| The Male Genital Mutilation Bill.... |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
posted January 23, 2012 07:17 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
However strong your desire is to masturbate on your offspring, it is immoral. Not only that, but I find such a desire to be sick, revolting, and an affront to both God and man. So it is immoral today and if you had lived 2000 years ago it would have been immoral then.
But even you agree that not everything that is immoral should be illegal. The question is not "Is it moral to masturbate on babies?" but "If one's religion requires it, should it be legal to masturbate on babies?" Should it be legal? If not, why? How do you reconcile this with the idea of religious freedom?
Certainly not all immoral acts should be illegal. However, sexual acts with children should be illegal. Ejaculation is a sexual act. Ejaculating on your child is "having sex" with your child. Having sex with a child is immoral and illegal.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 23, 2012 08:51 AM |
|
|
"Is this all real,
Is this all necessary,
Or is this a joke?"
Alice Cooper - Luney Tune
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 23, 2012 09:02 AM |
|
|
Elodin:
So you agree, not everything should be allowed in the name of religious freedom. Having sex with a baby is an act of aggression against said baby, and is both immoral and rightly illegal. But then why is the act of aggression that is rape not okay, but the act of aggression that is genital mutilation (circumcision) okay? The baby hasn't consented to either, and is subjected to pain by both.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 23, 2012 09:43 AM |
|
|
|
Probably the act of mutilation is meant as a warning reminder against exactly that: "Should you ever ejaculate on a baby, we'll finish the job and cut it off completely."
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted January 23, 2012 12:04 PM |
|
|
Certainly I have stated numerous times in this and other threads that not everything is protected in the name of freedom of religion.
Rape is immoral. Circumcision is not.
Circumcision is also not an act of aggression and not "genital mutilation."
Circumcision is an action parents take out of love for the child. Circumcision also has certain health benefits. Circumcision has been practiced by loving parents for thousands of years because the people believe that God requires it.
Like I said, Christianity teaches that circumcision is no longer required. It was required under the Old Covenant, however.
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted January 23, 2012 12:08 PM |
|
|
I am curious from my unbiased throne, why was circumcision implemented in the first place? (obviously not for health reasons)
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
Lexxan
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Unimpressed by your logic
|
|
posted January 23, 2012 12:17 PM |
|
|
|
not a theologist myself, but iirc it was required as a sign of gratitude for Jah sparing Isaac.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted January 23, 2012 02:33 PM |
|
Edited by baklava at 14:57, 23 Jan 2012.
|
You are avoiding things, El.
First off, the health benefits of circumcision are very, very arbitrary in today's civilized world, coming down to "nothing can go wrong with your foreskin if we cut it off". Putting on a condom and washing your penis occasionally gives you the same benefits and more.
The most probable reason circumcision was invented, in my layman's opinion, is that the risks of infection and various problems were large in the hot deserts with bad hygiene habits and access, and it was given a religious context in order to promote it among the populace. Today, the risks of something bad happening to a responsible person because they haven't been circumcised are non-existent, while the circumcised person will, for it's entire life, experience less sexual enjoyment, have a scar tissue formed on their mutilated reproductive organ etc. You can and will ignore this to judgment day, El.
You can't view an act of violence as not an act of violence because it's "religious" - because that would imply you can't view an act of ejaculation as a sexual act for the same reasons.
Ejaculation also, like I explained several times, again much to your ignoring, has more health benefits than circumcision, and is also less painful and leaves no permanent trace. A Satanic parent can also masturbate on his child out of parental love - whether a parent loves the baby he's circumcising is completely irrelevant to anything. Baby masturbation is superior to circumcision in every way - permanence, leaving a trace on the unwilling, healthiness, risks and safety, absolutely every way. But you wouldn't allow it, and would allow circumcision, entirely based on a 3000 years old Jewish religious lawbook (mind you, I have no problem with it being someone's reference holy text; and I personally love the Old Testament for several reasons. But that's not a basis for it to be irrefutably included in today's objective legal system - especially these controversial bits). Which is the essence of any freedom you may be talking about or supporting, El - in your world, it's legal to do it, if your interpretation of the Bible allows it; otherwise, it's worthy of imprisonment. Effectively, you support a theocracy. Your moral objectivity rests heavily on the subjective morals of a single people 2000 years ago, and I don't think you're aware of how different your ethics would be if a few rows in a book 2000 years ago were written differently - basically, you objectively follow an ancient and highly subjective ethical view. The gist of it is that I believe that God said something is bad because it's bad, and you that it's bad because God said it's bad. And that's why you have trouble comprehending why would anyone think circumcision is a bad thing today. Hope nothing of this offended you, of course, because I had no intention of doing that. Just saying.
All in all, I'm still waiting for you, El, to provide a standing argument other than "It's been done for a long time" or the Bible ones. A valid, objective argument. The only argument with a slight hint of being discussable I see right now is the health one, specifically you generally saying "it's healthy". I disagree with that one, but won't delve deeper until you say why exactly is it objectively healthy and why would that outweigh the cons.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
Adrius
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Stand and fight!
|
|
posted January 23, 2012 02:45 PM |
|
Edited by Adrius at 14:59, 23 Jan 2012.
|
Something being done "out of love" is hardly an argument.
Same thing could be said about Bak's Satanic Masturbation (god I love writing that).
The health benefits are totally irrelevant in today's world of soap. Any % decrease in chance of STD contraction is irrelevant as well, considering that babies aren't exactly the main spreader of STDs in the world. When they grow up to the point where they can spread STDs, they can make the choice of circumcision themselves.
EDIT:
Wait I've already said all of this in the thread already... we're repeating ourselves.
EDIT2:
Yeah, my post on the first page of this thread is pretty much identical. I stand by Adrius of the Past's opinion.
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 23, 2012 03:06 PM |
|
|
Ah, but it's done for RELIGIOUS purposes.
You can take the no-blood-transfusions belief of Jehova's witnesses as well.
The general question is, should we allow actions we would otherwise not tolerate for religious reasons?
What about parents who are NOT Jews, but would circumcise their children anyway? Because "you never know - maybe the Jews are right".
Or blood transfusions? Same point - maybe the Witnesses are right and the soul is located in the blood, so could I reject a blood transfusion for a child because maybe JWs are right?
Or isn't it DE FACTO the case that if we allow special rules for people with a certain religious belief, we say nothing else than they are considered legally insane in the matter and not responsible for their doings, the only condition would be that enough people would have to suffer from a specific religious insanity to be recognized as protected and considered not responsible?
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted January 23, 2012 04:20 PM |
|
|
7 months later and I'm still waiting for an answer to this:
Quote:
If some religious practices should be allowed, and others should not, what criteria do you use to determine one set from the other? I do not want you to frame your answer by using specific examples. I want you to speak generally. If it makes it easier for you, pretend that there is a new religious practice emerging among fringe cults that you know nothing about. What information would you need to determine whether it should be allowed or not allowed?
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Smithey
Promising
Supreme Hero
Yes im red, choke on it !!!
|
|
posted January 23, 2012 07:30 PM |
|
Edited by Smithey at 19:32, 23 Jan 2012.
|
At this point none of you isn't discussing the thread, you are doing nothing besides badgering Elodin and frankly I cant see any sense in your questions except for some petty need to win an argument when in fact it's obvious to me that all of you indeed know the answers to those questions.....
Freedom of religion states that people are free to follow their beliefs as long as they are not "actively" causing harm to others as seen by the laws/norms of the society or in other words as long as they are not breaking the law of that specific country.
In some Arab countries stoning is allowed since norms and laws of those countries allow it, In states it isnt.
Having sex with a baby is against the law hence it doesnt matter if its a religious ritual or not.
Circumcision is not against the law hence allowed regardless of ones religion, whether one sees it as barbaric or harmful/healthy to the baby is irrelevant, what's relevant is the law of that country...
This thread was not about Elodin's moral views on various topics so if this really isn't simply about messing with the dude but indeed about you trying to understand his psyche, I suggest you make a thread which will be called "Elodin's morals" in which you will present him with questions about morality (as perceived by Elodin) - example
1. blah blah blah what is the right course of action in your opinion Elodin ?
2. Yada yada yada in your opinion should I be allowed to do so ?
And when he gives you the answers you are looking for, keep in mind that those are his subjective views before you call him a hypocrite...
____________
She turned me into a newt!
A newt?
I got better
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted January 23, 2012 07:56 PM |
|
|
Obviously someone missed the point of the whole discussion.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 23, 2012 09:19 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Having sex with a baby is against the law...
Circumcision is not against the law
After the parents thread I shouldn't wonder that both Elodin and Smithey seem to have strange ideas about the meaning of "having sex with...". In that sense I suppose a lot of boys have sex with their sheets, the shower, a cleenex or the toilet, and Onan had sex with the Earth... but that's actually not the point here.
The point is, that one is "having sex with a baby", while the other is "circumcision" and not "mutilating a penis with a knife".
The thing is, if it WAS a religious thing to ejaculate onto a baby - let's say a fertilty rite, which had a fancy name, like, say, "fertaptizing" and if circumcision was not...
Wouldn't you then say:
"Mutilizing a baby is against the law. Fertaptizing is not."?
|
|
Shyranis
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted January 23, 2012 10:16 PM |
|
Edited by Shyranis at 22:17, 23 Jan 2012.
|
In a way (only on the technical level) circumcision is rape, you're penetrating the child's genitals with a knife.
Either way, I'm leaving the decision of if they want it or not until they are older. Who wants to get a child circumcised when they're newborn? They will get their excrement all over the cut up areas. I wouldn't be able to take it if my kids got infections.
____________
Youtube has terminated my account without reason.
Please express why it should be reinstated on
Twitter.
|
|
Smithey
Promising
Supreme Hero
Yes im red, choke on it !!!
|
|
posted January 23, 2012 10:41 PM |
|
|
Quote:
After the parents thread I shouldn't wonder that both Elodin and Smithey seem to have strange ideas about the meaning of "having sex with...". In that sense I suppose a lot of boys have sex with their sheets, the shower, a cleenex or the toilet, and Onan had sex with the Earth... but that's actually not the point here.
The point is, that one is "having sex with a baby", while the other is "circumcision" and not "mutilating a penis with a knife".
The thing is, if it WAS a religious thing to ejaculate onto a baby - let's say a fertilty rite, which had a fancy name, like, say, "fertaptizing" and if circumcision was not...
Wouldn't you then say:
"Mutilizing a baby is against the law. Fertaptizing is not."?
Talking about being literal JJ, the act itself is not important, what's important is that it is against the law...
Seems you have a tough time understanding certain things so I'll say it again, as stated above -
Freedom of religion states that people are free to follow their beliefs as long as they are not "actively" causing harm to others as seen by the laws/norms of the society, or in other words as long as they are not breaking the laws of that specific country.
The point is simple - if tomorrow circumcision gets outlawed and "fertaptizing" becomes legal then yes, obviously the law will be "Mutilizing a baby is against the law. Fertaptizing is not." because those will be the laws/norms of the society we live in...
In Saudi Arabia stoning people to death is legal hance allowed as a part of religious freedom in the states its considered a murder hence there is no religious freedom in that aspect, the same rule will apply to circumcision if some day it gets voted as illegal...
____________
She turned me into a newt!
A newt?
I got better
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 23, 2012 11:07 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Talking about being literal JJ, the act itself is not important, what's important is that it is against the law...
I'm going to have to memorize this because it rings a bell... didn't someone say something like that in a legal comedy? "I don't care WHAT you did, but I'm sure it was against the law..." Bush versus Saddam or something.
Anyway, YOU seem to have a hard time to understand, that "mutilating a child's genitals with a a knife" IS ACTUALLY FORBIDDEN BY THE LAW and the same thing as "circumcision", except that the first is illegal and the second is not, and the reason why is that I actually omitted a word in the first definition and that's "RELIGIOUS". If you can claim that you mutilate a child's genitals FOR RELIGIOUS REASONS the actually illegal act of mutilating a child's genitals is suddenly legal.
So why would it be illegal to ejaculate on a child's body provided you can claim it's for religious reasons? It may be gross, but no harm done, actually.
|
|
Smithey
Promising
Supreme Hero
Yes im red, choke on it !!!
|
|
posted January 23, 2012 11:25 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I'm going to have to memorize this because it rings a bell... didn't someone say something like that in a legal comedy? "I don't care WHAT you did, but I'm sure it was against the law..." Bush versus Saddam or something.
I'm talking about facts, not about what things should or shouldnt be...
