Russell Crowe sorry after anti-circumcision tweets
213 replies, posted
[QUOTE=STeel;30385660]Why would it not be biased, their nails are intact.[/QUOTE]
It implies they are abnormal, that is, weird or negative. Sure it isn't natural or whatever, but it's biased to say it is negative or weird in any way during a god damn study trying to be professional and credible
[QUOTE=Zachary1392;30385653]Except having a foreskin IS normal.
Having it surgically removed obviously isn't normal.[/QUOTE]
And thus we delve into philosophical concepts of what is and isn't normal. Prepare for a long and driven out (as the egyptians say) Byzantinian debate.
I was circumcised because I had to be. Not through religion or being forced as a child or anything...
[quote=study]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). Also, their circumcised partners experienced significant progressive decline in glans sensitivity (p < .001), and had to use significantly different techniques when masturbating (p < .001). Circumcised partners more often resorted to unsafe sexual practices; they were significantly more likely to engage in anal intercourse (p < .05), and significantly more reluctant to use condoms (p < .05). Respondents reported significantly higher mean discontent among their circumcised partners than among their genitally intact partners (p < .05).[/quote]
Discontent. That sounds a lot like opinion. which means anecdotes.
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;30385671]It implies they are abnormal, that is, weird or negative. Sure it isn't natural or whatever, but it's biased to say it is negative or weird in any way during a god damn study trying to be professional and credible[/QUOTE]
But it isn't implying something negative. It says their nails are intact, in one piece, not bitten off.
[QUOTE=STeel;30385689]But it isn't implying something negative. It says their nails are intact, in one piece, not bitten off.[/QUOTE]
wtf yes it is are you kidding me
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;30385671]It implies they are abnormal, that is, weird or negative. Sure it isn't natural or whatever, but it's biased to say it is negative or weird in any way during a god damn study trying to be professional and credible[/QUOTE]
No, it really doesn't. They're saying you're either genitally intact or you're not genitally intact.
Obviously, if you had your foreskin surgically removed, then you're not genitally intact. I don't know how this could be worded better.
[QUOTE=Zachary1392;30385700]No, it really doesn't. They're saying you're either genitally intact or you're not genitally intact.
Obviously, if you had your foreskin surgically removed, then you're not genitally intact. I don't know how this could be worded better.[/QUOTE]
By just calling them circumcised and not saying that they are literally lacking something.
Honestly if you guys really don't fucking understand how its biased then there's no hope in arguing with you guys
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;30385696]wtf yes it is are you kidding me[/QUOTE]
Only if you're over-reacting over words really.
If you're going to base your arguments over how you don't feel an article is unbiased, there's no hope in arguing with you.
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;30385714]By just calling them circumcised and not saying that they are literally lacking something.
Honestly if you guys really don't fucking understand how its biased then there's no hope in arguing with you guys[/QUOTE]
See if the article said "lacking" then it would be biased, because that would imply it has to be there, and it is missing.
Saying that something is not intact does not imply negativity.
I bite my nails often; My nails are not intact, and so is the skin around my fingers, how is that being negative?
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;30385714]By just calling them circumcised and not saying that they are literally lacking something.
Honestly if you guys really don't fucking understand how its biased then there's no hope in arguing with you guys[/QUOTE]
Look, both sides of the argument using the term "genitally intact":
[url]http://www.circumcision.org/advocates.htm[/url]
[QUOTE=STeel;30385689]But it isn't implying something negative. It says their nails are intact, in one piece, not bitten off.[/QUOTE]
Mentally intact. Bit of an extreme example but it shows the bias in using words like intact and functional. especially when dealing with such a study that is quite personal to each person in it.
[QUOTE=STeel;30385716]Only if you're over-reacting over words really.
If you're going to base your arguments over how you don't feel an article is biased, there's no hope in arguing with you.[/QUOTE]
if an article you guys cite as source is biased then it's not a really good source.
[QUOTE=Zachary1392;30385717]Look, both sides of the argument using the term "genitally intact":
[url]http://www.circumcision.org/advocates.htm[/url]
Happy now?[/QUOTE]
The site is not made by advocates of circumsicion. Nor does it have any sort of published study about it.
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;30385727]if an article you guys cite as source is biased then it's not a really good source.[/QUOTE]
It is not, however, biased.
[editline]11th June 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=PunchedInFac;30385719]Mentally intact. Bit of an extreme example but it shows the bias in using words like intact and functional. especially when dealing with such a study that is quite personal to each person in it.[/QUOTE]
Mentality and healthy psychology however are not a physical part of your body, and being mentally intact is more of a metaphorical use to explain a person who is not mentally healthy. While not having something physical intact, literally means you don't have it, regardless of whether it is healthy to have it or not. Negatively or not? That's up to the eye of the beholder just like any other single word you can take in an article and claim it's "bias".
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;30385727]if an article you guys cite as source is biased then it's not a really good source.[/QUOTE]
why is it so hard to understand that a penis is not intact if part of it has been surgically removed
[quote]in·tact
adjective /inˈtakt/ 
Not damaged or impaired in any way; complete[/quote]
Obviously an uncircumcised penis is not impaired in any way, and it's complete.
