Sorry, Can’t pass this one up…
We have a winner for the sig competition.
Jack, do you honestly think that you are right and the rest of the world is wrong? I know sometimes it must feel that you are on a crusade with this, but I really think you are not going to win. I mean, there is no need to go head first into the void, is there?
Maybe they just messed up yours, JDT. I still got some e-rotic sensitivity left in mine.
Why are we:
Debating in the Pit.
Still trying to reason with someone who doesn’t accept our evidence, yet keeps pushing his after we’ve shown why it’s not acceptable?
Listening to the rantings of this dickmunch?
One word: Illuminati.
Well, this is my nominee for “The Dumbest Thing Ever Written.” Tyler, you feeb, if a man is wrong, he CAN’T be on the cutting edge! So it IS important if Freud was right or wrong!
In a battle of wits, you are completely unarmed.
Even if this dumb-ass claim is even marginally correct, perhaps you can explain the American Civil War? I suppose you’re going to brainlessly assert that the men of the Union were all circumcised and that the Southerners were not. Or vice versa. (Probably the South was cut; they fired first, remember? Or maybe the North was cut since they were so “oppressive” to the South, insisting they free their slaves.) (And before some historian takes me to task, I am quite well aware that slavery was not the sole cause of the Civil War.)
I stand corrected. THIS is “The Dumbest Thing Ever Written.” Men are not circumcised in either North OR South Korea. It’s uncut men vs. uncut men, you dumbfuck. (And your advice on how to fuck means you really ARE a dumbfuck!)
Oh, Jack, dear Jack - when will I get a response to my questions on the page previous to this one?
Esprix, still looking forward to circumcising his son
Ah, yes, PARADE. Surely a bastion of cutting edge research (to borrow a phrase).
Personal wealth is not all the wealth there is, and it is undisputably the case that a disproportionate majority of corporate wealth is controlled by men. Even if that statistic were backed by credible research (which it may be, I suppose), it wouldn’t prove your thesis.
Getting back to your main argument, if circumcision was the result of a female-imposed conspiracy (as you seem to suggest in a couple of places), what would be the female motivation for it? Supposedly it’s bad for our “erotic sensations,” too, right?
Oh man. I can’t believe I’m bothering to research and post a serious response about economic matters on a Pit thread devoted to flaming an anticircumcision fanatic, but this was so egregious that I simply couldn’t stand to let it go.
JDT replied to 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 *
Oh, classic. A ten-year-old one-liner from PARADE magazine quoted at a pro-patriarchy site is a reliable source? But I wouldn’t care about the source’s prestige if the argument didn’t reflect such absolutely infantile statistical thinking: to wit, that the aggregate amount of wealth controlled by women tells us anything meaningful about the economic power of the average woman as compared to the average man.
Hey folks, can we bear in mind that according to serious research organizations such as the [Center for Budget and Policy Priorities](http://www.cbpp.org/9-4-99tax-rep.htm#Wealth Disparities), the top one percent of U.S. households controlled about forty percent of total wealth? And that the top twenty percent of households controlled about eighty-five percent of the total wealth? And that men typically have shorter life expectancies than women and typically marry women younger than they are, so that there is a great deal of the aggregate wealth going to a small number of widows of rich men?
And from this (even assuming Jack’s 86% figure is reliable, for which I’d like to see more solid evidence) we’re supposed to conclude that women on the whole have more economic power than men? For Pete’s sake, that’s like saying that men named Bill have the most economic power because Bill Gates happens to have more wealth than the bottom 45% of all American households combined and is more than twice as rich as his runner-up! Jack, take a look at this November 15 Reuters report to learn that on average, American women still earn less than men and are more likely to be poor—i.e., they have less economic power than men do. If you still wish to claim otherwise, for heaven’s sake find some better evidence. Sheesh.
Sorry Twisty, given Jackass’s warped ideas about intercourse (or should we call it outercourse?), I think you just came up with the best sig line. LMAO!
Okay, sorry, this gets my vote as dumber.
Since when are we at war? And since when is Canada circumsized and Quebec not?
Jack, PLEASE don’t ignore my post. I’d really like to know your view on this…
[intense anger] … considering the fact that I live in both Quebec AND Canada. [/intense anger]
Okay, this explanation I just HAVE to hear.
OK dork, I’ve had it with you. I’m just going to take your “greatest hits” from your reply to me.
.
Oh yes. Can we read it?
Hey, you said it.
Despite the fact you haven’t done a “full double blind study,” you insist that we take the results of your, well, not-so-full, one-sided study as gospel. And you call everyone who doesn’t agree with your lousy study “stupid” and tell them to “quit raving.” That’s research at its finest.
IF they agree with you, I assume. Else they’re “part of the establishment.” Heads I win, tails don’t count.
As I was just saying…
NO!!! The burden of proof IS on you, you dork! I could say that the sky was green. Now YOU’RE gonna have to prove it’s not. I could also say you sit in front of the computer all day “typing one-handed.” Now YOU’RE gonna have to prove that you don’t. Hey, I’m only raising a question here.
Well, they told us they were Jews, didn’t they? So what are you? What’s your bias?
Yes, I do work for the establishment. There’ll be a guy with a serrated-edge spoon coming round to cut off your foreskin in about two hours.
I’m not a subject, I work for the damn establishment! Sheesh.
Why, the ones you’ve so elegently described about how the best, and only good, sex, consists of 40 minutes of rubbing the dorsal side of one’s manhood against a clitoris. Oh yes, and masturbation. WE’VE BEEN WRONG ABOUT SEX ALL THIS TIME, DAMNIT! What did we do before you showed us the way?
