NationStates Jolt Archive

Indeed. Who wouldn't want to be emasculated by a fiery Euro-ess?

Anyone who wanted to use his pee-pee later.

Anyway, that's enough of this tripe. I'm all done here.

Indeed. Who wouldn't want to be emasculated by a fiery Euro-ess?

Both of you, leave me out of your stupidity.

It's true there doesn't seem to be any movement towards massed objective assessment, but I'm not sure it's true that NO ONE is assessing it objectively.

If you weighed all the pro's and con's, and then simply excised any cultural considerations, you'd have a pretty objective assessment, based on data we already have. So - it's not a mater of 'so I say' - it's a matter of that IS what is left, if you remove all the 'human interest' clutter.

I agree that the medical opinion should not consider cultural and religious arguements when presenting the pros and cons. I think it's very telling that they do. That's not even pretending to be making a unbiased medical suggestion. "He'll look like his father" should be considered to be an embarrassing medical argument.

Frankly, it's a little ironic that medical professionals are presenting such things as an influencing their medical recommendation and that it's the opposition side being painted as making emotional arguments.

I agree that the medical opinion should not consider cultural and religious arguements when presenting the pros and cons. I think it's very telling that they do. That's not even pretending to be making a unbiased medical suggestion. "He'll look like his father" should be considered to be an embarrassing medical argument.

Frankly, it's a little ironic that medical professionals are presenting such things as an influencing their medical recommendation and that it's the opposition side being painted as making emotional arguments.

This. Totally, this.

No, to have a truly objective assessment, you only need to process the data objectively. Like I said - we can already do this, and with the data we already have.

Of course, different people can and do come to different conclusions from the same data. It is completely possible that one parent might look at the data they can get their hands on and decide, simply based on that, that preventative circumcision is a good idea. Another parent might not be convinced.

You've been saying that it should be legally allowed based on religious freedom. This means that you've been arguing that religious freedom means that you can cut body parts off of other people.
That is a gross oversimplification of my argument, to the point of misrepresentation. Furthermore, it pretends that I have not already addressed that issue in detail. Now I'm wondering if someone hasn't taken over your account. I've never seen such bad tactics from you.

Yes, I'm arguing that a religious practice that harms another non-consenting person should be restricted. I don't see why that's a problem. We generally do that. You're arguing that this particular practice be an exception.
I already explained why I think differently. I'm not going to do it again for you.

Strangely, I think cutting body parts of of other people is a violent act.

I find it funny that there are people in this thread (I don't remember your take on it, so I'm not going to go into that) who argue that spanking your child should be illegal, because it is assault. Cutting off a part of the child's body, on the other hand? Totally covered by religious freedom.
Since I have made no arguments whatsoever in this thread in regard to spanking, I will not respond to this, as I do not let myself be put in a defensive position over arguments I never made.

Not exactly the same way. Children cannot consent to marriage until a pretty high age (16 or something, with parental consent?). I'm saying that a child could consent to circumcision when he is able to understand the procedure and its implications. Given the relatively low level of harm, I would place that age pretty low.
And I'm saying that, given the relatively low level of harm, that goal is better reached by ecouragement (social pressure) for the practitioners of the religion to change it themselves, from within, than by invoking the force of law, which is traditionally reserved for much greater harms.

So we should repeal the laws against FGM, as they interfere with religious practice?
Another bad tactic on your part. I invite you to reread my posts and see if you can find the one wherein I said something on point about FGM. It's in there, but no, I'm not going to repeat it for you.

Why? Why should your religious freedom allow you to make permanent bodily modifications to someone else? What else does it allow you to do to other people without their consent?

I don't see why not. I value individual religious freedom. I don't think individual freedom extends to cutting body parts off of other people.
Your questions are irrelevant. I have seen you argue countless times that people don't get to dictate the rules of other people's beliefs and how they live by them, yet when it is an issue you personally care about, suddenly you're all for doing just that. I have seen you, on other issues, argue that in a pluralistic society based on personal liberty, we must tolerate some things that we might find personally, even morally objectionable (such as abortion). Yet here you are, refusing to do that on this issue.

I'm saying that if you really do believe in the principle of religious freedom then you should look for another way of advocating against infant circumcision that does not involve invoking the force of law.

Is it your contention, then, that a parent who cut off his child's earlobes would not be pursued by the law? After all, cutting off the earlobes would arguably be less harmful than removing the foreskin. I suppose he might have to say that his religion said so, since that makes it all ok.
This remark is so piss-poor, it is beneath you.

Obviously, if an actual religion demands the removal of earlobes, it would be the exact same situation as an actual religion that demands the removal of a foreskin. Equally obviously, the arguments about it would be the same.

Your implication, by the way, that Judaism is just an excuse to mutilate children and not a legitimate religion worthy of First Amendment protection is more than a little offensive -- even to my non-Jewish self.

Children go to a bris because their parents carry them there. They have no more choice in the matter than someone who goes in to get their gall bladder worked on and ends up circumcised.

A mohel who performs a circumcision on a male convert to Judaism is doing what he has been requested to do - and that request has been made by the person getting circumcised. A mohel who performs an infant circumcision is also doing what he has been requested to do - but that request came from someone other than the person whose foreskin he is removing.
The mohel is doing what he has been requested to do by the people who are the legal guardians of the child and legally authorized to make such decisions (health care, religion, etc.) on behalf of the child. The mohel does nothing wrong here. Same with a doctor who circumcises a non-Jewish infant at the request of the parents.

People keep acting like with or without the foreskin is a non-difference, that the child really hasn't experienced something. Apparently, they don't really feel that way or we wouldn't almost universally agree that doing so to an adult without consent would be worse than, say, writing balls on their forehead.
1) I would like you to show me where I said a child who is circumcised really hasn't experienced something.

2) Then I would like you to show me where I expressed an opinion about whether it would be better or worse to circumcise an adult without permission.

Oh no, not another one.

Come on, Sin's already got the over-emotive rhetoric covered. No one is jumping up and down on soap boxes, no one is 'frothing at the mouth'.



Trying to demonize wasn't the point at all.

Groups like NAMBLA echo certain historical cultural concepts, positively advocating certain types of same-sex sexual relationships with underage partners, for the claimed benefit of those relationships.
You're hilarious in your hyperbole. In the same post as you say you're not trying to demonize people, you bring in NAMBLA as a comparative example. Did you make a bet with someone to see how badly you could invalidate your own argument before people just stopped talking to you?

Most of us would argue there is damage - physical, emotional and psychological. Well, I've presented evidence that the same can be said for circumcision... but you don't have any way to deal with that, so you pretend that the evidence 'balances' (which it doesn't, not even close) and pretend that this is about me trying to 'demonize' you.

If you can make the argument that there's no harm, that there's no emotional, psychological or physical damage being done - then you can make the claim that it's not abuse.

But I don't think you'd allow the same arguments in OTHER situations (like sex with children), so I believe you are PURELY applying a special exception logic to circumcision... which is extremely intellectually dishonest.

It's funny that you'd talk about me not thinking about what other people write. Did you actually put this much thought into what I wrote, and what I'm writing here?



No one has presented 'counter evidence'.
Galloism did.

And the counter arguments you claim don't exist have been presented numerous times in this very thread. If you're just goint to ignore the content of the thread, what point is there in continuing?

The pro-circumcision argument is that it's medically beneficial and that 'god' really likes it if you mutilate babies.

That side of the debate has presented nothing about the harm or the damage.
So, "medically beneficial" is not addressing the question of harm?

I notice you say 'guess why'.

I have to assume that's because you know there's absolutely no way you could support your ridiculous assertion.
You assume wrong. It's because they are not the same thing, just like assault is not murder and theft of $50 is not the same crime as theft of $50billion.

But I'm not surprised you couldn't guess that. It would have required you to pay attention to what others say.

And I'm saying that, given the relatively low level of harm, that goal is better reached by ecouragement (social pressure) for the practitioners of the religion to change it themselves, from within, than by invoking the force of law, which is traditionally reserved for much greater harms.

But it really isn't. Even a lesser harm would very likely invoke legal action against the parents. This is an exception to the rule, not the rule.

Your questions are irrelevant. I have seen you argue countless times that people don't get to dictate the rules of other people's beliefs and how they live by them, yet when it is an issue you personally care about, suddenly you're all for doing just that.

No, I'm not. I'm not dictating anyone's religious beliefs. I am saying that one person's religious beliefs do not give them leave to infringe upon the rights of another person. I've never argued otherwise.

I have seen you, on other issues, argue that in a pluralistic society based on personal liberty, we must tolerate some things that we might find personally, even morally objectionable (such as abortion). Yet here you are, refusing to do that on this issue.

Again, my arguments against making abortion illegal and my argument for refusing to accept a religious justification for infant circumcision are the same. In both cases, I am arguing that an individual's right to bodily integrity is inviolate. I argue quite vehemently that the decision on whether or not to abort is a woman's choice - and hers alone. In fact, I make that argument even when parental consent is invoked - I think it should still be up to the girl who is pregnant and I have argued against parental consent laws in the past. Likewise, I believe the decision to be circumcised for religious reasons is the choice of the person undergoing circumcision - and his alone.

I'm saying that if you really do believe in the principle of religious freedom then you should look for another way of advocating against infant circumcision that does not involve invoking the force of law.

Why? I've never argued that religious freedom extends to harming other people - even where the harm is relatively slight. Why do I need to accept that argument now?

Obviously, if an actual religion demands the removal of earlobes, it would be the exact same situation as an actual religion that demands the removal of a foreskin. Equally obviously, the arguments about it would be the same.

Ok, so you're consistent in your belief that a parent's freedom of religion extends to cutting body parts off of their children. Like I said, I disagree.

Your implication, by the way, that Judaism is just an excuse to mutilate children and not a legitimate religion worthy of First Amendment protection is more than a little offensive -- even to my non-Jewish self.

Luckily, I've never implied any such thing. For the most part, I think Judaism is a beautiful religion and, like most religious beliefs, I find it fascinating. Their lack of respect for individual rights in this one particular instance bothers me, but I can find something about most religions that bother me.

And I am not arguing that Judaism should receive any less protection from the 1st Amendment than any other religion. I just don't think 1st Amendment protection extends to removing body parts from someone else - even if they happen to be your child. I explained my reasons for that in greater detail in a later post.

Dem, we are stuck in a loop. I get your points. I still disagree. I do not believe you get my points. I do not believe you understand exactly WHAT I'm disagreeing with you about or why. But I am done trying to get you to get it.

(EDIT: And frankly, I really don't want to hang around with NTS on this issue anymore.)

Gosh...this thread makes me so proud! It's as though my little mutilated penis boy grew up while I was away! *wipes a tear*

Gosh...this thread makes me so proud! It's as though my little mutilated penis boy grew up while I was away! *wipes a tear*

I know, sixty-eight pages, eh? What the hell.

Skimming briefly through the pages I've missed...I'd just like to say...I am not Jewish, I am not Muslim, nor does my family have a strong interest in continuing with any sort of tradition of circumcision. It is therefore the case that you pack of harpies, Jocabia, NTS and Dem, make me very glad all of the above is true, because even I find your ridiculous hyperbole, your deliberate misrepresentation of other peoples' arguments, and your shrill condemnations not only annoying, but downright offensive. I'd hate to think of how I'd feel about your arguments were I to have an actual stake in the issue. It's like you're discussing the removal of a limb, rather than the foreskin, and ALL of you have gone out of your way to, without any actual exploration or examination, completely reject any cultural arguments. I mean...it's okay to not understand...but instead of admitting the fact, you dismiss absolutely as though the point has somehow already been proven by you. Moreover, I think it's amusing in the extreme that any of you claim to hold a culturally neutral, or objective stance on this issue when your posts absolutely drip with emotive excess.

All right, I'm going to bed, but after reading this thread, there is one significant harm done to some people by male circumcision and it is this: That it turns some people into shrill, penis-obsessed complainers.

From now on, I'm going to have to administer a circumcision test. If I'm dating a guy, I will have to ask him if he is circumcised (presumably before I have seen for myself), and if he is, then I'll have to ask him how he feels about that.

If he goes on and on about how it's tantamount to child rape and he was cut to pieces, etc, for 63 pages, that will be the end of the date.

Sorry, but seriously, it is a very interesting topic with a very good arguments to be made on both sides -- but some of you all have been making some piss poor excuses for arguments and making them loud and long, but not better.
This entire post stands, like a swan-necked beauty, above a field of sad little circumcised and abandoned penii.

Skimming briefly through the pages I've missed...I'd just like to say...I am not Jewish, I am not Muslim, nor does my family have a strong interest in continuing with any sort of tradition of circumcision. It is therefore the case that you pack of harpies, Jocabia, NTS and Dem, make me very glad all of the above is true, because even I find your ridiculous hyperbole, your deliberate misrepresentation of other peoples' arguments, and your shrill condemnations not only annoying, but downright offensive. I'd hate to think of how I'd feel about your arguments were I to have an actual stake in the issue. It's like you're discussing the removal of a limb, rather than the foreskin, and ALL of you have gone out of your way to, without any actual exploration or examination, completely reject any cultural arguments. I mean...it's okay to not understand...but instead of admitting the fact, you dismiss absolutely as though the point has somehow already been proven by you. Moreover, I think it's amusing in the extreme that any of you claim to hold a culturally neutral, or objective stance on this issue when your posts absolutely drip with emotive excess.

Erm, no offence Neesika, but you're being ridiculous here! Of course a completely unbiased, unemotional and a purely objective scientific analysis of the issue will lead you to conclude that male circumcision causes as much harm as raping your own child or cutting his/her ear off! Now excuse me, I need to rip my skin off, as I don't have any warm water, but don't worry because ripping your skin off is clearly the same as having a shower since: they both involve removing dirt from the body, they both require me to be naked, they would both have taken place in the bathroom, I do not need another person to assist, skin and shower both contain the letter S. SEE! Exactly the same thing.

Erm, no offence Neesika, but you're being ridiculous here! Of course a completely unbiased, unemotional and a purely objective scientific analysis of the issue will lead you to conclude that male circumcision causes as much harm as raping your own child or cutting his/her ear off! Now excuse me, I need to rip my skin off, as I don't have any warm water, but don't worry because ripping your skin off is clearly the same as having a shower since: they both involve removing dirt from the body, they both require me to be naked, they would both have taken place in the bathroom, I do not need another person to assist, skin and shower both contain the letter S. SEE! Exactly the same thing.

Ahhhhhhh....hahahhahhahaaa....ahhhh.....

You made my night, Hydesland. Truly!

That was like a really good meal :p

Skimming briefly through the pages I've missed...I'd just like to say...I am not Jewish, I am not Muslim, nor does my family have a strong interest in continuing with any sort of tradition of circumcision. It is therefore the case that you pack of harpies, Jocabia, NTS and Dem, make me very glad all of the above is true, because even I find your ridiculous hyperbole, your deliberate misrepresentation of other peoples' arguments, and your shrill condemnations not only annoying, but downright offensive. I'd hate to think of how I'd feel about your arguments were I to have an actual stake in the issue. It's like you're discussing the removal of a limb, rather than the foreskin, and ALL of you have gone out of your way to, without any actual exploration or examination, completely reject any cultural arguments. I mean...it's okay to not understand...but instead of admitting the fact, you dismiss absolutely as though the point has somehow already been proven by you. Moreover, I think it's amusing in the extreme that any of you claim to hold a culturally neutral, or objective stance on this issue when your posts absolutely drip with emotive excess.

Of course, as the originator of the thread, the person who is likely to get the most out of this thread, is you.

Unfortunately, based on what you say you got from the thread, you aren't ready for it, yet.

You looked at a debate where one set of arguments is based on the victory of belief over reason. You unfortunately concluded, from that, that anyone who chose not to embrace that argument, must have failed to examine or explore it.

Not only is that insulting to any of us that come from origins in those cultures, and doubly insulting to any of us that had to make those choices ourselves... but it's not even logical. 'Cultural' arguments are not an automatic trump. If my culture allowed me to keep slaves, have multiple wives, or enact violent retributions for theological mis-steps, all those things would still be beholden to the letter of the law.

I happen to believe that the law tends to operate to prevent harm. That means, I happen to believe that the law will eventually turn against mutilation of nonconsenting victims. This isn't because I have dismissed culture, out of hand - this is because paid attention to history.

Skimming briefly through the pages I've missed...I'd just like to say...I am not Jewish, I am not Muslim, nor does my family have a strong interest in continuing with any sort of tradition of circumcision. It is therefore the case that you pack of harpies, Jocabia, NTS and Dem, make me very glad all of the above is true, because even I find your ridiculous hyperbole, your deliberate misrepresentation of other peoples' arguments, and your shrill condemnations not only annoying, but downright offensive.

What hyperbole? Despite others' constant arguments about removal of limbs and such, I have been quite clear that the exact level of harm is irrelevant to my argument. I have also kept my comparisons to things that either caused roughly equivalent or lesser harm.

As for deliberate misrepresentation, see Muravyets' second-to-last response to me if you really want to see such things.

I'd hate to think of how I'd feel about your arguments were I to have an actual stake in the issue. It's like you're discussing the removal of a limb, rather than the foreskin, and ALL of you have gone out of your way to, without any actual exploration or examination, completely reject any cultural arguments.

I reject the argument that anyone's culture gives them the authority to infringe upon the right to bodily integrity held by another. It isn't that I don't understand the idea of one's culture being important to them. It's just that I think the rights of others supersede their wishes to continue certain cultural practices. Where their cultural practices involve only themselves, I am quite happy to accept the argument that they should be allowed to follow their culture. In fact, I'll argue vehemently in favor of that idea - as I have numerous times on this forum, even where others have argued that laws should be made against such practices.

I mean...it's okay to not understand...but instead of admitting the fact, you dismiss absolutely as though the point has somehow already been proven by you.

I don't have to understand. If someone feels that he is culturally and/or religiously bound to have his foreskin removed, more power to him! I don't understand that choice, because I don't feel bound to remove any parts of my body for my religion or my culture, but that is his choice. It is another matter, however, to feel that one is culturally and/or religiously bound to have someone else's foreskin removed. Strong belief that one should do it does not mean that one has the right to do so - or that one should have said right.

Moreover, I think it's amusing in the extreme that any of you claim to hold a culturally neutral, or objective stance on this issue when your posts absolutely drip with emotive excess.

I'm not the one jumping from, "Jewish parents don't have the right to make this decision for their chldren," to "ZOMG! YOU THINK JUDAISM IS AN EXCUSE FOR MUTILATING CHILDREN!" So, to be fair, in this discussion, I hardly think I'm the one with posts dripping with emotive excess.

The closest to "excess" I have gone is to refer to circumcision as cutting a body part off. Of course, that isn't really excessive. It is what is being done. The fact that there are other more important body parts doesn't change that fact.

I don't care one way or another if a man is circumcised. To be honest, I've never personally handled an uncircumcised penis or seen one in person. My stake in this discussion has little to do with circumcision itself, and everything to do with individual rights. If I am revealing a bias, it is my belief that, where they collide, individual rights trump cultural tradition. And I'm not the least bit ashamed of that bias.

Ok, after performing umpteen thousand Google searches, and reviewing a whole host of conflicting evidence, I have come to a conclusion.

At this time, I would not get my son circumcised (if miraculously I had one right at this moment - I didn't even know I was pregnant). It doesn't appear (to me) that the benefits outweigh the risks. There are some benefits documented, some risks, and hosts of studies that conflict each other on both those benefits and those risks, and the amount of each.

With that kind of conflicted medical data, I can't really cut something off that I don't know what kind of effects it will have.

However, that being said, I still would not pass a law making it illegal (except in case of medical necessity) to circumcise children, and take them away from their parents because their parents are abusive. Why, you ask? Because just that - the evidence is conflicting. Parents, in concert with their doctors, may decide that it does, in fact, provide a greater benefit than a risk. If they do, then they have acted within medical advice and are probably attempting to be a good parent.

^This.

If/when there is CONCLUSIVE evidence that circumcision is 100% cosmetic, then I'd support classifying it the same way we would any other cosmetic procedures on children. But right now I think there is enough doubt that it should be left to a child's legal guardian to make the decision about circumcision. I think it's dishonest to act as if any parent who chooses this is "mutilating" their child, or is totally ignorant, or is a religious nut, or any other such bull.

I think all the emotive crap about mutilation or amputations is particularly disgusting, and it also elevates the freaking foreskin to a ludicrous level of importance.

When I was young (sometime before I was 9), I had two teeth pulled. They were pulled for cosmetic reasons; I'd never have nice straight teeth unless I had these two pulled out, and my parents were planning to have me get braces so I'd have straight teeth. As it happened, the Novocaine failed. So my mother was sitting there next to a sobbing child with a bloody half-pulled tooth, and the dentist asks her if she wanted to have them just go ahead and pull the teeth, or leave it dangling by the root until they could make an appointment for me to come back and get put under general anesthetic. Mom opted for them to just pull it and get it over. I screamed myself hoarse, but the teeth came out pretty quickly and I was fine in the end.

Why am I telling this?

I was a shitload more traumatized by that experience than my brother was by his circumcision. I still remember the teeth-pulling vividly; my brother has no memory of his circumcision. I hollered for at least 5 minutes flat while the teeth were being pulled; my brother cried for a minute or two and then went to sleep. I was crying for pretty much the rest of the day after my teeth were pulled; my brother cried the first time his diaper was changed after he was circumcised, which may or may not have been because of pain, but otherwise didn't show any particular signs that he was hurting.

Yet nobody has ever questioned that my parents had the right to decide that I'd have those teeth pulled. Nobody has ever suggested that my mouth was "mutilated" by my parents' decision to have my teeth cosmetically altered. Nobody has never suggested that my mother should not have been allowed to make that call in the dentist's office.

So let's just keep perspective on this whole thing. Whether or not somebody cuts off a foreskin is obviously significant, since it's a part of the body and it's never going to grow back, but the foreskin isn't magical and it's not any more (or less) important that many of the other body parts that parents are already permitted to have removed from their child's body. The practice of circumcision is less traumatic, less risky, and less painful than a lot of other procedures that parents are already permitted to have done to their children. Circumcision should be viewed in that context. As somebody who had bone ripped from her jaw on her mother's say-so, I'm not particularly moved by arguments that cutting off a flap of skin is tantamount to amputation of a limb.

...I happen to believe that the law will eventually turn against mutilation of nonconsenting victims...

Do you believe that most Jewish and Muslim men consider themselves to be mutilated victims?

...Strong belief that one should do it does not mean that one has the right to do so - or that one should have said right. ....

Do you believe that most Jewish and Muslim men feel as if they have had their rights taken from them?

Do you believe that most Jewish and Muslim men consider themselves to be mutilated victims?



Do you believe that most Jewish and Muslim men feel as if they have had their rights taken from them?
In America, at least, there is absolutely no need to limit this to Jewish and Muslim men. My boyfriend was raised Protestant, even attended Christians private schools for most of his childhood, and he (like most of the men in his family) was circumcised as a baby. My brother was born to two atheist parents and he was circumcised as an infant.

Bottle hit the drunk on the head with the post on the previous page.

Do you believe that most Jewish and Muslim men feel as if they have had their rights taken from them?

No. But whether or not one feels that their rights are being infringed and whether or not they are being infringed do not always correlate very well. History is full of instances in which people who we would all argue were undeniably having their rights infringed upon argued in favor of the continuation of that infringement.

And then, of course, there's the fact that I've already supported a parent's authority to make that decision for medical reasons - even if I disagree that there is sufficient medical justification. The discussion of rights in this context was predicated on the assumption that the medical community came to the consensus that infant circumcision was not beneficial - leaving the parent's religious beliefs as the only justification given in these cases. So there would be no reason to assume that any men in this country should necessarily feel that their rights were infringed upon.

No. But whether or not one feels that their rights are being infringed and whether or not they are being infringed do not always correlate very well. History is full of instances in which people who we would all argue were undeniably having their rights infringed upon argued in favor of the continuation of that infringement...

Do you believe that this is the case with circumcised men today?

Do you believe that this is the case with circumcised men today?

Reading the rest of my post would be helpful to you.

Reading the rest of my post would be helpful to you.

Okay.

And then, of course, there's the fact that I've already supported a parent's authority to make that decision for medical reasons - even if I disagree that there is sufficient medical justification.

This part is seemingly irrelevant.

The discussion of rights in this context was predicated on the assumption that the medical community came to the consensus that infant circumcision was not beneficial - leaving the parent's religious beliefs as the only justification given in these cases.

This is not the case, as far as I know. So, it is also irrelevant to the question I asked. Yet, even if it were the case, I am discussing men who had it done to them primarily for religious reasons. So, it is also irrelevant in this regard.

So there would be no reason to assume that any men in this country should necessarily feel that their rights were infringed upon.

Nor was I focusing the discussion solely on 'this country', though I am sure it's lovely.

Now, do you believe that the majority of Jewish and Muslim men are mistaken in their belief that their rights were not infringed on?

This part is seemingly irrelevant.

Not in the least. In the world as it currently stands, I argue that the decision whether or not to circumcise an infant is in the hands of the parents. My reason for that is the fact that the medical benefits or lack there of are still under debate.

This means, quite clearly, that I do not believe current infant circumcisions are an infringement of rights.

This is not the case, as far as I know. So, it is also irrelevant to the question I asked. Yet, even if it were the case, I am discussing men who had it done to them primarily for religious reasons. So, it is also irrelevant in this regard.

Legally, there's no practical way to separate people who do it for religious reasons and people who do it because they believe there are medical benefits. In fact, it is perfectly possible for someone to hold both motives when choosing infant circumcision.

Because of the possibility of medical benefits, I agree that the authority to make this decision rests in the hands of the parents. Since said authority rests with the parents, parents who choose infant circumcision are not infringing on the rights of their children.

My argument has been that, outside of that medical justification, the authority should no longer rest in the hands of the parents, at which point unnecessary infant circumcision would become an infringement of rights.

Given the comparisons to tattoos and piercings and the like, I thought this was interesting:

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/19566431/detail.html

Of course, it's coming out of Rome, GA, so discussions of the law must be taken with a whole bottle of salt.

^This.

If/when there is CONCLUSIVE evidence that circumcision is 100% cosmetic, then I'd support classifying it the same way we would any other cosmetic procedures on children. But right now I think there is enough doubt that it should be left to a child's legal guardian to make the decision about circumcision. I think it's dishonest to act as if any parent who chooses this is "mutilating" their child,


It's dishonest to say that. It is mutilation. You might not want it to be mutilation, but it is.


I think all the emotive crap about mutilation or amputations is particularly disgusting, and it also elevates the freaking foreskin to a ludicrous level of importance.

When I was young (sometime before I was 9), I had two teeth pulled. They were pulled for cosmetic reasons; I'd never have nice straight teeth unless I had these two pulled out, and my parents were planning to have me get braces so I'd have straight teeth. As it happened, the Novocaine failed. So my mother was sitting there next to a sobbing child with a bloody half-pulled tooth, and the dentist asks her if she wanted to have them just go ahead and pull the teeth, or leave it dangling by the root until they could make an appointment for me to come back and get put under general anesthetic. Mom opted for them to just pull it and get it over. I screamed myself hoarse, but the teeth came out pretty quickly and I was fine in the end.

Why am I telling this?

I was a shitload more traumatized by that experience than my brother was by his circumcision.


Ah - the 'my suffering was worse, so my opinmion is valid' argument.

They should have anaesthetized you properly. When they found out it failed, they shouldn't have offered the choice of 'go on without' or 'make another appointment', they should have gotten you properly anaesthetized.

If your story is true, your dentist made the wrong decisions, and your mother made the wrong decisions.

Neither of those is actually an argument for why parents should be allowed to mutialte their children.


I still remember the teeth-pulling vividly; my brother has no memory of his circumcision. I hollered for at least 5 minutes flat while the teeth were being pulled; my brother cried for a minute or two and then went to sleep. I was crying for pretty much the rest of the day after my teeth were pulled; my brother cried the first time his diaper was changed after he was circumcised, which may or may not have been because of pain, but otherwise didn't show any particular signs that he was hurting.


I'm assuming your brother was a baby? And... that you were not? (Given the removal of teeth, etc).


Yet nobody has ever questioned that my parents had the right to decide that I'd have those teeth pulled. Nobody has ever suggested that my mouth was "mutilated" by my parents' decision to have my teeth cosmetically altered. Nobody has never suggested that my mother should not have been allowed to make that call in the dentist's office.


Your parents should not have been allowed to pull teeth PURELY for cosmetic reasons - and, in all likelihood, that's NOT why they did it. When the dentist told them your teeth would not be straight otherwise, he probably also mentioned the dental complications that can cause, along with the overcrowding, and knock-on effects on wisdom teeth.

There are actually pretty good medical reasons for some people to have teeth removed.


So let's just keep perspective on this whole thing. Whether or not somebody cuts off a foreskin is obviously significant, since it's a part of the body and it's never going to grow back, but the foreskin isn't magical and it's not any more (or less) important that many of the other body parts that parents are already permitted to have removed from their child's body.


Teeth, you mean?


The practice of circumcision is less traumatic, less risky, and less painful than a lot of other procedures that parents are already permitted to have done to their children.


Again with the 'no true scotsman' arguments. It's not real pain unless... it's not real suffering unless...


Circumcision should be viewed in that context.


No, it shouldn't. Not at all.

That's a special exception argument, and a particularly weak one - you couldn't apply the logic in other contexts of harm.


As somebody who had bone ripped from her jaw on her mother's say-so, I'm not particularly moved by arguments that cutting off a flap of skin is tantamount to amputation of a limb.

Bone ripped from your jaw, huh? And you complain about the word 'mutilation' because you consider THAT over emotive?


It would be interesting to poll the responses in this subject.

I'd bet money that the vast majority of people that are 'supporting' circumcision are either circumcised males who can retroactively justify it as 'essential to their culture', or females who had no possibility of being circumcised in our culture.

Do you believe that most Jewish and Muslim men consider themselves to be mutilated victims?


I don't believe that matters.

If a girl thinks she was a bad girl, and that it wasn't REALLY rape because of the way she was dressed, or the games she was playing... it was still rape, no matter how the victim self-identifies.

I don't believe that matters.

If a girl thinks she was a bad girl, and that it wasn't REALLY rape because of the way she was dressed, or the games she was playing... it was still rape, no matter how the victim self-identifies.

Do you believe that this is the case with circumcised men today?

In America, at least, there is absolutely no need to limit this to Jewish and Muslim men. My boyfriend was raised Protestant, even attended Christians private schools for most of his childhood, and he (like most of the men in his family) was circumcised as a baby. My brother was born to two atheist parents and he was circumcised as an infant.

Which, since it lacks even the justification of 'cultural necessity' (which is a horseshit reason for surgery anyway), is doubly bankrupt.

Do you believe that this is the case with circumcised men today?

What?

That they were mutilated, even those who are 'okay' with it?

Yes, of course - which is why I said it doesn't matter how victims self-identify.

How many legs does a dog have, if you call his tail a leg? He has four - because calling it a leg doesn't make it one.

What?

That they were mutilated, even those who are 'okay' with it?

Yes, of course - which is why I said it doesn't matter how victims self-identify.

How many legs does a dog have, if you call his tail a leg? He has four - because calling it a leg doesn't make it one.

No. You seem to be misunderstanding.

First of all, I asked this: do you believe that Jewish and Muslim men feel that they are mutilated victims?

You said it doesn't matter what they feel, because the truth (according to you) is that they are mutilated victims depite the fact that they feel otherwise.

So, I will rephrase my second question to make it more clear: do you believe that all these men are wrong in their belief that they are not mutilated victims? Like your self-blaming rape victim?

Personally, since the discussion has entered into the realm of outlawing it or not, I would present my position as thus:

If I were an absolute ruler and got to decide this matter completely on my own, I'd reject any cultural and religious arguments outright and ban the practice. The rights of the child would trump the rights of the parents to practice their religion, which would in my view mean that a child should be protected against an unnecessary and permanent medical procedure. I'd set an age, maybe 14 or 16, where the child could themselves decide if they wanted to do it.

Well, I don't rule the world yet, and the cat is out of the bag... So like alcohol, it's difficult to outlaw it today, so I probably wouldn't. However, I am partial to the Swedish system that requires medical personel to be present, and requires anesthetic.


If/when there is CONCLUSIVE evidence that circumcision is 100% cosmetic, then I'd support classifying it the same way we would any other cosmetic procedures on children. But right now I think there is enough doubt that it should be left to a child's legal guardian to make the decision about circumcision.

I kinda like the argument that Galloism presented, but I fall down on the other side of the fence on your argument. I think your demand for evidence is wrong here. I'd turn it around, since I'd like to see conclusive evidence that circumcision is 100% (well, I'd go lower than 100%, but you get my drift) certain to bring health benefits. If not, I would classify it as an unneccesary procedure where the risks outweigh the gains.


Why am I telling this?

I was a shitload more traumatized by that experience than my brother was by his circumcision.
Are you certain? Would he tell you if he suffered (or still suffers) mental anguish over it? Would he tell you if his penis is desensitized, or if it caused him other physical problems?

If so, you're lucky to have a very open relationship. :)

Are you certain? Would he tell you if he suffered (or still suffers) mental anguish over it? Would he tell you if his penis is desensitized, or if it caused him other physical problems?


Right. Maybe not just him but everyone who is supposedly happy about their circumcised penises is secretly traumatized and ashamed!

You mean all the circumcised cocks I've had the joy of playing with actually belonged to men who secretly believe themselves to be mutilated? And furthermore, these rape victims, erm, I mean victims of MGM blame themselves for their horrible disfigurement?

Wow. I wonder how much more confident those men would have been if they hadn't been so horribly abused as infants...kind of scary actually.

No. You seem to be misunderstanding.

First of all, I asked this: do you believe that Jewish and Muslim men feel that they are mutilated victims?

You said it doesn't matter what they feel, because the truth (according to you) is that they are mutilated victims depite the fact that they feel otherwise.

So, I will rephrase my second question to make it more clear: do you believe that all these men are wrong in their belief that they are not mutilated victims? Like your self-blaming rape victim?

I'm not 'misunderstanding', I've answered that question twice.

I'm not 'misunderstanding', I've answered that question twice.

No, you haven't. You've danced around the edges of it.

You mean all the circumcised cocks I've had the joy of playing with actually belonged to men who secretly believe themselves to be mutilated? And furthermore, these rape victims, erm, I mean victims of MGM blame themselves for their horrible disfigurement?

Wow. I wonder how much more confident those men would have been if they hadn't been so horribly abused as infants...kind of scary actually.

You and your friends can sit around patting yourselves on the back and laughing. Mocking the argument is a poor substitute for addressing it.

No, you haven't. You've danced around the edges of it.

No, I've explicitly answered it twice: "Yes, of course - which is why I said it doesn't matter how victims self-identify".

I've not exactly been coy.

*shrug* In my are at least, its the norm. Ill probably have it done to my kid too, because changing in gym class for the first time is awkward enough without being your equipment looking different from everyone elses.

But hey, what do I know. Apperantly I was traumatized by it :rolleyes:

No, I've explicitly answered it twice: "Yes, of course - which is why I said it doesn't matter how victims self-identify".

I've not exactly been coy.

Just like all those 16 year old girls out there were victimized by their 17 year old boyfriends, despite their protests that they wanted to have sex?

Just like all those 16 year old girls out there were victimized by their 17 year old boyfriends, despite their protests that they wanted to have sex?

You're just speaking from a place of repressed victimisation, no matter what you say, hush.*




*assuming you're circumcised, apologies if you haven't been, because that would automatically make you able to speak from a place outside of victimisation land.

No, I've explicitly answered it twice: "Yes, of course - which is why I said it doesn't matter how victims self-identify".

I've not exactly been coy.

I don't think it is reasonable to believe that the vast majority of circumcised men are mistaken in their belief that they are neither mutilated nor victims. It seems awfully dismissive of their experiences.

I don't think it is reasonable to believe that the vast majority of circumcised men are mistaken in their belief that they are neither mutilated nor victims. It seems awfully dismissive of their experiences.

Don't worry, I'm sure he'll soon provide a plethora of studies on the repressed victimisation of men who have been mutilated about the genitals. Don't be so dismissive of his pocketed sources just cuz your foreskin is intact. What do you know!?

You and your friends can sit around patting yourselves on the back and laughing. Mocking the argument is a poor substitute for addressing it.

Yeah, and using the outrageous, and vaguely retarded analogies you've relied upon throughout this thread are no substitute for proving your case, and showing us just how horribly victimised circumcised men are by a practice that has deep cultural significance. Hell, you haven't even shown us how horribly victimised men are who didn't have it done for cultural reasons...if anything, you'd think the benefit/cost analysis on their part would leave them feeling more victimised than their Jewish and Muslim brethren.

Mocking the argument helps point out the gaping flaws uncircumcised Somali pirates are driving their vessels through.

No, I've explicitly answered it twice: "Yes, of course - which is why I said it doesn't matter how victims self-identify".

I've not exactly been coy.

You're just saying that because you are a victim, trying to cover up and draw attention away from your victimization by accusing others of being victimized!

You're just saying that because you are a victim, trying to cover up and draw attention away from your victimization by accusing others of being victimized!

What I still don't get is this "circumcised men are victims" argument. My brother was circumsiced when he was a baby. He surely doesn't feel like he was mutilated, or a victim.

I don't think it is reasonable to believe that the vast majority of circumcised men are mistaken in their belief that they are neither mutilated nor victims. It seems awfully dismissive of their experiences.

Their experiences are irrelevant.

Seriously, I normally expect something approaching a logical argument from you, at least.

If I tell you you the reason you're lying on the kerb is that you just got run over, and you look down at yourself and say "But, I don't FEEL like I got run over"... does that mean it didn't happen?

Surgery isn't religion. It's not a matter of interpretation, or a question of faith. It either did happen, or it didn't. The 'vast majority' not feeling mutilated, or feeling like victims... doesn't mean that the vast majority aren't mutilated, or victims.

What I still don't get is this "circumcised men are victims" argument. My brother was circumsiced when he was a baby. He surely doesn't feel like he was mutilated, or a victim.

That's because he was taught that what was done to him was right. Just like women who are circumcised are taught this. If we taught children that it was okay to have sex with them as infants, they probably wouldn't feel victimised either.

That's because he was taught that what was done to him was right. Just like women who are circumcised are taught this. If we taught children that it was okay to have sex with them as infants, they probably wouldn't feel victimised either.

To be completely honest with you, I don't recall my mother ever saying anything to us while we were growing up. I think my brother just thought, and so did I, that was the way it was supposed to be. He was born in 1985, and circumcision was widely practiced in Spain. I am not excusing the practice though.

That's because he was taught that what was done to him was right. Just like women who are circumcised are taught this. If we taught children that it was okay to have sex with them as infants, they probably wouldn't feel victimised either.

I know you're being sarcastic, but certain posters in this thread I could actually see making that argument.

In fact, one tread very close to it already.

EDIT: Too late. He did.

Yeah, and using the outrageous, and vaguely retarded analogies you've relied upon throughout this thread are no substitute for proving your case, and showing us just how horribly victimised circumcised men are by a practice that has deep cultural significance. Hell, you haven't even shown us how horribly victimised men are who didn't have it done for cultural reasons...if anything, you'd think the benefit/cost analysis on their part would leave them feeling more victimised than their Jewish and Muslim brethren.

Mocking the argument helps point out the gaping flaws uncircumcised Somali pirates are driving their vessels through.

My analogies are for the purpose - as analogies often are - of illustration. They are also, sometimes, for the purpose of highlighting the special exception arguments for circumcision - which, thus far, you have totally failed to deal with in ANY way but mockery. If you consider that 'dealing'.

So - if you say that circumcision should be allowed because a culture has encouraged it for tens of centuries... if I claim that's special exception, and use the parallel of Viking conquest-by-rape to show how such cultural arguments wouldn't hold up in general...

...that doesn't mean that I think circumcised people are Vikings, or that circucision is rape.

At best, what you've done throughout the thread, is to present strawman arguments.

At worst, you've been continually intellectually dishonest, since I suspect you are FULLY aware of what you have been doing, and you KNOW that my arguments for special exception are not claims that the two things are the same, as you keep pretending.

That's because he was taught that what was done to him was right. Just like women who are circumcised are taught this. If we taught children that it was okay to have sex with them as infants, they probably wouldn't feel victimised either.

I guess I just wasn't correctly taught to feel shame and victimization and deep insecurity and all those other things I am evidently supposed to be feeling.

If I tell you you the reason you're lying on the kerb is that you just got run over, and you look down at yourself and say "But, I don't FEEL like I got run over"... does that mean it didn't happen?

The vast majority of circumcised males do not report feeling "run over," and to you this means they were.

"You don't feel victimized and ashamed and insecure and traumatized and mutilated and imperfect? No? CLEARLY THAT INDICATES YOU ARRRREE!"

That's because he was taught that what was done to him was right. Just like women who are circumcised are taught this. If we taught children that it was okay to have sex with them as infants, they probably wouldn't feel victimised either.

This is actually true.

The vast majority of circumcised males do not report feeling "run over," and to you this means they were.


That's not what I said, at all.

They do not report feeling run over.

They were run over, whether or not they 'feel that way'.


"You don't feel victimized and ashamed and insecure and traumatized and mutilated and imperfect? No? CLEARLY THAT INDICATES YOU ARRRREE!"

Are you arguing that circumcised men aren't, in fact, circumcised?

You're just saying that because you are a victim, trying to cover up and draw attention away from your victimization by accusing others of being victimized!

That doesn't even make any sense.

What I still don't get is this "circumcised men are victims" argument. My brother was circumsiced when he was a baby. He surely doesn't feel like he was mutilated, or a victim.

Okay - ignore how he feels.

Did he have a perfectly functional part of his anatomy excised, surgically, without his consent?

That's not what I said, at all.

They do not report feeling run over.

They were run over, whether or not they 'feel that way'.

Yes, clearly they are just liars/idiots/victims/to be dismissed.

I wasn't run over. I live a happy life. I am happy with my penis, and it was circumcised as an infant.

Would you like to see it? Because I can assure you, mister anonymous internet expert, that I know more about my penis and my happiness than you ever could (or, I am guessing, would want to). Your whole argument depends on dismissing me completely as either a liar, or confused.

Sorry, I'm not either, and you cannot possibly challenge me on this.

Are you arguing that circumcised men aren't, in fact, circumcised?

Are you an idiot, or do you just pretend to be one?

That doesn't even make any sense.

Of course it does. It's called projection. It makes just as much sense as your own pathetic attempts to ad-hominem your way out of this paper bag.

Okay - ignore how he feels.

Did he have a perfectly functional part of his anatomy excised, surgically, without his consent?

What? Ignore how he feels? Did you read what I posted?

With all due respect, I think you're reading into how my brother feels and what this practice is with excessive emotion.

I can't say it's bad to circumsice boys. Girls, for how gruesom the practice is, I am completely against. I can't say is bad to leave them uncircumsiced. All I know is that if I have a child, I will seek an opinion before agreeing to circumsicion. I know my mother did when she had him. I know she did it for his benefit, to the best of her knowledge. I know she didn't mean to do anything to harm him. He is her son.

Okay - ignore how he feels.

Why should we ignore what the supposed victim feels if we're trying to determine whether the person is a victim? Isn't the opinion of the person supposedly victimized relevant to the discussion? Or is there some sort of objective standard of morality you're trying to claim here?

Their experiences are irrelevant.

I don't think they are.

If I tell you you the reason you're lying on the kerb is that you just got run over, and you look down at yourself and say "But, I don't FEEL like I got run over"... does that mean it didn't happen?

This is a horrible analogy. I do not think that it is comparable to the experiences of the majority of circumcised men. Foreskin removal is not as traumatic as being hit by a speeding vehicle, and participating in a religious community is far from the victimisation of getting run over.

Surgery isn't religion. It's not a matter of interpretation, or a question of faith. It either did happen, or it didn't. The 'vast majority' not feeling mutilated, or feeling like victims... doesn't mean that the vast majority aren't mutilated, or victims.

Surgery is not necessarily mutilation either. And most circumcised men do not think circumcision is mutilation.

Why should I believe you instead of them?

Don't get me wrong. If a circumcised man said to me that they felt that their circumcision made them a mutilated victim, I would totally support that as a relevant experience. But that doesn't make the experience of the others a lie or a mistaken belief, or irrelevant.

This is actually true.

Yes, I recognise that this is your position.

Just like if you were taught that you should have been circumcised, and you weren't, you would feel victimised.

But that wouldn't be valid, because your foreskin would still be intact.

Or is there some sort of objective standard of morality you're trying to claim here?

Don't say things like that. You will attract certain posters who shall not be named.

Don't say things like that. You will attract certain posters who shall not be named.

Will they have comb-overs?

Will they have comb-overs?

Not that I know of, but I bet they were victimized and mutilated as a child.

I don't know this, but I suspect it.

I'd totally start a poll to find out how many circumcised men feel victimised, but apparently, even if they don't feel that way, they are still victims.

Right. Maybe not just him but everyone who is supposedly happy about their circumcised penises is secretly traumatized and ashamed!

Really? Why would you think that?

Or is this just a cunning way to discount the possibility that there are men who are traumatized, ashamed and/or physically damaged because of circumcision?

Really? Why would you think that?

Or is this just a cunning way to discount the possibility that there are men who are traumatized, ashamed and/or physically damaged because of circumcision?

I certainly discount the 'possibility' that everyone, or even a majority (or even simply Bottle's brother, or Nan's brother, or me) who doesn't feel victimized, ashamed and damaged is just lying or hiding that feeling. I discount the attempt at dismissal.

I certainly discount the 'possibility' that everyone, or even a majority (or even simply Bottle's brother, or Nan's brother, or me) who doesn't feel victimized, ashamed and damaged is just lying or hiding that feeling. I discount the attempt at dismissal.

Ah, you discounted a fictional attempt at dismissal. Got it. Makes more sense. :)

(Straw man, I believe it's called?)

Ah, you discounted a fictional attempt at dismissal. Got it. Makes more sense. :)

(Straw man, I believe it's called?)

Except NTS quite clearly stated that all men who have been circumcised as infants have been victimised, that their feelings to the contrary are irrelevant and to be dismissed.

It isn't a strawman when someone is actually making that argument.

That's because he was taught that what was done to him was right. Just like women who are circumcised are taught this. If we taught children that it was okay to have sex with them as infants, they probably wouldn't feel victimised either.

To be fair, one's views on rights and victimization are largely molded by the society in which one lives. It was, at one time, the societal norm to marry a girl off the minute she started menstruating. Such girls, on the whole, didn't feel victimized, even though we would now argue that they were. The women who opposed women's suffrage clearly didn't feel that they were getting an unfair deal from their government, although we now argue that they were.

So yes, the overall societal viewpoint of circumcision is very likely to affect a man's viewpoint on whether or not he was harmed or "victimized" by infant circumcision.

Note: No, I'm not saying that circumcision and forced marriage or denial of the right to vote are the same thing. :rolleyes:

Except NTS quite clearly stated that all men who have been circumcised as infants have been victimised, that their feelings to the contrary are irrelevant and to be dismissed.

It isn't a strawman when someone is actually making that argument.

"Lying and hiding that feeling" is not equivalent to having been victimized. It is perfectly possible for someone to be a victim, but not feel that they are. While NTS's arguments are largely over-emotive, he hasn't been claiming that all men who were circumcised as infants feel victimized and are just lying to themselves.

Except NTS quite clearly stated that all men who have been circumcised as infants have been victimised, that their feelings to the contrary are irrelevant and to be dismissed.

It isn't a strawman when someone is actually making that argument.

Ah, I see. So he just missed and quoted me by mistake, responding to me while thinking I was NTS.

No strawman, just a need for glasses. Makes sense, I suppose...

"Lying and hiding that feeling" is not equivalent to having been victimized. It is perfectly possible for someone to be a victim, but not feel that they are. While NTS's arguments are largely over-emotive, he hasn't been claiming that all men who were circumcised as infants feel victimized and are just lying to themselves.

Yes. What NTS is so much better than claiming people are lying and hiding that feeling. Calling someone victimised, when that person refuses said label is clearly better than calling someone a liar.

NTS claimed ALL men who have been circumsised have been victimised whether they feel victimised...hell whether they are HAPPY about it, or not. I don't give a shit if that's 'equivalent' or not, it's stupid, offensive, dismissive and also conveniently impossible to prove (or disprove).

Ah, I see. So he just missed and quoted me by mistake, responding to me while thinking I was NTS.

No strawman, just a need for glasses. Makes sense, I suppose...

No I simply responded to your comment by advancing his idea which, while not yours or mine, was something I nevertheless foresaw and is not entirely in disagreement with the fact that sometimes victims do not feel victimized.

Personally I do not agree with this idea but there's no reason not to discuss it!

Yes, clearly they are just liars/idiots/victims/to be dismissed.


You said that, not me.


I wasn't run over. I live a happy life. I am happy with my penis, and it was circumcised as an infant.


Then you were 'run over', even if you're now 'happy' with it.


Would you like to see it? Because I can assure you, mister anonymous internet expert, that I know more about my penis and my happiness than you ever could (or, I am guessing, would want to). Your whole argument depends on dismissing me completely as either a liar, or confused.


No, it really doesn't.

It relies on the fact that parts you chop off of people stay chopped off, even if they are 'happy' about it when they are old enough to have an opinion.


Are you an idiot, or do you just pretend to be one?

Ad hominem is a logical fallacy. It's also dangerously close to flaming. Don't compound your folly.

Of course it does. It's called projection. It makes just as much sense as your own pathetic attempts to ad-hominem your way out of this paper bag.

I haven't appealed to an ad hominem yet.

Funny you should talk about 'projection', in that context.

What? Ignore how he feels? Did you read what I posted?

With all due respect, I think you're reading into how my brother feels and what this practice is with excessive emotion.


Ignore how he feels, yes - because how he feels isn't the point.

What you said was:

"What I still don't get is this "circumcised men are victims" argument. My brother was circumsiced when he was a baby. He surely doesn't feel like he was mutilated, or a victim"

The point is - whether or not he FEELS mutilated or that he was a victim... doesn't change whether or not he WAS mutilated, or was a victim.

I'm not saying you're appealing to emotion, and I'm not saying that you should - as a general rule - ignore your brother's feelings.

What I'm saying is - if you want an answer to THAT question, ignore how he feels, and ask yourself: 'did he have a perfectly functional part of his body excised, surgically'?

If he did - he was mutilated, even if he feels it was the best thing that ever happened to him... because how he feels, doesn't define it.


I can't say it's bad to circumsice boys. Girls, for how gruesom the practice is, I am completely against. I can't say is bad to leave them uncircumsiced. All I know is that if I have a child, I will seek an opinion before agreeing to circumsicion. I know my mother did when she had him. I know she did it for his benefit, to the best of her knowledge. I know she didn't mean to do anything to harm him. He is her son.

If you have a child in the US, in most places, they will pressure you to have your child circumcised. You will not get a balanced response from the majority.

Why should we ignore what the supposed victim feels if we're trying to determine whether the person is a victim? Isn't the opinion of the person supposedly victimized relevant to the discussion? Or is there some sort of objective standard of morality you're trying to claim here?

'Objective standard morality' isn't relevant to the question.

If you want to shift the goal posts, don't expect my help.

The points are - was the surgery consensual? Clearly, not. Was the surgery necessary? Clearly not.

And most importantly - was the surgery done? If it was, it doesn't matter how you 'feel' about it, it's a fait accompli. The mutilated child was mutilated, and it doesn't matter how they rationalise or accept that at a later date.

'Objective standard morality' isn't relevant to the question.

If you want to shift the goal posts, don't expect my help.

The points are - was the surgery consensual? Clearly, not. Was the surgery necessary? Clearly not.

And most importantly - was the surgery done? If it was, it doesn't matter how you 'feel' about it, it's a fait accompli. The mutilated child was mutilated, and it doesn't matter how they rationalise or accept that at a later date.

...

It matters, IF IT ACTUALLY CAUSES NO DISCERNABLE HARM BEYOND THE ACTUAL PROCEDURE. This is why you cannot simply dismiss the actual, real life feelings of those who have been circumcised.

You keep twirling around this point. Ok! We get it! If your foreskin was cut off while you were an infant (for no medically necessary reason), you have been mutilated even if you don't FEEL mutilated!

This does not however lend itself to the proposition that somehow this automatically proves circumcision is bad.

Whatever trauma the infant may have felt is arguably wiped away by the positive feelings of belonging to a religious community, or even by the neutral feelings of not being raised to think it was a horrible violation. Yes, it matters whether or not the man in question gives a shit about his stolen foreskin.

You are ignoring the connotations of the words you are using. Mutilation, victimisation. I deliberately chose the word 'mutilation' for this thread, to make the issue a provocative one, but you are behaving as though it is value neutral...as though the words are objective descriptions, when in fact, they are not used that way.

So what is your point?

I don't think they are.


Then you are wrong.

You said:

" don't think it is reasonable to believe that the vast majority of circumcised men are mistaken in their belief that they are neither mutilated nor victims. It seems awfully dismissive of their experiences.

It doesn't matetr what you or they believe. Circumcision is surgical, it happens whether you believe it's bad or good. So - those people who believe 'they are neither mutilated nor victims' are simply wrong.


This is a horrible analogy. I do not think that it is comparable to the experiences of the majority of circumcised men. Foreskin removal is not as traumatic as being hit by a speeding vehicle, and participating in a religious community is far from the victimisation of getting run over.


The extent isn't the important part of the analogy. What is important is - denying it doesn't mean it didn't happen.


Surgery is not necessarily mutilation either. And most circumcised men do not think circumcision is mutilation.


They are wrong.

Circumcision is mutilation. What they 'think' is irrelevant.


Why should I believe you instead of them?


You shouldn't 'believe' anyone. They either got cut or they didn't. Their 'belief' on the matetr - or yours - will never change that.


Don't get me wrong. If a circumcised man said to me that they felt that their circumcision made them a mutilated victim, I would totally support that as a relevant experience. But that doesn't make the experience of the others a lie or a mistaken belief, or irrelevant.

I'm not talking about their 'experience'. I'm talking about reality.

Yes, I recognise that this is your position.


I didn't say it was my position, I said it was true.

I didn't say it was my position, I said it was true.

:rolleyes:

...
The point is - whether or not he FEELS mutilated or that he was a victim... doesn't change whether or not he WAS mutilated, or was a victim.....

Yes, it does.

I know you want to define circumcision as mutilation and an act wherein a person is victimised, but that's not true.

The words 'mutilated' and 'victim' have connotations that simply do not fit, one of them being the idea that the victim is somehow victimised, i.e. oppressed or persecuted. If the people involved do not feel that they are being oppressed or persecuted, it is somewhat of a stretch to define them as victims.

I certainly discount the 'possibility' that everyone, or even a majority (or even simply Bottle's brother, or Nan's brother, or me) who doesn't feel victimized, ashamed and damaged is just lying or hiding that feeling. I discount the attempt at dismissal.

How intellectually dishonest.

I have talked about the fact that the nonconsenting infants who were operated on to remove perfectly functional tissue, are victims.

I have talked about how the surgical excision of perfectly functional tissue for non-medical reasons, is mutilation.

The 'shame' and the 'feeling damaged'? That's your material, not mine - don't try to pin your strawmen to me.

I'm not talking about their 'experience'. I'm talking about reality.

No, no you're not. But it's funny to watch you pretend that your loaded definitions are TRUTH! TM

I wonder how many baby foreskins it would take to make a jacket?

'Objective standard morality' isn't relevant to the question.

If you want to shift the goal posts, don't expect my help.

The points are - was the surgery consensual? Clearly, not. Was the surgery necessary? Clearly not.

And most importantly - was the surgery done? If it was, it doesn't matter how you 'feel' about it, it's a fait accompli. The mutilated child was mutilated, and it doesn't matter how they rationalise or accept that at a later date.

That's fine, but you entirely ignored my question. What defines a victim? If the person in question adamantly maintains that they were not victimized, who are you to demand that they recognize that they were? From what authority do you reserve the right to make such a determination? Why do you get to tell someone that they are wrong about their opinion on the events of their own life?

I wonder how many baby foreskins it would take to make a jacket?

Quite a lot I'd think. Not only would you need several layers to make it a suitable jacket, they're really really small.

Except NTS quite clearly stated that all men who have been circumcised as infants have been victimised, that their feelings to the contrary are irrelevant and to be dismissed... in the question of whether it happened or not.

Fixed. In the interests of fair representation.

...
Circumcision is mutilation.....

No, it isn't. Mutilation is medically defined as "[d]isfigurement or injury by removal or destruction of any conspicuous or essential part of the body."

Unless you are now going to claim that all those circumcised penii are disfigured or injured, even though the people attached to them don't think so.

Yes. What NTS is so much better than claiming people are lying and hiding that feeling.


Is it really so bad to actually be expected to respond to what was actually written, then?


NTS claimed ALL men who have been circumsised have been victimised whether they feel victimised...hell whether they are HAPPY about it, or not. I don't give a shit if that's 'equivalent' or not, it's stupid, offensive, dismissive and also conveniently impossible to prove (or disprove).

...and.. and 'rectangle'. I hate that word! They should be called 'long squares'. It's mean and stupid to call them rectangles.

Oblong is acceptable.

Fixed. In the interests of fair representation.

Because people were claiming that circumcised men were not in fact circumcised?

Riiiight.

Is it really so bad to actually be expected to respond to what was actually written, then?



...and.. and 'rectangle'. I hate that word! They should be called 'long squares'. It's mean and stupid to call them rectangles.

Oblong is acceptable.

Oh right, you're in your little fairy land where the word 'mutilation' applies.

Carry on.

...

It matters, IF IT ACTUALLY CAUSES NO DISCERNABLE HARM BEYOND THE ACTUAL PROCEDURE. This is why you cannot simply dismiss the actual, real life feelings of those who have been circumcised.

You keep twirling around this point. Ok! We get it! If your foreskin was cut off while you were an infant (for no medically necessary reason), you have been mutilated even if you don't FEEL mutilated!

This does not however lend itself to the proposition that somehow this automatically proves circumcision is bad.

Whatever trauma the infant may have felt is arguably wiped away by the positive feelings of belonging to a religious community, or even by the neutral feelings of not being raised to think it was a horrible violation. Yes, it matters whether or not the man in question gives a shit about his stolen foreskin.

You are ignoring the connotations of the words you are using. Mutilation, victimisation. I deliberately chose the word 'mutilation' for this thread, to make the issue a provocative one, but you are behaving as though it is value neutral...as though the words are objective descriptions, when in fact, they are not used that way.

So what is your point?

Mutilation is objective. Circumcision is mutilation.

I am not ignopring connotation - it is patently obvious that a lot of people who have been mutilated in this fashion really don't want it described that way.

That's their issue, not mine.

:rolleyes:

Best answer you could have given. You really wouldn't have wanted to have to argue that.

The last five pages:

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b383/DrkHelmet/Forum%20Pictures/python.gif

Mutilation is objective. Circumcision is mutilation.

I am not ignopring connotation - it is patently obvious that a lot of people who have been mutilated in this fashion really don't want it described that way.

That's their issue, not mine.

Mutilation is not objective. My penis has not had its appearance or function degraded as a result of circumcision, therefore, it was not mutilated.

Yes, it does.

I know you want to define circumcision as mutilation and an act wherein a person is victimised, but that's not true.

The words 'mutilated' and 'victim' have connotations that simply do not fit, one of them being the idea that the victim is somehow victimised, i.e. oppressed or persecuted. If the people involved do not feel that they are being oppressed or persecuted, it is somewhat of a stretch to define them as victims.

If I raise a child in a box, is it still a prisoner, even though it never experienced life where it could walk around and see things that weren't the walls inches from it's face?

I wonder how many baby foreskins it would take to make a jacket?

None. Jehovah God eats them.

The last five pages:

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b383/DrkHelmet/Forum%20Pictures/python.gif

Yeah, I'm wondering if he's got anything beyond oh ho ho! I'm just talking about the definition, nothing more!

That's fine, but you entirely ignored my question. What defines a victim? If the person in question adamantly maintains that they were not victimized, who are you to demand that they recognize that they were? From what authority do you reserve the right to make such a determination? Why do you get to tell someone that they are wrong about their opinion on the events of their own life?

And again, I resort to parallels.

If a girl decides she caused it, through her provocative clothing, or a too-long look, or some other reason - is it still rape?

Mutilation is objective. Circumcision is mutilation.


There is no reason to use that word, it's an odd word that conveys a particularly vague meaning and does not assist with clarity in discourse in any way. The only reason to use that word is to add emotional presence to an argument, to make the procedure sound as bad as possible.

No, it isn't. Mutilation is medically defined as "[d]isfigurement or injury by removal or destruction of any conspicuous or essential part of the body."

Unless you are now going to claim that all those circumcised penii are disfigured or injured, even though the people attached to them don't think so.

A circumcised penis is disfigured, obviously. and a circumcision is practically defined by removal of conspicuous or essential part of the body.

If I raise a child in a box, is it still a prisoner, even though it never experienced life where it could walk around and see things that weren't the walls inches from it's face?

If it takes half a chicken half a day to lay half an egg, how long does it take a monkey with a wooden leg to kick all the seeds out of a pickle?

In other words, your post has nothing to do with the simple fact that circumcision does not fit the medical definition of mutilation.

Yeah, I'm wondering if he's got anything beyond oh ho ho! I'm just talking about the definition, nothing more!

Doubt it. I'm starting to lose interest.

At least something interesting is going on on the other forum.

And again, I resort to parallels.

If a girl decides she caused it, through her provocative clothing, or a too-long look, or some other reason - is it still rape?

You failed analogy class, I see. I already provided the analogy you're looking for earlier in this thread. You chose to ignore it, unsurprisingly.

If an under age-of-consent girl wanted to have sex with her over age-of-consent boyfriend, is she still a victim despite her insistence that she was not.

Mutilation is not objective. My penis has not had its appearance or function degraded as a result of circumcision, therefore, it was not mutilated.

Obviously, it's appearance is different. It has been disfigured, by design.

A circumcised penis is disfigured, obviously.....

Do you believe that the majority of Jewish and Muslim men feel that their penises are disfigured?

If you believe that they don't, do you believe that are mistaken about the disfigurement of their penises?

If it takes half a chicken half a day to lay half an egg, how long does it take a monkey with a wooden leg to kick all the seeds out of a pickle?

In other words, your post has nothing to do with the simple fact that circumcision does not fit the medical definition of mutilation.

Mother-fucking-sigged.

Also, you owe me a keyboard. Mine is covered in mint tea.

There is no reason to use that word, it's an odd word that conveys a particularly vague meaning and does not assist with clarity in discourse in any way. The only reason to use that word is to add emotional presence to an argument, to make the procedure sound as bad as possible.

No, the reason to use the word is that it is an accurate description of what happens.

The only reason NOT to use it, is to avoid having to confront people with it. That's not a good enough reason. If it's mutilation, we should be honest about it, and admit it.

And again, I resort to parallels.

If a girl decides she caused it, through her provocative clothing, or a too-long look, or some other reason - is it still rape?

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b383/DrkHelmet/Forum%20Pictures/police7mp.jpg

If it takes half a chicken half a day to lay half an egg, how long does it take a monkey with a wooden leg to kick all the seeds out of a pickle?

In other words, your post has nothing to do with the simple fact that circumcision does not fit the medical definition of mutilation.

It's cute, and it's quite amusing, but it's an utter fail at addressing what i posted. So - about typical for the 'pro-circumcision' camp.

You failed analogy class, I see. I already provided the analogy you're looking for earlier in this thread. You chose to ignore it, unsurprisingly.
.

You failed to comprehend ( and understand the significance of) the analogy, I see.

You failed to comprehend ( and understand the significance of) the analogy, I see.

So did everyone else in the thread, apparently.

Care to explain?

Do you believe that the majority of Jewish and Muslim men feel that their penises are disfigured?


I'm supremely indifferent, since it's supremely irrelevant.


If you believe that they don't, do you believe that are mistaken about the disfigurement of their penises?

If they DON'T think they've been disfigured, obviously. I've no desire to indulge their denial of reality.

I don't want to upset them. I'm sorry that they live a lie, but they'll only grow through it by confronting it.

NTS, I've asked you a number of times now...what is your point?

If you want us all to go 'oh okay it's definitionally mutilation' (which we won't) is that it? You done?

Extra, extra, NTS thinks you have a disfigured penis is you lack foreskin! Disfigurement is not a culturally relevant concept!

So did everyone else in the thread, apparently.

Care to explain?

The argument isn't logical.

"It's not mutilation because the people who had it done to them don't feel mutilated".

Fine - let's see if the logic holds if we ignore the special exception that applies for circumcision:

"It's not rape because the person who had it done to her doesn't feel raped".

No - it doesn't hold up. Thus, it's a claim for special exception.

NTS, I've asked you a number of times now...what is your point?

If you want us all to go 'oh okay it's definitionally mutilation' (which we won't) is that it? You done?

It's a little disturbing that you're confused.

You asked a question, which I have answered. You seem to think there should be something else lurking behind that?

The argument isn't logical.

"It's not mutilation because the people who had it done to them don't feel mutilated".

Fine - let's see if the logic holds if we ignore the special exception that applies for circumcision:

"It's not rape because the person who had it done to her doesn't feel raped".

No - it doesn't hold up. Thus, it's a claim for special exception.

Except rape has a demonstrable physical and/or mental harm every single time it's done. Therefore, the analogy doesn't hold.

No, the reason to use the word is that it is an accurate description of what happens.


Circumcision is far more accurate, if you want clarity, use that. When I clicked on this thread, I was 90% sure that neesika was talking about circumcision, but I wasn't completely certain. The best way to convey specifically what you mean is by using the word circumcision, as that is a specific procedure. That's being objective. Mutilation can mean many things, there are many ways to mutilate a penis without circumcising it, that has a vaguer meaning. Again, there is no reason other than emotive to use the vaguer meaning, being 'objective' is an especially rubbish reason, as the word circumcision conveys a much more specific meaning.

I'm supremely indifferent, since it's supremely irrelevant.

If they DON'T think they've been disfigured, obviously. I've no desire to indulge their denial of reality.

I don't want to upset them. I'm sorry that they live a lie, but they'll only grow through it by confronting it.

Yes. well.

You seem to have dismissed the opinions of most of the people whom you seem to be speaking for, i.e. the circumcised.

You have used the words mutilate and victim, despite the fact that the defintions don't really fit, or are considered apt descriptors by the circumcised.

And you have yet to provide any good reason why I should believe you instread of all the circumcised men I know.

It's a little disturbing that you're confused.

You asked a question, which I have answered. You seem to think there should be something else lurking behind that?

It just seems so petty and pointless, not that I'm saying you're above that.

So all you want is for people to believe you when you say that circumicion leaves a man mutilated and disfigured. Beyond that, there is no point you wish to make.

What a lot of effort to go into for something so trivial as a definitional argument.

Extra, extra, NTS thinks you have a disfigured penis is you lack foreskin! Disfigurement is not a culturally relevant concept!

You do have a disfigured penis if you lack a foreskin.

Acceptance or rejection of disfigurement is culturally relevant, the disfigurement itself, is not.

A tattoo is disfigurement, and many don't accept it, but some find it attractive. Neither of those reactions changes it's innate nature.

You do have a disfigured penis if you lack a foreskin.

Acceptance or rejection of disfigurement is culturally relevant, the disfigurement itself, is not.

A tattoo is disfigurement, and many don't accept it, but some find it attractive. Neither of those reactions changes it's innate nature.

So, tattoos are mutilation.

What about plastic surgery? Does a nose job count as disfigurement?

Circumcision is far more accurate, if you want clarity, use that. When I clicked on this thread, I was 90% sure that neesika was talking about circumcision, but I wasn't completely certain. The best way to convey specifically what you mean is by using the word circumcision, as that is a specific procedure. That's being objective. Mutilation can mean many things, there are many ways to mutilate a penis without circumcising it, that has a vaguer meaning. Again, there is no reason other than emotive to use the vaguer meaning, being 'objective' is an especially rubbish reason, as the word circumcision conveys a much more specific meaning.

But circumcision is too specific. I don't think any form of mutilation (genital, in the case of this thread) on non-consenting victims is appropriate.

There are many ways to mutilate your genitals, and they're all equally reprehensible.

You do have a disfigured penis if you lack a foreskin.

Acceptance or rejection of disfigurement is culturally relevant, the disfigurement itself, is not.

A tattoo is disfigurement, and many don't accept it, but some find it attractive. Neither of those reactions changes it's innate nature.

dis⋅fig⋅ure  /dɪsˈfɪgyər; Brit. dɪsˈfɪgər/

–verb (used with object), -ured, -ur⋅ing. 1. to mar the appearance or beauty of; deform; deface.

Shockingly, the term has a built in socially-constructed connotation that simply doesn't fit your usage. Acceptance or rejection actually defines what is disfigurement, and what is not.

Except rape has a demonstrable physical and/or mental harm every single time it's done. Therefore, the analogy doesn't hold.

That's irrelevant.

It's funny that people will ask you to explain your analogy, and then think they understood it better than you...

The point is - does the logic hold. The answer, obviously, is no - abuse that you feel okay about is still abuse.

But circumcision is too specific.

No it isn't, it's exactly what is being discussed. There is no other procedure the OP was intending to discuss, so you don't exclude anything by calling it circumcision.

Yes. well.

You seem to have dismissed the opinions of most of the people whom you seem to be speaking for, i.e. the circumcised.

You have used the words mutilate and victim, despite the fact that the defintions don't really fit, or are considered apt descriptors by the circumcised.

And you have yet to provide any good reason why I should believe you instread of all the circumcised men I know.

I didn't say I spoke for the curcumcised at all.

If I speak for anyone, I speak for the tiny babies that people are deciding about mutilating, or not. I'm talking for the pre-circumcised.

Why should you believe me, instead of all the circumcised people you know? You shouldn't (again), because (as I said) 'belief' is irrelevant.

It just seems so petty and pointless,


Answering the question is petty and pointless? That explains why you resort to mockery, rather than lowering yourself to the petty and pointless endeavour of answering.


So all you want is for people to believe you when you say that circumicion leaves a man mutilated and disfigured. Beyond that, there is no point you wish to make.

What a lot of effort to go into for something so trivial as a definitional argument.

Right.

Might want to straighten your slip, your bias is showing.

That's irrelevant.

You have compared circumcision to rape. The only criteria in this analogy you have claimed is that they are both non consensual. So is changing a baby's diaper, giving him a bath, or making your child eat peas. They're all non consensual, but that's the way it is.

So, if your only point is that circumcision is non consensual like rape, I'll agree with you. It's also irrelevant. We do lots of things to our children that are non consensual.

So, tattoos are mutilation.

What about plastic surgery? Does a nose job count as disfigurement?

Sure.

Which is why plastic surgery should be at the option of those who are capable of making that decision for themselves.

(With the exception, obviously, for those cases where it is necessary... maybe I can head that one off this time).

I can't believe how long this thread is. I mean it's not unusual to have threads this long, but on circumcision? Lol wut

dis⋅fig⋅ure  /dɪsˈfɪgyər; Brit. dɪsˈfɪgər/

–verb (used with object), -ured, -ur⋅ing. 1. to mar the appearance or beauty of; deform; deface.

Shockingly, the term has a built in socially-constructed connotation that simply doesn't fit your usage. Acceptance or rejection actually defines what is disfigurement, and what is not.

Mar the appearance of, deform... that's pretty objective.

Your quote includes a subjective clause, also... but that doesn't mean it's defined by subjectivity.

No it isn't, it's exactly what is being discussed. There is no other procedure the OP was intending to discuss, so you don't exclude anything by calling it circumcision.

You trimmed off all the rest, there's no point offering you an argument, since you chose to excise the previous argument (apparently) unread.

I didn't say I spoke for the curcumcised at all.

If I speak for anyone, I speak for the tiny babies that people are deciding about mutilating, or not. I'm talking for the pre-circumcised.

Why should you believe me, instead of all the circumcised people you know? You shouldn't (again), because (as I said) 'belief' is irrelevant.

You're right. Belief is irrelevant.

Your belief that circumcision is mutliation is irrelevant because it is obviously not, as it does not cause disfigurement or injury.

Your belief that circumcision is a process of victimisation despite the fact that no one feels oppressed or persecuted is also irrelevant, as it has no basis in reality.

Well done.

Answering the question is petty and pointless? That explains why you resort to mockery, rather than lowering yourself to the petty and pointless endeavour of answering.

You claim you have no purpose in getting people to lable circumicision as mutilation and disfigurement?

I questioned you so I didn't have to come right out and call you a liar.



Right.

Might want to straighten your slip, your bias is showing.

And you might want to reconsider your statement that you have no agenda past labelling circumcision mutilation.

You have compared circumcision to rape.

No, I haven't.

If you want to make up arguments you wish I'd said, you can make up the answers, too.

You trimmed off all the rest, there's no point offering you an argument, since you chose to excise the previous argument (apparently) unread.

The rest of it was irrelevant. Did I mention resistance is futile? :p

I'm not the one jumping from, "Jewish parents don't have the right to make this decision for their chldren," to "ZOMG! YOU THINK JUDAISM IS AN EXCUSE FOR MUTILATING CHILDREN!" So, to be fair, in this discussion, I hardly think I'm the one with posts dripping with emotive excess.

First of, I will thank you to quit slandering me. I have NEVER typed or said anything as ridiculous as "ZOMG!", and I demand a retraction of that false addendum to my comments. (/sarcasm)

No, I haven't.

If you want to make up arguments you wish I'd said, you can make up the answers, too.

You trimmed off all the rest, there's no point offering you an argument, since you chose to excise the previous argument (apparently) unread.

Ok. This is getting easier the longer I stay.

Mar the appearance of, deform... that's pretty objective.

Your quote includes a subjective clause, also... but that doesn't mean it's defined by subjectivity.

Mar the appearance of, deform...are you fucking KIDDING me when you claim this is objective?

Unreal. I suppose getting your hair cut is a new disfigurement every time.

Sure.

Which is why plastic surgery should be at the option of those who are capable of making that decision for themselves.

(With the exception, obviously, for those cases where it is necessary... maybe I can head that one off this time).

Okay. So all those people who think they actually look better after getting plastic surgery are simply wrong. They're actually disfigured.

This is now officially ridiculous.

You're right. Belief is irrelevant.

Your belief that circumcision is mutliation is irrelevant because it is obviously not, as it does not cause disfigurement or injury.

Your belief that circumcision is a process of victimisation despite the fact that no one feels oppressed or persecuted is also irrelevant, as it has no basis in reality.

Well done.

Denial impresses no one.

Your two statements in clear denial of reality will be welcomed by those who had no intention of objectively considering it, anyway.

Circumcision is mutilation. There is no debate about it - you either accept it, or you're in denial.

...you might want to reconsider your statement that you have no agenda past labelling circumcision mutilation.

That was what YOU said my agenda was.

You might want to lay off the sauce if you can't even differentiate between my actual statements, and your own.

Ok. This is getting easier the longer I stay.

Now you can't even tell who posted what?

I have to admit, props to NTS for commitment, as soo many people are debating with him. If I had to reply to that many people, I would run screaming.

Denial impresses no one.

Your two statements in clear denial of reality will be welcomed by those who had no intention of objectively considering it, anyway.

Circumcision is mutilation. There is no debate about it - you either accept it, or you're in denial.

Those who believe that circumcision of minors is morally prohibited often suggest that removing the foreskin constitutes mutilation of a child. For instance, Denniston, Hodges, and Milos (1999) note that Stedman's Medical Dictionary defines mutilation as "[d]isfigurement or injury by removal or destruction of any conspicuous or essential part of the body." Male circumcision, they say, is the injurious and appearance-altering removal of a conspicuous body part and thus unquestionably constitutes mutilation. But this sort of argument begs the question. It assumes that circumcision disfigures and injures. Yet this is exactly what is in dispute in debates about whether circumcision constitutes mutilation.

This can be seen if we consider other surgical procedures such as breast reduction, liposuction, and rhinoplasty. These are all procedures that alter the appearance of parts of a person. Those who re-quest such procedures do not take them to be disfiguring. Similarly, those who circumcise their sons do not take removal of the foreskin to be disfiguring. Even if people can be mistaken about what constitutes disfigurement, it is still true that one cannot assume that a surgical procedure is disfiguring simply because it alters the body. It may be enhancing or it may be (aesthetically) neutral - neither disfiguring nor enhancing.

http://www.circs.org/library/benatar2/index.html

I don't know much about logical fallacies, but I think this paper is suggesting that you are 'begging the question'.

This thread needs to be locked.

You failed to comprehend ( and understand the significance of) the analogy, I see.

I understood your analogy just fine. It sucked. It had literally no relevance to anything whatsoever. I provided a much more apt analogy. One that you have ignored for the second time, presumably because you're incapable of addressing it.

For anyone who cares, figures show between 15-30% of the world's men are circumcised (various sources have conflicting data - that's the widest range). Given that there are a little over 3.3 billion men on earth, that's approximately half a billion to a billion men that have been horribly horribly mutilated and abused (according to NTS).

All this mutilation must have caused some sort of general public outroar. In fact, I bet there are riots in the streets!

What? No? Just a few people are on the internet complaining on message boards? Hmm... I wonder why...

Perhaps because it's not abuse. Perhaps because it is an accepted medical practice with benefits and risks, and belongs exactly where it is - in the parents' discretion.

The argument isn't logical.

"It's not mutilation because the people who had it done to them don't feel mutilated".

Fine - let's see if the logic holds if we ignore the special exception that applies for circumcision:

"It's not rape because the person who had it done to her doesn't feel raped".

No - it doesn't hold up. Thus, it's a claim for special exception.

How does that not hold up? If someone doesn't think they were raped, they were anyway cause you say so? If a 16 year old girl says she wasn't raped and that she wanted to have sex, it's rape anyway cause you say so?

Now you can't even tell who posted what?

No, I'm answering you with your own statement.

You dismissed everything I said and snipped out one sentence, just like you accused someone else of doing. Therefore, I cut your accusation and pasted it so that you would be saying it to yourself.

Doctor, heal thyself, and all that.

Right. Maybe not just him but everyone who is supposedly happy about their circumcised penises is secretly traumatized and ashamed!
Well, of course. You obviously don't understand that, if someone does something to you that these posters don't like that means you're the victim. It doesn't matter if you're fine with it, perfectly happy with your life, maybe even proud of your surgically unhooded penis. You are playing the role of "victim" in their drama, and damnation, you're going to stick to the fucking script, if they have to dub every word of your lines. It's right here in the script -- you were raped, mutilated, brutalized for no reason at all, and you're suffering horribly for it. Your life is as diminished as your penis is. Yep, just about as much. You would know that if you hadn't been snipped. I guess that's where the brain cells that store that awareness are housed...

That was what YOU said my agenda was.

You might want to lay off the sauce if you can't even differentiate between my actual statements, and your own.

Insinuating that a poster is drunk; yeah, you never resort to ad hominem.

For anyone who cares, figures show between 15-30% of the world's men are circumcised (various sources have conflicting data - that's the widest range). Given that there are a little over 3.3 billion men on earth, that's approximately half a billion to a billion men that have been horribly horribly mutilated and abused (according to NTS).


Isn't around 60% of the US circumcised? You crazy yanks.

That was what YOU said my agenda was.

You might want to lay off the sauce if you can't even differentiate between my actual statements, and your own.

And you might want to revisit your own statements, which were in response to a DIRECT question.

NTS, I've asked you a number of times now...what is your point?

If you want us all to go 'oh okay it's definitionally mutilation' (which we won't) is that it? You done?

It's a little disturbing that you're confused.

You asked a question, which I have answered. You seem to think there should be something else lurking behind that?

I didn't about you answering a question, I asked what was the point behind the whole definitional asshattery you are engaging in, to which you replied "You seem to think there should be something else lurking behind that?"

If you didn't mean you have no point beyond your definitional asshattery, you've had ample opportunity to make yourself clearer.

Blaming me for your own lack of clarity is pretty lame.

Isn't around 60% of the US circumcised? You crazy yanks.

I'm going to assume you mean 60% of the male population, otherwise it's just scary.

I think so, but in recent years the number has been dropping. I recall reading that somewhere.

This thread needs to be locked.

Oh for the love of...

It's at least on topic, and not full of spam. Leave it alone.

Let it be bigger, longer and uncut!

Let it be bigger, longer and uncut!

I will not let this thread be another victim!

Let it be bigger, longer and uncut!

That's what she said!

Ignore how he feels, yes - because how he feels isn't the point.

Of course. You have to do that, because how he feels does not support your argument. Any evidence that does not support the point you want to make must be declared irrelevant and dropped from the discussion. That's only logical. ...

It's funny that people will ask you to explain your analogy, and then think they understood it better than you...
You have compared circumcision to rape.No, I haven't.

Dictionary.com say:

a⋅nal⋅o⋅gy, -noun, plural -gies

1. a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based: the analogy between the heart and a pump.
2. similarity or comparability: I see no analogy between your problem and mine.

Either you don't know what analogies are for, or you lied, or you just forgot.

I'm leaning toward the first one, but I'm not dismissing the other two.

Yes. What NTS is so much better than claiming people are lying and hiding that feeling. Calling someone victimised, when that person refuses said label is clearly better than calling someone a liar.

NTS claimed ALL men who have been circumsised have been victimised whether they feel victimised...hell whether they are HAPPY about it, or not. I don't give a shit if that's 'equivalent' or not, it's stupid, offensive, dismissive and also conveniently impossible to prove (or disprove).

Hey, I didn't claim it was a good argument. I just pointed out that the two are not the same argument.

The words 'mutilated' and 'victim' have connotations that simply do not fit, one of them being the idea that the victim is somehow victimised, i.e. oppressed or persecuted. If the people involved do not feel that they are being oppressed or persecuted, it is somewhat of a stretch to define them as victims.

Not that NTS's argument is all that great, but I don't think this is a good rebuttal of it either. As I pointed out before, history is full of people who not only didn't feel oppressed or persecuted by unfair treatment, but in fact rallied behind the continuation of such treatment. And it isn't uncommon for our legal system to recognize harm done even if the victim does not feel that any wrongdoing has occurred - particularly if said victim is a child.

I have to admit, props to NTS for commitment, as soo many people are debating with him. If I had to reply to that many people, I would run screaming.

Instead, my browser keeps running off screaming. That's three times, now, it's dumped a reply I was just about to post.

:(

For anyone who cares, figures show between 15-30% of the world's men are circumcised (various sources have conflicting data - that's the widest range). Given that there are a little over 3.3 billion men on earth, that's approximately half a billion to a billion men that have been horribly horribly mutilated and abused (according to NTS).

All this mutilation must have caused some sort of general public outroar. In fact, I bet there are riots in the streets!

What? No? Just a few people are on the internet complaining on message boards? Hmm... I wonder why...

