HOME | DD
bricksasuke002 — Not every man is fine with circumcision
Published: 2014-03-28 06:34:54 +0000 UTC; Views: 3512; Favourites: 57; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Description
"IM CIRCUMCIZED AND FINE, GUYS!!! PEOPLE NEED TO GET OVER IT"SHUT THE FUCK UP!
I might as well use my biggest pet peeve towards pro-circs as my first stamp in this gallery.
I swear, whenever someone makes an argument against circumcision, you'll have people like "this trying to tell those who aren't fine with circumcision to get over it. It's fucking annoying. Just because if you're circumcised and fine with it doesn't mean that everyone else is.
As you can see, I am 100% against infant circumcision due to health and autonomy reasons. Should I debunk some bullshit arguments and fallacies from pro-circs while I'm add it? Okay.
"PEOPLE WHO COMPLAIN ABOUT MALE CIRCUMCISION ARE USUALLY FEMALES!"
Nope, you're wrong.
The site I just linked is a page dedicated to males who are against circumcision. Also, here's another site showing men against it There was a user on this site who argued with a lot of pro-circs, and has been seen on pro-circ stamps before. That person is TheIckyMan , a circumcised male who despises the fact that he was circumcised. You'll see male users in the comment section of this anti-RIC stamp ranting about being circumcised. Someone on Tumblr asked, and made a list of males she interviewed who are against circumcision. Here is a list of male celebrities who resent their parents for circumcising them.Also, someone explain to me what does me being a woman have to do with being against a form of mutilation without consent? If that is supposed to be a form of an ad hominem attack to invalidate any of my points, then congratu-fucking-lations, you are a dumbass.
"IT'S MY RIGHT AS A PARENT, AND CHILDREN DO NOT HAVE LEGAL RIGHTS AT ALL!"
Okay, then I can chop off my kid's feet... but it's my right! Despite that he wont be able to walk now for the rest of his life! I just want to prevent foot funguses and club feet, okay!
Do you realize how silly that argument sounds now? I bet you pro-circs wouldn't pull off that same argument about female genital mutilation... oh wait, you already are against it. I guess that parental rights don't mean shit now, huh? Damn, double standards are lovely, isn't it?
--- There was actually a stamp on made by a feminist trying to contrast female circumcision and male circumcision while using bullshit logic. I can't find it anywhere. Must've deleted it (good).
"IT'S PART OF MY RELIGION! I HAVE THE RIGHT TO PRACTICE IT!"
Seen this excuse before to. Isn't that a logical fallacy? Something called "appeal to tradition"? I believe it is.
By the way, if your "religious freedom" contains of mutilating your child without consent and trampling down their rights, then fuck your religious freedom then.
"WHO CARES ABOUT THE STARVING CHILDREN WHEN THERE ARE LITTLE BOYS BEING CIRCUMCISED"
8manderz8 pretty much took the world out of my mouth with this stamp of hers .
That argument has to be the most pathetic attempt to invalidate someone's point of being against circumcision EVER! Anyone who uses it is a fucking idiot. Yes, I'm looking at you, Riza-Izumi , for this piss poor straw-stamp .
"YOU'RE NOT TRAUMATIZED WHEN YOU'RE CIRCUMCISED, AND YOU DON'T REMEMBER IT ANYWAY!"
Oh really?
Okay, I'm done here for now. I will be posting more anti-circumcision stamps soon. (inb4 "IT'S HEALTHIER FOR THEM" which has been debunked constantly for years now)
Related content
Comments: 90
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
I don't agree with having it done to children, the poor baby can't even have any painkillers!
Some people say "The baby won't remember the pain" Okay, when I'm a parent, I can punch my child in the face, it might break it's nose and make it heal in an awkward way and look different as the child gets older, but they won't remember it. And it's my kid, so I automatically have rights to deform it's own body......
oh and saying that men can't clean their own dicks properly is just disrespectful, men aren't that disgusting.
