If Mort Divine ruled the world

[CiG]

It's not arbitrary at all, you're merely jumping through hoops because I began the premise as a statement on gender disparity and you feel the need for whatever reason to make sure women's place at the top of the has it worse pyramid is secured.

If I had merely stated that it's quite horrendous that male infants are unnecessarily mutilated for pseudo-health reasons that actually have much more to do with primitive religious habits we haven't yet shaken off, I'd wager we'd be basking in the glory of agreement right now.

The fact is, female infants are rightfully protected against having their genitals permanently tampered with and male infants are not. It's not a choice as they are unable to consent and therefore unable to choose.

It's irrelevant whether it's different to female circumcision or whether you favour circumcision.

 

[rms]

There are men who have disabilities as a direct result of being circumcised as an infant.

fucking christ. how you go from SJW to MGTOW/sargon of akkad in the span of a few years is so fucking strange

 

[CiG]

fucking christ. how you go from SJW to MGTOW/sargon of akkad in the span of a few years is so fucking strange

How any of that is relevant is fucking strange. MGTOW? You have to belong to a movement of anti-marriage/relationship boobs to be against circumcision?

News to me, I always viewed it more as a standard atheist position. Thanks for your input though, really.

 

[rms]

you hold a stupid position and made a stupid point yet won't acknowledge how stupid it is

 

[Einherjar86]

It's not arbitrary at all, you're merely jumping through hoops because I began the premise as a statement on gender disparity and you feel the need for whatever reason to make sure women's place at the top of the has it worse pyramid is secured.

If I had merely stated that it's quite horrendous that male infants are unnecessarily mutilated for pseudo-health reasons that actually have much more to do with primitive religious habits we haven't yet shaken off, I'd wager we'd be basking in the glory of agreement right now.

The fact is, female infants are rightfully protected against having their genitals permanently tampered with and male infants are not. It's not a choice as they are unable to consent and therefore unable to choose.

It's irrelevant whether it's different to female circumcision or whether you favour circumcision.

I'm sorry, you need to understand something: you're choosing what rights are, and how they're applied. Everything looks correct to you, from your angle, because you're unwilling to entertain the notion that there are multiple "rights" at work in any given scenario. I can't win in this conversation, not because I'm being illogical or irrational, but because you're dictating the limits of discussion with your chosen example.

I'm not even concerned with making sure women have it worse or remain victims, as you so confidently claim. I'm telling you that there's no rational way you can make the argument that men have fewer rights than women. I would even say that under the purview of the law, men and women are pretty much equal (of course, I would say that our culture circumvents this equality in creative yet shameful ways, but that's another conversation).

Furthermore, male circumcision is often advised against by doctors. This is an entirely routine procedure that has health benefits that outweigh risks, but that is not mandated and is not always encouraged. Female circumcision is incredibly dangerous, male circumcision less so. Why does it have to be the case that one medical procedure must bear the same consequences for both men and women? I'm sure you're not trying to suggest that men and women are *gasp* biologically equivalent...?

 

[CiG]

you hold a stupid position and made a stupid position yet won't acknowledge how stupid it is

I don't agree it's a stupid position and nothing that has been said in here has convinced me that I should denounce my position, especially not, it must be said, your weak buzzword infested cheap shot.

For all I know Sargon of Akkad isn't even against circumcision.

You're choosing what rights are, and how they're applied.

I believe I already said it's semantics, I wasn't trying to start a debate on the definition of rights and I'm happy to replace it with privileges or protections or advantages etc.

Everything looks correct to you, from your angle, because you're unwilling to entertain the notion that there are multiple "rights" at work in any given scenario.

How can there be multiple "rights" in this particular scenario if we're talking about actions taken by adults but not involving their bodies?

An infant can't have a "right" to choose between multiple actions because it's an infant, this is my underlying point. You're saying that since a female infant cannot legally have a circumcision, they are therefore without the same amount of choices as a male infant, I completely understand your point, but please try to understand mine.

The female infant has more choices because the circumcision was not done to them when they could not consent and therefore she will have a true choice once she is old enough to choose, because her bodily autonomy was protected by law. The male infant if circumcised has no choice because once his is an adult, he will still have the permanently changed body which he did not choose for himself.

I would even say that under the purview of the law, men and women are pretty much equal

Grant this and then simply subtract bodily autonomy involving the genitalia at birth from the men and my point carries.

 

[Einherjar86]

I believe I already said it's semantics, I wasn't trying to start a debate on the definition of rights and I'm happy to replace it with privileges or protections or advantages etc.

