Religious circumcision of kids a crime - German court

Primitive people understood that en.wikipedia.org... makes an animal docile and obedient. However, they opted for partial castration for humans because total castration would interfere with the production of workers and be very hard to sell. It is debatable if circumcision makes a person more docile. However, I’m sure that was the elite’s reasoning.

reply to post by wittgenstein


I would suggest otherwise. Decrease sexual release, increase possible latent trauma is a recipe for creating angry men. Angry men are not docile.

reply to post by Aim64C


im sorry, i didnt realise i was in the presence of such a superier individual.....

firstly, you dont know anything about my intelligence, so comparing me to a mentally disabled person, although may make you feel better about yourself isnt necessarily accurate. something an 'intelligent' person would know.

secondly, another fact an 'intelligent' person would know is that intelligence isnt measured by the facts that you know rather by your observational skills, problem solving ability and how quickly you can recognise sequences (well, thats how they do it in IQ tests anyway, its debatably if that equates to actually intelligents tho).

you can spend as much time as you want flicking through your thesaurus and trying to be perceived as an intellectual behind your computer screen.
The fact remains that hacking off an individuals body parts for no discernable reason, is not only unethical its very unintelligent.

Hey, I want to start a religion based on the Vulcan Dr Spock, Oh and I want to crop my babies ears so they match his.

Is that OK with everyone ?

reply to post by DaveNorris

im sorry, i didnt realise i was in the presence of such a superier individual

Being able to use proper spelling and find the shift key would help you close the gap.

firstly, you dont know anything about my intelligence, so comparing me to a mentally disabled person, although may make you feel better about yourself isnt necessarily accurate. something an 'intelligent' person would know.

I know all I need to know about your intellectual capabilities. No matter how much potential you may be sitting upon; you allow yourself to get caught up in fallacious arguments and emotional dichotomies without realizing their hold upon your thought process.

You could be able to resolve differential equations in your head - and still you are little more than a resource to be utilized by those who can see beyond distractions such as emotions and ethical conundrums.

secondly, another fact an 'intelligent' person would know is that intelligence isnt measured by the facts that you know rather by your observational skills, problem solving ability and how quickly you can recognise sequences (well, thats how they do it in IQ tests anyway, its debatably if that equates to actually intelligents tho).

The term you are looking for is insight. It's not about being able to remember - it's about being able to remember accurately your experiences and utilize them in solving problems. Metrics of intelligence generally fail to distinguish amongst the top 5-10 percentile.

Part of the difficulty is source. Let's say you want to test geometric skills. Did the eight year old actually develop his own understanding of the Pythagorean Theorem - or did he read about it in a book... or was he taught? Each source has a different connotation to place upon the child's intellectual capabilities.

The fact remains that hacking off an individuals body parts for no discernable reason, is not only unethical its very unintelligent.

That is true.

However, you are failing to consider a few key factors that render this argument off the mark.

No human being ever makes any act for "no reason." Even acts of spontaneity are motivated by behavioral bias and instinctual drives. There may be little consideration for the consequences - but foresight is not a requirement for reason.

Further, you've already established a "discernible reason:" - Religion.

Whether you regard that reasoning as legitimate or not is irrelevant to the fact that reasoning occurred and is considered relevant by a population.

There are other reasons that have been mentioned (and are more common amongst developed populations): Hygiene, disease prevention, and to prevent physical debilitation from forming (such as phemosis).

Again - whether or not you consider these to be relevant reasons is irrelevant to the fact that others do.

This compounds against another factor you are failing to consider: The duties and authorities of government.

Does the issue create A) a sociological bias and/or hazard that threatens to deprive populations of educational/career/economic opportunity or B) a biological hazard capable of endangering large segments of the population?

The answer to that is no. The government, therefor, has no reasonable argument for making laws regarding this procedure.

Making laws surrounding moral concerns that have little/no physical detriments to the population served by that government only leads to schisms in the population; ultimately leading to a social collapse induced by the warring of special interest parties attempting to use the law as a tool of dominance and oppression.

Which is what this is ultimately about. You wish to dominate the decisions of others.

You infer by your statements that I am insufferably egotistical - yet I do not make the claim that I am capable of deciding what is correct for your children. I do not support the attempt to force you into making life decisions that I feel you should make.

