Circumcision should not be performed on minors under 18

On Tue, 04 Dec 2007 05:54:57 -0800, R. Steve Walz wrote:

Jake Waskett wrote:

On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 20:50:13 -0800, R. Steve Walz wrote:

In light of better
descriptions of differences and experiences it becomes obvious that
the response of the circumcized penis is a crippled form, even if
it promotes unduly quick simple ejaculation.

The only "obvious" thing so far is that you're making a lot of claims but
you're unable to back them up with evidence.
-------------------
I don't back ANYTHING up with "evidence", because on Usenet there is
NO SUCH THING.

Don't be so absurd.
--------------------------
I'm certainly not.
Ever Google a topical cause and see the crank version in the first
500 links before you get to a reasoned academic review?? The cranks
seed Google with those links trying to distort apparent truth on the
subject.

So, if you actually *cite* evidence, we can evaluate its merits.
-------------------------------
There's no way to do that. "Evidence" doesn't automatically present
its methodology so that it can be inspected for logical fallacy and
extraneous variables. It doesn't sit up and tell you whether it is
being distorted or what agenda the citationer is serving.

When you cite evidence, others can find and examine the paper which you
cited.
---------------
Whose origin they won't know **** about and couldn't be bothered.
Damned few are even capable of a reasoned analysis of it even IF they
could find its origin and in its entirety, AND then determine that it
isn't from a PHONY "peer-review" journal.

So your position is now that you won't cite sources because people are too
idiotic to recognise that your sources aren't any good?



If it has any value, it will contain a description of its
methodology, and this can then be evaluated.
------------------
And how do most people know what that involves, and EVEN how do YOU!?

You could - you know - give it a try.



So your argument is basically "I won't cite good evidence because someone
else might cite bad evidence"?
-------------------------------
Partly. But more importantly, the Truth doesn't NEED citations, it
can prove itself by being reasonable and logical, and other than a
few nuts who can't practically be re-educated with formal logic,
most people can actually see why something is true or a lie merely
by close inspection and the process of argument.

I have the sum of twenty-five pounds and fifty pence in my pocket. True or
false?
--------------
Unimportant.

On the contrary, it's very important. This is an example of a fundamental
fact from which one can reason. If it is true, then logical arguments may
be based upon it. If it is false, then any argument predicated upon it
will also be false.

How about PubMed? It's
remarkably easy to check at least the abstract of a paper.
--------------------------------
Sometimes. But you still aren't trained in what you're reading.
Most people even on the Net are NOT versed in Theory of Science
or Methodology in the Social Sciences.

So cites do no good and can fraudulently influence the sophomoric.

Incorrect, for two reasons. Firstly, while some problems may require
special training, many if not most can be addressed through the
application of careful logic and mathematics. Secondly, even if you
believe that such material can only be understood with special training,
the authors of the papers in question are usually so trained, and thus one
can rely upon their interpretation.

So the problem here seems to be that you *claim* that certain unspecified
studies found X, yet you refuse to allow anyone to confirm the existence
of these studies.



Yet you get the chance to make up "studies" to fit whatever you wish
to claim is true.
----------------------------
I don't use or make up studies. I cite examples.

You have, in fact, referred to 'studies' in this very thread. Yet
because you refuse to identify them, noone can confirm that they
actually exist.
--------------------------
I never state a study on the basis of whether it must exist for me to be
right. THAT is to be determined ONLY from the logic and reason of my
explanations.

If we examine your post dated Thu, 29 Nov 2007 13:40:12 -0800, we find:

"Other studies reveal that the
so-called "reduced" uncirc'd sensation allows..."

Are you now saying that it doesn't matter whether these "other studies"
actually exist?

Jake Waskett wrote:

On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 20:50:13 -0800, R. Steve Walz wrote:

In light of better
descriptions of differences and experiences it becomes obvious that
the response of the circumcized penis is a crippled form, even if
it promotes unduly quick simple ejaculation.

The only "obvious" thing so far is that you're making a lot of claims but
you're unable to back them up with evidence.
-------------------
I don't back ANYTHING up with "evidence", because on Usenet there is
NO SUCH THING.

