|
Take the discussions of the merits of religion to PMs - KwarK |
On January 26 2012 07:44 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 07:43 macil222 wrote:On January 26 2012 07:41 Roe wrote:On January 26 2012 07:39 macil222 wrote:On January 26 2012 07:21 Haemonculus wrote:On January 26 2012 06:54 macil222 wrote:On January 26 2012 06:43 Haemonculus wrote: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 Answers like this don't help anything though. The "Yes, but" cop-out bullshit does nothing but belittle the original topic. It changes the subject. It trivializes the original discussion. It insinuates that whatever you're trying to talk about is somehow more important than the original discussion. Can't you just say "this practice is terrible", and leave it at that? Why do you need to go on and add the "Yes, but" segment, implying that our outrage at the initial topic is somehow invalid because we're not equally outraged at some other issue? Male circumcision performed on grown boys is terrible, no one's denying that. To claim that it happens on a comparable basis, or that criticisms of FGM are somehow incorrect or shortsighted because of a lack of concern for another topic is absurd. Ending your posts with a quip about all those women's studies classes, (that I haven't ever taken, for the record), just makes you look like an asshole. Nevertheless I don't think we are in a good position to dictate to other cultures which of their practices are barbaric or not Why not? Surely causing someone pain is not good? And surely we're all members of the human species and shouldn't be so "polite" as to not help our fellow man when they happen to be on a different political border? But we have our own issues in our own country. Maybe when we stop genital mutilation in the United States... or at least acknowledge what it is then I will be more willing to be concerned about people in their own far away cultures who have their own reasons and motivations for doing things. As I said, political borders shouldn't hinder humanitarian empathy and aid.
No, it should not, we probably all agree on that, but sadly, going in a country and trying to change their belief can never go right. I think there is a lot of examples of that.
|
I personally enjoy Flogging Molly.
|
On January 26 2012 07:43 macil222 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 07:41 Roe wrote:On January 26 2012 07:39 macil222 wrote:On January 26 2012 07:21 Haemonculus wrote:On January 26 2012 06:54 macil222 wrote:On January 26 2012 06:43 Haemonculus wrote: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 Answers like this don't help anything though. The "Yes, but" cop-out bullshit does nothing but belittle the original topic. It changes the subject. It trivializes the original discussion. It insinuates that whatever you're trying to talk about is somehow more important than the original discussion. Can't you just say "this practice is terrible", and leave it at that? Why do you need to go on and add the "Yes, but" segment, implying that our outrage at the initial topic is somehow invalid because we're not equally outraged at some other issue? Male circumcision performed on grown boys is terrible, no one's denying that. To claim that it happens on a comparable basis, or that criticisms of FGM are somehow incorrect or shortsighted because of a lack of concern for another topic is absurd. Ending your posts with a quip about all those women's studies classes, (that I haven't ever taken, for the record), just makes you look like an asshole. Nevertheless I don't think we are in a good position to dictate to other cultures which of their practices are barbaric or not Why not? Surely causing someone pain is not good? And surely we're all members of the human species and shouldn't be so "polite" as to not help our fellow man when they happen to be on a different political border? But we have our own issues in our own country. Maybe when we stop genital mutilation in the United States... or at least acknowledge what it is then I will be more willing to be concerned about people in their own far away cultures who have their own reasons and motivations for doing things.
Well, if we realize that the common factor in both situations (male and female circumcision) is the twisted influence that religion has in culture then we are pretty clear of what we are supposed to do, here and abroad.
|
On January 26 2012 07:42 Haemonculus wrote:My point is NOT that circumcision of one gender or another isn't a bad thing. You *ARE* trivializing an issue when you instead of commenting on said issue, accuse people of bias or agenda by not commenting on another.
And you trivialize the issue of male circumcision when you routinely ignore it, and then consider it derailing when it's brought up. Maybe if the UN made an effort to fight male circumcision, then people wouldn't feel the need to bring it up when they fight against FGM?
Let's say the UN fought against cancer and ignored heart disease; don't you think people would eventually bring up heart disease when the UN makes yet another move to fight cancer?
How about we fight against both FGM and male circumcision at the same time and trivialize neither?
|
On January 25 2012 17:47 Crisium wrote:It is important to consider that things weren't so great for Women in Christian and Eastern societies in the past. Including the not-so-recent past (1960s James Bond "In Japan, men come first" quote). Perhaps not as bad as Islamic extremism, but it still cannot be ignored. This is more of the culture being centuries behind the times than really something that can be blamed on Islam. Women being secondary in society is nothing new to the world, just that some parts of the world are far behind and these places are using Islam as an excuse. Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 14:05 Keyboard Warrior wrote:
First, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay....
Then, all hell broke loose as people rallied outside UN demanding, among many things, 'Ban UN'', ''Islam is not a toy'', ''Flog Pillay''....
+ Show Spoiler +
Japan isn't the west, if he says, "the men come first here" he implies that in the west they don't
Also implying they may or may not come first is quite different that brutally striking someone on the back with a whip or stick.
|
On January 26 2012 07:52 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 07:42 Haemonculus wrote:My point is NOT that circumcision of one gender or another isn't a bad thing. You *ARE* trivializing an issue when you instead of commenting on said issue, accuse people of bias or agenda by not commenting on another. And you trivialize the issue of male circumcision when you routinely ignore it, and then consider it derailing when it's brought up. How about we fight against both at the same time and trivialize neither?
Words of wisdom there. Both, male and female mutilation of genitalia, are religious-induced savage practices that should be eradicated from modern societies. None in his own mind would mutilate his own child's genitalia if absurd religious beliefs weren't in the equation.
|
On January 25 2012 16:51 pyrogenetix wrote:Didn't know what the fuck female circumcision was so... Show nested quote +The WHO has offered four classifications of FGM. The main three are Type I, removal of the clitoral hood, almost invariably accompanied by removal of the clitoris itself (clitoridectomy); Type II, removal of the clitoris and inner labia; and Type III (infibulation), removal of all or part of the inner and outer labia, and usually the clitoris, and the fusion of the wound, leaving a small hole for the passage of urine and menstrual blood—the fused wound is opened for intercourse and childbirth.[3] Around 85 percent of women who undergo FGM experience Types I and II, and 15 percent Type III, though Type III is the most common procedure in several countries, including Sudan, Somalia, and Djibouti.[4] Several miscellaneous acts are categorized as Type IV. These range from a symbolic pricking or piercing of the clitoris or labia, to cauterization of the clitoris, cutting into the vagina to widen it (gishiri cutting), and introducing corrosive substances to tighten it. What... the fuck..... even Type 1 and 2 remove the clitoris? God it is times like this that I really appreciate being born into a country where people aren't throwing acid into women's faces or doing shit like that. Thank fucking god all I worried about as a kid was my parents beating me a little if I fucked up in school. This is way more fucked up than the other "horrible news" like gangbangers getting shot and daughters getting locked in toilets. This is an entire community that actively support this kind of shit.
Thats islam. Or at least traditions that are followed in muslim countrys. Islam really is a giant turd inside a sandwich. Pretending to be good, but whenever someone says something bad about it, they just go and kill that person. At least thats what the holy books from islam tell people to do.
|
On January 26 2012 07:49 Xalorian wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 07:44 Roe wrote:On January 26 2012 07:43 macil222 wrote:On January 26 2012 07:41 Roe wrote:On January 26 2012 07:39 macil222 wrote:On January 26 2012 07:21 Haemonculus wrote:On January 26 2012 06:54 macil222 wrote:On January 26 2012 06:43 Haemonculus wrote:On January 26 2012 06:32 RifleCow wrote:On January 26 2012 05:41 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
[quote]
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 Answers like this don't help anything though. The "Yes, but" cop-out bullshit does nothing but belittle the original topic. It changes the subject. It trivializes the original discussion. It insinuates that whatever you're trying to talk about is somehow more important than the original discussion. Can't you just say "this practice is terrible", and leave it at that? Why do you need to go on and add the "Yes, but" segment, implying that our outrage at the initial topic is somehow invalid because we're not equally outraged at some other issue? Male circumcision performed on grown boys is terrible, no one's denying that. To claim that it happens on a comparable basis, or that criticisms of FGM are somehow incorrect or shortsighted because of a lack of concern for another topic is absurd. Ending your posts with a quip about all those women's studies classes, (that I haven't ever taken, for the record), just makes you look like an asshole. Nevertheless I don't think we are in a good position to dictate to other cultures which of their practices are barbaric or not Why not? Surely causing someone pain is not good? And surely we're all members of the human species and shouldn't be so "polite" as to not help our fellow man when they happen to be on a different political border? But we have our own issues in our own country. Maybe when we stop genital mutilation in the United States... or at least acknowledge what it is then I will be more willing to be concerned about people in their own far away cultures who have their own reasons and motivations for doing things. As I said, political borders shouldn't hinder humanitarian empathy and aid. No, it should not, we probably all agree on that, but sadly, going in a country and trying to change their belief can never go right. I think there is a lot of examples of that.
I guess I'm just a dreamer then. Is it really impossible to stop humanitarian nightmares in the world? I know the enforcers of said nightmares would fight us, and people stuck on the fence might be rallied to their cause, but do those factors make it an ignoble or worthless cause?
|
On January 26 2012 08:00 Roe wrote:I guess I'm just a dreamer then. Is it really impossible to stop humanitarian nightmares in the world? I know the enforcers of said nightmares would fight us, and people stuck on the fence might be rallied to their cause, but do those factors make it an ignoble or worthless cause?
It's a noble cause we should fight for, but we need to do it carefully to avoid backlash.
You always need to be careful in criticizing people's religious/cultural beliefs, however backward, or else people may dig in deeper due to cognitive dissonance. This is true whether you're criticizing FGM, creationism, or Scientology.
|
On January 26 2012 07:52 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 07:42 Haemonculus wrote:My point is NOT that circumcision of one gender or another isn't a bad thing. You *ARE* trivializing an issue when you instead of commenting on said issue, accuse people of bias or agenda by not commenting on another. And you trivialize the issue of male circumcision when you routinely ignore it, and then consider it derailing when it's brought up. Maybe if the UN made an effort to fight male circumcision, then people wouldn't feel the need to bring it up when they fight against FGM? If the UN fought against cancer and ignored heart disease, don't you think people would eventually bring up heart disease when cancer is brought up? How about we fight against both FGM and male circumcision at the same time and trivialize neither?
Whhhatt the fuck. We're in a thread about FGM, and corporal punishment for marital affairs. No one is trivializing male circumcision because it's not part of the original thread.
To boot, I'm not ignoring it. If you're willing to dig through my post history you'll find I've written plenty against male circumcision in the past as well. It's irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion.
And you *are* pulling the "what about the mens" crap. Dismissing it as "bullshit feminist memes" doesn't change that. You're coming into a thread about issues facing women in parts of the developing world, and dismissing entire discussion on the topic on the basis that men are treated unfairly in entire other parts of the world. It does not make your argument valid, nor does it invalidate the original discussion.
As a terran player, I think dark swam is some serious bullshit and way too powerful vs an all-ranged army. If protoss players come into the thread and start whining about spider mines being too strong vs dragoons, and demanding discussion on that instead, it completely derails the original topic, and yes, it DOES trivialize the bullshit that is defilers. All of a sudden there's outrage over vultures, and people trying to discuss zerg OP tier3 shit are being harassed about not mentioning a terran unit.
|
Radical islam is just absolutely idiotic.
|
On January 26 2012 08:05 Haemonculus wrote:To boot, I'm not ignoring it. If you're willing to dig through my post history you'll find I've written plenty against male circumcision in the past as well. It's irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion.
I was using "you" in the impersonal sense, referring to the UN's practices, rather than you specifically. The UN does nothing to fight against male circumcision; therefore, it is relevant to criticize the UN's position as a human rights organization when it ignores half the human popoulation.
It would be preferable if the UN devoted resources to fight both FGM and male circumcision, rather than focus only on the designated victims. That's the point that some of us are trying to make in this thread, even if some of us are doing so poorly.
On January 26 2012 08:05 Haemonculus wrote:As a terran player, I think dark swam is some serious bullshit and way too powerful vs an all-ranged army. If protoss players come into the thread and start whining about spider mines being too strong vs dragoons, and demanding discussion on that instead, it completely derails the original topic, and yes, it DOES trivialize the bullshit that is defilers. All of a sudden there's outrage over vultures, and people trying to discuss zerg OP tier3 shit are being harassed about not mentioning a terran unit.
That's a poor analogy. A better comparison would be Terran players complaining about dark swarm, and Zerg players coming in to complain about irradiate. The correct response would be to acknowledge that dark swarm and irradiate are both overpowered, and to understand how they are related. Insisting the irradiate is irrelevant to the discussion would mean that you are not actually "pro-game balance" but merely "pro-Terran".
|
The UN also has Saudi-Arabia on it's human rights committee.
