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.
'Religious Freedom' shouldn't be a blanket permission slip for parents to do what they want to their children.
It isnt.
However 'political correctness' should not be blanket permission to redact another people groups culture because it offend your own sensibilities.
I face this point strongly at you. If you want to ban something pre-existing in a cultural group, prove harm. Prove to Jews and Moslems that they and their children are better off without circumcision, prove where it has harmed them. If you manage to do that you might have the beginning of a point. Yet it would be the height of arrogance to even try the first part, because you are not a fair or empowered arbiter of what Jews and Moslems should consider wholesome to their cultural and people group. As for the second millenia of history speak against you, all you have for you are the vocal sensibilities of a modern minority airing a never before presented mass grievance to a millenai old non-problem.
So really it comes down to this. Your (collective to those who oppose the cultural tradition of circumcison, so I am not singling out any single person) personal delicate sensibilities are in your opinion a moral trump over the collective will of an entire people group. At best I can call that deluded and arrogant, and it a hallmark of the false moral superiority the politically correct consider themselves to have.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:What gives you the right to force YOUR choice to circumcise and your religion onto a child?
I guess the same thing that gives you the right to force YOUR choice onto a religious community?
No choice is being made. That's the difference. You're making a choice to actively alter something that can't be revoked - an irreversable choice that cannot be rescinded.
The alternative is to let the child have autonomy over their own body and choose to have it later in life - when they can actually consent.
Sgt_Smudge wrote:But surely the default is to do NOTHING? If a child is circumcised, they can't go back and change that if they later want to when they can actually choose. If a child is uncircimcised, they can go and say "yeah, I'll have the cut" whenever they want to. If they do.
Doing nothing =/= forcing someone's choices.
Forcing people to do nothing is very much forcing your choices. Saying circumcision is not okay is your opinion. Saying circumcision should not be allowed is your choice, not that of the parents or that of the child.
Also, there is no such thing as 'default' outside of computer programs. Default is only default because the system is programmed to see it as the default. It works the same way in real life. What is 'default' or normal is only normal because our brains have been conditioned to see it as such. Different cultures have different 'programming' so to speak and therefore do not see the things you see as default or normal as normal. Ergo, 'default' and normal do not objectively exist. They are cultural concepts that vary from community to community.
Sorry, what?!
So if MY culture believes that all left arms should be cut off, that's okay? Because there's no natural default - such as, I don't know, newborn - where we start out from when we enter the world?
Sweet.
Guess I can happily lop the left limbs from everyone in my culture, because that's okay. What? People are complaining that they don't have all the body parts they started out with? Well, they couldn't tell me no, therefore it's completely up to me!
No. There is absolutely a default when it comes to the human body. It's called newborn. Genetic mutations, that's part of that default. Everyone's "default" is different. But everyone HAS one. One bereft of scars, piercings, hair dyes and styles, clothing, etc etc. Culture can change that, but there IS a default. The VAST majority of children are born with foreskins with no damage. That's a default for all those children. To suggest otherwise would support the idea that it's not "normal" for us to have four limbs.
That is just your opinion. Other people may disagree with your opinion. Why is your opinion superior to theirs, and why should your opinion be forced on those people?
Because my opinion isn't deciding one for a child that can't consent.
If you want to go with the "it's just an opinion bro" - what says I can't do the same to you? What says you have any power to stop me? After all, when you boil it down, it's all "just opinions". So might makes right, yeah?
Does that mean that people who are physically or sexually assaulted have less valid opinions? Or that their assaulter's opinions are valid? Because after all, all opinions are valid. And if someone wants to assault you, that's okay, because their opinion just as valid as yours?
Children do not have religious practices at birth. But their religious practices do begin immediately after birth.
But you just said that they don't? What's the difference? A child doesn't have religious practices until they choose it. That choice may be biased in some respect, but that choice is theirs. The normal age at which children are cut is FAR younger than when they can meaningfully engage in religious practice FOR THEMSELVES. You're just describing the selfish parents who force their own faith upon their child, who cannot consent nor revoke it.
For children born into religious families religion is just a normal part of their culture and upbringing.
Unless they decide that they don't wish to be part of that, and know they'll never be free of that mutilation on their bodies.
Again - religion being forced on the child, not fostered.
Children also do not know the concept of nationality at birth, yet we have no problem assigning a nationality to them.
Nationality doesn't require a permanent change of your body. You can change that.
Some things in life are out of our own control.
Some.
As young children, everything is out of our own control: our parents, nationality, the haircut our parents give us, religion, culture, language, the food we are given to eat etc. As we grow up, we gradually gain more control of our own. But many of the things that are done to us as children are irreversible. That is not good or bad, that is just the way things are. And as long as those things are not actively harmful, why make such a fuss about one little thing some specific cultures do?
Having parts of your body removed is not the same as what your parents feed you.
If I'm to accept that children have, and SHOULD have, no control or personal rights, then I fear for any child in that culture. Any environment where people can justify doing what they want to people for personal reasons because "they can't consent", and "that is just the way things are" is an environment that should be ashamed in itself.
Cutting off part of someone else's body isn't "some little thing". It's a part of their body, and should be respected like any other. Otherwise, where do we draw the lines? Eyebrows? Earlobes? Hair? Fingers/toes? Limbs - after all, people can survive without them.
It's okay - they're just "one little thing some specific cultures do". /sarcasm
If the argument is truly about 'the choice of the child', then it is nonsensical. Children do not get choices in anything, why should they suddenly be allowed a choice in this? Therefore I suspect the actual core of the argument is racist or anti-religious in nature. Many people really hate Jews or Muslims, and therefore they are really eager to ban what those people consider sacred.
And the "if you hate X you're a racist/sexist/xenophobe" argument surfaces.
If you TRULY believe that children have no choice, and should surrender all their autonomy, I dread to think your opinion of active paedophiles.
Because you made that choice later in life. People being able to move to other countries, learn other languages or change their religion as adults doesn't change the fact that people have no control over what nation, language, culture or religion they are originally born into.
But when part of your body is cut off without your consent, no amount of changing your opinion will grow that back.
Being born into a religious group and that influencing you is okay - so long as any permanent changes are done with your CONSENT.
Circumcision is part of the religion. Also, they are not chopping off a part of your body. They just remove a bit of unnecessary skin which will have absolutely zero negative impact on the child at any point of his life.
I'm not going to repeat all of the cases where it HAS done just that, nor re-emphasize the loss of sensation in that region.
I have never heard of anyone who regrets being circumcised, simply because it is not a big deal at all.
"I've not heard of it, therefore it doesn't exist!"
I've never had someone I know stabbed, or heard of it beyond news media. Doesn't mean people don't get stabbed.
A circumcised penis is the same as an uncircumcised penis. All it does is look slightly different and it is also a bit more hygienic.
Except when it's done without consent.
I could take this into the sexual territory, but I'm sure no-one wants me to write that, and nor do I.
d-usa wrote:Well, there is no arguing against a mindset that children have no rights and can be cut on without any second thought or an ignorance regarding the medical risks of a surgical procedure.
Apparently not.
I mean, feth children's rights. If my holy book or culture says I can do what I want to their genitals, ain't nothing going to get in my way. /sarcasm
I wonder what Iron Captain's view of messing with minor's genitals in the other sense would be. I mean, if it's supported by their culture and religion, and the child doesn't have any opinion of their own...
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:I'm surprised at you Kilkrazy. I had thought better of you.
That may be a devil's advocate, to be fair. I read it as such.
2. Wow, ok, so you've already given up your rights. What will you do when the government tells you you can only have female babies?
Probably realize that slippery slope fallacies are fallacies for a reason.
Ask the Chinese how much of a fallacy that is. Forced abortions anyone? Or the Germans if their children were not up to standard during a certain period, or the Spartans...How many children were taken from Native Americans / aboriginals because their culture was just "not up to snuff?"
Now lets have some tea!
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/02/20 19:38:22
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2. Wow, ok, so you've already given up your rights. What will you do when the government tells you you can only have female babies?
Probably realize that slippery slope fallacies are fallacies for a reason.
Slippery slopes sadly are your home ground Walrus:
"Emphasis mine. Removing part of the body is a violation of integrity by definition. It's what the word means. "
Integrity means wholeness, and is not literal, after all we shed cells. The EU bans dismemberment punishments for example of physical integrity.
If you want to ban circumcision because it literally removes a portion of the body, then you can't have wisdom teeth pulled or tonsils out of a child either. However we can because we don't devolve the law into literalism. Integrity means wholeness as in wholeness of function, and male circumcision does not violate that. Integrity as wholeness also means that medicine can be practiced as parts can be removed to restore as much wholeness as possible.
Changing the meaning of integrity to somethign more literal rather than legal not only misreads the law, which is generally unwise. It seats you on the slippery slope of playing pedantry with legal definitions. Sovereign citizens do that, and look how far (or not) it gets them.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/20 19:44:11
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
2. Wow, ok, so you've already given up your rights. What will you do when the government tells you you can only have female babies?
Probably realize that slippery slope fallacies are fallacies for a reason.
Ask the Chinese how much of a fallacy that is. Forced abortions anyone? Or the Germans if their children were not up to standard during a certain period, or the Spartans...How many children were taken from Native Americans / aboriginals because their culture was just "not up to snuff?"
Now lets have some tea!
I have to give you credit for doubling down on the fallacy when called out. That's a bold move; let's see if it pays off.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
Never bet against a wiener dog when food is on the line!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/20 19:51:30
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2. Wow, ok, so you've already given up your rights. What will you do when the government tells you you can only have female babies?
Probably realize that slippery slope fallacies are fallacies for a reason.
Slippery slopes sadly are your home ground Walrus:
"Emphasis mine. Removing part of the body is a violation of integrity by definition. It's what the word means. "
Integrity means wholeness, and is not literal, after all we shed cells. The EU bans dismemberment punishments for example of physical integrity.
If you want to ban circumcision because it literally removes a portion of the body, then you can't have wisdom teeth pulled or tonsils out of a child either. However we can because we don't devolve the law into literalism. Integrity means wholeness as in wholeness of function, and male circumcision does not violate that. Integrity as wholeness also means that medicine can be practiced as parts can be removed to restore as much wholeness as possible.
Changing the meaning of integrity to somethign more literal rather than legal not only misreads the law, which is generally unwise. It seats you on the slippery slope of playing pedantry with legal definitions. Sovereign citizens do that, and look how far (or not) it gets them.
I am more curious when we can casually just have wisdom teeth or tonsils pulled out of a child without them being inflamed or causing problems. Can one casually get them pulled without them already causing a problem?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/20 19:53:02
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:What gives you the right to force YOUR choice to circumcise and your religion onto a child?
I guess the same thing that gives you the right to force YOUR choice onto a religious community?
No choice is being made. That's the difference. You're making a choice to actively alter something that can't be revoked - an irreversable choice that cannot be rescinded.
The alternative is to let the child have autonomy over their own body and choose to have it later in life - when they can actually consent.
Why is that important. It wasn't important before, it wasn't important for millenia. But you say its important now. Jews have long understood that the decision to circumcise their male children is taken by the parents as part of their community. They have likely been aware for millenia that the child is not consulted. It hasn't harmed their society and they haven't of themselves tried to stop it and they have had many opportunities to do so.
It is not for you to make their choice for them either.
Also by leaving circumcision to a consenting age you make it more painful, more dangerous and you also deny the child the right to enter their covenant at the correct age. This is important as societal believing is an important benefit. People are tribal, and Jews can and do take comfort in the fact that they have a covenant.
I put this to you, even leaving the greatly increased problems of adult circumcision aside, by denying children their social covenant you will likely be increasing rather than decreasing the number of dissatisfied adults. I think more Jews will wish with regret they were 'real Jews' than wish they had not been circumcised.
Adult circumcision is mentioned in the Bible too, and it is significantly different, more painful and more discommoditating.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
I think both "sides" are throwing out slippery slopes and straw men, and it's unnecessary.
We're talking about circumcision, a practice that exists within religions that really do exist and have for a very long time. It really doesn't matter much how one would react to a hypothetical. "Words are wind," as was said at some point in Game of Thrones.
I wish I never clicked on this thread and read it all the way through. I've learned more about the status of Dakka's peckers than I ever wanted to know.
2. Wow, ok, so you've already given up your rights. What will you do when the government tells you you can only have female babies?
Probably realize that slippery slope fallacies are fallacies for a reason.
Slippery slopes sadly are your home ground Walrus:
"Emphasis mine. Removing part of the body is a violation of integrity by definition. It's what the word means. "
Integrity means wholeness, and is not literal, after all we shed cells. The EU bans dismemberment punishments for example of physical integrity.
If you want to ban circumcision because it literally removes a portion of the body, then you can't have wisdom teeth pulled or tonsils out of a child either. However we can because we don't devolve the law into literalism. Integrity means wholeness as in wholeness of function, and male circumcision does not violate that. Integrity as wholeness also means that medicine can be practiced as parts can be removed to restore as much wholeness as possible.
Changing the meaning of integrity to somethign more literal rather than legal not only misreads the law, which is generally unwise. It seats you on the slippery slope of playing pedantry with legal definitions. Sovereign citizens do that, and look how far (or not) it gets them.
Just making sure I understand your argument correctly; are you arguing that I'm making a slippery slope argument because you believe that applying the definition of integrity that I do leads to problems regarding other medical procedures?
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
2. Wow, ok, so you've already given up your rights. What will you do when the government tells you you can only have female babies?
Probably realize that slippery slope fallacies are fallacies for a reason.
Slippery slopes sadly are your home ground Walrus:
"Emphasis mine. Removing part of the body is a violation of integrity by definition. It's what the word means. "
Integrity means wholeness, and is not literal, after all we shed cells. The EU bans dismemberment punishments for example of physical integrity.
If you want to ban circumcision because it literally removes a portion of the body, then you can't have wisdom teeth pulled or tonsils out of a child either. However we can because we don't devolve the law into literalism. Integrity means wholeness as in wholeness of function, and male circumcision does not violate that. Integrity as wholeness also means that medicine can be practiced as parts can be removed to restore as much wholeness as possible.
Changing the meaning of integrity to somethign more literal rather than legal not only misreads the law, which is generally unwise. It seats you on the slippery slope of playing pedantry with legal definitions. Sovereign citizens do that, and look how far (or not) it gets them.
I am more curious when we can casually just have wisdom teeth or tonsils pulled out of a child without them being inflamed or causing problems. Can one casually get them pulled without them already causing a problem?
Yes it happens, and some people also have a healthy appendix removed also. Minimises future risk. My tonsils were removed when I was a child, and not during tonsilitis but as a precautionary measure. I do remember the stay in a childrens ward afterwards and seeing the doctor before the operation. I was not consulted for personal consent, and unlike an eight day old child was aware of what was going on, which makes it 'worse' than bris, and it wasn't a 'necessary' procedure as my tonsils were at the time healthy.
Thankfully I am not a snowflake so I am not triggered; and the NHS doctors were not censured by the EU for violating my 'integrity' either. But then it was the 1970's, snowflakery wasnt present in its current form.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
A fair and worthwhile aspect of the conversation to consider. Also consider that nearly every procedure has risk associated with it. Of course, in this case, the argument is that it isn't medically necessary (i.e. religion has no bearing on "justifying" it at all) by those with no "skin" in the game.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/20 20:02:33
My personal view. I don't like the practice, but I am loath for the government to tell parents what to do with their children except in severe circumstances.
Governments have a VERY long history of doing horrible things and a penchant for power. As noted there was a time when the government took native American children from their families to force them to be white, put the Japanese in concentration camps, thought it was perfectly acceptable that millions would be enslaved, and thought GLBTX were mentally deranged and needed help. So lets watch out when we think its ok for government to tell people to do something, or else the the enforcers come.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Just making sure I understand your argument correctly; are you arguing that I'm making a slippery slope argument because you believe that applying the definition of integrity that I do leads to problems regarding other medical procedures?
You are on the slippery slope because you take a literalist definition of integrity rather than a legal definition. Yet despite using the wrong definition you try to impose it to the law.
This has knock on effects because by your own standards anything can reduced to reductio ad absurdum, by playing word games with the law, medical ethics or whatever. You end up without a logical point on which to stand. Examples were given as to how this devolves.
The only way out is to backtrack and abandon your own definitions and use the proper legal ones, which is wise, at this point you will realise the circumcision of males doesn't violate physical integrity by its legal definition and your entire premise is erroneous.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
In which case my final comment will be that it's called a slippery slope fallacy because it's a fallacy, not because it's somehow a sound argument to make.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
'Religious Freedom' shouldn't be a blanket permission slip for parents to do what they want to their children.
It isnt.
However 'political correctness' should not be blanket permission to redact another people groups culture because it offend your own sensibilities.
My belief that parents shouldn't be getting bits cut off their children is nothing to do with political correctness.
OK.
1. Lets all accept that the posters posting here are all posting in good faith, with concern for Da Childrinz.
2. Lets step back and put a hypothetical here. Your flag is Aussie land correct? In the past governemnt thought it was better for aboriginal children to be taken, given to christian families and raised as such, because their practices were considered backwards and it was better for the children.
How is that different? Where is the limit on government power? In this instance you (general, not the Infernal Cat that is Insaniak*) are taking a religious conviction that people will literally fight you for (and a certain group died by the millions because of) and ignoring because of your belief that government knows better.
Its been an interesting thread. My position was meh before but has strengthened now that I thought about some of the misdeeds government has done.
*Don't think that we have not noted your evilz Cat moniker. Cat drool dogs rule!
Also this, to lighten things up.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/02/20 20:18:39
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
If a government wants to make something illegal they should be able to present a clear and strongly supported cause that the thing is causing harm. I'm not seeing strong evidence that circumcising babies is causing real harm. What is the rate in which circumcisions in Iceland actually result in lasting harm to the functionality of the penis? Can the government in Iceland put measures in place to reduce the failure rate of circumcisions rather than banning it? Removing a baby boy's foreskin certainly isn't necessary but that doesn't mean it needs to be outlawed.
'Religious Freedom' shouldn't be a blanket permission slip for parents to do what they want to their children.
It isnt.
However 'political correctness' should not be blanket permission to redact another people groups culture because it offend your own sensibilities.
My belief that parents shouldn't be getting bits cut off their children is nothing to do with political correctness.
Yes it is, you just down see that yet. PC is an insidious brainwashing doctrine, and otherwise quite reasonable people dont know when they are mired by it.
What is political correctness?, it is a hegemonious belief system that is based on modern sensibilities and imposition of those sensibilities.
You are practicing PC by claiming that your belief in wanting circumcision stopped overrides the parents and communities which want to continue it.
Your opinion is entirely based on modern sensibilities, we are in the first generation to challenge circumcision and prior generations practiced it without this resistence.
Also your opinion isnt fact based, its sensibility based. You distain circumcision because it offends you that parents 'snip bits off their children'. Your opinion is not based on what is best for them, or whether harm is done. You assume harm is done because PC sensibilities are offended, the idea that child is not actively consulted on an event is the offence to PC dogma, when it coes down to it that likely doesn't matter and hasn't mattered for millenia so far.
sorry, but its 100% PC doctrine.
Whether you are PC in other areas is moot, you are PC here and by wanting to impose your will on an entire people group against the weight of their will, history and culture, let alone the evidence that outside of PC sensibilities there is no inherent ill effect in the procedure, so its quite a bit of PC dogma you are (I think unwittingly) spouting.
Who should determine how Jews/Moslems express their continuation of their millenia old cultures, insaniak, or Jews/Moslems?
Hopefully you will understand that people should choose to express their own culture. Funnily enough that is 'PC' also, but PC in its true form is highly hypocritical, it might express a desire for equality and diversity, but when it comes down to it there are core sensibilities and actual equality and acceptance often has to tow the line to it.
You should study this more. Understand that political correctness is not a liberation movement but a thinly veiled conformity movement and one that is highly aggressive in its approach. Hence the reaction to a circumcision being to attempt to ban it.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/02/20 20:33:23
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
Until now there were no social side effects, but entitled snowflakes, often not of the religions or cultural groups that practice circumcision want to stop the practice.
Well that’s about it for reasoned discussion. Opposition to carrying out medically unnecessary surgeries on babies in he name of religion makes you an ‘entitled snowflake’.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:What gives you the right to force YOUR choice to circumcise and your religion onto a child?
I guess the same thing that gives you the right to force YOUR choice onto a religious community?
No choice is being made. That's the difference. You're making a choice to actively alter something that can't be revoked - an irreversable choice that cannot be rescinded.
You are choosing not to let people practice their religion. That is a choice. Do not be deliberately dense.
Sgt_Smudge wrote:The alternative is to let the child have autonomy over their own body and choose to have it later in life - when they can actually consent.
No, it is not. The circumcision needs to be performed shortly after birth. Circumcision is a sign that shows someone is part of their religious community. You can not exclude children from their religious communities.
Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Sgt_Smudge wrote:But surely the default is to do NOTHING? If a child is circumcised, they can't go back and change that if they later want to when they can actually choose. If a child is uncircimcised, they can go and say "yeah, I'll have the cut" whenever they want to. If they do.
Doing nothing =/= forcing someone's choices.
Forcing people to do nothing is very much forcing your choices. Saying circumcision is not okay is your opinion. Saying circumcision should not be allowed is your choice, not that of the parents or that of the child.
Also, there is no such thing as 'default' outside of computer programs. Default is only default because the system is programmed to see it as the default. It works the same way in real life. What is 'default' or normal is only normal because our brains have been conditioned to see it as such. Different cultures have different 'programming' so to speak and therefore do not see the things you see as default or normal as normal. Ergo, 'default' and normal do not objectively exist. They are cultural concepts that vary from community to community.
Sorry, what?!
So if MY culture believes that all left arms should be cut off, that's okay? Because there's no natural default - such as, I don't know, newborn - where we start out from when we enter the world?
Sweet.
Guess I can happily lop the left limbs from everyone in my culture, because that's okay. What? People are complaining that they don't have all the body parts they started out with? Well, they couldn't tell me no, therefore it's completely up to me!
Don't make up nonsensical exaggerations. It is a waste of your time and effort, and mine as well. I would like to have a more intelligent discussion, and both you and I know that removing a small piece of extraneous skin is quite different from cutting off entire limbs. A religion that requires cutting off the left arm would not last very long, to say the least.
Sgt_Smudge wrote:No. There is absolutely a default when it comes to the human body. It's called newborn. Genetic mutations, that's part of that default. Everyone's "default" is different. But everyone HAS one. One bereft of scars, piercings, hair dyes and styles, clothing, etc etc. Culture can change that, but there IS a default. The VAST majority of children are born with foreskins with no damage. That's a default for all those children. To suggest otherwise would support the idea that it's not "normal" for us to have four limbs.
Why is the moment of birth more default than the moment of conception or the moment of death or any random moment in a person's life? Our bodies are never static, they are in constant development. The idea of some kind of artificial 'default state' is preposterous. Which only illustrates my point more. "Default" is not actually default or normal, it is just a relative, personal notion that varies between cultures or even individuals. Which of course means it is quite meaningless when we are talking about cross-cultural interactions.
Sgt_Smudge wrote:
That is just your opinion. Other people may disagree with your opinion. Why is your opinion superior to theirs, and why should your opinion be forced on those people?
Because my opinion isn't deciding one for a child that can't consent.
Yes it is. You are deciding they are not supposed to be circumcised. And you are not just making a choice for the child here, you are also making a choice for his parents, who are legally entitled to make choices for their children.
Sgt_Smudge wrote:If you want to go with the "it's just an opinion bro" - what says I can't do the same to you? What says you have any power to stop me? After all, when you boil it down, it's all "just opinions". So might makes right, yeah?
Does that mean that people who are physically or sexually assaulted have less valid opinions? Or that their assaulter's opinions are valid? Because after all, all opinions are valid. And if someone wants to assault you, that's okay, because their opinion just as valid as yours?
Don't put up a straw man. Circumcision is not sexual assault. And just because different opinions have different values in different situations doesn't mean your opinion is worth more.
Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Children do not have religious practices at birth. But their religious practices do begin immediately after birth.
But you just said that they don't? What's the difference? A child doesn't have religious practices until they choose it. That choice may be biased in some respect, but that choice is theirs. The normal age at which children are cut is FAR younger than when they can meaningfully engage in religious practice FOR THEMSELVES. You're just describing the selfish parents who force their own faith upon their child, who cannot consent nor revoke it.
For children born into religious families religion is just a normal part of their culture and upbringing.
Unless they decide that they don't wish to be part of that, and know they'll never be free of that mutilation on their bodies.
Again - religion being forced on the child, not fostered.
From this I infer you are not religious, that you hate religion and that you have not even the vaguest idea of what religion actually is or how it works. Therefore I don't think it is worthy of my time to continue this particular tangent with you.
Also, good luck trying to find a child who thinks of his circumcised penis as being "mutilated". You are making an issue out of nothing.
Sgt_Smudge wrote:
As young children, everything is out of our own control: our parents, nationality, the haircut our parents give us, religion, culture, language, the food we are given to eat etc. As we grow up, we gradually gain more control of our own. But many of the things that are done to us as children are irreversible. That is not good or bad, that is just the way things are. And as long as those things are not actively harmful, why make such a fuss about one little thing some specific cultures do?
Having parts of your body removed is not the same as what your parents feed you.
No, but good luck finding someone who cares about that.
If I'm to accept that children have, and SHOULD have, no control or personal rights, then I fear for any child in that culture. Any environment where people can justify doing what they want to people for personal reasons because "they can't consent", and "that is just the way things are" is an environment that should be ashamed in itself.
Trying to set up even more straw men are you? I never said children have no rights, that is something you just inserted.
Sgt_Smudge wrote:Cutting off part of someone else's body isn't "some little thing". It's a part of their body, and should be respected like any other. Otherwise, where do we draw the lines? Eyebrows? Earlobes? Hair? Fingers/toes? Limbs - after all, people can survive without them.
It's okay - they're just "one little thing some specific cultures do". /sarcasm
As a matter of fact, in your culture it is quite normal for parents to have the ears of their very young daughters pierced, without their consent. There is also plenty of cultures and religions that do weird things with hair, again without a child's consent.
I guess we should draw the line at where it is actually drawn by virtually any culture: Things that actually harm the child. Circumcision falls well below that line.
Sgt_Smudge wrote:
If the argument is truly about 'the choice of the child', then it is nonsensical. Children do not get choices in anything, why should they suddenly be allowed a choice in this? Therefore I suspect the actual core of the argument is racist or anti-religious in nature. Many people really hate Jews or Muslims, and therefore they are really eager to ban what those people consider sacred.
And the "if you hate X you're a racist/sexist/xenophobe" argument surfaces.
If you TRULY believe that children have no choice, and should surrender all their autonomy, I dread to think your opinion of active paedophiles.
So, you are out of straw and resort to ad hominem? How disappointing.
But since you seem curious, my opinion on active pedophiles is that they should be locked up, and if possible we should help them deal with their problem in a way that does not involve them harming children. This would prevent regression. The big difference between sexual abuse of children and the circumcision of children is that the first is actively harmful for kids, while the second is not.
Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Because you made that choice later in life. People being able to move to other countries, learn other languages or change their religion as adults doesn't change the fact that people have no control over what nation, language, culture or religion they are originally born into.
But when part of your body is cut off without your consent, no amount of changing your opinion will grow that back.
Being born into a religious group and that influencing you is okay - so long as any permanent changes are done with your CONSENT.
So permanent mental changes are okay, but physical changes are not? Why so?
Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Circumcision is part of the religion. Also, they are not chopping off a part of your body. They just remove a bit of unnecessary skin which will have absolutely zero negative impact on the child at any point of his life.
I'm not going to repeat all of the cases where it HAS done just that, nor re-emphasize the loss of sensation in that region.
I have never heard of anyone who regrets being circumcised, simply because it is not a big deal at all.
"I've not heard of it, therefore it doesn't exist!"
I've never had someone I know stabbed, or heard of it beyond news media. Doesn't mean people don't get stabbed.
No, people do get stabbed. Yet despite that there is no place in the world that has banned knifes. Just because there are rare accidents doesn't mean circumcision as a whole is dangerous. For the vast, vast majority of children who have been circumcised in the past millennia it has had nothing but a positive impact on their life.
Sgt_Smudge wrote:
A circumcised penis is the same as an uncircumcised penis. All it does is look slightly different and it is also a bit more hygienic.
Except when it's done without consent.
I could take this into the sexual territory, but I'm sure no-one wants me to write that, and nor do I.
d-usa wrote:Well, there is no arguing against a mindset that children have no rights and can be cut on without any second thought or an ignorance regarding the medical risks of a surgical procedure.
Apparently not.
I mean, feth children's rights. If my holy book or culture says I can do what I want to their genitals, ain't nothing going to get in my way. /sarcasm
I wonder what Iron Captain's view of messing with minor's genitals in the other sense would be. I mean, if it's supported by their culture and religion, and the child doesn't have any opinion of their own...
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:I'm surprised at you Kilkrazy. I had thought better of you.
That may be a devil's advocate, to be fair. I read it as such.
I read this part of your post (or to be honest, your entire post actually) as:
Sgt_Smudge wrote:Help! I do not have any actual arguments! But I can't be wrong, I know I am right! So instead, let me just ridicule their arguments and make dark insinuations about them. That will make them look bad and me look right! Who needs a proper discussion anyway?
But congratulations. I think your remarks on children's genitals just lowered the bar on Dakka OT to previously unexplored depths.
Kilkrazy wrote: I think we've said everything there is to say on the subject.
I therefore would like to ring the bell, end the thread, but I will leave it open for final comments...
That seems a good idea. I am afraid this discussion is getting worse rather than better.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/02/20 20:31:38
Realize that your views on life are not inherently superior to those of others, and be extremely cautious when you advocate for the imprisonment of others (that is the proposed punishment, 6 years) for your choice to criminalize a religious practice.
Frazzled wrote:My personal view. I don't like the practice, but I am loath for the government to tell parents what to do with their children except in severe circumstances.
Governments have a VERY long history of doing horrible things and a penchant for power. As noted there was a time when the government took native American children from their families to force them to be white, put the Japanese in concentration camps, thought it was perfectly acceptable that millions would be enslaved, and thought GLBTX were mentally deranged and needed help. So lets watch out when we think its ok for government to tell people to do something, or else the the enforcers come.
I can understand that, but what could be bad about not mutilating children?
Orlanth wrote:
Sgt_Smudge wrote: No choice is being made. That's the difference. You're making a choice to actively alter something that can't be revoked - an irreversable choice that cannot be rescinded.
The alternative is to let the child have autonomy over their own body and choose to have it later in life - when they can actually consent.
Why is that important. It wasn't important before, it wasn't important for millenia. But you say its important now. Jews have long understood that the decision to circumcise their male children is taken by the parents as part of their community. They have likely been aware for millenia that the child is not consulted. It hasn't harmed their society and they haven't of themselves tried to stop it and they have had many opportunities to do so.
And now people want to stop. Why is that a problem? What problems does it cause?
Those same older cultures you refer to also has less than savoury views on: Homosexuality Gender identity Race And much MUCH more. Just because it was done before doesn't make it a good thing.
It is not for you to make their choice for them either.
Nor is it the parents. Just because they gave birth to their child doesn't mean they get to permanently change their body. Child's body, child's choice. Until they can decide, nothing permanent should be trust upon them.
Also by leaving circumcision to a consenting age you make it more painful, more dangerous and you also deny the child the right to enter their covenant at the correct age. This is important as societal believing is an important benefit. People are tribal, and Jews can and do take comfort in the fact that they have a covenant.
I put this to you, even leaving the greatly increased problems of adult circumcision aside, by denying children their social covenant you will likely be increasing rather than decreasing the number of dissatisfied adults. I think more Jews will wish with regret they were 'real Jews' than wish they had not been circumcised.
But you're forcing that mutilation upon a child who there is NO GUARANTEE that they will want to join that covenant. That's like me saying "my child will want to be a high pitched singer, let's cut his testes off!" Who says that child will become that?
You're forcing that child into a box which they might fit into. But they might also turn around and not want to be in that box which you picked out for him. And whilst he can go back and easily fit into that other box, that bit you cut off to fit him in your box is still missing.
I'm also sure many non-Jews are perfectly happy they weren't circumcised.
Adult circumcision is mentioned in the Bible too, and it is significantly different, more painful and more discommoditating.
I can understand, and personally attest, to circumcision being painful as an young adult. But I did it under the knowledge that I chose it. Not my parents, not my GP, not my friends. ME. I knew the risks, I knew the benefits, and I chose to have it done. No-one forced it upon me, and if I do, later in life, come to regret it, that's on me. Not on someone else.
Also, note that in the Bible, adult circumcision isn't done with anaesthetic, proper medical attention and a greater understanding of the human anatomy.
Iron_Captain, it's a good job this is my final post here - given your response, whatever I put next would have been wasted.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/20 20:45:54
Political Correctness has feth all to do with this.
This about Parent's Right to practice their religion by mutilating their children...vs a child's Right to not be mutilated.
I say the Child should make that decision, not the Parents.
What of circumcised children who grow to adulthood and regret the circumcision that was forced onto them without their consent? Are their views irrelevant?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/20 20:47:25
Sgt_Smudge wrote: No choice is being made. That's the difference. You're making a choice to actively alter something that can't be revoked - an irreversable choice that cannot be rescinded.
The alternative is to let the child have autonomy over their own body and choose to have it later in life - when they can actually consent.
Why is that important. It wasn't important before, it wasn't important for millenia. But you say its important now. Jews have long understood that the decision to circumcise their male children is taken by the parents as part of their community. They have likely been aware for millenia that the child is not consulted. It hasn't harmed their society and they haven't of themselves tried to stop it and they have had many opportunities to do so.
And now people want to stop. Why is that a problem? What problems does it cause?
Those same older cultures you refer to also has less than savoury views on: Homosexuality Gender identity Race And much MUCH more. Just because it was done before doesn't make it a good thing.
The problem is that people do not want to stop. There is just a very tiny minority of people who are not even affected by it who want it to stop. That is the issue. The people who actually are affected by it want to continue.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/20 20:50:28
Those same older cultures you refer to also has less than savoury views on:
Homosexuality
Gender identity
Race
And much MUCH more. Just because it was done before doesn't make it a good thing.
Amongst others, but this is different. Also all the culture had similar views, you can't just lump that on Jews and Moslems, you have to lump that on humans in general.
While moving forwards take care not to step backwards. Circumcision has no bearing on equal rights.
Child's body, child's choice. Until they can decide, nothing permanent should be trust upon them..
Reality disagrees with you. Many changes are made without the childs choice. Also history disagrees with you. You are spouting a modern sensibility, that doesnt effect reality. Until you impose that sensibility no offence is caused. History back this up as FACT.
But you're forcing that mutilation upon a child who there is NO GUARANTEE that they will want to join that covenant. That's like me saying "my child will want to be a high pitched singer, let's cut his testes off!" Who says that child will become that?
No there is no comparison. People did use to remove testicles of children to make them better singers, the castrati. It was a sign of a bygone age, and we opposed that even in an age when it was ok to make slaves of blacks and women were considered even by the liberated as second class citizens.
Circumcision include the covenant at the time, and while people can and do regret being of the cultural group it is a slim minority who do. Jews have their covenant and the vast majority do not regret it, in fact it can be advantageous and has kept Jusdiasm together in the long millenia of the diaspora. A Physical covenant is a major part of that.
Also circumcision is not a mutilation, you use that loaded word to try to give false weight to your offended sensibilities, which are not of any relevance to the Jewish and Moslem peoples.
I can understand, and personally attest, to circumcision being painful as an young adult. But I did it under the knowledge that I chose it. Not my parents, not my GP, not my friends. ME. I knew the risks, I knew the benefits, and I chose to have it done. No-one forced it upon me, and if I do, later in life, come to regret it, that's on me. Not on someone else.
Whoopee-do. So your happy, good on you. Don't impose your sensibilities on entire race and culture groups. Leave it to them to decide how to maintain or develop their culture. and it you dont like it if they choose not to change, grow a thicker skin and recognise that it is their choice how they develop, and recognise the flat fact that this part of their culture hasn't hurt them in the past, and has arguably strengthened them.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
