Circumcision

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7772002181711601907&q=penn+and+teller&hl=en

Penn & Teller pwn the religious nuts & dick slicers!

Stop posting links to bullshit.

http://linkstobullshit.blogspot.com/

Now stop starting threads to post bullshit.

didn't you get the memo- dick slicing is very fashionable these days. true story

>>2
Sweet thx 4 linx.

>>1
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
MY EYES NO OLD MAN PENIS!!!

……………………………..._,,,,-------,,,__
…………………………,,;:#ggg@@g;,……..‘`=-,
…………………….,,;$#^`````*#@@@g;,……….’=-,
…………………...,/$`…………``#@@@#g,………...‘\,
………………._,;f`……………...,$@@@@#g,………..“\,
……………,/*&gp..+,_…………..%*#@@@@g;,………’\,
…………,./_`”>’….`#$$#x;,………,%@@@@@#g;,……..`\
………..,/ (………`\…`\”*=,``\…...*&*%@@@@@g;,……..\
……...,/...,^=*#q,_,/`\…...`~..`-…...g$@@@@@@@#g,……|
……../,;p8jq;,_……..;……………….`%@@@@@@@#g;.|
……,/.f,,,,_..`*8r-,….;……………..,&@@@@@@@@@#./
….../.,$ `\,...`.-...&…/………………`%@@@@@@@@$#/
….,/,$--__……`\…/…………………#$@@@##@@@@/
...,/\...`’t-,__,;>`…/………………………….;`=””=.`;@#*
.,/…`”~--~`’’…-`……………………...,--”,~#-,.._*”`
(……………………………………..,…`””…..,;`
.`\,_………………………………….&`*-,,_-”`
…...`-,_…………………………….../`.../
……….\………………………………..|

>>2
Those links don't work.  Fuck.  Google says the video isn't there or something.

>>7

They worked when I posted it. The guy updated the links once, he'll probably update it again once he realises they got taken down

A google video search for bullshit will reveal most of the episodes anyways.

>>8
tell him to update asap

I like my pretty penis thankyouverymuch.

Yet another reason the UN sucks nuts.  They protest female genital mutilation but not male mutilation.  Hypocrisy anyone?

>>11

Female circumcision is much more debilitating than male circumcision. When was the last time sex was painful because you were circumcised, assuming you are a circumcised male?  Because of the seriousness of the pain, I hardly think its hypocritical of them to focus on it.

>>11
LOLOL UNAZIS LOL RITE GUYZ GO AMERIKKKA

>>12
There are different kinds of female genital mutilation, if I'm not mistaken, some that does less long term damage than others.  Anyway, the issue is not what the UN is focusing on, its that the UN hasn't really urged a position on male genital mutilation at all.  They apparently just don't give a flying fuck.

>>14
maybe because its not "mutilation". Cutting off a seven year old girls clitoris so that she can never feel sexual pleasure and is pained by it daily, however, is.

The whole circumcision argument when it comes to males is really quite fucking stupid. It's sad, to me, because in America we have people who are circumcized and who aren't. But we don't really raise a big stink about it like Europeans tend to do. I really don't understand why anyone would care how or why any other person's dick was cut.

>>16
Because it is done to children without their conscious consent. They have only been on the planet for less than a decade and most don't even know what sex is, yet their parents think it is ok to isolate them from the rest of the world and convince them that mutilating a part of their body is a good idea, or sometimes not bother at all and just slice it off when they are a baby.

There is no point to circumcision. If you wash your penis frequently, having a foreskin keeps your penis cleaner than if you wash your penis and don't have a foreskin. If when the person is 17 or older and begins having sexual relationships, then they can decide whether they want it snipped to "make it look bigger" or because they think "circumscised penises are ugly" or whatever jews give to excuse their actions. But NOT when they are a child before they can give legitimate consent.

>>17

Sorry man, but I just find that to be silly and juvenile. In this case consent is irrelevant. Male Circumcision isn't so serious of a procedure that it requires an infant boy's consent. We are talking about a piece of skin here, not the ability to give birth or get an erection. Would you have parents not even name a child because the child didn't consent to it? Would you have parents not give birth because the child didn't consent to being concieved?

There are alot of things that are a part of my identity that I didn't consent to. I'm black, I'm American, I have an unusal name, etc. But I really don't think these things have much of an effect on how I turned out...least of all having a circumsized dick!

I also take great ideological exception to the following:

"yet their parents think it is ok to isolate them from the rest of the world and convince them that mutilating a part of their body is a good idea"

See, what I'm trying to get at here is that Americans aren't circumcising their baby boys just to slight you and rest of the world. Overall, what does it matter? Americans generally aren't thinking about what the rest of the world does to their male children's penises, until it's brought up by (I'm assuming) a fringe group of overly-interested Europeans.

Or are you so hatful towards jews that you consider circumscision to be the jewifying of America? I'm circumsized and it hasn't changed the way I feel about Zionists or Israeli occupiers of Palestine. Also, me being circumsized doesn't automatically make me jewish or apart of jewish culture.

So, you have to understand, when it comes to this subject I'm desperately trying to find out what Europe's beef with circumcision is. Sure, there's no point in it- but there's no point in alot of things humans do to disfigure themselves (plastic surgery, peircing, tats, body mods). What I can't exactly grasp is why it is any of your business in the first place.

>>18
I fail to see how you went from the fact that the child doesn't decide whether it wants a circumcision or not to anti-semitism.

If that's your only counter "argument", then I am extremely concerned by people who share your opinion.

>>18
"Sorry man, but I just find that to be silly and juvenile. In this case consent is irrelevant. Male Circumcision isn't so serious of a procedure that it requires an infant boy's consent."

Yes it is... the procedure is something that:

1.  Hurts like fuck
2.  Will alter the person's appearance for the rest of his life
3.  Make sex less enjoyable
4.  Makes nearly every man cringe (just thinking about it)

It has many of the negatives of female genital mutilation.  The only reason nobody gives a fuck is because everyone is so damn focused on women's rights and nobody gives a fuck what happens to men nowadays.

"We are talking about a piece of skin here, not the ability to give birth or get an erection."

The skin you are taking off has lots of nerves in it and removing it severely limmits sexual pleasure for the man... among other things.  See above.

"Would you have parents not even name a child because the child didn't consent to it?"

Names are completely different.  The child can adopt his own name later in life if he wants to, and the parents nor anyone else are likely to care.  Names are also relatively painless when you compare it with male genital mutilation.

"Would you have parents not give birth because the child didn't consent to being concieved?"

Would you allow female genital mutilation without consent?

"There are alot of things that are a part of my identity that I didn't consent to. I'm black, I'm American, I have an unusal name, etc."

And everything except the name is essentially uncontrollable.  The decision to have a babies' genitals mutilated or not is something you can decide, and there is really no reason to do it, and every reason not to.  As for your unusual name? See above, I covered that.

"But I really don't think these things have much of an effect on how I turned out...least of all having a circumsized dick!"

That's just great for you.  Some people would rather keep their penises whole and non-mutilated though, believe it or not. 

"See, what I'm trying to get at here is that Americans aren't circumcising their baby boys just to slight you and rest of the world. Overall, what does it matter?"

1.  Hurts like fuck
2.  Will alter the person's appearance for the rest of his life
3.  Make sex less enjoyable
4.  Makes nearly every man cringe (just thinking about it)

Anyways, the fact that it isn't done to slight you is really beside the point.  If someone kills someone because they want to for some other reason, but not for the purpose of slighting the person, it is still wrong.

"So, you have to understand, when it comes to this subject I'm desperately trying to find out what Europe's beef with circumcision is."

I'm not a big fan of europe, but the issues I have with genital mutilation are listed above.

"Sure, there's no point in it- but there's no point in alot of things humans do to disfigure themselves (plastic surgery, peircing, tats, body mods). What I can't exactly grasp is why it is any of your business in the first place."

Would it be our business if parents decided to stick their kids with a rusty needle over and over, against their will?

>>19

It's because of this quote: "whatever jews give to excuse their actions. Yes, in the most basic sense, jews really have nothing to do with this topic. But since >>17 brought them up, I responded.


>>20

The procedure is something that:

1.  Hurts like fuck
2.  Will alter the person's appearance for the rest of his life
3.  Make sex less enjoyable
4.  Makes nearly every man cringe (just thinking about it)

It has many of the negatives of female genital mutilation.

1 and 4. How do you know it hurts? From personal experience? I'm not in any pain. I don't remember being in any pain. Also, why is pain something to be feared or considered serious? Pain in and of itself is not a crime. Pain is apart of life. If it's not being circumsized at 2 weeks, it's having a root canal when your 16 and got your K9 knocked out by a skinhead wielding a piece of wood. Or it could be having your wisdom teeth removed at 26. This is an invalid point unless you have personally and consciously endured this or unless pain is against the law.

Just because it's painful or hypothetically makes one cringe doesn't mean it's inherantly wrong. I'm healthly, I'm strong, I'm able and here another clincher: The idea of circumcision doesn't make me cringe.

2. How is this relevant to anyone other than people who don't look the same as the other? How is this different from being white in Africa, or tall in Japan, or black in germany? This point is invalid because you personally don't like the idea of someone else being different from you. People who are 'pro-circumcision' can say the exact same thing. And you'd both be wrong. 

3. I enjoy sex. This is an entirely subjective point, which makes it invalid. Unless you're one of those special individuals who got circumsized and then had his foreskin grow back, then you have no realistic basis for this claim.

Names are completely different.  The child can adopt his own name later in life if he wants to, and the parents nor anyone else are likely to care.  Names are also relatively painless when you compare it with male genital mutilation.

And male genital mutilation is relatively painless when you come compare it to chemo-therapy. What is your point? This is entirely subjective and thus, invalid. You have no way of knowing what impact a child's name can have on his life (even pain-wise) and you have absolutely no way of knowing if the parents would care or not.

Would you allow female genital mutilation without consent?

Female circumcision is not the same as male circumcision. Also: You must show me scientific or medical evidence that Female and Male circumcision are the same. Loss of foreskin does not prevent men from enjoying sex, functioning properly or having offspring.

And everything except the name is essentially uncontrollable.  The decision to have a babies' genitals mutilated or not is something you can decide, and there is really no reason to do it, and every reason not to.

It's all uncontrollable. Being born "American" is a choice made for you by the government. Being black is a choice made for me by genetics. Having my foreskin cut, where I lived until I was 18, my name, decided by my parents. All of this is outside of my initial control.

That's just great for you.  Some people would rather keep their penises whole and non-mutilated though, believe it or not.

Since, I've been given a choice here. I'm going to say: Not. Generally speaking, this subject doesn't come up in America. Someone complaining about being circumcized is seen as exceptionally nuerotic and I don't think this is without reason. Being hung up on little details about your body is a bit shallow.

Anyways, the fact that it isn't done to slight you is really beside the point.  If someone kills someone because they want to for some other reason, but not for the purpose of slighting the person, it is still wrong. Would it be our business if parents decided to stick their kids with a rusty needle over and over, against their will?

It's only beside the point if we were actually talking about killing people. We're not. We're talking about a piece of skin either remaining or being cut off at birth. We're not talking about shooting people in the face, we're not talking about rape, we're not talking about poking kids with rusty needles. 

Finally, I want to point something out to you that you seem to avoid neglect.

1. Someone else's pain is not your concern.
2. Someone else's appearence should not be your concern.
3. How much someone else enjoys sex should not be your concern.
4. What makes people cringe or not cringe should not be your concern.

Now, the REASON these things should not being your concern is because when it comes to male circumcision they do not effect your or the person's overall quality of life. If you continue to insist that this is not the case, then you have to provide examples that are not only peer-reviewed and scientifically true, but they have to be wide-spread effecting more than 3% of the population.

From what I've seen, circumcized or not, men are men. There are people who are circumcized and who aren't. It really doesn't mean anything. And paying so much attention to this differnce is well...really weird and dare I even say totally gay.

>>21

Forgive the typos. It's early.

>>18
I assume you are either uncircumsized or have deep hate for for uncircumsized men cause you're circumsized. Either way it's procedure that should be banned for non-medical reasons. Reasons being: circumsized dicks look UGLY and there's too much those in porn, it's jewery and ragheadism and it makes you enjoy sex less as it destroys your sensivity.

>>21
"1 and 4. How do you know it hurts? From personal experience?"

What the fuck? How about you take a knife and slice a big chunk of skin off your dick and see how it feels.  Unless you have a reason to offer for why it DOESN'T hurt, then it is reasonably safe to assume it hurts.  The burden of proof that cutting up a babies' dick doesn't hurt is on you.

"I'm not in any pain. I don't remember being in any pain."

You aren't in any pain YEARS LATER, no.  And anyways, who remembers what happened when they were just born? You saying you don't remember it doesn't mean it wasn't painful.

"Also, why is pain something to be feared or considered serious? Pain in and of itself is not a crime. Pain is apart of life."

Lets legalize torture.  Pain is a part of life.

"If it's not being circumsized at 2 weeks, it's having a root canal when your 16 and got your K9 knocked out by a skinhead wielding a piece of wood. Or it could be having your wisdom teeth removed at 26."

You aren't generally forced to get a root canal if you don't want one.  By the time you are old enough that your teeth are shitty enough to need serious dental work, you are able to protest the operation.  A baby getting skin sliced off his dick when he is just born can't really protest.

"This is an invalid point unless you have personally and consciously endured this or unless pain is against the law."

Again, would you legalize torture? Should it be legal to stick rusty needles into your children against their will?

Also, your argument that my argument is invalid unless I myself have personally experianced anything is complete shit.  Whether or not I have had to put up with having skin cut off my penis is not relevant to the discussion of whether or not the practice should be legal or not.

"3. I enjoy sex. This is an entirely subjective point, which makes it invalid. Unless you're one of those special individuals who got circumsized and then had his foreskin grow back, then you have no realistic basis for this claim."

Not true.  Male genital mutilation reduces the sensitivity of the penis and also removes a lot of the erogenous tissue that delivers sexual pleasure when stimulated.  This is fact and is indisputable.

"And male genital mutilation is relatively painless when you come compare it to chemo-therapy. What is your point?"

Proove it.  Studies show that babies feel pain even moreso than is normal at the time when the typical baby has his dick sliced.

"Female circumcision is not the same as male circumcision. Also: You must show me scientific or medical evidence that Female and Male circumcision are the same. Loss of foreskin does not prevent men from enjoying sex, functioning properly or having offspring."

My argument was NOT that female and male genital mutilation are the same thing. 

"Since, I've been given a choice here. I'm going to say: Not. Generally speaking, this subject doesn't come up in America. Someone complaining about being circumcized is seen as exceptionally nuerotic and I don't think this is without reason. Being hung up on little details about your body is a bit shallow."

I don't see anything wrong with wishing you had your whole penis so you could enjoy sex more.  While there aren't a lot of people who are like this, some are.

"We're not talking about shooting people in the face, we're not talking about rape, we're not talking about poking kids with rusty needles."

Yes.  You are talking about mutilating a baby's genitals without his consent.  This causes the baby intense pain, serves no legitimate medical purpose, and is again without the child's consent.  How is this different from poking the child with rusty needles without his consent?  In both practices, you don't have the consent or agreement of the one being effected, neither serves a legitimate medical purpose, and both would cause the child a reasonable sum of pain - even more in the case of genital mutilation.

>>21
"1. Someone else's pain is not your concern.
2. Someone else's appearence should not be your concern.
3. How much someone else enjoys sex should not be your concern.
4. What makes people cringe or not cringe should not be your concern."

When another person's rights in society are being violated, it is the legitimate function of government and of others in society to intervene and stop it.  We have laws against murder.  We have laws against torturing other people.  Why should we not have laws preventing painful and unnecessary genital mutilation?

Unless you have the consent of the individual for such activities, you are violating the person's rights.  Should it be legal for me to stick rusty needles into my children without their consent? Again, it is painful, and serves no medical purpose.  Genital mutilation is child abuse.

"Now, the REASON these things should not being your concern is because when it comes to male circumcision they do not effect your or the person's overall quality of life."

Really? I wasn't aware having pieces of your penis sliced off didn't have a negative effect on the person's quality of life. 

And also, yes, it does make sex less enjoyable, and thus reduces the quality of the person's life.

"If you continue to insist that this is not the case, then you have to provide examples that are not only peer-reviewed and scientifically true, but they have to be wide-spread effecting more than 3% of the population."

Again, the burden of proof is not on me to proove it is painful, but on you to proove it isn't.  Until you proove to me it isn't painful as fuck, it is reasonably safe to assume it is based on basic knowledge of human anatomy.

"From what I've seen, circumcized or not, men are men. There are people who are circumcized and who aren't. It really doesn't mean anything. And paying so much attention to this differnce is well...really weird and dare I even say totally gay."

It isn't the difference that matters to me.  What matters to me is that babies are being abused in painful ways for no legitimate medical reason which will negatively effect the overall quality of life for them long term.  ANd of course consent is not had.

>>21
So why didn't you just point out that jews aren't the only ones who circumcise and some jews don't circumcise instead of accusing someone of anti-semitism without proof and supporting the act of forcing a child to be circumcised?

It doesn't matter if it doesn't cripple the child, removing someone's ear lobes or a boy's nipples is as pointless as circumcision. So what's the fucking point to begin with?

The only reason male genital mutilation is still legal is because there are so many fucking religious people in this country who love to cut up other people's dicks.

Why should anybody have the right to permanently alter a human's appearance before they are mature enough to contemplate the procedure themselves? If insane African immigrants and muslim assholes aren't allowed to cut their daughters clits off because they fear that their endowments are even smaller then why should joos be allowed to alter the dick of their infants?

Because Israel is surrounded by enemies? The holocaust? A little ethical consistency, please.

how dare you people take away my right to cut up babies' dicks if i want?

