Lurker > Zonbei

Trumble posted...

There is a middle ground between a 1:1 remake but with fancier graphics and voice acting, and a generic action RPG with FF7 tacked on to it.

Correct, and that middle ground is this remake trilogy. Calling it a generic action RPG with FF7 tacked on only displays that you have zero clue what youre talking about.

ATB action hybrid? Yeah. Totally generic. It being an incredible reimagining of FF7 down to every detail? Yep, tacked on.

UnfairRepresent posted...

Wtf yes we would

It would be even worse with the characters that are introduced but go no where, nothing is resolved, they just introduce a bunch of people and a bunch of plot threads and then run around in corridors and circles for hours.

And that aside "Well it only seems like it's only an incomplete experience because it's an incomplete remake of a completed product" isn't the defense you think it is.

Order 1886 and Mankind Divided feel the same way. It's not possible to have high graphic games as deep or a large as games made on potato graphics. At least not without so much development time and risk that a major studio would be doing their shareholders a disservice to risk it.

So they compromise and add filler and cut content and the result is often fun but completely unfinished products.

There is no world were FF7R is a complete story even if you absolutely love it

IT would be like a remake of Metal Gear Solid 2 that was only the Tanker section. Even if it was no 30 hours long, padded to the gills with bullshit and 18 of those hours were legitimately fun, it would still feel incomplete because you've just started a story, introduced a handful of mechanics and then ran around in circles for a while.

nothing is resolved you mean except a ton of things?
characters that go no where and threads that arent resolved
most people are aware of the concept of trilogies.

The game has a clear beginning, middle, and end. Threats come up and are resolved. The characters grow and struggle. They blow up things, get framed, blow up more things, the plate is dropped on them, aerith is kidnapped, they go to confront Shinra, they learn more and more about shinras experiments and evil, they infiltrate shinra, they save aerith, sephiroth shows up after a bunch of foreshadowing, they fight him and fate, defeat fate, and leave midgar for a new adventure in the next part of the trilogy. Its literally an entire story. Its like you claiming Star Wars: A New Hope isnt complete because they introduced characters and ideas they didnt fully resolve.

So.. what the actual fuck are you on about?

IdiotMachine posted...

This is what I wanted to know. I actually asked each OBGYN if I can be in the surgery room should we opt for the circumcision, and the answer was no. From my online research, there are three main methods for pain- ones do nothing, another is an injection, and the last is a cream; the hospital were choosing to deliver at is the cream apparently.

I find it unlikely it doesnt cause any pain, but Im not an expert in newborns. They certainly arent going to remember it though.

From what Ive read, some anesthetics can increase the risk of complications. But if thats why theyre saying they arent needed, they should be upfront and clear about that.

Tanthalas posted...

It is a counter, because you use studies conducted in Africa when it suits your argument, and completely ignore data from other places when it doesn't suit your argument.

You can't go "oh those don't count because a lot of different things can affect it in Europe" but then go "See! Circumcision definitely has a positive effect in Africa!".

I have at no point said those dont count because a lot of different things can affect it in Europe. The comment about comparing rates and the comment about Africa were completely different contexts and actually
support the exact same conclusion anyways. You are WILDLY confused.

Africa having circumcision doesnt make its rate lower than Europe because thats not how that works. Europe not having circumcision but having a lower rate of STI doesnt mean circumcision isnt effective at all, because thats not how that works. These are the same exact statement applied to different situations. The overall rate in both places is affected by other factors. I dont understand why you arent grasping this.

The entire point is you cant directly compare overall numbers of STI infection between countries and draw a conclusion about circumcision. which has FUCK ALL to do with whether you can use studies about other countries to prove OTHER THINGS.

How youve somehow concluded that is beyond me.

Tanthalas posted...

And again, they consulted with only ONE doctor that had ever published a study against circumcision, and the rest were organizations that vouch for circumcision.

Aka, they never actually addressed the criticism, they just spouted platitudes.

No, there are zero platitudes and a bunch of actual points and referrals to actual evidence. Are you just hoping nobody else is going to bother to read it? Or do you not know what a platitude is?

Hey; lets do a fun thing! Prove they only consulted with one doctor who had published a study against circumcision, and THEN prove there were other reputable doctors they should have consulted with but didnt who had published peer reviewed studies against circumcision.
Or dont, and invalidate your own prior complaints about unsourced claims. I dont really care which.

Me saying it was sprinkled was tongue in cheek because its literally constantly addressed starting in response 1, btw. Which youd know if you actually read it.

Nirvanas_Nox posted...

Anyone notice that dude said that cut men can't produce smegma and when I said they actually can he contradicted himself by saying that they can but it's at a lower rate then uncut men. Like which is it dude can they or can't they?

me: but also there is the literal existence of the word Smegma. A word which refers to buildup under the foreskin that doesnt exist in circumcised men.

so let me put it another way: Ive literally never had to clean smegma and Im happy that way.

the foreskin doesnt exist in circumcised men. The foreskin. not smegma. The foreskin.

you pointed out smegma can happen in uncut men, and thus doesnt technically refer to solely buildup under the foreskin. I conceded that point, as it didnt really change mine. Welcome to an argument with an actual person instead of a brick wall that must argue every single thing they ever say to the death rather than ever concede an inch.

Tanthalas posted...

Yet, you keep bringing up studies conducted in Africa to support your point. When the comparison doesn't suit you, you say you can't do it, but when it does, it's suddenly ok to use.

I brought up a study conducted in Africa literally one time because someone said why doesnt circumcision in Africa lower HIV rates there and the study showed that it does. Which was in support of the thing I said. Are you.. are you okay? You seem extremely confused.

Me bringing up studies in Africa wouldnt even be counter to what I said, unless I was using them to compare the rate of stis in Africa to the UK and say see, they circumcised so their rates are lower. Which I wouldnt. Because theyre not lower. Which proves my entire point. Are you lost?

Tanthalas posted...

Oh there you go again, trying to shift the argument to something else to weasel yourself out of it.

1. There are plenty of organizations that are against circumcision because there is no real scientific proof that it provides any real benefits. Yet the CDC somehow managed to not consult any of them. This isn't an ethics thing.
2. Somehow the CDC only consulted with organizations that defend circumcision and only one lonely doctor in the whole group had ever published an article against the procedure.
The CDC's rebuttal doesn't address that at all (or if it did, I didn't find it, which is why I'm asking you to point out where this happened), yet you linked to that rebuttal as if it did.

Again, I am wildly confused as to what scientific research organizations you think are against circumcision that the CDC should have consulted and didnt.

if by consulted with organizations that defend circumcision you mean gathered data from researchers and doctors that determined with the scientific method that its minorly beneficial with negligible downsides, then I can see why youd be confused that they didnt consult with your imaginary organizations.

usually when a bunch of scientists use the scientific method to determine a thing and its fairly easy to determine, they tend to come to the same conclusions. If they dont, then, you know, there isnt a consensus and a recommendation wouldnt be made. If they didnt all agree, and thus are defending circumcision in your mind, the entire thing youre whining about would never have existed to begin with for you to question it.

as for where its pointed out, its sort of sprinkled through the whole thing where they repeatedly talk about the rigorous peer reviewed scientific process they reviewed to come to this conclusion, along with the supporting evidence and evidence summaries.

hope that helps.

Enclave posted...

Holy shit, the pro-mutilation side is once again talking about the penis cancer epidemic and advocating for not washing dicks or using condoms.

Why do they always do this? What's next? Some guy coming in talking about how he wants people to circumcise their children because they want the kids to have more attractive dicks again?

No one is talking about a penis cancer epidemic. Just the actual fact that circumcision reduces the change of penile cancer. Those are not the same thing. You are employing a bad faith false equivalency. Similarly, literally no one has advocated for not washing dicks and not using condoms. You are straight up lying.

It becomes more apparent youre just trying to be inflammatory in your next paragraph where you insanely start talking about kids and attraction, because literally what the hell is wrong with you? What kind of shit is going on in your head that your mind made that fucking bananas leap in logic?

Tanthalas posted...

Nuh-uh, you don't get to change your claim now. This is your original comment:

Several times now you have said that circumcision lowers STDs and cancer, you can't now try to weasel yourself out of it by claiming "I've never said it was all because of circumcision!"

You are WILDLY confused. I have in fact said it lowers STD and cancer.. because it does. I have never said I didnt. The comment you just posted doesnt show me saying I didnt.

The claim was made that if it lowered the rates of those things, why arent the overall rates in countries without circumcision higher than the US. I pointed out that it doesnt work that way. You cant directly compare rates of STIs (from context: in different countries, overall, the thing the person I was responding to was doing) and say anything is due to circumcision because there are many other factors.

then you went yet you keep doing that. Because apparently youre lost. I pointed out u didnt. Now youve come back to make the exact same mistake again because youve somehow conflated lowering std occurence rates with comparing overall std rates between countries.

I even did the math for you. 100-2 vs 10-0 the 2 is still the bigger decrease even though the end result, the std rate, is higher. Somehow you still got confused.

Now you wont shut up about it and hilariously think Im changing my claim when Ive been consistent.

Tanthalas posted...

First: please point out the part where the CDC actually talks about consulting with organizations that are against circumcision, because I couldn't find it.

Second: That document is literally just the CDC stamping their feet and ignoring all criticisms.

One sec, do you.. you think that when researching the health implications of something, the CDC consults with organizations that are against that thing for ethics reasons? Because thats no thats not how anything works. Why would it work that way. They didnt consult with pro-circumcision organizations either. Given those would all just be like religious groups.

Well, cant argue against you claiming that the document says nothing and an organization is just stamping its feet! I mean except pointing out that they literally provide where you can find evidence summaries and supporting documents. And that anyone who actually read it could easily see youre full of shit and they are very comprehensively addressing comments.

UnfairRepresent posted...

I haven't played Rebirth but FF7:R was not a complete experience

It's blatantly just the opening of a game bloated out with so much filler including multilple instances of just running up and down corridors.

FF7 warts and all was a huge epic game for the time. FF7R was fun but it just feels like "We can't make a game like that with modern graphics and managing revenue expectations so we'll just fart out a lesser experience"

While youre allowed to have an opinion, this take makes zero sense to me.

Its absolutely a complete experience. If the game had released as is but FF7 had never existed, no one in their right mind would say this isnt a full game. Let alone that it isnt a huge epic game.

Tanthalas posted...

Look at you doing that right after you said you have never done it.

bro what on earth are you talking about. Im beginning to think you arent even reading your OWN messages. I still havent directly compared rates of STDS in varying regions and said this is all due to circumcision. Which you may remember is what that was referring to.

Tanthalas posted...

Also, after reading the rebuttal, the term uncircumcised carries with it a negative conotation and implies that circumcised is the positive form, from now on, please refrain from using the term and instead use formally correct or neutral terms such as "intact" or "natural".

Eat me

Skyscraper101 posted...

There are a lot of little creases and places on our bodies that can get gross if not cleaned properly. Why is it literally JUST for the foreskin (suggesting it for ANY other part on the body would be met with shocked gasps from every single person in the hospital room) that the answer is "eh just cut it off"?

Because penile cancer is an issue and so are stis. Thats basically the reason. Even the religious people, it originally started as a health thing that was written into religion (like many other religious laws.) of course now they have dumber reasons for supporting it. But it doesnt change that the health benefits exist. If you think I wouldnt be for other useful elective procedures, youre wrong. Id be all for taking appendixes out early if it was deemed safe and medically useful. If you could remove wisdom teeth as a baby Id say do it. There are tons of procedures done on other parts of the body. Cleft lips are corrected even when they wont actually be a medical issue. Theres no contradiction here for me, sorry.

Tanthalas posted...

Lol?

The draft only consulted pro-circumcision groups.

I am annoyed. I said I wasnt going to do any more googling for you people. But my desire to correct people who wont shut the fuck up while being wrong is too strong.

https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pdf/risk/MC-HISA-Public-Comments-and-Responses.pdf

DrizztLink posted...

Whole lotta words to say "I'm upset you asked for a source and I'm going to blame you for it."

You didnt ask for a source, Ars did, which is who Im referring to. Im not blaming you for asking, Im blaming you for not shutting up about it after I explained why Im not going to bother tracking them down again.

Nirvanas_Nox posted...

Sorry but cut men can produce smegma.

It is significantly more common in uncut men, like way more, and many cut men never have to deal with it unless they literally dont shower at all. I certainly never have. At the very least, the Wikipedia article (yes I am being lazy here) specifically denotes it as being found under the foreskin. While sure, any penis produces the stuff that becomes smegma, sebum and skin cells and such, its generally only an issue with uncut penises.

Cannot stress enough that mostly Ive been saying Im happy with being circumcised and this is my experience, combined with having heard other experiences from people I know.

ArsGoetia posted...

do you realize how asinine this sounds?
youre advocating for removing peoples bodily autonomy and cutting off part of their genitalia for things that dont matter in developed nations and to save a few fucking seconds in the shower

Im not advocating for removing peoples bodily autonomy. Thats already a thing we have all agreed is okay when it comes to babies and children, a long time ago. Im advocating for parents being able to make medical decisions for their children, and pointing out there are benefits to the medical procedure because people said there arent.

feel free to start listening at any time.

DrizztLink posted...

It's not my fault you want to make claims and then cry when people tell you to back it up.

Ball's entirely in your court on this one.

It is however your fault that youre pretending Im the only person in this topic, let alone gamefaqs at large, pointing to outside evidence without providing sources with every single claim ever.

This isnt a structured debate. Ive provided plenty of things and theyve been ignored or shot down, and Im lazy so Im not going to keep doing it, especially when its being demanded by people i already didnt respect before this topic who are acting in bad faith.

Nirvanas_Nox posted...

You know theres these things called condoms that also prevent stis? Still doesn't change the fact that those benefits do not outweigh cutting something off a baby because there's a slight chance to prevent sti transmissions. Don't want a sti or hiv? Wear a condom. They fit on cut and uncut guys. Like I said how about we give the kid his choice instead of arbitrarily taking it away from him because of the stupid bs of "its cleaner, it's easier to wash, etc." Stop cutting your fucking kids. Cool your cut and your happy with it. Doesn't mean others would be.

Condoms do in fact exist. Unsure how that means the benefits of circumcision dont. The benefits exist, which has been my main point here, aside from countering literally made up things like 100 boys a year die in the US from circumcision. Whether those benefits are worth it is a decision for parents to make. Many medical choices (and other choices) are made for children without them having a choice. This isnt magically different because its about a penis.

DrizztLink posted...

So these "Studies" come from your ass.

Yes, the only possible outcome of me not providing you the studies is that theyre made up. Youve caught me.

Skyscraper101 posted...

It is more I don't understand how you would wash your dick but not wash your foreskin. Nobody "taught" me how to wash my foreskin. When I had the intelligence to start washing myself, I didn't stare at my foreskin in bewilderment. I washed it just the same as I did the rest of my dick, my ballsack, my armpits, my butt. I didn't wash my dick then STOP at my foreskin in fear of what it might be. Just like if you washed your ears you wouldn't just randomly stop at washing your earlobes, and I bet nobody in the history of this planet has ever been fine with washing their ears and then start bitching about how fucking annoying and difficult it is to wash their earlobes.

My point is a person who doesn't wash their foreskin is actually just a person who doesn't wash their dick. Nothing to do with foreskin.

I mean. If you washed your dick and didnt pull the foreskin back and wash under it, (I know its not really under but you know what I mean), then youre not really washing it. Whereas that extra bit of attention isnt necessary when youre circumcised.

its a fact that not every human being naturally knows how to wash every part of their body, I dunno what to tell you there. Its also a fact men exist that dont wash their dicks correctly, including the main issue being not washing their uncircumcised dick correctly. My strongest source there is that I know women who have complained of this very issue with uncircumcised men.

but also there is the literal existence of the word Smegma. A word which refers to buildup under the foreskin that doesnt exist in circumcised men.

so let me put it another way: Ive literally never had to clean smegma and Im happy that way.

Tanthalas posted...

Yet, you keep doing that.

Havent done that once. Ive said circumcision can lower the incidence of STI spread as compared to non circumcised people. This doesnt necessarily make any given rate lower than any given other rate geographically, because there are other factors.

basically, 100-2= 98. 10-1= 8. The 2 there is still the larger subtraction even though the final number is bigger. I dont understand why Im having to explain basic math.

ArsGoetia posted...

"i linked a study rebutting a completely different study to the one you posted, and since i cant find one to rebut the one in your post, youre wrong"
you have more than a half dozen people disagreeing with you here and just keep doubling down on even stupider shit
fuck off lol

oh no! Half a dozen people disagreeing with me on a divisive issue?! On gamefaqs!? I must be wrong, especially if arsgoetia is disagreeing with me. A person who has definitely never said anything wildly stupid.

