It’s effect, you insult-to-every-other-carbon-based-life-form! Effect! Effect! Effect!
Christ, the lint in my navel has a higher I.Q. than you.
If we’re going to get into spelling flames, this has my own two pet peeves adjacent to one another.
After reading nearly 30 pages of messages from, about, or in reference to you, I have come to what I think is a pretty obvious conclusion.
You don’t really know all that much (Not that there’s anything wrong with that, we’ve all been there). You seem exceptionally well versed in anti-circumcision literature, which I guess must count for something (right?). However, your knowledge seems to be about three inches wide and a mile deep. Seriously, get out there and read a few books, it won’t hurt you and it may actually make your arguments seem a little more valid.
I would reccommend The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins to shore up your apparently incomplete view of evolutionary theory.
I would also reccommend Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond to give you some frame of reference for discussing the origins of human civilization. It’s a little wordy, and might be a bit of a tough read. The Axemaker’s Gift by Burke and Ornstein might be a better place to start.
Finally, and this is the really important one, beg borrow or steal a copy of Michael Shermer’s Why People Believe Weird Things. It might help you to understand why people keep accusing you of being dogmatic and, as an added bonus, it should help you to identify logical fallacies in other things that you read.
JACK – “Adjacent” means “next to.”
I’ve read almost all these circ posts, Jack, and I note you don’t have an answer for something I think is crucial. I bring it to your attention now.
You seem to think that circumcision is a big conspiracy by the “Jewish establishment” :rolleyes: presumably, I guess to make money, although you don’t seem to leave it beyond the realm of possiblity that the goal may be the destruction of the human race.
Okay, here’s the thing. Most societies throughout history have been run by men. Men, like women, value a good orgasm. Men are well known for their uncomfortable responses even to discussions of penile problems that might involve pain. Why, then, since men (Jewish and otherwise) have the lion’s share of power now and have had it from the beginning with the exception of a very few cultures (which, incidentally didn’t practice circ), why would there be a vast conspiracy among MEN for circumcision? I could understand your reasoning if you felt women ruled the world, but otherwise it makes no sense:
"Okay, we men run government and religion. We make the laws. We created the medical establishment. Now, we know that circumcision will
- Be a fate worse than death, depriving us of the one place where we can experience erotic sensations
- Make us “pussywhipped” by women
- Make us mutliated freaks who are all but incapable of orgasm
- Turn us into rapists, pedophiles, or sex addicts who have no choice but to be unfaithful to those we love
- Possibly turn us into serial killers, or cause us to launch nuclear missiles because of the rage we feel
- Make us hate our parents
But it will make us some money, so let’s call it a go."
This makes sense in your world?! What man would deprive himself and his brothers of such unspeakable bliss for a few dollars, and why? Why did circ precede the profit motive? What would be the possible incentive to be part of the conspiracy? Why would men have come up with such a notion? FGM makes sense from this viewpoint because it can be seen as men wanting to control female expressions of sexuality. Why, though, would men possibly do it to themselves, if it is the horror you claim? I guess I’m really leaving myself open to experience the depth of your delusion, but I’m honestly curious at how you square this vast conspiracy with the fact that circumcision started and is still practiced in cultures in which it is men, not women, who rule the political, religious, and medical roost.
And gee, who knows, maybe when men finally get some political power in this world, maybe the penis will finally get the attention it deserves, attention it has been so sorely lacking in all these milennia. :rolleyes:
wow - i’ve seen the title to this thread many times but haven’t been compelled to read it. this is one of those redneck-conspiracy kind of debates, the participation in which i can never comprehend (waco, holocaust questioners, letterbox movies, etc.).
so someone has decided to take a stand against circumcision - so what? what is there to debate? what if he said he didn’t believe in the moon - would that get angry responses? this isn’t an issue that has real life consequence. i’m circumcised and there’s not an argument on the planet that can convince me i’m missing out on something. i don’t care what’s cited, tested, or whatever.
no need to respond, jdt, your position on the subject is noted, and this post isn’t an argument against it - it’s more about wasting time and bandwidth debating it.
JdeMobray,
> Seriously, get out there and read a few books, it won’t hurt you and it may actually make your arguments seem a little more valid. <
I've read all kinds of books and studied all sorts of things. Comes a time, though, when one must stop dreaming and start action.
> I would reccommend The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins to shore up your apparently incomplete view of evolutionary theory. <
I love Dawkins.
> I would also reccommend Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond to give you some frame of reference for discussing the origins of human civilization. It’s a little wordy, and might be a bit of a tough read. <
I'll keep this in mind along with the other books that you recommend. However, I'm afraid that without an honest study of sexuality, all of these books may be fatally flawed. Many books were written to the prevailing political standards in the old Soviet Union and they are, of course, useless.