Perhaps because it's not abuse. Perhaps because it is an accepted medical practice with benefits and risks, and belongs exactly where it is - in the parents' discretion.

Lots of people do it, so it can't be wrong.

Mmm, I love the smell of logical fallacy in the morning.

How does that not hold up? If someone doesn't think they were raped, they were anyway cause you say so? If a 16 year old girl says she wasn't raped and that she wanted to have sex, it's rape anyway cause you say so?

If she was raped, but she feels like it can't really be called rape..

Is it rape?

Insinuating that a poster is drunk; yeah, you never resort to ad hominem.

The poster is presenting her own arguments to me as something she thinks I said?

'Drunk' was being charitable.

(It also wasn't ad hominem, because I wasn't arguing against her argument... because it wasn't HER argument, it was her presenting her argument as MY argument).

And you might want to revisit your own statements, which were in response to a DIRECT question.

I didn't about you answering a question, I asked what was the point behind the whole definitional asshattery you are engaging in, to which you replied "You seem to think there should be something else lurking behind that?"

If you didn't mean you have no point beyond your definitional asshattery, you've had ample opportunity to make yourself clearer.

Blaming me for your own lack of clarity is pretty lame.

You asked me what my point was.

I pointed out you had asked a question, and I had answered. That was 'the point'.

Again, I have to marvel at how you detect a lack of clarity.

Sin: "What's your point?"

NTS: "Answering the question".

Sin: "Damn you! Why can't you be clear?"

If she was raped, but she feels like it can't really be called rape..

Is it rape?

If she says "I wasn't raped", was she raped anyway cause you think she was raped?

Of course. You have to do that, because how he feels does not support your argument.

No, you have to 'ignore how he feels' because 'how he feels' doesn't determine whether the harm was harm, the surgery was surgery, or the mutilation was mutilation.

It is amazing how much you, and a few others, talk about the 'emotional' debate you claim you see against circumcision, and then you'll trot out the 'but what about how HE feels' crap.

If she says "I wasn't raped", was she raped anyway cause you think she was raped?

I understand why you don't want to answer the question.

I understand why you don't want to answer the question.

That's absolutely hilarious coming from you, hypocrite.

Dictionary.com say:

a⋅nal⋅o⋅gy, -noun, plural -gies

1. a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based: the analogy between the heart and a pump.
2. similarity or comparability: I see no analogy between your problem and mine.

Either you don't know what analogies are for, or you lied, or you just forgot.

I'm leaning toward the first one, but I'm not dismissing the other two.

I analyzed the logic, by citing two examples using that logic, and seeing if it held up in both cases.

That doesn't mean I'm comparing the two things - it means I'm comparing whether the LOGIC would hold up in both cases.

You asked me what my point was.

Try reading. I asked if you had a point beyond your definitional dance. You said no.

I think you lie. I could of course, be wrong...perhaps all you want is to make sure people call it mutilation and disfigurement, and this has no purpose beyond itself.

Nonetheless, you answered my direct, specific question as to whether you had a point beyond the definition we were discussing and you said "no".

You then disputed this as inaccurate. I quoted you to show how you made yourself unclear, and how your statements do in fact seem to support the conclusion I drew. I gave you the opportunity to clarify. Instead, you claim I am misrepresenting your argument.

It would have been a lot easier had you gone, 'oh well what I meant was...' instead of assuming some sort of conspiracy on my part.

I pointed out you had asked a question, and I had answered. That was 'the point'.

Again, I have to marvel at how you detect a lack of clarity.

Sin: "What's your point?"

NTS: "Answering the question".

Sin: "Damn you! Why can't you be clear?"

Your continuing evasiveness isn't cute.

What is your point in all this definitional asshattery? I've asked you before. Answer the question. If you claim that you HAVE no point beyond the definitional asshattery itself, then my characterisation of your answer is correct. If not...if you do in fact have a point beyond this, then I would like to know what it is.

All you have done is repeat the former(claiming I got it wrong) in order to avoid answering the latter.

Except we can see you doing it. Sort of like how you avoided admitting to engaging in ad hominem (something you earlier claimed not to engage in). You didn't quite come out and say it didn't happen...you just sidestepped.

Stop sidestepping and answer. the. fucking. question.

I analyzed the logic, by citing two examples using that logic, and seeing if it held up in both cases.

That doesn't mean I'm comparing the two things - it means I'm comparing whether the LOGIC would hold up in both cases.

Let's compare the logic, shall we?

A man gets circumcised. Later he says he wasn't harmed.

A woman gets fucked. Later she says she wasn't harmed.

Is he mutilated, and she raped?

That's absolutely hilarious coming from you, hypocrite.

That's not actually answering the question.

That's not actually answering the question.

Your powers of observation overwhelm me. Tell you what. When you answer my question (which I asked first), I'll answer your idiotic question. But I can hardly be expected to commit to answering your question when you won't pay me the same respect, now can I?

If someone doesn't think they were raped, they were anyway cause you say so? If a 16 year old girl says she wasn't raped and that she wanted to have sex, it's rape anyway cause you say so?

Let's compare the logic, shall we?

A man gets circumcised. Later he says he wasn't harmed.

A woman gets fucked. Later she says she wasn't harmed.

Is he mutilated, and she raped?

Rather humorously, given the way you've carefully tried to word it in such a way as to weasel out of my question - given that our victims are both non-consenting... yes.

That's not actually answering the question.

Precisely. A tactic you've engaged in quite extensively, hence the second time someone has rightfully labelled you a hypocrite. Or is that three times now? Galloism with the 'snipping parts of a post', Sdaeriji pointing out your use of ad hominem, and once more, Sdaeriji pointing out how you avoid answering questions while berating others for same.

Is there some sort of lethal hypocrisy build up level we should worry about here? Wouldn't want you combusting spontaneously because of it.

Your powers of observation overwhelm me. Tell you what. When you answer my question (which I asked first), I'll answer your idiotic question. But I can hardly be expected to commit to answering your question when you won't pay me the same respect, now can I?

I didn't realise that was a real question, I figured you were just trying to reword what I'd been saying so you didn't have to address it.

Oh. Wait.

My how times changed.

Oh. Wait.

That's not actually answering the question.

NTS, after reading your last posts thoroughly I'm beginning to wonder if you know what ''mutilated'' means. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Precisely. A tactic you've engaged in quite extensively, hence the second time someone has rightfully labelled you a hypocrite. Or is that three times now? Galloism with the 'snipping parts of a post', Sdaeriji pointing out your use of ad hominem, and once more, Sdaeriji pointing out how you avoid answering questions while berating others for same.

Is there some sort of lethal hypocrisy build up level we should worry about here? Wouldn't want you combusting spontaneously because of it.

***Approved as content free***

I didn't realise that was a real question, I figured you were just trying to reword what I'd been saying so you didn't have to address it.

Oh. Wait.

My how times changed.

Oh. Wait.

So, the question mark at the end of the sentences weren't indicators to you that they were questions?

Your hypocrisy knows no bounds. Is there no level you will not sink to to avoid actually having an intelligent discussion?

NTS, after reading your last posts thoroughly I'm beginning to wonder if you know what ''mutilated'' means. You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

Points for the Montoya response.

We've examined the word mutilated, and it takes some pretty fancy dancing to argue that circumcision doesn't qualify - especially when the same 'logic' doesn't hold for female circumcisions.

Points for the Montoya response.

We've examined the word mutilated, and it takes some pretty fancy dancing to argue that circumcision doesn't qualify - especially when the same 'logic' doesn't hold for female circumcisions.

Mutilation implies that the extremity or organ in question has lost functionality. A circumcised penis works as fine as an uncircumcised one. What are you getting at?

So, the question mark at the end of the sentences weren't indicators to you that they were questions?

Your hypocrisy knows no bounds. Is there no level you will not sink to to avoid actually having an intelligent discussion?

Pointing out that you basically repackaged what I'd been saying, but removing all the aspects that actually made it a logical parallel for the purpose of the analysis... that's not actually hypocrisy.

***Approved as content free***

So your answer to, "will you answer the question I've asked" is..."No."

Okay then. Not sure why you're still here.

Pointing out that you basically repackaged what I'd been saying, but removing all the aspects that actually made it a logical parallel for the purpose of the analysis... that's not actually hypocrisy.

Of course, you must ignore any scenarios that might invalidate your analogy. That only seems logical, when 'winning' is the goal, and intellectual honesty is irrelevant.

So your answer to, "will you answer the question I've asked" is..."No."

Okay then. Not sure why you're still here.

Here Neesika, you can borrow this. (http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b383/DrkHelmet/Forum%20Pictures/gtfo3bp.jpg)

Here Neesika, you can borrow this. (http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b383/DrkHelmet/Forum%20Pictures/gtfo3bp.jpg)

Yeah, basically. A whole lot of effort went into basically, "na na na I'm right, anyone who disagrees is in denial, I won't even entertain any objections because I'm right, you're in denial, and when asked questions I will claim that people are trying sneaky things in order to avoid actually having a discussion, not that I do that, don't look at me avoiding having a discussion, look away!!!!"

Rather humorously, given the way you've carefully tried to word it in such a way as to weasel out of my question - given that our victims are both non-consenting... yes.

And I have dismissed your non-consenting nonsense by pointing out that baths, eating peas, removing skin tags, moles, growths, performing reconstructive surgery on children when they're born with deformities, all of these are non-consenting actions on the child. None of them are medically necessary either (except probably baths).

I still don't see the point if "non-consenting" is the only parallel you're drawing. If you are trying to draw some other parallel with rape besides "non-consenting", then please point it out.

The non-consenting one is quite clearly seen, and I've countered. However, you haven't countered my counter.

Mutilation implies that the extremity or organ in question has lost functionality. A circumcised penis works as fine as an uncircumcised one. What are you getting at?

A circumcised penis does lack functionality. It has to adapt to try to counter that, hence the keratinization of the glans in circumcised males. It also means the loss of tens of thousands of nerve endings, so it loses some inherent sexual functionality, also.

We could argue about whether the body can adapt successfully (enough), or whether kids circumcised so young will ever be aware of what they might be losing.. but that's really not the point.

Pointing out that you basically repackaged what I'd been saying, but removing all the aspects that actually made it a logical parallel for the purpose of the analysis... that's not actually hypocrisy.

No, hypocrisy is attacking me for not answering your question while refusing to answer mine. You know, demanding a different standard from someone else than you hold yourself to. Pretty much the definition of hypocrisy, actually.

Now, are you going to answer my question, or are you going to come up with another pathetic excuse to avoid actually having intelligent discussion?

If a girl says she wasn't raped, was she raped anyway just because you say so?

And I have dismissed your non-consenting nonsense by pointing out that baths, eating peas, removing skin tags, moles, growths, performing reconstructive surgery on children when they're born with deformities, all of these are non-consenting actions on the child. None of them are medically necessary either (except probably baths).

I still don't see the point if "non-consenting" is the only parallel you're drawing. If you are trying to draw some other parallel with rape besides "non-consenting", then please point it out.

The non-consenting one is quite clearly seen, and I've countered. However, you haven't countered my counter.

'Non-consenting' isn't the only parallel. It was just an inconvenient mistake in your attempt to parody.

'Non-consenting' isn't the only parallel. It was just an inconvenient mistake in your attempt to parody.

So what are the other ones?

When I asked you what the parallel was, you said lack of consent. What are the others?

If a girl says she wasn't raped, was she raped anyway just because you say so?

Chopped out all the lame crap.

The problem with your 'question' is that there isn't enough information to treat it as a real question.

She says she wasn't raped, you're apparently arguing that I say she was... but the question doesn't contain enough conditional information to answer.

And that's why your question doesn't appear to be a real question - because it doesn't encourage a real answer.

'Non-consenting' isn't the only parallel. It was just an inconvenient mistake in your attempt to parody.
Aaaand this pretty much clinches it.

All you would have had to do here was say, "No, actually the other parallels are..."

Instead you go, "no, you got it wrong, ha ha!"

What the fuck is this? We have to guess what your fucking point is, and when we get it wrong, you hit a buzzer?

I actually thought you were an intelligent poster before this. I'm sorry. I take it back.

So your answer to, "will you answer the question I've asked" is..."No."

Okay then. Not sure why you're still here.

I think maybe you didn't read the post I was responding to.

Three lines of bitter vitriol isn't actually a question.

Chopped out all the lame crap.

The problem with your 'question' is that there isn't enough information to treat it as a real question.

She says she wasn't raped, you're apparently arguing that I say she was... but the question doesn't contain enough conditional information to answer.

And that's why your question doesn't appear to be a real question - because it doesn't encourage a real answer.

We'll try this one more time.

If a sixteen year old girl says she was not raped by her seventeen year old boyfriend, was she raped?

Of course, you must ignore any scenarios that might invalidate your analogy.

I admit, I ignored the searing indictment that tuna don't swim backwards evoked. The lack of teapots visible in the vicinity of the moon caused me a few problems. Not being able to see invisible unicorns - I thought that was going to be the death of me.

But in the end, it turned out that people making up random shit didn't make any difference to my analogy. I was shocked.

A circumcised penis does lack functionality. It has to adapt to try to counter that, hence the keratinization of the glans in circumcised males. It also means the loss of tens of thousands of nerve endings, so it loses some inherent sexual functionality, also.

No, it doesn't. Sex, for example, with either kind, circumcised or not, feels exactly the same. The penis works exactly the same. Your argument that men feel like victims because they were circumcised is baseless.

Now, if YOU, and YOU alone feel this way, then that's your problem. Please, oh please, don't pretend to speak for the other one billion circumcised men out there.

We could argue about whether the body can adapt successfully (enough), or whether kids circumcised so young will ever be aware of what they might be losing.. but that's really not the point.

Oh for fuck's sake. Why am I getting into this argument? Am I stupid or what to fall into this shit? I can see this is not going to get anywhere. Debate went out the window pages ago. Intelligent debate, that is.

Gestión natimuerta con el tío éste!

I admit, I ignored the searing indictment that tuna don't swim backwards evoked. The lack of teapots visible in the vicinity of the moon caused me a few problems. Not being able to see invisible unicorns - I thought that was going to be the death of me.

But in the end, it turned out that people making up random shit didn't make any difference to my analogy. I was shocked.

Whatever. You obviously have a burning need to avoid answering questions, or even pretending to attempt to address points that have been made to you. All the while claiming no one gets you but you, and no one but you has made anything resembling a valid argument.

Except your argument consists of avoiding questions, refusing to address points, etc.

It's like watching a train wreck in slow motion.

It's like watching a train wreck in slow motion.

What do you mean "slow motion"?

It's more like watching a train wreck and then watching the ensuing fire as it consumes the train and whatever it happened to hit.

We'll try this one more time.

If a sixteen year old girl says she was not raped by her seventeen year old boyfriend, was she raped?

We'll try this one more time... but we'll actually change the question very slightly, so there's the hint of statutory rape.

Amusingly, in it's last iteration, this question didn't even have an act of intercourse in it... at least we've come that far.

Statutory consideration aside, there's still not enough information. Your question doesn't say whether she consented or not - and rape can happen in relationships, so that's no qualifier.

Did they have sex? Was it consensual? Are we ignoring statutory considerations? If so - no, she wasn't raped.

Did they have NON-consensual sex? Yes, she was raped.


Was the answer in either case contingent on what she felt about it afterwards? No.

Was the answer in either case contingent on - as you suggested earlier - my say so? No.

Whatever. You obviously have a burning need to avoid answering questions, or even pretending to attempt to address points that have been made to you. All the while claiming no one gets you but you, and no one but you has made anything resembling a valid argument.

Except your argument consists of avoiding questions, refusing to address points, etc.

It's like watching a train wreck in slow motion.

It's not my fault you've failed to make an argument.

No, it doesn't. Sex, for example, with either kind, circumcised or not, feels exactly the same. The penis works exactly the same.

No, it doesn't.

It might feel the same, but the glans is functioning differently, and the foreskin is either functioning or not functioning.


Your argument that men feel like victims because they were circumcised is baseless.


I didn't ever make that argument.


Now, if YOU, and YOU alone feel this way,


I feel like a victim?


...Oh for fuck's sake. Why am I getting into this argument? Am I stupid or what to fall into this shit? I can see this is not going to get anywhere. Debate went out the window pages ago. Intelligent debate, that is.


Shame. You were about the only person on the 'opposite side' to me that was actually consistently making intellectually honest replies.

If a sixteen year old girl...

*addendum*

And, in return, I'll await your own response.

No, it doesn't.

Yes, it does. And I know, I have had intercourse with both kinds. They both seemed to enjoy the experience equally, foreskin or not.

It might feel the same, but the glans is functioning differently, and the foreskin is either functioning or not functioning.

This, again, doesn't add to your claim that males who were circumcised are victims. If they don't feel like such, I have no reason to believe they are.

I didn't ever make that argument.

If it's not a personal thing, then why do you feel so adamantly about a topic that, in the first place, makes no difference in the way a male functions sexually?

I feel like a victim?

You do not? Then from where does this entire argument comes from?

Shame. You were about the only person on the 'opposite side' to me that was actually consistently making intellectually honest replies.

My honesty in replies has nothing to do with my sentiment that this thread has presented all it had to. The rest of it has been ''yes it is''/''no it isn't'' crap, ad nauseam. All the evidence for or against it has been presented.


SIDE NOTE: This, of course, and as I always tell people here, does not adds or subtracts from the way I may view you in other threads. Aside from my own thoughts that this argument of yours seems misguided, I hold nothing against you, NTS.

No, you have to 'ignore how he feels' because 'how he feels' doesn't determine whether the harm was harm, the surgery was surgery, or the mutilation was mutilation.

It is amazing how much you, and a few others, talk about the 'emotional' debate you claim you see against circumcision, and then you'll trot out the 'but what about how HE feels' crap.
False. Here's why:

How do you measure harm?

If you are going to say that a harm occured, then you have to show the harm, don't you?

So, someone gets circumcised. Who decides if they have been harmed? You? And who the hell are you to be making decisions for them? You complain about their parents (who arguably have a far greater right than you) making personal decisions for them, yet here you are presuming to do the same. So much for THEIR rights to determine THEIR life, eh? First, their parents decide to circumcise them, and then you -- some stranger off the street -- come along and decide to make them the poster children for your personal issue.

No, in Realityville, harm is measured by the person/people directly affected by a condition or event. So in terms of the circumcision of any given penis, the owner of that penis, the person attached to it who dresses it, washes, it, pisses with it, fucks with it, wanks it, is obviously better qualified than you to determine whether his own penis was harmed. And if he says it was NOT harmed, then nothing you say has any relevance whatsoever.

Likewise, if he says the experience of circumcision did not harm him in any other way, either, then all your protestations otherwise are just so much noise. Why? Because he lives his life. Not you. He knows what it's like to be him. You don't. Therefore, he is the authority on him. Not you. And if he says he was not harmed, he feels fine, he's lovin' life, then we take his word for it. Not yours that he's really been profoundly harmed.

Furthermore, again in Realityville, harm is not measured JUST on a person's say-so. He has to be able to show and demonstrate proof of harm. So if a guy does say, "I was harmed by circumcision," the next question is "How?" Then he has to show how he was harmed. He has to show medical reports and psychological reports that show a causal relationship between his circumcision and whatever medical or physical dysfunctions or emotional/social problems he is suffering. Absent a showing of a causal relationship, he can bitch about his snipped winkie as much as you've been doing, but it will get him nowhere because he cannot show that his problems were in fact caused by being circumcised.

The burden of proof is even worse on YOU, claiming a man was harmed by circumcision even though he himself denies it.

If he insists that he was not harmed by circumcision. If he shows no medical/physiological/emotional dysfunctions. If his health is good, his sex life is satisfying to him, and his social interactions are normal -- all that will pretty much blow your claim of harm to smithereens. What harm is there? Where is it? He experiences no loss of life experience, and he claims no unhappiness. Obviously, the man is not harmed.

So who then is? YOU? I would only just love to see you explain before a medical board or a judge or any kind of board of review exactly how YOU were harmed by HIS circumcision.

Since you are so in love with comparing circumcision to crimes such as violent assault, I'll point out that there are crimes that some states will prosecute even if the "victim" of them claims they were not victimized at all. The most obvious such example is domestic violence. In many states, if one spouse violently attacks the other, the police will arrest the attacker and the state may prosecute without the victim's cooperation, if they can build a case without the victim (very unlikely).

I can see you just bunching all up to pounce on that with a "See?! See?! That's what I've been on about!!"

Only it isn't. Here's why:

Violent crimes like domestic assault/abuse actually do or at least can cause harm to people other than the individual victim of any given attack. They often drag in children and neighbors. They often escalate to the use of weapons which can endanger others. They can destabilize a whole neighborhood if left unchecked.

So once again, we are in the business of showing how an action harms people. To justify prosecuting someone even when their supposed victim claims they were not victimized, the state must show to the satisfaction of a court that there is more at stake than the individual victim.

So can you show any such thing about circumcision? Can you show how circumcision creates an expanding ripple of harm radiating out from each crying baby?

Like I said, that would be a performance I'd like to see.

THE BOTTOM LINE IS THIS: Harm must be real and demonstrable to matter. Therefore the testimony of the person who actually experienced something is the direct measure of whether it constituted a harm or not, because only that person can show the reality of the harm. Therefore how a man FEELS about being circumcised matters a shitload more than your personal distate for circumcision ever will.

NTS, after reading your last posts thoroughly I'm beginning to wonder if you know what ''mutilated'' means. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Maybe he thinks that any removal is a mutilation. So if a person has a 6th vestigial finger, and they get it removed because it's creepy and in the way, he thinks they have been mutilated. Or maybe Neesika was right, and he thinks haircuts are mutilations. Or maybe he's just really bad at carving roasts.

*addendum*

And, in return, I'll await your own response.

Your question was "If she was raped, but she doesn't feel like she was raped, was she still raped," correct? So, you want me to answer a question that you've already provided the answer to right at the very beginning. You must not think much of my intellect if you expect me to fall for such a lame debating trap.

If she says she doesn't feel like she was raped, but you've got some sort of physical evidence to demonstrate that she was, then we'd be forced to conclude that she was raped. But we've already gone over why that's a piss poor analogy. It in no way correlates to the discussion we're actually trying to have. There's no definitive definition of victimization that we can use that doesn't involve the impact on the person in question. I'll concede this "mutilation" nonsense you insist on spewing, if only to shut you up about it, but your insistence that people are victims if they themselves do not believe they are victims is presumptuous and arrogant. If a person can rationally evaluate the events that have occured, whether they remember them or not, and decide for themselves that they are not a victim of anything, then to insist that they don't know any better and they really are a victim is just conceited.

Your question was bullshit. You know it was bullshit. I know it was bullshit. Everyone here knows it was bullshit. I answered it, even though it wasn't deserving. Of course, you didn't actually answer my question, but that's alright. No one expected you to.

A circumcised penis does lack functionality. It has to adapt to try to counter that, hence the keratinization of the glans in circumcised males. It also means the loss of tens of thousands of nerve endings, so it loses some inherent sexual functionality, also.

We could argue about whether the body can adapt successfully (enough), or whether kids circumcised so young will ever be aware of what they might be losing.. but that's really not the point.
A circumcised penis passes urine without problems. A circumcised penis ejaculates without problems. A circumcised penis can become erect and go back to flaccid normally, without problems. Circumcised males do not report more penile dysfunction than uncircumcised males. They both get women equally pregnant. They both orgasm equally loudly (or whatever, individual variation and all that).

Your claim that the penis has lost functionality is false. Obviously, the adaptation works just fine and full function is enjoyed by circumcised males.

Next time I'm face to face with a circumcised penis, I'm going to yell, "OH MY GOD YOU'VE BEEN MUTILATED!" Then, the man in question will fall into my arms, weeping and opening up his soul to me, because finally, someone understands his secret pain.

Yes, it does. And I know, I have had intercourse with both kinds. They both seemed to enjoy the experience equally, foreskin or not.


That doesn't mean the equipment is working exactly the same.


This, again, doesn't add to your claim that males who were circumcised are victims. If they don't feel like such, I have no reason to believe they are.


I don't believe that being a victim is defined by believing you are.


If it's not a personal thing, then why do you feel so adamantly about a topic that, in the first place, makes no difference in the way a male functions sexually?


I'm way over six feet tall. I've rather heavily set. I'm not all that pretty, and I've been told I look like a bad ass biker (although I have no bike).

Consequently, I'm not the most likely candidate, statistically, for rape. And yet I am extraordinarily adamantly opposed to rape. I'm also not likely to coceive, sonsensually or otherwise - and yet I'm extraordinarily adamant about my support for choice.

I don't have to be the potential recipient of the outcome, to be inspired to commit to the cause.


You do not? Then from where does this entire argument comes from?


A belief that people shouldn't be harmed for the ideologies of others.


SIDE NOTE: This, of course, and as I always tell people here, does not adds or subtracts from the way I may view you in other threads. Aside from my own thoughts that this argument of yours seems misguided, I hold nothing against you, NTS.

*nods* I can often be (violently) opposed to a person in one or two threads, and joking with them in a third. I try to make a point of separating the arguments from the people and from one another.

Next time I'm face to face with a circumcised penis, I'm going to yell, "OH MY GOD YOU'VE BEEN MUTILATED!" Then, the man in question will fall into my arms, weeping and opening up his soul to me, because finally, someone understands his secret pain.

Somehow, I don't believe you.

A circumcised penis passes urine without problems. A circumcised penis ejaculates without problems. A circumcised penis can become erect and go back to flaccid normally, without problems. Circumcised males do not report more penile dysfunction than uncircumcised males. They both get women equally pregnant. They both orgasm equally loudly (or whatever, individual variation and all that).

Your claim that the penis has lost functionality is false. Obviously, the adaptation works just fine and full function is enjoyed by circumcised males.

And civil unions should suffice.

No, wait... because 'different but equal' has never yet been a valid argument.

Somehow, I don't believe you.
Yeah well I don't really think that men would appreciate me calling them mutilated or disfigured when most of them are pretty damn proud of their genitals.

Your question was "If she was raped, but she doesn't feel like she was raped, was she still raped," correct? So, you want me to answer a question that you've already provided the answer to right at the very beginning. You must not think much of my intellect if you expect me to fall for such a lame debating trap.


Your intellect is irrelevant.

If the answer to the question is 'yes', it doesn't matter if you don't want to say 'yes' - that becomes a question of intellectual honesty, not intellect.


If she says she doesn't feel like she was raped, but you've got some sort of physical evidence to demonstrate that she was, then we'd be forced to conclude that she was raped.


Right. Thank you.


I'll concede this "mutilation" nonsense you insist on spewing, if only to shut you up about it, but your insistence that people are victims if they themselves do not believe they are victims is presumptuous and arrogant.


It's arrogant and presumptuous how? I'm not saying I'm superior, or justified in some way - I'm just making an observation that seems like unassailable logic: "you are a victim of harm, whether or not you feel like a victim".


Your question was bullshit.


No, it wasn't.

If someone was circumcised, it doesn't matter if they are okay with or if they hate it, they are still circumcised - which is why that decision should be made by the person themselves, after they reach the age of majority.

If 'mutilation' exists, it doesn't matter if you're okay with it - it still exists.

If the girl was raped, it doesn't matter if she excuses her attacker, it was still rape.

The logic that underlines each point is the same.


I answered it, even though it wasn't deserving.


I appreciate your answer.


Of course, you didn't actually answer my question, but that's alright. No one expected you to.

In what way didn't I answer?

I'm pretty sure the 'addendum' post followed the post in which I answered... hence the 'addendum'.

Yeah well I don't really think that men would appreciate me calling them mutilated or disfigured when most of them are pretty damn proud of their genitals.

Being proud of your genitals is nonsensical, unless, maybe, you made them yourself...

If a girl told me my penis was mutilated, I'd laugh.

You must know some really insecure guys.

Being proud of your genitals is nonsensical, unless, maybe, you made them yourself...

If a girl told me my penis was mutilated, I'd laugh.

You must know some really insecure guys.

Sorry? You'd laugh if a woman called your penis mutilated, but if other men did so, or in any other way didn't accept the label, they would be insecure?

Your intellect is irrelevant.

If the answer to the question is 'yes', it doesn't matter if you don't want to say 'yes' - that becomes a question of intellectual honesty, not intellect.

Intellectual honesty answering an inherently dishonest question? That's laughable. You phrased the question in such a way that there could only be one answer, the answer you were looking for. Your question started off already dictating the answer to me. How else was I supposed to answer it?

It's akin to me asking you the question, "A circumcised man is not a victim of harm. Even if he thinks he's a victim, is he really?"

I've already answered the question for you, and presented it in a way that only allows the answer I want to come out.

It's a lame debating trick, and a sign of a dishonest debater.


It's arrogant and presumptuous how? I'm not saying I'm superior, or justified in some way - I'm just making an observation that seems like unassailable logic: "you are a victim of harm, whether or not you feel like a victim".

It's arrogant and presumptuous to tell someone that they were the victim of harm when they say they were not. Just like it is arrogant and presumptuous to tell the 16 year old girl she was raped when she willingly had sex with her boyfriend, to tell every circumcised man that he is a victim because YOU think circumcision is harmful is not your call to make. You maintain that this is unassailable. It is not. It has been demonstrated as not multiple times. Your insistence that it is is irrelevant.


No, it wasn't.

If someone was circumcised, it doesn't matter if they are okay with or if they hate it, they are still circumcised - which is why that decision should be made by the person themselves, after they reach the age of majority.

If 'mutilation' exists, it doesn't matter if you're okay with it - it still exists.

If the girl was raped, it doesn't matter if she excuses her attacker, it was still rape.

The logic that underlines each point is the same.

Again with the fail analogy. If the girl was raped, she was raped. RAPE is a physical act that can be quantified. VICTIMIZATION is an emotional state that cannot be quantified. It is solely reliant on the opinion of the affected party. If I say I am not a victim because I am circumcised, no amount of ridiculous blathering by you is going to make me a victim. I am not a victim if I decide I am not a victim. That is literally all there is to it.

In what way didn't I answer?

I'm pretty sure the 'addendum' post followed the post in which I answered... hence the 'addendum'.

In every way. Don't worry. No one expected you to actually address an argument.

It's arrogant and presumptuous how? I'm not saying I'm superior, or justified in some way - I'm just making an observation that seems like unassailable logic: "you are a victim of harm, whether or not you feel like a victim".

Unassailable logic???? It sounds like unassailable insanity. I am suffering in no way whatsoever, but YOU are proclaiming me a victim: why do YOU get to proclaim this, when you are superior in no way, and not justified in any way?

It's dishonest to say that. It is mutilation. You might not want it to be mutilation, but it is.



Ah - the 'my suffering was worse, so my opinmion is valid' argument.

They should have anaesthetized you properly. When they found out it failed, they shouldn't have offered the choice of 'go on without' or 'make another appointment', they should have gotten you properly anaesthetized.

If your story is true, your dentist made the wrong decisions, and your mother made the wrong decisions.

Neither of those is actually an argument for why parents should be allowed to mutialte their children.



I'm assuming your brother was a baby? And... that you were not? (Given the removal of teeth, etc).



Your parents should not have been allowed to pull teeth PURELY for cosmetic reasons - and, in all likelihood, that's NOT why they did it. When the dentist told them your teeth would not be straight otherwise, he probably also mentioned the dental complications that can cause, along with the overcrowding, and knock-on effects on wisdom teeth.

There are actually pretty good medical reasons for some people to have teeth removed.



Teeth, you mean?



Again with the 'no true scotsman' arguments. It's not real pain unless... it's not real suffering unless...



No, it shouldn't. Not at all.

That's a special exception argument, and a particularly weak one - you couldn't apply the logic in other contexts of harm.



Bone ripped from your jaw, huh? And you complain about the word 'mutilation' because you consider THAT over emotive?


It would be interesting to poll the responses in this subject.

I'd bet money that the vast majority of people that are 'supporting' circumcision are either circumcised males who can retroactively justify it as 'essential to their culture', or females who had no possibility of being circumcised in our culture.

I was in the process of trying to respond to this, but I realized I was saying the same thing to every single section:

Not my point. Not my point. Not my point.

You seriously managed to read my whole post and respond at length without accurately responding to a single point I was making. In fact, you seem to think I was arguing almost the opposite of what I was saying. That's...crap, dude...I don't even know what to do with that.

Their experiences are irrelevant.

Seriously, I normally expect something approaching a logical argument from you, at least.

If I tell you you the reason you're lying on the kerb is that you just got run over, and you look down at yourself and say "But, I don't FEEL like I got run over"... does that mean it didn't happen?

Surgery isn't religion. It's not a matter of interpretation, or a question of faith. It either did happen, or it didn't. The 'vast majority' not feeling mutilated, or feeling like victims... doesn't mean that the vast majority aren't mutilated, or victims.
Of course their experiences are irrelevant, because it's Nts's experiences which must be used to define what is and is not mutilation.

Sure, there are adult men who THINK they want to be circumcised, and who THINK they're happy with the results, but Nts is the arbiter of what is and is not mutilation. Why, that's what "objective" means, right?

Not that NTS's argument is all that great, but I don't think this is a good rebuttal of it either. As I pointed out before, history is full of people who not only didn't feel oppressed or persecuted by unfair treatment, but in fact rallied behind the continuation of such treatment. And it isn't uncommon for our legal system to recognize harm done even if the victim does not feel that any wrongdoing has occurred - particularly if said victim is a child.
The problem is that Nts is trying to attach the word "mutilation" too broadly.

