Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Mindmaker]

Meh.  As I said, STDs, blah blah blah blah blah.

The studies are controversial at that point. Some even show that circumcision does benefit certain kinds of diseases.
*shrug*
This will hardly become breaking point of this discussion.

Might provide links for it tomorrow.
Also, I'll look, if I can find European studies on this topic. Since we don't have this controversy here, maybe they are less biased.

On the other hand, phimosis can apparently often be cured by changing the way one masturbates, which is cool, I guess.

Didn't work that well for the two people I know, who actually had it. My brother needed a little surgical cut and a good friend had to be circumcised.
That condition is the only reason why people get circumcised, besides religious purposes, here.

[SalmonGod]

My intent there was to point out how there are common parenting decisions with far more negative consequences that people could rage about, if that's what they want to do, and noting that the same motivation that drives people to oppose circumcision often also drives people to oppose something healthy and natural.  I was not trying to say that people here are necessarily opposed to breastfeeding because they're opposed to circumcision.  I was trying to describe why the motivation that I believe is responsible for making an issue out of this is silly.

[Leafsnail]

That's... pretty much the definition of strawmanning.

[breadbocks]

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.

Nope. It's might be some other fallacy, but I'll not stand for more of the rampant misuse of strawman. Use it right, or not at all.

[Leafsnail]

And yet this is another issue where personal revulsion, similar to that for circumcision, has resulted in people seeking to ban the practice of breastfeeding from public or even encouraging its abandonment entirely.

This is a clear misrepresentation of the opponent's position.  "You oppose circumcision because it revolts you".  It then uses this misrepresentation to link those who do not circumcise their children to those who do not breastfeed their children, which is a completely separate issue.

[SalmonGod]

I'm criticising the motivation, which I find to be one that results in misguided behavior, and which I honestly believe to be the motivation here.

I know this will be vehemently denied and I can't prove it, but I think the common thought process here is one of initial revulsion and then grasping for justification to oppose that which is found revulsive.

[Leafsnail]

Do you have any evidence do back up that that's the motivation, and that everyone on this thread who has said that they would prefer not to circumsize their children is lying?

Because if not, and you're allowed to arbitrarily assign a motive to the opposing side and then use that to connect them to an unrelated issue, you could just as easily say

Spoiler: Similar argument, absolutely not a reflection of my views (click to show/hide)

I believe that people only circumsize their children because they want them to stay sexually pure and not masturbate.  This motivation results in misguided behaviour.

This is the same motivation that has lead to little girls being mutilated.

It's... really not a fair way to argue at all, as well as being extremely offensive.

EDIT: In response to your edit:

Spoiler: Not a reflection of my views again (click to show/hide)

I know this will be vehemently denied and I can't prove it, but I think the common thought process here is one of wanting sexual purity and then grasping for justification to support that which will help oppress sexuality.

[SalmonGod]

Do you have any evidence do back up that that's the motivation

I said I couldn't prove it.  I can't pick the thoughts out of people's heads and present them to others as material proof.  It's a personal assessment based on experience arguing parenting issues and observation of hyperbolic language, which points to an emotional more than logical investment.

and that everyone on this thread who has said that they would prefer not to circumsize their children is lying?

I don't get how I have said this.

and then use that to connect them to an unrelated issue

Not connecting to an unrelated issue in the sense that you are accusing, just criticising the motivation, where I don't believe I committed any fallacy by pointing out how when logical assessment of a parenting practice could lead to revulsion and result in criticism directed in a more constructive direction but where revulsion takes the lead, can result in criticism that is mislead and damaging.

It's... really not a fair way to argue at all, as well as being extremely offensive.

And it's not offensive to be accused of making a decision that is judged morally repugnant?  Or to be told that my parents, who raised me quite well, also mutilated me?  If others are offended by my perspective on their criticism, then I say it's fair game.

Edit:

And as for justifying opposition to the practice by saying it tramples on individual rights, then I would support your position when a sizeable portion of subjects to this practice express the feeling that their rights were trampled on.  So far I am aware of one individual who feels as such, and I would actually support that his parents pay for the procedure to reverse the operation if that's what he wants.

[Leafsnail]

I said I couldn't prove it.  I can't pick the thoughts out of people's heads and present them to others as material proof.  It's a personal assessment based on experience arguing parenting issues and observation of hyperbolic language, which points to an emotional more than logical investment.

Even if I assume that your judgement on the people you've talked to in the past is correct (and as you say, there's no evidence of this) you're unfairly generalising this to all (or at least the majority of) your opponents.  The fact that some people support proposition X for the wrong reasons does not mean that all people who support proposition X do so for the wrong reasons, or that proposition X is bad.

I don't get how I have said this.

People in this thread have provided plenty of other reasons that they would not want their child circumsized.  You are saying that, actually, no, they are just lying to cover up their repulsion.  I will say it - my reasons for not wanting my children (and indeed myself) circumsized has nothing to do with revulsion.  If you want to apply this motive to me, you are accusing me of lying.

Not connecting to an unrelated issue in the sense that you are accusing, just criticising the motivation, where I don't believe I committed any fallacy by pointing out how when logical assessment of a parenting practice could lead to revulsion and result in criticism directed in a more constructive direction but where revulsion takes the lead, can result in criticism that is mislead and damaging.

Criticising the motivation which you've arbitrarily linked to your opponents.  I'm not even convinced it actually applies fully in the breastfeeding case (there are a variety of other reasons why mothers sometimes don't or cannot breastfeed their children).

And it's not offensive to be accused of making a decision that is judged morally repugnant?  Or to be told that my parents, who raised me quite well, also mutilated me?  If others are offended by my perspective on their criticism, then I say it's fair game.

Assessing an act you believe to be correct to not be correct isn't necessarily an attack on your position.

I think that there is not enough medical evidence to justify surgical intervention in the form of circumcision.  I presume that you have arrived at the opposite position via a similar costs-benefit analysis, but with the opposite result, and I will take your position at face value and respect that.  I will not try to attach some other motivation to you in order to belittle and discredit you, but you appear to be attaching an illogical motivation to me.  I may argue about the medical evidence relating to circumcision and whether it's justified, but I won't accuse you of secretly being a prude who oppresses his children.

I won't pretend that there aren't people who make their decision illogically, or people that will accuse you of lying about your motivation, but I don't think that's any reason to lower yourself to their level.

[SalmonGod]

I think that there is not enough medical evidence to justify surgical intervention in the form of circumcision.  I presume that you have arrived at the opposite position via a similar costs-benefit analysis, but with the opposite result.

My position isn't anything terribly deep.  I saw potential for small benefits and zero negatives.  If those benefits are/were in fact non-existent, then I still see zero negatives.  I also didn't see it as a major decision.  I wasn't even aware that it was a debated subject until after the fact, which as a circumcised person was/is bizarre to me.  All I've asked is that people point out the negatives if they wish to characterize the practice as mutilation or otherwise demonize.  So far no-one has done anything but call into question the possible benefits, which in most debates wouldn't constitute sufficient grounds for opposition and only leaves me to assume that it's based on emotional reactions.

Also, I understand now that you're not opposed to my position, but you're definitely not the only person here that I'm addressing.

[wlerin]

It's difficult to communicate if you don't share the same language.

Similarly, it's difficult to communicate if your basic assumptions about life, existence, and value are radically different (and even moreso if this is unacknowledged, which it usually is, regardless of what tradition you adhere to). It's not surprising that atheists and the religious find meaningful discourse on these topics difficult if not impossible. Add to that, atheists, especially "militant" atheists, tend to make the whole experience unpleasant for everyone else involved, by, among other things, making unsupported value judgments left and right, even while they accuse the religious of doing the same.

[This is a response to the OP, I know the thread has progressed since then, but I don't have the time to read all of it just yet.]

[Leafsnail]

My position isn't anything terribly deep.  I saw potential for small benefits and zero negatives.

...There are risks to all surgery.  Complications include chance of infection, haemorrhaging or occasionally very serious accidents resulting in deformation (which in one case forced a sex change operation).  Really, the idea that circumcision has zero negatives cannot be defended at all (although the position that these negatives are outweighed by the positives can be more easily defended).

Which is why, in general, calling into question the benefits of a surgery is sufficient to call into question if that surgery should be performed at all.  Useless surgery with a potential risk should not be performed, which is why I wouldn't circumsize my children unless there's strong evidence that it will have a serious benefit.

[Muz]

I would like to see a proper religious discussion some day. But the problem with these discussions is that they're only as good as the least intelligent person in the discourse. There's only so much you can say before the conversation devolves to "no, no, no no no". In fact, I find religious arguing much more useful in small groups with lower average intelligence that big groups with smarter people, because of the lack of trolls.

It doesn't help that most of these threads are started with a condescending tone or with an intent to convert (whether it's started by theists or atheists). I'm more curious on why theists end up teaming up with each other in these arguments (Jewish, Christian, Muslim, general monotheist) and why religious atheists (Buddhists) sit off at another angle and don't approach from the pure atheist view.


The main reason you can't discuss religion is because it doesn't go anywhere. It's similar to a "no salesmen allowed" policy. Nobody is interested in getting in an argument, everyone has agreed to disagree.

[SalmonGod]

My position isn't anything terribly deep.  I saw potential for small benefits and zero negatives.

...There are risks to all surgery.  Complications include chance of infection, haemorrhaging or occasionally very serious accidents resulting in deformation (which in one case forced a sex change operation).  Really, the idea that circumcision has zero negatives cannot be defended at all (although the position that these negatives are outweighed by the positives can be more easily defended).

Which is why, in general, calling into question the benefits of a surgery is sufficient to call into question if that surgery should be performed at all.  Useless surgery with a potential risk should not be performed, which is why I wouldn't circumsize my children unless there's strong evidence that it will have a serious benefit.

I think it's misleading to even call it surgery.  I would categorize it as less serious than a tongue piercing (which one has permanent memories of and requires long-term maintenance which is left up to the individual who can then screw it up), and I wouldn't call that surgery.  Yeah, accidents happen, but I haven't seen any evidence that the prevalence of serious accidents is anything more than negligible.  In fact, there was a minor accident with my first kid (it began healing a little irregularly), and it required only a very minor fix of little inconvenience (another visit and a few more days of healing) and no long-term effect.  To put it in perspective, that hospital was terrible and they screwed up the delivery process so badly that I'm thankful my wife came out of it ok.

[Vector]

Although the technique recommended for curing it via masturbation left me seriously wondering what alternatives there are.

What I read is that the previous issue was guys humping beds when they masturbated, which caused phimosis.

Obviously not all phimosis can be cured this way, but apparently switching techniques fixed the issue most of the time.