Foreskin Man is an anti-semitic COMIC BOOK ?!?!?!?!

[Mr.Squishy]

I wonder why people are against circumcision?
people have done worse things to their pride and other parts of their body and they are fine with that but not this?

Genital mutilation of infants that cannot give consent is pretty fucked up, friend.

 

[bob1052]

I wonder why people are against circumcision?
people have done worse things to their pride and other parts of their body and they are fine with that but not this?

Because the two day old children aren't the ones doing it to their bodies.

This comic seems pretty stupid, but unfortunately this sensationalistic crap often works well, heres hoping it gets some actual results more meaningful than the dribble that it is.

Hearing about this story just reminds me of what Stephen Colbert said last night: "I wouldn't want to see what Foreskin Man's cape looks like".

 

[GiantRedButton]

Ok why do people get up in arms about things that nobody is forcing on them? Nobody is forcing them to get their children circumcised so what the hell is their problem?
Besides that, doesn't circumcision help prevent infections?

You don't get a choice if you get circumsized or not actually.
It's mostly done on children.
If you just mean in the case of grown ups ok, but its mostly done without consent.

 

[Therumancer]

So, coming to a comic store near you...okay, probably NOT...Just when you thought things couldn't get stranger with this guy and his anti-circunsism campaign.

I don't know if I should be more concerned about it being anti-semitic or that it's a comic book about a guy named Foreskin Man and that somebody came up with an outline, designed a costume and wrote dialog for Foreskin Man...It almost makes those lunatics at Westboro look rational by comparison.



http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/20233.html

The Anti-Defamation League has charged that Foreskin Man, a comic book written by the proponent of a controversial campaign to ban circumcision of males in California, is filled with anti-Semitic caricatures. The second issue of the comic pits the blond and brawny Foreskin Man against Monster Mohel, a bearded black-hat and prayer shawl-wearing rabbi who appears to take diabolical glee in depriving infants of their foreskins, and who is aided by a gun-toting posse who dress like ultra-orthodox Jews.


The Foreskin Man comic was written by Matthew Hess, who is one of the leaders of the ?intactivists,? a group that appears bent on trying to use California?s often abused ?ballot initiative? to enforce on others their beliefs that male circumcision, which is practiced by Jews and Moslems (and has been adopted for health reasons by many others), is painful, barbaric, and similar to the sort of female circumcision that is practiced in parts of Africa (medical experts disagree). Hess, who is affiliated with the organization MGM (Male Genital Mutiliation) Bill that published the Foreskin Man comics and is also attempting to pass an anti-circumcision measure in Santa Monica, told the San Francisco Chronicle, ?We?re not trying to be anti-Semitic, we?re trying to be pro-human rights.?

The dialogue in the Foreskin Man comic is laughably bad: ?You (gasp) th-think you?ve won, Foreskin Man? Jethro wants Glick c-circumcised. I?ll just keep coming back until his Foreskin is m-mine,? cackles the diabolical Monster Mohel. It would be easy to dismiss the two published issues of the comic if it didn?t echo so directly the anti-Semitic images and themes that have fueled so much prejudice, hatred, and murder in Europe?s long, sad history of pogroms?and if panels from the comic were not all ready appearing on ?white power? racist Websites

Well actually it's hotly debated whether it has any medical benefits or not.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100831092209AATVvNN

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/05/02/does-circumcision-health-benefits/

Right now the big arguement is actually one about potentially reducing the spread of HIV but even that isn't definite. What's more given that we're dealing with a disease that was not even known to exist at the time the practice started it comes down to it being more or less irrelevent.

Should the practice be banned? Well, my basic attitude is that while it shouldn't be banned it's something that should not be done without consent. This means that it should not be done to infants.

While this might seem anti-semitic, understand I'm a believer in the seperation of church and state and have similar attitudes in regards to other religious practics in general. I do not think Jews should be excluded. I make the same arguements against various religious groups that have wanted to do things like put rattlesnakes into cribs with babies, or have their kids handle the snakes, and all kinds of other wonky rights. I for example believe that parents should not be allowed to deny their children medical attention based on a "healing comes from god, and gone alone" dogma as well.

