Current Events > There's a circumcision protest happening right now

(+) Yeah! (+)

It's wild that people defend circumcision now. I feel like back in the day most people here agreed of course you shouldn't do an unnecessary surgical procedure on an infant that has potential for complications because of religion.

ai123 posted...

Your dogmatic approach and reliance on deflection do not disguise the fact that you have nothing but a personal and emotional preference for circumcision, and that is no justification for advocating the practice on those who cannot yet choose for themselves.

It's literally all cope. If he admits defeat he'll have to consider that he was subjected to an unnecessary and mildly dangerous surgery without his consent as an infant, and cognitive dissonance won't let him do that.

ai123 posted...

Are you dropping the cancer argument now?

I've said what needs to be said on that front. Anything else will just be circular and pointless.

ai123 posted...

The one by Ars Goetia #373.

I don't see the part about phimosis and UTI, can you be more specific?

willythemailboy posted...

If he admits defeat he'll have to consider that he was subjected to an unnecessary and mildly dangerous surgery without his consent as an infant

Please don't project your feelings onto me. If I were arguing on my own behalf I'd be content to say "it looks better and women prefer it," and that alone is enough for me to be happy. I'm arguing in favor of all children being circumcised for medical reasons, because there's a substantial case to be made there as well.

Gobstoppers12 posted...

Please don't project your feelings onto me. If I were arguing on my own behalf I'd be content to say "it looks better and women prefer it," and that alone is enough for me to be happy. I'm arguing in favor of all children being circumcised for medical reasons, because there's a substantial case to be made there as well.

I'm not projecting shit, your motivation for sticking with such ridiculous arguments against all evidence is obvious. The best way to sum this up is:

No national or international medical organization recommends routine circumcision.

What happened to your "trust the science, bro" mentality when the science has proven you wrong?

willythemailboy posted...

against all evidence is obvious

Nothing I've said is against science.

willythemailboy posted...

What happened to your "trust the science, bro" mentality when the science has proven you wrong?

They don't recommend routine circumcision because it should be the decision of the parents. The analysis tends to say that there are many benefits to the procedure that outweigh any risk, but it's up to the parents to choose.

Don't you like how Gob just casually dropped gave up on the cancer angle when it was shut down? As soon as we saw circumcision kills more people than penile cancer, it was "Oh but people without foreskin have less of a chance of tight foreskin! Checkmate!"

Gobstoppers12 posted...

Nothing I've said is against science.

They don't recommend routine circumcision because it should be the decision of the parents. The analysis tends to say that there are many benefits to the procedure that outweigh any risk, but it's up to the parents to choose.

Uh, I'm pretty sure all pediatric medical procedures are up to the parents. Doctors don't rip the kids out of their arms and treat them. Yet they recommend many and circumcision isn't one of them.

Deutschenlied posted...

Don't you like how Gob just casually dropped gave up on the cancer angle when it was shut down?

It wasn't shut down, but we've been going back and forth about it for a while now. You guys have said your part, and I've said mine. Time to address other health benefits.

Deutschenlied posted...

Yet they recommend many

Name a few other procedures that are recommended for all children, for me.

Gobstoppers12 posted...

Name a few other procedures that are recommended for all children, for me.

Vaccination. Note those are actually recommended as preventative medicine and circumcisions are not.

willythemailboy posted...

Vaccination. Note those are actually recommended as preventative medicine and circumcisions are not.

Anything else?

Gobstoppers12 posted...

It wasn't shut down, but we've been going back and forth about it for a while now. You guys have said your part, and I've said mine. Time to address other health benefits.

Name a few other procedures that are recommended for all children, for me.

You literally said if you had a chance to prevent cancer in children, you'd do it. You were very clear about it. And then you just moved onto "ok now address phimosis and UTIs" once we saw that circumcision is deadlier than penile cancer.

Like no shit people without foreskin can't get phimosis! People without legs can't have any of the issues associated with legs either.

And what procedures are recommended for all children? Literally anything. Doctors are kind of in the business of recommending medical procedures. They just can't choose for you.

Gobstoppers12 posted...

Anything else?

Dental cleanings/checkups, fluoride, blood tests for lead as necessary. Most of the rest of recommended preventative care is non-invasive screenings to monitor for developing conditions because children do not generally need to be surgically altered to be healthy.

I don't understand why you still fight for circumcision despite knowing the "health benefits" are bullshit and a baby is more likely to die from circumcision than get penile cancer as an elderly person. Literally the cons far outweigh the almost nonexistent pros.

Also, I'm uncircumcised. I've been with several girls in my life. Not a single one had a complaint about it. Only 1 girl even acknowledged it. And she was mostly curious about it right before we had sex, but did not mind at all. Two other girls said they wouldn't have even known if I never told them about it. And this was after they had seen and touched it. I've also had a couple girls say they love the way it feels when the skin slides back inside them. So the "girls prefer it" argument is pretty weak.

Scardude posted...

