Login or register
Login or register
Stay logged in
Log in/Sign up using Facebook.
Log in/Sign up using Gmail/Google+.
CREATE A NEW ACCOUNT
Email is optional and is used for password recovery purposes.
Rank #4890 on Comments
Level 254 Comments: Contaminated Win
Send mail to TheWayneAdams
Invite TheWayneAdams to be your friend
Last status update:
Date Signed Up:
Highest Content Rank:
Highest Comment Rank:
Content Level Progress:
Level 69 Content: FJ Cultist → Level 70 Content: FJ Cultist
Comment Level Progress:
Level 254 Comments: Contaminated Win → Level 255 Comments: Contaminated Win
Times Content Favorited:
Total Comments Made:
What people say about TheWayneAdams
latest user's comments
- Who would win in a fight? Punished Jackie or Jackie Chan no…
No more comedy movies
Depends, does the baby know the names?
- Sean Björn is the best way to say his name.
Amazing facts of the day!!
- But Jews don't do it for hygiene reasons, they do it for Jewy reasons.
Girl on Twitter has account...
it was for hygiene reasons thousands of years ago when it was necessary
Yes but they will tell you it's "hygienic" if you're a goy. And a lot of retards legitimelly believe so. Or because the dick with the foreskin looks "worse" so it's better to remove it.
I actually think dicks with foreskin look a lot better
Like, I like dick either way but I think it's even better if it has foreskin
Foreskins were ruined for me on the first guy I ever dated who had a foreskin. It was just kinda nasty. We didn't last long, he didn't wash his dick nearly enough.
Ah, yeah, poor hygiene will definitely ruin something.
To each their own I suppose
Also, it's not my argument. I don't like dicks but justifying any kind of mutilation for esthetic reasons is absolutely deplorable. Also looks are completely subjective and people have different opinions
Oh, I definitely agree that aesthetic surgery of any kind on someone who cannot consent shouldn't be allowed. I was just commenting on the whole "the dick with foreskin looks "worse"" thing.
It's just a stupid argument, like saying it's more "hygienic" or that it helps not to get STD's. I haven't read a single scientific paper that states the latter and the former is just so retarded. It's like chopping off your buttcheeks because they are in the way to clean yourself up, it's on the same level of retardation. If you've got basic hygienic habits, you shouldn't have a problem.
Here's a CDC article about circumcision and STDs
IMO, it's still not a good enough reason- if you're worried about the person having an STD, wear a condom. It's not a good enough reason to justify circumcision on babies.
Those studies have a fundamental flaw in my opinon: If you make a big public health campaign in rural africa or areas with high HIV prevalence and tell them "this procedure reduces your risk of contracting HIV by 44%"
What sticks in their head at the end of the day is
"Cool, now I don't have to use a condom any more because I'm immune!"
And that ignores all the things that can go wrong during the procedure - and considering you perform it on completely healthy people there is no justifying the risk - even if complications are "just" 2-5%
But there are plenty of adverse effects that always happen and are therefore not classified as complications. And talking about femis: Male circumcision harms women too:
so there should be a combined effort to end all forms of genital mutilation
There's several other factors that confound that study even more. For example, the fact that it takes place in a wildly different environment than the Western world. There's also the issue of not controlling for who is getting their children circumcised. It could very well be that the types of families that are opting into getting the procedure done are more health conscious in general and are going to be giving better info about safe sex anyway, in which case the reduced disease rate is less due to the surgery and more to that.
There's also an issue with the language they use when discussing the reason for the correlation: they call them "possible" reasons, implying they don't even really know if those are truly why, and as far as I know no study has ever demonstrated a mechanistic reason for why circumcision supposedly works. It's a procedure undeniably started for puritanical reasons (in the US at least which is mainly what I'm talking about) that is trying to be justified after the fact
And let's not forget that there are several companies that develop medical devices for circumcision (some clamps etc, some claiming they can be used by non-physicians, which might add another problem)
And those companies would be more than happy if some NGO or government programme pays them to provide the funds to boy those to mutilate hundreds of million africans.
Well I guess that one's an argument then. But unless it makes it 100% inmune, you're still running a risk unless you wear a condom so, as you've said, it's not a good enough argument.
- Casuall, I have come to bargain.
- There are only two types of comments on this content. The &quo…
I hate you.
Go down boner
- Why was the Joker even in this game? Like he literally shows u…
Injustice 2's Facial...
They should have had a different character in place of Joker
- Such a significant event that we will be talking about years t…
The Based Obama
Where were u when grimfuck bought new shirts and shoes
I was funnyjunk when got call
"Grimfuck has shirts and shoes"
- R is for "Ready? I am going to load my gun again". …
I believe R and G speak for themself, F sometimes as well
F is for "Pay Respects"
That was the joke, yes.
- I dunno why people think that NRS are removing characters, I g…
- I just gotta ask, you wrote "Seth Rich's "death"…
Seth Rich Comp
Show Comments (1)