-
Re: Religious Circumcision
I'm saying banning a religion will result in genocide. Which is what you're doing. You're not talking about censoring a religion, you're talking about preventing its currently understood practice from EVER being done.
That said, there are numerous parts of the bible that almost no one takes seriously anymore. Why? It wasn't some stupid ban posed by a bunch of chauvinistic pseudo-progressives who say "We're progressive, so we can't be chauvinistic." There is a radical difference between saying something stupid and actually harming, say, gays and bisexuals; and most of society-even the anti-gay types-know injustice when they actually see it and can put themselves in others shoes. But even that is a false argument. Have you ever hung out in an American inner city or a European city-suburb and heard all the anti-gay bullshit that goes on? And have you ever thought how much was religiously inspired? Or does that not even compute as it doesn't fit into your world view? No?
How can you possibly understand this argument from a standpoint of not always supporting your own political point of view when you can't put yourself in the opposition's shoes? That's what I don't get. I have nothing wrong with rabbit not getting their son circumcised and I think he's right to stand up to his father and he has a very different point of view than the rest of you. That's a matter of freedom. It is a statement of breaking with the norm of society, and actually putting yourself in the shoes of the minority. Something a lot of the rabid anti-circumcision folk, in particular in Europe, can't ever understand. He has educated himself and decided the procedure is a bad choice. He will give up this tradition without resorting to hostility, and it won't end up with people feeling persecuted because they're less civilized than everyone else.
And you aren't saying circumcision should be stopped, you're saying a religious rite, necessary to the modern interpretation, should be banned without a shift in evolution, and clearly ignoring the concept across monotheism of Martyrdom.
What I'm saying is you're to a minority the descendant of those who burnt Christians, absolutely, while burning Jews in Judea. That you're the descendent of those who wiped out entire civilizations and overt genocides. It isn't a matter of white guilt as YOU didn't do it or even if you're not really a descendant either. However, you can understand why WE, having heard YOUR arguments before from others, are DEEPLY DISTURBED by it. You might be more liberal...honestly...you might really be. But in terms of shrill and tone...it sounds no different than National Socialist arguments. Or Communist arguments. And since you look like someone from those areas who supported this before...can't you understand why us minorities are so hostile to you getting involved? Us Jews have faced enormous persecution from non-Democratic Socialists in the 20th century. Why should us Jews believe them now?
-
Re: Religious Circumcision
There are Jews and Muslim people who refuse to mutilate the genitals of their sons. Their children are still Jewish or Muslim except they don't have their penis mutilated. Getting your penis mutilated in Judaism or Islam is not necessary to practicing either of those religions at all.
A Jewish or Muslim person who forces their son into getting involuntary genital mutilation done on his penis is against their son's rights and free will as a human being.
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Jews-...65424110207450
http://www.jewsagainstcircumcision.org/brisshalom.htm
https://www.facebook.com/muslimsagainstcirc
http://www.quranicpath.com/misconcep...cumcision.html
http://therealsingapore.com/content/...t-circumcision
http://www.beyondthebris.com/
Even in Israel not all Jews there are for male genital mutilation of their infant sons.
The whole practice of male genital mutilation or circumcision is barbaric, and a silly stone age outdated silly custom of genital mutilation that is best left in the past since it's pointless, and not needed if someone really wants to practice Judaism or Islam as a religion of their choice.
Getting rid of male genital mutilation in Judaism and Islam is not banning those religions, calling for genocide, or telling people they can't practice or believe in those religions if they want to.
-
Re: Religious Circumcision
Quote:
Originally Posted by
NMCowboys
And there were Jews that fought for the Nazis...what's your point?
The fact you refuse to call it by its proper name and call it the loaded "mutilation" demonstrates that you have no interest in trying to rationalize the practice away. You're actively demonizing Jews and Muslims, and thus, you are indeed calling for ethnic cleansing.
The fact you can't see this is why sane people will disagree with you, and if a majority of people do agree with you, it'll only be in a state of genocide.
-
Re: Religious Circumcision
Quote:
Originally Posted by
EffectivelyDeleted
And there were Jews that fought for the Nazis...what's your point?
The fact you refuse to call it by its proper name and call it the loaded "mutilation" demonstrates that you have no interest in trying to rationalize the practice away. You're actively demonizing Jews and Muslims, and thus, you are indeed calling for ethnic cleansing.
The fact you can't see this is why sane people will disagree with you, and if a majority of people do agree with you, it'll only be in a state of genocide.
Where did I write anything about saying that genocide of any type is OK, should be done, or permissible?
Secondly I am not demonizing Jews or Muslims. You fail to realize that there are Jews and Muslims who do not mutilate the genitals of their infant or young sons and this does not make them akin to "Nazis" or not devout Jews or Muslims except in your opinion. :rolleyes:
Circumcision of an infant or young boy is mutilation of his genitals.
Infants and young boys have no choice in the matter and they're having their genitals mutilated by a Rabbi, surgeon/doctor, or by the choice of their parents.
Men should have the right to choose circumcision as adults if they want it-or they can get a full castration if they want that when they are an adult and it's their chioce-, not have the choice of having their genitals mutilated forced upon them. Infant circumcision without consent or immediate medical justification is an unjustified violation of basic human rights, that shares more in common with ancient coming-of-age rituals than responsible or necessary medical practice.
Imagine waking up tomorrow morning to find yourself tied to your bed and rendered mute, your naked genitals exposed to the harsh glare of hospital lights. Your parents have decided that some skin should be hacked from your penis; perhaps so you can be forced into their religion, perhaps because they don't trust you to clean yourself in the shower, or perhaps simply because they think your penis should look more like your father's.
If you don't like the thought of this happening to you, if this offends your belief in self-determination or the rights you have over what happens to your body, then how can you justify this practice being inflicted on infants and young boys?
Deliberately inflicting injury and mutilation on a baby or young boy's genitals in order to enforce their conformity with a religion, or to satisfy their parents' views on what a penis should look like, is a sick act. It has no place in a modern society. Infant circumcision - regardless of gender - should be stopped and outlawed.
Based on your arguments you probably believe that female circumcision-which is just as bad as male circumcision is-is permissible since it's practiced by Muslims, and certain African people and cultures who have experienced genocide practice it, so it's OK and not really genital mutilation. :rolleyes:
-
Re: Religious Circumcision
Based on my arguments, a hard ban on female circumcision is stupid and produces responses from women such as "We don't see the problem" which is common in areas where it is practiced, actually.
You're assuming my thinking your argument is profoundly stupid means I'm pro-circumcision. No, I'm anti-bigotry, as if you and people like you need to civilize the rest of the world to follow your view of the world.
Imagine waking up tomorrow and finding your parents thrown in jail because they decided to raise you in the manner of their parents and their parents parents. Rendered mute, your genitals not exposed, but being thrown into a foster home, from breast milk to formula. Perhaps this is to cruel, and you might decide to have a fourth trimester abortion-the parents are unworthy of parenthood, and perhaps the life unworthy of life, perhaps so you can be forced to practice the mandated religion of society, in this case, atheism or Christianity, or perhaps because they don't trust your parents to clean you in the shower when you're younger, or perhaps because they think you shouldn't resemble your father.
I can hit the emotional argument too that has almost NO RELEVANCE ON REALITY. Here's a newsflash: Babies are scared creatures. They're scarred of a lot. They'll cry in the arms of their parents from this fear. Deliberately inflicting mental injury and mental mutilation on a baby or young boy by removing them from their parents in order to enforce YOUR conformity to what you think a body should be is a truly sick act-and throwing people in prison for this has NO PLACE IN A MODERN SOCIETY. Infant circumcision should be outlawed? Newsflash: You're outlawing all modern mainstream (ie: Non-extremist) views of religion in order for your "tokens" of "Good Jews" and "Good Muslims" and on this ground I would recommend reading the Pozen speech (ie: Every German knows a "good Jew" which is why we must conduct genocide in secret). I'm sure you have your lists of a lot of "good minorities" but guess what? We aren't here to please you. That's why I am comparing such Jews to Nazis. It isn't that Jews against circumcision are Nazis at all. It is that your bringing them up reminds me of David Duke bringing up Israel Shahak as both evidence that he is right and as a foil to say he isn't an anti-Semite. And the Germans could've said they weren't so anti-Semitic if they so desired in the war, the same way you're saying you're not demonizing people, by bringing up people who worked for them in authority, like Emil Maurice, or Ehrard Milch, or Bernhard Rogge. Your argument is essentially an "I'm not racist. I have some black friends" argument.
And again, last I checked, circumcision in Europe was only ended through MASSIVE PROGRAMS OF GENOCIDE and female circumcision in good parts of the world was only ended through MASSIVE PROGRAMS OF COLONIALIZATION AND GENOCIDE. It isn't approval of the religious practice. IT IS A DISAPPROVAL OF YOUR METHODS. UNDERSTAND YOU ARE SPEAKING IN THE SAME TERMS PROPAGANDA AS NAZIS DID IN THE 1930S. UNDERSTAND YOU ARE SPEAKING IN THE SAME PROPAGANDA AS PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE IN THE WHITE MAN'S BURDEN. YOU ARE NO DIFFERENT THAN THEM TO ANY OF US WHO AREN'T OF WHITE CHRISTIAN EXTRACTION. WE DON'T BELIEVE YOU. WE DON'T TRUST YOU. AND YOUR SHRILLNESS AND SAYING WE SHOULD BE OUTLAWED-WE HAVE HEARD THIS BEFORE AND WE WILL HEAR THIS AGAIN. JUST BECAUSE YOU SAY "IT IS DIFFERENT THIS TIME" DOESN'T MEAN WE HAVEN'T HEARD THIS BEFORE. OUTLAWING CIRCUMCISION IS OUTLAWING JUDAISM AS IT IS PRESENTLY UNDERSTOOD. FAILURE TO UNDERSTAND THIS IS A FAILURE TO UNDERSTAND PRESENT-DAY JUDAISM. PEOPLE WHO ARE JEWISH WHO DO NOT PRACTICE CIRCUMCISION ARE GROWING AND CHOOSE SUCH LIFESTYLES AND THEY DON'T DO THIS BECAUSE THEY THINK YOU ARE RIGHT. YOU ARE PREVENTING PEOPLE FROM ABANDONING THIS PRACTICE.
And that isn't to say we don't like people of white Christian extraction. We just don't like people of white Christian extraction who want to mutilate our culture in order to save a bunch of babies from problems that haven't historically seemed to be such a big deal, when real problems exist like babies not receiving proper medical treatment or healthcare. You seem to prioritize preventing babies from being raised Muslim or Jewish over preventing them from dying of other health issues. But maybe you think you can cure the world of our Semitism but not of nature. If it was about hostility to people of a white-Christian background, the counter argument would be "It is savagely unethical to allow any babies to go uncircumcised! Let's force them to do it."
Notice the comments about choosing not to get a circumcision? Notice how I react as that's a good thing-a choice made? Yeah. You're trying to say I'm supporting circumcision because I somehow think it is a good practice while again conveniently side stepping the whole problem of your arguments not being new, not being novel, and historically being incredibly dangerous. The only reason I'd actually have a son of mine circumcised? First, I'm circumcised and I really don't think it is that big of a deal. Second, it is to show that people like you can not tell me what to do, and it is a right-familiar determination-that I will die for, and millions have died for, needlessly. I really don't care if I have a son and he isn't circumcised until I hear people like you talk on the topic.
-
Re: Religious Circumcision
Quote:
Originally Posted by
EffectivelyDeleted
Based on my arguments, a hard ban on female circumcision is stupid and produces responses from women such as "We don't see the problem" which is common in areas where it is practiced, actually.
You're assuming my thinking your argument is profoundly stupid means I'm pro-circumcision. No, I'm anti-bigotry, as if you and people like you need to civilize the rest of the world to follow your view of the world.
Imagine waking up tomorrow and finding your parents thrown in jail because they decided to raise you in the manner of their parents and their parents parents. Rendered mute, your genitals not exposed, but being thrown into a foster home, from breast milk to formula. Perhaps this is to cruel, and you might decide to have a fourth trimester abortion-the parents are unworthy of parenthood, and perhaps the life unworthy of life, perhaps so you can be forced to practice the mandated religion of society, in this case, atheism or Christianity, or perhaps because they don't trust your parents to clean you in the shower when you're younger, or perhaps because they think you shouldn't resemble your father.
I can hit the emotional argument too that has almost NO RELEVANCE ON REALITY. Here's a newsflash: Babies are scared creatures. They're scarred of a lot. They'll cry in the arms of their parents from this fear. Deliberately inflicting mental injury and mental mutilation on a baby or young boy by removing them from their parents in order to enforce YOUR conformity to what you think a body should be is a truly sick act-and throwing people in prison for this has NO PLACE IN A MODERN SOCIETY. Infant circumcision should be outlawed? Newsflash: You're outlawing all modern mainstream (ie: Non-extremist) views of religion in order for your "tokens" of "Good Jews" and "Good Muslims" and on this ground I would recommend reading the Pozen speech (ie: Every German knows a "good Jew" which is why we must conduct genocide in secret). I'm sure you have your lists of a lot of "good minorities" but guess what? We aren't here to please you. That's why I am comparing such Jews to Nazis. It isn't that Jews against circumcision are Nazis at all. It is that your bringing them up reminds me of David Duke bringing up Israel Shahak as both evidence that he is right and as a foil to say he isn't an anti-Semite. And the Germans could've said they weren't so anti-Semitic if they so desired in the war, the same way you're saying you're not demonizing people, by bringing up people who worked for them in authority, like Emil Maurice, or Ehrard Milch, or Bernhard Rogge. Your argument is essentially an "I'm not racist. I have some black friends" argument.
And again, last I checked, circumcision in Europe was only ended through MASSIVE PROGRAMS OF GENOCIDE and female circumcision in good parts of the world was only ended through MASSIVE PROGRAMS OF COLONIALIZATION AND GENOCIDE. It isn't approval of the religious practice. IT IS A DISAPPROVAL OF YOUR METHODS. UNDERSTAND YOU ARE SPEAKING IN THE SAME TERMS PROPAGANDA AS NAZIS DID IN THE 1930S. UNDERSTAND YOU ARE SPEAKING IN THE SAME PROPAGANDA AS PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE IN THE WHITE MAN'S BURDEN. YOU ARE NO DIFFERENT THAN THEM TO ANY OF US WHO AREN'T OF WHITE CHRISTIAN EXTRACTION. WE DON'T BELIEVE YOU. WE DON'T TRUST YOU. AND YOUR SHRILLNESS AND SAYING WE SHOULD BE OUTLAWED-WE HAVE HEARD THIS BEFORE AND WE WILL HEAR THIS AGAIN. JUST BECAUSE YOU SAY "IT IS DIFFERENT THIS TIME" DOESN'T MEAN WE HAVEN'T HEARD THIS BEFORE. OUTLAWING CIRCUMCISION IS OUTLAWING JUDAISM AS IT IS UNDERSTOOD. FAILURE TO UNDERSTAND THIS IS A FAILURE TO UNDERSTAND JUDAISM. PEOPLE WHO ARE JEWISH WHO DO NOT PRACTICE CIRCUMCISION ARE GROWING AND CHOOSE SUCH LIFESTYLES AND THEY DON'T DO IT BECAUSE THEY THINK YOU ARE RIGHT. YOU ARE PREVENTING PEOPLE FROM ABANDONING THIS PRACTICE.
And that isn't to say we don't like people of white Christian extraction. We just don't like people of white Christian extraction who want to mutilate our culture in order to save a bunch of babies from problems that haven't historically seemed to be such a big deal, when real problems exist like babies not receiving proper medical treatment or healthcare. You seem to prioritize preventing babies from being raised Muslim or Jewish over preventing them from dying of other health issues. But maybe you think you can cure the world of our Semitism but not of nature. If it was about hostility to people of a white-Christian background, the counter argument would be "It is savagely unethical to allow any babies to go uncircumcised! Let's force them to do it."
