# Circumcision ruling condemned by Germany's Muslim and Jewish leaders



## Political Junky (Jun 28, 2012)

Circumcision ruling condemned by Germany's Muslim and Jewish leaders | World news | guardian.co.uk

Jewish and Muslim leaders were united on Wednesday in their condemnation of a German court's decision to in effect outlaw the circumcision of boys after a judge deemed that the religious practice amounted to bodily harm.

Representatives of the two religious communities called the ruling insensitive and discriminatory, saying it was an attack on centuries of religious tradition.

A judge at a Cologne court said that the circumcision of minors went against a child's interests because it led to a physical alteration of the body, and because people other than the child were determining its religious affiliation.
<more>


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jun 28, 2012)

About time we stopped mutilating little boys isn't it?


----------



## Capstone (Jun 28, 2012)

I wish I could travel back in time and bitch slap my parents on the day they decided to mutilate my junk.


----------



## editec (Jun 28, 2012)

Yeah, I can see how this would upset those for whom circumcision is a religious obligation.

I can also understand why some of us think that mutilation of a baby boy's penis makes about as much sense (read none) as mutilation of a baby girls cliterus.

Not much room for compromise in this clash of cultural values.


----------



## Unkotare (Jun 28, 2012)

editec said:


> Yeah, I can see how this would upset those for whom circumcision is a religious obligation.
> 
> I can also understand why some of us think that mutilation of a baby boy's penis makes about as much sense (read none) as mutilation of a baby girls cliterus.
> 
> Not much room for compromise in this clash of cultural values.



Do you really think male and female circumcision are the same?


----------



## jillian (Jun 28, 2012)

editec said:


> Yeah, I can see how this would upset those for whom circumcision is a religious obligation.
> 
> I can also understand why some of us think that mutilation of a baby boy's penis makes about as much sense (read none) as mutilation of a baby girls cliterus.
> 
> Not much room for compromise in this clash of cultural values.



it shouldn't be... one can't compare female circumcision with male circumcision. and i always wonder about why anyone would make that comparison other than the use of the word circumcision. the effects on the individual are not comparable.

also, historically, one of the first ways in which tyrannical and anti-semetic regimes isolated and made jews alien was to outlaw circumcision. they would then use the fact that someone was circumcised as a way of identifying and outing jews who were singled out for persecution.

this is a very dangerous road to walk... if you don't want to circumcise your child, don't... 

in my world, it's normal and not "abuse"... it's a cause for celebration... and it's an identifying ritual.

thank G-d for the first amendment.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jun 28, 2012)

jillian said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, I can see how this would upset those for whom circumcision is a religious obligation.
> ...



So in the name of religion it's OK with you to strap down a person and cut off body parts? Or is it only OK if it's a baby and can't decide for itself?  Would it be OK to lop off an infant's ears in the name of religion?  How about tattooing?  Nipple, or nose piercing?

Tell me how do you feel about water-boarding?


----------



## MHunterB (Jun 28, 2012)

Thanks for illustrating Jillian's point.


----------



## Jos (Jun 28, 2012)

an identifying ritual, can also be represented by a pin prick


----------



## Unkotare (Jun 28, 2012)

That's what you tell all the girls.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jun 28, 2012)

Since when is custom alone a good enough reason to mutilate infants?

We used to do all kinds of things in the name of custom that we no longer do because we are at least slightly more enlightened than we used to be.


----------



## Unkotare (Jun 28, 2012)

Suprising so many people are so worked up about circumcision. I'm not aware of any harm it does.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jun 28, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> Suprising so many people are so worked up about circumcision. I'm not aware of any harm it does.



Tell you what go to a doctor and have him slice off what's left of the  skin on your penis and then tell me it causes no harm


----------



## Unkotare (Jun 28, 2012)

Why would I do that?


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jun 28, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> Why would I do that?



Why do it to a baby?


----------



## Unkotare (Jun 28, 2012)

Something like just over half of all males in the US are circumcised and I don't see any national crisis over it. It's usually done shortly after birth and no one remembers or has any trauma associated with it that I'm aware of.


----------



## Unkotare (Jun 28, 2012)

Skull Pilot said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > Why would I do that?
> ...




Aside from those who do it as a matter of religious ritual, it has long been considered a matter of hygiene and for the prevention of infections. The rate of circumcisions has dropped in recent years, but it has hovered around 60% in the US for several decades - certainly not all or even most a matter of religion.


----------



## Jos (Jun 28, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> Why would I do that?



an identifying ritual?


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jun 28, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> Something like just over half of all males in the US are circumcised and I don't see any national crisis over it. It's usually done shortly after birth and no one remembers or has any trauma associated with it that I'm aware of.



So it's OK to permanently alter the body of another as long as they don't remember it?

So if someone drugged you, kept you sedated and then sliced all the skin off your penis you'd be OK with that because you wouldn't remember it happening?

The fact that an act of mutilation is not remembered is hardly justification for the continuation of that act.

Shit we should pawn off infants to nepiophiliacs after all the kids wouldn't remember so what's the big deal?


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jun 28, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



There are no valid medical reasons to mutilate a baby boy.

And religious practices are no better a reason.  If a religion in the USA called for cutting the left pinky off of boys anf the right pinky off of girls would it be allowed?


----------



## Unkotare (Jun 28, 2012)

You have a problem with parents making that choice for their children? You seem somehow personally vested in this topic...


...


----------



## Unkotare (Jun 28, 2012)

Skull Pilot said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...




Are you a physician?


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jun 28, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> You have a problem with parents making that choice for their children? You seem somehow personally vested in this topic...
> 
> 
> ...



I have a problem with needless mutilation of infants.


----------



## Unkotare (Jun 28, 2012)

Skull Pilot said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > You have a problem with parents making that choice for their children? You seem somehow personally vested in this topic...
> ...




Is that a yes or what? Don't be coy.


----------



## Ariux (Jun 28, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> Suprising so many people are so worked up about circumcision. I'm not aware of any harm it does.



Not only doesn't it do harm, but it's healthy... as long as you're not getting it done by a cock-sucking Jew with an STD.

"Evidence among heterosexual men in sub-Saharan Africa shows a decreased risk of between 38 percent and 66 percent over two years..."

"Circumcision is associated with a reduced risk of urinary tract infections..."

"The American Academy of Pediatrics (1999) stated that studies suggest that neonatal circumcision confers some protection from penile cancer..."


----------



## Unkotare (Jun 28, 2012)

Ariux said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > Suprising so many people are so worked up about circumcision. I'm not aware of any harm it does.
> ...




Your anti-Semitic bullshit is not required or welcome here, asshole.


----------



## eots (Jun 28, 2012)

Political Junky said:


> Circumcision ruling condemned by Germany's Muslim and Jewish leaders | World news | guardian.co.uk
> 
> Jewish and Muslim leaders were united on Wednesday in their condemnation of a German court's decision to in effect outlaw the circumcision of boys after a judge deemed that the religious practice amounted to bodily harm.
> 
> ...



what is it with religious people and genitals ??

[


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jun 28, 2012)

Ariux said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > Suprising so many people are so worked up about circumcision. I'm not aware of any harm it does.
> ...





There are no health benefits to mutilating a baby boy's penis.


----------



## Unkotare (Jun 28, 2012)

Skull Pilot said:


> There are no health benefits to mutilating a baby boy's penis.





Are you a physician?


----------



## eots (Jun 28, 2012)




----------



## Ariux (Jun 28, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> Ariux said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



Oh poor baby... I didn't say anything antisemitic.  I just pointed out a fact.  Do facts always make you cry?


----------



## Unkotare (Jun 28, 2012)

Ariux said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > Ariux said:
> ...




Why don't you take your worthless ass back to stormfront? You are not wanted here, loser.


----------



## Political Junky (Jun 28, 2012)

eots said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZy5lbWb9Xg


If you access this video, you'll also be able to see a video of a circumcision being done on a baby.
Don't watch if you're squeamish.


----------



## whitehall (Jun 28, 2012)

German courts ruling against Jewish religious tradition? Sounds familiar somehow.


----------



## Ariux (Jun 28, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> Why don't you take your worthless ass back to stormfront? You are not wanted here, loser.



By definition, you're worthless.  You only care if something is kosher or not.  That makes you worthless because you only echo what you're told.  I care about truth.  That makes me priceless.


----------



## Unkotare (Jun 28, 2012)

Ariux said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > Why don't you take your worthless ass back to stormfront? You are not wanted here, loser.
> ...




You're a fucking idiot. Go fuck yourself, idiot.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jun 28, 2012)

Y





whitehall said:


> German courts ruling against Jewish religious tradition? Sounds familiar somehow.


Now they ruled against the needless mutilation of male infants


----------



## whitehall (Jun 28, 2012)

Skull Pilot said:


> Y
> 
> 
> 
> ...



German courts caring about "needless mutilation of  (Jewish) infants" when they were justifying the needless mutilation and murder of Jewish adults a scant 75 years ago? And now they have the radical international left on their side that justifies the murder of full term infants if their heads still remain in the birth canal. As many self described tattooed skull pilots can no doubt testify, mutilation is in the eye of the beholder.


----------



## Unkotare (Jun 28, 2012)

Skull Pilot said:


> Y
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Are you a physician?


----------



## Unkotare (Jun 28, 2012)

Male Circumcision and Risk for HIV Transmission: Implications for the United States | Factsheets | CDC HIV/AIDS


JAMA Network | JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association | The Medical Benefits of Male Circumcision


Male Circumcision Is Medically Beneficial, Experts Say - ABC News


----------



## Political Junky (Jun 28, 2012)

Circumcision is rare in Europe, but their HIV rate is lower than the US.


----------



## Ariux (Jun 28, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> Male Circumcision and Risk for HIV Transmission: Implications for the United States | Factsheets | CDC HIV/AIDS
> 
> 
> JAMA Network | JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association | The Medical Benefits of Male Circumcision
> ...



Don't forget the disclaimer.  Circumcision is healthy, as long as it's not performed by a diseased, cock-sucking rabbi.

(I don't understand why this offends you.  If you love Jews, why do you hate someone mentioning their practices?)


----------



## logical4u (Jun 28, 2012)

Knew a man that had to have this done in his forties (doctors told him for health reasons).  I think he would have preferred to have it done, much younger.  He was in pretty bad shape.

There are many opinions that the penis is easier to keep clean and is less likely to spread infection after circumcision.  Just sayin'....


----------



## Unkotare (Jun 28, 2012)

Ariux said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > Male Circumcision and Risk for HIV Transmission: Implications for the United States | Factsheets | CDC HIV/AIDS
> ...




Shut the fuck up and go the fuck away you stupid fucking bigot.


----------



## Ariux (Jun 28, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> Ariux said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



  Why are you angry?


----------



## Unkotare (Jun 28, 2012)

Why don't you and Joeb go get a room together, you shitbag?


----------



## Ariux (Jun 28, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> Why don't you and Joeb go get a room together, you shitbag?



You love Jews, yet they disgust you.  Interesting.


----------



## Unkotare (Jun 28, 2012)

Fuck off, idiot. You are not interesting, you are boring and insipid.


----------



## Vidi (Jun 28, 2012)

Political Junky said:


> Circumcision ruling condemned by Germany's Muslim and Jewish leaders | World news | guardian.co.uk
> 
> Jewish and Muslim leaders were united on Wednesday in their condemnation of a German court's decision to in effect outlaw the circumcision of boys after a judge deemed that the religious practice amounted to bodily harm.
> 
> ...



Well awesome job Germany! Now if only we could outlaw it in America.


----------



## Unkotare (Jun 28, 2012)

Vidi said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Circumcision ruling condemned by Germany's Muslim and Jewish leaders | World news | guardian.co.uk
> ...





Why do you want to outlaw it in America?


----------



## Vidi (Jun 28, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> Male Circumcision and Risk for HIV Transmission: Implications for the United States | Factsheets | CDC HIV/AIDS
> 
> 
> JAMA Network | JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association | The Medical Benefits of Male Circumcision
> ...



Circumcision is unneccesary. Its a violation of the rights of the child to choose.

Additionally, it protects the head of the cock and allows it to keep its sensitivty well later into life. The forskin also provides more friction for both the male and female during love making meaning the male needs to thrust less and not as hard in order to please both him and her.

By removing the foreskin, we are taking away an intregal part of lovemaking thus relegating our males to a less satisfying sex life.

Imagine as much as we like it now, if we had ALL our parts that made it better for both us and our partners.

And lastly, its the ultimate violation of our children. We modify their bodies without their consent. Its a vile and disgusting practice.

I say BAN it now!


----------



## Unkotare (Jun 28, 2012)

You ever talk to any man - ever - who indicated not enjoying sex because he was circumcised?


----------



## Vidi (Jun 28, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...



If an adult wants to cut off his foreskin then fine. His choice.

but to do it to an infant is wrong. For the reasons I stated in the post just above this one.


----------



## Unkotare (Jun 28, 2012)

Parents make a lot of decisions for their children. You are free to choose otherwise with yours.


----------



## thetor (Jun 28, 2012)

editec said:


> Yeah, I can see how this would upset those for whom circumcision is a religious obligation.
> 
> I can also understand why some of us think that mutilation of a baby boy's penis makes about as much sense (read none) as mutilation of a baby girls cliterus.
> 
> Not much room for compromise in this clash of cultural values.



Yeah but these two groups live by a religious code from 1500+ years ago,you know antiquated by todays thinking.tor


----------



## Vidi (Jun 28, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> You ever talk to any man - ever - who indicated not enjoying sex because he was circumcised?



the foreskin is a primary sensory part of the penis, containing some of the most sensitive areas of the penis. The effects of circumcision on sexual sensation however are not clear, with reports of both enhanced and diminished sexual pleasure following the procedure in adults and little awareness of advantage or disadvantage in those circumcised in infancy

We say that other cultures are barbaric for cutting off the clitoris of females, yet we cut off the "male clit" and say theres nothing wrong.

I say theres something wrong.



> 1) The Head of the Penis &#8211; The foreskin acts as a lubricated hood over the glans that moves back and forth (over the head) during intercourse or masturbation. It is similar to the clitoral hood in women which is their main form of sexual stimulation. There are glands that produce fluid that helps this hood slide over the glans and decreases the amount of friction applied during sex or masturbation. *If a man is circumcised, he will no longer have this &#8220;protective&#8221; hood for the head of his penis.* Through masturbation and friction in undergarments, this *causes a desensitization of the head of the penis.* The roughness of this form of stimuli decreases a man&#8217;s ability to sense pleasure in the glans. In other words, it becomes less responsive to sexual stimuli. Because of the reduction in sensation, *removal of the foreskin can lead to erectile dysfunction*, as the penis is no longer as responsive to stimulation. It has become &#8220;deadened.&#8221;
> 
> 
> There are many areas in the penis that are erogenous (pleasure producing). It&#8217;s a shame that *the three most sensitive and pleasure stimulation areas in a man are damaged or destroyed during the circumcision process*
> more here---->Can Circumcision Cause Erectile Dysfunction And Premature Ejaculation? | Gingivitis Cure




But to answer your question...They dont know because those who were circumsized as an infant have never experienced sex with a foreskin.

additionally



> Dr. Guy Madder, a surgeon at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Adelaide, Australia, reports in the Annals of Family Medicine that there is *no convincing evidence that circumcision decreases the risk of sexually transmitted disease, urinary track infections or penile cancer.*
> 
> http://www.torontosun.com/life/healthandfitness/2010/03/18/13277631.html


----------



## Unkotare (Jun 28, 2012)

You don't think Jews and Muslims are the only people getting circumcised, do you?


----------



## NeoTemplar (Jun 28, 2012)

Vidi said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Circumcision ruling condemned by Germany's Muslim and Jewish leaders | World news | guardian.co.uk
> ...



can't outlaw it in the U.S. that would be unconstitutional oppression of a religious group.




Vidi said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > Male Circumcision and Risk for HIV Transmission: Implications for the United States | Factsheets | CDC HIV/AIDS
> ...



US law says the child doesn't have the right o choose himself until age 12


----------



## Unkotare (Jun 28, 2012)

Vidi said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > You ever talk to any man - ever - who indicated not enjoying sex because he was circumcised?
> ...





So the answer is 'no.' You might have just said so. And if you are equating male and female circumcision you are out of your mind.

Put Dr. Madder in touch with the CDC and JAMA and let them work it out.


----------



## Political Junky (Jun 28, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> You don't think Jews and Muslims are the only people getting circumcised, do you?


In Europe, yes.


----------



## Unkotare (Jun 28, 2012)

In the world.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jun 29, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> Male Circumcision and Risk for HIV Transmission: Implications for the United States | Factsheets | CDC HIV/AIDS
> 
> 
> JAMA Network | JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association | The Medical Benefits of Male Circumcision
> ...



Genital Integrity Policy - Alleged Medical Benefits of Circumcision



> _The claims of potential benefits, allegedly provided by medically unnecessary, non-therapeutic circumcision, lack any real support from medical science. United States medical literature, as compared with the medical literature of other nations, is highly biased in favor of male circumcision. The word potential means to exist in possibility but not in actuality. The scientific literature that supports such potential benefits is written mostly by doctors who were reared in circumcising cultures._


----------



## Unkotare (Jun 29, 2012)

Are you a physician? What qualification do you have that is more legitimate than the CDC?


----------



## William Joyce (Jun 29, 2012)

jillian said:


> one of the first ways in which tyrannical and anti-semetic regimes isolated and made jews alien was to outlaw circumcision. they would then use the fact that someone was circumcised as a way of identifying and outing jews who were singled out for persecution.



Conversely, the push for universal circumcision in the United States came from Jews who sought to erase this distinction, thus "camoflaging" Jews by changing the background scenery.  You can't tell who's a Jew in the locker room shower, in other words, because everyone's had their dick-end chopped off.

How we gentiles ever fell for it baffles me, though we do have a tendency to fall for all kinds of Jewish tricks.  A real testament to the power of Jewish trickery and persuasion... a totally medically unnecessary ritual of mutilation of the most central male part _becomes something gentiles follow along without ever questioning._  My dear mom said, when I asked why I was subjected to it, "Oh well, it's just something everyone did."  Really?  Fuck it all, man.  Groupthink is way, way, way fucked up.

My son remains intact.  This is how I have chosen to identify him as a white man in a world that seeks his destruction.

Doctor's advice:  root out the Jewish influence over your life, white man.  From your brain down to your dick.  Take a sharp scalpel and just slice that yid-shit right out.  You'll be happier and healthier instantly.


----------



## Unkotare (Jun 29, 2012)

You're a pathetic, cowardly bigot.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jun 29, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> Are you a physician? What qualification do you have that is more legitimate than the CDC?



Did you even look at the link?

It is well sourced with evidence from scientific studies.

There is no reason to perform circumcision.


----------



## Unkotare (Jun 29, 2012)

Are you a physician? How many times do I have to ask?

Did YOU read the links I provided for you?


----------



## Ariux (Jun 29, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> Fuck off, idiot. You are not interesting, you are boring and insipid.



Never mind that I'm an uninteresting idiot.  

Do you think diseased, cock-sucking Jews should be banned from performing circumcisions, for health's sake?


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jun 29, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> Are you a physician? How many times do I have to ask?
> 
> Did YOU read the links I provided for you?



I don't have to be a doctor to decipher scientific study vs cultural acceptance.


----------



## Unkotare (Jun 29, 2012)

Skull Pilot said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > Are you a physician? How many times do I have to ask?
> ...




Is that a yes or a no? Why so evasive?


----------



## William Joyce (Jun 29, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



The AMA advises against circumcision.

That's like, a lot of doctors.


----------



## Political Junky (Jun 29, 2012)

History of Circumcision


----------



## Vidi (Jun 29, 2012)

NeoTemplar said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...



If you believe in a right to life, you must also believe in a rightr to not be mutlilated.


----------



## Ariux (Jun 29, 2012)

William Joyce said:


> The AMA advises against circumcision.
> 
> That's like, a lot of doctors.



Failure to recommend something is not the same as advising against it.  

The AMA sees many future benefits in circumcision.   They also see a risk in getting it done... a risk made higher by diseased cock-sucking Jews endangering infants. 

I also notice that the AMA is disproportionally influenced by Jews.  It would be most unexpected for Jews to recommend circumcision, like if Afros were lining up to call Trayvon a thug for assaulting Zimmerman.  Or, like if Jews were lining up to call Trayvon a thug for assaulting Zimmerman.


----------



## Unkotare (Jun 29, 2012)

William Joyce said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...





No, they don't.


AMA opposes legal restrictions on infant circumcision - Health & wellness - The Boston Globe


----------



## Unkotare (Jun 29, 2012)

Vidi said:


> NeoTemplar said:
> 
> 
> > Vidi said:
> ...




That is not logical. (not to mention being needlessly emotive)


----------



## Unkotare (Jun 29, 2012)

Ariux said:


> William Joyce said:
> 
> 
> > The AMA advises against circumcision.
> ...





You're a fucking idiot. Fuck off.


----------



## eots (Jun 29, 2012)

*THROBBING UNCIRCUMCISED MEMBER.....just sayin*

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WH08K70Duzs]Nardwuar vs. Marilyn Manson - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Ariux (Jun 29, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> You're a fucking idiot. Fuck off.



I'm still at a loss to understand what's upsetting you?


----------



## koshergrl (Jun 29, 2012)

Political Junky said:


> Circumcision ruling condemned by Germany's Muslim and Jewish leaders | World news | guardian.co.uk
> 
> Jewish and Muslim leaders were united on Wednesday in their condemnation of a German court's decision to in effect outlaw the circumcision of boys after a judge deemed that the religious practice amounted to bodily harm.
> 
> ...


 
Legislating against religion. Nice, huh?


----------



## Unkotare (Jun 29, 2012)

Ariux said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > You're a fucking idiot. Fuck off.
> ...




Of course you're at a loss, you're a fucking loser.


----------



## Vidi (Jun 29, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Circumcision ruling condemned by Germany's Muslim and Jewish leaders | World news | guardian.co.uk
> ...



Against the barbaric mutilation of infants.

So are you going to tell us that abortion is wrong but mutilating an infant is perfectly fine?


----------



## jillian (Jun 29, 2012)

Political Junky said:


> Circumcision is rare in Europe, but their HIV rate is lower than the US.



talk about totally unrelated things.... 

that's just ... 

weird


----------



## Vidi (Jun 29, 2012)

jillian said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Circumcision is rare in Europe, but their HIV rate is lower than the US.
> ...



There are people out there that are trying to say that circusion helps to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS. 

I find the entire idea laughable especially in light of the data we have on the gene that decided if the plague was going to kill us or not, which just so happens gives the decendents of plague survivors an increased resistance to HIV.

In other words, if the plague had not run through Europe, both Europe and the United States would have the same rampant HIV/AIDs problems as Africa is having right now.


