ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags circumcision , circumcision incidents , circumcision issues

Reply
Old 4th July 2017, 09:20 AM   #121
Delphic Oracle
Graduate Poster
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 1,762
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Why? Because I won't play along with your absurd scenario?

I've been straightforward throughout this thread. I've been open and honest about my experience. For that I've received insults and mockery. You don't want straightforward. You want dysfunction. A circumcised man has straightforwardly told you that the procedure caused him no noticeable suffering, and cost him no measurable function. You responded by creating a fantasy in which he's dysfunctionally incapable of acknowledging a problem he doesn't even have. Your argument is offensive. It's dishonest. It's anything but straightforward. You're not concerned about my foreskin. You're just upset because I'm not expressing Correct Thought.
I would like to reiterate that I created an entirely fictitious person and I have never once suggested any member here has a dead and/or gangrenous penis.

/facepalm

ETA: hard to know loss of measurable function if there was never unaltered function to measure. Hard to run an experiment with no control group.

I did link a study which showed a proper corrective procedure in circumcised adults with significant differences in "measurable function."

Hmmm...replies thus far continue to boil down to "don't you dare say that about my penis."

Last edited by Delphic Oracle; 4th July 2017 at 09:26 AM.
Delphic Oracle is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2017, 09:36 AM   #122
sphenisc
Illuminator
 
sphenisc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 4,617
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
Maybe you should read the whole thread rather than nitpicking in this way. We've been talking about an irreversible surgical procedure from the outset. Hair and nail clipping are irrelevant to the gist of the discussion.
Yeah maybe, or maybe not.
__________________
"The cure for everything is salt water - tears, sweat or the sea." Isak Dinesen
sphenisc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2017, 12:31 PM   #123
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 18,250
Originally Posted by sadhatter View Post
No one can logically defend cutting bits of of people as a practice...
I don't think it needs defending. It's a very safe procedure with minor benefits and only imaginary harm. Describing it as "cutting bits off of people" is hyperbole and downright silly.

Originally Posted by sadhatter View Post
It's like how if I were discussing the merits of having one leg or two.
A better analogy would be discussing the benefits of having webbing between your toes.

Originally Posted by sadhatter View Post
That being said it's a very illogical and shady debate tactic.
Not any more illogical and shady than your tactics of silly hyperbole or equating it to losing a leg.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk
__________________
Palestinian Refugees
Mycroft is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2017, 12:32 PM   #124
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 18,649
I wonder what the long term result would be if all references to circumcision, including within the medical community and literature, were to be replaced with "male genital mutilation".

"Is this Dr. Blade's office?"

"Yeah, we want to schedule our son's male genital mutilation."

"Thursday next? 9:00am?"

"Sure. That'll be fine."
__________________
"It never does just what I want, but only what I tell it."
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2017, 12:38 PM   #125
sadhatter
Philosopher
 
sadhatter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,113
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I know what gangrene is. I'm trying to figure out why Delphic Oracle keeps trying to make an analogy between reporting no ill effects from circumcision and reporting no ill effects from gangrenous limb loss.
Oh so you just didn't get any of it, I'd have more sympathy but the analogy and it's point have been explained quite a few times.
sadhatter is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2017, 12:39 PM   #126
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 18,250
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
That is not serious answer to the actual question, if it was you'd be up to the millions and equating a male's foreskin to a dead skin cell.
The actual question is a "slippery slope" argument. It doesn't follow that believing circumcision is okay that a person must have and justify a whole list of acceptable procedures.

It's silly.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk
__________________
Palestinian Refugees
Mycroft is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2017, 12:41 PM   #127
sadhatter
Philosopher
 
sadhatter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,113
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
A lot of men actually quite like the idea of having a sub par penis. Try not to stereotype so hard.

Anyway, some people in this thread seem to be extremely triggered by the idea of male circumcision. Personally, I think the practice should probably be discontinued. It doesn't seem to have much benefit, and it brings a lot of unnecessary risks. But that said--and also personally--as a "victim" of the procedure I really don't get the outrage being expressed by some people here.