>>27
Because of the holocaust jews should be able to do whatever they want.

I'm circumcised and proud.

Ok, first of all:

>>23, >>24, >>25, >>26

Blatant same person. This is just D-level horseshit.

Secondly, your post is basically a self-repeating mess so I guess I'm going havta show you how the adults do it and try to keep this brief. 

Listen: We are not talking about torture, rape or murder. They are different because circumcision is a harmless procedure that won't result in tetnus, perminant/memorable emotional distress or death. There's millions of circumcised people walking around just fine. They're fucking (and enjoying it), givin' birth, they're even occupying Palestine! I'm sure you'll find that there's a whole world of circumcised people once you take this in-house fag-a-thon of yours on a world tour.

"Again, the burden of proof is not on me to proove it is painful, but on you to proove it isn't. Until you proove to me it isn't painful as fuck, it is reasonably safe to assume it is based on basic knowledge of human anatomy."

I already know it's painful, it just doesn't mean anything if you can't experience it. What kind of fucktard cries about losing a little piece of flesh when he was 2 weeks old? You must be 'shrooming. I've lost more flesh combined over the last 20 years, than I ever had on my dick and the pain was real. As a matter of fact, I'm pinching what's left of foreskin right now--- I don't feel shit. Oh gee I wonder why that is--- IT'S BECAUSE I'M NOT A PUSSY.

"My argument was NOT that female and male genital mutilation are the same thing."

O RLY? Taken from >>20: "It has many of the negatives of female genital mutilation." --- Sounds like you think they're pretty similar. Guess what, you fucking shitsack: They're not.

I don't see anything wrong with wishing you had your whole penis so you could enjoy sex more.  While there aren't a lot of people who are like this, some are.

The reason you don't see anything wrong with people wishing they were "whole" so they could hypothetically enjoy sex more it is because you're bat-shit insane (and probably a virgin). Anyone with this much interest in baby cocks is begging for party-van status. Jack off to infants on your own time, pedo.

"It isn't the difference that matters to me. What matters to me is that babies are being abused in painful ways for no legitimate medical reason which will negatively effect the overall quality of life for them long term.  And of course consent is not had."

Taken from >>21: Now, the REASON these things should not being your concern is because when it comes to male circumcision they do not effect your or the person's overall quality of life. If you continue to insist that this is not the case, then you have to provide examples that are not only peer-reviewed and scientifically true, but they have to be wide-spread effecting more than 3% of the population.

And we've been over consent already. Children don't have consent for medical procedures until they are at least in their teens, anyway. It's a moot fucking point. Parents aren't going to stop themselves from giving lil' Timmy that flu-vaccine just because he doesn't want it. Sure, Timmy probably doesn't NEED the vaccine but it's the parent's decision as to how they want to raise him, not yours. Tell me: When has a child ever had the ability to express consent in the proper circumstances? Oh wait! I forgot, you don't have kids! You use them for sex toys. Tell me: Did all those babies you probably raped consent to you fucking their newborn assholes? Don't think so, pedo.

So, listen buddy...are we about done here? Because unless you link me to at least 4 ot 5 serious medical cases where hundreds-of-thousands of patients were effected in adulthood by being circumcised as an infant then your argument has no basis other than your homosexual wailings.

Really? I wasn't aware having pieces of your penis sliced off didn't have a negative effect on the person's quality of life. And also, yes, it does make sex less enjoyable, and thus reduces the quality of the person's life.

LOL! WELL NOW YOU KNOW.

>>25

"So why didn't you just point out that jews aren't the only ones who circumcise and some jews don't circumcise instead of accusing someone of anti-semitism without proof and supporting the act of forcing a child to be circumcised?"

Um....because it's fucking obvious? Whoops! My mistake, I forgot that this 4chan! I basically have to hold your jizz-stained hands and walk you through every debate. 

It doesn't matter if it doesn't cripple the child, removing someone's ear lobes or a boy's nipples is as pointless as circumcision. So what's the fucking point to begin with?

There is none. Just like there's no point to people keeping the foreskin. It's a non-point. It only matters to European fuckwits and American fagjobs. Some people are and some people aren't, it's not like it decides who eats and who dies and who is free.

There's bigger things going on in the world right now than some of it's population being afraid of dick cheese. And don't even bring up cleaning and all that...Americans may be fat as fuck...but trust me; asses get washed more over here. I've been to your countries and I've smelled your smells. Don't bullshit me.

Know what else? It doesn't matter if I say someone is an anti-semite when I'm well on my way to anti-semitism my damn self. Especially when faggots like Xel and >>29 are making the same damn comments. 

i'm wondering where people are getting this 'sex is less enjoyable' bullshit from. i got circumcised later in life for medical reasons and i barely noticed the difference. people don't understand that alot of sex shit is in your head. oh well that's the virgins for 4chan for ya.

>>33

Be quiet. You'll ruin the point that circumcision is bad for you.  

Whether circumcision is bad or not, it is still logically immoral to force your kid to have one before they are mature enough to make the decision.

The same way its "logically immoral" to vaccinate your 6-month-old before she can even speak?

>>31
"Listen: We are not talking about torture, rape or murder. They are different because circumcision is a harmless procedure that won't result in tetnus, perminant/memorable emotional distress or death."

Male genital mutilation, while it might not have negative medical effects, lacks any positive medical effect, and is painful for the baby.

"I already know it's painful, it just doesn't mean anything if you can't experience it."

What the fuck? It is painful, and the baby does experiance the pain.  Again, until you proove the baby doesn't, it is reasonable to assume it DOES.

"And we've been over consent already. Children don't have consent for medical procedures until they are at least in their teens, anyway. It's a moot fucking point."

No, it isn't a moot point.  There is no medicinal benefit from having a circumcision.  None.

"Parents aren't going to stop themselves from giving lil' Timmy that flu-vaccine just because he doesn't want it."

Genital mutilation is a hell of a lot more painful than a flu shot.  Not only is it in a far more sensitive area, the cut is larger, not just a small poke. 

"Sure, Timmy probably doesn't NEED the vaccine but it's the parent's decision as to how they want to raise him, not yours."

There is a benefit to having a vaccine.  There is NO benefit to having part of your dick sliced off.

"So, listen buddy...are we about done here? Because unless you link me to at least 4 ot 5 serious medical cases where hundreds-of-thousands of patients were effected in adulthood by being circumcised as an infant then your argument has no basis other than your homosexual wailings."

Whether or not they are effected in adulthood is beside the main point.  The issue is that they are forced to undergo a completely pointless procedure - it has no medical benefit.

>>32
"There is none."

Exactly.  SO there is no point in mutilating male babies' genitals, it is extremely painful, and results in a less enjoyable sexual experiance later in life.  The only reason this form of child abuse is tolerated is because of insane religious people who wouldn't tolerate not being able to cut up their children's penises.

"Just like there's no point to people keeping the foreskin."

The reason to keep the foreskin is because it is extremely painful to cut it off, results in a less enjoyable sexual experiance later in life, and of course that there is no medical benefit to cut it off.
 
>>33
After years and years of walking around with no foreskin around your penis head, your penishead gets less sensitive.  Also, the foreskin itself is, if I'm not mistaken, erogenous tissue as well.

Also, in this study here (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=14979200&query_hl=27) they found that adults who were circumcised later in life have higher incidences of erectile disfunction.  While the increase in risk is small, it is statistically high enough to say that circumcision increases risk of erectile disfunction.

>>34
RIGHT, BECAUSE ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE = SOLID PROOF, RIGHT?

>>36
Vaccination prevents your kid from dying of typhus and whooping cough.

Circumcision does fuck all.

See the difference?

>>38

Of course I saw the difference. >>35 obviously didn't or he would have included that in his statement.

>>37 RIGHT, BECAUSE ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE = SOLID PROOF, RIGHT?

No, objective fact is the only proof we can use.

No wait a minute. That's right, pleasure is subjective. Oh, isn't that a pickle we're in?

>>27 Keep posting Xel.  Don't give in to the dick slicers and religious fanatics.

>>34

whut? that it's not bad for you is my point. i had to have the procedure done because of scar tissue that built up from a herpes infection (not sexually transmitted!). there is pretty much no difference. over time my penis became slighty less sensitive and easier to care for, but i always keep clean before the surgery and i never liked cumming early anyways but even when i had foreskin i could still control it. so that's why i said there's really no difference.

but nevermind me, you guys seem pretty dead set on arguing about it so i'm gonna find my way out of this crazy thread. you can keep arguing till the end of the world people aren't going to stop circumcising their boys if they way.

Why should we allow non-medical related circumsizing of anyone else than Jewish/Muslim children or those who are adults and want it? There's no reason other than you circumsized guys are obviously feeling inferior and thus want to take away foreskin from all boys and men. My whole family is uncircumsized and proud of it.

>>43

Baseless and pretty fucking nutty. There are no "teams" here, you fucking degenerate. Why exactly should I, a heterosexual male, give a flying fuck what your dick or anyone elses looks like?

>>37
"Male genital mutilation, while it might not have negative medical effects, lacks any positive medical effect, and is painful for the baby."

Ear piercing, while it might not have negative medical effects, lacks any positive medical effect, and is painful for the baby.


END EAR MUTILATION NOOOOOOOOOOOOOWWWWWWWWWWWW

>>45
Holy fuck you're stupid. ARe you capable of contemplating more than 1 thought at a time? Babies cannot make the choice whether they want circumcision or an ear piercing or not, since neither serve any purpose babies shouldn't be forced to have either done to them so they can make the choice when they are adults.

>>46

no u! you lack common sense and are acting similar to a certain jewish mom from a certain TV show that airs on comedy central.

if a parent is told by their doctor that circumcision is good, then a parent has a right to say yes if they think that will help their baby.

if a parent is told by their doctor that circumcision is bad, then a parent has a right to say no if they think that will help their baby.

either way- the end result is really that it doesn't make a fucking difference. Half the planet is circumcised, half isn't. Pain isn't an issue because anesthic is used and the pain isn't something that will psychologically destroy the child.

you've been hammered again and again on these points and you still keep bringing the focus back to someone's dick. Someone else's BABY DICK. you have no definitive proof because if circumcision was really so bad then it would've been banned outright along time ago like other medical practices.

>>46
You fucking moron, parents can make any legal decision for their kids. Parents should make decisions that serve no purpose for their kids? What the fuck? Babies shouldn't be forced to wear ugly clothes either, or get haircuts, or stop picking their nose, these kids should wait until they are adults and they can decide for themselves if they want to being their teddy bear to school!!

>>47
If a parent is told by their doctor that circumcision is cosmetic, then it should be left until the baby grows up and is mature enough to decide for themselves.

>>49
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH WOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAARRRRGHHHHHH YOU WANT TO EXTERMINATE THE JEWS YOU ARE NNNAAZI AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHH IMMMMM FUKKKEEEN ANNGGGGGGRRRRRRRYYYYYY

>>49
HHOOLLYY FFUCKCKK I JUST SHAT MYSELF SO UFKKEN HARD CAUSE IM SO PISSED OFF IM HITTING TEH COMPUTER SCREEN AND SLAPPING MY HANDS AGAINST TEH KEY BOARDAAAHWEU8EJRIROGRRGJHERIOH'ZSEORJH'AEIOJTHME;'IOTJH,EO;STJHEIOR;JHAW'EIRJTGEAIORGT


WWWWWWHHHHHHHHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

This is my last reply in this thread. I've got better things to do than to convince aspiring pedos that another baby's dick is none of their business.

Also, in this study here (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=14979200&query_hl=27) they found that adults who were circumcised later in life have higher incidences of erectile disfunction.  While the increase in risk is small, it is statistically high enough to say that circumcision increases risk of erectile disfunction.