----------



## William Joyce (Jul 1, 2012)

Ariux said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > You're a fucking idiot. Fuck off.
> ...



Someone sliced off his foreskin.  He's been cranky ever since.


----------



## Unkotare (Jul 1, 2012)

William Joyce said:


> Ariux said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...




Well, we know you are circumcised because we can see your face.


----------



## Missourian (Jul 1, 2012)

What a pussified society we have become.

We should just stop cutting umbilical cords...who knows what psychological scars are inflicted by that mutilation.


----------



## William Joyce (Jul 2, 2012)

Umbilical cords fall off naturally if not cut.

Dick covers don't.


----------



## NeoTemplar (Jul 2, 2012)

Vidi said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...



So your saying that people who are circumcised automatically die? Wow, i most be one of the lucky ones or atleast me and 100 million other americans still living.


----------



## Unkotare (Jul 2, 2012)

NeoTemplar said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...




Well, we know Joyce would because it would necessarily involve cutting his throat.


----------



## Vidi (Jul 4, 2012)

NeoTemplar said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



No. I'm saying that if you're against the inhumane treatment of children, then you're against circumcision.

We find chopping off the female clitorus to be barbaric, but accept the removal of the male foreskin.

It's hypocrisy.


----------



## beagle9 (Jul 4, 2012)

Political Junky said:


> Circumcision ruling condemned by Germany's Muslim and Jewish leaders | World news | guardian.co.uk
> 
> Jewish and Muslim leaders were united on Wednesday in their condemnation of a German court's decision to in effect outlaw the circumcision of boys after a judge deemed that the religious practice amounted to bodily harm.
> 
> ...


I guess the medical benefit of it all down the road, was not considered in the ruling by this idiotic judge, where as this judge undoubtedly has a problem with religion so badly, that he is ready to ignore the medical found aspects or benefits of the procedure, in which are highly credible as well as an important way to keep desease or infection from starting due to an uncircumsized foreskin that has the ability to promote infection or desease if a person is loose with their hygene habbits later on in life or not related to hygene at all sometimes. Circumsisions have been proven a medical benefit to those who have had the procedure in life as opposed to those who have not. 

I have a worker who began bleeding and having problems with his uncircumsized junk, in which he had to ask for time off to get taken care of. He was in his thirties at the time, and so now he had to get circumsized in his thirties, because he began having big time problems with his junk until the procedure had been ordered by a doctor as a result of such problems. He was glad to have gotten it done, and has had no further problems with his junk ever since, in which he now tells me as his employer who did worry about the employee when this happened to him. Political activism is on the rise in the world, and it is turning everything upside down by saying evil is good and good is now evil.... B( 

My latest grandson I am proud to say, didnot leave the hospital until this was done for him, in which there was no question in our minds it needed to be done and it got done.. People can follow all these fools who are turning everything upside down if they want to in life, but we are not followers here, we are leaders where I come from.


----------



## Ariux (Jul 4, 2012)

"Because people other than the child were determining its religious affiliation."

1) Why the gender-neutral language?  This is about boys.  

2) By the same twisted logic, the government should ban parents taking children to church.


----------



## beagle9 (Jul 4, 2012)

Hmmmm I will say this though, with the growing epedimic of teen parents, who will more than likely not, do what is right or know what is right, and this all due to their young age and inexperience, to "properly" care for the infant once the procedure is done (thus mutiplying the task of getting the child beyond these fraggil stages in life), it may be that it might be postponed due to that reason, but for that reason only, but who can determin whether a new parent is a goofball or a responsible parent in life (regardless of their younger age), in which might would allow the child to become infected by the procedure afterwards ?? A womans instinct is counted upon to do right by her child once born, but when the parent begins to get to young as we are seeing more and more of these days, who knows what comes of these situations if a child is left to tend to a child/infant, and especially with an infant.. Most of the time the grandparents have been kicking in and doing the care that is needed in these situations, but in a lot of cases even that is very iffy these days... The main thing is doing what is right for the child now and for that childs future, and I think circumsision is part of that right for the childs future, but only if properly cared for when the procedure is done.


----------



## Vidi (Jul 4, 2012)

beagle9 said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Circumcision ruling condemned by Germany's Muslim and Jewish leaders | World news | guardian.co.uk
> ...




There is no reliable evidence that circumcision has ANY medical benefits.

So called reduced risk of prostate cancer was less than 1%. 

No link between HPV and circumcision.

So called reduced risk of penile cancer is .06 %

So why do we mutilate our babies?



> *Cosmetics*: Foreskins are used to make high-end skin creams. The skin products contain fibroblasts grown on the foreskin and harvested from it. One foreskin can be used for decades to produce fancy face cream like the SkinMedica products hawked on Oprah.
> 
> *Skin grafts:* In addition to making products for skin, a babys foreskin can be turned into a skin graft for a burn victim. Because the cells are extremely flexible, theyre less likely to be rejected. Currently, this technology can be lifesaving in providing a real skin band aid to cover an open wound while a burn victim heals. Researchers at Harvard and Tufts are working on advanced skin replacements that use human foreskins.
> *Cosmetic testing*: All those cruelty-free cosmetics you buy? Some of them are tested on foreskins. This yields better results, since theyre human skin. And it saves the lives of the rodents your shampoo would otherwise be tested on.
> ...



One word:

Money.


----------



## beagle9 (Jul 4, 2012)

Vidi said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...


I just gave you one great realtime realistic example, but you choose to ignore it.. WHY?

Oh and by the way my grandson is doing just fine with his circumsision, and is on the way to a healthy life with all the benefits in which that gave him for his future.. Why take the chance when this has been proven a medical benefit down the road for boys and men in their lives ?

The reason it is proably trying to be stopped in the country mentioned, is because it is a socialist country right? So yes "money" is a major factor for the government there when it comes to healthcare, because it pays for it's citizens healthcare right? So is this just an example of socailized medicine, where as rationing care is a big thing in such countries, so if it starts getting into the pockets of government (or) government is going through a bad ressesion there, does it begin looking for places to cut (healthcare being one major target looked at) ? So it's not about profits in a country like this, but more about savings for the government in a socialist country like this...


----------



## Vidi (Jul 4, 2012)

beagle9 said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > beagle9 said:
> ...




Anecdotal evidence is not evidence. It doesnt adhere to the scientific method.

For example, why did your friend have problems with his junk? Did he get it caught in his zipper? Did he fail to properly wash himself? Was it another unrelated skin condition? Did he have sex with a woman ( or a man for that matter ) without proper lubrication? Was he especially rough during masturbation?

These are all causes of penile bleeding and can occur regardless of if someone is circumsized or not.


All you said was it started bleeding...but you did not say WHY? 

As to your grandson, Im sorry to say again," There is NO reliable evidence that circumcision provides any medical benefits at all." However, there is credible evidence that it does provide negative effects later on in life.

Examine the evidence for yourself. Notice that ALL evidence pointing to benefits falls well within the accepted margins of error, which in normal science says there is no evidence at all. Yet, evidence of negative effects fall outside the accepted margins for error.


lastly, dont politicized the mutilation of infants!

Listen to this child scream. Listen at 1:20 when the distress turns to the silent cant get enough breath wail of pain. Tied down and mutilated. Do you hear the childs gurgling panic? Listen to the gurgling cough at 1:49 as the actual cutting begins. The doctor left the clamp on to help ease the pain, released the boys arms so he'd feel "less" of the cutting. Now listen at 2;0 when the doctor is trying to clean up the wound a bit in prep for more cutting. Hear that childs high pitch wail in pain? Do you hear it?

And at 2:45, the fucking doctor has the GALL to say the BABY got himself upset, while hes hacking a piece of the child away from his body!!! hes got HIMSELF upset!

By 3:30 the child is choking. You hear it? Hes been crying so long, been short of breath for so long, he has entered an state of shock.

At 4:02, you can hear the stuttering exhausted cry. Thats a fairly normal response once someone has entered a state of shock. Hear the childs response at 4:20? The faded breathing the panting? Thats relief...when the child thinks its over...but guess what? The doctor now removes his "device" and the blood comes rushing back into the penis and the pain starts all over again. As evidenced by the return to the screaming at 4:50.

And congrats! You've successfully mutilated an infant. That'll be $500 dollars.

Routine Infant Circumcision

For what?

NO PROVABLE MEDICAL BENEFIT AT ALL.

Listen to that child wail in pain and tell me again how this is about some fucking socialized medicine and not about stopping the mutilation of children. 

If a person can watch that video and hear that childs screams and still say this is about politics then in my opinion that person has no soul.


NO MEDICAL BENEFIT.

Its done for "religious reasons" left over from a time when we didn't have proper SOAP.

So and I mean this...for bringing socialism into this to ease your conscience for not protecting your grandson from being mutilated so the hospital could charge your child for the privilege to sell off your grandchilds foreskin to a cosmetics company, your ignorance is pathetic.


----------



## beagle9 (Jul 4, 2012)

Vidi said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > Vidi said:
> ...


Sounds like it could have been a bad doctor or procedure done in this case, so what, you will base all procedures done as bad now, because of this single thread of evidence your using in opposition to ? As a liberal trying to make a point I bet you are trying to use what is your single entry here as the reasoning to halt all procedures around the world now, in which you think is bad in your own opinion of, and this all due to what maybe one event you use here? This is an event in which is not based upon a long drawn out study that would of course send the red flags to flying if such a study was done, so what is your reasoning or better proof for such a blown up opinion ? You know, I can't seem to remember my circumsision, and this no matter how hard I try to, and guess what I am not mental or scarred or looked upon as a freak by my wife because of my circumsision, infact I wear it proud actually... Oh and I didn't need to get into what caused the man's junk to begin giving him problems, only that it did was enough for me, and now he is circumsized according to him when came back to work, and his doctor said it would have been best for that to have taken place when he was born. I know you have your hands over your ears now, because you have taken this issue up and decided upon it in your mind, so no matter what is said, your mind is made up right?


----------



## Unkotare (Jul 4, 2012)

Vidi said:


> There is no reliable evidence that circumcision has ANY medical benefits.




Many links to reliable sources have been provided on this thread. Don't pretend you are unaware of them. That kind of dishonesty suggests you are not really comfortable in your position.


----------



## Political Junky (Jul 4, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > There is no reliable evidence that circumcision has ANY medical benefits.
> ...


Obviously you only read the arguments that support your view.


----------



## Unkotare (Jul 4, 2012)

Political Junky said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > Vidi said:
> ...




What makes you say that?


----------



## Ariux (Jul 4, 2012)

Shithead libtards:

Circumcision: bad
dicing a baby in the womb: good


----------



## Vidi (Jul 5, 2012)

Ariux said:


> Shithead libtards:
> 
> Circumcision: bad
> dicing a baby in the womb: good




Dumbass.

I support neither.


----------



## Vidi (Jul 5, 2012)

beagle9 said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > beagle9 said:
> ...




My wife and I became VERY well informed on this subject. We studied the so called benefits, the drawbacks. We consulted doctors, who fell on both sides of the argument.

What became the deciding factor for me was the fact that the foreskin contains nerve endings, that it acts to protect the head and allows it to keep is sensitivity, it also allows for more friction during intercourse , meaning the male doesn't have to thrust as deep and hard in order to find pleasure. 

The foreskin contains the five areas MOST sensitive to light touch...and we are cutting it off.

Swap the genders. Say we were talking about cutting off a female infants clitoris. It's barbaric when we do it to females, but acceptable when we do it o males?


