If you want to start a whole new fight, could you kindly start a new $#@! thread?

[RTFirefly]

In this thread (about Airman Doors’ MIL problems), Futile Gesture and I had the following exchange:

*Originally posted by Futile Gesture *
But if you’re going to open a BBQ thread bitching about your mother-in-law’s position then you have to be prepared to have your own questioned, especially if you’re justifying it with a fallacy.

No, I don’t think so. I think that’s extremely ill-mannered.

That his son’s circumcision was going to occur was background, context, for the subject matter of this thread. Just like his nonpracticing Catholicism, Robin’s nonpracticing Jewishness, their temporary living arrangements, and a bunch of other stuff.

So I suppose they’re fair game here for people who object to marriages outside either of their faiths, people who might be upset at their lack of devotion to said faiths to begin with, people who think religion is a bunch of fairy dust, and so forth and so on.

And people who want to debate the circumcision issue.

I think that’s absurd, quite frankly.

I don’t have a whole lot to add. To me, it seems quite unreasonable that everything one mentions as context for the issue one’s discussing should in turn be fair game for attack.

It may not be against board rules (and as I said in another thread, I’m not interested in proposing such a rule), but it sure as hell is pretty rude. Flagrantly rude, in Futile Gesture’s case, since the circumcision issue had been brought up already, and Airman had already tried to firmly close the books on it.

So Futile, kindly get a clue (and some manners). If you really want to debate circumcision, GD awaits; feel free to be our new Jack Dean Tyler. But there’s no earthly reason why you can’t leave the circumcision issue out of Airman’s thread about his MIL.

[gobear]

I alsoposted in firm agreement with RTFirelfy in that thread. While I believe that no subject is off-limits for discussion, twisting the topic of a thread to suit one’s own ends is very bad netiquette. The subject was AirmanDoors’ indignation at the financial and religious demands his MIL was making on bim, and that should have been the sole focus of replies in the thread. Futile Gesture lived up (or down) to his sobriquet in attempting to turn the thread into a referendum on circumcision.

My own .02: I’m snipped, and I have zero problems with sensation or performance. As a gay man who has encounterd all manner of Johnsons, I prefer cut to uncut; uncut one-eyed monsters, unless their owners are fastidious, are slimy, smelly, and highly unappetizing. Just my opinion, nothing more.

[Futile_Gesture]

Ahem.

Point 1: I didn’t ‘attack’ or flame anyone.

Point 2: My point was to make it clear that there was a double-standard at work here. I made it clear that the decision was his to make.

Point 3: If Airman didn’t want to discuss it all he had to do was say (or simply not comment). Instead he discussed it, made a statement that, I believe, to be factually incorrect, and then declared the matter was closed.

Point 4: Just about every other aspect of the context as you define it was raised and discussed in the thread. Do you get to pick and chose which ones are permitted to be mentioned based on which ones you agree with?

Point 5: If you start a thread in the BBQ Pit complaining about someone/something then you run the risk that not everyone is going to agree with you.

[gobear]

I don’t have a whole lot to add. To me, it seems quite unreasonable that everything one mentions as context for the issue one’s discussing should in turn be fair game for attack.

At the risk of beating one decomposed, rotten equine, I will hold that quote to be used the next time some well-meaning person interjects a you-know-what warning into a thread that touches, however tangentially, on men having intimate contact with one another.
Warning: I am not going to debate it here, so don’t even start. To quote Mammy Yokum, “Ah has spoken.”

[Jojo]

I was another one in that thread who questioned the wisdom of having the circumcision at all.

But then I got told off by Ms Whatsit and Airman Doors said the issue was closed so, out of respect for his decision (and fear of Ms Whatsit), I decided to say no more on the subject.

However Futile Gesture also has a point. By posting a message on a public board you are inviting responses. Some of these responses, you may not like or agree with, but there you go.

I still think there is a logical fallacy in the position adopted by Airman.

I wasn’t arguing about circ per se. My argument is as follows:

Since one of the parties in the relationship is Jewish then circumcision is bound to be a religious issue.

If neither party were Jewish then I could understand that the circ would be a non-religious issue.

But since one party is Jewish, then how can circ not take on religious overtones?

Even though you claim you are not doing it for religious reasons, the MIL (and all the other Jewish relatives) will assume that the circ makes little Aaron Jewish - whatever you say.

You can claim it is not a Jewish circumcision until you are blue in the face, it will make no difference.

By going ahead with the operation, you are forcing religion on the kid.

Thereby defeating your stated objective of keeping religion out of the relationship so far as possible.

The more logical (and braver) decision would be to not go ahead with the surgery and leave the littl’un how God made him.

So (I think) my point is directly relevant to the original OP not just a pointless sidetrack about circ.

[gobear]

Even though you claim you are not doing it for religious reasons, the MIL (and all the other Jewish relatives) will assume that the circ makes little Aaron Jewish - whatever you say.

Nope, li’l Aaron is Jewish because his mother is Jewish–circumcision alone is insufficient. Circumcision is the mark of accepting God’s covenant with Abraham–see Genesis 17:10-14, but the act alone is not enough to become a member of the tribe. Every Jewish male is snipped, but not every snipped male is Jewish.

[Green_Bean]

*Originally posted by gobear *
. Every Jewish male is snipped…

Not so.

[gobear]

Correct that to “almost every Jewish male is snipped.”

[Liberal]

RT

Does the issue you raised about your perception of my “you hate me” mantra in Squish’s thread apply here, or is it somehow different? There, Squish was bashing me for race baiting but you selected something else (my perceived hated fixation) as “fair game for attack”.

Could you explain how (or whether) Futile Gesture was out of line but you weren’t? Please understand that I don’t mean to pick a fight; I want to know how you reason this out so I don’t offend you or people who think like you in the future.

[Green_Bean]

I’d just like to spread the word that snippage is not a necessary condition of Judaism. We decided not to get the Sprout circumcised, and he is Jewish by any usual definition. (This has no bearing on Airman & Robyn’s decision, of course.)

[gobear]

Green Bean, see my third post in this thread:

Nope, li’l Aaron is Jewish because his mother is Jewish–circumcision alone is insufficient.

Libertarian

There, Squish was bashing me for race baiting but you selected something else (my perceived hated fixation) as “fair game for attack”.

No, he was criticizing the same thing Squish was, i.e., your propensity to play the martyr–“oh, pity the poor red man.” Nobody cares that you’re an Indian, any more than anybody cares that I’m half Choctaw. Really. All that anybody here notices is the quality of posts, not the ethnicity of the poster. Now, get over yourself, and stop the whining.

[Liberal]

Oh, okay. I thought it might be different for RT and for Futile Gesture. Just wanted to be sure, considering Futile’s five points and whatnot.

[Green_Bean]

I wasn’t responding to you, there, gobear. I did read your post, and appreciate your efforts to eradicate ignorance.

[RTFirefly]

Lib, I was elaborating on an issue you raised.

I will be happy to discuss this further in the original thread if you wish, since all the relevant quotes are there in plain sight.

gobear:

I will hold that quote to be used the next time some well-meaning person interjects a you-know-what warning into a thread that touches, however tangentially, on men having intimate contact with one another.

Please do. In the “Magical Sky Pixie” thread, I listed several examples of hijacks that I considered impolite, and that was one of them. (reprise should get credit for first bringing it into that thread.)

To quote Mammy Yokum, “Ah has spoken.”

Wow, does that ever bring back memories!

[RTFirefly]

Futile:

Point 1: I didn’t ‘attack’ or flame anyone.

So? You reopened an issue that Airman and Robyn were getting questioned on, after they’d thought they’d closed that door. OK, it wasn’t an attack per se, but it would have made Doors feel like he needed to defend a decision that he really wasn’t interested in discussing in the first place. So close enough, AFAIAC.

Point 2: My point was to make it clear that there was a double-standard at work here. I made it clear that the decision was his to make.

Yeah, some double standard. You must be referring to this:

I see. It’s ok for Airman to complain about his MIL for unreasonably insisting a tradition is followed. But it’s not ok for him to be questioned for following another mindless tradition at the same time.

That’s right, bub, and it’s not a double standard. It’s the distinction between the personal issue he went to the Pit to rant about, and the background fact you want to hijack the thread into a discussion of.

What could be clearer?

Point 3: If Airman didn’t want to discuss it all he had to do was say (or simply not comment). Instead he discussed it, made a statement that, I believe, to be factually incorrect, and then declared the matter was closed.

So it was how he declared the matter closed, that allowed you to reopen it? C’mon. Here’s what he said:

And as MsWhatsit says, the decision is made. For better or worse. I was circumcised, and I’m not up in arms about it. From both a religious and sanitary standpoint, it’s desirable, and any alleged loss of sensation will clearly not be missed.

In other words, that subject is closed.

I’m missing the part where any of that constitutes an invitation to reopen the circumcision discussion.

Point 4: Just about every other aspect of the context as you define it was raised and discussed in the thread. Do you get to pick and chose which ones are permitted to be mentioned based on which ones you agree with?

I missed the part where someone criticized their religiously mixed marriage. Or criticized Robyn for being an insufficiently observant Jew. Or Doors for being a semi-lapsed Catholic. Etcetera.

The issue of where Robyn was living was brought up because it was relevant to the issue of how much control the MIL should have over her life, which was the thread’s subject.

Point 5: If you start a thread in the BBQ Pit complaining about someone/something then you run the risk that not everyone is going to agree with you.

No.

Disagreeing, in this instance, would have been, “you should do what MIL asks”, or something like that.

“You shouldn’t circumcise the kid” wasn’t disagreeing with them in the issue under discussion. It was bringing up a whole 'nother issue, and disagreeing with them on that.

You could just as well have said, “You two shouldn’t have ever gotten involved, much less married and had a kid.” It was about as relevant a subject. Sheesh.