Because this is GD, not the Pit.
Hrm. I suppose I was under the impression that being a smart-ass was different than being a jack-ass. Didn’t realize a rebuttal in the same spirit of “logic” would constitute a direct insult. Perhaps I’ll go read my rules again.
Back under my rock with me!
Howdy, Nymysys, welcome to the SDMB. It’s always nice to have another lurker turn into a poster. Don’t worry and come out from under that rock often.
Actually, the boundries of proper discourse in Great Debates when dealing with JDT and his somewhat unique brand of logic were discussed extensively in the BBQ Pit thread appropriate moderating in GD?
For those of us who have gone beyond the point of rational discussion, there is another Pit thread. (I’m not quoting its title because that would transgress the decorum of this forum).
Indeed smart-ass (though not jack-ass) responses are encouraged. For instance, Gaudere’s “removing up to 15 square inches of text” post on Page 7 of this thread was the funniest thing that I’ve read in a long, long time – equalling, if not beating Arnold Winkleried’s Christian Bookstore send-up in the Smut shop employees thread. (By the way, Gaudere, were I the type to profess my undying love based on a single post, I would profess my undying love for you for that one. However, I am not, so I will not. Unfortunately, my respect and admiration for you have already maxed out their respective scales, so I can’t even add to them.)
Anyway, Nymysys, your question of “Why are you still using logic on this guy?” is actually a very subtle and perceptive one. Although it can be glibly answered “Because this is GD, not the Pit,” the fuzzy distinction between what is appropriate in Great Debates and what is not is a subject of ongoing (and often heated) discussion. JDT and the other (admittedly few) other posters who seem immune to conventional logic are a continuing source of frustration to many here, and the cause of many difficult calls the Moderators in GD have to make.
If the methods of penile elongation Cecil described don’t work for you, check THIS out (and no, this is ONE guy who is NOT converting to this religion, thank you very much):
http://www.chinatimes.com.tw/english/elife/89102905.htm
Text below:
Taiwan Chi Kung Masters Use Penises to Pull Truckful of People
TAIPEI, Oct 29 (AFP) - A group of Taiwan Chi Kung masters on Sunday claimed to have created a new world record – this time by using their penises to move a heavy truck with 80 people on board. Two groups of Chi Kung masters with three members per team attached their penises to an 11-tonne truck loaded with some 80 people and pulled it a meter.
This followed a similar episode last week when the same group of Chi Kung masters pulled an 11-tonne truck some 30 centimeters with their penises.
[…edited out of copyright concerns. --Gaudere…]
He said practitioners had to practice the martial art by attaching objects weighing up to 200 kilograms to their penises…
[Edited by Gaudere on 11-04-2000 at 11:08 AM]
Glad you did. If you keep making posts as amusing as that one, you’ll always be welcome.
I take it your name is a variation on “nemesis”?
Whoa up there a minute, sport. Now you’re the one talking apples and oranges.
First off, I’M not the one saying invasive penile cancer will increase 200 percent if no circumcisions are performed; the study on penile cancer that I cited came to that conclusion.
Second, researchers have identified a specific cause-and-effect relationship between uncircumcised men and invasive penile cancer. I grant you that this type of cancer is extremely rare. However, it would seem to be something worth taking into consideration, at least, not just dismissing out of hand.
Thirdly, my position is that circumcision is a minor, cosmetic operation that research has indicated shows some potential health benefits. The operations you’re describing for women are not minor nor cosmetic. And I refuse to debate the point you seem to infer, that men become “sexual zombies” if their foreskin is removed. As you keep pointing out, no one has done research on the physiology of the foreskin, so claiming that it will significantly increase sexual pleasure if left intact are baseless. You have no data to back up your point.
Um, Jack, even granting the statistics in that paper (which I don’t – see [I believe] jab1’s response above), the quoted death rate from circumcision and its complications was 10 - 19 deaths PER YEAR, way back in 1949, in a country where circumcisions were not routinely performed (e.g., not many doctors were proficient in its application). In addition, this paper refers to Great Britain; I thought our main topic of discussion was circumcision in the U.S, since we’re the main practitioner of the procedure. At any rate, 10 - 19 deaths per year 51 years ago via circumcision vs. 900 deaths per year present-day via penile cancer doesn’t seem to be a difficult choice to make in this debate. I’m sure that makes me irrational, but I still don’t see your point.
