• Russell Crowe sorry after anti-circumcision tweets
    213 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Zachary1392;30385410]Why are you so against giving people a choice when it comes to circumcision?[/QUOTE] Sorry but I have to do this [sp]I don't know why but it sounded hilarious to me[/sp]: Zachary1392, Savior of foreskin.
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;30385419]I'm not, I just don't think it really matters either way[/QUOTE] Except it does? Several studies shows it adversely affects sexual performance later on in life. Why should we be allowed to make a permanent change on a person's body without their explicit consent? That doesn't sound wrong to you? And if you think it "doesn't matter either way", then how about we just not allow circumcision for healthy babies. Why cut their foreskin if, according to you, there is no difference?
[QUOTE=Zachary1392;30385450]Except it does? Several studies shows it adversely affects sexual performance later on in life. Why should we be allowed to make a permanent change on a person's body without their explicit consent? That doesn't sound wrong to you? And if you think it "doesn't matter either way", then how about we just not allow circumcision for healthy babies. Why cut their foreskin if, according to you, there is no difference?[/QUOTE] In what sorts of ways? I would like to know.
[QUOTE=Zachary1392;30385450]Except it does? Several studies shows it adversely affects sexual performance later on in life. Why should we be allowed to make a permanent change on a person's body without their explicit consent? That doesn't sound wrong to you? And if you think it "doesn't matter either way", then how about we just not allow circumcision for healthy babies. Why cut their foreskin if, according to you, there is no difference?[/QUOTE] Proof? I have felt nothing wrong with my sexual performance, I can do well, and I doubt having foreskin would make me better magically. Because it's a cultural thing, since it doesn't hurt, why not? Humans do things for no actual reason just because they want to all the time, why not this?
okay seriously what's the fucking use of arguing about circumcision on an internet forum about video games in a topic about something a celebrity said stop it
[QUOTE=PunchedInFac;30385471]In what sorts of ways? I would like to know.[/QUOTE] Read the thread? [url]http://www.facepunch.com/threads/1096625-Russell-Crowe-sorry-after-anti-circumcision-tweets?p=30384870&viewfull=1#post30384870[/url] [url]http://www.facepunch.com/threads/1096625-Russell-Crowe-sorry-after-anti-circumcision-tweets?p=30384672&viewfull=1#post30384672[/url] [url]http://www.facepunch.com/threads/1096625-Russell-Crowe-sorry-after-anti-circumcision-tweets?p=30384811&viewfull=1#post30384811[/url]
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;30385483]Proof? I have felt nothing wrong with my sexual performance, I can do well, and I doubt having foreskin would make me better magically. Because it's a cultural thing, since it doesn't hurt, why not? Humans do things for no actual reason just because they want to all the time, why not this?[/QUOTE] It's a cultural thing in Judaism only AFAIK. And cutting skin off your penis hurts. A lot. Just because the baby doesn't remember it later in life doesn't mean it doesn't hurt him.
[QUOTE=STeel;30385498]It's a cultural thing in Judaism only AFAIK.[/QUOTE] It spread to just being a thing people just do for whatever reason. Plenty of non-Jewish people do it, like...a lot.
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;30385505]It spread to just being a thing people just do for whatever reason. Plenty of non-Jewish people do it, like...a lot.[/QUOTE] I know, but it's a part of the Jewish culture, not of the entirety of people who do it just because, or arguably health reasons. My main problem with it isn't even if it's beneficial or not, because you can bring a shit ton of studies for both sides on this argument, my problem is that it hurts to the newborn just like it would hurt to any other person, and it's apparently okay because he won't remember it. I also support Zachary's argument therefore, because what he claims is that it can be done in a later phase in life, if it's so highly required, and you can get anesthetized in a later level in life relatively a lot more safely.(Whereas it is completely unsafe to anesthetize a baby).
[QUOTE=Zachary1392;30385492]Read the thread? [url]http://www.facepunch.com/threads/1096625-Russell-Crowe-sorry-after-anti-circumcision-tweets?p=30384870&viewfull=1#post30384870[/url] [url]http://www.facepunch.com/threads/1096625-Russell-Crowe-sorry-after-anti-circumcision-tweets?p=30384672&viewfull=1#post30384672[/url] [url]http://www.facepunch.com/threads/1096625-Russell-Crowe-sorry-after-anti-circumcision-tweets?p=30384811&viewfull=1#post30384811[/url][/QUOTE] Sexual performance is highly anecdotal and there are no ways to quantify it since it differs so wildly from person to person. [editline]11th June 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=STeel;30385511]I know, but it's a part of the Jewish culture, not of the entirety of people who do it just because, or arguably health reasons.[/QUOTE] It's also part of muslim culture.
[QUOTE=PunchedInFac;30385530]Sexual performance is highly anecdotal and there are no ways to quantify it since it differs so wildly from person to person.[/QUOTE] People who have restored their foreskin agree that it increases sensitivity. You still can't restore it back to its original state, but it's something. And did you just ignore the sensitivity tests completely?
[QUOTE=Zachary1392;30385492]Read the thread? [url]http://www.facepunch.com/threads/1096625-Russell-Crowe-sorry-after-anti-circumcision-tweets?p=30384870&viewfull=1#post30384870[/url] [url]http://www.facepunch.com/threads/1096625-Russell-Crowe-sorry-after-anti-circumcision-tweets?p=30384672&viewfull=1#post30384672[/url] [url]http://www.facepunch.com/threads/1096625-Russell-Crowe-sorry-after-anti-circumcision-tweets?p=30384811&viewfull=1#post30384811[/url][/QUOTE] I like how the first one uses biased terms like "genitalically intact"
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;30385549]I like how the first one uses biased terms like "genitalically intact"[/QUOTE] How is that a biased term?
[QUOTE=PunchedInFac;30385530]Sexual performance is highly anecdotal and there are no ways to quantify it since it differs so wildly from person to person. [editline]11th June 2011[/editline] It's also part of muslim culture.[/QUOTE] In Islam it's performed in the age of 13. Which I can't say it's any better for those whose families would force them to do it. [editline]11th June 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Tetracycline;30385549]I like how the first one uses biased terms like "genitalically intact"[/QUOTE] It is not a biased term. You are born with a foreskin, therefore it is genetically intact.
[QUOTE=STeel;30385563]In Islam it's performed in the age of 13. Which I can't say it's any better for those whose families would force them to do it. [editline]11th June 2011[/editline] It is not a biased term. You are born with a foreskin, therefore it is genetically intact.[/QUOTE] no it's definitely biased, it definitely doesn't sound like a professional objective term
[QUOTE=STeel;30385563]In Islam it's performed in the age of 13. Which I can't say it's any better for those whose families would force them to do it. [/QUOTE] ehh. no. It's done at birth. Look at mine country if thou doubtest mine knowledge.
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;30385581]no it's definitely biased, it definitely doesn't sound like a professional objective term[/QUOTE] But is it incorrect in any way? And how does it sound biased, the fact that it is the way you are born with it, the way your body builds itself, means it was genetically transformed to you. [editline]11th June 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=PunchedInFac;30385588]ehh. no. It's done at birth. Look at mine country if thou doubtest mine knowledge.[/QUOTE] I can't actually see your country, web browser and OS, but assuming it means you're from a Muslim country, I won't argue with that. That was my knowledge.
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;30385581]no it's definitely biased, it definitely doesn't sound like a professional objective term[/QUOTE] Really? I sorta thought you were smarter than this but OK.
[QUOTE=STeel;30385563] It is not a biased term. You are born with a foreskin, therefore it is genetically intact.[/QUOTE] In psychological science it's very, very important to not affect your subjects at any level. Calling one group Genitalicaly intact implies that the other group are somehow faulty. It's why most psychological experiments done with small groups of less than 100 are usually overlooked by the scientific community, especially where results depend on subject anecdotes.
[QUOTE=Zachary1392;30385603]Really? I sorta thought you were smarter than this but OK.[/QUOTE] Shut up. Saying fucking "genitalically intact" makes it seem like it's bad to be circumcised, bad or not that is fucking biased, and not objective to say in a study that is supposed to be taken seriously. YOU are an idiot if you honestly don't see it that way
[QUOTE=PunchedInFac;30385609]In psychological science it's very, very important to not affect your subjects at any level. Calling one group Genitalicaly intact implies that the other group are somehow faulty.[/QUOTE] No it doesn't? Their foreskin is removed, which is a natural part of the penis. Their genitals are not intact, in this case.
[QUOTE=PunchedInFac;30385609]In psychological science it's very, very important to not affect your subjects at any level. Calling one group Genitalicaly intact implies that the other group are somehow faulty. It's why most psychological experiments done with small groups of less than 100 are usually overlooked by the scientific community.[/QUOTE] genitically isn't even a word wtf
[QUOTE=PunchedInFac;30385609]In psychological science it's very, very important to not affect your subjects at any level. Calling one group Genitalicaly intact implies that the other group are somehow faulty. It's why most psychological experiments done with small groups of less than 100 are usually overlooked by the scientific community.[/QUOTE] I overall agree, but not in this case. It doesn't make other people to look faulty, at least not in my opinion. And if in his eyes it does, then Viola, he spotted the bias and now he will be a lot more skeptic about the study, which still does present facts. [editline]11th June 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Tetracycline;30385623]genitically isn't even a word wtf[/QUOTE] No, Genetically is, and Genitally in this case.
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;30385623]genitically isn't even a word wtf[/QUOTE] [quote]The combined sample (n = 77) reported that circumcised male partners were unhappy with their circumcisions significantly more often than were genitally intact sexual partners (p < .05).[/quote] [quote]than were genitally intact sexual partners (p < .05).[/quote] [quote]were genitally intact[/quote] [quote]genitally[/quote]
[QUOTE=Zachary1392;30385619]No it doesn't? Their foreskin is removed, which is a natural part of the penis. Their genitals are not intact, in this case.[/QUOTE] In a study talking about the declines of finger nail biting, would it be totally unbiased to call people with full nails "nailically intact" again following the improper use of english
[QUOTE=Zachary1392;30385619]No it doesn't? Their foreskin is removed, which is a natural part of the penis. Their genitals are not intact, in this case.[/QUOTE] it implies one group is intact, normal. While the other is damaged and faulty. There is a psychological effect, no matter how little, when you class your subjects that way.
oh darn i saw the word wrong, it's still a silly word i've never heard before in my life
[QUOTE=PunchedInFac;30385640]it implies one group is intact, normal. While the other is damaged and faulty. There is a psychological effect, no matter how little, when you class your subjects that way.[/QUOTE] Except having a foreskin IS normal. Having it surgically removed obviously isn't normal. Nobody said not having a foreskin was "faulty". You're just trying to twist it to make it sound that way.
[QUOTE=STeel;30385633]which still does present[B] facts[/B]. [/QUOTE] As I have said before sexual performance is anecdotal and [I]will[/I] vary wildly.
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;30385638]In a study talking about the declines of finger nail biting, would it be totally unbiased to call people with full nails "nailically intact" again following the improper use of english[/QUOTE] Why would it not be biased, their nails are intact. [editline]11th June 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=PunchedInFac;30385656]As I have said before sexual performance is anecdotal and [I]will[/I] vary wildly.[/QUOTE] I wasn't regarding sexual performance, but rather the sensitivity of the foreskin, which as far as I'm aware, what the studies shown before, were about. It may have not been the case in this specific quote, but however he questioned the credibility of the entire study because of this.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.