Page 51 of 61 FirstFirst ... 414950515253 ... LastLast
Results 501 to 510 of 603

Thread: Call for higher circumcision rate

  1. #501
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    02-16-11 @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    36,915
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Call for higher circumcision rate

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    STD transmission rate is reduced to zero for people who do not have sex with infected males.

    Here's an idea, make the treatment for STD's include castration.

    Justify the pre-emptive mutilation of the penises of all new-born infants based on the POTENTIAL for any of them to spread a disease they have not yet contracted. Where does this fit in medical ethics? Answer: it is not ethical.
    Hyperbole much? I'm not interested in your ability to hypothesize about the absurd. I am interested in a discussion of the data. I don't really much care about your opinions unless they are backed up with supportive evidence.

    And medical professionals disagree with you. Just sayin'.
    Last edited by jallman; 06-23-09 at 10:27 PM.

  2. #502
    Bus Driver to Hell
    Thorgasm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    12-12-17 @ 12:12 PM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    68,194

    Re: Call for higher circumcision rate

    Quote Originally Posted by Canadian-bloke View Post
    The U.S is a circumfetish nation with an obsession with circumcision and you also have an obsession to remove men's foreskin. I already debunked the myths used to justify male genital mutilation. i am not going to repeat myself
    Moderator's Warning:
    Call for higher circumcision rateI don't know how you think "circumfetish" helps your argument, but it doesn't. I makes it look like you are trying to flame/bait. Also, I am unaware of any circumcisions that jallman has performed. You would think that if he had such an obsession, I would have heard about this. I seriously doubt you have any proof of him removing any foreskins. This is also flaming/baiting. Please stop immediately or there will be consequences.
    Quote Originally Posted by faithful_servant View Post
    Being a psychiatric patient does not mean that you are mentally ill.



  3. #503
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    in a neocon's craw
    Last Seen
    04-24-17 @ 10:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    2,801

    Re: Call for higher circumcision rate

    Quote Originally Posted by jallman View Post
    Yeah, they would be guilty of assault. Now if a parent has an approved medical procedure performed on their child to promote good hygeine and decreased chance of STD transmission (something none of you have refuted), then that would be acceptable.
    It has been refuted in that no other part of your body is surgically removed for the purpose of health, hygiene or preemptive care. It's refuted by the fact that this method of hygiene is more invasive than proper cleaning and a lower rate of STDs is had with condom use.

  4. #504
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    02-16-11 @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    36,915
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Call for higher circumcision rate

    Quote Originally Posted by Slippery Slope View Post
    It has been refuted in that no other part of your body is surgically removed for the purpose of health, hygiene or preemptive care. It's refuted by the fact that this method of hygiene is more invasive than proper cleaning and a lower rate of STDs is had with condom use.
    Both irrelevant points. We're not talking about just any other part of the body. We're talking about the foreskin. What happens to the rest of the body is irrelevant.

    And the efficacy of condom use is irrelevant as we are not discussing condom use. We are discussing whether or not circumcision has a health value of lowering STD transmission rates. And studies say, it does. You have been unable to refute that.

    Now if you think you can refute that, either by counter study or by a problem with the methodology of the studies in question, by all means.

  5. #505
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    in a neocon's craw
    Last Seen
    04-24-17 @ 10:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    2,801

    Re: Call for higher circumcision rate

    Quote Originally Posted by jallman View Post
    It wasn't a try at dismissal. You've it's been dismissed.
    I'm glad you acknowledge that your debate tactic is to be dismissive, not that it hasn't been obvious.

    You can't refrain from asking idiotic questions intended only to inflame or what?

    Yeah, I saw what it says. And it still does not negate the fact that amputation and excision are not the same thing. It still does not negate the fact that circumcision is not an amputation. Get over it and move on.

    You obviously don't know anything about me. I grew up on a farm with an apple orchard. Yes, I have pruned a tree. Which has nothing to do with the incorrect application of the word "amputation".
    Yes it is and I've already shown you the definition in public use. Sorry that you can't bear to be proven wrong but that's your psychosis. It's actually irrelevant to the topic which is why you insist on having it your way, so you can divert the discussion. I have no problem using or not using "amputation".

    Oh here we go with gratuitous "Baby Jebus knocked me down and stole my bicycle when I was 5" rant...
    Another ad hom, how unusual. Was circumcision created as a religious covenant or not or do you think it was created for hygienic purposes?

    I have. I said I don't agree with your assessment. I thought you understand what a disagreement is.
    You have? Where have you agreed that surgery to remove healthy tissue should be the last stop, not the first. So your disagreement with me on this issue is what, that circumcision is the last resort??


    Why would I bother to specifically acknowledge the obvious?
    Because you have a penchant for arguing against the obvious and every detail of an argument must be covered or you'll simply weasel out of the discussion with an ad hom.

    Except boob implants, face lifts, chin and nose jobs. Oh wait...but they don't have any coinciding religious context so no need to kick and scream and whine and cry about those. [/QUOTE]
    Nice try at misdirection but we are not talking about the childs choice of an elective surgery. Since you decided be ridiculous, would you be against a parent giving their infant breast implants?

  6. #506
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    in a neocon's craw
    Last Seen
    04-24-17 @ 10:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    2,801

    Re: Call for higher circumcision rate

    Quote Originally Posted by Caine View Post
    Not exactly.

    However, that fails to explain where the outrage comes from.
    Are you outraged at vaginal mutilation? The outrage comes from people doing things to infant male that is unnecessary. Being a male, I empathize. It's an outrageous procedure that deserves outrage. Add to it that it is yet another outrageous religious practice pushed and disguised by the medical community as something normal and healthy... you get outrage. Doctors are not supposed to purposefully and unnecessarily harm you. You don't see where the outrage comes from?

  7. #507
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    in a neocon's craw
    Last Seen
    04-24-17 @ 10:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    2,801

    Re: Call for higher circumcision rate

    Quote Originally Posted by jallman View Post
    Parents grant consent for their children. There is no mutilation involved in a male circumcision.
    Sorry, you can deny amputation if you want but circumcision definitely falls WELL within the accepted definition of mutilation. Denying it only exposes your desire to force your position regardless of fact.

  8. #508
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    02-16-11 @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    36,915
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Call for higher circumcision rate

    Quote Originally Posted by Slippery Slope View Post
    I'm glad you acknowledge that your debate tactic is to be dismissive, not that it hasn't been obvious.
    I'm glad you keep exhibiting that your debate tactic is to lie and deceive when you are long on nastiness and short on fact, not that it hasn't been obvious.

    Yes it is and I've already shown you the definition in public use. Sorry that you can't bear to be proven wrong but that's your psychosis. It's actually irrelevant to the topic which is why you insist on having it your way, so you can divert the discussion. I have no problem using or not using "amputation".
    No. You've done verbal and semantic somersaults to attempt to grossly exaggerate the procedure. I'm not buying it and will not respond to dishonest hyperbole of calling an excision and amputation.

    Another ad hom, how unusual. Was circumcision created as a religious covenant or not or do you think it was created for hygienic purposes?
    Irrelevant. We are discussing the issue under a medical context. I am not concerned with where it started. I am simply concerned with the medical value of the procedure now, which has been proven by studies that you cannot refute. I'm not going to make this into a "nuns barbecued my cat when I was 10 and made me watch them eat it so now I hate all things Jesus" rant just for your therapeutic convenience.

    You have? Where have you agreed that surgery to remove healthy tissue should be the last stop, not the first.
    No, we did not agree to that. You asserted that. I disagree.

    So your disagreement with me on this issue is what, that circumcision is the last resort??
    That circumcision has a health value and that there is no violation of rights or dignity in its medical practice.

    Because you have a penchant for arguing against the obvious and every detail of an argument must be covered or you'll simply weasel out of the discussion with an ad hom.
    Just like the above which was nothing more than ad hom at it's finest? Okay, sport...you keep fooling yourself and everyone else will keep laughing at you.

    Nice try at misdirection but we are not talking about the childs choice of an elective surgery. Since you decided be ridiculous, would you be against a parent giving their infant breast implants?
    Nothing ridiculous about it. You stated an absolute. I demonstrated where your absolute is patently false. Sorry you find that so inconvenient but it is what it is. Deal with it.

    I refuse to indulge what you have already stated is ridiculous. Moving right along...

  9. #509
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    02-16-11 @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    36,915
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Call for higher circumcision rate

    Quote Originally Posted by Slippery Slope View Post
    Sorry, you can deny amputation if you want but circumcision definitely falls WELL within the accepted definition of mutilation. Denying it only exposes your desire to force your position regardless of fact.
    Sorry, you can apply emotionally charged rhetoric to the debate despite it being patently false and idiotic as the day is long, but male circumcision is a medical procedure that falls outside the accepted definition of mutilation. Pressing it as such only exposes your inability to form a coherent and rational argument so you resort to hyperbole and hysterics.


    "ZOMGWTF!!! THINK of the CHIIIIIILDREEEN!!!!!!"

  10. #510
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    in a neocon's craw
    Last Seen
    04-24-17 @ 10:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    2,801

    Re: Call for higher circumcision rate

    Quote Originally Posted by jallman View Post
    You have made no effort to refute legitimate studies. You have indulged the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy and nothing more.
    Just because you refuse to accept the refutation doesn't mean it hasn't been made. The refutation is:
    1) proper cleaning practices are just as effective for hygiene
    2) Condom use is more effective at reducing STDs
    3) Elective surgery on an infant which will permanently disfigure it, is plainly wrong as evidenced by the fact that other such "preventive" surgeries are prohibited.
    4) Doctors are not supposed to perform unnecessary surgeries especially when a less invasive alternative is as or more effective.
    5) it is a religious practice that has been defended by some of the medical community out of tradition and excused as something to do with hygiene.

    What's the pro? Hygiene and aesthetics?

    Oh and your use of latin, because someone else used it doesn't add to your argument, mostly because it's incorrect anyway.

    We aren't discussing other body parts. We are discussing circumcision. Please stay on topic.
    And yet you bring up other body parts at your whim. This makes you a hypocrite... in yet another thread.

Page 51 of 61 FirstFirst ... 414950515253 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •