Discussion in 'The Red Room' started by Midnight Funeral, Feb 2, 2013.
Maybe I'm missing something here, but I don't think of circumcision as a properly Jewish thing, since it's popular among Gentiles as well.
Yep, but according to that idiot calling himself John Castle, being against the practice makes you an anti-Semite.
I like bacon. I'm an anti-semite.
I think he's just trolling and you're humoring him.
Odd, I wasn't aware I was a closet Jew.
Odder still, I have no qualms about having it done as an infant. Not one.
So visionrazor is either trolling, with a very weak troll, or displaying the levels of idiocy we are used to from him....in a thread posted by a boy who is evern more stupid.
It's like playtime at the school for the gifted.
For the sake of argument, how do you know what you're missing?
Holy shit! I'm Jewish!
And cutting off the nose and ears of a young girl who runs away from her husband's family is barbaric, but I wouldn't assume a person who says so, is anti-Muslim.
I'm not equating circumcision with cutting off a person's nose and ears, by the way.
And I do accept the logic of your argument—that if I saw circumcision is barbaric, and since circumcision is a Jewish custom, that would make me anti-Semitic (A=B, and B=C, so A=C)—but I don't accept the reality of your argument, applied to humans.
And personally, I don't have a problem with circumcision.
In fact there's a health benefit: women whose partners have been circumsized, have a lower incidence of cervical cancer.
On another note, in an interesting clash of cultures, there are some health issues related to circumcisions when not performed by a medical professional. There was an article in the New York Times not long ago, about attempts by health departments to regulate the practice of circumcisions. Herpes is being transmitted, when the mohel uses his mouth to remove the foreskin. It makes me gag to think about it—and yet, I am not an anti-Semite.
How does that work? I didn't realize foreskins had cancerous properties.
Also, I can point out an easier alternative once again: condoms.
The theory was cleanliness, but the original study has flaws, and I don't think that anyone's been able to successfully prove it since.
Saying, "condoms," like its some kind of panacea for this issue, however, is like saying abstinence is the solution for unwed mothers. It misses the point about human behavior. We ain't rational, and we often act in ways which aren't in our own best interest.
How does it work? (the link between uncircumcised men and cervical cancer). Maybe a medical professional can weigh in on that one. Meanwhile:
Old news (2002):
Newer news (2012):
(Someone suggested a changing perspective on the link between the two things, and these articles do show that.)
Similar to the studies about HIV and circumcision, then.
True. After all, there are people advocating chopping off the skin of infants. But the issue of unsafe sex and improper hygiene can be addressed through better sex education. That is the real underlying issue.
I figured it was a link with HPV. So it's not that having sex with an uncircumcised man could lead to cervical cancer, it's that sex with an uncircumcised man could lead to HPV which could lead to cervical cancer. And as the article points out, condom use and proper hygiene can prevent the spread.
But the weird thing about that article is that it mentions the percentage of men in the study with HPV. I was under the impression that HPV could not be identified in men, but that tests were being worked on.
The problem addressed in this article has more to do with a sexually repressed culture in which safe sex is not always properly taught. That would fix the potential problem better than chopping off more foreskins without consent.
It's okay. Nobody's perfect.
If all I have missing from my body when I'm buried is a flap of skin notorious for the cause of infections and disease off the end of my dick then I'll consider myself lucky.
In other words I don't think I'm missing anything I couldn't do without.
It's our way of marking the goyim for disposal. Make 'em drop trow. If they're cut, they make the cut. If they're whole, they go in the hole.
Neither Anne or I are religious but we are getting our son circumcised.
Neither one of us had strong opinions going into it so we sat down and did the research. The evidence is pretty conclusive in terms of health benefits and seems to only be getting stronger.
Better to be safe. In rare instances, an uncut foreskin can be too tight, necessitating a circumcision at puberty which, I don't think I have to tell you, would be a lot more traumatic than right after birth.
I seem to recall a whole episode of "Bullshit!", debunking every pro-circumcision argument around.
I seem to recall that most of the arguments they made revolved around masturbation, too.
Wait... rare instances of babies contracting herpes or getting their dicks chopped off aren't enough to set policy, but rare instances of tight foreskin are?
When are we removing little girls breasts? Taking them right off would certainly reduce the risk of breast cancer.
As I pointed out in the other thread about circumcision, there are alternative fixes for phimosis that should be tried before surgery is considered. The "health benefits" benefits of circumcision are largely bullshit, and it should only be carried out in the rarest of circumstances.
I'm not an activist on this issue by any means, but I do think that the "health benefits" stance is akin to saying that it's safer for our children to wear helmets at the playground. Yes, there might be a tiny probability backing each claim, yet neither probability is strong enough to use as a basis for the decision.
Not only that, but that tiny probability of circumcision being "healthier" is based on research done in countries with poor hygiene, low condom use, and high STD rates.
We teach our children how to keep other parts of their body clean. It's easy enough to wash your penis.
I had my son circumcised, it's not just for Jews anymore.
Separate names with a comma.