|
Take the discussions of the merits of religion to PMs - KwarK |
United Arab Emirates1141 Posts
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. Brave. Hit the jackpot.
Aren't you afraid of being labeled a Islamophobic ^__^?
Anyway we'll see in 30 years how Islam has evolved. Perhaps muslims will become materially wealthy and just throw Allah out the window. I've seen many-a muslim quit going to prayers while they study in Australia. Maybe we shouldn't be that wary of Muslims and their extremist tendencies. Just make them richer - maybe that will kill off the extremism? Guess Malaysia / Brunei don't produce as many terrorists as Pakistan.
And gentile Christians follow the law of liberty: Love God, Love Mankind. A REAL Christian lives prayerfully, lovingly, joyfully and generously. Real Christians have a lot of sex with their spouses :D (Gen1:28, 1 Cor 7). This means REAL Christians don't mutilate female genitals thank you very much. And REAL christians confess their sin and make restitution. So I will now apologise for my brethren and forefathers of the era between 250AD~1960, who have in many ways, not honoured God's word in "In His image He created them. Man and woman He created them."
Peace from our Father to all of you TL netizens
|
Can we please talk about about something else other than circumcision? I've never even actually heard about it discussed as a "men's rights" issue. Maybe an infant's rights issue or a religion issue.
FGM on the other hand is always considered a women's rights issue and that's why it is something being discussed in the OP.
But I think most people agree that we should be promoting gender equality globally, so maybe people are just moving on to more controversial discussion for fun? It hopefully will go hand in hand with LGBT rights as well.
And gentile Christians follow the law of liberty: Love God, Love Mankind. A REAL Christian lives prayerfully, lovingly, joyfully and generously. Real Christians have a lot of sex with their spouses :D (Gen1:28, 1 Cor 7). This means REAL Christians don't mutilate female genitals thank you very much. And REAL christians confess their sin and make restitution. So I will now apologise for my brethren and forefathers of the era between 250AD~1960, who have in many ways, not honoured God's word in "In His image He created them. Man and woman He created them."
Peace from our Father to all of you TL netizens
Christianity has been plenty harmful to women's rights over the centuries. Don't think for a moment that it doesn't have similar blood on its hands.
|
On January 26 2012 08:49 Haemonculus wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 08:39 sunprince wrote:
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?
Perhaps I was unclear. Let me fix my sentence for clarity: If it was accepted in this thread 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 08:49 Haemonculus wrote: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.
In case you've forgotten, this isn't a FGM meeting. It's a thread about a news article. One of feminism's negative impacts on public discourse is a bizarre tendency to instantly shut out discussion when designated victims are the topic, in order to ensure that the focus stays on the designated victims.
There's lots of side discussions on related issues whenever we have a news topic post, but for some reason, the only ones minimized by otherwise intelligent and articulate posters such as yourself are those that threaten the classic feminist construction of victimhood (ironically, when people talk about men's issues, people are quick to jump in and insist on how women have it worse).
On January 26 2012 08:49 Haemonculus wrote: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.
You're missing the point, which is that male circumcision is intrinsically related to the subject of FGM, especially since cultures that practice FGM also practice male circumcision. The idea is that while we're educating people to stop FGM we might as well work against male circumcision in the same breath, yet we don't because the latter is nearly universally accepted by Western societies.
Seriously, though, as long as you're spreading the message to third-world citizens that FGM is wrong, it's not hard to simply oppose all forms of bodily integrity violation, but the UN chooses not to do so due to potential opposition.
|
My "strawman" was your little gem of:
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.
If I've mis-characterized it as anything but "I'm going to interrupt until someone agrees that my issue is bad too", then so be it.
In regards to which victims are more deserving of our concern, again the OP is about a particular group of women in a particular country losing rights, being physically beaten, and undergoing FGM. You then bring up another set of victims, (suffering from human rights abuses that you freely admit are less pressing), and detract attention from the original topic. If pointing this out is merely clinging to "feminist constructs", then we probably have very little more to say to each other.
|
On January 26 2012 08:48 smokeyhoodoo wrote: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?
Both are violations of the fundamental human right to bodily integrity, specifically gential integrity. Both are traumatic events with unknown consequences. Both are performed under inhumane and unsanitary conditions in third world nations for little justification besides religious/cultural traditions.
There's actually very little research on the "benefits" of male circumcision, and if the FDA looked at the limited studies done to date, they would classify it as an untested procedure with unknown benefits/drawbacks (yes, there's some evidence for HIV reduction, but it's so limited that it's not advocated by most organizations, including the CDC). It's a suspiciously ex post facto justification for a religious practice that is thousands of years old (note that circumcision was once similarly promoted for its benefits in preventing masturbation". There's a reason why no professional medical associate in the world recommends routine infant circumcision.