In the end the people mostly targeted by my attitude ARE going to be Muslims and Jews, but not specifically because I have any hate ons for them. What's more, all that's really being done is a delay in the practice until the kid in question is a legal adult and can make the desician for themself. I do not think making an exception for these religions is a paticularly good idea.

Now, I will say I had the procedure done to me, and really have nothing against it. I don't feel paticularly violated or anything, but in the end this mostly seems to come down to a matter of religious dogma. Any health benefits involved here are trivial enough where I think it's something that should be decided by an adult.

That said the comic book is pushing things too far, and if the descriptions are accurate are more of an attack on the religions forming the backbone of the opposing side, rather than something intended to promote the issue in a sane and rational manner.

Of course I'll find it bloody hilarious if despite my disclaimers I get responses claiming I'm an anti-semite or something, given my defenses of Isreal, it's policies, and politicians backing it in other posts.

The bottom line is our country, our rules, and the procedure is not something that should be done without consent. Religious tradition is no more a defense here than it is for other things, since we have a seperation of church and state. If there was an obvious and signifigant health benefit to the procedure I might consider it akin to vaccination, but really there isn't, any benefits are trivial enough and the situation severe enough where it should purely be an elective matter for an adult to decide for himself, rather than having it decided for them as a baby.

 

[Avistew]

I wonder why people are against circumcision?
people have done worse things to their pride and other parts of their body and they are fine with that but not this?

I think it's because it's done to kids who don't get to pick (rather than at 13 as used to be the tradition. The Jewish tradition I mean, where I come from circumcision is a Jewish thing and isn't done by anyone else that I know of).
From what I've heard, a while back in North America some people thought that if boys were circumcised it would make masturbation painful to them due to lack of foreskin, and therefore started talking about how it was healthier, and it became common in the US and Canada.
Both are perfectly fine options though, most people here aren't circumcised (and I mean, like, 90% of guys at the very least aren't) and they don't have any of the health or hygiene problems that are apparently why it's done in North America.
On the other hand when it's done right it's definitely not the same as cutting off a woman's clitoris, it would be more like cutting off her hood, so I'm like, if people want to do it I don't really care.
If done wrong though, it can get really, really messy. Ugh. Good thing these are the exceptions.

However as a straight woman, I do really prefer uncircumcised partners. It feels like unwrapping a present, and the skin is softer and more sensitive there, which makes oral sex nicer to give. I've also known circumcised guys who were so desensitized that, well, sex was pretty much impossible, but that's far from the norm (and for each one of them there probably is an uncircumcised guy who is too sensitive to do anything as well).

I would say, in doubt, don't operate when it doesn't make much of a difference, so if I had the decision over someone getting circumcised or not, I would say no. But a) I don't think it's harmful enough to go around telling people not to do it and b) there is really no reason to get antisemitic about the issue. I mean, seriously.

I also know a guy (well, my second husband knows him) who is really pissed at his parents for circumcising him, he says it's his body and it should have been his choice, and he's not talking to them anymore as a result. Honestly, I think it's something that can always been done later if the person wants but can't be undone, so I'd err on the side of not doing it, all other things equal, but I don't think it should be prohibited either.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Ok why do people get up in arms about things that nobody is forcing on them? Nobody is forcing them to get their children circumcised so what the hell is their problem?
Besides that, doesn't circumcision help prevent infections?

You don't get a choice if you get circumsized or not actually.
It's mostly done on children.
If you just mean in the case of grown ups ok, but its mostly done without consent.

I know. That's why I said nobody's forcing them to get their children circumcised.

 

[kurupt87]

I wonder why people are against circumcision?
people have done worse things to their pride and other parts of their body and they are fine with that but not this?

I think it's because it's done to kids who don't get to pick (rather than at 13 as used to be the tradition. The Jewish tradition I mean, where I come from circumcision is a Jewish thing and isn't done by anyone else that I know of).
From what I've heard, a while back in North America some people thought that if boys were circumcised it would make masturbation painful to them due to lack of foreskin, and therefore started talking about how it was healthier, and it became common in the US and Canada.
Both are perfectly fine options though, most people here aren't circumcised (and I mean, like, 90% of guys at the very least aren't) and they don't have any of the health or hygiene problems that are apparently why it's done in North America.
On the other hand when it's done right it's definitely not the same as cutting off a woman's clitoris, it would be more like cutting off her hood, so I'm like, if people want to do it I don't really care.
If done wrong though, it can get really, really messy. Ugh. Good thing these are the exceptions.

However as a straight woman, I do really prefer uncircumcised partners. It feels like unwrapping a present, and the skin is softer and more sensitive there, which makes oral sex nicer to give. I've also known circumcised guys who were so desensitized that, well, sex was pretty much impossible, but that's far from the norm (and for each one of them there probably is an uncircumcised guy who is too sensitive to do anything as well).

I would say, in doubt, don't operate when it doesn't make much of a difference, so if I had the decision over someone getting circumcised or not, I would say no. But a) I don't think it's harmful enough to go around telling people not to do it and b) there is really no reason to get antisemitic about the issue. I mean, seriously.

I also know a guy (well, my second husband knows him) who is really pissed at his parents for circumcising him, he says it's his body and it should have been his choice, and he's not talking to them anymore as a result. Honestly, I think it's something that can always been done later if the person wants but can't be undone, so I'd err on the side of not doing it, all other things equal, but I don't think it should be prohibited either.

Hah, similar to my own good self. Though sex isn't impossible of course; I'm probably one of few men who, at the age of 18, had to fake orgasm. It's likely the reason I rely on other, more psychological, means than the physcial.

 

[CCountZero]

Besides that, doesn't circumcision help prevent infections?

Sure, it does.

Thing is though, a fair bit of Europe hasn't practised it for a very long time, and we ain't got any issues over here.

Long as you wash up, it's not a problem.

 

[scorptatious]

No one is going to look at this comic and take it seriously. NOBODY.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Besides that, doesn't circumcision help prevent infections?

Sure, it does.

Thing is though, a fair bit of Europe hasn't practised it for a very long time, and we ain't got any issues over here.

Long as you wash up, it's not a problem.

*shrug* Whatever. As I said, it's not like circumcision is mandatory.

I can't believe people would get so worked up over a useless little flab of skin that doesn't do anything.

 

[solemnwar]

-snip of awesome-

... woah, what, an honest-to-god, rational opinion on this? Be still my beating heart, I may faint...

OT: All I can say is... *facedesk* Wow. Yeah, there are MUCH better ways on getting your distate on something across...

 

[Frozen Donkey Wheel2]

Why is "comic book" the part that capitalized? I mean, it's not the "comic" aspect of this story that's confusing me.

 

[CCountZero]

Snip (No pun intended)

*shrug* Whatever. As I said, it's not like circumcision is mandatory.

I can't believe people would get so worked up over a useless little flab of skin that doesn't do anything.

Well, see, that's the thing. It does serve a function.

First of all, basing this on the modern interpretation of evolution, there's a reason we still have it.

I imagine it has once served the purpose of protecting the ehh... well, the thing; as we were walking around naked in the forest hunting wild boar multiple thousands of years ago.
Obviously that's not really an issue today, what with clothing and the like, but I feel I should mention it.

Some say it can cause certain diseases, but if those diseases were so serious, why does man still have it?
Wouldn't we have lost it somewhere along the path of evolution from there to here?

Moreover, some say it can protect against diseases as well... so yeah?

According to the teachings of most of Europe, the foreskin also serves as a sort of "stimulus", both for the man and the woman.

Also, at this day and age, it's possible to medically "restore" the foreskin, although not to perfect condition, and people have had such procedures performed.
That alone should speak of the reason why a person should have the right to make his own decision.



So yeah.
Whether it's useless or useful is not a known fact. It's a matter of great debate, and until we know whether its good or bad, we should feel safe in the knowledge that we are born with it, and wouldn't be if it was a risk capable of doing serious harm.

And as has been stated by Therumancer already, religious beliefs does not an exception make.

 

[SillyBear]

I wonder why people are against circumcision?
people have done worse things to their pride and other parts of their body and they are fine with that but not this?

Any examples of something people do to new born babies that is this bad? I certainly haven't heard anything that is as common and as serious.

Anyway, this whole thing is a non-issue. Circumcision really only exists in the USA in the developed world and even that is changing. No medical association on Earth recommends routine infant circumcision and many countries in Europe and Australasia to my knowledge has banned it in public hospitals.

Give it fifty years and the USA won't be doing much of it either. The US normally is the last to change. Death penalty, slavery, circumcision, you name it!

 

[Avistew]

I think it's because it's done to kids who don't get to pick (rather than at 13 as used to be the tradition. The Jewish tradition I mean, where I come from circumcision is a Jewish thing and isn't done by anyone else that I know of).

I'm afraid you are confused. It has ALWAYS been done at 8 days old. It's direct from Leviticus. What you may be thinking of is some of the Arab and Muslim traditions have it happen at 13, when the boy becomes of age.

I'm quite sorry about the confusion, I should have check my data on that before saying it. I remembered it wasn't originally done at birth, but later on, and for some reason remembered the number 13. It's quite possibly inaccurate, as my focus was the fact that it didn't use to be done that early.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Snip (No pun intended)

*shrug* Whatever. As I said, it's not like circumcision is mandatory.

I can't believe people would get so worked up over a useless little flab of skin that doesn't do anything.

Well, see, that's the thing. It does serve a function.

First of all, basing this on the modern interpretation of evolution, there's a reason we still have it.

I imagine it has once served the purpose of protecting the ehh... well, the thing; as we were walking around naked in the forest hunting wild boar multiple thousands of years ago.
Obviously that's not really an issue today, what with clothing and the like, but I feel I should mention it.

Some say it can cause certain diseases, but if those diseases were so serious, why does man still have it?
Wouldn't we have lost it somewhere along the path of evolution from there to here?

Moreover, some say it can protect against diseases as well... so yeah?

According to the teachings of most of Europe, the foreskin also serves as a sort of "stimulus", both for the man and the woman.

Also, at this day and age, it's possible to medically "restore" the foreskin, although not to perfect condition, and people have had such procedures performed.
That alone should speak of the reason why a person should have the right to make his own decision.



So yeah.
Whether it's useless or useful is not a known fact. It's a matter of great debate, and until we know whether its good or bad, we should feel safe in the knowledge that we are born with it, and wouldn't be if it was a risk capable of doing serious harm.

And as has been stated by Therumancer already, religious beliefs does not an exception make.

The point is though that it doesn't serve any purpose now. Besides I can't imagine how it'd provide any stimulus since unless I'm mistaken, it folds back when um... erection occurs.

Besides that, doesn't circumcision help prevent infections?

Sure, it does.

Thing is though, a fair bit of Europe hasn't practised it for a very long time, and we ain't got any issues over here.

Long as you wash up, it's not a problem.

*shrug* Whatever. As I said, it's not like circumcision is mandatory.

I can't believe people would get so worked up over a useless little flab of skin that doesn't do anything.

...... I think the issue some people are taking is that it's usually practised on a child. And it's usually before they're able to give consent.

I don't really see an issue with holding off on the circumcision until the child is old enough to make the choice... although since it's a religion & family thing, most would probably choose to do it. And then it'd be painful because... well they're having a piece of skin cut off.

There's no real easy answer. But to say it's not mandatory is to say they had a choice. And most of the time that really isn't the case.

But they do have a choice. They don't have to get their son circumcised if they don't believe in it. Obviously if they've already been circumcised, because their parents got it done when they were born, well they're shit outta luck. I'd like to think that, if that's the case, their parents were just doing what they thought was best at the time. ...not that it's all that big a loss really.

