Queries about circumcision

[Revnak_v1legacy]

act like circumcision is some great crime.

HA HA, FUNNY YOU SHOULD SAY THAT [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_mutilation]

Equivalence? Not really. Same reasons across different cultures though because people are fucking stupid.

So we can just kill off some people to save some time. What a fuckin' reasonable thing to say.

And if it's obviously the logical choice, why not have it done to your kids? I mean, 17 days sure sounds like a lot of time. It's worth the risk, right? You did the math. Hell, you can tell'em the importance of that as well.

"Daddy saved you two and a half weeks kiddo."

Of course, if your kid dies from it, well, that was just statistical improbability, right?

Fuck it, I'm done here. You're really annoying me you know. I am not trying to argue that circumcision is right. I am trying to argue that it is meaningless. There is no good statistical reason to be against it. No strong logical argument is there to be made. And now that I've made this point you have begun grasping at straws, bringing up something that is essentially entirely unrelated as we have the argument at hand about circumcision in the western world, which is largely not for religious reasons as we simply do not have that large of a Jewish or Muslim population. You then try and characterize me as some kind of emotionless freak, which I am not. I am the opposite of an emotionless freak. I am a very emotional freak.

Also, I am always puzzled at how people flat out refuse to see death as simply the loss of whatever potential time that person had left. I would think such a thing would be a fairly simple concept to grasp, but no, it's death, the only absolute evil in existence. I suppose my contemplating such things is part of why people would assume I don't feel, but like I give a massive fuck about that.

 

[JimB]

Not ignorant, irrational.

Is the difference especially meaningful here?

 

[Freechoice]

Why not respect your child and let him make that decision on his own?

Well, if its a child, then it can't decide for itself, its not allowed.

So fuckin' wait. Jesus, it's not like it needs to be done immediately or his dick may or may not fall off entirely. It's cosmetic surgery done for fuck-all reasoning with tangential benefits and very real consequences.

Not ignorant, irrational.

Is the difference especially meaningful here?

Not one fuckin' bit.

 

[Jonluw]

Male circumcision is not an issue. It's not as big a health risk as most people make it out to be, and is usually only done for sanitary reasons by the Jewish and Islamic faith (as far as I know, don't quote me on that).

Female circumcision on the other hand... *shudder* Anyone who does that to their daughter is a butcher.

While I'm alright for a parent's right to choose for their child, certain limits really should be applied to things like this. Here in Canada, for example, a doctor reserves the right to refuse to perform cosmetic procedures (of which circumcision is considered one) on anyone not old enough to consent (12 with parental permission, 18 without).

Parents looking to circumcise their daughter... get arrested.

You are aware that there are plenty of different kinds of both female and male circumcision, right?
Many types of female circumcision are far less intrusive than the most common male procedure. However, all of them are illegal in the western world. It goes to show that legislation regarding circumcision is not based on rational reasons.
As for me: I'd place the Legal/Illegal line way at the bottom.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

Since when is "the minute chance of fuck-ups" not covered by 'anything'? Unless the guy mistyped, I'm pretty sure I understood his point to the fullest extent. He views religious views as important to some degree, I'm asking why.

The added social cohesion from adhering to norms is far greater than 0.018% chance of death. That chance of death is so insignificant the lolipop the doctor gives you afterwards makes it worth it.

Social cohesion is not a reason. If involuntary cosmetic surgery is necessary for social cohesion, then the reason for that cohesion should, in all cases, be called in to question. The problem here is that the reason is deeply irrational. Meaning that:

1) While at a low percentage, babies are dying for no reason every year.
2) The public acceptance of this practice sets a framework for other actions based on irrational beliefs, which is never good if we want to move on as a society.

I would be more willing to let it slide if the reason made any sense at all, like "We want our men to last longer in beds and please the women of the world", because at least there's some reason for it and it has actual good intentions, even if the means are twisted, as opposed to "God wants us to do it".

If they think that God wants them to, and there is no logical reason to say that it is on the whole harmful (which I have already argued and have no desire to do again) then why not let them? If it is part of the most ridiculously socially cohesive people groups in the world, the Jews, then promoting that cohesion becomes all the more important.
Or are you going to keep harping on about how some tiny number of people die compared to the number that get the procedure and therefore it is always wrong no matter how much math I do to show that more time (life) is saved through not having to wash under the foreskins than is lost through death? And then make fun of me for how small an amount of time it takes to wash a foreskin and then not realize that's the point. Damn have I hated this topic. (note, that all has nothing to do with you personally, I'm just tired of the argument I've been having)

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

If they think that God wants them to, and there is no logical reason to say that it is on the whole harmful (which I have already argued and have no desire to do again) then why not let them? If it is part of the most ridiculously socially cohesive people groups in the world, the Jews, then promoting that cohesion becomes all the more important.
Or are you going to keep harping on about how some tiny number of people die compared to the number that get the procedure and therefore it is always wrong no matter how much math I do to show that more time (life) is saved through not having to wash under the foreskins than is lost through death? And then make fun of me for how small an amount of time it takes to wash a foreskin and then not realize that's the point. Damn have I hated this topic. (note, that all has nothing to do with you personally, I'm just tired of the argument I've been having)

I already answered your question. If you care at all about the rationality of our beliefs, you shouldn't be in favor of something like this. Dead kids don't even have to enter the equation. All it takes is your appreciation of choice and rational thought.

I also already said social cohesiveness is not a reason for it. You don't go "Why not" when the subject is surgery, you ask "Why", and then evaluate the reasons. If the reason is that the child will fit in better with a reclusive social group that will indoctrinate them to believe all kinds of silly things later down the line, then the involuntary procedure is not worth it.

I do appreciate rational thought, and neither side has the stronger argument. I also happen to appreciate all those other types of thought as well, though I do think that many of them simply are not suited for arguments.

No, they will fit in better with a group that is known to experience literally every possible benefit of social cohesion to a degree that no other religious group can. Just because you think that religion is all about silly people being indoctrinated to do silly things doesn't make it a fact. The demography for Jews is only harmed by the racism against them, and that wouldn't be avoided with an intact foreskin now would it? Otherwise they experience a pretty awesome quality of social life.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

I do appreciate rational thought, and neither side has the stronger argument. I also happen to appreciate all those other types of thought as well, though I do think that many of them simply are not suited for arguments.

No, they will fit in better with a group that is known to experience literally every possible benefit of social cohesion to a degree that no other religious group can. Just because you think that religion is all about silly people being indoctrinated to do silly things doesn't make it a fact. The demography for Jews is only harmed by the racism against them, and that wouldn't be avoided with an intact foreskin now would it? Otherwise they experience a pretty awesome quality of social life.

*sigh*

Listen, dude, the whole practice is founded on irrational grounds. If you choose to play this little game of "Both are equally rational", do it with yourself, I'm not going to waste any more time on this.

The reasons for an action are less important than whether or not the action itself is reasonable. Just because they're doing this for a stupid reason (in your opinion and from a purely rational standpoint) doesn't mean that the act itself is stupid. There is next to no benefit for getting a circumcision in a purely medical sense for the average individual, but the same can be said of not getting a circumcision. After this it all becomes a value judgement, and they value their religion.

 

[Freechoice]

I do appreciate rational thought, and neither side has the stronger argument. I also happen to appreciate all those other types of thought as well, though I do think that many of them simply are not suited for arguments.

No, they will fit in better with a group that is known to experience literally every possible benefit of social cohesion to a degree that no other religious group can. Just because you think that religion is all about silly people being indoctrinated to do silly things doesn't make it a fact. The demography for Jews is only harmed by the racism against them, and that wouldn't be avoided with an intact foreskin now would it? Otherwise they experience a pretty awesome quality of social life.

*sigh*

Listen, dude, the whole practice is founded on irrational grounds. If you choose to play this little game of "Both are equally rational", do it with yourself, I'm not going to waste any more time on this.

The reasons for an action are less important than whether or not the action itself is reasonable. Just because they're doing this for a stupid reason (in your opinion and from a purely rational standpoint) doesn't mean that the act itself is stupid. There is next to no benefit for getting a circumcision in a purely medical sense for the average individual, but the same can be said of not getting a circumcision. After this it all becomes a value judgement, and they value their religion.

