“…and the pot and the kettle and the silver spoon…”
So our resident DOCTOR isn’t an expert in this area but you, AS, ARE? Are you REALLY this arrogant or is it just an act to cause controversy?
The difference is I actually do cursory searches into the topic. It doesn’t make me an expert, it just means I put 5 more minutes of effort in than you did.
Surprising how many errors you avoid when you do just that little.
Acting as if getting the facts straight matters before talking about it; what a concept.
I’ve talked down pilots who assured me 9/11 was an inside job. Lawyers who assured me Obamacare was legally sound.
Environmental researchers that the Paris Agreement was necessary.
Sometimes even people who should know better, don’t.
Expertise is only as good as your capability to check yourself. If you’re not putting in an effort, it shows.
I appreciate those of you who condone this form of child abuse coming out of the closet. Thank you. To the left-wing, cultural relativist members of our judiciary who condone this form of child abuse and serve to normalize it in America, damn you.
That’s all I have to say on the subject.
Nice non-response Mike.
Mind reading my post again:
… and pointing out where I’m condoning a damn thing?
You are MINIMIZING FGM by doing what MOST liberals do…“Well, THEY do it too.” So that must make it right. It was YOU who tried to compare male circumcision with FGM and the two things are NOT even remotely the same. Nor are they for anything close to the same purpose. Certainly not as practiced in the U.S. and other western civilizations. You go to Google or Wikipedia, read a few paragraphs and then drop back in here claiming to be an “expert.” An “expert” is often defined as a has-been drip under pressure.
Mike is a doctor. He knows more than you or I do.
And yet he said something obviously false.
There are nerve endings in foreskin you don’t grow back, you are desensitized by losing them.
If he didn’t know that, then this isn’t his area.
Wrong; you allow them to make arguments for FGM, by tolerating male circumcision.
Either we condemn both, or we keep both. You don’t get to make double standards.
BS. I get to do whatever I please and nothing you can do can stop me. The FACT is, that in THIS country, most male circumcision is for the purpose of hygiene. It’s been that way for multiple decades. I was born in 1942 by c-section and was circumcised at that time…not because someone wanted to prevent me from enjoying sex, but because it was the hygienic thing to do. My son was circumcised in 1964 at birth for the same reason and with my permission. In retrospect, I might have hesitated a bit more. The nerve endings on a man’s penis are mostly in the penis HEAD…NOT the foreskin. Belief otherwise is simply ignorance. In fact, the foreskin PROTECTS those nerve endings from desensitization from a lifetime of abrasion against clothing.
False; hygiene is an argument in the context of the 3rd world, not a developed country. In a developed country where access to antibiotics and clean water is widespread, it fails to pass muster.
Circumcision was adopted in the 19th century, because of Victorian perceptions that masturbation caused illnesses. Research that has since been thoroughly debunked.
Are you REALLY making this ridiculous claim? Male circumcision has been around for THOUSANDS of years. Have you been living in a CAVE somewhere? The FACT is, that since the beginning of the 20th Century in THIS country, the practice was widespread for HYGIENE purposes. “Prevention of masturbation” had absolutely NOTHING whatsoever to do with it. That’s the goofy claim of the sexual libertines who believe to this day that Christianity is sexually repressive and abhors ALL forms of sexual activity.
For both genders they have. Female circumcision predates Islam. They both go back to the bronze age at the very least. The Ancient Egyptians did this with with enough regularity to have terms for it.
No, the justification the AAP and CDC give is prevention of STDs; which admittedly doesn’t make any sense, because developed countries with lower circumcisions rates than us, also have lower rates of those same STDs.
And you can get shots, and condoms do the same thing, better. It’s not necessary. It’s a procedure that failed to evolve with the science.
The rest of the world gets it; we’re the ones lagging behind. The only ones with more male circumcisions than us, are Muslim countries.
University of Google users (those who do cursory searches and spend that extra 5 minutes) do not make the errors that users who do NOT use Google make?
Wow. What a concept. Never knew that was the case.
Sure, you just make different errors.
Searching controls for the most obvious errors. It’s good practice.
For instance; if you’re aware the source your citing has a slant or a bias, why not look to contrast it from the opposite side, to see if you can work out what is true, and what is likely just bias?
Group-speak and echo chambers help no one. And there’s always what John Stuart Mill said.
Benefits of Circumcision:
A decreased risk of urinary tract infections.
A reduced risk of some sexually transmitted diseases in men.
Protection against penile cancer and a reduced risk of cervical cancer in female sex partners.
Prevention of balanitis (inflammation of the glans) and balanoposthitis (inflammation of the glans and foreskin).
Prevention of phimosis (the inability to retract the foreskin) and paraphimosis (the inability to return the foreskin to its original location).
Circumcision also makes it easier to keep the end of the penis clean.
So, that is from a real doctor, not a Muslim apologist. What the Muzzies do is a crime, but then, so is a great deal of what they do.
YOU need to do more research. You need to read about these women who were forced to mutilation. Not a surgical procedure like Circumcision. A Mutilation. Yanno, like sawing off a man’s head because he subscribes to the other religions. Yanno, like killing your daughter to restore your honor after she went to the movies with a little Jewish Boy from school. Yanno like shooting up a newspaper office when they made a cartoon of your favorite warmongering pedophile, Muhammy.
Give up. You are trying to defend the indefensible.
Since he apparently only said the one thing, I guess you must be referring to his call for legal and social equality for women…?
They use the same thing to argument for FGM, bot for reducing infection and for HIV:
""Moreover, at least two studies by Western scientists have shown a negative correlation between female circumcision and HIV. The authors of one of the studies, both seasoned statisticians who expected to find the opposite relationship, described their findings as a “significant and perplexing inverse association between reported female circumcision and HIV seropositivity.”
Same argument, same results. Yet neither is justified.
I said it before, the Vulva is more infection prone than foreskin. Any argument for “cleanliness”, is going to boost the case for the former.
By defending male circumcision, you keep the door open for this. The court case itself ran on this.
You didn’t do research on FGM, so this applies to you.
You made assumptions, and you didn’t check them, and it turns out the “utility” is just as present on the other side.
The morality and necessity are another matter, and they’re both deplorable.