lol i dont know why anyone would downvote this. If you were circumsized wouldn't you want to know the damage that was done to you? Is mutilating your genitals for religious reasons that different from multilating your genitals for woke tranny reasons?
The intersection of Jewish social invulnerability, cock insecurity, and total disregard for men's humanity makes circumcision impossible to confront even though it's a totally insane practice when you just describe it outright. No matter where you stand on the political spectrum, there will always be somebody on "your side" who has a problem with you bringing it up.
Well, nobody wants to accept the idea that something has been taken out of them that can't be made whole, especially when it doesn't appear to be consequential.
I wouldn't do it to my children, but I also don't think it matters much. Arguments center around sensitivity, but that's never been an issue.
Speaking from experience with the whole circumcision rabbit hole you go through all the stages of grief upon learning what’s been done to you, and a lot of men get stuck in the denial stage.
And isn't it odd how normally any posts critical of circumcision quickly attract angry mutilation defenders who rant about anteaters and lie about hygiene and female preferences, yet none of those guys are in this thread? Do they not post on Saturdays or something?
To be fair, there's a subset of women that just get offended when male genitalia come up in any conversation. Even when it's a legitimately serious and mature topic that warrants discussion.
Whenever anything that could be considered anti (((small hats))) gets posted there are regularly a few downvotes you can always count on. Not sure if they are part of that tribe themselves or still brainwashed.
Probably because the source is "trust me bro" and it's coming from someone trying to sell you a product. Even if you believe it, you must recognize that this is nothing but anecdotes with zero evidence to back them up, and is therefore worthless.
Our problems began when we attempted to publish our findings in the open medical literature. All of the participants in the research including myself were called before the hospital discipline committee and were severely reprimanded. We were told that while male circumcision was legal under all circumstances in Canada, any attempt to study the adverse effects of circumcision was strictly prohibited by the ethical regulations. Not only could we not publish the results of our research, but we also had to destroy all of our results. If we refused to comply, we were all threatened with immediate dismissal and legal action.
It's also ridiculous hearsay. There's plenty of published articles covering the adverse effects of circumcision. These people are crackpots and you're letting them off with horseshoe logic.
They fMRI a baby's brain and record it. Then they circumcise it. Then they do follow up fMRIs are are fucking surprised, somehow, that it "never returns to baseline."
No fucking shit, retards, it's a baby, it's growing. Did you expect the results to stay constant for a month? That's a brain dead baby. Plus they had no control group. They sound full of shit to me.
The results immediately before and after could have still been interesting data. I doubt the baby wasn't already stressed at being strapped into the MRI machine, so any changes that came after would be clues to how developing brains specifically react to more extreme emotional/physical trauma.
But yeah they should have no basis to say anything so specific happened on the basis of one case without even a single control to compare "baselines" with.
We have results for that, I remember discussing it back in my psych undergrad over a decade ago. The physical pain is so severe that it creates a notable brain change similar to that of PTSD (if not literally just PTSD) that doesn't get wiped even with infantile amnesia. It was theorized that the restraints, the vision of your mother not helping, and the pain creates a very formative memory.
The fact that it was openly addressed and talked about in a classroom of 98% women not generations ago means its also not entirely a "groundbreaking study they don't want you to hear" as it can clearly get through in other places.
I know this is a real "dude trust me" source, but it was a very long time ago and I recall little specifics beyond the topic.
The circumcision thing is at the point where everybody clearly knows its wrong and barbaric, but nobody wants to be the one to acknowledge it because it would make everyone in America look like monsters and crumble a billion dollar industry from lack of foreskins. So they just pretend not to notice.
There's no date on that article but that website appears to have archives going back as far as 1996, reading between the lines I'm assuming this is a very old anecdote at this point.
So yeah it's old news now, but if this was 1996 it may well have been the first before/during/after MRI data of the procedure and warranted publishing on that merit alone.
[Edit - quick Google Fu and there's another copy of this exact retrospective out there dated 2009. So it was at least before then.]
The downvotes over this are hilarious. You pointed out that there are other studies confirming this issue better, but because you say this particular one is bogus a lot of people reached for that button.
Tons of published medical research has no control group (like almost every vaccine study) and can be criticized for methodology (like, well, every vaccine study).
The point here is that the suppression of the data is obviously political.
Don't forget the growing replication crisis which isn't limited to the soft sciences and has grown to such an insane degree that hard sciences are also facing growing issues with replication.
