MrBubbles said:
vlad321 said:
MrBubbles said:
odd...as a group anyone not speaking against it seemed to be the most calm and rational people throughout this entire discussion. every other post from someone against seems to be accusing everyone not against it of butchering children and start coming up with the most absurd points and arguments....especially when throwing around things that are not fact, like a supposed decreased sensitivity eventhough there are studies that show both an increased and decreased sensitivity. the most outraged people in this thread seem to be people it doesnt concern at all...perhaps they are all just upset women like the circumsized look better. *shrugs*
i dont even know why im posting this to you since you have admitted in a previous thread that evidence is irrelevant. you seek information to support your opinion rather than forming an opinion after objectively reading the information. and when at dead end in your arguments you just turn to cyclical positions repeating stuff thats already been discussed.
|
And yet, the ones who are circumcised seem to be extremely defensive. Hell your post right there reeked of it. I would like to run with your refutation of "decrease in sensitivity." SOlely by definition sesitivity is related to the amount of nerve endings stimulated. Trust me, the foreskin definitely has nerve endings in it. By removing it, you are removing said nerves, therefore less enrves are stimulated, thus less sensitivity. Unless you are using some other definition of sensitivity, there is no way that you don't lose sensitivity. Also, one does not simply regrow nerve cells.
FInally I will reply to your final quip. Women liek the look of a circumcised one more, truth. However in my anecdotal experience women prefer an uncut penis because it makes for a far better fuck. Basically it all came down to a similarly worded argument of "there's just MORE of it, you know?" Ultimately, there is NO reason for the parents to be cutting their child's meat/flesh/person/whatever.As I said the only people who should be allowed to argue in favor of circumcision should be the ones who chose to do so because they are probably not defenseive as hell about it since they made the choice themselves.
I am also curious to know where I look for evidence to support my stance, and not the other way around. I really hope you aren't referring to the whole israel thing where it was pretty obvious that I considered the help of the US and other western nations as the crux of the problem of its existance.
|
LOL your post here seems a hell of a lot more defensive than mine does 
and yes...im sure everyone who was in that thread knows what your position is...with the amount of times you kept repeating it how could we not?
|
There is a difference between countering your points, and bringing up new ones that weren't even mentioned or just mentioned someplace else, the way you did. That's what makes you so defensive about it. I want to know a good reason why a person should be circumcised before they can consent to it themselves, because I can name several for why it should not be allowed, not least of which is the fact that you can't restore a foreskin to the state at which you wouldn't be to tell a difference if it had never been cut off in the first place.
