Degeneration (for Rupert)
Andrew Usher
last message in our debate. I guess I touched on somethine he can't
face, right?
Since I first thought about it, I've been searchin for stories
relating to the HPV vaccine. I haven't found one that mentions
circumcision. Don't you think that's a little strange, Rupert? Don't
you think it proves my contention?
The fact is the reason these people promote the HPV vaccine to be
given to young girls is that they want anything to convince them of
their ideology that children ought to be having sex with each other (I
say 'with each other' because it's these same people that push for
adults that have sex with children to be harshly punished; how they
get their heads around that contradiction I can't imagine).That and,
if they know about the data on HPV and circumcision (doubtful as it's
practically covered up) they want a readon not to circumcise, because
they can't stop placing value on that disgusting flap of skin at the
end of their dicks.
Why do you suppose that we hear about the connection between circ and
HIV, but not with HPV? It's because HIV is mostly a problem in
uncivilised countries. We're supposed to believe that circumcision is
a barbaric measure that may be necessary 'over there', but never here.
In fact it's lack of circumcision that's barbaric - the Jews figured
that out 3,000 years ago; it's well past time for us to, as well.
Andrew Usher
xj22...@gmail.com
Rupert
> It's been a month since I posted it, and Rupert did not reply to my
> last message in our debate. I guess I touched on somethine he can't
> face, right?
>
Look, moron, I'm very busy finishing a thesis at the moment. Also, I
was getting pretty bored with the conversation. You haven't persuaded
me that neonatal circumcision is justified; from the fact that I don't
choose to argue the point with you anymore absolutely nothing follows
at all.
Sensible people agree that by the time a boy has learnt to talk he has
the right to express his own view on whether he should be circumcised
or not and have that decision respected, the alleged medical benefits
notwithstanding. The medical community agrees that the medical
indication is not so strong that the boy should be coerced into it, at
least by the time he's learnt to talk. You apparently have some doubts
about the matter, which is frankly a bit scary, but just about
everyone else would agree with me on this point. Now, what I don't
understand is why you think the parents should be given the right to
decide before he's old enough to voice any objections. You don't know
what he would think if he were presented with the relevant evidence
and had the capacity to form his own judgement about what to do.
Reasonable minds differ on the issue of whether it's a good idea to
get circumcised. So what right have you to make the decision for him?
It's his dick. It's none of your business. You worry about your own
dick, stop worrying about other people's.
Nobody's provided a satisfactory reply to this argument, and I've been
faced with a great deal of unreasonable rudeness from various people,
including you. I'm busy working on a thesis which has to be handed in
in two weeks. I'll reply to any response you make only if I have the
time and inclination. If I don't reply, it doesn't mean you've won, it
just means I can't be bothered talking to you anymore. Deal with it.
Find someone else to pester.
Peter Webb
> they can't stop placing value on that disgusting flap of skin at the
> end of their dicks.
>
I think that phrase pretty well sums up your problem.
Mathematician
> .....
> Why do you suppose that we hear about the connection between circ and
> HIV, but not with HPV? It's because HIV is mostly a problem in
> uncivilised countries. We're supposed to believe that circumcision is
> a barbaric measure that may be necessary 'over there', but never here.
> In fact it's lack of circumcision that's barbaric - the Jews figured
> that out 3,000 years ago; it's well past time for us to, as well.
> .....
Most people are circumsised since they were born, they have got used
to having no cover skin over their penis gland, which might help them
from getting bled during sexual intercourse and prevent virus
infection, not because such cases are in civilised or uncivilised
countries. Who circumsised dares to take risks without condom ?
Deniel Rose'
wrote:
True, people are all different, some like to give, some like to get.
Some like to get married to resolve the "problems", some just don't.
You seem to grow up looking only circumsised men's cocks, and that
explains your opinion
monto...@yahoo.com
wrote:
I too agree with you, the article about circumsision and AIDS might
been a fake story made up. Semen do contain virus. Sexual acts should
bring about *damages* due to pubic hair or rough acts leading to
easier viral infection.
monto...@yahoo.com
wrote:
Andrew wasn't familiar to watching men's uncircumsised cocks since he
was born, that's why he has such an opinion.
Doctors never say so by the way.
Rupert Bear
> On Mar 11, 1:39 pm, "Andrew Usher" <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>It's been a month since I posted it, and Rupert did not reply to my
>>last message in our debate. I guess I touched on somethine he can't
>>face, right?
>>
>
>
> Look, moron, I'm very busy finishing a thesis at the moment. Also, I
> was getting pretty bored with the conversation. You haven't persuaded
> me that neonatal circumcision is justified; from the fact that I don't
> choose to argue the point with you anymore absolutely nothing follows
> at all.
>
Whether or not you as one skin freak believes that neonatal circumcision
is justified is of no concern to those who believe that male
circumcision is a perfectly acceptable parental decision as a result of
religious, cultural or medical considerations.
Rupert Bear
What is the actual rate of condom use with each and every sexual act? So
your answer is that many many people dare to take the risk without a
condom. Are we on the same page now?
Rupert Bear
A fake story?
ROTFLMAO
Look with the evidence of the increased risk of HIV infection due to the
presence of a foreskin leading towards the foreskin being identified asa
public health risk childish and pathetic knee jerk defensive comments
about forskins serve only to indicate just how mentally imature you
realy are. Surely you are too young to have the vote where you live?
Rupert Bear
Rupert
See what I mean? Now I have to listen to this idiot babble his inane
drivel again. You could at least express some embarrassment at having
such a complete imbecile on your side.
David Z
news:1173610950....@64g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...
> > Whether or not you as one skin freak believes that neonatal
circumcision
> > is justified is of no concern to those who believe that male
> > circumcision is a perfectly acceptable parental decision as a result
of
> > religious, cultural or medical considerations.
>
> See what I mean? Now I have to listen to this idiot babble his inane
> drivel again. You could at least express some embarrassment at having
> such a complete imbecile on your side.
You are one incorrigible moron.
Just look at all the sick, perverted crap that's been promulgated in
these newsgroups from anti-circs. In fact, I pointed this out a month
ago on 2/13 in a thread entitled, "Why Do Anti-Circs Tend to be Sick
Fucks and Liars?" And NO ONE, INCLUDING YOU, CHALLENGED THAT
CONTENTION!!!!!!!!!
Yet you come out with a comment like the above, completely AND
DELIBERATELY oblivious my comment or to the vast reams of sick and
perverse crap spewed out here by your fellow anti-circs.
Rupert, you've once again demonstrated that your either a moron or a
liar. It's up to the reader to decide which one.
David Z
> On Mar 11, 1:39 pm, "Andrew Usher" <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > It's been a month since I posted it, and Rupert did not reply to my
> > last message in our debate. I guess I touched on somethine he can't
> > face, right?
> >
>
> Look, moron, I'm very busy finishing a thesis at the moment. Also, I
> was getting pretty bored with the conversation. You haven't persuaded
> me that neonatal circumcision is justified; from the fact that I don't
> choose to argue the point with you anymore absolutely nothing follows
> at all.
>
> Sensible people agree that by the time a boy has learnt to talk he has
> the right to express his own view on whether he should be circumcised
> or not and have that decision respected, the alleged medical benefits
> notwithstanding. The medical community agrees that the medical
> indication is not so strong that the boy should be coerced into it, at
> least by the time he's learnt to talk. You apparently have some doubts
> about the matter, which is frankly a bit scary, but just about
> everyone else would agree with me on this point.
This is total bullshit AND YOU KNOW IT!!!!!!!!!!
Virtually no one agrees with these points, you liar.
A man that says that he doesn't see why a man would prefer to be circ'd
at birth rather than later on is either a moron or a liar. Take your
pick. I've opted for the latter.
Rupert
> "Rupert" <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1173610950....@64g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > > Whether or not you as one skin freak believes that neonatal
> circumcision
> > > is justified is of no concern to those who believe that male
> > > circumcision is a perfectly acceptable parental decision as a result
> of
> > > religious, cultural or medical considerations.
>
> > See what I mean? Now I have to listen to this idiot babble his inane
> > drivel again. You could at least express some embarrassment at having
> > such a complete imbecile on your side.
>
> You are one incorrigible moron.
>
> Just look at all the sick, perverted crap that's been promulgated in
> these newsgroups from anti-circs. In fact, I pointed this out a month
> ago on 2/13 in a thread entitled, "Why Do Anti-Circs Tend to be Sick
> Fucks and Liars?" And NO ONE, INCLUDING YOU, CHALLENGED THAT
> CONTENTION!!!!!!!!!
>
I didn't see that contention. I'm not aware of what "sick, perverted
crap" you're referring to. I'm not anti-circ in the sense that I think
circumcision is necessarily a bad idea for everyone, I'm just pro-
choice on circumcision. I have no particular interest in what other
"anti-circs" have been saying, or what you think about it.
> Yet you come out with a comment like the above, completely AND
> DELIBERATELY oblivious my comment or to the vast reams of sick and
> perverse crap spewed out here by your fellow anti-circs.
>
No, not deliberately. I don't read alt.circumcision very often. I hang
out in sci.math and sci.logic. I was dragged into here by Andrew who
for some reason seems convinced that everyone in sci.math and
sci.logic wants to hear about his views on circumcision. I'm speaking
on the basis of my own brief experience in alt.circumcision, having to
deal with foul-mouthed morons like you and Rupert Bear. (I will give
you credit for not being quite so extraordinarily stupid as Rupert
Bear). Maybe there are moronic imbeciles on both sides. Or on the
other hand, maybe you're talking nonsense. I wouldn't know. It doesn't
really interest me.
> Rupert, you've once again demonstrated that your either a moron or a
> liar.
Nonsense. You're an idiot. My comment was quite justified, and you
haven't undermined it in any way. The points you raise may or may not
be correct, I have no interest in the matter and no reason to have
any.
> It's up to the reader to decide which one.
So, anyway, Andrew, it's because of you that I'm once again spending
my time talking to these people. Maybe you could take a more polite
approach? Maybe you could say something like "Rupert, I'd really like
to continue our discussion about circumcision. I'm sure you must be
very busy, and I apologize for the fact that the newsgroup I hang out
on is populated by extraordinary imbeciles who don't know the first
thing about how to conduct a rational, civilized conversation. Could
you please spare a bit of your valuable time so that we could have an
exchange of views on the subject?"
David Z
> > You are one incorrigible moron.
> >
> > Just look at all the sick, perverted crap that's been promulgated in
> > these newsgroups from anti-circs. In fact, I pointed this out a
month
> > ago on 2/13 in a thread entitled, "Why Do Anti-Circs Tend to be Sick
> > Fucks and Liars?" And NO ONE, INCLUDING YOU, CHALLENGED THAT
> > CONTENTION!!!!!!!!!
> >
>
> I didn't see that contention. I'm not aware of what "sick, perverted
> crap" you're referring to.
Bullshit. It's impossible to miss. The only way to miss it is
DELIBERATELY!
> I'm not anti-circ in the sense that I think
> circumcision is necessarily a bad idea for everyone, I'm just pro-
> choice on circumcision. I have no particular interest in what other
> "anti-circs" have been saying, or what you think about it.
That's obvious. You mascarade as if you want to dialogue, but in
reality, you ignore what everyone else says.
> > Yet you come out with a comment like the above, completely AND
> > DELIBERATELY oblivious my comment or to the vast reams of sick and
> > perverse crap spewed out here by your fellow anti-circs.
> >
>
> No, not deliberately. I don't read alt.circumcision very often.
Exactly. You've posted thousands and thousands of words in alt.circ,
but you dismiss everything anyone says in response.
>I was dragged into here by Andrew who
> for some reason seems convinced that everyone in sci.math and
> sci.logic wants to hear about his views on circumcision.
More lying bullshit. No one "dragged you in here." You did that all by
yourself. Take responsibility for you own actions, liar.
> I'm speaking
> on the basis of my own brief experience in alt.circumcision, having to
> deal with foul-mouthed morons like you and Rupert Bear. (I will give
> you credit for not being quite so extraordinarily stupid as Rupert
> Bear). Maybe there are moronic imbeciles on both sides. Or on the
> other hand, maybe you're talking nonsense. I wouldn't know. It doesn't
> really interest me.
Another one of lying Rupert's nonconcession concessions.
> > Rupert, you've once again demonstrated that your either
> > a moron or a liar.
>
> My comment was quite justified, and you
> haven't undermined it in any way.
See what I mean, folks?
> The points you raise may or may not be correct...
More of lying Rupert's nonconcession concessions.
> ... I have no interest in the matter and no reason to have
> any.
Then why respond? Your actions show you're a liar.
Rupert
> "Rupert" <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1173588918.8...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 11, 1:39 pm, "Andrew Usher" <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > It's been a month since I posted it, and Rupert did not reply to my
> > > last message in our debate. I guess I touched on somethine he can't
> > > face, right?
>
> > Look, moron, I'm very busy finishing a thesis at the moment. Also, I
> > was getting pretty bored with the conversation. You haven't persuaded
> > me that neonatal circumcision is justified; from the fact that I don't
> > choose to argue the point with you anymore absolutely nothing follows
> > at all.
>
> > Sensible people agree that by the time a boy has learnt to talk he has
> > the right to express his own view on whether he should be circumcised
> > or not and have that decision respected, the alleged medical benefits
> > notwithstanding. The medical community agrees that the medical
> > indication is not so strong that the boy should be coerced into it, at
> > least by the time he's learnt to talk. You apparently have some doubts
> > about the matter, which is frankly a bit scary, but just about
> > everyone else would agree with me on this point.
>
> This is total bullshit AND YOU KNOW IT!!!!!!!!!!
>
False.
> Virtually no one agrees with these points, you liar.
>
So, most people think five-year-olds should be coerced into being
circumcised, is that it? News to me.
> A man that says that he doesn't see why a man would prefer to be circ'd
> at birth rather than later on is either a moron or a liar. Take your
> pick. I've opted for the latter.- Hide quoted text -
>
It's perfectly understandable that someone who was about to experience
some pain might wish that the pain were in his past rather than in his
future. How about when looking back on the experience? Suppose you
were not circumcised at birth but enjoyed excellent health up until
the age of 18 nevertheless, were circumcised at the age of 18 and then
took a drug which induced retrograde amnesia of the unpleasant
sensations you experienced. Looking back on the incident, do you have
any rational reason to prefer that the procedure took place at birth?
I don't think you do. Men who choose to get circumcised as adults and
are looking ahead to the discomfort may think "Gee, I wish this had
been done when I was born." But it would still have caused discomfort
if it had been done when they were born. What you have to demonstrate
is that they *would have been better off* if it had been done when
they were born. If it were the case that *everyone* preferred to get
circumcised when they get older, *and* it could be shown that they
were better off having it done at birth, *then* you might have a case
for neonatal circumcision. But the actual situation is that most men
choose to keep their foreskins, and most of them don't suffer any
significant harm as a result. Those who want to get their foreskins
removed can do so. They will suffer some discomfort, but they would
have suffered the same discomfort if they had had it done without
their consent as a baby. There's no justification for doing it without
consent. You don't have to keep your foreskin if you don't want to.
Stop trying to mold everyone else's body in your own image. Let other
people make their own decisions about their bodies.
> - Show quoted text -
Rupert
> "Rupert" <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1173613857.4...@c51g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > > You are one incorrigible moron.
>
> > > Just look at all the sick, perverted crap that's been promulgated in
> > > these newsgroups from anti-circs. In fact, I pointed this out a
> month
> > > ago on 2/13 in a thread entitled, "Why Do Anti-Circs Tend to be Sick
> > > Fucks and Liars?" And NO ONE, INCLUDING YOU, CHALLENGED THAT
> > > CONTENTION!!!!!!!!!
>
> > I didn't see that contention. I'm not aware of what "sick, perverted
> > crap" you're referring to.
>
> Bullshit. It's impossible to miss. The only way to miss it is
> DELIBERATELY!
>
So you claim. I have not encountered any "sick, perverted crap" posted
by anyone except pro-circs in my short experience with
alt.circumcision.
> > I'm not anti-circ in the sense that I think
> > circumcision is necessarily a bad idea for everyone, I'm just pro-
> > choice on circumcision. I have no particular interest in what other
> > "anti-circs" have been saying, or what you think about it.
>
> That's obvious. You mascarade
masquerade
> as if you want to dialogue, but in
> reality, you ignore what everyone else says.
>
No, I don't. I made a good faith effort to have reasonable
conversation with you for a while. I gave answers to your points which
I thought were pertient, and I did so just now again, in response to
your other post. If you want to have a reasonable conversation, you've
got to earn it. You've got to extend minimal courtesy to the other
person. I would be well within my rights to ignore you until you
started behaving decently. As it happens, I have engaged with what you
said in a reasonable way.
> > > Yet you come out with a comment like the above, completely AND
> > > DELIBERATELY oblivious my comment or to the vast reams of sick and
> > > perverse crap spewed out here by your fellow anti-circs.
>
> > No, not deliberately. I don't read alt.circumcision very often.
>
> Exactly. You've posted thousands and thousands of words in alt.circ,
> but you dismiss everything anyone says in response.
>
What do you think the best arguments against my position are that I'm
ignoring?
> >I was dragged into here by Andrew who
> > for some reason seems convinced that everyone in sci.math and
> > sci.logic wants to hear about his views on circumcision.
>
> More lying bullshit. No one "dragged you in here." You did that all by
> yourself. Take responsibility for you own actions, liar.
>
I am responsible for my decision to engage with Andrew on
alt.circumcision and to respond to all of you other halfwits, but
Andrew is responsible for being an obnoxious troll who keeps making
off-topic posts to sci.math and sci.logic, and who harrasses me when I
get bored and drop out of the conversation. I would not be here in the
first place if Andrew had not made an off-topic post to sci.math, and
I would not still be here if Andrew didn't pester me when I get bored
and stop talking. In that sense I have been "dragged in here", as one
might be "dragged along" to a party by a friend even though one was
still exercising one's own free will in going. It is a perfectly
reasonable use of language, and you are certainly not justified in
calling me a liar, and I'm not going to engage with you any further if
you keep up this nonsense.
The point is that I don't read alt.circumcision as regularly as you
do, and while I have been here most of the stuff I have read has been
by pro-circs. I can't be expected to be familiar with what anti-circs
say.
> > I'm speaking
> > on the basis of my own brief experience in alt.circumcision, having to
> > deal with foul-mouthed morons like you and Rupert Bear. (I will give
> > you credit for not being quite so extraordinarily stupid as Rupert
> > Bear). Maybe there are moronic imbeciles on both sides. Or on the
> > other hand, maybe you're talking nonsense. I wouldn't know. It doesn't
> > really interest me.
>
> Another one of lying Rupert's nonconcession concessions.
>
Don't talk drivel. It's a simple statement of fact. It might be this
way, it might be that way, I don't know, it doesn't interest me.
That's the situation. You're really reaching to get evidence of
dishonesty from that.
> > > Rupert, you've once again demonstrated that your either
> > > a moron or a liar.
>
> > My comment was quite justified, and you
> > haven't undermined it in any way.
>
> See what I mean, folks?
>
You're an idiot. I don't know why I bother talking to you.
> > The points you raise may or may not be correct...
>
> More of lying Rupert's nonconcession concessions.
>
More meaningless drivel from you.
> > ... I have no interest in the matter and no reason to have
> > any.
>
> Then why respond?
Well, it's a good question given the prospect I had of getting an
intelligent response. You were making an unjustified attack on me. I
thought I'd point out why it was unjustified.
> Your actions show you're a liar.
I have never lied on this newsgroup, and I'm not going to talk to you
if you keep talking nonsense.
David Z
Yeah, right. And now let's suppose that elephants could fly...
David Z
> > Your actions show you're a liar.
>
> I have never lied on this newsgroup...
You're in SERIOUS denial.
> ...and I'm not going to talk to you if you keep talking nonsense.
How many times have I told you before to GO FUCK YOURSELF, LIAR????!!!!!
Jesse F. Hughes
> So you claim. I have not encountered any "sick, perverted crap" posted
> by anyone except pro-circs in my short experience with
> alt.circumcision.
Yeah, speaking of your experience with alt.circumcision, why not keep
it over there? I don't recall or care who first brought up this silly
topic on sci.math, but there is no reason to continue it here.
--
Jesse F. Hughes
"Besides 'talking trash' is in some ways part of extreme mathematics."
-- James S. Harris
Rupert
Andrew Usher first posted on this topic to sci.math, and when I get
bored of talking to him and go away he will post to sci.math again in
an effort to lure me back. And if I trim the newsgroups then David Z
will put them back because he wants to call me a fucking liar in front
of sci.math. These people are not normal, rational people. I will try
to remember to keep it on alt.circumcision but it may not do much good.
David Z
> On Mar 11, 11:45 pm, "Jesse F. Hughes" <j...@phiwumbda.org> wrote:
> > "Rupert" <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> writes:
> > > So you claim. I have not encountered any "sick, perverted crap"
posted
> > > by anyone except pro-circs in my short experience with
> > > alt.circumcision.
> >
> > Yeah, speaking of your experience with alt.circumcision, why not
keep
> > it over there? I don't recall or care who first brought up this
silly
> > topic on sci.math, but there is no reason to continue it here.
> >
> > --
> > Jesse F. Hughes
> >
> > "Besides 'talking trash' is in some ways part of extreme
mathematics."
> > -- James S. Harris
>
> Andrew Usher first posted on this topic to sci.math, and when I get
> bored of talking to him and go away he will post to sci.math again in
> an effort to lure me back.
TAKE RESPONSIBILTY FOR YOUR OWN ACTIONS, YOU WEASELLY LIAR.
> And if I trim the newsgroups then David Z will put them back
> because he wants to call me a fucking liar in front of sci.math.
You fucking twisted LIAR! This guy is from sci.math. Why the fuck are
you repsonding to him in alt.circ and NOT sci.math?????!!!!!!
> These people are not normal, rational people. I will try
> to remember to keep it on alt.circumcision but it may not do much
good.
For the umpteenth time, GO FUCK YOURSELF, YOU FUCKING LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Tonico
> "Rupert" <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
********************************************
At least you're taking this with good spirit...wow!!!!
Tonio
David Z
news:1173622219.7...@8g2000cwh.googlegroups.com...
Since Rupert, the lying weasel, doesn't hear so well, you have to yell
and swear. <G>
But, unfortunately, he STILL doesn't get it!
Andrew Usher
> Sensible people agree that by the time a boy has learnt to talk he has
> the right to express his own view on whether he should be circumcised
> or not and have that decision respected, the alleged medical benefits
> notwithstanding.
'Sensible people', of course, being those that agree with you.
> The medical community agrees that the medical
> indication is not so strong that the boy should be coerced into it, at
> least by the time he's learnt to talk.
Most circumcisions are performed long before the baby learns to talk.
> You apparently have some doubts
> about the matter, which is frankly a bit scary, but just about
> everyone else would agree with me on this point.
Right. That's why over half the boys born in the US are circumcised at
birth.
I guess all those parents secretly agree with you but are fooled into
having their son circumcised.
> It's his dick. It's none of your business. You worry about your own
> dick, stop worrying about other people's.
Because I'm circumcised, I don't need to worry about it!
> Nobody's provided a satisfactory reply to this argument, and I've been
> faced with a great deal of unreasonable rudeness from various people,
> including you.
We get exasperated because all you do is endlessly repeat the same
points
instead of listening to what's being said. Take my post you just
replied to.
You won't admit that there is a taboo on publicly discussing circ - it
would
hurt your case. You won't admit that left wing loonies actively want
children to have sex - you know what, it's because of not having
religion,
that they need some other bullshit to replace it.
I'm too smart to believe in that Jesus nonsense myself, but it looks
like
other people need it.
Andrew Usher
David Z
news:1173636093.1...@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Andrew, two points:
(1) It was foolish of you to restart this "debate" with this
closed-minded, lying weasel. Can you say "beating a dead horse?"
(2) That claptrap about needing religion to guide your life is
bullshit. Some people do, but many people don't.
Rupert Bear
You need to have a little patience with the skin freaks nowadays. They
are getting increasingly desperate as the evidence of the risks to
public health the foreskin holds. Sad to see how badly they are taking
the fact that the object of their psychosexual obsession is in fact a
public health risk.
Rupert Bear
Why is it always the other guy who is to blame Rupert? Time to pay for a
little couch time to talk your obvious issues through with a professional?
Rupert Bear
> On Mar 10, 11:55 pm, "Rupert" <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Sensible people agree that by the time a boy has learnt to talk he has
>>the right to express his own view on whether he should be circumcised
>>or not and have that decision respected, the alleged medical benefits
>>notwithstanding.
>
>
> 'Sensible people', of course, being those that agree with you.
>
>
>>The medical community agrees that the medical
>>indication is not so strong that the boy should be coerced into it, at
>>least by the time he's learnt to talk.
>
>
> Most circumcisions are performed long before the baby learns to talk.
>
>
Like with shots. I wonder if this skin freak also maintains that shots
should wait untill the kid is old enough to decide for himself?
Andrew Usher
> >>The medical community agrees that the medical
> >>indication is not so strong that the boy should be coerced into it, at
> >>least by the time he's learnt to talk.
>
> > Most circumcisions are performed long before the baby learns to talk.
>
> Like with shots. I wonder if this skin freak also maintains that shots
> should wait untill the kid is old enough to decide for himself?
Probably why he doesn't want to answer anything about vaccination. I
think it might overload his metal circuitry to contemplate it!
Andrew Usher
Andrew Usher
> Andrew, two points:
>
> (1) It was foolish of you to restart this "debate" with this
> closed-minded, lying weasel. Can you say "beating a dead horse?"
I wanted to see if he had anything to say in reply to my recent
statements.
Apparently not; we only get the same argument again.
> (2) That claptrap about needing religion to guide your life is
> bullshit. Some people do, but many people don't.
Well, I don't know. I think most people need to believe in something
like
religion. With religion, we can at least confine people's
irrationality to
beliefs that have little impact on everyday life. Without it, it blows
up.
You know, that's why for many people, politics becomes their religion;
that's why it seems that no public debate in this country is other
than
viciously partisan. I think this is true on both sides, Democrat and
Republican, but there is a difference: I think the right wing is more
likely to focus on politics itself while the left prefers to make
'social
issues' the subject on which they spill their venom. And this
obviously
relates to my original post in this thread.
Andrew Usher
David Z
> On Mar 11, 2:33 pm, "David Z" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> > Andrew, two points:
> >
> > (1) It was foolish of you to restart this "debate" with this
> > closed-minded, lying weasel. Can you say "beating a dead horse?"
>
> I wanted to see if he had anything to say in reply to my recent
> statements.
> Apparently not; we only get the same argument again.
>
> > (2) That claptrap about needing religion to guide your life is
> > bullshit. Some people do, but many people don't.
>
> Well, I don't know. I think most people need to believe
> in something like religion.
I agree.
> With religion, we can at least confine people's irrationality to
> beliefs that have little impact on everyday life.
I disagree.
> Without it, it blows up.
It can blow up with or without it.
> You know, that's why for many people, politics becomes their
> religion;
Most people barely read the headlines.
> that's why it seems that no public debate in this country is other
> than viciously partisan.
I disagree.
> I think this is true on both sides, Democrat and
> Republican, but there is a difference: I think the right wing is
> more likely to focus on politics itself while the left prefers to
> make 'social issues' the subject on which they spill their venom.
I don't agree with any of these generalizations.
> And this obviously
> relates to my original post in this thread.
I don't see this at all. My recollection is that your "original post"
related to the health benefits of circ.
David Z
news:11736426...@vasbyt.isdsl.net...
You noticed that too, eh?
Rupert
> "Tonico" <Tonic...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Get what? There's nothing to get. *All* you do is yell and swear. Are
you aware of what an incredibly irrational fool it makes you look?
You accuse me of not engaging with what people say, but I made a
serious attempt to engage in a reasonable way with you, and you
snipped everything I said, and repeated the same inane drivel you
posted last time.
Do you just enjoy making a clown of yourself?
Rupert
I'm simply stating the facts.
> Time to pay for a
> little couch time to talk your obvious issues through with a professional?
Time for you to stop talking blithering drivel?
Rupert
> On Mar 10, 11:55 pm, "Rupert" <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Sensible people agree that by the time a boy has learnt to talk he has
> > the right to express his own view on whether he should be circumcised
> > or not and have that decision respected, the alleged medical benefits
> > notwithstanding.
>
> 'Sensible people', of course, being those that agree with you.
>
I would be very surprised to hear anyone, with the possible exception
of a few pro-circs who have gone a bit loopy, express a contrary
opinion. So it would be all right to coerce a five-year-old into
circumcision, would it? How about a 30-year-old? Do I have to worry
about you coming to snip off my foreskin? Maybe the best way to deal
with people like you would just be to call the police. Yes, the
sensible people are the ones who agree with me on this point.
> > The medical community agrees that the medical
> > indication is not so strong that the boy should be coerced into it, at
> > least by the time he's learnt to talk.
>
> Most circumcisions are performed long before the baby learns to talk.
>
And why should that make any difference? Why do we have the right to
make the decision on his behalf, just because he's not old enough to
express any view on the matter himself?
> > You apparently have some doubts
> > about the matter, which is frankly a bit scary, but just about
> > everyone else would agree with me on this point.
>
> Right. That's why over half the boys born in the US are circumcised at
> birth.
> I guess all those parents secretly agree with you but are fooled into
> having their son circumcised.
>
You seem to be having difficulty grasping what the point at issue is.
I acknowledge that a lot of people think that neonatal circumcision is
acceptable. That was not the point at issue. Try reading a bit more
carefully.
> > It's his dick. It's none of your business. You worry about your own
> > dick, stop worrying about other people's.
>
> Because I'm circumcised, I don't need to worry about it!
>
Good. Then that should be the end of the matter. You can try to
persuade other people to get circumcised if you like, if you really
care so much about the way everyone else's dick looks. (I can't
conceive of any rational reason for doing so, don't you think you're a
bit obsessed?) But stop encouraging parents to force the decision on
their son without his consent. Stop trying to make decisions about
other people's bodies for them.
> > Nobody's provided a satisfactory reply to this argument, and I've been
> > faced with a great deal of unreasonable rudeness from various people,
> > including you.
>
> We get exasperated because all you do is endlessly repeat the same
> points
> instead of listening to what's being said.
If you're trying to suggest that any of the rudeness I've encountered
on this newsgroup has been in any way defensible, then I'm not really
interested in talking to you any more. Come to that, I'm not
particularly interested in continuing the discussion in any case - I
have better things to do with my time than listen to nonsense from
morons like David Z.
I have been repeating the same points because no-one has
satisfactorily replied to them. I have been listening to what other
people say.
> Take my post you just
> replied to.
>
> You won't admit that there is a taboo on publicly discussing circ - it
> would
> hurt your case.
Would it? I'm not aware of this taboo, anyway. Let's grant that it
exists for the sake of argument - why does it hurt my case?
> You won't admit that left wing loonies actively want
> children to have sex
What's that got to do with anything? I'm not aware of a significant
political movement that wants children to have sex, no. Suppose there
were one. What on earth is your point?
> - you know what, it's because of not having
> religion,
> that they need some other bullshit to replace it.
>
As far as I'm concerned, this is inane babbling which has no relevance
to the topic whatsoever. I don't believe there are large numbers of
people who want children to have sex, I think that's something you
just made up. Some people acknowledge the reality that some children
will have sex and want to reduce the risk they thereby take.
> I'm too smart to believe in that Jesus nonsense myself,
Delighted to hear it.
> but it looks
> like
> other people need it.
>
Well, this looks like rambling that was in no way relevant to the
topic. So what do you want me to say about it?
> Andrew Usher
Rupert
> On Mar 11, 2:33 pm, "David Z" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> > Andrew, two points:
>
> > (1) It was foolish of you to restart this "debate" with this
> > closed-minded,
I attempted to engage in rational argument with you, and you gave a
non-response, so calling me "closed-minded" is absurd.
> lying
I'm not a liar, you delusional imbecile. Do you understand what lying
is? Lying is intentionally making a false statement. If I had lied, I
would know about it. I know I haven't lied. So you owe me an apology
for repeatedly calling me a liar. If you were a decent person, you
would at the very least provide an example of something I've said
which you believe to be a lie.
> weasel. Can you say "beating a dead horse?"
>
> I wanted to see if he had anything to say in reply to my recent
> statements.
Andrew, if you want me to look over a post of yours and formulate a
reply to it, then say "Rupert, do you mind looking at this post of
mine and formulating a reply to it?" Don't talk nonsense about how the
fact that I've dropped out of the conversation proves that you've said
something I "can't face."
Also, perhaps you could give me some reason why I should bother to
engage with you given the company you keep.
Rupert
I have discussed the issue of vaccination many times. Who's lying now?
Andrew, I want some kind of statement from you about your opinion of
the behaviour of David Z and Rupert Bear. On the basis I will decide
whether you are someone who is worth talking to.
David Z
> I'm not particularly interested in continuing the discussion in any
case...
How many times have you made this idle threat?
Each time you come back you prove yourself a liar.
ged
news:55ig0jF...@mid.individual.net...
>
> For the umpteenth time, GO FUCK YOURSELF, YOU FUCKING LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
foulmouthed, crude and vulgar jackass! If you ever had anything worthwhile
to say, which is doubtful, it would be completely eclipsed by your vulgarity
Jackass will jump and bray, let him bray, let him bray
I say the Jackass will jump and bray,
Lordy let him bray, let him bray.
David Z
news:et2asd$omv$1...@news04.infoave.net...
> "David Z" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:55ig0jF...@mid.individual.net...
> >
> > For the umpteenth time, GO FUCK YOURSELF, YOU FUCKING
LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> >
> And for the umpteenth time you have shown yourself to be a despicable,
> foulmouthed, crude and vulgar jackass! If you ever had anything
worthwhile
> to say, which is doubtful, it would be completely eclipsed by your
vulgarity
Hey, asshole, you didn't seem to have any problem with bigbillie who
talked about sucking the blood from infant dicks or from Tom Potter with
his Anti-Semitic tirades.
You've got a strange definition of vulgar, dude.
So, GO FUCK YOURSELF MORON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Andrew Usher
> I have discussed the issue of vaccination many times. Who's lying now?
>
> Andrew, I want some kind of statement from you about your opinion of
> the behaviour of David Z and Rupert Bear. On the basis I will decide
> whether you are someone who is worth talking to.
First, I don't condone their rudeness. I see no need to make a point
of it, other
than by not doing the same myself. I didn't negatively judge you by
the
behavior of Tom Potter, or any od the other pro-circ idiots.
Second, on vaccination. When I asked you to give a specific answer,
you
did not reply to that question. My last posts to the old thread 'The
case for
circumcision' were on Feb 13. I would ask you to read this and
specifically
answer:
1. Can any vaccination ethically be required?
2. If so, can the HPV vaccine?
Andrew Usher
Andrew Usher
> On Mar 12, 5:01 am, "Andrew Usher" <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 10, 11:55 pm, "Rupert" <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Sensible people agree that by the time a boy has learnt to talk he has
> > > the right to express his own view on whether he should be circumcised
> > > or not and have that decision respected, the alleged medical benefits
> > > notwithstanding.
>
> > 'Sensible people', of course, being those that agree with you.
>
> I would be very surprised to hear anyone, with the possible exception
> of a few pro-circs who have gone a bit loopy, express a contrary
> opinion. So it would be all right to coerce a five-year-old into
> circumcision, would it?
Do you think a 5-year-old can be considered a rational decision-maker?
> > > The medical community agrees that the medical
> > > indication is not so strong that the boy should be coerced into it, at
> > > least by the time he's learnt to talk.
>
> > Most circumcisions are performed long before the baby learns to talk.
>
> And why should that make any difference? Why do we have the right to
> make the decision on his behalf, just because he's not old enough to
> express any view on the matter himself?
You just implied it does in the last paragaph. Now you argue
differently?
> > > It's his dick. It's none of your business. You worry about your own
> > > dick, stop worrying about other people's.
>
> > Because I'm circumcised, I don't need to worry about it!
>
> Good. Then that should be the end of the matter. You can try to
> persuade other people to get circumcised if you like, if you really
> care so much about the way everyone else's dick looks. (I can't
> conceive of any rational reason for doing so, don't you think you're a
> bit obsessed?) But stop encouraging parents to force the decision on
> their son without his consent. Stop trying to make decisions about
> other people's bodies for them.
This is nothing more than a restatement of the same argument.
> > We get exasperated because all you do is endlessly repeat the same
> > points
> > instead of listening to what's being said.
>
> If you're trying to suggest that any of the rudeness I've encountered
> on this newsgroup has been in any way defensible, then I'm not really
> interested in talking to you any more. Come to that, I'm not
> particularly interested in continuing the discussion in any case - I
> have better things to do with my time than listen to nonsense from
> morons like David Z.
I meant 'we' in a generic sense, not to imply any specific people.
> > You won't admit that there is a taboo on publicly discussing circ - it
> > would
> > hurt your case.
>
> Would it? I'm not aware of this taboo, anyway. Let's grant that it
> exists for the sake of argument - why does it hurt my case?
Because if a position has to suppress alternative points of view to
convince
people, it is weak. Just like the only reason they can get anyone to
accept
water fluoridation is by lying about it.
> > You won't admit that left wing loonies actively want
> > children to have sex
>
> What's that got to do with anything? I'm not aware of a significant
> political movement that wants children to have sex, no. Suppose there
> were one. What on earth is your point?
Where there's smoke there's fire, Rupert.
> > - you know what, it's because of not having
> > religion,
> > that they need some other bullshit to replace it.
>
> As far as I'm concerned, this is inane babbling which has no relevance
> to the topic whatsoever.
It's certainly not 'inane'. And in my philosophy, everything is
relevant to
everything else.
> I don't believe there are large numbers of
> people who want children to have sex, I think that's something you
> just made up. Some people acknowledge the reality that some children
> will have sex and want to reduce the risk they thereby take.
Can you imagine making that argument 50 years ago? Shouldn't you be
ashamed to bring it up?
> > I'm too smart to believe in that Jesus nonsense myself,
> > but it looks like other people need it.
>
> Well, this looks like rambling that was in no way relevant to the
> topic. So what do you want me to say about it?
If you don't have anything to say about it, don't, I guess.
Andrew Usher
Andrew Usher
> > And this obviously
> > relates to my original post in this thread.
>
> I don't see this at all. My recollection is that your "original post"
> related to the health benefits of circ.
Not my original post _in this thread_.
Andrew Usher
filup
First of all female "circumcision" is not female circumcision. It is a
horrible mutilation of removing the external sex organs to prevent
having any sexual pleasure.
A few females have had the hood of the clitoris removed that is female
circumcision. It is not a mutilation only like male circumcision
cosmetic.
Secondly. It is absolutely ridiculous to leave the matter of
circumcision up to the child. Parental decisions are well within their
civil rights and law to make all decisions concerning the well being
of their children. Circumcision is not forced on any child. I have had
hundreds of circumcised boys and men in my practice as a
psychotherapist. They were glad to be circumcised. Only one had some
complaints about being circumcised (a victim of the lies of the
anticirc people). You anticircs are to be congratulated on brain
washing. Circumcision is a parental decision up to the time the
adolescent becomes 18. Then and only then are uncircumcised men able
to make their own decision. Many, many make the decision.to be cut.
Look up www.circumcisioncenter.com
If anyone is doing forcing (to stay uncircumcised). it is the
fanatical, hysterical, untruthful anticirc people with a foreskin
fetish. Wake up American parents. You alone have a choice to make for
your children: circumcise or not.
filup
> David Z wrote:
> > "Rupert" <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:1173610950....@64g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>>Whether or not you as one skin freak believes that neonatal
>
> >circumcision
>
> >>>is justified is of no concern to those who believe that male
>
> > of
>
> >>>religious, cultural or medical considerations.
>
> >>See what I mean? Now I have to listen to this idiot babble his inane
> >>drivel again. You could at least express some embarrassment at having
> >>such a complete imbecile on your side.
>
> > You are one incorrigible moron.
>
> > Just look at all the sick, perverted crap that's been promulgated in
> > these newsgroups from anti-circs. In fact, I pointed this out a month
> > ago on 2/13 in a thread entitled, "Why Do Anti-Circs Tend to be Sick
> > Fucks and Liars?" And NO ONE, INCLUDING YOU, CHALLENGED THAT
> > CONTENTION!!!!!!!!!
>
> > Yet you come out with a comment like the above, completely AND
> > DELIBERATELY oblivious my comment or to the vast reams of sick and
> > perverse crap spewed out here by your fellow anti-circs.
>
> > Rupert, you've once again demonstrated that your either a moron or a
> > liar. It's up to the reader to decide which one.
>
> You need to have a little patience with the skin freaks nowadays. They
> are getting increasingly desperate as the evidence of the risks to
> public health the foreskin holds. Sad to see how badly they are taking
> the fact that the object of their psychosexual obsession is in fact a
>
> - Show quoted text -
Regretably Rupert you are wrong about parental decision making.
Legally no child under the age of 18 can make the decision. Everyone
knows that infant circumcision, now done with skin pain killers is the
right time, financially, practically, and in many ways good for the
baby and later adult. Parental decisions are their civil right to
benefit their child.
Anticircs have a serious foreskin fetish. The nerves there are also in
the shaft. Without the foreskin the shaft is sensitized, hence better
feelings in the glans, corona, and shaft. Sex is better in every way.
Without the foreskin (contrary to what you think) the penis is free
from infection, fish smell, and in most cases is a line of defense
against sexual contact disease and also, discovered thorough research
the penis in 60% of cut males having intercourse with an infected
female, did not get the AIDS virus and then HIV.
PLEASE stop your propaganda. It is causing people to die. You are
helping to murder them.
David Z
news:1173827122....@e1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Don't bother. There's no reasoning with this moron. He just keeps
repeating the same inane nonsense over and over again and ignores any
logic presented to him. Then he declares that no one has convinced him
(i.e., disabused him) of his idiotic ideas that it's better to wait and
decide later in life, that infant circ is a violation of rights, blah,
blah, blah.
As I've said repeatedly, a man that says that he doesn't see why a man
would prefer to be circ'd at birth rather than later on is either a
moron or a liar. Take your pick. I've opted for the latter.
Andrew Usher
> Regretably Rupert you are wrong about parental decision making.
You're replying to the wrong message. Please use your newsreader
corrrectly.
The last message was written by Rupert Bear, who is definitely not the
same person as Rupert.
> Anticircs have a serious foreskin fetish. The nerves there are also in
> the shaft. Without the foreskin the shaft is sensitized, hence better
> feelings in the glans, corona, and shaft. Sex is better in every way.
This might be a slight exaggeration. It's true that sex is almost
always
better after circumcision, as the foreskin is a physical impediment to
sexual pleasure. Also, many uncut men experience pain during sex due
to the foreskin.
> Without the foreskin (contrary to what you think) the penis is free
> from infection, fish smell, and in most cases is a line of defense
> against sexual contact disease and also, discovered thorough research
> the penis in 60% of cut males having intercourse with an infected
> female, did not get the AIDS virus and then HIV.
Actually there is a study showing that _no_ uncircumcised men
contracted HIV through normal intercourse.
Although studies on HPV have not been as conclusive, due to the fact
that the virus has only be tested for in women, if a study were ever
done in men, it would likely show that uncircumcised men never (or
almost never) get HPV through sex. This is shown by their negligible
rate of penile cancer.
Andrew Usher
Andrew Usher
First, unless your , key is broken you need to properly punctuate.
English is written with commas for a reason.
Second, you really should learn to quote properly. Bottom posting is
no better than top posting.
That said I will reply nonetheless below.
> A few females have had the hood of the clitoris removed that is female
> circumcision. It is not a mutilation only like male circumcision
> cosmetic.
Indeed the clitoral hood could rightly be called a foreskin. I
wouldn't call male circumcision cosmetic, though, in view of the other
benefits.
> Secondly. It is absolutely ridiculous to leave the matter of
> circumcision up to the child. Parental decisions are well within their
> civil rights and law to make all decisions concerning the well being
> of their children. Circumcision is not forced on any child.
??? Of course it is, when the decision is made by the parents.
> I have had
> hundreds of circumcised boys and men in my practice as a
> psychotherapist. They were glad to be circumcised. Only one had some
> complaints about being circumcised (a victim of the lies of the
> anticirc people).
I've encountered a few like this on the internet. They're just looking
for something to blame their psychological problems on, and seize on
their circumcision after reading some of that garbage.
> You anticircs are to be congratulated on brain
> washing. Circumcision is a parental decision up to the time the
> adolescent becomes 18. Then and only then are uncircumcised men able
> to make their own decision. Many, many make the decision.to be cut.
> Look up www.circumcisioncenter.com
This is a site providing adult circumcisions.
