The way you post makes it seem like all he's been saying so far is "There are no benefits! LALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" even though he's actually gone quite a lot into why he thinks there are no benefits. Or more precisely, why the benefits are too insignificant to be a suitable reason for surgery of any kind.
*sigh* when you make the comment that you refute something. you say that those points are wrong or they are not correct. this is not the case.
whether the benefit is major or insignificant is a subjective view to the person. a person that needs it done because of a medical reason so that some things don't hurt or feel uncomfortable deem it a major benefit.
someone that doesn't need anything done might not view it as such. the fact still remains that there are benefits. to try and trivialize them such as he is doing or trying to do is not a good arguement nor does it refute anything.
Unless you really have a problem with your foreskin, which is very rare, by the way, I don't think you should go and cut it.
Good that is your opinion and you are more than welcome to it, like i said my view is more religious than medical. When done properly and in the proper way there is very little issue.
as you are welcome to your opinion i am welcome to mine. i see nothing wrong with it as it is a choice for parents to decide on not anyone else. whether you agree or disagree is inconquential as it has no bearing on their decision.
The cancer thing is pretty obvious: You can't have cancer on it if you don't have it. Removing a woman's breasts also immunizes her against breast cancer, by the way, and I think Kasreyn's analogy was spot on here.
everyone has cancer cells in their body. the difference is enviromental or biological triggers that set them off. you immune system kill them off pretty quickly. it is when they begin to multiple out of control and your immune system can't handle them do they become a problem.
actually it is very poor. that is like saying i can cut my ***** off as an immunity to getting an STD or it prevents me from getting someone pregnant. it is a knee-jerk appeal to emotion.
HIV is, once again, a non-issue. You don't get HIV if you have safe sex and if you don't, circumcision is not a valid form of protection
this is not entirely true there are other ways to get HIV other than sex. it is just that sex is the most transmitted way of doing it.
No one says that it is, however as pointed out in the article. while the odds of getting it are still there, there are some minor improvements of not getting it. granted i wouldn't leave it to chance like that.
Actually, he could be right. You aren't allowed to murder for whatever reason even if your religion encourages it and I don't see why this issue could not conceivably override freedom of religion as well.
Correction needs to be made here. 1 murder is against the law whether religious or not. circumcision is not against the law. you have to try and prove that it breaks some kind of law he cannot do that.
this is a false analogy. also murder takes away life someone circumcision does not.
so this is not correct and to even make such an arguement is being dishonest.
Also, I won't go into why I think permanently altering another person's body for your personal superstitious reasons is incredibly wrong here, but I repeat, I think it is. Kasreyn has brushed on that topic enough as it is and I tend to grow tired of these debates long before they end, anyway.
whether you think it is superstitious or not is irrevelevant. you are entitled to think what you want. you are not entitled to push that view on others. Yep and like he has stated his opinion nothing more. of which he is entitled to.
he isn't entitled to push that opinion on other people.
it isn't altering anything. it functions normally there are no side effects of it at all. again if you go to a two bit hack of a doctor who doesn't know what he is doing then yes there can be complications.
if you have it done by someone that knows what they are doing and does it correctly there are no complications at all. everything functions just fine. trust me. i have 2 kids and 1 on the way my brother has 2 kids of his own. obviously my dad had kids.
i enjoy being with my wife just fine. i have no problems in that area either.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
I am almost embarrassed that I get suckered into responding to him.
someone that doesn't need anything done might not view it as such. the fact still remains that there are benefits. to try and trivialize them such as he is doing or trying to do is not a good arguement nor does it refute anything.
This is a very small minority. In this paragraph, you are advocating traumatizing a child because there is a small chance they might have to do it when they're older (and can CHOOSE). This is like removing everybody's appendix or tonsils, just in case. Ridiculous.
actually it is very poor. that is like saying i can cut my ***** off as an immunity to getting an STD or it prevents me from getting someone pregnant. it is a knee-jerk appeal to emotion.
Your reply is a knee-jerk appeal to facepalms. Syphilis does not just hang around in your junk. COMPLETELY different.
this is not entirely true there are other ways to get HIV other than sex. it is just that sex is the most transmitted way of doing it.
No one says that it is, however as pointed out in the article. while the odds of getting it are still there, there are some minor improvements of not getting it. granted i wouldn't leave it to chance like that.
There are a whole hell of a lot of people in Africa that will tell you that it's effective in this regard, and then promptly contract HIV and spread it around.
Correction needs to be made here. 1 murder is against the law whether religious or not. circumcision is not against the law. you have to try and prove that it breaks some kind of law he cannot do that.
this is a false analogy. also murder takes away life someone circumcision does not.
so this is not correct and to even make such an arguement is being dishonest.
Incredible. Do you ACTUALLY think he was comparing circumcision to murder? He was saying that freedom of religion has limits. He's spot on in saying that the pain and trauma suffered by ANOTHER PERSON should NOT be protected. If it were illegal to circumcise boys, it would surely still be legal to do whatever you want to your nether bits when you're old enough to decide for yourself. Circumcision is a painful, unpleasant act. If you caused that much pain to your baby for any other reason, you would go to prison.
This is not some political issue that's debatable as to the extent of impact on liberty and society. If it were, you could say that nobody can force their opinion on you. This is child abuse.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Everything is true in some sense, false in some sense, meaningless in some sense, true and false in some sense, true and meaningless in some sense, false and meaningless in some sense, and true, false, and meaningless in some sense. Repeat this 666 times and you will reach enlightenment.
In some sense. The only good fnord is a dead fnord.
I am almost embarrassed that I get suckered into responding to him.
No one forced you to you did it on your own.
This is a very small minority. In this paragraph, you are advocating traumatizing a child because there is a small chance they might have to do it when they're older (and can CHOOSE). This is like removing everybody's appendix or tonsils, just in case. Ridiculous.
Proof? what proof do you have to back up this claim? There is no trama. none at all if done properly by a doctor.
Actually not really as having your appendix or tonsils removed is a pretty invasive procedure. again if done properly it takes all of 1-2 mins with no complications.
as a parent it is up to me to decide what is best more so at that age. i am sure they would choose not to get shots either or have blood taken but they do. i have it done even though there are serious side effects more so on the shots.
Your reply is a knee-jerk appeal to facepalms. Syphilis does not just hang around in your junk. COMPLETELY different.
It wasn't a knee jerk as you try to twist it into something else. go back and read what i was replying to and understand the context because you are wrong here.
There are a whole hell of a lot of people in Africa that will tell you that it's effective in this regard, and then promptly contract HIV and spread it around.
again reading comprehension. if you actually read instead of well making gross assumption it helps. the article specifically said that it was no substitute.
Incredible. Do you ACTUALLY think he was comparing circumcision to murder? He was saying that freedom of religion has limits. He's spot on in saying that the pain and trauma suffered by ANOTHER PERSON should NOT be protected. If it were illegal to circumcise boys, it would surely still be legal to do whatever you want to your nether bits when you're old enough to decide for yourself. Circumcision is a painful, unpleasant act. If you caused that much pain to your baby for any other reason, you would go to prison.
again your reading comprehension is quite poor. your poor attempt to twist what i say is really really bad.
There is very little pain or trama suffered if done properly. so that point is well invalid. if the doctor isn't doing it properly then i would have to question the doctor's ability.
my son came back he was happy as a lark. he has suffered no problems from it at all. just like everyone else they are perfectly normal.
it isn't illegal so that isn't even an arguement. we are not playing the game of if here or at least i am not going to.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
Actually not really as having your appendix or tonsils removed is a pretty invasive procedure. again if done properly it takes all of 1-2 mins with no complications.
as a parent it is up to me to decide what is best more so at that age. i am sure they would choose not to get shots either or have blood taken but they do. i have it done even though there are serious side effects more so on the shots.
Read this very carefully. You said that we should not say that there are no benefits, because some people need it done for medical reasons. It's very similar, though obviously not as drastic, as removing any number of other parts of the body that we don't need, and frequently go haywire.
It wasn't a knee jerk as you try to twist it into something else. go back and read what i was replying to and understand the context because you are wrong here.
You said that it would be like cutting of a ***** because of an std infection. That is obviously ridiculous, and COMPLETELY DIFFERENT than cancer. I don't think you even understood what you replied to in the first place. Your first sentence is especially choice, because you don't even know what I said.
again reading comprehension. if you actually read instead of well making gross assumption it helps. the article specifically said that it was no substitute.
I KNOW THAT. LOTS OF PEOPLE DO NOT. Missionaries telling people in Africa that there is some benefit to circumcision because they don't want to tell people to use condoms when they bang hookers do not care what is in the article.
We are saying that it, maybe?! Yes! SHOULD be reevaluated, and perhaps banned. Society is not a completely static place, man. You are essentially arguing that some is, and so it always should be.
Everything is true in some sense, false in some sense, meaningless in some sense, true and false in some sense, true and meaningless in some sense, false and meaningless in some sense, and true, false, and meaningless in some sense. Repeat this 666 times and you will reach enlightenment.
In some sense. The only good fnord is a dead fnord.
Insulting me only shows how weak your arguement really is. I don't need to insult people to make an arguement so why do you have to? it really doesn't prove anything.
Read this very carefully. You said that we should not say that there are no benefits, because some people need it done for medical reasons. It's very similar, though obviously not as drastic, as removing any number of other parts of the body that we don't need, and frequently go haywire.
Only this procedure (unless done later in life) is not as invasive and have people on their backs or in bed for several days either. in fact you really can't even compare the two of them.
it is an emotional knee jerk arguement like others trying to prove a point when it really doesn't.
You said that it would be like cutting of a ***** because of an std infection. That is obviously ridiculous, and COMPLETELY DIFFERENT than cancer. I don't think you even understood what you replied to in the first place. Your first sentence is especially choice, because you don't even know what I said.
You really need to go back and read what i quoted and what i was responding to. you not doing does not change the context as to how i typed that. you are still not getting it.
I knew exactly what i was responding to another emotional knee jerk reaction. Not really if you think on the extreme terms that you guys are thinking on.
sure someone can go have their breasts removed in order to prevent cancer. likewise someone can have their ***** removed in order to prevent spreading or getting HIV or any other STD they can also prevent pregancy that way as well. i am simply pointing out the stupidity of all these knee-jerk arguement posts. you simply just missed it.
no one is cutting anything off. a piece of skin is getting snipped. that is about it, and you have people talking about cutting off pinky toes, breasts and other body parts as if they are even in the same catagory which they are not in fact they aren't even close as those have and can have sever impact on a person life while this does not.
We are saying that it, maybe?! Yes! SHOULD be reevaluated, and perhaps banned. Society is not a completely static place, man. You are essentially arguing that some is, and so it always should be.
No what i am argueing is that it is a personal choice that the parents make. as they make other decisions about their kid that they feel is in their best interest. whether you agree or disagree is indifferent. you have no say in how they choose to raise their child that is up for the law to decide.
as far as circumcision goes it is not against the law and i doubt it will ever be. no one says you have to do it. you have a choice. you don't have the right to deny others that choice. how you feel you do is beyond me.
you on the other hand feel your opinion of authority some how overrides that fact. it doesn't. as for banning it. again some people do it in for religious reasons. that steps on the right of that person. that is unconstitutional and there is no way you are going to get congress to change that.
you are trying to argue something that is well not going to be changed any time soon. mostly because it interferes with the 1st amendement. 2ndly you have to prove that it causes some sever disfigurement and or have sever consquences which it does not has not which has been proven time and time again in this thread.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
I KNOW THAT. LOTS OF PEOPLE DO NOT. Missionaries telling people in Africa that there is some benefit to circumcision because they don't want to tell people to use condoms when they bang hookers do not care what is in the article.
You want to back this statement up? because its a pretty serious accusation, and I think you just made it up because you thought if only this were true it would support my point.
At no point in this thread has anyone mentioned "missionaries" or having people get circumcised instead of practicing other preventative measures. I think your name is quite apt regarding this post.
while I'm on the same side in this debate as you are, I have to point this out. Someone is getting something cut off. Granted, we both consider it a rather insignificant something, but it is still something that is attached, that is being cut, and at the end is no longer attached.
We need to take the high road here, because if we make gross exaggerations its not possible for us to point out how absurd the other sides arguments are.
you speak about not pushing your "view" on others but in fact that is exactly what you are doing to your child through circumcision, and then trying to justify it using meagre scientific evidence that isnt even enough for health organizations to recommend it.
Our arguments arent obsurd, i think you are in fact just a little dense. for instance for some reason you keep saying, roughly "its my child ill do what i want its not anyone elses choice" when in fact it is obviously partially up to society what you do with your child, as evidenced by the numerous LAWS that prohibit you from doing some actions. you aknowledge this FINALLY, but then talk again about how we cant force our views on others (Which is hilariously inconsistent with what seems to be your belief structure), except you seem to dissassociate US from SOCIETY as if they are different. WE ARE SOCIETY, and like any aspect of society, can be regulated differently then it was previously.
Except when that person is a baby and we feed them, clothe them, and generally take care of them without their consent, "forcing" such actions onto them. So we either accept that with people who have no autonomy we can't seek that autonomy (thus causing us to resort to forcing our standards on that person), or the whole of parenting crumbles under our absolute standard.
What a false dilemma. Imagine, if you will, a standard of "probable future consent". A reasonable adult is in all likelihood not going to begrudge his parents for feeding and clothing him as a child. Circumcision? Well, the origin of this thread indicates that the situation is somewhat different.
And I would continue to beseech you to provide evidence that correctly performed circumcision is a valid source of mental anguish within men. "Can" and "might" aren't the strongest evidence of detriment.
What on earth is a "valid" source of mental anguish?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I tend to agree frein. on a very simple level, should parents have the right consent to performance of an UNNECESSARY (just occurred to me that this word should have popped into this debate long ago) surgery on someone else?
In which case we've shifted our understanding to a consequentialist attitude, no?
No. The consent of a hypothetical rational adult is of no greater value to a consequentialist than the consent of a real person. In fact, it's probably worth less.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I would leave the idea of future opinion alone because its complete conjecture and could swing either way depending on numerous factors. the real issue is simply "should parents have the right of consent to performance of an unncessary irriversible surgery on another human being under their care" and frankly i dont see how anyone can say yes to this question.
That is correct. There is no way that circumcision is the same as what goes on in africa with young girls which to me is appalling. they are not even close to one and the same.
yet you have people like Kar above that tries to use the same appeal to emotion which as you said is the epitome of poor debate.
I cannot recall describing the two as equivalent. I think this is more evidence that you are either not reading my arguments carefully (if at all), or are choosing to deliberately misrepresent my positions.
As i told you before. What is is. No matter what your whats, whims, or wishes. reality is what it is. you need to catch up not me.
And as I told you before, that is fatuous nonsense and irrelevant to the discussion. No matter what my wishes? What if my wishes include potentially voting on a referendum to outlaw this barbaric procedure, if such a referendum were to ever be raised? I would say that my wishes would "matter" in that case, as much as anyone's.
One thing is for certain - the wishes of the babies being circumcised are definitely *not* being taken into consideration by those in favor of the operation. Refer to Blinking Spirit's very cogent argument above.
as i already told you. you used this definition incorrectly. you know it i know and anyone with a logical part in their body knows it. the definition you even cited proved you wrong. i am sorry that you try to twist definition of words but that doesn't make them correct.
Then please quote from my quote and show me how it is wrong. Don't just say "it's obvious." Once again, you're simply refusing to actually debate my points. Shall I begin to count the instances in which you simply fail to rebut or even acknowledge my points? Because this one was #2 in your post.
there is no amputation going on here. it is removal of some skin not the removal of the ***** itself which would be an amputation. i think you need to go read your definition again.
Failure to rebut my quotation of the dictionary definition of amputation. Either find a superior source than American Heritage (and support WHY it is superior), or show how I've misapplied the definition. Do SOMETHING other than just continuing to repeat denials that I have repeatedly answered, ok? #3.
Correction i am going by what the real and true purpose of circumcision is used for. you are the one out there using different terms in order to try and justify your point of view. sorry it doesn't work on me.
No, correction: I have given you the actual definitions of these terms, as used by *dictionaries*. If you want to make up your own meanings of them, feel free, but you'll be completely unable to engage in any sort of meaningful discussion with the rest of us, who recognize that communication requires some sort of minimal semantic common ground. #4 for your simply refusing to actually debate the issue.
sorry the benefits are still there whether you accept them or not. it doesn't make them go away. you didn't refute anything as they are still out there and they still exist.
No, I *did* refute them, because you have declined to rebut my refutation. Ergo, I win. Unless you would like to rebut my actual points, rather than just saying "I'm right you're wrong na na" over and over like a child? That's #5.
it is your opinion that you refuted them it isn't a fact.
If no one rebuts me, then I have to assume no CAN rebut me. That's how arguments amongst adults work. If I'm wrong, prove it.
Again it isn't up to you when it comes to someone elses child. not when it comes to someone elses child your voice is nill you have no vote in the matter.
LOL. Of course I do! If a parent decides their particular joy would come from sexually molesting their kids, then my "vote" in the matter is represented by my being a part of the vast majority of society (yourself no doubt included) who abhor child abuse and my "voice" is to have that person immediately separated from the child they are not fit to care for and thrown into prison.
Where we differ is that I don't really see a difference in kind between routine circumcision and other forms of child abuse. It's being done, ultimately, for reasons which matter to the parent - reasons of culture, religion, I really don't give a **** how you define it - not reasons which are relevant to the child. As such, it's not being done in the child's interests and I *do* get a vote. Until now, I remain outvoted & in the minority. But just because you're in the majority you can't pretend the minority doesn't even exist. That's just silly - and a good way to lose your majority power.
On second thought, yeah... never mind, we don't exist... just go right on ignoring us while we grow in number.
Actually that wouldn't happen as it would be a violation of my religious freedom. it would be unconsitutional. so no a vote like that would not happen.
#6; I've already addressed this when I stated my belief that a child's right to freedom from bodily harm comes before their parent's religious freedom. Also, the child's OWN right to religious freedom opposes it - because we can't be sure that child would choose the same religion as their parent. Want to try actually debating even one of the arguments I raised?
Actually it is a skin. it is attached at the base but it is skin. we are not talking the full removal of it. a proper circumcision removes only the tip of it from the head. that is about it. everything else is left in tact. so yes it is just the removal of a flap of skin. even medical journals deem it as skin not an actual part of the body. so yes it is very much fact.
Proof please? And by proof I mean proof that medical journals deem it to be merely and simply the exact same kind of skin that covers the rest of your body, which was your original claim. I really doubt you'll find a medical journal that doesn't refer to its differences.
proof of any kind or more conjecture on your part? i think more conjucture.
In case you'd rather not trudge through them (they're very boring), I'll cut to the chase and summarize: these reports give the incidence of phimosis (natch, we're talking about the uncircumcized population) btween 0.6% and 1% of the population.
Small? I'd say I was generous in not calling it a miniscule chance. But kudos to you for actually *joining the debate* on that point! How did it feel?
also you didn't present and argument just more EMO arguements the guy and his pinky toe. trying to add an emotional knee jerk arguement into the subject trying to prove your point when they aren't even on the same level.
Can you refute my analogy (note: that was HIS analogy, mine was the earlobe)? Can you even be bothered to try, or is my analogy just too good? That's #7, btw.
It is your right to disagree all you want to. it isn't your right to push your views on me. so get over it.
I was HOPING you would say that, so I would get to say this: It isn't your right to push your culture or your religion on your child. So get over it, hmm?
whether the benefit is major or insignificant is a subjective view to the person.
How subjective do you think a baby is capable of being about what potential future benefits they might experience from their present pain? Are you seriously making *this* argument??
a person that needs it done because of a medical reason so that some things don't hurt or feel uncomfortable deem it a major benefit.
See incidence rates of phimosis above. You seem to be implying there is a significant percentage of the uncircumcised population who need circumcision to solve some sort of problem they're having with their natural equipment that is causing them some sort of hurt or discomfort. Would you like to get into specifics?
to try and trivialize them such as he is doing or trying to do is not a good arguement nor does it refute anything.
There is nothing wrong with trivializing the trivial. The alleged health benefits of circumcision are in some cases so minor as to be certainly incapable of supporting the persistence of an involuntary, irreversible surgery, and in all other cases are simply examples of people reaching to come up with benefits that are so much vapor, such as the meaningless HIV-protection gambit.
Good that is your opinion and you are more than welcome to it, like i said my view is more religious than medical. When done properly and in the proper way there is very little issue.
Well, there is very little issue in *your* mind, that's for certain, but for some of us, the ethics of personal freedom come before traditional, religion-based morality. And as we live in a secular society, we all get a say. Innat neat?
this is not entirely true there are other ways to get HIV other than sex. it is just that sex is the most transmitted way of doing it.
Textbook hair-splitting. -_- Is there any non-*****-related means of HIV-getting that could possibly be relevant to a discussion of the removal of babies' foreskins?! Then why did you need to write that paragraph except to make yourself look smart?
No one says that it is, however as pointed out in the article. while the odds of getting it are still there, there are some minor improvements of not getting it. granted i wouldn't leave it to chance like that.
Whew. 11 pages into the debate and you finally concede that one of the alleged benefits is essentially meaningless. I'm not sure if I'm willing to battle through another 11 pages for another one. >_<
Correction needs to be made here. 1 murder is against the law whether religious or not. circumcision is not against the law. you have to try and prove that it breaks some kind of law he cannot do that.
Uhmm, the point myself and others are trying to make is that we feel it *should* be against the law. (the routine, non-medically-indicated, culturally-driven form, that is.) Once again, you are confusing what the discussion is over. No one is disagreeing over what IS; we are disagreeing over whether that is what should be.
this is a false analogy. also murder takes away life someone circumcision does not.
*shrug* A difference in degree, not in kind. Cut someone enough times, and they die. If we allow you to cut your child for "religious reasons", then you could cut them repeatedly until they die, and we will have allowed you to commit legal murder. I'm not accusing you of wanting to do this. I'm simply demonstrating that this is a difference in degree, not in kind. As such, the analogy is perfectly sound as far as it goes.
it isn't altering anything. it functions normally there are no side effects of it at all.
You keep stating this without supporting it. I'm waiting for you to back it up with some proof. Yes, YOU. The natural state of the child is uncircumcised. I am on the side of "leave well enough alone". You are on the side of "take action to change things". Therefore the onus falls upon YOU to prove that your proposed course of action is necessary. One of my objections is that it *does* alter the child, and it *does* injure their functioning. Now the onus is on you to prove it doesn't. Sorry, but that's how debate works.
everything functions just fine. trust me.
*winces* I really think we can trust you on that. And function isn't the point either. Remember my analogy to the earlobe? What exactly does it do, except be seen? Yet I would argue you have no right to remove that from your child, either. So please don't waste our time on this chimera of an argument any more. Function is irrelevant.
i enjoy being with my wife just fine. i have no problems in that area either.
This is a very small minority. In this paragraph, you are advocating traumatizing a child because there is a small chance they might have to do it when they're older (and can CHOOSE). This is like removing everybody's appendix or tonsils, just in case. Ridiculous.
While I agree with you in principle, you could use a less inflammatory tone. Also, while I would definitely theorize, conjecture, or assume that trauma occurs, there is sadly no means available to prove this, so such statements also do more harm than good.
There are a whole hell of a lot of people in Africa that will tell you that it's effective in this regard, and then promptly contract HIV and spread it around.
This is where the wheels fell off for me reading your remarks. You're treading awfully close to some notorious -ism's, here, when you single out a specific region (or people) for special scorn. Could you try not to drag this debate into a gutter? kthx.
Incredible. Do you ACTUALLY think he was comparing circumcision to murder? He was saying that freedom of religion has limits. He's spot on in saying that the pain and trauma suffered by ANOTHER PERSON should NOT be protected.
Well, you sort of narrowed my point for me. I'm against it for more reasons than just the possibility of pain and trauma, which as we've already debated to death, cannot conclusively be proven any more than the theorized loss of pleasure can. What I am against is what I see as a blind spot in our society's conception of what liberties parental consent ought and ought'nt to be allowed. Nothing more or less.
Insulting me only shows how weak your arguement really is. I don't need to insult people to make an arguement so why do you have to? it really doesn't prove anything.
And yet you have insulted me multiple times in this thread, albeit much more subtly and less harshly than the above poster did you. I would make the same argument but I'm already fairly convinced you aren't interested in even *trying* to prove anything, since you won't debate my points.
There is very little pain or trama suffered if done properly.
...
my son came back he was happy as a lark. he has suffered no problems from it at all. just like everyone else they are perfectly normal.
LOL. Ok, first off, how do you know there was very little pain or trauma? Were you inside his head? How do you know he was happy as a lark? Do you speak baby? (And if your son was not an infant, what relevance does that have to this discussion, which is focussed on routine neonatal circumcision?)
Also, your definition of "perfectly normal" is odd, given the minority of the population you and your son inhabit (approx 30% world male population per WHO)...
Only this procedure (unless done later in life) is not as invasive and have people on their backs or in bed for several days either. in fact you really can't even compare the two of them.
Of course he can, and once again, this is a difference in degree. You're still cutting into a person's body to do something that has no basis in medical necessity. For instance, if a circumcision is botched the child will certainly be in the hospital on their back for several days, so this is clearly a difference in degree.
You really need to go back and read what i quoted and what i was responding to. you not doing does not change the context as to how i typed that. you are still not getting it.
LOL. Pot, meet kettle. I've seen no evidence that YOU read MY posts and understand their context, so you saying this to him seems quite rich to me.
sure someone can go have their breasts removed in order to prevent cancer. likewise someone can have their ***** removed in order to prevent spreading or getting HIV or any other STD they can also prevent pregancy that way as well. i am simply pointing out the stupidity of all these knee-jerk arguement posts. you simply just missed it.
Heh. Of course they're stupid. Just like the argument that circumcision ought to be allowed because it reduces the chance of penile cancer is stupid. It's called a "reductio ad absurdum", and is a valid debating tactic, when not over-used.
no one is cutting anything off. a piece of skin is getting snipped. that is about it, and you have people talking about cutting off pinky toes, breasts and other body parts as if they are even in the same catagory which they are not in fact they aren't even close as those have and can have sever impact on a person life while this does not.
And you are trying to trivialize what the procedure is. We're just striving for some balance here is all.
you have no say in how they choose to raise their child that is up for the law to decide.
Sadly, true. And eventually there will be a majority opposed to this practise in this country. I suppose whether that majority then wields its force, via law, harshly or gently upon those in favor, will be determined by the behavior of those in the then-minority.
as far as circumcision goes it is not against the law and i doubt it will ever be. no one says you have to do it. you have a choice. you don't have the right to deny others that choice. how you feel you do is beyond me.
We're not talking about your choice. We're talking about your child's choice. And why you don't put their choice first, is beyond me.
*snip a bunch of rubbish about rights which I've already refuted and which you've never bothered to actually rebut*
2ndly you have to prove that it causes some sever disfigurement and or have sever consquences which it does not has not which has been proven time and time again in this thread.
Again: how 'bout that there earlobe analogy? Want to take it for a spin someday?
while I'm on the same side in this debate as you are, I have to point this out. Someone is getting something cut off. Granted, we both consider it a rather insignificant something, but it is still something that is attached, that is being cut, and at the end is no longer attached.
Thank you for your efforts in trying to enlighten your co-argumentator on this subject. At the very least, I think as rational adults we can all at least agree on what the freakin' *words* mean, right?
We need to take the high road here, because if we make gross exaggerations its not possible for us to point out how absurd the other sides arguments are.
Touche! I would say this is good advice for Father of Lies to follow as well. Getting hot under the collar is not going to change anyone's mind. Thank you for your sensibility, bLatch.
In the end it is the personal choice of the parents. the benefits have already been addressed they are presented through the thread. whether you want to accept them or not (or be in denial) is up to you that doesn't make them go away.
other people do it for religous reasons. again whether you accept them or not it doesn't matter you have no right (back by the constitution) to impede on someone religous practices.
bringing up these strawman arguements of murder etc for religous reasons only shows you don't have an argument at all. that you have to bring in these knee jerk reactions and emotionaly charged arguements that have no bearing.
your twisted use of the word amputation is clear as plain day i am sorry that you cannot see it or choose not to.
And yet you have insulted me multiple times in this thread, albeit much more subtly and less harshly than the above poster did you. I would make the same argument but I'm already fairly convinced you aren't interested in even *trying* to prove anything, since you won't debate my points.
No i haven't insulted you at all. I have already proved everything i needed to. i have debated your points you have chosen to ignore them or post the same thing 20 times so why should i continue to answer something i have already answered? i am not going to.
Heh. Of course they're stupid. Just like the argument that circumcision ought to be allowed because it reduces the chance of penile cancer is stupid. It's called a "reductio ad absurdum", and is a valid debating tactic, when not over-used.
the difference is one has medical backing and your arguements don't. so no your knee jerk emotional arguements aren't valid, and you are using them constantly.
And you are trying to trivialize what the procedure is.
Wrong again. i am very much shown what the procedure actually is based on textbook cases in both traditional jewish and modern medicine ways.
You keep stating this without supporting it.
I would think that thousands of years of it being in use and the millions more of procedures preformed today would be proof enough yes? i think so and so would most logical people.
I function fine, my brother does as well, and so do the millions of others that have had it done. there is your proof.
We're not talking about your choice. We're talking about your child's choice. And why you don't put their choice first, is beyond me.
*snip a bunch of rubbish about rights which I've already refuted and which you've never bothered to actually rebut*
You have already been told this and again ignore it because well it proves you wrong. at that age they are not capable of making those types of decisions. it is up to the parents to determine what they think is best for their child. like they do up until they can fend for themselves.
Again: how 'bout that there earlobe analogy? Want to take it for a spin someday?
It is a strawman so why should i bother?
while I'm on the same side in this debate as you are, I have to point this out. Someone is getting something cut off. Granted, we both consider it a rather insignificant something, but it is still something that is attached, that is being cut, and at the end is no longer attached.
We need to take the high road here, because if we make gross exaggerations its not possible for us to point out how absurd the other sides arguments are.
I should have been clearer. no one is getting their gentailia cut off. which is what they keep insisting is happening when they use terms like amputation.
nor is anyone having it mutliated. i agree totally.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
In the end it is the personal choice of the parents. the benefits have already been addressed they are presented through the thread. whether you want to accept them or not (or be in denial) is up to you that doesn't make them go away.
OK, I'll take this additional refusal to refute my arguments as repeatedly made, to be your concession. Sorry you don't feel like debating. This being the debate thread, though, I can always hope someone else here will!
Now. Would anyone who hasn't conceded my points by default, like to discuss them with me?
To say the least I am still very upset about this and am strongly considering non-surgical restoration, I have been researching this and it seems legit and the benefits appear very promising and I believe it will help fill this psychological void and number of other problems I have been experiencing, mostly, the always feeling as if something is not quite right. I think I feel this way because I am a very introspective person because I've been determined to improve my life and I guess it made me realize this, and after stumbling upon things it makes perfect sense to me. I also read that I'm not alone about the abrasion when it rubs up against your boxers and I thought something my be wrong with my um..yeah because of this, but it's because it's supposed to be covered. I'm going to start seeing a psychologist soon, mostly for some direction, help get me motivated, and deal with some of my emotional issues and I'm going to bring this issue up as well. I'm also going to consult at least a few doctors before attempting to 'restore' my foreskin and get back at least some of the function I have lost.
I have been observing this thread since I posted it and I would like to thank those who are speaking out against circumcision here, especially Blinking Spirit, Kasreyn and others who have injected some much needed sanity into this thread. It's help make me feel better about this, even if it's only a little that I'm not alone in my views. Even if circumcision is a good thing which I vehemently disagree with, it comes down to it should only be done to 'consenting fully informed individuals'. Fine, if you are pro-circumcision and want it I can live with that, but I oppose anyone who agrees this practice should be allowed to be performed non-consensually.
i think this card is Freakin' awesome just imagine zoo with this even on the draw u flex "Nutz" any mana drawing the extra card u can pitch and turning up the gas on tempo and it still taps for mana easily a 3 of most likely a 4 of
OK, I'll take this additional refusal to refute my arguments as repeatedly made, to be your concession. Sorry you don't feel like debating. This being the debate thread, though, I can always hope someone else here will!
Now. Would anyone who hasn't conceded my points by default, like to discuss them with me?
I didn't conceed anything i already addressed your points and your arguements. most of them are strawman arguements and are invalid already.
again that is your opinion not a fact. all of your arguements have either been addressed by me or someone else. you ignoring them doesn't make them go away. in fact i have already addressed them several times because you keep repeating yourself. i don't play that game. if you fail to read that is not my problem.
this is the classic dismissal arguement that fails all over the place.
i think you are blowing this out of proportion honestly. i have yet to see any report out of millions of people that have been circumsized that have suffered any of those symptoms.
i wear boxers all the time and do not suffer any damage at all. millions of other people do as well and suffer no damage.
if you have lost function then you have other issues going on circumcision is not it. that or have psyched yourself into it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
I didn't conceed anything i already addressed your points and your arguements. most of them are strawman arguements and are invalid already.
again that is your opinion not a fact. all of your arguements have either been addressed by me or someone else. you ignoring them doesn't make them go away. in fact i have already addressed them several times because you keep repeating yourself. i don't play that game. if you fail to read that is not my problem.
this is the classic dismissal arguement that fails all over the place.
i think you are blowing this out of proportion honestly. i have yet to see any report out of millions of people that have been circumsized that have suffered any of those symptoms.
i wear boxers all the time and do not suffer any damage at all. millions of other people do as well and suffer no damage.
if you have lost function then you have other issues going on circumcision is not it. that or have psyched yourself into it.
You are incredibly naive if you think evolution selected for a part of a sexual organ if it was in fact better to be cut off. Yes, I have other things going on but I was actually in good spirits about my life before reading about this. Regardless, I shouldn't have to sit here wondering because of some BS procedure.
i think this card is Freakin' awesome just imagine zoo with this even on the draw u flex "Nutz" any mana drawing the extra card u can pitch and turning up the gas on tempo and it still taps for mana easily a 3 of most likely a 4 of
You are incredibly naive if you think evolution selected for a part of a sexual organ if it was in fact better to be cut off. Yes, I have other things going on but I was actually in good spirits about my life before reading about this. Regardless, I shouldn't have to sit here wondering because of some BS procedure.
correction i personally believe in medical research a little bit more than well it is just there for a reason. (i also don't personally believe in evolution)
Like i said you have psyched yourself into this issue. circumcision isn't the problem. You do realize that your brain can make you sick when you really aren't. more so when you push everything else out of the way.
you don't have to wonder about anything. if you aren't functioning normally it is something else not circumcision. that much is pretty well medically documented.
an actual doctor will be able to give you a better diagnosis than some website that you read. he will probably tell you the same thing.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
correction i personally believe in medical research a little bit more than well it is just there for a reason. (i also don't personally believe in evolution)
Like i said you have psyched yourself into this issue. circumcision isn't the problem. You do realize that your brain can make you sick when you really aren't. more so when you push everything else out of the way.
you don't have to wonder about anything. if you aren't functioning normally it is something else not circumcision. that much is pretty well medically documented.
an actual doctor will be able to give you a better diagnosis than some website that you read. he will probably tell you the same thing.
Your beliefs in evolution doesn't do anything to change the matter, evolution is a fact, whether you 'believe' in it or not. This also makes me incredibly skeptical of your judgment and any other claims you make. The onus is on you to provide reasoning for this barbaric procedure being done, not me. I was referring to my genitals and how I felt about them, but I guess you weren't able to conclude this despite how blatant I made it. I am not functioning normally because I feel violated and abused, can you not understand that? As I said I am very introspective and I've always suspected I wasn't normal (for reasons I will not detail here) but didn't realize this until recently that this was done to me. I don't just beat off and go on with my life, something has never felt right with it, and now it's understandable and while I very well could be deluding myself, given the circumstances it is unlikely. Some doctor took a knife to my ***** as a child and cut 15 square inches off with me kicking and screaming, it doesn't make me feel any better that I can't remember it. and yes even if it is 'just all in my head', the mind that controls me is capable of creating delusions in my head and let's say nothing else is wrong, this is still a negative side effect of a procedure that deprived me of a body part and has minimal benefits, if any, that the rest of the industrial world is doing fine without; even so I'm going over all this mental anguish over something I'm unsure about. I don't know if you've noticed but America is a **** hole and I don't know how anyone can believe we are 'ahead of the curve' here.
I have a right to not have parts of my genitals cut off without my consent and I am very, very pissed off. What part of that can you not understand?
i think this card is Freakin' awesome just imagine zoo with this even on the draw u flex "Nutz" any mana drawing the extra card u can pitch and turning up the gas on tempo and it still taps for mana easily a 3 of most likely a 4 of
Your beliefs in evolution doesn't do anything to change the matter, evolution is a fact, whether you 'believe' in it or not
If it was a fact then it would be labeled as such however it isn't. it is still labeled as a theory. that however is a different thread.
The onus is on you to provide reasoning for this barbaric procedure being done,
There are various reason most of which have been listed in this thread. as for barbaric emotional arguements such as this doesn't prove anything. again actual medical documentation shows that it isn't barbaric when done correctly.
I am not functioning normally because I feel violated and abused, can you not understand that? As I said I am very introspective and I've always suspected I wasn't normal (for reasons I will not detail here) but didn't realize this until recently that this was done to me.
Correction you are perfectly normal you have only psyched yourself out into thinking that you weren't. hooded or not it will work the same. as even documented in this thread several pages ago there is an article on men that were done later noticed little difference.
so they are functioning normally. so that theory is out the window.
Some doctor took a knife to my ***** as a child and cut 15 square inches off with me kicking and screaming, it doesn't make me feel any better that I can't remember it.
Now you are making this up. you have no idea how the procedure was done so you can't draw any conclusions from it.
and yes even if it is 'just all in my head', the mind that controls me is capable of creating delusions in my head and let's say nothing else is wrong, this is still a negative side effect of a procedure that deprived me of a body part and has minimal benefits, if any, that the rest of the industrial world is doing fine without; even so I'm going over all this mental anguish over something I'm unsure about. I don't know if you've noticed but America is a **** hole and I don't know how anyone can believe we are 'ahead of the curve' here.
Yes you have created a delusion of something that well has no effect on the other millions of men that are the same way. so that right there should tell you something.
they don't consider themselves not normal, they don't consider themselves incomplete, they function perfectly fine.
the only negative side effect is the one that you have created for yourself. it wasn't the circumsicion that did it.
I have a right to not have parts of my genitals cut off without my consent and I am very, very pissed off. What part of that can you not understand?
At that age it is up to your parents to decide what is best. since you 1. can't talk 2. really don't have much choice in anything.
what i understand is that you have blown something out of proportion and is now causing you more problems and it has nothing to do with the procedure. you have created a false illusion that you are not normal when you are, that you can't function properly when you can just like everyone else.
i could understand outrage if like they turned you into a eunich or something but as stated in this thread and has been backed up again and again is something that has little or no effect on function or anything else.
in other words any problems that you are suffering from you have created for yourself and your body is acting according to this illusion that you have created.
sorry but this is the cold hard facts of truth.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
If it was a fact then it would be labeled as such however it isn't. it is still labeled as a theory. that however is a different thread.
I'm sorry, but you're mistaken about the usage of the term "theory". Go look it up and you'll find it doesn't mean "maybe true, maybe not, who knows" - it means a predictive model of how the world works, nothing more or less. Some models are more successfully predictive than others. So far, evolution is the best-supported, scientifically, of all known models ("theories"), therefore it is the one supported by all mainstream biologists.
Here is an *excellent* explanation, written for the layman, of exactly where the stumbling-block is in the understanding of the use of the term "theory" w.r.t. evolution. Hope this helps.
they don't consider themselves not normal, they don't consider themselves incomplete, they function perfectly fine.
Well, since you're only assuming that, not having personally interviewed them all, then I'm free to counter your argument by reminding you of my cognitive dissonance argument. Since neither of us know for certain, your guess that they're fine, and my guess that they're kidding themselves that they're fine, are equally valid, and equally worthless.
i could understand outrage if like they turned you into a eunich or something but as stated in this thread and has been backed up again and again is something that has little or no effect on function or anything else.
This is a blatant misrepresentation of this thread. Sure, it was stated here, but it has also been hotly, I might say fiercely, disputed and contested. It is by no means the settled opinion of a majority of posters in this thread that circumcision has "little or no effect on function or anything else", so please stop trying to declare victory when the debate is still ongoing, OK?
in other words any problems that you are suffering from you have created for yourself and your body is acting according to this illusion that you have created.
you do understand that circumcision is just an excuse, do you?
Wow... To me this is a perfect example of the way in which the ego-affecting basis of this particular custom affects people's thought process. Such harsh words, and such lack of sympathy, such quickness to jump to attack speak of defensiveness to me. If kittens had come into a thread on MTGsalv complaining about his parents doing something else physically equivalent to circumcision, like putting a brand on him at birth, I'm sure he would receive the sympathy and concern we would naturally feel for any person who had been so abused. But instead he is being scorned and mocked - and told that he is the problem.
Some people sure seem to have a lot invested in their cognition that they aren't wrong to be in favor of circumcision. Ego force can be a powerful thing.
Since no one else will be decent about it, kittens: you have MY sympathy at least. And I will give you the simple human respect of taking you at face value and believing that you do feel this sense of loss and victimization, rather than, as others here have, insulting you by claiming you must be imagining it.
1) Evolution happens.
2) There is no real controversy.
3) Deal with it.
LOL. Would that it were that easy. Fortunately, though, evolution is still ongoing, it just uses technology and culture as its tools now instead of hungry leopards. So eventually, once there's been enough selection, we won't have to waste our time explaining it to people who refuse to accept it, because there won't be anyone like that anymore.
Of course, I probably won't live to see that day, but it's nice to imagine.
duh? my post was totally off topic, it had nothing to do with the discussion "is circumcision right/is it wrong", so I can't see how could you even quote me.
My point is simple, we have a guy that writes
"I've never felt right" (I'm simplifying)
one day he sees he's been circumcised and then thinks
"now I know why I've never felt right!" (he himself said he didn't even know to be circumcised :facepalm:)
Now you'll excuse me if this sounds like an excuse.
Then my advice remains: talk to somebody and try to resolve your problem.
Revise that to "talk to somebody trained to handle this sort of thing" rather than just talk to somebody and I'll agree. The OP is talking to several somebodies right now. Thats what this thread is. Its also not very helpful at all, unless he talks to someone professional. Even if the circumcision is the root of the problem, he should be talking to someone trained to help in this sort of situation and not just a random internet forum.
Since no one else will be decent about it, kittens: you have MY sympathy at least. And I will give you the simple human respect of taking you at face value and believing that you do feel this sense of loss and victimization, rather than, as others here have, insulting you by claiming you must be imagining it.
He has my sympathy as well, that does not however change that I think the "I was circumcised thats why I've felt wrong all my life" is an incorrect statement. I think he has felt something was wrong all his life (by his own admission) and has latched onto the circumcision as that thing, when the odds are dramatically against that being the actual problem.
It seemed to me that he was implying that people would evolve, perhaps in terms of intelligence, to be disposed to accepting evolution. I'm not sure how that would come about, really.
Easy. Those who have an oppositional attitude towards the scientific worldview will, in a science-based and technical society, have reduced opportunities to reproduce and pass on their oppositional tendencies.
Blinking Spirit correctly defined this as "cultural" evolution, a phrase I prefer to "memetic" evolution because the latter requires you to explain a whole new term that always seemed rather redundant to me. (This is about the only bad thing you'll ever hear me say about Dawkins. :P)
Ergo, such attitudes (or, as they have been called, "memes") will be (and I claim, *are* being) selected against.
The diminishment of oppositional attitudes towards science will naturally decrease the number of people who disbelieve in the fact of evolution, since evolution is about the most heavily-scrutinized and well supported jewel in science's crown. To oppose it is to flatly reject the scientific method and, essentially, modernity itself. This may not be extremely clear to all at present, but will become more clear with time.
P.S. I also don't take too kindly to being called a eugenecist. Eugenics is when humans foolishly try to take evolution into their own hands and consciously direct it. Though the process I'm referring to uses society and culture as heritable traits, it is still an unconscious and thoroughly natural process, about as far from eugenics as anything could be.
*sigh* when you make the comment that you refute something. you say that those points are wrong or they are not correct. this is not the case.
whether the benefit is major or insignificant is a subjective view to the person. a person that needs it done because of a medical reason so that some things don't hurt or feel uncomfortable deem it a major benefit.
someone that doesn't need anything done might not view it as such. the fact still remains that there are benefits. to try and trivialize them such as he is doing or trying to do is not a good arguement nor does it refute anything.
Good that is your opinion and you are more than welcome to it, like i said my view is more religious than medical. When done properly and in the proper way there is very little issue.
as you are welcome to your opinion i am welcome to mine. i see nothing wrong with it as it is a choice for parents to decide on not anyone else. whether you agree or disagree is inconquential as it has no bearing on their decision.
everyone has cancer cells in their body. the difference is enviromental or biological triggers that set them off. you immune system kill them off pretty quickly. it is when they begin to multiple out of control and your immune system can't handle them do they become a problem.
actually it is very poor. that is like saying i can cut my ***** off as an immunity to getting an STD or it prevents me from getting someone pregnant. it is a knee-jerk appeal to emotion.
this is not entirely true there are other ways to get HIV other than sex. it is just that sex is the most transmitted way of doing it.
No one says that it is, however as pointed out in the article. while the odds of getting it are still there, there are some minor improvements of not getting it. granted i wouldn't leave it to chance like that.
Correction needs to be made here. 1 murder is against the law whether religious or not. circumcision is not against the law. you have to try and prove that it breaks some kind of law he cannot do that.
this is a false analogy. also murder takes away life someone circumcision does not.
so this is not correct and to even make such an arguement is being dishonest.
whether you think it is superstitious or not is irrevelevant. you are entitled to think what you want. you are not entitled to push that view on others. Yep and like he has stated his opinion nothing more. of which he is entitled to.
he isn't entitled to push that opinion on other people.
it isn't altering anything. it functions normally there are no side effects of it at all. again if you go to a two bit hack of a doctor who doesn't know what he is doing then yes there can be complications.
if you have it done by someone that knows what they are doing and does it correctly there are no complications at all. everything functions just fine. trust me. i have 2 kids and 1 on the way my brother has 2 kids of his own. obviously my dad had kids.
i enjoy being with my wife just fine. i have no problems in that area either.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
This is a very small minority. In this paragraph, you are advocating traumatizing a child because there is a small chance they might have to do it when they're older (and can CHOOSE). This is like removing everybody's appendix or tonsils, just in case. Ridiculous.
Your reply is a knee-jerk appeal to facepalms. Syphilis does not just hang around in your junk. COMPLETELY different.
There are a whole hell of a lot of people in Africa that will tell you that it's effective in this regard, and then promptly contract HIV and spread it around.
Incredible. Do you ACTUALLY think he was comparing circumcision to murder? He was saying that freedom of religion has limits. He's spot on in saying that the pain and trauma suffered by ANOTHER PERSON should NOT be protected. If it were illegal to circumcise boys, it would surely still be legal to do whatever you want to your nether bits when you're old enough to decide for yourself. Circumcision is a painful, unpleasant act. If you caused that much pain to your baby for any other reason, you would go to prison.
This is not some political issue that's debatable as to the extent of impact on liberty and society. If it were, you could say that nobody can force their opinion on you. This is child abuse.
In some sense. The only good fnord is a dead fnord.
No one forced you to you did it on your own.
Proof? what proof do you have to back up this claim? There is no trama. none at all if done properly by a doctor.
Actually not really as having your appendix or tonsils removed is a pretty invasive procedure. again if done properly it takes all of 1-2 mins with no complications.
as a parent it is up to me to decide what is best more so at that age. i am sure they would choose not to get shots either or have blood taken but they do. i have it done even though there are serious side effects more so on the shots.
It wasn't a knee jerk as you try to twist it into something else. go back and read what i was replying to and understand the context because you are wrong here.
again reading comprehension. if you actually read instead of well making gross assumption it helps. the article specifically said that it was no substitute.
again your reading comprehension is quite poor. your poor attempt to twist what i say is really really bad.
There is very little pain or trama suffered if done properly. so that point is well invalid. if the doctor isn't doing it properly then i would have to question the doctor's ability.
my son came back he was happy as a lark. he has suffered no problems from it at all. just like everyone else they are perfectly normal.
it isn't illegal so that isn't even an arguement. we are not playing the game of if here or at least i am not going to.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
Flame infraction.
Read this very carefully. You said that we should not say that there are no benefits, because some people need it done for medical reasons. It's very similar, though obviously not as drastic, as removing any number of other parts of the body that we don't need, and frequently go haywire.
You said that it would be like cutting of a ***** because of an std infection. That is obviously ridiculous, and COMPLETELY DIFFERENT than cancer. I don't think you even understood what you replied to in the first place. Your first sentence is especially choice, because you don't even know what I said.
I KNOW THAT. LOTS OF PEOPLE DO NOT. Missionaries telling people in Africa that there is some benefit to circumcision because they don't want to tell people to use condoms when they bang hookers do not care what is in the article.
We are saying that it, maybe?! Yes! SHOULD be reevaluated, and perhaps banned. Society is not a completely static place, man. You are essentially arguing that some is, and so it always should be.
In some sense. The only good fnord is a dead fnord.
Insulting me only shows how weak your arguement really is. I don't need to insult people to make an arguement so why do you have to? it really doesn't prove anything.
Only this procedure (unless done later in life) is not as invasive and have people on their backs or in bed for several days either. in fact you really can't even compare the two of them.
it is an emotional knee jerk arguement like others trying to prove a point when it really doesn't.
You really need to go back and read what i quoted and what i was responding to. you not doing does not change the context as to how i typed that. you are still not getting it.
I knew exactly what i was responding to another emotional knee jerk reaction. Not really if you think on the extreme terms that you guys are thinking on.
sure someone can go have their breasts removed in order to prevent cancer. likewise someone can have their ***** removed in order to prevent spreading or getting HIV or any other STD they can also prevent pregancy that way as well. i am simply pointing out the stupidity of all these knee-jerk arguement posts. you simply just missed it.
no one is cutting anything off. a piece of skin is getting snipped. that is about it, and you have people talking about cutting off pinky toes, breasts and other body parts as if they are even in the same catagory which they are not in fact they aren't even close as those have and can have sever impact on a person life while this does not.
No what i am argueing is that it is a personal choice that the parents make. as they make other decisions about their kid that they feel is in their best interest. whether you agree or disagree is indifferent. you have no say in how they choose to raise their child that is up for the law to decide.
as far as circumcision goes it is not against the law and i doubt it will ever be. no one says you have to do it. you have a choice. you don't have the right to deny others that choice. how you feel you do is beyond me.
you on the other hand feel your opinion of authority some how overrides that fact. it doesn't. as for banning it. again some people do it in for religious reasons. that steps on the right of that person. that is unconstitutional and there is no way you are going to get congress to change that.
you are trying to argue something that is well not going to be changed any time soon. mostly because it interferes with the 1st amendement. 2ndly you have to prove that it causes some sever disfigurement and or have sever consquences which it does not has not which has been proven time and time again in this thread.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
You want to back this statement up? because its a pretty serious accusation, and I think you just made it up because you thought if only this were true it would support my point.
At no point in this thread has anyone mentioned "missionaries" or having people get circumcised instead of practicing other preventative measures. I think your name is quite apt regarding this post.
while I'm on the same side in this debate as you are, I have to point this out. Someone is getting something cut off. Granted, we both consider it a rather insignificant something, but it is still something that is attached, that is being cut, and at the end is no longer attached.
We need to take the high road here, because if we make gross exaggerations its not possible for us to point out how absurd the other sides arguments are.
Our arguments arent obsurd, i think you are in fact just a little dense. for instance for some reason you keep saying, roughly "its my child ill do what i want its not anyone elses choice" when in fact it is obviously partially up to society what you do with your child, as evidenced by the numerous LAWS that prohibit you from doing some actions. you aknowledge this FINALLY, but then talk again about how we cant force our views on others (Which is hilariously inconsistent with what seems to be your belief structure), except you seem to dissassociate US from SOCIETY as if they are different. WE ARE SOCIETY, and like any aspect of society, can be regulated differently then it was previously.
Flame warning.
What a false dilemma. Imagine, if you will, a standard of "probable future consent". A reasonable adult is in all likelihood not going to begrudge his parents for feeding and clothing him as a child. Circumcision? Well, the origin of this thread indicates that the situation is somewhat different.
What on earth is a "valid" source of mental anguish?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
No. The consent of a hypothetical rational adult is of no greater value to a consequentialist than the consent of a real person. In fact, it's probably worth less.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
It seems to me that your other statements are fruit of this poisoned branch.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I cannot recall describing the two as equivalent. I think this is more evidence that you are either not reading my arguments carefully (if at all), or are choosing to deliberately misrepresent my positions.
And as I told you before, that is fatuous nonsense and irrelevant to the discussion. No matter what my wishes? What if my wishes include potentially voting on a referendum to outlaw this barbaric procedure, if such a referendum were to ever be raised? I would say that my wishes would "matter" in that case, as much as anyone's.
One thing is for certain - the wishes of the babies being circumcised are definitely *not* being taken into consideration by those in favor of the operation. Refer to Blinking Spirit's very cogent argument above.
Then please quote from my quote and show me how it is wrong. Don't just say "it's obvious." Once again, you're simply refusing to actually debate my points. Shall I begin to count the instances in which you simply fail to rebut or even acknowledge my points? Because this one was #2 in your post.
Failure to rebut my quotation of the dictionary definition of amputation. Either find a superior source than American Heritage (and support WHY it is superior), or show how I've misapplied the definition. Do SOMETHING other than just continuing to repeat denials that I have repeatedly answered, ok? #3.
No, correction: I have given you the actual definitions of these terms, as used by *dictionaries*. If you want to make up your own meanings of them, feel free, but you'll be completely unable to engage in any sort of meaningful discussion with the rest of us, who recognize that communication requires some sort of minimal semantic common ground. #4 for your simply refusing to actually debate the issue.
No, I *did* refute them, because you have declined to rebut my refutation. Ergo, I win. Unless you would like to rebut my actual points, rather than just saying "I'm right you're wrong na na" over and over like a child? That's #5.
If no one rebuts me, then I have to assume no CAN rebut me. That's how arguments amongst adults work. If I'm wrong, prove it.
LOL. Of course I do! If a parent decides their particular joy would come from sexually molesting their kids, then my "vote" in the matter is represented by my being a part of the vast majority of society (yourself no doubt included) who abhor child abuse and my "voice" is to have that person immediately separated from the child they are not fit to care for and thrown into prison.
Where we differ is that I don't really see a difference in kind between routine circumcision and other forms of child abuse. It's being done, ultimately, for reasons which matter to the parent - reasons of culture, religion, I really don't give a **** how you define it - not reasons which are relevant to the child. As such, it's not being done in the child's interests and I *do* get a vote. Until now, I remain outvoted & in the minority. But just because you're in the majority you can't pretend the minority doesn't even exist. That's just silly - and a good way to lose your majority power.
On second thought, yeah... never mind, we don't exist... just go right on ignoring us while we grow in number.
#6; I've already addressed this when I stated my belief that a child's right to freedom from bodily harm comes before their parent's religious freedom. Also, the child's OWN right to religious freedom opposes it - because we can't be sure that child would choose the same religion as their parent. Want to try actually debating even one of the arguments I raised?
Proof please? And by proof I mean proof that medical journals deem it to be merely and simply the exact same kind of skin that covers the rest of your body, which was your original claim. I really doubt you'll find a medical journal that doesn't refer to its differences.
Here ya go:
http://www.emedicine.com/emerg/topic423.htm#
http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/178_04_170203/spi10278_fm.html
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/openurl?genre=article&sid=nlm:pubmed&issn=1464-4096&date=1999&volume=84&issue=1&spage=101
In case you'd rather not trudge through them (they're very boring), I'll cut to the chase and summarize: these reports give the incidence of phimosis (natch, we're talking about the uncircumcized population) btween 0.6% and 1% of the population.
Small? I'd say I was generous in not calling it a miniscule chance. But kudos to you for actually *joining the debate* on that point! How did it feel?
Can you refute my analogy (note: that was HIS analogy, mine was the earlobe)? Can you even be bothered to try, or is my analogy just too good? That's #7, btw.
I was HOPING you would say that, so I would get to say this: It isn't your right to push your culture or your religion on your child. So get over it, hmm?
How subjective do you think a baby is capable of being about what potential future benefits they might experience from their present pain? Are you seriously making *this* argument??
See incidence rates of phimosis above. You seem to be implying there is a significant percentage of the uncircumcised population who need circumcision to solve some sort of problem they're having with their natural equipment that is causing them some sort of hurt or discomfort. Would you like to get into specifics?
There is nothing wrong with trivializing the trivial. The alleged health benefits of circumcision are in some cases so minor as to be certainly incapable of supporting the persistence of an involuntary, irreversible surgery, and in all other cases are simply examples of people reaching to come up with benefits that are so much vapor, such as the meaningless HIV-protection gambit.
Well, there is very little issue in *your* mind, that's for certain, but for some of us, the ethics of personal freedom come before traditional, religion-based morality. And as we live in a secular society, we all get a say. Innat neat?
Textbook hair-splitting. -_- Is there any non-*****-related means of HIV-getting that could possibly be relevant to a discussion of the removal of babies' foreskins?! Then why did you need to write that paragraph except to make yourself look smart?
Whew. 11 pages into the debate and you finally concede that one of the alleged benefits is essentially meaningless. I'm not sure if I'm willing to battle through another 11 pages for another one. >_<
Uhmm, the point myself and others are trying to make is that we feel it *should* be against the law. (the routine, non-medically-indicated, culturally-driven form, that is.) Once again, you are confusing what the discussion is over. No one is disagreeing over what IS; we are disagreeing over whether that is what should be.
*shrug* A difference in degree, not in kind. Cut someone enough times, and they die. If we allow you to cut your child for "religious reasons", then you could cut them repeatedly until they die, and we will have allowed you to commit legal murder. I'm not accusing you of wanting to do this. I'm simply demonstrating that this is a difference in degree, not in kind. As such, the analogy is perfectly sound as far as it goes.
You keep stating this without supporting it. I'm waiting for you to back it up with some proof. Yes, YOU. The natural state of the child is uncircumcised. I am on the side of "leave well enough alone". You are on the side of "take action to change things". Therefore the onus falls upon YOU to prove that your proposed course of action is necessary. One of my objections is that it *does* alter the child, and it *does* injure their functioning. Now the onus is on you to prove it doesn't. Sorry, but that's how debate works.
*winces* I really think we can trust you on that. And function isn't the point either. Remember my analogy to the earlobe? What exactly does it do, except be seen? Yet I would argue you have no right to remove that from your child, either. So please don't waste our time on this chimera of an argument any more. Function is irrelevant.
Dude, seriously... TMI. >_<
While I agree with you in principle, you could use a less inflammatory tone. Also, while I would definitely theorize, conjecture, or assume that trauma occurs, there is sadly no means available to prove this, so such statements also do more harm than good.
This is where the wheels fell off for me reading your remarks. You're treading awfully close to some notorious -ism's, here, when you single out a specific region (or people) for special scorn. Could you try not to drag this debate into a gutter? kthx.
Well, you sort of narrowed my point for me. I'm against it for more reasons than just the possibility of pain and trauma, which as we've already debated to death, cannot conclusively be proven any more than the theorized loss of pleasure can. What I am against is what I see as a blind spot in our society's conception of what liberties parental consent ought and ought'nt to be allowed. Nothing more or less.
And yet you have insulted me multiple times in this thread, albeit much more subtly and less harshly than the above poster did you. I would make the same argument but I'm already fairly convinced you aren't interested in even *trying* to prove anything, since you won't debate my points.
LOL. Ok, first off, how do you know there was very little pain or trauma? Were you inside his head? How do you know he was happy as a lark? Do you speak baby? (And if your son was not an infant, what relevance does that have to this discussion, which is focussed on routine neonatal circumcision?)
Also, your definition of "perfectly normal" is odd, given the minority of the population you and your son inhabit (approx 30% world male population per WHO)...
Of course he can, and once again, this is a difference in degree. You're still cutting into a person's body to do something that has no basis in medical necessity. For instance, if a circumcision is botched the child will certainly be in the hospital on their back for several days, so this is clearly a difference in degree.
LOL. Pot, meet kettle. I've seen no evidence that YOU read MY posts and understand their context, so you saying this to him seems quite rich to me.
Heh. Of course they're stupid. Just like the argument that circumcision ought to be allowed because it reduces the chance of penile cancer is stupid. It's called a "reductio ad absurdum", and is a valid debating tactic, when not over-used.
And you are trying to trivialize what the procedure is. We're just striving for some balance here is all.
Sadly, true. And eventually there will be a majority opposed to this practise in this country. I suppose whether that majority then wields its force, via law, harshly or gently upon those in favor, will be determined by the behavior of those in the then-minority.
We're not talking about your choice. We're talking about your child's choice. And why you don't put their choice first, is beyond me.
*snip a bunch of rubbish about rights which I've already refuted and which you've never bothered to actually rebut*
Again: how 'bout that there earlobe analogy? Want to take it for a spin someday?
Thank you for your efforts in trying to enlighten your co-argumentator on this subject. At the very least, I think as rational adults we can all at least agree on what the freakin' *words* mean, right?
Touche! I would say this is good advice for Father of Lies to follow as well. Getting hot under the collar is not going to change anyone's mind. Thank you for your sensibility, bLatch.
--Kurt Vonnegut, Jr., who is up in Heaven now. EDH WUBRG Child of Alara WUBRG BGW Karador, Ghost Chieftain BGW RGW Mayael the Anima RGW WUB Sharuum the Hegemon WUB RWU Zedruu the Greathearted RWU
WB Ghost Council of Orzhova WB RG Ulasht, the Hate Seed RG B Korlash, Heir to Blackblade B G Molimo, Maro-Sorcerer G *click the general's name to see my list!*
other people do it for religous reasons. again whether you accept them or not it doesn't matter you have no right (back by the constitution) to impede on someone religous practices.
bringing up these strawman arguements of murder etc for religous reasons only shows you don't have an argument at all. that you have to bring in these knee jerk reactions and emotionaly charged arguements that have no bearing.
your twisted use of the word amputation is clear as plain day i am sorry that you cannot see it or choose not to.
No i haven't insulted you at all. I have already proved everything i needed to. i have debated your points you have chosen to ignore them or post the same thing 20 times so why should i continue to answer something i have already answered? i am not going to.
the difference is one has medical backing and your arguements don't. so no your knee jerk emotional arguements aren't valid, and you are using them constantly.
Wrong again. i am very much shown what the procedure actually is based on textbook cases in both traditional jewish and modern medicine ways.
I would think that thousands of years of it being in use and the millions more of procedures preformed today would be proof enough yes? i think so and so would most logical people.
I function fine, my brother does as well, and so do the millions of others that have had it done. there is your proof.
You have already been told this and again ignore it because well it proves you wrong. at that age they are not capable of making those types of decisions. it is up to the parents to determine what they think is best for their child. like they do up until they can fend for themselves.
It is a strawman so why should i bother?
I should have been clearer. no one is getting their gentailia cut off. which is what they keep insisting is happening when they use terms like amputation.
nor is anyone having it mutliated. i agree totally.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
OK, I'll take this additional refusal to refute my arguments as repeatedly made, to be your concession. Sorry you don't feel like debating. This being the debate thread, though, I can always hope someone else here will!
Now. Would anyone who hasn't conceded my points by default, like to discuss them with me?
--Kurt Vonnegut, Jr., who is up in Heaven now. EDH WUBRG Child of Alara WUBRG BGW Karador, Ghost Chieftain BGW RGW Mayael the Anima RGW WUB Sharuum the Hegemon WUB RWU Zedruu the Greathearted RWU
WB Ghost Council of Orzhova WB RG Ulasht, the Hate Seed RG B Korlash, Heir to Blackblade B G Molimo, Maro-Sorcerer G *click the general's name to see my list!*
I have been observing this thread since I posted it and I would like to thank those who are speaking out against circumcision here, especially Blinking Spirit, Kasreyn and others who have injected some much needed sanity into this thread. It's help make me feel better about this, even if it's only a little that I'm not alone in my views. Even if circumcision is a good thing which I vehemently disagree with, it comes down to it should only be done to 'consenting fully informed individuals'. Fine, if you are pro-circumcision and want it I can live with that, but I oppose anyone who agrees this practice should be allowed to be performed non-consensually.
I didn't conceed anything i already addressed your points and your arguements. most of them are strawman arguements and are invalid already.
again that is your opinion not a fact. all of your arguements have either been addressed by me or someone else. you ignoring them doesn't make them go away. in fact i have already addressed them several times because you keep repeating yourself. i don't play that game. if you fail to read that is not my problem.
this is the classic dismissal arguement that fails all over the place.
--------------------------------------------------
kitten
i think you are blowing this out of proportion honestly. i have yet to see any report out of millions of people that have been circumsized that have suffered any of those symptoms.
i wear boxers all the time and do not suffer any damage at all. millions of other people do as well and suffer no damage.
if you have lost function then you have other issues going on circumcision is not it. that or have psyched yourself into it.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
You are incredibly naive if you think evolution selected for a part of a sexual organ if it was in fact better to be cut off. Yes, I have other things going on but I was actually in good spirits about my life before reading about this. Regardless, I shouldn't have to sit here wondering because of some BS procedure.
correction i personally believe in medical research a little bit more than well it is just there for a reason. (i also don't personally believe in evolution)
Like i said you have psyched yourself into this issue. circumcision isn't the problem. You do realize that your brain can make you sick when you really aren't. more so when you push everything else out of the way.
you don't have to wonder about anything. if you aren't functioning normally it is something else not circumcision. that much is pretty well medically documented.
an actual doctor will be able to give you a better diagnosis than some website that you read. he will probably tell you the same thing.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
Your beliefs in evolution doesn't do anything to change the matter, evolution is a fact, whether you 'believe' in it or not. This also makes me incredibly skeptical of your judgment and any other claims you make. The onus is on you to provide reasoning for this barbaric procedure being done, not me. I was referring to my genitals and how I felt about them, but I guess you weren't able to conclude this despite how blatant I made it. I am not functioning normally because I feel violated and abused, can you not understand that? As I said I am very introspective and I've always suspected I wasn't normal (for reasons I will not detail here) but didn't realize this until recently that this was done to me. I don't just beat off and go on with my life, something has never felt right with it, and now it's understandable and while I very well could be deluding myself, given the circumstances it is unlikely. Some doctor took a knife to my ***** as a child and cut 15 square inches off with me kicking and screaming, it doesn't make me feel any better that I can't remember it. and yes even if it is 'just all in my head', the mind that controls me is capable of creating delusions in my head and let's say nothing else is wrong, this is still a negative side effect of a procedure that deprived me of a body part and has minimal benefits, if any, that the rest of the industrial world is doing fine without; even so I'm going over all this mental anguish over something I'm unsure about. I don't know if you've noticed but America is a **** hole and I don't know how anyone can believe we are 'ahead of the curve' here.
I have a right to not have parts of my genitals cut off without my consent and I am very, very pissed off. What part of that can you not understand?
If it was a fact then it would be labeled as such however it isn't. it is still labeled as a theory. that however is a different thread.
There are various reason most of which have been listed in this thread. as for barbaric emotional arguements such as this doesn't prove anything. again actual medical documentation shows that it isn't barbaric when done correctly.
Correction you are perfectly normal you have only psyched yourself out into thinking that you weren't. hooded or not it will work the same. as even documented in this thread several pages ago there is an article on men that were done later noticed little difference.
so they are functioning normally. so that theory is out the window.
Now you are making this up. you have no idea how the procedure was done so you can't draw any conclusions from it.
Yes you have created a delusion of something that well has no effect on the other millions of men that are the same way. so that right there should tell you something.
they don't consider themselves not normal, they don't consider themselves incomplete, they function perfectly fine.
the only negative side effect is the one that you have created for yourself. it wasn't the circumsicion that did it.
At that age it is up to your parents to decide what is best. since you 1. can't talk 2. really don't have much choice in anything.
what i understand is that you have blown something out of proportion and is now causing you more problems and it has nothing to do with the procedure. you have created a false illusion that you are not normal when you are, that you can't function properly when you can just like everyone else.
i could understand outrage if like they turned you into a eunich or something but as stated in this thread and has been backed up again and again is something that has little or no effect on function or anything else.
in other words any problems that you are suffering from you have created for yourself and your body is acting according to this illusion that you have created.
sorry but this is the cold hard facts of truth.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
I'm sorry, but you're mistaken about the usage of the term "theory". Go look it up and you'll find it doesn't mean "maybe true, maybe not, who knows" - it means a predictive model of how the world works, nothing more or less. Some models are more successfully predictive than others. So far, evolution is the best-supported, scientifically, of all known models ("theories"), therefore it is the one supported by all mainstream biologists.
Here is an *excellent* explanation, written for the layman, of exactly where the stumbling-block is in the understanding of the use of the term "theory" w.r.t. evolution. Hope this helps.
Well, since you're only assuming that, not having personally interviewed them all, then I'm free to counter your argument by reminding you of my cognitive dissonance argument. Since neither of us know for certain, your guess that they're fine, and my guess that they're kidding themselves that they're fine, are equally valid, and equally worthless.
This is a blatant misrepresentation of this thread. Sure, it was stated here, but it has also been hotly, I might say fiercely, disputed and contested. It is by no means the settled opinion of a majority of posters in this thread that circumcision has "little or no effect on function or anything else", so please stop trying to declare victory when the debate is still ongoing, OK?
Wow... To me this is a perfect example of the way in which the ego-affecting basis of this particular custom affects people's thought process. Such harsh words, and such lack of sympathy, such quickness to jump to attack speak of defensiveness to me. If kittens had come into a thread on MTGsalv complaining about his parents doing something else physically equivalent to circumcision, like putting a brand on him at birth, I'm sure he would receive the sympathy and concern we would naturally feel for any person who had been so abused. But instead he is being scorned and mocked - and told that he is the problem.
Some people sure seem to have a lot invested in their cognition that they aren't wrong to be in favor of circumcision. Ego force can be a powerful thing.
Since no one else will be decent about it, kittens: you have MY sympathy at least. And I will give you the simple human respect of taking you at face value and believing that you do feel this sense of loss and victimization, rather than, as others here have, insulting you by claiming you must be imagining it.
LOL. Would that it were that easy. Fortunately, though, evolution is still ongoing, it just uses technology and culture as its tools now instead of hungry leopards. So eventually, once there's been enough selection, we won't have to waste our time explaining it to people who refuse to accept it, because there won't be anyone like that anymore.
Of course, I probably won't live to see that day, but it's nice to imagine.
--Kurt Vonnegut, Jr., who is up in Heaven now. EDH WUBRG Child of Alara WUBRG BGW Karador, Ghost Chieftain BGW RGW Mayael the Anima RGW WUB Sharuum the Hegemon WUB RWU Zedruu the Greathearted RWU
WB Ghost Council of Orzhova WB RG Ulasht, the Hate Seed RG B Korlash, Heir to Blackblade B G Molimo, Maro-Sorcerer G *click the general's name to see my list!*
Revise that to "talk to somebody trained to handle this sort of thing" rather than just talk to somebody and I'll agree. The OP is talking to several somebodies right now. Thats what this thread is. Its also not very helpful at all, unless he talks to someone professional. Even if the circumcision is the root of the problem, he should be talking to someone trained to help in this sort of situation and not just a random internet forum.
He has my sympathy as well, that does not however change that I think the "I was circumcised thats why I've felt wrong all my life" is an incorrect statement. I think he has felt something was wrong all his life (by his own admission) and has latched onto the circumcision as that thing, when the odds are dramatically against that being the actual problem.
I believe he's referring to cultural and/or memetic evolution.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Easy. Those who have an oppositional attitude towards the scientific worldview will, in a science-based and technical society, have reduced opportunities to reproduce and pass on their oppositional tendencies.
Blinking Spirit correctly defined this as "cultural" evolution, a phrase I prefer to "memetic" evolution because the latter requires you to explain a whole new term that always seemed rather redundant to me. (This is about the only bad thing you'll ever hear me say about Dawkins. :P)
Ergo, such attitudes (or, as they have been called, "memes") will be (and I claim, *are* being) selected against.
The diminishment of oppositional attitudes towards science will naturally decrease the number of people who disbelieve in the fact of evolution, since evolution is about the most heavily-scrutinized and well supported jewel in science's crown. To oppose it is to flatly reject the scientific method and, essentially, modernity itself. This may not be extremely clear to all at present, but will become more clear with time.
P.S. I also don't take too kindly to being called a eugenecist. Eugenics is when humans foolishly try to take evolution into their own hands and consciously direct it. Though the process I'm referring to uses society and culture as heritable traits, it is still an unconscious and thoroughly natural process, about as far from eugenics as anything could be.
--Kurt Vonnegut, Jr., who is up in Heaven now. EDH WUBRG Child of Alara WUBRG BGW Karador, Ghost Chieftain BGW RGW Mayael the Anima RGW WUB Sharuum the Hegemon WUB RWU Zedruu the Greathearted RWU
WB Ghost Council of Orzhova WB RG Ulasht, the Hate Seed RG B Korlash, Heir to Blackblade B G Molimo, Maro-Sorcerer G *click the general's name to see my list!*