be a 40-page argument.
It doesn't seem to really affect... anything? There are maybe/maybe not health benefits? It feels like most of the excitement comes from buyer's pride more than anything. Obviously my circumsized/uncircumsized dick is better because well wouldn't it suck if it weren't?
It's like reading a 360/PS3/Wii debate.
My parents got me a wii instead of an xbox or a ps3, based on the advice of a good friend who said that it suffered less from certain technical difficulties. Now I'm angry because my wii is a piece of a shit and I never got the option to choose the other two
All too similar.
The real question here is; if the wii is a circumcized dick, which of the other two is an uncut dick, and what the hell does the remaining one represent?
Are you really still beating that strawman? Nowhere did I claim the HIV=Polio. I noted that your argument that circumcision is unnecessary because HIV in the US is rare compared to Africa could be (and is) used to oppose vaccines, an argument we know is hilariously stupid. It's textbook reductio ad absurdum, so you can suck it up.
Just like yours could be compared to parents tattooing their children. It goes both ways. So instead, how about you offer up a real argument?
I don't know why I ask you to since all you do is claim all other studies wrong, ignore reality itself, and eventually disappear when you finally accept no one will accept you're half thought out blustering.
You could compare it, but you couldn't use any of my arguments to promote that position, as my argument is about the parent's right to represent his child's well being. Given that I can't imagine a context where tattoos would fit that criteria, my arguments wouldn't advance that position.
I've claimed a study to be wrong, while you have insisted that any study done in Africa is wrong. As for "ignoring reality itself," you haven't offered any realities. My disappearances are do to work (case in point), a family fishing trip, a loss of internet, television, and phone due to a thunderstorm, and, now, a trip to Virginia to visit my girlfriend.
Found the cost/benefit. If I'm reading it right, neonatal circ reduces a person's chance of contracting HIV by .2992% ("It reduced the 1.87% lifetime risk of HIV among all males by about 16%"). Now, I'm only assuming that the risk of complication is included, but I think the likelyhood is quite high.
Seriously? You're in favor of removing a healthy body part because doing so reduces an already very low risk by a tiny amount for the average American male? Also, the general lifetime risk for men getting HIV isn't distributed evenly among men in the American population. HIV doesn't strike people out of the blue. In the US, at least, HIV is much more common in certain demographics, based on behavioral patterns. In the case of the people who are actually significantly at-risk for HIV, circumcision wouldn't have any significant impact on their infection rates, as their behavior (sharing needles, sex with multiple male partners) has a much, much greater impact on their chances of becoming HIV-positive.
Following this logic, women should have masectomies to reduce their chances of getting breast cancer.
All of that was included in the study. It broke the groups up by demographics and weighed the "tiny" benefit against the cost of the procedure and the risk of mishap.
I don't see any reason the value a body part that confers no benefits. The only reason I can think of keeping it is because it's natural, which is a very stupid reason.
I know you had this already on the first page but: holy shit, it never even occured to me that this could be a 40-page argument.
It doesn't seem to really affect... anything? There are maybe/maybe not health benefits? It feels like most of the excitement comes from buyer's pride more than anything. Obviously my circumsized/uncircumsized dick is better because well wouldn't it suck if it weren't?
It's like reading a 360/PS3/Wii debate.
Keep watching, the debate comes full circle about every 3rd page.
It's amazing, like watching a cat chase it's tail.
Exactly. I mean, no one is claiming that Cut or Uncut penises are inherently better (well, I guess some people are, using specious reasoning). We're not insulting your penis, guys, whatever side of the fence you fall on. Maybe cut down on the vitriol? The issue, as has been stated SO MANY times in this thread is about whether it's ok to do it to an infant, or if it's better to let that individual decide what kind of penis they want when they are able to make that decision for themselves.
I'm here because somebody's wrong on the internet. Oddly enough, that describes most of my interactions on this forum.
Found the cost/benefit. If I'm reading it right, neonatal circ reduces a person's chance of contracting HIV by .2992% ("It reduced the 1.87% lifetime risk of HIV among all males by about 16%"). Now, I'm only assuming that the risk of complication is included, but I think the likelyhood is quite high.
Seriously? You're in favor of removing a healthy body part because doing so reduces an already very low risk by a tiny amount for the average American male? Also, the general lifetime risk for men getting HIV isn't distributed evenly among men in the American population. HIV doesn't strike people out of the blue. In the US, at least, HIV is much more common in certain demographics, based on behavioral patterns. In the case of the people who are actually significantly at-risk for HIV, circumcision wouldn't have any significant impact on their infection rates, as their behavior (sharing needles, sex with multiple male partners) has a much, much greater impact on their chances of becoming HIV-positive.
Following this logic, women should have masectomies to reduce their chances of getting breast cancer.
All of that was included in the study. It broke the groups up by demographics and weighed the "tiny" benefit against the cost of the procedure and the risk of mishap.
I don't see any reason the value a body part that confers no benefits. The only reason I can think of keeping it is because it's natural, which is a very stupid reason.
Well, that's a call for you to make when it comes to your own body. No one is arguing that you should be prevented from obtaining a circumcision for yourself, if that's what you want.
But, when it comes to children, it seems the proper thing to do is let them decide for themselves, when they're older, whether or not to remove perfectly healthy body parts.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
Found the cost/benefit. If I'm reading it right, neonatal circ reduces a person's chance of contracting HIV by .2992% ("It reduced the 1.87% lifetime risk of HIV among all males by about 16%"). Now, I'm only assuming that the risk of complication is included, but I think the likelyhood is quite high.
Seriously? You're in favor of removing a healthy body part because doing so reduces an already very low risk by a tiny amount for the average American male? Also, the general lifetime risk for men getting HIV isn't distributed evenly among men in the American population. HIV doesn't strike people out of the blue. In the US, at least, HIV is much more common in certain demographics, based on behavioral patterns. In the case of the people who are actually significantly at-risk for HIV, circumcision wouldn't have any significant impact on their infection rates, as their behavior (sharing needles, sex with multiple male partners) has a much, much greater impact on their chances of becoming HIV-positive.
Following this logic, women should have masectomies to reduce their chances of getting breast cancer.
All of that was included in the study. It broke the groups up by demographics and weighed the "tiny" benefit against the cost of the procedure and the risk of mishap.
I don't see any reason the value a body part that confers no benefits. The only reason I can think of keeping it is because it's natural, which is a very stupid reason.
Well, that's a call for you to make when it comes to your own body. No one is arguing that you should be prevented from obtaining a circumcision for yourself, if that's what you want.
But, when it comes to children, it seems the proper thing to do is let them decide for themselves, when they're older, whether or not to remove perfectly healthy body parts.
I agree with this sentiment but applied towards baptism.
Found the cost/benefit. If I'm reading it right, neonatal circ reduces a person's chance of contracting HIV by .2992% ("It reduced the 1.87% lifetime risk of HIV among all males by about 16%"). Now, I'm only assuming that the risk of complication is included, but I think the likelyhood is quite high.
Seriously? You're in favor of removing a healthy body part because doing so reduces an already very low risk by a tiny amount for the average American male? Also, the general lifetime risk for men getting HIV isn't distributed evenly among men in the American population. HIV doesn't strike people out of the blue. In the US, at least, HIV is much more common in certain demographics, based on behavioral patterns. In the case of the people who are actually significantly at-risk for HIV, circumcision wouldn't have any significant impact on their infection rates, as their behavior (sharing needles, sex with multiple male partners) has a much, much greater impact on their chances of becoming HIV-positive.
Following this logic, women should have masectomies to reduce their chances of getting breast cancer.
All of that was included in the study. It broke the groups up by demographics and weighed the "tiny" benefit against the cost of the procedure and the risk of mishap.
I don't see any reason the value a body part that confers no benefits. The only reason I can think of keeping it is because it's natural, which is a very stupid reason.
Well, that's a call for you to make when it comes to your own body. No one is arguing that you should be prevented from obtaining a circumcision for yourself, if that's what you want.
