Circumcision

[jedusor]

I can't believe this is even debatable. I can't believe that in a society we consider civilized, I have to actually present a structured argument against cutting off pieces of babies when they're born.

Comments

[all-ephemera.livejournal.com]

I'm all for freedom of thought, and for freedom of religion, and I'm not a fan of circumcision. I don't think it's necessary and I don't agree with it. However, I am also not part of a strong religious faith of which this is a practice, either.

That being said? I'm wildly disgusted by the attitudes on BOTH sides of this argument presented here. But I'm more disgusted by the attacks made on someone's faith.

Just because you choose to not have faith does not give you the right to assume that something is wrong. Being without faith in a specific religion does not give you the right to attack - and that's what went down, don't flatter yourselves - someone who does hold that faith. You are not all-knowing, nor all-powerful, and the attitude of condescention about someone's faith is one of the things I despise about most atheists I know, and I am one.

No one here is going to change someone else's mind because clearly everyone here is convinced of their own righteousness and feel justified. Basically this post and all the accompanying comments has served to do nothing but be a soapbox for differing sides to gnash their teeth from atop of, and insult one another. Way to go. This is so far below you all.

[draughanten.livejournal.com]

Oh thank you. . . . you said, far more eloquently, albeit far more forcefully, what I was rather clumsily trying to. Wow, I think my grammar there was atrocious, but I'm not entirely sure. Ah well, that's what not sleeping earns me.

[gerald_duck]

Who said anyone was assuming circumcision is wrong? We're saying it's wrong for sound, well-thought-out reasons.

If it's wrong, it's wrong regardless of what anyone's faith says. Moderate and progressive people understand that faith evolves over the millennia, so this isn't a particular problem. Fundamentalists and absolutists will inevitably have trouble squaring that particular circle.

Yes, I am attacking someone for their beliefs — that's because their beliefs are wrong in a way that harms innocent third parties. Such things should be denounced; people who say they're OK should be challenged, regardless of why they're saying it.

[gerald_duck]

Also, it's not necessary, nor necessarily practical, to convince zealots (of whatever stamp) that they're wrong. It suffices to convince the moderate majority that a thing is wrong and that the wrong is sufficiently harmful that it needs stopping. Then we get a law and the wrongdoers go to prison.

As I mentioned a few comments up, I don't expect that to happen for a good half century or so in the case of neo-natal male circumcision, but it feels like the tide of history is gently moving in that direction, which I regard as positive. Female genital mutilation is a far more serious issue and is already being addressed. Gradually. Too gradually.

That's no more an attack on someone's faith than outlawing bigamy, droit de seigneur, carrying knives on planes, sexual inequality or countless other things that are or have been tenets of one faith or another.

[all-ephemera.livejournal.com]

And I can still be disgusted by the way in which you attacked, regardless of your rationale for it. You are basing this off of your interpretation of what is right. I may agree that it's right, but that still doesn't mean I get to attack someone's religion and their beliefs like some kind of crusader. It's a hell of a lot more effective to try to work towards ways in which the practice can be corrected without violating their faith. This has worked in the past, as there are sections of the world in which circumcision is less common, and it's getting less common in more places, and even in certain areas we're seeing a shift in Jewish traditions to eliminate it. Being an ass just makes it sound like you're looking for a way to pound your chest.

[gerald_duck]

Alternatively, maybe I find it repulsive that hannahrorlove speaks of things like "a permanent, effective way for a minority group to distinguish themselves from the world around them". That's a religiously-intolerant and reprehensible objective, regardless of the means the ends are trying to justify.

They say it's "an attack on something held very close and valued" as though that makes moot the question of how bad the thing is. That's also a horrible, horrible view to hold.

They say "we're still the target of hatred and violence and ignorance" as though being a victim entitles a person to do bad things — and not even bad things to the perpetrators of that hatred and violence. I don't get to tattoo my children because I've been the victim of a homophobic hate crime; why should anti-Semitism mean Jews get to do something to their children that's otherwise wrong?

They say "You can't say things like that and expect people to not be wildly offended.", which is using the taking of offence as a political weapon.

They say "If it was as harmful as you make it seem, we'd have stopped doing it a long time ago.", which is obviously bunk and is the last bolthole of the desperate conservative.

They completely misunderstand what an analogy is: "How is human sacrifice at all analogous to what we're talking about? Is the taking of a human life equal to a small piece of skin?" No, of course it isn't; nobody was suggesting it was; pointing it out is a waste of everyone's time and effort. Analogies are qualitative illustrations, not quantitative. Sheesh.

They pour scorn on the notion that "Jews that don't follow every single rule set down are more enlightened". That promotes fundamentalism and dogma.

Basically, hannahrorlove has, in the space of a few short comments, spouted a lot of bile that demonstrates attitudes, beliefs and values much more sickening than mere support for circumcision, and on that basis the attack is entirely justified. hannahrorlove has a lot of explaining to do.

[canadianpuzzler.livejournal.com]

A couple of quotes from GD in this part of the thread have caught my eye.

We're saying it's wrong for sound, well-thought-out reasons.

They say "If it was as harmful as you make it seem, we'd have stopped doing it a long time ago.", which is obviously bunk and is the last bolthole of the desperate conservative.

I don't find the logic in the refutation in the second quote to be well-thought-out.

Also, an interesting contrast is found here:

They say "You can't say things like that and expect people to not be wildly offended.", which is using the taking of offence as a political weapon.

and here:

Basically, hannahrorlove has, in the space of a few short comments, spouted a lot of bile that demonstrates attitudes, beliefs and values much more sickening than mere support for circumcision, and on that basis the attack is entirely justified.

How exactly is the latter not an example of the former (taking offense as a political weapon)?

[gerald_duck]

OK. Have a more formal and painstaking refutation:

For the statement to have any merit, something being harmful has to mean people will stop doing it — otherwise the logic falls at once. In the cases still under consideration, the statement reduces to "if it was as harmful as you make it seem, people would have considered it harmful a long time ago", or "if X, people would have believed X time T ago".

Now consider the converse: "if people have gone time T without believing X then X is false". What is this value of T? Clearly, every example of something true going some time without being believed sets a lower bound on T.

To pick just one example at random, people didn't believe blood circulated until 1242CE, having held contrary views since antiquity. That sets a lower bound on T that is far longer than the 3500 years people have believed in circumcision.

Yes, you can probably pick holes in that, but I'll pick holes in the holes. I honestly can't tell to what extent you were playing devil's advocate: to me it's completely obvious that the original logic was deeply flawed, so I'm not sure quite how detailed an explanation I need to give of why.


As for the second point, the distinction is that hannahrorlove was saying "you are wrong because I am offended", where I'm only saying "I am being forthright and uncompromising because I am offended".

[canadianpuzzler.livejournal.com]

I'll tackle the second one first, as it's less involved.

"You can't say things like that and expect people to not be wildly offended."

and

Basically, hannahrorlove has, in the space of a few short comments, spouted a lot of bile that demonstrates attitudes, beliefs and values much more sickening than mere support for circumcision, and on that basis the attack is entirely justified.

and

As for the second point, the distinction is that hannahrorlove was saying "you are wrong because I am offended", where I'm only saying "I am being forthright and uncompromising because I am offended".

I don't see Hannah saying J was/is wrong in the statement you quoted, merely that it seems obvious that some people would take the content and/or the way it was expressed as offensive. I do see you saying Hannah's attitudes, values, and beliefs are sickening. If that's not saying Hannah is wrong (because you are offended), it's awfully close.

As for the other part:

a) people generally stop doing harmful things as soon as they realize it's harmful to do those things. When did people realize that surgery needed to be done in a clean and sterile environment? And how quickly did medical people decide to start performing surgery in a clean and sterile environment?

You represent Hannah's argument as "if it was as harmful as you make it seem, people would have considered it harmful a long time ago" when it is more accurately stated as "if it was as harmful as you make it seem, people would have realized it {was} harmful a long time ago {and thus discontinued it}." Accordingly, while your refutation may or may not be correct, it is irrelevant.

and

b) As with pictures, examples are worth the proverbial thousand words. It is much better to show someone their inconsistencies without comment that it is to tell that person that their words and their actions disagree.

I guarantee you that almost every person you meet believes he or she has the moral high ground. Not only that, most of these people think they are entirely justified in that belief. Simple math (the number of different opinions to be had divided by the number of people who have them) indicates there are a lot of people out there with a lot of wrong opinions, and the law of averages indicates that at least some of the time, it's you and it's me. I mention this because you appear to have considered this possibility - that you might be wrong - less than most of the people I encounter.

This is only advice, and I'll leave it up to you as to whether or not you take it, but if you are thinking of claiming the moral high ground in public, I would advise you to be very, very sure that you are both a gentleman (kind, courteous, and apt to listen and understand before responding), and a sportsman (humble in victory, gracious in defeat, and determined to be entirely fair regardless). Not only will this endear you more to the people around you, but when the inevitable time comes when you are publicly discovered to be wrong about something, you will not have to worry about being hoist on your own petard.