Messages

1

Main / Re: Ross's concerns

Jul 03, 2009, 07:41 PM

snip

And has no relation to the truth value of what Andypandy is - one of those same LMD sufferers.

Yeah, it's true because you say so.

2

Main / Re: Does This Represent The Community?

Jul 03, 2009, 07:38 PM

I don't remember the exact wording I used, so I can't find it. But I do remember saying such a thing, and I've also said at on soc.men and elsewhere before I came here.

Thought as much - more wind and empty claims.

In other words, you accuse me of lying with no evidence.

3

Main / Re: East Cape circumcision toll now 24

Jul 03, 2009, 07:37 PM

anyone can find the information for themselves and
only those that choose to remain willfully blind to the facts will not
be persuaded.

Shorter Andypandy:  I'm right because I say so, disagree with me and you're obviously a moron, no matter how much you can back your position up.

You can't back your position up, though.

4

Main / Re: East Cape circumcision toll now 24

Jul 03, 2009, 07:36 PM

LOL.  So you're saying, "Hey I make shit up but it doesn't matter?".  You cited nothing in that insufferable post.  Gosh you really have ego-itice

So you disagree with something in it? Again, presuming you read it, you should be able to say what you disagreed with. Not doing so is dishonest.

When I posted this on Usenet, I actually got a decent argument from an anti-circumcision guy. I didn't convince him, of course, since at the end he still asserted that 'bodily integrity' trumps everything. At the time I accused him of dishonest arguing. Until I came here I didn't realise how much more dishonest people could be.

5

Main / Re: East Cape circumcision toll now 24

Jul 03, 2009, 06:29 PM

I don't want to get into such a debate with an anti-circ here. You have ways to denying all of the benefits, and when finally every one has been dealt with, you'll return to 'but it's mutilation!', making it pointless.

Well, A.U. has clearly lost another one, oh but he contends in his tortured logic that our style of argumentation is stacked against him and his contentions, making it pointless for him to debate further.  From what I have read from A.U. on this thread, just about everything he has said was pointless.

If you want a pro-circ argument, take this one I made on Usenet ( http://groups.google.com/group/alt.circumcision/browse_frm/thread/b2a4338185a07644?tvc=1 ):

--------

My perusal of all known evidence on the subject of circumcision
inevitably leads me to the conclusion that universal circumcision of
men is strongly to be recommended, as the benefits seem overwhelming
and the risks and harm negligible. I will not make this post a
scientific treatise; anyone can find the information for themselves and
only those that choose to remain willfully blind to the facts will not
be persuaded.

It is useful to divide the benefits of circumcision in 3 categories:

#1 The medical benefits. the prevention of various conditions
associated with the foreskin, also general infections acquired because
of the foreskin such as UTIs (urinary infections).

#2 Sexual/aesthetic benefits. Here, to be conservative, I place the
obvious hygienic improvement, though it probably deserved to be in #1.
All reliable sources say that sexual function as at least as good with
no foreskin, if not better; generally circumcised men take longer,
which is an improvement for almost all men. The circumcised penis is
considered equal or better aesthetically by almost everyone but a
proportion of gay men with an apparent fetish for foreskins.

#3 Venereal disease. It had long been suspected, and modern studies
have shown, that circumcision reduces the transmission of virtually
every kind of VD. In particular, attention must be paid to HIV and HPV
(which causes penile and cervical cancers), which are responsible today
for nearly all VD morbidity. Circumcision has been proven to reduce
transmission of HIV at least 60-70% and of HPV at least 80-85%. Data
suggests, though, that protection against HIV is nearly absolute in
people with otherwise healthy genitals;  similar is likely to hold for
HPV.

This division should be made because many people have moral objections
to performing any treatment for reasons #2 and/or #3, and I understand
these objections. However, given the absence of harm from the
procedure, reason #1 alone is enough to justify it (at least in
infancy, which is when it should be done anyway). Therefore said moral
objections are not reasonable. Reasons #2 and #3 can be though of as
simply useful side effects.

I wish this did not need to be discussed in public, for it is rather
vulgar; however the  dishonest, anti-scientific, libellous
anti-circumcision movement forces some response to be given, as loudly
as possible, and giving that response requires it.

I need to expand now on reason #3, as it is very much a debated issue
today.

Sexual diseases in man are transmitted exclusively from person to
person. To survive, they must be transmitted enough so that each victim
can infect, on average, at least one other person. If the transmission
drops below this threshold in any population, it will die out. Even
above the threshold, there will be a strong multiplicative effect
(because people's level of risk varies within the population); hence a
small change in transmissibilty will effect a larger change in
incidence.

I will give a non-sexual example of this first, as it is perhaps the
most instructive. Malaria does not currently exist natively in the
civilised countries because human-mosquito contact has fallen well
below this threshold (for several reasons). If you don't believe this,
consider that several thousand cases each year are brough back to the
US from overseas; yet very few result in any new cases being generated
within the US; this illustrates perfectly the phenomenon. HIV is
already below the threshold among the white heterosexual population in
the US; not so among gays or blacks.

This threshold effect strongly suggests that the sexual incidence of
both HIV and HPV could be eliminated or reduced to a very low level by
universal circumcision. Thus it has the effect of a vaccine.

A few words, now, about the new HPV vaccine, as I know many of you will
be thinking of it. Putting any moral/ethical issues (on which I could
expound) to the side, the vaccine if effective against only a few kinds
of HPV currently amounting to 70% of all cervical cancer, and this
percentage should diminish if the vaccine becomes common as new strains
replace those vaccinated against. So, even in the best case, the
vaccine is less effective than circumcision in reducing HPV-caused
cancers. Circumcision, further, protects against all present and future
kinds of HPV. It is apparent, though, that the medical community does
not wish to consider cicumcision for this purpose, from its aggressive
promotion of the vaccine and lack of mention of circumcision. I have no
doubt that the vaccine is targeted only toward women (and not men) to
avoid mention of circumcision.

To summarise, I think there is a need to publically promote
circumcision and decry the anti-circumcision movement. I would venture
to say, further, that circumcision probably has the second-best
benefit-cost ratio of any preventive procedure for the general
population - second, of course, to smoking cessation!

--------

Note that evidence today suggests that my claims about circumcision and HPV above may be exaggerated. It matters little to the argument.

6

Main / Re: Another Duke Scandal

Jul 03, 2009, 06:25 PM

Let me say that I am not a member of the 'Democrat [sic] party' or any other party. National socialism (in the ordinary meanings of the words) is not the same thing as National Socialism (the Nazis). Whatever socialism was in the Nazi's platform was just an attempt to appeal to the masses, not a genuine philosophical belief.

As for Marx, his economic thinking deserves some respect, even though his politics and philosophy don't anymore.

7

Main / Re: Does This Represent The Community?

Jul 03, 2009, 06:17 PM

Once my daughter came to live with me, it took her less than two years to learn that she would be accountable, and "But I'm a girl" was unacceptable as an excuse for anything.

People are lazy.  Don't give them expectations and hold them accountable, and people will take the easy way out when they can.  Women are people.  So....  This is why you see what you see.  Not ecause they *CAN'T.*  But because they [/i]don't have to.[/i]

Although I'm not sure why you introduced it, this is a good point (it's also one I made first). Women behave badly because we let them. However, under a free-market type of system, there's no real hope of changing it.

Link to where you made that claim?

I don't remember the exact wording I used, so I can't find it. But I do remember saying such a thing, and I've also said at on soc.men and elsewhere before I came here.

8

Main / Re: Police: Conn. teens mishear sex screams, beat man

Jul 03, 2009, 06:15 PM

Now this is crazy. I can't understand at all why they continued after it should have been obvious what happened - were they just using this as an excuse to beat someone up?

Oh, and if the woman really did sound like she was being assaulted, she needs to quiet down - it's hardly polite to let the whole neighborhood know!

9

Main / Re: The Marxist Deconstruction of Sarah Palin

Jul 03, 2009, 06:12 PM

Please state your definition of 'rhetorical question' and explain why the statement we're talking about (Askance's insult) is not one.

That's kind of funny coming from someone who thinks there is no such thing as a wrong definition. or are you changing your mind about that older statement?

No, I'm not. When I use a definition that I know or find out isn't the same as what my audience expects, I explain myself. Remember how I defined 'liberty' and 'coercion' for you? Similarly, I except him to do so if he's using a different definition from mine.

10

Main / Re: Wage Gap Myth, Glass Ceiling and Palin's Resignation

Jul 03, 2009, 06:10 PM

What MRA meant is that Palin's quitting resembles all the career women that do, causing the apparent wage gap. But I don't think that's really so - Palin is likely not stepping down for family reasons or because she just doesn't like the work, I don't think.

I really suspect (as most everyone does) that she hopes she can bury anything controversial by the time she runs for the presidential nomination (which I'm sure she's confident she'll win - God forbid).

11

Main / Re: Does This Represent The Community?

Jul 03, 2009, 01:27 PM

Once my daughter came to live with me, it took her less than two years to learn that she would be accountable, and "But I'm a girl" was unacceptable as an excuse for anything.

People are lazy.  Don't give them expectations and hold them accountable, and people will take the easy way out when they can.  Women are people.  So....  This is why you see what you see.  Not ecause they *CAN'T.*  But because they [/i]don't have to.[/i]

Although I'm not sure why you introduced it, this is a good point (it's also one I made first). Women behave badly because we let them. However, under a free-market type of system, there's no real hope of changing it.

12

Main / Re: The Marxist Deconstruction of Sarah Palin

Jul 03, 2009, 01:25 PM

That's the whole point, A.U., what you call a "rhetorical question," clearly is not.  The rules of grammar and punctuation are clearly against you in this matter.

Please state your definition of 'rhetorical question' and explain why the statement we're talking about (Askance's insult) is not one.

13

Main / Re: Andrew Post

Jul 03, 2009, 01:23 PM

its gone downhill, but its insanity can still occupy and entertain you for hours

You know, it might occupy someone with your intellect, but I'd rather give it a pass.

14

Main / Re: Ross's concerns

Jul 03, 2009, 01:22 PM

2nd grade was the last time I threw the first punch, though I've finished quite a few fights since then.  If that defines a bully, well, then the word "doormat" is an accurate synonym for people who aren't bullies.

Bullies don't always throw the first punch. Just as often they goad the other guy into doing so (and again I know this from experience).

15

Main / Re: Ross's concerns

Jul 03, 2009, 01:21 PM

And that is a warning for your for your name calling towards Gonz.

Really doesn't bother me when internet tuff-Tuff-TUFF guys mouth off about something I know they'd ever have the cojones to say to my face.

And I suppose you would have the balls to say to my face everything you've said here? Ha, only when you're anonymous on the internet do you feel free to spew off.