Just remember, anyone pushing the idea that circumcision is done for ANY reason other than aesthetic/religious grounds (namely medical) is outright lying, and a very VERY simply comparison can be made between first world nations to see this effect, considering that nations that aren't within North America generally have inverse rates of circumcision (IIRC, it's something like 1 in 5 in North America are intact, while in other developed countries it's at a similar inversion of 4 in 5 being intact), and despite those differences there is no noticeable difference regarding genital issues between these developed nations.
It's not a secret. It's not confusing. This is blatant and simple data comparison. We're not comparing backwater countries to developed countries. We're comparing nations that have comparable medical standards. And sadly, so many people cannot come to terms with the reality that circumcision is absolutely barbaric.
Routine Child Mutilation was definitely one of the biggest wakeup calls to me personally. It showed how clearly you could lay down the information and fools would still refuse to accept what was so obvious, because accepting it made them complicit with the evil of the world that they continually turn a blind eye to.
There are some studies showing that circumcision can help prevent STDs and UTIs from poor hygiene and other diseases related to hygiene, so that is somewhat disingenuous to say.
However, its impact is nonexistent if you have proper hygiene. So...they really should just be teaching people to wash their junk properly.
Nah, those studies have been bunk for a while and they rely on the comparison of first, second and third world nations as if they're all the same when they're not alike nations. The perpetuation of this myth has actually created serious harm in third world countries where they perform incredibly nasty "circumcision" in unclean environments with rusty utensils on adults and proceed to have unprotected sex thinking that they're now safe.
What's more is that STI's have virtually nothing to do with hygiene. You can't wash away chlamydia. Herpes isn't solved with a bit of soap. That involves actual medicine and/or protective prevention, which means the idea that circumcision helps prevent STIs completely bunk. The ONLY argument is hygiene, at which point you might as well advocate that we lop off the ears of every newborn because some people don't clean them well enough.
I could maybe see hygiene as "possibly" playing a very very small role in transmissibility for some STI's, but it would be so insanely negligible that it makes the claim completely moot.
All of that is true, but its in the same way that removing all water from an area prevents pests. Its weighed entirely as "this is the benefit" without balancing against the heavy baseline cost. Which is only the case when you assume the mutilation is a baseline and normalized.
Mutilating the genitals of babies is a barbaric violation of human rights. But since the jews and muslims do it, we cannot ban this violation of human rights in White countries, because we were conquered by them.
I always feel for people who had this happen to them needlessly. Be it religion or some retardation the Americans do for some reason. FGM is banned in the civilised world, yet circumsicion isn't which makes no sense to me still. Also how the wording for female is very much negative, yet circumsicion doesn't sound as bad yet clearly is.
Now, if it is due to health reasons I have nothing against it, but even there there's different levels and some can be worked on without snipping anything off.
Always worth noting that circumcision gained mass popularity within America due to two factors. One being the jewish population, but the second being of course Kellogg, who promoted it to discourage sexuality. He also promoted female circumcision, and no it wasn't the FGM that most instinctively think of but rather the removal of the clitoral hood. Shockingly, only one of these ideas gained widespread acceptance.
Removal of the hood should also be as bad, no? For men circumcision is so bad cuz it removes tons of nerves that are in the foreskin, for women the clitoral head is basically destroying the clitoris, right? One of the most erogenous zones for women same as the foreskin for men. You'll last longer as a man and women might never reach an orgasm.
Kinda insane how this just started to remove sexuality, humans are by nature very sexual beings. If we weren't we'd not have gone so long as to fill all of the planet. Crazy how it's still done to kids, they fall into that rabbit hole and will never recover from the loss they've experienced sooner or later. I still don't get how the practice wasn't outright banned unless it's due to medical reasons.
Morally, it's absolutely just as bad. Mutilation is mutilation, plain and simple. And there is the obvious exemption of these for reactive medical procedures as opposed to the current method of using mutilation as a preventative. We're not cutting off tits to prevent breast cancer, they get cut off in response to breast cancer. And these genital issues should be the same.
But in terms of numbers and pure statistical analysis, the foreskin holds something like 15,000 nerve endings, which compared to the clitoris itself (not the clitoral hood) only has about 4,000. Mind you, I might be off with my numbers, it's been a while since I've really spoken on this topic but I do remember that the foreskin has significantly more nerve endings than the clitoris.
What probably makes the impact is that women typically have slightly less reliable/accessible high-end erogenous zones from which they can utilize.
