Jack-ass Dean Tyler

The BBQ Pit
261

This is just like that scab you cannot stop picking.

I have one question for you Jack.

Just one simple question.

(I’m not sure if this question has been brought up before, but if it has, bear with me)

You say that it is hard to prove damage is being done because you cannot compare the subjective feeling of a circumcised man to one who is uncircumcised. Sure, fine, I agree it is hard to compare the subjective feelings of two individuals for the obvious reason that they are two completely different people who have two entirely different viewpoints.

Now what about those have had the tip snipped later on in life? Would they not be able to compare their own subjective experiences? They would have had the best of both worlds, so to speak. Now from what I have read on this board (for example the bit on Sir Richard Francis Burton, originally posted by Scylla) it seems as if there is relatively little difference between the two. Now would you accept this as evidence that maybe, just maybe, circumcision isn’t quite the monster that you have made it out to be? (Admittedly this is only one testimonial,so if anybody on this board has had something similar done, could you please tell us what the end effect was?) I am not really asking for much, just an admission that you might be wrong, ( might being the operative word in the sentence. Concerning whether or not you are actually wrong, that decision is for each individual poster to make).

In fact, just to get the ball rolling, let me go first. You know what Jack? You might be right. Circumcision just might be the worst thing to befall mankind. It might be the cause of all our problems, which when eliminated, will allow mankind to enter a utopian paradise where peace, prosperity, and the foreskin reign supreme. The problem is though, there is a lot of evidence against what you are arguing, and, in order to have anybody believe that you are more than just that ranting nut on the corner who has switched his sandwich board with a computer, you first have to admit that you may be incorrect in your assumptions. Once you do this then maybe people will be willing to believe that you are not being mindlessly dogmatic.

If you can’t, then I fail to see why you continue to remain here.

Thank you.

And Jack? One other quick little thing. Do you notice the elegant use of the quote function in my post? I know I wrote about this before, but please, could you learn how to use it? It really doesn’t take long, and it makes things much, much easier on the eyes.

262

There are about a dozen or more things posted here by Jackass that literally caused my jaw to drop, many of which I thought about replying to. However, this one so took the cake that I felt it should stand alone…

Oh! My! G-d!

What the hell have we been trying to tell you for 50 pages and 5 threads, Jackie-boy?

You can NOT prove that damage is being done and YOU EVEN SAY SO RIGHT THERE, YOURSELF!

This is at least the 100th time you’ve directly contradicted one of your own theories - and this one is the one you’ve been trying hardest to force us all to buy into, not to mention the entire reason for your overzealousness on this topic! ::shaking my head in utter amazement::

Since we’re in the Pit, I’m allowed to say, you’re a freaking moron. Get off my planet! PUTZ!

(Where the hell is Wally when we need him? He’d have put this asshole out of our misery ages ago.)

263

In case you didn’t get that, JACK, allow me to reiterate Shayna’s point:

If there is NO WAY to compare or quantify the “damage” done to men by circumcising them, how do you know ANY damage has been done AT ALL that can be blamed on circumcision?

Did the voices in your head just tell you that, or what?

264

Oral and anal.

265

Well, it’s been fun, but I’ve officially joined the “Fuck you” bandwagon. Jack was fun for a while - a diseased mind is a terrible toy to waste, after all - but I’m done with him. He’s spewed out his entire repertoire and is reduced to mindless repetition. Dumbass.

So, in farewell, have a hearty “Fuck you with a foreskinless donkey dick, asshole!!” from me to you. We really need a “flipping the bird” smiley.

266

So… is the foreskin now paranormal? Or is circumcision paranormal? You’ve lost me.

267

I can sum up Egyptian circumcision in four words:

Sand In Uncomfortable Places

hehehe

268

I just felt I needed to clarify something here, also.

The majority of the REAL anti-circumcision camp doesn’t even think that circumcision is that horrible, they just don’t think that it’s something a parent has the right to make choice about in regard to their kid. That is to say, they probably have no opinion regarding an adult choosing to be circumcised… they don’t think it’s the big horrible worse than death tragedy that you do… they just don’t think that it’s right to do it to someone without their consent. The same people usually say that it’s not right to pierce the ears of an infant, but that if the kid chooses pierced ears later, that’s fine.