America is known to sue everyone as a joke. But has anyone really sued for this?

they should and the hospital too btw

Deutschenlied posted...

You literally said if you had a chance to prevent cancer in children, you'd do it. You were very clear about it.

Right. I've said that already. Do you want me to say it again? I haven't taken it back or changed my mind.

willythemailboy posted...

Dental cleanings/checkups, fluoride, blood tests for lead as necessary

Uh oh, sometimes bad things happen at the dentist. Are you sure you should be filling a kid's teeth before they're old enough to decide for themselves?

Jupiter posted...

I don't understand why you still fight for circumcision despite knowing the "health benefits" are bullshit

They're not bullshit. Why do you guys keep trying to put words in my mouth?

Jupiter posted...

Also, I'm uncircumcised. I've been with several girls in my life. Not a single one had a complaint about it.

Anecdotal evidence is pretty weak compared to actual surveys and studies that have been done.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

I'm not wrong. You guys are trying to force some kind of narrative here that simply isn't true about me. It's kind of weird tbh

Gobstoppers12 posted...

I've said what needs to be said on that front. Anything else will just be circular and pointless.

You don't even have the dignity to concede a point when you are shown to have been making an indefensible argument.

I don't see the part about phimosis and UTI, can you be more specific?

But you do see the part where the medical studies you base your 'science' on are shown to be questionable. You just choose to run and hide.

The practice of circumcision would be better off without defenders of your calibre.

ai123 posted...

You don't even have the dignity to concede a point when you are shown to have been making an indefensible argument.

It's not indefensible, though. I've defended it well so far. I understand that you disagree, but that's probably because you're one of the ones I'm arguing with.

ai123 posted...

But you do see the part where the medical studies you base your 'science' on are shown to be questionable

There are lots of studies that have been done with regard to phimosis and UTI, and the conclusion is pretty much always "you get phimosis and UTIs a lot more often if you're uncircumcised."

One of y'all even said "of course you won't get tight foreskin if you don't have foreskin."

Sounds like a solid preventative measure for a health issue to me.

Gobstoppers12 posted...

There are lots of studies

Go ahead.

Gobstoppers12 posted...

Anecdotal evidence is pretty weak compared to actual surveys and studies that have been done.

Oh, you mean like the studies that show circumcision has a higher rate of death than the penile cancer it's supposed to prevent? You would rather risk death or complications for infants because you personally think circumcision looks better. I wish you would stop arguing health benefits.

In Canada, its no longer in practice for circumcision at birth. It was changed in the 1970s I believe. There's no real need at birth but it's a practice by some culturally. Getting it as an adult soon. It's up to the parents to do it at birth but even here they have to pay for that service. Parents can decide to take the cost and risk.

Jupiter posted...

I wish you would stop arguing health benefits.

No reason to stop when there are benefits to discuss. Phimosis leads to its own complications, and is part of the reason why cancer, infection, and HIV risk increase for uncircumcised people.

Gobstoppers12 posted...

No reason to stop when there are benefits to discuss. Phimosis leads to its own complications, and is part of the reason why cancer, infection, and HIV risk increase for uncircumcised people.

Look. I'm getting it due to phimosis. But it's not a big deal. I had unusual circumstances but leaving it was fine. I have the medical decision to get it done but I wouldn't have had any opinion before needing it. At birth is of little to no consequence.

Gobstoppers12 posted...

No reason to stop when there are benefits to discuss. Phimosis leads to its own complications, and is part of the reason why cancer, infection, and HIV risk increase for uncircumcised people.

The reason people are giving you shit about your stance (other than it being a bad one) is you insist that the benefits outweigh the risks when, as someone itt already did the math, it lands squarely between "negligible" and "not at all".

You can not both ignore the information presented to you but then also still be on board with it because "HeAlTh RiSkS".

Gobstoppers12 posted...

They're not bullshit. Why do you guys keep trying to put words in my mouth?

Does your ass ever get envious of the shit that comes out of your mouth?

DrizztLink posted...

Go ahead.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23201382/

https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/442617-overview?form=fpf#a1

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6523040/

Cemith posted...

You can not both ignore the information presented to you but then also still be on board with it because "HeAlTh RiSkS".

They looked specifically at penis cancer, and seemed to ignore other risks such as UTI and HIV. I linked a few studies above that aggregate and assess multiple other studies on the subjects.

Looking at those links it's mostly situations of "just fucking wash your dick!" and "wear a god damn condom if you're having casual sex!"

Enclave posted...

Looking at those links it's mostly situations of "just fucking wash your dick!" and "wear a god damn condom if you're having casual sex!"

And it's also a situation of "if you're circumcised, your risk goes down."

Also, most of those UTIs occur in infants, and those infants can have many complications from those UTIs.

Gobstoppers12 posted...

And it's also a situation of "if you're circumcised, your risk does down."

Cosmetic surgery so you don't have to teach your kid how to have proper hygiene is insane, you've done nothing to change anybodies minds here. All you've managed is to convince people you're kinda unhinged.

