Circumcision divide between Denmark and Israel - Polidicks

[QUOTE=kurva;43655853]Nope.[/QUOTE] i think it would be i mean, jewish people having big noses features frequently in propaganda and is used to dehumanize them so i think it probably might be slightly bigoted

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;43658604]i think it would be i mean, jewish people having big noses features frequently in propaganda and is used to dehumanize them so i think it probably might be slightly bigoted[/QUOTE] Bigotry doesn't apply to Jews because

[QUOTE=Appellation;43656209]My circumcision took too much skin and made me have to shave my fucking shaft because of all the hairy skin it had to borrow every time it got erect. Fuck circumcisions, and fuck the 1800s for America deciding it would prevent masturbation.[/QUOTE] Are you telling me that uncircumzied men don't have hairy dicks

[QUOTE=Demache;43658370]Yeah I see certain situations where its justified. But in a modern country with decent hygiene and healthcare? Not so much.[/QUOTE] It should be banned for infants. People should have the choice when they're older and I bet you that most people would prefer to keep things as they were intended.

Although I do believe the choice should come later in life, I do feel that circumcision is perfectly acceptable in certain cases, especially if it is a health concern (which is a case by case situation). Also on the "fact" that circumcision removes sensitivity is not necessarily true, it depends on how well the doctor does the circumcision and how much skin is removed. I know in some cases, the glans at the top of the head are completely destroyed by the surgery due to poor execution. I also know in some cases, the glans are perfectly fine, functional, and as sensitive as they would be with foreskin on. In these cases, the execution of the operation was top notch.

[QUOTE=Gorm;43658864]Although I do believe the choice should come later in life, I do feel that circumcision is perfectly acceptable in certain cases, especially if it is a health concern (which is a case by case situation). Also on the "fact" that circumcision removes sensitivity is not necessarily true, it depends on how well the doctor does the circumcision and how much skin is removed. I know in some cases, the glands at the top of the head are completely destroyed by the surgery due to poor execution. I also know in some cases, the glands are perfectly fine, functional, and as sensitive as they would be with foreskin on. In these cases, the execution of the operation was top notch.[/QUOTE] The "glans" (not glands) refers to the entire penis head. And no, actually the penis develops a thin layer of scar tissue that makes the skin on the glans thicker.

[QUOTE=Sableye;43658280]owch, also what about religions that arguably will be the ones partaking in this, what about their age when a boy is considered a man? those are arguably much earlier than 18[/QUOTE] Circumcision has nothing to do with religion. Jewish people have them not for their faith, not for God, but for cleanliness. Being circumcised is way more cleaner then not (unless you're a bum that never baths.) Foreskin is just a hood for bacteria (not to say nothing on your body isn't) from smegma build up, but it's cleaner for the partner if you are. Just ask anybody that has been circumcised on their own terms, they will tell you it's cleaner for the female and easier to clean for the male. "No NO NO U IS STUPID AND UNEDUMICATED YOU GET DUM DUM RATATING!" Well pardon me for actually having knowledge. Flip side of the coin. Being circumcised can minorly increase your chances of having continuous UTIs(Urinary Tack Infection) yet those are very easy to treat. You can argue all you want about all these medicines and shit we and other developed countries have but 93% of Doctors over-medicate thier patients and give them wrong medicine to give them problems, and that's comming from my family Doctor's mouth. Being circumcised has never been anything to do with religion or countries, it is the choice of the parent to have it removed so the child does not have to worry about it, or not have it done and have the child either go through in life with no problems at all, or have just a very small percentage of getting cancer. Not only that but if you are circumcised you can play Rocket Man! Tuck it into the launch pad and count down.

[QUOTE=lolz3;43659132]Circumcision has nothing to do with religion. Jewish people have them not for their faith, not for God, but for cleanliness. Being circumcised is way more cleaner then not (unless you're a bum that never baths.) Foreskin is just a hood for bacteria, not to say nothing on your body isn't, but it's cleaner for the partner if you are. Just ask anybody that has been circumcised on their own terms, they will tell you it's cleaner for the female and easier to clean for the male.[/QUOTE] You don't know what you're talking about and you seem to be trying so hard to defend it. It's almost like you're in denial. [url]http://www.religionfacts.com/judaism/cycle/circumcision.htm[/url] [url]http://www.zentralratdjuden.de/en/article/3734.why-do-jews-circumcise-their-children.html[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_male_circumcision#In_Judaism[/url] [quote=Wiki] According to Jewish law, ritual circumcision of male children is a commandment from God that Jews are obligated to follow, and is only postponed or abrogated in the case of threat to the life or health of the child.[/quote]

[QUOTE=Spirit_Breaker;43659199]You don't know what you're talking about and you seem to be trying so hard to defend it. It's almost like you're in denial. [URL]http://www.religionfacts.com/judaism/cycle/circumcision.htm[/URL] [URL]http://www.zentralratdjuden.de/en/article/3734.why-do-jews-circumcise-their-children.html[/URL] [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_male_circumcision#In_Judaism[/URL][/QUOTE] And you've just given me links that are from people's opinions and biased views from anti-religion. If anybody is in denial it's people like you that just "NOPE DICK HOOD GOOD YOUR DUMB!"

[QUOTE=katbug;43658953]The "glans" (not glands) refers to the entire penis head. And no, actually the penis develops a thin layer of scar tissue that makes the skin on the glans thicker.[/QUOTE] Shit, well this is what I deserve for typing with one hour of sleep. Hopefully you don't think less of me for one small error in spelling. The point I was trying to carry across is many cases of circumcision vary in quality due to how well the procedure was executed. The scar tissue on the glans can lead to being less sensitive, but the only reason to have a excess of scar tissue on the glans is if the procedure was not well executed.

[QUOTE=DaysBefore;43658671]Bigotry doesn't apply to Jews because[/QUOTE] because people don't like them they think jews control hollywood and are out to destroy the white man

[QUOTE=lolz3;43659252]And you've just given me links that are from people's opinions and biased views from anti-religion. If anybody is in denial it's people like you that just "NOPE DICK HOOD GOOD YOUR DUMB!"[/QUOTE] You're being delusional now lmao. You are saying that those links have biased anti-religion views yet 2 of them are from the site revolving around the religion and the other one is central council of Jews in Germany. I can find you p much any source you want about Judaism and circumcision, you still haven't given us any reliable source about your claim. I never said "dick hood" was good for you nor did I actually say anything on given matter. You're the one being hilarious with "you're either with us or against us" mentality. [QUOTE=Sobotnik;43659439]because people don't like them they think jews control hollywood and are out to destroy the white man[/QUOTE] Wasn't there a story about some movie directors being Jewish secret agents tho?

[QUOTE=Spirit_Breaker;43659526]Wasn't there a story about some movie directors being Jewish secret agents tho?[/QUOTE] Fight club?

[QUOTE=Spirit_Breaker;43659526]Wasn't there a story about some movie directors being Jewish secret agents tho?[/QUOTE] No, I don't recall this. What is a "Jewish secret agent" anyways?

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;43659588]No, I don't recall this. What is a "Jewish secret agent" anyways?[/QUOTE] A secret agent who's Jewish Duh

Funny since you posted in that same thread tho: [url]http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1328859&p=42998052&viewfull=1#post42998052[/url]

[QUOTE=Spirit_Breaker;43659627]Funny since you posted in that same thread tho: [url]http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1328859&p=42998052&viewfull=1#post42998052[/url][/QUOTE] There's a difference between Jewish secret agents and Israeli secret agents.

[QUOTE=Fatfatfatty;43654888]With a nose that size it's probably hard to keep it from ending up somewhere [highlight](User was banned for this post ("C" - Starpluck))[/highlight] [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Antisemitism" - Starpluck))[/highlight][/QUOTE] Starpluck confirmed for JIDF. Great way to start a page btw.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;43659652]There's a difference between Jewish secret agents and Israeli secret agents.[/QUOTE] Wow nitpicking semantics much?