Doesn't mean I'm not an egotist. But I'm aware of this fact and how my instincts to dominate and eliminate competitors influence my reasoning. I have the instinct to tell you that you're wrong and incapable of making your own decisions (because you do things I see as incorrect). That, however, precludes any ability for us to form a cooperative alliance to compete against other alliances. I have to let you make some decisions I disagree with if I want to benefit from your abilities.

Yes, I deliberately reduced that to a materialistic logic for dramatic effect.

reply to post by ken10

Hey, I want to start a religion based on the Vulcan Dr Spock, Oh and I want to crop my babies ears so they match his.

Is that OK with everyone ?

Is there a reason I shouldn't be?

My kids can be born with 'normal' ears (circumcised or uncircumcised).

Your kids, presumably, will not be forced to make their children have Vulcan ears. And who knows - my kids might find it an adorable trait and be on your kids like children on an ice cream truck.

Or they may not care one way or another.

Really doesn't matter to me. Your kids are your legacy. My kids are mine. If you enhance or debilitate your legacy - that's your gain or loss (respectively) - not mine.

I do, however, think that your kids should not be allowed to have their webbed toes surgically altered. Webbed toes are evolutionary adaptations that will allow us to perform better when the world floods from global warming (as proven by Al Gore). Therefor - it is critical that all webbed toes be left intact, and children with them be indoctrinated into breeding programs to ensure the mobility of our future species.

That last paragraph was a jest... just in case anyone thought I was serious, there.

reply to post by Aim64C

Is there a reason I shouldn't be?

Seriously, you would be OK with parents cropping childrens ears? Because thats just crazy..

Really doesn't matter to me. Your kids are your legacy. My kids are mine. If you enhance or debilitate your legacy - that's your gain or loss (respectively) - not mine.

Kids are not property, and nobody should be allowed to debilitate them.

“Hey, I want to start a religion based on the Vulcan Dr Spock, Oh and I want to crop my babies ears so they match his. Is that OK with everyone ? “
ken10
ken10’s response decided the issue! *
Also, SibylofErythrae’s response to my post (“I would suggest otherwise. Decrease sexual release, increase possible latent trauma is a recipe for creating angry men. Angry men are not docile.”) was inadequate because I said, “It is debatable if circumcision makes a person more docile. However, I’m sure that was the elite’s reasoning.”


*
en.wikipedia.org...
groups.able2know.org...

reply to post by Maslo

Seriously, you would be OK with parents cropping childrens ears? Because thats just crazy..

You really need to mature.

I would not agree with such a decision - hence my decision to abstain from cropping my children's ears.

However, I don't see where it is my place to tell you what you can and cannot do, particularly with the ethical gray area of a child. If I can tell you that you can't choose to have them undergo cosmetic surgery - I can argue (on more solid ground) that you should not be able to expose them to religious influences at an early age. I could argue that laws should be put into place to prevent you from teaching your children certain things.

It's a means to an end of control and oppression. A child cannot make conscious decisions of their own. For several years, they are completely dependent upon parental support.

Laws to affect children are in effect laws to affect their parents in a manner that subverts typical rights concerns.

Kids are not property, and nobody should be allowed to debilitate them.

Except the very example above doesn't debilitate the child. So they have Vulcan ears. The strongest argument you could make is that it may affect their hearing (although I would imagine any sensible alteration would take this into account and minimize the impact such changes have on the acoustics of the ear).

You can't argue that case with the foreskin, either. Life has gone on just fine for the cultures that do circumcise and people live enjoyable lives. Further, studies into adult circumcision have shown little to no substantiating evidence for a marked loss of sensitivity.

As for children being property - they are not property. They are, however, the legacy of their parents. This is an inescapable reality. I was taught by my father and nurtured by my mother so as to be a competitive individual. No parent ever says: "I just want my kid to be average." - There is always a somewhat vicarious aspect to parenthood (even if it is not forceful or oppressively so - it is an undertone that every parent wishes their children to accomplish what is dreamed for them - and more).

Attempts to regulate the inherent hereditary relationship between parent and child will ultimately lead to sociological divides, warring special interest groups, and discrediting of the legal system (collapse of the government).

Which is why a government should only provide standards for medical facilities/procedures regarding operational safety/cleanliness; not moral concerns as to whether or not such operations should be undertaken.

reply to post by Aim64C

If I can tell you that you can't choose to have them undergo cosmetic surgery - I can argue (on more solid ground) that you should not be able to expose them to religious influences at an early age.