I mean, you keep making all these appeals to emotion, and I'm like, what? You're trying to tell me how I'm supposed to feel about my own dick? That's the argument you're going with? Honestly, I think you're probably more unhappy about my penis than I am. Which is why I asked.

But hey, if you're uncomfortable talking about my penis, that's okay. Go ahead and make your calm, medical argument against male circumcision. Let's see if you can manage it without the melodrama.
Please show me how my arguement is emotional in nature.
sadhatter is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2017, 12:45 PM   #128
sadhatter
Philosopher
 
sadhatter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,113
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
I don't think it needs defending. It's a very safe procedure with minor benefits and only imaginary harm. Describing it as "cutting bits off of people" is hyperbole and downright silly.



A better analogy would be discussing the benefits of having webbing between your toes.



Not any more illogical and shady than your tactics of silly hyperbole or equating it to losing a leg.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk
Only imaginary harm.

So a Google search of botched circumcision should return no results then?

Also I was not equating it to losing a leg, I was showing an example of why people tend to stop arguing when someone refuses to not personalize an arguement.

Read people's whole post and you will find your level of understanding rises.
sadhatter is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2017, 12:49 PM   #129
sadhatter
Philosopher
 
sadhatter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,113
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
The actual question is a "slippery slope" argument. It doesn't follow that believing circumcision is okay that a person must have and justify a whole list of acceptable procedures.

It's silly.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk
But if you say it is okay people are going to ask for your logic. If said logic is inconsistent people are not going to be convinced.

It would be like if I said it is acceptable to steal a chocolate bar but not a similarly priced bag of skittles. If I cannot logically state why the two are different enough to warrent support one but not the other three chances of me convincing people are going to be close to zero.
sadhatter is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2017, 12:58 PM   #130
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 18,250
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Why? Because I won't play along with your absurd scenario?

I've been straightforward throughout this thread. I've been open and honest about my experience. For that I've received insults and mockery. You don't want straightforward. You want dysfunction. A circumcised man has straightforwardly told you that the procedure caused him no noticeable suffering, and cost him no measurable function. You responded by creating a fantasy in which he's dysfunctionally incapable of acknowledging a problem he doesn't even have. Your argument is offensive. It's dishonest. It's anything but straightforward. You're not concerned about my foreskin. You're just upset because I'm not expressing Correct Thought.
QFT.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk
__________________
Palestinian Refugees
Mycroft is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2017, 01:01 PM   #131
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 18,250
Originally Posted by sadhatter View Post
Please show me how my arguement is emotional in nature.
The following is purely emotive.

Originally Posted by quadraginta View Post
I wonder what the long term result would be if all references to circumcision, including within the medical community and literature, were to be replaced with "male genital mutilation".

"Is this Dr. Blade's office?"

"Yeah, we want to schedule our son's male genital mutilation."

"Thursday next? 9:00am?"

"Sure. That'll be fine."

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk
__________________
Palestinian Refugees
Mycroft is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2017, 01:04 PM   #132
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 18,250
Originally Posted by sadhatter View Post
Only imaginary harm.

So a Google search of botched circumcision should return no results then?
Rule of so.

Originally Posted by sadhatter View Post
Read people's whole post and you will find your level of understanding rises.
I did. The removal of a piece of skin is still not comparable to a leg.


Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk
__________________
Palestinian Refugees
Mycroft is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2017, 01:19 PM   #133
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 18,250
Originally Posted by sadhatter View Post
But if you say it is okay people are going to ask for your logic. If said logic is inconsistent people are not going to be convinced.
It's been okay for thousands of years now, so I would think it would be more natural to enquire about the logic of the person who believes they have the right to interfere with someone else's decision.

As for my logic, I've already explained it. It's a very low risk procedure with some minor benefits.

Originally Posted by sadhatter View Post
It would be like if I said it is acceptable to steal a chocolate bar but not a similarly priced bag of skittles. If I cannot logically state why the two are different enough to warrent support one but not the other three chances of me convincing people are going to be close to zero.
I think the onus is on you to say why your opinion gives you the right to interfere with someone else's decisions.


Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk
__________________
Palestinian Refugees
Mycroft is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2017, 01:24 PM   #134
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 18,649
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
The following is purely emotive.

Why is a medically accurate description of the procedure "purely emotive".

""Emotive"? Perhaps. Many medically accurate descriptions have that quality. Being emotion, the relevance tends to vary with the individual.

But "purely"? I don't think so, unless you are trying to dismiss the medically accurate part entirely.

An effort which some might view as "emotive" in its own right.
__________________
"It never does just what I want, but only what I tell it."
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2017, 01:27 PM   #135
Babbylonian
Philosopher
 
Babbylonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 9,792
My mother actually apologized to me - out of the blue - for having my foreskin removed. She learned the facts and decided that she had done the wrong thing due to her perception of societal norms. I was touched and, once again, impressed by her ability to discard bad information when provided with better information.
Babbylonian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2017, 01:46 PM   #136
Ryokan
Insert something funny here
 
Ryokan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Norway
Posts: 9,712
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
Rule of so.
The stupidest rule on the internet.

Only imaginary harm?

The public debate on male circumcision in Norway started not so long ago because there were deaths.

Yes, deaths. From circumcision, on a baby boy, in a hospital, by a doctor. It happens.

Of course, deaths are rare. But it happens. Much more common are botched circumcisions. It's a very small area to operate on. Cutting away too much is not uncommon. I suggest you do try that google search.

I mean, I didn't use the word "so", so you'll give more credence to my post, right?
Ryokan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2017, 01:47 PM   #137
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 78,001
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Why? Because I won't play along with your absurd scenario?

I've been straightforward throughout this thread. I've been open and honest about my experience. For that I've received insults and mockery. You don't want straightforward. You want dysfunction. A circumcised man has straightforwardly told you that the procedure caused him no noticeable suffering, and cost him no measurable function. You responded by creating a fantasy in which he's dysfunctionally incapable of acknowledging a problem he doesn't even have. Your argument is offensive. It's dishonest. It's anything but straightforward. You're not concerned about my foreskin. You're just upset because I'm not expressing Correct Thought.
That is not factually correct, a circumcision removes functional tissue.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2017, 01:50 PM   #138
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 78,001
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
I don't think it needs defending. It's a very safe procedure with minor benefits and only imaginary harm. Describing it as "cutting bits off of people" is hyperbole and downright silly.

...snip...
It removes functional tissue i.e. it removes, skin, nerves and so on. The "harm" may be slight but it is certainly not imaginary.

And of course there is the very real issue of serious complications following the surgical procedure.


Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
...snip...

A better analogy would be discussing the benefits of having webbing between your toes. ..snip...
Er no it wouldn't.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2017, 01:51 PM   #139
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 78,001
Originally Posted by quadraginta View Post
I wonder what the long term result would be if all references to circumcision, including within the medical community and literature, were to be replaced with "male genital mutilation".

"Is this Dr. Blade's office?"

"Yeah, we want to schedule our son's male genital mutilation."

"Thursday next? 9:00am?"

"Sure. That'll be fine."
The campaign against female genital mutilation used this approach and it seems to have had the desired effect.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2017, 01:52 PM   #140
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 78,001
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
The actual question is a "slippery slope" argument. It doesn't follow that believing circumcision is okay that a person must have and justify a whole list of acceptable procedures.

It's silly.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk
But it does show a lack of consistency in reasoning.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2017, 01:56 PM   #141
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 78,001
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
...snip..



I think the onus is on you to say why your opinion gives you the right to interfere with someone else's decisions.


Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk
Most people who are against circumcision in infants are absolutely fine with an adult making the decision to have a circumcision for whatever reason. By making a choice for an infant you are removing the future choice for that adult, why is it important to remove that choice?
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2017, 01:58 PM   #142
GlennB
In search of pi(e)
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pie City, Arcadia
Posts: 20,724
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
It's been okay for thousands of years now, so ...
Rule of "It's been okay for thousands of years now, so ... "

Do you see how absurd that line of argument is?

"It was OK to engage in bear-baiting and burning witches for a thousand years, so ..." ... we carry on doing those things? ffs

It hasn't "been OK" at all. There are no benefits and some significant-but-variable deficits, and the whole caboodle is based on a mythical meeting between a deity and 'some dude called Abram'.
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut
GlennB is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2017, 01:59 PM   #143
Belgian thought
Graduate Poster
 
Belgian thought's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 1,533
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
It removes functional tissue i.e. it removes, skin, nerves and so on. The "harm" may be slight but it is certainly not imaginary.
Unlike the reason it is done for i.e. imaginary entities - even those dreamt up thousands of years ago. No logical reason for it at all but, emotions.
__________________
... er, that's it
Belgian thought is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2017, 02:24 PM   #144
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 18,250
Originally Posted by quadraginta View Post
Why is a medically accurate description of the procedure "purely emotive".
Because the only argument in that post was emotive.

Imagine the same argument being used for abortions? [i]"I wonder what the long term result would be if all references to abortion, including within the medical community and literature, were to be replaced with 'prenatal infanticide?'"

Originally Posted by quadraginta View Post
""Emotive"? Perhaps. Many medically accurate descriptions have that quality. Being emotion, the relevance tends to vary with the individual.
I can't think of any. Can you name a few?

Originally Posted by quadraginta View Post
But "purely"? I don't think so, unless you are trying to dismiss the medically accurate part entirely.
What was the "medically accurate" part of that post?

.
__________________
Palestinian Refugees
Mycroft is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2017, 02:41 PM   #145
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 18,250
Originally Posted by Ryokan View Post
The stupidest rule on the internet.
It's pretty good when, as in this case, the "so" is followed by some conclusion that doesn't follow from what I said.

Originally Posted by Ryokan View Post
Only imaginary harm?
Right, and I was referring to imaginary harm as stated by some of the more extreme "intactivists" who make absurd claims such as that the foreskin is super-sensitive, more like a male clittorus, and it's removal is devastating to the person's sex life. I was not referring to actual harm as can happen in rare cases.

Originally Posted by Ryokan View Post
The public debate on male circumcision in Norway started not so long ago because there were deaths.
Right...and picked up and promoted by some anti-Immigrant political parties, correct? Because this issue effects some populations more than others, correct? Populations that are sometimes regarded as less desirable?

Originally Posted by Ryokan View Post
Yes, deaths. From circumcision, on a baby boy, in a hospital, by a doctor. It happens.
It is relevant that deaths do happen and also that they are rare.
__________________
Palestinian Refugees
Mycroft is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2017, 02:44 PM   #146
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 18,250
Originally Posted by Belgian thought View Post
Unlike the reason it is done for i.e. imaginary entities - even those dreamt up thousands of years ago. No logical reason for it at all but, emotions.
If your reasoning is anti-religious, then it's also anti-cultural for those people who follow those religions.

Invoking this as a reason not to have your own sons circumcised makes perfect sense as it is you invoking your own religious freedom. Invoking this as a reason to prevent someone else from doing it to their sons is an action to suppress their religious freedom.
__________________
Palestinian Refugees
Mycroft is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2017, 02:45 PM   #147
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 18,250
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
By making a choice for an infant you are removing the future choice for that adult, why is it important to remove that choice?
When did I ever say it's important to remove that choice?
__________________
Palestinian Refugees
Mycroft is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2017, 02:49 PM   #148
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 18,250
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
That is not factually correct, a circumcision removes functional tissue.
The function being to keep a few drops of urine on the glans to promote inflammation and bad smell, and also as a collection place for smegma.
__________________
Palestinian Refugees
Mycroft is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2017, 03:07 PM   #149
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 22,182
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
It's pretty good when, as in this case, the "so" is followed by some conclusion that doesn't follow from what I said.
The rule of so refers to the setting up of a strawman, as when someone says they think military expenditure should be reduced: "so you're saying that it would be okay if North Korea invades and kills everyone - so, you're saying you want that to happen, right?"

Quote:
Right, and I was referring to imaginary harm as stated by some of the more extreme "intactivists" who make absurd claims such as that the foreskin is super-sensitive, more like a male clittorus, and it's removal is devastating to the person's sex life. I was not referring to actual harm as can happen in rare cases.
This is not remotely obvious from what you said, and it fails to address the argument that such elective surgery can cause complications which cause real harm. This alone is a reason to not do the procedure, in my opinion, unless a demonstrable benefit outweighs it. It seems to me that in *rare* cases the possible benefits outweigh the risks, but in countries where it is prevalent, "rare" botched circumcisions seem to be the price that the society is willing to pay for prolonging a cultural practice. And that brings us to the second point which is that the recipients of circumcision don't get to vote on this. If you want to make this a matter of choice then the only choice that makes sense in a rights-based system is that of the person circumcised in which case I suggest they can choose at eighteen.


Quote:
Right...and picked up and promoted by some anti-Immigrant political parties, correct? Because this issue effects some populations more than others, correct? Populations that are sometimes regarded as less desirable?
Now this is just well-poisoning. You're against circumcision, and Nazis are against circumcision, therefore you are a Nazi. Let's imagine that the Nazis are against circumcision. Hey, the Nazis are right. They may be right for the wrong reasons and motivated by ethnic hatred but if they are against circumcision then they arrived at the correct conclusion. Let's not try and scare people off and allow the Nazis to be the only people who are right about this. That would be handing them an undeserved moral victory.

Quote:
It is relevant that deaths do happen and also that they are rare.
Yes, rare, and unnecessary. Let's not have any more unnecessary deaths eh? I'm sure you will agree with that.
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2017, 03:07 PM   #150
Delphic Oracle
Graduate Poster
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 1,762
We men are not just ignorant about our own sex organs, we're damn proud of that ignorance.

Wow.

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk
Delphic Oracle is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2017, 03:12 PM   #151
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 22,182
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
If your reasoning is anti-religious, then it's also anti-cultural for those people who follow those religions.

Invoking this as a reason not to have your own sons circumcised makes perfect sense as it is you invoking your own religious freedom. Invoking this as a reason to prevent someone else from doing it to their sons is an action to suppress their religious freedom.
No problem. I think when "religious freedom" impinges on the freedom of others then it is correct to deny it. Your argument only works if you can extend it to FGM, suttee and cutting off the hands of thieves etc...
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2017, 03:45 PM   #152
Belgian thought
Graduate Poster
 
Belgian thought's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 1,533
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
If your reasoning is anti-religious, then it's also anti-cultural for those people who follow those religions.

Invoking this as a reason not to have your own sons circumcised makes perfect sense as it is you invoking your own religious freedom. Invoking this as a reason to prevent someone else from doing it to their sons is an action to suppress their religious freedom.
No - "No logical reason for it at all but, emotions."
__________________
... er, that's it
Belgian thought is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2017, 04:32 PM   #153
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 18,250
Originally Posted by Belgian thought View Post
No - "No logical reason for it at all but, emotions."
And religious and cultural freedom.
__________________
Palestinian Refugees
Mycroft is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2017, 04:37 PM   #154
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 18,250
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
No problem. I think when "religious freedom" impinges on the freedom of others then it is correct to deny it. Your argument only works if you can extend it to FGM, suttee and cutting off the hands of thieves etc...
I disagree that I need to justify sati, FGM, and chopping off hands to says that circumcision should be left to the decision of the parents, because none of those are comparable to circumcision.
__________________
Palestinian Refugees
Mycroft is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2017, 04:38 PM   #155
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 18,250
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
We men are not just ignorant about our own sex organs, we're damn proud of that ignorance.

Wow.

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk
Educate us.
__________________
Palestinian Refugees
Mycroft is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2017, 04:43 PM   #156
Belgian thought
Graduate Poster
 
Belgian thought's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 1,533
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
And religious and cultural freedom.
If they are illogical, and I would add that the religious aspect drives the culture, then they are not to be considered as a valid starting point to this argument i.e. whether chopping bits of male babies or later female children (when it comes to FGM) stems from correct initial critical thinking.
__________________
... er, that's it

Last edited by Belgian thought; 4th July 2017 at 04:49 PM.
Belgian thought is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2017, 05:09 PM   #157
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 18,250
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
The rule of so refers to the setting up of a strawman...
Agreed. Sadhatter's claim that "So a Google search of botched circumcision should return no results then?" was a strawman, though less extreme than your example.

Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
This is not remotely obvious from what you said...
Fair enough, I hope my clarification puts this line to rest.

Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
...and it fails to address the argument that such elective surgery can cause complications which cause real harm. This alone is a reason to not do the procedure, in my opinion, unless a demonstrable benefit outweighs it.
There are benefits, albiet minor ones. There are also small risks. I think it's possible for reasonable people to weigh the benefits and risks and come to different conclusions. What gives your opinion so much weight that we should deny the rights of others to make decisions about their children?

Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
It seems to me that in *rare* cases the possible benefits outweigh the risks...
I disagree that would be rare.

Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
Now this is just well-poisoning. You're against circumcision, and Nazis are against circumcision, therefore you are a Nazi.
That second sentence is a straw-man.

The first sentence...it's part of the issue, and I see no good reason to pretend it isn't.

Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
Yes, rare, and unnecessary. Let's not have any more unnecessary deaths eh? I'm sure you will agree with that.
Disingenuous.
__________________
Palestinian Refugees
Mycroft is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2017, 05:11 PM   #158
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 18,250
Originally Posted by Belgian thought View Post
If they are illogical, and I would add that the religious aspect drives the culture, then they are not to be considered as a valid starting point to this argument i.e. whether chopping bits of male babies or later female children (when it comes to FGM) stems from correct initial critical thinking.
Since we don't put these burdens on any other aspect of religious and cultural freedoms, why should I agree with these assertions?
__________________
Palestinian Refugees
Mycroft is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2017, 05:21 PM   #159
Belgian thought
Graduate Poster
 
Belgian thought's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 1,533
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
Since we don't put these burdens on any other aspect of religious and cultural freedoms, why should I agree with these assertions?
We should apply critical thought to all aspects of religious and cultural freedoms.

We are concentrating here on one aspect, namely the mutilation of children, and more precisely on this thread, male infants.

If you wish to bring other aspects of religious and cultural freedoms, feel free to start a new thread.

Please do not muddy the water.
__________________
... er, that's it
Belgian thought is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2017, 05:47 PM   #160
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 18,250
Originally Posted by Belgian thought View Post
We should apply critical thought to all aspects of religious and cultural freedoms.
That would be anti-religious and cultural freedom.

Originally Posted by Belgian thought View Post
We are concentrating here on one aspect, namely the mutilation of children, and more precisely on this thread, male infants.
I disagree that circumcision equals mutilation, and I believe your reliance on that emotive term underlines the overall weakness of your argument.

Originally Posted by Belgian thought View Post
If you wish to bring other aspects of religious and cultural freedoms, feel free to start a new thread.

Please do not muddy the water.
You are asserting a right to interfere with someone else's religious and cultural freedom. I think it's appropriate to explore the basis of that assertion. I disagree that I have "muddied the waters" in any way, and reserve the right to raise whatever issues I deem appropriate to convey my point of view and to challenge yours.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk
__________________
Palestinian Refugees
Mycroft is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

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 On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:34 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.