Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
He's arguing against the right of parents in their religion. That's right out of 1920s USSR, or 2018 Saudi Arabia.

No hes not. He's arguing that a parent's right to practice their religion should not override their offspring's right to decide on permanent changes to their body.

like getting teeth pulled? Like vaccinations?

False equivalency given that there is a longstanding established benefit to vaccination, and teeth pulling.. I hope you do mean Wisdom teeth, rather then say just randomly yanking your childs teeth out. Because one is a medical benefit, the other would probably get CPS on you if you decided your child should go through life toothless, orr decide that there's some benefit for why your child is going to lose his molars permanently for some odds and ends you've decided.

Just trying to see where that is in someone's religion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
He's arguing against the right of parents in their religion. That's right out of 1920s USSR, or 2018 Saudi Arabia.

No hes not. He's arguing that a parent's right to practice their religion should not override their offspring's right to decide on permanent changes to their body.

like getting teeth pulled? Like vaccinations?

False equivalency given that there is a longstanding established benefit to vaccination, and teeth pulling.. I hope you do mean Wisdom teeth, rather then say just randomly yanking your childs teeth out. Because one is a medical benefit, the other would probably get CPS on you if you decided your child should go through life toothless, orr decide that there's some benefit for why your child is going to lose his molars permanently for some odds and ends you've decided.

There's a long standing benefit to religious instruction.
There is a small portion of people who react to vaccinations to the point of dying.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
He's arguing against the right of parents in their religion. That's right out of 1920s USSR, or 2018 Saudi Arabia.

No hes not. He's arguing that a parent's right to practice their religion should not override their offspring's right to decide on permanent changes to their body.

like getting teeth pulled? Like vaccinations?

Those have valid medical justifications.

Chopping off a part of your child's body because some half illiterate shepherd 3000 years ago claimed its what God wants you to do is not a valid medical justification.

Circumcision is religious instruction? I'm not actually sure what you are trying to say at this point anymore, because if that's the case most of the benefits as dictated by the medical community are small enough that there's no reason to fully institute a circumcision program.

While vaccinations there can be complications.. But the benefits are not negotiable, given the vast power vaccinations have had in eliminating disease and the overall herd effect it's had on allowing for many to survival communicable diseases. To say one is equivalent to the other is intentionally trying to obscure.

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
He's arguing against the right of parents in their religion. That's right out of 1920s USSR, or 2018 Saudi Arabia.

Are you in favor of female genital mutilation, pedophilia, child marriages, and the like?

There are religions who are for those things, and parents have the right to raise their children however they want.

Please quote where that's in a religion.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_marriage

https://www.hrw.org/news/2010/06/16/qa-female-genital-mutilation

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Berg

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
He's arguing against the right of parents in their religion. That's right out of 1920s USSR, or 2018 Saudi Arabia.

Are you in favor of female genital mutilation, pedophilia, child marriages, and the like?

There are religions who are for those things, and parents have the right to raise their children however they want.

Please quote where that's in a religion.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_marriage

https://www.hrw.org/news/2010/06/16/qa-female-genital-mutilation

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Berg

please show where they are in the Koran,etc. Else you are talking about local custom.

Well, the prophet Mohammed did marry a 9 year old girl or something like that, but afaik child marriage isn't mandated by islam or anything.
So like female genital mutilation it is a cultural (it is usually done to cement tribal alliances) rather than a religious custom. The big difference why I disapprove of these things but do not of circumcision is that those things have been shown to be harmful to children, whereas circumcision is not.

1st Book of Dakka, 3rd Letter to the MODerinthians:

4. When thy claim of infringement of the right of parents to raise their children in accordance with religious teachings, including the right to bodily modification of their children, is confronted with less culturally accepted religious preferences, do not admit that religious is always a “get out of jail free card”.
5. Instead give honor to The Lord Thy MODs by changing the argument that parents are free to raise their children according to religious customs*.
6. (*, for certain definitions of religion, subject to arbitration, see Dakkianity Terms and Conditions, no refund of DCM tithes)

Thus speakest our Server.

I feel like most the fire in this fight comes from non circumcised men - who at heart really just feel inadequate with themselves. The circumcised have no problem having more ergonomic stuff. This is literally a non issue as it actually improves the life of the "victim". It's probably the one barbaric custom that actually makes sense. Unlike female circumcision which can totally remove sexual pleasure and is done specifically for that purpose.

Look at the crazy stuff that undeveloped tribes practice! Wearing giant earings around their lips the size of soccer balls. Stretching out their necks with spacers. You see this stuff on discovery channel and the shows hosts calls that fascinating. Make a small snippet on a baby boy that will improve his genital hygiene and increase his confidence with women? BARBARIANS!

Furthermore - my parents are non religious and they chose to circumcise me just because that's what everyone was doing. It is a cultural thing - in fact - the few non circumcised friends I have. They are from non denominational Christian groups. That's probably not the norm but interesting nonetheless. Something else interesting - if the father then too probably is his son.

 Xenomancers wrote:
I feel like most the fire in this fight comes from non circumcised men - who at heart really just feel inadequate with themselves. The circumcised have no problem having more ergonomic stuff. This is literally a non issue as it actually improves the life of the "victim". It's probably the one barbaric custom that actually makes sense. Unlike female circumcision which can totally remove sexual pleasure and is done specifically for that purpose.

Look at the crazy stuff that undeveloped tribes practice! Wearing giant earings around their lips the size of soccer balls. Stretching out their necks with spacers. You see this stuff on discovery channel and the shows hosts calls that fascinating. Make a small snippet on a baby boy that will improve his genital hygiene and increase his confidence with women? BARBARIANS!

Personal insults and uncited assertions.

Yeah, you can't imagine how difficult life is for those who have to wash themselves properly.

I'm planning on removing my daughters' hands, because it's easier than teaching them how to keep them clean.



Having said that, while 'it's easier to keep clean' is a bizarre justification for cutting bits off your child anywhere with an adequate water supply, there are still parts of the world where it would be a worthwhile consideration.

I mean, I would rather see something done about ensuring everyone has access to clean and sufficient water rather than mutilating children... But the world is still some way away from that.

 insaniak wrote:
Yeah, you can't imagine how difficult life is for those who have to wash themselves properly.

I'm planning on removing my daughters' hands, because it's easier than teaching them how to keep them clean.

That’s why I don’t wear underwear.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I feel like most the fire in this fight comes from non circumcised men - who at heart really just feel inadequate with themselves. The circumcised have no problem having more ergonomic stuff. This is literally a non issue as it actually improves the life of the "victim". It's probably the one barbaric custom that actually makes sense. Unlike female circumcision which can totally remove sexual pleasure and is done specifically for that purpose.

Look at the crazy stuff that undeveloped tribes practice! Wearing giant earings around their lips the size of soccer balls. Stretching out their necks with spacers. You see this stuff on discovery channel and the shows hosts calls that fascinating. Make a small snippet on a baby boy that will improve his genital hygiene and increase his confidence with women? BARBARIANS!

Personal insults and uncited assertions.

How do you think circumsized men feel when they are called victims of genital mutilation? Do you think they roll into a ball and cry about it? No - they do not care and are almost unanimously happy with their parents decsion. The banning of a harmless and slightly benifical custom based on who knows what idealolgy is actually what is insulting.

Considering how much cottage cheese I’ve wiped off from circumcised penises, it may be a good thing to prevent more uncircumcised penises from entering the general population until we can have a comprehensive genital hygiene education program.

 insaniak wrote:
Yeah, you can't imagine how difficult life is for those who have to wash themselves properly.

I'm planning on removing my daughters' hands, because it's easier than teaching them how to keep them clean.



Having said that, while 'it's easier to keep clean' is a bizarre justification for cutting bits off your child anywhere with an adequate water supply, there are still parts of the world where it would be a worthwhile consideration.

I mean, I would rather see something done about ensuring everyone has access to clean and sufficient water rather than mutilating children... But the world is still some way away from that.

Some things are harder to clean than others...this is pretty much unarguable. Some things like...warm, dark, enclosed environments are better at breeding bacteria. Also lets not forget the purpose of the foreskin - to protect the member from being damaged. As we wear clothing now and always will - the foreskin was already on it's way out from an evolutionary standpoint (you must admit compared to other primates humans have quite exposed genitals). Who are you to stop the next phase of human evolution?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
Considering how much cottage cheese I’ve wiped off from circumcised penises, it may be a good thing to prevent more uncircumcised penises from entering the general population until we can have a comprehensive genital hygiene education program.

You are talking about disease. I am talking about crotch rot.

I’ve had enough penises in my hands to know all about crotch rot.

T M I!!!

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Well, the prophet Mohammed did marry a 9 year old girl or something like that, but afaik child marriage isn't mandated by islam or anything.

True this.

Child marriage is also less of a problem than it appears. Marriage has several stages in ancient custom, a girl is married at a very young age which is a ceremony of betrothal, a bit like an engagement plus, then there is a later consummated marriage.

Child marriages normally happen for one of two reasons, to secure a benefactor for the child and for political alliance. An example of the former is the knowledge that ancient societies had no such thing as a state welfare and a child marriage established provision, the second is just like any other form of political marriage but with delayed consummation. Julius Caesar married the 12 year old daughter of Gaius Pompey to secure an alliance between the two statesmen.

While there would likely be plenty of paedophiles around in ancient society there is no excuse to claim Mohammed or Caesar was one. It would also be ignorant for those to assume that ancient customs and procedures are identical to modern ones just because they share the same name and broadest purpose.

 Orlanth wrote:
Jews and Moslems have already spoken, your dogmatised meddling is unwelcome.

I don't care if it's welcome. Their child abuse is not welcome either.

All you have to offer is your hysterical hatred of religion.

No, I have my belief, which is shared by religious people (at least one of them posting in this thread) that personal freedom and the right to control one's own body takes priority over someone else's desire to cut bits off of that body.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orlanth wrote:
Besides you are missing the point, people from any point of the political spectrum can justifiably ask for a platform under free speech, safe spaces is about denial of sald platform.

That is not what freedom of speech means. Freedom of speech means that the government can not prevent you from speaking or punish you for speaking. It does not mean, and never has meant, that anyone is obligated to provide you with a platform to speak from. Safe spaces that decline to provide a platform for particular speakers are not an infringement of free speech rights.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:
How do you think circumsized men feel when they are called victims of genital mutilation? Do you think they roll into a ball and cry about it? No - they do not care and are almost unanimously happy with their parents decsion. The banning of a harmless and slightly benifical custom based on who knows what idealolgy is actually what is insulting.

Actually I've seen a lot of comments from circumcised men who are not happy with the fact that it was done to them without their consent. In fact, I'd guess that this is where the majority of the opposition comes from.

Wasn't this thread supposed to die like three or four pages ago? Judging by some of the quality comments we've had since that would probably have been for the better.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Jews and Moslems have already spoken, your dogmatised meddling is unwelcome.

I don't care if it's welcome. Their child abuse is not welcome either.

Prove your claim of child abuse. Recipients have no memory of the ritual, and it causes no harm, and it is purely a mark of membership of a racial, cultural and religious covenant, and it is respected in their community. Furthermore it is openly practiced in modern countries with very strict laws on child abuse, and nowhere as yet is it considered such.

If you think its child abuse call the child abuse hotline and shop your local synagogue, see how far you get.

Its time your intolerance, and hatred makes way so people groups can continue their ancient and open tradition as they have vocalised they want to do. And remember those Imams and Rabbis or common Jews and Moslems that call for non interference in their customs and practices are themselves circumcised by them, and have far better cause to claim to understand it than you do. Yet somehow they don't see things as you do, so should respect the great clearer understanding of those who have gone through the covenant themselves and the communities that support them.

 Peregrine wrote:

No, I have my belief, which is shared by religious people (at least one of them posting in this thread) that personal freedom and the right to control one's own body takes priority over someone else's desire to cut bits off of that body.

Your belief is not actionable over the rights of others when they have the weight of history on their side showing that the covenant does not cause harm. The fact that you are offended by it is irrelevant and is a sign only of your own intolerance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orlanth wrote:
Besides you are missing the point, people from any point of the political spectrum can justifiably ask for a platform under free speech, safe spaces is about denial of sald platform.

That is not what freedom of speech means. Freedom of speech means that the government can not prevent you from speaking or punish you for speaking. It does not mean, and never has meant, that anyone is obligated to provide you with a platform to speak from. Safe spaces that decline to provide a platform for particular speakers are not an infringement of free speech rights.

 d-usa wrote:
I’ve had enough penises in my hands to know all about crotch rot.

Now there's a sig.

 Orlanth wrote:
Prove your claim of child abuse. Recipients have no memory of the ritual, and it causes no harm, and it is purely a mark of membership of a racial, cultural and religious covenant, and it is respected in their community.

It is child abuse because it involves cutting off part of a child's body without their consent, and then hoping that when they're an adult they look back on it with approval. If that person decides to leave the community as an adult then they're stuck with a permanent symbol inflicted on them without their consent, plus the psychological effects (if any) of knowing that someone cut off part of their body without their consent and they just have to live with it.

Your belief is not actionable over the rights of others when they have the weight of history on their side showing that the covenant does not cause harm. The fact that you are offended by it is irrelevant and is a sign only of your own intolerance.

You do not have the right to cut off parts of someone's body without their consent. I don't care what history or tradition or whatever you have behind it, the weight of history ends when it infringes upon the rights of the individual being subjected to that history. Call me intolerant if you want, I'll proudly state that I am intolerant of child abuse.

You misinterpret safe spaces. Safe spacing is where those who use a forum deny access to others who would otherwise have right to speak there. So if a university allows a speaker that speaker should be heard and not blocked by safe spacers. That by the way is an infringement of free speech, especially when safe spacers blok access to listed invitees.

There is no right to speak at a university, and you are confusing safe spaces (a space with rules applied by the people running it to exclude certain unwelcome speech) with protests. And really what you're asking for is safe spaces for speakers to be invited to speak without protests, because it's really annoying to have protests saying " this guy".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orlanth wrote:
Its time your intolerance, and hatred makes way so people groups can continue their ancient and open tradition as they have vocalised they want to do.

I don't care if they vocalize their desire to commit child abuse. They can vocalize all they want, their desire to do it does not take priority over the rights of the children they wish to cut pieces off of.

And remember those Imams and Rabbis or common Jews and Moslems that call for non interference in their customs and practices are themselves circumcised by them, and have far better cause to claim to understand it than you do. Yet somehow they don't see things as you do, so should respect the great clearer understanding of those who have gone through the covenant themselves and the communities that support them.

I am aware that some people are happy with the outcome. Others, however, are not. That is why the answer is to ban cutting pieces off of children without their consent, and allow adults to make the decision on whether or not to undergo circumcision for whatever reasons they wish.

But tell me, how many men saying "I hate that this was done to me without my consent" do you consider an acceptable price for maintaining tradition, and the desire to cut parts off of children? What percentage of victims is it ok to create before it is no longer acceptable?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Prove your claim of child abuse. Recipients have no memory of the ritual, and it causes no harm, and it is purely a mark of membership of a racial, cultural and religious covenant, and it is respected in their community.

It is child abuse because it involves cutting off part of a child's body without their consent, and then hoping that when they're an adult they look back on it with approval. If that person decides to leave the community as an adult then they're stuck with a permanent symbol inflicted on them without their consent, plus the psychological effects (if any) of knowing that someone cut off part of their body without their consent and they just have to live with it.

I call you out on this again. If its child abuse why wait, go ahead be a good citizen and report it. The US has solid laws against child abuse.

https://www.childhelp.org/hotline/

What do you think will happen? Americans dont like child abuse, and will welcome your calling in abusers. Its especailly encouraged after Nassar.

A. Will you find yourself thanked for drawing to the attention of law enforcement child abuse practices in the local Jewish community?

B. Or will you more likely be told to stop wasting the time of important services and/or seek professional help for your hysterical delusions?

“It’s legal” is a gakky reason to pretend something is or isn’t abuse.

Conversion therapy is legal, it used to be legal to beat your spouse, it used to be legal to rape your wife, it’s still legal for schools to beat children in many areas.

Or C: as we often do, we will ignore the abuse because people refuse to acknowledge it for whatever reason. The fact that the courts will not find you guilty of that crime does not change the moral status of the act. I'm surprised that a religious and anti-statist person like you would reject the separation of legality and morality, and assume that an act can not be abuse in the moral sense unless the state is willing to make it illegal and punish it.

 d-usa wrote:
“It’s legal” is a gakky reason to pretend something is or isn’t abuse.

Conversion therapy is legal, it used to be legal to beat your spouse, it used to be legal to rape your wife, it’s still legal for schools to beat children in many areas.

Actually the law is what we have to go on. Yes it also be used to be legal to have a slave etc. However is that relevant here?

There are stringent laws in both the US and UK about child abuse, you can't pretend it's an ignored issue that is somehow overlooked. It isnt.

Furthermore by claiming that circumcision is child abuse you are calling out the Rabbis and Imams who practice circumcision child abusers. If you wish to make such a claim, or defend someone else who does then you need to show justifiable legal grounds.

You might not notice but its not acceptable to accuse people of being child abusers without actual evidence of a crime, it's not some throw in comment, it's a serious accusation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
Or C: as we often do, we will ignore the abuse because people refuse to acknowledge it for whatever reason. The fact that the courts will not find you guilty of that crime does not change the moral status of the act. I'm surprised that a religious and anti-statist person like you would reject the separation of legality and morality, and assume that an act can not be abuse in the moral sense unless the state is willing to make it illegal and punish it.

There is no C. Either its child abuse or it isn't. Its not an irrelevant accusation, its an important one. You are either legally right or legally wrong.

The point is that “it’s legal” is a stupid argument for anything, because society and culture can change what is legal.

Edit: and if we are now at the “you can only make arguments based on legal definitions and can’t use any term outside of their exact legal definition” stage of the thread, then it’s time for this guy and time to head out.

I’ve strapped a baby down and dipped the pacifier in sugar water for the crying baby while the doc was snipping away. That’s one of the things that turned me sour on the procedure. I’ve said my piece, I’ve pointed out stupid arguments, now it’s time to do something more productive. Maybe I’ll make sure there’s no smegma anywhere near my nethers.

We went from community bonding, to medical reasons to if it's legal it's not abuse.

Interesting methods of debate that's for sure, but if this bill passes in Iceland it will be considered child abuse by the legal terms of the law.

 Orlanth wrote:
Actually the law is what we have to go on. Yes it also be used to be legal to have a slave etc. However is that relevant here?

This is just proving my point. Slavery used to be legal, but it was never moral, not even when the law was still lagging behind morality on the subject. Just like cutting pieces off of people without their consent is morally abuse, even if the state does not recognize it as such.

Furthermore by claiming that circumcision is child abuse you are calling out the Rabbis and Imams who practice circumcision child abusers. If you wish to make such a claim, or defend someone else who does then you need to show justifiable legal grounds.

What legal grounds do I need? Morally speaking they are child abusers, whether or not they are convicted of the crime. I don't need to prove the legal issue in court to make the moral claim.

There is no C. Either its child abuse or it isn't. Its not an irrelevant accusation, its an important one. You are either legally right or legally wrong.

That's moving the goalposts. You asked what would happen if I reported it, and the third (of at least three, possibly more) possibility is that abuse is occurring but people will refuse to acknowledge it.