Senate Bill has Muslims & Jews Outraged

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

It's been done and it is better be intact or even to have a "restored" foreskin. It heightens sensitivity and prevents complications later on in life. Further more this has been explained to you with scientific references and visual aids. There's really no excuse now, you seem to have adopted the mindset of a creationist.

Not really. It's more the mindset of an agnostic, wondering why the fuck wither side is throwing a hissy fit over it. You seem to have adapted the mindset of an overzealot Christian (if you're not for it, then you're against it).

Traditional Cultures have other things that they do - mainly rites of passage. But this is not a religious thing more than it is a Cultural trend - similar to getting a driver's license. They may involve tattoos, or some other form of cosmetic forewarding into manhood (hunting a buck in some indian tribes, tattoos in others).
I'd rather think of the entirety of circumsition as a cultural thing than anything: Considering it's not a huge deal. It happens when you're born, or not, and will probably never change untill then (you'll be like that your whole life). It's nothing as described in the Bible (age 12-13).
It's not about religion - it's about the culture where you grow up more than anything. (Culture is defined as Customs and Traditions surrounding a group of people.)

----------------------------

Furthermore, the concept of my being neutural on the subject is proven - and you call me a fool for it. If I'm a YEC then you're an overzealot Christian, that will take no look at any place other than their own.

 

[Proteus]

It's more the mindset of an agnostic, wondering why the fuck wither side is throwing a hissy fit over it.

Just like a creationists we have explained that to you and you still don't understand.

Cultures have other things that they do - mainly rites of passage.

Irrelevant. Infant mutilation is not even close to comparable to a non-violent, voluntary, consensual rite.

But this is not a religious thing more than it is a Cultural trend - similar to getting a driver's license.

Wrong. This is a religiously inspired form of mutilation which is done without consent or reason.

It's nothing as described in the Bible (age 12-13).

Wrong. For one circumcision started around 5000 years ago in Egypt as part of a religious cult. Further the Bible states that circumcision is to be done days after birth. This is also the same time when an infant is most seseptible to disease.

It's not about religion - it's about the culture where you grow up more than anything. (Culture is defined as Customs and Traditions surrounding a group of people.)

Wrong. Circumcision survived in this country due to repeated surges in Christian "values" and the idea that moral and hygienic cleanliness were the same thing. Circumcision was promoted as a way to stop masturbation or other "immoral" activities.

Furthermore, the concept of my being neutural on the subject is proven - and you call me a fool for it. If I'm a YEC then you're an overzealot Christian, that will take no look at any place other than their own.

And just like a creationist you thoughtlessly project your own faults on to others. I have looked at the other side, from the Christian perceptive no less, and found what I saw to be abhorrent and a gross violation of human rights. That's part of the reason I left the religion, among others, but any way why is it that you are unable to get what we are trying to tell you? You seem to be intentionally strawmaning our position considering your last few posts. You've also been reluctant to answer my questions in previous posts or even address or acknowledge some of the points made. So why is that?

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

I will only redress troll-like comments.
Asertisks and italics indicate an over-oppinionated and generalized statement (*Example*)

It's more the mindset of an agnostic, wondering why the fuck wither side is throwing a hissy fit over it.

*Just like a creationists we have explained that to you and you still don't understand.*

*Just like a Christian* - you've explained it to me, but then call me a foolish sinner for not understanding in the least why I'm not agreeing with you.

*Irrelevant.* Infant mutilation is not even close to comparable to a non-violent, voluntary, consensual rite.

Is it really? If you get into semantics about group dynamics and mob psycology - it's not a choice. It's a "do this or you can't do anything - you have disgraced everyone around you" sort of thing.

*Wrong.* This is a *religiously inspired* form of mutilation which is done without consent or reason.