----------



## Unkotare (Jul 5, 2012)

Equating male and female circumcision is absurd.


----------



## sfcalifornia (Jul 5, 2012)

editec said:


> Yeah, I can see how this would upset those for whom circumcision is a religious obligation.
> 
> I can also understand why some of us think that mutilation of a baby boy's penis makes about as much sense (read none) as mutilation of a baby girls cliterus.
> 
> Not much room for compromise in this clash of cultural values.



Luckily there is a movement within the religions which have advocated circumcision over the years to re-evaluate their position on the subject:

We are a group of educated and enlightened Jews who realize that the barbaric, primitive, torturous, and mutilating practice of circumcision has no place in modern Judaism. 
Index

Jewish law is constantly evolving. Our practices change as we learn, writes Moss. If we discover that a previously accepted Jewish tradition is dangerousor if we simply learn that theres a more compassionate way to act, one that is more consistent with Jewish principles than the previous interpretationit's incumbent on us to modify or discontinue the tradition, she says. 
Beyond the Bris: Questioning Jewish Circumcision

Jews Speak Out in Favor of Banning Circumcision on Minors | IntactNews

Ideally, opposition to Islamic circumcison must begin within Islam itself. 
Islam and circumcision

QuranicPath | Circumcision - Does the Quran Approve it? - Genital Mutilation | ???? | Khitan | Islam | Sunnah | Hadith | Khatna | Musolmani | Sunat | Sirkumsisi | Khatan | Tuli | Tule | Pagtutuli | Sunatan | Sünnet | Urkwtha | Tahara | Touhur | ?????

In our opinion, a God who demands that his believers be mutilated and branded on their genitals the same as cattle, is a God of questionable ethics. It could be legitimate to perform either male or female circumcision, as any other surgery, for specific, extremely rare, medical reasons on specific individuals. But to arbitrarily mutilate children, boys or girls, under the pretext that it is for their own good, shows an influence of cynicism and fanaticism.
To Mutilate in the Name of Jehovah or Allah


----------



## Againsheila (Jul 5, 2012)

I wish I had my youngest circumcised.  He's had problems, he's low functioning autism and doesn't understand a lot, it's difficult to get him to clean it properly.  I sometimes think if he'd been circumcised he wouldn't now be having problems with dribbling and such.  Religion is not the only reason for circumcision.  Some men have had to have it later in life due to problems and they wished it'd been done when they were babies.


----------



## Vidi (Jul 5, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> Equating male and female circumcision is absurd.




You obvious don't know anything about the foreskin then. Why dont you go study up on it. Find out how many nerve endings we are chopping off and how desensitized the head becomes once the foreskin is gone, then get back to us.


----------



## konradv (Jul 5, 2012)

Againsheila said:


> I wish I had my youngest circumcised.  He's had problems, he's low functioning autism and doesn't understand a lot, it's difficult to get him to clean it properly.  I sometimes think if he'd been circumcised he wouldn't now be having problems with dribbling and such.  Religion is not the only reason for circumcision.  Some men have had to have it later in life due to problems and they wished it'd been done when they were babies.



Some people get appendicitis.  If we just had them all removed at birth, it wouldn't be an issue.


----------



## Unkotare (Jul 5, 2012)

Vidi said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > Equating male and female circumcision is absurd.
> ...




YOU obviously don't know what female circumcision is and why it is practiced.


----------



## ekrem (Jul 5, 2012)

Jews do it usually 8 days after birth, and the procedure is done by a religious guy.

Muslims do it up to age 12 and procedure is performed in Hospitals by doctors.
Enough time for Muslim families to travel to a country where the procedure can be done.

Despite the Court ruling the situation in Germany is not definite regarding circumsisiion.


----------



## Ariux (Jul 5, 2012)

ekrem said:


> Jews do it usually 8 days after birth, and the procedure is done by a [cock sucker Jew] guy.
> 
> Muslims do it up to age 12 and procedure is performed in Hospitals by doctors.
> Enough time for Muslim families to travel to a country where the procedure can be done.
> ...



Circumcision is also popular among Christians.


----------



## Jos (Jul 5, 2012)

Vidi said:


> You obvious don't know anything about the foreskin then. Why dont you go study up on it. Find out how many nerve endings we are chopping off and how desensitized the head becomes once the foreskin is gone, then get back to us.



I caught my foreskin in my zipper once, that told me all I need to know about how many nerve endings are in the foreskin


----------



## Political Junky (Jul 5, 2012)

Ariux said:


> ekrem said:
> 
> 
> > Jews do it usually 8 days after birth, and the procedure is done by a [cock sucker Jew] guy.
> ...


Only in the US.


----------



## Vidi (Jul 5, 2012)

Jos said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > You obvious don't know anything about the foreskin then. Why dont you go study up on it. Find out how many nerve endings we are chopping off and how desensitized the head becomes once the foreskin is gone, then get back to us.
> ...



Sorry but I had to laugh at that...and grimace.


----------



## Vidi (Jul 5, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



Thats right, divert from your own ignorance and defend the mutilation of children. Nice set of values youve got there, champ.


----------



## Unkotare (Jul 5, 2012)

Vidi said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > Vidi said:
> ...





Speaking of 'diversion'..........


----------



## beagle9 (Jul 5, 2012)

konradv said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > I wish I had my youngest circumcised.  He's had problems, he's low functioning autism and doesn't understand a lot, it's difficult to get him to clean it properly.  I sometimes think if he'd been circumcised he wouldn't now be having problems with dribbling and such.  Religion is not the only reason for circumcision.  Some men have had to have it later in life due to problems and they wished it'd been done when they were babies.
> ...


Liberal reasoning at it's best right here folks, now step right up folks and watch the free show, because these kind of people cannot be reasoned with at all, especially once they purchase land with an ocean view in Arizona, in which has been sold to them by whom they thought were their friends or allies in life.. B )


----------



## beagle9 (Jul 5, 2012)

Vidi said:


> Jos said:
> 
> 
> > Vidi said:
> ...




Not sure, but if he'd had been circumsized, he proably could have gotten his junk free quicker, and with way less pain involved, but can you imagine what a mangled up mess that might have been, by getting an uncircumsized junk caught in a zipper?? Infact that is proably the very reason it got caught in the zipper in the first place (if were uncircumsized).....OUCH!.... LOL


----------



## Jos (Jul 5, 2012)

beagle9 said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > Jos said:
> ...



Right now, In Somalia and Egypt  circumcised women are posting the benefits of circumcision for girls. as in America circumcised guys extol it's joys


----------



## Vidi (Jul 5, 2012)

beagle9 said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > Jos said:
> ...



I once caught my circumsized junk on my zipper ( drunk and in a hurry lol )...I guarantee you, his foreskin wasnt the issue.


----------



## konradv (Jul 5, 2012)

beagle9 said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...



Conservative reasoning, actually.  There's no "one size fits all".  Just because some may have problems later, doesn't mean all should be affected.


----------



## Unkotare (Jul 5, 2012)

konradv said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



The only people here advocating a one size fits all approach are those who insist circumcision be outlawed. I don't see anyone suggesting that all male babies be circumcised by law. The parents decide. That's it.


----------



## beagle9 (Jul 5, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > beagle9 said:
> ...


Exactly right....


----------



## Vidi (Jul 5, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > beagle9 said:
> ...



So much for individual choice huh?  You really are a liberal, arent you?

hey look if youre an adult and you want to chop off part of your penis, go right ahead. This isnt an ear piercing. Its removing part of their body for NO MEDICAL REASON.

But hey you go ahead and support it, liberal.


----------



## Unkotare (Jul 5, 2012)

Vidi said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...




No, I'm really not (to say the least). The parents make that decision based on their values, beliefs, and medical/hygiene concerns (I have provided many links on this thread so don't bother shrieking "No medical reason!" over and over). 

Your feeble attempt at ad hominem has failed.


----------



## Vidi (Jul 5, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...




and I debunked those links. So dont bother acting like there are medical reasons. each and every study cited to provide a so called medical reason says it reduces risks by less than 1%. 

So again, no medical reason to mutliate our children.

So youre left with defending cutting off a piece of an infants body strictly for religious reasons and not the religion of the child but of its parents.

So again, so much for individual choice. You are defending the collective, like a good little drone should.


----------



## Unkotare (Jul 5, 2012)

Vidi said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > Vidi said:
> ...





Only in your own little, teeny-tiny mind.


----------



## Unkotare (Jul 5, 2012)

Vidi said:


> So youre left with defending cutting off a piece of an infants body strictly for religious reasons and not the religion of the child but of its parents.





Is that what this is really about with you? Is this just another angry atheist, anti-religion thing? Why not just say so from the outset?


----------



## Unkotare (Jul 5, 2012)

Vidi said:


> You are defending the collective, like a good little drone should.





That makes no sense at all. You're really bad at this ad hominem stuff. You need to find another approach.


----------



## Ariux (Jul 5, 2012)

Vidi said:


> and I debunked those links. So dont bother acting like there are medical reasons. each and every study cited to provide a so called medical reason says it reduces risks by less than 1%.
> 
> So again, no medical reason to mutliate our children.



According to Wikipedia, "Trials took place in South Africa, Kenya and Uganda.[22] All three trials were stopped early by their monitoring boards on ethical grounds, because those in the circumcised group had a lower rate of HIV contraction than the control group.[22] The results showed that circumcision reduced vaginal-to-penile transmission of HIV by 60%, 53%, and 51%, respectively."

Reduces the chance of getting AIDS by over 50%.  That's huge.  And, that carries over to other STDs, to some degree.   

Also, the girls like circumcised equipment over untrimmed junk.

You're a shithead so you might not consider freedom to be the default position for government.  But, as I see it, because it's not harmful to a child, the government has no business banning it.  Even if it only offered a 1% health benefit.  Call me when it's linked to people getting AIDS and cancer.


----------



## Vidi (Jul 5, 2012)

Ariux said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > and I debunked those links. So dont bother acting like there are medical reasons. each and every study cited to provide a so called medical reason says it reduces risks by less than 1%.
> ...



Coming from the biggest piece of shit coward on the internet I take every insult you throw as a confirmation that I am on the side of right. I also like how you forgot to post the very next line:

There is *little or no evidence that it protects against male-to-female HIV transmission*[77][78], and whether it is of benefit *in developed countries and among men who have sex with men is undetermined*.[79][80][81]

Heres what OTHERS have to say on the subject...ALSO from that wikipedia page :

As of 2010[update], the Royal Australasian College of Physicians state: "After reviewing the currently available evidence, the RACP believes that the frequency of diseases modifiable by circumcision, the level of protection offered by circumcision and the complication rates of circumcision *do not warrant routine infant circumcision *in Australia and New Zealand. However it is reasonable for parents to weigh the benefits and risks of circumcision and to make the decision whether or not to circumcise their sons.

