More Lunacy In TCTUTKHBDTMDITSAF...

[Sean]

Well done CP.

Now perhaps at long last Sean could answer the question of whether or not he believes that people who are "guilty of child mutilation" (no "expansion" there...verbatim quote) should be permitted to keep their children. (Since he's now made clear that he's defending these statements because he agrees with them.)

Alright Jim, that has really pissed me off.
You may want to check your facts (not to mention previous posts) before you talk about a "verbatim quote".

I await your apology.

[Gob]

Inapropriate post deleted...

[Lord Jim]

I think you'll agree that circumcision fits that definition rather well.

Not in the least; quite the contrary...

Unless of course you don't think that using a scalpel to excise part of a person's body constitutes injury...

LOL

More too clever by half dis-ingenuousness...

I suppose by the same token one could say that when a surgeon removes a tumor, he's doing "injury"....

Afterall, he's cutting a hole in a person, that's pretty "injurious"....

[Lord Jim]

Sorry Sean, no apology will be forthcoming, but I'm happy to provide proof:

Anyone who circumcises their child (except for medical reasons,) is guilty of child mutilation. Religious freaks are included in that statement!

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2911&p=38154&hilit=religious#p38154

Perhaps you should consult a dictionary for the meaning of the word "verbatim"

On second thought, I'll give you a hand:

ver·ba·tim
   /vərˈbeɪtɪm/ Show Spelled[ver-bey-tim] Show IPA
–adverb
1.
in exactly the same words; word for word: to repeat something verbatim.
–adjective
2.
corresponding word for word to the original source or text: a verbatim record of the proceedings.

Now would you care to answer my question? Or would you care to say, (your prior comments notwithstanding) that you do not agree with this particular characterization of SMF's ? (which I have presented verbatim)

[Sean]

Bullshit Jim.

Now perhaps at long last Sean could answer the question of whether or not he believes that people who are "guilty of child mutilation" (no "expansion" there...verbatim quote) should be permitted to keep their children.

Verbatim quote, but not from me!
Why would you imply that the quote was from me?
Actually I'll anticipate your reply of "I didn't imply...etc" by reminding you that you used a "verbatim quote" as expressing my belief.

I believe that you have since looked back and realised that it wasn't me who said that (as shown by your last post) but haven't got the stones to admit to your error.

Bad form!

Edited to add: If you really knew that it wasn't my quote then why the fuck would you not attribute the quote to the correct source from the start?

[Lord Jim]

I believe that you have since looked back and realised that it wasn't me who said that (as shown by your last post) but haven't got the stones to admit to your error.

Bad show!

Edited to add: If you realised that it wasn't my quote then why the fuck would you not attribute the quote to the correct source from the start?

LMAO


Oh geez, you're traveling into Quad-like territory in your efforts to do anything other than admit that comment way over the top.....

I knew full well that the quote came from SMF; (and so did you; we've been discussing it for a couple of hours ) which is why I said:

(Since he's now made clear that he's defending these statements because he agrees with them.)

I would scarcely have said that if I thought you yourself were the source of the verbatim quote, now would I?

Just a few posts ago, you took deep offense when I broached the possibility that you had decided to jump in defending SMF's comments because of your relationship; (giving you an honorable way out of this box that you indignantly declined to take) :

Unfair Jim. You are assuming that I am defending SMF because of who she is.

Is there any point in discussing this with you anymore if that's how you see it.

I realize you're not a big fan of facing the logical implications of what you say, but the clear and obvious logical implication of that is that you were defending these statements because you agree with them....., rather than because of your relationship with SMF.

You're trying to have it both ways. You want to say you agree with her statements, and that's why you've been defending them, but then when pinned down with a tough question based on those statements, you indignantly yell, "I never said that!"

If you would now like to disassociate yourself from the statement, "Anyone who circumcises their child (except for medical reasons,) is guilty of child mutilation" (which up to now you have been vigorously defending; hence all your tortuous linguistic attempts to figure out a way to fit circumcision into the definition of "mutilation" and your tasteless remark about "socially acceptable mutilation",) that's fine.

If however you continue to agree with that statement, it is entirely fair for me to expect an answer to my question, (rather than yet another word game tap dance.)

[Sean]

If you would now like to disassociate yourself from the statement, "Anyone who circumcises their child (except for medical reasons,) is guilty of child mutilation" (which up to now you have been vigorously defending; hence all your tortuous linguistic attempts to figure out a way to fit circumcision into the definition of "mutilation" and your tasteless remark about "socially acceptable mutilation",) that's fine.

If however you continue to agree with that statement, it is entirely fair for me to expect an answer to my question, (rather than just yet another tap dance.)

Jim, I feel no need to disassociate myself myself from a statement I never made. How can I "continue to agree" with a statement when I never expressed either agreement or diasgreement with that statement?
If you care to revisit my posts you will see that my only objections were to your handling and (what I perceived as) manipulation of SMF's statement. I did not voice an opinion either way about the content of the statement.
What I will not do is allow you to bully me into expressing an opinion.

[Lord Jim]

So when you said:

mu·ti·late
   [myoot-l-eyt]
–verb (used with object), -lat·ed, -lat·ing.
1.
to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts: Vandals mutilated the painting.
2.
to deprive (a person or animal) of a limb or other essential part.


I think you'll agree that circumcision fits that definition rather well.
Unless of course you don't think that using a scalpel to excise part of a person's body constitutes injury...

You weren't expressing the personal opinion that circumcision is mutilation?

[Sean]

For the last time, the statement in question is, "Anyone who circumcises their child (except for medical reasons,) is guilty of child mutilation" .
I did not make that statement therefore I will not accede to your demands that I associate with or disassociate from it.


Jim, because of the respect I have for you as a poster I am not going to take any further part in this as I do not want that respect to be diminished. This has got waaaay out of hand and I want to back out now before any real damage is done. You can take this however you wish and I am happy for you to declare yourself the 'winner' if you so wish.

I do however hope that you take this in the spirit it is intended.

Catch you on the flip side!

[SisterMaryFellatio]

This is hysterical!!

I have come to the conclusion Jim and CP you are either trying to appease your own guilt over choosing to circumcise or trying not to mourn the loss of your own foreskin.

We all know the statement I was trying to make. However you both seem hell bent on twisting my words. As these are very childish tactics I will no longer debate/argue this subject with you.

But I do stand by my original statement - Anyone who choses to circumcise their child (except for medical reasons) is guilty of child mutilation. Sean never expressed that as HIS opinion it is MY opinion.

Society accepts this mutilation because it has been going on for years!

Having an unecessary surgical proceedure performed on your child in the name of religion? You are a bad parent, but not necessarily a unfit one.



Should someone elect to have their child's earlobes surgically removed due to a belief in Wicca, would you circumcision supporters that?

Gob.....


As for all this chivalry crap...Sean knows very well I am more than capable of fighting my own battles and unless I was very upset he would never step in. Sean is just being the gentleman he always is....irrelevant that he is my husband. He would have stepped in and said something had it have been either of your words twisted to fit the argument.

[Lord Jim]

Well Sean, I like you too, and here's the last thing I'm going to say to you on this:

If

A. someone takes the position that circumcision is "mutilation",

B we accept that a person who is a few days old is a "child"

Then I cannot for the life of me work out how someone who agrees with "A" and "B" could do anything but agree with the statement, "Anyone who circumcises their child (except for medical reasons,) is guilty of child mutilation"

To me, there's an ironclad logic to accepting A and B that leads inescapably to agreeing with that statement, but I guess you see it differently.

[Gob]

Right, you boys can put your handbags down and kiss and make up...

Leave the girls to discuss the important issues, you go back to discussing irrelevant shite, like football and politics.