Notice the comments about choosing not to get a circumcision? Notice how I react as that's a good thing-a choice made? Yeah. You're trying to say I'm supporting circumcision because I somehow think it is a good practice while again conveniently side stepping the whole problem of your arguments not being new, not being novel, and historically being incredibly dangerous.
Too long. Didn't read.
-
Re: Religious Circumcision
Quote:
Originally Posted by
NMCowboys
Too long. Didn't read.
Yet reposted? Because you didn't post a lot of stuff before? That's dubious. Methinks you'd rather just argue that people who circumcise should be outlawed and not give a damn about any of the rest of the opinions of us Lebensunwertes Leben because we just "don't get it" and are too inferior to get it...you know, PTSD from the circumcision and all.
Serious question...have you ever read any Nazi propaganda on much of anything?
-
Re: Religious Circumcision
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Long Duck Dong
honestly, i am not sure that there is ever going to be a compromise as the debate against circumcision rests on the basis of strong, emotionally charged wording and the dismissing of peoples personal experiences that are not full of strong, emotional energy... but a simple and quiet peace.....
There can be a compromise, I believe, when people realize that reason generally wins out and people seek out the best practices when they're allowed freely to make their own decisions. People in reality are animals, and animals will fight intruders onto their territory-even if that intruder is carrying medical equipment which the animal desperately needs...It is when people make false promises of the benefits of circumcision or shrill arguments about it being this really horrible thing (that most people who have had it for thousands of years haven't complained about) that the emotions flare up. I have noted several times I am a fierce defender of the right to practice circumcision, not because I think it is good, but because historically, bone headed attempts to root out the practice have always backfired, except in cases of overt ethnic cleansing. It is the fact people are so emotional that makes me consider getting my children circumcised-if it was left between me and my family (ie: my parents) I probably would elect to not get a circumsion, for then my parents would be the one encroaching on how I raise my children and again, I believe as a parent, I have much more room for discretion than my parents over my child, let alone my cousins, let alone my friends, let alone complete strangers, let alone people who I don't know saying that I'm screwed up myself that remind me of many things I've luckily only read about in books, or occasionally witnessed in person.
And by that standard, there is no moral equivalence. I'm not going to someone's house shrilly saying all babies should be cut. I'm saying, respect my boundaries, respect my opinions, and then we could have a real discussion regarding concerns over such a practice. I am only intruding if my existence is intrusive as I'm not telling people how they should raise their kids. I am only telling people that their language and actions is counterproductive. And I really believe it is because a bunch of Seleucid Greeks decided 2250 years ago to outlaw circumcision in Judea that I still can't eat pork around my family without an argument. So these things do have a lot of negative consequences that a lot of people don't want to ever think about. And I hate reacting with the "You're of white Christian heritage" reaction but in this case, there's no acknowledgement of why people might be uneasy hearing these exact same arguments from similar political groupings. Without such acknowledgement, we can't discuss sincerely how to limit, reverse and end a disagreeable practice beyond criminalizing the behavior, and thus, turning groups of people de facto into criminals. Or even expand an agreeable practice, if that's what the science so decides (I doubt it would decide that).
-
Re: Religious Circumcision
Quote:
Originally Posted by
EffectivelyDeleted
Yet reposted? Because you didn't post a lot of stuff before? That's dubious. Methinks you'd rather just argue that people who circumcise should be outlawed and not give a damn about any of the rest of the opinions of us Lebensunwertes Leben because we just "don't get it" and are too inferior to get it...you know, PTSD from the circumcision and all.
Serious question...have you ever read any Nazi propaganda on much of anything?
I'm not falling for your pointless rants, professional victim mentality, or baiting.
-
Re: Religious Circumcision
Quote:
Originally Posted by
NMCowboys
I'm not falling for your pointless rants, professional victim mentality, or baiting.
My rants are only pointless because you don't get it. But you know what? "Professional Victim Mentality" is a code phrase. You know exactly what you're saying, and you know who you're quoting. And I'm done arguing with you-we both know what I'm talking about here.
-
Re: Religious Circumcision
Quote:
Originally Posted by EffectivelyDeleted
[Greeks decided 2250 years ago to outlaw circumcision in Judea
The Greeks and Romans (or modern day Catholic Italians) had/have the right idea about how circumcision is nothing but pointless genital mutilation.
-
Re: Religious Circumcision
Quote:
Originally Posted by
EffectivelyDeleted
There can be a compromise, I believe, when people realize that reason generally wins out and people seek out the best practices when they're allowed freely to make their own decisions.
Quite.. which is all I have ever argued... it is not I who argues that an infant child is denied his right to choose...;)
-
Re: Religious Circumcision
Quote:
Originally Posted by
darkeyes
Quite.. which is all I have ever argued... it is not I who argues that an infant child is denied his right to choose...;)
Then you've mellowed on the topic a little. A ban reflects the notion that choice needs to be taken off the table!
-
Re: Religious Circumcision
Quote:
Originally Posted by
EffectivelyDeleted
My rants are only pointless because you don't get it. But you know what? "Professional Victim Mentality" is a code phrase. You know exactly what you're saying, and you know who you're quoting. And I'm done arguing with you-we both know what I'm talking about here.
Who is "we" do you have a hamster in your pocket? Actually I do understand your rants I just refuse to reply to your absurd bigotry. FYI I am not quoting anyone.
Why is it so important to you that male genital mutilation be practiced on infant boys, and boys who are Jewish and Muslim? It's not that major of a necessity for a boy or man to be Jewish or Muslim and have their genitals mutilated.
-
Re: Religious Circumcision
I hold that male genital mutilation, called circumcision, of children in the USA is indeed illegal, and unconstitutional.
It is illegal to circumcise female minors, and it's even illegal to prick with a pin the genitals of female minors---------so where is "equal protection under the law" for male minors?
If it's wrong to force genital mutilation on female minors, it should be equally illegal to do the same to male minors----it is sexist in the extreme, and unconstitutional as such to prohibit circumcision of minors of one sex while allowing it for the other.
In addition, parents are NEVER given complete information about the adverse effects and complications resulting from male genital mutilation---the psychological effects of the mutilation are never discussed or even considered. Each year a lot of infant and young boys die from having their genitals mutilated, and they all get their genitals disfigured when they are mutilated by a Rabbi, surgeon, doctor, nurse, etc. The pain for an infant boy going through a mutilation is so bad that they go into complete shock over it. The right of the male child to genital integrity is never considered.
Parents cannot choose to circumcise a female minor in the USA, as in almost all civilized countries, and they shouldn't be allowed to do it to males minors, either.
In addition, there are no standards to male genital mutilation; the damage varies wildly, as clearly evidenced by the scarring from the wounds to the penis, which can appear anywhere from the base to the glans (head of penis) which disfigures the penis. Not only doctors circumcise male minors; nurses and inexperienced medical students can even indiscriminately hack away at the genitals of male babies and rip off the foreskin.
Circumcision is a fraud, male genital mutilation that's involuntarily done to the owner of the penis, and a hoax.
A foreskin is not a birth defect; it is a birthright.
The newest (most advanced) medical thinking is there is never a need to amputate the parts of the penis called the foreskin (no more than any NEED to cut off the clitoral hood of a baby girl). But most societies and cultures around the world do not practice male or female genital mutilation and see no need for it, and those boys, girls, men, and women who have their genitals left fully intact are perfectly healthy and fine.