The 1996 position statement says that "*circumcision of newborns **should not be routinely performed*",[157] and the 2004 information to parents says: 'Circumcision is a "non-therapeutic" procedure, which means it *is not medically necessary*. Parents who decide to circumcise their newborns often do so for religious, social, or cultural reasons. [. . .] After reviewing the scientific evidence for and against circumcision, the CPS *does not recommend routine circumcision for newborn boys*. Many paediatricians no longer perform circumcisions.'[49]

Finnish Medical Association opposes circumcision of infants for non-medical reasons, arguing that *circumcision does not bring about any medical benefits and it may risk the health of the infant *as well as his right to physical integrity

The* American Medical Association *supports the AAP's 1999 circumcision policy statement with regard to non-therapeutic circumcision, which they define as the non-religious, non-ritualistic, *not medically necessary*, elective circumcision of male newborns. They state that "policy statements issued by professional societies representing Australian, Canadian, and American pediatricians *do not recommend routine circumcision of male newborns*."[


----------



## Ariux (Jul 5, 2012)

Vidi said:


> There is *little or no evidence that it protects against male-to-female HIV transmission*[77][78], and whether it is of benefit *in developed countries and among men who have sex with men is undetermined*.[79][80][81]



Shithead, if I have a baby boy, and I'm trying to decide if he should be circumcised, I'm not considering if it'll prevent a woman from being infected.   But, because you bring it up, it does does help protect females by reducing the chance of the male having an STD, in the first place, to give to the female.  Also, I don't give a shit about whether or not it helps protect fags.  But, again, you've not shown it harms fags.

Shithead, you're a fascist, an ass-sucking fascist.  If you can't show it harms boys, you have no excuse for sticking your shithead into other people's business.  You're such a shithead you don't even feel an obligation to make the case that it's harmful.  You just object that it's only "1% healthy".


----------



## Unkotare (Jul 5, 2012)

Vidi said:


> The* American Medical Association *supports the AAP's 1999 circumcision policy statement with regard to non-therapeutic circumcision, which they define as the non-religious, non-ritualistic, *not medically necessary*, elective circumcision of male newborns. They state that "policy statements issued by professional societies representing Australian, Canadian, and American pediatricians *do not recommend routine circumcision of male newborns*."[




AMA opposes legal restrictions on infant circumcision - Health & wellness - The Boston Globe

&#8220;There is strong evidence documenting the health benefits of male circumcision, and it is a low-risk procedure, Dr. Peter W. Carmel, AMA president, said in a statement released at yesterday&#8217;s meeting in New Orleans. &#8220;Today the AMA again made it clear that it will oppose any attempts to intrude into legitimate medical practice and the informed choices of patients.&#8221;


----------



## Vidi (Jul 5, 2012)

Ariux said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > There is *little or no evidence that it protects against male-to-female HIV transmission*[77][78], and whether it is of benefit *in developed countries and among men who have sex with men is undetermined*.[79][80][81]
> ...




Coward, it harms boys by removing their five most sensetive areas for sexual arousal. If you had a boy, would remove one of his hands because he can do fine with just one? One of his eyes? He can still see, after all.

Would YOU decide to take away ANY part of his body just because you felt like it? 

f you stopped being a fucking racist for two minutes and actually realized that the reason HIV is rampant in Africa and not here is because of the Plague.

Plague Immunity Gene Stops HIV Aids - THE STEEL DEAL
Darwin Awards

then you might realize that circumsicion, chopping off a large part of your childs junk, is unneccessary.


Imagine if you were told to chop off your daughters clitoris because she would be less suseptible to some disease she is already less suseptible to.

Wake up, dickbreath. Youre advocating mutilating babies. 

And the only fascist act in this whole thing is the opression of YOUR religion on children that have not had a chance to choose for themselves.


----------



## Unkotare (Jul 5, 2012)

Vidi said:


> then you might realize that circumsicion, chopping off a large part of your childs junk, is unneccessary.





"A large part"? Well, now we know something else about you...


----------



## Unkotare (Jul 5, 2012)

Vidi said:


> Imagine if you were told to chop off your daughters clitoris because she would be less suseptible to some disease she is already less suseptible to.




AGAIN, trying to equate male and female circumcision is beyond absurd. But I guess you've got so little to go one besides logical fallacies and emoting...


----------



## Vidi (Jul 5, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > then you might realize that circumsicion, chopping off a large part of your childs junk, is unneccessary.
> ...



LOL...good one

as the majority of the penile pleasure nerve centers are actually located in the foreskin, yeah, a LARGE part.


----------



## Political Junky (Jul 5, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...


It would be far better if parents taught their sons to clean themselves, wouldn't it?


----------



## Moonglow (Jul 5, 2012)

there are more circumsized Muslims than Jew and  Gentile together.
The tenet between Abraham and God was to be the circumsion of his great nation God would give to Abraham and his decendants. They are the children of Abraham.
The medical side is that it makes no diff if it is circumsized or not.


----------



## Unkotare (Jul 5, 2012)

Vidi said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > Vidi said:
> ...




Now we see that in addition to being an excuse to vent your atheist insecurity, you are still dealing with issues stemming from the fact that a certain something is so small that you resent losing any more of it. 

Maybe you can get yourself a strap-on or something.


----------



## Unkotare (Jul 5, 2012)

Political Junky said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > Vidi said:
> ...




"Far better" is up to the parents to decide.


----------



## Vidi (Jul 5, 2012)

> The foreskin contains between 10,000-20,000 highly specialized nerve endings and several feet of blood vessels.
> 
> The entire intact penis may contain around 24,000 nerves, with only 4,000 or so remaining after circumcision
> 
> ...



Heres some more info



> 1. Full penis length and circumference. The "prepuce" (foreskin) constitutes 50% or more of the skin system of the penis [1]. If unfolded and spread flat, the average adult foreskin measures 60-90 square centimeters (10-14 square inches) [2], or about the size of an index card [see illustration]. The foreskin creates a visibly longer penis, especially when the foreskin extends beyond the head of the penis. Also, the double-layered tissue of the foreskin engorges with blood during erection and creates a visibly and sensually thicker shaft and glans.When the engorged foreskin retracts behind the coronal ridge of the glans, it often creates a wider and more pronounced "ridge" that many partners find especially stimulating during penetrative intercourse. The circumcised penis appears truncated and thinner than a full-sized intact penis.
> 
> 2. Protection. The sleeve of tissue known as the foreskin normally covers the glans and protects it from abrasion, drying, callusing (keratinization), and environmental contaminants. The glans is intended by nature to be a protected internal organ, like the female clitoris [see illustration]. The effect of an exposed glans and resulting keratinization on human sexual response has never been studied. Increasing reports by circumcised men indicate that keratinization causes a loss of sexual sensation, pleasure and fulfillment [3, 4].
> 
> ...


----------



## Vidi (Jul 5, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...




No. "Far better" is to let each individual decide as an adult, if they want to be circumsized or not. Not FORCED upon them at birth.


----------



## Vidi (Jul 5, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



Stop making stupid assumptions. Im not an atheist. Im a christian. Just not one that feels he needs to prove his faith by forcing it down other peoples throats or worse yet, by chopping off a part of an infants penis.

Just because you havent spoken to a woman without first given a credit card number, dont push your insecurities off on me.


----------



## Vidi (Jul 5, 2012)

> The glans of the circumcised penis is less sensitive to fine touch than the glans of the uncircumcised penis. The transitional region from the external to the internal prepuce is the most sensitive region of the uncircumcised penis and more sensitive than the most sensitive region of the circumcised penis. Circumcision ablates the most sensitive parts of the penis.
> 
> Fine-touch pressure thresholds in the adult penis. [BJU Int. 2007] - PubMed - NCBI



Heres more


----------



## Vidi (Jul 5, 2012)

and more:



> *The foreskin has twelve known functions.*
> 
> They are:
> 
> ...


----------



## Vidi (Jul 5, 2012)

and why do we do it? Religion or just "because we do it"?



> Circumcision started in America during the masturbation hysteria of the Victorian Era, when a few *American doctors circumcised boys to punish them for masturbating*. Victorian doctors knew very well that circumcision denudes, desensitizes, and disables the penis. *Nevertheless, they were soon claiming that circumcision cured epilepsy, convulsions, paralysis, elephantiasis, tuberculosis, eczema, bed-wetting, hip-joint disease, fecal incontinence, rectal prolapse, wet dreams, hernia, headaches, nervousness, hysteria, poor eyesight, idiocy, mental retardation, and insanity.*4
> 
> The foreskin is a uniquely specialized, sensitive, functional organ of touch. No other part of the body serves the same purpose. As a modified extension of the penile shaft skin, the foreskin covers and usually extends beyond the glans before folding under itself and finding its circumferential point of attachment just behind the corona (the rim of the glans). The foreskin is, therefore, a double-layered organ. Its true length is twice the length of its external fold and comprises as much as 80 percent or more of the penile skin covering
> 
> ...


----------



## Unkotare (Jul 5, 2012)

Vidi said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...




Parents make many decisions for their children. They have to. You make decisions for your children, I'm sure.


----------



## Unkotare (Jul 5, 2012)

Vidi said:


> Im not an atheist. Im a christian. Just not one that feels he needs to prove his faith by forcing it down other peoples throats .







Who is doing that? No one here is advocating making circumcision a legal obligation. You seem to be searching for an opponent you think you can handle, but you are using too much imagination.


----------



## Unkotare (Jul 5, 2012)

Interesting you had to google to find out how intercourse works...


----------



## Vidi (Jul 5, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...




Yes, I tattooed my daughters face the day she was born as to scare away potential boyfriends in her teens years. Between that and cleaning my guns when they come to pick her up, I figure they ought to be able to keep their hands and penis' to themselves. If not circumcision will be the least of their worries.

LOL


----------



## Moonglow (Jul 5, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> Interesting you had to google to find out how intercourse works...



Was there pictures!


----------



## Vidi (Jul 5, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> Interesting you had to google to find out how intercourse works...




that ones lame. Flacid even.  try harder. OH wait, youre missing your pleasure centers so I guess flacid is the best you can do.


----------



## Vidi (Jul 5, 2012)

Moonglow said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting you had to google to find out how intercourse works...
> ...



there were. I found them facinating.


----------



## Moonglow (Jul 5, 2012)

Vidi said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



we'll thank goodness.


----------



## Vidi (Jul 5, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > Im not an atheist. Im a christian. Just not one that feels he needs to prove his faith by forcing it down other peoples throats .
> ...



I am ALWAYS opposed to other people making decisions for us. Its called Liberty...it might be something youve heard of but never actually experienced.

and THIS issue is a HUGE violation of individual choicde , freedom and liberty.


----------



## Unkotare (Jul 5, 2012)

Oh, maybe V is looking for something to blame for his equipment not working!


----------



## Unkotare (Jul 5, 2012)

Vidi said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > Vidi said:
> ...




You don't make decisions for your children?


----------



## Vidi (Jul 5, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



Not ones that mutilate their bodies for no reason, no. What food Im going to put on the table, yes. If they can run out and play in traffic, yes. If they can run out in a crowd unattended, yes. Chopping off a part of their body for no reason, no.

And whats worse...those who do it for religious reasons, at least Christians that is, are doing it for the wrong reasons.

Gal. 6:12-13: "As many as desire to make a good showing in the flesh, these try to compel you to be circumcised, only that they may not suffer persecution for the cross of Christ. For not even those who are circumcised keep the law, but they desire to have you circumcised that they may glory in your flesh." 

Gal. 5:6: "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love." 

Gal. 6:15: "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but a new creation." 

Col 3:9-11: "Do not lie to one another, since you have put off the old man with his deeds, and have put on the new man who is renewed in knowledge according to the image of Him who created him, where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised nor uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave nor free, but Christ is all and in all." 

Acts 15:24: "... we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, 'You must be circumcised and keep the law' --* to whom we gave no such commandment* ..." 



According to the New Testament, circumcision is unneccessary for salvation.


----------



## Vidi (Jul 5, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> Oh, maybe V is looking for something to blame for his equipment not working!




Maybe you need to stop projecting.