Heads you win…
Well, thank God for that. The damn thing would be square.
I’ve got an argument that circumcision is a good thing. You know when you go to the beach, and you get sand in your shorts? I trust I don’t need to go any farther with this one.
The only organization I know called NORM is the National Organization for Reform of Marijuana laws. Do you know where I can get some?
Yeah, I looked at that site. Only trouble was, I looked at it when I was work, boss thought I was looking at porno, and fired me. I’m not going to make that mistake again.
I don’t need to make any other theses obsolete. I’M THE ONLY EXPERT IN MY FIELD, GEDDIT? And I’m the only expert because I and my buddy Norm say I am. I don’t need to debate with anybody else who thinks I’m wrong. I just need to state my claims and everybody immediately bows to my superior knowledge.
And which journal may have published this work? Escort magazine? Over-50s Love journal? And boy, I’ll say, your discoveries “concerning the physiology of the penis” really tore the lid off the geopolitical nature of world conflict. Until you posted, I never knew that South Koreans were routinely circumcised. I think we better check to see if Fidel Castro is circumcised. It would explain a lot. You go to Cuba, pull his pants down, and report back with your findings.
Now excuse me, we’ve got some real debates to take care of.
No, it would just have a really loose tire.
And factory-installed hubcaps … even on replacement tires. Woe unto you if you remove them.
Jack m’boy, you keep diggin’ this hole you’re in and you’ll end up in Chiny (fortunately, they’re all uncircumcised there, right? And in Hong Kong they’re clipped). You started out a fool, and you’re still a fool. But somewhere along the path you became pathetic as well.
[hijack] I’d like to thank each and every one of you. (with the obvious exception) This thread is more successful than I ever could have imagined. [/byeJack]
zenith,
> 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?<
Well, men who have their foreskins restored, say that what is left after a circumcision is a lot of erotic sensitivity in the frenulum and some (very little usually) in the glans.jab1,
> Tyler, you feeb, if a man is wrong, he CAN’T be on the cutting edge! So it IS important if Freud was right or wrong! <
Theoretically, there is no such a thing as right or wrong because one can never know the whole truth so therefore one can only get ever closer to the truth. Freud may have been closer to the truth than any contemporary scientist.
> I stand corrected. THIS is “The Dumbest Thing Ever Written.” Men are not circumcised in either North OR South Korea. It’s uncut men vs. uncut men, you dumbfuck. (And your advice on how to fuck means you really ARE a dumbfuck!) <
South Korea is not only circumcised, South Korea has the very dubious distinction of being the circumcision capital of the world with a Circ rate of 95% of all men. The only reason why they don't get the last 5% is that Asian men tend to have slightly shorter foreskins and they don't circumcise in South Korea if the foreskin is really short.Enugent,
> Personal wealth is not all the wealth there is, and it is undisputably the case that a disproportionate majority of corporate wealth is controlled by men.<
Corporate wealth means stock shares which is a form of personal wealth. Even if it is true that a disproportionate number of men run the large corporations, it must be women who put them there. So, women are still in charge.
> if circumcision was the result of a female-imposed conspiracy (as you seem to suggest in a couple of places), what would be the female motivation for it? <
I didn't suggest that circumcision was the result of a "female-imposed conspiracy." Somebody else said that because men are in charge that circumcision could not have been the result of any attempt to profit. I just pointed out that women are actually the one's in charge in our society.Kimstu,
> But I wouldn’t care about the source’s prestige if the argument didn’t reflect such absolutely infantile statistical thinking: to wit, that the aggregate amount of wealth controlled by women tells us anything meaningful about the economic power of the average woman as compared to the average man. <
Uh-oh, here's comes the magic numbers.
> Hey folks, can we bear in mind that according to serious research organizations such as the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, the top one percent of U.S. households controlled about forty percent of total wealth? <
Maybe these are households of women.
> And that men typically have shorter life expectancies than women and typically marry women younger than they are, so that there is a great deal of the aggregate wealth going to a small number of widows of rich men? <
This is exactly what happens in my opinion too <laugh>.
> And from this (even assuming Jack’s 86% figure is reliable, for which I’d like to see more solid evidence) we’re supposed to conclude that women on the whole have more economic power than men? <
That's what Parade magazine said. Go figure.
> For Pete’s sake, that’s like saying that men named Bill have the most economic power because Bill Gates happens to have more wealth than the bottom 45% of all American households combined and is more than twice as rich as his runner-up! <
Kimstu, try to keep you wits about you!!!
> Jack, take a look at this November 15 Reuters report to learn that on average, American women still earn less than men and are more likely to be poor—i.e., they have less economic power than men do. <
Well, it appears that this is in very serious dispute.LaurAnge,
> Since when are we at war? <
You have serious civil strife with your central government.
> And since when is Canada circumcised and Quebec not? <
Quebec has never been circumcised. Canada has all but abandoned circumcision but you still have a lot of victims walking around.Duke,
> NO!!! The burden of proof IS on you, you dork! <
Nope it's on you.
> I could say that the sky was green. Now YOU’RE gonna have to prove it’s not. <
You could say that circumcision is a good thing, and then I'd have to prove that it's not. You're right, one cannot prove a negative.
> I could also say you sit in front of the computer all day “typing one-handed.” Now YOU’RE gonna have to prove that you don’t. <
You could say that circumcision is well worth the cost and I'd have to prove it's not.
> Hey, I’m only raising a question here. <
Why don't you take a class in logic at your local community college, Mr. Ph.D. candidate?