German Court rules circumcision as assault

[Lialoth]

Not only have I provided the global data

Doesn't list circumcision status or what rates. It's really hardly what I'd call "global", it's more "from a splattering or different nations, and missing almost an entire region".

DOZENS OF TIMES NOW

And you still haven't seen fit to read it.

Now provide a source that backs it up, mkay?

[NMaa940]

He has no sources.

[No Water No Moon]

What you find in such sources is that they are either lumping together invasive and non-invasive cancers, which are quite different, and it is the invasive sort which we need to be concerned about; or that the vast majority of the rare cases of circumcised invasive penile cancer involve adult circumcision, after the foreskin has already manifested disease, and had evidently already begun metastasizing cancer cells, or incomplete circumcisions, in which the foreskin was not properly removed; there are a handful of residual cases, all of which so far as I can find involved unusual traumas to the penis.

This is totally untrue, as you should know since I have cited the International Registries, and in the 4ST thread a variety of medical literature, not including Wolbarst's article. The claim that Wolbarst is the only source is itself something that traces from only one source: a David Gollaher, whose work (there is no polite way to put this) is filled with downright lies, as well as distorted interpretations, plus malicious conspiracy theories. The "cirp.org" site which you are fond of has followed his approach, and likewise has fully earned its reputation for dishonesty and paranoia.

I don't think it's unfair to question a source. I think if you can show something that actually compromises the data, then it's a valid complaint, even if it is logically fallacious to poison the well, so to speak.

But you're not showing compromised data. You're - in fact - not presenting anything here as a rebuttal except, the claim that some guy is a liar, and thus ANYTHING found on some site is automatically wrong.

Yes, proper hygiene definitely reduces the risks among the uncircumcised. The risk among the infant-circumcised, however, remains immeasurably close to zero, in Denmark as everywhere else.

Indeed. And in people that don't smoke, the statistics are even more significant. And in people that don't get exposure to HPV, the statistics are even more pronounced. And in people that never encounter any kind of penile trauma, more pronounced again.

[No Water No Moon]

Scarification is mutilation, but does not necessarily require debility.

No, it's not. Words have meaning...

I found a number of definitions for mutilation. "To deprive of a limb or an essential part", or "To disfigure by damaging irreparably", or - etymologically - "Latin mutilāre to cut off" - or medically "Disfigurement or injury by removal or destruction of a conspicuous or essential part of the body", or )again, medically) "Disfigurement; a major reduction or alteration of a limb or tissue, which may be intentional or accidental", or "deprivation of a limb or essential part especially by excision".

In almost every definition, scarification is certainly a form of mutilation. In some, it's only arguable... depending on whether the person you're debating with is aware that skin is an organ.

[Terraius]

Nope, those are reparative surgeries to fix problems that would interfere with a normal life. Try again.

Why not let the child decide if he'd like to keep the crack in his lip or the extra finger? Why do it AGAINST his will?

Im sorry, this was too much, I laughed too hard

[Terraius]

Because it is a large detriment. The cleft lip causes speech and hearing problems and the extra finger is, in most cases, just a finger-like lump of skin which will interfere with anything he tries to do. Human brains are not meant to coordinate six fingers.

Again, why not let him decide? You'll ruin his life if he thinks the crack is worth more than the speech impediment. How dare you decide for your child. How dare you, the person with the most interest in his well being, make a rational informed decision for them in lieu of their own cognitive facilities? How dare you violate his bodily autonomy. How. dare. you.

I honestly cant tell if you are trolling/devils advocate at this point or what, this is really hard to decipher.

[AETEN II]

@ those who were using abortion as an argument. The fetus has no will until into the third trimester, IT'S NOT SENTIENT! It's as intelligent as a tumor. However, a baby does have will, a primitive one at that, but even a primitive creature would not agree to bodily harm. And please stop bitching about the hilariously low chance of penile cancer. I grow precancerous polyps in my GI system. Stop bitching about stvpidly low odds of cancer, it's insulting. It's stupid to circumsize a baby of such odds.

[TomKirk]

No, it's not. Words have meaning...

I found a number of definitions for mutilation. "To deprive of a limb or an essential part", or "To disfigure by damaging irreparably", or - etymologically - "Latin mutilāre to cut off" - or medically "Disfigurement or injury by removal or destruction of a conspicuous or essential part of the body", or )again, medically) "Disfigurement; a major reduction or alteration of a limb or tissue, which may be intentional or accidental", or "deprivation of a limb or essential part especially by excision".

In almost every definition, scarification is certainly a form of mutilation. In some, it's only arguable... depending on whether the person you're debating with is aware that skin is an organ.

It is not a "limb" nor an "essential" part, does not "disfigure" in the views whose judgment matters, nor "injure", nor is the part of the body "conspicuous" or "essential": NONE of the definitions you give apply, so how are you getting "almost every"?

[TomKirk]

:palm: @ those who were using abortion as an argument. The fetus has no will until into the third trimester, IT'S NOT SENTIENT! It's as intelligent as a tumor. However, a baby does have will, a primitive one at that, but even a primitive creature would not agree to bodily harm. And please stop bitching about the hilariously low chance of penile cancer. I grow precancerous polyps in my GI system. Stop bitching about stvpidly low odds of cancer, it's insulting. It's stupid to circumsize a baby of such odds.

I do not find the subject of penile amputation even slightly "hilarious", nor do I regard the rates as acceptably low under the circumstances. Tell this guy how fucking hilarious it is.

[Lialoth]

I do not find the subject of penile amputation even slightly "hilarious", nor do I regard the rates as acceptably low under the circumstances. Tell this guy how fucking hilarious it is.

So you're saying that 0.04 per capita rates are "not low enough"? What exactly IS your standard for "low enough"?

[Alowwvia]

Germany is currently being awesome.

Jews hella mad. Too bad, your religion does not always get the say in what people can do with their bodies.

You cannot force a child to be a centerpiece to your doctrine.

[No Water No Moon]

I found a number of definitions for mutilation. "To deprive of a limb or an essential part", or "To disfigure by damaging irreparably", or - etymologically - "Latin mutilāre to cut off" - or medically "Disfigurement or injury by removal or destruction of a conspicuous or essential part of the body", or )again, medically) "Disfigurement; a major reduction or alteration of a limb or tissue, which may be intentional or accidental", or "deprivation of a limb or essential part especially by excision".

In almost every definition, scarification is certainly a form of mutilation. In some, it's only arguable... depending on whether the person you're debating with is aware that skin is an organ.

It is not a "limb" nor an "essential" part, does not "disfigure" in the views whose judgment matters, nor "injure", nor is the part of the body "conspicuous" or "essential": NONE of the definitions you give apply, so how are you getting "almost every"?

Skin is an essential organ.

You were aware that skin is an organ, yes?

Ah, I think I see the problem - you read all the definitions for mutilation, and failed to read that we were discussing scarification - thus assumed that we'd been talking about circumcision? A fair point - and - given that circumcision does excise skin, and is a major alteration, and does remove a conspicuous part of the anatomy... sure, I can see how it applies just as well.

[Tmutarakhan]

What you find in such sources is that they are either lumping together invasive and non-invasive cancers, which are quite different, and it is the invasive sort which we need to be concerned about; or that the vast majority of the rare cases of circumcised invasive penile cancer involve adult circumcision, after the foreskin has already manifested disease, and had evidently already begun metastasizing cancer cells, or incomplete circumcisions, in which the foreskin was not properly removed; there are a handful of residual cases, all of which so far as I can find involved unusual traumas to the penis.

This is totally untrue, as you should know since I have cited the International Registries, and in the 4ST thread a variety of medical literature, not including Wolbarst's article. The claim that Wolbarst is the only source is itself something that traces from only one source: a David Gollaher, whose work (there is no polite way to put this) is filled with downright lies, as well as distorted interpretations, plus malicious conspiracy theories. The "cirp.org" site which you are fond of has followed his approach, and likewise has fully earned its reputation for dishonesty and paranoia.

I don't think it's unfair to question a source. I think if you can show something that actually compromises the data, then it's a valid complaint

How much patience do you expect someone to show about demonstrating the falsehood line by line of claims made in a Holocaust denial or aggressively ignorant creationist site? I pointed out that your source was telling a lie, which you knew perfectly well to be a lie when you repeated it; and that it part of a tiresome pattern of spinning tales about the Jewish conspiracy running the world, which you personally haven't indulged in, although you have an ally going on and on about how the Jews are no better than animals.

But you're not showing compromised data. You're - in fact - not presenting anything here as a rebuttal except, the claim that some guy is a liar, and thus ANYTHING found on some site is automatically wrong.

I demonstrated the specific errors, as you can see in what is quoted. The medical papers do distinguish invasive cancers (which give a choice between "mutilation", in the actual sense of that word, or death) and the kinds of growths variously referred to as "genital warts" or "papillomas" or "cancers in situ", which circumcision does not to be sure protect against, but do not have the same dire consequences; your site pretends they are the same. A medical paper notes cases of penile cancer starting in "circumcision scars": now, circumcision properly performed does not leave any scars, which only result when part of the foreskin is damaged but left attached-- that is, in these cases also the cancer starts in the foreskin which is strongly against your case, although your site pretends that circumcision is the cause, rather than the failure to complete the circumcision. These things should not be difficult to understand, so I am thinking that you do understand, which is why you refuse to acknowledge that these things have even been pointed out to you.

Yes, proper hygiene definitely reduces the risks among the uncircumcised. The risk among the infant-circumcised, however, remains immeasurably close to zero, in Denmark as everywhere else.

Indeed. And in people that don't smoke, the statistics are even more significant.

No. Among the uncircumcised, if you search a population of 100,000 males for a year you may or may not get one case; the average rate (per 100,000 per year) goes down from a large fraction of 1 to a smaller fraction of 1 if they do not smoke, or if they maintain proper hygiene, etc.: this can reduce the rate by a factor of about two. Among the infant-circumcised, you need to search a population of 100,000,000 males (the whole US) for almost a century (the records surveys went back to the 1920's) to find a total of 3 cases: that is reducing the rate by a factor of thousands. The difference between two and thousands is the difference between the height of a basketball hoop and the height of Mt. Everest: you are, again, ridiculously claiming that the basketball hoop is "larger" than Mt. Everest.

And in people that never encounter any kind of penile trauma, more pronounced again.

Among the infant-circumcised who never encounter penile trauma, you cannot find ONE case in a population of 100,000,000 over a century. The rate reduction is impossible to distinguish from 100%: it is possible that there are some freakishly rare cases; I just can't find a report of one.

[Lialoth]

Among the infant-circumcised who never encounter penile trauma, you cannot find ONE case in a population of 100,000,000 over a century.^{[citation needed]}

Yeah. This is going to go on for a while, innit?

[TomKirk]

I do not find the subject of penile amputation even slightly "hilarious", nor do I regard the rates as acceptably low under the circumstances. Tell this guy how fucking hilarious it is.

So you're saying that 0.04 per capita rates are "not low enough"? What exactly IS your standard for "low enough"?

You consider 0.04 low enough? Pick a number from 1 to 25. I will then draw a random number from 1 to 25, and if you win, I will cut off your penis. No problem, right?

[TomKirk]

Among the infant-circumcised who never encounter penile trauma, you cannot find ONE case in a population of 100,000,000 over a century.^{[citation needed]}

Yeah. This is going to go on for a while, innit?

No. You can go back to the 4ST thread, which I linked you to before. There was thorough discussion of the paper surveying the medical literature finding nine cases of invasive penile cancer among the circumcised in the US: six of the nine were adult circumcisions, the other three unusual penile traumas. If you want to argue about the data, then you have to look at it first. If you refuse, I am sick of dealing with you.

[Lialoth]

You consider 0.04 low enough? Pick a number from 1 to 25. I will then draw a random number from 1 to 25, and if you win, I will cut off your penis. No problem, right?

0.04 per CAPITA. That isn't even 0.04%. It's 0.04 people per THOUSAND PEOPLE.

A more accurate description: I pick a number between 1 and 25 000. You draw a random number between same. If I get it right you get to cut off my penis. I'm okay with these odds, I'm so okay it's fine.

No. You can go back to the 4ST thread, which I linked you to before.

Not my job to dig up your evidence for you.

[TomKirk]

It is not a "limb" nor an "essential" part, does not "disfigure" in the views whose judgment matters, nor "injure", nor is the part of the body "conspicuous" or "essential": NONE of the definitions you give apply, so how are you getting "almost every"?

Skin is an essential organ.

You were aware that skin is an organ, yes?

Ah, I think I see the problem - you read all the definitions for mutilation, and failed to read that we were discussing scarification

I was most specifically telling you that scarification does not fall within the definition of mutilation. Of course I am aware that skin is an organ: so? You may not like scars, but nobody is asking your opinion. We are not talking about removing any "essential" section of skin or interfering with any function.

[Dazchan]

Tell this guy how fucking hilarious it is.

I will when you tell this guy how beneficial circumcision is.

Now, can we stop with the appeals to emotion?

[TomKirk]

You consider 0.04 low enough? Pick a number from 1 to 25. I will then draw a random number from 1 to 25, and if you win, I will cut off your penis. No problem, right?

0.04 per CAPITA. That isn't even 0.04%. It's 0.04 people per THOUSAND PEOPLE.

0.04 per capita would mean a 1/25 chance for each person. Don't quote words in screaming capitals if you do not know what they mean. Further, the rates per thousand (or per million or per 100,000) are for each year of your life, and must therefore be multiplied by about 70 to obtain a lifetime risk.

A more accurate description: I pick a number between 1 and 25 000. You draw a random number between same. If I get it right you get to cut off my penis. I'm okay with these odds, I'm so okay I'm fine.

1. Your number is seventy times too large, see above.
2. I would much prefer a simple option to not play the game at all, and have no chance of getting my penis cut off, if that is available.

No. You can go back to the 4ST thread, which I linked you to before.

Not my job to dig up your evidence for you.

I ALREADY DUG UP THE EVIDENCE, EXPLAINED IT IN TEDIOUS DETAIL TO PEOPLE WHO WERE JUST AS STUBBORN ABOUT REFUSING TO LOOK OR TO UNDERSTAND AS YOU ARE, AND LINKED YOU TO ALL OF IT.
If you are too lazy to read, I am not going to rewrite all of it again. The discussion in the first paragraph, for example, about how you need to multiply the rates per year by the lifespan, is something I went through over and over again on that thread.

[Lialoth]

0.04 per capita would mean a 1/25 chance for each person. Don't quote words in screaming capitals if you do not know what they mean. Further, the rates per thousand (or per million or per 100,000) are for each year of your life, and must therefore be multiplied by about 70 to obtain a lifetime risk.

OK, so I misused a term. The source is still per thousand.

2. I would much prefer a simple option to not play the game at all, and have no chance of getting my penis cut off, if that is available.

Except you can still "lose" if you're circumcised. The chances of penile cancer aren't THAT much lower. Actually, 0.04 incidents per thousand people / year is still statistically indistinguishable from zero.

about how you need to multiply the rates per year by the lifespan, is something I went through over and over again on that thread.

The rates are still staggeringly tiny. You lose, son. You lose.

[No Water No Moon]

Skin is an essential organ.

You were aware that skin is an organ, yes?

Ah, I think I see the problem - you read all the definitions for mutilation, and failed to read that we were discussing scarification

I was most specifically telling you that scarification does not fall within the definition of mutilation. Of course I am aware that skin is an organ: so? You may not like scars, but nobody is asking your opinion. We are not talking about removing any "essential" section of skin or interfering with any function.

Actually, I don't mind scarification, at all - where it's all consensual.

That doesn't change the fact that - despite your denial - scarification is mutilation.

[TomKirk]

Tell this guy how fucking hilarious it is.

I will when you tell this guy how beneficial circumcision is.

Now, can we stop with the appeals to emotion?

The anti-circumcision doesn't seem to consist of anything except appeals to emotion, coupled with ugly disdain for the emotions of those on the other side. The Roemer case is one of 3 like it in the past couple decades (not "117 per year" as invented at one point), while Tim's case is of a category that is still rare, but much more frequent comparatively. If we could talk about the trade-offs rationally, that would be one thing; but that seems to be the last thing the anti-circ side is willing to do.

[No Water No Moon]

I will when you tell this guy how beneficial circumcision is.

Now, can we stop with the appeals to emotion?

The anti-circumcision doesn't seem to consist of anything except appeals to emotion...

Horseshit.

The most consistent and fundamental argument has been letting people make their own choices about their own bodies - personal sovereignty.

[Gravlen]

The anti-circumcision doesn't seem to consist of anything except appeals to emotion...

Horseshit.

The most consistent and fundamental argument has been letting people make their own choices about their own bodies - personal sovereignty.

- "You're violating the freedom of religion and bodily integrity of another individual!"
- "Damn your appeals to emotion!"

Yeah... No.