----------



## Unkotare (Jul 5, 2012)

Vidi said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > Vidi said:
> ...





That's a dodge because you've got your axe to grind and can't think beyond it.


----------



## Vidi (Jul 5, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



Its not a dodge at all. I chose my words carefully. if ,for example, my daughter needed her appendix removed because it was about to burst, I would choose for it to be removed. Does that remove an organ? Yes. Could it be seen as mutilation? Sure. Is it medically neccessary? Yes.


Just because you cant find a way to attack my position doesnt mean Im dodging the question. Again, stop projecting.


----------



## Unkotare (Jul 5, 2012)

Vidi said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > Vidi said:
> ...




Of course it's a dodge. Instead of addressing the question you just looked for an excuse to reiterate your talking point.


----------



## Vidi (Jul 5, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...




No you just didnt like the answer because it didnt slide into your next prepared fail argument.


----------



## Unkotare (Jul 5, 2012)

Vidi said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > Vidi said:
> ...





Because it was a dodge.


----------



## Vidi (Jul 5, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



In two seperate threads, youve degenerated into nonsense. You lose in both.


----------



## Unkotare (Jul 5, 2012)

Vidi said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > Vidi said:
> ...





That post was also a dodge.


----------



## oldernwiser (Jul 5, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



And now for a dose of truth from one of my favorite talk-docs:
Dr. Dean Edell Statement on Circumcision


----------



## Political Junky (Jul 6, 2012)

oldernwiser said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


Dr. Edell's piece should be read by all.
Edell is Jewish and, as he said, didn't circumcise his youngest son.


----------



## Noomi (Jul 6, 2012)

Can I just take one portion of the article and respond to it? Its not related directly to circumcision, but I think it is important to comment on it:



> A judge at a Cologne court said that the circumcision of minors went against a child's interests because it led to a physical alteration of the body, and because *people other than the child were determining its religious affiliation.*



The bold portion is what I wish to comment on. Just because a child is circumcised doesn't mean they belong to a religion. Many people are circumcised, and many of those people have no religion.

Also, what of parents who have their young children baptised into their religion? While baptism isn't altering a part of the body, aren't these parents determining the religious affiliation of the child, while the child is too young to make their own decisions?

For the record, I am fine with circumcision, as long as it is performed by a trained professional - and I would also prefer that a general anaesthetic be used to prevent the child feeling pain.


----------



## Intense (Jul 6, 2012)

Noomi said:


> Can I just take one portion of the article and respond to it? Its not related directly to circumcision, but I think it is important to comment on it:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It's like the State is offended that the Parents have any Authority over the child.


----------



## konradv (Jul 6, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > beagle9 said:
> ...



Then the parents should decide for cause.  I'm not insisting that it be outlawed, just that people think before simply doing something out of tradition.


----------



## Unkotare (Jul 6, 2012)

konradv said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



The parents can decide for whatever reason they want, including tradition.


----------



## Unkotare (Jul 6, 2012)

oldernwiser said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



I'm sure you've read the many, many links I've provided on this thread.


----------



## oldernwiser (Jul 6, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> oldernwiser said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



I have. Just pointing out that there are some conflicting views on this subject. Some have verifiable studies to back them up, some just refer back to "common knowledge".

My own thinking is that circumcision - both penile and clitoral - are barbaric throwbacks to when some religious zealot made the determination that sex was for procreation ONLY, and as such should not be something that was to be enjoyed. The 25 square inches of tissue removed from an organ which contains more nerve endings per square inch than any other part of the human body can ONLY be viewed as removing the enjoyment aspect from the human sexual act. Thinking in those terms, why would we knowingly ruin our children's potential happiness? Even though we are the parents, what could give ANYONE the right to make such a long term crippling decision on another human? Are we THAT ignorant, or just THAT arrogant?

It's mentioned that there are other issues that are being addressed beyond ritualistic mutilation. However, there are other parts of the body which tend to cause bigger problems and are never addressed until they actually do. Why don't we immediately remove the appendixes from our babies at birth? It's clearly a useless organ. It may even become inflamed, infected, or even rupture at some point in the child's life. Why do we attack our kid's genitals and not go after other potential threats?

The answer is that it's not ethical to remove a perfectly functional organ. Why would we ever consider circumcision an ethical thing to do without cause?


----------



## Unkotare (Jul 6, 2012)

oldernwiser said:


> I have. Just pointing out that there are some conflicting views on this subject.






That much is fair enough.


----------



## konradv (Jul 6, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



Didn't say they couldn't, just that it was stupid.


----------



## Unkotare (Jul 6, 2012)

konradv said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...




That is your _opinion_. That's why you can decide for your children and others decide for theirs. Simple enough.


----------



## Political Junky (Jul 6, 2012)

Noomi said:


> Can I just take one portion of the article and respond to it? Its not related directly to circumcision, but I think it is important to comment on it:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Not many people in Germany, or anywhere in Europe, are circumcised who aren't Jewish or Muslim ... it's extremely rare.


----------



## Unkotare (Jul 6, 2012)

Political Junky said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > Can I just take one portion of the article and respond to it? Its not related directly to circumcision, but I think it is important to comment on it:
> ...



Link?


----------



## Vidi (Jul 6, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



How about YOU provide some for a change? Wouldnt THAT be refreshing?


----------



## beagle9 (Jul 6, 2012)

Intense said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > Can I just take one portion of the article and respond to it? Its not related directly to circumcision, but I think it is important to comment on it:
> ...




Yes, the state as it exsist more and more these days, and for which has gotten everything turned completely upside down now in the world, doth seek after us more and more in order to gain control over us who are in the world, especially upon these mysterious days in which we all now do live.. Lets just hope that what goes on in Germany doesn't soon come here, but I think that it already has in many ways, so just be ready to deal with it all, and that is all I can say about it at this time...

We look too and fro within the virtual worlds as so many millions now doth rome, and we do this in search of our lost identities, for which we had given up within the real world in which we once had known...... Beagle9 a U.S. Inet Citizen, in the year of our Lord 2012.


----------



## Unkotare (Jul 6, 2012)

Vidi said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...




I've provided more links than anyone else on this thread.


----------



## Vidi (Jul 6, 2012)

back to the subject,

My position is this.

Infant circumcision is the willful mutliation of a child. That child has no chance to choose if this permanent removal of his organ is something he even wants done to him and should therefore be considered a violation of his rights. 

If an adult wants to have it done then thats their choice, do what you got to do.

Go ahead, Unk, shoot it down. Explain to us how that child has no rights and therefore amputating one of his body parts is completely acceptable.


----------



## Vidi (Jul 6, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



You ignored my deluge of links in your count obviously.

EDIT:

You may give me shit for my spelling but Im going to give you shit for your MATH. SFCalifornia provided more links in ONE POST than you have this entire thread. Try again, Professor.


----------



## Unkotare (Jul 6, 2012)

Vidi said:


> back to the subject,
> 
> My position is this.
> 
> ...




Why do you just want to repeat the same thing over and over? What's the point of that? I've told you many times that the parents decide for the child at that age, as they will make many decisions for the child. That's what parents do.


----------



## Unkotare (Jul 6, 2012)

Vidi said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > Vidi said:
> ...





Try reading the entire thread.


----------



## Vidi (Jul 6, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > back to the subject,
> ...



Because its a decision that has life long negative implications. Whats so hard for you to understand?

Would you support parents amputating every childs left hand because their religion said so? Or because they thought it was cleanlier?


----------



## Vidi (Jul 6, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



I did. Try a calculator next time. Stop dodging with the derails.


----------



## Political Junky (Jul 6, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > back to the subject,
> ...


Even when there's absolutely no good medical reason to do it.


----------



## Vidi (Jul 6, 2012)

Political Junky said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > Vidi said:
> ...



and if we are discussing Christians, the New Testament says its unnecessary for salvation.


----------



## Political Junky (Jul 6, 2012)

Vidi said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...


It goes back to American puritanical beliefs, as outlined in an earlier post.


----------



## Unkotare (Jul 6, 2012)

Vidi said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > Vidi said:
> ...




Your _opinion_ has been noted. You are just repeating yourself. The parents decide; that's it.


----------



## Unkotare (Jul 6, 2012)

Political Junky said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > Vidi said:
> ...




Many, many sources have been provided that indicate good medical reasons to do it.


----------



## Vidi (Jul 6, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



No. ONE source says that it can help prevent the spread of HIV in Africa. That same source said that it was unclear if the effect would be the same in developed nations.

EVERY other source ( the ones YOU provided ) all said it reduced risks by less than 1%, which in sciencespeak means not at all.


----------



## Unkotare (Jul 6, 2012)

Vidi said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...





Yes. If you had read all the many links I provided you would know that.


----------



## Vidi (Jul 6, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



 I read your links and I have judged them properly. Thats why you cut out that part of the quote and left only the "no". You cant be fettered with "facts" can you?


----------



## Noomi (Jul 6, 2012)

Political Junky said:


> Not many people in Germany, or anywhere in Europe, are circumcised who aren't Jewish or Muslim ... it's extremely rare.



I am not religious, yet if I ever have a son, he will be circumcised as soon as I can get it done. He is my son and I want what is best for him, like any parent. He will not suffer with his foreskin removed, he will still be able to engage in sexual activity. Circumcision is harmless as long as it is done properly.



Vidi said:


> Because its a decision that has life long negative implications. Whats so hard for you to understand?
> 
> Would you support parents amputating every childs left hand because their religion said so? Or because they thought it was cleanlier?



Why does something which was performed in the childs first few weeks of life someho come back to affect them many years later?
Perhaps if the anti circumcision crowd didn't ram their beliefs down the throats of those who have been circumcised, making them believe they are somehow abnormal, there wouldn't be any 'life long negative implications'.

Those against circumcision somehow think that their sex life is not as good as it could be. Yet they have no idea what sex would be like if they did have a foreskin. They don't know if it would be better, or worse, or even painful due to the foreskin being too tight. They simply assume that because the foreskin has many nerve endings, that sex would be better.
These men can still achieve orgasm, they can still enjoy sex, and they can still father children, yet they complain. 

It makes me wonder whether these men don't blame circumcision for their shitty sex lives.


----------



## Unkotare (Jul 7, 2012)

Vidi said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > Vidi said:
> ...





Are you a physician?


----------



## Political Junky (Jul 7, 2012)

Perhaps some would advocate removal of the female labia, which relate to the foreskin in males.


----------



## Unkotare (Jul 7, 2012)

Political Junky said:


> Perhaps some would advocate removal of the female labia, which relate to the foreskin in males.



Try to keep up, that's been covered.


----------



## Political Junky (Jul 7, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps some would advocate removal of the female labia, which relate to the foreskin in males.
> ...


Were you for it?


----------



## Vidi (Jul 7, 2012)

Noomi said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Not many people in Germany, or anywhere in Europe, are circumcised who aren't Jewish or Muslim ... it's extremely rare.
> ...



You should read all the links I posted before you remove 70% of your sons feeling in his genitals.

Perhaps you wouldn't think it was harmless of you were discussing cutting off part of your daughters genitals for no medically valid reason whatsoever.


----------



## Vidi (Jul 7, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...




No. And neither are you. So we look at what the physicians say. And, as per the links I posted, they say there's no medical reason for circumcision.


----------



## Vidi (Jul 7, 2012)

Political Junky said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...




No he just ignorantly refuses to equate female circumcision with male circumcision. So by default is in favor of mutilating infants.


----------



## Unkotare (Jul 7, 2012)

Vidi said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > Vidi said:
> ...





