I'm uncircumcised, no thanks to the Christian United States where cocks are mutilated at birth, due to your shitty Muslim copying.
shareI'm uncircumcised
where cocks are mutilated at birth
It's messed up when over a hundred babies die from botched circumcision a year and all anyone can complain about are trans surgeries that cause zero deaths.
share>>> and all anyone can complain about are trans surgeries that cause zero deaths. <<<
Not true at all. Deaths do happen after sex change operations. The rate of death is about 2% and 17% have major complications according to the research I've seen. Any surgery has risks, especially major ones that involve removing or manipulating body parts and/or internal organs or tissue.
Here's an article on a teenager that died from complications...
https://justthenews.com/nation/science/trans-surgery-under-renewed-scrutiny-after-trans-teen-dies-following-vaginoplasty
Can I see some sources that say that 2% of sex change procedures end in death?
shareits in the link above.
share"In the 2016 study of 42 transgender women, one patient died, putting it at a death rate of just over 2%. Major complications occurred in 17.1% of cases."
That's a really, really small sample size.
Since 2016, 48 019 people have had some form of surgery in the USA. Are you going to claim that nearly 1,000 people have died from complications?
It could be flimsy reporting or bias but I wouldn't rule out about 2%, I mean, roughly 15000 people die every year from just doing a simple colonoscopy. A damn vaginoplasty/phalloplasty is a much more complicated medical procedure. 2% seems kinda low to me.
Not sure if you've heard of Jazz Jennings, she's a trans girl that had a TV show based around her... well.. being trans. And she had some pretty bad complications after her surgery, she survived it but it wasn't looking so good for a while there. She also was kind of lazy about dilating. She wasn't dilating her new vagina enough and her mother threatened to rape her with a dildo if she didn't dilate. I mean, what kind of individual says this?? This surgery stuff has gone a little too far.
The point is, you're creating a hole in the human body that doesn't belong there, and as a result, it requires constant maintenance just to stay open. The body reacts as if its an open wound that needs to close up. Therefore, "girls" that do this have to regularly stick a dildo in there to keep it open.
I don't mean to be so graphic but it's not a simple procedure. Doing this to your body is no cake walk.
I think some people do honestly have gender dysphoria but I'm not totally convinced that surgery and hormones are the "only" options.
"Within the time frame of cause of death availability (Oct 2013–Dec 2016), 112,634 FIT-positives underwent colonoscopy, of which 48 died within 30 days after colonoscopy (Table 2). Based on the registered causes of these deaths by the Netherlands Statistics, 10 (20.8%) deaths seemed likely to be associated with the colonoscopy. Three individuals died because of an infection (sepsis) and 5 after a cardiovascular event within 7 days. Besides, 2 individuals died because of an (endoscopic) intervention between 8 and 30 days. Consequently, the colonoscopy-related mortality based on data on cause of death was 0.89 per 10,000 (95% CI, 0.48–1.63), or 1 per 11,236 FIT-positives undergoing colonoscopy."
shareNot sure what your point is of posting stats for this. Bottom line is, sex change operations are risky.
shareYour data on colonoscopy deaths seems to be wrong
shareDepends on what stats you're looking at. You didn't post a link for your stats but according to bing.com about 15,000 die each year from colonosopy.
Link....
https://www.bing.com/search?q=number+of+deaths+from+colonoscopy&qs=NW_XFC&pq=number+of+deaths+from+colonoscop&sc=10-32&cvid=66AFCC0F4B1745A8B26EC3B0659933EF&FORM=QBLH&sp=1&ghc=1&lq=0
Not sure how reliable this is but it seems to be fairly common in the US.
"Are you at risk of colon cancer?
The rate of colon cancer mortality among young adults has risen by about 1 death per 100,000 among young adults, to a 3-in-100,000 risk.
Consequently, younger people are now urged to consider colon cancer screening, which is typically done by colonoscopy. During a colonoscopy, your doctor will remove polyps (abnormal growths) before they transform into cancers.
However, the risk of death from colonoscopy is anywhere from 1 out of every 16,318 procedures, to 1 for every 1,000 procedures, depending on the source.
This means that if you’re in your 20s and 30s, your mortality risk from colonoscopy is FAR greater than your risk of colon cancer! In fact, if you are a young adult you maybe three times more likely to die from the screening procedure than the disease itself.
With some 15 million colonoscopies being done each year in the U.S. that means as many as 15,000 Americans die each year as a result of this routine screening."
So something magnitudes *less* than the 2% rate you're claiming for sexual reassignment surgeries.
