Current Events > Joe Rogan: Circumcisions Are Unnecessary And They Kill Hundreds of Babies a Year

(+) Yeah! (+)

Tupacrulez posted...

UR, on top of making shitty random scenario topics, thinks that being circumcised is the same as being force fed rusty nails and having your legs crushed.

Strawman.

Your argument was that parents should be allowed to do whatever they want regardless of consent or medical gain. Not mine.

And you dodged every point I just made tearing that logic apart because you have no actual counter for it.

No medical benefit
Gential multilation
Ignores child consent

You can't just ignore these points because of 'culture'

Tupacrulez posted...

Cut dicks are better. Bye now.

Then let adults who think that choose to multilate themselves to better.

Don't do it to infants.

Again common sense, not much to ask

Coastal_elite posted...

has circumcision ever killed anyone?

People lose their D's and nuts all the time...

http://www.cirp.org/library/death/

Yes

Aeriis posted...

I always forget people care about uncut/cut dicks until I get on CE

Circumcision is cruel and super weird

By in large people don't care apart from when it comes to children
---

Iodine posted...

People really do have strong opinions on circumcision.

They don't.

What they care about is:

1. Being superior. (I am uncut, thus I am better, etc)
2. Hating on religion (omg, this religion has this practice? I can hate on it if I find a way to say the practice is bad!)
3. Anti-semitism. Some of this is #2 with subconscious undertones.

Circumcision happens to cross each of those, thus it is right up CE's alley.

It wouldn't surprise me tbh if it did kill that many. Infections cause death alot more than people realize.

---

darkphoenix181 posted...

They don't.

What they care about is:

1. Being superior. (I am uncut, thus I am better, etc)
2. Hating on religion (omg, this religion has this practice? I can hate on it if I find a way to say the practice is bad!)
3. Anti-semitism. Some of this is #2 with subconscious undertones.

You're literally ignoring the child aspect of it which is literally 99.9998% of the problem.

No one cares what consenting adults do to their own body. Just leave infants alone

"Telling me not to multilate babies gentials in anti-semitic" is inane logic.

Hell the people talking about being superior like:

Tupacrulez posted...

Cut dicks are better. Bye now.

Are the pro-child circumcision party. The people saying it's okay to ignore infants consent and fuck up their bodies because parents are allowed to do whatever the hell they want.

No medical benefit
Gential multilation
Ignores child consent

Your 'side' will never respond to this
---

Noone should be getting snipped down below.

Babies shouldnt even getting a circumcision whether theyre jewish or not jewish.

getting snipped is just wrong and kind of gross anyway

UnfairRepresent posted...

You're literally ignoring the child aspect of it which is literally 99.9998% of the problem.

Ah, so you are concerned about all those Jewish kids being circumcised?

What specifically is the concern?
That the parents aren't using a licensed doctor? The way the procedure is performed like using ot not using anathesia?

Nope. You only care about consent like that some giant big deal. Like a kid grows up, looks at his dick and is upset that he got circumcised.

And you call it mutilation. That shows how disingenous you really are.

You are one of these no doubt:

darkphoenix181 posted...

1. Being superior. (I am uncut, thus I am better, etc)
2. Hating on religion (omg, this religion has this practice? I can hate on it if I find a way to say the practice is bad!)
3. Anti-semitism. Some of this is #2 with subconscious undertones.

darkphoenix181 posted...

2. Hating on religion (omg, this religion has this practice? I can hate on it if I find a way to say the practice is bad!)

i'll just tell you of a pracrice that directly risks giving children STDs for no reason, and in some cases death.
from 2013.
https://edition.cnn.com/2013/04/07/health/new-york-neonatal-herpes/index.html

Two more infants have contracted the herpes virus after undergoing an ultra-Orthodox Jewish type of circumcision, which has been linked to the spread of the potentially deadly virus to newborn boys, according to the New York City Health Department.
In the ritual, known as metzitzah b'peh, after removing the foreskin of the penis the person performing the procedure places his mouth briefly over the wound, sucking a small amount of blood out, which is discarded. Antibacterial ointment is applied and the wound is bandaged. The health department says the procedure is dangerous because the contact with the mouth could transmit diseases such as herpes.

---

ROBANN_88 posted...

i'll just tell you of a pracrice that directly risks giving children STDs for no reason.
from 2013.
https://edition.cnn.com/2013/04/07/health/new-york-neonatal-herpes/index.html

Two more infants have contracted the herpes virus after undergoing an ultra-Orthodox Jewish type of circumcision, which has been linked to the spread of the potentially deadly virus to newborn boys, according to the New York City Health Department.
In the ritual, known as metzitzah b'peh, after removing the foreskin of the penis the person performing the procedure places his mouth briefly over the wound, sucking a small amount of blood out, which is discarded. Antibacterial ointment is applied and the wound is bandaged. The health department says the procedure is dangerous because the contact with the mouth could transmit diseases such as herpes.

