Foreskin Man Outrages Jewish Community

reply to post by SmokeandShadow

Wow! What a truly amazing thought! Seriously, I now understand why that extraterrestrial jerk Yahweh/Jehovah commanded Moses to cut foreskins off!
That was done so as to constantly produce more and more bodies to trap free beings/spirits in!

The Internet is just the best invention ever, gone are the day's that we have to take "professionals" word for it. We can now research ourselves. Before coming to the USA, I had never given male circumcision a thought; I’d never seen a circumcised penis, our school biology books did not show what a penis looks like with various amounts of foreskin removed. It was a bit of a shock when I first saw one.

Once I saw what circumcision entailed, loads of video’s out there, and saw no Medical body in the world recommended this amputation procedure, saw what the complications could be; INCLUDING DEATH, I refused to let them cut my baby, despite my Husbands protests. I did not let him out of my sight in the hospital to prevent them “accidentally’ performing the amputation, as has happened here in the USA. My Husband has forgiven me and now believes as I do; it’s our son’s decision to make. Our son has brought the topic up and when we asked him if he’d like to be circumcised he said no, he likes it just the way it is.

is the artist Jewish ?

reply to post by blackrain17


It's a cleanliness thing also.

reply to post by MIDNIGHTSUN


I'm cut and fail to see any problem with it. It's a choice for the parents to make and certainly not you, the jewish community or Russell Crowe. The foreskin is not an analog to the clitorius so the analogy that the two are simular is silly.

Originally posted by sith9157
reply to post by blackrain17

 

It's a cleanliness thing also.

Lame excuse. Can't you teach your child to clean his body and its parts? Oh, I guess in a religious society three concepts "individuality", "self-determination" and "responsibility for oneself" are unheard of...

Originally posted by Version100

It is a religious practice, nothing more.

That's right! The designers of human body aren't stupid are they? Would you build a car with useless parts?

Male circumcision is done because the health benefits with the procedure highly outweigh any benefit (if there is one) without it.

Female circumcision has no health benefit and is done as a means to control women. It makes sexual intercourse severely painful and removes all pleasure.

There are almost no similarities between the two procedures other than the word "circumcision"

reply to post by Nosred

Almost every guy in America is.

The high-side estimates are ~80%, and the number is trending downward with each generation. It might be predominant, but it's pretty far from "almost every".

reply to post by walkerjus


There are no health benefits to male circumcision.


I just wish that all insurance companies would stop covering circumcision so if parents wanted to get one they would have to pay (I think it is around $4000) the full amount themselves. Hopefully that would discourage people from doing it even if the law doesn't make it illegal yet.

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
It's a choice for the parents to make and certainly not you, the jewish community or Russell Crowe.

Why isn't it a ''choice for parents'' to rape their children ?

People can't just brainlessly parrot ''it's a parent's choice'', ''it's a parent's choice'', without actually attempting to formulate an argument which justifies their view that a parent is entitled to mutilate their baby son's penis.

If someone anaesthetises a non-consenting adult and chops off his foreskin, would that adult be entitled to press charges against his attacker ?

If you agree that it's a crime to forcibly remove an adult's foreskin, then why the blazes would you condone this same crime when it's carried out upon a young child ?!

The whole pro-circumcision argument is as illogical as it's morally reprehensible.

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
The foreskin is not an analog to the clitorius so the analogy that the two are simular is silly.

Where did he/she mention anything about a clitoris ?

The particular form of female circumcision, also referred to as female genital mutilation, in which the labia minora and/or the clitoral hood is cut or removed, is pretty much analogous with the removal of the foreskin.

Now, would you want your daughter to have her clitoral hood needlessly removed ?

It helps prevent infections, you know ?

reply to post by SG-17


Um reduced chance of cancer is a rather large benefit.

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes


Well, I told myself I wouldn't do this anymore. But, you so ask for it. Say hello to your logical fallacy sir.

False Analogy

Definition:

In an analogy, two objects (or events), A and B are shown to be similar. Then it is argued that since A has property P, so also B must have property P. An analogy fails when the two objects, A and B, are different in a way which affects whether they both have property P.
Examples:
Employees are like nails. Just as nails must be hit in the head in order to make them work, so must employees.
Government is like business, so just as business must be sensitive primarily to the bottom line, so also must government. (But the objectives of government and business are completely different, so probably they will have to meet different criteria.)
Proof:
Identify the two objects or events being compared and the property which both are said to possess. Show that the two objects are different in a way which will affect whether they both have that property.

Oh guess I should've said fallacies.

Equivocation
Alias: Doublespeak
Type: Ambiguity

Example:
The elements of the moral argument on the status of unborn life…strongly favor the conclusion that this unborn segment of humanity has a right not to be killed, at least. Without laying out all the evidence here, it is fair to conclude from medicine that the humanity of the life growing in a mother's womb is undeniable and, in itself, a powerful reason for treating the unborn with respect.
Source: Helen M. Alvaré, The Abortion Controversy (Greenhaven, 1995), p. 24.

Analysis

Counter-Example:
The humanity of the patient's appendix is medically undeniable.
Therefore, the appendix has a right to life and should not be surgically removed.

Exposition:
Equivocation is the type of ambiguity which occurs when a single word or phrase is ambiguous, and this ambiguity is not grammatical but lexical. So, when a phrase equivocates, it is not due to grammar, but to the phrase as a whole having two distinct meanings.

Of course, most words are ambiguous, but context usually makes a univocal meaning clear. Also, equivocation alone is not fallacious, though it is a linguistic boobytrap which can trip people into committing a fallacy. The Fallacy of Equivocation occurs when an equivocal word or phrase makes an unsound argument appear sound. Consider the following example:

All banks are beside rivers.
Therefore, the financial institution where I deposit my money is beside a river.

In this argument, there are two unrelated meanings of the word "bank":

A riverside: In this sense, the premiss is true but the argument is invalid, so it's unsound.
A type of financial institution: On this meaning, the argument is valid, but the premiss is false, thus the argument is again unsound.
In either case, the argument is unsound. Therefore, no argument which commits the fallacy of Equivocation is sound.

Funny Fallacy:
Newspaper headlines, because they are so short, have to be written carefully to avoid equivocation; here are some amusing examples which failed to do so:
Marijuana Party Launches Local Campaign
Police ID Wendy's Finger Owner
Gene Marker May Show Prostate Cancer Risk
White House Mum on Destroyed CIA Tapes
Subfallacy: Ambiguous Middle

Sources:
S. Morris Engel, With Good Reason: An Introduction to Informal Fallacies (Fifth Edition), St. Martin's, 1994.
Lawrence H. Powers, "Equivocation", in Fallacies: Classical and Contemporary Readings, edited by Hans V. Hanson and Robert C. Pinto, Penn State Press, 1995, pp. 287-301.

There are many pros and cons but for some reason I'm kinda angry it happened to me because i will never know what sex is actually suppose to feel like from my god given body. What if its 10x better i will never know. I wish i had a choice ohh well i can't change the past. They say the male G-SPOT is rite under the forskin where the nerves meet. I will never know what its suppose to feel like but like they say ignorance is bliss so im happy with what i have.

If you are circumcised, you will never feel the full erogenous sensation available to your uncircumcised brethren. Do you see why I am not alone in being outraged at this?

Investigators found that circumcision removes about one-half of the erogenous tissue on the penile shaft. The foreskin, according to the study, protects the head of the penis and is comprised of unique zones with several kinds of specialized nerves that are important to optimum sexual sensitivity.
Taylor, J. et al., "The Prepuce: Specialized Mucosa of the Penis and Its Loss to Circumcision," BJU 77 (1996): 291–295.

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
Well, I told myself I wouldn't do this anymore. But, you so ask for it. Say hello to your logical fallacy sir.

Normally, I wouldn't bother wasting my time with someone who cowers behind other people's points, views and thoughts as the basis for his defence, as opposed to constructing a cogent, self-made argument which articulates his views on a given discussion.

However, I shall indulge you on this occasion.

You bring up an illogical reference to a ''false analogy'', despite the fact that I made no such fallacy in my previous post. If you could provide me with a direct, relevant quote from me, which made you jump from 2+2 to equal 5, then I would be most obliged.

The rest of your post is a stream of pilfered, nonsensical gobbledygook which bears no relation to our discussion at hand.

I asked you once, and I shall ask you again:

If you think that it's a crime to anaesthetise an adult and chop off his foreskin without his consent, then why the blazes do you think that it's acceptable to commit this same crime upon a non-consenting young child ?

I don't expect you to be able to answer this rationally, and I fully expect 5,000 words of irrelevant material gleaned from a 30-second google search as your ''reposte'', but it would be nice if you could just attempt to answer this simple point on your own, without the need to use wikipedia in a forlorn attempt to save your blushes...

Originally posted by amazed
Because male circumcision, which is NOTHING compared to female genitalia mutilation... reduces pretty much completely the chances for cancer. Not to mention all the other positives of male circumcision. Do a little research before you try to pretend that male circumcision and female mutilation are equal. They are not.

Harm None
Peace

Haven't even bothered to read the rest of the thread yet, but I must admit, YOU are the one that needs to do a little research my friend. The slight, and I mean ever so slight increases in health benefit are almost too small to be considered "as a result" of circumcision.

Circumcision massively reduces a males sensitivity and if performed badly can leave horrendous scarring and all sorts of issues related to the members use as the male gets older.

Quite simply, unless there is a real medical reason for having the foreskin lopped off, it should remain! IF there is a GOD, then why the hell did he not make us without that piece of skin on the end of our thing???

I had mine cut off when i was a baby. I dont miss it, everything works fine.. whats the problem...

I say let the kid decide when he is old enough. Cut men and parents who do decide to cut always seem to follow the MYTH that it is better to be cut than not cut. Once again this shows the small bubble that Americans live in. They never bother to look outside their own country to see what the rest of the world says about it.

There are no PROVEN health benefits to being cut. It was a myth put around by the very doctors who get paid more money if they do more cuts. It is like the wolf telling you he can be trusted to look after the chickens.

I agree with the poster who said that society accepts a cut penis because it is the norm right now. In a society where it is not the norm to be cut then a cut penis would look equally as weird and frowned upon. This is the only reason non Jewish/Muslim men in American get cut, parents may say it is because of the so called health benefits (which no one has proven) but deep down in their hearts they know it is because their child might get laughed at. And thus the cycle continues.

I always loved this episode from Penn and Teller
youtu.be...

And back to the original topic. I have to say for me the comic is a bit too much and can be considered racist.

I don't agree with the practice and really at the end of the day there are little benefits . ultimately its up to the parrents .

hilarious! the fact that they cut off a piece of their body is a joke itself... 'tards have been taking male sexual sensation for years and have somehow tricked everyone who isn't even a part of the Jewish religion to do it... that's the even bigger joke