[Lord Jim]

He would have stepped in and said something had it have been either of your words twisted to fit the argument.

Your words haven't been twisted in the slightest.

Here they are again:

Anyone who circumcises their child (except for medical reasons,) is guilty of child mutilation. Religious freaks are included in that statement!

And I'll ask you the same question:

Should people who are guilty of "child mutilation" (your words) be permitted to retain custody of those children?

[Lord Jim]

I have come to the conclusion Jim and CP you are either trying to appease your own guilt over choosing to circumcise or trying not to mourn the loss of your own foreskin.

No, I'll tell you what's got me pissed off about this SMF...(and it sure as hell ain't "guilt".....)

It's that somebody would have the outrageous gall to try to tell me that my wife and I are guilty of "child mutilation" for having made the decision to have our son circumcised. Just where do you, (or anyone else) get off with that kind of garbage?

[The Hen]

I didn't have a boy baby.

However, if I had, not only would he have the middle name of Nelson (Ha-HA!), but he also would have not had his foreskin removed.

My then partner and I agreed that it should be a decision for him.

Particularly as many (most?) other boys in Oz weren't having the procedure done any more. We thougth he would rather look like his friends than his Dad.

[Sue U]

Obviously a lot of intelligent people accept what is in the Bible. Sue is no dummy and I would not wish to insult her for her beliefs.

However that does not keep me from occasionally wondering if all the stuff in the Bible was written down as a great psychology experiment to see just what people will accept and do if you say God commands it.

I'd be surprised if Sue thought this was a god given command.

But I stand to be surprised...

I don't believe in God-given commands, particularly because I'm pretty sure I don't believe there is a God. I "accept what is in the Bible" only to the extent that it is the national origin folklore and philosophical exposition of my people, and it has proven to be of some cultural significance and literary value over the last few thousand years.

The origins of ritual circumcision are obscure, but it pre-dates the Old Testament by millennia and was practiced by the ancient Egyptians as well as some (many?) neighboring Semitic peoples. Among the Ummah, the time for circumcision varies widely, from the child's seventh day to his entry to adulthood. I view it as a mark of belonging to my culture, much the same way that Polynesian tattoos are.

Clearly, circumcision is a surgical procedure, although I would characterize it as a minor one; whether it constitutes "mutilation" (an obviously pejorative term) I think is rather a matter of opinion; you might say the same thing about pierced ears, which are fairly unviersal on baby girls around here -- it's just a matter of cultural norms. Whether or not circumcision results in any health benefits is largely irrelevant to me. Perhaps I am a bad parent, then so be it. But like I said, I have never heard any man complain of being circumcised nor any man complain of not being circumcised, so I conclude that either way it's simply not that significant an issue.

[Guinevere]

Just for some perspective, I'm going to paste the abstract of American Academy of Pediatrics Circumcision Policy Statement, and I'll link the entire policy. I've read it several times, and discussed it with my sister and brother in law after the birth of my first nephew, as well as other new parents, and I have to say I am still unsure as to where I come down on the subject. In the realm of "fitting in," I would guess that at least 90% of the men I've been involved with were circumcised and it is by far the "standard" in this country. It doesn't make a difference to me, and I've never known it to make a difference to the men, with one exception, who is very proud of his uncircumcised penis.

Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In circumstances in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child. To make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision. If a decision for circumcision is made, procedural analgesia should be provided.

Although the exact frequency is unknown, it is estimated that 1.2 million newborn males are circumcised in the United States annually at a cost of between $150 and $270 million. This practice has been advocated for reasons that vary from symbolic ritual to preventive health measure. Until the last half century, there has been limited scientific evidence to support or repudiate the routine practice of male circumcision.

Over the past several decades, the American Academy of Pediatrics has published several policy statements on neonatal circumcision of the male infant.1-3 Beginning in its 1971 manual, Standards and Recommendations of Hospital Care of Newborn Infants, and reiterated in the 1975 and 1983 revisions, the Academy concluded that there was no absolute medical indication for routine circumcision.

In 1989, because of new research on circumcision status and urinary tract infection (UTI) and sexually transmitted disease (STD)/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, the Academy concluded that newborn male circumcision has potential medical benefits and advantages as well as disadvantages and risks.4 This statement also recommended that when circumcision is considered, the benefits and risks should be explained to the parents and informed consent obtained. Subsequently, a number of medical societies in the developed world have published statements that do not recommend routine circumcision of male newborns.5-7 In its position statement, the Australian College of Paediatrics emphasized that in all cases, the medical attendant should avoid exaggeration of either risks or benefits of this procedure.5

Because of the ongoing debate, as well as the publication of new research, it was appropriate to reevaluate the issue of routine neonatal circumcision. This Task Force adopted an evidence-based approach to analyzing the medical literature concerning circumcision. The studies reviewed were obtained through a search of the English language medical literature from 1960 to the present and, additionally, through a search of the bibliographies of the published studies.

http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cg ... ;103/3/686

[Rick]

I still think the measure will fail.

BTW if one wants to replace their foreskin they can, many Jews did it during WWII to pass cursory scrutiny the procedure is still available today.

Invasive and non-invasive.

Mutilating those poor baby girls ears...

[Crackpot]

Thanks for the answers CP.

Do you think that circumcision can be correctly described as a surgical procedure?

yes But it is in no way equivalent to an appendectomy as SMF eluded

No she didn't! All she said was that they were both surgery. The rest was from you and Jim. If I am mistaken and have missed where she said more than that please point me to the relevant post(s).

I pointed it out (quoted the whole post and highlighted the relavent bit) the comparision was not at all equivelent and as can be seen by subsequent post she has no interest betyont playing armchar psychiatrist against anyone who disagrees with her on the subject.

Do you think that unnecessarily cutting off part of somebody else's body constitutes mutilation?

Nope. you know there are (rare) cases when a surgeon will amputate a perfectly good limb at the patients request?

To be sure it is a form of body modification and is not something to be taken lightly. but mutilation?

MUTILATE

transitive verb
1
: to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect <the child mutilated the book with his scissors>
2
: to cut off or permanently destroy a limb or essential part of : cripple
— mu·ti·la·tion noun

Doesn't fit the definition. (unless you can describe the essential function of the foreskin)

Depends on your dictionary really...

mu·ti·late
   [myoot-l-eyt]
–verb (used with object), -lat·ed, -lat·ing.
1.
to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts: Vandals mutilated the painting.
2.
to deprive (a person or animal) of a limb or other essential part.

I think you'll agree that circumcision fits that definition rather well.
Unless of course you don't think that using a scalpel to excise part of a person's body constitutes injury...

The subjective terms render the first definition (in both examples) generally meaningless unless you're speaking in aestetic terms. (which is objective by nature) Injections can be seen as injury and tonsilectomies, appendectomies or simply having blood drawn can fit that definition. it's the essential nature of (both) second definitions that offers a at least a somewhat objective basis to call something a mutilation.

you know there are (rare) cases when a surgeon will amputate a perfectly good limb at the patients request?

Really? Wow. Im not disputing this (as I assume you wouldn't type it without having sound knowledge) but it seems to fly in the face of accepted medical ethics...

Surprised the hell ot of me when my wife told me about it as well (apparently she had once cared for one of these individuals) and the standard for doing so it quite high. A diagnosis as well as a shitload of counseling testing and other hoops to jump through (before being limited to hopping theough them). Appaently there are those addicted to amputation as well (though they get thier fix outside of the respected medical establishment)

[Sue U]

Oh, and Jim:

I know that it's become trendy among many on the left to look down on the practice of circumcision

WTF????? This is clearly not a "left-right" issue, and your attempt to paint it that way is either disingenuous or foolish, and in any event insulting.