This is a specific practice which somehow translates to hating all circumcision.

Like I said above:

darkphoenix181 posted...

What specifically is the concern?
That the parents aren't using a licensed doctor? The way the procedure is performed like using ot not using anathesia?

If you are concerned that the Rabbi does it and is not medically licensed, that is different from claiming the practice as a whole is archaic and mutilation.

This is just thinly veiled antisemitism on the part of alt right hero joe rogan. It is a perfectly safe procedure that has many proven medical benefits. Literally the only arguments people can think of against it is that it reduces sensation which based on how often guys jerk off is nothing but a lie.

darkphoenix181 posted...

This is a specific practice which somehow translates to hating all circumcision.

Like I said above:

If you are concerned that the Rabbi does it and is not medically licensed, that is different from claiming the practice as a whole is archaic and mutilation.

but when someone does criticise those practices you apparently just go for the "that's just anti-semitism" defense.

---

ROBANN_88 posted...

but when someone does criticise those practices you apparently just go for the "that's just anti-semitism" defense.

Post where someone said circumcision is fine, just we need to make sure people go to licensed professionals.

You know this didn't happen.

PizzaPatty posted...

. It is a perfectly safe procedure that has many proven medical benefits

No it has none

.

Literally the only arguments people can think of against it is that it reduces sensation which based on how often guys jerk off is nothing but a lie.

No the issue is doing cosmetic permanent procedures to children's genitals

darkphoenix181 posted...

h, so you are concerned about all those Jewish kids being circumcised?

Any infants. dont care what religion they are

What specifically is the concern?

Permentally mutilating the genitals of infants because you think it makes them look better or that God wants it

That's the concern. Leave kids one

Nope. You only care about consent like that some giant big deal. Like a kid grows up, looks at his dick and is upset that he got circumcised.

many do.

But whether or not the infant grows up accepting it is moot to how wrong it Is

And you call it mutilation. That shows how disingenous you really are.

It literally is.
---

ROBANN_88 posted...

but when someone does criticise those practices you apparently just go for the "that's just anti-semitism" defense.

Yip.

Flat ignores every point they say to do that too
---

He's right that it's a barbaric practise, regardless of what you think about him otherwise.

---

You call it mutilation yet.

The penis still works.

They can still have sex. Still pee.

Women don't care and often not even notice.

In what way are they mutilated?

Just because you want to find a way to say it is bad is why. "Idk how to argue it is bad so I will pretend it is like having your arm cutoff and going armless or burns to your face!"

PizzaPatty posted...

It is a perfectly safe procedure

ROBANN_88 posted...

there was a case in Sweden, 2018, where the surgeon basically burned the kids dick off during the circumcision

https://www.expressen.se/nyheter/hibas-son-skulle-omskaras-blev-svart-brand-av-kirurg/

---

it's one thing to argue based off of aesthetics or medical factors, but don't try and make your case with religion.

darkphoenix181 posted...

You call it mutilation yet.

The penis still works.

They can still have sex. Still pee.

Women don't care and often not even notice.

In what way are they mutilated?

The definition

Permentally disfiguring the genitals irreversibly with sharp objects for no benefit because you think it cosmetically looks nicer

Fine for an adult but leave kids alone

darkphoenix181 posted...

Just because you want to find a way to say it is bad

You say this then keep ignoring the reasons people keep listing

cosmetic procedure
no medical benefits
Permanent mutilation
Non consenting infants

All of these are indefensible bad things, hence why you ignore them
---

darkphoenix181 posted...

You call it mutilation yet.

The penis still works.

They can still have sex. Still pee.

Women don't care and often not even notice.

In what way are they mutilated?

Just because you want to find a way to say it is bad is why. "Idk how to argue it is bad so I will pretend it is like having your arm cutoff and going armless or burns to your face!"

Why cut it off to begin with? Unless you are doing it for an actual medical reason, it's just a dumb tradition that has basis in actual benefit to the person and isn't one they are willingly doing themselves in 99% of all cases.

---

Blighboy posted...

A good friend of mine had his wife of three years leave him after finding out he was uncut

....wait a minute.
---

Btw, fyi people reshape the nose and ears of infants for purely cosmetic reasons.

No one seems to make a big deal about these. Wonder why.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pediatric_plastic_surgery

While the majority of pediatric plastic surgery procedures done are reconstructive; there are those performed for cosmetic purposes. The most common procedures done for cosmetic benefit in children include:
Breast augmentation
Male breast reduction
Ear surgery as a result of microtia
Rhinoplasty
Out of all procedures, nose reshaping generally has the most cases on an annual basis (4,313 procedures in 1996). However, children make up only 9% of the total caseload for all nose reshaping. On the opposite end of the spectrum, children requiring ear surgery accounted for 2,470 procedures in 1996, a total of 34% of all total ear surgeries. While many of these procedures are done for purely cosmetic benefit, many plastic surgeons work on these features (giving them a more normal appearance), while performing a surgery to improve function as the result of a congenital deformity.[10]

Probably because being afraid your child's natural nose cosmetically looks different than alot of ppl isn't tied to religious and Jewish reasons....
Thus someone like unfair won't call it mutilation even though it fits what he claims is mutilation.

Aren't circumcised men at a much lower risk for contracting STIs?

Also smegma lol gross

---

what are the many benefits

Villain posted...

Also smegma lol gross

people who dont wash their dicks are gross, yes

Villain posted...

Aren't circumcised men at a much lower risk for contracting STIs?

i don't even know anymore, i've seen article say "yes, absolutely" and at the same time articles that say "no, that's just a myth"

---

Villain posted...

Aren't circumcised men at a much lower risk for contracting STIs?

No

People have spent a century and spent millions researching medical benefits for circumcision and found none.

Only exception is places with no clean water supply were good hygiene is not possible
---

Ears and nose are very different to an intimate body part, and when surgery is done on them it is is because it is abnormal. A foreskin is natural and something males are born with on their penis.

Extra bits of skin on the ear, face, mishapen nose or a cleft aren't "standard" things to be born with are so are often removed/changed so the person doesn't need struggle through any abnormalities and children being utter dicks to them.


---

UnfairRepresent posted...

No

People have spent a century and spent millions researching medical benefits for circumcision and found none.

Only exception is places with no clean water supply were good hygiene is not possible

Hey if WW3 happens and our infrastructure is destroyed then I guess I'm prepared.


---

ROBANN_88 posted...

i don't even know anymore, i've seen article say "yes, absolutely" and at the same time articles that say "no, that's just a myth"

That's because it is true but only in an environment were it's impossible to clean yourself

Aka nearly no where on Earth.

So it's both true and a myth. There is no benefit
---

You can tell what people in this topic have the ugly weird dicks

---

Gonna have to listen to this in full for context. Joe is a lot fairer in his arguments and more open to persuasion than anyone on this board. I doubt he didnt do his research.

---

Funkydog posted...

Ears and nose are very different to an intimate body part, and when surgery is done on them it is is because it is abnormal. A foreskin is natural and something males are born with on their penis.

Extra bits of skin on the ear, face, mishapen nose or a cleft aren't "standard" things to be born with are so are often removed/changed so the person doesn't need struggle through any abnormalities and children being utter dicks to them.

They occur naturally.
They are only abnormal because it has been standard for awhile to cosmetically alter them and make virtually no one have them.

Your same logic could be used to prove circumcision is normal if the majority of people have a circumcized dick the guess what, it fucking is normal.

Imagine being in a Jewish family and uncircumsized, you would be abnormal in that group.

darkphoenix181 posted...

They occur naturally.
They are only abnormal because it has been standard for awhile to cosmetically alter them and make virtually no one have them.

Your same logic could be used to prove circumcision is normal if the majority of people have a circumcized dick the guess what, it fucking is normal.

Imagine being in a Jewish family and uncircumsized, you would be abnormal in that group.

And a family of people who cut off their infants fingertips would have am abnormal child if they didnt

thats not a justification
---

The comments in the video are trash as expected. Any time there is something on the podcast that is progressive or left-leaning, or is of the opinion of women or whatever, it usually gets shit on.

Joe Rogan may not be alt right, but his fanbase sure as hell is.

---

UnfairRepresent posted...

And a family of people who cut off their infants fingertips would have am abnormal child if they didnt

thats not a justification

Cutting off fingertips is not a cosmetic change .

You seem to be not be able to approach this subject with any logic.

You call it mutilation despite the dick works just fine and the exact same.
And now you compare it to cutting off fingers.

Smh

You might actually be anti-semitic on some level. Ask yourself why you care so much about this but not cleft palates, ears and nose cosmetic surgery.
You can address your subconscious reasons.

darkphoenix181 posted...

Cutting off fingertips is not a cosmetic change .

yes it is

multiliating the body to change how it looks permanently for no benefit

that's the same thing

darkphoenix181 posted...

You call it mutilation despite the dick works just fine and the exact sam

Whether or not it "works " has nothing to do with mutilation.

Why are you ignoring basic concepts and arguments
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

By in large

By and large.

All you need to know about UR

---

UnfairRepresent posted...

yes it is

multiliating the body to change how it looks permanently for no benefit

that's the same thing

Again, you are comparing removing a functioning body part to a useless flap of skin.

And again, you ignore the other cosmetic procedures done to children without consent and just harp on the Jewish one.
Is cosmetic nose, ear, palate surgery mutilations to you?

darkphoenix181 posted...

Again, you are comparing removing a functioning body part to a useless flap of skin.

Doesn't matter

Permentally disfiguring the body is mutilation by definition

And you know this

Even if you like how it looks, let each adult decide for themselves. dont mutilate infants

darkphoenix181 posted...

nd again, you ignore the other cosmetic procedures done to children without consent and just harp on the Jewish one.
Is cosmetic nose, ear, palate surgery mutilations to you?

dont care if you're Jewish or not. leave infants alone

Not much to ask
---

Coastal_elite posted...

has circumcision ever killed anyone?

People lose their D's and nuts all the time...

Babies die in circumcisions gone wrong sometimes

UnfairRepresent posted...

Doesn't matter

Permentally disfiguring the body is mutilation by definition

And you know this

Even if you like how it looks, let each adult decide for themselves. dont mutilate infants

So you are saying cosmetic surgery for a cleft palate is mutilation of the body?

I'm circumcised. I don't mind it. I don't hold it against my parents for having it done. It was tradition and culturally appropriate.

That said, if I have a son, I will not have him circumcised. I want him to actually have the ability to make that decision himself once he reaches a decision making age (it doesn't necessarily have to be 18). I don't think it is my place to have him undergo an entirely elective, surgery that isn't time sensitive (in comparison to the cleft-pallet example given earlier where early operations can make a difference) just because it is normal.

---

darkphoenix181 posted...

So you are saying cosmetic surgery for a cleft palate is mutilation of the body?

Thats not relevant to the issue but no.

Reconstructing the body for medical benefits is not the same thing as lopping bits off the body for no benefit

In fact its kind of the literal opposite

This is not hard to comprehend
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

Thats not relevant to the issue but no.

Reconstructing the body for medical benefits is not the same thing as lopping bits off the body for no benefit

In fact its kind of the literal opposite

This is not hard to comprehend

But cosmetic surgery to the face, as posted earlier, is fine by you.

Ok boss


---

Gheb posted...

(in comparison to the cleft-pallet example given earlier where early operations can make a difference) just because it is normal.

Yet they are also at times 100% cosmetic.

Here is an article where parents decided to let the kid grow up to decide if he wanted the cleft palate removed.

Basically, the palate provided no medical issues.

https://www.todaysparent.com/family/parenting/i-agonized-over-whether-my-infant-son-should-get-cosmetic-surgery/

Is this mutilation if the parents didn't let him decide?
Why or why not?

@UnfairRepresent

Tupacrulez posted...

But cosmetic surgery to the face, as posted earlier, is fine by you.

Ok boss

No

Slicing off parts of your infants face because you think it makes then look better would also be wrong for obvious reasons

And If people were slicing off infants noses I wonder if you would be passionately defending them
---

darkphoenix181 posted...

So you are saying cosmetic surgery for a cleft palate is mutilation of the body?

cleft palate is an abnormality. foreskin is not.

UnfairRepresent posted...

Thats not relevant to the issue but no.

Reconstructing the body for medical benefits is not the same thing as lopping bits off the body for no benefit

In fact its kind of the literal opposite

This is not hard to comprehend

There is no medical reason.

There are cleft palates that have 0 medical issues.

The reason people have it removed is cosmetic reasons. To make their child what they think is more attractive.

Above I linked to an article where a parent decided not to have the surgery since it was 100% cosmetic.

But what of other parents who don't let the kid decide?

If it's done by a licensed surgeon, in a proper hospital, and all precautions are taken, yes, it's fine by me.

Particularly if it is before the child has any ability to remember anything about it. As then it does not affect their decision making development.

Again, babies don't consent to being born.

And it is an absolutely horrific process wherein the pieces of their skull get crushed.

How arbitrary you wish to get depends on how much of an ass you wish to be on gamefaqs today, UR

---

darkphoenix181 posted...

There are cleft palates that have 0 medical issues.

The reason people have it removed is cosmetic reasons. To make their child what they think is more attractive.

again, as someine who had cleft palate surgery, this is blatantly wrong and i doubt you know anything on the subject at all

---