>>1788229>So the study I cite is a "study" because it disagrees with you, but your study is legit?Yours focuses mainly on bias instead of proving comparable sensation. i.e. irrelevant
>Yes, it has. Male circumcision has health benefits and should be routinely offered. We were discussiong sensation, you twat. Not your vague claims of "health benefits". Keep movin' those goal posts, Nathan. The goyim won't notice. They're not as clever as we are.
>You can oppose it on philosophical grounds, but you can't legitimately oppose it on medical grounds, because the evidence is not in your favour.You've conceded there's a decrease in phsyical sensation. That in itself is legitimate grounds for opposition.
>I trust the World Health Organisation[1] more than some scummy, anti-Semitic Intactivist on 4chan.Given that line of reasoning, partial amputation of the organ will also prevent HIV and all related penile ailments.
>compelling evidence>reduces (not eliminates)>approximately,Wow. Talk about hedging ones bets. Obviously they were leaving their academic back doors open for hasty retreat.
It's sad that you were cut, anon. It's like someone scooped out one of your eyes at birth. All your life you've experienced less than a naturally equipped man. Circumcision is like every other form of child abuse.
Your parents abused you, but that doesn't give you the right to legitimaize the abuse for others.
