Why does alt.circumcision exist?

From the Star Trek Thread...

Here's the really important question: why in God's
name is there a newsgroup devoted to circumcision?

The real question is, why in Whoever's name does anybody still want to
cut parts off baby boy's genitals?

Good point. It was started to promote an anti-circumcision
agenda. Fueled by a foreskin fetish the skin freaks are
relentless. You can come and play with them too. Its fun.

Wrong. It was founded because people in the parenting and childbirth
groups wanted somewhere to sequester the discussion.

Post by Ian
Good to know this. Thanks. I looked at the stats for the group and
found it was a lot more active about 6-8 years ago, and a lot of
pointless arguing.

Well, that hasn't changed.

Post by Ian
I guess people got tired of it. In the U.S., it
didn't exactly change anything.

Who knows? The rate has fallen since then.

Post by Ian
Funny, I didn't know it existed, just like I didn't know there was an
array of people who wanted to stop routine circumcision. I don't think
anyone else really knew about it either, or cared to hear it, since
just about everyone

Wrong, it's down to about 60% or less across the US, and much lower in
the west, well under 50%.

Post by Ian
still chooses circumcision for their sons.

This is still a strange expression. "decides their sons will have part
of their penises cut off, whether they want it or not" would be more
accurate.

Post by Ian
I know I
will and I'm sure glad my parents chose it for me.

But heaven knows how many men are mad as hell about it. And more will
be.

Post by Ian
If the newsgroup was formed to promote an anti circumcision agenda,
funny how they named it ".circumcision", and not ".anti-circumcision"
or ".foreskin" or "pro-foreskin" or ".we-love-foreskins" or
".please-stop-circumcising".

There's nothing to stop pro-circumcision people from posting, and they
do.

Post by Ian
Maybe they knew where to solicit, and that
an honest name would make people realize what the group really was.
Adolf Hitler

Sorry I missed this. Godwin's law applies. (If your opponent compares
you to Hitler, their argument is over.)

ponysteel

2005-10-31 09:20:08 UTC

I don't think so! After all, the propaganda methods used by the skin
freaks are similar to those adopted by the nazis - they believed that
if you tell the same lies to enough people often enough, the lie will
eventually assume the mantra of truth. There can be no denying that
this is the same modus operandum of the skin freaks - Bleat on about
the wonders of the smelly flap for long enough and a few, mostly
sexually inadequate men, men will start to wonder whether they are
missing anything. Many sensible, educated, well adjusted people who
understand the benefits of circumcision and know the nonsense of such
anti-circ propaganda continue to circumcise, even in the NHS dominated
UK, where the procedure must be performed privately unless medically
essential. It seems to me that the anti-circs are mostly looking for a
scapegoat for their own sexual inadequacy and the more unhappy
individuals believe them, the less alone they feel.

Maze

2005-11-17 18:07:16 UTC

Post by ponysteel
I don't think so! After all, the propaganda methods used by the skin
freaks are similar to those adopted by the nazis - they believed that
if you tell the same lies to enough people often enough, the lie will
eventually assume the mantra of truth. There can be no denying that
this is the same modus operandum of the skin freaks - Bleat on about
the wonders of the smelly flap for long enough and a few, mostly
sexually inadequate men, men will start to wonder whether they are
missing anything. Many sensible, educated, well adjusted people who
understand the benefits of circumcision and know the nonsense of such
anti-circ propaganda continue to circumcise, even in the NHS dominated
UK, where the procedure must be performed privately unless medically
essential. It seems to me that the anti-circs are mostly looking for a
scapegoat for their own sexual inadequacy and the more unhappy
individuals believe them, the less alone they feel.

Don't you know how to quote the text that you're replying to?

Ian

2005-10-31 19:01:51 UTC

Post by Hugh Young
The real question is, why in Whoever's name does anybody still want
to cut parts off baby boy's genitals?

No, the "real" question is why you don't get it.

Post by Hugh Young
Who knows? The rate has fallen since then.
Wrong, it's down to about 60% or less across the US, and much lower
in the west, well under 50%.

A New Zealander (judging from your email domain) is a self appointed
expert in US health statistics? How do you really know what goes on
here if you don't live here? Do you go to health clubs in the U.S.? Do
you have a child who goes to camp in the U.S.? Do you have kids in day
care or nursery school in the US? I'm involved in at least one way with
all of the above, and others, that tell me there is no drop in
circumcision rates in the US. My family lives all over the country and
it's the same everywhere, west coast included. So, what is your
experience? Foreskin fetish gay bars, maybe?

Oh, yeah, you can count all the Mexican illegals and legals and the
circ rate looks low where they are, but in a couple of generations,
everyone assimilates. My own family is from Russia, 3 or 4 generations
back, and circumcision was adopted quickly. They all stuck with it
because it was cleaner and easier. Everyone figures this out. The rate
for whites in California, is about 90% in one hospital, and 80% in many
others I've heard about. It doesn't stand up logically that I just
happened to randomly come across all the exceptions, does it? -- from
family, news, friends, etc.

Also, I read recently that because some state Medicaid programs are
looking to cut coverage, as usual, they don't want to cover
circumcision for newborns, so doctors and hospitals are simply burying
the circumcision expenses in the nursery bill and obstetrics bills.
Nothing illegal or questionable about that, and trying to help the
patient despite government red tape. So experts like yourself will see
a decrease in circumcision claims and declare victory that fewer people
are circumcising in the US. But that won't be true, will it?

Post by Hugh Young
This is still a strange expression. "decides their sons will have part
of their penises cut off, whether they want it or not" would be more
accurate.

You are not exactly rational, framing a normal event that way, are you?

Post by Hugh Young
But heaven knows how many men are mad as hell about it.
And more will be.

Anyone who's rational has more significant concerns in life. There are
therapy and drugs today for those with OCD or BDD or whatever else.

Post by Ian
Adolf Hitler

Sorry I missed this. Godwin's law applies. (If your opponent compares
you to Hitler, their argument is over.)

I have no idea who Godwin is or what "law" he invented, but probably a
conservative's or neo-con's rule to not have to argue correct
correlation.

Remember when former NYC Mayor Rudolph Giulini or NYS Senator Alfonse
D'Amato would (fake) cry or whine when someone would relate their
fascistic right wing economics and their consequences with "Nazi"?
They'd complain it was an anti-Italian slur, but no one mentioned
Mussolini in the conversation. No one told Mussolini to ally with
Hitler, so if he happened to be Italian, so the history is. They just
don't like being called on their lies and deceptions. The use of
propaganda that's intended to deceive or be believed once it's repeated
enough, is accurately equated to Hitler and Nazis. Maybe Godwin's law
was an acknowledgement that the lie has been found out and exposed.

Hugh Young

2005-11-01 05:45:20 UTC

Post by Hugh Young
This is still a strange expression. "decides their sons will have part
of their penises cut off, whether they want it or not" would be more
accurate.

You are not exactly rational, framing a normal event that way, are you?

My description is accurate. Viewed globally, circumcision is not
normal.

Jake Waskett

2005-11-01 11:52:15 UTC

Post by Hugh Young
This is still a strange expression. "decides their sons will have part
of their penises cut off, whether they want it or not" would be more
accurate.

You are not exactly rational, framing a normal event that way, are you?

My description is accurate. Viewed globally, circumcision is not
normal.

Nobody can agree on the exact percentage, but it is commonly estimated that
approximately 20% of the world's population are circumcised.

One in five.

That's like saying that having blond hair is not normal, or being taller
than six feet is not normal.

Hugh Young

2005-11-01 18:56:17 UTC

On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 11:52:15 GMT, Jake Waskett

Post by Jake Waskett

Post by Hugh Young
This is still a strange expression. "decides their sons will have part
of their penises cut off, whether they want it or not" would be more
accurate.

You are not exactly rational, framing a normal event that way, are you?

My description is accurate. Viewed globally, circumcision is not
normal.

Nobody can agree on the exact percentage, but it is commonly estimated that
approximately 20% of the world's population are circumcised.
One in five.
That's like saying that having blond hair is not normal, or being taller
than six feet is not normal.

I should perhaps have said, "is not the norm".

Whatever, "decides their sons will have part of their penises cut off,
whether they want it or not" is more accurate than "chooses
circumcision for their sons".

Briar Rabbit

2005-11-02 03:16:46 UTC

Post by Hugh Young
On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 11:52:15 GMT, Jake Waskett

Post by Jake Waskett

Post by Hugh Young
This is still a strange expression. "decides their sons will have part
of their penises cut off, whether they want it or not" would be more
accurate.

You are not exactly rational, framing a normal event that way, are you?

My description is accurate. Viewed globally, circumcision is not
normal.

Nobody can agree on the exact percentage, but it is commonly estimated that
approximately 20% of the world's population are circumcised.
One in five.
That's like saying that having blond hair is not normal, or being taller
than six feet is not normal.

I should perhaps have said, "is not the norm".
Whatever, "decides their sons will have part of their penises cut off,
whether they want it or not" is more accurate than "chooses
circumcision for their sons".

Now that you are getting more accurate with your choice of words why not
correct your current phrase of choice "part of their penises cut off" to
read "a superfluous part of their anatomy cut off"?

p***@gmail.com

2016-12-13 22:04:42 UTC

Hugh Young
- hide quoted text -
On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 11:52:15 GMT, Jake Waskett
<***@hotmail.com> said:
- hide quoted text -

Post by Jake Waskett

Post by Hugh Young
This is still a strange expression. "decides their sons will have part
of their penises cut off, whether they want it or not" would be more
accurate.

You are not exactly rational, framing a normal event that way, are you?

My description is accurate. Viewed globally, circumcision is not
normal.

Nobody can agree on the exact percentage, but it is commonly estimated that
approximately 20% of the world's population are circumcised.
One in five.
That's like saying that having blond hair is not normal, or being taller
than six feet is not normal.

Ian

2005-11-01 19:38:27 UTC

You mean this guy thinks I'm not normal because I have long blonde hair
and I'm 6'2 ? What has the world come to!! I think I'm normal.

But I wonder about anyone who wants to shift the focus and wording
about something common and normal to a perspective that makes it look
otherwise. That's an insecurity or mental illness hiding behind the
facade, without any doubt. Today it wants a foreskin. If it were to get
one, it would find some other obsession tomorrow.

Briar Rabbit

2005-11-02 03:20:37 UTC

Post by Ian
You mean this guy thinks I'm not normal because I have long blonde hair
and I'm 6'2 ? What has the world come to!! I think I'm normal.
But I wonder about anyone who wants to shift the focus and wording
about something common and normal to a perspective that makes it look
otherwise. That's an insecurity or mental illness hiding behind the
facade, without any doubt. Today it wants a foreskin. If it were to get
one, it would find some other obsession tomorrow.

Yes, I believe you have just about summed them up to a tee.

Hugh Young

2005-11-02 06:29:42 UTC

Post by Ian
You mean this guy thinks I'm not normal because I have long blonde hair
and I'm 6'2 ?

BR may mean that, but I don't.

Post by Ian
What has the world come to!! I think I'm normal.
But I wonder about anyone who wants to shift the focus and wording
about something common and normal to a perspective that makes it look
otherwise.

Slavery was once "common and normal". So was footbinding in China.
(And for many of the same reasons as circumcision: see
http://www.circumstitions.com/Foot.html) Now they aren't.

Post by Ian
That's an insecurity or mental illness hiding behind the
facade, without any doubt. Today it wants a foreskin. If it were to get
one, it would find some other obsession tomorrow.

Ah, the slippery slope. Today, foreskins, tomorrow, world domination.
Yeah, right.

Briar Rabbit

2005-11-02 16:25:32 UTC

Post by Ian
That's an insecurity or mental illness hiding behind the
facade, without any doubt. Today it wants a foreskin. If it were to get
one, it would find some other obsession tomorrow.

Ah, the slippery slope. Today, foreskins, tomorrow, world domination.
Yeah, right.

Yea right. LOL. He is touching a nerve I see Hugh. But you really have
no place in your life for anything other than fireskins. What a sad and
pathetic person you must be. Would you be prepared to cooperate with the
chapter on you in my book?

Ian

2005-11-01 19:31:20 UTC

My description is accurate. Viewed globally, circumcision is not normal.

Who gives a rat's ass how it's viewed globally! We're not talking here
about nuclear war. In the US, circumcision is completely normal,
basically universally accepted, and nearly totally expected.

Hugh Young

2005-11-02 06:32:20 UTC

My description is accurate. Viewed globally, circumcision is not normal.

Who gives a rat's ass how it's viewed globally!

This is not the US Wide Web.

Post by Ian
We're not talking here
about nuclear war. In the US, circumcision is completely normal,
basically universally accepted, and nearly totally expected.

Nonsense. (If it is, why does opposition bother Ian so much?)

Ian

2005-11-02 14:46:41 UTC

Opposition doesn't both me, dude. It's stupidity that bothers me. It's
deception that bothers me. I believe in intellectual honesty.

Therefore I think people who stumble onto this newsgroup should see
messages that make them realize to be cautious about what they read
from propagandists who might cause them to think foreskins are
desireable when they're not, or that they've become the "in" thing when
it's not so.... in the US, at least. In the rest of the world, I don't
think they care very much... they just don't know any better. Yet.

Briar Rabbit

2005-11-02 03:49:31 UTC

Post by Hugh Young
This is still a strange expression. "decides their sons will have part
of their penises cut off, whether they want it or not" would be more
accurate.

You are not exactly rational, framing a normal event that way, are you?

You have proven quite astute in summing up the skin freaks. Of course
they are not rational, they are desperate, they see with each passing
day their past efforts to promote the foreskin at all costs going down
the crapper. One almost feels sad for them.

ponysteel

2005-11-02 09:02:15 UTC

No, we don't really feel sad for them. We feel that they're sad!

Briar Rabbit

2005-11-02 03:46:24 UTC

Good point. It was started to promote an anti-circumcision
agenda. Fueled by a foreskin fetish the skin freaks are
relentless. You can come and play with them too. Its fun.

Wrong. It was founded because people in the parenting and childbirth
groups wanted somewhere to sequester the discussion.

Not quite, it was a ruse to get all the skin freak initiated posts on
the subject moving out of their newsgroups. The skin freaks then
attempted to make it a place for the promotion of their propaganda.

d***@aol.com

2005-10-31 17:52:05 UTC