> Finally, and this is the really important one, beg borrow or steal a copy of Michael Shermer’s Why People Believe Weird Things. It might help you to understand why people keep accusing you of being dogmatic <
Well, is this book, in your opinion, suppose to show that I am being dogmatic or that the opposition is being dogmatic?
> and, as an added bonus, it should help you to identify logical fallacies in other things that you read. <
That would be helpful.
If you want to understand how what is going on in the world today and if you want to understand how we got to this mess, read these books:
Sheaffer’s, Resentment Against Achievement
Sheaffer’s, UFO Sightings
Sheaffer’s, The Making of the Messiah
Kolak’s, Wisdom Without Answers
All are very easy reads. Robert Sheaffer is a founding member of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal.
If a book is “fatally flawed” without “an honest study of sexuality,” one wonders that you would recommend Schaeffer, whose works, love 'em or hate 'em, have fuck-all to do with sexuality, and even less to do with circumcision.
Foreskin boy’s now sharing his opinions on birth. I was fairly stunned by the little anecdote about the breech baby being circ’ed while in the birth canal (no I don’t for one second believe any doctor would do that. That’s one of the riskier bits of a breech delivery, head decompression and cord compression can happen then)
Now we have him supposing that it is not possible to deliver a baby with forceps when the woman is in a squatting position. No shit, Sherlock.
I’m begging you, JDT. If you are now going to be participating in all and any threads to do with birth, can you go get yourself a midwifery text book? Any midwifery text book? Do some basic research so we are not forced to publicly lynch you any further? Even you are gonna have to accept that there is some good stuff out there about birth, a reasonable amount of study has been done on outcomes.
Palandine,
> You seem to think that circumcision is a big conspiracy by the “Jewish establishment” presumably, I guess to make money, <
Well, the Jewish establishment is about money and power (which leads to more money) just like any other establishment. There was never any specific attempt by the Jewish establishment to harm anyone by having them circumcised. You have various Jewish enforcer organizations such as the ADL who, in the name of "tolerance," have made it a very dangerous thing to do anything that could allow any chance of causing one to receive the "anti-Semite" label. This is used to keep the American political establishment in line as well as American individuals. For example, the Jewish lobby in Washington DC uses the power gained from the Jewish enforcer organizations to keep billions of dollars flowing into Israel every year. Any politician who seriously opposes this will be branded an anti-Semite and all of the sheeple will start to chant "anti-Semite" as per their programming. OK, fine.
Of course, circumcision is associated with several religions including Judaism. The thoroughly justified fear of researchers in the medical establishment is that they will be branded anti-Semites if they study the foreskin and find out that it is important. A researcher depends upon the government controlled by the Jewish lobby for his grant money. Without it, his career is over. Further, the researcher will almost certainly face being ostracized by his fellow researchers who will fear guilt by association. If the Jewish enforcer organizations would openly and honestly tell the medical establishment that they are absolved from all accusations of anti-Semitism, then proper scientific research on this disaster can begin.
> Why, then, since men (Jewish and otherwise) have the lion’s share of power now and have had it from the beginning with the exception of a very few cultures (which, incidentally didn’t practice circ), why would there be a vast conspiracy among MEN for circumcision? <
Well, in the first place, women in America have far more economic power than men. Anyway, men would attack other men because of denial, ignorance, and ASPD.
> This makes sense in your world?! What man would deprive himself and his brothers of such unspeakable bliss for a few dollars, and why? <
You already said why. For a few dollars.
> Why did circ precede the profit motive? <
Because people are motivated to find ways to get money out of any situation.
> What would be the possible incentive to be part of the conspiracy? <
To save one's career.
> FGM makes sense from this viewpoint because it can be seen as men wanting to control female expressions of sexuality. <
If you can accept this, then you shouldn't have any problem accepting the opposite for MGM since it is very often women who want this done to their children.
> Why, though, would men possibly do it to themselves, if it is the horror you claim? <
Very, very few men are crazy enough to have themselves circumcised. They sometimes get duped with all of the ridiculous claims of the pro-circumcision people, but this is rare.Jodi,
> If a book is “fatally flawed” without “an honest study of sexuality,” one wonders that you would recommend Sheaffer, whose works, love 'em or hate 'em, have fuck-all to do with sexuality, and even less to do with circumcision.<
Sheaffer is a true skeptic. Unlike those that pose as such in this forum. You do have a good point, though. The thing about a true skeptic is that he/she won't ignore information that conflicts with the prevailing political environment. That's the best that one can ever hope for.What?! I swear, every time I think I’ve heard all the ridiculous statements Jack has to offer, he comes up with something like this.
Jack, what on earth makes you believe that women have more economic power than men?
Doesn’t answer the question, Jack. Why did MEN start doing it at all, if it is the horror you say it is? Men do not readily take sharp implements to their privates. So here’s the first guy to do it (maybe a Hebrew, maybe an Egyptian, maybe someone else). Why did others follow him? You can’t blame a conspiracy that far back. You can’t blame fear of professional ostracism for reasons why it wasn’t nipped in the bud, so to speak. Those are very recent excuses. It would be very obvious to the folks doing this millenia ago if there were the sorts of problems associated with circ that you posit. For the conspiracy you claim to still be in effect, the ruling men would have had to essentially cut off their foreskins to spite their faces: “Well, gee, this whole snipping thing has turned out to be a bad idea, but we sure can’t stop now, and we must therefore invent a conspiracy to keep our forebears millenia in the future from knowing the truth.” The conspiracy would have had to been built around embarrassment that circ was a mistake, and it would have to be millenia old, with no one copping on to “the truth” until you and your colleagues have in the past few years (I feel an X-Files episode coming on). Do you really think that men millenia ago would be willing to forego the pleasures you describe and deny them to their progeny forever so as not to be embarrassed? I’m astounded that that could possibly make sense to you.
Irrelevant. Why did it START? How did the conspiracy take hold given that men have been in charge of Western politics, science, and religion almost exclusively until the past few decades? It can’t be a conspiracy, Jack–the people who you claim are pushing circ are generally circ’ed themselves. If it were a conspiracy, the leaders of the conspiracy would not be circ’ed, but would be proposing it for everyone else. There’s no advantage for them, especially since they would have had to do the cost-benefit analysis you claim is correct: that is, an intact foreskin is worth far more than a little bit of money. So, I repeat, what is the advantage in this conspiracy for the conspirators? What does it profit a man to make a little money, but lose his foreskin?
This ridiculous statement does not answer my question of how the conspiracy began. Money as a medium of exchange is more recent than circumcision. Zipporah didn’t make any cash by snipping Moses with a rock. Therefore, with no profit motive for the Hebrews, Egyptians, and others who first practiced circumcision, why would these male-dominated cultures willfully do something that you claim is such a horror?
And for the millenia before careerism existed? That’s the crux, Jack–for you to be correct, this conspiracy has held on through war, famine, and plague for roughly 4000 years. I’m just asking you how.
Leaving aside that totally baselss bit of anti-woman crap, it doesn’t matter. Even if you are misogynist enough to believe that women want to mutilate their babies (and I do think you’re that big of a misogynist), society is and has been run by men. Why would MEN allow this? Why would the MEN who wrote the Bible make such a fuss over it? Why would the men who solely populated the halls of science until the last century or so allow this to continue? It is YOUR assertion that this is so, therefore it is up to you to provide a cogent explanation or change your hypothesis.
Off to obsess about my clitoral hood…
Could you maybe then retract, or at the least, further explain this statement:
What do you suppose Dawkins would make of your second quote? What does evolutionary theory suggest about such claims?
Also
Okay, the book in question was Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond (if you missed the last post). Let me reassure you that it was written in 1997, and should be free of Soviet Political Standards (whatever that means). Additionaly, it won both the Pulitzer prize and the Phi Betta Kappa award in science, so I think we can safely assume the work qualifies as peer-reviewed.
Honestly, I don’t think Shermer knew anything about this debate. The book merely points out a variety of ways that thinking goes wrong and leaves the reader to draw his own conclusions regarding individual debates.
Yes, he is.
Such as yourself. Very true.
Thanks. I felt one of the two of us should.
The thing about a true skeptic is that he or she will not accept the validity of a premise without logical proof. You know – proof, as in evidence, of which you have none. In fact, you have apparently accepted the vaildity of the anti-circ position without bothering with the difficulties of proof. Worse, you have also apparently accepted as true some bizarre sexual theories AND a vast world conspiracy, with even LESS proof than exists for the anti-circ position (which, to be fair, does have SOME persuasive arguments in its favor – just none presented by you). Ergo, no skeptic you. Furthermore, a true skeptic will not ignore information that accords with the “prevailing political environment,” either; he or she will not give a rat’s ass about the “prevailing political environment,” rightly confining his- or herself with the questions of evidence and proof. So, again, no skeptic you.
The best that one can ever hope for is to converse with someone who presents his or her position rationally and logically, based on reputable and verifiable citation. We actually get that quite a lot around here. Just not from you.
And the point about the books – since you missed it – is that if agreement with your pet sexual theory is the standard for great authorship, then Sheaffer is right out. If, on the other hand, the standard of great authorship is something else (like demonstrated scholarship or a rationally presented theory, regardless of whether or not you agree with it), then you can hardly dismiss out of hand every book you haven’t read, can you?
Who are “they”? Kinsey did all his research himself, and this is well-documented by such authors as Masters and Johnson.
Which is? Ah, yes, you can’t tell us, it’s part of a conspiracy.
Does this include yourself?
Results please? And can you tell us something about your survey methods?
Hang on, just a second ago you said no one could hold any credible credentials in the area of male sexual response. Now you’re telling me you’ve read some books on the subject. What made you believe them?
Really? I’ve seen that, in all the other threads you’re involved in, you haven’t seemed to take notice of any evidence that contradicted you, arguing instead that the sources of that evidence were part of the conspiracy. (I also recall some of your dark mutterings about “Jewish stooges” who presented some survey results. Got anything other than anti-Semitism for us?)
I won’t even say anything about the spelling errors in the last line.
Yo, who said I was working for the establishment here? As all of you will doubtless know from my own history, I can’t even get the UK Immigration Service to return my passport. So much for my establishment clout. :rolleyes:
Your theories about circumcision, of course. Since you haven’t produced any evidence so far, your conclusions can only be called theories at present.
How come it is when other Dopers referred to published research cited in internet magazines you dismiss it out of hand? I’m calling your site “dodgy” not because it’s not part of the establishment, but because it’s unashamedly biased to one viewpoint. Furthermore, as pointed out in the GD thread, you’ve managed to misinterpret even the information on this site (for example, your claim that hundreds of men were dishonorably discharged from the US Army for not submitting to circumcision, when the site only mentions two men who might have been discharged for refusing a “minor operation,” the nature of which is not disclosed)
Well, I’ve got some ground-breaking stuff :rolleyes:. My objective research took me the best part of two years, mainly because nobody else had ever written about the subject that I’m writing about. I’m not saying that to brag, I’m saying that because all Ph.D students do it to some extent. There was no “previous objective research” in my field, because there was no previous field. I had to do that myself. So do you. Let’s see some evidence.
Anyway, you said above you had evidence–you’d read books on the subject and collated your own surveys. Again, let’s see the results.
I can’t believe this! Just in the last paragraph you said that no previous credible research had been done, except your own. So let’s see it. I can’t stress this enough. Let’s see it.
And again, I assume this includes you…
No it’s not, it’s incredibly, filthily anti-Catholic in parts. If you think you’ve been given a hard time in this group, you ought to see what 16th-century Protestants said about the Catholics. And I repeat it in my thesis verbatim. Anyway, you didn’t know what my research was when you made the post, so how did you know it was PC?
OK, so you agree that we are doing the same thing, essentially. Good. When my thesis is submitted in February, it will include, among other things, a detailed list of every single document that I used, plus a printout of the database that I compiled. If you want, I can provide that material right now. Will you do that for us?
And I don’t use “Ockham’s razor” to prove the superiority of my thesis. I use my thesis to prove it, or try to.
Jack, I’m willing to read your research if you can publish the results of your surveys (providing, of course, the survey results are peer-reviewed–you can even choose your own peers). Until then, I refuse to believe that you’ve actually done any research.
Duke
are you really saying that masturbating while trolling on message boards isn’t research?
Why wouldn’t my committee approve that for my thesis?
Palandine,
> Doesn’t answer the question, Jack. Why did MEN start doing it at all, if it is the horror you say it is? <
It is not known how or when circumcision started. There are hieroglyphics from ancient Egypt showing a circumcision taking place. Many people have researched to find an answer to this question. No one has succeeded. The hypothesis that I think is the best is that an Egyptian Pharaoh somehow had his foreskin terribly injured. And, out of spite or ASPD, he then ordered all of the helpless Hebrew slaves under his control to be circumcised. From there, denial, ignorance, and ASPD within the victimized Hebrews took over and we were off to the races.
An intact man and a circumcised man cannot compare their relative erotic experiences objectively just by describing what they feel. So, it's hard to prove that damage is being done. So, once started, this phenomenon was impossible to stop.
Stop raving, please.Cite? Where are these hieroglyphics kept? Or did they somehow mysteriously disappear and you’re one of the few people who managed to see them because of your prominence in foreskin research?
“The hypothesis that I think is the best is that an Egyptian Pharaoh somehow had his foreskin terribly injured.”
Normally a hypothesis has some proof to back it up, Jack. Where’s yours?
“An intact man and a circumcised man cannot compare their relative erotic experiences objectively just by describing what they feel.”
So how can they?
“Stop raving, please.”
You first:)