269

He probably dated a woman who insisted that he pay for everything.

270

Interesting. Can you give us a cite of where to find them? I understand that that penis has totally not been given the respect it deserves throughout the millenia :rolleyes:, but the same cannot be said for scholarly interest in Egyptian culture, so let’s see it. Incidentally, you realize that this means that your conspiracy is a vast conspiracy by the Pharaonic establishment and NOT the Jewish establishment, right?

[QUOTEThe 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.[/QUOTE]

Because, of course, so many Hebrew slaves had access to see this horrible injury that was done to the pharaoh :rolleyes: (I think the rolleye smiley was invented for you, Jack). That makes even less sense than anything you’ve said thus far, and that’s saying something. If you were ashamed of an injury and had great power, would you do it to everyone else so you could be constantly reminded of your, em, shortcoming? And if it was done, in a sense, to punish the Hebrews for Pharaoh’s, em, shortcoming, what would be the incentive for the Hebrews to maintain the practice? I will grant you, they may have seen circumcision practiced in Egypt and decided to practice it themselves, but that falls under the rubric of voluntary choice (again, by a male-dominated culture). Okay, Jack, now’s your chance to prove what a skeptic you are. You’ve listed your one preferred hypothesis, one with no evidence and one that flies in the face of Occam’s razor–that is, that the simplest explanation is usually correct. I’ve listed an equally plausible one that involves a male-dominated culture picking up a practice because they may have

  1. Liked the way it looked
  2. Liked the way the ladies thought it looked :slight_smile:
  3. Thought it cut down on the whole “sand in uncomfortable places” thing
  4. Thought it more hygienic (the Hebrews were absolute fanatics about hygiene)
  5. Thought it was something cosmopolitan (after all, those dazzling urbanites the Egyptians did it)

Now, why don’t you list some of the others hypotheses out there, ones that you as a skeptic carefully weighed and rejected before coming to your preposterous conclusion?

Exactly. And of course, this means that it is equally possible that no damage at all is being done.

Dear, this she-devil will just go with what others have said before: you first. And do learn how to use the quote function.

Off to obsess about my clitoral hood :smiley:

271

Darn it-I just can’t stay away here.

Jack-would you please READ Freud. He makes it clear that he believes that there are 2 kinds of orgasms, clitoral and vaginal, and that the clitoral one is immature and represents an inappropriate sexual response whereas women with a mature psyche and a well-formed sexual response will prefer the VAGINAL orgasm. Leaving aside the question of whether or not he was right-if you are so all-fired sure that his theories are right, then your ideas of how sex should be performed obviously do not represent the correct, psychologically healthy method, as Freud detailed.

Also, if circumcision is what causes aggression, wars, etc., please explain WWI, WWII, and why there have been no further World Wars since circumcision became more prevalent. Hell-explain why warfare existed at all in the old days before routine circs.:confused:

272

The picture of a circumcision in Egypt c 2200 BC can be found on the page linked by London_Calling earlier. It’s in a BMJ article and credited to the Wellcome Institute for the History of Medicine, London, which tends to support its authenticity.

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/320/7249/1592

but then we have this:

The excellent and thoroughly researched book I’m currently reading, “A History of the Jews” by Paul Johnson, has this to say about Jewish circumcision:

So apparently a number of ancient cultures circumcized, although the practice died out among many of them (no conspiracy there); the Jewish custom probably predates the Exodus period, and therefore didn’t derive from a mutilated Pharoah; and even in the Roman period, Jews were already being sneered at for being circumcized, so if there was some sort of conspiracy among Jews, it certainly didn’t extend to non-Jews.

So I guess what you’re saying is that at some point Jews, who form a tiny percentage of the people of the world, gained enough influence to radically affect the customary behavior of large numbers of non-Jews, and then chose to use this influence to cause the non-Jews to engage in a sacred ritual that symbolized the Jewish covenant with God. :rolleyes:

273

Duke,

> Which is? Ah, yes, you can’t tell us, it’s part of a conspiracy. <

Well, my most important discoveries have been certain physiological structures of the penis. One of the structures is an area of the mucosa that has a natural tendency to collapse. And, the other structure is the area that is the most erogenous part of the penis. Also, I have created the first model for the sensations that an intact penis gives its owner.

All published for peer review.

> Does this include yourself? <

Well, unfortunately, I do know more about the male sexual response than anybody. As I freely admit, that is a sad commentary on the matter.

> Results please? And can you tell us something about your survey methods? <

By survey, I mean that I have collected background information from subjects of a case study where I had a few men try my method in order to test for the most erogenous part of the penis. I never intended to publish this particular case study. I only intended to gather more anecdotal evidence to perhaps attract a proper researcher to do a real case study or maybe even a full double blind study.
Of course, I collect anecdotal Info everywhere I go.

> 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? <

Well, there are persons who do general research concerning foreskins. They're not necessarily medical researchers. What they have to say is important, though.

> 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, <

Such as? I've looked at the research on the other side. It's not good research. You will say that my research isn't good either. But, the burden of proof is not on me. It's on the other side. I only have to be good enough to raise a question.

> arguing instead that the sources of that evidence were part of the conspiracy. <

I didn't argue this. Don't misrepresent me, please. I argue that there is a de facto conspiracy of some men who are in denial or suffering from ASPD.

>(I also recall some of your dark mutterings about “Jewish stooges” who presented some survey results. Got anything other than anti-Semitism for us?) <

It's not anti-Semitism to take someone's motivations into consideration even if it is the fact that they are Jews supporting a Jewish ritual.

> Yo, who said I was working for the establishment here? <

I did.

> 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. <

Big deal. The establishment doesn't treat their subjects well because if they did they would develop attitudes.

> Your theories about circumcision, of course. <

Which theories about circumcision?

> How come it is when other Dopers referred to published research cited in internet magazines you dismiss it out of hand? <

Well, in the first place, virtually every bit of “research” offered by the pro-circumcisionists is bad research and has already been debunked by those on the anti-circumcision side. Go to NOCIRC or the CIRP site and you will see that this is so. I 'm not going to reinvent the wheel. And, in the second place, any positive study of circumcision has no meaning anyway, to me. This is because the pro-circumcision people still have not presented an argument that circumcision is a good thing. So, until they do that, all that matters are the negative aspects or the potentially negative aspects of circumcision.

> 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) <

Not true. I never took any position as to how many went to jail for refusing to submit to circumcision.

> And again, I assume this includes you… <

The experts would be me and a lot of other lay persons in the NORM organization.

> Will you do that for us? <

I'm only going to direct you to the area of the CIRP site that covers the physiology of the penis. That's all that would affect anything that I actually publish. As for my conjecture, I would still direct you to the pertinent CIRP site.

> 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. <

You'll be more effective with your thesis is you take the time to understand Ockham's razor. You should find other theses that you can make obsolete with your thesis.

> 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. <

The only thing that I have published has to do with the discoveries concerning the physiology of the penis. That's the only area in which I plan to do any further publishing.
274

Enugent,

> Jack, what on earth makes you believe that women have more economic power than men?<

"They control 86 % of all personal wealth [PARADE Magazine, May 27, 1990]"

http://www.debunker.com/patriarchy.html

275

Jodi,

> If there is NO WAY to compare or quantify the “damage” done to men by circumcising them, how do you know ANY damage has been done AT ALL that can be blamed on circumcision? <

Well, we know that tissue was amputated and so we know that damage was done is the simplist answer to your question. However, let me rephrase your question: How do we know what amount of erotic sensation is lost to the man as a result of a circumcision? Well,the mere fact that all erotic sensitivity on the dorsal side of the penis is lost to circumcision is all that any rational person needs to know to agree that circumcision is causing significant damage.
276

OpalCat,

> The majority of the REAL anti-circumcision camp doesn’t even think that circumcision is that horrible, they just don’t think that it’s something a parent has the right to make choice about in regard to their kid. <

When you say "camp," that implies some level of cohesiveness. I think that what you are saying is true of the average person who does not circumcise their son. However, all organized anti-circumcision groups that I have ever heard of are in agreement that the damage that circumcision does is heinious. These groups may or may not agree with me, though.

> The same people usually say that it’s not right to pierce the ears of an infant, but that if the kid chooses pierced ears later, that’s fine.<
I wonder where you get your information.

277

Palandine,

>I’ve listed an equally plausible one that involves a male-dominated culture picking up a practice because they may have<

All are possibilities.

>1. Liked the way it looked <

Possible. That's an excuse used today.

> 2. Liked the way the ladies thought it looked <

Even though this is often an excuse used today, I don't think that women had enough say back in ancient Egypt.

> 3. Thought it cut down on the whole “sand in uncomfortable places” thing <

Possible. This is used as an excuse today. This actually is a benefit of circumcision. It's just like you can't get cancer of the foreskin if you don't have a foreskin. Likewise, you can't get sand under your foreskin if you don't have a foreskin.

> 4. Thought it more hygienic (the Hebrews were absolute fanatics about hygiene) <

Possible, it's used as an excuse today.

> 5. Thought it was something cosmopolitan (after all, those dazzling urbanites the Egyptians did it) <

Possible. One of the appealing things about circumcision in early 20th Century America was that it was a sign that someone was of higher class and was born in a hospital.
Almost all of these hypothesis could have gotten the ball rolling. The problem that I have with all of these other hypothesis is that I think that it would be very hard to get a man to mutilate himself in this very painful way. I believe some real bastard who had the power of life and death over a lot of people ordered them mutilated. And, I believe that no one would do this unless he himself had severe sexual problems. Once it's done to a whole bunch of people, they will carry on the attacks just as one can watch happening every couple of minutes in America. It's a plague.
278

psychobunny,

> Leaving aside the question of whether or not he was right-if you are so all-fired sure that his theories are right, then your ideas of how sex should be performed obviously do not represent the correct, psychologically healthy method, as Freud detailed. <

Well, it's not a question of whether or not Freud was "right" or not. The issue is whether or not he is cutting edge or not. Freud, myself, and all scientists and lay people who do research all do so under a scarcity-of-information constraint. I believe, tentatively, that Freud's theories may adapt very well to the information that we have today. Since, at least, Freud had a reasonable understanding of the erotic nature of the sex organs, he may be the cutting edge in psychology even though he died decades ago.

> Also, if circumcision is what causes aggression, wars, etc., please explain WWI, WWII, and why there have been no further World Wars since circumcision became more prevalent. Hell-explain why warfare existed at all in the old days before routine circs. <

Hostilities always break out when communication fails between two parties who are both competing for scarce economic resources. War is the worse form of hostility, but it's just Mother Nature's way of solving the matter by shaking up the gene pool so that hopefully what is left will be more effective at communicating. Wars of antiquity can all be explained by this hypothesis, I would say.
Recently, there's something like 40 or 50 raging wars on the planet. I know that many of these wars and potential war zones are pitting circumcised men against intact men. Pakistan (circumcise) vs. India (intact). Kosovo (circumcised) vs. Serbia (intact). Turkey (circumcised) vs. Greece (intact). Chetchniya (circumcised) vs. Russia (intact). ANC (circumcised) vs. Zulu's (intact). Canada (circumcised) vs. Quebec (intact). South Korea (circumcise) vs. North Korea (intact). Of course, America (circumcised) occupies many intact nations as we speak. I don't know of any circumcised populations who are not in some kind of civil strife or are not in imminent war zones except America and it's other territories (and that's getting ever more iffy).
279

Every circumcised man I have ever known intimately had erotic sensitivity on all parts of their penis. You have give NO proof that ther is a loss. If the sensitivity is still there, how can you say ther is significant damage?

280

Well, for a while it was fun but now Monkey Boy has just gotten stupid.

  1. He refuses to accept that there are opinions that he cannot logically refute.
  2. He contradicts himself constantly.
  3. He makes claims he cannot support.

You’ve gone from interesting to amusing to ridiculous to boring, Jack.

::Yawn!:: Get a life. I’m outta here.