Oh, and before I forget, Hail Zotar.
Jack said to David B:
LMAO,D&R!
This Mor…er…idi…er…luna…guy couldn’t rationaly argue that the sky is blue.
CheapBastid,
> I do understand that the range in degree of mutilation is vast in the FGM category, but in the case where the clitoral hood is removed it is not only analogous but pretty equivalent to male circumcision.<
Actually, the range of genital mutilations between males and females is roughly the same. For females it goes from kindest to most cruel: Incision, Circumcision, Excision, and Infibulation. For males it goes from kindest t most cruel: Incision, Circumcision, Subincision, and Stripping. They are analogous except that in all cases the glans of the penis does remain and it is not true that the clitoris remains for all FGM.edwino
> The foreskin is intensely studied, if because it is the source of many lab fibroblast cultures.<
JDT
It hasn’t been studied at all
Nope, not even by you Jack. So, please stop making these broad generaliztions about how much feeling is lost if one is circumsised.
You are completely correct, sir. I bow to your superior knowledge of my clitoris. How silly of me to think at age 30 (today’s my birthday- shameless plug) and having had multiple partners, (the last, (my husband) being by FAR the best), having mind blowing orgasms on a regular basis, that I am having a satisfying sexual relationship. Far be it for me to have a preference in bed that does not involve his penis. What a silly girl! I clearly am clueless to the ways of the uncut man- I will immediately buy him a “stretcher” and get things worked out. I’ll bet he’ll love it! “Merry Christmas, honey! Look what Santa put in your stocking!”
I believe the federal government should spend half of the national budget showing me how to have better sex. I shall get in touch with both Bush and Gore and see if they’ll add it to their adgendas. Thanks for lighting the way for all of us.
Also, I hardly think it’s Esprix who needs an ice cold shower, my friend.
Zette
So you’re saying your position is a crock of something? At last, we agree on something.
(Lots of insane ranting not needing responses deleted)
Holy $#*@!!! That’s your definition of “studied”?? Well then, by your definition, there’s not a single part of the human body that’s been studied. No part of the human body is known to that kind of detail! “Every nerve receptor”? Each nerve cell has thousands! “Exact funtion of all of these things”? We don’t know the exact function of every component of any cell in the body!
I guess this may explain the need to devote half of the US national budget to the study - we’re talking the most ambitious research project ever attempted - and I’m including the Human Genome Project there. Sheesh.
Understood.
Another question - would you consider it an issue of some concern that a country instituted neo-natal pinky toe removal for a great number of years for dubious reasons, then slowly came around to the fact that it is a medically senseless practice? Does a class action suit seem too far off for the medical establishment in this hypothetical country, which also happens to be full of Zotar Damned letigious (sp?) folks?
No doubt about it, JDT passes the Turing test!
[sub]Aw c’mon, it only makes sense, doesn’t it?[/sub]
I’ve suppressed an urge to respond to this hilarious thread until now but…
I can see it now: The HPP (The Human Penis Project)
Jack said:
Damn those Jews! How dare they teach that evil “tolerance”?! :mad:
I’m a member of several skeptics groups, including the Skeptics Society.
Thanks.
Considering the examples of what you consider to be rational, I very much doubt that, Jack. For example, several pages ago I presented you with information from a doctor who studies viruses. But since it contradicted your claims, you pretty much blew 'em off. That is not a rational thing to do. And that is just one of many examples I could pull from the six pages of this thread.
Mmmmm. Yes. Of course. Everybody here is insane except for you. Why, I bet you’re the only sane person on the whole planet! We shouldn’t be arguing with you, we should be bowing down to you and making you Supreme Emperor of the Earth.
You “can’t let it go”? What are you going to do?
The only “threat to reason” around here has the initials “JDT.”
Okay, somebody help me out here. I’m trying to grapple with one aspect of the facts of Jack’s argument. I’m having a difficult time getting my mind around the whole Jewish/medical conspiracy to mutilate male children that’s existed for thousands of years for some obscure purpose.
One of Jack’s points, as I take it, is that by removing the foreskin, the glans of the penis becomes somewhat desensitized, and the male is not able to achieve orgasm as often. (Jack, if I’m incorrect on this, please let me know.) We’ve also been told that the U.S. Army either forced or strongly encouraged men to become circumsised during WWI and WWII. After the war, these men would therefore have experienced reduced sexual function when they returned home. Is that a fair logical conclusion?
Facts don’t back that up, though. The U.S. experienced the largest population explosion in its history in the years immediately following WWII, and now the “Baby Boomers” are in middle age.
I’m unclear how all these people were produced, since the vast majority of men who became fathers during that time would have difficulty achieving orgasm.
Then you say:
So which is it, Jack? You keep saying there has been no research done on the foreskin, yet you have an abundance of “facts” about it, including allusions to research and a book on foreskins.
Something about “hoisting” and “petards” comes to mind.
Oh, and here’s a gem:
This, of course, should be someone’s .sig line.
And, to me, you said:
First of all, [Insult deleted. --Gaudere]. Secondly, nice dodge of the question. A grown man so fascinated by his own penis and other men’s penises, totally hell-bent on restoring every man’s foreskin… I dunno, sounds kinda gay to me…
Esprix
[Edited by Gaudere on 11-02-2000 at 11:20 AM]
Eeek! :eek:
A thousand pardons to the moderators of this forum - for obviously reasons I had it in my head that this thread had been moved to The Pit. Please feel free to asterik-ize my insults above. <grovel grovel grovel>
Esprix
… from The Onion
http://www.theonion.com/onion3117/seemypenis.html
David B,
> Damn those Jews! How dare they teach that evil “tolerance”?! <
Well, tolerance is one thing, but "tolerance" is something altogether different.
> I’m a member of several skeptics groups, including the Skeptics Society. <
That's good.
> Considering the examples of what you consider to be rational, I very much doubt that, <
Oh?
> For example, several pages ago I presented you with information from a doctor who studies viruses. <
I went back and had a look at this exchange.
>But since it contradicted your claims, you pretty much blew 'em off. That is not a rational thing to do. <
Actually, no, I did not blow off the claims made by this microbiologist. According to you, she said two things: 1) that the keritinization of the glans of a circumcised penis will protect against the AIDS virus; and 2) that circumcision will protect a man from AIDS.
As for the first statement, I very clearly said that I agreed with it. I also pointed out that no research has ever been done to support this but, if anyone did do research to investigate this, I feel that this would probably be the resulting conclusion. As for the second statement, this microbiologist is not even qualified to make such a determination.
This is essentially how I responded to your post. This is not blowing off what you said. How can you make such a statement as that?
> And that is just one of many examples I could pull from the six pages of this thread. <
Well, let's get another example, quick. OK?
> Mmmmm. Yes. Of course. Everybody here is insane except for you. <
Most or the posters here are feeble-minded if you must inquire. I don't know if it is a genetic predisposition or an inflicted predisposition (sexual mutilation) for Americans to dogmatically support the various establishments: Medical establishment (doctors can't be wrong); Jewish establishment (politicians can't be wrong); corporate establishment (my company right or wrong !).
> You “can’t let it go”? What are you going to do? <
Gonna have to challenge you to debate and show contempt for you whenever you don't debate fairly. Since the feeble-minded can't think logically or objectively anyway, no contempt from me will have any acute affect on them. But, for you it's different. There'll be that fear deep down inside that maybe my contempt is justified because you'll have to admit to yourself that I'm doing my best to be logical as I apply my contempt. It's the same sort of heart-wrenching thought process that you go thorough when you decide what posts to delete. I'm sorry to have to use your superior ethics against you, but I offered to leave you out of it.You’re in for it now, David. He offered you mercy, but you chose to slap him in the face. How shortsighted could you be?
I’d like to get a response to my debatable question posted earlier, Jack – if circumcision means that a large portion of men experience reduced sexual function (i.e., orgasm), and the U.S. military all but mandated that men must be circumcised during WWII, then how do you explain the baby boom after WWII?
Still waiting on my $6K check, by the way.
Sauron,
> Okay, somebody help me out here. I’m trying to grapple with one aspect of the facts of Jack’s argument. I’m having a difficult time getting my mind around the whole Jewish/medical conspiracy to mutilate male children that’s existed for thousands of years for some obscure purpose. <
If you're going to put Jewish and medical together you may as well include corporate, for example, Jewish/medical/corporate.
I don't believe that any conspiracy has been going on for thousands of years, though. And, I think that what we are experiencing today is more likely described as a de facto conspiracy. IOW's, there is no mastermind.
> One of Jack’s points, as I take it, is that by removing the foreskin, the glans of the penis becomes somewhat desensitized, and the male is not able to achieve orgasm as often. (Jack, if I’m incorrect on this, please let me know.) <
The glans has very little to do with it even though it does become desensitized after circumcision. Most of the erotic sensitivity is in the foreskin that is amputated.
> We’ve also been told that the U.S. Army either forced or strongly encouraged men to become circumcised during WWI and WWII. <
I don't know of any circumcisions being ordered during WW I.
> After the war, these men would therefore have experienced reduced sexual function when they returned home. Is that a fair logical conclusion? <
It depends what you mean by "sexual dysfunction." IMEO, circumcision will result is a greatly INCREASED sexual libido (studies have shown that circumcised boys masturbate much more). Who knows, maybe the forced circumcisions of Americans during WW II was what was responsible for the baby boom (funny I never thought of that until now).
> Facts don’t back that up, though. The U.S. experienced the largest population explosion in its history in the years immediately following WWII, and now the “Baby Boomers” are in middle age. <
Consistent with the increased libido resulting from circumcisions as I explained.
> I’m unclear how all these people were produced, since the vast majority of men who became fathers during that time would have difficulty achieving orgasm. <
Well, one thing that this little circumcision experiment has firmly established is that a man is still capable of ejaculating without experiencing orgasm. In case anyone ever wondered if that was possible . . .I dunno, Esprix, I kinda like this as a sig.
Sorry, I just couldn’t resist the “snip”.
Jack, you are out of your gourd. Have you been paying any attention to local politics (I mean here on Earth, of course, or Terra, as it is sometimes called)? George Bush - born-again Christian. Al Gore - also born again. Dick Cheney - Christian. Joe Lieberman is the first Jewish candidate with any chance of achieving a top spot in I don’t know how long. If you had said “Hollywood” or “Federal Reserve” or something, I at least could have credited you with being a consistent bigot, but to say that politics is a Jewish establishment is truly the sign of a deranged mind. As if we needed any more signs of that from you.
Esprix,
> So which is it, Jack? You keep saying there has been no research done on the foreskin, yet you have an abundance of “facts” about it, including allusions to research and a book on foreskins.<
We're having the very dubious pleasure of observing all the experimental results of the mass circumcision of men in America. That's not the same thing as doing a histological study of the foreskin.
>A grown man so fascinated by his own penis and other men’s penises, totally hell-bent on restoring every man’s foreskin… I dunno, sounds kinda gay to me…<
XOXOXOXDavid, if you really want to blow his mind, just tell him your last name.