Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-06-2018, 12:48 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 31,607
The SlackerInc (and anyone else) circumcision hijack-prevention thread

I'm sorry for any part I played in inadvertently assisting a hijack in this thread:
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...4#post21362654

I'm suggesting that, from now on, any time someone posts about circumcision in a thread about another topic, and someone wants to respond (perhaps to tell Slacker what an obnoxious piece of shit he is), they quote the post but respond in this thread, thus encouraging the would-be thread-hijackers to talk about it in this thread.
  #2  
Old 12-06-2018, 01:53 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 31,607
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Andy, let’s try framing this in a way you might understand:

How would you feel about a thread started by a ciswoman about the experience of being a rape victim, and when a transwoman chimed in with her experience, the ciswomen shouted her down, saying the thread was only for women-born-women, with “real vaginas”, to share their feelings about penis-in-vagina rape? That okay by you?
This is a really, really stupid comparison. That would be bad, and that is entirely different from you barging into a FGM thread and talking about circumcision -- a separate issue (unlike rape, which is the same issue as rape, barring a fantasy-non-existent thread OP that made it very clear it was only for rape of a particular gender identity) -- and continuing on even when people kindly (and not-so-kindly) ask you to stop your hijack.
  #3  
Old 12-06-2018, 02:13 PM
puzzlegal's Avatar
puzzlegal puzzlegal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 3,541
Also, the OP was about a 7 year old girl, not an infant. I don't think that's been given enough weight. That's such a huge difference. To extend to the rape analogy, it's as if someone started a thread about the rape of a 7 year old girl and some guy came in and wanted to talk about whether the staff at a hospital might be getting sexual pleasure from diapering baby boys.
  #4  
Old 12-06-2018, 02:43 PM
Kimstu Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 21,194
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
you barging into a FGM thread and talking about circumcision
To be fair, I was the one who linked the GD circumcision thread in the Pit FGC thread in the first place, because the FGC case mentioned by Past Tense when bumping the Pit thread was also discussed in the GD thread.

But we did go on for a while after that discussing FGC issues before getting switched onto the ever-popular "Details of My Penis and Its Operation, by A Man" track.
  #5  
Old 12-06-2018, 03:05 PM
Soul Brother Number Two Soul Brother Number Two is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 2,782
Who was the guy, long ago, who was absolutely batshit about circumcision? He used to reference this, well, attachment that purportedly restretched whatever forskin one had left. Believe this magical device was called, no shit, the Tug Ahoy. Help me out, Dopers.
__________________
The Doper formerly known as essvee
  #6  
Old 12-06-2018, 03:08 PM
Kimstu Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 21,194
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soul Brother Number Two View Post
Who was the guy, long ago, who was absolutely batshit about circumcision? He used to reference this, well, attachment that purportedly restretched whatever forskin one had left. Believe this magical device was called, no shit, the Tug Ahoy. Help me out, Dopers.
That was the not-so-dear departed Jack Dean Tyler, from about fifteen years ago. No links because you can easily find his threads from his username if for some inexplicable reason you want to.
  #7  
Old 12-06-2018, 03:17 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 58,415
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I'm sorry for any part I played in inadvertently assisting a hijack in this thread:
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...4#post21362654

I'm suggesting that, from now on, any time someone posts about circumcision in a thread about another topic, and someone wants to respond (perhaps to tell Slacker what an obnoxious piece of shit he is), they quote the post but respond in this thread, thus encouraging the would-be thread-hijackers to talk about it in this thread.
This thread is useless because they aren't in that thread to talk about their dicks-they are there to put those uppity females in their place.

Last edited by Czarcasm; 12-06-2018 at 03:18 PM.
  #8  
Old 12-06-2018, 03:21 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 31,607
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
This thread is useless because they aren't in that thread to talk about their dicks-they are there to put those uppity females in their place.
This thread allows posters to respond to Slacker's bullshit without further contributing to a hijack. But feel free to not use the thread, if you don't want to.
  #9  
Old 12-06-2018, 03:35 PM
Thing Fish Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 2,853
I actually would like to apologize to Slacker for calling him an asshole. I think he's a little...off...but I think he actually believes the things he says and isn't deliberately trying to piss people off. In the thread, he described how he dealt with an actual RL friend who was considering circumcising his son; he sent him some information by e-mail, along with a preemptive promise to never bring the subject up again. That's what you do when you're not totally lacking in basic interpersonal skills and/or respect for others. Compare this to Blalron's bizarre "ultimatum" that he will have an incredibly creepy conversation with his friend's son in 18 years.

And then there's clairobscur, who believes that parents who circumcise their children should be permanently stripped of custody. In other words, he believes that all Jewish and Muslim boys should be confiscated from their parents at birth and handed over to adoptive parents of other religions. In the event there is an insufficient supply of such parents, I'm not sure if he proposes to warehouse said children in orphanages or simply euthanize them. Hence, he is a shit-sucking Nazi scumbag.
  #10  
Old 12-06-2018, 04:00 PM
Kimstu Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 21,194
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
And then there's clairobscur, who believes that parents who circumcise their children should be permanently stripped of custody. In other words, he believes that all Jewish and Muslim boys should be confiscated from their parents at birth and handed over to adoptive parents of other religions. In the event there is an insufficient supply of such parents, I'm not sure if he proposes to warehouse said children in orphanages or simply euthanize them. Hence, he is a shit-sucking Nazi scumbag.
While I think that level of anti-circumcision zealotry is absurd and tyrannical, I think it's ridiculous to interpret it as necessarily anti-Semitic or Islamophobic, much less "Nazi".

If an anti-circumcision zealot has no problem with Jews or Muslims other than their subjecting non-consenting minor children to circumcision, and if they support prohibiting circumcision of minors among all groups irrespective of religion, then I'm going to need quite a bit more evidence before believing that their views are inspired by religious bigotry of any sort, much less Nazism.
  #11  
Old 12-06-2018, 04:32 PM
Thing Fish Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 2,853
Because...anti-Semitism and religious bigotry are such incredibly uncommon phenomena?

Religious people are the only ones who would be significantly burdened by a circumcision ban. Regardless of what the original motivation may have been, when it is pointed out to you that the logical consequences of your proposal would be to place a huge burden on a specific minority group (one which has a long history of being victimized by discrimination and persecution) while having no real effect on anyone else, you should rethink your opinions. But clairobscur, when called on it, just doubled down.

When someone uses flawed logic and false assertions to justify policies which harm a commonly scapegoated minority group, I don't see why it's unreasonable to default to the assumption that bigotry is the likeliest explanation for such behavior. Do you think that, for instance, Republican advocates of strict "voter ID" laws deserve the benefit of the doubt and should be assumed to be motivated only by concern for the integrity of the voting process?
  #12  
Old 12-06-2018, 05:11 PM
Guinastasia's Avatar
Guinastasia Guinastasia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 51,990
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blalron View Post
If holding the position that inflicting severe unnecessary pain on defenseless babies is morally wrong, and should be combated by every legal non-violent means possible is zealotry, then I plead guilty to being a zealot. I believe it's one of the largest ongoing human rights violations occurring in the Western world.
Wow, really?