That would be relevant if we were talking about Adult circumcision. But oh yeah: We're not. I have NLBS, too, and I know that was the best argument you could find from that site because Wiki quotes that site, as well. What you fail to understand is that this is a nebulous discussion. You aren't going to appear right to anyone who is rational.

Whether or not they are effected in adulthood is beside the main point.  The issue is that they are forced to undergo a completely pointless procedure - it has no medical benefit.

And so what? So the fuck what? Why the fuck do you care so much about baby dicks? Why do you care about other people's sexual satisfaction, especially to the point where you're calling for the illegalization of what you admitted was a "pointless procedure"? If it's so fucking pointless, then it doesn't need to be outlawed. Are you from China or something?

The reason to keep the foreskin is because it is extremely painful to cut it off, results in a less enjoyable sexual experiance later in life, and of course that there is no medical benefit to cut it off.

-It's only painful or risky if it's done by someone who isn't a doctor (they use anesthics)
-There is no conclusive evidence that says it makes sex less enjoyable. And even if it did, that still doesn't make a difference in a world where pre-mature ejaculation is considered penile dyfunction, too.
-There's no medical benefit to keeping it either.

>>49

That's a mighty big "If." Regardless, it really doesn't matter what the doctor tells the parents. The parents are the guardian of the child, not vise versa. The child can't consent to ANY medical procedure until well into its teens. Arguing is 11 kinds of deluxe-retarded considering that consent would only be an issue if circumcision periminantly harmed the boy in question. Which we already established that it doesn't.

I guess getting all worked up about a someone elses child's dick pain or capcity for pleasure seems like some kind of virtue for you. But to anyone with a shread of decency or common sense, it just makes you look like a twisted-sick fuck who uses is circular reasoning to justify someone other than the parent deciding what is truly best for their child.

>>52 Parents should not have the right or possibility to alter the physionomy of a child permanently before they have reached an age where professionals have dictated they can make the decision themselves. It's a flaky limit but it has to be drawn somewhere.

If Gyoshem and Annie want to cut off Göggem's foreskin they'd better put away money for a cosmetic operation that would put his dick back in its original state. That's a condition.

Sure, all rights not specicly granted to the parents are vested in the government. libnazi.

People who want circumcisions generally do for religious reasons. It was originally intended for the sensitive head of the penis to lose it's sensitivity as it is exposed to the elements.

>>54
It's not about the parent's rights.

>>54 Nooooooooo. Vested in the fucking kid. And putting nazi at the end of some political affiliate term you think stand for something icky isn't goin to cut it outside of the internet.

Yourmomnazi. Oh I have such integrity and edge.

Dear God. Or should I say Godwin?

And who speaks for the kid but the gov, of course.

>>59 The gov slaps the parents hard if they mutilate the child before a certain age. Or is the prospect of the gubbymint handling jurisprudence too... Anti-semitic? Arbitrary?

the gov hasnt been given the authority to interfere in this area and should never be allowed.

One other relevant and very important issue here is that parents are not always properly informed about the medical advantages (or lack thereof) of circumsicion.  If a doctor tells the parents there is any beneficial medical reason whatsoever for circumsicion, they are lying.  We should at least make sure that doctors are correctly informing parents of the nature of the procedure.

Thats doable

Usually Xel comes off pretty smart- but here is where his childish, purile, immature idealism shines through. Parents are in charge of kids until a certain age when it comes to medical procedures. We've established the overall harmlessness of circumcision and with that established harmlessness comes the irrelevance of consent.

By proxy of simple reason alone, there comes a time when everything doesn't come down to consent. And regardless of what you think is wrong about male circumcision, people shouldn't be forced to stop doing it if it is basically harmless and they feel that it helps their child medically or it is apart of their beliefs.

Xel and other morons, in their idiotic zealotry, think they're playing hardball with religious fanatics...but in fact their controlling behavior mimics those they loathe. They have a initial gut reaction to male circumcision and by God they're sticking to it. Lack of concrete, uncontested information to back their claims BE DAMNED.

Their inability to at the very least acknowledge that the benefits (or lack there of) of circumcision have never been established by either side (pro or con) makes their moral thrust just as weak as someone that used God as an explaination to KEEP circumcision. They attack blindly and self-righteously and that's always been dangerous.

All they see is that a majority of europe medical doctors say that it's wrong, it has no benefits, it's risky, etc. Meanwhile the other half of the world is existing just fine with circumcised dicks claiming that there are benefits and not-circumcising is wrong.

Neither side has effective proven anything and that what makes the suggested illegality of it wrong beyond repair because it denies people the right to make their own informed decisions. Needless, to say I would've felt alot better about this thread if all this jewish, anti-America shit never got brought up because let's be honest: That's what this is really about for people.

Just yet another thing that one side of the world thinks the other side of the world "doesn't get". Yet another round of "my country is better than yours."

Circumsion is too unatural. Period

>>64 remarkable win

I've heard a comment that about "50%" of the world is circumcized.  Actually, only about 20% of men in the world are circumcized.  The United States is the only major world power where circumcision is routinely practiced for non-religeous reasons.

That said, I didn't want to be circumcized, and I find it incredibly violating that it happened at a time when I was unable to even speak in protest.  I wish that it hadn't happened, but since my parents decided to make that irreversible choice for me, I got part of my gentialia amputated.

It is unfortunate that many men do not want to respect their son's body.  They got circumcized at birth and never know what they're missing, so they just assume that it's no big deal.  The majority of men who were circumcized later in life do claim that it affected their sexual pleasure in a negative way.

Look at it this way, a man who is colorblind from birth learns to live with the condition and never knows what they are missing -- a world full of colors.  This analogy has been used by men who have been circumcized later in life to describe how different their sexual experiences are.

>>64
>>66
Same person.

I think the only reason anti-chan support circumcision is because of it's obsession with culture. Any non-western culture is superior and any criticism of foreign culture is an attempt to destroy it be evil fascist boogeymen who lurk around every corner.

Give it up, no one is saying kosher food or jewish philosophy is wrong, just this dumb circumcision bullshit. Circumcision serves no purpose, it is cosmetic and the equivalent of parents having their baby's ears pierced.