Besides that, doesn't circumcision help prevent infections?

Sure, it does.

Thing is though, a fair bit of Europe hasn't practised it for a very long time, and we ain't got any issues over here.

Long as you wash up, it's not a problem.

*shrug* Whatever. As I said, it's not like circumcision is mandatory.

I can't believe people would get so worked up over a useless little flab of skin that doesn't do anything.

The foreskin is more than "just a flab of skin." It contains thousands of nerve endings and much more. No respectable doctor will ever tell you its a dead flab of skin. That line of thinking hasn't been used since Kellog was around telling America to circumcise or God will rain fire on America.

All skin has nerve endings and shit. I never said it was a dead flab of skin, I said it was a useless flab of skin.

Regardless why are you all jumping on me as if I'm all pro-circumcision? I couldn't care less one way or another. My point is that this isn't something worth getting so worked up over. Nobody is forcing circumcision on you. Well except maybe your parents when you're born, but at that stage you don't have the ability to make that decision for yourself.

Edit: Oops, accidentally left out an entire sentence there.

 

[Worgen]

sure, Ill go with it being antisemitic, I mean some christians say its anti christian to tell them to stop telling gays to die, and to that I say "shut up and stand in the corner if your going to be a dick"

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Spoiler: *slice* :Þ

Snip (No pun intended)

*shrug* Whatever. As I said, it's not like circumcision is mandatory.

I can't believe people would get so worked up over a useless little flab of skin that doesn't do anything.

Well, see, that's the thing. It does serve a function.

First of all, basing this on the modern interpretation of evolution, there's a reason we still have it.

I imagine it has once served the purpose of protecting the ehh... well, the thing; as we were walking around naked in the forest hunting wild boar multiple thousands of years ago.
Obviously that's not really an issue today, what with clothing and the like, but I feel I should mention it.

Some say it can cause certain diseases, but if those diseases were so serious, why does man still have it?
Wouldn't we have lost it somewhere along the path of evolution from there to here?

Moreover, some say it can protect against diseases as well... so yeah?

According to the teachings of most of Europe, the foreskin also serves as a sort of "stimulus", both for the man and the woman.

Also, at this day and age, it's possible to medically "restore" the foreskin, although not to perfect condition, and people have had such procedures performed.
That alone should speak of the reason why a person should have the right to make his own decision.



So yeah.
Whether it's useless or useful is not a known fact. It's a matter of great debate, and until we know whether its good or bad, we should feel safe in the knowledge that we are born with it, and wouldn't be if it was a risk capable of doing serious harm.

And as has been stated by Therumancer already, religious beliefs does not an exception make.

The point is though that it doesn't serve any purpose now. Besides I can't imagine how it'd provide any stimulus since unless I'm mistaken, it folds back when um... erection occurs.

Besides that, doesn't circumcision help prevent infections?

Sure, it does.

Thing is though, a fair bit of Europe hasn't practised it for a very long time, and we ain't got any issues over here.

Long as you wash up, it's not a problem.

*shrug* Whatever. As I said, it's not like circumcision is mandatory.

I can't believe people would get so worked up over a useless little flab of skin that doesn't do anything.

...... I think the issue some people are taking is that it's usually practised on a child. And it's usually before they're able to give consent.

I don't really see an issue with holding off on the circumcision until the child is old enough to make the choice... although since it's a religion & family thing, most would probably choose to do it. And then it'd be painful because... well they're having a piece of skin cut off.

There's no real easy answer. But to say it's not mandatory is to say they had a choice. And most of the time that really isn't the case.

But they do have a choice. They don't have to get their son circumcised if they don't believe in it. Obviously if they've already been circumcised, because their parents got it done when they were born, well they're shit outta luck. I'd like to think that, if that's the case, their parents were just doing what they thought was best at the time. ...not that it's all that big a loss really.

Besides that, doesn't circumcision help prevent infections?

Sure, it does.

Thing is though, a fair bit of Europe hasn't practised it for a very long time, and we ain't got any issues over here.

Long as you wash up, it's not a problem.

*shrug* Whatever. As I said, it's not like circumcision is mandatory.

I can't believe people would get so worked up over a useless little flab of skin that doesn't do anything.

The foreskin is more than "just a flab of skin." It contains thousands of nerve endings and much more. No respectable doctor will ever tell you its a dead flab of skin. That line of thinking hasn't been used since Kellog was around telling America to circumcise or God will rain fire on America.

All skin has nerve endings and shit. I never said it was a dead flab of skin, I said it was a useless flab of skin.

Regardless why are you all jumping on me as if I'm all pro-circumcision? I couldn't care less one way or another. My point is that this isn't something worth getting so worked up over. Nobody is forcing circumcision on you. Well except maybe your parents when you're born, but at that stage you don't have the ability to make that decision for yourself.

Edit: Oops, accidentally left out an entire sentence there.

You say useless? Its a sexual organ with most of the nerves! Look at this video with actual facts. The "facts" you use are pure pseudo science, ideas that haven't seen use in CENTURIES. Hell, even Kellog acknowledged that he pushed circumcision on America purely because it removed nerves. He thought it would stop masturbation. The information you're using is hopelessly out of date with modern science and medicine and even scientific knowledge of the past.

Circumcision doesn't need to be done at birth. Circumcision at birth is like a sex change at birth, only the child can make that decision when its older.

Ok, I'm not watching that video because it deals with stuff I really don't WANT to know.
Also you keep mentioning this Kellog person, but I have no idea who that is, nor do I particularly care. And obviously you didn't pay attention to anything I said in my last post because if you had you would've noted that I say that I don't give a shit if people get circumcised or not. My main point is that this issue is not worth getting so worked up about. Already I've wasted waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more energy on it than it's worth.
Speaking as a person who was circumcised, I don't feel particularly hard done by. However if you are and were, then let my just get out the world's smallest violin.

 

[Jegsimmons]

California has a bill in the works that would make circumcision a felony. obviously this is a law against jewish people and the writer of the bill wrote the comic.

this man ought to be hunted down beaten and then deported to a 3rd world country.


also i really want to see this comic on 'Atop the fourth wall'.
linkara will have a hay-day.


also, im circumcised and i have no problems...seriously...nothing about the cut/uncut arguments make sense because because it doesnt honest to god matter in any way.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Spoiler: *slice* :Þ

Snip (No pun intended)

*shrug* Whatever. As I said, it's not like circumcision is mandatory.

I can't believe people would get so worked up over a useless little flab of skin that doesn't do anything.

Well, see, that's the thing. It does serve a function.

First of all, basing this on the modern interpretation of evolution, there's a reason we still have it.

I imagine it has once served the purpose of protecting the ehh... well, the thing; as we were walking around naked in the forest hunting wild boar multiple thousands of years ago.
Obviously that's not really an issue today, what with clothing and the like, but I feel I should mention it.

Some say it can cause certain diseases, but if those diseases were so serious, why does man still have it?
Wouldn't we have lost it somewhere along the path of evolution from there to here?

Moreover, some say it can protect against diseases as well... so yeah?

According to the teachings of most of Europe, the foreskin also serves as a sort of "stimulus", both for the man and the woman.

Also, at this day and age, it's possible to medically "restore" the foreskin, although not to perfect condition, and people have had such procedures performed.
That alone should speak of the reason why a person should have the right to make his own decision.



So yeah.
Whether it's useless or useful is not a known fact. It's a matter of great debate, and until we know whether its good or bad, we should feel safe in the knowledge that we are born with it, and wouldn't be if it was a risk capable of doing serious harm.

And as has been stated by Therumancer already, religious beliefs does not an exception make.

The point is though that it doesn't serve any purpose now. Besides I can't imagine how it'd provide any stimulus since unless I'm mistaken, it folds back when um... erection occurs.

