New study re: circumcision and AIDS

[SirNitram]

You know, you can acheive even greater resistance to HIV by chopping the dick clean off. I don't know why these scientists aren't examining this. It's only common sense. If you can't fuck, you can't get AIDS.

[drachefly]

Because, I don't know, you could get a significant fraction of men to agree to circumcision, but not castration?

[SirNitram]

Because, I don't know, you could get a significant fraction of men to agree to circumcision, but not castration?

Really? You think most men would be A-O-K with lopping just a bit of the dick off? At least castration in modern days is likely done with anasthetic.

[General Zod]

Because, I don't know, you could get a significant fraction of men to agree to circumcision, but not castration?

Really? You think most men would be A-O-K with lopping just a bit of the dick off? At least castration in modern days is likely done with anasthetic.

Except on infants. I recall a thread on the same subject some months back and someone brought up that infant circumcision was typically done with no anesthetic. Otherwise, good luck finding someone willingly getting part their willy chopped off. If I'd ever had the choice, I sure as fuck wouldn't.

[Aeolus]

You know, you can acheive even greater resistance to HIV by chopping the dick clean off. I don't know why these scientists aren't examining this. It's only common sense. If you can't fuck, you can't get AIDS.

Cutting off the foreskin is a very minor surgery and doesnt actually do any real harm assuming the surgery was performed correctly. Cutting off the entire penis is a bit more extreme.
That doesn't necesarily justify doing it to a child but it could be a lifesaver in sexually active adults. Particularly in impoverished regions like subsaharan Africa. It is also not about good hygene but about specific cells in the foreskin that seem to be particularly open to HIV infection.

[General Zod]

You know, you can acheive even greater resistance to HIV by chopping the dick clean off. I don't know why these scientists aren't examining this. It's only common sense. If you can't fuck, you can't get AIDS.

Cutting off the foreskin is a very minor surgery and doesnt actually do any real harm assuming the surgery was performed correctly. Cutting off the entire penis is a bit more extreme.
That doesn't necesarily justify doing it to a child but it could be a lifesaver in sexually active adults. Particularly in impoverished regions like subsaharan Africa. It is also not about good hygene but about specific cells in the foreskin that seem to be particularly open to HIV infection.

Or they could just wear a fucking condom. Much simpler than an operation that would likely involve a fair amount of soreness afterward.

[SirNitram]

Because, I don't know, you could get a significant fraction of men to agree to circumcision, but not castration?

Really? You think most men would be A-O-K with lopping just a bit of the dick off? At least castration in modern days is likely done with anasthetic.

Except on infants. I recall a thread on the same subject some months back and someone brought up that infant circumcision was typically done with no anesthetic. Otherwise, good luck finding someone willingly getting part their willy chopped off. If I'd ever had the choice, I sure as fuck wouldn't.

I did kind of make that point. 'At least castration would have anasthetic'. As in Circumcision doesn't.

[General Zod]

Really? You think most men would be A-O-K with lopping just a bit of the dick off? At least castration in modern days is likely done with anasthetic.

Except on infants. I recall a thread on the same subject some months back and someone brought up that infant circumcision was typically done with no anesthetic. Otherwise, good luck finding someone willingly getting part their willy chopped off. If I'd ever had the choice, I sure as fuck wouldn't.

I did kind of make that point. 'At least castration would have anasthetic'. As in Circumcision doesn't.

Ah. I didn't catch it then. Oh well.

[Aeolus]

You know, you can acheive even greater resistance to HIV by chopping the dick clean off. I don't know why these scientists aren't examining this. It's only common sense. If you can't fuck, you can't get AIDS.

Cutting off the foreskin is a very minor surgery and doesnt actually do any real harm assuming the surgery was performed correctly. Cutting off the entire penis is a bit more extreme.
That doesn't necesarily justify doing it to a child but it could be a lifesaver in sexually active adults. Particularly in impoverished regions like subsaharan Africa. It is also not about good hygene but about specific cells in the foreskin that seem to be particularly open to HIV infection.

Or they could just wear a fucking condom. Much simpler than an operation that would likely involve a fair amount of soreness afterward.

In the US or Europe I agree just wear a condom. In impoverished and superstitious areas this may be a very useful stopgap. If they could ever reduce infection rates by 10 % we are talking about saving millions of lives.

[SirNitram]

You know, you can acheive even greater resistance to HIV by chopping the dick clean off. I don't know why these scientists aren't examining this. It's only common sense. If you can't fuck, you can't get AIDS.

Cutting off the foreskin is a very minor surgery and doesnt actually do any real harm assuming the surgery was performed correctly. Cutting off the entire penis is a bit more extreme.

'It's just a little bit!' Yea, sure. You want me to chop off a little bit with no anasthetic? THen why do it to a kid whose got no choice?

It's stupid, barbaric, and pointless. 'It could prevent AIDS!' So could a fucking condom. But nooooo. Condoms are evil. Chop bits off instead.

[SirNitram]

In the US or Europe I agree just wear a condom. In impoverished and superstitious areas this may be a very useful stopgap. If they could ever reduce infection rates by 10 % we are talking about saving millions of lives.

