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.
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 You're making a choice to actively alter something that can't be revoked - an irreversable choice that cannot be rescinded.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.
Do they though? I assume you'll have a worldwide statistic to back up that opinion?
A person that starts using terms like "Triggered", "Political Correctness", "Entitled", etc... instantly should be ignored because he shows that has no interest in having a honest discussiong. His/Her only objetive is to put tags and shout his propaganda, instead of actually face the points other people is doing.
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
I say the Child should make that decision, not the Parents.
They say otherwise and they are the parents, you are not. End of argument, unless you want to be dogmatic and try and force the issue with unwarranted intrusive legislation.
What of circumcised children who grow to adulthood and regret the circumcision that was forced onto them without their consent? Are their views irrelevant?
No, but the law cannot be used to this ends. There is always a what if. What if the child wished they had entered the covenant at the proper age, and spent their childhood in the covenant.
We can only look at the realities. Circumcision does not impair the child, stunt their development and is considered a sign of membership of a cultural continuation that has progressed for millenia without this having been a problem before, or in fact now.
Your what ifs are adding mud to clear waters. In a vast population of worlds Jews ans Moslems some will regret, some may even have botched procedures, but these are statistical anomalies that do not detract from the whole.
Circumcision has worked as a covenant, and the people groups who keep the covenant want to continue to do so.
This fact should be enough, but when PC raises its dogmas, the doctrinaire want to impose their will by force. It is ironic but that they do so under the delusion of free choice.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Galas wrote: A person that starts using terms like "Triggered", "Political Correctness", "Entitled", etc... instantly should be ignored because he shows that has no interest in having a honest discussiong. His/Her only objetive is to put tags and shout his propaganda, instead of actually face the points other people is doing.
Well I do give my opinions fully, and my words are well chosen. I have not come up short in expressing the logic behind my opinions and have done so honestly and faced all opposed arguement squarely and fully. I am not obliged to forward opinions that you agree with or you like.
I say triggered because I believe it fits the facts, and have not come up short in explaining why either. You can choose to ignore that if you have no counter argument, but at least be honest about it.
History and fact are on my side. Circumcision is not a problem, because man has physically not changed and it hasn't been a problem before.
It is only a problem to those who are triggered by modern sensibilities and believe they know better than a millenia old culture that has practiced circumcision with negligible ill effect problem arising.
You can ignore that argument if you will, I cannot force you to listen but dont do so under the delusion you are on a higher moral plain in doing so.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/20 21:14:35
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.
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.
Do they though? I assume you'll have a worldwide statistic to back up that opinion?
No, but I do not need to. Just read the article in the OP. The reaction of the communities that actually are affected by this is all the evidence one needs. Now, do you have a statistic saying most people no longer want to continue?
Do they though? I assume you'll have a worldwide statistic to back up that opinion?
Not much, but there are several million Jews in Israel, and they have the vote and the ability to pass laws.
So here is a statistic for you:
Number of successful attempts by Jews to ban circumcision in the Knesset. 0
Number of Arab countries banning circumcision: 0.
Most of those have the vote too, one way or another.
If they wanted rid of it it would be gone.
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.
It is if you buy into the laughably idiotic "christians are persecuted" mantra.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
Since when was it politically correct to oppose religious practices, and advocate curbing religious freedom?? Thats as un-PC as you can get.
I would expect the default position of so-called "SJW's" to be to side with the religious freedom argument.
I'm surprised that you of all people are taking that side, I never expected that of you.
Political correctness is not about freedom it is about control. If something is not 'politically correct' or 'inappropriate' it can get redacted or forced away even if legal. Rights are eroded that way, not established.
SJW's are a factor of the political correct movement and use its Modus Operandi but not its whole, and political correctness and SJW's in particular has often seen religion as an enemy.
Political correctness is an insidious brainwashing dogma, and it ensnares otherwise reasonable people. Hence how you can have selective 'safe spaces' in universities where PC opinion is welcome and non- PC opinion is shouted down. Even one generation ago had the schenanigans of safe spacing been tried in places of learning people would not accept it, but thinking has changed, devolved even.
I wont go on this more here as it is going off topic.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
feeder wrote: It is if you buy into the laughably idiotic "christians are persecuted" mantra.
This thread has little to do with Christianity. Cheap shot missed.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/20 21:35:41
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.
feeder wrote: It is if you buy into the laughably idiotic "christians are persecuted" mantra.
This thread has little to do with Christianity. Cheap shot missed.
Maybe, but the statement was religion in general. Cheap shot achieved!
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
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...
1) It's not "risk free"
2) In other countries where it is not common, it can lead to a child being self-conscious when he has the only other penis in the locker room.
3) A child has the right to make their own decisions, and not have decisions thrust upon them for no medical purpose.
4) I feel the same way about religious circumcision as I feel about parents subjecting their children to conversion therapy.
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...
1) It's not "risk free"
2) In other countries where it is not common, it can lead to a child being self-conscious when he has the only other penis in the locker room.
3) A child has the right to make their own decisions, and not have decisions thrust upon them for no medical purpose.
4) I feel the same way about religious circumcision as I feel about parents subjecting their children to conversion therapy.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
1. Its negligible risk. As in nothing is completely risk free, claiming circumcision was not risk free was being dishonest and unfair.
2. In countries where it is not common it can and does reinforce the cultural identity. Thus helping the diaspora survive despite cultural pressures to become apostate and lose their identity.
3. A person has the right to make decisions for themselves when they come of age, a parent has the right to make long lasting and permanent choices for the child. Parents are normally better at making these choices than meddlers also, as humans normally develop a parental bond. We should trust this in cases where this has been unbroken, and the parental choice to bring up a child in a religious and cultural covenant has not caused undue harm.
4. I feel the same way about meddlers interfering in other peoples long established and working cultures because it offends their sensibilities to their cultures to be proliferated as I feel about revolutionary marxism as a power group.
5. These ancient cultures aren't broken, at least not in these regards, there is no evidence that the Jewish and Moslem peoples have suffered for having their covenant, so they don't need meddlers to fix them according to their trendy progressive PC standards.
Ok, thats me done also.
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.
feeder wrote: It is if you buy into the laughably idiotic "christians are persecuted" mantra.
In the USA? Not so much. In Sudan? Very much so.
In other interesting news, the party pushing this ban also is pushing to change Iceland's organ donation policy from an opt-in to an opt-out system - which would assume consent of organ harvesting unless the person specifically made efforts to opt out.
The hypocrisy is boggling. On the one hand, the child can't consent so circumcision is bad, but on the other, we don't need a dead person's consent to harvest their organs. Maybe someone should have told them that the foreskin is a good source of stem cells, then they'd be all for it.
I assume Iceland will also be the first nation to mandate organ harvesting from the deceased, regardless of their wishes.
feeder wrote: It is if you buy into the laughably idiotic "christians are persecuted" mantra.
In the USA? Not so much. In Sudan? Very much so.
I very much doubt there is much of a PC crowd in the Sudan.
In other interesting news, the party pushing this ban also is pushing to change Iceland's organ donation policy from an opt-in to an opt-out system - which would assume consent of organ harvesting unless the person specifically made efforts to opt out.
The hypocrisy is boggling. On the one hand, the child can't consent so circumcision is bad, but on the other, we don't need a dead person's consent to harvest their organs.
I guess there is no difference between the two situations. They are totally identical in every important way.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
You can ask the opinion of a donor before they die, they can make informed consent It’s easy for them to make their wishes clear just as as they do for disposal of their body, via burial or cremation, etc.
Babies have never had the opportunity or capacity to make any kind of decision or give meaningful consent.
Are there any more utterly false equivalencies to be made in this thread or shall we go back to comparing circumcision to vaccinations and abortions? This thread is full of straw, it actually quite poor as a debate.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/20 22:12:21
The hypocrisy is boggling. On the one hand, the child can't consent so circumcision is bad, but on the other, we don't need a dead person's consent to harvest their organs. Maybe someone should have told them that the foreskin is a good source of stem cells, then they'd be all for it.
I assume Iceland will also be the first nation to mandate organ harvesting from the deceased, regardless of their wishes.
It doesn't boggle me, this is how the PC control system works. It is inherently contrary and selective in advancement of rights, some rights are artificially weighted so that other rights are diminished and a new cultural balance of empowerment and disempowerment is created. It is within this balance that the centralisation of control occurs.
It is an effective means of government, and very insidious. New Labour in the UK used this extensively, and most people didn't even notice. I proposed a political model of how this works back nearly 20 years ago, at the time predictive and now reactive because it was fairly solid I have had to alter precious little in hindsight.
I didnt know what the Progressive party in Iceland was doing, thanks for the heads up, will look at it as a case study.
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.
There is no culture of fear amongst Jews of 'will my child live though this'.
Well, in the olden times people had a different outlook on children, as in they had a ton of them and it wasn't so bad if one didn't make it. My great-grandma said "well, I had 10, 3 made it, good for them" (I'm paraphrasing).
In the 19th century - and probably before that - where I come from (at the time a very poor region) it wasn't uncommon to make field-hands by giving babies alcohol to developmentally hinder them so they wouldn't stand in line for an inheritance. That's how much value children really represented if you had too many of them.
Not everything people have been doing for a long time is cool, in the Roman Law of the Twelve Tables killing disabled children was mandatory and they used that for quite a while, too, for example.
It would seem that the only responses that generate any real discussion are the back-and-forthing, as opposed to something based on the beliefs of those whose religious rights would be eliminated by the proposed laws.
Much, “You’re wrong, I don’t care what the other side says” as well. All in all, not sure we accomplished anything.
Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote: It would seem that the only responses that generate any real discussion are the back-and-forthing, as opposed to something based on the beliefs of those whose religious rights would be eliminated by the proposed laws.
Much, “You’re wrong, I don’t care what the other side says” as well. All in all, not sure we accomplished anything.
Iceland seems to be trying to implement something based on the experiences of those whose body autonomy rights are eliminated by current practices.
Not sure what can actually be done here. You need to either choose the right of body autonomy over religion, or vice versa.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
Does Male Circumcision actually cause bodily harm and permanent damage other than the removal and rearranging of skin?
Yes. There have been numerous reports on this, which include, but are not limited to:
Loss of sensation
Scarring
Risk of more troublesome injuries (albeit "only" a risk)
Emotional trauma
Well, I don't think you necessarily need to intervene on anyone else's behalf. The Jews and Muslims (i.e. the ones actually affected by the practice) seem just fine with it.
Except for the ones who aren't, of course. I'm sure there are some who don't choose to practice the religion and harbor resentment over their parents' choice. Could only speculate, never met anyone like that, but it seems reasonable to assume they exist.
I think (as I linked to a page earlier saying as much) the imposition of the act signifying the covenant taking place before anyone can make a choice is significant in and of itself, and doesn't need anyone's permission until such time that the rest of the population with different cultural values decrees that they now have the ability to imprison anyone who opposes a prohibition with action.
Essentially, it's saying if you want to practice this religious custom, you can either go to jail for 6 years or go somewhere else. Iceland is free to say that, they're a sovereign country as far as I know.
Let's see what they do.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/20 22:42:16
Iron_Captain wrote:
No. In the first case you are actively forcing people against their will. In the second case, there is no 'forcing', because the minor does not yet have a will of its own that can be overruled by your decision.
And since the procedure is harmless there is no need to force people to go against their .
You must not have any children yet. Our youngest is now 3,5 weeks old, and most definitely has a will of her own.
Isn’t it about time this practice was stopped in civilised countries? It’s not remotely necessary and I don’t think that preventing you cutting bits of your children’s genitalia off effectively for cosmetic reasons, albeit religiously motivated, amounts to ‘restricting religious freedom’. I hope Iceland press ahead with this and other countries start to follow suit. If people want circumcisions for religious reasons, let them choose when they become an adult. No baby is born a Jew or Muslim, their parents force that identity on them with irreversible surgery.
I'm Jewish, and circumcised, and have no real strong feelings about it. When it's men talking about circumcising other males, it's hard to get too worked up about it (I've never had a foreskin, and don't miss it). Circumcising women (aka genital mutilation) is another thing entirely.