Andrew Usher
Tom Potter
> "ged" <nospam...@info.net> wrote in message
"David Z" raises a good point when he points out that
Jews come into conflict with all of their neighbors throughout
history. (Mesopotamia, Palestine, Egypt, Palestine, Persia, Rome,
Spain,
England, France, Spain again Germany, recently Russia and Palestine
again,
and in the process, America.)?
and that most people in the world
were, and are, anti-Semitic.
The question is:
"Why were/are the vast majority of folks on the planet anti-Semitic?"
Is it because Jews are constantly trying to
create the impression that they are virtuous victims
of the other evil folks who inhabit the planet,
so they can profit from this impression,
or is it because Jews seem to instigate and profit
from much of the conflict, war, and misery
on the planet?
As can be seen from current events and history,
Jews have been active in instigating many conflicts and wars,
including the Class Wars of the 1900's
and the Religious Wars of the 2000's.
Of course, many folks who don't subscribe to the
"virtuous victim" scams or the "war-for-profit" instigations
may be anti-Semitic because Jews like
Sacha Baron Cohen aka "Barat" and Howard Stern
disrupt the unity and harmony of other cultures
by spreading filth for profit,
while trying to demean other peoples,
while maintaining the "virtuous victim" concept.
Note for example,
that the "Barat" movie featured good folks with good intensions
being ridiculed by Sacha Baron Cohen,
while the Jewish couple they encountered
were nice, friendly, flawless people,
who treated them to coffee and cake.
Considering that Jews have been central to much of the
conflict, war and misery in the world,
and considering that most of the folks on the planet
are, and have been, anti-Semitic,
I suggest that a serious scientific study should be made
of this serious condition, to determine
if all of the non Jews on the planet
are flawed in some way,
or if Jews are "virtuous victims",
or if Judaism is some kind of Mafia-like organization
that assumes a religious facade in order to
spread conflict, war, and filth for power and riches.
The time for propagandizing and "Mel Gibsoning" messengers is long
past.
The time has come to scientifically examine this important issue
which is so critical to the happiness and security of mankind.
--
Tom Potter
*** Time Magazine Person of the Year 2006 ***
http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp/
http://tdp1001.googlepages.com/home
http://no-turtles.com
http://www.frappr.com/tompotter
http://photos.yahoo.com/tdp1001
http://spaces.msn.com/tdp1001
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tom-potter/
http://tom-potter.blogspot.com
David Z
news:1173833261.1...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 12, 3:56 am, "David Z" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> > "ged" <nospam...@info.net> wrote in message
> >
> > news:et2asd$omv$1...@news04.infoave.net...> "David Z"
<m...@privacy.net>
> > wrote in message
> > >news:55ig0jF...@mid.individual.net...
> >
> > > > For the umpteenth time, GO FUCK YOURSELF, YOU FUCKING
> > LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> >
> > > And for the umpteenth time you have shown yourself to be a
despicable,
> > > foulmouthed, crude and vulgar jackass! If you ever had anything
> > worthwhile
> > > to say, which is doubtful, it would be completely eclipsed by your
> >
> > vulgarity
> >
> > Hey, asshole, you didn't seem to have any problem with bigbillie who
> > talked about sucking the blood from infant dicks or fromTom
Potterwith
> > his Anti-Semitic tirades.
> >
> > You've got a strange definition of vulgar, dude.
> >
> > So, GO FUCK YOURSELF MORON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"David Z" raises a good point...
[the rest of Tom Potter's anti-Semitic rant snipped]
No comment, ged?
Tom Potter
Andrew Usher View profile
More options Mar 13, 10:01 pm
Newsgroups: alt.circumcision
From: "Andrew Usher" <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com>
Date: 13 Mar 2007 13:01:40 -0700
Local: Tues, Mar 13 2007 10:01 pm
Subject: Re: Degeneration (for Rupert)
Reply | Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show
original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
On Mar 11, 5:58 pm, "Rupert" <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I have discussed the issue of vaccination many times. Who's lying now?
> Andrew, I want some kind of statement from you about your opinion of
> the behaviour of David Z and Rupert Bear. On the basis I will decide
> whether you are someone who is worth talking to.
First, I don't condone their rudeness. I see no need to make a point
of it, other
than by not doing the same myself. I didn't negatively judge you by
the behavior of Tom Potter, or any od the other pro-circ idiots.
===============
Tom Potter responded:
I must point out to Andrew Usher
that I am neither pro nor con circumcision.
I am pro logic.
As I pointed out in recent posts,
and as indicated by a recent study
of an African tribe that engages in indiscriminate sex,
circumcision can reduce the likelihood
of venereal disease for peoples who do not wash,
nor have the opportunity to wash.
However studies also indicate that circumcision
is of no significant value to peoples in advanced cultures
like Western Europe, Japan and China.
As can be seen by reading the works of the ancient Roman authors,
Jews were driven from Egypt because they were "unclean",
perhaps because they did not have the time nor the facilities to
wash,
and perhaps venereal disease was the reason that the
Egyptians demanded that the Jews leave Egypt.
Perhaps to solve this problem (venereal disease),
Moses, who was learned in the Egyptian culture,
demanded that Jews get circumcised
and abstain from adultery.
As studies indicate that circumcision
is of no significant value to peoples in Western Europe,
Japan and China, I suggest that circumcision is a religious remnant
that serves no useful purpose in advanced societies.
Andrew Usher
> I must point out to Andrew Usher
> that I am neither pro nor con circumcision.
> I am pro logic.
So this self-proclaimed paragon of logic asserts that circumcision
must be bad because Jews do it. Even if Jews were evil and horrible,
this would be an ivalid argument.
> As I pointed out in recent posts,
> and as indicated by a recent study
> of an African tribe that engages in indiscriminate sex,
> circumcision can reduce the likelihood
> of venereal disease for peoples who do not wash,
> nor have the opportunity to wash.
>
> However studies also indicate that circumcision
> is of no significant value to peoples in advanced cultures
> like Western Europe, Japan and China.
Of course, no studies of the second type can be found. They exist only
in the mind of anti-circ bigots.
> As studies indicate that circumcision
> is of no significant value to peoples in Western Europe,
> Japan and China, I suggest that circumcision is a religious remnant
> that serves no useful purpose in advanced societies.
This provides an example of one of my claims to Rupert: that many
people perceive circumcision as a barbarity that may be necessary in
uncivilised parts of the world but never here.
Of course, this is asinine: in all other matters more civilised
countries observe more hygiene practices, not less.
Andrew Usher
Tom Potter
The Foreskin Is Necessary By Paul M. Fleiss, MD, MPH
Published in Mothering: The Magazine of Natural Family Living, Winter
1997, pp. 36--45.
Western countries have no tradition of circumcision. In antiquity,
the
expansion of the Greek and Roman Empires brought Westerners into
contact with
the peoples of the Middle East, some of whom marked their children
with
circumcision and other sexual mutilations. To protect these children,
the
Greeks and Romans passed laws forbidding circumcision.1 Over the
centuries, the
Catholic Church has passed many similar laws.2,3 The traditional
Western
response to circumcision has been revulsion and indignation.
Circumcision started in America during the masturbation hysteria of
the
Victorian Era, when a few American doctors circumcised boys to punish
them for
masturbating. Victorian doctors knew very well that circumcision
denudes,
desensitizes, and disables the penis. Nevertheless, they were soon
claiming
that circumcision cured epilepsy, convulsions, paralysis,
elephantiasis,
tuberculosis, eczema, bed-wetting, hip-joint disease, fecal
incontinence,
rectal prolapse, wet dreams, hernia, headaches, nervousness,
hysteria, poor
eyesight, idiocy, mental retardation, and insanity.4
In fact, no procedure in the history of medicine has been claimed to
cure and
prevent more diseases than circumcision. As late as the 1970s,
leading American
medical textbooks still advocated routine circumcision as a way to
prevent
masturbation.5 The antisexual motivations behind an operation that
entails
cutting off part of the penis are obvious.
The radical practice of routinely circumcising babies did not begin
until the
Cold War era. This institutionalization of what amounted to
compulsory
circumcision was part of the same movement that pathologized and
medicalized
birth and actively discouraged breastfeeding. Private-sector,
corporate-run
hospitals institutionalized routine circumcision without ever
consulting the
American people. There was no public debate or referendum. It was
only in the
1970s that a series of lawsuits forced hospitals to obtain parental
consent to
perform this contraindicated but highly profitable surgery.
Circumcisers
responded by inventing new "medical" reasons for circumcision in an
attempt to
scare parents into consenting.
Today the reasons given for circumcision have been updated to play
on
contemporary fears and anxieties; but one day they, too, will be
considered
irrational. Now that such current excuses as the claim that this
procedure
prevents cancer and sexually transmitted diseases have been
thoroughly
discredited, circumcisers will undoubtedly invent new ones. But if
circumcisers
were really motivated by purely medical considerations, the procedure
would
have died out long ago, along with leeching, skull-drilling, and
castration.
The fact that it has not suggests that the compulsion to circumcise
came first,
the "reasons," later.
Millions of years of evolution have fashioned the human body into a
model of
refinement, elegance, and efficiency, with every part having a
function and
purpose. Evolution has determined that mammals' genitals should be
sheathed in
a protective, responsive, multipurpose foreskin. Every normal human
being is
born with a foreskin. In females, it protects the glans of the
clitoris; in
males, it protects the glans of the penis. Thus, the foreskin is an
essential
part of human sexual anatomy.
Parents should enjoy the arrival of a new child with as few worries
as
possible. The birth of a son in the US, however, is often fraught
with anxiety
and confusion. Most parents are pressured to hand their baby sons
over to a
stranger, who, behind closed doors, straps babies down and cuts their
foreskins
off. The billion-dollar-a-year circumcision industry has bombarded
Americans
with confusing rhetoric and calculated scare tactics.
Information about the foreskin itself is almost always missing from
discussions
about circumcision. The mass circumcision campaigns of the past few
decades
have resulted in pandemic ignorance about this remarkable structure
and its
versatile role in human sexuality. Ignorance and false information
about the
foreskin are the rule in American medical literature, education, and
practice.
Most American medical textbooks depict the human penis, without
explanation, as
circumcised, as if it were so by nature.
What Is the Foreskin? The foreskin is a uniquely specialized,
sensitive,
functional organ of touch. No other part of the body serves the same
purpose. As
a modified extension of the penile shaft skin, the foreskin covers and
usually
extends beyond the glans before folding under itself and finding its
circumferential point of attachment just behind the corona (the rim of
the
glans). The foreskin is, therefore, a double-layered organ. Its true
length is
twice the length of its external fold and comprises as much as 80
percent or
more of the penile skin covering.6,7
The foreskin contains a rich concentration of blood vessels and nerve
endings.
It is lined with the peripenic muscle sheet, a smooth muscle layer
with
longitudinal fibers. These muscle fibers are whirled, forming a kind
of
sphincter that ensures optimum protection of the urinary tract from
contaminants of all kinds.
Like the undersurface of the eyelids or the inside of the cheek, the
undersurface of the foreskin consists of mucous membrane. It is
divided into
two distinct zones: the soft mucosa and the ridged mucosa. The soft
mucosa lies
against the glans penis and contains ectopic sebaceous glands that
secrete
emollients, lubricants, and protective antibodies. Similar glands are
found in
the eyelids and mouth.
Adjacent to the soft mucosa and just behind the lips of the foreskin
is the
ridged mucosa. This exquisitely sensitive structure consists of
tightly pleated
concentric bands, like the elastic bands at the top of a sock. These
expandable
pleats allow the foreskin lips to open and roll back, exposing the
glans. The
ridged mucosa gives the foreskin its characteristic taper.
On the underside of the glans, the foreskin's point of attachment is
advanced
toward the meatus (urethral opening) and forms a bandlike ligament
called the
frenulum. It is identical to the frenulum that secures the tongue to
the floor
of the mouth. The foreskin's frenulum holds it in place over the
glans, and, in
conjunction with the smooth muscle fibers, helps return the retracted
foreskin
to its usual forward position over the glans.
Retraction of the Foreskin At birth, the foreskin is usually attached
to the
glans, very much as a fingernail is attached to a finger. By puberty,
the penis
will usually have completed its development, and the foreskin will
have
separated from the glans.8 This separation occurs in its own time;
there is no
set age by which the foreskin and glans must be separated. One wise
doctor
described the process thus, "The foreskin therefore can be likened to
a rosebud
which remains closed and muzzled. Like a rosebud, it will only blossom
when the
time is right. No one opens a rosebud to make it blossom."9
Even if the glans and foreskin separate naturally in infancy, the
foreskin lips
can normally dilate only enough to allow the passage of urine. This
ideal
feature protects the glans from premature exposure to the external
environment.
The penis develops naturally throughout childhood. Eventually, the
child will,
on his own, make the wondrous discovery that his foreskin will
retract. There
is no reason for parents, physicians, or other caregivers to
manipulate a
child's penis. The only person to retract a child's foreskin should
be the
child himself, when he has discovered that his foreskin is ready to
retract.
Parents should be wary of anyone who tries to retract their child's
foreskin,
and especially wary of anyone who wants to cut it off. Human
foreskins are in
great demand for any number of commercial enterprises, and the
marketing of
purloined baby foreskins is a multimillion-dollar- a-year industry.
Pharmaceutical and cosmetic companies use human foreskins as research
material.
Corporations such as Advanced Tissue Sciences, Organogenesis, and
BioSurface
Technology use human foreskins as the raw materials for a type of
breathable
bandage.10
What Are the Foreskin's Functions? The foreskin has numerous
protective,
sensory, and sexual functions.
Protection: Just as the eyelids protect the eyes, the foreskin
protects the
glans and keeps its surface soft, moist, and sensitive. It also
maintains
optimal warmth, pH balance, and cleanliness. The glans itself contains
no
sebaceous glands-glands that produce the sebum, or oil, that
moisturizes our
skin.11 The foreskin produces the sebum that maintains proper health
of the
surface of the glans. Immunological Defense: The mucous membranes that
line all
body orifices are the body's first line of immunological defense.
Glands in the
foreskin produce antibacterial and antiviral proteins such as lysozyme.
12
Lysozyme is also found in tears and mother's milk. Specialized
epithelial
Langerhans cells, an immune system component, abound in the foreskin's
outer
surface.13 Plasma cells in the foreskin's mucosal lining secrete
immunoglobulins, antibodies that defend against infection.14
Erogenous
Sensitivity: The foreskin is as sensitive as the fingertips or the
lips of the
mouth. It contains a richer variety and greater concentration of
specialized
nerve receptors than any other part of the penis.15 These specialized
nerve
endings can discern motion, subtle changes in temperature, and fine
gradations
of texture.16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 Coverage During Erection: As
it
becomes erect, the penile shaft becomes thicker and longer. The double-
layered
foreskin provides the skin necessary to accommodate the expanded organ
and to
allow the penile skin to glide freely, smoothly, and pleasurably over
the shaft
and glans. Self-Stimulating Sexual Functions: The foreskin's double-
layered
sheath enables the penile shaft skin to glide back and forth over the
penile
shaft. The foreskin can normally be slipped all the way, or almost all
the way,
back to the base of the penis, and also slipped forward beyond the
glans. This
wide range of motion is the mechanism by which the penis and the
orgasmic
triggers in the foreskin, frenulum, and glans are stimulated. Sexual
Functions
in Intercourse: One of the foreskin's functions is to facilitate
smooth, gentle
movement between the mucosal surfaces of the two partners during
intercourse.
