NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm going to restrain myself and assume you're 15 and know nothing about human female genitalia.

I was actually willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume it was tongue and cheek as nobody can be THAT stupid.

I never said that their moral code was wrong, they are the ones calling me things like sick and freak, and so on.

I said that I don't use a scale, not that they shouldn't. I tried to explain why I don't, and they go on and throw fits like children, calling me names, failing to read, and.....whatever.

I am sorry that I said you were acting like a child, called you illeterate, and suggested you were egocentric and self serving because you believe differently.

No, wait, that was you.

I am sorry that I said you were acting like a child, called you illeterate, and suggested you were egocentric and self serving because you believe differently.

No, wait, that was you.

I am sorry that a wiki article explaining something offends you so, maybe you should go sue them for hurting your feelings.

I don't know about "morals", but the practice of female genital mutilation is obviously worse because it lessens/removes sexual feeling.
male genital mutilation can and does lessen sexual feeling aswell. The inside of the forskin is as sensitive as the inside of you lip. All those nerves are lost forever. The glans is also ment to be an internal organ. When the protective forskin is removed, it bulids up a layer of protective skin cells. This, over time, lessens sensation.

It's a fact that in countries where economy and lifestyle are equivalent, Viagra sales closely parallel male circumcision rates.

I am sorry that a wiki article explaining something offends you so, maybe you should go sue them for hurting your feelings.

oh, the wikipedia article is perfectly accurate in its description. You however were entirely inaccurate in trying to tie that definition to me.

A fact I pointed out to you, and upon doing so you accused me of "not being able to read". So I quoted your particular source, word for word, without modification, and asked you, quite directly, how you intended that definition to apply to me.

I'm still waiting.

To whit: the definition of a prostitute is someone who has sex for money. I could provide an entry to wikipedia that provides just that definition

The definition would be quite proper, that is what a prostitute is, but I'd be wildly off my mark to call you a prostitute because I have no evidence to believe that you have sex for money. And if I CALLED you a prostitute, you'd be well within your rights to be offended and demand i provide some sort of evidence to back up the fact that you are, in fact, a prostitute, or retract my statement.

A prostitute is indeed one who has sex for money, and providing a definition saying so would be proper. What you cited is a correct and proper definition.

I would be wildly off base calling YOU a prostitute however, since your state does not fit the definition.

See the difference? If not I really have no need to converse further since if you can't grasp that distinction I really have no hope you'll understand further.

oh, the wikipedia article is perfectly accurate in its description. You however were entirely inaccurate in trying to tie that definition to me.

A fact I pointed out to you, and upon doing so you accused me of "not being able to read". So I quoted your particular source, word for word, without modification, and asked you, quite directly, how you intended that definition to apply to me.

I'm still waiting.

To whit: the definition of a prostitute is someone who has sex for money. I could provide an entry to wikipedia that provides just that definition

The definition would be quite proper, that is what a prostitute is, but I'd be wildly off my mark to call you a prostitute because I have no evidence to believe that you have sex for money. And if I CALLED you a prostitute, you'd be well within your rights to be offended and demand i provide some sort of evidence to back up the fact that you are, in fact, a prostitute, or retract my statement.

A prostitute is indeed one who has sex for money, and providing a definition saying so would be proper. What you cited is a correct and proper definition.

I would be wildly off base calling YOU a prostitute however, since your state does not fit the definition.

See the difference? If not I really have no need to converse further since if you can't grasp that distinction I really have no hope you'll understand further.

I understand exactly what you are saying, I also understand that you view morality as something you can grade and that grade depends upon "how bad the consequences are" which is exactly what a definition of someone with pre-conventional morality would say, that they view something as "more wrong" based on the consequences of the action.

I'm going to restrain myself and assume you're 15 and know nothing about human female genitalia.

From a utilitarian perspective it's less useful than your tonsils. The foreskin, on the other hand, is quite useful incase you ever have to run through some thick underbrush without your pants on.

I understand exactly what you are saying, I also understand that you view morality as something you can grade and that grade depends upon "how bad the consequences are" which is exactly what a definition of someone with pre-conventional morality would say, that they view something as "more wrong" based on the consequences of the action.

that's true, however someone with a pre-conventional morality are ALSO characterized as egotistical and self centered.

Someone who has pre-conventional morality believes that morality can be graded AND has evidence of self centered egotism. The definition requires BOTH. Read your own damned definition.

So you said I sounded like someone who demonstrated pre-conventional morality, that would require I believe in gradated morality AND was self centered and egotistic. So I challenged you to provide evidence where I demonstrated my morality was based on self sentered egotism (which is required for a sense of pre-conventional morality as defined by YOUR definition).

I know you've had sex, you have kids. What you did is the intellectual equivalent of me calling you a prostitute, because both you, and prostitutes have sex.

No, that doesn't work, because I"m missing a key definition of a prostitute, one who has sex AND charges for it.

Yeah, I may meet a PART of the definition of someone with pre-conventional morality, just like you meet PART of the definition of a prostitute.

But not all of it. You need all of it. And unless you can provide evidence i meet the full definition YOU provided, you only get to call me someone with pre-conventional morality and be expected to be taken seriously provided I can, in turn, call you a whore. After all, both you and prostitutes have sex, that must make you one.

Which of course, is a ludicrus proposition and I don't really think of you as anything even close to that, and please don't think I am. I merely pick an extreme example to prove a point. Of COURSE you're not a prostitute just because you have sex. Prostitutes charge for it, that's what makes a prostitute different from someone who just has sex.

A sense of self centered egotism seperates one with pre-conventional morality from someone who just thinks morality can be graded. But that's the problem with labling someone when they only meet PART of the definition, and are entirely missing another crucial fact.

I was actually willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume it was tongue and cheek as nobody can be THAT stupid.

Hasn't that assumption been disproven, again and again, on this very forum?

that's true, however someone with a pre-conventional morality are ALSO characterized as egotistical and self centered.

Someone who has pre-conventional morality believes that morality can be graded AND has evidence of self centered egotism. The definition requires BOTH. Read your own damned definition.

So you said I sounded like someone who demonstrated pre-conventional morality, that would require I believe in gradated morality AND was self centered and egotistic. So I challenged you to provide evidence where I demonstrated my morality was based on self sentered egotism (which is required for a sense of pre-conventional morality as defined by YOUR definition).

I know you've had sex, you have kids. What you did is the intellectual equivalent of me calling you a prostitute, because both you, and prostitutes have sex.

No, that doesn't work, because I"m missing a key definition of a prostitute, one who has sex AND charges for it.

Yeah, I may meet a PART of the definition of someone with pre-conventional morality, just like you meet PART of the definition of a prostitute.

But not all of it. You need all of it. And unless you can provide evidence i meet the full definition YOU provided, you only get to call me someone with pre-conventional morality and be expected to be taken seriously provided I can, in turn, call you a whore. After all, both you and prostitutes have sex, that must make you one.

I guess you can call me a whore then. It's probably going to make you feel better about yourself, but it won't really help anything much.

I do find you to be egotistical, but since that's a subjective term and you do think so highly of yourself I doubt any evidence I provide would satisfy you.

Female because Male is nothing more than removing a small bit of flesh that isn't even missed. Whoopdee do.

From a utilitarian perspective it's less useful than your tonsils. The foreskin, on the other hand, is quite useful incase you ever have to run through some thick underbrush without your pants on.

That was an image I didn't need. :p

The labia, both sets, provide protection against foreign substances entering the vagina. Pretty much a draw on that score. I'll grant you that men need the protection a foreskin gives, as no woman would be silly enough to be running through thick underbrush without her pants on.

as no woman would be silly enough to be running through thick underbrush without her pants on.

Um...*various scenes from her past flash before her eyes*...right...

I guess you can call me a whore then. It's probably going to make you feel better about yourself, but it won't really help anything much.

I do find you to be egotistical, but since that's a subjective term and you do think so highly of yourself I doubt any evidence I provide would satisfy you.

swing and a miss.

I have no particular satisfaction in doing so, and clarified in an edit. I AM saying that calling you one would be inaccurate because you are missing a crucial definition, that's what keeps you from being one.

Much like you saying that is my state is likewise missing a crucial definition, and if you really believe that my sense of morality is based on self serving egotism (not just egotism, by your own definition my sense of morality must revolve around me, again, YOUR definition), then please provide.

"I'm right and I know I"m right but I'm not going to show how I'm right because you won't listen" is no more way to win an argument than calling me an illiterate child, especially since I"m explaining myself for like the 4th time and you STILL JUST DONT GET IT.

That was an image I didn't need. :p

The labia, both sets, provide protection against foreign substances entering the vagina. Pretty much a draw on that score. I'll grant you that men need the protection a foreskin gives, as no woman would be silly enough to be running through thick underbrush without her pants on.

I take it you've never seen a woman going through the woods on the side of the road looking for a place to pee.

I take it you've never seen a woman going through the woods on the side of the road looking for a place to pee.

And you aren't helping, either!

Besides, having to pee is what's known, I believe, as a mitigating circumstance. Never get in the way of a woman who has to go, not ever.

Um...*various scenes from her past flash before her eyes*...right...

Neesika! I'm trying to make a point here! :D

"I'm right and I know I"m right but I'm not going to show how I'm right because you won't listen" is no more way to win an argument than calling me an illiterate child, especially since I"m explaining myself for like the 4th time and you STILL JUST DONT GET IT.

I am not arguing anymore, I said earlier that I was done.

I do understand what you are saying, and I do think you fit both areas of the definition, but I am unwilling to go through this with you because anything I say will not change what you think, and I really don't care what you think about what I think about you.

Female because Male is nothing more than removing a small bit of flesh that isn't even missed. Whoopdee do.

I miss it...:(

Slightly ot but check this out.

http://www.houstonmidwife.com/main/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=14

who am I?

A rational human being that doesn't believe in harming someone without their consent, duh.

I don't believe male circumcision causes harm. If I DID, my opinion would be radically different.

But it doesn't, so it isn't.

And if female circumcision also didn't cause harm, my opinion would not be to restrict that practice

But it does, so it is.

So it's not harm to cut things of your body without consent?

I miss it...:(

Me too.

From a utilitarian perspective it's less useful than your tonsils. The foreskin, on the other hand, is quite useful incase you ever have to run through some thick underbrush without your pants on.

Do that often?

So it's not harm to cut things of your body without consent?

I believe he is Jewish so no......

I miss it...:(

Why?

And for that matter how do you know what you missed?

Why?

And for that matter how do you know what you missed?

I'll never get to experience docking.

No, people who understand what the fundamental basis for morality is do.

Amusing. I love the inherent pompousness of this.

Amusingly, you are referring to the most fundamental basis of morality. So fundamental that we are expected to move beyond it as children. That's why it's referred to as PREconventional morality or morality that only recognizes harm rather than other more important issues.

If your understanding of morality has never moved past the stage of understanding that right and wrong contains more than a review of how much it hurts you then you'd be considered by most doctors to be either a healthy toddler, developmentally disabled or pathological. Honestly, you can't possibly think that simply morality down to a level where instead of right and wrong, one could use the term, oh, I don't know, harmful and not harmful. Morality is so heavily debated because it tends to delve a little bit deeper than as simplistic a concept as "it hurts so I don't want to touch it anymore".

I believe he is Jewish so no......

I wonder how far that extends. You don't need your middle toe. I'm gonna cut that off my nephew tomorrow. Earlobes? Don't need them. I'll tattoo his face. Why not? He doesn't NEED to have no tattoos. I mean sure it's an unnecessary risk to my nephew and all that, but he why not put him through painful procedures to mold him into my own personal work of art. It's not like he's a person with feelings or anything.

Amusing. I love the inherent pompousness of this.

Amusingly, you are referring to the most fundamental basis of morality. So fundamental that we are expected to move beyond it as children. That's why it's referred to as PREconventional morality or morality that only recognizes harm rather than other more important issues.

If your understanding of morality has never moved past the stage of understanding that right and wrong contains more than a review of how much it hurts you then you'd be considered by most doctors to be either a healthy toddler, developmentally disabled or pathological. Honestly, you can't possibly think that simply morality down to a level where instead of right and wrong, one could use the term, oh, I don't know, harmful and not harmful. Morality is so heavily debated because it tends to delve a little bit deeper than as simplistic a concept as "it hurts so I don't want to touch it anymore".

In this regard, you seem to be equating dislike of harm to self with dislike of harm to others.

perhaps you could give an example of some of these other more important issues that should be considered immoral though they cause no harm to anyone.

I'll never get to experience docking.

Never heard of that and had to look it up.

Can't speak for myself but my friend who had his cut at 25 said the lost sexual pleasure is highly overrated.

So it's not harm to cut things of your body without consent?

I dunno, you tell me, how have I been harmed?

Amusing. I love the inherent pompousness of this.

Amusingly, you are referring to the most fundamental basis of morality. So fundamental that we are expected to move beyond it as children. That's why it's referred to as PREconventional morality or morality that only recognizes harm rather than other more important issues.

If your understanding of morality has never moved past the stage of understanding that right and wrong contains more than a review of how much it hurts you then you'd be considered by most doctors to be either a healthy toddler, developmentally disabled or pathological. Honestly, you can't possibly think that simply morality down to a level where instead of right and wrong, one could use the term, oh, I don't know, harmful and not harmful. Morality is so heavily debated because it tends to delve a little bit deeper than as simplistic a concept as "it hurts so I don't want to touch it anymore".

I never said I concerned morality about how it hurts ME. I equate morality with how it hurts SOMEONE.

Tell me an example of something immoral that doesn't hurt someone, then?

I wonder how far that extends. You don't need your middle toe. I'm gonna cut that off my nephew tomorrow. Earlobes? Don't need them. I'll tattoo his face. Why not? He doesn't NEED to have no tattoos. I mean sure it's an unnecessary risk to my nephew and all that, but he why not put him through painful procedures to mold him into my own personal work of art. It's not like he's a person with feelings or anything.

:D

Hmm from foreskin to body parts. Last I heard the Jews don't think cutting what you mentioned is a good idea.

Come on now. You usually do better then that.

Effort would be best served by abolishing FGM.

The males comes in and out of style. People can argue the merits or lack there of.

There is nothing to defend FGM.

Never heard of that and had to look it up.

Can't speak for myself but my friend who had his cut at 25 said the lost sexual pleasure is highly overrated.

Your friend is not a statistically significant sample. Perhaps he is an exception to the rule. Perhaps if the same proceedure was done to me I would feel quite different about it. Perhaps as a result of his unique biology, the loss of feeling was less than normal. This is why anecdotal evidence doesn't work.

I dunno, you tell me, how have I been harmed?

I have been harmed by being denied access to my foreskin. MY foreskin. A healthy, useful part of my body. My parents have since told me that had they known then what they know now, they would not have done it. However, this is an irreversible and unnecessary procedure that permanently denies me use of a natural, healthy part of my body.

I have been harmed by being denied access to my foreskin. MY foreskin. A healthy, useful part of my body. My parents have since told me that had they known then what they know now, they would not have done it. However, this is an irreversible and unnecessary procedure that permanently denies me use of a natural, healthy part of my body.

Pretty much exactly what I have to say as well.

:D

Hmm from foreskin to body parts. Last I heard the Jews don't think cutting what you mentioned is a good idea.

Come on now. You usually do better then that.

Effort would be best served by abolishing FGM.

The males comes in and out of style. People can argue the merits or lack there of.

There is nothing to defend FGM.

There is nothing to defend GM. I don't think it's better because it's not as poorly performed. The fact that we are denying children access to their intact body should be reason enough.

Why is a toe any different? Assume that instead of foreskins, it was the tip of your nose that people who support circumcision wanted to cut off(circumcision is not limited to Jews). Because it's become suddenly popular is it suddenly less harmful or less outrageous?

And you realize that it's not an either/or. One can speak out against FGM and in an effort to, you know, not be a blathering hypocrite also speak out against MGM.

I never said I concerned morality about how it hurts ME. I equate morality with how it hurts SOMEONE.

Tell me an example of something immoral that doesn't hurt someone, then?

Sure. I cut the breaks on your car. Immoral. You find out about it before you get in the car. No harm. Still immoral.

I cut the breaks on your car with the intent of causing an accident. You are changing your breaks out and it turns out that it is easier to change your hoses since I cut them. I actually helped you, but my action was still immoral.

No one has to be hurt. Possiblity of harm is enough for it to be immoral. Possiblity of denying one their rights is immoral. The possibility of denying one freedom of thought is immoral.

Morality is a respect for society and others. It can be immoral to simply not provide a benefit without doing any harm at all. Immoral action can simply be a lack of action, allowing someone to be denied rights or priveleges unnecessarily.

Female Gender Multilation is obviously far more horrible than male gender mutilation. The conditions it might be performed under don't matter. The equivalent of Female Gender Mutilation would basically be cutting the top third of the penis off. while both are wrong, they are obviously not equivalent, and could only be equivalent morally in a moral system that makes no distinction between levels of harm done.

There is nothing to defend GM. I don't think it's better because it's not as poorly performed. The fact that we are denying children access to their intact body should be reason enough.

Why is a toe any different? Assume that instead of foreskins, it was the tip of your nose that people who support circumcision wanted to cut off(circumcision is not limited to Jews). Because it's become suddenly popular is it suddenly less harmful or less outrageous?

And you realize that it's not an either/or. One can speak out against FGM and in an effort to, you know, not be a blathering hypocrite also speak out against MGM.

Intact Body? We don't walk around in the forests or brush naked anymore.

Show me how males are being damaged by this.

Again comparing circumcision to FGM is ludicrous. There is no comparing them.

Intact Body? We don't walk around in the forests or brush naked anymore.

Show me how males are being damaged by this.

Again comparing circumcision to FGM is ludicrous. There is no comparing them.

You didn't even address the point. Instead you attempted to obfuscate it with nonsense about walking around naked.

We are talking about performing unnecessary, irreversible and painful procedures that deny a child use of a natural, healthy, useful part of their body with potentially harmful or even deadly side-effects.

Again, show me how I'm damaging you by stealing your car? I'm only denying you use of it when it belongs to you. That's not harm. well, unless one knows what HARM is.

Meanwhile, I think the comparison is in that they are both mutilations. FGM has many different types of procedures and many different levels of complications. FGM at its most minor, the removal of the clitoral hood, is almost exactly comparable. In both procedures they are done at a time when the skin is attached to the head of the penis or the clitoris and they have to tear it away and then cut it off. By the nature of the procedure, both the clitoris and the glans are damaged by the procedure. They are comparable parts and in both cases the primary effect is on the pleasure of sexual activity.

You didn't even address the point. Instead you attempted to obfuscate it with nonsense about walking around naked.

We are talking about performing unnecessary, irreversible and painful procedures that deny a child use of a natural, healthy, useful part of their body with potentially harmful or even deadly side-effects.

Again, show me how I'm damaging you by stealing your car? I'm only denying you use of it when it belongs to you. That's not harm. well, unless one knows what HARM is.

Meanwhile, I think the comparison is in that they are both mutilations. FGM has many different types of procedures and many different levels of complications. FGM at its most minor, the removal of the clitoral hood, is almost exactly comparable. In both procedures they are done at a time when the skin is attached to the head of the penis or the clitoris and they have to tear it away and then cut it off. By the nature of the procedure, both the clitoris and the glans are damaged by the procedure. They are comparable parts and in both cases the primary effect is on the pleasure of sexual activity.

Speaking of dodging.

All procedures can have deadly side effects.

Again show me how the male is damaged by circumcision by the same way a female is by FGM.

Do it. You will convert me to your camp.

Meanwhile, I think the comparison is in that they are both mutilations. FGM has many different types of procedures and many different levels of complications. FGM at its most minor, the removal of the clitoral hood, is almost exactly comparable. In both procedures they are done at a time when the skin is attached to the head of the penis or the clitoris and they have to tear it away and then cut it off. By the nature of the procedure, both the clitoris and the glans are damaged by the procedure. They are comparable parts and in both cases the primary effect is on the pleasure of sexual activity.

The males aren't cut for the purpose of eliminating sexual pleasure.

A cut male still enjoys sex.

A woman finds sex painful after FGM.

Speaking of dodging.

All procedures can have deadly side effects.

Which constitutes harm and which is why we shouldn't perform them on people without their consent or unless there is a compelling medical need that offsets the risk of deadly side effects.


Again show me how the male is damaged by circumcision by the same way a female is by FGM.

Do it. You will convert me to your camp.

I just did show you.

If you're familiar with the procedures for surgical removal of the hood or the foreskin you'll see that at that point they to flaps of skin have many similarities and that this is precisely why the glans and clitoris are damaged by their removal. The actual procedure tears the skin of the glans or clitoris at a time when it is still attached leaving the body part raw and damaged. Best case scenario, it heals and other than not having the actual body part, you've only lost a small amount of sensitivity. Worst case scenario, assuming none of the more grave complications, the part is damaged enough by the procedure and the constant exposure to pants, chairs, and other trauma, that you have a significant loss of pleasure and it affects your ability to climax. The climax part affects women more than men, but that's true of women and men who haven't had the procedure.

The males aren't cut for the purpose of eliminating sexual pleasure.

Actually the initial introduction of the procedure was for exactly that. They then set out to find a more "medical" reason for that which they already supported.

A cut male still enjoys sex.

Depending on the side-effects.


A woman finds sex painful after FGM.

Not always true. You are mixing all of the different types of FGM together. The more major kinds mind make sex impossible and are very different than the typical US kind of male mutilation.

However when talking about the procedure most comparable to male circumcision, the likelihood is that the effect is not much different than male circumcision. There are people in the US who used to get female circumcisions on their daughters in sterile environments similar to how the male procedure is performed and it is very similar.

There is a big difference between female circumcision and the more grave forms of FGM. Pretending that the female circumcision must be mixed with the more grave procedures when discussing this but not male circumcision is just bias.

The inside of the forskin is as sensitive as the inside of you lip.

Barely sensitive at all?

Barely sensitive at all?

Wow, kissing must not be very fun for you then.

I just did show you.

If you're familiar with the procedures for surgical removal of the hood or the foreskin you'll see that at that point they to flaps of skin have many similarities and that this is precisely why the glans and clitoris are damaged by their removal. The actual procedure tears the skin of the glans or clitoris at a time when it is still attached leaving the body part raw and damaged. Best case scenario, it heals and other than not having the actual body part, you've only lost a small amount of sensitivity. Worst case scenario, assuming none of the more grave complications, the part is damaged enough by the procedure and the constant exposure to pants, chairs, and other trauma, that you have a significant loss of pleasure and it affects your ability to climax. The climax part affects women more than men, but that's true of women and men who haven't had the procedure.

I know the procedure a little more then you think. I have seen the African version. It's not the same.

So far you have only shown "annoyances" if it was shown the males have constant rashes from friction of clothing, then the procedure would not have been used.

They don't happen that much.

Gain Loss? Still is a matter of perception to the people arguing.

"You are 'mutilating' your child" will not win converts. To you it is mutilation. To others; it's not.

So why aren't you out their campaigning against plastic surgery?

Actually the initial introduction of the procedure was for exactly that. They then set out to find a more "medical" reason for that which they already supported.
Again prove the damage. I only hear perceived damage.


Depending on the side-effects.

Again prove the damage. Show the numbers. If you show that most males can't enjoy sex then you win.


Not always true. You are mixing all of the different types of FGM together. The more major kinds mind make sex impossible and are very different than the typical US kind of male mutilation.
*snip*

The same can be said of the anti-circumcision camp. They liken the procedure to the image portrayed by FGM.

FGM is the extreme form. Female circumcision is not. I don't mix the words. Simply because there are many people that think FGM is ok.

Sure. I cut the breaks on your car. Immoral. You find out about it before you get in the car. No harm. Still immoral.

I cut the breaks on your car with the intent of causing an accident. You are changing your breaks out and it turns out that it is easier to change your hoses since I cut them. I actually helped you, but my action was still immoral.

No one has to be hurt. Possiblity of harm is enough for it to be immoral. Possiblity of denying one their rights is immoral. The possibility of denying one freedom of thought is immoral.

Morality is a respect for society and others. It can be immoral to simply not provide a benefit without doing any harm at all. Immoral action can simply be a lack of action, allowing someone to be denied rights or priveleges unnecessarily.

But you indended harm. that is what makes your actions immoral. It has less to do with possiblity than intent. If you had been under the impression that cutting the brakes would save me money on my car insurance, and would have no bad effects, and were simply mistaken, then it would not be immoral.

I know the procedure a little more then you think. I have seen the African version. It's not the same.

You are correct. However, as I said, if you're going to lump all female circumcision with that level of mutilation, then you may as well lump male circumcision in as well, for consistency. Or I'd consider you just as consistent if you support the practice of female circumcision if it was only done to the hood and only in a similar environment to its male counter part. I'd think you were wrong, but consistent. However, supporting one because it happens that any more grave versions are more rare while condemning the other similar procedure because you're unwilling to make a deliniation that isn't based on sex, is not consistent.


So far you have only shown "annoyances" if it was shown the males have constant rashes from friction of clothing, then the procedure would not have been used.

Annoyances? Amusing. So as long as cutting body parts off of someone without their consent is only annoying then it's okay. Good to know. Here I thought you didn't have a rational support for the procedure.


They don't happen that much.

So? For any unnecessary cosmetic procedure that denies a child use of a healthy, useful part of his body, at all is too much.


Gain Loss? Still is a matter of perception to the people arguing.

Nope. It's a matter that the person who is judging the gain loss is being denied a choice. It doesn't matter if it's only perception if they were denied choice. If I cut your arm before you can remember it your won't perceive a loss either, but it would still be an inescapably wrong thing to do.


"You are 'mutilating' your child" will not win converts. To you it is mutilation. To others; it's not.

It's mutilation. I call it like it is. I'm not willing to sugar coat to win political points.


So why aren't you out their campaigning against plastic surgery?

Plastic surgery is not done to people against their will. I would, however, ask that you be buried under the jail if you gave your two-year-old plastic surgery without a pathological need.

Again prove the damage. I only hear perceived damage.

Loss of sensitivity is perceived damage? Kenotization is a fact and it is meant to be prevented by the foreskin.

How about death? Is death just perceived? Infection? Scarring? Loss of the penis?


Again prove the damage. Show the numbers. If you show that most males can't enjoy sex then you win.

Wait, most? It has to be most. Interesting. Here, I would think that any males that were losing pleasure for no medical reason against their will would be enough, but now it has to be most.

Hmmm...

http://www.cirp.org/library/complications/williams-kapila/

For my money, I'm not willing to subject children to a non-therapeutic surgery where the complications are between 2 and 10% and where the result is they are denied a healthy part of their body.


The same can be said of the anti-circumcision camp. They liken the procedure to the image portrayed by FGM.

FGM is the extreme form. Female circumcision is not. I don't mix the words. Simply because there are many people that think FGM is ok.

Fair enough, I would consider it comparable to Female circumcision performed in a similar environment, but not the other forms. Clear enough.

But you indended harm. that is what makes your actions immoral. It has less to do with possiblity than intent. If you had been under the impression that cutting the brakes would save me money on my car insurance, and would have no bad effects, and were simply mistaken, then it would not be immoral.

most of the people that do FGM do so because they intend to do a service for their daughters, they believe that it's a good thing. Is it now moral?

But you indended harm. that is what makes your actions immoral. It has less to do with possiblity than intent. If you had been under the impression that cutting the brakes would save me money on my car insurance, and would have no bad effects, and were simply mistaken, then it would not be immoral.


What if I intended to have sex with an unconscious woman but I thought she would enjoy it? Is that immoral?

Wow, kissing must not be very fun for you then.

Kissing uses the outside of the lip and sometimes the tongue. Amazingly enough, inside is not the same as outside.

Anyone who's circumsized a female deserves only two things. Two bullets in the back of the head.

Loss of sensitivity is perceived damage? Kenotization is a fact and it is meant to be prevented by the foreskin.


Do you mean Ketonization?

Do you have numbers to how often diabetic ketoacidosis happens?


Wait, most? It has to be most. Interesting. Here, I would think that any males that were losing pleasure for no medical reason against their will would be enough, but now it has to be most.


Again, I mention my friend who knows both sides of the story. He said the loss is highly overrated.


Hmmm...

http://www.cirp.org/library/complications/williams-kapila/

For my money, I'm not willing to subject children to a non-therapeutic surgery where the complications are between 2 and 10% and where the result is they are denied a healthy part of their body.


Finally! An argument with some meat to it. :D

It would be interesting to see a few more studies and some numbers to the bad outcomes.

To the credit of the author he points out a major issue is the fact a junior surgeon is usually relegated to the procedure. It would suggest that many of the problems would go away by changing that.

But that is my perception. ;)

Another recycle of the old argument is done.

I do have get some work done.

As always a pleasure! And thank you for the link! I only skimmed it now but I bookmarked it.

Have a great day or night buddy!

Do you mean Ketonization?

Do you have numbers to how often diabetic ketoacidosis happens?

I gave you a link and yes I flipped the consonants. Sorry, typo. It's clear to me that in a cosmetic surgery performed on infants that one in a million is too much.

(That link is attached to dozens of other studies regarding nearly every complication and the causes and effects)


Again, I mention my friend who knows both sides of the story. He said the loss is highly overrated.

Your friend is not evidence. I insert myself as evidence that Dr. Pepper is the greatest drink ever. I'm not sure that's proof or even evidence, at all. Usually, when speaking of evidence of any use we usually look at sample size, here 1 and anything that would make that sample not representative, like being brought up for the specific purpose of claiming it is evidence. The result, your study has probative value.


Finally! An argument with some meat to it. :D

It would be interesting to see a few more studies and some numbers to the bad outcomes.

To the credit of the author he points out a major issue is the fact a junior surgeon is usually relegated to the procedure. It would suggest that many of the problems would go away by changing that.

But that is my perception. ;)

Another recycle of the old argument is done.

I do have get some work done.

As always a pleasure! And thank you for the link! I only skimmed it now but I bookmarked it.

Have a great day or night buddy!

I agree that the complications could be reduced, down to about 2% most figures suggest. However, hmmmmm... 2 out of 10 boys experience complications of an unnecessary surgery and 10 out of 10 no longer have a natural, useful body part.... that seems like compelling enough evidence to stop the mutilation.

How many children is an acceptable risk for cosmetic surgery? 5 out of 100? 20 out of 100? 1 out 1000?

Ditto.

EDIT: Aw, man, you deleted the other one before I could reply. Here is the only part worth addressing. The foreskin IS a body part and it IS useful. Thus any comparison to other useful body parts is simply a manner of scale.

Your friend is not evidence.

Anecdotal evidence is also evidence. Not everything has to be statistics.

10 out of 10 no longer have a natural, useful body part....

Nonsense.

Intact Body? We don't walk around in the forests or brush naked anymore.

Show me how males are being damaged by this.

You asked for it. (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6584757516627632617&q=circumcision)

The rest of the site is here.

http://www.intact.ca/vidintro.htm

You asked for it.

The rest of the site is here.



Something tells me that isn't allowed here.

Anecdotal evidence is also evidence. Not everything has to be statistics.

It has no value other than showing that it's possible for someone to believe there is no difference. It is not evidence for the claim.

Nonsense.

What a profound argument. I'm humbled.

So how about a little more information in your argument. What part is nonsense? The part that the foreskin is natural or that it's useful or that the use of it is denied the child?

Something tells me that isn't allowed here.

Why? It's not porn. It's a video of the surgical procedure we're discussing.

Why? It's not porn. It's a video of the surgical procedure we're discussing.

Don't act dumb. You've been here long enough to know what "graphic" constitutes.

I voted both are equally bad; personally I don't think that either form of circumcision is worse - both, if done properly can be of benefit. By properly, I mean no rusty instruments, and in hygenic conditions.

Iboth, if done properly can be of benefit. By properly, I mean no rusty instruments, and in hygenic conditions.

What exactly is the benefit of lopping a girl's clitoris and labia off and then sowing her vagina shut?

What exactly is the benefit of lopping a girl's clitoris and labia off and then sowing her vagina shut?

very similar to the benefits of male circumcision...

she is cleaner, more chaste, less prone to cancer, and men greatly prefer circumsized wives.

yeah very similar.

very similar to the benefits of male circumcision...

she is cleaner, more chaste, less prone to cancer, and men greatly prefer circumsized wives.

yeah very similar.

Er, enormously higher rates of infection =/= cleaner. And chaste isn't a benefit. And there's no evidence whatsoever for a drop in cancer rates. And the latter is false, since men don't have blood fetishes in most cases.

Er, enormously higher rates of infection =/= cleaner. And chaste isn't a benefit. And there's no evidence whatsoever for a drop in cancer rates. And the latter is false, since men don't have blood fetishes in most cases.

actually the only part of that that is true is the part where men prefer circumcized wives. only in communities where is it practiced of course. similar to women who assert that they prefer circumsized men. that is only true in places where most men are circumcized.

the justifications for both procedures are bullshit.

excepting for the part where if he lives in a high HIV area and doesnt use condoms, a man is much less likely to pick up HIV if he is circumsized. that wasnt the justification for the circumcision of any baby in the united states.

You may get increased rates of infection - that would only be because the conditions are poor. However, as Ashmoria said it does provide the benefit of cleanliness - however, it needs to be done within hygenic conditions. Also, what is unbeneficial about chastity?

You may get increased rates of infection - that would only be because the conditions are poor.
False. The increased rates of infection persist for the woman's entire life, no matter the conditions.

You may get increased rates of infection - that would only be because the conditions are poor. However, as Ashmoria said it does provide the benefit of cleanliness - however, it needs to be done within hygenic conditions. Also, what is unbeneficial about chastity?

there is nothing wrong with freely chosen chastity. to force chastity on a woman by removing her ability to enjoy sex--her ability to have sex without PAIN is not a good thing.

the infection rate is also dependant on what procedure is done. if a woman has to be cut open on her wedding night, there are going to be infection problems.

You may get increased rates of infection - that would only be because the conditions are poor. However, as Ashmoria said it does provide the benefit of cleanliness - however, it needs to be done within hygenic conditions. Also, what is unbeneficial about chastity?If you castrate men they tend to be chaste. If you take way a womans ability to enjoy sex they tend to stay chaste. Face it, if you are incapable of enjoying sex you aren't going to seek it.

You may get increased rates of infection - that would only be because the conditions are poor. However, as Ashmoria said it does provide the benefit of cleanliness - however, it needs to be done within hygenic conditions. Also, what is unbeneficial about chastity?


You get increased rates of infection because the labia and clitoral hood are there for a reason. The lesser protection of the openings increase the likelihood of urinary tract infections, among other things (or so I've read).

Chastity by choice is certainly beneficial in some obvious ways (not claiming that it's morally better or worse - just that, if you're chaste, you're at lesser risk of STD's). But forcing chastity on a woman in a degrading and dehumanising way, by removing a fundamental part of her being is not beneficial. It is emotionally damaging.

Again, I mention my friend who knows both sides of the story. He said the loss is highly overrated.


Oh come on. Like any man is ever going to admit that he enjoys inferior sex or that his sexual prowess has been damaged.

very similar to the benefits of male circumcision...

she is cleaner, more chaste, less prone to cancer, and men greatly prefer circumsized wives.

yeah very similar.

Um... since when does male circumcision make men more chaste?

Um... since when does male circumcision make men more chaste?

It was one of the reasons it was originally supported in this country. It was supposed to make boys less likely to masturbate.

It was one of the reasons it was originally supported in this country. It was supposed to make boys less likely to masturbate.

How the hell did they come to this idiotic conclusion? I masturbate daily, so clearly it doesn't work.

How the hell did they come to this idiotic conclusion? I masturbate daily, so clearly it doesn't work.

Maybe you would be self loving 5 times a day if they left you alone :eek:

Let's ask another question... (To men only): If put to a choice between being circumcised and having your wife/girlfriend/whatever circumcised, what would you choose?
No heroism, please. She won't learn, you'll be anesthetized, and you'll both be drugged enough to forget the incident anyway. So, what would you choose?

Let's ask another question... (To men only): If put to a choice between being circumcised and having your wife/girlfriend/whatever circumcised, what would you choose?
No heroism, please. She won't learn, you'll be anesthetized, and you'll both be drugged enough to forget the incident anyway. So, what would you choose?

What is this meant to establish?

What is this meant to establish?

Your decision. It's not like I'm making large profits of circumcision and so promote it to establish an income; not to speak about establishing any common positions (as positions depend on member count, experience and perversion, rather than circumcision).

Morally speaking, I mean. Not physically speaking.

I'm saying both are equally bad.

and i'm saying the difference is so obvious, to anyone who knows what is actualy being talked about, that it almost isn't worth commenting on. which i nonetheless did in the "are you" thread.

=^^=
.../\...

Oh come on. Like any man is ever going to admit that he enjoys inferior sex or that his sexual prowess has been damaged.

Actually he would because lying is not his way.

He also talked to me about it when my wife was pregnant and was giving me things to consider if it was a boy.

Frankly, men like sex no matter what.

-ugh- hit the wrong key.

As I was going to say. "Intact" manhoods are not a sign of sexual prowess.

I am sure the women here would agree on that.....

Actually he would because lying is not his way.

He also talked to me about it when my wife was pregnant and was giving me things to consider if it was a boy.

Frankly, men like sex no matter what.

Still as evidence, the only thing it supports is that this one person believes there is not a significant difference. No more. No less.

Still as evidence, the only thing it supports is that this one person believes there is not a significant difference. No more. No less.

Still speaks a great deal more then those of the cut or uncut sides. He has perspective and we do not.

I'm sure a lot of jews would disagree. But it's nice that you can speak for what is and is not necessary for someone elses culture.

I didn't say anything about "necessary for someone's culture." I said "necessary". A boy (except in extreme circumstances or bad parenting) is not going to have poor health or die because he is not circumcised. Thus, it is an unnecessary medical procedures. Of course, it is the Jewish parent who forces culture upon someone, by circumcising a child before that child can decide whether or not he wants to be Jewish. They have decided that it is a necessity for that child to be altered because of their religious views. I'm perfectly fine with a Jewish man deciding that, because he wishes to follow Levitical law, he will be circumcised. I'm not ok with parents deciding that, because they are Jewish, their son will be circumcised.

Would you like to weigh in on baptism, communion, and weddings now? I'm sure many folks would like you to tell them how their cultural practices are completely unnecessary.

Baptism, communion, and weddings should also only be undertaken voluntarily, as none of them are necessities for health or life. Christening means nothing, really. That child may or may not actually end up deciding to follow Christianity. Communion is a voluntary action practiced by a person within a church. Weddings are a voluntary action (and, if they're not, they are morally wrong).

Still speaks a great deal more then those of the cut or uncut sides. He, allegedly, has perspective and we do not.

Fixed. Just because you say that you know someone who says he didn't notice any difference does not make it true. Assuming this friend does exist and he is telling the truth, what's to say he's not an exception.

Still speaks a great deal more then those of the cut or uncut sides. He has perspective and we do not.

No, he doesn't. He doesn't speak to anything other than his belief. That's all.

And what it most doesn't speak to, is how it would appear to someone who didn't make the choice.

What's more likely, that if you ordered a steak off the menu that you wouldn't mind that you had to eat it or if I ordered the steak for you and shoved it down your throat that you mind if you had to eat it? This speaks nothing to the subject.

It's like comparing rape to sex. He wasn't raped. He chose to have sex. "Raping children is wrong because it's harmful." "It's not harmful. I have a buddy who had sex and he loved it."

The first part of your argument doesn't mesh with the second. You assume we can make decisions based on what the child MIGHT want to do, and then dismiss the physical health benefits as not enough to make an educated guess, but completely discount the idea that in addition to the health benefits we may also assume that the child would choose to be part of its religion and culture.

That's because we can't assume that. A child may or may not want to follow the precepts of his parents' religion.

In other words, we can not safely assume that a jew would want to be a jew?

What you meant to ask is, "Can we not safely assume that the child of a Jew would want to be Jewish?" The answer is no. If that child is exposed to various religious ideals and allowed to make his own decisions, he may or may not decide to follow the precepts of Judaism. Even if he does decide that he wishes to be Jewish, he may or may not feel that following the Levitical law is necessary.

Fixed. Just because you say that you know someone who says he didn't notice any difference does not make it true. Assuming this friend does exist and he is telling the truth, what's to say he's not an exception.

Or that he simply doesn't remember it clearly enough to know the difference or simply can't deal with the fact that it is different? There is no probative value to the opinion of a single person who chose the procedure. It's not like he can take it back. He has every reason to convince himself that things are better or the same as before.

As I was going to say. "Intact" manhoods are not a sign of sexual prowess.

I am sure the women here would agree on that.....

I meant that he will not admit (probably even to himself) any loss of sexual ability or sensation.

His pride would make it almost impossible to admit that he is lacking in some way or that his enjoyment of sex has been limited. No guy is ever going to come out and say "Well - I really don't enjoy sex as much as you do now that I've had this done"

Some religions disagree.

Religions disagree on whether or not medicine itself is necessary. They do not determine what is and is not medically necessary.

And I don't think any parent should be able to deny treatment for their children because of the parents' religion any more than I think they should be able to perform unnecessary medical procedures (circumcision is not, when electively practiced, treatment) on their children for religious reasons. The religion is the parent's religion, not the child's. The child may or may not choose that religion in the future.

You as a mother would agree that if you gave a child a choice on a shot for rubella. How many would opt not?

Poor comparison. I better comparison would be, "If you gave your child the option of having electrolysis because your religion says that they shouldn't have hair, how many would opt not to do it? After all, lack of hair means you won't get lice and ticks will be easier to find and the child will never have to worry about a receding hair line."

Let's ask another question... (To men only): If put to a choice between being circumcised and having your wife/girlfriend/whatever circumcised, what would you choose?
No heroism, please. She won't learn, you'll be anesthetized, and you'll both be drugged enough to forget the incident anyway. So, what would you choose?

I believe every male on here would go through it so their wife wouldn't have to. I would go through it even for a woman I wouldn't know. That's because being circumcised is annoying, as a male, but when a female goes through it it is an atrocity.

Fixed. Just because you say that you know someone who says he didn't notice any difference does not make it true. Assuming this friend does exist and he is telling the truth, what's to say he's not an exception.

:rolleyes: Yes I am such a pathetic git that I have to make up people to justify some argument on an Internet board. :rolleyes:

If you bothered to go back and read the original claim, he said the pleasure that is said to be lost is highly overrated.

Again he has perspective of having experienced both sides versus people making claims by imagined losses.

No, he doesn't. He doesn't speak to anything other than his belief. That's all.

And what it most doesn't speak to, is how it would appear to someone who didn't make the choice.



Yes he does. People that have been cut cry and cry and cry that sex is not fun because they were cut. They don't know what they have lost. They can only imagine it.

He knows because he had the before and after.

Now if you want to argue about having choice, that's different then what the point of my friend is about.

Poor comparison. I better comparison would be, "If you gave your child the option of having electrolysis because your religion says that they shouldn't have hair, how many would opt not to do it? After all, lack of hair means you won't get lice and ticks will be easier to find and the child will never have to worry about a receding hair line."

:) Indeed a better comparison.

Or that he simply doesn't remember it clearly enough to know the difference or simply can't deal with the fact that it is different? There is no probative value to the opinion of a single person who chose the procedure. It's not like he can take it back. He has every reason to convince himself that things are better or the same as before.

:rolleyes:

"Wait it was a mistake. I am going to force the memories from my head or better yet lie about it."

People that have been cut cry and cry and cry that sex is not fun because they were cut.

If one lacks skill, he'll always find something to blame.

Well - male circumcism has very debateable benefits - if you are in North America medical research finds some benefits, if you are in Europe then it does not - of course this could not have anything at all to do with the North American doctors being largely circumcised compared to their European counterparts...

Actually, the only studies I've seen with any statistically significant beneficial results of circumcision have been carried out in Africa. Do you have any links to studies carried out in North America?

And I suspect the more minor versions of female circumcism are about the same.

Interestingly enough, although removal of the clitoral hood would be physically comparable to removal of the foreskin, what few benefits there may be to male circumcision would be unlikely to manifest. The possible medical benefits of male circumcision come from a lack of exposed mucous membrane and the existence of less area that might go uncleaned. Because of the differences in anatomy, removal of the clitoral hood would do much less of either. Most of the woman's mucous membranes would still be exposed, and the area under the clitoral hood that might have harbored infections is much smaller than that under the foreskin.

In other words, even if the similar practice were carried out, we would not see similar health benefits.

Of course, from what I've seen, those health benefits only exist in areas with poor hygienic practices and large-scale practice of unsafe sex.

And yet most children don't have the right to decide on Religion for themselves.

All children have the right to decide their own religious beliefs. Parents quite often attempt to indoctrinate their children so that the children will never even attempt to make such decisions, but they all have the right to do so.

Your comment is like saying "most children don't have the right to decide what color they like for themselves." Of course they do. The parents might dress them in blue all the time and might tell them how great blue is and how everyone should like blue and hate purple. But if the child is aesthetically drawn to purple, the child likes purple, whether the parents like it or not. And, when that child is an adult, he'll probably decide to wear purple.

:rolleyes:

"Wait it was a mistake. I am going to force the memories from my head or better yet lie about it."

Repression, no? I took it for a pretty common thing to do.

:rolleyes:

"Wait it was a mistake. I am going to force the memories from my head or better yet lie about it."

Okay, at least pretend you're actually trying to debate this instead of pretend like your friend is an authority. What I suggested happens is the reason why scientists don't accept one anecdotal claim as evidence. It's useless. Your friend may be exactly right. Or he may just think he's right. Or he may be rectifiying it in his head that he's right. Or he may be lying. Or you may be lying. All of this make your claim have NO probative value. None. It shows nothing.

And again, your friend chose the procedure. It's like saying that because people enjoy sex that rape isn't that bad. The point is that there is little likelihood that someone who made a choice and someone who was denied a choice will regard the issue the same way.

And people who are cut don't cry and cry about the loss of sensitivity. What we cry about is the loss of our own choice. Loss of sensitivity is one of the likely side-effects of being having a procedure forced on us.

I believe he is Jewish so no......

Wait, someone whose parents happen to be Jewish is somehow less harmed by removal of a body part without his consent and without medical necessity than someone whose parents are not Jewish?

If I said, "Hey, this kid is black, so it's perfectly ok to cut off parts of his genitalia," would that sound ok to you? I would hope not - and "black" is something he has no control over. Religion, on the other hand, he can decide for himself when he is older.

I know the procedure a little more then you think. I have seen the African version. It's not the same.

There is no single "African version." There are different forms of FGM practiced in various parts of Africa and the Middle East. If you know the procedure so well, why are you not aware of the fact that it isn't the procedure, but the various types of procedures?

So why aren't you out their campaigning against plastic surgery?

If parents were constantly getting infants nose jobs/boob jobs/etc., I can say that I damn sure would be campaigning against it.

There is no single "African version." There are different forms of FGM practiced in various parts of Africa and the Middle East. If you know the procedure so well, why are you not aware of the fact that it isn't the procedure, but the various types of procedures?


I didn't mean to imply there was only one version. I saw one that is practiced and it's rather ugly.

Ok.

When the claims of lying, delusion and or making up people appear then thats a flag for me to bail as the thread is going down hill.

Anyhows. Thanks for the link Jacobia. I will add it's reading to my mountains for reading.

Demp. As always keeping me honest. :)

:) Indeed a better comparison.

Would you be perfectly ok with a parent using electrolysis over the entirety of their child's body so that the child will never have hair because the parent's religion said so? The child will most likely be colder for the rest of his life and will have difficulty staying warm, even with proper clothing, on very cold days. He won't get lice and he'll find it easier to find ticks if they get on his body. That would be ok with you?

I am simply responding to the quality of the your claims that my friend is delusional, repressing and what not.

Is a person who gets better after being given a placebo delusional? It is very possible that your friend did actually lose sensation, but that his mind is compensating for it. He actually doesn't enjoy sex any less, but the mechanism could be quite different.

I didn't mean to imply there was only one version. I saw one that is practiced and it's rather ugly.

Ah, ok.

