Queries about circumcision

[Revnak_v1legacy]

snip

You know that this is an ethical discussion with tangential practicality as evidence, right? While you can measure human life in time, it's generally not seen as the "right" thing to do.

And whoo, you lose 17 days and change. I've wasted more time just sitting on my ass doing fuck all than I have cleaning my dick. You waste a year of your life at stoplights. If you're going to nickle and dime your time, you could do it in less than fatal ways.

Also, min-maxing sucks.

Hey, I just thought it would be some fun math. I personally am still against having my own children circumcised, I just don't think that my choice is necessarily logical. He was the one bringing up the deaths by fuck-ups. If I made a real point there, it was that that line of argument was pointless.

 

[RipRoaringWaterfowl]

Shit.

This won't end well.

Anyone who wishes to survive may join me in my bunker. I have all the hookers and Blackjack you could ever want.

OT: Any doctor worth their salt will tell you that any medical procedure has risks and removing a small boy's foreskin for anything less than a medical concern is not a great idea.

I'll join you in the bunker. I know how these threads end.

 

[Freechoice]

So you believe a doctor will have the patient's best interests at heart more than the patient's family will? Or do you just assume the patient's family is too ignorant to make the decision?

There's a difference between having the best interest of someone and actually knowing what the best course of action is. Will doctors make mistakes? Yes. Does that automatically disqualify their 8+ years of medical training and residency? No.

And there are second opinions and personal research. Something the best dads ever that posted here probably never heard of.

snip

You know that this is an ethical discussion with tangential practicality as evidence, right? While you can measure human life in time, it's generally not seen as the "right" thing to do.

And whoo, you lose 17 days and change. I've wasted more time just sitting on my ass doing fuck all than I have cleaning my dick. You waste a year of your life at stoplights. If you're going to nickle and dime your time, you could do it in less than fatal ways.

Also, min-maxing sucks.

Hey, I just thought it would be some fun math. I personally am still against having my own children circumcised, I just don't think that my choice is necessarily logical. He was the one bringing up the deaths by fuck-ups. If I made a real point there, it was that that line of argument was pointless.

It's not pointless though. People have died because some stupid (religious) tradition predicated a bullshit procedure.

It's one less thing to kill someone. It's logical. And teaching your kids to wash themselves fosters responsibility.

 

[JimB]

I said the patient should decide what treatment they get. If they need surgery and cannot give consent then it should be made for them in their best interests. I don't think I ever mentioned who would make that decision this whole time, just that someone else should make it if they need surgery and cannot give consent.

Yes, but you're arguing against a parent's right to circumcise his child on the grounds that parents are ignorant, so clearly, some kind of system of oversight needs to be in place for these decisions, right? Which means parents would only be allowed to make choices as long as they concur with the choices a doctor or whatever other authority you appoint to the position would make, right?

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

snip

You know that this is an ethical discussion with tangential practicality as evidence, right? While you can measure human life in time, it's generally not seen as the "right" thing to do.

And whoo, you lose 17 days and change. I've wasted more time just sitting on my ass doing fuck all than I have cleaning my dick. You waste a year of your life at stoplights. If you're going to nickle and dime your time, you could do it in less than fatal ways.

Also, min-maxing sucks.

Hey, I just thought it would be some fun math. I personally am still against having my own children circumcised, I just don't think that my choice is necessarily logical. He was the one bringing up the deaths by fuck-ups. If I made a real point there, it was that that line of argument was pointless.

It's not pointless though. People have died because some stupid (religious) tradition predicated a bullshit procedure.

It's one less thing to kill someone. It's logical. And teaching your kids to wash themselves fosters responsibility.

Except the likelihood of death is so low that the amount of time (life) it takes to wash your damn foreskin exceeds the amount lost to deaths. That is a very good sign that the loss of life is at an essentially meaningless level. Like taking a walk outside on a sunny day level. It is a meaningless degree of loss.

Teaching your children to wash themselves does foster responsibility. That's why you teach them to take showers or baths on their own. The increased degree of responsibility found in washing foreskins is pretty unimportant really.

 

[Superior Mind]

I said the patient should decide what treatment they get. If they need surgery and cannot give consent then it should be made for them in their best interests. I don't think I ever mentioned who would make that decision this whole time, just that someone else should make it if they need surgery and cannot give consent.

Yes, but you're arguing against a parent's right to circumcise his child on the grounds that parents are ignorant, so clearly, some kind of system of oversight needs to be in place for these decisions, right? Which means parents would only be allowed to make choices as long as they concur with the choices a doctor or whatever other authority you appoint to the position would make, right?

Not ignorant, irrational. Let's put it this way; a parent should have the right to make medical choices for their children if their reasons are based on some rationality. Belief that a child's soul will be forever tarnished if they don't get circumcised is not rational I'm afraid and what's more it's not in the child's best interest either but the parents'. The child, as you said, is incompetent and hasn't the cognisance to form a religious opinion, the only way the child is impacted is that it has to undergo an unnecessary procedure which, like any procedure, has risks no matter how small they are.

I'll give you a couple of rather extreme examples. My former neighbours had a kid. The kid got sick but instead of deciding to take her to a doctor they decided that it would be in their best interests if they prayed. Suffice to say it didn't work, the girl died. Likewise with Jehovah's Witnesses who refuse blood transfusions or organ/tissue transplants. They feel it is in their best interests to refuse the treatment even though on any rational ground it's not. Now while I'm not arguing against anyone's right to refuse treatment for whatever reason, even if it leads to their own death, I do find issue with people making these decisions on behalf of others and basing it on nothing more than their own beliefs. There's something quite insidious about thinking that the parents automatically have a right to alter their child's body.

 

[BakaSmurf]

I love how the people throwing out the "IT REDUCES SENSITIVITY" arguement are completely ignoring the "I've been circumcised only recently and not only is it just as sensitive as it was before, my girl actually prefers it this way" guys.

Anyways, onto the OP.

snipity

Watch some (ametuer) porn featuring a clipped fella, and then another one featuring an unclipped fella, the clipped fella is going to be just as capable as the unclipped fella, this I promise you.

His dick isn't going to to be nearly as unsightly as the unclipped fella's is either, just keep that in mind. Also. that aside, would you really rather you be more sensitive, and have the sex not last as long as a result? I may be odd in this line of thinking, but in my mind it's better for your partner since she gets to enjoy the Naughty Bad Fun Time longer anyways, and one should always be thinking of ways to make it more enjoyable for their partner.

Now, I'm retreating to my super-sonic jet and getting as far away from here as possible, since I know that no bunker will be able to withstand the fallout of this thread's end.

Spoiler: BAI YOU GAIZ!

 

[Freechoice]

snip

You know that this is an ethical discussion with tangential practicality as evidence, right? While you can measure human life in time, it's generally not seen as the "right" thing to do.

And whoo, you lose 17 days and change. I've wasted more time just sitting on my ass doing fuck all than I have cleaning my dick. You waste a year of your life at stoplights. If you're going to nickle and dime your time, you could do it in less than fatal ways.

Also, min-maxing sucks.

Hey, I just thought it would be some fun math. I personally am still against having my own children circumcised, I just don't think that my choice is necessarily logical. He was the one bringing up the deaths by fuck-ups. If I made a real point there, it was that that line of argument was pointless.

It's not pointless though. People have died because some stupid (religious) tradition predicated a bullshit procedure.

It's one less thing to kill someone. It's logical. And teaching your kids to wash themselves fosters responsibility.

Except the likelihood of death is so low that the amount of time (life) it takes to wash your damn foreskin exceeds the amount lost to deaths. That is a very good sign that the loss of life is at an essentially meaningless level. Like taking a walk outside on a sunny day level. It is a meaningless degree of loss.

Teaching your children to wash themselves does foster responsibility. That's why you teach them to take showers or baths on their own. The increased degree of responsibility found in washing foreskins is pretty unimportant really.

Ok, so the convenience of many people is worth the life of some people? Let's say that for every 500,000 children, 1 dies (wiki estimate). That means, by the current American population, 300 some odd guys are dead just so everyone else saves 17 days of their lives?

300 people are dead for just that little bit of convenience.

You also lack the data to account for problems that do not cause fatalities and cause a loss of time anyway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision#Complications

Point is, stupid tradition: unjustifiable by any means save for South Saharan Africa, a place God left long ago.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

snip

You know that this is an ethical discussion with tangential practicality as evidence, right? While you can measure human life in time, it's generally not seen as the "right" thing to do.

And whoo, you lose 17 days and change. I've wasted more time just sitting on my ass doing fuck all than I have cleaning my dick. You waste a year of your life at stoplights. If you're going to nickle and dime your time, you could do it in less than fatal ways.

Also, min-maxing sucks.

Hey, I just thought it would be some fun math. I personally am still against having my own children circumcised, I just don't think that my choice is necessarily logical. He was the one bringing up the deaths by fuck-ups. If I made a real point there, it was that that line of argument was pointless.

It's not pointless though. People have died because some stupid (religious) tradition predicated a bullshit procedure.

It's one less thing to kill someone. It's logical. And teaching your kids to wash themselves fosters responsibility.

Except the likelihood of death is so low that the amount of time (life) it takes to wash your damn foreskin exceeds the amount lost to deaths. That is a very good sign that the loss of life is at an essentially meaningless level. Like taking a walk outside on a sunny day level. It is a meaningless degree of loss.

Teaching your children to wash themselves does foster responsibility. That's why you teach them to take showers or baths on their own. The increased degree of responsibility found in washing foreskins is pretty unimportant really.

Ok, so the convenience of many people is worth the life of some people? Let's say that for every 500,000 children, 1 dies (wiki estimate). That means, by the current American population, 300 some odd guys are dead just so everyone else saves 17 days of their lives?

300 people are dead for just that little bit of convenience.

You also lack the data to account for problems that do not cause fatalities and cause a loss of time anyway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision#Complications

Point is, stupid tradition: unjustifiable by any means save for South Saharan Africa, a place God left long ago.

When the many outnumber the few 500,000 to one, yes, it certainly does. As for the other data, there are also a load of random minimal benefits to circumcision. I think in the end without a whole day's worth of data analysis I could not say whether those random benefits are greater than those random things that make it worse, but whatever. I still think the choice is less black and white than people like to make it out to be, and that my choice, not having any children I have circumcised, may not be the right way to go. I just hate it when people against it act like circumcision is some great crime.

 

[Aprilgold]

Wasn't the point in places like the desert so your penis doesn't get infected, thus stopping it from having to be medically cut off later?

I don't understand any hate after it. "ITS INHUMANE" it was done about 2 days after I was born when there was no way in hell for me to actually remember. "IT LOOKS BAD" Unless your gay or a straight woman, it isn't any uglier then say a uncircumcised penis does, and even then its subjective.

Honestly, theres no reason that can't be dismissed on either side.

-------------------------------------------

As someone else mentioned, uncircumcised penises just look... well, weird. In fact when I was a kid I never thought there was a difference until sex ed class. They showed pictures of uncircumcised penises, and my first though was, "Whoa! What the hell is that?".

Anyways I was circumcised and don't really mind. If I have a son, I'll probably do the same for him. To me it just seemed like one of those steps you take when your child is born, sorta like vaccinations. (Note: I am not saying that circumcision is equivalent to or as important as childhood vaccinations.)

Why not respect your child and let him make that decision on his own?

Well, if its a child, then it can't decide for itself, its not allowed.

 

[Freechoice]

act like circumcision is some great crime.

HA HA, FUNNY YOU SHOULD SAY THAT [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_mutilation]

Equivalence? Not really. Same reasons across different cultures though because people are fucking stupid.

So we can just kill off some people to save some time. What a fuckin' reasonable thing to say.

And if it's obviously the logical choice, why not have it done to your kids? I mean, 17 days sure sounds like a lot of time. It's worth the risk, right? You did the math. Hell, you can tell'em the importance of that as well.

"Daddy saved you two and a half weeks kiddo."

Of course, if your kid dies from it, well, that was just statistical improbability, right?

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

act like circumcision is some great crime.

HA HA, FUNNY YOU SHOULD SAY THAT [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_mutilation]

Equivalence? Not really. Same reasons across different cultures though because people are fucking stupid.

So we can just kill off some people to save some time. What a fuckin' reasonable thing to say.