👍: 2 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I had this argument with my bro and stepfather, and my whole family. On how "It's healthier!11!"
And I told them the fact that it was debunk of it really not and all you have to do is teach your kid how to clean himself. My step-father used the dumb-ass argument on how "He wouldn't trust a kid to clean himself." That's why you teach them.
Then my mom's friend gave a comment on how "It looks better Circumcised, and it doesn't look like a worm like that" Uh? So that gives you the right to have a kid's foreskin chopped off? Because it looks better? No, it really doesn't give you the right to that. If a man wants to get it chopped off later on, then go ahead. The only reason it should ever be chopped off as a baby is if something is wrong with it or some shit.
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
If you're going to circumcise your infant, don't have children!!!
👍: 2 ⏩: 0
I just find it goes too fast, a little hard to read.
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
I am more concerned with the people who BRAG ABOUT HAVING THEIR FORESKINS.
We cant help it, wtf.
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
YEAH IM MAD, I WAS MUTILATED AGAINST MY WILL
ADD ME TO THE RANT LIST,
👍: 3 ⏩: 0
Who the hell would do that to their own child?
Circumcision is just as bad as FGM and should be treated the same way
👍: 2 ⏩: 1
Circumcision is better than infections you get if you don't clean it properly (which is a bitch to do) and the human sheathe is just gross.
👍: 0 ⏩: 3
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
So, what's the point of you can still get infections? How do you NOT get an infection from removing skin that's protecting your penis?
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
The foreskin is known to harbor bacteria.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
But what about my first question?
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
I was mutilated at birth and fave still had UTIs.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
I was circumcised too. And if I hadn't I'd kick my dad's ass.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I just don't understand how people can support male circumcision but are opposed to female circumcision.
"IT'S MY RIGHT AS A PARENT, AND CHILDREN DO NOT HAVE LEGAL RIGHTS AT ALL!"
Because children aren't fucking objects to be customized. It's the same reason why "healing" sickness with prayer rather than taking your kid to a doctor is considered child abuse. Why the fuck can't parents understand this?
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
Because they're ignorant little shits who think that the foreskin is just a "piece of skin", when in reality it has a role for the human body, and has twice the nerve endings as the clitoris does. Plus, removing the foreskin can also cause a decrease in sexual pleasure.
"Because children aren't fucking objects to be customized"
May I marry you? Because that is the best thing I've seen in the comments so far.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
May I marry you?
Do you have billions of dollars and an unlimited supply of peaches?
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
Obviously not the first one, but I do have peaches.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
👍: 2 ⏩: 1
I'm Jewish, and I'm very much against the idea of circumcision.
My children will not be cut. They deserve better.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
Good. At least there is some faith in the religious side.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
I don't even think my religion condones circumcision.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't Jewish males supposed to be circumcised?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No, actually. The Jewish bible doesn't condone it. I did research, and couldn't find anything. What I could find, however, was that you're not supposed to alter your body, unless it's a medical emergency. The only reason the Jews started circumcision was because no one bathed back then.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ah I see. Thanks for the info!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No problem! ^^ Glad I could clear things up for you.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I'll just copy the highlighted points so that the comment doesn't get excessively long.
SHUT THE FUCK UP!
Why? You somehow have higher validity than people expressing views that counter yours?
PEOPLE WHO COMPLAIN ABOUT MALE CIRCUMCISION ARE USUALLY FEMALES!
Haven't heard of that one yet. Nevertheless, what we can extract from that point is that same are for, while others are against it regardless weather or not they're circumcised.
Funny because you argue your point by using a circumcised person's dislike for it against the fact that people who are circumcised an like it. See the fallacy there?
IT'S MY RIGHT AS A PARENT, AND CHILDREN DO NOT HAVE LEGAL RIGHTS AT ALL!
Do you realize how silly "that" argument is. Look up strawman fallacy.
IT'S PART OF MY RELIGION! I HAVE THE RIGHT TO PRACTICE IT!
