Smegma, which can flow around/over condoms, transmits an astonishing amount of disease, ranging from HIV to yeast infections.
Simple daily washing entirely eliminates smegma and similar problems. We don't live in the fucking dark ages; basic sanitation is hardly in short supply.
I know I'd hate it if I were a dirty uncircumcised male and gave my partner some kind of painful, potentially life-altering infection because I couldn't use a condom right because of my unnecessary foreskin.
It is no problem to use a condom if you still have a foreskin. You just roll it back first.
Maybe you like exposing others to risk. If so, I saw a penny on the interstate with your name on it. Have fun picking it up.
Unnecessary personal attack. I don't enjoy exposing others to risk. But remaining uncircumcised would not place my partner at any significant greater risk. I wash daily, and have not and never have had a problem with smegma or anything else like that. I'm also entirely free of STDs, so there's effectively no risk to a partner anyway.
Appendectomy = straw-man.
Not at all. You claim to support preemptive removal of tissue that can potentially become diseased. If this is the basis for your conclusion that circumcision is a good idea, then in order to be consistent in your beliefs you'd also have to advocate the same practice for any other tissue which can be survivably removed and has an equal or greater lifetime risk of serious infection if left remaining. Anything else is cherry picking.
Of course, if you have some other compelling reason why one particular tissue, ie the foreskin, should be removed and not any others, lets hear it. I doubt anyone would consider aesthetics to be an issue for you to decide - surely that would be the owner of the foreskin's responsibility, especially since he's not likely to be in a position to have it aesthetically judged until he's past the age of accountability, and he can't easily have it put back if he disagrees with you over what's aesthetically pleasing!
Better no penis than an uncircumcised one. That's what I believe.
Well, a statement like that certainly qualifies you for a quote on FSTDT - care to justify it? No penis at all, hence sterility, inability to experience sexual pleasure and having to piss through a tube into a bag for the rest of your life, is preferable to having a foreskin, where you have slightly greater, but still really small, risk of an unpleasant but often treatable disease at some point in your life? If that's not fundie, I don't know what is.
I'm curious, xander07, are you male or female? If the former, are you circumcised? And how would you feel about removing your penis altogether if, say for the sake of argument, circumcision was somehow not an option?