But, when it comes to children, it seems the proper thing to do is let them decide for themselves, when they're older, whether or not to remove perfectly healthy body parts.
I agree with this sentiment but applied towards baptism.
I agree with that as well. But, I wouldn't support a legal ban on baptism of infants, but would be in favor of a ban on medically unneccessary circumcisions.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
0
Options
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
Found the cost/benefit. If I'm reading it right, neonatal circ reduces a person's chance of contracting HIV by .2992% ("It reduced the 1.87% lifetime risk of HIV among all males by about 16%"). Now, I'm only assuming that the risk of complication is included, but I think the likelyhood is quite high.
Seriously? You're in favor of removing a healthy body part because doing so reduces an already very low risk by a tiny amount for the average American male? Also, the general lifetime risk for men getting HIV isn't distributed evenly among men in the American population. HIV doesn't strike people out of the blue. In the US, at least, HIV is much more common in certain demographics, based on behavioral patterns. In the case of the people who are actually significantly at-risk for HIV, circumcision wouldn't have any significant impact on their infection rates, as their behavior (sharing needles, sex with multiple male partners) has a much, much greater impact on their chances of becoming HIV-positive.
Following this logic, women should have masectomies to reduce their chances of getting breast cancer.
All of that was included in the study. It broke the groups up by demographics and weighed the "tiny" benefit against the cost of the procedure and the risk of mishap.
I don't see any reason the value a body part that confers no benefits. The only reason I can think of keeping it is because it's natural, which is a very stupid reason.
Well, that's a call for you to make when it comes to your own body. No one is arguing that you should be prevented from obtaining a circumcision for yourself, if that's what you want.
But, when it comes to children, it seems the proper thing to do is let them decide for themselves, when they're older, whether or not to remove perfectly healthy body parts.
I agree with this sentiment but applied towards baptism.
I agree with that as well. But, I wouldn't support a legal ban on baptism of infants, but would be in favor of a ban on medically unneccessary circumcisions.
I support a legal ban on baptisms that involve submersion, adults and infants alike. They're more dangerous in potential harm and more needless than circumcisions.
mrt144 on
0
Options
ShivahnUnaware of her barrel shifter privilegeWestern coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderatormod
edited June 2010
Er, on adults? Let adults do what they want with themselves. Skydiving is pretty dangerous, but I don't support banning that.
(And while I realize that people skydive for fun, I'd imagine being baptized is "fun" too, as long as you believe in it)
Shivahn on
0
Options
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
Er, on adults? Let adults do what they want with themselves. Skydiving is pretty dangerous, but I don't support banning that.
(And while I realize that people skydive for fun, I'd imagine being baptized is "fun" too, as long as you believe in it)
Tax it then. Im just trying to argue for the sake of argument here. There's a lot of religious practices that are illegal due to the harm caused.
you can't really do that. What about those cultures that forbid medical intervention? What are we doing about them? What about the Hmong?
Paladin on
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
edited June 2010
so okay
everything that needs to have been said about normal dicks and dog dicks has been said.
Posts
Ohhh... That's what Bruce Springsteen was talking about...
Damn you. I googled it. Now I know.
Scalfin, I just want to know one thing...
Why do you hate my foreskin? Has it offended you? Does my uncut wiener make you mad?
I mean, do people actually get bent out of shape about this in the real world? Cut it off or not, but let the kid choose. If he's worried about the HIV, he'll lop it off. If he looks around and doesn't see a health epidemic being caused by uncut wangs, he'll probably opt not to have surgery to remove a piece of his penis.
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Just like yours could be compared to parents tattooing their children. It goes both ways. So instead, how about you offer up a real argument?
I don't know why I ask you to since all you do is claim all other studies wrong, ignore reality itself, and eventually disappear when you finally accept no one will accept you're half thought out blustering.
I was just speaking from experience. :P
It doesn't seem to really affect... anything? There are maybe/maybe not health benefits? It feels like most of the excitement comes from buyer's pride more than anything. Obviously my circumsized/uncircumsized dick is better because well wouldn't it suck if it weren't?
It's like reading a 360/PS3/Wii debate.
Also, the risks of adult circumcision are the exact same as the risks in infant circumcision. (NSFW Dick pictures)
http://www.aafp.org/afp/990315ap/1514.html
Yes, shitty surgeon will fuck up adult circumcision, but the same shitty surgeon will also fuck up infant circumcision. Neither are medically dangerous if performed by a professional.
Which is precisely why I find the pro-circ insane insistence that it MUST be done to infants incapable of consent instead of older children or adults who can choose if they want it or not.
The health benefits are so small and easily avoidable by proper hygiene that only arguments are in the end cosmetic and religious. Neither which allows you to do permanent useless genital surgery on your infant.
I've never claimed that circumcision is any more or any less dangerous then tattoos or piercings, but then again my argument has never been about the physical issues here.
Following this logic, women should have masectomies to reduce their chances of getting breast cancer.
Rigorous Scholarship
Keep watching, the debate comes full circle about every 3rd page.
It's amazing, like watching a cat chase it's tail.
Exactly. I mean, no one is claiming that Cut or Uncut penises are inherently better (well, I guess some people are, using specious reasoning). We're not insulting your penis, guys, whatever side of the fence you fall on. Maybe cut down on the vitriol? The issue, as has been stated SO MANY times in this thread is about whether it's ok to do it to an infant, or if it's better to let that individual decide what kind of penis they want when they are able to make that decision for themselves.
Everything you've ever wanted to know about circumcision coming up
If you guys seriously want to continue this discussion, at least read this, so we can get the BS out of the way and weigh shit for ourselves
If you want some to know more about some of the references or citations, let me know and i'll follow that link for you
somewhat in bits and pieces, but people keep arguing about the varacity and accuracy of each other's claims so i figured i'd put it all in one place fully references so hopefully we can push past arguing about citations and the credibility of each others' claims.
My parents got me a wii instead of an xbox or a ps3, based on the advice of a good friend who said that it suffered less from certain technical difficulties. Now I'm angry because my wii is a piece of a shit and I never got the option to choose the other two
All too similar.
Not by much, but it is.
Circumcised hermaphrodite if you get all three?
You could compare it, but you couldn't use any of my arguments to promote that position, as my argument is about the parent's right to represent his child's well being. Given that I can't imagine a context where tattoos would fit that criteria, my arguments wouldn't advance that position.
I've claimed a study to be wrong, while you have insisted that any study done in Africa is wrong. As for "ignoring reality itself," you haven't offered any realities. My disappearances are do to work (case in point), a family fishing trip, a loss of internet, television, and phone due to a thunderstorm, and, now, a trip to Virginia to visit my girlfriend.
All of that was included in the study. It broke the groups up by demographics and weighed the "tiny" benefit against the cost of the procedure and the risk of mishap.
I don't see any reason the value a body part that confers no benefits. The only reason I can think of keeping it is because it's natural, which is a very stupid reason.
I'm here because somebody's wrong on the internet. Oddly enough, that describes most of my interactions on this forum.
But, when it comes to children, it seems the proper thing to do is let them decide for themselves, when they're older, whether or not to remove perfectly healthy body parts.
Rigorous Scholarship
Over such a little flap of skin
Rigorous Scholarship
I'll say it again: We're guys. We're pretty attached to our dicks.
I agree with this sentiment but applied towards baptism.
Rigorous Scholarship
I support a legal ban on baptisms that involve submersion, adults and infants alike. They're more dangerous in potential harm and more needless than circumcisions.
(And while I realize that people skydive for fun, I'd imagine being baptized is "fun" too, as long as you believe in it)
Tax it then. Im just trying to argue for the sake of argument here. There's a lot of religious practices that are illegal due to the harm caused.
you can't really do that. What about those cultures that forbid medical intervention? What are we doing about them? What about the Hmong?
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
everything that needs to have been said about normal dicks and dog dicks has been said.