The rebuttal I linked covers common and similar claims to the ones youre talking about. Youre wrong because youre wrong, this was just some extra info. The person you cited is a single pediatric doctor whose claims amount to yeah basically its got pros and cons but consent so its bad. Did the CDC fabricate things or have bias? Maybe, although I dont see any actual evidence of that. Is the CDC the only medical body that has come to this consensus? Nope. It sure isnt. Youre only pretending it is. Does the fact religion has tried to push this mean the facts arent still on the side of its got some minor benefits? Nope.

You can argue as much as you want and provide a single pediatrician saying its not worth it as much as you want. The fact remains that there are benefits, and whether theyre worth it or not is up to the parents of the child, as with almost every other medical decision.

PraetorXyn posted...

A game being split into three parts does not make a game and two sequels. They did not make one game then decide to make two games after they were done with it, they set out to make a series of games from the outset. The series as a whole is the sequel, so transference is a natural expectation.

There are barely any tight series like this in JRPGs in general though. Most sequels feature entirely different casts in different worlds in different time periods etc.

That last paragraph makes a natural expectation less natural then, doesnt it? Why would you expect it from something thats basically not been done before?

They have explained why it wasnt worth doing, Im unclear why thats not enough for people. Feels like petulance.

Skyscraper101 posted...

Also the whole "it takes longer to wash" is such a joke. I can wash it in literally two seconds. It is like washing your ears and then making a big deal about washing your earlobe too.

hey man, I dont have a foreskin, Im just going from what Ive been told by people who do. At the very least, knowledge of how to clean appropriately is required, knowledge you arent born with, and that can lead to issues in people who are, well, you know. Gross. Maybe the difference is negligible for most people; all I know is it sounds like Ive got it easier.

FunWithAFryPan posted...

No, what Im saying is that youre completely full of shit.

Based on..?

ArsGoetia posted...

thats the american opinion, which as the study ive linked shows the cdc consensus is heavily biased by ideological and religious influence and whose research is incredibly flawed
america is one of few developed nations that advocate for circumcision, even amongst those whose citizens predominately practice abrahamic religion

damn, if only the CDC had responded to these sorts of allegations years ago.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5478224/

I cant find one specifically for Howe, probably because no one cares what a single pediatric doctor thinks.

Tanthalas posted...

Do you know what "significantly" means in terms of statistics? Usually it means that there's, at least, less than a 5% chance that the differences you're seeing are not just chance.

Statistically, slightly does not exist.

Oh we are doing the semantics game. Fun. Medical consensus is that the benefits exist. Clearly the statistical evidence (whether that be in controlled studies or in general) is there. My usages of significantly and slightly were not meant to be taken in the sense you are taking them. You cant directly compare rates of STDS and say oh its because of circumcision, and anyone who thinks you can isnt thinking very hard.

ArsGoetia posted...

america disagrees with the medical consensus lmfao

The medical consensus is that it has benefits, but theyre minor enough that the possible complications mean that its a personal choice for parents. Im not disagreeing with that. Im pretty sure America isnt disagreeing with that. Are you disagreeing with that?

ai123 posted...

What are the STD rates for Europe, compared to those of the US?

pretty sure I straight up posted a link to a study in the UK. This is what I mean. Why even bother? Also, comparing direct rates is meaningless, since youre pretending the only difference between the countries is circumcision. And not, I dunno, their public health care or other factors.

Here. This is the last bit of googling Im going to do for anyone here. Have some colors.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/9/956b7900.jpg

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/4/4bd2772d.jpg

DrizztLink posted...

Or you could post these "studies" of yours.

could! Wont. Ive done enough research in this topic already for people who cant use Google and who arent going to believe anything thats said anyways. Its telling that the anti-circumcision people can just make up whatever shit they want like its fact though. Nothing I said actually relies on the studies anyways, unless youre just straight up disagreeing with the medical consensus about circumcision for some reason.

ArsGoetia posted...

you're the one that brought em up, pal

Pretty sure I didnt bring up whatever studies youre vaguely referring to. Unless, again, youre referring to literally every study ever. Which seems unlikely, but hey, if you can prove it go ahead.

VirtuousWrath posted...

I have two sons. Don't cut them, chud bud.

As is your right as a parent to decide.

ArsGoetia posted...

you mean the studies cited in the last topic that didnt hold up to peer review and were absolutely lambasted because of incompetent researching, unviable sampling, and bias in favor of outdated abrahamic religious influence and a capitalist medical industrial complex that profits off of circumcision procedures? those studies?

No clue, I dont spend all my time on gamefaqs arguing about foreskin so I doubt I was in the last topic, unless it was so long ago I forgot it even happened. Unless youre claiming thats all studies, in which case.. proof?

cool tactic though, just pointing at some thing I never said anything about and pretending it is what Im talking about. Which studies? I dunno, you tell me bud.

Nirvanas_Nox posted...

Like getting vaccinated? Because not doing it affects others. A circumstance only affects the person its happening to. Not the same thing. You may be fine with it and thats great but a lot of guys I've had sex with tell me that they wish they had theirs and they would have if they had been given that choice. Not everyone is ok with being cut with no choice. Consent fucking matters.

circumcision or lack thereof can effect others, thanks to the spread of HIV and HPV. However thats a slight effect compared to the serious issues of not getting vaccinated. Thats literally all pros and almost never any cons, and not doing so actively affects the whole of society. The fact youd compare them shows that youre not acting in good faith, or you dont know what youre talking about. Either way, another instance of this conversation coming entirely from an emotional place that ignores facts.

seriously, you can have an opinion on this without making shit up or making bad comparisons. I dont want me or my children to get circumcised is a totally fine thing to believe.

FunWithAFryPan posted...

Washed many uncircumcised penises, have you?

somebody already said this exact thing because youre all boring as hell, so Im going to respond the same way, with an addition.

what if I have? What are you, some kind of homophobe? Or do you just hate healthcare workers?

ArsGoetia posted...

what kind of dumbass argument is this
i dont live in a society that permits FGM
i live in one of the few societies that encourages it for men
why wouldnt i be more outspoken about something happening in my country?
there are no proven medical benefits for male circumcision that affect citizens of developed nations

Right, so you never talk about it because it doesnt affect you, except to bring it up as a gotcha when arguing about circumcision. Thank you for proving my point.

You can say things like there are no proven benefits but youre literally just lying. Studies show otherwise. You may not think the benefits are pronounced enough to justify doing it, which is fair, but you shouldnt have to pretend there are none to make your case.

ai123 posted...

My information on neonatal deaths is from here:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/240804903_Lost_Boys_An_Estimate_of_US_Circumcision-Related_Infant_Deaths

Every medical procedure carries risk for a variety of reasons. That's precisely why you don't do them without very good reason. Slightly easier washing and looks nicer to some are not very good reasons.

Penile cancer is vanishingly rare in men under the age of 80. The likelihood of circumcision saving you is less than the chances of death by complications. As others have pointed out, nations that do not routinely circumcise are not characterised by significantly higher rates of penile cancer and STDs.

The link you posted is by Dan Bollinger, who is literally mentioned by name in what I posted as being untrustworthy.

The only reason I didnt provide a link is because its paywalled, by the way.
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/27/science/benefits-of-circumcision-outweigh-risks-pediatric-group-says.html

not characterized by significantly higher rates. Correct. Slightly higher rates. Thats why this is an elective procedure with pros and cons on both sides, and thus a personal choice for parents.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8022379/#:~:text=The%20prevalence%20of%20STIs%20overall,vs%2015.5%25%2C%20respectively).

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0130396

Prestoff posted...

As someone who is also circumcised, you still have to wash your dick. The idea that it's somehow "cleaner" when you live in a country that has easy access to water and personal hygiene is just laughable. The "pros" for circumcision is highly exaggerated because if it really did help with things like HIV, you would think HIV rates would also be lower in places with more circumcision like North Africa. The simple fact is that even if there is any positive effects, it's extremely minimal. It's primarily a cosmetic or religious thing here in the states.

Anyone saying its cleaner is wrong, as long as everyone involved is washing. Its slightly harder to clean though and requires you to know the correct way to, which leads to more uncircumcised gross people failing to clean. Unfortunate but true.

HIV rates among people who are circumcised in Africa ARE lower than HIV rates among people who arent, in Africa. a higher rate of circumcision doesnt magically make them drop below other countries in terms of HIV rates.

ArsGoetia posted...

idk id rather my kid be doomed to an eternity of keeping his dick clean
than cut part of it off
anyone that says it isnt genital mutilation is covering for and coping with a culture that encourages it
you think FGM has persisted as long as it has without tacit support from victims of it that don't even realize it because of the culture they live in?

Female Genital Mutilation is an entirely different thing, with literally zero medical benefits (there are benefits of circumcision even if you think they arent worth it), done entirely to oppress women. People like you need to stop using it as some kind of gotcha, easily since none of you fuckers oppose it anywhere near as vehemently or loudly as you do circumcision.

as I have said, personally, I prefer being circumcised and Im glad it was done. I cant speak for anyone else. You know who can speak for babies though? Their parents.

CSCA33 posted...

Hmm lets see

Guess that didnt last long.

Yeah, crazy how I provided facts when someone spread misinformation. Such championing. Its almost like I looked up something someone said and saw it was wrong.

Even if I was suddenly a champion for circumcision, a term youre using to get an emotional reaction out of people rather than one that actually means anything here, that wouldnt change what I said initially. As it turns out, time passes and conversations change.

Nirvanas_Nox posted...

Don't know what your on about but washing an uncut dick takes the same amount of time as a cut one. Either way the only reason a person should be cut is for a medical emergency or by their own choice. The whole point of this argument is consent. A baby cannot consent and therefore should he left the fuck alone until they can make the choice themselves

as one of those babies, I personally could not give a fuck about what they did to me. By definition, babies cannot consent to literally anything and yet many things are done to them. Many things my family, doctors, whatever, did, I did not consent to. Oh well. Medical professionals say there are pros and cons either way, its a choice left to the parents. Im fine with that, like you are all in many other cases.

ArsGoetia posted...

i mean yeah? lol
as someone thats handled a lot of dick, its not really that different at all and weirdos that get super defensive about their own cut status and make up dumbass reasons about why their status is better like "omg do you realize how hard it is to wash an uncut dick?" are fuckin dumb lol

everyone I have ever talked to about this has said its more work. Not a lot, not some massive undertaking, but is in fact simply
more time spent if youre actually getting clean.

I mean maybe theyre all wrong, I can only listen to people who have been through different experiences than I have. Kind of like I wouldnt try to tell a circumcised person theyd been mutilated and their life was worse if I wasnt circumcised.

ai123 posted...

There are 100 neonatal circumcision-related deaths per year in the US. No babies died because their parents chose not to have them circumcised.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/3/3b97cf85.jpg

What info I could find on circumcision related deaths is they theyre due to failure to adhere to medical standards. Which can happen with any procedure.

You say that not being circumcised has never killed any babies. One: you purposely phrased that to avoid the fact that circumcision is known to lower the risk of penile cancer, HIV, and spreading HPV (which kills women mostly.) Two, there are reports of UTIs (another thing that being circumcised helps prevent, especially at a young age) killing babies due to not being circumcised, although this is also very rare. In one (admittedly pretty old) study, the studied group had two deaths from that, and no deaths at all in the circumcised group.

its clearly more complex than youre making it out to be.

ArsGoetia posted...

you washed a lot of dicks for comparison?

would it matter if I have? What, are you some kind of homophobe?

Jupiter posted...

How is it less time consuming? Either you wash your dick or your don't. Having foreskin doesn't make washing your dick significantly harder or more time consuming.

You thinking thats the case either means you arent clear on how circumcised dicks work or you arent washing yourself right.

ArsGoetia posted...

if youre saying you cant keep your dick clean without cutting part it off, sounds like you just have a problem washing your dick
gross

Cant speak for revan, but all Ive ever said is that its a little easier and less time consuming. Which is just true.

CSCA33 posted...

Spouting BS? Youre in this topic as a champion for a barbaric practice of chopping up the genitals of babies for no medical reason. Why not go for some ears too while youre at it? What do you need them for?

champion? All Ive done is say that Im happy with it for myself. And pointed out some frankly ridiculous hyperbole.

the fact you cant tell the difference between a procedure that has benefits, however small, and no real downsides (complications can happen either way), and literally chopping off ears which definitely has real downsides and zero benefits, only reflects badly on you. Thats why what you said is bs. Theyre not comparable.