Discussion
jakesmith said:
Well I couldn’t agree more with you, the knots people seem to get into on a topic that doesn’t even affect them are hilarious.
Given that I’m the only person on this thread of 8 pages that has stated that I’m actually open to changing my position if any evidence to back up a claim previously made is presented (which hasn’t happed)
Given that I’ve been called a ‘bell end’ for staying my opinion and arguing my point
Given that someone has said that all Rabis and Priests like to suck babies cocks
Given that someone has said ‘most women prefer circumcised men’ which is highly dubious and sums up the intellectual level of the debate
Given that my counter arguments that follow the exact same logic as those being presented as against circumcision have been conveniently ignored or misrepresented (banning ‘uneccesary’ car journeys)
Given all these points you’ll forgive me if I bow out of your uncircumcised circle jerk and find something more productive or interesting to do. Shouldn’t be hard! Hope the thread remains interesting and active with everyone having the same opinion!
lets hope for her/his sake your partner is having an affair .You are one boring fart Given that I’m the only person on this thread of 8 pages that has stated that I’m actually open to changing my position if any evidence to back up a claim previously made is presented (which hasn’t happed)
Given that I’ve been called a ‘bell end’ for staying my opinion and arguing my point
Given that someone has said that all Rabis and Priests like to suck babies cocks
Given that someone has said ‘most women prefer circumcised men’ which is highly dubious and sums up the intellectual level of the debate
Given that my counter arguments that follow the exact same logic as those being presented as against circumcision have been conveniently ignored or misrepresented (banning ‘uneccesary’ car journeys)
Given all these points you’ll forgive me if I bow out of your uncircumcised circle jerk and find something more productive or interesting to do. Shouldn’t be hard! Hope the thread remains interesting and active with everyone having the same opinion!
jakesmith said:
Well I couldn’t agree more with you, the knots people seem to get into on a topic that doesn’t even affect them are hilarious.
Given that I’m the only person on this thread of 8 pages that has stated that I’m actually open to changing my position if any evidence to back up a claim previously made is presented (which hasn’t happed)
Given that I’ve been called a ‘bell end’ for staying my opinion and arguing my point
Given that someone has said that all Rabis and Priests like to suck babies cocks
Given that someone has said ‘most women prefer circumcised men’ which is highly dubious and sums up the intellectual level of the debate
Given that my counter arguments that follow the exact same logic as those being presented as against circumcision have been conveniently ignored or misrepresented (banning ‘uneccesary’ car journeys)
Given all these points you’ll forgive me if I bow out of your uncircumcised circle jerk and find something more productive or interesting to do. Shouldn’t be hard! Hope the thread remains interesting and active with everyone having the same opinion!
There's no need to go off half-cockedGiven that I’m the only person on this thread of 8 pages that has stated that I’m actually open to changing my position if any evidence to back up a claim previously made is presented (which hasn’t happed)
Given that I’ve been called a ‘bell end’ for staying my opinion and arguing my point
Given that someone has said that all Rabis and Priests like to suck babies cocks
Given that someone has said ‘most women prefer circumcised men’ which is highly dubious and sums up the intellectual level of the debate
Given that my counter arguments that follow the exact same logic as those being presented as against circumcision have been conveniently ignored or misrepresented (banning ‘uneccesary’ car journeys)
Given all these points you’ll forgive me if I bow out of your uncircumcised circle jerk and find something more productive or interesting to do. Shouldn’t be hard! Hope the thread remains interesting and active with everyone having the same opinion!
MikeStroud said:
WT* have I just seen? That can’t be right in anyone’s book. And if some warped people think it is right then the law needs to stop it. FGM and MGM should only be possible for overs 18’s making a free choice.
It beggers belief that this can still go on in this day and age. There have also been cases where the baby has caught herpes from the rabbi putting his mouth over the baby's penis. 
https://nypost.com/2017/03/08/new-case-of-neonatal...
Imagine if religious circumcision didnt exist and someone proposed cutting off baby boys foreskins and then giving it a quick suck ?
But its old, it is religion, it is tradition etc but it made me think of that Meme that is a picture of Jimmy Savile with a caption "Even I'm Disgusted".
You cut an infant whose immune system is still in its early days and an adult male puts his mouth, which is a bacterial breeding ground over a fresh wound ?
I would imagine its not sexual, I would hope its not sexual but it it is very easily construed as such as generally there arent any other penis/mouth scenarios that arent of a sexual nature I can think of, so its f
king weird and creep at best, dangerous at worst.
I just think that any surgical stuff, should be for medical needs, not religous ones, they should be carried out by someone who has been to medical school and has taken the Hippocratic oath, a big hat, beard and knowing the Old testament inside out dont qualify you as a surgeon.