>>68
It's equivalent of parents having piece of baby's ear removed. Circumcision is not piercing. It's removal of foreskin.

>>68

I don't have to post "remarkable win" after myself to seem right, because either way I'm not against or for circumcision. So there's no "right" here, only "reason". ---Thus it is "unreasonable" to suggest the illegality of circumcison based on consent, when children commonly don't have consent until teenagehood, anyway.

It is "unreasonable" to suggest consent is needed when it is obvious to anyone capable of common sense that circumcision isn't decreasing the quality of life or harming the child in some irreversable or perminant way.

Finally, for all of your claims about "circumcision supporters" and "religious fanatics", you don't seem to grasp the truth that both sides of the circumcision argument have failed to establish their viewpoints as valid based on medical science. So, you fags can keep crying about dick sensitivity and mutalation all you want because for every one of you idiots, there's another equally inbred and equally pathetic moron crying about "Cheesy dick" and "Cums quick". 

The only thing I find truly rediculous about this argument are people like >>69 who equate Circumcision to a baby having it's fucking removed. What's more important here, foreskin for added sexual pleasures (something the child won't even miss) or the entire sense of hearing in one side altogether? (Something that will definately be missed) Even more important is that you're trying to take away people's choice (REGARDLESS OF REASON), when you're incapable of providing CONCLUSIVE evidence as to why.

>>70
Dude you're crazy. Removing piece of your ear doesn't affect your hearing and is purely cosmetic. Exactly same what circumcision is.

>>70
So you are saying parents can harm children all we want until they are adults, as long as it doesn't have any major affect on their abilities?

If someone molested their son's penis when he is too young to remember what happenned when he grows up, you'd think that is fine because it is the parent's decision.

You also think that if someone had sexual intercourse into their daughter at the same age, that would be fine too.

Yeah, some liberal utopia you have there AC.

>>71

Delusional and Wrong. Removing a whole ear would most definately causes damage to the middle and outer ear qualifying as conductive hearing loss. Maybe you need to look in the physiologyof  things before you open your big mouth.

>>72

No, Mr. Same Person, I'm saying that as long as there isn't any conclusive evidence that a procedure will harm a child (who have no consent regardless of the medical procedure), then this doesn't constitute as "harm" in the first fucking place.

You have shown absolutely no conclusive scientific evidence that would put circumcision on par with molestation or rape (where's the long term psychological and emotion dysfunction?), so I don't know why you keep trying make these retarded comparisons and put these retarded words into my mouth.

Why would I be for sexual intercourse with a female infant when circumcision doesn't equate to such? Why do you continue to assume that I "support" circumcision when I've repeated multiple times that I could careless either way?

>>73
I'm not putting words in your mouth, I'm taking the words you use and applying them to other crimes to show how what you say is biased and contradictory.

You reasonning is that parent should be able to do whatever they want to their kids as long as they don't remember the pain caused or it is inconsequential.

If this is all you believe then you are essentially justifying child molestation and a whole myriad of pointless cosmetic surgery on children.

It should really be the child's choice when they grow up.

>>74
first, stop comparing this to child molestation, its a fucking stupid comparison

Second of all, does any kid want braces? or a lazy eye patch?
kids can't make good choices, they're fucking stupid

It should be the parents choice, because it is their kid, and the parents make better choices"usually".

>>75
"It should be the parents choice, because it is their kid, and the parents make better choices"usually"."

Usually doesn't = always.  Parental choice is frequently a good thing, I agree.  However, the freedom of parents stops when they are deciding to seriously physically mutilate their baby causing it tremendous pain for no reason, no medical benefit, and without giving the individual any choice or option in the matter whatsoever.

>>74
EXACTLY!

>>75
How many times do I have to go over this?

Eye patches and braces serve a purpose, circumcision doesn't.

Is it ok for parents to cut off a single pinkie toe?  Is it ok for parents to stick their kids over and over with a rusty needle? 

Dick slicing is not necessary, poses no medical benefits, is extremely painful, and only results in a lower quality of life for the child in the future. 

If a government cut up the foreskin of detainees in prison, would it be considered torture? Should governments be allowed to do this? Should parents?  Its a sad day when people are willing to deny rights to an innocent just-born baby that they grant to criminals.. and I'm not saying it should be done to either.

>>74

I'm not putting words in your mouth, I'm taking the words you use and applying them to other crimes to show how what you say is biased and contradictory.

Yeah, but here the thing: I don't support circumcision or uncircumcision, either way. This is what your puny little brain simply can not grasp because it torpedos any attempt you have at using circular reasoning (comparing child molestation to circumcision) to validate your weak argument. There can be no 'Bias' or contradictions here when I don't even have a perference.

All I'm saying is that if a parent wants to do that to their kid for cultural or for the supposed medical reasons, then that's well within their rights. Just like it's well within the rights of parents to NOT circumcise their child for cultural or supposed medical reasons.

The reason I think this is because both sides have failed to provide unrefutable and conclusive evidence that infant circumcision (or lack there of) makes a major difference in the lives of Adult Males.

>>76, >>77, >>78, >>79 - It doesn't matter if you're the same person or a group of nomadic retards, all you have to do to end this argument once and for all is to provide valid, peer-reviewed, conclusive evidence that infantile circumcision negatively effects Adult males and this would be over and DONE.

But you've been unable to do that (probably because no such study exists) and you've basically been repeating yourself for the last 30 or so posts.

Face it: Without the above criteria, you lose (and fail).

Next thread, please.

>>78
The pinkie toe serves a purpose,dipshit.
uncircumcised penises risk
-higher chance of Penile cancer
-Infectious conditions
-higher chance of HPV
-higher chance of HIV
-Phimosis and paraphimosis
-higher chance Urinary tract infections

I also don't remember the pain
and wait, lower quality of life? how? OH I 4GOT, NOW I CAN PLEASURE MYSELF FASTER AND PREMATURE EJACULATE, YAY!

>>81

So wait, every single last one of you...is a fucking moron?

Did I finally do it?

Did I finally fap so hard that I've fapped myself into a virtual dimension populated by fucktards, fagjobs and shitbrains?

Is this 4chan?

Where am I?

Did I stumble into an AOL chatroom?

Because that's what it feels like sometimes.

Like sometimes people on here are so stupid that it hurts me deep, deep inside.

cut is way cute! uncut is ugleeee! never know wut iz in those skin cigars with loose wrap. cut makes me want to suck an suck! uncut=filthy poopoo.

>>80
Why should the parent decide what cosmetic alterations their kid should have?

>>73 Why would I be for sexual intercourse with a female infant when circumcision doesn't equate to such?

On a pure meat and bones level, yeah, it does equate.  Damage is done that's permanent, and the kid doesn't remember it, yet there's no obvious functionality lost.

One cannot do whatever one wants to the body of ones child. It's that simple. Circumcision has effects, and it should be up to each human to weigh the pros and cons. Yipes.

thats not for you to decide

>>81-87
SAME PERSON, THERE CAN ONLY BE ONE PERSON WHO DISAGREES WITH ME AND YOU MUST BE A WHITE MALE RACIST AHAHA

I CRUSHED YOU IN DEBATE!! YOU ARE A RACIST" YOU ARE ALL RETARDS! WHAT MAKES SOMETHING CIRCUMCISED IS IT'S INCLUSION IN AN SOCIALISM. THEREFORE TO SAY SOMETHING IS IMMORAL AS AN ARGUMENT FOR UNINCLUSION AND CIRCULAR LOGIC SEMANTICS. OH AND I NEVER SAID

"All I'm saying is that if a parent wants to do that to their kid for cultural or for the supposed medical reasons, then that's well within their rights. Just like it's well within the rights of parents to NOT circumcise their child for cultural or supposed medical reasons."

STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH STUPID RACISTS!!!

>>86
"One cannot do whatever one wants to the body of ones child. It's that simple. Circumcision has effects, and it should be up to each human to weigh the pros and cons. Yipes."

Exactly.  There are limmits to what parents can do.  I think circumcision crosses the limmit of what is acceptable and what is not.  Being a libertarian, I have to say I think the purpose of government is to intervene to protect the rights of the people - including children.  In this case, to protect the baby and his dick from the dick slicers & religious fanatics.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7772002181711601907&q=penn+and+teller&hl=en

>>87 It is to be laid down in basic law. Parents can only authorize surgical intervention and cutting due to pressing medical need. That foreskin comes if a doctor can prove little Guchegge will die otherwise.

>>91
Why do you want your children to be born with downs syndrome even though it is easily prevented?

>>81
Lobotomy subjects don't remember it either, and I'm sure they also have a lower risk for all sorts of bad things.

>>37
In most circumstances, studies does show that circumcision DOES decrease chances of sexually transmitted diseases including HIV.

And oh, circumcised men last longer before orgasm, I'm sure alot would agree that's a plus.

Circumcision is not natural. I think there are reasons why men have foreskins in a biological perspective.

>>95
as long as you remember to wash your penis

>>96
True.

Wow, I sure am glad I still have mine. Fappin on 4chan is that much better, plus it never gets tiring.

>>98
Same here.  Sensitivity = increased sensation.  Plus, you never have to go through that whole being tied up and having some crazy fucker with a knife have a go at your cock.

The only serious debate topic on 4chan is cutting off foreskin? Figures.

>>99
Thirded. I'm very happy that my penis was never mutilated in a bizarre pagan ritual designed to degenerate my sexuality.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dict.asp?Word=child+abuse
Circumcision (forced male genital mutilation) is child abuse.  If the government was doing this to prisoners against their will, I'm sure the ACLU would be screaming bloody murder - and rightly so.  Keeping this in mind, should this horrible mistreatment be allowed to be done on helpless newborn babies or children against their will?

If you want a circumcision, feel free to go to the hospital and pay $400 to get one. Let your kids make that decision on their own, as well. If they want a lower risk of getting HIV in exchange for the indignity of having a doctor mutilate their genitals, then  let that be their choice.

>>103
I agree.  The decision should be left to the individual.  The parents shouldn't be allowed to force the baby to undergo such pain. 

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7772002181711601907&q=penn+and+teller&hl=en

>>103
Ya I think so too. It's really unlikely that they're gonna go around getting HIV when they're babies anyway, so why not let everyone wait until they're old enough to weight the pros and cons of circumcision for themselves? So yeah, I guess circumcision is okay if you want it and are okay with it and all, but I just am not sure the parents should have the right to make that decision for their sons. On another note, female circumcision is gross.

BANNING PARENTS FROM CIRCUMCISING THEIR BABIES IS AN ATTACK ON JEWISH CULTURE, YOU ARE ALL BULLSBHITTING FUCKING RACSITS

If you're going to go and have someone do this to your child, maybe you aught to go and see the other babies who have been circumsized, crying their souls out, isolated from their oblivious parents.

Oh, but I forgot, you can't prove that it's painful for babies, because they can't say "Ow, my good man, Ow."

Nah, they can't do anything but cry. But they're already doing that before they get cut, so people can't see the difference.
>>107
Jewbag.

So what? Muslims like to blow themselves up and jews like to cut off penises. Just because they are religion doesn't make them right or the people that are against it racist. :p

I have an idea. Wait until your son is 12 years old, and give him $400. Tell him that that is the money you saved by not having part of his penis cut off. Let him do whatever he wants with the money. Hilarity ensues.

ミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミ
ミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミ
ミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミ
ミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミ
ミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミ

>>110
Exactly.  Just because it is in your crazy ass religion to mutilate children's genitals doesn't mean the rest of the people should have to tolerate it.  I don't give a fuck what religious text you can cite, child abuse isn't a right.  Stupid religious fanatics. 

Jewish or not, circumstanced penises look better.

>>114
Behold the power of tradition

I'm thankful for this thread though, because the video in >>1 gave me hope to restore my foreskin

I'm circumcised when I was like 5 and found out it is very inconveninent when the tip of my penis collides with my pubic hairs.