San Francisco may vote on banning male circumcision

[Seizure1990]

right, to make imperfect. Wouldn't you say "imperfect" is a bit subjective?

[Davo]

I think the definition is rather archaic, and slightly judgmental, myself

[Seizure1990]

That's why I hate it when people dive into semantics and definitions to prove their point. Even if female genital mutilation and circumcision are both "mutilation", I don't really care. What we call it doesn't affect them, and the huge differences between them, so comparing the two is completely pointless.

Also, ftr, just because something seems mathematically sound, especially in biology, doesn't mean it's true. Some people claim that circumcision heightened their sexual pleasure. And yes, others say the opposite. The fact is though, we don't really know, and I'm not even sure how you could properly study such a question.

[iamawesomewicked]

I'm not even sure how you could properly study such a question.

Get uncut men to get cut.

If you can't even think of that, then I pray for any children you have.

[Seizure1990]

Get uncut men to get cut.

If you can't even think of that, then I pray for any children you have.

The test group you are talking about is so small as to barely be fit for serious study. VERY few people get cut later on in life, as far as I know.

Furthermore, having the foreskin cut at the age of 30 could easily affect one differently then if he were to have it cut as an infant.

Why would you pray for my children? I thought you were an Atheist. Strange.

Edit: By the way, from the studies we do have, regardless of how proper they may be, we are still left with "inconclusive". Seems that although some people claim the pleasure decreases, others actually say it increases.

Moral of the story is, take some time to think and research what you are talking about before making yourself look a fool.

[FloatingFatMan]

That's every bit as muddled crap as you and the others are claiming the whole cleanliness thing is.

How can you even test such a thing? Lol!

I haven't made ANY claims in this thread, prior to that post. Stop making stuff up.

[FloatingFatMan]

Those are not facts, if they are, then you'd be wise to provide sources.

I found 4 links that prove otherwise.

Circumcision is a surgiral procedure, it's a fact. Google mutilation to see what it is.

We're not even talking about Christianity here, we're talking about Judaism, by the way.

Throwing links to prove your argument is pretty easy on the internet, y'kow? Here's just two (Yes, I know, same site)

http://www.circumcision.org/adults.htm

http://www.circumcision.org/studies.htm

There are studies that "prove" you do lose sensitivity, and there are studies that "prove" you don't. There are even some that show "inconclusive". This leads me to the conclusion that you may lose it, and you may not; but there are an appreciable number who do.

[ylcard]

Its what we've been saying all along, there is nothing conclusive, but, since they're somehow using inconclusive studies as "facts", I do too. I didn't see you trying to disprove anyone who argued against us, in fact you yourself proclaimed that losing sensitivity is a fact, or implied that it is.

[FloatingFatMan]

Its what we've been saying all along, there is nothing conclusive, but, since they're somehow using inconclusive studies as "facts", I do too. I didn't see you trying to disprove anyone who argued against us, in fact you yourself proclaimed that losing sensitivity is a fact, or implied that it is.

It IS a fact, for a percentage of those who are circumcised. The opposite is ALSO a fact, too.

Perhaps the main root of the sensitivity issue is that, really, the only people who can actually tell if there is a difference are those who are cut later in life. There aren't really very many of those, which makes finding enough numbers for a reliable study extremely difficult.

[Davo]

:wacko:

[ylcard]

It IS a fact, for a percentage of those who are circumcised. The opposite is ALSO a fact, too.

Perhaps the main root of the sensitivity issue is that, really, the only people who can actually tell if there is a difference are those who are cut later in life. There aren't really very many of those, which makes finding enough numbers for a reliable study extremely difficult.

Then please explain the following quote of yours:

^ You forgot the reduced sensitivity for the male during intercourse if you're circumcised.

What is the point of using that point if its neither right nor wrong ? It doesn't prove either of us right. You obviously thought that you were right, and I showed you that you weren't, case closed, no ?

I'm not even sure why is the sensitivity bit even an issue as I'm arguing against the ban of circumcision for religious people, as in Jews, since there's no "secular" reason to do it, at least not as important as the religious one, I don't really care for them.

[Davo]

NOW I understand why this has gone on so long...

I feel dumber for having contributed

[FloatingFatMan]

What is the point of using that point if its neither right nor wrong ? It doesn't prove either of us right. You obviously thought that you were right, and I showed you that you weren't, case closed, no ?

I'm not even sure why is the sensitivity bit even an issue as I'm arguing against the ban of circumcision for religious people, as in Jews, since there's no "secular" reason to do it, at least not as important as the religious one, I don't really care for them.

Because it IS a factor in the "con" side against circumcision. Personally, I only think it should be banned on the grounds that it's up to the person to decide if they want to follow a particular faith or not. A child has no choice in the matter and are unable to make an informed choice, that's why many faiths have a "confirmation" ceremony when they come of age...

[Seizure1990]

And why should the child automatically have a choice in the matter? Explain.

[iamawesomewicked]

And why should the child automatically have a choice in the matter? Explain.

Why should the child automatically have no choice in the matter? Explain.

[FloatingFatMan]

And why should the child automatically have a choice in the matter? Explain.

Because that child is a human being too, with the right to determine the course of their own lives when they become adults.

[Seizure1990]

Because that child is a human being too, with the right to determine the course of their own lives when they become adults.

And yet, I'm allowed to control every other aspect of my child's life? What he eats, where he goes to school, who his friends are, what he wears, what books, movies, and music he read/watch/listen to, what summer camps he goes to, what sports teams he joins, etc etc etc.

In fact, I'm even allowed to force him to go synagogue, beyond any of his wishes! That's my role as a parent! So your argument is a fallacy.

Man, it's fun repeating myself.

[iamawesomewicked]

And yet, I'm allowed to control every other aspect of my child's life? What he eats, where he goes to school, who his friends are, what he wears, what books, movies, and music he read/watch/listen to, what summer camps he goes to, what sports teams he joins, etc etc etc.

In fact, I'm even allowed to force him to go synagogue, beyond any of his wishes! That's my role as a parent! So your argument is a fallacy.

Man, it's fun repeating myself.

You sound like the worst parent ever.

What if he doesn't want to read books?

What if he doesn't want to watch movies?

And what if he doesn't like the music you "choose" for him to listen to?

What if he doesn't want to go to summer camp?

What if he doesn't want to play sports?

[ylcard]

You sound like the worst parent ever.

What if he doesn't want to read books?

What if he doesn't want to watch movies?

And what if he doesn't like the music you "choose" for him to listen to?

What if he doesn't want to go to summer camp?

What if he doesn't want to play sports?

I have no children of my own, but I have a somewhat big family, so I have a lot of nephews and nieces, and it's LAUGHABLE to even suggest that if a kid doesn't want to do something then you have to cave in to his demands.

You can't enforce his music taste, but you can forbid him from listening to Metal or whatever by simply not buying him said music. You can force your kid to read books or threaten to take away his toy or WHATEVER.

People do that all the time.

Granted, for OBVIOUS reasons, that circumcision is not in league with the above, but the idea behind the consent is exactly the same, you have full control of your child, you decide everything in his life, ESPECIALLY when he's so young, as they grow older, you have less and less control.

Now I have to know, do you have children of your own ?

Because it IS a factor in the "con" side against circumcision. Personally, I only think it should be banned on the grounds that it's up to the person to decide if they want to follow a particular faith or not. A child has no choice in the matter and are unable to make an informed choice, that's why many faiths have a "confirmation" ceremony when they come of age...

Hah, then it IS a factor in the "pro" side of circumcision. Then your personal opinion is misinformed (or however you want to word it), because you seem to think that circumcision = decicing on your faith, it's not, hence, you're actually against the ban.

[iamawesomewicked]

<<snipped>> no personal attacks.

You know what I damn well meant. Obviously they're going to have to learn to read and write. After grade 6 I stopped reading books, they have no interest to me.

And where did I say i'd let my own children run around and do as they please? My children are going to be well behaved, as there will be discipline. I just won't force my children to do things they don't want to do, unless it's a necessity thing, like you know, not being illiterate.

And I'll be waiting for you to answer my questions above.

I have no children of my own, but I have a somewhat big family, so I have a lot of nephews and nieces, and it's LAUGHABLE to even suggest that if a kid doesn't want to do something then you have to cave in to his demands.

You can't enforce his music taste, but you can forbid him from listening to Metal or whatever by simply not buying him said music. You can force your kid to read books or threaten to take away his toy or WHATEVER.

People do that all the time.

Granted, for OBVIOUS reasons, that circumcision is not in league with the above, but the idea behind the consent is exactly the same, you have full control of your child, you decide everything in his life, ESPECIALLY when he's so young, as they grow older, you have less and less control.

