|
Take the discussions of the merits of religion to PMs - KwarK |
On January 26 2012 04:15 macil222 wrote:
As for female circumcision in particular... again I can't be terribly concerned about it while so many young boys are mutilated every day in my own country. Now people will usually respond to this with arguments about the severity or the extent of the mutilation that takes place but I think that is irelevent and that we are in no position to criticize another culture... it just comes down to me not liking when a permanent modification is made to someone's natural body without their consent. Obviously some procedures have to be done when someone is in a hospital and a body part is seriously infected, damaged or broken in some way and cannot be repaired or it would risk the life of the patient.
Female circumcision is way different than male circumcision. When a woman is circumcised, she feels little to no pleasure at all in sex.
|
On January 26 2012 04:15 macil222 wrote:
I'm not terribly concerned about Islam or their culture to be honest... I just worry about my own and that is what everyone should do. Maybe I've just grown tired of the never ending war propaganda and I just want to leave people alone so long as they are not trying to hurt me.
As for female circumcision in particular... again I can't be terribly concerned about it while so many young boys are mutilated every day in my own country. Now people will usually respond to this with arguments about the severity or the extent of the mutilation that takes place but I think that is irelevent and that we are in no position to criticize another culture... it just comes down to me not liking when a permanent modification is made to someone's natural body without their consent. Obviously some procedures have to be done when someone is in a hospital and a body part is seriously infected, damaged or broken in some way and cannot be repaired or it would risk the life of the patient.
So yeah when I hear about fgm..i think it is mostly propaganda. The people in those countries don't practice female circumcision in order to control women... they do it because it is their culture and it is what they think they are supposed to do...it is the exact same reasons many fathers want their sons to be circumcized in the United States. Now if you look at the reasons why these procedures came into existence in the first place then it probably was to suppress women, again just like circumcision of males was adopted originally to attempt to stop boys from masterbating. Even so the people who want their kids mutilated and the people who practice it aren't thinking of the procedure as a punishment or even as soemthing negative..they are making their kids look "normal" to their culture.
I would say just let their culture evolve and we can worry about our own cultures. It is too easy to look at someone else and find something that they do is barbaric or just plain wrong but you should also try to look at things from different angles. For example we tend to look at these third world countries in terms of "women's rights" and of course based on our own idea of what it means for women to have rights. Personally I don't believe in women's rights or men's rights, I believe in individual rights. In the countries in question do the men really have "more" rights than the women? Are they better off overall? Or do they just have their own expectations and burdens? When their country goes to war who gets forced into combat and killed? When their is civil war or general chaos many women get raped and that gets treated as a worse crime than all of the men who get slaughtered. I don't think any of them have very many rights so why do we always hear the focus on women's rights? Because it is propaganda... it sparks an emotional reaction in a lot of people... if anything it appeals to a very sexist notion that women are indeed weak, helpless cattle that need to be protected.
I am going to assume you don't know what a clitoris does lol.
|
On January 26 2012 01:02 DoubleReed wrote:
One powerful strategy for both sexes is to find a partner (most likely one due to dangers of jealousy) with high general fitness (genetic, social, intelligent, etc) and with high attraction (physical, emotional, etc). Marriage is socially beneficial and adultery puts financial, physical, and social risk to the adulterer and hisher child. Having long term relationship ensures higher chance of the child's success as well.
I'd have to think more optimal strategies. But nature doesn't necessarily give us the pure optimal strategy. I'm pretty sure optimal would involve a lot of murder and rape.
We are programmed mostly by rules of attraction, not by strategy. We cheat because we like sex and attraction isnt one-to-one and we don't think about the consequences to our children and family.
The rules of attraction are just a tool of the strategy. The strategy in question is strategy of the genes to propagate not a strategy of a single individual. Looking at evolutionary strategies simply from the point of individual might be deceiving. Cheating is part of the evolutionary strategy. It is just not a strategy of the individual that cheats, but the genes that make him statistically more likely to cheat.
That is why vetinari is simplifying what the reproductive strategy is (apart from stating as fact and even somewhat butchering things that are just working hypothesis), he also seems to think that reproductive strategy is set of prescribed behaviours for an individual. Current human reproductive behaviour is a product of competition between strategies of our genes and their coalitions.
But if we simplify it and try to project that strategy into an individual possible explanation of differences in behaviour between sexes is based on what it means for the member of that sex to propagate. For a men the essential part takes basically no effort. For women the essential part is extremely big and time-consuming investment called pregnancy. If that would be all we knew about human reproduction the strategies would look like : Men would fuck as much as possible and women would try by some criteria pick the best mate.
Of course since we know that human increase their reproductive success by having complex society and by actually caring for their offspring after it is born, that means we have to account for that in those strategies. The caring for your offspring part means that male strategies will move closer to female ones, thus making monogamy possible and even wanted, but also means that male will be more motivated to avoid female infidelity at all costs, while having themselves as many children on the side as possible. For females it means that best case scenario is to get a mate with good (for propagation) genes and good abilities to care for the offspring. Of course not all can get such a mate, especially because those two properties kind of exclude themselves, so second best case scenario is to have as a partner someone with good abilities to care for the offspring while being impregnated by someone having good genes. This dichotomy will create amongst males two possible strategies. Either be a "nice guy" and try to make sure at all costs that your partner is not cheating on you. Or be the guy that tries to impregnate as many women as possible. Of course that is the simplified situation and in reality some mixed strategies will be employed. But the basic situation is similar to the hawk-dove scenario strategies. And as they show best strategy for the genes is some kind of mixed strategy. And everything gets extremely complex. And that is without even putting culture into the mix. I hope that shows why the simplified version of vetinari is just that, too simple. It is also wrong as he mixed some things up anyway.
But there are still statistically significant differences between behaviour of the sexes that are consequence of different investment cost into the propagation. On different levels of the simplification they are different, but on the highest level of simplification the "men are not picky and will fuck everything and women will carefully pick" is kind of true, if you understand that it is just a simplification and describes human sexual behaviour only very roughly and should be treated only as such and the reality is much more complicated and the differences between sexes much less extreme, but still significant.
But those differences are not an excuse for repression of sexuality. The only repression of sexuality that is needed for society to exist is for that society to make sure that children are provided for and positively reinforce fidelity. Negative repressions were historically shown to be ineffective and counterproductive and were mostly based on flawed image of human sexuality, similarly like vetinari's.
|
Dismissing the problem of female circumcision because male circumcision exists is a pretty big "ignore everything I ever say" flag.
|
Yes, mcc I can tell what you mean. I meant to reject his views specifically not the whole idea. However I would prefer not to derail the thread further as it seems like an incredible non sequitur that I caused lol
Demonizing Islam is unhelpful imo. Judiasm and Christianity all subjugate women in some way and yet western cultures now have women's rights. It's more of a matter of secularizing Islam where it is extreme.
|
On January 26 2012 04:36 DoubleReed wrote:
Yes, mcc I can tell what you mean. I meant to reject his views specifically not the whole idea. However I would prefer not to derail the thread further as it seems like an incredible non sequitur that I caused lol
Demonizing Islam is unhelpful imo. Judiasm and Christianity all subjugate women in some way and yet western cultures now have women's rights. It's more of a matter of secularizing Islam where it is extreme.
I agree 
As for your solution, yes, but I would say that the way to do it is increase prosperity and make society more secular, this is I think the only way to make Islam more secular. I do not think you can do it directly.
|
On January 26 2012 02:50 Keyboard Warrior wrote:
Ive heard of female circumcision before, but never really had the time to think about it.
But thinking of it now, God isnt it like VERY VERY painful? Words fail.
At least on men its only the foreskin (I am circumcised as an infant), but in women, its like the very organ. Awful practice.
Removal of foreskin is actually advantageous for health reasons, especially penile cancer.
Female circumcision is just fucked up and serves no purpose, and it does remove like body parts rather than some layer of skin. Just fucking sick. Dismemberment is always disgusting. Unfortunately, humans aren't like starfish and can regenerate lost body parts.
|
On January 26 2012 01:16 mbr2321 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 01:00 ShadeR wrote:On January 26 2012 00:26 mbr2321 wrote:
I don't think it's fair to blame religion for horrifying, reactionary religious governments. That would be like blaming atheism for horrifying, atheist governments (NK, China, USSR, etc). Certainly bad people manipulate religion to get off on their disgusting power trips, but using religion as a tool to manipulate minds that have already been down-trodden is not the basis of religion.
Religion is the answer to question we have not, yet, been able to answer. Before the advent of space exploration, religion explained the sun, the moon, and the stars. Before the great strides in biology and chemistry, religion answered what we are, and how we work. There are still questions the answers to which we do not know. At this point, there is no factual basis for any theory of the beginning of the universe-- certainly there are reasonable theories, but there is no knowledge.
Faith is belief without knowledge, and I agree that faith can be dangerous. But with regards to the way the universe works, I have as much proof that God created the Universe as anyone does that it was a random act of nothingness: absolutely no proof at all. Everything we know, from Newton's laws of conservation to Einstein's relativity theory is based on assumptions-- sometimes irrational assumptions. The set of assumptions we use today are different than those used by ancient philosophers. We decide what is "right" or "factual" based on the set of assumptions which explain the most while assuming the least-- we don't use necessarily the "correct" assumptions, but rather the most useful ones.
