posted
All of my peers and relatives with sons have had their sons circumcised, mostly for a mixture of medical and social acceptance reasons (also so that the son won't feel he is unusual in comparison with his father.) These folks aren't unaware of the advocacy against circumcision, nor are they unsympathetic to its arguments; they believe, I think, that since they haven't been harmed by being circumcised, it won't create a harm for their sons either.
And who knows? Perhaps the greater sensitivity cited in the study creates more frequent premature ejaculations. (I'm curious to know if there is any survey data supporting this.) So maybe men's sexual partners are a beneficiary of the procedure.
Posts: 47 | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: Lisa: I have not been presented with conclusive compelling evidence that Sa'eed is these previous posters who were banned by my predecessor.
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: Lisa: I have not been presented with conclusive compelling evidence that Sa'eed is these previous posters who were banned by my predecessor.
Link 2: Sa'eed acknowledges that he was Clive and Cindy and the Somalian.
Look, you're the moderator. You can do whatever you want. But please don't insult us by pretending that it hasn't been made clear to you who he is and what he's doing.
Lisa: How about you don't insult me by suggesting I'm being dishonest. My record stands for itself, and I don't believe that record suggests dishonesty or an unwillingness to do what needs to be done.
I've never seen your second link before.
Having seen it, I still feel compelled to stick with what I'm doing now. I'll allow Sa'eed to post so long as he abides by the TOS. If he doesn't I won't.
This is the last thing I'll be saying on the topic for now. If anybody has anything else to say about the matter, or my moderating you can email it to me. Thanks in advance. If you post it here, I won't be responding to it here.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:I've been presented with some evidence by certain posters, but nothing I could not ignore.
Has he even denied it? You'd think that'd be the first step.
I can't recall to be honest. I've been mostly pleased with his posting as of late.
When I take somebody's posting history into account, I take all of it, that includes recent positive trends.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Fine, your comment didn't embody the sentiment I cheered...take the rest up with Lyrhawn.
I meant no offense, dude. I was just clarifying because it sounded like you had misunderstood me. I'm sure Lyrhawn, to whom my original explanation was directed, will understand what I was getting at when he reads it. I'm sure he was more reacting to an attitude he perceived in the comment (which was my fault, I admit) rather than accusing me of being dismissive toward male issues. At least, I think he might remember me well enough to know that. (I have sons, and have always tried to be an advocate for them and issues that affect them and my Beloved.) I just wanted to clarify, in general, so as not to be misunderstood.
As far as I'm concerned, there are no inter-personal conflicts/slapfights going on. I was just trying to be clear, is all.
Yep, that's exactly what I was doing, though, you could have fairly said I was OVERreacting.
I freely admit to being somewhat hypersensitive on this one because I see it so often. Sometimes I see it where it isn't. Should of given you the benefit of the doubt, and I apologize for that.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: I am so going to move to Europe... Or Asia.
I can see this is something you care about deeply. And I don't mean to offend you.
But can you understand that, for most people - even the men who it's been done to - it's a minor surgery that either has no impact on, or has been directly beneficial for their sex lives? Sex without a foreskin is extremely enjoyable, I don't feel mutilated or damaged or deprived in the slightest.
I'm not saying your points aren't valid, but by grandstanding and making it out to be much worse than it is, you're producing the exact opposite of the effect that you're trying to create. People will dismiss you because of it, and dismiss your arguments with it.
You're also making circumcised men out to be sad, mutilated freaks. They're the majority of the US population, and probably don't like being called mutilated.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: I am so going to move to Europe... Or Asia.
Canada would do it also. As a male, I can't say its an issue that has really ever come up IRL.
Looking around, estimates vary but its most likely a minority that get circumcised.
quote:The Canadian Institute for Health Information reports a rate of 20% for the mid-1990s declining to 9% in 2005. The Provincial Ministries of Health give rates of 51-67% in 1970, steadily declining to 18-23% by 2003 in Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba and Saskatchewan. To illustrate the variation between different regions, even within the same province, the Ontario Ministry of Health and Statistics Canada, and Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, have reported rates between different districts ranging from 2% to 70%, with a mean of around 50%. Then in 2009, the Public Health Agency of Canada reported a rate of circumcision of male babies of 31.9% for Canada overall for 2006-2007 [Canada, 2009]. Rate was 44.3% in Alberta, 43.7% in Ontario, 39.2% in Prince Edward Island, 35.6% in Saskatchewan, 31.6% in Manitoba, 30.2% in British Columbia, 18.0% in New Brunswick, 12.3% in Quebec, 9.7% in Northwest Territories, 6.8% in Nova Scotia, and lack of reliable information for Nunavut, Newfoundland and Labrador.
posted
I didn't really say mutilated. But people do make it seem like intact men are dirty and gross because they have foreskin. Either position doesn't make sense, but my problem is it's a surgery that isn't really needed anymore. I don't think the affects are know well enough for people to keep doing this.
I reckon soon people in this country will circumcise less, but I kind of want them to consider doing it less now....
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, but Rabbi Shmuley mentioned this and quoted it in an article with the Huffington post which made me think HOW IS USING ANESTHESIA AND HAVING A NURSE OR DOCTOR DO IT NAZI LIKE?! AUGH!
posted
Syn, you are clearly irrational on the subject. I cannot discuss this with you.
(Not that I'm a great fan of Rabbi Boteach. I am not a fan of his grandstanding, hyperbole, and various other of his methods -- even when I agree with him on the issues, which I often do not.)
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not irrational. I just don't understand why he quoted this article that compares using anesthesia to Hitler.
Also, I don't agree that he stated basically that boobs are for husbands, not babies. There's always the possibility of misquoting people or just not understanding what they are talking about 9 times out of 10. I just showed Mayim Bialik a seal picture with Isaac the fur seal and Chris Isaak to be a bit more gentle about arguing about this as she's deleting all of the comments about it.
But the fact is, no matter how random I am, I'm not irrational I'm just really 100% against circumcision even for religious reasons when it comes to an infant who isn't allowed to make that decision for themselves. And that is not an irrational position to take that it's his body and it should be his decision to alter for life a part of it.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not an irrational position, it's just an extreme position.
No one here is saying that there is anything wrong with a natural penis, or that it stinks or is unclean. You keep bringing that up, but no one has said it here.
What people are saying here is, "We don't mind, there is a sexual benefit currently and there is some medical reason for it so it is not an atrocity."
I'd hesitate to say you are irrational...but I wouldn't hesitate to say you are very emotionally invested in this subject, but not very involved in this discussion.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: I'm not irrational. I just don't understand why he quoted this article that compares using anesthesia to Hitler.
The article doesn't do anything of the sort. You know it doesn't do anything of the sort. It says this is the first legal restriction on our being able to circumcise our children since the Nazis. Is that true or is that not true?
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: But the fact is, no matter how random I am, I'm not irrational I'm just really 100% against circumcision even for religious reasons when it comes to an infant who isn't allowed to make that decision for themselves.
Good thing it isn't up to you.
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: And that is not an irrational position to take that it's his body and it should be his decision to alter for life a part of it.
Jewish males need to be circumcised. You may not like it, but it's one of the most fundamental requirements of Judaism. Something God commanded us. Regardless of your reasons, this is no different than any other law forbidding us to practice our religion. And it'd ultimately cause more pain and more danger, because circumcising an adult is dangerous and a serious operation, which is not the case for an infant.
A circumcised child cries for about as long as a child who has had a good scare or who has had his pacifier taken away. And they don't even remember it after the fact.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't even watch videos because they scream in HORROR over pain they don't need. It's not extreme to say, why can't the child grow up and decide for himself? There's quite a few Jewish people who don't agree with circumcision, a growing number, in fact. Even if they don't remember the pain, it doesn't mean it doesn't affect and shape them.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:And that is not an irrational position to take...
It wasn't your position that was accused of being irrational.
quote:I can't even watch videos because they scream in HORROR over pain they don't need.
First of all, don't watch videos of it.
Secondly, babies are incapable of screaming in HORROR. Horror requires a certain level of understanding that they simply don't have.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: It says this is the first legal restriction on our being able to circumcise our children since the Nazis. Is that true or is that not true?
Its probably the first ban, but maybe not the first restriction since the Nazis.
quote:Sweden has passed a new law, the first of its kind in the world: Circumcision will take place only in the presence of a doctor and only with the use of a "pain-killer" administered by the medical man. From New York, the World Jewish Congress is accusing Sweden of placing the first legal restriction in Europe since the Nazi period on a Jewish religious practice.
Yep, that's exactly what I was doing, though, you could have fairly said I was OVERreacting.
I freely admit to being somewhat hypersensitive on this one because I see it so often. Sometimes I see it where it isn't. Should of given you the benefit of the doubt, and I apologize for that. [/QB]
Nothing to apologize for, man. It's easy to forget that it has been years since I posted regularly here, and that most of the current regulars probably don't know me at all. And the bit you quoted was over-the-top and did actually sound like what you thought it was, even though I didn't mean it that way in context.
It was totally my bad. I should be more careful, and hopefully I will keep this in mind in the future.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: It says this is the first legal restriction on our being able to circumcise our children since the Nazis. Is that true or is that not true?
Its probably the first ban, but maybe not the first restriction since the Nazis.
quote:Sweden has passed a new law, the first of its kind in the world: Circumcision will take place only in the presence of a doctor and only with the use of a "pain-killer" administered by the medical man. From New York, the World Jewish Congress is accusing Sweden of placing the first legal restriction in Europe since the Nazi period on a Jewish religious practice.
I may move to Sweden. Is it the doctor being there that makes folks opposed to the law? It's one thing for a baby to have something like colic or teething, but this is a pain a baby can be prevented from having to endure.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmmm, a BBC article says that the Jews and Muslims in the country believe (believed in 2001 anyways) that it would be difficult to find doctors that would participate in circumcision since many would refuse to participate for reasons of conscience.
I see little coverage afterwards, so I don't necessarily know if the affected groups adapted, or if the law was repealed, etc..
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, first it would require money. And there's Finland and Iceland to consider too but Iamamiwhoami is doing a real concert in Sweden in August which will be fantastic!
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think he's probably pointing out that when most people say, "If this happens, I'm out!" they're just venting and hardly ever mean to actually *do* it. Which certainly appears to be the case here.
Not that Synesthesia would get worked up, emotional, and even hysterical about something and engage in some hyperbole...
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that Synesthesia is a tad overwrought but her hyperbole bothers me much less than people being deliberately nasty about it.
Now. Mph might not be doing that. It is possible that he is taking her literally and is also curious about moving to Sweden.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I doubt he is serious, only pointing out to her that repeatedly saying she is going to move without any plans to do so is annoying. Oh course I am not m_p_h so I could be entirely wrong.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes. I was giving him the benefit of the doubt and asking just in case.
He may well be pointing out that Synesthesia is annoying. I am pointing out that his repeated snarks of that (assuming that is what they are) are obnoxious and mean=spirited.
You feel free to point out whatever you like.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Synesthesia - if you really want to change things here, it would be easier to do that from here, I think.
Also, it's not fair to say Syn's arguments are irrational. They are somewhat hyperbolic and unnecessarily emotionally charged, but that isn't the same thing as entirely irrational.
I suspect she's Feeling personality type and that most of Hatrack are Thinking personality types, so we value emotional/physical impact arguments less than pro/con arguments based on other criteria. But emotional/physical impact arguments aren't irrational -- they are just less appealing to populations of Thinkers.
At least, that is my suspicion.
And even if her highly emotional arguments stretch rationality at times, I have to admit that my knee-jerk distaste for such arguments -- the desire to outright ignore emotional criteria for making judgments -- is also kind of irrational. We are not creatures of pure reason, after all, and ignore the emotional aspects of ourselves and our culture at our peril.
(For the record, while I don't think circumcision is at all necessary medically, I don't believe the risks in doing it are so high as to legally prohibit it. Doing so would be little more than a political cudgel for use in persecuting Jews. It would also be an extreme measure, since the practice is going out of fashion with American gentiles anyway.)
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Olivet: Also, it's not fair to say her arguments are irrational.
Good thing that's not what I said.
I never assumed you had, hon. I haven't read the whole thread, and was responding to other who seemed to be responding to a statement that she was being irrational. My statement was in no way directed at you, just a general observation on the way the last few comments had been going.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:So now you're willing to take a forum member's posting history into consideration?
There is a world of difference between what is said in the same thread and what is allegedly said in a different thread under a different name. I would think that would be obvious.
quote:Also, it's not fair to say her arguments are irrational.
After a quick review, I'm pretty sure I'm safe to say, no one said they were.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do want to at least visit there before I decide to move...
I keep reading that when the baby sleeps through the procedure they could be passing out. I have no way of knowing this, I just cannot get past the idea of cutting THERE. Even with numbing cream. I keep putting myself in the position of the baby and how it feels to have something like that suddenly happen. I don't think it's quite the same as ripping a bandaid as a site about brit milah said because there's just so many nerve endings there. That alone makes me wish people, more people would stop doing that.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Olivet: It would also be an extreme measure, since the practice is going out of fashion with American gentiles anyway.)
Olivet, have I mentioned that I agree with you on just about everything you have written in this thread. And that I suffered a bit of dyslexia on that last sentence, there.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:So now you're willing to take a forum member's posting history into consideration?
There is a world of difference between what is said in the same thread and what is allegedly said in a different thread under a different name. I would think that would be obvious.
Ah. I'd been skimming a bit, and missed Syn's having made the "Europe... Or Asia" comment in this thread; my mistake.
I do think that it's silly, though, to treat each thread as though it exists in a vacuum. Do you?
Posts: 1087 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Also, it's not fair to say her arguments are irrational.
After a quick review, I'm pretty sure I'm safe to say, no one said they were.
I don't think anyone did either. I'm not certain who Olivet was responding to, but perhaps it was a global reaction, rather than to any one poster.
Syn, my kids all reacted far more negatively to their immunizations than my son did to his circumcision. In both cases, I believe the pain is for a purpose. Which doesn't mean the pain should not be reduced as much as practical.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Also, it's not fair to say her arguments are irrational.
After a quick review, I'm pretty sure I'm safe to say, no one said they were.
I just skimmed the thread and I thought I saw someone asserting that her arguments were not irrational, and I was just agreeing with that. Maybe I misread something. I meant no offense.
Guess I've learned my lesson about posting threads when I don't have time to read every single post. I had no idea that statement would upset people, or seem like i was attacking someone in particular.
quote:Originally posted by Olivet: It would also be an extreme measure, since the practice is going out of fashion with American gentiles anyway.)
Olivet, have I mentioned that I agree with you on just about everything you have written in this thread. And that I suffered a bit of dyslexia on that last sentence, there.
Maybe I should have said non-Jewish Americans? That seemed clunky, but the dyslexic reading is MUCH worse. Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: [QUOTE] I'm not certain who Olivet was responding to, but perhaps it was a global reaction, rather than to any one poster.
I skimmed back and didn't find it either. I thought someone said something like "it isn't irrational to argue..." and I was just agreeing. I'm at a stage in my personal growth where I'm trying to accept that emotional arguments can still be rational, so that was at least partially directed at myself. A reminder, like, because I'm still not comfortable with the idea.
So maybe it was one of those conversations I had with the voices in my head. You guys have those, too, right? Right guys? O_O No?
*quietly shuffles out of thread*
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jake: I do think that it's silly, though, to treat each thread as though it exists in a vacuum. Do you?
My objection to people saying that Sa'eed's postings were "thinly veiled antisemitism" were that I could detect nothing of the sort, and a more fair comment would have been "Sa'eed has a large history with antisemitism and this could be just another attempt to take a poke at our Jewish friends."
I don't think each thread lives in a vacuum. I just think fair play is a Good Thing (TM) and should be used as much as possible.
Lisa and Samp trying to counter the negative message that Clive/Somolian/(possibly)Sa'eed, is a good thing, but if they take it too far then they become the ones who have a negative message.
Sa'eed didn't say anything wrong (after taking back the unfair comparison), and he shouldn't have been jumped upon for past (possible) sins.
Sa'eed may well be the Somolian...I don't know, but more to the point, I don't give a damn. If he keeps the crazy in his pants and the mod is fine with him posting, then so am I.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Stone-Wolf, you may be missing the fact that circumcision is a practice that originated and is considered religiously necessary by Jewish people.
Given his history of posting, he may as well have started a thread stating that not eating bacon is stupid or that eating cheeseburgers is essential for health. (Both of those things being forbidden to some Jews.) It wasn't about foreskin; it was about Judaism.
And he also got a bonus dig at women who argue against FGM.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Boots...first thing, you can't know that for sure, second, who cares? Despite what Rakeesh says, I say this has been a good/entertaining/enjoyable discussion, one he started. And he didn't say anything about Jews, and he retracted his unfair comparison, so, I don't buy the dig on women either.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well no, what *actually* happened is that Sa'eed said the comparison was 'a bit much'-and then went right on comparing the two.
He's got a specific history of anti-Semitic posting, even under the name Sa'eed. In his *other* identities, some of which he's copped to some of which he hasn't, it was much worse-as well as *actually* trivializing women and women's rights issues, not just the way-wah trivialization that was accused in this thread (due to misunderstanding) and then cheered by you.
But hey, I guess as long as Sa'eed is trumpeting men's issues, you don't have to pay attention to the trivialization of FGM (he didn't withdraw the comparison), or the thinly-veiled anti-Semitism (he wasn't talking about *Communion*) until Yiu get the sort of standard of proof necessary in criminal court.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Maybe I should have said non-Jewish Americans? That seemed clunky, but the dyslexic reading is MUCH worse. ![[Monkeys]](graemlins/monkeys.gif)
