My position remains that, even if circumcision’s supposed health benefits are highly dubious and even if the real initial ‘reasons’ for doing it weren’t the reasons of a culture that any of us would want to emulate were we to construct a religion or ethnoreligion from scratch right now, it’s, as you acknowledge, simply untrue to suggest that it is anywhere nearly as damaging, dangerous, and prima facie unreasonable as FGM, and that considering the almost uniformly stupefyingly awful outcomes of laws banning non-life-threatening religious practices (I say ‘almost’ because I suspect someone may bring up polygamy or whatever and I want to say that yes I am aware that there are instances of laws of this kind both being good ideas and more-or-less working if you look for them but that doesn’t mean it’s not best approached with extreme caution) it’s, and I know at this point I’m just repeating myself but I want to underscore that having fully read and understood your argument I’m not going to run away from having said this, intellectually and morally irresponsible to actually go and treat it with the same sort of legal condemnation as we do FGM.
I'm not trying to be a cleverdick, but I do want to demonstrate to you, Nathan, that it's immensely advantageous to make an argument in two relatively short sentences than in a one-sentence, 196-word paragraph. On a message board, attention spans are quite limited (think TL;DR), and I think that your ideas would receive much more serious consideration if you would express them in a less discursive style. Please take this as advice, albeit unsolicited, and not derision.