A higher power didn't ask, nor did it give authority, nor would a benevolent higher power accept the actions that these exploitative Imams are hoping to take. There is cruelty in man, not religion. Yes it is fair to blame religion.. especially in the case of the genital mutilation community being almost entirely religious. North Korea atheist government? NK is like the perfect theocratic state lol... Maoism? Stalinism? Those aren't secular, exercise some critical thinking. Agreed religion was one of our species failed attempts at understanding the universe. You correctly point out it was the best we could do pre modern science but fail to mention that now with what we know religion has been proven wrong on like very single occasion. Well here your just proving how unaccommodating of discussion religion is. God did it end of story. There is no quest for truth and knowledge just people content with ignorance. So you know the mind of god? You know god would disagree with these people? How did you come by such knowledge? Are you seriously trying to tell me that Stalinism and Maoims-- off shoots of Communism, which completely and totally rejects all faith in a higher power -- is theocratic in nature? On that point, we must fundamentally disagree, as you have absolutely no foundation upon which to base that claim, and I can't refute a point which defies all previously held definitions of society. Your point may have been that Kim Jung Il, Stalin, and Mao all force their personal beliefs on their people in their tenure as Totalitarian dictators, and that this mimics the Theocratic Totalitarian dictators of the past. I agree on that point. That was my original point as well. People are bad-- it's not religion's fault that Imam's might start circumcising females. If it wasn't a religious position of authority ordering it, it would be a secular position of authority-- a mayor, a governor, a general, a dictator or any other positions within a whole host of easily corrupted authorities. Religion hasn't failed in understanding the universe. Religion has succeeded in the same way that every other theory has succeeded-- it has used the least amount of assumptions to explain the most. I admit that I don't know everything-- I haven't delved into the depths of the universe and unlocked every secret therein-- there are things none of us knows. Religion answers the unanswerable, it gives reason to that which we cannot reason, it brings purpose to life. Am I arguing that my religion is correct? No. Am I arguing that any religion is correct? No. I am saying that Religion, right or wrong, is useful. On your last point, you're right. I don't know the mind of God. I cannot see His Will. I know nothing about the metaphysical world-- that doesn't mean I can't postulate or reason what a Just God would allow. I have never come across any sacred text that asks females to be circumcised, and the thought itself is so horrifying that I would reject any faith that called for female circumcision. My overall point is: I can accept that I believe without knowing for sure. Can you accept that you do not believe with the same lack of complete understanding? EDIT: fixed quotes EDIT 2: clarified one of my points
Kim Il Sung, Mao, Stalin and Hirohito all elevated themselves to a position above the normal human, therefore establishing divinity (Hirohito was seen an actually god). Effectively becoming the Jesus' of what essentially were state religions.
|
On January 26 2012 05:41 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 02:50 Keyboard Warrior wrote:
Ive heard of female circumcision before, but never really had the time to think about it.
But thinking of it now, God isnt it like VERY VERY painful? Words fail.
At least on men its only the foreskin (I am circumcised as an infant), but in women, its like the very organ. Awful practice. Removal of foreskin is actually advantageous for health reasons, especially penile cancer. Female circumcision is just fucked up and serves no purpose, and it does remove like body parts rather than some layer of skin. Just fucking sick. Dismemberment is always disgusting. Unfortunately, humans aren't like starfish and can regenerate lost body parts.
Multiple studies have shown that removal of the foreskin have no effect on health in modern society. It is more clean only if you live in the desert and don't shower less than once per year, which was the norm for when the practice was invented. Actually, the health risks of removing foreskin far outweigh any stochastic reduction in risk that you are assuming to be true with no medical studies to back it up. This is especially the case with religiously proper ways of doing the circumcision, such as the Jewish way that calls for the rabbi to remove the skin with the use of his mouth.
Both of them are pretty disgusting practices to be doing to an infant child. If you want to alter your body, your free to do it, but no one should be able to choose for you.
|
On January 26 2012 00:36 vetinari wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 00:11 Haemonculus wrote:
I don't understand what you're getting at. I'm not arguing that men and women are the same, but your thought process doesn't seem to have any goal whatsoever. You defend repressing sexuality, then go on to explain how sleeping around is the most genetically viable strategy, all while claiming that society depends on it.
edit: You're also bringing up examples and speaking about societies from hundreds of years ago. Tell me what justifies repression human sexuality in the modern world? What I have been trying to say, is that sleeping around is the most genetically viable strategy. In the absence of effective sexual repression, people will sleep around, because that is what we are programmed to do. Sleeping around is what is best for the individual. However, what is best for society is to harness the power of the sex drive to get people to work for the benefit of society. Sleeping around, however, undermines the rationing of sex and thus its motivating effect. Thus, some form of sexual repression is beneficial for society. In essence, we are spending our accumulated social capital, in order to experiment with secularism, feminism, socialism, capitalism, etc. Time will tell whether these investments will pay off, or bankrupt us. If they pay off, all well and good. If not . . . then oh shit. The example from hundreds of years ago was explaining the benefit of genetic diversity: it facilitates adaptation to changes in environment. The example had nothing to do with sexual repression.
Your interpretation of the sex drive is way to simple. Yes we do have this sense of attraction to everything that moves and as a consequence human beings want to sleep around. However, there is also a sense of attachment that is felt to a single mate. This sense is also a part of the sex drive, it is a large part of what keeps people together in spite of the want to fuck everyone drive. For more on this you should differ to a proper biologist that studies this:
http://www.ted.com/talks/helen_fisher_tells_us_why_we_love_cheat.html
|
On January 26 2012 01:16 mbr2321 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 01:00 ShadeR wrote:On January 26 2012 00:26 mbr2321 wrote:
I don't think it's fair to blame religion for horrifying, reactionary religious governments. That would be like blaming atheism for horrifying, atheist governments (NK, China, USSR, etc). Certainly bad people manipulate religion to get off on their disgusting power trips, but using religion as a tool to manipulate minds that have already been down-trodden is not the basis of religion.
Religion is the answer to question we have not, yet, been able to answer. Before the advent of space exploration, religion explained the sun, the moon, and the stars. Before the great strides in biology and chemistry, religion answered what we are, and how we work. There are still questions the answers to which we do not know. At this point, there is no factual basis for any theory of the beginning of the universe-- certainly there are reasonable theories, but there is no knowledge.
Faith is belief without knowledge, and I agree that faith can be dangerous. But with regards to the way the universe works, I have as much proof that God created the Universe as anyone does that it was a random act of nothingness: absolutely no proof at all. Everything we know, from Newton's laws of conservation to Einstein's relativity theory is based on assumptions-- sometimes irrational assumptions. The set of assumptions we use today are different than those used by ancient philosophers. We decide what is "right" or "factual" based on the set of assumptions which explain the most while assuming the least-- we don't use necessarily the "correct" assumptions, but rather the most useful ones.
A higher power didn't ask, nor did it give authority, nor would a benevolent higher power accept the actions that these exploitative Imams are hoping to take. There is cruelty in man, not religion. Yes it is fair to blame religion.. especially in the case of the genital mutilation community being almost entirely religious. North Korea atheist government? NK is like the perfect theocratic state lol... Maoism? Stalinism? Those aren't secular, exercise some critical thinking. Agreed religion was one of our species failed attempts at understanding the universe. You correctly point out it was the best we could do pre modern science but fail to mention that now with what we know religion has been proven wrong on like very single occasion. Well here your just proving how unaccommodating of discussion religion is. God did it end of story. There is no quest for truth and knowledge just people content with ignorance. So you know the mind of god? You know god would disagree with these people? How did you come by such knowledge? Are you seriously trying to tell me that Stalinism and Maoims-- off shoots of Communism, which completely and totally rejects all faith in a higher power -- is theocratic in nature? On that point, we must fundamentally disagree, as you have absolutely no foundation upon which to base that claim, and I can't refute a point which defies all previously held definitions of society. Your point may have been that Kim Jung Il, Stalin, and Mao all force their personal beliefs on their people in their tenure as Totalitarian dictators, and that this mimics the Theocratic Totalitarian dictators of the past. I agree on that point. That was my original point as well. People are bad-- it's not religion's fault that Imam's might start circumcising females. If it wasn't a religious position of authority ordering it, it would be a secular position of authority-- a mayor, a governor, a general, a dictator or any other positions within a whole host of easily corrupted authorities. Religion hasn't failed in understanding the universe. Religion has succeeded in the same way that every other theory has succeeded-- it has used the least amount of assumptions to explain the most. I admit that I don't know everything-- I haven't delved into the depths of the universe and unlocked every secret therein-- there are things none of us knows. Religion answers the unanswerable, it gives reason to that which we cannot reason, it brings purpose to life. Am I arguing that my religion is correct? No. Am I arguing that any religion is correct? No. I am saying that Religion, right or wrong, is useful. On your last point, you're right. I don't know the mind of God. I cannot see His Will. I know nothing about the metaphysical world-- that doesn't mean I can't postulate or reason what a Just God would allow. I have never come across any sacred text that asks females to be circumcised, and the thought itself is so horrifying that I would reject any faith that called for female circumcision. My overall point is: I can accept that I believe without knowing for sure. Can you accept that you do not believe with the same lack of complete understanding? EDIT: fixed quotes EDIT 2: clarified one of my points
You are correct to a degree. Yes, blaming only religion is forgetting about the atrocities you mentioned. But blaming religion is quite correct, as is blaming marxism-leninism, stalinism, maoism and other ideologies. Atheism is not an ideology in the same vein and blaming atheism makes no sense as atheism is just disbelief in deity and cannot motivate any actions.
In this particular case blaming islam in particular is not correct as it is not specific to islamic communities and is more of a problem of some common proto-ideology (basically it is cultural issue, practical remnant of some past mostly forgotten proto-ideology, possibly even specifically religion).
As for your tangent, no religion does not make less assumptions than science for example, actually it makes more and it explained less in quality and even in quantity.
|
On January 26 2012 06:32 RifleCow wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 05:41 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On January 26 2012 02:50 Keyboard Warrior wrote:
Ive heard of female circumcision before, but never really had the time to think about it.
But thinking of it now, God isnt it like VERY VERY painful? Words fail.
At least on men its only the foreskin (I am circumcised as an infant), but in women, its like the very organ. Awful practice. Removal of foreskin is actually advantageous for health reasons, especially penile cancer. Female circumcision is just fucked up and serves no purpose, and it does remove like body parts rather than some layer of skin. Just fucking sick. Dismemberment is always disgusting. Unfortunately, humans aren't like starfish and can regenerate lost body parts. Multiple studies have shown that removal of the foreskin have no effect on health in modern society. It is more clean only if you live in the desert and don't shower less than once per year, which was the norm for when the practice was invented. Actually, the health risks of removing foreskin far outweigh any stochastic reduction in risk that you are assuming to be true with no medical studies to back it up. This is especially the case with religiously proper ways of doing the circumcision, such as the Jewish way that calls for the rabbi to remove the skin with the use of his mouth. Both of them are pretty disgusting practices to be doing to an infant child. If you want to alter your body, your free to do it, but no one should be able to choose for you.
In female "circumcision", it's not done at birth. It's done after her first period. They *cut your clitoris out of your body*, sometimes remove parts of the labia, and often SEW YOU SHUT.
|
On January 26 2012 03:39 LittleAtari wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 02:55 Scootaloo wrote:
It's pretty clear all the Islamic defenders did not bother to actually read the Qu'ran.
It is a simple FACT that Islam is a very volatile religion, the Qu'ran is full of crap, it literally says jews should be killed, women are stupid and will make up most of hell and that a womans word can not be trusted because they are liars.
