Circumcision, risky behaviours studies

Almost 7000 words. That was more than I expected to type. Circumcision studies generally. A post for men.

https://journals.lww.com/jaids/Abstract/1999/11010/Sexual_Behaviors_and_Other_HIV_Risk_Factors_in.12.aspx
“Circumcised men also reported a preference for nonwet sex. “

Men concerned about HPV-cancer link:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ijc.24097

“In multivariable analyses, detection of any HPV infection was significantly associated with reported race of Asian/Pacific Islander…
NonOncogenic HPV infection was independently associated with lifetime number of sexual partners. Circumcision, assessed by clinical examination, was associated with reduced risk of HPV detection across all categories of HPV evaluated. HPV detection in men in the current study was strongly related to sexual behavior and circumcision status. Interventions such as circumcision may provide a low‐cost method to reduce HPV infection.”

Really?

Hey, just in case you get a broken leg, get them amputated!

Significantly higher risk of HPV detection was associated with increasing numbers of lifetime female sexual partners (OR 6.96–9.01 for nononcogenic, any HPV, and oncogenic HPV infections among men reporting ≥50 partners compared to 1 partner), number of female partners in the past 3 months (OR 2.31–3.43 for nononcogenic, any HPV, oncogenic HPV infections among men reporting 3–30 partners compared to no female partners), number of new female partners in the past 3 months (OR 2.64–2.85 for nononcogenic, oncogenic and any HPV type among men with ≥3 new female partners compared to no new partner), and anal sex with either a male or female (OR 1.40–1.45 for any HPV, and oncogenic HPV infections).”

Good luck trying to find studies brave enough to look at anal sex frequency alone!
They wouldn’t DARE.

What do they care if men get cancer, right?
Penile cancer is on the rise but do anal and never use a condom because a TV told you to!

Slut shaming also applies to men. Manwhores are disease-ridden.

“For example, the odds ratios for any HPV increased with increasing number of lifetime sexual partners peaking at an odds ratio of 6.65 among men who reported 20–49 partners.”

Er…. that’s well above average.

Here the lifetime partner rate is 4 and likely lower.

“However, the few published studies reporting HPV antibody status among men suggest that a smaller proportion of men than women are HPV antibody positive, despite a high HPV DNA prevalence among men.15″

Men are spreading it.

If I had to mock this, I’d get a tranny to dress up as Lady Gaga and sing “let’s have some fun this beat is sick, I wanna touch you with my cancer stick”… if only people had a sense of humour anymore.

“Don’t think too much, no condom bitch, ’cause porn is God and anal’s quick”

If I had to write the most unPC comedy show ever. No more jokes in this piece, it takes a serious turn.

Finally, Castellsague et al.8 demonstrated a profound and significant reduction in invasive cervical cancer risk among women whose male partners were circumcised.8″

So… what about male cancer risk? Shouldn’t you study that too?
And they wouldn’t spread HPV if they didn’t catch it being sluts.

Prevention > whatever this is.
They’re basically operating on baby boys, assuming they’ll be manwhores when they’re older.
No?

http://www.bioline.org.br/pdf?hs16015

” Policies and programmes should thus focus on the attitudes underlying sexual behaviour. “

Normally, studies of intact men are confounded by poverty and drinking.

And being promiscuous, obviously.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3700546/

HPV16, the most prevalent HPV type in this population (9.9%), also had the highest incidence (10.9/1000 person-months). A high incidence of HPV16 has been similarly reported in other studies among both men6, 7, 9, 14 and women.26 The high rate of acquisition of HPV16 has a clear implication for increasing cancer risk among men and their sexual partners, as HPV16 is the most common HPV type found in penile cancer among men;2 cervical, vulvar and vaginal cancers among women;1, 27 and in anal and oropharyngeal cancers in both sexes.3, 4

Finally!

If you’re avoiding performing oral on a woman, what makes you think she doesn’t have it in her mouth too and second, you’d better not be doing anal in that case….

Penile HPV IRs in our study were higher in the glans specimen, including the inner foreskin, compared with the shaft (HR=2.1; 95% CI 1.7 to 2.4). Our results are in contrast to the findings of a US study of 240 men.7 In this highly circumcised US population, the cumulative probability of incident HPV infection did not differ by anatomical site (44.3% in glans vs 45.4% in shaft). Among uncircumcised men, there may be a larger disparity in HPV acquisition by penile site, potentially attributable to keratinisation of the glans epithelium and removal of the inner foreskin after circumcision.”

Circumcised men aren’t less likely to catch it.

They’ll catch it somewhere more fatal. Increasing the rate of penile cancer.

Because you literally cannot catch it in a foreskin you NO LONGER HAVE.

So it’s a trick of linguistics. There’s less disease – of the foreskin. That you lack.

Click to access SRBs%20and%20circumcision%20in%20Uganda_1652_fullpaper_PAA2016.pdf

“Conclusions
This study indicates higher prevalence of sexual risk behaviours among circumcised men in each
survey and a reduction in use of condoms with non-marital sexual partners among circumcised
men from 2004 to 2011, suggesting that promotion of male circumcision could result in risk
compensation.

Considering the high levels of sexual risk behaviours among men who are already
circumcised observed in this study, the Ministry of Health and partners need to continue
sensitising the sexually active population to use condoms even when a man is circumcised. These
messages should target both circumcised men and their sexual partners. Educating men
10 undergoing circumcision also needs to be strengthened to avoid sexual risk taking post
circumcision”

If they weren’t lied to, they wouldn’t want it.

https://www.malecircumcision.org/research/social-and-behavioural-research

“Data on changes in the sexual performance or sexual satisfaction of adolescents or men following circumcision are limited and conflicting.

Not really. Sunk cost fallacy is strong.

One study conducted among 138 Korean men an unknown time (possibly years) after circumcision found that 20 percent reported decreased sexual pleasure and 8 percent reported increased sexual pleasure following the procedure.3″

“Sixty-four percent of the circumcised men who were available for follow-up at 24 months reported greater penile sensitivity after circumcision, and 54 percent reported enhanced ease in reaching orgasm.6”

That is physically impossible, nerve endings are removed and existing ones covered with scar tissue.
Scar tissue is numb.

Phantom foreskin sensation?

3 – Kim DS, Pang MG. The effect of male circumcision on sexuality. BJU Int 2007;99(3):619-622.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.06646.x

“Masturbatory pleasure decreased after circumcision in 48% of the respondents, while 8% reported increased pleasure. Masturbatory difficulty increased after circumcision in 63% of the respondents but was easier in 37%. About 6% answered that their sex lives improved, while 20% reported a worse sex life after circumcision.”

Men deserve to know this.
Sounds like surgical differences. Or maybe the men reporting more sensation had a thicker foreskin, limiting sensation?

“There was a decrease in masturbatory pleasure and sexual enjoyment after circumcision, indicating that adult circumcision adversely affects sexual function in many men, possibly because of complications of the surgery and a loss of nerve endings.”

Possibly? The surgery is intended to remove nerves and nerve endings. It REMOVES.

It’s literally taking away the thing that makes them a man, the crown of their manhood itself, the most important and sexually responsive organ to sexual pleasure.

http://www.thebodypro.com/content/art58409.html
https://www.poz.com/article/MSM-HIV-Circumcision-Study-Disregards-Roles-in-Anal-Sex-19575-6792
It is almost impossible to find them recording anal sex data, which harms men by omission.

http://cirp.org/library/anatomy/ohara/

Circumcision could be contributing to male fertility issues.

Laumann et al. [5] found that circumcised men had different sexual practices from genitally altered men. Circumcised men were more likely to masturbate, to engage in heterosexual anal and oral sex, and to engage in homosexual anal sex.

Why does the porn industry want all men circumcised, it’s a mystery.
Masturbation suggests dissatisfaction with normal, spousal sex, as do the others.

In the male rat, removal of the penile sheath markedly interferes with normal penile reflexes and copulation. When circumcised rats were paired with sexually experienced females, they had more difficulty obtaining an erection, more difficulty inserting the penis into the vagina, and required more mounts to inseminate than did unaltered males [6].

Unusual longevity is not good, it’s a common sign of impotence, porn lies.
Difficulty finishing, medically.

Preputial secretions in mice and rats are a strong attractant for female mice and rats [7-11], and may provoke the onset of oestrus in mature females [12].”

I’m not kidding, impotence issues in performance, it’s tragic.

In addition, if humans do secrete pheromones, I’d expect to see that impact circumcised male fertility especially.

“The study results may reflect the tendency of people to choose the familiar and shun the unfamiliar. In a survey conducted on the Internet, circumcised men were significantly more likely to use additional artificial lubricants during sexual activity (odds ratio, OR = 5.64, 95% CI = 3.65 – 8.71) [16].”

That’s abnormal you shouldn’t need those, but without a foreskin there’s more friction, the prepuce evolved in men to reduce penile friction. Without the existence of lube, which might cause problems by ingredients, that suggests circumcised men would find it too painful to have sex at all. 

Great profit margins for the lube companies though.

The 12th century physician and rabbi Moses Maimonides advocated male circumcision for its ability to curb a man’s sexual appetite [17].

Yep, it’s a punishment.

Further, he implied that it could also affect a woman’s sexuality, indicating that once a woman had taken a lover who was not circumcised, it was very hard for her to give him up.

Data supports this, keep reading.
There is a HUGE improvement in sexual performance for intact men.
When you ask the people judging said performance.

The impact of male circumcision on the sexual pleasure experienced by both males and females is largely unstudied. While the brain is often cited as the primary ‘sexual’ organ, what impact does surgical alteration of the male genitalia have for both partners? Based on anecdotal reports, a survey was developed to determine the effect of male circumcision on a woman’s ability to achieve vaginal orgasm (both single and multiple), to maintain adequate vaginal secretions, to develop vaginal discomfort, to enjoy coitus and to develop an intimate relationship with her partner. This review presents the findings of a survey of women who have had sexual partners both with and without foreskins, and reports their experiences.”

“Of the women, 73% reported that circumcised men tend to thrust harder and deeper, using elongated strokes, while unaltered men by comparison tended to thrust more gently, to have shorter thrusts, and tended to be in contact with the mons pubis and clitoris more, according to 71% of the respondents.”

So… the circumcised are bad in bed. No wonder American women don’t orgasm.

Objectively, the only way circumcised men can sexually perform is badly.
None of their behavioral pattern is pleasurable. None of it. Performance is judged by the recipient.

Again, everything porn tells you to do in bed is wrong.
It’s all the stuff that makes men bad in bed – that’s kinda why men enjoy viewing it, psychologically it’s telling them they’re normal by making bad performance in bed appear common and pay women to act aroused, contrary to honest data, like lonely women reading tons of romance novels and telling themselves “there’s nothing wrong with me”!

It’d be easy to test.

Do circumcised men enjoy watching intact men in porn? I’d bet not.
I’d bet they’d feel inferior. You think the industry doesn’t know that?

“While some of the respondents commented that they thought the differences were in the men, not the type of penis, the consistency with which women felt more intimate with their unaltered partners is striking. Some respondents reported that the foreskin improved their sexual satisfaction, which improved the quality of the relationship. In addition to the observations of Maimonides in the 12th century, one survey found that marital longevity was increased when the male had a foreskin [21]. Why the presence of the foreskin enhances intimacy needs further exploration.”

Circumcision increases divorce risk.
Really.
The study mentioned is linked below, Hughes, but nobody followed up on it.

Too controversial, plus the timing of his death is ..interesting.

“During prolonged intercourse with their circumcised partners, women were less likely to ‘really get into it’ and more likely to ‘want to get it over with’ (23.32, 11.24-48.39). On the other hand, with their unaltered partners, the reverse was true, they were less likely to ‘want to get it over with’ and considerably more likely to ‘really get into it.'”

“When the women were divided into those with more or fewer than 10 lifetime partners, those with >10 were more likely to have orgasms with their circumcised partners than those with fewer partners, but still less frequent orgasms than they had with their unaltered partners. Women who preferred a circumcised partner overall were more likely to have had <10 partners (3.52, 0.92-13.50).”

i.e. Don’t trust the sluts.

“The women who preferred circumcised partners (as elicited in one of three questions, n=20) were more likely to have had their first orgasm with a circumcised partner (8.38, 2.88-24.35) than those who preferred unaltered partners. Although these women preferred circumcised partners, they still found unaltered partners to evoke more vaginal fluid production, a lower vaginal discomfort rating and fewer complaints (Sets 1 and 2, Table 3) during intercourse than their circumcised partners. In women who preferred circumcised men, there was no difference in their comparison of circumcised and unaltered men other than overall rating and a higher rate of premature ejaculation in their unaltered partners (4.63, 2.36-9.07)

That isn’t premature, that’s normal. The circumcised were demonstrating a sign of impotence.

These women had fewered unaltered partners (2.47 vs. 3.78, Z=-1.68, P=0.045), which suggests that their limited exposure to unaltered men may have been a consequence of ‘premature ejaculation’.

Note the quote marks, they’re actually the normal ones.

The inability to detect a difference in orgasm frequency, coital duration, coital complaints or satisfaction, and ‘yet to formulate a preference’, suggests that factors of conformity may be influential.

It’s… clear-cut.

“When women were grouped based on the preputial status of their most recent partner, women with unaltered partners had a higher rate of orgasms with them, at a mean (SEM) of 70 (31%)vs 56 (40%) (Z=2.28, P=0.01). They were more likely to rate circumcised partners lower (Z=-2.61, P0.0047) and unaltered partners higher (Z=2.83, P=0.002). When only women whose most recent partner was circumcised, the results were consistent with the results from the entire study population.”

Burn.

When women who preferred vaginal orgasm were compared with those preferring orally or manually induced orgasm, the former rated unaltered men higher (Z=2.12, P=0.016), had more positive post-coital feelings (Set 3; Z=2.68, P=0.003) with their unaltered partners, and rated these men higher overall (Z=2.12, P=0.016).”

It cannot be more obvious.

Biology lesson:

“When the penile shaft is withdrawn slightly from the vagina, the foreskin bunches up behind the corona in a manner that allows the tip of the foreskin which contains the highest density of fine-touch neuroreceptors in the penis [1] to contact the corona of the glans which has the highest concentration of fine-touch receptors on the glans [18]. This intense stimulation discourages the penile shaft from further withdrawal, explaining the short thrusting style that women noted in their unaltered partners.

The one they always preferred?

This juxtapostion of sensitive neuroreceptors is also seen in the clitoris and clitoral hood of the Rhesus monkey [19] and in the human clitoris [18].”

Men need to be told this nerve information in biology class.
Male is comparable to female circumcision. It causes blatant nerve damage.
It destroys the experience of sexual intensity and intimacy.

It removes neuroreceptors!

“Several respondents commented that the foreskin also makes a difference in foreplay and fellatio. Although this was not directly measured, some respondents commented that unaltered men appeared to enjoy coitus more than their circumcised couterparts. The lower rates of fellatio, masturbation and anal sex among unaltered men [5] suggests that unaltered men may find coitus more satisfying [20].

I try to warn you.

Clearly, the anatomically complete penis offers a more rewarding experience for the female partner during coitus. While this study has some obvious methodological flaws, all the differences cannot be attributed to them. It is important that these findings be confirmed by a prospective study of a randomly selected population of women with experience with both types of men. It would be useful to examine the role of the foreskin in other sexual activities. Because these findings are of interest, the negative effect of circumcision on the sexual enjoyment of the female partner needs to be part of any discussions providing ‘informed consent’ before circumcision.”

And male enjoyment too. I think they’d wanna know.

20 is Van Howe http://www.cirp.org/library/general/laumann/letters.html#vanhowe

Of course adult feelings are not so easily dismissed. A preliminary survey of 75 men suggests that the more men know about the important functions of the prepuce, the more likely they are to be dissatisfied about being circumcised.3 Now that an increasing number of men are learning about the prepuce and expressing this dis-satisfaction, clinicians must acknowledge that is impossible to predict how a male infant will feel when he is older. A prudent course of action would be to allow men to make the decision about circumcision themselves when they reach adulthood.”

Men need informed consent, it’s THEIR penis.

More biology!

A hypothesis is needed to explain the findings of Laumann et al in the light of the known neurohistology. We suggest that a penis with foreskin and its full complement of neuroreceptors may make heterosexual coitus more satisfying, thereby making the man less likely to seek out alternate forms of stimulation. The only portion of the prepuce remaining in a man with surgically altered genitals is the remnant between the corona and the scar. While there are some fine-touch receptors in this tissue, the most sensitive portion of the prepuce at the tip is removed in even the most moderate circumcision.2 The remaining prepuce and any remaining portions of the frenulum can be preferentially stimulated by masturbation and oral sex, whereas the sensation of deep pressure dominates during hetero- sexual coitus. The imbalance from not having the input from the missing fine touch receptors may make the experience less satisfying, causing a man with an incomplete penis to supplement his sexual experiences with other forms of stimulation.

Explaining the risky sexual behaviors e.g. objecting to condom use. It doesn’t numb them, they’re already numb.

The only reason they want more oral, anal etc is to stimulate the remaining, tiny area of foreskin!

I wonder if the number of bisexual and gay men is lower in prevalence in intact men.

To date the effect of circumcision on sexual function has not been carefully studied. In rodent studies, removal of the prepuce resulted in marked changes in the mechanics of copulation,4 the hormonal response of the female partner, and aggressive behavior. In humans, behavioral alterations have been demonstrated in the pain response of circumcised infants.5 Unfortunately, studies of men circumcised as adults have had too few subjects or differences in sensation were not well documented. Testing penile vibratory thresholds has demonstrated that men experience increasing thresholds with age,

the penis does not age well

while those with premature ejaculation have low thresholds regardless of age.5 Application of this technique could be used to demonstrate if a sensation differences exists between circumcised and uncircumcised men.”

Other studies do now.

http://cirp.org/library/sex_function/fink1/

“Our findings may help urologists better counsel men undergoing circumcision as adults. Prospective studies are needed to better understand the relationship between circumcision and sexual function.”

Men deserve to know, informed consent.
This is based on a medically necessary population, not a NORMAL one – note.

Adult circumcision appears to result in worsened erectile function (p = 0.01), decreased penile sensitivity (p = 0.08), no change in sexual activity (p = 0.22) and improved satisfaction (p = 0.04). Of the men 50% reported benefits and 38% reported harm. Overall, 62% of men were satisfied with having been circumcised.”

They note in bold: “There was no clear sample of normal, healthy, intact men for comparison. Even so, thirty-eight percent of the circumcised men were dissatisfied with the results of their circumcision.”

It isn’t surprising you couldn’t find healthy adult men willing to chop off the most sensitive part of their manhood.