Besides that, doesn't circumcision help prevent infections?

Sure, it does.

Thing is though, a fair bit of Europe hasn't practised it for a very long time, and we ain't got any issues over here.

Long as you wash up, it's not a problem.

*shrug* Whatever. As I said, it's not like circumcision is mandatory.

I can't believe people would get so worked up over a useless little flab of skin that doesn't do anything.

...... I think the issue some people are taking is that it's usually practised on a child. And it's usually before they're able to give consent.

I don't really see an issue with holding off on the circumcision until the child is old enough to make the choice... although since it's a religion & family thing, most would probably choose to do it. And then it'd be painful because... well they're having a piece of skin cut off.

There's no real easy answer. But to say it's not mandatory is to say they had a choice. And most of the time that really isn't the case.

But they do have a choice. They don't have to get their son circumcised if they don't believe in it. Obviously if they've already been circumcised, because their parents got it done when they were born, well they're shit outta luck. I'd like to think that, if that's the case, their parents were just doing what they thought was best at the time. ...not that it's all that big a loss really.

Besides that, doesn't circumcision help prevent infections?

Sure, it does.

Thing is though, a fair bit of Europe hasn't practised it for a very long time, and we ain't got any issues over here.

Long as you wash up, it's not a problem.

*shrug* Whatever. As I said, it's not like circumcision is mandatory.

I can't believe people would get so worked up over a useless little flab of skin that doesn't do anything.

The foreskin is more than "just a flab of skin." It contains thousands of nerve endings and much more. No respectable doctor will ever tell you its a dead flab of skin. That line of thinking hasn't been used since Kellog was around telling America to circumcise or God will rain fire on America.

All skin has nerve endings and shit. I never said it was a dead flab of skin, I said it was a useless flab of skin.

Regardless why are you all jumping on me as if I'm all pro-circumcision? I couldn't care less one way or another. My point is that this isn't something worth getting so worked up over. Nobody is forcing circumcision on you. Well except maybe your parents when you're born, but at that stage you don't have the ability to make that decision for yourself.

Edit: Oops, accidentally left out an entire sentence there.

You say useless? Its a sexual organ with most of the nerves! Look at this video with actual facts. The "facts" you use are pure pseudo science, ideas that haven't seen use in CENTURIES. Hell, even Kellog acknowledged that he pushed circumcision on America purely because it removed nerves. He thought it would stop masturbation. The information you're using is hopelessly out of date with modern science and medicine and even scientific knowledge of the past.

Circumcision doesn't need to be done at birth. Circumcision at birth is like a sex change at birth, only the child can make that decision when its older.

Ok, I'm not watching that video because it deals with stuff I really don't WANT to know.
Also you keep mentioning this Kellog person, but I have no idea who that is, nor do I particularly care. And obviously you didn't pay attention to anything I said in my last post because if you had you would've noted that I say that I don't give a shit if people get circumcised or not. My main point is that this issue is not worth getting so worked up about. Already I've wasted waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more energy on it than it's worth.
Speaking as a person who was circumcised, I don't feel particularly hard done by. However if you are and were, then let my just get out the world's smallest violin.

If you spout your "facts" and do not want to back it up when it gets called out then don't post. Period.

You obviously don't realize that the foreskin has more importance then you say. Hell, we known about the high concentration of nerves there for years. Nerves are important to sexual organs, no one with a shred of medical knowledge would say otherwise. What you are stating goes against established fact, and fail to back it up. If you don't even care to learn the facts, then you don't care whether what your saying is true or not. Your personal views or attitude don't factor into shit, but making claims of outdated medical knowledge that has been outdated for centuries and have no desire to learn modern medicine is astounding.

The foreskin is not just a flap of skin, it encompasses much more and plays an important role. Anything else is outdated pseudo-science with no scientific backing.

I wasn't claiming otherwise. And since you're going to blatantly ignore what I'm saying, I see no reason to continue this discussion. Which is just as well because I'm sick of it anyway.