Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
Post by LoveLuckLaughter on Mar 12, 2014 2:05:33 GMT -5
At any rate. I am sorry you've had tough times. I would remind you, we all have. We have all lost people to medicine, to poor genes, to unfortunate life events, to cancer. We here have all lost children, husbands, wives, mothers, fathers. Your pain, which comes out in your posts, is not experienced alone. Hopefully you can find some bright spots and see the good in all forms of treatments, traditional, and non-traditional, as they will always work for some, and not for others. Discouraging people from trying what may be available is perhaps not the answer, as those who could be helped may avoid such treatments. Life is bigger and more complicated than meets the eye.
We're all a mess of paradoxes. Believing in things we know can't be true. We walk around carrying feelings too complicated and contradictory to express. But when it all becomes too big, and words aren't enough to help get it all out, there's always music.
We're all a mess of paradoxes. Believing in things we know can't be true. We walk around carrying feelings too complicated and contradictory to express. But when it all becomes too big, and words aren't enough to help get it all out, there's always music.
And I was speaking from the viewpoint of alt medicine, cannabis, Chinese herbs, food as medicine, positive thoughts lowering cortisol etc. The masses do not understand the difference between homeopathy and alt medicine. These lines have become blurred. And unfortunately, your initial post was full of a tone that suggests a very myopic view of the world. And the truth be told, life is not as black and white as it seems you wish to believe.
I would never lump a real, non-traditional treatment with homeopathy. Homeopathy is literally the belief that "like cures like" and that massive dilutions (to the point where a pill no longer contains a single atom of active ingredient) can cause an effect in the body.
Cannabis is not an "alternative medicine" in the same sense as homeopathy. It's prescribed by doctors in states where it is legal. Cannabis used to be restricted from legitimate medical research for the exact reasons I stated in my initial post, the practitioner system. Doctors were instructed that it had no legitimate medical purpose, and therefore they continued to propagate that belief. It took scientific researchers studying the endocannabinoid system to bring about a change in belief. One of the first medical cannabis research patients was the son of a doctor who suffered horrible side effects from chemotherapy. However, cannabis contains a litany of active chemicals. It is not some plant that effects a change because we want to believe it does.
Many of the substances we outlaw were banned with no scientific basis, politicians decided XYZ compound were illegal, and the medical boards instructed doctors that they were dangerous. The fact that the doctors themselves were not doing any research or seeking evidence for such claims was precisely the problem.
Again, herbal medicine's efficacy depends on the compounds within those herbs. Willow tea bark contains the same active chemicals as aspirin tablets. Milk thistle contains silibinin which is what enables it to help the liver. There's a stark difference between saying "I've seen alternative medicines work therefore all alternative medicine is real" and "this specific plant does this specific thing, and here are the studies which demonstrate its efficacy". Our concern should be that our own "traditional" medicine industry isn't held to a scientific standard, and continues to promote tradition and corporate pharmacology. But there's a huge difference between new scientific research, and baseless speculation.
At any rate. I am sorry you've had tough times. I would remind you, we all have. We have all lost people to medicine, to poor genes, to unfortunate life events, to cancer. We here have all lost children, husbands, wives, mothers, fathers. Your pain, which comes out in your posts, is not experienced alone. Hopefully you can find some bright spots and see the good in all forms of treatments, traditional, and non-traditional, as they will always work for some, and not for others. Discouraging people from trying what may be available is perhaps not the answer, as those who could be helped may avoid such treatments. Life is bigger and more complicated than meets the eye.
There are many, many greedy corporate bastards out there who make fortunes off of people who are looking for hope. The only ethical thing a rational person can do to encourage others to ask for proof before opening their wallet. It's relatively harmless when a mom buys a $5 "cold remedy" that is a pure placebo, a cold will get better on its own. It's another when she throws away vast sums of money that could have improved the overall quality of her child's life, because snake oil salesmen are preying on her sadness at knowing her child has a terrible illness.
Anyone making a medical claim, be they a doctor or otherwise, should be held to the burden of proof. It's precisely for this reason that it's troubling we have traditional procedures, like circumcision, that have no scientific basis. People spreading baseless medical claims makes it harder for those with rare conditions and chronic illnesses to find effective treatment. They also lead to terrible things, like parents refusing to take their children for chemotherapy and using "prayer healing" as their child is forced to sit there and waste away.
And I was speaking from the viewpoint of alt medicine, cannabis, Chinese herbs, food as medicine, positive thoughts lowering cortisol etc. The masses do not understand the difference between homeopathy and alt medicine. These lines have become blurred. And unfortunately, your initial post was full of a tone that suggests a very myopic view of the world. And the truth be told, life is not as black and white as it seems you wish to believe.