I see what you mean but I question as to whether or not we have reliable stats regarding the mortality rate for those that do sex changes. As politically charged as it is now days, we're probably not getting accurate stats.
It seems like it would be much riskier than doing other medical procedures like colonoscopy for example.
A 2% death rate is pretty steep for elective surgery. That's all. I find it highly unlikely.
shareWhy would you think it's unlikely?
20 out of 1000 seems highly probable to me. When you consider it's a much more intensive operation that requires weeks or possibly months of healing.
And as a result of the complications of the first surgery, many of them end up having more than one surgery on that area of the body. It happened to that Jazz girl. She's had 3 operations on her makeshift vagina.
2% is a very high number, and unless you actually have some data beyond "1 person out of the 42 we asked" I have no reason to believe it as true.
shareSo only statistics that confirm your biases are real? LMAO.
This is the problem with always relying on Internet Scripture™ for everything. I'll remember this thread for the next BS post claiming some statistic with a 1,200 person sample size.
>So only statistics that confirm your biases are real? LMAO.
Dude, you think data from a sample size of *42* is great?
>This is the problem with always relying on Internet Scripture™ for everything. I'll remember this thread for the next BS post claiming some statistic with a 1,200 person sample size.
1,200 is much more of a large sample size than 42. And go do some reading on polling: https://www.surveypractice.org/article/11736-sample-size-and-uncertainty-when-predicting-with-polls-the-shortcomings-of-confidence-intervals
I'm the one that says "Statistics are bullshit".... why would I believe anything posted here with horrible methodology behind them? 🙄
This is reality: The USA(if you count illegals) is roughly 400 million people. Of those 400 million, those with liberal-type mindsets generally swarm to city/urban type locations that are densely-populated, tiny pockets of land, where as conservative-type people tend to spread out all over because they like to farm, have open space, live off the land etc.
So in a country like the USA, you can manipulate statistics very easily just by going to specific locations where the people have a culture that supports, or doesn't support what stats your trying to collect.
It's really easy to get left-biased stats by asking people in Southern California, as opposed to Central Arkansas. National polling with sample sizes in the 1000s just isnt accurate at all. I would need to see at least a 5 figure sample size with a larger margin of error of 2.5 before even considering the BS I'm looking at. (Location reporting would be helpful as well)
Your sleight of hand prose may lure other posters here on longwinded flame threads, but I'm way fucking smarter than that...when are you going to figure this out?
He conveniently and biasedly mentioned that 1,200 is a better sample size and yet complained back In February against a poll that was too small for using only a 1000 person survey for the anti-white racism.
shareYou, as usual, ignore the meat of the situation.
"Rasmussen said it presented 1,000 respondents with a two-question prompt to quantify “the ‘woke’ narrative” in America: “Do you agree or disagree with this statement: ‘It’s OK to be white’ ” and “Do you agree or disagree with this statement: ‘Black people can be racist, too.’ ” Respondents were asked to choose between “strongly agree,” “somewhat agree,” “somewhat disagree,” “strongly disagree,” and “not sure.” The results, as shared on Twitter once the firestorm began:"
"Rasmussen said 13 percent of poll respondents were Black, so about 130 people. If we take the results entirely at face value—which I’d discourage—that means it found about 34 Black people who answered “disagree” or “strongly disagree” with the statement “It’s OK to be white.” We have no more information about why. (Adams got to his figure by also including Black respondents who answered “not sure.”)"
In practice, Rasmussen only polled 130 black people for their question "It's OK to be white".
And I love how you don't notice that Rasmussen itself did some misleading polling whilst agreeing with another guy about how polls can present misleading images.
Ignoring the meat of the situation is precisely what you always do by trying to confirm your bias with internet scriptures and propaganda.
Rasmussen still based that poll on a 1000 person survey as I stated. Now, you are trying to backstep as usual.
how polls can present misleading images.
>Rasmussen still based that poll on a 1000 person survey as I stated. Now, you are trying to backstep as usual.
And Scott Adams based his conclusion on 130 black people within the server.
>If that were the case, than everything you mentioned above in other replies about surveys/polls is bullshit and irrelevant.
Sorry, are you agreeing or denying that polls can be misleading? It's true and right for Scott Adams, but wrong when it shows the Democrats winning or something?
The 130 was only one of several categories/groups used from a total of 1000.
The poll/survey was based on 1000 total as I have stated several times.
You are the one making exceptions based on your biasness, so you should ask yourself that question.
>The 130 was only one of several categories/groups used from a total of 1000.
His entire reasoning was rooted in what he thought *black people* thought about "It's okay to be white". His sample size, thus, was 130.
>The poll/survey was based on 1000 total as I have stated several times.
But not the sample size Scott Adams was referring to.
>You are the one here making exceptions based on your biasness, so you should ask yourself that question.
Doing no such thing. The poll is what it is, but it's not the most useful of polls generally speaking for what it asked - since it jumps on a loaded politically charged phrase (much like "Black lives matter" - ask 130 white people if "Black lives matter" and get some "no" answers)
Can a non-black person agree/disagree with the following statement:
"It's okay to be white"
Yes or No?
Some apparently did, if the overall polling is to be followed. But what's your point?
shareYes or No?
shareI think it's fine to be white, yes
shareThe polling/survey was based on "the overall"; hence, a total of 1000 which also includes the non-black groups.
shareMost of it was answered by non-black people. Scott Adams focused purely on how black people answered. Also Scott Adams got to his number by excluding the "don't knows", which shows how he deliberately misread thepolling.
shareMost of it was answered by non-black people
>Because non-blacks can also agree/disagree as you just admitted.
Sure. But Scott Adams wasn't focusing on their response.
>There was no misleading, you fail to understand the survey due to your biasness.
I said Scott Adams was misleading, not the survey inherently (that's another discussion)
>I'm the one that says "Statistics are bullshit".... why would I believe anything posted here with horrible methodology behind them? 🙄
That's even more anti-scientific.
>This is reality: The USA(if you count illegals) is roughly 400 million people. Of those 400 million, those with liberal-type mindsets generally swarm to city/urban type locations that are densely-populated, tiny pockets of land, where as conservative-type people tend to spread out all over because they like to farm, have open space, live off the land etc.
Can I see some evidence of your inflated analysis of the overall US population?
>So in a country like the USA, you can manipulate statistics very easily just by going to specific locations where the people have a culture that supports, or doesn't support what stats your trying to collect.
Yes, polling can be manipulated. Do you see that maybe a sample size of 42 is very easy to manipulate, right?
>It's really easy to get left-biased stats by asking people in Southern California, as opposed to Central Arkansas. National polling with sample sizes in the 1000s just isnt accurate at all. I would need to see at least a 5 figure sample size with a larger margin of error of 2.5 before even considering the BS I'm looking at. (Location reporting would be helpful as well)
You do realise that polling takes into account population metrics, right? Good polling balances out regional biases right. Do you have evidence of a national poll conducted primarily from people in California?
>Your sleight of hand prose may lure other posters here on longwinded flame threads, but I'm way fucking smarter than that...when are you going to figure this out?
I don't "flame" anyone. Other people flame me. You are free to reply to me or not. This is an open forum and I will do whatever the fuck I like.
According to Elaine, uncircumcised peckers have no personality.
shareDude, I'm an atheist and you're making us look bad.
Edgy early-2000's atheism died a long time ago.
McMurican circumcision is not something that is fair to call "Muslim copying". It wasn't part of our culture until after WW2. Many Jews were plucked off the streets in Nazi Germany and sent off to the gas chambers after being asked to show there cocks. Normal cocks where let go back into the society of Nazi empire, mutilated ones go straight to concentration camps. This scared the shit out of the global jew. They fear the goys they rule over will rise up again and the events of WW2 to repeat to them. Luckily for the jew, McMuricans are easily to manipulate. They not only do they control our media and both political parties, the medical system is under there control as well. They forced new medical literature pushing circumcision onto all McMuricans so future jews being accused of having jew cocks can say "I am just an American". The jews are having a hard time fighting free speech on the internet, and the words of the horrors of circumcision are coming to the surface finally.
The rates are decreasing but most of my buddies where mutilated back in the 90s when McMuricuck circumcision rates where at there peak. Luckily for me, my momma was an Eastern European Anti-Semitic Immigrant who never fell for the jew propaganda. When the jew bastard doctor came into the room right after my birth and tried to chop my cock skin to help the global jewish cause is when my angel of a momma hugged me tight and told him to fuck off and go mutilate some other innocent helpless infant. Circumcision ruins sex. Sex is the only natural and healthy "drug". I would rather lose and arm or a leg then lose my defensive dickskin that keeps my dickhead nerves intact unlike those poor poor fello McMuricucks who are my peers...
I've read that most men that have had to get circumcised in their adult years do not report any decreased sensations with sex post-circumcision. I don't agree with the practice either, but the claims the foreskin increase sexual pleasure are bro-science.
The most intense male orgasms come from prostate massaging, that is scientifically proven.
the dickskin protects the dick, it isn't until years of having your protection gone and rubbing on cloth that causes this nerve death , it doesn't happen over night. Keep ur butt sex protastate massages I will keep my natural God given dick....
share