On top of that, there's growing evidence that there are severe harms caused by male circumcision. Aside from the potential risks of surgery, it's increasingly apparent that circumcision as a traumatic surgery on infants (especially when performed religiously by rabbis etc. rather than medical professionals) has psychological consequences. It's been noted, for example, that the male/female ratio of autism in 1st world nations with routine infant circumcision is 4 to 1 compared to the 2.3 to 1 ratio in 1st world nations that without.
|
On January 26 2012 09:26 Haemonculus wrote:My "strawman" was your little gem of: Show nested quote +
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.
If I've mis-characterized it as anything but "I'm going to interrupt until someone agrees that my issue is bad too", then so be it.
I agree that my line was unclear, hence my correction in my previous post responding to you.
On January 26 2012 09:26 Haemonculus wrote:In regards to which victims are more deserving of our concern, again the OP is about a particular group of women in a particular country losing rights, being physically beaten, and undergoing FGM. You then bring up another set of victims, (suffering from human rights abuses that you freely admit are less pressing), and detract attention from the original topic.
I'm not sure why you insist on playing the oppression Olympics and discussion who is "more deserving of our concern". The answer is both deserve our concern.
The idea is that the UN can easily and should oppose male circumcision at the same time while opposing FGM. When you send out people to educate third world inhabitants about why FGM is wrong, it's pretty easy to include a message about why male circumcision (and any other sort of bodily mutilation) is wrong.
You seem to be insisting on a zero-sum game when there is none.
|
Canada11574 Posts
This is getting ridiculously sidetracked. If male oppression is such an issue, I'm sure a separate thread could be created.
|
It's got nothing to do with oppression olympics. My point originally was to point out how counter productive it is to derail threads with other topics and to bicker about which is more important. When you come into a thread with "yes, but", you *do* trivialize the original topic. This principle can be applied to anything.
|
On January 26 2012 09:33 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 08:48 smokeyhoodoo wrote: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? Both are violations of the fundamental human right to bodily integrity, specifically gential integrity. Both are traumatic events with unknown consequences. Both are performed under inhumane and unsanitary conditions in third world nations for little justification besides religious/cultural traditions. There's actually very little research on the "benefits" of male circumcision, and if the FDA looked at the limited studies done to date, they would classify it as an untested procedure with unknown benefits/drawbacks (yes, there's some evidence for HIV reduction, but it's so limited that it's not advocated by most organizations, including the CDC). It's a suspiciously ex post facto justification for a religious practice that is thousands of years old (note that circumcision was once similarly promoted for its benefits in preventing masturbation". There's a reason why no professional medical associate in the world recommends routine infant circumcision. On top of that, there's growing evidence that there are severe harms caused by male circumcision. Aside from the potential risks of surgery, it's increasingly apparent that circumcision as a traumatic surgery on infants (especially when performed religiously by rabbis etc. rather than medical professionals) has psychological consequences. It's been noted, for example, that the male/female ratio of autism in 1st world nations with routine infant circumcision is 4 to 1 compared to the 2.3 to 1 ratio in 1st world nations that without.
Do you know of any cultures that have a form of male circumcision that involves cutting off the entire penis, fusing the resulting hole shut, and then forcing some sort of painful seminal extraction technique when they're expected to fulfill their life function of producing a child, all simply because the women are deathly afraid of being cheated on?
|
screw it, i had a post but i decided its best not to get involved with religious people. they just dont attempt to listen or understand others points of view.
|
On January 26 2012 09:54 smokeyhoodoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 09:33 sunprince wrote:On January 26 2012 08:48 smokeyhoodoo wrote: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? Both are violations of the fundamental human right to bodily integrity, specifically gential integrity. Both are traumatic events with unknown consequences. Both are performed under inhumane and unsanitary conditions in third world nations for little justification besides religious/cultural traditions. There's actually very little research on the "benefits" of male circumcision, and if the FDA looked at the limited studies done to date, they would classify it as an untested procedure with unknown benefits/drawbacks (yes, there's some evidence for HIV reduction, but it's so limited that it's not advocated by most organizations, including the CDC). It's a suspiciously ex post facto justification for a religious practice that is thousands of years old (note that circumcision was once similarly promoted for its benefits in preventing masturbation". There's a reason why no professional medical associate in the world recommends routine infant circumcision. On top of that, there's growing evidence that there are severe harms caused by male circumcision. Aside from the potential risks of surgery, it's increasingly apparent that circumcision as a traumatic surgery on infants (especially when performed religiously by rabbis etc. rather than medical professionals) has psychological consequences. It's been noted, for example, that the male/female ratio of autism in 1st world nations with routine infant circumcision is 4 to 1 compared to the 2.3 to 1 ratio in 1st world nations that without. Do you know of any cultures that have a form of male circumcision that involves cutting off the entire penis, fusing the resulting hole shut, and then forcing some sort of painful seminal extraction technique when they're expected to fulfill their life function of producing a child, all simply because the women are deathly afraid of being cheated on?
Let's start with what's common... I know of two religions which mandate genitalia mutilation in infants... the consequences of it are pretty much secondary to the main point of the discussion which is that religions make regular people behave like sadist butchers.
|
I highly doubt there is a single poster on TL that is in favor of abusing women to the degree discussed in the OP.
So I don't really think anything will be accomplished by this thread. Maybe it's bringing attention to issues that some posters aren't aware of.
|
On January 26 2012 10:55 s4life wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 09:54 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 26 2012 09:33 sunprince wrote:On January 26 2012 08:48 smokeyhoodoo wrote: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? Both are violations of the fundamental human right to bodily integrity, specifically gential integrity. Both are traumatic events with unknown consequences. Both are performed under inhumane and unsanitary conditions in third world nations for little justification besides religious/cultural traditions. There's actually very little research on the "benefits" of male circumcision, and if the FDA looked at the limited studies done to date, they would classify it as an untested procedure with unknown benefits/drawbacks (yes, there's some evidence for HIV reduction, but it's so limited that it's not advocated by most organizations, including the CDC). It's a suspiciously ex post facto justification for a religious practice that is thousands of years old (note that circumcision was once similarly promoted for its benefits in preventing masturbation". There's a reason why no professional medical associate in the world recommends routine infant circumcision. On top of that, there's growing evidence that there are severe harms caused by male circumcision. Aside from the potential risks of surgery, it's increasingly apparent that circumcision as a traumatic surgery on infants (especially when performed religiously by rabbis etc. rather than medical professionals) has psychological consequences. It's been noted, for example, that the male/female ratio of autism in 1st world nations with routine infant circumcision is 4 to 1 compared to the 2.3 to 1 ratio in 1st world nations that without. Do you know of any cultures that have a form of male circumcision that involves cutting off the entire penis, fusing the resulting hole shut, and then forcing some sort of painful seminal extraction technique when they're expected to fulfill their life function of producing a child, all simply because the women are deathly afraid of being cheated on? Let's start with what's common... I know of two religions which mandate genitalia mutilation in infants... the consequences of it are pretty much secondary to the main point of the discussion which is that religions make regular people behave like sadist butchers.
That may be the main point of your discussion.
|
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.
If you are not participating in actions you criticize I see no problem whatsoever. Also you only start caring about distant suffering after all the incomparably small suffering close to you is solved ? That seems cold.
|
On January 26 2012 07:47 macil222 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. If both were happening here in the United States, or even in the West in general then I would comment on both or whichever was the topic at hand but the difference is one is here one is way over there. We have people that are so blind that they will get oturaged about things happening overseas but have no problem with things that they personally do here even though the activities are logically the same, differing only in severity. It is like people getting outraged over Russia's treatment of Georgia a few years ago while our troops are marching all across the globe.
Only in severity ? That is the only difference that matters for the f... sake. You comparing circumcisions in western world that are done in sterile and nearly painless way to the shit the OP is talking about and calling them "logically the same". They are not. Amount of suffering matters and in this case is so different that the western circumcision is comparatively non-issue. And that is why people treat it as such.
|
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?
And it was a terrible thing when we eliminated smallpox worldwide, but did not do so at the same time with tuberculosis. We should have done both or nothing, even though resources were limited. If something does not solve everything bad in the world at once, let us rather do nothing.
Yes, people would bring up heart disease, but separately as they are separate issues. Your analogies are as bad as possible.
|
Seriously, how many here are muslims and have read the Quran?
Can we please stop arguing if we don't know anything about it?
Some people say Islam us a violent religion and despise jews and women.
Others say it is a religion of peace.
We need quotes from Quran to prove this and have a discussion.
|
On January 26 2012 12:46 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 07:52 sunprince wrote: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? And it was a terrible thing when we eliminated smallpox worldwide, but did not do so at the same time with tuberculosis. We should have done both or nothing, even though resources were limited. If something does not solve everything bad in the world at once, let us rather do nothing. Yes, people would bring up heart disease, but separately as they are separate issues. Your analogies are as bad as possible.
Well at least people agreed that they're both bad to have. If you put the FGM and circumcision all under genital mutilation, you might be able to kill two birds with one stone, though you'll have twice the resistance. No extra resources needed for making the argument though so that's different from fighting two diseases at once.
|
On January 26 2012 10:16 CptCutter wrote:
screw it, i had a post but i decided its best not to get involved with religious people. they just dont attempt to listen or understand others points of view.
What you mean is "Religious people don't agree with me therefore they aren't worth talking to." If you aren't willing to take some heat from those who's practices and lifestyle you are denouncing then whatever you were going to say probably didn't matter much anyway.
|
On January 26 2012 12:57 Abort Retry Fail wrote:
Seriously, how many here are muslims and have read the Quran?
Can we please stop arguing if we don't know anything about it?
Some people say Islam us a violent religion and despise jews and women.
Others say it is a religion of peace.
We need quotes from Quran to prove this and have a discussion.
I think we are past that discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