Some other gems are that Muslims can not be friends with non musilms, your in a permanent state of war with ALL non believers, that cats and dogs should be massacred because they are unclean and ofcourse the 40 virgins thing (this has been found to be likely a mistranslation of the Assyrian word for grape vines, despite that most muslims still believe it though) a lot of other stuff I can't remember right now, suffice to say the Qu'ran is the most agressive religious book I've ever read.
And of course there's all the wonderful stuff in the Hadiths about Muhammad having sex with a 9 year old.
Most Islamic apologists won't tell you this because they WANT their religion to be peaceful because they are, but because they've already been indoctrinated by this flavor of religion as a child they rather lie to themselves then accept the truth and either rewrite their own religion or choose another one.
Muslims can be wonderful people, the religion however will always be barbaric and the peacefulness of the people is often dictated by how seriously they take their own religion.
A good example is Thailand, there in the Buddhist part everything is peaceful while the Muslim part is a clusterfuck of violence and religious murders.
And to the "but westerners abused women too" crowd, true, but not even close to the levels being portrayed in the Muslim communities, we might have all beaten our women but at least we didn't mutilate their vagina's because we thought god told us to. I have never read so much crap in one post in my life....Muslims can marry Jews and Christians. I don't know where you got the idea that Muslims aren't allowed to be friends with non-Muslims. Prophet Muhammad didn't consummate his marriage when Aisha was 9 years old and if you actually read any history on her. She was far from a child and was the leader of the religion after his death, but no one talks about that she was the authority of the religion and how she was the main teacher of it when he was alive and dead. No one talks about how important she was in leading second largest religion in the world. No one looks at the history to see that men and women married around that age and lived independently. The 40 virgins, is a mis-translation, not to grapes, but that you will get all sexual desires fulfilled in heaven with 40 'hurineiin' - beings who's sole purpose is sex. Putting the label of virgins on them makes it seem like they're human, but they're not. Islam doesn't shy away from sex. Society does. Having sex with one's spouse is an act of worship and is seen as a mutual duty in a marriage. If you want to go into how Islam teaches people to treat sex, the man has to keep going until the woman is satisfied or else he's seen as not doing his duty to her as a husband. If you're muslim, have sex with your spouse as much as possible. God loves it. As Judicator said, I have my own experiences with Middle Eastern countries. It is very live-able and most westerns would probably love to vacation in Jordan, Egypt, UAE, etc. They certainly like being allies with even the more conservative countries. I know people who were born and raised in the USA, but still moved to the Middle East when they got older. They had all the flair of Western culture in them, but they still chose to live in the Middle East because they saw other opportunities there. Does female circumcision happen? Yes it does, because people are stupid idiots that think a woman shouldn't enjoy herself. Does it come up in Islamic and in-culture debates? YES IT DOES. I've seen talk shows on Arabic and Islamic television that have brought on circumcised women to talk about their experiences. It ruins marriages because the woman isn't feeling any pleasure in sex. Point is that it's a hot topic and a large part of society acknowledges that it is bad. There is nothing in the Quran that talks about a woman being circumcised. It talks about male circumcision but never female circumcision. If it did, then you could bet that most Mideastern women would be circumcised, but they're not because this situation is in the minority. Edit: about cats and dogs being slaughtered. Really? Narated By 'Abdullah bin 'Umar : Allah's Apostle said, "A lady was punished because of a cat which she had imprisoned till it died. She entered the (Hell) Fire because of it, for she neither gave it food nor water as she had imprisoned it, nor set it free to eat from the vermin of the earth." – [Bukhari Vol.4, Book 56, #689] Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, “While a dog was going round a well and was about to die of thirst, an Israeli prostitute saw it and took off her shoe and watered it. So Allah forgave her because of that good deed.” (Book #56, Hadith #673)
I'm talking crap eh, let me give you a few Qu'ran quotes, it's a terrible and boring book and I can't blame you for not reading it.
-On the befriending non muslims:
Qur'an (5:51) - "O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people."
Qur'an (5:80) - "You will see many of them befriending those who disbelieve; certainly evil is that which their souls have sent before for them, that Allah became displeased with them and in chastisement shall they abide." Those Muslims who befriend unbelievers will abide in hell.
(there is more if you'd like)
-He married Aisha when she was 6, he fucked her when she was 9, it's pretty clear you don't know shit about the religion your talking about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aisha
If you honestly think that at 9 she was mature enough to have sex, get your head checked. She might have been important to the religion after the 'prophet' raped her for years, that's not something that's relevant to this argument.
-http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/04/opinion/martyrs-virgins-and-grapes.html According to the NYT it's grapes, I'm willing to entertain your sex slave theory as well though. But if you think that we should we be so free about our sexuality, why does the Islam only profess this for men?
Women need to wear their rediculous shrouds, women are heavily persecuted if they cheat, their word can not be taken seriously in a court of law (which is where one would prove the cheating) and women DO NOT get 40 male sex slaves.
Just sounds like Muhammad was a massive pervert.
-I never said female circumcision was in the Qu'ran, just that it was a cultural habit for muslims, only making the point that westerners did'nt do it even in our past, read my points before responding please.
-Muhammad, during his conquests (he was a warlord, i.e. raper and murderer, remember?) would at numerous times murder out the entire cat and dog population of his lands because they where unclean, read your history, and the Hadith's contain numerous quotes like this:
Hadith - Bukhari 3:515, Narrated Abu Huraira
I heard Allah's Apostle saying; "Angels (of Mercy) do not enter a house wherein there is a dog or a picture of a living creature (a human being or an animal)."
