It's weekend time, which means I finally have some real time on my hands. Before I begin with the content, I feel the need to explain in much greater detail why I'll be doing these here. As stated in the profile, I've been swamped at work and the last thing I want to do when I get back home is make YT videos & waste more time tackling the same fallout over and over.
Secondly, Gary (inmendham/DoNotGod/massive cunt) has stated boldly that my "claim to fame" on YT is now going to consist of making videos against him, as those types of videos are always going to, with ease, attract legions of his detractors. Nevermind the fact that it was Gary who made video after video ragging on my content and psycho-analyzing me for it, initiating this "war" as he calls it, to the point where I had to respond; That not withstanding, I'll still refrain from doing another YT video against him, mainly because I don't want to get subscribers through that "weak-ass" method. In addition to this, I'm of the opinion that Gary needs to be ignored on YT altogether, primarily due to some of his argumentation tactics, which I'll get into later. And unlike Gary, when I say "I'm not going to have a conversation with a total jackass" I don't casually proceed to make video after video responding to that jackass. No, I actually end up doing what I initially say that I'm going to do, and that's "not have more conversations with the jackass". Consistency, imagine that. As for his psycho-analysis of my intent, here's the breakdown: My last 3 YT videos dealt with the subject of circumcision. In addition to the 3 "official" response videos I received from him, Gary has also made numerous other rambling style critiques in some of his throwaway walk-talk videos and in his WTFs as well. He has also been randomly invoking this subject into his other videos which are completely unrelated to circumcision. Basically, I have spent about 26 minutes of my overall video time talking about circumcision, totaling up in only 2 and a half videos. Gary has spent hours upon hours of his overall video time talking about circumcision, totaling up in so many videos that I've long lost track. But we're the aggressors here?! We're the insecure petty weasels?! Truth is, unlike Gary, I have the utmost disdain for redundancy, and I'm not about to do a 4th video in a row discussing the same topic, especially when 95% of the people who commented already "get it" and the few who have supported infant circumcision make stunningly simplistic arguments such as "I'm cut and I like sex, so what's your problem?". Oh right, Gary has made the same argument too. After all the video time he's put into it (at least 5 times more than I have) he still keeps stressing that "It's a stupid subject". That remark right there is a clear sign of someone who is utterly incapable of the least bit of self-analysis and self-control, since that's all it would have taken for him to, for a split second, pause and ask himself "So why am I talking about it so much then?". But of course, no such introspection cropped up in his mind. So what do you think will happen if I were to do another video? You think Gary is going to ignore it, seeing as how it's a "trivial" subject? Hell no. He'll likely do another hour long video response, and probably another hour long video on the comment sections, related videos, etc... in which he'll say more crap that I'll end up feeling the need to respond to. It will never end. Also, if I were to put this on YT, I'd have to make it a full-on 5 Parter since I've got the 11 minute restriction to work with, whereas Gary just posts his 50+ minute 2nd parts on his own site and he's done. So since he has the benefit of his own website, I'll use this blog site as an equalizer, for now at least. So no wise cracks about the location of this content. I have more than adequately explained the logic behind this move, and if this is retreating, then so is his constant use of his own damn site. If I had a video site of my own where I could upload videos exceeding 11 minutes in length, and have unlimited free time in which I to make them, that'd be a different story. Now, on to his bullshit arguments:
He starts out distorting my sidebar, saying that in it I wrote that he has blocked me. I wrote no such thing and the sidebar is still there for all to see. My sidebar remarked on his obliviousness concerning what he said in his WTF, compared to how he behaved after watching my BTW. Here's the sidebar:
"I also wanted to mention that in his WTF, Gary psycho-analyzed those who unsubbed him over this issue. He speculated that they may have done so due to some possible deep-seeded insecurity they have stemming from all of them knowing that Gary is actually right in his counter-argumentation. This was just so funny, since he went ahead and unsubbed me over this exact issue only HOURS after making this point, after he heard my counter-argument. So by his logic, the unsub = insecurity rule applies to him as well. I'm not bringing this up because I care about being unsubbed, I'm doing it because it was just a classic example of someone committing the exact same act he finger wagged others for while being completely oblivious to how the same applies to him. What a guy! Now behold as he blocks me, as if I give a fuck."
I didn't say he already blocked me, and he damn well knows it. I said he likely would, and that's exactly what he did, despite the fact that I didn't meet any of his blocking criteria. But that's irrelevant, since I don't care about being blocked. My "blocked" apathy is made blatantly obvious by the fact that I never put my videos in his (or anyone else's) face by attaching them. I also hardly ever commented on his videos anyway. When I did comment, it was never to argue. So I threw his own conclusion that "This excessive crap proves you're all insecure" straight in his own face. His attempt to make it seem as if I lied about being blocked, at a time when I actually wasn't blocked, was a desperate attempt at a distraction.
Also at the beginning, he accurately describes the context behind our previous interactions, none of which stemmed from any kind of a social motive. This was my favorite part of his video, as it was the most accurate. I'm mentioning this here because I saw a comment saying "Maybe ABM is just as depressed over all of this?". I'm not. Irritated at having to once again refute the ravings of a knee-jerk reactionary shithead? Yes. Depressed over no longer being on civil terms with him? No.
He delves into another redundant and overly dramatic insistence that mutilation is excessive rhetoric when used to describe circumcision. He calls me a fundie propagandist over it. I laugh, recalling his unhinged extreme stances on certain issues, along with his arguments typically being fueled with the type of rhetorical weaponry that would make even the world's most eloquent apologists for bullshit hang their heads in shame. He reads the definitions of mutilation that I provided in the sidebar. The definitions specify deliberate cutting off of a vital part. He denies that foreskin is a vital part, because circumcised men can still function, in more ways than one. It's not about the capacity to perform in bed though, it never was. Demonstrating his ignorance more than ever now, he says that foreskin is just as useful when it comes to contributing to sexual pleasure as eyelashes are, deeming both equally dispensable. Now, we all know that there is no set list specifying vital body parts from superfluous ones. Many would view eyes as a vital body part, but by Gary's own logic, any person who has been blind since birth can still get by, given that the experience of sight is one which the subject's brain never got accustomed to in the 1st place. Blindness should therefore not be seen as a burden, as it's the only state of being to which the subject is accustomed. How could we have been so foolish to pity those without sight? They're just like anyone else! In reality, if we are to follow the logical dots connected by anyone who discounts the necessity of 20K nerve endings, on account of mental gymnastics corresponding to the ones above, we would have to acknowledge that in the case of eyes (or any other arbitrarily defined "vital" part of the human anatomy), the persisting functionality of the individual, regardless of his or her lack of eyesight, would render sight itself as unnecessary, as evidenced by the plethora of human beings who lead comfortable lives without ever having experienced eyesight. So by show of hands, how many here would therefore remove your infant's eyes, if eyes were known to develop "cheese" (instead of just plain crumbs) as a result of poor hygiene? The analogy will seem excessive to those who view RIC as the norm or as an open ended question, but of course, the above demonstrates just how fitting it truly is. Meanwhile, Gary brings up tattoos and piercings in further attempt to discredit the mutilation rhetoric, all the while failing to realize that in the case of both tattoos and piercings, nothing is removed. Epic fail on that one.
Then there's the "to physically harm as to impair use" definition. This again deals with the function served by the 20K nerve endings in the pleasure department. He keeps asking for evidence of this, and at the same time keeps deleting the evidence. All the comments containing useful information from profoundly non-propagandist sites where he can find this, in great detail, have been deleted from his comment section. Who's the propagandist again? So instead of tutoring him, I suggest that he look into his own damn YT inbox to find the evidence he keeps clamoring for, since plenty of people have gone above & beyond to educate him, only to get blocked and called propagandists for it, with their efforts wiped out from his page. But to those who do accept the empirical data that can be found on sites that are still up on my video comment sections (can't post links here - Update: Now I can) it's easy to see how the definitions of what mutilation is, do fit the crime.
He says he's not arguing for circumcision, but that "There's a decision to be made here and it can only be made by the parents". Ergo, he's arguing for the enablement of all infants to be subject to the possibility of RIC; A surgery that no secular medical organization endorses today, as far as perfectly healthy infants go. He says there are doctors and psychologists claiming it's the right thing to do. There are religious doctors who endorse it, yes, but credible psychologists? Names please? And on the basis of what exactly? Their scripture? Unaccessible hygiene products? Myths? What?
And sex-therapists endorse it apparently? They have SEX-therapists now?! Do people actually go to those? It's bad enough that anyone believes a plain old regular therapist can solve another person's convoluted life problems because of some degree acquired through an institution that simply cannot fathom the intricacies of every individual psychology, but a sex-therapist?! No folks, don't talk to the people familiar with you and your history, go pay a guy in a neat suit, a pen and a pad to talk to you instead. Sum up the entire context of your issue in a total 10 hours worth of sessions, and let the nuance-free advice roll. He'll know you better than you've gotten to know yourself through a lifetime of being you. That's just how broken you are, "10 hours > Lifetime" level of broken.
Moving on, he says that most infants cut in America over the last 40 years were not cut for religious purposes, but given the overwhelming majority of Christians in America and the utter lack of familiarity they have towards their scripture of choice, I'd say that religious motivations play a role here. All too often we see examples of American Christians' inability to separate the old testament from the one they espouse belief in. They're clueless, but still obedient in the process.