I would never lump a real, non-traditional treatment with homeopathy. Homeopathy is literally the belief that "like cures like" and that massive dilutions (to the point where a pill no longer contains a single atom of active ingredient) can cause an effect in the body.
Cannabis is not an "alternative medicine" in the same sense as homeopathy. It's prescribed by doctors in states where it is legal. Cannabis used to be restricted from legitimate medical research for the exact reasons I stated in my initial post, the practitioner system. Doctors were instructed that it had no legitimate medical purpose, and therefore they continued to propagate that belief. It took scientific researchers studying the endocannabinoid system to bring about a change in belief. One of the first medical cannabis research patients was the son of a doctor who suffered horrible side effects from chemotherapy. However, cannabis contains a litany of active chemicals. It is not some plant that effects a change because we want to believe it does.
Many of the substances we outlaw were banned with no scientific basis, politicians decided XYZ compound were illegal, and the medical boards instructed doctors that they were dangerous. The fact that the doctors themselves were not doing any research or seeking evidence for such claims was precisely the problem.
Again, herbal medicine's efficacy depends on the compounds within those herbs. Willow tea bark contains the same active chemicals as aspirin tablets. Milk thistle contains silibinin which is what enables it to help the liver. There's a stark difference between saying "I've seen alternative medicines work therefore all alternative medicine is real" and "this specific plant does this specific thing, and here are the studies which demonstrate its efficacy". Our concern should be that our own "traditional" medicine industry isn't held to a scientific standard, and continues to promote tradition and corporate pharmacology. But there's a huge difference between new scientific research, and baseless speculation.
At any rate. I am sorry you've had tough times. I would remind you, we all have. We have all lost people to medicine, to poor genes, to unfortunate life events, to cancer. We here have all lost children, husbands, wives, mothers, fathers. Your pain, which comes out in your posts, is not experienced alone. Hopefully you can find some bright spots and see the good in all forms of treatments, traditional, and non-traditional, as they will always work for some, and not for others. Discouraging people from trying what may be available is perhaps not the answer, as those who could be helped may avoid such treatments. Life is bigger and more complicated than meets the eye.
There are many, many greedy corporate bastards out there who make fortunes off of people who are looking for hope. The only ethical thing a rational person can do to encourage others to ask for proof before opening their wallet. It's relatively harmless when a mom buys a $5 "cold remedy" that is a pure placebo, a cold will get better on its own. It's another when she throws away vast sums of money that could have improved the overall quality of her child's life, because snake oil salesmen are preying on her sadness at knowing her child has a terrible illness.
Anyone making a medical claim, be they a doctor or otherwise, should be held to the burden of proof. It's precisely for this reason that it's troubling we have traditional procedures, like circumcision, that have no scientific basis. People spreading baseless medical claims makes it harder for those with rare conditions and chronic illnesses to find effective treatment. They also lead to terrible things, like parents refusing to take their children for chemotherapy and using "prayer healing" as their child is forced to sit there and waste away.
I think that perhaps you aren't realizing that we are making almost the exact same point here. Except that I am suggesting that "proof" isn't as cut and dry as you are suggesting because of the ever evolving fields of traditional medicine and alt medicine. There are some who would claim that cannabis holds no value because of the lack of tradition research done on the subject. There are some who devalue our food choices as a means of prevention and treatment of illness. And there are those who say that chemotherapy and other forms of pharmaceutical based treatments are a hoax. Fact of the matter is that some are saved by chemo. Others we kill with chemo. Some refuse pharma and use diet, exercise, cannabis, Gerson etc to treat cancer, with positive results. Treatment and prevention of disease is not a black and white matter, and anyone claiming it is should come forward with the answers so that the rest of us can stop suffering
We're all a mess of paradoxes. Believing in things we know can't be true. We walk around carrying feelings too complicated and contradictory to express. But when it all becomes too big, and words aren't enough to help get it all out, there's always music.
Yeah, I'm not touching this thread with a 6-inch pole.
Ahahah! Hey, I'm gonna keep asking this until you give me answer that doesn't include anything other than 2014. When you coming back to see us all!!?
Depends on a whole bunch of factors, but, umm... 2014 + ~2-3 years? I'm really hoping to get back by or shortly after the dirty thirty. Buuutt, if you and your Whore manage to rustle up some platypi to come to the deep, deep South... well, that'd be just peachy, too.
Sorry to derail this thread. You may now proceed with your regularly scheduled schlong conversation. All I ask is that you please refrain from using the phrase "cut and dry" again.
LLL said it best. Also this thread seems out of place on a message board about bonnaroo.
