User Tag List

First 414950515253 Last

Results 501 to 510 of 602

  1. #501
    pathwise dependent FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Socionics
    ENTj
    Posts
    5,908

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    No more than anyone who has been uncircumcised their whole life can.
    Yeah, of course I never said that being circumcised has negative effect on my sexual life. But YOU said that there is NO difference, even though it's impossible for you to know unless you had sex as a 1-day-old-baby. Therefore...you are wrong.
    ENTj 7-3-8 sx/sp

  2. #502
    pathwise dependent FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Socionics
    ENTj
    Posts
    5,908

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Red Herring View Post
    No, it isn't. Let's not spread even more rumours, please!

    It is a perfectly legal organization in Germany. I see their info tables in public places all the time. Back in the 90s when I lived in the USA people approched me and said "hey, I heard scientologists can't be teachers in Germany. What's up with that?" The answer? There was a case of one school teacher who kept trying to indoctrinate her students with her religion. Public schools however are secular and religiously neutral. So she was transferred to an administrative job at the ministry of education where she would cause less damage. That was all. Scientology sold this as "OMG, the nazis are back and they are after us!"

    In France and Germany they are considered a dangerous sect, that much is true. And the German Federal Office For The Protection Of The Constitution is observing them as a possibly anti-constitutional organization (just as they observe nazi organizations, islamist extremists, etc).

    In Switzerland they are regarded as a corporation, not a religion (because their main goal is to suck money from their member's pockets) and they corporate tax rather than being tax exempt like other religions. There is no official procedure for being recognized as a religion but while Scientology is de facto recognized in the US most Western European countries have their doubt and consider them somewhere between a crazy sect and a corrupt company trying to turn peopl's naivity into cash.
    To be honest it would have been cool if Scientology was illegal. I mean you have a fucking German pope, that's enough isn't it?
    ENTj 7-3-8 sx/sp

  3. #503
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG View Post
    Therefore...you are wrong.
    It wont be the first or last time, I can assure you of that.

  4. #504
    Superwoman Red Herring's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sp/sx
    Posts
    5,648

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG View Post
    To be honest it would have been cool if Scientology was illegal. I mean you have a fucking German pope, that's enough isn't it?
    We'll talk after the match
    The good life is one inspired by love and guided by knowledge. Neither love without knowledge, nor knowledge without love can produce a good life. - Bertrand Russell
    A herring's blog
    Johari / Nohari

  5. #505
    FRACTALICIOUS phobik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    7,373

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    No it doesn't, and assuming that is fairly hyperbolic.

    No one here is confusing parenthood with slavery. And no one is proposing that people own their children in any monetary or commercial sense.

    The amount of harm caused in this situation doesn't warrant government intervention. And the amount of legislative time and taxpayer $$ it would cost to enforce this.

    The crux of the issue here, is how far does the right of parents to decide what is right for their kids extend.

    It's been said that I can make no pronouncements about how little material affect circumcision has on someone because I have not known what it is to be both circumcised and uncircumcised as an adult.

    While it is true that I can make no pronouncements about how great it is to be uncircumcised (oh what an orgy of pleasure and awesomeness my life would be if I had my foreskin), I can say that at no point in my entire life have I felt any negative effects (either cultural or physical) from being circumcised.

    I don't feel mutilated, or victimized, or really that much at all about it to be perfectly honest.

    The foundation of your argument seems to be, that it should be illegal to submit one's offspring to something painful, if that painful thing can't be shown to be necessary in any substantive sense.

    I'm saying that babies don't remember, and don't care generally (and haven't even really developed sentience at that point). I also am a fan of parents having the right to (within reason) make decisions for their child. Even if occasionally those decisions have temporarily painful implications.

    Does this mean that I think some crazy pentacostal somewhere should be allowed to force his child to handle poisonous snakes?

    Hell no.

    I am just saying that the harm done by this practice doesn't warrant gov't intervention. Or more precisely, that this procedure does not meet the threshold of harm that I would require for the government to be able to make it illegal for parents to choose for their children.

    Lastly, if they ever try to legislate this in the US, the constitutionality of the law would be questioned so fast, on freedom of religion grounds, that your head would spin.

    That challenge would go to SCOTUS, and I have no crystal ball, but I would be highly surprised if the court did not overturn it.

    And it strikes me the need to take positions defending a byproduct of indoctrination is something to look forward to remove, particularly when it's involving irreversible damage to a being that has no say in it.
    To avoid criticism, do nothing, say nothing, be nothing.
    ~ Elbert Hubbard

    Music provides one of the clearest examples of a much deeper relation between mathematics and human experience.

  6. #506
    Post Human Post Qlip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    4w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    9,490

    Default

    Oh man.. entirely too much of a big deal. Anyway I'm restating and then exiting. Circumcision is unecessary, but not detremental to mental or sexual health. People should consider starting an awareness campaign. Legislating in SF is a horrible idea.

  7. #507
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by phobik View Post
    And it strikes me the need to take positions defending a byproduct of indoctrination is something to look forward to remove, particularly when it's involving irreversible damage to a being that has no say in it.
    Define damage, here.

    Explain to me in plain language why the damage caused by the procedure is so egregious that it requires gov't intervention.

    I understand your reasons, and to a very limited extent identify with them, but there are much better ways to go about social change on things like this (in the US) than legislation.

  8. #508
    Was E.laur Laurie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    7w6
    Socionics
    ENFp
    Posts
    6,075

    Default

    It's interesting to see what people are posting. I know someone whose father is NOT circ'ed whose parents decided to circ him. (USA)

    What's with the "women should have no say in penises!!!!111"

    I wouldn't have circ'ed by I think my husband would have because he wouldn't have wanted his son to be the kid that looked different. Which leads me to wonder how much has to do with what's popular in the country since men/boys seem to see each other's penises an awful lot. If that ended perhaps people would stop worrying about their kid fitting in to whatever is common in the country.

    Also the whole "religion is stupid so don't follow it" is such self centered argument it's ridiculous. "You shouldn't circ AND your religion is so stupid, how could you believe such a horrible thing!!!"

  9. #509
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    The crux of the issue here, is how far does the right of parents to decide what is right for their kids extend.
    That's the core area of disagreement. The opposing view is that the crux of the issue is the ability of parents to do as they will to their children without consent. There is no presumption that parental decisions are made in the best interests of the child, or that if the child were able to make a decision as a rational adult, he would agree with his parents as to his best interests.

    It's been said that I can make no pronouncements about how little material affect circumcision has on someone because I have not known what it is to be both circumcised and uncircumcised as an adult.

    While it is true that I can make no pronouncements about how great it is to be uncircumcised (oh what an orgy of pleasure and awesomeness my life would be if I had my foreskin), I can say that at no point in my entire life have I felt any negative effects (either cultural or physical) from being circumcised.

    I don't feel mutilated, or victimized, or really that much at all about it to be perfectly honest.
    Agreed, which is why framing this in terms of perceptible harm does not adequately address the ethical concerns many people have with the practice.

    I'm saying that babies don't remember, and don't care generally (and haven't even really developed sentience at that point). I also am a fan of parents having the right to (within reason) make decisions for their child. Even if occasionally those decisions have temporarily painful implications.
    I agree with your latter point. I simply do not believe that deciding to circumcise falls within reason.

    Lastly, if they ever try to legislate this in the US, the constitutionality of the law would be questioned so fast, on freedom of religion grounds, that your head would spin.

    That challenge would go to SCOTUS, and I have no crystal ball, but I would be highly surprised if the court did not overturn it.
    At this time, you're correct, but that has less to do with constitutional protection of religious belief and practice, and more to do with prevailing social mores. The Supreme Court ruled that Mormons could not practice plural marriage, even though it was consensual, and that the Amish had to send their children to compulsory education up to 8th Grade.

    Quote Originally Posted by Laurie View Post
    I wouldn't have circ'ed by I think my husband would have because he wouldn't have wanted his son to be the kid that looked different. Which leads me to wonder how much has to do with what's popular in the country since men/boys seem to see each other's penises an awful lot. If that ended perhaps people would stop worrying about their kid fitting in to whatever is common in the country.
    To be honest, it's kind of inevitable. Not only do many kids seem to go naked whenever they have the opportunity, there are also several environments where communal nudity is normal. I remember going to camp when I was a child, and seeing a kid who was uncut for the first time. I remember being very concerned for him, thinking that there was something terribly wrong with him. Lulz.

  10. #510
    insert random title here Randomnity's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    6w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    9,489

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    You have to be careful with these things. You never know what the Supreme Court would do if it was ever presented to them.

    My biggest issue is probably with who makes the decision. I don't think females should have any say on the matter.

    Edit: I should clarify, the reason I believe females should have no say on the matter is because I believe it is wrong to force something on someone else you would not allow to be done to yourself. I believe my opinion on abortion is irrelevant.


    You cannot know how you would feel if you had not been circumcised. That is an undeniable fact.

    I wouldn't argue that this is one of the most important issues facing the country today, but I believe it is worth discussing. I'm not going to blow it off just because it's not as important as the something like political campaign contributions.
    Why is the opinion of the father worth more than the opinion of the mother? Neither one of them owns the organ in question, and both are equally responsible for the child. Comparing it to abortion isn't really relevant because in the case of abortion, the person making the decision is the person who owns the uterus.

    Also, in this thread (and in general) there seem to be a lot of men who feel very strongly pro-circ as well as a lot of women who are against it (and vice-versa). It doesn't really seem to be dividing along gender lines, although it does make sense for the men to have a stronger opinion either way.
    -end of thread-

Similar Threads

  1. AP source: Fed's gun used in San Francisco pier slaying
    By Lowkey in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-07-2015, 10:37 PM
  2. Seattle or San Francisco
    By swordpath in forum Home, Garden and Nature
    Replies: 57
    Last Post: 07-20-2009, 07:55 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO