Indeed - I’d recommend, Kelli, that you check out the “Jack-Ass Dean Tyler” thread here in the Pit where Jack ever so accurately describes me as a balding, fat, ugly, undesirable post-23-year-old man who hangs out in gay bars and can’t get a date - and we all know how accurate he is there… :rolleyes:
Oh, and I forgot the most important part - it’s all because I’m circumcised, of course.
Esprix
bio-brat,
> So JDT do you care to provide some cites that aren’t propagandist bullshit? Not only was that not REALLY a cite (because I’m pretty sure you wrote it) but: “We of CIN suspect that the “slight” operation in question was circumcision” for all you know it could have been a tooth extraction, which also would have disqualified him from duty. <
These soldiers did ten years in Leavenworth to avoid tooth extractions????? Hardly. Anyway, it's not like if I could absolutely verify that it was circumcisions that they were avoiding that it would have any affect on your thinking. You've been taught something by the television set and that's all that you will ever know.Jack, Jack, Jack. <shakes head> You don’t even see it yourself, do you? I checked the links you provided, one is simply an inflamitory headline:“During World Wars I and II, many U.S. soldiers were forcibly circumcised by military doctors under the threat of Court Martial” There is no source given, altough 2 names are listed at the end of the paragraph. Are these sourses? proofreaders? Anti-circ fanatics? Sorry, Jack, that is no type of proof at all. It is simply an unsupported statement, like many of the ones you make.
Your second cite is more believable. Proper atributation of source ( something called “The State” which I will assume is a paper of some source. No issue #, but a date is given (9/20/18) so presumably we could look it up.) The brief articles simply states that 2 men were court marshaled into Levanworth for refusing a “slight operation” to make them fit for military service. That’s it! YOUR OWN SOURCE SAYS THE FOLLOWING:
Jack, are you listening, here? I am going to take this slow in hopes of getting through to you. I BELIEVE you MAY be right. “slight operation” would be a good description of a circumcision. Many others here may THINK so too. The editor of the piece quoted obviously SUSPECTS so too. He says so above. None of that means JACK-SHIT! To THINK, BELIEVE or SUSPECT Isn’t proof! DO YOU SEE THE DIFFERENCE??? THIS is the reason you cant convince anyone here your point has valididty. You either A: make statements and refuse to back them up, as if just becauses you said it, it’s true ( like the 1st “source” linked above) or b:make statements and provide “proof” that is nothing of the sort.
Jack, this is a site dedicated to FACTS and KNOWLEDGE, not hearsay and guesses. THAT, and the fact that you seem to think you know all about people you’ve neve met, is why nobody takes you seriously. It is possible to present a reasoned arguement for your side of this, see your now banned co-hort, but you’re not doing it.
Finally, I repeat a question I asked you several times before. Unlike you, I don’t know everything about everyone else’s penis. What is the status of your penis, Circumcised, intact or “restored”? I think the answer is very germain to this discussion. Tell us, please
Hell, for that matter, has it been used for something besides “washing” itself and the insides of toilets/urinals/other ceramics? Such as attempting to provide erotic stimulation to a member of the opposite/same sex? And if so, did you notice the bored look in their eyes? (Note: The correct answer is “Hey, I always notice that bored look in their eyes.”)
And just for the hell of it, could you answer one more question for me? Do you cut your fingernails, or do you view this as cutting off half your fingers? Just wondering, thanks.
weirddave,
> I BELIEVE you MAY be right. “slight operation” would be a good description of a circumcision. <
Good. Then I have had an affect.
> Many others here may THINK so too. The editor of the piece quoted obviously SUSPECTS so too. He says so above. None of that means JACK-SHIT! To THINK, BELIEVE or SUSPECT Isn’t proof! DO YOU SEE THE DIFFERENCE??? <
I do see the difference. It is my belief that these men went to jail for a decade and lived with the stigma of a dishonorable discharge from the service (when such a thing was a real stigma unlike today) for the rest of their lives. Someone asked why I believe that this happened, so I gave them the cite.
One must not forget that in the eyes of the ignorant masses, overwhelming evidence and slight evidence appear to be the same thing. The pre-dispositions of the public will determine what the public wants to believe more than the weight of any particular piece of evidence. The issue of circumcision has taught me this fact more than anything else.
> THIS is the reason you cant convince anyone here your point has valididty. <
How do you know I'm not convincing anyone? I'm here to present information from the cutting edge of what I have found out about the erotic problems that will result from circumcision (completely uncharted territory).
Acksiom was someone who was presenting evidence from what is the overwhelming weight of the published information. Acksiom was showing very well that any intelligent and objective person could not deny that circumcision was a terrible thing. Problem is: people are not intelligent and objective. Acksiom has his approach and I have my approach. What I say is consistent with the overwhelming weight of the evidence that is available.
> You either A: make statements and refuse to back them up, as if just becauses you said it, it’s true (like the 1st “source” linked above) <
I don't have to go to the trouble of getting a cite for everything that I say when I know that, cite or not, it will have no affect.
> or b:make statements and provide “proof” that is nothing of the sort. <
You can decide for yourself how anxious you are after I say something and tell you why I say it. Maybe it isn't proof but you don't demand proof from those who are carrying out these circumcisions so I shouldn't be held to a higher standard then they are, anyway.
> Jack, this is a site dedicated to FACTS and KNOWLEDGE, not hearsay and guesses. <
Not at all true. This is a feel-good site. Even those that claim to be skeptics do so only because it makes them feel good.
> THAT, and the fact that you seem to think you know all about people you’ve neve met, is why nobody takes you seriously. <
I know that I don't know all about their bodies. But, I don't have to put caveats into every statement I make. This would distract from my point. Besides, there will always be some element of doubt in any evidence that is presented and those that don't like the evidence will exploit that element of doubt anyway. The belly aching will be there no matter what, so it's better to clearly make the point even if one is not speaking with a high amount of precision.
> It is possible to present a reasoned arguement for your side of this, see your now banned co-hort, but you’re not doing it. <
Yes, it is possible. And, Acksiom is doing a wonderful job.As a matter of fact, he had it done on the recommendation of the base medic, who was tired of treating him for various infections. And he likes it better this way, because it’s easier to keep clean. And what the fuck does piss wash mean? He’s supposed to aim up, like a fountain, and let it come tinkling down on him? He was in the JUNGLE, even if he’d done that, he still would have been all sweaty and icky.
New sig for JDT:
HEADCHEESE, GET YOUR FRESH HOT HEADCHEESE HERE!
JDT I find it amusing how you keep bashing ‘so called skeptics’ when they are responding to your claims with skepticism. You do not provide unbiased cites when you provide cites, and citing your own research which has not gone through the proccess of being replicated/peer reviewed/etc while ranting about medical establishment conspiracies doesn’t help back it up.
Sig suggestion:
I’m on the cutting edge of circumcision research.
“Jack Dean Tyler: Official Spokesperson for the Tug-Ahoy™, Your Willie’s Best Friend!”
As you have provided only slight evidence and are trying to pass it off as overwhelming evidence one can only coclude that you concide yourself part of the ignorant masses.
[QUOTE]
How do you know I’m not convincing anyone?
[QUOTE]
Because no one is stepping up and defending you.
[QUOTE]
This is a feel-good site. Even those that claim to be skeptics do so only because it makes them feel good.
[QUOTE]
Now Jack in his infinite wisdom has determined why we all post here.:rolleyes:
Eeeeeewwwww! Good one, even if it is freakin’ nasty!
Nice circular reasoning, Jack.
Pun intended, Jack?
Marlitharn: And what the fuck does piss wash mean?
Jack explained that one to us back in the first thread, Marli: it means to pinch the end of the foreskin closed before releasing some urine so that it can swish around the glans and clean it. Although I am not now nor have I ever been physically equipped to try this technique myself, it does sound like a (ahem) useful tip, as it were.
And Jack, I have to say that my newfound empathy for you is rapidly diminishing again. This “you’re all brainwashed idiots so I don’t have to provide any cites because you’re completely uneducable anyway!” stuff is just no way to convince anybody of anything. Acksiom was doing a better job with the reasoned arguments, but he fell victim to his propensity for taunting and insulting opponents rather than responding to them seriously, which is against the rules in GD, so he got banned. Too bad, I think, I was learning something from him.
And here’s what I’ve learned, speaking as somebody who has no personal agenda in favor of circumcision (and in fact, thinks that maybe more guys should be un-). Maybe this will give you some idea of what a more or less objective observer sees as the problem with your arguments:
There’s no overall significant medical benefit to RIC.
The sensations of sex are somewhat different for circumcised and uncircumcised males.
There’s a nonzero danger of botched circumcisions resulting in medical problems. There are also some people who believe that “normal” circumcisions are always the source of significant medical problems.
There are large numbers of men who were circumcised after reaching sexual maturity and do not feel that their health or their sex lives are impaired in any way. The sensations of sex may be different, but they didn’t sacrifice any enjoyment of the overall experience. Moreover, there are large numbers of women who have been with both circumcised and uncircumcised partners and do not notice any significant difference in the amounts of pleasure the two types were able to give or to receive. Moreover, cultures in which most men are circumcised do not seem to differ significantly from cultures in which most men aren’t circumcised in the types of sexual activities they engage in or sexual problems they encounter.
This last point, as far as I’m concerned, just wipes out your argument that circumcision is disastrous for sexual health or enjoyment. Sure, I’ll happily concede that the practice of RIC should probably diminish or even eventually die out, on the “why fix it if it ain’t broke” principle. Sure, I can easily believe that circumcision alters the experience of sex in some ways. But you simply haven’t convinced me that the absence of foreskin is really disastrous for most men’s sex lives.
And this is not because I didn’t want to believe it, mind you. If we hadn’t heard any testimony to the contrary, your impassioned condemnations of the effects of this practice would have had me very shocked and upset that we allowed such a thing to continue. But every time you brought forth one of your pronouncements about the terrible damage circumcision does, somebody would pipe up with some personal testimony to the contrary that sounded quite reasonable and squared with my own experience. And you had no way of gainsaying it except by asserting that it was somehow (through ignorance, delusion, or outright deceit) not really the truth.
The bottom line, Jack, is that either all these other people are lying or brainwashed, or else you just have a severely distorted view of the issue. It’s obvious that you think the former statement is the correct one. But when I weigh the probabilities, it just seems more likely to me that the one extreme viewpoint is distorted than that all the more moderate ones are. That is why you’re not getting anyone here to believe you, not because we’re fundamentally dishonest or in denial. If you just go on accusing everyone who opposes your position of deliberate blindness, it will not get you anywhere, except eventually ignored or banned. I would hate to see somebody losing the chance to have really meaningful, informative discussions here on a topic that obviously means so much to him.
dave, hon, JDT has steadfastly refused to provide any personal information, claiming it’s not required of him because he’s the researcher gathering data (BWAHAHAHAHA!!!).
However, I’ll be happy to answer that question for you. Jack Dean Tyler is cut. If his anger throughout all of these threads at having been circumcised isn’t evidence enough, take note of this comment taken from this link on his home page, where he’s trying to “map” evidence of circumcision on a porn star’s penis:
The yucky thing is, now we know what JDT’s penis actually looks like. Eeeeeeeewwww!* Talk about TMI!
As for my contribution to his sig line:
**Jack Dean Tyler, master of the full power suck! **
[sub]*Not that penises that look like that are yucky, it’s just way more than I’d ever really want to know about this particular guy’s penis.[/sub]
BunnyGirl,
> Eeeeeewwwww! Good one, even if it is freakin’ nasty! <
You have just as much "headcheese" on your genitals as an intact penis does (if not more).Kimstu,
Here's the situation. You know about the CIRP site. Any reasonably intelligent and objective person can go there and get the overwhelming evidence (pro and con) that circumcision has the potential to be a disaster. Anyone who goes to that site should come away from it questioning "why did RIC ever start?" They should be coming away with a healthy fear of "what have we done?" "What will be the repercussions of having instituted this vast program of sexual mutilation?" I am NOT here to communicate with reasonable people such as this.
The reason that I am here is to provide insight into the repercussions of this experiment. I will use my research and help the masses make the connection from circumcision to disaster. RIC does lead to a drastic change in the sexuality and personality of the victim. Published evidence supports this. But, because such research is under-financed and discouraged by the medical establishment, it takes a lot of abstract reasoning for a person to form the nexus from circumcision to disaster. The masses simply are not capable of even the most basic level of abstract reasoning. They are taught (programmed ?) to mock anything that is contrary to what the television said. The issue of circumcision proves that to me. Anyway, the masses will not react to disaster until they are staring down the monster's throat. I'm trying to help by giving everyone a glimpse of the monster that is coming. The monster that they created with their denial. The monster that eats denial for breakfast.
> Acksiom was doing a better job with the reasoned arguments, but he fell victim to his propensity for taunting and insulting opponents rather than responding to them seriously, which is against the rules in GD, so he got banned. Too bad, I think, I was learning something from him. <
I don't know who Acksiom was, but he's a pro. The masses will believe what they want. Mocking a sound argument is as easy as mutilating a defenseless baby for the masses because they don't know anything more than what the television says. When the masses mocked Acksiom's arguments, he showed contempt for them. He was, in affect, challenging them to demonstrate why his arguments should be mocked. Acksiom tried to form the nexus to disaster in their minds. I don't know if he would have succeeded or not. It would have been interesting to see. I'm not optimistic for his approach, I'm afraid.Then with whom, pray tell, do you wish to communicate?
Wasn’t that in the Unabomber’s manifesto?
That’s what they said about Y2K…
What?!
Rather than using more logical arguments, forgoing the propaganda and hateful language. I can see where the debate teachers in America have gone wrong.
That sentence makes no sense at all.
Neither was anyone else. That’s why it didn’t work.
Jack’s Koan: If I had my foreskin back, would I still have the logical reasoning power of a box of hair?
JDT replied to me: *Here’s the situation. You know about the CIRP site. Any reasonably intelligent and objective person can go there and get the overwhelming evidence (pro and con) that circumcision has the potential to be a disaster. *
Okay, I did go there and read all kinds of stuff about problems with circumcision. There seems to be quite enough evidence to conclude that, as I agreed, there’s no significant medical benefit to RIC, and the American Association of Family Physicians takes no stand on it. I don’t think you’ll really find anyone disagreeing with you that RIC is medically unnecessary and that 20th-century Americans were too quick to assume that it ought to be a standard procedure for all. (Anybody here disagree with that?)
But there are also sources of information that look at least as reliable as the CIRP site which contradict some of the positions it’s putting forth. For example, there’s the Male Sexual Wellspring Center, whose survey results attest that sexual enjoyment is actually much better for males who were circumcised as adults or infants (“Excellent” and “Very Good” respectively) than for those who were circumcised and had foreskin restoration (“Very Poor”). (The highest accolade—“Outstanding”—was awarded to the experiences of uncircumcised men who taped back the foreskin for intercourse, which sounds like a bit too much work to me, but per aspera ad astra! 
The rating for other uncircumcised men was lower than those for circumcised ones.)
Now of course, as the site admits, this is based on anecdotal data rather than peer-reviewed research, but you haven’t produced anything more than anecdotal evidence either in support of your position on the “eroticism of the penis.” In discussing the circ controversy, the MSWC site links to the CIRP site as well as to a pro-circumcision site that has lots more such anecdotal evidence, surveys, and personal testimonies in favor of the procedure.
Now of course you still have every right to hold to your own beliefs even if so many other people disagree with you out of their own personal experience. There are lots of issues on which reasonable people can disagree. But if you insist on maintaining that your position is obviously and necessarily the only right one and that the only reason for the opposition you encounter is that “the masses are brainwashed,” well, I don’t see how you can expect any reasonable person to listen to you.
Boy, I’ll say!
JDT–Foreskins–the other white meat.
Smegma? You’re soaking in it!