It's not a very big secret that the UN is only a few steps above a waste of space.
|
On January 26 2012 08:10 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 08:05 Haemonculus wrote:To boot, I'm not ignoring it. If you're willing to dig through my post history you'll find I've written plenty against male circumcision in the past as well. It's irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion. I was using "you" in the impersonal sense, referring to the UN's practices, rather than you specifically. The UN does nothing to fight against male circumcision; therefore, it is relevant to criticize the UN's position as a human rights organization when it ignores half the human popoulation. It would be preferable if the UN devoted resources to fight both FGM and male circumcision, rather than focus only on the designated victims. That's the point that some of us are trying to make in this thread, even if some of us are doing so poorly. Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 08:05 Haemonculus wrote:As a terran player, I think dark swam is some serious bullshit and way too powerful vs an all-ranged army. If protoss players come into the thread and start whining about spider mines being too strong vs dragoons, and demanding discussion on that instead, it completely derails the original topic, and yes, it DOES trivialize the bullshit that is defilers. All of a sudden there's outrage over vultures, and people trying to discuss zerg OP tier3 shit are being harassed about not mentioning a terran unit. That's a poor analogy. A better comparison would be Terran players complaining about dark swarm, and Zerg players coming in to complain about irradiate. The correct response would be to acknowledge that dark swarm and irradiate are both overpowered, and to understand how they are related. Insisting the irradiate is irrelevant to the discussion would mean that you are not actually "pro-game balance" but merely "pro-Terran".
Alright, SC analogies don't entirely work.
Regardless, you've completely co-opted the original discussion. We went from an OP about women losing rights in one part of the world, being unfairly punished for having affairs, and FGM in general, to all of a sudden talking about how unfair it is that male circumcision isn't being lambasted by the UN.
Do you not see how you've invalidated the original topic? Trivialized the plights these women are experiencing? Instead proposed that these men's issues are more important? You have absolutely hijacked the original subject on the basis that your issue, which you feel is under-criticized, is more important, and in doing so completely taken away focus from the fact that these women in that country are being beaten and mutilated.
|
On January 26 2012 07:52 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 07:42 Haemonculus wrote:My point is NOT that circumcision of one gender or another isn't a bad thing. You *ARE* trivializing an issue when you instead of commenting on said issue, accuse people of bias or agenda by not commenting on another. And you trivialize the issue of male circumcision when you routinely ignore it, and then consider it derailing when it's brought up. Maybe if the UN made an effort to fight male circumcision, then people wouldn't feel the need to bring it up when they fight against FGM? Let's say the UN fought against cancer and ignored heart disease; don't you think people would eventually bring up heart disease when the UN makes yet another move to fight cancer? How about we fight against both FGM and male circumcision at the same time and trivialize neither?
Male and female circumcision are not analogous. If you can't see that than you are not an objective thinker and there is no point in trying to convince you otherwise, so I'll simply assume you're misinformed and implore you to research what female circumcision is.
|
On January 26 2012 08:27 smokeyhoodoo wrote:Male and female circumcision are not analogous. If you can't see that than you are not an objective thinker and there is no point in trying to convince you otherwise, so I'll simply assume you're misinformed and implore you to research what female circumcision is.
I'm very well aware of what FGM is, and that's why I call it FGM rather than female circumcision as you did.
Like most people in Western countries, you have strong biases regarding male circumcision. You need to do some research on male circumcision before throwing your assumptions all over the place.
|
On January 26 2012 08:24 Haemonculus wrote:Regardless, you've completely co-opted the original discussion. We went from an OP about women losing rights in one part of the world, being unfairly punished for having affairs, and FGM in general, to all of a sudden talking about how unfair it is that male circumcision isn't being lambasted by the UN.
The discussion was co-opted because people refused to acknowledge the problem of male circumcision. If it was accepted that male circumcision is also a problem, and that the UN should be fighting against it too, then we wouldn't have had pages of debate on it.
On January 26 2012 08:24 Haemonculus wrote:Do you not see how you've invalidated the original topic? Trivialized the plights these women are experiencing? Instead proposed that these men's issues are more important? You have absolutely hijacked the original subject on the basis that your issue, which you feel is under-criticized, is more important, and in doing so completely taken away focus from the fact that these women in that country are being beaten and mutilated.
No one articulate has proposed that male circumcision is more important. I will unequivocally state that FGM is really fucking awful and arguably significantly worse than male circumcision. But that doesn't mean that male circumcision isn't worth talking about, especially when the UN (nor the rest of Western society, including people who are ostensibly egalitarian human rights activists) isn't doing it.
The panic over "taking focus away from the wimmenz" is a terribad concept propogated by feminism, and it's crap. It's the reason why otherwise well-meaning feminists minimize the existence of male victims (particularly of domestic violence and rape), in order to ensure that women continue to recieve attention/funding from the public.
Talking about how awful heart disease is doesn't make people care less about cancer, and if you really care about people's health, you should speak up about both when one of them doesn't garner any public discourse. Same applies here.
|
To be fair to the people that reacted with hostility to the original insertion (teehee) of male circumcision into this topic, the guy who introduced it did so by way of the claim that he didn't care about FGM because (a) we have no way of knowing whether it's right or wrong and (b) because there is male circumcision in our own culture, and it's bad too. I suspect a post like yours, where you go through some of the more horrific elements of male circumcision, and the practices that surround it, would be responded to with substantially less vitriol. Instead, we got a guy that did the one-two cultural-relativism-into-we're-evil-too transition, which isn't the best for currying favour.
|
On January 26 2012 08:31 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 08:27 smokeyhoodoo wrote:Male and female circumcision are not analogous. If you can't see that than you are not an objective thinker and there is no point in trying to convince you otherwise, so I'll simply assume you're misinformed and implore you to research what female circumcision is. I'm very well aware of what FGM is, and that's why I call it FGM rather than female circumcision. Like most people in Western countries, you have strong biases regarding male circumcision. You need to do some research on male circumcision before throwing your assumptions all over the place.
Untrue, I wish I hadn't been circumcised. It simply isn't comparable. On one hand a bit of skin is cut, and there is actually a fair amount of evidence that it reduces std's. On the other there are males that have an irrational and disturbingly obsessive concern with becoming a cuckhold. So they simply agree to cut off the genitalia of all women to eliminate their sex drive and fuse their vagina together, cutting it open again when they are ready to use their sex doll/baby vessel. HOW IN THE FUCK DOES THAT COMPARE? You are the one with the bias. A bias to give preferential treatment to a culture other than your own. Such bias stems from a sense of superiority to said culture. Your sense of superiority enables you to treat them as if they we're ignorant children. The concept of ethnocentrism was an important development so that anthropologists would take care to view things objectively. Some people missed the point and embraced bias for the "other side", because they actually see sides for some twisted reason. You are one of them.
Edit: Castration compares to FGM. Male circumcision does not.
|
On January 26 2012 08:39 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 08:24 Haemonculus wrote:Regardless, you've completely co-opted the original discussion. We went from an OP about women losing rights in one part of the world, being unfairly punished for having affairs, and FGM in general, to all of a sudden talking about how unfair it is that male circumcision isn't being lambasted by the UN. The discussion was co-opted because people refused to acknowledge the problem of male circumcision. If it was accepted that male circumcision is also a problem, and that the UN should be fighting against it too, then we wouldn't have had pages of debate on it.
And you seriously see nothing wrong with your thought process on that?
Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 08:24 Haemonculus wrote:Do you not see how you've invalidated the original topic? Trivialized the plights these women are experiencing? Instead proposed that these men's issues are more important? You have absolutely hijacked the original subject on the basis that your issue, which you feel is under-criticized, is more important, and in doing so completely taken away focus from the fact that these women in that country are being beaten and mutilated. No one articulate has proposed that male circumcision is more important. I will unequivocally state that FGM is really fucking awful and arguably significantly worse than male circumcision. But that doesn't mean that male circumcision isn't worth talking about, especially when the UN (nor the rest of Western society, including people who are ostensibly egalitarian human rights activists) isn't doing it. The panic over "taking focus away from the wimmenz" is a terribad concept propogated by feminism, and it's crap. It's the reason why otherwise well-meaning feminists minimize the existence of male victims (particularly of domestic violence and rape), in order to ensure that women continue to recieve attention/funding from the public. Talking about how awful heart disease is doesn't make people care less about cancer, and if you really care about people's health, you should speak up about both when one of them doesn't garner any public discourse. Same applies here.
Talking about how awful heart disease is doesn't make people care less about cancer. Granted.
Going to an ACS meeting and screaming about heart disease and criticizing anyone speaking about cancer at a CANCER MEETING on the basis that they aren't acknowledging how terrible heart disease is, is quite a different story. You *are* giving the impression that their issues are somehow not important, and you are absolutely hijacking their discussion and undermining the importance of the original issue.
Again, if bringing up another issue is all that's needed to invalidate discussion any subject, then why bother discussing anything in the first place? Japanese whalers invading Australian waters? POACHERS IN AFRICA ARE KILLING ELEPHANTS YOU HEARTLESS TWAT. Corrupt politicians getting away with bribery? BUT IN COUNTRY X THEY AREN'T EVEN ALLOWED TO EXPRESS POLITICAL DISSENT! Etc etc.
Seriously, listen to yourself. "I'm going to constantly interrupt your discussion until someone validates my opinion that issue X is just as bad!!!" How is that *not* suggesting that one is more important than the other?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://sharkrobot.com/images/medium/shirt_vgc_heylisten_MED.jpg)