And you looked at all the links I posted?


----------



## Unkotare (Jul 7, 2012)

Vidi said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...





Ignorance, gross and irresponsible ignorance, is trying to equate the two. You've allowed your agenda to take you completely over the edge.


----------



## Noomi (Jul 7, 2012)

Vidi said:


> You should read all the links I posted before you remove 70% of your sons feeling in his genitals.
> 
> Perhaps you wouldn't think it was harmless of you were discussing cutting off part of your daughters genitals for no medically valid reason whatsoever.



I have read countless links already and nothing will change my mind on the subject. And to compare female circumcision to male circumcision is like comparing apples and oranges.
Female circumcision is not done for the same reasons.


----------



## Vidi (Jul 7, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...




You know what? You're right.

As the clitorus has 2000 nerves and the uncut foreskin has 20,000, male circumcision is therefore 10x worse...right?


----------



## Noomi (Jul 7, 2012)

Vidi said:


> You know what? You're right.
> 
> As the clitorus has 2000 nerves and the uncut foreskin has 20,000, male circumcision is therefore 10x worse...right?



This is still irrelevant because female circumcision is not performed for the same reasons as male circumcision.


----------



## Vidi (Jul 7, 2012)

Noomi said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > You should read all the links I posted before you remove 70% of your sons feeling in his genitals.
> ...




You're wrong. It's done for exactly the same reason.

Female circumcision, or female genital mutilation, is defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) as "all procedures that involve partial or total removal of the external female genitalia, or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons."

That's EXACTLY the same thing...only it could actually be worse, because you would be removing 10 times the number of nerves from your boy, than if your child were female. 

Now, care to cite a medical reason to mutilate male genitals that hasn't already been thoroughly debunked?


Seriously, before you mutilate your child, don't you think you ought to at least look at it critically?

What are the pros and cons of it? Is it reversable if you're wrong?

Think about that. If you're wrong, he's deformed for the rest of his life. You will have robbed him of the fullness of the experiences his biological form was meant to have. There's no going back and fixing it.

But, he can always choose on his own as an adult to have it done later.

Would you choose the same if it was your daughter? 

With ALL the data and the vast majority of Medical associations saying there is no medical reason for circumcisions, from Austrailia, to Europe, to the American Medical Association, how can you be so sure that it's the right thing to do? Especially when it's not your body you are choosing to mutilate.

Do the right thing. Leave him intact and let the decision be his to make when he is older.


----------



## Noomi (Jul 7, 2012)

Male circumcision is not performed to prevent the male from enjoying sexual relations. However, it is done for this reason in females. Removing the clitoris prevents the female from feeling any enjoyment from intercourse at all.

Do the majority of circumcised men believe they have been mutilated, and want their foreskins back? Or are they happy and content with their bodies the way they are?

Some circumcised men seem to think that because they are angry about their circumcisions, that every man should also feel that anger, and most men don't.

Male circumcision reduces the risk of UTI's, and also sexually transmitted infections. It is also cleaner, and therefore more hygienic. Uncircumcised men may end up needing to be circumcised later in life because the foreskin becomes so tight, it causes pain and bleeding during sex. Circumcision early in life can prevent this.

As a parent, I believe you have the right -within reason - to raise your child how you see fit, and if a parent wishes to have their son circumcised, then that decision is none of your business.


----------



## Vidi (Jul 7, 2012)

Noomi said:


> Male circumcision is not performed to prevent the male from enjoying sexual relations. However, it is done for this reason in females. Removing the clitoris prevents the female from feeling any enjoyment from intercourse at all.
> 
> Do the majority of circumcised men believe they have been mutilated, and want their foreskins back? Or are they happy and content with their bodies the way they are?
> 
> ...




As I linked earlier, data suggests that erectile dysfunction is considerably higher in circumcised males. It in fact, DOES reduce sexual pleasure as it removes 20,000 nerves and damages 4,000 more, all related to sexual pleasure. Additionally, it's believed to remove as much as 70% of the feeling a male has in that area, as it removes the five MOST sensitive areas of the penis. So you're intention may not be to prevent your son from enjoying sex, but the result will be the same, loss of full enjoyment.

Additionally, the foreskin adds girth, and provides more friction for both him and his future partner(s). So your choice will effect not only his pleasure, but his wife's as well.

The data relating to STDs says that it reduces the risk by less than 1% which in science speak is NOT AT ALL.

The data concerning UTI's says circumcision produces no discernible reduction in risk of UTI's. Approx .003% as per my earlier link. 

The tightness you're referring to is called phimosis, and it occurs only very rarely in less than 2% of uncircumcised males. And this condition is usually discovered around puberty and then AND ONLY THEN becomes MEDICALLY NECESSARY. But even then there are several non surgical treatments that can fix that issue and leave the patient intact, including gentle stretching on the skin and/or the application of a topical cream.

The cleaner arguement is a false arguement in a country with SOAP AND RUNNING WATER.

Yes, as a parent, you have the right -within reason- to decide for your child. The key words being "within reason". It is not, in my opinion, "within reason" for you to decide to remove any part of his body for non medically necessary reasons.

And as you're Austrailian, from my previous post:

As of 2010, the Royal Australasian College of Physicians state: "After reviewing the currently available evidence, the RACP believes that the frequency of diseases modifiable by circumcision, the level of protection offered by circumcision and the complication rates of circumcision *do not warrant routine infant circumcision in Australia and New Zealand.
*"


----------



## beagle9 (Jul 7, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...


If he has to become one here, then I bet he will just so's he can lie and say that he knows better about this than anyone else here (or) even more scary over anyone that resides anywhere else in the world for that matter. 

His spoiled rotten attitude and liberal arrogance on such a subject, reeks of "no matter what is proven as the opposite of his OPINION in which he holds on the subject", he thinks he is smarter than anyone here in that he continually challenges their opinions, even though based on his weak theories at best, he just keeps going and going. This exposes his fallacy by doing so in the ways in which he is doing it, and yet he loves this place because it allows him to be what he thinks is so devilishly extremely smart in this way (he thinks), and so the debate turned argument in which it has basically become with him on this subject, is no longer profitable in any form it takes and/or in respect of the subject matter posted for anyone here, but rather it has now become just ignorant argumentive words spewing out of his mouth upon his return of, in which waste peoples time and their honest brain energy, and that is what all of this has become now with him, especially when I read more of his material as is written upon this thread when he responds. Can anyone like this actually become humble and concede a valid point made by someone when it is made (or) is this always a game of saying evil is good now, and that good is now evil, and this no matter what in accordance with these types of personalities where as it now has to be this way in life  ?


----------



## oldernwiser (Jul 7, 2012)

Noomi said:


> Male circumcision is not performed to prevent the male from enjoying sexual relations. However, it is done for this reason in females. Removing the clitoris prevents the female from feeling any enjoyment from intercourse at all.
> 
> Do the majority of circumcised men believe they have been mutilated, and want their foreskins back? Or are they happy and content with their bodies the way they are?
> 
> ...



Now, here's where you're not so correct. Circumcision has been around for a VERY long time and was brought about as a religious ritual. It had two purposes, one as a flesh offering to God and one in which a person's (male OR female) attention was not turned away from God even in the sexual act itself. The modern day "reasons" for circumcision were a way to perpetuate the underlying reasoning using "science" to explain why it's better to mutilate a child. You're correct that removing the clitoris is not EXACTLY the same as removing foreskin, but the reasons for doing so are. Sexual enjoyment is frowned upon by nearly all the world's organized religious beliefs. Christianity itself says that sex is ONLY for procreation in accordance with God's wishes, a belief that is widely held even today.

We who have been circumcised as children aren't "unhappy". We actually have no idea what we're missing except as described by others who have remained intact. But that argument is most like seeing a child who was born with no arms - she can do most everything a "normal" person can do, except she uses her feet to do it. Does she hate the fact that she has no arms, or is she content with the fact that she doesn't have to wear shoes?

Your last comment needs to be examined a bit. It's the "within reason" part that gets me. To some parents it's reasonable to softly paddle a bottom to get across to a child what "no" means. Some parents use a belt or a wooden spoon to get that same point across. Some use a closed fist. Who makes the determination of what is "within reason"? If a parent, who was "within reason" at the time, harms a child using these techniques, society says the parent can go to jail. Is it reasonable to ignore every major medical organization's studies on circumcision in favor of "common knowledge"?

Male or female, mutilation is still mutilation.


----------



## Truthseeker420 (Jul 7, 2012)

jillian said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, I can see how this would upset those for whom circumcision is a religious obligation.
> ...



Oh Geez Fucking Louise ! everything isn't anti-semitic. 

How about for this reason?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/gener...rpes-after-circumcision-and-oral-suction.html


----------



## Vidi (Jul 9, 2012)

beagle9 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > Vidi said:
> ...



Protecting the rights of the individual to choose for themselves instead of letting others choose for them is a Libetarian view.

Perhaps you need to stop sucking on the collective tit and wake up to what true freedom is really all about.

And no I am not a physician and do not need to pretend to be one in order to link to what actual physicians say on the subject. Youre an idiot for not reading my response to that question before posting how you THINK I would respond IF I were a knee jerk reactionary like you.


And Jillian, I have not once expressed any anti semetic view in this thread. I have expressed the desire to protect the childs religious freedoms as opposed to having the parents veiwpoint forced upon them for life.

We agree on a great many things thyroughout this forum. I find it disturbing that you would jump immediately to "its hate of jews" instead of actually reading what Ive posted as meaning exactly what I have said.


----------



## Unkotare (Jul 9, 2012)

Vidi said:


> Protecting the rights of the individual to choose for themselves instead of letting others choose for them is a Libetarian view.






This is the problem with your type that latches so desperately to an 'identity' that you abandon the will or ability to think. 


You make decisions for your children, don't you?


----------



## Vidi (Jul 9, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > Protecting the rights of the individual to choose for themselves instead of letting others choose for them is a Libetarian view.
> ...



We covered this already. Please try to work on your retention.


----------



## Noomi (Jul 9, 2012)

oldernwiser said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > Male circumcision is not performed to prevent the male from enjoying sexual relations. However, it is done for this reason in females. Removing the clitoris prevents the female from feeling any enjoyment from intercourse at all.
> ...



Good post, thanks for the response.

Now, I am not religious, so circumcision for me has nothing to do with God or anything like that. Its because I think it is cleaner, and healthier, easier to look after, and lets face it, more attractive, because women probably do prefer a man who is cut to one who isn't.

As for 'within reason', you raise a good point again. I don't think that parents should be allowed to spank their children, or instil their religious beliefs upon them (although that is a discussion for another time) but I do think that they should be able to choose to have the child circumcised - provided it is done as soon as possible after the birth to prevent the child from being traumatised. I also believe that, if possible, the baby should be put to sleep before the procedure, to prevent pain.

I think that if circumcision is made illegal, parents will simply get it done anyway - and that put the child at risk because the people performing the circumcision may not be trained in this procedure, so that is an important thing to consider also.


----------



## MHunterB (Jul 9, 2012)

Truthseeker420 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...




The 'oral suction' part isn't a standard or a common part of the ritual.  In fact it's not a part of the circumcision at all.  So it's basically irrelevant, as male circumcision can certainly be performed without any such risk.


----------



## Unkotare (Jul 9, 2012)

Vidi said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > Vidi said:
> ...





Then why do you keep posting as if it were a foreign concept? Also, you never really answered directly...