Not really, one is an opinion, the other is a permanent body alteration. And indeed, this is an ethical grey area. Truth is in the middle, a balance between government intervention, parental rights and rights of the child. I just believe that things like cropping of ears are definately not included in parental rights. Circumcision I have no opinion on.

The strongest argument you could make is that it may affect their hearing (although I would imagine any sensible alteration would take this into account and minimize the impact such changes have on the acoustics of the ear).

I could also make an argument that it disfigures them needlessly for life. I could make the argument that it comes with risks as any invasive procedure. These are very strong arguments.

Attempts to regulate the inherent hereditary relationship between parent and child will ultimately lead to sociological divides, warring special interest groups, and discrediting of the legal system (collapse of the government).

But here we have an example of a weak argument. We regulate it already, and this slippery slope scenario is completely unsibstantiated and over the top.

“I would not agree with such a decision - hence my decision to abstain from cropping my children's ears.However, I don't see where it is my place to tell you what you can and cannot do, particularly with the ethical gray area of a child.”
Aim64C
OK. So even if you were a Vulcanist ( en.wikipedia.org... ) you would not crop your kid’s ears. But you would be against a law that said a parent ( even if they were a Vulcanist) cannot crop their kid’s ears?

reply to post by wittgenstein

OK. So even if you were a Vulcanist ( en.wikipedia.org... ) you would not crop your kid’s ears. But you would be against a law that said a parent ( even if they were a Vulcanist) cannot crop their kid’s ears?

Precisely.

What does society and the government serving it stand to gain from the formation of such a law? Other than the power to arbitrarily make decisions for people?

reply to post by Maslo

Not really, one is an opinion, the other is a permanent body alteration.

Incorrect.

It's not just an opinion. Neuropsychological research demonstrates the formation of early neural pathways to be crucial in establishing long-term biases in the system. While the brain retains a very high degree of neural plasticity well into the early 20s for most members of the population - exposure to processes of "indoctrination" are highly effective at manipulating that neural plasticity, as well.

Take polls of the general population where some 40% of Americans believe the world to be less than 10,000 years old and, if I recall the statistics correctly, some 20% believing in the co-existence of dinosaurs and humans.

I may take up some "inexplicable" arguments in defense of non-standard theories for the sake of entertainment on my part (always fun to see what is difficult to explain the origin of in the standard model - such as iridium levels in igneous rocks - as a related example)... but there's a point where one can say that the point being made is clearly irrational and cannot be defended but for ignorance of the known data (which, in this case, is not due to a lack of exposure - but a decision to deny the known data).

Arguably - that presents a clear sociological danger and can meet my prior terms for justifying government involvement (I don't like that idea - but I recognize that the position can be taken). A far greater concern than the foreskin.

I could also make an argument that it disfigures them needlessly for life. I could make the argument that it comes with risks as any invasive procedure. These are very strong arguments.

So does conception and birth. Couples who fail to test for RH compatibility place the life of the mother and the second child at risk. Women under a certain height/weight ratio comprise a disproportionate amount of birth defects and complications to include life threatening issues.

Therefor, you should have to get a permit before being allowed to conceive. Would do a lot to prevent the destructive tendency of teen pregnancy and single mothers attempting to raise three kids with a fourth on the way.

But here we have an example of a weak argument. We regulate it already, and this slippery slope scenario is completely unsibstantiated and over the top.

Call it a vision in my crystal ball.

Societies that attempt to regulate the parent-child relationship have historically had a difficult time maintaining their empire. China's already been rudely reminded of this principle - and is about to face serious problems within the next several years.

While the specific cause is not necessarily the regulation of the parent-child bond - the level to which it is taken in such societies is indicative of the excessive amounts of power held by the government that will ultimately tailor itself to too few within the population and face internal collapse.

Originally posted by Aim64C
A baby is not entitled to any rights.

I've always found it incredible how someone can make an enormous legitimate looking post, yet all it takes is one short sentence to completely destroy the persons credibility.

A baby is not entitled to any rights? I don't even know where to start... but after seeing some of your previous posts, something tells me it's not worth the time and energy to even bother.

Also, thought this would be good to post:

The carcinogenicity of smegma: debunking a myth

Originally posted by Xaphan

Originally posted by Aim64C
A baby is not entitled to any rights.

I've always found it incredible how someone can make an enormous legitimate looking post, yet all it takes is one short sentence to completely destroy the persons credibility.

A baby is not entitled to any rights? I don't even know where to start... but after seeing some of your previous posts, something tells me it's not worth the time and energy to even bother.

edit on 16-7-2012 by Xaphan because: (no reason given)

Brilliant addition to the thread. Thanks for the contribution.

So we went from the thumb, pinkie, leg analogy to Vulcan Ears. Yes this is an intellectual dream in here. I am not sure why you all can't just admit you are against this for your own personal reasons, and concede that it's possible others have different personal reasons.

Aim64, I wish I could double star each of your posts. I think you are brilliant =) Haters gonna hate I guess. They are mad because they hate that you make them look stupid.

There is some lighter fluid, who has the match?

reply to post by Aim64C


ok, so im not good with my spelling and punctuation, that doesnt mean im stupid, im actually above average in the IQ department, so dont make assumptions.
the fact that you came in and stated that you are more intelligent than anyone in this forum and then proceeded to insult me was the main reason i engaged with you in the first place.

if you knew me, you would know that i dont think religion is a good reason for anything and the only objections i have to Religious circumcision is that it should be the individuals choice, not the parents choice (maybe instead of doing it at birth they should do it at age 13 or 14). your free to disagree with me, i dont really care.

reply to post by DaveNorris


I know this is not going to be taken well, but I think it is obvious enough to point out. When someone says you are not intelligent because you don't use capitals or punctuate correctly, then you rebut in the same fashion without capitals and claim you are above average intelligence it is kind of like the punch line to a joke.

*edit* We are always making assumptions about the people we are talking with, we are forced to. We can't not make an assumption. What you are really asking for is for us to make the assumption that you are intelligent, not unintelligent. With bad grammar though that is asking for a lot, more than is deserved.

I am not claiming you aren't smart, but correct grammar will make it so you don't have to make excuses or give explanations. Just some food for thought.

Of course if you choose to then do it on purpose you have to realize most people won't get your joke and still assume you aren't very intelligent. We don't have very many things to go by when gauging the intelligence of the people we are communicating with online. I personally don't give people the benefit of the doubt when they can't take the time to type things out correctly. I know the arguments and excuses people make for why this isn't necessary "today" but I beg to differ. I think when we are wading through the cess pool of the internet we have to hold ourselves and our ideas to a little bit higher of a standard if we ever want to make a difference.

Waaaaay off topic but I just wanted to share that with you. By the way I have 14 year old daughter that if I didn't know personally would assume is a total idiot due to her inability to type correctly. Meaning I am a little more aware of this than some people might be.

reply to post by sputniksteve

ive been through this in a few other threads before, iv never been too good with spelling and punctuation but since its at a level were everyone can understand what im saying then its not something i intend to spend the time correcting, especially on an informal thing such as posting in a internet forum, i would however make the effort for, say, a job application or something similar.

as for my intelligence, ive taken a few IQ test and score between 130 and 145 (100 being average), although i havent paid out for an official moderated test (im poor), so the gap arises from using several, less accurate online tests. but in my school they preffered to give the under achievers special treatment and sit me at the back of the room with advanced text books, hence the knowledge without the skills to articulate my thoughts very well.

Albert Einstein was Dyslexic, if he was to frequent ATS he would probably make a few gramatical errors. you would assume he was stupid, you would be wrong..... need i say more

reply to post by DaveNorris


By your own admission, it isn't that you are stupid or unintelligent but you don't want to take the time to do it correctly. You would do it correctly if it was a job interview or something important though. I have a hard time believing that Einstein wouldn't take the time to spell check and edit his posts prior to hitting reply because he was a lazy man.

Again, you are still asking us to make an assumption, just an assumption you appreciate instead of one that makes you look bad. You are asking us to assume that even though you can't use grammar appropriately you are an intelligent guy. What logic would we use to make that assumption in this case? You see what I am saying? We can't expect people not to make assumptions about us when we communicate this way, because we rarely give our bio and IQ prior to initiating that discussion so we have to make certain assumptions until things are shown to be different.

I don't like discussing this in this thread because it is so off topic but it is a very interesting topic.

I'm smarter than the whole forum put together. I say human rights trump parents imaginary friends orders.