It was once religiously inspired - but now, more than not, it's done as a cultural norm in most places. Unless, ofcourse, you're psycic and can read the minds of every parent who has decided on it.
It's less about Christian Values and more about how the kid will grow up and bed his first women - then getting laughed at and humiliated because he doesn't fit in. If any parent thinks that the kid should "tough it out or get their skinchopped on their own" - then they are not really thinking of the kid.
Evolution 101 - the last generation tries to provide benefit for the next. Basic parental psycology there.
Shit, I was going to have my kid circumcised just because I was and, well, untill this thread I was unaware of any nasty claw-flailing attached with something I never really thought about.

*Wrong.* Circumcision survived in this country due to repeated surges in Christian "values" and the idea that moral and hygienic cleanliness were the same thing. Circumcision was promoted as a way to stop masturbation or other "immoral" activities.

But it is now a Cultural thing, instead of a Christian custom. Check your oppinions at the door.

And just like a creationist *you thoughtlessly project your own faults on to others.* I have looked at the other side, from the Christian perceptive no less, and found what I saw to be *abhorrent and a gross violation of human rights.* That's part of the reason I left the religion, among others, but any way why is it that you are unable to get what we are trying to tell you? *You seem to be intentionally strawmaning our position considering your last few posts.* You've also been reluctant to answer my questions in previous posts or even address or acknowledge some of the points made. So why is that?

I'm not projecting myself onto you. It is you who started pointed and shouting names at me first - the only ones that do that are Satirists, trolls, and people with weak arguments (since I'm not laughing, I'll have to go with the latter two).
A violation of human rights? Yes. Abhorrid? I would doubt it unless it was done incorrectly.

I'm not addressing your questions because of two things:
1) I don't feed debate trolls (easily recognized by an aggressive stance towards any viewpoints but theit own without calculating why someone would be neutural on the issue - such as an overzealot Christian).
2) I'm not an expert, and never claimed to be - and I doen't answer questions I don't know the answer to.

Riddle me this:
How can I strawman when I'm not debating anything? Just expressing why I think that either side is silly for overdoing this whole thing and blowing it out of perportion.

 

[freedom0f5peech]

I got my foreskin taken off immediately after I was born - and I feel better knowing that my long john is 100% pure musclely awesomeness.

This is how you sound when you make a comment like that...





I also thought this would be appropriate for you, considering your fox avatar...





I plan to get around to reading all these posts tomorrow.

.
.
.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

This is how you sound when you make a comment like that...

Forgive my humanity. It was put on there more for Lulz than anything.

I also thought this would be appropriate for you, considering your fox avatar...

It's a wolf.

But, either way, the movie was an interesting story. But, I would like to inform you, that if my descicion was made like that - it would be on the sole count that my child would easily conform better to the whole and make it easy for them to fit in the society that I've been placed in.

I'll respond more to this after lessons.

 

[borrofburi]

Hytegia:
You are ignorant. You make claims like "it's hygenic", "it's the cultural norm in most places" (only in america, and it turns out that may have just recently changed), "it prevents disease", "it serves no function it's just a layer of skin", etc. which are simply incorrect.

Neutral? Sure, you're neutral, in the same way that I am (err was) neutral towards global warming: I know very little of the issue, I haven't really bothered to educate myself, and I hear a lot of squawking from the media about how it's a lie; however I recognized that means I am not informed enough to have a meaningful opinion, so I did a little bit of research to find out that hey, the majority of scientists really do agree. (I went through a similar process for evolution, only I did a very large amount of research and am now very informed)

Educate yourself, stop throwing out strawman after strawman, fallacy after fallacy, and ignoring corrections. Sure you can keep claiming to be neutral, but someone with a strong opinion from ignorance still looks like a fool, case in point: "teach the controversy" is similarly "neutral" (at least, in the way you've been using the word "neutral").



Moreover, please explain to me how non-consentual permanent cosmetic surgery can ever not violate basic human rights of control over your own body. Also, please explain to me precisely why, in your frame of ethics, rape is wrong.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Hytegia:
You are ignorant. You make claims like "it's hygenic",

I didn't do any such thing.

"it's the cultural norm in most places" (only in america, and it turns out that may have just recently changed),

I said that it was a Cultural Norm IN AMERICA. And, when the rest of society changes with this one, then I will change my desicion towards my child if I have the joy of one.

"it prevents disease"

I did no such thing.

"it serves no function it's just a layer of skin", etc. which are simply incorrect.

Like I said - I'm not an expert on the subject. Nor am I well-informed. I'm just aware of Cultural Norms and how being different in such a way could be detrimental to a child's growin up within that society.

Neutral? Sure, you're neutral, in the same way that I am (err was) neutral towards global warming: I know very little of the issue, I haven't really bothered to educate myself, and I hear a lot of squawking from the media about how it's a lie; however I recognized that means I am not informed enough to have a meaningful opinion, so I did a little bit of research to find out that hey, the majority of scientists really do agree. (I went through a similar process for evolution, only I did a very large amount of research and am now very informed)

Educate yourself, stop throwing out strawman after strawman, fallacy after fallacy, and ignoring corrections. Sure you can keep claiming to be neutral, but someone with a strong opinion from ignorance still looks like a fool, case in point: "teach the controversy" is similarly "neutral" (at least, in the way you've been using the word "neutral").

I'm being educated right now, am I not?
I'm not claiming to be pro or against - I simply was wondering what the whole "OMFG WAT IZ THIS SHIT" all about. I'm not trying to change any minds, or alter any oppinions. I simply stated why I'm neutral on the subject (and, ofcourse, I was jumped on like hounds on meat for that).
I'll obey the law, though. That's a sign that Culture has changed.

Moreover, please explain to me how non-consentual permanent cosmetic surgery can ever not violate basic human rights of control over your own body.

It is the duty of the previous generation to provide for the next, and so on and so forth. The right for circumcision is a volatle one - one someone should decide when they have a child.
If the culture is open towards the uncircumcised? Go for it. They'll be growing up in that culture, and it is easier for them in that manner.
If the culture is a group of close-minded pricks? You should make the least ammount of friction possible for the child. Any parent that wishes their child go through trouble and adversity because of the parent's personal stance on the issue (I'm not projecting - but if you fail to see this point, then you've failed to see why I remain neutral) should not be a parent at all.

The lesser of the evils.

Also, please explain to me precisely why, in your frame of ethics, rape is wrong.

Rape is a violent sexual exploit that leaves the victim damaged mentally, physically, and emotionally. It is the deepest of violations to any living person below murder. Cross-comparing cosmetic surgury to rape is atrocious.
One of my closest friends was raped, and I take offence to the statement that being neutral to this is being neutral to Rape somehow.

 

[borrofburi]

"it's the cultural norm in most places" (only in america, and it turns out that may have just recently changed),

I said that it was a Cultural Norm IN AMERICA. And, when the rest of society changes with this one, then I will change my desicion towards my child if I have the joy of one.

it's done as a cultural norm in most places. Unless, ofcourse, you're psycic and can read the minds of every parent who has decided on it.
It's less about Christian Values and more about how the kid will grow up and bed his first women - then getting laughed at and humiliated because he doesn't fit in

Err no, you did not specify america, you said precisely what I quoted. You are also a fool if you think uncircumcised males are getting laughed at, especially by women who aren't fundamentalist jews or christians, this is yet another "circumcisionist" fallacy on the level of "there are no transitional fossils".

I'm being educated right now, am I not?

Kicking and screaming with continual repeated appeals to the same debunked fallacies, and a refusal to educate yourself by reading the posts we all already wrote several other times in the thread Singer linked to.

I'm not claiming to be pro or against - I simply was wondering what the whole "OMFG WAT IZ THIS SHIT" all about.

It's about non-consensual permanent changes to OTHER people's bodies, and as such is fundamentally wrong according to my ethical framework.

