Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

military expenditures

If you look at the above link, it shows you the USA spends 651,163,000,000 on Military, the World Spends 1,470,000,000,000. Thats not a huge amount less than Half the worlds Miliary Spending done by the USA.

So USA spends 651,163,000,000
Rest of the world : 816,000,000,000

The rest of the world sum is split into over 170 countrys, where as the US is one Single Organised Military.

Where as the majority of Expendutres the rest of the world spend probably go on Soldiers pay, their AK47s, Shitty Aircraft and Tanks. And the most basic things the most simpliest of Militarys have.

The US Spends it on everything to the very Peek of Modern Military Science.

Few Countrys have Aircraft Carriers for Example, The USA doesn't just have a numerous AirCraft Carriers they have SuperCarriers which no other country has got, And the USA has something like 12 of these. Each one could defeat a small country itself.

The US Military Is Vastly Superior to the whole worlds military combined.

Only If the European Union United it's Military into a single orginisation and pushed up it's Military Budgets could there be a true Rival in the Near future.

People have a warped idea of China and Russias Military, they really are not that good at the moment.

At 5/18/09 11:06 PM, ForcedDj wrote:

I love the United States, but I know if all of the world declared war on the U.S, then the United States has a very low chance of winning.

With no Nukes, Simply Defending, Yes I think the US would win.

How would other countries get their airforces, troops and everything else over to the Americas, they wouldn't get past the USS Navy which has basically absolute power of the seas.

Yes the USS would be vastly outnumbered by troops, but that is irrelivant. The USS would be able to keep air superiority over all the Americas and the Atlantic and Pacific Ocean.

At 5/17/09 03:35 AM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote:

At 5/15/09 07:13 AM, TimTheGreat wrote:

At 5/14/09 11:13 PM, ForcedDj wrote:

Thats just steriotyping. France would lose. But it has more chance than any single country after Britain.

This whole thing about France being surrender monkeys, funny as it is. Is untrue and unfair to them. It Dates back to WW2 where France fell quickly to the Nazis yes? Just to point out something to British and Americans who actually go beyond the joke of French being cowards and take it seriously.

but its true. and they didn't do shit in WWI. by the way it's spelled stereotyping not "steriotypying"

I guess that was a mistake to say WWI rather than WWII, because France possibly did more than anyone in WWI.

But In WW2 It wasn't because they were shitter or more cowardly than the British or Americans, it was because Britain and America had a fair few advantages.

At 5/14/09 11:13 PM, ForcedDj wrote: If China, and Japan team up, without nukes, the US would actually lose. They invested money on those 2 countries and remember, most likely, since it won't have nuclear weapons, they won't surrender.

It wouldn't lose by a long shot. Japan has a modern but tiny military and China has a huge but absolute shite military.

Now against France, no contest, enter France, they surrender. But mostly, it would take a few months or a year to defeat France.

Thats just steriotyping. France would lose. But it has more chance than any single country after Britain.

This whole thing about France being surrender monkeys, funny as it is. Is untrue and unfair to them. It Dates back to WW2 where France fell quickly to the Nazis yes? Just to point out something to British and Americans who actually go beyond the joke of French being cowards and take it seriously.

Britain had a Channel protecting them from the Nazis, the USA had a fucking Ocean.

If all of Asia actually declares war on the United States however, well, it won't look good, and well, it might be classified as raped(that won't happen unless all of Asia realize that they should work with each other).

If Asia declared war on the USA they would not be able to land a single attack on US soil. They have near to Nil Blue Water Capabilities, and Power Projection.

The only countries capable of projecting true force and fighting a campaign on another side of the world are at this point in time, The United States, the United Kingdom and to some Extent France. Howether Britain and France are still nothing in their Power Projection capabilities to the USA.

The USS Theadore, the largest ship in the world can itself travel anywere in the world and defeat a small country.

People really don't understand the power of the USA.

Does anyone know what sort of revenue can be made using Newgrounds Flash API. What sort of click through rate do you get per thousand views of your movie and what do you get per click through.

I realise that there may be topics already about this, but API cannot be used in search due to it being under 4 characters.
Thanks

At 5/12/09 08:36 AM, zendahl wrote: any body can beat the US with enough good leadership, good tactics, and a healthy dose of luck. People seem to forget that our very existance proves that we can be beaten. The US (not called that but let's move on) whos military was made up of a few really good military leaders, and a small (relitively) group of untrained men using inferior weapons fought the british army and won. The british had a far greater pool of men, beter arms, and were profesional soldiers, plus they had a navy something that the soon to be US really didn't have much of. So any force could be a posable winner, if they have certain things fall the right way.

