Move to make circumcision illegal

cavfancier wrote:

Truth in general also has a spin doctor, not a medical doctor, in control. You ask for rights on behalf of the multilated (in your eyes) babies, poor victims, but seem to have no concern whatsoever for say, abused, beaten children with crack whores as mothers, and the list could go on. If you really are soooo concerned about "the innocent abused children", put your zeal to better use. As regards "rights", just because I said I wasn't interested in this discussion (i.e. your opinions and supposed 'facts') does not negate my right to post here as much as I want, even if it's just to annoy you.

So how does the existence of one evil negate another.. should one merely accept one evil because one possibly worse exists? This sounds like "relativistic morality to me. Better use? WHO determines this? It seems to me that sexually damaging 1.25 million males a year is a bit more than trivial..

Post, if merely to annoy me--to me, it provides an opportunity to discuss various aspects of this subject and shows how much attitude and beliefs are used to justify this.
But just remember, your posting provides fodder for further discussion; and can, and will be quoted to illustrate a point.

0 Replies

I think it noteworty that Kevin's Putative Mum more than once refers to some studies, while liberally scattering contemptuous comments about other members throughout his/her/its posts. When one purports to have a superior point of view, based upon an othewise unsubstantiated claim of "Being a rational and logical person . . . "--and with the inferential accusation that those who disagree with the rant are not--one need do much, much better than some studies. Before spitting venom at others for having the temerity to disagree, it would useful to attempt, at the least, to demonstrate that one refers to the preponderance of reliable information available, as opposed to just some studies.

0 Replies

Quote:

No, KM - I do not think the presentation of facts is denigrating - I think your manner frequently is. However, much of what you present as fact - namely your studies of how men feel re circumcision, are assemblages of what you call anecdotes, are they not?

Manner? I am afraid I do not understand what you mean--I deliberately try to keep all emotion out of my posts. I figure either the information stands or falls on it's own.

As for being anecdotes? Well the BMJ study was published in a peer-reviewed journal--I think that removes it from the realm of "anecdotes".

Quote:

As I said, I do not especially oppose them, but to counter the anecdotes of the men on this thread, and others about whom others, including me, have commented, with 52 million men feel dissatisfaction - hmmmmmm - I have not waded through your studies, nor, probably, shall I - since I have a position based on other reasons - but I do wonder how unbiased and properly constructed this research is, given your enduring tone and manner and mission

.

Mission? again, I do not know to what you are referring-- have stated my mission (motivation) before... do you believe I have lied and that my mission is other than what I have stated? If so, what do you believe my "mission" is?

Manner? what manner are you assuming for me? Is logical and simple presentataion of the information necessarily a manner? If so, is this good, or is this bad?

It is your right to question the valididty (and possible bias) of these surveys, however, I do not believe that your mere speculation is enough to discredit them.. that, I think, would take similar surveys that contradict them.

As I have stated before, I wanted to bring something factual to this discussion..in the hopes that the discussion could involve something more than opinions, beliefs, myths, and superstitions. Hopefully when the emotions settle down, this can occur.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

I think it noteworty that Kevin's Putative Mum more than once refers to some studies, while liberally scattering contemptuous comments about other members throughout his/her/its posts. When one purports to have a superior point of view, based upon an othewise unsubstantiated claim of "Being a rational and logical person . . . "--and with the inferential accusation that those who disagree with the rant are not--one need do much, much better than some studies. Before spitting venom at others for having the temerity to disagree, it would useful to attempt, at the least, to demonstrate that one refers to the preponderance of reliable information available, as opposed to just some studies.

Thanks for this, but I am still waiting for ANY study to refute the studies I have posted. Post some and then you will get the preponderance of evidence you seek.. further rebuttals will be offered for rebuttals--not for opinions.

0 Replies

Ah, the hilarious arrogance . . . so what precisely is it that makes you believe that your have any authority to set terms of discussion here?

You go next, i did mine . . .

But i don't see any reliably supported information here, those statistics are offered without substantiation or any statement of the analytic method and data sources.

I'm rational and logical, you are not, or you would submit to my demands that you refute my evidence.

What evidence, these are unsupported contentions about data for which you don't provide the primary sources?

Your opinions don't matter, only mine does.

http://mysmilies.ipbfree.com/s/otn/angry/newburn.gif

http://mysmilies.ipbfree.com/s/otn/realhappy/xxrotflmao.gif

0 Replies

Where is Kevie while all this posting is going on? I sure hope he's not in the bathtub.

0 Replies

I have to admit to being puzzled as to why so much time is being expended on debating my posting style and so little time is expended on debating the information that I post.

There seems to be a lot of presuming, attributing motives to me, and insinuations of this or that to deflect attention away from the facts and evidence.

This seems to me to be a "blame the messanger" for the message. If someone dislikes the message, blame the message, and refute it, but please don't blame the messanger.

If this is a form of attempted "character assassination", it certainly in no way alters the message, in fact it merely shows what appears to be an inability to refute the information and in the end seems to be nothing but emotional propaganda.

One of my favorite quotes pertaining to this is:

"Character assassination is the last refuge of the incompetent".