A circumcised penis obviously has been impaired, and it's not in its complete form. Therefore it's not intact.
The tweet has more stupid than smart in it so I'm gonna have to say I'm glad he got called out.
[QUOTE=Zachary1392;30385816]why is it so hard to understand that a penis is not intact if part of it has been surgically removed
Obviously an uncircumcised penis is not impaired in any way, and it's complete.
A circumcised penis obviously has been impaired, and it's not in its complete form. Therefore it's not intact.[/QUOTE]
Oh so impaired does not imply it functions negatively
do you really not see how biased that is
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;30385826]Oh so impaired does not imply it functions negatively
do you really not see how biased that is[/QUOTE]
The foreskin has a purpose. Technically it IS being impaired from its original function.
What I'm getting at is that a circumcised penis is not a penis in its complete form. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, but it's a fact.
[QUOTE=Zachary1392;30385847]The foreskin has a purpose. Technically it IS being impaired from its original function.
What I'm getting at is that a circumcised penis is not a penis in its complete form. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, but it's a fact.[/QUOTE]
hows it impaired from its original function are circumcised people unable to have kids or what
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;30385876]hows it impaired from its original function are circumcised people unable to have kids or what[/QUOTE]
[quote]The World Health Organization state that there is "debate about the role of the foreskin, with possible functions including keeping the glans moist, protecting the developing penis in utero, or enhancing sexual pleasure due to the presence of nerve receptors".[19][/quote]
I'm talking about the foreskin. It's not there for nothing.
[QUOTE=Zachary1392;30385891]I'm talking about the foreskin. It's not there for nothing.[/QUOTE]
I'd like to point out that that WHO quote didn't actually...say anything, it said those are possible functions, and that they were debated...they didn't actually say "this is what happens"
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;30385876]hows it impaired from its original function are circumcised people unable to have kids or what[/QUOTE]
It's impaired from it's skin that externally covers it, or "protects" it if you will, something that may have become obsolete when people thought of clothing themselves, but purely physiologically, that's it's purpose, so it's removal impairs that function. Is that negative?
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;30385899]I'd like to point out that that WHO quote didn't actually...say anything, it said those are possible functions, and that they were debated...they didn't actually say "this is what happens"[/QUOTE]
Except those are what happen. There's just debate over what its main role is.
[QUOTE=STeel;30385902]It's impaired from it's skin that externally covers it, or "protects" it if you will, something that may have become obsolete when people thought of clothing themselves, but purely physiologically, that's it's purpose, so it's removal impairs that function. Is that negative?[/QUOTE]
So it's like pubic hair (or any hair in general besides...head hair), it was useful when we didn't have clothes?
Or does hair have more uses that clothes doesn't replicate?
[editline]11th June 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Zachary1392;30385909]Except those are what happen. There's just debate over what its main role is.[/QUOTE]
Glans moist? Cool, what does that matter? I can masturbate without lube, sex with lube...yeah
Developing penis in utero? irrelevant to the argument of circumcision (unless you got circumcised in utero then that's just fucking weird)
I don't know about this, i don't know...
I just want to know if "genitally intact" still is a biased term for you, despite what I just said.
A function that was initially there is now impaired, your genitals are not as they were when you were only born, therefore not complete, not intact.
Uncircumcised penii look like little gay gross worms. Its a scientific fact.
[QUOTE=STeel;30385945]I just want to know if "genitally intact" still is a biased term for you, despite what I just said.[/QUOTE]
It may be correct, it may be logical to say in conversation, but when you're a study trying to prove a point and trying to look professional, saying "genitally intact" is just...biased
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;30385958]It may be correct, it may be logical to say in conversation, but when you're a study trying to prove a point and trying to look professional, saying "genitally intact" is just...biased[/QUOTE]
I disagree, if anything, this is where it should be used, of all places. You just said it yourself that it may be correct. And if it is correct, how is it biased?
It's you who's currently stating something as a fact purely based on what you feel.
And in that case here's something that I feel, physically - a lot more sensitivity when my penis is covered by it's foreskin.
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;30385921]Glans moist? Cool, what does that matter? I can masturbate without lube, sex with lube...yeah[/QUOTE]
Well that's more for preventing it from drying up and becoming less sensitive. The foreskin itself is what makes lube somewhat unnecessary.
But you're just making up for what you should be able to do naturally. Is there really a point in forcing a permanent change on a helpless baby when there are arguably little benefits and arguably more downsides?
You've said there's no difference either way, so why are you fine with forcing pain onto a baby for a pointless, permanent change? Why aren't you against that?
[QUOTE=STeel;30385978]I disagree, if anything, this is where it should be used, of all places. You just said it yourself that it may be correct. And if it is correct, how is it biased?[/QUOTE]
In a study trying to say objective why would you show your agenda by implying a side is impaired, even if, yes, they may be.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.