/pol/ - Politically Incorrect

Where lolis are free speech, ponies scare the feds, and Hitler did nothing wrong

Index Catalog Archive Bottom Refresh
Mode: Reply

Max message length: 8000


Max file size: 32.00 MB

Max files: 5

Supported file types: GIF, JPG, PNG, WebM, OGG, and more


(used to delete files and postings)


Remember to follow the rules

The backup domain is located at 8chan.se. .cc is a third fallback. TOR access can be found here, or you can access the TOR portal from the clearnet at Redchannit 2.0.

8chan.moe is a hobby project with no affiliation whatsoever to the administration of any other "8chan" site, past or present.

All links to external sources should be archived, and relevant videos should either be in ".webm" format or used through a front end such as https://instances.invidio.us/

(677.24 KB 764x931 circ.png)
(293.64 KB 515x754 MiyFp6.png)
(275.01 KB 523x792 MiYFp44-45.png)
(221.45 KB 585x704 MiYFp46-47.png)
(258.66 KB 581x619 MiyFp216.png)
circumcision wasn't always such a bad thing guys Anonymous 04/04/2021 (Sun) 20:50:14 Id:d69f3a No. 8657
One thing I noticed when reading up about history is that it was only post-Christianity that the "Jews" (Pharisees co-opting the scriptures of Israel/Judea) began changing how they did circumcision. I think initially it was a lot more minimalist and they probably just literally "snipped the tip" (the ridged band) perhaps with the primary benefit being to stop phimosis. It's still low-IQ as fuck because while you do want to avoid pubescent boys having their cocks turn black on their first erection, that could easily be done by applying manual pressure. If it's too incestuous to have a mom do that for her son then you could teach him to do it himself, like how you get taught to wipe your own ass. It seems that around a century or two after Christ (between 100 AD and 300 AD) while Jews were under the thrall of Rome, major changes began to happen to the bris/brit (covenant) supplementing the "cut" step (the "milah") to expose just the glans (aka "corona" they call it, can we meme this?) with extra ones: 1) they started removing more flesh (the "periah" aka "priah") where after cutting the tip (ridged band) off with a knife they would actually use sharp fingernails to strip back the base 90% of the foreskin and remove that too 2) they added the step of oral suction at the end too The justification of the oral suction is in theory because of the extra bleeding which begs the question: did they really cause the extra bleeding just to make circumcision irreversible, or did they perhaps cause the extra bleeding as a pretense to begin performing oral suction. "These guys are stretching the 90% of their foreskins we didn't cut off to cover their cocks to compete in the Olympics rabbis, let's cut off the other 90%, and also then let's put the baby's dick in our mouth because it's NECESSARY to protect the baby guys" All this seems to have happened during the decline of Greek-influenced Hellenistic Judaism (including the Pharisees and the Sadducees both active from 167 BC to 73 CE) after the birth of Rabbinic Judaism, which was born in the 2nd century CE and became the prominent form by 6th century CE Less prominent form of Judaism (like Karaism and Samaritanism) who only follow Written Torah and not all the extra "Oral Torah" (ironic name?) shit added by the Rabbanites, don't have any basis for doing the 2nd (uncovering+scraping the other 90%) and 3rd (oral suction) steps since those are based entirely in Oral Torah and pretty obviously just added in because they didn't like jews/slaves using foreskin restoration. I wouldn't be surprised if Karaites/Samaraitans (or at least those espousing to be) add those steps in modern day, since odds are the Rabbanite practises have infected/controlled fucking EVERYTHING, but at some point in the far past about 1900 years ago before all this shit got added in, circumcision was still fucked-up but nowhere near as degenerate as the Rabbanites made it. The Rabbanites are 99% of the "Orthodox" Jews of modern day, and all the shit going on in hospitals where they don't (so far as we know) suck baby cock is just camouflage, and they still do mil'ah and peri'ah in hospitals even if they don't do metsis'ah b'peh so they're still causing the irreversible damage that guys like Abraham/Moses/Jesus didn't bother with. The classic israelites were just semi-degenerate tip-snippers too repressed/stupid to gradually stretch ridged band to prevent phimosis so they amputated the ridged band instead. They don't seem to have been the full-on degenerates that Jews have been the last nineteen centuries since the full-flaying dick-sucking Rabbanites took over. This probably explains why civil guys like Greeks managed to co-exist with Jews while the Romans persecuted them: that weird-fucked shift in focus was detected. TBH it probably made sense to do mil'ah for nigger slaves because they'd be too low-IQ for understanding the idea of gradual stretching (with lotions/oil) of the ridged band to do it competently, so the Greeks probably understood that, though they probably found it weird how the Jews treated their own people like low-IQ slaves and made them do it too. Perhaps they thought it was done in solidarity so the niggers wouldn't revolt in anger at being the only ones circumcised?
(130.92 KB 500x1200 why are you here.jpg)
Circumcision is child abuse. End of discussion. Time to go back to Reddit.
>>8659 child abuse can still be measured in degrees, being against it doesn't mean we can't take time to distinguish between different severities it's more abusive for example to cut off both of a child's arms at the shoulder than it would be to cut off just their pinky finger