Be sure and tell that to LGBTs, POC, Jews, women, the disabled, the homeless, those without medical insurance, the mentally ill, abused children, abused spouses, victims of the Catholic Church abuse scandal, etc. I'm sure they'll hop right on the band wagon!
NO MORE CIRCUMCISION!!!!!! You hear that people? I know you're really hungry, and you're hearing voices and and that priest molested you and that your father is beating the crap out of you and your mom. BUT LITTLE BOYS ARE BEING CIRCUMCISED!!!!!
  #13  
Old 12-06-2018, 05:16 PM
Thing Fish Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 2,853
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
This thread is useless because they aren't in that thread to talk about their dicks-they are there to put those uppity females in their place.
(checks other thread) Good call. They're still at it over there.
  #14  
Old 12-06-2018, 05:21 PM
Thing Fish Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 2,853
It's funny how they keep harping on "this Yale Bioethicist says..."

So you've established that there is at least one person with serious academic credentials who agrees with your stupid and wrong ideas. Big fucking whoop. I mean, it's more than the anti-vaxxers or 9/11 truthers can say, but don't expect everyone to roll over and concede the argument just because you've cleared that bar.
  #15  
Old 12-06-2018, 05:46 PM
Thing Fish Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 2,853
Well...would anyone like to discuss female genital mutilation HERE? Seems like the one thread that Certain People aren't spamming.
  #16  
Old 12-06-2018, 05:47 PM
Kimstu Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 21,194
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
Because...anti-Semitism and religious bigotry are such incredibly uncommon phenomena?
Certainly not. I completely concur that anti-circumcision views may be influenced by anti-Semitism and/or Islamophobia, just as anti-FGC views or anti-polygamy views may be influenced by Islamophobia.

But I think it's very unconvincing to try to argue that we should therefore assume that anti-circumcision views are necessarily based on anti-Semitism and/or Islamophobia.

Some people are just strongly opposed in principle to performing medically unnecessary permanent surgical modifications on non-consenting minor children, and I don't see any reason so far to conclude that clairobscur isn't one of them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish
Religious people are the only ones who would be significantly burdened by a circumcision ban.
I'm not sure I believe that without a convincing cite. There are still quite a lot of non-Jewish, non-Muslim people in several countries who circumcise their sons for non-religious reasons even when it's not medically necessary, and I don't know how many of them would consider themselves "significantly burdened" by being told they couldn't make that choice.

But to continue your line of reasoning to analogous issues, other religious people---specifically, Christian Scientists---are (almost) the only ones who are burdened by laws saying that you can't refuse necessary medical treatment for your child. Does that mean that support for such laws should be assumed to be inspired by religious bigotry against Christian Scientists?

Likewise, the majority of proponents of female genital cutting advocate it for religious reasons, especially among Muslims. If you oppose FGC, does that imply it's because you're anti-Muslim?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish
Regardless of what the original motivation may have been, when it is pointed out to you that the logical consequences of your proposal would be to place a huge burden on a specific minority group (one which has a long history of being victimized by discrimination and persecution) while having no real effect on anyone else, you should rethink your opinions.
Why are we suddenly talking only about Jews here, AFAICT? Jews are a very small minority of people worldwide who practice circumcision of minor boys, and even a very small minority of people worldwide who practice circumcision of minor boys for explicitly religious reasons. They're even a pretty small minority of the people who practice circumcision of minor boys for explicitly religious reasons in France alone, which is presumably the context most relevant to clairobscur.

But your reference to "a specific minority group [...] which has a long history of being victimized by discrimination and persecution" suggests that you are thinking of a hypothetical circumcision ban as affecting only the specific minority group of Jews "while having no real effect on anyone else". Don't Muslims who circumcise for religious reasons count as "anyone else" in your view?

Also, I'm not really buying the argument that somebody opposing a practice that he considers to be child abuse is ethically obligated to "rethink his opinions" just because prohibiting the practice would primarily impact members of minority groups. On the contrary: if somebody who claimed to view circumcision as a human rights violation changed his mind about opposing it just for that reason, it would make me more suspicious about the integrity of his position.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish
When someone uses flawed logic and false assertions to justify policies which harm a commonly scapegoated minority group
AFAICT, the "flawed logic and false assertions" in this particular argument are not primarily coming from clairobscur. And mind you, I say that while still firmly of the opinion that his custody-depriving level of anti-circumcision zealotry is absurd and tyrannical. I just think you're up shit's creek, logically speaking, in attempting to defend the position that the default explanation for such zealotry must be religious bigotry.

(And I think a sincere anti-circumcision zealot would probably argue that it is not in fact "harming" Jews or Muslims to legally forbid them to commit human rights violations on their children by circumcising minors, just as opponents of FGC wouldn't consider bans on FGC to be "harmful" to Muslims.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish
I don't see why it's unreasonable to default to the assumption that bigotry is the likeliest explanation for such behavior.
I repeat: if somebody held equally draconian views about prohibiting FGC, would you think it reasonable to "default to the assumption that bigotry is the likeliest explanation for such behavior"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish
Do you think that, for instance, Republican advocates of strict "voter ID" laws deserve the benefit of the doubt and should be assumed to be motivated only by concern for the integrity of the voting process?
No, because there's an obvious practical benefit to Republicans in promoting voter-ID laws. We don't have to postulate any far-fetched notions of ideological bigotry towards Democrats to arrive at the simplest explanation of why Republicans would want to disadvantage Democratic voters.

Likewise, we don't have to postulate the existence of religious bigotry to arrive at the simplest explanation of why people who consider circumcision to be an infringement of basic human rights would want to ban it.
  #17  
Old 12-06-2018, 05:53 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 58,415
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guinastasia View Post
Wow, really?

Be sure and tell that to LGBTs, POC, Jews, women, the disabled, the homeless, those without medical insurance, the mentally ill, abused children, abused spouses, victims of the Catholic Church abuse scandal, etc. I'm sure they'll hop right on the band wagon!
NO MORE CIRCUMCISION!!!!!! You hear that people? I know you're really hungry, and you're hearing voices and and that priest molested you and that your father is beating the crap out of you and your mom. BUT LITTLE BOYS ARE BEING CIRCUMCISED!!!!!
In the ATMB thread I started, mods have said that a thread on the topic in question should be started in one of the other forums, and they claim that they will moderate it appropriately. Being male, I don't think I should be the one to start such a thread to see what happens, but if one of the female members would, we can maybe shut the trolls up. It's worth a try.

Last edited by Czarcasm; 12-06-2018 at 05:53 PM.
  #18  
Old 12-06-2018, 09:08 PM
Blalron Blalron is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 6,300
Give me foreskin, or give me death!
  #19  
Old 12-06-2018, 09:43 PM
Thing Fish Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 2,853
Kimstu:

Look, this guy is literally calling for the genocide of the Jewish and Muslim people. If he had his way, in a couple generations there would be no Jews or Muslims. True, nobody would actually be killed, but preventing a targeted group from reproducing or from raising children is included in generally accepted definitions of genocide.

Now, of all the people throughout history who have called for the extermination of Jews and/or Muslims, what percentage would you say were motivated in large part by animosity towards Jews and/or Muslims? I'm going with "way, way over 50%", which by definition means it is the most likely explanation for any given case of such advocacy.

What would you consider a more likely explanation? That a rational, well-intentioned human being watched stuff like Blalron's youtube link and, despite being exposed to counterarguments, decided "Wow, circumcision is THE BIGGEST HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATION IN THE WESTERN WORLD!!! Forcibly removing millions of infants from their families would be a reasoned and measured response to this appalling crime against humanity!"

Your post implies that it's possible a reasonable person might believe that circumcision is "child abuse" or a "human rights violation", and it's just not.t's a minor surgical procedure. Examples of actual human rights violations include preventing minority groups from practicing their cultural traditions and preventing parents from making medical decisions on behalf of their children.

Yes, if we are talking about some form of female circumcision practiced only by Muslims that causes no harm whatsoever to the child, then of course I would regard calls to outlaw that practice as appalling anti-Muslim bigotry. What else could it possibly be motivated by?

If we are talking about forms of female circumcision that do cause some degree of harm, and some people are calling to punish those acts in a way grotesquely disproportional to the way we punish other, comparably harmful, acts committed by parents against children, then, yep, also bigotry.

And your attempt to use a grammatical point to imply that I somehow don't think Muslims "count" is fucked up.
  #20  
Old 12-06-2018, 10:07 PM
Thing Fish Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 2,853
PS The Christian Scientist analogy is ludicrous. Denial of medical care to children actually harms children, and constitutes child abuse by neglect. The overwhelming majority of parents convicted of that crime aren't Christian Scientists, they're just parents who are also abusive and neglectful in other ways.
  #21  
Old 12-06-2018, 10:11 PM
coffeecat's Avatar
coffeecat coffeecat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 1,638
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blalron View Post
Give me foreskin, or give me death!
Try Craigslist.

Do you have anything to swap? Are you flexible—would you settle for 2 twoskins?
  #22  
Old 12-06-2018, 10:26 PM
dropzone's Avatar
dropzone dropzone is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Cloud Cuckoo Land
Posts: 28,849
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
And then there's clairobscur, who believes that parents who circumcise their children should be permanently stripped of custody. In other words, he believes that all Jewish and Muslim boys should be confiscated from their parents at birth and handed over to adoptive parents of other religions. In the event there is an insufficient supply of such parents, I'm not sure if he proposes to warehouse said children in orphanages or simply euthanize them. Hence, he is a shit-sucking Nazi scumbag.
There has long been an itch in the back of my mind that, besides the whole invasion thingies, all the French and Poles had against Hitler was that he wasn't their right-wing racist.
  #23  
Old 12-06-2018, 10:28 PM
Blalron Blalron is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 6,300
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
Kimstu:

Look, this guy is literally calling for the genocide of the Jewish and Muslim people. If he had his way, in a couple generations there would be no Jews or Muslims. True, nobody would actually be killed, but preventing a targeted group from reproducing or from raising children is included in generally accepted definitions of genocide.
The government has the right to make laws of neutral applicability across the entire population, even if those laws interfere with a religious belief. This is consistent with Supreme Court precedent, for example Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878). Congress outlawed polygamy, and the Mormons argued that this interfered with their religious duty to engage in polygamous marriage. Too bad, said the Supreme Court. The LDS Church adapted, and renounced polygamy in favor of monogamy. Notice that 140 years later, the Mormons are still around. We didn't genocide them. They just had to slightly modify their religious practice to remain in accordance with the law of the land.

If American voters chose to outlaw circumcision, then it is perfectly acceptable in my view to arrest people who violate that law. It is over the top hysteria to label this "genocide."

Last edited by Blalron; 12-06-2018 at 10:31 PM.
  #24  
Old 12-06-2018, 10:29 PM
Blank Slate's Avatar
Blank Slate Blank Slate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 4,917
Cavaliers are a bunch of premature ejaculators.
  #25  
Old 12-06-2018, 10:33 PM
Kimstu Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 21,194
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
Look, this guy is literally calling for the genocide of the Jewish and Muslim people. If he had his way, in a couple generations there would be no Jews or Muslims. True, nobody would actually be killed, but preventing a targeted group from reproducing or from raising children is included in generally accepted definitions of genocide.
Whoa there, this is way, way exaggerated and/or just plain wrong in so many different ways. For instance:

- Not being circumcised does not disqualify a male Jew or Muslim from being a Jew or Muslim. We've had this discussion in other threads, and halachically knowledgeable Jewish posters such as cmkeller have confirmed (as have numerous cited sources) that a Jewish man who isn't circumcised is still Jewish.

Most Jewish and Muslim religious authorities believe that an uncircumcised man is not in full compliance with the laws divinely ordained upon Jews and Muslims, but that is a different thing. An uncircumcised Jewish or Muslim man can marry within his religion and father Jewish or Muslim children, so this panic about "in a couple generations there would be no Jews or Muslims" is nonsense.

- Prohibiting circumcision of non-consenting minors is not the same thing as eliminating circumcision altogether. AFAICT, even the most stupidly draconian proposal for prohibiting minor circumcision, such as clairobscur's, does not restrict consenting adults from choosing to become circumcised, and significant numbers of Jewish and Muslim men would doubtless do so if it were forbidden to circumcise them as children.

(Note, btw, that many Muslim communities don't circumcise boys until well into adolescence anyway, so deferring circumcision to legal adulthood would not be such a big step as it is for communities that practice only infant circumcision.)

- A small minority of Jews and Muslims already reject the doctrine that circumcision is mandatory for Jewish and Muslim men. Their numbers would probably increase somewhat if minor circumcision were forbidden, though doubtless not as much as the numbers of Jewish and Muslim men who undergo circumcision at adulthood.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish
Now, of all the people throughout history who have called for the extermination of Jews and/or Muslims
Oh, for shit's sake. You make up an imaginary scenario to the effect that prohibiting minor circumcision would somehow cause the "extermination" of Jews and Muslims, which it would not, and then use that false claim to try to argue that clairobscur is "calling for" the "extermination" of Jews and Muslims because he wants to prohibit minor circumcision.

Ridiculous. I can criticize clairobscur's proposal as draconian and tyrannical, and I do, without buying into your delusional alarm that it's deliberately genocidal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish
Your post implies that it's possible a reasonable person might believe that circumcision is "child abuse" or a "human rights violation", and it's just not.
Well, that's the matter of opinion that people are arguing about here. Your asserting "it's just not" does not in fact settle the matter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish
t's a minor surgical procedure.
Sure, but there are many, many forms of minor surgical procedure involving amputation of a body part that we do not allow to be performed on non-consenting children when it's not medically necessary. If we are going to insist on having an exception to this policy in the case of circumcision, ISTM that we need a logically and ethically consistent argument for drawing that line right in that place.

Look, I personally do not regard circumcision as a drastically invasive form of surgery (though I don't have a penis so how would I really know?) and I have no problem with circumcised people, nor do I want to make them believe that their circumcision has seriously damaged them. But it would be absurd to try to deny that circumcision counts as a permanent surgical modification of the body.

People who believe that bodily integrity is a human right, and there are many people who sincerely believe that, are often sincerely opposed as a matter of principle to allowing minor children to be deprived of their bodily integrity. You don't have to agree with them, but I think you're on very shaky ground if you're simply assuming that their principles are merely a smokescreen for religious bigotry.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish
Yes, if we are talking about some form of female circumcision practiced only by Muslims that causes no harm whatsoever to the child, then of course I would regard calls to outlaw that practice as appalling anti-Muslim bigotry.
Does the permanent and medically unnecessary surgical removal of any naturally occurring body part count as "causing no harm whatsoever to the child"? If not, exactly which body parts, and how much of them, can be removed before "harm" is considered to have occurred?

See, my point here is that the insignificance and harmlessness of circumcision does not depend on your say-so. It is a point on which reasonable people who genuinely care about the well-being of children can disagree.

Even people who are entirely unreasonable about, say, the recommended punishment for parents violating hypothetical laws against circumcision of minors are not necessarily being unreasonable or disingenuous in their objections to the practice itself on ethical grounds. You can certainly disagree with their opinions, but if you just default to immediately writing them off as Nazis then I think you're being illogical and ignorant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish
And your attempt to use a grammatical point to imply that I somehow don't think Muslims "count" is fucked up.
I was not in fact trying to "gotcha" you with grammar. I genuinely did not understand, from your reference to "a specific minority group (one which has a long history of being victimized by discrimination and persecution)", that you were still talking about both Jews and Muslims as suffering from the impacts of a hypothetical ban on minor circumcision.
  #26  
Old 12-06-2018, 10:34 PM
Kimstu Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 21,194
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
PS The Christian Scientist analogy is ludicrous. Denial of medical care to children actually harms children, and constitutes child abuse by neglect.
See above for why your say-so is not sufficient to determine what qualifies as "harm" to children.
  #27  
Old 12-06-2018, 11:22 PM
Guinastasia's Avatar
Guinastasia Guinastasia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 51,990
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blalron View Post
The LDS Church adapted, and renounced polygamy in favor of monogamy.
Not all of them
  #28  
Old 12-07-2018, 12:24 AM
Thing Fish Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 2,853
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
See above for why your say-so is not sufficient to determine what qualifies as "harm" to children.
OK, so how about the overwhelming consensus of medical opinion? How about the American Academy of Pediatrics? Are they qualified to determine what constitutes harm to children? If not, who do you think is so qualified?
  #29  
Old 12-07-2018, 12:32 AM
Thing Fish Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 2,853
Bottom line: clairobscur has proposed to violate the human rights of my people on a massive scale, in the name of pseudoscientific bullshit. I don't owe it to him to carefully consider his motivations in order to avoid casting unfair aspersions, he owes it to me to STFU.
  #30  
Old 12-07-2018, 12:59 AM
Kimstu Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 21,194
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
How about the American Academy of Pediatrics? Are they qualified to determine what constitutes harm to children?
Uh, nowhere do they say that circumcision doesn't involve harm to children. Circumcision results in a surgical wound accompanied by pain and bleeding, along with the permanent amputation of the foreskin and risks of far more serious damage. Of course that constitutes harm of some sort to the child, to which the child has not consented and cannot consent.

What the AAP says is that in the long term and in the aggregate, the physical harm done by the circumcision procedure and the risk of greater harm from complications of the procedure are minor enough to be outweighed by the potential medical benefits. Note, however, that that opinion is not shared by other pediatric bodies, which hold on the contrary that the disadvantages of circumcision outweigh its medical advantages.

So the question for a society to address is, how much and what sort of harm in the form of permanent surgical body modification is it okay to submit non-consenting children to, and for what reason(s)?

Notice that I haven't claimed that society is ethically obligated to prevent children from suffering any harm of any kind at the hands of their parents. That would be impossible, because children are always going to get harmed to some extent by something. The issue is how much and what sort of harms we consider acceptable, and what motives are considered acceptable to justify inflicting those harms.

Many people argue that the principle of bodily integrity---that is, not permanently modifying a child's naturally occurring body unless it's medically necessary---should be one of the "bright lines" separating acceptable from unacceptable harm levels. As I said, you don't have to agree with them about that, but I think you're way out of line in jumping to the conclusion that it makes them Nazis.

Remember, almost all forms of medically unnecessary cutting or wounding a child's body, even if the physical damage is slight and heals without leaving any permanent trace, are not considered acceptably humane in our society. If we're going to say that a few such procedures---circumcision, ear piercing---should be tolerated while most others---tattooing, scarification, FGC, etc.---should not, then IMHO we need a fully consistent logical justification for where we're choosing to draw that line.
  #31  
Old 12-07-2018, 01:16 AM
Measure for Measure's Avatar
Measure for Measure Measure for Measure is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Twitter: @MeasureMeasure
Posts: 14,018
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
What the AAP says is that in the long term and in the aggregate, the physical harm done by the circumcision procedure and the risk of greater harm from complications of the procedure are minor enough to be outweighed by the potential medical benefits. Note, however, that that opinion is not shared by other pediatric bodies, which hold on the contrary that the disadvantages of circumcision outweigh its medical advantages.
I couldn't find any pediatric organizations in your link opposing male circumcision. I did find a criticism of the AAP guidelines by the authors in the article.

I trust your statement is accurate; it's just not directly supported by your link. Admittedly I might have missed something: if so a quote would be nice.
  #32  
Old 12-07-2018, 01:16 AM
BigT's Avatar
BigT BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 35,250
I would propose that we don't try to tell the actual Jewish person what is and is not antisemitism, any more than we should tell a woman what is and is not misogyny.

And, well, if someone is really passionate about an issue that causes no harm when done correctly and carries little risk, and disproportionately affects a certain group of people, it is normal to think that someone has a problem with those groups of people.

And when someone says they'll try to take your kids away from you for practicing a part of your religion, I think everyone has the fucking right to condemn said people as hating your religion. Especially when there is a long history of bigotry towards your religion.

Last edited by BigT; 12-07-2018 at 01:18 AM.
  #33  
Old 12-07-2018, 01:21 AM
Kimstu Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 21,194
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
Bottom line: clairobscur has proposed to violate the human rights of my people on a massive scale
The counterargument to that, of course, is the position that prohibiting infant circumcision is defending the human rights of the nonconsenting people who are being circumcised.

I don't have a strong feeling about which of those interpretations of human rights---i.e., the right to follow one's traditional religious practices including performing permanent medically unnecessary surgical body modifications on non-consenting children vs. the right to maintain bodily integrity by not being subjected to permanent medically unnecessary surgical body modifications that one has not consented to---ought to outweigh the other, or even if either of them deserves to be considered inalienable even in the absence of the other.

But ISTM that the advocates of the first position have no defensible justification for simply dismissing or ignoring the advocates of the second position by asserting that their stated principles are really nothing but a screen for religious bigotry.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish
in the name of pseudoscientific bullshit.
Careful, there: if we're talking about pseudoscientific bullshit, some might inquire why we're supposed to accept that the alleged decree of an imaginary supernatural being to Bronze Age pastoral tribesmen should count as a valid justification for subjecting non-consenting children to medically unnecessary surgical procedures in the first place.

Mind you, I'm not denying that according to stringent scientific criteria, many of the claims made by anti-circumcision activists about reasons against circumcision seem highly exaggerated and/or dubious. But let's not forget that according to stringent scientific criteria, the claims adduced by circumcision advocates about the fundamental reasons for circumcision are no better than flat-out mythical.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish
I don't owe it to him to carefully consider his motivations in order to avoid casting unfair aspersions
Maybe not, but I think you certainly owe it to yourself, as well as to other posters. You don't want to clutter up the boards with unfair and illogical arguments when you can avoid it, do you?
  #34  
Old 12-07-2018, 01:21 AM
Thing Fish Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 2,853
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
Whoa there, this is way, way exaggerated and/or just plain wrong in so many different ways. For instance:

- Not being circumcised does not disqualify a male Jew or Muslim from being a Jew or Muslim. We've had this discussion in other threads, and halachically knowledgeable Jewish posters such as cmkeller have confirmed (as have numerous cited sources) that a Jewish man who isn't circumcised is still Jewish.

Most Jewish and Muslim religious authorities believe that an uncircumcised man is not in full compliance with the laws divinely ordained upon Jews and Muslims, but that is a different thing. An uncircumcised Jewish or Muslim man can marry within his religion and father Jewish or Muslim children, so this panic about "in a couple generations there would be no Jews or Muslims" is nonsense.

- Prohibiting circumcision of non-consenting minors is not the same thing as eliminating circumcision altogether. AFAICT, even the most stupidly draconian proposal for prohibiting minor circumcision, such as clairobscur's, does not restrict consenting adults from choosing to become circumcised, and significant numbers of Jewish and Muslim men would doubtless do so if it were forbidden to circumcise them as children.

(Note, btw, that many Muslim communities don't circumcise boys until well into adolescence anyway, so deferring circumcision to legal adulthood would not be such a big step as it is for communities that practice only infant circumcision.)

- A small minority of Jews and Muslims already reject the doctrine that circumcision is mandatory for Jewish and Muslim men. Their numbers would probably increase somewhat if minor circumcision were forbidden, though doubtless not as much as the numbers of Jewish and Muslim men who undergo circumcision at adulthood.


Oh, for shit's sake. You make up an imaginary scenario to the effect that prohibiting minor circumcision would somehow cause the "extermination" of Jews and Muslims, which it would not, and then use that false claim to try to argue that clairobscur is "calling for" the "extermination" of Jews and Muslims because he wants to prohibit minor circumcision.

Ridiculous. I can criticize clairobscur's proposal as draconian and tyrannical, and I do, without buying into your delusional alarm that it's deliberately genocidal.


Well, that's the matter of opinion that people are arguing about here. Your asserting "it's just not" does not in fact settle the matter.


Sure, but there are many, many forms of minor surgical procedure involving amputation of a body part that we do not allow to be performed on non-consenting children when it's not medically necessary. If we are going to insist on having an exception to this policy in the case of circumcision, ISTM that we need a logically and ethically consistent argument for drawing that line right in that place.

Look, I personally do not regard circumcision as a drastically invasive form of surgery (though I don't have a penis so how would I really know?) and I have no problem with circumcised people, nor do I want to make them believe that their circumcision has seriously damaged them. But it would be absurd to try to deny that circumcision counts as a permanent surgical modification of the body.

People who believe that bodily integrity is a human right, and there are many people who sincerely believe that, are often sincerely opposed as a matter of principle to allowing minor children to be deprived of their bodily integrity. You don't have to agree with them, but I think you're on very shaky ground if you're simply assuming that their principles are merely a smokescreen for religious bigotry.


Does the permanent and medically unnecessary surgical removal of any naturally occurring body part count as "causing no harm whatsoever to the child"? If not, exactly which body parts, and how much of them, can be removed before "harm" is considered to have occurred?

See, my point here is that the insignificance and harmlessness of circumcision does not depend on your say-so. It is a point on which reasonable people who genuinely care about the well-being of children can disagree.

Even people who are entirely unreasonable about, say, the recommended punishment for parents violating hypothetical laws against circumcision of minors are not necessarily being unreasonable or disingenuous in their objections to the practice itself on ethical grounds. You can certainly disagree with their opinions, but if you just default to immediately writing them off as Nazis then I think you're being illogical and ignorant.


I was not in fact trying to "gotcha" you with grammar. I genuinely did not understand, from your reference to "a specific minority group (one which has a long history of being victimized by discrimination and persecution)", that you were still talking about both Jews and Muslims as suffering from the impacts of a hypothetical ban on minor circumcision.
Your assumption is that Jews would be bullied into submission. Coincidentally, we are currently celebrating a holiday in remembrance of a time when some other folks thought that. It didn't end well for them. Yes, a Jew doesn't have to be circumcised to be a Jew, and an uncircumcised Jewish man could father uncircumcised Jewish sons, but they wouldn't. They would circumcise their sons, and their sons would be confiscated by the State and raised by strangers, and in a couple generations there would be no more Jews worthy of the name. Or, more prosaically, we'd just do what we've always done in these situations and take our highly educated asses to benefit the economy of some country where hatred wasn't in fashion at the time.

In addition to being unacceptable from a perspective of Jewish law, deferring the decision until the man is an adult isn't acceptable because adult circumcision carries significantly greater risks and longer recovery time than infant circumcision. The first Medline abstract I could find:
SPOILER:
A 'snip' in time: what is the best age to circumcise?
AU
Morris BJ, Waskett JH, Banerjee J, Wamai RG, Tobian AA, Gray RH, Bailis SA, Bailey RC, Klausner JD, Willcourt RJ, Halperin DT, Wiswell TE, Mindel A
SO
BMC Pediatr. 2012;12:20. Epub 2012 Feb 28.
BACKGROUND Circumcision is a common procedure, but regional and societal attitudes differ on whether there is a need for a male to be circumcised and, if so, at what age. This is an important issue for many parents, but also pediatricians, other doctors, policy makers, public health authorities, medical bodies, and males themselves.

DISCUSSION We show here that infancy is an optimal time for clinical circumcision because an infant's low mobility facilitates the use of local anesthesia, sutures are not required, healing is quick, cosmetic outcome is usually excellent, costs are minimal, and complications are uncommon. The benefits of infant circumcision include prevention of urinary tract infections (a cause of renal scarring), reduction in risk of inflammatory foreskin conditions such as balanoposthitis, foreskin injuries, phimosis and paraphimosis. When the boy later becomes sexually active he has substantial protection against risk of HIV and other viral sexually transmitted infections such as genital herpes and oncogenic human papillomavirus, as well as penile cancer. The risk of cervical cancer in his female partner(s) is also reduced. Circumcision in adolescence or adulthood may evokea fear of pain, penile damage or reduced sexual pleasure, even though unfounded. Time off work or school will be needed, cost is much greater, as are risks of complications, healing is slower, and stitches or tissue glue must be used.

SUMMARY Infant circumcision is safe, simple, convenient and cost-effective. The available evidence strongly supports infancy as the optimal time for circumcision.


The consensus of medical opinion is that the benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks, though in absolute terms both the benefits and risks are quite small. So the burden is hardly on circumcision advocates to explain why this "exception" needs to be made to usual medical principles. Those principles are that we do stuff that is associated with longer, healthier lives and avoid the opposite.

But in my opinion, the principle of respect for individual choice and the rights of minorities should prevail even if the scientific consensus changed as new evidence emerged that circumcision was actually slightly bad for you rather than a tiny bit good. Only if it were proven that circumcision is a serious risk comparable to vaccine refusal or total denial of medical care would it be appropriate for the law to become involved. And that is not gonna happen, because we've been doing this for 3000 years, mostly while living alongside people who didn't, and if there were some massive difference in health outcomes we'd have noticed it by now.

I mean, I guess it's theoretically possible that someone could want to commit massive human rights violations based on a belief that "bodily integrity is a human right" rather than on religious/ethnic hatred (much more likely IMO that the latter makes the former seem intellectually plausible). But like, so what? In that case, fuck them just as hard but for a slightly different reason.
  #35  
Old 12-07-2018, 01:32 AM
Thing Fish Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 2,853
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
Uh, nowhere do they say that circumcision doesn't involve harm to children. Circumcision results in a surgical wound accompanied by pain and bleeding, along with the permanent amputation of the foreskin and risks of far more serious damage. Of course that constitutes harm of some sort to the child, to which the child has not consented and cannot consent.

What the AAP says is that in the long term and in the aggregate, the physical harm done by the circumcision procedure and the risk of greater harm from complications of the procedure are minor enough to be outweighed by the potential medical benefits. Note, however, that that opinion is not shared by other pediatric bodies, which hold on the contrary that the disadvantages of circumcision outweigh its medical advantages.

So the question for a society to address is, how much and what sort of harm in the form of permanent surgical body modification is it okay to submit non-consenting children to, and for what reason(s)?

Notice that I haven't claimed that society is ethically obligated to prevent children from suffering any harm of any kind at the hands of their parents. That would be impossible, because children are always going to get harmed to some extent by something. The issue is how much and what sort of harms we consider acceptable, and what motives are considered acceptable to justify inflicting those harms.

Many people argue that the principle of bodily integrity---that is, not permanently modifying a child's naturally occurring body unless it's medically necessary---should be one of the "bright lines" separating acceptable from unacceptable harm levels. As I said, you don't have to agree with them about that, but I think you're way out of line in jumping to the conclusion that it makes them Nazis.

Remember, almost all forms of medically unnecessary cutting or wounding a child's body, even if the physical damage is slight and heals without leaving any permanent trace, are not considered acceptably humane in our society. If we're going to say that a few such procedures---circumcision, ear piercing---should be tolerated while most others---tattooing, scarification, FGC, etc.---should not, then IMHO we need a fully consistent logical justification for where we're choosing to draw that line.
OK, how about we draw the line at "procedures which have been practiced without obvious problems for thousands of years and are viewed as integral to the culture of some groups get grandfathered in"? Really, was that so fucking difficult? (incidentally, I believe there are some cultures which do practice ritual tattooing of minors, and I have no problem with that)

Last edited by Thing Fish; 12-07-2018 at 01:35 AM.
  #36  
Old 12-07-2018, 01:39 AM
Kimstu Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 21,194
Quote:
Originally Posted by Measure for Measure View Post
I couldn't find any pediatric organizations in your link opposing male circumcision.
Well, I was referring to the statement of the authors about representing non-American medical organizations that express such opposition, but direct verification from several such organizations is easy to find.

Dutch medical association webpage containing link to PDF policy statement:
Quote:
Position of the KNMG with regard to non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors

he reason for our adoption of an official viewpoint regarding this matter is the increasing emphasis on children’s rights. It is particularly relevant for doctors that children must not be subjected to medical proceedings that have no therapeutic
or preventative value. In addition to this, there is growing concern regarding complications, both minor and serious, which can occur as a result of circumcising
a child. A third reason for this viewpoint is the growing sentiment that there is a discrepancy between the KNMG’s firm stance with regard to female genital mutilation and the lack of a stance with regard to the non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors, as the two have a number of similarities.

The initial objective of this viewpoint is to initiate public discussion of this issue. The ultimate aim is to minimise non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors. [...]

There is no convincing evidence that circumcision is useful or necessary in terms of prevention or hygiene. [...]

Contrary to what is often thought, circumcision entails the risk of medical and psy- chological complications. [...]

Non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors is contrary to the rule that minors may only be exposed to medical treatments if illness or abnormalities are present, or if it can be convincingly demonstrated that the medical intervention is in the interest of the child, as in the case of vaccinations.

Non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors conflicts with the child’s right to autonomy and physical integrity. [...]
Royal Australasian College of Physicians
Quote:
Circumcision of Infant Males

After reviewing the currently available evidence, the RACP believes that the frequency of diseases modifiable by circumcision, the level of protection offered by circumcision and the complication rates of circumcision do not warrant routine infant circumcision in Australia and New Zealand.
There are numerous similar official position papers of non-American medical associations on circumcision.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Measure for Measure
I trust your statement is accurate
Thank you: to the best of my knowledge, it is.
  #37  
Old 12-07-2018, 01:39 AM
Measure for Measure's Avatar
Measure for Measure Measure for Measure is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Twitter: @MeasureMeasure
Posts: 14,018
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
This thread is useless because they aren't in that thread to talk about their dicks-they are there to put those uppity females in their place.
That might be the case. But I wonder whether that's most of the explanation. I assert 2 causes.

1. See this rant, quoted for hilarity:
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmartAleq View Post
You know what the world needs? More men deciding what is and isn't misogyny. I mean, it's not like we've EVER been allowed to define it ourselves--no, it's not canon until Some Guy declares it is.

Babale has already banged it square on the bean because it is actually functionally impossible to have ANY discussion of ANY topic that focuses on how that topic affects women without the fucking Kool-Aid pitcher busting through the wall squealing, "BUT WHAT ABOUT THE MENZ???!!1!ELEVENTY!!" And it's not just here, it's EVERYWHERE. They simply cannot help themselves. Online, IRL, doesn't matter--men generally simply MUST have their say about absolutely every topic and must obligatorily shift focus to how it affects them. This is a function of privilege, which dictates that the group of perceived higher status must be taken into account at all times, their preferences catered to and their noxious opinions heard no matter how tangential or irrelevant they might be to the subject at hand.

Now let's see how long it takes for some indignant man to declare "BUT NOT ALL MEN!!!" because that's a part of it--women or other marginalized groups are not allowed to make any sort of blanket statement regarding the behavior of men in general without also petting down their hurt feewings by assuring them that OF COURSE you don't mean THEM--just all the OTHER men who insist on being treated as special in every space.
2. But I say it relates the the universal male aversion to being kicked in the nuts. Some dudes overgeneralize and instinctively react to male infant genital snipping with hysteria and horror. Admittedly I'd be on stronger ground if dudes didn't do this sort of jabbering all the time. I still contend that testicularimpactphobia plays a role.

2b. Obligatory quote:
Every guy alive has (probably) experienced an unpleasant and painful blow to the balls. And it hurts for a reason. "Evolutionarily, it makes sense," says Dr. Kramer. "Your body is made to reproduce. It protects itself from trauma to your genitals for survival of the species. So the testicles are privileged in that they have extra-sensory attachments to them that give you a lot of sensation when the testicles are 'attacked,' to protect your reproductive potential." https://www.menshealth.com/health/a1...re-strong-faq/
So that's it folks. Once again we have yet another example of testicular privilege.

ETA: Thanks for the links Kimstu!

Last edited by Measure for Measure; 12-07-2018 at 01:40 AM.
  #38  
Old 12-07-2018, 01:54 AM
octopus's Avatar
octopus octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 7,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
OK, how about we draw the line at "procedures which have been practiced without obvious problems for thousands of years and are viewed as integral to the culture of some groups get grandfathered in"? Really, was that so fucking difficult? (incidentally, I believe there are some cultures which do practice ritual tattooing of minors, and I have no problem with that)
C’mon now. Primitive superstition shouldn’t have that much power in the internet age.
  #39  
Old 12-07-2018, 01:54 AM
Thing Fish Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 2,853
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
Careful, there: if we're talking about pseudoscientific bullshit, some might inquire why we're supposed to accept that the alleged decree of an imaginary supernatural being to Bronze Age pastoral tribesmen should count as a valid justification for subjecting non-consenting children to medically unnecessary surgical procedures in the first place.

Mind you, I'm not denying that according to stringent scientific criteria, many of the claims made by anti-circumcision activists about reasons against circumcision seem highly exaggerated and/or dubious. But let's not forget that according to stringent scientific criteria, the claims adduced by circumcision advocates about the fundamental reasons for circumcision are no better than flat-out mythical.
No, no, that's religious bullshit. It's a whole other category. Pretending to respect each other's religious bullshit while refraining from inflicting our own religious bullshit on others is one of the ways we avoid civil wars. Refusing to respect psuedoscientific bullshit is how we do science..

And you seem to be moving the goalposts here. Earlier you were pointing out, correctly, that most circumcisions in Western societies aren't done for religious reasons, but based on perceived medical benefits and aesthetic reasons. But now you're saying that religion is the "fundamental reason" for circumcision? I looked again at the American Academy of Pediatrics position paper and saw a lot of scientific studies cited, but no appeals to the authority of any bronze age deities.

