The circumcision thread: restored

[David_B]

jab said:

I wouldn’t take JDT’s advice on how to butter my toast.

Well, you can be damned sure that he isn’t going to suggest you cut off the crust!

[Green_Bean]

*Originally posted by Jack Dean Tyler *
…This is commonly listed as one of the reasons to not do a circumcision. If one’s eyelids ever become destroyed, then the foreskin can be used to replace them. Frankly, though, I would say to find some other piece of skin to replace the eyelids even if it doesn’t work as well. Foreskin’s much too important…

I got nothing to add. I just wanted to say that I’ve been laughing about this since I saw it.

To all of you who say “stop the insanity:” I say keep it coming. This thread and its relatives are more fun than…well, sex with an intact man.

[Sterra]

“Don’t take Jack’s advice about surgery. Please.”

That was when I started laughing

[Emperor_Penguin]

*Originally posted by porcupine *
**

*Originally posted by jab1 *
**I wouldn’t take JDT’s advice on how to butter my toast. **

[JDT]You know, of course, that the only correct way to do this is to slowly melt the butter with your foreskin. The foreskin will then magically suck up the butter. You may then deposit the butter on the toast by rubbing the dorsal side on the toast. Applying the butter with a circumcised penis or your tongue pales in comparison. And of course, you don’t want to get a knife anywhere near the toast because you might accidentally circumcise yourself without even knowing it. Women who say that it’s ok to use a knife (serrated or not) simply don’t know any better.[/JDT] **

Thank you very much for this… graphic description.

Oh god, that is so wrong.

The fact that I will never be able to eat toast with out this image zipping through my head shouldn’t bother you at all.

Uggghh.

[system]

Hijack to inject some trivia

*Originally posted by Scylla *
is supposedly the only white man to take the sacred journey into Mecca.

Naaaah, leaving aside that plenty of Muslims long before Burton came around were paleskins, a good handful of Xtian Europeans posing as Muslims have done the Hajj to Mecca. I don’t even think he was the first, but he was a damn good self-publicist.

Now, back to the freak show…

[Cantrip]

Originally posted by JDT
There was something like 50 organs that the medical establishment said was vestigial at the turn of the century. Now, we’re down to one, the foreskin.

::Takes deep breath::

Jack, could you do me a favor or two?

1. Name the approximately 50 organs claimed by the “medical establishment” to have been vestigial. Does that list include the appendix? As porcupine (I think) said, they still think of it as such.

2. Tell me when anyone thought the foreskin was “vestigial”. Your quote that “we’re down to one” (emphasis mine) leads me to believe that the foreskin was thought to be vestigial. That would mean [ul][li]the foreskin had been studied prior to the turn of the century; []its function was known and[]its function was determined no longer to be useful[/ul]much like the appendix, which, I learned back when, once was useful in the digestion of plant fiber but now was no longer necessary.[/li]
   Do you understand how this post contradicts everything you’ve said until now - if the foreskin hadn’t been studied, it could not have been determined to be “vestigial”. If it was vestigial, someone, somewhere, knew what the hell it was for and decided it didn’t matter anymore. If you meant neither of those things (and I imagine that will be your response), then your imprecision and faulty expression are combining with your utter lack of skepticism and logic to make you perhaps the worst debater since Pee Wee Herman.

[edwino]

*Originally posted by Asmodean *
“Don’t take Jack’s advice about surgery. Please.”

That was when I started laughing

That was the last line of my post!

I’m insulted.

[Jack_Dean_Tyler]

edwino,

> O fer cryin out loud. Guys (as if you need this advice) : Please. If your doctor diagnoses your abdominal pain as appendicitis, you probably shouldn’t wait for even a second opinion. Get your appendix out – it can be done through a small incision through a laparoscope usually. <

Well, when I was a child of about nine years old, I had a major pain in my lower right side. It hurt a lot. I couldn't even walk right. I remember how painful it was, but I don't remember all of the details. The doctor didn't give any prognosis directly to me, but I asked my mother if it was my appendix. My mother told me that maybe it was and that the doctor said to wait and see if the pain gets any worse. The pain lasted about a week, as I recall, then it vanished never to return. It has been determined that the appendix is not a vestigial organ and one should explore all options to keep it, I would suggest.

[Jack_Dean_Tyler]

Cantrip,

>1. Name the approximately 50 organs claimed by the “medical establishment” to have been vestigial. <

You can use an internet search engine, can't you?