"If your religion goes against my preferred ideology, then fuck it" is what you're essentially saying. And if you can't see the error in that statement, it's quite sad.
WHO CARES ABOUT THE STARVING CHILDREN WHEN THERE ARE LITTLE BOYS BEING CIRCUMCISED
You still haven't given your counterpoint to that...
YOU'RE NOT TRAUMATIZED WHEN YOU'RE CIRCUMCISED, AND YOU DON'T REMEMBER IT ANYWAY!
So you posted a link to the most absurd statement. It doesn't take the likes of a rocket scientist to figure out that babies don't remember anything. And please don't tell me you somehow do..
It's a big grasp at straws as it is.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"Why? You somehow have higher validity than people expressing views that counter yours?"
Who said anything about having a higher validity? I guess you didn't see the "PEOPLE NEED TO GET OVER IT" part of that quote, which is why I said shut the fuck up.
"Funny because you argue your point by using a circumcised person's dislike for it against the fact that people who are circumcised an like it. See the fallacy there?"
Nope, but I can see a fallacy in what you're saying, which is a straw man. My point of the stamp is that males who don't mind being circumcised are telling those who do mind it that they need to get over it, despite that the men who are reluctantly circumcised are mad that they didn't have the choice to mutilate their own genitals for a well-known myth.
"Do you realize how silly "that" argument is. Look up strawman fallacy."
I already know what a straw man is. Where's the misrepresentation in my argument? Mind telling me since a straw man requires misrepresentation?
""If your religion goes against my preferred ideology, then fuck it" is what you're essentially saying. And if you can't see the error in that statement, it's quite sad."
Well, be sad then, because I don't see an error in me basically saying that "religious freedom" is a bullshit excuse to infringe other people's rights, and mutilate someone's genitals without consent. It's one thing to be religious, it's another to harm your child by mutilation.
"You still haven't given your counterpoint to that..."
1. I already said that another user took the words out of my for that claim.
2. It's not like we can't focus on more than one thing.
3. Why do I need to make one anyway, since it's a red herring?
"So you posted a link to the most absurd statement."
Is that how you're going to reject my cited source for my claim against that argument? Okay then.
"It doesn't take the likes of a rocket scientist to figure out that babies don't remember anything.
Okay then, how you show me some logical sources to back up such a claim that every single baby on this planet cannot remember anything happening to them at all.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Exactly what gives you the right in telling someone to "shut the fuck up" yet you're able to rant about your point? The "PEOPLE NEED TO GET OVER IT" part of the quote says nor disputes anything in which he/she might earn a mouth shutting. Especially not justifiable when it comes to your case.
Of course you don't see it. What's worse you throw them around like you know what they mean. But from the looks of your comment, clearly you don't.
You're comparing the removal of foreskin with feet chopping... My God, have you seriously, consciously used that as an example? Presenting superficially exaggerated proposition like that is the embodiment of a strawman.
Read up on my comment again. "be sad then" I've missed the point where I said I'm sad, but I digress. Circumcision does not equal genital mutilation. It's a religious right AND a personal choice. Who exactly gave you the authority to be telling someone what a parent might or might not do for his/her son?
Funny how you asked why do you need to give a counterpoint, yet you accuse me of the same thing. Not only that, but fail to realize the hypocrisy going on here, in which you're spouting these claims that are fallacious and opinion based, yet you like to spew hot the opposing point is a myth.
See the reason for a counter point is that it makes you look credible, otherwise you're just someone with willful ignorance voicing his/hers incentive without any solid base for your claims. For instance, that the baby is traumatized, somehow.
How exactly can a baby be traumatized by something that it's unable to recall in the first place.
Or better yet, how the heck can you even believe that a baby can remember anything at all?
Obviously you've never heard of infantile amnesia aka common sense.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
What exactly gives people the right to say "get over it" to those who have a problem with something?
"Of course you don't see it. What's worse you throw them around like you know what they mean. But from the looks of your comment, clearly you don't."
A straw man is a misrepresentation to the original topic . You misrepresented my point by saying that I'm just arguing against circumcised men who liked it, when really, it's not really the point of the stamp at all. Therefore, a straw man.
"You're comparing the removal of foreskin with feet chopping... My God, have you seriously, consciously used that as an example?"
Why, yes I have, and I don't see how it's any different. People circumcised their babies because of health reasons, and say it's a right of the parent to do so. Removing someone's feet can prevent various diseases and health risks that feet can carry, but since I'm a parent, it's a right for me to do so.
"Circumcision does not equal genital mutilation. It's a religious right AND a personal choice."
Are you fucking serious?
mu·ti·late \ˈmyü-tə-ˌlāt\
: to cause severe damage to (the body of a person or animal)
: to ruin the beauty of (something) : to severely damage or spoil (something)
Now how is circumcision not mutilation whatsoever again, especially when it has no health purposes? And it being a "religious right" and "personal choice" doesn't make it any less of mutilation. Appeal to tradition fallacy, my dearest. Yubitsume is chopping off the tips of the fingers whenever someone commits a crime. Is that mutilation or not since it's a legal act?
"Who exactly gave you the authority to be telling someone what a parent might or might not do for his/her son?"
Because if they have to rely on an imaginary old fart up in the sky to decide what they should do to their own kid (and even to the point of harming them, then expect me not to give them any respect at all.
"Funny how you asked why do you need to give a counterpoint, yet you accuse me of the same thing.""
Except, you're asking me to counterpoint a red herring, which is pretty much moot to do so anyway.
"Not only that, but fail to realize the hypocrisy going on here, in which you're spouting these claims that are fallacious and opinion based, yet you like to spew hot the opposing point is a myth."
Because it is. Show me the credible sources that infant circumcision is at least beneficial while I can give you plenty of sources that goes against the whole "circumcision is healthier" myth.
"See the reason for a counter point is that it makes you look credible, otherwise you're just someone with willful ignorance voicing his/hers incentive without any solid base for your claims. For instance, that the baby is traumatized, somehow."
And once again, too bad that the point you're telling me to counterpoint is a red herring. About the baby being traumatized or whatever, I already gave my cites for it, and you rejected it buy calling it "absurd".
"How exactly can a baby be traumatized by something that it's unable to recall in the first place. Or better yet, how the heck can you believe that a baby can remember anything at all?"
trau·ma noun \ˈtrau̇-mə, ˈtrȯ-\
: a very difficult or unpleasant experience that causes someone to have mental or emotional problems usually for a long time
medical : a serious injury to a person's body
By that definition, a child can be traumatized from circumcision, no matter if they can or cannot remember it. Also, look at myth #4 in this source. Circumcision can actually lead to PTSD.
How can a baby remember anything at all? Well, I can remember being on a cradle whenever I'm in it, but not anything at all.
"Obviously you've never heard of infantile amnesia aka common sense"
True, I'll admit. Then again, infantile amnesia can be interrupted by traumatic events, which has been said already in the links I provided about infants going through trauma.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
So what, now you're gonna answer questions with a question? Step your game up.
I've literally just said how your example was a strawman. Why don't you pay attention.
The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:
"Why, yes I have, and I don't see how it's any different. People circumcised their babies because of health reasons, and say it's a right of the parent to do so. Removing someone's feet can prevent various diseases and health risks that feet can carry, but since I'm a parent, it's a right for me to do so."
GENITAL mutilation. GEN·I·TAL. How is cutting a foreskin a genital mutilation?
Read my whole comment. You even quoted me. Try and at least ballpark it a little, genius.
Not an answer. Again, who exactly gave you the authority to be telling someone what a parent might or might not do for his/her son?
A red herring? Not only is the epitome of relevance in evidence, you're the one that went there in the first place. How about in addition of proofreading my comments, add yours as well.
And surprise surprise. Right after your "red herring" accusation, you go and do just that. Again.
You don't even know what you're on about anymore, or to begin with for that matter. Make some sense. So far you failed miserably.
"Because it is"
That's your argument. Which is basically not even an argument.
You label your opposing views and myths by relying on subjective interpretations. I can post links as well from sources that disagree with yours. You're clearly biased and leaned towards your own internal conclusions and preconceived notions.
You provide no evidence (and no, posting definitions of words you use to describe your case doesn't count as such.)
"By that definition, a child can be traumatized from circumcision, no matter if they can or cannot remember it."
Are you being serious? Are you actually trying to pose that ridiculous statement as coherent? Hahah, oh my. Either you're pretending, or you really are so wrapped up in your internal world so much.
It must be since somehow you remember even though your limbic system weren't even evolved enough around the ages from 1 to 2.
One can clearly see why you have little credibility.
"infantile amnesia can be interrupted by traumatic events"
I take the previous statement back. This quote right here, is now officially the stupidest thing I've heard in a long while.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"So what, now you're gonna answer questions with a question? Step your game up."
Pretty ironic that you're complaining about me evading your question when you just evaded mine. Step your game up, man! Well, to answer your question, if people can say "get over it" to someone who has a problem with being mutilated without their consent, then I can tell these people to "shut the fuck up" or "fuck off".
"GENITAL mutilation. GEN·I·TAL. How is cutting a foreskin a genital mutilation?
Read my whole comment. You even quoted me. Try and at least ballpark it a little, genius.
I think it's my turn to face palm now.
Penis = genital; foreskin = part of the penis; therefore, it's genital mutilation due to the fact that you severely damaged a part of your genital by amputating it. Why do think that scar's there after being circumcised? Maybe it's time for you to use common sense now, genius.
"Not an answer. Again, who exactly gave you the authority to be telling someone what a parent might or might not do for his/her son?"
Actually, no one, but does that mean that I can't speak out against them because hurr durr religious freedom?
"A red herring? Not only is the epitome of relevance in evidence, you're the one that went there in the first place."
The reason why I brought that up in the first place in my description is because I've seen plenty of pro-circs pulling that out of their asses in an attempt to distract people from worrying about the issue of circumcision. That is that it's is a red herring other than starving children being irrelevant to the subject in the first place. You're telling me to counterpoint a fallacy. Also, by the way, I did made a point to you about it anyway, and I said this:
"2. It's not like we can't focus on more than one thing."
"You label your opposing views and myths by relying on subjective interpretations.""
If by opposing views, you mean incorrect medical "facts" that's been believed for a long time, then yes, I do call them myths. Being subjective has nothing to do with it.
"You're clearly biased and leaned towards your own internal conclusions and preconceived notions."
If circumcision actually does provide medical benefits as they claim it does, then my opinion about circumcision for health reasons may change, but it doesn't, and me being biased has nothing to do with anything.
"You provide no evidence (and no, posting definitions of words you use to describe your case doesn't count as such.)"
Oh, so pointing out correct definitions to explain why something is that is now an invalid source? Well then.
I already linked you this source with citations at the bottom in my last comment, and it explains all the myths about circumcision , so your "you provide no evidence" thing is now void.
If you want me to link you other credible sources about this, then I can.
"Are you being serious? Are you actually trying to pose that ridiculous statement as coherent? Hahah, oh my. Either you're pretending, or you really are so wrapped up in your internal world so much."
And here you go again, rejecting my citations, and calling it "ridiculous" while you're not providing any cites for yourself to debunk my claims. In the medical definition of trauma, a child can be traumatized. Please tell me how this baby in video is not traumatized at all. It's a serious injury going on to that child's body, is it not? I thought the crying was obvious.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Not only that, but it seems you can come up with a counter point of your own so you copy mine. Don't embarrass yourself.
"Penis = genital; foreskin = part of the penis; therefore, it's genital mutilation"
Fingers = hand; fingernails = part of the fingers; therefore, it's a hand amputation. See how redundant and obscure that looks?
"Actually, no one, but does that mean that I can't speak out against them"
Exactly, yet you're saying "SHUT THE FUCK UP!" as if you're the only one allowed to speak for or against certain matters. Quite hypocritical of you.
And what a dumb reasoning for the red herring example. Because they're pulling that "out of their asses" in an attempt to distract people, for some reason you thought to yourself
"I'm gonna use it to show how ridiculous it is when someone uses it."
Can you not see how stupid that is? Well, of course not.
But then you proceed by saying "It's not like we can focus o more than one thing."
It literally goes against what you said earlier but also established that when it's convenient to you, it's ok then. I really can't stress this enough of how ridiculous that is.
"incorrect medical "facts"" According to you. You read a couple of articles of circumcision being bad and you formed your opinion based on that. The other part that is for it, you label as "myth" because it simply doesn't coincide with your outlook. It's as fallacious as it gets and yes, it's purely subjective.
"If circumcision actually does provide medical benefits as they claim it does, then my opinion about circumcision for health reasons may change, but it doesn't"
It does, but since you're biased, those facts are nothing but "myth" to you. So no not really, you would stick to your own belief on the simple count of stubbornness.
"me being biased has nothing to do with anything."
Oh my God. The obligatory, are you serious? question comes up again. You being biased has nothing to do with anything.... I can't believe this. This is now the 2nd dumbest thing I've heard just below the "infantile amnesia can be interrupted by traumatic events". Waiting for the 3rd one now. Nothing more to say here.
Yes posting definitions of random key words you think people don't understand does not constitute as evidence. Again, not surprised you think it does.
What makes you thing certain forms of articles have higher credibility than others. Posting links that agree with you is not evidence. I can do that as well.
www.circinfo.net/
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/artic…
www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012/…
www.babble.com/pregnancy/circu…
www.mayoclinic.org/tests-proce…
www.nytimes.com/2012/08/27/sci…
www.aap.org/en-us/about-the-aa…
Here you go. You said you'll change your mind. Unless, but wait, you're already biased, so that wouldn't mean anything. Selective observation fallacy. Go and look it up.
Oh hoho, how about YOU tell me how this baby in video is being traumatized in any way. All it is, is showing a procedure whilst a woman is talking over it saying how bad it is.
EVIDENCE! I mean clearly you can see... Get serious will you.
"I thought the crying was obvious."
Yeah, it's A FREAKING BABY. What, is that thing that babies do 80% of the time the indicator it's been traumatized? Or is it the sound of propaganda in the video's background telling you what it is?
So every time a baby's crying it's traumatized? Hahahah. If anything, at least you're amusing.
Do you even know what traumatized means?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"Not only that, but it seems you can come up with a counter point of your own so you copy mine. Don't embarrass yourself."
You still didn't answer my question.
"Fingers = hand; fingernails = part of the fingers; therefore, it's a hand amputation. See how redundant and obscure that looks?"
Yet, I'm the one who's been doing the straw-manning. 
"Exactly, yet you're saying "SHUT THE FUCK UP!" as if you're the only one allowed to speak for or against certain matters. Quite hypocritical of you."
Honey, I don't think you have a clue on what hypocrisy is.
"And what a dumb reasoning for the red herring example. Because they're pulling that "out of their asses" in an attempt to distract people, for some reason you thought to yourself
"I'm gonna use it to show how ridiculous it is when someone uses it."
Can you not see how stupid that is? Well, of course not.""
How is that me bringing up a common red herring made by pro-circs me committing a red herring?
"But then you proceed by saying "It's not like we can focus o more than one thing."
It literally goes against what you said earlier but also established that when it's convenient to you, it's ok then. I really can't stress this enough of how ridiculous that is."
I can't stress how ridiculous this is either, because I don't even know where the fuck you're getting at now. What did I say earlier that is going against that counterpoint I made? Or are just talking out of your ass now?
""incorrect medical "facts"" According to you."
Nope, according to science and biology.
"You read a couple of articles of circumcision being bad and you formed your opinion based on that."
Not only that, but debunking the myths about how circumcision is beneficial when it isn't.
"The other part that is for it, you label as "myth" because it simply doesn't coincide with your outlook. It's as fallacious as it gets and yes, it's purely subjective.""
No, I labeled them as myths because they've been debunked countless of times now. If these benefits are actually true and makes circumcision useful, then as I said before, I might change my mind, but they're not.
"Posting links that agree with you is not evidence. I can do that as well."
Only one of your sources has been cited, which is your second one, and the "Top 8" reasons had proven to be false or makes infant circumcision unnecessary.
- UTI's are easily avoided by cleaning the tip of his penis by using soap.
- The whole HIV thing is trivial. Anyone can at risk of having it, and that includes circumcised men. Foreskin itself has nothing to do with it.
- The risks of STD's while having an uncircumcised is easily prevented by good hygiene and safe sex
- Penile cancer is actually rare, so cutting the foreskin for that reason is the equivalent of cutting off a woman's boobs because of the rare types of breast cancer
- Anyone who has went through unprotected sexual intercourse (either be vaginal, oral, or anal) will be at risk of chlamydia. Again, the foreskin doesn't have jackshit to do with it.
- Balanopostitis can be treated with good hygiene as well, and phimosis can be treated with dorsal slits, stretching exercises, and creams.
- Did they seriously just used social relationships as an example of benefits from circumcision? Fucking laughable.
"Here you go. You said you'll change your mind. Unless, but wait, you're already biased, so that wouldn't mean anything."
Your case would help if it actually proves that circumcision is a useful tactic to prevent something, and also cited sources. So, no, circumcision has absolutely no benefits still, nor is it necessary to have it done on infants when these things are easily prevented by good hygiene and safer medical exercises.
"Oh hoho, how about YOU tell me how this baby in video is being traumatized in any way. All it is, is showing a procedure whilst a woman is talking over it saying how bad it is."
1. There is no proper anesthesia for the baby, so the pain isn't exactly away from them.
2. Babies are very sensitive to pain, hence why they cry whenever they fall down on hard surfaces.
3. You can here the baby's crying elevating when they're going through the process of circumcising him (starting 1:34).
"EVIDENCE! I mean clearly you can see... Get serious will you."
I am serious, and I can see it too. How about a better video without the narrating? . I mean, shit, you can hear the mother getting horrified in the background.
"Yeah, it's A FREAKING BABY. What, is that thing that babies do 80% of the time the indicator it's been traumatized? Or is it the sound of propaganda in the video's background telling you what it is?
So every time a baby's crying it's traumatized? Hahahah. If anything, at least you're amusing."
Yet again, I'm the one who is doing all the straw-manning here. No I'm not saying that at all, but it's obvious when a baby's crying in pain. While going through circumcision, in both of these video I linked, both of those two babies cries elevated because of the pain.
"Do you even know what traumatized means?"
Yes, I do, and I even gave you the definition of it that you keep rejecting. Tell me, dearie, what exactly is traumatize then, since you must be the king of diction here.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
See, for me to answer a question, there needs to be an inquiry, genius. As aforementioned, you can't seem come up with a counter point of your own so you copy mine.
It's an analogy genius. Are you that dense or just pretending? You can't even identify when your example is used, that in fact, is your example. Your brain just instinctively steers into a place that you identify as comfort zone. Funny though how you counter my analogy that contains a strawman that you used with a strawman. Your comments are filled with fallacies, and you willfully, ignorantly ignore that fact.
Honey, I don't think you're focusing on the actual matter here. It's understandable, you have nothing to go against my argument, because fundamentally you know it's true, therfore you counjer up this idea, in which you think how amazing it would be to point out how I don't know what hypocrisy is yet you clearly displaying it. Says a lot about you.
BECAUSE IT'S IRRELEVANT. I'm not surprised you still don't see anything wrong with that moronic ideology, more so the fact that you continue to do it.
how does showing how fallacious an argument is by using the same argument from the side you're against sensible in any way, shape or form?