Could we start discussing the facts and evidence and stop discussing personalities?

0 Replies

It's not puzzling to me. I'm someone who think circumcision is a pointless body modification but your rhetoric is off putting even to me. And I agree with much of what you are trying to say.

You post a bunch of screeds and try to don the mantle of "facts and evidence". It's laughable.

0 Replies

The posts you have received should not bother you, KM, given that you admitted to being completely unemotional when you post.

0 Replies

keviesmum
Since you seemed to have made an extensive study of penisis and claim to be the resident expert on the subject. What is your preferred size. Laughing

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

It's not puzzling to me. I'm someone who think circumcision is a pointless body modification but your rhetoric is off putting even to me. And I agree with much of what you are trying to say.

You post a bunch of screeds and try to don the mantle of "facts and evidence". It's laughable.

Laughable? but not refutable? Now that IS funny.

0 Replies

cavfancier wrote:

The posts you have received should not bother you, KM, given that you admitted to being completely unemotional when you post.

they don't BOTHER me, I just find them puzzling. Trying to understand the motivations behind them is the only thing that "bothers" me.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

keviesmum
Since you seemed to have made an extensive study of penisis and claim to be the resident expert on the subject. What is your preferred size.

SAD! Is the best you can do? Perhaps you could explain to all here, just how this is relevant to the discussion--or is it some feeble attempt at "humor"--or simply another attempt to distract from the discussion and to deflect attention from the fact that no rebuttal has been offered yet?

0 Replies

KM, I'll put it this way: If you find the posts "confusing", perhaps you need to look inside yourself and realize that many many many manly men don't have a problem with circumcision. I think that is as simple as I can say.

0 Replies

keviesmum wrote:

Laughable? but not refutable? Now that IS funny.

Of course they are refutable, thing is with the zeal you possess most are outmatched.

I actually agree that circumcision is unecessary, but I do disagree with your implication that you are on some "factual" pedestal. You posted some very ignorant screeds. And then just a lot of chest thumping.

One thing to remember is that whether or not someone bothers to take on this zeal you demonstrate does not indicate that it's well founded. It says more about their willingness to engage in such exercises.

0 Replies

It is past time for a little humor. I can't for the life of me understand why anyone should get so intense about a subject such as this. Is it penis envy? I should remind you that it is a religious requirement of billions of people around the world. And has been practiced for thousands of years without any detrimental results. Although you seem to be concerned about my sexual gratification, let me put your mind at rest. You needn't be since I and all my fellow "Circumcisees" are not. But thanks for caring. :wink:

0 Replies

cavfancier wrote:

KM, I'll put it this way: If you find the posts "confusing", perhaps you need to look inside yourself and realize that many many many manly men don't have a problem with circumcision. I think that is as simple as I can say.

Excuse me while I fall to the floor laughing! This sounds like a simplistic and jingoistic bit of ego-preserviation and childish denial.

Manly men?--OHHH, I am so impressed with machismo.. shiver me timbers!

I think that provides the simplest explanation..

But then again, I was really hoping for something factual.. amateur psychiatry is hardly something worth noting let alone accepting.

0 Replies

Quote:

Of course they are refutable, thing is with the zeal you possess most are outmatched.

I am still waiting....(for the rebuttal, that is)

Quote:

I actually agree that circumcision is unecessary, but I do disagree with your implication that you are on some "factual" pedestal. You posted some very ignorant screeds. And then just a lot of chest thumping.

And the proof of your assertions here is ?????????

Quote:

One thing to remember is that whether or not someone bothers to take on this zeal you demonstrate does not indicate that it's well founded. It says more about their willingness to engage in such exercises.

Actually it seems more like a pretty feeble attempt at a copout...a desperate attempt to deflect attention from the obvious---that that poster really has no evidence or facts to bring to the table... but a lot of empty verbage.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

It is past time for a little humor. I can't for the life of me understand why anyone should get so intense about a subject such as this. Is it penis envy? I should remind you that it is a religious requirement of billions of people around the world. And has been practiced for thousands of years without any detrimental results. Although you seem to be concerned about my sexual gratification, let me put your mind at rest. You needn't be since I and all my fellow "Circumcisees" are not. But thanks for caring. :wink:

I will be happy to clear up your confusion:

think basic human rights, think sexual damage, think of morals and ethics more advanced than those of some more primative society of thousands of years ago. Idea

0 Replies

keviesmum wrote:

cavfancier wrote:
KM, I'll put it this way: If you find the posts "confusing", perhaps you need to look inside yourself and realize that many many many manly men don't have a problem with circumcision. I think that is as simple as I can say.

Excuse me while I fall to the floor laughing! This sounds like a simplistic and jingoistic bit of ego-preserviation and childish denial.

Manly men?--OHHH, I am so impressed with machismo.. shiver me timbers!

I think that provides the simplest explanation..

But then again, I was really hoping for something factual.. amateur psychiatry is hardly something worth noting let alone accepting.

Excuse ME while I fall on the floor laughing.

0 Replies

Move to make circumcision illegal

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know