Should Circumcision Be Banned In The UK?

[jp761]

One thing about this argument is it's very predictable. It's pretty obvious that those who are circumcised will USUALLY back that, and those who are uncircumcised will back that approach. And whatever someone's partner/Husband has, those people will come down on that side of the argument.

One caveat occasionally someone who's circumcised states that they wish they weren't.

I don’t think it’s like that at all. Culture will have a big impact, I imagine more Americans would be pro-circ because it is part of their culture and normal for them. Same with religions that practice circumcision.

I couldn’t give a fuck if my fella was circumcised or not. There is no benefit for women either way. A dick is a dick.
But I am against mutilating a body part for no real reason. I’m also again female genital mutilation, and I’m not a fan of piercing babies ears.

Some people get defensive though when some folks 'claim' you can't clean an uncircumcised dick the same. And some people get defensive when it's claimed that a circumcised dick isn't as sensitive. So yeah on the surface at least, I think people do tend to back whatever they have.

I agree about culture, and America. And I also agree ultimately a dick is just a dick.. the owner of the dick is far more important.

So you're telling us that some people are ok with ritual circumcision but others are against it? And that their culture and experienced can influence their thoughts?

Amazing

Come on now you aren't really that thick.

But I'm not wasting my time with someone going off on a tangent.

[jp761]

One thing about this argument is it's very predictable. It's pretty obvious that those who are circumcised will USUALLY back that, and those who are uncircumcised will back that approach. And whatever someone's partner/Husband has, those people will come down on that side of the argument.

One caveat occasionally someone who's circumcised states that they wish they weren't.

I don’t think it’s like that at all. Culture will have a big impact, I imagine more Americans would be pro-circ because it is part of their culture and normal for them. Same with religions that practice circumcision.

I couldn’t give a fuck if my fella was circumcised or not. There is no benefit for women either way. A dick is a dick.
But I am against mutilating a body part for no real reason. I’m also again female genital mutilation, and I’m not a fan of piercing babies ears.

Some people get defensive though when some folks 'claim' you can't clean an uncircumcised dick the same. And some people get defensive when it's claimed that a circumcised dick isn't as sensitive. So yeah on the surface at least, I think people do tend to back whatever they have.

I agree about culture, and America. And I also agree ultimately a dick is just a dick.. the owner of the dick is far more important.

So you're telling us that some people are ok with ritual circumcision but others are against it? And that their culture and experienced can influence their thoughts?

Amazing

Insightful as ever. He uses an awful lot of words to say absolutely fuck all...

And yet I still make far more valuable contributions to the forum than you.

[Dean]

I’ve never seen you make one single valuable contribution Jp, seriously. All you say is “Some will think this and some will think the other way so it’s up to the individual” etc... You don’t actually make any point, you just waffle pure shite that has no value to the actual topic...

[jp761]

It doesn't matter what you've seen.

It's not all about you, Deena.

[Guest]

It sounds like jp has a lot of dick conversations. Are those between the arse chats ?

[Dean]

It doesn't matter what you've seen.

It's not all about you, Deena.

Good answer...

[Rockstar]

Science is what you perceive it to be on any given day. In today's time,science has been used as a pawn to further agendas of own liking. One study claming xyz and then another one comes along with a diabolical opposite view claiming abc.

As these claims are backed up with the evidence available at the time, why exactly is that a problem? The whole premise of science is changing the views based on the evidence, not changing the evidence to match the views.

It becomes a problem because you live your life believing xyz to be true and final and 30-40 years down the line xyz is debunked completely for abc and so forth.

Earlier male circumcision was evil.Today there are some benefits to it. There will come a time when science will deem it the best thing since sliced bread ( pun intended)

The whole premise of science is changing the views based on the evidence, not changing the evidence to match the views.

That isn't true in today's times. Science has become a capitalist business suited to agendas and other fuckery...

[Puzzler]

It doesn't matter what you've seen.

It's not all about you, Deena.

He really is one arrogant prick

[Lady Murasaki]

Science is what you perceive it to be on any given day. In today's time,science has been used as a pawn to further agendas of own liking. One study claming xyz and then another one comes along with a diabolical opposite view claiming abc.

As these claims are backed up with the evidence available at the time, why exactly is that a problem? The whole premise of science is changing the views based on the evidence, not changing the evidence to match the views.

It becomes a problem because you live your life believing xyz to be true and final and 30-40 years down the line xyz is debunked completely for abc and so forth.

Earlier male circumcision was evil.Today there are some benefits to it. There will come a time when science will deem it the best thing since sliced bread ( pun intended)

The whole premise of science is changing the views based on the evidence, not changing the evidence to match the views.

That isn't true in today's times. Science has become a capitalist business suited to agendas and other fuckery...

