The Greeks and Romans (or modern day Catholic Italians) had/have the right idea about how circumcision is nothing but pointless genital mutilation.Quote:
Originally Posted by EffectivelyDeleted
Printable View
The Greeks and Romans (or modern day Catholic Italians) had/have the right idea about how circumcision is nothing but pointless genital mutilation.Quote:
Originally Posted by EffectivelyDeleted
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.
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?
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?"
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.
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.
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..
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.
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:
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.
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.
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:)..
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by EffectivelyDeleted
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.
Well.. we could but hope.. however..
..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.
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
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.
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?
Well said. It's a pointless and barbaric form of genital mutilation that is no longer needed.Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeyes