D
Denmark's 29,000 doctors declare Circumcision unethical
- Thread starter MicroBrew
- Start date
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2012
- Messages
- 11,453
- Reaction score
- 1
The Webster's definition confirms what I'm saying:
And for the last time, actions come into play when they reveal that you were dissimulating about those beliefs, principles or values. The central, essential concept of hypocrisy is that you are making a pretense of your actual beliefs, values or principles. Get it? Please try because I'm not planning on holding your hand through this if you don't even make a mental effort... Or scarier yet, is this you actually trying?
D
Deleted member 196663
Guest
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2016
- Messages
- 23,118
- Reaction score
- 17,600
Yea saying stupid shit to someone to get a reaction. You might be the dumbest dude posting here and thats sayin quite a bit.
I think you really need to calm down.
Comin at me like some kind of huffin and puffin penis warrior
So which is it did your parents violate you and you are mad as hell about it or do you just want everyone to have a penis like you so you dont feel self conscious with that ugly lookin thing ?
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2016
- Messages
- 23,118
- Reaction score
- 17,600
That guys awesome.
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2012
- Messages
- 11,453
- Reaction score
- 1
You're pathetically inept at this. Any rational observer capable of reading and understanding English can tell that my definition is 100% compatible and that your usage was 100% wrong.
Hypocrisy is the concept of putting up a pretense to seem like something you are not as I stayed and both definitions stated. That can be revealed by actions that contradict your stated beliefs which is why less intelligent and educated people misuse the word commonly like you did.
Why are you ignoring the first part of the definition ("a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not")? Oh, wait, I think I know: it's because you are trying to be right and you'd rather stick your head up your ass than admit to being wrong. Do you not realize that the colon separating the two parts of the definition means that the second part relates to the first part? Do you not realize they are part of the same definition? As I've stated multiple times, actions come into play when they reveal the hypocritical nature of not actually believing in your stated beliefs/values/principles but the central concept is that you must be contradicting stated principles, thereby proving that you don't hold to those principles in reality.
Google's definition of hypocrisy:
-- https://www.google.com/search?espv=...0..0.0....0...1c.1.64.serp..4.0.0.VrdRSrKvO5E
Dictionary.com's definition (Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2017):
--http://www.dictionary.com/browse/hypocrisy
And based on the Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 2012 Digital Edition:
----http://www.dictionary.com/browse/hypocrisy
Wikipedia's definition:
Synonyms of hypocrisy:
-- http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/hypocrisy?s=t
As you can see, they all center on expressing something you don't truly believe (lying about what you believe, pretending to believe something, acting pious when you aren't, etc) which is in 100% agreement with my explanation of it to you. Your usage has nothing to do with that. It's completely wrong. It's like how the song "Ironic" doesn't include any ironies. People are ignorant and they think they understand what a word means and then they go about repeatedly misusing it and misinforming others about its meaning. You are the Alanis Morissette of this debate.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2012
- Messages
- 11,453
- Reaction score
- 1
Do you also not know the actual definition of hypocrisy? I put up a useful reference post above if you are also confused on this issue.
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2012
- Messages
- 11,453
- Reaction score
- 1
Just admit it: you thought you could debate at the adults' table and found out that you were way out of your depth and tried backing out as a "troll" in order to save face. It's ok; we know what happened so there's no reason to hide it. All you are doing is continuing to embarrass yourself. lol
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2012
- Messages
- 9,279
- Reaction score
- 0
The arguments comparing infant male circumcision to female circumcision would be valid if there were any medical benefits of female circumcision. As far as I know there is not. The arguments regarding men regretting being circumcised can only be valid for those that had it preformed later on in life. Those that had it done as an infant can't fell regret regarding it as they have no frame of reference. Finally, you should note that day there is more risk of losing one's penis to cancer then because of a botched circumcision. Not to mention circumcision reduces the risk of penile cancer to very near zero.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2016
- Messages
- 23,118
- Reaction score
- 17,600
You're all the way retarded dude i wasnt trying to debate you I was trying to see if you would have a meltdown cuz you seemed the type and here you are a day ater repeating yourself .
Just admit it you tried to school the ignorant american and in the process are sounding like a buffoon.
Everytime I see this debate theres a you in it and hes always a blast to fuck with .
You arent owning me you are entertaining me and Ive broken it down for ya and you still keep going . I bet you respond to me again with youre bad ass grown up insults.
Have you tried those lame ass internet techniques to regrow your skins yet buddy ?
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2012
- Messages
- 11,453
- Reaction score
- 1
The "benefits" to male circumcision do not justify doing it. It's an unnecessary surgery just like female circumcision. So they are essentially the same. And the proponents of female circumcision do in fact think it has benefits, often similar to those proposed regarding male circumcision (appearance, lessening of sexual sensation, etc).
That makes no sense. Can you not regret having lost an arm before you can remember or being born without arms altogether? You can tell that you are missing something so you can regret not having the opportunity to live as you were born or as others are born.
The supposed medical advantages of circumcision are not well supported by quality research. One thing is true: even in the face of the supposed benefits, sensible doctors do not recommend it as a routine surgery. They essentially try to support people that choose to do it by saying it is relatively harmless, in their opinion, but their opinion is as nothing compared to what the person that is affected thinks. Most of the time when someone does not get circumcised when they are an infant, they will never choose to do so which is excellent evidence that they DO NOT think that the benefits and potential benefits outweigh the costs and potential costs. And the idea that that is because the surgery somehow becomes more unbearable later on in life is ridiculous. The only difference really is that you can't remember it when you are victimized as an infant. That is an incredibly poor excuse for victimizing an infant (well, they won't remember it anyway) and removes them from consideration as a moral patient. It's patently absurd from an ethical standpoint.[/QUOTE]
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2012
- Messages
- 11,453
- Reaction score
- 1
And that's why you keep trying to defend yourself in post after post here. lol, sure bub. Your desparation to be believed is showing.
I am an American myself. lol, shows what you know, yet again.
Keep trying to support the narrative. Just because you constantly get BTFO in such debates doesn't mean you need to try to pretend.
And I'll bet you keep trying to pretend you weren't being serious when you looked so out of your depth over the course of how many posts now? lol
Keep trying to distract from yourself with this helpless thrashing about you're doing, trying to land some sort of personal counter punch here. You act like I'm emotionally involved but it's pretty clear that you are only trying to appear as something other than a fool. My opinion on that obviously matters a lot to you.
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2012
- Messages
- 9,279
- Reaction score
- 0
Those are not the benefits I mean. I mean reducing the chances of penile cancer to near zero, reduction in the chance to contract HIV and HPV. Eliminating the chance of Phimosis, and a host more.
Arms would be different as you could clearly see how much easier life is for those with arms. Not the same with not having a foreskin.
The benefits are supported by quality research, so much so that the AAP, CDC and the WHO have changed there stances on circumcision. You are correct that it is not recommended as routine because there is an upfront risk, however very low, for later benefits. It is not because anyone is trying to make people feel better that choose it.
As for not having a choice, this is simply not a valid argument. Infants can't make medical decisions and there is a huge difference in benefits and risk between infant circumcision and when done later on. Perhaps we should not let parents vaccinate children, because they don't get a say?
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2016
- Messages
- 23,118
- Reaction score
- 17,600
See thats why I picked you. I read your posts you arent interested in a debate you are just trying to shout out everyone cuz this is something you strongly believe in .Look up zealot and blow hard in your little dictionary buddy . I think it should be the parents choice and your enthusiasm for this cause is laughable to me. Comparing it to FGM is a joke as well. The fact that even though several posters have hit you with whats up you havent said fair enough and just keep on huffin and puffin is why I think you are funny
OMG ITS CHILD ABUSE . lol
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2012
- Messages
- 11,453
- Reaction score
- 1
Too funny: How did I know you were going to respond again? (That's a fact made extremely ironic by your just saying to me you bet I'd respond again!)
Actually, it's a discussion I rarely ever have. I formed an opinion on it decades ago and may have had this debate five or six times since. Again, shows what you know! lol
And now, despite claiming to be a troll, here you are again, trying to press forward the same shitty arguments. So, is this the admission that you weren't trolling at any point and that you were actually trying to win a debate and failing all along, now? And that you switched to "trolling" as a pretext for escaping the points against you and you inability to follow and respond in a rational, logical way? Certainly seems so. lmao
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2016
- Messages
- 23,118
- Reaction score
- 17,600
See you just keep repeating yourself. Its been proven to have several health benefits and you ignore that over and over again and even compared it to female genital mutilation ...... Why on earth should I attempt to have any kind of real conversation with you when you already proved yourself to not be able to reason and cant seem to comprehend anything that contradicts your opinion ?
You havent owned or proven shit other than you love to post walls of text and that you like to dance to the beat of my drum
I think your battle ship got sunk in post 213 by the way.
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2012
- Messages
- 11,453
- Reaction score
- 1
And there are similar benefits claimed for female circumcision which are similarly suspect. Marginal benefits do not justify making the choice on the behalf of the infant. Something like HIV is not going to be contracted by an infant that could ever be helped by a circumcision so something like that is not a valid justification for operating on an infant at all. And there are more effective preventative measures to HIV than "cut off the foreskin and then go in unprotected becuase it's lowered the exposure somewhat!" That's just silly. Maybe you could reduce the risk of HIV in women as well through clitorectomy since they might be less likely to engage in extramarital affairs... would that ever justify it? Fuck no.
It's not hard to see the function of a foreskin if you aren't retarded. Your point that you can't know what you are missing therefore you are missing nothing is completely vacuous. At least be up front about the costs.
I think it is related to a need to absolve an entire people of a ritualized abuse and for religious sensitivity reasons; these things happens when you ask people stuck in their ways about something like this. And if it actually has such great benefits, it would be recommended as a routine surgery. The benefits, such as they are, can be gotten later on in life when someone can make an informed decision on their own behalf rather than having ignorant parents make the decision on the basis of "it's normal, expected and 'chicks dig it more' " which only represents a mindless acceptance of tradition. It should not be ignored that the beginnings of circumcision were not scientific and whatever old-world justification that originally normalized it no longer applies today. We can wash ourselves quite easily these days.
And if your position is so clear, why are so many thousands of doctors against it (as evidenced by the thread title itself) and why do they happen to live in countries where it is not already routine? Funny, that.
Also, doctors that are not dead set against it tend to completely ignore the reasons someone would not want to truncate a sex organ or the concept of bodily autonomy. To them, it's a weighting of the chance you lose a penis or suffer another complication against the chance that you could be getting dubious medical benefits out of it. Even in that, it comes out to be a wash, more or less.
Infants obviously can't make any decisions, medical or otherwise. That doesn't mean you can disregard what they might prefer later on in life. You can't go amputating something unnecessarily just because they can't ask you not to. That's ridiculous.
Vaccines are life-saving and do not carry the cost of a piece of your body. You can make the argument that they are necessary medical interventions quite easily where as you cannot with circumcision. Again, my point is that you should consider the wishes of the adult-to-be when you can, not that you should not be able to undertake necessary procedures with no similar costs. Something like accepting medical care on the behalf of your infant is something that should be in the power of the parents in seeking out care for their children. That parental right and responsibility has its limits, however, and it is found in respecting the rights of the child which are not nil even though they can't understand or voice them themselves.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2012
- Messages
- 11,453
- Reaction score
- 1
Still trying to press home an argument? Yeah, I'm sure you were just trolling when you were getting schooled. lmao
And yet you are still trying ot argue your perspective. Hm, something seems fishy here.
What you think is of little concern to me. If you are troll, why do I care what a troll thinks or espouses? If you aren't a troll, you aren't capable of keeping up, anyway, clearly. But nice to see you are following the argument with rapt attention and interest, just like the "troll" you claim to be! haha
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2012
- Messages
- 9,279
- Reaction score
- 0
No infants are not going to contract HIV, but again you are talking about a later benefit. This also takes into account that the risks associated with infant circumcision is so low. You continue to bring up female circumcision is just continuing a failed argument until studies show potential benefits. Finally as far as if the benefits are enough to justify making the choice on behalf of the infant, that is for the parents to decide. Your opinion means nothing here.
Not hard to see the foreskin and how it functions, but impossible to understand what it would be like to have one.
Why so many, because it was a medical organization speaking for it's members. This topic involves a lot of emotion, specially on the anti side. Heck, you choose to call it child abuse and make moral arguments quite easily. You say people are just following tradition and that the beginnings were not scientific but little is known about the beginnings, other then the procedure is older then the religions that practice it.
No we would not let parents remove a child's leg, because there is not benefits. However removal of the foreskin is far from removing a limb or anything else that is really needed. It comes down to benefits vs risks. That is up to the parents to decide.
You say vaccines are necessity, but for individuals some vaccines could be skipped with very little risk because other are vaccinated and that very much lowers the risk. The reason we do want every child vaccinated at this point for many diseases is to maintain herd immunity.
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2015
- Messages
- 1,897
- Reaction score
- 0
So lemmegettit right... I don't feel no GOODIE on mah dicks cuz I got cut???...
