Honestly, you actually sound a bit butthurt here, which I find very surprising.

Butthurt about what? What am I butthurt about? I'm butthurt because I simply don't care whether you get your kid circumcised or not, and I don't care about this ruling? Why is that butthurt?

In my experience on the Internet, it's usually the first person to use the word "butthurt" who is actually the butthurt one, because it shows that you're unwilling to accept different viewpoints--so you project your own frustrations onto other people, because you don't have anything better to say.

So I wouldn't use that word--and you've used it many, many times already--because I could just as easily claim that you're butthurt because you weren't circumcised. Would that be useful or productive?

These people are already born and are being born every few seconds, that's a reality. So if we for one second ignore your "but no consent to birth, anti-natalism go" argument (that really isn't too relevant here in the first place)

Indeed, it's not. Which is why I never brought up anti-natalism.

That was all you. I mentioned "things that we do not consent to at birth," and while that does include childbirth itself, I never explicitly brought up my philosophy to the table, so don't blame me for that.

I really don't see how you can be opposed to this. The ultimate point of your philosophy which I've seen time and time again is that "suffering is bad, avoiding suffering is good". Well, an infant comes into existence. It's there. Nothing to do about that, you can't shove it back and hope it just goes away at this point. That is the reality of things and no matter how loud someone screams ANTINATALISM, that isn't going to change.

Exactly--so, there's a number of things you can do to help make that kid's life a little bit more comfortable. A lot of these things are mandated, like vaccines--a lot of them are optional, like circumcision.

If you don't want your kid to go through life having a slippery cheesy slug hanging off his dick for the rest of his life, you have the option of relieving him of that burden. Or you can leave it on. It doesn't matter. But the point is that he's never going to make the decision himself when he's older, so it's one of those decisions that you basically have to make as soon as they're born.

Only an infinitesimally small number of men will personally opt to get circumcised as an adult and become part of the glorious cut master race. Most men are going to be extremely attached to their junk, and very protective of their junk. I stopped riding bikes when I was about thirteen, because I really didn't like how those bike seats felt on my junk.

The only men who are going to get circumcised are the ones who realize that something is actually wrong with their junk, because their foreskin fucks them up, and you're overall better off without it. But no one's gonna realize that unless you absolutely need it.

As for any pain or suffering involved in the procedure, the little baby is not going to remember any of it, anymore than he's going to remember having his skull crushed just so it can squeeze out of its mother's vagina.

So in what possible way could you justify taking this baby, strapping it to a table, crushing and stretching one of its most sensitive body parts to beyond its breaking point and then cutting it off for absolutely no real reason whatsoever?

There are reasons, and you've put the baby through enough imposition already as it is, so one more decision on your part (that he's not going to remember) isn't going to amount to much more than a better looking, cleaner, and healthier penis. It's not like you ever have to go through it again.

Right here, you're trying to play with my emotions by using this grisly imagery, and it's kind of a bullshit way to argue, isn't it? Yeah, that really is.

This post got 6 likes for no reason. "Flee agrees with me! I'm gonna like it!" All right, guys.

So tell me, how is this justifiable?

Find me a case where a patient remembers his circumcision, and you'll have a point. But you don't.

Yet, despite all of this, you're so willing to not condemn a painful and useless procedure

You can keep calling it useless, but I'm sorry--that doesn't make it useless.

Sure, it's relatively minor and sure, it pales in comparison to the lack of consent to being born. But regardless of that, it does cause a shit ton of pain, problems, complications and suffering for literally tens of thousands of infants and people through life.

And there are many problems, complications, and sufferings for the ones who don't get circumcised, as well. Usually later in life, but they're still there and very possible. It's a trade-off.

Really, the only conclusion I can make here based on what I've said above and the pretty salty nature of your post is that you are, to some extent, actually butthurt over this.

See, there's that word again. "You're butthurt for not agreeing with me." All right? If that makes you feel more secure in your position, that's okey-dokey with me.

I'm not butthurt, though. I simply don't care. I love that I was circumcised, and I will never not love that. All I'm doing right now is explaining that there are benefits to circumcision, and there can be consequences later in life to not getting circumcised. To deny either would be very trite and populist of you.

He's not coming back. He has nothing to say. Flee picked him apart and he knows it.

You were saying?

I'm curious to hear what people on both sides say about cosmetic operations on puppies or kittens, like docking tails and declawing.

Nor does being anti-circumcision mean you are diverting your resources away from bigger problems that need your attention

It kinda does, though. It kinda really really does.

I'm not saying you shouldn't care about small problems, but yeah--if you've spent your entire life debating about foreskin, that's 80 years you could've spent arguing about something that actually matters. It's just the truth.

Quote from: Meta Cognition on April 22, 2016, 06:12:55 AM

Nor does being anti-circumcision mean you are diverting your resources away from bigger problems that need your attention

It kinda does, though. It kinda really really does.

I'm not saying you shouldn't care about small problems, but yeah--if you've spent your entire life debating about foreskin, that's 80 years you could've spent arguing about something that actually matters. It's just the truth.

If no one focuses and specializes on something, some things never improve.

Why?
Because she's obviously going to be psychologically distressed by the mere knowledge she was raped? Do you not see that that being circumcised could cause someone distress in similar fashion, and the probable reason it is not is because it has been normalized? Do you not think that if date rape was as normalized as circumcision is that this dichotomy you think is obvious starts to fall apart?

Why would date rape be normalized? Circumcision is "normalized" because it has benefits. Date rape doesn't.

At this point debating with Verb is worse than debating the religious. He claims his own axioms and refuses to acknowledge anything contrary to them, whether they be well-reasoned, supported or not. He's just plugs his ears and goes nananana.

My biggest mistake is being as childish as he is to let myself get sucked back in whenever he starts taunting about his victories.

Because cutting off skin makes more sense then using soap, on that same note, let's remove fingernails and toenails since dirt can get under them.

If fingernails generated their own dirt and pus, voluminously, I wouldn't have any problem with that.

Trouble is, they grow back, so that's a bad comparison anyway.

You're blindly accepting

No, I'm not. I wouldn't have been able to defend the practice at all if that were the case.

People will defend their dicks until the day they die.