America had a much larger army than the British army, fully supplied and payed for by Slave owners the French and the Spanish. Most of the population was also pro independence.
Also the American soldiers were well trained using British tactics. Huge amounts of them had fought in Previous British wars. Not to mention the French armys which won Americans decisive battles.
You say America didn't have a navy, but France and Spain and they fought many battles on the seas for the US.

Also that was a war of independence. If you were to study the American war of independence you would learn that the Americans were beaten around the Clock by the British. It was more persistance that won the war. And Britains lack of euthusiasm for keeping the 13states.

It Certainly didn't win by superior tactics, and leadership. And it couldn't of taken the war elsewere.

Most people on this Forum are actually down playing Americas Military. Not understanding how powerfull it is.

Not only could the US take on any single country, it could take on half the world at a defensive stance.

Countrys with massive armys like China just don't have the money. Their military is crude, outdated and extremmely poorly funded.

Countrys with similar quality militarys as the USA like Britain, France, Canada, Germany etc just don't have the size to match.
Britian being the second most powerful Military for example has less men in its Army than the US Marine Core.

At the moment the US is a hyperpower. It's military stance doesn't compare to any in history with its supremacy. Only if China, India become a hell of alot more richer or the European Union build a united Military would the US have a true equal.

At 2/25/09 07:05 PM, SkunkyFluffy wrote:

At 2/25/09 06:56 PM, TimTheGreat wrote: However, It's not an evolutionary advantage. As the modern Humans Penis with foreskin must of evolved from a simpler penis because foreskin was an advantage in the natural world.

Apologies to all for the double post, but I missed this bit.

Firstly. MUST. HAVE. Must've.

You sad, boring little cunt.

Secondly, you don't know that. Soft tissue structures are not found in the fossil record and their nature can only be theorized. The accepted theory is that the foreskin-covered penis actually evolved from a more protected penis, like those found in most other mammals. Look at horses, for example. Except when erect or urinating, you do not see their penises. All you see is the urogenital flap that covers them.

You are assuming that we as a species evolved foreskins because our males needed more protection for their exposed genitals. In reality, the scientific evidence points to us evolving less protection over time.

That is actually a very good point.

But, (this is just theory strait of the top of my head) wouldn't the timeline of Human evolution be that the penis become more external and then developed a foreskin?

that's going to in depth for me. But I still stand to my point that circumcision is not evolution (definition of which is 'inherited traits')

At 2/25/09 06:28 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 2/25/09 01:11 PM, TimTheGreat wrote: It's not evolution. It's surgical alteration which won't be passed down gentetically.

Read the whole phrase; evolution in action. I've ensured my genes pass on where yours do not. Survival of the Fittest is an evolutionary principle, is it not?

Evolution isn't an enviromental choice. It's purely Genetic. Your Genes will pass on, but they will pass on with foreskin you nob. I cannot belive you are being serious.

It would only be evolution if you were born with a deformed penis with no foreskin. And your offspring set the Standard for a superior Human being, in it's simplest sense.

However, It's not an evolutionary advantage. As the modern Humans Penis with foreskin must of evolved from a simpler penis because foreskin was an advantage in the natural world.

Anways. I'm pretty sure my genes will pass on, just as much as yours. And me and whoever has my children will have more fun concieving them.

At 2/24/09 09:36 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 2/24/09 09:34 PM, TimTheGreat wrote: No, Cutting of the foreskin is not evolution.

I'm ensuring my seed takes over yours, while you sit back and laugh at me for being the freak.

I'd call that evolution in action.

It's not evolution. It's surgical alteration which won't be passed down gentetically.

At 2/24/09 11:23 PM, dySWN wrote:

At 2/24/09 09:49 PM, TimTheGreat wrote:
Cutting of a piece of the childs body is morally wrong. It may be Socially acceptable but the Child has no say in it. It's not the right of the Parent to take that away from him. He should chose for himself when he's of age.

I'm still not seeing how this is a moral wrong. Parents make all sorts of decisions for their children, some important and some not so much, but these decisions fall within their rights as parents. Other than in clear-cut cases of abuse or neglect, the rights of the parents always wind up trumping the rights of their child (who doesn't have the mental wherewithal to make most of the important decisions for himself yet).

The Human rights of the Child should over power the 'rights' of the parents. The Child can't make that decision for him. But neither can the Parents.
The Kid can make his own decision when he's 16 or whatever.

Furthermore, while many people consider this a serious issue, for the most part it can be argued that circumcision has few ramifications beyond the cosmetic.

I agree with that, It is largely Cosmetic. And I cannot get out of my head how people belive Cosmetic Surgery on a child is not morally wrong.

Oh, and it doesn't help that your rebuttal of my criticism on your punctuation style was also poorly-punctuated. Those responsible for sacking the people who did the sacking have been sacked. [/obscure refference}

It's because I couldn't give a shit how bad my punctuation is. My English isn't paticularly good, I don't need people using it against me in a topic about circumcision.

Badly used Monty Python quote?

At 2/24/09 01:48 AM, dySWN wrote:

At 2/20/09 07:14 PM, TimTheGreat wrote: Seriously mate. Circumcision is outdated and wrong. I hope by the time you have kids. You'll realise that.

Extra punctuations are also outdated and wrong - they went out of style in elementary school.

Smartarse twats with a shite sense of humor is also wrong.

On a more serious note, I still have yet to see proof that circumcision is "wrong" in the moral sense. Schools make kids get certain vaccinations to continue attending, but there's little seriously-taken outrage about that, even though the issue of consent is still there.

You cannot compare Circumcision to vaccinations. Vaccinations are proven advantages. Which really do prevent diseases.

The false idea that Circumcision prevents all these nasty diseases isn't proven, it is based on unreliable surveys which don't show any large difference anyway. There are just as many of these surveys pointing towards Non-Circumcised as the healthier option.

I've said this before. But the reason it is popular in the west (now only the US really) is because of Victorian beliefs that it was more hygenic and that it was a good detterent from masturbation.

Masturbation is no longer a social taboo and Hygene is not a problem now the majority of us have showers, baths and soap.

Cutting of a piece of the childs body is morally wrong. It may be Socially acceptable but the Child has no say in it. It's not the right of the Parent to take that away from him. He should chose for himself when he's of age.

At 2/23/09 10:16 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 2/21/09 08:44 PM, TimTheGreat wrote: And that would be just an 'advantage' not an evolutionary advantage.

Well, if I was able to ensure that my sperm took over another male's, would that not -- in a way -- be an evolutionary advantage?

No, Cutting of the foreskin is not evolution.

There tends to be a lot of anti-relsgious sentiments expressed on these boards (and in this topic as well), so I was just curious to see people's reactions if they found out that perhaps this tradition didn't actually start with Judaism.

I actually pointed out before that It didn't start with Judaism. But ok....surprise.

You can see how the foreskin benefits sex.

I did, or one of them at least... I stopped when I read the part about "the uncircumcised man has a more forceful stroke during sex because he is attempting to compensate for the lack of feeling at the end of his member."

Funny that. You read that one, but not the ones which are based on scientific evidence. You Just read what you want to see. The Ones about Protecting the Coronal Hook and more movement are on any number of other websites. I chose that one, because it had pictures and was easier to understand.

Most of what you have said is laughable.

At 2/20/09 07:14 PM, TimTheGreat wrote: But this is simply just ignorance.

An ignorance you intend to overcome this, how?

By Staying away from Yank birds untill America sorts it's little penis mutilation problem out. ;)
lol
You can't deny it's ignorance. If 80% of Male Nipples were cut of at birth in a paticular country. The people in that country would find a nippled male strange and many would indeed be grossed out.

This is a good site to show you the foreskins function in sex. NSFW (not that this thread is lol)

Have you ever sat and wondered how that particular part of your unit evolved?

The coronal ridge hook evolved as a means of scraping sperm out of the uterus if a female in heat, to help ensure that your own sperm takes. It is a unique biological adaptation for humans, very few other animals in the wild have it.

So you could say that circumcision gives that male an evolutionary advantage over other females. And seeing as how the practice actually predates judaism, I suspect that's part of the reason it was done.

How does Circumcision give a Male an evolutionary advantage over females.
I guess you mean over uncircumcised males.
And that would be just an 'advantage' not an evolutionary advantage.

That does seem a good theory mind...
Howether Female Lubrication is there to lubricate. The Coronal ridge pulling it out defeats the mechanisms of Intercourse.
(I also think Female Lubricant actually helps the passage of Sperm)

Either way. If you read the link I gave you. You can see how the foreskin benefits sex.

At 2/20/09 05:23 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 2/20/09 03:30 PM, Ravariel wrote: Only slightly.

Only slightly?

why would males want part of their dick cut off?

I'm not going to bring up the previous medical reasons brought up, so I'll just do one that will hit close to home for every man reading this right now; you're girlfriend likes it. 80% of men in America are circumcised, that's 4 out of every 5, it's the norm and a fair amount of girls are grossed out by men who are uncircumcised. So socially, you have a better chance of getting laid.

This is true in the United States. From what I've read on the internet the other day. Most American girls are grossed out by an uncircumcised Penis. But this is simply just ignorance. As I also noticed American girls (and any girl) who have actually had an Intact dick as well as Circumcised. Prefer it not cut.

This is a good site to show you the foreskins function in sex. NSFW (not that this thread is lol)

Seriously have a read of that site. I know it's weird looking at pictures of dodgy looking cocks. lol But It explains that the foreskin is a big part of sex.

(Also in most of the world It's weird to have a circumcised dick.)

Seriously mate. Circumcision is outdated and wrong. I hope by the time you have kids. You'll realise that.

At 2/19/09 12:01 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 2/19/09 01:21 AM, Ravariel wrote: Ding! And we have someone who's starting to get it. Bravo!

Excuse me? I'm the one who's been arguing the point that the effects are subjective here.

Except only in some cases is the clitoris completely removed...

The world health organization recognizes 4 different types of Female Genital Mutilation, and in all four of them some or all of the clitoris and labia are removed. This is not a "some cases" kind of issue, the whole point of it is to completely remove the ability to self stimulate in a culture that already puts women fairly low on the social hierarchy to begin with.

Whereas male circumcision, you still have full use of your equipment afterword.

The existence of numbing agents for such use is hardly an indication of a culture-wide movement.

There is an emphasis in American Culture that men should be rock hard powerhouses who can go forever in the sack, and there are products out there available for that purpose. I can go to google right now and pull up page after page of non-fda approved products intended to maximize performance or tutorials on how to last longer, and you're sitting there ignoring this fact going "WAH!!! SENSATION!!!"

but who are we as a culture to do it to unconsenting infants?

Why is it that there's such an emphasis on how bad we as Americans are as a culture on the world stage, but if I open my mouth to speak out against somebody else's culture or cultural heritage in the world (like I did in that topic about Mohamed's 9 year old bride), I'm told "it's cultural and we can't judge them by the same standards we do here?"

Is there something inherently more evil about American culture that I'm not picking up on here, or something?

So, me trying to say that mutilating the genitals of 13 million boys a year is a bad thing is misogyny?

The very definition of misogyny is a deep seated hatred for women, and you're placing more emphasis on how much of a travesty it is for males to have a minuscule piece of flesh cut off over females having a whole erogenous zone cut off.

So yeah, this whole fucking topic is misogynist in nature.

Of course they are.

No, they are not. The only medical procedure even remotely close to male circumcision for females is a clitoral hood appendectomy (as I stated earlier), because then you're removing the analogous foreskin from a woman. If FGM was made analogous to male circumcision, both your dick and sack would both be cut off.

These two procedures do not compare, not by a long shot.

Any RATIONAL argument against FGA, MUST be brought also against MGA. If you do not, you're a hypocrite.

Except here's the thing.... you're not making any arguments against fgm. Nobody is. The emphasis is being placed on the males in this topic and how male circumcision is so much worse than female circumcision.

Thats because MALE CIRCUMCISION is what the topic was intended to be about. The Topic Starter was using Female circumcision to show the hippocracy!!! That allthough Female Circumcision is very much seen as bad. Male circumcision is not.

If this was about who and who's against FGM. Unless we have some African Tribal people who practice the procedure on here. It's going to be a pretty boring Debate.

At 2/19/09 06:20 AM, TimTheGreat wrote: The topic starter was actually saying That She opposed Male Circumcision you TWAT!

I wasn't asking the topic starter, I was asking you.

And I was putting in my views on about Male Circumcision. As That was really wat the topic should of been about. Before twats like yourself came on.

If It makes you feel better. Yes I am against FGM as well.

Get your Facts sorted out. And read up on what your debating and what other people have posted. Because there are numerous errors and false accusitions and assumptions you have made.

At 2/18/09 06:43 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 2/18/09 01:11 PM, TimTheGreat wrote: and yes! it is mutilating

Why is it that you consider male circumcision such a great crime against nature when you haven't said ONE FUCKING WORD about what this topic is actually about? Do we "silly Americans" make you laugh so much that you completely forget what is going on in the rest of the world?

Read the fucking topic mate. The topic starter was actually saying That She opposed Male Circumcision you TWAT!
The Western world is very much Against Female Circumcision. But Male Cicumcision is a social norm. Expecialy in North America.
That is what the topic starter was saying.

Nob ed

At 2/17/09 06:43 PM, Christopherr wrote:

At 2/17/09 11:54 AM, TimTheGreat wrote: Inside your pants is a 'cesspool' for bacteria. But think Hard and you'd realise that you have it the wrong way round. Foreskin is a natural Barrier against bacteria. It protects the Mucus Membrane of the Glans. It's not supposed to be unprotected. Think about all the other Mucuse membranes...inside eye lids, inside mouths, inside vaginas, inside ears...

For example, urinary tract infections are ten times more common in uncircumcised men than circumcised men.

Urinary tract infections are easily delt with using Anti-Biotics.

You cannot take the decision for the baby, even if you are their parents. If when he grows up to be belive mutilating his penis is going to stop him getting cancer or Std's then it's his choice.

A parent has every right to a medical procedure that decreases his child's susceptibility to infections.

I'd rather keep my body intact than follow some non specific, arguable data which suggests that you may be at a slight increase in developing Penis Cancer (a very rare cancer anyway) or more at risk from Stds.

The data is highly specific and not arguable. The raw numbers show that circumcision is the healthier choice.

The reduced cancer risk is not a huge benefit, but it still is one. As for sexually transmitted infections, they are not to be played around with. People should take any chance they can get to lower the risk, including circumcision.

lol, I'm sorry but you and Proteas and a thousand and thousands more Americans make me laugh so much.
None of these are reason to mutilate your young childs Penish....and yes! it is mutilating.. It's a social Norm but it's still mutilating. You are deforming his penis. Cutting a part of.

For a start...no the reduced cancer risk is not a 'huge benefit' Penile Cancer is not only one of the rarest cancers in the world. It is almost un heard of in people younger than 60.

As for Std's...actually your really wrong. The Data is incredibly flawed. The Statistics gathered are never realiable. And never show a greater risk in Uncicumcised. And You'll find if you actually do some research. That There are plenty of surveys and statistics to show that some Stds have Greater Prevelance in Non-Circumcised.

Seriously. I'm going to list some links. And I ask you lot who are pro-circumcised to have a real read before you reply. Learn what the Foreskin really is for a start.
The statistics for Increased this and that benefits for both Cut and non-Cut (or Mutilated and Intact as I like to put it) cannot be relied on. And they aren't huge benefits, it's just propogander basically.

For Example ..Penile Cancer which has popped up alot, as a genuine argument.

You do realise that there are surveys, statistics and medial studies which have said the opposite, that Circumcision increases the prevelance of Penile Cancer?

But either way. Penile Cancer effects 1 in 100,000 men in USA and Europe. and is only 0.1% - 0.3% of cancer related deaths.

So cutting of the foreskin for a theory (which is most likely not true) that this may be prevented by 2% is justified?

Do you see what I mean people. These statistics are nothing. The benefits for Circumcision are not even real. They are just theorys. Most of which date back thousands of years, before even the 'four humors'

Howether there is real data for the benefits of non- Circumcision.

Please give the links i've found a try. Belive it or not. I'm not taking the piss about you not having circumcised. Just trying you change your mind so you don't make the same mistake on your own kids.

Parents don't have the right to modify/mutilate their kids body in anyway. You can say it till the cows come home, but there is no significant proven benefits. Only disadvantages

History of
Foreskin Anatomy
Foreskin Anatomy

At 2/16/09 09:59 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 2/16/09 09:40 PM, Ravariel wrote: B) sensation-wise, you have nothing against which to compare, so any claim there can't be verified.

This argument goes both ways, I'm afraid. Any "reduction" of sensation is purely a subjective claim, as no finite definition can be given to the reduced sensation that comes with circumcision.