Gosh, Jack, that sounds a little violent to me. My point, which I thought was fairly clear, was that the American Cancer Society has identified several risk factors for contracting penile cancer. One of them, as you note, is exposure to human papillomavirus infection (HPV). Here’s wha the ACS has to say about contracting HPV: “Practicing sexual intercourse at an early age, having multiple sexual partners, having sex with a partner who has had multiple other partners, and having unprotected sex (not using a condom) at any age increase a person’s risk of getting HPV infection.” (Quoted from http://www.cancer.org).
Now, here’s what the ACS has to say about the incidence of penile cancer in circumcised men: “For example, some recent studies suggest that circumcised men tend to have certain other lifestyle factors associated with lower penile cancer risk – they are less likely to have multiple sexual partners, less likely to smoke, and more likely to have good personal hygiene habits.” Note that they are contrasting circumcised men with uncircumcised men here.
Absolutely none at this point. And don’t be condescending to me, please. I’m reasonably intelligent, and I hope I’m proving I can argue a point logically and fairly. I’m open to be persuaded on this issue, but you’re not giving me any information that’s proving any of your points.
[Fixed link causing sidescroll. --Gaudere]
[Edited by Gaudere on 11-04-2000 at 11:03 AM]
Still waiting on a cite for this information, as well.
Sauron,
> First off, I’M not the one saying invasive penile cancer will increase 200 percent if no circumcisions are performed; the <
OK.
> study on penile cancer that I cited came to that conclusion. <
OK.
> Second, researchers have identified a specific cause-and-effect relationship between uncircumcised men and invasive penile cancer. I grant you that this type of cancer is extremely rare. However, it would seem to be something worth taking into consideration, at least, not just dismissing out of hand. <
Alright, penile cance is taken into consideration and then dismissed. One would not use the risk of penial cancer to justify circumcision if one doesn't believe in FGM also?
> Thirdly, my position is that circumcision is a minor, cosmetic operation that research has indicated shows some potential health benefits. <
"(M)inor, cosmetic operation"? There is absolutely no medical organization in the world that I know of that agrees with you.
>The operations you’re describing for women are not minor nor cosmetic. <
FGM advocates say that it is minor and cosmetic. FGM was practice in the US for many decades and they used the same excuses to justify it as they did to justify MGM.
>And I refuse to debate the point you seem to infer, that men become “sexual zombies” if their foreskin is removed.<
Sometimes they are turned into complete zombies and sometimes they are turned somewhat into zombies.
> As you keep pointing out, no one has done research on the physiology of the foreskin, so claiming that it will significantly increase sexual pleasure if left intact are baseless. <
Oh, no. That circumcision results in a terrible loss to erotic sensations is well-known from the foreskin restoration movement. Also, there has been some research carried out on the foreskin by a Canadian researcher. And, there is my own personal research. There has been no research carried out by the medical establishment that would in any way be sufficient to quantify the costs of circumcision to the "patient," though.
>You have no data to back up your point. <
The burden of proof is not on me. It's on the medical establishment to justify circumcision.
> Um, Jack, even granting the statistics in that paper (which I don’t – see [I believe] jab1’s response above), <
Um, yes, Jab1, if that is his/her real name, definitely has more credibility.
> present-day via penile cancer doesn’t seem to be a difficult choice to make in this debate. I’m sure that makes me irrational, but I still don’t see your point. <
My point is that by your logic we should re-institute FGM.
> Now, here’s what the ACS has to say about the incidence of penile cancer in circumcised men: “For example, some recent studies suggest that circumcised men tend to have certain other lifestyle factors associated with lower penile cancer risk – they are less likely to have multiple sexual partners, less likely to smoke, and more likely to have good personal hygiene habits.” Note that they are contrasting circumcised men with uncircumcised men here. <
Do you happen to have a handy cite for this? I'm sorry to have to point out that any time one demonstrates statistically different behavioral characteristics between circumcised and intact men, that doesn't help your case for circumcision. The idea that society has stepped in and created a new physical phenotype is plenty bad enough. But, the idea that society has stepped in and created a new psychological phenotype is Orwellian.
> Absolutely none at this point. <
Standard American. Can't face the truth no matter how hard it is to rationalize out of it.
> And don’t be condescending to me, please. I’m reasonably intelligent, and I hope I’m proving I can argue a point logically and fairly. <
You've proven that you don't know the first thing about the science of logic. The burden of proof to support circumcision lies with the circumcisers. They have to present a case that it is a good thing weighing the pros and cons (costs-benefits). The circumcisers cannot have done this because they never studied the physiology of the foreskin and therefore could not know the costs of amputating it.
You are insisting that the anti-Cirk persons prove that the surgery is bad. If Aristotle were alive today, he would tell you that one cannot prove a negative---it is impossible to do this. So, I nor anyone can prove that circumcision should not be done. So, in theory, all any anti-Cirk person can do is present evidence that results from the experiment of circumcising a massive population of men and demand to know how this jibes with your cost-benefit analysis (which you never did in the first place).
> I’m open to be persuaded on this issue, but you’re not giving me any information that’s proving any of your points. <
You’re not open to any persuasion. And, if you are, use your imagination and tell me what would falsify your belief that routine infant circumcision is a good thing. That is: what information do I have to come up with in order to convince you that a cost-benefit analysis of circumcision indicates that it should not be done, routinely?
Wasn’t me. It was Jodi, at the very top of the page.
And according to JDT, violent men are most likely to have suffered circumcision. Assuming he is correct, it is therefore reasonable to assume that JDT is likely to also be a victim of circumcision.
OTOH, people who were never slaves tried very hard to free the slaves. And succeeded.
Why do I think ol’ JDT has a hero’s complex, that he sees himself as another Lincoln or Ghandi or Susan B. Anthony?
Imagine what a commemorative dollar would look like…
No, imagine what a roll of commemorative dollars would look like.
You are accusing the medical community of committing a crime, namely assault and battery on minor children. The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the accuser, not the accused.
No, that is NOT my real name, but the entire Pacific Ocean would have to freeze solid before I ever revealed my real name to you. Do you think Sauron is his real name? And, as you’d know by my earlier posts on this tread, I have stated more than once that I am a man.
When people say that you cannot prove a negative, they mean that you cannot prove that something does not exist. If you were to prove that circumcision is harmful, you would have proven a positive, that such harmful effects DO exist. Which is why the burden of proof is on you, not them.
Here, you are assuming the burden of proof. (Just in case you were unclear on the concept.)
jab1,
> No, that is NOT my real name, but the entire Pacific Ocean would have to freeze solid before I ever revealed my real name to you. <
Well, I'm sorry, but your failure to go by your real name does affect your credibility. For all we know, you're some sort of sadistic pedophile that derives sexual satisfaction from mutilating babies (these do exist, BTW)who's sitting in prison, right now. For all we know, that could be your motivation for your positions.
> And, as you’d know by my earlier posts on this tread, I have stated more than once that I am a man. <
Oh, I don't know why anyone should believe anything that you say since you refuse even to divulge your identity.
> When people say that you cannot prove a negative, they mean that you cannot prove that something does not exist. <
No. Not being able to prove a negative only has to do with the proposition of not being able to prove that something is NOT the case. This is because one cannot be omniscient. One can never know if at some future date, some information may come to light that might support the original proposition.
> If you were to prove that circumcision is harmful, you would have proven a positive, that such harmful effects DO exist. <
That harm occurs with a circumcision is already proven by the fact that tissue is amputated. The issue is: What is the cost and what is the benefit of doing a circumcision in the first place?
> Which is why the burden of proof is on you, not them. <
'Fraid not.
> Here, you are assuming the burden of proof. (Just in case you were unclear on the concept.) <
No. I am asking this person to prove that she does not have a dogmatic belief with regard to circumcision being a good thing. I'm asking her to tell me what objective information will have to be produced in order that she conclude that circumcision should not be carried out routinely. Glad for the chance to explain this since you are obviously unclear with this matter.Wait for it…
.
.
.
.
.
.
Jack, are you under the impression that most of the people on this board are actually named according to their handles? Do you think that Satan’s parents thought to give him an edge in life with a moniker that suggests he’d stop at nothing in his goals? Or that DavidB’s parents thought “David” was insufficiently distinctive? Or that Gaudere is just a really cool French name?
Who cares what someone’s name is on the board? What proof do we have that you’re actually named Jack Dean Tyler? Perhaps JDT is merely one of your alter egos.
Jack stated:
“You’re not open to any persuasion.”
I believe I’ve seen a few Mr. Pot and Mr. Kettle references, so I won’t state that part of the obvious, anyway. However, I was under the impression that “debate” implied…no, let’s not imply, let’s CITE, shall we?
Debate: verb: to turn over in one’s mind
<ahem> I’ll not state the obvious in that one either.
Debate: noun: a regulated discussion of a proposition between two matched sides
This is all Mirriam-Webster, by the way. I’ll put in the website, if anyone wishes. 
As someone or another once said, If you’re not open to listen to both sides of the answer, maybe you shouldn’t bring up the question. I paraphrase, of course, but I’m allowed. Seems to me that there have been oodles (technical term) of people willing to listen to both pro- and anti-circumsicion debates. It also seems to me that there is only one person in this ungodly-long thread who is being dogmatic.
I never had any stance on circumcision up to this point. For one, I’m a female. Also, while I have a goodly number of child-bearing years still ahead of me, it would take an act of god or a severe change in mindset for me to have a child in the foreseeable future. I’ve had coitus with both uncircumcised and circumciced men, and to be honest, at this point I prefer circumcised. There wasn’t anything WRONG with uncircumcised, and I surely wouldn’t turn my nose up at another one (<snort> I love that visual), but circumicised men seem to be more comfortable with their “equipment” and the way it works. Societal influence? Most probably, but still, there it is. Had the uncircumcised grown up with our darling Jack’s influence, the world would certainly have been different for them. :rolleyes: This is, of course, only my experience, and hopefully a bad one for this point. I hate to see people upset over their bodies for any reason, and did my best to assure said men that uncircumcised was just as fabulous as un.
But, I digress.
Jack, love, darling dearest, perhaps the debate is finished. We’ve reached the point where I, at least, understand what you’re saying. I think most understand what you’re saying, no matter how badly it’s being said. To call circumcised men “freaks” is certainly uncalled for and is destructive behaviour if you’re continuing to try to prove your point. To have an opinion is certainly your right, to try to pass off the subjective as the objective is silly. For most of the men that are already circumcised, I’m sure done is done for them. To undergo a costly, painful surgery to restore something that they’ve not had for years and that might not have any benifit is just plain silly. I’ve heard men say that they wish it were bigger or thicker or could do funny tricks, but I’ve yet to hear anyone say, “Boy, if only I had a foreskin. Maybe for Christmas this year…” I’ve certainly enjoyed this debate. Most of you are incredibly intelligent, well-versed and articulate. However, it seems to have come down to dribbles and nit-picking, thus losing the spirit of “debate” for me. To me (and again, only my opinion), this loses the spirit of “debate” when no one is listening anymore, just talking at each other.
Have I overstepped my bounds as a newbie?
For Billdo and jab1:
Thank you so much for your welcome. It’s nice that people take the time for manners. I blush. For anyone else that might wish to say “hi” also, I’ll blush for you, too.
And for jab1:
Yes, Nymysys is bastardized Nemesis. When you deal with AOL (god help us all) you work within their confines.
Ooooh, ooooh, oooohhhhh! Yes, preview friend. Spelling good. Spelling mistakes bad. Color me sheepish until I figure out the ins and outs of this thing.
<walks off muttering about spellcheck and feeling superior>
Nine posts and I like you already. Welcome, and I hope you find your stay enjoyable. 
hansel,
> Jack, are you under the impression that most of the people on this board are actually named according to their handles? <
Oh, not at all.
> Do you think that Satan’s parents thought to give him an edge in life with a moniker that suggests he’d stop at nothing in his goals? <
No, it's all play-acting, of course. I don't have a problem with their phony names. I just pointed out that they cannot be considered authorities on anything if they don't even give their true identity. Besides, the posters with phony names are better because they will be more honest since there will be no repercussions for their positions in their day to day life. The phony names allow the posters to demonstrate for us how any manner of insanity can be justified by a society. All one has to do is succeed at getting the insanity institutionalized, whether by force or deception (deception's better because then you can always blame the victim by saying that he / she should have known better).
Circumcision proves that objectivity is all but non-existent in American society. If Americans will mutilate defenseless babies, who knows what they will do next? They can justify anything, obviously.
> Or that DavidB’s parents thought “David” was insufficiently distinctive? Or that Gaudere is just a really cool French name? <
The moderators are adequately identified for their positions to be taken more seriously.I’ve been wanting to jump into this for a while . . . so here goes.
Where does FGM say this? Cite, book, anything?
When I was around four years old I was circumcised. My foreskin apparently wasn’t growing in tune with the rest of me, which make urinating difficult (painful, in fact). I think my parents can attest to the fact that I wasn’t a zombie beforehand and I’m certainly not one now.
I chose to be circumcised. Had I not been, I don’t want to even imagine urinating . . . I’d probably have a catheter or something. I am very much not a freak (you’ve called people who were or would be circumcised freaks in this thread, so I just want to establish that).
My brother, however, is not circumcised. I don’t think any comparison of zombieness can be made between he and I because he’s 12.
Haven’t you said several times in this thread that the physiology of foreskin is virtually unknown?
Has your research been published in a well-known, peer-reviewed journal? I could tote myself as an expert on pubic hair function, but if it hasn’t been published or reviewed by respected medical personnel, what’s the point?
Could you give us a link/name for the Canadian researcher?
When you say something is wrong, it is up to you to prove it is wrong, not the field to prove it is right.
If no studies have been done on the physiology of the foreskin, how can you prove it’s a bad thing that it’s been cut off? Also, how would studying the physiology determine the cost? It’s skin . . . not that complex of an operation, else it would not be done so frequently.
So why are we still debating? You’ve just admitted you can’t do what you must to win this debate.
Well, I for one would like to see compelling evidence such that circumcised men are X times more likely to be sexual offenders, etc.
JACK says:
As noted in my post at the top of this page, this is simply incorrect from any practical stand-point. If a society has routinely engaged in a particular practice for a very long time – decades to millenia, in the case of circumcision, depending on what society we are talking about – and you wish to convince them to stop, you must give them persuasive reasons to stop – reasons that will outweigh the social, religious and aesthetic reasons for continuing. It is obviously not enough to say “after centuries of doing this, you must now justify doing it,” because no one will bother – they don’t answer to you, and they will continue to do it because they have always done it. Note that this (to me self-evident) point has nothing to do with circumcision per se.
Moroever, within the context of this Message Board, you bear the burden of proving the assertion you posit for debate, simply because you posited it. If I initiate a debate by saying “Resolved: Circumcision is an indefensible procedure” I cannot then turn around and say “prove this is not so.” YOU brought this up; YOU posted your assertion; it is up to YOU to prove its validity. So far, you have not.
Logic is not a science, Jack.
Incorrect for reasons given above.
And yet you do not see that this is a two-edged sword, as has been pointed out before. If in fact there is a lack of information about the physiology of the foreskin, it not only means there is no data to support your detractors, it also means there is no data to support your position, either. You have no way to prove – and have not proven – that the “amputation” of the foreskin has any long-term deleterious effects whatsoever.
Again, this is precisely what they must do, for the practical reasons set forth above. You wish to stop an ingrained practice; YOU must supply persuasive reasons to do so.
I suggest you brush up on your Aristotle.
Rubbish. Could you not show that cutting off someone’s hand is not a good idea? Under your (flawed) rationale, this would be impossible because it would be proving a negative. But it is NOT proving a negative – it is proving, as a positive proposition, that undertaking a particular course of action is unwise because the benefits (if any) are outweighed by the costs. This is not proving a negative.
Incorrect. Any “anti-circ” person ought to marshall evidence tending to show that circumcision is not a good idea – evidence that itself will withstand critical scrutiny. This is precisely what you do not have. Instead, you have citations to papers that were never published – and that themselves have no citation – and anecdotal evidence of harm that is itself outweighed by anecdotal evidence of LACK of harm – such as the myriad posters here who have commented that they are cirumcised and suffer no physical, sexual, or psychological ill-effects. These you dismiss as coming from people who are “in denial” or who “don’t know what they’re talking about,” thereby adding the insult of attacking their credibility to the injury of consistently refusing to logically defend the position you purport to hold.
This is correct – good job! But it doesn’t make the proposition “circumcision should not be done, because it is not safe or wise” into a negative one – that is a positive, provable assertion. I mean, provable in theory; not, so far as I can see, provable by you personally.
A scientific, medical, or psychological paper – with citation and based on legitimate experiment or observation, not anecdote – tending to show significant physical, medical, or sexual detriment arising from routine male infant circumcision. And not detriment to just one man, but to a statistically-relevant percentage. A person may get a pierced ear and die from septicemia, but that one death doesn’t make ear-piercing a dangerous procedure.
Nonsense. A person establishes their “authority” around here by consistently making cogent arguments that they can and will back up with defensible citation. You are startlingly bad at this, unfortunately. Nobody has to post their CV before arguing here; which is lucky for you, since your “true identity” is far more hidden than that of many of the regular posters, since we don’t know who you are, what you do, or even what your own personal stake in this argument is, since you coyly refuse to divulge your out status vis-a-vis circumcision. You have far less credibility around her than the people you criticize, “Jack” – if that’s your real name. So far you have shown yourself to be nothing more than a zealot with a grand conspiracy theory and a one-note song. Do not imagine that you are taken more seriously than Jab, simply because he doesn’t use his real name. He uses his brain instead.
Jacko,
And for all we know, you’re a penis-obsessed deve with a high likelihood of being a repressed homosexual who has a problem with premature ejaculation and a disturbing fixation on low-quality gay porn and necrophiliac sex(they do exist, BTW) who’s sitting in his mommy’s basement trying to ignore the fact that she’s screaming at him to get a job and get out of her house, right now, and all the while is blaming his miserable, empty, pathetic life on his parents and his miniscule penis. For all we know, that could be your motivation for your positions.
For all we know.
Fenris