Hard sell.

Hughes: http://www.cirp.org/library/general/hughes/

“John G. Swadey, MD (New England Journal of Medicine, 1987) states that circumcised men show a “somewhat higher incidence of genital warts, nongonococcal urethritis and scabies.“”

Risky behaviour.

“Our survey suggests that there is a difference between the sexuality of the circumcised and uncircumcised male during his lifetime. It also suggests that the uncircumcised male has a more favorable sexual compatibility in his marriage.

During my experiences in medicine and surgery, occasionally there arose the question of circumcision and sexual compatibility. It seemed to me that the uncircumcised male had less of a problem in sexual compatibility.”

Sadly, he died before we could see his data.
Someone else, do the study!

Do circumcised men around the world also have higher divorce rates?
Easy to observe.

The UK, latest from newspaper article:

“The latest divorce figures, released last year, revealed the divorce rate for heterosexual couples in the UK was at a 45-year low, with 101,669 divorces of heterosexual couples in England and Wales.”
And we have low circumcision rates, mostly religious.

https://circumcision.org/how-male-circumcision-harms-women/

“With circumcised partners, women were less likely to have one or multiple vaginal orgasms, and their circumcised partners were more likely to have a premature ejaculation.”

Explains why American men complain their wife doesn’t enjoy sex. It’s them.

ED is the modern PC term for impotence. 

https://www.livescience.com/15750-erectile-dysfunction-sexual-problems.html

Half of all American men 40-70 have trouble finishing (delayed orgasm), isn’t that oddly close to the circumcision rate?

http://www.cirp.org/library/statistics/USA/
That is hardly getting better with age.
2011 study year-55 study age median = 1956
80% circumcised, of those born in hospitals.

Some good news.

“The new statistics showed a steep drop in the number of circumcisions performed in the United States.
The CDC data, reported by the New York Times, showed that the incidence of circumcision declined from 56 percent in 2006 to 32.5 percent in 2009. According to these statistics, non-circumcision or genital integrity has become the normal condition among newborn boys in the United States.”

Current circumcision rate 2006: 56.1%

Good news for men.

Other news from 2018

https://www.circinfo.org/news_2018.html

“A Federal judge in Detroit, Michigan, has ruled that the Federal United States law criminalising any form of female genital mutilation (FGM) is unconstitutional.”
“Critics have since pointed out that these observations are equally applicable to circumcision of boys and that there were also grounds for finding the FGM law unconstitutional in the basis that it denied equal treatment to males.”

They’re pushing FGM because male is considered legal.
Two wrongs do make a right?

It is thus perfectly obvious that circumcision does not significantly reduce a male’s risk of contracting an STD, and that organisations (such as the American Academy of Pediatrics and Centers for Disease Control itself) who identify prevention of STDs as the most important “benefit” of circumcision, do not know what they are talking about. There is in fact evidence going back to the 1850s that circumcised men are at greater risk of gonorrhoea and other urethral infections than men with normal genitalia. It may be that the foreskin acts as a barrier to the entry of certain pathogens.”

I wonder if circumcised men are likelier to carry super gonorrhea.

Seems like it.

A study of a rural community in South Africa has found that circumcised men generally are more likely to be infected with HIV, and that males circumcised in hospitals are 20 per cent more likely to be HIV positive than those left intact. Where 24 per cent of uncut men were found to be HIV positive, the incidence of HIV among males circumcised in hospitals was 31 per cent. These findings have come as a shock to the South African Medical authorities who have been following the orders of US and WHO health officials and “rolling out” the provision of mass circumcision as a response to the nation’s AIDS crisis. As the authors of the report comment ruefully, it seems that when it comes to the spread of HIV, anatomy is less important than behaviour – exactly what critics of the circumcision programs have been arguing for years. In fact, many other studies have found that in the real world there are many regions in Africa where there is little or no difference in the incidence of HIV infection between cut and uncut men, and that in quite a few places cut men are more likely to be HIV positive.”
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0201445

Don’t trust the WHO, they lie to you.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326040454_Factors_associated_with_early_deaths_following_neonatal_male_circumcision_in_the_United_States_2001-2010
A new study finds that in the United States approximately 20 neonatal deaths per year can be attributed to circumcision. Neonatal here means within the first 30 days of life, so the study does not count deaths that occur after the first month. This might seem a small figure in relation to the overall number of births, but what death rate would be acceptable for a medically unnecessary operation performed without the consent of the subject? The abstract of the paper follows.

Ooh, salty.

We sought to quantify early deaths following neonatal circumcision (same hospital admission) and to identify factors associated with such mortality. We performed a retrospective analysis of all patients who underwent circumcision while hospitalized during the first 30 days of life from 2001-2010 using the National Inpatient Sample (NIS). Over 10 years, 200 early deaths were recorded among 9,899,110 subjects (1 death per 49,166 circumcisions). Note: this figure should not be interpreted as causal but correlational: it may include both under-counting and over-counting of deaths attributable to circumcision. Compared to survivors, subjects who died following newborn circumcision were more likely to have associated co-morbid conditions, such as cardiac disease (OR: 697.8 [378.5-1286.6] p<0.001), coagulopathy (OR: 159.6 [95.6-266.2] p<0.001), fluid and electrolyte disorders (OR: 68.2 [49.1-94.6] p<0.001), or pulmonary circulatory disorders (OR: 169.5 [69.7-412.5] p<0.001). Recognizing these factors could inform clinical and parental decisions, potentially reducing associated risks.”

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2985419
“Permanent physical change” is also called disfigurement, in English.

“A recent judgment by a lower court in Germany brought the problem of ritual male circumcision to the consciousness of the wider public and legal academia. This essay weighs in on this emerging discussion and argues that ritual male circumcision is not covered by parental authority because it violates the human rights of the boy on whom it is imposed. It first considers and dismisses the best interest test of parental authority which, by focusing on the well-being of the child as opposed to his (future) autonomy, fails to take the boy’s human rights sufficiently into account. Instead, the essay proposes what it terms the autonomy conception of parental authority, according to which parental authority must be exercised such as to ensure that the child will become an autonomous adult. While parents may raise their child in line with their ethical, including religious, convictions, respect for his autonomy requires that this be done in a way that allows the child to later distance himself from these values; this implies, among other things, that irreversible physical changes are impermissible. This conclusion holds even if it could be assumed that the child would later come to endorse his circumcision: a proper understanding of autonomy implies that the religious sacrifice of a body part can only be authorised by the person whose body it is. Thus, ritual male circumcision is outside the scope of parental authority because it usurps the child’s right and responsibility to become the author of his own life.”

http://www.cuaj.ca/index.php/journal/article/view/5033/3371
“The statement is at pains to point out that the evidence as to the benefits and risks of circumcision is contradictory and inconclusive, and that much of it is of poor quality, especially studies claiming to show that circumcision has little impact on sexual sensation and function. The final conclusion is that while circumcision does offer some advantages, they are small, can be achieved by other, non-surgical means, and are outweighed by the risks and harms. This being the case, routine circumcision is not justified as a health measure and cannot be recommended.”

Very good news, their bold title:

… circumcision advocates have nowhere left to hide

The terms of the debate about non-therapeutic circumcision of minors have changed. The issue is no longer whether the so-called “benefits” outweigh the risks, or even whether the benefits outweigh the risks and harms. (As for the troglodytes who still mutter about pros and cons …) Coming on top of the judgement of a German court that circumcision is bodily harm and that it violates the child’s right to religious freedom, a leading legal philosopher now argues that boys have an inherent right not to be circumcised without medical need. In a paper forthcoming in Health Matrix, Stephen Munzer argues that current norms of autonomy and bodily integrity give male minors “a moral, anticipatory right-in-trust not to be circumcised without a medical indication.” Even more remarkably, it is now conceded by a prominent defender of religious/cultural circumcision that the practise is harmful and does violate the rights of the child. Writing in the Journal of Applied Philosophy, Joseph Mazor acknowledges the physical and moral harms of circumcision and admits that the child has “a right of moderate strength” not to be subjected to “presumably harmful circumcision”.

Both Munzer and Mazor go on to argue that, given the importance of circumcision within the cultural/religious communities that follow this tradition, the practice should not be criminalised.

You admit it’s abuse, fuck you.

Religious rape isn’t legal either.

This is a fair point, far less important than the vital concession that circumcision is harmful and does violate the rights of the child to bodily integrity, personal autonomy and an open future. The argument about these points is over; the debate now is whether non-therapeutic circumcision is or should be illegal.

You’d have to re-write all abuse laws, NO.

No means NO.

Stephen Munzer. Examining nontherapeutic circumcision. Health Matrix 28 (1) 2018: 1-77 (in press). Full text at SSRN.

Joseph Mazor. On the Strength of Children’s Right to Bodily Integrity: The Case of Circumcision. Journal of Applied Philosophy, on-line first, 24 May 2018.

Mazor https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/japp.12275
Munzer https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3180209

http://www.thewholenetwork.org/twn-news/does-circumcision-cause-erectile-dysfunction

The United States, a nation with 4.5% of the world’s population, consumes 47% of the world’s Viagra (Pfizer’s own figures). Turns out the same nation has been circumcising the majority of its male infants for generations.”
“A new study in the International Journal of Men’s Health shows that circumcised men have a 4.5 times greater chance of suffering from erectile dysfunction (ED) than intact men, revealing what appears to be a significant acquisition vector. Other studies have previously observed that circumcision’s damage results in worsened erectile functioning, inability to maintain an erection, and reducing the glans sensitivity, including an overall penis sensitivity reduction by 75%. A recent study discovered that premature ejaculation is five times more likely when adjusted for erectile dysfunction and circumcision.”