To be clear, I don't have any problem with people trying to talk other people into not circumcising their kids (I mean, other than they're doing so based on stupid arguments, but whatever). It's only if you call for State violence against those who disagree with you that I'm going to call you vile names.
  #40  
Old 12-07-2018, 02:01 AM
Kimstu Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 21,194
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
OK, how about we draw the line at "procedures which have been practiced without obvious problems for thousands of years and are viewed as integral to the culture of some groups get grandfathered in"? Really, was that so fucking difficult?
Yes, it certainly is. What exactly counts as "obvious problems"? Clearly the people who have suffered damaging complications from circumcision have had "obvious problems" with it. Exactly where is the threshold for a level of negative outcomes that is considered acceptable? And how about the experiences of people circumcised within this cultural tradition who feel that even a medically normal circumcision produced "obvious problems" for them, and object to its having been done without their consent?

And then, of course, if we get all that figured out we have to determine what qualifies as "obvious problems" for procedures like the various forms of FGC, many of which have also been practiced for thousands of years.

Yes, this issue actually is pretty fucking difficult if we think about it carefully.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish
Yes, a Jew doesn't have to be circumcised to be a Jew, and an uncircumcised Jewish man could father uncircumcised Jewish sons, but they wouldn't. They would circumcise their sons, and their sons would be confiscated by the State and raised by strangers, and in a couple generations there would be no more Jews worthy of the name.
Well, that would be their choice to make (although I question the apparent bigotry of disparaging and excluding any Jews who would choose not to circumcise their minor sons as thereby being not "worthy of the name").

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish
In addition to being unacceptable from a perspective of Jewish law, deferring the decision until the man is an adult isn't acceptable because adult circumcision carries significantly greater risks and longer recovery time than infant circumcision.
While I completely concur that the risks and recovery time of adult circumcision are greater, I don't see how that makes adult circumcision intrinsically "unacceptable". After all, plenty of Muslim men get circumcised in adolescence and even in adulthood rather than in infancy. If an adult man wants to endure the risks and recovery time in order to comply with what he considers his religious duty, that's his choice to make as a consenting adult.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish
The consensus of medical opinion is that the benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks
No, that's just the consensus of medical opinion within a particular American pediatric body. As discussed above, there is a great deal of medical opinion elsewhere that disagrees with them about that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish
But in my opinion, the principle of respect for individual choice and the rights of minorities should prevail even if the scientific consensus changed as new evidence emerged that circumcision was actually slightly bad for you rather than a tiny bit good.
Well, I don't have a problem with your holding that opinion. I just have a problem with your declaring that somebody who supports an opposing opinion should be assumed to be a Nazi.
  #41  
Old 12-07-2018, 02:05 AM
Kimstu Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 21,194
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
And you seem to be moving the goalposts here. Earlier you were pointing out, correctly, that most circumcisions in Western societies aren't done for religious reasons, but based on perceived medical benefits and aesthetic reasons. But now you're saying that religion is the "fundamental reason" for circumcision?
Sorry for the lack of clarity. Yes, religion is the fundamental reason for circumcision according to the people that you claim would be the only ones to be significantly burdened by prohibiting it: namely, the people who circumcise for religious reasons.

But no, that's not the fundamental reason underlying most of the circumcisions performed in the developed world at present.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish
Pretending to respect each other's religious bullshit while refraining from inflicting our own religious bullshit on others is one of the ways we avoid civil wars.
Mmhmm, but one of the key issues here is whether doing medically unnecessary surgical modifications on the bodies of non-consenting children qualifies as "refraining from inflicting our own religious bullshit on others".

It is not automatically being a Nazi to believe that even children who are born within a particular religious culture should be allowed to make those decisions for themselves when they're capable of consenting to them.

Last edited by Kimstu; 12-07-2018 at 02:09 AM.
  #42  
Old 12-07-2018, 02:49 AM
Thing Fish Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 2,853
Let's stop beating around the bush, Kimstu. You've said that you regard clairobscur's proposal as "absurd and tyrannical", although you don't actually seem nearly as offended by his proposal as you do by my reaction to it.

I chose to have my son circumcised. What do you think is the appropriate punishment the State should inflict on me for making this choice? We've established that you think loss of parental rights would be excessive. Fines? Jail time? Maybe some time in a nice re-education camp?

Do you think this punishment should be more or less severe than that meted out to parents who fail to get their kids properly vaccinated, fail to enforce seat belt use, or who allow their kids to become obese? All of those parental failings, unlike circumcision, are clearly associated with severely negative outcomes.

And yet there is no movement of idiots saying that feeding kids doughnuts is the worst human rights violation in the Western world or that not bothering with the seat belt should result in your kids going into the foster care system. Why? My best guess is that opposing those practices doesn't offer the opportunity to stigmatize the practices of minority groups.

You seem really hung up on whether it's appropriate to label anti-circ zealots as "Nazis". How about "arrogant people with contempt for minority cultures who advocate State-sponsored violence against those they deem inferior?" Does that make you feel better? I can tell you that, from the point of view of the victims, such fine distinctions are completely irrelevant.
  #43  
Old 12-07-2018, 02:51 AM
Thing Fish Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 2,853
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
I would propose that we don't try to tell the actual Jewish person what is and is not antisemitism, any more than we should tell a woman what is and is not misogyny.

And, well, if someone is really passionate about an issue that causes no harm when done correctly and carries little risk, and disproportionately affects a certain group of people, it is normal to think that someone has a problem with those groups of people.

And when someone says they'll try to take your kids away from you for practicing a part of your religion, I think everyone has the fucking right to condemn said people as hating your religion. Especially when there is a long history of bigotry towards your religion.
Thank you. This shit really isn't that complicated.
  #44  
Old 12-07-2018, 02:59 AM
Thing Fish Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 2,853
nm

Last edited by Thing Fish; 12-07-2018 at 02:59 AM.
  #45  
Old 12-07-2018, 03:12 AM
Thing Fish Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 2,853
OK, I think I'm done with this thread. If there's some part of "you don't get to tell other people how to care for their kids or practice their religion" you still don't get, it's clearly beyond my ability to impart it to you.
  #46  
Old 12-07-2018, 11:40 AM
Kimstu Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 21,194
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
You've said that you regard clairobscur's proposal as "absurd and tyrannical", although you don't actually seem nearly as offended by his proposal as you do by my reaction to it.
It's not a matter of "offended". It's just that I think it's possible to be absurd and tyrannical about circumcision practices without necessarily being anti-Semitic, much less full-on Nazi, and refusing to acknowledge that possibility is making your rhetoric overblown and irrational.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish
I chose to have my son circumcised. What do you think is the appropriate punishment the State should inflict on me for making this choice?
What do I personally think is an appropriate punishment? Nothing.

So what? This isn't about my personal opinions of circumcision. I kind of thought that my several disclaimers about not having any strong ethical preferences on the subject made that very clear, but I'm getting the distinct impression that you are just not willing to hear anything you can't interpret as ideological bigotry and animosity that you can comfortably dismiss.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT
I would propose that we don't try to tell the actual Jewish person what is and is not antisemitism
Um, are you under the impression that Thing Fish is the only "actual Jewish person" in this conversation? That impression is mistaken.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish
And yet there is no movement of idiots saying that feeding kids doughnuts is the worst human rights violation in the Western world or that not bothering with the seat belt should result in your kids going into the foster care system. Why? My best guess is that opposing those practices doesn't offer the opportunity to stigmatize the practices of minority groups.
Not very convincing, tbh. It is already illegal to omit safety restraints on children traveling in cars, and the existing system of regulations (plus common sense) does a pretty good job of enforcing their use. Childhood diet, meanwhile, is a hugely complex multidimensional spectrum that would be logistically impossible to regulate in detail. (Although even so, there are indeed some arguments made for considering childhood obesity in some cases as evidence of parental neglect warranting removal from custody, such as this one.)

Neither of those is in any way a reasonable parallel to the current status of non-therapeutic infant circumcision.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish
You seem really hung up on whether it's appropriate to label anti-circ zealots as "Nazis". How about "arrogant people with contempt for minority cultures who advocate State-sponsored violence against those they deem inferior?"
Still an irrational unsupported assumption about "contempt for minority cultures" that are deemed "inferior". Some people simply believe that children should not be subjected to non-therapeutic surgical procedures without their consent, irrespective of which cultural traditions endorse such practices and what their reasons are.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish
If there's some part of "you don't get to tell other people how to care for their kids or practice their religion" you still don't get, it's clearly beyond my ability to impart it to you.
Apparently what's beyond your ability is to comprehend the idea that some people can sincerely endorse the concept of "you don't get to inflict medically unnecessary permanent surgical body modifications on non-consenting children, even if they're your own children and even if your religion tells you to" without necessarily being motivated by bigotry.
  #47  
Old 12-07-2018, 01:38 PM
Thing Fish Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 2,853
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post


Still an irrational unsupported assumption about "contempt for minority cultures" that are deemed "inferior". Some people simply believe that children should not be subjected to non-therapeutic surgical procedures without their consent, irrespective of which cultural traditions endorse such practices and what their reasons are.


Apparently what's beyond your ability is to comprehend the idea that some people can sincerely endorse the concept of "you don't get to inflict medically unnecessary permanent surgical body modifications on non-consenting children, even if they're your own children and even if your religion tells you to" without necessarily being motivated by bigotry.
Yes, I get that some people believe that circumcision is ethically wrong. Some people believe otherwise. Why should either group get to have the law on their side? Doesn't that imply pretty strongly that the beliefs of one group -- the folks getting hauled off to jail -- are "inferior" to those of the other group? And if the historical context just happens to be that the people labeled "inferior" have been victimized, up to and including attempted genocide, continuously for the last 2000 years...yeah, nothing to see here, move along.

I'm going to err on the side of overreacting to shit like clairobscur is spreading, and I really don't care if you "have a problem with" that. I am perfectly comfortable, in the context of Pit invective, with extending the meaning of the word "Nazi" beyond its strict meaning to include "people who stridently advocate policies which Nazis would be overjoyed to see enacted". Deal with it.

I've already addressed the issue in your second paragraph a couple times in this thread:
Quote:
I mean, I guess it's theoretically possible that someone could want to commit massive human rights violations based on a belief that "bodily integrity is a human right" rather than on religious/ethnic hatred (much more likely IMO that the latter makes the former seem intellectually plausible). But like, so what? In that case, fuck them just as hard but for a slightly different reason.
Quote:
I can tell you that, from the point of view of the victims, such fine distinctions are completely irrelevant.
I don't know exactly what percentage of anti-circ extremists (which I am defining to include only those who advocate actual criminalization) are self-identified Nazis, and I don't care.I do know that 100% of Nazis are big fans of outlawing circumcision, and people have to expect to be judged by the company they keep. I will concede that the number of anti-circ extremists who don't consciously hold anti-Semitic beliefs is not zero. Is that really all you've wanted from me all this time?

I'm sure a much lower percentage of those who "sincerely believe in the right to bodily integrity", but are reasonable enough to not want to forcibly impose their beliefs on others, are consciously anti-Semitic. That's why I don't refer to them as "Nazi shitbags". I feel, however, quite sure that anti-Semites are vastly overrepresented among their number. Also no doubt vastly overrepresented are extremist atheists, who are a pain in everyone's ass, but from a specifically Jewish POV are functionally equivalent to anti-Semites.

Anyway...now I really am going to try to be done with this thread, at least for the weekend.
  #48  
Old 12-07-2018, 01:58 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK CarnalK is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 16,317
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
Yes, I get that some people believe that circumcision is ethically wrong. Some people believe otherwise. Why should either group get to have the law on their side? Doesn't that imply pretty strongly that the beliefs of one group -- the folks getting hauled off to jail -- are "inferior" to those of the other group?
Some people think hitting their children is the right way to discipline them. Spare the rod and spoil the child. Some people think you shouldn't hit children. Why should either group have the law on their side? Why have laws at all if there is a group that disagrees?
  #49  
Old 12-07-2018, 02:13 PM
Kimstu Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 21,194
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish
Yes, I get that some people believe that circumcision is ethically wrong. Some people believe otherwise. Why should either group get to have the law on their side?
Not sure I understand how there could be a situation where neither group "gets to have the law on their side". I mean, either non-therapeutic infant circumcision is legal or it is not, which means that the law is necessarily taking one side or the other.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish
Doesn't that imply pretty strongly that the beliefs of one group -- the folks getting hauled off to jail -- are "inferior" to those of the other group?
Well, it implies that the society as a whole has decided that the one particular belief about following that illegal practice is morally wrong, and therefore inferior to not holding that belief.

But of course, that doesn't necessarily imply bigotry against the group as a whole. A lot of people oppose, say, the practice of child marriage or caste discrimination among many Hindu communities, without necessarily believing that Hindus as a group are essentially "inferior" to other groups. It is possible to be morally wrong about a particular issue without being thereby "inferior" as a human being.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish
I'm going to err on the side of overreacting to shit like clairobscur is spreading, and I really don't care if you "have a problem with" that.
Fine by me; I'm not making you argue with me about this. I'm just posting my criticisms of your overreaction.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish
I am perfectly comfortable, in the context of Pit invective, with extending the meaning of the word "Nazi" beyond its strict meaning to include "people who stridently advocate policies which Nazis would be overjoyed to see enacted".
Wow. You realize that by that reasoning, the meaning of the word "Nazi" would also include supporters of animal protection, right?

Declaring that you're going to use the word "Nazi" to mean any supporter of any policy that Nazis would have endorsed, even if the supporter in question is advocating the policy for completely different reasons and doesn't agree with Nazi bigotry in any way, is absurdly misleading and illogical.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish
Deal with it.
No problem. I'm dealing with it by pointing out, and making fun of, its fundamental irrational silliness.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish
I do know that 100% of Nazis are big fans of outlawing circumcision, and people have to expect to be judged by the company they keep.
Again, you've stretched the concept of ideological "keeping company" until it's so broad as to be virtually meaningless. For example, Nazis were also big fans of antismoking health campaigns. By your reasoning, that makes it okay to call smoking cessation advocates "Nazis" too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish
I will concede that the number of anti-circ extremists who don't consciously hold anti-Semitic beliefs is not zero. Is that really all you've wanted from me all this time?
I don't want anything in particular from you; if you want to double down on your illogical rhetoric you have the right to do so, and it's not up to me to stop you or to change your mind. But it also doesn't in any way obligate me to stop criticizing your arguments.

Last edited by Kimstu; 12-07-2018 at 02:16 PM.
  #50  
Old 12-08-2018, 10:48 AM
raventhief's Avatar
raventhief raventhief is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 4,522
I realized how done I was with the topic after Slacker posted the old saw about sex and pizza- "sex is like pizza, even when it's bad, it's still pretty good!"

That just be a nice place to be in- the bad sex that I've had had been painful and not "still pretty good." I had, in fact, posted an article that made that same point earlier in the same thread.


So yeah. I'm done.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:05 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017