And if it's obviously the logical choice, why not have it done to your kids? I mean, 17 days sure sounds like a lot of time. It's worth the risk, right? You did the math. Hell, you can tell'em the importance of that as well.

"Daddy saved you two and a half weeks kiddo."

Of course, if your kid dies from it, well, that was just statistical improbability, right?

Fuck it, I'm done here. You're really annoying me you know. I am not trying to argue that circumcision is right. I am trying to argue that it is meaningless. There is no good statistical reason to be against it. No strong logical argument is there to be made. And now that I've made this point you have begun grasping at straws, bringing up something that is essentially entirely unrelated as we have the argument at hand about circumcision in the western world, which is largely not for religious reasons as we simply do not have that large of a Jewish or Muslim population. You then try and characterize me as some kind of emotionless freak, which I am not. I am the opposite of an emotionless freak. I am a very emotional freak.

Also, I am always puzzled at how people flat out refuse to see death as simply the loss of whatever potential time that person had left. I would think such a thing would be a fairly simple concept to grasp, but no, it's death, the only absolute evil in existence. I suppose my contemplating such things is part of why people would assume I don't feel, but like I give a massive fuck about that.

 

[JimB]

Not ignorant, irrational.

Is the difference especially meaningful here?

 

[Freechoice]

Why not respect your child and let him make that decision on his own?

Well, if its a child, then it can't decide for itself, its not allowed.

So fuckin' wait. Jesus, it's not like it needs to be done immediately or his dick may or may not fall off entirely. It's cosmetic surgery done for fuck-all reasoning with tangential benefits and very real consequences.

Not ignorant, irrational.

Is the difference especially meaningful here?

Not one fuckin' bit.

 

[Jonluw]

Male circumcision is not an issue. It's not as big a health risk as most people make it out to be, and is usually only done for sanitary reasons by the Jewish and Islamic faith (as far as I know, don't quote me on that).

Female circumcision on the other hand... *shudder* Anyone who does that to their daughter is a butcher.

While I'm alright for a parent's right to choose for their child, certain limits really should be applied to things like this. Here in Canada, for example, a doctor reserves the right to refuse to perform cosmetic procedures (of which circumcision is considered one) on anyone not old enough to consent (12 with parental permission, 18 without).

Parents looking to circumcise their daughter... get arrested.

You are aware that there are plenty of different kinds of both female and male circumcision, right?
Many types of female circumcision are far less intrusive than the most common male procedure. However, all of them are illegal in the western world. It goes to show that legislation regarding circumcision is not based on rational reasons.
As for me: I'd place the Legal/Illegal line way at the bottom.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

Since when is "the minute chance of fuck-ups" not covered by 'anything'? Unless the guy mistyped, I'm pretty sure I understood his point to the fullest extent. He views religious views as important to some degree, I'm asking why.

The added social cohesion from adhering to norms is far greater than 0.018% chance of death. That chance of death is so insignificant the lolipop the doctor gives you afterwards makes it worth it.

Social cohesion is not a reason. If involuntary cosmetic surgery is necessary for social cohesion, then the reason for that cohesion should, in all cases, be called in to question. The problem here is that the reason is deeply irrational. Meaning that:

1) While at a low percentage, babies are dying for no reason every year.
2) The public acceptance of this practice sets a framework for other actions based on irrational beliefs, which is never good if we want to move on as a society.

I would be more willing to let it slide if the reason made any sense at all, like "We want our men to last longer in beds and please the women of the world", because at least there's some reason for it and it has actual good intentions, even if the means are twisted, as opposed to "God wants us to do it".

If they think that God wants them to, and there is no logical reason to say that it is on the whole harmful (which I have already argued and have no desire to do again) then why not let them? If it is part of the most ridiculously socially cohesive people groups in the world, the Jews, then promoting that cohesion becomes all the more important.
Or are you going to keep harping on about how some tiny number of people die compared to the number that get the procedure and therefore it is always wrong no matter how much math I do to show that more time (life) is saved through not having to wash under the foreskins than is lost through death? And then make fun of me for how small an amount of time it takes to wash a foreskin and then not realize that's the point. Damn have I hated this topic. (note, that all has nothing to do with you personally, I'm just tired of the argument I've been having)

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

If they think that God wants them to, and there is no logical reason to say that it is on the whole harmful (which I have already argued and have no desire to do again) then why not let them? If it is part of the most ridiculously socially cohesive people groups in the world, the Jews, then promoting that cohesion becomes all the more important.
Or are you going to keep harping on about how some tiny number of people die compared to the number that get the procedure and therefore it is always wrong no matter how much math I do to show that more time (life) is saved through not having to wash under the foreskins than is lost through death? And then make fun of me for how small an amount of time it takes to wash a foreskin and then not realize that's the point. Damn have I hated this topic. (note, that all has nothing to do with you personally, I'm just tired of the argument I've been having)

I already answered your question. If you care at all about the rationality of our beliefs, you shouldn't be in favor of something like this. Dead kids don't even have to enter the equation. All it takes is your appreciation of choice and rational thought.

I also already said social cohesiveness is not a reason for it. You don't go "Why not" when the subject is surgery, you ask "Why", and then evaluate the reasons. If the reason is that the child will fit in better with a reclusive social group that will indoctrinate them to believe all kinds of silly things later down the line, then the involuntary procedure is not worth it.

I do appreciate rational thought, and neither side has the stronger argument. I also happen to appreciate all those other types of thought as well, though I do think that many of them simply are not suited for arguments.

No, they will fit in better with a group that is known to experience literally every possible benefit of social cohesion to a degree that no other religious group can. Just because you think that religion is all about silly people being indoctrinated to do silly things doesn't make it a fact. The demography for Jews is only harmed by the racism against them, and that wouldn't be avoided with an intact foreskin now would it? Otherwise they experience a pretty awesome quality of social life.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

I do appreciate rational thought, and neither side has the stronger argument. I also happen to appreciate all those other types of thought as well, though I do think that many of them simply are not suited for arguments.

No, they will fit in better with a group that is known to experience literally every possible benefit of social cohesion to a degree that no other religious group can. Just because you think that religion is all about silly people being indoctrinated to do silly things doesn't make it a fact. The demography for Jews is only harmed by the racism against them, and that wouldn't be avoided with an intact foreskin now would it? Otherwise they experience a pretty awesome quality of social life.

*sigh*

Listen, dude, the whole practice is founded on irrational grounds. If you choose to play this little game of "Both are equally rational", do it with yourself, I'm not going to waste any more time on this.

The reasons for an action are less important than whether or not the action itself is reasonable. Just because they're doing this for a stupid reason (in your opinion and from a purely rational standpoint) doesn't mean that the act itself is stupid. There is next to no benefit for getting a circumcision in a purely medical sense for the average individual, but the same can be said of not getting a circumcision. After this it all becomes a value judgement, and they value their religion.

 

[Freechoice]

I do appreciate rational thought, and neither side has the stronger argument. I also happen to appreciate all those other types of thought as well, though I do think that many of them simply are not suited for arguments.

No, they will fit in better with a group that is known to experience literally every possible benefit of social cohesion to a degree that no other religious group can. Just because you think that religion is all about silly people being indoctrinated to do silly things doesn't make it a fact. The demography for Jews is only harmed by the racism against them, and that wouldn't be avoided with an intact foreskin now would it? Otherwise they experience a pretty awesome quality of social life.

*sigh*

Listen, dude, the whole practice is founded on irrational grounds. If you choose to play this little game of "Both are equally rational", do it with yourself, I'm not going to waste any more time on this.

The reasons for an action are less important than whether or not the action itself is reasonable. Just because they're doing this for a stupid reason (in your opinion and from a purely rational standpoint) doesn't mean that the act itself is stupid. There is next to no benefit for getting a circumcision in a purely medical sense for the average individual, but the same can be said of not getting a circumcision. After this it all becomes a value judgement, and they value their religion.

Then the smart option is to just not fucking get it.

 

[spookydom]

I had to have a circumcision when I was very young due to a hereditory medical condition. My forskin didn't grow with the rest of me if you know what I'm saying. Growing up I felt a little diferent but as I grew older I realised girls love it. I do not have any basis for comparison but don't feel it has effected me at all. Also, The people editing quoted posts with "Snip" are making me laugh in the context of this thread.