Full links in that article. It’s sickening how people try to justify this.

If the kid won’t get it done at 18, why does the parent want it done against their will?
That’s assault.

75% reduction study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17378847
5x ED more likely: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2011.02280.x/abstract

It also relates to alexithymia, a psychiatric condition
https://web.archive.org/web/20130831161657/http://www.mensstudies.com/content/2772r13175400432/?p=a7068101fbdd48819f10dd04dc1e19fb&pi=4

 Alexithymia in this population of adult men is statistically significant for having experienced circumcision trauma and for erectile dysfunction drug use.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/jul/24/male-circumcision-the-issue-that-ended-my-marriage
God doesn’t make mistakes, circumcision is offensive to God, if anything.

An idiot theorized in “Body Pleasure and the Origins of Violence”, that societal violence is caused by lack of pleasure, a theory so ridiculous if one only looks at Africa – highly sexual, high rape rate, high murder rate. It’s actually IQ. Sexual and violence behaviors differ according to standard IQ deviations, it is well known most violent criminals are less intelligent, yet highly promiscuous.

However, nations of high circumcision uptake do report more violence.

It’s also a proxy for low IQ, the practice of circumcision in countries predicts lower national IQ. I wonder if the circumcised are more likely to be low IQ, a correlation?

The UK used to circumcise more often until the NHS came along and didn’t allow doctors to charge for it, suddenly it ceased to be medically necessary!
The foreskin is the primary erogenous organ in men, the area in adults is 3×5 inches, with 50,000 nerve endings.
Minor circumcision is a human rights crisis.

http://www.salem-news.com/articles/august312012/circumcision-violence-rm.php

“In Norway, the only country that records the circumcision status of rapists, 2% of the population are circumcised and commit more than 80% of their rapes. And, since 1991 almost all wars involved one circumcised country with some conflicts between both factions being circumcised. This includes all USA conflicts since Vietnam.

Wouldn’t it be hilarious if religion had nothing to do with war, just circumcision?

No other statistical records are kept regarding the individual and social percentile circumcision status of serial killers or rapists. Yet, over 50% of rapes in Sweden are perpetrated by the minority of men who belong to circumcising cultures. Circumcision status may factor highly in the USA’s highest of all other country’s incarceration rate to population.”

“Original FBI’s Criminal Profilers who led the Behavioral Science Unit in Quantico, Virginia know circumcision is a factor in some serial killings and partly responsible for America’s generalized asocial violence.”
“It has been inferred Robert Ressler, in an off the record comment when interviewed by Mothering Magazine’s web-editor, related the fact that the FBI realizes circumcision is a factor in violence. He explained they do not mention this because they would be considered raving lunatics and lose their jobs. Robert Ressler coined the term Serial Killer.”

Same: http://www.academia.edu/7151881/Circumcision_Serial_Killing_and_Criminal_Behavior_in_American_Medical_Violence

“Serial killing as we know it today began in the last two decades of the 19th Century. – Robert Ressler, FBI.[2]”

Same time circumcision picked up. Complete coincidence.

Related: https://www.thelocal.no/20131112/norway-to-legislate-on-circumcision

I wonder why….

What about studies on white men?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21672947

Circumcision was associated with frequent orgasm difficulties in Danish men and with a range of frequent sexual difficulties in women, notably orgasm difficulties, dyspareunia and a sense of incomplete sexual needs fulfilment. Thorough examination of these matters in areas where male circumcision is more common is warranted.”

Crime and IQ

This is oddly missing but said
“In arguing that IQ is a significant cause of crime, the researchers cite studies to indicate that criminal populations generally have an average IQ of about 92, 8 points below the mean.”
https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/Abstract.aspx?id=183065

1929 paper:

https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2123&context=jclc

“Illustrative to a still further degree of the point made above concerning the ineffectualness of the present penal system are the results of a comparison of the percentages for recidivism with those for long-term sentences.

Losing the death penalty is a mistake.

As may be seen above, although 56.7% of offenders are recidivistic or habitual offenders and hence incorrigible in the main, as has been mentioned above, only 16% to 23% are serving long term sentences. This fact, then, signifies that the greater per cent of recidivists are serving terms of more or less brevity. That little benefit to society may be expected from such terms is not to be doubted since sentences of three to five and even ten years are without effect upon recidivistic offenders and possess value only by virtue of segregating the offender for a while and thus sparing society a greater or less number of crimes.3‘ At best, such sentences, in so far as recidivists are concerned, constitute nothing more than a flimsy makeshift in dealing with the problem of repeated criminality. In-deed, the statistics of crime as well as the teachings of history confirm the absolute inadequacy of the present system of punishments against crime.12

Especially is this so in regard to the feebleminded recidivists who are accountable for a full 25% of the entire problem of repeated criminality and whose deficiency of intelligence effectually and completely militates against any possibility of regeneration or correction. That penalties are established by statutes and are based wholly upon a consideration of the material act constitutes an actual social injury since society thereby derives a false sense of having adequately and securely provided against a danger.

Because men are NOT made equal, biologically.
They should study criminal’s children to be sure.

In reality, it has not, for the harm is merely postponed. Commitment to prison should be determined not by the nature of the offense but by the nature of the offender, 33 and with a view toward the causes of the delinquency, the effect upon the individual, and the moral prognosis.3 4 Only in this way may adequate social provision be made for the warped, deficient, defective, and unregenerate enemies of the social order.”

Prison doesn’t work.

We know now from MRI psychopaths and other types literally gain pleasure from other’s pain and experience no/less fear and a neutral response to appeals for mercy. Something biologically less humane requires other treatment.

page 14 on the pdf looks at crime type

Married men are less likely to be criminals (selected by women)?

“Accordingly, the assumption of the stabilizing influence of marriage appears well substantiated. Or, it may be that the fundamental constitution of the delinquent is of such a nature that he is frequently antagonistic toward the assumption and maintenance of marital duties and thus fails even to experience contact with any presumably stabilizing influences of marriage. At any rate, marriage, together with any of the beneficial influences it may exert upon the individual, is of markedly less frequent occurrence among criminal classes than among the general population”

R-types.

“That slightly over 50% of criminals, including even the low grade morons, are married with the consequently increased possibilities of the propagation of the species is somewhat disheartening.”

Er, why isn’t there a basic legal requirement of an IQ test to marry?
Low IQ people cannot consent. To prove they can consent.

“This equality of incidence is strongly suggestive that the criminally inclined nature, regardless of intellectual endowment, is fundamentally lacking in those personal and social requisites essential for the assumption and maintenance of marital duties. Or it may be that this marked prevalence of divorce indicates the failure of the stabilizing influences of marriage and home life because of the inherent instability of the criminal classes preventing the reception of any such benefits.”

Part of the reason bachelors are looked down on.

And divorced men.

“As it is, the percentages of actually disrupted marriages range from 29 for the low grade morons to 36% for the group of subnormal intelligence and 32% for the normal intelligence group. And when it is considered that 36% to 58% of the groups respectively are still within the age group of 21 to 30 years, it is reasonable to suppose that a contrasting of these percentages with figures for a like proportion of the geners1 population would render the above figures comparably much higher.
However, from a eugenical point of view as regards the propagation of the species, this high percentage of disrupted marriages is a most hopeful sign.”

Let idiots get divorced!

“It will be noted at once that the greater number of children and the greater number of families with children occur in the groups of deficient intelligence, particularly so in the low grade moron group. This is quite in accord with the findings of other investigators and the generally conceived opinion of the greater fecundity of the classes of deficient intelligence.61”

R-selection, lower quality per child.

And another investigation of the Harvard Graduates of 1894 revealed 20% without children, 13.1% with one child, 18.1% with two children, 22.5% with three children, and 25.5% with four or more children. 65
This makes an average of 2.44 children for each individual, a figure which gives the college bred man of Harvard the lead over even the low grade moron delinquent. Further, it has been estimated by Kehrer that the proportion of childless marriages for civilized countries ranges between 10% and 15%,”; which means that the ordinary middle-class citizen, taking the criminalistic and the college-bred classes as the extremes, bears the burden of restocking the population.”

I bet that isn’t true now, they think they’re too good to have kids!

And that explains dwindling IQ compared to the Victorians, the middle class were less intelligent and the upper class dropped the ball. The middle class only seem intelligent due to their education.

The above table shows clearly that the foreign-born stock does produce more than its due quota of our specified delinquents, especially so in regard to those of deficient intelligence. This is most marked regarding the low grade morons, where the foreign-born stock produces more than 235% of its due quota of offenders as determined by population ratios while the proportions for the other three groups ranges from 125% for the group of normal intelligence to 144% for the high grade feebleminded delinquents.

This finding is substantiated by the findings of the Immigration Commission of 1910.98 and also by Laughlin in his report to the Congressional Committee. 99 And similar findings have been reported by the Massachusetts Department of Corrections.'” In addition, Laughlin also found that the second generation of foreign stock had an increased crime incidence over and above that of foreign stock in general, probably because that generation represents the transitional stage between the discarding of the customs of the old country and the adopting of those of the new. Undoubtedly this fact accounts for a proportion of the increased percentages in the above table. Obviously then, there is an undeniable danger in the admission of unselected foreign stock, both from the aspect of their own undesirability and from the aspect of their reproduction of their kind. Hence, there is  an unquestionable and appealing need of a closer and more intelligent supervision of immigration, with more ample provision for the means of so doing.”

You lost the war.

You know you did.

A second consideration evident from the above table is the increase among offenders of individuals having one parent foreign-born and the other native-born. The percentages given above nearly double that for the general population. Various investigations have shown that there is a decided tendency for the home of mixed parental nativity to produce delinquents.”°

No, it’s because they’re mixed race.

That went off on a tangent but a potentially relevant one.

Link between mental health and ….bad health

The types of “health” are related, really? Shook over here.

If only there were a physical connection we could see like some kind of fleshy vehicle of testable units, a body of some description. No, we’re floating blobs of consciousness in a cloud of feels, aren’t we?

Mutation (genetic) load is true, at least somewhat but who dares to directly study it? Instead we are left with related variables.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3048500/

The lifespan of people with severe mental illness (SMI) is shorter compared to the general population. This excess mortality is mainly due to physical illness. We report prevalence rates of different physical illnesses as well as important individual lifestyle choices, side effects of psychotropic treatment and disparities in health care access, utilization and provision that contribute to these poor physical health outcomes.”

Detailed.

“Nutritional and metabolic diseases, cardiovascular diseases, viral diseases, respiratory tract diseases, musculoskeletal diseases, sexual dysfunction, pregnancy complications, stomatognathic diseases, and possibly obesity-related cancers are, compared to the general population, more prevalent among people with SMI.”

People with mental problems can’t take care of themselves, really?

Not to be harsh but, is this news?
I searched, not one mention of fitness.

Ability to reproduce (here it would be impotence for age in the male) and carry (childbearing without issue for age, the female) is a significant component of it (organism fitness, for the nerds at home).

https://www.age-of-the-sage.org/quotations/darwin_survival_fittest.html

“struggle for existence”, he repeated in description
the vindicated theme for this post

“Besides modifiable lifestyle factors and side effects of psychotropic medications, access to and quality of health care remains to be improved for individuals with SMI.”

#sigh

Enough of that for now.

And they’re exponentially more expensive.
https://www.healthcatalyst.com/understanding-risk-stratification-comorbidities/
I dislike this fact but…. the information is out there. We can’t help by lying.

There isn’t just one thing causing the “mental” disease and another separate thing causing the “bodily” disease.
It’s all genetic! At least, moderately genetic.
And remember I said exponential risk of suck?

“Charlson Comorbidity Measure: The Charlson model predicts the risk of one-year mortality for patients with a range of comorbid illnesses. Based on administrative data, the model uses the presence/absence of 17 comorbidity definitions and assigns patients a score from one to 20, with 20 being the more complex patients with multiple comorbid conditions. It is effective for predicting future poor outcomes. This method is explained in further detail below”

You cannot fight math. You will lose.

#struggle4life

poor outcomes = death, more or less

This is tough to read like the IQ link. I wouldn’t blame you skipping all this. You cannot unsee it.

“One thing all of these models have in common is that they are based, in some degree, on comorbidity. Understanding comorbid conditions is a critical aspect of population health management because comorbidities are known to significantly increase risk and cost. In fact, a study from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality reports that care for patients with comorbid chronic conditions costs up to seven times as much as care for those with only one chronic condition.”

Twice the condition can be seven times the cost. I’ll leave you to think about that.
Is this systemic injustice?
No!
The body is complex, various conditions interact with one another. Not killing the patient by accident due to Condition B to treat Condition A needs time and more research and more money!

https://www.rwjf.org/en/library/research/2011/02/mental-disorders-and-medical-comorbidity.html

“Expenditures and gaps in health care delivery are not evenly distributed across the population, however. To improve health care quality and reduce costs, policy-makers must focus on particular subgroups who are at greatest risk. Persons with mental health and medical comorbidities represent just such a population.”
“The pathways causing comorbidity of mental and medical disorders are complex and bidirectional.

What I said.

Medical disorders may lead to mental disorders, mental conditions may place a person at risk for certain medical disorders, and mental and medical disorders may share risk factors

Yup.

It’s all healthcare, people!

ALL OF IT.

For instance, low IQ can also ’cause’ someone to more likely get heart disease.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-heart-intelligence/low-intelligence-among-top-heart-health-risks-study-idUSTRE61903L20100210

Here’s a clunker of a line.

“When mental and medical conditions co-occur, the combination is associated with elevated symptom burden, functional impairment, decreased length and quality of life, and increased health care costs.”

This upsets me. Just world is a fallacy.

Bear in mind the IQ/depression link in the last post:

“At the same time, major depression is a risk factor for developing chronic conditions, such as cardiovascular disease.”

If the economy is making people of a certain IQ band effectively useless, they’re going to be depressed.
Especially if “their” jobs owed by their home country are outsourced to visa people.

“Exposure to adverse childhood experiences such as trauma, abuse, and chronic stress are all associated with both mental and medical disorders, and responsible for much of the high rates of comorbidity, burden of illness, and premature death associated with chronic illness.”

It’s sad. It’s sad to read about. That is a harrowing existence.

But stress shouldn’t be lumped in with trauma and abuse.

“Many of the most common treatments for diseases may actually worsen the comorbid condition.”

You tell me where the solution is because I don’t see it.

A society of hospital patients (don’t forget aging demographics).

Over to Oz.
http://www.health.gov.au/internet/publications/publishing.nsf/Content/mental-pubs-m-mhaust2-toc~mental-pubs-m-mhaust2-hig~mental-pubs-m-mhaust2-hig-men
Mental disorders were more common among people with chronic physical conditions (28.0%) when compared to people who did not have a chronic physical condition (17.6%).
The data is usually out there. Tough to find but present.

Another!

Click to access 109-117.pdf

This article briefly reviews the associations
among alcohol dependence, major depressive disorder, and
posttraumatic stress disorder. Dysregulation of the brain’s and
body’s stress system (i.e., the limbic–hypothalamic–
pituitary–adrenal axis) might serve as a common mechanistic
link to explain some of the relationships among these
frequently comorbid conditions. Finally, the article examines
the role of sex differences in stress circuitry. These differences
may explain why men and women differ in their risk for
developing comorbid alcoholism and stress ­related disorders.”

Addictions play into it too, because of course they do.

And you can’t really blame sexism for an individual’s brain circuitry.

Let’s look at one more substance and how it alters development (i.e. when children/teens/young adults use it).

An interaction of marijuana and low IQ they won’t study so here’s something odd.

Click to access 2017-aas.pdf


“Psychotic patients who used cannabis frequently before illness onset have higher genetic predisposition to schizophrenia than those who did not”
“Our study supports an association between high SZ-PGRS and frequent cannabis use before illness onset
in psychosis continuum disorders.”

Before someone points to this classic arse-covering exercise,
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/01/twins-study-finds-no-evidence-marijuana-lowers-iq-teens
I linked because you wanted info on school shooters and pot use is a major factor.
Naturally the drug use wouldn’t change IQ because the IQ is the causative factor in having a childhood addiction problem.
However the study compares ongoing users to abstaining, not ongoing addicts to a twin who never did the stuff, there is no control group, making this link pointless so don’t try to send me it. I’ve seen it.

When the brain is developing, there is a permanent loss of functioning.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/travisbradberry/2015/02/10/new-study-shows-smoking-pot-permanently-lowers-iq/

And abnormal function. Like with any drug to any developing organ.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/10/161005160733.htm

For the ‘self-medication’ lie:
“The use of marijuana did not correct the brain function deficits of depression, and in some regions made them worse.”

“Of additional interest, those participants who used marijuana from a young age had highly abnormal brain function in areas related to visuo-spatial processing, memory, self-referential activity and reward processing.”
No, they cannot perceive themselves accurately.

This whole drug study in children (<25) thing is like breaking someone’s kneecaps with a baseball bat and wondering why they can’t sprint. You wouldn’t give them alcohol and tobacco, why give them anything else that’s an addictive drug and think it’s fine? Why not nice and “natural” opioids next?

[ I googled this as a joke and fuck you, America.
nytimes.com/2018/05/09/magazine/children-of-the-opioid-epidemic.html
axialhealthcare.com/opioid-use-safety-children/
druggy parent trash pushing it on the kids? That’s low. ]

Why not the ankles too? Why not?

I firmly believe some of these kids have the misfortune that their parents are their worst enemy in life.

Anyway.

“The study found that early marijuana use was also associated with lower IQ scores.”

Associated. Which first? The lower IQ or child drug abuse?

“With past research suggesting a genetic role between marijuana use and depression, Dr. Osuch and her collaborators at Western University’s Robarts Research Institute also conducted genetic testing on participants. They discovered that a certain genetic variation of the gene that produces Brain Derived Neurotropic Factor (BDNF) was found in greater proportion in youth who used marijuana from an early age. BDNF is involved in brain development and memory, among other processes.

Could be a race-based finding, unclear.

“This is a novel finding that suggests this genetic variation may predispose youth to early marijuana use,” said Dr. Osuch.”

So how many of you heard about it in the MSM?

Funny how they trust none of the political news but all the scientism rationalizing living like a CA Democrat member.

It doesn’t have to be good universally for you to do it, like smoking tobacco, just admit it can be bad for society and move on. Denial of biology makes it more annoying and a full ban more likely. Shaming normal people for being “squares” is what all druggies do including alcoholics.

