The Absurd Reason Why America Circumcises Baby Boys

[HapticSimian]

Unquestioning acceptance - what every dimwitted notion needs for survival. Takes religion to turn it into a virtue though.

 

[Aghori]

Cut vs. Uncut


http://img298.imagevenue.com/aAfkjf...89701187_4998767176_f87d6f9b49_z_123_30lo.jpg

 

[Nanfeishen]

:wtf:

Err... no? Today's application of leeches in specific circumstances is a world removed from its prevalence before the advent of evidence-based medicine.

Semantics, same principle, just modernised and specialised.

 

[HapticSimian]

Semantics, same principle, just modernised and specialised.

... and no longer applied simply for the sake of it, or where the benefit is questionable or non-existent. That's the important bit.

 

[Alton Turner Blackwood]

14 pages of arguing over a dick

 

[HapticSimian]

14 pages of arguing over a dick

Indeed.

Also, does not compute; we're only on page 6. Noobs with their 10 posts per page.

But seriously, society changes and progresses through discourse, and the 'web offers a platform where conversations can be had more freely than ever in humanity's history. Talking is important.

 

[Ninja'd]

14 pages of arguing over a dick

Some are obviously compensating for something.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

If that was still in existence, then I would have had to accept it.

It is still in existence.

Yes. I respect the traditional aspects of my religion and if that's what my forefathers had been doing for years, I would have done it.

This is the horrifying reality of religion. It can make otherwise decent human beings accept and justify the most horrific things.

How do you square your partner's homosexuality with your religion?

 

[porchrat]

Semantics, same principle, just modernised and specialised.

There has been a fundamental shift in the reasons for, and the way in which leeches are applied today. It isn't just semantics. If you think it is you likely have a questionable understanding of the meaning of that term.

 

[EMAM]

It is still in existence.



This is the horrifying reality of religion. It can make otherwise decent human beings accept and justify the most horrific things.

How do you square your partner's homosexuality with your religion?

Firstly, I am not a hasidic jew - I believe they are the only ones still practising this. Yes, circumcision is horrifying - the most horrifying thing in life (note the sarcasm).
Secondly, my partners homosexuality has nothing to do with religion!

 

[OrbitalDawn]

Firstly, I am not a hasidic jew - I believe they are the only ones still practising this.Yes, circumcision is horrifying - the most horrifying thing in life (note the sarcasm).

You have no problem with the practice, as per your own admission. Neither do you have a problem with severing someone's ear if it's religiously justified.

Secondly, my partners homosexuality has nothing to do with religion!

Of course it does. When last did you read the Torah?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_and_Judaism

Lev.18:22 "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind; it is detestable."

Lev.20:13 "And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed a detestable act: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

 

[Dubes]

So the perpetuation of the fallacies continue with no evidence presented...

Fallacy 1: A circumcised penis is less sensitive.

Research has been presented that it isn't. But ignoring this for moment I'll again question whether anyone has ever complained about a man lasting too long during sex? Most complaints are about premature ejaculation so remind me what the issue is again? I'm yet to hear of a circumcised man who does not enjoy sex as a result of being circumcised.

Fallacy 2: Hygiene is not affected whether circumcised or uncircumcised and is affected by personal cleanliness.

Partly true no doubt but as quoted by me earlier the foreskin supposedly secretes smegma to assist in ensuring it does not stick to the glans. Fairly apparent then that if it is removed these secretions will be diminished. The quote also states "the oils are produced constantly and are thus replaced very quickly after washing". So bath all you want, nature will still take its course.

Fallacy 3: Men are "mutilated" against their will.

Yes, I had no say in the matter but, based on my fairly extensive sexual interactions, I'm perfectly happy I was. I would've had no say in them not doing it either and would now regret that.


Final point, I ain't no gay, and the male penis is not the most attractive thing anyway, but an uncut one is even worse, in my opinion. But then I'm not the "target market" anyway

 

[HapticSimian]

So the perpetuation of the fallacies continue with no evidence presented...

Fallacy 1: A circumcised penis is less sensitive.

Research has been presented that it isn't. But ignoring this for moment I'll again question whether anyone has ever complained about a man lasting too long during sex? Most complaints are about premature ejaculation so remind me what the issue is again? I'm yet to hear of a circumcised man who does not enjoy sex as a result of being circumcised.

Research pointing to the contrary, and arguably more soundly conducted, was also presented.

Fallacy 2: Hygiene is not affected whether circumcised or uncircumcised and is affected by personal cleanliness.

Partly true no doubt but as quoted by me earlier the foreskin supposedly secretes smegma to assist in ensuring it does not stick to the glans. Fairly apparent then that if it is removed these secretions will be diminished. The quote also states "the oils are produced constantly and are thus replaced very quickly after washing". So bath all you want, nature will still take its course.

Yes, and? Unkempt hair does not turn into dreadlocks overnight. The comforts of modern living mean we don't have to suffer the now questionable practices of old.

Fallacy 3: Men are "mutilated" against their will.

Yes, I had no say in the matter but, based on my fairly extensive sexual interactions, I'm perfectly happy I was. I would've had no say in them not doing it either and would now regret that.

'Men' aren't; defenceless infants are. Your happiness does not neutralise the unhappiness experienced by many others.

Final point, I ain't no gay, and the male penis is not the most attractive thing anyway, but an uncut one is even worse, in my opinion. But then I'm not the "target market" anyway

Opinions are fluid, and vary with the times. Further, opinion should not form the basis of electing to have unnecessary surgical procedures performed on infants.

You don't just get to call arguments contrary to your view fallacies; that's lazy and disingenuous.

 

[EMAM]

You have no problem with the practice, as per your own admission. Neither do you have a problem with severing someone's ear if it's religiously justified.



Of course it does. When last did you read the Torah?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_and_Judaism

We no longer live in the dark ages. We know what the torah states but we are not hasidic jews or deeply religious orthodox jews. We were born into and are practising orthodox jews and we live by the basic traditions of the religion. When you understand judaism, then maybe you can comment about the laws and customs.

 

[ponder]

We no longer live in the dark ages. We know what the torah states but we are not hasidic jews or deeply religious orthodox jews. We were born into and are practising orthodox jews and we live by the basic traditions of the religion. When you understand judaism, then maybe you can comment about the laws and customs.

So cherry picking like people from most religions and only using what suites them. Ok that's not new, still not justifiable though.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

We no longer live in the dark ages. We know what the torah states but we are not hasidic jews or deeply religious orthodox jews. We were born into and are practising orthodox jews and we live by the basic traditions of the religion. When you understand judaism, then maybe you can comment about the laws and customs.

Then why do you support an archaic religious custom that has no place in a modern society?

It's exactly as ponder says, you cherry pick the parts you want to follow. You'll cut your kid's ear off if your religion demands it but you conveniently ignore the homophobic parts.

 

[EMAM]

Then why do you support an archaic religious custom that has no place in a modern society?

It's exactly as ponder says, you cherry pick the parts you want to follow. You'll cut your kid's ear off if your religion demands it but you conveniently ignore the homophobic parts.

Are you jewish? Do you understand judaism? Do you abide by ALL the laws of your religion? Do not bring homophobia into this please. What I do in my life or how I live it has nothing to do with you. Carry on arguing - sorry, debating your point - I'm no longer taking part in this thread because I'm judged on circumcising my son.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

Are you jewish? Do you understand judaism?

No. What is there to understand?

Do you abide by ALL the laws of your religion?

Don't have a religion.

Do not bring homophobia into this please. What I do in my life or how I live it has nothing to do with you. Carry on arguing - sorry, debating your point - I'm no longer taking part in this thread because I'm judged on circumcising my son.

Your religion is homophobic, your partner is homosexual - thus you're caught in an uncomfortable position, and you chose to ignore the homophobic part of your religion because it clashes with your partner's orientation. Why do you cling to the other archaic part of your religion, and worse, defend it?

No one's judging you. We're critiquing your inability to admit your own errors in judgement. We all have them, but we should adjust our views based on evidence and reason, not obstinately fall back on 'because religion'. Religion, culture and traditions are woeful reasons to continue a practice that causes unnecessary harm.

 

[Garson007]

Cut is more of a deal breaker than a small penis.

 

[Ockie]

Your religion is homophobic, your partner is homosexual - thus you're caught in an uncomfortable position, and you chose to ignore the homophobic part of your religion because it clashes with your partner's orientation. Why do you cling to the other archaic part of your religion, and worse, defend it?

No one's judging you. We're critiquing your inability to admit your own errors in judgement. We all have them, but we should adjust our views based on evidence and reason, not obstinately fall back on 'because religion'. Religion, culture and traditions are woeful reasons to continue a practice that causes unnecessary harm.

Well said.