As barbaric and senseless circumcision is in either case, males still have access to a substantial amount of high-yield sensation from the glans. Granted, the glans has probably taken a fairly significant hit to its effectiveness thanks to the removal of that foreskin.
And in-case it wasn't already obvious, I am not defending the practice in any way shape or form or denying the very real and needless impact that such damage does.
It was never needed. Any supposed benefits are explicitly a lie and always have been, with the only exception being phimosis, an issue that doesn't present/become an issue until after puberty and therefore doesn't justify routine infant circumcision.
This isn't true. My kid sons are cut, my nephews were born in a hospital that considered it a cosmetic surgery. As babies, and toddlers my nephews had UTI's constantly while my sons had none. The original religious purpose sometimes has a common sense reason.
You may not like my experience, but my nephews probably liked being in the pain of all those UTI's even less. Every time I watched them I had to go crazy with bath times to help them.
My comment stated experienced fact, no opinion. It was heart breaking to see the discomfort, and be pretty much helpless. If me sharing my lived experience of watching my sons vs my nephews triggers you, that's a you problem.
Yeah yeah, we've all heard the "lived experiences" line before, nothing will change the fact that it's entirely anecdotal and has no hard evidence to back you up, and there is zero reason to even believe that you are telling the truth.
Oh wow, anecdotal experience. Whew lads, I guess I was wrong despite all the evidence to the contrary, better keep up with the barbaric mutilation.
Tell me, why do we not cut off clitoral hoods? It's entirely analogous to a foreskin, yet we only mutilate one half of the population. Better yet, you're arguing in the name of hygiene, the only (minor) "benefit" of routine infant mutilation. So I ask you, will you be also advocating for the removal of newborn's ears since there are so many out there that do such a poor job of hygiene when it comes to their ears? Maybe we should also lop off young women's breasts once they develop as a preventative to breast cancer?
Or is it that we should only resort to such measures as a response, and not as a preventative since it's so utterly insane that you would actually defend mutilating children?
That's not even a comment in good faith. Take your loser self somewhere else. My sons are old enough to bring me edibles. Go make your own personal experiences which happens to be the beginning of of studies get enough data.
You're right. I'm not here to treat you kindly when you're advocating that children be mutilated. You're a barbaric piece of shit who abused your sons. And you'll continue to say you did the right thing because you can't possibly accept that you did the wrong thing and were lied to.
The projecting fallacies here are so very lame.I don't care you don't like someone else experience. Collecting experience is how enough data is achieved. You are not keeping a bubble.
One day your sons will realize what was taken from them. Hopefully they will be able to find it in their hearts to forgive you for ignorantly consenting to the hospital crippling them for profit.
My sons and I have had more strange conversations than you would imagine. Gtfo out of here with your lunatic ," in your heart you know " bully bullshit. Kiss all of my ass on your way out. You had one chance to keep the discussion on topic, and I'm good faith.
Many people would like to ignore that curcumcisn wasn't really talked about for some people. I personally did find it disgusting the extra care that uncut boys needed when they were little.
And were those UTI's going to cause irreparable damage? Probably not.
In all likelihood they'd more or less grow out of those as they got older. As their immune system matured, and as they figured out how to properly maintain the proper hygiene.
Circumcision in the Old Testament has baptism as an analog in the New Testament. Both are declarations of allegiance designed to set God's people apart from the other nations. Both play zero role in being elect (many, if not most, circumcised hewbrews apostatized. The surgery did not save them.)
However, the New Testament gives circumcision a shrug, but repeatedly instructs believers to be baptized. There is less than zero reason to get circumcised as a Christian.
The military used to require it and some troops still elect to get one after starting active duty. It's "no longer needed" provided you don't plan on living outside of polite society for extended periods.
There is no health benefit to routine infant circumcision, and the only health problem that circumcision helps with is phimosis, something that has nothing to do with "polite society" as you allude to societal medical quality, since phimosis isn't a disease/infection.
Either you're incredibly ignorant, or you're coping with the reality that you've been going along with a very evil lie that you could have easily seen was false if only you cared to see.
our problems began when we tried to publish these findings.....any attempt to study the adverse effects of circumcision was strictly prohibited by the ethical regulations
In sum: In ancient times, only the bit of foreskin beyond the tip of the glans was removed. The added procedures of "Periah" (which removes the entire foreskin) and of "Metzitzeh" (the sucking of blood from the wound) are rightfully seen as heinous and are in no way commanded in the Bible.
