Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 1/11/09 07:26 PM, Conspiracy3 wrote:

At 1/11/09 07:21 PM, Strategize wrote:
And now I can't go get it done cause it will fucking hurt!!!

You can use anesthetic.

<---- dumbass question:

WTF is anesthetic?

At 1/11/09 07:28 PM, Strategize wrote:

<---- dumbass question:

WTF is anesthetic?

It numbs the area where the surgery is going to take place, that way you don't feel any pain.

At least, until after the surgery, that is....

At 1/11/09 03:59 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 1/11/09 12:58 AM, Dawnslayer wrote: Was the "protection in a post-armageddon world" part not clear enough? Chances are you'll be a little too busy trying to survive to keep up proper hygiene. Tonsils and appendices can mutate themselves out of existence, but from my standpoint foreskin still has a purpose.

First off foreskin requires MORE cleaning, not less.

As for your armegeddon bit. You're joking right? IF in our lifetime the world infastructure does collapse, our foreskin is going to have a negligable effect on our survival. I suppose we should have savings either, cause what good will that do when the end comes. Gotta be prepared for everything - zombies too!

I was just saying! That stuff must be/have been useful somehow, and if I'm dispute circumcision I'd like to know what it is.

Sidenote: if you're preparing for everything, then savings is a perfectly fine idea, because you're preparing for the end of the world NOT happening within your lifetime; you're just better off with silver than with pieces of paper.

At 1/11/09 10:10 PM, Dawnslayer wrote: I was just saying! That stuff must be/have been useful somehow,

Just because you use a slash doesn't mean past and present are suddenly one. And now we're back to tonsils, appendices, tail bones, and middle toes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestigial

The foreskin helps produce smegma, a lubricant.

Sidenote: if you're preparing for everything, then savings is a perfectly fine idea, because you're preparing for the end of the world NOT happening within your lifetime; you're just better off with silver than with pieces of paper.

Obviously anything you own can be considered savings. I'm sorry for not being explicit about the form of the savings. I meant, by savings, the soft money you have held in a bank.

So savings was a poor analogy. I trust you have your pressure treated plywood for the zombie apocalpyse though. And a yacht on your driveway incase of a suddent flood. And let's not forget your fallout shelter.

The point as I said before (not to you) is that the issue of foreskin is so wonderfully negligible that we can stand for something about it - because standing for it is inconsequential. Shelling out the time and money for a yacht and a fallout shelter however... isn't.

And this bring us back to the original point that foreskin is gonna have next to nothing to do with our survival in a post apoc world.

(Kudos to you by the way, for cleverly avoiding the point by hammering away at a flaw on one half of my analogy that had no parallel to the other half. Though, if you want to force a parallel: circumcision is fine because then you're preparing for the end of the world NOT happening: you're not exactly at a disadvantage if the world does end either.)

At 1/13/09 01:25 AM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 1/11/09 10:10 PM, Dawnslayer wrote: I was just saying! That stuff must be/have been useful somehow,

Just because you use a slash doesn't mean past and present are suddenly one. And now we're back to tonsils, appendices, tail bones, and middle toes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestigial

The foreskin helps produce smegma, a lubricant.

So circumcision runs the risk of increased wear and tear on sensitive equipment? :-P

Sidenote: if you're preparing for everything, then savings is a perfectly fine idea, because you're preparing for the end of the world NOT happening within your lifetime; you're just better off with silver than with pieces of paper.

Obviously anything you own can be considered savings. I'm sorry for not being explicit about the form of the savings. I meant, by savings, the soft money you have held in a bank.

So savings was a poor analogy. I trust you have your pressure treated plywood for the zombie apocalpyse though. And a yacht on your driveway incase of a suddent flood. And let's not forget your fallout shelter.

The point as I said before (not to you) is that the issue of foreskin is so wonderfully negligible that we can stand for something about it - because standing for it is inconsequential. Shelling out the time and money for a yacht and a fallout shelter however... isn't.

Good point. Unless you're talking about female circumcision, in which case (because of the way, and the purpose for which, it is conducted) it becomes a human rights issue.

And this bring us back to the original point that foreskin is gonna have next to nothing to do with our survival in a post apoc world.

Doesn't anyone laugh at jokes anymore?