He then says that masturbation with foreskin is "noisy" and results in "skin flying all over the place". Even more stunning ignorance out of Gary, asserted loudly and proudly. He says "It's important for what? It has no physical functionality anymore". Really? Here is one of the many useful pieces of commentary that can be found on the sites which Gary has deleted the comments pointing to:
"British Journal of Urology 99 (4), 864-869,
Vol 99 Issue 4 Page 864, Apr 2007
Circumcision removes the most sensitive part of a man's penis. Sorrells & others enlisted 159 men, 91 of them circumcised, & conducted touch-sensitivity tests, on 11-17 different places on their penises. The transitional region from the external to the internal foreskin is more sensitive than the most sensitive region of the circumcised penis. The five most sensitive areas of the penis are on the foreskin."
Keeps asking for evidence, keeps deleting comments containing evidence. Calls evidence propaganda, calls doctors with whom he disagrees propagandists. If they're for RIC, then they're legit doctors. If they're against it, they're "flaky coocs". Again, who exactly is propagandizing here?
He brings up baby sentience, and as a result criticizes those who are pro-reproduction. Obviously I'm not pro-reproduction of any sort, but as far as the abortion line goes, I oppose 3rd trimester abortion because all studies indicate that pain can be sensed around this stage of the pregnancy. If the woman insists on it though, then obviously I still oppose any law which would prevent her from going through with the abortion, unless she's due in a week or such. Regardless, newborns do feel pain, and that's precisely why, during RICs in developed nations, anesthesia is used for every RIC. Someone should probably ask Gary why medical professionals insist on wasting anesthesia on "non-sentient" infants. However even with anesthesia, every circumcision that I've witnessed (and I've seen plenty) resulted in the infant starting to scream at a discomforting level, from the very moment the operation commences until the bitter end. Not before, but during.
The most disturbing part of Gary's argument is his insistence that pushing a 3 year old to the ground causes no harm as long as the 3 year old sees that our follow up reaction to pushing him/her is one which contains laughter and smiles. So now 3 year olds apparently don't feel physical pain either? Gary's dismissal of the pain factor is tantamount to science denial.
He lumps me into his hater club because I ragged on him for tucking his entire video away on his site. He says it was done because it went 21 minutes and he didn't want to snipe it in half. Fair enough, and I'll retract my chickenshit accusation, but he sure as hell seems to have no issues snipping all his other videos at the 11 minute mark, and uploading the rest on his site. Why was this one the exception? He's been "doing business" with YT again for a long time, so it's certainly not that boycott crap again. He does go on to mention that he didn't want to deal with people's bullshit comments by putting the video on YT. So yeah.
When I brought up him not getting that many comments on the site video, I did so because I was showing how perhaps the videos on this subject don't have to carry on forever, since he isn't swaying many people (or anyone). He took this as some sort of a shot at him not getting many comments in general, and said that he didn't get that many because he blocked damn near everyone who commented on YT the 1st time around. This excuse was unnecessary, but also fails to make sense on top of that, since he only blocked those 150 YT channels on his DoNoTGod/inmendham YT accounts, and on not his website.
He says "Yeah right" and eye rolls while playing the part of my video in which I explain why I'm not playing his video, and am instead only paraphrasing him. So apparently, not playing a 22 minute video, the same video that also plays 10 minutes of my BTW video, is supposed to be viewed as some sort of a cop-out? And this is what he's going to call a fair debating method? Get real. I'm not about to make a 90 minute video, which plays his parts, which play my parts during his parts. It's inane, end of.
He played the part of my video in which I'm just pointing out that I always gave him the final say in previous debates. He took this as an invitation to argue one of those old subjects again. While doing that, on the subject of "Knowledge should determine the merit of vote", he attempts to justify his accusation that I want to take entire votes away from ignorant voters, by basically saying that ignorance and minorities go hand in hand, and as a result so does poverty. No Gary, ignorance and laziness goes hand in hand. He brings up blacks in general. Why? It's the 21st Century, every person in America has the opportunity to educate themselves if they wish. They don't all have the opportunity to become the next Gates of Buffett, but they do have the opportunity to gain enough knowledge needed to score damn near perfect on a test of basic proportions. You can't turn around in today's America without information at your display. So no, blacks wouldn't automatically lose 90% of their collective vote as a result of my proposed merging of democracy with meritocracy, and Gary being so confident that they would is very revealing of his lack of confidence when it comes to the innate intelligence of Blacks. This is not a minority rights issue. People of all colors are raised in poverty, and have been since the dawn of time. On top of that, being raised in poverty in no way prevents a human being from remembering what the candidate they want to vote for would do once in office, since the whole campaigning thing is kinda hard to miss, regardless of how little money you make at work. I'm not asking people of low income to go to Harvard for fuck's sake. I'm asking them to find out where their candidate stands on things like foreign policy, before voting him or her in. In the event that the candidate in question has a flip-floppy voting record, voters should especially familiarize themselves with that as well. And no, Voter A scoring 95% on the test does not itself in any way shape the vote of Voter B. The only thing that shapes the vote of Voter B is Voter B's own score. This is basic school grade mechanics stuff, and Gary is confusing it with racially motivated "win or lose" competition. Just baffling.
He says that we're against circumcision because we're all about the natural state. He even used the word "holistic" in his last WTF (where he just had to rag on it some more). Oh yes, I'm all about the holistic movement. I'll be the ring leader if appointed by all my phantasmagorical subscribers. Apparently I have a raging boner for Evolution now. Forget all the rants, all the suffering sucks lectures I gave, forget all that. No, I believe that Evolution always gets it right. Why? Because I believe that Evolution doesn't always get it wrong. This is the kind of simplistic, black and white thinking that Gary draws his counter-arguments from. It has already been pointed by me out twice, both in the BTW and in the last video, that I obviously don't give a shit about what's natural. Sadly, Gary truly is incapable of comprehending how mine and everyone else's contentions on RIC can be completely unrelated to what they're being painted out to be in his videos. They're unrelated to nature worship because they deal with the right to one's own body; one of the most fundamental conditions built into the social contract.
Pretending that being conditioned into eating meat, or learning to play the piano, or playing catch with dad, or merely wearing clothes; Pretending that having any of those norms imposed on you by your parents is anywhere near the same levels of intrusiveness as having an unnecessary irreversible operation performed on you as an infant, reeks of utter desperation. I'd like to think that his bogus analogies were not taken seriously by anyone, including RIC enthusiasts, as they belong in a league of their own, since they revolve around activities which can actually be given up. You cannot give up circumcision, not unless you try foreskin restoration surgery, but even then you're not at 100% in terms of sensation.
He keeps asserting over and over that it's a decision parents have to make, because "There's no way that the decision is going to be made by the individual once he reaches adulthood... no fucking way!". This only reinforces the anti-RIC argument. Yes, in roughly 99% of the cases, it won't take place during adulthood. This is because circumcision is an unnecessary, harmful surgery. How is it a tragedy then, if it doesn't take place later on? It's not. At least not to anyone other than brainwashed RIC nuts who've been led to believe that intact men leave a trail of cheese behind them everywhere they go. Except, of course, that Gary admitted to purposely using the cheese rhetoric as a way to strike back against the mutilation rhetoric. So here he actually admits that he's willing to say things he knows are untrue, just because he has contempt for the rhetoric of his opposition. Very revealing, again.
As for the approximate 1% of cases in which circumcision does take place during adulthood, I've already mentioned in videos that there have been tons of comments on YT alone from guys stating that they've had it done as adults and got accustomed to it. Gary's response to this was that getting "accustomed" to it isn't good enough, and they have to be without foreskin effective from 10 days after birth, if they are to truly enjoy the circumcised state. So first there was the celibate excuse, then he just kept saying "No way is anyone gonna do it later! No way is anyone gonna do it later!" and now that we see how there are those who actually make the decision to do it later, and they go through with it without regretting it, it's still not good enough for him and the choice must remain with the parents, regardless of how ignorant the parents may be (and we statistically know they are). If he's going to use the argument from parents, he must at least concede that he is not for the right to choose, as the choice must pertain to the patient, not the "owners" of the patient. His arguments have nothing to do with choices. Nothing.
And finally, the argument from "there are greater things to worry about". And sure, there are. This is precisely why I haven't done a circumcision video in well over a year after uploading videos to YT. I did bring it up recently, in what was supposed to be one 11 minute video, and nothing more. It was Gary who turned it into a pandoras box, and it was Gary who has in the process lost another chunk of the little support he had left on YT. If there are so many better things to worry about, why did he get so angry about it? The same can be said about the DMCA. How many videos has he done on that? He even said that his friends who disagree with him on the DMCA should just stay quiet. Well Gary certainly didn't feel like staying quiet when in came to the issue of RIC. So why the double standard? We know why, it's obvious. Because Gary views himself as being on a higher level playing field compared to everyone else on YT, and tragically, he doesn't even realize it.
So I say to oojamaflipper, who didn't take too long to crawl right back up to Gary with excessive pleasantries in order to compensate for that one video he made against him, and to the few remaining supporters of Gary's who will undoubtedly stick by him no matter what, because they share his core philosophy, I say to all of you; Have fun with that, but you're on a redundant ride to nowhere, and the ticket price just skyrocketed.
Thanks for reading, and sorry about the ridiculous length.