DIRECT HIT!!!

Actually no it doesn't go both ways. There are people who were circumcised later in life who claim it was better when they weren't.

How many people are there who have grown it back to compare??

sorry for triple post

At 2/16/09 08:24 PM, Christopherr wrote: Speaking from experience, I can say that circumcision is cleaner.

Sure, you could argue that if an uncircumcised man cleans regularly, he's alright, but that's not wholly true. Sure, washing properly helps, but the penis is kept inside your pants (a cesspool of infections constantly being fought off) most of the day. So, in order for an uncircumcised man to remain as clean as a circumcised man, he has to wash his penis properly more times per day than once or twice (which is the number of times the circumcised man showers). You'd have to wash your penis an inconvenient number of times per day.

Inside your pants is a 'cesspool' for bacteria. But think Hard and you'd realise that you have it the wrong way round. Foreskin is a natural Barrier against bacteria. It protects the Mucus Membrane of the Glans. It's not supposed to be unprotected. Think about all the other Mucuse membranes...inside eye lids, inside mouths, inside vaginas, inside ears...
The Mucus Membranes of your body are the skin which are exposed externally and internally.
They shouldn't always be external.

My Bell ends perfectly clean, and I was once - twice a day.

The drawbacks are outweighed by the benefits. The effects the pain on the baby are short-term, and as an adult, the baby loses all memory of the circumcision. As for decrease in sexual pleasure, I don't feel left out at all.

You cannot take the decision for the baby, even if you are their parents. If when he grows up to be belive mutilating his penis is going to stop him getting cancer or Std's then it's his choice.

I'd rather keep my body intact than follow some non specific, arguable data which suggests that you may be at a slight increase in developing Penis Cancer (a very rare cancer anyway) or more at risk from Stds.

At 2/16/09 07:45 PM, Proteas wrote:

Cutting a peice of skin of your penis is not healthy,

Whereas putting bolts through, tattooing, or bifurcating the damn thing is?

When did I say anything about that? I would agree that the above are also 'unhealthy' Howether I'm not against it, because they are a choice from the adults who's penis it is. If parents were peircing or tattoing their kids penises I'd have something to say about it.

if you belive in Evolution, you will understand that that foreskin is there for a reason. It Protects your bell-end. Nowadays we don't run around naked and get snared by brambles, but it still protects it from the friction on your clothes.

You're argument defeats itself because our clothing protects us from the elements, thus negating the need for a foreskin. It's useless either way.

No it doesn't, I was saying that allthough we have clothes protecting us from the elements nowadays. The Friction between the unprotected Glans and fabric is still not good. Foreskin protects it.

The Bell is a Mucas membrane, it's not the same as normal skin. It's like the skin in your mouth or in a vagina. It needs protecting.

Actually, the skin is normal skin. The foreskin itself is a mucus membrane. But continue, you're grasp on human anatomy is amusing to me.

I don't know why you are getting so smug. Your totally wrong. The Inner foreskin is a Mucus Membrane . But the outer foreskin is normal skin. which protects the head which is also a mucus membrane. Diagrams and information on Penis Anatomy
wiki article on Glans Penis

The reason Circumcision is so prevelant in North America is that it became popular more than a hundred years ago because it stopped young lads masturbating and people thought it was healthier and cleaner (both been proved wrong, but still huge amounts of ignorant peoples still belive this outdated theroy)

As someone who is circumcised (and could care less about the fact), was raised in a Southern Baptist Church and went to there every time the doors were open from birth to age 17, I'd like to see a source on this. Because the most that I ever heard was that it was a required act on Abraham's part signifying his agreement to comply with a pact he made with God.

Link
Link
and Link

It's a well documented fact, The reason it's popular in the west, is Outdated concepts of health, anti-sex and Religious reasons.

In Various christian Sects, Islam and Judaism It stems from the agreement between God and Abraham. Which stems from the Judaist belief. Howether allthough I belive it originated from an earlier Pagan ritual, as many of our Judaist-christian traditions stem from.

I'm all for traditions but this paticular one is immoral

How?

Human rights

Not to mention Foreskin also increases stimulation for both Male and Females during intercourse. :)

Only if you have phemosis, a condition where the foreskin does not retract.