Enclave posted...

Cosmetic surgery

It also has health benefits observed in a multitude of studies, some of the most important of which come during the first year of life via UTI risk reduction.

Gobstoppers12 posted...

It also has health benefits observed in a multitude of studies, some of the most important of which come during the first year of life via UTI risk reduction.

Wash your kids dick to reduce UTI risk. Fucking basic hygiene.

Enclave posted...

Wash your kids dick to reduce UTI risk. Fucking basic hygiene.

See, this is deflection. I'd rather not give my child a 10x greater risk of UTI, myself.

Gobstoppers12 posted...

See, this is deflection. I'd rather not give my child a 10x greater risk of UTI, myself.

It's not deflection, it's just a fact. Basic hygiene is a far superior solution than non-consensual cosmetic surgery that itself carries risks of infection and death.

Enclave posted...

It's not deflection, it's just a fact. Basic hygiene is a far superior solution than non-consensual cosmetic surgery that itself carries risks of infection and death.

The study didn't say anything to the effect of "in the absence of basic hygiene," now did it? I feel like you're just making up your own conclusions at this point.

10x greater risk of UTI, risk of phimosis complications, higher rate of HIV... seems like there are significant benefits to circumcision. Write them off and be dismissive all you like, the science does support there being several benefits to circumcision at birth.

Enclave posted...

cosmetic surgery

Also, you keep using this term but it doesn't really apply here. There are several health benefits to consider in addition to the increased visual appeal.

Gobstoppers12 posted...

And it's also a situation of "if you're circumcised, your risk goes down."

Also, most of those UTIs occur in infants, and those infants can have many complications from those UTIs.

by your logic we should remove females breasts to reduce the risk of breast cancer, that would be funny a whole mutilated society due to fear of something that might never happen

dude foreskins have health benefits and all the issues can be prevented by washing and by using a condom also the whole cancer argument and UTI is bs especially UTIs,most men don't will never have those and women have those more often and they aren't dying or having that many complications that are worth cutting things off, UTI can easily be cured
just admit you lost the argument and shut up

Gobstoppers12 posted... Also, you keep using this term but it doesn't really apply here. There are several health benefits to consider in addition to the increased visual appeal.

not only it doesn't have health benefits they aren't visual appealing at all, it's just looks like a mutilated incomplete organ

The study was just talking about percentages, it didn't go into other potential solutions since it was a study focused on circumcision.

But when it's talking about UTI being caused by urine being trapped between the skin or people forcefully pulling back the foreskin you see that this shit is being caused by poor hygiene and not understanding how to fucking care for a body part.

Basic hygiene, a bit of freakin' education so people aren't so ignorant of sexual organs, this is the actual solution, not non-consensual cosmetic surgery.

I get it, you'll never agree and that's why I've tagged you the way I've tagged you.

Enclave posted...

Basic hygiene, a bit of freakin' education so people aren't so ignorant of sexual organs, this is the actual solution, not non-consensual cosmetic surgery.

I understand that you're arguing from a position of emotional investment, but please don't make any claims about following the science if you refuse to acknowledge the simple facts that circumcision has a strong effect in UTI and HIV transmission prevention.

Areas with high HIV prevalence and low circumcision rates saw a significant decrease in HIV rates when circumcision rates increased. If it were as easy as you say, why were HIV rates so high before?

Gobstoppers12 posted...

I understand that you're arguing from a position of emotional investment, but please don't make any claims about following the science if you refuse to acknowledge the simple facts that circumcision has a strong effect in UTI and HIV transmission prevention.

Areas with high HIV prevalence and low circumcision rates saw a significant decrease in HIV rates when circumcision rates increased. If it were as easy as you say, why were HIV rates so high before?

you know what prevents HIV? a condom use it and stop cutting off a baby penis against his will, you don't own his body or his life to make that decision, it's not your decision to make

majin_nemesis posted...

you know what prevents HIV? a condom use it and stop cutting off a baby penis against his will

Sorry that you seem to disagree with the findings, but circumcision has several health benefits in actual, non-hypothetical scenarios.

That makes it a worthwhile procedure if parents want their sons to have significantly decreased risk of UTIs and other complications (such as HIV, phimosis, and rare cases of penile cancer) later in life.

Also, it just looks better and women prefer it.

That's a lot of benefits for a very simple, quick procedure that children won't remember.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

I feel like it's not ignorant at all to cite multiple studies with multiple data points that all demonstrate significant health benefits.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Gob continues to make history.

Cemith posted...

Gob continues to make history.

How is it ignorant to cite studies on the subject, exactly?

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Not sure why you'd be asking me. I have not and will not ever write something like that.

Who would win in preventing diseases:

An expensive procedure that can't be consented to overwhelmingly done for "aesthetic purposes"

Or

One soapy boy

y'all really fed two of the worst users on this board for 500 posts in a troll topic

Boobs > Ass