How can there be multiple "rights" in this particular scenario if we're talking about actions taken by adults but not involving their bodies?

Talk about moving the fucking goalposts:

Asking me to name some things men do that women cannot is not the same thing. Even if I failed to do so, it would only prove that women have as many rights as men do.

So, to counter, I should ask you to prove me wrong: name something that women can do that men can't.

The first one off the top of my head is circumcision.

I've been talking about rights because you brought them up. Well done.

Grant this and then simply subtract bodily autonomy involving the genitalia at birth from the men and my point carries.

I'll grant anything you want at this point. I'll grant you this argument, if it makes you feel any better. Honestly, I already feel like a loser anyway for believing this was a serious conversation.

 

[CiG]

I already told you, I wasn't specifically trying to define what rights are. It's just lazy phraseology that one falls into unthinkingly. You obviously wanted to have some epic discussion about what are rights really? and I was just trying to say that girls get to keep all their bits until they're old enough to cut them off!

But fine. I do think bodily autonomy is a right in the sense that, some of the most important crimes come from the concept of bodily autonomy and most crimes are fundamentally a violation of a right.

Murder being an example. It's a grievous violation of one's bodily autonomy.

 

[Vilden]

How anyone can defend male circumcision on infants is beyond me. Why not do some more mutilation for "health (religious/cultural) reasons" while we're at it. Maybe removing the appendix on all children?

And ofcourse it is a Great er violation of rights to be forced into it rather than forced not to (which is always possible later in life if you want to). It's like people saying a Niqab is freedom...

 

[Einherjar86]

Children have things removed all the time for health reasons, namely tonsils and adenoids. There are preventative reasons for removing foreskin, and it hasn't been substantially associated with any significant number of health concerns later in life. CIG made some claim about circumcision leading to physical disability, but I don't know anything about that. But then, I'm not an expert on foreskin removal, so whatever.

 

[Baroque]

How anyone can defend male circumcision on infants is beyond me. Why not do some more mutilation for "health (religious/cultural) reasons" while we're at it. Maybe removing the appendix on all children?
...

Health is certainly a good reason. As far as religious/cultural well how about piercings and tattoos? Also it's really up to the parents how they want their child to be. The infant has no opinion or say on the matter, or any matter, they're an infant. It's more dangerous and painful for them to get it done later in life.

 

[Serjeant Grumbles]

There are preventative reasons for removing foreskin

What preventative reasons are those? Preventing masturbation, and the ensuing blindness, insanity, hairy palms, and various other maladies that come with it? That's how circumcision became commonplace in America. Doctors have been coming up with new reasons for it ever since the original justification ceased to make sense.

Also it's really up to the parents how they want their child to be.

So, if the parents want a girl because they already have several boys, should they be able to have sexual reassignment surgery performed on their male infant? After all, it's their property to with as they will, apparently.

 

[Dak]

If preventing masturbation was the reason for circumcision, that's a war that was lost before it started I'm sure.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

So, if the parents want a girl because they already have several boys, should they be able to have sexual reassignment surgery performed on their male infant? After all, it's their property to with as they will, apparently.

Nah they'll just sell him to planned parenthood.

 

[Einherjar86]

What preventative reasons are those? Preventing masturbation, and the ensuing blindness, insanity, hairy palms, and various other maladies that come with it? That's how circumcision became commonplace in America. Doctors have been coming up with new reasons for it ever since the original justification ceased to make sense.

Removing the foreskin supposedly decreases the risk of infection, including sexually transmitted diseases. I've also read that circumcised males tend to have lower UTI rates.

 

[Dak]

Removing the foreskin supposedly decreases the risk of infection, including sexually transmitted diseases. I've also read that circumcised males tend to have lower UTI rates.

I wouldn't be surprised if a correlation, if it exists, of decreased STD rates and circumcised males was mediated by decreased rates of risky sexual behavior.

 

[Einherjar86]

Me neither. Just repeating what I've read.

 

[CiG]

The cringe is real.

It's more dangerous and painful for them to get it done later in life.

Fucking Hell please do some research before you spread this drivel...

 

[Einherjar86]

CIG, I don't think you really know any more about this than anybody else here. We've all done "research," as far as reading various studies and articles go. Most health professionals generally agree that the benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks.

 

[CiG]

Going by what you guys are commenting it seems like you've not actually done any research beyond finding things that reinforce your ambivalence toward the subject.

To claim that it's more painful when you're an adult demonstrates nothing but ignorance on the subject.