You see, if you're uncircumcised, that extra skin that constitutes the foreskin retracts and becomes part of the shaft, thus revealing the glans. If it does not retract, you lose precious sensation you would be having if you're equipment actually worked right. You know sensation, right? The primary constituent of your argument?

lol I am 'uncircumcised' And allthough the foreskin does retract when erect...during intercourse or masturbation it glides back and fourth on the Glans. Increasing sensation for both Male and Female.

Circumcised people really have no idea about foreskin lol.

More info..

People who get their kids circumsised are so ignorant, outdated and mis-guided about it.

The Main excuses for Circumcision are...that it's healthier, cleaner as well as ancient religious traditions.

Cutting a peice of skin of your penis is not healthy, if you belive in Evolution, you will understand that that foreskin is there for a reason. It Protects your bell-end. Nowadays we don't run around naked and get snared by brambles, but it still protects it from the friction on your clothes.

Also for people who think it reduces Cancer in the penis. I bet anything you there is another study somewere which reveals that circumcision increases cancer. I heard not long ago that Lea n' Perrins sauce causes cancer, so I don't know what to belive.
Anyway whoever thinks this is also a genuine argument, by your logic, girls should have their breasts removed as soon as they show, or men should have their prostate gauged out. As both of these are incredibly more dangerous and prevelant cancers than 'foreskin cancer'...which to be honest I have never heard of.

As for Hygiene. Which seems to be the most used argument for circumcision. Besides from the fact that the foreskin naturally protects the penis from bacteria and the like. Me, myself wash my nob every day, are you people trying to say that you mutilate your kids penises at birth so they don't have to wash as frequently?
lol Why not slice off your childs lips to save them the hassle of brushing their teeth.

The Bell is a Mucas membrane, it's not the same as normal skin. It's like the skin in your mouth or in a vagina. It needs protecting.

The reason Circumcision is so prevelant in North America is that it became popular more than a hundred years ago because it stopped young lads masturbating and people thought it was healthier and cleaner (both been proved wrong, but still huge amounts of ignorant peoples still belive this outdated theroy)

As for religious reasons. Yea, it's an ancient tradition..I'm all for traditions but this paticular one is immoral and is against the young boys human rights. Sometimes you have to get rid of traditions.

I belive onceupon a time it was traditional for Christians and Muslims to tie Jews to steaks and set them alight......Human rights are more important than barbaric pagan traditions.

Not to mention Foreskin also increases stimulation for both Male and Females during intercourse. :)

I have a tiny Penis

This really was the year, that my optimism Died, and I realised how shite the world and our very existence is.

lol I'm half joking, and half drowning in my own self pity

I'm celebrating alone by alternating between watching a copy of 'Independence day' I bought down the local Post Office, and playing the shitty game 'Force Unleashed' and drinking Stella....on my own. Whilst my Ex Girlfriend (who i thought was also my Best Friend) who Only a week ago I found out was cheating on me, has fuked of (with the lad who she's been fuking behind my back) to celebrate the new year in Dublin

Its not happy...It's shite.

As the year 2009 commences I am celebrating alone by alternating between watching a copy of 'Independence day' I bought down the local Post Office, and playing the shitty game 'Force Unleashed' and drinking Stella....on my own. Whilst my Ex Girlfriend (who i thought was also my Best Friend) who Only a week ago I found out was cheating on me, has fuked of (with the lad who she's been fuking behind my back) to celebrate the new year in Dublin.

I aknowlege that their are people in the world who have no idea it is even the new year and are slowly dying of Aids. But I feel pretty shit.

There must be some Pessimistic wankers to share how their shite new years was....

Was listening to BBC Radio 2 (cause i'm a sad cunt) whilst Driving home about 2 hours ago. Think It was Dermot O'Leary and he played a Song About a Spaceship from a far away Planet which came to Earth for the Birth of Christ to Deliver a Catchy Tune to Mankind.

It was Cheese But faily cool, any suggestions to what it was lol???

Treatys must be agreed by all member states. If one Doesn't agree it doesn't happen.
It would be terrible if any member state which Benefited from the EU thought they were obliged to sign because their current economic status is due to Europe!

Timothy

Greek origin

means to Honour God, or Honoured by God

At 5/20/08 01:23 PM, Lost-Chances wrote: 1984 is a really good book.

I've heard that the flat/apartment in London where George Orwell lived whilst writing '1984' can be viewed by something stupid like 10 CCTV cameras

Maybe they mistook you for English, in which case you should feel honoured.