Iceland to ban circumcision
Discussion
In amongst all this bickering, I've still not seen a compelling argument as to why circumcision should be imposed upon children for anything other than medical reasons.
There are lots of things that people do to themselves through choice when they are older, why not add this to the mix?
Noone is saying ban circumcision, just ban the imposition of circumcision on children who have no say in the matter. I'd also be of the same mind to ban ear piercing in children, as it seems just wrong to me to see babies wearing earrings.
Any form of intervention to the human body that involves cutting, piercing or otherwise changing it from it's original, natural form should be carried out solely for medical reasons or otherwise via the informed decision of the individual themselves at an age when they are able to make such an informed decision.
There are lots of things that people do to themselves through choice when they are older, why not add this to the mix?
Noone is saying ban circumcision, just ban the imposition of circumcision on children who have no say in the matter. I'd also be of the same mind to ban ear piercing in children, as it seems just wrong to me to see babies wearing earrings.
Any form of intervention to the human body that involves cutting, piercing or otherwise changing it from it's original, natural form should be carried out solely for medical reasons or otherwise via the informed decision of the individual themselves at an age when they are able to make such an informed decision.
DurianIceCream said:
gooner1 said:
On that premise, should we stop any investigation into FGM?
As for posters a" attacking you" f
king grow up.
The effort into stopping FGM, is bluntly woeful and pathetic. Infact if anyone was minded to carry out FGM, they may actually be encouraged and emboldened by the now well published woeful response. As for posters a" attacking you" f
king grow up.Adding circumcision, which is harmless, to FGM, which does serious harm really cheapens the FGM problem and leads me to conclude that most of the people on this thread have their head jammed up their backside - C.A.M. Clueless Ass Mutilation.
WinstonWolf said:
What's interesting about this is there are a lot of us who usually lob rocks at each other, yet we pretty much all seem to agree on this particular subject.
I had exactly the same thoughts yesterday.It's probably because there are no politics in play
Though of course we could all be wrong.
johnfm said:
You done your Dunning-Kruger research yet?
That's pretty funny. This thread is populated by people (with a few exceptions who have made a counter argument, but not you) who offer no argument other than OMG it is mutilation and who do nothing despite their keyboard outrage. The prevalence of circumcision among non-Jews & non-Muslims outside of western Europe was uncommented on until I raised it.
The efficacy of circumcision in preventing HIV transmission was was uncommented on until I raised it.
The efficacy of circumcision in preventing other STDs was uncommented on until I raised it.
The recommendation of circumcision by the WHO and API was uncommented on until I raised it.
The low incidence of prosecutions for FGM was was uncommented on until TWK raised it.
You do know what the Dunning-Kruger effect is; unfortunately you aren't bright enough to have figured out what false consensus bias is.
EDIT: I've just noticed on the scooter thread, that instead of the rule of law and the established judicial system, that you have advocated permanently scaring the faces of criminals with acid. Are you sure you should be commenting on alleged 'mutilation' due to circumcision?
Edited by DurianIceCream on Thursday 22 February 13:14
DurianIceCream said:
johnfm said:
You done your Dunning-Kruger research yet?
That's pretty funny. This thread is populated by people (with a few exceptions who have made a counter argument, but not you) who offer no argument other than OMG it is mutilation and who do nothing despite their keyboard outrage. The prevalence of circumcision among non-Jews & non-Muslims outside of western Europe was uncommented on until I raised it.
The efficacy of circumcision in preventing HIV transmission was was uncommented on until I raised it.
The efficacy of circumcision in preventing other STDs was uncommented on until I raised it.
The recommendation of circumcision by the WHO and API was uncommented on until I raised it.
The low incidence of prosecutions for FGM was was uncommented on until TWK raised it.
You do know what the Dunning-Kruger effect is; unfortunately you aren't bright enough to have figured out what false consensus bias is.
How many babies are actually having sex?
Gareth1974 said:
Depends if the person who has been through it, had sexual experiences prior to the procedure. They'd be able to tell you if the reduction in sensation which is meant to result from circumcision is real or not.
A person who had the procedure as a child can't offer any experience of the 'before' scenario.
I had it done when I was 24/25.A person who had the procedure as a child can't offer any experience of the 'before' scenario.
Looking back I had had problems to one extent or another since I was perhaps 17, down to embarrassment, not realizing it was a problem, not being aware of a solution and fear of the probable remedy I did nothing for 7ish years.
I genuinely don't see what the issue is, my only regret is that I did not get it done sooner. In my own experience there is no loss of sensation or if there is it is marginal.
We are talking 197 Clio Vs 200 Clio not 200 Clio vs the 1.2 diesel.
The recovery from the operation was not nice and I would not like to go through it again, but the difference between being circumcised vs having a foreskin is very very small.
This might surprise you, but I actually prefer the sensation since circumcision.
I wonder how many of those claiming a lack of sensation have a genuine sexually active benchmark to work from?
I don't have a particular axe to grind in the argument, I do think some of the claims made about sensation are quite sensational.
I am genuinely not sure where I stand on the religious debate, but feel that potentially unlike "muslim women" and FGM most Jewish men, that I have met, are empowered adults able to make decisions for themselves and if there was a desire to stop the practice then it would die out naturally.
DurianIceCream said:
johnfm said:
You done your Dunning-Kruger research yet?
That's pretty funny. This thread is populated by people (with a few exceptions who have made a counter argument, but not you) who offer no argument other than OMG it is mutilation and who do nothing despite their keyboard outrage. The prevalence of circumcision among non-Jews & non-Muslims outside of western Europe was uncommented on until I raised it.
The efficacy of circumcision in preventing HIV transmission was was uncommented on until I raised it.
The efficacy of circumcision in preventing other STDs was uncommented on until I raised it.
The recommendation of circumcision by the WHO and API was uncommented on until I raised it.
The low incidence of prosecutions for FGM was was uncommented on until TWK raised it.
You do know what the Dunning-Kruger effect is; unfortunately you aren't bright enough to have figured out what false consensus bias is.
EDIT: I've just noticed on the scooter thread, that instead of the rule of law and the established judicial system, that you have advocated permanently scaring the faces of criminals with acid. Are you sure you should be commenting on alleged 'mutilation' due to circumcision?
Edited by DurianIceCream on Thursday 22 February 13:14
(2) You then misused (through ineptitude rather than intent in my view) WHO statistics to make an argument about the health benefits of circumcision in adults who live in high HIV incidence countries which are irrelevant to an argument about (i) legal exceptions to religious groups and (ii) non medical procedures performed without consent in Iceland or the UK (or any advanced western democracy for that matter).
Why would I need to 'figure out' what false consensus bias is? I don't see how false consensus bias is relevant to a discussion on whether religious groups should be entitled to a legal exception, whether some posters on this thread exhibit it or not. It is irrelevant.
You clearly overestimate your intellectual prowess and, when challenged, once again resort to abuse and insult. Classic Dunning-Kruger. Probably an IQ of 105-110 under the misapprehension that you're in the 130s.
I work from the standpoint that if there is no compelling reason to do something it’s probably just best left alone. If it ain’t broke don’t fix it basically. There is no real reason in most cases to circumcise a baby boy and as such he should remain hooded unless he decides as an adult that he prefers the al fresco look/feel. Religion/tradition is not a sound argument for circumcision, anyone who believes that God wants them to relieve a baby of its foreskin for Him is a fking moron and deserves to be laughed back to the Dark Ages. If you just step back for a second and ask yourself why you are removing a babies foreskin you’d quickly realise there really is no sound reasoning behind your action and therefore it’s all rather unnecessary and best left alone.
king moron and deserves to be laughed back to the Dark Ages. If you just step back for a second and ask yourself why you are removing a babies foreskin you’d quickly realise there really is no sound reasoning behind your action and therefore it’s all rather unnecessary and best left alone.nikaiyo2 said:
I had it done when I was 24/25.
Looking back I had had problems to one extent or another since I was perhaps 17, down to embarrassment, not realizing it was a problem, not being aware of a solution and fear of the probable remedy I did nothing for 7ish years.
I genuinely don't see what the issue is, my only regret is that I did not get it done sooner. In my own experience there is no loss of sensation or if there is it is marginal.
We are talking 197 Clio Vs 200 Clio not 200 Clio vs the 1.2 diesel.
The recovery from the operation was not nice and I would not like to go through it again, but the difference between being circumcised vs having a foreskin is very very small.
This might surprise you, but I actually prefer the sensation since circumcision.
I wonder how many of those claiming a lack of sensation have a genuine sexually active benchmark to work from?
I don't have a particular axe to grind in the argument, I do think some of the claims made about sensation are quite sensational.
I am genuinely not sure where I stand on the religious debate, but feel that potentially unlike "muslim women" and FGM most Jewish men, that I have met, are empowered adults able to make decisions for themselves and if there was a desire to stop the practice then it would die out naturally.
Can you really not see why most of us on this thread have an issue with circumcision of babies who cannot give consent?Looking back I had had problems to one extent or another since I was perhaps 17, down to embarrassment, not realizing it was a problem, not being aware of a solution and fear of the probable remedy I did nothing for 7ish years.
I genuinely don't see what the issue is, my only regret is that I did not get it done sooner. In my own experience there is no loss of sensation or if there is it is marginal.
We are talking 197 Clio Vs 200 Clio not 200 Clio vs the 1.2 diesel.
The recovery from the operation was not nice and I would not like to go through it again, but the difference between being circumcised vs having a foreskin is very very small.
This might surprise you, but I actually prefer the sensation since circumcision.
I wonder how many of those claiming a lack of sensation have a genuine sexually active benchmark to work from?
I don't have a particular axe to grind in the argument, I do think some of the claims made about sensation are quite sensational.
I am genuinely not sure where I stand on the religious debate, but feel that potentially unlike "muslim women" and FGM most Jewish men, that I have met, are empowered adults able to make decisions for themselves and if there was a desire to stop the practice then it would die out naturally.
It's of no surprise to me that you prefer the feeling post op - the op was designed to alleviate your symptoms!
I agree that the lack of sensation has been grossly overstated on here, but that's hardly reason to do it. I enjoy the small benefit of perhaps 'lasting' longer than I might otherwise have, but that alone wouldn't be enough to persuade me as an adult to have it done!
The empowered adults you refer to have surely been circumcised as babies and/or are making decisions to circumcise a baby. Empowered would be an adult making the choice for themselves, which is not what we are talking about here.
- quick snip (edit) for fat fingers!
Edited by yellowtang on Thursday 22 February 17:48
yellowtang said:
nikaiyo2 said:
I had it done when I was 24/25.
Looking back I had had problems to one extent or another since I was perhaps 17, down to embarrassment, not realizing it was a problem, not being aware of a solution and fear of the probable remedy I did nothing for 7ish years.
I genuinely don't see what the issue is, my only regret is that I did not get it done sooner. In my own experience there is no loss of sensation or if there is it is marginal.
We are talking 197 Clio Vs 200 Clio not 200 Clio vs the 1.2 diesel.
The recovery from the operation was not nice and I would not like to go through it again, but the difference between being circumcised vs having a foreskin is very very small.
This might surprise you, but I actually prefer the sensation since circumcision.
I wonder how many of those claiming a lack of sensation have a genuine sexually active benchmark to work from?
I don't have a particular axe to grind in the argument, I do think some of the claims made about sensation are quite sensational.
I am genuinely not sure where I stand on the religious debate, but feel that potentially unlike "muslim women" and FGM most Jewish men, that I have met, are empowered adults able to make decisions for themselves and if there was a desire to stop the practice then it would die out naturally.
Can you really not see why most of us on this thread have an issue with circumcision of babies who cannot give consent?Looking back I had had problems to one extent or another since I was perhaps 17, down to embarrassment, not realizing it was a problem, not being aware of a solution and fear of the probable remedy I did nothing for 7ish years.
I genuinely don't see what the issue is, my only regret is that I did not get it done sooner. In my own experience there is no loss of sensation or if there is it is marginal.
We are talking 197 Clio Vs 200 Clio not 200 Clio vs the 1.2 diesel.
The recovery from the operation was not nice and I would not like to go through it again, but the difference between being circumcised vs having a foreskin is very very small.
This might surprise you, but I actually prefer the sensation since circumcision.
I wonder how many of those claiming a lack of sensation have a genuine sexually active benchmark to work from?
I don't have a particular axe to grind in the argument, I do think some of the claims made about sensation are quite sensational.
I am genuinely not sure where I stand on the religious debate, but feel that potentially unlike "muslim women" and FGM most Jewish men, that I have met, are empowered adults able to make decisions for themselves and if there was a desire to stop the practice then it would die out naturally.
It's of no surprise to me that you prefer the feeling post op - the op was designed to alleviate your symptoms!
I agree that the lack of sensation has been grossly overstated on here, but that's hardly reason to do it. I enjoy the small benefit of perhaps 'lasting' longer than I might otherwise have, but that alone wouldn't be enough to persuade me as an adult to have it done!
The empowered adults you refer to have surely been circumcised as babies and/or are making decisions to circumcise a baby. Empowered would be an adult making the choice for themselves, which is not what we are talking about here.
- quick snip (edit) for fat fingers!
Edited by yellowtang on Thursday 22 February 17:48
djc206 said:
I work from the standpoint that if there is no compelling reason to do something it’s probably just best left alone. If it ain’t broke don’t fix it basically. There is no real reason in most cases to circumcise a baby boy and as such he should remain hooded unless he decides as an adult that he prefers the al fresco look/feel. Religion/tradition is not a sound argument for circumcision, anyone who believes that God wants them to relieve a baby of its foreskin for Him is a fking moron and deserves to be laughed back to the Dark Ages. If you just step back for a second and ask yourself why you are removing a babies foreskin you’d quickly realise there really is no sound reasoning behind your action and therefore it’s all rather unnecessary and best left alone.
so if it isn't broke don't fix it, unless it relates to something you don't agree with in which case you want the practice banned... king moron and deserves to be laughed back to the Dark Ages. If you just step back for a second and ask yourself why you are removing a babies foreskin you’d quickly realise there really is no sound reasoning behind your action and therefore it’s all rather unnecessary and best left alone.
The Surveyor said:
djc206 said:
I work from the standpoint that if there is no compelling reason to do something it’s probably just best left alone. If it ain’t broke don’t fix it basically. There is no real reason in most cases to circumcise a baby boy and as such he should remain hooded unless he decides as an adult that he prefers the al fresco look/feel. Religion/tradition is not a sound argument for circumcision, anyone who believes that God wants them to relieve a baby of its foreskin for Him is a fking moron and deserves to be laughed back to the Dark Ages. If you just step back for a second and ask yourself why you are removing a babies foreskin you’d quickly realise there really is no sound reasoning behind your action and therefore it’s all rather unnecessary and best left alone.
so if it isn't broke don't fix it, unless it relates to something you don't agree with in which case you want the practice banned... king moron and deserves to be laughed back to the Dark Ages. If you just step back for a second and ask yourself why you are removing a babies foreskin you’d quickly realise there really is no sound reasoning behind your action and therefore it’s all rather unnecessary and best left alone.Why should a religious group benefit from a carve out to obey a law? What other groups should be permitted have their own legal framework?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff