Don't bet on it. The Jews will never let it become policy.Originally Posted by GGT
Good.
Next up, the AAP policy on infant male circumcision. Stating their opposition to all forms of male genital cutting....?
Don't bet on it. The Jews will never let it become policy.Good.
Next up, the AAP policy on infant male circumcision. Stating their opposition to all forms of male genital cutting....?
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
And as alber always tells us, the Jews run your country.
"Son," he said without preamble, "never trust a man who doesn't drink, because he's probably a self-righteous sort, a man who thinks he knows right from wrong all the time. Some of them are good men, but in the name of goodness, they cause most of the suffering in the world. They're the judges, the meddlers. And, son, never trust a man who drinks but refuses to get drunk. They're usually afraid of something deep down inside, either that they're a coward or a fool or mean and violent. You can't trust a man who's afraid of himself. But sometimes, son, you can trust a man who occasionally kneels before a toilet. The chances are that he is learning something about humility and his natural human foolishness, about how to survive himself. It's damned hard for a man to take himself too seriously when he's heaving his guts into a dirty toilet bowl.
Yours too, I bet.
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
I think ours might be "the toffs" or "the trade unions", depending on what side of the divide you are on.
"Son," he said without preamble, "never trust a man who doesn't drink, because he's probably a self-righteous sort, a man who thinks he knows right from wrong all the time. Some of them are good men, but in the name of goodness, they cause most of the suffering in the world. They're the judges, the meddlers. And, son, never trust a man who drinks but refuses to get drunk. They're usually afraid of something deep down inside, either that they're a coward or a fool or mean and violent. You can't trust a man who's afraid of himself. But sometimes, son, you can trust a man who occasionally kneels before a toilet. The chances are that he is learning something about humility and his natural human foolishness, about how to survive himself. It's damned hard for a man to take himself too seriously when he's heaving his guts into a dirty toilet bowl.
On this side of the pond, you're all Jew monkeys. And you deserve it too. Fuckers.
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
Where is Alber? I miss him in a weird way.
Probably sharing a room with kat in a loony bin. Probably not his turn to go online.
Hope is the denial of reality
Yeah, I do too.
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
The Royal Dutch Medical Association states its view that male circumcision on minors is not justifiable without a medical reason (supported by a lot of medical-scientific foundations and a vast majority of doctors):
http://knmg.artsennet.nl/web/file?uu...ontentid=77976
(it's in english)
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
Interesting, but ultimately a weak document. It doesn't specifically discuss the potential "preventative" or hygienic benefits or discuss the specific "male functioning" aspect. It's a shallow document saying, "this makes some of us uncomfortable" but not saying much substantive.
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
Hey, sorry for having a high standard for "official" verdicts besides "this is different than what we do, we don't like it".
*sigh*
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
You did not read the text, did ya?- There is no convincing evidence that circumcision is useful or necessary in terms of prevention or hygiene. Partly in the light of the complications which can arise during or after circumcision, circumcision is not justifiable except on medical/therapeutic grounds. Insofar as there are medical benefits, such as a possibly reduced risk of HIV infection, it is reasonable to put off circumcision until the age at which such a risk is relevant and the boy himself can decide about the intervention, or can opt for any available alternatives.
- contrary to what is often thought, circumcision entails the risk of medical and psychological complications. The most common complications are bleeding, infections, meatus stenosis (narrowing of the
urethra) and panic attacks. Partial or complete penis amputations as a result of complications following circumcisions have also been reported, as have psychological problems as a result of the circumcision.
- Non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors is contrary to the rule that minors may only be exposed to medical treatments if illness or abnormalities are present, or if it can be convincingly demonstrated that the medical intervention is in the interest of the child, as in the case of vaccinations.
- Non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors conflicts with the child’s right to autonomy and physical integrity.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
First of all, it's not different than what they do, they had been doing it in the past without worrying. And if you bothered to read the document, you would have read about the hygiene (which they disagree with), and medical (which they aren't sure about, but any benefit is not for kids but for grownups so they want people to choose it for themselves) sides are mentioned.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
I actually read it in full, I was curious.
That's known as a list of bullet points for an opinion. Not a or even a meta-study.
Yes, they disagree. They make that clear and use a lot of words to say the same things. They don't point to a ton of research, and more importantly they don't address specific issues about potential benefits of circumcision with contradicting research. In other words, it's not a real discussion of details, it's just an opinion. And some of the opinions being stated as facts just don't pass the logic test. Circumcision causes panic attacks?
I didn't read the document, but do you have some definitive medical studies with "proof" of the so-called preventative benefits of male circumcision? I'm pretty sure the whole thing surrounding cancer prevention has been debunked, and the benefits against HIV angle is still under study (in African areas with deeply entrenched sexual myths and cultural issues to boot).
Hygiene, obviously, means teaching little boys to pull back the foreskin and wash with soap and water. Infant diaper-wearing UTIs is just as simple---don't let the baby sit in a super-absorbent diaper for hours on end, circumsized or not.