Now I have to know, do you have children of your own ?

Hah, then it IS a factor in the "pro" side of circumcision. Then your personal opinion is misinformed (or however you want to word it), because you seem to think that circumcision = decicing on your faith, it's not, hence, you're actually against the ban.

Of course they're going to have to read for school, if they didn't then they would fail. Outside of school, if my future children don't want to read. Fine. They don't have to.

My children can damn well listen to any kind of music they like. If my future child is 8 and wants to listen to heavy metal... You damn right they're going to listen to heavy metal. If they wants to listen to Pop music or Classical music, then that's what they'll listen to.

[WelshBluebird]

You can't enforce his music taste, but you can forbid him from listening to Metal or whatever by simply not buying him said music. You can force your kid to read books or threaten to take away his toy or WHATEVER.

Because that is good parenting :rolleyes:

Put it like this, by banning things like certain types of music, not only are you being childish, but you are also ensuring that they will be determined to get hold of it.

Also - no you can't force a kid to read. You can do things to try to make them read, but that doesn't mean they will.

[Seizure1990]

You know what I damn well meant. Obviously they're going to have to learn to read and write. After grade 6 I stopped reading books, they have no interest to me.

And where did I say i'd let my own children run around and do as they please? My children are going to be well behaved, as there will be discipline. I just won't force my children to do things they don't want to do, unless it's a necessity thing, like you know, not being illiterate.

And I'll be waiting for you to answer my questions above.

Of course they're going to have to read for school, if they didn't then they would fail. Outside of school, if my future children don't want to read. Fine. They don't have to.

My children can damn well listen to any kind of music they like. If my future child is 8 and wants to listen to heavy metal... You damn right they're going to listen to heavy metal. If they wants to listen to Pop music or Classical music, then that's what they'll listen to.

My child's gonna have to read past grade 6, you bet, but the fact that you didn't is very telling. ;)

Your children will be well behaved, but you'll also give them freedom as if they are adults? Haha, ok.

Being circumcised IS necessity. Maybe not to you, but it is to me.

Because that is good parenting :rolleyes:

Put it like this, by banning things like certain types of music, not only are you being childish, but you are also ensuring that they will be determined to get hold of it.

Also - no you can't force a kid to read. You can do things to try to make them read, but that doesn't mean they will.

You're a bad parent if you prevent your child from listening to or watching offensive media? Right, if my child wants to listen to loud, cursing metal that talks about killing minorities, I'll let him. Or if he's 12 and wants to watch Saw III, I'll let him. That makes me a bad parent. Ok.

[iamawesomewicked]

My child's gonna have to read past grade 6, you bet, but the fact that you didn't is very telling. ;)

Your children will be well behaved, but you'll also give them freedom as if they are adults? Haha, ok.

Being circumcised IS necessity. Maybe not to you, but it is to me.

You're a bad parent if you prevent your child from listening to or watching offensive media? Right, if my child wants to listen to loud, cursing metal that talks about killing minorities, I'll let him. Or if he's 12 and wants to watch Saw III, I'll let him. That makes me a bad parent. Ok.

I can assure you, there's very few metal bands that ever talk about killing minorities. I mean, i'd like to see these bands. Since you've heard so much of them.

Obviously I've read books since grade 6. Just nothing outside of necessary school reading.

How is it very telling exactly?

I never said they'd have the freedoms of an adult. Wanna quit putting words into my mouth?

[Seizure1990]

Then why are you arguing that my child should be able to make his own decisions? Make up your mind? Or are you forgetting to mention the part where "it's ok to make decisions for your child, UNLESS they're religious matters, because I'm a bigot"

[WelshBluebird]

You're a bad parent if you prevent your child from listening to or watching offensive media? Right, if my child wants to listen to loud, cursing metal that talks about killing minorities, I'll let him. Or if he's 12 and wants to watch Saw III, I'll let him. That makes me a bad parent. Ok.

Except most metal music is not about killing people.

Now, if you are going to prevent your kid from listening specifically to music about killing people, then that is fair enough. But to ban them from listening to all metal is just stupid. If you going to ban complete genres, then parents should be banning their kids from listening to pop music because of the sexual content, from listening to rap music because of the violent lyrics, etc etc. You'd end up banning every genre if you are going to generalise like that.