The US so wants to justify what they have done to so many men that the push to pass it on to the next generation continues. There is a cycle of mutilation that needs to be broken. Until then boys and the men they become are being harmed. The parts cut off are the MOST innervated parts of the HUMAN MALE. When you cut the parts off you shut down a huge part of the kid’s/man’s sensory system. That can never be returned (it is shut down for good). Also, many cut men have sexual function issues from the start of sexual activity. However, most will get ED at a much younger age than they would otherwise (cut men are 4.5 TIMES as likely to get ED). Most cut guys reach middle age and then problems can and do occur (NUMB dick, and a penis that's totally dry and far less sensitive than a penis that's been left intact with a foreskin). Most guys don't talk about these issues, but it is a fact that most VIAGRA is consumed by cut men. Cut guys are missing out on natural sex and masturbation from the start of sexual activity. Male genital mutilation or circumcision has also been proven to decrease the circumference and length of a man's penis.
MGM (male genital mutilation or circumcision) doesn't protect against HIV and other STDs. Many nations that don't mutilate their sons have lower rates of HIV and other STDs than nations that do mutilate their sons. Teaching PROPER sex education is the key to lowering HIV and STD rates. Amputating erogenous tissue, and mutilating an infant or young boy's penis doesn't teach safe sex.
The only person that has the right to cut off erogenous tissue is the owner of that tissue. Any society that allows otherwise is primitive and BARBARIC.
-
Re: Religious Circumcision
Quote:
Originally Posted by
chicagom
nutme is backkkkkkkkk!!!!!!
Who the fuck is nutme?
wack clique
-
Re: Religious Circumcision
Quote:
Originally Posted by
NMCowboys
I hold that male genital mutilation, called circumcision, of children in the USA is indeed illegal, and unconstitutional.
It is illegal to circumcise female minors, and it's even illegal to prick with a pin the genitals of female minors---------so where is "equal protection under the law" for male minors?
If it's wrong to force genital mutilation on female minors, it should be equally illegal to do the same to male minors----it is sexist in the extreme, and unconstitutional as such to prohibit circumcision of minors of one sex while allowing it for the other.
In addition, parents are NEVER given complete information about the adverse effects and complications resulting from male genital mutilation---the psychological effects of the mutilation are never discussed or even considered. Each year a lot of infant and young boys die from having their genitals mutilated, and they all get their genitals disfigured when they are mutilated by a Rabbi, surgeon, doctor, nurse, etc. The pain for an infant boy going through a mutilation is so bad that they go into complete shock over it. The right of the male child to genital integrity is never considered.
Parents cannot choose to circumcise a female minor in the USA, as in almost all civilized countries, and they shouldn't be allowed to do it to males minors, either.
In addition, there are no standards to male genital mutilation; the damage varies wildly, as clearly evidenced by the scarring from the wounds to the penis, which can appear anywhere from the base to the glans (head of penis) which disfigures the penis. Not only doctors circumcise male minors; nurses and inexperienced medical students can even indiscriminately hack away at the genitals of male babies and rip off the foreskin.
Circumcision is a fraud, male genital mutilation that's involuntarily done to the owner of the penis, and a hoax.
A foreskin is not a birth defect; it is a birthright.
The newest (most advanced) medical thinking is there is never a need to amputate the parts of the penis called the foreskin (no more than any NEED to cut off the clitoral hood of a baby girl). But most societies and cultures around the world do not practice male or female genital mutilation and see no need for it, and those boys, girls, men, and women who have their genitals left fully intact are perfectly healthy and fine.
The US so wants to justify what they have done to so many men that the push to pass it on to the next generation continues. There is a cycle of mutilation that needs to be broken. Until then boys and the men they become are being harmed. The parts cut off are the MOST innervated parts of the HUMAN MALE. When you cut the parts off you shut down a huge part of the kid’s/man’s sensory system. That can never be returned (it is shut down for good). Also, many cut men have sexual function issues from the start of sexual activity. However, most will get ED at a much younger age than they would otherwise (cut men are 4.5 TIMES as likely to get ED). Most cut guys reach middle age and then problems can and do occur (NUMB dick, and a penis that's totally dry and far less sensitive than a penis that's been left intact with a foreskin). Most guys don't talk about these issues, but it is a fact that most VIAGRA is consumed by cut men. Cut guys are missing out on natural sex and masturbation from the start of sexual activity. Male genital mutilation or circumcision has also been proven to decrease the circumference and length of a man's penis.
MGM (male genital mutilation or circumcision) doesn't protect against HIV and other STDs. Many nations that don't mutilate their sons have lower rates of HIV and other STDs than nations that do mutilate their sons. Teaching PROPER sex education is the key to lowering HIV and STD rates. Amputating erogenous tissue, and mutilating an infant or young boy's penis doesn't teach safe sex.
The only person that has the right to cut off erogenous tissue is the owner of that tissue. Any society that allows otherwise is primitive and BARBARIC.
I've read it, and my only response is, anything you find barbaric is barbaric and should be illegal. You keep defending foreskin that you're completely ignoring-rather willfully-my point. That, your arguments are indistinguishable from ancient arguments that were used by genocidal lunatics, and that only through genocide has the practice generally been rooted out from areas where it once was common; that, you don't need to have a circumcision to be a Jew or Muslim despite these communities overwhelmingly disagreeing at the present point, the same way these communities used to believe strongly in other things that fell out of fashion. That you're saying most modern adherents to these religions are inherently damaged, and you are on a mission to save people of these religions that haven't been born yet...you know...baptize the baby and all that jazz. What you're saying is indistinguishable to a lot of arguments in the crusades and Spanish Inquisition and how you're saying it isn't much different in tone. Even if you are factually right, your tonedeafness means no one will ever listen to you aside from people with the same mindset, and all you're doing is fostering hate and advocating turning people into criminals off a practice that doesn't actually effect you, and furthermore, of which most of the victims don't seem that it effects them in a meaningful manner-otherwise the anti-circ movement would be a lot bigger in the US than in Europe because a good chunk of American males would view themselves as mutilated (they in fact do not).
Most societies and cultures around the world don't practice circumcision, true enough. But from what I've read, the practice is becoming more popular in Asia in particular, and is around 30% these days. Maybe that's factually wrong, but, I'd need to see evidence of it, and frankly, you don't have credibility with me to provide it given the fact you refuse to refer to it by any scientific term but rather in only emotionally charged terms.
As far as circumcision is concerned, it seems to actually have health benefits, but so what? Foreskin has health benefits too. Circumcision has risks and problems also. You don't just say that circumcision is wrong because it is bad for you: you squash any study that says it can prevent HIV, which I feel is garbage: Safe sex definitely helps eliminate STDs, but circumcisions are a tradeoff on this: easier to hygienically maintain and keep free of infection versus requiring education and effort. I for one don't think the tradeoffs are worth it in any degree-until I encounter people like you. Every single health benefit to circumcision, or health detriment to foreskin can be remedied adequately by proper care. Study after study has demonstrated it. So you're outright lying when you say that it doesn't protect against HIV for various reasons. But, that doesn't mean it is a good form of protection, for reasons listed above. Also another way it "protects" is to harden skin and remove moving parts from the penis which can break, which gives less probability of bleeding, a key way to spread it-at the cost of sensitivity beyond those lost nerves that you talk about.
Again, education is the way to combat these problems.
For instance, if you have a sore hand, you can cut off your hand, problem solved. To say that cutting off your hand doesn't solve your health problem here is ridiculous-the question is, is there a better treatment? Is this needed? Is it better to have a sore hand or to not have a hand at all? Etc.;
These arguments are the common sense, non-emotionally charged arguments against circumcision. Not your emotional pile of trash that has a lineage towards the Seleucids, Crusaders, Inquisitors, and Nazis. And frankly, your arguments aren't designed to prove the advantages of a foreskin most of the time the second you call it mutilation. They're to denigrate a segment of society you think requires denigration to other segments of society. You are doing nothing but preaching to a choir. You are the reason people get circumcised for religious reasons.
I've grown to be against banning female circumcision in the US. Why? I don't think it is a problem here requiring a ban. There's very few reports of it, and furthermore, you'd be driving the practice under ground into seedier areas violating principles of harm reduction. Female circumcision has never been big amongst any community in the US. And it will probably never be. What a ban means, in my opinion, is telling certain potential immigrants that they're not allowed to move here and be seen as normal. What you're doing is forcing communities that practice female circumcision into limited options-and preventing them from finding rational reasons to abandon the practice. You don't seem to understand that when you harden the heart this much, the only way to "fix" the situation is to throw everyone practicing it into a prison-what a ban really would do-and possibly prevent them from having children and to take their children away from them, and then to teach the children to hate their parents for making them flawed. I mean, unless they "learn their lesson" isn't the inevitable consequence long term prison past the ability to have children, compulsatory sterilization, extermination, or a combination of the three? And since all lineages of practices of the behavior die out, doesn't it mean you've left the practice die out simply by killing off its adherents the same way one kills off a feral colony of cats?
And isn't that a pretty horrible thing to do to human beings? And isn't that pretty much the definition of ethnic cleansing, if all these people have a similar background?
I believe that some day circumcision will die out, as I do not believe it is a necessary procedure in most capacities. But I think you really don't understand why the practice exists in the first place in the modern world, and I think therefore can not understand why it has a reason to persist. The fact you won't even take the time to find out why it is this way indicates further that you have not one shred of compassion for the people who you think are victims of the practice, and thus, your arguments ring even more hollow. And given the fact you haven't disputed the fact you're a white male of christian extraction, or christian extraction in general, I'm left to believe that's true, and you don't want to admit that there might be people who don't want to listen to you because of a projection of white guilt. No, they're just professional victims because you haven't done anything wrong, right? Except, you're unwilling to listen to what made them go into what you call this "professional victim mentality" and rather are content demonizing people who have been already victimized.
Just because you're white doesn't mean you have to have white guilt. But, it shouldn't surprise you if people get really really cagey about your opinions if they've heard it before from people that have proven to be the enemies of their families. Doesn't inherently mean you're wrong. But it means at best you're tonedeaf. Half of my family died in the holocaust, my direct ancestors were essentially exiled from the Russian Empire, and while there forced to live in squalor, and there are many genetic markers in my family tracing some of our roots to Spain. So I know a bit about ethnic cleansing, and I know a bit about the arguments used which made it possible. If some sort of "circumcision brigades" came and killed off most of your family, and then kicked them off the lands that they lived on, and then killed off half of those remaining, you wouldn't be particularly cagey hearing people saying the exact same stuff they used to say, and in just as menacing a tone? Is this too difficult a concept to understand for the anti-circumcision people on this forum?
-
Re: Religious Circumcision
Quote:
Originally Posted by
EffectivelyDeleted
Then you've mellowed on the topic a little. A ban reflects the notion that choice needs to be taken off the table!
Not at all.. me attitude is precisely as it has always been ever since I can remember. As best I can tell, choice isn't on the table for those infants and young children who are to be circumcised... being compelled is not choice save the choice of those doing the compelling.
-
Re: Religious Circumcision
Quote:
Originally Posted by
darkeyes
Not at all.. me attitude is precisely as it has always been ever since I can remember. As best I can tell, choice isn't on the table for those infants and young children who are to be circumcised... being compelled is not choice save the choice of those doing the compelling.
Well, that's a shame. It means you'll never know how to argue it with someone who supports it, and will only entrench their positions.
http://www.jpost.com/Jewish-World/Je...emitism-327821
That's a recent article. Notice the Jewish position: It isn't for the most part pro-circ as much as 1. This is another attempt to end Judaism in Europe and 2. We believe the anti-circumcision science is caused by ideologues and don't accept the legitimacy of a ban.
You can argue how bad it is all day, but it doesn't take a genius to realize that a ban would effectively exile anyone who isn't an atheist of Jewish descent from the continent, leaving behind two types of people: either people who are not in mainstream Judaism-the vast minority of people who believe a circumcision is not necessary for Jewish belief and Jews who really think it is that bad (again, Jews are skeptical of shrill studies that support outlawing their beliefs with good reason), and atheists of Jewish descent (there are quite a few of these). In other words, there's four options for Jews here that do not fit into the atheist and extreme minority opinion: violate any potential ban (and since there's undefined consequences, it could be condemnation, a fine, jail/loss of liberty, loss of children and/or compulsatory sterilization-the last option would certainly end the existence of a genetic strain), flee to America, or flee to Israel, or outright fight back and become radicalized (This is important and why bringing up the holocaust is fair: "Never again" means also that Jews will not take such things lying down and won't submit to the will of a state that it determines has been radicalized against them). And even if you don't set up camps, what you'll find is that within 55 years (when all Jewish women would be infertile after the placement of such a ban) you'll have reached the Endlosung af die Judenfrage in Europa.
Note this commentary isn't pro-circ. It is saying that going over the top in anti-circ stuff will absolutely result in ethnic cleansing no matter how you slice it. And saying that the good Jews will be left behind and only the barbaric Jews will be punished, as someone else has recently insinuated, is overt anti-Semitism. And that's why us Jews doubt there is any actual caring of the welfare of the children; it seeks to care about the welfare of their parental-child, you know, the people who genetically have historically reared children.
And when you combine that with views on abortion-which most Jews aren't opposed to-you end up with complete disgust: If women have control over their bodies to the extent they can abort a fetus, why is it so harmful to just wait three months and "snip some skin"?
What about the ramifications here of the vaccine people who claim vaccines cause autism? It has been debunked by numerous studies. But suppose some come along that are "really convincing" and show that giving vaccines to children has an element of risk and that parents, like circumcision, shouldn't decide, only the child should decide. But giving it later might harm its effectiveness in the sense that it allows societies to raise incubators of diseases like polio, thus making it more likely to give it to people who have been vaccinated, all in the name of reducing some sort of traumatic event that will negatively impact the life of the child (autism). It seems to me that the anti-circumcision crowd is the same type that, if not anti-Semitic, should EAGERLY be in support of such types of behavior (I contend that I've seen not a jot of evidence that the anti-circumcision folks think that foreskin health is less important than genuine mental health issues beyond men being unhappy and wanting to blame the size of their, I mean, supposed functionality of their penis) but I, like most Jews, find any evidence of this occurring to be genuinely wanting. Perhaps the anti-circumcision crowd wants to limit their exposure to other insane, paranoid rhetoric in an attempt to appear sane? Or they sanely believe that the benefits of vaccines outweigh their detriment since most people in western society have been vaccinated, and it has certainly saved many more lives than any reports of autistic growth in the culture?
That isn't saying that circumcision has any necessary health benefits-I can't think of particularly many that would outweigh not being circumcised. That is to say 1. I believe at the end of the day anti-circumcision people place circumcision on a separate list of evils effecting children, and that this might have its origins in anti-Semitism given historical points of view on the topic [same argument, less science in the past], 2. For that reason it is specifically singling out Jews and Muslims and 3. The only way to pass a ban, since most people are indifferent to this matter, is to appeal to anti-immigrant sentiments; case in point, Muslim meat in the Netherlands seeming to be about animal rights yet getting voted on by non-left wing animal rights sectors of the economy, such as Geert Wilders and his ilk, or marinet bans being supported by Swiss feminists because "Islam is anti-woman..." although odds are strong that a ban on churches wouldn't raise nearly the same level of ire, and that there are tons of inhumane practices regarding the killing of animals in Europe but the major one seeming to be brought up for the last decade are the ritual slaughters only, and they're the only bans that see a wide level of support, and one must conclude that such bans are not due to the nature of the argument but the nature of the people they seek to make life intolerable for. For instance, horsemeat got into the meat supply. Therefore, let's ban all Jews and Muslims from having meat. Yeah, that's logical, since horses are so obviously kosher...And Jews and Muslims often view the eating of pigs as strange and cruel, the same way most Europeans don't want to eat horses or dogs. So, since horsemeat and dog meat is banned, can we take away your pork, please? And why wouldn't the majority of Europe support that but will ban horsemeat, which has traditionally been eaten by many in Europe? Hmm...could it be that "we don't give a damn about the people who historically have eaten horse?"
-
Re: Religious Circumcision
Effectively, don't waste your time trying to argue with racists.
-
Re: Religious Circumcision
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jamieknyc
Effectively, don't waste your time trying to argue with racists.
It's not racist, anti-Semitic, pro-Nazi, or bigotry against Judaism or Islam or any of the other nonsense like this posted to be against circumcision or male genital mutilation.
I have friends who are Jewish who did not practice genital mutilation on their sons. I have a friend who is Jewish from the Ukraine and he and his family are against circumcision, they see it as pointless genital mutilation, and none of the males in his family have had it done.
With ED's paranoid and professional victim ramblings that prove nothing, all one has to do is read his posts to see he's an internet troll.
-
Re: Religious Circumcision
Quote:
Originally Posted by
NMCowboys
It's not racist, anti-Semitic, pro-Nazi, or bigotry against Judaism or Islam or any of the other nonsense like this posted to be against circumcision or male genital mutilation.
I have friends who are Jewish who did not practice genital mutilation on their sons. I have a friend who is Jewish from the Ukraine and he and his family are against circumcision, they see it as pointless genital mutilation, and none of the males in his family have had it done.
With ED's paranoid and professional victim ramblings that prove nothing, all one has to do is read his posts to see he's an internet troll.
Lemme condense what you said: "I'm not an anti-Semite. I have some Jewish friends. But I definitely think most Jews are damaged. If you disagree with me, you are an internet troll."
You are an anti-Semite and a bigot, you just don't realize it because you have co-opted the WN position "We're just protecting like minded common sense folks, and Jews have a victim mentality that we're sick of hearing about" and you are the aggressor. It needed to be said in those words. You might honestly believe you're not an anti-Semite, but you're completely disinterested in finding out why you're obviously an anti-Semite. And if a Muslim was here posting, they would probably agree with most of my sentiments and add you're Islamophobic and bigoted as well. Imagine that-you've just brought peace to Jews and Muslims. I suppose we should thank people like you all around the world, as your intolerance and hatred might bring the conditions for peace.
-
Re: Religious Circumcision
I would rather be thought nazi bigot and any other ghastly and quite inappropriate label u wish to call me than to harm a single hair on the head of a any human child.. call me anti-semite if u will, but I would rather be called that than deprive any perfectly healthy human being the right to decide upon what happens to any part of of his (or her) body before he or she is old enough,aware, enough and informed and knowledgeable enough to make that decision for himself. If God gave each of us free will, then where is that free will in the case of infant and child circumcision?
Sticks and stones and names as the old saying goes..
-
Re: Religious Circumcision
I think it boils down to a few simple questions.
1. Are you the parent/s of the child in question?
2. If not, what grants you any right to decide anything regarding that
child?
In my humble opinion, natural law would rank over legality i.e. a
child's natural kin would be given right prior to state appointed
guardians. Barring these considerations we ought to not continue a
dramatic roe on an internet forum. We all know that for sure, voicing
your opinion moves heaven and earth to make it purely natural and
divinely cosmic law.
-
Re: Religious Circumcision
Are u trying to say that natural law gives the parents of a child all rights to decide what happens to him or her and parents have absolute rights over their child's welfare before the society of which they are members?? Shall we abolish the crime of infanticide now among many other things? Are u trying to say that in a democratic society we are not allowed to discuss and decide issues of child welfare within our societies?:eek2:
-
Re: Religious Circumcision
Quote:
Originally Posted by
darkeyes
I would rather be thought nazi bigot and any other ghastly and quite inappropriate label u wish to call me than to harm a single hair on the head of a any human child.. call me anti-semite if u will, but I would rather be called that than deprive any perfectly healthy human being the right to decide upon what happens to any part of of his (or her) body before he or she is old enough,aware, enough and informed and knowledgeable enough to make that decision for himself. If God gave each of us free will, then where is that free will in the case of infant and child circumcision?
Sticks and stones and names as the old saying goes..
Well said. Despite what ED and another troll think being against male genital mutilation does not make someone a nazi bigot, Anti-Semite, against Judaism or Islam, or any of the other nonsense names they claim.
-
Re: Religious Circumcision
No, not fully. I am saying though modern democratic society is something of an oxymoron.
Here in America democracy is only a pleasantly tolerable form of socialism, which it was
established to be. I am saying even after a day solid of kicking a dead horse, the horse
remains dead, your foot sorer for it. How modern to not realize that doing the same and
expecting different results, does not work?
Sometimes we need to step back and let what will be, be. Folks will be educated and
we can educate further. That does not ensure good always saves the day, unfortunately.
Nor do I think it warrants arrogance on my part to think touting an opinion against something,
I think cruel, evil will alter that behavior or set of actions. You can lead a horse to water but
I've yet to see a horse forced to drink it.
-
Re: Religious Circumcision
It's his body so it's his choice when he's an adult if he wants to get his penis mutilated (circumcised) by his own choice.
-
Re: Religious Circumcision
Quote:
Originally Posted by
void()
No, not fully. I am saying though modern democratic society is something of an oxymoron.
Here in America democracy is only a pleasantly tolerable form of socialism, which it was
established to be. I am saying even after a day solid of kicking a dead horse, the horse
remains dead, your foot sorer for it. How modern to not realize that doing the same and
expecting different results, does not work?
Sometimes we need to step back and let what will be, be. Folks will be educated and
we can educate further. That does not ensure good always saves the day, unfortunately.
Nor do I think it warrants arrogance on my part to think touting an opinion against something,
I think cruel, evil will alter that behavior or set of actions. You can lead a horse to water but
I've yet to see a horse forced to drink it.
And yet Voidie, in the last 60 years throughout Europe at least, and much of the western world, the kicking of that dead horse has seen incidences of infant and child circumcision outside of the religious sphere almost disappear, and some religious people, Jewish and Islamic, begin to question its value..Even in the USA it is no longer so common as it was a decade or two ago... Kicking a dead horse? The foot may be sore but not so... and there is nothing wrong with touting an opinion for or against something.. I do it all the time and some would say far too much.. yet better by far that, than sitting on hands, gagged, neutered and saying and doing nothing and quibbling about those who do and attempting to undermine them by saying in effect, that whatever we do as ordinary citizens does no fucking good...... we sit on our own hands, gag ourselves and neuter ourselves and it does not have to be... well, we do that all by ourselves and anything government does to aid us in that is because we have allowed and even encouraged them to do it...
.. in the west we do have a democratic deficit.. yet we still have a semblance of democracy.. clumsy; inadequate;corrupt... yet if sufficient of the electorate get sufficiently annoyed and decide to act as they often do, even the most bent, useless, and lumbering of governments and legislatures are still forced to react and act. How modern to sit on our arses and allow things just to happen and forget that it need not be so:)..
-
Re: Religious Circumcision
Quote:
Originally Posted by
darkeyes
I would rather be thought nazi bigot and any other ghastly and quite inappropriate label u wish to call me than to harm a single hair on the head of a any human child.. call me anti-semite if u will, but I would rather be called that than deprive any perfectly healthy human being the right to decide upon what happens to any part of of his (or her) body before he or she is old enough,aware, enough and informed and knowledgeable enough to make that decision for himself. If God gave each of us free will, then where is that free will in the case of infant and child circumcision? And yet Voidie, in the last 60 years throughout Europe at least, and much of the western world, the kicking of that dead horse has seen incidences of infant and child circumcision outside of the religious sphere almost disappear, and some religious people, Jewish and Islamic, begin to question its value..