*and what's the "male functioning" aspect?
Male functioning = sex.
I've linked to various studies in this thread, it's not like I'm hatching some kind of weird conspiracy theory. It's a widely examined and debated issue. But that document doesn't get into the debate, just lists some bullet points.
That's because it isn't a study, but the stance of an association of dutch doctors, recommending how doctors should treat their patients. Also, I'm fairly sure they did read plenty of research about this before formulating their stance, but this is not a study paper itself, so they didn't include it.They point to incidents reported by doctors themselves to the organisation. I assume they mean panic attacks during/shorty after the operation, not years later, no.
Yes, they disagree. They make that clear and use a lot of words to say the same things. They don't point to a ton of research, and more importantly they don't address specific issues about potential benefits of circumcision with contradicting research. In other words, it's not a real discussion of details, it's just an opinion. And some of the opinions being stated as facts just don't pass the logic test. Circumcision causes panic attacks?
And they take the stance that the right of bodily integrity goes above cultural or religious reasons, and that the other possible benefits are still valid if you have the operation later, when you can actually decide for yourself. They're not saying there aren't any benefits, just that you shouldn't force surgery, with all its risks, on kids. 'We don't cut in kids unless there is a medical reason to'.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
You mean the Pleasure Principle of the foreskin? That's subjective, and rather difficult to convince a cut male he's missing out on something he never experienced in the first place. Much easier (and frankly, rational) to argue that removing sensitive genital tissue will remove an aspect of pleasure.Male functioning = sex.
I've linked to various studies in this thread, it's not like I'm hatching some kind of weird conspiracy theory. It's a widely examined and debated issue. But that document doesn't get into the debate, just lists some bullet points.
I thought Flixy made a good point; any (debatable) health positives can be chosen by an adult of consenting age.
In that case, folks should sue their parents for taking their tonsils out, braces, taking HGH supplements and any of the other stuff we do with kids.
Parents don't do those thing in their childs' infancy. That's like saying everyone should have a prophylactic appendectomy, tonsillectomy, and inner ear tubes in their first week of life.
No, the overwhelming science has shown, and the medical community around the world has agreed---there is no medical reason to circumsize an infant male.
That leaves only religious or cultural reasons. But that's a tough row to hoe, since that is also how people justify cutting little girls' genitals.
Except they haven't all agreed. Putting the "infant male" caveat doesn't really change the debate. But we've had this discussion before, foreskin militants vs. foreskin agnostics.
Medically, physicians around the globe agree. The consensus has the majority and the science.
That means Jews (plus others) want to keep circumsizing minor males. By default, that suggests it's okay for Muslims (plus others) to keep circumsizing minor females. Both are either "religious or cultural" reasons, not medical. At some point we need to recognize the double standards, between religions/cultures/genders.
That's why we keep debating.
You do know that Muslims circumcise males, right? And that female circumcision isn't an Islamic thing as much as it's a cultural phenomenon of certain areas that makes women actually unable to orgasm? Men and women have different anatomy, which begets different debates. We've been over this one and just disagree. Foreskin militants vs. foreskin agnostics.
I did say (and others).
It doesn't matter so much that male and female genitals are "different" from one another. I see it more as the evolution of medical ethics, and questioning "conventional wisdom". You can say it's about the foreskin all you like, but I think it's more about treating infants and minors with some respect and dignity that only adults can offer, as protectors.
Perceptions and practices can change along side with science. It's the ingrained attitudes that are harder to change.
I'm still sort of waiting for the Judaic justification, when I've given links showing many Jews are deciding against the bris.
Seriously, you've never read the bible? Lots of Jews don't do everything in the bible. I don't do everything in the bibiel. But there's tons of circumcision in the bible, which means it's a template for many Jews.
That doesn't really answer my question. The bibiel () says lots of things that's not necessarily a template. I'm curious why many Jews draw the line at male circumcision.
My guess is (and this could be wrong) that it's really hard for cut men to admit that cutting baby boys may not be the best idea.
I've had to admit, quite painfully and regretfully, that letting my ex decide to cut our sons for cultural reasons was a bad choice. It goes against several generations of gentile cutting. All the relatives knew, it was expected behavior.
It'd just be refreshing to hear a Jew admit that cutting isn't all it's cut out to be. Pun intended.
Because some of the early of the revered folk that religious people honor in the bible were circumcised. Plus that whole part where God tells Abraham to do it or something: http://bible.cc/genesis/17-13.htm
Your guess is wrong; foreskin militants obsess over this more than "cut men" do.
To do it...or something?
There's also the notion that making the penis head take a heart shape, via cutting, was part of that whole God seed creationism thing. Puts a new spin on "hand to heart, heart to God" and masturbation.
Cut men don't obsess about this until uncut men tell them they're crazy. Then it does sound really crazy to amputate a part of your baby's penis, because some passage in the Old Testament refers to others having done it. Or that your folks did it, and previous generations did it, as a rite of passage, so you must do it to your baby, too.
It's circular reasoning at its worst.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote