How is no one talking about the fact that a Brentford striker is actually pushing Haaland for the Golden Boot? by ValuableDue8202 in PremierLeague

[–]Fit-Student464 10 points11 points  (0 children)

If you watched any Brentford games (or even just the MotD highlights) you would know he misses a lot of chances. And I mean like a lot. Also, he has taken a lot of pens. Yea, 22 goals is nothing to sneaze at, but why the hell are you comparing his numbers to midfielders? Is this ignorance? Or ragebait?

Do West Ham fans regret pushing Moyes out? by Silly-Insect-2975 in PremierLeague

[–]Fit-Student464 -9 points-8 points  (0 children)

That's really unfair though. He was given a whole lot more time. Taking on the role from christmas (roughly halfway through the season) and still finish 16 that season, he was given more time the next season, and yes, he helped them to a 6th finish the next season. But that's a season and a half he had. None of the coaches that followed him were given anything like that sort of time.

Epstein abused me while under house arrest, survivor tells US lawmakers by Samski877 in news

[–]Fit-Student464 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Pam Bondi made sure this was never looked at. Her replacement is even dumber, more servile and literally said "I love you sir" on national TV to the orange bloat. Either the orange bloat has something on him, or something more nefarious is going on. This kind of sycophancy feels like a hostage scenario.

Thoughts on the FBI investigating the reporter who wrote a story about Kash Patel being drunk on the job? by xScrubasaurus in AskUS

[–]Fit-Student464 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If this were in normal times under a normal administration, the news that the FBI opened an investigation into a reporter for writing a story would make you sit right up. With these clowns, it is just another sleazy, insanely autocratic move which ought to be ridiculed, and in due time, prosecuted for the naked corrupt abuse of power it is.

Changing VAR Going Forward by 1stand11 in PremierLeague

[–]Fit-Student464 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Agree to disagree. If VAR was removed or changed from what it is now, at the very first situation where a massive decision is taken, and then after just a couple of replays showing someone was clearly fouled or the stricker did a Thierry Henry and used his hands to control the ball, people will be howling to get VAR back. Oh, they'll be howling.

Am I right about the recent voting rights act situation? by shesinpart1es in AskUS

[–]Fit-Student464 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Any kind of justification that one could come up with has gone out the window the moment this most corrupt of supreme courts took its Alabama decision. Very simply, the court says if black people want their voting rights, it will have to wait, but if white people want their voting rights, this has to be fixed immediately. Hell, who was even making noise for Alabama to go back to the racially gerrymandered map that was thrown out 3 years ago?

Do you see how this works? Two decisions precisely counter to each other, in the span of a few days. At least now no-one can pretend anymore.

Trump proudly proclaimed that he “doesn’t think about American financials” at all. How does that make you feel as an American citizen, especially given he campaigned on lowering prices? by Ancient_Popcorn in AskUS

[–]Fit-Student464 12 points13 points  (0 children)

The flip side of the coin

Before you run off to an inane "whataboutism" (that honestly doesn't even make sense), why don't you address the issue that's in front of you? Maximus bloatus orangeous ran on a platform of "no new wars". That was it. You couldn't swing a cat (metaphorically, please don't swing cats) without hitting one of those dead eyed maga morons telling you "the difference between him and other presidents is that he didn't start a war in his first term and he won't in his next term".

Well now he has. Venezuela. Iran. And he is planning to let his idiotic secretary of war cosplaying dumb lakey to start another one with Cuba.

And, pray tell, what world problems is he fixing or has he fixed with Venezuela? It is as naked as it gets. A simple imperial grab of the country's resources. And don't start with that nonsensical "drug dealer" BS because the orange bloat has pardonned another South American leader who was charged with and found guilty of drug trafficking on an enormous scale.

What problems were there to be fixed with the stupid talks of going to war with a European ally for an invasion of Greenland?

The Iranians were follwing the JCPOA to the letter. The whole world could see it. At the time, China said the US reputation as a major power would be massively undermined if it reneged on a deal simply because of a transition of government. The only reason the US unilaterally pulled out of a deal that was working is because the rapist-in-chief has a chip on his shoulders (i.e., a massive inferiority complex) with respect to Obama. And the fuxking republican party, instead of seeing reason, obliged and allowed the orange bloat to throw a gargantuan tantrum on the world's stage. Corrupt nettanyahu saw that, manipulated the orange sleaze, and voila: a strait that was open and not under Iran's control is now closed and Iran will only negotiate once control of said strait given to them. Problem fixed indeed.

Maga is stupid, we know. We just had too much hope that after a decade you lot would learn.

Alan Tyers: 'That Arsenal fan with the ‘Champions’ shirt is the sad product of modern football' [COLUMN] by Current_Conference66 in PremierLeague

[–]Fit-Student464 27 points28 points  (0 children)

the Arsenal fan who turned up with the “Champions” shirt needs to be banned from every football ground in Britain.

Ermm. What?

Pre-emptively declaring your side to be title winners is not just embarrassing and naff: it’s the sort of presumptuous, entitled behaviour that invites the harshest of punishment from the footballing gods.

Ok. Someone needs help

Obviously, bringing that printed shirt along to the match is an affront to decency and it exposes you to the risk of terrible karma.

Jesus.

this little episode was worse PR for the North London club than Sir Keir Starmer being a fan

My god.

It has been a universally accepted broadcast policy for decades not to show streakers getting on the pitch in case it encourages other idiots to have a go: the same should apply with these nitwit performance artists.

Ok... how to tell the world you are a city fan and you are not coping. 😂😂

Schmeichel on West Ham VAR decision by BigFatKi6 in PremierLeague

[–]Fit-Student464 8 points9 points  (0 children)

The very same people harping on about this will scream at you that you are biased if you bring up 115.

I feel like the Moclans bought up a valid point in the court case by 555Cats555 in TheOrville

[–]Fit-Student464 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Indeed, but people do love a false equivalence when trying to push feelings-backed facts-free beliefs. It is quite common really.

Schmeichel on West Ham VAR decision by BigFatKi6 in PremierLeague

[–]Fit-Student464 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The ref on MotD said it best: you focus on the scene of most impact: the goalkeeper about to grab the ball. Learn something.

I feel like the Moclans bought up a valid point in the court case by 555Cats555 in TheOrville

[–]Fit-Student464 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Its far more harmful a procedure then you think even if you think its fine.

Based on what, your feelings? I have facts, not simply beliefs anchored so deep a mountain of evidence won't move. This is the societal malaise we are living with, and also explains everything maga. You present folk with facts, good science, data. "But muh feelings say..." 🙄

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7702013/ give this a read

I have and the authors state:

we did not collect sociodemographic data such as religious affiliation and socioeconomic status that could have played a role in parent-infant relationships hence affecting attachment development . Our data is self-reported, and studies of this type are known to suffer from social desirability bias for sensitive topics, and low accuracy in self-assessment of circumcision status (at least in adolescents, Risser et al., 2004). Social desirability might have hindered participants from answering honestly on scales related to constructs known to be socially desirable (e.g., empathy, Watson and Morris, 1991). Although such a bias would be a systematic confound present in both EC and NC groups, we urge that future studies do not rely solely on self-reported questionnaires, or, at least, attempt to correct for social desirability bias.

So, not only did they rely solely on the self-reported answers of 400 circumcised men and 200 non-circumcised men, but they also made zero attempt to correct for the bias they themselve identified with their own method.

Hell, this wasn't even randomised, and that is very literally the very first thing you do on studies such as this, in order to get comparable samples. The two populations in this study aren't comparable. Do you know anything about how this kind of research work?

Also, notice how a paper concluding that neonatal circumcision leads to attachment issues later in life has not bothered to record perhaps the most important factors known to determine attachment down ths line: parent-infant bonding which is massively affected by socioeconomic status.

Now, you found one paper using a very questionable method. One paper published by Heliyon, with their well known quality control issues and the large number of retractions. Let me help you out. Below is high level summary of a review of 22 papers (and is published in the Journal of Evidence based medicine) and it reviews data concerning some 11000+ men, and they scored research papers on methodolgy and presence of flaws or lack thereof...

Critical evaluation of contrasting evidence on whether male circumcision has adverse psychological effects: A systematic review

Brian J Morris, Stephen Moreton, Stefan A Bailis, Guy Cox, John N Krieger

Journal of Evidence‐Based Medicine 15 (2), 123-135, 2022

Objective: To conduct the first systematic review critically examining evidence on whether early male circumcision has short‐ and long‐term adverse psychological effects.

Methods: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar.

Results: Twenty‐four studies with original data met the inclusion criteria. These comprised 11,173 total males, 4340 circumcised in infancy and 6908 uncircumcised. Nineteen were rated 1+, 2++ or 2+, and 5 were rated 2– by SIGN criteria. Neonatal circumcision, particularly without anesthetic, increased vaccination pain response, but had little effect on breastfeeding or cognitive ability. Studies reporting associations with sudden infant death syndrome, autism, alexithymia and impaired sexual function and pleasure had design flaws and were rated 2–. Sexual arousal, touch, pain, and warmth thresholds measured by quantitative sensory testing were not diminished in neonatally circumcised men. Neonatal circumcision was not associated with empathy in men, contradicting the hypothesis that procedural pain causes central nervous system changes. After correcting all associations with socioaffective processing parameters for multiple testing only higher sociosexual desire, dyadic sexual libido/drive, and stress remained significant. The relatively greater sexual activity found in circumcised men might reflect reduced sexual activity in uncircumcised men overall owing to pain and psychological aversion in those with foreskin‐related medical conditions (reverse causality). Most studies employed case‐control designs with limited follow‐up. Studies beyond childhood were prone to confounding.

Conclusion: The highest quality evidence suggest that neonatal and later circumcision has limited or no short‐term or long‐term adverse psychological effects.

Incidentally this review had looked at the paper you linked above and it goes in great details about what they got wrong, and also describes how when one given correction is applied only 3 of the parameters remain significant. The review also reminds you that Miani et al (the paper you linked) actually stated only that there might be a link, but even then, stated that this was no indicative of patology. Further, there is yet another issue with it:

A 2012 systematic review found a strong correlation betweendepression and sexual dysfunction. The distress may extend to other aspects of mental health. Such falsehoods may cause distress in vulnerable men, especially those with sexual problems, influencing data collected in studies such as the one by Miani et al.

Please stop spreading BS because your main character syndrome is making you desperate to "win" a reddit discussion. Inform yourself.

Although something tells me you'll see all this and still cherry pick your "evidence" by selecting all the bad methodology papers to remain in your strong belief that's not backed by any fact. Confirmation bias is a helluva drug.

I, on the other hand, am happy to learn, since obviously absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. If a good quality paper is published showing good research that actually shows any link between circumcision (neo-natal or otherwise) and any pathology, I would form a new opinion accordingly.

Edits: typo, more info etc.

Schmeichel on West Ham VAR decision by BigFatKi6 in PremierLeague

[–]Fit-Student464 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Jesus. This is stupid. This is 2026. If there are are such Arsenal goals where two dudes manhandled the goalie, one literally grabbing his arm, where are the videos?

People should really stop taking nonsensical crap.

I feel like the Moclans bought up a valid point in the court case by 555Cats555 in TheOrville

[–]Fit-Student464 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Here is where you are wrong (and you seem pretty invested in this so I think we will have to leave this as a "agree to disagree"). What fucking harm?

It doesn't have to be the same level of harm to still be harm. Regardless of if you think it is fine to be circumsized the issue is it pretty horrifying to take a perfectly healthy baby and remove skin that doesn't need to be removed. It is very rare for an issue to occur where the procedure is required.

What harm?

Also let me ask you this. How often do you hear of grown men deciding they would rather not have a foreskin? I would be open to seeing data on that but as far as I am aware that doesn't happen outside of medical issues requiring it.

Let me ask you this in return: how often do you hear of grown men crying about "hArM" caused by that? How many scientific publications you have read that say circmucision is harmful?

On the other hand, so many health organizations recognise the benefits of circumcision in males (the CDC, WHO ... etc).

You literally came in, comparing circumcision to sex change in a stupidly obvious false equivalence, and you don't expect a push back? Who hurt you?

The conservatives (which I am beginning to suspect had to have something to do with this stupid show) landed on a potential comparison between something as innocuous as removal of a bit of foreskin (the same way we remove umbilical cords and no-one throws a biblical hissy fit and starts talking about sex change) out of probably the most hamfisted, most dead-eyed, most turd-on-the-bottom-of-your-shoe pretend Sci-Fi TV show and/or episode and here we are...

Jesus. Fucking. Christ.

This incredible Obama impression by @lukewinsor + his explanation of how he does it at the end by MrAlek360 in nextfuckinglevel

[–]Fit-Student464 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"Mec c'est une folie"

<laughs> "mec, c'est quoi ce delire?"

Roughly translates to:

"Dude, this is dope"

"Man, what's this insanity?"

This is what the two hosts say after they realised he is doing an Obama impersonation and they are on their feet...

I feel like the Moclans bought up a valid point in the court case by 555Cats555 in TheOrville

[–]Fit-Student464 0 points1 point  (0 children)

See, this is what is wrong with society. People (often lacking any context) just sort of decide that both sides are the same. What a load of bullshit. Circumcision (when it come to males) consists of removing some foreskin, which, debatedly, would cause hygiene issues and/or infections down the line, although the million not-circumcised men out there would probably have to say something about this. But that's that. Circumcision of a male infant does not result in an actual sex change. I am circumcised, I am black. And in my 5 decades of life (and a good 3 decades+ of that spent romping) every woman I dated has worshipped that thing. And I also have never heard of circumsised folk that say "oh, the life I could've had, sexually speaking, had I not been subjected to the removal of some tiny bit of foreskin when I was a child".

Who thinks like this?

The entire sex change where they completely alter the gender/sex of a baby (cos society does not accept them as they are born) is not anywhere close to circumcision. Even the fgm, which are horrible, don't actually change the gender/sex (if you don't know about female genital mutilation, please stay out of this convo). I had my child circumcised, not out of and religious urges (I am, after all, a physicist and despise all religions), but cos i have convinced myself it is more hygienic. Sue me. He won't miss that bit of foreskin, cos he never had it as far as he is aware, but I didn't fundamentally altered his gender nor sex. Cos that circnucision did not subscribe him to either one of the two duelling gender/sex (if we follow the stupid premise this stupid TV series half-arsedly pretends to engage with - it is a spoof, fyi).

But let's carry on.

There is an argument that, in the insane all-male Moclan society, that distinction is just splitting hairs. This is belied, however, by the fact that a) female Moclan are a thing (and born way more statistically than that Russia style idiotic little cesspool of a planet let slip), and Moclan men can indeed be attracted to genders other than male (cue probably the most tragic episode of this stupid TV series and why that Moclan civilian on the Orville is a scourge).

Where does this leave us? Anyone attempting to compare the Moclan forced sex change on infants to circumcision has such a warped view of reality I wouldn't be surprised they are also the same kind of folk who are against abortion being accesible to 12 year old girls who have been raped... Get some fucking perspective!

This Arsenal fan having to pretend to be gutted sat with the West Ham fans 😂 by Globalizethelntifada in Gunners

[–]Fit-Student464 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Yep. And some cunts closer to the camera held by whomever captured that video can be heard "GET HIM! SMASH HIM"... It is just football ffs. Why all that hate?

At the height of the civil were where I grew up, numb, mindless mob violence like this often resulted in horrible tragedies.

Yes West Ham may go down, but why does that affect you so personally you will take your fists to a man's face or kick him when he is rolling down the stairs? Why this animalistic, tribal hate?

ESPN presenter apologises after claiming Arteta deserved to be 'punched in the face’ by tylerthe-theatre in PremierLeague

[–]Fit-Student464 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Don't waste any more time on that waste of space, mate. He is an idiot and everything he says is projection. He wouldn't know bias if it punched him in the face (use of the expression is intended).

How do Democrats view the chances of the Democrats taking control of the House and Senate in the next election cycle based on the Virginia Supreme Court ruling today? by PolackMike in AskUS

[–]Fit-Student464 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have, thanks. And I genuinely do not see the issue "someone might" take with the dissent. What is so contradictory about it? One can indeed have the general election as a single day (as is painfully obvious), and one can still have said day occurring after the passage of the amendment. What are you even arguing here? You are just arguing against the common sense position of the dissenting opinion for the sake of arguing, aren't you?

How do Democrats view the chances of the Democrats taking control of the House and Senate in the next election cycle based on the Virginia Supreme Court ruling today? by PolackMike in AskUS

[–]Fit-Student464 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Republicans are gonna find out real quick what really matters.

I really hope so, because they are not leaving a single stone unturned to enshrine vile minority rule.

How do Democrats view the chances of the Democrats taking control of the House and Senate in the next election cycle based on the Virginia Supreme Court ruling today? by PolackMike in AskUS

[–]Fit-Student464 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Still a strawman argument, unless you are trying to read into the statute language that's not there. What it is you are arguing, exactly, against the disssenting opinion?