Broomstick wrote: Akhlut wrote:
Broomstick wrote:You are so full of shit - you really think that Pharonic circumcision, which removes the clitoris, labia, and sews up the opening of the vagina and urethra to something the size of soda straw is the exact same thing as foreskin removal? Get real. Sure, male castratos have reported orgasm capability as well, but you'd be nuts to argue that castration doesn't impact sex.
If you're willing to outlaw one, why not completely outlaw the other?
While they are both mutilation, one is a fuckton more damaging than the other, or don't you understand the world is analog, not binary? You're arguing that two different levels of damage are exactly the same when to anyone with a brain they clearly are not. It's the difference between burns-and-skin-graft on a foot and having the foot cut entirely off. Neither is desirable but most people view complete amputation as worse than "mere" severe damage that still leaves the body part functional even if not perfect.
Did you not read that study I linked to earlier? Even with Pharonic FGM, women can still have orgasms, undergo menses, urinate, and give birth to children. Sounds like their vaginas have all the normal functions despite the massive destruction of tissue and lack of consent from the child who has the procedure performed on them.
So will you impose equal penalties for any parent piercing the ears of an infant or a child who otherwise is not competent to give consent?
I don't see why not. Probably a lesser penalty, due to the relatively insensate nature of ear cartilage, but a penalty nonetheless.
Why lesser, when you view all damage as equally intolerable and barbaric?
Way to cut out the explanatory part there that explains the differences. And, as I've said repeatedly, FGM results in roughly the same loss of function as MGM.
Also, you moron, traditional piercing through the ear lobe, what the vast majority of people mean by the term, doesn't go through cartilage. It does cause pain, children cry when it's done to them. Also, if you DO do a piercing through cartilage is usually hurts worse. Thanks for displaying your ignorance.
"Relatively insensate" does not mean "does not feel any sensation whatsoever".
And you did notice where I said that I think those who pierce the ears of children SHOULD BE PENALIZED?
Bronze Age, actually.
Fine, excellent. Then they can live as Bronze Age barbarians outside of civilized nations.
So, because some cheat they all cheat, right? Just ignore the fact that many Jews who could easily afford such equipment do regard it as cheating and view the ones who do use it as hypocrites and worse, because, you know, those Jews are all alike, not the like rest of us who are individuals, right?
If there is a willingness to find work-arounds to the laws of YHWH (and there have been ever since the destruction of the Temple, after all, so EVERY extant sect of Judaism is already bending the laws of YHWH as the Sadducee varieties of Judaism have been extinct for ~2000 years now), then they can certainly find a workaround to the barbarity of MGM.
However, one practice found over and over in Judaism is infant circumcision.
Except among those who practice Bri without Malah.
I was illustrating the possibility of devout Jews not engaging in barbaric practices.
If they aren't circumcizing then 97% of Jews
don't regard them as devout no matter what else they do. Jews
get to decide these things, not you.
You do understand the word "possibility" and what it means, correct?
I certainly hope they're stopped from harming innocent children. I imagine if this were any group other than the Jews engaging in behavior like this, that group would be rightfully shouted down as being barbaric and possibly evil.
You mean... like vast swathes of American Christians who are still circumcising their baby boys? South Korea? Australia? Well, OK, Australia is "only" about 2/3 of men and boys being circumcised and admittedly there is some dispute about the exact number.
Oh, yes, I would be more than happy if there was an ability in those nations to stop people from engaging in widespread MGM. Circumcision for vanity reasons against those who are unable to consent is absolutely disgusting and barbaric and should be outlawed in any reasonable nation.
Unfortunately, the US has not shown itself to be a very reasonable nation at any point in its long, sordid history.
I've leaving out the many African nations as it is all too easy to dismiss them as barbaric and the predominantly Muslim nations like Indonesia because, after all, Muslims are so easily confused with evil by the mentally deficient.
It's not anything inherent to them as human beings, though. There is nothing special to Africans that makes Africa a bad place, it's the long years of exploitation by Europe that has robbed them of functional native governments and the resulting chaos when colonial powers left en masse without trying to set up functional governments and the decades of US/Soviet power plays in the region in order to install favored dictators in the region. That some groups, be they Muslim, Christian, or animist might engage in circumcision (both male and female) doesn't make the people in them inherently evil or savage, merely that their cultures have practices in them that are evil and barbaric. Just like the USA and its cultural usage of circumcision due to tradition and, prior to tradition, as an anti-masturbatory aid. That doesn't make people in the USA inherently evil or barbaric, just that there is a large subset that does engage in evil and barbaric activities and often do so unthinkingly because it is simply how things are done.
It's a funny thing about circumcision - it's so easily hidden by ordinary trousers. Did you really think this practice was limited only to Jews and a slice of Muslims? Part of the problem with eliminating it is that it is widely practiced around the world, even if the rates are very low in Europe among Christians and secular people, and so many people just don't see this as a big deal.
Nope, I know that is it entirely too common among the USA due to the influence of one Mr. Kellog who hated masturbation as one of the gravest evils mankind could indulge in and he thought circumcision would be the ultimate means to stop masturbation, and through his influence it became universal among Christians in the USA because they hated masturbation too. Once that rhetoric became outdated, a million bullshit reasons arose out of cultural inertia; it is done in the USA simply because it has been going on like that for over a century now. There is no greater religious or cultural reason; no associated rites of manhood, no supplications to some bloodthirsty deity; it is done simply because it is always done that way, much like the proverbial tale of a woman who cuts off the ends of the pot roast because she saw her mother do it like that and that woman did it because the grandmother did that without realizing that she did it like that because she needed to fit it in a small pan. So, the USA has people do it because it was always done like that because, originally, some asshole wanted to stop kids from masturbating.
It's rather like the reaction I get when I say ear piercing in infants is child abuse – the practice is so widespread and accepted people just don't get it. Mothers who get upset at the pain caused by their kid getting a shot at the doctor think nothing of drilling holes in their kid's ears for purely ornamental purposes. They just don't get it. We see the same thing about circumcision on this very forum from time to time, when some young man, typically cut himself, will post that he doesn't get the furor, he was circumcised as an infant and he's OK so what's the problem here? When the victims themselves don't see it as a problem it means you have a VERY difficult job eradicating the practice.
Especially when the reasons are so fucking stupid: "we don't want him made fun of in the locker room!" "We want him to look like daddy!" Etc.
http://www.welcome-to-lancaster-county. ... style.html
Question: how do you know these people are actually Amish? Did you ask them? Or were they Mennonites, who share many things with the Amish but do allow driving? Or is this you once again displaying ignorance of others?
Therefore, the use of the automobile was gradually seen as helpful to the Amish lifestyle in uniting larger settlements as well as uniting settlements from neighboring counties.
So, what was that about displaying ignorance of others? Remember, there is no Amish Pope, as they're a bunch of decentralized Anabaptists and different communities will have slightly different rules, and some allow the usage of automobiles, even by their own members, while others will discourage it completely.
And this is a problem because...?
I didn't say it was. You're the one who brought up the Amish and said that they couldn't drive; I was correcting your incorrect assumption because you're nowhere near as knowledgeable as you claim to be. Certain Amish sects DO use cars (such as the Amish who lived near me).
But because 3% of Jews don't circumcise their male offspring you somehow think this is indicative of the sentiments of most Jews. It's not.
I was showing how they could operate should they so choose to live in the 21st century and not the Bronze Age
. Nothing more, nothing less.
What prompted me to do that was NOT a personal liking of the practice – I despise it – but because of all the fucking ignorance about another culture being displayed here. Which, in your case, apparently is not limited to the Jews but also extends to the Amish. Wouldn't surprise me if the trend continues in regards to other groups as well.
I think you'll find that your ignorance about the Amish is greater than mine. Depending on the community, the usage of modern equipment is allowed and they aren't Mennonites, they are Amish, as that's mostly a difference in how a group labels itself rather than any differences in views on technology (there are groups of Mennonites that are more 'Luddite' in character than certain groups of Amish and vice versa (source
Since there is not Biblical prohibition on anesthesia and no requirement that the child feel pain during the procedure, in fact the use of anesthesia in infant circumcision is now routine even when performed by a mohel (or, as my mother used to call them, “a creepy old men in the synagogue” which should make it clear what her views were) in a religious setting. I don't doubt there are some assholes who neglect to use it, but that's also true in secular hospitals with trained doctors for some asinine reason. Again, Akhlut is showing he has, at best, only a superficial and frequently wrong knowledge of what the hell he's talking about.
Anesthesia during a bris varies greatly according to the whims of a mohel or the parents, and, unfortunately, there aren't really any statistics out there to say whether or not it is routinely practiced with anesthesia, so you can't really say that almost all, or even a majority or plurality, are practiced with anesthesia. We simply lack the numbers to say whether or not it is, however, there are a number of them who do practice it without anesthesia.
So, what was that about ignorance again?
What the fuck do you think they do, rip it off with their teeth? Holy fuck you might at least try something as simple as Wikipedia or Google. Here's another fact: they also sterilize the fucking instruments they use, which are modern tools just like a doctor would use. This doesn't make it OK, of course, but it's not like they're using rusty razor blades or broken beer bottles or something.
Just because they use modern surgical equipment doesn't make it not-barbaric. Same goes for gentile doctors performing it for non-religious reasons.
SDNet: Unbelievable levels of pedantry that you can't find anywhere else on the Internet!