Quote:
Anyway, YOU seem to have a hard time to understand, that "mutilating a child's genitals with a a knife" IS ACTUALLY FORBIDDEN BY THE LAW and the same thing as "circumcision", except that the first is illegal and the second is not, and the reason why is that I actually omitted a word in the first definition and that's "RELIGIOUS". If you can claim that you mutilate a child's genitals FOR RELIGIOUS REASONS the actually illegal act of mutilating a child's genitals is suddenly legal.
What you seem to have tough time understanding is that you are wrong.
Father takes a knife, chops off parts of his son's penis - against the law regardless of his religion - fact
Parents take their son to a doctor/"professional penis cutter" whatever he's called - not against the law because parents have the right to make "medical/religious" decisions for their kids as stated by the law in the USA regardless of their religion - fact
Quote:
So why would it be illegal to ejaculate on a child's body provided you can claim it's for religious reasons? It may be gross, but no harm done, actually.
Invent a religion that asks for such a ritual, submit it to the congress and make it legal, frankly I couldnt care less, both acts are retarded in my eyes anyhow....
____________
She turned me into a newt!
A newt?
I got better
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted January 24, 2012 02:26 AM |
|
|
@Corribus
Quote:
7 months later and I'm still waiting for an answer to this:
Quote:
If some religious practices should be allowed, and others should not, what criteria do you use to determine one set from the other? I do not want you to frame your answer by using specific examples. I want you to speak generally. If it makes it easier for you, pretend that there is a new religious practice emerging among fringe cults that you know nothing about. What information would you need to determine whether it should be allowed or not allowed?
OK, geeee "general rule" stuff, huh?
1) Is the practice moral? (atheists can't answer that question because they can't logically use the words "moral" and "immoral" so its a rather difficult qualifier for them.)
Circumcision qualifies as moral because God commanded the Jews to do so.
2) Is the practice required by/encouraged by their religion?
3) Does the practice significantly harm the child.
Circumcision does not significantly harm the child and in fact offers proven health benefits. There are links to said benefits within this thread.
Bak's proposal to ejaculate on his children is immoral. He would exposes himself to the child and commit a sexual act "with" the child.
Society would call Bak a pervert, child molester, and lock him up if he carried out his proposal and was caught.
Society accepts circumcision with the main exceptions being anti-theits and some ultra-liberal liberals who think they know what is best for everyone and who have no qualms imposing their personal beliefs on others.
You follow your religion. Teach your child that Jesus is a fairy tale like you said you will and that there is no objective right or wrong. Let others raise their children in their religion in peace. You'll think we are the delusional ones and we'll know atheists are the delusional ones but we'll all get to raise our children the way we think they should be raised. 
@Bak
Go back and read the threads where I linked to articles stating the health benefits of circumcision.
You have a very different view of the Bible than me. I believe the Bible to be the divinely inspired Word of God. God commanded Moses that all Israelite males be circumcised. Circumcision was the "sign" of the Old Covenant. Any male not circumcised was not in covenant with God.
What some people want Jews to do is bow to them and worship them instead of doing what they believe God wants them to do.
I repeat, I personally see no need for circumcision as the Old Covenant has run its course and a New Covenant is in effect. But the Jews think the OC is still in effect and the Muslims practice circumcision as well.
I respect the right of others to practice their religion. Unfortunately not everyone is as tolerant as I am.
@JJ
Quote:
After the parents thread I shouldn't wonder that both Elodin and Smithey seem to have strange ideas about the meaning of "having sex with...". In that sense I suppose a lot of boys have sex with their sheets, the shower, a cleenex or the toilet, and Onan had sex with the Earth... but that's actually not the point here.
If I ejaculated on the breasts on another woman rest assured my wife would count that as having sex with the woman.
So, JJ, you favor abortion being legal, correct? Killing an unborn baby is ok but circumcising a newborn is not!?!?!?
So, JJ, if circumcision were done while the baby is in the womb, would it be ok then?
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 24, 2012 04:11 AM |
|
|
Elodin:
Quote:
atheists can't answer that question because they can't logically use the words "moral" and "immoral" so its a rather difficult qualifier for them
At the risk of going on a tangent, yes, they can. Not all atheists believe in objective morality, but I do, as do many others.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
| |
|
|