This also brings up the fact that circumcision should not have continued anyway after the second covenant, hence why the apostles did not encourage new converts to be circumcised. Even if it was only the original form of circumcision from ancient times that endured, the simple fact remains that the Bible encourages rather the "circumcising of the heart," thus nullifying whatever religious argument people use today in favor of circumcision.
Yea it should be shown just how bad it is. I was calling the people who don't think it changes anything (or the people that think they need a study to know that it causes change at all) the dipshits.
A lot of points brought up, not sure how factual, but would be nice for someone to link some articles. This isn't a topic that you start searching about on Wikipedia. Good information is probably tough to come by on the topic.
One poster said the practice was symbolic but then got shot down by another poster saying it wasn't symbolic. Well which is it? If Judaism practices circumcision and there's "no real life or medical benefit" then it's going to appear to be purely symbolic.
lol i dont know why anyone would downvote this. If you were circumsized wouldn't you want to know the damage that was done to you? Is mutilating your genitals for religious reasons that different from multilating your genitals for woke tranny reasons?
The intersection of Jewish social invulnerability, cock insecurity, and total disregard for men's humanity makes circumcision impossible to confront even though it's a totally insane practice when you just describe it outright. No matter where you stand on the political spectrum, there will always be somebody on "your side" who has a problem with you bringing it up.
Anyone able to think for themselves would see the perpetrators of cutting kids genitals should be arrested.
But because our own parentsdid it so 90% of us are incapable of escaping the brainwashing. Similar thing with santa claus.
It was made popular after WW2 so that no one could pull the "Drop trou" move for to single them out any more
No, no. It's totally because of the Kellog guy. Totally. Jews, as always, are simply unwitting victims.
"Why not both"?
Well, nobody wants to accept the idea that something has been taken out of them that can't be made whole, especially when it doesn't appear to be consequential.
I wouldn't do it to my children, but I also don't think it matters much. Arguments center around sensitivity, but that's never been an issue.
Speaking from experience with the whole circumcision rabbit hole you go through all the stages of grief upon learning what’s been done to you, and a lot of men get stuck in the denial stage.
Rabbit hole? I think you added an extra "t" there.
The jews had my foreskin turned into a wallet, but when you rub it it becomes a suitcase.
Better that than a lampshade.
Comment Reported for: Rule 16 - Identity Attacks
I think his pp is okay.
And isn't it odd how normally any posts critical of circumcision quickly attract angry mutilation defenders who rant about anteaters and lie about hygiene and female preferences, yet none of those guys are in this thread? Do they not post on Saturdays or something?
It's wild the # of women who go apeshit toxic when you bring up the topic of circumcision. Agent Smith comes right out
No [women] should be able to tell [men] what to do with their own bodies!
To be fair, there's a subset of women that just get offended when male genitalia come up in any conversation. Even when it's a legitimately serious and mature topic that warrants discussion.
Whenever anything that could be considered anti (((small hats))) gets posted there are regularly a few downvotes you can always count on. Not sure if they are part of that tribe themselves or still brainwashed.
Considering how report happy they are im pretty sure its the tribe themselves
Probably because the source is "trust me bro" and it's coming from someone trying to sell you a product. Even if you believe it, you must recognize that this is nothing but anecdotes with zero evidence to back them up, and is therefore worthless.
This isn't the scientific method.
It's also ridiculous hearsay. There's plenty of published articles covering the adverse effects of circumcision. These people are crackpots and you're letting them off with horseshoe logic.
They fMRI a baby's brain and record it. Then they circumcise it. Then they do follow up fMRIs are are fucking surprised, somehow, that it "never returns to baseline."
No fucking shit, retards, it's a baby, it's growing. Did you expect the results to stay constant for a month? That's a brain dead baby. Plus they had no control group. They sound full of shit to me.
The results immediately before and after could have still been interesting data. I doubt the baby wasn't already stressed at being strapped into the MRI machine, so any changes that came after would be clues to how developing brains specifically react to more extreme emotional/physical trauma.
But yeah they should have no basis to say anything so specific happened on the basis of one case without even a single control to compare "baselines" with.
We have results for that, I remember discussing it back in my psych undergrad over a decade ago. The physical pain is so severe that it creates a notable brain change similar to that of PTSD (if not literally just PTSD) that doesn't get wiped even with infantile amnesia. It was theorized that the restraints, the vision of your mother not helping, and the pain creates a very formative memory.