>avoid pubescent boys having their cocks turn black on their first erection, that could easily be done by applying manual pressure My dick is circumcised so I have no idea what this is about. Someone explain. Both dicks turning black and manual pressure. How do other peoples deal with this apparent problem?
>>8660 I'm circumcised and it led to me being rediculed in school and me hitting a kid with my belt. Of course he was fucking innocent afterwards and just stood in the middle of the bunch by accident. My dick head also doesn't look nice and is scarred. >it's more abusive for example to cut off both of a child's arms So rape isn't abusive at all, as long nothing but the hymen gets broken according to your logic?
Masturbating also isn't as nice as it would be if I had foreskin. I was very depressed about my dick for a long time.
>>8669 It's a myth created by jews, muslims, and other cutfags to justify their gender-based baby genital mutilation and molestation. If things like that happened beyond rare mutations, humans never would have lived long enough for some sick jewish freak to come up with the idea of cutting off baby dicks. >>8670 >So rape isn't abusive at all, as long nothing but the hymen gets broken according to your logic? It's the opposite. Rape isn't abusive as long as the hymen isn't broken. If the hymen is already broken then she's a slut and it doesn't matter anyway. If the hymen is broken but only because she is married, then it's essentially vandalism of another man's property, and should be punished very heavily as such, the same as you should be punished heavily if you cum on another man's car or something.
If not having foreskin was good, why doesn't evolution cause humans to not grow it? Checkmate, jew
>>8684 Jews don't believe in evolution. God did everything and created the earth like 5000 years ago or whatever. They celebrate "new year" on the day they think God actually created the world, and have a particular number of years they think have passed since then.
(60.37 KB 800x678 evolution is NOT smart.jpg)
(703.15 KB 1600x1085 evolution is NOT smart.png)
>>8684 >why doesn't evolution I'm gonna have to slap you upside the head for that.
>>8688 Losing a bit of extra skin that they argue is objectively dangerous is not the same as your examples. The evolutionary change that would have to be made is much simpler.
>>8657 kill yourself
>>8699 >is not the same as your examples. Ok it's a fist this time.
>>8715 No, you're not getting it. If it is objectively harming the reproductive health, and would be a very simple evolutionary change, which it would be, then it would be likely that it would have already changed, or never changed to be like it is now. Nobody is claiming evolution is smart. However, your examples do make sense from evolutionary perspectives. The changes required to fix the "defects" would be relatively large. Swapping the position of that nerve in the giraffe's neck was less of a change than slowly increasing its length. Slowly decreasing the length of the foreskin, which jews and muslims argue is significantly detrimental not just to reproductive health, but to health in general, would be a simple, incremental change. But of course it doesn't happen, because such a change would not actually be beneficial, so mutants with that change do not reproduce more than those without it.
>>8717 >No, you're not getting it. No YOU are not getting it. I have already highlighted enough facts of just how full retard evolution is but yet your dumbass thinks it only evolves to higher levels of existence. Protip: evolution "works" by pure RNG. Unless it immediately kills off the organism it'll keep tarding along until it either succeeds in killing the organism in question or the organism wins the genetic lottery and get's a brain big enough to know to dumpster bin evolution.
>>8721 >evolution works by pure RNG Are you actually going to claim that species don't evolve for better fitness in literally every aspect of their anatomy and physiology?
>>8724 Considering how animals and bugs have better hearing, sight, smell, agility, and taste; yes. If you follow the theory of evolution, it's even been theorized that the human development of consciousness is an evolutionary error that's proven more harmful than beneficial. Easy example of proving this is how nuclear material. Before man, nuclear radiation was far underground, away from surface animals, and only exploded once every few million years. After man, there have been innumerable explosions happening over the past several decades, more potential explosions waiting to happen, and already several nuclear meltdowns that required the complete extermination of life within a 75 mile radius. If evolution WAS NOT RNG, how does giving an animal the means to destroy itself by accident beneficial?
>>8721 >I have already highlighted enough facts of just how full retard evolution is but yet your dumbass thinks it only evolves to higher levels of existence. I never made that claim at all. I claimed that if something was as destructive as they claim, and a relatively small genetic change, then it would be likely that those with the problem would have problems reproducing compared to those without the problem. It's called natural selection. >Unless it immediately kills off the organism Pro-mutilationfags claim that it does frequently kill the organism, or otherwise negatively impacts their reproductive health. And while I'm sure you know this, it's not that an organism would need to be "immediately killed," it's that an organism would need to be less reproductively successful, which is precisely what pro-mutilationfags claim. Now, a relatively bad feature could still spread through the gene pool if the change offers other benefits, and if fixing the problem is a relatively large genetic change, but shortening of the foreskin would not be a relatively large genetic change, and pro-mutilationfags claim it doesn't offer any benefits. >it's even been theorized that the human development of consciousness is an evolutionary error that's proven more harmful than beneficial. That would be a subjective judgement, since it clearly isn't judging purely reproductive ability, or more specifically, the ability for a gene to help more copies of itself exist, which is all that matters to the process of evolution. >If evolution WAS NOT RNG, how does giving an animal the means to destroy itself by accident beneficial? You're not talking about "an animal," you're talking about a species. Being intelligent has allowed homosapiens to drastically increase their population, because so many individuals have been able to reproduce far more than otherwise, which means so many genes have been able to reproduce far more than otherwise. As I'm sure you know, that is all that matters.
>>8725 Human intelligence is not evolved though. It does not follow the same rules. The smartest caveman ever could not build a nuclear bomb without the thousands of years of industry and science that built upon itself. >>8726 If ethics were not a thing, I'd love to run an experiment where you cut the entire penis head off of some monkeys or whatever as infants, and see if their can still successfully breed. Because most of the argument the pro-mutilation crowd do once they've exhausted the bullshit about cleanliness or less STDs or "it just looks better" is that it still "works" so who cares.
>>8724 Yes I am since it perpetually fucks up. I once used to figure that the "evolving to a higher plane" myth had some validity, but it ultimately doesn't. Sure it might in theory be great at removing the wheat from the chaff, but when it has LOADS of chaff STILL around and even turns the wheat INTO chaff, it needs replacement. >>8726 >I never made that claim at all. I've seen that same wind up before and know exactly where it's going, it's little more than sort out and call out the nigger faggots and move on to the next "might as well be a bot" tier dumbshit at this point.
>>8729 Difference between "intelligence" and "knowledge" >>8730 an organism inherits genes from their parents, half and half, some of these turn out differently from their parents due to copying errors, these are mutations, these have various effects on the organism they create, which could be perceived as being good or bad by the organism and it's parents, mutations may also have no effect at all. If the organism reproduces, it can pass on copies of the mutated genes to it's offspring, just like any other genes it carries, genes that produce effects that make this event more likely are going to be more common in any population over time, while those which make this less likely are going to be less common. Different groups of organisms can be cut off from reproducing with other another, and over time, they loose certain common genetic traits between the groups, and that causes their members to not be able to reproduce together anymore. This happens enough times, we get all the life on Earth.
>>8730 >I've seen that same wind up before and know exactly where it's going, it's little more than sort out and call out the nigger faggots and move on to the next "might as well be a bot" tier dumbshit at this point. What the fuck are you talking about? You're that mad that someone called you out on making a strawman argument? Don't accuse people of making arguments they didn't make. It means you're only arguing against yourself and not against what they actually said. You're not going to convince anyone that way.
>>8657 >Waiting for Foregen. https://www.youtube(Please use archive.today)/watch?v=DjQF2rVcedc
>>8772 foregen is a fraud.
>>8659 fpbp. Stop coping about your jewed cock OP.
>>8670 >Of course he was fucking innocent afterwards and just stood in the middle of the bunch by accident. You resorted to violence in response to words, rather than just using words back. He was innocent. Also you're guilty by virtue of being a jew with a mutilated jew cock.
>>8759 >You're not going to convince anyone that way. "it's little more than sort out and call out the nigger faggots and move on to the next "might as well be a bot" tier dumbshit at this point."
>>8799 Again, what the fuck are you even talking about? Your posts are barely more coherent than "has anyone ever been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?" The only thing I can decipher is that you're mad that someone pointed out that you were not addressing the arguments being made, and instead making up strawman arguments to fight against. Then you try to justify this by saying that anyone who points out that you're doing this is bad somehow, in some non-coherent way.
>>8657 If I knew where you lived I would come to your house and break your hands for typing such stupidity.
>>8800 >Again, what the fuck are you even talking about? What a surprise, the leaf can't read.
>>8812 If I assume you actually meant to say what you said, and didn't just fuck up immensely, then you're calling yourself a nigger faggot and '"might as well be a bot" tier dumbshit.' I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt and figure you were just so stupid that you only said that by accident.
(2.62 MB 480x480 madcatz.gif)
Remember: you can get some foreskin back with steroid cream and 5/10 minutes a day of tugging. >>8657 >that incest shit to prevent blood flow penis problems Fell for jew psyops. The foreskin is fused for childhood but separates by itself as puberty progresses.
>>8828 More to the point, it separates by itself through repeated self-stretching through masturbation and nocturnal erections, which happens at the latest by puberty. Mine was retractable by the time I was in kindergarten. >you can get some foreskin back This is like saying a blinded man can get his eyes back by rolling up his eyelids and stuffing them in the empty sockets.
>>8839 I tried doing it for an extended period of time when I was younger. Eventually ended up feeling slight pain/as if I was hurting my penis so I stopped. Never got any real results from it. Might have been doing too much, but it was hard to know what to do since I saw so many different suggestions for techniques to use, amount of time, etc. You can't get it back, but I'd take a facsimile of a foreskin if I could. It looks aesthetically better to me.
(65.26 KB 286x194 Phimotic.png)
>>8670 >So rape isn't abusive at all, as long nothing but the hymen gets broken according to your logic? That's nowhere near the logic I used, I'd suggest you reread. >>8681 I think you're right about that, although one thing I would posit is that humans evolving would've let baby boys fap and the introduction of sex-oppressive religions that stop baby boys from fondling themselves could inhibit the natural instinctive stretching of the ridged band. I mean hell maybe cavewomen gave their newborn sons blowjobs to prevent phimosis, that also might have done it. >>8785 not sure why you would see this as cope, I'm horrified by my jewed cock, I'm just saying if my cock had been jewed two thousand years ago it would've just been a tolerable tiny little nick that didn't remove anything and just leave a little scar and I get to keep the foreskin >>8810 what was incorrect? >>8828 alternative to incest I guess you could hire an unrelated babysitter to make sure your son doesn't suffer from phimosis. Phimosis IS a real phenomena >>8839 if you're not allowed to fap then you're 100% relying on nocturnal erections to do it, not sure if they'd get the job done solo
>>8852 From what I understand, the technique is to pull consistently and gently over long periods of time (like hours). That's why most people use some kind of tugging device instead of pulling by hand, at least once they reach the point where there is something to attach the tape to. Interestingly enough, over a period of about a year or so when I was in my late 20s, I randomly started tugging on my own (intact) foreskin at frequent times. Like before falling asleep or when at the computer or whatever. It got noticeably longer, like maybe an 1/8th inch more overhang when flaccid, than before. So I know it does work. >>8992 There is no point to this. Why even speak of only SLIGHT mutilation as if there is anything good about it. Oh yeah, if the lawn-mower accident had been a little bit different you would have only lost three fingers instead of four. But why the fuck would you wish for that instead of just, you know, that it hadn't happened at all? >Phimosis IS a real phenomena Not really. There is an element of natural variation (which, as has been stated, in almost all cases self-corrects by puberty, masturbation or not) but simply calling it by some special name is circumcision propaganda. By labeling it, they can pretend as if it's a disorder in need of drastic corrective surgery.
>>8657 >OY VEY GOYIM MULTIATE YOURSELVES, YOU FUCKING CATTLE Sage and report jewish spam threads.
(565.93 KB 1600x1371 1618534448155.png)
it used to be a small part of the foreskin
There's never a justification for doing it to a kid unless there's something fucked up about your dick naturally and doing it would undo some hideous wrongcock that would blight your life. >>8688 >>8715 It's 'smart' in the way that a wonky jalopy can still function as a viable vehicle, so even if the animal concept has giraffe tier retarded flaws it still works.
>>9098 you seem to have missed the part that this is critical of modern-day Judaism and only hypothesizing that pre-Roman Judaism was not as degenerate >>9129 this guy gets it >>9147 I agree but even though there's no justification for chopping off a newborn baby's pinky finger it's still less mutilating than chopping off both his arms, so we can acknowledge that while still condemning both
(304.73 KB 562x346 Bowers plus Metzit.png)
There was a bris scheduled for later that day which obviously would have been postponed, but how long did they wait before doing it? I'm sure it happened and these poor baby boys got their first blowjob from this mohel after he scalped their dicks and now the homosexuals that adopted the pair of boys are probably continuing the practice each day. I'm just curious how much time he bought them. Did he at least score them an extra couple days of peace? No amount of gunfire sound could be as traumatic as this blood ritual.
>>9000 I just bought a tugging device to start it up again, since that should be more reliable than doing it manually with my hands. Assuming this is still around, I'll maybe report back if it starts getting anywhere. It can take years to get it to look normal again, but within a year I should see some non trivial results. Even if I can't get natural foreskin, I think masturbation/sex should improve in addition to looking better. And it'd make me feel better about myself.
>>8669 It's a non-existant problem magically solved by following Jewish tradition. Since many Jews are also doctors, they have shills within the medical field try to make it seem like phimosis is incredibly common and that by pure cohencidence your child is also going to have it if you don't circumcise him immediately. And I wouldn't buy anyone trying to push bullshit about how the "real" way to do it is only to cut off a slightly smaller part of the foreskin.

Quick Reply

no cookies?