Depends which scientist you listen to. Or, more pertinently, who they work for.
Science is just a branch of religion. A belief system that relies, mostly, on evidence. It's the evidence that should be questioned.

[Rockstar]

Depends which scientist you listen to. Or, more pertinently, who they work for.
Science is just a branch of religion. A belief system that relies, mostly, on evidence. It's the evidence that should be questioned.

The average joe reading his brand of newspaper or news article online isn't going to research after reading the article and absorbing the study etc.

Disinformation has become the norm now.... A splendid way of marketing...

[Keyser]

Depends which scientist you listen to. Or, more pertinently, who they work for.
Science is just a branch of religion. A belief system that relies, mostly, on evidence. It's the evidence that should be questioned.

The average joe reading his brand of newspaper or news article online isn't going to research after reading the article and absorbing the study etc.

Disinformation has become the norm now.... A splendid way of marketing...

Science relies on facts and evidence - religion from faith - no comparison.

Much of the general public seems to believe in any old cobblers including science conspiracy theories - hence the soaring rise of measles cases in Europe recently thanks to that charlatan bastard Wakefield and the MMR vaccine scare.

The most damaging hoax to humanity of the last 100 years in my opinion.

[Avon Barksdale]

Depends which scientist you listen to. Or, more pertinently, who they work for.
Science is just a branch of religion. A belief system that relies, mostly, on evidence. It's the evidence that should be questioned.

The average joe reading his brand of newspaper or news article online isn't going to research after reading the article and absorbing the study etc.

Disinformation has become the norm now.... A splendid way of marketing...

Science relies on facts and evidence - religion from faith - no comparison.

Much of the general public seems to believe in any old cobblers including science conspiracy theories - hence the soaring rise of measles cases in Europe recently thanks to that charlatan bastard Wakefield and the MMR vaccine scare.

The most damaging hoax to humanity of the last 100 years in my opinion.

I think it is fair to say that there can be an element of faith required in scientific practice but it is not of the equivalent sort to that found in religion.

The key advantage that science has over religion is that religion is based on revelation to show truth which is inflexible and so cannot keep up with the modern world but science is not constrained in that way. Science is the constant pursuit of truth whereas religion is fixed in place.

Religion and science don't have to be enemies and used to compliment each other at one time. I think most people, even the highly rational, have some element of faith based beliefs and the need for the metaphysical.

[megaera]

Depends which scientist you listen to. Or, more pertinently, who they work for.
Science is just a branch of religion. A belief system that relies, mostly, on evidence. It's the evidence that should be questioned.

The average joe reading his brand of newspaper or news article online isn't going to research after reading the article and absorbing the study etc.

Disinformation has become the norm now.... A splendid way of marketing...

That's the fault of the news article not the scientists.

An example: https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-n ... st-n156136

A journal article about a compound also found in rotting eggs and flatulence having an effect on cancer cells was misrepresented by the media into smelling farts will cure cancer.

They should at least present the actual facts. People aren't that thick that they can't understand hydrogen sulphide may be a key therapy in tackling cancer.

[Rockstar]

Depends which scientist you listen to. Or, more pertinently, who they work for.
Science is just a branch of religion. A belief system that relies, mostly, on evidence. It's the evidence that should be questioned.

The average joe reading his brand of newspaper or news article online isn't going to research after reading the article and absorbing the study etc.

Disinformation has become the norm now.... A splendid way of marketing...

That's the fault of the news article not the scientists.

An example: https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-n ... st-n156136

A journal article about a compound also found in rotting eggs and flatulence having an effect on cancer cells was misrepresented by the media into smelling farts will cure cancer.

They should at least present the actual facts. People aren't that thick that they can't understand hydrogen sulphide may be a key therapy in tackling cancer.

The various studies are part of the problem too. The appeasement of alcohol is something I will never get around to. Is there a systematic disinformation spread by alcohol companies like cigs in 1960s? Is there a term such as Big Alcohol (lobbying) ?

I just read earlier on SOL that red wine apparently saves you a visit to the dentist by protecting your gums. Never mind oral hygiene is more important than fucking cancer....

[Stooo]

Depends which scientist you listen to. Or, more pertinently, who they work for.
Science is just a branch of religion. A belief system that relies, mostly, on evidence. It's the evidence that should be questioned.

The average joe reading his brand of newspaper or news article online isn't going to research after reading the article and absorbing the study etc.

Disinformation has become the norm now.... A splendid way of marketing...

That's the fault of the news article not the scientists.

An example: https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-n ... st-n156136

A journal article about a compound also found in rotting eggs and flatulence having an effect on cancer cells was misrepresented by the media into smelling farts will cure cancer.

They should at least present the actual facts. People aren't that thick that they can't understand hydrogen sulphide may be a key therapy in tackling cancer.

Yes, yes they are.