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 5th July 2017, 01:14 PM   #241
sadhatter
Philosopher
 
sadhatter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,307
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
The only criteria specified by Sadhatter is that it is elective surgery on someone who can't give consent.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk
Elective, a birth defect by definition is something that needs to be corrected.

You are essentially asking me how I can be against shooting random people but for self defense using firearms. And the answer is the same, because they are opposites.
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 5th July 2017, 01:15 PM   #242
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pie City, Arcadia
Posts: 21,283
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post

Parental consent suffices as it does in countless other decisions made on behalf of the infant.
US law on 'The surgical modification of female infants' genitalia for non-medical reasons' (aka as FGM) does not allow for "parental consent" as a justification for such procedures.

I made this point before and you seem to have missed it. Why would boys be different in this respect?
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut
GlennB 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 5th July 2017, 01:50 PM   #243
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 18,511
Originally Posted by Babbylonian View Post
And yet parental consent wouldn't suffice if a deaf couple wanted to eliminate the hearing of their child (to fit into their deaf culture), or if they wanted to remove their child's testicles (to eliminate the possibility of testicular cancer, perhaps because of a strong family history of same), or any number of other procedures with at best possible medical or cultural benefits.
I disagree that circumcision is comparable to rendering an infant deaf or to castration.

Originally Posted by Babbylonian View Post
Minor possible benefits.
Reducing the likelihood of certain diseases is a real benefit.

Originally Posted by Babbylonian View Post
No, thank you. Again, you can't seem to be bothered to get specific or address other very valid arguments (such as explaining why male circumcision is so very different from the more minor forms of "female circumcision").
I think your opinion of what constitutes a valid argument on this topic is very different from mine.

I think if someone wants to make an argument involving the minor forms of female circumcision (most likely based on a conflation fallacy) then they should do it.

Originally Posted by Babbylonian View Post
That makes your attempts to increase the burden of proof for the arguments against your very weak ones (e.g., paraphrased, "I'm fine with my circumcision") unreasonable.
I will continue to point out the obvious flaws I see in the arguments presented to me. If you see that as "trying to increase the burden of proof", then that's just something you need to deal with.

Originally Posted by Babbylonian View Post
This is particularly true since I specifically mentioned preemptive appendectomy, which is not generally considered a reasonable medical procedure despite the fact that it too would prevent [far more dangerous] infections in an allegedly mostly useless part of the human body.
Is anyone advocating preventive appendectomies for infants?

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk
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 5th July 2017, 01:53 PM   #244
Delphic Oracle
Graduate Poster
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 1,994
Quote:
Is anyone advocating preventive appendectomies for infants?
You lost what the point of that illustration was too, didn't you?

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk
Delphic Oracle 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 5th July 2017, 01:58 PM   #245
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 16,890
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post

Is anyone advocating preventive appendectomies for infants?

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk
No, is anyone advocating preventive circumcision in infant boys? Yes. Is anyone able to give a valid reason? No. Is anyone advocating FGM? Yes. Is anyone able to give a valid reason? No.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon 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 5th July 2017, 02:00 PM   #246
Delphic Oracle
Graduate Poster
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 1,994
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
No, is anyone advocating preventive circumcision in infant boys? Yes. Is anyone able to give a valid reason? No. Is anyone advocating FGM? Yes. Is anyone able to give a valid reason? No.
*sings*

One of these things is not like the others...

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk
Delphic Oracle 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 5th July 2017, 02:07 PM   #247
Babbylonian
Penultimate Amazing
 
Babbylonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 10,023
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
I disagree that circumcision is comparable to rendering an infant deaf or to castration.
As far as I can tell, you don't find male circumcision comparable to anything. It's so unique and special that tradition is enough to justify it even in the face of the reality that it's of little to no medical use and, in fact, likely results in lessened sexual enjoyment, not to mention the potential undesirable outcomes of botched circumcisions, in both cosmetic and functional terms.
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 5th July 2017, 02:08 PM   #248
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 18,511
Originally Posted by sadhatter View Post
So a foreskin is a defect that needs to be corrected? If you have evidence of this I'd change my position.
Rule of so strikes again! Straw-man argument is filled with straw and does not need a response.

Originally Posted by sadhatter View Post
Personally I thought that it was a normal functional part of the anatomy.
Yep, normally functioning, just like the rest of the skin.

Originally Posted by sadhatter View Post
You keep comparing cosmetic surgery with nessecary surgery,
Because they are both surgery.



Originally Posted by sadhatter View Post
I'm all about nessecary surgery, it's modifying children's bodies for no valid medical reason I'm against.
Then you will be happy to know that there are valid medical reasons one might choose circumcision for their boy, and if they are not strong enough for you to choose that for your son, you are under no obligation to do so. At the same time, other people may find that their cultural or religious heritage might sway them to make a choice you would not approve of, but that's the nature of living in a free society.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk
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 5th July 2017, 02:14 PM   #249
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 18,511
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
US law on 'The surgical modification of female infants' genitalia for non-medical reasons' (aka as FGM) does not allow for "parental consent" as a justification for such procedures.

I made this point before and you seem to have missed it. Why would boys be different in this respect?
Many laws are inconsistent with other laws, but that's not something I need to reconcile any more than you need to reconcile why we can't do female circumcision when we can do male circumcision.



Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk
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 5th July 2017, 02:16 PM   #250
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pie City, Arcadia
Posts: 21,283
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
At the same time, other people may find that their cultural or religious heritage might sway them to make a choice you would not approve of, but that's the nature of living in a free society.
For the fourth time ... US law doesn't allow that line of argument as a defence in the case of non-medically indicated alterations to the genitals of girls. Why should boys be different, legally speaking?

I'm beginning to suspect, by now, that Mycroft has me on ignore, such is his determination to ignore this very simple point.
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut
GlennB 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 5th July 2017, 02:21 PM   #251
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 18,511
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
No, is anyone advocating preventive circumcision in infant boys? Yes. Is anyone able to give a valid reason? No.
That is not correct, as there are minor health benefits to circumcision. They may not be significant enough for you to choose circumcision for your son, but other people will certainly come to different conclusions.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk
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 5th July 2017, 02:53 PM   #252
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 78,865
Mycroft's "argument" simple boils down to "if a parent wants to do it they should be able to do so". And that is it.
__________________
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 5th July 2017, 03:19 PM   #253
Ethan Thane Athen
Graduate Poster
 
Ethan Thane Athen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,779
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
I don't agree that your conclusion follows from your premise.

Do you believe that if female circumcision were limited to "nicking", and never included anything else such as cutting away the labia or clitoris, that it still would be called female genital mutilation?
Nicking is less than circumcision. Removal of the clitoral hood is probably the closest FGM to male circumcision and then there are forms I think we'd all agree are much worse. So one lesser (including a host of variants) one about the same and some worse, but all viewed as injuries caused for no medical reason and therefore illegal. And yet it's fine for boys due to religious and social reasons (both factors declared immaterial when it comes to equivalent or even lesser FGM) and all people can come up with apart from that is a desperate, post hoc (by several thousand years) attempt to find some vague, possible medical benefit - that can be equally achieved by basic hygiene.

I get that you're fine with it, it isn't that big a deal in most cases but can't you use your critical thinking skills to step away from your own personal experience and see that 'Well it usually doesn't cause any lasting trauma but it is pretty pointless so let's stop doing it'.

You seem to reject analogies but how about say a custom had grown up to remove babies fingernails? Started as a religious, tribal thing but hey, dirt can get stuck under them and if you don't clean it out it could get infected or, even more likely, you may suck your fingers and the germs will get inside you. Much easier to keep your fingers clean with no nails and you've never really missed them, after all, your hands still work fine. Then you find out that huge numbers of people don't rip their babies fingernails out and they all seem to get on fine. Wouldn't you draw the logical conclusion that it's a bit pointless and even, dare I say it, barbaric?
Ethan Thane Athen 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 5th July 2017, 03:23 PM   #254
Ethan Thane Athen
Graduate Poster
 
Ethan Thane Athen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,779
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
That is not correct, as there are minor health benefits to circumcision. They may not be significant enough for you to choose circumcision for your son, but other people will certainly come to different conclusions.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk
I'd correct that to 'It is purported that there are minor health benefits - usually by people with a vested interest or from a society heavily inculcated in the practice'.

If it was conclusively shown that on balance it's a pointless or even bad thing, would you change your mind?
Ethan Thane Athen 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 5th July 2017, 04:15 PM   #255
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 18,511
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Mycroft's "argument" simple boils down to "if a parent wants to do it they should be able to do so". And that is it.
That's a pretty accurate summation of the conclusion to my arguments, and it happens to be the conclusion the AMA agrees with.

The reasons I've come to that conclusion are:

1) It's a low risk procedure.

2)It does have some health benefits.

3)Inflammatory language equating it to mutilation, human sacrifice, female genital mutilation, chopping off hands, infant appendectomy and so on are hyperbole poorly supported by evidence.

4)Very little or weak evidence regarding decreased sexual ability balanced by other studies suggesting improved sexual performance.

Honestly I don't think it's a very important issue. I think a rational person could look at the science and go either way. I think those at both extremes of the issue, both radically pro or anti-circumcision are kooks.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk
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 5th July 2017, 04:17 PM   #256
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 18,511
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
For the fourth time ... US law doesn't allow that line of argument as a defence in the case of non-medically indicated alterations to the genitals of girls. Why should boys be different, legally speaking?

I'm beginning to suspect, by now, that Mycroft has me on ignore, such is his determination to ignore this very simple point.
I believe I just answered that in post #250?

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk
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 5th July 2017, 04:17 PM   #257
Delphic Oracle
Graduate Poster
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 1,994
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
That's a pretty accurate summation of the conclusion to my arguments, and it happens to be the conclusion the AMA agrees with.

The reasons I've come to that conclusion are:

1) It's a low risk procedure.

2)It does have some health benefits.

3)Inflammatory language equating it to mutilation, human sacrifice, female genital mutilation, chopping off hands, infant appendectomy and so on are hyperbole poorly supported by evidence.

4)Very little or weak evidence regarding decreased sexual ability balanced by other studies suggesting improved sexual performance.

Honestly I don't think it's a very important issue. I think a rational person could look at the science and go either way. I think those at both extremes of the issue, both radically pro or anti-circumcision are kooks.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk
Care to link these studies so I can dismiss them without consideration?

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk
Delphic Oracle 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 5th July 2017, 04:19 PM   #258
Delphic Oracle
Graduate Poster
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 1,994
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
I believe I just answered that in post #250?

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk
No, you sidestepped it.

Do you think parents should have the right to have FGM performed on their daughters?

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk
Delphic Oracle 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 5th July 2017, 05:37 PM   #259
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 18,511
Originally Posted by Ethan Thane Athen View Post
Nicking is less than circumcision. Removal of the clitoral hood is probably the closest FGM to male circumcision
I agree with that. I'm not aware of any group of people who do remove part of the clitoral hood, but if they did that would be a close analogy for circumcision.

Originally Posted by Ethan Thane Athen View Post
and then there are forms I think we'd all agree are much worse.
Practices that include cutting off the outer labia and/or removal of the visible clitoris. Sometimes even followed by sewing the vaginal opening closed. Often done with crude instruments such as razor blades or broken glass by people, often family, who are not medically trained.

And the worst part? Often done from late childhood to early puberty so the woman has a trauma that will stay with her for the rest of her life. Imagine a girl being held down, screaming, by several people while an elder digs her clitoris out with a razor blade?

The purpose? To sexually cripple the woman. They think it makes her more pure, less likely to be promiscuous, and more likely to stay with her husband instead of being attracted to another man.

Originally Posted by Ethan Thane Athen View Post
So one lesser (including a host of variants) one about the same and some worse, but all viewed as injuries caused for no medical reason and therefore illegal.
This fallacy is called "conflation".

You lump circumcision with female genital mutilation because you do see a correlation with the absolute mildest form of FGM, and then you pretend that it’s just a coincidence that it’s now grouped with these really horrific practices.

It’s fallacious because circumcising a boy, cutting a bit of skin from the end of his penis, is absolutely nothing like holding down a screaming pre-teen so you can cut off her labia then sew it up.

Equating these things is fundamentally dishonest and does nothing to inform the debate.

Originally Posted by Ethan Thane Athen View Post
I get that you're fine with it, it isn't that big a deal in most cases but can't you use your critical thinking skills to step away from your own personal experience and see that 'Well it usually doesn't cause any lasting trauma but it is pretty pointless so let's stop doing it'.
Disagreement with you is not evidence that I haven’t used my critical thinking skills.

Originally Posted by Ethan Thane Athen View Post
You seem to reject analogies but how about say a custom had grown up to remove babies fingernails? Started as a religious, tribal thing but hey, dirt can get stuck under them and if you don't clean it out it could get infected or, even more likely, you may suck your fingers and the germs will get inside you. Much easier to keep your fingers clean with no nails and you've never really missed them, after all, your hands still work fine. Then you find out that huge numbers of people don't rip their babies fingernails out and they all seem to get on fine. Wouldn't you draw the logical conclusion that it's a bit pointless and even, dare I say it, barbaric?
Actually not a bad analogy.
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 5th July 2017, 05:43 PM   #260
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 18,511
Originally Posted by sadhatter View Post
Elective, a birth defect by definition is something that needs to be corrected.
That is incorrect:

Google definition:

Birth defect: a physical or biochemical abnormality that is present at birth and that may be inherited or the result of environmental influence.

Another definition from a medical site: Birth defect: Any defect present in a baby at birth, irrespective of whether the defect is caused by a genetic factor or by prenatal events that are not genetic.

http://www.medicinenet.com/script/ma...ticlekey=11042

Originally Posted by sadhatter View Post
You are essentially asking me how I can be against shooting random people but for self defense using firearms. And the answer is the same, because they are opposites.

I can't parse that into anything that makes sense, so...no?
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 5th July 2017, 05:58 PM   #261
sadhatter
Philosopher
 
sadhatter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,307
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
That is incorrect:

Google definition:

Birth defect: a physical or biochemical abnormality that is present at birth and that may be inherited or the result of environmental influence.

Another definition from a medical site: Birth defect: Any defect present in a baby at birth, irrespective of whether the defect is caused by a genetic factor or by prenatal events that are not genetic.

http://www.medicinenet.com/script/ma...ticlekey=11042




I can't parse that into anything that makes sense, so...no?
So when I was in high school they explained how a definition that uses the word is a very poor definition. Kinda basic stuff, how hard did you have to cherry pick that one?

And if you don't understand how advocating for one thing does not mean you advocate for its exact opposite, then you are beyond both my and my high school English teachers help.
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 5th July 2017, 06:40 PM   #262
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 18,511
Originally Posted by sadhatter View Post
So when I was in high school they explained how a definition that uses the word is a very poor definition.
Then you clearly prefer the Google definition.

Originally Posted by sadhatter View Post
Kinda basic stuff, how hard did you have to cherry pick that one?
I literally picked the first two I found, but if you think they were cherry picked, then it should be super easy for you to find one that includes your "must be fixed" caviet, right?









Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk
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 5th July 2017, 06:48 PM   #263
Belgian thought
Graduate Poster
 
Belgian thought's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 1,578
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
Then you clearly prefer the Google definition.



I literally picked the first two I found, but if you think they were cherry picked, then it should be super easy for you to find one that includes your "must be fixed" caviet, right?









Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk
This has def/sended into a farce.
__________________
... 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 5th July 2017, 06:58 PM   #264
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 19,475
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
You lost what the point of that illustration was too, didn't you?

He didn't lose it.

He's hiding from it.
__________________
"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 5th July 2017, 07:57 PM   #265
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 23,224
Originally Posted by Belgian thought View Post
This has def/sended into a farce.
It's been a farce since at least the first Metro-Goldwyn-Meyer joke.

This signature is intended to irradiate people.
theprestige 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 6th July 2017, 12:27 AM   #266
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 13,247
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
Rule of so strikes again! Straw-man argument is filled with straw and does not need a response.

You compared your right to circumcise your child with the right to remove a birth defect like a birth mark. When this is repeated back to you, you dismiss it.

You can't just dismiss statements because they start with 'so'. Or because you think you can put a 'so' at the beginning.
__________________
Some seem to think the UK leaving the EU is like Robbie leaving Take That.
In reality it's more like Pete leaving The Beatles.

We are lions, not tigers.
Turns out I don't know a lot about tigers.
3point14 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 6th July 2017, 04:42 AM   #267
Seismosaurus
Philosopher
 
Seismosaurus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,119
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
If this constitutes and ďinjuryĒ or not is a fundamental part of our disagreement. I donít think it does, and nobody here is supporting it beyond presenting hyperbole or just making an assertion.
Arguing that cutting off a piece of a person's body is not an injury is an absurdity. On that basis one could argue that there is no such thing as an injury. "Yes I punched him in the face and broke his nose. But can you prove that a broken nose is an injury? No? Then I did nothing wrong."

Quote:
A claim supported only by your assertion.
No. A claim supported by the meaning of the word "injury". If you use a knife to cut somebody, that is an injury by definition. If I walked up to you with a knife and slashed you with it, and then tried to argue in court that I did nothing wrong because cutting you is not an injury, I'd be laughed out of the room.

Whenever an argument rests on redefining words to mean something else, it is the clearest sign possible that the argument is false.

Quote:
Iím wrong because Iím wrong? Thatís as good as any other argument Iíve seen.
If you don't like such arguments you shouldn't have made one.

Quote:
And the reason this is so unconvincing to me is that Iíve been circumcised and do not consider myself to have been mutilated or even harmed.
I can't understand why you even think that is relevant. The definition of mutilation contains no reference to how the mutilated person feels about what was done to them.

What would you consider to be a mutilating act? Suppose a parent took a knife and carved up their baby's face, leaving it horribly scarred. Suppose they cut out the baby's eyes. Suppose they chopped all its fingers off. Would you say they had mutilated it?

But if the baby grew up to be an adult and said "I don't consider myself to have been mutilated, or even harmed", then suddenly none of that would count as mutilation any more?

Quote:
I also strongly disagree that circumcision can rationally be compared to human sacrifice and child molestation.
Why not? I can see why you could argue that in cases of child sacrifice there is no adult to feel that it was an okay thing to do.

But take child molestation. If the adult victim says "I don't feel it was a problem. Hell, I don't even remember it happening," then by the standard you have put forward to excuse circumcision, child molestation would not count as a bad thing. So why would you be against it?
__________________
Promise of diamonds in eyes of coal
She carries beauty in her soul
Seismosaurus 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 6th July 2017, 04:52 AM   #268
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,333
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
Rule of so strikes again! Straw-man argument is filled with straw and does not need a response.
Wait a second. You offered birth defects as a parallel to foreskin removal and now that one makes the logical connection between the two based on your very words, it's a strawman?

Quote:
Many laws are inconsistent with other laws, but that's not something I need to reconcile any more than you need to reconcile why we can't do female circumcision when we can do male circumcision.
I would think that inconsistent laws should be addressed, no?
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon 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 6th July 2017, 05:06 AM   #269
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 18,511
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
You compared your right to circumcise your child with the right to remove a birth defect like a birth mark. When this is repeated back to you, you dismiss it.
Except you didn't repeat it back to me. You made a strawman and repeated that back to me.


Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
You can't just dismiss statements because they start with 'so'. Or because you think you can put a 'so' at the beginning.
I will dismiss strawman arguments. Your statement, "so a foreskin is a defect that needs to be corrected?" is a strawman, and was properly dismissed as one.


Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk
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 6th July 2017, 05:12 AM   #270
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 78,865
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
Except you didn't repeat it back to me. You made a strawman and repeated that back to me.




I will dismiss strawman arguments. Your statement, "so a foreskin is a defect that needs to be corrected?" is a strawman, and was properly dismissed as one.


Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk
So a foreskin isn't a birth defect?

Why did you apparently bring up the idea of a birth defect being treated is some how related to you wanting male infants to undergo the equivalent of some forms of female genital mutilation?
__________________
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 6th July 2017, 05:13 AM   #271
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 18,511
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
Care to link these studies so I can dismiss them without consideration?

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk
How about if I link to a study you provided?

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In the case of circumcision, in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being,parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child. To make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision. It is legitimate for parents to take into account cultural, religious, and ethnic traditions, in addition to the medical factors, when making this decision. Analgesia is safe and effective in reducing the procedural pain associated with circumcision; therefore, if a decision for circumcision is made, procedural analgesia should be provided. If circumcision is performed in the newborn period, it should only be done on infants who are stable and healthy.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/103/3/686

This is basically my position, informed by science and not hysterical hyperbole.
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 6th July 2017, 05:18 AM   #272
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 13,247
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
Except you didn't repeat it back to me. You made a strawman and repeated that back to me.

I will dismiss strawman arguments. Your statement, "so a foreskin is a defect that needs to be corrected?" is a strawman, and was properly dismissed as one.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

Let's go to the tape....




Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
Is that a blanket statement of principle? If my infant daughter had a birthmark or birth defect, would you object to my deciding to have it surgically corrected on the basis that she cannot give consent?
So, in a discussion regarding MGM, you point out that you should be able to, without consent, have your daughter treated for this defect.

Why did you raise this if it's not relevant? Why did you even begin to talk about birth defects in this discussion if it's not relevant. I will note, you brought this up.

The response was this:


Originally Posted by sadhatter View Post
So a foreskin is a defect that needs to be corrected? If you have evidence of this I'd change my position.

Personally I thought that it was a normal functional part of the anatomy.

You keep comparing cosmetic surgery with nessecary surgery, I'm all about nessecary surgery, it's modifying children's bodies for no valid medical reason I'm against.

Seems reasonable. You (nobody else) have drawn a parallel here. you've asked why, if you can have defects fixed, you can't chop bits off.

Then this:



Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
Rule of so strikes again! Straw-man argument is filled with straw and does not need a response.

What straw man? These are your terms everyone's repeating back at you. you raised the issue of birth defects. You asked why, if one can be fixed, the other can't be 'fixed' and you then decry such a parallel ans a strawman.

You know people can look back over the conversation, right?
__________________
Some seem to think the UK leaving the EU is like Robbie leaving Take That.
In reality it's more like Pete leaving The Beatles.

We are lions, not tigers.
Turns out I don't know a lot about tigers.
3point14 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 6th July 2017, 05:22 AM   #273
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 18,511
Originally Posted by quadraginta View Post
He didn't lose it.

He's hiding from it.
Really?

The argument that preventive appendectomies is a bad idea therefore circumcisions are a bad idea is such a magic bullet argument that I must hide from it or see my world-view crushed?

That makes sense to you?
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 6th July 2017, 05:27 AM   #274
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 78,865
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
How about if I link to a study you provided?

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In the case of circumcision, in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being,parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child. To make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision. It is legitimate for parents to take into account cultural, religious, and ethnic traditions, in addition to the medical factors, when making this decision. Analgesia is safe and effective in reducing the procedural pain associated with circumcision; therefore, if a decision for circumcision is made, procedural analgesia should be provided. If circumcision is performed in the newborn period, it should only be done on infants who are stable and healthy.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/103/3/686

This is basically my position, informed by science and not hysterical hyperbole.
And that extract like you gives no actual reasoning why we should take into account "...account cultural, religious, and ethnic traditions.." it simply asserts it.

It also of course does not explain why that "reason" is explicitly ruled out for those that wish to continue their "..... cultural, religious, and ethnic traditions.." and have their daughters undergo female circumcision.

ETA: Your reasons so far have included:

1) Did me no harm
2) A foreskin is smelly and dirty
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you

Last edited by Darat; 6th July 2017 at 05:28 AM.
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 6th July 2017, 05:30 AM   #275
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 78,865
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
Really?

The argument that preventive appendectomies is a bad idea therefore circumcisions are a bad idea is such a magic bullet argument that I must hide from it or see my world-view crushed?

That makes sense to you?
Now that is what is known as a strawman.
__________________
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 6th July 2017, 05:33 AM   #276
fagin
Illuminator
 
fagin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: As far away from casebro as possible.
Posts: 4,850
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
....
2) A foreskin is smelly and dirty
Mine is clean and sweet smelling, and I'm quite attached to it.
__________________
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda
fagin 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 6th July 2017, 05:34 AM   #277
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 18,511
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
I would think that inconsistent laws should be addressed, no?
In general? Sure.

By me personally? Why?
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 6th July 2017, 05:44 AM   #278
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 18,511
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
Let's go to the tape....

Indeed.



Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
So, in a discussion regarding MGM, you point out that you should be able to, without consent, have your daughter treated for this defect.

Why did you raise this if it's not relevant? Why did you even begin to talk about birth defects in this discussion if it's not relevant. I will note, you brought this up.

Why didn't you thread back one post further? to this:

Originally Posted by sadhatter View Post
I would still call it exactly what it is.

Call me crazy but elective surgery on those who cannot consent is something I'm against.
The point of comparison was on elective surgery on someone too young to give consent. It was not a statement that foreskins are birth defect.

Originally Posted by sadhatter View Post
You know people can look back over the conversation, right?
Right, so why didn't you go back far enough to put it in proper context?

Last edited by Mycroft; 6th July 2017 at 05:45 AM.
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 6th July 2017, 05:46 AM   #279
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,333
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
In general? Sure.

By me personally? Why?
To demonstrate some sort of consistency in your thinking. Do you think parents should be allowed to have the lesser forms of female genital mutulation performed?

Quote:
Why didn't you thread back one post further?
How does that help you? You still brought up birth defects as parallels to circumcision.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon 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 6th July 2017, 05:49 AM   #280
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 13,247
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
Indeed.






Why didn't you thread back one post further? to this:



The point of comparison was on elective surgery on someone too young to give consent. It was not a statement that foreskins are birth defect.



Right, so why didn't you go back far enough to put it in proper context?


I don't think the context changes in the slightest that you brought up the analogy, you raised the subject of removing birth defects to support your right to subject your child to MGM - you drew that paralell and you object when someone points it out.


I don't think you know what a stawman argument is, if I'm honest.
__________________
Some seem to think the UK leaving the EU is like Robbie leaving Take That.
In reality it's more like Pete leaving The Beatles.

We are lions, not tigers.
Turns out I don't know a lot about tigers.
3point14 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 10:42 PM.
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.