If the culture is a group of close-minded pricks? You should make the least ammount of friction possible for the child. Any parent that wishes their child go through trouble and adversity because of the parent's personal stance on the issue (I'm not projecting - but if you fail to see this point, then you've failed to see why I remain neutral) should not be a parent at all.

Or you could, you know, man the fuck up and do something about violations to human rights. I will not violate the rights of any children solely because "that's what everyone else does". You are also simply wrong about the current cultural state of the USA regarding circumcision. You also fail to realize that trying to change the culture (one person at a time) so our children aren't persecuted is one of the very reasons why you are getting this "omfg wat iz this shit!" response (though again, a lot of it is human rights).

Rape is a violent sexual exploit that leaves the victim damaged mentally, physically, and emotionally.

So it's only bad if they remember it? I ask because I am of the opinion that any consistant ethical framework that says rape is always wrong says circumcision is wrong, though to a lesser degree, for they both are wrong due to the lack of consent of the person whose body is being messed with. I fully admit that rape has plenty of nuances and horrors that circumcision does not, and I would never say they are equally wrong, what I instead say is that they are both wrong for the same reason: lack of consent. If lack of consent is not the problem with rape, if the only things wrong with rape are the emotional, mental, and physical harm it causes, then I posit there are ways to rape someone such that (s)he doesn't remember it (no emotional or mental trauma), and without any physical harm; if you are to be consistent you must either reject this rape as wrong despite the lack of harm caused (probably due to consent issues) thereby declaring circumcision wrong for the same reasons (again not necessarily to the same degree), or you must accept this rape as "ok" (unless of course you can posit a reason why rape is wrong that is not "lack of consent" and is not "physical, emotional, mental harm").

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Err no, you did not specify america, you said precisely what I quoted. You are also a fool if you think uncircumcised males are getting laughed at, especially by women who aren't fundamentalist jews or christians, this is yet another "circumcisionist" fallacy on the level of "there are no transitional fossils".

By that statement - I meant places IN AMERICA. Next time, I will structure the framework of the sentence so that a 5 year old could grasp it.
X.x
Semantics aside - I live in Alabama. Call my sample group small, and biased (but then again, that's the point, isn't it?) but there are several people I know that take some sort of flack for being different in any way imaginable (myself included).
Your steryotypes are correct: Alabama is practically Jesusland, and he's a Republican.

Kicking and screaming with continual repeated appeals to the same debunked fallacies, and a refusal to educate yourself by reading the posts we all already wrote several other times in the thread Singer linked to.

I read them. I took them in. I stand, as always, in a neutrality.

It's about non-consensual permanent changes to OTHER people's bodies, and as such is fundamentally wrong according to my ethical framework.

Sometimes it must be brought upon the parents to decide the best for their child - that a second of harm would bring a lifetime of "fitting in" (atleast make it simpler if they choose so), or that they can allow them to be humiliated of their own choice and be subjected to it later in life if they choose to "fit in," and remember it for their entire life.

Or you could, you know, man the fuck up and do something about violations to human rights. I will not violate the rights of any children solely because "that's what everyone else does". You are also simply wrong about the current cultural state of the USA regarding circumcision.

Is it ethical to make a child fight a war for a parent's standpoint?
And, no. I explained the sample size that I work with. The U.S. as a whole is a wonerful place - but past the gilded exterior, you have a harsh reality that people are selfish and clan-like in their prejudiced grouping.

You also fail to realize that trying to change the culture (one person at a time) so our children aren't persecuted is one of the very reasons why you are getting this "omfg wat iz this shit!" response (though again, a lot of it is human rights).

I'm being chewed at like a piece of meat to wolves for not sidin with either side of the issue.
Being posed with this fact, I will no longer make it a point to inquire upon myself for my neutrality upon subjects - apparently if you don't agree with others, you're against them. Even here, in the Leauge of Reason.