----------



## oldernwiser (Jul 9, 2012)

Noomi said:


> oldernwiser said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



You've made up your mind despite the reams of documentation that says that cleanliness isn't an issue, there are no known health benefits, and it's no harder to look after than the back of your ear. The last part of your response is probably the closest to the truth - your assumption that most women prefer the cleaner look.

Talk to your family doctor about the downside of circumcision - things like having a shorter erection time and the possibility of impotence later in life. To me, the small amount of trauma a child may experience is nothing compared to what that child, as a man, will face for many years. Why rob your child of an extremely happy sex life simply on the grounds that it "looks better" to you?


----------



## Vidi (Jul 9, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



Yes I did answer it directly. Youve chosen either not to accept that answer because it didnt lead into whatever your next question is in exactly the way you want it to or chosen to simply ignore it and reask the same question again hoping this time youll get a different answer. My answer is the same. Dont like it? Dont accept it? Your problem, not mine.


----------



## Unkotare (Jul 10, 2012)

oldernwiser said:


> there are no known health benefits




And once again the many, many links provided that show otherwise are ignored.


----------



## Unkotare (Jul 10, 2012)

Vidi said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > Vidi said:
> ...





Ok, quote your answer here.


----------



## oldernwiser (Jul 10, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> oldernwiser said:
> 
> 
> > there are no known health benefits
> ...



And once again, you believe what you read on the internet.

Have you ever asked a Dr directly? 
I have.


----------



## Unkotare (Jul 10, 2012)

oldernwiser said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > oldernwiser said:
> ...




Yes, as a matter of fact, I have. And once again the many, many links provided are ignored.


----------



## jillian (Jul 10, 2012)

oldernwiser said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > oldernwiser said:
> ...



i don't believe you have.

i do believe you believe what you read on the internet... spiced with a little of whatever it is that makes you think this is an issue.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Jul 10, 2012)

I'm not reading this whole thread......but I stand with those who stand against mutilating the genitals of newborn baby boys.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Jul 10, 2012)

Noomi said:


> oldernwiser said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



And........there it is.


----------



## Si modo (Jul 10, 2012)

Didn't the Third Reich do this, too?

Hmmmmmm.


----------



## oldernwiser (Jul 10, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> oldernwiser said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



Not ignored, just discounted in the light of many more recent findings which offer more than just anecdotal evidence.


----------



## Unkotare (Jul 10, 2012)

You didn't read the links if you think they had _anything_ to do with anecdotal evidence.


----------



## oldernwiser (Jul 10, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> You didn't read the links if you think they had _anything_ to do with anecdotal evidence.



OK... let's play with this a bit.

Your JAMA link, which is based on the CDC report you also linked, which in turn was based on 3 randomized trials held in South Africa, Kenya, and Uganda which was published as "Male circumcision for the prevention of heterosexually acquired HIV infection: a meta-analysis of randomized trials involving 11 050 men" reported the findings of E Mills, C Cooper, A Anema, and G Guyatt. (There is a link for the HTML version of this report if you need it.)

They extrapolated a 44% benefit in favor of circumcision. However, their data in the 3 clinical trials included in their report showed that circumcision was effective in 1% (and in Uganda, less than 1%) of those studied. They further stated that 72 circumcisions would be required to prevent 1 HIV infection. 

There are a few issues that cause some doubt as to the accuracy of the study. 

The authors state in their report:


> Limitations of our review include our inability to conduct sensitivity analysis because of the low number of trials included.


In other words, did their participants simply stop having sex? That would surely have a downward effect on the chance of contracting HIV.



> Participants in these trials received education to reduce their likelihood of infection, including safe-sex counselling and the recommendation of abstinence during the healing period. It is possible that this education will impact the generalizability of the trials because it may reduce the number of exposures that participants have in comparison to the general population.


The question of counseling also brings up the issue of whether abstinence after the fact could have had a contributing role. Again, less sexual contact = less HIV. 



> In addition, circumcised men may have an exaggerated sense of protection from sexually transmitted diseases including HIV that could influence their behaviour. Currently, we do not know how circumcision will impact upon behaviours; however, a modelling study from Uganda indicated that an increased number of sexual partners will counteract the beneficial impact of circumcision


The underlined part of that is interesting. If circumcision was actually beneficial, would multiple partners make that much of an impact?

The data showed that there was about a 3% incidence rate of HIV infection in uncircumcised males, and 1% infection rate among circumcised males. The study stopped short of a life history of those circumcised to determine if there were any other determining factors. In short, there wasn't enough data to do more than guess at a causal relationship.

It did get written up in JAMA though. 
JAMA also published reports that coffee:

Presents a risk of myocardial infarction
May cause Type 2 diabetes (in 2 separate reports)
May lead to Parkinson disease
May lead to symptomatic gallstone disease in men

JAMA is a great read. It gives doctors something to take to the bathroom in the morning. It's NOT the final authority.

The CDC report is interesting in that they used an interpretation of the aforementioned report re-written by Weiss HA, Quigley MA, and Hayes RJ. These authors chose to embellish what the original authors presented. They state:





> The three African trials found high levels of satisfaction among the men after circumcision


where the original study says:


> Limitations of our review include our inability to conduct sensitivity analysis because of the low number of trials included.


Seeing that, their motives should immediately become suspect. Clearly, they are arguing that there IS a direct cause and effect between circumcision and HIV and they don't care what the data really says.

So, yes, I have read many many links on the subject. I actually understood them too.


----------



## Vidi (Jul 10, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...




It's in the thread. I see no need to jump through your hoops. I have presented my argument. You are simply repeating what you have already stated and attempting the same already  failed tactic in the hope you'll get a different result.

Your next tactic will be throwing insults trying to force me to do your work for you. Not gonna happen. Go back and retread the thread because , as a matter of fact, I've already directly answered that question TWICE. Maybe you really do have a retention problem.


----------



## Unkotare (Jul 10, 2012)

If you want to split hairs with the CDC and question professional studies and procedures that's up to you. You might at least be honest enough to admit that is hardly the same as dismissively declaring that there is nothing to suggest a medical benefit as if it were a settled matter because you (not, I assume, a medical researcher by trade) dispute professional studies and procedures, and I certainly don't see what you refer to as "anecdotal evidence."


----------



## Unkotare (Jul 10, 2012)

Vidi said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > Vidi said:
> ...




I'm not asking you to rewrite anything, just quote your own post. That shouldn't be too much to ask if it's really there, should it?


----------



## oldernwiser (Jul 10, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> If you want to split hairs with the CDC and question professional studies and procedures that's up to you. You might at least be honest enough to admit that is hardly the same as dismissively declaring that there is nothing to suggest a medical benefit as if it were a settled matter because you (not, I assume, a medical researcher by trade) dispute professional studies and procedures, and I certainly don't see what you refer to as "anecdotal evidence."



Still not seeing the big picture?

The AMA (THE authority to reference, IMO) had this to say in Neonatal Circumcision (CSA Rep. 10, I-99) back in 1999:


> Data Synthesis. A majority of boys born in the United States continue to receive nonritual circumcisions. Circumcision decreases the incidence of urinary tract infections in the first year of life, and also protects against the development of penile cancer later in life. However, the low incidence of these conditions minimizes the potential medical benefits compared to risks of circumcision. The circumcised male also may be somewhat less susceptible to human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection and certain sexually transmissible diseases, but behavioral factors are far more important in preventing these infections than the presence or absence of a foreskin.
> 
> Neonates experience pain during the circumcision procedure, which can be blocked or minimized through the use of several local anesthetic techniques. Ring block or dorsal penile blocks using lidocaine are most effective. EMLA cream has more limited utility but has not been sufficiently investigated with regard to dose-response effects.
> 
> Conclusions. Although potential medical benefits are associated with newborn male circumcision, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine performance of this procedure on medical grounds. However, in the United States, parental decision-making appears to be based on social and cultural rather than medical concerns. When the decision is made to proceed with circumcision, local anesthesia should be provided for the procedure.



Notice the use of the words "may be" and "potential". The AMA is hedging, but if this practice was actually any good for a child I think they'd come right out and say so. Don't you?


----------



## Vidi (Jul 10, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...




Yes it is. I've already answered you question twice and now you're demanding I prove that I have already done so. I know off the top of my head exactly which POST NUMBER it is too ( well the second ONE anyway ) but I am not going to jump through your hoops.

In fact, by refusing to find it for yourself, you have illustrated that you are unwilling to look back on the thread and do your own homework. This shows me that in all likelyhood you have not even bothered to all evidence contradicting your arguments. 

How many times will I have to answer you before you're satisfied? Three? SIX? 

No more. You have ZERO chance of getting me to play along with your silly game.




Or do you?


----------



## Unkotare (Jul 10, 2012)

oldernwiser said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > If you want to split hairs with the CDC and question professional studies and procedures that's up to you. You might at least be honest enough to admit that is hardly the same as dismissively declaring that there is nothing to suggest a medical benefit as if it were a settled matter because you (not, I assume, a medical researcher by trade) dispute professional studies and procedures, and I certainly don't see what you refer to as "anecdotal evidence."
> ...





Why don't you address what I said first?


----------



## LoneLaugher (Jul 10, 2012)

The greatest thing EVER!

Circumcision Video


----------



## Unkotare (Jul 10, 2012)

Vidi said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > Vidi said:
> ...






Well, then you really can't expect to have any credibility. Get back to me when you are ready to be taken seriously.


----------



## oldernwiser (Jul 10, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> If you want to split hairs with the CDC and question professional studies and procedures that's up to you. You might at least be honest enough to admit that is hardly the same as dismissively declaring that there is nothing to suggest a medical benefit as if it were a settled matter because you (not, I assume, a medical researcher by trade) dispute professional studies and procedures, and I certainly don't see what you refer to as "anecdotal evidence."



You're right. I should have used terms like "insufficient evidence to suggest" and "minimal risk" instead of throwing out the blanket "no evidence". I apologize for my inaccuracy.


----------



## Vidi (Jul 10, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...




And there's the insult. Nice try, lazyass. You're so damn predictable it's funny.


----------



## Unkotare (Jul 10, 2012)

Vidi said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > Vidi said:
> ...




Where is the insult? You aren't really interested in a discussion. There is no insult in recognizing that.


----------



## Vidi (Jul 10, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...




What you fail to recognize is that not only have I answered your question twice, Ive alos pointed you to the answer you seek. I just did it covertly so I can laugh at you longer.


----------



## Unkotare (Jul 10, 2012)

Vidi said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > Vidi said:
> ...





Ok, quote your own answer here if you are really interested in a discussion. If not...


----------



## Vidi (Jul 10, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



LOL I even told you where to look to get the answer you seek. You just cant SEE it can you?

As far as interested in discussion goes, theres no discussing anything with someone who 

1) refuses to actually do the work ( as in READ and RETAIN information ) 
2) repeats themselves in the same idiotic predictable pattern

if YOU were interested in discussion, you would go get my answer yourself and then comment on it instead of asking me to repeat myself for a third time.


----------



## nitroz (Jul 10, 2012)

Heres something I would like to say to the upset religious groups.


*TOO FUCKING BAD!*


----------



## nitroz (Jul 10, 2012)

Lol, I made the Muslim mad. He doesn't like it when people make decisions for themselves.


----------



## Unkotare (Jul 10, 2012)

Vidi said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > Vidi said:
> ...





If you're not interested in a discussion just go and do something else.


----------



## Vidi (Jul 10, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...




I am doing something else. But you keep pushing this thread back to the top of my subscriptions with your banality.


----------



## Unkotare (Jul 10, 2012)

*yawn*


----------

