On a food review channel. Look, not even the guy that was circumcised agrees with you. Circumcision has medical need sometimes. Whilst it shouldn’t be offered for no reason it also shouldn’t be banned.
I thought we were talking about therapeutic labiaplasties? And therapeutic circumcision? So it’s totally relevant?
-
-
No! For the thirtieth time now, NO ONE HERE OPPOSES THERAPEUTIC SURGERY ON CHILDREN.
-
So why are you here then?
-
To fight disinformation by people like you who spread fear-mongering by overstating the rate of necessary genital cutting, fallaciously trivializing it for boys compared to girls, all by vomiting out unsubstantiated, fabricated factoids and misrepresneting other people's stances.
-
I mean I got the statistic right, 42 million men do have a legitimate need to be circumcised. I’ve also stated multiple times, if you remember, that we have a non-argument here because we both agree. So why are you here arguing in the back of the net on other people’s behalf?
-
"42 million men do have a legitimate need to be circumcised" How do you figure?
-
I mean, that’s what you said. So let’s go with that. 0.006% of the population is 42 million. That’s 42 million people who would die if therapeutic male circumcision was banned like it was genital mutilation. Once again, I know that isn’t your point, it’s actually Greg’s.
-
I see you're still struggling with basic math. Not every human on earth is male. Less than half are. Also, 0.006% = 1/16,671 = 0.00006. So, the N of males x the real rate = 3324047000 * 0.00006 = 199,442 males = an overestimate on your part by 41.8 million people. Bravo...
-
Lmao sorry forgot only half were male and I’m doing the statistics. Anyway, 0.006% of 3.5 billion is 210000, sorry. That’s still a good fair few people we want to kill.
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.