How is it that you don't get the simplicity of that fallacy?
I'm actually quite dumbfounded how a person can be so narrow and still believe everything they spew is 100% correct or that it makes all the sense in the world with or without context. That's a serious case of egocentrism.
You can't stress how ridiculous, what is?
You said it, it's clearly there. But then right after that, you said you don't know where I'm getting at?
What?
So the fact that you don't get it (big surprise there) it's ridiculous? .... Like I said, at least you amuse me?
No, it's still according to you. You have both cases. And you have studies from both sides. Yet you go with anti circumcision since you act based on emotion. Case in point.
"Not only that, but debunking the myths about how circumcision is beneficial when it isn't"
Still talking out of you rear I see.
"I labeled them as myths because they've been debunked countless of times now. If these benefits are actually true and makes circumcision useful, then as I said before, I might change my mind, but they're not."
No, you won't. You will never change your mind because your set on believing what you prefer. If an article says it's debunked and if it resonates with my opinion... Then it must be so. Now that's laughable.
Proven to be false. By another article. Proven, you keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means.
- And? There being an alternative does not mean "debunking".
- So when you do identify the major contributions, it's suddenly trivial. It goes beck to what I've been saying earlier. You're dead set on believing your own preconceived notions. Any reason or evidence is easily dismissible for a willfully ignorant person.
- Again an existing alternative does not mean "debunking". I can feel you reaching really hard.
- No it's not mrs strawman. You don't cut the penis off. But at this point, does it even matter. all you see is a chopped dick. It's a problem that resides within you, I can't help you there.
- Once again, just because you can get it in more ways doesn't mean that suddenly only one is probable.
- Uggh.... Alternative =/= debunking
- Kinda like you do. It's not the fact that you're against it because of "facts". It's more to do with the actual image of the circumcision that bothers you. Articles are only there since you're in need of confirmation.
Still biased. Already talked enough about this just above. You can wash it, or you can circumcise it. You're under the impression since washing is a choice, circumcision is somehow false. As if it's a matter that can be dealt in absolutes. The willfully ignorant have no problem with that.
1. There was no anesthesia used in that case. Therefore circumcision bad, very bad.
2. Everyone is sensitive to pain, what are you talking about? Hard surfaces. Everyone is in pain when they fall of hard surfaces. Babies also cry when they're not in pain. It's a freaking baby. You want a definition for it?
3. Of course, there's no proper anesthesia. It's only logical. Now go on youtube and find a circumcision done right. Oh but then your bias will be compromised. I forgot.
www.circinfo.net/anesthesia.ht…
It's her baby. What mother wouldn't be worried about someone else touching him. It's a perfectly normal human emotion.
Here's a video with doctors discussing pros and cons without any bias.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DtNxp…
How was what I said a starwman? At all? I've already called you out on throwing random implications. And as a retort, you throw random implications.
It is EXACTLY what you're implying. And did so moments ago, you use crying as an indication of trauma.
And no, you don't know what it means since might I remind you of that very moronic declarative statement; "infantile amnesia can be interrupted by traumatic events"
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
To be fair, he has a point about the whole "circumcision vs. feet chopping" analogy being a straw man argument. Then again, the whole "I have the right to do x" when it comes to a parent wanting to circumcise their child is considered as an equivocation.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It's when you use a term that has more than one meaning incorrectly. The first example is pretty much what the "I the right to x" can fall into.
"I have the right to circumcise my child. Therefore, it was right for me to do so."
A fallacious point can lead someone else making a fallacious point as well to make a counterpoint. It's not uncommon when it comes to arguments.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I remember a while back seeing a video of a baby getting circumcised... I wish I didn't see it at all. It was terrifying.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
I always tell parents for circumcision to watch a video of it being done.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I cried when seeing one of those videos. It's sick.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The more I see these anti-circ stamp, the more I despised the idea of infant circumcision.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
| Next =>