User talk:68.162.183.15

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please stop removing content from Wikipedia; it is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Jayjg (talk) 04:42, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I’m sorry but I just felt that after reading through both of those sites that it went far beyond difference of opinion to a fallacious and almost inflammatory level of . I would have deleted both urls if I was just trying to delete things for the hell of it.

[edit] Circumcision

Please use the Talk page to discuss controversial edits. Trying to push your POV through is not the way to make a point. -- Ec5618 11:16, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

That’s not my POV, it is one of the correct definitions of not being physically incomplete.
intact
  1. Remaining sound, entire, or uninjured; not impaired in any way.
  2. Having all physical parts
And some would argue that a circumcised penis in neither injured or impaired, and that there is no reason to call a circumcised penis 'injured', 'unsound' or 'incomplete', or to suggest that it is missing 'physical parts'. Is a circumcised penis not a penis? Please sign your posts with ~~~~. -- Ec5618 12:28, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Wow... From my POV it matches both definition, that’s just me though. But how while keeping a straight face, can you question the fact that the foreskin is removed during MGM?! 68.162.183.15 12:49, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
How is a circumcised penis 'unsound'? 'Injured'? Is having a circumcised penis a debilitating condition? In several generations of Americans the 'normal' penis was circumcised. One could argue that an uncircumcised penis had an 'extra', even useless part, comparable to an appendix.
Is a person without an appendix 'unsound', 'incomplete', 'impaired', 'lacking physical parts'?
Keep in mind that had the appendix been left in, this hypothetical person could/would have died. -- Ec5618 13:06, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
That argument isn't going to work because they don't take your appendix out until they're sure that they have to. *Had appendix out a little over a year ago.* And unlike the appendis, the foreskin is not useless.
The appendix comparison is an analogy. Is a person without an appendix still intact? Injured? Impaired?
"..until they're sure they have to." That's a matter of opinion. Some people claim that the removal will prevent problems in the future, and recommend circumcision for that reason. Some people see the foreskin as being useless ("So a few nerve endings are cut. Sex is still better without foreskin. I can last longer before climaxing, and it's more aesthetically pleasing to my partner"). -- Ec5618
That may be your POV but not everybody thinks it's better without foreskin or more aesthetically pleasing. If people want to think that it's useless or that it might help prevent health problems that's fine. But it's only fine for them, not helples little children. That's something they could have done if they want to when they're adults. 68.162.183.15
Please remember to sign your posts. Your comment contains your POV, mine does not contain mine. My point was that people who oppose the word 'intact' have a point, as the circumcised penis is not neccesarily 'damaged'.
It is your POV that 'helpless little children' shouldn't be circumcised. Should helpless little children not also be innoculated? The article should reflect your POV, while presenting the other side of the argument as well. -- Ec5618 09:08, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
As an aside; in certain organised religions, the foreskin must be removed. An uncircumcised penis is not a true penis. So members of such religions have to have their foreskin removed. -- Ec5618 14:30, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR violation

Hi. You are currently in violation of the three-revert rule on the Circumcision article. Please read the guidelines carefully and take some time to cool down. Edit wars don't help anyone. Regards, --Nandesuka 11:28, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-automated template substitution