It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Religious circumcision of kids a crime - German court

page: 11
24
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by MickC
 


So wait a minute, are you telling me that everything that P&T says in one of their videos is always 100% the truth and proven fact? P&T are the pinnacle of truthfulness? After rereading I don't believe you are telling me this but I am not sure. Probably just that you agree with the premise of that show.

However don't be so foolish to think that they leave their jobs as magicians and decievers at home when they film these shows. They are employing some of the same things that they do when they perform their acts.

We are not talking about female circumcision, we are talking about foreskins. Please don't bring up legs, toes, fingers, or any other body parts. I am tired of those analogies.
edit on 7/13/2012 by sputniksteve because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by sputniksteve
 


I am cut, I can't say how it has affected me really, as I don't remember not being cut. It really isn't worth the energy to be angry at things I can't change. It's hard to come to a rational decision of things that really don't seem rational. Circumcision just doesn't seem rational, I try to be as objective as possible though. It bothers me a bit that the vagina always seems to have more advocates then the penis though. Probably because I have a penis.



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by TKDRL
 


Well some of the people here would have you believe that you are mutilated and cannot enjoy sexual stimulation as well as they can. Granted they don't really know that but they are all too quick to tell you anyway.

Meanwhile in other threads...



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by sputniksteve
 





So wait a minute, are you telling me that everything that P&T says in one of their videos is always 100% the truth and proven fact?
No. I said: "For the record I agree with the conclusions reached by Penn & Teller 100%"
That's the truth and proven fact



After rereading I don't believe you are telling me this but I am not sure. Probably just that you agree with the premise of that show.

Reread it again. "For the record I agree with the conclusions reached by Penn & Teller 100%"



However don't be so foolish to think that they leave their jobs as magicians and decievers at home when they film these shows.

OK, so you think I'm foolish. but I reckon they are just normal guys when they finish work.


They are employing some of the same things that they do when they perform their acts.

Really? Please tell me some of the same things that they do when they perform their acts.



We are not talking about female circumcision, we are talking about foreskins.

I was talking about circumcision. male and Female.


Please don't bring up legs, toes, fingers, or any other body parts

I didn't. I was talking about circumcision. male and Female


I am tired of those analogies.

I wonder why.



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 02:54 PM
link   
I feel like people aren't really communicating with me when they answer posts line by line. I don't even know how to respond to that.



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by sputniksteve
 

Please don't feel that you have to respond. I respect your point of view and you are fully entitled to it.

I hear what you are saying, and I am stating my point of view of that. We can't all agree on everything but we should consider different perspectives.



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by DaveNorris
 



you dont see any rights being violated?


No more than when an arbitrary panel of people of vast intellectual inferiority to me decide what I am to be taught at 5 years of age in public schooling.

I was the quiet kid in class not necessarily because I was anti-social - but because I learned that I intimidated my teachers when I started engaging in a process of learning.

You won't find much in the way of sympathy from me unless you're female and cute.


so if someone drugs you and then cuts off one of your nipples, would that be a violation of your rights?


The act requires suppression of my existing rights to conscious decisions.

A baby has no discernible conscious decision making process nor does the act of circumcision require suppression of such processes.


its only a nipple, the removal of it isnt detramental to your health, so even if you didnt give consent its not violating your rights as a human being.


The act of cutting off my nipple is arbitrary. At this point, I am a conscious adult and actions taken by others to disrupt my demonstrably extant free will and consciousness represent the violation of rights, not the act of nipple cutting (which serves as an arbitrary vessel for the real rights violation).

reply to post by Shadow Herder
 



The benefits of having your legs amputated outweigh the benefits of having them.


This is incorrect. Medical case studies of paraplegics and double amputations of the leg illustrate a host of unique complications that arise from the lack of legs and the corresponding muscle activity.

Further - and more to the point - my argument has never been that circumcision conveys such overwhelmingly positive benefits as to be imposed as a social norm.

The point was that there is no medical basis for establishing arbitrary laws of regulation regarding the process as it applies to choices made by individuals and the medical professionals counseling them.


If the argument saying Circumcision is good then like I said before, with this train of thought then it would be statistically safe to have childrens teeth removed at age 10. This will prevent any type of tooth decay, tooth aches, gum disease, crooked or non symmetrical teeth plus fake teeth last longer, and look better.


This isn't exactly true, either. While the probability of dental cavities drops to an effectual zero - other problems related to the removal of teeth and the lack of teeth will stand a chance of arising.

However, the main reason why this is uncommon is because the cost of maintaining natural teeth is often seen as far more acceptable by comparison to investing in a relatively painful and expensive procedure to remove teeth and replace them with false teeth.

When this cost/benefit ratio meets unity, people will have their teeth removed and replaced (often at older ages when decay and other issues have made the prospect of not having teeth to worry about causing pain and discomfort outweighs the costs and lifestyle changes accompanying dentures or other false teeth). Since this unity is often not met in the younger agegroups, certainly in stages of childhood, it is not seen more often.

People will, however, opt to have a ten year old's teeth mounted with braces (whether or not the child wants them). Of course - this is done because braces confer demonstrable advantages.

But the converse of the argument: "We should not allow parents to choose circumcision" can be applied to the argument of dental braces: "Since braces improve health and function, parents should not be allowed to have their child abstain from braces."

I don't like lawyers. They think too much like I do.



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by sputniksteve
Your test is convoluted and makes no sense. But for the sake of argument, how do you know that you aren't the one missing out? You really don't, you just assume your stimulation is better than mine. I mean really.


My brother had an odd accident to his foreskin due to a 'busy' weekend and had to have it removed at age 30. He has told me that it is not the same anymore, sex isnt as great,, masturbating is 1/4 of what it was, loss of feeling/numbness etc. His wife doesnt like the new feeling either. I guess once a women has an uncut male thats all she wants after.

So there you have it steve. You have never had one since you were snipped at birth for most likely religious lies or reasons and will never have a foreskin there fore your cries are that of someone who feels robbed and wishes that he had a foreskin.



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


Haha, OK I see. So that gives you the authority to explain what it is like having sex with or without a foreskin? Mighty convenient that you offer this 11 pages in as anecdotal evidence for how you are superior with your foreskin.

You have managed to ignore the anecdotal evidence from actual circumcised men up to this point, but now we have this late breaking announcement from Shadow Herder we can all hang our hats on?

C'mon man. Sucks for your brother, do you give him chit about how your sex is better than his now? Sooo convenient.



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by DaveNorris
 

A baby has no discernible conscious decision making process nor does the act of circumcision require suppression of such processes.


I fail to see how mutilating a newborn doesn't require the suppression of decision making processes. Is it acceptable to mutilate an individual simply because they lack the mental ability to say no? Perhaps it's fine to do because your super favorite story book says it's ok? Or maybe even simply because it was done to you?

Would you be fine chopping toes off of coma patients, or, perhaps cut off a mentally challenged persons ear? Of course you would be, because the bible/torah/qur'an/lord of the rings tells me so...

Does the act of molesting babies require more or less suppression of decision making processes? Maybe molesting babies is fine if Jesus or Harry Potter tells you to! That'll stand up in court lol
edit on 13-7-2012 by bias12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by bias12
 


I agree completely, just because babies are unable to form their own opinions does not allow parents free rein to hack away at the infant. Those who think circumcision, for anything other than medical reasons, is appropriate should not have a child. Instead, perhaps a piece of wood, which they can carve to their own specific tastes.



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by sputniksteve
 


I am cut, I can't say how it has affected me really, as I don't remember not being cut. It really isn't worth the energy to be angry at things I can't change. It's hard to come to a rational decision of things that really don't seem rational. Circumcision just doesn't seem rational, I try to be as objective as possible though. It bothers me a bit that the vagina always seems to have more advocates then the penis though. Probably because I have a penis.


You really don't WANT men to need advocates. That anyone has to advocate for vaginas is deeply screwed up.

While this practice is becoming less common in the First World, it is becoming more common in the developing world. The reasons why it is becoming more common in the developing world are also deeply fugged up.



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by SibylofErythrae
 


YES! It is disturbing to me that anyone NEEDS advocation! You would think, by this time, it would all be common sense and decency. Sadly it's not.



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 09:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by sputniksteve
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 



C'mon man. Sucks for your brother, do you give him chit about how your sex is better than his now? Sooo convenient.


No, but if you had adequate reading comprehension you would of read that my brother said that his sex is worse and his wife doesnt like it as much.



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 09:55 PM
link   
Government needs to keep their hands off children's penises.

Kind of sick if you think about it.



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Carseller4
Government needs to keep their hands off children's penises.

Kind of sick if you think about it.


And certain religous groups need to keep their mouths of them too!.



Baby Dies From Herpes After Controversial Circumcision Ritual, Report Says A baby died at a New York hospital in September after contracting herpes from a controversial circumcision ritual.

The infant died at Maimonides Hospital in Brooklyn, where the cause of death was listed as "disseminated herpes simplex virus Type 1, complicating ritual circumcision with oral suction," according to the New York Daily News.
www.huffingtonpost.com...

Under the practice, the rabbi or mohel removes blood from the wound with his mouth — a practice city health officials have criticized, saying it carried “inherent risks” for babies.
edit on 13-7-2012 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 11:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


My reading comprehension is fine, I asked a question based on the information you provided, then restated in your last post to me. However I must have missed the part where you explained how you just happen to leave this convenient anecdote until page 11. And then also how your brothers experience makes you the expert on sex with circumcised and uncircumcised men. You just went straight to insulting my reading comprehension. I know, you can only restate your superiority so many times before running out of things to talk about.

Ok I really am done this time. Good luck.



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 12:01 AM
link   
reply to post by sputniksteve
 


Oh steve, you can feel special and almost unique in the world considering the people with mutilated genitalia make up no more than 15-18 percent.



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 03:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 


im sorry, but just because you have a superiority complex doesnt actually make you smarter than anyone else.

if babies have no discernible conscious decision making process then why is anesthetic used, for that matter, if babies have no discernible conscious decision making process then what other basic human rights do you suppose they arent intitled to.

by your reasoning, we all have the right to circumcise the mentally disabled without their consent, seeing as they have 'no discernible conscious decision making process'.

dont try to pull the intelligence card
a lot of intelligant men/women have ethical short comings.....
edit on 14/7/2012 by DaveNorris because: added text



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by DaveNorris
 



im sorry, but just because you have a superiority complex doesnt actually make you smarter than anyone else.


My neuroatypical function grants me vastly superior memory, recollection, and deductive capabilities to the vast majority of the population.

Politely, the difference between your metric of intelligence and mine is the equivalent of a mentally disabled individual and the average individual.

I don't debate to illustrate this point. It's a fact. I debate to consume what information you may have that I do not, so that it may be incorporated into a superior analytical system.


if babies have no discernible conscious decision making process then why is anesthetic used, for that matter, if babies have no discernible conscious decision making process then what other basic human rights do you suppose they arent intitled to.


A baby is not entitled to any rights. It is not practical within functional society to consider rights inherent to entities that are not self-sufficient. This places restrictive burdens upon individuals that are self-sufficient arbitrarily and intrinsically.

In essence - assigning rights to babies allows them to be used as vessels of oppression. Babies with rights can be used to argue subsidies for impoverished families that continue to produce more babies at the expense of other individuals.

Such systems are not sustainable and ultimately lead to collapse via economic pressures or social schisms (likely a combination of both).


by your reasoning, we all have the right to circumcise the mentally disabled without their consent, seeing as they have 'no discernible conscious decision making process'.


You're getting horribly confused, child.

I never argued "we" have the right to anything. The parents of a child have responsibilities to that child that leave them empowered to make a number of decisions for that child. This is by necessity.

A mentally disabled person may have reduced conscious function - but is not necessarily devoid of conscious decision making processes. Further - we already do restrict the choices mentally disabled individuals can make. In most cases, they are incapable of signing legal documents (depending upon the severity of their disablement).

That, however, does not confer the right of another individual to make such a choice. The only individuals who can make decisions in the stay of any other individual are legally recognized representatives. Parents, guardians, powers of attorney, spouses, etc. Those individuals are given the legal authority to over-ride the conscious decisions of sufficiently mentally disabled individuals (and even make decisions while they are unconscious). Though many choose to reinforce the conscious choices made by such individuals.


dont try to pull the intelligence card
a lot of intelligant men/women have ethical short comings.....


Humans are inherently ignorant of their own natures.

I am merely accepting of the raw attrition that the human species undergoes and accept that survival and betterment rest in manipulating these processes as opposed to denying their very relevance.

Countless studies show that your ethics are paper-thin and collapse the moment social bias is incapable of exacting pressure upon the individual to conform. Large societies rapidly break down into tribal groups dominated by political warlords. See sociological research into disaster-affected areas and how populations reacted to loss of reliable food and power supplies.

It's a concept that deviates on a tangent from the current - but the point is that humans are far more instinctual than you would choose to believe. The instincts that drive us into tribal bonds are just a calculated competitive maneuver. When ignorant of the instinctual forces at play, it is very difficult to self-regulate their effects - as not all instincts generate a favorable competitive situation in today's world (my instincts to flat out kill people who irritate me would get me thrown in jail; an inhibition I will be less likely to display in a post-collapse society).

Intelligence and manipulation ultimately survive in the natural world. Altruism fails. That's not to say that acts of kindness and mercy are without value - but that self-sacrifice is a trait that does not propagate well in a natural environment. And I've not seen much evidence that we are in anything other than a natural environment (as making the claim we are unnatural is somewhat of a specious argument).



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join