Mithaldu

Since the article doesn't explain it, here's a nice explanation on what RGBM is: http://iwasbeingirony.blogspot.de/2010/06/difference-between...

They threw together a bunch of contradicting studies, assigned weights without discussion of the assigning methods and parameters, then decided on an average and declared it a fact, instead of being honest and saying "we don't know either way". Based on this overall pattern i don't think i have much trust that their decision making process wasn't biased.

As for incomplete. I'm sorry, but there are no two ways about it. Incomplete means to be missing a part. It is. How important this is in the big picture is a different question.

Things can be in the same class but with different grades of strength within that class.

> facial birthmark react if people said their face was mutilated

That is not what mutilation means though. Like, literally not. Check the dictionary. You saying that just drives the point home that you're mapping a meaning onto it that is not intended by the other side.

You know what, i could say a lot of words, but really, i tire of it. You sound like the former marines i know who defend newbie hazing as noble and necessary. Much the same back and forth applies in both cases, and i really do not want to repeat discussions i've had multiple times already.

I'd be happy to read that study i asked for at the start though.

In your opinion, what's the difference between a mastodon instance having such contents because a user posted it; and twitter having such contents because a user posted it?

Pondered it a little, and i think you might be misreading some people unintentionally. Maybe you mentally match FGM to mutilation as a whole, which most people don't, and react to them as if they did? Note how something can be in the same class as something else, but have a much lower degree of impact. When someone says mutilated they may not necessarily be thinking "horrifically" or "barely functional". Heck, many people consider ear rings or tattoos mutilation.

Well, given that your other recent posts show up fine, i doubt it's actually that. So might be worth asking what happened in any case. Plus, that docking post is really good and i'd like more people to think that open-minded.

Note, "may". But if you're not sure the best option is generally to send an email to the moderators via the "contact" link at the bottom.

FYI, and in case it's not visible to you, your last two posts are "dead" and you may have been hell-banned.

There is a clear and very simple harm in:

This thing can operate in various fashions. Unmodified it works like this, modified it works in another way. Leave it as is and there's the option for both at any point. Make the decision now and one of the options is forever gone.

I'm not overselling it since i did not attach a price tag. I said a change, not how much of a change.

And yeah, i can entirely see how different people might not give a damn about any of this. Some might even benefit. Men who're not very sensitive would have more fun without the foreskin and the direct stimulation and might not even notice the loss of the nerves in the foreskin, men with very active glands might not care about the difference in lubrication, women whose glands are naturally more productive might not care which type of penis their partner has.

Nevertheless, the sexual function is changed. There are things a circumcised penis can do better. There's also things an uncircumcised one can do better. I'm not saying either of them is better than someone else's, just different. Changed.

You're moving the goal posts. Your claim was about productive and fulfilling lives and the implication that circumcision does not impair that.

Regret doesn't factor into that and is a separate issue. Clearly you can have productive and fulfilling lives with or without regrets. Whether the lack of regrets is rational or merely a self-defense mechanism of the person's mind is another question.

> I think Jews having outsized outcomes in life is pretty well settled.

This is not meaningful unless you control for social circumstances.

Also, for now, all i'm asking you to do is only state things you can substantiate, and state them exactly and clearly.

For one, it has erogenous nerves in it. Or more clearly put: Friction and pressure on certain parts of my foreskin feels really good, even if the entirety of it is held fixed and none of the friction is applied to the glans. The parts that feel good are fairly forwards, so it is unlikely that any of that would survive a circumcision.

For the other, in penetration it both acts as liquid-less lubrication by allowing the penis to move freely inside it even if the vagina isn't very wet; and it also increases the range of sensations by feeling different when the movement is with the glans still inside the foreskin, and when it's deeper in and outside the foreskin. The "pseudo lube" aspect is also appreciated by women in my experience.

E: I see some people down-voted this and i am earnestly puzzled. I believe i have described only physical facts. Is this post too "frank" for a public forum, or did i get something wrong?

Mutilation has a clear meaning in the dictionary and its application here is perfectly fine.

Honest and serious questions:

How do you rationalize changing your son's sexual function without his consent and despite the fact that it is possible to do the same procedure later in life, with zero mental and very little physical immediate trauma?

To what extent did you go to educate yourself on that matter, given you have no personal experience?

> people affected ... have ... even a favorable opinion of their circumcision.

Stockholm syndrome is very likely in those cases.

> we'd expect poorer life outcomes for the victims of it. Instead we see the opposite.

People keep saying this, but fail to link to sources substantiating their non-obvious claims. Link to a study please?

> it has little to no negative impact on a male child.

Really? Please link a study, published in a respectable publication, that compares physical and subjective sex performance parameters of the two type of men.

( If you're responding quickly, click the time link to get a reply field. )

From the definition: "make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts" Cutting off the foreskin entirely fulfills that description.

I said clear, not essential. Your pinky finger also does not perform an essential biological function, i.e. you can keep on living without it. But it performs a clear one, providing more grip strength and options.

Please link to the dictionary definition you're using.

Nearly every person who works a manual job and loses a finger went on to have a productive and fulfilling career.

Doesn't mean they wouldn't have preferred to keep it.

> Plus we have hundreds of years over which to know if such a procedure had adverse effects and the incidence rates.

Really? Please link a study, published in a respectable publication, that compares physical and subjective sex performance parameters of the two type of men.

That link had already been posted: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14292131

Also, whether something is mutilation or not is about more than how much it hurts when it's done. In this case a child is deprived of a part of their body that performs a clear biological function.

He made it pretty clear that he isn't talking about people with clear medical diagnosis indicating a need for it, also phimosis is usually not treated by removing the ENTIRE foreskin.

Disabling JS+CSS works too.

I've seen "real scientists" be very anti-science too. Remember the hubbub about people complaining that other people were trying to reproduce their experiments?

> The remaining 43% voted for 'I'll take whoever wins'.

Or they lived in some of those insane regions where only a single voting office served thousands of people and couldn't affording standing outside for 8+ hours, or they couldn't get a tuesday off (sane countries allot a whole weekend for voting), or they couldn't afford to get sufficient id to satisfy their state's demands. (Yes, i know, mail-in voting is a thing, but i'm sure there are good reasons to keep people from using that as well.)

There's plenty of reasons otherwise eligible voters didn't vote beyond "didn't care" and many of them are "they were prevented from doing so by institutional problems".

Recommend any of the north-western/central europe countries instead. Germany, Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Austria, Switzerland, heck even Finland. Any of them is a better place to live in than the USA on almost every given axis of measure, and many of them already have plenty turks there providing help and support with integration.