And if the US and the Catholic Church stops fucking around and pushes for condom indication, that rate will be far better than 10%. But no, let's chop bits off people who can't even say no.

[wolveraptor]

Appendix.....
Tonsils........
Prostrate Gland.......

Yes, it is common practice to remove those at birth, isn't it? Wait, no, it's not at all.

[General Zod]

In the US or Europe I agree just wear a condom. In impoverished and superstitious areas this may be a very useful stopgap. If they could ever reduce infection rates by 10 % we are talking about saving millions of lives.

The only reason people believe condoms are bad because of their religion is, hey, get this, the Church has been telling them so! I'd imagine even superstitious people wouldn't find a problem with condoms if you explained it to them in terms they could accept. And quite possibly cheaper to distribute than the anesthetic required for adult circumcision. Shocking, eh?

[Aeolus]

You know, you can acheive even greater resistance to HIV by chopping the dick clean off. I don't know why these scientists aren't examining this. It's only common sense. If you can't fuck, you can't get AIDS.

Cutting off the foreskin is a very minor surgery and doesnt actually do any real harm assuming the surgery was performed correctly. Cutting off the entire penis is a bit more extreme.

'It's just a little bit!' Yea, sure. You want me to chop off a little bit with no anasthetic? THen why do it to a kid whose got no choice?

It's stupid, barbaric, and pointless. 'It could prevent AIDS!' So could a fucking condom. But nooooo. Condoms are evil. Chop bits off instead.

Did I say do it to children? No Did I say don't use any anasthetic? No I said that doing this to sexually active adults could save millions of lives. Yes they should keep trying to get them to use condoms and use them correctly but in the meantime this could help alot.

[SirNitram]

In the US or Europe I agree just wear a condom. In impoverished and superstitious areas this may be a very useful stopgap. If they could ever reduce infection rates by 10 % we are talking about saving millions of lives.

The only reason people believe condoms are bad because of their religion is, hey, get this, the Church has been telling them so! I'd imagine even superstitious people wouldn't find a problem with condoms if you explained it to them in terms they could accept. And quite possibly cheaper to distribute than the anesthetic required for adult circumcision. Shocking, eh?

Oh, it's slightly worse. No group trying to stem AIDS in Africa can get American aid money unless it's 'Abstinence only'. Condoms are evil, mmkay? But chopping bits off people without anesthetic is A-O-K!

Love these new values, don't you?

[SirNitram]

Did I say do it to children? No Did I say don't use any anasthetic? No I said that doing this to sexually active adults could save millions of lives. Yes they should keep trying to get them to use condoms and use them correctly but in the meantime this could help alot.

Except that's never going to be what actually happens. I'm telling you the reality of circumcision, and you bluster and backpedal. Tough shit, fucknugget. Welcome to the real world.

And it's not 'Keep trying', it's 'Start Trying' you dumb peice of shit. Or didn't you know that D.C. and the Vatican oppose condoms in Africa?

[Aeolus]

In the US or Europe I agree just wear a condom. In impoverished and superstitious areas this may be a very useful stopgap. If they could ever reduce infection rates by 10 % we are talking about saving millions of lives.

The only reason people believe condoms are bad because of their religion is, hey, get this, the Church has been telling them so! I'd imagine even superstitious people wouldn't find a problem with condoms if you explained it to them in terms they could accept. And quite possibly cheaper to distribute than the anesthetic required for adult circumcision. Shocking, eh?

really a tiny minor little surgery perfomed once is more expensive than a lifetime supply of condoms? I would love to see those figures. I am not opposed to pushing condoms or reducing the churches influence but that could take decades , hell entire generations to do. This could be a useful stop gap. I think you are letting your emotions get the better of you. This could help. I don't think anyone is calling for making it mandatory. Just encouraging it in sexually active makes. I fail to see the harm in trying.

[Rye]

You know, you can acheive even greater resistance to HIV by chopping the dick clean off. I don't know why these scientists aren't examining this. It's only common sense. If you can't fuck, you can't get AIDS.

Cutting off the foreskin is a very minor surgery and doesnt actually do any real harm assuming the surgery was performed correctly.

"Real harm" in what sense, exactly? The foreskin is full of specialised erogenous tissue. Removing skin from thighs is relatively minor (and they often do it to treat burns) but I wouldn't advise people to slice skin off the thighs of newborns and toss the skin away. I'd think it was child abuse.

[General Zod]

really a tiny minor little surgery perfomed once is more expensive than a lifetime supply of condoms? I would love to see those figures. I am not opposed to pushing condoms or reducing the churches influence but that could take decades , hell entire generations to do. This could be a useful stop gap. I think you are letting your emotions get the better of you. This could help. I don't think anyone is calling for making it mandatory. Just encouraging it in sexually active makes. I fail to see the harm in trying.

This is purely a case of cure the disease by killing the patient. You don't prevent infection by lobbing off perfectly healthy bodyparts you imbecile. Or maybe you overlooked the fact that first creed of any real medical practitioner is do not harm? Or maybe we should start having everyone's tonsils removed so that we can reduce the risks of tonsilitis by a questionably marginal fraction too. Sure, we don't need it in first world countries, but hey! It might work as a stopgap in third world nations, am I rite?

[Aeolus]

Did I say do it to children? No Did I say don't use any anasthetic? No I said that doing this to sexually active adults could save millions of lives. Yes they should keep trying to get them to use condoms and use them correctly but in the meantime this could help alot.

Except that's never going to be what actually happens. I'm telling you the reality of circumcision, and you bluster and backpedal. Tough shit, fucknugget. Welcome to the real world.

And it's not 'Keep trying', it's 'Start Trying' you dumb peice of shit. Or didn't you know that D.C. and the Vatican oppose condoms in Africa?

So you would let millions die on a point of principal? This is something that can be accomplished soon and doesnt actually do any harm. Reducing the power of the church and the religous right could take a great deal longer.

[Aeolus]

You know, you can acheive even greater resistance to HIV by chopping the dick clean off. I don't know why these scientists aren't examining this. It's only common sense. If you can't fuck, you can't get AIDS.

Cutting off the foreskin is a very minor surgery and doesnt actually do any real harm assuming the surgery was performed correctly.

"Real harm" in what sense, exactly? The foreskin is full of specialised erogenous tissue. Removing skin from thighs is relatively minor (and they often do it to treat burns) but I wouldn't advise people to slice skin off the thighs of newborns and toss the skin away. I'd think it was child abuse.

Point to where I said we should do this to babies.

[SirNitram]

Did I say do it to children? No Did I say don't use any anasthetic? No I said that doing this to sexually active adults could save millions of lives. Yes they should keep trying to get them to use condoms and use them correctly but in the meantime this could help alot.

Except that's never going to be what actually happens. I'm telling you the reality of circumcision, and you bluster and backpedal. Tough shit, fucknugget. Welcome to the real world.

And it's not 'Keep trying', it's 'Start Trying' you dumb peice of shit. Or didn't you know that D.C. and the Vatican oppose condoms in Africa?

So you would let millions die on a point of principal? This is something that can be accomplished soon and doesnt actually do any harm. Reducing the power of the church and the religous right could take a great deal longer.

Nice try, dipshit. Avoiding confronting the Church and Religious Right lets millions die, but this is exactly what you decide should be done.

What a fucking retard you are. Do you grasp, for a nanosecond, the costs of anesthetic for your fantasy-land idea? Do you grasp the costs of getting facilities? Hell, what about infection from hospitals there? Not as good as one's in the first world, I'll tell you that!

But no. You'll pretend that not wanting to chop off a portion of the body for stupid reasons, in an unsafe enviroment, is 'Wanting people to die for a point of principal', and happily ignore reailty.

Fuck off, asswipe.

[Rye]

Where did I say you said it? I was objecting to you asserting that it doesn't do any real harm when it removes a load of specialised tissue.

Newborns happen to be the most circumcised since almost all guys that grow up with one would hate to lose it or for it to suffer any damage, because it's full of sensory nerves. If you started propagating circumcision in Africa, it's unlikely to be an elective procedure if you want it to make an impact on HIV transmission.

[Aeolus]

Except that's never going to be what actually happens. I'm telling you the reality of circumcision, and you bluster and backpedal. Tough shit, fucknugget. Welcome to the real world.

And it's not 'Keep trying', it's 'Start Trying' you dumb peice of shit. Or didn't you know that D.C. and the Vatican oppose condoms in Africa?

So you would let millions die on a point of principal? This is something that can be accomplished soon and doesnt actually do any harm. Reducing the power of the church and the religous right could take a great deal longer.

Nice try, dipshit. Avoiding confronting the Church and Religious Right lets millions die, but this is exactly what you decide should be done.

What a fucking retard you are. Do you grasp, for a nanosecond, the costs of anesthetic for your fantasy-land idea? Do you grasp the costs of getting facilities? Hell, what about infection from hospitals there? Not as good as one's in the first world, I'll tell you that!

But no. You'll pretend that not wanting to chop off a portion of the body for stupid reasons, in an unsafe enviroment, is 'Wanting people to die for a point of principal', and happily ignore reailty.

Fuck off, asswipe.

It is a very minor surgery that has been done for thousands of years. It could potentially save millions of lives. You would rather rail against the church and accomplish nothing.
Your the one who is not thinking rationally. So call me all the names you want. It clearly makes you feel like your argument has actual merit.

[SirNitram]

It is a very minor surgery that has been done for thousands of years. It could potentially save millions of lives. You would rather rail against the church and accomplish nothing.
Your the one who is not thinking rationally. So call me all the names you want. It clearly makes you feel like your argument has actual merit.

Yes, of course. Thinking about the costs of anesthetic, medical practitioners, facilities, and then the huge problem of infection is 'Railing against the Church'. You're such a trolling, pathetic retard it's sad.

Your refusal to confront even one point is noted. It must be a concession. Concession Accepted.