> Does that list include the appendix? <

The appendix is one of the last organs to be de-listed as vestigial.

>As porcupine (I think) said, they still think of it as such. <

Well, have porcupine contact the medical establishment and inform them.

> 2. Tell me when anyone thought the foreskin was “vestigial”. Your quote that “we’re down to one” (emphasis mine) leads me to believe that the foreskin was thought to be vestigial. <

Well, I would presume that the medical establishment is taking the position that the foreskin is vestigial. Maybe I'm wrong, come to think of it. The medical establishment hasn't openly taken any position on this at all, that I know of. If their position is that the foreskin is not vestigial, though, their argument in favor of the foreskin's amputation is going to get a lot more complicated. If they only would let us hear that argument. . .

[techchick68]

JDT,

I think it’s time you spent some time in a man’s prison.

You are so off base with everything you say that becoming the bride of a big dude might be a value to you.

< sorry I had to say that… his posts are not amusing but mearly a fact of his ignorance that has NO evidence to back up his claims…in this case a prison would be good for the guy >

[porcupine]

Originally posted by Cantrip *
As porcupine (I think) said, they still think of it as such.*

It wasn’t me; I haven’t said anything serious in this thread in weeks. But then again, neither has JDT.

[edwino]

Another tangent is started. Wonderful! Let’s see if we can stretch this thing to 20 pages!

JDT

“Vestigial” is not a term that I work well with. Everything has a benefit to a certain degree. Wisdom teeth assist with chewing. The belly button is a great way to collect lint. The earlobe acts as a wonderful place for display of jewelry. So do male nipples. Pubic hair can be shaved into topiary like patterns. The little toe goes “wee wee wee wee wee all the way home.”

And :

The appendix provides some role for T-cell maturation, and contains some lymph nodes.

But :

If the appendix becomes infected, experience shows us that you had better rip that sucker out before it ruptures. If it ruptures, the alternate therapy is to take out a foot of colon along with possible Bogota Bag and all types of hospitalization.

I said

If your doctor diagnoses you with appendicitis

You answered

…I had a major pain in my lower right side. It hurt a lot. I couldn’t even walk right. I remember how painful it was, but I don’t remember all of the details. The doctor didn’t give any prognosis directly to me, but I asked my mother if it was my appendix. My mother told me that maybe it was and that the doctor said to wait and see if the pain gets any worse.

The clinical diagnosis of appendicitis is fairly accurate. The doctor obviously couldn’t diagnose you. But pain in the region is reason enough for observation. It got better. You obviously didn’t have appendicitis.

The reason they didn’t slice you open on the spot is not because the appendix is some magical piece of tissue . It is not the most erogenous part of the intestine. It is because the risks of surgery (general anesthesia, bowel preps, post surgical morbidity) outweigh any benefits from removing your appendix, unless you have appendicitis.

I think most people feel the same way about circumcision (that costs outweigh benefits), Jack, but your posts here have not served to further this point.

[edwino]

Oh, and one more thing :

Back to this term “vestigial.” It comes from the Latin meaning “footprint” – vestigium. There are different kinds of “footprints” in the body – ones left from embryonic development (fossa ovalis, ligamentum arteriosum) and ones from evolution (wisdom teeth, appendix).

AFAIK, nobody is arguing that the foreskin is either one of these. We don’t see a reduction in size throughout development or phylogeny. Also, saying that something is vestigial implies uselessness, but the converse is not true. Not everything that is useless is vestigial. And, in some cases, like the fingernails (which I suppose are evolutionarily vestigial), “uselessness” is a hazy definition.

I don’t think that anyone is arguing that the foreskin is “useless” either. It is clear that it has a physiologic role. The whole justification for circumcision is a cost-benefit thing. What people have tried to argue here is that there are perhaps legitimate reasons for doing circumcision – balanitis, phimosis, religion, penile cancer – albeit not good enough for routine circumcision. The medical community supports these views. Your view differs, Jack, in the fact that you think that that tiny piece of tissue forms the core existance of man, and that circumcision is more traumatic than any other amputation, including an arm.

[SanibelMan]

You know, JDT reminds me of a friend of ours:

“I don’t care about issues! I’ve got better things to do than argue with every wrong-headed crackpot with an ignorant opinion! I’m a busy man! I say, either agree with me or take a hike! End of discussion!” -Calvin

[BunnyGirl]

Cantrip,>1. Name the approximately 50 organs claimed by the “medical establishment” to have been vestigial. <
You can use an internet search engine, can’t you?

::sigh::
Jack, you special, special (and I use that word to its fullest meaning) person, you.

When you make a CLAIM about something, we expect you to back it up with references, cites etc. How many times do you need to be told this. You made a claim about organs once thought to have been vestigial and when Cantrip asks you to list them, then it’s YOUR turn to provide the site/cite where you got the information!!!

Remember, if you are a true “research” (LAOMD), you will be expected to provide exactly this kind of information when (if) you ever publish your findings.

As I said in the Pit, your interest factor has hit rock bottom and I’m tired of reading your hamster wheel logic.

[Esprix]

Originally posted by Anthracite

[Spicoli] Make up your mind, dude! [/Spicoli]

I am a study in contradictions.

Originally posted by Freedom2

After I posted, I had this nightmare image of Jack posting on all the other threads with a sig line that says:

Evidently I rock:

Penile Lengthening Column, The circumcision thread: restored , Whatever the Next Thread is Called

Ack!

Esprix

[Jack_Dean_Tyler]

edwino,

> The whole justification for circumcision is a cost-benefit thing. <

It's suppose to be a "cost-benefit thing." It isn't because they never checked to see what the costs of removing the foreskin were. So, they list off some alleged benefits. You can't call listing the benefits of removing the foreskin and at the same time call say that there is a cost to not receive the benefits because that is redundant. You are suppose to be arguing that the benefits of having the foreskin removed outweigh the costs of letting remain. You can probably justify any action if you're going to call the lack-of-a-benefit a cost. Come to think of it, that's actually a real good way to identify the problem with the thinking in persons like yourself.

[edwino]

*Originally posted by Jack Dean Tyler *
**edwino,

> The whole justification for circumcision is a cost-benefit thing. <

It's suppose to be a "cost-benefit thing." It isn't because they never checked to see what the costs of removing the foreskin were. So, they list off some alleged benefits. You can't call listing the benefits of removing the foreskin and at the same time call say that there is a cost to not receive the benefits because that is redundant.

You are suppose to be arguing that the benefits of having the foreskin removed outweigh the costs of letting remain.
**

Okey dokey.

1. I did not say that I support circumcision.
2. I have repeatedly said that, like the medical establishment, I don’t believe that the benefits outweigh the costs, and I don’t believe in routine circumcision.
3. I do believe that at times circumcision is medically warranted.
4. The costs are clearly defined in my mind – loss of sensation and perhaps change in sexual practice. The benefits are also clearly defined – although you have not accepted any of them.

What we are arguing is not these points. I have already said these exact things above, and in my first posts like 14 pages ago. 18 pages of debate prove this.

So, you might add, what are the 18 pages of debate about, then?
**

Come to think of it, that’s actually a real good way to identify the problem with the thinking in persons like yourself.
**

That.

[Helen_s_Eidolon]

Originally Posted by Jack Dean Tyler here

Quebec has never been circumcised. Canada has all but abandoned circumcision but you still have a lot of victims walking around.

Alright. I’m going to bite. The article here actually seems mildly credible and says that Quebec and Newfoundland have lower instances of circumcision than the rest of Canada.

And I figured this would be a good opportunity to prove you wrong on other counts.

Using statscan.ca, I looked up crime statistics. Counting violent crimes, Quebec had 48,934 in 1999 out of a population of 7,372,448, making the ratio 0.006637 crimes per person. Sexual crimes was 3,434, making the ratio 0.000466 crimes per person.

For Newfoundland, the ratio for violent is 0.009287 crimes per person. For sexual assault: 0.001195 crimes per person.
(Huge difference, eh? Weird.)

For Canada as a whole, the ratio for violent crime is 0.009474 crimes per person, while the sexual assault ratio is 0.000776 crimes per person.

Everyone, please feel free to check my calculations. The data can be found here and here

shivers
Okay, so this supports him. Someone help me. Please. Tell me how this isn’t valid.

Well, at the very least Jack gets to see what the advantages of citing are.

[Primaflora]

Laurange

I think there would be a lot more validity in the argument if we could clearly look at populations of circ’ed and uncirc’ed men and clearly see that circ’ed men are violent and uncirc’ed men are not. But that’s not true. History does not show a clear connection between circumcision and violence - I believe if the connection were there we would be able to see it.

And don’t bother accusing me of being blind JDT. I’ve got two sons who were not circ’ed and it was a conscious decision. I think circ’ing is a wrong thing and it should be outlawed unless there are strong medical indications it is necessary.