I have nothing to say. I never thought you'd be nearly as ignorant as you came off. You have more outrage over less than 20,000 nerve and fat cells than you do about genocide. And you call yourself a progressive? Hah! You would rather be a racist than an anti-racist. Again you're misunderstanding, I think intentionally, my point, specifically, bans are genocidal and if you don't kill the people practicing the tradition counterproductive at your goals. So this can be construed two ways since you're intentionally not even arguing that a ban might be stupid because you have a holy attraction to foreskin: 1. Again, why is a ban the best method at rooting out the problem 2. Why not just ban vaccines, since the child can choose when they're old enough to get a vaccine which may cause some side effects including, in rare circumstances, death? And why not also ban children from being fed by parents until they're old enough, since parents can give them food they're allergic to/makes them sick/food they dislike? This is pointed: I hated broccoli as a kid. What on earth gave my parents the right to give it to me? I should've just eaten broccoli when I was old enough to CHOOSE to do that, right? Right? And if I want a diet of nothing but high fat garbage that would've made me sick (which I did as a kid), that's my choice, right? I'm done responding to this argument. It is impossible to respect someone this insensitive. My argument isn't even pro-circ, it is anti-ban. And it is nice to know that some socialists would sooner side with the Nazis on some issues than their victims as you openly admitted there. You're wrong, you're always going to be wrong, until you realize that an arbitrary diktat changes as much as human behavior as a vinegar catches flies. We are Jews, we have our ways of life. If you want this tradition ended your way, you're going to have try to kill us all. I would rather die than give into your way of thinking and I'm not even pro-circ. You seem to willfully ignore that almost all Jews that gave up circumcision either weren't religious and blended into Europe pretty well to begin with, refused to let their kids know they were Jewish or have any visible marks because these people were terrified of Europeans after the holocaust, or WERE KILLED AND THEN LIBERATED AND FLED TO ISRAEL, THE USSR OR AMERICA. No religious community is seriously questioning it. Some atheists and Europeanizers are. That's it. That's all. No one else. Europe ended circumcision by killing off the practicers. You can say that the label is incredibly inappropriate, but it is only as inappropriate as you are ignorant about what you're saying or at least how you're saying it.
-
Re: Religious Circumcision
Quote:
Originally Posted by EffectivelyDeleted
You seem to willfully ignore that almost all Jews that gave up circumcision either weren't religious and blended into Europe pretty well to begin with, refused to let their kids know they were Jewish or have any visible marks because these people were terrified of Europeans after the holocaust, or WERE KILLED AND THEN LIBERATED AND FLED TO ISRAEL, THE USSR OR AMERICA. No religious community is seriously questioning it. Some atheists and Europeanizers are. That's it. That's all. No one else. Europe ended circumcision by killing off the practicers.
What you're claiming with your insane bigoted rants is not true. The Jewish people I know and am friends with who are against circumcision they practice Judaism but just do not mutilate the genitals of their infant or young sons. Yes people who are both Jewish and Muslim are questioning why their religions say that genital mutilation should be performed on infants and young boys. When it comes to history both European and American or Western circumcision has not been in widespread practice at all in those countries or cultures for very long at all. Europe ended circumcision by having doctors and nurses stop performing it since it's genital mutilation.
-
Re: Religious Circumcision
Quote:
Originally Posted by
EffectivelyDeleted
My rants are only pointless because you don't get it. But you know what? "Professional Victim Mentality" is a code phrase. You know exactly what you're saying, and you know who you're quoting. And I'm done arguing with you-we both know what I'm talking about here.
Ooooh! Can you please enlighten those of us who have no f-ing clue about the secret code?
NM reopens this thread in each of his many incarnations, and it would be nice to have the ulterior motive laid out in the open...I've always suspected it was just Madame Kali basking in the chaos, but you hint at something darker and more sinister.
(Oh...and it's worth pointing out that you're not done arguing with NM...you might want to rethink that.)
-
Re: Religious Circumcision
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Annika L
Ooooh! Can you please enlighten those of us who have no f-ing clue about the secret code?
NM reopens this thread in each of his many incarnations, and it would be nice to have the ulterior motive laid out in the open...I've always suspected it was just Madame Kali basking in the chaos, but you hint at something darker and more sinister.
(Oh...and it's worth pointing out that you're not done arguing with NM...you might want to rethink that.)
Incarnations? Kali? I'm not Hindu. Other people on this site who have been here longer than I have told me how Effectively Deleted is a troll from years ago.
That troll ED will claim with his bigoted rants that anyone who is against male or female genital mutilation is a Nazi, bigot, white supremacist, white nationalist, anti-Semitic, Anti-Jew, anti-Muslim, and other bigoted nonsense that only makes sense to him and another troll who claims to be from NYC that commented.
-
Re: Religious Circumcision
Quote:
Originally Posted by
EffectivelyDeleted
I have nothing to say.
Well.. we could but hope.. however..
Quote:
Originally Posted by
EffectivelyDeleted
I never thought you'd be nearly as ignorant as you came off. You have more outrage over less than 20,000 nerve and fat cells than you do about genocide. And you call yourself a progressive? Hah! You would rather be a racist than an anti-racist. Again you're misunderstanding, I think intentionally, my point, specifically, bans are genocidal and if you don't kill the people practicing the tradition counterproductive at your goals. So this can be construed two ways since you're intentionally not even arguing that a ban might be stupid because you have a holy attraction to foreskin: 1. Again, why is a ban the best method at rooting out the problem 2. Why not just ban vaccines, since the child can choose when they're old enough to get a vaccine which may cause some side effects including, in rare circumstances, death? And why not also ban children from being fed by parents until they're old enough, since parents can give them food they're allergic to/makes them sick/food they dislike? This is pointed: I hated broccoli as a kid. What on earth gave my parents the right to give it to me? I should've just eaten broccoli when I was old enough to CHOOSE to do that, right? Right? And if I want a diet of nothing but high fat garbage that would've made me sick (which I did as a kid), that's my choice, right? I'm done responding to this argument. It is impossible to respect someone this insensitive. My argument isn't even pro-circ, it is anti-ban. And it is nice to know that some socialists would sooner side with the Nazis on some issues than their victims as you openly admitted there. You're wrong, you're always going to be wrong, until you realize that an arbitrary diktat changes as much as human behavior as a vinegar catches flies. We are Jews, we have our ways of life. If you want this tradition ended your way, you're going to have try to kill us all. I would rather die than give into your way of thinking and I'm not even pro-circ. You seem to willfully ignore that almost all Jews that gave up circumcision either weren't religious and blended into Europe pretty well to begin with, refused to let their kids know they were Jewish or have any visible marks because these people were terrified of Europeans after the holocaust, or WERE KILLED AND THEN LIBERATED AND FLED TO ISRAEL, THE USSR OR AMERICA. No religious community is seriously questioning it. Some atheists and Europeanizers are. That's it. That's all. No one else. Europe ended circumcision by killing off the practicers. You can say that the label is incredibly inappropriate, but it is only as inappropriate as you are ignorant about what you're saying or at least how you're saying it.
..and when u have nothing to say do me a fave.. try very hard not to put into the mouth of another things they did not say... and when u have nothing to say it would be nice if u did not misrepresent the history of European circumcision. And when u say no religious community is seriously questioning it...in a sense that may be true.. yet there are only really two religious communities on this planet who demand of adherents circumcision.. some have questioned and dropped it because of what it represents.. a spurious assault on an infant child's rights and his person.... not that it was ever universal in any case in any religious community outside of the Jewish and Islamic... not in Europe hun bun...
So when u say have nothing to say.. best say nothing or say nothing that bears no relation to the reality of what another says or the subject in question.
-
Re: Religious Circumcision
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Annika L
Ooooh! Can you please enlighten those of us who have no f-ing clue about the secret code?
NM reopens this thread in each of his many incarnations, and it would be nice to have the ulterior motive laid out in the open...I've always suspected it was just Madame Kali basking in the chaos, but you hint at something darker and more sinister.
(Oh...and it's worth pointing out that you're not done arguing with NM...you might want to rethink that.)
Funny u should mention Kali...far as I recall thuggee, a form of devotion to the Goddess Kali, was banned by the British... it remains banned to this day 60 years after Indian independence... as far as I know there are now more Hindus than there ever were when Thuggee was practiced... same can be said about Sati another Hindu practice and tradition banned by the British and still banned.. so much for banning being the road to genocide... many things are banned.. and many should be... stoning adulterers to death (in most of the world at least), burning witches and heretics, (arguably) polygamy in the west and most of the non Islamic world..yet humanity still lives on and becomes more numerous by the day...
