Oh fer Moishe’s sake!
It isn’t repugnant because these tone deaf relics are “sucking baby dicks”.
It’s repugnant because modern medicine/science/society.
Yeah, the baby dick sucking is just a bonus 
Come on, you have to accept that you’re gonna get some joking if you’re going to do stuff like this.
This isn’t ribbing. It’s an argument that the practice should be prohibited because of it evokes pedophilia.
I would suggest that an anaesthesiologist who insisted on performing mouth-to-mouth resuscitation during surgery when safer and more effective equipment was available would be acting improperly, even if he was motivated by the strongest of religious convictions. Particularly on patients who did not give consent to be operated on in the first place, let alone consent for unnecessary mouth-to-mouth contact.
I’m fine with shaming these assholes with the ‘stop fellating babies’ angle. Clearly the modern medicine/society angle is wasted on them.
I’m for whatever gets them to knock this shit off and drags them into the 20th century.
Absolutely. But you could not accurately criticize him for french-kissing his patients.
Let’s fight ignorance with … ignorance?
ISIS, or whatever name they go by now, think their religion justifies beheading people.
You don’t get to hand wave away heinous behavior because “religion”.
As a huge proponent of reason and opponent of unreason, it pains me greatly to say this but, in cases like this, maybe so. When you have unnecessary, unsafe, and unsanitary things being done to innocents incapable of consent, and those doing it are resistant to reason, then maybe shaming, even unfair shaming, is in order if it would stop them from doing harm.
Of course the best thing would be to make the practice illegal and then fine or incarcerate any who insist on continuing to do it.
No. But just as when I make fun of you for being a humourless pedant, I’m not saying I think you’re an idiot because you’re incapable of understanding humour, I’m saying that you need to take yourself less seriously and lighten up on the sematics, counselor.
In the same way that I don’t think these guys are fellating babies. But making fun of them as if they are is a way of shaming them into knocking it off because the world views some (many?) of their practices as archaic and legitimate grounds for ridicule.
Well, Plan A sure as hell didn’t work, did it?
It’s sucking babies’ penises, how can it NOT “evoke pedophilia”?
I think I get it now. I think our in-house counsel is defending the practice for completely selfish reasons. i.e If he was ever taking a piss in the bush and got bit on the dick by a rattle snake, any one of us would refuse to suck out the poison to save his life because of the ‘evoked blow jobiness’.
Truth is, he’s probably right.
Well, a little nagging might be helping. A little.
http://www.ozy.com/fast-forward/a-new-alternative-to-jewish-circumcision/32930.article
Brit shalom has a nice ring to it.
See what I mean?
It shouldn’t, because there is no remotely sexual gratification component to the practice.
But because of the willingness of dishonest debaters to frame the issue this way, this kind of question gets asked.
What was Plan A?
You assume there is no component. You cannot know if some of the practitioners don’t find it so. This is your opinion, not a fact.
Getting them to stop sucking baby’s dicks for God because it’s dangerous, remember?
Maybe I should have asked, “What was Plan A, and who was executing it?”
New York put an ordinance into place forbidding it; that ordinance is in effect right now, although it’s being challenged.
But I really don’t see the analogue here on the SDMB for Plan A – the focus on the danger without the sly implication of pedophilia. Where did that happen?
Nor am I. But it would be inaccurate to criticize ISIS by suggesting they are sexually excited by amputees, wouldn’t it?