TBF, you were done a long time ago. You started dropping arguments yesterday because the fact is you can't actually justify a procedure with known and proven side-effects and unsupported value being performed on children and irreversible.

So you drop the substantive arguments instead choosing to act as if the main argument of people who had a body part removed against their will and were subjected to a potentially dangerous procedure is that it makes them less sensitive. Your main piece of evidence is that your buddy who may or may not exist may or may not have not felt any difference.

It's a pretty sad attempt at an argument.

Is a person who gets better after being given a placebo delusional? It is very possible that your friend did actually lose sensation, but that his mind is compensating for it. He actually doesn't enjoy sex any less, but the mechanism could be quite different.

It's possible. I do have to admit that.

TBF, you were done a long time ago. You started dropping arguments yesterday because the fact is you can't actually justify a procedure with known and proven side-effects and unsupported value being performed on children and irreversible.

So you drop the substantive arguments instead choosing to act as if the main argument of people who had a body part removed against their will and were subjected to a potentially dangerous procedure is that it makes them less sensitive. Your main piece of evidence is that your buddy who may or may not exist may or may not have not felt any difference.

It's a pretty sad attempt at an argument.

Whatever.

Whatever.

Or, hey, you could pretend to debate and actually reply to the more substantive complaints about the procedure instead of attacking the victims of it with nonsensical claims about their protestations. Or don't. I know which one will make you look like you're interesting in exploring the idea instead of preaching, but it's really up to you.

Or, hey, you could pretend to debate and actually reply to the more substantive complaints about the procedure instead of attacking the victims of it with nonsensical claims about their protestations. Or don't. I know which one will make you look like you're interesting in exploring the idea instead of preaching, but it's really up to you.

Feel better?

Would you be perfectly ok with a parent using electrolysis over the entirety of their child's body so that the child will never have hair because the parent's religion said so? The child will most likely be colder for the rest of his life and will have difficulty staying warm, even with proper clothing, on very cold days. He won't get lice and he'll find it easier to find ticks if they get on his body. That would be ok with you?

The followers of the Jain religion might think that was ok. I am told they pick the hairs of their bodies.

The question of Religion and rights is tough(well for me). The problem with correcting perceived wrongs is when is it rightfully done? Can we really put a body in charge of such matters. Would we even want one?

I try to avoid passing judgment on religions.

Feel better?

I'd feel better if you actually made an attempt at debate like you claimed you were interested in when originally addressing me. It turns out you were just hoping I would give you further opportunity to preach about how "if you didin't like being molested, then just don't do it your children and the cycle will end. No need to complain that other people are doing it." That's the equivelent to suggesting that the solution to denying children a body part is to simply not do it to your child and let everyone else do as they will. Yes, I do think unnecessary and painful surgeries are comparable to molestation. I don't think the parents or doctors are comparable to molesters, for the record, but I do think that pretty much every case where you unnecessarily deny the rights of a human being is abhorrant.

I'd feel better if you actually made an attempt at debate like you claimed you were interested in when originally addressing me. It turns out you were just hoping I would give you further opportunity to preach about how "if you didin't like being molested, then just don't do it your children and the cycle will end. No need to complain that other people are doing it."

:rolleyes:

Would you be perfectly ok with a parent using electrolysis over the entirety of their child's body so that the child will never have hair because the parent's religion said so? The child will most likely be colder for the rest of his life and will have difficulty staying warm, even with proper clothing, on very cold days. He won't get lice and he'll find it easier to find ticks if they get on his body. That would be ok with you?



Not sure thats a good comparison. Alot of women shave most of their body hair off and they seem ok to me.

The followers of the Jain religion might think that was ok. I am told they pick the hairs of their bodies.

It's fine for me to pick the hairs off of my body. It's fine for me to undergo electrolysis because I think I shouldn't have any hair. It's not fine for me to make that decision for others.

The question of Religion and rights is tough(well for me). The problem with correcting perceived wrongs is when is it rightfully done? Can we really put a body in charge of such matters. Would we even want one?

It is rightfully done when the person it is being done to is a self-proclaimed member of that religion and wants it done.

I try to avoid passing judgment on religions.

As do I. There are plenty of religious ideas that I don't agree with - some that I even find rather silly (like refusing medical treatment). However, I have no problem whatsoever when a person makes the decision to do something to himself based upon his religion. It's when that person wants to do something to someone else based on his own religion that I have a problem with it. If a guy told me his religion dictated that he had to pull out his toenails, I'd say ok. If he told me it meant he had to pull out his child's toenails, I'd go to DEFACS.


Not sure thats a good comparison. Alot of women shave most of their body hair off and they seem ok to me.

A lot of men have been circumcised and seem ok to me. A lot of men have chosen to be circumcised and seem ok to me. It doesn't change the fact that making that decision for someone else is not ok. Personally, I like to shave my legs and underarms, and I do so. If I had the money, I might even go to the trouble of electrolysis (it really only has minor risks) for the convenience of it all. But I wouldn't shave a female child or put her through electrolysis. When she grows up (or as a child), she may very well want hair on her legs.

Besides, electrolysis and shaving are two very different things (one being permanent and all). Why on earth should I be allowed to make permanent changes to a child's body to suit my own personal preferences?

And, just as a further issue with your complaint, I said the entirety of the child's body. That includes the head. Considering the number of hairs on the head vs. the rest of the body, I doubt very seriously that you know many women who shave the majority of their hair.

It's fine for me to pick the hairs off of my body. It's fine for me to undergo electrolysis because I think I shouldn't have any hair. It's not fine for me to make that decision for others.


Side comment: I asked the Indian who told me about Jainism. He said some also do electrolysis.

Making decision for others? Outside the family unit. No argument.

How do you measure inside of the family unit? Especially when considering children want to please their parents and do mimic their actions.

Side comment: I asked the Indian who told me about Jainism. He said some also do electrolysis.

Making decision for others? Outside the family unit. No argument.

How do you measure inside of the family unit? Especially when considering children want to please their parents and do mimic their actions.

Well, it's fairly obvious when we're talking about an infant, now isn't it? That is, without question, the parent making the decision for the child - before the child can even understand the idea behind what is going on, much less what is going on itself.

As for how old a child should be before they can decide for themselves, I don't know - it would depend on the child, really. I would say that any doctor asked to perform such a procedure at a child's request should interview the child carefully to be absolutely sure that it is what the child wants, and not simply what the parent wants. If he is not convinced, he shouldn't agree to carry it out.

Well, it's fairly obvious when we're talking about an infant, now isn't it? That is, without question, the parent making the decision for the child - before the child can even understand the idea behind what is going on, much less what is going on itself.

As for how old a child should be before they can decide for themselves, I don't know - it would depend on the child, really. I would say that any doctor asked to perform such a procedure at a child's request should interview the child carefully to be absolutely sure that it is what the child wants, and not simply what the parent wants. If he is not convinced, he shouldn't agree to carry it out.

No harm in asking? Just clarification for my slow brain.

The child still will be a victim of the parents in such matters. Economics prevents him from requesting procedures.

Overall you are correct in that it depends on the child as there is no general measurement tool that can cover all. Each is different.