I find it amusing how you accuse me of not knowing my history when you just repeat the politically correct nonsense they tell you on television.
Hope for you your not actually a muslim because Allah would definitely smite you for not knowing your own religion.
|
On January 26 2012 04:22 LittleAtari wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 04:15 macil222 wrote:
As for female circumcision in particular... again I can't be terribly concerned about it while so many young boys are mutilated every day in my own country. Now people will usually respond to this with arguments about the severity or the extent of the mutilation that takes place but I think that is irelevent and that we are in no position to criticize another culture... it just comes down to me not liking when a permanent modification is made to someone's natural body without their consent. Obviously some procedures have to be done when someone is in a hospital and a body part is seriously infected, damaged or broken in some way and cannot be repaired or it would risk the life of the patient. Female circumcision is way different than male circumcision. When a woman is circumcised, she feels little to no pleasure at all in sex.
That is not true. There are many forms of FGM. The least damaging forms are also very similar to male circumcision. The most severe forms which are also the most rare would obviously inhibit female pleasure but as I said that is not the point.... I am not opposed to it because of the severity I am opposed to it because it is a violation of a person's body. Male circumcision is the same thing, unless there is a medical reason why the foreskin should be removed, such as certain disease conditions, then it is not justified. We do not preemptively amputate organs because they might get diseased, we remove them when they do.
Even tonsils which were thought to serve no purpose only a few years ago were only removed when a person was getting frequent sore throats or had oversized tonils which caused difficulty swallowing. And of course now they are not removed unless there is good cause.
The male foreskin does serve a purpose. I have no problem with an adult male or female having their organs modified, but children should not have these procedures forced upon them.
These debates always turn into this same old male vs female circumcision debate because on one side you have people who look only at the severity of the procedures and then you have people such as myself who are concerned with the general principle.
So as I said I am opposed to fgm but I am not going to get outraged over it or suggest that we support some framework to deal with it internationally while we still have our own problems here. Furthermore I can just accept that they have a different culture with some aspects that I disagree with. All of this talk ultimately just builds up negative sentiment about a culture in another part of the world that in no way affects our lives and yet we end up twisting ourselves up trying to solve these "problems" that aren't even seen as problems by the people there...not even the mutilated women for the most part who would probably always think of themselves as being "normal" until the western interlopers show up and convince them that they are victims.
I wish Germany and Northern Europe would be able to start up some international bodies to come into the United States and set us straight on a number of things including but not even close to limited to male circumcision.
|
On January 26 2012 06:43 Haemonculus wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 06:32 RifleCow wrote:On January 26 2012 05:41 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On January 26 2012 02:50 Keyboard Warrior wrote:
Ive heard of female circumcision before, but never really had the time to think about it.
But thinking of it now, God isnt it like VERY VERY painful? Words fail.
At least on men its only the foreskin (I am circumcised as an infant), but in women, its like the very organ. Awful practice. Removal of foreskin is actually advantageous for health reasons, especially penile cancer. Female circumcision is just fucked up and serves no purpose, and it does remove like body parts rather than some layer of skin. Just fucking sick. Dismemberment is always disgusting. Unfortunately, humans aren't like starfish and can regenerate lost body parts. Multiple studies have shown that removal of the foreskin have no effect on health in modern society. It is more clean only if you live in the desert and don't shower less than once per year, which was the norm for when the practice was invented. Actually, the health risks of removing foreskin far outweigh any stochastic reduction in risk that you are assuming to be true with no medical studies to back it up. This is especially the case with religiously proper ways of doing the circumcision, such as the Jewish way that calls for the rabbi to remove the skin with the use of his mouth. Both of them are pretty disgusting practices to be doing to an infant child. If you want to alter your body, your free to do it, but no one should be able to choose for you. In female "circumcision", it's not done at birth. It's done after her first period. They *cut your clitoris out of your body*, sometimes remove parts of the labia, and often SEW YOU SHUT.
In the same countries where they perform female genital mutilation at puberty, they also perform male circumcision at puberty. In some countries young men get their foreskin cut off with unsanity "knives" (if you can even call them knives) with no anisthetics and no food or water for several days while they have to sit in solitary confinement while it heals...if it gets infected, gangrene, painful, scarrings...too bad, many men die as a result of this barbaric procedure. It is too bad you will never hear about it in your women's studies classes.