 

[scalyblue]

expressing one's incredulity about a position against the status quo ≠ neutrality, it is an argument for maintaining the status quo. You cannot be neutral about changing a status quo you are involved in, you are either for the change, or you are against it. To ask "why does it bother you" is accepting the status quo, which is a stance "for" it. This isn't a debate on whether we should begin doing something that costs anything under any muster, this is a debate on whether we should stop doing something that is, by definition, genital mutilation.

You like your penis? I feel sorry for you. I feel sorry for me. If somebody could wave a magic wand and magnify you and your partner's sexual pleasure by a thousand percent with no negative effects, would you take it? Somebody already waved that wand in the other direction, and you are so ignorant you will never miss it.

There is no reasonable medical justification for the genital mutilation of infants, despite what you may believe. Using your logic, we should be doing preemptive appendectomies on our infants because the appendix is vestigial and has the potential for causing infection. After a thousand years of this, I'm sure that the absence of a scar will be considered unattractive, and forbid that anybody campaigns against this unnecessary surgery, they must be out of their minds.

There is no reasonable social reason for genital mutilation of infants.

Outside USA and Islamic/Semetic countries, a circumcised penis is considered disgusting. To claim that it is a service to the infant in order to 'fit in' doesn't really qualify for most societies on earth.

I am circumcised because I was born in the US. I do not know what I am missing, aside from understanding what the fine touch sensation is. This does not make my loss immaterial, it makes it even worse. It is a deprivation of a lifetime of experiences...it is a travesty, and even more so because it was done to appease wisdom attributed to a magic sky daddy thousands of years ago.

I am having some difficulty creating an appropriate analogy that you will accept. Note I don't say understand, I believe you understand what you're reading, you just don't accept it.

A country wishes to control the onset of sedition. This is accomplished by scoring the corneas of the infant with acid, making it impossible to see well enough to read fine print. No ability to read personal books means no seditious thoughts, any writing the person can read will be large and conspicuous. The procedure is quick and safe. The pain is not remembered. The person can otherwise function just fine, will grow to contribute to society, and is otherwise well rounded. His only disability is the inability to see anything with fine detail. This is fine to him, because he does not know any better. The world is a matte oil painting to him and this is alright.
Seditious chatter is halted in its tracks in the next generation. The idea has works so well, the country makes it a crime to fail to have this done to your children, after all the muted vision reduces the onset of migraines by a hundredth of one percent and eliminates the need for corrective lenses. After several generations of this, it is considered taboo to lack the milky, damaged corneas that come from the procedure. People from other countries who have clear vision are ridiculed, and when they try to say anything against it they're told how unhealthy it is to not have your eyes scored.
They shake their heads and move along.

Sound familiar?

Of course, if you're for male genital mutilation you necessarily need to be for female genital mutilation. You can't say one is alright and the other is an atrocity, double standards don't really bode well here.

Lastly, If you think that the sole reason for surgically mutilating baby penises is social acceptance, let's take it a step further. After all, if we can modify one sex characteristic how about others? Pubic hair? Electrolysis parties for kindergartners! Obesity? Pre-natal gastric bypasses! Breasts too small, augmentation at twelve! Don't have that six pack, steroids at 9!

What about other vestigial body parts that might have a remote chance of causing problems. Toenail fungus? Who needs toenails. Hell, broken limbs, who needs those? We can have a full quality of life without them.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

According to the opening statement in Scaly's post, there is no such thing as an unbiased and neutural standpoint on anything. The Christians were right.
If you're not for the status quo, you're against it. Congradulations.

X.x
By that entirely scripted logic I must be Pro Abortion, Satanist, Demon-worshipping, Baby-eating, Pro Institutionalized Universal Healthcare, am a Card-carrying Communist, a Terrorist, and have been living in a state of Treason my whole life.
If you're not for us, you're against us - right?
:facepalm:

I'm not responding to this trainwreck of a debate-troll fest anymore. I'm going to get back to life with my circumsized john and my woman who loves me the way I am, reguardless.

 

[scalyblue]

Reading comprehension fail.

If you are silent about the status quo, you acquiesce to it. If you criticize debate about the status quo, you are standing *for* the status quo. There is no neutrality about a status quo that affects you, there is either acquiescence or there is change. If the status quo doesn't affect you, the only neutrality is non-involvement. By posting here, you have involved yourself. Congratulations, you are *for* male genital mutilation because you don't particularly care that it happens and you are pleased with your mutilated penis.

None of the things you have mentioned are the status quo, they look more like strawmen to me.

Your personal account is not admissible evidence in a debate. Because you and your vagina meat are satisfied with your mutilated penis does not make it any less mutilated. If anything, your personal account is a precise example of how society gets away with mutilating baby penises.

I apologize that you see people debating in a debate forum as trolls. I suppose it happens when they don't agree with you. You entered this debate and you don't understand that not speaking against this atrocity is permitting it to happen.

"If you're not for us, you're against us" is not my stance. "If you're not against an atrocity, you are for it," is. If you don't understand the difference, you should really lurk some more and understand where you are posting.

Again, I ask you a direct question. If somebody can wave a magic wand and improve you and your vagina-meat's enjoyment from sex by tenfold with absolutely no deleterious effects, would you go for it? Then why are you alright with somebody having already waved a magic wand that takes it away?

Do you have nothing to say about my vision analogy, or are you bailing because you know you really don't have a leg to stand on?

Man up and admit you're ignorant, it's the only way you learn.

It was once religiously inspired - but now, more than not, it's done as a cultural norm in most places. Unless, ofcourse, you're psycic and can read the minds of every parent who has decided on it.

Assuming that everybody who reads your posts automagically thinks that you're talking about the united states is nationalistic hubris, this is a UK based board and if you're going to make a sweeping generalization such as "a cultural norm in most places" you only succeed in showing your ignorance.

 

[borrofburi]

Rape is a violent sexual exploit that leaves the victim damaged mentally, physically, and emotionally.

So it's only bad if they remember it? I ask because I am of the opinion that any consistant ethical framework that says rape is always wrong says circumcision is wrong, though to a lesser degree, for they both are wrong due to the lack of consent of the person whose body is being messed with. I fully admit that rape has plenty of nuances and horrors that circumcision does not, and I would never say they are equally wrong, what I instead say is that they are both wrong for the same reason: lack of consent. If lack of consent is not the problem with rape, if the only things wrong with rape are the emotional, mental, and physical harm it causes, then I posit there are ways to rape someone such that (s)he doesn't remember it (no emotional or mental trauma), and without any physical harm; if you are to be consistent you must either reject this rape as wrong despite the lack of harm caused (probably due to consent issues) thereby declaring circumcision wrong for the same reasons (again not necessarily to the same degree), or you must accept this rape as "ok" (unless of course you can posit a reason why rape is wrong that is not "lack of consent" and is not "physical, emotional, mental harm").

You dodged the question, or more precisely, simply ignored it.

 

[Aught3]

Scalyblue's post was deleted due to an unacceptable reference to another members girlfriend.

 

[scalyblue]

Scalyblue's post was deleted due to an unacceptable reference to another members girlfriend.

And I'm not going to bother to repost it, it's not my loss, it's the forum's.

 

[Raistlin Majere]

Scalyblue's post was deleted due to an unacceptable reference to another members girlfriend.

Was the whole post about the other member's girlfriend? I can't recall exactly but I don't think it was. It should have been edited the tiny bit required and left intact aside from that and scaly should be told not to repeat the offense. Seriously.

 

[Aught3]

Fine, I put it back in Scaly's other post. Consider it a warning instead.

 

[Raistlin Majere]

Thank you. I felt it contributed to the thread, despite those bits.