MGM UK

[Darat]

...snip..



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


Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

Most people who are against circumcision in infants are absolutely fine with an adult making the decision to have a circumcision for whatever reason. By making a choice for an infant you are removing the future choice for that adult, why is it important to remove that choice?

 

[GlennB]

It's been okay for thousands of years now, so ...

Rule of "It's been okay for thousands of years now, so ... "

Do you see how absurd that line of argument is?

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

It hasn't "been OK" at all. There are no benefits and some significant-but-variable deficits, and the whole caboodle is based on a mythical meeting between a deity and 'some dude called Abram'.

 

[Belgian thought]

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

Unlike the reason it is done for i.e. imaginary entities - even those dreamt up thousands of years ago. No logical reason for it at all but, emotions.

 

[Mycroft]

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

Because the only argument in that post was emotive.

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

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

I can't think of any. Can you name a few?

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

What was the "medically accurate" part of that post?

.

 

[Mycroft]

The stupidest rule on the internet.

It's pretty good when, as in this case, the "so" is followed by some conclusion that doesn't follow from what I said.

Only imaginary harm?

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

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

Right...and picked up and promoted by some anti-Immigrant political parties, correct? Because this issue effects some populations more than others, correct? Populations that are sometimes regarded as less desirable?

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

It is relevant that deaths do happen and also that they are rare.

 

[Mycroft]

Unlike the reason it is done for i.e. imaginary entities - even those dreamt up thousands of years ago. No logical reason for it at all but, emotions.

If your reasoning is anti-religious, then it's also anti-cultural for those people who follow those religions.

Invoking this as a reason not to have your own sons circumcised makes perfect sense as it is you invoking your own religious freedom. Invoking this as a reason to prevent someone else from doing it to their sons is an action to suppress their religious freedom.

 

[Mycroft]

By making a choice for an infant you are removing the future choice for that adult, why is it important to remove that choice?

When did I ever say it's important to remove that choice?

 

[Mycroft]

That is not factually correct, a circumcision removes functional tissue.

The function being to keep a few drops of urine on the glans to promote inflammation and bad smell, and also as a collection place for smegma.

 

[angrysoba]

It's pretty good when, as in this case, the "so" is followed by some conclusion that doesn't follow from what I said.

The rule of so refers to the setting up of a strawman, as when someone says they think military expenditure should be reduced: "so you're saying that it would be okay if North Korea invades and kills everyone - so, you're saying you want that to happen, right?"

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

This is not remotely obvious from what you said, and it fails to address the argument that such elective surgery can cause complications which cause real harm. This alone is a reason to not do the procedure, in my opinion, unless a demonstrable benefit outweighs it. It seems to me that in *rare* cases the possible benefits outweigh the risks, but in countries where it is prevalent, "rare" botched circumcisions seem to be the price that the society is willing to pay for prolonging a cultural practice. And that brings us to the second point which is that the recipients of circumcision don't get to vote on this. If you want to make this a matter of choice then the only choice that makes sense in a rights-based system is that of the person circumcised in which case I suggest they can choose at eighteen.

Right...and picked up and promoted by some anti-Immigrant political parties, correct? Because this issue effects some populations more than others, correct? Populations that are sometimes regarded as less desirable?

Now this is just well-poisoning. You're against circumcision, and Nazis are against circumcision, therefore you are a Nazi. Let's imagine that the Nazis are against circumcision. Hey, the Nazis are right. They may be right for the wrong reasons and motivated by ethnic hatred but if they are against circumcision then they arrived at the correct conclusion. Let's not try and scare people off and allow the Nazis to be the only people who are right about this. That would be handing them an undeserved moral victory.

It is relevant that deaths do happen and also that they are rare.

Yes, rare, and unnecessary. Let's not have any more unnecessary deaths eh? I'm sure you will agree with that.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

We men are not just ignorant about our own sex organs, we're damn proud of that ignorance.

Wow.

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk

 

[angrysoba]

If your reasoning is anti-religious, then it's also anti-cultural for those people who follow those religions.

Invoking this as a reason not to have your own sons circumcised makes perfect sense as it is you invoking your own religious freedom. Invoking this as a reason to prevent someone else from doing it to their sons is an action to suppress their religious freedom.

No problem. I think when "religious freedom" impinges on the freedom of others then it is correct to deny it. Your argument only works if you can extend it to FGM, suttee and cutting off the hands of thieves etc...

 

[Belgian thought]

If your reasoning is anti-religious, then it's also anti-cultural for those people who follow those religions.

Invoking this as a reason not to have your own sons circumcised makes perfect sense as it is you invoking your own religious freedom. Invoking this as a reason to prevent someone else from doing it to their sons is an action to suppress their religious freedom.

No - "No logical reason for it at all but, emotions."

 

[Mycroft]

No - "No logical reason for it at all but, emotions."

And religious and cultural freedom.

 

[Mycroft]

No problem. I think when "religious freedom" impinges on the freedom of others then it is correct to deny it. Your argument only works if you can extend it to FGM, suttee and cutting off the hands of thieves etc...

I disagree that I need to justify sati, FGM, and chopping off hands to says that circumcision should be left to the decision of the parents, because none of those are comparable to circumcision.

 

[Mycroft]

We men are not just ignorant about our own sex organs, we're damn proud of that ignorance.

Wow.

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk

Educate us.

 

[Belgian thought]

And religious and cultural freedom.

If they are illogical, and I would add that the religious aspect drives the culture, then they are not to be considered as a valid starting point to this argument i.e. whether chopping bits of male babies or later female children (when it comes to FGM) stems from correct initial critical thinking.

 

[Mycroft]

The rule of so refers to the setting up of a strawman...

Agreed. Sadhatter's claim that "So a Google search of botched circumcision should return no results then?" was a strawman, though less extreme than your example.

This is not remotely obvious from what you said...

Fair enough, I hope my clarification puts this line to rest.

...and it fails to address the argument that such elective surgery can cause complications which cause real harm. This alone is a reason to not do the procedure, in my opinion, unless a demonstrable benefit outweighs it.

There are benefits, albiet minor ones. There are also small risks. I think it's possible for reasonable people to weigh the benefits and risks and come to different conclusions. What gives your opinion so much weight that we should deny the rights of others to make decisions about their children?

It seems to me that in *rare* cases the possible benefits outweigh the risks...

I disagree that would be rare.

Now this is just well-poisoning. You're against circumcision, and Nazis are against circumcision, therefore you are a Nazi.

That second sentence is a straw-man.

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

Yes, rare, and unnecessary. Let's not have any more unnecessary deaths eh? I'm sure you will agree with that.

Disingenuous.

 

[Mycroft]

If they are illogical, and I would add that the religious aspect drives the culture, then they are not to be considered as a valid starting point to this argument i.e. whether chopping bits of male babies or later female children (when it comes to FGM) stems from correct initial critical thinking.

Since we don't put these burdens on any other aspect of religious and cultural freedoms, why should I agree with these assertions?

 

[Belgian thought]

Since we don't put these burdens on any other aspect of religious and cultural freedoms, why should I agree with these assertions?

We should apply critical thought to all aspects of religious and cultural freedoms.

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

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

Please do not muddy the water.

 

[Mycroft]

We should apply critical thought to all aspects of religious and cultural freedoms.

That would be anti-religious and cultural freedom.

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

I disagree that circumcision equals mutilation, and I believe your reliance on that emotive term underlines the overall weakness of your argument.

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

Please do not muddy the water.

You are asserting a right to interfere with someone else's religious and cultural freedom. I think it's appropriate to explore the basis of that assertion. I disagree that I have "muddied the waters" in any way, and reserve the right to raise whatever issues I deem appropriate to convey my point of view and to challenge yours.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk