Penile Lengthening Column

Great Debates
181

[Moderator Hat: ON]

Kelly said:

While I understand your feelings about the person in question here, that does not allow you to break the rules by posting this insult here rather than in the Pit. Indeed, there is a Pit thread dedicated to this particular person. I would recommend you use it if you feel the need to say anything more about him as a person.

That said, Jack: You had better shape up. Now. Your comments in this thread have been going way over the edge. Keep it up and you may very well find yourself banned.

David B, SDMB Great Debates Moderator

[Moderator Hat: OFF]

182

Mmmm… uncut penises…

Mmmm… circumcised penises…

{Homer Simpson hungry noises here}

So what does Jack have to say about us homos and the Wonderful World of Foreskins?

(I’m only here because there was a link from the Pit. This whole thread cracks me up!)

Esprix

183

I find it rather offensive that you are attempting to trivialize KellyM’s experience without, once again, anything concrete to back your statements up. And how do you extrapolate that she is behaving as a man-hater simply because she said that the man who raped her was uncircumcised?

184

And here is your “evidence” from the post that you mentioned:

C’mon. You’re gonna have to do better than that!

185

I don’t know if the president could successfully sue you for defamation of character, but I sincerely hope he tries.

186

JDT says:

And, for my citation, I’d like to direct you to Charles Schultz’s famous work “Happiness Is A Warm Puppy”. Sure it’s a cartoon book, but it is also clear, needs no further comment, and has the same degree of relevance to this discussion as the Nuremburg Code – which is to say none.

Uh, wrong. Do you have any idea what the word “experimental” means? Might I suggest you look it up? Unless a procedure is undertaken primarily to note the effects thereof, or with significant uncertainty as to its outcome, it is not experimental. People ingest aspertame every day. Some people think it’s bad for us. That does not serve to make the nation-wide ingestion of aspertame into an “experiment.” And, I must point out, if “no one has ever studied the physiology of the foreskin” then your theories about it – unsupported by a single legitmate citation – may be presumed to be just so much theoretical bullshit.

Well, that would be the result, wouldn’t it? But they’re all wrong, right? In denial? Uh huh.

I’m insinuating nothing. I’m SAYING that circumcision is a medical procedure, not a medical experiment. There is no logical way to construe routine medical circumcision as experimental. But then, I gather that logic is not really your forte.

Can you not see that the removal of a foreskin from an infant is not the same as the amputation of major limbs? It’s like comparing piercing your ears to cutting off your feet. Surely even you can see that such ridiculous comparisons can only weaken your already weak argument.

The “next” time I get raped or beaten I will blame the organ chiefly responsible for the attack – the brain. But then, I give males a lot more credit than you apparently do for thinking and acting primarily with their heads and not their dicks. If you are truly trying to corrolate the incidence of assault with the status of the attackers as circ/uncirc, please provide a cite. You know you can’t. Asking you for a citation is like asking for ice water in Hell.

And add me to the list of people offended by your trivialization of a sexual assault and your ridiculous comparison of it to this minor medical procedure. [Insult deleted --Gaudere]

BUT I’m going to stick around, because you’re still posting stuff like this:

. . . Which once AGAIN had me laughing so hard I had to wipe my eyes. All that money invested in medical school and all the pedes get to do is pick up the pieces? I’d ask for my money back!

[Edited by Gaudere on 10-30-2000 at 01:57 PM]

187

[Moderator Hat ON]

Look, people, you know the rules. I just edited out a couple insults, and I’m getting tired of it; if you want to post insults that will actually stay in your posts I suggest you utilize the Pit. Yes, “fuck you” and “you are stupid” qualify as direct insults. I second David’s remark that Jack is seriously pushing the limits here, but that’s no excuse for y’all to ignore the rules.

[Moderator Hat OFF]

188

You’re kidding me. A person posts this sort of tripe, without any evidence or citation, and you edit me for saying “you are stupid”?? With respect, Gaudere, that’s ridiculous.

