When I’m not jacking off to porn, I’m thinking about truth and lies. Truth and lies consume my daily existence, and I think about them nonstop. My brain is constantly stewing over epistemology, the nature of reality, and all related topics. The biggest questions that remain in my mind, however, are really of the epistemological persuasion: why do some people understand specific truths, while some people do not? It is quite heartbreaking, especially when it comes to some topics. It depresses me to think about the ignorance in the world, especially when it comes to potentially dangerous issues. It saddens me and makes me wish I could end it all like the flip of a switch. The fact that I can’t do this depresses me. But I know for a fact that my purpose in life is to think about how we understand the truths and why people do not, and I will do this work throughout my life, with, obviously, doing other various things that I also wish to do.
So besides my lack of understanding as far as why we are stupid and not omnipotent, especially when it comes to incredibly disastrous areas of our lives, the next thing that I focus on besides stupidity is downright liars. I disrespect liars more than anyone else in the world, and people that intentionally and compulsively lie, I believe, have a special spot in Hell. These people destroy the lives of those that aren’t as smart as others, and although I’m usually not going to be the best friend of an idiot, it’s still enraging to have these liars and manipulators manipulate people that aren’t smart enough to see through their bullshit. These people have no place in my life, and it is my wish that I explain to people the disasters that liars create, as well as figuring out truths and helping other people understand them for themselves. The day that I can stop doing this is the day that I can leave this earth.
So with that being said, I want to say a couple of things about circumcision that should be obvious, unless you fit into one of the aforementioned categories.
It is not necessarily my attempt to get as many people as possible to understand this, although in a way, it is. I’m not going to go door to door, telling people not to circumcise their kids. Because I don’t like going door to door. Likewise, I’m not going to go to other people’s profiles and comment about this. That is not my style. My style is to write a piece and then share it in various ways, but not in specific other ways. My hope is that the ideas within all of my pieces are substantial enough for people to want to share, and thus that is how I (and I would say most) people view marketing of whatever product it is that they have to offer.
So the most obvious reason for circumcision is because of religion. I’m not going to fully explain my views about religion here, but I will provide you with a link here so that you can read various things that I’ve written about religion if you so wish.
So because religion is usually the backdrop for why people support circumcision, please read this first, then read the entire Christianity category if you are so inclined if you wish to understand more of my beliefs about Christianity, and then, I believe, you will have a better understanding for my position on circumcision.
Sadly, liars and stupid people make debates where there should obviously be none, and usually, stupid people are the only ones that believe these arguments, so, sadly, there is a circumcision “debate”. Therefore, most people have heard various “sides” and believe that all sides have valid points. However, I am skeptical of some of these “sides”, for similar reasons that I am skeptical of other “sides” of related arguments: particularly, “scientific” arguments.
This is true in economics, politics, and even religion: the belief that all beliefs are created equally. This is insanity and an injustice to what is actually good, and which is part of the reason why ignorant people and liars depress me so much: they manipulate good and place destruction as its substitute.
Sadly, most people do not use logic on a daily basis. Most people are not capable of understanding various logical arguments, and manipulations are all over the place. It really emphasizes the tragedy of stupidity and liars. It makes objective comprehension downright impossible, and it, sadly, devalues objectivity altogether by suggesting things such as “objectivity is impossible” or “objectivity doesn’t exist.” This disregard of and lack of respect for objectivity is a gigantic basis of many problems that humanity encounters today, and it leaves a depressed taste in my mouth on a regular basis. Understanding the value of objectivity is the first step towards truth, and humans cannot take actions, wishing for various outcomes, if they do not know the truth. Therefore, stupidity and liars make taking beneficial outcomes incredibly difficult, and in fact, most of the time, they do the exact opposite, and that makes me livid every time it occurs to me. There is a gigantic logic problem in the world, and it combines with other problems, such as religion, politics, and economics, and really leaves a rather hopeless and bleak picture for the future of humanity: all because people don’t understand objectivity, or they downright deny its existence altogether, and destruction can be the only result when you ignore truths and do your own agendas which attempt to downright deny it.
The value of objectivity simply cannot be understated, and this is why epistemology (the study of how we know what we know) cannot be underemphasized. Epistemology can tell someone “How do you know you are right?” Think of how often you think that yourself, and how often other people ask that question. “How do you know that your side is right?” That’s the nature of epistemology, and that’s why it, as well as objectivity, are so incredibly important. Because those two things can answer all of the various questions that that question of “How do you know you are right?” can ask. And because of all of the various implications of an answer, I value truth more than I value anything else in my life, and that is why I, likewise, loathe liars more than anyone else in my life. It stresses me out to think of how to explain epistemology to people (how we know what we know), because I know they will ask me this, and it is a valid question, but often, I don’t have a good answer for them: at least not one that they will accept, and even as I say that, I know that someone will ask “Well how do you know that what you believe is correct?”, and the questions pile on, stressing me out, when all I want to do is explain to people the value of objectivity, which I’m doing now, and also want to find things that are objective for myself, and then, once I have them, I want to figure out how to share them with others because of their value, and that is the most difficult task for me. Sadly, we have begun to emphasize “beliefs” instead of “truths”, and it has invaded every single area of our lives where we have begun to run around blindly, encountering problems that could easily be solved, all because of liars and ignorance (but particularly liars).
With that being said, I honestly do not have a good answer for you as to “how I know what I know” (or how anyone “knows what they know”, for that matter (epistemology)), but it will be my attempt in this lifetime to explain to people the fact that objectivity exists, and then do my best to explain why it exists that way, and how we utilize it for our advantage, and then, from there, I just have to let go and leave people to their own devices, while not stressing out about other people’s choices, regardless of how destructive they could be (and that is the most discouraging thing about all of this).
So, I suppose, allow me to introduce you to the first concept that I think is important, and that is “a priori knowledge”, or “knowledge without prior experience.” A priori and a posteriori are very important concepts to understand, because these two concepts are the concepts that make up all of the modern world: these two concepts are the foundations for all things that occur in the world, which have followed the logical conclusions of these two concepts.
A priori knowledge is very difficult for me to explain, but I will attempt to do so anyway. A good way to explain it is to use a word where the definition of said word is obvious; I’ll use an example from Wikipedia just to make it easier: “All bachelors are unmarried.” The definition of a “bachelor” is that he is “unmarried”: otherwise, he would not be called a “bachelor.” This definition is a word used to describe a very obvious concept: that of being “unmarried.” We are able to comprehend this concept of being “unmarried”, and thus we have comprehension of an objective concept: being “unmarried” has realities that being “married” does not have, although I think that most examples that people give of this have flaws in them. Regardless, it is easy to understand that “all bachelors are unmarried” because we can comprehend the idea of “marriage” and “bachelorhood.” In fact, it is impossible to test this, and it is downright pointless to do so: we do not need to go around asking all bachelors if they are unmarried, because the nature of being a bachelor is being unmarried. This is “a priori” knowledge: we do not need to test it out; it is self-evident, and, in fact, it is impossible to test because it is self evident. To test it out would be to “test out” whether all blue things were blue: of course they are. It is self-evident, and does not need to be tested (this doesn’t mean various shades of blue, or color-blindness, etc.). It is very obvious that what is blue is blue (if something is blue, then it is blue is a “logical” statement, of which we can comprehend the objective truth of), and it is obvious that if someone tried to explain to you that something blue was not blue, then either they are ignorant, they are purposely lying to you, or there is some kind of cute scientific technicality, such as “blue things on a computer screen really have some green in them as well, which is not pure blue.” All of these various examples should be obvious to you, as I cannot simplify this anymore than I previously had.
So, therefore, we understand a priori knowledge and we understand how logic branches off from this a priori knowledge.
Now, let’s jump right into foreskin for a bit.
Even if we have not done any testing of any claims whatsoever, we must understand that the foreskin has nerve endings in it. Anyone who denies this is, as I have said many times, a liar or ignorant. The foreskin is not like a fingernail, where if you touch it, you don’t have nerves inside of your fingernail, but rather the parts of your finger that are attached to the fingernail. The foreskin is not a fingernail. It is not cartilage. We can use both a priori knowledge and a posteriori knowledge to figure this out: why would the penis, the center of male sexual pleasure, have, at the very tip of it, no sexual pleasure whatsoever at the tip of it? Why would the foreskin be like cartilage if it is part of the penis? Why would there be no good sexual feelings in the foreskin? Obviously, no one can make an argument that the foreskin has no nerve endings in it (although someone actually tried to do this to me just recently, putting them either in the “ignorant” or the “liar” category (and I’m leaning more towards “liar”)). If the foreskin had no nerve endings in it, then babies would not cry when it was cut off of them, as you can see here (yes, it is very graphic, but people need to see exactly what it is they are doing to their children instead of becoming detached from it and mystifying it instead of understanding its reality).
Of course, using a posteriori knowledge, we can say that if the foreskin did not have any nerve endings in it that the baby would not start crying louder when it was cut off than when the baby was crying before it was cut off. The baby will not start crying louder when its foreskin is cut off simply because it is hungrier than it was before the foreskin was cut off. It is obvious that the baby is crying because of the pain felt, and because pain is felt, there must be nerve endings in it. The fact that I have to explain this to people is depressing, and it’s depressing because of all of the implications that ignorant people and liars are doing to our children: irrevocable harm, which they support for various “reasons” that ignore the most basic, obvious truths. You don’t have to have a foreskin to know that the foreskin has nerve endings in it. If the penis is a sexual organ, and sexual organs feel pleasure, and the foreskin is part of the sexual organ, it must feel pleasure. Otherwise, it would not be a sexual organ and it would not be attached to other parts of your sexual organs. This is a priori knowledge: it is obvious that all that is attached to the penis receives sexual pleasure. That is one of the natures of the sexual organs: they receive pleasure, i.e. they have nerve endings in them. Someone arguing differently fits into one of the two camps that I despise.
Regardless of whatever arguments are made for circumcision, it must be obvious that they have nerve endings in them, both because of a posteriori knowlege where we can see babies crying more so after it is cut off than before it was cut off, and also a priori because we understand that if the penis is a sexual organ, and sexual organs feel pleasure, and pleasure comes from nerve endings, that the foreskin must have nerve endings in it, even if an individual does not have a foreskin. You don’t have to have a foreskin to know that it has nerves in it which give pleasure: it is obvious, a priori because of the logical steps that if the penis is a sexual organ, sexual organs are pleasure centers, and pleasure centers have nerves, that the foreskin must have nerves in it. Once again, people that argue the opposite of this are either ignorant or liars, which are the worst forms of people on this planet because of the destruction they cause, either intentionally or unintentionally.
Now, lets look at some of the arguments for circumcision, and then we will conclude. One of the arguments is for “cleanliness.” Once again, we can use both a priori and a posteriori knowledge to explain how this would work: first of all, things that are inside of the body cannot be “cleaned” with soap and water: the heart, the liver, etc. Things that are on the outside of the body, however, can be cleaned. Our hair is cleaned, our hands are cleaned, our assholes, balls and vaginas are cleaned. The foreskin is on the outside of the body: therefore, it can also easily be cleaned. Also, it isn’t that difficult to imagine pulling your foreskin back and washing it. It is incredibly simple, so, once again, someone that says that “cleaning your foreskin is difficult” is a liar.
Of course, if one has phimosis, it may be difficult. However, whether or not one has phimosis, the foreskin should still not be permanently cut off of someone without them giving consent. Just because children can’t make decisions for themselves does not mean that some decisions should be made for them: a baby can’t decide whether or not it wants to keep its arms or not, but if someone advocated cutting off a baby’s arms for religious reasons, or for “cleanliness”, or for another reason, there would be outrage. Why? Sure, it would be nice if the baby did have two arms, and sure, he was born that way. But what if I gave you religious justification for why it shouldn’t be so? Some might say that the arms are more “practical” than the foreskin, but why do we value practicality? Why is it so important for things to be “practical“? An obvious answer is that it helps out the child’s quality of life, and will for the rest of his life, and it will make him happy throughout. This exact same reasoning applies to foreskin: if it will make the child happy throughout his life (much like the arm will, and the practicality of keeping an arm instead of cutting it off is that it will help the child out, and thus will make him happy, so if happiness is the goal, then happiness should also be enough justification for him keeping his foreskin), then he should have the right to also keep it.
In conclusion, the main reason that people are against foreskin is for religious reasons, which I have discussed in articles linked above, and of which I am not going to attempt to “convince” anyone of objectively any more so than I already have in those articles. This fact does not change any of the obvious, logical conclusions of having a foreskin, simply because I do not want to explain to someone why God actually exists, and why some of the things that they do to please Him are not objectively correct. Just because I do not want to explain to someone how nuclear fusion in the sun works does not mean that the nuclear fusion is not working. And, as I have said, religion is one of those areas that have been said has no objective answers, and that all people’s opinions are correct, but this just simply isn’t the case, and if you want to read what I have written about religion, please click on this link.
It is not my attempt to “convert” anyone, nor to “save” anyone.
It is my attempt to be objective and to explain things as accurately and objectively as I can, also lining that up with what I want to do and not doing what I don’t want to do, and then from there, I’ll continue what I want to do, and this does not mean being a door-to-door teacher where I try to “teach” everyone or “convert” everyone or “spend copious amounts of time with every single student to make sure that they reach their absolute best potential.” None of these are my goals. My goals are to do this for myself: to figure out things for myself, and to write them because I enjoy to write. My goal is not to save the world, and my goal is not to help people out, although that is an added benefit. My goal is to simply think for myself, learn for myself, understand for myself, and write for myself because it is enjoyable to me, even though the nature of writing is that other people read it as well and experience various things because of it.