[saurik]

It is not a non sequitur: it is the same argument applied to another situation where people fall into the same trap of lack of knowledge leading to a lack of understanding of their own plight (we might even call it a "blissful ignorance"). The other person who responded to the same parent comment saying "it's hard to be consciously bothered by the lack of something that you've never experienced?" could have been leaving that exact same comment with respect to having an intact foreskin in response to someone claiming the point about circumcision.

Do you really not see the parallels? It seemed like a really great way to point out the fallacy here and demonstrate that "just because people aren't complaining, and even if when asked they are adamant they don't have a problem (an even stronger position than simply that they aren't going out of their way to complain), it clearly doesn't imply they don't have a problem if they haven't been given the necessary knowledge to understand or appreciate the problem" without having to directly engage with the broken logic (which is, of course, impossible).

[foldr]

OT, but I'm an uncircumcised gay guy who has had a fair amount of experience with both types of penis. I suspect that anyone who's all beat up about being circumcised (except a small minority of people who have had botched circumcisions) is projecting some other problem with their sex life onto that. Both types of penis work perfectly fine.

[jolux]

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Circumcision

>However, in a meta-study spanning 40,473 males, the studies rated most accurate found that "circumcision had no overall adverse effect on penile sensitivity, sexual arousal, sexual sensation, erectile function, premature ejaculation, ejaculatory latency, orgasm difficulties, sexual satisfaction, pleasure, or pain during penetration."