Then the smart option is to just not fucking get it.

 

[spookydom]

I had to have a circumcision when I was very young due to a hereditory medical condition. My forskin didn't grow with the rest of me if you know what I'm saying. Growing up I felt a little diferent but as I grew older I realised girls love it. I do not have any basis for comparison but don't feel it has effected me at all. Also, The people editing quoted posts with "Snip" are making me laugh in the context of this thread.

 

[Freechoice]

Female circumcision is done for one reason. They assume it will reduce a woman's libido.

I dunno why they do that. Women seem perfectly capable (and more than willing) of acting on that on their own.

'sides the sanitary reasons are becoming less important as people are becoming more aware of clean water and soap. Now it's just the stupid religious morons that think it's an alien species.

You know, the Covenant.

 

[AngloDoom]

Male circumcision is not an issue. It's not as big a health risk as most people make it out to be, and is usually only done for sanitary reasons by the Jewish and Islamic faith (as far as I know, don't quote me on that).

Female circumcision on the other hand... *shudder* Anyone who does that to their daughter is a butcher.

While I'm alright for a parent's right to choose for their child, certain limits really should be applied to things like this. Here in Canada, for example, a doctor reserves the right to refuse to perform cosmetic procedures (of which circumcision is considered one) on anyone not old enough to consent (12 with parental permission, 18 without).

Parents looking to circumcise their daughter... get arrested.

You are aware that there are plenty of different kinds of both female and male circumcision, right?
Many types of female circumcision are far less intrusive than the most common male procedure. However, all of them are illegal in the western world. It goes to show that legislation regarding circumcision is not based on rational reasons.

[Pic snip (lolsnip]

Did I seriously just read that laws regarding circumcision are not based on rationality?

Male circumcision is done for mostly sanitary reasons, or religious reasons that serve the same purpose.

Female circumcision is done for one reason. They assume it will reduce a woman's libido. And the different styles of circumcision all involve the removal of the clitoris, cutting the ability to feel sexual pleasure by a severe amount in adulthood.

In Canada, this is considered permanantly disabling someone, and is illegal here and in ANY place in the world that claims to be civilized. It's nothing more than a butchering job, and most of the time is done sans-anesthesia and not even in a hospital.

Women escaping the threat of FGM (Female Genital Mutilation) can be granted asylum in Canada and the US, allowing them instant immigration to these countries.

Captcha: Uncharted Island

The places where FGM is still practiced.

Excuse me, but I hope you don't mind me butting in there: did you watch the video the person you quoted supplied?

'Female circumcision' has a ridiculous amount of variants that range from the more common pricking the clitoris until it bleeds to the less common sewing the vagina shut after removal of inner and outer labia and clitoris. Some forms of female circumcision are less harmful and invasive than male circumcision and yet they are made illegal. That is what is the main point of the video.

Also, saying you understand the origins of circumcision in general is absurd. While many people claim it was performed in tribal times for the sake of maintaining hygiene (which I don't think should have any sway in a modern world with showers, but hey) just as many suggest it was used to suppress sexuality in males or as a sacrifice to a god.

Personally, I cannot see any difference between type Ia of female circumcision (the removal of the clitoral hood) and male circumcision besides social stigma. I just don't think it should be up to the parents to determine how their child's sexual organs should look. If my parents got Dennis the Menace tattooed on my penis because my dad also had Dennis the Menace on his phallus, I'm sure you'd say my father was being nutty.

That's my opinion on the whole thing anyway.

 

[ScreamingNinja]

Shit.

This won't end well.

Anyone who wishes to survive may join me in my bunker. I have all the hookers and Blackjack you could ever want.

OT: Any doctor worth their salt will tell you that any medical procedure has risks and removing a small boy's foreskin for anything less than a medical concern is not a great idea.

I'll join you in the bunker. I know how these threads end.

I too, shall join. Not because I know how these threads end, but because from what I've seen this thread is pretty fucked up. And I feel like I know more about people I've never met, or will meet, than I ever should.