However, I'm an epidemiologist, and circumcision does reduce the risk of acquiring HIV and other STDs. This has been shown by countless studies and clinical trials, we are as certain of this as we are of smoking and lung cancer. The foreskin has tons of cells that things like HIV and other pathogens just love. So saying it's "not remotely necessary" is incorrect. In places where HIV is very prevalent (e.g., much of Africa), circumcision remains one of the few tools in our toolbox to prevent HIV infection.
In Spain we have a op-out system for organ donations. It works great, we are the world leaders in organ donations.
If a family wants for the body of his loved one to remain untouched they can do it unless the person that died stated officially that he wanted to donate his organ after he died. In most cases that doesn't happen, the person dies before writting down his wishes about what he wants, the family has no problem with his organs being transplanted to other person if theres that possibility, nobody gets harmed, and 1 or more people can receive a new organ. And at his core, Spain is still a very religious country with most of his catholic values untouched.
But I assume that this doesn't helps anybody agenda, for people trying to make Iceland looks like they want to harvets their citizens for organs.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2018/02/20 22:51:22
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
Does Male Circumcision actually cause bodily harm and permanent damage other than the removal and rearranging of skin?
Yes. There have been numerous reports on this, which include, but are not limited to:
Loss of sensation
Scarring
Risk of more troublesome injuries (albeit "only" a risk)
Emotional trauma
I’ve read some accounts in the news of serious injuries resulting from botched circumcisions but articles are a bit vague on what actually has gone wrong and leave it to the imagination as to what exactly has been chopped off. There are a few extreme cases of babies dying as a result of it being badly performed. This should at least make it a requirement that a medical practitioner carry the procedure out.
Putting some numbers on this...
A 2010 review found circumcisions performed by medical providers to have a typical complication rate of 1.5% for babies and 6% for older children, with few cases of severe complications. Bleeding, infection, and the removal of either too much or too little foreskin are the most common complications cited.
All surgery carries risk, but they report the following..
Spoiler:
The most common early (intra-operative) complications tend to be minor and treatable: pain, bleeding, swelling or inadequate skin removal. However, serious complications can occur during the procedure, including death from excess bleeding and amputation of the glans penis if the glans is not shielded during the procedure. Late (post-operative) complications include pain, wound infection, the formation of a skin-bridge between the penile shaft and the glans, infection, urinary retention, meatal ulcer, meatal stenosis, fistulas, loss of penile sensitivity, sexual dysfunction and edema of the glans penis.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/20 22:58:24
Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote: Well, I don't think you necessarily need to intervene on anyone else's behalf. The Jews and Muslims (i.e. the ones actually affected by the practice) seem just fine with it.
There are those who simply do it "because everyone else does", as it seems in America. Jews and Muslims have it as part of their creed, but it's still legal to have it done, as someone said earlier for "aesthetic" reasons.
Orlanth wrote: 2. In countries where it is not common it can and does reinforce the cultural identity. Thus helping the diaspora survive despite cultural pressures to become apostate and lose their identity.
So let me get this straight: it's ok to cut parts off of someone without their consent because it helps prevent them from becoming apostates? Are you serious?
3. A person has the right to make decisions for themselves when they come of age, a parent has the right to make long lasting and permanent choices for the child.
However, they do not have an unlimited right to do so. They can make choices in the best interest of the child, acting as their representative until they are at a point where they can make their own decisions. They do not have the right to make choices that have permanent consequences on the child simply because the parent finds it appealing. This is not an urgent medical crisis where the parent needs to act to save the child's life, it's a purely aesthetic modification performed because the parent wants it done. Your child is not your toy, you don't get to cut pieces off of your child to make yourself feel better.
5. These ancient cultures aren't broken, at least not in these regards, there is no evidence that the Jewish and Moslem peoples have suffered for having their covenant, so they don't need meddlers to fix them according to their trendy progressive PC standards.
Actually we do have evidence of men who do not like the fact that they were circumcised without their consent and have suffered as a result. Do not dismiss the unwilling victims of the practice.
And if the principle that your right to follow your religion does not include the right to impose it on other people without their consent is "trendy progressive PC standards" then that concept has lost all meaning. Individual freedoms and the lines where they end are a long-established precedent in law and culture, across all parts of the political spectrum.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
3000
4000 