Don't be so absurd.
--------------------------
I'm certainly not.
Ever Google a topical cause and see the crank version in the first
500 links before you get to a reasoned academic review?? The cranks
seed Google with those links trying to distort apparent truth on the
subject.

So, if you actually *cite* evidence, we can evaluate its merits.
-------------------------------
There's no way to do that. "Evidence" doesn't automatically present
its methodology so that it can be inspected for logical fallacy and
extraneous variables. It doesn't sit up and tell you whether it is
being distorted or what agenda the citationer is serving.

When you cite evidence, others can find and examine the paper which you
cited.
---------------
Whose origin they won't know **** about and couldn't be bothered.
Damned few are even capable of a reasoned analysis of it even IF they
could find its origin and in its entirety, AND then determine that it
isn't from a PHONY "peer-review" journal.


If it has any value, it will contain a description of its
methodology, and this can then be evaluated.
------------------
And how do most people know what that involves, and EVEN how do YOU!?


So your argument is basically "I won't cite good evidence because someone
else might cite bad evidence"?
-------------------------------
Partly. But more importantly, the Truth doesn't NEED citations, it
can prove itself by being reasonable and logical, and other than a
few nuts who can't practically be re-educated with formal logic,
most people can actually see why something is true or a lie merely
by close inspection and the process of argument.

I have the sum of twenty-five pounds and fifty pence in my pocket. True or
false?
--------------
Unimportant.


Earlier on Usenet you could actually read real peer-reviewed studies
that were presented as cites. Now you find that the Net, and the search
engine listings in particular, have been propagandized and both phony
review panels have now been set up to LOOK competitively true, and
that hundreds of LIE-websites have been created as clones of the
originsl, to convince people that EVERYBODY thinks this or that about
an issue, when only these few cranks who make those websites do, and
they spend an astounding amount of money generating these lies, a cheap
way to deceive the public to their views by seeming peer-pressure.

Have you never heard of medical libraries?
---------------------------
I used to spend quite a long time in them.


How about PubMed? It's
remarkably easy to check at least the abstract of a paper.
--------------------------------
Sometimes. But you still aren't trained in what you're reading.
Most people even on the Net are NOT versed in Theory of Science
or Methodology in the Social Sciences.

So cites do no good and can fraudulently influence the sophomoric.


Yet you get the chance to make up "studies" to fit whatever you wish to
claim is true.
----------------------------
I don't use or make up studies. I cite examples.

You have, in fact, referred to 'studies' in this very thread. Yet because
you refuse to identify them, noone can confirm that they actually exist.
--------------------------
I never state a study on the basis of whether it must exist for me
to be right. THAT is to be determined ONLY from the logic and reason
of my explanations.
Steve

Jake Waskett wrote:

On Tue, 04 Dec 2007 05:54:57 -0800, R. Steve Walz wrote:

When you cite evidence, others can find and examine the paper which you
cited.
---------------
Whose origin they won't know **** about and couldn't be bothered.
Damned few are even capable of a reasoned analysis of it even IF they
could find its origin and in its entirety, AND then determine that it
isn't from a PHONY "peer-review" journal.

So your position is now that you won't cite sources because
---------------------------------
"Sources" can't be trusted or discerned on Usenet.


people are too
idiotic to recognise that your sources aren't any good?
------------------------------
And so that's why I WOULDN'T post them????????????
If they were that idiotic I'd become a Capitalist spammer!

No, that would be only your venal wishful lie.


If it has any value, it will contain a description of its
methodology, and this can then be evaluated.
------------------
And how do most people know what that involves, and EVEN how do YOU!?

You could - you know - give it a try.
-------------------
Done and done. Doesn't work, tried it for years.


So your argument is basically "I won't cite good evidence because someone
else might cite bad evidence"?
-------------------------------
Partly. But more importantly, the Truth doesn't NEED citations, it
can prove itself by being reasonable and logical, and other than a
few nuts who can't practically be re-educated with formal logic,
most people can actually see why something is true or a lie merely
by close inspection and the process of argument.

I have the sum of twenty-five pounds and fifty pence in my pocket. True or
false?
--------------
Unimportant.

On the contrary, it's very important. This is an example of a fundamental
fact from which one can reason. If it is true, then logical arguments may
be based upon it. If it is false, then any argument predicated upon it
will also be false.
---------------------------------
What you have in your pocket is irrelevant to ISSUES.

If this conversation were an argument about what you have in your
pocket, I would never have bothered to participate!


How about PubMed? It's
remarkably easy to check at least the abstract of a paper.
--------------------------------
Sometimes. But you still aren't trained in what you're reading.
Most people even on the Net are NOT versed in Theory of Science
or Methodology in the Social Sciences.

So cites do no good and can fraudulently influence the sophomoric.

Incorrect, for two reasons. Firstly, while some problems may require
special training, many if not most can be addressed through the
application of careful logic and mathematics.
------------------------
Sure, as IF YOU COULD!


Secondly, even if you
believe that such material can only be understood with special training,
the authors of the papers in question are usually so trained, and thus one
can rely upon their interpretation.
---------------------------
That's just it, you can't. I guess you've never heard of "lies, damned
lies, and statistics".


So the problem here seems to be that you *claim* that certain unspecified
studies found X, yet you refuse to allow anyone to confirm the existence
of these studies.
-----------------------------
Whether someone has ever published a study that they claim shows thus
or such is not important on Usenet, nor is it feasible to even present.


I never state a study on the basis of whether it must exist for me to be
right. THAT is to be determined ONLY from the logic and reason of my
explanations.

If we examine your post dated Thu, 29 Nov 2007 13:40:12 -0800, we find:

"Other studies reveal that the
so-called "reduced" uncirc'd sensation allows..."

Are you now saying that it doesn't matter whether these "other studies"
actually exist?
---------------------------
That's right, they actually do, but it doesn't matter.

The assertion of their existence was merely illustrative.

Like EVERYTHING on Usenet, they should ONLY be taken as OPINION,
and solely FOR YOUR ENTERTAINMENT!!

Or didn't you realize that???????????????????????
Had you forgotten this?? ;-
Steve

On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 04:48:04 -0800, R. Steve Walz wrote:

How about PubMed? It's
remarkably easy to check at least the abstract of a paper.
--------------------------------
Sometimes. But you still aren't trained in what you're reading.
Most people even on the Net are NOT versed in Theory of Science
or Methodology in the Social Sciences.

So cites do no good and can fraudulently influence the sophomoric.

Incorrect, for two reasons. Firstly, while some problems may require
special training, many if not most can be addressed through the
application of careful logic and mathematics.
------------------------
Sure, as IF YOU COULD!


Secondly, even if you
believe that such material can only be understood with special training,
the authors of the papers in question are usually so trained, and thus one
can rely upon their interpretation.
---------------------------
That's just it, you can't. I guess you've never heard of "lies, damned
lies, and statistics".

So what you're saying is that other posters can't understand academic
papers, and the authors of those papers don't even understand their own
work. In fact, the only person who can understand is ... drum roll ...
Steve!



So the problem here seems to be that you *claim* that certain unspecified
studies found X, yet you refuse to allow anyone to confirm the existence
of these studies.
-----------------------------
Whether someone has ever published a study that they claim shows thus
or such is not important on Usenet,

It's not important to know whether you are lying or not?

nor is it feasible to even present.

I'm glad you agree.

On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 07:17:13 -0800, R. Steve Walz wrote:

Jake Waskett wrote:

On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 04:48:04 -0800, R. Steve Walz wrote:

So what you're saying is that other posters can't understand academic
papers,
-----------------
Usenet is NOT a bunch of geniuses, maybe it USED to be, but now it
is the barely literate public. Can't you tell??

I'm surprised that you ask. Am I not too stupid to answer such
a question?

and the authors of those papers don't even understand their own
work.
--------------
No, liars understand their lies all too well.

Ah, so humankind falls into three categories:
1) Those who are too stupid to understand,
2) Those who do understand but lie, and
3) Steve.

Jake Waskett wrote:

On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 04:48:04 -0800, R. Steve Walz wrote:

So what you're saying is that other posters can't understand academic
papers,
-----------------
Usenet is NOT a bunch of geniuses, maybe it USED to be, but now it
is the barely literate public. Can't you tell??


and the authors of those papers don't even understand their own
work.
--------------
No, liars understand their lies all too well.


In fact, the only person who can understand is ... drum roll ...
Steve!
------------------------
Your kind of assertion here seems to be the only fall-back of the
ignorant.

Your kind always fails to realize, that I don't have to be perfect,
or even very bright to be smarter than YOU are. Your kind really do
not even FATHOM how stupid you really ARE!


So the problem here seems to be that you *claim* that certain unspecified
studies found X, yet you refuse to allow anyone to confirm the existence
of these studies.
-----------------------------
Whether someone has ever published a study that they claim shows thus
or such is not important on Usenet,

It's not important to know whether you are lying or not?
---------------------------
No. If what I say is reasoned and logical, then lying is irrelevant.

I could be lying about what I believe and inadvertantly telling the
Truth! Only the reason and logic is important. Reason and logic is
what proves something true or false, nothing else matters.


nor is it feasible to even present.

I'm glad you agree.
----------------
You know better, quit being a posturing little ****!


When you cite evidence, others can find and examine the paper which you
cited.
---------------
Whose origin they won't know **** about and couldn't be bothered.
Damned few are even capable of a reasoned analysis of it even IF they
could find its origin and in its entirety, AND then determine that it
isn't from a PHONY "peer-review" journal.

So your position is now that you won't cite sources because
---------------------------------
"Sources" can't be trusted or discerned on Usenet.


people are too
idiotic to recognise that your sources aren't any good?
------------------------------
And so that's why I WOULDN'T post them????????????
If they were that idiotic I'd become a Capitalist spammer!

No, that would be only your venal wishful lie.


If it has any value, it will contain a description of its
methodology, and this can then be evaluated.
------------------
And how do most people know what that involves, and EVEN how do YOU!?

You could - you know - give it a try.
-------------------
Done and done. Doesn't work, tried it for years.


So your argument is basically "I won't cite good evidence because someone
else might cite bad evidence"?
-------------------------------
Partly. But more importantly, the Truth doesn't NEED citations, it
can prove itself by being reasonable and logical, and other than a
few nuts who can't practically be re-educated with formal logic,
most people can actually see why something is true or a lie merely
by close inspection and the process of argument.

I have the sum of twenty-five pounds and fifty pence in my pocket. True or
false?
--------------
Unimportant.

On the contrary, it's very important. This is an example of a fundamental
fact from which one can reason. If it is true, then logical arguments may
be based upon it. If it is false, then any argument predicated upon it
will also be false.
---------------------------------
What you have in your pocket is irrelevant to ISSUES.

If this conversation were an argument about what you have in your
pocket, I would never have bothered to participate!


How about PubMed? It's
remarkably easy to check at least the abstract of a paper.
--------------------------------
Sometimes. But you still aren't trained in what you're reading.
Most people even on the Net are NOT versed in Theory of Science
or Methodology in the Social Sciences.

So cites do no good and can fraudulently influence the sophomoric.

Incorrect, for two reasons. Firstly, while some problems may require
special training, many if not most can be addressed through the
application of careful logic and mathematics.
------------------------
Sure, as IF YOU COULD!


Secondly, even if you
believe that such material can only be understood with special training,
the authors of the papers in question are usually so trained, and thus one
can rely upon their interpretation.
---------------------------
That's just it, you can't. I guess you've never heard of "lies, damned
lies, and statistics".


So the problem here seems to be that you *claim* that certain unspecified
studies found X, yet you refuse to allow anyone to confirm the existence
of these studies.
-----------------------------
Whether someone has ever published a study that they claim shows thus
or such is not important on Usenet, nor is it feasible to even present.


I never state a study on the basis of whether it must exist for me to be
right. THAT is to be determined ONLY from the logic and reason of my
explanations.

If we examine your post dated Thu, 29 Nov 2007 13:40:12 -0800, we find:

"Other studies reveal that the
so-called "reduced" uncirc'd sensation allows..."

Are you now saying that it doesn't matter whether these "other studies"
actually exist?
---------------------------
That's right, they actually do, but it doesn't matter.

The assertion of their existence was merely illustrative.

Like EVERYTHING on Usenet, they should ONLY be taken as OPINION,
and solely FOR YOUR ENTERTAINMENT!!

Or didn't you realize that???????????????????????
Had you forgotten this?? ;-
Steve

Jake Waskett wrote:

On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 07:17:13 -0800, R. Steve Walz wrote:

Jake Waskett wrote:

On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 04:48:04 -0800, R. Steve Walz wrote:

So what you're saying is that other posters can't understand academic
papers,
-----------------
Usenet is NOT a bunch of geniuses, maybe it USED to be, but now it
is the barely literate public. Can't you tell??

I'm surprised that you ask. Am I not too stupid to answer such
a question?
---------------------
Don't get all flattered. Most of what I write is for the audience.


and the authors of those papers don't even understand their own
work.
--------------
No, liars understand their lies all too well.

Ah, so humankind falls into three categories:
1) Those who are too stupid to understand,
2) Those who do understand but lie, and
3) Steve.
---------------------------
This is the typical flawed fall-back of the idiot:
You tell your opponent that since he thinks he knows better than you,
that he MUST think he knows better than everyone!

No, there are far more than just me who think you're cracked!

And you don't seem to realize that I don't have to be anywhere near
perfect to be WAAAY smarter than YOU are.
Steve

On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 09:22:42 -0800, R. Steve Walz wrote:

Jake Waskett wrote:

On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 07:17:13 -0800, R. Steve Walz wrote:

Jake Waskett wrote:

On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 04:48:04 -0800, R. Steve Walz wrote:

So what you're saying is that other posters can't understand academic
papers,
-----------------
Usenet is NOT a bunch of geniuses, maybe it USED to be, but now it
is the barely literate public. Can't you tell??

I'm surprised that you ask. Am I not too stupid to answer such
a question?
---------------------
Don't get all flattered. Most of what I write is for the audience.

I'm sure that they enjoy the entertainment.

and the authors of those papers don't even understand their own
work.
--------------
No, liars understand their lies all too well.

Ah, so humankind falls into three categories:
1) Those who are too stupid to understand,
2) Those who do understand but lie, and
3) Steve.
---------------------------
This is the typical flawed fall-back of the idiot:
You tell your opponent that since he thinks he knows better than you,
that he MUST think he knows better than everyone!

According to you Usenet readers are "the barely literate public", and
those who write papers are "liars understand their lies all too well". So
who is left?


No, there are far more than just me who think you're cracked!

And you don't seem to realize that I don't have to be anywhere near
perfect to be WAAAY smarter than YOU are.
Steve

Jake Waskett wrote:

On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 09:22:42 -0800, R. Steve Walz wrote:

Jake Waskett wrote:

On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 07:17:13 -0800, R. Steve Walz wrote:

Jake Waskett wrote:

On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 04:48:04 -0800, R. Steve Walz wrote:

So what you're saying is that other posters can't understand academic
papers,
-----------------
Usenet is NOT a bunch of geniuses, maybe it USED to be, but now it
is the barely literate public. Can't you tell??

I'm surprised that you ask. Am I not too stupid to answer such
a question?
---------------------
Don't get all flattered. Most of what I write is for the audience.

I'm sure that they enjoy the entertainment.
-----------------------
Oh, they do, they do!


and the authors of those papers don't even understand their own
work.
--------------
No, liars understand their lies all too well.

Ah, so humankind falls into three categories:
1) Those who are too stupid to understand,
2) Those who do understand but lie, and
3) Steve.
---------------------------
This is the typical flawed fall-back of the idiot:
You tell your opponent that since he thinks he knows better than you,
that he MUST think he knows better than everyone!

According to you Usenet readers are "the barely literate public", and
those who write papers are "liars understand their lies all too well". So
who is left?
------------------------
The erudite, capable, honest and educated. A minority, true, but one
the human race keeps finding it needs if it wants to do more than
live in dirt holes.
Steve


No, there are far more than just me who think you're cracked!

And you don't seem to realize that I don't have to be anywhere near
perfect to be WAAAY smarter than YOU are.
Steve