It's in the Other Tent. There are dozens of threads here that have absolutely nothing to to do with Bonnaroo.
Don't see the point of this thread. It would be like a thread about guys do you prefer innies or outies.
The idea from the thread came from Drunken Chat which should tell you a little something.
If you are not circumcised then the result of the poll is discouraging and if you are then you have to hear people rant about how there is something wrong with you based on what they believe.
I don't really get how the results of the poll are discouraging for those who are uncircumcised. If you are talking about it from being in the minority, I am sure everyone has something that they could look at themselves and find fault with. Too short. Too fat. Bad hair. Whatever. You can't let that thing get in the way of you being confident about yourself with just because you're one of the few people with it. Looking at it from the flipside, look at Boner's (sorry, sir) story. He said he had a lot of anxiety about himself because he felt alone with being uncircumcised. If you look at the poll, any of the uncircumcised guys can see there are some other guys who are the same way, so they're not the only guy.
Regarding circumcised guys, I don't see that connection between being against the practice of circumcision and there being something wrong with you. My mom got me circumcised back in the day (I was born in the late 70s in the South. This news shouldn't come as a shock) because that was the best practice based on what she knew at the time. My boys aren't because of the information that we saw when we did research on it. It doesn't suddenly make my penis wrong or bad because I disagree with the practice. It (thankfully) functions fine, and I've never had any complaints about it.
LLL said it best. Also this thread seems out of place on a message board about bonnaroo.
It's in the Other Tent. There are dozens of threads here that have absolutely nothing to to do with Bonnaroo.
Don't see the point of this thread. It would be like a thread about guys do you prefer innies or outies.
The idea from the thread came from Drunken Chat which should tell you a little something.
If you are not circumcised then the result of the poll is discouraging and if you are then you have to hear people rant about how there is something wrong with you based on what they believe.
I don't really get how the results of the poll are discouraging for those who are uncircumcised. If you are talking about it from being in the minority, I am sure everyone has something that they could look at themselves and find fault with. Too short. Too fat. Bad hair. Whatever. You can't let that thing get in the way of you being confident about yourself with just because you're one of the few people with it. Looking at it from the flipside, look at Boner's (sorry, sir) story. He said he had a lot of anxiety about himself because he felt alone with being uncircumcised. If you look at the poll, any of the uncircumcised guys can see there are some other guys who are the same way, so they're not the only guy.
Regarding circumcised guys, I don't see that connection between being against the practice of circumcision and there being something wrong with you. My mom got me circumcised back in the day (I was born in the late 70s in the South. This news shouldn't come as a shock) because that was the best practice based on what she knew at the time. My boys aren't because of the information that we saw when we did research on it. It doesn't suddenly make my penis wrong or bad because I disagree with the practice. It (thankfully) functions fine, and I've never had any complaints about it.
hey man, I wouldn't have thrown in my 2 cents if I didn't want people talking about my dick.
I'd also judt like to say, my closing comment in my previous post, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", was ONLY in reference to my own personal situation, and in no way do I foster any opinion for or against circumcision.
I'd also judt like to say, my closing comment in my previous post, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", was ONLY in reference to my own personal situation, and in no way do I foster any opinion for or against circumcision.
*yelling, while sprinting away from the burning thread*
Note: I'm not on anyone's side here. I'm a firm proponent of the scientific method and have taken courses in scientific thinking, research statistics, and neurology, and I've also received reiki and done chakra work. Psychopharmacology and general hocus-pocus are both significant interest of mine, and I see both "traditional" and "alternative" medicine as being useful ways of approaching health. They need not conflict with each other.
I think what CE was trying to get at was not a full-frontal attack on modern medicine, but rather the system through which health practitioners operate. In many cases, I do indeed think that Big Pharma is full of drug kingpins and many doctors are just the street pushers. My dad OD'd last year in part because his doctor failed to see any problem with his increasing opiate use (for spine, nerve, and disc issues). The doc switched him around from Percs to Oxys to Roxys to God knows what else, without ever actually doing anything about his addiction. On the other hand, after two rounds of chemo, a partial colectomy, and a full pancreatectomy, my 71-year-old Pop-Pop still skis on the weekends and has no major health issues aside from his diabetes.
...okay at this point my boss came in while I was typing this and distracted me for an hour and a half, distracting me from the rant that this post was going to become, but now that I'm back to it, I no longer care. I'll just say that there are good doctors and bad ones, there are good and bad things about pharmaceuticals/modern medicine, and good and bad things about holistic/alternative medicine. Everyone is human, and all methodologies are fallible (and some people will tout their own preferred methodology solely out of personal/political/financial interest). And while the placebo effect is really just an example of how powerful our beliefs can be, its benefit is still non-negligible (though probably not worth your co-pay).
And lastly, homeopathy is a subset of the group "alternative medicine". They ARE NOT equivalent terms, and equating them as such only keeps the scientific community from exploring other more legitimate forms of alternative medicine. If you support alternative medicine, make sure to keep that distinction clear. The actual tenets of homeopathy make no sense, and it has no proven effect outside of placebo. And again, that's okay, but it's not legit medicine.
Oh, and to keep it relevant: I'm circumsized, but I prefer uncircumsized penises. I love mine, but I wish it was uncut.
Last Edit: Mar 12, 2014 10:07:18 GMT -5 by Jaz - Back to Top
5.5/four tet, daphni b2b floating points, avalon emerson 5.12/neil young 5.19/mannequin pussy 5.21/serpentwithfeet 5.25/hozier 6.12-16/bonnaroo 6.28/goose 6.29/goose 9.17/the national + the war on drugs 9.23/sigur ros 9.27-29/making time 10.17/air
You're just too young to grasp how stylin' I really was. All the boys wanted to do me when I was 5. Actually the girls did too. My haircut was confusing.
Since you have clear before & after memories, do you ever miss it?
Not at all. People say that sex is more pleasurable intact, but really I didn't feel a difference at all. I had only been with one girl previously, but it was the same for me. The only difference it made was for about 5-6 months after I was extremely sensitive, but I mean that passed. I'm definitely glad I did it and I will probably have it done for my son if I ever have one.
This is the ideal circumstance for a circumcision if that is a person's cosmetic preference. You understand the procedure, make the choice, and you have gone through puberty so that it is known the size that the penis is. You were also given pain meds, put to sleep, and hopefully no longer in diapers
Not at all. People say that sex is more pleasurable intact, but really I didn't feel a difference at all. I had only been with one girl previously, but it was the same for me. The only difference it made was for about 5-6 months after I was extremely sensitive, but I mean that passed. I'm definitely glad I did it and I will probably have it done for my son if I ever have one.
This is the ideal circumstance for a circumcision if that is a person's cosmetic preference. You understand the procedure, make the choice, and you have gone through puberty so that it is known the size that the penis is. You were also given pain meds, put to sleep, and hopefully no longer in diapers
Yup. That's the crux of the issue. It's really odd to make a body modification choice like that for an infant. It's a blatant violation of personal autonomy.
All natural and proud of it. I was definitely embarrassed by it in my youth and especially as a teenager. But I'm glad I decided not to get it cut when I started thinkin' about it.
I'm circumcised and I would have been mad at my parents had they not had me circumcised. I don't remember it happening to me but I was also barely more than a fetus at the time.
If circumcision is no longer something people do every time any longer, than I guess do whatever you feel like as a parent. Maybe it won't be as stigmatizing as it sounds like it was for some people in this thread who were left natural.
We don't need one. It does. Those who say it doesn't are in relationships with (or just with/ talking to) someone who has a small penis.
Although, girth is just as important.
This is predominantly true, agreed. I can think of two main exceptions to this, though: 1) Females who aren't that enthused about penetration 2) Females who have really small set vaginas; one of my best friends has told me that it sucks knowing that he continually hurts his girlfriend through penetration, and he's just like 6/6.5 inches so nothing too crazy. I bet she wouldn't mind something smaller, 'cause I guess she's not into sexual pain for whatever reason
Considering you've found the need to respond to my threads as if you are threatened by me I offer you some peace my confused counterpart. May you find peace in your restless soul.
You are performing cosmetic surgery on an unconsenting infant, removing around 15 square inches of extremely sensitive tissue. So let me just put this out there
Well I'm feeling pretty inadequate now...So I'd have a 12" wiener had my folks did things different. My god Freud was right about EVERYTHING!
You are performing cosmetic surgery on an unconsenting infant, removing around 15 square inches of extremely sensitive tissue. So let me just put this out there
Well I'm feeling pretty inadequate now...So I'd have a 12" wiener had my folks did things different. My god Freud was right about EVERYTHING!
They aren't removing 15 square inches of tissue from an infant. The removed skin would grow to be the equivalent of a 3x5 inch index card if the skin continued to grow into adulthood. It doesn't affect your actual penis size.
Well I'm feeling pretty inadequate now...So I'd have a 12" wiener had my folks did things different. My god Freud was right about EVERYTHING!
They aren't removing 15 square inches of tissue from an infant. The removed skin would grow to be the equivalent of a 3x5 inch index card if the skin continued to grow into adulthood. It doesn't affect your actual penis size.
Actually I f*cked up my math. I'd have an 18" wiener. That's right...3 inches. WIDE!