Let's cut bits off of babies, yes?

[Deckerd]

Reading this thread, I find it sad that those who are steadfastly against circumcision use terms like mutilation, disfigurement and such to describe it... yet call those of differing viewpoints irrational (and more). No matter what your viewpoint, it really is a matter of opinion. You either believe it is wrong or you believe it is fine. No one has really provided incontrovertible evidence on either side.

I am steadfastly against the non-therapeutic circumcision of infants and I have not used those terms. However I am not against circumcision of males who are old enough to make a decision themselves (and this is the attitude taken by some others in this thread).

He didn't really read the thread, Miss Chicken since most of the people who think circumcision isn't necessary didn't use these words.

 

[Pingfah]

I think, if I ever have a son, instead of removing his foreskin, i'm going to have a picture of Ronald McDonald tattooed on it. It's only a small cosmetic change to the penis, it won't affect the function of the penis, so I don't see a problem with it.

Also, it will reduce the risk of sexually transmitted diseases, because all intimate encounters will end with uproarious laughter instead of sex.

 

[iguana_tonante]

He'll call it "the Big Mac" and be the soul of parties.

What about "Every time you masturbate… God kills a kitten"? That would take care of the self-pleasing issue too.

 

[Pingfah]

Unless he hates kittens. See you're just not thinking things through!

 

[iguana_tonante]

Come on, who hates kittens? They are cute, silly, and make for great image macros!

 

[scotpens]

. . . The ideal penis does not exist.

Every penis in this material realm is but a shadow of the transcendent perfect penis -- the very essence of penisness!

He'll call it "the Big Mac" and be the soul of parties.

He’ll be even more popular if he calls it his “Quarter-Pounder.”

 

[Kestra]

I dreamt about uncircumcised penises last night because of this thread.

 

[Trekker4747]

I dreamt about uncircumcised penises last night because of this thread.

You're welcome.

 

[RoJoHen]

I dreamt about uncircumcised penises last night because of this thread.

And were they terrifying?

 

[Kestra]

They really were.

 

[RoJoHen]

I think that settles the debate.

 

[iguana_tonante]

He'll call it "the Big Mac" and be the soul of parties.

He’ll be even more popular if he calls it his “Quarter-Pounder.”

As Pulp Fiction should have taught you, we in Europe don't know what a Quarter Pounder is. Which actually opens a whole other canister of jokes.

I dreamt about uncircumcised penises last night because of this thread.

And were they terrifying?

They really were.

Seem like you'll need behavioural therapy for your developing phobia before it gets too bad. Personally, I suggest gradual exposure desensitisation. I'm sure you will realize that they are actually pretty and cuddly and just need to be loved.

 

[Deckerd]

Good work, Iguana. You almost have me convinced to cuddle your penis.

 

[ThankQ]

This is one of those areas where reasonable debate will get you nowhere. If you think circumcision is good and had your little boy cut, to accept the logical arguments would be to accept that you mutilated your infant son.

You would have to be willing to say to yourself, and by extension your son, "Yes, we had this done to you and we shouldn't have. We made a mistake and now you're disfigured, Timmy. We didn't know any better."

To do that requires 100% wisdom, reflection, honesty, accountability and personal strength and conviction to truth, not to mention abandoning a belief.

Few, few, few people have this much strenght and clarity of thought. While an honest person has no choice but to look at the body of evidence and conclude that this is an ancient tradition that is beyond barbaric, a person who values belief over evidence cannot be moved.

And to answer the questions before they come, am I cut? Yes. Was I mutilated? Yes. Do I feel "less than" because of this? Am I angry? Bitter? Not in the least. It's simply what was done.

HOWEVER, that doesn't mean I have to think it was the right thing to do. It wasn't. I simply try to remove emotion from my thought and see things as clearly as I can. Do I sometimes fail? SPECTACULARLY! But I try.

 

[iguana_tonante]

Good work, Iguana. You almost have me convinced to cuddle your penis.

Yeah, as if that was difficult.

 

[Nardpuncher]

To do that requires 100% wisdom, reflection, honesty, accountability and personal strength and conviction to truth, not to mention abandoning a belief.

I wouldn't use this particular topic and where you stand on it to make this statement.

 

[Deckerd]

To do that requires 100% wisdom, reflection, honesty, accountability and personal strength and conviction to truth, not to mention abandoning a belief.

I wouldn't use this particular topic and where you stand on it to make this statement.

Why not? We're talking about cutting bits off babies, after all.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

This is one of those areas where reasonable debate will get you nowhere. If you think circumcision is good and had your little boy cut, to accept the logical arguments would be to accept that you mutilated your infant son.

You would have to be willing to say to yourself, and by extension your son, "Yes, we had this done to you and we shouldn't have. We made a mistake and now you're disfigured, Timmy. We didn't know any better."

To do that requires 100% wisdom, reflection, honesty, accountability and personal strength and conviction to truth, not to mention abandoning a belief.

Few, few, few people have this much strenght and clarity of thought. While an honest person has no choice but to look at the body of evidence and conclude that this is an ancient tradition that is beyond barbaric, a person who values belief over evidence cannot be moved.

And to answer the questions before they come, am I cut? Yes. Was I mutilated? Yes. Do I feel "less than" because of this? Am I angry? Bitter? Not in the least. It's simply what was done.

HOWEVER, that doesn't mean I have to think it was the right thing to do. It wasn't. I simply try to remove emotion from my thought and see things as clearly as I can. Do I sometimes fail? SPECTACULARLY! But I try.

This may be how you feel, but nothing gives you the right to assume your perspective is the only "correct" one and everyone else is just in denial. That's the height of arrogance.

 

[ThankQ]

This is one of those areas where reasonable debate will get you nowhere. If you think circumcision is good and had your little boy cut, to accept the logical arguments would be to accept that you mutilated your infant son.

You would have to be willing to say to yourself, and by extension your son, "Yes, we had this done to you and we shouldn't have. We made a mistake and now you're disfigured, Timmy. We didn't know any better."

To do that requires 100% wisdom, reflection, honesty, accountability and personal strength and conviction to truth, not to mention abandoning a belief.

Few, few, few people have this much strenght and clarity of thought. While an honest person has no choice but to look at the body of evidence and conclude that this is an ancient tradition that is beyond barbaric, a person who values belief over evidence cannot be moved.

And to answer the questions before they come, am I cut? Yes. Was I mutilated? Yes. Do I feel "less than" because of this? Am I angry? Bitter? Not in the least. It's simply what was done.

HOWEVER, that doesn't mean I have to think it was the right thing to do. It wasn't. I simply try to remove emotion from my thought and see things as clearly as I can. Do I sometimes fail? SPECTACULARLY! But I try.

This may be how you feel, but nothing gives you the right to assume your perspective is the only "correct" one and everyone else is just in denial. That's the height of arrogance.

Of course! Before I type what I think do I have to say "I think," or can't we all just assume that if type "cheese is nasty" that ThankQ thinks cheese is nasty, and he's not making a statement about the absolute truth of cheese?

You're basically telling me I'm arrogant for having my own idea.

I never proclaimed anything as absolute truth.

To do that requires 100% wisdom, reflection, honesty, accountability and personal strength and conviction to truth, not to mention abandoning a belief.

I wouldn't use this particular topic and where you stand on it to make this statement.

Sorry, I don't follow...

 

[Robert Maxwell]

This is one of those areas where reasonable debate will get you nowhere. If you think circumcision is good and had your little boy cut, to accept the logical arguments would be to accept that you mutilated your infant son.

You would have to be willing to say to yourself, and by extension your son, "Yes, we had this done to you and we shouldn't have. We made a mistake and now you're disfigured, Timmy. We didn't know any better."

To do that requires 100% wisdom, reflection, honesty, accountability and personal strength and conviction to truth, not to mention abandoning a belief.

Few, few, few people have this much strenght and clarity of thought. While an honest person has no choice but to look at the body of evidence and conclude that this is an ancient tradition that is beyond barbaric, a person who values belief over evidence cannot be moved.

And to answer the questions before they come, am I cut? Yes. Was I mutilated? Yes. Do I feel "less than" because of this? Am I angry? Bitter? Not in the least. It's simply what was done.

HOWEVER, that doesn't mean I have to think it was the right thing to do. It wasn't. I simply try to remove emotion from my thought and see things as clearly as I can. Do I sometimes fail? SPECTACULARLY! But I try.

This may be how you feel, but nothing gives you the right to assume your perspective is the only "correct" one and everyone else is just in denial. That's the height of arrogance.

Of course! Before I type what I think do I have to say "I think," or can't we all just assume that if type "cheese is nasty" that ThankQ thinks cheese is nasty, and he's not making a statement about the absolute truth of cheese?

You're basically telling me I'm arrogant for having my own idea.

I never proclaimed anything as absolute truth.

Your "opinion" was nevertheless full of objectively-styled statements:

To do that requires 100% wisdom, reflection, honesty, accountability and personal strength and conviction to truth, not to mention abandoning a belief.

Few, few, few people have this much strenght and clarity of thought. While an honest person has no choice but to look at the body of evidence and conclude that this is an ancient tradition that is beyond barbaric, a person who values belief over evidence cannot be moved.

Reading between the lines, you are essentially saying "anyone who disagrees with me is unwise, incurious, dishonest, unaccountable, weak, and not dedicated to truth." By extension, you are indicating that you do possess these qualities.

Hence, you appear arrogant by the way you portray your position as one of inherent "rightness" rather than one of many opinions, and you fail to acknowledge that this is not simply a black-and-white issue with one "correct" answer.