(Kudos to you by the way, for cleverly avoiding the point by hammering away at a flaw on one half of my analogy that had no parallel to the other half. Though, if you want to force a parallel: circumcision is fine because then you're preparing for the end of the world NOT happening: you're not exactly at a disadvantage if the world does end either.)

Uh, that's why I began that part with "sidenote." I was separating it from the topic so it wouldn't look like I was trying to avoid the point. As for the first half, I wasn't avoiding it; I was in fact hoping to coax out your rationale with an open-ended line, and I'm glad to say that this succeeded.

P.S.: You may have noticed already, but I haven't actually delivered an opinion on the issue.

At 1/14/09 01:07 AM, Dawnslayer wrote: So circumcision runs the risk of increased wear and tear on sensitive equipment? :-P

Surely no more than my tube sock :P

Serious answer: the girl provides more than enough for sustained lubrication. I'm assuming the smegma is useful for entry only, in which case alittle foresight and a handfull of spit should do the trick just as well.

Good point. Unless you're talking about female circumcision, in which case (because of the way, and the purpose for which, it is conducted) it becomes a human rights issue.

Is this a trap? :P

Doesn't anyone laugh at jokes anymore?

Some people say some really silly things... and mean them, especially on the internet. Maybe I've been reading too much shaggy and marcho lately. And you took it pretty far. I believe you that you were joking. I'm explaining why it was confusing to me.

Uh, that's why I began that part with "sidenote."

*squints* hm... look at that. Sorry.

As for the first half, I wasn't avoiding it; I was in fact hoping to coax out your rationale with an open-ended line, and I'm glad to say that this succeeded.

Except all you did was coax out two previous arguments to answer an argument that you yourself repeated. You coaxed a circle.

You: It probably served its purpose very well before we started bathing every day
Conspiracy: Just because a body part used to have a purpose doesn't mean it still does. tonsils appendix tail bone middle toes

Pox: REGARDLESS OF BENEFITS, the decision to have parts of YOUR BODY removed, is your own, AND NO ONE ELSE'S.
Me: The beauty of circumcision is that it neither helps nor hinders in any major way, so it's a perfect realm to inject 'unconditional' moral paradigms - there's not realy any strong argument otherwise governing the decision. But the problem here then is that such a paradigm doesn't take into account that it's dealing with something inconsequential.

You: I was just saying! That stuff must be/have been useful somehow,
Me: Just because you use a slash doesn't mean past and present are suddenly one. And now we're back to tonsils, appendices, tail bones, and middle toes
Me: The point as I said before (not to you) is that the issue of foreskin is so wonderfully negligible that we can stand for something about it - because standing for it is inconsequential. Shelling out the time and money for a yacht and a fallout shelter however... isn't.

None of those arguments moved anywhere.

P.S.: You may have noticed already, but I haven't actually delivered an opinion on the issue.

It's very frustrating when you don't let me pigeonhole you :P

In the words of some random almighty NG'er who left many years ago in the persuit of super powers.

"Nuff said."

this thread is filled with straw man arguments and various other logical fallacies... it's actually kind of fun to watch. :p

At 1/14/09 04:28 PM, Fyndir wrote:

At 1/14/09 01:07 AM, Dawnslayer wrote: Good point. Unless you're talking about female circumcision, in which case (because of the way, and the purpose for which, it is conducted) it becomes a human rights issue.

Why do you consider them to be different?

For one, female circumcision is far more severe, has no demonstrable health benefits (whereas studies in Africa suggest that male circumcision may help slightly offset the chance of catching certain STDs), and is done more as a means of repression than anything else.

Basically male circumcision is the equivalent of snipping off the clitoral hood, which would probably result in some toughening and loss of sensitivity, since the hood is there to protect the soft wet sensitive flesh of the clitoris. Female circumcision as it is practiced would be like cutting off a man's entire glans (penile head). It is like leaving a man with nothing but a stump.

The sensory nerves present in the glans of the penis are roughly the same as those present in the clitoris. Removing the clitoris essentially means the woman cannot experience any sexual stimulation from the outside. and since the vaginal opening is frequently sewn shut, intercourse or even manual penetration is excruciatingly painful.

At 1/14/09 05:59 PM, Fyndir wrote: That's entirely subjective.

Read my post, no it is not.

At 1/14/09 06:17 PM, Fyndir wrote: Males commonly lose a lot of sensitivity in the head of their penis, when circumcised,

Females lose ALL sensitivity when the clitoris is removed.

but the overall effect is very similar

It is not. At all.

Think about it like this. A man has two sources of intense sexual stimulation: the glans of his penis and the prostate. A woman has two sources of intense sexual stimulation: the clitoris and the "G" spot. In both men and women, the latter is often less satisfying. Some women do not have a fully formed G spot and cannot, CANNOT orgasm from internal stimulation. At all.

The removal of the clitoris is a death sentence to a woman's ability to experience sexual pleasure. Without the clitoris, many if not most women cannot orgasm. I have never encountered a circumcised man who was so severely desensitized that you could remotely compare it to a female circumcision. Female circumcision, like I said, is like removing the glans, or even like removing the entire penis, since some of the nerves that are found in the clitoris are actually present in the penile shaft.

They are not comparable.

At 1/14/09 06:38 PM, Fyndir wrote: We're back to opinion.

We're not talking about opinion, we're talking about medical fact. Removal of the foreskin is not the same in terms of pain caused or sensation lost. It simply is not.

By insisting that female and male circumcision practices are the same you are in fact hurting the argument against male circumcision, because you are creating a serious hyperbole. Argue against male circumcision using the merits of that argument, not by trying to lump it into a truly barbaric practice that is designed by its VERY NATURE to rob a person of any and all sexual pleasure.

Arguing against male circumcision by comparing it to female circumcision is the rhetorical equivalent of arguing against spanking by comparing it to beating your child with a blunt instrument. They can both be argued to be child abuse, but they are not the same.

And I'm pretty sure it's impossible to bleed to death from a foreskin removal, since there's so little tissue involved, but you can damned well bleed out from having your clitoris snipped.

At 1/14/09 07:00 PM, Fyndir wrote: I see no reason to argue with you over this, because we seem to be in agreement that both practices are bad.

I refuse to agree to disagree with you, because that's your way of worming out of the fact that you have no argument. If you cannot come to terms with the fact that you're wrong, I'm sorry, but I won't give you the easy out.

th only way that its comparable is that ,

-both are unneed and unreccomended practices by medical professionals.

-female circumcision is like a way more severe form of male circumcision.

At 1/14/09 07:00 PM, Fyndir wrote: Again, surely we can agree to disagree?

What are we, twelve?

I see no reason to argue with you over this, because we seem to be in agreement that both practices are bad.

I don't exactly see a consensus here. I mean no one here is going to argue for female circumcision, but as far as males are concerned the jury is out (with a slight lean against, apparently).

At 1/6/09 03:20 PM, Conspiracy3 wrote: In many western nations (the US especially) circumcising gentiles as infants is extremely common. This is also becoming increasingly controversial. Opponents of the practice claim that it is unnecessary surgery that maims a child in a nearly irrepreble manner most opponents say that it should be only done with the child's consent once the child is older. Proponents say that it is a traditional practice that has the potential to lower the child's risk for some STDs.

What is your stance on infant circumcision?

Circumcision can be nescessary in some cases where children have trouble making a pee. Otherwise it is absolute nonsense to cirumcise your child. A child doesn't have (unprotected) sex, so STD's are not an issue - besides, being circumcised may decrease the chance of getting an STD infection, but it sure as hell doesn't eliminate it, and is far less effective and reliable than a condom.

Some men claim it keeps things cleaner down there, I never have a problem with that though. Still a child doesn't need to worry about that either.

In the end, the only thing that is to say for child-circumcision is that it is a less intense operation than when an adult wants to be circumcized. On the negatives: circumcision is quite irreverseable (getting the foreskin back is a much larger operation than the circumcision), circumcision is even as an adult a small operation, so there is no reason why a child shouldn't be granted his foreskin until he is old enough to decide for himself.

Of course we all know the only real reason is a religious one, in which case I'd say this is child molestation, a gross defigurement which people cause it should be punished.

At 1/14/09 07:00 PM, Fyndir wrote: Again, surely we can agree to disagree?

This is like saying it's subjective over whether or not we should build a bridge out of breadsticks despite safety issues. No, we can't agree to disagree, because you are wrong.

The way female circumcision is practiced, it is not equivalent to male circumcision as it is practiced. The female equivalent of male circumcision would be to remove the clitoral hood, and the male equivalent of female circumcision would be to remove all or part of the glans.

P.S. it is commonly accepted that uncircumcised men are more secure about their size and more sensitive. So if you're having trouble getting off, perhaps you should ask your parents whether they might give you your foreskin back.

At 1/6/09 03:32 PM, Neptunus wrote:

At 1/6/09 03:20 PM, Conspiracy3 wrote: What is your stance on infant circumcision?

I'm against the mutilation of live children.

its not mutilation... its meerley a process that make some activties easier in life. so i dissagree with you, but i respect your opinnion.

At 1/15/09 07:40 AM, Elfer wrote: and the male equivalent of female circumcision would be to remove all or part of the glans.

Male circumcision does remove some of the glans...

I think it should be a choice because some girls prefer un-citcumsized.
But the is a manner of the Jewish religon also...
I would HAVE to say it dempends on the area and family.

At 1/8/09 09:47 PM, AntiangelicAngel wrote:

At 1/8/09 09:44 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: if we can abort we can circumcise. Argument over.

That's like saying if we can punish people with death, we can punish them with severe beatings. Argument severely flawed and fails to appeal to both the pro-life and pro-choice audiences.

Well my descisions aren't impeded by your code of morality. We decide the fate of infants!

At 1/15/09 07:39 AM, Diederick wrote: Circumcision can be nescessary in some cases where children have trouble making a pee.

Some teenagers and adult men have to have full or partial circumcisions because their foreskins are too tight to achieve an erection without pain. It's pretty rare, though.

At 1/15/09 02:05 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: Male circumcision does remove some of the glans...

The foreskin is attached to the glans, but not in fact part of it. The foreskin itself does not contain any more pleasure-causing nerve endings than any other patch of skin, and the only reason removing it causes loss of sensation is that the skin that it would normally be covering toughens and dries out instead of being soft and covered in a thin layer of mucus.

Oh, and just an afterthought: there's some evidence that the loss of sensitivity thing is untrue.

"New research has shown that both circumcised and non-circumcised men enjoy sex. In fact, in this month's issue of the Journal of Sexual Medicine, a study of 2,784 Kenyan men conducted by researchers from the University of Washington reported that 'circumcised men reported increased penile sensitivity and enhanced ease of reaching orgasm.'"

From a Newsweek article dated Nov 24, 2008.

At 1/16/09 07:15 PM, SkunkyFluffy wrote: From a Newsweek article dated Nov 24, 2008.

Wouldn't they need to have sex uncircumcised, then get circumcised to compare a difference?

Also, where would you put your chewing gum?

At 1/6/09 04:39 PM, Elfer wrote: If they don't want to be circumcised later in life, you totally fucked them over before they knew what was what.

You would never know the difference, unless the surgery was fucked up really badly, like if they cut your dick in half on the first try (SM3 lol). I am circumsized and i have no problems with anything - hygiene or sex. Admittedly, I don't know the difference so maybe it feels better for every other uncut guy, oh well. I'm not going to cry about it.

Also, theres probably alot of other things kids wouldn't have wanted happen to them later in life, like getting abused, beaten, or forced to accept some bullshit religion that they have figured out isn't real by the time they were eight. I'm sure everyone has been 'totally fucked' by something they couldn't change, but what matters is they still have to live with it.

But who knows? Maybe getting your dick chopped up causes intense trauma and scars you emotionally. I doubt it though.

At 1/16/09 08:05 PM, Brick-top wrote: Wouldn't they need to have sex uncircumcised, then get circumcised to compare a difference?

Well, conversely, if you're arguing that circumcised guys have decreased sensitivity, wouldn't you need to have guys have sex with their foreskins intact, then circumcise them, wait until their dicks toughen up, then have them have sex again?

At 1/16/09 09:11 PM, SkunkyFluffy wrote: Well, conversely, if you're arguing that circumcised guys have decreased sensitivity, wouldn't you need to have guys have sex with their foreskins intact, then circumcise them, wait until their dicks toughen up, then have them have sex again?

I never said it increases or decreases sensitivity. I merely asked a question. And I'm awaiting the answer.