[QUOTE=O Cheerios O;43659746]Wow nitpicking semantics much?[/QUOTE] Israel =/= Judaism Having Israel do bad things does not mean Jewish people themselves are in the wrong. The conspiracy theory that the Jews control Hollywood is part of a larger antisemitic movement that has no relation to reality and in fact does not happen.

Can you just stop with nitpicking and asspulling when I'm pretty positive that you knew what I meant when I wrote that. [quote=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel]On 14 May 1948, David Ben-Gurion, the Executive Head of the World Zionist Organization and president of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, declared "the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz Israel, to be known as the State of Israel,"[/quote] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Jewish_and_Democratic_State[/url] You have to be delusional or braindead to think that Judaism isn't related to Israel.

[QUOTE=Spirit_Breaker;43659994]Can you just stop with nitpicking and asspulling when I'm pretty positive that you knew what I meant when I wrote that. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Jewish_and_Democratic_State[/url] You have to be delusional or braindead to think that Judaism isn't related to Israel.[/QUOTE] Except whatever Israel does, does not justify antisemitism.

Studies show that removing your pinky toe slightly reduces the risk of toe cancer and greatly reduces the risk of stubbing your toe. Therefore, we should cut off babies' pinky toes. They're of no use anyway. Oh, here comes the "WOOP WOOP U SO DUMB PINKY TOE GOOD U DUMB" brigade to tell me I'm wrong. Damn antisemites. [QUOTE=O Cheerios O;43659746]Wow nitpicking semantics much?[/QUOTE] Nitpicking [I]semitics[/I], you mean. [sp]Obligatory: nitpicking is a verb, not an adverb. A panda eats, shoots, and leaves.[/sp]

[QUOTE=Spirit_Breaker;43659994]Can you just stop with nitpicking and asspulling when I'm pretty positive that you knew what I meant when I wrote that. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Jewish_and_Democratic_State[/url] You have to be delusional or braindead to think that Judaism isn't related to Israel.[/QUOTE] I seriously hope you're not blaming jews around the world for the actions of the state of Israel.

[QUOTE=The golden;43655131]I sincerely hope Denmark tells Israel to fuck off and mind their own business.[/QUOTE] Well we pretty much told that to the whole islamic world back when they got their titties in a twist about a guys drawings.

[QUOTE=Gorm;43659394]Shit, well this is what I deserve for typing with one hour of sleep. Hopefully you don't think less of me for one small error in spelling. The point I was trying to carry across is many cases of circumcision vary in quality due to how well the procedure was executed. The scar tissue on the glans can lead to being less sensitive, but the only reason to have a excess of scar tissue on the glans is if the procedure was not well executed.[/QUOTE] Why would I think less of you (or anyone else think less of you) I was just making sure you knew what I (and others) were talking about. And the scar tissue I'm talking about is tissue that naturally forms when any membrane on the body dries out and gets exposed to abrasive forces (Like the inside of pants)

I posted in a thread a few months back concerning circumcision. I haven't majorly changed my stance on it. But I still respect the fact that people think it's unnecessary or weird, so before you auto-rate dumb because someone has a differing opinion at least try to see the other side of the issue. The main point of contention here is the ethics behind it, but I'd like to reiterate points posted by people previously in the thread since it's going to be important later on. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Circumcision does offer some health benefits, but it's nothing major enough to warrant it to be done to all children. It reduces the chance of penile cancers and UTIs, as well as the chance of transmitting HIV, but in the modern world if you keep your dick clean it's not a big benefit other than the cancer reducing one. - The procedure (if done correctly, which is the same for all medical procedures) should leave little loss in sensitivity, but in the majority of circumcisions not even noticeable loss in sensitivity. The loss in sensitivity reported in a [URL="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23361453"]large study in German men[/URL] was so miniscule that it wasn't even statistically relevant, let alone clinically, meaning the difference is most likely due to random chance. (Anecdotally: I mean honestly, when a guy masturbates he's not focusing his fingers on his foreskin for the pleasure, he's focusing it on his glans, and the part that can possibly keratenize is not the part you would be touching in the first place due to the odd location (a bit at the end of the glans, the edge where the glans meets the shaft at a right angle, your hand just glides past that part)). - The reason it's done in infants is because it's way less complicated (you don't need to refrain from sex/masturbation for 4/6 weeks for one thing) and much quicker, and of course you're not going to remember it since at that age you can't even see color, let alone tell what the fuck is going on. Not every circumcision is like orthodox Jewish ones where they use no analgesic to minimize pain and chop the skin off haphazardly; in a clinical setting it's quick, effective, accurate and there's little to no pain due to analgesic pain reduction (no anesthesia due to the fact it can be dangerous to infants) and no need for post surgery pain management, so it's not like how people imagine it as as some sort of horrible disfiguring painful mutilation. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The meat of the disagreement is here: ethical considerations. Concerning the points above,[U] the pain is minimal, there's no real noticeable loss in sensitivity, and the infant's not even going to remember it.[/U] The issue is whether the infant should have a choice in the matter. First, infants have no choice on name, whether they should be vaccinated (which is about the same pain response), their clothes, their haircut, what they eat, what surgeries they may need, et cetera because at that age they are unable to make any decisions for themselves, and their surrogate chooses these decisions for them with their best interests in mind. Is it ethical for the surrogate to make this decision, since it's not incredibly necessary? According to US health law, a surrogate may grant consent for a medical procedure that has no medical indication only if it is the child's best interests (yeah law =/= ethics but I feel it's relevant enough here to reference it). I'd argue it is in their best interests, based on my points above. However, if the parent believes it's not in the child's best interest, they can decide not to have their infant undergo the procedure. Pediatricians are required to tell the family of the risks and benefits of circumcision before they can have the operation done, by the way. So, what's my stance? [B]If the parent understands the risks and benefits of the procedure, then they should ultimately be the deciding factor, not their government or religion.[/B] But, chances are you're not even going to read this, instead you'll stick to your opinion and that's okay. But I'd prefer if you'd at least understand the reason circumcision is done isn't out of some horrible twisted mindset or anything, it's done because parents genuinely believe it to be in their child's interest. And, since the first thing you're going to mention is that A) I'm American and B) I'm cut, I still believe I have made fair points that shouldn't be disregarded. Anecdotally, I don't dislike that I'm cut, my dick feels fine, my friends are all cut and their dicks feel fine apparently, blah blah blah. It's really not a big deal to most people if their cut or not. A circumcision isn't going to be the turning point in a person's life that's going to set them up for a life of misery. The reason I've been defending it is because the movements against circumcision are largely anti-science, anti-medicine, and use fear mongering. I don't like movements that appeal to emotion rather than to actual trends, research, science and facts.

if: thread+circumcision then:shitstorm

I forget that Facepunch is a very liberal forum, but I still think that this is a parents decision still. I agree with SleepyAl for most of it. If the parents are making an informed decision then yea, its ok to do.

[QUOTE=areolop;43663108]I forget that Facepunch is a very liberal forum, but I still think that this is a parents decision still. I agree with SleepyAl for most of it. If the parents are making an informed decision then yea, its ok to do.[/QUOTE] I don't think the parents have a right to make a permanent and unchangeable decision for their child. I am unhappy that I am circumcised because I wish I had all of my skin and shit intact, and I wasn't even asked if I wanted it lopped off and I live in a first world country and have access to washing, so if I was uncircumcised it would still be possible to maintain proper hygiene. If I wanted to change my name I could, and being vaccinated is basically universally accepted to have health benefits and doesn't permanently change my life or physical body.