The fact that it was openly addressed and talked about in a classroom of 98% women not generations ago means its also not entirely a "groundbreaking study they don't want you to hear" as it can clearly get through in other places.
I know this is a real "dude trust me" source, but it was a very long time ago and I recall little specifics beyond the topic.
The circumcision thing is at the point where everybody clearly knows its wrong and barbaric, but nobody wants to be the one to acknowledge it because it would make everyone in America look like monsters and crumble a billion dollar industry from lack of foreskins. So they just pretend not to notice.
There's no date on that article but that website appears to have archives going back as far as 1996, reading between the lines I'm assuming this is a very old anecdote at this point.
So yeah it's old news now, but if this was 1996 it may well have been the first before/during/after MRI data of the procedure and warranted publishing on that merit alone.
[Edit - quick Google Fu and there's another copy of this exact retrospective out there dated 2009. So it was at least before then.]
[Ed #2, some pro circumcision article trying to defame the guy says it was allegedly carried out in 1998]
The downvotes over this are hilarious. You pointed out that there are other studies confirming this issue better, but because you say this particular one is bogus a lot of people reached for that button.
Tons of published medical research has no control group (like almost every vaccine study) and can be criticized for methodology (like, well, every vaccine study).
The point here is that the suppression of the data is obviously political.
Don't forget the growing replication crisis which isn't limited to the soft sciences and has grown to such an insane degree that hard sciences are also facing growing issues with replication.
It's ideological possession bordering on religious fervor. Which is why I do it.. I like forcing the irony.
These are the same people pushing trans everything, but they won't allow this to be studied? Think this through fool.
Just remember, anyone pushing the idea that circumcision is done for ANY reason other than aesthetic/religious grounds (namely medical) is outright lying, and a very VERY simply comparison can be made between first world nations to see this effect, considering that nations that aren't within North America generally have inverse rates of circumcision (IIRC, it's something like 1 in 5 in North America are intact, while in other developed countries it's at a similar inversion of 4 in 5 being intact), and despite those differences there is no noticeable difference regarding genital issues between these developed nations.
It's not a secret. It's not confusing. This is blatant and simple data comparison. We're not comparing backwater countries to developed countries. We're comparing nations that have comparable medical standards. And sadly, so many people cannot come to terms with the reality that circumcision is absolutely barbaric.
Routine Child Mutilation was definitely one of the biggest wakeup calls to me personally. It showed how clearly you could lay down the information and fools would still refuse to accept what was so obvious, because accepting it made them complicit with the evil of the world that they continually turn a blind eye to.
There are some studies showing that circumcision can help prevent STDs and UTIs from poor hygiene and other diseases related to hygiene, so that is somewhat disingenuous to say.
However, its impact is nonexistent if you have proper hygiene. So...they really should just be teaching people to wash their junk properly.
Studies, huh?
Aren't we at the point where common sense is way better than 'studies'?
Nah, those studies have been bunk for a while and they rely on the comparison of first, second and third world nations as if they're all the same when they're not alike nations. The perpetuation of this myth has actually created serious harm in third world countries where they perform incredibly nasty "circumcision" in unclean environments with rusty utensils on adults and proceed to have unprotected sex thinking that they're now safe.
What's more is that STI's have virtually nothing to do with hygiene. You can't wash away chlamydia. Herpes isn't solved with a bit of soap. That involves actual medicine and/or protective prevention, which means the idea that circumcision helps prevent STIs completely bunk. The ONLY argument is hygiene, at which point you might as well advocate that we lop off the ears of every newborn because some people don't clean them well enough.
I could maybe see hygiene as "possibly" playing a very very small role in transmissibility for some STI's, but it would be so insanely negligible that it makes the claim completely moot.
All of that is true, but its in the same way that removing all water from an area prevents pests. Its weighed entirely as "this is the benefit" without balancing against the heavy baseline cost. Which is only the case when you assume the mutilation is a baseline and normalized.
(((((Ethical regulations))))))
A guy got fired from Harvard for talking about this. Something about antisemitism...
Yep, Harvard fired a jewish guy and called him antisemitic after he gave this presentation against circumcision:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/6p2XLAzLv26V/
Mutilating the genitals of babies is a barbaric violation of human rights. But since the jews and muslims do it, we cannot ban this violation of human rights in White countries, because we were conquered by them.
So why don’t we have FGM?
Since muslims do that too.
I always feel for people who had this happen to them needlessly. Be it religion or some retardation the Americans do for some reason. FGM is banned in the civilised world, yet circumsicion isn't which makes no sense to me still. Also how the wording for female is very much negative, yet circumsicion doesn't sound as bad yet clearly is.
Now, if it is due to health reasons I have nothing against it, but even there there's different levels and some can be worked on without snipping anything off.
Always worth noting that circumcision gained mass popularity within America due to two factors. One being the jewish population, but the second being of course Kellogg, who promoted it to discourage sexuality. He also promoted female circumcision, and no it wasn't the FGM that most instinctively think of but rather the removal of the clitoral hood. Shockingly, only one of these ideas gained widespread acceptance.
Removal of the hood should also be as bad, no? For men circumcision is so bad cuz it removes tons of nerves that are in the foreskin, for women the clitoral head is basically destroying the clitoris, right? One of the most erogenous zones for women same as the foreskin for men. You'll last longer as a man and women might never reach an orgasm.
Kinda insane how this just started to remove sexuality, humans are by nature very sexual beings. If we weren't we'd not have gone so long as to fill all of the planet. Crazy how it's still done to kids, they fall into that rabbit hole and will never recover from the loss they've experienced sooner or later. I still don't get how the practice wasn't outright banned unless it's due to medical reasons.
It is. Stop cutting off part of babies genitals.
The clitoris dries out just like the glans of a circumcised penis does, how much sensation do you have on your dry elbows or feet?
Morally, it's absolutely just as bad. Mutilation is mutilation, plain and simple. And there is the obvious exemption of these for reactive medical procedures as opposed to the current method of using mutilation as a preventative. We're not cutting off tits to prevent breast cancer, they get cut off in response to breast cancer. And these genital issues should be the same.
But in terms of numbers and pure statistical analysis, the foreskin holds something like 15,000 nerve endings, which compared to the clitoris itself (not the clitoral hood) only has about 4,000. Mind you, I might be off with my numbers, it's been a while since I've really spoken on this topic but I do remember that the foreskin has significantly more nerve endings than the clitoris.
What probably makes the impact is that women typically have slightly less reliable/accessible high-end erogenous zones from which they can utilize.
As barbaric and senseless circumcision is in either case, males still have access to a substantial amount of high-yield sensation from the glans. Granted, the glans has probably taken a fairly significant hit to its effectiveness thanks to the removal of that foreskin.
And in-case it wasn't already obvious, I am not defending the practice in any way shape or form or denying the very real and needless impact that such damage does.
Speaking as someone who was circumcised as a baby:
I get it. I don't necessarily agree with you, but I get it.
I'd be fine if the practice was eventually outlawed.
It's a symbolic practice that is no longer needed due to Jesus dying for us. I never understood it anyway.
It was never needed. Any supposed benefits are explicitly a lie and always have been, with the only exception being phimosis, an issue that doesn't present/become an issue until after puberty and therefore doesn't justify routine infant circumcision.
This isn't true. My kid sons are cut, my nephews were born in a hospital that considered it a cosmetic surgery. As babies, and toddlers my nephews had UTI's constantly while my sons had none. The original religious purpose sometimes has a common sense reason.
You may not like my experience, but my nephews probably liked being in the pain of all those UTI's even less. Every time I watched them I had to go crazy with bath times to help them.
Surprise, surprise. The feminist comes out as pro-genital-mutilation, but only for boys.
My comment stated experienced fact, no opinion. It was heart breaking to see the discomfort, and be pretty much helpless. If me sharing my lived experience of watching my sons vs my nephews triggers you, that's a you problem.
Yeah yeah, we've all heard the "lived experiences" line before, nothing will change the fact that it's entirely anecdotal and has no hard evidence to back you up, and there is zero reason to even believe that you are telling the truth.
Lastworditis I see.
Oh wow, anecdotal experience. Whew lads, I guess I was wrong despite all the evidence to the contrary, better keep up with the barbaric mutilation.
Tell me, why do we not cut off clitoral hoods? It's entirely analogous to a foreskin, yet we only mutilate one half of the population. Better yet, you're arguing in the name of hygiene, the only (minor) "benefit" of routine infant mutilation. So I ask you, will you be also advocating for the removal of newborn's ears since there are so many out there that do such a poor job of hygiene when it comes to their ears? Maybe we should also lop off young women's breasts once they develop as a preventative to breast cancer?
