[s]YouTube stuff[/s] cancelled

[Speaker to Animals]

MONSTER Energy drinks are the work of SATAN!!!

These Jewish potions are dangerous.

[Fife]

Gettin turnt up for Ceasar!

[Otern]

This guy is raging a bit too much, but his point is good. It's crazy how common circumcision is, when there's really no advantage.

The only advantage is being slightly less likely to get a urinary tract infection, but that shit's easily avoided by cleaning your dick anyway, and easily treated if you get it.

[Speaker to Animals]

This guy is raging a bit too much, but his point is good. It's crazy how common circumcision is, when there's really no advantage.

The only advantage is being slightly less likely to get a urinary tract infection, but that shit's easily avoided by cleaning your dick anyway, and easily treated if you get it.

Not accurate. The advantage is an enormous resistance to STD infection, including HIV.

Circumcision reduces heterosexual HIV-1 acquisition in men by at least 60%. However, the biological mechanisms by which circumcision is protective remain incompletely understood. We test the hypothesis that the sub-preputial microenvironment created by the foreskin drives immune activation in adjacent foreskin tissues, facilitating HIV-1 infection through a combination of epithelial barrier disruption, enhanced dendritic cell maturation, and the recruitment/activation of neutrophils and susceptible CD4 T cell subsets such as Th17 cells. Furthermore, we provide evidence that the genital microbiome may be an important driver of this immune activation. This suggests that new modalities to reduce genital immune activation and/or alter the genital microbiome, used alone or in combination with topical microbicides, may be of significant benefit to HIV prevention.

https://aidsrestherapy.biomedcentral.co ... 017-0167-6

[Speaker to Animals]

Welcome to Texas.

[Otern]

Not accurate. The advantage is an enormous resistance to STD infection, including HIV.

Circumcision reduces heterosexual HIV-1 acquisition in men by at least 60%. However, the biological mechanisms by which circumcision is protective remain incompletely understood. We test the hypothesis that the sub-preputial microenvironment created by the foreskin drives immune activation in adjacent foreskin tissues, facilitating HIV-1 infection through a combination of epithelial barrier disruption, enhanced dendritic cell maturation, and the recruitment/activation of neutrophils and susceptible CD4 T cell subsets such as Th17 cells. Furthermore, we provide evidence that the genital microbiome may be an important driver of this immune activation. This suggests that new modalities to reduce genital immune activation and/or alter the genital microbiome, used alone or in combination with topical microbicides, may be of significant benefit to HIV prevention.

https://aidsrestherapy.biomedcentral.co ... 017-0167-6

There's some questionable methodology in that study though. It's usually studied by sampling in sub saharan Africa. And the people getting circumcised also get sex education and condoms. Also, they're usually better off than their uncircumcised counterparts there.

Anyway, the study doesn't imply an enormous resistance to STD infection. It implies a slight resistance. The chance of getting HIV from straight sex with an infected person is already low. It might get lower for circumcised men, but really not low enough to justify its prevalence. It's still not a guarantee, and condoms are way more effective.

I just think it's silly to circumcise babies. Better to wait until they're able to consent to it, because I would get mad as hell if my parents did it to me as a baby. Waiting increases the chance of complications, but it's already a completely unnecessary procedure. It didn't get normal because of HIV or STDs, that's just how the clipped jewish doctors try to justify it after the fact.

[Speaker to Animals]

Not accurate. The advantage is an enormous resistance to STD infection, including HIV.

Circumcision reduces heterosexual HIV-1 acquisition in men by at least 60%. However, the biological mechanisms by which circumcision is protective remain incompletely understood. We test the hypothesis that the sub-preputial microenvironment created by the foreskin drives immune activation in adjacent foreskin tissues, facilitating HIV-1 infection through a combination of epithelial barrier disruption, enhanced dendritic cell maturation, and the recruitment/activation of neutrophils and susceptible CD4 T cell subsets such as Th17 cells. Furthermore, we provide evidence that the genital microbiome may be an important driver of this immune activation. This suggests that new modalities to reduce genital immune activation and/or alter the genital microbiome, used alone or in combination with topical microbicides, may be of significant benefit to HIV prevention.

https://aidsrestherapy.biomedcentral.co ... 017-0167-6

There's some questionable methodology in that study though. It's usually studied by sampling in sub saharan Africa. And the people getting circumcised also get sex education and condoms. Also, they're usually better off than their uncircumcised counterparts there.

Anyway, the study doesn't imply an enormous resistance to STD infection. It implies a slight resistance. The chance of getting HIV from straight sex with an infected person is already low. It might get lower for circumcised men, but really not low enough to justify its prevalence. It's still not a guarantee, and condoms are way more effective.

I just think it's silly to circumcise babies. Better to wait until they're able to consent to it, because I would get mad as hell if my parents did it to me as a baby. Waiting increases the chance of complications, but it's already a completely unnecessary procedure. It didn't get normal because of HIV or STDs, that's just how the clipped jewish doctors try to justify it after the fact.

In the United States, it's upwards of a 60% resistance to HIV infection (as well as other infections). It's a substantial effect.

Most American men until about thirty years ago were circumcised. It had nothing to do with Jews.

[Otern]

In the United States, it's upwards of a 60% resistance to HIV infection (as well as other infections). It's a substantial effect.

Most American men until about thirty years ago were circumcised. It had nothing to do with Jews.

60% resistance sounds like a lot. But it's really not. For uncircumcised men, it's about 2% chance of getting HIV from a one time vaginal intercourse with HIV-infected women. 60% resistance means the chance drops to 0,8%. So, even if it's true that circumcision gives a 60% resistance, it's not the life saver it's proclaimed to be. You're going to get HIV if your partner has HIV eventually, and you're going to get HIV if your lifestyle is based on fucking vast amount of people in the ass without protection. That whole 60% resistance can even give people a false sense of security, and make them not bother to use condoms, because they fail to understand the mathematics behind it.

And yes, it was common thirty years ago, and before that. It was common before the threat of HIV. Meaning its normalization weren't affected by the threat of HIV. People circumcise their kids because of tradition and conformity.

It's got something to do with jews. And muslims. When some Norwegian politicians wanted to ban circumcision on babies, they were met with opposition from jews and muslims. Because our doctors aren't circumcised themselves, they're not prone to pro-circumcision bias when conducting their studies. The advantages of circumcision simply do not outweigh the disadvantages. Around 200 babies die each year from complications related to circumcision in the US. It's not a very high number. But the deaths circumcision helps against, is better prevented through sex education, use of condoms, and a non-degenerate lifestyle.

Circumcision is nowhere near as effective as vaccines, which has close to 100% resistance to the disease it targets. Vaccines are also the only practical way to protect against certain diseases, like measles, smallpox, tuberculosis and so on. Some kids die from complications of vaccines, but their effectiveness have been proven world wide. The diseases circumcision has a small preventive effect on, has other, way more effective preventive solutions.

People don't circumcise their kids because of HIV or other STDs. They do it because of tradition. And it started becoming a tradition in an attempt to limit men's sexuality.

I will agree the dangers of circumcision aren't that huge, as not that many babies die each year from complications. And the guy in the video is probably overrating how damaging it is. Circumcised people still enjoy sex. But it's really not necessary, and doing it on babies takes the choice away from them to decide for themselves.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Father of 3 boys, all cut. I did it because it’s cleaner, and probably tradition (non-religious).
I felt terrible watching them carted off, but it really didn’t occur to me not to have it done.

This is making me think more deeply about it, and I really don’t have a better answer. It’s just what people do I guess?

[Speaker to Animals]

In the United States, it's upwards of a 60% resistance to HIV infection (as well as other infections). It's a substantial effect.

Most American men until about thirty years ago were circumcised. It had nothing to do with Jews.

60% resistance sounds like a lot. But it's really not. For uncircumcised men, it's about 2% chance of getting HIV from a one time vaginal intercourse with HIV-infected women. 60% resistance means the chance drops to 0,8%. So, even if it's true that circumcision gives a 60% resistance, it's not the life saver it's proclaimed to be. You're going to get HIV if your partner has HIV eventually, and you're going to get HIV if your lifestyle is based on fucking vast amount of people in the ass without protection. That whole 60% resistance can even give people a false sense of security, and make them not bother to use condoms, because they fail to understand the mathematics behind it.

And yes, it was common thirty years ago, and before that. It was common before the threat of HIV. Meaning its normalization weren't affected by the threat of HIV. People circumcise their kids because of tradition and conformity.

It's got something to do with jews. And muslims. When some Norwegian politicians wanted to ban circumcision on babies, they were met with opposition from jews and muslims. Because our doctors aren't circumcised themselves, they're not prone to pro-circumcision bias when conducting their studies. The advantages of circumcision simply do not outweigh the disadvantages. Around 200 babies die each year from complications related to circumcision in the US. It's not a very high number. But the deaths circumcision helps against, is better prevented through sex education, use of condoms, and a non-degenerate lifestyle.

Circumcision is nowhere near as effective as vaccines, which has close to 100% resistance to the disease it targets. Vaccines are also the only practical way to protect against certain diseases, like measles, smallpox, tuberculosis and so on. Some kids die from complications of vaccines, but their effectiveness have been proven world wide. The diseases circumcision has a small preventive effect on, has other, way more effective preventive solutions.

People don't circumcise their kids because of HIV or other STDs. They do it because of tradition. And it started becoming a tradition in an attempt to limit men's sexuality.

I will agree the dangers of circumcision aren't that huge, as not that many babies die each year from complications. And the guy in the video is probably overrating how damaging it is. Circumcised people still enjoy sex. But it's really not necessary, and doing it on babies takes the choice away from them to decide for themselves.

Circumcised: 1 in 200
Uncircumcised: 1 in 80

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 004711.htm


That's not a small reduction in risk, dude. That's huge.

And it's also for many other diseases.

Americans have been circumcising boys for over a century for public health. It has nothing to do with religion. The religion thing is a canard and, arguably, an antisemitic one in many cases that I have seen at that.