http://www.historyofcircumcision.net/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=66
|
On January 26 2012 06:47 macil222 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 04:22 LittleAtari wrote:On January 26 2012 04:15 macil222 wrote:
As for female circumcision in particular... again I can't be terribly concerned about it while so many young boys are mutilated every day in my own country. Now people will usually respond to this with arguments about the severity or the extent of the mutilation that takes place but I think that is irelevent and that we are in no position to criticize another culture... it just comes down to me not liking when a permanent modification is made to someone's natural body without their consent. Obviously some procedures have to be done when someone is in a hospital and a body part is seriously infected, damaged or broken in some way and cannot be repaired or it would risk the life of the patient. Female circumcision is way different than male circumcision. When a woman is circumcised, she feels little to no pleasure at all in sex. That is not true. There are many forms of FGM. The least damaging forms are also very similar to male circumcision. The most severe forms which are also the most rare would obviously inhibit female pleasure but as I said that is not the point.... I am not opposed to it because of the severity I am opposed to it because it is a violation of a person's body. Male circumcision is the same thing, unless there is a medical reason why the foreskin should be removed, such as certain disease conditions, then it is not justified. We do not preemptively amputate organs because they might get diseased, we remove them when they do. Even tonsils which were thought to serve no purpose only a few years ago were only removed when a person was getting frequent sore throats or had oversized tonils which caused difficulty swallowing. And of course now they are not removed unless there is good cause. The male foreskin does serve a purpose. I have no problem with an adult male or female having their organs modified, but children should not have these procedures forced upon them. These debates always turn into this same old male vs female circumcision debate because on one side you have people who look only at the severity of the procedures and then you have people such as myself who are concerned with the general principle.So as I said I am opposed to fgm but I am not going to get outraged over it or suggest that we support some framework to deal with it internationally while we still have our own problems here. Furthermore I can just accept that they have a different culture with some aspects that I disagree with. All of this talk ultimately just builds up negative sentiment about a culture in another part of the world that in no way affects our lives and yet we end up twisting ourselves up trying to solve these "problems" that aren't even seen as problems by the people there...not even the mutilated women for the most part who would probably always think of themselves as being "normal" until the western interlopers show up and convince them that they are victims. I wish Germany and Northern Europe would be able to start up some international bodies to come into the United States and set us straight on a number of things including but not even close to limited to male circumcision.
No they don't because other then you nobody would ever dare to compare the cutting of the foreskin to the cutting of the clitoris.
You are gravely uninformed and as result, are doing a great deal of harm.
People that don't understand the subject can come into this thread and read your posts. Then they think to themselves, ooh well, cutting off the foreskin isn't so bad and if the female circumcision is the same in scope then I don't really care.
Stop suggesting that male circumcision and female gential mutilation are in the same ballpark. It's wrong at best and incredibly dishonest at worst.
There are not two groups on this debate. It's just lonely you that thinks these two procedures are more or less the same. I don't know if you were just uninformed or if you are being incredibly dishonest, but you are wrong either way.
|
Islam does not promote mutilation of female genitalia (and don't tell me corrosive substances and shit like that isn't mutilation) and massive sexism. Stupid people do.
Now that that's out of the way, I am truly tired of backward pile-o-shit nations that are screwing their own citizens over and refusing to accept reason. Sure, the UN does barge in a lot and the western culture may seem to be an unwelcome influence, but you kind of have to realize at some point that something mystical called "science" has nullified your arguments for sexism and maybe, just maybe, the women you are mutilating, humiliating and abusing actually have feelings.
|
On January 26 2012 06:59 zalz wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 06:47 macil222 wrote:On January 26 2012 04:22 LittleAtari wrote:On January 26 2012 04:15 macil222 wrote:
As for female circumcision in particular... again I can't be terribly concerned about it while so many young boys are mutilated every day in my own country. Now people will usually respond to this with arguments about the severity or the extent of the mutilation that takes place but I think that is irelevent and that we are in no position to criticize another culture... it just comes down to me not liking when a permanent modification is made to someone's natural body without their consent. Obviously some procedures have to be done when someone is in a hospital and a body part is seriously infected, damaged or broken in some way and cannot be repaired or it would risk the life of the patient. Female circumcision is way different than male circumcision. When a woman is circumcised, she feels little to no pleasure at all in sex. That is not true. There are many forms of FGM. The least damaging forms are also very similar to male circumcision. The most severe forms which are also the most rare would obviously inhibit female pleasure but as I said that is not the point.... I am not opposed to it because of the severity I am opposed to it because it is a violation of a person's body. Male circumcision is the same thing, unless there is a medical reason why the foreskin should be removed, such as certain disease conditions, then it is not justified. We do not preemptively amputate organs because they might get diseased, we remove them when they do. Even tonsils which were thought to serve no purpose only a few years ago were only removed when a person was getting frequent sore throats or had oversized tonils which caused difficulty swallowing. And of course now they are not removed unless there is good cause. The male foreskin does serve a purpose. I have no problem with an adult male or female having their organs modified, but children should not have these procedures forced upon them. These debates always turn into this same old male vs female circumcision debate because on one side you have people who look only at the severity of the procedures and then you have people such as myself who are concerned with the general principle.So as I said I am opposed to fgm but I am not going to get outraged over it or suggest that we support some framework to deal with it internationally while we still have our own problems here. Furthermore I can just accept that they have a different culture with some aspects that I disagree with. All of this talk ultimately just builds up negative sentiment about a culture in another part of the world that in no way affects our lives and yet we end up twisting ourselves up trying to solve these "problems" that aren't even seen as problems by the people there...not even the mutilated women for the most part who would probably always think of themselves as being "normal" until the western interlopers show up and convince them that they are victims. I wish Germany and Northern Europe would be able to start up some international bodies to come into the United States and set us straight on a number of things including but not even close to limited to male circumcision. No they don't because other then you nobody would ever dare to compare the cutting of the foreskin to the cutting of the clitoris.
Can you read?
He said that he was against it, clearly, and he never stated that cutting the foreskin was like FGM. EVER. He just said that male circumsicion at birth was a problem and that it should be looked at since it still happens a lot here, in the NA, because we, sadly, can't do much to stop a cultural practice in another country.
And for a fact, male circumsicion at birth is a problem. Yes, it's not damaging for the health of the boy, but is damaging for the sexual pleasure and therefore should be a choice.
How is that not sensible?
|
On January 26 2012 05:41 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 02:50 Keyboard Warrior wrote:
Ive heard of female circumcision before, but never really had the time to think about it.
But thinking of it now, God isnt it like VERY VERY painful? Words fail.
At least on men its only the foreskin (I am circumcised as an infant), but in women, its like the very organ. Awful practice. Removal of foreskin is actually advantageous for health reasons, especially penile cancer. Female circumcision is just fucked up and serves no purpose, and it does remove like body parts rather than some layer of skin. Just fucking sick. Dismemberment is always disgusting. Unfortunately, humans aren't like starfish and can regenerate lost body parts.
You are wrong on so many levels.
First circumcision in the west has nothing to do with health or sanitary practices.
The foreskin is not "just some layer of skin". There are more nerve endings in the foreskin than in the glans of the penis or in the clitoris. Different nerves provide different sensations and different types of feedback. The foreskin also keeps the glans moist and prevents it from constantly being exposed to air and keeps it from rubbing against clothing all day. It also facilitates sexual intercourse because the penis can "glide" in and out of the foreskin. I wonder how a women would feel if her clitoris was exposed to the outside of her body all day and had to rub against her clothing constantly.
There are no real health benefits acquired by circumcision in a modern country and even if they were I'd still be opposed to forcing it on infants rather than making it an option for adults. Even the studies done which show decreased risk of HIV were done on Africans who do not practice safe sex and who operate in an environment with extremely high rates of HIV and poor sanitation and little access to routine medical care. The potential benefit itself is also very minor and it is completely trumped by the sexual practices of the men. If you are engaging in high risk sex then your risk is going to be "high"... normal penis or circumcised will not make a big difference.
Oh and then there are urinary tract infections. Circumcision reduces the overall risk of a male developing a UTI...the problem with using that as an excuse to circumcise is that females seem to get by in life just fine and even an intact male has a much lower chance of developing UTIs than any female.
And you and I both say FGM serves no purpose but for some people in those cultures it DOES serve a purpose because for them it is NORMAL.
|
On January 26 2012 06:59 zalz wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 06:47 macil222 wrote:On January 26 2012 04:22 LittleAtari wrote:On January 26 2012 04:15 macil222 wrote:
As for female circumcision in particular... again I can't be terribly concerned about it while so many young boys are mutilated every day in my own country. Now people will usually respond to this with arguments about the severity or the extent of the mutilation that takes place but I think that is irelevent and that we are in no position to criticize another culture... it just comes down to me not liking when a permanent modification is made to someone's natural body without their consent. Obviously some procedures have to be done when someone is in a hospital and a body part is seriously infected, damaged or broken in some way and cannot be repaired or it would risk the life of the patient. Female circumcision is way different than male circumcision. When a woman is circumcised, she feels little to no pleasure at all in sex. That is not true. There are many forms of FGM. The least damaging forms are also very similar to male circumcision. The most severe forms which are also the most rare would obviously inhibit female pleasure but as I said that is not the point.... I am not opposed to it because of the severity I am opposed to it because it is a violation of a person's body. Male circumcision is the same thing, unless there is a medical reason why the foreskin should be removed, such as certain disease conditions, then it is not justified. We do not preemptively amputate organs because they might get diseased, we remove them when they do. Even tonsils which were thought to serve no purpose only a few years ago were only removed when a person was getting frequent sore throats or had oversized tonils which caused difficulty swallowing. And of course now they are not removed unless there is good cause. The male foreskin does serve a purpose. I have no problem with an adult male or female having their organs modified, but children should not have these procedures forced upon them. These debates always turn into this same old male vs female circumcision debate because on one side you have people who look only at the severity of the procedures and then you have people such as myself who are concerned with the general principle.So as I said I am opposed to fgm but I am not going to get outraged over it or suggest that we support some framework to deal with it internationally while we still have our own problems here. Furthermore I can just accept that they have a different culture with some aspects that I disagree with. All of this talk ultimately just builds up negative sentiment about a culture in another part of the world that in no way affects our lives and yet we end up twisting ourselves up trying to solve these "problems" that aren't even seen as problems by the people there...not even the mutilated women for the most part who would probably always think of themselves as being "normal" until the western interlopers show up and convince them that they are victims. I wish Germany and Northern Europe would be able to start up some international bodies to come into the United States and set us straight on a number of things including but not even close to limited to male circumcision. No they don't because other then you nobody would ever dare to compare the cutting of the foreskin to the cutting of the clitoris. You are gravely uninformed and as result, are doing a great deal of harm. People that don't understand the subject can come into this thread and read your posts. Then they think to themselves, ooh well, cutting off the foreskin isn't so bad and if the female circumcision is the same in scope then I don't really care. Stop suggesting that male circumcision and female gential mutilation are in the same ballpark. It's wrong at best and incredibly dishonest at worst. There are not two groups on this debate. It's just lonely you that thinks these two procedures are more or less the same. I don't know if you were just uninformed or if you are being incredibly dishonest, but you are wrong either way.
Nice reading comprehension you have there
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