If someone needs it taking off later in life, or wants to for the hygiene or whatever other aspects, then that should be their prerogative, thing is, its a one shot deal though, lopping it off when a baby is born is irreversible and they dont get to choose.
Leave it until the boys Bah Mitzvah as a choice ? but obviously that wouldnt do as it was written down along time ago, thats my main beef with religions, its like collective Autism with regards to routines, cant change it "It has been written, for it is holy".
Its weird as well in terms of worshiping a god and everything he has allegedly provided, being fking awesome and giving thanks, apart from the tiny matter of foreskins, those fkers get lopped off post haste.
As for FGM, why are they still doing that, its barbaric.
But its old, it is religion, it is tradition etc but it made me think of that Meme that is a picture of Jimmy Savile with a caption "Even I'm Disgusted".
You cut an infant whose immune system is still in its early days and an adult male puts his mouth, which is a bacterial breeding ground over a fresh wound ?
I would imagine its not sexual, I would hope its not sexual but it it is very easily construed as such as generally there arent any other penis/mouth scenarios that arent of a sexual nature I can think of, so its f
king weird and creep at best, dangerous at worst.I just think that any surgical stuff, should be for medical needs, not religous ones, they should be carried out by someone who has been to medical school and has taken the Hippocratic oath, a big hat, beard and knowing the Old testament inside out dont qualify you as a surgeon.
If someone needs it taking off later in life, or wants to for the hygiene or whatever other aspects, then that should be their prerogative, thing is, its a one shot deal though, lopping it off when a baby is born is irreversible and they dont get to choose.
Leave it until the boys Bah Mitzvah as a choice ? but obviously that wouldnt do as it was written down along time ago, thats my main beef with religions, its like collective Autism with regards to routines, cant change it "It has been written, for it is holy".
Its weird as well in terms of worshiping a god and everything he has allegedly provided, being f
king awesome and giving thanks, apart from the tiny matter of foreskins, those fkers get lopped off post haste.As for FGM, why are they still doing that, its barbaric.
NormarkSuperswede said:
lets hope for her/his sake your partner is having an affair .You are one boring fart
I took the time & effort to respond to some of the comments on here, which a number of people seem to care deeply about, you disagree with my stance, so you wish on me that my partner is having an affair and I am boring. This has got to be the most irrelevant and poorly thought out response I have seen for a while. J4CKO said:
Imagine if religious circumcision didnt exist and someone proposed cutting off baby boys foreskins and then giving it a quick suck ?
Things being old & established are often a precedent for continuing, for right or for wrong. What do you think the legal status of alcohol would be if it was discovered today. What would you say about the 100,000's of completely unnecessary deaths each year from lung cancer, alcoholism. Would you ban those too, they are arguably equally unecessary and far more harmful than circumcision. That's my stance on 'harm', 'consent' will come laterJ4CKO said:
I would imagine its not sexual, I would hope its not sexual but it it is very easily construed as such as generally there arent any other penis/mouth scenarios that arent of a sexual nature I can think of, so its fking weird and creep at best, dangerous at worst.
Yes quite, probably the fact that it is organised in advance & performed openly vs. the more usual secretive MO of pedos caries some weight in this. Also there has been much mentioning on the thread of sucking babies penises, perhaps it has covertly piqued the interests of some posters? But Wiki says 'The majority of Jewish circumcision ceremonies do not use metzitzah b'peh'. I had never even heard of this going on. I do agree that the practice is wrong. But it is disingenuous to position it as the standard proceedure as it is absolutely not. You wouldn't ban football because some people get involved in violence and there are associated deaths / injuries every year, you would ban the violenceking weird and creep at best, dangerous at worst.J4CKO said:
If someone needs it taking off later in life, or wants to for the hygiene or whatever other aspects, then that should be their prerogative, thing is, its a one shot deal though, lopping it off when a baby is born is irreversible and they dont get to choose.
Re: consent - there are many things that are potentially harmful or dangerous that could affect your child's physical & mental health that are decisions that sit with the parents. The decision to divorce, the decision to drink whilst pregnant, the decision to keep a dog, the decision to fly on an aeroplane, the decision to smoke at home, the decision to take them skiiing. Would you take children away from parents who don't feed them a healthy diet? None of these harms are consented to by the child and all of them have killed children and I bet you they combined cause considerably more harm than circumcision, but you allow them to take place as they resonate with your own morals or sense of acceptable risk or you like them so they're OKJ4CKO said:
Leave it until the boys Bah Mitzvah as a choice ? but obviously that wouldnt do as it was written down along time ago, thats my main beef with religions, its like collective Autism with regards to routines, cant change it "It has been written, for it is holy".
It seems to me that there is some misconception among those aghast at this practice that it is done as it is the will of God whatever that may be. I think it is common for Jewish people feel a responsibility to maintain the longevity of the religion due to the suppression and extermination they have faced through history. Maintaining the ritual aspect is part of this. Ritual is not just about doing God's word whatever that may be, it is about preserving heritage and tradition. I am sure most don't relate to it and can't understand it but try and think about it in the context of something you hold dear in the face of change, maybe it's an air cooled engine, manual gearbox, petrol powered vehicle. You hold something sacred, evangelise it, and act to preserve its tradition. J4CKO said:
As for FGM, why are they still doing that, its barbaric.
Of courseJ4CKO this is not aimed at your response. But I have to say, that as the only person on this thread who has actually stated an openness to consider changing my stance on the matter, which I have done several times, I am not impressed by the ensuing playground insults, statement of opinion as though fact, misrepresentation of the practice, the use of highly anecdotal feedback or outlying examples to attempt to bolster arguments on the practice and the notable lack of credible evidence of the harm of circumcision. I am open to having my mind changed but not by someone telling me that I am wrong 'because I say so' or something is 'just plain wrong'.
I'm sure you wouldn't accept these types of 'moral', emotional, entirely un-evidenced arguments and insults in a discussion about Brexit or something so you'll forgive me for not being persuaded just yet
Edited by jakesmith on Wednesday 23 January 15:41
jakesmith said:
Re: consent - there are many things that are potentially harmful or dangerous that could affect your child's physical & mental health that are decisions that sit with the parents. The decision to divorce, the decision to drink whilst pregnant, the decision to keep a dog, the decision to fly on an aeroplane, the decision to smoke at home, the decision to take them skiiing. Would you take children away from parents who don't feed them a healthy diet? None of these harms are consented to by the child and all of them have killed children and I bet you they combined cause considerably more harm than circumcision, but you allow them to take place as they resonate with your own morals or sense of acceptable risk or you like them so they're OK
Elective, completely unnecessary surgery purely for tradition's sake has no parallel whatsoever with the above situations. The fact that you also seem to equate pregnant drinking and smoking around children with skiing holidays and dog ownership speaks volumes about the lengths you'll go to to construct a straw man.Non-emergency surgery to anyone without their informed consent is wrong, if you think otherwise you'll need to articulate why without resorting to false analogies.
j_4m said:
Elective, completely unnecessary surgery purely for tradition's sake has no parallel whatsoever with the above situations. The fact that you also seem to equate pregnant drinking and smoking around children with skiing holidays and dog ownership speaks volumes about the lengths you'll go to to construct a straw man.
Non-emergency surgery to anyone without their informed consent is wrong, if you think otherwise you'll need to articulate why without resorting to false analogies.
I'd say people smoking around children and keeping dogs around children are far more reckless than people circumcising their baby. I can't remember ever reading in the media about a circumcision death unlike the scores of stories along the lines of 'baby gets mauled by a vicious dog that was a loving family pet for years' Skiing is 'completely elective and uneccesary' too, how do you reconcile the risk of that with your argument? Because you like dogs? You like Skiing / skiiers? More your bag than religion?Non-emergency surgery to anyone without their informed consent is wrong, if you think otherwise you'll need to articulate why without resorting to false analogies.
The fact that you are willing to denigrate my logic without being able to articulate why speaks volumes about the lack of thought that has gone into your post
jakesmith said:
[But it is disingenuous to position it as the standard proceedure as it is absolutely not. You wouldn't ban football because some people get involved in violence and there are associated deaths / injuries every year, you would ban the violence
Indeed, Ban violence.Like, cutting bits of babies genitals off.
The fact that you meant the opposite of that is more ironic than I can put into words.
jakesmith said:
The fact that you are willing to denigrate my logic without being able to articulate why speaks volumes about the lack of thought that has gone into your post
Because you're not posting with logic, you're making false equivalencies and then claiming them as truths.Now, it's been a while since I've studied ethics but here goes; a baby's right to not be operated on is a negative right, a parent's right to practice religion on their baby is a positive right. Negative rights universally trump positive rights, as we assume a negative right to simply exist and be inalienable. In this case we are removing the baby's right to not be operated on.
Tired said:
jakesmith said:
[But it is disingenuous to position it as the standard proceedure as it is absolutely not. You wouldn't ban football because some people get involved in violence and there are associated deaths / injuries every year, you would ban the violence
Indeed, Ban violence.Like, cutting bits of babies genitals off.
The fact that you meant the opposite of that is more ironic than I can put into words.
Attempted point scoring with a new crowd, a few insults, zero ability to set out, or articulate any point, you admit above that you can't actually manage to explain what you're thinking. How do you think it reads? Bland.
I would go back to reading the site for a bit and come back when you have something to say, your contribution on here so far is just pointless
jakesmith said:
Tired said:
jakesmith said:
[But it is disingenuous to position it as the standard proceedure as it is absolutely not. You wouldn't ban football because some people get involved in violence and there are associated deaths / injuries every year, you would ban the violence
Indeed, Ban violence.Like, cutting bits of babies genitals off.
The fact that you meant the opposite of that is more ironic than I can put into words.
Attempted point scoring with a new crowd, a few insults, zero ability to set out, or articulate any point, you admit above that you can't actually manage to explain what you're thinking. How do you think it reads? Bland.
I would go back to reading the site for a bit and come back when you have something to say, your contribution on here so far is just pointless
jakesmith said:
I can't remember ever reading in the media about a circumcision death
Let me help you.https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/7-day-old-di...
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-an...
https://www.euronews.com/2018/12/24/italy-toddler-...
WinstonWolf said:
I'm not comfortable with anyone who thinks people putting babies dicks in their mouths is in any way acceptable.
Exactly .Its F'IN Rape. Imagine a priest wanting to finger a 4 month old girl. then lick his finger in front of the parents etc .The parents are proper FK up people in these cases. And been proper FK up might explain a lot ! There is a lot more going on in later years with these kids . Look at the medical condition of MOST These people are disgusting . And should be jailed .the parents arrested and punished .Anyone taking part or witnessing should be fined and have a criminal record .
WinstonWolf said:
I'm not comfortable with anyone who thinks people putting babies dicks in their mouths is in any way acceptable.
Couldn't agree with you more. Here are my thoughts from higher up this page, in my own words:jakesmith said:
I had never even heard of this going on. I do agree that the practice is wrong. But it is disingenuous to position it as the standard proceedure as it is absolutely not
jakesmith said:
WinstonWolf said:
I'm not comfortable with anyone who thinks people putting babies dicks in their mouths is in any way acceptable.
Couldn't agree with you more. Here are my thoughts from higher up this page, in my own words:jakesmith said:
I had never even heard of this going on. I do agree that the practice is wrong. But it is disingenuous to position it as the standard proceedure as it is absolutely not
NormarkSuperswede said:
jakesmith said:
WinstonWolf said:
I'm not comfortable with anyone who thinks people putting babies dicks in their mouths is in any way acceptable.
Couldn't agree with you more. Here are my thoughts from higher up this page, in my own words:jakesmith said:
I had never even heard of this going on. I do agree that the practice is wrong. But it is disingenuous to position it as the standard proceedure as it is absolutely not
If we stop people cutting babies privates, the paedo cock-sucking part goes away.
jakesmith said:
Your posts are honestly hopeless.
Attempted point scoring with a new crowd, a few insults, zero ability to set out, or articulate any point, you admit above that you can't actually manage to explain what you're thinking. How do you think it reads? Bland.
I would go back to reading the site for a bit and come back when you have something to say, your contribution on here so far is just pointless
I get it, you're embarrassed you made yourself look a bit silly, but don't try and take it out on me.Attempted point scoring with a new crowd, a few insults, zero ability to set out, or articulate any point, you admit above that you can't actually manage to explain what you're thinking. How do you think it reads? Bland.
I would go back to reading the site for a bit and come back when you have something to say, your contribution on here so far is just pointless
Blue Oval84 said:
Regarding the deaths due to circumcision question, here's an alternative link that you may deem more credible than the one someone else posted earlier, it suggests a death rate of 1 in every 49,166 procedures.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30066572
Can I ask, is this an elective procedure you'd choose to have done as an adult if it hadn't already been done as a baby?
So to quote myself here, as Jake seems to have overlooked it... There's a different post suggesting 1 death every 49,166 times the procedure is carried out. No where near 1.3% I grant you, but is it not 1 too many?https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30066572
Can I ask, is this an elective procedure you'd choose to have done as an adult if it hadn't already been done as a baby?
To keep my questions simple-
- Is it an acceptable price that 1 in 50K babies die as a result of an absolutely unnecessary procedure which delivers virtually no benefit? (some studies suggest that circumcised men who have unprotected sex with HIV+ people have a lower risk of catching it - but that's the only "benefit" I'm aware of - and if they're old enough to experience that benefit they're old enough to choose to chop their own foreskin off or just bag up before they go balls deep)
- Is it acceptable that there is a risk of impacting sexual experience? I can only speak for the two people I know who've had it done, the one in later life assures me that it's impacted sensitivity, the one in early life suspects it has but can't prove it
- Are you opposed to legally requiring that people wait until 18 to make an informed decision about whether to chop a bit of their cock off? (strictly referring to non-medical examples)
- Assuming you are opposed to that, why?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff