Circumcision, for or against?

[Desert Snake]

I voted undecided. I wouldn't do it to my kid but im not against others doing it.

Voting "against" doesn't necessarily mean you oppose others doing it, the poll question is completely personal.

 

[vepurusg]

I think your comment about how circumcision is more than just 'what flavor ice-cream do you prefer' type of thing was well founded.

Anyways that's really why I added the poll, so as not to just get a whole bunch of "comments" like that one but actual personal opinions... If people don't want to give their personal opnions then this isn't the thread to comment on, basically.

Thanks. It bugs me when people brush things off like that, as if nothing really matters. Why comment at all if that's the case, right?

For me it's a complicated issue (but definitely not irrelevant).

I would want to see hard data on potential social benefits, or harm, before coming to any conclusions.

 

[Desert Snake]

Thanks. It bugs me when people brush things off like that, as if nothing really matters. Why comment at all if that's the case, right?

For me it's a complicated issue (but definitely not irrelevant).

I would want to see hard data on potential social benefits, or harm, before coming to any conclusions.

I agree completely.

 

[Skwim]

About what, do you imagine? I can tell you that in reality, you're right about nothing in moral terms (moral relativism).

Moral relativism is a poor, logically fallacious, excuse for moral apathy. It simply doesn't work, and using it will only sabotage your potential to be a good person (if you use logic instead of the nihilistic dogma of moral relativism- you have the capacity to do good, and the responsibility to do so).

I guarantee you I know more about moral relativism than you do (having come from there, I fully understand it, but I also understand why it is wrong)-- I was trying to school you, but you have quite a bit to learn, and you'll never get there if you outright reject criticism and logical argument with childish assertions about your opponent's education.

You funny guy. Pretentious beyond belief, but a funny guy nonetheless. Welcome aboard.

Oh, and here's a Welcome to RF gift that I'm sure you'll appreciate. I've been saving it for someone just like you.

"There is nothing like a fusillade of acateleptic verbiage to make even the most puerile asseverations seem the acme of sagacious perspicacity. You too can expectorate verbal pyrotechnics with the application of these abecedarian expedients.
* Haul out the most esoteric and recondite words from the deepest nadir of your lexicon.
* Mix with a salubrious dose of didactic pretension. Be not vexed by accusations of dilettantism. Ignore those who encourage laconic atticism. Allow your fustian argot to coruscate in all its fulgurous resplendence!
* This stratagem is especially efficacious when hurling invective at intractable and contumacious adversaries. Inveigh against their feculent folderol! Pronounce excoriating imprecations! Fulminate bombastically, and toss in acerbic execrations.
* Always remember not to come to the gravamen of your polemics and pasquinades without first obstreperously producing ostentatious pabulum. Pellucid prose serves only to express, but with the proper use of prolix and loquacious pleonasms, one can win approbation through intimidation.
* Genuine erudition is not requisite for the use of grandiloquent verbosity. If you don't recognize a word, it is dubious anyone else will. Throw trichotillomania and theanthropy into a conversation, even without provocation. Bonus points for the proper use of callipygian
Indulge your sesquipedalian predilections! Fear not floccinaucinihilipilification: Even if you are exuding vapid ordure, none will be the wiser."
source


​

 

[Kathryn]

You funny guy. Pretentious beyond belief, but a funny guy nonetheless. Welcome aboard.

Oh, and here's a Welcome to RF gift that I'm sure you'll appreciate. I've been saving it for someone just like you.

"There is nothing like a fusillade of acateleptic verbiage to make even the most puerile asseverations seem the acme of sagacious perspicacity. You too can expectorate verbal pyrotechnics with the application of these abecedarian expedients.
* Haul out the most esoteric and recondite words from the deepest nadir of your lexicon.
* Mix with a salubrious dose of didactic pretension. Be not vexed by accusations of dilettantism. Ignore those who encourage laconic atticism. Allow your fustian argot to coruscate in all its fulgurous resplendence!
* This stratagem is especially efficacious when hurling invective at intractable and contumacious adversaries. Inveigh against their feculent folderol! Pronounce excoriating imprecations! Fulminate bombastically, and toss in acerbic execrations.
* Always remember not to come to the gravamen of your polemics and pasquinades without first obstreperously producing ostentatious pabulum. Pellucid prose serves only to express, but with the proper use of prolix and loquacious pleonasms, one can win approbation through intimidation.
* Genuine erudition is not requisite for the use of grandiloquent verbosity. If you don't recognize a word, it is dubious anyone else will. Throw trichotillomania and theanthropy into a conversation, even without provocation. Bonus points for the proper use of callipygian
Indulge your sesquipedalian predilections! Fear not floccinaucinihilipilification: Even if you are exuding vapid ordure, none will be the wiser."
source


​

 

[Skwim]

Not sure I went to the right place, but is it the Kobe Bryant troll snippet?

 

[Kathryn]

Not sure I went to the right place, but is it the Kobe Bryant troll snippet?

LOL I have no idea. I just googled "applause" and copied the link.