Or is it that we should only resort to such measures as a response, and not as a preventative since it's so utterly insane that you would actually defend mutilating children?
That's not even a comment in good faith. Take your loser self somewhere else. My sons are old enough to bring me edibles. Go make your own personal experiences which happens to be the beginning of of studies get enough data.
You're right. I'm not here to treat you kindly when you're advocating that children be mutilated. You're a barbaric piece of shit who abused your sons. And you'll continue to say you did the right thing because you can't possibly accept that you did the wrong thing and were lied to.
Your fanfiction only works in your mind. My son already brought me an edible. Sucks for you. Loser.
Your nephews had poor hygiene and were seldom bathed properly, therefore children should be surgically mutilated?
The projecting fallacies here are so very lame.I don't care you don't like someone else experience. Collecting experience is how enough data is achieved. You are not keeping a bubble.
One day your sons will realize what was taken from them. Hopefully they will be able to find it in their hearts to forgive you for ignorantly consenting to the hospital crippling them for profit.
My sons and I have had more strange conversations than you would imagine. Gtfo out of here with your lunatic ," in your heart you know " bully bullshit. Kiss all of my ass on your way out. You had one chance to keep the discussion on topic, and I'm good faith.
Their body, your choice, eh?
Fucking disgusting.
Many people would like to ignore that curcumcisn wasn't really talked about for some people. I personally did find it disgusting the extra care that uncut boys needed when they were little.
And were those UTI's going to cause irreparable damage? Probably not.
In all likelihood they'd more or less grow out of those as they got older. As their immune system matured, and as they figured out how to properly maintain the proper hygiene.
Its not symbolic.
Circumcision in the Old Testament has baptism as an analog in the New Testament. Both are declarations of allegiance designed to set God's people apart from the other nations. Both play zero role in being elect (many, if not most, circumcised hewbrews apostatized. The surgery did not save them.)
However, the New Testament gives circumcision a shrug, but repeatedly instructs believers to be baptized. There is less than zero reason to get circumcised as a Christian.
The military used to require it and some troops still elect to get one after starting active duty. It's "no longer needed" provided you don't plan on living outside of polite society for extended periods.
There is no health benefit to routine infant circumcision, and the only health problem that circumcision helps with is phimosis, something that has nothing to do with "polite society" as you allude to societal medical quality, since phimosis isn't a disease/infection.
Either you're incredibly ignorant, or you're coping with the reality that you've been going along with a very evil lie that you could have easily seen was false if only you cared to see.
He's like those coping that the lockdowns were okay and useful but ''no longer necessary''.
No. It was harmful all along.
Citation Needed
Funny how the military of other countries never needed this and their men weren't dying of dick infections.
I never heard a word about it either way over 20 years.
And they tell us to trust the experts.
Some links to show how modern circumcision differs in regards to ancient circumcision:
Circumcision: Then and Now https://www.cirp.org/library/history/peron2/
Circumcision in Reverse: https://www.cirp.org/library/restoration/hall1/
In sum: In ancient times, only the bit of foreskin beyond the tip of the glans was removed. The added procedures of "Periah" (which removes the entire foreskin) and of "Metzitzeh" (the sucking of blood from the wound) are rightfully seen as heinous and are in no way commanded in the Bible.
This also brings up the fact that circumcision should not have continued anyway after the second covenant, hence why the apostles did not encourage new converts to be circumcised. Even if it was only the original form of circumcision from ancient times that endured, the simple fact remains that the Bible encourages rather the "circumcising of the heart," thus nullifying whatever religious argument people use today in favor of circumcision.
Any trauma causes changes in the brain dipshits, that's why it's traumatic.
Sounds like it should be studied, and documented. Not deleted.
Yea it should be shown just how bad it is. I was calling the people who don't think it changes anything (or the people that think they need a study to know that it causes change at all) the dipshits.
Being unwilling to discuss it is a serious problem.
A lot of points brought up, not sure how factual, but would be nice for someone to link some articles. This isn't a topic that you start searching about on Wikipedia. Good information is probably tough to come by on the topic.
One poster said the practice was symbolic but then got shot down by another poster saying it wasn't symbolic. Well which is it? If Judaism practices circumcision and there's "no real life or medical benefit" then it's going to appear to be purely symbolic.
Exactly, the problem is these researchers were threatened which means a lot more were too. It will be very hard to find any actual truth.