The foreskin enables the penis to slip in and out of the vagina
nonabrasively
inside its own slick sheath of self-lubricating, movable skin. The
female is
thus stimulated by moving pressure rather than by friction only, as
when the
male's foreskin is missing. The foreskin fosters intimacy between the
two
partners by enveloping the glans and maintaining it as an internal
organ. The
sexual experience is enhanced when the foreskin slips back to allow
the male's
internal organ, the glans, to meet the female's internal organ, the
cervix-a
moment of supreme intimacy and beauty. The foreskin may have functions
not yet
recognized or understood. Scientists in Europe recently detected
estrogen
receptors in its basal epidermal cells.24 Researchers at the
University of
Manchester found that the human foreskin has apocrine glands.25 These
specialized glands produce pheromones, nature's chemical messengers.
Further
studies are needed to fully understand these features of the foreskin
and the
role they play. Care of the Foreskin The natural penis requires no
special care.
A child's foreskin, like his eyelids, is self-cleansing. For the same
reason it
is inadvisable to lift the eyelids and wash the eyeballs, it is
inadvisable to
retract a child's foreskin and wash the glans. Immersion in plain
water during
the bath is all that is needed to keep the intact penis clean.26
The white emollient under the child's foreskin is called smegma.
Smegma is
probably the most misunderstood, most unjustifiably maligned
substance in
nature. Smegma is clean, not dirty, and is beneficial and necessary.
It
moisturizes the glans and keeps it smooth, soft, and supple. Its
antibacterial
and antiviral properties keep the penis clean and healthy. All
mammals produce
smegma. Thomas J. Ritter, MD, underscored its importance when he
commented,
"The animal kingdom would probably cease to exist without smegma."27
Studies suggest that it is best not to use soap on the glans or
foreskin's
inner fold.28 Forcibly retracting and washing a baby's foreskin
destroys the
beneficial bacterial flora that protect the penis from harmful germs
and can
lead to irritation and infection. The best way to care for a child's
intact
penis is to leave it alone. After puberty, males can gently rinse
their glans
and foreskin with warm water, according to their own self-determined
needs.
How Common Is Circumcision? Circumcision is almost unheard of in
Europe, South
America, and non-Muslim Asia. In fact, only 10 to 15 percent of men
throughout
the world are circumcised, the vast majority of whom are Muslim.29 The
neonatal
circumcision rate in the western US has now fallen to 34.2 percent.30
This
relatively diminished rate may surprise American men born during the
era when
nearly 90 percent of baby boys were circumcised automatically, with or
without
their parents' consent.
How Does Circumcision Harm? The "medical" debate about the "potential
health
benefits" of circumcision rarely addresses its real effects.
Circumcision denudes: Depending on the amount of skin cut off,
circumcision robs
a male of as much as 80 percent or more of his penile skin. Depending
on the
foreskin's length, cutting it off makes the penis as much as 25
percent or more
shorter. Careful anatomical investigations have shown that
circumcision cuts off
more than 3 feet of veins, arteries, and capillaries, 240 feet of
nerves, and
more than 20,000 nerve endings.31 The foreskin's muscles, glands,
mucous
membrane, and epithelial tissue are destroyed, as well. Circumcision
desensitizes: Circumcision desensitizes the penis radically. Foreskin
amputation
means severing the rich nerve network and all the nerve receptors in
the
foreskin itself. Circumcision almost always damages or destroys the
frenulum.
The loss of the protective foreskin desensitizes the glans. Because
the membrane
covering the permanently externalized glans is now subjected to
constant
abrasion and irritation, it keratinizes, becoming dry and tough. The
nerve
endings in the glans, which in the intact penis are just beneath the
surface of
the mucous membrane, are now buried by successive layers of
keratinization. The
denuded glans takes on a dull, grayish, sclerotic appearance.
Circumcision
disables: The amputation of so much penile skin permanently
immobilizes whatever
skin remains, preventing it from gliding freely over the shaft and
glans. This
loss of mobility destroys the mechanism by which the glans is
normally
stimulated. When the circumcised penis becomes erect, the immobilized
remaining
skin is stretched, sometimes so tightly that not enough skin is left
to cover
the erect shaft. Hair-bearing skin from the groin and scrotum is often
pulled
onto the shaft, where hair is not normally found. The surgically
externalized
mucous membrane of the glans has no sebaceous glands. Without the
protection and
emollients of the foreskin, it dries out, making it susceptible to
cracking and
bleeding. Circumcision disfigures: Circumcision alters the appearance
of the
penis drastically. It permanently externalizes the glans, normally an
internal
organ. Circumcision leaves a large circumferential surgical scar on
the penile
shaft. Because circumcision usually necessitates tearing the foreskin
from the
glans, pieces of the glans may be torn off, too, leaving it pitted and
scarred.
Shreds of foreskin may adhere to the raw glans, forming tags and
bridges of
dangling, displaced skin.32 Depending on the amount of skin cut off
and how the
scar forms, the circumcised penis may be permanently twisted, or curve
or bow
during erection.33 The contraction of the scar tissue may pull the
shaft into
the abdomen, in effect shortening the penis or burying it completely.
34
Circumcision disrupts circulation: Circumcision interrupts the normal
circulation of blood throughout the penile skin system and glans. The
blood
flowing into major penile arteries is obstructed by the line of scar
tissue at
the point of incision, creating backflow instead of feeding the
branches and
capillary networks beyond the scar. Deprived of blood, the meatus may
contract
and scarify, obstructing the flow of urine.35 This condition, known as
meatal
stenosis, often requires corrective surgery. Meatal stenosis is found
almost
exclusively among boys who have been circumcised. Circumcision also
severs the
lymph vessels, interrupting the circulation of lymph and sometimes
causing
lymphedema, a painful, disfiguring condition in which the remaining
skin of the
penis swells with trapped lymph fluid.
Circumcision harms the developing brain: Recent studies published in
leading
medical journals have reported that circumcision has long-lasting
detrimental
effects on the developing brain,36 adversely altering the brain's
perception
centers. Circumcised boys have a lower pain threshold than girls or
intact
boys.37 Developmental neuropsychologist Dr. James Prescott suggests
that
circumcision can cause deeper and more disturbing levels of
neurological damage,
as well. 38, 39 Circumcision is unhygienic and unhealthy: One of the
most common
myths about circumcision is that it makes the penis cleaner and easier
to take
care of. This is not true. Eyes without eyelids would not be cleaner;
neither
would a penis without its foreskin. The artificially externalized
glans and
meatus of the circumcised penis are constantly exposed to abrasion and
dirt,
making the circumcised penis, in fact, more unclean. The loss of the
protective
foreskin leaves the urinary tract vulnerable to invasion by bacterial
and viral
pathogens. The circumcision wound is larger than most people imagine.
It is not
just the circular point of union between the outer and inner layers of
the
remaining skin. Before a baby is circumcised, his foreskin must be
torn from his
glans, literally skinning it alive. This creates a large open area of
raw,
bleeding flesh, covered at best with a layer of undeveloped proto-
mucosa. Germs
can easily enter the damaged tissue and bloodstream through the raw
glans and,
even more easily, through the incision itself. Even after the wound
has healed,
the externalized glans and meatus are still forced into constant
unnatural
contact with urine, feces, chemically treated diapers, and other
contaminants.
Female partners of circumcised men do not report a lower rate of
cervical
cancer,40 nor does circumcision prevent penile cancer.41 A recent
study shows
that the penile cancer rate is higher in the US than in Denmark,
where
circumcision, except among Middle-Eastern immigrant workers, is
almost unheard
of.42 Indeed, researchers should investigate the possibility that
circumcision
has actually increased the rate of these diseases.
Circumcision does not prevent acquisition or transmission of
sexually
transmitted diseases (STDs). In fact, the US has both the highest
percentage of
sexually active circumcised males in the Western world and the
highest rates of
sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS. Rigorously controlled
prospective studies show that circumcised American men are at a
greater risk
for bacterial and viral STDs, especially gonorrhea,43 nongonoccal
urethritis,44
human papilloma virus,45 herpes simplex virus type 2,46 and chlamydia.
47
Circumcision is always risky: Circumcision always carries the risk of
serious,
even tragic, consequences. Its surgical complication rate is one in
500.48 These
complications include uncontrollable bleeding and fatal infections.49
There are
many published case reports of gangrene following circumcision.50
Pathogenic
bacteria such as staphylococcus, Proteus, Pseudomonas, other
coliforms, and even
tuberculosis can cause infections leading to death.51, 52 These
organisms enter
the wound because it provides easy entry, not because the child is
predisposed
to infection. Medical journals have published numerous accounts of
babies who
have had part or all of their glans cut off while they were being
circumcised.53, 54, 55 Other fully conscious, unanesthetized babies
have had
their entire penis burned off with an electrocautery gun.56, 57, 58
The
September 1989 Journal of Urology published an account of four such
cases.59 The
article described the sex-change operation as "feminizing
genitoplasty,"
performed on these babies in an attempt to change them into girls. The
March
1997 Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine described one
young person's
horror on learning that "she" had been born a normal male, but that a
circumciser had burned his penis off when he was a baby.60 Many other
similar
cases have been documented.61, 62 Infant circumcision has a reported
death rate
of one in 500,000.63, 64
Circumcision harms mothers: Scientific studies have consistently shown
that
circumcision disrupts a child's behavioral development. Studies
performed at the
University of Colorado School of Medicine showed that circumcision is
followed
by prolonged, unrestful non-REM (rapid-eye-movement) sleep.65 In
response to the
lengthy bombardment of their neural pathways with unbearable pain,
the
circumcised babies withdrew into a kind of semicoma that lasted days
or even
weeks. Numerous other studies have proven that circumcision disrupts
the mother-
infant bond during the crucial period after birth. Research has also
shown that
circumcision disrupts feeding patterns. In a study at the Washington
University
School of Medicine, most babies would not nurse right after they were
circumcised, and those who did would not look into their mothers' eyes.
66
Circumcision violates patients' and human rights: No one has the right
to cut
off any part of someone else's genitals without that person's
competent, fully
informed consent. Since it is the infant who must bear the
consequences,
circumcision violates his legal rights both to refuse treatment and to
seek
alternative treatment. In 1995, the American Academy of Pediatrics
Committee on
Bioethics stated that only a competent patient can give patient
consent or
informed consent.67An infant is obviously too young to consent to
anything. He
must be protected from anyone who would take advantage of his
defenselessness.
The concept of informed parental permission allows for medical
interventions in
situations of clear and immediate medical necessity only, such as
disease,
trauma, or deformity. The human penis in its normal, uncircumcised
state
satisfies none of these requirements. Physicians have a duty to refuse
to
perform circumcision. They also must educate parents who, out of
ignorance or
misguidance, request this surgery for their sons. The healthcare
professional's
obligation is to protect the interests of the child. It is unethical
in the
extreme to force upon a child an amputation he almost certainly would
never have
chosen for himself. Common Sense To be intact, as nature intended, is
best. The
vast majority of males who are given the choice value their wholeness
and keep
their foreskins, for the same reason they keep their other organs of
perception.
Parents in Europe and non-Muslim Asia never have forced their boys to
be
circumcised. It would no more occur to them to cut off part of their
boys'
penises than it would to cut off part of their ears. Respecting a
child's right
to keep his genitals intact is normal and natural. It is conservative
in the
best sense of the word.
A circumcised father who has mixed feelings about his intact newborn
son may
require gentle, compassionate psychological counseling to help him
come to
terms with his loss and to overcome his anxieties about normal male
genitalia.
In such cases, the mother should steadfastly protect her child,
inviting her
husband to share this protective role and helping him diffuse his
negative
feelings. Most parents want what is best for their baby. Wise parents
listen to
their hearts and trust their instinct to protect their baby from
harm. The
experience of the ages has shown that babies thrive best in a
trusting
atmosphere of love, gentleness, respect, acceptance, nurturing, and
intimacy.
Cutting off a baby's foreskin shatters this trust. Circumcision
wounds and
harms the baby and the person the baby will become. Parents who
respect their
son's wholeness are bequeathing to him his birthright-his body,
perfect and
beautiful in its entirety.
David Z
> > > However studies also indicate that circumcision
> > > is of no significant value to peoples in advanced cultures
> > > like Western Europe, Japan and China.
> >
> > Of course, no studies of the second type can be found. They exist
only
> > in the mind of anti-circ bigots.
>
> The Foreskin Is Necessary By Paul M. Fleiss, MD, MPH
> Published in Mothering: The Magazine of Natural Family Living, Winter
> 1997, pp. 36--45.
That's not a study, moron, that's a position paper.
Do you know the difference?
Jake Waskett
As a technicality, David, it's a magazine article. :) It wasn't even
published in a peer-reviewed journal (as an aside, I wonder how many
rejected it).
ged
news:pan.2007.03.14....@hotmail.com...
Yes, a magazine article, but with 67 supporting references, great many of
them to articles in highly respected peer-reviewed journals. Among them:
1. British Medical Journal;
2. British Journal of Urology;
3. Proceedings of the Staff Meetings of the Mayo Clinic;
4. Journal of Urology;
5. British Journal of Urology;
6. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology;
7. American Journal of Public Health;
8. Medical Journal of Australia;
9. Journal of the American Medical Association;
10. Clinical Pediatrics;
11. Journal of Pediatric Surgery;
12. New England Journal of Medicine;
13. Pediatrics;
etc. including several European journals.
Jake Waskett
> "Jake Waskett" <chill...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:pan.2007.03.14....@hotmail.com...
>> On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 07:31:15 -0400, David Z wrote:
>>
>
>> >> The Foreskin Is Necessary By Paul M. Fleiss, MD, MPH
>> >> Published in Mothering: The Magazine of Natural Family Living, Winter
>> >> 1997, pp. 36--45.
>> >
>> > That's not a study, moron, that's a position paper.
>> >
>> > Do you know the difference?
>>
>> As a technicality, David, it's a magazine article. :) It wasn't even
>> published in a peer-reviewed journal (as an aside, I wonder how many
>> rejected it).
>
> Yes, a magazine article, but with 67 supporting references, great many of
> them to articles in highly respected peer-reviewed journals. Among them:
Beware false authority. There are references, but how many
have you checked to confirm that they do indeed support the claim?
Take this paragraph, for example:
"Circumcision does not prevent acquisition or transmission of sexually
transmitted diseases (STDs). In fact, the US has both the highest
percentage of sexually active circumcised males in the Western world and
the highest rates of sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS.
Rigorously controlled prospective studies show that circumcised American
men are at a greater risk for bacterial and viral STDs, especially
gonorrhea,43 nongonoccal urethritis,44 human papilloma virus,45 herpes
simplex virus type 2,46 and chlamydia.47"
Did you look at ref 43? Not only is it a study of Australian, not
American men, but contrary to Fleiss' other claim, it states: "Gonorrhoea,
syphilis and acute hepatitis B were reported too infrequently to reliably
exclude any association with circumcision status. ... From the findings of
this study, circumcision of men has no significant effect on the incidence
of common STDs in this developed nation setting."
How about ref 46? Another Australian study, and again it
contradicts Fleiss' assertion: "Neither increasing age nor lack of
circumcision was associated with HSV-2 infection."
How about ref 47? "We find no significant differences between circumcised
and uncircumcised men in their likelihood of contracting sexually
transmitted diseases."
And of course Fleiss conveniently omits the fact that for most of his
cherry-picked findings, the other studies that he cites contradict his
claims.
So, how impressive are all those references when we know that they don't
actually say what he claims they say? Not very impressive at all.
David Z
What a joke! Just because an author cites a bunch of articles, that
gives him credibility? Is THAT your argument?
ROTFLMAO!
Tom Potter
> "ged" <nospam...@info.net> wrote in message
>
> news:et99ds$do4$1...@news04.infoave.net...
>
> > "Jake Waskett" <chillies...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
It appears that the recent aggressive efforts to hype circumcision
is BECAUSE more and more governments and states
are DISALLOWING the taxpayers money to be used
for this religiously based procedure,
because it has been shown to be of dubious value.
If you do a Google search,
you will find that governments and the medical community
perceive circumcision as a negative, rather than a positive,
are being aggressively and systematically hyped.
It may be that cultures that engage wantonly in sex,
and do not or cannot wash,
might benefit from circumcision,
but the evidence is clear
that in cultures that can and do practice cleanliness
circumcision is a negative, rather than a positive.
I suggest that it would be more rational
to hype the breast removal of baby girls,
as this would prevent the females from getting breast cancer
later in life, than it is to hype mutilating the genitals of baby
boys.
Excerpts from a couple of web sites are listed below:
====================================
http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/dec2006/niaid-13.htm
Adult Male Circumcision Significantly Reduces Risk of Acquiring HIV
Trials in Kenya and Uganda Stopped Early
The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID),
part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), announced an early
end to two clinical trials of adult male circumcision because an
interim review of trial data revealed that medically performed
circumcision significantly reduces a man's risk of acquiring HIV
through heterosexual intercourse. The trial in Kisumu, Kenya, of 2,784
HIV-negative men showed a 53 percent reduction of HIV acquisition in
circumcised men relative to uncircumcised men, while a trial of 4,996
HIV-negative men in Rakai, Uganda, showed that HIV acquisition was
reduced by 48 percent in circumcised men.
http://www.ahrq.gov/RESEARCH/mar05/0305RA28.htm
Gray, D.T. (2004, November). "Neonatal circumcision: Cost-effective
preventive measure or "the unkindest cut of all'?" Medical Decision
Making, 24, pp. 688-692.
Neither the American Academy of Pediatrics nor the Canadian Pediatric
Society still recommends circumcision as a routine procedure. They
recommend that if circumcision is performed, the procedure be
accompanied by documented informed consent and adequate analgesia.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
H.R. NO. 140
TWENTY-THIRD LEGISLATURE, 2006
STATE OF HAWAII
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HOUSE RESOLUTION
REQUESTING the Director of Human Services to expedite the adoption of
rules in accordance with chapter 91, Hawaii Revised Statutes, and to
obtain any federal waivers, if necessary, to disallow MEDICAID
coverage for routine circumcision for newborn male infants in Hawaii.
WHEREAS, circumcision of young males has been a long-standing
tradition among adherents to certain religions including Judaism, and
Christians eventually adopted the practice, although it is unclear
why; and
WHEREAS, it is also unclear why one million two hundred thousand
circumcisions are performed in the United States each year--more than
in any other country when this operation is considered a medically
unnecessary procedure; and
WHEREAS, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of
Family Practitioners, and the American Medical Association, have all
published statements that do not support routine neonatal
circumcisions; and
WHEREAS, although there are potential medical benefits, such as
reduced incidence of urinary tract infections in circumcised male
infants under one year of age and reduced risk of penile cancer in
uncircumcised men, these risks are minimal--fewer than one per cent of
uncircumcised baby boys get such infections and penile cancer is quite
rare; and
WHEREAS, on the other hand, potential adverse complications of
circumcision are more likely and include bleeding, poor cosmetic
results, adhesions, scarring of the urethral opening, infection, and,
in very rare cases, penile amputation or death; and
WHEREAS, parents have chosen circumcision for their newborn sons so
that their sons will "look" normal and for purposes of hygiene when,
in fact, up to eighty-five per cent of the world's male population is
not circumcised and, except in rare cases, hygiene is not an issue for
most males; and
WHEREAS, in the United States, the cost of routine circumcisions
ranges from $150,000,000 to $270,000,000 each year; and
WHEREAS, in certain states, such as Virginia, Medicaid still pays for
circumcisions when the cost savings from not covering circumcisions
could have paid for much of an infant's needed immunizations; and
WHEREAS, sixteen states--Arizona, California, Florida, Idaho,
Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada,
North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Utah, and Washington already
have disallowed Medicaid coverage of circumcision; and
WHEREAS, in recent years, routine circumcision seems to be declining
in popularity; in California, only one-third of male newborns are
currently undergoing the procedure; and
WHEREAS, newborn circumcision is not recommended by any major
American, foreign, or international medical organization, is medically
unnecessary and defined as an elective procedure by the Centers for
Medicare and Medicaid, and is not cost-effective; and
WHEREAS, Medicaid is mandated to pay only for medically necessary care
and not for elective care and removing circumcision from Medicaid
coverage will improve Hawaii's Medicaid program by making the cost
savings available to cover other Medicaid needs; now, therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED by the House of Representatives of the Twenty-third
Legislature of the State of Hawaii, Regular Session of 2006, that the
Director of Human Services is requested to expedite the adoption of
rules in accordance with chapter 91, Hawaii Revised Statutes, and to
obtain any federal waivers, if necessary, to disallow Medicaid
coverage for routine circumcision for newborn male infants in Hawaii;
and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Director of Human Services is
requested to calculate the resulting cost savings and formulate a plan
to reallocate those cost savings to other Medicaid needs; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Director of Human Services is
requested to submit its plan to the Legislature not later than twenty
days prior to the convening of the Regular Session of 2007; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that certified copies of this Resolution be
transmitted to the Director of Human Services who, in turn, is
requested to distribute copies to all health care providers in Hawaii
who perform circumcision procedures reimbursed by Medicaid, the
Director of Health, and the President of the Hawaii Health Systems
Corporation.
Tom Potter
> "Tom Potter" <tdp1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
It appears that the recent aggressive efforts to hype circumcision
http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/dec2006/niaid-13.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HOUSE RESOLUTION
--
Tom Potter
> On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 07:31:15 -0400, David Z wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
It appears that the recent aggressive efforts to hype circumcision
http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/dec2006/niaid-13.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HOUSE RESOLUTION
--
David Z
> > > > > However studies also indicate that circumcision
> > > > > is of no significant value to peoples in advanced
> > > > > cultures like Western Europe, Japan and China.
> >
> > > > Of course, no studies of the second type can be
> > > > only found. They exist in the mind of anti-circ bigots.
> >
> > > The Foreskin Is Necessary By Paul M. Fleiss, MD, MPH
> > > Published in Mothering: The Magazine of Natural Family
> > > Living, Winter 1997, pp. 36--45.
> >
> > That's not a study, moron, that's a position paper.
> >
> > Do you know the difference?
[rambling drivel deleted]
Translation = NO.
I didn't think so.
Tom Potter
> "Tom Potter" <tdp1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
As I wrote,
and as the poster deleted,
"It appears that the recent aggressive efforts to hype circumcision
is BECAUSE more and more governments and States
are DISALLOWING the taxpayers money to be used
for this religiously based procedure,
because it has been shown to be of dubious value."
If you do a Google search,
you will find that governments and the medical community
perceive circumcision as a negative, rather than a positive,
and you will also find that the pro-circumcision gang
is aggressively hyping two studies that involve Rwanda and Uganda
in their effort to try to get governments to support
the practice with taxpayers dollars.
It may be that cultures that engage wantonly in sex,
and do not, or cannot wash,
might benefit from circumcision,
but the evidence is clear
that in cultures that can and do practice cleanliness
circumcision is a negative, rather than a positive.
One might get the idea from "David Z"'s posts
that he is one of the propagandists who is
hyping circumcision for religious purposes,
and to get the taxpayers and the public
to support this primitive practice.
Jake Waskett
> On Mar 16, 12:55 pm, "David Z" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>> "Tom Potter" <tdp1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1174031005.7...@e1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > > > > > However studies also indicate that circumcision
>> > > > > > is of no significant value to peoples in advanced
>> > > > > > cultures like Western Europe, Japan and China.
>>
>> > > > > Of course, no studies of the second type can be
>> > > > > only found. They exist in the mind of anti-circ bigots.
>>
>> > > > The Foreskin Is Necessary By Paul M. Fleiss, MD, MPH
>> > > > Published in Mothering: The Magazine of Natural Family
>> > > > Living, Winter 1997, pp. 36--45.
>>
>> > > That's not a study, moron, that's a position paper.
>>
>> > > Do you know the difference?
>>
>> [rambling drivel deleted]
>>
>> Translation = NO.
>>
>> I didn't think so.
>
> As I wrote,
> and as the poster deleted,
You posted the same reply to several different messages, which kind of
indicates that you're not paying attention. Deletion seems a reasonable
response.
>
> "It appears that the recent aggressive efforts to hype circumcision
> is BECAUSE more and more governments and States
> are DISALLOWING the taxpayers money to be used
> for this religiously based procedure,
> because it has been shown to be of dubious value."
There's little evidence to support that assertion.
> If you do a Google search,
> you will find that governments and the medical community
> perceive circumcision as a negative, rather than a positive,
If you do a Google search, you will likely be bombarded with
anti-circumcision activist websites. These doubtless reflect the views of
those activists, but they're not the best indicator of others' views.
There's no doubt that some members of the medical community (activist and
otherwise) perceive circumcision as negative, but there's no reason to
believe that theirs is the majority view.
>
> and you will also find that the pro-circumcision gang
> is aggressively hyping two studies that involve Rwanda and Uganda
> in their effort to try to get governments to support
> the practice with taxpayers dollars.
Do you include the World Health Organisation as part of this
"pro-circumcision gang?"
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/statements/2007/s04/en/index.html
This makes for interesting reading, too:
http://www.who.int/reproductive-health/publications/malecircumcision/male_circumcision.pdf
>
> It may be that cultures that engage wantonly in sex,
> and do not, or cannot wash,
> might benefit from circumcision,
> but the evidence is clear
> that in cultures that can and do practice cleanliness
> circumcision is a negative, rather than a positive.
In which case you'll be able to cite some evidence...?
>
> One might get the idea from "David Z"'s posts
> that he is one of the propagandists who is
> hyping circumcision for religious purposes,
> and to get the taxpayers and the public
> to support this primitive practice.
No, he's really an alien from the planet Procircumcisionxia. But fun as it
is to speculate about people's motives and who they might be, it's perhaps
more productive to read what they have to say and whether it makes logical
sense. So far, with these conspiracy theories, you're not doing terribly
well.
>
> --
> Tom Potter
David Z
> One might get the idea from "David Z"'s posts
> that he is one of the propagandists who is
> hyping circumcision for religious purposes...
ROTFLMAO!!!!
I'm just a guy who gets a kick out of throwing harpoons at Internet hot
air balloons like you. So far, you're the best target I've ever found.
> Tom Potter
> *** Time Magazine Person of the Year 2006 ***
Pretty much says it all, doesn't it? <G>
Tom Potter
>
> > It may be that cultures that engage wantonly in sex,
> > and do not, or cannot wash,
> > might benefit from circumcision,
> > but the evidence is clear
> > that in cultures that can and do practice cleanliness
> > circumcision is a negative, rather than a positive.
>
> In which case you'll be able to cite some evidence...?
>
> > One might get the idea from "David Z"'s posts
> > that he is one of the propagandists who is
> > hyping circumcision for religious purposes,
> > and to get the taxpayers and the public
> > to support this primitive practice.
>
> No, he's really an alien from the planet Procircumcisionxia. But fun as it
> is to speculate about people's motives and who they might be, it's perhaps
> more productive to read what they have to say and whether it makes logical
> sense. So far, with these conspiracy theories, you're not doing terribly
> well.
As can be seen the circumcision propogandists
use the same, boilerplate tactic and phrases
used by dishonest people to obscure messages.
Note that they try to obscure the message by
trying to discredit the messenger with such trite phrases as:
1. "which kind of indicates that you're not paying attention.."
2. So far, with these conspiracy theories, you're not doing terribly
well.
3. By changing the thread to: "Tom Potter, the Rambling Idiot"
4. They exist in the mind of anti-circ bigots.
5. [rambling drivel deleted]
6. That's not a study, moron..
and to trivialize the message with such phrases as:
1. "he's really an alien from the planet Procircumcisionxia."
Regarding Jake Waskett's assertion"
"There's little evidence to support that assertion."
It appears that Jake Waskett has a serious reading comprehension
problem,
as he completely missed the overwhelming "evidence" used
by the STATE OF HAWAII LEGISLATURE,
(And most nations, medical organizations, and many states.)
to disconnect the circumcision gang from the taxpayers.
As I stated in my post:
"you will also find that the pro-circumcision gang
is aggressively hyping two studies that involve Rwanda and Uganda
in their effort to try to get governments to support
the practice with taxpayers dollars."
and as can be seen, Jake Waskett
uses the VERY SAME reference as his main point.
It may be that cultures that are unclean,
and cultures that practice indiscriminate sex
might profit from circumcision,
but according to Medical Organizations and
Most Nations of the world,
circumcision is more negative than positive.
I suggest that rational, intelligent folks should take a look
1. At who is hyping circumcision.
2. At who stands to gain financially and prestige-wise
from this brutal practice.
3. At the reference that is widely disseminated
and quoted by the promoters of circumcision,
one conducted in Rwanda and Uganda.
4. At the tactics used by the circumcision promoters.
(Attacking and trying to discredit the messenger,
rather than addressing the message
in a rational, intelligent, MORAL way.)
I also suggest that if anyone feels the need to mutilate babies,
that they should promote breast removal in baby girls
in order to prevent them from getting breast cancer later in life.
Tom Potter
> "Tom Potter" <tdp1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
As my Pappy used to say
"You get better information
from the horse's mouth
than you do from a horse's ass."
I welcome a comparison of my positions,
posts, moral positions, and personal qualities,
with those of "David Z".
And as can be seen from his posts,
"David Z" is a not-too-bright, vulgar clown,
who as he admits,
attacks messengers,
rather than address messages in a rational, intelligent, MORAL way.
If anyone thinks that I am the issue,
and they want to know about me,
there are all kinds of pictures
of me and my family on my web sites and BLOGs.
On the other hand,
if one likes what comes out of the south end
of a north bound horse,
I suggest that they read David Z's posts.
--
Tom Potter
*** Time Magazine Person of the Year 2006 ***
David Z
> On Mar 17, 1:09 am, "David Z" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> > "Tom Potter" <tdp1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> > news:1174047542.0...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > > One might get the idea from "David Z"'s posts
> > > that he is one of the propagandists who is
> > > hyping circumcision for religious purposes...
> >
> > ROTFLMAO!!!!
> >
> > I'm just a guy who gets a kick out of throwing harpoons at Internet
hot
> > air balloons like you. So far, you're the best target I've ever
found.
> >
> > >Tom Potter
> > > *** Time Magazine Person of the Year 2006 ***
> >
> > Pretty much says it all, doesn't it? <G>
>
> As my Pappy used to say
> "You get better information
> from the horse's mouth
> than you do from a horse's ass."
>
> I welcome a comparison of my positions,
> posts, moral positions, and personal qualities,
> with those of "David Z".
ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!
This flaming bigot boasts about hais "moral positions, and personal
qualities."
Eat shit and die young, you fucking asshole.
David Z
> It appears that Jake Waskett has a serious reading
> comprehension problem, as he completely missed the
> overwhelming "evidence" used
> by the STATE OF HAWAII LEGISLATURE,
> (And most nations, medical organizations, and many states.)
> to disconnect the circumcision gang from the taxpayers.
>
> HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
> H.R. NO. 140
> TWENTY-THIRD LEGISLATURE, 2006
> STATE OF HAWAII
> "WHEREAS, circumcision of young males has been a long-standing
> tradition...
To clarify, this particular piece of misinformation (one of many) spewed
by this idiot bigot, this "resolution" MAY have been INTRODUCED in the
Hawaii House in 2006, but no such resolution ever PASSED the Hawaii
House in 2006. See:
www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2006/lists/resoadopted_list.htm
It's not surprising that this idiot bigot who doesn't understand the
difference between a scientific study and a slanted position paper also
doesn't understand the difference between a resolution INTRODUCED in a
legislative body and a law or resolution PASSED by a legislative body.
But what's really ironic here, is that this an idiot bigot accuses
someone else of a "serious reading comprehension problem."
> Tom Potter
> *** Time Magazine Rambling, Idiot Bigot of the Year 2006 ***
Zac
> It appears that the recent aggressive efforts to hype circumcision
> is BECAUSE more and more governments and states
> are DISALLOWING the taxpayers money to be used
> for this religiously based procedure,
> because it has been shown to be of dubious value.
This seems like a case of "proof by assumption" on your part. There is
no correlation.
> If you do a Google search,
> HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
> H.R. NO. 140
> TWENTY-THIRD LEGISLATURE, 2006
> STATE OF HAWAII
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> HOUSE RESOLUTION
>
> REQUESTING the Director of Human Services to expedite the adoption of
> rules in accordance with chapter 91, Hawaii Revised Statutes, and to
> obtain any federal waivers, if necessary, to disallow MEDICAID
> coverage for routine circumcision for newborn male infants in Hawaii.
> ...
Beware of government actions such as this: it has nothing to do with
health or well being
and everything to do with political code for "deprive the poor because
they have too much". It's
the typical m/o of conservatives and anti-tax types. The fact is that
the U.S. is the lowest
taxed economy in the developed world, so this is all just whining...
not without basis, though;
a direct result of conservative and Bush rule that's been destroying
the economy and wiped out
aid to the states as never before.
Most people in the U.S. do not get Medicaid coverage, it's only for
the poor and some disabled.
Most people - including myself - have private insurance. All these
people continue to be covered for
routine circumcision despite 20 years of agitating and propagandizing
by anti-circ loons. Here and there,
some insurers tried to disallow circ but the "free market" resolved
the bad business decision by the
companies. If a doctor backs a patient's desire for a circ for their
kid or themself, all he/she has to do
is say phimosis exists. No one else can prove it's not so, AS has
happened, unfortunately, in other
health areas.
Tom Potter
As "Zac" suggests,
the people hyping circumcision
are also desperate to prevent insurance companies
from requiring a special rider (At additional expense.)
for the people who intend to use medical insurance
to circumcise their children.
As it is now the masses,
who are opposed to mutilating their children
have to pay the freight for those who
do mutilate their children for religious and racial purposes.
It would be interesting to see some religion/culture
establish a correlation
between bones through the nose and some problem,
so that the taxpayers and insurance users
would have to pay for their bones through the nose jobs.
Andrew Usher
> On Mar 16, 3:44 am, "Tom Potter" <tdp1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > It appears that the recent aggressive efforts to hype circumcision
> > is BECAUSE more and more governments and states
> > are DISALLOWING the taxpayers money to be used
> > for this religiously based procedure,
> > because it has been shown to be of dubious value.
>
> This seems like a case of "proof by assumption" on your part. There is
> no correlation.
>
Yes, just more conspiracy theorising.
> > REQUESTING the Director of Human Services to expedite the adoption of
> > rules in accordance with chapter 91, Hawaii Revised Statutes, and to
> > obtain any federal waivers, if necessary, to disallow MEDICAID
> > coverage for routine circumcision for newborn male infants in Hawaii.
> > ...
>
> Beware of government actions such as this:
As explained elsewhere in this thread, this resolution never passed,
so it is not a 'government action'.
> it has nothing to do with
> health or well being
> and everything to do with political code for "deprive the poor because
> they have too much". It's the typical m/o of conservatives and anti-tax types.
Bull. This is just more of your left-wing paranoia.
Why are the loudest voices of left-wing nutty causes always found
among the very rich? It's because leftism is inherently hypocritical.
Andrew Usher
Andrew Usher
> As my Pappy used to say
> "You get better information
> from the horse's mouth
> than you do from a horse's ass."
I think we've all decided which end of the horse you resemble, Tom.
Andrew Usher
Rupert
> On Mar 11, 5:58 pm, "Rupert" <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I have discussed the issue of vaccination many times. Who's lying now?
>
> > Andrew, I want some kind of statement from you about your opinion of
> > the behaviour of David Z and Rupert Bear. On the basis I will decide
> > whether you are someone who is worth talking to.
>
> First, I don't condone their rudeness. I see no need to make a point
> of it, other
> than by not doing the same myself. I didn't negatively judge you by
> the
> behavior of Tom Potter, or any od the other pro-circ idiots.
>
> you
> did not reply to that question. My last posts to the old thread 'The
> case for
> circumcision' were on Feb 13. I would ask you to read this and
> specifically
> answer:
>
> 1. Can any vaccination ethically be required?
>
Yes. I've said a few times that a smallpox vaccination can be
ethically required, for example. Measles vaccination in Third World
countries significantly reduces the risk of death before the age of
five - measles vaccinations have reduced annual under-five deaths by
millions - so I'd say that could reasonably be called "medically
necessary". You can vaccinate a child who's too young to give consent
if you can reasonably presume that consent would be forthcoming. You
can't reasonably make such a presumption in the case of circumcision
because the majority of men who are left uncircumcised and are then
presented with all the relevant facts don't choose circumcision. I
don't think this would be the case with most vaccinations. I'm
skeptical of your claim that 1 in 600 uncircumcised men get penile
cancer, by the way. I've seen very different estimates for that
figure. Are you able to give me a source for that? Does the website
you got it from mention a source?
> 2. If so, can the HPV vaccine?
>
I wouldn't have thought so - I wouldn't have thought the medical
benefits were high enough. Especially when you consider that most of
the medical benefits could be obtained by having the vaccination when
the child was old enough to consent, or by other means such as
practicing safe sex when the child became sexually active.
I don't claim to be well-informed about this issue. Perhaps you can
direct me to some arguments about the matter?
> Andrew Usher
Andrew Usher
> > 1. Can any vaccination ethically be required?
>
> Yes. I've said a few times that a smallpox vaccination can be
> ethically required, for example. Measles vaccination in Third World
> countries significantly reduces the risk of death before the age of
> five - measles vaccinations have reduced annual under-five deaths by
> millions - so I'd say that could reasonably be called "medically
> necessary". You can vaccinate a child who's too young to give consent
> if you can reasonably presume that consent would be forthcoming. You
> can't reasonably make such a presumption in the case of circumcision
> because the majority of men who are left uncircumcised and are then
> presented with all the relevant facts don't choose circumcision. I
> don't think this would be the case with most vaccinations.
OK. But I'd of course question that most uncircumcised men have 'all
the relevant facts' about circumcision.
> I'm
> skeptical of your claim that 1 in 600 uncircumcised men get penile
> cancer, by the way. I've seen very different estimates for that
> figure. Are you able to give me a source for that? Does the website
> you got it from mention a source?
I'll look for something. I don't see any reason to doubt the figure is
reasonably close.
> > 2. If so, can the HPV vaccine?
>
> I wouldn't have thought so - I wouldn't have thought the medical
> benefits were high enough.
Do you concede the same for circumcision? That is, if the medical
benefits were 'high enough' (whatever that means), that mandatory
circumcision would be OK?
> Especially when you consider that most of
> the medical benefits could be obtained by having the vaccination when
> the child was old enough to consent, or by other means such as
> practicing safe sex when the child became sexually active.
I mostly agree, although I'd phrase it (as I did before) by saying
that HPV is not contagious. Of course I also think (as you apparently
don't) that it is morally objectionable due to being a sexual disease.
This is what makes it worse than a tetanus shot. Tetanus is also non-
contagious, and I don't think it should ever be required either, but I
wouldn't complain about it as much as the HPV vaccine.
Andrew Usher
David Z
news:1174105071.7...@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Exactly. Everyone, that is, except...
> Tom Potter
> *** Time Magazine Rambling, Idiot Bigot of the Year 2006 ***
> *** A Legend In His Own Mind ***
Tom Potter
The definition of "bigot" is:
"A prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from
his own."
As can be seen by their gang banging of actors, posters, politicians,
etc.
and by their gangbanging of folks who oppose circumcision in this
thread,
and in fact, anyone who expresses an opinion differing from theirs,
etc.,
with lies, distortions, vulgar insults, attacks on family members,
etc.
it appears that Jews have instititutionalized bigotry.
Perhaps it is their institutionalized bigotry
that has brought Jews into conflict
with all of their neighbors throughout history.
(Mesopotamia, Palestine, Egypt, Palestine, Persia, Rome, Spain,
England, France, Spain again, Germany,
recently Russia and Palestine again, and in the process, America.),
Here is a Web site that exposes the bigotry of Jews,
and discusses some of the good folks that
have been systematically
Jimmy Carter'ed and Mel Gibson'ed by Jews.
<http://www.zundelsite.org/english/debate/victims/index.html>
--
Tom Potter
*** Time Magazine Person of the Year 2006 ***
Tom Potter
> "Tom Potter" <tdp1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
"David Z" raises a good point!
As Jews act in a dog pack fashion,
and aggressively and systematically Jimmy Carter
and Mel Gibson ANYONE
who opposes their agenda or tarnishes their image,
and as most non-Jews operate as individuals,
and have been conditioned to
"Turn the other cheek",
Jews are generally able to impose their agenda
upon the larger society,
much as spoiled children impose their agenda upon their parents.
Of course, this only works for a while,
because folks will only take so much shit,
or allow their fellow man to take so much shit,
before they react.
In other words, all cultures, except Jews,
operate from the forgiving form of "tit for tat" social strategy
that science has found most effective,
whereas Jews have been frozen
into the primitive Laws of Hamarabi (An eye for an eye.),
that was adapted by Moses and incorporated into their culture.
As can be seen by studying history,
Jews have come into conflict with ALL of their neighbors
throughout history, no doubt because non-Jews
eventually get tired of "Turning the other cheek",
and eventually they tell the Jews, "Shape up or ship out."
It seems pretty clear that America and the world
are moving into the "Shape up or ship out" mode,
that Jews have encountered many times.
It will be interesting to see where Jews will migrate en mass to
after American get fed up with their filth (Barat, Howard Stern,
etc.)
their selfishness and greed,
and their systematic abuse of good folks.
The question, will Jews be able to join the human race?
--
Tom Potter
*** Time Magazine Person of the Year 2006 ***
David Z
> *** A Legend In His Own Mind ***
Gee, Tom, I thought for a moment about responding to this...but then I
realized...I can't do a better job of discrediting you than already
you've done here all by yourself!
Does anyone here support what Tom's saying?
Rupert
Obviously beyond some threshold it would be OK - if it were
demonstrably necessary to save the infant's life, for example.
> > Especially when you consider that most of
> > the medical benefits could be obtained by having the vaccination when
> > the child was old enough to consent, or by other means such as
> > practicing safe sex when the child became sexually active.
>
> I mostly agree, although I'd phrase it (as I did before) by saying
> that HPV is not contagious. Of course I also think (as you apparently
> don't) that it is morally objectionable due to being a sexual disease.
> This is what makes it worse than a tetanus shot. Tetanus is also non-
> contagious, and I don't think it should ever be required either, but I
> wouldn't complain about it as much as the HPV vaccine.
>
I don't see that the fact that the disease is sexually transmitted
does anything to add to the moral objectionability.
None of the conditions for which circumcision reduces the risk are
contagious either, are they?
I found some information about penile cancer:
http://menshealth.about.com/cs/menonly/a/cancer_penis.htm
> Andrew Usher
Tom Potter
As can be seen "David Z"
confirms the point I made point that
"Jews act in a dog pack fashion,
and aggressively and systematically Jimmy Carter
and Mel Gibson ANYONE
who opposes their agenda or tarnishes their image,
and as most non-Jews operate as individuals,
and have been conditioned to
"Turn the other cheek",.."
As can be seen,
"David Z" is yelping for other dogs to join him.
Hopefully some day,
Jews will abandon the primitive
social strategy they are conditioned to
(Hammarabi's Law - An eye for an eye..)
and adopt the social strategy
that science to be the most effect social strategy,
that used by the vast majority of the folks on the planet
(A forgiving form of tit for tat.)
I dare say that their use of the primitive social strategy
is what has brought Jews into conflict with all of their
neighbors through history.
--
Tom Potter
*** Time Magazine Person of the Year 2006 ***
David Z
Yes and the point is that you're a moron AND a bigot.
But unfortunately you missed the point.
David Z
> As can be seen,
> "David Z" is yelping for other dogs to join him.
You missed the point again you moron bigot.
The point is that no one here supports you.
Zac
> As explained elsewhere in this thread, this resolution never passed,
> so it is not a 'government action'.
... something I was in fact wondering. I wasn't even sure it was
something official. At best, I was wondering if it was a "non-binding"
resolution or whatever, or if it was ever codified as a law.
Apparently not.
> > it has nothing to do with health or well being
> > and everything to do with political code for "deprive the poor because
> > they have too much". It's the typical m/o of conservatives and anti-tax types.
>
> Bull. This is just more of your left-wing paranoia.
>
> Why are the loudest voices of left-wing nutty causes always found
> among the very rich? It's because leftism is inherently hypocritical.
Maybe bull to someone who knows nothing about politics, or to one of
those who stands accused in the statement or has a vested interest in
denying it. Not at all derived from the perspective of a "leftist".
It's economic reality. Just the truth, something conservatives
generally dislike.
I don't know why such recognitions and admissions of truths would come
from the very wealthy, because I'm far from wealthy. Usually it's the
wealthy who advocate screw-the-poor positions, except generally and
most interestingly, wealthy Jewish people. The "WASP rich" want to
keep all the unearned income they get from investments while sitting
on their rear ends and contributing nothing to society. Somehow most
of the Jewish wealthy realize they get their gains partly from the
existence of society and know they should give something back. The
rest are "takers". And thus the necessity to deny reality -- so they
don't have to pay even part of their fair share.
No, my perspective doesn't come from being rich or liberal or left, it
comes from being part of the sinking middle class. The reason for my
perspective is because I'm one of the increasing few who understand
how my world works and who makes it do as it does.
Now back to the matter at hand, which isn't exactly poltics.
Zac
> who are opposed to mutilating their children
> have to pay the freight for those who
> do mutilate their children for religious and racial purposes.
So you plan to incite a revolution and reorganization of society based
on preserving the foreskin? That would probably be a first in human
history. Do you have any past models on which you'd like to base your
new arrangement? Stalin in the USSR banned all circumcision for
religious reaons... would you like to make the U.S. into a Stalin-like
state? Bush certainly seems to have accomplished that aim in various
manners and only 6 years into it, the country is revolting in various
ways. Care to try another model?
Zac
> It appears that the recent aggressive efforts to hype circumcision
> is BECAUSE more and more governments and states
> are DISALLOWING the taxpayers money to be used
> for this religiously based procedure,
> because it has been shown to be of dubious value.
Adding to my comment elsewhere in this thread that one must beware of
politicians doing as you cited because it's all just code for taking
away needed benefits from the poor because they allegedly have too
much already, there is another very important thing to keep in mind:
there are various prohibitions around the U.S. on state and local
levels to limit the choice of an abortion to Medicaid recipients.
Nearly always spawned by religious nuts and economic conservatives
(just as Gov. Perry of Tx recently described his actions in mandating
the HPV vaccine for all girls), it is allegedly to save taxpayer
money. But most of these people also detest the taxpayer having to
take care of the poor, yet they don't object to the poor being the
ones stuck being forced to make more unwanted children. Similarly,
there are just as many reasons why an anti-circumcision position can
be advocated, and in some places, the poor are forece to go without
it.
Bototm line: aside from the U.S. needing to switch to a universal
health care system where health care is the goal, the government
should only be in the business of seeing to it that everyone gets the
care they need, raise the money for it, pay the bills, and stay the
hell out of the decisions of what medical treatments and procedures
the patient wants and the doctor agrees is appropriate.
Andrew Usher
> > > > 2. If so, can the HPV vaccine?
>
> > > I wouldn't have thought so - I wouldn't have thought the medical
> > > benefits were high enough.
>
> > Do you concede the same for circumcision? That is, if the medical
> > benefits were 'high enough' (whatever that means), that mandatory
> > circumcision would be OK?
>
> Obviously beyond some threshold it would be OK - if it were
> demonstrably necessary to save the infant's life, for example.
>
> > > Especially when you consider that most of
> > > the medical benefits could be obtained by having the vaccination when
> > > the child was old enough to consent, or by other means such as
> > > practicing safe sex when the child became sexually active.
>
> > I mostly agree, although I'd phrase it (as I did before) by saying
> > that HPV is not contagious. Of course I also think (as you apparently
> > don't) that it is morally objectionable due to being a sexual disease.
> > This is what makes it worse than a tetanus shot. Tetanus is also non-
> > contagious, and I don't think it should ever be required either, but I
> > wouldn't complain about it as much as the HPV vaccine.
>
> I don't see that the fact that the disease is sexually transmitted
> does anything to add to the moral objectionability.
So you would think that requiring the tetanus vaccine is as bad as
requiring the HPV vaccine?
> None of the conditions for which circumcision reduces the risk are
> contagious either, are they?
True.
> I found some information about penile cancer:
>
> http://menshealth.about.com/cs/menonly/a/cancer_penis.htm
>
This source mentions that about 1,500 men are diagnosed each year. To
find the total number of men that will get it, you need to multiply
that figure by life expectancy, getting about 110,000. Then, as older
men are more likely to get it and the population of the US is rising,
you need to adjust it up again to find the number living today that
will get it. Let's say 150,000.
That is 1 in 2,000 men living today. Since about 70% were circumcised
at birth, and thus have a negligible risk, the chance for a man that
wasn't is about 1 in 600.
Note that because penile cancer is largely caused by HPV, a change in
the number of uncut men in the US would change the rate of penile
cancer more than linearly (as they are far more likely to spread HPV).
Andrew Usher
David Z
> > None of the conditions for which circumcision reduces
> > the risk are contagious either, are they?
>
> True.
What?!
Can you say "HIV/AIDS?"
And I suspect other STDs as well!
Tom Potter
> "Tom Potter" <tdp1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
"David Z" raises a good point when he brings up the subject of
"bigots".
The definition of "bigot" is:
"A prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from
his
own."
As can be seen by their aggressive use of public funds
and tax deductions to finance the promotion of Jewish dogma
and their aggressive efforts to promote laws prohibiting "holocaust
denial",
and their gang banging of actors, posters, politicians, etc.
who express an opinion differing from theirs, etc.,
and gang banging the families and friends of folks
who have an opinion differing from Jewish dogma,
Jews have instititutionalized bigotry.
It is interesting to see that the first law passed in Russia
after Jews grabbed most of the power positions,
was to make criticism of Jews, a death penalty.
Now that's bigotry!
It does not take a rocket engineer to comprehend
that Jews have a long history of using "instititutionalized bigotry"
as a means of controlling the free flow of information,
in order to implement their self-serving agenda,
power and wealth.
One would think that if Jews were half as smart and as moral
as they pretend to be,
that they could and would address messages
in a rational, intelligent, MORAL way,
and would not have to resort to bigotry, gangbanging,
lies, distortions, personal attacks, vulgarity, etc. to obscure
messages.
Here is a Web site of some people that have
systematically attacked by bigoted Jews,
for their views.
http://www.zundelsite.org/english/debate/victims/index.html
Andrew Usher
> > > None of the conditions for which circumcision reduces
> > > the risk are contagious either, are they?
>
> > True.
>
> What?!
>
> Can you say "HIV/AIDS?"
>
> And I suspect other STDs as well!
Hold on, David. They are not 'contagious' in the way Rupert and I are
using the term.
They are not spread through casual contact between persons and other
persons or between persons and inanimate objects.
Andrew Usher
Andrew Usher
<snip garbage>
Isn't it astounding? Tom Potter is not only obsessed with foreskins
and with Jews, he's also a physics crank (see his shit website)! You
know, I think some people can make good use of leisure time, while
others just 'have too much time on their hands'. Tome Potter
definitely belongs to the latter group.
Andrew Usher
David Z
> On Mar 17, 11:27 pm, "David Z" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> > You missed the point again you moron bigot.
> >
> > The point is that no one here supports you.
>
> "David Z" raises a good point when he brings up the
> subject of "bigots".
You missed the point AGAIN.
The point is that YOU are a MORON BIGOT!
And no one here is buying ANY OF YOUR BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!!
Which word don't you understand, moron???!!!
> The definition of "bigot" is:
> "A prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions
> differing from his own."
Awww, let's all feel sorry for the poor, persecuted moron bigot victim.
Give me a fucking break, you idiot!!!!!!
[the rest of the moron's, repetitive bigot rant deleted]
> Tom Potter
> *** Time Magazine Rambling, Idiot Bigot of the Year 2006 ***
> *** A Legend In His Own Mind ***
What an ignoramus! <G>
Androcles
"Andrew Usher" <k_over...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1174181520.3...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Whatever Tom may be, he's preferable to a miserable cunt like you.
Andrew Usher
wrote:
> Whatever Tom may be, he's preferable to a miserable cunt like you.
Go fuck yourself, crank. I note that you have the 'honor' of appearing
on van der Moortel's page more times than anyone else; are you proud
of that?
Andrew Usher
Zac
Since the holocaust is an historical documented fact, what purpose
does it serve anyone to create a "debate" about its existence?
Yet for whatever reason, they do. Because the debate over such a
settled matter can harm, yes it should be outlawed. Somehow, I don't
think Germany, which is the only country I know that actually has had
such a law, did it because of Jewish agitation. Someone was recently
convicted of a crime under that law.
> It is interesting to see that the first law passed in Russia
> after Jews grabbed most of the power positions,
> was to make criticism of Jews, a death penalty.
The Bolsheviks (which means "majority", not "Jewish") actually
outlawed crimes against minorities and the oppressed, as a reaction to
the progroms and oppression that existed before the Socialist
Revolution of 1917. I don't claim to know how many of the Bolsheviks
were Jewish, but I know Nikolai Ulianov (a/k/a V.I. Lenin), the leader
of the party and revolution, wasn't Jewish. The only ones I'm sure of
are Trotsky and one other whose name I forgot.
After Stalin took power after Lenin's death, one of his
"accomplishments" was a ban on religious practices including
circumcision. Now surely you wouldn't consider that a Jewish power
grab, would you?
Rupert
> On Mar 17, 7:14 am, "Rupert" <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > 2. If so, can the HPV vaccine?
>
> > > > I wouldn't have thought so - I wouldn't have thought the medical
> > > > benefits were high enough.
>
> > > Do you concede the same for circumcision? That is, if the medical
> > > benefits were 'high enough' (whatever that means), that mandatory
> > > circumcision would be OK?
>
> > Obviously beyond some threshold it would be OK - if it were
> > demonstrably necessary to save the infant's life, for example.
>
> > > > Especially when you consider that most of
> > > > the medical benefits could be obtained by having the vaccination when
> > > > the child was old enough to consent, or by other means such as
> > > > practicing safe sex when the child became sexually active.
>
> > > I mostly agree, although I'd phrase it (as I did before) by saying
> > > that HPV is not contagious. Of course I also think (as you apparently
> > > don't) that it is morally objectionable due to being a sexual disease.
> > > This is what makes it worse than a tetanus shot. Tetanus is also non-
> > > contagious, and I don't think it should ever be required either, but I
> > > wouldn't complain about it as much as the HPV vaccine.
>
> > I don't see that the fact that the disease is sexually transmitted
> > does anything to add to the moral objectionability.
>
> So you would think that requiring the tetanus vaccine is as bad as
> requiring the HPV vaccine?
>
Yes, I don't see a basis for drawing a distinction.
> > None of the conditions for which circumcision reduces the risk are
> > contagious either, are they?
>
> True.
>
> > I found some information about penile cancer:
>
> >http://menshealth.about.com/cs/menonly/a/cancer_penis.htm
>
> This source mentions that about 1,500 men are diagnosed each year. To
> find the total number of men that will get it, you need to multiply
> that figure by life expectancy, getting about 110,000.
> Then, as older
> men are more likely to get it and the population of the US is rising,
> you need to adjust it up again to find the number living today that
> will get it. Let's say 150,000.
>
> That is 1 in 2,000 men living today.
1 in 1000. (You forgot that 150,000,000 of the people in the US are
women).
> Since about 70% were circumcised
> at birth, and thus have a negligible risk,
Well, what I see on the site I gave is a reduced risk, not a
negligible risk, and I also find that contested here:
http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/cancer/
What we really need to be clear about is the difference it makes to
the risk.
There are 105,000,000 circumcised men and 45,000,000 uncircumcised men
in the US today. If you're right that 150,000 men living today will
get penile cancer and that those who are uncircumcised have a 1 in 600
risk, then 75,000 circumcised men and 75,000 uncircumcised men will
get penile cancer, so the risk drops from 1 in 600 to 1 in 1400 if you
circumcise, and 100,000 circumcised men living today will be saved
from getting penile cancer because they were circumcised, and about
20,000 of those will have been saved from premature death. So, if a
man in the US gets circumcised, he has a 1 in 1000 chance of thereby
preventing cancer, and a 1 in 5000 chance of extending his life
somewhat, say by about 20 years. If we knew the average age at which
it occurs, we could figure out how many extra years of life we got, on
the assumption that no-one would choose to get circumcised if they
weren't neonatally circumcised. (Of course, we also have the option of
not neonatally circumcising and simply taking steps to ensure people
know the facts, we don't know how high the circumcision rate would be
then).
So what we're talking about, for an individual, is a choice between
having a foreskin, and having a 1 in 600 chance of getting penile
cancer and a 1 in 3000 chance of dying from it, or not having a
foreskin, and having a in 1400 chance of getting penile cancer and a 1
in 7000 chance of dying from it. Exactly how many years of life are
likely to be lost in the event of death from penile cancer we're not
sure, maybe 20 years. All of this is assuming your figures are right,
as noted above they are contested.
Well, you see, I think there's a bit of a problem with parents making
this decision on behalf of their son, when they're not in a position
to consult him about what his preferences are about whether he wants
to have a foreskin or not. I'm sure there are all sorts of things I
could do to slightly reduce my risk of this cancer or that. But I
think it's reasonable to let me have the right to decide about them,
especially when they involve a procedure that causes some pain and
long-lasting discomfort, involves some risk, and permanently removes a
body part and permanently changes the appearance of my body. I really
don't see what the objection is to just letting people decide for
themselves.
> the chance for a man that
> wasn't is about 1 in 600.
>
> Note that because penile cancer is largely caused by HPV, a change in
> the number of uncut men in the US would change the rate of penile
> cancer more than linearly (as they are far more likely to spread HPV).
>
I thought the claim was that it was caused by smegma. Well, there are
lots of ways we could try to reduce the spread of HPV, and thereby, if
you're right, the incidence of penile cancer. And one of them is
encouraging men to consider circumcision, which I have no problem with
you doing. What I do have a problem with is you imposing the procedure
on unconsenting infants. I don't think that the medical benefits
justify that.
> Andrew Usher- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
hanson
"Andrew Usher" Unkosher <k_over...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1174182541....@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>>> Tom Potter is not only obsessed with foreskins and
>>> with Jews, he's also a physics crank (see his shit website)!
>
>> Whatever Tom may be, he's preferable to a miserable cunt like you.
>
> Go fuck yourself, crank. I note that you have the 'honor' of appearing
> on van der Moortel's page more times than anyone else; are you
>
[hanson]
ahahaha..... Andy-Pandy, it is outright unkosher by you to get so
irate when someone doesn't agree with you over your half-dicking.
You actually remind me of this "wyg" (worthy Yiddishe gentlemen):
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e1842edc4f
who, like you, appears to be suffering from its consequences:
http://www.SexuallyMutilatedChild.org/mohel.htm
My heart aches for yours, Andy. Shalom. L'Chaim.
and thanks for the laughs... ahahaha... ahahahanson
>
PS:
your "k_over_hbarc" I take it to mean k/(hbar*c) which
and appears to be some pi fraction of the reciprocal
(h*c)/k, the classical "second radation constant"...
So, what's the big deal?... yet another kind of cut?
ahahahaha....