The Sage Garden

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Those who have had parts of their genitals cut and removed as babies are universally "defended" and "well served?" Is this before or after they are shipped off to war and shoved down into coal mines? What a strange, delusional world you live in, Nathan.

Not All Men

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I didn't find memphis' post to be sage, but the posting of it here sure has been a good catalyst for sagery.

[Morning in Atlas]

I didn't find memphis' post to be sage, but the posting of it here sure has been a good catalyst for sagery.

Preach. If anything, this saved me quite a lot of effort.

[Joe Republic]

Ugh, Nathan's posts here and in the original thread are literally disgusting.  Both the indefensible position he is defending and the way in which he does it.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Ugh, Nathan's posts here and in the original thread are literally disgusting.  Both the indefensible position he is defending and the way in which he does it.

Fortunately, I don't care about your proudly and apparently invincibly uninformed opinion on anything even tangentially related to religion.

[Joe Republic]

See?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

See?

Describing opposition to criminalizing an important practice of a major religion as 'indefensible', even if it's a position with which one disagrees, is exactly the sort of pat and self-congratulatory nonsense I'd expect from someone who believes seemingly in all sincerity that Christians worship a sort of airborne Gandalf and refuses to be told otherwise by people who actually know something about the subject. Treating the word 'disgusting' as one to which 'literally' can be applied in a way that makes sense is an interesting choice, though, and as always the form of your magisterially ignorant pronouncements on such matters is of far greater value than their content.

Anyway, if this is going to continue at all, can we get back to the argument about masculinity? That showed at least signs of going somewhere that could be new, because, much like the presence of Ebirah in Godzilla, Ebirah, Mothra: Big Duel in the South Seas, Einzige's thoughts aren't ones that memphis and I have had the chance to interact with or respond to in previous installments of our running feud on that subject.

[Joe Republic]

Ignoring your verbiose personal attacks (that I'm sure you're very proud of yourself for), some of us believe that forcing a medically unnecessary permanent surgical procedure on babies who obviously cannot consent is not something that should be allowed, and really ought to be plain common sense.  In much the same way that forcing women to cover themselves up or denying gay people the right to marry, all because it's traditional in some religion, should not be allowed.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Ignoring your verbiose personal attacks (that I'm sure you're very proud of yourself for),

Personal attack wasn't really what I was going for so much as attack on what I see as your extremely thinly-stretched credibility on this particular subject.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm aware of that. Do you think this argument would have started if I were somehow not aware of that? This isn't really a policy discussion. This is a more basic difference in values. We find each other's perspectives on this fundamentally immoral, and that is not going to change.

(Edited extensively because I was saying a lot of what even I recognize was pointless bullsh[Inks].)

[Antonio the Sixth]

Are people here arguing that circumcision is a Christian practice? Because as far as I know, the US are the only place in the world where Christians actually do it. No idea why, but if someone is circumcised here everybody assumes he's Jewish or Muslim.

As to the main point of the discussion, I actually have to agree with Joe on the main point, though I'd like if he'd put it in less condescending terms. Even a benign mutilation is still a pretty serious personal violation, and should require a compelling motivation. Religion should be left some leeway of course, but not at the expense of basic individual rights.

Memphis and Einzige say a lot of crap as usual.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Most circumcision in the US is not for religious reasons. Simple as that.

[MATTROSE94]

I cannot wait until a new worldview puts its boot through the rotting, worm-ridden edifice of Abrahamic monotheism. I may not live to see it, but I can dream of the day.

[muon2]

That goes doubly so for those absurd homosexuals in spandex who bend phone books and break bricks to impress children at tent revivals, incidentally.

Somehow I find the fact that you use 'homosexual' as a noun in informal writing completely unsurprising.

Sorry to break in, but in the mid-20th century 'homosexual' was almost always used as a noun in colloquial speech. The adjective form was mostly relegated to academic works or journalism with an academic bent. This was at a time when 'gay' was rarely used as a synonym in general discourse. When 'gay' started to move into the more common lexicon it was initially mostly as an adjective as fitted its older meaning. Only near the turn of the 21st century did I start to hear 'gay' used as a noun replacing 'homosexual' in colloquial speech and writing.

[afleitch]

Are people here arguing that circumcision is a Christian practice? Because as far as I know, the US are the only place in the world where Christians actually do it. No idea why, but if someone is circumcised here everybody assumes he's Jewish or Muslim.

As to the main point of the discussion, I actually have to agree with Joe on the main point, though I'd like if he'd put it in less condescending terms. Even a benign mutilation is still a pretty serious personal violation, and should require a compelling motivation. Religion should be left some leeway of course, but not at the expense of basic individual rights.

Memphis and Einzige say a lot of crap as usual.

^^^

[Cassius]

Are people here arguing that circumcision is a Christian practice? Because as far as I know, the US are the only place in the world where Christians actually do it. No idea why, but if someone is circumcised here everybody assumes he's Jewish or Muslim.

As to the main point of the discussion, I actually have to agree with Joe on the main point, though I'd like if he'd put it in less condescending terms. Even a benign mutilation is still a pretty serious personal violation, and should require a compelling motivation. Religion should be left some leeway of course, but not at the expense of basic individual rights.

Memphis and Einzige say a lot of crap as usual.

Sorry to blunder in here with my... point, shall we say, is that essentially banning the circumcision of babies (I'm not sure if that's what you're getting at, please correct me if it isn't) would, potentially, undermine the character of Judaism as an ethnoreligion (unless I'm entirely misreading what circumcision is for, in which case, discount that point). I mean, its not quite like Christianity, or most other religions, in the sense that whilst their are converts to Judaism, it is primarily a religion of the Jewish people (defined as an ethnic group). Leaving the decision of circumcision up to the personal choice of the individual (as with baptism and the Baptist Church), would somewhat take away from this character. More to the point, whilst I'd agree that a forced circumcision would be a serious personal violation against someone a little older, I'm not quite sure if it is, so much, in the case of a baby that's only a few days old and can barely think. Just my low-grade contribution.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Internet 'discussion' of circumcision should be prohibited.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

People who bother to even take the time to think out an argument opposing circumcision are literally worse than vaccine opponents. Kudos to Nathan for drawing out an opinion from Joe Republic, though.

[memphis]

Internet 'discussion' of circumcision should be prohibited.

A mod supporting censorship. How delightfully unsurprising!
Does anybody care to take on the pro- infant circumcision cause, even just for the sake of playing devil's advocate? Freedom of religion perhaps? Although it is uncommon today, we are all aware that religious rituals have included throwing live people into volcanoes? Should that action also be condoned and all discussion thereof "prohibited" so as not to hurt the feelings of believers? The blind deference and outight suspension of reason in otherwise intelligent and thoughtful people is both baffling and disheartening.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

This is exactly the kind of thing I was getting at. Awful. About the only subjects that are 'worse' are rape, Israel/Palestine/etc, and the economic policies of the Third Reich.

[Simfan34]

Personally, I've always felt that American critics of circumcision are suffering from a sort of cultural cringe with respect to Europeans.

[Linus Van Pelt]

I have no particular attachment to either side of this issue, but the country's main association of pediatricians, the American College of Pediatrics, has the following official position:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/130/3/e756.full.pdf+html

Most circumcisions in the US are not done for religious reasons, and the debate should surely at least recognize this.

[afleitch]

I do however have a mental image of Yahweh with a constantly refreshed bucket of foreskins in an Ed Gein sort of way...

[Joe Republic]

I actually have to agree with Joe on the main point, though I'd like if he'd put it in less condescending terms.

Oh come on.  It was Nathan's typically condescending tone that inspired me to call him out for it.  It's incredible how people here constantly praise him for it.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I actually have to agree with Joe on the main point, though I'd like if he'd put it in less condescending terms.

Oh come on.  It was Nathan's typically condescending tone that inspired me to call him out for it.  It's incredible how people here constantly praise him for it.

As far as I've seen, Nathan was only being condescending to posters like Einzige and Memphis, who fully deserve to be "condescended". Especially when they make the outlandish claim that circumcision has anything to do with Christianity.

[memphis]

I actually have to agree with Joe on the main point, though I'd like if he'd put it in less condescending terms.

Oh come on.  It was Nathan's typically condescending tone that inspired me to call him out for it.  It's incredible how people here constantly praise him for it.

As far as I've seen, Nathan was only being condescending to posters like Einzige and Memphis, who fully deserve to be "condescended". Especially when they make the outlandish claim that circumcision has anything to do with Christianity.

Citation needed. I have never linked circumcision to Christianity. There are other religions out there, you know.