Right. I’ll drop any accusations of pedophilia to make the people I’ve just accused of maliciously risking the lives of infants feel better. That is how we do civil discourse around here.
You should drop the accusations of paedophilia because* there is no evidence of paedophilia*. You won’t see me complaining if you continue the accusations of justifying disgusting unhygienic practices in the name of God–there is plenty of evidence for that, after all.
The cite above your post says more like 1:4000.
Oh, this thread is bigger than I realized. Whatever, I’m not going to go through 2 pages of Bricker being obstinate and everyone getting exasperated with him.
You are accusing mohels of being pedophiles, but I have ceased my opposition to it.
Of course, now that I have changed sides, I no longer call it “sniggering.”
It’s wry observational humor.
Probably not, no.
anya marie:
The simple answer is, G-d said so. The reasons why G-d said eight days are generally thought to be because the world was created in seven days, so eight days means “beyond the natural” - i.e., capable of holiness. A similar law is true of animals; a sacrificial animal must be eight or more days old (Leviticus 22:27).
I don’t know what they used in ancient times, but these days, the circumcision wound is bandaged quite well. A mohel always instructs the parents in care of the wound following the ceremony. As for fecal contamination, infants that young don’t quite have the intestinal flora that we associate with the stuff the North Vietnamese used to coat their punji sticks.
Bricker, thanks for putting the sniggerers in their place. They may wish to claim to be disingenuous, but as much as they insist on protesting, you’ve shown them that they’re not fooling anyone.
I don’t think my efforts helped anything. In fact, I’d say the sniggers – excuse me: the wry observational humor – were validated by the Board’s response.
Indeed. My son was circumcized not too long ago. The mohel also happens to be a doctor at the OB/Gyn practice my wife patronizes. The wound was very easy to care for, and there was little chance of infection. We were able to take the bandage off after a pretty short time. My son was breastfed; he wasn’t defecating much of anything after 8 days.
It will take a lot of work to police the cheap shots around here.
That’s still not the point, though. It’s completely appropriate to characterize something you find distasteful using distasteful language. I might be persuaded to sanitize it a bit if I were giving a speech from the steps of City Hall. But nobody gets to control the discourse around here, and nobody appreciates the taste police.
Maeglin:
Hey, this is the Pit, I get it. But there’s distaste, and there’s deceitful intent. As in Bricker’s “Barack Hussein Obama” example, when people use a term which (much as they might have protested when Bricker called them out) is meant to make people think of pedophilia where there is nothing of the sort, it’s a chickenshit move (look, I can speak Pit too!), even in this forum.
What?
I’ve had three breastfed babies (100% breastfed, no supplementation or anything) and I assure you that all of them were defecating something in the first week.
Chickenshit is doing something that you know society finds at best distasteful knowing that you are putting someone else’s life at risk and not even having the balls to tell the parents the risks. That’s chickenshit.
Also, it’s chickenshit to accuse another poster of being antisemitic or intolerant for not agreeing to abide by your made up rules about what language is acceptable when referring to a stupid and misguided religious ritual. So right back atcha.
Three questions, Bricker:
-
How long must a practice be ongoing for it to be considered “longstanding”?
-
Are you stating that an act that is considered objectionable by society automatically becomes acceptable when the only variable that’s changed is whether that act is part of a longstanding religious practice?
-
Is there ANY act that a religious organization could do that you would find objectionable even if that organization could point to a longstanding tradition of doing said act?
I guess we can go back and forth on just how much pedophilia this actually connotes. I think it’s meant to make people consider the act in a visceral, graphic way instead of hiding behind euphemisms or linguistic distractions.
Occasionally I have to defend things that other people think are morally outrageous. It’s fair to say that I defend greasy assfucking, fetus termination, and all sorts of other disgusting things. Of course I think about these things differently than the outraged people do. I’m more comfortable debating abstractions about these things than the acts themselves. But they are all graphic, outrageous things and I own up to it.
The Obama analogy shows us how important framing an issue is. But this is obviously true. But it does not bite in this case, where there really is a graphic act and not merely insinuation or distaste for an individual as such.
Ok, that was a little too hasty. The first few days was that nasty tarlike stuff, and then a few days later, it was barely distinguishable from vomit. So what I meant to say is that stuff comes out, but it’s not exactly shit.
WTF? It doesn’t have to be paedophilic to be a disgusting unsanitary practice.
Ms Whatsit:
Sure, but aside from the initial burst of meconium, it’s liquid, yellowish and not all that smelly. I assume that Maeglin meant that they don’t poop out the sort of substance that immediately comes to mind when one thinks of feces.
Inner Stickler:
As with Bricker, I agree that it’s chickenshit for any mohels to refuse to abide by informed-consent rules and to be callous about infectious disease control. However, having been a witness to numerous circumcisions which have included metzitza b’peh, including four on my own sons, I can certainly say that the brief moment of penis-to-mouth contact that constitutes that act is a far cry from the image you attempt to evoke with the term “dick sucking,” however accurate the term might be (like using the president’s middle name to make people think he’s a Muslim). I can also assure you that the mohels I have dealt with have (at least since the practice was flagged as potentially dangerous) have made a point of wiping their lips with disinfectant before the circumcision. The sad part of this whole flap is that Rabbis who might have otherwise been reasonable to compromise on the issue (the essentiality of metzitza b’peh to the validity of the circumcision has been a subject of debate for over a century), but the nature of the opposition has led them to believe that if they compromise to this small degree, they will be opening the door to laws that restrict Jewish practice in worse ways. And given the way you are letting distaste rather than health concerns inform your views, I can’t say they have judged their opponents incorrectly.
Are there more jewish practices involving adults using their mouths on infants’ genitalia? If not, I think they can stop clutching their pearls. Lots of religions have had much less offensive practices stopped by the government. These rabbis, of which I am aware is a very small proportion of the rabbinical population, need to get over themselves.
Inner Stickler:
There’s one that involves adults using a knife on infants’ genitalia. There are people who find that distasteful.
Including Judaism, quite a lot.
First they came for the small proportion of Rabbis who support metzitzah b’peh, and I didn’t speak up, because I found the practice distasteful. Then they came for…
As long as they keep coming for the idiots clinging to non-nonsensical, possibly dangerous, bronze age sheep herder beliefs, I say let them come.