Why link that here?

What would drug use increase, in the organism? Mutation rate. The genetic load (whatever it was) becomes heavier. So to do that before reproducing, knowing the adverse effects, the child/ren will be worse off as well. So much for “doing no harm” and “victimless crime”. Eventually parents will be sued by their children for bad lifestyle habits that damaged their personal genome (and their children’s genome etc). It’s coming.

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/10/15/lawyers_unaware_children_can_sue_parents_for_support.html

https://abcnews.go.com/US/adult-children-sue-mom-bad-parent/story?id=14407409

https://worldnewsdailyreport.com/red-haired-teen-sues-his-parents-for-2m-for-being-born-ginger/

I warned you, cannot unsee it.

The tolerant Left takes up Inglourious cosplay

It was fiction.

I saw a random comment that said the Left see us as paper villains in their play where they’re the star, they don’t think we can think or react. Self-defense is still a law, especially for someone who purchased a weapon especially to beat you. The average fitness level of anti-fa is hilarious. They get winded after 1-3 flights of stairs.

An explanation for people who don’t bother with sports and hate themselves.

These people can’t play frisbee, they fumble and lack the hand-eye coordination, I seen it. I thought I was bad.
They can’t even play rounders, the older British baseball, played by children.
I have an old aluminium baseball bat somewhere, a lot of us have random sports equipment because we aren’t lazy fatarses – you know why I don’t use it? They’re hollow, they dent easier than a new sportscar. They’re useless. Aside from battery with a weapon at the very least, probably more like ABH or GBH with intent, serious prison time, a wooden baseball bat or ideally cricket bat is what any sporty chap would select. These people even fail at picking weapons. That’s just sad.

top comment
“You forgot the brown shirts to go with it, otherwise, how are you going to recognise who are the nazis who need beating and who are on your side?
Alternatively, you could force them to wear an armband with a swastika on it and tattoo a number on them?”

Boat shoes? Skater shoes? What in tar-nations is the traction on those things?

Aquinas on Mohammed and Islam

Weakness, decadence, high time preference.

https://www.tfpstudentaction.org/resources/forgotten-truths/what-saint-thomas-aquinas-says-about-mohammed-and-islam

It justifies their sins of lust and bloodlust.
It’s successful among them because it gives them an excuse for the differences HBD elucidates.

Meanwhile, Christianity isn’t soft.
https://www.tfpstudentaction.org/resources/forgotten-truths/charity-does-not-justify-compromise-1
“holy indignation” nice

First comes the dehumanization, then the violence

Monstering is really the trendy term for dehumanization.

The soft bully that cries out as it strikes you.

http://www.anonymousconservative.com/blog/the-left-turns-violent-over-milo/

Yeah, the Nazi narrative is actually a prelude to incite murder.

“Notice the amygdala shielding, through dehumanizing the opposition as Nazis, so they can even be killed, with no moral consequence. History rhymes when it doesn’t repeat.”

The stories they spread, the lies they tell.

“During the English Civil War, roving bands of soldiers would come up to your house and ask, “Who are you for?”, you had to answer “the King” or “Parliament”, and if it was the wrong answer, they shot you.”
Those were the daaays. #jazzhands#

“As with Occupy Wall Street, liberal big-city mayors will eventually get tired of these antics and lock up anyone with weird piercings, ear gauges, faggy tattoos, wacky hair cuts and colors, and stupid clothes. When you’ve been a narcissistic attention whore your whole life, it’s hard to just blend in and act normal.”
Signalling works against you in a civil war.

“One needs to be full stealth now. Even with moderate and sane members of the left I still speak and act like I did not support Trump, dislike him now and voted for Hillary. The reason is that normal people with good values that we usually try to win over have their own social groups which intersect with nutcases. …Additionally, do not talk politics with other supposed conservatives as there are too many varieties and I am noticing that some seem to feel people out like they are gathering info. This is a game of cat and mouse.”
Yes, they want registration before they kill us. This is the research phase, Communists have done this before.

“I’m not sure what’s out there anymore, but it’s prudent to assume that it’s crazed, fanatical, illogical, evil and coming closer.”
Why else get along with terrorists? Birds of a feather, manic together. I bet if you took the blood sample of a rioter it’d be comparable to a drug high.

The SJWs are speeding up with their plans, sensing the demise of their ideology.

Old white man beaten for voting

Nothing quite encapsulates the modern state of politics quite like beating up an elderly white gentleman for exercising his civic duty.

Man severely beaten by mob shouting ‘You voted Trump’

Gentle, tolerant, diverse, vibrant blacks, remember.
Reminds me of the noble savage trope, in fact.

Where’s Will Smith pretending to be magic when you need him? His big ears will distract from any hurt feelings.

drinking lol glad that's not my problem haha

Why aren’t they releasing the names like they do every time it’s someone white?

Abuse, rage and SJWs

Minor points. I saw a woman having a particular problem and this is an expanded version of what I told her.
Rage is a choice to hurt others because one’s feelings are hurt in a perceived slight. There is no such thing as ‘out of control’, you are not possessed. We may feel an urge to jump off a cliff, but it’s just an urge.

SJWs are not offended, they are outraged. Narcissistic rage, to be precise. If Trigglypuff were a 300-pound MMA fighter, would her tantrums be harmless? Funny? This is not funny, whoever exhibits this behaviour. It is very serious. Even children are capable of crime up to murder. This should be mocked but not tolerated and never considered harmless. It’s antisocial behaviour. It’s verbal abuse and all sorts of other related things, including intimidation, an attempt to control by threats (in this case, to lose their rag).

It is entirely conscious, and in fact, planned.
They plan to do these things, and hence, when thwarted, seek revenge.
Common sense: You don’t seek revenge for accidents.

First stop: gaslighting the victim into thinking they’re abusive for reacting with boundaries. Called playing victim. It’s a version of playing dumb. It’s a bluff in poker terms. Turns into a game of Who Started It, as if that justifies any form of abusive behaviour (no, never). They are children emotionally. Do not pity them, do not help them. In fact, it’s healthier to punish them but by omission, cutting them out. Get the police involved, narcissists despise authority. Cut off supply, get justice the honest way afterward. Stop them victimizing others but do not gossip. Best done by law enforcement. This isn’t school, you need to snitch.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/traversing-the-inner-terrain/201205/is-rage-choice

The violent toward those they claim to love cannot express love. They may not even feel it (psychopaths). They can feel relief from control over something external to compensate for their weakness, the power dynamic they ‘confuse’ for love, and also call their inner issues a matter of external cause (e.g. you made me hit you for misbehaving, as if they’re your parent instead of an equal). Rage is a red flag to do something. Before civilization, this meant killing the threat. We are not like other animals. We all have control, this cannot be denied. If you are an adult and have the privileges, like driving and voting, you have duties too. There is no excuse for abuse.

If they deny their agency with excuses, they belong in an asylum because obviously, they cannot take care of themselves and present a danger to themselves and others. 

Repeated provocations are common so they have a legal defense. Report these people for provocation and watch them run for the hills. I’ll bet there’s a long list of people with similar complaints, seek them out and file together.

Don’t play parent, you are not responsible for such people. They are adults. They need to stop leaning on other people and check themselves into some therapy. If they refuse therapy, it’s just another ploy to keep control.

There is no such thing as Magically Disappearing Agency. It doesn’t fluctuate, it’s there or not. Either you are responsible for ALL of what you do, or you should be in State Custody, in therapy or prison.

I thought I’d post this quick one before I go.

Link: The K workers are rejecting the r shiftless

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-02-18/tech-exec-outraged-having-see-homeless-riff-raff-warns-revolution

They’re (Guardian) trying to spin this as greed or hatred. As if homeless people are always victims of circumstance (like murderers and rapists, oh my). Holding them to a lesser standard of agency is the true prejudice.

It’s actually fear and resentment at their being handed things, including exemption from the law and including the use of the land they, in many cases, own/rent themselves.

If someone dangerous on drugs was camped out on your lawn and menacing your loved ones, you’d be concerned too.

“yelling, screaming, yelling about cocaine, and even, attempted to pull his pants down and show his genitals.

Finally, last night Valentines, I was at Kabuki Theater inside watching a movie. …My girlfriend was terrified and myself and many people ran out of the theater.

What are you going to do to address this problem? The residents of this amazing city no longer feel safe. I know people are frustrated about gentrification happening in the city, but the reality is, we live in a free market society. The wealthy working people have earned their right to live in the city. They went out, got an education, work hard, and earned it. I shouldn’t have to worry about being accosted. I shouldn’t have to see the pain, struggle, and despair of homeless people to and from my way to work every day. I want my parents when they come visit to have a great experience, and enjoy this special place.

I am telling you, there is going to be a revolution. People on both sides are frustrated, and you can sense the anger. The city needs to tackle this problem head on, it can no longer ignore it and let people do whatever they want in the city. I don’t have a magic solution… It is a very difficult and complex situation, but somehow during Super Bowl, almost all of the homeless and riff raff seem to up and vanish. I’m willing to bet that was not a coincidence. Money and political pressure can make change. So it is time to start making progress, or we as citizens will make a change in leadership and elect new officials who can.”

Sympathy runs out when you break the law. Squatting, harassment and public nuisance.

This is primal, this is high IQ and low time preference against low IQ and high time preference.

This will not go away.

The anti-spanking initiative is r-selected

Disclaimer: I came into this topic with an open mind and I was shocked by what I found.

Before we begin: We all know social science is indoctrinated by liberal bias (9/10 hiring decisions come on), so any parenting finding they present as untouchable requires as much doubt as global warming.

Before someone goes there, I hate to say it, but I doubt Stefan Molyneux knows psych data better than a guy who worked at the APA. Having data doesn’t mean shit, it’s the quality of the data. He keeps going on about this topic in a smug self-satisfied way with reference to simplistic philosophy over the scientific method as it applies here (they do differ substantially as we’ll see) and it irritated my amygdala enough to play Devil’s Advocate and see where the data took me.

I mean, if you watch that video I linked he even committed an ad hominem attack to anyone who disagrees and the psychogenetic fallacy, as well as the fallacy of dismissal and others. You’d be triggered too.

“In a meta-analysis of 26 studies, Larzelere and a colleague found that an approach they described as “conditional spanking” led to greater reductions in child defiance or anti-social behavior than 10 of 13 alternative discipline techniques, including reasoning, removal of privileges and time out
from http://www.apa.org/monitor/2012/04/spanking.aspx

ummmm drinking oh dear no uh oh tyrion game of thrones drinking

THE FORBIDDEN FINDING. I could just leave it there, tbh. It’s tempting.

They refuse to control the data (confounds) properly because it would prove them wrong, that’s why the methods are dodgy. If you look at plenty of pro-liberal social studies (at least 90% of them presumably, going by hiring for research posts), the statistics are distorted to match public policy recommendations, making the studies themselves post-hoc and invalid. It’s justification for social engineering, not real science.

As in many areas of science, some researchers disagree about the validity of the studies on physical punishment. Robert Larzelere, PhD, an Oklahoma State University professor who studies parental discipline, was a member of the APA task force who issued his own minority report because he disagreed with the scientific basis of the task force recommendations. While he agrees that parents should reduce their use of physical punishment, he says most of the cited studies are correlational and don’t show a causal link between physical punishment and long-term negative effects for children.

Translation: he thinks they’re filthy liars so he showed them up with a real study (hence the meta-analysis method, the gold standard) and they have no genuine reply to this, it’s hilarious. He went on to explain their flaws too, because he’s savage.

Little known fact: You do have to prove causation. Before you start lecturing people. They cannot. What does that say? Well, what does proof involves? Statistical control of confounds, which they refuse to do for some strange reason. The same way behaviourists refuse to control for genetics in their studies, while saying out the other side of their mouths that it wouldn’t change their significant findings if they did….

This is why social science isn’t yet a real science. These people. Who ‘can’t’ do maths.

“The studies do not discriminate well between non-abusive and overly severe types of corporal punishment,” Larzelere says. “You get worse outcomes from corporal punishment than from alternative disciplinary techniques only when it is used more severely or as the primary discipline tactic.”

Such obscurity is always deliberate. Part of p-hacking. Heard of that reproducibility crisis?
Liberals see all forms of physical punishment as ‘too much’. To them, it’s all ‘abusive’, like disagreeing with a black guy is ‘racist’ or a gay man refusing to shag a woman is ‘sexist’. Well technically, theoretically speaking, but really no. Not in the real world. Where the data lives.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15898303

This meta-analysis investigates differences between the effect sizes of physical punishment and alternative disciplinary tactics for child outcomes in 26 qualifying studies. Analyzing differences in effect sizes reduces systematic biases and emphasizes direct comparisons between the disciplinary tactics that parents have to select among. The results indicated that effect sizes significantly favored conditional spanking over 10 of 13 alternative disciplinary tactics for reducing child noncompliance or antisocial behavior. Customary physical punishment yielded effect sizes equal to alternative tactics, except for one large study favoring physical punishment. Only overly severe or predominant use of physical punishment compared unfavorably with alternative disciplinary tactics. The discussion highlights the need for better discriminations between effective and counterproductive use of disciplinary punishment in general.

But the other researchers don’t want the truth. They can’t handle the truth. It’s black and white thinking from them on this subject. All bad, or all good, unlike literally any other human behaviour known to mankind. Did I mention another reason for its hot-potato status is racial differences?

Our results indicate that adolescents who perceive that their parents use an authoritative parenting style, regardless of their race, are less likely to engage in health-risk behaviors than adolescents who perceive that their parents use an authoritarian, permissive, or uninvolved parenting style. Conversely, in this study adolescents of all races who characterize their parents as uninvolved are more vulnerable to engaging in health-risk behaviors. The effects of the authoritarian and permissive parenting styles differ by race. In relation to the other parenting styles, the authoritarian style is more protective for Black adolescents than it is for White adolescents; while, the permissive style is more protective for White adolescents than it is for Black adolescents. The permissive parenting style and the authoritarian parenting style appear to have an equal effect on health-risk behaviors in Hispanic teens. source

TLDR: So being anti-authoritarian is actually racist.

hmm uhuh o rlly really ah sure thing

Don’t expect them to crack it anytime soon. Money’s on it being mediated by MAO genes. And if personality is innate after a certain point and we should accept this and tolerate differences, is it reasonable to ask people to change? Weren’t they Born This Way?

This whole debate, all this is a ruse that relates back to Authoritarianism, also called a parenting style but actually a political invention by Adorno, a personality metric to call conservatives mentally ill. It’s basically a medical label of prejudice. Adorno was an avowed Communist who worked as part of the Frankfurt School. Seriously, look it up.

No literally, he tried to make up a hodge-podge theory calling conservatives mentally ill. It’s quite funny how overtly biased he was.

http://www.simplypsychology.org/personality-theories.html#adorno

Case studies, e.g. Nazis

They piloted and developed a questionnaire, which they called the F-scale (F for fascism).

Those with an authoritarian personality tended to be:

• Hostile to those who are of inferior status, but obedient of people with high status [DS: hierarchical]

• Fairly rigid in their opinions and beliefs [DS: aka closed to manipulation attempts]

• Conventional, upholding traditional values

Liberals did political psychology before we did. They started it.

laughing rdj crack up

Despite how;

Still, the authors concluded that the authoritative parenting style is protective in regards to adolescent drug use, both concurrently and longitudinally (Adalbjarnardottir & Hafsteinsson, 2001). source

So it works. Literally, it works. The majority of their argument against is futile.

The whole idea of parenting styles is a joke. You know what the data shows? The still-conservative one called authoritative is the best for life outcomes. Do they follow outcomes for types of discipline? No, not really, and especially not the least-popular parenting ‘style’, permissive (lazy). Why wouldn’t liberals want to study that?

Little mentioned is the damage of the permissive (liberal) parenting style. Why? Well, it’s hardly ever researched and commented upon.

Parental permissiveness or indulgence was also associated with increased adolescent alcohol and tobacco use(22,23,27). source

Adolescents who described their mother as using a permissive parenting style were more likely to demonstrate a tendency to anticipate a more violent response to the hypothetical situation. [same source]

Sounds healthy. Mentally.

Parenting style is like learning style, it pathologizes natural differences for political gain around a kernel of truth. Mental illness is not a political pawn, nor should it be used as one. But again, which wing started that?

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/mental-illness-is-not-a-political-issue/17600#.VqR5n_mLTZ4

There is also a big difference between genuinely seeking to end unjust discrimination against those who suffer from severe mental-health issues, and making out that we’re all secretly a little bit mentally ill.

Is it to help people, as best as we can, to live normal lives? Or is it an attempt to medicalise further normal aspects of everyday life?

Casually diagnosing a misbehaving child with mental problems, such as anxiety or depression, is the equivalent of a get-out clause.

Girl crush.

We all know overdiagnosis is a problem, mathematically, as the majority (mentally healthy) cannot be the minority (mentally unhealthy) in a Medical Model. What type of person over-diagnoses or self-diagnoses?

http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1566&context=lcp

Corporal punishment is usually correlated with behavior problems such as antisocial behavior and aggression.24 But correlation does not equal causation. What is open to dispute are the causal influences that explain those correlations. Making valid causal conclusions from correlations involving corrective actions is especially problematic, for correlations are biased against corrective actions, a problem known as the intervention selection bias.25 This selection bias occurs because of the poorer prognosis of those selected for the corrective action compared to the better prognosis of those not needing the corrective action.

aka Stefan is wrong.
And bad kids get disciplined more, they were bad to begin with. I love how nobody asks about psychopaths either. Like evil people pop into existence at age 18. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_James_Bulger

However, all kinds of nonphysical punishment also predicted higher antisocial behavior with the same controls.

Woops. That’s not to suppose to happen, is it, Stefan?

all predicted significantly higher subsequent hyperactivity, whereas physical punishment did not, β = .03, n.s. Therefore, the strongest causal evidence against customary spanking is not unique to spanking, but applies as much to most corrective actions, including most corrective disciplinary actions by parents and corrective interventions by psychotherapists.

That’s the sound of a hypothesis dying. Like a whale.
I don’t blame him for being a pacifist though. Being Canadian.
If the therapists are harming children, where’s your moral beacon?

In sum, the strongest causally relevant evidence against customary spanking yields small, apparently detrimental effects that can easily be due to a combination of several substantive and methodological factors that bias the results. Consistent with this, the first studies to use the same research methods for alternative disciplinary tactics showed similar results for corrective actions by both parents and professionals. In evaluating corrective actions by clinical psychologists, this type of evidence would not even be considered and would definitely not override the causally conclusive evidence that spanking can be effective for enforcing nonphysical disciplinary tactics, even in the most clinically defiant two- to six-year-olds.154

*crickets*

Under Conclusion.

Spanking must be understood in the broader context of the appropriate exercise of parental authority. Numerous studies have shown the superior effectiveness of authoritative parenting, especially compared with the extremes of authoritarian and permissive parenting.174 We have recently extended that evidence by documenting that ten-year child outcomes vary greatly by these preschool parenting patterns.175

Calling a parent a Nazi is pretty extreme, yes.

The use of normative spanking did not distinguish authoritative parents from other parenting patterns, although it was used more by authoritarian parents than by permissive parents. We think that authoritative parenting can be implemented by some parents without the use of any spanking, but we have no evidence of that from our study, as all authoritative parents used spanking at least occasionally.

As this alludes, hippies still spank their kids, they just lie about it. Getting the child to lie for them could be considered a form of abuse too, if you want to play that game.

There’s a load of duh conservative wisdom too before I move on.

Spanking should never be used in an infant’s first twelve months of life and rarely, if at all, before eighteen months of age. Parents should make sure their children know that any corrective discipline, including spanking, is motivated by love and concern for them. Parents must also be certain not to administer punishment too severely, whether physical or nonphysical. Finally, all punishment should be used in such a way that reduces the need to use it in the future. Every child is different, so not all disciplinary tactics will work as well with every child—or for every situation with the same child.

Parental authority figure. Authoritative role assumption. Duh?

Authoritarian should actually be called Tyrant. If the labelling system were culturally honest and followed, I dunno, the definition of English words?
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english-thesaurus/authoritarian

I was doing some pondering over this topic and the neurobiology that must be involved and came up with a pie-in-the-sky opinion theory. Since I’ve already established the direction the empirical evidence has headed, I wanna freestyle it to finish.

Wall of text incoming.

I was reading about the findings on spanking, and it seems to be r-types self-selecting for narcissism. As in, they don’t develop empathy, which is based on pain (all kinds) and physically structured by mirror neurons. For an example of how this pertains to modern issues, such impaired ‘theory of mind’ (low empathy) is implicated in Borderline Personality. From what I know of the brain, spanking would actively change the child’s personality (an unstudied effect, a remarkable gap in the research despite the known origin of spanking research -parenting style- being based in the personality of the parents) and this change would aim to make the child more socially humble and deferential, respecting of hierarchy, such as parental authority, (like the spanking parents themselves, making spanking a cultural meme and untouchable by liberals on this basis) and such traits are something we know to be actively K-selected. I even thought of a mechanism, most parents who spank only start once the child is of around pre-school age, wandering curious age, at the exact time of great neural pruning. What most people don’t know is that neural pruning can be triggered and directed by experiences of pain, and once those connections are gone, they’re dead forever. Pruning is vital for healthy brain development, and may be a hidden environmental factor (really epigenetic) in childhood development.
By refusing to admit any positive effects from spanking whatsoever (impossible in social science), they admit their bias, because at that exact time biologically in the child’s development, mild physical pain, no different morally than controlled exposure hand-ice studies conducted by psychologists themselves, would cause neural pruning of the decisive connections which led to that antisocial behaviour. It causes a rewiring of the brain for prosociality during the ‘window of opportunity’.
In the ‘social science’, they’ve tried to argue that spanking causes sociopathy but the genetics show there is a predisposition, so what, pray tell geniuses, is a parent supposed to do if they find their kid lighting fires? How are they supposed to discipline the child they found torturing cats or trying to kill their little sister by pushing her down the stairs? They have no answer for this, because their entire anti-scientific premise rests on All Child Are Innocent Angels Incapable of Wrongdoing, something any parent will tell you is BS. The number of abusive children is rising.
What is the social engineer’s answer to this? Does the parent require less protection, when the child is often below the age of criminal responsibility? One of the expert-given causes for such abuse is “lack of consequences for bad behavior”, what do you think that might mean? As for solutions: “There are no agencies or programs that protect parents from abusive children, adolescents or teenagers other than giving up their Parental Rights to the state they live in.” So it seems the case that if the parents refuse to use physical force altogether, the child might take the newly imbalanced power dynamic (game theory) as carte blanche and abuse the parent. Such sunny optimism as you see with the anti-spanking witch hunts fail to recognize this, despite their supposed stance against all abuse and violence. It irritates their amygdala, you see, making them ignore it. Like a child screaming in a supermarket. They’re That Parent.
If a parenting style fails to apply to all children (and you don’t know who’s pathological until they’ve killed the family cat), it fails and one cannot advise parents to undertake it in good conscience. Children are capable of great evil and not just the sociopathic ones (from ignorance, bad peer influence, genetic bequeath or sheer stupidity). If you ask real parents anecdotally, (bear in mind liberals avoid having children making their opinion dubious since they admit to hating kids in general) they’ll draw a connection between late Gen Y/ early Gen Z and NARCISSISM. Aka part of the Dark Triad. Why weren’t those connections pruned, compared to earlier generations? Many parents would say the anti-spanking initiative, and wouldn’t you know it, that generation is coincidentally the most heavily liberal known to mankind. They respect nothing and feel invincible, literally as if nothing could really harm them? ‘Import rapists? Sure! They would never hurt me!’ It would be a like a cultural version of Toxoplasmosis infection, because they speak from ignorance. Their brains are immature, but that isn’t an excuse, they aren’t insane and know logically right from wrong, and arguably that makes it worse. They follow their feelings knowing it’s wrong, the polar opposite of what the advocates of prohibition say should happen!

It’s widely recognized the rise in child narcissism is due to the Self Esteem Movement, but what caused the SEM? What new behaviours from parents, since it’s novel in children? Non-parenting parents. Genetic parents, who fail to take up the social role.

nonparents

Source: The Narcissism Epidemic: Living in the Age of Entitlement

I’ll just paste this off wikipedia because I’m lazy.

A study conducted by Jean Decety and colleagues at the University of Chicago demonstrated that subjects with aggressive conduct disorder elicit atypical empathic responses to viewing others in pain.[89] Subjects with conduct disorder were at least as responsive as controls to the pain of others, but unlike controls, subjects with conduct disorder showed strong and specific activation of the amygdala and ventral striatum (areas that enable a general arousing effect of reward), yet impaired activation of the neural regions involved in self-regulation and metacognition (including moral reasoning), in addition to diminished processing between the amygdala and the prefrontal cortex.[89]

Absence of punishment rewards bad behaviour. They don’t learn to control themselves and cannot morally reason, the thing the anti-spanking people rely on as the bulk of their proposition.

What appears to be pathological altruism is in fact a weakened threat recognition system, and surely it’s better to teach a child the meaning of pain and suffering in a controlled environment than wait for it to metastasize in a potentially lethal way? None of the studies, though persuasive, account for these factors. Reasoning with a bad child doesn’t work. Some children are bad, where do they think bad adults come from? They pop into existence at age 18? Why even have clinical child psychology if no intervention could ever have changed them? What are good parents of a bad egg supposed to do? Pray? Cos that’s about as reasonable as ‘reasoning’ with them – humans are not logical animals. If it won’t work on adults (Israel/Palestine, anyone?) it certainly won’t work on a toddler. We have to teach classical logic and formal laws of maths when they’re at school, far too late, the superego/conscience is already formed, so expecting them to get it earlier on or as a baby is frankly retarded. So while I hate to say it, I’m forced to conclude that spanking is justifiable in certain conditions of very bad behaviour (especially criminal) and during the window of life phase time (childhood stage) it might be corrected for. A little bad does us good, in the long term? This is the low time preference view, which is, wouldn’t you know it, the preserve of conservatives. I call it the Eustress Hypothesis.

TLDR: Fear is something you learn and liberals haven’t.

Also, I find it funny liberals don’t believe in IQ unless they’re citing spanking studies, then negligible IQ drops are totally a real thing and a huge deal (unlike IQ drops from smoking pot, which are rounding errors apparently). 5 points of difference for example could be caused by anything, it was raining today so when the kid took the IQ test again he was sad? Education boosts IQ far more than spanking supposedly drops it, so what’s the problem? If we’re playing the IQ maths game? Does it take pointing out the obvious by twisting it the other way to make the faulty reasoning clear? Did they control for parental investment (extraneous variable) or what? No, they did not. This includes reading to them and other at-home education (itself a sign of parental IQ – another confound!). The IQ difference within this study doesn’t even remain over time, in the older age group, the difference is a stonking 2.8 IQ points! Wow! At which point they stopped measuring or failed to report on the data, which isn’t odd… To clue you in on how valid this widely cited dataset is, the guy who conducted it is a sociologist. Not even a child psychologist or anything psychologist (they tend to use different methodologies, different assumptions and much weaker statistics).

According to PC dogma, even yelling isn’t allowed now. So no form of discipline is acceptable to them, the r-types. Why yelling? It causes shame and apparently no child should ever feel shame for anything. http://jezebel.com/if-yelling-at-kids-is-as-harmful-as-spanking-what-the-1455310255

Gee, which political wing hates being ‘shamed’?

Different from guilt, which is too generic and makes them neurotic and indecisive as adults. Like Catholics.

I don’t expect liberals to avoid confirmation bias, we wouldn’t want them to be triggered by facts, would we? However, I expect better from the Alt Right. Quit taking tips on aggression from a non-scientist Canadian philosopher. Quit bothering me with assumptions that his proofs are correct when the internet is right there and you should use it. Topic covered? Can we drop it now?

I don't have anything funny to say about this