 

[Desert Snake]

but that doesn't mean it's a trivial question. We should consider the consequences of actions when evaluating their morality in real terms with regards to their effects on others.

Exactly. There is nothing trivial about this topic, it's hard to imagine someone trying to trivialize this question, as far as I'm concerned, it would seem disingenuous IMO.

 

[Alex_G]

Are you for it, or against it? The question is directed at you, personally, please do not bring in other arguments religious or otherwise, just a simple question.

*For this poll we will only be referring to male circumcision.

Im against circumcision when its practiced for religious reasons. Im not against it if it is indeed medically indicated, as it sometimes is.

 

[F0uad]

Im against circumcision when its practiced for religious reasons. Im not against it if it is indeed medically indicated, as it sometimes is.

So we should forbid religious practices and if so what about a person who is not religious and wants to have a circumcision?

 

[Alex_G]

So we should forbid religious practices and if so what about a person who is not religious and wants to have a circumcision?

There are practical considerations and difficulties with introducing a ban or forbidding it. That is a slightly different question with a more complicated answer. (that is, once concluding its wrong or undesirable, how could a sensible and responsible society deal with it in practical terms).
I still comfortably maintain the view that children subjected to circumcision due the religious motivations of their parents is pretty wrong, and im against that.
When it comes to adults making free choices about their own bodies, then their liberty and freedom to do so is their right. I have nothing against that. (sorry i wasnt clear about that).

Alex

 

[Penumbra]

It seems me that cutting an infant for no proven medical purpose is not rational.

If consenting adults want to undergo a physical ritual for a religion that involves a form of medical procedure, then I say fine, have fun. If adults want to do those things to children, then I have a bit of an issue with that.

But given that many adult males are accepting of their physical change, I view it as a rather low priority. So I'm neutral towards and mildly against circumcision.

 

[dawny0826]

God instructed his people to have their male infants circumcised. It's common tradition for many Christians as well. My sister gave birth to a healthy baby boy last Saturday. He was circumcised on Sunday. I asked her why she had him circumcised, knowing what her answer would be. Her answer is as I've stated. She was provided the option, but decided that it something that was to be done because A) she felt it was the right thing to do from a religious perspective and B) from a hygienic perspective, she feels the removal of that small amount of skin, makes for a cleaner penis.

I FULLY agree.

 

[Revoltingest]

God instructed his people to have their male infants circumcised.

He never mentioned to anyone in my family.
And for a matter of such import, I'd want it in writing & notarized.
I vote for a conditional "against".
(The whippersnapper may later make his own decision to have it.
It's his johnson, so it's his option.)

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I don't care either way

 

[fantome profane]

God instructed his people to have their male infants circumcised. It's common tradition for many Christians as well. My sister gave birth to a healthy baby boy last Saturday. He was circumcised on Sunday. I asked her why she had him circumcised, knowing what her answer would be. Her answer is as I've stated. She was provided the option, but decided that it something that was to be done because A) she felt it was the right thing to do from a religious perspective and B) from a hygienic perspective, she feels the removal of that small amount of skin, makes for a cleaner penis.

I FULLY agree.

But Paul certainly felt that circumcision was not a requirement for gentiles. Do you disagree with Paul about this?

 

[Skwim]

O.K. But the OP question is actually asking for personal for/against, at least on the poll.

Thought I'd go back and revisit your post here. You asked:

"Are you for [circumcision], or against it? The question is directed at you, personally,

In as much as you made a point of indicating the question was directed at the reader "personally"---a strange notion---my first thought was "for or against it for whom?" Myself? If so, then the question is pretty odd because you could have simply asked, "Guys' would you prefer to be circumcised or not?" Assuming you were after more than something this simple, I figured your question was about the circumcision of someone else, but then I have to ask, what is the significance of the "directed at you" remark?

Left with trying to make sense of your question, I chose to regard it as how I regarded the choice of circumcision made by others, which is why I said: "Circumcision is something like chocolate ice cream. Like it and want it? Fine. Don't like it and don't want it? Fine." So that's my "personal for/against" answer to your your OP statement: "Are you for [circumcision], or against it? The question is directed at you, personally." If you were expecting something else then I suggest that in the future you phrase your questions so as to leave no ambiguity. Your "just a simple question" isn't just that simple.

And just to be clear here, I, "personally," care no more about the choice of circumcision made by others than I do about their like or dislike of chocolate ice cream.

 

[Tathagata]

You don't have to be Judeo-Christian to support it. I support it all the way. It is best done when a baby. It's a very serious cosmetic and functional procedure that every male is thankful for having it done while a baby and not when 20.

 

[dawny0826]

But Paul certainly felt that circumcision was not a requirement for gentiles. Do you disagree with Paul about this?

Yes, I do.

 

[Revoltingest]

You don't have to be Judeo-Christian to support it. I support it all the way. It is best done when a baby. It's a very serious cosmetic and functional procedure that every male is thankful for having it done while a baby and not when 20.

But of course, it's also true that many are thankful for never having it done at all.