[sticktodrum]

Vitamin J, on 30 June 2010 - 12:05 PM, said:

You bring up female circumcision, but seem to glance over the fact that 60% of males in the United States are circumcised. Women didn't get to vote until 1920 and it is still a commonly held belief that "woman's place is in the kitchen." So don't think we are that much different from them, perhaps if that area of the world hadn't been raped and pillaged for their natural resources and their governments weren't corrupted or overthrown to gain an edge in the Cold War, they would have better education systems and less militaristic governments.

Female circumcision isn't what you seem to think it is. It's the practice of cutting off the girl/woman's clitoris in order to reduce their sexual pleasure so that they won't cheat on their husbands. That's what it is. Male circumcision is the removal of the foreskin, which has no bearing whatsoever on the sexual aspect of the male (not physiologically, at least). So, there's a distinction. Now that you know it, I think your opinion might change a bit. Genital mutilation of that magnitude is ridiculous, and still goes on. Male circumcision has been in some cases shown to be beneficial to one's health, but it certainly isn't done in an act of mutilation and control.

Moreover, women's voting is not at all similar or analogous to the treatment of women that is justified by the enforcement of much of Islamic scripture. The culture is rooted in the physical oppression and abuse of women. Women's suffrage may have been political oppression, but American women weren't being publicly stoned, beaten, or having their genitals cut up. Please don't try to make it sound that "we" (Western civilization) is at all comparable to those disgusting practices.

PBSL Carmen, on 01 July 2010 - 12:12 PM, said:

Ultimately these guys are just grownup bullies, and hide behing whatever they can and use it as justification so that they don't seem like a bad guy. Bad guys spawn angry mobs that chase them down and tear them to shreds. Good guys spawn supporters. If you can convince people that you are a good guy, you get to keep being a bully. If you can't, you're SOL. All these guys are saying is "I'm a good guy because XYZ told me so."

It just personally pisses me off that so many people use religion as the XYZ.

I feel the need to restate what I said above. Some of them might be truly evil. That doesn't account for the millions of "bullies" that do these types of behaviors, as I really don't think it's likely that generations of billions of people do these things because they're all just bullies. The religious and cultural justifications are themselves the cause for most of the atrocities. It's not an excuse, or a mask to hide behind. In these cases, it is indeed the cause.

This post has been edited by sticktodrum: 01 July 2010 - 12:32 PM

[PBSL Carmen]

From 01 July 2010 - 12:31 PM:

PBSL Carmen, on 01 July 2010 - 12:12 PM, said:

Ultimately these guys are just grownup bullies, and hide behing whatever they can and use it as justification so that they don't seem like a bad guy. Bad guys spawn angry mobs that chase them down and tear them to shreds. Good guys spawn supporters. If you can convince people that you are a good guy, you get to keep being a bully. If you can't, you're SOL. All these guys are saying is "I'm a good guy because XYZ told me so."

It just personally pisses me off that so many people use religion as the XYZ.

I feel the need to restate what I said above. Some of them might be truly evil. That doesn't account for the millions of "bullies" that do these types of behaviors, as I really don't think it's likely that generations of billions of people do these things because they're all just bullies. The religious and cultural justifications are themselves the cause for most of the atrocities. It's not an excuse, or a mask to hide behind. In these cases, it is indeed the cause.

I'm not sure if we are saying the same thing or totally different things.
There are many times where I would like to, say, punch someone in the face, but I don't because it is assault. If something in the situation says it is ok though, like it is in self-defense or a cop told me to go ahead and kick the crap out of whoever I felt deserved it, I would go ahead and punch them in the face. Because of the XYZ in the situation, I overlook the typical cultural, social, and ethical norms in order to do what I want. From that, it could be said that the XYZ was causing my actions, but I don't agree with it as a blanket statement. Religion did not make me punch anyone in the face, but only removed the standard obstacles. I already wanted to do it. If I didn't want to do it, I wouldn't do it. Nobody's going to hold a gun to my head because I "didn't follow the ways" of their deity and commit acts of violence.

This post has been edited by PBSL Carmen: 02 July 2010 - 08:24 AM

[sticktodrum]

^You're stumbling onto a largest part of the cause issue right there. I know what you're saying, and it's generally the next logical step.

You have your social/ethical/cultural/moral "norms", and those change with time. For the most part. What seems to be constant is a very basic sense of morality and empathy, as it was one of the prominent survival impulses of the social species that we are. So, that's that.

Moving on, the issue/obstacle of "assault" is actually the non-desire for punishment. You don't want to be arrested and sent to jail, or fined, or whatever, so you don't commit a crime. That's usually most people's alleged excuse for not killing/hurting someone (although I'm quite sure most of the time it's just hot air). Similarly from the other direction, most people do things because they might be rewarded.

Obviously, where this is going, is that there are a lot of people who believe that they are punished or rewarded after death. When your belief is strong enough, and it is indeed real to you, that is the logic that you follow. If you believe that treatment of a certain people is what your god wants you to do, then you do it. Otherwise, you'll be punished. If you do something righteous in the eyes of your god, you'll be eternally rewarded. These principles are as real as the potential jail sentence that faces your or I should we break the law.

Moreover, it's not uncommon for people to randomly commit acts of good because they feel it is morally just, "right", or what they think will make someone happy or help a cause. This is just what the same violence can stem from. Murder, suicide bombing, abuse, are all things that are usually done because in the person's mind, it was a good idea.

Would you let your daughter's genitals be mutilated? Would most people? Probably not. It happens anyway. Violence against women happens anyway. These things happen anyway, by million and millions of people. Again, it is very unlikely that all of them, generation after generation, all just "wanted to". That's nonsense, and you'd have to have more faith than I do to believe that.

[PBSL Carmen]

Very true.

I tend to see human nature as a conflict between the desire to make things better for yourself by sacrificing others and the desire to make things better for others by sacrificing yourself. It is very difficult to find this balance on a personal level, and even more difficult to have a group of people find it. I see religion as a method of getting people to look for their own balance and standardize it somewhat. If everyone had the same "balance point" we would understand each other's actions and avoid many of the problems that stem from misunderstanding.

Where I think many religions go arwy is when they set different levels for different groups of people. It opens the door for violence because "they must stay in their place and we must stay in ours"! That kind of inequality does not promote understanding, and I think that religion is often misconstrued as a reason for inequality. The deity I believe in doesn't give a shit about male, female, white, black, readhead, brunette, doctor, trucker, etc. All that matters is that you made a positive impact in someone's life somewhere.

Unfortunately, these Chechen police are either bullies or they think that they are making a positive impact through their actions. Any truly spiritual minister or spiritual guide would tell them otherwise. It seems that the politicians and the public may not want that, though. They may be afrid of any changes to the current way of life because they don't know what will come next, and history has shown that religion is often great for opposing change.

[sticktodrum]

Well that's something else entirely. I won't bother getting into the areas of someone knowing the "mind" of their spiritual entity. As I've learned from talking with spiritual people, there are as many gods and versions of gods are there are people. Each person believes in a god of their very own, and I don't think it's a very wise thing to see that any one's "god" is any more just or fair than anyone else's.

[Vitamin J]

sticktodrum, on 01 July 2010 - 12:31 PM, said:

Female circumcision isn't what you seem to think it is. It's the practice of cutting off the girl/woman's clitoris in order to reduce their sexual pleasure so that they won't cheat on their husbands. That's what it is. Male circumcision is the removal of the foreskin, which has no bearing whatsoever on the sexual aspect of the male (not physiologically, at least). So, there's a distinction. Now that you know it, I think your opinion might change a bit. Genital mutilation of that magnitude is ridiculous, and still goes on. Male circumcision has been in some cases shown to be beneficial to one's health, but it certainly isn't done in an act of mutilation and control.

Well we can disagree then. 1 in 10,000 male who are circumcised suffer from erectile disfunction. There is no medical reason, only religious or "cultural" reasons. It removes thousands of nerve endings and originally was practiced to reduce male pleasure during intercorse "so men could be more faithful to their wives." Female circumcision can be similar to the male practice, or it can be unimaginably brutal depending on what country/region/religion/etc

Quote

Moreover, women's voting is not at all similar or analogous to the treatment of women that is justified by the enforcement of much of Islamic scripture. The culture is rooted in the physical oppression and abuse of women. Women's suffrage may have been political oppression, but American women weren't being publicly stoned, beaten, or having their genitals cut up. Please don't try to make it sound that "we" (Western civilization) is at all comparable to those disgusting practices.

You're right, they were just burned at the stake in America. Europe in the Dark Ages was very similar to modern day Sharia Law. Like I said the Bible is extremely similar to the Koran and says that women must dress modestly and cover their hair, among other things.

We have come a long way, and our society is unmeasurably better now than even 60 years ago, but maybe you remember something called "Rule of Thumb" saying that husbands can beat their wives and children as long as they use a stick not wider than their thumb.


My point is that we're all humans and everyone on Earth is capable of doing these things so we need to not "otherize" them or remove their humanity when we talk about other cultures.

This post has been edited by Vitamin J: 02 July 2010 - 10:38 AM

[sticktodrum]

Vitamin J, on 02 July 2010 - 10:32 AM, said:

Well we can disagree then. 1 in 10,000 male who are circumcised suffer from erectile disfunction. There is no medical reason, only religious or "cultural" reasons. Female circumcision can be similar to the male practice, or it can be unimaginably brutal depending on what country/region/religion/etc

First, 1 in 10,000 is statistically irrelevant. Not to mention, it doesn't mean a causal relationship. At all. From all of the Urologists I've spoken to prior to my own circumcision (which happened in September last year), it doesn't, and CAN NOT cause any dysfunction sexually. The foreskin isn't attached or intertwined with those workings. Moreover, it cannot be similar, as the clitoral removal is physiologically equivalent to removal of most or all of the penis itself. You're dancing around a subject of which I doubt your knowledge.

Male circumcision has though, been found to be beneficial. There are organizations in Africa, currently offering some of the population circumcision surgery, as it greatly reduces the risk of contracting HIV through intercourse.

This post has been edited by sticktodrum: 02 July 2010 - 10:41 AM

[Vitamin J]

Like I said, we disagree. I think it is a barbaric and useless procedure. Though if its something you want to do, then do it I guess. I am glad it was you making the decision and not your parents, I believe child circumcision is child abuse.

Also I would say your urologist has monetary investment in making you believe it is harmless.

http://www.huffingto...e_b_249728.html

Quote

This year, 1.2 million male babies in the United States will have between 35 and 50% of healthy, functioning penile skin -- containing over 20,000 nerve endings and the five most sensitive areas of the penis -- removed in a procedure that all of the major medical associations in the world, including the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Canadian Paediatric Society, have deemed medically unnecessary.

...

Having started among ancient Egyptians and ancient Semitic peoples as a religious sacrificial ritual, the practice didn't take hold in Western societies until the late 1800s, when Western society was mired in masturbation-related hysteria.

...

We also know that the human papilloma virus (HPV), which also causes genital warts, is the most important risk factor for cancer of the penis -- and genital warts are more easily contracted by circumcised men. Moreover, penile cancer is much less prevalent in countries like Denmark, where circumcision is uncommon, compared to the United States, where between 50-60% of males are circumcised.

...

A recent study looking at sensitivity of the penis in the circumcised and uncircumcised male found that the five most sensitive areas on the penis are removed at circumcision, and that the keratinized glans on the circumcised penis is less sensitive than the foreskin-protected, mucosa-lined glans on the uncircumcised penis. The skin removed from the penis at circumcision makes up close to 50% of the total penile skin, amounting to 15 square inches in an adult.Even the mildest form of female circumcision is illegal, and very rightly termed female genital mutilation. Male circumcision on the other hand, is demonstrably more severe than some of the milder forms of FGM, but still performed widely. It is still covered by many insurance providers, and Medicaid in most states, despite being completely unnecessary.

Sorry, its not harmless.

Quote

So the males in the study that underwent circumcision were not only told to abstain from sex for a significant time period after the operation -- reducing their exposure time by six weeks compared to the uncircumcised (control) group -- but told to use condoms, taught how to use them, and educated about their benefits. During this six week period, the men in the uncircumcised group did not have the same restrictions.

Sorry, it doesn't prevent HIV.

You know what does though? Condoms, something the Catholic Church spends millions of dollars to keep out of Africa, while promoting abstinence and circumcision.

Please click the link as all those claims are sourced.

This post has been edited by Vitamin J: 02 July 2010 - 12:00 PM

[sticktodrum]

Wow...I had no idea exactly what kind of person I was having a discussion with. Now, it's extremely clear. Anyone that cites the anti-science rag The Huffington Post and claims a doctor to have monetary investments in things usually falls into a mindset that is anything but scientific.

The quotes you've posted up there, are just bad science. The first bit is largely untrue, and the label of "medically unnecessary" is not equivalent to "medically detrimental" and does not cut out medically beneficial. Considering the growth of the foreskin is NOT predictable at that age, there isn't much telling of the developmental health of it in infants.

In many, many cases, male circumcision is necessary. It was in my case, and I've personally spoken with several other people where in their surgery was necessary.

The Huffington Post (and the stories they publish) are often, widely, and openly laughed at and criticized by the scientific and skeptical community. Using them for health and science information is just about as useful as getting your medical advice from Oprah's guests. They promote anti-vaccination and new-age garbage. Not to mention the usual round of conspiracy theorist nonsense.

Just to whet your palette:

http://skepchick.org...huffington+post

http://skepticblog.o...esultsperpage=5

http://www.theness.c...huffington+post

I didn't bother posting a link from QuackWatch. It was too much to sort through even with a search.

Anyway, on the subject of HIV prevention, you'll read that it is biologically plausible, as well as scientifically sound. Here are some actual sources with merit:

http://www.scientifi...e-hiv-infection

http://www.cdc.gov/h...ircumcision.htm

Moreover, what the Pop preaches is nonsense, and I do not agree with the "Church" viewpoint on anything health related. We are apparently of one mind on that front. I do not, however, appreciate of subscribe to bad science, and ridiculous notions of financial gain in accepted, proven procedures of medical necessity in modern medical science. That doesn't help anyone.

The choice of circumcision should be left up to the individual. I also agree with that. However the act of removing the clitoris (which is what female circumcision is) is many orders of magnitude worse than disposing of essentially useless skin from the male. Female circumcision is a cultural inclination with a specific purpose, and it's disingenuous to imply or assert that they are analogous. They simply aren't from an anatomical standpoint. If you dismiss that, you dismiss the known scientific base of that anatomy.

Anyway, I can see where this is going, so I'm personally done. The science speaks for itself, and is confirmed over and over in real world practice. Ethical and moral standpoints are up for debate, but I've said my peace on those.

[Mantown Mayor]

What Mike said.

If that happened around here, you'd receive a caliber a lot more serious than .68.

[CrazyLittle]

Oh hey look religion AND politics.