There are valid, sound reasons to argue that infant circumcision is wrong. There is no valid way to argue that circumcision, as a procedure, is "mutilation." The only way you can argue that at all is if you're prepared to be so colossally arrogant that you will assert your personal tastes are objective moral rules. Which, rofl.

The rape analogy is almost valid, but not quite. Consent is key to whether or not something is mutilation, right? I mean, if somebody jumped me with a knife and cut open my abdomen, that would be hideous and terrifying and a mutilation of my body...but if a doctor operates on me with my consent then it's not mutilation. So it makes sense to take the next step when talking about children; our laws recognize that a child is not capable of giving consent to a great many things, including medical procedures. Thus, wouldn't ANY cutting into a child qualify as "non-consensual" or "mutilation"?

Well, sure...but only if you're willing to include EVERYTHING under that heading.

If it's mutilation for an infant to be circumcised at their parents' direction, then it's also mutilation for a minor to have their ears pierced, or to have their teeth straightened the way mine were (sidenote: it really was purely cosmetic in my case), or any of the other "mutilations" that are routinely inflicted upon children at the behest of their parents.

And even when we get past that mine field, there's still the matter of whether or not it's okay to walk around telling adults that they've been "mutilated" even after they tell you quite clearly that they don't feel that way.

I can't imagine the level of narcissistic arrogance that it would take to walk up to somebody and ARGUE to them that they are deformed, even if they feel perfectly fine or even pleased with their body. Who the fuck are you to tell them they're deformed? What on Earth makes it your business? And what horrible mistake did your parents make which left you thinking that your personal aesthetic is the be-all and end-all in this world?

People tell me all the time that my tattoo and piercings are "mutilations." I've had a man tell me that it was mutilation to cut my hair. We've had countless threads on this forum alone about how transgendered individuals are "mutilated." So fucking what? The people who say that kind of thing are the same as the people who insist that all circumcised men are "mutilated": they're just being jerks. They use the term "mutilation" to mean "any body modification that I, personally, don't approve." The way to handle them is the same way you handle a child who hasn't yet learned tact; you calmly remind them that it is rude to point and that if you can't say something nice you shouldn't say anything at all.

T
People tell me all the time that my tattoo and piercings are "mutilations." I've had a man tell me that it was mutilation to cut my hair. We've had countless threads on this forum alone about how transgendered individuals are "mutilated." So fucking what? The people who say that kind of thing are the same as the people who insist that all circumcised men are "mutilated": they're just being jerks. They use the term "mutilation" to mean "any body modification that I, personally, don't approve." The way to handle them is the same way you handle a child who hasn't yet learned tact; you calmly remind them that it is rude to point and that if you can't say something nice you shouldn't say anything at all.

I feel like applauding.

And you know its funny, when I was a teenage conservative I saw piercings - particularly nose or lips or body piercings - as "mutilation" too and said so - for pretty much the exact same reasons.

No, it doesn't. Sex, for example, with either kind, circumcised or not, feels exactly the same. The penis works exactly the same.

Actually, this isn't precisely true. The foreskin provides lubrication of its own and, from what I understand, is also believed to alter the mechanics of sex (providing a bit of suction of its own or something like that). Obviously, that doesn't happen where the foreskin is not present.

Seriously, both sides of this argument are pretty silly. You've got one person acting as if the penis is completely and utterly ruined by circumcision and others acting as if there's no difference at all. Yes, there is a difference. No, it does not render the penis non-functional. Kk?

It's arrogant and presumptuous to tell someone that they were the victim of harm when they say they were not.

Just to play devil's advocate here: What if the person in question engaged in sexual actions with an adult as a young child and says that he was not harmed? Maybe, even after maturing to adulthood, he says that the adult in question was not doing anything wrong. Does that mean that he was not, in fact, molested?


The problem is that Nts is trying to attach the word "mutilation" too broadly.

*shrug* I agree, but maybe not for the same reasons. I think, by a strict definition of the word - without attaching any emotional connotations - it might be applicable. I also think that insisting on it in the face of those emotional connotations is silly, and detracts from any real discussion.

The rape analogy is almost valid, but not quite. Consent is key to whether or not something is mutilation, right? I mean, if somebody jumped me with a knife and cut open my abdomen, that would be hideous and terrifying and a mutilation of my body...but if a doctor operates on me with my consent then it's not mutilation. So it makes sense to take the next step when talking about children; our laws recognize that a child is not capable of giving consent to a great many things, including medical procedures. Thus, wouldn't ANY cutting into a child qualify as "non-consensual" or "mutilation"?

It would certainly count as non-consensual. But when the decision on whether or not to undergo a medical procedure needs to be made, we recognize that we need a child's caretaker to make that decision (since he can't make it for himself).

This is the reason that I think the debate about infant circumcision (I don't think there's any need to debate whether or not a man who makes the decision for himself should be allowed to do it) rests on the question of whether or not the procedure is valid medically. The mistake NTS is making in that debate is assuming that, because he has personally come to the conclusion that the evidence for medical benefits is not convincing, everyone else must also come to that conclusion. If that were true, there'd be no debate about it in the medical community.

Well, sure...but only if you're willing to include EVERYTHING under that heading.

If it's mutilation for an infant to be circumcised at their parents' direction, then it's also mutilation for a minor to have their ears pierced, or to have their teeth straightened the way mine were (sidenote: it really was purely cosmetic in my case), or any of the other "mutilations" that are routinely inflicted upon children at the behest of their parents.

I wouldn't use the word mutilation, but I don't think parents should have infants' ears pierced. There is absolutely no reason that they cannot wait until the child can make that decision.

As for your teeth, while the particular reason used for yours may have been purely cosmetic, there is acknowledged medical benefit to having straight, properly aligned teeth. So that decision rests in the hands of a child's parents. (Likewise, as long as there are possible medical benefits to circumcision, a parent can certainly choose to have it done for cosmetic reasons).

And even when we get past that mine field, there's still the matter of whether or not it's okay to walk around telling adults that they've been "mutilated" even after they tell you quite clearly that they don't feel that way.

I can't imagine the level of narcissistic arrogance that it would take to walk up to somebody and ARGUE to them that they are deformed, even if they feel perfectly fine or even pleased with their body. Who the fuck are you to tell them they're deformed? What on Earth makes it your business? And what horrible mistake did your parents make which left you thinking that your personal aesthetic is the be-all and end-all in this world?

People tell me all the time that my tattoo and piercings are "mutilations." I've had a man tell me that it was mutilation to cut my hair. We've had countless threads on this forum alone about how transgendered individuals are "mutilated." So fucking what? The people who say that kind of thing are the same as the people who insist that all circumcised men are "mutilated": they're just being jerks. They use the term "mutilation" to mean "any body modification that I, personally, don't approve." The way to handle them is the same way you handle a child who hasn't yet learned tact; you calmly remind them that it is rude to point and that if you can't say something nice you shouldn't say anything at all.

Now this, I agree with completely.

*shrug* I agree, but maybe not for the same reasons. I think, by a strict definition of the word - without attaching any emotional connotations - it might be applicable.

If there was any such form of "mutilation," I might agree. But I think mutilation is one of those words that is intrinsically bound up with emotional connotations.


I also think that insisting on it in the face of those emotional connotations is silly, and detracts from any real discussion.

Exactly.


It would certainly count as non-consensual. But when the decision on whether or not to undergo a medical procedure needs to be made, we recognize that we need a child's caretaker to make that decision (since he can't make it for himself).

Yes.


This is the reason that I think the debate about infant circumcision (I don't think there's any need to debate whether or not a man who makes the decision for himself should be allowed to do it) rests on the question of whether or not the procedure is valid medically. The mistake NTS is making in that debate is assuming that, because he has personally come to the conclusion that the evidence for medical benefits is not convincing, everyone else must also come to that conclusion. If that were true, there'd be no debate about it in the medical community.

Again, right on.


I wouldn't use the word mutilation, but I don't think parents should have infants' ears pierced. There is absolutely no reason that they cannot wait until the child can make that decision.

Personally, I agree with this. But the thing is, I don't really see how somebody can argue that a parent should be trusted to make life-or-death medical decisions for their child...but NOT trusted to make purely cosmetic decisions. I mean, if you think somebody can't be trusted to make the right decision about piercing their kid's ears, then why on Earth would you trust them to make decisions about their kid's chemo?


As for your teeth, while the particular reason used for yours may have been purely cosmetic, there is acknowledged medical benefit to having straight, properly aligned teeth. So that decision rests in the hands of a child's parents. (Likewise, as long as there are possible medical benefits to circumcision, a parent can certainly choose to have it done for cosmetic reasons).

But again, isn't this freaking weird?

So, if the child's health is going to be impacted, we trust parents to make decisions on behalf of the child, but if it's a cosmetic matter we don't?

I'm not saying I totally disagree, mind you, just that I think it bears some thinking about.

Personally, I agree with this. But the thing is, I don't really see how somebody can argue that a parent should be trusted to make life-or-death medical decisions for their child...but NOT trusted to make purely cosmetic decisions. I mean, if you think somebody can't be trusted to make the right decision about piercing their kid's ears, then why on Earth would you trust them to make decisions about their kid's chemo?

There is no "right or wrong" decision to make in whether or not to pierce someone's ears. There is only personal preference and the person whose preference matters is the person with or without the piercing. Because of that, I would argue that said choice is up to the person whose ears are being pierced.

It isn't that I don't trust parents - it's that I don't think they need this authority in their role as caretakers.

This post:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14810012&postcount=950
kind of summed up how I feel about parental authority in general.

But again, isn't this freaking weird?

So, if the child's health is going to be impacted, we trust parents to make decisions on behalf of the child, but if it's a cosmetic matter we don't?

I'm not saying I totally disagree, mind you, just that I think it bears some thinking about.

Again, I don't think it's a matter of trust. I think it's a matter of what authority the parents need over other human beings - ie. their children. Someone has to make medical decisions for the child (we certainly can't wait to get them any medical care until they're old enough to decide for themselves), so we put that authority in the hands of the parents. Do we need to do the same with cosmetic decisions?

Sorry? You'd laugh if a woman called your penis mutilated, but if other men did so, or in any other way didn't accept the label, they would be insecure?

If a guy told me my penis was mutilated? Sure - I'd laugh then too, but since you were talking about you calling penises mutilated, and - for some reason - I was under the impression that you were female, I continued the gendering of the people in question. It works just as well either way, I wouldn't care.

If the men you know would dissolve in tears because you said something mean about their manhood, well... yes, they'd be insecure.

Intellectual honesty answering an inherently dishonest question?


The question wasn't dishonest.


It's akin to me asking you the question, "A circumcised man is not a victim of harm. Even if he thinks he's a victim, is he really?"


In the context of the question, the answer is no.

Then you'd have to support the initial claim.


I've already answered the question for you, and presented it in a way that only allows the answer I want to come out.

It's a lame debating trick, and a sign of a dishonest debater.


You said you wouldn't answer a question honestly and straightforwardly, because you didn't want to be trapped by having answered.

You have no moral highground from which to preach.


It's arrogant and presumptuous to tell someone that they were the victim of harm when they say they were not.


No, it MIGHT be arguable as presumptuous to tell someone they were a victim of harm when they WERE NOT, but when they SAY they were not? Not so much.


Again with the fail analogy. If the girl was raped, she was raped.


Yes. And if a penis is mutilated it is mutilated.

Well done.


VICTIMIZATION is an emotional state that cannot be quantified.


In other words, there are no victims of fatal wounds?

I wonder where you pulled that definition from.


In every way. Don't worry. No one expected you to actually address an argument.

I answered it. I've responded once already telling you I answered it.

To keep saying I didn't answer it isn't just intellectually dishonest, it's real, lying-through-your-teeth dishonest.

Unassailable logic???? It sounds like unassailable insanity. I am suffering in no way whatsoever, but YOU are proclaiming me a victim: why do YOU get to proclaim this, when you are superior in no way, and not justified in any way?

For the same reason that I get to proclaim you a blonde, even if you think you're a redhead. Objective reality is defined by the words objective, and reality - not by how you 'feel'.

Of course their experiences are irrelevant, because it's Nts's experiences which must be used to define what is and is not mutilation.


It's not my 'experience'... or anyone's 'experience' that matters, you're right.

It either is, or it isn't.


Sure, there are adult men who THINK they want to be circumcised, and who THINK they're happy with the results, but Nts is the arbiter of what is and is not mutilation. Why, that's what "objective" means, right?

No, obviously not - all this talk of what people 'think' is irrelevant. If you 'think' there's a monkey living in your ass, does that mean there is? No - because ass-living monkeys are determined by their actual existence or lack of it, not by what people 'think'.

If someone is old enough to choose for themselves, and they choose to be circumcised, that is their choice. If they are happy with it, I'm happy for them. But, even though we are both ahppy about it, it's still mutilation.

Please provide evidence that circumcision is mutilation and victimisation.

This should be easy, since it is, according to you, objective reality.

The problem is that Nts is trying to attach the word "mutilation" too broadly.

There are valid, sound reasons to argue that infant circumcision is wrong. There is no valid way to argue that circumcision, as a procedure, is "mutilation."

Sure there is, and the arguments have already been made.

The fact that some people clap their hands over their ears and sing 'la la la', doesn't mean there's a compelling argument aginst it.

Please provide evidence that circumcision is mutilation and victimisation.

This should be easy, since it is, according to you, objective reality.

Are you reminded of anyone else?

Just checking. I want to make sure I'm not crazy. Being mutilated, abused, and victimized as a baby has kind of messed with my head.

The question wasn't dishonest.

Yes it was. You compound the dishonesty by continuing to lie.


In the context of the question, the answer is no.

Then you'd have to support the initial claim.

It would still be a dishonest question.


You said you wouldn't answer a question honestly and straightforwardly, because you didn't want to be trapped by having answered.

You have no moral highground from which to preach.

No. I said I would not answer your dishonest question because it was designed to trap someone into providing the answer you required. You continue to purposely misrepresent every statement made against you.



No, it MIGHT be arguable as presumptuous to tell someone they were a victim of harm when they WERE NOT, but when they SAY they were not? Not so much.

Exactly the same. They say they are not a victim. That's the end of the discussion. You do not get to decide for someone else that a particular act made them a victim.


Yes. And if a penis is mutilated it is mutilated.

Well done.

Exactly. And you consistently fail to demonstrate that circumcision is objectively mutilation.


In other words, there are no victims of fatal wounds?

I wonder where you pulled that definition from.


You continue to purposely misrepresent every statement made against you.


I answered it. I've responded once already telling you I answered it.

To keep saying I didn't answer it isn't just intellectually dishonest, it's real, lying-through-your-teeth dishonest.

No, you danced around it in typical GnI fashion, avoiding actually providing a straightforward answer. Rather, you resorted to typical GnI dishonest diversion tactics to avoid actually answering the question truthfully. For you to accuse anyone of dishonesty in this thread is the epitome of hypocrisy. You really have no shame.

Actually, this isn't precisely true. The foreskin provides lubrication of its own and, from what I understand, is also believed to alter the mechanics of sex (providing a bit of suction of its own or something like that). Obviously, that doesn't happen where the foreskin is not present.

Seriously, both sides of this argument are pretty silly. You've got one person acting as if the penis is completely and utterly ruined by circumcision

No, they are arguing that an uncircumcised penis is complete. Circumcision requires you to take that complete anatomical element, and arbitrarily damage it. That's the argument.

I've not yet met anyone that argued a penis was 'utterly ruined' by circumcision. I've not even seen anyone arguing that voluntary consenting circumcisions, or 'medical' circumcisions are bad.

So I haven't read all of the thread, but based on some of the posts inbetween the shouting taking place over the last few pages, I'd like to ask something. A summation of sorts.

Do the posters here agree with the following points:

Some individuals suffer lasting or permanent physical damage due to circumcision
Some individuals suffer lasting or permanent mental anguish due to circumcision


...or not?

Some posts have suggested that there are some who would contend against these claims, so I'd just like to clear this up.

Please provide evidence that circumcision is mutilation and victimisation.


Already covered. This is something like 90 pages on my settings, and I'm posting in between work, so I don't feel inclined to go hunt it all out for you again.

So I haven't read all of the thread, but based on some of the posts inbetween the shouting taking place over the last few pages, I'd like to ask something. A summation of sorts.

Do the posters here agree with the following points:

Some individuals suffer lasting or permanent physical damage due to circumcision
Some individuals suffer lasting or permanent mental anguish due to circumcision


...or not?

Some posts have suggested that there are some who would contend against these claims, so I'd just like to clear this up.

Some, sure. It is entirely possible that some men feel disfigured and victimized and mutilated.