-
Re: Religious Circumcision
Quote:
Originally Posted by
darkeyes
Funny u should mention Kali...far as I recall thuggee, a form of devotion to the Goddess Kali, was banned by the British... it remains banned to this day 60 years after Indian independence... as far as I know there are now more Hindus than there ever were when Thuggee was practiced... same can be said about Sati another Hindu practice and tradition banned by the British and still banned.. so much for banning being the road to genocide... many things are banned.. and many should be... stoning adulterers to death (in most of the world at least), burning witches and heretics, (arguably) polygamy in the west and most of the non Islamic world..yet humanity still lives on and becomes more numerous by the day...
Talking of which.... nice people our governments shove into power... http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...ing-adulterers
-
Re: Religious Circumcision
it is the "science" behind circumcision that is 19th century pseudoscience: hysteria against "masturbatory insanity" when circumcision was supposed to be good againt alcoholism, arthritic hips, asthma, balanitis, blindness, boils, chicken pox, epididymitis, epilepsy, gallstones, gout, headaches, hernia, hydrocephaly, hydrocoele, hypertension, insanity, kleptomaina, leprosy, moral depravity, plague, phimosis, posthitis, rectal prolapse, rheumatism, schistosoma, spinal curvature, stomach infection, tuberculosis and/or yeast infections. Now HIV, HPV, STD, UTI, and penile, cervical and prostate cancer have supplanted them but the principle is the same – sympathetic magic, substitutionary sacrifice.
It is still taking away a part of a child's body that will never grow back and their genitals will always be a lot less sensitive, not fully functional as they would be if they were left intact, and mutilated.
Americans have this weird medical-indoctrinated view on MGM, trying to rationalize a barbaric, inhumane tradition and are victim of the principle of " cutting breeds cutters". Morals and ethics, as a matter of positive fact, change in time. We do not stone women to death anymore. Moreover hitting your child is seen as child-abuse but MGM not? Jews and Muslims have to accept modern morals and ethics very soon!
I don´t agree child mutilation is acceptable, therefore I fully concur with the German judge´s decision. It has nothing to do with ´anti-Semitism´ of ´anti-Zionism´, but purely with the welfare of children.
We have abandoned crucifixion, witch burning, stoning etc., so why not abandon ancient cruel practices like child circumcision as well. Let the person who wants to circumcise wait until he or she is 18 years old and then decide whether he or she wishes to practice circumcision.
-
Re: Religious Circumcision
Quote:
Originally Posted by
darkeyes
And yet Voidie, in the last 60 years throughout Europe at least, and much of the western world, the kicking of that dead horse has seen incidences of infant and child circumcision outside of the religious sphere almost disappear, and some religious people, Jewish and Islamic, begin to question its value..Even in the USA it is no longer so common as it was a decade or two ago... Kicking a dead horse? The foot may be sore but not so... and there is nothing wrong with touting an opinion for or against something.. I do it all the time and some would say far too much.. yet better by far that, than sitting on hands, gagged, neutered and saying and doing nothing and quibbling about those who do and attempting to undermine them by saying in effect, that whatever we do as ordinary citizens does no fucking good...... we sit on our own hands, gag ourselves and neuter ourselves and it does not have to be... well, we do that all by ourselves and anything government does to aid us in that is because we have allowed and even encouraged them to do it...
.. in the west we do have a democratic deficit.. yet we still have a semblance of democracy.. clumsy; inadequate;corrupt... yet if sufficient of the electorate get sufficiently annoyed and decide to act as they often do, even the most bent, useless, and lumbering of governments and legislatures are still forced to react and act. How modern to sit on our arses and allow things just to happen and forget that it need not be so:)..
Fair enough points, maybe. If you choose that perspective then, more power to you.
Some of us see it as only furthering a divide. Sometimes in the doing or saying of nothing,
we attain, achieve everything. Sometimes it this 'nothing' that is precisely what is needed.
Not saying it is directly the case here. Would suggest taking a step aside for a moment though.
Give it a bit of consideration. There are many junctions in life which are not always as they seem.
Ever wonder what the ostrich really does with its head burrowed in the sand? Maybe it tunnels away
from issue. Maybe it fetches a mouthful of sand to spit in the face of the cause of the issue.
We don't know though. We only see the ostrich tuck its head into a dune. We assume it dies because
the predator would attack and eat it. Does it really? Maybe to ostrich ducks it head to phart, deploying
heinous biological weaponry to dispense the enemy. We assume far too much, arrogance included.
Who has an absolute correct way to live? I double and triple dog dare you to answer, can guarantee
we'll all be wrong. Pretty arrogant to think our way is right, their way is wrong. Arrogant and hate filled
as well, it creates a line to divide us. There is only us. There is no they, them, our group, their group.
Only US.
That is a difficult idea to swallow when we keep fanning the flames by which to burn horse corpses.
The sparks are there, if an inferno of learning is meant to erupt into its own firestorm, it will. No, I'm
not using sleight of hand or misdirection. You, like all of us have times we go duh. Maybe this is a time
you went duh, you missed the point I was aiming to convey. It happens.
Only in an effort of clarifying do I voice this. I am against religious bodily modifications
of infants. Here is why. In my view of any religion, one is free to believe as they desire,
so long as they expressly do not harm another. In doing these modifications it remains
unclear if there is or is not harm. In my view, one is forcing their will upon another by
physical action. This conveys to me a sense of harming another. It is at this point any
religion loses and any support from me.
As Groucho Marxx says, I'd rather not belong to any club that would have me.
-
Re: Religious Circumcision
Quote:
Originally Posted by
void()
Fair enough points, maybe. If you choose that perspective then, more power to you.
Some of us see it as only furthering a divide. Sometimes in the doing or saying of nothing,
we attain, achieve everything. Sometimes it this 'nothing' that is precisely what is needed.
Not saying it is directly the case here. Would suggest taking a step aside for a moment though.
Give it a bit of consideration. There are many junctions in life which are not always as they seem.
Ever wonder what the ostrich really does with its head burrowed in the sand? Maybe it tunnels away
from issue. Maybe it fetches a mouthful of sand to spit in the face of the cause of the issue.
We don't know though. We only see the ostrich tuck its head into a dune. We assume it dies because
the predator would attack and eat it. Does it really? Maybe to ostrich ducks it head to phart, deploying
heinous biological weaponry to dispense the enemy. We assume far too much, arrogance included.
Who has an absolute correct way to live? I double and triple dog dare you to answer, can guarantee
we'll all be wrong. Pretty arrogant to think our way is right, their way is wrong. Arrogant and hate filled
as well, it creates a line to divide us. There is only us. There is no they, them, our group, their group.
Only US.
That is a difficult idea to swallow when we keep fanning the flames by which to burn horse corpses.
The sparks are there, if an inferno of learning is meant to erupt into its own firestorm, it will. No, I'm
not using sleight of hand or misdirection. You, like all of us have times we go duh. Maybe this is a time
you went duh, you missed the point I was aiming to convey. It happens.
Only in an effort of clarifying do I voice this. I am against religious bodily modifications
of infants. Here is why. In my view of any religion, one is free to believe as they desire,
so long as they expressly do not harm another. In doing these modifications it remains
unclear if there is or is not harm. In my view, one is forcing their will upon another by
physical action. This conveys to me a sense of harming another. It is at this point any
religion loses and any support from me.
As Groucho Marxx says, I'd rather not belong to any club that would have me.
If one decides to remove without the express consent of another person, several million nerve endings and a large part of the skin from a part of his body, one does, by definition, harm.... it is one thing the person himself electing for that harm to be done, quite another for someone to decide on his behalf before he is old enough and aware enough to have an idea of wtf is going on... and so Voidie... as Burke said..
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
Is it an evil act deciding to circumcise the healthy penis an infant? Is removing his healthy left foot?
-
Re: Religious Circumcision
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeyes
Is it an evil act deciding to circumcise the healthy penis an infant
Well said. It's a pointless and barbaric form of genital mutilation that is no longer needed.
