My studies have proved otherwise.

It was in relation to the rest of his rant(s)

n=1 doesn't mean much in studies

especially when conducted with snail foam in el bulli...outlier fetishes don't tell us much...

Plus he would have to be snipped for before and after for a proper study.

We'd also need a women with the same tightness of vagina I'd imagine. Is there a way to measure that?

So then not a logical fallacy; just an incorrect fact. You've done this before: use term 'illogical fallacy' in reference to just one post rahter than context of the whole thread/argument.

Since I've cleared up that it was in relation to all your rants what is the point of this post?

I did a search for 'porsch1909' + 'logical fallacy' and it only came up with this thread. So I've not done it before. Well not on EF anyway.

You mean increase the study population to n=2?

I'm not even sure why sexual pleasure is an issue since most people wouldn't know the difference!

I'm rarely in favour of a phenomenological approach, but as this is a qualitative study and I have a privileged perspective, you'll just have to trust me.

What? Between my earlobe and my foreskin? Talk about arse and elbow!

Well then you just don't make sense.

P.S. Do a better search with wider parameters.

This is fun: both you and Economisto. I will not type so fast next time to leave myself open to errors of percentages. Although I would never compare herpes to breast cancer. The former is a condition you can prevent and avoid. The latter is a bit more difficult and is life-threatening. I had ear infections as a kid but it was never an option to chop it off ( I am not comparing to Soles example which was obviously a specific case); but then that is not the argument anyways; the comparable case would be to chop off everyone's ears cuz there is chance of ear infections as a kid.

<sigh> but is there proof that chopping the ear off would help reduce the risk?

True true. One wouldn't be aware if one had a lobotamy.

I guess if someone chopped out my optic nerves when I was just born, I also wouldn't know the difference as I wouldn't ever know what it would be like to see.

Well my ear can't get infected if it's not there, can it.

Okay. You win. I give up.

Look buddy, don't say illogical fallacy when it was an incorrect fact in reponse to your logic. Read my original post; it still stands.

I do get the feeling that many medical papers on the subject are written by those with an opinion to support.

You're hilarious. If this was an argument between cutting a whole penis of and not then that would be a reasonable comparison.

Someone who is circumcised can still have sex. Can still enjoy sex. Saying someone has more pleasure with a foreskin than without is purely subjective.

You'd need have the same person doing a before and after with the same women, using the same positions, since there are so many different factors in having pleasurable sex. Saying 'I have a foreskin I have better sex LOL' is just so ignorant.

If you remove the ear lobe, the rest of the ear is still there (and won't function as well).

If you remove the foreskin, the glans/penis is still there. Does the penis function better/worse... well that's up for debate isn't it. Certainly from a reproduction point of view and going for a piss, it seems to work fine whether you are a round head or cavalier.

I ask again, do you have any evidence, that chopping off the ear lobe will reduce the chance of infection?

I'd agree with that opinion. They've all got research grants to fund, don't you know...

__________________
Never let right or wrong get in the way of a good opinion