I AM done posting here, but I always figured it would be because the OP pissed me off, not the moderator. But talk about your unnecessary micro-management.

Oh, and feel free to edit out “pissed” when you go over this post with that same fine-toothed, hyper-sensitive comb.

189

No, there was no direct insult of me in your post, so no editing is needed. (I am not suggesting you try it again, however.) People posting unverified tripe is not all that unusual here, but the preferred response is a request for cites or a refusal to accept the unverified “facts”, not insults.

190

I agree with Jodi.

(Waits for all those who fainted regain their composure.)

If a few people frustrated with this jerk-off (feel free to edit that) make some comments calling him the jerk-off he is, and this is so widespread in this thread, just move it to the goddamn Pit, okay?

It seems that you are giving shit to the people who are trying to get this pseudo-intellectual troll to back something up, to say something, and we get frustrated. Yet, you allow the dickhead (feel free to delete it) full reign to insult other people’s genitalia, sex lives and - to me the worst part - get away with a debate “style” which is NOT what we expect in this forum.

This tells me that telling someone who is going against every decorum we have “unofficially” made the de facto rules of this forum that they are an asshole (Delete! Delete! Must delete!) for doing so is not punishable, whereas reacting to it is.

Since you have had to take on several of us assholes (gonna delete it when I call myself an asshole here?), I say move it to The Pit. This has been done before, and when it does happen, some people do continue “real” debate, while others are allowed to call a jerk a jerk without giving you all of this work to do.

Yer pal,
Satan

*I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Six months, three weeks, 18 hours, 23 minutes and 30 seconds.
8190 cigarettes not smoked, saving $1,023.83.
Extra life with Drain Bead: 4 weeks, 10 hours, 30 minutes.

THE YANKEES WIN! THAAAAAAH YANKEES WIN!
1996 · 1998 ··· WORLD CHAMPIONS ··· 1999 · 2000
26 Titles! The #1 Dynasty of all-time!
And most importantly… RULERS OF NYC!!*

191

[Moderator Hat ON]

  1. If you want to see unverified tripe-posting, check out the creationist threads. Nevertheless, David and I do not allow people to directly insult the creationists. Why should we allow people who post unverified creationist tripe do so without being directly insulted, and crack down on people who post unverified circumcision tripe? Jack’s style is no worse, IMHO, than I see from various creationists, homophobes, racists or psychic powers proponents in GD. If Jack has made disparaging comments about other people’s sex lives, so too has his own been called into question–and it actually has some revelance to the debate, considering that he is arguing that sex with uncut men is better than sex with cut men. (I thought his argument was utterly ridiculous, mind you.) Keep in mind, also, that some of the comments of his you find insulting and infuriating were not posted while the thread was in this forum; I can hardly rebuke him for not following the rules of this forum when he was not in this forum.

Like it or not, there is no rule in Great Debates that says “if you cannot offer decent cites to back up your position, then it is OK to call you stupid or a dickhead.”

  1. I generally expect that GDers can thoroughly destroy the arguments of someone who can’t back up their statements without posting personal insults. With very few exceptions, most can do so. We are generally reluctant to send a thread to the Pit; David and I have been discussing the dispensation of this thread and we may at some point decide to Pit it or close it, but as long as this thread is in Great Debates, kindly follow the rules of this forum. And yes, that includes not calling any poster a dickwad, stupid, idiot, moron, asshole, etc. If someone posts unverified tripe, feel free to say “you’re posting unverified tripe.”

  2. Comments on moderating belong in the Pit, not in GD. Thank you for your consideration.

[Moderator Hat OFF]

192

I wonder if a thread has ever been in THREE forums before?

193

BWAH HA HA HA HA HA HA. snort

That has too be the funniest thing in this whole surreal excuse for a thread.

Get a clue, Jack. You have demonstrated repeatedly that you lack the honesty and self-awareness to be trustworthy on this issue. Once again, my poor old paraphrased sig seems marvelously apropriate.[sub]well – at least half of it[/sub]

194

I accept some of the blame for this entire abomination of a thread. I asked Arnold to move it here, and I helped fuel Jack’s illogic and fury. I had hopes that the GD folks would be able to reason with Jack. It seems, however, that he is simply ignoring everything and everyone that contradicts his blinkered world view. As such, he is simply not worth debating, or even acknowledging.

Perhaps he will take his name calling to the Pit thread with his name all over it, but I can see no reason to help keep this thread active. I’m out.

Seeya, Jack. You’re wrong.

195

James, you really took a logical debate to the realm of whacky world.

Perhaps we can conduct an impromptu testing through this board. We will need a representative group of women, varying amounts of sexual experience, ages, marital statuses, races and sizes, about a hundred women should be a good number for a group study. Then about five each of circumcised and uncircumsized men. Then schedule each man with each woman over the next year or so (1,000 copulations), blindfolding the women during coitus so there will be no bias. Then, compare all the responses. BTW, this is for science, thus it doesn’t count as cheating. Any volunteers?

196

edwino,
> First of all, I am Jewish. I have been taught the provable advantages of circumcision in medical school. <

Are there provable advantages of circumcision? I wasn't aware of any? That is unless you're making the common argument that since  the foreskin is amputated, there is no problem from it. Which is a fantastically ridiculous argument, I might add.

> What I think about circumcision isn’t my patient’s business. I think it is of a little proven benefit, and I will not push it on to any of my patients when I am a pediatrician.<

Oh, I think that when you are a pediatrician that you will omit telling the parents of newborns such things as that the physiology of the foreskin has never been tested. You'll probably omit telling them that there's a chance that the baby could die. That there's a chance that the baby could lose his penis. You'll omit telling the parents that the amount of tissue removed amounts to 15 sq. inches of his adult penis. You'll omit telling the parents that there are 10,000 to 20,000 never receptors that are going to be amputated. Why don't you choose a specialty that doesn't deal with babies?

> But, I cannot in good faith argue against it, as I think the balance is quite close. <

Oh, yes, the balance is so close when they haven't even studied the physiology of the penis. And, to think that an objective scientist like yourself would insist that the pro-circumcision people have made a case for circumcision. It's the American education system at work.

>As much as you deny the pro-circumcision side, there are plenty of studies which show advantages <

None.

> (and not hypothetical stuff like you have posted, but epidemiological rates of HPV associated cervical cancer in women correlated with circumcision status of their partners). <

I have a right to do my best to estimate what will be the result of this massive circumcision experiment. The people advocating circumcision have not even bothered to make a case that this experiment is going to work out with no damage to anyone. We're all just suppose to believe that they have. They can't possibly present any kind of cost / benefit argument because there's no way to determine the costs without at least knowing the physiology of the foreskin. Simple-minded persons are easily swayed by these worthless pro-circumcision  studies because of psychological reasons.

> (and not hypothetical stuff like you have posted, but epidemiological rates of HPV associated cervical cancer in women correlated with circumcision status of their partners). <

Which study would this be? I hadn't heard this latest evolution in the ever-changing justification for circumcision. The last I heard was from these people was that the foreskin causes the female sex partner to get cervical cancer. This was based on some terribly flawed study of Jewish people. Then someone figured out that HPV causes cervical cancer. So, I would like to see this latest study that you are talking about, please.

> I would have thought to ask that. <

Your career would have been over if you did ask that. Dr. Laura Schlessiger says that Jewish people who oppose circumcision are the most anti-Semitic of all. Come to think of it, you said that you oppose circumcision. How does it feel to be an anti-Semite?

>But the fact that they didn’t ask it does not imply that circumcision is the reason for this. 1/3 of men can’t ejaculate. <

No, but it makes one wonder why all of these objective researchers didn't think to ask such an obvious question before they spent all of this money and effort, doesn't it? Why do you suppose it is that they didn't ask that question? Are they just incompetent?

>It has not been correlated to circumcision status. We cannot use these data to argue for or against cutting. Next point. <

You're right. But, doesn't it make you curious why so many people can't ejaculate or experience orgasm during normal coitus? Let's have a brainstorming session, shall we?

> 2 papers here. The first from a anti-circ site, which of course begins suspect. <

This is begging the question isn't it? Of course it comes from an anti-circ site. The research establishment refuses to study the foreskin so that's why these anti-circ sites have come into existence. That may make the site a little suspect, but nowhere near as suspect as the research establishment.

> The first has one line about circumcision being peri-natal trauma related to middle aged PTSD and violent or self-destructive behavior. Of the ten citations given for this line, none are peer-reviewed articles about circumcision and violence. <

Well, you take what you get. At least somebody is doing some kind of research. It's not like the research establishment's going to help out in any way.

> The second is a psych essay mostly on attachment and maternal-child contact, which doesn’t seem to apply. <

We'd bedda ******** hope not ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

> Yes. Things get tossed if they don’t work. Things get studied to determine every long term benefit or harm of every drug and procedure. This is how research is done. <

Oh.

> I would see no problem researching foreskins, and I don’t see a reason why it wouldn’t get funded. <

Why don't you become a researcher on foreskins? You could be famous.

> Kinsey report.<
Is this the report that proved that there was no such a thing as a clitoral orgasm?

> Masters and Johnson. <

    This is a real good one. In this report, they often didn't even record their methodology so no one even knows how they got some of their results. They were doing light touch testing while the subject could see when he was being touched. Virtually every single study cited by the pro-Circ dogmatists is like this. They have nothing !

> Lots of debate each way.<

What were they debating about? Whether or not there is a god? Why don't they stop debating and do a thorough study of the physiology of the foreskin to begin with in order to rapidly end the debate?

> Are Jews actively pushing circumcision on non-Jews? <

Well, the main proponents of circumcision would be the Jewish doctors Schoen, Weiss, and Wiswell. But, there are many Jewish people on the other side such as Howard Stern, Dr. Dean Edelle, and Dr. Fleiss.

> Are Jews covering up evidence from the anti-circumcision people? <

There is an active cover-up. For example, the coordinator of the Los Angeles chapter of NORM was interviewed on the Leeza show about a year ago. He discussed the damage that is done by circumcision and how foreskin restoration is carried out. The coordinator from NORM had his segment pulled from the Leeza show when it aired on orders from New York. I haven't checked if this came from Jewish people, though.
 I don't feel that it is right to blame Jewish people per se. The average Jewish person is just a devastated victim, too. However, the Jewish establishment is a different matter.

> Are Jews working actively to convince the NIH not to fund this research? <
Not that I am aware, no.

> I thought you claimed to be a penis expert. I thought you said you were doing some studies. <
Yes.
> If you turn something up that’s unique, there are hundreds of people researching this field that would be interested. <

There is nobody studying the foreskin at the present time. There have already been major discoveries made in this area and no one is interested.

>There are thousands of GU surgeons who would be interested about the most important erogenous zone in the world and the most important discovery of all time. <

This is such nonsense. Anyone with any sense at all knows that there are going to be major discoveries when the foreskin is carefully studied for the first time. Obviously, Mother Nature would have put together a very special plan for this tissue. There are OTHER  reasons why everyone is avoiding this area of the body.

> One thing about science is we try hard to make sure that there are no sacred cows. It keeps the mind agile. <

That's the way it should be. But, that's not the way it is.

> Standard of care and paradigms can get tossed with good data. If you have data against the paradigm, some may scoff at first. All you need is more data to support it… <

What you're saying is nonsense. The pro-circumcision persons have latched onto a dogmatic belief. No evidence can ever be presented that will falsify their beliefs.

> IIRC, circumcision is performed hours to days after birth. Bris is at 8 days. Ob/Gyns don’t see the baby after they cut the cord. That’s when the neonatalogists and the pediatricians take over…<

Based on my experience, it's the Ob / Gyn that does the cutting. Not always, but usually.
197

Jack, I do not understand the point you are driving at with these posts. It would be one thing to argue the advantages and disadvantages of this process that you hate, but it is another to attack and upset persons who have been circumsised. It is frankly very upsetting to me that you believe that circumsised men cannot perform coitus “correctly” and cannot ejaculate 2/3rds of the time, during intercourse. I do not understand your reasoning for injecting this into your arguments. I can only assume that you mean to infuriate circumsised individuals to the point they resent their parents for making this decision for them. This appears to be having the opposite effect than what you would have probably wished for. Maybe you should rethink your debating techniques.

198

Mr2001,
>I know which part is the inside and which part is the outside, and I’m going to guess that the skin-like part on the outside is the “true skin” and the mucous membrane part on the inside is the mucosa. <

That's right.

>The only sensitive part is the edge, where the outside becomes the inside. <

That's right. You're normal.

> The glans. <

You just think it's the glans but it's not. You can't tell because the corona of the glans is such an integral part of what is taking place. The sensations that you feel come from that tiny area that is sensitive on the border of the mucosa and the true skin. Because the glans is involved in stimulating that area, you think it's coming from the glans. The glans mainly has pain receptors and isn't really all that involved with the sensations.
199

absoul,

>It would be one thing to argue the advantages and disadvantages of this process that you hate, but it is another to attack and upset persons who have been circumcised. <

I don't attack anyone just because they have been attacked by a circumciser. I feel that I must try to save those that have not yet been victimized, though. Unfortunately, it is a psychological phenomenon that has been observed in both male and female circumcision victims that they will try to create other victims.

I want to help circumcised men. I want the Fed. government to spend at least half of the national budget to study this matter and correct it in all American men who have been affected by this nonsense.

> It is frankly very upsetting to me that you believe that circumcised men cannot perform coitus “correctly” <

It should be upsetting you more that somebody inflicted such a terrible deformity on someone else. Does that upset you?

> I do not understand your reasoning for injecting this into your arguments. I can only assume that you mean to infuriate circumcised individuals to the point they resent their parents for making this decision for them. <

No, this is not correct. I only want the damage to stop being done to babies. I'm battling men who have sustained serious psychological damage as a result of this inflicted deformity. History has shown, that circumcision victims of both sexes will do whatever they can in order to get others in the same boat with them.

>This appears to be having the opposite effect than what you would have probably wished for. Maybe you should rethink your debating techniques. <

It isn't a debate. If it were, it would have been over instantly since by the Principle of Falsifiability, the Pro-Circ people would have been shown to be advocating a dogmatic belief. I'm up against people who are using dogmatic beliefs to justify attacks on innocent babies. So, all one can do is help people to see the horrifying results of their enforcement of their dogmatic beliefs. That's all anyone can do in such a situation.
200

[Moderator Hat: ON]

Gaudere has already addressed this, but I think it bears repeating. Maybe saying it twice will help it get through to some people here.

Satan said:

No, it’s not okay. If you feel it is so necessary to insult him, you take it to the goddamn Pit. You’re an adult. You know where the Pit is. Hell, if you’ve been reading this thread, you know there is already a thread there dedicated to this very topic. If you can’t have a discussion without throwing around insults, then that’s your problem, not Gaudere’s, not mine. You will be moderated. These are the same rules that have been around here since Day 1. Why a couple of you suddenly think they don’t apply is beyond my comprehension.

We are enforcing the rules. I don’t know how we can make that any clearer. Jack has not broken the rules. He’s come close, and some of his stuff is borderline, but he has not tossed around the insults like some others around here have. If you can’t get “this pseudo-intellectual troll to back something up” without insulting him, I suggest you leave the discussion. But, frankly, it doesn’t say much for the debating skills of anybody to whom this might apply.

What is NOT expected in this forum are the insults that have been tossed around here. And while I won’t delete your particular insult right now, I will warn you: Next time, I’m deleting the entire message.

David B, SDMB Great Debates Moderator

[Moderator Hat: OFF]